Question for Iraq war supporters

[Steerpike]

You can say they were WRONG but they thought they were right in which case they are simply incompetent..

That is erroneous reasoning. It is possible to be wrong about something without being incompetent. Particularly when you have to rely on the work of others to arrive at a conclusion and there is no reasonable way to investigate the issue for oneself (e.g. a President relies on intelligence agencies for information and does not have the ability to conduct his own intelligence gathering to corroborate the information he gets).

Likewise, the prior administration, which also believed Hussein had WMDs, didn't have to be incompetent to think that.

 

[Annie]

Yes, that was the whole problem with the WMD issue, with people claiming "Bush lied," but forgetting that it was widely accepted that Hussein had WMDs, and not only did Bush think it but foreign governments thought it and a substantial percentage of the Congress thought it, and the Clinton administration thought it. When you make that point, people use fall back on the argument that Bush somehow deceived them all, which is ludicrous.

and Congress thought there were other reasons, 22 other reasons + WMD:

http://thomas.loc.gov/

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

--H.J.Res.114--

H.J.Res.114

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

In any case....

So.. you're giving up on the "lie" thing?

... the administration was WRONG about the reasons why we were led into the Iraq war.

Which was discovered only after the war.... >4.5 years after the last inspectors left.

I often wonder -- what DID happen to all those WMDs that we knew were there in 1998?

 

[Steerpike]

The problem with any look into the lead up to the Iraq war it that you usually find the people asking questions are disingenuous. There are some real questions that could be answered with respect to why we may have had a systematic intelligence failure that pre-dated the Bush administration and seems to continue to the present day with Iran.

But instead of really looking at the issue, most people who want to talk about the lead up to the Iraq war really only want an excuse to bash the Bush administration, conveniently ignoring anything that doesn't fit into the misperception that the Bush admin orchestrated the whole thing and pulled the woll over everyone's eyes.

 

[finebead]

So.. you're giving up on the "lie" thing?

Not giving up on the "lie" thing at all.

Letter of Resignation, to:
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell

ATHENS, Thursday. 27 February 2003

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic arsenal.

It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies. Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world. I believe it no longer.

The policies we are now asked to advance are incompatible not only with American values but also with American interests. Our fervent pursuit of war with Iraq is driving us to squander the international legitimacy that has been America's most potent weapon of both offense and defense since the days of Woodrow Wilson. We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known. Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security.

The sacrifice of global interests to domestic politics and to bureaucratic self-interest is nothing new, and it is certainly not a uniquely American problem. Still, we have not seen such systematic distortion of intelligence, such systematic manipulation of American opinion, since the war in Vietnam. The September 11 tragedy left us stronger than before, rallying around us a vast international coalition to cooperate for the first time in a systematic way against the threat of terrorism. But rather than take credit for those successes and build on them, this Administration has chosen to make terrorism a domestic political tool, enlisting a scattered and largely defeated Al Qaeda as its bureaucratic ally. We spread disproportionate terror and confusion in the public mind, arbitrarily linking the unrelated problems of terrorism and Iraq. The result, and perhaps the motive, is to justify a vast misallocation of shrinking public wealth to the military and to weaken the safeguards that protect American citizens from the heavy hand of government.

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2003_01-03/kiesling_resign/kiesling_resign.html

Now here is a 20 year insider in the State Dept. resigning his career over "systematic distortion of intelligence" and "manipulation of public opinion".

John Kiesling was not the only diplomat to resign over the war in Iraq. But the insiders knew.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not giving up on the "lie" thing at all.

Of course not.

Prove that they knew the information they gave was false.

the administration was WRONG about the reasons why we were led into the Iraq war.

Which was discovered only after the war.... >4.5 years after the last inspectors left.

I often wonder -- what DID happen to all those WMDs that we knew were there in 1998?

 

[finebead]

Of course not.

Prove that they knew the information they gave was false.

Which was discovered only after the war.... >4.5 years after the last inspectors left.

I often wonder -- what DID happen to all those WMDs that we knew were there in 1998?

Read my post, #265, just above. Mr. Kiesling, 20 yr. diplomat, resigned in protest, stating the intel was "manipulated". You did not repond to that. When insiders say the intel was manipulated, he is telling us the ADMINISTRATION IS LYING TO US.

Edited, he resigned BEFORE the war started.

 

[finebead]

Then we have the sec. of state in Feb. 2001:

War opponents and some Congressional Democrats have pointed to a statement Powell made on Feb. 24, 2001, while meeting at Cairo's Ittihadiya Palace with Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr Moussa.

Asked about the sanctions placed on Iraq, which were then under review at the Security Council, Powell said the measures were working. In fact, he added, "(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

A far cry from the admin position two years later. But Powell was correct in Feb. 2001.



And this from Scott Ritter, former UNSCOM head of inspection in Iraq from 1991-98.

