The Iraq war was started by greed, and connections.

"First of all,a few years ago Bush admitted that his administration had no evidence that Saddam Hussien had any connection to Al Queda." There are a number of issues with this particular statement. #1. You have provided no evidence from a reputable news source that George W. Bush said there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al-Qaida. #2. For that matter, you have not provided proof that George W. Bush said there was indeed evidence of ties between the two parties. #3. You want to prove he lied correct? If you are able to accomplish the above tasks then there's another obstacle. George W. Bush could have believed there was evidence of an Al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein connection. What's possible after that is he came to the conclusion that the evidence was faulty, and admitted to the public that there is no evidence. You must eliminate the possibility that he was mistaken to sufficiently prove that he deliberately mislead the people. You have dug your own grave. It is almost impossible to prove that someone lied. You could make the argument that this mishap makes the war unjustified. Yet this is not what you contended and by succumbing to it you would be forfeiting this debate. If you cannot prove that George W. Bush lied then your argument that it was started over greed is hopeless. Your other premise about connections is equally a losing battle because it relies on mere associations rather than evidence of conspiracy. You could have made a compelling case about whether the war was justified or not like I said. You chose instead to start a debate with flimsy speculations and this will be your downfall. "In terms of the nukes, the evidence the Bush administration had about them was in a fake letter, called "the yellow letter." We now know it is fake because it had lots of false names and dates. The Bush admiatstration could have spent a few minutes on Google to check it's legitamacy, and find out all the evidence was false." What's best out of all of this is even if you were right it does not prove greed. What it does is demonstrate an incompetent man at the most. I could not find "the yellow letter" on Google. I also find it distressing that you have completely missed the ball park on George W. Bush's arguments. For this debate let us focus on the arguments he gave in his declaration of war. That would make sense right? These arguments can be found in his State of the Union 2003 address. http://www.whitehouse.gov... You'll have to skim to the second half to reach his arguments. George W. Bush's primary argument about WMD was that Saddam Hussein did not comply with ceasefire resolutions which is an act of war. It was up to Saddam Hussein to prove that he destroyed his WMD which we knew he had after the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein voluntarily agreed to this condition in the terms of his surrender. For his failure to hold up his end it means the ceasefire has been broken. This is without a doubt an act of war. It was never up to the United States to prove that Saddam Hussein still harbored WMD. The ball was in the court of Saddam Hussein because he had to be the one to demonstrate that he got rid of his WMD by the terms of surrender. You'll notice the arguments of George W. Bush are often distorted because people would rather listen to his sound bites or outright lies about him than listen to his speeches. Wouldn't you agree this is sad? The man has ruined our country and there are people that are purposely lying about him as if telling the rest of us that he is an innocent man. Nobody has to lie to make him look like a bad guy. He makes himself a bad guy. I would like to remind the audience that I am defending logic by taking up this debate and not George W. Bush. I noticed your profile says you're in support of John Edwards. Was he a liar too when it came to WMD? http://en.wikipedia.org... "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades Saddam has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons." - John Edwards, October 10, 2002 "He's [Hussein] not disarmed, the evidence is overwhelming." -- February 6, 2003 on Hardball with Chris Matthews From the same link can we also say that Al Gore, Edward Kennedy, John F. Kerry, Hillary Clinton and many others of the Democratic leadership were liars as well? "I appologizethat in round 1 my arguements weren't crystal clear. Here is my abrieviated logic: 1. The Bush administration lied to us about Iraq, so they must have had there own reasons to start the Iraq War.(proven). Reasons: 1. Vice President Cheney has lots of stocks in a company that makes weapons for wars,Haliburton, got richer because of this war. Cheney is one of themost powerfull Vice Presidents in U.S. history, and very pro war. This is why Cheney was a big factor in the starting of the Iraq War. His getting richer off of Haliburton stocks would have been an obviose factor in his position. 2. One of the reasons that Hussein was a threat to Bush's self interests was his greed for Oil Bush who has money and connections in big oil, wanted his share of the oil in Iraq." Correlation does not imply causation. For example: Premise #1: Bill has Wal-mart stock. Premise #2: Bill shops at Wal-mart. Fallacious conclusion: Therefore, Bill shops at Wal-mart because he has Wal-mart stock. This is an error in reasoning because Bill could be shopping at Wal-mart for no other reason than its low prices regardless of the stock invested. You are jumping to conclusions just like this.