# Review of the Iraq Invasion



## SeaBreeze (May 19, 2015)

A review of the Iraq invasion, and the selling of the Iraq War to the American people.

Part 1:








Part 2:








Part 3:


----------



## SeaBreeze (May 19, 2015)

Part4:








Part 5:








Part 6:


----------



## QuickSilver (May 19, 2015)

Thank you SB....  should be very enlightening to some.


----------



## Jackie22 (May 19, 2015)

[h=1]George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public[/h]http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/michael-morell-bush-cheney-iraq-war 


George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public 
On "Hardball," Michael Morell concedes the Bush administration misled the nation into the Iraq War. 

—By David Corn 
| Tue May 19, 2015 7:25 PM EDT 


For a dozen years, the Bush-Cheney crowd have been trying to escape—or cover up—an essential fact of the W. years: President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their lieutenants misled the American public about the WMD threat supposedly posed by Saddam Hussein in order to grease the way to the invasion of Iraq. For Bush, Cheney, and the rest, this endeavor is fundamental; it is necessary to protect the legitimacy of the Bush II presidency. Naturally, Karl Rove and other Bushies have quickly tried to douse the Bush-lied-us-into-war fire whenever such flames have appeared. And in recent days, as Jeb Bush bumbled a question about the Iraq War, he and other GOPers have peddled the fictitious tale that his brother launched the invasion because he was presented lousy intelligence. But *now there's a new witness who will make the Bush apologists' mission even more impossible: Michael Morell*, a longtime CIA official who eventually became the agency's deputy director and acting director. During the preinvasion period, he served as Bush's intelligence briefer. 

Appearing on MSNBC's Hardball on Tuesday night,* Morell made it clear: The Bush-Cheney administration publicly misrepresented the intelligence related to Iraq's supposed WMD program and Saddam's alleged links to Al Qaeda.* 

Host Chris Matthews asked Morell about a statement Cheney made in 2003: "We know he {Saddam Hussein} has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Here's the conversation that followed: 

snip// 

*There's the indictment, issued by the intelligence officer who briefed Bush and Cheney: The Bush White House made a "false presentation" on "some aspects" of the case for war. "That's a big deal," Matthews exclaimed. Morell replied, "It's a big deal." 
*
And there's more. Referring to the claims made by Bush, Cheney, and other administration officials that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda, *Morell noted, "What they were saying about the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda publicly was not what the intelligence community" had concluded. He added, "I think they were trying to make a stronger case for the war." That is, stronger than the truth would allow. 

Morell's remarks support the basic charge: Bush and Cheney were not misled by flawed intelligence; they used the flawed intelligence to mislead.*


----------



## Josiah (May 20, 2015)

Thank you SeaBreeze. Both Vietnam and Iraq were colossal mistakes which sorely tarnish our history as a great nation. They accomplished nothing and cost in incalculable price in the lives of the brave Americans who fought in those wars. Will we learn from our mistakes? I doubt it. Even today there is a strong and prevailing mood of gingoism coming from the right.


----------



## QuickSilver (May 21, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> *George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public*
> 
> http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/michael-morell-bush-cheney-iraq-war
> 
> ...




Jackie...  I was going to post this.  THIS IS HUGE...  and validates what everyone has been saying.  Bush and Cheney LIED...  there is no denying that now.   Why are they not in prison?


----------



## BobF (May 21, 2015)

I did listen and watch most of the posted items.   Nothing new in any of them, but a lot of liberal interpretations were plentiful.

Unfortunately this TV station is one of the US poorer ones broadcasting.   

http://deadline.com/2015/03/msnbc-ratings-all-time-low-fox-news-wins-cnn-1201402274/

Contrast that to the fate of the NBCUniversal-owned MSNBC, which  not  only saw a 39% drop in the demo compared to Q1 2014 but its worst  quarterly result in the category since Q2 2005. If that almost  decade-old result wasn’t enough of a blow, and rising CNN’s fourth  consecutive win over MSNBC in prime didn’t cut deep enough, take a look  at the gutting the cabler newser’s nighttime offerings are suffering.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dg...down-to-rachel-maddow-chris-matthews-firings/

[h=1]MSNBC Ratings Fall 40%: Countdown to Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews Firings[/h]  April 2, 2015  by Daniel Greenfield 

CNN and FOX News have stepped up their game. CNN has gone full  infotainment under Jeff Zucker and is eating MSNBC’s lunch. Meanwhile  MSNBC has the same cast of social justice warriors with occasional  interruptions from idiots like Al Sharpton and Chris Matthews offering  the same predigested pablum that MSNBC’s younger audience gets in mock  form from the Daily Show.
.
.
.
For Q1 2015, MSNBC’s weekday primetime experienced a 45% decrease in key  25-54 demo viewership from Q1 2014. The network’s total daytime demo  viewership declined 39% from Q1 2014. Additionally, a key program like  *The Rachel Maddow Show hit an all-time low in quarterly demo ratings  since its Sept. 2008 launch.*
......................

Enjoy this person on this station as much as you wish, but her popularity and following is on a continuous down flow since she started.   Maddow and MSNBC have been on a down flow since they got started.   Hardly a pair to cheer for.

So those that think Maddow is great and MSNBC is powerful, please continue as you wish.   I watched most of her programs about the Bush administration.   Lots of good information too, but not enough of what caused the US to want to go into Iraq for the second time.   There was a general concern among many nations about the stability of Iran under its monster leader.   I think the short comments by the English General really set the tone for the ultimate decision to enter Iraq.

