Trump: Bush lied about reason for invading Iraq

[Redfish]

I disagree. you have bought into the media/Hollywood version of history. But that's your right, you are free to believe whatever fantasy you like.

Just remember, warmongering madmen will say and do anything to get their wars. Always keep that in mind.

Don't be an idiot, no one wants wars.

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

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

We have had by far the strongest military in the world since the end of WW II in the late part of the 1940's and we have been in continuous wars the entire time. Perhaps there is something else needed in that equation, thesis, concept, whatever.

yes, we need to learn that we are not the world's police force and to only use our military when the USA is threatened.

 

[Contumacious]

H

Bombing and invading are two diff things but we've already gone over that. We've also gone over the fact that > 1/2 the Democrats voted against AUMF for Iraq. You read the thread?

Bombing and invading are two different things? HUH?

Only if you use an Orwellian dictionary. and/or the debaters are retarded.

bombing does not equal invasion/boots-on-the-ground/occupation. Are you really that thick All Caps boi? That was a rhetorical question

Shut the **** twerp.

in·va·sion
inˈvāZHən/
noun

1. an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
   "the Allied invasion of Normandy"
   synonyms: occupation, capture, seizure, annexation, annexing, takeover; More
   • an incursion by a large number of people or things into a place or sphere of activity.
     "stadium guards are preparing for another invasion of fans"
     synonyms: influx, inundation, flood, rush, torrent, deluge, avalanche, juggernaut
     "an invasion of tourists"
   • an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.
     "random drug testing of employees is an unwarranted invasion of privacy"
     synonyms: violation, infringement, interruption, intrusion, encroachment,disturbance, disruption, breach
     "an invasion of my privacy"
2. .

an instance of invading a country or region with an armed force.
"the Allied invasion of Normandy"
synonyms: occupation, capture, seizure, annexation, annexing, takeover; More

No mention of bombing

Excuse me dingle berry but is a bomb a thing

Are you using the thing - a tomahawk missile - to intrude on Syrian Sovereign territory - Is the US encroaching into Syria's sovereign territory with a foreign thing?

 

[Redfish]

Don't be an idiot, no one wants wars.

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

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

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

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

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

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

who are they?, give us names.

 

[Redfish]

You have to choose.

1. they all were misled by bad intell
or
2. Bush was such a great communicator that he fooled the entire world.

which is it?

No, you dont craft the topic. I dont have to chose from your bullshit choices dummy. Bush lied, you cant defend it so you say "Oh well EVERYONE LIES"

Like lying about a war is the same saying I paid the light bill and didnt

stating something that you believe to be true is not lying. The fact is that none of them lied, they were all taken in by bad intell and Saddam's lies about having WMDs.

my choices were valid if you contend that Bush knew the truth and lied about it. So I guess you pick number 2. But I thought you said Bush was an idiot. your logic falls apart at step one.

Ahhh, its always some wiggle room with you guys. When Obama says things that wiggle room and gray areas vanish. But suddenly Bush had to know something was not true in order to lie. Him asserting facts that werent facts dont count because some twisted logic you use says so.

If that's your position then you have to concede that Bush was such a brilliant orator and manipulator that he fooled the entire world. How could an idiot cowboy do that?

No he just simply lied. Thats it and thats all

Then so did Hillary and Bill Clinton, that's it and that's all. They said exactly the same things based on exactly the same intel.

shove your partisan hat up your ass and see reality.

 

[flacaltenn]

Thousands of chemical weapons is "stockpiles" in my book, especially considering the toxicity. And, thousands were found. Their age is irrelevant as, those that contained mustard gas were still viable, and the bicomponents last for decades and decades.

d

Their age is not irrelevant as that was what bush and buddies claimed. Nice try at revising history. Did I accidentally insult your God bush?

A stockpile is a stockpile. Age IS irrelevant when it comes to bicomponent nerve agent munitions, at least as far as killing power is concerned.

