home

Al Qaeda Claims Responsibility for Iraq Anniversary Bombings

It's been ten years since we invaded Iraq. Al Qaeda is marking the anniversary with bombings. At least 60 people have been killed.

Der Speigel has "10 Lessons From America's 'Dumb War.'

The Atlantic looks back at the cost, in lives and dollars. The BBC has the Iraq War in Numbers.

< Colorado Prison Director Shot Dead at Home | Bill Introduced to Provide Some Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Relief >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    As usual (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by sj on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 09:44:23 AM EST
    Thank you, Charles Pierce.

    Here's what I know (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 01:48:32 PM EST
    Roosevelt knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor and didn't do anything about it because he wanted to go to war, and needed to change public opinion, so he let it happen.

    The Government has evidence and irrefutable proof regarding UFO's, but has kept it secret from America, and the world..........for  65 years.

    Kennedy's assassination: Oswald was simply a patsy; The Mafia actually killed him, or the CIA, or Castro, or LBJ, or Congressional enemies, or somebody else.

    97.5% of the world's climate scientists have entered into a secret conspiracy regarding the climate change taking place, and mankind's contribution to it, in order to bolster their reputations, make more money, and to save their jobs.

    The Bell Curve study is concrete proof that Whites are more intelligent than other races, and perform better in categories such as income, job performance, unwanted pregnancies, and crime involvement, and is due to heredity, and not socioeconomic status or education levels.

    Future generations will someday come to the conclusion that George W. Bush was one of America's greatest Presidents due to the fact that, in spite of all contrary evidence, he plunged the country into a "seemingly"  needless war, costing Trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of civilian/military lives. Grateful Americans will come to realize that Bush's foreign policy, "Suck on This!" is what has made America "The Greatest Country On Earth."


    I guess you are also (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:09:09 PM EST
    a 9/11 Truther.

    lol

    Parent

    lol.. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:24:57 PM EST
    Yeah Jim, just that word Truth is enough to put you off..

    The whole concept is so limiting..

    Parent

    So what was the alternative to war? (1.00 / 1) (#2)
    by ESteel on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:02:32 PM EST
    With 20/20 hindsight, what should we have done differently in 2003?  What course of action would have been the correct one?

    Sanctions more sanctions?
    Drop the sanctions, and let Saddam be?
    More UN resolutions?
    Use the CIA to assassinate Saddam?
    ?

    What should have been done in place of the war?


    Oy (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by sj on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:04:06 PM EST
    Just, oy.

    Parent
    Deeply insightful reply (1.00 / 3) (#4)
    by ESteel on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:12:22 PM EST
    Thanks for playing.

    Parent
    What else is there (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by sj on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:25:43 PM EST
    to say to someone who is still making 2003 "arguments"?  To someone who has apparently forgotten that the justification for this disaster was "Nine Eleven!" followed by "Nine Eleven!" followed by "NINE ELEVEN!!!" followed by the sham presented to the UN.  Which even the shameless Colin Powell calls a blot on his record.

    There are millions of words written about this.  I'm sticking with "oy".

    Parent

    He can't hear you, sj. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:31:01 PM EST
    Nor does he want to, I reckon. Ten years hence, ESteel's one of those wingbats who's still screaming "NINE-ELEVEN!!!" at the top of his lungs.

    Parent
    I am actually asking a serious question (1.00 / 4) (#17)
    by ESteel on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:18:21 PM EST
    I just went back and looked at my original question, as I remembered I said nothing about 9/11.  That was you.

    My question is NOT about arguing the wisdom of the war.  It is easy to simply oppose the war, but that is only half the problem.  In lieu of war what was the better alternative?  Even if the alternative was to do absolutely nothing.

    And what makes any alternative a better solution?  Does it consider the ramifications any better than Bush did?

    For example, in the links Jeralyn supplied, the estimate is that the war resulted in 120,000 civilian deaths, "The Iraq Body Count organisation, which cross references reported deaths with official figures, says 4,571 civilians were killed in 2012, bringing the number of civilian deaths since March 2003 to between 112,017 and 122,438."

    But the sanctions from 1991 to 2000 were estimated to have killed anywhere from 350,000 to 500,000 civilians over roughly the same time period.  "Garfield has recently recalculated his numbers, based on the additional findings of the Ali and Shah study, to arrive at an estimate of approximately 350,000 through 2000."
    http://www.alternet.org/story/11933/a_hard_look_at_iraq_sanctions
    That means that sanctions killed more than twice as many civilians as the war.  How then avre the sanctions a bet ter solution?

    So then should we have lifted the sanctions, not gone to war and left Saddam alone?  That would have left Saddam and his crazy sons in place to kill and torture his people.  Go read the Duelfur Report, "Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability--which was essentially destroyed in 1991--after sanc- tions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability--in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks--but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities."

    Was that a better long term solution?

    I don't know.  I supported the war, but certainly 10 years later I admit that I am conflicted by the results.   Its nice that you can feel so self righteous in your opposition to the war.   But that doesn't change the basic fundamental question I am asking, what would have been better?  Look at Syria,  Iran and North Korea today.  One thing IS for certain, we don't have Iraq working on WMDs today.


    Parent

    How strange (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by sj on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:37:48 PM EST
    that you can separate the war from the justification for it.  9/11 was constantly being conflated with Iraq. It was what was used to get the emotional support for it.  
    One thing IS for certain, we don't have Iraq working on WMDs today.
    Just like we didn't 10 years ago.

    As for doing nothing, we do nothing when it comes to lots of dictators.  Like the House of Saud, for example.  And how about, you know, lifting or easing the sactions since

    The original stated purposes of the sanctions were to compel Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, to pay reparations, and to disclose and eliminate any weapons of mass destruction.
    and there were no weapons of mass destruction.  Nor were the inspectors being hindered.

    Parent
    Esteel, you are wasting your time (1.00 / 3) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:38:58 PM EST
    asking for logic. It is a matter of faith by 99.9% of the commentators here that Bush lied and men died.

    On the other hand Obama has kept the wars going, GITMO open and now has launched the drones with very few complaints.

    The difference is simple.

    Obama - Democrat

    Bush - Republican

    Parent

    "with very few complaints." (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 01:59:04 AM EST
    OY,......(sorry sj)

    Is that what they're teaching you over there, Jim?

    Parent

    So you can't stand the truth? (1.00 / 3) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 09:52:11 AM EST
    Nothing new.

    ;-)

    Parent

    akaAndersBreivik (none / 0) (#71)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:12:46 PM EST
    is trolling again..

    Reminding everyone once again that what Real people say and do in the Real world, at TL or anywhere else, is of no concern to him..

    Parent

    Your comment text (none / 0) (#73)
    by sj on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:20:18 PM EST
    is completely accurate.  But invoking Anders Breivik goes too far, imo.

    Parent
    a little hyperbole perhaps.. (none / 0) (#78)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:41:26 PM EST
    but peruse his website for awhile and you might come to the conclusion that he and Brievik imbibe from the same inspirational spring..

     

    Parent

    the same ideological spring perhaps (none / 0) (#80)
    by sj on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:47:59 PM EST
    but lots of people who are just as ignorant and blind and hateful never become mass murderers.

    Parent
    People who fanatasize about (none / 0) (#125)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 23, 2013 at 10:57:21 AM EST
    carpet bombing entire nations are just outsourcing their savagery.

    I think it's really that simple.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#126)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 23, 2013 at 12:10:27 PM EST
    His website is filled with wacko, angry fantasy.

    Parent
    not fair or true (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 06:55:47 PM EST
    there are very few people here who will defend Obama on continuing war or using drones.  In fact Obama gets his fair share of criticism here or I would never be tolerated or allowed to comment.

    Parent
    Don't be rude and impertinent. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:25:47 PM EST
    Given the inherent ignorance of your post, you're hardly a font of insight and wisdom on the subject.

    Parent
    Hoyo Viejo (none / 0) (#11)
    by P3P3P3P3 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:43:54 PM EST
    8-)

    Revelation 18:10

    it is a little cold to leave the window open for Elijah don't you think?

    Parent

    Sometimes (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by sj on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:01:30 PM EST
    ... I understand your comments.  This is not one of those times.

    Parent
    good evening sj (none / 0) (#14)
    by P3P3P3P3 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:05:59 PM EST
    your original short comment was "Oy" as in "Oy Vey" a Jewish phrase representative to an Old Testament "Woe Woe", I played off that with similar sounding Spanish words "Hoyo Viejo" which means "old hole or pit", which you can say is what the US turned Iraq into, Moses did drop Dathan and Abiram into one of those, the religious might recognize "call and answer back", Iraq is the ancient territory of Babylon, there in Revelation is "Woe, Woe, O great city, Babylon....in one hour your doom is come"

    as I assumed you may be of Jewish heritage, having seen Oy before, they still look forward at this time, around Passover, for Elijah to come....come Elijah, some children used to leave their window open in expectation as kids at Christmas might leave cookies and milk for Santa Claus, the weather is rather cold here, into the teens tonight, how 'bout by you?

