Why the "slam dunk" statement was made...

[rightwinger]

Iraq was a huge mistake and you cannot polish that turd enough to make it not a mistake. Even the Republican candidates are running away from defending that **** up. Even among them the consensus is that they would not have went if they knew what they know now. Even trying to make it seem like an honest mistake requires massive history revision that only a total dumb-ass would attempt or believe.

Tell me in one sentence why you are unhappy that 2.8 million kids that would have starved are still alive if the Liberation of Iraq had not happened?

Quit calling it the "liberation of Iraq" as if we did them any favors. I do not know where you got your figures (and I don't really care) but it is conjecture, we have very real figures of dead, missing and displaced native Iraqis and damage to their country that is a direct result of our war there. We fucked the place up so bad it cannot be fixed until they get tired of killing each other. Saddam was a ******* evil bastard who needed to be deposed but he was not ******* his country up as badly as we ended up doing. We didn't do them any favors at all. Everything is worse, quit trying to justify it on those grounds.

God, you Monday morning quarterbacks are so totally pathetic. You have the luxury of hindsight, something Bush never had. He had to deal with what was presented to him at the time, by people he trusted.

That's a lie. The case to go to war was systematically crafted by the Administration in one of the most elaborate propaganda schemes ever carried out.

Right, every credible intel agency in the world agreed, what a freaking conspiracy.

Yet, most of the world did not think the threat was worth invading Iraq for



.

 

[BlindBoo]

24 February 2001 the Secretary of State said:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

Furthermore, on 15 May 2001, Powell testified before the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee

The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.

On 29 July 2001, Condoleezza Rice

Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly.

Notice that she makes it clear that Bush is the one who considers Hussein a threat. She doesn't say, "I consider..." or even, "We consider..."

Then King asks her about the sanctions against Iraq. She replies:

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

So we know where the policy came from (that they were fixing the facts for).

The Memory Hole 2001 Powell Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat

 

[healthmyths]

24 February 2001 the Secretary of State said:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

Furthermore, on 15 May 2001, Powell testified before the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Subcommittee

The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained. And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological and nuclear -- I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful. There's no question that they have some stockpiles of some of these sorts of weapons still under their control, but they have not been able to break out, they have not been able to come out with the capacity to deliver these kinds of systems or to actually have these kinds of systems that is much beyond where they were 10 years ago.

On 29 July 2001, Condoleezza Rice

Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly.

Notice that she makes it clear that Bush is the one who considers Hussein a threat. She doesn't say, "I consider..." or even, "We consider..."

Then King asks her about the sanctions against Iraq. She replies:

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

So we know where the policy came from (that they were fixing the facts for).

The Memory Hole 2001 Powell Rice Declare Iraq Has No WMD and Is Not a Threat

And most of you forget... there was that little issue of a "1991 Cease Fire"!!!!
Desert Storm was never finished. So when Saddam continued to snub the dozens of UN sanctions the 9/11 and Anthrax attacks were the last straw.
Only chicksh..ts who have no integrity loved Saddam and didn't want the 114,000 children to live that he was starving each year ALL because he wouldn't certify his WMDs were destroyed!
Most normal civilized leaders would NOT allow children to starve IF all he needed to do was
certify WMDs were destroyed! That's all he had to do!
But like YOU Saddam was an idiot without any compassion for starving Iraqi children and had no problem in continuing the farce.
Almost anyone knowing that all Saddam had to do was certify and the sanctions would be lifted
would assume the guy was either telling the truth i.e. he had WMDs or he was crazy!

Besides there were more benefits then WMDs involved here ...like 28 million Iraqis freed from a crazed dictator that used drills on his subjects!

 

[BlindBoo]

there was that little issue of a "1991 Cease Fire"!!!!

My god, did he start shooting at Kuwait again?

Iraq declared it was in compliance and had dismantled all WMD plants. It was all verified except a small percentage of precursor chemicals it had imported from a Germany company.

All the invasion and occupation accomplished was to further sully the USA brand, breakup the Iraq state, destroy the tenuous balance of power in the ME and perhaps spark a regional war. Sheesh, no wonder your guys want to pawn off their responsibility onto Presidents Clinton and Obama.

