Just How Bad Did The Republicans Want To Invade Iraq?

[Mudda]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

What lie was that? All I heard from George Bush was a repeat of what quite a number of leading Democrats were publicly stating. Are you prepared to say that Kerry and Clinton, just to mention two of dozens, were also lying about the reasons for going into Iraq. They ever voted for it.

Kerry and Clinton were going on the info Colin Powell, Cheney and GW provided for them. Which were lies (that Saddam had WMD). Clinton even said later on that she wouldn't have voted for it if she had known the truth.

 

[Mudda]

Considering how chummy Rumsfeld and Saddam were it should come as no surprise when Saddam stopped playing ball Rummy saw the writing on the wall and moved to correct his colossal fuckup.

I heard that! Plus......all the Republicans hated Saddam Hussein for attempting to assassinate Bush's Daddy in Qatar circa 1993.

No.....what you're saying is that Republicans wanted war. This wasn't over a fail assassination attempt.

What Iraq was about was stopping Islamic radicals from having a base of operations in the middle-east from which they could attack us.
Well, thanks to Obama.....ISIS has one now.

Iraq was about oil and the global balance of power. You don't get to invade Kuwait and disrupt that balance.

That was the first Gulf War. And the Americans had practically invited Saddam to invade Kuwait. And neither Iraq War had anything to do with global balance of power, since Iraq had no power in the world.

The threat to control the world's oil supply from the middle east was considerable power.

Not a threat to do that. Proof is when Saddam was losing, all he could do was to set his own oil fields on fire, not disrupt the flow out of the ME.

 

[Mudda]

YOu should read that one.

The New York Times report on Saddams generals being shocked and demoralized when Saddam finally told them that he had no WMDs, to fight the Americans with is very important and relevant to our discussion.

Well there you go, you just summarized that whole mess in 2 lines, that's what I'm talking about. It's ok to then post your reference, but at least to say first wtf your point is.
So Saddam admitted he had no WMD? So what's the problem?

Way to be a dishonest prick.

The point of the NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE was that Saddam hid the truth so well that his own Generals did not know it.

Do you care to address that fact or do you want to just keep playing the ass?

And that was not the whole of the post, plenty of other good stuff in there too.

DUH!!!! YES SADDAM DID HIDE the truth! NO SHIT!!!
So why are you not thinking? Pure political ideology is blocking your rational thinking!
YES Saddam did and even the Generals thought they had so why wouldn't the rest of the world including all the above Democrats believe there were WMDs?
GEEZ... you still don't understand because you are such a Foo4bama!

Democrats believed in WMD because GW and his gang gave them false info. I'm sure that even you knew that. But then again...

Then how do you discount these statements made during Clinton's administration and BEFORE GWB?

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people,
but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton (D), Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright (D), Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by (D) Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright(D) Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

GW was the one who made the final call after 9/11 to invade Iraq. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMD. Bad call.

 

[TooTall]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

You new here? That lie was dubunked over 10 years ago. Try to keep up in the future.

So what was the valid reason to destroy Iraq?

Here is something the left seems to have forgotten:

Rationale for the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. policy shifted in 1998 when the United States Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" after Iraq terminated its cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors the preceding August. The act made it official U.S. policy to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power..." although it also made clear that "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces."[15][16]This legislation contrasted with the terms set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which made no mention of regime change.[17]

One month after the passage of the "Iraq Liberation Act," the U.S. and UK launched a bombardment campaign of Iraq called Operation Desert Fox. The campaign's express rationale was to hamper the Hussein government's ability to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but U.S. national security personnel also reportedly hoped it would help weaken Hussein's grip on power.[18]

So as usual a democrat doesn't get the support of congress yet acts any way. At least Bush got the OK from Mrs. Clinton before removing the Butcher of Baghdad from power.

Whether GW got Hilderbeast's ok or not is irrelevant. There still was no valid reason to invade Iraq. And trying to associate the Clinton's with that action is irrelevant as well. (I'm not a Democrat).

