Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public

[Cigar]

George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Publichttp://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/michael-morell-bush-cheney-iraq-war


George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public
On "Hardball," Michael Morell concedes the Bush administration misled the nation into the Iraq War.

—By David Corn
| Tue May 19, 2015 7:25 PM EDT


For a dozen years, the Bush-Cheney crowd have been trying to escape—or cover up—an essential fact of the W. years: President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their lieutenants misled the American public about the WMD threat supposedly posed by Saddam Hussein in order to grease the way to the invasion of Iraq. For Bush, Cheney, and the rest, this endeavor is fundamental; it is necessary to protect the legitimacy of the Bush II presidency. Naturally, Karl Rove and other Bushies have quickly tried to douse the Bush-lied-us-into-war fire whenever such flames have appeared. And in recent days, as Jeb Bush bumbled a question about the Iraq War, he and other GOPers have peddled the fictitious tale that his brother launched the invasion because he was presented lousy intelligence. But now there's a new witness who will make the Bush apologists' mission even more impossible: Michael Morell, a longtime CIA official who eventually became the agency's deputy director and acting director. During the preinvasion period, he served as Bush's intelligence briefer.

Appearing on MSNBC's Hardball on Tuesday night, Morell made it clear: The Bush-Cheney administration publicly misrepresented the intelligence related to Iraq's supposed WMD program and Saddam's alleged links to Al Qaeda.

Host Chris Matthews asked Morell about a statement Cheney made in 2003: "We know he {Saddam Hussein} has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Here's the conversation that followed:

snip//

There's the indictment, issued by the intelligence officer who briefed Bush and Cheney: The Bush White House made a "false presentation" on "some aspects" of the case for war. "That's a big deal," Matthews exclaimed. Morell replied, "It's a big deal."

And there's more. Referring to the claims made by Bush, Cheney, and other administration officials that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda, Morell noted, "What they were saying about the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda publicly was not what the intelligence community" had concluded. He added, "I think they were trying to make a stronger case for the war." That is, stronger than the truth would allow.

Morell's remarks support the basic charge: Bush and Cheney were not misled by flawed intelligence; they used the flawed intelligence to mislead.



I guess we can NOW stop denying the obvious :laugh:

[Susan B. Anthony]

Calm down. Obama ended that war years ago:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_nxouSJq9c

[exotix]

Yeah I'm watching this now on Chris Matthews ... apparently Cheney even lied about what Morell said ... as if Morell is trying to extricate himself all over again since the Jebby Iraq War statements.

Notice all these conservatives having to deal with this ... floundering about like incompetent dolts ... makes Billary emails look like womens' gossip.

Makes the Clown Car look like a hearse.

[Cigar]

Calm down. Obama ended that war years ago:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_nxouSJq9c

Wait a minute, are YOU saying you want The US Out of Iraq? :grin:

[Susan B. Anthony]

Wait a minute, are YOU saying you want The US Out of Iraq? :grin:

Maybe you didn't watch your president. He ended the war in Iraq years ago.

lol

[hanger4]

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html

[Cigar]

Maybe you didn't watch your president. He ended the war in Iraq years ago.

lol

That's right, dodge the question :laugh:

[Peter1469]

Michael Morell is doing two things:

1. Selling his book.

2. Maneuvering to be CIA director under Clinton.

Also, his discussions with journalists seem to be tailored to the audience.

[Cigar]

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html


There was only ONE (1) Decider

http://www.angelasagelarsen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/im-the-decider.jpg

[exotix]

Michael Morell is doing two things:

1. Selling his book.

2. Maneuvering to be CIA director under Clinton.

Also, his discussions with journalists seem to be tailored to the audience.
I'm watching former Ambassador Joe Wilson ask Chris Hayes which Muslims does Jebby plan on killing this time.

[Susan B. Anthony]

That's right, dodge the question :laugh:

Are you saying Obama lied?

lol

[Cigar]

http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/Y/n/1/iraq_buck_stops.jpg

[Cigar]

Are you saying Obama lied?

lol


https://youtu.be/eME7IG1yAQ0

[Susan B. Anthony]

https://youtu.be/eME7IG1yAQ0

US involvement in that war is over. Sweet.

lol

[Cigar]

I'm watching former Ambassador Joe Wilson ask Chris Hayes which Muslims does Jebby plan on killing this time.

They are in total and complete denial ... that's why they'll won't be in the White House :grin:

[Cigar]

US involvement in that war is over. Sweet.

lol

US Involvement and Declared Wars are not the same thing ... The US will always be involved in Foreign Policy :rollseyes:

[Susan B. Anthony]

US Involvement and Declared Wars are not the same thing ... The US will always be involved in Foreign Policy :rollseyes:

Lotta words there, buddy.

Did Obama end the war in Iraq as he claimed?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

[hanger4]

There was only ONE (1) Decider

http://www.angelasagelarsen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/im-the-decider.jpg
So the partisan leftist Rockefeller lied to cover for Bush. Do tell Cigar. Why is MSNBC ignoring his report ??

[hanger4]

They are in total and complete denial ... that's why they'll won't be in the White House :grin:
Joe Wilson is a liar and admitted so to Congress.

The only ones denying are those that refuse to read Rockefeller's US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report.

[Susan B. Anthony]

More lies:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0f5u_0ytUs

[zelmo1234]

What about these people, they had access to the same intelligence!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8

Add to this the leaders of France, the UK, Germany, Saudi, Jordan, among others.

And of course the former President (Clinton) who had not been out of office for a year.

And you want us to believe that GWB was an idiot? The man deceived the world in less than a year!

[zelmo1234]

Now lets get to the real reason that you are going to see a lot of Bush lied and people died!

President Obama, (the pussy in chief) has lost the peace in Iraq, The middle east is a total disaster under the watchful eye of Obama, and his Sec. of State (Clinton)

Under no definition can the middle east policy of these 2 be called anything but a total and complete failure.

Because Democrats never judge based on results, they must deflect, and thus, nearly 7 years out of office, everything is GWB's fault.

[exotix]

What about these people, they had access to the same intelligence!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8

Add to this the leaders of France, the UK, Germany, Saudi, Jordan, among others.

And of course the former President (Clinton) who had not been out of office for a year.

And you want us to believe that GWB was an idiot? The man deceived the world in less than a year!I don't know why Bush worshipers keep playing this one .. notice how it ends in 2003 ... when it became clear Saddam had no WMD's of the kind that Bush and & Cheney lied us into Iraq when all else failed.

[hanger4]

I don't know why Bush worshipers keep playing this one .. notice how it ends in 2003 ... when it became clear Saddam had no WMD's of the kind that Bush and & Cheney lied us into Iraq when all else failed.
Read the Rockefeller report;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html

And free yourself from a stupid and lying leftist meme.
Or better yet explain why Rockefeller lied to cover for Bush.

[zelmo1234]

I don't know why Bush worshipers keep playing this one .. notice how it ends in 2003 ... when it became clear Saddam had no WMD's of the kind that Bush and & Cheney lied us into Iraq when all else failed.

Yes I was think that you would say that, but Clinton, Keri, Turban Durbin, and others all had access to the same intelligence report, Bill Clinton less that a year out of office agreed, So did the leaders of over 35 nations!

How did this stupid man deceive all of these people in such a short time!

Or could it be that the entire world, thought that Sadam in fact had WMD's because that is what he wanted the word to think? And while there were some WMD's found, ( as Peter he was there) The Democrats found a political tool as the nations tired of war, and used it to gain power.

And of course now that the Middle east has went to hell in a hand basket, under the watchful eye of Obama and his right hand lady Clinton, the lefties are crying it is Bush's fault!!!!!

[exotix]

Read the Rockefeller report;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html

And free yourself from a stupid and lying leftist meme.
Or better yet explain why Rockefeller lied to cover for Bush.
Yes I was think that you would say that, but Clinton, Keri, Turban Durbin, and others all had access to the same intelligence report, Bill Clinton less that a year out of office agreed, So did the leaders of over 35 nations!

How did this stupid man deceive all of these people in such a short time!

Or could it be that the entire world, thought that Sadam in fact had WMD's because that is what he wanted the word to think? And while there were some WMD's found, ( as Peter he was there) The Democrats found a political tool as the nations tired of war, and used it to gain power.

And of course now that the Middle east has went to hell in a hand basket, under the watchful eye of Obama and his right hand lady Clinton, the lefties are crying it is Bush's fault!!!!!
My fav is when Cheney leaked to the New York Times that Saddam had reconstituted a nuclear weapons program ... then when they ran the story ... Cheney went on Meet the Press and announced that the New York Times reported that Saddam reconstituted a nuclear weapons program.

[Tahuyaman]

George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public

George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public
On "Hardball," Michael Morell concedes the Bush administration misled the nation into the Iraq War.

—By David Corn
| Tue May 19, 2015 7:25 PM EDT


David Corn? What, was Tariq Aziz unavailable for comment?

