I just figured I would post that before Richio did, considering that the Iraq Survey Group reported to the CIA that he didnt have any WMD whatsoever, there is no evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda exchanged weapons; and there is no evidence that Al Qaeda and Iraq shared information, technology or personnel in developing weapons, Saddam was further away from producing nuclear weapons in 2003 than in 1991, hadnt started any programs in over a decade, and had no evidence that he was considering it. Just a theory that he may.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134625,00.html

If Dick Cheney says it's true, it's true, damnit!
Things like reports, videotapes of him saying the things he denies saying, several years old photos of him with people he's said he's never met-all made up. If they can make up pictures with OJ in those ugly-ass shoes, plant a bloody glove at OJ's, they certainly can make up photos & videotapes of our beloved Veep.
Cheney is an honest man who would never lie to us!

You should know better Kelly, they moved them to Syria; remember?

Damn. I guess we will be liberating all those Syrians soon. Can anyone tell me if a Syrian tossing flowers welcoming us as liberators can be distinguished from an Iraqi tossing flowers welcoming us as liberators, or do all them people look the same?

Don't forget that both Clinton and Bush were saying the same things based on the same military intelligence. Damning evidence for sure, but this is more of an American problem and not a particular party's problem. I'm worried about our intelligence credibility now with the rest of the world.

By the way, what exactly happened to the 15,000 Kurds after the first Gulf War? I assume then they were killed with WMD's that were produced BEFORE 1991 and not AFTER 1991?

It would be less of a problem for Bush but for the whole "pre-emptive war thingy". A rather major difference.

Honestly, I feel much more scared about the capacities of Iran, NK and unstable states like Pakistan than I ever did about Iraq. Was Iraq any more of a threat to us in 2003 than it was in 1996? No. Cheney and Bush campaigned to the American people and used a weary post-9/11 media to sell this war. And now it's clear that our rationale was wrong and our energies were misplaced. But changing our rationale for this war would never constitute flip-flopping, would it?

We should have a Liberation Lottery to see who's next going to enjoy "freedoms" courtesy of the good old US of A.

I just don't agree that you can put the blame all on GW for this news.

The reality is our original rationale, the intial reason for even considering war in Iraq was not simply the fact that we thought they had WMD's. The UN just put forth their 17th or 18th resolution on Iraq (some ridiculous number) in which it was agreed that if Iraq did not comply, they would face consequences.

When Iraq did not comply, here is what GW was faced with:

1) Intelligence and history indicating Saddam had WMD's. It would be one thing if only the US believed in the WMD's, but in reality, most of the world agreed. We received intelligence from several other countries that supported our own intelligence. I find it hard to believe some of these reports coming out now - we know Saddam had WMD's in the past. We know many of them are now unaccounted for. How is it possible that every intelligence agency prior to the war was 100% wrong on this? I don't know what to think about that, I just find it hard to believe.

2) We were working within the war on terror. Our country and our government was forever changed as a result of 9/11. I don't remember GW's exact words, but in his speach at the RNC he basically said that he was faced with a decision to look after the interests and safety of the country or trust a madman. He chose to protect our country. No other country in the UN was looking at this decision within the context of 9/11 as the US was. Do you think Germany, France or Russia would have been more supportive or had a different perspective if 9/11 had happened in their country?

No matter how Kerry and Edwards spin it, they supported this war and this intelligence, just as GW did. Kerry says he would have done it differently and built a stronger coalition - but that still means he would have done it! Kerry has also stated, knowing what we know now, he still would have supported the war.

Some of these reports are discouraging, although as I said above, I don't believe for one minute that Saddam was no longer a threat or that he did not have WMD intentions. There is definitely blame to spread around, but if you chose to simply blame GW, call him stupid and all that other stuff people are saying, you are just ignoring the facts. Just my opinion.

BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED!!!

(But Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Kennedy were simply misunderstood.)

Shut the F*ck up about Clinton already!
Damn it... don't you realize how completley stupid you sound? Comparing Clinton to Bush is just the lamest thing I can imagine.
This A-Hole Bush fooled you and most of this country in his mad rush for war.
Now... he continues to fool almost half of you.
What the F will it take for you to at least "look behind the curtain" to see the truth.