    I don't write that well, women express themselves much better, and I am impressed with Donald From Hawaii, I'll try to be wordy and friendly

    Parent

    Thanks for clarifying (none / 0) (#19)
    by sj on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:20:46 PM EST
    No, I myself am not of Jewish heritage, it's an acquired term from a friend of mine.  It seems to say a lot with one syllable composed of two letters.

    I sort of got the stream of consciousness leap by sound to the Spanish phrase (which is my heritage) and then read the appropriate verses.  And I got that Babylon/Iraq connection.  I just couldn't connect hoyo viejo to it.

    As for the weather, I'm not entirely sure... it was sunny today, but I've been inside all day and won't know until I head for home if that translated to warmth.

    It just occurred to me that I have access to the internet!  According to weather.com the current temperature is 53. My dog might get a longer walk tonight.

    Parent

    To summarize, (none / 0) (#22)
    by lentinel on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:35:25 PM EST
    Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi and the rest of those freaks were and are completely fercoct.

    Fershtay?

    A bi gezunt.

    Parent

    I had to look it up (none / 0) (#25)
    by P3P3P3P3 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 08:50:04 PM EST
    but have Jewish friends, my background is spiritual Christian, much studies, struggled going through the change or birth (dark night of the soul)

    How was your St Patrick's Day? are you familiar with the Loyal League of the Yiddish Sons of Erin? I real should read more
    yes, sure, likewise Dr

    Parent

    How about working for peace? (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:22:38 PM EST
    Honestly, Saddam Hussein and Iraq had been effectively neutered by the 1991 Gulf War and subsequent American policy of containment.

    Iraq constituted little or no threat to U.S. strategic and commerical interests in 2003. What makes the war all the more egregious and tragic was that the Bush administration knew that, and chose to mislead both Congress and the American public anyway.

    Bluntly said, we came, we saw, we conquered because Iraq had the second largest known petroleum reserves in the world at the time. It was a bald corporate resource grab. They had it, we wanted it. The search for WMD was just a flimsy excuse.

    Parent

    Yes, and the "subsequent (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 12:59:38 PM EST
    American policy of containment" was a rather aggressive one.  From 1992 to 2003, about 60 percent of Iraq was a no-fly zone (actually two zones, in the North and the South) with military sorties and no-fly zone bombings.   And, on the ground, we had the assessments of Hans Blix.

    Parent
    And just what US corporation got the oil? (1.00 / 2) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:33:00 PM EST
    BTW - Do you also believe 9/11 was an inside job?

    ;-)

    Parent

    Denial ain't just a river in Egypt (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 08:10:43 AM EST
    It doesn't have to go through a U.S. corporation, Jim.  They just wanted to keep the spigots open and the supply flowing, whether it's through a US company directly or not.  As it turns out, however, a whole bunch of US (and western) oil companies "got the oil":

    From ExxonMobil and Chevron to BP and Shell, the West's largest oil companies have set up shop in Iraq. So have a slew of American oil service companies, including Halliburton, the Texas-based firm Dick Cheney ran before becoming George W. Bush's running mate in 2000...

    Bypassing parliament, the firms started signing contracts that provide all of the access and most of the favorable treatment the Hydrocarbons Law would provide - and the Bush administration helped draft the model contracts.

    Upon leaving office, Bush and Obama administration officials have even worked for oil companies as advisers on their Iraq endeavors. For example, former US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad's company, CMX-Gryphon, "provides international oil companies and multinationals with unparalleled access, insight and knowledge on Iraq."

    The new contracts lack the security a new legal structure would grant, and Iraqi lawmakers have argued that they run contrary to existing law, which requires government control, operation, and ownership of Iraq's oil sector.

    But the contracts do achieve the key goal of the Cheney energy task force: all-but-privatizing the Iraqi oil sector and opening it to private foreign companies.

    Iraq's oil production has increased by more than 40% in the last five years to 3 million barrels of oil a day (still below the 1979 high of 3.5 million set by Iraq's state-owned companies), but a full 80% of this is being exported out of the country while Iraqis struggle to meet basic energy consumption needs

    The war is the one and only reason for this long sought and newly acquired access.

    Oil was not the only goal of the Iraq War, but it was certainly the central one, as top US military and political figures have attested to in the years following the invasion.

    Even major Republican leaders have admitted it:

    'I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.' - Alan Greenspan

    My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will -- that will then prevent us -- that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East - John McCain

    We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources
    , which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go. - Sarah Palin

    People say we're not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America's national interest. What the hell do you think they're talking about? We're not there for figs. - Chuck Hagel, Republican Senator and SecDef

    "Of course it's about oil, it's very much about oil, and we can't really deny that." - 4 Star General John Abizaid - the former commander of CENTCOM

    In 2002, Chalabi [the Iraqi politician and oil minister who the Bush Administration favored to lead Iraq after the war] joined the annual summer retreat of the American Enterprise Institute near Vail, Colorado. He and Cheney spent long hours together, contemplating the possibilities of a Western-oriented Iraq: an additional source of oil, an alternative to U.S. dependency on an unstable-looking Saudi Arabia
    . - David Frum, Bush speechwriter

    The critical oil and natural gas producing region that we fought so many wars to try and protect our economy from the adverse impact of losing that supply or having it available only at very high prices. - John Bolton, Undersecretary of State and architect of the war

    Parent

    So your alternative to war was to do nothing (1.00 / 5) (#33)
    by ESteel on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 07:18:37 AM EST
    And we should just have ignored Saddam Hussein when he said,
    "[I]t is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything..."
    Babil, September 20, 2001 (State-controlled newspaper)

    Or said,
    "The United States must get a taste of its own poison..."
    Babil, October 8, 2001

    Or said,
    "What is required now is to deal strong blows to U.S. and British interests. These blows should be strong enough to make them feel that their interests are indeed threatened not only by words but also in deeds."
    Al-Qadisiyah, February 27, 1999 (State-controlled newspaper)

    Or said,
    "If the attacks of September 11 cost the lives of 3,000 civilians, how much will the size of losses in 50 states within 100 cities if it were attacked in the same way in which New York and Washington were? What would happen if hundreds of planes attacked American cities?"
    Al-Rafidayn, September 11, 2002 (State-controlled newspaper)

    http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/iraq/sadquots.htm

    Everyone in the world KNEW that Saddam did not have WMDs, and anyone who said otherwise was of course lying, just like these people.

    "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
    --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
    --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

    "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
    --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

    "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
    --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
    -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
    -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
    -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

    "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
    Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
    -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
    -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

    "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
    -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
    -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
    -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

    "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
    -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

    "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
    -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

    "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
    -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
    -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

    "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
    -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

    And all 16 members of the UN Security Council lied when they signed Resolution 1441 saying that "Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,"

    Containment and sanctions were better than war.  And of course it does not matter that more people died due to the our policy of containment than due to the war?  

    And you don't care that the U.S. was under pressure to lift the sanctions by France, Russia and China?

    And you don't care that France, Russia and China had billions of dollars in oil contracts with Saddam once the sanctions were lifted?

    And you don't care that there was all kinds of corruption because of the oil for food program?

    And you don't care that all of Saddam's military equipment came from France, Russia and China?

    And you don't care that France once sold Saddam Hussein a Nuclear Power plant capable of producing weapons grade plutonium.

    And we can simply ignore the The Duelfur Report when it said Saddam intended to rebuild his WMD once the sanctions were lifted?

    But all you need to know is "Bush is Bad, War is Bad."  You don't need to think beyond that.  And Liberals call Conservatives simplistic.


    Parent

    There IS a reason (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 08:16:27 AM EST
    See if you can tell the difference between a neutered dictator making silly threats against the US and an actual threat.  See if you can tell the difference between Democratic leaders acknowledging Saddam Hussein had WMDs in the past and may be continuing to try to develop them (after a war and sanctions that devastated their military and economy) and Republican leaders who sold a war based on simplified intelligence that they spun to make them see what they wanted to see.

    That should be "simple".

    Parent

    I know the difference, do you? (1.00 / 4) (#45)
    by ESteel on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:11:53 AM EST
    Look everyone, Democrat and Republican alike, and every intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMDs.  There is a reason for that.  Go read the Duelfur Report, it was Saddam's strategy to make everyone believe he had WMDs to keep his neighbors, especially Iran, from thinking he was weak.  Were we fooled?  Yes.  We went to war because of that. And it was a mistake.  I get that.

