The Bush Admin. Never Lied To Justify the Invasion of Iraq.

[Jack Hays]

Of course, they are allied to Iran, but that's just one of those pesky 'facts'.

That was not the case in 2008. To the extent it's true now, that's on BHO.eace

 

[Jack Hays]

More inconvenient facts.

U.S. Troops Are Leaving Because Iraq Doesn't Want Them There - Atlantic Mobile

Except that it's not true.eace

 

[Ganesh]

Indigents? Leave it to the poor?

What was described is exactly how the British Empire was run. That, however, is a side issue. What was achieved by 2008 was a sustainable victory. It was thrown away, first by abandoning Iraq and then by failing to seize opportunity in Syria.eace

Seven or eight years of combat, the most formidable military power in the world vs the most beaten down, repressed third world country, and guess what? The former has to leave, excuses are what may, because the objective wasn't achieved. There was nothing sustainable about Iraq, because it was always a potential cauldron of discontent and violence, one the less than worldly planners in Washington understood at the time. They rolled in, but then had to roll out, or face the Vietnam style never ending war of various sectarian factions with violent motivation that were not planned for in advance, due to an astounding ignorance on the part of the highest politicians in the land.

I repeat: the US withdrawal was done because of large scale pay offs of various sectarian groups. The deal was this: don't make us look bad on the way out, and we won't have to call down air strikes. Here, have some money. Now shut up. That was the deal. That's your victory. Look it up.

As for Syria, the US is never going into Syria. The investment in blood and time and money would be far, far beyond the imaginings of even the most rabid right wingers in Washington today.

As for the British Empire, provide some specifics, and I'll give you a reply.

 

[APACHERAT]

Are you suggesting that the director of the CIA abused his power for political purposes and lied to bush?



No. Bush should have simply said that the invasion was to replace the Saddam regime, and not about the chemical weapons.

He would have gotten more support, not just from the US.

The Bush administration did exactly that, they used the "Iraq Liberation Act" that President Clinton signed into law.

But the left with in the Democrat Party rejected the "Iraq Liberation Act" like they always reject the laws that are already are on the books. They prefer to make **** up as they go along.

But since the left are islamaphobes and you mention an Islamist with WMD's they go scared and turn to the right to protect them.

 

[Dayton3]

Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was worth the cost of invasion.

How many years were we supposed to spend "containing" Saddam Hussein? Another 12? Another 20? Another 30?

With 30,000 Iraqis dying every year due to the UN sanctions enforced by the United States and Britain.

I've looked at the figures for number of U.S. soldiers who died every year from the end of Desert Storm to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

If we assume ONLY 5% died as a result of the U.S. having to maintain forces in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to "contain Saddam Hussein" then the "containment" of Hussein cost the lives of around 500 Americans.

Another 12 years would've been 500 more. Another 24, 1,000 more. And all of this without accomplishing anything regarding ending the Hussein regime.

At the time of his execution, Saddam Hussein was responsible for the deaths of nearly 2 million people.

Sending him to hell was well worth the cost.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Why are you posting things from 15 months AFTER the Iraq invasion?

It shows that Cheney never changed his mind.

How could anything that was said after the invasion be relevant here? The entire premise of "Bush lied" is that he did so in order to gain support for invading Iraq. Saying publicly that Iraq may have been involved in the 9/11 attacks over a year after the invasion is totally irrelevant, just as any investigative findings on Iraq's threat after the fact.

This interview references another interview from 2001.
It shows that during the time from 2001 until 2004 the Bush Admins message about Iraq's involvement with 911 is something other than "perfectly clear."
Cheney was spewing mis-information which tied Iraq to 911 for years.

If the Bush Admin's vice President was saying from at least 2001 that Iraq is or could be linked to 911 it doesn't seem to me that the Bush Admin actually did make it "perfectly clear long before any decisions were made on the Iraq issue" that they had found no connection between Iraq and 911.