I had his comments posted but right now can not find them in my previous thread, which I was not able to find.   So here it is once again.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1561891/Gen-Sir-Mike-Jackson-attacks-US-over-Iraq.html

[/FONT]*Sir Mike says he satisfied himself on the legality of invading Iraq by  careful study of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and  concluded that action was "legitimate under international law without a  'second' resolution.

*


----------



## QuickSilver (May 21, 2015)

So your response to all these videos.. and to the admission of Michael Morrell is to bash MSNBC?   These are videos and can hardly be refuted... and Morrell admitted to Chris Matthews that what Cheney was saying was NOT true.. therefore a LIE...   and your defense is to talk about a cable channel's ratings?  What possible relevance does that have to the issue that is so blatantly obvious now?


----------



## BobF (May 21, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> So your response to all these videos.. and to the admission of Michael Morrell is to bash MSNBC?   These are videos and can hardly be refuted... and Morrell admitted to Chris Matthews that what Cheney was saying was NOT true.. therefore a LIE...   and your defense is to talk about a cable channel's ratings?  What possible relevance does that have to the issue that is so blatantly obvious now?



So here we go again with your false accusations and such.   I said I watched those videos and found them interesting.   I also said that the station you seem to admire is one of the poorest in the business.   Both facts.


----------



## QuickSilver (May 21, 2015)

BobF said:


> So here we go again with your false accusations and such.   I said I watched those videos and found them interesting.   I also said that the station you seem to admire is one of the poorest in the business.   Both facts.



All I did was ask you what relevance the ratings of MSNBC has to the fact that we were lied into a war...  I certainly didn't falsely accuse you of anything... it's right there in your post!   Where is the accusation?


----------



## BobF (May 21, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> All I did was ask you what relevance the ratings of MSNBC has to the fact that we were lied into a war...  I certainly didn't falsely accuse you of anything... it's right there in your post!   Where is the accusation?



Did you read my post today or the one I posted a couple days back where I quote the English General who suggested we go after Saddam for Saddam's lies and threats.   We did not go into  a war on us lies as you and some others insist on.   That is definitely a lie of the far left liberals and not of the US government of many years back.   At that time we even had many of the Democrats supporting what was happening.   Something you seem to forget.   There is no reason for your attacks on me for thinking different from you, as that is a freedom for both of us in this forum and in the US.


----------



## QuickSilver (May 21, 2015)

BobF said:


> Did you read my post today or the one I posted a couple days back where I quote the English General who suggested we go after Saddam for Saddam's lies and threats.   We did not go into  a war on us lies as you and some others insist on.   That is definitely a lie of the far left liberals and not of the US government of many years back.   At that time we even had many of the Democrats supporting what was happening.   Something you seem to forget.   There is no reason for your attacks on me for thinking different from you, as that is a freedom for both of us in this forum and in the US.



* Michael Morell*  is a longtime CIA official who eventually became the agency's deputy director and acting director.* During the preinvasion period, he served as Bush's intelligence briefer.*

Morell admitted on the air that Cheney was lying.  Morell is hardly a source that can be described as a far left Liberal..  AND yes.. there were Democrats that supported the invasion... erroneously believing the LIES Bush and Cheney were feeding to Congress in order to get the war they wanted.  So..  again.. where am I attacking YOU?  I'm disagreeing with your beliefs.  Why do you feel that when someone disagrees with you it is a personal attack?


----------



## BobF (May 21, 2015)

So you don't like the way I think.   I don't like the way you think either.   So why continue with your continued attacks against me or others that do not just lay back and accept your twisted ideas compared to mine.   Get a life and allow others the same rights you claim for yourself alone.


----------



## QuickSilver (May 21, 2015)

BobF said:


> So you don't like the way I think.   I don't like the way you think either.   So why continue with your continued attacks against me or others that do not just lay back and accept your twisted ideas compared to mine.   Get a life and allow others the same rights you claim for yourself alone.



Very odd.  But rest assured... I HAVE a life... AND I will continue to voice my views in this forum...  you are free to view them as attacks against you if you wish.  but I won't stop.. so perhaps putting everyone who disagrees with you on ignore would be a way to make you feel better?


----------



## BobF (May 21, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Very odd.  But rest assured... I HAVE a life... AND I will continue to voice my views in this forum...  you are free to view them as attacks against you if you wish.  but I won't stop.. so perhaps putting everyone who disagrees with you on ignore would be a way to make you feel better?



You may have a life and you should also allow others to have a life without your attacks.   Speak of you mind only and allow others to have a mind of their own without personal insults or attacks.   Likely something you are finding hard to do.   Post your opinions without telling others they are wrong.   Most of us on this forum and other forums I use do that.    It is not hard to do.   I did not tell you to stop posting, it is all in your twisted way of thinking and posting.


----------



## Warrigal (May 21, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Jackie...  I was going to post this.  THIS IS HUGE...  and validates what everyone has been saying.  Bush and Cheney LIED...  there is no denying that now.   Why are they not in prison?



I don't know why people are arguing the point here. 
Of course they lied. 
The first casualty of war is truth. 
It always has been.

Only the very young and naïve believe otherwise.


----------



## QuickSilver (May 21, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> I don't know why people are arguing the point here.
> Of course they lied.
> The first casualty of war is truth.
> It always has been.
> ...



I think that having Michael Morell openly admit that what Cheney was saying was NOT true is the final nail in the coffin of the notion that perhaps they really believe it "at the time"..   All the rhetoric of "if we only knew then what we know now" is blown out of the water by his admission.  The fact is..  they DID know what we know now...  They KNEW there were no WMDs and that Iraq did not reconstitute nuclear weapons..  Cheney KNEW it was not true, but he fed the lie to Congress..  If there was a shred of doubt... that has been put to rest.


