Just How Bad Did The Republicans Want To Invade Iraq?

[Correll]

Wow. That was dumb on so many levels...

Mistake Level ONe: IF it was dropped BEFORE THE INVASION, then the mistake about WMDs would not have occurred.

Mistake Level Two: THe other reasons have been repeatedly discussed for over a decade. It is not credible that you have not heard them.

Mistake Level Three:Not only is it not credible that you have not heard them it is an insult to both of our intelligences for you to try to pretend at this late date that you have not heard them. Stop being a jackass.

Mistake Level Four. Indeed, other posters have posted several of them in this thread AND YOU HAVE RESPONDED TO THEM WITHOUT THE LAST HOUR OR TWO. So your pretense of ignorance is grossly disingenuous.

Liberals. All the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

(no offense meant)

Level 1 never happened, so you lose.
Levels 2, 3 and 4 are just more of you dodging the question. Listen, if you don't want to say anything, why are you here? Trolling?

I clearly said that Level 1 is what SHOULD have happened since they had only an Absence of Evidence.

How fucking stupid are you?

If Level 1 never happened, they have no reason to go to war.
As for 2, 3 and 4, you simply can't find a proper answer to satisfy yourself, can you?

If Level 1 happens, there are still plenty of reasons to go to war. Stop lying.

2,3,and 4? I'm completely satisfied with the historical record. You're the one playing the game were you try to define reality by what YOU consider valid.

Why are you being such an ass?

I'll ask you again, "If Level 1 happens, there are still plenty of reasons to go to war." Like what?

Why are you being such an asshole?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Correll]

Trump.

 

[rightwinger]

Err, not just yes, but Hell Yes.

I certainly do not expect the CIA to be infallible.

Lesson to be learned for future wars.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


ie just because there was no evidence that the WMDs were gone, did not mean they were still there.

What we really should have had was EVIDENCE THEY WERE THERE.

Or that reason should have been dropped from the list of reasons for the invasion.

C'mom seriously, you think the CIA made a mistake?

And you can't invade for a certain reason, then drop that reason when it doesn't pan out.

Yes. I do believe that the CIA made a mistake. You seriously don't believe they can be wrong?

And it was clear from my post that my point was that WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THEY WMDS WERE THERE, THAT REASON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DROPPED BEFORE THE INVASION.

That is the lesson to be learned.

Indeed, it is not credible that you did not grasp that as I clearly stated that.

Stop playing stupid.

Finding WMDS was the yardstick the media placed on any success in Iraq.

This was their narrow-minded standard that was impossible to reach if warehouses full of NBC weapons weren't found. The reasons we went in were numerous. They were similar to the reasons we went into Afghanistan and why we bombed Libya. To remove a destabilizing force in the Middle-East....and remove a safe haven for terrorist operations. The problem with that is you have to keep the peace after you do it.....and Obama dropped the ball on that, horribly.

The WMDs provided an excuse for urgency

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"
Powerful imagery, but completely false

Saddam was contained, he was not a threat outside his borders, we were already involved in the war on terror
Iraq could have waited....WMDs provided an excuse for an immediate attack

The Sanctions were failing, remember the Oil FOr Food Scandal?

And considering how long Saddam was screwing around, ie thoughout the end of the Bush administration and all the Clinton years, one can hardly call the invasion an "immediate attack".

Over ten years and he has made no moves outside his borders

We needed to send 5000 Americans to their deaths beause Saddam was diverting food money?

 

[Stephanie]

and get that title folks. he calls it an Invasion.
but Obama bombing all kinds of countries taking out their LEADERS (Gaddafi) who was (just like Saddam) and then just LEAVING the people there to FEND off the wolves that swept in on them and is what is causing this Refugee CRISIS and now HURTING not only us but as you see, other counties around the world... and they (people like the OP) call that? nothing but Obama doing a good job I guess.