 

[Jack Hays]

Seven or eight years of combat, the most formidable military power in the world vs the most beaten down, repressed third world country, and guess what? The former has to leave, excuses are what may, because the objective wasn't achieved. There was nothing sustainable about Iraq, because it was always a potential cauldron of discontent and violence, one the less than worldly planners in Washington understood at the time. They rolled in, but then had to roll out, or face the Vietnam style never ending war of various sectarian factions with violent motivation that were not planned for in advance, due to an astounding ignorance on the part of the highest politicians in the land.

I repeat: the US withdrawal was done because of large scale pay offs of various sectarian groups. The deal was this: don't make us look bad on the way out, and we won't have to call down air strikes. Here, have some money. Now shut up. That was the deal. That's your victory. Look it up.

As for Syria, the US is never going into Syria. The investment in blood and time and money would be far, far beyond the imaginings of even the most rabid right wingers in Washington today.

As for the British Empire, provide some specifics, and I'll give you a reply.

By 2008 the Surge had worked in Iraq, and political incentives had been aligned to give all parties an interest in multi-sectarian cooperation. A durable more-or-less democracy was available, given a US presence as a balance wheel. That is what was handed off in 2008.

in Syria there was a window in 2012, long since closed, when support to the secular opposition would have toppled the regime long before the Islamic extremists could mobilize. A cheap, safe, effective opportunity was bypassed.

Both the Raj in India and the district officers of Kenya operated along the lines described.eace

 

[MadLib]

Why exactly did WMDs justify us invading a country? Are we going to invade France next? France has nukes. I never got how it was any of our business or that we have any duty to police the world's use of weapons.

The idea was that Saddam, in producing or obtaining WMDs, would be in violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions against him possessing such weapons. I don't recall whether or not the resolutions threatened the use of force against Iraq in the case of noncompliance, but the circumstances were a little different than for just any country that has WMDs.

Of course, the handling of the WMD issue was completely botched by the Bush administration in any case.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

It was a victory, and BHO threw it away.eace

The Iraqi parliament kept us from extending our stay. BHO forgot to use his superpowers make them do otherwise.

 

[Jack Hays]

The Iraqi parliament kept us from extending our stay. BHO forgot to use his superpowers make them do otherwise.

The Iraqi government suggested they could proceed without their Parliament. It was our side who insisted on involving them, and thereby scuppering the deal.eace

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The Iraqi government suggested they could proceed without their Parliament. It was our side who insisted on involving them, and thereby scuppering the deal.eace

I notice that you have an unsupported assertion here.
Sure would be a shame if you bothered to provide any evidence for your claim.



I hope the following will help.
fwiw. :shrug:


U.S. Asking Iraq for Wide Rights on War

...the immunity being sought for American military personnel is a standard part of most recent agreements for basing American forces on foreign soil. Such agreements grant exclusive jurisdiction over American forces to American law, specifically the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

American officials are keenly aware that any agreement must be approved by Iraq’s fractured Council of Representatives, where Sunni and Shiite factions feud and even Shiite blocs loyal to competing leaders cannot agree.
​

U.S. Lawmakers Warn of New Violence in Iraq if White House Abandons Deal | Fox News

But a senior government official in Iraq told Fox News on Sunday that all Iraqi political blocks agree U.S. troops should not have immunity from prosecutions for killing Iraqi civilians or others if they stay beyond 2011. That's a deal breaker for the Pentagon.​

The McCain-Graham claim that Iraq’s ‘main political blocs were supportive’ of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq - The Washington Post

