Iraq on the Record

[michaeledward]

"The Iraq on the Record Report, prepared at the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, is a comprehensive examination of the statements made by the five Administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq: President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.
...
This database identifies 237 specific misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq made by these five officials in 125 public appearances in the time leading up to and after the commencement of hostilities in Iraq. The search options on the left can be used to find statements by any combination of speaker, subject, keyword, or date."

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/

Submitted for your research and / or amusement. - Mike

 

[michaeledward]

And this came to my email yesterday. It will take one minute to view.

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

 

[MisterMike]

Digging up things like this keeps me hopeful our intel didn't fail us. Could take years to know though.

http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp

 

[psi_radar]

With all the sand damage maybe we'll be able to pick up one of those cheap on eBay.

Given Saddam never really thought his air force could face the U.S.' with a positive outcome, it's not surprising he buried his MIGs to save for a later date or to just keep out of our hands until times changed and he was in favor again.

 

[Ender]

Most of it is the same stuff Clinton and Albright said.....WMD, Tyranny, National Security threat...shrug.

Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

Clinton: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

Clinton: "The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. ... Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. ... But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

 

[Makalakumu]

Most of it is the same stuff Clinton and Albright said.....WMD, Tyranny, National Security threat...shrug.

Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

Clinton: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

Clinton: "The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. ... Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. ... But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

This is crap. You quote a proven liar to back up a proven liar. The hypocrisy is that this congress won't try and impeach the president for it. Do you seriously think that the same people who wanted to profit from the war in Iraq did not exist when Clinton was in office?

 

[Ender]

This is crap. You quote a proven liar to back up a proven liar. The hypocrisy is that this congress won't try and impeach the president for it. Do you seriously think that the same people who wanted to profit from the war in Iraq did not exist when Clinton was in office?

*L..get over yourself....there isn't a conspiracy around every corner.

 

[michaeledward]

Most of it is the same stuff Clinton and Albright said.....WMD, Tyranny, National Security threat...shrug.

Clinton, Dec. 19, 1998: "Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. ... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

Clinton: "Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

Clinton: "The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. ... Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. ... But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."

Actually, if you review David Kay's report, he indicated that, along with the sanctions, Clinton's bombing campaing in 1998, is probably what eliminated the final pieces of the chem/bio programs in Iraq.

And, Clinton was not trying to justify an invasion that was going to cost the American Tax-Payers $1,000,000,000.00 per week; and 550+ American soldiers lives, and perhaps 8,000 American wounded and maimed. Thank medical science that so many of those wounded on the battlfield today are able to survive, yet many, perhaps the majority have lost legs and arms.

Ender ... It seems apparent that there is nothing that can be said that will allow you to look at the actions of the current Administration objectively. There is no logical comparison to the Clinton Bombing campaign of 1998 with the Bush Invasion of 2003, unless you are talking about geography.

If you will blindly follow the administration, I posit you are not doing your duty as an American Citizen. As a citizen, it is our duty to question those in authority, for they speak for us.

Ender, can you answer these questions.

Have any weapons of mass destruction been found, to date, in Iraq?

What was the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq?

 

[rmcrobertson]

All true. Which makes it all the more shameful that my country--my country!--supported this guy for "realpolitik," reasons. Couda been worse--coulda been Noriega. Or Nguyen Cao Thy, I guess...or Lindbergh backing Hitler.

As well as a host of other dictators. When will y'all wake up? There's the retreats into "Parallax View," fantasies rather than deal with one's own profit from, and complicity in, capitalism; there's the refusal to admit that this is a capitalist country, unless of course they're arguing How Great Capitalism Thou Art. Both positions share an utter refusal to consider direct contradictions of expressed positions on secular ethics and/or Christianity.

Silly me. I thought this country was supposed to stand for something better. Oops.

 

[Tgace]

I thought Gulf War I ended in a cease fire with conditions placed on Iraq....
When Iraq thumbed their noses at the conditions, we had an administration that did pretty much nothing (effective) about it. Now not saying that the way Gulf War II was started was entirely "legit" (at least on the face of it), it seems strange that some are looking at the war as an attack on a nation we never had any military "history" with......this whloe thing "probably" could have been done with support and legitimacy if it had been initiated during Clintons administration.



The Tin-Foil Hat Squad

 

[Makalakumu]

*L..get over yourself....there isn't a conspiracy around every corner.

This isn't a conspiracy. It's how the government works. People with lots of power have agendas that go beyond the four year terms of presidents. They have the money to get what they want, no matter who is in office.

