Bush knew Saddam didnt possess WMD.

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by goodkurtz, Sep 6, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. You bet he didn't. Bush, Cheney, other neo cons and a lot of anti war people were of the exact same mind on this. Saddam owned NO WMD.

    So at risk to their own health, soldiers were required to take shots that supposedly protected them against 'weapons of mass destruction' that those who sent them to war knew didn't exist.
    Everyday, the prospect of war crimes trials gets a little closer.

  2. I thought we'd already accepted this to be pretty much the case anyway?

    EDIT: I meant I thought we'd already figured that WMD's were not in Iraq, not that War Crimes will be levied against Bush and Co.
  3. You really think so? When was the last time the Septics even bothered to turn up to give evidence at a foreign tribunal (eg a UK inquest), never mind hand one of theirs over for prosecution?

    If one happens, which I really doubt, it will be in absentia and the US will refuse to recognise the validity of the court. It may mean that the individuals concerned cannot leave the US but that doesn't seem to bother most of them, anyway.
  4. Alsacien

    Alsacien LE Moderator

    As repeatedly stated, detailed and validated by Richard Clarke (Senior White House security advisor for 11 years and 3 presidents) at the time - to fall on death ears on both sides of the pond....
  5. Tell us something we didnt know!
  6. :evil: :evil: :evil: W.M.D no way OIL.OIL. OIL. MONEY ,MONEY, MONEY :evil: :evil: :evil:
  7. Not quite the point my man. Usable evidence is now coming to light that G.W. Bush knew there was no WMD in Iraq at the time he was telling us that there was in order to solicit the public's support for an invasion.

    Lying is different from being mistaken.
  8. I just have. Bush/Cheney lied about WMD.
  9. There is historiv precedent for this; both an Arnhem and the Crossing of the Rhine Montgomery ignored rock solid intelligence for the sake of his ego, which cost people their lives. And the difference in 2003 and now is?
  10. Alsacien

    Alsacien LE Moderator

    I think it was a bit more simplistic than we realise. I have read a couple of first hand accounts by senior white house and security people and they seem to share a common conclusion.

    9/11 hurt America deeply - all the strength and power and security felt by all Americans was torn apart when the towers fell. This was replaced by the shock of experiencing conflict on US soil for the first time in living memory. Fear that everyone was vulnerable no matter how powerful the military machine - and most of all, a basic human need to strike back at what hurt you.
    Even if Osama bin Laden had been caught (no-one seems bothered about him any more???), tried and fried, it would not have been enough payback. It was also not possible to blame the Saudi Arabian nation for the actions of their citizens for reasons of oil/politics/call it what you will.
    Nothing less than the destruction of an entire country was going to suffice.
    Clarke describes the discussions on 9/12 when a plan to attack Iraq was rolled out for discussion, his failure to see the relevance and the closing of ranks around Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney despite the facts.

    Perhaps if the US had applied the same committment and vigour to routing out Al Qaeda and Osama et al rather than the ill-concieved Iraq invasion, things would be different now in terms of world terrorism - not to mention the 100% international support this would have generated for the US and the anti-terror ideal.
  11. More ramblings from obscure conspiracy theorist/anti-war/left wing blogs I see good kurtz.
  13. Hmm. No, I don't think war crimes will ever be levied against Bush & Co. Because, although they may well have lied about WMDs, Bush, as CinC, had the right to start the war and also he could argue that it was still worth it to get rid of Saddam.

    War Crimes for Bush & Co? Goodkurtz, you need a reality check, mein freunc! :D
  14. They had already done this in Afghanistan. Iraq was pure Willy Waving.
  15. Alsacien

    Alsacien LE Moderator

    Nobody in the US knew where Afganistan was, so it could not count.

    Iraq on the other hand, had previously been in the news (including maps) in '91, and was known to the proletariat to be run by a "bad man".