James F. Jeffrey, a career diplomat who was ambassador to Iraq during the negotiations, provided The Fact Checker with this statement about the McCain-Graham claim:
“Senator McCain is correct that Iraq’s main political blocs were supportive of U.S. forces remaining in Iraq after 2011, but the situation was quite complex. The Bush administration, to obtain a status of forces agreement with Iraq in 2008, agreed that all troops would be withdrawn by the end of 2011. The U.S. military, with my support, urged the president to reconsider that decision in late 2010, early 2011. The president agreed to urge PM Maliki to accept some U.S. troops after 2011, and that decision was made public in June 2011. It is correct that there was considerable debate within the administration on the size of the force, but there was agreement that it would be a training presence. In the end, everyone on the U.S. side accepted a force of 5,000 personnel including short-term deployments. While the major political parties with the exception of the Sadrist movement supported a U.S. military presence, only the Kurdish parties, about 20 percent of the parliament at best, supported parliament-granted legal immunities for U.S. military personnel. It was the considered position of the administration, including the U.S. military and myself, that our forces could not remain without a parliament-endorsed agreement granting such immunities, and so our forces were withdrawn in accordance with the 2008 agreement.”​

No, Obama Didn't Lose Iraq

President Obama approved negotiations with the Iraqi government to allow a force of around 5,000 American troops to stay in Iraq...[but not]...without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails. These protections...are common in nearly every country where U.S. forces operate...Obama...demanded that [the protections] continue...
​

...no senior U.S. military commander made the case that we should leave forces behind without these protections. Even Sen. John McCain, perhaps the administration’s harshest Iraq critic, admitted in a December 2011 speech discussing the withdrawal that the president’s demand for binding legal immunities “was a matter of vital importance.”

Unfortunately, Iraqi domestic politics made it impossible to reach a deal. Iraqi public opinion surveys consistently showed that the U.S. military presence was deeply unpopular... So when Iraq’s major political bloc leaders...agreed on the need for continued U.S. “trainers” but...were unwilling to seek immunities for [US] troops through the parliament
​

 

[Threegoofs]

That was not the case in 2008. To the extent it's true now, that's on BHO.eace

It was most definitely the case in 2008.

We gave Iran the greatest gift in the world- crushing their enemy and giving them an allied government next door.

Did I say 'we'? I meant Bush/Cheney.

 

[Jack Hays]

I notice that you have an unsupported assertion here.
Sure would be a shame if you bothered to provide any evidence for your claim.



I hope the following will help.
fwiw. :shrug:


U.S. Asking Iraq for Wide Rights on War

...the immunity being sought for American military personnel is a standard part of most recent agreements for basing American forces on foreign soil. Such agreements grant exclusive jurisdiction over American forces to American law, specifically the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

American officials are keenly aware that any agreement must be approved by Iraq’s fractured Council of Representatives, where Sunni and Shiite factions feud and even Shiite blocs loyal to competing leaders cannot agree.
​

U.S. Lawmakers Warn of New Violence in Iraq if White House Abandons Deal | Fox News

But a senior government official in Iraq told Fox News on Sunday that all Iraqi political blocks agree U.S. troops should not have immunity from prosecutions for killing Iraqi civilians or others if they stay beyond 2011. That's a deal breaker for the Pentagon.​

The McCain-Graham claim that Iraq’s ‘main political blocs were supportive’ of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq - The Washington Post

James F. Jeffrey, a career diplomat who was ambassador to Iraq during the negotiations, provided The Fact Checker with this statement about the McCain-Graham claim:
“Senator McCain is correct that Iraq’s main political blocs were supportive of U.S. forces remaining in Iraq after 2011, but the situation was quite complex. The Bush administration, to obtain a status of forces agreement with Iraq in 2008, agreed that all troops would be withdrawn by the end of 2011. The U.S. military, with my support, urged the president to reconsider that decision in late 2010, early 2011. The president agreed to urge PM Maliki to accept some U.S. troops after 2011, and that decision was made public in June 2011. It is correct that there was considerable debate within the administration on the size of the force, but there was agreement that it would be a training presence. In the end, everyone on the U.S. side accepted a force of 5,000 personnel including short-term deployments. While the major political parties with the exception of the Sadrist movement supported a U.S. military presence, only the Kurdish parties, about 20 percent of the parliament at best, supported parliament-granted legal immunities for U.S. military personnel. It was the considered position of the administration, including the U.S. military and myself, that our forces could not remain without a parliament-endorsed agreement granting such immunities, and so our forces were withdrawn in accordance with the 2008 agreement.”​

