Posted on 02/21/2020 8:21:17 PM PST by rintintin
Donald Trump attacked the Bush family during the Republican presidential debate Saturday night, accusing the George W. Bush administration of lying to the public before going to war in Iraq.
"Obviously the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake," Trump said, launching into a fierce critique of rival Jeb Bush's brother.
"George Bush made a mistake," the billionaire continued. "Obviously we can make mistakes, but that one was a beauty."
"We should have never been in Iraq," Trump added. "They lied, they said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none and they knew that there were none."
Jeb Bush aggressively defended his brother.
"I'm sick and tired of Barack Obama blaming my brother for all the problems that he's had and frankly I could care less about the insults Donald Trump gives against me," the former Florida governor said.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
I’m so sorry. She should be angry at Obama, who made her heroic sacrifice worthless.
Or,
when candidates act conservative 6 month before an election..then drop the conservative charade when they get elected or re-elected?
I did not say that (although the Iraq War did produce some benefits, the coalition didn't do what they needed to do once they had won the invasion). I just find there is a lot of history-bending that has taken place.
If you dare, check some of the links found just by searching FR:
Saddam's Forgotten WMD Confession (Newsmax)
NYT: There Were Thousands of Old WMDs In Iraq (National Review)
DOD Report 50 Trucks Carried Iraqi WMD to Syria
Documents Detail WMD Recovery In Iraq, Santorum Says
These reports don't make it "true" but it also means it was a lie to say "they didn't find anything". These also do not mean that going into Iraq was necessarily the right response but I do think the region is better off that Saddam is dead, the suicide bombings in Israel halted and the area scrubbed of WMDs that could have otherwise fallen into the hands of ISIS was a positive thing.
There's also the rather obvious benefit that no nuclear or chemical weapon has landed on Israel, which is miraculous given how many Arab states in the region have declared the annihilation of Israel their primary goal.
She doesn’t blame anyone. She said she would do it again. But her legs are all messed up due to an IED. But she’s retired and doesn’t regret her service. And I love going to the VFW for her monthly CVMA (Combat Veterans Motorcycle Association) meetings. She rides and I ride Bitch. :>) She meets and I drink a beer or two at the bar. :>)
SO, no-one remembers the stocks of poison gas? No-one remembers the buried RDX stores and the centrifuges? No-one remembers the stocks of yellow-cake?
WTF!!!
We have images from satellites and high altitude aircraft of long lines of trucks from Iraqi weapons facilities loading up and hauling a lot of stuff to facilities in Syria. Facilities guarded by Iraqi troops in Syria.
Lovely! I’m glad she’s still in your life and is not blaming anyone.
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 WMD as the regime sanctions 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 jumpstart the nuclear weapons capacity. 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 WMD’s was never a creditable assumption. One has to believe that a fracturing, middle eastern 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, Israel, and Germany had independently determined Iraq had stockpiles of WMD. These intelligence professionals applied different methods, used different resources, jealously guarded their insights and prerogatives, and refused to parrot someone else’s analysis.
As an example, the Butler Commission maintained the analysis by the UK Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) that Hussein’s people went to Niger to acquire uranium was creditable. The SIS followed classical methods of validation, analysis, and assessment of several different sources, not including the famous forgeries, to conclude that Saddam Hussein sought significant quantities of uranium. George Bush used this professional intelligence product to claim in his State of the Union message that Iraqi officials had gone to Africa on that mission.
Examine the CIA Fact Book for Niger exports, and you will see uranium is the only business reason Iraqi officials would have in the country. Basic common sense tells you no totalitarian regime would allow key officials the latitude to just collect a few local crafts while vacationing in other countries. In opposition we only have the childish claims of Joe Wilson whose State Department training left him completely unqualified in terms of tradecraft to make an intelligence assessment.
All five intelligence services were not wrong. The most reasonable assumption, for which much evidence exists, is that Syria and Russia received inventories for the regime. By the way, is not anyone curious about how Syria got all those chemical weapons they had to dispose of? Again, one can see from the CIA Fact Book, Syria does not have industries that can be adapted to their production.
The possession of WMD was irrelevant, because the ceasefire ended, and the war begun in 1991 was resumed, because Hussein behaved in material breach of international obligations as reaffirmed with 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 WMD as reasons for confronting him with military action. Behavior in terms of threats, evasion, intimidation, and past behavior, not possession, was always the key. He was to unconditionally accept destruction or removal of all inventories and programs for WMD and for all missiles over 150-kilometre range. He was enjoined from committing, supporting, or providing safe haven for international terrorism.
Resolution 687 incorporated 678 and 19 previous resolutions without amendment and offered Hussein a conditional ceasefire in 1991. The resolution’s key words were to guarantee, reaffirm, accept, submit, declare, yield, forgo, agree, inform, comply, and cooperate. None of these resolutions were cobbled together like a middle schooler’s term paper. Diplomats and politicians laboriously parsed each phrase for clear focus on actions instead of possessions; behaviors, not stockpiles.