Fool America Once, Shame on BUSH
Fool America, again and again and again and again
Shame on America.

Well, for starters there were some reports proven false, like Atta's supposed meeting in the Czech Republic with Iraqi officials, the yellowcake in Niger, that this administration stood by and used as rationale. To me any reports proven false would be reason to dig deeper. I will freely admit to not being an intelligence expert, and I have limited understanding of how intel is shared internationally. This is a great, confusing issue, how we all seem to have had it wrong. But again, Clinton didn't act on this intelligence in the way that Bush did. And I think that UN inspections have to be considered part of our intelligence/information gathering process. Bush forced the UN to abort them.


Sure they would. But they supported us after 9/11 (in France, headlines ran: "Today We Are All Americans"). And the way these nations are dealing with Iran indicates they consider that country a more serious threat. Don't you think we should have, also? There are other "madmen" that can certainly be argued to have been a greater threat. What Saddam was was an easy target. That's fine, we are better off without him, but why him first? And why divert attention and special forces from Afghanistan when we really could have used our resources to ensure that this whole country is free -- and not just Kabul?


I would dispute this as the Bush administration had all the intel to view and presented its case with a selective picture. Also, people like Bob Graham on the senate intelligence committee got to see more than Kerry and Edwards did. I still don't agree with their votes, but I agree with Kerry that the planning was not up to snuff. And you know Kerry was in a lose-lose situation with that question regarding whether he would change his vote. I can only imagine the Republican spin on that one.


I never to my knowledge called Bush stupid here (if I have someone please find it and I'll eat my crow). I do think he has limited curiosity, but I think he is a brilliant campaigner who has until now shaped his image very favorably, has used the media very well, and in general understands politics. More importantly I do think some of the ways in which he has prosecuted the war on terrorism have been effective. Others (torture that only emboldens our enemies, color codes, some of the Patriot Act, acting in ways which piss off our traditional allies) have not.

One last, unrelated thing about our allies: I know everybody hates France, but why not Germany so much? Less vocal? We don't hear much sneering about Shprockets or Lederhosen or gay discos.

I think Clinton didn't act on the intelligence in the same way simply because 9/11 had not happened. Unfortunately, I think it took 9/11 for everyone to realize how serious this war on terror was. After all, we had been attacked before, but nothing to the extent of 9/11. There is speculation (and speeches to back it up) that Clinton may have been able to take custody of Bin Laden, but he didn't.



Sorry, I wasn't necessarily referring to you as someone who called GW stupid, just in general. I'll never be one to proclaim GW as a genius, but he is not the moron people portray him to be. I know so many people (not necessarily referring to this board) that think he is stupid based solely on the fact that he is not a polished speaker. I just think that is so naive.

The thing that bothers me about Kerry is that he has been wrong on several key national security issues in his career. The cold war and the first Gulf war are the most glaring. He has also voted to cut intelligence and military spending. If he and others think this is the wrong war, then he was wrong just the same as GW. Recent comments of his also worry me. His mention of a "global test" at the first debate. His answer to whether this war is worthy of "it depends on the outcome".

I can find a lot at fault with GW, but Kerry as a president scares me even more. I think the American public holds that same sentiment. I still believe that if the democrats had picked a better candidate, there is no way GW would have a chance at being re-elected. I don't like him, but I think Dean would be ahead of GW right now if he had been the Democratic candidate simply because he is consistent and has always been against the war.

Agreed, but the invasion of Iraq was not part of the war on terror. There was no connection to the events of 9/11, and they were not an imminent threat, as the continued inspections would have revealed. By opening a second, unnecessary front in Iraq, they have made a strategic mistake similar to which Hitler made invading the Soviet Union (and I'm talking strategy here, not comparing leaders or motivations, so don't start flaming).

Is that based on your tremendous experience in "Military Strategy?"

Well, for starters there were some reports proven false, ...the yellowcake in Niger

Show me where the yellowcake story was prove false please....

