Bush Lied, The Smear Continues

Political enemies of the war on terror continue with
their campaign of Lies.

Yesterday on "Meet the Press" it was pointed out this
verbiage in the New York TImes.

The New York Times contained these quotes:
=============================
Frank Rich in New York, let me start with
you and read for you and our viewers your
column from this very Sunday morning in
The New York Times: Headline: "Karl and
Scooter's Excellent Adventure. For Mr.
Rove and Mr. Bush to get what they wanted
most, slam-dunk midterm election victories,
and for Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney to get what
they wanted most, a war in Iraq for reasons
predating 9/11, their real whys for going
to war had to be replaced by fictional, more
salable ones. We wouldn't be invading Iraq
to further Rovian domestic politics or neocon
ideology; we'd be doing so instead because there
was a direct connection between Saddam and Al
Qaeda and because Saddam was on the verge of
attacking America with nuclear weapons. The
facts and intelligence had to be fixed to create
these whys; any contradictory evidence had to
be dismissed or suppressed. ...Should Mr. Libby
and Mr. Rove have lied to investigators or a
grand jury in their panic, [Special Prosecutor
Patrick] Fitzgerald will bring charges. But
that crime would seem a misdemeanor ext to
the fables that they and their bosses fed the
nation and the world as the whys for invading Iraq."
================================

As you see in this above quote, claim is made that the
Bush administration said "Saddam was on the verge of
attacking America with nuclear weapons." Claim was
made that the Bush team was proven to be liars since
no "nuclear weapons" were found after the war. This
trick of making up what Bush said, and then calling
him a liar for saying it is getting a little bit
old and I decided to go back and revisit this whole
history that led up to the invasion of Iraq and
what the real story was concerning Weapons of Mass
destruction, and what Bush said and didn't say.

Facts show "Bush lied" to be false and these facts that
prove it to be false were witnessed by millions.

To put this all in proper perspective here is
laid the background as it happened. All of the
following was well documented and witnessed by
the world.

(1) Iraq had chemical weapons and used them.

(2) Iraq had a nuclear weapons program and had successfully
enriched uranium, which is the toughest problem to
overcome when developing a nuclear bomb.

(3) After the first gulf war UN weapons inspectors were
sent to Iraq to verify that these programs were
dismantled. Dismantling involved destroying all chemical
weapons, ceasing any nuclear development program. Notice
that it was established after Gulf War I that Iraq did
not have the bomb but they did have a program to develop
one. The violation here was not that Iraq had nuclear
weapons, but that they were developing them, and this
program had to be given up as demanded by the UN.

(4) Before these inspections were finished and all dismantling
was proven, Iraq kicked UN inspectors out in defiance
of UN initiatives. After inspectors were kicked out
we could not investigate allegations of WMD, gas, or any
nuclear development program that might be successfully hidden.

(5) Bush became very worried about nuclear weapons in
particular in about Oct of 2001 and pushed to get a
solution that denied nukes to Saddam. As part of this
pushing for solution, Bush again brought up the accusations
that Iraq was hiding chemical weapons and a program to develop
nuclear weapons. This was brought up again because it had
never been allowed to finish resolution when Iraq kicked
inspectors out. The problem was not whether or not Bush
was lying, but that the UN inspections had never been
completed.

(6) Bush threatened war if Saddam did not let inspectors
back in and to pursue inspections that had been denied.
Threatening war and restating the accusations that had not
been ran to ground was necessary to get the program
restarted and finished. It was under the influence of
Colin Powell that this last UN effort be given a chance.
Bush and Cheney, it was reported, were under the impression
that any further UN action would not produce any results.
The Powell opinion won though and Bush agreed to one
more UN try. This was witnessed by millions as Collin
Powell and Bush made their case to the UN to finish
the uncompleted inspections. In any case, Bush agreed
to one more effort in the UN and threatened war if
Iraq did not comply with that effort.

