Why do people claim the military "risks their lives" to "protect our freedoms"?

[rightwinger]

Negative. The Senate and House passed it and funded it.

CNN.com - Senate approves Iraq war resolution - Oct. 11 2002
The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.

Absolutely. If Congress had opposed it, he would not have been able to get funding to even have a war. Do people actually believe that the president is a like a "king" or something? His power is not absolute and he needs the approval of congress for many things.

Bush asked for the war and Bush pulled the trigger

He couldn't have done anything without approval from Congress. Do you know ANYTHING about how things are run?

Yes I know how things work

Bush wrapped Iraq up in patriotism and 9-11 hysteria. He still had his 9-11 card which granted him anything he wanted in fighting terrorism.
Congress failed to stop him, even though they should have. But the majority were too afraid to be labeled soft on terrorism and unpatriotic

The media also failed to ask critical questions about the reality of the threat and exit strategy

Right, at the time, they all were obviously in agreement.

They were cowards unwilling to stand up to the Bush propaganda machine

Cost 6000 Americans their lives

 

[ChrisL]

The Congress dumped that decision into Bush's lap, they gave Bush the decision for war if he, Bush, thought it necessary.

Negative. The Senate and House passed it and funded it.

CNN.com - Senate approves Iraq war resolution - Oct. 11 2002
The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.

Absolutely. If Congress had opposed it, he would not have been able to get funding to even have a war. Do people actually believe that the president is a like a "king" or something? His power is not absolute and he needs the approval of congress for many things.

The country gave great trust and confidence to the President of the United States after the United States was attacked and thousands of it's citizens murdered by a well organized and powerful global religious terrorist organization. They were led to believe that this dangerous entity was being supported and protected by a recognized nation and government in Iraq. This country was known to have experience and a history with the use of weapons of mass destruction, including, at the least, radioactive dirty bombs and at worst, nuke's that could wipe out entire cities full of millions of citizens. The country was carefully led to believe horrible WMD's of biological and chemical nature's were potentially available to the enemy via Iraq and it's supportive and protective roll in regards to al Qaeda. The President told the American people about this supportive and protective relationship at his State of the Union Address immediately following the attacks on 9/11.
Bush lied. There was never a supportive and protective relationship. He made that up to trick and scam the American people into a war of choice. His choice. Worst decision and choice ever made by an American President. America will be paying for Bush's lie for decades into the future.

He must be a fucking genius then.

You think lacking character and the willingness to be a blatant liar has something to do with intelligence?

If he can pull the wool over everyone's eyes, then he must be a genius. If only it were so EASY!!! Jesus! Face facts, most people agreed and thought that Iraq posed a serious threat. It was NOT just George W. who felt that way. This was mostly because of Sadam's OWN behavior. He wanted people to think he had WMD, and he purposefully tried to make it appear as if he did so that he could intimidate his "enemies." He was also afraid of Iran and especially with their nuclear program progressing, he wanted them to think that he had nukes as well.

I don't necessarily think the war was a good idea and that it could have been avoidable, but Saddam made it nearly impossible to not take some kind of action, and sanctions were NOT working. This article below is a VERY interesting read, VERY interesting.

Newsflash Wikileaks Verify That Saddam Hussein Had WMD AFTER George W. Bush Invaded Iraq Start Thinking Right

 

[Camp]

You think lacking character and the willingness to be a blatant liar has something to do with intelligence?

Why bring obama into this?

Good one!

Oh, I'm sorry. You guys seemed to have misunderstood my post. It was meant as a reminder of when President Bush stood up in front of the nation and world at his State of the Union Address that followed the 9/11 attacks and he told everyone that Saddam and Iraq were giving support and protection to al Qaeda. Again, sorry if I didn't make clear. A historical lie like that should be remembered accurately.

 

[rightwinger]

Negative. The Senate and House passed it and funded it.

CNN.com - Senate approves Iraq war resolution - Oct. 11 2002
The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.

Absolutely. If Congress had opposed it, he would not have been able to get funding to even have a war. Do people actually believe that the president is a like a "king" or something? His power is not absolute and he needs the approval of congress for many things.

Bush asked for the war and Bush pulled the trigger

He couldn't have done anything without approval from Congress. Do you know ANYTHING about how things are run?

Yes I know how things work

Bush wrapped Iraq up in patriotism and 9-11 hysteria. He still had his 9-11 card which granted him anything he wanted in fighting terrorism.
Congress failed to stop him, even though they should have. But the majority were too afraid to be labeled soft on terrorism and unpatriotic

The media also failed to ask critical questions about the reality of the threat and exit strategy

Congress voted for the war but failed to stop Bush and the media was too soft on him?