From conscious expo. com
Bush Sought Way To Invade Iraq from Day 1 of His Administration
In Lesley Stahl’s 60 Minutes interview with Bush’s first Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, which aired in early January, 2004, O’Neill revealed that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were Bush’s main focus from the very beginning of his administration. See the transcript below and the video link below that.

Stahl: “And what happened in President Bush’s very first National Security Council meeting is one of O’Neill’s most startling revelations.”

O’Neill: “From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go.”

Stahl: “He said that going after Saddam was topic ‘A’ 10 days after the inauguration – eight months before Sept. 11.”

Ron Suskind (author of the book “The Price of Loyalty” in which O’Neill was a significant contributor. O’Neill gave Suskind 19,000 internal documents): “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime”

Stahl: “Now everybody else thought that grew out of 9/11.”

Suskind: “No”

Stahl: “But this book says it was day one of this administration.”

Suskind: “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

Stahl: “As treasury secretary, O’Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as ‘Why Saddam?’ and ‘Why now?’ were never asked.”

Stahl (quoting O’Neill from the book): “It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this.'”

O’Neill: “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

Stahl: “And that came up at this first meeting?”

O’Neill: “It did.”

Stahl: “O’Neill told us that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later. He got briefing materials under this cover sheet.” (Note: the cover sheet is shown in the video)

Suskind: “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq.'” (Note: the memo is shown in the video)

Stahl: “Nation Building?”

Suskind: “Absolutely.”

Stahl: “So, they discussed an occupation of Iraq?”

Suskind: “ In January and February of 2001.

Stahl: “Based on his interviews with O’Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq’s oil wealth.”

Stahl: “Suskind obtained this Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, entitled ‘Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.’ It includes a map of potential areas for exploration.” (Note: the document is shown in the video)

Suskind: “It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions…”

Stahl: “On oil.”

Suskind. “On oil in Iraq.”

Did you catch that? Six months before 9/11, there were already plans for how the Iraqi oil fields would be divided up, and which contractors would do the work.

Here’s the 60 Minutes interview with O’Neill

Except NONE of that "plan" for the Iraqi oil fields ever got implemented. Did it?

Well, you see, there was this "insurgency" which prevented that plan's implementation. Maybe you heard about it? It was in all the papers.

Oh hell no.. We did it to ourselves.. We turned over the governance to the Iraqis when we were still in play. Gave them the prisons -- they let loose the new leadership of ISIS. We gave them military equipment. ISIS took it from them. We bolstered them up against the Iranians -- now the Iranians are in control of the 1/3 of that country. We should have toppled Saddam, verified there was no imminent threat and BAILED. Instead we lost track of $Bills in aid and set up a vacuum of power that invites them to kill each other.

There was no "insurgency". There were millions of pissed off Iraqis that had been banned from the political process or run out of an existing functional military. Or had family members die under US embargo for lack of antibiotics or food. That military should have been left intact and in charge as we packed our bags and called it a day..

 

[Freewill]

Clinton didn't invade Iraq. Bush did.

Clinton didn't do anything he didn't think was PC, except of course harassing women.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

13534847

. I said that the resolution would not have passed without dem votes, that is true.

That resolution passed in October 2002. Bush was not necessarily lying about WMD in October 2002. That is except the fact that he said he wanted to have the UNSC disarm Iraq PEACEFULLY.

That means because UN inspectors were not in Iraq in October 2002, there was justification to threaten war in order to get the inspectors back. Those were not lies to get Dem support for the authorization. Guess what? Saddam Hussen allowed the inspectors back in and the vast majority of nations by March 2003, wanted continued inspections not US invasion.

So the vote in October 2002 had nothing to do with Bush's LIE on March 17, 2003. That's when Bush committed the big WMD lie. (See my previous post)

The front runner in the GOP field knows Bush lied. Why don't you? The vote in October 2003 had nothing to do with Bush's WMD lie. Why try to defend him based on the October vote? He was not lying about WMD in Iraq then.

