Bush didn't just lie........

[GreenBean]

Fear mongering was much more effective

George W. Bush didn t just lie about the Iraq War. What he did was much worse.

What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history. Spend too much time in the weeds, and you risk missing the hysterical tenor of the whole campaign.

In the summer of 2002, the administration established something called the White House Iraq Group, through which Karl Rove and other communication strategists like Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin coordinated with policy officials to sell the public on the threat from Iraq in order to justify war. "The script had been finalized with great care over the summer," White House press secretary Scott McClellan later wrote, for a "campaign to convince Americans that war with Iraq was inevitable and necessary."
In that campaign, intelligence wasn't something to be understood and assessed by the administration in making their decisions, it was a propaganda tool to lead the public to the conclusion that the administration wanted. Again and again we saw a similar pattern: An allegation would bubble up from somewhere, some in the intelligence community would say that it could be true but others would say it was either speculation or outright baloney, but before you knew it the president or someone else was presenting it to the public as settled fact.





.

It has now become pretty much the status of urban legend that no one was crazy enough to link Saddam Hussein to WMD and Al Qaeda terrorists until the Bush administration did it as a rationale — one of several — for the 2003 invasion. It makes for a great story, except for one problem.

It’s wrong.

What follows is adapted from my 2008 book on preventive war, Eve of Destruction. Let’s be clear: if I knew this in 2006 and 2007 when the book was undergoing edits at a top university press, then it wasn’t a secret. The fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton laid out the connection between Iraq, VX weapons, and Al Qaeda in 1998, and Clinton himself provided such a strong rationale for going to war against Hussein that the far left wasapeshit distressed at his turn toward warmongering.

Who started that story about Iraq, WMDs, and Al Qaeda? That’s right, Bill Clinton. Who started that story about Iraq WMDs and Al Qaeda That s right Bill Clinton. The War Room

 

[GreenBean]

. Bush admin originated the lie. Dems were gullible.

BS

 

[Mustang]

Fear mongering was much more effective

George W. Bush didn t just lie about the Iraq War. What he did was much worse.

What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history. Spend too much time in the weeds, and you risk missing the hysterical tenor of the whole campaign.

In the summer of 2002, the administration established something called the White House Iraq Group, through which Karl Rove and other communication strategists like Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin coordinated with policy officials to sell the public on the threat from Iraq in order to justify war. "The script had been finalized with great care over the summer," White House press secretary Scott McClellan later wrote, for a "campaign to convince Americans that war with Iraq was inevitable and necessary."
In that campaign, intelligence wasn't something to be understood and assessed by the administration in making their decisions, it was a propaganda tool to lead the public to the conclusion that the administration wanted. Again and again we saw a similar pattern: An allegation would bubble up from somewhere, some in the intelligence community would say that it could be true but others would say it was either speculation or outright baloney, but before you knew it the president or someone else was presenting it to the public as settled fact.





.

You Liberals keep revisiting this and you always gloss over the case Democrats made for Saddam removal by force BEFORE Bush set foot in the White House. Until you can show where, when, and why Democrats' changed their position before Bush made his case, you are simply peddling propaganda and falsehoods about Bush lying. Then again, you are the same people still clamoring to the notion that the Nation's second 9-11 attack was due to a YouTube video. Give it Up or give it some fact and logic.

This is nothing more than a typical conservative red herring.

Almost all politicians spend their time posturing on a whole range of issues from domestic ones to international ones. Talking tough is part of that equation. That means everything from talking about sanctions up to and including saber-rattling about the need to use military force. However, there's a world of difference between tough talk sound bytes and ordering an invasion which is guaranteed to cost thousands of people their lives and other countless tens of thousands of people their arms, their legs, and a lifetime of disabilities from which they'll never recover but only learn to live with to one degree or another. That's the reason why war has always been considered a last resort when all else fails. Obviously, Bush, Cheney, and their team of advisors saw it differently. They wanted the invasion, and they made sure it was going to happen. That's the reason why events unfolded the way they did. That's why, at the end of the day, all the tough talk in the world doesn't really matter because the decision to invade can only be made by one man. That's the commander in chief. The responsibility rests with him and no one else.

