May 1, 2003: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

[Ban Hammer 14,276]

a few thousand dead kurds can't be counted obviously........

Sure, over 10 years ago... But unless I'm very much mistaken that's far from the "Clear, specific and imminent" threat to US national security that the war was sold on...

Spin it however you like - To date there is no direct evidence whatsoever of Saddam's stockpiles of illegal weapons, or any indication that he had the ability or means to use any such weapons on US or European soil.

of course i don't suppose that such could have been hidden either. not that saddam would ever do that. he just brewed those chemical agents in his bathtub for a onetime deal.

He might also have been lying, as a way of staving off an uprising. After all, Saddams military was significantly weaker in 2003 than it was in 1991.

i find it hard to believe that he would have the capability to make such and then not have the capability to use such later on. chemical weapons are often called the poor man's atomic bomb. it takes a bit of money to assemble and staff such a project. i seriously doubt he decided unilaterally to dismantle it.

as for his military being weaker, yes and no. the units most loyal to him survived most of the war of 91 intact. the rest that was destroyed was just cannon fodder. not that he cared much about those lost.

Well to put it another way. If the Bush adminstration had proved conclusive proof to the American public and the world at large that Saddam represented a clear and present danger to the US and its allies (both in and outside the middle-east region) there wouldn't

As it is, they chose to exaggerate or claim as fact what they knew to be dubious. That creates suspicion - that suspicion has not be allayed by the finding of any evidence to back up their initial claims.

For my part I (and a large proportion of brits was NEVER convinced that Saddam represented a threat). As I said before, our elected representatives clearly failed us by supporting a policy that the general public clearly weren't 100% behind.

having been there before, i'm convinced saddam remained a threat until removed from power. as for him being a clear and present danger to the usa and it's allies...what do you call kuwait? have you ever read what saddam did to that country?

saddam's a lunatic. only regrets i have about him right now is that he's still breathing.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

a few thousand dead kurds can't be counted obviously........

Sure, over 10 years ago... But unless I'm very much mistaken that's far from the "Clear, specific and imminent" threat to US national security that the war was sold on...

Spin it however you like - To date there is no direct evidence whatsoever of Saddam's stockpiles of illegal weapons, or any indication that he had the ability or means to use any such weapons on US or European soil.

of course i don't suppose that such could have been hidden either. not that saddam would ever do that. he just brewed those chemical agents in his bathtub for a onetime deal.

He might also have been lying, as a way of staving off an uprising. After all, Saddams military was significantly weaker in 2003 than it was in 1991.

i find it hard to believe that he would have the capability to make such and then not have the capability to use such later on. chemical weapons are often called the poor man's atomic bomb. it takes a bit of money to assemble and staff such a project. i seriously doubt he decided unilaterally to dismantle it.

as for his military being weaker, yes and no. the units most loyal to him survived most of the war of 91 intact. the rest that was destroyed was just cannon fodder. not that he cared much about those lost.

Well to put it another way. If the Bush adminstration had proved conclusive proof to the American public and the world at large that Saddam represented a clear and present danger to the US and its allies (both in and outside the middle-east region) there wouldn't

As it is, they chose to exaggerate or claim as fact what they knew to be dubious. That creates suspicion - that suspicion has not be allayed by the finding of any evidence to back up their initial claims.

For my part I (and a large proportion of brits was NEVER convinced that Saddam represented a threat). As I said before, our elected representatives clearly failed us by supporting a policy that the general public clearly weren't 100% behind.

having been there before, i'm convinced saddam remained a threat until removed from power. as for him being a clear and present danger to the usa and it's allies...what do you call kuwait? have you ever read what saddam did to that country?

saddam's a lunatic. only regrets i have about him right now is that he's still breathing.

But again that's hardly the same. Bushco made the very specific claim that Saddam possessed WMD that he could use on American and European soil. Unless a huge story got overlooked by the news media, no such evidence has been uncovered.

