Explosive Bush interview in NBC News' Richard Engel's new book »
Posted By bubba2 4 months, 1 week ago in NewsNBC News' Richard Engel spent 5 years reporting in Iraq. His new book contains an interview with President Bush, who admits that going to war was a decision based on his personal instinct and not on any long-range strategy for the Mideast: " ... I changed after 9/11. I had to act. I don't care if it created more enemies. I had to act."
Read Full Story at huffingtonpost.com »
Submitted By:
bubba2
I'm pretty much OUTTA here! The new format (still) S-U-C-K-S!
========
I have a degree in music but that changed to computer systems and I ...
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 169
-
0%
chuck-the-canuck4 months, 1 week ago
National leaders are supposed to be the cream that has risen to the top, not pond scum.
I hope the red-staters are proud of themselves.
They voted for that moron twice.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM4 months, 1 week ago
I have not read this book but I wonder if he included the following facts. Of Course this section of 1441 is often ignored - Rows of white bundles containing bones filled room after room. Families filed by, searching for
signs of those who had disappeared, some stolen
during the night, others taken in daylight. Even
small children were not spared the butchery.
Tony Blair said on November 20, 2003, that as
many as 400,000 Iraqis lie in these mass graves.
As Saddam's evil regime collapsed in April
and May, 2003, and his Baath Party mass murderers
retreated into the shadows, Iraqis began
to act on their formerly hidden grief. They
searched for their loved ones rounded up over
the years in campaigns of terror. They had
heard rumors about shots in the night, mass
burials, and vanished prisoners. Now they
followed those bloody trails to the mounds of
earth they suspected entombed their beloved
children and parents.
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/iraq_mass_graves.pdf
Reply-
0%
capecoralM4 months, 1 week ago
I wonder if he (the Author) referenced this report http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqreport2-text...
Reply-
0%
capecoralM4 months, 1 week ago
Or this: (CNN) -- The CIA has in its hands the critical parts of a key piece of Iraqi nuclear technology -- parts needed to develop a bomb program -- that were dug up in a back yard in Baghdad, CNN has learned.
U.S. officials emphasized this was not evidence Iraq had a nuclear weapon -- but it was evidence the Iraqis concealed plans to reconstitute their nuclear program as soon as the world was no longer looking.
"I have very important things at my disposal that I have been ordered to have, to keep, and I've kept them, and I don't want this to proliferate, because of its potential consequences if it falls in the hands of tyrants, in the hands of dictators or of terrorists," said Obeidi, who has been taken out of Iraq with the help of the U.S. government.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj....
Reply-
0%
capecoralM4 months, 1 week ago
Did he talk about this: Accordingly, the Government of Iraq should present to UNMOVIC for verifiable destruction all Al Samoud 2 missiles and associated items, as follows:
1. All Al Samoud 2 missiles and warheads, whether deployed, assembled or partly assembled;
2. Fuel and oxidizer, where deployed with Al Samoud 2 missiles;
3. The SA-2 missile engines imported outside of the export/import mechanism and in contravention of paragraph 24 of resolution 687 (1991), which have been configured for use in the Al Samoud 2, are in the process of being so configured, or are otherwise associated with the Al Samoud 2 missile programme;
4. All engine components acquired for the modification of the SA-2 engine for use with the Al Samoud 2 system, such as thrust regulators, gas generators and air pressure regulators;
http://www.iraqwatch.org/un/unmovic/unmovic-bli...
Reply-
0%
decipher4 months, 1 week ago
maybe, just maybe we should do some serious work to fix this country. root out our problems of poverty, racism, and injustice. fix our roads and our schools... treat the world with respect and communicate with those who we do not understand. then maybe we might have some right to appoint ourselves policemen of the world.
Reply-
0%
saneman4 months, 1 week ago
Compassionate Repubs or Conservatives? ROFLMAO! Bush didn't invade Iraq for compassionate purposes or to save people. I have yet to find a Repub who cares about anything other than making money. I have worked with many Repubs and the only thing they have on their minds is making money 24/7.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM4 months, 1 week ago
It appears in many case studies that conservative republicans in general give more charitable donations than liberal Democrat(ic)s. In many cases Liberal Democrat(ic)s classify people by race, gender, sexual orientation, age, etc...
