Classified Papers Prove German Warnings to Bush

[DaGoose]

You have yet to provide any evidence that Bush or his team lied about Iraq. Bush NEVER said Iraq was invaded due to 9/11, in fact he repeatedly said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. On NATIONAL TV.

I think it's fair to say Bush talked out of both sides of his mouth on this issue but regardles, he DID imply that invading Iraq was linked to 9/11. Not only once but at least twice.

CNN.com - Bush slammed for Iraq link to 9/11 - Jun 29, 2005

Bush again links Iraq violence to 9/11 | McClatchy

I think it's fair to say you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. Do you understand Bush's stance in regard to Iraq and 9/11? Probably not.

And I think it's fair to say that anyone who can't see the connection Bush tried to make is blind.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think it's fair to say Bush talked out of both sides of his mouth on this issue but regardles, he DID imply that invading Iraq was linked to 9/11. Not only once but at least twice.

CNN.com - Bush slammed for Iraq link to 9/11 - Jun 29, 2005

Bush again links Iraq violence to 9/11 | McClatchy

I think it's fair to say you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. Do you understand Bush's stance in regard to Iraq and 9/11? Probably not.

And I think it's fair to say that anyone who can't see the connection Bush tried to make is blind.

What connection did Bush try to make?

 

[L.K.Eder]

So either you are derailing the conversation because you know you're wrong or you're really that dumb. Which is it?

Unfortunately this thread is not about America's invasion of Iraq, which has been discussed ad nauseam. It is about the supposed warning by two wascally Germans. The Germans have no moral standing at all on this, having been proven self-dealing, lying and treacherous.
You haven't refuted anything I wrote, merely repeated left wing and Euro-wienie talking points on America and Iraq.

dear rabbi, i posted this thread. i know what it is about.

you just need to read the headline of the link in the OP:

here, i repost the headline:

Berlin Efforts to Prevent Iraq Invasion: Classified Papers Prove German Warnings to Bush - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International


i will repost your statement, too.

"Unfortunately this thread is not about America's invasion of Iraq, which has been discussed ad nauseam."

you get a pat on the head for being one of the few on this board who correctly write "ad nauseam".

you get nothing for your pathetic try to deflect and rebrand this thread to be another coprologia all'arrabbiata.

this thread is about explicit warnings by the german government to the bush administration about what would happen if the US invaded iraq.

this just shows again how hellbent on invading the Bush admin was.
and how they tried to shanghai as many as possible into their adventure.

and went rabbi-d like you, when the shanghaiing failed and when they were called out for it.

thanks for playing along.

You speak out of both sides of your mouth.
The thread is about German warnings about the Iraq War, not about the Iraq War. Surely you can see the difference? Maybe not.
The Bush Administration was right to ignore the Germans, who were self-serving backstabbers.
In fact the Germans were wrong. In fact the Left in Congress was wrong. We did win the war. We did achieve our objectives. We did discover the Germans are double-dealing pussies who would sell out the U.S. for the chance to sell poison gas to terrorist states.

you stomped your feet when you wrote that, right?

your country invaded a sovereign nation.

they won and achieved their objectives, namely they got saddam hanged.

and a lot of people killed, americans, too. btw. you low-life.

oh, and some got very rich, too. yay.

khameini likes that very mucho, mersi. taschakkor mikonam.

ah, and they accomplished drawing terrorists to iraq, and neglected the afghanistan theatre, another mission accomplished. mullah omar says: mersi as well.

but but the deficit the deficit, bwahahahahaha.



lol

face your demons and you will probably get rid of the constipation that has backed up to your teeth, shit-talker.

 

[The Rabbi]

dear rabbi, i posted this thread. i know what it is about.

you just need to read the headline of the link in the OP:

here, i repost the headline:

Berlin Efforts to Prevent Iraq Invasion: Classified Papers Prove German Warnings to Bush - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International


i will repost your statement, too.

