Why would anyone continue to claim the iraqi war was a failure?

[geauxtohell]

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

In bullet point format:

- Trash our reputation by invading a country on false pretenses.
- Loss of American lives and resources on a mission that can't be adequately tied to our security at home.
- Greatly empowering Iran and elevating their status in the region by removing their key rival.
- Greatly empowering China, our future economic rival, through borrowing from them to finance the war.
- Entering in a mission where the best case scenario is establishment of a quasi democratic state akin to Saudi Arabia, which is the home and birthplace of the radical wahibbist mentality that Al Queda adheres too.

We haven't yet begun to pay the bill for Iraq, both in fiscal cost and reprecussions, and you are calling it a victory?

You are demonstrative of the collective ignorance of simple cause and effect in this country that has allowed us to evolve into a nation full of people who think that military intervention at the drop of a hat is the solution to every problem.

 

[MikeK]

Most of the intel for Iraq was made up. Additionally, the entire case for WMD's being in Iraq was based on ONLY ONE PERSON, who wasn't even American.

They sold the lie to Colin Powell (who didn't know it was a lie), and he's the one that sold it to the UN. After he'd found out that Bush Jr. lied to him about the intel, he resigned.

Additionally, the cost for the entire war was kept out of the budget, which is why Obama inherited such a massive debt.

The only reason we went into Iraq was because Jr. was pissed that Saddam had dissed his father, and he wanted their oil. Ask Greenspan.

And......what's even worse, is that 2 years after 9/11, Jr. stated that he was "no longer interested in OBL".

Nope, Iraq was a miserable failure on so many levels. Anyone who believes otherwise is either retarded, brain dead or some combination of the 2.

I agree with what you've said here with one exception, which is your belief that Colin Powell didn't know it was a lie.

Colin Powell is a treacherous, self-serving sonofabitch whose primary skill is serving his masters. One does not become Chairman of The Joint Chiefs then Secretary of State without being quite politically astute. And considering the level of intelligence and inside information he had access to there is no way he couldn't know exactly what was going on without being truly stupid -- and Colin Powell is far from stupid. He knew exactly what he was doing and he did it for the payoff, which was high-ranking political appointment.

If it were true that Powell had been hoodwinked by Bush he would be screaming from the rooftops about it. But he's been in hiding like the weasel he is, making an occasional appearance to test the water.

I hold him responsible for the unnecessary death and maiming of tens of thousands of people including the American military personnel whom he commanded. He deserves to be stood against a wall, stripped and shot.

 

[JRK]

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

In bullet point format:

- Trash our reputation by invading a country on false pretenses.
- Loss of American lives and resources on a mission that can't be adequately tied to our security at home.
- Greatly empowering Iran and elevating their status in the region by removing their key rival.
- Greatly empowering China, our future economic rival, through borrowing from them to finance the war.
- Entering in a mission where the best case scenario is establishment of a quasi democratic state akin to Saudi Arabia, which is the home and birthplace of the radical wahibbist mentality that Al Queda adheres too.

We haven't yet begun to pay the bill for Iraq, both in fiscal cost and reprecussions, and you are calling it a victory?

You are demonstrative of the collective ignorance of simple cause and effect in this country that has allowed us to evolve into a nation full of people who think that military intervention at the drop of a hat is the solution to every problem.

false pretenses?
Pajamas Media » Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria
U.N. NEEDS TO MAKE GOOD ON BROKEN RESOLUTIONS. - Free Online Library
Let's be clear what we're talking about here. Here's a partial list of what we know Iraq has developed and for which it has not accounted: 6,869 gallons of anthrax, almost 320 gallons of botulinum toxin, 550 mustard gas-filled artillery shells, 400 biological weapon-capable aerial bombs and nearly 30,000 empty munitions that could be filled with chemical agents.

Iraq says those inventories have been destroyed. It offers no proof. Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has noted that the government is meticulous in every other aspect of its record-keeping. It is therefore incomprehensible that they should have no record of having destroyed thousands of gallons of anthrax, botulinum toxin, and aflatoxin they had admitted having.

More lies and subterfuge.