 

[healthmyths]

'
––

there was that little issue of a "1991 Cease Fire"!!!!

My god, did he start shooting at Kuwait again?

Iraq declared it was in compliance and had dismantled all WMD plants. It was all verified except a small percentage of precursor chemicals it had imported from a Germany company.

All the invasion and occupation accomplished was to further sully the USA brand, breakup the Iraq state, destroy the tenuous balance of power in the ME and perhaps spark a regional war. Sheesh, no wonder your guys want to pawn off their responsibility onto Presidents Clinton and Obama.

So why weren't the Sanctions lifted? All Saddam had to do was certify and he never did! Even after he was captured he continued to refuse to acknowledge WMDs were gone.

 

[BlindBoo]

So why weren't the Sanctions lifted?

Veto power in the UN by the US and the UK. Russia, China, and France all wanted to lifting the sanctions.

 

[OKTexas]

Tell me in one sentence why you are unhappy that 2.8 million kids that would have starved are still alive if the Liberation of Iraq had not happened?

Quit calling it the "liberation of Iraq" as if we did them any favors. I do not know where you got your figures (and I don't really care) but it is conjecture, we have very real figures of dead, missing and displaced native Iraqis and damage to their country that is a direct result of our war there. We fucked the place up so bad it cannot be fixed until they get tired of killing each other. Saddam was a ******* evil bastard who needed to be deposed but he was not ******* his country up as badly as we ended up doing. We didn't do them any favors at all. Everything is worse, quit trying to justify it on those grounds.

God, you Monday morning quarterbacks are so totally pathetic. You have the luxury of hindsight, something Bush never had. He had to deal with what was presented to him at the time, by people he trusted.

That's a lie. The case to go to war was systematically crafted by the Administration in one of the most elaborate propaganda schemes ever carried out.

Right, every credible intel agency in the world agreed, what a freaking conspiracy.

Yet, most of the world did not think the threat was worth invading Iraq for



.

Oh right, that's why more than a third of the worlds nations (60) participated. You pathetic aholes are so easy to prove wrong.

http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/059/59-3-1/CMH_59-3-1.pdf

 

[rightwinger]

Quit calling it the "liberation of Iraq" as if we did them any favors. I do not know where you got your figures (and I don't really care) but it is conjecture, we have very real figures of dead, missing and displaced native Iraqis and damage to their country that is a direct result of our war there. We fucked the place up so bad it cannot be fixed until they get tired of killing each other. Saddam was a ******* evil bastard who needed to be deposed but he was not ******* his country up as badly as we ended up doing. We didn't do them any favors at all. Everything is worse, quit trying to justify it on those grounds.

God, you Monday morning quarterbacks are so totally pathetic. You have the luxury of hindsight, something Bush never had. He had to deal with what was presented to him at the time, by people he trusted.

That's a lie. The case to go to war was systematically crafted by the Administration in one of the most elaborate propaganda schemes ever carried out.

Right, every credible intel agency in the world agreed, what a freaking conspiracy.

Yet, most of the world did not think the threat was worth invading Iraq for



.

Oh right, that's why more than a third of the worlds nations (60) participated. You pathetic aholes are so easy to prove wrong.

http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/059/59-3-1/CMH_59-3-1.pdf

Oh yes.......the "Coalition of the Willing"

Willing to accept a U.S. payout to send a few support troops

 

[rightwinger]

Quit calling it the "liberation of Iraq" as if we did them any favors. I do not know where you got your figures (and I don't really care) but it is conjecture, we have very real figures of dead, missing and displaced native Iraqis and damage to their country that is a direct result of our war there. We fucked the place up so bad it cannot be fixed until they get tired of killing each other. Saddam was a ******* evil bastard who needed to be deposed but he was not ******* his country up as badly as we ended up doing. We didn't do them any favors at all. Everything is worse, quit trying to justify it on those grounds.

God, you Monday morning quarterbacks are so totally pathetic. You have the luxury of hindsight, something Bush never had. He had to deal with what was presented to him at the time, by people he trusted.

That's a lie. The case to go to war was systematically crafted by the Administration in one of the most elaborate propaganda schemes ever carried out.