----------



## Warrigal (May 21, 2015)

The other lie was not voicing the real reasons for Gulf War Mark II.

Sins of commission and sins of omission sort of thing.


----------



## BobF (May 21, 2015)

What is Gulf War Mark II?    Is this what you call the second invasion of Iraq?   If so, then the quotes from the English General hold true.   He was tired of Iraq's leader and his constant telling lies to the UN inspectors.   Now those were some lies to be concerned about.


----------



## QuickSilver (May 21, 2015)

I believe the ONLY invasion in the Middle East was the 1st Afghanistan invasion after 911.  However, Bush tired of that and didn't even go after Bin Laden. Said he couldn't care less where he was.   Bush couldn't have cared less about Afghanistan... his sights were set on Iraq LONG before 911 even happened.


----------



## BobF (May 21, 2015)

The real reason for the second invasion of Iraq was the comment from General Sir Mike when he said the lies of Iraq's leader over ten years was enough reason to enter and find the truth.


----------



## Warrigal (May 21, 2015)

Bob, that is never enough reason to go to war unless the Commander in Chief is a psychopath. 
Which national leader doesn't lie through his teeth when it suits him?
We'd be engaged in war without end if that was a reason to send in the invading troops.

I never believed the rationalisations for the attack on Iraq. 
Our PM talked up the WMD argument but I don't think even he believed that.


----------



## BobF (May 21, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> Bob, that is never enough reason to go to war unless the Commander in Chief is a psychopath.
> Which national leader doesn't lie through his teeth when it suits him?
> We'd be engaged in war without end if that was a reason to send in the invading troops.
> 
> ...



Not sure but what Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, might have been a nut.   For all his years as leader he tortured the people constantly.   He kept putting the UN inspectors off base with lies and faked up inspections.   He was more than just a little liar as one of his reasons was to keep Iraq alerted to Iraq's abilities to attack, true or false.   The Gen Sir Mike took the quickest way after over 10 years of lies and distortions.   With Russia, China, and France unwilling to vote, there was little hope in ending the over 10 years of military oversight as Iraq was not going to change as long as Saddam was allowed to be in charge.

What we see being argued today does not fit into the situation so many years back.   It has become wishful thinking and little else.


----------



## Warrigal (May 21, 2015)

So why haven't nations decided to go to war against Mugabe and why didn't they invade Uganda to deal with Idi Amin?


----------



## QuickSilver (May 21, 2015)

BobF said:


> Not sure but what Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, might have been a nut.   For all his years as leader he tortured the people constantly.   He kept putting the UN inspectors off base with lies and faked up inspections.   He was more than just a little liar as one of his reasons was to keep Iraq alerted to Iraq's abilities to attack, true or false.   The Gen Sir Mike took the quickest way after over 10 years of lies and distortions.   With Russia, China, and France unwilling to vote, there was little hope in ending the over 10 years of military oversight as Iraq was not going to change as long as Saddam was allowed to be in charge.
> 
> What we see being argued today does not fit into the situation so many years back.   It has become wishful thinking and little else.




However,  be that as it may.... Iraq was STABLE..   there was no ISIS.  He kept the religious wars at bay. He was technically a Sunni, but more of a secularist.    Do you prefer how the ME is NOW?

What is even more evident, by the refusal of the Shiite military forces to even fight.. is the fact that WE want democracy and our Western way of governing much more than the Iraqi people do.  They are more than happy with their Theocratic style of governance.  I don't see how much more plain they can make it.  We need to let them settle whatever they need to and let them get on with the way of life they have known for centuries.


----------



## BobF (May 21, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> So why haven't nations decided to go to war against Mugabe and why didn't they invade Uganda to deal with Idi Amin?



I don't know and there is no real way to know either.   Times are all different now compered to 2003.   The US is now sitting around and no longer threatening other countries.   We can not even get enough courage to try to end this Isis takeover of the middle east and other areas.   Sort of like we are giving those criminals permission to be as deadly as they wish.   Not at all like 10 years or so back when the UN would ask for help and the US and plenty of other countries would respond.   Not sure why the UN has not even asked for help this time.   What is happening over there these days is a complete disaster for all countries, religions, locations, and UN is not asking for help.   I wonder why such a change?


----------



## QuickSilver (May 21, 2015)

Because we have a rational and cool headed leader who prefers to use diplomacy first  and force as a last resort?   Just a guess.

I believe that most of the world is happy to see the USA showing restraint and deliberation before getting more Americans and Allies killed.  I have no doubt that if America or her allies were truly threatened he would have no problem using force.. but he at least looks at a situation with a more deliberative eye than our previous administration.. and I am grateful for that.


----------



## Jackie22 (May 21, 2015)

I'm also glad to have a president in the white house that uses restrain and negotiation rather than macho 'rushing in with bombs' techniques.

Here is what President Obama had to say about Iraq just recently that verify's all that QS said and also the Iraqi's unwillingness to fight their own wars. ..... 


[h=1]Obama Responds To GOPers Who Blame Him For Instability In Iraq[/h]http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-republicans-iraq-war-mistakes 

Obama Responds To GOPers Who Blame Him For Instability In Iraq 

By Caitlin MacNeal 
PublishedMay 21, 2015, 12:20 PM EDT 


In an interview published on Thursday, President Obama responded to Republicans who have recently criticized his decision to withdraw troops from Iraq, arguing that the Iraqi government needs to work for its own security. 