No, Obama Didn't Lose Iraq

President Obama approved negotiations with the Iraqi government to allow a force of around 5,000 American troops to stay in Iraq...[but not]...without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure soldiers didn’t end up in Iraqi jails. These protections...are common in nearly every country where U.S. forces operate...Obama...demanded that [the protections] continue...
​

...no senior U.S. military commander made the case that we should leave forces behind without these protections. Even Sen. John McCain, perhaps the administration’s harshest Iraq critic, admitted in a December 2011 speech discussing the withdrawal that the president’s demand for binding legal immunities “was a matter of vital importance.”

Unfortunately, Iraqi domestic politics made it impossible to reach a deal. Iraqi public opinion surveys consistently showed that the U.S. military presence was deeply unpopular... So when Iraq’s major political bloc leaders...agreed on the need for continued U.S. “trainers” but...were unwilling to seek immunities for [US] troops through the parliament
​

Thank you. The James Jeffrey quote in your post is what I would have cited to make my point.

 

[Jack Hays]

It was most definitely the case in 2008.

We gave Iran the greatest gift in the world- crushing their enemy and giving them an allied government next door.

Did I say 'we'? I meant Bush/Cheney.

Your knowledge of the history of Iraq is no better than your knowledge of the history of science.

 

[Threegoofs]

Your knowledge of the history of Iraq is no better than your knowledge of the history of science.

I find you're expertise in both areas to be tragically inept, if that's any consolation.

Do you think that suddenly Iran only realized the fall of the Sunni dominated Iraq on Nov 4th, 2008?

Oh. You probably do.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The Iraqi government suggested they could proceed without their Parliament. It was our side who insisted on involving them, and thereby scuppering the deal.eace

Thank you. The James Jeffrey quote in your post is what I would have cited to make my point.

The McCain-Graham claim that Iraq’s ‘main political blocs were supportive’ of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq - The Washington Post

James F. Jeffrey, a career diplomat who was ambassador to Iraq during the negotiations, provided The Fact Checker with this statement about the McCain-Graham claim:
“Senator McCain is correct that Iraq’s main political blocs were supportive of U.S. forces remaining in Iraq after 2011, but the situation was quite complex. The Bush administration, to obtain a status of forces agreement with Iraq in 2008, agreed that all troops would be withdrawn by the end of 2011. The U.S. military, with my support, urged the president to reconsider that decision in late 2010, early 2011. The president agreed to urge PM Maliki to accept some U.S. troops after 2011, and that decision was made public in June 2011. It is correct that there was considerable debate within the administration on the size of the force, but there was agreement that it would be a training presence. In the end, everyone on the U.S. side accepted a force of 5,000 personnel including short-term deployments. While the major political parties with the exception of the Sadrist movement supported a U.S. military presence, only the Kurdish parties, about 20 percent of the parliament at best, supported parliament-granted legal immunities for U.S. military personnel. It was the considered position of the administration, including the U.S. military and myself, that our forces could not remain without a parliament-endorsed agreement granting such immunities, and so our forces were withdrawn in accordance with the 2008 agreement.”
​

Where's the bit where Iraq said that they could give us the needed immunities w/o the cooperation of their parliament?
Can you quote it for me 'cause I do not find it.



You seem to be making the case that Obama should have

• acted without the consent of our senior military officers
• abandoned a standard practice which has been in place for US forces around the world
• left our troops in a "hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure...[they don't]...end up in Iraqi jails" and prosecuted under w/e Iraqi laws.

Can you support each one of these things you seem to be saying Obama should have done?

 

[Jack Hays]

I find you're expertise in both areas to be tragically inept, if that's any consolation.

Do you think that suddenly Iran only realized the fall of the Sunni dominated Iraq on Nov 4th, 2008?

