Bush Lied-intelligence and facts fixed to support war in Iraq

[Lebjwb]

"Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels."
--Samuel Johnson

"Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons."
--Bertrand Russell

Aye. As someone who deeply loves the principles that this nation was supposedly founded upon, I find it incredibly tragic that 'patriotism' is now practically synonymous with egotistical ethnocentrism.

And what I was brought up with;

"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from the government.
- Thomas Paine

"A President is impeachable if he attempts to subvert the Constitution".
-- President James Madison

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
- Samuel Adams

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it."
- President Abraham Lincoln

 

[Viking]

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." — H. L. Mencken

I like that one. If it weren't so true, I could even laugh about it

 

[Laura]

Saddam was an evil dictator and I am glad he is gone.

Oh, indeed he was evil. I am glad he is gone too. If Bush had said only "we're going to war because Saddam is evil and we're freeing the Iraqis", then this thread wouldn't exist. But we all know that Bush was emphasizing our safety in the face of the WMDs that he claimed intelligence said was there (or soon would be). Saddam's evil dicatorship was just the icing on the cake.

 

[Puffy2]

"Irregardless" is not a word.

It most certainly is a word; look it up. "Proper" or not.

I also prefer to have a President that doesn't lie and manipulate to get his way - Bush clearly does both.

 

[RobinMarie]

One of my favorite quotes

Beware of the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry, [who] infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How will I know? For this I have done. And I am Julius Caesar.

 

[Rokkitsci]

Oh, indeed he was evil. I am glad he is gone too. If Bush had said only "we're going to war because Saddam is evil and we're freeing the Iraqis", then this thread wouldn't exist. But we all know that Bush was emphasizing our safety in the face of the WMDs that he claimed intelligence said was there (or soon would be). Saddam's evil dicatorship was just the icing on the cake.

Let's review a couple of things.
FIRST
IRREGARDLESS of whatever this one memo being so 'honored' says, here are some salient facts:
1) We were at WAR with global terrorism as of 911.
2) When at war, you eliminate enemy resources on the POSSIBILITY that they may be used against you. In WWII we "sacrificed" tens of thousands of lives on missions that turned out to be unnecessary after the mission was concluded. This is the nature of war.
3) There was more than a possibility that Saddam had WMD - there was a distinct PROBABILITY that he had them. NOBODY who really wanted to win the war thought that we could afford to leave that possibility intact.
4) There were many MORE reasons to eliminate Iraq other than WMD. These were all listed in the same SOTU message that contains the 'sixteen words' regarding WMD. Any and all of these reasons were enough to justify the mission.
5) Anyone with any sense of strategy knows that it would be impossible to actually prosecute a successful war in the middle east with Saddam in control of Iraq. This is not even debatable. The burden is on anyone who thinks otherwise to submit a reasonable way of conducting war on terrorism based in the middle east with a hostile Saddam in control of Iraq. Go ahead - knock yourselves out - I will anxiously await any other strategy that could accomplish this.
SECONDLY-
The very same people who are whining so loudly about THIS mission are the SAME ones who have completely marginalized by their PREVIOUS statements on Iraq
1) During the Gulf War - they were AGAINST our involvement even though we DID have the approval of the UN and an alliance of over 100 nations.
2) Then they wanted us to end the Gulf War early because we were "shooting fish in a barrel"
3) After the war, they whined that we didn't go far ENOUGH and remove Saddam - even though what we did was EXACTLY what the UN objective was - and that to invade Baghdad at that time would have been even more costly in terms of lives - because the entire citizenry would have been involved in the resistance
4) They CELEBRATED our involvement in Bosnia - a country that had 'never invaded us' - and a mission that had NO support by the UN.
THEREFORE -
the people who are whining so loudly about Iraq in 2003 are just ignorant of military strategy - are hypocritical in their own opposition - are are just plain searching for factoids to support an otherwise unsupportable position.

THANK GOD for president BUSH and Prime Minister BLAIR

 

[lovemygoofy]

Oh, indeed he was evil. I am glad he is gone too. If Bush had said only "we're going to war because Saddam is evil and we're freeing the Iraqis", then this thread wouldn't exist. But we all know that Bush was emphasizing our safety in the face of the WMDs that he claimed intelligence said was there (or soon would be). Saddam's evil dicatorship was just the icing on the cake.

You know I don't even post on these sort of threads normally but it must be the early morning hour convincing me, lol.