Right, every credible intel agency in the world agreed, what a freaking conspiracy.

Yet, most of the world did not think the threat was worth invading Iraq for



.

Oh right, that's why more than a third of the worlds nations (60) participated. You pathetic aholes are so easy to prove wrong.

http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/059/59-3-1/CMH_59-3-1.pdf

Oh yes.......the "Coalition of the Willing"

Willing to accept a U.S. payout to send a few support troops

 

[OKTexas]

God, you Monday morning quarterbacks are so totally pathetic. You have the luxury of hindsight, something Bush never had. He had to deal with what was presented to him at the time, by people he trusted.

That's a lie. The case to go to war was systematically crafted by the Administration in one of the most elaborate propaganda schemes ever carried out.

Right, every credible intel agency in the world agreed, what a freaking conspiracy.

Yet, most of the world did not think the threat was worth invading Iraq for



.

Oh right, that's why more than a third of the worlds nations (60) participated. You pathetic aholes are so easy to prove wrong.

http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/059/59-3-1/CMH_59-3-1.pdf

Oh yes.......the "Coalition of the Willing"

Willing to accept a U.S. payout to send a few support troops

They sent 150,000, is that a few, really?

 

[Nyvin]

That's a lie. The case to go to war was systematically crafted by the Administration in one of the most elaborate propaganda schemes ever carried out.

Right, every credible intel agency in the world agreed, what a freaking conspiracy.

Yet, most of the world did not think the threat was worth invading Iraq for



.

Oh right, that's why more than a third of the worlds nations (60) participated. You pathetic aholes are so easy to prove wrong.

http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/059/59-3-1/CMH_59-3-1.pdf

Oh yes.......the "Coalition of the Willing"

Willing to accept a U.S. payout to send a few support troops

They sent 150,000, is that a few, really?

Every country except the UK and the USA contributed less than 4,000.

The vast majority sent fewer than 500

 

[OKTexas]

Right, every credible intel agency in the world agreed, what a freaking conspiracy.

Yet, most of the world did not think the threat was worth invading Iraq for



.

Oh right, that's why more than a third of the worlds nations (60) participated. You pathetic aholes are so easy to prove wrong.

http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/059/59-3-1/CMH_59-3-1.pdf

Oh yes.......the "Coalition of the Willing"

Willing to accept a U.S. payout to send a few support troops

They sent 150,000, is that a few, really?

Every country except the UK and the USA contributed less than 4,000.

The vast majority sent fewer than 500

Well, I guess in your simple mind that makes it like they were never part of the coalition. Give me a freaking break!

 

[edthecynic]

The Bush (Cheney) Administration pushed the CIA into producing fake reports about Iraq and then utilized 9/11 into a fear-mongering parade to force everyone in Congress to support the invasion of Iraq or be vilified.

Oh, the poor ruling democrats were "forced."

What a fucktard. Was Clinton forced in 97'? You are spinning a partisan fantasy.

The occupation was a mess and Bush signed the treaty in 2008 to pull out of Iraq in the next few years, Iran more or less takes over Iraq.

The invasion led to us swapping one oppressor for the other....instead of Saddam and the Sunni's killing the Shia's and Kurds it was now Iran and the Shia's in Iraq killing the Sunni's and everyone killing the Kurds. Only now the Sunni's have tons of US military gear so they rise up and start a terrorist group.

Thanks Bush!

Regardless, you're lying through your ******* teeth about the drive to Iraq - your filthy party is every bit as culpable for the Iraq war as Bush.

{
This is a time of tremendous promise for America. The superpower confrontation has ended; on every continent democracy is securing for more and more people the basic freedoms we Americans have come to take for granted. Bit by bit the information age is chipping away at the barriers economic, political and social that once kept people locked in and freedom and prosperity locked out.

But for all our promise, all our opportunity, people in this room know very well that this is not a time free from peril, especially as a result of reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals.

We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They feed on the free flow of information and technology. They actually take advantage of the freer movement of people, information and ideas.

And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.

I want the American people to understand first the past how did this crisis come about?

And I want them to understand what we must do to protect the national interest, and indeed the interest of all freedom-loving people in the world.} President BILL CLINTON, 1998.