 

[Tuatara]

Fear mongering was much more effective

George W. Bush didn t just lie about the Iraq War. What he did was much worse.

What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history. Spend too much time in the weeds, and you risk missing the hysterical tenor of the whole campaign.

In the summer of 2002, the administration established something called the White House Iraq Group, through which Karl Rove and other communication strategists like Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin coordinated with policy officials to sell the public on the threat from Iraq in order to justify war. "The script had been finalized with great care over the summer," White House press secretary Scott McClellan later wrote, for a "campaign to convince Americans that war with Iraq was inevitable and necessary."
In that campaign, intelligence wasn't something to be understood and assessed by the administration in making their decisions, it was a propaganda tool to lead the public to the conclusion that the administration wanted. Again and again we saw a similar pattern: An allegation would bubble up from somewhere, some in the intelligence community would say that it could be true but others would say it was either speculation or outright baloney, but before you knew it the president or someone else was presenting it to the public as settled fact.





.

It has now become pretty much the status of urban legend that no one was crazy enough to link Saddam Hussein to WMD and Al Qaeda terrorists until the Bush administration did it as a rationale — one of several — for the 2003 invasion. It makes for a great story, except for one problem.

It’s wrong.

What follows is adapted from my 2008 book on preventive war, Eve of Destruction. Let’s be clear: if I knew this in 2006 and 2007 when the book was undergoing edits at a top university press, then it wasn’t a secret. The fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton laid out the connection between Iraq, VX weapons, and Al Qaeda in 1998, and Clinton himself provided such a strong rationale for going to war against Hussein that the far left wasapeshit distressed at his turn toward warmongering.

Who started that story about Iraq, WMDs, and Al Qaeda? That’s right, Bill Clinton. Who started that story about Iraq WMDs and Al Qaeda That s right Bill Clinton. The War Room

Guess what. Bill Clinton was lying too. Bill Clinton dropped the bombs on Iraq because Saddam kicked the inspectors out. Saddam kicked the inspectors out because the CIA sent spies along with the UN inspectors. Clinton should be tried for his bombing campaign against Iraq. Also in 1998 there was some doubt still surrounding the WMD's. Clinton never stated it was a slam dunk. As for Al Qaeda, Bill never tied Saddam with Bin Laden. He tied Al Qaeda to many other things and was wrong about it.

 

[boilermaker55]

Prove it.
That is only in your little mind!

Face facts, Bush and Cheney were much better at foreign policy than this clown Obama and his gaffe machine Biden or his zero accomplishments former SOS Clinton.

We don't want the smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud
They will treat us as liberators
5 days, 5 weeks, 5 months....I can't envision it taking longer than that

You man Obama is a laughing stock among world leaders.

 

[rightwinger]

Fear mongering was much more effective

George W. Bush didn t just lie about the Iraq War. What he did was much worse.

What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history. Spend too much time in the weeds, and you risk missing the hysterical tenor of the whole campaign.

In the summer of 2002, the administration established something called the White House Iraq Group, through which Karl Rove and other communication strategists like Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin coordinated with policy officials to sell the public on the threat from Iraq in order to justify war. "The script had been finalized with great care over the summer," White House press secretary Scott McClellan later wrote, for a "campaign to convince Americans that war with Iraq was inevitable and necessary."
In that campaign, intelligence wasn't something to be understood and assessed by the administration in making their decisions, it was a propaganda tool to lead the public to the conclusion that the administration wanted. Again and again we saw a similar pattern: An allegation would bubble up from somewhere, some in the intelligence community would say that it could be true but others would say it was either speculation or outright baloney, but before you knew it the president or someone else was presenting it to the public as settled fact.





.

You Liberals keep revisiting this and you always gloss over the case Democrats made for Saddam removal by force BEFORE Bush set foot in the White House. Until you can show where, when, and why Democrats' changed their position before Bush made his case, you are simply peddling propaganda and falsehoods about Bush lying. Then again, you are the same people still clamoring to the notion that the Nation's second 9-11 attack was due to a YouTube video. Give it Up or give it some fact and logic.