(7) Being under the gun, Saddam let inspectors back in
and for a short time it appeared that things were going
okay. Iraq even appeared to be cooperating on any
chemical weapon enquiries. This could be why no chemical
weapons were found after the war. But remember enquiries
into chemical weapons was not why UN inspections failed
and why Iraq was invaded. Suddenly though a snag appeared,
and this snag was that Saddam would not let his nuclear
scientists be interviewed concerning any hidden nuclear
program. They could not be interviewed in a setting where they
could feel free from Saddam's boot on their head. This boot
was also on their family's head. This is a key point. If
Saddam had complied with UN inspectors and let his nuclear
scientists be interviewed properly, sanctions would have
worked. The hidden program would have surfaced. It would
have been effectively dismantled. He could still be there
today raping and killing until his heart was content. However
this program was important enough to him, that he refused
to let it be divulged. If it was that important, is it not
a reasonable conclusion that he wanted to continue it at
some point?

(8) When Saddam refused interview of his nuclear scientists
Bush was left with no intelligent conclusion other than
that Saddam was hiding a nuclear program. With the fear
of nuclear weapons could be developed by Saddam, Bush took
the action to invade.

(9) In review, the key point in all this is that the entire
situation in Iraq fell apart because Saddam refused interview
of his nuclear scientists and Bush took this to mean that
at some point Saddam was going to have nukes if not stopped.


The fact that no weapons ever turned up was beside the point.
It was never stated that Iraq had nuclear weapons, NEVER!
It was stated that he was probably hiding a nuclear weapons
program for development.

It was a fact witnessed by millions that UN inspections failed
exactly on the point that Iraq would not let their nuclear
weapons scientists be interviewed. UN inspections did not
fail because as some pretend, that Bush said Iraq had nuclear
weapons and he lied because none were ever found. UN
inspections failed because Iraq was hiding a nuclear weapons
program. These facts were all documented and reported at
the time and can still be found in old news reels, and
UN archives.


As it turned out, Saddam's nuclear program proved to be
real, not a lie of George Bush. Along about October of
2004 I watched interview on TV of Saddam's top nuclear
scientist. I believe it was on CNN. This scientist estimated
that Iraq would have got to build a bomb within 3 years if
they had not been stopped. He now lives in the US and his
book "The bomb in my garden" came out about that time and
is available from Amazon.com. This was one of the scientists
that Saddam had refused to be interviewed by the UN inspectors.
So Saddam knew exactly what he was doing when he stonewalled
the inspectors. This scientist also gave some details of
what all was buried in his yard awaiting the UN sanctions
to be lifted and inspectors leaving so that they could
get back to work on it. The book detailed Saddam's program
that idiots like Michael Moore were insisting did not exist,
and that Bush was a liar. Now this was in October of 2004
that the interview was on CNN and the book available,
written by Saddam's own nuclear scientist.

Enriching uranium is the key to making a bomb.
Many people can tell you how to make a bomb.
The problem is getting the enriched uranium.
Enriching uranium is monumental job and it
took Iraq many years of intensive effort by
a good number of people to figure it out and
when they were done that total knowledge base
was the treasure. This treasure was pretty
much the property of a scientist who had overseen
the problem and put all the pieces together
and he had a complete set of plans, instructions,
and blue prints that detailed this intellectual
treasure. This is an intellectual problem. It
is all in know-how. That know-how was buried with
over 200 manuals describing in detail how
to build the centrifuges. This know-how
was the result of many years of work by
Iraq and finally resulted in the successful
enrichment of uranium. This know-how with
complete details was what was buried and
awaiting digging up after attention died
out. This was all done in violation of the
UN sanctions and inspections. It was done
to keep Iraq's nuclear program alive. It
was the basis that made it true when Bush
said Iraq is working toward the bomb. It
was the key component of the latest UN inspections
failing. When the UN inspectors were denied
access to nuclear scientist for questioning
away from the control of Iraq it served as
proof that this program must be there and
hidden. When all this information became
known in 2004 it served as absolute proof
that Bush had been truthful when he said
that Iraq had a clandestine nuclear program.


I thought it would be appropriate to include some of
the comments made by Mahdi Obeidi that confirmed the
fact that Iraq hid their nuclear program, in violation
of UN sanctions. Mahdi was the top scientist on
developing the centrifuge that successfully enriched
uranium. The enriched uranium was confiscated but
the program to hide the centrifuge technology was
successfully hidden for many years. The centrifuge
is a key building block. If you can do the centrifuge,
you can build the bomb.

