I think there are two kinds of people in this country.
-Those who are aware we have an Intelligence Community (Including Military Intelligence of which I'm a part)
-And then those with over-active imaginations who seem to think President Bush was PERSONALLY flying around above Iraq in a cessna taking pictures of WMDs with his camera.

Unfortunately there seem to be alot of the latter in congress these days.
I'm sick and tired of hearing people call President Bush a Liar. We have the best Intelligence Community in the world. Thats not up for debate. That Intel Community told the President of the United States that Iraq had WMDs. Accordingly, he used that as one of MANY reasons to overthrow the ANTI-AMERICAN regime in Iraq.

Personally I'm glad we have a President who doesnt care about popularity. If alot of other presidents were in office right now *Cough-Clinton-Cough* we would have pulled out years ago and the region would be a huge mess of people from all over who want the rape-rooms back in operation and who would continue the policy of cutting out the tongues of people who complain about the state of things.

What do you all think?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: 10644482,

Wow, wheres bushcraft to call you a liar and a nazi because of your views.

hoo-ah BTW.

GRAYMAN

quote:

Originally posted by 10644482:
I think there are two kinds of people in this country.
-Those who are aware we have an Intelligence Community (Including Military Intelligence of which I'm a part)
-And then those with over-active imaginations who seem to think President Bush was PERSONALLY flying around above Iraq in a cessna taking pictures of WMDs with his camera.

Unfortunately there seem to be alot of the latter in congress these days.
I'm sick and tired of hearing people call President Bush a Liar. We have the best Intelligence Community in the world. Thats not up for debate. That Intel Community told the President of the United States that Iraq had WMDs. Accordingly, he used that as one of MANY reasons to overthrow the ANTI-AMERICAN regime in Iraq.

Personally I'm glad we have a President who doesnt care about popularity. If alot of other presidents were in office right now *Cough-Clinton-Cough* we would have pulled out years ago and the region would be a huge mess of people from all over who want the rape-rooms back in operation and who would continue the policy of cutting out the tongues of people who complain about the state of things.

What do you all think?

He was going to Iraq from Day1 . Look at his old speeches he tried to tie in Saddam with 9-11 and there was none Osama and Saddam hated each other after Kuwait invasion.
Every speech he gave was Saddam- Al Queda -9/11 . He distorted the facts the truth for his own agenda.
I dont think it had anything to do with oil it was his own personal reasons . He saw in reports what he wanted to see and made his case for Iraq based on distortion of facts.
I blame the Congress and hypocrites like Hillary for voting for it without real question thats why I vote Independent now.
Bush lied but Congress was the enabler . They are ALL to blame. Iraq is financial anchor around Americas neck

quote:

Originally posted by 15560540:

He was going to Iraq from Day1How do you know? You sit in on the meetings? . Look at his old speeches he tried to tie in Saddam with 9-11Show me where he said Saddam had something to do with 9-11. Also, AQ was in Iraq, giving them safehaven after we attacked Afghanistan. and there was none Osama and Saddam hated each other after Kuwait invasionI dont know about hate, but yes their idealogues were opposite, but they both hated the US. The old saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"..
Every speech he gave was Saddam- Al Queda -9/11 . He distorted the facts the truth for his own agendaAgain, show that he distorted the truth for his own agenda..
I dont think it had anything to do with oil it was his own personal reasonsYeah, he was probably mad that Saddam tried to kill his dad, but I dont think Bush is dumb enough to start a war because of it. What you are saying is pure hyperbol. . He saw in reports what he wanted to see and made his case for Iraq based on distortion of factsSo all the other world agencies were distorting the facts as well huh?.
I blame the Congress and hypocrites like Hillary for voting for it without real question Questions are all good and stuff, but when it becomes public, it becomes a circus, as build up to the invasion proved.thats why I vote Independent nowI'm an independent as well, at least we have that in common..
Bush liedAgain, prove it. but Congress was the enabler . They are ALL to blame. Iraq is financial anchor around Americas neckYes it has because of the circus that certain parties have made about it. I will say that some huge mistakes were made (needed more troops; disbanding the IA and putting Bremmer in charge), but if the dems would of let deal with the cards that were delt us (yes I was there in 03 and 04) then i think it would of been better off now. Once again, congress wanted to get their hands in the pie and it dicked things up.

