Just a Reminder of Bush's War

[hcap]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/27/bush-administration-sold-iraq-war

How the Bush administration sold the war – and we bought it

We knew WMD intelligence was flawed, but there was a larger failure of officials, media and public to halt the neocon juggernaut
....... Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson

For nearly a year prior to the invasion, President Bush and his administration peppered the airwaves with serious accusations against Saddam Hussein, including claims of aluminum tubes that could be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium, and of Iraqi efforts to purchase uranium yellowcake from Africa. The intelligence supporting the claims was either not believed or was highly disputed by the experts. But that did not stop senior government officials from repeating them incessantly; nor did it prevent the powerful neoconservative ideologues who were the war's most fervent supporters from parroting them with menacingly jingoistic passion.

Who can forget the trademark line, delivered by Condoleezza Rice:

We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

[sammy the sage]

talk about Trolling or beating a dead horse...

so what...it's history...O'man will BE remembered for LIES as well... :rolleyes:

[hcap]

talk about Trolling or beating a dead horse...

so what...it's history...O'man will BE remembered for LIES as well... :rolleyes:So nice to hear from you Sam :)

Troll catch # 1..... Check! :cool:

[ArlJim78]

Bush's war was approved by congress with wide bipartisan support.

[redshift1]

Bush's war was approved by congress with wide bipartisan support.

Embarrassingly supported by the media as well.

[hcap]

Set up by a false spin of the intelligence handed out by the administration.
It was a coordinated propaganda campaign that worked.

[DJofSD]

hcap reminds me of the Ian Anderson line: living in the past.

[PaceAdvantage]

Bush was the only one beating the drums eh? You sure you want to play that hand?

RhZ2ZvS2t_E

[woodtoo]

Ha, ha, he was just blowin his horn in that song too.:lol:

[hcap]

hcap reminds me of the Ian Anderson line: living in the past.The 10 year anniversary of this crap seems to me a time worth remembering this crap. The article spells it out

1 war totally unnecessary and another prolonged because military assets were removed from where they belonged to fight a phantom.

[ArlJim78]

Set up by a false spin of the intelligence handed out by the administration.
It was a coordinated propaganda campaign that worked.
I would just like for you guys to get your stories straight on Bush.
was he A) a brilliant mastermind and manipulator of intelligence, media and congress, or B) a clueless doofuss with the brain of a turnip?

[Tom]

Set up by a false spin of the intelligence handed out by the administration. It was a coordinated propaganda campaign that worked.

Now you're talking about Obamadontcare??????

[johnhannibalsmith]

Did we enjoy Hubris that much to stoke this listless ember again? :D

[hcap]

Bush was the only one beating the drums eh? You sure you want to play that hand?
Before the war Bush and others in the administration often downplayed or omitted any mention of doubts about Saddam's nuclear program. They said Saddam might give chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons to terrorists, although their own intelligence experts said that was unlikely. Bush also repeatedly claimed Iraq had trained al Qaeda terrorists in the use of poison gas, a story doubted at the time.

As the Wilson's point out:In sum, we are left to believe that a significant part of President Bush's case for war was based on intelligence that neither he nor his intelligence officials had even seen. The declassification of several documents in recent years, and a US Senate investigation report published in 2008 conclude that there was far closer collusion between the Bush and Blair administrations than the Straw testimony suggests. Yet, the British government to this day continues to stand behind its "separate intelligence" – which it has yet to make public.

The Powell address to the UN and the Niger-Iraq saga are but two examples of the efforts of the Bush administration to manipulate intelligence to support its political objectives and the lengths to which it went to secure support for its war. As former White House press secretary Scott McClellan put it:

"Bush and his White House were engaging in a carefully orchestrated campaign to shape and manipulate sources of public approval to our advantage."


Congress did not have all the facts

Bush insisted that Democrats saw the same prewar intelligence available to the White House. (11/16/05)

1. "More than 100 Democrats in the House and Senate, who had access to the same intelligence [as I had], voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power."..Bush

The president's Daily Brief (PDB) by the CIA contains his most sensitive intelligence. For example, on September 21, ten days after 9/11, the president learned from the PDB that the U.S. intelligence community had "no evidence" linking Saddam Hussein to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (see below for further details). Before the war the Bush administration did not provide this information to Congress.

The 9/11 Commission, appointed by President Bush, reported that the top al Qaeda leaders so far captured, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad and Abu Zubayda, revealed to interrogators that Osama bin Laden had prohibited al Qaeda Operatives from cooperating with Saddam Hussein. According to them, Bin Laden regarded Saddam as a renegade Muslim leader who was a secular nationalist. Before the war the Bush administration did not provide this information to Congress.

Bush administration leaders used information from Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a top al Qaeda prisoner, as the basis for their publicly stated view that Iraq was training al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons. But in February 2002, more than a year before the Iraq invasion, an intelligence report in a Defense Intelligence Agency document (declassified recently, according to the New York Times, 11/6/05) said it was probable that al-Libi "was intentionally misleading the debriefers" in telling them that Iraq was providing such training to al Qaeda operatives. Before the war the Bush administration did not provide Congress with this assessment of al-Libi's reliability.

During the period before the war there was much discussion about aluminum tubes Saddam Hussein had purchased. Vice President Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, then national security advisor to the president, among others, described the tubes as materials used in centrifuges to enrich uranium for nuclear weapon production. CIA analysts supported this interpretation. But there was disagreement in the U.S. intelligence community about the tubes. Nuclear experts in the Energy Department said the tubes were inappropriate for uranium enrichment. They also said the tubes were probably for use in artillery rockets. This interpretation turned out to be correct. Before the war the Bush administration did not provide Congress with this Energy Department assessment.

