Just How Bad Did The Republicans Want To Invade Iraq?

[Iceweasel]

Let me know if you find anything up there.

I'm not going to take on the task of pulling your head out of your ass, so no thanks. It's been there for decades according to your posts.

 

[Mudda]

You don't have to go on and on about it, everyone here has already noticed your concession on the point.

FUnny that you whine so much about a supposed lie, and then actually lie.

Liberals: all the self awareness of a turnip.

Ok, last chance. Give me a valid reason for invading Iraq.

Oh, now it's a reason that you consider "valid"?

SO, that's the game.

I cut and paste historical records showing the long ago clearly stated reasons for the invasion, and you dismiss them because you don't agree with them.

Are you really so dim that you can't understand that you don't get to define reality for other people?

Rhetorical question that.

And no matter what you keep insisting that the "real reason" is something stupid and/or Evul like, "Saddam tried to kill Bush's Daddy".

Your disagreement with the reasons of the time do not make them invalid.

YOu would have to show that people in question KNOWINGLY lied and had hidden secret agendas.

A public letter signed by the authors per the OP is pretty much the opposite of a secret conspiracy.


Can you do that? Prove what was going on inside of Bush's head?

Sure there are records of what the official reasons were (WMD). It's just that that turned out to be bullshit. So I ask again? Got a valid reason for the Iraq invasion? No? That's ok, no one else does either.

WMDs were one of the reasons, and if by "bullshit" you mean incorrect intelligence, yes.

But the people at the time had to operate based on the information they had.

Only a partisan ass would pretend otherwise.

You mean "...had to operate based on the information they made-up."

 

[Mudda]

I'm saying that you can't give me a valid reason for GW's invasion of Iraq.

A) 1991 Cease Fire.... NOTE it was a "CEASE FIRE" NOT a peace agreement. Meant any violation by Saddam would mean resumption of the War.
B) Of course YOU never care for the 2 million children that would have starved by now because Saddam wouldn't certify WMDs were destroyed.
C) Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:
Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions

A) Flimsy
B) Flimsier
C) Flimsiest.

Nothing valid that warrants invading Iraq and destroying it. And those weren't even the official reasons. EPIC FAIL.

Who are you to make that judgment?

The President and the Congress of the UNited States of the time disagreed with you and found it valid.

YOur present disagreement years after the fact is irrelevant.

A & B weren't even reasons, and still aren't, for destroying Iraq. C was proven to be false. No "my" judgement, it's a fact.

Who are you to make that judgment?

The President and the Congress of the UNited States of the time disagreed with you and found it valid.

YOur present disagreement years after the fact is irrelevant.

Congress made a decision on the made-up information given to them by GW.

 

[Mudda]

Let me know if you find anything up there.

I'm not going to take on the task of pulling your head out of your ass, so no thanks. It's been there for decades according to your posts.

Your meme, your ass.

 

[Iceweasel]

FUnny that you whine so much about a supposed lie, and then actually lie.

Liberals: all the self awareness of a turnip.

Ok, last chance. Give me a valid reason for invading Iraq.

Oh, now it's a reason that you consider "valid"?

SO, that's the game.

I cut and paste historical records showing the long ago clearly stated reasons for the invasion, and you dismiss them because you don't agree with them.

Are you really so dim that you can't understand that you don't get to define reality for other people?

Rhetorical question that.

And no matter what you keep insisting that the "real reason" is something stupid and/or Evul like, "Saddam tried to kill Bush's Daddy".

Your disagreement with the reasons of the time do not make them invalid.

YOu would have to show that people in question KNOWINGLY lied and had hidden secret agendas.

A public letter signed by the authors per the OP is pretty much the opposite of a secret conspiracy.


Can you do that? Prove what was going on inside of Bush's head?

Sure there are records of what the official reasons were (WMD). It's just that that turned out to be bullshit. So I ask again? Got a valid reason for the Iraq invasion? No? That's ok, no one else does either.

WMDs were one of the reasons, and if by "bullshit" you mean incorrect intelligence, yes.

But the people at the time had to operate based on the information they had.

Only a partisan ass would pretend otherwise.

You mean "...had to operate based on the information they made-up."

What's your evidence? And why did Hillary call her vote a mistake instead of saying she was deceived? That would be a much better excuse.