The GOP can't stop Trump from telling the truth about the Iraq invasion. Your storyline blaming Dems five months before Bush decided to invade doesn't work anymore. Bush lied, peopled died. Trump is right, you are wrong.

 

[Dot Com]

Bush is guilty of carrying-out Bill Kristol's wishes (current Fox news employee and founder of the PNAC) using neocons. Ever heard of the PNAC? Google it. Fascinating stuff

Yup -- that's where the pipe dream came from. But since I AM familiar with their role -- let me set your little partisan head ablaze with some facts. Remember the 3 Jew Road Show?

Project for the New American Century - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies

In January 1998, PNAC published an open letter to President Bill Clinton arguing that "containment" of Iraq "has been steadily eroding," jeopardizing the region and potentially beyond. "Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate."[18] PNAC followed up a few months later with an open letter to Senate leader Trent Lott (R-MS) and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), arguing that the "only way to protect the United States and its allies from the threat of weapons of mass destruction [is] to put in place policies that would lead to the removal of Saddam and his regime from power."[19]

Those who signed these letters included many signatories to PNAC's statement of principles, as well as future realist-inclined Bush administration officials Richard Armitage and Robert Zoellick. PNAC set up a meeting in 1998 between Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, and Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security advisor, to argue the case for intervention.[20] In February 1998, Wolfowitz had testified before the House International Relations Committee that regime change in Iraq was the "only way to rescue the region and the world from the threat" posed by Hussein. Revealing another aspect of neoconservative alliance-building in the years leading up to George W. Bush's presidency, Wolfowitz added that the United States should recognize "a provisional government of free Iraq," and that the best place to look for such a government was "with the current organization and principles of [Ahmed Chalabi's] Iraqi National Congress."[21] Thus, write Halper and Clarke, "in only a few years since the Soviet collapse, neoconservatism had refocused itself as an interventionist lobby intent above all else on waging a second Gulf war."[22]

- See more at: Project for the New American Century - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies

Perle and Berger.. I think they got to them too.. It's not a partisan mistake.. A large part of the Clinton Admin was predisposed to view PNAC's suggestions favorably. Hence -- the "war on Iraq" tour hit the road in 1998..

You're a hoot

I see you missed the important part. Clinton never executed a ground invasion like the Fox employee (Bill Kristol) wanted so the PNAC went to Bush w/ resounding success, or rather- failure

Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, advocating "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq", or regime change. The letter suggested that "any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq," even if no evidence surfaced linking Iraq to the September 11 attacks. The letter warned that allowing Hussein to remain in power would be "an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."[31] From 2001 through the invasion of Iraq, the PNAC and many of its members voiced active support for military action against Iraq, and asserted leaving Saddam Hussein in power would be "surrender to terrorism:

No wonder Fox (GOP TV) currently employs that guy

 

[deltex1]

13534847

. I said that the resolution would not have passed without dem votes, that is true.

That resolution passed in October 2002. Bush was not necessarily lying about WMD in October 2002. That is except the fact that he said he wanted to have the UNSC disarm Iraq PEACEFULLY.

That means because UN inspectors were not in Iraq in October 2002, there was justification to threaten war in order to get the inspectors back. Those were not lies to get Dem support for the authorization. Guess what? Saddam Hussen allowed the inspectors back in and the vast majority of nations by March 2003, wanted continued inspections not US invasion.

So the vote in October 2002 had nothing to do with Bush's LIE on March 17, 2003. That's when Bush committed the big WMD lie. (See my previous post)

The front runner in the GOP field knows Bush lied. Why don't you? The vote in October 2003 had nothing to do with Bush's WMD lie. Why try to defend him based on the October vote? He was not lying about WMD in Iraq then.

The GOP can't stop Trump from telling the truth about the Iraq invasion. Your storyline blaming Dems five months before Bush decided to invade doesn't work anymore. Bush lied, peopled died. Trump is right, you are wrong.

