woiyo wrote:This seems to be the "mantra" of the anti war group...."BUSH LIED ABOUT WMD".
Man, you conservatives work that word "mantra" to death . . . where would you have been in your silly arguments if the hippies hadn't introduced such a concept to the arid intellectual landscape of Eisenhower America?
Quote:Simple yes or no questions.
OK
Quote:Do you believe, that based upon all the intelligence data gathered, AT THAT TIME, worldwide which indicated the potential presence of WMD, that GW KNEW the information was faulty, but used it as a reason to invade?
Yes. Sources named were, of course, vague. "Iraqi defector" was a favorite claim, and anyone with an ounce of sense knows that was the gobshite Chalabi. The UN inspectors were constantly giving the lie to the contentions of Bush/Blair, who barged ahead anyway. And people opposed to the war said as much at the time. The evidence for
that is to be found in the long-running "Anti-War Movement" thread here at this site, which was renamed "The US, the UN and Iraq" and which is now in its ninth iteration, with tens of thousands of posts. Subsequent revelations have shown that mistrust to have been well-founded, especially the revelations of the English memos demonstrating that the Shrub and company were looking for
causus belli even before they cobbled together the ridiculous yellow-cake story.
Quote:Do you feel that given all the violations of UN Resolutions condeming Iraq and it continued ingoring of the terms of surrender from Gulf 1 was NOT a additional reason to invade?
This contention on your part is not proven, and the UN inspectors' evidence suggested that Hussein's biggest violation was that the al Samoud rockets had a range which slightly exceeded the mandated maximum range--nothing of substance other than that was revealed at the time,
nor has been revealed since then. At any event, it is hypocricy for conservatives who routinely denounce and scorn the UN to now attempt to use UNSC resolutions as an excuse for the war. No UNSC resolution authorized this invasion, not one of them, and especially not 1441--which simply tells Iraq to disarm or face "serious consequences." That resolution nowhere authorized an invasion of Iraq.
goodfielder wrote:Bush lied. That's all there is to it. The whole thing is predicated on a series of lies. Sick feeling isn't it?
You know, Boss, i feel sorrier for the people of Oz and Spain than i do for the Americans or the English. Not in any patronizing way, but because you and your fellow citizens were lead down the primrose path in a way that the Americans and English were not. We were pretty certain we were being lied to (once again, we have the evidence in the archives of this site), and that was being publicly stated in many places when Howard and Aznar decided to sign up for the Big Lie anyway.
