10 Years Ago We Went To War For Oil

Saudi Arabia did not support the US war in Iraq. Qutar and Kuwait did. Everyone else opposed it.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0219-04.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=9P...saudi arabia did not support IrAQ WAR&f=false

Saudi Arabia sent aid to Sunni groups (that would be the insurgents) fighting with the Shia majority.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/middleeast/27saudi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Saudi Arabia did not support Mr Bush's war because it saw how reckless the Adminstration was, how poorly planned the operation was, how ignorant Bush adminstration officials were of the forces they were unleashing, and how little though the Americans were giving to the long term ramnifications.

Saudia Arabia saw Mr Bush's war as a direct threat to the centuries old balance of power between Sunnis and Shia in the Middle East, and thus the balance of power between the two great nations on either side of the Persian Gulf.

Events have proven the Saudi's fears to be well founded.

Which is why the Saudis SUMMONED Dick Cheney right after the 2006 elections and essentially ordered him to clean up his mess.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2006/11/28/8858/cheney-saudi/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/27/AR2006112701398.html

 

You've decided to "back up" false claims by making new ones!

Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act because it was going to pass with a veto proof majority. Since the US was not planning to attack Iraq, it was basically a poltical gimmie. There was no serious opposition to it, and Congress had been very insistant on being assured that the ILA would NOT lead to war.

This claim is entirely and completely fiction. There was no plan in the Clinton adminstration to remove Sadaam Hussein by military force. None.

You made it up, and you continue to spew it, without a shred of evidence (which you won't find).

You're giving credit to Clinton for being a lot smarter than Bush was. The Bush administration had no such understanding and no such plan. They actually were stupid enough to believe that their work was done the day Sadaam's government fell. So they told US forces to stand down, and they sat and watched as rioting and looting broke out all over the country. We belatedly responded by installing a ham handed suzerainity, which only made things much worse very quicly (so much for understaning the ramnifications).

In the end, the United States failed to achieve it's primary objectives in the Iraq war.

They deposed Sadaam Hussein, once one of their clients. In doing so, they unleashed ethnic forces that are drivng chaos and unreset in that part of teh Middle East to this day (think Syria).

The US failed to acheive its primary goals of installing a permanent US military presence in Iraq, and it's goal of forcing the Iraqi government to award generous Production Sharing Agreements to US oil companies on American terms.

The American debacle both emboldened and significantly strengthened Iran.

And we blew through trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, alienated our allies, emboldened our enemies, and in the end has virtually nothing to show for it.

 

I know that your carefully chosen recitals of various finding of trace elements and empty shell casings did not constitute a justification for starting a unilateral war.

How do I know this?

Because hte guy who found them said so! (I have already cited that several times).


And so has the guy who started the war. (I cited that too).

 

And was unequivical in his support for it and Saddam's removal from office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=457jp8VGhEE

Yes it would lead to a war with an insurgent force as the military we created, supplied, trained and supported which if successful would have left us with the task of getting a provisional government in place and then an elected one.

You statement is entirely false and unsupported.

I suggest you read the ILA.

Me>> He and the American people knew full well that once Saddam was removed that we would have to then tassist and provide security for the transistional government

They both knew what would have to be done after Saddam was removed. Just as during WW2 we knew what would have to be done, did we have a detailed plan when we declared war? Of course not.

Now that is a totally fallacious statement and I challenge to read the Lincoln speech Bush gave when he was welcoming them back after successfully completing their mission.

In hindsite they should have left the military at least parcially in place but they had no way of knowing who would be supportive or not as we had little in country intelligence.

Which ones did it not accomplish and be specific, cite from the ILA and the ATUMF.

Obama blew that.

Please cite from this agreement with a link.

Thank the liberal Democrats and mainstream media for that.

 

That's not obvious from the history. Not to mention that that assertion contradicts your own claims

You yourself asserted that the Iraq war was "brilliant" and that the job was done once Sadaam was deposed. Of course, that was the right wing spin at the time as the country was dissolving into chaos right before the world's eyes. It was equally obvious tthat the Bushies had not planned for this (they boasted about their lack of planning and their blythe assumptions before the war) and that the only thing they had in the way of a plan was Donald Rumsfeld making glib and insulting wisecracks about vases. US forces stool by while chaos ensued. Mobs looted the National Gallery, while US forces diligently guarded the Oil Ministry next door.