Bush administration leaders had intelligence information from the Department of Defense's Office of Special Plans, then run by undersecretary of defense for policy, Douglas Feith, and from the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group led by Ahmad Chalabi. Bush administration leaders used some of the information from these sources in public statements that turned out to be inaccurate-including parts of Secretary of State Powell's 2/5/03 speech before the Security Council. The Chalabi group, for example, provided the administration with a source named "Curveball," who supplied false information about Iraq's non-existent mobile biological labs (more information on this subject below). Although the U.S. intelligence community had serious doubts about the reliability of the information from Chalabi and Curveball, the Bush administration did not provide Congress with information about these doubts.

Save your breath Mike you are in a losig battle. Your video is based on misleading evidence and withholding info and outright lies to the congress and us. All of this documented now. History will not be kind to GW

[Tom]

I am quite sure the emails went out this morning telling the Obama-zombies to post anti-Bush stuff today, to deflect the fact that the world did end when sequestration kicked in, as Obama tried to convince everyone it would. And of course, expect more when he cuts important things in the budget, like defense, instead of addressing as much as $1 of government waste.

Like Obama, hcap is still living in a campaign world, where you can blame everything on somebody else, not the real one, where you actually have to be accountable for yourself.

[Tom]

Before the war Bush and others in the administration often downplayed or omitted any mention of doubts about Saddam's nuclear program. They said Saddam might give chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons to terrorists, although their own intelligence experts said that was unlikely. Bush also repeatedly claimed Iraq had trained al Qaeda terrorists in the use of poison gas, a story doubted at the time.

But it turns out that Libya DID have stuff that they turned over to us, round about the time we pulled SH out of a spiderhole looking like dome democrat hippy. Good think tht stuff was not still in Libya when the vieos cause all those folks the riot and kill everything that moved.....they could be in the hands of Al Qeda today.

[Marshall Bennett]

I'd take either Bush over this clueless excuse of a leader we're under now.

[hcap]

But it turns out that Libya DID have stuff that they turned over to us, round about the time we pulled SH out of a spiderhole looking like dome democrat hippy. Good think tht stuff was not still in Libya when the vieos cause all those folks the riot and kill everything that moved.....they could be in the hands of Al Qeda today.The factors that induced Libya to give up its weapons programs are debatable. Many Bush administration officials have emphasized the U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq, as well as the October 2003 interdiction of a ship containing nuclear-related components destined for Libya, as key factors in Tripoli’s decision. But outside experts argue that years of sanctions and diplomatic efforts were more important.

Be that as it may, are you now stating that even if the Bushies lied their teeth off, everything turned out just ducky and hunky dory?

I guess even though Bush lied, it turns out he was a foreign affairs visionaiy and freekin genius?

Can you spell N-U-U-C-U-L-A-R? :cool:

[Tom]

Obama is not fit to wipe Bush's...but I digress.
You can find fault with Bush when this POS can't even be bothered to be in the situation room while his representatives are butchered in Libya, after his bitch Hillary denied them the request protection they knew they needed?

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2011/12/15/tom-brokaw-president-clinton-thought-saddam-hussein-had-wmd

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

hcap, you handle the truth about as good your boy in DC - you have idea what it is and damn sure present precious little of it.

[thaskalos]

Obama is not fit to wipe Bush's...but I digress.
You can find fault with Bush when this POS can't even be bothered to be in the situation room while his representatives are butchered in Libya, after his bitch Hillary denied them the request protection they knew they needed?

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2011/12/15/tom-brokaw-president-clinton-thought-saddam-hussein-had-wmd

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

hcap, you handle the truth about as good your boy in DC - you have idea what it is and damn sure present precious little of it.

Isn't it also the "truth" that George W. Bush ended his presidency with the worst approval rating ever recorded during the entire 70+ years that such statistics have been kept? Something like 22%...with 75% of the country declaring that they disapproved of his work as president over his 8-year tenure?

I understand your disapproval of Obama...but where do you base your opinion that GWB was a better president?

Bush's lies were less damaging than Obama's?

[Tom]

Something like 22%...with 75% of the country declaring that they disapproved of his work as president over his 8-year tenure?

Where do you get a false statement like that?
What poll? Show me the actual question presented.

[thaskalos]

Where do you get a false statement like that?
What poll? Show me the actual question presented.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-4728399.html

[Tom]

The link to the actual questions is ot working, but no matter.
So how do you explain his higher ratings during the 8 years, when it mattered?
The fact that his ratings were so low at the end, while the banking crisis was going on says more about spur of the moment reactions than anything else.

But public opinion has nothing to do with being a good or bad president, as this poll, and Obama's current action illustrate so well.;)

Bush was a far better Prez than Obama for several reasons.
I will list them a little later, right now, I am heading out for drinks and then dinner. Maybe more drinks than dinner. :cool:

[ArlJim78]

We'll see where Obama's numbers end up at the end of his reign. the brunt of his foolish policies are by design only now taking effect.

[dartman51]

The link to the actual questions is ot working, but no matter.
So how do you explain his higher ratings during the 8 years, when it mattered?
The fact that his ratings were so low at the end, while the banking crisis was going on says more about spur of the moment reactions than anything else.

