GWB created ISIS?

[Spartacus]

There's a difference between nuclear and chemical weapons. It seems that both can be referred to as WMDs, but I imagine many people only understood WMDs in the context of the justification for war as referring to nuclear weapons, which Saddam did not have and was not actively and effectively pursuing (though he wanted it to look like he was).

[Starlight]

It was known by the Bush administration that Saddam had chemical weapons, because Ronald Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld had supplied Saddam with them, to help him fight Iran in the 80s. Saddam used those weapons repeatedly in the 80s to kill Iranians.

The lies told by the Bush administration were that Iraq was getting nuclear weapons, and that once Iraq got such weapons they would use them on the US or the US's allies.

[Jesse]

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/05...-bush-isis.cnn

And they act like they are so intelligent, and she can't even pronounce pedantic. It's not pendantic, you clod...

Well of course this person is an idiot. ISIS has been around since 1999. It was formerly known as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad . ISIS and al-Qaeda didn't become partners until 2004. Terrorist organizations have always pulled resources together in order to strike out in larger numbers. No one is to blame. Terrorists are gonna terrorize no matter what the reason.

[Cow Poke]

It was known by the Bush administration that Saddam had chemical weapons, because Ronald Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld had supplied Saddam with them, to help him fight Iran in the 80s. Saddam used those weapons repeatedly in the 80s to kill Iranians.

The lies told by the Bush administration were that Iraq was getting nuclear weapons, and that once Iraq got such weapons they would use them on the US or the US's allies.

Source: Snopes.com

In December 2001, nine members of Congress (a group which included both Democrats and Republicans) wrote a letter to President Bush urging him to step up support for the internal Iraqi opposition seeking to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Included in that letter was the following paragraph:

This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf war status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/w...uiUo5ol0QH3.99

© Copyright Original Source

Even Democrats were citing WMD (including a nuke program) as reason for Bush to act.

[Cow Poke]

Even Hillary thought Saddam was building his nuke program.

Source: Snopes.com

Senator Hillary Clinton of New York also spoke on the issue of the Iraq resolution:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/w...uiUo5ol0QH3.99

© Copyright Original Source

[Starlight]

Even Democrats were citing WMD (including a nuke program) as reason for Bush to act.

Two Democrats is not really the same thing as Democrats in general. And suggesting that Bush support internal Iraqi opposition to Hussein is not really the same thing as supporting a war of aggression.

And sadly Hillary seems keen to get involved in every single war possible. She is widely disliked by progressives for that reason, amongst others.

[Cow Poke]

Two Democrats is not really the same thing as Democrats in general.

That was just a small sample, but I'll leave you to your grand delusions.

[Bill the Cat]

Nice genetic fallacy.

Well, the genetic shoe fits nicely...

[Cow Poke]

Well, the genetic shoe fits nicely...

I read that as the geriatric shoe. And, yeah, it does.

[Sam]

The extent to which the Senate (and the relevant committees) were in on the con of the Iraq War will probably be lost to history. But that the White House was (or should have been) aware that they were selling a con in selling the Iraq War as at all necessary is not. Paul Krugman collected a few recent articles looking back and Josh Marshall's lays the case out pretty cleanly:

Source: Sorry. Iraq Wasn't a Good Faith Mistake. It Was Based on Lies. Josh Marshall. TPM. 2015-05-15.

It is very important to remember that before we invaded, Saddam Hussein actually did allow inspectors back into the country, thus undermining the key argument for following through with the threat of invasion in the first place. But the critical point is that we didn't invade Iraq because we had "faulty" intelligence that Iraq still had stockpiles of sarin gas. The invasion was justified and sold to the American public on the twin frauds of the Iraq-al Qaeda alliance and the Saddam's supposedly hidden nuclear program. As much as the White House and the key administration war hawks like Vice President Cheney tried to get the Intelligence Community to buy into these theories, they never did. And to anyone paying attention, certainly anyone reporting on these matters at the time, it was clear at the time this was nonsense and a willful deception.


There was of course still more involved. The White House insisted - over the vociferous disagreement of the Pentagon's uniformed leadership - that the occupation would be quick and could be managed with a light force. We would, as the painful cliche had it, be greeted as liberators. It is probably true that if the insurgency had never happened and Iraq had become a stable and strong US ally, as predicted, the collapse of the original premise for the invasion would have been largely forgotten. It is the mix of immense costs of the invasion (human and financial) and the chaos in Iraq we are still wrestling with today combined with the collapse of any clear rationale for the invasion in the first place that explains why it remains such a charged and explosive issue even today.


The story we're hearing today is: Yes, it was a mistake. We wouldn't do it again knowing what we know now. But we acted on information that just turned out to be wrong. But that is quite simply a crock. The Bush administration was at best in deep denial about the true costs of the invasion. And it lead the country to war based on claims that were quite simply willful deceptions - lies. It may be too much to say that it was obvious to everyone at the time. But to reporters working the story and certainly anyone in the government, it was clear that the White House was involved in a mammoth exaggeration.

© Copyright Original Source

A whole lot of people who relied on accurate information coming from the top were duped. A lot of people at the top, including numerous senators, did or should have known better. But the top-level folk in the administration, most notably Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and G.W. Bush, take the lion's share of blame. Not only did they rely on what they probably knew well to be be false information but they so negligently undersold the true likely cost of the war, in terms of time, money and lives, that there can be no excusing it.

Any presidential candidate who doesn't look back and admit that the Iraq War was not only a giant ... mess up, to be polite ... but a catastrophic failure of moral character by top members of the administration doesn't deserve to take the job. Same goes for the torture program that went hand-in-hand with the cavalierness of selling the war.

