The Former CIA Chiefs s and the two generals told the truth. It makes no difference they chose to relate this information in books. They were the people that had the FIRST HAND Intelligence and they have ALL said Bush Cherry Picked that which helped his case and ignored everything else.

LOL.  As I said the investigations show you to be wrong.  I have debunked Zinni before, and shown he flip-flopped on Iraq more than Kerry did. 

It doesn't matter really, there is absolutely NOTHING you will do that will change the fact.  Whining and complaining will not do anything. 

""Despite claims that WMD efforts have ceased," the general-turned-war critic said, "Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions, and is concealing extended-range SCUD missiles, possibly equipped with CBW [chem-bio-weapons] payloads," Zinni said"

More from Zinni....

" Three (Iraq, Iran and Sudan) of the seven recognized state-sponsors of terrorism [emphasis mine] are within this potentially volatile area [CENTCOM], and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan has been sanctioned by the UN Security Council for its harboring of Usama bin Laden. "

IsalandDog

You could not find you way out of a paper bag much less debug people like Gen Zinni and the three CIA Chiefs. Bush lied about the danger Saddam posed to our country and has sent over 3,000 troops to their death for NO REASON! We have more enemies today then in 2002.

drmiler We had no UN approval to invade Iraq.

Like was quoted fool we actually didn't need their tact approval. For God's sake man do you even read what is posted?

Did not need the approval of the UN we already had the UN approval, not that you would notice petty things like the truth. The armistice which means a truce in a war to discuss terms for peace was signed and then the terms were delivered and accepted. This means that we will have peace as long as the losing side complies with the terms of the peace treaty. Pin head was kind enough to break the treaty. That means any nation in the UN has the right to continue the war. I know this goes against your rants which is why you quickly add in that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that we were lied to in order to go to war for oil. None of what you contend is true but why let that stop you. It sounds good and helps you muddy the waters.

Try your damnedest to argue your way around this.

You could not find you way out of a paper bag much less debug people like Gen Zinni and the three CIA Chiefs. Bush lied about the danger Saddam posed to our country and has sent over 3,000 troops to their death for NO REASON! We have more enemies today then in 2002.

We have already proven you wrong.  We have shown the threats, we have shown the reasons.  It's not my fault you fail to see anything but Bush bashing. 

We have enemies because we fight, and don't worry about "offending" them.

drmiler

Only by action of the UN Security Council could we claim action under UN resolutions which we did not have. In addition, Saddam was NO threat to this country and we had no business invading Iraq. Bush told us we were in such danger that to fail to act would risk mushroom clouds over American Cities. He had the Intelligence that said Saddam did NOT HAVE such weapons and DID not have a program to develop such weapons. In addition, Saddam had no way to deliver nuclear weapons. It was all HYPE to attack a country that was NO danger to the United States!

Keep repeating the same things we have shown to be false over and over again.....

Col, tell us how 19 people were a threat to the U.S. on Sept. 10?

drmiler Only by action of the UN Security Council could we claim action under UN resolutions which we did not have.

Again I guess you didn't read, just threw out some more talking points. "If" what you're saying was true the UN would be leveling sanctions and other things at us. ID was correct. Break a "peace treaty" and hostilities can and will break out again and nobodies say so is required.

I guess in all your much vaunted doings that you neglected to brush up on your international law.

IslandDog

The situation in Iraq and what we learned PROVER Saddam was NO threat. You HAVE NOT DISPROVEN anything I HAVE DOCUMENTED.

SINCE THE U.S. HAS VETO POWER IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL, THE U.N. CAN NOT LEVEL SANCTIONS AGINST THE U.S. Both the outgoing and incoming head of the U.N. has said the U.S. did not have the authority to invade Iraq. In addition since Saddam had no military or weapons that threatened us and we had no justification for our invasion!

"In addition since Saddam had no military or weapons that threatened us and we had no justification for our invasion!"

And you persist in silly rules that simply don't exist in the real world.

The situation in Iraq and what we learned PROVER Saddam was NO threat. You HAVE NOT DISPROVEN anything I HAVE DOCUMENTED.

Firing at our planes, planning to assasinate a former President, defying weapons inspectors, but he wasn't a threat.

LOL!

