The joke was telling the truth. The truth was known, but now one wanted to see it. The Democrats were afraid of being labeled "unpatriotic," or worse, treasonous by such human replicants made by Dick Chaney's Haliburton as Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter.
What was Bush supposed to do, call Tenet a liar (and virtually ALL of our allied foreign intelligence services) and take the word of underling officials?
Again, the facts were known. Anyone who followed more than one-sided network press knew that there were no WMDs and that there was no imminent danger from anyone in that part of the world attacking the US. Those who did were in Afghanistan.
I'm sure Chalaby was part of it, and he turned out to be a bad guy
Chalaby was known to be a bad guys before we event there. But one has to follow more critical and informed press than Fox News. There was an outstanding warrant for Chalaby by Jordan for embezzling money. However, the Rumsfeld's neocon Israeli loyalists (and I mean by that Israel first) group would hear none of that. Chalaby was their man. It's that old FDR's famous "they may be thugs, but they are our thugs..."
Saddam had already used WMDs against the Kurds
So did the Iranians. During the war with Iran (when we supported Saddam even though we knew he gassed Kurds), this was not uncommon.
Saddam's OPEN support for terrorism ($25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers
Saudi Arabia and all Islamic states do the same; Saudi Arabia actually leading. I don't see us planning to topple Saudi regime any time soon for the slake of democracy, even though their treatment of women is no better than that of the Taliban, and the fact that there is not a single church in Saudi Arabia, and that Jews cannot enter the country.
Nothing destroys one's credibility than transparent hypocrisy.
He was still shooting at our planes
We were still flying over his country.
Dems ever vote to go to war with a Republican president, then they must have been absolutely convinced too
Look, the Congress supported the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution concocted by LBJ and his gang because we wanted an excuse to attack North Vietnam. And the Congress coalesced across party lines and not wishing to be "unpatriotic" by distrusting the government (can anything be more patriotic and America then actually distrusting the government?!) approved of it, to their shame. The same thing happened with Iraq. Our media helped along as well -- some much so that syndicated columnists with some brain called them "presstitutes."
Is loyalty to the leading functional democracy in the Middle East a bad thing?
No, as long as that loyalty is not in our national interest or if it is not doing anything positive for our national interests. we cannot equate our national interests with that of another country.
Israel is better able to defend herself than almost any other country in the world, if we DID pull our support then there would be a mass war in the Middle East
There was no imminent threat of a Middle East war; only entefada started by Ariel Sharon.
Why should this not have been a factor to consider?
Israel wanted to be rid of Saddam, because Israel was somewhat within the range of his hypothetical missiles, but had no resources to invade Iraq. Someone else had to do it for them. Us. The same thing applies to Syria and Iran. Had we not gotten bogged down in Iraq like a bunch of amateurs, we would be invading Iran and Syria I am sure (and still may). The plan was to make Middle East safe for Israel by all accounts. With our blood, money and resources. Pretty clever. And, from an Israeli point of view, perfectly legitimate.
If we went to war for oil, and we now control the oil fields, why aren't we just cleaning up?
Because oil prices are determined by speculation. In some parts of this world, that's a dirty word. We have actually destablizied the region, making it easier for Iran to become a more influential power, as they are closely allied with the Iraqi Shiia population and imams. We have also angered the Saudis who can's stand the Shiites and who don't want a dominant Shiia state on their side of the Strait of Hormutz. Besides, the oil pipes are being blown up daily and the oil production is not even close to what it was before the war. getting the oil from point a to point b is more dangerous and costs more...then there is just plain old Greed. The companies are actually making bigger profits than before the war and we are paying more than twice for gas, all thanks to GW (who's bank account is doing much better along with Chaney's and Rice's because of oil prices).
The conspiracy is revealed!
There is no conspiracy. Only blindness of the populus too busy with heir toys ( blackberrys and text messaging...)