One thing about money that perhaps you do not understand. It pays for food, gas, education, living expenses, shelter, retirement funds, investments in the economy, etc...
Rather than through the redistribution of wealth by the government many believe that creating companies, creates jobs. Jobs pay wages that pay for the items mentioned above.
The government cannot & has not as a general rule ever been able to manage a single social welfare program efficiently. Therefore many view the free market as the best vehicle for transferring wealth to individuals in society. Many people do not want to hand over their future to the government officials and rely on them for their well being.
Reply-
0%
cleare4 months, 1 week ago
yeah...well there are some of us who don't trust international corporations to look out for our well-being either.
i'm a dyed in the wool capitalist, but markets can't be free and be ethical at the same time. some regulation is necessary. junk bonds, sub prime loans and enron are just a few examples of how unreliable "the market" can be.
government welfare programs may not be as efficient as they could be, but as a former public servant i will tell you that most federal "bureaucrats" really care about their country and it's people and try to discharge their responsibilities efficiently. can't say that about corporations who only care about profit.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM4 months, 1 week ago
You cite less that .01% of all business' in the U.S. that you claim is typical of a free market. You ignore the other 99.99% of business owners and operators that are ethical and shun government intervention in their lives. I can speak from experience in my business. High licensing fees, Filing fees, tax prep fees, legal fees, paperwork, conducting business from a government officials theoretical plan set forth by government entities that fail to take into account real world situations. Yes all of these regulations and procedures are there in response to the .01% of the unethical you cite but do not in most cases take into account the 99.99% that are ethical and are providing jobs to Americans. As far as ""bureaucrats" really care about their country" I never said they don't however I do believe caring and positive efficient results are not necessarily the same thing. In the same vein efficient government social programs is a majority of the time an oxymoron.
Reply-
0%
cleare4 months, 1 week ago
i could say the same about conservative views of welfare. they cite the tiny percentages of abuse and ignore the huge amount of legitimate need.
i've worked for the federal government, government contractors, large businesses and small businesses and now work in a non-profit institution and my view has been that corruption is significantly less in government and non-profits organizations, largely thanks to regulations.
Reply-
0%
UnusualSuspect4 months, 1 week ago
I know the saying is "Action speaks louder than words." And heaven knows the words that come out of his mouth are blocked by not just one, but by two feet.
It's obvious he didn't care about the United States making enemies, but he also didn't seem to care much about anything else, either. A bumbling, ineffective, uncommunicative President who let us down in so many ways.
Bring on Obama...!
Reply-
0%
donald514 months, 1 week ago
Cape ought to go read this young man's first book, Fist in the Hornet's Nest, to find out that he lived in an Egyptian slum where he learned Farci ... so he could always ask any of the Iraqis what the true story was. And, he developed such a rapport he cold go in the field with both the US and Iraqis forces. But, Cape wants to rely on those reports by reporters scared to leave the green zone... Remember that the Pentagon pays for those positive stories Cape, even if not true!
Reply
-
-
-
0%
wtagg4 months, 1 week ago
Are you suggesting that only .01% of companies are responsible for hiring all the illegals in this country?
Reply -
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE4 months, 1 week ago
You toss numbers out like candy..You make them up.
You are obviously not even experienced as a business owner..
I can't even deal with more than 80% honest businesses, and your 99.9 is a joke!
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
saneman4 months, 1 week ago
Intolerant??? As a Registered Patent Attorney, I work with many Repubs and have many, many Repub associates and colleagues. Feel Better?
Reply -
0%
donald514 months, 1 week ago
Cloud, by your pst comments, you surely are of the biggotted side of America... conservitive bigot and proud of it... you Un-American fool!
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
slate4 months, 1 week ago
Oh it's not disgusting to you that you say Repubs only give genrously for tax breaks when you know Dems actually do that vbery thing? Nor is it not disgusting to you that your favorite President (about to be your 'second' favorite one) actually gave his undies to Charity and had the nerve to deduct them..... tick tock tick tock,,,,,, I thought not Donnie,,,, How un-American!
Reply
-
-
-
0%
david_nwpa4 months, 1 week ago
Of course, the Republicans give us more legislation which restricts the civil rights of people or takes away other rights. Democrats may not spend more money on charities, but they certainly dedicate more time.
