So if Brian Williams should be suspended six months without pay for lying about being in a helicopter that was shot down in Iraq, it seems like the Bush-Cheney folks (especially both Bush and Cheney) should maybe face a teeeeeny bit harsher consequences for their lies that have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, including over 4,000 US soldiers, along with countless people severely wounded. No more paint supplies for Bush, no more captive quail hunting for Cheney?
Permanent destablization of Iraq.Permanent enmity toward Americans.Elimination of a check on Iran.De-emphasis of the Afghan war.Abandonment of the pursuit of bin Laden.Disbanded Iraq army members available for the core of ISIS.4400 American soldier deaths.1-200,000 Iraqi deaths32,000 American soldier casualties and significant advances of prosthetic devices.PTSD$8 Billion for Cheney’s company who electrocuted four American soldiers.Trillions or so dollars down the drain.And most of all, it united the entire country and brought everyone together.
What more justification could anyone ask for?
Greatly anticipating the Fox “news” viewers rationalizations.
Um, I haven’t noticed any “idols” around here. And if you’re painting Brian Williams as some sort of “liberal,” well, that’s only because you see lyin’ Bill O’Reilly (ask him about his military service!) as a moderate.
And he found 400 billion tons of enriched uranium, 200 nuclear weapons, 9,000 fighter aircraft, 400 bombers, 1,600 ICBM loaded and ready to go against New York and Salt Lake City! And that was just the first and last day of his “one day” war that Iraq paid us to wage. Just look at all that oil they’re giving us at only $0.30 a barrel! (And Cheney didn’t make a cent off the war.)
ROFL…Bush was wrong about WMD’s in Iraq, as were Hillary and most Democrats, as were the world’s intelligence agencies. No credible evidence they lied has ever been produced or believe it that it would have been acted upon. Being wrong is not the same as lying. When Hillary said she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia, that was a lie, when Barry said you could keep you Doctor and health plan that was a lie, Iraq was not however. Now, bush/ Cheney deserve a lot of criticism for how they handled the occupation and for sticking to the Neocon strategy of planting democracy in the Middle East long after it was apparent it would not work
Of course the war was justified. That’s why we went in with 40+ Nations and NATO.
To whom the Bush-Cheney cabal lied through their teeth. Where exactly were those weapons of mass destruction?
By pointing out all those Democrats who went along with this (Lieberman really being an edge-case Democrat to begin with), you’re just pointing out Democrats who will be condemned by history for helping take us into a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people and fomented the ongoing destabilization of the region. There would be no IS without the Iraq invasion. This is part of the reason why there are still many, many of us who are not happy with the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency.
But even more than legislators, and even more than junior partners in the invasion coalition, and even more than ex-presidents, the Bush-Cheney administration has that blood on their hands. And they knew going in that their invasion was based on lies. (Tony Blair arguably has about as much blood as his buddies George and Dick.)
All that said, you leave me a little confused: Are you serious that you think the war was justified? If so, why aren’t you happier with all those Democrats you just trotted out? They, in fact, supported your war. And if you don’t think the war was justified, then why your continuous defense of Bush-Cheney policies? In other words, you’ve got some serious cognitive dissonance going on there.
I admit I didn’t read all the quotes closely, but I did not see any that advocated invasion of Iraq.
Is it you position that we were justified in invading Iraq because they had chemical weapons? (Actually, they didn’t even have those.)
And I don’t defend either Hillary’s or Kerry’s cowardice in voting for the authorization. It probably cost Hillary the presidency. Possibly Kerry, too.
And, of course, for Republicans/Fox “news” viewers, this is the very definition of TRUTH:
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Intelligence Agencies all over the world thought Hussein had WMD, not just Boooosh.
Which ones? The only foreign leader you quote is Jacques Chirac, and he’s not saying anything about his own country’s intelligence. British and US “intelligence” about uranium was proven to be a blatant lie, and Valerie Plame got outed as a US intelligence asset by the Cheney wing of Bush-Cheney when her husband exposed that lie. Bush-Cheney showed, again and again, that they would go to extraordinary measures to prop up the lie of Iraqi WMDs in order to justify their war of choice.
As for calling people “Sheeple”: 1) that’s so 2010; 2) it just makes you sound like a tool.
Have you ever read the UN’s Volker Report. I doubt it.