In November, the U.N. Security Council voted on its 17th resolution ordering Iraq to disarm. All 15 Security Council members - including France, Russia and China - voted for U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. The resolution warned of ``serious consequences'' should Saddam fail to comply this time.
Thats no lie, you allowed the liberal media make it into a lie. These items existed, they have never been found
2) empower Iran? there surrounded if you have not noticed, get it?
3) finance the war? what about the debt BHO has gave us for 2009? its 500 billion more than the Iraq war total
CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act - FoxNews.com
Yes, the goals set forth by congress as well as the american people where met
sorry? not at all
Please try and use accurate information ion the future

 

[JRK]

Most of the intel for Iraq was made up. Additionally, the entire case for WMD's being in Iraq was based on ONLY ONE PERSON, who wasn't even American.

They sold the lie to Colin Powell (who didn't know it was a lie), and he's the one that sold it to the UN. After he'd found out that Bush Jr. lied to him about the intel, he resigned.

Additionally, the cost for the entire war was kept out of the budget, which is why Obama inherited such a massive debt.

The only reason we went into Iraq was because Jr. was pissed that Saddam had dissed his father, and he wanted their oil. Ask Greenspan.

And......what's even worse, is that 2 years after 9/11, Jr. stated that he was "no longer interested in OBL".

Nope, Iraq was a miserable failure on so many levels. Anyone who believes otherwise is either retarded, brain dead or some combination of the 2.

I agree with what you've said here with one exception, which is your belief that Colin Powell didn't know it was a lie.

Colin Powell is a treacherous, self-serving sonofabitch whose primary skill is serving his masters. One does not become Chairman of The Joint Chiefs then Secretary of State without being quite politically astute. And considering the level of intelligence and inside information he had access to there is no way he couldn't know exactly what was going on without being truly stupid -- and Colin Powell is far from stupid. He knew exactly what he was doing and he did it for the payoff, which was high-ranking political appointment.

If it were true that Powell had been hoodwinked by Bush he would be screaming from the rooftops about it. But he's been in hiding like the weasel he is, making an occasional appearance to test the water.

I hold him responsible for the unnecessary death and maiming of tens of thousands of people including the American military personnel whom he commanded. He deserves to be stood against a wall, stripped and shot.

tell me where these stock-piles went then?
THE League of Nations' covenant, signed in the wake of World War I, declared that an attack on one was an attack on them all. World War II and the demise of the League resulted when it failed to live up to that covenant.

Today, the United Nations faces a similar test. For 12 years the U.N. has ordered Saddam Hussein - through 17 Security Council resolutions - to destroy his weapons of mass destruction. For 12 years, Saddam Hussein has refused, using lies and subterfuge to thwart the will of the world community.

If the U.N. fails to enforce its resolutions, the butcher of Baghdad wins. Should the U.N. fail to act decisively, it will whither on the vine of irrelevancy and, as a result, the world will become perilous and unpredictable.


That is why President Bush is trying so hard to get the U.N. to live up to its responsibilities. The United Nations is far from perfect. But now more than ever the world needs a strong and determined deliberative world body that will back its words with action and stand up to terrorists and those who harbor and supply them.

So far its actions have been weak and ineffective.

The United States is not alone in the world, nor should it be. The war against terror affects every free society on Earth. The United States should not be forced to be the world's policeman. We do not seek to fight terrorism alone. But neither will we willingly allow our enemies another opportunity to commit another 9-11, another USS Cole, or another Sudan embassy.

Let's be clear what we're talking about here. Here's a partial list of what we know Iraq has developed and for which it has not accounted: 6,869 gallons of anthrax, almost 320 gallons of botulinum toxin, 550 mustard gas-filled artillery shells, 400 biological weapon-capable aerial bombs and nearly 30,000 empty munitions that could be filled with chemical agents.

Iraq says those inventories have been destroyed. It offers no proof. Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has noted that the government is meticulous in every other aspect of its record-keeping. It is therefore incomprehensible that they should have no record of having destroyed thousands of gallons of anthrax, botulinum toxin, and aflatoxin they had admitted having.

More lies and subterfuge.

In November, the U.N. Security Council voted on its 17th resolution ordering Iraq to disarm. All 15 Security Council members - including France, Russia and China - voted for U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. The resolution warned of ``serious consequences'' should Saddam fail to comply this time.

And what are the ``serious consequences'' proposed by France, Russia and China? More inspections that have failed to move Iraq one iota closer to the goal of 1441, which is disarmament, not inspections.