Let's cut to the chase in Republican "share the blame" revisionist history

Republicans controlled Congress, Republicans voted almost 100% for the war. The majority of Democrats voted against the war

But the war was Bushs idea, it was Bush who trumped up the fake evidence and the pro war hysteria

In the end, Congress gave Bush authority to make the decision to invade. Bush waited two months, then pulled the trigger when it looked like UN weapon inspectors would eliminate his reasons for invading

 

[ChrisL]

Absolutely. If Congress had opposed it, he would not have been able to get funding to even have a war. Do people actually believe that the president is a like a "king" or something? His power is not absolute and he needs the approval of congress for many things.

Bush asked for the war and Bush pulled the trigger

He couldn't have done anything without approval from Congress. Do you know ANYTHING about how things are run?

Yes I know how things work

Bush wrapped Iraq up in patriotism and 9-11 hysteria. He still had his 9-11 card which granted him anything he wanted in fighting terrorism.
Congress failed to stop him, even though they should have. But the majority were too afraid to be labeled soft on terrorism and unpatriotic

The media also failed to ask critical questions about the reality of the threat and exit strategy

Congress voted for the war but failed to stop Bush and the media was too soft on him?

Let's cut to the chase in Republican "share the blame" revisionist history

Republicans controlled Congress, Republicans voted almost 100% for the war. The majority of Democrats voted against the war

But the war was Bushs idea, it was Bush who trumped up the fake evidence and the pro war hysteria

In the end, Congress gave Bush authority to make the decision to invade. Bush waited two months, then pulled the trigger when it looked like UN weapon inspectors would eliminate his reasons for invading

Did you read my link? It is a link that leans right, but has some interesting facts. Also, WMD was not the ONLY reason. There were multiple reasons, one being how much of a thorn in the side of the world Saddam had become, with or without WMDs, and some of Saddam's top generals believed he had WMD too!

Newsflash Wikileaks Verify That Saddam Hussein Had WMD AFTER George W. Bush Invaded Iraq Start Thinking Right

Given the fact that Saddam Hussein obviously had WMD prior to the invasion (it is a documented fact of history that he used them against Iran in their war, and it is a documented fact of history that Saddam used WMD on his own people in Iraqi Kurdistan in 1988).

It is also a fact of history that prior to George W. Bush invading Iraq in 2003, inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq by Saddam for over four years, having been expelled by Saddam Hussein in 1998 during the Clinton administration.

Given the simple fact that Iraq is a country the size of Texas, and given the fact that Iraq knew full well exactly when US and allied satellites passed over their country, and given the fact that Saddam Hussein’s own generals believed that Iraq in fact did possess WMD -

March 13, 2006
NY Times: Saddam’s generals believed they had WMD to repel US
By Jim Kouri

The New York Times reports that just prior to the United States lead invasion, Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein informed his top generals that he had destroyed his stockpiles of chemical weapons three months before their war plans meeting.

According to the Times report, the generals all believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were counting on the WMD to repel the oncoming coalition invaders.

 

[rightwinger]

Bush asked for the war and Bush pulled the trigger

He couldn't have done anything without approval from Congress. Do you know ANYTHING about how things are run?

Yes I know how things work

Bush wrapped Iraq up in patriotism and 9-11 hysteria. He still had his 9-11 card which granted him anything he wanted in fighting terrorism.
Congress failed to stop him, even though they should have. But the majority were too afraid to be labeled soft on terrorism and unpatriotic

The media also failed to ask critical questions about the reality of the threat and exit strategy

Congress voted for the war but failed to stop Bush and the media was too soft on him?

Let's cut to the chase in Republican "share the blame" revisionist history

Republicans controlled Congress, Republicans voted almost 100% for the war. The majority of Democrats voted against the war

But the war was Bushs idea, it was Bush who trumped up the fake evidence and the pro war hysteria

In the end, Congress gave Bush authority to make the decision to invade. Bush waited two months, then pulled the trigger when it looked like UN weapon inspectors would eliminate his reasons for invading

Did you read my link? It is a link that leans right, but has some interesting facts. Also, WMD was not the ONLY reason. There were multiple reasons, one being how much of a thorn in the side of the world Saddam had become, with or without WMDs, and some of Saddam's top generals believed he had WMD too!

Newsflash Wikileaks Verify That Saddam Hussein Had WMD AFTER George W. Bush Invaded Iraq Start Thinking Right

Given the fact that Saddam Hussein obviously had WMD prior to the invasion (it is a documented fact of history that he used them against Iran in their war, and it is a documented fact of history that Saddam used WMD on his own people in Iraqi Kurdistan in 1988).

