The Bush Admin. Never Lied To Justify the Invasion of Iraq.

[KNB]

Obama and Bush are nothing more than corporate bitches, doing what they're told like good little whores.

Ok conspiracy monger.

Which corporations control the United States?

Don't have to name them all. Just name the top 10.

Boeing, Exxon, Time-Warner, Pfizer, Monsanto, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Lockheed-Martin, Chevron, Johnson & Johnson, Disney, ConAgra, Viacom, HSBC, General Electric, News Corporation, Bertelsmann, Comcast.

There are more, but the owners still account for less than 1% of the world population. The rich scumfucks who run the companies lobby our government to pass laws which benefit the corporations. Around 50% of Congressmembers go into lobbying upon leaving public office. It's a revolving door. Lobbyist = Congressmember = Lobbyist = Congressmember, passing laws which benefit corporate interests over public interest, until as much wealth and power is consolidated to as few hands as possible.

Both Democrats and Republicans made it this way.

 

[Theowl32]

Ya dumb ass, we could have done this. We been doing it for a long time. I would have paid a sizable amount do it during Katrina. Know a couple of crews that would do the same. At least one anyhow.

C-47 drop rations for Karean troops in a jungle and coolies supervised by soldier...HD Stock Footage - YouTube

If you served and have no clue about the logistical problems after a 400 mile diameter storm devastates 5 states, then I am sorry I doubt your claims.

Before you supposedly did any of those things, logistics were established. The first of which.....where to actually drop things and who needs help the most.

You think it is so easy to simply drop stuff on top of the super dome and not even knowing they were in such need. Since there was no way to know if they were in such need, and 4 other states that were crushed.

You are ******* joke if you think you are going to tell me you did not have T's crossed and I's dotted prior to you dropping provisions for people. Are you ******* telling me you just went in there half assed with little to no coordination and no defined plan?

Be careful, your answer to that will let everyone know whether or not you are a ******* liar.

In the mean time you should hold the mayor and governor for not establishing contingencies or not providing adequate provisions since in fact it was their responsibility.

You not knowing that only shows your ignorance on top of your fucked up claims.

The Superdome was on TV troll. Everyone watched as those people begged for water and help. A fixed wing drop wasn't called for. A helicopter would have worked just fine. The point is that there was no excuse for Americans to be begging for help at a place like the Superdome and not have been getting at least the minimum necessities like water. Blame who you want, mayor, governor, god or whoever. The President had the power and resources to act and he didn't. He left it up to "Brownie".

You ignorant ****. There were a lot more people in trouble than just the people in the superdome. Why weren;t there proper provisions? Booooooosh?

It was a lot more complicated than that and with all communication out and roads wiped out and power out there was no real way to know where to land etc.

You are a ******* hack, and the fact is the federal government was overwhelmed and a lot of that had to do with the pathetic preparation on behalf of Louisiana.

 

[georgephillip]

I stop listening to ANY argument that starts off with "Bush started an illegal war(s)".

Both the Afghanistan and Iraq operations in 2001 and 2003 were authorized by the U.S. Congress, in votes that were pretty bipartisan IIRC.

Congressional authorization automatically makes a conflict 'legal" in the case of the United States.

It doesn't matter what Congress was told. It doesn't matter what Congress believed. They had the power to say yes or no. They exercised their power to say yes.

War authorized. War legal. Case closed.

You never heard of Nuremburg?
Wars of aggression, think the US v Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, are waged without the justification of self-defense and/or not sanctioned by the UNSC. Iraq and Afghanistan fail on both counts. If the government of the greatest purveyor of violence in the world was held to the same standards as Saddam or the Nazis, many is the US Congress would drop through a trap door at the end of a rope.

You lost all credibility with the unbelievably STUPID claim that the United States is the "greatest purveyor of violence in the world".

The United States won't even use real violence to enforce its own borders.

As for the rest, the United States is not bound by international treaties unless those treaties have an enforcement provision authorized by the U.S. Congress

Look up "treaties' in the Oxford Companion to American Law".

"The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution that establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. treaties as 'the supreme law of the land'.

"It provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state."

Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How many millions of civilians has the US military murdered, maimed, and displaced since 1945?

 

[GWV5903]

Yeah, Curveball didn't brief Congress; the CIA did. The CIA used Curveball as their source for briefing Congress (even though they were warned of his untrustworthiness and had never questioned him directly) and for briefing Secretary Powell as was proven by the video.