Show where Clinton said we should invade and take over the country. Show where any Democrat advocated that. More quotes that Saddam is a bad guy doesn't cut it

 

[rightwinger]

Fear mongering was much more effective

George W. Bush didn t just lie about the Iraq War. What he did was much worse.

What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history. Spend too much time in the weeds, and you risk missing the hysterical tenor of the whole campaign.

In the summer of 2002, the administration established something called the White House Iraq Group, through which Karl Rove and other communication strategists like Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin coordinated with policy officials to sell the public on the threat from Iraq in order to justify war. "The script had been finalized with great care over the summer," White House press secretary Scott McClellan later wrote, for a "campaign to convince Americans that war with Iraq was inevitable and necessary."
In that campaign, intelligence wasn't something to be understood and assessed by the administration in making their decisions, it was a propaganda tool to lead the public to the conclusion that the administration wanted. Again and again we saw a similar pattern: An allegation would bubble up from somewhere, some in the intelligence community would say that it could be true but others would say it was either speculation or outright baloney, but before you knew it the president or someone else was presenting it to the public as settled fact.





.

It has now become pretty much the status of urban legend that no one was crazy enough to link Saddam Hussein to WMD and Al Qaeda terrorists until the Bush administration did it as a rationale — one of several — for the 2003 invasion. It makes for a great story, except for one problem.

It’s wrong.

What follows is adapted from my 2008 book on preventive war, Eve of Destruction. Let’s be clear: if I knew this in 2006 and 2007 when the book was undergoing edits at a top university press, then it wasn’t a secret. The fact of the matter is that Bill Clinton laid out the connection between Iraq, VX weapons, and Al Qaeda in 1998, and Clinton himself provided such a strong rationale for going to war against Hussein that the far left wasapeshit distressed at his turn toward warmongering.

Who started that story about Iraq, WMDs, and Al Qaeda? That’s right, Bill Clinton. Who started that story about Iraq WMDs and Al Qaeda That s right Bill Clinton. The War Room

I missed the part about Clinton calling for invasion

"There is no better example than the UN weapons system inspection itself"

Bush should have listened to Clinton

 

[rightwinger]

I can just imagine what the meeting was like when someone came up with that phrase and everyone chimed in that was the kind of sales gimmick winner worthy of a Madison Avenue campaign that ends up helping Coors sell more beer to alcoholics and vitamin supplement companies sell more herbal remedies packaged as miracle cures to hapless people who are desperate for any kind of relief from the health problems associated with growing older.

You do not have to imagine...here are the Republican cynical bastards discussing"how do we start the war" how do we sell this atrocity to the US people .........

Hubris Selling the Iraq War - The Rumsfeld memos MSNBC

Among the new revelations in tonight’s documentary about how the Bush administration convinced the American people to go to war in Iraq are newly declassified talking points and handwritten notes from November, 2001 in which can be seen then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s team trying to find the most compelling reason to justify war.

Hubris co-author Michael Isikoff explains:

By late November, Rumsfeld was meeting with Gen. Tommy Franks, Centcom commander, to plot the “decapitation” of the Iraqi government, according to the now declassified talking points agenda from the sessions (shown on television for the first time in the documentary). The talking points suggest that Rumsfeld and his team were grappling with a tricky issue: “How [to] start?” the war. In other words, what would the pretext be? Various scenarios were outlined: “US discovers Saddam connection to Sept. 11 attack or to anthrax attacks?” reads one of them. “Dispute over WMD inspections?” reads another. “Start now thinking about inspection demands.”

Team Bush knew Saddam would be antsy about inspections and could not comply 100%. No matter what Blix said, they would find some reason why Saddam wasn't complying

They went in without a net assuming once they invaded they would find SOMETHING that justified invasion....they didn't

As I recall, Bush seemed increasingly irritated when Saddam was complying with inspections.