Besides, I would be interested in these "case studies" you cite, capecoral. Can you cite any?
Reply -
0%
sinophil494 months, 1 week ago
Cape - "..conservative republicans in general give more charitable donations than liberal Democrat(ic)s."
You omitted the fact that conservative republicans tend to be richer, older. They tend to donate more to museums, libraries, symphonic orchestras, university endowments, zoos, research foundations, etc. These are hardly starving masses.
Democrats tend to donate more to organizations that deal with poverty and humanitarian causes.
That was very clever of you, but it ain't gonna fly.
Reply -
0%
sinophil494 months, 1 week ago
Cape - You truly believe in the laissez-faire approach to capitalism. Just turn the market loose and everything magical will fall into place.
History has shown that this is a massive fallacy and economic boondoggle that punishes the poor.
Corporations have no real interest in creating more jobs, UNLESS IT IS PROFITABLE FOR THEM TO DO SO. If more profit can be made without an increase in jobs, benefits for the current employees, or regard for social ramification, then the companies generally pursue the profit ONLY.
We see that in everything from the Love Canal horror to the current immoral profits that the oil companies are reaping.
That is why corporations are notorious for seeking and creating every tax loophole they can.
On the average, corporations pay only 25% of net income in taxes. But many companies pay NOTHING. Tax collections from corporations account for only 7% of federal income. Tax revenues from income make up most of the rest.
Tell me, where is
Reply-
0%
sinophil494 months, 1 week ago
the equity in that?
Basically, many corporations have to be coerced into "redistributing wealth" by paying more taxes. Of course, many of the largest companies have some form of corporate grants and donations etc. But this is a tiny fraction of what they can do and many companies do it for the public relations benefits.
So, please, spare me your empty claims of more jobs help redistribute the wealth, so let's give companies more money and take away less taxes.
Baloney!!
Reply -
0%
blinkers4 months, 1 week ago
Double post and cut in half, but it's STILL a damn good comment; spot on, sinophil.
Reply
-
-
0%
sinophil494 months, 1 week ago
Cape - You truly believe in the laissez-faire approach to capitalism. Just turn the market loose and everything magical will fall into place.
History has shown that this is a massive fallacy and economic boondoggle that punishes the poor.
Corporations have no real interest in creating more jobs, UNLESS IT IS PROFITABLE FOR THEM TO DO SO. If more profit can be made without an increase in jobs, benefits for the current employees, or regard for social ramification, then the companies generally pursue the profit ONLY.
We see that in everything from the Love Canal horror to the current immoral profits that the oil companies are reaping.
That is why corporations are notorious for seeking and creating every tax loophole they can.
On the average, corporations pay only 25% of net income in taxes. But many companies pay NOTHING. Tax collections from corporations account for only 7% of federal income. Tax revenues from personal income make up most of the rest.
Tell me, where is
Reply
-
-
-
0%
splitrch4 months, 1 week ago
ok but bush's cronies can't make enough money on that stuff - -unless they can privatize it. Those pricks would bottle the atmosphere and let us die if we couldn't pay.
Reply
-
-
0%
jordan114 months, 1 week ago
capecoraIM, we did NOT go to Iraq to save them from Hussein! We were led to believe they were a threat to us. You don't kill tens of thousands of people to 'save' them. With that out of the way, and the fact that Iraq was NOT a threat to us, there is nothing left to rationalize this monstrous act by our government.
Reply -
0%
sinophil494 months, 1 week ago
Cape - By 3/3/03, 10 Al Samoud missiles had been verified destroyed. Saddam was complying with the UN sanctions. Sadly the invasion interrupted the process of further dismantling.
Your post about the demand to destroy the al Samoud missiles simply proves the point that sanctions were working and that the invasion was totally unnecessary.
Furthermore, what was Bush doing in Iraq anyway? The real enemy was, is, and will still be Osama bin Laden. He is somewhere in Afghanistan or Pakistan.
For those geographically challenged, Kabul and Baghdad are about 1500 miles apart. Different countries completely. You seem to confuse the 2 different countries and lump them together
Reply-
0%
sinophil494 months, 1 week ago
Oh! I forgot. Bush said there were no WMD's.
End of story.