[zelmo1234]

Read the Rockefeller report;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html

And free yourself from a stupid and lying leftist meme.
Or better yet explain why Rockefeller lied to cover for Bush.

You are trying to give them credit for actually wanting to know what the facts are?

Lefties all know that the people don't trust them to keep the country safe, they know this

They also know that Obama's has been a total disaster and has really fucked up the middle east. And it is likely we will be involved in the middle east, even before the next election.

They are afraid that the public will hold them accountable, and they still can't understand why being nice to the terrorists did not work!

So to divert from their failure, they are bringing back Bush like and people died!

It is the only trick that they have left in the box

[zelmo1234]

My fav is when Cheney leaked to the New York Times that Saddam had reconstituted a nuclear weapons program ... then when they ran the story ... Cheney went on Meet the Press and announced that the New York Times reported that Saddam reconstituted a nuclear weapons program.

This one thought that he started that nuclear program as well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0

[exotix]

This one thought that he started that nuclear program as well

[you tube] HillBillary [you tube]
Yes but Billary knows that politics is *knowing when to pull the trigger* ... so stay tuned when she will state she made a mistake and thus will be elected.

[Tahuyaman]

I don't know why Bush worshipers keep playing this one .. notice how it ends in 2003 ... when it became clear Saddam had no WMD's of the kind that Bush and & Cheney lied us into Iraq when all else failed.


So now you are admitting that he did have weapons of mass destruction at his disposal? You are just splitting hairs on which type?

[exotix]

So now you are admitting that he did have weapons of mass destruction at his disposal? You are just splitting hairs on which type?
You mean the WMD's Reagan & Rummy sold 'em to use on Irainians ?


http://i59.tinypic.com/2ewmzkk.jpg

[Tahuyaman]

Yes but Billary knows that politics is *knowing when to pull the trigger* ... so stay tuned when she will state she made a mistake and thus will be elected.

I don't think she has the humility to say "I made a mistake".

[Tahuyaman]

You mean the WMD's Reagan & Rummy sold 'em to use on Irainians ?


http://i59.tinypic.com/2ewmzkk.jpg

So, you say he did have WMD?

the left wingers don't know where they stand on this. He did have them, he didn't have them, he had some but....

[Bob]

Yeah I'm watching this now on Chris Matthews ... apparently Cheney even lied about what Morell said ... as if Morell is trying to extricate himself all over again since the Jebby Iraq War statements.

Notice all these conservatives having to deal with this ... floundering about like incompetent dolts ... makes Billary emails look like womens' gossip.

Makes the Clown Car look like a hearse.

You actually admit you watch Chris Matthews?????????????????????

OMG That is so funnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnny.

[exotix]

So now you are admitting that he did have weapons of mass destruction at his disposal? You are just splitting hairs on which type?
So, you say he did have WMD?

the left wingers don't know where they stand on this. He did have them, he didn't have them, he had some but....
But but but ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUNsv66m8Rw

[zelmo1234]

Yes but Billary knows that politics is *knowing when to pull the trigger* ... so stay tuned when she will state she made a mistake and thus will be elected.

Yes she did make a mistake, when she supported Obama's plan to pull all of the troops from Iraq!

Bush warned against that and it has be quite interesting to see what he warned coming true?

The USA will be back in the middle east with more troops than Bush ever had, and it will be because of the decisions of this President and Sec of State Clinton.

[Bob]

David Corn? What, was Tariq Aziz unavailable for comment?

I loved that hit back. Lovely lovely and lovely.

[Mr. Right]

What difference does it make?

[del]

Yes she did make a mistake, when she supported Obama's plan to pull all of the troops from Iraq!

Bush warned against that and it has be quite interesting to see what he warned coming true?

The USA will be back in the middle east with more troops than Bush ever had, and it will be because of the decisions of this President and Sec of State Clinton.

did bush warn against it before or after he set the schedule for us troop withdrawal?

you know, the one that obama honored?

if we go back into the middle east, it will be as a direct result of bush going in in the first place and destabilizing the region, but maybe you can pick up a coupla extra bucks murdering children, so it's all good.

[Susan B. Anthony]

But but but ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUNsv66m8Rw

Good to know Iraq is not a threat.

Why does Obama have the US there, again?

lol

[hanger4]

You mean the WMD's Reagan & Rummy sold 'em to use on Irainians ?


http://i59.tinypic.com/2ewmzkk.jpg
Another lying leftist meme. You're full of it today exo. :)

[Susan B. Anthony]

did bush warn against it before or after he set the schedule for us troop withdrawal?

you know, the one that obama honored?

if we go back into the middle east, it will be as a direct result of bush going in in the first place and destabilizing the region, but maybe you can pick up a coupla extra bucks murdering children, so it's all good.

Newsflash. The US is back in the middle east already.

lulz

[zelmo1234]

did bush warn against it before or after he set the schedule for us troop withdrawal?

you know, the one that obama honored?

if we go back into the middle east, it will be as a direct result of bush going in in the first place and destabilizing the region, but maybe you can pick up a coupla extra bucks murdering children, so it's all good.

I know if only Obama would have signed the Status of Force agreement that would have actually left 10,000 troops, not combat, which of course is what you are talking about. But training and advisory as well as intelligence and support. Yep that would have prevented ISIS

But Democrat always forget to bring up the Status of Troops agreement? I wonder why?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/380508/no-us-troops-didnt-have-leave-iraq-patrick-brennan

[exotix]

Another lying leftist meme. You're full of it today exo. :)Don't forget Saddams' mobile Bio-Toxin Labs and launching capabilities at the U.S. ...

http://www.famouspictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Hydrogen_Trucks-300x225.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Powell_UN_Iraq_presentation,_alleged_Mobile_Produc tion_Facilities.jpg




http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Scud_downed_by_Patriot_missiles.JPEG

[texan]

I immediately searched this guy cause I didn't know who he was:



Michael Morell


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Michael_Morell%2C_December_2012.JPG/220px-Michael_Morell%2C_December_2012.JPG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michael_Morell,_December_2012.JPG)


Morell in December 2012


Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deputy_Director_of_the_Central_Intelligence_Agency )


In office
May 6, 2010 – August 9, 2013


President
Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama)


Preceded by
Stephen Kappes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Kappes)


Succeeded by
Avril Haines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avril_Haines)


Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_the_Central_Intelligence_Agency)
Acting


In office
November 9, 2012 – March 8, 2013


President
Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama)


Preceded by
David Petraeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus)


Succeeded by
John Brennan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O._Brennan)


In office
July 1, 2011 – September 6, 2011


Preceded by
Leon Panetta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Panetta)


Succeeded by
David Petraeus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus)


Personal details


Born
Michael Joseph Morell
September 4, 1958 (age 56)
Cuyahoga Falls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_Falls,_Ohio), Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio), U.S.


Alma mater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alma_mater)
University of Akron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Akron)
Georgetown University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgetown_University)



So this democrat that started work for the democrats in 2010 is making this claim? I guess we can immediately forget this Bullshit! LOL he magically comes up with this shit this week? LOL sure its true no one else knew but him 10 years later.

[hanger4]

Don't forget Saddams' mobile Bio-Toxin Labs and launching capabilities at the U.S. ...

http://www.famouspictures.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Hydrogen_Trucks-300x225.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Powell_UN_Iraq_presentation,_alleged_Mobile_Produc tion_Facilities.jpg




http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Scud_downed_by_Patriot_missiles.JPEG

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

It's right there in the Rockefeller US
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report dear heart.

[del]

I know if only Obama would have signed the Status of Force agreement that would have actually left 10,000 troops, not combat, which of course is what you are talking about. But training and advisory as well as intelligence and support. Yep that would have prevented ISIS

But Democrat always forget to bring up the Status of Troops agreement? I wonder why?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/380508/no-us-troops-didnt-have-leave-iraq-patrick-brennan

because you're stupid? i dunno.
what did you think i was referring to, the panama canal treaty?


The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_forces_agreement) (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement#Negotiations

your halfassed opinion piece from the national review notwithstanding, bush negotiated and signed it. like everything else in that tragic clusterfuck, he owns it.

cheer up.

i'm sure you can figure out another way to scam the feds for money and kill innocent people at the same time, it just won't be in iraq.

[Susan B. Anthony]

because you're stupid? i dunno.
what did you think i was referring to, the panama canal treaty?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement#Negotiations

your halfassed opinion piece from the national review notwithstanding, bush negotiated and signed it. like everything else in that tragic cluster$#@!, he owns it.

cheer up.

i'm sure you can figure out another way to scam the feds for money and kill innocent people at the same time, it just won't be in iraq.

Eeruh...your current president is scamming the feds for money and killing innocent people in Iraq as we speak. Innocent Americans, even.

You go, girl.

lol

[hanger4]

because you're stupid? i dunno.
what did you think i was referring to, the panama canal treaty?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.–Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement#Negotiations

your halfassed opinion piece from the national review notwithstanding, bush negotiated and signed it. like everything else in that tragic clusterfuck, he owns it.

cheer up.

i'm sure you can figure out another way to scam the feds for money and kill innocent people at the same time, it just won't be in iraq.