And one other thing. that old lady Hillary and her party of Democrats voted for that war. so stop pretending like they didn't. and you say they were lied to. Well how damn scary is that if they can't figure out what is the truth and what is a lie? they are in charge of PROTECTING us.

You saw all the remarks from the Clinton administration about Saddam. they wanted to bomb him and did one time. so don't act like they are all so innocent of anything to do with Iraq.

IF Bill Clinton had taken Bin Laden when he was offered to him we might NOT have had 9/11 which happened with Bush only being in office for 9MONTHS. that's hardly enough time to switch out the furniture. we can speculate on that until the cows come home too

vote out these liars in the Progressive/Democrat party. Iraq isn't the issue today. Obama and Terrorism we are going to be dealing with soon is the issues/ Obama and all this civil unrest, riots, lootings, now using our children in colleges from groups they (Dnc/Soros funded) stand in Solidarity with being brought down on us with their blessings is the issues we are dealing with NOW/Obama lying to us in order to put a new Monster Government entitlement on our backs is the issue/ 94million people without a job under this Obama progressive/democrat regime is the issues of TODAY. all of that is what they want to distract you away from. so they bring up IRAQ again and again and again. don't fall for it. VOTE them out of our lives come 2016

 

[Correll]

C'mom seriously, you think the CIA made a mistake?

And you can't invade for a certain reason, then drop that reason when it doesn't pan out.

Yes. I do believe that the CIA made a mistake. You seriously don't believe they can be wrong?

And it was clear from my post that my point was that WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THEY WMDS WERE THERE, THAT REASON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DROPPED BEFORE THE INVASION.

That is the lesson to be learned.

Indeed, it is not credible that you did not grasp that as I clearly stated that.

Stop playing stupid.

Finding WMDS was the yardstick the media placed on any success in Iraq.

This was their narrow-minded standard that was impossible to reach if warehouses full of NBC weapons weren't found. The reasons we went in were numerous. They were similar to the reasons we went into Afghanistan and why we bombed Libya. To remove a destabilizing force in the Middle-East....and remove a safe haven for terrorist operations. The problem with that is you have to keep the peace after you do it.....and Obama dropped the ball on that, horribly.

The WMDs provided an excuse for urgency

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"
Powerful imagery, but completely false

Saddam was contained, he was not a threat outside his borders, we were already involved in the war on terror
Iraq could have waited....WMDs provided an excuse for an immediate attack

The Sanctions were failing, remember the Oil FOr Food Scandal?

And considering how long Saddam was screwing around, ie thoughout the end of the Bush administration and all the Clinton years, one can hardly call the invasion an "immediate attack".

Over ten years and he has made no moves outside his borders

We needed to send 5000 Americans to their deaths beause Saddam was diverting food money?

You claimed he was contained. I pointed out that the containment was failing.

Do you remember what he was diverting food money TO?

If the supposed containment was not important to your being against the war, you should not have mentioned it as a reason for being against the war.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes. I do believe that the CIA made a mistake. You seriously don't believe they can be wrong?

And it was clear from my post that my point was that WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THEY WMDS WERE THERE, THAT REASON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DROPPED BEFORE THE INVASION.

That is the lesson to be learned.

Indeed, it is not credible that you did not grasp that as I clearly stated that.

Stop playing stupid.

Finding WMDS was the yardstick the media placed on any success in Iraq.

This was their narrow-minded standard that was impossible to reach if warehouses full of NBC weapons weren't found. The reasons we went in were numerous. They were similar to the reasons we went into Afghanistan and why we bombed Libya. To remove a destabilizing force in the Middle-East....and remove a safe haven for terrorist operations. The problem with that is you have to keep the peace after you do it.....and Obama dropped the ball on that, horribly.

The WMDs provided an excuse for urgency

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"
Powerful imagery, but completely false

Saddam was contained, he was not a threat outside his borders, we were already involved in the war on terror
Iraq could have waited....WMDs provided an excuse for an immediate attack

The Sanctions were failing, remember the Oil FOr Food Scandal?