The Kuwait invasion marked the end of the US/Saddam alliance. He was encouraged to start the war with Iran (which the US had previously tried to control by removing the president and installing a dictator). The ONLY reason the US turned on Saddam is because his going into Kuwait threatened the relationship with Saudi Arabia (a country which we continue to support, despite the knowledge that it bankrolls terrorist groups), which in the end turned out to be more valuable than our relationship with Iraq.

Again, I don't see the 'clear and present' threat here. None has been demonstrated, Bushco sold the war on that basis, and in my book at least, that makes them liars.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 14,276]

a few thousand dead kurds can't be counted obviously........

Sure, over 10 years ago... But unless I'm very much mistaken that's far from the "Clear, specific and imminent" threat to US national security that the war was sold on...

Spin it however you like - To date there is no direct evidence whatsoever of Saddam's stockpiles of illegal weapons, or any indication that he had the ability or means to use any such weapons on US or European soil.

of course i don't suppose that such could have been hidden either. not that saddam would ever do that. he just brewed those chemical agents in his bathtub for a onetime deal.

He might also have been lying, as a way of staving off an uprising. After all, Saddams military was significantly weaker in 2003 than it was in 1991.

i find it hard to believe that he would have the capability to make such and then not have the capability to use such later on. chemical weapons are often called the poor man's atomic bomb. it takes a bit of money to assemble and staff such a project. i seriously doubt he decided unilaterally to dismantle it.

as for his military being weaker, yes and no. the units most loyal to him survived most of the war of 91 intact. the rest that was destroyed was just cannon fodder. not that he cared much about those lost.

Well to put it another way. If the Bush adminstration had proved conclusive proof to the American public and the world at large that Saddam represented a clear and present danger to the US and its allies (both in and outside the middle-east region) there wouldn't

As it is, they chose to exaggerate or claim as fact what they knew to be dubious. That creates suspicion - that suspicion has not be allayed by the finding of any evidence to back up their initial claims.

For my part I (and a large proportion of brits was NEVER convinced that Saddam represented a threat). As I said before, our elected representatives clearly failed us by supporting a policy that the general public clearly weren't 100% behind.

having been there before, i'm convinced saddam remained a threat until removed from power. as for him being a clear and present danger to the usa and it's allies...what do you call kuwait? have you ever read what saddam did to that country?

saddam's a lunatic. only regrets i have about him right now is that he's still breathing.

But again that's hardly the same. Bushco made the very specific claim that Saddam possessed WMD that he could use on American and European soil. Unless a huge story got overlooked by the news media, no such evidence has been uncovered.

The Kuwait invasion marked the end of the US/Saddam alliance. He was encouraged to start the war with Iran (which the US had previously tried to control by removing the president and installing a dictator). The ONLY reason the US turned on Saddam is because his going into Kuwait threatened the relationship with Saudi Arabia (a country which we continue to support, despite the knowledge that it bankrolls terrorist groups), which in the end turned out to be more valuable than our relationship with Iraq.

Again, I don't see the 'clear and present' threat here. None has been demonstrated, Bushco sold the war on that basis, and in my book at least, that makes them liars.

i don't suppose you think the usa cared about kuwait then? only about saudi arabia?

if an invasion of another country and making off with everything valuable in it, ignoring and blocking un sanctions for 10 years, using chemical weapons on one's own people does not qualify as demonstrating a clear and present danger, then i am at a loss as to what would.

and btw, saddam still had the military to take kuwait. and saudi arabia before the usa went into iraq....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

a few thousand dead kurds can't be counted obviously........

Sure, over 10 years ago... But unless I'm very much mistaken that's far from the "Clear, specific and imminent" threat to US national security that the war was sold on...

Spin it however you like - To date there is no direct evidence whatsoever of Saddam's stockpiles of illegal weapons, or any indication that he had the ability or means to use any such weapons on US or European soil.

of course i don't suppose that such could have been hidden either. not that saddam would ever do that. he just brewed those chemical agents in his bathtub for a onetime deal.