Hussein 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. He also continued forbidden involvement in international terrorism. In response, Bush #1, UN, and Clinton ignored their responsibilities to deal with Hussein’s ongoing material breaches. When Clinton was President, Hussein in 1998 even expelled the inspectors turned investigators.
UN precedent from the Korean War provided for the intended invasion of Iraq and could have been blocked by either China or Russia. The war against Saddam Hussein was resumed because Bush #2 finally obeyed UN and confirming Congressional mandates. The invasion completed UN direction to “restore international peace and security in the area” and forced the UN to confront the reason for its’ existence.
UN Security Council Resolution 678 http://www.javier-leon-diaz.com/humanitarianIssues/Resolution678.pdf
UN Security Council Resolution 687 http://fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
Korean War Resolution 84 (1950) of 7 July 1950 http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3b00f1e85c.html
“ We have images from satellites and high altitude aircraft of long lines of trucks from Iraqi weapons” going to Syria
Who is “we”? The intelligence community - which wants us at war with Syria. They also say “we” have evidence of Russia and Trump colluding. They love sheeple who call them “we”, as if they and you are all the same and they can be trusted.
Sorry, but the deep state and I are not a “we” - I’m not a sheeple for their propaganda
Unlike his fool of a son, Bush senior was a foreign policy realist. The Project for a New American Century crackpots that Dubya filled his administration with thought otherwise. Since they considered religion irrelevant it never occurred to them that a western nation invading and occupying an Islamic country would stir up a never ending hornet's nest.
The PNAC crew had been champing at the bit to take over Iraq for years. In December 1997 the Weekly Standard ran its "Saddam Must Go" editorial. On January 26, 1998 PNAC issued its Open Letter to Clinton urging him to invade and remove Saddam Hussein.
Thank you! Great research.
The Weekly Standard’s November 17, 1997 “Saddam Must Go” editorial:
Some nations can afford to suffer more humiliation than others. When you’re the United States, even a little humiliation exacts too high a price. This isn’t just a matter of national pride. When the world’s strongest power abases itself, allies begin to worry, adversaries start whetting their appetites, and pretty soon America’s international credibility — a big and important component of national power — starts taking a dive.
This past week, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein humiliated the United States: First he ordered the expulsion of American officials from a United Nations team charged with ensuring that Iraq is not producing weapons of mass destruction. Then he demanded an end to all flights by American U-2 surveillance aircraft over Iraq and threatened to shoot them down. Then he moved some equipment that could be used to manufacture weapons out of the range of video cameras that had been installed by the U.N. inspection team to keep watch over them.
A few observers, including some administration officials, have described Saddam’s actions as foolish. Some fool. Saddam’s actions are well calibrated to achieve three important aims: to embarrass and thereby weaken the United States; to exploit divisions in the international coalition that defeated him in the Gulf War but has been fraying ever since; and last but certainly not least, to build as rapidly as possible the weapons of mass destruction that can put him back in the driver’s seat in the Middle East — a scant six years after his armies were decimated in Operation Desert Storm.
Despite the Clinton administration’s denials, Saddam appears to be succeeding on all three fronts. The last is particularly alarming. According to a report in the New York Times, U.N. inspectors believe that Iraq now possesses “the elements of a deadly germ warfare arsenal and perhaps poison gases, as well as the rudiments of a missile system” that can launch the warheads. Thanks to Saddam’s recent actions, the U.N. inspection team “can no longer verify that Iraq is not making weapons of mass destruction” and specifically cannot monitor “equipment that could grow seed stocks of biological agents in a matter of hours.”
The Clinton administration’s response to Saddam so far has compounded the humiliation, and the danger. On the one hand, officials trying to sound ominous in warning Saddam against a wrong step have succeeded only in sounding ridiculous — as when President Clinton declared it would be a “big mistake” for Saddam to shoot down an American U-2. On the other hand, the administration has agreed — or worse still, has been forced to agree — to a number of concessions to Saddam’s bullying. Rather than simply telling Saddam to shove it and preparing the first wave of air and missile strikes, the United Nations dispatched a team last week to “talk” with Saddam about the importance of complying with U.N. resolutions. The Clinton administration insisted that these talks were not “negotiations,” but that pretense was all but exploded when the U.N. and the United States agreed to suspend the U-2 flights Saddam had complained about. This appalling concession, intended to improve the atmosphere for these non-negotiations, was the worst of the administration’s missteps so far.
All these concessions were evidence, moreover, that the old Gulf War coalition is indeed collapsing. Apparently, the United States has been having a devil of a time convincing other Security Council members to approve any kind of military action against Saddam, no matter how long he defies the international community. At the end of last week, administration officials started talking about trying to persuade them at least to impose new sanctions on Iraq. Even that action, however, pitiful as it is, would be difficult given the clear determination of the French and Russians to remove sanctions altogether.
