"Bush's War".. This is a DEMOCRATS WAR.. get a clue.

[SDMuscleBuddy]

Even Blix said there was huge amounts of stuff unaccounted for. Once again, though, that was NOT needed. Why does everybody skip around the fact that Saddam failed to comply? Oh, I know...It's justification.

I'm still waiting for you to tell us why we haven't invaded Israel.

[HoosierBoy]

Mind boggling.

Scooter Libby
The Downing Street Memo
Colin Powell's UN address
PNAC

These things don't remove any reasonable doubt that GW deliberately misled?

You're hopeless.

Again, why couldn't Bush fabricate intelligence that would confirm the existence of WMDs in Iraq?

[AntiGlobalist]

Even Blix said there was huge amounts of stuff unaccounted for. Once again, though, that was NOT needed. Why does everybody skip around the fact that Saddam failed to comply? Oh, I know...It's justification.

Well it's an issue of foreign policy.

If you think it's right to go around using military power to get your way... then I suppose you think we were justified.

If you are of the camp that believes military power should only be used defensively, then the war in Iraq was most definitely not justified.

[SDMuscleBuddy]

Again, why couldn't Bush fabricate intelligence that would confirm the existence of WMDs in Iraq?

You tell me. I don't see a need for it. He sold us the war. We're in the middle of it. No need for more bull**** to keep us there.

BTW Large fonts don't make your posts smarter.

[bassing68]

I'm still waiting for you to tell us why we haven't invaded Israel.

You just kicked a field goal in the second inning.

[SDMuscleBuddy]

You just kicked a field goal in the second inning.

Excuse me? You're the one who wanted to kick it down by a stroke late in the third period. If compliance with UN resolutions is so important, be consistent.

[AntiGlobalist]

Again, why couldn't Bush fabricate intelligence that would confirm the existence of WMDs in Iraq?[/size]

Read my post on the second page. Your question, while it may seem relevant, is a strawman.

The evidence was only needed to get us into war. And they fabricated plenty of that. Once we'd invaded we had no need for the pretense of WMDs.

Here's an analogy for your argument.

Say a man is wrongfully accused of a murder. Using lies and false-testimony he is convicted. Now in this judicial system once you are convicted that conviction cannot be overturned. Now why would the accusers need to make up more evidence after their agenda has already been met? We're in Iraq. It's obvious that the lies which took us there being exposed aren't getting us out. In effect that evidence only mattered pre-invasion.

Now we have all this other bull**** for staying there. If we leave the turrists win. If we leave the Iraqi's kill each other. If we leave Iran wins. Bla bla bla.

[HoosierBoy]

You tell me. I don't see a need for it. He sold us the war. We're in the middle of it. No need for more bull**** to keep us there.

BTW Large fonts don't make your posts smarter.

As they couldn't make your "answer" any more logical.

If Bush could have fabricated intelligence to get us into the War, he would have been smart to fabricate intelligence to provide legitimacy for it as well.

Read my post on the second page. Your question, while it may seem relevant, is a strawman.

The evidence was only needed to get us into war. And they fabricated plenty of that. Once we'd invaded we had no need for the pretense of WMDs.

Here's an analogy for your argument.

Say a man is wrongfully accused of a murder. Using lies and false-testimony he is convicted. Now in this judicial system once you are convicted that conviction cannot be overturned. Now why would the accusers need to make up more evidence after their agenda has already been met? We're in Iraq. It's obvious that the lies which took us there being exposed aren't getting us out. In effect that evidence only mattered pre-invasion.

Now we have all this other bull**** for staying there. If we leave the turrists win. If we leave the Iraqi's kill each other. If we leave Iran wins. Bla bla bla.

Um... convictions are overturned all the time and many times must be proven again with new evidence. Nice analogy Dave man.

Bush's approval rating is in the toilet, his party is in the toilet, we've been made into an international joke.

Imagine if we HAD found WMDs in Iraq. Nobody in America, or anywhere else in the world, would be disputing our actions. Bush would have a blank check from Congress (which would still be Republican-controlled) to do whatever he wanted.

[AntiGlobalist]

As they couldn't make your "answer" any more logical.

If Bush could have fabricated intelligence to get us into the War, he would have been smart to fabricate intelligence to provide legitimacy for it as well.

Respond to those please! The old "I'll ignore the posts that I don't like" tactic is not going to work with me.

