On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."
The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.
A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.
You mean President Bush lied? Can't be. Say it ain't so. (LOL)
Funny thing is that the White house continued to perpetrate this same bullshit story for an entire year after knowing very well that it was total bullshit.
Democrat plan #1, aka the "Feingold plan", get the lying sack o'shit out of the White House, then try to fix everthing he's broken in the last 5 years.
I love it - you little libbies look back years to try and find anything so you can point it out on Monday mornings years later - and say, 'see - I told you'.
Much like your intel - and Mikie claiming to know all insights prior to the war that nobody else did..
I love it - you little libbies look back years to try and find anything so you can point it out on Monday mornings years later - and say, 'see - I told you'.
Much like your intel - and Mikie claiming to know all insights prior to the war that nobody else did..
Back in 2004 leading up to the elections, I had accused Bush of many lies for the purpose of selling an unjustified war. Since then, virtually all of those accusations I made ---and then some--- have proved to be dead-on.
Bush is a liar of grand proportions, case closed.
If you want to rake that shit up and rehash it based on what we know now, let's do it. It's gonna make you look as incompetent as Rumsfeld.
That might just be the issue for you Mikie - your definition of history begins each morning - which allows you to not take a stance and then have the ability to always look back and correct your opinions...
God forbid you and the other spineless wonder on here actually have to make a proactive stance regarding any critical issue this country faces - umm, errr, and the same might apply to your entire party...
Hey, maybe like Afghanistan - maybe the democrats will come out with their national security agenda for the Korean War soon...
Much like your intel - and Mikie claiming to know all insights prior to the war that nobody else did..
Alot of people (me included) were calling BS on the whole Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction thing prior to the war. There was no proof and no substantial case for them was ever made. What guys like you did was call everyone who took that position prior to the war unpatriotic and other names. Seems like if you were really a man you'd cowboy up and apologize rather than simply denying that others were right. That would be the Conservative way. Not the Republican way mind you but the Conservative way.
That might just be becaue WMDs were not the sole reason for going after them...
Because no WMDs have been found - that is your simplistic way to turn to appeasement and suggest we should not be there at all...
Well, that there is just one of those head scratchers you come up with there Confrontational.
1. WMD's were the sole reason on which the public was sold on going to war with Iraq. Sure there were more obtuse and self serving reasons which were probably the actual reasons for going but the public would have never agreed with letting out folks go over there and die for any other reason than WMD's.
2. Basically you are saying that everything the elder Bush did (you know, the President Bush that history WILL look upon kindly) including invading Iraq, embargoing Iraq, destroying Iraq's ability to develop WMD's, removing Iraq from Kuwait, establishing "no fly zones", removing Saddam as a threat to his neighbors was "appeasement"? Seems like the only evidence of anything that we found in Iraq was that the policies that the Old Man Bush had put into place were indeed effective and seem to evoke the term "containment" a heck of alot more than "appeasement". But then you'd never know that by getting all of your information from Rush Limbaugh now would you?
__________________
Kowalski: the last American Hero, to whom speed means freedom of the soul.
Petor - obviously 'terrorism' played a huge role in that, not just the word WMD - funny how your selective rationale only heard WMDs in the decade of discussions prior to using force - maybe you were busy...
Also - you're saying the elder Bush invaded Iraq? I must have missed that one...
Maybe Petor you should figure out just how many sanctions there were by the UN on Iraq - and how many Saddam was in violation of... That might just give you a good start for basing an opinion on the topic...
And yet nothing from you regarding the tons that Saddam couldn't account for... He wouldn't even tell us if he destroyed it... But, that obviously doesn't concern you...
__________________
Never murder a man in the process of committing suicide
Petor - obviously 'terrorism' played a huge role in that, not just the word WMD - funny how your selective rationale only heard WMDs in the decade of discussions prior to using force - maybe you were busy...
Also - you're saying the elder Bush invaded Iraq? I must have missed that one...
