Bush's Speech

“again for you Sarge
Iraq continues to conceal quantities, vast quantities, of highly lethal material and weapons to deliver it.”

“Y2 - Ok, that's the quote.

Where is the lie?”

“Hey... When did trailtalk start becoming POLITICAL?!”

“Sarge - there were no WMDs found in Iraq.

So what you say sarge - lies or huge cock-up?”

“"And I think that would be the fear here, that even if he were tomorrow to give everything up, if he stays in power we have to assume that as soon as the world is looking the other way and preoccupied with other issues he'll be back again rebuilding his BW and CW capabilities, and once again reconstituting his nuclear program. "We know he has reconstituted these programs since the Gulf War. We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons, and we know he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al Qaeda organization.

President Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003”

“"I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction. One thing we may find is Saddam Hussein ordered them to be used and soldiers didn't follow the orders. The threat of use goes down every day because adherence to orders goes down."

President Bush
Washington Post
March 27, 2003”

“"The president has made very clear that the reason why we are in Iraq is to find weapons of mass destruction. The fact that we haven't found them in seven or eight days doesn't faze me one little bit. Very clearly, we need to find this stuff or people are going to be asking questions."

Secretary Rumsfeld
ABC "This Week with George Stephanapolous"
March 30, 2003”

“Y2 - did Natalee Holloway exist?

How do you know? They can't find her.

Y2 - I can't find my car keys.

Maybe they don't exist.

Y2 - As was said BEFORE the war, WMDs have been moved by Saddam. He moved them from the corrupt U.N. inspectors. He moved them from a place where we would find them.

Your hatred of Bush has caused you to believe anything.

MarkO/Y2 - Do you think he had bad intelligence about the WMD? If so, even if you were correct about them WMD never existing, that would not be a lie. Although, you're wrong about them not existing.

The question was NEVER did he have WMD, but what did he do with them. We KNOW he had WMD for a fact.

”

“"We know they exist. And we're confident they will be found."

President Bush
New York Times
April 25, 2003”

“We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons, and we know he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al Qaeda organization.

Um, this is true. What's your point.”

“Sarge - confronted with the 'lies' you asked for you go back to the "Bush hater" line.
It may be inconceivable to you but I am able to differentiate between Bush the individual and a preemptive war stragegy based on lies or at least, half-truths.

It's his policies that have proved to be wrong and have shown poor judgement.”

“Y2 - That's all very interesting, but it doesn't prove a Bush lie.”

“No one is saying Saddam wasn't an evil man sarge. But he posed no threat to America. The inspections and sanctions had safely put a lid on him.

There was no need to Rush into the invasion as Bush did.”

“Feb. 26, 2003

In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. (Applause.) This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country -- and America will not permit it.

March 8, 2003

Iraqi's dictator has made a public show of producing and destroying a few prohibited missiles. Yet, our intelligence shows that even as he is destroying these few missiles, he has ordered the continued production of the very same type of missiles. Iraqi operatives continue to play a shell game with inspectors, moving suspected prohibited materials to different locations every 12 to 24 hours. And Iraqi weapons scientists continue to be threatened with harm should they cooperate in interviews with U.N. inspectors.
These are not the actions of a regime that is disarming. These are the actions of a regime engaged in a willful charade. If the Iraqi regime were disarming, we would know it -- because we would see it; Iraq's weapons would be presented to inspectors and destroyed. Inspection teams do not need more time, or more personnel -- all they need is what they have never received, the full cooperation of the Iraqi regime. The only acceptable outcome is the outcome already demanded by a unanimous vote of the Security Council: total disarmament.
Saddam Hussein has a long history of reckless aggression and terrible crimes. He possesses weapons of terror. He provides funding and training and safe haven to terrorists who would willingly deliver weapons of mass destruction against America and other peace-loving countries.

Address to the nation, March 17, 2003

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.
Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.
The Iraqi regime has used diplomacy as a ploy to gain time and advantage. It has uniformly defied Security Council resolutions demanding full disarmament. Over the years, U.N. weapon inspectors have been threatened by Iraqi officials, electronically bugged, and systematically deceived. Peaceful efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime have failed again and again -- because we are not dealing with peaceful men.
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.
The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.
The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.”

“No one is saying Saddam wasn't an evil man sarge. But he posed no threat to America. The inspections and sanctions had safely put a lid on him.

There was no need to Rush into the invasion as Bush did. - Y2

== He posed no threat to America at a given instant, but in the coming years he most certainly did. Regardless, that's not the main reason for going to war with him.