That was what was so puzzling at the time
Saddam was providing more access than we had seen in a decade and Bush still thought we had to invade immediately

My recollection is pretty good about what happened and when.

At first, I thought that Bush was using the threat of force to get Saddam to comply with inspections. It was a tad risky, but it seemed to work when Saddam started complying. It was high stakes poker, but it got the inspectors access. But Bush not only didn't seem pleased, he actually seemed irritated if not downright agitated by the whole thing which was hard for me to understand at the time since the threat worked. Then the Bush administration started making noises about how it wasn't enough, and again Saddam seemed to roll over and comply which seemed to irritate Bush even more. It was then that I started to get the impression that Bush actually hoped that Saddam would NOT comply.

Right about this time, if not earlier, there was talk that any potential invasion would have to be launched before Summer arrived due to a combination of the intense heat of summer and the anticipated need of soldiers to wear protective suits in order to protect themselves against the possibility of a chemical weapon attack which would understandably be virtually unbearable in the summer heat.

Then, even as Saddam seemed to be complying with each new demand that Bush made, Bush had the UN pull out their inspectors and ordered the invasion just as the window of opportunity was starting to close. That's when I knew that the whole inspection thing was little more than a ruse which they thought (and undoubtedly hoped) Saddam would balk at thereby giving the administration the pretext to invade Iraq. By that time, it was clear that the invasion was nothing less than a forgone conclusion. regardless what Bush said about not wanting it.

Bush could see his window of opportunity closing as Blix was becoming increasingly confident there were no WMDs
Bush invaded before his excuse disappeared

 

[The Rabbi]

lol.

"contingency plans."

Bush and his PNAC crew wanted to invade Iraq well before 9-11.

That much is clear.

Keep trying. The massive debacle of Iraq is forever on the GOP hands. Own it.

LOL! We won the war, sweetheart. We achieved every objective we set at the start. Obama used to boast about he had won it.
Instead Obama disregarded the advice of his own people and foolishly pulled us out. As predicted by many, chaos ensued. Obama owns the situation. Democrats backed him. Deal with it.

I'll bet you thought we "won" Vietnam too.

Why? Did we achieve every objective we set?
Your surrender on this topic is noted and accepted.

 

[The Rabbi]

I can just imagine what the meeting was like when someone came up with that phrase and everyone chimed in that was the kind of sales gimmick winner worthy of a Madison Avenue campaign that ends up helping Coors sell more beer to alcoholics and vitamin supplement companies sell more herbal remedies packaged as miracle cures to hapless people who are desperate for any kind of relief from the health problems associated with growing older.

You do not have to imagine...here are the Republican cynical bastards discussing"how do we start the war" how do we sell this atrocity to the US people .........

Hubris Selling the Iraq War - The Rumsfeld memos MSNBC

Among the new revelations in tonight’s documentary about how the Bush administration convinced the American people to go to war in Iraq are newly declassified talking points and handwritten notes from November, 2001 in which can be seen then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s team trying to find the most compelling reason to justify war.

Hubris co-author Michael Isikoff explains:

By late November, Rumsfeld was meeting with Gen. Tommy Franks, Centcom commander, to plot the “decapitation” of the Iraqi government, according to the now declassified talking points agenda from the sessions (shown on television for the first time in the documentary). The talking points suggest that Rumsfeld and his team were grappling with a tricky issue: “How [to] start?” the war. In other words, what would the pretext be? Various scenarios were outlined: “US discovers Saddam connection to Sept. 11 attack or to anthrax attacks?” reads one of them. “Dispute over WMD inspections?” reads another. “Start now thinking about inspection demands.”

Team Bush knew Saddam would be antsy about inspections and could not comply 100%. No matter what Blix said, they would find some reason why Saddam wasn't complying

They went in without a net assuming once they invaded they would find SOMETHING that justified invasion....they didn't

As I recall, Bush seemed increasingly irritated when Saddam was complying with inspections.

That was what was so puzzling at the time
Saddam was providing more access than we had seen in a decade and Bush still thought we had to invade immediately

Saddam was continuing to play games, allowing inspectors, and then kicking them out. Even the UN voted for war.