When you trust the CIA is telling you the truth and are debating what action to take based on the intel, you are comfortable with what they told you. However, as we know now, the CIA was cooking the intel to get the result the administration wanted.

No WMDs found, no nukes found. Bush lied...people died. It's a fact; get used to it.

Typical Liberal bias, you have no integrity, why can't you admit that ALL of your so called Democrat Leadership were just as wrong?

I now know you do lie to your EDIT...

The facts whisper louder than your childish accusations but being from Texas, you wouldn't know anything about facts or logic or civility. What is it you're trying to say that keeps getting edited?

Dum Dum, they are not accusations...

KIDS is what was edited mullet...

And I made up the edit the second time...

Hell I would be jealous of Texas too, but you don't have to make it so obvious...

 

[Dot Com]

I stop listening to ANY argument that starts off with "Bush started an illegal war(s)".

Both the Afghanistan and Iraq operations in 2001 and 2003 were authorized by the U.S. Congress, in votes that were pretty bipartisan IIRC.

Congressional authorization automatically makes a conflict 'legal" in the case of the United States.

It doesn't matter what Congress was told. It doesn't matter what Congress believed. They had the power to say yes or no. They exercised their power to say yes.

War authorized. War legal. Case closed.

Doesn't matter what they authorized, there are only 2 legal ways a country can attack another country with military force.

This is codified in Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Furthermore, this was a war of choice. We chose to go to war. We did not have to go to war. We chose to. Or should I say, Bush chose to. And a war of choice, is a war of aggression. This is the highest crime a nation can commit. It is exactly the crime Nazi Germany did when they went into Poland. Do you consider that legal?

yep. cons trying to re-write history. There's a reason they had to change their reasons for invading 3+ times to get anyone to go along, they "fixed" the intel. The Congress voted on doctored info justifying the invasion. The fault lies w/ those who "fixed" the intel. Google: Doug Feith Heard of him owl? of course you haven't because he undercuts your FAIL argument.

 

[Listening]

Did Republicans question the big government USAPATRIOT Act and domestic spying?

Many of us not only questioned it, but opposed it on all fronts.

 

[candycorn]

Typical Liberal bias, you have no integrity, why can't you admit that ALL of your so called Democrat Leadership were just as wrong?

I now know you do lie to your EDIT...

The facts whisper louder than your childish accusations but being from Texas, you wouldn't know anything about facts or logic or civility. What is it you're trying to say that keeps getting edited?

Dum Dum, they are not accusations...

KIDS is what was edited mullet...

And I made up the edit the second time...

Hell I would be jealous of Texas too, but you don't have to make it so obvious...

The only place that is jealous of Texas is latrines in Mississippi.

 

[Londoner]

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

On April 23, 2006, CBS’s “60 Minutes” interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam’s foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. “We continued to validate him the whole way through,” said Drumheller. “The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy.”

 

[Londoner]

The Bush administration fired Richard Clarke, first hired by Reagan, who lead the administration's policy against terrorism, and was the main agent in the Bush government concerned with Al Qaeda prior to 9/11.

Richard Clarke begged the administration to take Bin Laden seriously before 9/11. Clarke was fired because he was concerned more about Bin Laden than Hussein, who had nothing to do with 9/11.

The Bush administration punished people who didn't support their invasion of Iraq or who shifted the focus away from Iraq in favor of Al Qaeda. But this isn't only a problem for Bush's legacy. The Iraq invasion was made official US Policy in the late 90s when Chaney, Bolton, and Wolfowitz convinced Clinton that Hussein no longer served US interests in the region. Clinton made regime change in Iraq an official policy, but it was Bush/Chaney who, as we know, found a way to give the American people the political will to invade Iraq.

9/11 was, tragically, a gift to the Bush administration. It gave them exactly what they most wanted - Iraq.

How can anyone defend Bush, who was told in August of 2001 that an attack using hijacked airplanes was imminent. Bush was advised to have planes "scramble ready" - yet, somehow, he failed to take the most basic defense protocols to defend the eastern seaboard. One of the 9/11 terrorists was being tracked in the US prior to 9/11 by the CIA - yet this intelligence was ignored by the Bush team because they were obsessed with Hussein from day one. Bush simply had no interest in any terrorist threat that didn't serve his Iraqi agenda. The nation paid a terrible price for his neglect.

