>>No American looks at Iraq today and says "Good thing W invaded, that really worked out well for us."
It wasn't supposed to be about how great it would be for us.
http://theregularguybelieves.blogspot.com/2014_06_01_archive.html
Posted on 02/22/2016 8:13:01 PM PST by Citizen Zed
All we need to know is that Bush and his top people, starting with Vice President Dick Cheney, were too busy in their first eight months in office to bother about al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Too busy doing what? Among other things, they were too busy looking for an excuse to overthrow Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
Bush's father, George H. W. Bush, had left Saddam in power after sending the U.S. military to reverse Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1991. But the elder Bush and successor Bill Clinton enforced killer economic sanctions, on the pretext of finding weapons of mass destruction but actually in hopes of driving Saddam from power. Saddam wouldn't cooperate in his own regime change, however, so Bush Jr., Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and their neoconservative brain trust were determined to complete the mission.
Because of this obsession, warnings from the CIA and counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke about al-Qaeda, which had previously attacked U.S. government assets and the World Trade Center in the 1990s, fell on deaf ears, despite growing signs that Bin Laden was determined to strike the U.S. Even the prospect of aircraft hijackings was raised.
Clarke wrote in his book, Against All Enemies, that when he finally managed to get a cabinet-level meeting on al-Qaeda, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz objected that "I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin Laden." Clarke responded, "We are talking about a network of terrorist organizations called al-Qaeda, that happens to be led by bin Laden, and we are talking about that network because it and it alone poses an immediate and serious threat to the United States."
(Excerpt) Read more at chicago.suntimes.com ...
And you’re still not on topic.
Concerning the presence of WMDs, David Kay reported Hussein was developing missiles with ranges in excess of UN limitations, saying they were the center pole of the tent under which Hussein would rebuild his WMDs as the sanction regime further deteriorated. He found Hussein retained the scientists and technology to restart production of mustard and VX gas. Hussein was also currently developing an indigenous precursor for VX and a stimulant for freeze-drying anthrax. Kay reported Hussein was rebuilding infrastructure and staff for nuclear weapons. Mahdi Obeidi maintained in the New York Times that when the world looked the other way, the knowledge of hundreds of scientists could be applied to existing designs and a centrifuge prototype to jump start the operation. Iraq already had 500 tons of yellow cake in the country under U.N. seal, which was confirmed to have no meaning after the North Korean experience. The regime just needed a latter day Albert Speer or Leslie Groves to replace Hussein Kamel.
The idea Hussein did not have stockpiles of WMDs is not a creditable assumption. One has to believe that a fracturing, Oriental dictatorship of several competing and self-interested spheres of influence achieved an unparalleled intelligence deception. The sophisticated intelligence services of U.S.A., Britain, France, and Germany had independently determined Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs.
These intelligence professionals apply different methods using different resources, and jealously guard their insights and prerogatives. As an example the Butler Commission still maintains Hussein's people went to Niger to acquire yellow cake contrary to the amateurish assertion of Joe Wilson. Common sense tells you his dictatorship would never allow valuable people to leave the country just to collect a few local crafts from a country whose leading export is uranium. All four of them were not wrong. The most reasonable assumption, for which much evidence exists, is that Syria and Russia received inventories in trust for the regime.
The evidence was sufficiently creditable that not only Bush, but Congress believed the stockpiles were present. I quote, "We have known for years Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing WMDs. Iraq's search for WMDs has proven impossible to deter and we should assume it continues as long as Saddam is in power. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that demanded he disarm and destroy chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq October 1998. We are confident Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up chemical and biological warfare capabilities. There is unmistakable evidence Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons, and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. That is why we must be prepared to use force, if necessary, to disarm Hussein and eliminate Iraq's WMDs once and for all."
The above quotes compile statements respectively by Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Henry Waxman, Robert Byrd, Jay Rockefeller, and John Edwards. These quotes were uncontested points in 2002, and formed a basis for legislation enabling Bush to follow U.N. resolutions to use military force to remove Hussein's regime, and the threat posed by his material breach of obligations to prove abandonment of WMDs and terrorist support.