[Jesse]

The extent to which the Senate (and the relevant committees) were in on the con of the Iraq War will probably be lost to history. But that the White House was (or should have been) aware that they were selling a con in selling the Iraq War as at all necessary is not. Paul Krugman collected a few recent articles looking back and Josh Marshall's lays the case out pretty cleanly:

Source: Sorry. Iraq Wasn't a Good Faith Mistake. It Was Based on Lies. Josh Marshall. TPM. 2015-05-15.

It is very important to remember that before we invaded, Saddam Hussein actually did allow inspectors back into the country, thus undermining the key argument for following through with the threat of invasion in the first place. But the critical point is that we didn't invade Iraq because we had "faulty" intelligence that Iraq still had stockpiles of sarin gas. The invasion was justified and sold to the American public on the twin frauds of the Iraq-al Qaeda alliance and the Saddam's supposedly hidden nuclear program. As much as the White House and the key administration war hawks like Vice President Cheney tried to get the Intelligence Community to buy into these theories, they never did. And to anyone paying attention, certainly anyone reporting on these matters at the time, it was clear at the time this was nonsense and a willful deception.


There was of course still more involved. The White House insisted - over the vociferous disagreement of the Pentagon's uniformed leadership - that the occupation would be quick and could be managed with a light force. We would, as the painful cliche had it, be greeted as liberators. It is probably true that if the insurgency had never happened and Iraq had become a stable and strong US ally, as predicted, the collapse of the original premise for the invasion would have been largely forgotten. It is the mix of immense costs of the invasion (human and financial) and the chaos in Iraq we are still wrestling with today combined with the collapse of any clear rationale for the invasion in the first place that explains why it remains such a charged and explosive issue even today.


The story we're hearing today is: Yes, it was a mistake. We wouldn't do it again knowing what we know now. But we acted on information that just turned out to be wrong. But that is quite simply a crock. The Bush administration was at best in deep denial about the true costs of the invasion. And it lead the country to war based on claims that were quite simply willful deceptions - lies. It may be too much to say that it was obvious to everyone at the time. But to reporters working the story and certainly anyone in the government, it was clear that the White House was involved in a mammoth exaggeration.

© Copyright Original Source

A whole lot of people who relied on accurate information coming from the top were duped. A lot of people at the top, including numerous senators, did or should have known better. But the top-level folk in the administration, most notably Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and G.W. Bush, take the lion's share of blame. Not only did they rely on what they probably knew well to be be false information but they so negligently undersold the true likely cost of the war, in terms of time, money and lives, that there can be no excusing it.

Any presidential candidate who doesn't look back and admit that the Iraq War was not only a giant ... mess up, to be polite ... but a catastrophic failure of moral character by top members of the administration doesn't deserve to take the job. Same goes for the torture program that went hand-in-hand with the cavalierness of selling the war.

Well, since you used two left-wing outfits for your response, allow me to use a right-wing one as a nice rebuttal:

Source: National Review

discoverypress releasereportedSource

© Copyright Original Source

And let's not forget that the Department of Defense did call these WMDs in 2006.

So did Saddam Hussein have WMDs? Yes. I will leave it up to others to decide if these were worth going to war over.

[Paprika]

Well, the genetic shoe fits nicely...

It's hardly relevant and is an excuse to avoid responding to my points.

[Paprika]

Well, since you used two left-wing outfits for your response, allow me to use a right-wing one as a nice rebuttal

So: on the issue that Bush was probably the most heavily criticised and would likely have the greatest impact of the legacy, he had the evidence to disprove the criticism but chose not to.

From your own source:The sarin and mustard are old and dated from before theGulf War, much likely supplied by the US, and do not form the active stockpiling of chemical weapons that was alleged and used as an excuse to invade.

And yet, as those tea-party types at CBS News reported

Source: http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/yellowcake.asp

The yellowcake removed from Iraq in 2008 was material that had long since been identified, documented, and stored in sealed containers under the supervision of U.N. inspectors. It was not a "secret" cache that was recently "discovered" by the U.S, nor had the yellowcake been purchased by Iraq in the years immediately preceding the 2003 invasion. The uranium was the remnants of decades-old nuclear reactor projects that had put out of commission many years earlier: One reactor at Al Tuwaitha was bombed by Israel in 1981, and another was bombed and disabled during Operation Desert Storm in 1991...

What happened was that U.S. Marines stumbled across known stocks of uranium stored beneath the Tuwaitha nuclear research center, stocks that were not suitable for use in atomic weapons and had long since been cataloged, stored in sealed containers, and safeguarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), stored at a site that had been repeatedly surveyed by U.N. inspectors

© Copyright Original Source

Let us also not forget that uranium in itself does not make a WMD.

[Tassman]

Nice tu quoque

Yes, I thought so.......

[Jesse]

So: on the issue that Bush was probably the most heavily criticised and would likely have the greatest impact of the legacy, he had the evidence to disprove the criticism but chose not to.

There are people who do not stick up for themselves. Maybe he even thought why bother? I have no idea why he didn't come out and just declassify the documents.

The sarin and mustard are old and dated from before theGulf War, much likely supplied by the US, and do not form the active stockpiling of chemical weapons that was alleged and used as an excuse to invade.

And? the left continuously said that there were no WMDs. We now know that there were still stockpiles and these stockpiles are still viable for things like dirty bombs.

Let us also not forget that uranium in itself does not make a WMD.

Correct. But sarin gas and other chemical weapons are WMDs. As for yellowcake, because it is radioactive at such a high potency, it does not need to be enriched in order to be used as a small nuclear device. Again, especially in a dirty bomb. We are not talking about a mushroom cloud, but we are talking about the release of high quantities of radiation.

Wikileaks showed that for years after the war, there were still chemical weapons labs being found and possibly used by insurgents.

Again, I don't care whether anyone believes the war was correct or not. To say that there were no WMDs in Iraq is a lie.