NY Times: Bush didn't lie

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - NY Times: Bush didn't lie

Posted: 3/12/2006 4:36:23 AM EDT

Saddam gave every possible impression he had WMDs, even to his military, until December 2002. Then he told his commanders Iraq had nothing, and his bluster was merely a deterrant.

In December 2002, he told his top commanders that Iraq did not possess unconventional arms, like nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, according to the Iraq Survey Group, a task force established by the C.I.A. to investigate what happened to Iraq's weapons programs. Mr. Hussein wanted his officers to know they could not rely on poison gas or germ weapons if war broke out. The disclosure that the cupboard was bare, Mr. Aziz said, sent morale plummeting.

To ensure that Iraq would pass scrutiny by United Nations arms inspectors, Mr. Hussein ordered that they be given the access that they wanted. And he ordered a crash effort to scrub the country so the inspectors would not discover any vestiges of old unconventional weapons, no small concern in a nation that had once amassed an arsenal of chemical weapons, biological agents and Scud missiles, the Iraq survey group report said.

Mr. Hussein's compliance was not complete, though. Iraq's declarations to the United Nations covering what stocks of illicit weapons it had possessed and how it had disposed of them were old and had gaps. And Mr. Hussein would not allow his weapons scientists to leave the country, where United Nations officials could interview them outside the government's control.

Seeking to deter Iran and even enemies at home, the Iraqi dictator's goal was to cooperate with the inspectors while preserving some ambiguity about its unconventional weapons — a strategy General Hamdani, the Republican Guard commander, later dubbed in a television interview "deterrence by doubt."

That strategy led to mutual misperception. When Secretary of State Colin L. Powell addressed the Security Council in February 2003, he offered evidence from photographs and intercepted communications that the Iraqis were rushing to sanitize suspected weapons sites. Mr. Hussein's efforts to remove any residue from old unconventional weapons programs were viewed by the Americans as efforts to hide the weapons. The very steps the Iraqi government was taking to reduce the prospect of war were used against it, increasing the odds of a military confrontation.

Even some Iraqi officials were impressed by Mr. Powell's presentation. Abd al-Tawab Mullah Huwaish, who oversaw Iraq's military industry, thought he knew all the government's secrets. But Bush administration officials were so insistent that he began to question whether Iraq might have prohibited weapons after all. "I knew a lot, but wondered why Bush believed we had these weapons," he told interrogators after the war, according to the Iraq Survey Group report.

Link

Posted: 3/12/2006 4:47:14 AM EDT

[#1]

You can be wrong and still not lie. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Posted: 3/12/2006 4:49:35 AM EDT

[#2]

The former XO of the Iraqi Air Force said that they flew te WMD material to Syria shortly before we invaded. Who's right?

Posted: 3/12/2006 4:50:24 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
You can be wrong and still not lie. The two are not mutually exclusive.

That truth escapes most of Bush's critics.

Posted: 3/12/2006 4:51:17 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
The former XO of the Iraqi Air Force said that they flew te WMD material to Syria shortly before we invaded. Who's right?

Examine that guy's motivations and agenda.

But reading the NYT article, there's mention about how anything that could be construed as part of the WMD programe was shipped to Syria.

Posted: 3/12/2006 4:56:26 AM EDT

[#5]

Good, the Libs can get rid of all their "Bush Lied" stickers.

Then again these morons stll have their Kerry & Gore stickers.

Posted: 3/12/2006 4:56:28 AM EDT

[#6]

The tapes just released of Saddam bragginf of his WMD that the news media hardly carried was proof enough. The had them and had intened to us them against our troops around Bagdad. He is out now Iran is the next target. They cannot be allowed to produce weapons grade uranium. Whatever it takes, we must be willing to pay the price.

Posted: 3/12/2006 4:58:20 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
You can be wrong and still not lie. The two are not mutually exclusive.

That truth escapes most of Bush's critics.

Let me re-phrase: I am not sure if the president was wrong about Iraq's WMDs, but even so, being wrong does not equal being a liar.

Posted: 3/12/2006 5:00:34 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You can be wrong and still not lie. The two are not mutually exclusive.

That truth escapes most of Bush's critics.

Let me re-phrase: I am not sure if the president was wrong about Iraq's WMDs, but even so, being wrong does not equal being a liar.

I know what you said. And it's right.

Maybe invading Iraq was a mammoth mistake. But Saddam, more than Bush is responible for that. Bush's rationale, given the information he had and the 9/11 world he had to face, made sense. The Neo Con theory opportunistisicaally and effectivly took advantage of the situation, and proposed the overthrow of Iraq might help in quelling the threat from the middle east

Posted: 3/12/2006 5:00:53 AM EDT

[#9]

So now it is NOT all Bush's fault?