One does have to wonder what changed from the time Bill Clinton absolutely did NOT lie to us in the above statement and Bush absolutely DID lie to us when we liberated Iraq. Did Bubba know something Bush didn't?

"We are now convinced Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction or active programs."
- President Bill Clinton, August 9th, 2000

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Why the "slam dunk" statement was made..."

Because GWB was hell-bent on going to war, regardless the facts and evidence demonstrating that an invasion of Iraq was completely unwarranted.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bush and his administration did NOT take us to war on faulty intel.

The Bush administration claimed Saddam had nukes - the intel people did not tell them that.

The Bush administration claimed Saddam had ties to al Qaeda - the intel people did not tell them that.

Colin Powell went to the UN with 'evidence' that was entirely fabricated.

 

[healthmyths]

Bush and his administration did NOT take us to war on faulty intel.

The Bush administration claimed Saddam had nukes - the intel people did not tell them that.

The Bush administration claimed Saddam had ties to al Qaeda - the intel people did not tell them that.

Colin Powell went to the UN with 'evidence' that was entirely fabricated.

Saddam told the world HE HAD NOT DESTROYED his WMDs and to prove it he allowed 144,000 kids to starve every year.

In 1995 as many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com
1991 CEASE FIRE to 1995 is 4 years.. 576,000 starved is 144,000 kids a year.
1995 to 2015 is 20 years... If Saddam still in power at 144,000 times 20 years that is 2.8 million children that would have starved.
But of course crude people like you with no compassion would have NO problem with Saddam staying in power and these kids dying!

So everyone is so concerned there were no WMDs but Saddam told us by his ACTIONS.. i.e. he allowed 144,000 kids to starve proving he
had WMDs to any logical rational leader, i.e. Bush,etc.

 

[rightwinger]

That's a lie. The case to go to war was systematically crafted by the Administration in one of the most elaborate propaganda schemes ever carried out.

Right, every credible intel agency in the world agreed, what a freaking conspiracy.

Yet, most of the world did not think the threat was worth invading Iraq for



.

Oh right, that's why more than a third of the worlds nations (60) participated. You pathetic aholes are so easy to prove wrong.

http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/059/59-3-1/CMH_59-3-1.pdf

Oh yes.......the "Coalition of the Willing"

Willing to accept a U.S. payout to send a few support troops

They sent 150,000, is that a few, really?

And take out the British and you get what? Like 3000 of the "willing" working in logistics support roles

 

[SwimExpert]

 

[rightwinger]

Bush and his administration did NOT take us to war on faulty intel.

The Bush administration claimed Saddam had nukes - the intel people did not tell them that.

The Bush administration claimed Saddam had ties to al Qaeda - the intel people did not tell them that.

Colin Powell went to the UN with 'evidence' that was entirely fabricated.

And each and every time the message was the same: If we didn't wage war, Iraq was going to attack the United States homeland with its enormous arsenal of ghastly weapons, and who knows how many Americans would perish. When you actually spell it out like that it sounds almost comical, but that was the Bush administration's assertion, repeated hundreds upon hundreds of time to a public still skittish in the wake of September 11. (Remember, the campaign for the war began less than a year after the September 11 attacks.)
Sometimes this message was imparted with specific false claims, sometimes with dark insinuation, and sometimes with speculation about the horrors to come ("We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," said Bush and others when asked about the thinness of much of their evidence). Yet the conclusion was always the same: The only alternative to invading Iraq was waiting around to be killed.

George W. Bush didn t just lie about the Iraq War. What he did was much worse.

 

[healthmyths]

Bush and his administration did NOT take us to war on faulty intel.

The Bush administration claimed Saddam had nukes - the intel people did not tell them that.

The Bush administration claimed Saddam had ties to al Qaeda - the intel people did not tell them that.

Colin Powell went to the UN with 'evidence' that was entirely fabricated.

And each and every time the message was the same: If we didn't wage war, Iraq was going to attack the United States homeland with its enormous arsenal of ghastly weapons, and who knows how many Americans would perish. When you actually spell it out like that it sounds almost comical, but that was the Bush administration's assertion, repeated hundreds upon hundreds of time to a public still skittish in the wake of September 11. (Remember, the campaign for the war began less than a year after the September 11 attacks.)
Sometimes this message was imparted with specific false claims, sometimes with dark insinuation, and sometimes with speculation about the horrors to come ("We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," said Bush and others when asked about the thinness of much of their evidence). Yet the conclusion was always the same: The only alternative to invading Iraq was waiting around to be killed.