He might also have been lying, as a way of staving off an uprising. After all, Saddams military was significantly weaker in 2003 than it was in 1991.

i find it hard to believe that he would have the capability to make such and then not have the capability to use such later on. chemical weapons are often called the poor man's atomic bomb. it takes a bit of money to assemble and staff such a project. i seriously doubt he decided unilaterally to dismantle it.

as for his military being weaker, yes and no. the units most loyal to him survived most of the war of 91 intact. the rest that was destroyed was just cannon fodder. not that he cared much about those lost.

Well to put it another way. If the Bush adminstration had proved conclusive proof to the American public and the world at large that Saddam represented a clear and present danger to the US and its allies (both in and outside the middle-east region) there wouldn't

As it is, they chose to exaggerate or claim as fact what they knew to be dubious. That creates suspicion - that suspicion has not be allayed by the finding of any evidence to back up their initial claims.

For my part I (and a large proportion of brits was NEVER convinced that Saddam represented a threat). As I said before, our elected representatives clearly failed us by supporting a policy that the general public clearly weren't 100% behind.

having been there before, i'm convinced saddam remained a threat until removed from power. as for him being a clear and present danger to the usa and it's allies...what do you call kuwait? have you ever read what saddam did to that country?

saddam's a lunatic. only regrets i have about him right now is that he's still breathing.

But again that's hardly the same. Bushco made the very specific claim that Saddam possessed WMD that he could use on American and European soil. Unless a huge story got overlooked by the news media, no such evidence has been uncovered.

The Kuwait invasion marked the end of the US/Saddam alliance. He was encouraged to start the war with Iran (which the US had previously tried to control by removing the president and installing a dictator). The ONLY reason the US turned on Saddam is because his going into Kuwait threatened the relationship with Saudi Arabia (a country which we continue to support, despite the knowledge that it bankrolls terrorist groups), which in the end turned out to be more valuable than our relationship with Iraq.

Again, I don't see the 'clear and present' threat here. None has been demonstrated, Bushco sold the war on that basis, and in my book at least, that makes them liars.

i don't suppose you think the usa cared about kuwait then? only about saudi arabia?

if an invasion of another country and making off with everything valuable in it, ignoring and blocking un sanctions for 10 years, using chemical weapons on one's own people does not qualify as demonstrating a clear and present danger, then i am at a loss as to what would.

and btw, saddam still had the military to take kuwait. and saudi arabia before the usa went into iraq....

I'm just telling what Bushco said and used as a justification for war - They made it quite clear that Saddam's regime posed a direct threat against the US and its allies in Europe. He tied Saddams' 'advanced' WMD programme to a direct threat against the lives of US citizens living in the United States. No such threat existed, the specific information that was used to justify that assertion has subsequently been revealed to have been greatly exaggerated or simply made up. I don't see how that is unclear....?

What you are saying is that Saddam threatened the US economic interests in the middle-east region. Again that is not in debate. As you know Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are huge oil producers - which is the only reason we went in there. That said, both of those massively wealthy countries have strong financial ties to terrorist groups. So clearly, in the final analysis the government is clearly more concerned about cheap oil than it is about national security, though they are clearly not above using the fear of one to justify the other.

Saddam's use of chemical/biological weapons is also not in debate, but the question there is why didn't we do anything about this AT THE TIME? Saddam gassed Kurdish villages in 1988 and before that, he used them on the iranians during the iran/iraq war. That's rather different to if he was using them on his people in 2003. He wasn't. So using a 18 year old atrocity to justify a 'clear and present' threat seems weak to me.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 14,276]

I'm just telling what Bushco said and used as a justification for war - They made it quite clear that Saddam's regime posed a direct threat against the US and its allies in Europe. He tied Saddams' 'advanced' WMD programme to a direct threat against the lives of US citizens living in the United States. No such threat existed, the specific information that was used to justify that assertion has subsequently been revealed to have been greatly exaggerated or simply made up. I don't see how that is unclear....?