Enter Paul Bremmer and the makeshift Coalition (another fiction) Provisional Authority, which wreaked further havoc by dissolving the army and the civil service. Of course when the army went home, they took their guns with them!

Chaos ensued.

You can do your own research on Production Sharing Agreements. These, enshrined in the Iraq Hydrocarbon Law, were one of the Bush adminstration's key objectives in the war.

Since i know that you are both too arrogant, too lazy,and too afraid of the facts to look on your own, here are just a few links:

http://lootiraq.blogspot.com/2005/11/looting-of-iraq-and-chalabi.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3075521.stm

http://www.historycommons.org/timel...greements&timeline=us_occupation_of_iraq_tmln

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Produ...ts--mortgaging+Iraq's+oil+wealth.-a0156001336

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/185/40510.html

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/185/40693.html

Your claim that "Obama blew that" in response to the Bush adminstration's failure to install a permanent US military presence in Iraq fails on two counts. First of all, it contradicts your claim that our objective was to establish a free and representative democracy. Free and representative democracies don't invite the country that just invaded them to set up permanent shop.

Second, the Bush team had completely failed to estabish any real influence over the government it set up. Baghdad dragged negotiations out in finitum over the Status of Forces Agreement because they wanted the Americans gone. They did the same thing with the Hycrocarbon Law.

The free and democrtic Iraq wasn't about to ratify a law that gave away most of the revenue from their only natural resourse to foreign oil companies, especially since that law was written by foreign lawyers.

Was the Iraq war about oil?

Of course!

That's why Bush administration officials privately boasted about it before the war, and projected the profits their war was going to produce.

That's why the first target secured in the war was the tanker terminal in the Shatt al Arab.

That's why we guarded the oil ministry in the wake of looting and civil war.

And it failed.

Neither liberal democrats nor mainstream media are the least bit responsible.

Liberal Democrats and the mainstream media in the US did not start a war in Iraq.

Liberal Democrats and the mainstream media did not decide that that war could be fought with 1/4 the resources that we used in Desert Storm.

Liberal Democrats and the mainstream media weren't the ones who failed to have a plan for when Sadaam was gone.

Liberal Democrats and the mainstream media were not the ones who dismissed the possibility of civil war between Shia and Sunni as "pop psychology". That was right wing mouthpiece (and NeoCon) Bill Kristol.

Liberal Democrats and the mainstream media never withheld anything the Bush adminstation asked for.

Liberal Democrats and the mainstream media don't matter in world opinion. What people think in Baghdad or Tehran is not dictated by Rush Limbaugh,. Fox Noise, the New York Times or MSNBC. Anyone who would think otherwise has to be pretty parochial.

Liberal Democrats and the mainstream media did not make arrogant speeches about "freedom fries", insult or allies, and go stomping around trying to bully people into supporting a policy that most of the world thought would end in disaster. Taht was the Bush administration and its political allies.

In the end, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld did alienate nearly all of the US's traditional allies, blew through trillions in borrowed money and thousands of lives, and failed to achieve any long term strategic success.

 

Are you really this ignorant of history.

"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government."

It was MANDATED by Congress with the full support of the Clinton administration.

The deposition of Saddam was done one he was deposed................yes.

What was the "planning" that was not done? Granted we didn't plan for al Qaeda moving the main front of their war against us to Iraq, which was a strategic mistake on their part and we had to adjust our plans accordingly.

But tell me did we had a "plan" for Germany when we declared war on them? No. That evolved as we came closer to victory. We knew full well that we would have to provide security for the providential temporary governing as we move to elections. But why do you believe we have a crystal ball at the college of military planning that can predict exactly what the situation will be once victory is achieved? That all wars are fought according to some preconceived planning and that the enemy behaves exactly as planned and the no changes should ever be considered? You know that is what helped to lead to the defeat of Japan in WW2, this mentality of unless you know exactly how the conflict will end therefore you should create a plan for such and never deviate from it and unless you come up with such a plan you should not respond to those who threaten is utter folly.

Yes in retrospect it was a bad decision, it caused setbacks, it helped the forces that came their fight us initially. But Bush along with out military leaders showed the necessarily leadship, adjust to our enemies responses and formed a plan that defeated them. Can you cite me any war we or any other nation has fought that went according to preconceived plans, that was fought without any "mistakes", without any changes in the strategic let alone tactical planning?