Maybe Petor you should figure out just how many sanctions there were by the UN on Iraq - and how many Saddam was in violation of... That might just give you a good start for basing an opinion on the topic...
And yet nothing from you regarding the tons that Saddam couldn't account for... He wouldn't even tell us if he destroyed it... But, that obviously doesn't concern you...
1. Fact: Iraq had nothing to do with terrorist attacks on the US, especially 9/11. Perhaps against others but to this day nothing supports Saddam having attacked the US. And just because you heard some Republican talking head saying so on the radio doesn't make it a fact. If Bush sold the idea that Iraq was involved in 9/11 (and I DON'T recall that he did) then that is just more lies on top of lies. WMD's is what sold that war to Americans and nothing else.
2. Fact: Southern Iraq was invaded as part of the First Gulf War.
3. Fact: Sanctions were working against Iraq. It is one of the reasons Saddam was forever trying to get them lifted. It is also responsible in part for Iraq being kind of a Third World country. They were far worse off at the time of the Second Persian Gulf War than the were prior to the First Persian Gulf War. But, hey, why let facts get in the way of a good war, eh?
4. Logic: If you find no weapons and you can't find were any weapons went then I'm for damn sure not going to believe you or your intelligence when you tell me they ever existed. They never did. That's the logical conclusion. For you to simply say Saddam had them but to only offer the proof that our intelligence said so is in retrospect quite foolish. Our intelligence on Iraq has been proven to either have sucked or just been fabricated.
1. Iraq harbored terrorists and several training camps were known - including two camps that housed extensive training regarding hostage taking on used commercial air liners. Several of top ranking officials in Al Queda were also treated in Baghdad after the invasion of Afghanistan.
Nobody said Iraq was responsible for 9/11 - but GWB specifically said, '...people or countries that harbor terrorists or terrorism...'. That, my friend, my the central theme to two of his major addresses - essentially, if you support or harbor terrorism - you're on our shit list...
He also happened to mention his axis of evil - which plays true more and more each day... Can you remind me who he said that was?
2. If Southern Iraq was invaded - well, I'd hate to see you as Commander... The US and UN cried so long and hard about us getting out of there - there were no other options other than to rid them of Kuwait. But, that gives the liberals the perfect battle cry - constantly whining like little kids why we didn't finish him off the first time...
3. Sanctions were not working - whining was getting BILLIONS - and that was just for the Oil for Food debacle... Maybe you'd care to step me through how you feel those so-called sanctions were working - whining seemed to be doing just fine building his palaces... Mabe next time you could threaten him with a mean memo? Suppose you could just sign it really mean - then he probably would have gotten the point...
4. whining used them on his own people. Our second inspections team found logs regarding all the nerve gas and other chemical weapons - yet whining failed to tell the inspectors what he ever did with all of those tons of biological weapons... And to this day - they are still not in compliance of the UN resolution demanding he declare what he did with those chemicals...
Last I checked Jon Stewart was on the Comedy Channel...
That my friend is your brew ha ha for war... Iran will be next with a few strategic strikes to knock them back a couple dozen years...
Let me guess - Iran also does not harbor terrorists nor have any intentions of wiping Israel or the US off the map... Hmmmm, kinda sounds like whining...
1. Iraq harbored terrorists and several training camps were known - including two camps that housed extensive training regarding hostage taking on used commercial air liners. Several of top ranking officials in Al Queda were also treated in Baghdad after the invasion of Afghanistan.
Nobody said Iraq was responsible for 9/11 - but GWB specifically said, '...people or countries that harbor terrorists or terrorism...'. That, my friend, my the central theme to two of his major addresses - essentially, if you support or harbor terrorism - you're on our shit list...
All good and nice but NOT the reason the Government presented us with why we HAD to invade Iraq. That was WMD's. You're obscuring the initial point which is the bill of goods the Government sold us to get support for the invasion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Confrontational
He also happened to mention his axis of evil - which plays true more and more each day... Can you remind me who he said that was?