What you are saying is that Saddam threatened the US economic interests in the middle-east region. Again that is not in debate. As you know Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are huge oil producers - which is the only reason we went in there. That said, both of those massively wealthy countries have strong financial ties to terrorist groups. So clearly, in the final analysis the government is clearly more concerned about cheap oil than it is about national security, though they are clearly not above using the fear of one to justify the other.

Saddam's use of chemical/biological weapons is also not in debate, but the question there is why didn't we do anything about this AT THE TIME? Saddam gassed Kurdish villages in 1988 and before that, he used them on the iranians during the iran/iraq war. That's rather different to if he was using them on his people in 2003. He wasn't. So using a 18 year old atrocity to justify a 'clear and present' threat seems weak to me.

the fact that he invaded kuwait and pillaged it was good enough for me.

it sounds like you need csi type documentation for proof. fact is, i'm certain that much of what was used to justify such is and will remain classified. given that congress approved of such action, apparently they were convinced too. so regarding a clear and present danger - tell that to the dead kurds that were prosecuted after the 91 gulf war...............

or do you advocate that we sit by and let another mini hitler run about?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

the fact that he invaded kuwait and pillaged it was good enough for me.

it sounds like you need csi type documentation for proof. fact is, i'm certain that much of what was used to justify such is and will remain classified. given that congress approved of such action, apparently they were convinced too. so regarding a clear and present danger - tell that to the dead kurds that were prosecuted after the 91 gulf war...............

or do you advocate that we sit by and let another mini hitler run about?

Well that's fine if its enough for YOU, but its not enough for me, and it has nothing to do with the reasons that the American people were given by the administration as to why this war was necessary. I'm simply applying a degree of scrutiny to the reasoning that lead us into this conflict. I don't think that's unreasonable.

You don't seem to think its important if Bush comes out and says words to the effect of "if we don't stop Saddam we'll see another 9/11, on American soil", and provides justifying proof that subsequently turns out to be exaggerated or an outright lie.

Again I have not disagreed that Saddam was a brutal dictator who is responsible for many thousands of deaths. That's reality - the world is a dark place, but there are far worse people out there than Saddam Hussein, people who posed a far more direct threat to US national security than he did, even at the height of his power.

so regarding a clear and present danger - tell that to the dead kurds that were prosecuted after the 91 gulf war...............

Well we're getting closer, but a 15 year old atrocity is still not a clear and present threat to this country, for get Iraq, THIS country!.

In any case it seems a bit late to me to be wringing our hands over it now. Why didn't we do anything about it then? Tell you what, next year why don't we go into Serbia and Croatia and hold them to account for the Balkans genocide!? Oh yeah... because its not going on now is it? A 10+ year old atrocity does not amount to a CLEAR, CURRENT THREAT TO OUR PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRY.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 14,276]

the fact that he invaded kuwait and pillaged it was good enough for me.

it sounds like you need csi type documentation for proof. fact is, i'm certain that much of what was used to justify such is and will remain classified. given that congress approved of such action, apparently they were convinced too. so regarding a clear and present danger - tell that to the dead kurds that were prosecuted after the 91 gulf war...............

or do you advocate that we sit by and let another mini hitler run about?

Well that's fine if its enough for YOU, but its not enough for me, and it has nothing to do with the reasons that the American people were given by the administration as to why this war was necessary. I'm simply applying a degree of scrutiny to the reasoning that lead us into this conflict. I don't think that's unreasonable.

You don't seem to think its important if Bush comes out and says words to the effect of "if we don't stop Saddam we'll see another 9/11, on American soil", and provides justifying proof that subsequently turns out to be exaggerated or an outright lie.

Again I have not disagreed that Saddam was a brutal dictator who is responsible for many thousands of deaths. That's reality - the world is a dark place, but there are far worse people out there than Saddam Hussein, people who posed a far more direct threat to US national security than he did, even at the height of his power.

so regarding a clear and present danger - tell that to the dead kurds that were prosecuted after the 91 gulf war...............

Well we're getting closer, but a 15 year old atrocity is still not a clear and present threat to this country, for get Iraq, THIS country!.

