Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
President Bush could not have gone to war without the support of Congress and the Senate and you bloody well know it.
5. The United States was already bombing Iraq prior to the ground invasion of March 2003, prior to the passage of resolution 1441 in November 2002, as well as every year prior to 2002 starting in 1991. The ground invasion in March 2003 was simply the use of new military tactics to bring about compliance which in this case was only able to occur with the removal of Saddam's regime from power which the ground invasion succeeded in doing.
Slyhunter, here's the thread where we TROUNCED StillObsessedwithW:
Iraq told us to LEAVE "their" country - PERIOD! | Page 17 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
He went down in flames.....
I participated in that thread and read the entire thread., I'd say EconChick is having grandiose delusions.
Slyhunter, here's the thread where we TROUNCED StillObsessedwithW: Iraq told us to LEAVE "their" country - PERIOD! | Page 17 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum He went down in flames.....
True. This is a great example of the extreme ambiguity and complexity of the situation that so many people on the left don't seem to grasp.
Like you said, they don't want us there. But they clearly DO need us there. They asked for our help, did they not? They have lost one third of their country have they not?
We have gone in with airstrikes, have we not?
They want us there, they don't want us there.
They wanted our troops there, they didn't want our troops there.
Parliament wanted us there, Parliament did not want us there.
Maliki wanted our troops there, Maliki didn't ....
And I could do this several hundred times.
We keep talking like Iraq is one big monolith and everyone agrees. No, there is little agreement.
This is the real complexity, yet we have liberals (not you H) who keep picking just one half of just one statement as if that's the only variable that mattered.
That's why as we keep saying...it was subject to negotiation.
Bush handed over a stable Iraq. Obama fucked it up.
thanks for confirming that you didn't read the OPENING POST!!!Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh Lied people Diedddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd
You've got that right. Pretty low class of you to be joking about it.
There is no evidence Bush lied. But you keep pedaling THAT lie.
Saddam refused to give the inspectors full access to the sites where WMD was suspected of being.
Of course, it's all Obama's fault. Now that we have that out of the way, Republicans are free to review the declassified Bush government documents which prove that the information on Iraq's WMD was fabricated to justify the preemptive invasion and all consequences thereafter.
The material presented in this electronic briefing book includes both essential pre-war documentation and documents produced or released subsequent to the start of military action in March 2003. Pre-war documentation includes the major unclassified U.S. and British assessments of Iraq's WMD programs; the IAEA and UNSCOM reports covering the final period prior to their 1998 departure, and between November 27, 2002, and February 2003; the transcript of a key speech by President Bush; a statement of U.S. policy toward combating WMD; the transcript of and slides for Secretary Powell's presentation to the U.N. on February 5, 2003; and documents from the 1980s and 1990's concerning various aspects of Iraqi WMD activities.
Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction
The documents suggest that the public relations push for war came before the intelligence analysis, which then conformed to public positions taken by Pentagon and White House officials. For example, a July 2002 draft of the "White Paper" ultimately issued by the CIA in October 2002 actually pre-dated the National Intelligence Estimate that the paper purportedly summarized, but which Congress did not insist on until September 2002.
U.S. Intelligence and Iraq WMD
Several recently declassified documents compiled here, dating mostly from the first year of the Bush administration, provide new insights into the lead-up to the war. One in particular, comprised of notes used by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in late November 2001 during his first face-to-face meeting with Gen. Tommy Franks after sending him the order to start planning seriously for combat, demonstrates again -- as so much reporting has done -- the influence of the long neoconservative campaign against Saddam Hussein as a primary factor driving George Bush’s Iraq policy.
Other documents reflect the high level of attention paid to Iraq well before the 9/11 attacks, as well as some of the problems that the administration faced as it began strategizing seriously for war – how to justify an unprovoked attack given the dearth of any real evidence that Iraq was a threat to the U.S., how to win over partners that would be willing to join in the U.S. invasion, how to generate positive spin to sell the administration’s controversial choices?
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I:*The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001
Available documentary records, recollections of Bush administration officials, and the growing body of testimony and materials assembled by the British Iraq Inquiry (Chilcot Panel), support the thesis that the United States went to war in Iraq without clear consideration of whether war was a proper recourse. One of a series of electronic briefing books (EBB) re-examining several aspects of the run up to the war, this posting focuses on planning and preparations for action during 2002. (The first EBB covered the beginning of the Bush administration; the third will address a parallel effort to craft propaganda in favor of a military conflict, in the guise of intelligence reporting.) The net effect of these activities was to foreclose diplomatic options that would have prevented war.
President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, the record suggests, made their real decision privately and restricted knowledge to a very few individuals. Information from participants, especially on the British side, also increasingly suggests that even between the U.S. and British governments, and within the Bush administration itself, subordinate officials were kept in ignorance of leaders’ real intentions. Evidence indicates the decision was made very early, long before ultimatums to Iraq or other diplomatic action. An alternative view, that leaders ordered up contingency plans for war and then simply implemented them without further consideration based on the mechanics of military and alliance planning, offers an equally bleak picture of the disastrous Operation Iraqi Freedom.
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART II: Was There Even a Decision?
Washington, D.C., October 4, 2010 - For nearly a year before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the British government of Prime Minister Tony Blair collaborated closely with the George W. Bush administration to produce a far starker picture of the threat from Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) than was justified by intelligence at the time, according to British and American government documents posted today by the National Security Archive.