Why does he need to?

Did we or did we not invade Iraq?

Are we or are we not still occupying it today?

Do we have an exit strategy within the foreseeable future?

Obviously Bush's agenda has been met. He didn't NEED to have reports of WMDs after we were already in Iraq. All that would have saved him was some political face. So why spend the time trying to manufacture evidence that's not there, with the risk of being caught manufacturing evidence when your plan has already succeeded?

It's one thing to look like an incompetent fool and a liar. It's another to be caught manufacturing false evidence, although I suppose you could argue that the evidence they showed for invading Iraq in the months leading up to the war was fabricated evidence. But it is in my mind a big leap from claiming that Iraq had WMDs to actively manufacturing false evidence after the fact to try to prove that you were right.

Read my post on the second page. Your question, while it may seem relevant, is a strawman.

The evidence was only needed to get us into war. And they fabricated plenty of that. Once we'd invaded we had no need for the pretense of WMDs.

Here's an analogy for your argument.

Say a man is wrongfully accused of a murder. Using lies and false-testimony he is convicted. Now in this judicial system once you are convicted that conviction cannot be overturned. Now why would the accusers need to make up more evidence after their agenda has already been met? We're in Iraq. It's obvious that the lies which took us there being exposed aren't getting us out. In effect that evidence only mattered pre-invasion.

Now we have all this other bull**** for staying there. If we leave the turrists win. If we leave the Iraqi's kill each other. If we leave Iran wins. Bla bla bla.

[HoosierBoy]

Respond to those please! The old "I'll ignore the posts that I don't like" tactic is not going to work with me.

Ignore posts? WTF are you talking about?

As I said, by fabricating evidence that WMDs were found in Iraq, Bush is a hero instead of a joke.

If we had found WMDs in Iraq based on intelligence manufactured by this administration, I'll guarantee you that Congress would have already passed an AUMF bill for Iran.

[SDMuscleBuddy]

As they couldn't make your "answer" any more logical.

If Bush could have fabricated intelligence to get us into the War, he would have been smart to fabricate intelligence to provide legitimacy for it as well.

I don't see your logic. You're saying that if A is not equal to B, then -A must equal -B. It doesn't follow.

[nutsy54]

So... we have the right to go invade anyone who doesn't obey our rules?

They weren't "our" rules!

SADDAM invaded another country
SADDAM started a war
SADDAM got his ass kicked on the battlefield
SADDAM signed a cease-fire to save himself
SADDAM repeatedly violated that cease-fire by, among other things, repeatedly firing missiles at our patrol aircraft that HE had agreed to allow as part of that cease-fire

[nutsy54]

If you are of the camp that believes military power should only be used defensively, then the war in Iraq was most definitely not justified.

The concept and justification for the pre-emptive use of Offensive military force was very clearly laid out after 3,000 Americans were murdered in late 2001.

[ElMariachi]

Vietnam was started under a Democrat. You fail as usual.

Catmando is making an even bigger ass of himself than usual.

[HoosierBoy]

I don't see your logic. You're saying that if A is not equal to B, then -A must equal -B. It doesn't follow.

Huh?

This isn't a hard concept.

If Bush lied to get us into Iraq by creating false intelligence, he damn sure would have lied to preserve his reputation.

[SDMuscleBuddy]

Huh?

This isn't a hard concept.

If Bush lied to get us into Iraq by creating false intelligence, he damn sure would have lied to preserve his reputation.

Why? He got what he wanted. A profitable war. He and his cronies will make billions. Just like his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. What does he care about "reputation"? I guess his reputation as a Bush war-profiteer is intact any way you look at it.

[ElMariachi]

Mind boggling.

Scooter Libby

Libby was the victim of a political witchhunt........even the special prosecutor agreed that his crime had NOTHING to do with the investigation and they were well aware that Armitage was the source of the leak.

The Downing Street Memo

Of which the original copy was never made available.

Colin Powell's UN address

Intelligence services around the world agreed that Hussein had, or had the capacity to produce chemical weapons.

PNAC

Oh give me a break with this PNAC BS, this is the typical liberal response to everything.

These things don't remove any reasonable doubt that GW deliberately misled?

Nope.

You're hopeless.

Take a look in the mirror.

[ElMariachi]

Why? He got what he wanted. A profitable war. He and his cronies will make billions. Just like his father, grandfather, and great-grandfather. What does he care about "reputation"? I guess his reputation as a Bush war-profiteer is intact any way you look at it.

