Bush wanted to go to war in Iraq way before he took office.
The following is a letter to President Clinton in 1998 signed by Predident Bush 41 and Bush 43's men. Including:
Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Richard Pearle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, James Woolsey and Rober Zoellick.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
This has to be the most expensive heist/scam/vandetta/conspiracy in history and the price is way too high.
When Kennedy was shot there was no real conspiracy. Just a man on the lunatic fringe. A lone gunman.
But with this we have a genuine criminal conspiracy that is so far reaching we may not even want to know the whole truth.
Will any of these men be tried for their crimes?
Did you just figure that one out? Bush had his eye on Iraq ever since he Dad correctly chose not to finish them off the first go around. Of course the attempted assassination of Papa Bush by Saddam didn't probably help. I wouldn't like it either if someone had tried to kill my father. Oh well, when the crosshairs were moved from Afghanistan to Iraq (without any real reason) then we made one of the most costly errors in our history. Not only the cost of the war itself in terms of money and lives, but in creating the vaccum left by what was Saddam Hussein, the only defense to an ever increasing Iran. Now who is left to keep Iran in check?? No one unless you count us. lol An Iran with nuclear weapons is much more dangerous than Iraq ever was, so just sit back and watch. If we ever get out of Iraq, we'll have to go right back over there at some point or the Iranians will control the Middle East eventually.
Good post, I agree completely.
EKY Sportster Wrote:Did you just figure that one out? Bush had his eye on Iraq ever since he Dad correctly chose not to finish them off the first go around. Of course the attempted assassination of Papa Bush by Saddam didn't probably help. I wouldn't like it either if someone had tried to kill my father. Oh well, when the crosshairs were moved from Afghanistan to Iraq (without any real reason) then we made one of the most costly errors in our history. Not only the cost of the war itself in terms of money and lives, but in creating the vaccum left by what was Saddam Hussein, the only defense to an ever increasing Iran. Now who is left to keep Iran in check?? No one unless you count us. lol An Iran with nuclear weapons is much more dangerous than Iraq ever was, so just sit back and watch. If we ever get out of Iraq, we'll have to go right back over there at some point or the Iranians will control the Middle East eventually.
You're not gonna goad me into an argument here, I agree completely.
Unless the Iranian Resistance movement makes a move and overthrows Khomeni. I don't think that will happen but anything is possible in these crazy times.
Thanks for the nutty thread. I guess all the Dems in Congress who voted in favor of going into Iraq will be hauled off to jail too.:lmao:
We have basically already won in Iraq and the goofy Dems who had already declared it lost are mad and embarrassed.
The surge worked and the Dems couldn't stand that either.
I wonder why Obama chose Bush's Secretary of Defense to be his?
Keep whining though, it's past comical.
DevilsWin Wrote:No one is whining.
But you have no response to that and you were just trying to use Bush as a scapegoat and refuse to admit if you're wrong, which, from the post above yours that you had no response to, it appears that you are.
What about the Democrats statements about Saddam: Including claims by President Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and Susan Pilosi. The Democrats made statements about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq before 9/11
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
The majority if not all on both sides were for the invasion in Iraq. I still believe that they either hid their WMD's, or shipped them to Syria as most in the intelligence agency believe.
Noone has ever explained the mass exodus of shipping containers moved into Syria beofre the invasion, not just a couple, hundreds, maybe thousands. Iraq and Syria had no trade btw, so there was something in those containers, we know for a fact Saddam had leftover chemical weapons, and not even any of those have been found.
All of this could have been stopped if Saddam would have allowed full access to the UN monitors, but he didnt. If he didnt have anyweapons left, or no programs he sure put out a front like he did, and he paid the price for it, and the people of Iraq have benefited.
Heck Iraq has a lower murder rate than quite a few American cities.
Stardust Wrote:What about the Democrats statements about Saddam: Including claims by President Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore and Susan Pilosi. The Democrats made statements about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq before 9/11
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
I think you mean Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House)
kittennation Wrote:I think you mean Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House)
Yes, thanks for the corrrection :Thumbs:
Beetle01 Wrote:The majority if not all on both sides were for the invasion in Iraq. I still believe that they either hid their WMD's, or shipped them to Syria as most in the intelligence agency believe.
Noone has ever explained the mass exodus of shipping containers moved into Syria beofre the invasion, not just a couple, hundreds, maybe thousands. Iraq and Syria had no trade btw, so there was something in those containers, we know for a fact Saddam had leftover chemical weapons, and not even any of those have been found.