No you can back up your claims.

If they contain something which backs your claim the cite from them. I don't chase blind links.

Prove your claim of pre-invasion agreements with US oil companies to take over Iraq oil.

I lay it on the singular fact that Obama took over the responsible to negotiate the status of forces agreement. He put his Vice-President in charge and together they failed. Bush had done the hard work for them, the reduction in forces and Iraq take over of security was a done deal. The new Iraq government, the elected one, was in charge and in control of the country. All Obama and Biden had to do was negotiate the status of forces agreement so we would have a force there which would be a huge strategic advantage for us. They failed and the country is falling into chaos and Iran's influence was enhanced when Obama had to retreat.

Ahhhmmmm...............Germany, Japan, Korea.

Ahhhhmmm, that's a "real" government. The US doesn't go in and dictate to the people what government. We removed Saddam and his government, the Iraqi people were free to establish the government of THEIR choosing not ours. Yes having one that is friendly to us and will work with us was a goal. Obama and Biden blew that.

Obama was bested by them. Obama should never have been elected President to handle such matters because he is totally incompetent and had zero experience in these types of matters. He has made us a mockery.

Along with other key sights.

You know your whole position falls on it's face due to the simple fact we do not control their oil and never did and in fact worked to make sure they did. Are American companies there doing work..................well DUH I hope so, I hope as many American companies get business there as possible and it flourishes.

Oh they most certainly. They engaged singularly and in concert to turn public opinion against the war and in doing so encouraging our enemies to fight on and discourage possible allies from joining us. The worst of the two being the Democrats who voted to support the ILA and ATUMF and then turned against the country for political expedience when they began to fear our success would harm them politically. The entire propaganda campaign they engaged in while we were at war was a despicable act and cost of lives.

 

"Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 - Declares that it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government."

IT does NOT require the United States to mount an invasion as you have falsely claimed.

The Clinton adminstration did not have a plan for the invasion of Iraq, or a committment to do so, as you have also falsely claimed.

"It was MANDATED by Congress with the full support of the Clinton administration."

That's what I said. You claimed the opposite. Glad to see you admit at least that fact.

"The deposition of Saddam was done one he was deposed................yes."

No one doubted that deposing Hussein would be the easy part. Dispite the breathless fearmongering of the Bush team about iminent threats to the US, the fact was that Iraq was a military paper tiger. Much weaker than it had been in 1990. No one figured this part of the war would be difficult. What was problematic was what would come next. Bush insisted that we didn't have to deal with it. Events proved otherwise.

"What was the "planning" that was not done? Granted we didn't plan for al Qaeda moving the main front of their war against us to Iraq, which was a strategic mistake on their part and we had to adjust our plans accordingly."

Here is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff discussing the number of troops needed to occupy Iraq:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_xchyIeCQw

The US NEVER had that many troops in Iraq, and launched the invasion with 10% of that force. Rumsfeld attacked Shenseki publically and forced him into retirement. Right wing media (probably you included) called him "unhinged" (which was becoming the favorite term of art for conservatives to attack anyone who was right but not saying what they wanted to hear).

Here is Wolfowitz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpbFYBAhkUk

(note the references to the fact that the Bush adminstration was so afraid to ask for real committment from its own base. Instead it played the "off the books"game).

And, of course, there were Donald Rumsfeld's notorious assertions that the war would be over in 90 days and everyone would be home by Christmas.

"But tell me did we had a "plan" for Germany when we declared war on them? No. "

A false equivialancy, since the US did not spend nine months going around ginning up a false case for attacking a country at peace without provocation.

" But why do you believe we have a crystal ball at the college of military planning that can predict exactly what the situation will be once victory is achieved?"

Ask General Shenski and the many military and foreign policy experts who accurately predicted that the Invastion of Iraq would have to be followed by a lenghtly military occupation, since Iraq's civil institutions are so weak, that chaos would ensue otherwide, which is exactly what happened.

"Enter Paul Bremmer and the makeshift Coalition (another fiction) Provisional Authority, which wreaked further havoc by dissolving the army and the civil service.
Yes in retrospect it was a bad decision, it caused setbacks, it helped the forces that came their fight us initially."

