Yes Bush LIED and soldiers are still dying!

[Rosotar]

Here is an EXCELLENT and extremely informative read which sheds a lot of light on how the justification for "war" with Iraq was conjured up in the first place.

Before anyone disses the source I suggest you actually READ it.

There are litterally HUNDREDS of points in this essay which can probably each be argued on their own merits but simply blowing off all the FACTS presented here as mere "liberal" propaganda won't cut it.

As much as Conservatives like to confuse their short memories with clean consciences this stuff does still matter. As long as America's soldiers are still dying in Iraq, and as long as America itself is doomed to suffer the blowback of what we have done in Iraq for generations, the real reasons of how we got there in the first place will continue to be relevant.

http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=11214

 

[Bullypulpit]

Good reading, and as for your signature, it gives us the term "Pyrrhic victory".

 

[actsnoblemartin]

im not suggesting your articles are liberal propaganda, but since we are in a way, shouldnt we worry more about correcting the mistakes first, and then investigating bush. With all due respect, I tend to find liberals on this board, obssessing about why we should not have gone, rather then , any solutions we could try to fix this.

Here is an EXCELLENT and extremely informative read which sheds a lot of light on how the justification for "war" with Iraq was conjured up in the first place.

Before anyone disses the source I suggest you actually READ it.

There are litterally HUNDREDS of points in this essay which can probably each be argued on their own merits but simply blowing off all the FACTS presented here as mere "liberal" propaganda won't cut it.

As much as Conservatives like to confuse their short memories with clean consciences this stuff does still matter. As long as America's soldiers are still dying in Iraq, and as long as America itself is doomed to suffer the blowback of what we have done in Iraq for generations, the real reasons of how we got there in the first place will continue to be relevant.

http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=11214

 

[Rosotar]

im not suggesting your articles are liberal propaganda, but since we are in a way, shouldnt we worry more about correcting the mistakes first, and then investigating bush. With all due respect, I tend to find liberals on this board, obssessing about why we should not have gone, rather then , any solutions we could try to fix this.

This is a good and well stated point.

There probably isn't any "fixing" Iraq nor is it possible to "correct" a mistake of this magnitude.

I believe that holding people responsible and prosecuting them to the fullest extent of international law would be the first step toward restoring America's credibility in the world. The sight of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Pearle, ect. in chains before a world court would go a long way toward beginning to rectify our "mistake" in Iraq.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

As a fair minded person, who is obsessed with the truth. I am very angry at cheney for lying about saddam being tied to iraq. And I want a full investigation by impartial people, like the 9/11 commission that once and for all, proves guilt, or acquits bush and all those mentioned of crimes, whichever you believe you can proove. We are all americans, the truth, should matter more to both of us, then who is right, wrong, or what party you are in.

This is a good and well stated point.

There probably isn't any "fixing" Iraq nor is it possible to "correct" a mistake of this magnitude.

I believe that holding people responsible and prosecuting them to the fullest extent of international law would be the first step toward restoring America's credibility in the world. The sight of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Pearle, ect. in chains before a world court would go a long way toward beginning to rectify our "mistake" in Iraq.

 

[Rosotar]

Why are the other conservatives conspicuously silent on this thread?

Is there too much reading involved?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

To be fair, yes, there is a lot of reading lol.

Second, how would you feel, if someone came to you and said, youre wrong, and/or youre an idiot.

I am NOT for one second saying that you said: conservatives are idiots, but pride is a huge thing in politics, and both sides in general dont want to admit when they are wrong.

Am i wrong on this?

Why are the other conservatives conspicuously silent on this thread?

Is there too much reading involved?

 

[hjmick]

Why are the other conservatives conspicuously silent on this thread?

Is there too much reading involved?

Uh...yup, that's it. Too much reading. Hiyuck, garsh, all them really big words and stuff.

Perhaps the sound of crickets is due to the fact that nothing in the piece is new? I've certainly heard it all before. None of it is surprising. It's a rehash of all the previously used talking points presented by two partisan authors. Big deal. I don't watch reruns of CSI either.

I've said all along that Bush was wrong to go into Iraq when he did and the way he did. I never bought into any Iraqi link to 9/11, nor did I jump on the yellowcake band wagon. Did Saddam need to be removed? I think so, he was a cruel bastard. Did he have WMDs? As it turns out, no. But he did go a long way to make people think he did, and he did have chemical and biological wepons at one point during his reign, we know because he used them. Both on the Iranians and the Kurds (members of his own populace). He was a murderous prick. We know this because of eyewitness testimony to executions and the discovery of mass graves. Let's not even get started on those wunderkind sons of his.

Should Saddam have been removed yes. Could it have waited? You bet, and it should have. Until Osama's head was raised on a pike, nothing else should have mattered.

Bush has screwed the pooch in Iraq.

 

[Rosotar]

Bush has screwed the pooch in Iraq.

So what hare you demanding he suffer as a consequence of that?

 

[hjmick]

So what are you demanding he suffer as a consequence of that?

I am not demanding a thing. There is nothing for me to demand.

History will not treat him kindly and that is, perhaps, the deepest cut of all. (Hell, the present doesn't treat him kindly.) The most any President wants is a good legacy and to be remembered as a good or great leader. Bush will get neither.

His presidency has gone from lame duck to dead duck, we have but to wait for the next man, or woman.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

To be fair. wouldnt the consequence be, he get fired in 2004 in the election?

just wondering.

So what hare you demanding he suffer as a consequence of that?

 

[Gunny]

Why are the other conservatives conspicuously silent on this thread?

Is there too much reading involved?

More like, how many threads just like it already exist?

There were plenty of reasons to justify removing Saddam Hussein from power.

 

[Larkinn]

Plenty of reasons, no good one.

