Did Bush lie about Iraq?

And yet, for the 6 trillion dollars we spent, and the millions of people killed, the Taliban STILL control Afghanistan, and the only real difference is instead of Saddam in Iraq, we have ISIS. So what really changed? In what way can ANYONE say the trillions spent justify the end results?

 

It wasn't even a 'hotbed for terrorists" . Saddam had no patience for Al Qaida types. He was as ruthless with them as he was with the Kurds.

- - - Updated - - -

Dude...had Bush not invaded Iraq...We wouldn't even be talking about ISIS. Be honest for once.

 

Our troops were welcomed by cheers and flowers.

You are trying to blame Bush for a tiny number of people that later on became terrorists.

Bush being welcomed by Iraqis in 2003 (Troops were, but notice who the Iraqis chant for)

[video=youtube;Zmjq9bCbcNw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmjq9bCbcNw[/video]



If you quit hating Bush, you may feel a lot better.

 

Iraqis in joy that we took out Saddam Hussein

[video=youtube;1AGQzQo1HY4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AGQzQo1HY4[/video]

 

Yea...there was some positive sentiment in the immediate aftermath of the invasion that got rid of their dictator...and that lasted about a minute.

 

You're exactly right...........

 

And was probably staged!

 

The "Arab Spring" was a rebellion against tyrannical power across the Middle East. The rebellion in Syria, where ISIS had part of it it's roots, was a revolt against the tyranny of Assad. The problem is that the rebels would be just as tyrannical as Assad if they overthrow Assad. In Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood took control based upon a democratic vote and it was as tyrannical and corrupt as Mubarak's regime, perhaps even more so. Al Qaeda was formed by Osama bin Laden to rebel against the tyrannical government imposed by the Royal Family of Saud in Saudi Araba. Hamas formed to fight against the tyrannical actions of Israel against the non-Jewish population in Palestine. Hezbollah was formed to fight against the tyranny of Israel's invasions into Lebanon.

When we look at all of these "terrorist" organizations and the underlying rationalization for their acts of terrorism is that they're fighting against the tyranny of government.

It was interesting to me because after 9/11 Osama bin Laden once made a statement, that I'll have to paraphrase, where he said, "If the United States actions were based upon the political ideology that our nation was founded upon then there would be no terrorist threat against America."

The problem is that we don't live up to our own political ideology to opposes tyranny. Our foreign policy has been based upon "The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend" and in following that the US has supported tyrannical regimes and committed acts of tyranny around the world. Instead of opposing tyranny in all of it's forms based upon our political ideology we've embraced tyranny as our foreign policy and that gives rise to a rebellion against our actions.

 

As everyone knows traitor Bush and his anti-America supporters created ISIS. And while the world remains in shock over what happened in Brussels, the fact remains that Iraq which was victimized by Bush's imperialism is still under attack by radicals:


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/26/world/middleeast/iraq-isis-bombing.html?partner=rss&emc=rss



A suicide bomber detonated his explosive belt at a soccer game in a town south of Baghdad on Friday, killing at least 31 people, including the town’s mayor, provincial police officials said.

Islamic State militants claimed responsibility for the attack, in the town of Iskandariya in Babil Province, through the group’s affiliated news agency, Al Amaq. The Islamic State group controls large areas of territory in northern and western Iraq, as well as parts of Syria.

 

If you're talking about the iconic video of "Iraqis" pulling down the statue of Sadaam Hussein, it WAS STAGED!

 

What a bunch of ridiculous claptrap.

What gives you the right to expect the "Iraqi people" to "stay on script"

Who dictated the script, and when was anyone in Iraq asked to endorse it???? Was it when Dick Cheney went on Fox Noise and promoted the false claim that Iraq was a year away from having nuclear weapons?

Or was it when Bush said his "sixteen words" in the 2003 state of the Union Address, words he had been repeatedly told were not true (while Ahmed Chalabi looked on from his seat right behind the First Lady)?

The United States staged a unilateral invasion and a botched military occupation of a foreign country. They did it without support of any major country except Britain (which joined in order to protect its access to oil interests).

The fact that Bush team members kept reassuring Congress and the public that the war would be quick and cheap, belied its bloodthirsty fearmongering about non existant "eminent threats", non existant "mushroom clouds" and non existant WMDs.

The fact that the Bush team had no long term plan whatsoever for stabalizing the country once they conquered it (quite unlike the way Germany and Japan were handled) pointed toward disaster.

Disaster of the Bush admintration's making.

Trying to whitewash Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the PNAC crowd's culpablilty by claiming all war is a disaster is disingenuous.

The blame for the disaster in Iraq, and its aftermath belongs squarely on the shoulders of George W Bush and his henchmen.

