Iraq War a Mistake

[Skeptic Ginger]

They all had the same DD information, and even though I thought the invasion and war was unnecessary and wrong, in fairness, it seems a lot of people were lead by bad data.

Seriously Monketey, are you fooled by that propaganda slight of hand?

That so-called bad information was almost entirely manufactured by Bush/Cheney et al.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Half of it.

Funny that Jeb gets all the criticisms when the fact is that the only Candidate who voted for the war was Hillary Clinton.

Funny how Jeb is being criticized for his recent statements and his designation of advisors straight out of the warmonger pool.

But go ahead, keep those eyes covered up. I'm sure it's more comfortable for you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm sick of the media playing Gotcha Questions with candidates and then misreporting results. Even NPR seems to be implying Jeb's first answer, which was clearly an answer to the wrong question, was somehow a valid answer.

No mistake, his attention to detail was lacking when he answered, and that alone could be the story if the media hadn't collectively decided to spin it the other way.

My hypothesis is he had a canned answer to the question ready to go and failed to listen to the question which was actually asked, or anticipate there were two possible questions, was it the right decision then, (for which he had his excuses minus the fact the intelligence was rigged by the very people who claimed they were fooled by it), and was it the right decision in hind sight?

Either way and dumbed down news media aside, he's not addressed the contrived evidence, and he's added all the same players to advise him.

 

[Bogative]

I don't know about regime change but it was very much the reason they gave for Operation Desert Fox.

Iraq Liberation Act

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.

Clinton's reason for signing and supporting the act:

Iraq admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability, notably, 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs. And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production....



… Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And someday, some way, I'll guarantee you he will use the arsenal

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's ok, the third time Democrats in Congress vote to go to war in Iraq it will surely be a another chance for partisans to ignore that and blame it all on Bush.

Who do you blame it on?

Oh I get it, because the entire Congress (less a few members) were too gutless to stand up to the tide Bush/Cheney et al created with their manipulated Iraqi threat evidence.

Bill Moyers covered that quite well with his Buying the War documentary.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I still think the idea of taking down a horrible tyrant was a good one. The execution was terrible and on the whole the world would be better if we hadn't tried to do something I think was good in intention.

Horrible tyrants are a dime a dozen. By that rationale we have a lot of the world to clean up.

That particular tyrant was part of the Sunni-Shia divide. Look at us now, supporting Iran against the Sunni ISIS and supporting Saudi Arabia against the Shia in Yemen.

We have the US news media oversimplified version of the tyrants in the Middle East including Assad and Saddam and all the other groups from ISIS to Hezbollah to the Taliban to the Iranian revolutionaries and their religious leaders.

If you go back far enough you find the US and the UK created the mess in the first place with all our interventions and quest for oil. It's not just screwing up the aftermath, it's interfering in the first place in the name of human rights when the real goal is oil.

Think if we'd have spent all those resources on alternative energy. What a concept.

 

[Meed]

They all had the same DD information, and even though I thought the invasion and war was unnecessary and wrong, in fairness, it seems a lot of people were lead by bad data.

I don't think it was a question of bad data. Why was there so much hostility to the idea of letting weapons inspectors do their job? Why was the evidence Colin Powell presented to the UN so weak?

A question to ponder is, if Saddam did have the weapons the US government claimed he had, would we now be looking back and saying that the Iraq war was not a mistake?

I also want to point out an additional position to the "it was a mistake to go to war/it wasn't a mistake to go to war" dichotomy. The position being "it was a mistake to carry out the war in the manner in which it was carried out, but not necessarily a mistake to go to war". Not saying that's my position, just throwing it out there.

I still think the idea of taking down a horrible tyrant was a good one. The execution was terrible and on the whole the world would be better if we hadn't tried to do something I think was good in intention.

"Taking down a horrible tyrant" was not the stated intention. It was always about "WMDs" and the supposed possibility that he was trying to build nuclear weapons. Even hints that he had something to do with 9/11. It's shocking how many Americans thought we needed to invade Iraq "because 9/11" (if I may oversimplify a bit).

However, I agree with you that that would have been a good intention. A large proportion of the Iraqi population was happy to see Saddam overthrown. Presumably they were less happy with having their infrastructure destroyed, their army disbanded and much of the violence that followed (still, we shouldn't forget that there was significant violence in Iraq before 2003).

By what earthly right has the USA to decide that a dictator deserves taking down? Do you have any idea how that sounds to people in other countries?

Probably sounds pretty good to a lot of people. Most Iraqis were glad that Saddam was taken down. Most Afghanis were glad that the Taliban was no longer ruling their country (even though they didn't lose power completely). It's not the taking-down-dictators part that's the problem. It's the people, property and infrastructure that are destroyed in the process that are problems (among other things).

 

[The Big Dog]

Iraq Liberation Act

Clinton's reason for signing and supporting the act:

Thanks for that! That had passed from all of my memory.

I do recall his justification Operation Desert Fox:

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

Skeptic Ginger to explain how Bush made him say this in 3...2...1....