But public opinion has nothing to do with being a good or bad president, as this poll, and Obama's current action illustrate so well.;)

Bush was a far better Prez than Obama for several reasons.
I will list them a little later, right now, I am heading out for drinks and then dinner. Maybe more drinks than dinner. :cool:


Also, remember, there was a campaign going on. And even though Bush wasn't running, the Obama machine was campaigning against Bush, not McCain. His campaign, along with the MSM, did a good job demonizing Bush, to benefit Obama. :ThmbUp:

[hcap]

The link to the actual questions is ot working, but no matter.
So how do you explain his higher ratings during the 8 years, when it mattered?
:Crappola once again. Here is the 8 glorious Bush years in all their glory

http://www.cbsnews.com/elements/2006/03/23/in_depth_politics/frameset1433259.shtml

[NJ Stinks]

I'd take either Bush over this clueless excuse of a leader we're under now.

Yea, let's start another 8 years of war for no good reason and make sure we simultaneously cut taxes while borrowing every nickel needed to fund the war.

While we are at it, let's watch our financial institutions take us into a worldwide recession.

Or we can vote for Obama and maybe pay extra to get another 30M of our fellow Americans health insurance.

Gee, I wonder what the best choice is? :rolleyes:

[johnhannibalsmith]

...to get another 30M of our fellow Americans health insurance.

...

... to force 30M of our fellow Americans to purchase insurance and become friends forever with your former employer.

[NJ Stinks]

... to force 30M of our fellow Americans to purchase insurance and become friends forever with your former employer.

Geez, John, did you have to link me to my former employer? What I ever do to you? :p

[Tom]

Bush was a better president than Obama will ever be. No debate on this.
Bush represented the people - ALL the people. No matter if they agreed with him or not, he represented their interests. Obama has NEVER represented anyone other than those who he owed for favors, or of course, his own personal agenda. Bush was a leader, Obama is a divider.
Bush tried to work with both sides, to his detriment. Obama is only out for revenge. Listen to several speeches by both men. Obama has never given a speech where he doesn't blame someone else for something, try to alienate some group or another. Bush always tried to get us on the same page as a nation.

The left went out of it's way to oppose Bush at every turn. They turned thier back on our troops in a time of war - there is no coming back from that. That sleaze bag Dingy Harry, Murtha - glad that POS is rotting in Hell.

The left - especially their local reps here at PA, posted over and over the phrase, "tax cuts for the rich" when they knew full well the cuts were for EVERYONE. The bottom level taxes were cut 50%! Tell me that did not help the bottom earners.

Just today, a day late and a dollar short, Obama gives a speech where he lies 100% of the blame for not reaching a deal on sequestartion. He had the gall to mock the repubs by saying maybe when they come back in a few months, they will feel happier and see things his way. He lied that they would not agree to any meaningful cuts, when in fact, they did, and they did sent two plan to the senate, who refuse to vote on them. He then snuck in the clever idea that from now on, whenever we get bad fiscal news, it is the fault of the republicans,not him

Not once in all of this financial stuff has he stepped up to the plate and took on a leadership role. Not once. Last time I looked, it takes TWO side to negotiate. The repubs gave him all the tax increases he asked for last time, then he moves the goal posts and lies his ass off about the effects of sequ - never once looking at the massive amount of waste he could cut instead.

He is playing politics all the time - he has never been a leader - he is a community organizers -- a rable- rouser. nothing more. He has never come close to being a leader.

That is why I said it, Thask. Because I can see, and I can hear.

[delayjf]

But outside experts argue that years of sanctions and diplomatic efforts were more important.

Yea right thats certainly explains why they got caught with nuclear centrifuge parts - yea, its real debatable.

[BlueShoe]

Speaking of WMDs, have we forgotten about General Sada, the man that insisted that they were moved to Syria. If they were indeed moved to Syria, where are they now, and who has them?
www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/ (http://www.nysun.com/foreign/iraqs-wmd-secreted-in-syria-sada-says/26514/)

[newtothegame]

Harry,
I know you feel the need to keep us in tune with what Bush did...(how many years ago)???
Why didn't you go all the way back prior to him?
Hell, if you like you can go all the way back to Washington and start threads for each president if you like......:lol:
But, and here's the kicker......OBAMA IS THE CURRENT POS (or is it POTUS), either way, you get the idea......
Now you may try to get people to take their eyes off the ball with diversionary tactics but I am curious why you are not using more recent events...like the tragic deaths of four americans in Benghazi? It couldnt possibly be because you only target the 'right" side of the aisle is it?? lol
Obama has this on his shoulders whether he beleives himself to be king or not! A second term can not be put on Bush any longer.....
By the way, did you see the recent report about how personal incomes have fell more now then in the PAST 20 YEARS??? :lol:

[Dahoss2002]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/27/bush-administration-sold-iraq-war

How the Bush administration sold the war – and we bought it

We knew WMD intelligence was flawed, but there was a larger failure of officials, media and public to halt the neocon juggernaut
....... Valerie Plame Wilson and Joe Wilson

For nearly a year prior to the invasion, President Bush and his administration peppered the airwaves with serious accusations against Saddam Hussein, including claims of aluminum tubes that could be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium, and of Iraqi efforts to purchase uranium yellowcake from Africa. The intelligence supporting the claims was either not believed or was highly disputed by the experts. But that did not stop senior government officials from repeating them incessantly; nor did it prevent the powerful neoconservative ideologues who were the war's most fervent supporters from parroting them with menacingly jingoistic passion.

Who can forget the trademark line, delivered by Condoleezza Rice:

We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
It is a tragedy that Saddam was taken out of power. Sorry HCAP.