In any case it seems a bit late to me to be wringing our hands over it now. Why didn't we do anything about it then? Tell you what, next year why don't we go into Serbia and Croatia and hold them to account for the Balkans genocide!? Oh yeah... because its not going on now is it? A 10+ year old atrocity does not amount to a CLEAR, CURRENT THREAT TO OUR PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRY.

you can ignore the past if you wish. i prefer not to. sticking our heads in the sand won't make brutal dictators go away. regarding serbia and croatia, that is ongoing. too bad milosovic died. i have noticed a continual thread of of yours being that bush is wrong. nevermind that congress backed him, nevermind that congress was given the same information bush was. congress was co-opted and bush is at fault, is the message it seems. right now i'm eating sandwiches for lunch. that must be bush's fault too.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

the fact that he invaded kuwait and pillaged it was good enough for me.

it sounds like you need csi type documentation for proof. fact is, i'm certain that much of what was used to justify such is and will remain classified. given that congress approved of such action, apparently they were convinced too. so regarding a clear and present danger - tell that to the dead kurds that were prosecuted after the 91 gulf war...............

or do you advocate that we sit by and let another mini hitler run about?

Well that's fine if its enough for YOU, but its not enough for me, and it has nothing to do with the reasons that the American people were given by the administration as to why this war was necessary. I'm simply applying a degree of scrutiny to the reasoning that lead us into this conflict. I don't think that's unreasonable.

You don't seem to think its important if Bush comes out and says words to the effect of "if we don't stop Saddam we'll see another 9/11, on American soil", and provides justifying proof that subsequently turns out to be exaggerated or an outright lie.

Again I have not disagreed that Saddam was a brutal dictator who is responsible for many thousands of deaths. That's reality - the world is a dark place, but there are far worse people out there than Saddam Hussein, people who posed a far more direct threat to US national security than he did, even at the height of his power.

so regarding a clear and present danger - tell that to the dead kurds that were prosecuted after the 91 gulf war...............

Well we're getting closer, but a 15 year old atrocity is still not a clear and present threat to this country, for get Iraq, THIS country!.

In any case it seems a bit late to me to be wringing our hands over it now. Why didn't we do anything about it then? Tell you what, next year why don't we go into Serbia and Croatia and hold them to account for the Balkans genocide!? Oh yeah... because its not going on now is it? A 10+ year old atrocity does not amount to a CLEAR, CURRENT THREAT TO OUR PEOPLE IN OUR COUNTRY.

you can ignore the past if you wish. i prefer not to. sticking our heads in the sand won't make brutal dictators go away. regarding serbia and croatia, that is ongoing. too bad milosovic died. i have noticed a continual thread of of yours being that bush is wrong. nevermind that congress backed him, nevermind that congress was given the same information bush was. congress was co-opted and bush is at fault, is the message it seems. right now i'm eating sandwiches for lunch. that must be bush's fault too.

Bush runs the show - HIS was the ultimate decision, therefore its primarily HIS fault. The buck has to stop somewhere and unfortunately the guy in charge who usually has to assume ultimate responsiblilty. Not Bush however... apparently...

The exaggerated / false information came from Bush's office - as I said before there's fairly conclusive proof that administration officials 'selected' the intelligence that best fit a clearly pre-determined strategy for war. For all the 'prevailing world opinion' why did someone find it necessary to conduct a PR exercise to justify something that, by rights, there should be significant physical evidence for. That evidence is entirely absent, and we now know that the information the war decision was almost entirely non-existent, false or exaggerated.

Even that's the wrong wording - the justifying evidence was entirely superfluous to the fact that someone had already decided to go war, for reasons of their own, that may never be made public. I don't know about you - but I feel somewhat uneasy knowing that our democracy was hijacked to service someone's narrow political agenda. Don't you? Don't you think that's a worthy topic of public debate?

I don't believe anything I said amounts to ignoring the past. Yes atrocities occurred, yes Saddam perpetrated them - but that's beside the point here, and has nothing to do with why this conflict was initiated and how it was sold to the public. I'm simply referring to the wording that was used again and again in the months leading up to this. Why is it wrong to look at what was said before the war, and relate it to what has been revealed subsequently?

