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/

It is worth going over again. There are still many people that think Iraq had WMD or ties to Al Queda or any number of bullshit stories that were told to sell this mess. My personal favorite is "we have to fight them there so they dont attack us here." Bush and company lied and at least 6000 of Americas best paid the price for it.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source http://web.archive.org/web/20040204225854/..._2003_0123.html

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source http://web.archive.org/web/20040206224935/..._2002_1009.html

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/...tical.analysis/

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/01/iraq/

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq172.htm

"[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."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/17/wh.critics/

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source http://www.house.gov/pelosi/priraq1.htm

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...text092302.html

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit...text092302.html

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source http://kennedy.senate.gov/newsroom/stateme...c2-a840e5150b85

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source http://bar-nettwork-strategies.us/F.B.Name...d.Iraq.War.html

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/20...tmt0102002.html

"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 ... 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."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DL12Ak02.html

'He said, she said' quotes seem irrelevant to me -do you think I'll argue with you if ANY politician makes lying and/or baseless statements... be they dems/repubs/ or Canadian- I'll call them all liars or ignorant.
So if the purpose of that post is a 'yeah, well look at what these dems said' kinda thing, the shot missed its mark and all I'll say is it's kind of funny that you seem to easily forget where I stand on things after I repeat them in threads several times.
You have the opinion- correct me if I'm mistaken- that I'm chummy with Dem politicians and my thoughts are in a 'train of thought'. Once again, my views are my own - I'm not here to cheer " yay-yay go Dems" or go along with a biased train of thought.
Its like me putting up quotes from Pat Buchanan or Ron Paul about this war being a big mistake from the start... but that has nothing to do with the topic of the thread regarding Bush deliberately lying and scheming for this war.... a war he carried out as opposed to your mentioned characters who blabbed alot of rhetoric.
I mentioned recently how I was put off by Hillary several months ago voting yet again to give Bush thumbs up on a pre-emptive invasion of Iran based on no evidence of a wmd program going on there - an exact mirror image of a situation that she's screaching in her campaign about saying she believed the war was wrong after the war started in spite of her vote for it.

My question is simple - where amongst all of these characters speeches you've linked were points of fact and proof regarding wmds in sadam's current possession. Your post makes my point about people being deceived by politicians with ulterior motives and no firm proof in spite of how passionately they try to state their self-deluded cases.
Facts... it's all about facts - no more costly 'boogeyman wars'.

Right on Vinny...

HF,

Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, Madeline Albright, Nancy Pelosi all began the Lies before Bush ever got to DC. And continued to do so several years later, and yet Bush is solely resposible for "steering the country into war"?!?! That's bullshit and you know it. The evidence speaks for itself.

Your honour, I rest my case.
You acknowledge Bush lied.

Anyway Mr.Rocket I liked your quotes but these characters made no decision to go to war nor actively pursued rushing the nation into a falsified claimed reason for war. Somehow you want to claim these Dems were in on Cheney's neo-con scheme -> Bush and his cronies are guilty as charged.

ps. Your sig looks nice but it's width needs to be chopped by 200 pixels, it -and your posts- are now shooting off my page edge

Everyone talks about what a dummy Bush is but apparently he is genius.
1) He was able to pull off secretly manipulating over a dozen intelligence agencies without leaving a single piece of evidence.
2) Was able to manipulate intelligence agencies of several other countries.
3) 2 years before even becoming president he was able to force the then current president and several members of congress especially those who sat on the intelligence sub-committees to begin laying the ground work for a case of WMD's in IRAQ.
4) Also while only the governor of Texas, was secretly in control of IRAQ to the point that Saddam would never fully allow the inspectors access.
5) Able to make 935 statements, where not a single statement could latter be shown to have been KNOWINGLY made contrary to the information he had at the time the statement was made.

A summary
Bush was the only one saying IRAQ had WMD's
Well that's not really true is it, People where saying that years before he even became president.
The vast majority of Intelligence reports at the time stated IRAQ had Chem/Bio and COULD have 1 or 2 Nuclear weapons within 12-24 months AFTER getting enough weapons grade material.

Bush forced the Intel agencies to say that.
Nope, I won't bother coping the post here but is you want to see why that's been debunked it's #8 on my
post here
http://www.mobclan.com/forums/upload/index...st&p=170138
or if you want you can read the report from the senate sub-committee which investigated if Bush or anyone in his administration coerced any intel agency
http://intelligence.senate.gov/108301.pdf
If you don't want to read all 500 pages, that was a big fat NO.