In 1998, you said Saddam had "not nearly disarmed." Now you say he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Why did you change your mind?

I have never given Iraq a clean bill of health! Never! Never! I've said that no one has backed up any allegations that Iraq has reconstituted WMD capability with anything that remotely resembles substantive fact. To say that Saddam's doing it is in total disregard to the fact that if he gets caught he's a dead man and he knows it. Deterrence has been adequate in the absence of inspectors but this is not a situation that can succeed in the long term. In the long term you have to get inspectors back in.

Iraq's borders are porous. Why couldn't Saddam have obtained the capacity to produce WMD since 1998 when the weapons inspectors left?

I am more aware than any UN official that Iraq has set up covert procurement funds to violate sanctions. This was true in 1997-1998, and I'm sure its true today. Of course Iraq can do this. The question is, has someone found that what Iraq has done goes beyond simple sanctions violations? We have tremendous capabilities to detect any effort by Iraq to obtain prohibited capability. The fact that no one has shown that he has acquired that capability doesn't necessarily translate into incompetence on the part of the intelligence community. It may mean that he hasn't done anything.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html

Again, someone with first hand knowledge saying Iraq has no WMD, and how he knows this, and the admin is not listening. But, he was right. It was known, and this interview was in 2002, prior to the war.


Scott Ritter was right, John Kiesling was right, Colin Powell was right in 2001, and this was ALL KNOWN BEFORE THE WAR, not 4 years after the war.

 

[finebead]

Your moronic drivel has been shown for what it is every time it has been spouted by you idiots. You think if you repeat the same tired lies over enough times someone will start believing you.

That's from back on page 16 of this thread.

RGS said the stuff in red:

We were told:
1) Iraq has WMD, 2) Iraq poses an imminent threat to the US, and 3) Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
One out of three, I guess yor doing good tonight. Be so kind as to post evidence he ever said imminent threat or that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I won't hold my breath.

From Kathianne's post above on the joint resolution by congress:

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States
...

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States

Now, from a White House press briefing by Ari Fleischer on March 5, 2003:

Q Ari, since there is an atmosphere of the imminence of war in this White House, and since we have no direct access to the President, will you state for the record, for the historical record, why he wants to bomb Iraqi people?

MR. FLEISCHER: Helen, I dispute the premise of your question, first of all. There's regular -- there's regular access to the President. The President is asked questions all the time. And when the President --

Q He hasn't had a press conference for months.

MR. FLEISCHER: And when 14 of your colleagues spend 36 minutes asking scores of questions to the President just two days ago --

Q Well, that's not a news conference.

MR. FLEISCHER: -- they asked the President a similar question, although they phrased it a little differently than you did. They asked the President why does he feel so strongly about the need to use force, if it comes to that, to disarm Saddam Hussein. And the answer from the President was that, given the fact that the world changed on September 11th, the threat to the American people was brought immediately to our home and to our shores and to our families, the President thinks it is in the interest of peace to make certain that Saddam Hussein does not have weapons of mass destruction which he can use against us, either by transferring them to terrorists or using them himself.

Q There is no imminent threat.

MR. FLEISCHER: This is where -- Helen, if you were President you might view things differently. But you have your judgment and the President has others.

Q Why doesn't he prove it? Why don't you lay it out? When have they threatened in the last 12 years?

MR. FLEISCHER: They have attacked their neighbors. They have gassed their own people.

Q Twelve years ago.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030305-7.html

So, Helen (Thomas, I suppose) states, "There is no imminent threat".

Fleischer has the opportunity to agree and say, that's correct Helen, there is no imminent threat, but he does not agree. He says "Helen, if you were the President, you might see things differently. But you have your judgment and the President has others".

The clear implication of this, and Mr. Fleischer is speaking for the President, is that the President has a different view from the view that Iraq's threat is not imminent. Logic says this means that Mr. Fleisher is saying the President views the threat as imminent, or else he would have just agreed with Helen Thomas.

From the administrations point of view, the threat from Iraq had to be perceived by the public as imminent, because if it was not imminent and grave and serious, then we did NOT HAVE TO GO TO WAR RIGHT NOW. This was hype to justify starting the war right now. That's all.

There was much "hyping" of the war, and words like grave threat, serious threat, etc. These were all false. Colin Powell had it right in 2001 when he said Iraq had no WMD and could not even mount a conventional attack on its neighbors.

Edited: I have responded to every criticism of my original post, I believe it is on page 16. People derided the post, they ridiculed it and basically dared me to show information that supported my statements. Over the last 3 pages, I have done that, for every single compliant originally raised.

We were told Iraq had WMD, we were told the threat from Iraq was imminent on March 5, 2003 by Ari Fleisher during his press briefing, and we were told that Iraq was linked to 9/11 by Vice President Chaney on Meet the Press in September 14, 2003, by the meeting of Mohamed Atta with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. I believe I have demonstrated to RetireGySgt that my post was NOT "moronic drivel".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That's from back on page 16 of this thread.

RGS said the stuff in red:


From Kathianne's post above on the joint resolution by congress:


Now, from a White House press briefing by Ari Fleischer on March 5, 2003:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030305-7.html

So, Helen (Thomas, I suppose) states, "There is no imminent threat".

Fleischer has the opportunity to agree and say, that's correct Helen, there is no imminent threat, but he does not agree. He says "Helen, if you were the President, you might see things differently. But you have your judgment and the President has others".

The clear implication of this, and Mr. Fleischer is speaking for the President, is that the President has a different view from the view that Iraq's threat is not imminent. Logic says this means that Mr. Fleisher is saying the President views the threat as imminent, or else he would have just agreed with Helen Thomas.

From the administrations point of view, the threat from Iraq had to be perceived by the public as imminent, because if it was not imminent and grave and serious, then we did NOT HAVE TO GO TO WAR RIGHT NOW. This was hype to justify starting the war right now. That's all.

There was much "hyping" of the war, and words like grave threat, serious threat, etc. These were all false. Colin Powell had it right in 2001 when he said Iraq had no WMD and could not even mount a conventional attack on its neighbors.

He did NOT agree either. Nor can you provide one quote or statement from the President or Congress announcing Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. He was a threat and the President actually said he was not going to wait until he WAS an imminent threat.

 

[finebead]

He did NOT agree either. Nor can you provide one quote or statement from the President or Congress announcing Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. He was a threat and the President actually said he was not going to wait until he WAS an imminent threat.

That is NOT what Mr. Fleischer's reply to Helen Thomas in the press briefing means. The President is usually smart enough not to come out and bold faced lie himself. He hires underlings to do that for him. The underling lies, then nobody can say the President lied. But Fleischer was speaking for the president. The administration hyped the threat so public opinion would support starting the war. We see Congress used the term "continuing threat".

 

[Dr Grump]

He did NOT agree either. Nor can you provide one quote or statement from the President or Congress announcing Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. He was a threat and the President actually said he was not going to wait until he WAS an imminent threat.

Which just goes to show how really dangerous the moron and his cabal are...Thank god it is 2008....not long now and it's bye bye Bush....heh..

 

[Gunny]

The discussion of the US having sold precursors of biological weapons to Iraq in the 80's is relevant the the discussion of whether Bush lied to the American people over why we invaded Iraq in the first place.

We were told:
1) Iraq has WMD, 2) Iraq poses an imminent threat to the US, and 3) Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

1) From the Kaye and Dulfer reports we know Iraq had no WMD, and 2) therefore they posed no imminent threat to the US. 3) From the 9/11 Commission report we know "Iraq had no collaborative relationship with Al Qaeda".

All of the assertions used to justify the invasion are false. The public has used this information to state "Bush lied to us about invading Iraq". The Bush apologists have stated that, "Well, Saddam was a bad guy, and the world is better off without him, and he killed his own people".

That does not hold water either. We knew Saddam was a bad guy in the 80's for many reasons, including knowing he used chemical weapons on the Iranians and on the Kurds. If these events were worth an invasion, they were worth invading in the 80's, but there was nary a peep from us, rather Rumsfeld is pictured shaking his hand and smiling in Baghdad.

So, there is no reason that has been stated by our govt. for the invasion of Iraq that is a valid reason. Bush has lied to the nation.

So we are still left with the question of why we invaded Iraq. Greenspan has said in his book the reason is it was just about oil. Exxon and Texaco have signed 30 year oil purchase agreements with Iraq, very quietly. I doubt we'll see a wholesale pullout of our troops; we will have to enforce the contracts.

Americans wonder why so many in the world hate us, and this is the answer, pretty much. We talk about human rights and moral behavior, and lately we have done a poorer job of living up to the standards we talk about.

There are still several unmentioned possible reasons for the invasion. The need for a military base in the ME that is better situated than Afghanistan, or the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) CEOs just needing to grow their businesses in a post Cold War era.

I disagree. From the UN, we know that Saddam did in fact possess WMDs that as of this date have yet to be accounted for. It is also fact that the US sold dual-use precursors and material that could be used to manufacture WMDs.

Then there is the fact Saddam used chemical weapons on Kurds in Halabja. There are also reports I have not see substantiation for that Saddam used chemical weapons against Iran.

Then there is the fact that WMDs were not the sole reason Iraq was invaded; although, some attempt to present it that way to push a one-sided argument.

Saddam purchased, manufactured and used chemical weapons. HE set his own precedent. In violation of a ceasefire agreement he signed, he did NOT give UN weapons inspectors free and unfettered access to search for WMDs and/or manufacturing plants. He in fact gave every impression that he was playing a shell game and hiding something.

Based on those facts, it is completely logical to assume that Saddam still possessed and by his own precedent was willing to use WMDs. He is as complicit in any erroneous decision as any faulty intel by his own actions.

Further, it is completely illogical to come to the conclusion that a mass murdering, megolomaniacal thug who had pursued WMDs for decades and continually defied the US and UN in violation of an agreement he signed would suddenly just quit pursuing them out of the blue.

Saddam was a threat to US interests in the region. To say Saddam posed no threat to the US itself is to say al Qaeda likewise posed/poses no threat to the US itself. What happened on 9/11 again?

"The world" hates us because we don't just give without voicing an opinion and/or not asking for something return. The second disaster strikes, who does "the world" come whining to and laying on the accusations in the media that we aren't doing enough?

If we shouldn't be interested in stability in the Middle East, why should we give a damn if a tsunami wipes out some 3rd world islands?

"The world" is an ungrateful child. It come whining when it wants and otherwise just spends its time hating the hand that feeds it.

So, no, I don't wonder why. "The world" is pretty damn obvious.

 

[finebead]

Good post Gunny.

I'll accept most of what you just said. But that is NOT what we were told by the Bush administration. If what you said were the facts, the American people were lied to as we were sold the war. You said "it was logical to assume" in one of your most important points, and you know what happens when you assume...

All of this treats whether a sufficient threat existed, that the US had to do something about. What is debated less frequently, but should be debated more, is, if we accept the situation as GunnyL described it just now, which is NOT what we were told by the Bush administration, WHAT SHOULD WE HAVE DONE ABOUT IT?

There seems to be some presumption that the truth, which Gunny is much closer to than what we were told by Bush & Co., justified going to war. The situation Gunny described clearly did not justify going to war, by default. There are many other options, short of going to war. We just had Hans Blix and a team of UN inspectors go through in October 2002, so we knew we could put inspectors back in. That would eliminate the threat from WMD, and it would do it much cheaper in $ and lives than taking over the whole nation. There were good reasons why Bush I did NOT go on into Baghdad, and they were still valid in 2003.

Fighting smart is achieving your objective at a low cost to yourself, provided you've determined the objective is worth achieving. Eliminating Iraq's WMD threat was achievable at a much lower cost, and those options were not pursued. This leads me to believe, and I do not think the Bush admin are total idiots I know they have some very smart people, it leads me to believe the real objective was not to neutralize the WMD threat. We did not have to go to war, spend a half trillion dollars, lose over 4,000 dead, 30,000 wounded half of which cannot return to combat status.

 

[maineman]

Exactly. I always thought that it was one of Dubya's great foreign policy successes that he was able to get Hans Blix and his team of UN inspectors BACK into Iraq in November of '02. They were doing their jobs. They were not done with their jobs when Bush rushed to war and suggested they leave or be caught in a combat zone. His impatience was imexplicable. If the real issue was Saddam's compliance with UN resolutions concerning WMD's, Blix was on the brink of providing the answer to that question... but Bush could not wait. He needed to get boots on the ground and Saddam toppled before America learned that Saddam didn't have any WMD's with which he could threaten us. If Bush had waited for the Blix team to make its report, public support for the war would have evaporated.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Exactly. I always thought that it was one of Dubya's great foreign policy successes that he was able to get Hans Blix and his team of UN inspectors BACK into Iraq in November of '02. They were doing their jobs. They were not done with their jobs when Bush rushed to war and suggested they leave or be caught in a combat zone. His impatience was imexplicable. If the real issue was Saddam's compliance with UN resolutions concerning WMD's, Blix was on the brink of providing the answer to that question... but Bush could not wait. He needed to get boots on the ground and Saddam toppled before America learned that Saddam didn't have any WMD's with which he could threaten us. If Bush had waited for the Blix team to make its report, public support for the war would have evaporated.

Your an ignorant moron, but then we already knew that didn't we?

 

[finebead]

Your an ignorant moron, but then we already knew that didn't we?

From this site's rules:

Language Guidelines:
Foul language (profanity) used in USmessageboard.com will be loosely tolerated and at the moderators discretion. Derogatory statements directed at other members as well as direct or indirect personal attacks are permitted with the stipulation that you generally look like a fool when resorting to these tactics within a serious conversation on real issues. If you're comfortable playing the fool, feel free to do so.

Posted without comment.

 

[maineman]

Your an ignorant moron, but then we already knew that didn't we?

that is the extent of intellectual content you can muster up in response to my post?

wow.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

that is the extent of intellectual content you can muster up in response to my post?

wow.

Since you lack any intelligence you get treated like the moronic idiot you are.

 

[maineman]

Since you lack any intelligence you get treated like the moronic idiot you are.

stop your posing and respond to #275 with some of your highly tauted intellect.