It is also a fact of history that prior to George W. Bush invading Iraq in 2003, inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq by Saddam for over four years, having been expelled by Saddam Hussein in 1998 during the Clinton administration.

Given the simple fact that Iraq is a country the size of Texas, and given the fact that Iraq knew full well exactly when US and allied satellites passed over their country, and given the fact that Saddam Hussein’s own generals believed that Iraq in fact did possess WMD -

March 13, 2006
NY Times: Saddam’s generals believed they had WMD to repel US
By Jim Kouri

The New York Times reports that just prior to the United States lead invasion, Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein informed his top generals that he had destroyed his stockpiles of chemical weapons three months before their war plans meeting.

According to the Times report, the generals all believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were counting on the WMD to repel the oncoming coalition invaders.

More revisionist bullshit

No, Saddam did not have WMDs. Some ancient, depleted warheads do not constitute a threat
Bush claimed there was an imediate threat.
We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud
He claimed Saddam had an active WMD program that would put weapons into the hands of terrorists

He lied

 

[ChrisL]

He couldn't have done anything without approval from Congress. Do you know ANYTHING about how things are run?

Yes I know how things work

Bush wrapped Iraq up in patriotism and 9-11 hysteria. He still had his 9-11 card which granted him anything he wanted in fighting terrorism.
Congress failed to stop him, even though they should have. But the majority were too afraid to be labeled soft on terrorism and unpatriotic

The media also failed to ask critical questions about the reality of the threat and exit strategy

Congress voted for the war but failed to stop Bush and the media was too soft on him?

Let's cut to the chase in Republican "share the blame" revisionist history

Republicans controlled Congress, Republicans voted almost 100% for the war. The majority of Democrats voted against the war

But the war was Bushs idea, it was Bush who trumped up the fake evidence and the pro war hysteria

In the end, Congress gave Bush authority to make the decision to invade. Bush waited two months, then pulled the trigger when it looked like UN weapon inspectors would eliminate his reasons for invading

Did you read my link? It is a link that leans right, but has some interesting facts. Also, WMD was not the ONLY reason. There were multiple reasons, one being how much of a thorn in the side of the world Saddam had become, with or without WMDs, and some of Saddam's top generals believed he had WMD too!

Newsflash Wikileaks Verify That Saddam Hussein Had WMD AFTER George W. Bush Invaded Iraq Start Thinking Right

Given the fact that Saddam Hussein obviously had WMD prior to the invasion (it is a documented fact of history that he used them against Iran in their war, and it is a documented fact of history that Saddam used WMD on his own people in Iraqi Kurdistan in 1988).

It is also a fact of history that prior to George W. Bush invading Iraq in 2003, inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq by Saddam for over four years, having been expelled by Saddam Hussein in 1998 during the Clinton administration.

Given the simple fact that Iraq is a country the size of Texas, and given the fact that Iraq knew full well exactly when US and allied satellites passed over their country, and given the fact that Saddam Hussein’s own generals believed that Iraq in fact did possess WMD -

March 13, 2006
NY Times: Saddam’s generals believed they had WMD to repel US
By Jim Kouri

The New York Times reports that just prior to the United States lead invasion, Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein informed his top generals that he had destroyed his stockpiles of chemical weapons three months before their war plans meeting.

According to the Times report, the generals all believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were counting on the WMD to repel the oncoming coalition invaders.

More revisionist bullshit

No, Saddam did not have WMDs. Some ancient, depleted warheads do not constitute a threat
Bush claimed there was an imediate threat.
We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud
He claimed Saddam had an active WMD program that would put weapons into the hands of terrorists

He lied

That is from wiki leaks. Yes, Saddam's own generals thought he had WMD. That is what Saddam wanted . . . because he was a crazy paranoid old man who had no business running a country. Do you know how many people he killed? The numbers vary up into the millions. He was a ticking time bomb, that one. Sometimes, a bad guy just needs to be taken out for the good of the world.

Wikileaks And The Great Saddam WMD Scam

Wikileaks documents continue to surface. Some of the latest ones cover the Iraqi chemical weapons program after 1991. In particular these documents deal with the evidence of chemical weapons U.S. troops found in Iraq after 2003. This is all part of an ongoing, largely ideological, media battle over exactly what happened to Iraqi chemical weapons after 1991. Up until early 2003, the conventional wisdom was that Saddam had chemical weapons, and just would not give them up. Some thought Saddam’s strategy was dumb. All he had to do was let the UN inspectors do their job and get Iraqi out from under the embargo. All Saddam had to do was destroy all his chemical weapons and proved to the UN. He could easily reconstitute his chemical weapons later.