But it gets worse: the current instability in the middle east provides a further justification for the US to keep going back to the region and building bigger military bases near the world's most vital resource. Worse still: the more we build bases, the more likely there will be terrorist blowback, which blowback will provide even further justification for US intervention, which is what the neocons want. It's a tragic and self-reinforcing cycle.

Alas, the situation is much worse than anyone could ever have imagined. Think about it. We now have a major political political party who benefits politically from a domestic terrorist attack. An attack will not only allow Republicans to win elections based on their strongest issue, national security, but it allows them to complete their foreign policy objectives in the Middle East. This fact is not only insane, it's insanely scary.

Regarding George Tenet. He was clearly a "company man" who told his boss exactly what he wanted to hear. Wow. How surprising.

The OP is probably a young kid who gets all his information from Republican sources. He is advised to read this policy paper (link below). It was presented to Clinton in the 90s by the very people who would later take over Bush's defense department. The plan to invade Iraq was an obsession of the Bush defense team well before Bush took office. The OP means well, but he would do well to consider more evidence before he asks other people to take him seriously.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

 

[MikeK]

If you served and have no clue about the logistical problems after a 400 mile diameter storm devastates 5 states, then I am sorry I doubt your claims.

Before you supposedly did any of those things, logistics were established. The first of which.....where to actually drop things and who needs help the most.

You think it is so easy to simply drop stuff on top of the super dome and not even knowing they were in such need. Since there was no way to know if they were in such need, and 4 other states that were crushed.

You are ******* joke if you think you are going to tell me you did not have T's crossed and I's dotted prior to you dropping provisions for people. Are you ******* telling me you just went in there half assed with little to no coordination and no defined plan?

Be careful, your answer to that will let everyone know whether or not you are a ******* liar.

In the mean time you should hold the mayor and governor for not establishing contingencies or not providing adequate provisions since in fact it was their responsibility.

You not knowing that only shows your ignorance on top of your fucked up claims.

The Superdome was on TV troll. Everyone watched as those people begged for water and help. A fixed wing drop wasn't called for. A helicopter would have worked just fine. The point is that there was no excuse for Americans to be begging for help at a place like the Superdome and not have been getting at least the minimum necessities like water. Blame who you want, mayor, governor, god or whoever. The President had the power and resources to act and he didn't. He left it up to "Brownie".

You ignorant ****. There were a lot more people in trouble than just the people in the superdome. Why weren;t there proper provisions? Booooooosh?

It was a lot more complicated than that and with all communication out and roads wiped out and power out there was no real way to know where to land etc.

You are a ******* hack, and the fact is the federal government was overwhelmed and a lot of that had to do with the pathetic preparation on behalf of Louisiana.

Are you saying the United States of America did not have the resources available to lower water, food, a squad of military MPs and a medic to relieve those people? Or are you saying the Bush Administration was incapable of organizing and deploying those resources? Because there is no third possibility.

Of course you're correct about Louisiana's clearly incompetent government. But the ability to take charge and prevail over such exigent contingencies are one reason why this Nation of states has a President. The suffering of the unfortunates trapped in that stadium, which the entire civilized world was aware of and was able to watch on television, was an inexcusable disgrace as well as glaring, unmistakable evidence of what America has become.

 

[Contumacious]

The Bush Administration Never Lied In Order to Justify the Invasion of Iraq

.

Are you war criminal Bush? Or just some dumb ass on PCP?

.

 

[Dayton3]

The OP is probably a young kid who gets all his information from Republican sources.

[/url]

I'm a 47 year old History Teacher who specializes in 20th century American History. Half my cousins served in Iraq. One of my students lost both legs in Afghanistan. A neighbor from down the road from my parents house lost both legs in Iraq.

Quit slandering a person who believes differently from you.

 

[KNB]

If you're a history teacher then you should know how to check references.

U.S. Intelligence and Iraq WMD

 

[Dayton3]

If you're a history teacher then you should know how to check references.

U.S. Intelligence and Iraq WMD

Paper will sit still while anything is written on it.

 

[Londoner]

The OP is probably a young kid who gets all his information from Republican sources.

[/url]

I'm a 47 year old History Teacher who specializes in 20th century American History. Half my cousins served in Iraq. One of my students lost both legs in Afghanistan. A neighbor from down the road from my parents house lost both legs in Iraq.

Quit slandering a person who believes differently from you.

You raise fair points. My assumption was incorrect. I apologize.

I believe the people who served in Iraq are heroes who have a legitimate claim against the people who sent them to war.