We did NOT rush an invasion into Iraq. We waited 12 years.

12 YEARS!

He DID NOT comply with the UN Resolutions. He fired upon U.S. planes enforcing the no-fly zone which was part of a treaty.

He should have been attacked YEARS ago and quite legally.”

“The secret Downing Street memo



SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY



DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.

But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.”

“Geo - If you were trying to show truths that Bush told, you did a good job. None of that is a lie.

Anybody else want to try to post a Bush lie?

So far we got MarkO (who didn't really try), Y2 (who hasn't shown a lie either), and Geobeet (who apparently sides with me that Bush was truthful in everything he said).”

“Y2 - That's all very interesting.

Now, do you want to post a Bush lie for us?”

“The Sunday Times - Britain


Page 1 || Page 2 || Page 3

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.



The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin.

Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action.

There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.


The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.”

“c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.




(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)


MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)


Source
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607_3,00.html”

“LOL!

All you guys are doing are posting quotes and memos.

You're not demonstrating a single lie.

Just because you assume a lie doesn't make it so.

Here's a statement:

"Cats are always pink."

Now, if you were to say that to an alien who didn't know any better, he'd say that is truth. Only you know it to be a lie.

If you know better, prove it!

Prove that Bush said something that wasn't true on purpose with the intention to deceive. That's a lie.

Wrong intelligence is not a lie by any stretch of the imagination.

Still waiting ...”

“C'mon, you people with the "lie" stuff! If you think Bush was "lying", then look at your own political aisle, it must be full of lying SOBs too! Dang lying liberals! Can't trust a one of 'em!

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003”

“Y2 - I could say "Y2 posted that crap because he hates Bush, but can't prove a lie."

Now, did I just make you a liar by saying that?

By your logic, I did.

Still waiting on the Bush lie.

This shouldn't be that difficult people.”

“Sarge - you ignore all the evidence that's put before your eyes. You have no real answers for any of it, and resort to something about having lost your keys. The illustrations are so wide of the mark it's reached the stage of comedy.”

“I love you Buck. If we weren't already married ...”

“Let's make this simple Y2.

You post all this crap.

Post a lie. A paragraph let's say from Bush.

Then post how you know it to be false, and that he intentionally misled.

That's all you have to do.

I shouldn't have to weed through all your propoganda and assume you're right.

It's very very simple. (or should be, if he lied)”

“So what you're saying buck is that is was just a huge mistake.

I do think they believed they'd find something, and were surprised not to. But that is a HUGE error of judgement which has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars and made America no safer. those men and resources would have been better targetted in Afganistan capturing Bin Laden.”

“And Buck - I think the key difference is not so much that he had used these things in the past, but that he didn't pose a threat to America with sanctions in place.”

“Y2 - If you are right (what you posted about it being a huge mistake) (which I don't believe, but for sake of argument), then Bush did not lie.”

“This is the song that never ends. It just goes on and on my friends. Somebody started singing it not knowing what it was. And they'll continue singing it forever just because this is the song that never ends.
It just goes on and on....”

“Y2 - Nowhere did Bush or his admin say that Saddam could attack the continental U.S. in a moments time with WMD. (maybe with other things, like 9/11, but not with WMD)

although, they did say he was working on that, which he was
last edited: 6/30/05 10:51:39 AM”

“I'm prepared to accept that Sarge - I've said from the start that this was a possibility.

If he didn't outright lie, then he was certainly "economical with the truth" and certainly did not highlight his real reasons for going to war.

Sarge - you claim to know the real reasons for the war. And as you're so much smarter than everyone else - tell us why he couldn't tell this to the American people. Are they too dumb to understand?”

“The following are real thoughts...

On the Bush Speech-
Bush did a fine job Tuesday night. His English was better than normal. The topics which he chose to speek about were addressed well.
However, dodging the issues of the day is not good leadership.
It is quite safe to stand in front of a group of soldiers at a military base to talk about how well the war plan is going.
Quite safe to not allow the press or anyone else to ask questions.
We probably oughta stop whining about a couple of dead soldiers here and there. People die in war, and this war on terror will probably last for at least 20 more years.”

“He did Y2. Like I said previously, the media latched onto the WMD thing. I was very adamant BEFORE the war that that is not the main reason.

Main reasons for the Iraq war:

1. Blatant 12 year violation of U.N. sanctions. (do you know why there was a U.N. Resolution? (or 14 of them I should say?)