What no one brought up was what Saddam was actually doing. He was pretending to have chemical weapons in order to keep the Iranians at bay. Horrendous casualties from Iraqi chemical weapons had forced the Iranians to end the 1980s war in an ignominious (for the Iranians) draw. In 2003 the Iranians still wanted Saddam's head on a pike, and Saddam saw his imaginary chemical weapons as a primary defense against Iranian attack.

This deception was not revealed until after Saddam was out of power and some of his key aides could talk. Saddam kept the real situation (no real chemical weapons programs) secret even from most of his closest aides and military commanders. Saddam trusted very few people. His deception worked, but got him killed anyway because the scheme backfired. Because the rest of the world (especially the United States) believed Saddam still had chemical weapons program and some of those weapons were liable to be given to al Qaeda (which Saddam was in contact with). After September 11, 2001 Saddam seemed like the only leader in the region crazy enough to continue supporting al Qaeda. Officially al Qaeda wanted Saddam gone but in reality Saddam had something of an understanding with al Qaeda (as did many Moslem government.) Saddam would let al Qaeda men quietly travel through Iraq and use Iraq as a hideout as long as there were no active operations against Saddam. Iraq had arrangements like this with many terror groups even though both sides knew that eventually these ceasefires would have to be broken. The U.S. also knew that Saddam was publicly calling for terror attacks on the United States and hailing the 911 attacks as a great victory for Moslems.

Between the time of his capture (December 2003) and execution three years later Saddam was interrogated extensively about the 39 years he ruled Iraq and especially about his WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) programs. He freely admitted his chemical weapons deception but by then many in the West were obsessed with the idea that the United States had invented the myth of an Iraqi chemical weapons program to justify the invasion of Iraq. Actually, Saddam invented that myth and most intel analysts, journalists and just about everyone else believed it until 2003. This is a matter of public record. When the post 2003 search for the chemical weapons program came up empty many pundits and journalists seized on the idea that there was a secret conspiracy involved and that the CIA and other intelligence agencies must have known about the Saddam scam. There has never been any proof of this conspiracy, but it has attracted many believers.

Meanwhile the Wikileaks documents clearly show there were still a lot of chemical weapons in Iraq in 2003 and Saddam’s plan to rebuild his chemical weapons capabilities as soon as the UN embargo was gone were clear and easy for Iraq to accomplish. What is lost in all this conspiracy talk was that Iraq still has the capability to rebuild its chemical weapons arsenal and manufacturing capability. While most of the key technical people were Sunni Arabs (and thus unlikely to work for the current Shia government), that expertise can be hired, as can the specialists needed to run the chemical plants that are quite legal until they are tweaked to produce deadly chemical weapons instead of useful and quite beneficial chemicals. For some reason that never became a headline grabbing story.

 

[ChrisL]

He couldn't have done anything without approval from Congress. Do you know ANYTHING about how things are run?

Yes I know how things work

Bush wrapped Iraq up in patriotism and 9-11 hysteria. He still had his 9-11 card which granted him anything he wanted in fighting terrorism.
Congress failed to stop him, even though they should have. But the majority were too afraid to be labeled soft on terrorism and unpatriotic

The media also failed to ask critical questions about the reality of the threat and exit strategy

Congress voted for the war but failed to stop Bush and the media was too soft on him?

Let's cut to the chase in Republican "share the blame" revisionist history

Republicans controlled Congress, Republicans voted almost 100% for the war. The majority of Democrats voted against the war

But the war was Bushs idea, it was Bush who trumped up the fake evidence and the pro war hysteria

In the end, Congress gave Bush authority to make the decision to invade. Bush waited two months, then pulled the trigger when it looked like UN weapon inspectors would eliminate his reasons for invading

Did you read my link? It is a link that leans right, but has some interesting facts. Also, WMD was not the ONLY reason. There were multiple reasons, one being how much of a thorn in the side of the world Saddam had become, with or without WMDs, and some of Saddam's top generals believed he had WMD too!

Newsflash Wikileaks Verify That Saddam Hussein Had WMD AFTER George W. Bush Invaded Iraq Start Thinking Right

Given the fact that Saddam Hussein obviously had WMD prior to the invasion (it is a documented fact of history that he used them against Iran in their war, and it is a documented fact of history that Saddam used WMD on his own people in Iraqi Kurdistan in 1988).

