Trump: Bush lied about reason for invading Iraq

[Freewill]

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.

I know right? "We'll be greeted as liberators" Who said that? Some Republican.

America was, by the people that Saddam used WMD. Selective history is a hall mark of liberalism.

ISIS Be Damned—Iraqi Kurds Still Love America

Women's Progress in Iraq

Iraqi women greeted the capture of Saddam Hussein on December 13 with joyful relief. As one woman reported from an Iraqi women's conference taking place in Jordan, Almost all broke into tears and sobs that the man who had managed to reach into every individual's personal life and rip it apart by killing their husbands, sons, and fathers, and raping and maiming their daughters, their mothers, and very often themselves, was brought to justice.

If I were given the vote, as was Mrs. Bosnia Clinton, I would have voted no for war. Not because I think it was wrong to remove the Butcher of Baghdad. And not that I think he was not a threat. I would have voted no because I, many years ago, did NOT want to go to Vietnam and didn't want my friends to go either. I took the cowards way out and enlisted for 6 years serving on a submarine. I don't want my grandchildren to have the same decisions to make. But then again the wars were conducted by a all volunteer army. One that i will bet most on this board never served.

 

[paulitician]

You're sadly mistaken. The Neocon (Nazi) powers-that-be in the Republican Party do want war. They warmonger daily, 365 24/7.

Bullshit, wanting a strong military is wanting to prevent wars. you have it totally backwards. We get into wars when we are weak.

Sorry, but you have no idea who's currently running your Party. The Neocons (Nazis) do want more war. They want a whole lot more of it. They can't wait to shove more American kids into the meat grinder. You need to seriously take a closer look at your Party leadership.

give me names or STFU. Who specifically in the GOP wants the USA to be in a constant state of war. Who and Why.

The Neocons (Nazis) aren't hiding anything. They openly warmonger on a daily basis. They want war with so many nations, it's hard to keep track at this point. Their list of nations to start wars with grows longer everyday.

If the Neocons (Nazis) are ever booted from the Republican Party, i'll return. Until then, i can't call myself a Republican. And that's a real shame, i've leaned Republican most of my life.

who are they?, give us names.

There's many of em on this Board. They can't wait to stuff more American kids into the meat grinder. They want many more Iraqs. They won't be satisfied till they start WWIII. That's who your leaders are. They're insane.

 

[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..

You're a hoot

I see you missed the important part. Clinton never executed a ground invasion like the Fox employee (Bill Kristol) wanted so the PNAC went to Bush w/ resounding success, or failure depending on how you look at it:

Actually -- "the important part" --- is that SOMEBODY took the initiative to END 12 years of terrible policy. You can GUESS why that was a Bush priority. But if you're gonna conduct a war on terror and prosecute a war against radical Muslims -- maybe you OUGHT TO stop killing Iraqi kids first and let them have some food and medicine. The "optics" of going out to beat up Muslims while the USA has 20Million locked down in a padded room with a madman and bombing them EVERYDAY with no economy left -- is not good public relations.

PNAC is history. And afterall -- they were mostly life-long Democrats kicked to the curb by their party to begin with..

Are you really trying to persuade us that Obama's foreign policy is anything but a disaster? You support his regime change in Libya and Syria? You support his creating a power vacuum that lead to the rise of ISIS? Really?

Where did I say that?

What I SAID was -- my CONSISTENT choice on this would be to let Saddam out of the containment. Just freaking end it. Let the Iraqis deal with him under NORMAL circumstances. The containment did nothing but make him a STRONGER Tyrant.. LEVEL the bastard if he ever threatened us.

But barring that -- SOMEONE had to end the containment SOMEHOW.

We weren't "containing" Libya or Syria in any similar way. There were ACTIVE MAJOR insurgencies occurring there before we ever even THOUGHT of intervening.. Those tyrants were there -- because that's how Arab countries are run. And if we had taken Saddam down and left the military in charge and packed up -- There'd be a another military tyrant to take his place. And Iraq wouldn't be in pieces today.

 

[flacaltenn]

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..

You're a hoot

I see you missed the important part. Clinton never executed a ground invasion like the Fox employee (Bill Kristol) wanted so the PNAC went to Bush w/ resounding success, or failure depending on how you look at it:

Actually -- "the important part" --- is that SOMEBODY took the initiative to END 12 years of terrible policy. You can GUESS why that was a Bush priority. But if you're gonna conduct a war on terror and prosecute a war against radical Muslims -- maybe you OUGHT TO stop killing Iraqi kids first and let them have some food and medicine. The "optics" of going out to beat up Muslims while the country has 20Million locked down in a padded room with a madman and bombing them EVERYDAY with no economy left -- is not good public relations.

sooo you are a proponent of being world police? I thought you said you weren't. You sure do have alot invested in the worst foreign policy disaster since vietnam perpetrated by the last Repub Admin.