But France Said
Short answer.
Who Gives a shit?
Long Answer.
I'm not surprised France would say that when you take into consideration they were #2 on the list of countries that received the most illicit money from the roughly 5 BILLION missing from the oil for food program. I'm sure it's just coincidence that Russia,the county which received the most illegal money from the oil for food program, was the other very outspoke member of the UN security counsel about military action.
Do I even need to mention that France was the biggest financial loser when the U.S. invaded Iraq, largely in part to billions of dollars in weapons that France sold to them on credit.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2003/03/07/edlauren_ed3_.php


Iraq was complying with weapon inspectors, we should have given them time to do their job before rushing to war.
Yea okay, that is if you want to ignore the 1st 12 years and 1st 14 UN resolutions.
You can't count on both hands the number of times Saddam started to comply with weapon inspectors only to do a 180 when the heat was off.
I guess according to the people complaining about how the weapons inspectors were getting access, we should have been willing to give Saddam endless chances to comply, halfway, for a little while, until ha changed his mind AGAIN.

Ex-Chief Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter said there were no WMD's
True he did say that after the fact.
What else did he say.
While involved with the UN inspection team.
1998 - Iraq will be able to reconstitute the entirety of its former nuclear, chemical, and ballistic missile delivery system capabilities within a period of six months."
later in 1998 - said that he resigned his position "out of frustration that the United Nations Security Council, and the United States as its most significant supporter, was failing to enforce the post-Gulf War resolutions designed to disarm Iraq."
4 years later, with no new information, no involvement or even any weapon inspections done during that time, he becomes one of the most outspoken critics saying "he knew Iraq didn't have any WMD's"


I'll be happy to answer anything else you have.

a] Blair was loyal to the bitter end -even he was backtracking on what he said his intel was telling him regarding yellowcake 'stories' regarding Niger/Iraq

b]I don't see where that claim was made...

c]No harm in gathering reports - it's the twisting of them for twisted schemes is the problem.

d] The Inspector issue regards their access in the short time before the war started.

e] 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.

f] I agree - no forcing, but he twisted the reports and Cheney and gang were snuffing opposition- cia agent/Generals as they started their scheme rolling. Intimidation was at play.

g] inspections were proceeding.... what was the reason to rush into war/make the 48 hour get out of Dodge City ultimatum -was there proof of weapons being dismantled or moved or hidden to make that decision at that moment.

Hey Robert is this the longest 1 page you've ever seen in a thread here -its pretty long
-and longer if Mr.Rocket gets round to shortening his sig

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.

Then live and learn - I didn't just listen to 101 news stories, I was watching interviews with personnel/staff on the inside who had first hand accounts of what was going on. In fact you just killed your own point "Slam dunk" what does that mean - it means if one can't show the proof of that 100% irrefutable' slam dunk then there's a lie right there for you from someone who now's the truth of it.
CIA not regarding their reports as 'irrefuable evidence' as claimed by Bush in his UN speech is no big secret so I'm not sure why you're surprised. Again, I saw interviews with those in the know who said Bush upped the ante on the reports; all I can give are written reports on the topic which I intend as informative rather than argumentative.
http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-32079.html
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/001518.html
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/112005X.shtml

Clearly you're missing the whole point of my dispute regarding the continuous meandering into what I consider sidetracking off topic.
Once again the same 'rhetoric' since you insist on challenging my past arguments with 'repeated' inconsequential facts regarding the topic at hand as far as I see. This time I'll add what I've made clear in past threads regarding my overall point of view - in case you're unaware.