Posted: 3/12/2006 7:45:57 AM EDT

[#10]

.

Posted: 3/12/2006 7:47:46 AM EDT

[#11]

this article is suspect

Posted: 3/12/2006 8:00:40 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You can be wrong and still not lie. The two are not mutually exclusive.

That truth escapes most of Bush's critics.

Let me re-phrase: I am not sure if the president was wrong about Iraq's WMDs, but even so, being wrong does not equal being a liar.

I know what you said. And it's right.

Maybe invading Iraq was a mammoth mistake. But Saddam, more than Bush is responible for that. Bush's rationale, given the information he had and the 9/11 world he had to face, made sense. The Neo Con theory opportunistisicaally and effectivly took advantage of the situation, and proposed the overthrow of Iraq might help in quelling the threat from the middle east

WMDs where a justification but not the reason for invading Iraq. Iraq was invaded to get rid of Saddam, with whom the US decided long ago, needed to go and to secure the ME oil fields as well as establish a forward base of operations for our ME security ops. Afganistan is certainly not easy to get at or resupply.

It also sent a powerful message to other ME nations and their rulers, essentially telling them you could be next if any of you fuck with us again.

That's my take on it anyway. I NEVER thought it was about WMDs.

Posted: 3/12/2006 8:07:09 AM EDT

[#13]

The NYT wrote this ??? , now the 2-or 3 dozen commies who actually subscribe to this bird cage liner , are gonna cancel their subscriptions !!

Posted: 3/12/2006 8:07:52 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
this article is suspect

of course it is. Its from the NYT

Posted: 3/12/2006 8:07:58 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
The very steps the Iraqi government was taking to reduce the prospect of war were used against it, increasing the odds of a military confrontation.

Yeah - Saddam was the peacemaker and WE were the warmongers.

It's all Bush's fault - Saddam was an innocent victim.

Posted: 3/12/2006 8:15:51 AM EDT

[#16]

My buddy Ken Pollack wrote about this "red on red deception" two years ago:

www.brook.edu/views/articles/pollack/20040108.pdf

Posted: 3/12/2006 8:18:56 AM EDT

[#17]

Seems I remember old "Bagdad Bob" in a tv interview threatening to use chemicals weapons against us if we invaded. All that after proclaiming they had no chemical weapons.

IF they didn't have the weapons, they put on a show like they did.

Besides, we had every right to go back into Iraq for all of the violations to the cease-fire agreement from the 1st gulf war.

Posted: 3/12/2006 8:22:50 AM EDT

[#18]

A campaign that started in 2003 and we're still arguing about whether there is enough evidence NOW to support actions that took place then. That is bad no matter what the outcome.

Posted: 3/12/2006 8:28:50 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You can be wrong and still not lie. The two are not mutually exclusive.

That truth escapes most of Bush's critics.

Let me re-phrase: I am not sure if the president was wrong about Iraq's WMDs, but even so, being wrong does not equal being a liar.

I know what you said. And it's right.

Maybe invading Iraq was a mammoth mistake. But Saddam, more than Bush is responible for that. Bush's rationale, given the information he had and the 9/11 world he had to face, made sense. The Neo Con theory opportunistisicaally and effectivly took advantage of the situation, and proposed the overthrow of Iraq might help in quelling the threat from the middle east

WMDs where a justification but not the reason for invading Iraq. Iraq was invaded to get rid of Saddam, with whom the US decided long ago, needed to go and to secure the ME oil fields as well as establish a forward base of operations for our ME security ops. Afganistan is certainly not easy to get at or resupply.

It also sent a powerful message to other ME nations and their rulers, essentially telling them you could be next if any of you fuck with us again.

That's my take on it anyway. I NEVER thought it was about WMDs.

While a Navy vet ( from back in the days that the Navy uniform looked like, well, a Navy uniform) and therefore reluctant to agree with anything a Jarhead says, I think drjarhead is right. We needed to show these punks that they couldn't hide behind their civilian populations, that we had the weapons and tactics to take them out without a great deal of collateral damage.

Posted: 3/12/2006 8:29:03 AM EDT

[#20]

The NY times article is based on information in the new book by Gen. Bernard Trainor. Not that this wasn't a fairly well understood premise for quite a while.