Just like Clinton and his cronies made a fortune off of Kosovo? Yes...see how illogical you sound?????

[HELIX35]

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002 [How did Bush get the intel community to LIE back in 98? anyone? a little help here?]

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

These people and many more were liars as well right? and a lot more Democrats, or, obviously JUST BUSH? feel free to tell me what I have missed here..

I'm still curious to know how Bush lied to us before he was president.

Anybody?

[SDMuscleBuddy]

Just like Clinton and his cronies made a fortune off of Kosovo? Yes...see how illogical you sound?????

How did I get associated with Clinton all of a sudden? Don't change the subject.

[user23960508710783]

Proof that that is a "fact"? Proof that he wasn't simply mistaken? Proof that Iraq didn't sell or destroy WMDs prior to our invasion?

If Bush was capable of using deception and falsified intelligence to convince Congress to go to war, I certainly think he would have been capable of creating false intelligence confirming the existence of WMDs in Iraq.

No, because if he had lied about WMDs while we were in Iraq, his bull**** would have been disproven right away.

Plus, lying about that would require military people to lie along with him. Not everyone is that dishonest.

Proof that they didn't have WMDs? We never found any.

Proof that he wasn't simply mistaken? Do you really want to believe someone could be that stupid?

Proof that he lied? The words that came out of his mouth had nothing to do with the reality that he was fully aware of.

Turn off the Fox News.

[ElMariachi]

How did I get associated with Clinton all of a sudden? Don't change the subject.

You're saying that because Bush went into Iraq, he must obviously be profiting from it somehow, even though there is absolutely no credible evidence of this. Just by saying something doesn't make it true. These discussions would be a lot more fruitful if people stuck to the facts. I'm not even a Bush supporter but the nonsense people say about him is mind-boggling.

Bottom line, this war is not Bush's fault, this is America's fault, if you really want to get down to the nitty/gritty of it.


In all seriousness, I recommend the following as a great read.

http://www.trademe.co.nz/Books/Magaz...-136958879.htm


If you can find this issue of Foreign Policy in a library somewhere, I HIGHLY recommend it, as it presents a very unbiased and detailed view into the past few decades and the policies that led into the US getting into Iraq. These policies were originally kicked off by Kennedy and LBJ and intensified over the years.


As a matter of fact, check out the current issue as well, it has a good story on Islam being the scapegoat for so many problems. Foreign Policy is my favorite magazine, as it presents the least biased view of any major publication that I've seen.

[user23960508710783]

Read history or you STFU. Once again we did not need WMD to invade. Saddam not complying with the cease fire for 12 years was justification enough. Everyone keeps mentioning WMD or 9/11. The failure to comply really was enough.

He DID need to have WMDs for us to invade because that is what we were told. We were told we had to invade, right now, because they had WMDs and were getting ready to use them against us. That is the rationale he submitted to Congress for the authorization to go to war. That is what he told the American people.

The failure to comply was NOT enough. It was NOT the reason Congress gave him permission to invade.

Now, STFU and GTFO.

[ElMariachi]

No, because if he had lied about WMDs while we were in Iraq, his bull**** would have been disproven right away.

Plus, lying about that would require military people to lie along with him. Not everyone is that dishonest.

Proof that they didn't have WMDs? We never found any.

Not quite accurate. The media likes to parrot the line, but its pretty much a technicality. Hussein had tons of organophosphates, operational mobile weapons labs, brand new French equipment, including high-tech incubators and a variety of other things that could build up an entire weapons program in a very short amount of time.

I don't know what happened with his WMD's, whether he was really bluffing the whole time, or whether he dumped them off on the Syrians, but there is no question that he could have had a fully functional weapons program within 2-3 months if sanctions had been lifted.

This isn't 3rd hand reading either, this is my first-hand experience as a chem/bio weapons specialist in the Army. The stuff we ran across was hardly in mothballs. I was really shocked at HOW MUCH new s%^t there was from France. Not just the lab stuff, but missiles/bombs, guidance systems....all dated from around 2000, 2001 and 2002.


I spent days doing an inventory of an Iraqi Air Force Ammo Supply Point and the vast majority of the stuff was French, and recent, as produced in the previous decade. I even collected a whole bunch of records from an Iraqi factory that mentioned weapons transactions involving France but they got taken away from me.

