Bush haters, apologists and just interested citizens should find this interactive tool useful in understanding how we got into the war.
The first drafts of history are fragmentary. Important revelations arrive late, and out of order. In this timeline, we’ve assembled the history of the Iraq War to create a resource we hope will help resolve open questions of the Bush era. What did our leaders know and when did they know it? And, perhaps just as important, what red flags did we miss, and how could we have missed them? This is the first installment in our Iraq War timeline project.
Oh brother…
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998
#31, your quote has nothing to do with the Bush administration and it’s actions
#31, your quote has nothing to do with the Bush administration and it’s actions
It has everything to do with this topic. Everything that has gone wrong since January 2001 is still Clinton’s fault.
Except for that incident where the Bush girls were caught drinking under age. That was Gore’s fault.
And Cunningham’s problems can really be traced back to when Carter was in the White House.
And Hurricane Katrina is obviously a holdover from Johnson
Bush isn’t responsible for anything he has done. I think that makes him irresponsible.
#1I have no desire to waste my time reading the opinions of others…
Comment by Smith — 8/31/2006 @ 4:49 am
That’s really all you had to say.
#19
In order for statement to be a lie, the person making the statement has KNOW that what they are saying AT THE TIME is not true.
So, Iraq not having WMD does not in any way whatsoever qualify as a lie! The information given to the President (and every other intelligence agency in the world) was faulty. As far as the President knew, *at the time*, Iraq DID have WMDs. The Clarke quotes you presented merely state that his staff thought that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Ok. How does that translate into Bush knowing for a fact that Iraq did not having WMDs?
> If the Secratary of State was told unequivocally that Iraq
> had WMDs and mobile manufacturing vehicles when the
> Administration knew there was only shakey evidence there
> was and much evidence there wasn’t, isn’t that a lie?
No. That is the source telling them something based on shaky evidence and the Secretary of State tell the public what his/her staff told them was true. If I’m a leading expert in my field and I tell you for example that the Sudan has chemical weapons, you are somewhat compelled to believe me. First, it is plausible and second you have to trust the experts.
> There is NO evidence that the American people
> were told the truth and every indication they were misled.
On the contrary, there is no evidence that the American people were told the COMPLETE truth. Guess what, there has NEVER been evidence that the American people have ever or will ever be told the complete truth about anything going back to Washington or forward into the future on ANY topic. It just won’t happen. Too much will be lost in the bureaucracy of government.
In order to prove a lie, you have to show that Bush knew some fact that he later made a statement to the contrary. Showing that after further information is gathered, that what he knew/stated was faulty is insufficient. In fact, even showing that other people knew at the time that what they were telling the President was faulty is insufficient. In short, you have to show that at the time a person states A, they knew B to be true.
Let’s use Clinton as an example (mostly because everyone knows about it). Clinton, in his Grand Jury testimony, claimed he did not have sex with Lewinsky. A statement which we later discovered was not true. It is simply not possible for Clinton not to have known he had sex with Lewinsky at the time he made his statement.
‘Greeted as liberators’ is a lie?
It happened. Just because it doesn’t fit people’s preferred worldview of hating George Bush, doesn’t make it a lie.
As for the claim of helping terrorists with bioloogical and chemical weapons, perhaps people should read Project Harmony’s translated Iraqi docs. Again, it doesn’t fit people’s preferred worldview.
I think Richard Clarke qualifies as a liar for the comments posted above. He has written before that he vetoed a mission to get Bin Laden in Afghanistan because he was worried he would ‘boogie to Baghdad.’ Now why would he have those worries if there was no link between Iraq and Bin Laden?
I’m not sure how we can trust any site that gives credibility to Joe Wilson. Since you are a journalist, John Dvorak, how about posting some corrections to your Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame blog entries?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html
#31 and #37: First, what Clinton said at that time is irrelevant. In 2001 the intelligence community, citied as advisers from the FBI and CIA, told him directly that their current intelligence does not point to Iraq having anything to do with Sept. 11th, one of the main arguments (now denied by the administration) for going to war with them. It is also well known that the CIA felt the claim that Iraq was buying Yellowcake Uranium from Niger had too low of a credibility to be used andadvised the president not to use it in his speech, which the guy did.
Clinton gave that speech in 1997. Intelligence changes over time, and that was four years previous and is therefore not relevant to our discussion.
29. I suppose you believe that Enron, WorldCom, etc were all innocent executives also that just didn’t get good info on what was going on around them. According to you, no one can be blamed for being “misled”. I’m innocent because some phantom CO told me this was true and I had no reason not to believe him or I killed that person because I was told they were going to kill me. You can ignore the preponderance of the evidence all you want to resist looking at the true picture but you’ll find few people here that are as naive and gullible.
Also, any desperate attempt to mitigate this administration’s follys by displacing blame on past President’s is a pathetic showing of bipartisanship and foolish loyalty. Each administration has to stand by their actions and take the accolades/blame for such on their own.
Let’s see Bush was President for 8 months, during which the Democrat Senate was blocking confirmation of nominees for various positions. Clinton was President for 8 years, with 4 separate attacks by Bin Laden’s organization.
#39, 37 talked about what Richard Clarke said.
#42: #37’s comments don’t matter much. Its just a way of discrediting people by pointing out that their opinions change with the facts. The Bushies opinions never change with the facts; their opinions are independent of the facts!