Right now atrocities are going on right now in other countries, Sudan for example, countries ruled by dictators we (and yes other countries too) continue to arm and support, with the full knowledge that they murdering their own people. It is terrible of course! But why is it we are doing almost nothing militarily about it?

Once again I ask you, and let me word it a little more precisely:

"Before the war, what specific danger did Saddam Hussein's regime pose to the average Joe Blow, on the streets of an average American city?"

[Ban Hammer 14,276]

Bush runs the show - HIS was the ultimate decision, therefore its primarily HIS fault. The buck has to stop somewhere and unfortunately the guy in charge who usually has to assume ultimate responsiblilty. Not Bush however... apparently...

The exaggerated / false information came from Bush's office - as I said before there's fairly conclusive proof that administration officials 'selected' the intelligence that best fit a clearly pre-determined strategy for war. For all the 'prevailing world opinion' why did someone find it necessary to conduct a PR exercise to justify something that, by rights, there should be significant physical evidence for. That evidence is entirely absent, and we now know that the information the war decision was almost entirely non-existent, false or exaggerated.

Even that's the wrong wording - the justifying evidence was entirely superfluous to the fact that someone had already decided to go war, for reasons of their own, that may never be made public. I don't know about you - but I feel somewhat uneasy knowing that our democracy was hijacked to service someone's narrow political agenda. Don't you? Don't you think that's a worthy topic of public debate?

I don't believe anything I said amounts to ignoring the past. Yes atrocities occurred, yes Saddam perpetrated them - but that's beside the point here, and has nothing to do with why this conflict was initiated and how it was sold to the public. I'm simply referring to the wording that was used again and again in the months leading up to this. Why is it wrong to look at what was said before the war, and relate it to what has been revealed subsequently?

Right now atrocities are going on right now in other countries, Sudan for example, countries ruled by dictators we (and yes other countries too) continue to arm and support, with the full knowledge that they murdering their own people. It is terrible of course! But why is it we are doing almost nothing militarily about it?

Once again I ask you, and let me word it a little more precisely:

"Before the war, what specific danger did Saddam Hussein's regime pose to the average Joe Blow, on the streets of an average American city?"

so bush is responsible for everything in america. interesting. robbed? bush's fault! raped? bush's fault! laid off? didn't get a promotion? bush's fault!

national intelligence does not originate from bush's office (yes i know the dems will love that statement). national intelligence comes from the national organizations responsible for such. earlier you said bush cherry picked the intelligence he wanted. yet he did not create those intelligence reports. the respective intelligence agencies did. so there lies the fault.

had bush not taken a hard line as he has now, had he ignored those reports, then if the reports were right he'd be crucified.......sounds like a catch 22 to me.

you call it a pr exercise. i call it getting the allies in order. same thing happened in the gulf war. even the inspectors from the un felt that they were being fooled by the irais due to the games played. you can crow about hindsight now that all is said and done. i would not be the least bit surprised if such is 1 - found later 2 - been moved out of country (i'm sure you remember the iraqi air force in the first gulf war - flown to iran).

(while on the topic of our national safety, why does somalia not come to mind? somalia never did a thing to us, yet clinton sure involved us and such resulted in a disaster).

so in short, if you wish to compare what was said before to now, feel free. such won't make a bit of difference, we are there.

as for the countries like sudan, ask that of your congressman.

for your question, i'm not privy to such matters. but i do note that we've gone from our interests to the average person in the usa. were we to apply that yardstick to everything, we'd never have been at war with hitler. but it seems you have to feel personally threatened in america to feel the need for action. such is the height of foolishness. pre-emptive action works far better than when terrorists are knocking down your door.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

so bush is responsible for everything in america. interesting. robbed? bush's fault! raped? bush's fault! laid off? didn't get a promotion? bush's fault!

national intelligence does not originate from bush's office (yes i know the dems will love that statement). national intelligence comes from the national organizations responsible for such. earlier you said bush cherry picked the intelligence he wanted. yet he did not create those intelligence reports. the respective intelligence agencies did. so there lies the fault.

had bush not taken a hard line as he has now, had he ignored those reports, then if the reports were right he'd be crucified.......sounds like a catch 22 to me.

you call it a pr exercise. i call it getting the allies in order. same thing happened in the gulf war. even the inspectors from the un felt that they were being fooled by the irais due to the games played. you can crow about hindsight now that all is said and done. i would not be the least bit surprised if such is 1 - found later 2 - been moved out of country (i'm sure you remember the iraqi air force in the first gulf war - flown to iran).