[hcap]

Harry,
I know you feel the need to keep us in tune with what Bush did...(how many years ago)???
Why didn't you go all the way back prior to him?
Hell, if you like you can go all the way back to Washington and start threads for each president if you like......:lol:
But, and here's the kicker......OBAMA IS THE CURRENT POS (or is it POTUS), either way, you get the idea......
Now you may try to get people to take their eyes off the ball with diversionary tactics but I am curious why you are not using more recent events...like the tragic deaths of four americans in Benghazi? It couldnt possibly be because you only target the 'right" side of the aisle is it?? lol
Obama has this on his shoulders whether he beleives himself to be king or not! A second term can not be put on Bush any longer.....
By the way, did you see the recent report about how personal incomes have fell more now then in the PAST 20 YEARS??? :lol:The publication of the article by Wilson and Plame on the 10 year mark of the war, prompted my little reminder. I had not posted anything about how it's all been Bush's fault :lol: for at least a few days :) and it's always fun watching you guys squirm :cool:

Btw, how come during the Romney/Ryan fiasco-you remember their ass whipping-last November-NO one in the republican party even mentioned our "He who shall not be Named" former prez? :cool: :cool:

[Robert Goren]

It is a tragedy that Saddam was taken out of power. Sorry HCAP.And replaced by a pro- Iranian government.

[Robert Goren]

The republicans never want to talk about GWB because he makes Obama look so good. It took the GOP 20 years and war hero to recover Hoover. It may take them longer to recover from Bush because they don't have anybody like Ike to lead them out their current state of disarray.

[elysiantraveller]

And replaced by a pro- Iranian government.

Obama owns that not Bush.

[dartman51]

Yea, let's start another 8 years of war for no good reason and make sure we simultaneously cut taxes while borrowing every nickel needed to fund the war.

While we are at it, let's watch our financial institutions take us into a worldwide recession.

Or we can vote for Obama and maybe pay extra to get another 30M of our fellow Americans health insurance.

Gee, I wonder what the best choice is? :rolleyes:

We're borrowing more now, than we ever did under Bush. We're NOT getting another 30M fellow Americans on health insurance, that's a myth.

And it's funny how the ones with no skin in the game, are crying the loudest about how WE should pay more. WE, meaning anyone making more money than they are. :ThmbUp:

[elysiantraveller]

We're borrowing more now, than we ever did under Bush. We're NOT getting another 30M fellow Americans on health insurance, that's a myth.

7 Million have already lost their employee sponsored plan...

[JustRalph]

7 Million have already lost their employee sponsored plan...

Many more to come.

Obama is getting exactly what he wanted

[Tom]

When enough people are totally shut out of any health care, is that when the Zombie armies start roaming the streets?

[redshift1]

The republicans never want to talk about GWB because he makes Obama look so good. It took the GOP 20 years and war hero to recover Hoover. It may take them longer to recover from Bush because they don't have anybody like Ike to lead them out their current state of disarray.

You know you're in trouble as a political force when your most recent president is banished to the hinterlands of politics. The Texas School Board's Office of Historical Negationism is amending history texts to remove the years 2000-2008 .

.

[Tom]

Obama would never allow that - who would he blame for everything? :lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

Save your breath Mike you are in a losig battle. Your video is based on misleading evidence and withholding info and outright lies to the congress and us. All of this documented now. History will not be kind to GWI am gladly saving my breath, because that video does all the talking for me.

Years before Bush was even a TWINKLE in the White House's eye, there you had various members of the CLINTON administration spouting all the scary claims about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. The audio and video from that clip does all the talking for me, and saves me plenty of breath.

[PaceAdvantage]

Crappola once again. Here is the 8 glorious Bush years in all their glory

http://www.cbsnews.com/elements/2006/03/23/in_depth_politics/frameset1433259.shtmlThe power of the mainstream media in all its glory.

For it can hammer Bush non-stop and cause his approval ratings to plummet, all the same stroking Obama up to full glory and artificially inflating his number, AND winning him a second term.

How Bush won a second term with this media against him, I'll never know. Must have been the power of the piss-poor candidates put up by Democrats to run against him...thankfully...

[fast4522]

The facts are that the intelligence community was telling both political party's the same thing. Both political party's had every reason to believe the intelligence that was in front of them. The real problem is they can walk among us and gather what they to know, but not so easy for us because we have a guy who will not even properly protect a embassy or its people who work in it.

[Tom]

cBS news?
the network that fired their top gut for reporting proven LIES about Bush?
You use cBS as a source? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The two old hecklers on the Muppets show have more cred than you do, cap.

[hcap]

Clinton was influenced by members of the Project for the New American Century. You remember these Neocons who subsequently were the deriving force for invading Iraq in the Bush administration.

Clinton did sign the Iraq Liberation Act. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The law's stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." The Act authorized the President to assist all such groups with: broadcasting assistance (for radio and television broadcasting), military assistance (training and equipment), and humanitarian assistance (for individuals fleeing Saddam Hussein). The Act specifically refused to grant the President authority to use U.S. Military force to achieve its stated goals and purposes,

And for some reason I don't seem to recall Clinton invading and occupying Iraq. Wasting a few trillions of dollars and thousands of American and over 100,ooo Iraqi lives.
Do you?


Any of these names ring a bell?
Project For a New American Century sound famliar?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

January 26, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:

snip

.....We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett

Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky

Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad

William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman

Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber

Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick



Many of these Neocons then became members of the Bush administration, and as I recall were the guys that did INVADE

http://zfacts.com/sites/all/files/image/war/zFacts_neocon_clique.gif

[hcap]

The facts are that the intelligence community was telling both political party's the same thing. Both political party's had every reason to believe the intelligence that was in front of them. The real problem is they can walk among us and gather what they to know, but not so easy for us because we have a guy who will not even properly protect a embassy or its people who work in it.Read post #14
Get back to us after a few hours. I doubt you are as "FAST"a reader as you are a repeater of BS.