    Still.  Regardless of all of that.  My original question still stands.   And frankly, I don't understand why everyone has a hard time actually answering it.

    I get that people here oppose the war.  That's fine.  Hypothetically, let's say you got your wish, Bush never invaded Iraq, and the war never happened.

    What SHOULD have been our policy toward Iraq for the last 10 years instead of war?

    Could we maintain sanctions for another 10 years?

    Should we have maintained sanctions for another 10 years?

    Should we have done nothing and simply ignored Iraq?

    Should we have tried to re-establish diplomatic relations with Iraq?

    Should we have supported a coup?

    Should we have tried to assassinate Saddam?

    What other options did we have?

    There are a lot of options all with various pros and cons.  And we can't forget that Saddam would still be in power.  What would he be doing for the last 10 years?

    Is it unreasonable to believe that Iraq and Iran would be in a nuclear arms race?

    Parent

    I sure do - which is how I know ... (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 12:24:22 PM EST
    ... that so many of your justifications for going to war are false - everything from Saddam's alleged support of al Quaeda to the claim that Iraq tried to kill GH Bush to the claim that "everyone" thought Saddam had WMDs.  That's also how I know that the Bush administration was spinning every piece of intelligence it could to convince the public (and the other pols) that Iraq had WMDs.  But - despite the spinning and the one-sided intelligence interpretations - did "everyone"?

    Nope.

    Did the Russians?  Nope.

    Vladimir Putin yesterday rejected Anglo-American claims that Saddam Hussein already possesses weapons of mass destruction and told Tony Blair that the best way to resolve the conflict of evidence is not war, but the return of UN inspectors to Iraq...

    "Fears are one thing, hard facts are another"...

    "Russia does not have in its possession any trustworthy data that supports the existence of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and we have not received any such information from our partners as yet. This fact has also been supported by the information sent by the CIA to the US Congress."

    What about the French and Germans?

    Nope.

    France, Germany and Russia have released an unprecedented joint declaration on the Iraq crisis, demanding more weapons inspectors and more technical assistance for them....

    Nothing today justifies a war," Mr Chirac told a joint news conference with Mr Putin. "This region really does not need another war."

    President Putin says world opinion is on his side
    He said France did not have "undisputed proof" that Iraq still held weapons of mass destruction.

    That was only 1 month before the invasion.

    What about the most important agency of all - the one actually doing the weapons inspections in Iraq - the IAEA?

    The International Atomic Energy Agency declared in 1998 that Iraq's nuclear program had been completely dismantled. The UN Special Commission on Iraq estimated then that at least 95 percent of Iraq's chemical weapons program had been similarly accounted for and destroyed. Iraq's potential to develop biological weapons is a much bigger question mark, since such a program is much easier to hide. However, UNSCOM noted in 1998 that virtually all of Iraq's offensive missiles and other delivery systems had been accounted for and rendered inoperable.

    Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA (2003) - "We have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapon program since the elimination of the program in the 1990's." He also "put the kibosh" on the administration's charge that Iraq was seeking aluminum tubes for nuclear weapon development. Eleven days before the invasion, he repeated his assertion that there was absolutely no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program.

    Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix (2003) -  "The commission has not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programs of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items, whether from pre-1991 or later."

    Scott Ritter - chief weapons inspector in Iraq in 1991 and 1998: "[W]e knew that while we couldn't account for everything that the Iraqis said they had destroyed, we could only account for 90 to 95 percent, we knew that: (a) we had no evidence of a retained capability and, (b) no evidence that Iraq was reconstituting. And furthermore, the C.I.A. knew this. The British intelligence knew this; Israeli intelligence knew this; German intelligence. The whole world knew this."

    So, no - in fact, "everyone" did not "know" this.  Everyone did not agree, particularly those in the best position to make a determination.  The Bush administration hyped every bit of evidence it could use to claim that Iraq had WMDs, and ignored all evidence to the contrary.  You were sold a bill of goods, and you willingly bought it because you wanted to believe it.

    The rest of your "questions" are really just more attempts at fear-mongering to justify your support for the invasion of Iraq.

    Parent

    And yet (1.00 / 4) (#79)
    by ESteel on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:41:43 PM EST
    You still can't answer them.   For the simple reason, you don't have a clue.  All you care about is "Bush bad, War Bad."  You don't need to think beyond that and what possible ramifications there might be.

    But since you mention Russia, France and Germany, they were the three countries that were the biggest beneficiaries in the Oil For Food scandal.  Are they really credible? Do you suppose that the $billions in oil deals they had with Saddam had anything to do with their opposition to war?  Talk about "No-War for Oil!!!"

    What about Blacques Jacques Chirac who sold Saddam Hussein a nuclear reactor?

    Then you have Scott Ritter, who went to jail for as child sex offender and did a movie financed by Iraqi money. {cough} bribe {cough}  He is certainly a credible source.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1429153/Iraqis-tried-to-bribe-Scott-Ritter -with-gold.html
    http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Ritter-gets-prison-time-2237126.php

    I guess Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, Al Gore, Madeline Albright, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Carl Levin, and Ted Kennedy all lied when they said that they believed there were WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion and some even voted in favor of the invasion.  Were they lying or were they so stupid that they were fooled by George W. Bush?

    When all 16 members of the U.N. Security Council voted yes for Resolution 1441 which resolved that Iraq had WMDs and long range missiles, all of those countries lied too.

    What about Bill Clinton launching 23 Tomahawk missiles into Baghdad as a response to Iraq's assassination attempt against GHW Bush.  

    Maybe you should actually read what you link.
    ""It was surprising," said one source familiar with the preparation of the report (who under Pentagon ground rules was not permitted to speak on the record). Given how much the Iraqis did document, "you would have thought there would have been some veiled reference to something about [the plot]."

    The failure does not, of course, prove that the Iraqis were not planning such an operation. "It would not have surprised me at all if the Iraqis expunged any record of that--it was an utter embarrassment for them," says Paul Pillar, the CIA's former top analyst on the Middle East."

    Considering:
    a) that the Kuwaitis arrested and convicted 9 Iraqi's for the plot,
    b) one of them confessed to the plot and claimed they were dispatched by Iraqi Intelligence
    c) The FBI confirmed that the explosives and detonators found matched Iraqi bomb designs
    I guess all of that was some elaborate plot cooked up by the future Governor of Texas.

    Was Iraq's support of Abu Nidal and other terrorist groups also a lie?  Despite the fact that Abu Nidal died in Baghdad.

    The vast majority of any deaths (of which their is a huge discrepancy in estimates) occurred because Saddam intentionally refused to allow sales of oil to be used for the purchase of food and medicine.  Your answer?  Invade their country - kill more people and lose thousands of American lives, spending trillions of dollars in the process.  But your concern for the children of Iraq is noted.

    Your answer?  Continue the sanctions, and leave Saddam in power to NOT buy food and medicine for his people.  YOUR concern for the children of Iraq is also noted.


    Parent

    So much conflation, so many lies (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 04:55:17 PM EST
    I guess Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton, Al Gore, Madeline Albright, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Carl Levin, and Ted Kennedy all lied when they said that they believed there were WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion and some even voted in favor of the invasion.

    Really?  They all lied when they all claimed that Iraq had WMDs at the time of the invasion?  No, your "guess" would merely be one more lie to your growing list.  As far as your fairy tales raised as "questions", why would anyone bother to answer "What/if?" hypotheticals based on false premises and lies?

    Let's look at some of the statements you provided that you say is evidence they believed Iraq had WMDs at the time of the invasion and (some) even "voted for the invasion":

    Bill Clinton: "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." (1998)

    "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." (1998)

    Uhhhhmmm, these quotes were from 1998, not 2003.  Moreover, Clinton was referring to Hussein's desire to develop WMDs, not an existing stockpile of weapons that threatened the US.  What did Clinton actually say before the invasion?

    "Let's give him [Saddam Hussein] a certain date in which, in this time, he has to destroy the missiles, reconcile the discrepancies in what we believe is the truth on chemical weapons, reconcile the discrepancies on biological weapons, reconcile the issue of the Drones, and offer up 150 scientists who can travel outside of Iraq with their families for interviews. If you do that, then we'll say this is really good-faith disarmament, and we'll go on without a conflict." - President Clinton, March 14, 2003 9days before the invasion).

    Oops.

    "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
    Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
    -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

    Again, 1998.  But I bet even you can tell the difference between urging a POTUS to use air/missile strikes on sites suspected of being WMD program sites, and an invasion of a country because you're claiming they actually have WMDs that pose a threat to the US.

    Or maybe you can't.

    "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

    Again, 1998.  Again, not claiming WMDs, but that Iraq was pursuing WMD technology, and speaking in support of Operation Desert Fox - air strikes, not an invasion.