It is also a fact of history that prior to George W. Bush invading Iraq in 2003, inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq by Saddam for over four years, having been expelled by Saddam Hussein in 1998 during the Clinton administration.

Given the simple fact that Iraq is a country the size of Texas, and given the fact that Iraq knew full well exactly when US and allied satellites passed over their country, and given the fact that Saddam Hussein’s own generals believed that Iraq in fact did possess WMD -

March 13, 2006
NY Times: Saddam’s generals believed they had WMD to repel US
By Jim Kouri

The New York Times reports that just prior to the United States lead invasion, Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein informed his top generals that he had destroyed his stockpiles of chemical weapons three months before their war plans meeting.

According to the Times report, the generals all believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were counting on the WMD to repel the oncoming coalition invaders.

More revisionist bullshit

No, Saddam did not have WMDs. Some ancient, depleted warheads do not constitute a threat
Bush claimed there was an imediate threat.
We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud
He claimed Saddam had an active WMD program that would put weapons into the hands of terrorists

He lied

They provided training camps and save haven for terrorists. Saddam WAS a terrorist.

 

[MikeK]

I would not send draftees to war, that's where I would draw the line. But fyi most congresscritters voted for Iraq so it wasn't just Bush's war.

We can't blame the Congress anymore than we can blame the ordinary citizens who were misled by Bush and Cheney's boldface lies. Those two sonsabitches lied this Nation into committing an egregious war crime by invading a non-aggressive nation, killing (murdering) tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, causing the deaths of 5,800 American military personnel, and draining the U.S. Treasury.

The reason this monstrous crime is relatively ignored is the simple fact that Obama failed to press for prosecution of those two bastards!

 

[Iceweasel]

We can't blame the Congress anymore than we can blame the ordinary citizens who were misled by Bush and Cheney's boldface lies.

Horseshit. How may years have you been peddling that yarn? Democrats and Republicans were on the Intel oversight committees. And what lies? WMD were found, the lefties are the liars. If what you think is true there would have been hearings on it and possible treason charges. The libs hated Bush with a passion and apparently there are still a few holdovers with Bush Derangement Syndrome.[/QUOTE]

 

[Iceweasel]

They provided training camps and save haven for terrorists. Saddam WAS a terrorist.

And there was that little wmd incident on their own countrymen in the north.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes I know how things work

Bush wrapped Iraq up in patriotism and 9-11 hysteria. He still had his 9-11 card which granted him anything he wanted in fighting terrorism.
Congress failed to stop him, even though they should have. But the majority were too afraid to be labeled soft on terrorism and unpatriotic

The media also failed to ask critical questions about the reality of the threat and exit strategy

Congress voted for the war but failed to stop Bush and the media was too soft on him?

Let's cut to the chase in Republican "share the blame" revisionist history

Republicans controlled Congress, Republicans voted almost 100% for the war. The majority of Democrats voted against the war

But the war was Bushs idea, it was Bush who trumped up the fake evidence and the pro war hysteria

In the end, Congress gave Bush authority to make the decision to invade. Bush waited two months, then pulled the trigger when it looked like UN weapon inspectors would eliminate his reasons for invading

Did you read my link? It is a link that leans right, but has some interesting facts. Also, WMD was not the ONLY reason. There were multiple reasons, one being how much of a thorn in the side of the world Saddam had become, with or without WMDs, and some of Saddam's top generals believed he had WMD too!

Newsflash Wikileaks Verify That Saddam Hussein Had WMD AFTER George W. Bush Invaded Iraq Start Thinking Right

Given the fact that Saddam Hussein obviously had WMD prior to the invasion (it is a documented fact of history that he used them against Iran in their war, and it is a documented fact of history that Saddam used WMD on his own people in Iraqi Kurdistan in 1988).

It is also a fact of history that prior to George W. Bush invading Iraq in 2003, inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq by Saddam for over four years, having been expelled by Saddam Hussein in 1998 during the Clinton administration.

Given the simple fact that Iraq is a country the size of Texas, and given the fact that Iraq knew full well exactly when US and allied satellites passed over their country, and given the fact that Saddam Hussein’s own generals believed that Iraq in fact did possess WMD -

March 13, 2006
NY Times: Saddam’s generals believed they had WMD to repel US
By Jim Kouri

The New York Times reports that just prior to the United States lead invasion, Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein informed his top generals that he had destroyed his stockpiles of chemical weapons three months before their war plans meeting.

According to the Times report, the generals all believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were counting on the WMD to repel the oncoming coalition invaders.