What are you still prattling on about missiles and chemicals for? Bush doesn't claim anymore WMD's were there and he is the one desperate to improve his historical legacy. He gave up on the WMD myth. At least, your esteemed leader is one step ahead of you.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM4 months, 1 week ago
Circumvention of UN Sanctions Importing Missile-Related Materials in 1998
To avoid UN inspectors' possible detection of sanctioned materials, Iraqi officials would instead find alternate methods to get what they needed. The Al Fat'h missile project illustrates how the Iraqis managed to avoid UN detection. Documents captured at the MIC Headquarters reveal the MIC's March 1998 plan to purchase dual-use materials, including: ammonium perchlorate, aluminum powder, carbon fiber, and phenolic resin for use in the Al Fat'h missile project. After discovery of these materials by the UN, Iraqi officials were instructed to submit a form B-1 by Richard Butler, Chairman of UNSCOM. This form detailed Iraq's plans to use 20 tons of ammonium perchlorate and 3 tons aluminum powder to manufacture composite solid propellant for the Al Fat'h motor.....
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/repor...
Reply-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE4 months, 1 week ago
You still being an apologist?
Can't you join the rest of the world who already know what bull it was and what a mistake it was?
Gee, when you run someone over with your car, will you keep running them over until you can get a witness to come by and say they jumped under your tires?? Give it up already!
American soldiers and innocent civilians are dying and you're still on the "why we should have gone" page??
New book...less deaths..more constructive thoughts..Try it!
Reply-
0%
capecoralM4 months, 1 week ago
Apologist? Have I apologized for something? I simply pointed to intelligence reports from the UN, CIA, M16, and other reports. How is that apologizing? I also reject your premise that "rest of the world who already know what bull it was and what a mistake it was" as it is clear from a global perspective this is not the case. This may very well be true in your world though and I concede that.
Reply-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE4 months, 1 week ago
The REST of the world has said if they knew then what they know now they would have AT LEAST concentrated completely on Afghanistan..YOU are one of the very few stubborn deniers..
You're not apologizing, you're still heaving feeble, outdated
excuses that only you still see as an "excuse"..
Your a "justifier" who is part of the Bush apologist family..
How close to perfect has he been?..(according to a member of your very tiny family)?
By the way apologist is just another word for excuse maker!
Reply -
0%
miklkit4 months, 1 week ago
Here are just a few of many links telling the truth about your allegations.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/ira...
Reply -
0%
jordan114 months, 1 week ago
Apologist? Have I apologized for something?>>>>
uh huh. You're an apologist for the worst administration this country has ever been saddled with.
Reply -
0%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin4 months, 1 week ago
ok say invading Iraq was entirely legal, necessary and justified
Capecoral
Was it a good idea?
Reply -
0%
sinophil494 months, 1 week ago
cape - "Apologist? Have I apologized for something?"
Excuse me, but on these discussion boards, "apologist" simply means one who defends, speaks for, or espouses a point of view.
Of course, if you do want to apologize for your mistaken views and pigheaded defense of them in the absence of any basis, please feel free to apologize.
Apologist can mean one who apologizes.
Reply -
0%
sinophil494 months, 1 week ago
Cape - What Mrcoffeecake said is true. " the rest of the world who already know what bull it was and what a mistake it was?"
The yellow cake story was already known to be a hoax by at least the British, French, Spanish, German, Nigerian, and, I believe Japan intelligence services.
Prior to the invasion, Iraq sent out urgent messages that they were going to allow up to 5000 FBI agents to inspect the country, major oil concessions, and turn over their top al Qaida prisoner. They sent messages thru the Egyptian, Syrian, French, and Russian intelligence services. They all knew that there were no more WMD's.
Bush turned down all these offers, because he had already made up his mind to invade w/ no further consideration for the economic, social, political, and human costs that would result.
Bush is narrow-minded, arrogant, and evil.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
djn3nunez34 months, 1 week ago
"..but it was evidence the Iraqis concealed plans to reconstitute their nuclear program as soon as the world was no longer looking."
First, Bush would have been laughed off the Hill if he has said he want to invade and occupy Iraq becase Saddam had concealed plans to reconstitute their nuclear program as soon as the world was no longer looking. Second, the world will be looking at Iraq for along time to come.