Dumbfuck!

 

[Correll]

FUnny that you whine so much about a supposed lie, and then actually lie.

Liberals: all the self awareness of a turnip.

Ok, last chance. Give me a valid reason for invading Iraq.

Oh, now it's a reason that you consider "valid"?

SO, that's the game.

I cut and paste historical records showing the long ago clearly stated reasons for the invasion, and you dismiss them because you don't agree with them.

Are you really so dim that you can't understand that you don't get to define reality for other people?

Rhetorical question that.

And no matter what you keep insisting that the "real reason" is something stupid and/or Evul like, "Saddam tried to kill Bush's Daddy".

Your disagreement with the reasons of the time do not make them invalid.

YOu would have to show that people in question KNOWINGLY lied and had hidden secret agendas.

A public letter signed by the authors per the OP is pretty much the opposite of a secret conspiracy.


Can you do that? Prove what was going on inside of Bush's head?

Sure there are records of what the official reasons were (WMD). It's just that that turned out to be bullshit. So I ask again? Got a valid reason for the Iraq invasion? No? That's ok, no one else does either.

WMDs were one of the reasons, and if by "bullshit" you mean incorrect intelligence, yes.

But the people at the time had to operate based on the information they had.

Only a partisan ass would pretend otherwise.

You mean "...had to operate based on the information they made-up."

I said what I meant. I was very clear.

Are you pretending otherwise?

 

[Mudda]

Ok, last chance. Give me a valid reason for invading Iraq.

Oh, now it's a reason that you consider "valid"?

SO, that's the game.

I cut and paste historical records showing the long ago clearly stated reasons for the invasion, and you dismiss them because you don't agree with them.

Are you really so dim that you can't understand that you don't get to define reality for other people?

Rhetorical question that.

And no matter what you keep insisting that the "real reason" is something stupid and/or Evul like, "Saddam tried to kill Bush's Daddy".

Your disagreement with the reasons of the time do not make them invalid.

YOu would have to show that people in question KNOWINGLY lied and had hidden secret agendas.

A public letter signed by the authors per the OP is pretty much the opposite of a secret conspiracy.


Can you do that? Prove what was going on inside of Bush's head?

Sure there are records of what the official reasons were (WMD). It's just that that turned out to be bullshit. So I ask again? Got a valid reason for the Iraq invasion? No? That's ok, no one else does either.

WMDs were one of the reasons, and if by "bullshit" you mean incorrect intelligence, yes.

But the people at the time had to operate based on the information they had.

Only a partisan ass would pretend otherwise.

Hans Blix said that if given more time, he could prove there was no WMDs
Bush invaded before he could provide that proof

So why would Saddam continue to let 144,000 children starve per year when all Saddam need do is certify WMDs were destroyed?
All the civilized Western world knew that NO leader would allow 144,000 children do starve...so naturally Saddam would not also????
Of course you NEVER CARED about those 144,000 children starving did you.
Published: December 1, 1995 UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 30— As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.

Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports

So from 1991 to 1995 an average of 144,000 children STARVED all because Saddam would NOT sign a simple document verifying he had NO WMDs!

Do you comprehend the situation if Saddam had not been removed by the "Liberation of Iraq" in 2003 nearly 12 more years would pass and at
an average of 144,000 starving children because SADDAM wouldn't sign.. over 2,304,000 children would be dead!
Of course YOU don't care. These are Iraqi children.

And I bet you care a lot about the US children in poverty with not enough food.

 

[Correll]

Ok, last chance. Give me a valid reason for invading Iraq.

Oh, now it's a reason that you consider "valid"?

SO, that's the game.

I cut and paste historical records showing the long ago clearly stated reasons for the invasion, and you dismiss them because you don't agree with them.

Are you really so dim that you can't understand that you don't get to define reality for other people?

Rhetorical question that.

And no matter what you keep insisting that the "real reason" is something stupid and/or Evul like, "Saddam tried to kill Bush's Daddy".

Your disagreement with the reasons of the time do not make them invalid.

YOu would have to show that people in question KNOWINGLY lied and had hidden secret agendas.

A public letter signed by the authors per the OP is pretty much the opposite of a secret conspiracy.