Foo has risen from the dead.....bowowowowowahoooooo!

 

[flacaltenn]

Bush is guilty of carrying-out Bill Kristol's wishes (current Fox news employee and founder of the PNAC) using neocons. Ever heard of the PNAC? Google it. Fascinating stuff

Yup -- that's where the pipe dream came from. But since I AM familiar with their role -- let me set your little partisan head ablaze with some facts. Remember the 3 Jew Road Show?

Project for the New American Century - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies

In January 1998, PNAC published an open letter to President Bill Clinton arguing that "containment" of Iraq "has been steadily eroding," jeopardizing the region and potentially beyond. "Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate."[18] PNAC followed up a few months later with an open letter to Senate leader Trent Lott (R-MS) and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), arguing that the "only way to protect the United States and its allies from the threat of weapons of mass destruction [is] to put in place policies that would lead to the removal of Saddam and his regime from power."[19]

Those who signed these letters included many signatories to PNAC's statement of principles, as well as future realist-inclined Bush administration officials Richard Armitage and Robert Zoellick. PNAC set up a meeting in 1998 between Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, and Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security advisor, to argue the case for intervention.[20] In February 1998, Wolfowitz had testified before the House International Relations Committee that regime change in Iraq was the "only way to rescue the region and the world from the threat" posed by Hussein. Revealing another aspect of neoconservative alliance-building in the years leading up to George W. Bush's presidency, Wolfowitz added that the United States should recognize "a provisional government of free Iraq," and that the best place to look for such a government was "with the current organization and principles of [Ahmed Chalabi's] Iraqi National Congress."[21] Thus, write Halper and Clarke, "in only a few years since the Soviet collapse, neoconservatism had refocused itself as an interventionist lobby intent above all else on waging a second Gulf war."[22]

- See more at: Project for the New American Century - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies

Perle and Berger.. I think they got to them too.. It's not a partisan mistake.. A large part of the Clinton Admin was predisposed to view PNAC's suggestions favorably. Hence -- the "war on Iraq" tour hit the road in 1998..

You're a hoot

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

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

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

 

[Freewill]

13534847

. I said that the resolution would not have passed without dem votes, that is true.

That resolution passed in October 2002. Bush was not necessarily lying about WMD in October 2002. That is except the fact that he said he wanted to have the UNSC disarm Iraq PEACEFULLY.

That means because UN inspectors were not in Iraq in October 2002, there was justification to threaten war in order to get the inspectors back. Those were not lies to get Dem support for the authorization. Guess what? Saddam Hussen allowed the inspectors back in and the vast majority of nations by March 2003, wanted continued inspections not US invasion.

So the vote in October 2002 had nothing to do with Bush's LIE on March 17, 2003. That's when Bush committed the big WMD lie. (See my previous post)

The front runner in the GOP field knows Bush lied. Why don't you? The vote in October 2003 had nothing to do with Bush's WMD lie. Why try to defend him based on the October vote? He was not lying about WMD in Iraq then.

The GOP can't stop Trump from telling the truth about the Iraq invasion. Your storyline blaming Dems five months before Bush decided to invade doesn't work anymore. Bush lied, peopled died. Trump is right, you are wrong.

Trump is an ahole for first bring up the subject and second for repeating a lie.

Here is an article from someone who should know, who sees the lie about Bush lying is dangerous.

Maybe all that believe like Trump could read this or have someone read it to them.

The Dangerous Lie That ‘Bush Lied’

 

[Dot Com]

Albright? Are you serious? The same woman who said if females don't vote for Hillary, they will go to hell. THAT Albright? Establishment-types no less who profit off of wars. Certainly you have something better than that?

The vote speaks for itself, over 1/2 of the dems voted against the AUMF.