The "disaster" was 12 years in the making before someone had the balls to stop it. My point is -- the Repubs just needed to point out how BAD the containment policy had been. No need to make up fictions. Just let Saddam out of the box -- Or a minimum incursion to remove him and his sons.

They just got carried away trying to show Muslim countries how much "we care".. All that rebuilding and handouts and Post Office designing.. Why they should have just loved all that. If there wasn't 250,000 DEAD CHILDREN from our bombing and embargoes.

So the Repubs (Reagan Admin) armed Saddam, lost control of him and wanted to send in the marines to die to "correct" their mistake. You gonna stick w/ that?

You are really outta your league here son

WTF?? You outta your mind? Where exactly did you get that?? Don't put words in my mouth.
What did I say my consistent choice in the matter was?

Do you even understand how freaking bad the 12 years of containment were? What was the Dem plan for ending that?

 

[Freewill]

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..

You're a hoot

I see you missed the important part. Clinton never executed a ground invasion like the Fox employee (Bill Kristol) wanted so the PNAC went to Bush w/ resounding success, or failure depending on how you look at it:

Actually -- "the important part" --- is that SOMEBODY took the initiative to END 12 years of terrible policy. You can GUESS why that was a Bush priority. But if you're gonna conduct a war on terror and prosecute a war against radical Muslims -- maybe you OUGHT TO stop killing Iraqi kids first and let them have some food and medicine. The "optics" of going out to beat up Muslims while the USA has 20Million locked down in a padded room with a madman and bombing them EVERYDAY with no economy left -- is not good public relations.

PNAC is history. And afterall -- they were mostly life-long Democrats kicked to the curb by their party to begin with..

Are you really trying to persuade us that Obama's foreign policy is anything but a disaster? You support his regime change in Libya and Syria? You support his creating a power vacuum that lead to the rise of ISIS? Really?

Where did I say that?

What I SAID was -- my CONSISTENT choice on this would be to let Saddam out of the containment. Just freaking end it. Let the Iraqis deal with him under NORMAL circumstances. The containment did nothing but make him a STRONGER Tyrant.. LEVEL the bastard if he ever threatened us.

But barring that -- SOMEONE had to end the containment SOMEHOW.

We weren't "containing" Libya or Syria in any similar way. There were ACTIVE MAJOR insurgencies occurring there before we ever even THOUGHT of intervening.. Those tyrants were there -- because that's how Arab countries are run. And if we had taken Saddam down and left the military in charge and packed up -- There'd be a another military tyrant to take his place. And Iraq wouldn't be in pieces today.

Sorry if I read your post wrongly. I get a bit irritated at the same old BS being flung around and sometimes fail to read for comprehension.

 

[Dot Com]

All I know is that a current employee of Fox TV (Bill Kristol) gave Bush the reason to invade (he was already going to invade, he just needed some idiots to sign a paper saying it was a brilliant idea)

CNN.com - O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11 - Jan. 14, 2004

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," O'Neill told CBS, according to excerpts released Saturday by the network. "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."

O'Neill, who served nearly two years in Bush's Cabinet, was asked to resign by the White House in December 2002 over differences he had with the president's tax cuts. O'Neill was the main source for "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill," by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ron Suskind.

See that Redfish you hack?- thats what a source looks like

 

[flacaltenn]

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..

You're a hoot

I see you missed the important part. Clinton never executed a ground invasion like the Fox employee (Bill Kristol) wanted so the PNAC went to Bush w/ resounding success, or failure depending on how you look at it:

Actually -- "the important part" --- is that SOMEBODY took the initiative to END 12 years of terrible policy. You can GUESS why that was a Bush priority. But if you're gonna conduct a war on terror and prosecute a war against radical Muslims -- maybe you OUGHT TO stop killing Iraqi kids first and let them have some food and medicine. The "optics" of going out to beat up Muslims while the USA has 20Million locked down in a padded room with a madman and bombing them EVERYDAY with no economy left -- is not good public relations.

PNAC is history. And afterall -- they were mostly life-long Democrats kicked to the curb by their party to begin with..

Are you really trying to persuade us that Obama's foreign policy is anything but a disaster? You support his regime change in Libya and Syria? You support his creating a power vacuum that lead to the rise of ISIS? Really?