Concerning the detailed drawings, dimensions, blue prints
and instructions for making the centrifuges and the
prototypes buried in his garden Mahdi said this:
===========
These drawings, documents, and prototypes represented the
accumulated knowledge of the Iraqi nuclear centrifuge
program. They were not actual weapons of mass destruction,
but they were probably the most valuable building blocks
for WMD that Iraq ever possessed. Saddam's son Qusay had
ordered me to keep them safe from inspectors in 1992,
and the Iraqi government concocted a story that they
had been destroyed by the security services.
===========


Mahdi also gave details of how the scientists and their
families were threatened and never given free access to
the inspectors. In 1998 during the last attempts of
the UN inspectors to question nuclear scientists, The
closest the scientists ever came to being given free
access to inspectors required that Iraq get tape recordings
of the questioning, thereby letting the scientists know
that they could not divulge any thing secretly to
inspectors. At one time Scott Ritter questioned Mahdi
and he gave accounts of that. Scott Ritter as you may
recall was a tough inspector who became convinced at
one point that Iraq was not hiding anything. Here
is what Mahdi said of the Scott Ritter interview.
============
Then Mr Ritter turned his attention to me with a penetrating
stare.
"We're onto you" he said. "I know you're hiding things"
He was looking for any inch of hesitation. The image of the
documents and components buried in my garden flashed into
my mind. I knew what could happen to me and my family if
he were to get any hint that those secrets were buried there.
I went on the offensive as my best defense using what I knew
to be his weakness: his lack of knowledge in the nuclear
field.
============
At the above point Mahdi was able to make some arguments
that sounded convincing enough that Ritter gave up and
later apparently believed Iraq was not hiding a program.


As final comments to his account of the Iraqi nuclear
program Mahdi had these things to say:
=============
As I try to make sense of my past and put it in perspective,
one thing is clear. Although Saddam never had nuclear
weapons at his disposal, the story of how close Iraq came
to developing them should serve as red flag to the international
community. The threat of nuclear weapons is not going away.
........The centrifuge is the single most dangerous piece
of nuclear technology. Because it is the most efficient
and easiest method to hide, the centrifuge will
continue to be the preferred method for illicitly producing
bomb-grade uranium. With advances in centrifuge technology,
it is now possible to conceal a uranium enrichment program
inside a single warehouse.
=============

For those interested in reading more about Saddam's nuclear
program this book is available at Amazon.com:

www.amazon.com...

Originally posted by bodrul
on topic
is this topic aimed at promoting a book?

The more and more of it that I read, it does appear to be promoting a book. Not too sure why, unless the book has poor sales records.

on topic:
We all know that Bush lied to us about Iraq having WMD's. I was telling people that from the get go. Yes at one time Iraq did have a nuclear program, at least from what I remember.

Plus we all know that he used Chemical weapons on his own people.

There is a real winner there. Too bad we stopped his tyranny huh?

edit note* sorry for the Typo, now people can calm down On a little side note, how about all you US haters stop lumping all Americans together as one? Can that be done? Thanks.

[edit on 10-24-2005 by BlackBeard]

What do you mean the US was lied too, they were the ones TELLING the world they had the WMDS..

So now its not the US fault, its who ever told them they had the WMD..

Far out.

BUSH lied to the world plain and simple.
America USED its world standing to ILLEGIALLY Invade a country for its OWN Political and financial gain.

Pitty they UNDERESTIMATED there opposition.

The blame for this lies squarley at the USA and its LEADERS.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
What do you mean the US was lied too, they were the ones TELLING the world they had the WMDS..

So now its not the US fault, its who ever told them they had the WMD..

Far out.

BUSH lied to the world plain and simple.
America USED its world standing to ILLEGIALLY Invade a country for its OWN Political and financial gain.

Pitty they UNDERESTIMATED there opposition.

The blame for this lies squarley at the USA and its LEADERS.

Before you get your panties in a twist think about it, it was a TYPO that I did not catch until I read your post. So do me a favor and chill. I am fixing it now.