And once again, you are wrong. And, um, that report was focused on the Oil-for-Food program. So are you saying countries were bribed to talk up or talk down WMD? The US sure did a lot of bribing and strong-arming of small countries to go along with its anti-Iraq resolutions in the UN.
Let’s see… Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and France
No, which ones had independent evidence? And weren’t caught in their own lies (i.e., the UK)? For instance, Germany, Russia, and France were clearly unconvinced of the existence of WMDs, as shown by this memo from those countries.
in addition to Hussein saying he has them
And it was in this case quite convenient for Bush-Cheney to “believe” a known liar and all-around brutal fellow.
I thought I made it evident that I was evoking CROSSPATCH
Well, then I reserve that comment for CP while congratulating you on your convincing delivery.
Maybe you are Alcarez.
It’s been posited before, and is no truer now than it was then. Just to be clear: it’s not true.
Just a note: freely quoting people who were flagrantly lied to doesn’t exactly prove the point that liars don’t make policy fly, no matter how egregiously dangerous and stupid it may be.
Correct. We must address the problems of today and look into the future, but we must do so while looking to the past for the lessons it holds, lest we fall prey to George Santayana’s adage. (It would also be helpful to hold people responsible for the crimes against humanity they have done, lest others think they can also get away with torture and mass murder.)
I’m not saying that. The Volker Report, which you HAVEN’T READ, says that.
First off, before coming off as so sure of yourself, you might try spelling Volcker’s name right.
Second, the Volcker report (which I actually have read—going all-caps doesn’t change that fact) was about corruption in the Oil-for-Food program, not about WMD. The Volcker Committee found that Iraq was working to undermine sanctions, in general via corrupt relations with corporations as well as trying to get officials from various countries to support lifting UN sanctions. The committee did not have findings about WMDs, including whether folks were bribed to talk them up or down.
In fact, the word “weapons” shows up in the report exactly five times Three of those times occur in the same paragraph, discussing South African weapons inspectors. The other two mentions involve a French official who “advocated for the lifting of sanctions once Iraq satisfied its obligations concerning its weapons program pursuant to United Nations Resolutions” (p.50), and a fellow who sold weapons to Iraq in the 1980s.
And since the Volcker Report does not say countries were bribed to talk up or talk down WMD, who, besides you, does say that?
hmmm mild retort without any facts to back your attempted dis…
It wasn’t a dis, it was a refutation of your own attempted dis. You don’t like those folks, others do.
Also, this is a hilarious retort from you based on your own rampant posting of fact-free claims.
As for Markey, you can go through this list of bills he’s sponsored and co-sponsored. I’ll say up front that a lot of them are quite worthy, though you’ll probably disagree. (Also note: not passed does not equal not worthy.)
So you’re pivoting away from connecting Volcker’s findings to anything about WMDs? Because that’s what was always under question here. Right from the cartoon itself ‘til now. And we’re still left with the fact that Bush-Cheney lied to get the invasion they wanted, and the Volcker report says nothing to contradict that fact.
The accuracy of the intelligence is besides the point.
No, the accuracy of the information is exactly the point. That’s what the cartoon up top is saying. That’s what pretty much everyone but you has been responding to. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
Look, the issue of bribes to the officials of some countries for favorable votes is separate from findings around WMDs. The Bush-Cheney “intelligence” on WMDs was “faulty,” as a right-wing zealot might put it, because the administration was on a fishing expedition and came up empty—and therefore pushed its agencies to feed them with false information. This is the structure of a political lie. Without such pressure from the Bush-Cheney administration, there would be no war against Iraq, and the region would not be in nearly the predicament it finds itself in today.
As an aside, it’s interesting that you think you know the minds of representatives from Angola, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico, and Pakistan, none of whom show up in the Volcker report. Sounds to me like you’re engaging in defamation.
Nope, not even an attempted one. But thanks for playing.
if you make a claim there should be facts to back them up
Oh really? So, should we be waiting with bated breath for your “facts” about Brian Williams supposedly being an Obama supporter?
still waiting for your facts…
If you’re too lazy to click a link, that’s your problem, not mine.
You do know that in football only by crossing the goal line are points awarded…
You asked for “worthwhile” legislation, not “passed” legislation, though Markey has sponsored/cosponsored both. Looks to me like you’re engaged in a bit of goalpost-moving in lieu of a proper argument.