Well, that was the fallback, when the country fell apart and there was no plan. Bremmer almost immediately disbanded the civil service and the army. The insurrection started within days. Even since, Bremmer and Bush White House officials have traded finger pointing over who was responsible for that decision. (my money is on Cheney and Rumsfeld, whose serial incompetence permeates this whole sad story).


"But Bush along with out military leaders showed the necessarily leadship, adjust to our enemies responses and formed a plan that defeated them."

You're calling Paul Bremmer's Coalition Provisional Authority an example of Bush's brilliant leadership? ROTFLMAO.

No, the reality is that the Bush adminstration bungled along in Iraq until 2007, with no plan whatsoever. By the end of 2006, Iraq was on the verge of open civil war. No matter of bluster and spin could hide that fact.


"No you can back up your claims."

I backed up my claims in detail, and you know it. I have the advantage of being able to use the headlines for much of it, while you have to dig through footnotes to find things you can conflate, or make broadbrush claims, or simply lie.

"Since i know that you are both too arrogant, too lazy,and too afraid of the facts to look on your own, here are just a few links:
If they contain something which backs your claim the cite from them. I don't chase blind links."

The links all worked just fine. They didn't saw what you wanted to believe.

The case has been made the evidence cited, by me and others.



"Your claim that "Obama blew that" in response to the Bush adminstration's failure to install a permanent US military presence in Iraq fails on two counts.
I lay it on the singular fact that Obama took over the responsible to negotiate the status of forces agreement".

He didn't "take over" the negotiations.

Bush and company spent two years trying to close the deal, and couldn't do it.

He put his Vice-President in charge and together they failed. Bush had done the hard work for them, the reduction in forces and Iraq take over of security was a done deal. The new Iraq government, the elected one, was in charge and in control of the country. All Obama and Biden had to do was negotiate the status of forces agreement so we would have a force there which would be a huge strategic advantage for us. They failed and the country is falling into chaos and Iran's influence was enhanced when Obama had to retreat.

First of all, it contradicts your claim that our objective was to establish a free and representative democracy. Free and representative democracies don't invite the country that just invaded them to set up permanent shop.
Ahhhmmmm...............Germany , Japan, Korea.

Second, the Bush team had completely failed to estabish any real influence over the government it set up.

"Ahhhhmmm, that's a "real" government. The US doesn't go in and dictate to the people what government. We removed Saddam and his government, the Iraqi people were free to establish the government of THEIR choosing not ours. Yes having one that is friendly to us and will work with us was a goal. Obama and Biden blew that."

In response to your false contention that the US left it to Iraq completely to set up its own government and that it was friendly and compliant until the black man came along, there's this:

Here is Iraq telling George Bush what they really think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duLds-TZMGw

"Baghdad dragged negotiations out in finitum over the Status of Forces Agreement because they wanted the Americans gone.
Obama was bested by them. Obama should never have been elected President to handle such matters because he is totally incompetent and had zero experience in these types of matters. He has made us a mockery.

That's why the first target secured in the war was the tanker terminal in the Shatt al Arab.

That's why we guarded the oil ministry in the wake of looting and civil war.
Along with other key sights.

"You know your whole position falls on it's face due to the simple fact we do not control their oil and never did and in fact worked to make sure they did."

Once again, you're shopping the same post hoc fallacy. The fact that the Bush adminstartion dismally failed to achieve one of its core objectives, installing a government that would award generous and lucrative oil concession primarily to American companies, does not mean that wasn't the objective.

I have already documented that fact, as have others. You didnt' want to be confronted with facts that contradict your fairy tale, so you pretended the links are bad, when we both know better. (that's really pathetic of you,BTW)

"Are American companies there doing work..................well DUH I hope so, I hope as many American companies get business there as possible and it flourishes."

Iraq is not flourishing. It's per capita income is lower than it was before the war. Much of its infrastructure still lies in ruins. The country is bitterly divided into tribal factions. Oil production is only now beginning to approach the level that Paul Wolfowitz claimed it would be in 2004.

Do you just make this stuff up and throw it out there?

The only people who flourished in Iraq were Halliburton, KBR, CACI, Flour, Parsons and a host of other defense contractors stealing everything they could while the stealing was good under the Bush adminstrations' not so watchful eyes.