Bush did not lie, he was shown evidence by his intelligence agencies on what Iraq had. Based on the information he received he then told us that Iraqi either had or was very close to having WMD.
The Senate and House had, and saw the same intelligence that the president did and the very same people who now point the finger and say Bush lied, vote yes to approve the war. I guess they lied too since by voting yes they said Iraq had WMD’s, right?
So, before anyone says he lied they need to think first, how is a man lying if he is told the information he has is the truth?

Anyway, this topic has been debated to death but that's all I have to say bout it.

Great post as usual MajorCee

You are quickly becoming one of my favorite posters here

For those of you that think this is promoting a book. In a way it is. You see, some of us actually like to read the words of those in direct involvment and knowledge of subjects. To say that an Iraqi nuclear scientist WHO ADMITS TO WORKING ON AN IRAQI NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM is in some way trivial or to be overlooked is shocking.

For those saying Bush lied, DID YOU READ HIS POST? Any of it? Any of it at all?

Bush was right - Saddam was working on nuclear weapons, and gave us reason to think that by denying access to his nuclear scientists.

But I'm afraid it doesn't matter when dealing with people who simply hate a person. Don't let the facts get in the way of your campiegn of hate.

Show me in any of my posts where I say I hate anyone, including Bush. If I did hate Bush I would not have gone BACK into the Military.

yes I read the Post and yes I know about the Nuclear stuff that Saddam was working on, I am not naive or dumb. I feel Bush lied to us, that is just my opinion.

As far as reading, do not even think to judge what I like to do in my spare time because I am ALWAYS reading some sort of book and I will be checking out the book that was advertised in this thread.

Do me a favor and do not group me with the other Anti-Bush people around here, because that is not the case. Trust me on this.

BlackBeard,

My post was directed towards no one in particular, just at the masses to which it aplies.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
BlackBeard,

My post was directed towards no one in particular, just at the masses to which it aplies.

Actually if you think Bush is telling the truth than i think your far away from using your head my freind. The U.N didnt find any traces of WMD program and i think we all know why Bush went to Irak. (OIL)

Bush never lied and i live in procreating disney land, where politicians are not scum bags.

With all the news that’s coming to light lately it still amazed me how so many highly esteemed and valued members such as yourselves still defend politicians. Delay a money laundering indictee, Frist an insider trader, High level Bush administration officials returning to the private sector about to be brought up on all kinds of charges for outing a CIA op. Still no weapons of mass destruction just no bid contracts and corruption, corruption and death every where. Bush is a lame duck President and so are you highly esteemed and valued members for supporting him. and I do Hate Traitors.


[edit on 24-10-2005 by DiRtYDeViL]

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: WOT Posting Conduct – Please Review Link.



[edit on 24/10/2005 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
Bush is a traitor and so are ou fools for supporting him. and I do Hate Traitors.

got proof dat Bush is a traitor? and if so please show it to me....and if i see its true proof ill let u go to the White House and u can go assasinate him for yerself ok?

Originally posted by bodrul
on topic
is this topic aimed at promoting a book?

Do a search on the phrase 'The Bomb in my Garden'. Yeah, I think book sales are down... Just like the president's approval rating.

He lied too many times to count.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
BlackBeard,

My post was directed towards no one in particular, just at the masses to which it aplies.

I know you were not directing it towards me for the most part. I have been around forums long enough to know when to read between lines. I kind of seemed like you were and I was just letting you know that I do not fall into that group or any group for that matter

A lot of people hates traitors Dirtydevil, I especially do not like people who are in America, soaking up all the Freedom's that we have and then stepping all over our excellent military and fine country.

I could careless about the Government.

Saddam was working on nuclear weapons

Well you see the problem with that is the pretext for war was the 'imminent threat' that Saddam and his weapons posed. It seemed at the time like Saddam could have dropped the bomb any day. In fact lets look at some of the things Bush and co. were saying shall we?