In fact, Great Britain is standing by the validity of this intelligence and Joe Wilson's investigation was shown to be less than reliable.

I think you're full of it.
Show me the data about Joe Wilson's reporting. (Please don't quote a source from another right-wing nut job)
(Or from those idiots at the Washington Post)

Hey, gmac, in case you need a link to support that yellowcake uranium claim, here you go:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...4-2004Jul9.html

Some crazy lib may show up challenging the validity of this one. Figured I'd give you a pretty straight source so they couldn't use the old "right wing nut job" claim they so love when they see Drudge or FoxNews.

Mich...
Do you believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified?

Why does it matter now?

If you read that story you posted yourself, you would find that there is no proof or disproof of the yellowcake story. There are only lies made by Wilson about his visit and his wife and documents. Especially the last paragraph speaks about the forged documents, saying Wilson could not know forged dicuments were indeed forged. It does not say they were not forged, and indeed does say they are forged. Don't you think if the CIA had any proof of yellowcake sales whatsoever they would be touting it everywhere? Because they don't, and they even say they are "highly skeptical" of other unproved reports by the Brits. There is no proof whatsoever to the Iraqis and yellowcake. There are theories by a foreign intelligence which will not totally shy from their comments but won't back them either. There is no proof of yellowcake at all, in fact.

Why does it matter?
What the heck is that for question?

I'll pretend I understand your question, despite the terrible way it was phrased.

Because we can continue to play "Monday Morning QB" for the forseeable future with no positive coming from it, or we can move on and work towards actual solutions to why our government feels it's entitled to act like the international Gladdys Kravitz. Regardless of which cluster of thieves holds the Executive.

Kelly, my quote was:



I believe this article does in fact reinforce what I stated.

Absolutely.

Woodward's book cites Bush stating that he wanted to be a second term president but if it was a choice between that and removing Saddam from power, he would pursue Saddam. I think he erred in identifying the options. In fact, if George W. Bush had not removed Saddam Hussein from power, he would be unelectable today. The American people would not have accepted the notion of Saddam still being in power in Iraq and U.N. resolutions being scaled back. The fact that he is even in this race is a sign he made the right decision.

BTW - nice edit on your original post.

Thanks (Edit.) Hindsight helped you with your post, so I thought it should help me too.

Anyway... I'm sorry if I'm thick-skulled, (Which I KNOW I am) but I don't seem to understand your logic.
Are you stating that if "w" didn't start claiming a link between Iraq/911 and Saddaam/Bin Laden directly following Sept 11th, and if we didn't rush to war against the wishes of most of the world... Bush would be unelectable because he didn't remove Saddaam from power?
But... since he ("w") claimed (lied) that Iraq had this HUGE stockpile of weapons that he was going to use against us makes him ("w") correct even thought it's now been proved false??

Simply stated Darin... we must learn from History to improve our future.
In analyzing the biggest F-Up our government has done (since my adulthood), we may be able to understand future F-ups before they happen again.
By simply looking ahead... we will perpetuate the same mistakes over and over.

What I'm saying is people are is just quibbling over the details at this point. No "war on terror" would have been perceived as credible by a majority of the American people if Saddam Hussein were allowed to stay in power and have sanctions rolled back. I'm a big picture guy and in the big picture this will be proven the right thing to do (as long as Bush wins, that is).

I thought that was the purpose of the Iraq war -- to identify the greatest potential threats for another 9/11 attack and preempt them. Of course I'm assuming that you see our inability to see the gathering risk and prevent the 9/11 attacks as the biggest F-up our government has done, maybe that's not the case?

Could this be an official "I told you so" post?


Didn't one "troll" way back in December 2002 throw out the idea that Iraq didn't have them and that we would find nothing when we invaded?

I am not sure who that troll was ... But, he was accused of "stirring the pot" and causing trouble?

I think that is when you could post here as a guest... I am not sure?, I was new to the board?

Boy... That person really caught some flak... Good thing certain posters were away, because they would have ripped that "prophetic troll" a new one on how Iraq is going to "push buttons" on our advancing soldiers.

Boy I wish we could go back 2 years an pull the post. Might seem very fitting and sane now...