Oh. You probably do.

With sufficient US forces (and consequent political influence) in place we were well positioned to counter Iranian influence -- not eliminate it, but counter it. Iraqi leadership very much appreciated this, which is why they wanted us to stay. eace

 

[Jack Hays]

The McCain-Graham claim that Iraq’s ‘main political blocs were supportive’ of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq - The Washington Post

James F. Jeffrey, a career diplomat who was ambassador to Iraq during the negotiations, provided The Fact Checker with this statement about the McCain-Graham claim:
“Senator McCain is correct that Iraq’s main political blocs were supportive of U.S. forces remaining in Iraq after 2011, but the situation was quite complex. The Bush administration, to obtain a status of forces agreement with Iraq in 2008, agreed that all troops would be withdrawn by the end of 2011. The U.S. military, with my support, urged the president to reconsider that decision in late 2010, early 2011. The president agreed to urge PM Maliki to accept some U.S. troops after 2011, and that decision was made public in June 2011. It is correct that there was considerable debate within the administration on the size of the force, but there was agreement that it would be a training presence. In the end, everyone on the U.S. side accepted a force of 5,000 personnel including short-term deployments. While the major political parties with the exception of the Sadrist movement supported a U.S. military presence, only the Kurdish parties, about 20 percent of the parliament at best, supported parliament-granted legal immunities for U.S. military personnel. It was the considered position of the administration, including the U.S. military and myself, that our forces could not remain without a parliament-endorsed agreement granting such immunities, and so our forces were withdrawn in accordance with the 2008 agreement.”
​

Where's the bit where Iraq said that they could give us the needed immunities w/o the cooperation of their parliament?
Can you quote it for me 'cause I do not find it.



You seem to be making the case that Obama should have

• acted without the consent of our senior military officers
• abandoned a standard practice which has been in place for US forces around the world
• left our troops in a "hostile, anti-American environment without the legal protections and immunities required to ensure...[they don't]...end up in Iraqi jails" and prosecuted under w/e Iraqi laws.

Can you support each one of these things you seem to be saying Obama should have done?

" While the major political parties with the exception of the Sadrist movement supported a U.S. military presence, only the Kurdish parties, about 20 percent of the parliament at best, supported parliament-granted legal . . ."

Our military officers wanted a force about three times the size BHO was seeking, and the deal with the parties would have offered complete protection to our troops.

 

[Threegoofs]

With sufficient US forces (and consequent political influence) in place we were well positioned to counter Iranian influence -- not eliminate it, but counter it. Iraqi leadership very much appreciated this, which is why they wanted us to stay. eace

Iraqi leadership is happy to work with Iranians....now.

 

[Jack Hays]

Iraqi leadership is happy to work with Iranians....now.

Charles Krauthammer:

Yes, it is true that there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq when George W. Bush took office. But it is equally true that there was essentially no al-Qaeda in Iraq remaining when Barack Obama took office.

Which makes Bush responsible for the terrible costs incurred to defeat the 2003-09 jihadist war engendered by his invasion. We can debate forever whether those costs were worth it, but what is not debatable is Obama’s responsibility for the return of the Islamist insurgency that had been routed by the time he became president.

By 2009, al-Qaeda in Iraq had not just been decimated but humiliated by the U.S. surge and the Anbar Awakening. Here were aggrieved Sunnis, having ferociously fought the Americans who had overthrown 80 years of Sunni hegemony, now reversing allegiance and joining the infidel invader in crushing, indeed extirpating from Iraq, their fellow Sunnis of al-Qaeda.

At the same time, Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki turned the Iraqi army against radical Shiite militias from Basra all the way north to Baghdad.

The result? “A sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq.” That’s not Bush congratulating himself. That’s Obama in December 2011 describing the Iraq we were leaving behind. He called it “an extraordinary achievement.”


