Iraq war a total fraud

[oneforthebus]

I don't remember WMD being all that big a deal. It was one part of many.

Exactly. The rationales (many of which seem foolish in hindsight) were numerous. It was Bush opponents that made it all about WMDs after they "weren't found". It was really about a murderous aggressive dictator that had already invaded one of his neighbors, was defeated, and then repeatedly thumbed his nose at the terms of his surrender. In the wake of a terrible attack on our soil it was necessary for us to let the world know that we weren't going to be ****** with.. So many people seem to forget that.

 

[hamster]

Why are we still having this argument? Hasn't this all been sorted out? Haven't all the congressmen who voted for this absolved themselves of the guilt? Haven't all the Senators who voted for it, backstepped like Michael Jackson moon walking?
Then, expecting that memories didn't last, and that the MSM wouldn't pounce, they all retreated to their posture of non-culpability?

**** it. Time to attack Trump.

 

[POP]

I've put this on here a bunch before:

1. There is no doubt that Sadaam had WMDs. If you believe otherwise, you are, willfully, stupid.
2. Part of the pact to keep Bush 41 from moving to Kuwait into Iraq was that Sadaam would allow inspections, dismantle any WMD's in existence, with proof, and stop production
3. The inspection issue was a fiasco. Clinton should have dealt with Sadaam, but was riding the "peace dividend" wave.
4. They did, indeed find some 'degraded' WMDs (further proof that they WERE there), but not to the extent that we know existed at one point.
5. What we did NOT find is any proof that those WMDs we KNOW were there were destroyed.

So, WMD's were there. They were not destroyed. They weren't there when we went in. Hmm, I wonder what could have happened to them?

Talk about willfully stupid.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/07/everyone-knew-iraq-didnt-wmds-2.html

 

[katsung47]

After more than ten years.

The Iraq war inquiry has left the door open for Tony Blair to be prosecuted
Joshua Rozenberg

6 July 2016

Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry has not, in his words, “expressed a view on whether military action [in Iraq] was legal”. That question, he said, could be resolved only by a court. Still less does his report deal with the question of whether Tony Blair or others should face legal action.



https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/06/iraq-war-inquiry-chilcot-tony-blair-prosecute

 

[ark steel]

Get your facts straight

Why would he start now?

 

[RollRed]

Why would he start now?

You're both completely full of ****... That war was sold to the American people as a necessary preemptive action to stop Saddam from using WMD's... possibly nuclear weapons ... against the U.S. and its allies. Tapping into the post 9-11 fear every American was feeling at that time, Cheney & the moron knew that all they had to do was fan the flames of that fear so to speak and the war would be a go with the American people. For Christ's sake Cheney was saying that we were going to be treated as liberators similar to the way our troops were treated by the French near the end of WWII. If staying for a decade trying to create a pro- American democracy was always the plan, why did the moron stand on an aircraft carrier a month after the invasion began with a big "Mission Accomplished" banner the size of a football field behind him and declare as such? If the mission was, as you claim, a two phase operation of first overthrowing Saddam,and second establishing a democratic government, why was the administration claiming "mission accomplished" when they knew the long arduous task of implementing an entirely new system of government hadn't even begun? This ought to be good....

 

[Stewey]

You're both completely full of ****... That war was sold to the American people as a necessary preemptive action to stop Saddam from using WMD's... possibly nuclear weapons ... against the U.S. and its allies. Tapping into the post 9-11 fear every American was feeling at that time, Cheney & the moron knew that all they had to do was fan the flames of that fear so to speak and the war would be a go with the American people. For Christ's sake Cheney was saying that we were going to be treated as liberators similar to the way our troops were treated by the French near the end of WWII. If staying for a decade trying to create a pro- American democracy was always the plan, why did the moron stand on an aircraft carrier a month after the invasion began with a big "Mission Accomplished" banner the size of a football field behind him and declare as such? If the mission was, as you claim, a two phase operation of first overthrowing Saddam,and second establishing a democratic government, why was the administration claiming "mission accomplished" when they knew the long arduous task of implementing an entirely new system of government hadn't even begun? This ought to be good....

I actually did LOL...the "Mission Accomplished" banner had nothing to do with liberating Iraq.

It should be common knowledge by now that the banner was in place to commemorate the end of the ship and crew's 10 month mission. Bush just happened to be in front of it.

A banner stating "Mission Accomplished" was used as a backdrop to the speech yet it was requested by the crew and referred specifically to the aircraft carrier's 10-month deployment and not the war itself. Bush's assertion—and the sign itself—became controversial after guerrilla warfare in Iraq increased during the Iraqi insurgency. The vast majority of casualties, both military and civilian, occurred after the speech.[2]

From back in 2008, a sailor explains it clearly and you liberal a-holes still cling to that "Mission Accomplished" story.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/05/mission-accompl.html

 

[oneforthebus]

That war was sold to the American people as a necessary preemptive action to stop Saddam from using WMD's... possibly nuclear weapons ... against the U.S. and its allies.

For Christ's sake Cheney was saying that we were going to be treated as liberators similar to the way our troops were treated by the French near the end of WWII. If staying for a decade trying to create a pro- American democracy was always the plan

You just contradicted yourself, congrats. As several of us have said, there were numerous rationales. One was that Saddam was a murderous dictator who had already invaded one of his neighbors, who thumbed his nose at UN resolutions, and who we (and most everyone else on the planet) believed had WMDs. Another was that the Iraqis were being oppressed by Saddam and would embrace freedom and democracy and we would now have a pro-American democracy in the middle east (hence, Cheney's comments that we would be treated as liberators).

No, we did not think we would have to stay there 10 years. That was a terrible miscalculation.