"Neither liberal democrats nor mainstream media are the least bit responsible."

"Oh they most certainly. They engaged singularly and in concert to turn public opinion against the war and in doing so encouraging our enemies to fight on and discourage possible allies from joining us. The worst of the two being the Democrats who voted to support the ILA and ATUMF and then turned against the country for political expedience when they began to fear our success would harm them politically. The entire propaganda campaign they engaged in while we were at war was a despicable act and cost of lives. "

This is an idiotic assertion. If one supports a war and the war turns out well, one takes credit for being on the right side of history.

The war didn't turn out well, and it was clear that the people who voted for it were not going to be on the right side of history. The bungling, arrgance, and incompetence of the people running the war was becoming more and more apparant.

Events on the ground turned public opinion, not the media or liberals. Bush promised a quick and easy war that was going to be "self financing". When that mirage evaporated in the summer of 2003, it was obvious that there was no plan B. From then on, the Bush effort seemed to look no farther than winning the next news cycle in American media.

 

They didn't pass it just for the fun of it, it authorized the President to select and create an insurgent army to do so and provided the funding necessary.

See above, he started the process but failed to see it through................he failed.

Yes the Clinton administration knew Saddam could not be allowed to remain in power and with the Congress passed the ILA.

They never claimed Saddam was an imminent threat, had the US believed he was an imminent threat we would not have wasted our time at the UN and he would have been removed years before he was.

No such insistance was was proclaimed and had Clinton manage to fulfill the goal of the ILA he would have faced the same problems.

We know they were mistaken to the extent that Jihadist groups would move their fight there and that leaving at least some of the Iraq military and police in place would have been a better plan................so what. What war had ever been fought without such mistakes?


Me>> "But tell me did we had a "plan" for Germany when we declared war on them? No. "

Roosevelt spent years getting support for going to war and Saddam fully provocated the world creating the necessity for his removal from office.

Me>>" But why do you believe we have a crystal ball at the college of military planning that can predict exactly what the situation will be once victory is achieved?"

Listen to Bush saying that the removal of Saddam was just the first step and we had a long way to go and a hard struggle ahead.

And the best laid plans fall apart at first contact. We adjusted and completed our goal of an elected government.

Yes and as stated that was probably a mistake which even he acknowledges.


"But Bush along with out military leaders showed the necessarily leadship, adjust to our enemies responses and formed a plan that defeated them."

I'm calling the surge.

"No you can back up your claims."

I backed up my claims in detail, and you know it. I have the advantage of being able to use the headlines for much of it, while you have to dig through footnotes to find things you can conflate, or make broadbrush claims, or simply lie.

Hardly, you talk about plans, we what was your plan to remove Saddam from power? What was your plan for once that was accomplished?

That was the one task left for Obama and he and Biden failed, what don't you understand?

Yes he did and put Biden in charge of it.

There is no contradiction there.

Ahhhmmmm...............Germany , Japan, Korea.

Where did I make such a contention?

and that it was friendly and compliant until the black man came along, there's this:

"You know your whole position falls on it's face due to the simple fact we do not control their oil and never did and in fact worked to make sure they did."

No proof that was their "core objective" and since we didn't.

And now you just make things up.

What do you have against American companies working in Iraq?

And the Iraq people themselves as their national economic plan takes hold.



"Oh they most certainly. They engaged singularly and in concert to turn public opinion against the war and in doing so encouraging our enemies to fight on and discourage possible allies from joining us. The worst of the two being the Democrats who voted to support the ILA and ATUMF and then turned against the country for political expedience when they began to fear our success would harm them politically. The entire propaganda campaign they engaged in while we were at war was a despicable act and cost of lives. "

To assert otherwise is the show of idiocy. The MSM did everything they could to turn the public against the war and force a retreat giving aid and comfort to our enemies with the fallaioucs and silly "Bush lied people died" mantras and called for his impeachment and imprisonment. Had we kept a united front our enemies would have not felt so empowered and those we wanted to fight with us would have been more so inclined.

What were the two main goals of the ILA? Were they accomplished? What happened when al Qaeda moved it's front in their war against us to Iraq, did they win or were they defeated?