 

[Ender]

Actually, if you review David Kay's report, he indicated that, along with the sanctions, Clinton's bombing campaing in 1998, is probably what eliminated the final pieces of the chem/bio programs in Iraq.

And, Clinton was not trying to justify an invasion that was going to cost the American Tax-Payers $1,000,000,000.00 per week; and 550+ American soldiers lives, and perhaps 8,000 American wounded and maimed. Thank medical science that so many of those wounded on the battlfield today are able to survive, yet many, perhaps the majority have lost legs and arms.

Ender ... It seems apparent that there is nothing that can be said that will allow you to look at the actions of the current Administration objectively. There is no logical comparison to the Clinton Bombing campaign of 1998 with the Bush Invasion of 2003, unless you are talking about geography.

If you will blindly follow the administration, I posit you are not doing your duty as an American Citizen. As a citizen, it is our duty to question those in authority, for they speak for us.

Ender, can you answer these questions.

Have any weapons of mass destruction been found, to date, in Iraq?

What was the primary reason for the invasion of Iraq?

Former President Clinton, in an appearance on "Larry King Live" on July 22, 2003, said, "... t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know."

Again, if YOU can answer why didn't Clinton do anything. He bet the lives of innocent Iraqis, Kurds, Israelis, and Americans on a "We sure as heck don't know". It was his duty to take action, to find the truth, but he didn't. His "diplomacy" failed Amercia, and he nearly sold Israel out.

To make sure those weapons were out of his hands. Thats the justification of the invasion. Hope to God, those weapons have not found their way elsewhere.

 

[Tgace]

What would we have done to post WW2 Germany/Japan if they had broken treaty and started making weapons/massing troops???

 

[loki09789]

With all the 'Politicians are a separate breed of people who work form agendas that cost the rest of us lives, money and quality of life' talk going on, I don't see much faith in humanity. Do any of you have a given politician/authority that you don't disapprove of?

Who do you people have any faith in/trust? I am not taking sides here for or againsts any of this stuff, but COME ON! Is this distrust so pervasive that you are questioning all public servants with authority over you? Cops, teachers (influencing/in loc... parentis), priests (spiritual authority if you accept it)....

I am positive that if you look at any person at any level of influence or power, we could find arguable reasons to discredit/disagree or support/approve of their track record.

 

[Tgace]

hey...if you see something wrong blaze away.....looking for/assuming that things are ALWAYS wrong/corrupt is another story.

 

[Makalakumu]

hey...if you see something wrong blaze away.....looking for/assuming that things are ALWAYS wrong/corrupt is another story.

Believe me, I would much rather believe that our current leaders ARE the public servents they pretend to be. Unfortuneately, there are far too many parellels between today and the late Roman Republic. For some interesting, and scary, research read about Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus. The things they dealt with in their days are nearly analogous to what we are dealing with.

Upnorthkyosa

 

[michaeledward]

While you have chosen to not address my questions, I will chose to address yours:

Former President Clinton, in an appearance on "Larry King Live" on July 22, 2003, said, "... t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know."

Main Entry: un·ac·count·ed : Pronunciation: -'kaun-t&d : Function: adjective : not accounted : [size=-1]UNEXPLAINED[/size] -- often used with for

You are correct that after the bombing of Iraq in 1998, the United States could not explain if their were chemical or biological weapons in the Iraqi arsenal.

You may remember, that UNMOVIC was sent into Iraq in late 2002 to determine if the chem/bio weapons existed. You may also recall that the current administration suggested that UNMOVIC cease their inspections and leave the country of Iraq. I posit that this suggestion came about because we were going to invade the country regardless of what Weapons of Mass Destruction or related program activities there were.

Again, if YOU can answer why didn't Clinton do anything.

Clinton was doing something, he and his administration were participating in the economic sanctions that were designed to encourage compliance with the wishes of the World community and the provision set forth in the cease fire agreement signed at the end of the 1991 war. Additionally, the Clinton administration enforced for year the Southern and Northern No-Fly zones in Iraq (which could be why those jets were shrink-wrapped, eh?)

He bet the lives of innocent Iraqis, Kurds, Israelis, and Americans on a "We sure as heck don't know". It was his duty to take action, to find the truth, but he didn't. His "diplomacy" failed Amercia, and he nearly sold Israel out.

Oh, dear me ... which argument to make here... So Ender, you are suggesting that the United States should now become the Police Force of the world? I am assuming that is what you intend to mean when you say "He bet the lives of innocent Iraqis". The United States has never undertaken a military campaign based on Humanitarian reasons. (although, you could make that argument in the Balkans ... it certainly DOESN"T apply in Iraq).