Yeah -- it speaks for itself. The same DEM morons were PERFECTLY FINE with continuing the failed containment policy that was torturing Iraqi citizens for 12 years based on the SAME DAMN LIE.. Hypocrites is what they are. Not a ONE of them had the balls to suggest that we ease off the containment policy and bring that atrocious policy to an end.. Or maybe Kucinich or one or two did..

Our involvement in Iraq began before that. In order to persecute Iran, we allowed Saddam to purchase western technology and build a huge army and a large arsenal of weapons, including chemical weapons, to fight off the Iranian who were poised to overrun Iraq. What we didn't know(or maybe we did) is that he was also secretly building an atomic bomb as well. So after the Iran war we had to destroy him and his army. Kind of like giving your friend a gun, and then shooting him because he has a gun!

Somebody made a lot of money off that I think.

Yeah, Reagan supplied them w/ beau coup weapons

 

[Dot Com]

Bush is guilty of carrying-out Bill Kristol's wishes (current Fox news employee and founder of the PNAC) using neocons. Ever heard of the PNAC? Google it. Fascinating stuff

Yup -- that's where the pipe dream came from. But since I AM familiar with their role -- let me set your little partisan head ablaze with some facts. Remember the 3 Jew Road Show?

Project for the New American Century - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies

In January 1998, PNAC published an open letter to President Bill Clinton arguing that "containment" of Iraq "has been steadily eroding," jeopardizing the region and potentially beyond. "Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate."[18] PNAC followed up a few months later with an open letter to Senate leader Trent Lott (R-MS) and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), arguing that the "only way to protect the United States and its allies from the threat of weapons of mass destruction [is] to put in place policies that would lead to the removal of Saddam and his regime from power."[19]

Those who signed these letters included many signatories to PNAC's statement of principles, as well as future realist-inclined Bush administration officials Richard Armitage and Robert Zoellick. PNAC set up a meeting in 1998 between Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, and Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security advisor, to argue the case for intervention.[20] In February 1998, Wolfowitz had testified before the House International Relations Committee that regime change in Iraq was the "only way to rescue the region and the world from the threat" posed by Hussein. Revealing another aspect of neoconservative alliance-building in the years leading up to George W. Bush's presidency, Wolfowitz added that the United States should recognize "a provisional government of free Iraq," and that the best place to look for such a government was "with the current organization and principles of [Ahmed Chalabi's] Iraqi National Congress."[21] Thus, write Halper and Clarke, "in only a few years since the Soviet collapse, neoconservatism had refocused itself as an interventionist lobby intent above all else on waging a second Gulf war."[22]

- See more at: Project for the New American Century - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies

Perle and Berger.. I think they got to them too.. It's not a partisan mistake.. A large part of the Clinton Admin was predisposed to view PNAC's suggestions favorably. Hence -- the "war on Iraq" tour hit the road in 1998..

You're a hoot

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

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

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

 

[Dovahkiin]

Bush wasn't the only one.

 

[Freewill]

Bush is guilty of carrying-out Bill Kristol's wishes (current Fox news employee and founder of the PNAC) using neocons. Ever heard of the PNAC? Google it. Fascinating stuff

Yup -- that's where the pipe dream came from. But since I AM familiar with their role -- let me set your little partisan head ablaze with some facts. Remember the 3 Jew Road Show?

Project for the New American Century - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies

In January 1998, PNAC published an open letter to President Bill Clinton arguing that "containment" of Iraq "has been steadily eroding," jeopardizing the region and potentially beyond. "Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate."[18] PNAC followed up a few months later with an open letter to Senate leader Trent Lott (R-MS) and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), arguing that the "only way to protect the United States and its allies from the threat of weapons of mass destruction [is] to put in place policies that would lead to the removal of Saddam and his regime from power."[19]