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg asked Obama about former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's (R) struggle last week to answer whether he would have invaded Iraq given what he knows now. 

*"I’m very clear on the lessons of Iraq. I think it was a mistake for us to go in in the first place, despite the incredible efforts that were made by our men and women in uniform," Obama responded. "Despite that error, those sacrifices allowed the Iraqis to take back their country. That opportunity was squandered by Prime Minister Maliki and the unwillingness to reach out effectively to the Sunni and Kurdish populations."
*
Obama then pivoted to the current situation in Iraq and responded to Republicans, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), who blamed Obama for the current instability in Iraq. 

*"I know that there are some in Republican quarters who have suggested that I’ve overlearned the mistake of Iraq, and that, in fact, just because the 2003 invasion did not go well doesn’t argue that we shouldn’t go back in," Obama said. "And one lesson that I think is important to draw from what happened is that if the Iraqis themselves are not willing or capable to arrive at the political accommodations necessary to govern, if they are not willing to fight for the security of their country, we cannot do that for them. We can be effective allies."* 

Obama said he is committed to assisting Iraqi security forces to help them secure and stabilize the country. 

"But *we can’t do it for them, and one of the central flaws I think of the decision back in 2003 was the sense that if we simply went in and deposed a dictator, or simply went in and cleared out the bad guys, that somehow peace and prosperity would automatically emerge, and that lesson we should have learned a long time ago*," he told The Atlantic. 

Earlier in the interview, Obama said that he does not believe the U.S. is losing the war against the Islamic State, but said that ISIL's ability to take Iraqi city of Ramadi was a "tactical setback."


----------



## BobF (May 21, 2015)

One of the things that kept Europe from re exploding after WWII was the fact that for many years the US, England, and others stood fast after the truce and help those damaged countries survive and also helped keep interloper types from trying to become takeover types in Europe.   Russia was kept in restraints for one.   And now, Russia is no longer cruel communist country as it had become.   We had enough troops and oversight to help those damaged countries to survive and become independent.   We helped them to develop pride in their own governments.   And for the most part they are still standing free of any more wars.   The overseeing countries did not suppress them at all but were there to help provide stability, rather than more take over wars that Europe seemed to love over so many generations.

Happenings like after WWI did not happen again.   It was not really good for the victors of WWI to just run away and allow chaos to recreate.   It was because we stayed long enough to help folks to get settled in and not just go back to war attitudes like in Iraq area.   We left too soon.   We stayed long enough for the country to design its own idea of government and for their elections.   Then we just pulled our tails in and ran before the government and people became accustomed to each other.   Don't like what is happening in Iraq?   It is something we maybe could have avoided if we stayed their longer.   No proof of yes or no as it is too late now to make that judgement.   The US reputation of being a strong and ready country is likely gone forever.   Pretty sad if that is what becomes of the US.   Maybe it is time to start learning Chinese.


----------



## QuickSilver (May 21, 2015)

I don't think our reputation of being a strong country is gone.   I think the world has breathed a sigh of relief that a man like President Obama will keep a cool head and make deliberate and thought out decisions before  committing our blood and treasure.... In addition.. We COULDN'T stay.. The deal to leave when we did was made by Bush and Maliki wouldn't alter it.  So.. we left..  AND hopefully... we won't go back in.

http://world.time.com/2011/10/21/iraq-not-obama-called-time-on-the-u-s-troop-presence/



> *In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be  gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate.* And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”
> *But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements* in most countries where U.S. forces are based.


----------



## BobF (May 21, 2015)

One country for sure is happy we no longer seem to be a threat to them.    Russia has just kept on taking territories as they wish and borders mean little to them these days.   They no longer seem to be afraid of the US and warnings from Obama were just ignored by Russia.   The Russian troops and equipment seem to be staying  where Russia put them last year.   The country where Russia is meddling asked for some help, arms, something to resist Russia.   But they got nothing at all.


----------



## SeaBreeze (May 23, 2015)

Buying the war, full article and video here.  http://billmoyers.com/content/buying-the-war/





> The story of how high officials misled the country has been told. But they couldn’t have done it on their own; they needed a compliant press, to pass on their propaganda as news and cheer them on.
> 
> How did the evidence disputing the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the link between Saddam Hussein to 9-11 go largely unreported? “What the conservative media did was easy to fathom; they had been cheerleaders for the White House from the beginning and were simply continuing to rally the public behind the President — no questions asked.
> 
> ...


----------



## BobF (May 23, 2015)

Well, for me that entire article is just what the far left thinking folks wanted to hear.   Otherwise I think some is true and some is exagerated if not totally distorted.   Ask some more centered or right thinking and you will get much different stories to hear and believe.

Apparently no one wants to believe that more than George Bush had a hand in the decision to restart the Iraq war some 11 or so years after it had first started.   I mentioned Gen Sir Frank more than once, but we never see those comments in the rebuttals, such as this one is.


----------



## AZ Jim (May 23, 2015)

It is clear that NOTHING that doesn't align with Bob's *far right conservative* views will move him to think anything that isn't in the *extreme far right conservative republican* play book!!  There are other *extreme right wing conservative republicans* who are equally brainwashed.