"Unfortunately this thread is not about America's invasion of Iraq, which has been discussed ad nauseam."

you get a pat on the head for being one of the few on this board who correctly write "ad nauseam".

you get nothing for your pathetic try to deflect and rebrand this thread to be another coprologia all'arrabbiata.

this thread is about explicit warnings by the german government to the bush administration about what would happen if the US invaded iraq.

this just shows again how hellbent on invading the Bush admin was.
and how they tried to shanghai as many as possible into their adventure.

and went rabbi-d like you, when the shanghaiing failed and when they were called out for it.

thanks for playing along.

You speak out of both sides of your mouth.
The thread is about German warnings about the Iraq War, not about the Iraq War. Surely you can see the difference? Maybe not.
The Bush Administration was right to ignore the Germans, who were self-serving backstabbers.
In fact the Germans were wrong. In fact the Left in Congress was wrong. We did win the war. We did achieve our objectives. We did discover the Germans are double-dealing pussies who would sell out the U.S. for the chance to sell poison gas to terrorist states.

you stomped your feet when you wrote that, right?

your country invaded a sovereign nation.

they won and achieved their objectives, namely they got saddam hanged.

and a lot of people killed, americans, too. btw. you low-life.

oh, and some got very rich, too. yay.

khameini likes that very mucho, mersi. taschakkor mikonam.

ah, and they accomplished drawing terrorists to iraq, and neglected the afghanistan theatre, another mission accomplished. mullah omar says: mersi as well.

but but the deficit the deficit, bwahahahahaha.



lol

face your demons and you will probably get rid of the constipation that has backed up to your teeth, shit-talker.

Can't refute my points, I see.
Sorry. Maybe you could come to the U.S. and take some basic classes in debate and logic.

 

[L.K.Eder]

You speak out of both sides of your mouth.
The thread is about German warnings about the Iraq War, not about the Iraq War. Surely you can see the difference? Maybe not.
The Bush Administration was right to ignore the Germans, who were self-serving backstabbers.
In fact the Germans were wrong. In fact the Left in Congress was wrong. We did win the war. We did achieve our objectives. We did discover the Germans are double-dealing pussies who would sell out the U.S. for the chance to sell poison gas to terrorist states.

you stomped your feet when you wrote that, right?

your country invaded a sovereign nation.

they won and achieved their objectives, namely they got saddam hanged.

and a lot of people killed, americans, too. btw. you low-life.

oh, and some got very rich, too. yay.

khameini likes that very mucho, mersi. taschakkor mikonam.

ah, and they accomplished drawing terrorists to iraq, and neglected the afghanistan theatre, another mission accomplished. mullah omar says: mersi as well.

but but the deficit the deficit, bwahahahahaha.



lol

face your demons and you will probably get rid of the constipation that has backed up to your teeth, shit-talker.

Can't refute my points, I see.
Sorry. Maybe you could come to the U.S. and take some basic classes in debate and logic.

your points have been adressed and refuted adequatley, no-class clown.

your explicit concession is not required.

but please do go on, i enjoy reading your flailing attempts at trying to make an honest point.

 

[The Rabbi]

you stomped your feet when you wrote that, right?

your country invaded a sovereign nation.

they won and achieved their objectives, namely they got saddam hanged.

and a lot of people killed, americans, too. btw. you low-life.

oh, and some got very rich, too. yay.

khameini likes that very mucho, mersi. taschakkor mikonam.

ah, and they accomplished drawing terrorists to iraq, and neglected the afghanistan theatre, another mission accomplished. mullah omar says: mersi as well.

but but the deficit the deficit, bwahahahahaha.



lol

face your demons and you will probably get rid of the constipation that has backed up to your teeth, shit-talker.

Can't refute my points, I see.
Sorry. Maybe you could come to the U.S. and take some basic classes in debate and logic.

your points have been adressed and refuted adequatley, no-class clown.

your explicit concession is not required.

but please do go on, i enjoy reading your flailing attempts at trying to make an honest point.