And considering how long Saddam was screwing around, ie thoughout the end of the Bush administration and all the Clinton years, one can hardly call the invasion an "immediate attack".

Over ten years and he has made no moves outside his borders

We needed to send 5000 Americans to their deaths beause Saddam was diverting food money?

You claimed he was contained. I pointed out that the containment was failing.

Do you remember what he was diverting food money TO?

If the supposed containment was not important to your being against the war, you should not have mentioned it as a reason for being against the war.

How is that failing?

We claimed he was a threat....where was the threat?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

We claimed he was a threat....where was the threat?

Hello he had lawn mower engines ultra Light with nukes............

 

[Correll]

Finding WMDS was the yardstick the media placed on any success in Iraq.

This was their narrow-minded standard that was impossible to reach if warehouses full of NBC weapons weren't found. The reasons we went in were numerous. They were similar to the reasons we went into Afghanistan and why we bombed Libya. To remove a destabilizing force in the Middle-East....and remove a safe haven for terrorist operations. The problem with that is you have to keep the peace after you do it.....and Obama dropped the ball on that, horribly.

The WMDs provided an excuse for urgency

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"
Powerful imagery, but completely false

Saddam was contained, he was not a threat outside his borders, we were already involved in the war on terror
Iraq could have waited....WMDs provided an excuse for an immediate attack

The Sanctions were failing, remember the Oil FOr Food Scandal?

And considering how long Saddam was screwing around, ie thoughout the end of the Bush administration and all the Clinton years, one can hardly call the invasion an "immediate attack".

Over ten years and he has made no moves outside his borders

We needed to send 5000 Americans to their deaths beause Saddam was diverting food money?

You claimed he was contained. I pointed out that the containment was failing.

Do you remember what he was diverting food money TO?

If the supposed containment was not important to your being against the war, you should not have mentioned it as a reason for being against the war.

How is that failing?

We claimed he was a threat....where was the threat?

He was diverting the Oil for Food Money to buy weapons in violation of the Sanctions which was a big part of the containment.

Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

If the supposed containment was not important to your being against the war, you should not have mentioned it as a reason for being against the war.

 

[Sallow]

Here's the letter to Clinton and the signees:


December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Most of the folks that signed that letter wound up in George W. Bush's administration.

 

[Correll]

Here's the letter to Clinton and the signees:


December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Most of the folks that signed that letter wound up in George W. Bush's administration.

And?

 

[Sallow]

We need to stop pretending the lesser of two evils is anything but evil. Instead of replacing one douchebag with another douchebag who sucks our dick we need to put in actual western leaders and replace Muslim governments with secular ones.

We didn't put kinder, gentler Nazis in the post-war German government after WW2. If we take over a country, why the fuck are we just letting them replace what we removed with more of the same?

Actually.

We did put kinder gentler Nazis into the German government. And many of the police and soldiers were re-patriated.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

 

[Correll]

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Seriously? You mean he had a different opinion than his boss?

OMG!!

 

[rightwinger]

Here's the letter to Clinton and the signees:


December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Most of the folks that signed that letter wound up in George W. Bush's administration.

And?

And we got the biggest military blunder in a century

 

[Correll]

Here's the letter to Clinton and the signees:


December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Most of the folks that signed that letter wound up in George W. Bush's administration.

And?

And we got the biggest military blunder in a century

Mmm, attempting to destroy the Japanese Economy with economic warfare and not being on guard for them possibly upping the ante was bigger IMO.


But yes. believing that the Iraqis were yearning for Freedom and Democracy was pretty stupid.

Next time we should just put some sane person on a throne.

 

[rightwinger]

Here's the letter to Clinton and the signees:


December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick

Most of the folks that signed that letter wound up in George W. Bush's administration.

And?

And we got the biggest military blunder in a century

Mmm, attempting to destroy the Japanese Economy with economic warfare and not being on guard for them possibly upping the ante was bigger IMO.