-I'm not a Dem apologist -so pointlessly chirp away all you like about 'yeah well dems said this 500 years ago'. Start a thread about Dems responsible for starting the war and see if I even make one post in there.
-I was for the war when it was insisted upon by Bush admin based on what I assessed from the info he gave out as fact. Info that HE/admin Cheney knew they were distorting -> nobody else but the CIA knew and admin knew.
-Why do Canucks care anyway regarding War on Terror decisions - you maybe thinking too >-this episode affects us all over the world in many ways you probably haven't thought off [ ie, 9-11; in NY my sis was in a subway train passing by towers just earlier than strike took place]- and on the Canuck side; although your news media doesn't report these things, the Canadian contingent are taking a high proportion of motral casualties in the fight against the Taliban on a regular basis -no I'm not fighting there but the debate on our presence there could affect which govt. we choose in our next elections.
-I took alot of flack up here for voicing my support for the unilateral decision to go to war. My concern was based on the world not taken action on what was considered an 'imminent threat' - just like growing aggressive fascism was not countered in the 1930s despite warnings by key poiltical figures of that time
[ so if you want to call those who dig deeply into why the world let fascism get a free pass, and then dismiss their analysis as monday morning quarter-backing, I suggest that's the mentality that dooms humans to keep repeating the same tragic avoidable errors over and over].
-I was still for the war seeing the rapid military strike to Bahgdad -and so were some of my Iraqi friends and the Iraqi citizens. Rumsfeld made a good strategy for what it achieved.
Then unlike the neo-con Bushy admin war supporters - the scam unravelled;
The war was unravelling as ill-conceived
- there was no interim US- propped Iraqi government ready to move in/ the military strategy was flawed
- as many silenced and fired Generals feared- the quick strike should've instead been a Colin Powell type overkill campaign [quarterbacking criticism yes- but others would say gathering the facts so that next time a better decision is made].
- Rumsfeld scoffing at signs of insecurity at the outset.
-where am I pointing as Bush being 'the only one as disingenuous' that's your assertion. I'm only saying Bush pushed the button for the war prematurely. Yet others want to make this a partisan thread and think I really get offended when dems this n' that get brought up - I'm only baffled as to why in actuality and as to why UN budgets are brought up -as if I think the UN are demi-gods. I have alot of criticism for them too but what's that got to do with the topic excepet for Bush deliberately going alone without UN backing.
Whoever they are I like good. fair leaders.
I liked George Bush senior as a prez - and Jeb Bush sounded like a rock star too as a politician -as an example


The point of the topic is were there lies. Not about quarter-backing.
Look at it this way;
Karate was developed in Japan. The way you and others argue here is like saying 'no no - it comes from North Africa' then you get into facts supporting your case;
Egyptians practised a wrestling style which the invading Greeks adopted and then they spread this to India where the Indians modified that to their own martial arts. An Indian Budhist monk skilled in that martial art brought it to China where from him kung fu was born and kung fu practitioners from there went to Japan where all the Japanese martial art styles took their root -including Karate.
If that sounded long-winded then you now see my point;>>> Karate was 'invented' in Japan.
Your facts I don't dispute for the most part -trust me- its your arguments using those facts.
You drag them out pointelessly. Dems, repubs, me, other war supporters were gullable- idiotically or naively is another matter.
Call it quarter backing all day if you like and make up all the excuses you want to divert from why the Bush admin lied, but it changes nothing regarding the facts;
- he had no SOLID proof of imminent danger -> no missiles on countdown to strike, no specific locations WMD caches, no threats made to use WMDs imminently. This is the topic-who pushed the button on the war and why was it done deceitfully.What some people intend to do is vastly different from what one actually carries out and for what reason.
So if you want to to add 'don't you get tired of' as a concealed way of suggesting delusional, I'll only say 'nope'.
I'll keep posting away happily in the hopes of bringing an education to those who prefer to go off topic in a debate. People die needlessly when we have leaders in power infected with the idea->
"All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely". ->bald faced-lying by neocons included.

geezus, doesn't this thread get to page 2

You just repeated the same point I have been trying to make all along.
You're the one who implies that Bush KNOWINGLY mislead America and everyone else into war with Iraq.
Same as you're the one who brought up the that the CIA didn't agree with Bush.
Which really wasn't the case now was it?
When the director of the CIA was asked how reliable the intel was, he said it was a slam dunk.
Now you want to split hairs about the 100 possible meanings of "slam dunk".
That doesn't pass the smell test, I have no doubt if you randomly asked 100 people what that mean, 90+ would say it implied a sure thing.
Feel free to be in the slim majority who says it means something else if you think it backs your point.