Really? Declaring victory and going home is so Euro-weenie.
Your thread sucks. Your posts are illogical screeds of anti-americanism devoid of fact, logic, or relevance. You are a complete disgrace to the idea of debate.

 

[Trajan]

not that that is a surprise:

Berlin Efforts to Prevent Iraq Invasion: Classified Papers Prove German Warnings to Bush - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Gerhard Schröder and Joschka Fischer made every effort they could. The German chancellor and foreign minister spared no effort with their appeals, whether in public or private, in small groups or with the eyes of the entire world upon them. In the end, though, it was all for naught. Then-United States President George W. Bush wouldn't allow anyone to change his mind. He was dead set on launching a war against Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and thereby bringing "freedom," as he put it, to the Middle East. It was a freedom that Bush described as " God's gift to mankind."

..

SPIEGEL has now obtained a previously secret copy of notes taken from a conversation in February 2003 marked "Classified Information -- For Internal Use Only." At that time, in was just a matter of weeks before US soldiers invaded Iraq. Klaus Scharioth, a Berlin-based state secretary in the German Foreign Ministry, had flown to Washington in the hope of still having a chance of changing the minds of Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser at the time, and other high-ranking members on the National Security Council.
Costs of War 'Higher than Political Returns'
According to the notes -- all in German -- the meeting amounted to 90 minutes of verbal blows, which primarily stemmed from Rice's "relatively rigorous and uncompromising" defense of the US position. The same notes indicate that Scharioth didn't budge an inch toward Washington, either. In retrospect, though, they document a high point in German diplomatic history, because the objections and predictions put forward by Berlin on that Tuesday have turned out to be legitimate and correct.
The crux of the German argument was that the political costs of a war in Iraq would be "higher than (the) political returns." While Rice predicted that Iraq would take advantage of the "opportunities for reconstruction" like the ones Germany enjoyed after 1945, the delegation from Berlin countered that the rapid establishment of a democracy in Baghdad was "not (to be) expected."
The Germans also predicted that the real beneficiary of a war in Iraq would actually be Iran, and that a US-led attack would further complicate efforts to reach a solution in the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.
Likewise, they prophesized that going to war would precipitate a "terrorist backlash." Scharioth stressed that it was important "to win over the hearts and minds of the Muslim elite and youths," according to the notes, and that this was "not to be achieved" by going to war. He also added that doing so would greatly increase the danger of prompting an "influx to Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism."

This remarkable conversation was held just a few days after the now-infamous speech that then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered in New York before the UN Security Council.

..

the argument is it was/is a politically bad move?.......... So whats the beef? Everything should be measured by a political yardstick?

well, obamacare had less support politically than bush did for Iraq.Where does that leave us?


The crux of the German argument was that the political costs of a war in Iraq would be "higher than (the) political returns." While Rice predicted that Iraq would take advantage of the "opportunities for reconstruction" like the ones Germany enjoyed after 1945, the delegation from Berlin countered that the rapid establishment of a democracy in Baghdad was "not (to be) expected."
The Germans also predicted that the real beneficiary of a war in Iraq would actually be Iran, and that a US-led attack would further complicate efforts to reach a solution in the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.

 

[L.K.Eder]

not that that is a surprise:

Berlin Efforts to Prevent Iraq Invasion: Classified Papers Prove German Warnings to Bush - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Gerhard Schröder and Joschka Fischer made every effort they could. The German chancellor and foreign minister spared no effort with their appeals, whether in public or private, in small groups or with the eyes of the entire world upon them. In the end, though, it was all for naught. Then-United States President George W. Bush wouldn't allow anyone to change his mind. He was dead set on launching a war against Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and thereby bringing "freedom," as he put it, to the Middle East. It was a freedom that Bush described as " God's gift to mankind."

..