According to the UN Res 1441 Iraq was in material breach of the UN approved cease fire. That means to everyone but the brain dead that you may resume firing. And, after several warnings from Bush telling Saddam to come clean, Bush did exactly what he was authorized to do.

 

[TooTall]

Iraq was about oil and the global balance of power. You don't get to invade Kuwait and disrupt that balance.

That was the first Gulf War. And the Americans had practically invited Saddam to invade Kuwait. And neither Iraq War had anything to do with global balance of power, since Iraq had no power in the world.

Practically invited? What do those words mean to the shortbus passengers?

The Iraqi ambassador at the time (some women I forget her name) told Saddam that the US likely wouldn't do anything if Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Why are you expressing an opinion if you can't even do a simple Internet Search for say this question
" who was woman told Saddam go ahead invade Kuwait"

April Catherine Glaspie (born April 26, 1942) is an American former diplomat and senior member of the Foreign Service, best known for her role in the events leading up to the Persian Gulf War of 1991.
April Glaspie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But see this totally illustrates YOUR ineptness and therefore your gross ignorance!

Here is exactly what she said. FACTS but again ignorant people like you just jump to conclusions with no basis of FACT!

Retrospective views[edit]
In 2002, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs published a new account of the Glaspie-Saddam meeting by Andrew Kilgore, a former U.S. ambassador to Qatar. Kilgore summarized the meeting as follows:[8]

“ At their meeting, the American ambassador explained to Saddam that the United States did not take a stand on Arab-Arab conflicts, such as Iraq’s border disagreement with Kuwait. She made clear, however, that differences should be settled by peaceful means.
Glaspie’s concerns were greatly eased when Saddam told her that the forthcoming Iraq-Kuwait meeting in Jeddah was for protocol purposes, to be followed by substantive discussions to be held in Baghdad.
In response to the ambassador’s question, Saddam named a date when Kuwaiti Crown Prince Shaikh Sa’ad Abdallah would be arriving in Baghdad for those substantive discussions. (This appears in retrospect to have been Saddam’s real deception.)

James Akins, the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia at the time, offered a somewhat different perspective in a 2000 interview on PBS:[9]

“ [Glaspie] took the straight American line, which is we do not take positions on border disputes between friendly countries.
That's standard.
That's what you always say.
You would not have said, 'Mr. President, if you really are considering invading Kuwait, by God, we'll bring down the wrath of God on your palaces, and on your country, and you'll all be destroyed.' She wouldn't say that, nor would I. Neither would any diplomat. ”

Joseph C. Wilson, Glaspie's Deputy Chief of Mission in Baghdad, referred to her meeting with Saddam Hussein in a May 14, 2004 interview on Democracy Now!: an "Iraqi participant in the meeting [...] said to me very clearly that Saddam did not misunderstand, did not think he was getting a green or yellow light."

Wilson's and Akins' views on this question are in line with those of former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, who stated in a 1996 interview with Frontline that, prior to the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq "had no illusions" about the likelihood of U.S. military intervention.

“ In fact, all the evidence indicates the opposite: Saddam Hussein believed it was highly likely that the United States would try to liberate Kuwait but convinced himself that we would send only lightly armed, rapidly deployable forces that would be quickly destroyed by his 120,000-man Republican Guard. After this, he assumed, Washington would acquiesce to his conquest.

SO again FACTS have a way of blowing apart false assumptions that ignorant people make with NO INFORMATION!

I don't read copy&paste long-winded posts. Now you know.

It has been rather obvious that you don't read much of anything but Democrat talking points.

 

[Iceweasel]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

What lie was that? All I heard from George Bush was a repeat of what quite a number of leading Democrats were publicly stating. Are you prepared to say that Kerry and Clinton, just to mention two of dozens, were also lying about the reasons for going into Iraq. They ever voted for it.

Kerry and Clinton were going on the info Colin Powell, Cheney and GW provided for them. Which were lies (that Saddam had WMD). Clinton even said later on that she wouldn't have voted for it if she had known the truth.