Concerning the irrelevance of WMDs, the ceasefire ended and war began in 1991 was resumed, because Hussein behaved in material breach of international obligations as reaffirmed in Resolution 1441. Nowhere in Congressional resolutions of 1991, 1998 and 2002, or U.N. Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 can one see possession of stockpiles of WMDs as a reason for confronting him with military action. Behavior in terms of threats, evasion, intimidation, and past use, not possession, was always the key. He was to unconditionally accept destruction or removal of all stocks and programs for WMDs and for all missiles over 150-kilometre range. He was enjoined from committing, supporting or providing safe haven for international terrorism. I was continually frustrated by Bush Administration spokesmen and media advocates, who would not craft sound bites emphasizing that behavior and the resultant uncertainty was central to resuming the war.
Resolution 687 incorporated 678 and 19 previous resolutions without amendment, and offered Hussein a conditional ceasefire in 1991. Instead he ignored the responsibility to submit a comprehensive declaration of all WMD stockpiles and programs, and missiles with greater than 150 kilometre range. He thwarted the program envisioned by menacing, eluding, and deceiving inspectors. The U.N. resorted to surveillance, analysis, and investigation to destroy material and disrupt programs until Hussein expelled them in 1998. He also continued forbidden involvement in international terrorism. In response, Bush #1, U.N. and Clinton ignored their responsibilities to deal with Hussein's ongoing material breaches.
None of these resolutions were cobbled together like a middle schoolers term paper. Diplomats and politicians laboriously parsed each phrase for clear focus on actions instead of nouns; behaviors not stockpiles. The key words were guarantee, reaffirm, accept, submit, declare, yield, forgo, agree, inform, comply, cooperate, lie, omit, and thwart. The U.N.'s ultimatums in Resolutions 678 and 1441 authorized disarming Hussein's regime through military operations in Iraq "to restore international peace and security in the area", and did not instruct the coalition to merely expel Hussein from Kuwait.
U.N. precedent from the Korean War ensured the above phrase intended invasion of Iraq. The term "in the area" used phraseology, confirmed by the U.N. and Congress, authorizing military action above the 38th parallel to disarm North Korea. Everyone in the Security Council and Congress understood that a further material breach required ending the ceasefire, and resuming the war authorized by Resolution 678.
The war against Saddam Hussein was resumed because Bush #2 finally obeyed U.N. and confirming Congressional mandates. Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill envisioned re-establishment of collective security when founding the U.N. in San Francisco. Finally in 2003 the United States, heading a coalition exceeding that Churchill and Roosevelt assembled to confront Hitler's Germany, toppled Hussein's regime, and forced the U.N. to confront the reason for its existence.
Text U.N. Resolution 678
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s90/32
Text U.N. Resolution 687
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s91/4
Text U.N. Resolution 1441
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2002/res1441e.pdf
David Kay Interview
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r108:S28JA4-0018:
Saddam, the Bomb and Me
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/26/opinion/26obeidi.html?pagewanted=print&position
CIA World Fact Book: Niger
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ng.html
Ted Kennedy Sept. 27, 2002; http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html
Al Gore Sept. 23, 2002: www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.html
Henry Waxman October10, 2002; http://www.house.gov/waxman/news_files/news_statements_res_iraq_10_10_02.htm
Robert Byrd October 3, 2002; http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/archive/2002/byrd100302.htm
Jay Rockefeller October 10, 2002; http://rockefeller.senate.gov/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html
John Edwards October 10, 2002; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r107:7:./temp/~r107pqkqkf:e858562:
Korean War Resolution 84 (1950) of 7 July 1950
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3b00f1e85c.html
Butler Commission: Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2004/07/14/butler.pdf
Nicely done!
You've lost the debate on Iraq in the political arena. My shoulda, woulda is just as irrelevant, I admit. But no matter how you slice it neoconservatism as a platform for a political party has failed. Just ask joyful Jeb! or old 0% Lindsey Graham how much voters want to be reminded of this.
I haven’t lost a debate that I have refused to participate in. That’s not the topic.
You and Cindy Sheehan are ideological twins. Congrats.
Even Dr. Ben Carson would not be able to seperate your head from your ass!
All you Bush lovers make me sick! What has Mr. Bush done for your life to make it better? Do you honestly think that being a Republican is all it takes to be a good Politician?
How many countless times has a Republican politician lied to you and stabbed you in the back? Here are a few of the great accomplishments of Mr. Bush.
911
6 Trillion in debt
Laughing stock of the world
Brother Jeb!