No such nonsense as the Fiengold in your posted clip and the MSNBC assertions that no WMD were ever found nor evidence of them were ever found and the propaganda about being lied into war willfully ignoring that Bush believe Saddam had to be removed from office for the very same reasons Clinton believe he had to be removed and that he would always be a danger as long as he was in power. They were both correct.

Quote where he stated it would be easy. Then cite where he said, other than the initial battle to defeat the Iraq army and remove Saddam, that the whole process would be quick. He in fact said quite the opposite.

Plan B's evaporate about as quickly as Plan A's. Just ask the Japanese. Yes if only our enemies would do as we want them to do, but they don't. Competent leadership knows this and reacts to the enemy and counters which is what we did.

And if you knew anything about Bush you would know that was the least of his concerns.

 

"They didn't pass it just for the fun of it, it authorized the President to select and create an insurgent army to do so and provided the funding necessary."

They didn't! At the time the wags in Washington described the ILA as the Ahmed Chalabi full employment act, since the only material action that took place was the Chalabi's Iraq National Congress became a ward of the Defense Department (where it would remain until 2004). Chalabi has already been dismissed by the CIA and State Departments as a charletan and a con man, shopping faked intelligence and somehow never being able to account for the money they got from their American benefactors. This is the same man who was sitting next to Laura Bush during the 2003 State of the Union adress.

The Iraq Liberation Act DOES NOT call for a US military operation against Iraq. It calls for teh US to support internal insurgents (referring to Chalabi, who took the money) Chalabi preferred guerilla warefare amongst the cocktail parties in MeClean where Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice, Cheney and Pearle hung out to fighting a real insurgency in Iraq, where he had few connections, no friends, and no base to work from.

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/06/07/040607fa_fact1


"The Clinton adminstration did not have a plan for the invasion of Iraq, or a committment to do so, as you have also falsely claimed.
See above, he started the process but failed to see it through................he failed.

Yes the Clinton administration knew Saddam could not be allowed to remain in power and with the Congress passed the ILA."

Now you're simply trying to repackage your false claim by trying to pass it off as though the Clinton adminstration suggested it to Congress. This is false.

"No one doubted that deposing Hussein would be the easy part. Dispite the breathless fearmongering of the Bush team about iminent threats to the US
They never claimed Saddam was an imminent threat, had the US believed he was an imminent threat we would not have wasted our time at the UN and he would have been removed years before he was.

What was problematic was what would come next. Bush insisted that we didn't have to deal with it. Events proved otherwise."

"No such insistance was was proclaimed and had Clinton manage to fulfill the goal of the ILA he would have faced the same problems."

Accepting this notion requires one to accept the lie you're trying to push above. The Clinton Adminstration was not required to stage a military invasion of Iraq, since the act did not call for one or authorize the Administration or Congress to conduct one or plan one. Chalabi made a token effort with a radio transmitter in Kurdistan, but that's about as far as they ever got.


"Here is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff discussing the number of troops needed to occupy Iraq:
We know they were mistaken to the extent that Jihadist groups would move their fight there and that leaving at least some of the Iraq military and police in place would have been a better plan................so what. What war had ever been fought without such mistakes?"

The claim that Jihadist groups "moved the fight there" is deliberatly misleading. At the height of the fighting, the number of people involved in Al Quida in Iraq never amounted to more than a few hundred. There was no connection between this group and Osama Bin Laden (who detested Zarquawi). The real insurgency was native born, consistant and still alive.

Of course this isn't the Bush adminstration narrative, which fixated on Al Quda and constitantly promoted the fiction taht the war they started in Iraq was related to 9/11 and Al Quada. They even created a fictional villian, the "Islamofacist" to promote the false association.

As I have documented elsewhere in this discussion, experts in the field scoffed at the Adminstration's misleading narrative.

"Saddam fully provocated the world creating the necessity for his removal from office."

No, Hussein had not done anything that prompted any international crisis in 2002-2003. He had not threatened or invaded his neighbors. We know his armed forces were weak, and the only things that the Bush team could point to were old WMD claims. This was a crisis manufactured in Washington. An unnecessary, unprovoked war in the wrong country, while Bush and company ignored Al Quada.

Me>>" But why do you believe we have a crystal ball at the college of military planning that can predict exactly what the situation will be once victory is achieved?"