Where did I say that?

What I SAID was -- my CONSISTENT choice on this would be to let Saddam out of the containment. Just freaking end it. Let the Iraqis deal with him under NORMAL circumstances. The containment did nothing but make him a STRONGER Tyrant.. LEVEL the bastard if he ever threatened us.

But barring that -- SOMEONE had to end the containment SOMEHOW.

We weren't "containing" Libya or Syria in any similar way. There were ACTIVE MAJOR insurgencies occurring there before we ever even THOUGHT of intervening.. Those tyrants were there -- because that's how Arab countries are run. And if we had taken Saddam down and left the military in charge and packed up -- There'd be a another military tyrant to take his place. And Iraq wouldn't be in pieces today.

Sorry if I read your post wrongly. I get a bit irritated at the same old BS being flung around and sometimes fail to read for comprehension.

It's just one of my major beefs with partisans. This Bush lied and invaded Iraq BS.

The simple truth is ---- it was time to END the containment. Admit the UN inspectors were correct. and let Saddam out of the box. Not a single politician (barring Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich) had the balls to say that.

And ALL of them knew -- that America could not admit they had TORTURED a country for that LONG for no REASON!!! Other than incompetency in foreign affairs. So the end game HAD to involve villianizing Saddam and taking him down. For THEATRICAL purposes --- if nothing else.

No one KNEW or EXPECTED that we'd stick around and play parole officer and sugar daddy for as long as we did. Which was the 2nd disastrous mistake in Iraqi policy in a row.

 

[Dot Com]

You're a hoot

I see you missed the important part. Clinton never executed a ground invasion like the Fox employee (Bill Kristol) wanted so the PNAC went to Bush w/ resounding success, or failure depending on how you look at it:

Actually -- "the important part" --- is that SOMEBODY took the initiative to END 12 years of terrible policy. You can GUESS why that was a Bush priority. But if you're gonna conduct a war on terror and prosecute a war against radical Muslims -- maybe you OUGHT TO stop killing Iraqi kids first and let them have some food and medicine. The "optics" of going out to beat up Muslims while the USA has 20Million locked down in a padded room with a madman and bombing them EVERYDAY with no economy left -- is not good public relations.

PNAC is history. And afterall -- they were mostly life-long Democrats kicked to the curb by their party to begin with..

Are you really trying to persuade us that Obama's foreign policy is anything but a disaster? You support his regime change in Libya and Syria? You support his creating a power vacuum that lead to the rise of ISIS? Really?

Where did I say that?

What I SAID was -- my CONSISTENT choice on this would be to let Saddam out of the containment. Just freaking end it. Let the Iraqis deal with him under NORMAL circumstances. The containment did nothing but make him a STRONGER Tyrant.. LEVEL the bastard if he ever threatened us.

But barring that -- SOMEONE had to end the containment SOMEHOW.

We weren't "containing" Libya or Syria in any similar way. There were ACTIVE MAJOR insurgencies occurring there before we ever even THOUGHT of intervening.. Those tyrants were there -- because that's how Arab countries are run. And if we had taken Saddam down and left the military in charge and packed up -- There'd be a another military tyrant to take his place. And Iraq wouldn't be in pieces today.

Sorry if I read your post wrongly. I get a bit irritated at the same old BS being flung around and sometimes fail to read for comprehension.

It's just one of my major beefs with partisans. This Bush lied and invaded Iraq BS.

The simple truth is ---- it was time to END the containment. Admit the UN inspectors were correct. and let Saddam out of the box. Not a single politician (barring Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich) had the balls to say that.

And ALL of them knew -- that America could not admit they had TORTURED a country for that LONG for no REASON!!! Other than incompetency in foreign affairs. So the end game HAD to involve villianizing Saddam and taking him down. For THEATRICAL purposes --- if nothing else.

No one KNEW or EXPECTED that we'd stick around and play parole officer and sugar daddy for as long as we did. Which was the 2nd disastrous mistake in Iraqi policy in a row.

Thats YOUR opinion. That and $1.87 will get you a cup of coffee,.

See my previous post, Bush planned on invading from the first day of his admin "THEY TRIED TO KILL MY DADDY" All he needed was a pretext to start enriching defense contractors and have kids come back dead, TBI, or traumatized for life.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

flacaltenn 13535801

It's just one of my major beefs with partisans. This Bush lied and invaded Iraq BS.