Saddam is so confident of the U.N.'s impotency that he has challenged Bush to a debate on Iraq's future. He is laughing at the U.N.

The time for debate has ended. The world stands perilously at a historical crossroads. Humanity stood at those crossroads before - prior to 1939. Inaction led to World War II. Is that to be the United Nation's legacy? I pray not.
CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act - FoxNews.com

 

[geauxtohell]

1) REMOVE SADDAM
DONE
2) STABILIZE COUNTRY
DONE
3) HAVE A REPUBLIC BORN OF THESE EVENTS
DONE

Am missing something here?

In bullet point format:

- Trash our reputation by invading a country on false pretenses.
- Loss of American lives and resources on a mission that can't be adequately tied to our security at home.
- Greatly empowering Iran and elevating their status in the region by removing their key rival.
- Greatly empowering China, our future economic rival, through borrowing from them to finance the war.
- Entering in a mission where the best case scenario is establishment of a quasi democratic state akin to Saudi Arabia, which is the home and birthplace of the radical wahibbist mentality that Al Queda adheres too.

We haven't yet begun to pay the bill for Iraq, both in fiscal cost and reprecussions, and you are calling it a victory?

You are demonstrative of the collective ignorance of simple cause and effect in this country that has allowed us to evolve into a nation full of people who think that military intervention at the drop of a hat is the solution to every problem.

false pretenses?
Pajamas Media » Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria
U.N. NEEDS TO MAKE GOOD ON BROKEN RESOLUTIONS. - Free Online Library
Let's be clear what we're talking about here. Here's a partial list of what we know Iraq has developed and for which it has not accounted: 6,869 gallons of anthrax, almost 320 gallons of botulinum toxin, 550 mustard gas-filled artillery shells, 400 biological weapon-capable aerial bombs and nearly 30,000 empty munitions that could be filled with chemical agents.

Iraq says those inventories have been destroyed. It offers no proof. Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has noted that the government is meticulous in every other aspect of its record-keeping. It is therefore incomprehensible that they should have no record of having destroyed thousands of gallons of anthrax, botulinum toxin, and aflatoxin they had admitted having.

More lies and subterfuge.

In November, the U.N. Security Council voted on its 17th resolution ordering Iraq to disarm. All 15 Security Council members - including France, Russia and China - voted for U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. The resolution warned of ``serious consequences'' should Saddam fail to comply this time.
Thats no lie, you allowed the liberal media make it into a lie. These items existed, they have never been found
2) empower Iran? there surrounded if you have not noticed, get it?
3) finance the war? what about the debt BHO has gave us for 2009? its 500 billion more than the Iraq war total
CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act - FoxNews.com
Yes, the goals set forth by congress as well as the american people where met
sorry? not at all
Please try and use accurate information ion the future

Wow. You are actually going to try and debate the WMD issue in the present tense?

You do realize that this is indeed the "future" where we have invaded Iraq, found jack shit, discovered that top government officials were complicit in distorting information about WMDs to get us into Iraq, and that the whole thing was a ******* fabrication, right?

Get on message. After the WMD thing went bust, the new talking point is that we invaded Iraq to "spread democracy". Once again, that's "to spread democracy".

 

[JRK]

In bullet point format:

- Trash our reputation by invading a country on false pretenses.
- Loss of American lives and resources on a mission that can't be adequately tied to our security at home.
- Greatly empowering Iran and elevating their status in the region by removing their key rival.
- Greatly empowering China, our future economic rival, through borrowing from them to finance the war.
- Entering in a mission where the best case scenario is establishment of a quasi democratic state akin to Saudi Arabia, which is the home and birthplace of the radical wahibbist mentality that Al Queda adheres too.

We haven't yet begun to pay the bill for Iraq, both in fiscal cost and reprecussions, and you are calling it a victory?

You are demonstrative of the collective ignorance of simple cause and effect in this country that has allowed us to evolve into a nation full of people who think that military intervention at the drop of a hat is the solution to every problem.

false pretenses?
Pajamas Media » Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria
U.N. NEEDS TO MAKE GOOD ON BROKEN RESOLUTIONS. - Free Online Library
Let's be clear what we're talking about here. Here's a partial list of what we know Iraq has developed and for which it has not accounted: 6,869 gallons of anthrax, almost 320 gallons of botulinum toxin, 550 mustard gas-filled artillery shells, 400 biological weapon-capable aerial bombs and nearly 30,000 empty munitions that could be filled with chemical agents.