Anyways, no Bush wasn't looking after our saftey when he sent hundreds of thousands of Americans into Iraq(yes, I'm a bit bitter afterall my dh was in Baghdad when the bombs were dropping and we have lost several people in our unit). He was having a measuring contest with Saddam. The next time this happens lets just have a an international ruler created and we will see who is the "bigger" man. There are many many evil leaders in this world and somehow I don't think we were elected world police to go evict them. If this was the case, we need to head to our backyard first and get rid of Castro who has been in power for 50 years or maybe over to the Sudan where entire races are being wiped out. This war was about a man with a vendetta and I guess sacrificing thousands of people's lives was just an afterthought. The whole thing sickens me and makes me angry that our military including my dh is being used as pawns.

I'm sorry I will get off my soapbox now and have another cup of calming tea.

 

[dcentity2000]

Blair has been heckled with taunts of "murderer!" and "liar!".

You can get t-shirts displaying the word "Bliar".

An independent, 3rd party candidate unseated a Labour MP in the elections on the basis of the war alone.

Blair is the most untrusted Prime Minister ever, polls say, and Bush the most untrusted international figure ever.

I think this is now moot. They both lied and bent the truth so far it would make a corkscrew look straight. They even accused a burnt-out caravan of being a bio-weapons facility. They ignored UN evidence that the regime was near collapse. They ignoered Hans Blix who told them bluntly that there was "no evidence" of any WMDs and that he PERSONALLY thought that there were no WMDs.

What's done is done.

Now we have to look to the future, lest we forget the past.

Dossier Poll from BEFORE the smoking gun documents:

Do you think the dossier presents a compelling case? (38,000 polled, BBC)

Yes - 35.17%
No - 64.83%



Rich::

 

[dcentity2000]

Let's review a couple of things.
FIRST
IRREGARDLESS of whatever this one memo being so 'honored' says, here are some salient facts:
1) We were at WAR with global terrorism as of 911.
2) When at war, you eliminate enemy resources on the POSSIBILITY that they may be used against you. In WWII we "sacrificed" tens of thousands of lives on missions that turned out to be unnecessary after the mission was concluded. This is the nature of war.

Better arrest me then, there's a distint possibility I might be a terrorist! Guilty until proven innocent right?

Let's review a couple of things.
FIRST
IRREGARDLESS of whatever this one memo being so 'honored' says, here are some salient facts:
3) There was more than a possibility that Saddam had WMD - there was a distinct PROBABILITY that he had them. NOBODY who really wanted to win the war thought that we could afford to leave that possibility intact.
4) There were many MORE reasons to eliminate Iraq other than WMD. These were all listed in the same SOTU message that contains the 'sixteen words' regarding WMD. Any and all of these reasons were enough to justify the mission.
5) Anyone with any sense of strategy knows that it would be impossible to actually prosecute a successful war in the middle east with Saddam in control of Iraq. This is not even debatable. The burden is on anyone who thinks otherwise to submit a reasonable way of conducting war on terrorism based in the middle east with a hostile Saddam in control of Iraq. Go ahead - knock yourselves out - I will anxiously await any other strategy that could accomplish this.

Number of UN resolutions Iraq was in breach of compared to, say Israel, anyone?

Hip hip for President Bliar and his slashed majority! Hip hip hooray for NO intervention in the Sudan and Zimbabwe, where even worse crimes are comitted every day! Oh rapture!

BBC News:

THE CLAIM
Conservative leader Michael Howard says Mr Blair lied over the war. Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy says that "there is no doubt that we were misled" with regard to "the threat that we were under as a country" and "the true aims of government policy" and has called for an independent inquiry

BACKGROUND

On 24 September 2002 the UK government published an intelligence dossier outlining its concerns over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, including the claim that Iraq could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes.


In the foreword, Mr Blair said that "this issue was a current and serious threat to the UK national interest".


On 18 March 2003, just before the UK went to war with Iraq, Mr Blair told the House of Commons that it was "palpably absurd" to accept that Saddam Hussein "contrary to all history, contrary to all intelligence" had "decided unilaterally to destroy these weapons".

Since the war extensive searches by the US-led Iraq Survey Group after the war failed to uncover any nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

The Oxford dictionary defines a lie as a "statement the speaker knows to be untrue".