You left out this part from your Wiki - link;

"Negotiations between the U.S. and Iraq for a new SOFA began in fall 2010."

How come del ??

[del]

You left out this part from your Wiki - link;

"Negotiations between the U.S. and Iraq for a new SOFA began in fall 2010."

How come del ??

because the negotiations went nowhere and no new agreement was reached.

none of it would matter if the asshat in chief hadn't decided that the best way to resolve his ongoing issues with his daddy was to piss away american lives, treasure and prestige in iraq.

[Bob]

because the negotiations went nowhere and no new agreement was reached.

none of it would matter if the asshat in chief hadn't decided that the best way to resolve his ongoing issues with his daddy was to piss away american lives, treasure and prestige in iraq.

That makes no sense of any sort.

Since it is not true, how could it make sense?

[Susan B. Anthony]

because the negotiations went nowhere and no new agreement was reached.

none of it would matter if the asshat in chief hadn't decided that the best way to resolve his ongoing issues with his daddy was to piss away american lives, treasure and prestige in iraq.

What is Obama's excuse?

[del]

That makes no sense of any sort.

Since it is not true, how could it make sense?

eat a bag o' dicks, bob

[Peter1469]

because the negotiations went nowhere and no new agreement was reached.

none of it would matter if the asshat in chief hadn't decided that the best way to resolve his ongoing issues with his daddy was to piss away american lives, treasure and prestige in iraq.

The invasion was a massive success. Occupation and democracy fetish is where we went wrong. We should have given them another tyrant who was in our back pocket.

[Susan B. Anthony]

http://oi60.tinypic.com/mmeump.jpg

[del]

The invasion was a massive success. Occupation and democracy fetish is where we went wrong. We should have given them another tyrant who was in our back pocket.

we should have stayed the fuck out. period.

[exotix]

The invasion was a massive success. Occupation and democracy fetish is where we went wrong. We should have given them another tyrant who was in our back pocket.
Kind of like Operation Barbarossa ?

[del]

Kind of like Operation Barbarossa ?

kind of, but more like case red

[Peter1469]

Kind of like Operation Barbarossa ?

Explain how the two are similar....

Go.

[exotix]

Explain how the two are similar....

Go.
Read a good documentary on it ... oil (and natural resources) belonging to inferiors will keep you awake at night.

[Peter1469]

Read a good documentary on it ... oil (and natural resources) belonging to inferiors will keep you awake at night.

As I thought....

Pats on head.

[hanger4]

because the negotiations went nowhere and no new agreement was reached.
And why is that del ??


none of it would matter if the asshat in chief hadn't decided that the best way to resolve his ongoing issues with his daddy was to piss away american lives, treasure and prestige in iraq.

You're being as silly as exo spouting leftist meme.

[del]

And why is that del ??


the negotiations went nowhere for a number of reasons, not least of which was our insistence that american troops not be governed by iraqi law.

if you want to blame obama, knock yourself out. he's been every bit the empty suit i though he was in '07.

just remember that we never should have been there in the first place, and we wouldn't have been there if george w bush hadn't committed us there.

[Tahuyaman]

But but but ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUNsv66m8Rw

So now you're going after Powell? How about going after Hillary Clinton? John Kerry? Bill Clinton? That stooge VP? They all said it.

[Tahuyaman]

I love this, the liberals use a story written by David Corn in Mother Jones as a reference. Like I said, they may as well have consulted Tariq Aziz. He'd be a hero to the left wing partisan hacks today.

[Professor Peabody]

George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/michael-morell-bush-cheney-iraq-war


George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public
On "Hardball," Michael Morell concedes the Bush administration misled the nation into the Iraq War.

—By David Corn
| Tue May 19, 2015 7:25 PM EDT


For a dozen years, the Bush-Cheney crowd have been trying to escape—or cover up—an essential fact of the W. years: President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their lieutenants misled the American public about the WMD threat supposedly posed by Saddam Hussein in order to grease the way to the invasion of Iraq. For Bush, Cheney, and the rest, this endeavor is fundamental; it is necessary to protect the legitimacy of the Bush II presidency. Naturally, Karl Rove and other Bushies have quickly tried to douse the Bush-lied-us-into-war fire whenever such flames have appeared. And in recent days, as Jeb Bush bumbled a question about the Iraq War, he and other GOPers have peddled the fictitious tale that his brother launched the invasion because he was presented lousy intelligence. But now there's a new witness who will make the Bush apologists' mission even more impossible: Michael Morell, a longtime CIA official who eventually became the agency's deputy director and acting director. During the preinvasion period, he served as Bush's intelligence briefer.

Appearing on MSNBC's Hardball on Tuesday night, Morell made it clear: The Bush-Cheney administration publicly misrepresented the intelligence related to Iraq's supposed WMD program and Saddam's alleged links to Al Qaeda.

Host Chris Matthews asked Morell about a statement Cheney made in 2003: "We know he {Saddam Hussein} has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Here's the conversation that followed:

snip//

There's the indictment, issued by the intelligence officer who briefed Bush and Cheney: The Bush White House made a "false presentation" on "some aspects" of the case for war. "That's a big deal," Matthews exclaimed. Morell replied, "It's a big deal."

And there's more. Referring to the claims made by Bush, Cheney, and other administration officials that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda, Morell noted, "What they were saying about the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda publicly was not what the intelligence community" had concluded. He added, "I think they were trying to make a stronger case for the war." That is, stronger than the truth would allow.

Morell's remarks support the basic charge: Bush and Cheney were not misled by flawed intelligence; they used the flawed intelligence to mislead.



I guess we can NOW stop denying the obvious :laugh:


Just like Benghazi! Who would have thought?

[Redrose]

George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/michael-morell-bush-cheney-iraq-war


George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public
On "Hardball," Michael Morell concedes the Bush administration misled the nation into the Iraq War.

—By David Corn
| Tue May 19, 2015 7:25 PM EDT


For a dozen years, the Bush-Cheney crowd have been trying to escape—or cover up—an essential fact of the W. years: President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their lieutenants misled the American public about the WMD threat supposedly posed by Saddam Hussein in order to grease the way to the invasion of Iraq. For Bush, Cheney, and the rest, this endeavor is fundamental; it is necessary to protect the legitimacy of the Bush II presidency. Naturally, Karl Rove and other Bushies have quickly tried to douse the Bush-lied-us-into-war fire whenever such flames have appeared. And in recent days, as Jeb Bush bumbled a question about the Iraq War, he and other GOPers have peddled the fictitious tale that his brother launched the invasion because he was presented lousy intelligence. But now there's a new witness who will make the Bush apologists' mission even more impossible: Michael Morell, a longtime CIA official who eventually became the agency's deputy director and acting director. During the preinvasion period, he served as Bush's intelligence briefer.

Appearing on MSNBC's Hardball on Tuesday night, Morell made it clear: The Bush-Cheney administration publicly misrepresented the intelligence related to Iraq's supposed WMD program and Saddam's alleged links to Al Qaeda.

Host Chris Matthews asked Morell about a statement Cheney made in 2003: "We know he {Saddam Hussein} has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Here's the conversation that followed:

snip//

There's the indictment, issued by the intelligence officer who briefed Bush and Cheney: The Bush White House made a "false presentation" on "some aspects" of the case for war. "That's a big deal," Matthews exclaimed. Morell replied, "It's a big deal."

And there's more. Referring to the claims made by Bush, Cheney, and other administration officials that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda, Morell noted, "What they were saying about the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda publicly was not what the intelligence community" had concluded. He added, "I think they were trying to make a stronger case for the war." That is, stronger than the truth would allow.

Morell's remarks support the basic charge: Bush and Cheney were not misled by flawed intelligence; they used the flawed intelligence to mislead.



I guess we can NOW stop denying the obvious :laugh:



Horse doo doo.
Cigar the Bush/Cheney Administration has been long gone. Get back to black.

[donttread]

George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/michael-morell-bush-cheney-iraq-war


George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public
On "Hardball," Michael Morell concedes the Bush administration misled the nation into the Iraq War.

—By David Corn
| Tue May 19, 2015 7:25 PM EDT


For a dozen years, the Bush-Cheney crowd have been trying to escape—or cover up—an essential fact of the W. years: President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their lieutenants misled the American public about the WMD threat supposedly posed by Saddam Hussein in order to grease the way to the invasion of Iraq. For Bush, Cheney, and the rest, this endeavor is fundamental; it is necessary to protect the legitimacy of the Bush II presidency. Naturally, Karl Rove and other Bushies have quickly tried to douse the Bush-lied-us-into-war fire whenever such flames have appeared. And in recent days, as Jeb Bush bumbled a question about the Iraq War, he and other GOPers have peddled the fictitious tale that his brother launched the invasion because he was presented lousy intelligence. But now there's a new witness who will make the Bush apologists' mission even more impossible: Michael Morell, a longtime CIA official who eventually became the agency's deputy director and acting director. During the preinvasion period, he served as Bush's intelligence briefer.

