al-Qaida number 2 killed

I too question the timing of the Iraq war. It was justified but perhaps should have waited - then again I was not on the congressional committee that reviewed the intelligence and approved. It is too easy to be an armchair quarterback when one does not have all the facts that those who actually made the decisions had.

Let's consider the position of a person who was first an armchair quarterback and then had access to the same information Bush had:

First Obama opposed the war.

Then - "July '04, Barack Obama in terms of how he would have voted on the war: “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know.”

Then - “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” - Barack Obama

"...it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq." (John Kerry supported the war)

And now - he wages the war fully.

[I would like to see more quotes to flesh out the position of P. Obama as it developed since I don't think these are good enough to make a good case one way or another. But they do cause one to think]

at the time Bush was also acting like he had not made up his mind and all that...so it was easy to say your position was closer to his. At the time I went from leaning for something needs to be done but very concerned about our plans for after it fell and the impact of Iran...to beliving less and less the intel as the more they put out the less I believed it.

Bush said it was a war of last resort...we know today he never had any intent other then to go in regardless the facts.
 
Werbung:
at the time Bush was also acting like he had not made up his mind and all that...so it was easy to say your position was closer to his. At the time I went from leaning for something needs to be done but very concerned about our plans for after it fell and the impact of Iran...to beliving less and less the intel as the more they put out the less I believed it.

Bush said it was a war of last resort...we know today he never had any intent other then to go in regardless the facts.
I will never be convinced that there was any other reason for the unprovoked attack on Iraq than GW's very serious daddy issues. I believe he saw the killing of Hussein as a one-ups-man-ship on his daddy. Unfortunately for GW, it turned out just the opposite and was one more GW-caused-catastrophe to lay before his daddy.,
 
January 26, 1998
I think you are wrong. Bush was a puppet for his cabinet. Look who signed the letter to Clinton in January 26, 1998 -- Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld.

.... removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

Look what their philosophy is. This statement was made in June 3, 1997. Look at the names who signed this statement that became part of Bushes administration --- Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz. Jeb signed it, but not Papa Bush nor Baby Bush, who was not a player at that time.

The members of the New American Century are the ones who wanted the war years before 9/11. Baby Bush may have had his own ideas concerning Papa Bush, but he was certainly manipulated by his own administration.
 
I will never be convinced that there was any other reason for the unprovoked attack on Iraq than GW's very serious daddy issues. I believe he saw the killing of Hussein as a one-ups-man-ship on his daddy. Unfortunately for GW, it turned out just the opposite and was one more GW-caused-catastrophe to lay before his daddy.,

Don't suppose it ever occurred to you that daddy, a much smarter, much more influential, and much more ruthless man, decided to use junior's terms to finish his business, with Saddam. Who was Cheney to senior?
 
a...to beliving less and less the intel as the more they put out the less I believed it.

Bush said it was a war of last resort...we know today he never had any intent other then to go in regardless the facts.

All the intel was reviewed by a group of dems and pubs. I forget if they were in the house or the senate or both. Their whole purpose is to ensure that there is accountability in the office of the president. None of them has ever come out and said the intel was false or lied about. The only ones who made cliams that it was lied about were the ones who never saw it - very politically convenient.

I too wonder if he had a vendetta leftover from his Fathers time or if knowing how evil Saddam was and being aware of what it was like during his fathers time he was just influenced by that knowledge. I don't think it makes too too much difference because that is why we have congressional oversight and that is why congress makes the ultimate decision and that is why congress is the one that approved the war. Any congressman who claims they were lied to is the one who is lying.
 
I will never be convinced that there was any other reason for the unprovoked attack on Iraq than GW's very serious daddy issues. I believe he saw the killing of Hussein as a one-ups-man-ship on his daddy. Unfortunately for GW, it turned out just the opposite and was one more GW-caused-catastrophe to lay before his daddy.,

Members of congress has access to the same intel as the pres and they all thought it was a real problem too. They were not lied to because they saw the same intel as the pres and could easily have just said he was lying. No one on the intel committees did that.

To make an analogy this is what happened:

500 congressmen were stuck inside and they wondered what the weather was like. The CIA checked the weather and made a report to the president and also to a congressional committee or two. The president told congress it was raining. The congressional committee(s) told congress it was raining. 500 congressmen bought umbrellas. Weeks later they discovered it had not been exactly raining. Some congressmen who were not on the congressional committees claimed they were lied to by the pres.
 
January 26, 1998


The members of the New American Century are the ones who wanted the war years before 9/11. Baby Bush may have had his own ideas concerning Papa Bush, but he was certainly manipulated by his own administration.

That's exactly why we backed into Iraq. The PNAC wanted the war, had wanted it for some time, and got enough power to start it. Bush was not a member of the PNAC, but Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz all were. They thought that the war would be a cake walk, that it would be over in less than six months. Whether they actually believed the "intelligence" about Iraq and its WMD is not relevant. As long as Congress and the President believed it, they could get their way, and who knew? Maybe some WMD could actually be found.