Reply -
0%
sinophil494 months, 1 week ago
cape - "US officials emphasized this was not evidence Iraq had a nuclear weapon - but it was evidence the Iraqis concealed plans to reconstitute their nuclear program.."
Come on. All it means is that Saddam was a megalomanic and had delusions of nuclear grandeur. At the time of the invasion, he had NONE.
The point is the sanctions WERE WORKING. He needed the pressure and continuing monitoring, but Bush never gave him the chance. It's like a chained pit bull who growls and bares his teeth. Of course he wants to bite you. You don't automatically shoot him; you make sure the chain is secure.
We ALL know Saddam is a bad man and has bad intentions. So do many other leaders in the world. Every leader, every situation has to be evaluated in terms of cost/benefit as to what measures are the best in controlling each one.
Then to say that he does not care if he created more enemies is in itself an oxymoron. To improve our security, the whole is to eliminate or convert enemies, so
Reply-
0%
sinophil494 months, 1 week ago
there would be fewer threats. To create MORE enemies would completely defeat the purpose. What an idiotic statement! It reveals how utterly shallow this man's thinking is and how he callusly disregards TRUE safety for our citizens.
Defend all you want his good intentions, his mistakes in prewar intelligence, but there is no way you can defend nor can he justify the statement about not caring if he creates MORE enemies. That man does not think before he speaks.
I am reminded of Abraham Lincoln's statement when he was criticized for befriending a political opponent. He said (my paraphrase) - If I befriend an enemy, have I not eliminated the enemy? Bush and neocons are totally incapable of dignified, thoughtful statements like this.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
djn3nunez34 months, 1 week ago
cape....
Please site the specific paragraph in SCR 1441 that authorized military action against Iraq.
Reply-
0%
newbie04204 months, 1 week ago
"Please site the specific paragraph in SCR 1441 that authorized military action against Iraq."
SCR 1441 doesn't but this gives him the authority to enfore SCR 1441:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10...
"SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
Pay very VERY VERY close attention to #2 there. I'd say that just completely blew your argument out of the water....
Reply-
0%
Will13134 months, 1 week ago
A very powerful argument could be made that he did NOT COMPLY with the next section...
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
Reply-
0%
Will13134 months, 1 week ago
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Reply-
0%
capecoralM4 months, 1 week ago
I suspect you realize that the U.S. Military can conduct parallel operations on a global scale. Which in the case of this clause has been underway since 9.11.
In regard to the prior clauses you cite both of those conditions were met as well. There were over a year of negotiations at the UN which ultimately led the U.N. to conclude that Saddam was in "material breach" of a multitude of U.N. Resolutions. What came to light was that 1284 created a Global scandal of the likes not seen in the history of the world. It was called the "oil for Food" program and the corruption ran deep and wide and funneled billions to Saddam and others.
Reply-
0%
Will13134 months, 1 week ago
not necessarily..
reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or
-----
if he cooked the intelligence and did indeed make it fit.. he would have prior knowledge that military action was NOT NECESSARY.. that would be a CRIME..
Reply-
0%
newbie04204 months, 1 week ago
"if he cooked the intelligence and did indeed make it fit.. he would have prior knowledge that military action was NOT NECESSARY.. that would be a CRIME.."
Seeing as Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 because he felt they were a threat and either posessed or were trying to obtain nukes, I can't see how anybody could believe he "cooked the intelligence" Especially considering how much Saddam was jerking around inspectors leading up to the invasion.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/...
"CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."
I would suggest reading the entire transcript.
Reply-
0%
newbie04204 months, 1 week ago
A few snippets from it:
"The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."
"When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.
I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate."
"In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars."
Reply-
-
0%
newbie04204 months, 1 week ago
LOL
Marginalize it all you want but it is the truth, even Clinton thought so.
Either way it seems you have your facts wrong:
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article127...
"Who among us can forget the tune Powell was singing when he took center stage at the UN on February 5,
2003, and started his speech by swearing to the truth of the evidence he was about to present.
"My colleagues," he told the world on live TV, "every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources."
"These are not assertions," he continued.
"What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence," he said, "I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources."
Here's where Colin tells us about a big find by intelligence officials in Iraq at the home of a nuclear scientist.
