The War For Oil in Iraq

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

President Bush blamed faulty intelligence for invading Iraq.

Yes, DNA is a b*tch.

Wow....how clever.  Did you make that up all by yourself or were you and FauxTurd working together on that one?

[RecycleMichael]

Are you really ready to defend President Bush?

I know you love to argue, but that one will take most of your time.

[iplaw]

Depends on what you're talking about?  The intelligence leading up to the war was conclusive and fully corroborated by at least 6 of the top information gathering agencies worldwide (MI6, CIA, Russian Intelligence, and Massad just to name a few).  Failing to act on the information he was given would have been negligent.

I can argue with many things the man has done in office, but this isn't one of them.

--Edit-- typos

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

President Bush blamed faulty intelligence for invading Iraq.

Yes, DNA is a b*tch.

I've never once heard you comment on Bill Clinton saying there was no doubt that the day he left office there were un-accounted for WMD's in Iraq.  

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/index.html

"Clinton also said Tuesday night that at the end of his term, there was "a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for " in Iraq.

"So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'"

Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons." "

Democrats were just as complicit, including the Clinton Administration in promoting the idea Iraq posed a genuine threat.  If Iraq had been a 1 year milk run, this would be a non-issue today.  I'm willing to bet Sandy Burglar and Madeleine Albright advised the Bush admin on Iraq when the WH changed hands in 2001.

[Rico]

"Sandy Burglar"

that's good........[}:)]

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

President Bush blamed faulty intelligence for invading Iraq.

Yes, DNA is a b*tch.

I've never once heard you comment on Bill Clinton saying there was no doubt that the day he left office there were un-accounted for WMD's in Iraq.  

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/index.html

"Clinton also said Tuesday night that at the end of his term, there was "a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for " in Iraq.

"So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say, 'You got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.'"

Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons." "

Democrats were just as complicit, including the Clinton Administration in promoting the idea Iraq posed a genuine threat.  If Iraq had been a 1 year milk run, this would be a non-issue today.  I'm willing to bet Sandy Burglar and Madeleine Albright advised the Bush admin on Iraq when the WH changed hands in 2001.

Amazing.  When confronted with documented history, nothing but crickets.  The campaign of '04 is what set in motion so many co-conspirators of all parties running for cover on this war.  Thanks alot John Kerry for the lack of unity you helped foment.

[iplaw]

Facts and statistics are kryptonite to people on the Internets.

[FOTD]

and meanwhile the smell of rotting bodies fills the air while thousands more lives are continually being uprooted and destroyed by this unnecessary and immoral war...and the media acts like it just made a new discovery and tries to distance itself from it's own complicity in getting us in this quagmire...

The New York Times? Isn't that where this shi'ite all got started? - I hope they mention themselves and Judith Miller in there.


The Truth About the War
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/opinion/06fri1.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1212780674-AlLOeWUz+4+WKz5lh9ua6g

"The committee's dissenting Republicans attempted to have this entire section of the report deleted — along with a conclusion that the administration misrepresented the intelligence when it warned of a risk that Mr. Hussein could give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups. They said Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney never used the word "intent" and were merely trying to suggest that Iraq "could" do those terrible things."

" We cannot say with certainty whether Mr. Bush lied about Iraq. But when the president withholds vital information from the public — or leads them to believe things that he knows are not true — to justify the invasion of another country, that is bad enough."

POS editorial. They don't even know the definition of a lie!

[Conan71]

The Bush admin should have borrowed from the Hillary book when confronted and said "We mis-spoke".

Which basically they did after the SOTU address, but it's since been majorly blown out of proportion by his enemies to taint Bush's legacy.  There are a whole lot of co-conspirators including Democrat legislators, NYT, WaPo, CNN, and all the other news outlets who didn't question much of anything.  It became unpopuar to have been for the war once jobs were threatened in the '04 election.

"I was for the war before I was against it."

"If I knew then what I knew now, I would not have voted for it."

Brutal honesty- just what we all need.

Legislative intel committees had the opportunity to ask harder questions and request more verification.  Ostensibly, they were privy to the same intel the State Dept. and the WH had.  A lot of people and institutions had the option of digging deeper, if they chose.  

The fact remains that from 1991-on no one knew for certain what Saddam could or could not do, nor what all was or was not being hidden in Iraq.  What's all but disappeared from the media is the bellicose threats and taunts by Hussein and his repeated refusal to allow UN-mandated inspections.  If a nuclear war-head had sailed out of Iraq and hit Tel-Aviv or western Europe in 2005 or so, everyone would be blaming Bush for not doing enough.

[FOTD]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

The Bush admin should have borrowed from the Hillary book when confronted and said "We mis-spoke".

Which basically they did after the SOTU address, but it's since been majorly blown out of proportion by his enemies to taint Bush's legacy.  There are a whole lot of co-conspirators including Democrat legislators, NYT, WaPo, CNN, and all the other news outlets who didn't question much of anything.  It became unpopuar to have been for the war once jobs were threatened in the '04 election.