How do you know what "all evidence known then" was? You should have faxed all this evidence to liberals in the Congress since they apparently didn't know it either
The evidence was there and it did not look good for the Bush administration. The presentation of Collin Powell was a joke. It used "intercepted" taped phone conversations of alleged "Iraqi official's" and computer-generated cartoons of two "chemical" trucks. Those who followed more than prefab news reports knew that there was no evidence of WMDs or any imminent threat and that this whole thing was being cooked as an excuse to go to war.
I was reading as much as I could find, and I never believed there were any such weapons to be found. If I didn't there was plenty of evidence for others to do the same. But as always in life, some of us would rather stick our heads in the sand and pretend the sun doesn't shine.
the ones who had the most to gain from an invasion were the Iraqi people
That is really "obvious." They used to have normal schools, and electricity and water, and now they don't know if they will come home from going to the market...try telling them that.
What is this truth that you keep talking about? Who knew all these facts when you say "the facts were known", and why should anyone have listened to them at THAT time? So far, all I have is an incomplete inspection and the say so of CIA underlings.
The Democrats were afraid of being labeled "unpatriotic," or worse, treasonous by such human replicants made by Dick Chaney's Haliburton as Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter.
LOL! If the libs in Congress voted against their best judgment to put the lives of our troops in danger because they were worried about what Hannity and Coulter would say, then God save our nation if any of them is elected President. :) I guess that makes Kucinich the strongest leader in the lib field because he voted "no". Again, God save our nation. BTW, I didn't know that Hannity and Coulter were products of Haliburton. If Haliburton was smart they would make more of them. :)
FK: "Saddam had already used WMDs against the Kurds."
So did the Iranians. During the war with Iran (when we supported Saddam even though we knew he gassed Kurds), this was not uncommon.
The underlying point was that Saddam DID have WMDs, and the preposterous idea that Bush was supposed to have just assumed that Saddam voluntarily disarmed, while proclaiming the opposite to the world, and while the best intelligence in the world was telling him that Saddam still did have weapons. ANYONE making the assumptions and conclusions you say Bush should have made would NEVER have the courage to protect our nation when it is attacked again. There will always be fringe sources that will speak on behalf of the innocence of our enemies.
Had Bush listened to you and ignored the rest of the free world, and his own CIA, and history, and then if Saddam had developed a bomb (which he openly claimed he was doing) or assisted in the deployment of another enemy nation's bomb over a major American city, then you all would have said "OOOOOPS", and potentially hundreds of thousands of Americans would be dead. A President CANNOT afford to fall back on "OOOOOPS".
Saudi Arabia and all Islamic states do the same; Saudi Arabia actually leading.
I agree with you about Saudi. They are not our friends, imo. I know there is a special relationship between them and GHWB, so it is possible that they are being very helpful behind the scenes, but I have no earthly idea if that is actually so. For now, in my mind they are part of the problem.
FK: "He was still shooting at our planes."
We were still flying over his country.
Saddam invaded Kuwait first. We drove him out and agreed not to finish the job then IF, ....., IF Saddam agreed to certain conditions which he DID agree to. The no-fly zones were part of that agreement. He violated the agreement. In part, that choice on his part is what subjected him to further action. That was definitely a big part of the Security Council's 15-0 vote.
FK: "Is loyalty to the leading functional democracy in the Middle East a bad thing?"
No, as long as that loyalty is not [against] our national interest or if it is not doing anything positive for our national interests. We cannot equate our national interests with that of another country.
I agree. I don't know of any credible argument that says that we should turn our back on Israel and not support them, from the POV of our national interests. A more stable Middle East is far better for us than a Middle East in a major war. If Israel's neighbors believed she is vulnerable, they would attack in a second. I think the ONLY reason they don't is that they know they would have to deal with the U.S. While everyone knows that Israel has nukes, I don't think the Islamists would really care. They would attack anyway.
There was no imminent threat of a Middle East war; ...
I didn't say anyone claimed that. I said that if we withdraw our umbrella from over Israel, there would be a major war almost immediately. That is against our national interest.