Those who signed these letters included many signatories to PNAC's statement of principles, as well as future realist-inclined Bush administration officials Richard Armitage and Robert Zoellick. PNAC set up a meeting in 1998 between Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, and Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security advisor, to argue the case for intervention.[20] In February 1998, Wolfowitz had testified before the House International Relations Committee that regime change in Iraq was the "only way to rescue the region and the world from the threat" posed by Hussein. Revealing another aspect of neoconservative alliance-building in the years leading up to George W. Bush's presidency, Wolfowitz added that the United States should recognize "a provisional government of free Iraq," and that the best place to look for such a government was "with the current organization and principles of [Ahmed Chalabi's] Iraqi National Congress."[21] Thus, write Halper and Clarke, "in only a few years since the Soviet collapse, neoconservatism had refocused itself as an interventionist lobby intent above all else on waging a second Gulf war."[22]

- See more at: Project for the New American Century - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies

Perle and Berger.. I think they got to them too.. It's not a partisan mistake.. A large part of the Clinton Admin was predisposed to view PNAC's suggestions favorably. Hence -- the "war on Iraq" tour hit the road in 1998..

You're a hoot

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

Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, advocating "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq", or regime change. The letter suggested that "any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq," even if no evidence surfaced linking Iraq to the September 11 attacks. The letter warned that allowing Hussein to remain in power would be "an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."[31] From 2001 through the invasion of Iraq, the PNAC and many of its members voiced active support for military action against Iraq, and asserted leaving Saddam Hussein in power would be "surrender to terrorism:

No wonder Fox (GOP TV) currently employs that guy

Nope, Clinton did the bigger wimper thing, he bombed a country for 72 days. A country that posed no threat to the US and did NOT threaten our interests. He even killed Chinese nationals in doing so. Remember the scene of the ethnic Serbs standing on the bridge daring Clinton to bomb them? He did, He killed women and children all that were civilian. Every bridge over the Danube was blown to pieces and we paid to rebuild them. Tell me, what is the difference between a cruise missile blowing up a bridge full of civilians and a pressure cooker going off?

 

[Dot Com]

Thousands of chemical weapons is "stockpiles" in my book, especially considering the toxicity. And, thousands were found. Their age is irrelevant as, those that contained mustard gas were still viable, and the bicomponents last for decades and decades.

d

Their age is not irrelevant as that was what bush and buddies claimed. Nice try at revising history. Did I accidentally insult your God bush?

A stockpile is a stockpile. Age IS irrelevant when it comes to bicomponent nerve agent munitions, at least as far as killing power is concerned.

From conscious expo. com
Bush Sought Way To Invade Iraq from Day 1 of His Administration
In Lesley Stahl’s 60 Minutes interview with Bush’s first Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, which aired in early January, 2004, O’Neill revealed that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were Bush’s main focus from the very beginning of his administration. See the transcript below and the video link below that.

Stahl: “And what happened in President Bush’s very first National Security Council meeting is one of O’Neill’s most startling revelations.”

O’Neill: “From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go.”

Stahl: “He said that going after Saddam was topic ‘A’ 10 days after the inauguration – eight months before Sept. 11.”

Ron Suskind (author of the book “The Price of Loyalty” in which O’Neill was a significant contributor. O’Neill gave Suskind 19,000 internal documents): “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime”

Stahl: “Now everybody else thought that grew out of 9/11.”

Suskind: “No”

Stahl: “But this book says it was day one of this administration.”

Suskind: “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

Stahl: “As treasury secretary, O’Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as ‘Why Saddam?’ and ‘Why now?’ were never asked.”

Stahl (quoting O’Neill from the book): “It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this.'”

O’Neill: “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”

Stahl: “And that came up at this first meeting?”

O’Neill: “It did.”

Stahl: “O’Neill told us that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later. He got briefing materials under this cover sheet.” (Note: the cover sheet is shown in the video)

Suskind: “There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq.'” (Note: the memo is shown in the video)

Stahl: “Nation Building?”

Suskind: “Absolutely.”

Stahl: “So, they discussed an occupation of Iraq?”

Suskind: “ In January and February of 2001.

Stahl: “Based on his interviews with O’Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq’s oil wealth.”