Only the incompetence of Hussein allowed us to sweep in with small losses. I can only surmise that the Democrats would be feeling better if there actually had been WMDs and they'd been used so that their votes to go into Iraq would look more "righteous". They are a sad lot...but what's new.

They still can't tell which is the bigger enemy, Bush or Hussein.

Posted: 3/12/2006 8:32:15 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Good, the Libs can get rid of all their "Bush Lied" stickers.

Then again these morons stll have their Kerry & Gore stickers.

It's not just them. We have several members who claim to be conservatives that echo that bullshit every damn day on this board.

Posted: 3/12/2006 8:34:30 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
It also sent a powerful message to other ME nations and their rulers, essentially telling them you could be next if any of you fuck with us again.

An example would be Ghadaffi. He called up the Italians and basically told them he would be a good boy because he did not want to be next.

Posted: 3/12/2006 8:36:40 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
A campaign that started in 2003 and we're still arguing about whether there is enough evidence NOW to support actions that took place then. That is bad no matter what the outcome.

The only reason we are still arguing over it is because the libtards, including their puppets on this board, keep bringing it up. It's only a factor to those nutcases.

Posted: 3/12/2006 8:38:59 AM EDT

[#24]

Saddam wanted it known that he had WMD's. It supported his power against his enemies both in Iraq and in neighboring countries as well as boosted his standing among the Middle Eastern powers. He carried on the deception on purpose and he did a good job...too good. And he kept it up too long. If at the last minute he had given in and let the UN inspectors have full access he could have remained in power. He would have weakened his postion in the world, but it still would have been a better postion than he's in now.

The moral of the Saddam WMD story is this. Lie all you want, but if you make your lies too believable you better know when to come clean. A bluff carried too far can get you killed.

Oh, and don't trust the French to CYA. But I thought even evil dictators would have known that.

Posted: 3/12/2006 8:43:06 AM EDT

[#25]

Of course Jarhead is right,

And it doesn't end with Iraq. Clerics in countries from Iran to the Philippines will have to be marginalized. WMD can't be allowed to be used by them, but it's about their ambitions, not just their tools.

Posted: 3/12/2006 8:52:36 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
this article is suspect

of course it is. Its from the NYT

Posted: 3/12/2006 9:07:30 AM EDT

[#27]

tag

Posted: 3/12/2006 9:09:35 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
My buddy Ken Pollack wrote about this "red on red deception" two years ago:

www.brook.edu/views/articles/pollack/20040108.pdf

NoVaGator, do you know Pollack personally? IM sent.

Posted: 3/12/2006 9:14:39 AM EDT

[#29]

I don't believe he lied either, Iraq will be better off in the long run without Saddam anyway...

Posted: 3/12/2006 9:23:58 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
WMDs where a justification but not the reason for invading Iraq. Iraq was invaded to get rid of Saddam, with whom the US decided long ago, needed to go and to secure the ME oil fields as well as establish a forward base of operations for our ME security ops. Afganistan is certainly not easy to get at or resupply.

It also sent a powerful message to other ME nations and their rulers, essentially telling them you could be next if any of you fuck with us again.

That's my take on it anyway. I NEVER thought it was about WMDs.

I can agree with your summation. I certainly can't disagree with it.

Posted: 3/12/2006 9:32:23 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Good, the Libs can get rid of all their "Bush Lied" stickers.

Then again these morons stll have their Kerry & Gore stickers.

It's not just them. We have several members who claim to be conservatives that echo that bullshit every damn day on this board.

Being conservative or not has nothing to do with it. In my case, I am much more "conservative" than I am a "Republican."

And if you think George W. Bush is a "conservative," you are mistaken. Same goes for most of our Republican "friends" in Washington. They are no more conservative than they have to be to get re-elected every election cycle.

Genuine conservatism in congress died nine years ago right about now. That's when the new Republican congressional majority lost its battle with Bill Clinton over the federal budget. Ever since then, the Republicans have more or less said, "Screw it. We might as well spend money as fast as the Democrats did when they had the majority."

No, Larry, our Republican "friends" in congress no longer subscribe to the true tenets of conservatism like they used to, and the same goes for our current Republican president.

Posted: 3/12/2006 9:35:59 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
I don't believe he lied either, Iraq will be better off in the long run without Saddam anyway...

Not sure about that, but I can't lament the toppling of an evil leader.

Posted: 3/12/2006 11:21:30 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
My buddy Ken Pollack wrote about this "red on red deception" two years ago:

www.brook.edu/views/articles/pollack/20040108.pdf

NoVaGator, do you know Pollack personally? IM sent.

Reply sent

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - NY Times: Bush didn't lie

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us