[fast4522]

All that you do in your posts is try to extenuate events of your people while getting the blades out for those who oppose your socialist beliefs. The vast majority of your posts are garbage that everyone knows, but the real irony is your posts will be here long after your gone. This is exactly why you seem to be so prolific in the quantity versus unvarnished facts. I see just fine, your posts are shit.

[hcap]

All that you do in your posts is try to extenuate events of your people while getting the blades out for those who oppose your socialist beliefs. The vast majority of your posts are garbage that everyone knows, but the real irony is your posts will be here long after your gone. This is exactly why you seem to be so prolific in the quantity versus unvarnished facts. I see just fine, your posts are shit.Another gem of a post :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tom]

And for some reason I don't seem to recall Clinton invading and occupying Iraq.

He did not have the approval of Congress, now did he?
And, he did have 9/11 as a part of his decision making process, now, did he?
In fact, what he did do was sit back and allow 9/11 to unfold on our shores during his watch, now didn't he?

No one enable the rise of Al Qeda more than Bill Clinton. That is his legacy, now isn't it?

[hcap]

Clinton?

What evidence is there that if he could he would invade? As PA seems to imply

1-He did not build a false case to invade Iraq and present it to congress and the world.
2-911 was not a justifiable reason to go after Saddam
3-Clinton did more about Al Qeda than Bush.

If the Bushies had taken Richard Clarke seriously instead of sitting on their butts, things would have been very different. Remember Richard Clarke head of anti-terrorism under 4 administrations. From his book.....

What the Bushies Did Wrong Page 30-32:

Considered attacking Iraq on the evening of Sept. 12. At one point, Bush pulled a few of his advisors into a conference room:

"Look," he told us. "I know you have a lot to do and all … but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way."

I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed.

"But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."

"I know, I know, but … see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred."

"Absolutely, we will look … again." I was trying to be more respectful, more responsive. "But, you know, we have looked several times for state sponsorship of Al Qaeda and not found any real linkages to Iraq. Iran plays a little, as does Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, Yemen."

"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us.

[Tom]

1-He did not build a false case to invade Iraq and present it to congress and the world. He was too busy building a false case about his disgusting affair with Monica.

2-911 was not a justifiable reason to go after Saddam duh, it was certainly a factor to take into account. I guess invading Poland was no reason to go to war with Germany.
3-Clinton did more about Al Qeda than Bush.Yes, he allowed them to develop over his entire 8 years.

And, he left us in a recession to boot!

[PaceAdvantage]

What evidence is there that if he could he would invade? As PA seems to implyHow in the world did I come close to implying such a thing.

I simply said that these "scare tactics" about Iraq and WMDs and Saddam were spouted WELL BEFORE Bush ever set foot in the White House. And that video proves it.

They weren't saying anything much different in 2002-2003 compared to 1998.

If you want to criticize Bush and his admin, then you must also criticize those that came before him and talked the very same talk.

The fact that Clinton didn't actually invade is immaterial to the discussion.

[hcap]

"How in the world did I come close to implying such a thing."Years before Bush was even a TWINKLE in the White House's eye, there you had various members of the CLINTON administration spouting all the scary claims about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. The audio and video from that clip does all the talking for me, and saves me plenty of breath."I simply said that these "scare tactics" about Iraq and WMDs and Saddam were spouted WELL BEFORE Bush ever set foot in the White House. And that video proves it".

There were no weapon inspections in Iraq for nearly four years after the UN left Iraq in 1998. So there was reasonable suspicions by members of the Clinton Administration and members of Congress and the intelligence community that Iraq could have re constituted their WMD programs. Although at the time the UN doubted he had In 1998, UNSCOM (inspectors) was withdrawn at the request of the United States before Operation Desert Fox. Despite this, UNSCOM's own estimate was that 90-95% of Iraqi WMDs had been successfully destroyed before its 1998 withdrawal. After that Iraq remained without any outside weapons inspectors for four years. During this time speculations arose that Iraq had actively resumed its WMD programs. The problem with your video is that after the inspectors were withdrawn in '98, a case could have been made that he had WMDs. Which is why the neocons had influence, and why members of both parties based on older estimates by the intelligence community -some of which DID say Saddam had some WMDs and COULD reconstitute a full scale WMDs program


"They weren't saying anything much different in 2002-2003 compared to 1998."

Totally different. The magnitude of the print and media campaign by the Bushies was huge. And they had at this point the newer info on Iraq, that was never disclosed to the congress and the public. And the kicker was that as the UN inspectors returned and found NOTHING, the bushies did not wait until they had finished their job. And at this point many bushie talking points had specifically been debunked by the intelligence community and people like Joe Wilson and Valery Plame..


"If you want to criticize Bush and his admin, then you must also criticize those that came before him and talked the very same talk."

The fact that Clinton didn't actually invade is immaterial to the discussion.Very material. Other than a short period of strategic bombing--Desert Storm-Clinton did not militarily justify an invasion. The bushies did.

[Tom]

Yes, they did, after 9/11.
But to understand that, you need to be able see things in concert with other things. Libs cannot this - must be hereditary. they are only able to focus on one thing at a time. That's why they seldom chew gum.

[elysiantraveller]

Here is a list of some of the intelligence agencies that thought he had WMD:

CIA (US)
NSA (US)
Mossad (Isreal)
KGB (Russia)
MI6 (UK)
DRM (France)
MSS (China)

The list goes on and on...

[delayjf]

That's right the, attack on the USS Cole and especially 911 kicked everything up several notches. The US could no longer sit back and wait for the next attack. But at least you're admitting their was a consensus regarding the intel at the time. The same Intel President Bush relied upon were the same consensus. So much for the Bush lied theory.

When it came to foreign policy, Clinton was a fool. The N. Koreans punked the Rhode scholar and he was to worthless and weak to do anything about Al Qaeda. Clinton is proof that you can educate a fool.

