Does anyone think a president crying "wolf" aka WMD is a dangerous precedent?

Question

No one will take on Iran since judgement on Iraq was so bad?????

Joseph II: You're a hoot

Vegaswoman: I guess you were on a winning streak and missed the info that there were NO WMD, hope you won a lot

Answer 1

Electing G.W. in the FIRST place- was a bad sign. If our ability to pick a competent leader has sunk so LOW that we picked someone like Bush to "lead" us into a quicksand like Iraq, we're on our way "out" as a Superpower. My plan- is to learn Chinese, before everybody else wakes up...

Answer 2

I think this was not an honest mistake at all. If it had been, I could understand someone getting "excited" about a large responsibility.
But the facts seem to be that the administration's "bully boys"
attacked anyone who told them the truth and wanted the pretext of a re-invasion of Iraq to accomplish what they wanted--taking illicit powers all over the map. There were no WMD, no Iraq connection and they either should have made sure of this--or they missed it and should be removed as total incompetents.
I believe, in tboth the last two cases, the act was treason--and the only reason we don't have an impeachment trial right now is that the pro-imperial-presidential dishonest 90% of the press in the U.S. won't go after the Bush administration.

Answer 3

In response to the question: Yes, it's of course it's damaging to the credibility of the office of U.S. President if a holder of that office bases a full-scale invasion of a country on a nonexistent WMD arsenal.

Donald Rumsfeld said that nobody poses "a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." George Bush said Iraq posed a "direct threat" to the United States, a threat that was "mortal" and "urgent," one that was so important it necessitated immediate military action for self-defense. All the while claiming that "we are doing everything we can to avoid war with Iraq." So clearly, yes, a president lying (or at least saying untrue things) on such a large scale is a dangerous precedent.

In response to drlaw2003's cut-and-paste of that silly e-mail: The quotations are all from the time of Operation Desert Fox, the 1998 bombings of Iraq in retaliation for Iraq's petulant expulsion of weapons inspectors. The strikes were intended to punish Iraq and further degrade Iraq's WMD capability. Iraq had active WMD programs in the 1980s, when the U.S. was aware of and permitted them ( http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ ). Because of the decimation of Iraq's military power in Gulf War I and subsequent UNSCOM activity, Iraq's WMD capability after 1991 was pathetic, although it tenaciously clung to what little it had left. The quoted statements are of Democratic politicians speaking in favor of the strikes, which were successful in further degrading Iraq's WMD capability. And though the politicians did exaggerate the importance of Iraq's desire for WMD, none of them came close to making claims as exaggerated and alarmist as those of the Bush administration in 2003. Selectively quoting those people completely out of context is incredibly misleading.

(Finally, to cut off whoever plans on coming by with Rick Santorum's and Pete Hoekstra's 2006 "500 WMD Suddenly Found in Iraq After All" meme that was propagated on Fox News, etc.: http://mediamatters.org/items/200606230008 The U.S. began turning up leftover chemical weapons from the 1980s Iran-Iraq war shortly after the invasion, and by 2006 had collected about 500 abandoned, useless shells. Rick Santorum spun this fact into a PR piece claiming that the U.S. had turned up hundreds of weapons of mass destruction after all, neglecting to mention that the shells were 20 years old and no longer capable of actually causing mass destruction.)

Answer 4

People who think there were no WMD in Iraq are mindless koolaid-drinkers. Of course they were there--the US has accurate records and intelligence info and knows that they were there. They were moved to Syria during the invasion. Don't be so naive.

Answer 5

The WMDs are still there. Saddam was at least smart enough not to use them on our troops. It's a vast desert. We don't have enough bulldozers and scoop cranes to dig it all up looking for them. They may be buried under any or all of his palaces. To say they're not there or never were is ignorant and ill informed.

Answer 6

Have you taken leave of all your senses ? Or just the ones used to come up with that question ?
Terrorists attacked on our soil.
Thousands were killed or injured .
Terrorists promise to do it again .
What part of that is difficult for you to comprehend ?
A normal human being would know that terrorists are dangerous ..HELLO ?

Answer 7

Duh... He is causing the US DOllar to fall by the minute, if this goes on by the US attacking Iran or North Korea,The economy will collapse. Bringing on the second great depression.
The greedy Yanks just wanted the oil.

Answer 8

The President and the Congress acted on information from Intelligence agencies. No cry of wolf and no conspiracy.

Answer 9

Come now, everybody thought Saddam had WMD. In fact we know he had had them because he used them. Nobody was crying wolf.

Answer 10

Yes a very dangerous one, it is costing US daily casualities and no one can put a stop to the bleeding, congress is crippeled to patch the bleeding ZIONIST NEOCONS has inflicted on this nation.