Stahl: “Suskind obtained this Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, entitled ‘Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.’ It includes a map of potential areas for exploration.” (Note: the document is shown in the video)

Suskind: “It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions…”

Stahl: “On oil.”

Suskind. “On oil in Iraq.”

Did you catch that? Six months before 9/11, there were already plans for how the Iraqi oil fields would be divided up, and which contractors would do the work.

Here’s the 60 Minutes interview with O’Neill

Except NONE of that "plan" for the Iraqi oil fields ever got implemented. Did it?

Well, you see, there was this "insurgency" which prevented that plan's implementation. Maybe you heard about it? It was in all the papers.

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

 

[Freewill]

Bush is guilty of carrying-out Bill Kristol's wishes (current Fox news employee and founder of the PNAC) using neocons. Ever heard of the PNAC? Google it. Fascinating stuff

Yup -- that's where the pipe dream came from. But since I AM familiar with their role -- let me set your little partisan head ablaze with some facts. Remember the 3 Jew Road Show?

Project for the New American Century - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies

In January 1998, PNAC published an open letter to President Bill Clinton arguing that "containment" of Iraq "has been steadily eroding," jeopardizing the region and potentially beyond. "Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate."[18] PNAC followed up a few months later with an open letter to Senate leader Trent Lott (R-MS) and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), arguing that the "only way to protect the United States and its allies from the threat of weapons of mass destruction [is] to put in place policies that would lead to the removal of Saddam and his regime from power."[19]

Those who signed these letters included many signatories to PNAC's statement of principles, as well as future realist-inclined Bush administration officials Richard Armitage and Robert Zoellick. PNAC set up a meeting in 1998 between Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, and Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security advisor, to argue the case for intervention.[20] In February 1998, Wolfowitz had testified before the House International Relations Committee that regime change in Iraq was the "only way to rescue the region and the world from the threat" posed by Hussein. Revealing another aspect of neoconservative alliance-building in the years leading up to George W. Bush's presidency, Wolfowitz added that the United States should recognize "a provisional government of free Iraq," and that the best place to look for such a government was "with the current organization and principles of [Ahmed Chalabi's] Iraqi National Congress."[21] Thus, write Halper and Clarke, "in only a few years since the Soviet collapse, neoconservatism had refocused itself as an interventionist lobby intent above all else on waging a second Gulf war."[22]

- See more at: Project for the New American Century - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies

Perle and Berger.. I think they got to them too.. It's not a partisan mistake.. A large part of the Clinton Admin was predisposed to view PNAC's suggestions favorably. Hence -- the "war on Iraq" tour hit the road in 1998..

You're a hoot

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

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

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

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

 

[flacaltenn]

Bush is guilty of carrying-out Bill Kristol's wishes (current Fox news employee and founder of the PNAC) using neocons. Ever heard of the PNAC? Google it. Fascinating stuff

Yup -- that's where the pipe dream came from. But since I AM familiar with their role -- let me set your little partisan head ablaze with some facts. Remember the 3 Jew Road Show?

Project for the New American Century - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies

In January 1998, PNAC published an open letter to President Bill Clinton arguing that "containment" of Iraq "has been steadily eroding," jeopardizing the region and potentially beyond. "Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate."[18] PNAC followed up a few months later with an open letter to Senate leader Trent Lott (R-MS) and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), arguing that the "only way to protect the United States and its allies from the threat of weapons of mass destruction [is] to put in place policies that would lead to the removal of Saddam and his regime from power."[19]

Those who signed these letters included many signatories to PNAC's statement of principles, as well as future realist-inclined Bush administration officials Richard Armitage and Robert Zoellick. PNAC set up a meeting in 1998 between Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, and Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security advisor, to argue the case for intervention.[20] In February 1998, Wolfowitz had testified before the House International Relations Committee that regime change in Iraq was the "only way to rescue the region and the world from the threat" posed by Hussein. Revealing another aspect of neoconservative alliance-building in the years leading up to George W. Bush's presidency, Wolfowitz added that the United States should recognize "a provisional government of free Iraq," and that the best place to look for such a government was "with the current organization and principles of [Ahmed Chalabi's] Iraqi National Congress."[21] Thus, write Halper and Clarke, "in only a few years since the Soviet collapse, neoconservatism had refocused itself as an interventionist lobby intent above all else on waging a second Gulf war."[22]