The simple truth is ---- it was time to END the containment. Admit the UN inspectors were correct. and let Saddam out of the box

I don't get how you would insist that Trump is expressing partisan BS. I've explained why we know that Bush lied on March 17, 2003. I've explained why Bush was not lying about WMD in October 2002 when there were no inspectors on the ground in Iraq and when the authorization to use force "IF NECESSARY" was passed.

Your simple truth was actually in effect by March 2003. The inspectors were correctly not finding evidence of WMD and they were a few months away from lifting sanctions.

Perhaps you do not know that Dr Blix and Dr El Baradai were the sole human beings that could lift the sanctions on Saddam Hussein's regime and there was no way that Bush could stop it. Lifting sanctions on Iraq was not subject to a veto by permanent member states on the UNSC. That is precisely why Bush was forced to lie on March 17, 2003 that he had intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from those inspectors that had the authority to lift sanctions when their work was complete.

Bush could not bear the reality that it was beginning to look as if Iraq did not have the long suspected WMD arsenal by March 2003.

His ruse (claims he wanted the UN to disarm Iraq peacefully) was in dissaray when Iraq was declared to be cooperating proactively under Resolution 1441 and no WMD was being found.

You may not know that Saddam Hussein in mid-December 2002 offered Bush and Blair the opportunity to send their intelligence agencies into Iraq to assist in the search for suspected WMD directly in cooperation with the UN inspectors.

From that point on Bush's reliance on any secret intelligence that was not being shared with the UNSC was a flawed and dishonest decision because the White House response to the offer was to let the UN handle that.

It is sad to see this intelligent rather easy to understand truth about events leading to the U.S. invasion of Iraq labeled as partisan BS.

I'd much rather see if you can reject the case I've made that reaches the solid conclusion that Bush lied to justify his desire to invade Iraq.

I realize it's much easier to declare something to be BS than present an argument that Bush did not lie to the American people and their other elected leaders.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

flacaltenn 13533979

A large part of the Clinton Admin was predisposed to view PNAC's suggestions favorably.

There was never ever the slightest hint that President Clinton was in favor of ending Saddam Hussein's regime by a U.S. ground invasion. And, supporting regime change, by enabling Iraqis to do it themselves, was what was viewed favorably by both political parties for a long time.

And whatever anyone was predisposed to believe in 1998 when Saddam was in violation of international law with regard to his surrender agreement following the First Gulf War, has no bearing on any defensive argument that Bush did not lie about WMD in order to justify an invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Bush wasn't the only one.

Bush was the only one who decided to force UN inspectors out of Iraq and send in an invading ground force to find WMD instead. It doesn't take much to know that Bush was lying on March 17 2003. He was the only one standing at that podium that night. There was no one else. He prided himself for being the 'decider' and the 'decider' decided to invade and he told a lie when he announced that he was left no other choice. The correct choice was to let the inspections continue.

 

[Faun]

flacaltenn 13533979

A large part of the Clinton Admin was predisposed to view PNAC's suggestions favorably.

There was never ever the slightest hint that President Clinton was in favor of ending Saddam Hussein's regime by a U.S. ground invasion. And, supporting regime change, by enabling Iraqis to do it themselves, was what was viewed favorably by both political parties for a long time.

And whatever anyone was predisposed to believe in 1998 when Saddam was in violation of international law with regard to his surrender agreement following the First Gulf War, has no bearing on any defensive argument that Bush did not lie about WMD in order to justify an invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Trump was also right that Bush's malfeasance of invading Iraq has completely destabilized the entire region.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

flacaltenn 13535604

My point is -- the Repubs just needed to point out how BAD the containment policy had been. No need to make up fictions.

Are you now saying that Republicans made up 'fictions'?

Making up 'fictions' is lying where I come from.

 

[JimBowie1958]

flacaltenn 13535604

My point is -- the Repubs just needed to point out how BAD the containment policy had been. No need to make up fictions.

Are you now saying that Republicans made up 'fictions'?

Making up 'fictions' is lying where I come from.

One might also consider 'fictions' to be spin-meistering or expected big fish tails.

Inmy book Bush did have his appointed officers spin the facts to generate enough dust to sell an invasion of Iraq.

Ironically enough, he didnt need to as he had enough to invade Iraq anyway due to the cease fire violations.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

flacaltenn 13533979

A large part of the Clinton Admin was predisposed to view PNAC's suggestions favorably.

There was never ever the slightest hint that President Clinton was in favor of ending Saddam Hussein's regime by a U.S. ground invasion. And, supporting regime change, by enabling Iraqis to do it themselves, was what was viewed favorably by both political parties for a long time.