Iraq says those inventories have been destroyed. It offers no proof. Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has noted that the government is meticulous in every other aspect of its record-keeping. It is therefore incomprehensible that they should have no record of having destroyed thousands of gallons of anthrax, botulinum toxin, and aflatoxin they had admitted having.

More lies and subterfuge.

In November, the U.N. Security Council voted on its 17th resolution ordering Iraq to disarm. All 15 Security Council members - including France, Russia and China - voted for U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441. The resolution warned of ``serious consequences'' should Saddam fail to comply this time.
Thats no lie, you allowed the liberal media make it into a lie. These items existed, they have never been found
2) empower Iran? there surrounded if you have not noticed, get it?
3) finance the war? what about the debt BHO has gave us for 2009? its 500 billion more than the Iraq war total
CBO: Eight Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act - FoxNews.com
Yes, the goals set forth by congress as well as the american people where met
sorry? not at all
Please try and use accurate information ion the future

Wow. You are actually going to try and debate the WMD issue in the present tense?

You do realize that this is indeed the "future" where we have invaded Iraq, found jack shit, discovered that top government officials were complicit in distorting information about WMDs to get us into Iraq, and that the whole thing was a ******* fabrication, right?

Get on message. After the WMD thing went bust, the new talking point is that we invaded Iraq to "spread democracy". Once again, that's "to spread democracy".

The message is one the media made up
All W ever said was he admitted we never found the stock-piles we thought we would
Look those stock-piles where there
This information came from the UN, not the CIA, not England

Let's be clear what we're talking about here. Here's a partial list of what we know Iraq has developed and for which it has not accounted: 6,869 gallons of anthrax, almost 320 gallons of botulinum toxin, 550 mustard gas-filled artillery shells, 400 biological weapon-capable aerial bombs and nearly 30,000 empty munitions that could be filled with chemical agents.

Iraq says those inventories have been destroyed. It offers no proof. Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has noted that the government is meticulous in every other aspect of its record-keeping. It is therefore incomprehensible that they should have no record of having destroyed thousands of gallons of anthrax, botulinum toxin, and aflatoxin they had admitted having.


every-one acts as though this information 5 weeks after congress voted to support the war did not exist
this is the UN
why would any-one then think different or today?
your calling the UN the liar here, not me, not W

where did they go?
Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria - Christian Forums

 

[georgephillip]

Justify the killing of 99,980 - 109,230 Iraqi civilians.

"A peer-reviewed study in PLoS Medicine, based on IBC data, provides the most detailed assessment thus far of civilian deaths in the course of the recent Iraq war. Feb 2011"

If you dispute these numbers, feel free to share your assessment and methodology.

Justify Lying.

The United States did NOT kill 100,000 Iraqis. Even the Soros site you quote acknowledges that the majority of deaths are due to sectarian violence.

Yes, you hate America, yes, you hate George Bush, yes, you hate anyone to the right of Stalin: BUT - does that really justify your shameless lying?

It makes me sick and why they do it I have no idea

We do it for the big $.

What motivates you to shill for war criminals?

 

[geauxtohell]

The message is one the media made up

Oh, bullshit. Stop blaming ancillary figures for the **** ups of the most powerful man in the world, the President of the United States. It makes you look absurd.

All W ever said was he admitted we never found the stock-piles we thought we would

He sure did....

Look those stock-piles where there
This information came from the UN, not the CIA, not England

Let's be clear what we're talking about here. Here's a partial list of what we know Iraq has developed and for which it has not accounted: 6,869 gallons of anthrax, almost 320 gallons of botulinum toxin, 550 mustard gas-filled artillery shells, 400 biological weapon-capable aerial bombs and nearly 30,000 empty munitions that could be filled with chemical agents.

Iraq says those inventories have been destroyed. It offers no proof. Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has noted that the government is meticulous in every other aspect of its record-keeping. It is therefore incomprehensible that they should have no record of having destroyed thousands of gallons of anthrax, botulinum toxin, and aflatoxin they had admitted having.