----------



## BobF (May 24, 2015)

I am not a far right thinker at all.   I see both sides from the same perspective.   There are extremist on both sides and i am not one of those extremist as you describe.   You seem to fail to see facts as such and just continue to post to the very far left only conclusions.   Which means that those that do not agree exactly with you are automatically the very far right thinkers.   It just is not so for me or many others that can see good and bad in both extremes.   The Iraq war was started by several nations to end the nuclear threats and the personal crimes against the people themselves.   I bring forth the people involved but some just do not care about facts as they don't push the far left idea of destroying the US government and turning the US into another European style of government.   Nothing wrong with the US Constitional run government as we have had for over 200 years.   Longer than any of those European governments and more able to take care of the people at home and lots of places around the world with the open government style of our Constitution, which is being ignored by the current government.   Hopefully we can move on to another style of government after the next 18 months have passed.   Hillary maybe?   Or maybe one of the many others that have indicated their interest in helping to run our government.

I am not a hard left, far left, socialist type that wants to see our government changed to something far less than it is designed to be.   I am surprised that some folks can be so one sided that they see nothing good but a very far left socialist idea of government.


----------



## WhatInThe (May 24, 2015)

Saddam was a butt hole. But was it really worth a full scale invasion to get rid of some attitude. No doubt if the nation building had been given time to develop and hold the Iraqi population would've benefited greatly and have been more anxious to defend their country against movements/groups like ISIS. But that would've taken a generation or two. Remember you not only had to convince the population that the US invaded the country for their own good but you had educate a bunch of nomads, farmers, religious groups/sects and status quo about democracy, politics, free trade, capitalism, technology etc. That's about 2 generations worth of work. 

They halted the advance in Gulf War I because they knew the implications of nation building and how fragile the peace was with all the different Muslim countries and sects. After Gulf War I when Saddam started wiping out entire villages they had actual war crimes they could've tried him for.  But with the lessons of Vietnam fresh in mind and no stomach for a protracted war the politicians did not push the most legitimate opportunity they had.


----------



## tnthomas (May 24, 2015)

As a Vietnam veteran, I developed a keen sense for detecting governmental lies and deceptions.   During the Irag war sales pitch my 'radar' was going off the charts.

The whole Bush-Cheney crowd should be tried for treason and mass murder of the 5000+ U.S. military personnel and thousands of Iraqis that were sacrificed for the financial enrichment of the corporate interests that were represented by the Bush regime.


----------



## WhatInThe (May 24, 2015)

There was stink on the first Gulf War including the Iraqis taking babies out of their incubators which included a lying teenage Kuwaiti girl testalying about those alleged atrocities.

http://www.americanussr.com/american-ussr-premature-kuwaiti-baby-death-lies.htm

Again, Saddam was a butt hole but messing with babies? Even he wasn't that stupid as much as the brutal sociopath he was. Was his invasion necessary, no. Sometimes I wonder if that was orchestrated on a much smaller scale to get us used to the idea of dealing in the middle east.

Also by leaving Saddam alive/in power after Desert Storn  it sets the stage and gives us an excuse for a return visit.


----------



## BobF (May 24, 2015)

It was not just the US involved but some just keep insisting it was only the US.    Such a sad way to look at what was actually an international, UN type of thing.   My son and daughter both did service in Iraq.   My son also did service in a European hot spot, why are we not making up lies about that place too?   Over near Yugoslavia.


----------



## AZ Jim (May 24, 2015)

BobF said:


> It was not just the US involved but some just keep insisting it was only the US.    Such a sad way to look at what was actually an international, UN type of thing.   My son and daughter both did service in Iraq.   My son also did service in a European hot spot, why are we not making up lies about that place too?   Over near Yugoslavia.



I have no idea what anything your son did anywhere has anything to do with this issue.  We had the overwhelming majority of troops in Iraq not to mention the huge preponderance of equipment and armaments.  We "lead" the war.  To suggest that others were as involved as the US is naive.


----------



## BobF (May 24, 2015)

It was not just the US that laid military on to the location of Iraq.   It was actually a number of countries from around the world that stood up against the Iraq ways of killing numbers of it's citizens and for threatening to destroy other nations with there weapons.   It was not just the US that had attacked Iraq.   
................................................

*An English General that totally dislikes G Bush said the extension of the Iraq war was legitimate after 10 years of Saddams defiance of the UN and the surrender terms.*

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1561891/Gen-Sir-Mike-Jackson-attacks-US-over-Iraq.html

*Sir Mike says he satisfied himself on the legality of invading Iraq by careful study of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and concluded that action was "legitimate under international law without a 'second' resolution.

Note: I will need to correct this connection comment to make it correct.   So away I go to just do that.
*
I now add this link to Gen Sir Mike Jackson report

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1561891/Gen-Sir-Mike-Jackson-attacks-US-over-Iraq.html

*Gen Sir Mike Jackson attacks US over Iraq*


               By Con Coughlin and Neil Tweedie

         12:01AM BST 01 Sep 2007

.
.
.
Sir Mike says he satisfied himself on the legality of invading Iraq by  careful study of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and  concluded that action was "legitimate under international law without a  'second' resolution.
.
.
.

Not sure what is happening here.   More than once I have posted the link I am using but it does not seem to work properly.


----------



## 911 (May 24, 2015)

tnthomas said:


> As a Vietnam veteran, I developed a keen sense for detecting governmental lies and deceptions.   During the Irag war sales pitch my 'radar' was going off the charts.
> 
> The whole Bush-Cheney crowd should be tried for treason and mass murder of the 5000+ U.S. military personnel and thousands of Iraqis that were sacrificed for the financial enrichment of the corporate interests that were represented by the Bush regime.




If you are going to do that, then include Kennedy and Johnson for their efforts to expand the Vietnam War. We should never have been there to begin with let alone having these two Presidents escalate it to the tune of 50,000+ GI lost lives. These two wars almost paralleled themselves politically. I have always believed that each President does what he needs to do to keep the fighting from happening here at home.