More revisionist bullshit

No, Saddam did not have WMDs. Some ancient, depleted warheads do not constitute a threat
Bush claimed there was an imediate threat.
We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud
He claimed Saddam had an active WMD program that would put weapons into the hands of terrorists

He lied

They provided training camps and save haven for terrorists. Saddam WAS a terrorist.

More revisionist history

No, Saddam was not a major sponsor of terrorism outside their borders
Osama bin Laden hated him.

 

[ChrisL]

Congress voted for the war but failed to stop Bush and the media was too soft on him?

Let's cut to the chase in Republican "share the blame" revisionist history

Republicans controlled Congress, Republicans voted almost 100% for the war. The majority of Democrats voted against the war

But the war was Bushs idea, it was Bush who trumped up the fake evidence and the pro war hysteria

In the end, Congress gave Bush authority to make the decision to invade. Bush waited two months, then pulled the trigger when it looked like UN weapon inspectors would eliminate his reasons for invading

Did you read my link? It is a link that leans right, but has some interesting facts. Also, WMD was not the ONLY reason. There were multiple reasons, one being how much of a thorn in the side of the world Saddam had become, with or without WMDs, and some of Saddam's top generals believed he had WMD too!

Newsflash Wikileaks Verify That Saddam Hussein Had WMD AFTER George W. Bush Invaded Iraq Start Thinking Right

Given the fact that Saddam Hussein obviously had WMD prior to the invasion (it is a documented fact of history that he used them against Iran in their war, and it is a documented fact of history that Saddam used WMD on his own people in Iraqi Kurdistan in 1988).

It is also a fact of history that prior to George W. Bush invading Iraq in 2003, inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq by Saddam for over four years, having been expelled by Saddam Hussein in 1998 during the Clinton administration.

Given the simple fact that Iraq is a country the size of Texas, and given the fact that Iraq knew full well exactly when US and allied satellites passed over their country, and given the fact that Saddam Hussein’s own generals believed that Iraq in fact did possess WMD -

March 13, 2006
NY Times: Saddam’s generals believed they had WMD to repel US
By Jim Kouri

The New York Times reports that just prior to the United States lead invasion, Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein informed his top generals that he had destroyed his stockpiles of chemical weapons three months before their war plans meeting.

According to the Times report, the generals all believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were counting on the WMD to repel the oncoming coalition invaders.

More revisionist bullshit

No, Saddam did not have WMDs. Some ancient, depleted warheads do not constitute a threat
Bush claimed there was an imediate threat.
We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud
He claimed Saddam had an active WMD program that would put weapons into the hands of terrorists

He lied

They provided training camps and save haven for terrorists. Saddam WAS a terrorist.

More revisionist history

No, Saddam was not a major sponsor of terrorism outside their borders
Osama bin Laden hated him.

There are PLENTY of terrorist groups. Lol. ALL of them are dangerous to our interests and to global security and peace. Saddam himself WAS a terrorist, not only as a dictator but before he even became a dictator. The man was a psychopath.

 

[ChrisL]

The Congress dumped that decision into Bush's lap, they gave Bush the decision for war if he, Bush, thought it necessary.

Negative. The Senate and House passed it and funded it.

CNN.com - Senate approves Iraq war resolution - Oct. 11 2002
The measure passed the Senate and House by wider margins than the 1991 resolution that empowered the current president's father to go to war to expel Iraq from Kuwait. That measure passed 250-183 in the House and 52-47 in the Senate.

Absolutely. If Congress had opposed it, he would not have been able to get funding to even have a war. Do people actually believe that the president is a like a "king" or something? His power is not absolute and he needs the approval of congress for many things.

Come on. For one, both houses were Republican at the time. And who would oppose him with the best GOP propaganda in history? Look at what they did with Ebola and Isis leading up to the last election. With 9/11, they were unstoppable.

Did you read the wiki leak links? It was certainly not just GW who believed this. A lot of people believed that Saddam could be a potential immediate threat to US interests. Of course, we will never know everything that that THEY all know, don't forget about that little fact.

 

[ChrisL]

I have never met one active, reserve or retired Military request or want "your thanks" what we deserve is your respect.

Thank you for your service. SOME of us do appreciate the sacrifices.

 

[MikeK]

What a bunch of total ingrates! I suppose nobody in this country lost any of their freedoms on 9/11 or in any of the other terror attacks since. I suppose the goat fuckers are really just kiddin around when they cut off people's heads. You haven't seen any dead bodies littering the sidewalks and streets of your neighborhood lately so you let yourselves become convinced that war is something from Hollywood or TV drama that exists to provide you entertainment.
You apparently have gotten tired of, or bored with, The War on Terror but miss the fact that terror's not done with it's war on you. And you obviously don't understand that it's much much better to fight on your enemies' territory than on your own.
For the most part you sound like a bunch of spoiled snot-nosed children incapable of understanding the sacrifices made daily to keep you secure in your ivory towers. I certainly expect more from adult Americans!