And whatever anyone was predisposed to believe in 1998 when Saddam was in violation of international law with regard to his surrender agreement following the First Gulf War, has no bearing on any defensive argument that Bush did not lie about WMD in order to justify an invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Trump was also right that Bush's malfeasance of invading Iraq has completely destabilized the entire region.

I agree. How can Bush family loyalists explain why Bush didn't know that toppling a Sunni minority dictatorship would lead to a Shiite majority taking over during that political vacuum. And why Bush didn't know that regime change would certainly lead to Shiite neighboring Iran to gain a strong influential presence in Iraq, thereby increasing the pressure on the Shiite/Sunni divide to explode into uncontrollable violence as we have witnessed with US troops caught in the middle of that violence causing 4484 of them to lose their lives.

Trump lays the Republican false version of the Iraq invasion bare, and none of the Republicans here want to give up their self-denial no matter what. Their own front-runner knows the truth and they still can't face it.

 

[Mertex]

Dumbass....did you notice the date on that video? 1998! That's why Operation Desert Fox came about.......but that has nothing to do with Bush and his 2003 Iraq invasion.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

JimBowie 13537725

Ironically enough, he didnt need to as he had enough to invade Iraq anyway due to the cease fire violations.

No he needed to lie on March 27, 2003 because he sought and got a unanimous vote at the UNSC in resolution 1441. Bush agreed in that resolution to give Iraq a final opportunity to comply, which meant all prior violations of Saddam's ceasefire agreement was no longer a justification for war in 2003. Bush had to make up something new, so he did. He said he knew without a doubt that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from the UN resolution 1441 inspection regime in March 2003.

I explain why we can know that Bush lied when he said that in an earlier post today.

No one has tried to refute the point I made. It can't be refuted must be why.


I understand your point is more about Bush lying throughout most of 2002 in order to get the authorization to use military force against Iraq.

Inmy book Bush did have his appointed officers spin the facts to generate enough dust to sell an invasion of Iraq.

The problem with that is there is not sufficient proof that Bush absolutely knew that Iraq was clean with regard to WMD until after the inspectors went back in.

Bush lied then about his desire to disarm Iraq peacefully but needing an AUMF in advance to force SH to allow the return of inspectors. Bush defenders always defend Bush's 2002 spinning and exaggerating because it can't be proven that Bush knew in 2002 that Iraq had no WMD at that time.

But he did know after four months of inspections because he gave SH the chance to stay in power on March 7, 2003. We have a written document to prove he was willing to allow SH to stay in power. He could not have done that if he actually had intelligence that proved SH was hiding lethal weapons from the inspectors.

 

[Mertex]

flacaltenn 13535604

My point is -- the Repubs just needed to point out how BAD the containment policy had been. No need to make up fictions.

Are you now saying that Republicans made up 'fictions'?

Making up 'fictions' is lying where I come from.

Ironically enough, he didnt need to as he had enough to invade Iraq anyway due to the cease fire violations.

Do you have a link to support you on that? That's the first I've ever heard that nonsense.

 

[Mertex]

Trump is right... We were lied too, to justify our war in Iraq.
Iraq had zero involvement in 9/11 so they had to find other reason for us to invade them.
Trump was also correct that 9/11 happen under Bush's watch no matter what Jeb says.

He was absolutely correct that it happened on Bush's watch, but whether or not he can be blamed is debatable. Yes, he received a memo about terrorists possibly flying planes into buildings, but Al Qaeda didn't exactly advertise the time and date.

Yeah....but Bush's conduct is questionable as to whether he could have prevented it. For Republicans to blame Hillary for Benghazi and then claim that Bush is not responsible for 9/11 is laughable....if you're going to assign blame just because she should have prevented it, then certainly Bush can be blamed for not preventing 9/11. Even then, Hillary wasn't given information that might have suggested an attack, George W. Bush was.


It's not simply a question of whether he could have stopped the devastation--that's unknowable. But did he do all he could given the various warnings that al-Qaeda was planning a major attack somewhere on US territory, most likely New York or Washington? The unpleasant, almost unbearable conclusion--one that was not to be discussed within the political realm--is that in the face of numerous warnings of an impending attack, Bush did nothing.
How Much Is George W. Bush Responsible for 9/11?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Dumbass....did you notice the date on that video? 1998! That's why Operation Desert Fox came about.......but that has nothing to do with Bush and his 2003 Iraq invasion.

Delbert has problems with dates and facts and putting forth a coherent post about anything.