Speaking of which, your analogy is faulty, unless you count safeties and field goals as “crossing the goal line.” Or unless you’re talking about global football. Which is to say, you’ve got to be more specific about these things.
NBC’s Brian Williams introducing an October 23, 2006 Nightly News story on Obama’s hint he may run in 2008
You must not watch too much TV news. That’s just regular ol’ newscaster breathless-speak. Doesn’t signal support one way or another.
fundamental of football… for both American Football and Football ( e.g. Fussball) require the ball to cross the goal line.
Yeah, that’s what I said in my caveat. Did you ignore my caveat? Kind of hard to have a conversation if one side doesn’t listen.
Before an omelette is broken and cooked it is called an egg…Legislation is passed…
Not all legislation is passed, as anyone with a glancing knowledge of civics knows. In fact, the root legis latio literally means “the proposing of a law.”
I did go to the link and did you know that it has a rating on the chances of the “proposed” bills being enacted … several of Markey’s stuff have a rating that is quite low…1% for example…
I’d wager that’s the case for just about everyone. This, however, is not evidence for whether legislation is “worthy” or not. Nor does it discount the fact that other bills have much higher chances of passing, and some have actually passed. So where exactly is your argument here?
And as a final note, you seem quite comfortable arguing about anything but the main issue on the table, which is the Bush administration’s lies about WMD in Iraq—lies that continue to have massively deadly consequences. Now why is that?
No one would ever believe that Brian Williams supported Romney…..
Even if this is the case—and how do you back up this statement?—it still doesn’t mean he supported Obama. But maybe you subscribe to the “if you’re not with us you’re against us” school of thought.
nothing from Washington is really worrthy…
Thank you for your opinion, faulty as it is. That said, why single out Markey? Why not the Republican goons running the House and now the Senate? You know, if nothing from Washington is really worthy. In any case, if you enjoy highways, GPS, radio, television, telecommunications, Social Security, Medicare, the ability of companies large and small to operate in a market economy, the lack of a Nazi government running the country, and the like, then you might want to reconsider your rather hyperbolic statement.
Every wonder where Iraq got those chemical weapons from in the first place…
No need to wonder. The US under Reagan-Bush supplied quite a few during the Iran-Iraq War, and German companies supplied raw materials and know-how during that time. But when Bush-Cheney decided to invade Iraq, any chemical weapons there were out of date and not in any condition for active use.
If Bush lied then so did the UN, 23 other counties, the intelligent community of most of the world, a majority of Democrats etc.
When Saddam Hussein was captured he told the interrogators that he deliberate let out hints of weapons of mass destruction to scare Iran from attacking. Remember he had just been in a war with Iran where almost a million people were killed. He was scared of an other war with Iran.
Actually he did have weapons of mass destruction and he used them against his own people.
“If Bush lied then so did the UN, 23 other counties, the intelligent community of most of the world, a majority of Democrats etc.”No, the Bush administration sought out information that supported military action against Iraq, (apparently even before going into Afghanistan) and rejected or downplayed any information that did not support that action.
“Actually he did have weapons of mass destruction and he used them against his own people.”Yes, in 1988. Much of that was buried or destroyed after the 1st gulf war. Why was this mass killing not objected to by Reagan and later Bush Sr?My brother was in the US army in Iraq helping to dig up and properly dispose of the decaying canisters.Defend Cheney/Bush if it makes you feel better, it does not change the facts.
agrestic over 9 years ago
So if Brian Williams should be suspended six months without pay for lying about being in a helicopter that was shot down in Iraq, it seems like the Bush-Cheney folks (especially both Bush and Cheney) should maybe face a teeeeeny bit harsher consequences for their lies that have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, including over 4,000 US soldiers, along with countless people severely wounded. No more paint supplies for Bush, no more captive quail hunting for Cheney?
braindead Premium Member over 9 years ago
Permanent destablization of Iraq.Permanent enmity toward Americans.Elimination of a check on Iran.De-emphasis of the Afghan war.Abandonment of the pursuit of bin Laden.Disbanded Iraq army members available for the core of ISIS.4400 American soldier deaths.1-200,000 Iraqi deaths32,000 American soldier casualties and significant advances of prosthetic devices.PTSD$8 Billion for Cheney’s company who electrocuted four American soldiers.Trillions or so dollars down the drain.And most of all, it united the entire country and brought everyone together.
What more justification could anyone ask for?