----------



## AZ Jim (May 24, 2015)

No one is disputing there were other countries.  The fact is we convinced the UN to call for the coalition and we were the main troop and equipment supplier not to mention what it cost us financially. When you look at the other nations involved also look at their withdrawal dates. 



CountryDeathsReference(s)




United States4,486[SUP][131][/SUP]



United Kingdom179[SUP][132][/SUP]



Italy33[SUP][133][/SUP]



Poland23[SUP][134][/SUP]



Ukraine18[SUP][135][/SUP]



Bulgaria13[SUP][136][/SUP]



Spain11[SUP][137][/SUP]



Denmark7[SUP][138][/SUP]



El Salvador5[SUP][139][/SUP]



Georgia5[SUP][140][/SUP]



Slovakia4[SUP][141][/SUP]



Latvia3[SUP][142][/SUP]



Romania3[SUP][143][/SUP]



Estonia2[SUP][144][/SUP]



Thailand2[SUP][145][/SUP]



Australia2[SUP][146][/SUP]



Netherlands2[SUP][147][/SUP]



Kazakhstan1[SUP][148][/SUP]



South Korea1[SUP][149][/SUP]



Hungary1[SUP][150][/SUP]

 Coalition fatalities  [h=2][/h]


----------



## AZ Jim (May 24, 2015)

911 said:


> If you are going to do that, then include Kennedy and Johnson for their efforts to expand the Vietnam War. We should never have been there to begin with let alone having these two Presidents escalate it to the tune of 50,000+ GI lost lives. These two wars almost paralleled themselves politically.* I have always believed that each President does what he needs to do to keep the fighting from happening here at home.*




If you are going to do that then also include Eisenhower who sent in the very first "observers" in April 1954. To suggest that every President was only interested in keeping the battles out of America is to ignore our quest for oil among other considerations.


----------



## BobF (May 24, 2015)

As I said before, it was the UN that really started activities against Saddam and his wild ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq

The *sanctions against Iraq* were a near-total financial and trade embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council on the Iraqi Republic. They began August 6, 1990, four days after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, stayed largely in force until May 2003 (after Saddam Hussein's being forced from power),[SUP][1][/SUP] and persisted in part, including reparations to Kuwait, through the present.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4]
[/SUP]
[SUP]The original stated purposes of the sanctions were to compel Iraq to  withdraw from Kuwait, to pay reparations, and to disclose and eliminate  any weapons of mass destruction.[/SUP]

[SUP]Initially the UN Security Council imposed stringent economic sanctions on Iraq by adopting and enforcing United Nations Security Council Resolution 661.[SUP][5][/SUP] After the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, those sanctions were extended and elaborated on, including linkage to removal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), by Resolution 687.[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP] The sanctions banned all trade  and financial resources except for medicine and "in humanitarian  circumstances" foodstuffs, whose import into Iraq was tightly regulated.[SUP][5][/SUP]

.....................

And then followed the many countries that joined together to force Saddam to surrender his tactics against the world but did not depose him yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
[/SUP]
The *Gulf War* (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991), codenamed *Operation Desert Shield* (2 August 1990 – 17 January 1991) for operations leading to the buildup of troops and defense of Saudi Arabia and *Operation Desert Storm* (17 January 1991 – 28 February 1991) in its combat phase, was a war waged by coalition forces from 34 nations led by the United States against Iraq in response to Iraq's invasion and annexation of Kuwait.
...................

The UN started all this effort against Saddam and then the US help a group of countries to join together to help defeat Iraqs aggression, which was done in general.   But Saddam refused to end his power weapons activities and continued attacking his people by whippings, pushing off walls to kill prisoners, gas attacks on small villages, and so forth.   So finally after more than 10 years of this wild and merciless handling of people under his control.    Gen Sir Mike Jackson, I hope I have it correct this time, encouraged the new military effort and this time to take over of Iraq and elimination of Saddam.   This did happen and Saddam was then tried by the Iraq courts and then hanged.

We should have stayed over as we did in Europe after WWII and in Japan too.   This gave the people time to establish their personal government and reduced the possibility of radical upstarts taking over.   Quitting and leaving right away was a big mistake from the beginning.


----------



## SeaBreeze (May 25, 2015)

A side note on our troops withdrawing from Iraq:  Just last night I heard once again from a host of a conservative talk show that Obama was at fault for pulling out our troops, he should have kept them there.  Obama had no choice but to leave, the _decision was made by the Iraqi government_, and indirectly by GW Bush.  http://world.time.com/2011/10/21/iraq-not-obama-called-time-on-the-u-s-troop-presence/








President Barack Obama’s announcement on Friday that all 40,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq will leave the country by New Year’s Eve will, inevitably, draw howls of derision from GOP presidential hopefuls — this is, after all, early election season. But the decision to leave Iraq by that date was not actually taken by President Obama — it was taken by President George W. Bush, and by the Iraqi government. 

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that set the clock ticking on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be  gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate. 

And as Middle East historian Juan Cole has noted, “Bush had to sign what the [Iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it.

 While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it.

Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal. 

The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. But President Bush hadn’t anticipated that Iraqi democracy would see pro-U.S. parties sidelined and would, instead, consistently return governments closer to Tehran than they are to Washington. Contra expectations, a democratic Iraq has turned out to be at odds with much of U.S. regional strategy — first and foremost its campaign to isolate Iran.