The thing is...RETARD...they all believed it back then. You can't grasp it, we get it. Come up with some evidence that it was a fabrication instead of repeating your stupidity.

 

[Correll]

DUH!!!! YES SADDAM DID HIDE the truth! NO SHIT!!!
So why are you not thinking? Pure political ideology is blocking your rational thinking!
YES Saddam did and even the Generals thought they had so why wouldn't the rest of the world including all the above Democrats believe there were WMDs?
GEEZ... you still don't understand because you are such a Foo4bama!

Democrats believed in WMD because GW and his gang gave them false info. I'm sure that even you knew that. But then again...

If Saddam hide the truth so well that his leading generals thought they had WMDs at their disposal, then that makes it extremely credible that he his the truth from George Bush and "his gang".

Stop being a prick for a second and think.

Just think about about it, the CIA couldn't find shit out? Their intelligence isn't any better than the Iraqi generals'? C'mon, seriously? So the CIA is as smart as a bunch of fat guys sitting around drinking and raping? Really?

The point you are actively ignoring is that the information was very tightly controlled to the point that Saddam's top generals did not have the truth.

Thus the "CIA was not able to find shit out".

Your blind faith in the capability of the CIA would be surprising if it was not so self serving in this instance.

So you think that the CIA has the intelligence gathering capability of a pea. I deservingly give them way more credit.

NOpe. I think they cannot find out a secret if it is kept well enough.

Saddam managed to keep the secret of his lack of WMDs very well to the point that even his top generals, responsible for defending their nations, thought they had them.

Your strawman "intelligence gathering capability of a pea" is just that, a strawman presented because you cannot defend your position honesty on it's merits.

 

[Freewill]

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

You new here? That lie was dubunked over 10 years ago. Try to keep up in the future.

So what was the valid reason to destroy Iraq?

Here is something the left seems to have forgotten:

Rationale for the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. policy shifted in 1998 when the United States Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" after Iraq terminated its cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors the preceding August. The act made it official U.S. policy to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power..." although it also made clear that "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces."[15][16]This legislation contrasted with the terms set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which made no mention of regime change.[17]

One month after the passage of the "Iraq Liberation Act," the U.S. and UK launched a bombardment campaign of Iraq called Operation Desert Fox. The campaign's express rationale was to hamper the Hussein government's ability to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but U.S. national security personnel also reportedly hoped it would help weaken Hussein's grip on power.[18]

So as usual a democrat doesn't get the support of congress yet acts any way. At least Bush got the OK from Mrs. Clinton before removing the Butcher of Baghdad from power.

Whether GW got Hilderbeast's ok or not is irrelevant. There still was no valid reason to invade Iraq. And trying to associate the Clinton's with that action is irrelevant as well. (I'm not a Democrat).

According to the UN Res 1441 Iraq was in material breach of the UN approved cease fire. That means to the brain dead that you may resume firing. And, after several warnings from Bush telling Saddam to come clean, Bush did exactly what he was authorized to do.

And, unlike unnamed liberals that voted for war before they didn't, Bush did exactly what everyone knew he would do, cause he said it. Unlike Clinton and Obama who bombed the crap out of countries and never bothered asking anyone else if it was a good idea.

 

[Iceweasel]

GW was the one who made the final call after 9/11 to invade Iraq.

After he got the votes. The rest of your shit was debunked decades ago.

 

[Freewill]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

What lie was that? All I heard from George Bush was a repeat of what quite a number of leading Democrats were publicly stating. Are you prepared to say that Kerry and Clinton, just to mention two of dozens, were also lying about the reasons for going into Iraq. They ever voted for it.

Kerry and Clinton were going on the info Colin Powell, Cheney and GW provided for them. Which were lies (that Saddam had WMD). Clinton even said later on that she wouldn't have voted for it if she had known the truth.

You have to be completely devoid of interity to even say such stupid stuff. Let me remind you that Hillary Clinton was married to the POTUS no more then 2 years before she voted for war. Do you think she had some insider information that the rest didn't have? Do you? Across the street from congress was all the evidence for them to review and make an informed decision. They did and they did.