The 9/11 terrorist attack on our homeland was n

What a bunch of total ingrates! I suppose nobody in this country lost any of their freedoms on 9/11 or in any of the other terror attacks since. I suppose the goat fuckers are really just kiddin around when they cut off people's heads. You haven't seen any dead bodies littering the sidewalks and streets of your neighborhood lately so you let yourselves become convinced that war is something from Hollywood or TV drama that exists to provide you entertainment.
You apparently have gotten tired of, or bored with, The War on Terror but miss the fact that terror's not done with it's war on you. And you obviously don't understand that it's much much better to fight on your enemies' territory than on your own.
For the most part you sound like a bunch of spoiled snot-nosed children incapable of understanding the sacrifices made daily to keep you secure in your ivory towers. I certainly expect more from adult Americans!

The 9/11 terrorist attack on our homeland was not a legitimate or categorical act of war because it was not perpetrated by any recognized nation. It was a terrorist action instigated and perpetrated by a loosely organized group of Islamic terrorists called Al Quaeda, once known as the Mujahideen -- whom we financed and armed during the Russian occupation of their nation, Afghanistan.

The only appropriate and justifiable retaliation for the 9/11 attack would have taken the form of a patient, long-term, Intelligence-based pursuit and apprehension and/or destruction of the Al-Quaeda organization. Instead, George W. Bush was able to deceptively misdirect the anger of the public and its Congress into the wholly unlawful invasion of Iraq -- probably to accommodate the wishes of his "base," which consists of a group of oil industry billionaires, and his good friends in Saudi Arabia.

The phrase, "War On Terror," is as vacuous and as fundamentally foolish as are "War On Poverty," and "War On Drugs," etc. They tend to diminish and confuse the meaning of the word, war.

The last time this Nation went to war was in 1941! After that, what we have engaged in has been a series of wasteful, unnecessary military adventures precipitated by a progression of largely incompetent and/or corrupt elected "leaders," the most deviously criminal of whom has been George W. Bush.

Rest assured that gold chain seen hanging on Bush's neck was not a birthday present.

 

[ChrisL]

What a bunch of total ingrates! I suppose nobody in this country lost any of their freedoms on 9/11 or in any of the other terror attacks since. I suppose the goat fuckers are really just kiddin around when they cut off people's heads. You haven't seen any dead bodies littering the sidewalks and streets of your neighborhood lately so you let yourselves become convinced that war is something from Hollywood or TV drama that exists to provide you entertainment.
You apparently have gotten tired of, or bored with, The War on Terror but miss the fact that terror's not done with it's war on you. And you obviously don't understand that it's much much better to fight on your enemies' territory than on your own.
For the most part you sound like a bunch of spoiled snot-nosed children incapable of understanding the sacrifices made daily to keep you secure in your ivory towers. I certainly expect more from adult Americans!

The 9/11 terrorist attack on our homeland was n

What a bunch of total ingrates! I suppose nobody in this country lost any of their freedoms on 9/11 or in any of the other terror attacks since. I suppose the goat fuckers are really just kiddin around when they cut off people's heads. You haven't seen any dead bodies littering the sidewalks and streets of your neighborhood lately so you let yourselves become convinced that war is something from Hollywood or TV drama that exists to provide you entertainment.
You apparently have gotten tired of, or bored with, The War on Terror but miss the fact that terror's not done with it's war on you. And you obviously don't understand that it's much much better to fight on your enemies' territory than on your own.
For the most part you sound like a bunch of spoiled snot-nosed children incapable of understanding the sacrifices made daily to keep you secure in your ivory towers. I certainly expect more from adult Americans!

The 9/11 terrorist attack on our homeland was not a legitimate or categorical act of war because it was not perpetrated by any recognized nation. It was a terrorist action instigated and perpetrated by a loosely organized group of Islamic terrorists called Al Quaeda, once known as the Mujahideen -- whom we financed and armed during the Russian occupation of their nation, Afghanistan.

The only appropriate and justifiable retaliation for the 9/11 attack would have taken the form of a patient, long-term, Intelligence-based pursuit and apprehension and/or destruction of the Al-Quaeda organization. Instead, George W. Bush was able to deceptively misdirect the anger of the public and its Congress into the wholly unlawful invasion of Iraq -- probably to accommodate the wishes of his "base," which consists of a group of oil industry billionaires, and his good friends in Saudi Arabia.