Can you do that? Prove what was going on inside of Bush's head?

Sure there are records of what the official reasons were (WMD). It's just that that turned out to be bullshit. So I ask again? Got a valid reason for the Iraq invasion? No? That's ok, no one else does either.

WMDs were one of the reasons, and if by "bullshit" you mean incorrect intelligence, yes.

But the people at the time had to operate based on the information they had.

Only a partisan ass would pretend otherwise.

You mean "...had to operate based on the information they made-up."

What's your evidence? And why did Hillary call her vote a mistake instead of saying she was deceived? That would be a much better excuse.

Dumbfuck!

Probably because she knows that it can be verified that she saw the same intel as the President did and came to the same conclusion.

 

[Mudda]

Ok, last chance. Give me a valid reason for invading Iraq.

Oh, now it's a reason that you consider "valid"?

SO, that's the game.

I cut and paste historical records showing the long ago clearly stated reasons for the invasion, and you dismiss them because you don't agree with them.

Are you really so dim that you can't understand that you don't get to define reality for other people?

Rhetorical question that.

And no matter what you keep insisting that the "real reason" is something stupid and/or Evul like, "Saddam tried to kill Bush's Daddy".

Your disagreement with the reasons of the time do not make them invalid.

YOu would have to show that people in question KNOWINGLY lied and had hidden secret agendas.

A public letter signed by the authors per the OP is pretty much the opposite of a secret conspiracy.


Can you do that? Prove what was going on inside of Bush's head?

Sure there are records of what the official reasons were (WMD). It's just that that turned out to be bullshit. So I ask again? Got a valid reason for the Iraq invasion? No? That's ok, no one else does either.

WMDs were one of the reasons, and if by "bullshit" you mean incorrect intelligence, yes.

But the people at the time had to operate based on the information they had.

Only a partisan ass would pretend otherwise.

You mean "...had to operate based on the information they made-up."

I said what I meant. I was very clear.

Are you pretending otherwise?

Then you were slightly wrong. That's all.

 

[Mudda]

Ok, last chance. Give me a valid reason for invading Iraq.

Oh, now it's a reason that you consider "valid"?

SO, that's the game.

I cut and paste historical records showing the long ago clearly stated reasons for the invasion, and you dismiss them because you don't agree with them.

Are you really so dim that you can't understand that you don't get to define reality for other people?

Rhetorical question that.

And no matter what you keep insisting that the "real reason" is something stupid and/or Evul like, "Saddam tried to kill Bush's Daddy".

Your disagreement with the reasons of the time do not make them invalid.

YOu would have to show that people in question KNOWINGLY lied and had hidden secret agendas.

A public letter signed by the authors per the OP is pretty much the opposite of a secret conspiracy.


Can you do that? Prove what was going on inside of Bush's head?

Sure there are records of what the official reasons were (WMD). It's just that that turned out to be bullshit. So I ask again? Got a valid reason for the Iraq invasion? No? That's ok, no one else does either.

WMDs were one of the reasons, and if by "bullshit" you mean incorrect intelligence, yes.

But the people at the time had to operate based on the information they had.

Only a partisan ass would pretend otherwise.

You mean "...had to operate based on the information they made-up."

What's your evidence? And why did Hillary call her vote a mistake instead of saying she was deceived? That would be a much better excuse.

Dumbfuck!

Hillary said she was deceived. Now just find out why she felt that way. Go on, you're almost there.

 

[mudwhistle]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

When we kicked the Taliban's ass...where did they go for medical treatment?

Straight to Iraq.

 

[Correll]

Oh, now it's a reason that you consider "valid"?

SO, that's the game.

I cut and paste historical records showing the long ago clearly stated reasons for the invasion, and you dismiss them because you don't agree with them.

Are you really so dim that you can't understand that you don't get to define reality for other people?

Rhetorical question that.

And no matter what you keep insisting that the "real reason" is something stupid and/or Evul like, "Saddam tried to kill Bush's Daddy".

Your disagreement with the reasons of the time do not make them invalid.

YOu would have to show that people in question KNOWINGLY lied and had hidden secret agendas.

A public letter signed by the authors per the OP is pretty much the opposite of a secret conspiracy.


Can you do that? Prove what was going on inside of Bush's head?