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I'm pretty sure that, with maybe the exception of a tiny bit of doubt at first over whether the Bush admin knew what they were doing, everything I posted about this war in this forum from the beginning has been proven to have been correct.

But RandFan is the only conservative I'm aware of here that actually reassessed his political position.

Can anyone think of anyone else?

Beerina, if you were ever on the fence I'd be surprised. But I see now you've bought into a conspiracy theory that the Democrats wanted Bush to fail. A little projection, maybe, given Mitch McConnell made a public statement he planned to work toward making Obama fail?

 

[RandFan]

But RandFan is the only conservative I'm aware of here that actually reassessed his political position.

It's claimed that I never was a conservative and that you likely don't exist

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's claimed that I never was a conservative and that you likely don't exist

Theprestige joined in 2007. Guess he didn't think your first 6 years here counted for much.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Wow!

In case you all missed it, just about all of the pro-Iraq War people now agree that the Iraq War was a mistake.

I think the bigger story here is that George W. Bush apparently died and no one said anything.

"History will ultimately judge the decisions that were made for Iraq and I'm just not going to be around to see the final verdict," the two-term president told CNN in a wide-ranging interview. (source)

 

[Loss Leader]

Wow!

In case you all missed it, just about all of the pro-Iraq War people now agree that the Iraq War was a mistake.

I never understood how intelligent people could have thought otherwise. Iraq was at least three distinct populations being held together by brute force. Removing the brute just let things slide back into the state it was in before the British.

Now we're in the middle of a civil war that the West delayed for 80 years, with weaponry, intelligence and communication 80 years more advanced than it would have been.


n.b. I support an independent Kurdistan.

 

[Distracted1]

The Iraq invasion has been a huge success. For the interests that wanted it to happen in the first place. Piles of money were made, fortunes solidified, and bases riled up.

 

[Bogative]

Who do you blame it on?

I blame it on the Bush administration, I blame it on a bipartisan Congress, but more importantly, I blame it on Saddam Hussein. He is the dictator that invaded a sovereign nation, attacked two others, and then was forced out by a coalition of Allied countries.

After he was forced out, he agreed to a cease-fire that would allow United Nations weapons inspectors to enter the country to check on his WMD programs. He's the one who obstructed the weapons inspectors from doing their job, and it is no big secret that he kept up a ruse all the way up until the invasion in 2003 in order to confuse the world and to keep Iran from invading. I will quote the Washington Post from the above link:

Saddam Hussein told an FBI interviewer before he was hanged that he allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he was worried about appearing weak to Iran, according to declassified
accounts of the interviews released yesterday.

Oh I get it, because the entire Congress (less a few members) were too gutless to stand up to the tide Bush/Cheney et al created with their manipulated Iraqi threat evidence.

That is their fault and their fault alone. Can't pin their vote on Bush, sorry.

Bill Moyers covered that quite well with his Buying the War documentary.

Thanks for the link. I'll try to get to it later this evening.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well Bogative, and everyone else, finally! Rachel Maddow covers the truth, the intel was a product of Bush/Cheney et al.

Madow plays the Daily Show interview with Judith Miller where Stewart calls her on the fact the data was rigged. Miller sticks with the party line, it was an intelligence failure. I suppose she cannot face the fact she played a role in the worst policy disaster this country's Presidency has made since the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

 

[The Big Dog]

Well Bogative, and everyone else, finally! Rachel Maddow covers the truth, the intel was a product of Bush/Cheney et al.

Madow plays the Daily Show interview with Judith Miller where Stewart calls her on the fact the data was rigged. Miller sticks with the party line, it was an intelligence failure. I suppose she cannot face the fact she played a role in the worst policy disaster this country's Presidency has made since the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

No way! Rachel Maddow. Damn, when conservatives start losing staunch conservatives like Rachel Maddow, all is lost!

And suckers like us are posting stuff like Operation Desert Fox.

Solid post "skeptic" ginger!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No way! Rachel Maddow. Damn, when conservatives start losing staunch conservatives like Rachel Maddow, all is lost!

And suckers like us are posting stuff like Operation Desert Fox.

Solid post "skeptic" ginger!

You got evidence the intel wasn't an orchestrated lie? Or is your weak post just a tap dance around the facts?

 

[The Big Dog]

You got evidence the intel wasn't an orchestrated lie? Or is your weak post just a tap dance around the facts?

Of course, it depends what you consider evidence, skeptic.

Gas attack on the Kurds?
UN resolutions?
Legislative history of the regime change act?
Operation desert fox Intel?

Not quite to the level of Rachel Maddox, of course.

I mean Rachel Maddox, that **** breaks the case right the hell open.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I think history will not look kindly on many of the decisions that both led to the Iraq War and kept us there far too long.

But there's no way to know what the state of the world would be today had we not gone in. Yes, the world might be a better place. Yes, there might be far fewer dead and injured Americans and other coalition members and Iraqi soldiers and civilians.

Or not. Don't assume "It could not be any worse!" because it certainly could be.

My hope is that someday we will have computers powerful enough to actually play out alternative histories. Could be fascinating.