So guy, you need to prove your statements here that Bush lied. I'm not one of those azzholes that come on here and attack the person, simply cause I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you need to show proof of the lies. What are they and what context they were used in.

GRAYMAN

Grayman, Forget this fool, he's already been outed for what he is on the Veterans & Retirees forum. He asked can he use his vet card to go to the PX, then said he changed his Rank to Major from E4 cause he liked it better. Why he hasnt been bounced is the only question.

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/110192933/m/7190039551001

Can You Spell TROLL?

quote:

Originally posted by LineDoggie:
Grayman, Forget this fool, he's already been outed for what he is on the Veterans & Retirees forum. He asked can he use his vet card to go to the PX, then said he changed his Rank to Major from E4 cause he liked it better. Why he hasnt been bounced is the only question.

http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/110192933/m/7190039551001

Can You Spell TROLL?

Holy crap, dude. Specify that you're talking about "15560540" and not about me. I just got an angry message from someone who thought you were talking about me!

BTW I'm the poster of this post. But my name has finally kicked in since I registered my username on military.com 24 hours ago.

Hey fella, thats why I included the Link to 15560540, I had thought it self explanatory, but evidentally someone didnt read the link well.

Seems someone didnt PID before Firing....

Wether he lied or not the point is moot. We are there and too many of our men and women have died in this war. Do I blame Bush eintirely? No I believe the information he was fed should have been vetted more closely by those who procured that infomration and that congress (yes the democratic congress) is just as conplicit in this mess as is the president. You can only do so much with infomration you believe to be correct. But I digress. Suppossedly we were going after Obama bin laden whatever happened to THAT objective? Still no body or prisnor and that my friends is the crime of the matter. Let Iraq straighten out their own mess. Bring our troops home and defend our homeland because we are going to need them more than ever now.

Every day I hear a small number of people who are convinced that Bush is the source of all the trouble of the last 8 years. The whole coalition went to war in Iraq because Bush conned them or forced them to. I have heard for so long that he is a war criminal, and that he should be impeached and jailed. My response to them is when was the impeachment going to start? Surely anytime soon right? What's the holdup been given all the evidence they must have. Why he's the greatest hypnotist of all time the way he convinced leaders in so many countries to go in with us. Some people on Capitol Hill want Bush jailed. I would ask them who is suppressing the overwhelming evidence of wrong doing done by Bush. After all Nixon, Reagan and Clinton didn't get such an easy pass. All I get is silence. These people are convinced that we have totally failed in Iraq. Tell that to the enemy. Did Bush lie? I don't think he could have fooled that many people long enough.

there is already a thread on the forum about this topic.

I get a kick out liberals' duplicitous logic:

1) Bush is an ignoramus that can't tie his shoes
2) Bush is an evil mastermind that forced all our allies to align with us in engaging in an illegal war for which they had no justification or independent corroboration.

I write this, not with an axe to grind, but truly bewildered at how short a memory most Americans seem to have. Myself being an American, I was acutely aware of the case for the war as we rolled towards actual combat. I wanted to state here the reasons I heard from the president as justifications for the Iraq war. It seems that America has forgotten that there were quite a number of different justifications given for the war pre-invasion, but the only two that seem to have survived post-war criticism are:

1) Iraq had and was pursuing WMD.
2) There was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda and/or Terrorist organizations.

Do you all feel that this is an accurate presentation of today's discourse?

The problem is that this short list, is only a subset of the extent of justifications that was given for the Iraq war by the President (Bush) and his administration. The full list certainly includes the two stated above. I heard those from the President's own lips and do not deny that they were given. But to that list I would add these that were definitely given pre-invasion by the Administration and the President:

3) Saddam is a destabilizing force in the region. By invading/attacking Turkey, the Kurdish within Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia (during the 1st gulf war, and quickly repelled by US forces, remember the turrets turned around backwards until the last minute?), and Israel, Saddam has forced the surrounding countries to take a defensive posture towards their neighbors. The proliferation of more sophisticated and powerful weapons was a necessary evil so long as you had a neighbor like Saddam.