But here’s the really bad news. Even if the United States summoned the courage, alone or with U.N. approval, to launch a missile strike against Iraq this week or next, such an attack would gain only a brief pause in the downward slide of U.S. policy in the Gulf. Saddam has already calculated that he can survive another cruise-missile strike, as he survived the last, and may even come out of it in a stronger position. Once the assault has ended, the situation will return to the status quo ante: The international coalition will continue to collapse, Saddam will continue to probe for weaknesses, and U.S. credibility will continue to erode. Indeed, a U.S. attack that leaves Saddam in charge of Iraq, no matter how much damage it does to his country, might serve only to expose the futility of American power
So there is really only one alternative now. It has become increasingly clear ever since the Gulf War ended that the Gulf War ended badly. The decision to leave Saddam in control of Iraq, and to hope vainly that he would be overthrown or assassinated by his own people, was a mistake — an understandable mistake, perhaps, but a mistake nevertheless. We were sorry to see former President Bush last week denounce those who are now coming to this conclusion. The fact that he erred in letting Saddam remain in power does not detract from his magnificent accomplishment in fighting the Gulf War and liberating Kuwait. It would be a real service to the nation if Bush could acknowledge his error. Because what we most need now is to take the difficult but inescapable next step of finishing the job Bush started.
American policy toward Iraq should aim at removing Saddam from power. We are under no illusions about what will be required to accomplish this goal. There will be no coup against Saddam and no assassination at the hands of his own lieutenants. Nor, unfortunately, will an air and missile strike do the job. In a sustained air campaign, we might get lucky and hit Saddam by accident, but if we didn’t get him during the weeks-long barrage of air and missile attacks in Desert Storm, we’re unlikely to succeed in a shorter and smaller attack today.
We would certainly support a serious and sustained air attack on Iraq, and the sooner the better. But the only sure way to take Saddam out is on the ground. We know it seems unthinkable to propose another ground attack to take Baghdad. But it’s time to start thinking the unthinkable. The fact is, it would take fewer than the half-million troops deployed in Desert Storm to roll into Baghdad today, especially after an air campaign scattered or destroyed whatever resistance Saddam might be able to throw up. Who knows how many Iraqi soldiers would even fight in a Desert Storm II? Their last experience against American forces and weapons was not such as to encourage exceptional valor
If you don’t like this option, we’ve got another one for you: continue along the present course and get ready for the day when Saddam has biological and chemical weapons at the tips of missiles aimed at Israel and at American forces in the Gulf. That day may not be far off.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/weekly-standard/saddam-must-go
The Project for a New American Century January 26, 1998 Open Letter to Bill Clinton:
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of containmenf of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration’s attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddams regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. lf you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely:
Elliott Abrams
Richard L. Armitage
William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner
John Bolton
Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama
Robert Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristal
Richard Perle
Peter W Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld
William Schneider, Jr.
Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz
R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick
https://www.noi.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/iraqclintonletter1998-01-26-Copy.pdf
Truman sent troops into Korea with UN sanction, but without Congressional approval. After Inchon the North Koreans headed home. That was when both Congress and the UN decided, “restore international peace and security in the area” meant the invasion of North Korea.
“UN precedent from the Korean War provided for the intended invasion of Iraq in Resolution 678”
Resolution 678 authorized force for the purpose of driving Iraq out of Kuwait. Not for invading and conquering Iraq. This was Desert Storm, Gulf War One.
Invading Iraq in 2003 was entirely the decision of Dubya and Tony Blair. The only recent UN Resolution was 1441 ordering Saddam Hussein to readmit UN observers. They didn’t bother getting UN authorization for an invasion. Passing the blame to the UN won’t work.
Quotes/recordings of Democrats on Iraq + WMD’s
(Weapons of Mass Destruction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwqh4wQPoQk
W Bush was so bad as president that Trump is still running against him. W a Republican Charter.
Yes the Dems were wrong too. What’s your point? That doesnt make Bushs decision smart or right. Trump opposed the invasion. So did a lot of smart people, such as Jeane Kirkpatrick, James Baker and Pat Buchanan. Bush had a choice and he made the disastrously wrong one. As a result he remains the most unpopular Republican president since Herbert Hoover.
You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. EVERYONE knows the WMD was there and either shipped out to Syria and/or Libya.
Trump isn’t perfect and he’s WRONG on this issue.
Bush’s mistake was half assed nation building, pussy-hat style.
We should have carpet bombed/nuked every muslim capital in the region on 9/12, then occupied and dejihadified countries as needed and used their oil top pay for it.
We crushed Germany and Japan with total war and total occupation. NEITHER ONE OF THEM has farted militarily since.
We should have done similarly to KSA, Pakistan (let India have them), Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. Bomb them and blockade them. We would have spend less in lives lost and money.
Massive bombing and blockades would have done it without “500000 troops and trillions of dollars”
America hasn’t had the balls to crush an enemy since WW2.
And no, never leaving home doesn’t do it, Buchanan.
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.