Did Bush lie about WMD?

[CapelDodger]

Yes, if that fits with your world view then I can see that. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that Bush would invade Iraq for oil. There was little to gain. He knew there was no way he could control it. He's never even tried. It belongs to the Iraqis and they will control it.

The thesis I envision is that guaranteeing access to Gulf oil - not necessarily direct ownership - was the motivation. That doesn't preclude regime-change, replacing an unfriendly regime with a friendly one.

And war is an unknown.

Rumsfeld knows that now, but he dosen't seem to have appreciated it before the invasion.

A deal with Saddam would have been much better.

Not possible after the Kuwait invasion, but possible with a Ba'athist successor - even Qusay Hussein - who could do a Kruschev on Saddam. It may have been the assumption that Saddam would be killed in a coup before he could drag everyone over the cliff with him, thus making it unnecessary to occupy Baghdad and the Sunni provinces. I find it surprising that didn't happen.

"Israel"? Got evidence? Isn't blaming Israel a bit convenient?

The prediction of "venomous feuds over Israel's role" hardly rates as prophecy.

 

[RandFan]

The thesis I envision is that guaranteeing access to Gulf oil - not necessarily direct ownership - was the motivation. That doesn't preclude regime-change, replacing an unfriendly regime with a friendly one.[/b]

But there are no gurantees. There was no gurantee of success and even if we succeed there was no gurantee that the new regime would be anymore reliable than Saddam and if Bush knew what everyone alledges he knew then he had Saddam by the balls and could have made a pretty good deal with him.

Rumsfeld knows that now, but he dosen't seem to have appreciated it before the invasion. [/b]

Would you elaborate.

Not possible after the Kuwait invasion...

I don't accept this. What is your basis for th assumption.

The prediction of feuds over Israel's role" hardly rates as prophecy.

Sorry but I don't think this really answers the question but I appreciate the response.

 

[RandFan]

Here you again with this "I said, you said". I'm afraid to report the one time you actually attempted to demonstrated the demonstrable, your so-called reasoning was soundly thrashed.

Ah, well, you are the arbiter of what is and is not sound. Hmmmm... so what is the point of JREF and discussion at all? Why can't we just have you tell everyone what is and is not correct. Sorry but it was not thrashed. Declaring yourself the winner of the debate does not make you the victor.

How is it not meaningful? You're a clever one. How do you suppose I prove my closet is empty. "Hey, look, I'm waving my hand over here -- there's nothing here. Or here. Or, uh here." Like so many of your comments, it does not bear (at all) on the relevant discussion, and the remarks are in themselves, obvious to any five year-old.

Yes, yes, yes. Here we go again with the "obviously" and "clearly" business. I've written on this phrasing many times before, and so there's no need for me to duplicate my efforts.

Bush's dishonesy has not been proven? Bush's incompetence has not been demonstrated? Astonishing. This utterly gobsmacking, especially given what you claim you've proven herein. My, my, my.

Rhetorical. Thanks I guess.

 

[CapelDodger]

But there are no gurantees. There was no gurantee of success and even if we succeed there was no gurantee that the new regime would be anymore reliable than Saddam and if Bush knew what everyone alledges he knew then he had Saddam by the balls and could have made a pretty good deal with him.

After the rhetoric and bile that was poured onto Saddam - all justified - after the Kuwait invasion any accomodation with him would gave been politically impossible. Especially for another Bush.

Would you elaborate.

The evidence is in the outcome and the clear lack of contingency planning. Rumsfeld is a box-ticker, not a realist. Do this, this and this, and such-and-such will result. He's been left completely at sea by events.

Sorry but I don't think this really answers the question but I appreciate the response.

Your question didn't relate to my point. There are always venomous feuds going on about Israel's role in things, not least on this Forum. It seems vanishingly unlikely there'll be consensus on Israel's role in the Iraq imbroglio.