All of this could have been stopped if Saddam would have allowed full access to the UN monitors, but he didnt. If he didnt have anyweapons left, or no programs he sure put out a front like he did, and he paid the price for it, and the people of Iraq have benefited.
Heck Iraq has a lower murder rate than quite a few American cities.
We have pictures, yet Syria and Iraq were dumb to the 24/7 border crossings and what was in those containers???
If anyone is whining its the Bush supporters whining about why 80% of the country think their hero is a moron!
I don't disagree that the Iraq invasion was successful so far or that it will hopefully benefit the Iraqi people in the long run. I won't even disagree that it is entirely possible that Iraq shipped out the WMD's prior to the invasion. That was a thought that I had all along. I guess he forgot to ship himself out though, lol. But I still don't think that it was a wise move on our part to invade on our own and at our own expense. Now it is our mess to clean up and pay for (like we have so much extra money laying around) and if we don't Iran has gotten rid of one of their enemies at our expense. How thoughtful of us.
Personally I don't like to see civil rights abuses by governments (such as what went on in Iraq before the invasion), but we can't just run around all over the world fight wars of liberation for everyone. We don't have the resources. So that is why I say we shouldn't have gone into Iraq.
I won't say I'm anti-Bush because I like the guy. But he didn't always make the right decisions. Hopefully things will improve with a new President. That's all we can hope for at this point.
BTW DevilsWin, not trying to goad you into an argument.
We went to war with a sovereign nation under false pretenses. All the blather in the universe won't change that. The fact that we now seemingly have positive results doesn't change initial facts.
jetpilot Wrote:Thanks for the nutty thread. I guess all the Dems in Congress who voted in favor of going into Iraq will be hauled off to jail too.:lmao:
We have basically already won in Iraq and the goofy Dems who had already declared it lost are mad and embarrassed.
The surge worked and the Dems couldn't stand that either.
I wonder why Obama chose Bush's Secretary of Defense to be his?
Keep whining though, it's past comical.
It's beyond comical it's HYSTERICAL! The Bush haters...... :BigLaugh: .....just can't give it up!!!!
DevilsWin Wrote:If anyone is whining its the Bush supporters whining about why 80% of the country think their hero is a moron!
And yet he was/is more popular than the Democrat-controlled Congress!
thecavemaster Wrote:We went to war with a sovereign nation under false pretenses. All the blather in the universe won't change that. The fact that we now seemingly have positive results doesn't change initial facts.
I wouldn't go that far! I know they didn't find anything and that speaks volumes. I personally still think there were WMD's there. BUT, that is not the point! We didn't have a real reason to go to war with Iraq, especially alone and at our own expense. It was a mistake whether it works out or not.
EKY Sportster Wrote:I wouldn't go that far! I know they didn't find anything and that speaks volumes. I personally still think there were WMD's there. BUT, that is not the point! We didn't have a real reason to go to war with Iraq, especially alone and at our own expense. It was a mistake whether it works out or not.
That is the most sensible post in this thread.
I do have to say that as soon as Jr was elected and before 9/11 I told the guys I work with that we would be at war with Iraq within two years. I wish I had been wrong.
I still don't think we needed to go to war with Iraq, if Iraq wanted Saddam gone, they could've done what we done with the British: overthrow them.
guyfawkes Wrote:I still don't think we needed to go to war with Iraq, if Iraq wanted Saddam gone, they could've done what we done with the British: overthrow them.
Very doubtful as the ruling class Sunni's would support Saddam, for fear of Shiite reprisal when he was out of power. Thus making it impossible for a takeover, lets face it, you think Saddam would care one bit about civilian casualties? No he would have killed as many as possible, as he did before and the whole time he was in power. This is alot different times than 1776, where military weapons give a huge advantage to the governing powers over any type of revolt. As long as the military supports the leader it would be impossible for any country in those regions to experience a successful revolt.
Beetle01 Wrote:Very doubtful as the ruling class Sunni's would support Saddam, for fear of Shiite reprisal when he was out of power. Thus making it impossible for a takeover, lets face it, you think Saddam would care one bit about civilian casualties? No he would have killed as many as possible, as he did before and the whole time he was in power. This is alot different times than 1776, where military weapons give a huge advantage to the governing powers over any type of revolt. As long as the military supports the leader it would be impossible for any country in those regions to experience a successful revolt.
I agree that governments have a much more powerful grip (in terms of weaponry) than in 1776. But still the point is that it was not our place to liberate the Iraqis. If you want to say it is, then shouldn't we be at war in North Korea, China, many countries in Africa and a few dozen other countries. You surely don't think we have the financial or manpower resources to pull that one off do you?