THE FACTS

The January 2004 Hutton report, into the circumstances of the death of government scientist Dr David Kelly, said the allegation that the September 2002 dossier was embellished with items of intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable was "unfounded".

But it accepted that the prime minister's desire to have as compelling a dossier as possible may have subconsciously influenced the Joint Intelligence Committee to make the language of the dossier "stronger than they would otherwise have done".

The Butler report, published in July 2004, was set up to investigate the accuracy of intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction up to March 2003.

It concluded that much of the evidence in the dossier was "unreliable" or "very thin" and "it was a serious weakness" that "warnings on the limitations of the intelligence underlying its judgements were not made sufficiently clear".

It added: "Language in the dossier and used by the prime minister may have left readers with the impression that there was fuller and firmer intelligence than was the case."

But the report said it had no evidence of deliberate distortion of the intelligence.

THE CONCLUSION

With hindsight, everyone agrees that much of the intelligence that the UK (and US) government published to justify their case for war against Iraq was unreliable.

Mr Howard believes Mr Blair lied. He told Breakfast with Frost: "The intelligence that he had, as we know from the Butler report... was limited sporadic and patchy. When Mr Blair came to report that to the country, he said he had intelligence that was extensive, detailed and authoritative. Maybe you can reconcile those two different sets of words. I can't. I think that portraying the intelligence in that way was untrue."

The Liberal Democrats do not accuse Mr Blair of lying, but they say the UK was taken to war on a "false prospectus". Pressed on whether Mr Blair had lied, Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said he could not say that because: "Only he (Tony Blair) knows if he was telling the truth when addressing the House of Commons."

Mr Blair denies lying or misrepresenting the intelligence on Iraq's weapons. He has acknowledged (at September's Labour Party conference) that "the evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong. I acknowledge and accept that. I simply point out that it was agreed by the whole international community."


He says that, even now knowing that the intelligence was wrong, he cannot apologise for taking the tough decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and says he believes the world is a better place without him. He has consistently stressed that he respects the views of opponents of the war.

Ultimately, as he has said on a number of occasions, it is a question of his judgement rather than his character - and voters will have the chance to deliver their verdict on polling day.

Rich::

 

[Charade]

Blair has been heckled with taunts of "murderer!" and "liar!".

You can get t-shirts displaying the word "Bliar".

An independent, 3rd party candidate unseated a Labour MP in the elections on the basis of the war alone.

Blair is the most untrusted Prime Minister ever, polls say, and Bush the most untrusted international figure ever.

I think this is now moot. They both lied and bent the truth so far it would make a corkscrew look straight. They even accused a burnt-out caravan of being a bio-weapons facility. They ignored UN evidence that the regime was near collapse. They ignored Hans Blix who told them bluntly that there was "no evidence" of any WMDs and that he PERSONALLY thought that there were no WMDs.

What's done is done.

Now we have to look to the future, lest we forget the past.

Dossier Poll from BEFORE the smoking gun documents:

Do you think the dossier presents a compelling case? (38,000 polled, BBC)

Yes - 35.17%
No - 64.83%



Rich::

Well, since he's been reelected, how could X million Brits be so dumb?

 

[minniepumpernickel]

"Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels."
--Samuel Johnson

"Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons."
--Bertrand Russell

Aye. As someone who deeply loves the principles that this nation was supposedly founded upon, I find it incredibly tragic that 'patriotism' is now practically synonymous with egotistical ethnocentrism.

Yes, keep posting! I like your posts!

I trusted Bush in the beginning, and now I feel that he is such a liar! I acn't wait until he is out of office!

 

[Laura]

You know I don't even post on these sort of threads normally but it must be the early morning hour convincing me, lol.

Anyways, no Bush wasn't looking after our saftey when he sent hundreds of thousands of Americans into Iraq(yes, I'm a bit bitter afterall my dh was in Baghdad when the bombs were dropping and we have lost several people in our unit). He was having a measuring contest with Saddam. The next time this happens lets just have a an international ruler created and we will see who is the "bigger" man. There are many many evil leaders in this world and somehow I don't think we were elected world police to go evict them. If this was the case, we need to head to our backyard first and get rid of Castro who has been in power for 50 years or maybe over to the Sudan where entire races are being wiped out. This war was about a man with a vendetta and I guess sacrificing thousands of people's lives was just an afterthought. The whole thing sickens me and makes me angry that our military including my dh is being used as pawns.

I'm sorry I will get off my soapbox now and have another cup of calming tea.