Crashed economy
Massive housing collapse
More NAFTA
More open borders
Failed to get Bin Laden
Iraq invasion for no reason whatesoever
Handed Obama the election on a silver platter
Goes into retirement without a word to anyone while Obama destroys and pillages the country
And you fools keep bowing at his feet like he is George Washington! The GOP and George Bush are not your friend! They are part of the UNI-Party! Have you not been paying attention? Why do you think their is a voter revolt right against the GOP right now? Exactly!
The first time Powell appeared on TV following the attack on the twin towers he was talking about Bin Laden and Al Queda. He definitely knew who they were.
Well done.
Consider Iraq. After each pounding from U.S . warplanes, Iraq has dusted itself off and gone right back to work developing a nuclear arsenal. Six years of tough talk and U.S. fireworks in Baghdad have done little to slow Iraq’s crash program to become a nuclear power. They’ve got missiles capable of flying nine hundred kilometers-more than enough to reach Tel Aviv. They’ve got enriched uranium. All they need is the material for nuclear fission to complete the job, and, according to the Rumsfeld report, we don’t even know for sure if they’ve laid their hands on that yet. That’s what our last aerial assault on Iraq in 1999 was about. Saddam Hussein wouldn’t let UN weapons inspectors examine certain sites where that material might be stored. The result when our bombing was over? We still don’t know what Iraq is up to or whether it has the material to build nuclear weapons. I’m no warmonger. But the fact is, if we decide a strike against Iraq is necessary, it is madness not to carry the mission to its conclusion. When we don’t, we have the worst of all worlds: Iraq remains a threat, and now has more incentive than ever to attack us.
The America we Deserve Donald Trump 2000
As it turned out, not even a trace of chemical WMD’s were found in Iraq. So we will never know if Bush-43 lied or not, because he may have received faulty information.
Aside from that, my real problem with the Bush regime is total stupidity in reading the situation in middle-east. Bush was under the delusion than if Saddam was toppled, he could transform Iraq into a democracy like India, the worlds largest democracy and stable for 70 years. Bush failed to understand the difference between Muslim Arabs and Hindu majority India.
Once the dictator was toppled, a chain reaction of catastrophe’s occurred. Only way to hold Iraq together was to station 50,000-100,000 American troops for decades, subject to constant suicide bombers. American public was sick of Iraq war casualties.
So now we have a fragmented Iraq, under control of Iran, Yemen is chaos, Libya is chaos, Syria is chaos, Egypt is on the brink, ISIS is formed and is the richest terror group in history of world with captured Iraqi oil.
The lack of definitive proof of large amounts of WMD keeps me from defending Bush and company - if they existed, we could have proved it but it wuz just too hard to disrupt them convoys heading out.......if we can film them we can trash them and sift through the rubble after.
The exit strategy agreed to included no regime change in Iraq, that was the demand. Now the author castigates Bush for doing what was agreed to to appease the left. They can’t have it both ways.
I’ve never seen a good explanation as to why the administration didn’t think those convoys were a big deal. The administration just didn’t seem to care about it.
Freegards
I'm not talking about the debate here. I'm talking about the debate that took place in the recent primaries, that first took a turn in the 2006 congressional election and has been dragging the GOP and the conservative movement down ever since.
If your side had any credibility with the voters Lindsey Graham and Jeb Bush would be the frontrunners, not done like dinner.
No American looks at Iraq today and says "Good thing W invaded, that really worked out well for us." McCain's indefinite occupation plan B was also a complete non-starter. Time to cut your losses.
We now see what regime change in Iraq looks like. With all we know today the best case would have been to drive Saddam out of Kuwait and leave it at that. But the grandiose New World Order gang never leaves it at that. They always want a humiliating peace that guarantees future wars because they actually think the whole world can become first world if we just bomb them and sanction them sufficiently and deploy enough troops.
Over a decade of nation building in Iraq should have put that to rest but delusions die hard.
The Bush policies Trump stupidly brought up are IRRELEVANT to the present time.
That area is the property of the rabid leftwing, just like they clutch their “Nixon lied” to themselves decades after Nixon has been gone from the scene.
Trump’s parroting of the lefty Code Pinko lines about “Bush lied” was a puzzling, dumb move.
Distancing himself from the unpopular Bush policy is a smart move, as his subsequent victory in SC shows.
If you wanted more Bush doctine you should have helped Jeb! when he needed it most.
Thank you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.