SPIEGEL has now obtained a previously secret copy of notes taken from a conversation in February 2003 marked "Classified Information -- For Internal Use Only." At that time, in was just a matter of weeks before US soldiers invaded Iraq. Klaus Scharioth, a Berlin-based state secretary in the German Foreign Ministry, had flown to Washington in the hope of still having a chance of changing the minds of Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser at the time, and other high-ranking members on the National Security Council.
Costs of War 'Higher than Political Returns'
According to the notes -- all in German -- the meeting amounted to 90 minutes of verbal blows, which primarily stemmed from Rice's "relatively rigorous and uncompromising" defense of the US position. The same notes indicate that Scharioth didn't budge an inch toward Washington, either. In retrospect, though, they document a high point in German diplomatic history, because the objections and predictions put forward by Berlin on that Tuesday have turned out to be legitimate and correct.
The crux of the German argument was that the political costs of a war in Iraq would be "higher than (the) political returns." While Rice predicted that Iraq would take advantage of the "opportunities for reconstruction" like the ones Germany enjoyed after 1945, the delegation from Berlin countered that the rapid establishment of a democracy in Baghdad was "not (to be) expected."
The Germans also predicted that the real beneficiary of a war in Iraq would actually be Iran, and that a US-led attack would further complicate efforts to reach a solution in the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.
Likewise, they prophesized that going to war would precipitate a "terrorist backlash." Scharioth stressed that it was important "to win over the hearts and minds of the Muslim elite and youths," according to the notes, and that this was "not to be achieved" by going to war. He also added that doing so would greatly increase the danger of prompting an "influx to Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism."

This remarkable conversation was held just a few days after the now-infamous speech that then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered in New York before the UN Security Council.

..

the argument is it was/is a politically bad move?.......... So whats the beef? Everything should be measured by a political yardstick?

well, obamacare had less support politically than bush did for Iraq.Where does that leave us?


The crux of the German argument was that the political costs of a war in Iraq would be "higher than (the) political returns." While Rice predicted that Iraq would take advantage of the "opportunities for reconstruction" like the ones Germany enjoyed after 1945, the delegation from Berlin countered that the rapid establishment of a democracy in Baghdad was "not (to be) expected."
The Germans also predicted that the real beneficiary of a war in Iraq would actually be Iran, and that a US-led attack would further complicate efforts to reach a solution in the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.

thanks for trying to read the OP.

you did not get it, however, but found a way to point your fingers at obamacare.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Can't refute my points, I see.
Sorry. Maybe you could come to the U.S. and take some basic classes in debate and logic.

your points have been adressed and refuted adequatley, no-class clown.

your explicit concession is not required.

but please do go on, i enjoy reading your flailing attempts at trying to make an honest point.

Really? Declaring victory and going home is so Euro-weenie.
Your thread sucks. Your posts are illogical screeds of anti-americanism devoid of fact, logic, or relevance. You are a complete disgrace to the idea of debate.

still hung up on a debate?

this interaction between us is no debate, you made that clear from the beginning. and i explicitly stated it, too. you really should find the time to read this thread.

now don't puss out like a "weenie", hahahah.

"declaring victory" hahahaha.

here is what you wrote:

"we did win the war."

mission accomplished, huh?

 

[DaGoose]

I think it's fair to say you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. Do you understand Bush's stance in regard to Iraq and 9/11? Probably not.

And I think it's fair to say that anyone who can't see the connection Bush tried to make is blind.

What connection did Bush try to make?

What. You can't read now? If you can't click on my links and see for yourself then there's no hope for you.

CNN.com - Bush slammed for Iraq link to 9/11 - Jun 29, 2005

Bush again links Iraq violence to 9/11 | McClatchy

 

[The Rabbi]

And I think it's fair to say that anyone who can't see the connection Bush tried to make is blind.

What connection did Bush try to make?

What. You can't read now? If you can't click on my links and see for yourself then there's no hope for you.