I totally agree with you.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Let's review a couple of things.
FIRST
IRREGARDLESS of whatever this one memo being so 'honored' says, here are some salient facts:
1) We were at WAR with global terrorism as of 911.
2) When at war, you eliminate enemy resources on the POSSIBILITY that they may be used against you. In WWII we "sacrificed" tens of thousands of lives on missions that turned out to be unnecessary after the mission was concluded. This is the nature of war.
3) There was more than a possibility that Saddam had WMD - there was a distinct PROBABILITY that he had them. NOBODY who really wanted to win the war thought that we could afford to leave that possibility intact.
4) There were many MORE reasons to eliminate Iraq other than WMD. These were all listed in the same SOTU message that contains the 'sixteen words' regarding WMD. Any and all of these reasons were enough to justify the mission.
5) Anyone with any sense of strategy knows that it would be impossible to actually prosecute a successful war in the middle east with Saddam in control of Iraq. This is not even debatable. The burden is on anyone who thinks otherwise to submit a reasonable way of conducting war on terrorism based in the middle east with a hostile Saddam in control of Iraq. Go ahead - knock yourselves out - I will anxiously await any other strategy that could accomplish this.
SECONDLY-
The very same people who are whining so loudly about THIS mission are the SAME ones who have completely marginalized by their PREVIOUS statements on Iraq
1) During the Gulf War - they were AGAINST our involvement even though we DID have the approval of the UN and an alliance of over 100 nations.
2) Then they wanted us to end the Gulf War early because we were "shooting fish in a barrel"
3) After the war, they whined that we didn't go far ENOUGH and remove Saddam - even though what we did was EXACTLY what the UN objective was - and that to invade Baghdad at that time would have been even more costly in terms of lives - because the entire citizenry would have been involved in the resistance
4) They CELEBRATED our involvement in Bosnia - a country that had 'never invaded us' - and a mission that had NO support by the UN.
THEREFORE -
the people who are whining so loudly about Iraq in 2003 are just ignorant of military strategy - are hypocritical in their own opposition - are are just plain searching for factoids to support an otherwise unsupportable position.

THANK GOD for president BUSH and Prime Minister BLAIR

Very well said. I too thank God for Bush and Blair.

(We await the perfect plan that the critics must have somewhere.)

 

[Lebjwb]

Let's review a couple of things.
FIRST
IRREGARDLESS of whatever this one memo being so 'honored' says, here are some salient facts:
1) We were at WAR with global terrorism as of 911.
2) When at war, you eliminate enemy resources on the POSSIBILITY that they may be used against you. In WWII we "sacrificed" tens of thousands of lives on missions that turned out to be unnecessary after the mission was concluded. This is the nature of war.
3) There was more than a possibility that Saddam had WMD - there was a distinct PROBABILITY that he had them. NOBODY who really wanted to win the war thought that we could afford to leave that possibility intact.
4) There were many MORE reasons to eliminate Iraq other than WMD. These were all listed in the same SOTU message that contains the 'sixteen words' regarding WMD. Any and all of these reasons were enough to justify the mission.
5) Anyone with any sense of strategy knows that it would be impossible to actually prosecute a successful war in the middle east with Saddam in control of Iraq. This is not even debatable. The burden is on anyone who thinks otherwise to submit a reasonable way of conducting war on terrorism based in the middle east with a hostile Saddam in control of Iraq. Go ahead - knock yourselves out - I will anxiously await any other strategy that could accomplish this.
SECONDLY-
The very same people who are whining so loudly about THIS mission are the SAME ones who have completely marginalized by their PREVIOUS statements on Iraq
1) During the Gulf War - they were AGAINST our involvement even though we DID have the approval of the UN and an alliance of over 100 nations.
2) Then they wanted us to end the Gulf War early because we were "shooting fish in a barrel"
3) After the war, they whined that we didn't go far ENOUGH and remove Saddam - even though what we did was EXACTLY what the UN objective was - and that to invade Baghdad at that time would have been even more costly in terms of lives - because the entire citizenry would have been involved in the resistance
4) They CELEBRATED our involvement in Bosnia - a country that had 'never invaded us' - and a mission that had NO support by the UN.
THEREFORE -
the people who are whining so loudly about Iraq in 2003 are just ignorant of military strategy - are hypocritical in their own opposition - are are just plain searching for factoids to support an otherwise unsupportable position.