Sure there are records of what the official reasons were (WMD). It's just that that turned out to be bullshit. So I ask again? Got a valid reason for the Iraq invasion? No? That's ok, no one else does either.

WMDs were one of the reasons, and if by "bullshit" you mean incorrect intelligence, yes.

But the people at the time had to operate based on the information they had.

Only a partisan ass would pretend otherwise.

You mean "...had to operate based on the information they made-up."

I said what I meant. I was very clear.

Are you pretending otherwise?

Then you were slightly wrong. That's all.

There is a HUGE difference between a mistake and a lie.

Do you truly believe otherwise (which would make you incorrect), or are you lying about that?

 

[Mudda]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

When we kicked the Taliban's ass...where did they go for medical treatment?

Straight to Iraq.

Maybe you should water this last post of yours and hope it can grow a point.

 

[Mudda]

Sure there are records of what the official reasons were (WMD). It's just that that turned out to be bullshit. So I ask again? Got a valid reason for the Iraq invasion? No? That's ok, no one else does either.

WMDs were one of the reasons, and if by "bullshit" you mean incorrect intelligence, yes.

But the people at the time had to operate based on the information they had.

Only a partisan ass would pretend otherwise.

You mean "...had to operate based on the information they made-up."

I said what I meant. I was very clear.

Are you pretending otherwise?

Then you were slightly wrong. That's all.

There is a HUGE difference between a mistake and a lie.

Do you truly believe otherwise (which would make you incorrect), or are you lying about that?

Ya, the CIA made a mistake with their info.

 

[Correll]

WMDs were one of the reasons, and if by "bullshit" you mean incorrect intelligence, yes.

But the people at the time had to operate based on the information they had.

Only a partisan ass would pretend otherwise.

You mean "...had to operate based on the information they made-up."

I said what I meant. I was very clear.

Are you pretending otherwise?

Then you were slightly wrong. That's all.

There is a HUGE difference between a mistake and a lie.

Do you truly believe otherwise (which would make you incorrect), or are you lying about that?

Ya, the CIA made a mistake with their info.

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.

 

[mudwhistle]

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

Republicans forget what their positions were as soon as the GOP changes their position.

They forget it was them who came up with the same jobs Americans won't do and they forget another great example that they are the ones who drafted NAFTA. So of course they forget how badly they were trying to lead us to war in Iraq much like I'm sure they don't remember John McCain if he would have won the presidency wanted to go to war with Iran. Now I'm imagining the war on terror with a dismantled Iran. We would be f*****

McCain didn't want go to war against Iran.

All he did was sing "Bomb bomb bomb...bomb bomb Iran".

Does Iran attack us every time they chant "Death To America"?

 

[Mudda]

You mean "...had to operate based on the information they made-up."

I said what I meant. I was very clear.

Are you pretending otherwise?

Then you were slightly wrong. That's all.

There is a HUGE difference between a mistake and a lie.

Do you truly believe otherwise (which would make you incorrect), or are you lying about that?

Ya, the CIA made a mistake with their info.

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.

 

[mudwhistle]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

When we kicked the Taliban's ass...where did they go for medical treatment?

Straight to Iraq.

Maybe you should water this last post of yours and hope it can grow a point.

Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension and you'll possibly grasp the concept that it pointed out.

Until then, I don't feel the need to respond further to any of your trollish blatherings....newb.

 

[Mudda]

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

Bullshit. And your racism is noted.

So what were the reasons to go into Iraq? 9/11? Nope, Iraq wasn't involved in the slghtest way. WMD? Nope, they had none and the UN inspectors had been there for 10 years checking prior to the invasion.

When we kicked the Taliban's ass...where did they go for medical treatment?

Straight to Iraq.

Maybe you should water this last post of yours and hope it can grow a point.

Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension and you'll possibly grasp the concept that it pointed out.

Until then, I don't feel the need to respond further to any of your trollish blatherings....newb.

Don't respond (because you can't) and see if i care.

 

[Correll]

I said what I meant. I was very clear.

Are you pretending otherwise?

Then you were slightly wrong. That's all.

There is a HUGE difference between a mistake and a lie.

Do you truly believe otherwise (which would make you incorrect), or are you lying about that?

Ya, the CIA made a mistake with their info.

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.