COL Gene COL Gene

America attacked Iraq because of Intel that was DEAD WRONG!

▼

America attacked Iraq because of Intel that was DEAD WRONG!

from JoeUser Forums
Today the presidential commission studying the WMD and our intelligence operation issued a scathing report. The report concludes that the intelligence agencies were "dead wrong" in almost all of their judgments. They overstated the case that Iraq was rebuilding their WMD programs. It is therefore clear that we went to war predicated on totally erroneous information. It is time for President Bush to admit that the United States made an error when it preemptively attacking Iraq when it did not pose any significant danger to the United States of America. There was no potential of any mushroom cloud over an American city as we were told by the president and vice president of the United States.
politics
21,112 views 71 replies
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler\

your list proves my statement that 99% of military forces in Iraq either came from United States or Great Britain.
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
america BAD.... everyone else good.... america bad... everyone else good... my question is why are you still living here?
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
lee1776

no UN resolution including 1441 authorized the United States to attack Iraq. the point remains Iraq was not a threat to the United States or Great Britain. that is the only legitimate reason for either of our countries attack Iraq or for that matter any other country. Iraq wasn't capable of attacking either of our countries.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think the bottom line is
a)
not just the US believed that they had these weapons
b)
Saddam said or implide he had them
c)
Over 12 UN resolutions for open access to his coutry (big one here)


The reality, for me, is that there was no way you could avoid all of this and still say you want to protect the US.
Iraq just used its middle finger every time a UN resolution came around. We can't live in a world like that.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
no UN resolution including 1441 authorized the United States to attack Iraq. the point remains Iraq was not a threat to the United States or Great Britain. that is the only legitimate reason for either of our countries attack Iraq or for that matter any other country. Iraq wasn't capable of attacking either of our countries.


The U.N. resolutions gave the U.S. authority.


Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's why I use AMD


aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahaahah funny and in-site-ful.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem as I have ALWAYS seen it, is that we bothered with excuses at all. After the cease fire, when he fired at one of our planes in the no-fly zone, we should have done the job. We were attacked militarily.

Who gives a damn about WMDs, whatever. He invaded Kuwait, murdered hundreds of thousands of people, and then when he was "contained", he abused Chinese imports to rebuild weapons systems that were not allowed him according to the cease fire.

The whole begging and pleading and WMD stuff was just catering to the doves and dishonest members of the UN who were making too much money to care who they were making it off of. We should have simply destroyed the man the first time he fired on our aircraft in the no-fly zone.

It's funny. An administratin goes out of its way to cater to activists and crooks, and those very acts are used against them. Had we simply said "He shot at our planes", there wouldn't be anything you guys could say.

Next time, I hope we are smart enough to just do what we want, and not make excuses to people who will hate us no matter what we do.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Moderateman

You are such as ass. No one said America is Bad. The issue is the policy of Bush who for reasons known only to him wanted to remove Saddam from power. Today the majoritry of Americans do not believe we should have gone into Iraq. Does that mean we should all leave? The issue is following a president that is leading this country into places most people do not want to go. That is true of Social Security, border security, the deficit, our trade policy, energy, healthcare and the loss of good paying jobs.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
i'm not positive the intel was wrong. i think it was cooked. wolfowitz was a member of the 'team b' advisory panel...perle was introduced polish immigrant richard pipes (who wound up team b chairman)...rumsfeld and cheney were enthusiastic team b supporters. it is so similar to what team b was doing, it's difficult for me to think otherwise.


You can think that all you want. Do a little googling and you soon see that the US was not the only intel agency that thought that. There is NO way we could cook info for the whole world.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top

no UN resolution including 1441 authorized the United States to attack Iraq


Wrong again COL: Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Reply #37 from PolMach Forums Top
Humorous........
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
I guess it was OK to invade a country, kill thousands of people, result in the deaths of over a thousand of our own soldiers, and maiming and injuries of tens of thousands of more Iraqis and Americans, all based on erroneous informations. Can one say "Oooops!"?

But, one good reporter gets his entire career ruined by a bunch of neocon hacks because he went with a story that didn't have entirely backed up info. Aside from the fact that the story was based on some kind of forgery, it was otherwise not wrong. And, no one died as a result. No one was injured as a result. But, his he was hung out to dry.

I hate the fucking hypocrisy of the neocon death cult republican conservative lying fucking hacks. You're a bunch of rotten to the core fascists. I cannot believe....... errrrrr......... I'm rephrasing that......... it continues to amaze me that you still can justify this illegal war, based on lies, deceptions and lousy intelligence. You're all totally insane idiots. And, our president, your idiot leader, is the worst of the worst.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
"it continues to amaze me that you still can justify this illegal war, based on lies, deceptions and lousy intelligence."


I agree, in a way. I don't think we should have used that information to justify it, either. I think we should have pointed out that he was firing on our planes, and removed the recurring problem.

It's a shame that people feel they have to justify themselves to people who will hate them no matter what they say or do. In a no-win situation like that, it is much better just to go on and do what you think is right.
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
Under UN rules, ONLY the Security Council has the power to use force . The Security Council DID NOT authorize the US to use force in Iraq.The UN Chief said that the US action was NOT Atuthorized by the UN.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
" Under UN rules, ONLY the Security Council has the power to use force . The Security Council DID NOT authorize the US to use force in Iraq.The UN Chief said that the US action was NOT Atuthorized by the UN."


When Security Council votes are bought, their oversight is meaningless.
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
little_whip

The facts surrounding the Bush National Guard Service have been confirmed by the release of his records by DoD. The documents CBS used were forged but they were not needed to document what took place.