(while on the topic of our national safety, why does somalia not come to mind? somalia never did a thing to us, yet clinton sure involved us and such resulted in a disaster).

so in short, if you wish to compare what was said before to now, feel free. such won't make a bit of difference, we are there.

as for the countries like sudan, ask that of your congressman.

for your question, i'm not privy to such matters. but i do note that we've gone from our interests to the average person in the usa. were we to apply that yardstick to everything, we'd never have been at war with hitler. but it seems you have to feel personally threatened in america to feel the need for action. such is the height of foolishness. pre-emptive action works far better than when terrorists are knocking down your door.

I said Bush is ultimately responsible for Iraq, I don't see the extension of blame that you are referring to, in any of my posts. The issue is Iraq, Bush's idea, Bush's fault, Bush's lies.

As I said, there is clear evidence that intelligence was misused to justify war. It's all laid out earlier in the thread, if you care to familiarise yourself with it. Or not, its your right. If there's any aspect of that evidence you care challenge go for it, otherwise all we are doing is postulating, and I don't care to repeat myself any more than I already have.

Accountability is crucial when it comes to elected officials. Why is it some people are so reluctant to hold their elected officials up to scrutiny?

You are right to talk about Somalia - that was indeed a disaster, and Clinton was been condemned for it at the time and subsequently. He's not in charge now - Bush is, and Iraq represents a continuation of the same bullshit imperialist foreign policy agenda that has gotten the US a bad reputation on the world stage dating back to Korea and Vietnam. But then, I'm guessing your pro-US mindset won't allow you to question those conflicts either.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 14,276]

so bush is responsible for everything in america. interesting. robbed? bush's fault! raped? bush's fault! laid off? didn't get a promotion? bush's fault!

national intelligence does not originate from bush's office (yes i know the dems will love that statement). national intelligence comes from the national organizations responsible for such. earlier you said bush cherry picked the intelligence he wanted. yet he did not create those intelligence reports. the respective intelligence agencies did. so there lies the fault.

had bush not taken a hard line as he has now, had he ignored those reports, then if the reports were right he'd be crucified.......sounds like a catch 22 to me.

you call it a pr exercise. i call it getting the allies in order. same thing happened in the gulf war. even the inspectors from the un felt that they were being fooled by the irais due to the games played. you can crow about hindsight now that all is said and done. i would not be the least bit surprised if such is 1 - found later 2 - been moved out of country (i'm sure you remember the iraqi air force in the first gulf war - flown to iran).

(while on the topic of our national safety, why does somalia not come to mind? somalia never did a thing to us, yet clinton sure involved us and such resulted in a disaster).

so in short, if you wish to compare what was said before to now, feel free. such won't make a bit of difference, we are there.

as for the countries like sudan, ask that of your congressman.

for your question, i'm not privy to such matters. but i do note that we've gone from our interests to the average person in the usa. were we to apply that yardstick to everything, we'd never have been at war with hitler. but it seems you have to feel personally threatened in america to feel the need for action. such is the height of foolishness. pre-emptive action works far better than when terrorists are knocking down your door.

I said Bush is ultimately responsible for Iraq, I don't see the extension of blame that you are referring to, in any of my posts. The issue is Iraq, Bush's idea, Bush's fault, Bush's lies.

As I said, there is clear evidence that intelligence was misused to justify war. It's all laid out earlier in the thread, if you care to familiarise yourself with it. Or not, its your right. If there's any aspect of that evidence you care challenge go for it, otherwise all we are doing is postulating, and I don't care to repeat myself any more than I already have.

