Study-War of Diversion;Iraq, We knew theirs was deception- but just not how much. Options

[Hellfighter]

Here's an intro to probably the most definitive study that combs through just how badly the admin steered the masses into going to War in Iraq with no foundation whatsoever.... as in no immediate or direct threat.
It appears I'm rehashing the obvious, but I'm surprised at the extent of the deception when its assessed in totality.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22794451/


This post has been edited by Hellfighter: 01/23/08 3:22pm

[Robert]

Don't you get tired posting the same rhetoric?
You could at least try an put a little rhythm to it so it won't sound like the same old song an dance.

935 lies.....
I've never been impressed by anyone playing Monday morning quarterback.
Sure go ahead an look right past the fact every single one of those so called"935 lies" were legitimately based on the intel available at the time.


"Bush was hell bent on getting Saddam and nation building"
Maybe you should do a search for the 1998 liberation act.
Were Congress and Clinton signed into law a policy to overthrow Saddam, then try an put a democracy in place.
" It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."
Only difference here is Bush did something about it.


The CIA were mystified why Bush would take their inconclusive reports and make them seem fact in his UN speech. He deliberately upped the ante. He lied to make his pitch knowingly.
Wow, that's a new one to me.
So I guess you did come up with a new one.
Guess you missed the 101 news stories about how the head of the CIA when asked how reliable the inte was he replied "It's a Slam Dunk"

It's nothing but disingenuous claptrap to imply Bush was the only one who was saying Iraq had WMD's. If so, then here's a question.
If according to you, everyone else knew there wasn't or had doubts.
Then why did the majority of the U.N. members on multiple occasions over 12 years vote to continue the very strict economic sanctions?
Those economic sanctions didn't really hurt Saddam as he was making his billions of the Oil for Food kickbacks. The only effect the sanctions had were they devastated the country any it's civilian population.
That point right there is why the U.N. is a complete waste and why I would like nothing more than see the U.S. completely pull out of it.
The U.N. is a paper tiger that has done very little good in the world.
Economic sanctions would probably have the desired effect if used on a democratic nation.
If they government was doing something so bad it resulted in economic sanctions, then the government would be voted out. The problem is and what the U.N. didn't figure out after 12 years of messing around with Iraq is economic sanction don't mean jack when you're dealing with a ruthless dictatorships.

The idea of a permanent security council is a joke, it doesn't reflect the reality of today's world.
The USA pays for 22% of the U.N..'s regular budget, that's more than the other 4 permanent council members put together.
Even Canada puts in more money than Russia or Germany.


You can go on making this be about Bush and his personal war.
The real truth of the matter is ( right or wrong, that's a different argument )
Prior to 9-11, the world and the USA were content with only confining Saddam.
After 9-11, the USA was shocked into action based on fears of WMD's in Iraq being used against us in another attack.
You can argue all day about how misplaced or wrong that fear was at the time but doing so after the fact on information that wasn't available at the time is just as pointless as Monday morning quarterbacking.