Humanitarian reasons-money could have been much better spent elsewhere.

WMD- Hey they didn't exist. By the way...while you were invading that "imminent threat" NK tested a nuclear weapon. Whoops!

Doesn't follow international law- Hey neither does Israel or the US. Either you care about IL or you don't...no cherry picking.

hjmick
I've said all along that Bush was wrong to go into Iraq when he did and the way he did. I never bought into any Iraqi link to 9/11, nor did I jump on the yellowcake band wagon. Did Saddam need to be removed? I think so, he was a cruel bastard. Did he have WMDs? As it turns out, no. But he did go a long way to make people think he did, and he did have chemical and biological wepons at one point during his reign, we know because he used them. Both on the Iranians and the Kurds (members of his own populace). He was a murderous prick. We know this because of eyewitness testimony to executions and the discovery of mass graves. Let's not even get started on those wunderkind sons of his.

How many lives would you approximate we saved by invading Iraq?

 

[Gunny]

Plenty of reasons, no good one.

Humanitarian reasons-money could have been much better spent elsewhere.

WMD- Hey they didn't exist. By the way...while you were invading that "imminent threat" NK tested a nuclear weapon. Whoops!

Doesn't follow international law- Hey neither does Israel or the US. Either you care about IL or you don't...no cherry picking.



How many lives would you approximate we saved by invading Iraq?

Every reason was valid. Claiming WMDs didn't exist is like saying the Moon the doesn't exist. Perhaps you can reconcile the UN records that STILL have Saddam on record for X amount of WMDs STILL unaccounted for.

North Korea is irrelevant to Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

I see yet another relativist argument coming in your last question.

 

[Rosotar]

Every reason was valid. Claiming WMDs didn't exist is like saying the Moon the doesn't exist. Perhaps you can reconcile the UN records that STILL have Saddam on record for X amount of WMDs STILL unaccounted for.

North Korea is irrelevant to Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

I see yet another relativist argument coming in your last question.

I see once again you haven't even read the information therefore you feel free to simply make up your own "facts."

http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=11214

The WMD's weren't there Gunny.

As for removing Saddam from power....read the link. Deposing Saddam has not in fact made the middle east, the world, or even America a "safer" place. The shitstorm we have unleashed over there has in fact made the world a more dangerous place.

 

[Gunny]

I see once again you haven't even read the information therefore you feel free to simply make up your own "facts."

http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=11214

The WMD's weren't there Gunny.

As for removing Saddam from power....read the link. Deposing Saddam has not in fact made the middle east, the world, or even America a "safer" place. The shitstorm we have unleashed over there has in fact made the world a more dangerous place.

I see once again you are talking out your ass.

I guess you missed the part where there are still tons of WMDs/percursors unaccounted for?

Your Monday morning QB-ing doesn't make it with me. The man produced, possessed and used WMDs. He could not account for WMDs he possesed and were on record with the UN.

Any logical-thinking human being would only come to one conclusion; which, almost the entire world did. Revising history after the fact is just dishonesty at its finest.

Nowhere in my statement do you find me saying that deposing Saddam made anything safer. However, while deposing Saddam has destabilized the Middle East, saying it has made the entire world a more dangerous place is exaggerating the facts.

 

[Rosotar]

I see once again you are talking out your ass.

I guess you missed the part where there are still tons of WMDs/percursors unaccounted for?

Your Monday morning QB-ing doesn't make it with me. The man produced, possessed and used WMDs. He could not account for WMDs he possesed and were on record with the UN..

No Gunny, that would be YOU talking out your ass.

Again....READ the link!

The better reason eventually settled on by President Bush was Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. The evidence for WMD turned out to be even weaker than the evidence for "the link," but Cheney, with the full backing of the White House and the National Security Council, hammered without letup on the horrific consequences of error – discovering too late that Iraq had nuclear weapons meant that the smoking gun would be a mushroom cloud. It was vaguely believed at the time, by the public and foreign intelligence services alike, that the CIA must have learned something new; why else in early 2002 had Saddam Hussein suddenly become a threat to the world?

"The truth is that... even the best survey of Iraq's WMD programs will not show much advance in recent years on the nuclear, missile or CW/BW fronts: the programs are extremely worrying but have not, as far as we know, been stepped up.... We are still left with a problem of bringing public opinion to accept the imminence of a threat from Iraq. This is something the Prime Minister and President need to have a frank discussion about."

But the decision had already been made. Blair was also present at Camp David that day. He had been urging a UN resolution for months and had not crossed the ocean to be told no. According to Bob Woodward's book Plan of Attack, Bush told Blair that the United States would bring the question of Saddam's WMD to the UN one more time before going to war, but war would probably still follow in the end. Thus the stage was set for a UN melodrama starring a defiant Saddam before armies crossed borders, but nothing worked as the British had imagined. Saddam accepted unconditionally the Security Council's demand on November 8 for intrusive new inspections. While the report he submitted on Iraq's destruction of its WMD was rejected as obfuscating, the UN was able to resume inspections at the end of November. Hans Blix's inspectors scoured the country inspecting hundreds of sites but found nothing, and Blix infuriated the White House by refusing to declare Iraq in material breach of Resolution 1441 demanding that he disarm.

Any logical-thinking human being would only come to one conclusion; which, almost the entire world did. Revising history after the fact is just dishonesty at its finest.[/COLOR]

Based upon your posts Gunny you don't seem to know much about "logical thinking."

Nowhere in my statement do you find me saying that deposing Saddam made anything safer .

No....that's just been your president saying that all along and you believing it. You're splitting hairs now.

However, while deposing Saddam has destabilized the Middle East, saying it has made the entire world a more dangerous place is exaggerating the facts.

Tell that to the CIA and the Baker-Hamilton Commission.