Iraq War a Mistake

[Cl1mh4224rd]

not sure what that has to do with genocide....

You don't make decisions today about things that were true last year. Not without confirming those things are still true, at least.

Of course, Saddam's genocide of the Kurds wasn't the reason for the invasion, so your focus on that, in this thread, is off-topic.

 

[johnny karate]

i was actually responding to someone who claimed that the gas attacks on the kurds were irrelevant.

So I am quoting from the iraq war resolution.

i already responded to your question, tho

No, you didn't.

You explained why you were against the war at the time.

You have yet to explain why you still oppose a war that you have so eloquently defended over the last few pages of this thread.

Why do you still maintain a rule to not vote for anyone who supported the Iraq War?

 

[The Big Dog]

You don't make decisions today about things that were true last year. Not without confirming those things are still true, at least.

Of course, Saddam's genocide of the Kurds wasn't the reason for the invasion, so your focus on that, in this thread, is off-topic.

That is ridiculous. I quoted the Iraq war resolution.

At this point you are basically denying history.

 

[RandFan]

That is ridiculous. I quoted the Iraq war resolution.

At this point you are basically denying history.

No. Not even close.

 

[The Big Dog]

No. Not even close.

You have read the war resolution right?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You have read the war resolution right?

Have you followed anything here at all? Like this for example:

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

For a dozen years, the Bush-Cheney crowd have been trying to escape—or cover up—an essential fact of the W. years: President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their lieutenants misled the American public about the WMD threat supposedly posed by Saddam Hussein in order to grease the way to the invasion of Iraq. For Bush, Cheney, and the rest, this endeavor is fundamental; it is necessary to protect the legitimacy of the Bush II presidency. Naturally, Karl Rove and other Bushies have quickly tried to douse the Bush-lied-us-into-war fire whenever such flames have appeared. And in recent days, as Jeb Bush bumbled a question about the Iraq War, he and other GOPers have peddled the fictitious tale that his brother launched the invasion because he was presented lousy intelligence. But now there's a new witness who will make the Bush apologists' mission even more impossible: Michael Morell, a longtime CIA official who eventually became the agency's deputy director and acting director. During the preinvasion period, he served as Bush's intelligence briefer.

George W. Bush’s CIA briefer admits Iraq WMD “intelligence” was a lie

The thing is, the Iraq War was not the result of an intelligence goof — rather, the country’s top office systematically misled the public about Iraq’s nonexistent WMD program, as well as Saddam Hussein’s link to Al Qaeda.

On Tuesday night, former CIA Deputy Director and Bush’s intelligence briefer Michael Morell appeared on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” where he, under an amount of good cable news duress, admitted that the administration intentionally misrepresented intelligence.

 

[The Big Dog]

Have you followed anything here at all? Like this for example:

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


George W. Bush’s CIA briefer admits Iraq WMD “intelligence” was a lie

Have you? It is as if you have not read anything. Several people, not just me have pointed to evidence showing that congress and the administration relied on undeniable evidence to support the war resolution. You have ignored it.

By the way, a skeptic would not rely on salon and mother jones. They would go to original source.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Original source? Like the Chris Matthews interview of the advisor when Matthews pinned him down, 'did they lie about the evidence you provided them?' 'Yes.'

 

[The Big Dog]

Have you? It is as if you have not read anything. Several people, not just me have pointed to evidence showing that congress and the administration relied on undeniable evidence to support the war resolution. You have ignored it.

By the way, a skeptic would not rely on salon and mother jones. They would go to original source.

Original source? Like the Chris Matthews interview of the advisor when Matthews pinned him down, 'did they lie about the evidence you provided them?' 'Yes.'

'did you ignore about the evidence regarding the war resolution?' 'Yes.'

lol.

Morell is very good at selling books and modifying talking points.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Speaking of talking points, does anyone else remember how the administration's talking points changed from "WMDs!" just before the invasion to "Iraqi liberation!" as soon as the invasion began?

That was weird.

 

[Crossbow]

'did you ignore about the evidence regarding the war resolution?' 'Yes.'

lol.

Morell is very good at selling books and modifying talking points.

I am getting the distinct impression that you are posting facetious replies as opposed to considered replies.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Have you? It is as if you have not read anything. Several people, not just me have pointed to evidence showing that congress and the administration relied on undeniable evidence to support the war resolution. You have ignored it.

By the way, a skeptic would not rely on salon and mother jones. They would go to original source.