CNN.com - Bush slammed for Iraq link to 9/11 - Jun 29, 2005

Bush again links Iraq violence to 9/11 | McClatchy

I'm not asking McClatchy. I'm asking you. Did YOU read teh articles? Do you know what connection Bush made?
Just answer the question and don't evade it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And I think it's fair to say that anyone who can't see the connection Bush tried to make is blind.

What connection did Bush try to make?

What. You can't read now? If you can't click on my links and see for yourself then there's no hope for you.

CNN.com - Bush slammed for Iraq link to 9/11 - Jun 29, 2005

Bush again links Iraq violence to 9/11 | McClatchy

Those are not links. But hey nice try. Once again retard 3 Congressional Investigations found NOTHING. But you keep claiming otherwise.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

rabbi, it is useless trying to reason with guys like you.

the bush administration was set from the beginning to find a way to invade iraq and find a justification for it.

they seized the opportunity 9/11 presented.

but the facts were not on their side, and on top of that, they lacked diplomatic skills, being basically narrow-minded arrogant pricks like you.

that's why they had to lie and hoodwink other governments and their US american opposition into supporting their drum-up to war, as a last resort, they told.

it was their FIRST resort.

that became clearer and clearer between 2002 and 2003.

that's why france, russia and germany told them publically NO, not with us.

not under these pretenses.

when powell's bizarre clownery before the UN failed, they went ahead anyway, because that's what they wanted.

no warnings, no doubts, no intelligence would ever have changed that.

they wanted in.

and they did.

and it happened like it was predicted by many sides.

and now you sit on a deficit and blame it on obama and the democrats who voted for the authorization of power.

iraq is destroyed, many life's lost, and america-haters are having one field-day after another. lol

dunce.

You have yet to provide any evidence that Bush or his team lied about Iraq. Bush NEVER said Iraq was invaded due to 9/11, in fact he repeatedly said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. On NATIONAL TV.

I think it's fair to say Bush talked out of both sides of his mouth on this issue but regardles, he DID imply that invading Iraq was linked to 9/11. Not only once but at least twice.

CNN.com - Bush slammed for Iraq link to 9/11 - Jun 29, 2005

Bush again links Iraq violence to 9/11 | McClatchy

LOL so you cant prove it so will claim he implied it? Please, give us a break. Congress investigated 3 times, once BY Democrats. Yet they found NO EVIDENCE Bush lied. 3 TIMES. And you morons haven't got any proof either. Now you are down to "he implied it".

 

[Trajan]

not that that is a surprise:

the argument is it was/is a politically bad move?.......... So whats the beef? Everything should be measured by a political yardstick?

well, obamacare had less support politically than bush did for Iraq.Where does that leave us?


The crux of the German argument was that the political costs of a war in Iraq would be "higher than (the) political returns." While Rice predicted that Iraq would take advantage of the "opportunities for reconstruction" like the ones Germany enjoyed after 1945, the delegation from Berlin countered that the rapid establishment of a democracy in Baghdad was "not (to be) expected."
The Germans also predicted that the real beneficiary of a war in Iraq would actually be Iran, and that a US-led attack would further complicate efforts to reach a solution in the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.

thanks for trying to read the OP.

you did not get it, however, but found a way to point your fingers at obamacare.

hey your article framed the issue, I got it exactly, it was a politically risky move- risk vs. reward on a political scale. I used an example exactly in context. I am sorry if that's inconvenient.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

you stomped your feet when you wrote that, right?

your country invaded a sovereign nation.

they won and achieved their objectives, namely they got saddam hanged.

and a lot of people killed, americans, too. btw. you low-life.

oh, and some got very rich, too. yay.

khameini likes that very mucho, mersi. taschakkor mikonam.

ah, and they accomplished drawing terrorists to iraq, and neglected the afghanistan theatre, another mission accomplished. mullah omar says: mersi as well.

but but the deficit the deficit, bwahahahahaha.



lol

face your demons and you will probably get rid of the constipation that has backed up to your teeth, shit-talker.

