|
jlf1961 -> RE: U.S. wasted billions in rebuilding Iraq (8/31/2010 12:54:37 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
Oh, the "Bush lied" card now. Priceless... [sm=rofl.gif]
Thats only been debunked on here about a million times!
What next, the race card?
Perhaps the tired, "Were stealing their oil" lie.
Okay, you maintain that President Bush did not lie about the reasons that he gave for the invasion of Iraq.
Well his words:
quote:
Bush (Jan. 28, 2003): Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.
I will address each point that he made, to make it easier for you to understand, since clearly you have not been able to grasp the reports that have come out since the invasion.
1 Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.
quote:
9/11 Commissioner Ben-Veniste: Yes, I do , Tim. . . . We found no evidence of collaboration in any effort to mount any kind of operation against the United States' interests. And if there is additional information that the vice president has or others have, we think we should have gotten that information by now.
The fact that Saddam Hussein did not trust Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and had the nasty habit (for someone that supported Bin Laden) of putting Al Qaeda operatives arrested in Iraq in prison and executing them. CIA was well aware of this fact as was the President from repeated briefings. Information came out before Bush Left office.
2 But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained.
quote:
The Iraq Survey Group determined that Iraq had abandoned its quest to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and that it had already destroyed all of its existing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.
As for how you dispel your friends' notions that Iraq really did have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons when President Bush no longer makes such claims himself, we suggest ridicule. If that doesn’t work, you may be out of luck.
After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration formed the Iraq Survey Group and tasked it with the job of locating WMD stockpiles in Iraq. The ISG was staffed with hundreds of intelligence analysts and military personnel from the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. The group scoured Iraq, searching for deposits of weapons. But that was actually only part of the ISG’s focus.
According to the ISG final report, the search for WMDs actually began during the invasion phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom. A military task force was deployed to investigate suspected WMD sites on the theory that the Iraqi military might otherwise employ those weapons against coalition troops. After the invasion, the ISG was established to conduct "a more systematic collection of evidence to build an understanding of Iraqi WMD programs." In other words, the ISG did not simply look for WMDs. The group also looked at Iraq's WMD capabilities and examined evidence relating to past WMD stockpiles.
During its investigation, the ISG reported that "[a] total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991 Gulf war stocks based on their physical condition and residual components." These isolated discoveries received significant media attention, and it's likely that these overhyped reports contributed to your friends' beliefs that Iraq really did possess WMDs. But the finds were rare, and the ISG concluded that they were not part of a significant stockpile of weapons. Indeed, after nearly two years of investigation, the ISG concluded that:
* "Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."
* "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter."
* "In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW [biological warfare] weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes."
Experts from the three nations failed to document any existent biological or nuclear weapons and discovered only a few random chemical weapons. The ISG concluded that contrary to what most of the world had believed, Iraq had abandoned attempts to produce WMDs. In his congressional testimony, the head of the ISG, Charles Duelfer, admitted, "We were almost all wrong" on Iraq.
The ISG report was sufficient to convince the Bush administration that there were no WMDs to be found; they called off the search in 2005. If that doesn’t convince your friends, we’re not sure what else might do the trick. Anyone who believes something without any positive evidence and in the face of evidence to the contrary is no longer acting on the basis of reason. source with references
The fact that American AND British Intel sources had already made this point clear BEFORE the invasion has also been released, BEFORE President Bush left office.
Of course, you can claim that President Bush decided to ignore Intelligence Briefings by the people he put in charge of the Intelligence Services, chose to ignore the reports by the UN inspectors who had, in the years since the first gulf war, had not found evidence of active chemical and biological warfare research, which then makes President Bush guilty of supreme stupidity by appointing people to be in charge of the Intelligence services that he would not trust to give accurate information.
So which is it, did he lie or did he appoint people who's opinion he did not trust?
|
|
|
|