Greatly anticipating the Fox “news” viewers rationalizations.
agrestic over 9 years ago
Um, I haven’t noticed any “idols” around here. And if you’re painting Brian Williams as some sort of “liberal,” well, that’s only because you see lyin’ Bill O’Reilly (ask him about his military service!) as a moderate.
Dtroutma over 9 years ago
And he found 400 billion tons of enriched uranium, 200 nuclear weapons, 9,000 fighter aircraft, 400 bombers, 1,600 ICBM loaded and ready to go against New York and Salt Lake City! And that was just the first and last day of his “one day” war that Iraq paid us to wage. Just look at all that oil they’re giving us at only $0.30 a barrel! (And Cheney didn’t make a cent off the war.)
moosemin over 9 years ago
Been there. Heard that.
ConserveGov over 9 years ago
58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution are:Sens. Lincoln (D-AR), Feinstein (D-CA), Dodd (D-CT), Lieberman (D-CT), Biden (D-DE), Carper (D-DE), Nelson (D-FL), Cleland (D-GA), Miller (D-GA), Bayh (D-IN), Harkin (D-IA), Breaux (D-LA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Kerry (D-MA), Carnahan (D-MO), Baucus (D-MT), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Torricelli (D-NJ), Clinton (D-NY), Schumer (D-NY), Edwards (D-NC), Dorgan (D-ND), Hollings (D-SC), Daschle (D-SD), Johnson (D-SD), Cantwell (D-WA), Rockefeller (D-WV), and Kohl (D-WI).http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
Fred Renigar over 9 years ago
ROFL…Bush was wrong about WMD’s in Iraq, as were Hillary and most Democrats, as were the world’s intelligence agencies. No credible evidence they lied has ever been produced or believe it that it would have been acted upon. Being wrong is not the same as lying. When Hillary said she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia, that was a lie, when Barry said you could keep you Doctor and health plan that was a lie, Iraq was not however. Now, bush/ Cheney deserve a lot of criticism for how they handled the occupation and for sticking to the Neocon strategy of planting democracy in the Middle East long after it was apparent it would not work
kaffekup over 9 years ago
Have to be an idiot to believe any republican. About anything.
ConserveGov over 9 years ago
^ Good post.I’m sure the Dems will just close their eyes to this.
agrestic over 9 years ago
Of course the war was justified. That’s why we went in with 40+ Nations and NATO.
To whom the Bush-Cheney cabal lied through their teeth. Where exactly were those weapons of mass destruction?
By pointing out all those Democrats who went along with this (Lieberman really being an edge-case Democrat to begin with), you’re just pointing out Democrats who will be condemned by history for helping take us into a war that killed hundreds of thousands of people and fomented the ongoing destabilization of the region. There would be no IS without the Iraq invasion. This is part of the reason why there are still many, many of us who are not happy with the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency.
But even more than legislators, and even more than junior partners in the invasion coalition, and even more than ex-presidents, the Bush-Cheney administration has that blood on their hands. And they knew going in that their invasion was based on lies. (Tony Blair arguably has about as much blood as his buddies George and Dick.)
All that said, you leave me a little confused: Are you serious that you think the war was justified? If so, why aren’t you happier with all those Democrats you just trotted out? They, in fact, supported your war. And if you don’t think the war was justified, then why your continuous defense of Bush-Cheney policies? In other words, you’ve got some serious cognitive dissonance going on there.
braindead Premium Member over 9 years ago
I admit I didn’t read all the quotes closely, but I did not see any that advocated invasion of Iraq.
Is it you position that we were justified in invading Iraq because they had chemical weapons? (Actually, they didn’t even have those.)
And I don’t defend either Hillary’s or Kerry’s cowardice in voting for the authorization. It probably cost Hillary the presidency. Possibly Kerry, too.
And, of course, for Republicans/Fox “news” viewers, this is the very definition of TRUTH:
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
agrestic over 9 years ago
Intelligence Agencies all over the world thought Hussein had WMD, not just Boooosh.
Which ones? The only foreign leader you quote is Jacques Chirac, and he’s not saying anything about his own country’s intelligence. British and US “intelligence” about uranium was proven to be a blatant lie, and Valerie Plame got outed as a US intelligence asset by the Cheney wing of Bush-Cheney when her husband exposed that lie. Bush-Cheney showed, again and again, that they would go to extraordinary measures to prop up the lie of Iraqi WMDs in order to justify their war of choice.