First, the Grounding Order was released and it stated Bush failed to take the required physical

Second, his pay records showed he did not attend drills in June, July, Aug, Sept, Oct, Dec 1972. He was not able to maintain flight proficiancy without attendiing drills and flying.

His Officer Efficiency Report was also released and it stated, Lt Bush was NOT OBSERVED during mid 72-Mid 73.

Officers that did not obey regulations ( take Physical) or attend drills are subject to disciplinary action. policy at that time was to place members of the reserve of guard on active-duty when they fail to attend drills or meet their other commitments to the guard or reserve. not only was Bush not activated but he was granted an early ( 8 month) honorable discharge after failing to attend drills and after failing to comply with the Air Force regulations the required annual flight physicals. This is documented by his own records and not by any bogus documents used by CBS. Thus the story CBS told was true, the documents that they presented were false. All they had to do was use the official records released by DOD to prove every single point they attempted to prove with the falsified documents. CBS was dead wrong to try and use falsified documents of the facts surrounding Bush's National Guard service and should have used his records to established without any doubt Bush did not meet his obligations that he accepted when he was commissioned in the Texas Air National Guard. If in 2005 members of the Guard or Reserve did the SAME THINGS Lt bush did in 1972, they would be punished for not following regulations! Members of the Guard and Reserve in 1972 who did the same things Bush did were punished but not Lt Bush!
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
The issue is IF of our current Reserve and Guard menbers did the same thing as their Commander-in-Chief, they would be punished and he was allowed to get away with violating the most basic requirement of the military -- obey lawful orders. Time does not change that issue! He not only missed drills but failed to take the physical which resulted in his grounding. He was in the guard to fly not take up space!Bush never admits when he does things that are wrong. As late as the 2004 election he contended that he met his obligation to the Guard which he did not. Clinton and Cheney more honest than Bush, they did not want to serve and they use deferments to get out of serving. Bush wanted to make it look as if he served without fulfilling his obligations.
Reply #44 from PolMach Forums Top
blah blah blah blah.

Name me a president that never lied and I might agree that it matters. You're hysterical, Gene, the chicken-little of JU....a one trick pony. What the hell are you going to write about after 2008?

LoL @ Clinton "more honest than Bush." Isn't he the same guy that, uhhmm, was impeached for lying under oath?


--Don't you know.....Washington, he cut down a cherry tree and told his parents, he couldn't tell a lie.....[ ]

--Seriously though......Maybe some of the Earlier Presidents....{Jefferson,Adams,etc...} as the world politics changed, the presidents changed


Bush never admits when he does things that are wrong.


--Two things: 1} Have you? 2} Everyone is guilty of Pride.....its what makes us human.


--Could any one honestly tell me that if you had access {due to daddy....or whomever} to get certain things, get out of,etc.... that you wouldn't ?
Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
Everything Bush got was because of Daddy and Daddy's contacts.

In addition, the results of Bush will burden this country for decades to come!
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
Under UN rules, ONLY the Security Council has the power to use force . The Security Council DID NOT authorize the US to use force in Iraq.The UN Chief said that the US action was NOT Atuthorized by the UN.


Oh REALLY? Then explain to me the meaning UN resolution 678. That is "if" you can.


The U.N. resolutions gave the U.S. authority.


Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
There was no threat from Iraq thus our attack was an error! That is what Bush does not understand even after the proof in clear that Saddam was no danger to the U S. Attacking a country because the leader is an evil dictator would mean we would be at war all the time all over the world.All Bush had to do is wait and the inspectors that were in Iraq would have discovered that there was no WMD. There was no urgency for him to start a war before we knew the truth about the WMD.
Reply #48 from PolMach Forums Top
It is time for President Bush to admit that the United States made an error


CG, your credibility and objectivity has just about hit bottom, you have such a hardon for GW it's pathetic. The intelligence agencies were wrong... yippee doo. Eight years of Clinton helped create it (and I'm not bothering to subtatntiate that here, I've done that before). Naturally, you fail to mention that the Silberman - Robb panel (bipartisan) concluded that:

"The analysts who worked Iraqi weapons issues universally agreed that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments," the report said.

The report lambaste's Tenet (who gave Bush the daily intel briefing). What did the commission find on Tenet?

"the daily reports sent to the president and senior policymakers discussing Iraq over many months proved to be disastrously one-sided."

Hmmm.... who appointed Tenet?????
a) Teletubbie Dipsy
b) Bill Clinton
c) Vincente Fox
d) Geraldo Rivera

See if you can get this one right.

The obsession with GW is incredibly pitiful. As usual, you cite a finding, fold, spindle and mutilate it, out of context, redirect to something off topic, to provide fodder for more GW bashing.
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
There was no threat from Iraq thus our attack was an error! That is what Bush does not understand even after the proof in clear that Saddam was no danger to the U S. Attacking a country because the leader is an evil dictator would mean we would be at war all the time all over the world.All Bush had to do is wait and the inspectors that were in Iraq would have discovered that there was no WMD. There was no urgency for him to start a war before we knew the truth about the WMD.


So then are you admiting by omission the fact that the UN gave the US the right to use force? Think carefully now. (UN res 678)
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
The issue is not IF the UN gave permission. The issue is that we attacked a country that did not pose any threat to the United States. We have suffered over 1,500 deaths and over 25,000 injuries and have spent $300 Billion to attack a country that was no danger to America. WHY? Everyone would support defending the U S . We were not doing that when we attacked Iraq.