Appearing on MSNBC's Hardball on Tuesday night, Morell made it clear: The Bush-Cheney administration publicly misrepresented the intelligence related to Iraq's supposed WMD program and Saddam's alleged links to Al Qaeda.

Host Chris Matthews asked Morell about a statement Cheney made in 2003: "We know he {Saddam Hussein} has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Here's the conversation that followed:

snip//

There's the indictment, issued by the intelligence officer who briefed Bush and Cheney: The Bush White House made a "false presentation" on "some aspects" of the case for war. "That's a big deal," Matthews exclaimed. Morell replied, "It's a big deal."

And there's more. Referring to the claims made by Bush, Cheney, and other administration officials that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda, Morell noted, "What they were saying about the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda publicly was not what the intelligence community" had concluded. He added, "I think they were trying to make a stronger case for the war." That is, stronger than the truth would allow.

Morell's remarks support the basic charge: Bush and Cheney were not misled by flawed intelligence; they used the flawed intelligence to mislead.



I guess we can NOW stop denying the obvious :laugh:



You just now figured this out?

[zelmo1234]

You left out this part from your Wiki - link;

"Negotiations between the U.S. and Iraq for a new SOFA began in fall 2010."

How come del ??

The same reason that I pointed out? They need cover for the failures of Obama and Clinton.

Things in the middle east are only going to get worse between now and the 16 election. There is a possibility of a US attack from these monsters, If that happens the GOP will have not only the white house but 60 in the senate, and that could lead to very right leaning judges and a balance budget amendment.

This would be the end of liberalism as we know it.

So to cover in the event of an attack, they need to get the lie that it is all Bush's fault up and running.
]

[zelmo1234]

because the negotiations went nowhere and no new agreement was reached.

none of it would matter if the asshat in chief hadn't decided that the best way to resolve his ongoing issues with his daddy was to piss away american lives, treasure and prestige in iraq.

Now remember that ASSHAT in a little over 7 months deceived the World, including the most brilliant Democrats, and a former President.

So at least you should acknowledge that he may have been the most brilliant President in modern times? Or that the evidence that the world had and the attitude of Sadam supported the actions for using force.

As a side note, the names of countries are capitalized. Iraq for example. You are so smart I thought you would like to know!

[zelmo1234]

Read a good documentary on it ... oil (and natural resources) belonging to inferiors will keep you awake at night.

I paid close to 4 buck a gallon for years, Where the hell is my cheap oil that you Democrats keep telling me about?

And keep in mind if Chaney and Bush promised the oil companies the oil in Iraq and then went back on their word? They would not be alive today.

[zelmo1234]

the negotiations went nowhere for a number of reasons, not least of which was our insistence that american troops not be governed by iraqi law.

if you want to blame obama, knock yourself out. he's been every bit the empty suit i though he was in '07.

just remember that we never should have been there in the first place, and we wouldn't have been there if george w bush hadn't committed us there.

This is actually a very good post!

The only thing that you forgot is to add all of the leading Democrats that voted to send us there as well

I don't understand why they get a free pass

[Peter1469]

eat a bag o' dicks, bob


Warning: Watch the vulgarity and name calling. Consider this warning to apply globally on the forum.

[exotix]

I paid close to 4 buck a gallon for years, Where the hell is my cheap oil that you Democrats keep telling me about?

And keep in mind if Chaney and Bush promised the oil companies the oil in Iraq and then went back on their word? They would not be alive today.
Which Muslims do you propose we kill to lower gas prices ?

[zelmo1234]

Which Muslims do you propose we kill to lower gas prices ?

None the war was never about oil?

But there are a lot of other reasons to take the terrorist out and inflict a cost on those that will not take their religion back from them.

[exotix]

None the war was never about oil?

But there are a lot of other reasons to take the terrorist out and inflict a cost on those that will not take their religion back from them.
Again, which muslims do you propose we kill that Obama already hasn't ?

[zelmo1234]

Again, which muslims do you propose we kill that Obama already hasn't ?

Lets start with the ones in the ISIS controlled territories. And then see where we go from there

[exotix]

Lets start with the ones in the ISIS controlled territories. And then see where we go from there
Which muslims are ISIS ?

[Captain Obvious]

Wait - I thought Scott Walker lied about WMD...

:biglaugh:

Next...

[zelmo1234]

Which muslims are ISIS ?

Now if you look at my posts you will see that I am for total war.

Just as the civilian population of Germany paid the price for their support of Hitler, So to would the populations of the controlled area.

Nothing on the roads, and we have a really good Idea that the Mosques are preaching hate so I would suspect taking them out on a Friday afternoon might get things moving in the right direction.

[zelmo1234]

Wait - I thought Scott Walker lied about WMD...

:biglaugh:

Next...

NO, NO, NO. It was the Koch brothers, he just does everything that they tell him to. Remember?

[exotix]

Now if you look at my posts you will see that I am for total war.

Just as the civilian population of Germany paid the price for their support of Hitler, So to would the populations of the controlled area.

Nothing on the roads, and we have a really good Idea that the Mosques are preaching hate so I would suspect taking them out on a Friday afternoon might get things moving in the right direction.
Total War essentially means the extermination of everybody deemed your enemy ... meaning everybody not like you.

[zelmo1234]

Total War essentially means the extermination of everybody deemed your enemy ... meaning everybody not like you.

NO there are still German's, Italians, and Japanese in the world today.

Total war means you keep killing people and breaking things until your enemy gives up unconditionally! Gives up his ideology and lives as a decent human!

Surrender keeps them from being whipped out!

[exotix]

NO there are still German's, Italians, and Japanese in the world today.

Total war means you keep killing people and breaking things until your enemy gives up unconditionally! Gives up his ideology and lives as a decent human!

Surrender keeps them from being whipped out!You need to go back and understand what Goebbels meant by Total War.

[zelmo1234]

You need to go back and understand what Goebbels meant by Total War.

I am not using his definition, I am using mine, If you would rather I call it something else I can call it real war!

But it is in fact the only thing that is going to settle down the middle easy and put an end to terrorism.

[exotix]

I am not using his definition, I am using mine, If you would rather I call it something else I can call it real war!

But it is in fact the only thing that is going to settle down the middle easy and put an end to terrorism.
In other words you're making-up your own fantasmal ... LOL

[zelmo1234]

In other words you're making-up your own fantasmal ... LOL

Yes I am not using any definition other than what I would do. I know that thinking for your self is something that you have never tired, but some people do that

[Peter1469]

Now remember that ASSHAT in a little over 7 months deceived the World, including the most brilliant Democrats, and a former President.

So at least you should acknowledge that he may have been the most brilliant President in modern times? Or that the evidence that the world had and the attitude of Sadam supported the actions for using force.

As a side note, the names of countries are capitalized. Iraq for example. You are so smart I thought you would like to know!

Warning: Please don’t call members names.

[exotix]

Yes I am not using any definition other than what I would do. I know that thinking for your self is something that you have never tired, but some people do that
Let us know when Iraq wants us back ... LOL

[Cigar]

Horse doo doo.
@Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294) the Bush/Cheney Administration has been long gone. Get back to black.

Got it; George W. Bush's CIA Briefer is a liar :laugh: what a surprise

[hanger4]

Got it; George W. Bush's CIA Briefer is a liar :laugh: what a surprise
If he's not lying then Rockefeller and his US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence did. Which one Cigar ??

[birddog]

Bush did not lie. He may have misinterpreted the CIA information like many others did.

[hanger4]

Got it; George W. Bush's CIA Briefer is a liar :laugh: what a surprise
BTW Cigar did *George W. Bush's CIA Briefer* brief the UK, France, Russia and several others ?? All of which got it wrong. Or did Chris M. not think that through for you ??

[Cigar]

BTW @Cigar (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=294) did *George W. Bush's CIA Briefer* brief the UK, France, Russia and several others ?? All of which got it wrong. Or did Chris M. not think that through for you ??

Actually he did, maybe you should do a little reading first.

[Cigar]

Bush did not lie. He may have misinterpreted the CIA information like many others did.

http://www.allhatnocattle.net/George_Bush_The_Decider.jpg

[hanger4]

Actually he did, maybe you should do a little reading first.

So the partisan leftist John D. Rockefeller chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence lied to cover for Bush ?? Do tell Cigar, why did John D lie ??

[exotix]

Bush did not lie. He may have misinterpreted the CIA information like many others did.
http://i62.tinypic.com/65bdqd.jpg

[del]

Now remember that ASSHAT in a little over 7 months deceived the World, including the most brilliant Democrats, and a former President.

So at least you should acknowledge that he may have been the most brilliant President in modern times? Or that the evidence that the world had and the attitude of Sadam supported the actions for using force.