 

[BluesLegend]

Prove it.
That is only in your little mind!

Face facts, Bush and Cheney were much better at foreign policy than this clown Obama and his gaffe machine Biden or his zero accomplishments former SOS Clinton.

We don't want the smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud
They will treat us as liberators
5 days, 5 weeks, 5 months....I can't envision it taking longer than that

You man Obama is a laughing stock among world leaders.

Meh I'm not concerned with the opinion of liberals, for example your opinion.

 

[The Rabbi]

You do not have to imagine...here are the Republican cynical bastards discussing"how do we start the war" how do we sell this atrocity to the US people .........

Hubris Selling the Iraq War - The Rumsfeld memos MSNBC

Among the new revelations in tonight’s documentary about how the Bush administration convinced the American people to go to war in Iraq are newly declassified talking points and handwritten notes from November, 2001 in which can be seen then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s team trying to find the most compelling reason to justify war.

Hubris co-author Michael Isikoff explains:

By late November, Rumsfeld was meeting with Gen. Tommy Franks, Centcom commander, to plot the “decapitation” of the Iraqi government, according to the now declassified talking points agenda from the sessions (shown on television for the first time in the documentary). The talking points suggest that Rumsfeld and his team were grappling with a tricky issue: “How [to] start?” the war. In other words, what would the pretext be? Various scenarios were outlined: “US discovers Saddam connection to Sept. 11 attack or to anthrax attacks?” reads one of them. “Dispute over WMD inspections?” reads another. “Start now thinking about inspection demands.”

Team Bush knew Saddam would be antsy about inspections and could not comply 100%. No matter what Blix said, they would find some reason why Saddam wasn't complying

They went in without a net assuming once they invaded they would find SOMETHING that justified invasion....they didn't

As I recall, Bush seemed increasingly irritated when Saddam was complying with inspections.

That was what was so puzzling at the time
Saddam was providing more access than we had seen in a decade and Bush still thought we had to invade immediately

My recollection is pretty good about what happened and when.

At first, I thought that Bush was using the threat of force to get Saddam to comply with inspections. It was a tad risky, but it seemed to work when Saddam started complying. It was high stakes poker, but it got the inspectors access. But Bush not only didn't seem pleased, he actually seemed irritated if not downright agitated by the whole thing which was hard for me to understand at the time since the threat worked. Then the Bush administration started making noises about how it wasn't enough, and again Saddam seemed to roll over and comply which seemed to irritate Bush even more. It was then that I started to get the impression that Bush actually hoped that Saddam would NOT comply.

Right about this time, if not earlier, there was talk that any potential invasion would have to be launched before Summer arrived due to a combination of the intense heat of summer and the anticipated need of soldiers to wear protective suits in order to protect themselves against the possibility of a chemical weapon attack which would understandably be virtually unbearable in the summer heat.

Then, even as Saddam seemed to be complying with each new demand that Bush made, Bush had the UN pull out their inspectors and ordered the invasion just as the window of opportunity was starting to close. That's when I knew that the whole inspection thing was little more than a ruse which they thought (and undoubtedly hoped) Saddam would balk at thereby giving the administration the pretext to invade Iraq. By that time, it was clear that the invasion was nothing less than a forgone conclusion. regardless what Bush said about not wanting it.

Bush could see his window of opportunity closing as Blix was becoming increasingly confident there were no WMDs
Bush invaded before his excuse disappeared

No, Cheney needed extra cash to fund a vacation so he had to hurry the process up so Halliburton coudl get those no bid contracts.
Get it right, Nutjobber!

 

[Lakhota]

Anger, fear and patriotism rallied Americans behind Bush after 9/11 - not yet realizing that he was a fucking psycho.

 

[Mustang]

I can just imagine what the meeting was like when someone came up with that phrase and everyone chimed in that was the kind of sales gimmick winner worthy of a Madison Avenue campaign that ends up helping Coors sell more beer to alcoholics and vitamin supplement companies sell more herbal remedies packaged as miracle cures to hapless people who are desperate for any kind of relief from the health problems associated with growing older.