THANK GOD for president BUSH and Prime Minister BLAIR

Comparing Iraq to WWII or Bosnia is a joke.

Since when is murdering thousands of innocents on the POSSIBILTY that there were WMD's even remotely consistant with American values?

Bu$h the "War President" ? Mission Accomplished

Things are going so well in Iraq. Just off the top of my head...270 killed in the last week.

Bin Laden still out there.

Afghanastan returns as one of the worlds biggest exporter of illegal drugs.

Did the North Koreans launch that war head yet?

Things are so much better with republicans in charge

 

[Lebjwb]

Let's review a couple of things.
FIRST
IRREGARDLESS of whatever this one memo being so 'honored' says, here are some salient facts:
1) We were at WAR with global terrorism as of 911.
2) When at war, you eliminate enemy resources on the POSSIBILITY that they may be used against you. In WWII we "sacrificed" tens of thousands of lives on missions that turned out to be unnecessary after the mission was concluded. This is the nature of war.
3) There was more than a possibility that Saddam had WMD - there was a distinct PROBABILITY that he had them. NOBODY who really wanted to win the war thought that we could afford to leave that possibility intact.
4) There were many MORE reasons to eliminate Iraq other than WMD. These were all listed in the same SOTU message that contains the 'sixteen words' regarding WMD. Any and all of these reasons were enough to justify the mission.
5) Anyone with any sense of strategy knows that it would be impossible to actually prosecute a successful war in the middle east with Saddam in control of Iraq. This is not even debatable. The burden is on anyone who thinks otherwise to submit a reasonable way of conducting war on terrorism based in the middle east with a hostile Saddam in control of Iraq. Go ahead - knock yourselves out - I will anxiously await any other strategy that could accomplish this.
SECONDLY-
The very same people who are whining so loudly about THIS mission are the SAME ones who have completely marginalized by their PREVIOUS statements on Iraq
1) During the Gulf War - they were AGAINST our involvement even though we DID have the approval of the UN and an alliance of over 100 nations.
2) Then they wanted us to end the Gulf War early because we were "shooting fish in a barrel"
3) After the war, they whined that we didn't go far ENOUGH and remove Saddam - even though what we did was EXACTLY what the UN objective was - and that to invade Baghdad at that time would have been even more costly in terms of lives - because the entire citizenry would have been involved in the resistance
4) They CELEBRATED our involvement in Bosnia - a country that had 'never invaded us' - and a mission that had NO support by the UN.
THEREFORE -
the people who are whining so loudly about Iraq in 2003 are just ignorant of military strategy - are hypocritical in their own opposition - are are just plain searching for factoids to support an otherwise unsupportable position.

THANK GOD for president BUSH and Prime Minister BLAIR

So you can't refute the Bu$h lie. Thanks.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Comparing Iraq to WWII or Bosnia is a joke.

Since when is murdering thousands of innocents on the POSSIBILTY that there were WMD's even remotely consistant with American values?

Bu$h the "War President" ? Mission Accomplished

Things are going so well in Iraq. Just off the top of my head...270 killed in the last week.

Bin Laden still out there.

Afghanastan returns as one of the worlds biggest exporter of illegal drugs.

Did the North Koreans launch that war head yet?

Things are so much better with republicans in charge

While our president takes action to fight terrorism, the critics like children with no plan of their own. The Iraqi's with their purple fingers of democracy told the world what they think of the critics.

 

[Laura]

Let's review a couple of things.
FIRST
IRREGARDLESS of whatever this one memo being so 'honored' says, here are some salient facts:
1) We were at WAR with global terrorism as of 911.

Right. The Taliban, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, got it.

2) When at war, you eliminate enemy resources on the POSSIBILITY that they may be used against you. In WWII we "sacrificed" tens of thousands of lives on missions that turned out to be unnecessary after the mission was concluded. This is the nature of war.

Of course that happens in war: some missions are unneccessary. I'm not going to blame the administration for every unneccessary mission in Iraq. But the whole reason for going to war during WWII wasn't based on a lie. Big difference.

3) There was more than a possibility that Saddam had WMD - there was a distinct PROBABILITY that he had them. NOBODY who really wanted to win the war thought that we could afford to leave that possibility intact.

And the reasons for thinking that there was a "distinct PROBABILITY" have been proved to be false. The memo states that the administration wanted to mold the intelligence to fit the policy. What about that?