Yeah, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. I notice that apparently terrorism, terrorists, al Queda, or Osama Bin Laden were not part of his axis of evil. Now all of a sudden it's "The War Against Terrorism". My guess is that Bush was looking under all the wrong rocks when he made that now famous speech. And since then invading the wrong countries. But unfortunately he may have shot his military wad in an inconsequential spot while allowing the bigger and mor dangerous fish slip away. Do you understand why the average unbiased observer of politics considers him to be an awful president?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Confrontational
2. If Southern Iraq was invaded - well, I'd hate to see you as Commander... The US and UN cried so long and hard about us getting out of there - there were no other options other than to rid them of Kuwait. But, that gives the liberals the perfect battle cry - constantly whining like little kids why we didn't finish him off the first time...
I've read this a few times and I'm still not sure what your point is. Suffice it to say I haven't been elected to be a commander so whether you'd hate to see me as one is a specious point. I'm not sure about Liberals and their battle cry but certainly before the war there was plenty of speculation that removing Saddam might create a power vacuum that would destabilize Iraq and lead to partisan war and unrest and might even embolden Iran by removing their major local enemy. That all seems to have been proven true. The elder Bush apparently had the forsight to avoid this scenario.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Confrontational
3. Sanctions were not working - whining was getting BILLIONS - and that was just for the Oil for Food debacle... Maybe you'd care to step me through how you feel those so-called sanctions were working - whining seemed to be doing just fine building his palaces... Mabe next time you could threaten him with a mean memo? Suppose you could just sign it really mean - then he probably would have gotten the point...
Do some hunting around and use the wikipedia as a springboard to read many different sources on the subject. You'll see that both the pre-war consensus and the post war findings of the state of Iraq as a nation would indicate that you are simply parroting some well known conservative radio talk show host.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Confrontational
4. whining used them on his own people. Our second inspections team found logs regarding all the nerve gas and other chemical weapons - yet whining failed to tell the inspectors what he ever did with all of those tons of biological weapons... And to this day - they are still not in compliance of the UN resolution demanding he declare what he did with those chemicals...
If he ever had them. The guy's been playing Bush all along and basically lied about WMD's to suck Bush into a military mess of epic proportions. My guess is that making decisions based on "logs" indicates that our intelligence was subpar and our intelligence agencies failed as did Bush by relying in mischief presented as fact by a known troublemaker and shit- stirrer of epic proportions (Saddam). Whatever became of "those chemicals" be they destroyed, used up, or never existed (at least in any significant amounts) they weren't in Iraq and to get back on topic at the end here could not and did not justify an invasion of Iraq based on their existence. Again, right where we started: the invasion of Iraq based on the existence of WMD's could not and cannot be supported.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Confrontational
That my friend is your brew ha ha for war... Iran will be next with a few strategic strikes to knock them back a couple dozen years...
Or is it "brou-ha-ha"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Confrontational
Let me guess - Iran also does not harbor terrorists nor have any intentions of wiping Israel or the US off the map... Hmmmm, kinda sounds like whining...
Ultimately the historians will ask "Why Iraq; why not Iran the obviously dangerous country in the region?" And ultimately George W. Bush's tenure as president will be judged as a failure because he made all the wrong decisions. Obviously Iran is a problem. But again somehow you manage to take the important issue off track. It's not harboring terrorists that makes Iran dangerous (that just makes it like at least twenty other countries including the Saudis and Egypt that we are friends with) but the fact that Iran is on track to develop a nuclear weapon. Don't let the Conservative talk show hosts befuddle you with their constant droning on about terrorists; we'd have to be at war with 1/4 of the world includind some of our allies to actually fight all the terrorists. No, the real issue here is the potential for one country to bring terrorism to a new level. And THAT is what NEEDS to be dealt with. Let's see if Bush takes care of this one or just leaves it for President Clinton II to deal with (probably another error).