You do not have to imagine...here are the Republican cynical bastards discussing"how do we start the war" how do we sell this atrocity to the US people .........

Hubris Selling the Iraq War - The Rumsfeld memos MSNBC

Among the new revelations in tonight’s documentary about how the Bush administration convinced the American people to go to war in Iraq are newly declassified talking points and handwritten notes from November, 2001 in which can be seen then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s team trying to find the most compelling reason to justify war.

Hubris co-author Michael Isikoff explains:

By late November, Rumsfeld was meeting with Gen. Tommy Franks, Centcom commander, to plot the “decapitation” of the Iraqi government, according to the now declassified talking points agenda from the sessions (shown on television for the first time in the documentary). The talking points suggest that Rumsfeld and his team were grappling with a tricky issue: “How [to] start?” the war. In other words, what would the pretext be? Various scenarios were outlined: “US discovers Saddam connection to Sept. 11 attack or to anthrax attacks?” reads one of them. “Dispute over WMD inspections?” reads another. “Start now thinking about inspection demands.”

Team Bush knew Saddam would be antsy about inspections and could not comply 100%. No matter what Blix said, they would find some reason why Saddam wasn't complying

They went in without a net assuming once they invaded they would find SOMETHING that justified invasion....they didn't

As I recall, Bush seemed increasingly irritated when Saddam was complying with inspections.

That was what was so puzzling at the time
Saddam was providing more access than we had seen in a decade and Bush still thought we had to invade immediately

Saddam was continuing to play games, allowing inspectors, and then kicking them out. Even the UN voted for war.

I never heard about any vote by any organization whether it was the US Congress or the UN that had a yes or no vote for war.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Fear mongering was much more effective

George W. Bush didn t just lie about the Iraq War. What he did was much worse.

What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history. Spend too much time in the weeds, and you risk missing the hysterical tenor of the whole campaign.

In the summer of 2002, the administration established something called the White House Iraq Group, through which Karl Rove and other communication strategists like Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin coordinated with policy officials to sell the public on the threat from Iraq in order to justify war. "The script had been finalized with great care over the summer," White House press secretary Scott McClellan later wrote, for a "campaign to convince Americans that war with Iraq was inevitable and necessary."
In that campaign, intelligence wasn't something to be understood and assessed by the administration in making their decisions, it was a propaganda tool to lead the public to the conclusion that the administration wanted. Again and again we saw a similar pattern: An allegation would bubble up from somewhere, some in the intelligence community would say that it could be true but others would say it was either speculation or outright baloney, but before you knew it the president or someone else was presenting it to the public as settled fact.





.

You Liberals keep revisiting this and you always gloss over the case Democrats made for Saddam removal by force BEFORE Bush set foot in the White House. Until you can show where, when, and why Democrats' changed their position before Bush made his case, you are simply peddling propaganda and falsehoods about Bush lying. Then again, you are the same people still clamoring to the notion that the Nation's second 9-11 attack was due to a YouTube video. Give it Up or give it some fact and logic.

Show where Clinton said we should invade and take over the country. Show where any Democrat advocated that. More quotes that Saddam is a bad guy doesn't cut it

Clinton said Saddam was determined to build weapons and therefore, we would use force. SEE February 17, 1998 quote - Bill Clinton.

 

[Tuatara]

I can just imagine what the meeting was like when someone came up with that phrase and everyone chimed in that was the kind of sales gimmick winner worthy of a Madison Avenue campaign that ends up helping Coors sell more beer to alcoholics and vitamin supplement companies sell more herbal remedies packaged as miracle cures to hapless people who are desperate for any kind of relief from the health problems associated with growing older.

You do not have to imagine...here are the Republican cynical bastards discussing"how do we start the war" how do we sell this atrocity to the US people .........