[hcap]

A good example of manipulation of intelligence by the Bushies, one that was particularly devious and probably did more to sell the war was the infamous 16 words about the potential threat of nuclear weapons

from Wiki..
In his January 2003 State of the Union speech, U.S. President George W. Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."[2] This single sentence is now known as "the Sixteen Words."[3] The administration later conceded that evidence in support of the claim was inconclusive and stated, "These sixteen words should never have been included." The administration attributed the error to the CIA.[4] In mid-2003, the U.S. government declassified the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, which contained a dissenting opinion published by the U.S. Department of State stating that the intelligence connecting Niger to Saddam Hussein was "highly suspect," primarily because State Department's intelligence agency analysts did not believe that Niger would be likely to engage in such a transaction due to a French consortium which maintained close control over the Nigerien uranium industry.[5]

According to The Washington Post, when occupying troops found no evidence of a current nuclear program, the statement and how it came to be in the speech became a focus for critics in Washington and foreign capitals to press the case that the White House manipulated facts to take the United States to war. The Post reported, "Dozens of interviews with current and former intelligence officials and policymakers in the United States, Britain, France and Italy show that the Bush administration disregarded key information available at the time showing that the Iraq-Niger claim was highly questionable." [6] With the release of the 2002 NIE report, the Bush administration was criticized for including the statement in the State of the Union despite CIA and State Department reports questioning its veracity.

"But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." scared the shit out of most and although many intel agencies had some reason to believe Saddam had chemical and biological WMDs, since UN inspectors had been gone for 4 years, the case was a lot murkier about nukes.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/news/2004/01/28/457/neglecting-intelligence-ignoring-warnings/

A chronology of how the Bush Administration repeatedly and deliberately refused to listen to intelligence agencies that said its case for war was weak

Read it.

And read this

http://www.morningsidecenter.org/teachable-moment/lessons/was-us-misled-war-iraq-resource-study-guide-hs-college

What the president says and what the record reveals

And
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House_Iraq_Group

White House Iraq Group

[Tom]

:sleeping: You got anything new on Booth?

[hcap]

On the 19th of this month It will be 10 years since the Bush Iraq invasion. Not only will I mention it but so will others.
Why shouldn't we? Too soon?

After all the right still worships Ronald Reagan, and for that matter you guys are still worshiping the 18th century :cool:

[delayjf]

We are all well aware that you can find websites and post quotes from those on the left who idiotically believe that President George W. Bush started the war so he could inflate his stock price in Haliburton yada yada yada.

Joe Wilsons trip to Africa was a farse,

In February 1999, Zahawie left his Vatican office for a few days and paid an official visit to Niger, a country known for absolutely nothing except its vast deposits of uranium ore. It was from Niger that Iraq had originally acquired uranium in 1981, as confirmed in the Duelfer Report. In order to take the Joseph Wilson view of this Baathist ambassadorial initiative, you have to be able to believe that Saddam Hussein’s long-term main man on nuclear issues was in Niger to talk about something other than the obvious. Italian intelligence (which first noticed the Zahawie trip from Rome) found it difficult to take this view and alerted French intelligence (which has better contacts in West Africa and a stronger interest in nuclear questions). In due time, the French tipped off the British, who in their cousinly way conveyed the suggestive information to Washington. As everyone now knows, the disclosure appeared in watered-down and secondhand form in the president’s State of the Union address in January 2003.

The idea that Ambassador Wilson’s report somehow debunked the claims of Saddam seeking uranium from Africa are lies, pure and simple – lies propagated by the Ambassador himself. The Senate inquiry into the matter found quite the opposite:

Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador’s trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts’ assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.

Which led The Washington Post to all but outright call Ambassador Wilson a liar. Nothing Wilson claimed: that there was no evidence that the Hussein regime was seeking uranium from Niger, that he was not sent on the recommendation of his wife, or that he had seen the forged papers relating to Niger have turned out to be true. Despite the very public revelations about Wilson’s untruthfulness, many on the left still treat him as a hero and an icon – proving that the only “truth” that matters to some is what’s convenient to their partisan ideology.

http://jayreding.com/archives/2006/04/11/yes-virginia-saddam-did-seek-uranium-from-africa/

[hcap]

No question we all can find anything we want. You gentlemen do it all the time.
It is obvious no matter what I post I am only preaching to the choir.
I have said my 2 cents on this matter.

Maybe I will bring this up again on the 1th anniversary of Bush's war

[johnhannibalsmith]

...

Maybe I will bring this up again on the 1th anniversary of Bush's war

Assuming the country is still doing as great as it is now that he's gone, I'm sure you will... :D

[Tom]

We call those the good old days - back before the country was put in the toilet by you and you ilk.
You can re-visit all the old crap you want - we proved you dead wrong back then and 10 years don't make you right now. Feel free to be the village idiot. You wear it well.

Will you be celebrating the 10 year anniversary of Ben Ghazi? You remember BG - the night Obama just totally disappeared while his diplomats were slaughtered? The night the coward hid under his bed and let them die?
Obama is not fit to clean Bush's bed pan. Obama is less valuable to this country than what is in Bush's bed pan. Not even close.

[PaceAdvantage]

We are all well aware that you can find websites and post quotes from those on the left who idiotically believe that President George W. Bush started the war so he could inflate his stock price in Haliburton yada yada yada.Speaking of this, it's amazing how the left no longer cares about the price of gas, and no longer tries to blame the President... :lol: :lol: :lol:

Guess that whole Haliburton thing and Bush's "big oil cronies" was all a crock of shit...or else the price at the pump would have dropped substantially once Obama stepped into town...and it hasn't...not by a longshot.