    All of these statements pre-date Operation Desert Fox, after which SecDef William Cohen and Gen. Shelton stated that the air strikeswere successful in degrading Hussein's ability to deliver any WMDs.


    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
    -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

    Yes, Kennedy acknowledge the obvious (Iraq's history of pursuing WMDs), but you didn't finish the "quote":

    "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.  Our intelligence community is also deeply concerned about the acquisition of such weapons by Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria, and other nations.  But information from the intelligence community over the past 6 months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of WMDs.

    Oops.


    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

    Again, not claiming Iraq has WMDs, but is trying to rebuild his WMD capabilities.  Not to mention the interestingly truncated quote (again) where Clinton points out that there is no evidence of his involvement in 9/11 and cautioned against unilateral action.

    So, in fact, "all" of these democrats did not claim that Saddam had WMDs.  Moreover, voting for the AUMF was not "voting in favor of the invasion", as several voted against the AUMF and others voted for it but urged caution and were against unilateral action by the US.  In short, while many were cautious and suspicious about Saddam's desire for WMDs, they weren't pushing claims of existing WMDs (including a nuclear threat) against the US to justify their sale of war and invasion of Iraq.

    Parent

    Go read #33 (1.00 / 3) (#102)
    by ESteel on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 06:05:32 PM EST
    I put all of the dates for all of the quotes in there.

    "Moreover, voting for the AUMF was not "voting in favor of the invasion", as several voted against the AUMF and others voted for it but urged caution and were against unilateral action by the US."

    AUMF = Authorization for the Use of Military Force.

    Voting for the AUMF means they voted to give Bush the authority to use military force.

    Parent

    Very good (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 07:03:47 PM EST
    Now, see if you can tell the difference between voting to give Bush the authorization to use force vs. voting to use force (i.e. "go to war").

    I bet you can.

    Parent

    BTW - What was your claim again? (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 09:20:10 PM EST
    Look everyone, Democrat and Republican alike, and every intelligence agency in the world thought Saddam had WMDs.

    "Everyone"?!?  "Every intelligence agency in the world" thought Saddam had WMDs?

    Nope, just the ones you like because, like Bush, they were saying what you wanted to hear (or, at least parts of them were).

    As I've proven now, the intelligence agencies of Germany, France and Russia weren't buying the WMD claims, but suddenly they don't count, because you (falsely) claim that they were "the three countries that were the biggest beneficiaries in the Oil For Food scandal."  Apart from the fact that its irrelevant to disproving your original claim (i.e. every intelligence agency in the world believed Iraq had WMDs), it's one more BS claim.  Russian and French companies were 1 and 2, followed by China, Switzerland, Malaysia, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Other.  Germany would be in that last category, along with U.S. oil companies (who received 2-3%).  Should we dismiss the U.S. intelligence assessments also, since US companies received approximately the same (or more) than German companies?

    Your statements about Ritter are also ridiculous.  How is his conviction 8-10 years later relevant to his assessments of the Iraqi WMD claims.  Plus, your "(cough)bribe(cough)" statement shows me you have no evidence to back your claims about a bribe.  Let's see a link - something other than WND or the Washington Times.

    Not to mention that you completely ignore the assessment of the most important agency - the IAEA.  remember them?  The one actually doing inspections in Iraq?

    Parent

    NBC News (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 09:58:47 AM EST
    From among the most outspoken of critics of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, China has emerged as one of the biggest economic beneficiaries of the war, snagging five lucrative deals. While Western firms were largely subdued in their interest in Iraq's recent oil auctions, China snapped up three contracts, shrugging off the security risks and the country's political instability for the promise of oil.

    NBC news

    Parent

    Yep - Don't you feely silly ... (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:05:13 AM EST
    ... for having supported a war for Chinese (and American, British, Dutch, etc.) oil interests?

    Parent
    in a nutshell (none / 0) (#24)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 07:35:23 PM EST
    Exactly. Thanks for saying it as it was.

    Parent
    For starters, we could have NOT invaded (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by caseyOR on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:26:09 PM EST
    Iraq. Saddam had nothing to do with the events Sept. 11. We knew he did not have WMDs. Yes, he was a tyrant, but there are lots of tyrants running countries that we would never consider invading. So, his tyranny was no reason to invade. Had Saddam been willing to play ball with the U.S., no invasion would have occurred.

    When the Bush Administration took office they were already planning to invade Iraq and topple Saddam, months before 9/11 happened. Bush was miffed that Saddam had tried to kill Poppy Bush. Cheney and Bush saw Iraq and its oil fields as a huge payoff to their friends in the oil and gas industry.

    We chose to violate international law, sacrifice more than 4,000 American lives and untold thousands of Iraqi lives, and to waste trillions of dollars because Bush/Cheney, Rumsfeld and their buddies had a hard-0n for Saddam.

    Parent

    Okay "for starters..." (1.00 / 4) (#34)
    by ESteel on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 07:34:57 AM EST
    So if we had never invaded Iraq and never gone to war, what should we have done instead?

    Despite the facts that Saddam had threatened the US repeatedly, had tried to assassinate a US President, had previously possessed and used WMDs, did everything he could to look like he still possessed WMDs, had previously worked with/harbored terrorists and planned to rebuild his WMDs once the sanctions were lifted.

    In light of THOSE facts, what should we have done instead of war?

    Parent

    Not invaded Iraq (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 08:34:57 AM EST
    Continued with the inspections and (possibly) sanctions.  Your premises are funny:

    Despite the facts that Saddam had threatened the US repeatedly
    - Really?  Despite the fact that we had just decimated his military and neutered them?  You think sabre-rattling threats are enough to justify an invasion?  Guess we should invade North Korea, ... and China, ... and Somalia, ... and at least a dozen other countries.

    had tried to assassinate a US President
    - He did?!?  You know this because Bush said so?  Hahahahaha ... "Pentagon Report Shows No Iraq Plot To Assassinate Bush Sr."

    had previously possessed and used WMDs
    - the chemical shells he used against the Kurds?  Precisely how was that a threat to the US?

    did everything he could to look like he still possessed WMDs
    - So?  A lot of dictator's and small countries try to make it sound like they're a threat.  Should we invade them all?  You think it might have something to do with the fact that their military was just destroyed and have a neighbor (Iran) that they were constantly fighting with?  Heh.

    had previously worked with/harbored terrorists
    - Another thing you heard from the Bush administration in the run up to the war?  Haven't you ever wondered why these claims are so vague (i.e. "worked with" and "harbored" terrorists, rather than specific examples)?  It's because they're BS and there's no evidence to back them up.

    The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission and by declassified Defense Department reports as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

    and planned to rebuild his WMDs once the sanctions were lifted.
     OMG!  He was "planning" on pursuing WMDs at some point in the future (assuming he was able)?  Did the Bush administration tell you this?

    Heh, heh, heh ...

    Parent

    So is that your answer? (1.00 / 4) (#52)
    by ESteel on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:26:07 AM EST
    "Not invade Iraq. Continued with the inspections and (possibly) sanctions."

    Can you do math?  Which killed more Iraqis, Sanctions or War?

    Sanctions - "Citing information on maternal and child mortality rates collected by UNICEF, Professor Richard Garfield estimates that between 1991 and 2002, the number of excess deaths in Iraq among children under age 5 is 343,900 to 525,400. "
    http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq/sanctions.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/1995/12/01/world/iraq-sanctions-kill-children-un-reports.html

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weekend7.weekend9

    War - "The Iraq Body Count organisation, which cross references reported deaths with official figures, says 4,571 civilians were killed in 2012, bringing the number of civilian deaths since March 2003 to between 112,017 and 122,438. "

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21752819

    http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

    Duelfur Report - If you never have read the Duelfur Report.  It is the final report about Saddam's WMD programs.  The conventional wisdom is that there were no stockpiles of WMDs, end of story.

    Read the report.  There IS a whole lot more to the story.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId=&packageId=GPO-DUELFERREPORT&fr omBrowse=true

    "By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999."

    "Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability--which was essentially destroyed in 1991--after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability--in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks--but he intended to focus on ballistic
    missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities."

    So tell me what would you do?
    It's 2003, the sanctions for the last 12 years have created a humanitarian crisis in Iraq, international support for keeping them is failing, and Saddam's plan is to immediately restart his WMD programs the minute the sanctions are lifted.

    What should we have done?  Anything?  Nothing?  

    Parent

    We should stop listening to fairy tale ... (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 12:35:08 PM EST
    ... hypotheticals from wingers who just want any excuse to go to war, and cite a laundry list of lies to rationalize it.  (He has WMDs!" - Nope), "Everyone thought he had WMDs - Nope, "He tried to assassinate our President!" - Nope, "He's supporting Al Quaeda!" - Nope).  Save the crocodile tears over Iraqi children for someone who will believe that your concern is genuine, rather than just another attempt to excuse an unjustified war.