Care to show me where in Bush's UN speech that he said the US had "irrefutable evidence".
I just read a copy of Bush's UN speech and I can't find it
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2254712.stm
So please point it out to me.
I did find the 3 links you supplied very humorous.
The funniest one would have to be truthout, since their other big news story was about Cindy Sheehan releasing her Book.
I don't think you could find a more biased editorial website than on truthout if you tried, expect of course for moveon.org

I'm going to guess you actually meant Bush's State of the Union Address were you said his speech to the UN
Which by the way would still be wrong as the "irrefutable evidence" quote isn't from Bush, it's from Cheney.
Back to Bush and the State of Union Address, there have been several editorials written about his remarks regarding the Iraq, Niger uranium connection.
They always cite how people in the CIA were surprised Bush mentioned Niger Uranium story.
What they purposefully always forget to mention is
1) Bush didn't make that claim, he only stated what the British intelligence said, which is why he said in his speech " British intelligence reports"
2) When the CIA initially put the Niger uranium information in their report, they broke their own rules. According to CIA's own directives, the report should have been listed as
"unsubstantiated" until the CIA could either independently confirm or refute the report, which they did not do.
3) Prior to giving the State of the Union Address, a copy of it was given to the CIA for fact checking purposes. How incredibly dishonest is it that some people in the CIA after the fact, now come out to accuse Bush of using the unconfirmed report to mislead America into war when the fact is their own organization not only had the ability to remove or question the statement prior to the speech but were also the same organization which violated their own directives when they listed the Niger uranium report in their daily briefing to the president.
See this is what my problem is, even after reading those 3 points which directly refute your point concerning the Bush claim to "irrefutable evidence"
Some people will still reply.
Bush Lied.




Care to explain just exactly what the "scam" was?
Let me guess, Bush did it to steal the oil.



You're correct on that point, care to expand on the reasons WHY there was no interim government to take the place of Saddam?
You may or may not agree with me but here are my two reasons why there was no interim government to step in.
1) Saddam wasn't called the butcher of Baghdad for no reason.
2) Dozens of opposition leaders were killed right after the 1st Gulf War because they were mislead by the UN and US that they could expect support.
Once Saddam pulled out of Kuwait, the opposition leaders were left hanging and were quickly killed by Saddam.
In my opinion, one of the biggest mistakes made was the World at large not having the guts or foresight to completely remove Saddam in 1991.

You talk about how history repeats itself. I personally see several similarities between this and Germany from WW1



I though it was fair since you bring up it being Bush's fault in every post.
Bush Lied
Bush Mislead
Bush did this
Bush did that.
My point from the beginning is that it had more to do with wide spread intelligence failures on several different levels.
You implied Bush coerced the intel agencies, so I pointed out a bipartisan senate subcommittee looked into that and found no evidence of any coercion by Bush or members of his administration.

The dem stuff gets brought up because it's a large factor in the discussion to people down here.
It's also a legitimate reply to all the accusations that Bush did this on his own.



To me it's pretty simply.
People can argue all day, the finger pointing done to politicized one event or another.
What does that get anyone in the end. Nothing
The only reason I bothered to respond at all was the unsubstantiated Bush bashing, it gets old and does nothing but obscure the real issues and problems.
It's Bush's War, Bush was Wrong, It's Bush's fault
That over simplified crap only detracts from the real reason of what and why America did what it did.
Did America screw up invading Iraq? I'm sure for you it's probably a huge YES!.
I debate that question with myself all the time. There are huge problems with the war but I'm still hopeful that at some point democracy will take some small foothold.
If it does, then there is a real chance that small initial democracy could chance the face of the middle east in a ways I think most people would find favorable .

There are two undeniable truths
1) Now that we're there, why were there isn't near as important as what are we going to do.
Every politician talks about how they are going to get out of Iraq. Even though I dislike McCain, right now he is the only one honest about what needs to be done.
Any arbitrary date or time line for withdraw would be self fulfilling prophesy for disaster, bad for the US, even worse for Iraq
At this time, the focus should be how to get the job done an realizing there will be no quick fix.
2) The US soldiers on the ground are not there to indiscriminately kill, rape and pillage. They are there trying to keep the peace and play referee/mediator while
opposing factions within Iraq are doing their best to kill each other. At the heart of what the soldiers are doing, they do for Iraq not the US.

'Robert' date='02/02/08 9:56pm' post='170567'
You're the one who implies that Bush KNOWINGLY mislead America and everyone else into war with Iraq.
Same as you're the one who brought up the that the CIA didn't agree with Bush.
Which really wasn't the case now was it?

Yes I did imply that and stand by it -it's slamdunk to me.


When the director of the CIA was asked how reliable the intel was, he said it was a slam dunk.

I can only tell you what I heard in two interviews [one with the hubby of the cia agent whose undercover identity was let out by cheney gang to the press] on tv with those in the CIA/circle who gave Bush admin the report and said that's not we said not too long before his speech and then heard him 'up the context' to their surprise - their report-not brits intel. If you saw these interviews there'd be no dispute.