I love it when you guys quote Hans Blix to try and buoy your point. Both Hans Blix and the UN strongly advocated against us going into Iraq and allowing them to continue their work.

Perhaps you should quote Mr. Blix in a manner that is more consistent with his views:

CNN.com - Blix takes Washington to task - Jun. 12, 2003

every-one acts as though this information 5 weeks after congress voted to support the war did not exist
this is the UN
why would any-one then think different or today?

Because we didn't find a damned thing?

your calling the UN the liar here, not me, not W

Yeah, as if Bush and his minions didn't make their own claims about "wmds". Stop hiding behind the UN. They did not support military intervention in Iraq. Bush went in unilaterally.

where did they go?
Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria - Christian Forums

Of course, in the absence of a smoking gun, which would have vindicated the Bush Administration (to some), we have to make up an excuse to try and cover our asses. It's all speculative, we don't know what, if anything, was transported our of the country prior to our invasion.

It also misses the point. If you are going to pick the fight, you'd damn sure better make sure you are right. Otherwise, you look stupid.

BTW, did you notice how the mission changed from "WMDs" to "spreading democracy"? The Bush propaganda machine must have been working overtime on that one.

Even the Bush administration knew they had screwed the pooch on the WMD thing.

Amazingly, people still bought it.

The truth is, various factions of the Bush Administration wanted to go into Iraq prior September 11th for a variety of reasons. September 11th provided them with enough wiggle room to crook the intelligence and fool the American people into thinking that we were in danger. Perhaps you forget: "We don't want to smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud over NYC....". The American people would have never supported toppling Hussein without that. Once we were in, it was too late and then we basically had to watch as the Bush Administration turned this into a nation building mission.

At any rate, all this is aside the point. You asked how people could consider this to be a "failure". You've been provided with many reasons. You seem to want to ignore then in favor of arguing about whether we were justified into going into Iraq. That's irrelevant. We went into Iraq. Now we are talking about the aftermath.

On that note, if the WMDs were moved into Syria as you claim, it means that they are still out there and in the hands of a nation that sponsors terrorism. That would go on the list as another failure.

 

[georgephillip]

Limited resources. Have to prioritize.

I think it was more a time limit. They couldn't allow the weapons inspectors to verify that Saddam was in compliance with the UNSC resolutions.

Yeah. That's it. Secure the oil minisrty so the weapons inspectors can't do their job.


Tell me:
Why couldn't the inspectors verify that before the war?
What prompted Hans Blix to state, in February, that Iraq "has not made the fundamental decision to disarm"?

Dr. Blix also admitted he hadn't found any "smoking guns."

"Dr Blix said his team of inspectors had visited 500 sites but found no evidence of weapons of mass destruction.

"As head of the UN's Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) between 1999 and 2003, Dr Blix was a key figure in the run-up to the March 2003 invasion as he sought to determine the extent of Saddam's weapons programme.

"Asked about the inspections he oversaw between November 2002 and 18 March 2003 - when his team was forced to pull out of Iraq on the eve of the war - he said he was 'looking for smoking guns' but did not find any.

"While his team discovered prohibited items such as missiles beyond the permitted range, missile engines and a stash of undeclared documents, he said these were 'fragments' and not 'very important' in the bigger picture."

There were no WMD in Iraq and we knew it by 1995:

"Saddam’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, whom Saddam had put in charge of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, as well as missile development, told the United States when he defected in mid-1995 that all (that’s right, all) such weapons had been destroyed at his order by the summer of 1991.

Ray McGovern...

"And in mid-2002, the Iraqi foreign minister, whom CIA operatives had recruited and persuaded to remain in place, was telling us the same thing."

 

[8236]

The one in four Iraqis who have died, been maimed or displaced from their homes or incarcerated since March 2003.

How do you justify killing thousands of innocent human beings for money?

Kinda hard not to when they are harboring terrorists in there homes and around there villages.

How can anyone take your opinion seriously when you don't even know the difference between the use of the words 'there' and 'their'.

 

[8537]

People are STILL repeating that idiotic meme about satellite photos of the weapons going to Syria?

Unfuckingbelievable.

 

[jgarden]

It also misses the point. If you are going to pick the fight, you'd damn sure better make sure you are right. Otherwise, you look stupid.