The Iraq that U.S. forces will leave behind is far from stable, and the mounting tension between Iran and Saudi Arabia could well see a renewed flare-up of Iraq’s disastrous sectarian civil war. A jihadist Sunni insurgency has reasserted itself in recent months with a steady uptick in terror attacks, and it could become a vehicle for Saudi proxy warfare against Iran, which backs the Maliki government and various Shi’ite political and military formations, including Sadr’s. Kurdish-Arab tensions are growing in the north, where the fate of such contested cities as Kirkuk remains unresolved and a source of mounting security danger. Iraq’s political future, also, remains contested, with sectarian and ethnic rivalries reflected in the continued failure to pass a low regulating the sharing of oil revenues, and mounting anxiety over the increasingly authoritarian approach of Prime Minister Maliki.

Iraq could yet fail as a state. But it’s not as if the presence of 40,000 U.S. troops has been all that’s holding it together: Those forces no longer patrol Iraq’s cities, and are mostly involved in mentoring Iraqi units, although they have played a major role in mediating Arab-Kurdish conflicts in the north.
Given the unresolved political conflicts that continue to plague the country even after its transition to democratic government — and in light of the rising levels of regional tension — chances are high that the U.S. withdrawal will be preceded and followed by a sharp uptick in violence. Shi’ite insurgent groups are likely to escalate attacks on U.S. forces, hoping to claim credit for driving out the Americans — and, no doubt, to please their Iranian backers. Sunni insurgent groups are likely to raise their own game, in order to challenge the Shi’ite dominated government and demonstrate its inability to ensure security — an exercise that will suit the agenda of their own backers.

The key to ensuring security after a U.S. withdrawal has always been achieving a regional consensus on Iraq that could set the terms for political compromise inside Iraq — or, at least, limit the likelihood of renewed violence. Unfortunately, instead, that withdrawal coincides with a sharp escalation in the Saudi-Iranin cold war.

Not that the U.S. will be out of the picture, by any stretch of the imagination. As things stand, the U.S. embassy in Iraq will have 17,000 employees — including at least 5,000 “security contractors”, i.e. non-uniformed military personnel. It’s not hard to imagine that future training needs of the Iraqi military will be undertaken by privateers rather than under the auspices of the Pentagon. And that the CIA — now under the command of Gen. David Petraeus, former U.S. commander in Iraq — will play a more active role in pursuing U.S. objectives on the ground and in the neighborhood.

But as of December 31, no more American soldiers will be doing tours of duty in Iraq. The war that ousted Saddam Hussein, unleashing an insurgency that left 4,500 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, and which will cost the U.S. upwards of $1 trillion, is finally over. Historians will note that the U.S. invasion of Iraq precipitated dramatic changes across the Middle East political landscape in the ensuing decade. But many of those changes were hardly the ones the war’s authors had in mind.


----------



## BobF (May 25, 2015)

Thank you SeaBreeze, a very detailed and exact post.   What is obvious is the mind set of the earlier government that expected more co operation from the Iran government.   But that all fell apart shortly after Bush left and Obama got the challange.   That Iranian lead pretty much decided no more of the centrist types and no more of the Sunni types as the Shia seem to be trying to take over much of Iraq rather than just share the government for the people as was intended in the beginning debates and the way their new government had been set up.   With what is happening now it is bad and with the newest way out bunch that is attempting to take over the entire middle east area, nothing will ever work as planned.   It will be a killing and unsafe place to be in for many years to go.   What had hopes of being a good democratic set up has now failed.   Saddam and his hateful way of government is gone but soon to be replaced by an even more cruel form of religious government.

For clarification, I do not see this to be all Obama's fault as some may say.   This latest bunch trying to make all the nations follow their twisted rules, is the real problem.   Maybe down stream a bit we, with many other nations, may have to agree to fight to defend our ways from those killing types now attempting to rearrange the worlds religious plans to what they think is the only way to go.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jun 14, 2015)

More repeated complaints about Obama withdrawing our troops from Iraq, when it was not his choice.  Senator Lindsey Graham still moaning the same old song, of course he wants to put 10,000 more of our troops on the ground there.  Can we say war hawks?


----------



## BobF (Jun 14, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> More repeated complaints about Obama withdrawing our troops from Iraq, when it was not his choice.  Senator Lindsey Graham still moaning the same old song, of course he wants to put 10,000 more of our troops on the ground there.  Can we say war hawks?



Is Graham a war hawk?    I just listened to his speech and from what he spoke of I would say no.   He is not a war hawk but he definitely is against our having pulled out of Iraq when we did and apparently did not have too.   He is mostly wanting to put our troops back to the level he wishes they had stayed and believe that would have kept the nasty groups over there from becoming so strong and ready to kill for their joy.   I would suggest relistening to his responses to that news caster questions.   Pretty direct answers to the problems we have now where once we, the US and many other UN nations efforts, were controlling much of the area.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jun 14, 2015)

But we did have to pull out, Obama had no choice.  The decision was made by GW Bush indirectly and the Iraqi Government, I don't know why that's so hard for people to understand, unless of course they are just in denial and don't want to hear the truth. 



> The surprising advances by jihadists in northern and western Iraq have produced at least one unsurprising result: accusations that President Obama’s “abandonment” of Iraq is responsible for the catastrophe. Critics have launched a two-pronged attack on the administration’s Iraq policy: They blame Obama for being unwilling or unable to reach a deal with Baghdad to leave U.S. troops in Iraq beyond the Dec. 31, 2011 deadline for withdrawal established by the Bush administration; and they assert that such a residual presence would have proved decisive in heading off the current calamity. Neither criticism withstands much scrutiny.
> 
> Here are the facts.
> 
> ...