Bakerstreet

Attacking a country that does not pose any danger is not a "silly rule" It is WRONG. Firing at our planes did not threaten Mushroom clouds over our cities. I do not know of any incident of an American plane being shot down by Saddam. To sacrifice 3,000 lives, 22,000 injuries and 1/2 Trillion dollars because a few planes were fired upon is not a wise use of our armed forces. We took the appropriate action when our planes were fired upon. Bush did not justify the Iraq War over the shooting at our aircraft as we imposed the No-Fly Zone. That is just about the most lame excuse yet for this unjustified war! You should send that one to the White House for their Spin Doctors.

"Attacking a country that does not pose any danger is not a "silly rule" It is WRONG."

Then the vast majority of wars fought in the last 150 years have been wrong. Period. Civil War, (debatable) wrong. Spanish American war, wrong. WWI, wrong. Korea, wrong. Vietnam, wrong. Grenada, wrong. Gulf War, wrong. Yugoslavia, wrong.

With a track record like that, why do you assume we're functioning on your values at all?

"Firing at our planes did not threaten Mushroom clouds over our cities."

And neither were we threatened when a boiler blew up on the Maine and we blamed it on Spain. Neither would we have been threatened if we'd have let the little cousin's tiff in Europe during WW1 get settled on its own. Heck, Hitler might have been a successful painter.

Neither would we have been threatened if the whole of Korea and Vietnam had been left to the communists. Come on. You cannot make this point. History laughs at you.

Bakerstreet

You are CORRECT about some of the wars you list However WWI and WWII were of a scope that they impacted the U.S. Korea was a UN action of which we are a part. How does our conducting wars like Vietnam justify this war? If you rob a bank 3 times and then choose to rob another bank, how is the 4th robbery justified by the first three?

"How does our conducting wars like Vietnam justify this war? "

Again, you assume wars even need to be justified. You have to accept that you are functioning on a level of morality that is neither codified nor implied in the history of war. Beyond some meaningless and unenforceable international agreements, most of which were tossed out before the ink was dry, you have no reason to believe that your ideals are valid.

You seem to believe that there is some level of "decency" that we all have to abide by. As a student of history, I see absolutely no reason to believe so. On the contrary, there's plenty of reason to believe the OPPOSITE. So, you might as well be accusing the Bush administration of not following the Marquis of Queensbury rules.

You are thinking in terms of UN/League of nation morality. To study how the world really works, go back about 2000-2500 years and there you'll find the reality of war politics.

Bakerstreet

Yes I believe the vast majority of Americans would want a war to justified and Iraq like Vietnam was not justified. People would not agree to send their sons and daughters to their death and to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a war they did not believe justified.

This country has a Constitution and is a republic that would not embrace an unjust war. The lesson Bush has not learned is you can not conduct a war that the majority do not support. WWII was a War the vast majority supported and the outcome was certain. Iraq and Vietnam were not just or supported by the vast majority of Americans. Both of those wars were civil conflicts. Bush was warned of the dangers of this war but refused to listen to those that are a lot wiser the he will EVER become. Powell was correct-- Break it (and we did) and it is yours. Now we do not know what to do with it!

"Yes I believe the vast majority of Americans would want a war to justified and Iraq like Vietnam was not justified. People would not agree to send their sons and daughters to their death and to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a war they did not believe justified."

Most people would want to live in Willy Wonka's factory, too, but it ain't gonna happen. That's not the way the world works.

Bakerstreet

War is not Willy Wonka's Factory - it is life and death. There is NO excuse to go to war unless there is no other option. The fact is that we did not have to go to war with Iraq. They had no capability of attacking this country and anyone that believes otherwise is in a dream world. They had no military capable of attacking anyone. They had no nuclear weapons and these facts were known in 2002. Congress gave Bush the authority to go to was as a LAST RESORT. That is the problem—WE HAD MANY OTHER RESORTS and when Bush went to war without exercising those other resorts is when he violated the authority he was given by Congress. There was no urgency that required us to attack Iraq in March 2003. It is time to impeach both Bush and Cheney. They have abused their power and refuse to enforce the laws of this country.

"War is not Willy Wonka's Factory - it is life and death. There is NO excuse to go to war unless there is no other option."

Yet, you can't name a war in American history where there wasn't another option. Not a single one. Period. You've gone from "direct threat", to "justified", to "no other option". Next you'll put on a little straw hat and start making rocking chairs.