Hubris Selling the Iraq War - The Rumsfeld memos MSNBC

Among the new revelations in tonight’s documentary about how the Bush administration convinced the American people to go to war in Iraq are newly declassified talking points and handwritten notes from November, 2001 in which can be seen then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s team trying to find the most compelling reason to justify war.

Hubris co-author Michael Isikoff explains:

By late November, Rumsfeld was meeting with Gen. Tommy Franks, Centcom commander, to plot the “decapitation” of the Iraqi government, according to the now declassified talking points agenda from the sessions (shown on television for the first time in the documentary). The talking points suggest that Rumsfeld and his team were grappling with a tricky issue: “How [to] start?” the war. In other words, what would the pretext be? Various scenarios were outlined: “US discovers Saddam connection to Sept. 11 attack or to anthrax attacks?” reads one of them. “Dispute over WMD inspections?” reads another. “Start now thinking about inspection demands.”

Team Bush knew Saddam would be antsy about inspections and could not comply 100%. No matter what Blix said, they would find some reason why Saddam wasn't complying

They went in without a net assuming once they invaded they would find SOMETHING that justified invasion....they didn't

As I recall, Bush seemed increasingly irritated when Saddam was complying with inspections.

That was what was so puzzling at the time
Saddam was providing more access than we had seen in a decade and Bush still thought we had to invade immediately

Saddam was continuing to play games, allowing inspectors, and then kicking them out. Even the UN voted for war.

Ahhh, no they didn't.

 

[Tuatara]

lol.

"contingency plans."

Bush and his PNAC crew wanted to invade Iraq well before 9-11.

That much is clear.

Keep trying. The massive debacle of Iraq is forever on the GOP hands. Own it.

LOL! We won the war, sweetheart. We achieved every objective we set at the start. Obama used to boast about he had won it.
Instead Obama disregarded the advice of his own people and foolishly pulled us out. As predicted by many, chaos ensued. Obama owns the situation. Democrats backed him. Deal with it.

I'll bet you thought we "won" Vietnam too.

Why? Did we achieve every objective we set?
Your surrender on this topic is noted and accepted.

If your objective was to have nearly 5000 US soldiers killed and over 30,000 injured and over one million Iraqi killed then yes, your objective was filled. Was another objective was to make Iraq worse than it was under Hussein and to create even more terrorists groups then yes your objectives were reached. I really don't know what the objectives were because they kept on changing.

 

[percysunshine]

Fear mongering was much more effective

George W. Bush didn t just lie about the Iraq War. What he did was much worse.

What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history. Spend too much time in the weeds, and you risk missing the hysterical tenor of the whole campaign.

In the summer of 2002, the administration established something called the White House Iraq Group, through which Karl Rove and other communication strategists like Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin coordinated with policy officials to sell the public on the threat from Iraq in order to justify war. "The script had been finalized with great care over the summer," White House press secretary Scott McClellan later wrote, for a "campaign to convince Americans that war with Iraq was inevitable and necessary."
In that campaign, intelligence wasn't something to be understood and assessed by the administration in making their decisions, it was a propaganda tool to lead the public to the conclusion that the administration wanted. Again and again we saw a similar pattern: An allegation would bubble up from somewhere, some in the intelligence community would say that it could be true but others would say it was either speculation or outright baloney, but before you knew it the president or someone else was presenting it to the public as settled fact.





.

rw,

There is a BDS anonymous self help group somewhere in your local community. I know these kinds of things are difficult to admit to, and to seek help for, but you should go to one of the meetings just to see if it is best for you.

Our best wishes are with you, and we all hope you can recover from this debilitating disease....really.

.
.

 

[GreenBean]

I missed the part about Clinton calling for invasion

I guess you missed the part about 9-11 also - didn't happen on Clintons watch. If it had we would have been apologizing to the persecuted poor misunderstood little Al-qaeda fellas .

 

[Dot Com]

I missed the part about Clinton calling for invasion

I guess you missed the part about 9-11 also - didn't happen on Clintons watch. If it had we would have been apologizing to the persecuted poor misunderstood little Al-qaeda fellas .

hyperbole in the Politics sub-forum? RLLY?