    BTW - Look at your link.  The vast majority of any deaths (of which their is a huge discrepancy in estimates) occurred because Saddam intentionally refused to allow sales of oil to be used for the purchase of food and medicine.  Your answer?  Invade their country - kill more people and lose thousands of American lives, spending trillions of dollars in the process.  But your concern for the children of Iraq is noted.

    Parent

    BTW - Even the authors of the study (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 12:43:06 PM EST
    ... on which the 500,000 deaths figure is cited have been very explicit in stating that they are not stating that the sanctions caused 500,000 deaths.

    First, the assumption is based on mortality rates continuing their same historic decline as during the 1980s; if the expectation benchmark was fixed to 1989 levels, the "excess death" number would be closer to 400,000. Second, UNICEF found that under-five mortality actually decreased in the autonomous north, while doubling in Saddam-controlled regions, giving pro-sanctions (and pro-war) advocates evidence that the Iraqi dictator was largely to blame. (It is also true that the north received far more international aid.).  Thirdly, and most importantly, the UNICEF study never once assigned anything like 100 percent of the blame to UN resolutions. "It's very important not to just say that everything rests on sanctions," UNICEF executive director Carol Bellamy said in an interview at the time. "It is also the result of wars and the reduction in investment in resources for primary healthcare."
    ...

    The study was so often cited after the Sept. 11, 2001 massacres as evidence for the "blowback" interpretation of the air attacks, that UNICEF had to rush out another clarifying press release.
    "The surveys were never intended to provide an absolute figure of how many children have died in Iraq as a result of sanctions," the statement read. Rather, they show that "if there hadn't been two wars, if sanctions hadn't been introduced and if investment in social services had been maintained ­ there would have been 500,000 fewer deaths of children under five."


    Parent
    This is like Groundhog Day (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by shoephone on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 04:34:18 PM EST
    let Saddam be (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 05:31:28 PM EST
    sanctions and wait until he did something that required further action.  He was no threat to us.  He was no threat to the countries around him.  He was a threat to his people, but so were we apparently and they are NOT better off now.  What a mess and it cost us dearly....for what?

    Now that you have asked the question, how about you tell us what the war accomplished.

    Parent

    Simple (1.00 / 4) (#104)
    by ESteel on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 06:16:38 PM EST
    1. In 10 years time the war cost fewer civilian lives than 10 years of sanctions

    2. Saddam Hussein, Uday Hussein and Qusay Hussein are not in power.
        a) they are not killing their people
        b) they are not torturing their people
        c) they are not going to use chemical weapons on their own people ever again
    1. Iraq is not producing WMDs
    2. Iraq is not in a nuclear arms race with Iran
    3. Iraq is not a state sponsor of terrorism
    4. Iraq is less likely to invade one of its neighbors
    5. The Iraqi people today have a real chance for Liberty.

    I remember somebody once said, "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. "

    Do YOU remember who that was?  Do you think those words are empty?

    Parent

    The Hussein's are dead. That's right. (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 06:38:44 PM EST
    But tyranny is still alive and well in Iraq. The Iraqi people are still living in fear of their government.

    Iraq may no longer be in a race with Iran. Instead, Iraq is an ally of Iran. Instead of fighting each other these  two repressive nations are united against the aims of the U.S.

    All we did for the Iraqi people was trade one bad government for another. And in the process we destroyed the country's infrastructure, and we blew-up the coexistence of the different religious groups, sparking massive killings and destruction.

    The Iraqi people's chance at real liberty is no better now than it was 10 years ago. We made their lives worse in so many ways.

    Get your head out of the neo-con sand, fergawdsake.

    Parent

    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 06:44:10 PM EST
    think people like ESteell understand that posts like that drive away potential voters. I mean if you think it's such a great policy decision and constantly make excuses for Iraq, apparently you do not understand what the problem is and will try to do the same thing in Iran. So yeah, right now we might be gearing up to go into Iran had Romney won the presidency.

    Parent
    What a crock (5.00 / 6) (#109)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 07:01:58 PM EST
    Iraqi's were being raped and tortured and killed at an alarming rate during the war that we started. And, in case you haven't been paying attention to the news over the last couple of years, sectarian violence has been claiming dozens, even hundreds of lives practically every week. Sunni-Shia violence is at an all time high in Iraq--and that's a Pandora's box that the U.S. opened by first invading the country, and then dismantling the entire Iraqi bureaucracy of Bathists, a knee-jerk action by Paul Bremmer that is now considered one of the stupidest decisions made by the U.S.  Our invasion created so many vacuums it was inevitable that Sunni-Shia tensions, which had previously been kept under control by Saddam, would be unleashed.

    As for that chance at liberty you're going on about.. there's no evidence of it yet.

    For someone who likes to bandy about the phrase "you're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts," methinks you need a dictionary so you can look up the definitions of the words opinions and facts.

    Your ridiculous rant here today isn't winning you any converts. Maybe you should take that as a   clear message.

    Parent

    "Simple" indeed (5.00 / 5) (#112)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 07:08:29 PM EST
    In 10 years time the war cost fewer civilian lives than 10 years of sanctions.

    Particularly considering the authors of the study you're citing deny your claim, a I pointed out previously (check the link).  The sanctions didn't cause 500,000 deaths.  Those deaths were caused by a combination of two wars, the sanctions, and the rapid decline in healthcare infrastructure due to the wars.

    Or, you realize your claim is false and choose to lie.

    Parent

    Have (none / 0) (#21)
    by lentinel on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:25:14 PM EST
    a look at this,

    and then come back with your questions and proposals.

    Buddies

    Parent

    Done differently? (none / 0) (#117)
    by Babel 17 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 11:17:11 AM EST
    However we went forward it should have been based on reality and not wishful thinking. Intelligence data from trusted sources shouldn't be brushed aside when it reflects a reality that is not appreciated.

    The public shouldn't be lied to, time after time, over massively important issues. The patriotism of those who stand up to the lies shouldn't be questioned. The profit motive shouldn't enter into one's thoughts on war.

    Can we agree on that?

    Can we agree the Bush administration violated those precepts?

    If we can't then I don't see much to be gained in spending time offering alternatives.

    I will say that back then I offered the opinion that while I wasn't opposed to the idea of nation building I saw every reason to not the Bush administration go about it with Iraq.

    So, in a sense, my idea for doing it differently would be to start with an administration that was reality based. Then we analyze the situation.

    When my government lies to me it's hard to offer it advice or for it to gain my support.

    Parent

    Ignore Syria lessons (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by cassandra1313 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:57:43 PM EST
    The last Arab country with a father to son dictatorship dynasty was Syria, where Assad is butchering his own people.  If Saddam and his sons were still in power, they would have continued to be murderous tyrants or would have butchered the civilians in Assad-like manner if they rebelled.  Either alternative is worse than the present one.

    That is for (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by sj on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:24:05 PM EST
    the Iraqis to determine.  Not us.
    If Saddam and his sons were still in power, they would have continued to be murderous tyrants or would have butchered the civilians in Assad-like manner if they rebelled.  Either alternative is worse than the present one.
    I think that to the butchered Iraqis, it is irrelevant who did the butchering: us or Saddam.


    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 05:50:23 PM EST
    based on what?  And what would that have to do with the USA? Wouldn't it have been better to wait and see before going to war there?

    Parent
    realpolitik now? (none / 0) (#127)
    by cassandra1313 on Sat Mar 23, 2013 at 02:48:56 PM EST
    If you are saying that the current Syrian debacle or the one which would have involved Iraqis trying to overthrow the psychopathic Hussein and his sons are none of the USA's business because it doesn't affect our narrow national interest, then I guess that's the end of it.


    Parent
    None of you have any proof (1.00 / 4) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:35:17 PM EST
    that Bush lied to Congress or that we "knew" he had no WMD's.

    All you can do is make laughable wild claims.

    Well, then - where are they? (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 08:34:02 AM EST
    Where are the WMD's, jim?  What we were told, over and over, with the cooperation of the media (hello, Judy Miller), was that those WMD's and the chemical and biological weapons did exist, that we were risking all kinds of horror if we didn't act.

    I don't know - did I miss the announcement about the great WMD find?  Are Bush and Cheney and Colin Powell still looking for them?

    The simple truth is that 9/11 presented an opportunity for people like Dick Cheney (if you could consider him a person, which is questionable) to take all that fear from the 9/11 attacks and channel it into building support for a war in Iraq that had been in Cheney's hope chest for years.  