You would have thought that Congress would have checked out the intel after this little debacle and the trillions of dollars and thousands of lives it cost, but no. The lemmings simply voted to approve the war, Bush's cabinet said to go for it, and there we were, in a ten year and counting quagmire in the Middle East.

Maybe next time we'll have learned our lesson, but I doubt it.
 
I agree with you in all respects but one: You suggest that they believed the war would be a cakewalk. I believe that was their fear, but they made sure to plan it so it became a ten-year war with billions for their friends. In my opinion they had no desire for a short, successful war. They wanted a long and costly war. A few thousand lives in exchange for billions? Its a no-brainer - go for the money.
 
Our resident Leftists are heavily engaged in some historical revisionism...

Democrats before Iraq War started....


Just a few highlights from the many statements made by Democrats in that video:

  • Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons, there's no question about that. - Nancy Pelosi, 2002
  • Saddam Hussein has thumbed his nose at the international community and I think the President (G.W.Bush) is approaching this in the right fashion. - Harry Reid, 2002
  • Do you believe we can have disarmament without regime change? - Tim Russert, 2002, posed this question to Hillary Clinton during an interview, her answer is below:
  • I doubt it. I can support the President. I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I believe it's in the long term interest of our national security. - Hillary Clinton, 2002, answering Russert's question
The Ministry of Truth:

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect.
 
It is a surprise to you that the Democratic Party can actually work with the party in power? Would it be a surprise to you to learn that the Republican Party has quite often worked with the party in power when it was Democrats in power?

This horrific obstructionism going on by Boehner, Cantor, and McConnell is not normal for America.
 
It is a surprise to you that the Democratic Party can actually work with the party in power? Would it be a surprise to you to learn that the Republican Party has quite often worked with the party in power when it was Democrats in power?

This horrific obstructionism going on by Boehner, Cantor, and McConnell is not normal for America.

That's odd... You were just trying to blame the Republicans for Iraq, I pointed out that the Democrats were just as gung-ho for going into Iraq as the Republicans and now you're changing the subject... Huh.

BTW, I've never heard you complain about "obstructionism" on the part of the Democrats. Even when the Dems had a 60 seat majority in the Senate, they couldn't get enough Dems on board to win a cloture motion, it was fellow Dems who held up legislation during that period... How do you feel about them?
 
That's odd... You were just trying to blame the Republicans for Iraq, I pointed out that the Democrats were just as gung-ho for going into Iraq as the Republicans and now you're changing the subject... Huh.

BTW, I've never heard you complain about "obstructionism" on the part of the Democrats. Even when the Dems had a 60 seat majority in the Senate, they couldn't get enough Dems on board to win a cloture motion, it was fellow Dems who held up legislation during that period... How do you feel about them?

It was neither the Dems nor the Reps who started the war in Iraq. It was the PNAC who wanted to go to war, and saw the attack on the twin towers as a good excuse. That attack, and the faulty intel that convinced so many that Iraq had WMD gave them the excuse that they needed.

Sure, the Democrats in Congress supported the invasion. So did the Republicans. It wasn't Bush's fault, not entirely anyway, even though he was CIC. It was an ideology espoused by the Project for a New American Century, and people willing to act on that flawed ideology.
 
It was neither the Dems nor the Reps who started the war in Iraq.
Really? Seeing as they were the ones who VOTED TO GO TO WAR IN IRAQ, it seems like they are the ones to blame.

It was the PNAC who wanted to go to war, and saw the attack on the twin towers as a good excuse.

The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.


William Kristol, Chairman​
So your conspiracy theory is that PNAC is actually some kind of shadow government that dictates US policy?
 
Werbung:
Really? Seeing as they were the ones who VOTED TO GO TO WAR IN IRAQ, it seems like they are the ones to blame.



The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle.

The Project for the New American Century intends, through issue briefs, research papers, advocacy journalism, conferences, and seminars, to explain what American world leadership entails. It will also strive to rally support for a vigorous and principled policy of American international involvement and to stimulate useful public debate on foreign and defense policy and America's role in the world.


William Kristol, Chairman​
So your conspiracy theory is that PNAC is actually some kind of shadow government that dictates US policy?

That makes it sound like some kind of academic think tank, which, perhaps, it would have been without the help of it's more powerful members.

From their website:


Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Stronger military, increased defense spending, American, and only American leadership in the world. How do we go about bringing about such a thing?

here is an excerpt from a letter, again on their website, written to President Clinton:

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

This is not a "conspiracy theory". It is a description of a group that wants
America to dominate the world with military force, and that wanted the US military to take action in Iraq back in the Clinton era.

The PNAC was and is quite upfront about their agenda.
 
Back
Top