US President Barack Obama speaks on the situation in Iraq on June 19, 2014 in the Brady Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, DC. (Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)
Which Obama proceeded to throw away. David Petraeus had won the war. Obama’s one task was to conclude a status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) to solidify the gains. By Obama’s own admission — in the case he’s now making for a status-of-forces agreement with Afghanistan — such agreements are necessary “because after all the sacrifices we’ve made, we want to preserve the gains” achieved by war.


Which is what made his failure to do so in Iraq so disastrous. His excuse was his inability to get immunity for U.S. soldiers. Nonsense. Bush had worked out a compromise in his 2008 SOFA, as we have done with allies everywhere. The real problem was Obama’s determination to “end the war.” He had three years to negotiate a deal and didn’t even begin talks until a few months before the deadline period.

He offered to leave about 3,000 to 5,000 troops, a ridiculous number. U.S. commanders said they needed nearly 20,000. (We have 28,500 in South Korea and 38,000 in Japan to this day.) Such a minuscule contingent would spend all its time just protecting itself. Iraqis know a nonserious offer when they see one. Why bear the domestic political liability of a continued U.S. presence for a mere token?

Moreover, as historian Max Boot has pointed out, Obama insisted on parliamentary ratification, which the Iraqis explained was not just impossible but unnecessary. So Obama ordered a full withdrawal. And with it disappeared U.S. influence in curbing sectarianism, mediating among factions and providing both intelligence and tactical advice to Iraqi forces now operating on their own.

The result was predictable. And predicted. Overnight, Iran and its promotion of Shiite supremacy became the dominant influence in Iraq. The day after the U.S. departure, Maliki ordered the arrest of the Sunni vice president. He cut off funding for the Sons of Iraq, the Sunnis who had fought with us against al-Qaeda. And subsequently so persecuted and alienated Sunnis that they were ready to welcome back al-Qaeda in Iraq — rebranded in its Syrian refuge as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria — as the lesser of two evils. Hence the stunningly swift ISIS capture of Mosul, Tikrit and so much of Sunni Iraq.


But the jihadist revival is the result of a double Obama abdication: creating a vacuum not just in Iraq but in Syria. Obama dithered and speechified during the early days of the Syrian revolution, before the jihadists had arrived, when the secular revolt was systematically advancing on the Damascus regime.

Hezbollah, Iran and Russia helped the regime survive. Meanwhile, a jihadist enclave (including remnants of the once-routed al-Qaeda in Iraq) developed in large swaths of northern and eastern Syria. They thrived on massive outside support while the secular revolutionaries foundered waiting vainly for U.S. help.


President Obama spoke and took questions on the situation in Iraq at the White House on Thursday. He said the U.S. is prepared to send up to 300 military advisers to Iraq but reiterated there would be no U.S. combat troops on the ground. (  / Associated Press)
Faced with a de facto jihadi state spanning both countries, a surprised Obama now has little choice but to try to re-create overnight, from scratch and in miniature, the kind of U.S. presence — providing intelligence, tactical advice and perhaps even air support — he abjured three years ago

His announcement Thursday that he is sending 300 military advisers is the beginning of that re-creation — a pale substitute for what we long should have had in place but the only option Obama has left himself. The leverage and influence he forfeited with his total withdrawal will be hard to reclaim. But it’s our only chance to keep Iraq out of the hands of the Sunni jihadists of ISIS and the Shiite jihadists of Tehran.

 

[Ganesh]

By 2008 the Surge had worked in Iraq, and political incentives had been aligned to give all parties an interest in multi-sectarian cooperation. A durable more-or-less democracy was available, given a US presence as a balance wheel. That is what was handed off in 2008.

Nothing of the sort was handed over. An ersatz democracy was hastily overlayed violent sectarian passions. The regime in Iraq today is not democratic, but based on tribal lines. That's one of the reasons there is so much animosity. People at the top in Washington did not understand local history, and made a mess of their occupation due to lack of local knowledge, and a generally anti-intellectual, narrow, and uber-nationalist sentiment, derived from some of the most vorocious right wing think tanks then in existence. There was no real democracy then, and no real democracy now.

in Syria there was a window in 2012, long since closed, when support to the secular opposition would have toppled the regime long before the Islamic extremists could mobilize. A cheap, safe, effective opportunity was bypassed.