Feel free to be in the slim majority who says it means something else if you think it backs your point.
Just about 80% Americans slam dunk believing the point



I'm going to guess you actually meant Bush's State of the Union Address were you said his speech to the UN

Yes you're correct of course.
Actually I threw in the forum link to show both sides of the 'debate'.
Bush did repeat Cheney's exagerrated claim however; I did for a while want to believe Bush was being manipulated by Cheney but the repetitiveness of his claims led me to see otherwise.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/...5_11/007556.php




Care to explain just exactly what the "scam" was?
Let me guess, Bush did it to steal the oil.

Nope I'm not in that train of thought. I'm more looking at the neo-con 'tightening geographical stranglehold around Iran' train of thought. Sadam was an easy target- every other arab nation hated him... and before there was any hint of an upcoming war, I wasn't suspicious, but I found it odd all the AA defences of Iraq were being taken out seemingly to me with a zeal rather than protection of airforce covering the no-fly zones- once again that was just my thoughts at the time- even with my full support for the no-fly zone policy.



-there was no interim US- propped Iraqi government ready to move in, the military strategy was flawed.-

You're correct on that point, care to expand on the reasons WHY there was no interim government to take the place of Saddam?

My belief at the time was that the Bush admin said they had Iraqi exiles and dissidents of influence ready to move in after the Bathists were ousted - I was glad to see sadams goons sent running, but once they were gone- nobody stepped in as was asserted- worse was amidst the looting nd anarchy in Baghdad after it fell, Rumsfeld chuckled in news interviews claiming there were no problems at all when questioned about who was in charge of keeping order. And then the terrorists moved in like sharks.....


In my opinion, one of the biggest mistakes made was the World at large not having the guts or foresight to completely remove Saddam in 1991.

I agree, but I see why the Bush sr. calculated not to do so... the same power vacuum that we have now, would've occurred back then most likely. Plus what was a pretty squeaky clean war militarily and diplomatically would've lost its lustre and may have instilled resentment if the West was seen as occupiers of an arab state - like I said I'm just pointing out the possible reasons. then there was Iran to consider with such a power vacuum.


You talk about how history repeats itself. I personally see several similarities between this and Germany from WW1
I didn't see that aspect initially, but that's very true too.




You implied Bush coerced the intel agencies
Maybe I should've been more clearer - I think the neo-con admin manipulated reports of the intel... not coerced the personnel -> but shady payback tactics vs. those rocking the boat too much - definately imo


People can argue all day, the finger pointing done to politicized one event or another.
What does that get anyone in the end. Nothing

I differ on that - the more awareness of voters awareness of manipulation by leaders the more chances hopefully we/the leaders don't repeat the same sequence of events and get into another mess without a united front based on a common belief and s solid back up plan coveringall likely eventualities -and wisely listening to the Generals input. But then again you could be right.... recalling all the Dems in the Senate gave thumbs up for Bush to into Iran at his whim - then the NIE reports showed up revealing the known situation. don't get me wrong I'm firmly in the belief Iran and N.Korea want nukes at some point and will do so when their opprtunity arrives.


That over simplified crap only detracts from the real reason of what and why America did what it did.


We differ there too -imo, its not over-simplified at all -were it so, these posts would not be biblical length


Did America screw up invading Iraq? I'm sure for you it's probably a huge YES!.

I kind of disagree there - my Iraqi friends / n me and many newly dubious thinkers, were in the hope at the time all would turn out well given the hard fought but thunderbolt attack of the coalition in reaching Bahgdad. Everything was there for a very good outcome. I'm perhaps more bitter that the admin snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and years of needless suffering in that region and then elsewhere in the world spewed out- not to mention giving the Talibums and Bum Laden the opportunity to recover.

The US soldiers on the ground are not there to indiscriminately kill, rape and pillage. They are there trying to keep the peace and play referee/mediator while
opposing factions within Iraq are doing their best to kill each other. At the heart of what the soldiers are doing, they do for Iraq not the US.
It's always been my opinion Coalition troops have their hearts in wanting to see Iraqis enjoy democracy and as professionals aren't over there debating should/shouldn'ts of politics. My point in these threads relate to the goings-on of the Bush admin from the insight I catch here and there - I have my reasons and its not about getting on a bash Bush bandwagon for its own sake.

LOL, are we on page 2 yet !