Can't refute my points, I see.
Sorry. Maybe you could come to the U.S. and take some basic classes in debate and logic.

your points have been adressed and refuted adequatley, no-class clown.

your explicit concession is not required.

but please do go on, i enjoy reading your flailing attempts at trying to make an honest point.

Guess what you MORON, just cause you are to fucking stupid to see when you are wrong and haven't a shred of evidence , doesn't mean you declaring you won means anything.

I repeat you dumb ass, the link you provided indicates the Germans argued that POLITICALLY the US would not win. It does not prove anyone lied or mislead the Country. In fact it does the opposite, it proves that Bush and team were on the same page as to why and when to act.

No evidence that Bush lied about Iraq. No evidence that Bush tied Iraq to 9/11. You have nothing. Now keep bleating you won you retard.

 

[The Rabbi]

the argument is it was/is a politically bad move?.......... So whats the beef? Everything should be measured by a political yardstick?

well, obamacare had less support politically than bush did for Iraq.Where does that leave us?


The crux of the German argument was that the political costs of a war in Iraq would be "higher than (the) political returns." While Rice predicted that Iraq would take advantage of the "opportunities for reconstruction" like the ones Germany enjoyed after 1945, the delegation from Berlin countered that the rapid establishment of a democracy in Baghdad was "not (to be) expected."
The Germans also predicted that the real beneficiary of a war in Iraq would actually be Iran, and that a US-led attack would further complicate efforts to reach a solution in the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.

thanks for trying to read the OP.

you did not get it, however, but found a way to point your fingers at obamacare.

hey your article framed the issue, I got it exactly, it was a politically risky move- risk vs. reward on a political scale. I used an example exactly in context. I am sorry if that's inconvenient.

Her initial point was refuted. So she tried to shift to a debate about the Iraq War, like that's never been done here. That didn't work so she is left deflecting and obfuscating.

 

[DaGoose]

You have yet to provide any evidence that Bush or his team lied about Iraq. Bush NEVER said Iraq was invaded due to 9/11, in fact he repeatedly said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. On NATIONAL TV.

I think it's fair to say Bush talked out of both sides of his mouth on this issue but regardles, he DID imply that invading Iraq was linked to 9/11. Not only once but at least twice.

CNN.com - Bush slammed for Iraq link to 9/11 - Jun 29, 2005

Bush again links Iraq violence to 9/11 | McClatchy

LOL so you cant prove it so will claim he implied it? Please, give us a break. Congress investigated 3 times, once BY Democrats. Yet they found NO EVIDENCE Bush lied. 3 TIMES. And you morons haven't got any proof either. Now you are down to "he implied it".

I never said Bush lied. I only said Bush implied a link between Iraq and 9/11.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWdq7hg4dLU[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM&feature=related[/ame]

CNN.com - Bush slammed for Iraq link to 9/11 - Jun 29, 2005

Bush again links Iraq violence to 9/11 | McClatchy

But regardless of whether Bush "implied it or not" he was a complete fool to invade and occupy Iraq looking for WMD. And it's a shame that his decision ended up getting thousands of American soldiers KILLED for NO GOOD REASON.

 

[L.K.Eder]

the argument is it was/is a politically bad move?.......... So whats the beef? Everything should be measured by a political yardstick?

well, obamacare had less support politically than bush did for Iraq.Where does that leave us?


