Iraq War a Mistake

[RandFan]

I'd say that "mistake" is putting it mildly, but there were lots of folks (and imo even Saddam himself) that believed Iraq was hiding WMD's false info or otherwise.

To explain, I'm willing to bet that there were folks assigned by Saddam to come up WMD's and they knew what the penalty was for failure in Iraq under Saddam - "Sure boss, they're right here, see where it says Atom Bomb?"

My greatest fear at the time when the regime folded was that we'd end up with a concentration of troops in Baghdad and somebody would push that switch. I could see a dictator like Saddam doing it.

With what we know now, sure it looks like a giant poorly informed and planned cluster ****, but between bad information and half ass planning at the executive level we made about the best of it that we could.

Was the belief reasonable and if so, why? Is it the job of our intelligence agency to separate fact from fiction? What evidence was there to believe that Saddam had WMD?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Oh good, the "they lied" is gaining traction in the news media.

Watching Hardball right now. Matthews is on the case and he's addressing the Pubbie claim the current problem is we aren't hawkish enough.

How many more soldiers would need to die before they figure out more military is a failed approach? I think the total in Vietnam was ~54,000.

 

[RandFan]

Oh good, the "they lied" is gaining traction in the news media.

Watching Hardball right now. Matthews is on the case and he's addressing the Pubbie claim the current problem is we aren't hawkish enough.

How many more soldiers would need to die before they figure out more military is a failed approach? I think the total in Vietnam was ~54,000.

I honestly don't think the consequences matter. No amount of money is too much. No amount of American deaths is too much.

The only thing that is too expensive is military veteran benefits. The GOP has taken every possible opportunity to strip veterans of benefits while campaigning on supporting of troops.

Dec 2, 2014 Defense budget would cut benefits

Feb 27 2014 Military-groups-blast-republicans-for-killing-a-bill-to-support vets

Dec, 23 2013 Rep. Paul Ryan defends cuts to military retirement in budget

It goes on and on.

 

[C_Felix]

If there was a valid reason to take out Saddam, why the need to make stuff up to build the case?

They knew damn well Saddam was not a direct threat to the US.

Uh...we all know there wasn't.

But, having to explain to 11 year olds why the country is going to war...well...that's what I told them.

 

[RandFan]

George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public

On "Hardball," Michael Morell concedes the Bush administration misled the nation into the Iraq War.

 

[RandFan]

Paul Krugman Drops Epic Truth Bomb on Latest Round of Lies About Iraq War

The fraudulence of the case for war was actually obvious even at the time: the ever-shifting arguments for an unchanging goal were a dead giveaway. So were the word games — the talk about W.M.D that conflated chemical weapons (which many people did think Saddam had) with nukes, the constant insinuations that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11.

And at this point we have plenty of evidence to confirm everything the war’s opponents were saying. We now know, for example, that on 9/11 itself — literally before the dust had settled — Donald Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, was already plotting war against a regime that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack. “Judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] ...sweep it all up things related and not”; so read notes taken by Mr. Rumsfeld’s aide.

This was, in short, a war the White House wanted, and all of the supposed mistakes that, as Jeb puts it, “were made” by someone unnamed actually flowed from this underlying desire. Did the intelligence agencies wrongly conclude that Iraq had chemical weapons and a nuclear program? That’s because they were under intense pressure to justify the war. Did prewar assessments vastly understate the difficulty and cost of occupation? That’s because the war party didn’t want to hear anything that might raise doubts about the rush to invade. Indeed, the Army’s chief of staff was effectively fired for questioning claims that the occupation phase would be cheap and easy.

 

[BStrong]

Was the belief reasonable and if so, why? Is it the job of our intelligence agency to separate fact from fiction? What evidence was there to believe that Saddam had WMD?

I have no link to anything that would provide an absolute answer, but after Saddam gassed the Kurds (with or without US help, depending on how you're inclined) and after GW I where Saddam essentially played tag with UN arms inspectors there was enough doubt in the question of WMD yes/no I can see where reasonable observers could come to the conclusion that the Iraqi's were hiding WMD.

I make absolutely no representation that the specific ******** stories that were put out were correct or even disseminated in good faith, but a bunch of us (I'm talking about old farts w/ opinions) believed at the time that there was the possibility that the Iraqis were hiding the fun stuff from the outside world.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public

On "Hardball," Michael Morell concedes the Bush administration misled the nation into the Iraq War.

It would appear this article is creating some of the attention to the deceit.

On Hardball he had the hardest time admitting Bush told outright lies but Matthews pinned him down and he finally said yes, Bush falsely cited Morell and Morell didn't say anything at the time.

From the Mother Jones subheading:

On "Hardball," Michael Morell concedes the Bush administration misled the nation into the Iraq War.

 

[Brainster]

OMG, you caught Clarke lying about being a Republican. Like I was (still registered). What in your world leads you to accept that being a Republican means never donating to liberal organizations?

• You ignore my questions.
• You ignore the fact that there never was an intent to acquire Yellow Cake.
• You ignore the fact that Clarke was correct.
• You ignore the fact that Wilson was correct.

Tell me who sounded alarms about Iraq? Tell me who ignored those Alarms? Tell me who all admitted their mistakes publicly?

Ex-Aide Recounts Terror Warnings

Imagine Obama was warned of Benghazi. You and I both know he would likely have been impeached. Bush? We don't hold the GOP accountable for gross incompetence.

Here's Clarke on whether 9-11 could have been prevented:

GORTON: Now, since my yellow light is on, at this point my final question will be this: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?

CLARKE: No.