As a side note, the names of countries are capitalized. Iraq for example. You are so smart I thought you would like to know!

he was almost as big an idiot as you are, and nothing supported his decision to use force.

he deceived no one except thos who wished to be deceived.

thanks for the tip about capitalization; i'll continue to ignore it.

[del]

This is actually a very good post!

The only thing that you forgot is to add all of the leading Democrats that voted to send us there as well

I don't understand why they get a free pass

you don't understand a lot of really simple stuff; as i've said, you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

they dont get a pass. they weren't the commander in chief. they gave authorization, not orders.

duh

[del]

Now if you look at my posts you will see that I am for total war.

Just as the civilian population of Germany paid the price for their support of Hitler, So to would the populations of the controlled area.

Nothing on the roads, and we have a really good Idea that the Mosques are preaching hate so I would suspect taking them out on a Friday afternoon might get things moving in the right direction.

i love guys that are for total war as long as somebody else fights it.

have you met ransom? he's another patton, just like you

[The Sage of Main Street]

Which Muslims do you propose we kill to lower gas prices ? The entire Saudi royal family. The only Weapons of Mass Destruction are the madrassahs their oil loot finances all over the world to brainwash young Muslims into becoming suicide bombers.

[Green Arrow]

I think I must have died and my plane to heaven got rerouted to the early 2000s.

[Private Pickle]

i love guys that are for total war as long as somebody else fights it.

have you met ransom? he's another patton, just like you

I love ad hominem arguments.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11650&stc=1

[Private Pickle]

The entire Saudi royal family. The only Weapons of Mass Destruction are the madrassahs their oil loot finances all over the world to brainwash young Muslims into becoming suicide bombers.

Most of their "oil loot" is in our gas tanks.

[Bob]

Most of their "oil loot" is in our gas tanks. Actually, i believe Saudi has customers that take much of the oil. We buy a lot from Canada. But America has waken up to our own oil reserves and use that.

Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest producer and exporter of oil, and has one quarter of the world’s known oil reserves – more than 260 billion barrels. Most are located in the Eastern Province, including the largest onshore field in Ghawar and the largest offshore field at Safaniya in the Arabian Gulf.

Saudi refineries produce around 8 million barrels of oil per day, and there are plans to increase production to around 12 million barrels per day.
As the world’s largest producer and exporter of oil, Saudi Arabia plays a unique role in the global energy industry. Its policies on the production and export of oil, natural gas and petroleum products have a major impact on the energy market, as well as the global economy. Mindful of this responsibility, Saudi Arabia is committed to ensuring stability of supplies and prices. The Kingdom has repeatedly acted in times of crisis – such as the Gulf Crisis of 1990-91, the 2003 Iraq war and market fluctuations of the late 1990s – and covered any drop in oil supplies by increasing its output. In this way, Saudi Arabia has prevented major shocks to the global economy from a loss of supply or sharp price increases. https://www.saudiembassy.net/about/country-information/energy/oil.aspx For all the talk of the USA exporting crude or petroleum products, this sure shoots that argument down. http://www.eia.gov/beta/international/rankings/#?prodact=57-4&iso=SAU&pid=57&aid=4&tl_id=4-A&tl_type=a&cy=2012

[domer76]

Maybe you didn't watch your president. He ended the war in Iraq years ago.

lol
Unfortunately, he can't do much for all the dead people. Or the irreversibly maimed

[zelmo1234]

Warning: Please don’t call members names.

Sorry, I was actually referring to GWB, the post quoted called GWB an ASSHAT,

Again sorry for the misunderstanding!

[zelmo1234]

Let us know when Iraq wants us back ... LOL

Tomorrow if we can't get back there today!

[zelmo1234]

he was almost as big an idiot as you are, and nothing supported his decision to use force.

he deceived no one except thos who wished to be deceived.

thanks for the tip about capitalization; i'll continue to ignore it.

So you would agree that these folks wanted to be deceived?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8

Shouldn't that disqualify them from being President?

[zelmo1234]

you don't understand a lot of really simple stuff; as i've said, you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

they dont get a pass. they weren't the commander in chief. they gave authorization, not orders.

duh

Got it! They saw the same information, came to the same decision, authorized the use of force, but they get a pass because they were not President!

[Private Pickle]

Actually, i believe Saudi has customers that take much of the oil. We buy a lot from Canada. But America has waken up to our own oil reserves and use that. https://www.saudiembassy.net/about/country-information/energy/oil.aspx For all the talk of the USA exporting crude or petroleum products, this sure shoots that argument down. http://www.eia.gov/beta/international/rankings/#?prodact=57-4&iso=SAU&pid=57&aid=4&tl_id=4-A&tl_type=a&cy=2012

It's not about how much oil. It's about how much the oil costs.

[zelmo1234]

i love guys that are for total war as long as somebody else fights it.

have you met ransom? he's another patton, just like you


Yeah! Well NO! But you already know that! But I have sand in my shoes, even though not through military service.

Next!

[maineman]

Got it! They saw the same information, came to the same decision, authorized the use of force, but they get a pass because they were not President!

who ordered US troops into battle?

Congress?

[zelmo1234]

who ordered US troops into battle?

Congress?

I understand GWB lied and people died, but all of the Democrats that voted to give him the authority and the funding? You know those that saw the same intelligence reports, They get a pass because they were not the President!

Now lets talk about all of the stuff that using this logic is Obama's fault. the economy, the middle east, unrest in the Democratic cities of the USA. national debt, the list goes on and on.

But the left always blames everyone but him? I wonder if it is because he really is not the President? Or do you think that they might be partisan hacks?

[Peter1469]

he was almost as big an idiot as you are, and nothing supported his decision to use force.

he deceived no one except thos who wished to be deceived.

thanks for the tip about capitalization; i'll continue to ignore it.



Notice: Don't respond to Dell in this thread. TBed for violating an earlier warning about his habitual name calling.

[maineman]

I understand GWB lied and people died, but all of the Democrats that voted to give him the authority and the funding? You know those that saw the same intelligence reports, They get a pass because they were not the President!

Now lets talk about all of the stuff that using this logic is Obama's fault. the economy, the middle east, unrest in the Democratic cities of the USA. national debt, the list goes on and on.

But the left always blames everyone but him? I wonder if it is because he really is not the President? Or do you think that they might be partisan hacks?

even the minority of democrats who voted for the use of force were ALL vehement in their desire that Dubya use force as an absolute last resort. Dubya got the authorization and used it as a first resort. And none of the D's who voted for the war get a "free pass" from me. They'd all better express their sincere regrets for that vote of they won't get mine.

[zelmo1234]

even the minority of democrats who voted for the use of force were ALL vehement in their desire that Dubya use force as an absolute last resort. Dubya got the authorization and used it as a first resort. And none of the D's who voted for the war get a "free pass" from me. They'd all better express their sincere regrets for that vote of they won't get mine.

I can live with that, though I think that you will find it was a majority, not a minority; And I hope that you are not disappointed, but the next president will be sending troops back to the middle east.

[Bob]

i love guys that are for total war as long as somebody else fights it.

have you met ransom? he's another patton, just like you

Change it to taxes and maybe you catch our drift.

To make it easy for you

I love high taxes so long as the other guy pays them.

[Bob]

I understand GWB lied and people died, but all of the Democrats that voted to give him the authority and the funding? You know those that saw the same intelligence reports, They get a pass because they were not the President!

Now lets talk about all of the stuff that using this logic is Obama's fault. the economy, the middle east, unrest in the Democratic cities of the USA. national debt, the list goes on and on.

But the left always blames everyone but him? I wonder if it is because he really is not the President? Or do you think that they might be partisan hacks?


I understand GWB lied and people died

Bush did not lie.

[zelmo1234]

Bush did not lie.

Work with me, I am painting them into a corner

[Peter1469]

I can live with that, though I think that you will find it was a majority, not a minority; And I hope that you are not disappointed, but the next president will be sending troops back to the middle east.

I hope that there is no new invasion and especially occupation. That would be tragic.

[hanger4]

I think I must have died and my plane to heaven got rerouted to the early 2000s.
Yeah .... sorry bout that. I just grow weary of the *Bush lied, people died* schtick.

[Peter1469]

People died and Obama said "watch my drive." :shocked:

[Green Arrow]

Seriously, though, who gives a shit?

[hanger4]

People died and Obama said "watch my drive." :shocked:
Bad Peter .... bad Peter :)

[Bob]

even the minority of democrats who voted for the use of force were ALL vehement in their desire that Dubya use force as an absolute last resort. Dubya got the authorization and used it as a first resort. And none of the D's who voted for the war get a "free pass" from me. They'd all better express their sincere regrets for that vote of they won't get mine.

Bush did use force as a LAST resort.

First off, it took him a long time to amass troops.

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_inv asion_of_iraq_3246

General Franks was tasked to come up with plans 12/27/2001

Franks actually invaded in the spring of 2003.