 

100% spot on.

Supporting Bush's imperialistic war is treason.

 

And pulled down by an American tanks with literally DOZENS...well at least a dozen...half heartedly cheering Iraqis watching

 

Actually, all of the cheering "Iraqis" were members of Ahmed Chalabi's US financed front group, the Iraqi National Congress. They had been flown into Iraq a couple of day before the event took place.

While US media treated American television viewers to close up views of the event, and the Bush adminstration exploited it to full advantage, Reuters eventually spilled the beans by showing the bird's eye view, and identifying Chalibi in the crowd.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NYI304A.html

 

AQ was formed in Afghanistan in 1988 by OBL.. He was banished in 1992 .. His citizenship was revoked in 1992 and AQ was declare a terrorist outfit in 1994.

AQ was a follower of Sayyid Qutb.. He wanted the west , military and civilian, to withdraw from every Islamic country of the world.

 

You do know that when he watched it President Bush commented that there didn't seem to be that many people there.

 

You made some points.

These are them.
1. Complaint "Iraqis did not stay on script"
What script was that? Since I know of no script, it is impossible for me to give you answers. If you mean plans, there were plans. But the enemy also had choices how those worked out. Remember the battle of the bulge?

2. Cheney only reacted to the intelligence handed to him.

3. Back to the yellowcake deal I see. Well, you must have totally forgotten how much yellow cake Saddam had and have no curiosity as to where it came from.

4. Where is it written as law that a lot of countries have to gang up on a dictator to make it right to get rid of him? Democrats seem to have interred some rule on this matter that I do not understand. Have you completely forgot the Clinton law he signed in 1998 demanding the ouster of Saddam Hussein?

5. Actually there was a plan which is why General Garner started his duty then Ambassador Bremer took the job.

6. Complaint the war was not cheap.

There is so much you do not know, that you believe in, that is not true, I advise you to read some books.
1.American Soldier, General Franks
2. General speaks out ... General DeLong
3. My year in Iraq , Paul Bremer
4. Decision points by President Bush

 

Read what Clinton left for Bush.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=55205

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

 

Do you have any idea what you say five minutes after you say it?

Does an argument cease to be yours once it's been proven stupid or as soon as you no longer have a need for it....

 

Well, I am so polite I did not wish to tell you this, but when reading your arguments it makes me feel as if you have no clue at all.

When you attack posters, do you feel superior?

 

We don't know if he knew or not, we probably never will. But what I do know is that nations do not go to war for moral purposes, they go to war for their own gain and influence. Oil interests were threatened, Saddam stopped trading in the petrodollar... what else would we expect? Imperialism is as alive as it has ever been. The economic rule of superpowers, whenever it is threatened, can be restored through theirsuperior military might, as has happened multiple times in the past.

Another problem I have is that the UN inspectors did come by, but even then they had to make more excuses for an invasion. Saddam was not a great guy, but the Casus Belli is flawed, no doubt.

 

"1. Complaint "Iraqis did not stay on script"
What script was that? Since I know of no script, it is impossible for me to give you answers. If you mean plans, there were plans. But the enemy also had choices how those worked out. Remember the battle of the bulge? "

You're the one who made the assertion that the Iraqis didn't follow some imaginary script, not me. I don't have to defend your assertions.

"2. Cheney only reacted to the intelligence handed to him."

This is false on its face. When Cheney first started the fearmongering about Sadaam's imaginary nuclear program, at the VFW Convention in Kansas City in August 2002, both the CIA and the UN were fully aware that Iraq had abandoned its nuclear program in 1996. None the less, Cheney kept repeating it, and it became a Bush adminstration talking point (Condi Rice, anyone?)

Not only was Cheney NOT reacting to the intelligence he was given, he was pressuring intelligence analyists to tell him what he wanted to hear.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1337947

"3. Back to the yellowcake deal I see. Well, you must have totally forgotten how much yellow cake Saddam had and have no curiosity as to where it came from. "

Which means what, exactly??????

Iraq has a stockpile of yellowcake that it had intended to process for use in a nuclear reactor. The reactor was built by the French and bombed by the Isreali in 1981. After that, the Iraqis gave up on nuclear power, and the stockpile was allowed to sit there.

Bush's infamous sixteen words refer specifically to yellowcake from Niger.

This is EXACTLY what he said.

He had been informed on several occasions that the documents on which this claim was based were forgeries. In fact, the White HOuse staff had inserted this claim into two other Bush speeches, only to have George Tenet veto them. Tenet finally got tired of fighting the neocons.