The phrase, "War On Terror," is as vacuous and as fundamentally foolish as are "War On Poverty," and "War On Drugs," etc. They tend to diminish and confuse the meaning of the word, war.

The last time this Nation went to war was in 1941! After that, what we have engaged in has been a series of wasteful, unnecessary military adventures precipitated by a progression of largely incompetent and/or corrupt elected "leaders," the most deviously criminal of whom has been George W. Bush.

I actually do agree with a lot of the above. It was a stupid war, but I believe it was motivated more over emotion and fear and bad intel, a lot of which was due to Saddam himself, rather than we had an "evil" POTUS. Just like I think a lot of what Obama does is stupid, but I don't think he is evil. I just think he is an idealist and has his head up his arse when it comes to the real world.

 

[ChrisL]

I also don't think it was necessarily a bad thing to get rid of Saddam Hussein. He was a real monster. Most of the people he killed were his own people, people who he felt betrayed him in one way or another. He was very paranoid as well, obviously. I really do think he was a psychopath, and if he ever did get WMD, he would have probably used them on a crazy whim.

 

[ChrisL]

Congress voted for the war but failed to stop Bush and the media was too soft on him?

Let's cut to the chase in Republican "share the blame" revisionist history

Republicans controlled Congress, Republicans voted almost 100% for the war. The majority of Democrats voted against the war

But the war was Bushs idea, it was Bush who trumped up the fake evidence and the pro war hysteria

In the end, Congress gave Bush authority to make the decision to invade. Bush waited two months, then pulled the trigger when it looked like UN weapon inspectors would eliminate his reasons for invading

Did you read my link? It is a link that leans right, but has some interesting facts. Also, WMD was not the ONLY reason. There were multiple reasons, one being how much of a thorn in the side of the world Saddam had become, with or without WMDs, and some of Saddam's top generals believed he had WMD too!

Newsflash Wikileaks Verify That Saddam Hussein Had WMD AFTER George W. Bush Invaded Iraq Start Thinking Right

Given the fact that Saddam Hussein obviously had WMD prior to the invasion (it is a documented fact of history that he used them against Iran in their war, and it is a documented fact of history that Saddam used WMD on his own people in Iraqi Kurdistan in 1988).

It is also a fact of history that prior to George W. Bush invading Iraq in 2003, inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq by Saddam for over four years, having been expelled by Saddam Hussein in 1998 during the Clinton administration.

Given the simple fact that Iraq is a country the size of Texas, and given the fact that Iraq knew full well exactly when US and allied satellites passed over their country, and given the fact that Saddam Hussein’s own generals believed that Iraq in fact did possess WMD -

March 13, 2006
NY Times: Saddam’s generals believed they had WMD to repel US
By Jim Kouri

The New York Times reports that just prior to the United States lead invasion, Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein informed his top generals that he had destroyed his stockpiles of chemical weapons three months before their war plans meeting.

According to the Times report, the generals all believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were counting on the WMD to repel the oncoming coalition invaders.

More revisionist bullshit

No, Saddam did not have WMDs. Some ancient, depleted warheads do not constitute a threat
Bush claimed there was an imediate threat.
We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud
He claimed Saddam had an active WMD program that would put weapons into the hands of terrorists

He lied

They provided training camps and save haven for terrorists. Saddam WAS a terrorist.

More revisionist history

No, Saddam was not a major sponsor of terrorism outside their borders
Osama bin Laden hated him.

Well, I'm still waiting for your response to my post #113. What do you say about that? Also Saddam was a sponsor of terror outside of his borders. Ask his neighbors. Why do you think he was so hated in the region?

 

[MikeK]

I also don't think it was necessarily a bad thing to get rid of Saddam Hussein. He was a real monster. Most of the people he killed were his own people, people who he felt betrayed him in one way or another. He was very paranoid as well, obviously. I really do think he was a psychopath, and if he ever did get WMD, he would have probably used them on a crazy whim.

That reasoning suggests there are a number of other nations in the world we should invade. The fact that Hussein was a monster was really none of our business. He was an important ally during our conflict with Iran and he was not in any way aggressive toward us -- nor was there any reason to believe he ever would.

There was absolutely no reason for us to invade Iraq. None! And George W. Bush, along with all conspirators in his Administration, should be indicted and prosecuted. The problem is their crime is so great it exists beyond the perception of the average American.

As far as Hussein's killing his own people is concerned, did you ever hear of the Waco Massacre?