Why do you do this, round and round, back to your argument? Say it, wait a tick, say it again. You might as well be arguing against lust or greed or pride. Sadly, you don't even have a Bible to back up your politics. It's the world according to the Col.

War is not Willy Wonka's Factory - it is life and death. There is NO excuse to go to war unless there is no other option.

Ok Colonel What other options did we as a nation have that would provide us with security? Keep in mind the facts that AQ was in Iraq, Saddam was providing safe haven for the terrorist that attacked us on 9/11 that this information was public knowledge. That our President said that there is no difference between the terrorist and those that harbor and support terrorist. We just finished attacking Afghanistan for the same reason. That Saddam publicly stated that he would sell or give his WMD to terrorist that want to attack America and or Israel. WMD Saddam said he had but we could not account for and signs that his stockpiles were being shipped out of the country to another country that supports terrorist. So said the Secretary of State to the UN. The Information provided by Germany, not the CIA, that Saddam had mobil labs producing more WMD. With those facts that are not disputed by any nation tell me what YOU as our fearless leader would do other than attack Iraq. Keep in mind that the longer you wait the greater chance that the WMD will be in the hands of terrorist and Intel reports from two nations say that Saddam was trying to rebuild his nuclear program again. So sit and wait until he has a dirty bomb to give to AQ or wait longer till he has a nuclear bomb, or attack now and eliminate the threat before it becomes a clear and present danger to the USA that you as our leader is sworn to protect and defend? What do you do Mr. President?

Bakerstreet

We had no option in the following wars:

Civil War
WWII
Korea

We may have had some options in WWI.

If we start attacking all countries that have a potential of causing our country harm, we will be at war all over the world. In March 2003 we were in far greater danger from North Korea and Iran then Iraq. Just consider a country like Pakistan with a government like Iran. They have Islamic radicals, long range missiles and nuclear weapons.

I spent 30 Years in the Army and attended just about all the schools that taught the doctrine that has proven effective in the past. The way Bush ran the Iraq war VIOLATED just about every policy and doctrine that has been developed over the years. I did not agree with invading Iraq because they were not a danger to the U.S. and it diverted our resources from Afghanistan. Time has shown I was correct. However after Bush made the bad choice to invade Iraq he compounded that error by not sending the troop levels required to maintain stability after Saddam fell. There is a lot of Hype about this so called new policy of Clear, Hold and Build. That is not NEW. The problem that not sending the troops that were need was that we could CLEAR but we DID NOT HOLD due to the limited manpower. That allowed the very same elements to return and reestablish their terrorist operations. Then we would go in again clear and leave. Then the terrorists again reestablished operations. We could not prevent the use of Ammo and explosives that were stored in over 200 locations thought out Iraq. WHY-- We did not have enough manpower. We could not prevent foreign terrorists from crossing into Iraq because we did not have the manpower needed. We could not protect the pipe lines, water and electrical grid from terrorist attacks because we did not have the manpower. The invasion Plan called for 500,000 troops at the time Saddam fell. We had at best 150,000.

In the future the Iraq War will be studied and show both strategic and tactical failure on a scale we have not scene before. This is what happens when we have a Commander-in-chief who lacks both Foreign Policy experience and fails to allow those trained to fight wars to do their job!

we actually didn't have much of an option going into vietnam either. we were obligated under the SEATO pact to respond when asked. and i do believe we were asked to come in and help.

that's not to start a debate on the rest of that war, just our original entry into it.

I spent 30 Years in the Army and attended just about all the schools that taught the doctrine that has proven effective in the past.

What was your MOS?

Paladin77

1193 (Field Artillery), Nuclear weapons (M1 Prefix) and later Finance Officer. I completed the Artillery Officers Basic, Combat Intelligence, Nuclear Weapons, Command and General Staff College and Army War College. I also completed Finance Officers Basic and Advanced.

Col...don't ya just love the nitpicking and having to prove EVERYTHING to these neoconservatives including your very existence sometimes?

it's a huge laugh when their "arguments" are reduced to this kind of browbeating and acting AS IF every i isn't dotted and t crossed and we don't show them everything to the "nth" degree, then we must be lying,,,what a joke they have become!

They can NOT address the real issues and like Bush will never admit when they are wrong!