The crux of the German argument was that the political costs of a war in Iraq would be "higher than (the) political returns." While Rice predicted that Iraq would take advantage of the "opportunities for reconstruction" like the ones Germany enjoyed after 1945, the delegation from Berlin countered that the rapid establishment of a democracy in Baghdad was "not (to be) expected."
The Germans also predicted that the real beneficiary of a war in Iraq would actually be Iran, and that a US-led attack would further complicate efforts to reach a solution in the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.

thanks for trying to read the OP.

you did not get it, however, but found a way to point your fingers at obamacare.

hey your article framed the issue, I got it exactly, it was a politically risky move- risk vs. reward on a political scale. I used an example exactly in context. I am sorry if that's inconvenient.

you reframed the issue.

it seemed to be so inconvenient to you that you reflexodeflexed to obamacare.

the issue is that the german government warned the bush admin what happened if they invade iraq, which would lead to the iraq war, (hey rabbi, can you make the connection between the invasion and the war?).

they predicted most of what happened. that this is politically inconvenient is the least of the problems but was of course the best angle to get it across to the bush admin.

please, y'all. continue squirming.

 

[L.K.Eder]

thanks for trying to read the OP.

you did not get it, however, but found a way to point your fingers at obamacare.

hey your article framed the issue, I got it exactly, it was a politically risky move- risk vs. reward on a political scale. I used an example exactly in context. I am sorry if that's inconvenient.

Her initial point was refuted. So she tried to shift to a debate about the Iraq War, like that's never been done here. That didn't work so she is left deflecting and obfuscating.

he calls me female, and probably things that is a debate technique and/or a slam. learned in PI's debate class, sis.

sadly, that was also your best post in this thread so far.

which means nothing. at all.

please go on carrying water for the bush admin like a good little drone.

 

[JimH52]

not that that is a surprise:

Berlin Efforts to Prevent Iraq Invasion: Classified Papers Prove German Warnings to Bush - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International

Gerhard Schröder and Joschka Fischer made every effort they could. The German chancellor and foreign minister spared no effort with their appeals, whether in public or private, in small groups or with the eyes of the entire world upon them. In the end, though, it was all for naught. Then-United States President George W. Bush wouldn't allow anyone to change his mind. He was dead set on launching a war against Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and thereby bringing "freedom," as he put it, to the Middle East. It was a freedom that Bush described as " God's gift to mankind."

..

SPIEGEL has now obtained a previously secret copy of notes taken from a conversation in February 2003 marked "Classified Information -- For Internal Use Only." At that time, in was just a matter of weeks before US soldiers invaded Iraq. Klaus Scharioth, a Berlin-based state secretary in the German Foreign Ministry, had flown to Washington in the hope of still having a chance of changing the minds of Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser at the time, and other high-ranking members on the National Security Council.
Costs of War 'Higher than Political Returns'
According to the notes -- all in German -- the meeting amounted to 90 minutes of verbal blows, which primarily stemmed from Rice's "relatively rigorous and uncompromising" defense of the US position. The same notes indicate that Scharioth didn't budge an inch toward Washington, either. In retrospect, though, they document a high point in German diplomatic history, because the objections and predictions put forward by Berlin on that Tuesday have turned out to be legitimate and correct.
The crux of the German argument was that the political costs of a war in Iraq would be "higher than (the) political returns." While Rice predicted that Iraq would take advantage of the "opportunities for reconstruction" like the ones Germany enjoyed after 1945, the delegation from Berlin countered that the rapid establishment of a democracy in Baghdad was "not (to be) expected."
The Germans also predicted that the real beneficiary of a war in Iraq would actually be Iran, and that a US-led attack would further complicate efforts to reach a solution in the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.
Likewise, they prophesized that going to war would precipitate a "terrorist backlash." Scharioth stressed that it was important "to win over the hearts and minds of the Muslim elite and youths," according to the notes, and that this was "not to be achieved" by going to war. He also added that doing so would greatly increase the danger of prompting an "influx to Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism."

This remarkable conversation was held just a few days after the now-infamous speech that then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell delivered in New York before the UN Security Council.

..

Of course. The only President in History to invade another country, UNPROVOKED. Then he left the American economy in shambles in near collapse. THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER! Never elect a recovering alcoholic again!