This pretty much negates any argument that the Administration lied about the WMDs.

BTW, did you notice how the mission changed from "WMDs" to "spreading democracy"?

This was always part of the mission. The removal of saddam and the liberation of the people from his rule was mentioned from day 1. You, seething in your partisan hatred, just weren't paying attention.

Google "Shaking Hands With Saddam" and read the declassified US State Department documents that show how far out of touch you are with reality. Among other things, it shows that the Reagan Administratration was not only aware that Saddam was using WMD against his Iranian neighbors, but against Kurd civilians in his own country.

The official US response was that this would not interfere with the Reagan Administration seeking closer relations with Saddam! They also lobbied other Western nations because they didn't want their ally Iraq condemned by the UN for the use of chemical weapons - if it did come to a vote, the US representattive was instructed to "abstain," even though sebior US officials were well aware of the truth.

Go ahead, call my bluff, demand that I produce the documents in question - I dare you!

Footnote: GHW Bush served as Reagan's Vice President and Donald Rumsfeld was the Reagan Administration's senior representative to Iraq - neither is on record expressing the slightest concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people in this unsavory relationship

 

[M14 Shooter]

It also misses the point. If you are going to pick the fight, you'd damn sure better make sure you are right. Otherwise, you look stupid.

This pretty much negates any argument that the Administration lied about the WMDs.

BTW, did you notice how the mission changed from "WMDs" to "spreading democracy"?

This was always part of the mission. The removal of saddam and the liberation of the people from his rule was mentioned from day 1. You, seething in your partisan hatred, just weren't paying attention.

 

[MikeK]

People are STILL repeating that idiotic meme about satellite photos of the weapons going to Syria?

Unfuckingbelievable.

It's easy to believe something one wishes strongly enough to believe. And these self-deluded mentalities are the reason we invaded Iraq. What has happened in America is in many ways analogous to what happened in Germany in the 1930s. As Goebbels observed; No matter how big the lie, if it's repeated often enough it will be believed by all who wish to believe it.

 

[geauxtohell]

It also misses the point. If you are going to pick the fight, you'd damn sure better make sure you are right. Otherwise, you look stupid.

This pretty much negates any argument that the Administration lied about the WMDs.

BTW, did you notice how the mission changed from "WMDs" to "spreading democracy"?

This was always part of the mission. The removal of saddam and the liberation of the people from his rule was mentioned from day 1. You, seething in your partisan hatred, just weren't paying attention.

I realize it was about the 15th item on the agenda. It didn't become the main mission until the WMD thing went bust.

You and I both know the American people would have never supported the war in Iraq simply to liberate Iraqis.

 

[jgarden]

It also misses the point. If you are going to pick the fight, you'd damn sure better make sure you are right. Otherwise, you look stupid.

This pretty much negates any argument that the Administration lied about the WMDs.

BTW, did you notice how the mission changed from "WMDs" to "spreading democracy"?

This was always part of the mission. The removal of saddam and the liberation of the people from his rule was mentioned from day 1. You, seething in your partisan hatred, just weren't paying attention.

Google "Shaking Hands With Saddam" and read the declassified US State Department documents that show how far out of touch you are with reality. Among other things, it shows that the Reagan Administratration was not only aware that Saddam was using WMD against his Iranian neighbors, but against Kurd civilians in his own country.

The officia lUS response was that this would not interfere with the Reagan Administration seeking closer relations with Saddam!

Go ahead, call my bluff, demand that I produce the documents in question - I dare you!

Footnote: GHW Bush served as Reagan's Vice President and Donald Rumsfeld was the Reagan Administration's senior representative to Iraq - neither is on record expressing the slightest concern for the welfare of the Iraqi people in this unsavory relationship

 

[M14 Shooter]

It also misses the point. If you are going to pick the fight, you'd damn sure better make sure you are right. Otherwise, you look stupid.

This pretty much negates any argument that the Administration lied about the WMDs.

BTW, did you notice how the mission changed from "WMDs" to "spreading democracy"?

This was always part of the mission. The removal of saddam and the liberation of the people from his rule was mentioned from day 1. You, seething in your partisan hatred, just weren't paying attention.

I realize it was about the 15th item on the agenda.

Really? Cite the 14 ahead of it, and support the order of your list.