If you want to punish people who voted for war then are you willing to punish Mrs. Clinton? Obviously if what you say is true she is mighty stupid to be duped by Bush. Or she did actually support the war. Stupid or complicit, which is it?

 

[TooTall]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

What lie was that? All I heard from George Bush was a repeat of what quite a number of leading Democrats were publicly stating. Are you prepared to say that Kerry and Clinton, just to mention two of dozens, were also lying about the reasons for going into Iraq. They ever voted for it.

Kerry and Clinton were going on the info Colin Powell, Cheney and GW provided for them. Which were lies (that Saddam had WMD). Clinton even said later on that she wouldn't have voted for it if she had known the truth.

Clinton was going on the info she got from briefings US intelligence agencies gave Senate committees she served on.

 

[healthmyths]

Well there you go, you just summarized that whole mess in 2 lines, that's what I'm talking about. It's ok to then post your reference, but at least to say first wtf your point is.
So Saddam admitted he had no WMD? So what's the problem?

Way to be a dishonest prick.

The point of the NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE was that Saddam hid the truth so well that his own Generals did not know it.

Do you care to address that fact or do you want to just keep playing the ass?

And that was not the whole of the post, plenty of other good stuff in there too.

DUH!!!! YES SADDAM DID HIDE the truth! NO SHIT!!!
So why are you not thinking? Pure political ideology is blocking your rational thinking!
YES Saddam did and even the Generals thought they had so why wouldn't the rest of the world including all the above Democrats believe there were WMDs?
GEEZ... you still don't understand because you are such a Foo4bama!

Democrats believed in WMD because GW and his gang gave them false info. I'm sure that even you knew that. But then again...

Then how do you discount these statements made during Clinton's administration and BEFORE GWB?

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people,
but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton (D), Jan. 27, 1998.

"It is essential that a dictator like Saddam not be allowed to evade international strictures and wield frightening weapons of mass destruction. As long as UNSCOM is prevented from carrying out its mission, the effort to monitor Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687 becomes a dangerous shell game. Neither the United States nor the global community can afford to allow Saddam Hussein to continue on this path."
Sen. Tom Daschle (D, SD), Feb. 12, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright (D), Feb. 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18, 1998.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by (D) Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright(D) Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

GW was the one who made the final call after 9/11 to invade Iraq. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMD. Bad call.

FACTS and REALITY are always missing from people like you. Is this your reality???

So you think that keeping nearly 2 million children from starvation was wrong?

You think keeping 28 million people who had a Gross Domestic Product of less then $600 per person in 2003 from achieving in 10 years a $6,000 GDP per person wrong?
And you also think that removing Saddam who In the two years of the renewed Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iraq has given Palestinian families more than $10 million, all according to a well-known scale. Families of suicide bombers get $25,000 each and families of those killed in confrontations with Israel get $10,000. Those who houses are destroyed by the Israeli military get $5,000 and those wounded by Israelis get $1,000.

 

[Campbell]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

What lie was that? All I heard from George Bush was a repeat of what quite a number of leading Democrats were publicly stating. Are you prepared to say that Kerry and Clinton, just to mention two of dozens, were also lying about the reasons for going into Iraq. They even voted for it.

After this:

Nonpartisan Study Confirms Bush Admin Told 935 Lies About Iraq in March to War

The whole goddam bunch had made up their mind to invade a country which had never done a goddam thing to harm the United States.

 

[Iceweasel]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

What lie was that? All I heard from George Bush was a repeat of what quite a number of leading Democrats were publicly stating. Are you prepared to say that Kerry and Clinton, just to mention two of dozens, were also lying about the reasons for going into Iraq. They even voted for it.

After this:

Nonpartisan Study Confirms Bush Admin Told 935 Lies About Iraq in March to War

The whole goddam bunch had made up their mind to invade a country which had never done a goddam thing to harm the United States.