 

[RandFan]

Here's Clarke on whether 9-11 could have been prevented:

Thank you for leaving the list up and then ignoring them again. Odd that a man with no credibiility would give such an honest answer that didn't advance the agenda you've given him. In any event, he answered a narrow question. The question was not, "could anything have been done?".

Had the Administration not been so grossly incompetent we might have actually been able to come up with an alternate plan. We never had that opportunity as Clarke points out.

Clarke: 9/11 might have been prevented - NBC News

Leaders of 9/11 Panel Say Attacks Were Probably Preventable

9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable - CBS News

 

[RandFan]

I have no link to anything that would provide an absolute answer, but after Saddam gassed the Kurds (with or without US help, depending on how you're inclined) and after GW I where Saddam essentially played tag with UN arms inspectors there was enough doubt in the question of WMD yes/no I can see where reasonable observers could come to the conclusion that the Iraqi's were hiding WMD.

I make absolutely no representation that the specific ******** stories that were put out were correct or even disseminated in good faith, but a bunch of us (I'm talking about old farts w/ opinions) believed at the time that there was the possibility that the Iraqis were hiding the fun stuff from the outside world.

You are talking about me sir.

 

[Brainster]

Thank you for leaving the list up and then ignoring them again. Odd that a man with no credibiility would give such an honest answer that didn't advance the agenda you've given him. In any event, he answered a narrow question. The question was not, "could anything have been done?".

Had the Administration not been so grossly incompetent we might have actually been able to come up with an alternate plan. We never had that opportunity as Clarke points out.

Clarke: 9/11 might have been prevented - NBC News

Leaders of 9/11 Panel Say Attacks Were Probably Preventable

9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable - CBS News

So Clarke lied to the 9-11 Commission? And you still consider him credible, and yourself cured of your former gullibility?

 

[RandFan]

So Clarke lied to the 9-11 Commission? And you still consider him credible, and yourself cured of your former gullibility?

I don't read minds. I'll leave that to you.

 

[Brainster]

I don't read minds. I'll leave that to you.

Well, he either lied to the 9-11 Commission or Hardball. Or are you still gullible enough not to see that? Even NBC News recognizes the problem:

Clarke’s comments, in an hourlong interview on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” were a departure from the testimony he gave last week before the independent commission investigating the attacks, when he answered no to whether there was “the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9-11” even if everything he had called for had been implemented.

A departure; that's right up there with "misspoke" as a euphemism for lying.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Great point. Before Cheney took office as VP he was working to find a way to start a war in Iraq.

Jesus, I remember all the sabre rattling. It was disturbing, I recall.

 

[Crossbow]

The real problem with the intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq War was not that the intelligence was old, unconfirmed, or based on single-sources (which it was, and those in charge were well aware of these issues); instead, the real problem was that the pro-war people in charge (from that stupid, idiotic, liar George Bush on down) is that there was an assumption that Saddam did have WMDs.

Therefore, since the people in charge wanted war and since the people in charge were also sure that Saddam had WMDs, then it did not matter that the intelligence was old, unconfirmed, or based on single sources.

Around this forum, for example, some of the pro-war posters (such as ‘Jedi Knight’ who said that "truckloads of [Iraqi] WMDs would be discovered") called anti-war posters (such as myself) as “Saddam supporters” when the glaring intelligence and logic deficits were exposed among the pro-war people. By the same token, those in charge often denigrated the anti-war people therefore it is not surprising that the USA was dragged into the horribly stupid and destructive Iraq War.

Ugh! It is all so similar to the Vietnam War.

 

[The Big Dog]

The real problem with the intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq War was not that the intelligence was old, unconfirmed, or based on single-sources (which it was, and those in charge were well aware of these issues); instead, the real problem was that the pro-war people in charge (from that stupid, idiotic, liar George Bush on down) is that there was an assumption that Saddam did have WMDs.

Therefore, since the people in charge wanted war and since the people in charge were also sure that Saddam had WMDs, then it did not matter that the intelligence was old, unconfirmed, or based on single sources.

Around this forum, for example, some of the pro-war posters (such as ‘Jedi Knight’ who said that "truckloads of [Iraqi] WMDs would be discovered") called anti-war posters (such as myself) as “Saddam supporters” when the glaring intelligence and logic deficits were exposed among the pro-war people. By the same token, those in charge often denigrated the anti-war people therefore it is not surprising that the USA was dragged into the horribly stupid and destructive Iraq War.

Ugh! It is all so similar to the Vietnam War.

But Saddam did have WMD, we know that because of his attacks on the Kurds.

 

[Crossbow]

But Saddam did have WMD, we know that because of his attacks on the Kurds.

Germany had similar WMDs during World War I.

The rationale to start a war based on decades old, and quite obsolete, data is quite stupid.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

But Saddam did have WMD, we know that because of his attacks on the Kurds.

In 1988. Who is using outdated intel now? Are you pretending the UN weapons inspections never happened? Or the first Gulf War? Or subsequent US actions taken to both destroy existing stockpiles and prevent further acquisition?

 

[The Big Dog]

Germany had similar WMDs during World War I.

The rationale to start a war based on decades old, and quite obsolete, data is quite stupid.

The question was whether Saddam had WMD's.

The data showed incontrovertibly that he had them and the will to use them.

Therefore, it is difficult for me to conclude that attempted genocide of the Kurds using a WMD is an obsolete data point.

Case in point, we are quite near the point where the time between the present and the 9/11 terrorist attacks as the vote on the Iraq war resolution was from the Halabja chemical attack.

I don't right now consider the 9/11 attacks to be an obsolete data point.