Bush, and members of his administration, lied REPEATEDLY to get the war they came into office looking to start.
Not only did they NOT lie, but there was no need to lie, because Saddam Hussein was a known threat BEFORE they came into office. Only certain Democrats pretend Saddam Hussein was not a threat before Inauguration Day 2001. Why they persist in such a ridiculous claim, _ph, I haven't the slightest idea. It's ridiculous to pretend that Saddam Hussein was a deadly threat before January 21, 2001, yet a safely-contained harmless lovable guy after January 21, 2001. The only difference, left unstated by the Democrats, is that we are supposed to like bombing Saddam with Clinton and hate bombing Saddam with Bush. One is good, the other is bad, because we're not supposed to like Bush, no matter how Saddam Hussein was viewed with the previous president. To "get" Bush, it's necessary to excuse Hussein.
They knew the Uranium/Niger claim had been proved false and put it in the State of the Union address, anyway. Why let the truth get in the way of a good line?
They "knew it was false"? That's purely your personal opinion, and you simply repeat a failed 2004 campaign slogan. It flopped, it failed. The 2004 campaign is over, the politicians who made that claim did not convince the American people, and themselves no longer make such assertions because they know it was never true.
Don't you think it's odd that only a tiny few believe a failed campaign slogan from the past? We don't hear a single Democrat in the Senate or House repeating it to this day, so why do you still believe it? Don't you think if the Democrats had an impeachable offense they could get Bush on, they'd run with it? Yet they dropped it. (And you haven't.)
They knew Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 even as they decided to use 9/11 to get their war with Saddam.
Saddam Hussein had every reason to hate the United States. As Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld stated several times, Saddam Hussein could fund future attacks similar to 9/11. Why this desire, _Ph, to give a proven wielder of WMD the benefit of a doubt? I fail to see what record of Saddam Hussein's inspired such a benefit of a doubt. Saddam Hussein earned no such benefit of a doubt, why create one for him?
Left in power, there is every reason why Saddam Hussein would fund, support, and create terrorists to use against us, our allies, and our interests, in the region and further abroad. Anyone who claims otherwise cannot point to Saddam Hussein's past record as proof to the contrary! Show me where in Saddam's past invasion of Iran, past invasion of Kuwait, past gassing of innocents, that he WOULD NOT do this sort of thing. You're making the claim, point to Saddam's record and back it up.
Cheney (and others) went around saying Iraqi agents "met with Mohammed Atta in Prague."
The 9/11 Commission differs with Cheney on the level of contact between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda. What the 9/11 Commission does say, however, is damning for Saddam Hussein, not Cheney:
In a report released last month, the commission concluded that though there were numerous contacts in the 1990s between Iraq and al Qaeda, those contacts did not result in a "collaborative relationship."
How tight were these contacts between the two groups? Who knows. But they occured, which is something the 9/11 Commission agrees with the Administration on.
Cheney even said that meeting "has been pretty well confirmed" before (months later) claiming that he would never have said such a thing, because, of course, the metting never occured.
from the same article, 9/11 Commission does disagree with Cheney:
Cheney also said recently that the United States has never been able to "knock down" an uncorroborated Czech report that September 11 plot leader Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, Czech Republic, before the attacks.
The commission said it doesn't believe such a meeting ever took place.
But this is still in dispute, and has not been settled authoritatively as you claim. You, _Ph, claim it never happened. The 9/11 Commission does not believe such a meeting took place. Two very different things.
Cheney also said: "Saddam Hussein has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons" and that the first warning "could be a mushroom cloud over an American city."
Yes, and given Saddam Hussein's clear usage of WMD on his country's enemies (and his own people), I will choose to believe Cheney's word over Saddam's, every time. I like how this Administration's critics criticize everything we've done in Iraq, all without going to the step of demanding we reinstate Hussein back into office. If Saddam is a victim of a lying America, then why not take it the rest of the way? Advocate putting him back in power! Oh, he's not a victim, he really is a monster who threatened his people, his neighbors, and us? Then where is the lie, hmmmm? Great to criticize from the sidelines, but it's never risen above the level of partisan nitpicking. The greatest Democrat minds in the Senate, House, and DNC, and their criticism NEVER rose above, "Nyah nyah, we don't like Bush, so we'll defend Saddam Hussein to the ends of the earth if it means discrediting Bush."
How, pray tell, could that be anything other than a lie?
Because, as you well know, the weapons inspectors were turned away from site after site after site after site after site, some they were not let in at all, and others, after Saddam's goons had sufficient time to make the locations "presentable" for inspection. Pretend otherwise if you wish, but Saddam Hussein learned very quickly that we weren't going to settle for "pretend inspections". His bluff was called, and he's in a cage where he belongs. (Or does he...?)
There were a lot of lies told about Iraq, and they were all told by the party out of power, and the party that will stay out of power for the forseeable future for the very reason of their ongoing lying: The Democratic party.
Edited by Ogami, 01 January 2006 - 03:13 PM.