Reply-
0%
newbie04204 months, 1 week ago
"When they searched the home of an Iraqi nuclear scientist," he said, "they uncovered roughly 2,000 pages of documents."
To prove this "fact" Colin pulled out a few visuals. "You see them here being brought out of the home and placed in U.N. hands," he told the audience.
"Some of the material is classified and related to Iraq's nuclear program," he added.
Next, Colin presented a litany of "facts" about Saddam's nuclear threat. "Let me turn now to nuclear weapons," he said.
"We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons program," he warned.
Reply-
0%
Will13134 months, 1 week ago
well the bottom line is they didn't find SH*T...
over 4000 American men and women are DEAD.. several HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS WASTED.. because the MORON IN CHIEF HAD A GUT FEELING.. first I though God told him to do it.. now we find out he just had GAS...
Powell went to the UN and said what he was told to say... nothing more nothing less..
Reply -
0%
sinophil494 months, 1 week ago
newbie - I do not understand why you are still talking about WMD's. Every single piece of evidence you name or quote has since been proven wrong or simply lies either from Bush/Cheney or from Chalabi or from "curveball."
Several Iraqi scientists w/ relatives in America reported no WMD's. Saddam's son-in-law (a general) reported no WMD's. Another general turned by the CIA reported no WMD's.
Bush, himself finally admitted there were no WMD's.
Why are you still carrying on when even the DECIDER says he was wrong? Why are you perpetuating these errors? Bush finally moved on to the excuses of freeing the Iraqis, or forcing democracy down their collective throats, or now simply establishing a government strong enough to stand on its own.
Take your pick which one you believe the most.
BUT THERE WERE NO WMD'S, PERIOD.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
newbie04204 months, 1 week ago
"Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites."
"Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence."
"It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions."
"Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment."
"In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham."
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort."
Wow even Clinton was for a regime change....
Reply-
-
0%
donald514 months, 1 week ago
Newbie, how many airmen shot down by Sadam during this period of such great threat? NONE!!!!!!!!
Eisenhower said to just contain the Russians and they would eventually collapse too... in spite of war mongers like you (right wing war mongers then too) demanding that Patton just take his Armored Corps against the Russians. All fine while someone else bleeds for you - how terribly Un-American and incompassionate! I'll bet you claim religious superiority too!
And, we now know that Sadam had nothing after '98... although you want to persist in your lies otherwise! Get a conscience and some real scrupples
Reply -
0%
sinophil494 months, 1 week ago
newbie - Stop it with the idiotic drivel. Clinton was also wrong.
William Scott Ritter, former UNSCOM chief investigator, said there were no WMD's.
Hans Blix said there were no WMD's.
The "Senate Report on Iraqi WMD Intelligence" concluded there were no WMD's.
The cherry on top of the frosting is that Bush, our esteemed DECIDER, finally admitted there were no WMD's.
Reply
-
-
0%
wtagg4 months, 1 week ago
Are you stating that Clinton made good, sound military decisions in this scenario?
Is it prudent to use 6 year old conjecture to support an expenditure of $500,000,000,000, 4000 lives, tens of thousands of casualties, etc.......?
Reply
-
-
0%
bluetexasvalley4 months, 1 week ago
And did Clinton's *war* kill 1.2 million Iraqi civilians, including women and children?
Reply -
0%
sinophil494 months, 1 week ago
newbie - Oh, I forgot about Clinton. He was wrong too. Iraqi documents discovered by our forces show that WMD production stopped as early as 1991, right after Desert Storm.
And besides, are you saying that Bush relied on 5 yr old intelligence to decide to invade?
He did not use the latest info available?
Would you buy stocks based on 5 yr old company data? Would you let a doctor operate on you w/ a procedure that became outdated 5 yrs ago? Would you teach your child scientific information that became outdated 5 yrs ago? If you were an astronaut, would you let NASA hurl you into space w/ equipment made and data collected 5 yrs ago?
Would you not insist on the most uptodate info and equipment in all these scenarios?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM4 months, 1 week ago
It's a beautiful Place. We were out on the Boat last weekend parked on the Sanibel Beaches. I realized I was not getting out their enough! All work and no play kind of thing. The water was emerald blue green once we got out in the Gulf. Only small problem was my kid got a little sea-sick. Anyway it is a great place to live in my opinion.