March 22, 2003: General Franks Claims Evidence of WMDs and SCUD Launchers in Iraq (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_inv asion_of_iraq_134#complete_timeline_of_the_2003_in vasion_of_iraq_134)
http://www.historycommons.org/pics/icons/edit.png (http://www.historycommons.org/eventedit.jsp?oid=1626004942-46282)

Gen. Tommy Franks says during a news conference in Qatar: “There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.” [WASHINGTON POST, 3/23/2003 (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0323-06.htm)] The four-star general says he gets information about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction every day, noting he has “no doubt” that Iraq possesses them. He states some of this information is good intelligence while other is speculation. Franks also says he knows that more than two dozen Iraqi SCUD missile launchers are unaccounted for since the end of the last Gulf War. [AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICES NEWS ARTICLE, 3/22/2003 (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=29252)]

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_inv asion_of_iraq_3246

[Bob]

Work with me, I am painting them into a corner

Great color of paint. Carry on. :laugh:

[Bob]

It's not about how much oil. It's about how much the oil costs.

Saudi says they plan to add to supply by 50 percent. I believe prices will tumble.

[Private Pickle]

Saudi says they plan to add to supply by 50 percent. I believe prices will tumble.

They already have. SA is trying to minimize and mitigate the effects of U.S. Domestic drilling. It's working to a degree. The problem is we've opened up export markets in the process effectively ending a 40 year ban on oil exports.

"Low gas prices are bad for the economy."

[Bob]

They already have. SA is trying to minimize and mitigate the effects of U.S. Domestic drilling. It's working to a degree. The problem is we've opened up export markets in the process effectively ending a 40 year ban on oil exports.

"Low gas prices are bad for the economy."

Opened it up for what country? How did WE do that? I hope you know it is still illegal for the USA to export crude.

Low gas prices include low diesel prices and cheap aircraft fuel. It is great for the economy.

[Peter1469]

They already have. SA is trying to minimize and mitigate the effects of U.S. Domestic drilling. It's working to a degree. The problem is we've opened up export markets in the process effectively ending a 40 year ban on oil exports.

"Low gas prices are bad for the economy."


Low gas prices are a mixed bag. For the US it is a net benefit.

[Mr. Right]

Saudi says they plan to add to supply by 50 percent. I believe prices will tumble.

Tumble they may, Bob.. but, my friend as low as oil prices currently are, gas should be about $1.69 a gallon. The refineries are raking it in like a crab jubilee. That ole "supply and demand" thingy mixed with the lack of refineries has added about $1.00 to the price of gas.

[Bob]

Tumble they may, @Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013).. but, my friend as low as oil prices currently are, gas should be about $1.69 a gallon. The refineries are raking it in like a crab jubilee. That ole "supply and demand" thingy mixed with the lack of refineries has added about $1.00 to the price of gas.

Here, Regular gas at the lowest price is $3.29 per gallon

http://www.oaklandgasprices.com/Fremont/index.aspx

[zelmo1234]

I hope that there is no new invasion and especially occupation. That would be tragic.

I suspect that it will be retaliation for a major attack on Israel or here in the USA. I would hope that we have finally learned the nation building crap does not work and just go in and keep killing and breaking things until they have had enough.

[zelmo1234]

Low gas prices are a mixed bag. For the US it is a net benefit.

Actually they are one of the things propping up the economy, with the loss of wages in the US, the lower prices are helping to create some disposable income

[Private Pickle]

Opened it up for what country? How did WE do that? I hope you know it is still illegal for the USA to export crude.

Low gas prices include low diesel prices and cheap aircraft fuel. It is great for the economy.

Obama has started dismantling the laws/self-imposed export bans on oil. We have already begun exporting to Europe and Japan.

[Bob]

Obama has started dismantling the laws/self-imposed export bans on oil. We have already begun exporting to Europe and Japan.

I guess the USA is big time exporter. Right up there with New Zealand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_exports

[Private Pickle]

Low gas prices are a mixed bag. For the US it is a net benefit.

Depends on how you look at it. Low gas prices strengthen the dollar. The lowers exports, increases imports and tightens up credit.

[Private Pickle]

I guess the USA is big time exporter. Right up there with New Zealand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_oil_exports

Writing on the wall Bob. Gotta see it coming...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10924303/US-takes-first-steps-to-ending-40-year-oil-export-ban.html

[Peter1469]

Depends on how you look at it. Low gas prices strengthen the dollar. The lowers exports, increases imports and tightens up credit.

Agreed, it is a mixed bag. In the US lower prices is a net win. Of course there are losers.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Notice: Don't respond to Dell in this thread. TBed for violating an earlier warning about his habitual name calling. Why don't you delete all his previous posts? @s might respond to them before getting to the post that contains a Mod's warning not to.

[maineman]

Bush did use force as a LAST resort.

why then, did he boot Hans Blix out of the country so he could get his war on?



Gen. Tommy Franks says during a news conference in Qatar: “There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.”

see there...that bolded phrase makes that a lie. There WERE degrees of doubt. There WERE caveats and qualifiers. To knowingly claim the existence of absolute certainty when one knows otherwise is a lie. Franks lied. Cheney lied. Bush lied. And then we went to war.

[hanger4]

why then, did he boot Hans Blix out of the country so he could get his war on?




see there...that bolded phrase makes that a lie. There WERE degrees of doubt. There WERE caveats and qualifiers. To knowingly claim the existence of absolute certainty when one knows otherwise is a lie. Franks lied. Cheney lied. Bush lied. And then we went to war.

You forgot John D. Rockefeller IV and his Select Committee on Intelligence. They must of lied too.

[Ethereal]

Bush did use force as a LAST resort.

As a last resort for what? Iraq posed virtually no threat to US "national security" and was not involved in the 9/11 attacks. A "last resort" somehow implies that the US invasion of Iraq was in response to a legitimate threat when it was anything but.


First off, it took him a long time to amass troops.

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_inv asion_of_iraq_3246

General Franks was tasked to come up with plans 12/27/2001

Franks actually invaded in the spring of 2003.

March 22, 2003: General Franks Claims Evidence of WMDs and SCUD Launchers in Iraq (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_inv asion_of_iraq_134#complete_timeline_of_the_2003_in vasion_of_iraq_134)


http://www.historycommons.org/pics/icons/edit.png (http://www.historycommons.org/eventedit.jsp?oid=1626004942-46282)

Gen. Tommy Franks says during a news conference in Qatar: “There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.” [WASHINGTON POST, 3/23/2003 (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0323-06.htm)] The four-star general says he gets information about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction every day, noting he has “no doubt” that Iraq possesses them. He states some of this information is good intelligence while other is speculation. Franks also says he knows that more than two dozen Iraqi SCUD missile launchers are unaccounted for since the end of the last Gulf War. [AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICES NEWS ARTICLE, 3/22/2003 (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=29252)]

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_inv asion_of_iraq_3246

What does this prove?

[Common Sense]

You forgot John D. Rockefeller IV and his Select Committee on Intelligence. They must of lied too.

It wasn't Rockefeller's committee until later. It was Patrick Roberts that was chair at the time.

The Senate Report on Iraqi WMD Intelligence did find major issues. Mainly stating that finings on WMD's were overstated and that there was pressure on analysts to create a narrative.

That's one of the main reasons the invasion garnered so much support. The intelligence handed to the senate and the house was custom made to paint a picture of an Iraq on the verge of nuclear, bio and chem weapons, hell bent on the destruction of the US. Can you blame them for supporting the invasion given the fabrications they were hand fed?

[Common Sense]

...and, if we do want to look at the later report by Rockefeller and the Select Committee...Rockefeller stated in his findings...

"It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

[Peter1469]

Iraq is the perfect location for power projection in the Middle East.

[maineman]

You forgot John D. Rockefeller IV and his Select Committee on Intelligence. They must of lied too.

did they say there was absolute certainty?

[Bob]

As a last resort for what? Iraq posed virtually no threat to US "national security" and was not involved in the 9/11 attacks. A "last resort" somehow implies that the US invasion of Iraq was in response to a legitimate threat when it was anything but. What does this prove?

Visit the pre 9/11 era history to read how it was Saddam that was the largest problem on the planet for the world.

The clip I supplied proves that it was not merely a story by Bush, but Franks and many others as well, such as the King of Jordan and then President Mubarak of Egypt.

There is this myth in America that Bush alone believed Saddam was a security problem. Bush would have been strange to not have believed Saddam was a major menace.

Bush did not make his case claiming Saddam was involved in 911. This democratic told myth, though persistent is flat wrong.

[Bob]

...and, if we do want to look at the later report by Rockefeller and the Select Committee...Rockefeller stated in his findings...

"It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

Bill Clinton had been fixated. Democrats were also fixated. They followed like puppies, Bill Clinton who attacked Saddam multiple times.

This was a joint government effort for those who keep forgetting.

Who recalls the vicious attack on then Yugoslavia by Bill Clinton? He alleged genocide yet no authorities ever found evidence of that.