An op-ed from some rabid asshole that uses the term BushCo with no evidence is good enough for you?

My God, how the **** do you people even live? Who dresses you in the morning?

 

[sarahgop]

This is why Trump is the only one i will vote for. He doesnt have the blood of this useless war on his hands.

 

[Mudda]

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

You new here? That lie was dubunked over 10 years ago. Try to keep up in the future.

So what was the valid reason to destroy Iraq?

Here is something the left seems to have forgotten:

Rationale for the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. policy shifted in 1998 when the United States Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" after Iraq terminated its cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors the preceding August. The act made it official U.S. policy to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power..." although it also made clear that "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces."[15][16]This legislation contrasted with the terms set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which made no mention of regime change.[17]

One month after the passage of the "Iraq Liberation Act," the U.S. and UK launched a bombardment campaign of Iraq called Operation Desert Fox. The campaign's express rationale was to hamper the Hussein government's ability to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but U.S. national security personnel also reportedly hoped it would help weaken Hussein's grip on power.[18]

So as usual a democrat doesn't get the support of congress yet acts any way. At least Bush got the OK from Mrs. Clinton before removing the Butcher of Baghdad from power.

Whether GW got Hilderbeast's ok or not is irrelevant. There still was no valid reason to invade Iraq. And trying to associate the Clinton's with that action is irrelevant as well. (I'm not a Democrat).

According to the UN Res 1441 Iraq was in material breach of the UN approved cease fire. That means to everyone but the brain dead that you may resume firing. And, after several warnings from Bush telling Saddam to come clean, Bush did exactly what he was authorized to do.

Saddam can't come clean if he has no WMD. Come clean from what?

GW used 9/11 to invade Iraq for their oil, and even that didn't work out that well.

Anyways "UN Res 1441" isn't a valid reason for invading Iraq, destroying it, and getting 6,500 brave Americans killed for.

 

[Mudda]

That was the first Gulf War. And the Americans had practically invited Saddam to invade Kuwait. And neither Iraq War had anything to do with global balance of power, since Iraq had no power in the world.

Practically invited? What do those words mean to the shortbus passengers?

The Iraqi ambassador at the time (some women I forget her name) told Saddam that the US likely wouldn't do anything if Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Why are you expressing an opinion if you can't even do a simple Internet Search for say this question
" who was woman told Saddam go ahead invade Kuwait"

April Catherine Glaspie (born April 26, 1942) is an American former diplomat and senior member of the Foreign Service, best known for her role in the events leading up to the Persian Gulf War of 1991.
April Glaspie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But see this totally illustrates YOUR ineptness and therefore your gross ignorance!

Here is exactly what she said. FACTS but again ignorant people like you just jump to conclusions with no basis of FACT!

Retrospective views[edit]
In 2002, the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs published a new account of the Glaspie-Saddam meeting by Andrew Kilgore, a former U.S. ambassador to Qatar. Kilgore summarized the meeting as follows:[8]

“ At their meeting, the American ambassador explained to Saddam that the United States did not take a stand on Arab-Arab conflicts, such as Iraq’s border disagreement with Kuwait. She made clear, however, that differences should be settled by peaceful means.
Glaspie’s concerns were greatly eased when Saddam told her that the forthcoming Iraq-Kuwait meeting in Jeddah was for protocol purposes, to be followed by substantive discussions to be held in Baghdad.
In response to the ambassador’s question, Saddam named a date when Kuwaiti Crown Prince Shaikh Sa’ad Abdallah would be arriving in Baghdad for those substantive discussions. (This appears in retrospect to have been Saddam’s real deception.)