With the aim of strengthening the political case for going to war, both governments regularly coordinated their assessments, the records show, occasionally downplaying and even eliminating points of disagreement over the available intelligence. The new materials, acquired largely through the U.K. Freedom of Information Act and often featuring less redacted versions of previously released records, also reveal that the Blair administration, far earlier than has been appreciated until now, utilized public relations specialists to help craft the formal intelligence “white papers” about Iraq’s WMD program.
At one point, even though intelligence officials were skeptical, the British went so far as to incorporate in their white paper allegations about Saddam’s nuclear ambitions because they had been made publicly by President Bush and Vice President Cheney.
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART III: Shaping the Debate
Washington, DC, March 19, 2013 – The U.S. invasion of Iraq turned out to be a textbook case of flawed assumptions, wrong-headed intelligence, propaganda manipulation, and administrative ad hockery, according to the National Security Archive's briefing book of declassified documents posted today to mark the 10th anniversary of the war.
The Archive's documentary primer includes the famous Downing Street memo ("intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy"), the POLO STEP PowerPoint invasion plans (assuming out of existence any possible insurgency), an FBI interview with Saddam Hussein in captivity (he said he lied about weapons of mass destruction to keep Iran guessing and deterred), and the infamous National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (wrong in its findings, but with every noted dissent turning out to be accurate).
"These dozen documents provide essential reading for anyone trying to understand the Iraq war," remarked Joyce Battle, Archive senior analyst who is compiling a definitive reference collection of declassified documents on the Iraq War. "At a moment when the public is debating the costs and consequences of the U.S. invasion, these primary sources refresh the memory and ground the discussion with contemporary evidence."
A decade after the U.S. invasion of Iraq (March 19, 2003), the debate continues over whether the United States truly believed that Iraq's supposed WMD capabilities posed an imminent danger, and whether the results of the engagement have been worth the high costs to both countries. To mark the 10 th anniversary of the start of hostilities, the National Security Archive has posted a selection of essential historical documents framing the key elements of one of America's most significant foreign policy choices of recent times. The records elucidate the decision to go to war, to administer a post-invasion Iraq, and to sell the idea to Congress, the media, and the public at large.
The Iraq War Ten Years After
As long as the Bush team ignores that myth I will too. So should you if you care about being credible on this topic.
Obama finished W's strategy and timeline, but when W did it it was bad, when Obama did it then it was OK. Gotcha, StillobsessedwithW.
LMAO, I gotta use that name! StillobsessedwithW. Excellent.
Kaz is as uninformed about Iraq as you are. You have no points or arguments to make I see. No valid facts to submit about anything.
Some people play tennis, some take trips and cruises, some play golf, some garden. Foo spends his life arguing that W lied his way into the Iraq War. He will argue that till his dying day. That way he can ignore the lies of his hero Obabble. If W did emphasize certain points in gathering support for the war, he succeeded in getting libtard support. At the end of the day , to quote another emphasizer, "what difference, at this point, does it make?"
Obama said it was stable when he walked away...who is the bigger fool?Some people play tennis, some take trips and cruises, some play golf, some garden. Foo spends his life arguing that W lied his way into the Iraq War. He will argue that till his dying day. That way he can ignore the lies of his hero Obabble. If W did emphasize certain points in gathering support for the war, he succeeded in getting libtard support. At the end of the day , to quote another emphasizer, "what difference, at this point, does it make?"
Actually I am pointing out current folks that are still totally fooled by Dubya and the rightwing propaganda machine.
Such as this;
↑
Bush handed over a stable Iraq. Obama fucked it up.
Jul 10, 2014 at 01:36 PM.This totally misses the point that the goal was to PREVENT Saddam from ever having any WMD capability again!
Jul 10, 2014 at 01:36 PM.It would have been stupid to wait to launch an invasion until Saddam had re-acquired his prior WMD capacity.
Obama finished W's strategy and timeline, but when W did it it was bad, when Obama did it then it was OK. Gotcha, StillobsessedwithW.
No. When Bush signed the agreement in 2008 to withdraw US troops from cities in Iraq by June 2009 and all troops gone by 2012 by a date certain Bush did good. Obama did good to stick to that timeline for withdrawal.
It was the starting the whole war in the first place where Bush's badness comes in.
Bush did real good to topple the Taliban in 2002. That is still good. Where Bush did bad in Afghanistan was when he weakened the mission there in order to 'dumbly' invade Iraq as Obama said in advance of that dumb invasion of Iraq.
Right, because someone who is "informed" looks at two parties telling you the exact same thing, and you simultaniously believe one is telling you the truth and the other is lying. This is the problem with partisan idiots like you. I opposed Iraq because it was bad policy and not our problem. But you kool-aid drinking Democrats are so shallowly partisan that you cause the conversation we should be having to go no where.
Jul 10, 2014 at 01:36 PM.This totally misses the point that the goal was to PREVENT Saddam from ever having any WMD capability again!
Then Bush Lied to you on March 17, 2003 because Bush definitely said that Iraq was hiding WMD from UN inspectors at that time and that is why he decided to attack the people of Iraq
I agreed Bush should have confronted Saddam's violations of international law in 2002 as he did. I did not agree with his decision to put an end to UN inspections that his confrontation helped produce in March 2003. .I fully supported Bush sending the troops into Afghanistan. So who is the partisan hack here?
First of all, StillobsessedwithW, since I don't belong to a party, being "partisan" it stupid, and I haven't argued the Republican position, I said I'm against Iraq. Second, you are still blaming W and letting the Democrats off the hook for their lies, so I'm not sure what you even think you did there.
Today at 3:37 PM 08/22Then the Democrats lied and said he was right. Then you lied and said they didn't lie. Maybe you could be the first to stop the cycle of lies.