    Did we have any other choice?  Of course we did - there are always choices.  We chose to be Saddam's good friend for a number of years, didn't we?  We chose to continue sanctions even though we knew that the hardship was being visited on people who weren't to blame for Saddam.

    We've played this friend-one-day - enemy-the-next game all over the world, for years, jim.  We've been selective in our ability to see repression and human rights violations, choosing when to see them and when not to on the basis of which choice works better for us.

    No, I don't think 9/11 was an inside job, but it was a hell of an opportunity, wasn't it?  The authoritarians really had their way with us, shredding privacy and other constitutional rights all over the place, just by invoking 9/11.  Rendition and torture and black site prisons have been added to the list of activities we engaged in with impunity, all justified by 9/11. And now, drones.

    "Laughable, wild claims," my great Aunt Fanny.

    Parent

    The question is (1.00 / 4) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:15:32 AM EST
    Prove that Bush lied.

    You won't becuase you can't. What you will do is try and change the subject.

    And yes, WMD's were not found in the quantities expected. And yes, we should have just carpet bombed Iraq to the point that they couldn't have did what Saddam wanted to do, produce WMD's, for another 30 years and left. Instead we decided to play goody two shoes and spend billions "nation building,"

    You know, like Obama is doing with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt right now.

    BTW - Consider this:

    Iraq's WMD programs spanned more than two decades, involved thousands of people, billions of dollars, and were elaborately shielded by security and deception operations that continued even beyond the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The very scale of this program when coupled with the conditions in Iraq that have prevailed since the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom dictate the speed at which we can move to a comprehensive understanding of Iraq's WMD activities.

    We need to recall that in the 1991-2003 period the intelligence community and the UN/IAEA inspectors had to draw conclusions as to the status of Iraq's WMD program in the face of incomplete, and often false, data supplied by Iraq or data collected either by UN/IAEA inspectors operating within the severe constraints that Iraqi security and deception actions imposed or by national intelligence collection systems with their own inherent limitations.

    snip

    We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

    snip

    · New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.

    · Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

    · A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

    · Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.

    · Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km -- well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

    · Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment

    snip

    Discussions with Iraqi scientists uncovered agent R&D work that paired overt work with nonpathogenic organisms serving as surrogates for prohibited investigation with pathogenic agents.

    Examples include: B. Thurengiensis (Bt) with B. anthracis (anthrax), and medicinal plants with ricin.

    In a similar vein, two key former BW scientists, confirmed that Iraq under the guise of legitimate activity developed refinements of processes and products relevant to BW agents. The scientists discussed the development of improved, simplified fermentation and spray drying capabilities for the simulant Bt that would have been directly applicable to anthrax, and one scientist confirmed that the production line for Bt could be switched to produce anthrax in one week if the seed stock were available.

    CNN

    Parent

    This much I will give you (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by sj on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:02:11 AM EST
    You provided a link.  To David Kay's testimony.  From 2003.  

    You forgot to mention that he resigned in 2004 because he was, you know, wrong.  Or that he might have had a little more information in October of 2003 if the weapons inspectors hadn't been kicked out of Iraq by the US in March 2003.

    Parent

    Next, he'll be reminding us about (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:07:32 AM EST
    the aluminum tubes and the yellowcake uranium.

    As if they were credible.

    Jesus.

    Parent

    Anne, since you brought the subject up (1.00 / 3) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:29:42 AM EST
    Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(                    ) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales.

    Link

    Parent

    The important word in that excerpt, jim, (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:37:54 AM EST
    is "interpreted."

    As in, Mayaki didn't have any facts, he just had an opinion.

    Parent

    So? (1.00 / 2) (#58)
    by ESteel on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 12:31:19 PM EST
    Anne, the original reporting on the Yellow cake story came from the Brits.  THEY had their own intel that there was a delegation from Iraq in Niger in 1999 looking to buy Yellowcake.  Not that Iraq ever succeeded in buying Yellowcake.

    Separately, the CIA sent Joe Wilson to Niger to try to confirm the Brits.  It was according to Joe Wilson that Mayaki mentions meeting with a group from Iraq and in his opinion they wanted to talk about Yellowcake.

    On its own, Mayaki's statement isn't a whole lot.  But, look at what Mayaki does do.  He is able to confirm that there was an Iraqi delegation in Niger in 1999.  And while the subject of Yellowcake never actually came up, he still came to the opinion that yellowcake was the real reason for their visit.  Again, that lends credibility to the Brits' intel.

    The guy who turns out to be the big liar, was Joe Wilson.  Who was it who told the CIA what Mayaki's opinion was?  Joe Wilson.  He goes on to say that yellowcake was never discussed.  Wilson also claims to have seen the forged documents and recognized them as forgeries BEFORE his trip to Niger.  But that is false, the CIA didn't receive the forged documents until after his trip and he was never shown them.

    The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12, 2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because `the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'" Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged."



    Parent
    No, it doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 01:14:24 PM EST
    On its own, Mayaki's statement isn't a whole lot.  But, look at what Mayaki does do.  He is able to confirm that there was an Iraqi delegation in Niger in 1999.  And while the subject of Yellowcake never actually came up, he still came to the opinion that yellowcake was the real reason for their visit.  Again, that lends credibility to the Brits' intel.

    No one disputed there was an Iraqi delegation in Niger.  The issue was their reason for being there.  The sole piece of "corroboration" was a statement made by one of the delegates that they wanted to discuss "expanding commercial relations".  That's it, and that's what Wilson reported.  That was solely Mayaki's interpretation based on that vague statement, and yellowcake (nor anything alluding to it) was ever discussed.  How, if they were there specifically to discuss yellowcake, did the issue never even get raised - or even alluded to?

    Parent

    Let's see (1.00 / 4) (#72)
    by ESteel on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:17:18 PM EST
    From Joe Wilson's CIA debrief, "Mayaki, however, did relate that in June 1999 Barka ((Tefridj)), a Nigerien/Algerian businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq.  Although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the United Nations (UN) sanctions against Iraq and the fact that he opposed doing business with Iraq.  Mayaki said that he interpreted the phrase "expanding commercial relations" to mean that Iraq wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales."

    Now remember the Brits had different intelligence that there was an Iraqi delegation going around Africa (not just Niger) looking to buy yellowcake.  So Mayaki's opinion A) confirms the existence of the delegation and B) lends credence to the idea that they were looking for yellowcake.

    It was Mayaki who thought the Iraqi's were interested in yellowcake.  It was Joe Wilson who thought that Mayaki's opinion important enough to pass on to the CIA.  

    Parent

    Don't stop there! (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by sj on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:26:04 PM EST
    It was Mayaki who thought the Iraqi's were interested in yellowcake.  It was Joe Wilson who thought that Mayaki's opinion important enough to pass on to the CIA.
    You forgot to add that it was it was then investigated and found that no such transaction had taken place.

    Parent
    Is English a second language for you? (1.00 / 4) (#81)
    by ESteel on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:52:41 PM EST
    Nobody ever claimed that a transaction took place.  

    This is what Bush said, "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa ."

    Point out the words that mean a transaction took place?

    Just attempting to buy yellowcake by Iraq was a violation of U.N. resolutions.


    Parent

    By the way (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by sj on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:35:31 PM EST
    it makes me sick and angry that 10 year old lies -- proven 10 year old lies -- are still being trumpeted by the likes of you and Jim.  Thousands of deaths later and you're still using phony, false, trumped-up egregious falsehoods to justify it.

    Those "casualties" are real people.  They are sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, nieces and nephews, uncles and aunts, grandparents and grandchildren.  All that blood and grief given for oil and ego and nothing more.

    It makes me sick and angry.

    Parent

    But don't you feel safer? Don't you (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:01:56 PM EST
    feel like the US, as a democracy, is stronger?  That we've once again shown the world why we're a beacon of democracy?

    Aren't you proud that, in spite of the horrors we experienced on 9/11, we stayed true to the constitutional imperatives that undepin our democracy, as we addressed terrorism?

    Don't you agree that, even when it would have been tempting to shred the laws and the constitution, we took the high road and conducted ourselves with honor?

    What am I talking about?  Well, I'm just trying on the persona of someone who still thinks invading Iraq was a good idea and worth what it did to us as a nation.  Admiring the stain, as it were.

    Because one can't just take the position that going to Iraq was a good idea, the right thing to do, without owning the whole, ugly package.

    Makes me sick, too, but I'm just a bleeding-heart, DFH who shouldn't even be allowed to speak her mind.


    Parent

    By lies (1.00 / 3) (#82)
    by ESteel on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:55:29 PM EST
    You mean Joe Wilson's lies, right?  Because the Brits still to this day stand by their report.

    It was Joe Wilson who falsely claimed to have debunked a document 8 months before it came into the CIA's possession.