4) There were many MORE reasons to eliminate Iraq other than WMD. These were all listed in the same SOTU message that contains the 'sixteen words' regarding WMD. Any and all of these reasons were enough to justify the mission

Like what? I just went over the 2002 and 2003 SOTU's and couldn't find much other than "Saddam must disarm", especially in the 2003 SOTU. There was a whole lot about WMDs, but as to other reasons, Bush only said this: "International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."
In 2002 there was this:

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

But that was it. With that kind of thinking, we should be invading LOTS of places.

5) Anyone with any sense of strategy knows that it would be impossible to actually prosecute a successful war in the middle east with Saddam in control of Iraq. This is not even debatable. The burden is on anyone who thinks otherwise to submit a reasonable way of conducting war on terrorism based in the middle east with a hostile Saddam in control of Iraq. Go ahead - knock yourselves out - I will anxiously await any other strategy that could accomplish this.

Actually, strategy in the war on terror is entirely debatable (and correct me if I'm wrong, but I personally don't remember Bush saying that was one of the major reasons for invading Iraq before we went to war). But it seems to me that, in other words, it doesn't matter to you whether Bush lied about WMDs or not. I'll even add it to my previous post: if Bush had only said Saddam is an evil dictator, we'll take him out and there is no other "reasonable way of conducting war on terrorism based in the middle east with a hostile Saddam in control of Iraq", we STILL wouldn't have this thread to debate about it.

Bush knew that for the US population to support an Iraq invasion we would have to feel threatened by the government of Iraq.

SECONDLY-
The very same people who are whining so loudly about THIS mission are the SAME ones who have completely marginalized by their PREVIOUS statements on Iraq
1) During the Gulf War - they were AGAINST our involvement even though we DID have the approval of the UN and an alliance of over 100 nations.
2) Then they wanted us to end the Gulf War early because we were "shooting fish in a barrel"

That's me. I totally admit it.

3) After the war, they whined that we didn't go far ENOUGH and remove Saddam - even though what we did was EXACTLY what the UN objective was - and that to invade Baghdad at that time would have been even more costly in terms of lives - because the entire citizenry would have been involved in the resistance
4) They CELEBRATED our involvement in Bosnia - a country that had 'never invaded us' - and a mission that had NO support by the UN.
THEREFORE -
the people who are whining so loudly about Iraq in 2003 are just ignorant of military strategy - are hypocritical in their own opposition - are are just plain searching for factoids to support an otherwise unsupportable position.

Nope, not me. Try generalizing a lot less, and your long-winded posts might actually support your claims.

 

[Teejay32]

it is kind of early for this...but yes the decision to remove Saddam by force or go to war if you prefer, was likely made in 2002 or even before. We know this because during the height of the Israel/Palestinian conflict, Cheney was then in the Middle East meeting with heads of state to get support for the Iraq plan. Also if you comb through transcripts of military leaders at Parliament, (I forget who and when) there is one that explains how armed forces representatives of the US, UK, Canada and Australia met in 2002 to coordinate their efforts should those plans come to fruition, which they did. Canada ended up not participating officially, but some Canadians did.

 

[njzieglers]

it is kind of early for this...but yes the decision to remove Saddam by force or go to war if you prefer, was likely made in 2002 or even before. We know this because during the height of the Israel/Palestinian conflict, Cheney was then in the Middle East meeting with heads of state to get support for the Iraq plan. Also if you comb through transcripts of military leaders at Parliament, (I forget who and when) there is one that explains how armed forces representatives of the US, UK, Canada and Australia met in 2002 to coordinate their efforts should those plans come to fruition, which they did. Canada ended up not participating officially, but some Canadians did.

Do you mean they actually conferred with other powers and made a plan beforebefore the war? That IS shocking. I thought we just rounded up the posse and went riding in.

 

[Lebjwb]

While our president takes action to fight terrorism, the critics like children with no plan of their own. The Iraqi's with their purple fingers of democracy told the world what they think of the critics.

Under the great leadership of Bu$h terrorist attacks have actually increased. More people are being slaughtered today due to terrorism then in the last 2 decades.

Bu$h has done nothing but con the gullible. If you choose to buy his load of garbage be my guest.

I notice that no one has yet posted anything to refute the lies from the Bu$h administration.

It's come down to this; members of this administration have to check before they get off the plane in foreign countries to see if they will be arrested as war criminals.