935 false statements on Iraq (2 Viewers)

So-called "big oil" doesn't get rich off of Iraq... they would do better to reduce the supply instead of increasing it. Iraq was limited in the amount of oil they could produce under UN sanctions as the result of the first Gulf War.

Those sanctions have since been lifted.

And the fact that "big oil" doesn't control the price anyway...


There are too many previous threads here, let alone articles, blogs, etc.. with people speaking who are much smarter than me to believe that it wasn't for oil and oil services contracts.

It had little to do with freedom or WMD's or any other lie this administration comes up with.

Edit: My opinion form what I have read on the Iraq war.
 
Last edited:
Not meant to be. But it does illustrate that the "evidence" wasn't fully concocted by the Bush Administration -- a misconception out there.

Where it wasn't concoted -- and much of it was -- they chose to cite allegations made by notoriously unreliable sources.

They deliberately treated unreliable information as fact.
 
So-called "big oil" doesn't get rich off of Iraq... they would do better to reduce the supply instead of increasing it. Iraq was limited in the amount of oil they could produce under UN sanctions as the result of the first Gulf War.

Those sanctions have since been lifted.

And the fact that "big oil" doesn't control the price anyway...

Big oil will be the only interest which benefits from pouring 1.3 trillion dollars to open up Iraq to the big oil companies. Make no mistake, the invasion was orchestrated by interests bought and sold by big oil companies.

The Bush adminstration misled the public about WMDs, establishing democracy. Hussein's threat, Iraq's connection to terrorism, 9-11 and Bin Laden. Th

Think about it, Hussein gone, no WMDs, Al-Queda is pretty much been relegated as a non-entity. Why is the United States still occupying Iraq? Oil. Or establishing long term bases for access to oil. The United States has no more reason to be there, the "missions" have all been accomplished so to speak. I mean, if it were all about the reasons which were trotted out, why are we still there?

As far as I'm concerned, it wa a pack of lies to convince the American people to go along with a war to ensure several large oil conglomerates. In other words, we've ****** away 1.3 trillion dollars to make sure ExxonMobilHalliburton gets a cut.
 
Fair point.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

...

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors,"

..

while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

...

The president said the report...was stark and sobering.

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them...He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors"

...

"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will,"..."He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."

...

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people,"



Those comments are excerpts from a CNN article covering a speech former President Bill Clinton made in late 1998.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/


SHHHHHHH! David!

You're not supposed to talk about Iraq in the 1990s... it was nirvana then until Bush and "Big Oil" went and blew it all to hell.

I know, because I saw it in a "documentary" by Michael Moore :)

Seriously, we all know U.S. intelligence was faulty... the collapse of the twin towers in NYC is testament to that. I also know that the U.S. invaded Iraq with terrible intelligence, showed total incompentency on rebuilding Iraq post-Saddam and whole host of other problems stemming from corruption and cronieism.

I just don't buy the "Bush lied, people died" refrain.
 
The stated purpose of these nonprofit Journalism organizations, to critique Journalism and Journalists, is buried in the very last paragraph.

"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.
 
They deliberately treated unreliable information as fact.

You'd get no argument from me.

But in hearing reaction over the years on the news, in discussion, etc, it sounds like many people have come to the conclusion that Iraq having WMDs was a concoction of the Bush Administration to justify war. Nevermind that Hussein had used gas on his own people.

The extent to which Iraq possessed WMDs -- or whether they possessed them in the time leading up to invasion -- is now up for debate and, in being generous, certainly appears to have been greatly embellished.

I don't think it's insignificant to note that the previous President hit on many of the same talking points, to the extent that, as I stated, it illustrates that this cannot be conveniently reduced to nothing other than a well-orchestrated post-9/11 fabrication to justify war in Iraq. Bad intel or warping said intel to justify War, perhaps, but clearly not wholly dreamed up by Bush-Rumsfeld-Cheney -- as many Americans now seem to falsely believe.
 
They aren't the first, nor the last people to die for human error.

We're not talking about simple "error."

We're talking about a deliberate policy of starting a war based on lies and distortions.

"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in a Pentagon transcript of an interview with Vanity Fair.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-05-30-wolfowitz-iraq_x.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2945750.stm
 
Seriously, we all know U.S. intelligence was faultyI just don't buy the "Bush lied, people died" refrain.