As for calling people “Sheeple”: 1) that’s so 2010; 2) it just makes you sound like a tool.
agrestic over 9 years ago
Have you ever read the UN’s Volker Report. I doubt it.
And once again, you are wrong. And, um, that report was focused on the Oil-for-Food program. So are you saying countries were bribed to talk up or talk down WMD? The US sure did a lot of bribing and strong-arming of small countries to go along with its anti-Iraq resolutions in the UN.
Let’s see… Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, and France
No, which ones had independent evidence? And weren’t caught in their own lies (i.e., the UK)? For instance, Germany, Russia, and France were clearly unconvinced of the existence of WMDs, as shown by this memo from those countries.
in addition to Hussein saying he has them
And it was in this case quite convenient for Bush-Cheney to “believe” a known liar and all-around brutal fellow.
I thought I made it evident that I was evoking CROSSPATCH
Well, then I reserve that comment for CP while congratulating you on your convincing delivery.
Maybe you are Alcarez.
It’s been posited before, and is no truer now than it was then. Just to be clear: it’s not true.
DrDon1 over 9 years ago
Simply put, Lalo scored a touchdown with this one!
Dtroutma over 9 years ago
Just a note: freely quoting people who were flagrantly lied to doesn’t exactly prove the point that liars don’t make policy fly, no matter how egregiously dangerous and stupid it may be.
LOLisgood4U over 9 years ago
Must have been, your guys voted for it.
agrestic over 9 years ago
Correct. We must address the problems of today and look into the future, but we must do so while looking to the past for the lessons it holds, lest we fall prey to George Santayana’s adage. (It would also be helpful to hold people responsible for the crimes against humanity they have done, lest others think they can also get away with torture and mass murder.)
agrestic over 9 years ago
I’m not saying that. The Volker Report, which you HAVEN’T READ, says that.
First off, before coming off as so sure of yourself, you might try spelling Volcker’s name right.
Second, the Volcker report (which I actually have read—going all-caps doesn’t change that fact) was about corruption in the Oil-for-Food program, not about WMD. The Volcker Committee found that Iraq was working to undermine sanctions, in general via corrupt relations with corporations as well as trying to get officials from various countries to support lifting UN sanctions. The committee did not have findings about WMDs, including whether folks were bribed to talk them up or down.
In fact, the word “weapons” shows up in the report exactly five times Three of those times occur in the same paragraph, discussing South African weapons inspectors. The other two mentions involve a French official who “advocated for the lifting of sanctions once Iraq satisfied its obligations concerning its weapons program pursuant to United Nations Resolutions” (p.50), and a fellow who sold weapons to Iraq in the 1980s.
And since the Volcker Report does not say countries were bribed to talk up or talk down WMD, who, besides you, does say that?
agrestic over 9 years ago
Can’t blame me for electing Obama, Clinton, Carter, Markey, Warren….
Wouldn’t want you taking credit where credit wasn’t due, now would we?
agrestic over 9 years ago
hmmm mild retort without any facts to back your attempted dis…
It wasn’t a dis, it was a refutation of your own attempted dis. You don’t like those folks, others do.
Also, this is a hilarious retort from you based on your own rampant posting of fact-free claims.
As for Markey, you can go through this list of bills he’s sponsored and co-sponsored. I’ll say up front that a lot of them are quite worthy, though you’ll probably disagree. (Also note: not passed does not equal not worthy.)
agrestic over 9 years ago
The conclusion of the Volcker Report…
So you’re pivoting away from connecting Volcker’s findings to anything about WMDs? Because that’s what was always under question here. Right from the cartoon itself ‘til now. And we’re still left with the fact that Bush-Cheney lied to get the invasion they wanted, and the Volcker report says nothing to contradict that fact.
agrestic over 9 years ago
The accuracy of the intelligence is besides the point.
No, the accuracy of the information is exactly the point. That’s what the cartoon up top is saying. That’s what pretty much everyone but you has been responding to. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
Look, the issue of bribes to the officials of some countries for favorable votes is separate from findings around WMDs. The Bush-Cheney “intelligence” on WMDs was “faulty,” as a right-wing zealot might put it, because the administration was on a fishing expedition and came up empty—and therefore pushed its agencies to feed them with false information. This is the structure of a political lie. Without such pressure from the Bush-Cheney administration, there would be no war against Iraq, and the region would not be in nearly the predicament it finds itself in today.