4) To restore confidence in the UN Security Council's authority and will to act after issuing 19 Security Council Resolutions, each of which supposedly carried with it the threat of military-backed enforcement. Smaller and less-powerful states were starting to flout the threats of the UN. They believed that the UN would never act since states like Iraq were concrete proof that you can defy them with impunity. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, founding member and chief financier of the UN generally, it fell to the US to act when others were unwilling. This action could only bolster the Security Council's ability to enforce order without war in the future. All enforcement must carry the real threat of conflict or the people that need to listen most closely will be least likely to do so.

5) Saddam was a tyrant to his own people. The reputed existence of torture-chambers, atrocities committed by Saddam and his two sons were well established. Even video was available showing summary executions during "loyalty" sessions with top government and military officials. After the invasion, dozens of torture chambers were found where even children were tortured to get their parents to capitulate.

6) The enforcement of the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones by US and British fighter jets. In fact, our Air Forces were being painted and fired upon by Iraqi anti-aircraft batteries on an average once per week for ten years after the invasion. In combat zones, painting (locking on) enemy planes has long been recognized as an act of aggression, let alone actually firing. Innocent people were dying in an attempt to enforce these no-fly zones. Allies determined that they could not stay forever, but that Saddam's actions showed defiance and aggression in line with his past actions. It was deemed accurate that Saddam would certainly re-invade the Kurds in the North and Shiites in the South if the no-fly zones were abolished. We were in a permanent catch 22. The only way to resolve this was a change of power in Iraq.

7) The expulsion of UN Weapons Inspectors, which violated the terms of the cease-fire agreement between allied and Iraqi forces after the first Gulf War, and served to strengthen the resolve and suspicion of the five top intelligence agencies in the world that Saddam was indeed hiding a clandestine weapons program.

I believe that points 3 through 7 were all valid points. The only ones contested are the first two. I believe that the contested nature of the first two points is why they are the only ones ever stated for the invasion. Keeping in mind that over 90 percent of Congress and Americans as a whole supported the war pre-invasion, in large because of the additional reasons stated above, let me present a few things that I know to be true in support of the first two points:

1) Iraq had and was pursuing WMD.
--At least two mobile weapons labs were discovered and captured during the invasion.
--Over 5,000 chemical weapons were discovered in various sized caches all around the country. Nearly all of them were buried and marked at the location or on captured maps. While critics minimize this point saying that none of these were post '91 manufacture, this was never an exclusion criteria stated by anyone before the invasion. Saddam claimed to have destroyed ALL of these weapons in the years after the first Gulf War. Each one of these artillery shells was capable of killing everyone in a small village (hundreds).
--550 Tons of yellow cake Uranium was moved from Iraq to Canada in 2008. This was stated as the "last remnants of Saddam's nuclear program." While Bush was allowing himself to be filleted for a non-existent nuclear program, and denounced by the likes of Valerie Plame and her husband for supposedly making up the story about Saddam's agents working out secret Uranium deals with Nigerian cooperatives, it now seems apparent that not only was Bush right, but that he valued the secrecy of the security operation more than his personal political ratings.
--Extensive documentation has been uncovered in Iraq that military officials were lying to Saddam about how many and what types of biological and chemical weapons they had stockpiled. In uncovered documents, it is clear that Saddam was under the false impression that their illicit arms stockpiles far exceeded their actual quantities and capabilities.
--At least one Iraqi General and personal confidant of Saddam, George Sadas, of the Iraqi Air Force, has gone on record stating that he observed a secret program to move weapons to Syria using gutted-out civilian airliners to avoid suspicion and snooping by foreign intelligence.
--Multiple defectors over several years, including Saddam's son-in-law claimed that Saddam was actively pursuing WMD.
--Every credible foreign intelligence organization in the world agreed that Saddam was running a clandestine WMD program. These conclusions were NOT based upon US planted evidence as some critics have suggested. They were their own conclusions based upon their own sources of information. Even the UN's intelligence service reached this conclusion.
--The IAEA and UN Weapons inspectors concluded on their own that satellite photos proved that chemical an biological weapons stockpiles that had been canistered, marked, sealed and placed in UN monitored, fenced holding yards, had been moved after weapons inspectors last visited these sites. This violated agreements between the Iraqi government and the UN. The logical conclusion was not that they moved these to destroy them, but that they moved these in order to hide them elsewhere, or even worse, to give them to less-reputable groups for use in ways that could not easily be traced back to the Iraqi government.
--In one case, an entire train of tanker cars filled with Anthrax was tagged by weapons inspectors before they were kicked out of the country.
--If there is some central facility where these weapons were taken to be destroyed, it has still yet to be discovered. One photo op video clip of a backhoe crushing a Scud missile chasse has been shown over and over in US media. This hardly constitutes evidence that Saddam had his chemical and biological weapons capabilities dismantled.