- See more at: Project for the New American Century - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies

Perle and Berger.. I think they got to them too.. It's not a partisan mistake.. A large part of the Clinton Admin was predisposed to view PNAC's suggestions favorably. Hence -- the "war on Iraq" tour hit the road in 1998..

You're a hoot

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Dot Com]

you are the idiot in this discussion. your partisan anger is confirmation that deep down inside you know that your left wing ideology is a massive failure and your left wing candidates are shitheads..

my anger is that somehow you left school w/o learning anything. No one here is interested in your rw kool aid opinions. Ask someone how to source something so that you don't continue embarrassing yourself like saying "the world was with bush on iraq (it wasn't) and the dems in congress voted for iraq (126 didn't, thats way over 1/2 of them)

Ya fricken liar, you are no better than your heroine, the hildebeast. I never said either of those things.

I said that the resolution would not have passed without dem votes, that is true
I said that Hillary voted for it, that is true
I said that the UN, UK, EU, and many others bought into the bad intel about WMDs, that is also true.

There is nothing needed to source, what I have said is common knowledge and you verified it when you posted the vote totals.

Now, get you head out of hillarys ass and your mouth off of Obama's crank and learn something besides what the left wing media liars are pushing.

GFY You couldn't supply a source to save your life

AGAIN, theres a reason that Bush threatened to withhold nation- building contracts from other nations: They weren't signing on to his foreign adventure WHICH THEY WERE RIGHT ABOUT you hack

 

[Dot Com]

Bush is guilty of carrying-out Bill Kristol's wishes (current Fox news employee and founder of the PNAC) using neocons. Ever heard of the PNAC? Google it. Fascinating stuff

Yup -- that's where the pipe dream came from. But since I AM familiar with their role -- let me set your little partisan head ablaze with some facts. Remember the 3 Jew Road Show?

Project for the New American Century - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies

In January 1998, PNAC published an open letter to President Bill Clinton arguing that "containment" of Iraq "has been steadily eroding," jeopardizing the region and potentially beyond. "Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate."[18] PNAC followed up a few months later with an open letter to Senate leader Trent Lott (R-MS) and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA), arguing that the "only way to protect the United States and its allies from the threat of weapons of mass destruction [is] to put in place policies that would lead to the removal of Saddam and his regime from power."[19]

Those who signed these letters included many signatories to PNAC's statement of principles, as well as future realist-inclined Bush administration officials Richard Armitage and Robert Zoellick. PNAC set up a meeting in 1998 between Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, and Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security advisor, to argue the case for intervention.[20] In February 1998, Wolfowitz had testified before the House International Relations Committee that regime change in Iraq was the "only way to rescue the region and the world from the threat" posed by Hussein. Revealing another aspect of neoconservative alliance-building in the years leading up to George W. Bush's presidency, Wolfowitz added that the United States should recognize "a provisional government of free Iraq," and that the best place to look for such a government was "with the current organization and principles of [Ahmed Chalabi's] Iraqi National Congress."[21] Thus, write Halper and Clarke, "in only a few years since the Soviet collapse, neoconservatism had refocused itself as an interventionist lobby intent above all else on waging a second Gulf war."[22]

- See more at: Project for the New American Century - Profile - Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies

Perle and Berger.. I think they got to them too.. It's not a partisan mistake.. A large part of the Clinton Admin was predisposed to view PNAC's suggestions favorably. Hence -- the "war on Iraq" tour hit the road in 1998..

You're a hoot

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are really outta your league here son