Accountability is crucial when it comes to elected officials. Why is it some people are so reluctant to hold their elected officials up to scrutiny?

You are right to talk about Somalia - that was indeed a disaster, and Clinton was been condemned for it at the time and subsequently. He's not in charge now - Bush is, and Iraq represents a continuation of the same bullshit imperialist foreign policy agenda that has gotten the US a bad reputation on the world stage dating back to Korea and Vietnam. But then, I'm guessing your pro-US mindset won't allow you to question those conflicts either.

i still fail to see how bush can be held responsible for national intelligence agency reporting. the idea of bush's idea, bush's fault, bush's lies don't fly with me. he had to get congressional approval for such, and they supported such. why? cause they saw the same intelligence that bush saw. are you saying they are to disregard our intelligence services?

accountability is one thing. playing the blame game is another. perhaps you should go crucify clinton for getting one of those suicidal pilots in 911 released from israel.

although i support us going into iraq and removing saddam, i do question ####### we are doing there today. it's high time to get the hell out of dodge. nation building failed in vietnam. it's best to leave iraq now and let them deal with their own internal politics.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i still fail to see how bush can be held responsible for national intelligence agency reporting. the idea of bush's idea, bush's fault, bush's lies don't fly with me. he had to get congressional approval for such, and they supported such. why? cause they saw the same intelligence that bush saw. are you saying they are to disregard our intelligence services?

As I said before, evidence that Bushco cherry-picked intelligence info to justify a case for war is out there if you care to seek it out. Some of it is addressed earlier in this thread, if you want to read it.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Fishdude

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

i still fail to see how bush can be held responsible for national intelligence agency reporting.

Because the buck stops with him. I'm not saying he lied. I don't believe he did. But I do think he allowed himself to be convinced that invading Iraq was a good idea because he was inclined to believe it was.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i still fail to see how bush can be held responsible for national intelligence agency reporting.

Because the buck stops with him. I'm not saying he lied. I don't believe he did. But I do think he allowed himself to be convinced that invading Iraq was a good idea because he was inclined to believe it was.

Except that the Downing Street memo ties up with statements from former administration officials who have made quite clear assertions that Bush's first reaction to 9/11 was to look for a justification to go to war with Iraq regardless of Saddams actual involvement..

All the evidence that was put in the public domain to justify it was really superfluous at the end of the day, because Bushco had already decided on a course of action. So my question is again - why did we go to war? Its certainly not for the reasons that were given, the reasons which have been proved to be fictional or greatly exaggerated. It was for someone's very narrow agenda.

We had the barest minimum of public and political debate in the run up to that war. The decision had already been made, and the rhetoric and justifications from the administration were all geared towards supporting a decision that had already been made, regardless of contrary public or political opinion.

[Ban Hammer 14,276]

i still fail to see how bush can be held responsible for national intelligence agency reporting.

Because the buck stops with him. I'm not saying he lied. I don't believe he did. But I do think he allowed himself to be convinced that invading Iraq was a good idea because he was inclined to believe it was.

Except that the Downing Street memo ties up with statements from former administration officials who have made quite clear assertions that Bush's first reaction to 9/11 was to look for a justification to go to war with Iraq regardless of Saddams actual involvement..

All the evidence that was put in the public domain to justify it was really superfluous at the end of the day, because Bushco had already decided on a course of action. So my question is again - why did we go to war? Its certainly not for the reasons that were given, the reasons which have been proved to be fictional or greatly exaggerated. It was for someone's very narrow agenda.

We had the barest minimum of public and political debate in the run up to that war. The decision had already been made, and the rhetoric and justifications from the administration were all geared towards supporting a decision that had already been made, regardless of contrary public or political opinion.

lol. great idea! debate publicly to attack another country, give them ample and clear warning!

that there was political debate i don't doubt. and if the administration was so dead set on going after saddam, i have to wonder what they knew. and when they knew it.