Reply-
0%
Will13134 months, 1 week ago
I used to live in St Petersburg... now on the east coast in Pompano Beach...
I atually like over there better in some ways... more laid back.. or was...
but I also like to dive. not much of a fisherman.. and there is coral just over 100 yards offshore.. and Pompano Beach and Ft. Lauderdale have some nice anchorage bouys on top of the inner reefs.. which I really enjoy diving on.. especially when I go alone.. which is more often than with someone..
Also like to beach dive at night... seems the underwater life changes shifts... go at twilight and watch the night shift come to work....
Reply-
-
0%
Will13134 months, 1 week ago
and people look you in the eye and say "HELLO" in passing .. do that here and everyone is reaching for their concealed weapon.. ..
no eye contact.. and CERTAINLY NO HELLO... I used to see this couple every morning on my jog. .. for about 2-3 weeks.. didn't say a word.. nor did they... so... one moringing I just said "HELLO GOOD MORNING"... never saw them again... and they ran more than just a little faster...
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
SwampFox-82nd4 months, 1 week ago
You almost sound like a fellow Swampie, but I know better. Noticed in none of your kind words on behalf of the haves, you "Forgot" to mention the concentration being built right here in the USA! Cat got your loose tongue? Got a nine-and-a-half inch jump-boot up your patriotic ass?
Bush has already admitted, CapeCaboose, he has drawn-up his grand plan to attack Iran -- possibly nuclear attacked. Question almighty lizard, why build POW encampments here?
How about when that bottom-feeder pushes his almighty button, then he has the perfect place to place those of us who call him what he really is. EVIL. Think about your mouth before putting it gear, my fellow American. Or shut your flapping gums, Amigo. You annoy my Airborne ass, LEG.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
capecoralM4 months, 1 week ago
The U.S. rationale for the war was contained the September 12, 2002 address to the United Nations General Assembly not in 1441. What the U.S. President said: "The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?"
The UN resolutions that Saddam had defied for a decade were constituent elements of the truce that Saddam had signed at the end of the Gulf War. Saddam violated that UN Resolution and all subsequent resolutions. The Iraq war was in fact the resumption of the hostilities of 1991 that had been interrupted to allow Saddam the chance to comply.
Reply-
0%
bubba24 months, 1 week ago
The U.N. was AGAINST Bush's invasion of Iraq.
We had NO reason to invade - NO connection to Al Qaeda, NO connection to 9/11, NO WMDs.
TWO Senate investigations and a Pentagon investigation of the pre-war intelligence came to the above conclusions.
The invasion of Iraq was TOTALLY - TOTALLY unjustified because they were NO threat to us.
NO one has said that Saddam was not a bad man - he was definitely BAD.
But if we are going to invade EVERY country that has a "BAD" leader, then we had better get busy and invade the Sudan, South Korea, and a host of other countries.
Else - again - we had NO justification to invade Iraq.
Bush invaded because it fit his agenda and the agenda of Cheney and Rove and the other PNAC members - it had NOTHING to do with "deposing a dictator", NOTHING to do with "terrorism", and NOTHING to do with "spreading democracy".
Reply -
0%
bubba24 months, 1 week ago
You can quote all the stuff you want about what MIGHT have been regarding Iraq - NONE of it was justification for the U.S. to invade that country!
If it WAS, then like I said, WHEN is Bush going to overthrow Kim Jong Il or the government of the Sudan??? Hmmm???
Reply
-
-
-
0%
decipher4 months, 1 week ago
"They had
heard rumors about shots in the night, mass
burials, and vanished prisoners. Now they
followed those bloody trails to the mounds of
earth they suspected entombed their beloved
children and parents. "
and now a headline from baghdad today:
"Mass Graves Discovered Around Baghdad"
By SINAN SALAHEDDIN,
AP
Posted: 2008-06-04 07:35:02
Filed Under: Iraq News, World News
Reply -
0%
hamy4 months, 1 week ago
Still trying to justify the war? Even Bush and his advisors have all come out and said that they exaggerated the threat of Saddam to make the case for war.
That is the most pathetic thing I have read on here in a long time!
Reply -
-
-