James Akins, the U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia at the time, offered a somewhat different perspective in a 2000 interview on PBS:[9]

“ [Glaspie] took the straight American line, which is we do not take positions on border disputes between friendly countries.
That's standard.
That's what you always say.
You would not have said, 'Mr. President, if you really are considering invading Kuwait, by God, we'll bring down the wrath of God on your palaces, and on your country, and you'll all be destroyed.' She wouldn't say that, nor would I. Neither would any diplomat. ”

Joseph C. Wilson, Glaspie's Deputy Chief of Mission in Baghdad, referred to her meeting with Saddam Hussein in a May 14, 2004 interview on Democracy Now!: an "Iraqi participant in the meeting [...] said to me very clearly that Saddam did not misunderstand, did not think he was getting a green or yellow light."

Wilson's and Akins' views on this question are in line with those of former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, who stated in a 1996 interview with Frontline that, prior to the invasion of Kuwait, Iraq "had no illusions" about the likelihood of U.S. military intervention.

“ In fact, all the evidence indicates the opposite: Saddam Hussein believed it was highly likely that the United States would try to liberate Kuwait but convinced himself that we would send only lightly armed, rapidly deployable forces that would be quickly destroyed by his 120,000-man Republican Guard. After this, he assumed, Washington would acquiesce to his conquest.

SO again FACTS have a way of blowing apart false assumptions that ignorant people make with NO INFORMATION!

I don't read copy&paste long-winded posts. Now you know.

It has been rather obvious that you don't read much of anything but Democrat talking points.

Just condense the point of your post and then, if you want, post your references if I want to read more.

 

[Mudda]

The Dems are trying to rewrite History and put all the blame on the Republicans.

They are liars like that.

Rewrite history? Bush lied about the reasons to go into Iraq, then sent a black man (Colin Powell) to do his dirty work of lying to the American people.

What lie was that? All I heard from George Bush was a repeat of what quite a number of leading Democrats were publicly stating. Are you prepared to say that Kerry and Clinton, just to mention two of dozens, were also lying about the reasons for going into Iraq. They ever voted for it.

Kerry and Clinton were going on the info Colin Powell, Cheney and GW provided for them. Which were lies (that Saddam had WMD). Clinton even said later on that she wouldn't have voted for it if she had known the truth.

The thing is...RETARD...they all believed it back then. You can't grasp it, we get it. Come up with some evidence that it was a fabrication instead of repeating your stupidity.

'they all believed it back then". So if you lie to someone and they buy into it (thinking you're of good faith), too bad for them? Ummm... no.

 

[Mudda]

You new here? That lie was dubunked over 10 years ago. Try to keep up in the future.

So what was the valid reason to destroy Iraq?

Here is something the left seems to have forgotten:

Rationale for the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. policy shifted in 1998 when the United States Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the "Iraq Liberation Act" after Iraq terminated its cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors the preceding August. The act made it official U.S. policy to "support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power..." although it also made clear that "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces."[15][16]This legislation contrasted with the terms set out in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which made no mention of regime change.[17]

One month after the passage of the "Iraq Liberation Act," the U.S. and UK launched a bombardment campaign of Iraq called Operation Desert Fox. The campaign's express rationale was to hamper the Hussein government's ability to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, but U.S. national security personnel also reportedly hoped it would help weaken Hussein's grip on power.[18]

So as usual a democrat doesn't get the support of congress yet acts any way. At least Bush got the OK from Mrs. Clinton before removing the Butcher of Baghdad from power.

Whether GW got Hilderbeast's ok or not is irrelevant. There still was no valid reason to invade Iraq. And trying to associate the Clinton's with that action is irrelevant as well. (I'm not a Democrat).

According to the UN Res 1441 Iraq was in material breach of the UN approved cease fire. That means to the brain dead that you may resume firing. And, after several warnings from Bush telling Saddam to come clean, Bush did exactly what he was authorized to do.

And, unlike unnamed liberals that voted for war before they didn't, Bush did exactly what everyone knew he would do, cause he said it. Unlike Clinton and Obama who bombed the crap out of countries and never bothered asking anyone else if it was a good idea.

So the lying president (GW) is the better man? Radical partisanship. Sheesh.

 

[Mudda]

Clinton was going on the info she got from briefings US intelligence agencies gave Senate committees she served on.

Yes, which GW and Cheney knew were false.