But yes. believing that the Iraqis were yearning for Freedom and Democracy was pretty stupid.

Next time we should just put some sane person on a throne.

No, believing we would be treated as liberators was pretty stupid

 

[Mudda]

Level 1 never happened, so you lose.
Levels 2, 3 and 4 are just more of you dodging the question. Listen, if you don't want to say anything, why are you here? Trolling?

I clearly said that Level 1 is what SHOULD have happened since they had only an Absence of Evidence.

How fucking stupid are you?

If Level 1 never happened, they have no reason to go to war.
As for 2, 3 and 4, you simply can't find a proper answer to satisfy yourself, can you?

If Level 1 happens, there are still plenty of reasons to go to war. Stop lying.

2,3,and 4? I'm completely satisfied with the historical record. You're the one playing the game were you try to define reality by what YOU consider valid.

Why are you being such an ass?

I'll ask you again, "If Level 1 happens, there are still plenty of reasons to go to war." Like what?

Why are you being such an asshole?

At least you and everyone here now know that you have nothing.

 

[Mudda]

The WMDs provided an excuse for urgency

"We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"
Powerful imagery, but completely false

Saddam was contained, he was not a threat outside his borders, we were already involved in the war on terror
Iraq could have waited....WMDs provided an excuse for an immediate attack

The Sanctions were failing, remember the Oil FOr Food Scandal?

And considering how long Saddam was screwing around, ie thoughout the end of the Bush administration and all the Clinton years, one can hardly call the invasion an "immediate attack".

Over ten years and he has made no moves outside his borders

We needed to send 5000 Americans to their deaths beause Saddam was diverting food money?

You claimed he was contained. I pointed out that the containment was failing.

Do you remember what he was diverting food money TO?

If the supposed containment was not important to your being against the war, you should not have mentioned it as a reason for being against the war.

How is that failing?

We claimed he was a threat....where was the threat?

He was diverting the Oil for Food Money to buy weapons in violation of the Sanctions which was a big part of the containment.

Saddam stockpiling weapons is not safely contained.

If the supposed containment was not important to your being against the war, you should not have mentioned it as a reason for being against the war.

Saddam was stockpiling weapons? You mean like the US does and so does pretty much every other country in the world? And given the fact they Iraq was invaded by a foreign army, I'd say that their stockpiling of weapons was right on.

 

[mudwhistle]

Err, not just yes, but Hell Yes.

I certainly do not expect the CIA to be infallible.

Lesson to be learned for future wars.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


ie just because there was no evidence that the WMDs were gone, did not mean they were still there.

What we really should have had was EVIDENCE THEY WERE THERE.

Or that reason should have been dropped from the list of reasons for the invasion.

C'mom seriously, you think the CIA made a mistake?

And you can't invade for a certain reason, then drop that reason when it doesn't pan out.

Yes. I do believe that the CIA made a mistake. You seriously don't believe they can be wrong?

And it was clear from my post that my point was that WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT THEY WMDS WERE THERE, THAT REASON SHOULD HAVE BEEN DROPPED BEFORE THE INVASION.

That is the lesson to be learned.

Indeed, it is not credible that you did not grasp that as I clearly stated that.

Stop playing stupid.

Finding WMDS was the yardstick the media placed on any success in Iraq.

This was their narrow-minded standard that was impossible to reach if warehouses full of NBC weapons weren't found. The reasons we went in were numerous. They were similar to the reasons we went into Afghanistan and why we bombed Libya. To remove a destabilizing force in the Middle-East....and remove a safe haven for terrorist operations. The problem with that is you have to keep the peace after you do it.....and Obama dropped the ball on that, horribly.

Thanks for rewriting history, it probably needed an update anyways.

Typical Republican. They catch it from Faux News. It goes on there 24/7.

Constantly bringing up Faux News is code for ""I'm a low-information voter who thinks "Glowbull Warming" is the biggest threat on Earth and I can't argue in a logical manner anymore""!