"I was for the war before I was against it."

"If I knew then what I knew now, I would not have voted for it."

Brutal honesty- just what we all need.

Legislative intel committees had the opportunity to ask harder questions and request more verification.  Ostensibly, they were privy to the same intel the State Dept. and the WH had.  A lot of people and institutions had the option of digging deeper, if they chose.  

The fact remains that from 1991-on no one knew for certain what Saddam could or could not do, nor what all was or was not being hidden in Iraq.  What's all but disappeared from the media is the bellicose threats and taunts by Hussein and his repeated refusal to allow UN-mandated inspections.  If a nuclear war-head had sailed out of Iraq and hit Tel-Aviv or western Europe in 2005 or so, everyone would be blaming Bush for not doing enough.

Man, you're good at CYA. "If" is old hat. Now "if" these goons had been responsible..... There is no doubt this was instigated by a mental case who won not one but two elections. And you no doubt along with others here in Rome voted for the morons not once but twice. Good judge of character. The manipulation starts at the top and is now proven. This episode in American History will play out over time but the US needs to get the hell out of that region.

You're so sheepish, aren't you Conit?

[Conan71]

It's Con-Man, not Conit FOTARD.

Looking at the percieved threat to national security by the American public after 9/11, at the time it seemed more prudent to err on the side of taking out an asshat instead of allowing him to possibly shift weapons and money around to terrorists.

Personally, I would have kept him on a short leash and a presense in the Persian gulf to keep an eye and pressure on him.

Did Bush ultimately **** up on this?  Yep.  At the time, everyone thought this would be a one year milk run and we'd have a rotation of 20 to 50K troops going in and out helping with the clean up and keeping insurgents down within a year.  Based on how quick we kicked the Taliban's donkey in Afghanistan, it was assumed Iraq would be just as simple.

Remember wars are good business for the CIA the military, and donors to Congressional and Senate campaigns both D and R.  Don't under-estimate pressure coming from those angles as well.

[USRufnex]

No.

God forbid anyone listen to the veterans I talked to off of 31st Mingo back in 2003... dunno... maybe I'm a few blocks off...

EVERYONE at that bar... everyone to a "t"... told me that this war would last YEARS LONGER than the Bush admin told us....

These are veterans...  Tulsa veterans ......... not Jane Fonda.

[FOTD]

AP: Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki says U.S. troops should leave Iraq "as soon as possible," according to a magazine report, and he called presidential candidate Barack Obama's suggestion of 16 months "the right timeframe for a withdrawal." Uh, John McCain and George W. Bush, are you going to Stand Down when the Iraqis assert their Liberty and Freedom to End the Occupation? Not until the Bush/Cheney crowd gets bases to protect U.S. and European Oil "Concessions" in the offing.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/07/19/6206886-ap.html


Obama Would Be `Strong' Afghan Partner, Karzai Spokesman Says
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=adc_LxrvDVkM&refer=home

Suck on that Bush/Cheney/McSame!

[cannon_fodder]

Full transcript of that interview:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,566852,00.html

It relays a very different message.  He speaks very favorably of both the invasion (pointing our that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands in wars and gas attacks and tortured many more than the militants have) in general and President Bush individually.

The gist of it is correct, he thinks a short time frame is more realistic than a Germany type time frame for occupying troops.  But he does not share your war-for-oil crap that you are using his words to support.  Read the interview, he is a very reasoned individual - or a great politician anyway.

[FOTD]

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/372.html
"Take off those yellow ribbons. They're a fraud."



Maliki Wanted To "Squeeze" Bush, The Administration Wanted A "Clarification"

http://blogs.dw-world.de/acrossthepond/tim/1.6835.html

Ask and ye shall receive. Earlier Sunday, I questioned Nouri al-Maliki's motive in both praising Barack Obama's 16 month timeline for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq and in offering a quasi-retraction. Later Sunday, the Associated Press answered the first and The Washington Post answered the second.

According to the AP, Maliki's interest wasn't in influencing the U.S. election, but, rather, using the U.S. election to influence the Bush administration's commitment to removing troops. "Let's squeeze them," Maliki reportedly told advisers. The maneuver came with a side of electoral politics, the AP reported.

Why the semi-retraction? According to the Post, which quoted a White House press secretary, that move came after the Bush administration called Maliki's office "to express concern and seek clarification of the remarks."

It's still unclear if Maliki has any sense of how much impact his comments might have had on the U.S. election, or how much pressure the Bush administration put on Maliki's office. But since I raised the questions, I felt obligated to report back after they were essentially resolved, assuming the reporting is accurate."


We will withdraw the "combat troops" and use the current bases for the new "Armed military Advisors". Just like Vietnam, only the other way around. Changing the definition of role of the troops changes only the semantics, but you are supposed to be conned into thinking the situation has changed.

Support our troops. Vote Democratic.