[Bob]

It wasn't Rockefeller's committee until later. It was Patrick Roberts that was chair at the time.

The Senate Report on Iraqi WMD Intelligence did find major issues. Mainly stating that finings on WMD's were overstated and that there was pressure on analysts to create a narrative.

That's one of the main reasons the invasion garnered so much support. The intelligence handed to the senate and the house was custom made to paint a picture of an Iraq on the verge of nuclear, bio and chem weapons, hell bent on the destruction of the US. Can you blame them for supporting the invasion given the fabrications they were hand fed?

Both Bush and Congress drank from the same well. But to Blame Bush for intelligence shortcomings is ... well very silly. Bush was a consumer of intelligence, not a creator.

[Common Sense]

Bill Clinton had been fixated. Democrats were also fixated. They followed like puppies, Bill Clinton who attacked Saddam multiple times.

This was a joint government effort for those who keep forgetting.

Who recalls the vicious attack on then Yugoslavia by Bill Clinton? He alleged genocide yet no authorities ever found evidence of that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Genocide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Genocide_case

[Common Sense]

Both Bush and Congress drank from the same well. But to Blame Bush for intelligence shortcomings is ... well very silly. Bush was a consumer of intelligence, not a creator.

Read the reports Bob. There was pressure on analysts to disregard evidence that was contrary to the narrative developed.

[Private Pickle]

Read the reports Bob. There was pressure on analysts to disregard evidence that was contrary to the narrative developed.

Reminds me of the research on Global Warming.

Anyhoo....carry on...

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Bob http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1102967#post1102967)
Bush did use force as a LAST resort.


why then, did he boot Hans Blix out of the country so he could get his war on?

The question has no meaning. I believe Hans took off to make certain he did not die in combat. I refer you to the pre war remarks by both Bush vis a vis how Saddam kept breaking the deal he had agreed to and see how Colin Powell, trying to be a skeptic went to the CIA in person and scoped out all the evidence the CIA had. I never see the left put a nickels blame on the CIA. They must think Powell was some novice at looking over classified data because they don't put a bit of blame on him. He certainly could have called faulty data to Bush attention yet he was fully informed and fully on board with the invasion.


Gen. Tommy Franks says during a news conference in Qatar: “There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.”


see there...that bolded phrase makes that a lie. There WERE degrees of doubt. There WERE caveats and qualifiers. To knowingly claim the existence of absolute certainty when one knows otherwise is a lie. Franks lied. Cheney lied. Bush lied. And then we went to war.

Had you studied the General's fine book, you would have seen a complete discussion on why he too believed Saddam was loaded with WMD

For my money, I believe the book by the Iraqi General Georges Sada confirms that Saddam had it, but shipped out to Syria.

This is an interesting argument for the left it seems. To me, it is easily explained once you read Franks book and then follow up with General Mike DeLong's book and of course Bush's and Cheney's books. Say what you want, one has to include the pre-Bush era with Saddam and the Bush era and see that in General, both parties claimed Saddam had plenty of WMD. Clinton used that as his excuse to bomb Iraq.

[maineman]

Had you studied the General's fine book, you would have seen a complete discussion on why he too believed Saddam was loaded with WMD



again... what Franks BELIEVED is of absolutely no importance to me. When he claimed absolute certainty, that was a lie. pure and simple. Absolute certainty did not exist.

[Bob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Genocide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Genocide_case

Those reports are not connected with the Bill Clinton bombing of Yugoslavia.

[Bob]

again... what Franks BELIEVED is of absolutely no importance to me. When he claimed absolute certainty, that was a lie. pure and simple. Absolute certainty did not exist.

Forgive me for saying this, but YOU are not the most important figure in this bit of history.

I explained what took place. If you won't believe, why not quit the discussion?

I have closely studied this. Why, if you won't accept history, do you persist in going forward?

Think you can change what I studied by you not believing in it?

[Bob]

Read the reports Bob. There was pressure on analysts to disregard evidence that was contrary to the narrative developed.

Had to come from General Colin Powell then. But I don't believe your version of the story.

General Powell as it turns out was a major player. He spent about 2 weeks all day long with the CIA.

Surely had he questioned it, he would have told Bush. Bush was informed Powell was on board since he had studied the information at the CIA.

[Common Sense]

Those reports are not connected with the Bill Clinton bombing of Yugoslavia.

Sure, but they counter your claim that no genocide occurred.

[Bob]

Sure, but they counter your claim that no genocide occurred.

Hold the horses.

Bill Clinton used Genocide in Serbia and Kosova as his excuse, not the events of Bosnia.

There seems to be a question even in Bosnia if it really was genocide by the Yugoslavian government.

There are rogues in armies so you ought to understand that.

[hanger4]

...and, if we do want to look at the later report by Rockefeller and the Select Committee...Rockefeller stated in his findings...

"It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

That was Rockefeller's press release. You should read the whole report.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."
On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

[Common Sense]

Keep your fingers in your ears...it really doesn't bother me. History will judge him accordingly.

[hanger4]

Keep your fingers in your ears...it really doesn't bother me. History will judge him accordingly.
I'll admit my hearing ain't what it use to be, but I read just fine.

[maineman]

Forgive me for saying this, but YOU are not the most important figure in this bit of history.

I explained what took place. If you won't believe, why not quit the discussion?

I have closely studied this. Why, if you won't accept history, do you persist in going forward?

Think you can change what I studied by you not believing in it?

again. This isn't history we are talking about, it is English grammar. You posted a quote from Franks. I showed you incontrovertibly that is was a knowingly false statement. If he had said "I have no doubt" or "there is little doubt", those would have been expressions of his opinion. To say "there is no doubt" was a lie.

[Bob]

again. This isn't history we are talking about, it is English grammar. You posted a quote from Franks. I showed you incontrovertibly that is was a knowingly false statement. If he had said "I have no doubt" or "there is little doubt", those would have been expressions of his opinion. To say "there is no doubt" was a lie.

Actually there was no doubt at all to General Franks.

[maineman]

Actually there was no doubt at all to General Franks.

but he didn't say "I have no doubt", he said "THERE is no doubt".

Try as you might, you cannot make those two phrases synonymous. One is an expression of opinion, the other is a statement of fact.

[Bob]

but he didn't say "I have no doubt", he said "THERE is no doubt".

Try as you might, you cannot make those two phrases synonymous. One is an expression of opinion, the other is a statement of fact.

Question Franks all you want.

I do not care.

Done is done.

[maineman]

Question Franks all you want.

I do not care.

Done is done.

of course done is done. He did lie, however, even if it is long overtaken by events.

It's funny how you hold him up as this demigod, but cannot defend his poor choice of words.

[Bob]

of course done is done. He did lie, however, even if it is long overtaken by events.

It's funny how you hold him up as this demigod, but cannot defend his poor choice of words.

Talk to the hand about it.

[Bob]

Talk to the hand about it.

I remind you Maineman, Franks got his information from top government officers in other countries. If you think he lied, why are you not attacking the King of Jordan nor former President Mubarak?

Even Colin Powell due to his own research claimed Saddam had it.

[Ivan88]

Actually, they didn't mislead the US populace and the EU bozos.
Yes, they lied about Iraq's nuclear capabilities and intent, but, it was the US populace and the bozos at the UN and US Senate and US Congress who chose the bigger sin.
They all decided that it is wrong for Iraq to have a nuclear weapon, when the US has and has used nukes, the Israelis have nukes and have used them, but that is OK.
Yes, the war crazy US officialdom and US sports fans all are possessed with a prejudicial mind in favor of the doctrines and and traditions of man faced devils that make the Word of "nature's God" to be of none effect. Matthew 15:6

[Bob]

They did not lie to us but Ivan brings up a very good point.

Why would Americans approve invading Iraq if they were persuaded Saddam had them in the first place?

What God decided Saddam could not have WMD?

If they feel fooled that Saddam never had any, but he did, the problem is those who accepted WMD as the excuse to wage war.

Bill Clinton waged war on Saddam for 8 long years.

[Common Sense]

They did not lie to us but Ivan brings up a very good point.

Why would Americans approve invading Iraq if they were persuaded Saddam had them in the first place?

What God decided Saddam could not have WMD?

If they feel fooled that Saddam never had any, but he did, the problem is those who accepted WMD as the excuse to wage war.

Bill Clinton waged war on Saddam for 8 long years.

The US and the UK bombed strategic targets in Iraq in 98' for 4 days.

[Bob]

The US and the UK bombed strategic targets in Iraq in 98' for 4 days.

That was not the extent of the Bill Clinton war making.

[Common Sense]

That was not the extent of the Bill Clinton war making.

Then show me.

The bombing of Iraq by Clinton took place over 4 days in 1998.

[Bob]

Then show me.

The bombing of Iraq by Clinton took place over 4 days in 1998.

First, he flew war planes daily over Iraq.
And said planes fired at targets.

I believe I now will be treated to the deifying of one Bill Clinton. Shoot for the moon.