No, but smart people did know the risks, and the Bush team wasn't interested.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x31ei6_pbs-frontline-rumsfeld-s-war-4-of-5_people#.UVoBgVdvadw

Ask General Shenski and the many military and foreign policy experts who accurately predicted that the Invastion of Iraq would have to be followed by a lenghtly military occupation, since Iraq's civil institutions are so weak, that chaos would ensue otherwide, which is exactly what happened.
Listen to Bush saying that the removal of Saddam was just the first step and we had a long way to go and a hard struggle ahead.


"Well, that was the fallback, when the country fell apart and there was no plan.
And the best laid plans fall apart at first contact. We adjusted and completed our goal of an elected government."

The adminstration's first response was to pretend that what people were seeing wasn't happening. That went on for about three months. Then they sent Bremmer in.

"Bremmer almost immediately disbanded the civil service and the army.
"Yes and as stated that was probably a mistake which even he acknowledges."


"probably" a mistake????????????? That was the second or third biggest blunder in a war characterized by incompetent management! From then until now, Paul Bremmer has consistantly claimed that he was obeying White House orders. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice all deny giving such orders. But their credibility on this and other issues is suspect to say the least. As I said before, my money is on Cheney and Rumsfeld.


"But Bush along with out military leaders showed the necessarily leadship, adjust to our enemies responses and formed a plan that defeated them."

You're calling Paul Bremmer's Coalition Provisional Authority an example of Bush's brilliant leadership? ROTFLMAO.

"I'm calling the surge."

Oh yes, the surge!

That's what happened after Rumsfeld had been given the boot and the Saudis summoned Cheney and ordered him to clean up his mess! Having run out of excuses, and tried a number of half assed plans, they finally opted for a lite version of what the generals told them they should have done in the first place!!!!!


"The case has been made the evidence cited, by me and others."

And debunked. The judgement of history, not just me, doesn't support your efforts to resurrect all the old spin.

"Hardly, you talk about plans, we what was your plan to remove Saddam from power? What was your plan for once that was accomplished?"

Why should I have a plan to start an unnecessary and unprovoked war in the wrong country? Osama Bin Laden should have remained the real target.

Bush should have continued his bluster in Iraq until the UN inspectors finished their job. Hussein would not have survived too many more years. We should have let nature take its course.




"He didn't "take over" the negotiations."

I believe that was your term, not mine.

"Yes he did and put Biden in charge of it."

So? Iraq was NOT going to agree to a permanent US military presence. Iraq wasn't going to enact Mr Bush' s cherished Iraq Hycrocarbon Law either.

Bush couldn't close either deal, and the Americans knew better than to bother keeping up the effort if we were going to get out of that mess.


"First of all, it contradicts your claim that our objective was to establish a free and representative democracy.
There is no contradiction there.

Free and representative democracies don't invite the country that just invaded them to set up permanent shop.
Ahhhmmmm...............Germany , Japan, Korea."

My point stands. None of those countries was invaded by the United States after we trumped up a false case for starting a war agaist them. All of them have defensive interests in having a US military presence. Iraq does not.

"In response to your false contention that the US left it to Iraq completely to set up its own government
Where did I make such a contention?"

I'll give you that one.



"You know your whole position falls on it's face due to the simple fact we do not control their oil and never did and in fact worked to make sure they did."

Once again, you're shopping the same post hoc fallacy. The fact that the Bush adminstartion dismally failed to achieve one of its core objectives, installing a government that would award generous and lucrative oil concession primarily to American companies, does not mean that wasn't the objective.
No proof that was their "core objective" and since we didn't.

I have already documented that fact, as have others. You didnt' want to be confronted with facts that contradict your fairy tale, so you pretended the links are bad, when we both know better. (that's really pathetic of you,BTW)
And now you just make things up.

What do you have against American companies working in Iraq?

The only people who flourished in Iraq were Halliburton, KBR, CACI, Flour, Parsons and a host of other defense contractors stealing everything they could while the stealing was good under the Bush adminstrations' not so watchful eyes.

"And the Iraq people themselves as their national economic plan takes hold."

Since the Iraqi people were economically better off before the US invation (not to mention alive in many cases) you don't get any points for that claim.

Oh, and I guess you're telling us that it's OK that Cheney's friends stole huge fortunes of borrowed money that your grandchildren get to pay back?