"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
- President Bush, 10/7/02

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
- President Bush, 11/23/02

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/0

^^^^^^^^^LIE^^^^^^^^^^ (or mis-info/dis-info)

"This is about imminent threat."
- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

( later he said this.... "I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent'. Those were not words we used. We used 'grave and gathering' threat," spokesman Scott McClellan said.)
pay no attention to the man behind the screen.

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
- President Bush, 3/16/03

"Absolutely."
- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03


The "imminent threat" just did not exist IMO. Even if Saddam had plans to, had the will to, or even was producing weapons again, he was NOT on the verge of launch, I doubt that he even had the capability to launch the weapons let alone the weapons themselves.


[edit on 24-10-2005 by Halfofone]

To all you folks that think that the president was telling the truth; I'd like to give you first opportunity on some beautiful southern real estate, right on the Gulf of Mexico, with some great income potential. Flooding will never be a problem, execllent views of the ocean and most of all GREAT WEATHER!

contact me at: I believe@I believe.lie

[edit on 24-10-2005 by whaaa]

Originally posted by NR
Actually if you think Bush is telling the truth than i think your far away from using your head my freind. The U.N didnt find any traces of WMD program and i think we all know why Bush went to Irak. (OIL)

Except that Bush WAS telling the truth! Saddam DID have a nuclear weapons program! Saddam DID have WMDs (which western nations and Russia gave to him as so many like to point out)!

Simply put, he transfered these weapons before the invasion.

And if you want to try and make the Iraqi war out to be one for strategic gain, you are looking in the wrong place NR.

If you want to make that argument, look at where Iraq is located in the ME.




It is the most strategically important country in the middle east because from there, you have a boarder with SA (the most important oil country) and Iran (the most dangerous country to the US).

Frankly, on a % scale, the importance of Iraqs oil is at like 10%. If that. It's true strategic value lies in how we are positioned to deal with other countries that are far more important.

You see, I am not one to think that this war is all about WMDs. Saddam was a tyrant, and his regime was dangerous to be sure. He was noncompliant with the terms of peace he agreed to with the UN. Since the UN security council was bribed by Saddam, they did not enforce their own terms.

Thus, Bush took it into his own hands, and invaded. Obviously he considered all of the potential benefits and potential problems that would come from it.

The bottom line is, everything supported his decision:

1) Saddam was non compliant with terms of peace
2) Saddam was a known user of WMDs
3) Saddam was a known possessor of WMDs
4) Saddam was a known genocidal murderer
5) Saddam was a known seeker of nuclear weapons
6) Iraq is strategically located in the middle of the ME
7) Iraq could be used to add extra pressure to it's nieghbors
8) Iraq could be used to further democracy in the ME
9) Iraq does have oil

Any leader would conclude that taking out Saddam would be in the best intrest of his country, could possably prevent the murder of hundres of thousands or even millions of people in the future, and would at the very least benefit the people of Iraq in the long term future.

It's really a no-brainer decision for any leader of a nation, which is why such people as Senators Clinton and Kerry supported the invasion. They only spoak out against it when it suited them politically in elections.

^ill let some one else rip you appart on this arguement, and then have the satisfaction a little later. k bye

AmericanMadman you can complain about me or Iran all day but we all know U.S wont even come near us or come close into seeing us, that is just a fantasy for some members like you and skippy. Now, lets look at this in real life, i saw alot of articles which happend to be true that our navy sometimes even come to iraqi water and help out U.S troops with search and rescure missions or even supply you guys with equipment when needed, Iranian troops and U.S marines also bumped into each other across our borders and we still cooperated with each other like long-term allies. Lets face it in reality Iranian-American people get along with each other just fine. I myself am in Austin,Texas and i have alot of freinds here that are american and we go clubbin so theres nothing wrong with Iran.

If Bush lied, then so did Clinton.

www.nationalreview.com...

The only difference is Bush did something about it. Clinton did nothing for 8 years, which is why we are in the War on Terror now.

Bush bots out in full force!

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Look at the downing street memo.

"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."

"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."

Yup looks like an liar. Don't forget the Patriot Act I and II and several other bills and acts taking shots at the constitution. I would place those who voted yes for those bills as traitors. Don't get me wrong both sides are just as bad republicrat and democan. Both party's just there to give you an illusion that we are an democracy.