What window? You mean a US invasion? It wasn't going to happen, after getting bloodied in Iraq, and Afghanistan. Congress wouldn't have approved it, and the joint chiefs would have likely considered a coup d' estate before going on another hair brained military adventure. Aid? The Saudi's have been pouring in aid and weapons- it hasn't worked. Cheap and easy would have turned into complex and bloody, just as the experience in Iraq. More so, as Syria would have been starting relatively intact, whereas Iraq was already in the scuppers.

Both the Raj in India and the district officers of Kenya operated along the lines described.eace

What lines? Misunderstanding ethnic realities and military endurance, and then trying to buy off opponents to facilitate a decent withdrawal? I don't think so.

 

[Threegoofs]

Charles Krauthammer! Jesus. That guy is more clueless than Anthony Watts!

The US presence was holding off the Iranians, yes. And we left and the Iraqis immediately came together.

The only way to have avoided that would have been to basically occupy Iraq permanently. And Krauthammer would have called that a victory.

 

[MadLib]

Even if there were zero lies (instead of 935 recorded ones) in the lead up to the Iraq invasion, it still turned out to be the worst foreign policy decision of the last 100 years. That's an awfully big hill to climb for Bush apologists.

Worse than Vietnam? That's an even bigger hill to climb :lol:

 

[Grim17]

It shows that Cheney never changed his mind.

Whether that's true or not is irrelevant.

It doesn't matter what him, or anyone else believed. What's relevant is what was said to the American public in the lead up to the war, and the one thing you won't find is anyone from the Administration that claimed Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

This interview references another interview from 2001.
It shows that during the time from 2001 until 2004 the Bush Admins message about Iraq's involvement with 911 is something other than "perfectly clear."
Cheney was spewing mis-information which tied Iraq to 911 for years.

Sorry, but that's just what you and all the other "tollerant" ones want to believe. They never claimed Iraq was tied to the 9/11 attacks and never once was it included in the justification for the invasion. For more than a year prior to the invasion, each and every time anyone from the administration was asked if there was any evidence that linked Saddam to those attacks, the answer was "no".

You can make these false accusations all night long, but they will never be anything more than unsubstanciated rubbish.

If the Bush Admin's vice President was saying from at least 2001 that Iraq is or could be linked to 911 it doesn't seem to me that the Bush Admin actually did make it "perfectly clear long before any decisions were made on the Iraq issue" that they had found no connection between Iraq and 911.

They never said they could be linked to the attacks... When asked, all that was ever said in the few months following the attacks, was that intelligence community was looking to see if they had any involvement.

That was the correct course of action to take, and during the lead up to the war, nothing they said ever implicated Iraq in the 9/11 attacks... You know it, I know it, and anyone with an ounce of honesty knows it.

 

[Paschendale]

Replacement of Saddam's hostile dictatorship with an allied Arab democracy in the heart of the Middle East.eace

And you think that actually happened? You really think that we can build someone else a government and they'll keep it? Because that has ever worked in the history of the world... It was complete bull when Bush was spouting it, and it still is.

The idea was that Saddam, in producing or obtaining WMDs, would be in violation of multiple UN Security Council resolutions against him possessing such weapons. I don't recall whether or not the resolutions threatened the use of force against Iraq in the case of noncompliance, but the circumstances were a little different than for just any country that has WMDs.

Of course, the handling of the WMD issue was completely botched by the Bush administration in any case.

It's a little hard to see the validity since those resolutions are just powerful countries telling other countries that they can't be powerful, too. Pakistan is incredibly hostile, incredibly regressive, and has nuclear weapons. If their WMDs, or North Korea's, aren't sufficient justification for an invasion, than no one's are.