[hobbes1651]

Bull****. If it was we would have won it already. Every war started under a Democratic administration was won. Republicans talk tough but they run and hide behind their momma's skirts at the first sign of trouble.

Takes a Democrat to win a war.

jesus catmando do you remember vietnam, korea was not won it ended in stalemate...........

[AntiGlobalist]

You're saying that because Bush went into Iraq, he must obviously be profiting from it somehow, even though there is absolutely no credible evidence of this. Just by saying something doesn't make it true. These discussions would be a lot more fruitful if people stuck to the facts. I'm not even a Bush supporter but the nonsense people say about him is mind-boggling.

Bottom line, this war is not Bush's fault, this is America's fault, if you really want to get down to the nitty/gritty of it.


In all seriousness, I recommend the following as a great read.

http://www.trademe.co.nz/Books/Magaz...-136958879.htm


If you can find this issue of Foreign Policy in a library somewhere, I HIGHLY recommend it, as it presents a very unbiased and detailed view into the past few decades and the policies that led into the US getting into Iraq. These policies were originally kicked off by Kennedy and LBJ and intensified over the years.


As a matter of fact, check out the current issue as well, it has a good story on Islam being the scapegoat for so many problems. Foreign Policy is my favorite magazine, as it presents the least biased view of any major publication that I've seen.

Now I agree that this isn't "Bush's war" per-se. It is a war instigated by the military-industrialists and other powerful(and corrupt) people behind the scenes. Bush and his administration were just puppets.

However to say that Bush and his cronies are not profiting is false.

Like I've said again and again, these military-industrialists are making a killing off this war! Where do you think that $2 billion a week goes to?

Then look at what companies have been given control of Iraq's oil fields.

[HoosierBoy]

No, because if he had lied about WMDs while we were in Iraq, his bull**** would have been disproven right away.

Plus, lying about that would require military people to lie along with him. Not everyone is that dishonest.He could have found people, either military or independent, to back up his claims.

Proof that they didn't have WMDs? We never found any.[/b]That's not proof. If you go into an empty house, is that proof that there was never furniture in it?[/b]

Proof that he wasn't simply mistaken? Do you really want to believe someone could be that stupid?See HELIX35's post above.

Proof that he lied? The words that came out of his mouth had nothing to do with the reality that he was fully aware of.That's a statement of your opinion. That is not proof.

Turn off the Fox News.

Only if you turn off the CNN.

[user23960508710783]

Not quite accurate. The media likes to parrot the line, but its pretty much a technicality. Hussein had tons of organophosphates, operational mobile weapons labs, brand new French equipment, including high-tech incubators and a variety of other things that could build up an entire weapons program in a very short amount of time.

I don't know what happened with his WMD's, whether he was really bluffing the whole time, or whether he dumped them off on the Syrians, but there is no question that he could have had a fully functional weapons program within 2-3 months if sanctions had been lifted.

This isn't 3rd hand reading either, this is my first-hand experience as a chem/bio weapons specialist in the Army. The stuff we ran across was hardly in mothballs. I was really shocked at HOW MUCH new s%^t there was from France. Not just the lab stuff, but missiles/bombs, guidance systems....all dated from around 2000, 2001 and 2002.

Yeah, ok.

Maybe you should run and tell the 9/11 Commission this because you seem to be the only person in the entire world who managed to find WMDs.

Please stop telling that lie.

[user23960508710783]

Only if you turn off the CNN.

How can you be so blind? This is so ridiculous. You really believe that all of this was an honest mistake???? After EVERYTHING that has been proven over and over and over again?

How many times does it need to be shown that he lied for you to get a clue?

[ElMariachi]

Yeah, ok.

Maybe you should run and tell the 9/11 Commission this because you seem to be the only person in the entire world who managed to find WMDs.

Please stop telling that lie.

Actually, several units came across these same things. This is common knowledge. That Saddam had this equipment, that it was relatively new/functional, and he definitely had the scientific know-how. The Senate commision did not deny this, the 9/11 Commission did not deny this if you read the report, and this is backed up from statement after statement from various military chemical experts including Task Force 20.


The general of the US Army Chemical Corps brought this information forward and was more or less ignored by several folks on top who simply didn't want to hear what he had to say. People wanted to find huge stashes of VX and Sarin, they didn't care that Hussein had tons of organophosphates that are the absolute precursors to those very agents.