Let me point out this: I saw a pic of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein See it: http://news8.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/news/newsid_2850000/2850949.stm
HOW DARE HE wage war on Saddam. Wasn’t he our ally? If the opponents of Bush cannot change their minds about situations, neither can the Busies and they must be held accountable!
In truth, there was a biased campaign to discredit Clarke after he was fired for not rubber stamping the Administration’s Iraq policy. Much in the same way Hans Blix was (he was called “on the take” and “worried about losing his cushsy job if inspections stopped). However, Clarke and Blix were right! And so were others who stood up to this administration only to be attacked by one GOP talking point after another.
Makes me kind of sick to think of how this country has been twisted into this fun house mirror of itself, where the rulers do not have to answer to the very people they serve, the US citizens.
Patriotism is not blindly following, but actively taking part in guiding this country.
Eric, put things in context. This wasn’t just an intelligence assessment, Clarke thinking maybe Saddam and Bin Laden were involved, then changing his mind with alter facts. He vetoed a Bin Laden mission based on the intel he had. Then somehow later, he decided it was all a mistake, and that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq? This makes Richard Clarke and intelligence agencies’ mistakes while Clinton was President absolutely responsible for 9/11. A more likely possibility is that Clarke is changing his story to make Bush look bad.
44. You love to get the last word in but 9/11 wasn’t anyone’s fault as no one knew this was going to happen at this level and attacking Al Queda after the previous attacks wouldn’t even have prevented it which I believe Clinton did with some cruise missiles. The problem is the response after 9/11 happened! Going into Iraq did nothing to prevent terrorism but did everything to make it more popular. It was a personal issue with this administration and it has made the potential threat even worse. I’m sorry but you Bushites can’t deflect the bad decisions of this administration forever. Now your boy Bush has created a Pandora’s box which makes any decision to solve it a bad one.
Can’t disagree with most of that, though I think earlier attacks against Al Qaeda would have prevented 9/11. Those cruise missiles were just another example of a weak attack that emboldened Bin Laden, leading him to think the US was a paper tiger. It was the previous poster who thinks that Clarke is telling the truth, and that Iraq had no links to Bin Laden. That means that Clarke vetoed a chance to get Bin Laden for no good reason.
#44: Let me put it in words you can understand:
Clark, CIA and FBI said “Osama in Afganistan.” Afganistan war OK.
Clark, CIA and FBI said “Iraq not involved in 9/11 attack.” Administration said , “not good enough. Find a connection.
Now we have almost 3000 dead soldiers, 10,000 wounded. Billions wasted in a war that was conconted by Bush. I am NOT blaming Bush for 9/11, as you are blaming Clinton, I AM blaming him for a war we should not be in, which his intelligence advisors were telling him not to do.
Funny: Clarke, the CIA and FBI said no to Iraq war. We get in and there is no WMDs as the Bush administration said there would be, and they call it an intelligence failure.
What about Bush saying Osama don’t matter anymore? Lack if intelligence! Rumsfled saying Iraq would be over in six months, tops, and we would be welcomed as liberators when foreign intelligence was saying NOT TRUE. How about Cheney when he said, what, two years ago that the Iraq resistance is in its death throes. Please, keep the lies coming.
Even more true, you mention that I feel that Iraq had no links to al Queda. Well, that’s what the 9/11 Commission said in their report. NO LINKS. They go as far as looked at CIA Intel that Bin Laden actually thought Saddam was not a good worshipper of Islam and was opposed to him being a leader of an Islamic country.
Stay on the point: Bush went to war with Iraq irregardless of the facts, and Clinton didn’t have anything to do with the worst tactical mistake this country has made in a long time.
BTW: Condervatives like you were the ones who claimed Osama was not a threat when Clinton ordered the missile attack against his bases in Afganistan, with chants of “no war for Monica!”
I will again say this is not about Conservative or Liberal, it is about doing what is best for this country, and what we have today is not it. Period.
Again you’re in denial. What I said was that Richard Clarke had concluded there was a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, hence the phrase “boogie to Baghdad.” I don’t see why we should believe anything Clarke says until he explains the change from that statement. If he says it was a mistake to think that then, then that mistake may very well have prevented Osama’s capture, which probably means no Iraq war as well.
If Bin Laden thought so little of Iraq, and there was no Iraq-Al Qaeda connection, then could you explain Bin Laden’s pronouncements in support of Iraq, after an Iraqi delegation visisted Afghanistan in 1998?
You are the one in denial. I’m only quoting the facts as compiled by a commission that Mr. Bush didnt want, not all the disinfo let out from the Republicans.
Take the Yellowcake. Here is a prime Bush lie: By early 2002, investigations by both the CIA and the State Department had found the documents to be inaccurate. Days before the Iraq invasion, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) cast doubt on the documents to the U.N. Security Council. Yet in 2003’s State of the Union Bush said it as fact to justify the Iraq invasion, against all recommendation. When it was found out unture the Repugs blamed “bad intel.” COME ON!
I’m glad you can rest at night with 3000 American soldiers dead for NO DAMN GOOD REASON. It was a lie.
The facts dont change because Clarke had a different opinion based on older intel (as your quote of Clinton claiming in 1998 that there werepossible WMDs there). It is obvious the intel changed over the years,to the point where not only Clarke, but the leaders of the FBI and CIA (you seem to ignore they shared the same opinion as Clarke) could not give Bush/Cheney the authorization they sought.