Not lied. Intentionally misled. The intelligence was not that bad. I don't buy it. In fact, I know there are news stories out there where intel officials admit there was evidence available that Bush didn't look at or ignored which was right on target: Iraq had no WMDs and didn't pose a threat.

He. ignored. the evidence. The intelligence was not that bad. Use common sense--the CIA was all over that area for years.

You believe it was just a case of "faulty intelligence" completely ignores there were intel. reports and officials who were making the case that Iraq didn't have WMDs and didn't pose a threat. They were ignored.
 
Seriously, we all know U.S. intelligence was faulty... the collapse of the twin towers in NYC is testament to that. I also know that the U.S. invaded Iraq with terrible intelligence, showed total incompentency on rebuilding Iraq post-Saddam and whole host of other problems stemming from corruption and cronieism.

I just don't buy the "Bush lied, people died" refrain.

Good summation of my thoughts as well.
 
You'd get no argument from me.

But in hearing reaction over the years on the news, in discussion, etc, it sounds like many people have come to the conclusion that Iraq having WMDs was a concoction of the Bush Administration to justify war. Nevermind that Hussein had reportedly used gas on his own people.

The extent to which Iraq possessed WMDs -- or whether they possessed them in the time leading up to invasion -- is now up for debate and, in being generous, certainly appears to have been greatly embellished.

I don't think it's insignificant to note that the previous President hit on many of the same talking points, to the extent that, as I stated, it illustrates that this cannot be conveniently reduced to nothing other than a well-orchestrated post-9/11 fabrication to justify war in Iraq. Bad intel or warping said intel to justify War, perhaps, but clearly not wholly dreamed up by Bush-Rumsfeld-Cheney -- as many Americans now seem to falsely believe.

Whether or not Saddam held onto any WMD -- which was never proven -- that was not why war was decided on. That was simply the excuse chosen to launch the war, as admitted by Paul Wolfowitz. He said WMD was the one pretext everyone believed might hold up in the end.

The real motives and objectives surrounding the decision to invade Iraq were deliberately obscured from the public because it was a war of choice, not necessity.

They even lied about the cost, massively low-balling the price tag of the war. Whatever it took to get the ball rolling.
 
Last edited:
So-called "big oil" doesn't get rich off of Iraq... they would do better to reduce the supply instead of increasing it. Iraq was limited in the amount of oil they could produce under UN sanctions as the result of the first Gulf War.

Those sanctions have since been lifted.

And the fact that "big oil" doesn't control the price anyway...

It's not just the price of the crude. It's revenue from exploration and oil field development, production and maintenance contracts.

They were shut out that before.

Iraq is believed to have many more untapped fields, possibly more oil uncovered than currently proven reserves.
 
The real motives and objectives surrounding the decision to invade Iraq were deliberately obscured from the public because it was a war of choice.

That is the real problem I have with it.
It wasn't for national defense due to an imminent threat.
That is, imo, the only reason for a country to go to war.
 
I'm sure DD will have much more on this but the "study" on which the article is based was funded by a George Soros foundation. The foundation "study" is hardly objective, contains old and discredited assertions and I'm not sure what the point is now. Didn't we have a "Bush lied, people died" election in 2004?

No, actually I think the article is based on cold, hard, brutal facts. :shrug:
 
That is the real problem I have with it.
It wasn't for national defense due to an imminent threat.
That is, imo, the only reason for a country to go to war.

Yet, at the time, you had Cheney and Condi publicly conjuring up the specter of the mushroom cloud and pushing fictitious links between Bin Laden and Hussein.

Orchestrated propaganda campaign.
 
Whether or not Saddam held onto any WMD -- which was never proven -- that was not why war was decided on. That was simply the excuse chosen to lauch the war, as admitted by Paul Wolfowitz. He said WMD was the one pretext everyone believed might hold up in the end.


Again, I won't disagree.

I'm not seeking to contend that this Administration didn't chart the path they wanted. I am, however, challenging the notion that "evidence" was solely based on the evil imagination of the current President and his advisors. Nor am I trying to defend statements that were made or dismiss actions that have been taken.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom