Trump: Bush lied about reason for invading Iraq

[Dot Com]

Albright? Are you serious? The same woman who said if females don't vote for Hillary, they will go to hell. THAT Albright? Establishment-types no less who profit off of wars. Certainly you have something better than that?

The vote speaks for itself, over 1/2 of the dems voted against the AUMF.

Yeah -- it speaks for itself. The same DEM morons were PERFECTLY FINE with continuing the failed containment policy that was torturing Iraqi citizens for 12 years based on the SAME DAMN LIE.. Hypocrites is what they are. Not a ONE of them had the balls to suggest that we ease off the containment policy and bring that atrocious policy to an end..

NEWSFLASH!!! Iraq is not a US state. Lots of bad stuff going on in the world. Doesn't mean we invade every country. We cant afford it in treasure and blood as evidenced by...... wait for it,.... Iraq

 

[Dot Com]

Cowboy Diplomacy (voluntarily invading countries that are not a direct threat to the vital interests of the US ) failed and was agreed to AFTER A LONG TIME by Repubs

The Great Iraq Mistake

Invading Iraq was a mistake.

That's the consensus now even among Republicans, whose presidential candidates in recent days have largely fallen in line behind Jeb Bush and denounced the 2003 invasion initiated by his brother. After first telling Fox News this month he "would have" invaded Iraq

Most GOP candidates have voiced support for escalating U.S. involvement against the militants, while until recently sidestepping the widespread public perception that their party is responsible for the unpopular conflict that contributed to the group's formation.

Really? Just a Repub mistake? And when Clinton bombed them daily and took the keys to their economy away that was NOT a mistake? When he STEPPED up the bombing as a political cover for his purposes -- that was NOT a mistake. And when Mad Albright said that the deaths of 200,000 Iraqi children from the effects of the embargo was "acceptable side effect" ---- THAT was not a mistake.

BOTH parties sucked on Iraq policy.. And neither party had the COURAGE to let Iraq out of containment -- as SHOULD have been. Especially if that containment was for the benefit of a LIE about WMDs.

Spare me the partisan crap fest..

Bombing and invading are two diff things but we've already gone over that. We've also gone over the fact that > 1/2 the Democrats voted against AUMF for Iraq. You read the thread?

Bombing and invading are two different things? HUH?

Only if you use an Orwellian dictionary. and/or the debaters are retarded.

bombing does not equal invasion/boots-on-the-ground/occupation. Are you really that thick All Caps boi? That was a rhetorical question

 

[alpine]

Makes sense because his own cabinet member said so and what every school child knows- Iraq had zero, ZERO, 0 to do w/ 9/11. They changed their reasons for invading when the American people weren't buying what they were selling so Bush came out w/ "yabut 9/11 !!!"

Let's see that quote from Bush where he blamed Iraq for 9/11!

You liberal airheads keep trotting out that bull shit argument for years now and it isn't any more true now than it was when you lied about it the very first time!

And so my message and the message of our United States Congress -- including George Gekas -- that spoke with one voice to the world is this: the United States will fulfill its obligations to peace; Saddam Hussein will disarm; if not, for the sake of peace, for the sake of securing the homeland, for the sake of protecting our friends and allies, the United States will lead a mighty coalition of freedom-loving nations and disarm Saddam Hussein. (Applause.)

See, I can't imagine what was going through the mind of this enemy when they hit us. They probably thought the national religion was materialism, that we were so selfish and so self-absorbed that after 9/11/2001 this mighty nation would take a couple of steps back and file a lawsuit. (Laughter.) They don't understand America. They don't understand the spirit of America.

W.

Remarks by the President in Pennsylvania Welcome

 

[Dot Com]

THIS Democrat wasn't fooled by the sexed-up intel flacaltenn

Transcript: Obama's Speech Against The Iraq War

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

 

[rightwinger]

Cowboy Diplomacy (voluntarily invading countries that are not a direct threat to the vital interests of the US ) failed and was agreed to AFTER A LONG TIME by Repubs

The Great Iraq Mistake

Invading Iraq was a mistake.

That's the consensus now even among Republicans, whose presidential candidates in recent days have largely fallen in line behind Jeb Bush and denounced the 2003 invasion initiated by his brother. After first telling Fox News this month he "would have" invaded Iraq

Most GOP candidates have voiced support for escalating U.S. involvement against the militants, while until recently sidestepping the widespread public perception that their party is responsible for the unpopular conflict that contributed to the group's formation.

Really? Just a Repub mistake? And when Clinton bombed them daily and took the keys to their economy away that was NOT a mistake? When he STEPPED up the bombing as a political cover for his purposes -- that was NOT a mistake. And when Mad Albright said that the deaths of 200,000 Iraqi children from the effects of the embargo was "acceptable side effect" ---- THAT was not a mistake.

BOTH parties sucked on Iraq policy.. And neither party had the COURAGE to let Iraq out of containment -- as SHOULD have been. Especially if that containment was for the benefit of a LIE about WMDs.

Spare me the partisan crap fest..

Bombing and invading are two diff things but we've already gone over that. We've also gone over the fact that > 1/2 the Democrats voted against AUMF for Iraq. You read the thread?

Bombing and invading are two different things? HUH?

Only if you use an Orwellian dictionary. and/or the debaters are retarded.

Pearl Harbor was bombed...it was not invaded

Two entirely different things

 

[NYcarbineer]

Cowboy Diplomacy (voluntarily invading countries that are not a direct threat to the vital interests of the US ) failed and was agreed to AFTER A LONG TIME by Repubs

The Great Iraq Mistake

Invading Iraq was a mistake.

That's the consensus now even among Republicans, whose presidential candidates in recent days have largely fallen in line behind Jeb Bush and denounced the 2003 invasion initiated by his brother. After first telling Fox News this month he "would have" invaded Iraq

Most GOP candidates have voiced support for escalating U.S. involvement against the militants, while until recently sidestepping the widespread public perception that their party is responsible for the unpopular conflict that contributed to the group's formation.

Really? Just a Repub mistake? And when Clinton bombed them daily and took the keys to their economy away that was NOT a mistake? When he STEPPED up the bombing as a political cover for his purposes -- that was NOT a mistake. And when Mad Albright said that the deaths of 200,000 Iraqi children from the effects of the embargo was "acceptable side effect" ---- THAT was not a mistake.

BOTH parties sucked on Iraq policy.. And neither party had the COURAGE to let Iraq out of containment -- as SHOULD have been. Especially if that containment was for the benefit of a LIE about WMDs.

Spare me the partisan crap fest..

Bombing and invading are two diff things but we've already gone over that. We've also gone over the fact that > 1/2 the Democrats voted against AUMF for Iraq. You read the thread?

Bombing and invading are two different things? HUH?

Only if you use an Orwellian dictionary. and/or the debaters are retarded.

About 4500 lives' worth of 2 different things.

 

[Kosh]

Cowboy Diplomacy (voluntarily invading countries that are not a direct threat to the vital interests of the US ) failed and was agreed to AFTER A LONG TIME by Repubs

The Great Iraq Mistake

Invading Iraq was a mistake.

That's the consensus now even among Republicans, whose presidential candidates in recent days have largely fallen in line behind Jeb Bush and denounced the 2003 invasion initiated by his brother. After first telling Fox News this month he "would have" invaded Iraq

Most GOP candidates have voiced support for escalating U.S. involvement against the militants, while until recently sidestepping the widespread public perception that their party is responsible for the unpopular conflict that contributed to the group's formation.

Really? Just a Repub mistake? And when Clinton bombed them daily and took the keys to their economy away that was NOT a mistake? When he STEPPED up the bombing as a political cover for his purposes -- that was NOT a mistake. And when Mad Albright said that the deaths of 200,000 Iraqi children from the effects of the embargo was "acceptable side effect" ---- THAT was not a mistake.

BOTH parties sucked on Iraq policy.. And neither party had the COURAGE to let Iraq out of containment -- as SHOULD have been. Especially if that containment was for the benefit of a LIE about WMDs.

Spare me the partisan crap fest..

Bombing and invading are two diff things but we've already gone over that. We've also gone over the fact that > 1/2 the Democrats voted against AUMF for Iraq. You read the thread?

Bombing and invading are two different things? HUH?

Only if you use an Orwellian dictionary. and/or the debaters are retarded.

About 4500 lives' worth of 2 different things.

Compared the 300,000 to 446,000 lives of the FDR lies, right?

Silly far left drone!

 

[Kosh]

Cowboy Diplomacy (voluntarily invading countries that are not a direct threat to the vital interests of the US ) failed and was agreed to AFTER A LONG TIME by Repubs

The Great Iraq Mistake

Invading Iraq was a mistake.

That's the consensus now even among Republicans, whose presidential candidates in recent days have largely fallen in line behind Jeb Bush and denounced the 2003 invasion initiated by his brother. After first telling Fox News this month he "would have" invaded Iraq

Most GOP candidates have voiced support for escalating U.S. involvement against the militants, while until recently sidestepping the widespread public perception that their party is responsible for the unpopular conflict that contributed to the group's formation.

Really? Just a Repub mistake? And when Clinton bombed them daily and took the keys to their economy away that was NOT a mistake? When he STEPPED up the bombing as a political cover for his purposes -- that was NOT a mistake. And when Mad Albright said that the deaths of 200,000 Iraqi children from the effects of the embargo was "acceptable side effect" ---- THAT was not a mistake.

BOTH parties sucked on Iraq policy.. And neither party had the COURAGE to let Iraq out of containment -- as SHOULD have been. Especially if that containment was for the benefit of a LIE about WMDs.

Spare me the partisan crap fest..

Bombing and invading are two diff things but we've already gone over that. We've also gone over the fact that > 1/2 the Democrats voted against AUMF for Iraq. You read the thread?

Bombing and invading are two different things? HUH?

Only if you use an Orwellian dictionary. and/or the debaters are retarded.

Pearl Harbor was bombed...it was not invaded

Two entirely different things

You far left drones and your re defining of words..

Lizza says Obama has bombed more nations than Bush

 

[Contumacious]

Cowboy Diplomacy (voluntarily invading countries that are not a direct threat to the vital interests of the US ) failed and was agreed to AFTER A LONG TIME by Repubs

The Great Iraq Mistake

Invading Iraq was a mistake.

That's the consensus now even among Republicans, whose presidential candidates in recent days have largely fallen in line behind Jeb Bush and denounced the 2003 invasion initiated by his brother. After first telling Fox News this month he "would have" invaded Iraq

Most GOP candidates have voiced support for escalating U.S. involvement against the militants, while until recently sidestepping the widespread public perception that their party is responsible for the unpopular conflict that contributed to the group's formation.

Really? Just a Repub mistake? And when Clinton bombed them daily and took the keys to their economy away that was NOT a mistake? When he STEPPED up the bombing as a political cover for his purposes -- that was NOT a mistake. And when Mad Albright said that the deaths of 200,000 Iraqi children from the effects of the embargo was "acceptable side effect" ---- THAT was not a mistake.

BOTH parties sucked on Iraq policy.. And neither party had the COURAGE to let Iraq out of containment -- as SHOULD have been. Especially if that containment was for the benefit of a LIE about WMDs.

Spare me the partisan crap fest..

Bombing and invading are two diff things but we've already gone over that. We've also gone over the fact that > 1/2 the Democrats voted against AUMF for Iraq. You read the thread?

Bombing and invading are two different things? HUH?

Only if you use an Orwellian dictionary. and/or the debaters are retarded.

bombing does not equal invasion/boots-on-the-ground/occupation. Are you really that thick All Caps boi? That was a rhetorical question

Shut the fuck twerp.

in·va·sion
inˈvāZHən/
noun

1. an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
   "the Allied invasion of Normandy"
   synonyms: occupation, capture, seizure, annexation, annexing, takeover; More
   
   
   • an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.
     "stadium guards are preparing for another invasion of fans"
     synonyms: influx, inundation, flood, rush, torrent, deluge, avalanche, juggernaut
     "an invasion of tourists"
   • an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.
     "random drug testing of employees is an unwarranted invasion of privacy"
     synonyms: violation, infringement, interruption, intrusion, encroachment,disturbance, disruption, breach
     "an invasion of my privacy"
2. .

 

[flacaltenn]

Bush is guilty of carrying-out Bill Kristol's wishes (current Fox news employee and founder of the PNAC) using neocons. Ever heard of the PNAC? Google it. Fascinating stuff

Yup -- that's where the pipe dream came from. But since I AM familiar with their role -- let me set your little partisan head ablaze with some facts. Remember the 3 Jew Road Show?

Project for the New American Century - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies

In January 1998, PNAC published an open letter to President Bill Clinton arguing that "containment" of Iraq "has been steadily eroding," jeopardizing the region and potentially beyond. "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."[18] PNAC followed up a few months later with an open letter to Senate leader Trent Lott (R-MS) and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), arguing that the "only way to protect the United States and its allies from the threat of weapons of mass destruction [is] to put in place policies that would lead to the removal of Saddam and his regime from power."[19]

Those who signed these letters included many signatories to PNAC's statement of principles, as well as future realist-inclined Bush administration officials Richard Armitage and Robert Zoellick. PNAC set up a meeting in 1998 between Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, and Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security advisor, to argue the case for intervention.[20] In February 1998, Wolfowitz had testified before the House International Relations Committee that regime change in Iraq was the "only way to rescue the region and the world from the threat" posed by Hussein. Revealing another aspect of neoconservative alliance-building in the years leading up to George W. Bush's presidency, Wolfowitz added that the United States should recognize "a provisional government of free Iraq," and that the best place to look for such a government was "with the current organization and principles of [Ahmed Chalabi's] Iraqi National Congress."[21] Thus, write Halper and Clarke, "in only a few years since the Soviet collapse, neoconservatism had refocused itself as an interventionist lobby intent above all else on waging a second Gulf war."[22]

- See more at: Project for the New American Century - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies

Perle and Berger.. I think they got to them too.. It's not a partisan mistake.. A large part of the Clinton Admin was predisposed to view PNAC's suggestions favorably. Hence -- the "war on Iraq" tour hit the road in 1998..

 

[BlindBoo]

Albright? Are you serious? The same woman who said if females don't vote for Hillary, they will go to hell. THAT Albright? Establishment-types no less who profit off of wars. Certainly you have something better than that?

The vote speaks for itself, over 1/2 of the dems voted against the AUMF.

Yeah -- it speaks for itself. The same DEM morons were PERFECTLY FINE with continuing the failed containment policy that was torturing Iraqi citizens for 12 years based on the SAME DAMN LIE.. Hypocrites is what they are. Not a ONE of them had the balls to suggest that we ease off the containment policy and bring that atrocious policy to an end.. Or maybe Kucinich or one or two did..

Our involvement in Iraq began before that. In order to persecute Iran, we allowed Saddam to purchase western technology and build a huge army and a large arsenal of weapons, including chemical weapons, to fight off the Iranian who were poised to overrun Iraq. What we didn't know(or maybe we did) is that he was also secretly building an atomic bomb as well. So after the Iran war we had to destroy him and his army. Kind of like giving your friend a gun, and then shooting him because he has a gun!

Somebody made a lot of money off that I think.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Si Modo 13516818

So, if you say GWB's rationale for invasion of Iraq was WMDs, how is it he lied?

Dubya's justification for invading Iraq was announced by him on March 17, 2003 which was that he had intelligence the leaves no doubt that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from the (then current) UN WMD inspection regime.

That is a lie that is tightly verifiable by the fact that about ten days before that March 17 announcement, Bush43 sent Colin Powell to the UNSC with a draft resolution that would have allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power.

That means that on March 10, Bush did not have that doubtless intelligence before him. If he did, he was obligated by UNSC Res 1441 to hand over such Intel to the UN inspectors so they could verify whether it was true or not.

So if you believe that Bush was not lying on March 17, 2003 you need to explain how such undoubtable intelligence on Iraq hiding a lethal arsenal of WMD from 200 UN inspectors that had been on the ground in Iraq for four months, suddenly appeared in the Oval Office, just in time to justify the start of an invasion.

Trump is right and at least 33 percent of Republican primary voters support Trump and the truth he has told about Bush being a liar.

That means that 67 percent of Americans understand that Bush lied us into invading Iraq.

You are with the minority that refuses to see the facts and the truth about Bush43 and the Iraq invasion, occupation and quagmire.

I hope Trump wins the nomination after admitting the truth about Iraq and then loses.

 

[flacaltenn]

THIS Democrat wasn't fooled by the sexed-up intel flacaltenn

Transcript: Obama's Speech Against The Iraq War

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

There was no solution in that message. I agree with his "assessment" --- but no mention of the carnage we inflicted through daily bombings and deprivation of food and medicine. 12 years of hell for a lie. And in that speech Obama ACKNOWLEDGED that he didn't believe the lie ---- but said NOT A WORD about ending our atrocious policy based on that same lie..

If he had connected all those things -- he would get my credit for a correct reading of the situation. But he also lacked the balls to call for an end to a policy that lasted way too long. We might still have had massive bases in Saudi and a couple carrier groups rotating out of the Med in 2008. And 100,000 MORE dead Iraqi children if Bush did nothing and the Dems punted on a solution...

 

[flacaltenn]

Albright? Are you serious? The same woman who said if females don't vote for Hillary, they will go to hell. THAT Albright? Establishment-types no less who profit off of wars. Certainly you have something better than that?

The vote speaks for itself, over 1/2 of the dems voted against the AUMF.

Yeah -- it speaks for itself. The same DEM morons were PERFECTLY FINE with continuing the failed containment policy that was torturing Iraqi citizens for 12 years based on the SAME DAMN LIE.. Hypocrites is what they are. Not a ONE of them had the balls to suggest that we ease off the containment policy and bring that atrocious policy to an end.. Or maybe Kucinich or one or two did..

Our involvement in Iraq began before that. In order to persecute Iran, we allowed Saddam to purchase western technology and build a huge army and a large arsenal of weapons, including chemical weapons, to fight off the Iranian who were poised to overrun Iraq. What we didn't know(or maybe we did) is that he was also secretly building an atomic bomb as well. So after the Iran war we had to destroy him and his army. Kind of like giving your friend a gun, and then shooting him because he has a gun!

Somebody made a lot of money off that I think.

Actually wasn't hard for us to take a side back then. And despite a lot of flack, Saddam mostly got intel from us. The "biological weapons" that we supplied were a bogus claim. All of what was shipped was genetically altered anthrax and other agents that could not be proliferated. We probably DID ignore a lot of HIS bio/chem ambitions back then.

Funny how that works. Funny how Iran now controls 1/3 of Iraq.. Actually -- not funny at all. We SUCK at foreign policy. And the doves in this country get cooked every time. But more than often -- both the main parties eventually acknowledge that we were right. Is it because we're soo damn brilliant? No.. It's because they are that bad at what they do.


And some of us "doves" will be the 1st to light up any threat that is ACTUALLY a threat and turn it into rubble. All we need today is a lat/long geolocation and we can defend ourselves in about 15 minutes pretty well if the intel is good.

 

[eddiew]

Still, WMDs were found in Iraq.

Not the stockpiles like Collin Powell said there would be. Those wmds found were decades old and not new by any means as the bush administration had said. It is funny watching revisionists try and support Ws blunders.

Thousands of chemical weapons is "stockpiles" in my book, especially considering the toxicity. And, thousands were found. Their age is irrelevant as, those that contained mustard gas were still viable, and the bicomponents last for decades and decades.

d

Their age is not irrelevant as that was what bush and buddies claimed. Nice try at revising history. Did I accidentally insult your God bush?

A stockpile is a stockpile. Age IS irrelevant when it comes to bicomponent nerve agent munitions, at least as far as killing power is concerned.

From conscious expo. com
Bush Sought Way To Invade Iraq from Day 1 of His Administration
In Lesley Stahl’s 60 Minutes interview with Bush’s first Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, which aired in early January, 2004, O’Neill revealed that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were Bush’s main focus from the very beginning of his administration. See the transcript below and the video link below that.

Stahl: “And what happened in President Bush’s very first National Security Council meeting is one of O’Neill’s most startling revelations.”

O’Neill: “From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go.”

Stahl: “He said that going after Saddam was topic ‘A’ 10 days after the inauguration – eight months before Sept. 11.”

Ron Suskind (author of the book “The Price of Loyalty” in which O’Neill was a significant contributor. O’Neill gave Suskind 19,000 internal documents): “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime”

Stahl: “Now everybody else thought that grew out of 9/11.”

Suskind: “No”

Stahl: “But this book says it was day one of this administration.”

Suskind: “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

Stahl: “As treasury secretary, O’Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as ‘Why Saddam?’ and ‘Why now?’ were never asked.”

Stahl (quoting O’Neill from the book): “It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this.'”

O’Neill: “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

Stahl: “And that came up at this first meeting?”

O’Neill: “It did.”

Stahl: “O’Neill told us that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later. He got briefing materials under this cover sheet.” (Note: the cover sheet is shown in the video)

Suskind: “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq.'” (Note: the memo is shown in the video)

Stahl: “Nation Building?”

Suskind: “Absolutely.”

Stahl: “So, they discussed an occupation of Iraq?”

Suskind: “ In January and February of 2001.

Stahl: “Based on his interviews with O’Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq’s oil wealth.”

Stahl: “Suskind obtained this Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, entitled ‘Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.’ It includes a map of potential areas for exploration.” (Note: the document is shown in the video)

Suskind: “It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions…”

Stahl: “On oil.”

Suskind. “On oil in Iraq.”

Did you catch that? Six months before 9/11, there were already plans for how the Iraqi oil fields would be divided up, and which contractors would do the work.

Here’s the 60 Minutes interview with O’Neill

 

[flacaltenn]

Still, WMDs were found in Iraq.

Not the stockpiles like Collin Powell said there would be. Those wmds found were decades old and not new by any means as the bush administration had said. It is funny watching revisionists try and support Ws blunders.

Thousands of chemical weapons is "stockpiles" in my book, especially considering the toxicity. And, thousands were found. Their age is irrelevant as, those that contained mustard gas were still viable, and the bicomponents last for decades and decades.

d

Their age is not irrelevant as that was what bush and buddies claimed. Nice try at revising history. Did I accidentally insult your God bush?

A stockpile is a stockpile. Age IS irrelevant when it comes to bicomponent nerve agent munitions, at least as far as killing power is concerned.

From conscious expo. com
Bush Sought Way To Invade Iraq from Day 1 of His Administration
In Lesley Stahl’s 60 Minutes interview with Bush’s first Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, which aired in early January, 2004, O’Neill revealed that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were Bush’s main focus from the very beginning of his administration. See the transcript below and the video link below that.

Stahl: “And what happened in President Bush’s very first National Security Council meeting is one of O’Neill’s most startling revelations.”

O’Neill: “From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go.”

Stahl: “He said that going after Saddam was topic ‘A’ 10 days after the inauguration – eight months before Sept. 11.”

Ron Suskind (author of the book “The Price of Loyalty” in which O’Neill was a significant contributor. O’Neill gave Suskind 19,000 internal documents): “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime”

Stahl: “Now everybody else thought that grew out of 9/11.”

Suskind: “No”

Stahl: “But this book says it was day one of this administration.”

Suskind: “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

Stahl: “As treasury secretary, O’Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as ‘Why Saddam?’ and ‘Why now?’ were never asked.”

Stahl (quoting O’Neill from the book): “It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this.'”

O’Neill: “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

Stahl: “And that came up at this first meeting?”

O’Neill: “It did.”

Stahl: “O’Neill told us that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later. He got briefing materials under this cover sheet.” (Note: the cover sheet is shown in the video)

Suskind: “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq.'” (Note: the memo is shown in the video)

Stahl: “Nation Building?”

Suskind: “Absolutely.”

Stahl: “So, they discussed an occupation of Iraq?”

Suskind: “ In January and February of 2001.

Stahl: “Based on his interviews with O’Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq’s oil wealth.”

Stahl: “Suskind obtained this Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, entitled ‘Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.’ It includes a map of potential areas for exploration.” (Note: the document is shown in the video)

Suskind: “It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions…”

Stahl: “On oil.”

Suskind. “On oil in Iraq.”

Did you catch that? Six months before 9/11, there were already plans for how the Iraqi oil fields would be divided up, and which contractors would do the work.

Here’s the 60 Minutes interview with O’Neill

Except NONE of that "plan" for the Iraqi oil fields ever got implemented. Did it? Not even in the decade we were stuck there "nation-building"..

 

[BlindBoo]

Albright? Are you serious? The same woman who said if females don't vote for Hillary, they will go to hell. THAT Albright? Establishment-types no less who profit off of wars. Certainly you have something better than that?

The vote speaks for itself, over 1/2 of the dems voted against the AUMF.

Yeah -- it speaks for itself. The same DEM morons were PERFECTLY FINE with continuing the failed containment policy that was torturing Iraqi citizens for 12 years based on the SAME DAMN LIE.. Hypocrites is what they are. Not a ONE of them had the balls to suggest that we ease off the containment policy and bring that atrocious policy to an end.. Or maybe Kucinich or one or two did..

Our involvement in Iraq began before that. In order to persecute Iran, we allowed Saddam to purchase western technology and build a huge army and a large arsenal of weapons, including chemical weapons, to fight off the Iranian who were poised to overrun Iraq. What we didn't know(or maybe we did) is that he was also secretly building an atomic bomb as well. So after the Iran war we had to destroy him and his army. Kind of like giving your friend a gun, and then shooting him because he has a gun!

Somebody made a lot of money off that I think.

Actually wasn't hard for us to take a side back then. And despite a lot of flack, Saddam mostly got intel from us. The "biological weapons" that we supplied were a bogus claim. All of what was shipped was genetically altered anthrax and other agents that could not be proliferated. We probably DID ignore a lot of HIS bio/chem ambitions back then.

Funny how that works. Funny how Iran now controls 1/3 of Iraq.. Actually -- not funny at all. We SUCK at foreign policy. And the doves in this country get cooked every time. But more than often -- both the main parties eventually acknowledge that we were right. Is it because we're soo damn brilliant? No.. It's because they are that bad at what they do.


And some of us "doves" will be the 1st to light up any threat that is ACTUALLY a threat and turn it into rubble. All we need today is a lat/long geolocation and we can defend ourselves in about 15 minutes pretty well if the intel is good.

.
He got a lot of technology from us. But what is usually ignored is that our allies were able to sell to him as well. Germany supplied him with tonnes of precursor chemicals. There was a list of every country and company that sold to him out there that pissed off a lot off people. Probably can't find it anymore. France and the UK were also deeply involved. I also heard it was Carter's (Brzezinski) who passed the intel showing Saddam where Iran was weak in 79 to prompt the invasion. Maybe the policy that the enemy of my enemy is my friend isn't such a good policy after all. It's the people of Iraq who suffered through 8 years of that war and a few years later the First Gulf War and Sanctions, and finally the US led invasion, occupation and civil war, that I feel the most sorry for.

 

[rightwinger]

H

Cowboy Diplomacy (voluntarily invading countries that are not a direct threat to the vital interests of the US ) failed and was agreed to AFTER A LONG TIME by Repubs

The Great Iraq Mistake

[/QUOTE

Really? Just a Repub mistake? And when Clinton bombed them daily and took the keys to their economy away that was NOT a mistake? When he STEPPED up the bombing as a political cover for his purposes -- that was NOT a mistake. And when Mad Albright said that the deaths of 200,000 Iraqi children from the effects of the embargo was "acceptable side effect" ---- THAT was not a mistake.

BOTH parties sucked on Iraq policy.. And neither party had the COURAGE to let Iraq out of containment -- as SHOULD have been. Especially if that containment was for the benefit of a LIE about WMDs.

Spare me the partisan crap fest..

Bombing and invading are two diff things but we've already gone over that. We've also gone over the fact that > 1/2 the Democrats voted against AUMF for Iraq. You read the thread?

Bombing and invading are two different things? HUH?

Only if you use an Orwellian dictionary. and/or the debaters are retarded.

bombing does not equal invasion/boots-on-the-ground/occupation. Are you really that thick All Caps boi? That was a rhetorical question

Shut the fuck twerp.

in·va·sion
inˈvāZHən/
noun

1. an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
   "the Allied invasion of Normandy"
   synonyms: occupation, capture, seizure, annexation, annexing, takeover; More
   • an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.
     "stadium guards are preparing for another invasion of fans"
     synonyms: influx, inundation, flood, rush, torrent, deluge, avalanche, juggernaut
     "an invasion of tourists"
   • an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.
     "random drug testing of employees is an unwarranted invasion of privacy"
     synonyms: violation, infringement, interruption, intrusion, encroachment,disturbance, disruption, breach
     "an invasion of my privacy"
2. .

an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
"the Allied invasion of Normandy"
synonyms: occupation, capture, seizure, annexation, annexing, takeover; More

No mention of bombing

 

[g5000]

Not the stockpiles like Collin Powell said there would be. Those wmds found were decades old and not new by any means as the bush administration had said. It is funny watching revisionists try and support Ws blunders.

Thousands of chemical weapons is "stockpiles" in my book, especially considering the toxicity. And, thousands were found. Their age is irrelevant as, those that contained mustard gas were still viable, and the bicomponents last for decades and decades.

d

Their age is not irrelevant as that was what bush and buddies claimed. Nice try at revising history. Did I accidentally insult your God bush?

A stockpile is a stockpile. Age IS irrelevant when it comes to bicomponent nerve agent munitions, at least as far as killing power is concerned.

From conscious expo. com
Bush Sought Way To Invade Iraq from Day 1 of His Administration
In Lesley Stahl’s 60 Minutes interview with Bush’s first Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, which aired in early January, 2004, O’Neill revealed that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were Bush’s main focus from the very beginning of his administration. See the transcript below and the video link below that.

Stahl: “And what happened in President Bush’s very first National Security Council meeting is one of O’Neill’s most startling revelations.”

O’Neill: “From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go.”

Stahl: “He said that going after Saddam was topic ‘A’ 10 days after the inauguration – eight months before Sept. 11.”

Ron Suskind (author of the book “The Price of Loyalty” in which O’Neill was a significant contributor. O’Neill gave Suskind 19,000 internal documents): “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime”

Stahl: “Now everybody else thought that grew out of 9/11.”

Suskind: “No”

Stahl: “But this book says it was day one of this administration.”

Suskind: “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

Stahl: “As treasury secretary, O’Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as ‘Why Saddam?’ and ‘Why now?’ were never asked.”

Stahl (quoting O’Neill from the book): “It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this.'”

O’Neill: “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

Stahl: “And that came up at this first meeting?”

O’Neill: “It did.”

Stahl: “O’Neill told us that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later. He got briefing materials under this cover sheet.” (Note: the cover sheet is shown in the video)

Suskind: “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq.'” (Note: the memo is shown in the video)

Stahl: “Nation Building?”

Suskind: “Absolutely.”

Stahl: “So, they discussed an occupation of Iraq?”

Suskind: “ In January and February of 2001.

Stahl: “Based on his interviews with O’Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq’s oil wealth.”

Stahl: “Suskind obtained this Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, entitled ‘Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.’ It includes a map of potential areas for exploration.” (Note: the document is shown in the video)

Suskind: “It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions…”

Stahl: “On oil.”

Suskind. “On oil in Iraq.”

Did you catch that? Six months before 9/11, there were already plans for how the Iraqi oil fields would be divided up, and which contractors would do the work.

Here’s the 60 Minutes interview with O’Neill

Except NONE of that "plan" for the Iraqi oil fields ever got implemented. Did it?

Well, you see, there was this "insurgency" which prevented that plan's implementation. Maybe you heard about it? It was in all the papers.

 

[Redfish]

you are the idiot in this discussion. your partisan anger is confirmation that deep down inside you know that your left wing ideology is a massive failure and your left wing candidates are shitheads..

my anger is that somehow you left school w/o learning anything. No one here is interested in your rw kool aid opinions. Ask someone how to source something so that you don't continue embarrassing yourself like saying "the world was with bush on iraq (it wasn't) and the dems in congress voted for iraq (126 didn't, thats way over 1/2 of them)

Ya fricken liar, you are no better than your heroine, the hildebeast. I never said either of those things.

I said that the resolution would not have passed without dem votes, that is true
I said that Hillary voted for it, that is true
I said that the UN, UK, EU, and many others bought into the bad intel about WMDs, that is also true.

There is nothing needed to source, what I have said is common knowledge and you verified it when you posted the vote totals.

Now, get you head out of hillarys ass and your mouth off of Obama's crank and learn something besides what the left wing media liars are pushing.