It didn't become the main mission until the WMD thing went bust.

That's just your perception. People that paid attention know that it was always a significant part of the conversation.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Google "Shaking Hands With Saddam" and read the declassified US State Department documents that show how far out of touch you are with reality. Among other things, it shows that the Reagan Administratration was not only aware that Saddam was using WMD against his Iranian neighbors, but against Kurd civilians in his own country.

This isnt news, and its relevance is, well, non-existant.
So, your point here is about as invisible as it can be.

 

[geauxtohell]

This pretty much negates any argument that the Administration lied about the WMDs.

This was always part of the mission. The removal of saddam and the liberation of the people from his rule was mentioned from day 1. You, seething in your partisan hatred, just weren't paying attention.

I realize it was about the 15th item on the agenda.

Really? Cite the 14 ahead of it, and support the order of your list.

It didn't become the main mission until the WMD thing went bust.

Actually, I can't even find it on the resolution. Perhaps you could support it, as you are the one that believes that ''spreading democracy" was every really a part of this debacle.

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's just your perception. People that paid attention know that it was always a significant part of the conversation.

Horseshit. We weren't in hysteria over spreading democracy in the run up to invasion. It was all WMDs. The American people wouldn't have supported a mission that was solely nation building.

 

[JRK]

The message is one the media made up

Oh, bullshit. Stop blaming ancillary figures for the **** ups of the most powerful man in the world, the President of the United States. It makes you look absurd.

All W ever said was he admitted we never found the stock-piles we thought we would

He sure did....





I love it when you guys quote Hans Blix to try and buoy your point. Both Hans Blix and the UN strongly advocated against us going into Iraq and allowing them to continue their work.

Perhaps you should quote Mr. Blix in a manner that is more consistent with his views:

CNN.com - Blix takes Washington to task - Jun. 12, 2003

I was. His view was there was WNDs there. Being against the invasion has nothing to do with the other

Because we didn't find a damned thing?
Really?
Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says
The point is these where suppose to be disposed of as well as the ones that allegedly went to Syria

your calling the UN the liar here, not me, not W

Yeah, as if Bush and his minions didn't make their own claims about "wmds". Stop hiding behind the UN. They did not support military intervention in Iraq. Bush went in unilaterally.
Bud its just information that is accurate

where did they go?
Satellite Photos Support Testimony That Iraqi WMD Went to Syria - Christian Forums

Of course, in the absence of a smoking gun, which would have vindicated the Bush Administration (to some), we have to make up an excuse to try and cover our asses. It's all speculative, we don't know what, if anything, was transported our of the country prior to our invasion.
I am not trying to vindicate anyone,there is no need to. If you disagree with the freeing of 60-70 million people, removing one of the most evil dictators ever who had 18 months to prevent the very thing for 18 months he was told was coming, for all the right reasons, thats your right

It also misses the point. If you are going to pick the fight, you'd damn sure better make sure you are right. Otherwise, you look stupid.
Stupid? You know who looked stupid in this> Saddam hanging from a rope in a basement and all of the people who know the facts that surround this event and allow there political feelings spin it to there advantage


BTW, did you notice how the mission changed from "WMDs" to "spreading democracy"? The Bush propaganda machine must have been working overtime on that one.

Even the Bush administration knew they had screwed the pooch on the WMD thing.

Amazingly, people still bought it.

The truth is, various factions of the Bush Administration wanted to go into Iraq prior September 11th for a variety of reasons. September 11th provided them with enough wiggle room to crook the intelligence and fool the American people into thinking that we were in danger. Perhaps you forget: "We don't want to smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud over NYC....". The American people would have never supported toppling Hussein without that. Once we were in, it was too late and then we basically had to watch as the Bush Administration turned this into a nation building mission.

At any rate, all this is aside the point. You asked how people could consider this to be a "failure". You've been provided with many reasons. You seem to want to ignore then in favor of arguing about whether we were justified into going into Iraq. That's irrelevant. We went into Iraq. Now we are talking about the aftermath.

On that note, if the WMDs were moved into Syria as you claim, it means that they are still out there and in the hands of a nation that sponsors terrorism. That would go on the list as another failure.

Your opinion
by the way, that bird your shooting, shows the world how serious theses events are to you