    Parent

    The lies I to which I refer (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by sj on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:57:49 PM EST
    are the lies that you and Jim are regurgitating.  Is that clear enough for you?

    Parent
    No - YOUR lies (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:05:48 PM EST
    Wilson already explained that he misspoke about the dates.  Your statements - knowingly repeating false statements - are lies.

    Happy to clear that up for ya.

    Parent

    He did not misspeak about dates (1.00 / 4) (#100)
    by ESteel on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 05:55:28 PM EST
    He lied about facts.  Four separate reporters in four separate articles claim that Wilson debunked the forged documents.

    How would four different reporters interviewing the same Joe Wilson make the same glaringly incorrect statement about him debunking forged documents that he never saw?

    Because he lied when he told Nicholas Kristof,   Walter Pincus and Judis/Ackerman that HE debunked the forged documents.  That is the only explanation.

    Parent

    Not according to Kristoff himself ... (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 07:25:28 PM EST
    ... who sent Wilson an email in which he verified that Wilson told him he never saw the documents:

    I remember you saying that you had not seen the documents. my recollection is that at we had some information about the documents at that time - e.g. the names of people in them - but i do clearly remember you saying that you had not been shown them.

    Oops.

    You should stop believing everything you read on WND.

    Parent

    Of COURSE he "passed it along" (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:02:06 PM EST
    All he did was report Malaki's interpretation of the statement.  He would have been negligent not to include it in his debrief.  But Wilson never endorse Mayaki's interpretation and, in fact, told the debriefer that Mayaki met with the delegation and that yellowcake was never even mentioned.

    OTOH, it was the administration's decision to claim this ridiculously vague statement as confirmation that the Iraqi's were trying to get yellowcake.  Just as it was their decision to include it in the SOTU speech in order to sell the need for war.  The administration chose to ignore the State Department's October 2002 NIE assessment that "the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa" were "highly dubious", because it didn't fit what they wanted to hear.  Then they repeated the phrase "The British government has learned Saddam Hussein has recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa"... because they could simply blame it on the Brits if it was false, despite the fact that British assessment was based on documents that were not just forged, but "transparently forged documents" with "flaws in the letterhead, forged signatures, misspelled words, incorrect titles for individuals and government entities."  They weren't just fakes, they were horribly bad fakes.  Yet they chose to accept Mayaki's opinion of an incredibly vague statement as confirmation of the amateurishly forged documents.

    You guys wanted the war, and you had to sell it.

    Heh.

    Parent

    Wrong Wrong Wrong (1.00 / 2) (#91)
    by ESteel on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 04:45:51 PM EST
    because they could simply blame it on the Brits if it was false, despite the fact that British assessment was based on documents that were not just forged, but "transparently forged documents" with "flaws in the letterhead, forged signatures, misspelled words, incorrect titles for individuals and government entities."  They weren't just fakes, they were horribly bad fakes.  Yet they chose to accept Mayaki's opinion of an incredibly vague statement as confirmation of the amateurishly forged documents.

    You are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.

    Go read Factcheck.org

    http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html


    Parent

    Yep, precisely what I said (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 04:57:44 PM EST
    They chose to believe this incredibly poor "evidence" because they wanted to believe it.

    Parent
    Now you are a liar (1.00 / 4) (#97)
    by ESteel on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 05:35:48 PM EST
    What you said was that the Brits based their report on forged documents.  That is false.  Read the factcheck.org story, the Brits and the U.S. have investigated and confirmed that the British intel was NOT based on forged documents.

    So on one hand you have three intelligence agencies (DIA, CIA & MI6) telling the President that they have evidence of something and on the other hand you have just one other agency (INR) telling the President that in their opinion they disagree.

    How would you weigh evidence from three sources vs. the opinion of one source?

    Parent

    Read the site rules (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 07:06:28 PM EST
    You're breaking them left and right, just like you did the last time you foisted yourself on this blog.

    Parent
    Read it (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 08:42:43 PM EST
    OTOH - I've also read the findings of the Iraqi Intelligence Commission (aka the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction), which delivered its report after the Factcheck article you seem so impressed with.  They actually did investigate, and they found just the opposite of what you claim - namely, that the Niger Yellowcake Scandal was due to intelligence agencies believing transparently forged documents.


    For reasons discussed at length below, several months after the NIE, the reporting that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger was judged to be based on forged documents and was recalled. (p. 58)

    The President referred to this alleged agreement in his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003-- evidence for which the Intelligence Community later concluded was based on forged documents. (p. 76)

    The IAEA, after receiving copies of the documents from the United States, reviewed them and immediately concluded that they were forgeries.  As the IAEA found, the documents contained numerous indications of forgery-- flaws in the letterhead, forged signatures, misspelled words, incorrect titles for individuals and government entities, and anomalies in the documents' stamps...

    When it finally got around to reviewing the documents during the same time period, the CIA agreed that they were not authentic. Moreover, the CIA concluded that the original reporting was based on the forged documents and was thus itself unreliable.(p. 78)

    So yeah, I'd go with the IAEA and the State Department, since they immediately noted the documents were clearly forgeries and explained why in detail.  You and Cheney, OTOH, would not, since it's not the conclusion you were looking for.

    Parent

    this is crazy twisted shit (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 06:30:06 PM EST
    can't you see that?   The drapes have been pulled back and sunlight has long since bleached and cleaned away the mold and mildew lingering on this story.  Wilson was right and seriously, I am no liberal dogma obsessed democrat.  I take nothing on faith just because it is the favored point of view of the left.
    It's like you are cheering for a team whose owners laugh at you behind your back even as you are carrying their water.

    Parent
    What? Joe Wilson a liar?? (1.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:05:01 PM EST
    Sir you are obviously a far right wing fanatic.

    How dare you point out such things.

    (sarcasm alert!)

    Parent

    Link? (none / 0) (#61)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 12:45:42 PM EST
    Link??? (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:07:39 PM EST
    Great. Just read through the document (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:01:21 PM EST
    and it adds exactly nothing to the discussion. The tactic of taking one short paragraph out of context to try and smear Wilson is par for the course for you and your bosom buddy ESteele, but it doesn't actually confer any legitimacy to your claims about the Iraq-Niger yellowcake connection, and it certainly doesn't prove your claims that Wilson lied. In fact, that report you linked to ends by saying that Wilson's information was judged to be "good" by the DIA and CIA, and didn't add anything new, but confirmed what they already knew or thought they knew. It also says that their own intelligence had concluded only that an attempt may have been made by Iraq to purchase yellowcake, but that it was unlikely the Nigerians would ever have sold it to them, and that, in any case, the French control would not have allowed it.

    So we're left with...no d*mning evidence of anything at all.

    However, Wilson's piece in the NYT, "What I Didn't Find in Africa" sure did pi$$ Cheney off to monumental proportions. Hence, the wacko right's vilification of Wilson. Nothing surprising in that either, since it's the way the neocons were known to behave.

    What have you offered us today? Continued freaking out over unsubstantiated claims, ten years later. Despite the disastrous illegal war in Iraq, despite all the evidence, you continue to beat the drum for invading that nation on a pack of Cheney's lies and killing the evil Saddam.

    And once again, the trolls have hijacked and dominated the threads with nonsense.

    New day, same wacko sh*t.

    Parent

    Sickening, isn't it? (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by sj on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:10:13 PM EST
    And once again, the trolls have hijacked and dominated the threads with nonsense.

    New day, same wacko sh*t.



    Parent
    Do you people not even read? (1.00 / 3) (#94)
    by ESteel on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 05:18:02 PM EST
    1. It was a violation of U.N. Resolutions for Iraq to even attempt to buy yellowcake.  They didn't have to succeed for it to be illegal.

    2. I repeat Joe Wilson lied when he claimed that he had read and debunked the forged Niger/Iraq documents when he got back from Niger.  

    From Nicholas Kristof, NY Times
    "I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged."

    "The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade. In addition, the Niger mining program was structured so that the uranium diversion had been impossible. The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted--except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway."

    From Walter Pincus, Washington Post

    " During his trip, the CIA's envoy [Wilson] spoke with the president of Niger and other Niger officials mentioned as being involved in the Iraqi effort, some of whose signatures purportedly appeared on the documents."

    "After returning to the United States, the envoy reported to the CIA that the uranium-purchase story was false, the sources said. Among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong," the former U.S. government official said.

    But we did not get the documents until 8 months after his trip, and CIA never showed him any documents.  So tell me how did he debunk documents that didn't exist for another 8 months?  He didn't.  

    Joe Wilson later changes his tune and says that he never actually saw the documents.

    So why did Nicholas Kristof and Walter Pincus both claim he debunked the forged documents?

    Simple, because he lied to them.

    So what else did Joe Wilson lie about?  