You are using the term "undeniable evidence" in a manner inconsistent with professional intelligence analysis. You are also attempting to fill a basket with one apple. For that to work it needs to be one heck of an apple. It isn't. The apple is undersized, bird-pocked and wormy.

 

[The Big Dog]

I am getting the distinct impression that you are posting facetious replies as opposed to considered replies.

I am quoting the Iraq War Resolution passed by Congress in 2002.

The actual legislation that is actually under discussion.

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Circular logic - you are justifying the quality of the intelligence by pointing out where they used it to justify a predesired war.

 

[The Big Dog]

Circular logic - you are justifying the quality of the intelligence by pointing out where they used it to justify a predesired war.

I've heard of holocaust denial, but this is the first time I've seen halabja denial

“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

 

[sunmaster14]

Original source? Like the Chris Matthews interview of the advisor when Matthews pinned him down, 'did they lie about the evidence you provided them?' 'Yes.'

WTF? Did you even watch the interview? He admitted that a single part of a single sentence, which Dick Cheney uttered on a Sunday talk show on March 16, 2003 (that's right, 4 days before the invasion began and long after it was set in motion), was not true. I don't know if Cheney misspoke about the issue of nuclear weapons reconstitution or not, but that statement, at that time, had no bearing on the so-called rush to war. I watched the rest of the interview, and it was one of the most pathetic displays I've seen. Chris Matthews is a living, breathing, yelling, frothing logical fallacy. He won't accept any explanation, any shades of gray, any context. He insists on black and white. If Saddam wasn't involved in the 9/11 attacks, then it must mean the 9/11 attacks are utterly irrelevant to any risk analysis. If the Bush administration exaggerated the threat by even an iota in order to build the political will to tackle the threat, then it is guilty of lying us into war.

Of course, if the Obama administration exaggerates economic threats in order to build support for its preferred fiscal policies, or exaggerates the benefits of health insurance reform to build support for Obamacare, or exaggerates the threat of global warming in order to build support for massive subsidies to its friends in the "green" industries, that's not lying. That's just being good at politics.

What a despicable slanderer Chris Matthews is. And so are the leftist journalists that propagate his slanders.

 

[spooky24]

After Saddam's 2nd purge, in which about 20,000 were gassed, more than 5,000 Kurdish members of intelligentsia, wealthy families, government officials and local religious leaders were brought to the US under political asylum.

They all settled in the area where I live and I know them quite well. Their customs are odd however after a dozen years or so they fit right in.

In the Senate intelligence debriefing they told Senators the facts about the regime-not only the genocide but torture and the horrible sex crimes committed by two of Saddam's sons-and so many other things that would make a Nazi sick with disgust.

This debriefing-that the media was no part of-was a big factor for the votes that passed the resolution. Many in Congress felt burdened to put an end to this-whatever the cost.

What is ironic is that the very chemical agents that were in question, and were sought out, are now in the hands of Dae'sh-who now control that very district.

Life is strange.

 

[The Big Dog]

WTF? Did you even watch the interview? He admitted that a single part of a single sentence, which Dick Cheney uttered on a Sunday talk show on March 16, 2003 (that's right, 4 days before the invasion began and long after it was set in motion), was not true. I don't know if Cheney misspoke about the issue of nuclear weapons reconstitution or not, but that statement, at that time, had no bearing on the so-called rush to war. I watched the rest of the interview, and it was one of the most pathetic displays I've seen. Chris Matthews is a living, breathing, yelling, frothing logical fallacy. He won't accept any explanation, any shades of gray, any context. He insists on black and white. If Saddam wasn't involved in the 9/11 attacks, then it must mean the 9/11 attacks are utterly irrelevant to any risk analysis. If the Bush administration exaggerated the threat by even an iota in order to build the political will to tackle the threat, then it is guilty of lying us into war.

...

What a despicable slanderer Chris Matthews is. And so are the leftist journalists that propagate his slanders.

Good summary

 

[johnny karate]

Hi 16.5. You overlooked this post:

No, you didn't.

You explained why you were against the war at the time.

You have yet to explain why you still oppose a war that you have so eloquently defended over the last few pages of this thread.

Why do you still maintain a rule to not vote for anyone who supported the Iraq War?

Why would you not vote for someone who voted for a war you are now defending?

 

[The Big Dog]

Hi 16.5. You overlooked this post:

Why would you not vote for someone who voted for a war you are now defending?

To make sure the record is accurate.

Further, regardless of the merits of the war on Iraq, I already said that in my view it was not appropriate to divert assets from the War in Afghanistan