2) There was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda and/or Terrorist organizations.
--It was widely reported by mainstream media that Saddam was paying the family of suicide bombers in Palestine as compensation for their sons who bombed Israel. The sum was stated to be $25,000 per bomber, which is a huge amount to a Palestinian. This is the very definition of "state-sponsored terrorism".
--Documents and testimony have confirmed that there was a "gentleman's agreement" between Al Qaeda and Saddam that they won't mess with each other so long as the other party also agree not to commit acts of aggression against them.
--Eleven US Government Officials confirmed to the Weekly Standard that in the years immediately proceeding the Iraq invasion, that papers have been uncovered in Iraq proving that Saddam trained literally thousands of terrorists in camps all across Northern Iraq.

I realize that a lot of this evidence has fallen from circulation in the largely liberal media, but some of us have not forgotten it. Just because it's no longer discussed, doesn't mean it's not true. Given the evidence and reasons stated above, which should look familiar to those who have followed the media as I have over a long period of time, can America continue to blame President George Bush for "deliberately misleading" the nation and getting America into an "illegal" war?

Accusations have arisen that we weren't prepared for every facet of the war, and that is true. No army in the history of the world ever has been. Charges have arisen that we weren't prepared to "keep the peace", that's probably somewhat fair as well. We should invest in fewer weapons systems and more crystal balls, perhaps. But it's not as if the arm chair critics foretold exactly what might happen either. They just couldn't be blamed if things went badly. Charges that we fought this war for oil have now dropped off, but pervaded for years. Again, I'm waiting for that Iraqi oil. We have yet to take any oil from Iraq despite our vast investment in re-building their oil infrastructure. When the time to start exporting came due, the first thing Iraq did was go out seeking competitive bids. The Chinese have mostly benefited from those contracts.

Some have criticized the US for going to war for less than reasons of recent or imminent attack. The constant shooting at American aircraft during the ten year enforcement of the Northern and Southern no-fly zones aside, this has never been the "only" acceptable criteria for going to war. Most wars in history have been fought to achieve political objectives.

I remain a firm believer that the war in Iraq was justified and call on Americans to accept responsibility for the support they lent the President before the war. Realize that while might does not make right, neither does popularity, neither does consensus.

Never say you are a agent isnt that against the law??

I remain conflicted about whether or not we should have gone in and write for the site www.regimeofterror.com about both sides of the Saddam, terror argument. I must say that if one of the arguments of the antiwar folks is that Saddam didn't support anti U.S. terror then you need to rethink your views.

Bush used the best intel we had at the time, WMD has already been used on the Kurds and with Iran, so where did the chems go??
It is easy to attack now we have 20/20 hinsight
But recall we never left Iraq in 1991 and our brothers have been shot at in the Northern and southern no fly zone that whole time.

I was told that Saddam had a hand in some of the terror attacks during the runup to the 2003 re invasion. One attack, according to an interview I will post later today at my site, killed 3 U.S. marines in Kuwait.

Saddam had WMD and used them on his own people if he had more he would have tried to use it on our troops and his own people also!We got rid of the nut!

quote:

Originally posted by anthonybauwens:
Saddam had WMD and used them on his own people if he had more he would have tried to use it on our troops and his own people also!We got rid of the nut!

let's remember who gave him WMD.

quote:

Originally posted by lolynya:

quote:

Originally posted by anthonybauwens:
Saddam had WMD and used them on his own people if he had more he would have tried to use it on our troops and his own people also!We got rid of the nut!

let's remember who gave him WMD.

Yes, Lets