Israel wanted to be rid of Saddam, because Israel was somewhat within the range of his hypothetical missiles, but had no resources to invade Iraq. Someone else had to do it for them. Us.
Sure, it was a good deal for them, but we didn't do this FOR them. We did it for our national interest, which includes Israel.
[Continued on next post....]
The plan was to make Middle East safe for Israel by all accounts. With our blood, money and resources. Pretty clever.
Close. The plan was to make the Middle East safer for you and me by establishing a friendly democracy in the middle of terrorist alley. Of course our friend Israel benefits greatly if all goes well. With a U.S. foothold in the middle of the action we would have a much greater ability to affect the spread of terrorism in the region, all to our national interest.
FK: "If we went to war for oil, and we now control the oil fields, why aren't we just cleaning up?"
Because oil prices are determined by speculation. In some parts of this world, that's a dirty word. ...
I know about the futures market, etc. And I know that crude oil is fungible. But so does Bush!!! :) Therefore, doesn't your correct answer shoot the "war for oil" theory right out of the water? :) It makes absolutely zero sense to say that Bush went to war for oil, when it is clear that there is no gain to be had there, unless we were just going to steal it or something. Looking at today's gas prices, it looks like Bush hasn't stolen very much yet.
The companies are actually making bigger profits than before the war and we are paying more than twice for gas, all thanks to GW (who's bank account is doing much better along with Cheney's and Rice's because of oil prices).
So, your economic analysis is that when it comes to higher gas prices: "IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!". While that is a popular view among the Paul Krugman's of the world, it doesn't match the facts. Actually, the reason for higher gas prices is not mostly due to a shortage in production, it is due to a shortage in refining capacity. The companies are not making huge profits at the pump, in fact the franchise gas station owners are getting killed with the high prices. No, the companies are making a mint at the refining level.
Why is that? Enter Al Gore-types and other militant environmentalists. 30 years ago, the United States had good capacity to refine crude oil to satisfy the needs of the American people. Do you know how many new refineries have been built in this country in the last 30 years? ZERO! Thanks to all liberals. And since those same liberals filibuster attempts to drill for new oil, to build new refineries, and to build more nuclear power plants, the demand has gone through the roof, while our refining capacity (and domestic supply) is stunted. I'm surprised it took this long to catch up to us.
BTW, did you know why Iran is actually a net IMPORTER of fuel? It's because they don't have enough refineries either. They are actually rationing gas in Iran. Can you imagine that? ...... So, thanks to the leftists, the oil companies have mini-monopolies on the refining level and can charge what they want. They are semi-clean because the liberals won't let them build new plants or drill for new oil, or go get the shale oil that we also have an abundance of. No one cried for the oil companies when they were losing their shirts, so I don't blame them for making a buck now while the getting is good.
The evidence was there and it did not look good for the Bush administration. ... Those who followed more than prefab news reports knew that there was no evidence of WMDs or any imminent threat and that this whole thing was being cooked as an excuse to go to war.
As I said earlier, what is this evidence? I follow what the anti-war Dems are saying today and I don't hear anything credible. Since they only get out of bed in the morning to politically stab Bush in the chest, I would think that if they had such evidence that their buddies in the MSM would headline it for weeks. But I haven't seen anything.
I was reading as much as I could find, and I never believed there were any such weapons to be found.
OK, then what do you think Saddam did with the WMD program that he actually implemented before? Did he secretly dismantle it while lying to the world that it not only existed, but was growing?
FK: "... the ones who had the most to gain from an invasion were the Iraqi people."
That is really "obvious." They used to have normal schools, and electricity and water, and now they don't know if they will come home from going to the market...try telling them that.
I see. Normal schools? Uh-huh. Well, I suppose the first I would tell would be those lying in mass graves, and the victims of the state sponsored rape rooms, and Saddam's torture chambers, and the political prisoners, and all their families, etc. We've certainly made some serious mistakes in Iraq, but if we don't quit, and they don't quit, the lives of the Iraqis and countless future generations will be immeasurably better.