Sorry for taking thread off topic...reconvene Bush bashing hcap...

[hcap]

We are all well aware that you can find websites and post quotes from those on the left who idiotically believe that President George W. Bush started the war so he could inflate his stock price in Haliburton yada yada yada.

Joe Wilsons trip to Africa was a farse,Yada yada yada.is more your department. You are correcft we all use our sources. Then there is what actually happened :lol:

One more time before I discontinue this useless rebuttal to your "version of history". Btw, history also says NO WMDs were ever found. I guess all the war critics were wrong and you guys were right. :lol:

This single sentence is now known as "the Sixteen Words."[3] The administration later conceded that evidence in support of the claim was inconclusive and stated, "These sixteen words should never have been included." The administration attributed the error to the CIA.[4] In mid-2003, the U.S. government declassified the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, which contained a dissenting opinion published by the U.S. Department of State stating that the intelligence connecting Niger to Saddam Hussein was "highly suspect," primarily because State Department's intelligence agency analysts did not believe that Niger would be likely to engage in such a transaction due to a French consortium which maintained close control over the Nigerien uranium industry.[5]

According to The Washington Post, when occupying troops found no evidence of a current nuclear program, the statement and how it came to be in the speech became a focus for critics in Washington and foreign capitals to press the case that the White House manipulated facts to take the United States to war. The Post reported, "Dozens of interviews with current and former intelligence officials and policymakers in the United States, Britain, France and Italy show that the Bush administration disregarded key information available at the time showing that the Iraq-Niger claim was highly questionable." [6] With the release of the 2002 NIE report, the Bush administration was criticized for including the statement in the State of the Union despite CIA and State Department reports questioning its veracity"

[Tom]

So what?
Seriously, so what?

Oh, jut your way of avoiding the total failure of Obama today. I forgot. :lol::lol::lol:

[hcap]

So what?
Seriously, so what?

Oh, jut your way of avoiding the total failure of Obama today. I forgot. :lol::lol::lol:I would say almost 80% of the off topic posts are anti-Obama, ant-dem, or anti-liberal. Bush's invasion and war has nothing to do with Obama. Go post another anti Obama cprappola diatribe and add to the bogus body of right wing guilt over having lost so badly in November.

Or blame the voters for your ass whipping. That's what you usually do, and it is now the current rightie delusional talking point that shows just how much you are in denial.

Bush lost
You lost
So what else is new?
Get over it.

[Tom]

You know, Lincoln never had an exit strategy for the Civil War.
And he over-counted the true number of slaves, right?

And don't even get me started on Teddy Roosevelt!~:lol:


Here's a ,cue for you - it is NOT about losing an election - it is about what is happening to our country. Like you care.

[delayjf]

The administration later conceded that evidence in support of the claim was inconclusive and stated,

Inconclusive is just that, inconclusive. You tell me then why one of the big wigs in the Iraqi nuclear program was in Niger? Wilsons own report confirms the trip to Niger in 1999 to discuss trade between Iraq and Niger. Given 75% of Nigers Imports are uranium and that Niger had sold uranium to Iraq previously. What do you think an Iraqi official from the Iraqi nuclear program was there to discuss. The left stupidly uses the fact the Iraq did not actually purchase uranium as proof they didn't make an attempt to buy uranium. By the way, the CIA cleared President Bush's SOTU speech.

[hcap]

Inconclusive is just that, inconclusive. You tell me then why one of the big wigs in the Iraqi nuclear program was in Niger? Wilsons own report confirms the trip to Niger in 1999 to discuss trade between Iraq and Niger. Given 75% of Nigers Imports are uranium and that Niger had sold uranium to Iraq previously. What do you think an Iraqi official from the Iraqi nuclear program was there to discuss. The left stupidly uses the fact the Iraq did not actually purchase uranium as proof they didn't make an attempt to buy uranium. By the way, the CIA cleared President Bush's SOTU speech.Holy sh*t are you guys in denial.

CIA doubts

In early October 2002, George Tenet called Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley to ask him to remove reference to the Niger uranium from a speech Bush was to give in Cincinnati on October 7. This was followed up by a memo asking Hadley to remove another, similar line. Another memo was sent to the White House expressing the CIA's view that the Niger claims were false; this memo was given to both Hadley and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.[18] [19] [20]

And Read the rest of the paragraph I posted....

In mid-2003, the U.S. government declassified the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, which contained a dissenting opinion published by the U.S. Department of State stating that the intelligence connecting Niger to Saddam Hussein was "highly suspect," primarily because State Department's intelligence agency analysts did not believe that Niger would be likely to engage in such a transaction due to a French consortium which maintained close control over the Nigerien uranium industry


And

IAEA analysis

Further, in March 2003, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released results of his analysis of the documents. Reportedly, it took IAEA officials only a matter of hours to determine that these documents were fake. Using little more than a Google search, IAEA experts discovered indications of a crude forgery, such as the use of incorrect names of Nigerien officials. As a result, the IAEA reported to the U.N. Security Council that the documents were "in fact not authentic". The UN spokesman wrote:

The I.A.E.A. was able to review correspondence coming from various bodies of the government of Niger and to compare the form, format, contents and signature of that correspondence with those of the alleged procurement-related documentation. Based on thorough analysis, the I.A.E.A. has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents, which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger, are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.[22]

Guess when Bush invaded--A few days later.

And

British inquiries
Foreign Affairs Committee

The first British investigation into this matter was conducted by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee (FAC).[23] The committee comprises fourteen Members of Parliament from government and opposition parties, and has permanent cross-party support.[24] They examined and tested several key claims in the September Dossier, Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Assessment of the British Government, including the topic of uranium acquisition.