The fact that the Bush White House knew that this claim was false is not only well documented, but the Bush White House NEVER attempted to deny that Bush's claim was false once Joe Wilson exposed it. They couldn't. So Rove tried to change the subject by smearing Wilson's wife.

http://www.alternet.org/story/35133/bush's_'16_words'_were_false

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/sprj.irq.wmdspeech/

http://warisacrime.org/node/21915

"4. Where is it written as law that a lot of countries have to gang up on a dictator to make it right to get rid of him? Democrats seem to have interred some rule on this matter that I do not understand. Have you completely forgot the Clinton law he signed in 1998 demanding the ouster of Saddam Hussein?"

In the United Nations Charter, which was largely written by the United States.

I am well aware that Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. This was championed by Newt Gingrich, who was heavily lobbied by Ahmed Chalabi. Chalabi had had his funding cut off by the CIA, and later the State Department because he couldn't account for where the money went and the
"intelligence" he provided was nearly all worthless. So, he went to his neo con friends in the American Enterprise Institute, and its subsidiary the Project for a New American Century and got them to pass the Iraq Liberation Act, which DID NOT sanction US military action, but DID put Chalabi in the Defense Department payroll, where he remained until 2004. In fact, the "Iraqis" who pulled down the statue of Sadaam in the famous picture, were all Chalabi's men, all flown in from outside the country.

"5. Actually there was a plan which is why General Garner started his duty then Ambassador Bremer took the job. "

It's laughable to assert that there was a plan.

As late as three months bofore the war, Paul Wolfwitz was telling the Senate that the Iraq war would be "self financing", and Rumsfeld was telling Congress that the war would be over by Thanksgiving.

It's my theory that they had planned on installing Chalabi, but as the decision date grew near, they suddenly and belatedly realized that Chalibi was a con man.

Here is some food for though on that subject.

http://www.salon.com/2004/05/04/chalabi_4/

Garner had no idea he was being relieved until Bremmer showed up.

And Bremmer still denies responsibility for disbanding the Iraqi military. But so does the guy who sent him there (and probably told him to do it). Bremmer knew absolutely nothing about teh Middle East, particularly Iraq. He was totally unprepared for his role, as were the people who sent him.

If you want a really good read on how badly this whole thing was bungled, I strongly recommend "Imperial Life in the Emerald City". It is a snapshot of life in the Green Zone. It's also a great read, and entirely accurate.

http://rajivc.com/imperiallife/

"6. Complaint the war was not cheap."

I'm not even sure why you brought this up.

As I have already said, Paul Wolfowitz told the Senate that the war would be self financing, a proposition so utterly preposterous that I almost drove my car off the road when I heard him say it (on CSPAN radio).

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2011/1222/Iraq-war-Predictions-made-and-results

(the only thing more astounding in my view at the time was Bill Kristol's assertion that the idea that there was tension between Sunni and Shia in Iraq was "pop psycology".

People who have plans don't display such fundamental ignorance.

You can assert that war is not cheap all you want, but the people you're making weak excuses for told the American people just that. The war would be cheap.

Not only that, but they borrowed 100% of its cost.

Please refrain from lecturing me on what I know about the Bush adminstration arrogance and incompetence in Iraq. Particularly when you recomend people who feel that they have to write rationalizations for their failures.

I knew that night that Bush gave his SOTU in 2002, that he was going to start a war in the Middle East. I also knew that unless he was extremely lucky, that the decision would be a disaster of monumental proportions. That was the night of the infamous "axis of evil" speech. There was no axis. But as a result of that speech, and subsequent events, both North Korea and Iran restarted their nuclear programs.

Contrary to your assertions about my "ignorance" I have been closely following Middle Eastern politics (particularly arms issues) since the early 1970's. After all, two oil shocks exposed our nation's vulerability to the politics of this region.

I knew enough about Iraq, and what the international intelligence and foreign community believed to know that Bush's case for war had major holes in it. After the campaign went on for a while, it became increasingly clear that it was bogus. The world saw that too.

 

The "yellow cake " accusation was a complete farce.. and an egregious lie.. Months before Bush's invasion , Nigeria came out yelling that it was a lie .. They told the whole world it was a lie.. and the documents were forged..

Bush, Cheney, the neocons and the Israelis wanted the Iraq war.. The intelligence didn't matter.. Arabs, diplomats, oilmen, historians, US senior military advisors didn't matter.

 

Excellent post, Tom.. .. you clearly have followed events since the early 1970s.. The dual citizen neocons are responsible for the lies and chicanery they used to sell the war to the American public.. and the aftermath of that incredibly stupid blunder..

I resigned the Republican part in the fall of 2002 after having written a dozen letters to Bush, Cheney and my Congressman warning them of this FUBAR.. Talk about feeling helpless.

 

Yea pardon me for pointing out your blatant lies