"Oh they most certainly. They engaged singularly and in concert to turn public opinion against the war and in doing so encouraging our enemies to fight on and discourage possible allies from joining us. The worst of the two being the Democrats who voted to support the ILA and ATUMF and then turned against the country for political expedience when they began to fear our success would harm them politically. The entire propaganda campaign they engaged in while we were at war was a despicable act and cost of lives. "

This is an idiotic assertion. If one supports a war and the war turns out well, one takes credit for being on the right side of history.

"To assert otherwise is the show of idiocy. The MSM did everything they could to turn the public against the war and force a retreat giving aid and comfort to our enemies with the fallaioucs and silly "Bush lied people died" mantras and called for his impeachment and imprisonment. Had we kept a united front our enemies would have not felt so empowered and those we wanted to fight with us would have been more so inclined."

Hardly so. In fact, for the most part, the American media acted as a megophone to power, rarely qustioning and even promoting the fear mongering case that the Bush administration built for its war (outside the US that case was dismantled largely on arrival, and accurately as events proved). The New York Times printed and backed up every article Judith Miller wrote about Sadaam and WMD's. Her sources were Scooter Libby and Ahmed Chalabi. Ironically, when conservatives cite things that the NYT or the liberal media got wrong, they NEVER cite this, even though it's by far, the best example. The Washington Post actually endorsed Mr Bush's war.

Yes, the press did take not of the way the Adminsistration tried to stage manage coverage of the war from the very start. But they did not campaign against it.

The "liberal media" didn't dismiss looting with glib remarks about vases.

The "liberal media" didn't fire bomb UN headquarters in Iraq, the event which showed the world that the insurgency was real and not going away soon.

The "liberal media" did not ridicule the soldier who asked Donald Rumsfeld for better equipment (but conservative media sure did).

The "liberal media" never really told the American people that the whole Jessica Lych legend was a myth cook up in the Pentagon.

The "liberal media" did print Joe Wilson's letter, which is how it became clear that the case for war included deliberate lies.

The war didn't turn out well, and it was clear that the people who voted for it were not going to be on the right side of history. The bungling, arrgance, and incompetence of the people running the war was becoming more and more apparant.

"What were the two main goals of the ILA? Were they accomplished?"

Nice dodge. The ILA did not call for war.

" What happened when al Qaeda moved it's front in their war against us to Iraq, did they win or were they defeated?"

They didn't. And things are still pretty shaky in Iraq.

Events on the ground turned public opinion, not the media or liberals.

"No such nonsense as the Fiengold in your posted clip and the MSNBC assertions that no WMD were ever found nor evidence of them were ever found and the propaganda about being lied into war "

Those are all facts. Small caches of trace elements obviously didn't count.

So say David Kay, Mohamed el Baredi, Hans Blix and George W Bush, and the Senate Intelligence Committee.



Bush promised a quick and easy war

Quote where he stated it would be easy. Then cite where he said, other than the initial battle to defeat the Iraq army and remove Saddam, that the whole process would be quick. He in fact said quite the opposite.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x31ei6_pbs-frontline-rumsfeld-s-war-4-of-5_people#.UVoBgVdvadw (again)

I'll give you this link again, because you obviously didn't look at it. Paul Wolfowitz squirms in his seat, as the blythe predictions he made come apart. Much of w hat he says here, will be repeated over and over again over the next six years.

Wolfowitz did tell the Senate that the war would be self financing and easy. I haven't found the link, but I'll post it when I find one. I remember it distinctly, and I remember exactly where I was when I heard it on C-Span radio.

"When that mirage evaporated in the summer of 2003, it was obvious that there was no plan B."

"Plan B's evaporate about as quickly as Plan A's. Just ask the Japanese. Yes if only our enemies would do as we want them to do, but they don't. Competent leadership knows this and reacts to the enemy and counters which is what we did."

Yup. the generals and the experts who warned Rumsfeld and Cheney that they didn't know what they were getting into were right.

"From then on, the Bush effort seemed to look no farther than winning the next news cycle in American media.
And if you knew anything about Bush you would know that was the least of his concerns. "

Nonsense!

The Bush adminstration was obsessed from day one with spin and winning news cycles.

The examples are too numerous to mention. In fact, it was this obsession that drove the entire Valarie Plame episode.

 

Learn to use the quote function properly you post is entirely unreadable.