In June and July, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw testified that the claim in the dossier rested on separate evidence to the fraudulent documents, and that this specific intelligence, obtained from a foreign government, was still under review and had not been shared with the CIA.[25] In written evidence to the same committee, Straw further disclosed that the separate intelligence information upon which the British Government had based its conclusion, was also briefed to the IAEA by a foreign intelligence service that owned the reporting, shortly before IAEA Director General Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei's statement to the UN Security Council on March 7, 2003.[26][27] This was further confirmed in a Parliamentary answer to Lynne Jones MP.[28] Lynne Jones subsequently contacted the IAEA to question whether a third party had discussed or shared separate intelligence with them and, if so, what assessment they made of it. IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky responded to Jones in May 2004:

I can confirm to you that we have received information from a number of member states regarding the allegation that Iraq sought to acquire uranium from Niger. However, we have learned nothing which would cause us to change the conclusion we reported to the United Nations Security Council on March 7, 2003 with regards to the documents assessed to be forgeries and have not received any information that would appear to be based on anything other than those documents.[29]

Read it all here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries#Wilson_and_Niger


Once again, if there were doubts before the invasion, and the UN inspectors were saying there were no WMDs and they need a couple of months to be absolutely sure, why didn't Bush and Cheney and all the other idiots in his administration wait?

Maybe their case would have collapsed and everyone would know they were full of it?

[hcap]

You know, Lincoln never had an exit strategy for the Civil War.
And he over-counted the true number of slaves, right?

And don't even get me started on Teddy Roosevelt!~:lol:


Here's a ,cue for you - it is NOT about losing an election - it is about what is happening to our country. Like you care.Just as Obama had absolutely nothing to do with Bush's war, neither do Lincoln or TR.

Try again when you are more lucid and have stopped raving :cool:

[Tom]

Just like your Bush nonsense has nothing to do with today, but here you are, singing the Wheels on the Bus.

Not the sharpest tool in the box, but a tool nonetheless! :lol::lol::lol:

[hcap]

Just like your Bush nonsense has nothing to do with today,You are kidding?

1 war completely unnecessary, that we are still paying for, and another prolonged because military assets were removed from going after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to chase phantoms--that we are still paying for today

PS: Bush was elected twice. Ok, the first time no one knew, the second time must have been the current rightie talking point that voters are too stupid and can't be trusted.

What da ya thunk?

[Tom]

Boringggggg.
Old News.

The news today is how your boy has totally failed to fix anything, and has made everything worse.

[hcap]

Only on most on the rest of PA off topic.
Here it is about Bush's war. But that's ok. I am pretty much done, and Unless I feel more energetic, arguing with you guys gives me acid indigestion and distinct impression I am discussing the solar system with mostly (not all) propagandists for the flat earth theory.

I must say Tom you are by far the most energetic theorist in that regard.
You should be proud of your 18th century economic theories, as well as your 14th century grasp of science :cool:

[Tom]

Coming from you, I consider that my litmus test that I am right.
But, sorry I can't provide a graph about it! Or a 10 year old example. :lol:

[hcap]

10 year old examples of a 10 year old war is just about right when discussing a 10 year old war.

Don't you genuflect when discussing Saint Ronald? Don't you fall down on your knees worshiping him when you use 30 year old EXAMPLES of his brilliant economic wisdom? :lol:

[NJ Stinks]

We call those the good old days - back before the country was put in the toilet by you and you ilk.
You can re-visit all the old crap you want - we proved you dead wrong back then and 10 years don't make you right now. Feel free to be the village idiot. You wear it well.

Will you be celebrating the 10 year anniversary of Ben Ghazi? You remember BG - the night Obama just totally disappeared while his diplomats were slaughtered? The night the coward hid under his bed and let them die?
Obama is not fit to clean Bush's bed pan. Obama is less valuable to this country than what is in Bush's bed pan. Not even close.

Sanity lost.

Do yourself a favor and turn off the radio.

[hcap]

The power of the mainstream media in all its glory.

For it can hammer Bush non-stop and cause his approval ratings to plummet, all the same stroking Obama up to full glory and artificially inflating his number, AND winning him a second term.

How Bush won a second term with this media against him, I'll never know. Must have been the power of the piss-poor candidates put up by Democrats to run against him...thankfully...

False Equivalence in One Tweet

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/jamesfallows/assets_c/2013/02/FalseEquiv-thumb-620x279-114294.png

[PaceAdvantage]

It's frightening how in bed the media is with this administration. It really as. As badly as they were biased against GWB, they are equally as badly biased for Obama.

Both are unacceptable.

They should be scrutinizing both fairly and evenly. Only problem is, they went way overboard with Bush and completely let Obama off the hook at every turn.

If I cared more about politics, I might find it sickening...

[johnhannibalsmith]

It's frightening how in bed the media is with this administration. It really as. ...

I'm too lazy to find a thread where everyone bitches about Holder or I rail against drone use and the long term implications even if you can accept the short term benefits, so this segue will work well.

Can you imagine if GWB and his AG outlined a justification for drone attacks on American citizens... on American soil... and it was just lingering out there in the public domain?

http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf

[newtothegame]

I'm too lazy to find a thread where everyone bitches about Holder or I rail against drone use and the long term implications even if you can accept the short term benefits, so this segue will work well.

Can you imagine if GWB and his AG outlined a justification for drone attacks on American citizens... on American soil... and it was just lingering out there in the public domain?

http://paul.senate.gov/files/documents/BrennanHolderResponse.pdf
Hell, the possibility of phone tapping drove the left crazy.....drones would of sent them totally into insane assylums!