As an aside, it’s interesting that you think you know the minds of representatives from Angola, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico, and Pakistan, none of whom show up in the Volcker report. Sounds to me like you’re engaging in defamation.
agrestic over 9 years ago
as I stated an attempted dis….
Nope, not even an attempted one. But thanks for playing.
if you make a claim there should be facts to back them up
Oh really? So, should we be waiting with bated breath for your “facts” about Brian Williams supposedly being an Obama supporter?
still waiting for your facts…
If you’re too lazy to click a link, that’s your problem, not mine.
You do know that in football only by crossing the goal line are points awarded…
You asked for “worthwhile” legislation, not “passed” legislation, though Markey has sponsored/cosponsored both. Looks to me like you’re engaged in a bit of goalpost-moving in lieu of a proper argument.
Speaking of which, your analogy is faulty, unless you count safeties and field goals as “crossing the goal line.” Or unless you’re talking about global football. Which is to say, you’ve got to be more specific about these things.
agrestic over 9 years ago
NBC’s Brian Williams introducing an October 23, 2006 Nightly News story on Obama’s hint he may run in 2008
You must not watch too much TV news. That’s just regular ol’ newscaster breathless-speak. Doesn’t signal support one way or another.
fundamental of football… for both American Football and Football ( e.g. Fussball) require the ball to cross the goal line.
Yeah, that’s what I said in my caveat. Did you ignore my caveat? Kind of hard to have a conversation if one side doesn’t listen.
Before an omelette is broken and cooked it is called an egg…Legislation is passed…
Not all legislation is passed, as anyone with a glancing knowledge of civics knows. In fact, the root legis latio literally means “the proposing of a law.”
I did go to the link and did you know that it has a rating on the chances of the “proposed” bills being enacted … several of Markey’s stuff have a rating that is quite low…1% for example…
I’d wager that’s the case for just about everyone. This, however, is not evidence for whether legislation is “worthy” or not. Nor does it discount the fact that other bills have much higher chances of passing, and some have actually passed. So where exactly is your argument here?
And as a final note, you seem quite comfortable arguing about anything but the main issue on the table, which is the Bush administration’s lies about WMD in Iraq—lies that continue to have massively deadly consequences. Now why is that?
agrestic over 9 years ago
No one would ever believe that Brian Williams supported Romney…..
Even if this is the case—and how do you back up this statement?—it still doesn’t mean he supported Obama. But maybe you subscribe to the “if you’re not with us you’re against us” school of thought.
nothing from Washington is really worrthy…
Thank you for your opinion, faulty as it is. That said, why single out Markey? Why not the Republican goons running the House and now the Senate? You know, if nothing from Washington is really worthy. In any case, if you enjoy highways, GPS, radio, television, telecommunications, Social Security, Medicare, the ability of companies large and small to operate in a market economy, the lack of a Nazi government running the country, and the like, then you might want to reconsider your rather hyperbolic statement.
Every wonder where Iraq got those chemical weapons from in the first place…
No need to wonder. The US under Reagan-Bush supplied quite a few during the Iran-Iraq War, and German companies supplied raw materials and know-how during that time. But when Bush-Cheney decided to invade Iraq, any chemical weapons there were out of date and not in any condition for active use.
cepa over 9 years ago
If Bush lied then so did the UN, 23 other counties, the intelligent community of most of the world, a majority of Democrats etc.
When Saddam Hussein was captured he told the interrogators that he deliberate let out hints of weapons of mass destruction to scare Iran from attacking. Remember he had just been in a war with Iran where almost a million people were killed. He was scared of an other war with Iran.
Actually he did have weapons of mass destruction and he used them against his own people.
eugene57 over 9 years ago
“If Bush lied then so did the UN, 23 other counties, the intelligent community of most of the world, a majority of Democrats etc.”No, the Bush administration sought out information that supported military action against Iraq, (apparently even before going into Afghanistan) and rejected or downplayed any information that did not support that action.
“Actually he did have weapons of mass destruction and he used them against his own people.”Yes, in 1988. Much of that was buried or destroyed after the 1st gulf war. Why was this mass killing not objected to by Reagan and later Bush Sr?My brother was in the US army in Iraq helping to dig up and properly dispose of the decaying canisters.Defend Cheney/Bush if it makes you feel better, it does not change the facts.