O well. Don't worry, WMD's will show up one day and you guys will put that "troll" in his place.

Next time you get caught up in the "heart"... Think things through first.

Monday morning QBing?

WTF?

Where were you before the war?

You guys just turned your ears off... Refused to listen to the facts.

No because Colin Powell told the world that Iraq has WMD's and they were ready to use them on short notice.

I think the hawks won out.

It's sooooo convenient to frame the topic as "seeing a gathering risk". (Boy that sounds so nice.)
The F-UP occurred when we actually invaded a soveriegn nation, killing thousands of innocents, more than a thousand of our troops, spending hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars, discrediting ourselves on the world stage, all based on Bullsh1t and fear.

Two weeks to wipe out a country with an army that didn't fight... Saddaam hiding in a hole... boy that was sure a gathering risk!

But, but, but, SH was killing... U and Q were raping and pillaging!

Never trust an exile!

Give me one indication that Saddam ever had any plans, ideas, desires or even motives to attack the United States in any way like 9/11, even after we attacked him.

One thing about it that always gets me though, Alot of you say we've never once been attacked by Saddam Hussein, now for those of us in the know, I believe that U.S. pilots have been fired on every day for that last 13 years since gulf war one. You'd think it would be easy to say, "I'm sorry you don't think the military constitues being attacked, but tell it to a Navy/Marine pilot who flew over Iraq after the "surrender"..... You always always miss that one.

You mean the planes that were constantly bombing him?

They only fired when they were lit up..A hostile action.

Except we're not learning from history. History tells us if we continue to give our government huge sums of money, they'll continue to do VERY stupid things with it.

Once again, it's the 30,000 foot view that so few people seem to understand. The liberals are more than happy to do just this, yet bitch like school girls when the other side is in power and get their chance at the brass ring.

If you're willing to cede so much power to a central "authority" then you are getting EXACTLY what you deserve.

Welcome to Jolly Ol' England, American style.

Firing on bombers flying over a no-fly zone is a hostile action? Actually, I am not on authority on the matter but it seems to me that not only were they shooting at us illegally at times but we were flying over illegal areas and constantly bombing all kinds of targets that were not just them firing at us. That seemed to me from the start to be a complete wash.

We were flying to enforce a UN no-fly zone...A targeting radar locks on...we fired anti radar missles....Get a clue....I've noticed nothing fair and balanced from you yet...Change your name to Kelly the Not so fair and balanced mutt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

The UN is filled with spies taking bribes from despots.

True...but those were the few months directly leading up to the 2nd Gulf War...What about the 12 years prior? We can dance this dance all night.

Wow. So the Bush Administration went to war in Iraq solely based on the 19 resolutions spies taking bribes from despots made, one could only imagine to protect future spies so that they may be able to take more bribes from despots. I mean, really, otherwise these resolutions made by spies taking bribes from despots will mean nothing, and the world will be in chaos with insurgents killing people randomly for no reason.

I am not sticking up for Saddam, perhaps the biggest scumbag in the world, and wish he died a horrible death instead of being captured, but we did attack him in 1991. He never went after us.

He only invaded our ally ..Kuwait...Come on now.

What people in general and republicans in particular have difficulty doing is separating two things, unwilling or unable to see things other than black and white, unwilling or unable to look at another person's POV, even if that person is an !@#$. I was for the Gulf War. I was glad we attacked him and stopped him from taking over our eternal, loyal, trusted "ally", Kuwait. But that doesnt mean from the Saddam's, or the rest of the Arab world, or the rest of the world in whole that we didnt attack Saddam without him doing anything to us. It was the right thing to do, but it was also America attacking Saddam unprovoked. There is a good argument that we were messing in someone else's affairs where we didnt belong. Those two things can happen concurrently, and both be true.

I get your point KFABD ...but honestly...Any attack on the the oil supply...right or wrong..We are going to deal with it...It's the basis of our economy..whether we like it or not Oil is the basis for these latest wars....Granted we need alternative energy..but until one exists that we can all use cheaply...We will continue to be slaves to Oil.