2. He was allowing terrorists to train in his country. I never believed he helped plan 9/11 - but he DID help to train terrorists to do that very kind of act.

3. (a lesser reason, but in reality probably should be the 1st reason) - Because he was having his own citizens raped, brutalized, tortured and murdered in a large variety of evil ways.

ps - I do believe there were other benefits of going to taking him out, but that is irrelevant and not the actual justifications.
last edited: 6/30/05 10:56:27 AM”

“goat - What exactly did he dodge?”

“What goes up
must come down
spinning wheel
got to go around
talkin' 'bout your troubles
it's a cryin' sin
ride a painted pony
let the spinning wheel spin

You got no money
you got no home
spinning wheel
all al lone
talkin' 'bout your troubles and you,
you never learn
Ride a painted pony
let the spinning wheel turn

Did you find
your directing sign
on the straight and narrow highway

Would you mind a reflecting sign
Just let it shine
within your mind
and show you, the colors
that are real

Someone's waiting
just for you
spinning wheel,
spinning true
Drop all your troubles by the riverside
ride a painted pony
let the spinning wheel fly”

“y2 - Thank you for admitting Bush didn't lie.

MarkO - What happened buddy?

goat - What did he dodge?

Ewker - typical”

“Sarge - the media was promted onto it by the Bush Adminisration. Look as the Cernigie site. The whole team was out talking about WMDs.

The Downing Street memo - and the US and UK largely share the same intelligence network. The UK has 1/3 use of US surveillance satellites for example - so they knew - stated that evidence was shaped around the policy.

This amounts to misleading the American public.
last edited: 6/30/05 11:10:32 AM”

“Sarge... he dodged the press. Surely they would have asked questions about the Downing Street Memos. Surely they would have asked him about why we went to war in Iraq in the first place. By giving the speech in the venue and manor in which he gave it, he dodged those questions, leaving many Americans wondering still... why.”

“yep sarge, you are typical..spin,spin,spin”

“y2 - the whole team was talking MORE about other things than WMD. The media focused on the WMD. re: the memo - I don't even understand what you guys thinks in that. That's a joke you know. A "memo" that doesn't say he lied about anything. Come on.

goat - Um, it wasn't a "press conference". It was a State of the Union. And, he GAVE the reasons why we went to war in the first place. Did you listen to it?”

“Ewker - Thanks for your input on the matter. I respect that.”

“But that is a HUGE error of judgement which has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars and made America no safer - Y2

Y2, obviously there was a HUGE error of judgment on the WMD issue, but it was pretty much a universally shared error from both sides of the American political aisles, as well as our intelligence agencies, as well as intelligence agencies from other countries. Most countries that were opposed to the war still thought Saddam had WMDs, they just thought there was a better way to deal with it than going to war. Which is a legit argument. But to say Bush "lied" is just 'tiresome and typical' Bush-hating rhetoric. That's all. Hey, if you don't like Bush, fine, and if you think the war was the wrong approach, fine, but calling Bush a liar on this issue is either empty rhetoric or ignorance.”

“But here.
But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

Fixing facts around the policy - what does that mean to you guys?”

“There is no proof of that other than the memo. There are people who say it's not true.

Who do you believe?

Do you even know anything about the writer of the memo without looking it up?”

“Y2 - Whose policy was the facts fixed around?

Bush's?

As Buck mentioned, the intelligence was agreed upon by many sources, many countries, many agencies.

So what does that statement even mean?”

“Buck - I believe they thought there were WMD's there - but I believe the lies and half-truths came when it came to selling the war to the American people and to Congress.

They whole threat to America was overplayed and the imagry and fear generated by 9/11 exploited by all members of the Bush team, particularly Cheney and Rumsfeld to sell the first pre-emptive war in American history, (short of trying to invade Canada in 1812 ;op ). They were not open an honest for the reasons for going to war which were far more wide-ranging than anyone in the administration has talked about.

Isreal is one side issue

Putting pressure on SA to crackdown on terrorists is another.

Creating a much more stable and less fundamentalist middle east is another.

Securing if all goes to plan, large oil reserves outside the potntiall volatile Sauda Arabia is another.

Increasing American influence in the region ahead of the growing Chinese threat is another.

There are good reasons for going to war. Not least that Saddam was evil and the world would be better off without him - but the American people weren't told this and allowed to make a decision.

They were simply told, in no uncertain terms, that if nothing was done then Saddam would basically be behind another 9/11, when he was safely in his box.
He was not open and honest with the American people or congress.”