The Truth About the “Lies”
I’ve been fighting to get the truth out to the public about as long as I’ve been back from Iraq. I’ve tired greatly from the “Bush Lied, People Died” crap that seems to have taken a chokehold on the anti-war mantra! The problem is that Bush didn’t lie about anything and definitely didn’t kill Soldiers. Those Soldiers were killed by terrorists, insurgents, and the Iraqi Army under Saddam Hussein.
Randall Hoven has a great article on the American Thinker called Who Lied About Iraq? He dispels a lot of the myths that I’ve been combatting for a few years myself. It’s good to know that I’m in good company. So, in the spirit of Obama’s “Fight The Smears” website, I offer you Hoven’s words:
The False Story
“The United States invaded Iraq based on false premises. The administration orchestrated a public relations drive to prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and connections to the 9/11 terrorists – both proved false.” USA Today
While these two sentences came from USA Today, they describe the words behind the music of the “Bush lied, people died” meme echoing throughout the media chambers since at least 2004. The lies in just these two sentences are almost Shakespearian in their layered texture. The statement even lays out a false premise in accusing the Bush administration of using false premises. If lying is an art, our media have mastered it.
The Premise
Our invasion of Iraq was not based on a public relations drive; it was based on Public Law 107-243, otherwise known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq, passed by the 107th Congress in October of 2002 . (Herein referred to as the “Authorization”.) It passed the House with a vote of 296 to 133 (by 69%) and the Senate with a vote of 77 to 23 (by 77%), including 58% of Senate Democrats. In short, it was overwhelming; it was bipartisan; and it was law.
Did the Authorization try to “prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction”? Was that proved false?
No and no.
Did the Authorization try to “prove that Iraq had connections to the 911 terrorists”? Was that proved false?
Again, no and no.
What are some of those “other things” that made Iraq in “materiel and unacceptable breach of its international obligations”?
* Iraq agreed to a cease-fire when it surrendered in Desert Storm in 1991. It was in “direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire.”
* Iraq agreed to eliminate its WMD programs in 1991. It was later caught continuing those programs, concealing them and thwarting weapons inspectors to the point of kicking them out of the country.
* Iraq agreed to “end its support for international terrorism” in 1991. It continued to “aid and harbor” international terrorist organizations, including those “that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens.”
* Iraq “engaged in brutal repression of its civilian population.”
* Iraq refused “to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman.”
* Iraq failed “to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait.”
* Iraq attempted “to assassinate former President Bush.”
* Iraq fired “on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.”
* Iraq persisted in violating multiple United Nations resolutions. Congress authorized the President “to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 674, and 677.”If Saddam’s Iraq was not an “outlaw regime,” then there is no such thing.
I’ve only provided some excerpts here, so you’ll have to read his article to get the whole story. I guarantee you’ll be educated.
wordsmith
August 24th, 2008 at 10:43 pmCJ,
Those who have been out of political power- the Democrats- have lied about the war (re: Rockefeller and the final phase II Senate Select Committee on Intell Report). The Iraqi Perspectives Project examining Harmony Database documents confirms Saddam’s ties to the al-Qaeda network and affiliates- ties that were understated, not overstated, by the Administration. President Bush never said Saddam helped to orchestrate 9/11. Yet we constantly here the strawman, “Saddam didn’t have anything to do with 9/11″ and complaints about Bush mentioning 9/11 in speeches, juxtapositioned with statements on Iraq. Bush-haters have never understood the overall war, which was about more than simply going after a single terrorist organization.
DougS
August 25th, 2008 at 4:15 pmNow where would anyone get that impression?
“I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. ”
“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.”
“..there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”
“Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
“We know he’s been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”
“We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in.”
“The Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons.”
“We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases”
“We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. ”
“We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they’re weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established.”
“We know where [Iraq's WMD] are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat.”
DougS
August 27th, 2008 at 5:10 pmHuh?
Sioux
April 14th, 2009 at 3:00 pmI *was* going to use VA Mortgage Center to buy my home, but after seeing what kind of rubbish they are supporting and helping to publish, such as this article, I have completely changed my mind and will be searching elsewhere.
You Served Editorial Staff
April 17th, 2009 at 10:03 amSioux, the views and commentary of both our radio show and blog here on You Served do not reflect those of VAMC or other supporters of this space. We explicitly state that. It would be a shame to choose to avoid the services of VAMC’s employees because of comments by writers and users of You Served. Their financial support is geared towards promoting a space for military individuals to communicate, band together, support charities, and the like. That is all.
CJ
May 3rd, 2009 at 12:57 amSioux, nice try. I don’t buy for once you even considered VA Mortgage Center. And if it’s the truth that keeps you away from saving a LOT of money and time navigating the process, you live a sorry life.
As the editorial staff noted, I do not represent the company. I’m just one of many military bloggers here.
To the VAMC staff, Sioux is probably not even qualified for a VA loan to begin with.
Kevin Oertel
August 27th, 2009 at 1:14 pmRegarding Sioux. I didn’t know VA Mortgage supported various causes. What I do know is they totally botched on my VA Home Loan. I ended up getting an FHA loan, within 72 hours and at a lower interest rate, from another company after VA Mortgage dicked around with my files for over a month. Then decided, based on a personal bias by Brandon Severino, not to approve my loan because they didn’t want to be liable for a $250k home sale.
Well I’ve been in my home now for over a year and each bill has been paid on time and with additional funds to the principle.
VA Mortgage DOES NOT always serve those that have served their country. They do however show a bias based on personal ethics rather than true business ethics.
I wouldn’t recommend them to anyone.
Mileaway,Calif.
September 29th, 2009 at 8:45 pmI sure would like to read a response to Mr.Oertels story from an executive member at VA Mortgage.
I have been checking out VA Morgage/MRC on the web as a possible lender for my IRRRL.
I have found some complaints even in the BBB site(of course they aren’t a reliable source but..)regarding much the same type of complaint of poor customer service and “agent attitude”, even though the company tried to resolve them, it concerns me.
However,I have always found their site to be a good source of information.
Thanks to ALL that served!
Mileaway,Calif.
September 30th, 2009 at 7:15 amre: Mileaway
Other than what I’ve mentioned above I can’t find any complaints against VA Mortgage or MRC.
I’m not crazy about their Privacy Policy though. It seems lax in protecting our info.
I’m going to do the prelim application for a IRRRL. I’ll post the results. May as well take them to task and see if they hold up,crap out or sell my info to every spammer/hacker out there.
Thanks to ALL that serve!
Karl Beeman
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:29 pmMr. Kevin Ventrillo was instrumental in walking my wife and I through the entire process, explaining every detail and answering every question we could possibly have regarding new home ownership. As a member of the military, my family has moved all around the country and has rented for the past 18 years. Our dream of home ownership had been just that…always a dream. Mr. Kevin Ventrillo took a personal approach and worked tirelessly to help us purchase the perfect home.
Karl
Santa Rosa, CA