BTW the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor but one AM and it was all out war.

When Clinton bombed Iraq, it was all out war.

[Common Sense]

First, he flew war planes daily over Iraq.
And said planes fired at targets.

I believe I now will be treated to the deifying of one Bill Clinton. Shoot for the moon.

BTW the Japs bombed Pearl Harbor but one AM and it was all out war.

When Clinton bombed Iraq, it was all out war.

You said he waged war against Iraq for 8 years. Prove it or admit you were wrong again.

[Bob]

You said he waged war against Iraq for 8 years. Prove it or admit you were wrong again.

Omygod.

Wrong again?

Say, I believe it is your claim to never be wrong? True or false?

[Common Sense]

Omygod.

Wrong again?

Say, I believe it is your claim to never be wrong? True or false?

So when you said...




Bill Clinton waged war on Saddam for 8 long years.

I didn't read that right?

Oh I've been wrong. We're all wrong from time to time.

The difference is I admit when I'm wrong.

[Bob]

Let's follow up on the members claim that Clinton did not wage war on Saddam for 8 years.

The very act of partitioning any country, flying beligerent aircraft over said country is an act of war. Don't believe me, think that Russia divides up the USA and fly's over our land in a way to prevent free flow of aircraft.

Clinton was daily at war with Saddam.

Still, bombing him for 4 days is a blatant act of war.

You would believe it had it been Bush of course.

[Common Sense]

Oh Bob...

[Bob]

So when you said...



I didn't read that right?

Oh I've been wrong. We're all wrong from time to time.

The difference is I admit when I'm wrong.

Time to quit defending Bill and admit he waged war on Saddam for 8 years.

[Common Sense]

Time to quit defending Bill and admit he waged war on Saddam for 8 years.

If you mean he waged war by continuing to enforce no fly zones created by Bush...but that's a stretch. Clinton didn't bomb Iraq until 98.

I'm not defending Bill...I'm defending reality.

[Bob]

If you mean he waged war by continuing to enforce no fly zones created by Bush...but that's a stretch. Clinton didn't bomb Iraq until 98.

I'm not defending Bill...I'm defending reality.

That is war my friend. And Clinton enjoyed war.

Witness how many days he bombed the hell out of Yugoslavia.

I really wonder how you plan to defend that????

[Green Arrow]

Bob, if Clinton is to blame for Bush going to war in Iraq, then Bush is to blame for Obama withdrawing from Iraq.

[Bob]

@Bob (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1013), if Clinton is to blame for Bush going to war in Iraq, then Bush is to blame for Obama withdrawing from Iraq.

Those may be your words.

I don't believe I assigned blame to any of them.

[Green Arrow]

Those may be your words.

I don't believe I assigned blame to any of them.

Every time the subject of the Iraq War comes up, you pass the buck from Bush II to Clinton.

[Bob]

Every time the subject of the Iraq War comes up, you pass the buck from Bush II to Clinton.

Both presidents waged war on Iraq. Do you expect me to lie?

[Common Sense]

So the war in Iraq has been waged for 25 years?

[Green Arrow]

Both presidents waged war on Iraq. Do you expect me to lie?

Nope, however you have flat-out stated in the past that the only reason George W. Bush went to war in Iraq in 2003 was because he was forced to by a law passed by Clinton.

[Bob]

Nope, however you have flat-out stated in the past that the only reason George W. Bush went to war in Iraq in 2003 was because he was forced to by a law passed by Clinton.

Incorrect.

[Green Arrow]

Incorrect.

Absolutely correct. Are you now denying your own words?

[Bob]

Absolutely correct. Are you now denying your own words?



I am denying your spin on my commentaries.

I need not admit your spin.

[Green Arrow]

I am denying your spin on my commentaries.

I need not admit your spin.

No spin, I quoted you almost verbatim.

[Bob]

No spin, I quoted you almost verbatim.

Almost you claim?

I am accurate.

I never said those words.

[Bob]

GA let me tell you what I actually did say.
1. Clinton signed a law whose purpose was to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
2. Clinton waged war on Saddam for years. I happen to call our military control and firing on his forces, war.
3. 9/11 was in 2011 Iraq invasion commenced in April 2003

Show where I said what you claim was said?

As to Bush forced into iraq?

Circumstances played a huge role. A lot happened prior to Bush invading.

[Ivan88]

So the war in Iraq has been waged for 25 years?
The war on Iraq began before Bush the First. But 25 years is a good estimate, and exceeds the memory of most USers.

A good motto for the US Congress et. al.:
I sit on a man's back,
choking him and making him carry me,
and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means
- except by getting off his back.

- Leo Tolstoy

[The Sage of Main Street]

Why can't anybody see that Bush wouldn't have sent ground troops in to get wiped out by WMDs if he actually believed there were any? He would have done to Iraq what Clinton did to Serbia, bomb them without letting up until they surrendered. Especially in the desert, gas masks can only be worn a short time before the troops pass out and become easy to pick off.

[Susan B. Anthony]

The war on Iraq began before Bush the First. But 25 years is a good estimate, and exceeds the memory of most USers.

A good motto for the US Congress et. al.:
I sit on a man's back,
choking him and making him carry me,
and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means
- except by getting off his back.

- Leo Tolstoy

You saying the Iraqi people rose up en masse to cast off their US oppressors?

Pretty sure that's not what happened.

[Peter1469]

Why can't anybody see that Bush wouldn't have sent ground troops in to get wiped out by WMDs if he actually believed there were any? He would have done to Iraq what Clinton did to Serbia, bomb them without letting up until they surrendered. Especially in the desert, gas masks can only be worn a short time before the troops pass out and become easy to pick off.

Not so fast. First the invasion was in the spring because of the less than brutal summer heat. I will guess low 80s like during Desert Storm.

Second, soldiers wear their protective gear in a logical order. I am not sure what protective posture the soldiers were in during the 2003 invasion, but during desert storm we wore our NBC coats and pants, and had the mask, gloves, and over boots ready to put on. It made us hotter, and the charcoal in the suits clogged our pours- i.e. it sucked big time, but it did not appreciably lower our combat performance.

Finally neither air power, not chem warfare is all that. We couldn't bomb the Iraqis into submission (with air power alone), and a chem attack against a US force would likely be militarily insignificant. Plus the US no longer uses chem or bio weapons. We do make it known that such attacks on the US troops will be met with a nuclear response.

[Bob]

Not so fast. First the invasion was in the spring because of the less than brutal summer heat. I will guess low 80s like during Desert Storm.

Second, soldiers wear their protective gear in a logical order. I am not sure what protective posture the soldiers were in during the 2003 invasion, but during desert storm we wore our NBC coats and pants, and had the mask, gloves, and over boots ready to put on. It made us hotter, and the charcoal in the suits clogged our pours- i.e. it sucked big time, but it did not appreciably lower our combat performance.

Finally neither air power, not chem warfare is all that. We couldn't bomb the Iraqis into submission (with air power alone), and a chem attack against a US force would likely be militarily insignificant. Plus the US no longer uses chem or bio weapons. We do make it known that such attacks on the US troops will be met with a nuclear response.

The enemy commanders get pretty explicit notes to tell them what you said about being attacked using nuclear weapons. We have, I believe, still small nukes that while won't wipe out an army, sure will scare the hell out of them.

[The Sage of Main Street]

Not so fast. First the invasion was in the spring because of the less than brutal summer heat. I will guess low 80s like during Desert Storm.

Second, soldiers wear their protective gear in a logical order. I am not sure what protective posture the soldiers were in during the 2003 invasion, but during desert storm we wore our NBC coats and pants, and had the mask, gloves, and over boots ready to put on. It made us hotter, and the charcoal in the suits clogged our pours- i.e. it sucked big time, but it did not appreciably lower our combat performance.

Finally neither air power, not chem warfare is all that. We couldn't bomb the Iraqis into submission (with air power alone), and a chem attack against a US force would likely be militarily insignificant. Plus the US no longer uses chem or bio weapons. We do make it known that such attacks on the US troops will be met with a nuclear response. If WMDs are so easy to defend against, why make such a big deal about them?

[BB-35]

If WMDs are so easy to defend against, why make such a big deal about them?
Not everyone goes around with MOPP gear handy in case of an attack.

[Tahuyaman]

I believe, still small nukes that while won't wipe out an army, sure will scare the hell out of them.

Our nuclear arsenal is much more significant than you think it is. Small isn't the word which should be used to describe any of our nuclear weaponry. The Hiroshima bomb was small by today's standards.

[Tahuyaman]

If WMDs are so easy to defend against, why make such a big deal about them?


Because armies are trained and prepared to deal with them. Civilians are not.

[Bob]

Our nuclear arsenal is much more significant than you think it is. Small isn't the word which should be used to describe any of our nuclear weaponry. The Hiroshima bomb was small by today's standards.

In the Army, we had the Davy Crockett.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiM-RzPHyGs

We also had the 280 mm atomic cannon.