Clinton (and Blair) were protecting the Kurds. The Kurds live in the Northern portions of Iraq, which was protected by the Northern Watch No Fly Zone. ... Now, if you wanted to argue that the Northern No-Fly Zone allowed Ansar-al-Islam to train in safety (away from Hussein), you might have a point, but that is not the way I read that arguement.

To make sure those weapons were out of his hands. Thats the justification of the invasion. Hope to God, those weapons have not found their way elsewhere.

Well, if the weapons never existed, then, they couldn't have found their way anywhere, could they.

The Bush Administration encouraged this invasion based on a number of statements. A number of those statements are grossly above what the intelligence could suggest. The link posted at the beginning of this thread displays where those over-statements are made, and explains why they are infact, beyond what could be reasonably supported by the information we had available.

As I said Ender, it is apparent that you are not interested in seeing these items for what they are. Thank you for participating. - Mike

 

[michaeledward]

What would we have done to post WW2 Germany/Japan if they had broken treaty and started making weapons/massing troops???

This arguement is not really the same. If I am not mistaken, Japan & Germany surrendered unconditionally in 1945. We were occupying powers. They had no opportunity to start massing troops because we were there.

In contrast, in 1991, when Bush told Schwartzkoppf to stop his advance, we ended up in a very different situation. While we were close by, we were not 'in-country'. When BHW Bush encouraged the *****e's to rise up and over-throw the Hussein government, Hussein was able to counter attack with helicopter gunships and destroy the upraising. During which time, Schwartzkoppf's troops were watching the battles, and were not ordered to stop them.

In hind-sight, there were several mistakes in this sequence of events; a) Bush ordered a halt too soon, Powell & Schwartzkopff wanted another day. b) The cease fire agreement allowed Hussein to keep, and fly, his helicopters, this allowed suppression of the uprising. c) Not assisting the *****e in the South, and the Kurds in the North when needed.

Anyhow ... there were very big differences between 1991 and 1945.

Thanks. Mike

 

[michaeledward]

With all the 'Politicians are a separate breed of people who work form agendas that cost the rest of us lives, money and quality of life' talk going on, I don't see much faith in humanity. Do any of you have a given politician/authority that you don't disapprove of?

Who do you people have any faith in/trust? I am not taking sides here for or againsts any of this stuff, but COME ON! Is this distrust so pervasive that you are questioning all public servants with authority over you? Cops, teachers (influencing/in loc... parentis), priests (spiritual authority if you accept it)....

I am positive that if you look at any person at any level of influence or power, we could find arguable reasons to discredit/disagree or support/approve of their track record.

I agree Paul. In fact, the first link in this thread provides what I think we could all agree is a very dispassionate view of the statements made, and the source information behind them. This list was assembled by the public servents, at the request of public servants.

There is no 'Bomb Throwing' in the report. No one is called a 'Lying Liar'. It simply reports Statements made, and the intelligence that was available at the time the statement was made. Yet it seems that some will not even look at the report.

Mike

 

[Tgace]

This arguement is not really the same. If I am not mistaken, Japan & Germany surrendered unconditionally in 1945. We were occupying powers. They had no opportunity to start massing troops because we were there.

In contrast, in 1991, when Bush told Schwartzkoppf to stop his advance, we ended up in a very different situation. While we were close by, we were not 'in-country'. When BHW Bush encouraged the *****e's to rise up and over-throw the Hussein government, Hussein was able to counter attack with helicopter gunships and destroy the upraising. During which time, Schwartzkoppf's troops were watching the battles, and were not ordered to stop them.

In hind-sight, there were several mistakes in this sequence of events; a) Bush ordered a halt too soon, Powell & Schwartzkopff wanted another day. b) The cease fire agreement allowed Hussein to keep, and fly, his helicopters, this allowed suppression of the uprising. c) Not assisting the *****e in the South, and the Kurds in the North when needed.

Anyhow ... there were very big differences between 1991 and 1945.

Thanks. Mike

Yeah..that statement was made more as a loose "example" than a historical comparison. But Ill say it again...

I thought Gulf War I ended in a cease fire with conditions placed on Iraq....
When Iraq thumbed their noses at the conditions, we had an administration that did pretty much nothing (effective) about it. Now not saying that the way Gulf War II was started was entirely "legit" (at least on the face of it), it seems strange that some are looking at the war as an attack on a nation we never had any military "history" with......this whole thing (should have been completed by Bush 1and..) "probably" could have been done with support and legitimacy if it had been initiated during Clintons administration.