    Parent

    So, here we go with the "you people..." (none / 0) (#95)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 05:22:48 PM EST
    not a phrase that works too well...

    Parent
    Kristof specifically confirmed that, ... (none / 0) (#115)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 08:51:31 PM EST
    ... in fact, Wilson told him he hadn't seen the documents:

    I remember you saying that you had not seen the documents. my recollection is that at we had some information about the documents at that time - e.g. the names of people in them - but i do clearly remember you saying that you had not been shown them.


    Parent
    I have offered you facts (1.00 / 2) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 07:08:59 PM EST
    You have responded with snarks and personal attacks.

    Nothing new there.

    Parent

    Mites are on chickens (1.00 / 6) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:24:45 AM EST
    But nothing stays clear for long when it comes to the justification for the Iraq war. Even since Kay's seminal testimony there have been attempts to reinterpret what he actually said. The media has been accused of focusing on a single soundbite, ignoring the ISG's findings that the Iraqis had indeed been trying to develop long-range missiles they were not entitled to, and had the means to reconstitute their weapons programmes once the international pressure was off.

    In person, however, Kay's message is clear. "I was convinced and still am convinced that there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction at the time of the war," he told the Guardian

    Link


    at the time of the war," he told the Guardian

    In the meantime:

    Saddam Hussein's regime offered a $2 million (£1.4 million) bribe to the United Nations' chief weapons inspector to doctor his reports on the search for weapons of mass destruction.

    Link

    Now let me see. I don't have any WMD's so I offer a $2 million dollar bribe to the person searching for the weapons I don't have.

    Okie Dokie.

    lol

    Parent

    Was the bribe accepted? (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:47:21 AM EST
    LOL.

    Parent
    Your question (1.00 / 4) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:02:24 PM EST
    is irrelevant.

    But then most of your comments are.

    It is the offer that is important.

    Parent

    Oh, jim, grow up, would you? (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:20:38 PM EST
    I mean, really, is there something that your I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I comments add to the discussion?  Because if there is, I'm not seeing it.

    I can always tell when you get tired of playing: you get mean.

    Parent

    No, Jim, it's not the offer that matters (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:08:12 PM EST
    People make offers of bribes all the time. If the recipient of the offer doesn't take the bribe then...it doesn't matter one whit in the end. But then, you already knew that. You're just bored at home today, with too much time on your hands, and so you've decided to troll and hijack TL once again.

    New day, same wacko sh*t.

    Don't you have some closets to clear out or something? Spring cleaning's here.

    Parent

    Oh please (1.00 / 3) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 07:17:35 PM EST
    Now you have made yourself laughable...

    Iraw offering a bribe to a UN weapons inspector to not look for WMD's is meaningless?

    Really??

    Can I quote you???

    I mean... I don't have any WMD's and I'll give you $2 million dollars to not look for them...

    ;-)

    Parent

    The so-called allegation (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by shoephone on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 07:49:12 PM EST
    means squat.

    Where are the phantom WMD's, Jim? Because until you can answer that question, your entire trollish screed on this thread is going to be like all your other trollish screeds:

    Utterly meaningless.

    Parent

    You're funny, Jim (none / 0) (#123)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 23, 2013 at 10:03:18 AM EST
    Iraw offering a bribe to a UN weapons inspector to not look for WMD's is meaningless?

    Really??

    Can I quote you???

    I mean... I don't have any WMD's and I'll give you $2 million dollars to not look for them...

    You're suggesting that the offer of a bribe to Rolf Ekeus proves that Iraq had WMDs?!?  Hahahahaha ...

    The offer was not, as you claimed, a bribe "not to look for them."  The alleged offer was for a "favorable report".  Why would they want to offer money in exchange for a "favorable report"?  Easy.  Because they expected the sanctions to be lifted once it was certified that they had no WMDs.  Because the slightest bit of amigous information interpreted against them could prevent this.  Because people who wanted a war with Iraq would use any information, credible or not, to claim that Iraq had WMDs.  They would spin aluminum tubes into nuclear weapon manufacturing, spin trailers in mobile anthrax labs, "commercial relations" into yellowcake uranium.  They would offer a bribe to ensure that the misinformation and lies being spread by armchair warriors didn't ensure the sanctions remained, or act as a (false) basis to justify the invasion of their country.

    Anything else you need help understanding?

    Parent

    We would've carpet bombed Iraq (none / 0) (#65)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 01:58:36 PM EST
    but the trouble was, there were just too many of your sworn enemies here: erect-walking, homo sapiens, with that problematic, humanistic-bent they're known for..

    Parent
    There are none so blind as those who will not see. (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 08:38:22 AM EST
    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 06:03:08 PM EST
    all democrats, most independents and many republicans think bush lied and that Saddam had no WMD.  Why be the hold out on this one?  If you can put two and two together and get four and I know you can because you are a smart guy, you can read and hear the same news the rest of us did for all these years and know that bush was a lying scumbag who stole the white house and lied us in to war for two reasons, 1. to enrich himself and his base of billionaires and 2. in the vainglorious attempt to become a famous beloved war hero president.

    Parent
    My Billionaire Boss (none / 0) (#31)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 01:52:01 AM EST
    used to tell me, when referring to our competition, "we would not have become so rich, if the competition had not been so dumb."

    See if you can figure out the analogy here between "those who can think for themselves, and those who can, but choose not to."

    You should try it sometimes. You might be wrong occasionally but, at least it would be you making your own mistakes, instead of you carrying water for con men who, believe it or not, hate you.


    Parent

    Why don't you provide some proof (1.00 / 2) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:00:19 AM EST
    instead of claiming??

    Parent
    So speaks (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by sj on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 10:34:28 AM EST
    Mr. "I-don't-have-to-read-your-links-or-provide-any-of-my-own".

    Parent
    So sj has nothing to say (1.00 / 3) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:12:45 AM EST
    no links

    no proof

    So what's new??

    Nothing but baseless old claims.

    Parent

    "Nothing but baseless old claims" (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by shoephone on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 11:51:19 AM EST
    This is what's commonly referred to as projecting.

    Parent
    it has been years Jim (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 06:09:38 PM EST
    how many years do you expect people to provide links and "proof" for common knowledge?

    Parent
    Common knowledge??? (1.00 / 4) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 07:06:47 PM EST
    A nifty way to avoid facing the facts.

    Parent
    You would know, Jim (none / 0) (#124)
    by Yman on Sat Mar 23, 2013 at 10:08:07 AM EST
    Since you've tried it many times in the past when you had no evidence.

    The "facts" are that the Bush administration turned Iraq upside down to find evidence of WMDs in Iraq after the invasion, and found squat.  so now you a about three other dead-enders are reduced to claiming that Iraq sent the WMDs to Syria before the war started, based on nothing more than rumors.

    Your silly stories are ridiculous.

    Parent

    Well, (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 05:37:58 PM EST
    according to Dick Cheney George W. was a moron or mentally handicapped take your pick. Coming out in a new documentary.

    Prove they lied? Hey, lets call them all in and put them under oath and see what they have to say.

    Be a Bush apologist all you want. The most amazing thing is how he has ruined the GOP for a generation. Just raising the specter of George W. Bush is enough to make the GOP lose quite a bit more elections.

    Parent

    Anybody ever notice how some people (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 02:11:06 PM EST
    try to change the subject when faced with facts they don't like?

    Yes, shooter, that be you I'm speaking about.

    BTW - You gonna get Titan tickets for next year??

    YES I am (none / 0) (#90)
    by NYShooter on Thu Mar 21, 2013 at 03:17:21 PM EST
    "You gonna get Titan tickets for next year??"

    But, I'm gonna wear a Groucho Marx mask until they start winning a few games.

    I put in for a pair of tickets, maybe you'll join me sometime?

    No armbands though, ok?

    That reminds me, gotta check and see when/if the Giants play here.

    Parent

    You provide the tickets (none / 0) (#121)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 07:19:23 PM EST
    and I'll get the "sides."

    Make that two masks.

    Parent

    SPELLING ALERT: "Responsibility" (none / 0) (#1)
    by Anne on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:53:02 PM EST
    is misspelled in the post title - you've transposed the "s" and the "p."

    Open letter to Dubya and Cheney here (none / 0) (#15)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:17:31 PM EST
    link


    I'm hopeless so try going to truthdig.com (none / 0) (#18)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 06:19:18 PM EST


    I'm guessing that... (none / 0) (#26)
    by desertswine on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 10:02:18 PM EST
    this letter is what you're referring to.

    Parent
    Yes! I apologize for not getting the link (none / 0) (#27)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 11:29:22 PM EST
    into my posts.  Thank you for doing it for me.  

    I think the letter said everything that needed to be said.  Unfortunately, the people who need to read it won't do so.  

    Parent