George W. Bush didn t just lie about the Iraq War. What he did was much worse.

Iraq has been identified as the most likely source of the anthrax used to terrorise America during recent weeks.
Now plans are now being considered for retaliatory military strikes against Saddam Hussein, according to American government officials.
Although studies of the anthrax spores sent through the mail are continuing, American scientists have discovered 'hall-marks' that point to Iraqi involvement.
American investigators are increasingly convinced that the anthrax was smuggled into the US and mailed to a number of targets by unidentified 'sleeper' supporters of Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda organisation.
Sources admit the American government may never be able to conclusively prove Iraqi involvement, nor identify and capture the individuals who posted the anthrax that has killed two postal workers and a newspaper picture editor.
But they increasingly believe Iraq supplied anthrax to Bin Laden's terrorist group, and expect the war on terrorism to be widened to include attacks on Saddam Hussein's regime.
The first giveaway pointing us towards Iraq is just how professional some of this [anthrax] is,' said one senior US intelligence source. 'Anthrax is not hard to produce, but it is difficult to turn it into a potent weapon.'
Scientists have discovered that the anthrax particles posted to Senator Tom Daschle were much smaller and more potent than anthrax used in other attacks.
In recent days, American scientists have also discovered the presence of a thin brown coating around the spores identified as a clay that can help to keep anthrax particles airborne and prevents them sticking together.
The clay is easy to obtain, but difficult to mix with anthrax, and Iraqi scientists are the only biological warfare specialists known to have used the clay in their anthrax programme. 'It is increasingly likely this anthrax was produced outside America and then smuggled into the country by Al Qaeda operatives we have not yet identified,' said another US official.
Options for retaliation against Iraq include missile strikes on Baghdad and carpet-bombing major Iraqi military bases.
Hawks within the American establishment - remembering that the US threatened Iraq with nuclear retaliation if chemical or biological weapons were used against Allied forces during the Gulf War - are believed to have proposed the use of even deadlier weapons.
However, unless conclusive proof of Iraqi involvement emerges, the US administration will move slowly against Saddam, first demanding that he hands over suspects linked to previous terrorist attacks.
Scientists link Iraq to anthrax terror attacks Daily Mail Online

The 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, also known as Amerithrax from its Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) case name, occurred over the course of several weeks beginning on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, one week after the September 11 attacks. Letters containing anthrax spores were mailed to several news media offices and two DemocraticU.S. Senators, killing five people and infecting 17 others. According to the FBI, the ensuing investigation became "one of the largest and most complex in the history of law enforcement".
2001 anthrax attacks - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Last week, I excerpted several of the Saddam-anthrax reports from ABC and Ross — hereand here — but there are others. ABC aggressively promoted as its top story for days on end during that highly provocative period of time that — and these are all quotes:

(a) “the anthrax in the tainted letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle was laced with bentonite”;
(b) bentonite is “a troubling chemical additive that authorities consider their first significant clue yet”;
(c) “only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons”;
(d) bentonite “is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program”; and,
(e) “the anthrax found in a letter to Senator Daschle is nearly identical to samples they recovered in Iraq in 1994″ and “the anthrax spores found in the letter to Senator Daschle are almost identical in appearance to those they recovered in Iraq in 1994 when viewed under an electron microscope.”
At different times, Ross attributed these claims to “three well-placed but separate sources” and, alternatively, to “at least four well-placed sources.”
All of those factual claims — each and every one of them, separately — were completely false, demonstrably and unquestionably so. There is now no question about that. Yet neither ABC nor Ross have ever retracted, corrected, clarified, or explained these fraudulent reports — reports which, as documented below, had an extremely serious impact on the views formed by Americans in those early, critical days about the relationship between the 9/11 attacks, the anthrax attacks and Iraq. There are two vital questions that ABC News should answer:
The unresolved story of ABC News false Saddam-anthrax reports - Salon.com