I applaud your profession.

Totally unrelated questions that you don't have to answer.

Do you believe the mind is a "mirror of nature", that is, do you believe that "external" events can be accurately reflected "inside" our minds? -and, moreover, that each person, if they employ common sense or are trained in the methods of rational evaluation, can see "the truth". -and that your liberal opponents are simply lying or deceived?

Because I think there are compelling reasons to reject the correspondence theory of truth or any kind of simplistic realism that credits the mind with a kind of automatic or god given access to "the truth". My suspicion is that people impose order on chaos and that historical analysis is actually a form of interpretation that is predetermined not only by one's culture and historical epoch, but also one's psyche and values. Such that a Conservative and a Liberal actually see different worlds in much the same way a Soviet and an American see things differently. This is why there is so much disagreement over past and current events. I used to think that when people saw the world differently that they were either lying or deceived. Now I believe that the divergence in perspective goes all the way down and that we all unconsciously select or emphasize "facts" that are calibrated to what we already believe. That is, I think on some levels people make history rather than find it. I think that there will be different historical accounts of the Iraq War. By that I don't mean that people will disagree about dates and locations so much as motivations and outcomes along with different schemes of emphasis (history as narrative, i.e., different historians will choose to emphasize different facts in order to tell a different story about who was right and wrong and why).

Is there a temptation, as a history professor, to describe the New Deal as prolonging the Great Depression? Certainly there is at least an unconscious desire to select "facts" that make the most sense to you?

 

[Dayton3]

^I'm of two minds about the Great Depression and the New Deal. It has been the subject of annual research papers that are routinely assigned to my students.

1) On one hand, I think strictly from an economics perspective the actions by both Hoover (who most people don't know, lots of the New Deal actions were continuations of policies he advocated) and FDR tended to prolong the Depression.

2) From a social/political depression, I think it would have been very unreasonable to have let the Depression "run it's course". Even if that made it come to an end sooner. Too many people were being hurt too badly to make any kind of realistic case for federal govt. nonintervention.

 

[Dot Com]

The OP is probably a young kid who gets all his information from Republican sources.

[/url]

I'm a 47 year old History Teacher who specializes in 20th century American History. Half my cousins served in Iraq. One of my students lost both legs in Afghanistan. A neighbor from down the road from my parents house lost both legs in Iraq.

Quit slandering a person who believes differently from you.

Sen Warren (D-MA) was a teacher too. Whats your view of her?

As to the OP, judging by your post count, did you join the forum primarily to bring up this issue? If you're a student of contemporary history then you've heard of Doug Feith & his "Office of Strategic Intelligence" in the Pentagon, no doubt?

 

[rightwinger]

Bush did not LIE!

He saved us from a nuclear attack. You didn't see any nukes in Times Square did you?

Thank George Bush

 

[rightwinger]

^I'm of two minds about the Great Depression and the New Deal. It has been the subject of annual research papers that are routinely assigned to my students.

1) On one hand, I think strictly from an economics perspective the actions by both Hoover (who most people don't know, lots of the New Deal actions were continuations of policies he advocated) and FDR tended to prolong the Depression.

2) From a social/political depression, I think it would have been very unreasonable to have let the Depression "run it's course". Even if that made it come to an end sooner. Too many people were being hurt too badly to make any kind of realistic case for federal govt. nonintervention.

FDR understood that the Depression was not about economic statistics, it was about people suffering.

He did something about it, just like any leader would

 

[Dayton3]

The OP is probably a young kid who gets all his information from Republican sources.

[/url]

I'm a 47 year old History Teacher who specializes in 20th century American History. Half my cousins served in Iraq. One of my students lost both legs in Afghanistan. A neighbor from down the road from my parents house lost both legs in Iraq.

Quit slandering a person who believes differently from you.

Sen Warren (D-MA) was a teacher too. Whats your view of her?

As to the OP, judging by your post count, did you join the forum primarily to bring up this issue? If you're a student of contemporary history then you've heard of Doug Feith & his "Office of Strategic Intelligence" in the Pentagon, no doubt?

No.

I joined years ago. Posted a handful of times then changed jobs, moved, had to get a new computer, forgot my logons for a whole bunch of sites and frankly got too busy with real life for awhile.

I brought up this subject because it seems particularly relevant given the situation in Iraq and all the Obama partisans announcing that his is "Bush's fault" (even though he hasn't been in office for 5 and a half years.