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

    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
    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.

    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 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

    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

    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
    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

    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.

    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

    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


    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

    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.

    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

    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

    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

    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
    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

    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
    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

    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

    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

    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
    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
    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

    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
    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

    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

    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.