----------



## BobF (Jun 14, 2015)

Thanks for this note.   I just read it and really wonder why Bush got the blame for the bad Iraqi government.   Maybe because we did not retain control over Iraq with the new government.   Likely a big mistake of Bush for not including US military of size could stay on and help Iraq keep enemies out.   Not likely at all in that time period as the neighbor in Iran did not like the US at all and still do not.   Most likely that Iran was busy making the rules fit their thinking and not at all as the UN forces and the US had once tried to make it work out.   Blame Bush?    Maybe, but more likely Iran is messing every thing up.   And there is another problem.   We should not be trying to make peace with a country that has tried for so many many years to put the US down.   We should be tougher on them for the way they have treated the US and other free countries.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Oct 8, 2015)

There's a lot of buzz on conservative talk shows the past couple of days about the classified 28 pages missing from the 9/11 Commission report.  What do you think those 28 pages that they refuse to make public contain?


----------



## WhatInThe (Oct 9, 2015)

I thought I remember seeing reports that a couple of hijackers spent time in Iraq but I believe this came out after the Iraq invasion and some documents they found or prisoners they interrogated. How significant that stay would've been seems to be negligible. Or maybe prisoners were feeding interrogators something they wanted to hear.

The 28 pages is covering up a lot of crap, 28 pages, this is more than a mere mention of covert operatives or operations. Another lawsuit to get that information was just denied in September saying the Saudi's have sovereign immunity. 

If Iraq had a major part I'm sure a dictator like Saddam would've boasted.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Nov 14, 2015)

A site to browse regarding Bush's Iraq invasion, for those interested. http://www.publicintegrity.org/politics/white-house/iraq-war-card


----------



## BobF (Nov 14, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> A site to browse regarding Bush's Iraq invasion, for those interested. http://www.publicintegrity.org/politics/white-house/iraq-war-card



it is pretty clear that some do not want to include others responsible and just call it Bush's Iraq war.   It was not just Bush and as I see it the UN did not come unglued either.   They were working on just expanding the UN directive of years earlier.

To read that post, I did look at it, I will not for some basic reasons.   That is 12 or more years ago and now is history.   It is what it is and nothing will change that.   It is like worrying about WWII and all the killing done then.   It is all just history now.

Our problem today is much more serious that agreeing with or disagreeing with Iraq war and who did what.   We need to get joined with the many countries around the world and stand up to the war that has been declared on and the demonstrated hate and killings that went on in Paris last night.   Yes, it is a war and we need to stand up and fight back to end the source of these killers and their hatred.

President Putin says he has fought this war for years.   We should join him and help make the threat disappear.    If those terrorist are so in a hurry to get to their idea of heaven to blow themselves up, let us help them to their heaven as quickly as possible.   Both here at home in the US and all around the world too.


----------



## SeaBreeze (May 3, 2016)

WhatInThe said:


> The 28 pages is covering up a lot of crap, 28 pages, this is more than a mere mention of covert operatives or operations. Another lawsuit to get that information was just denied in September saying the Saudi's have sovereign immunity.



I hope they finally uncover the content of these pages, I think the secrecy and government corruption it's trying to hide is shameful.  More here.


"Meanwhile, a far lesser-known document from the files of the 9/11 Commission—written by the same principal authors as the 28 pages and declassified last summer without publicity and without media analysis—indicates investigators proposed exploring to what extent “political, economic and other considerations” affected U.S. government investigations of links between Saudi Arabia and 9/11.








Drafted by Dana Lesemann and Michael Jacobson as a set of work plans for their specific parts of the 9/11 Commission investigation, the 47-page document also provides an overview of individuals of most interest to investigators pursuing a Saudi connection to the 2001 attack that killed nearly 3,000 people.

Included in that overview is a previously unpublicized declaration that, after the capture of alleged al-Qaeda operative Ghassan al-Sharbi in Pakistan, the FBI discovered a cache of documents he had buried nearby. 
Among them: al-Sharbi’s U.S. flight certificate inside an envelope of the Saudi embassy in Washington, D.C.

Declassified in July 2015 under the authority of the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP) pursuant to a Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR) appeal, the document is the seventeenth of 29 released under ISCAP appeal2012-48, which focuses on FBI files related to 9/11. One of two documents in the series identified as “Saudi Notes,” we’ll refer to it as “Document 17.”

Dated June 6, 2003, Document 17 was written by Lesemann and Jacobson in their capacity as staff investigators for the 9/11 Commission, and was addressed to 9/11 Commission Executive Director Philip Zelikow, Deputy Executive Director Chris Kojm and General Counsel Dan Marcus."


----------



## Shalimar (May 3, 2016)

Wow.


----------



## Shalimar (May 3, 2016)

Is there anything negative that the rightwing extremist section of the Republican Party has not attributed to President Obama?
it must be so embarrassing for sensible Americans of whatever political persuasion to be exposed to the constant barrage of 

hatred that certain questionably sane peeps have spewed over the past seven years. This is a first world country, a major world power, not a backward banana republic.


----------



## SeaBreeze (May 3, 2016)

People want and deserve answers, more here. 


"Mr. Graham, 78, a two-term governor of Florida and three-term senator who left Capitol Hill in 2005, says he will not relent in his efforts to force the government to make public a secret section of a congressional review he helped write — one that, by many accounts, implicates Saudi citizens in helping the hijackers.

“No. 1, I think the American people deserve to know the truth of what has happened in their name,” said Mr. Graham, who was a co-chairman of the 2002 joint congressional inquiry into the terrorist attacks. “No. 2 is justice for these family members who have suffered such loss and thus far have been frustrated largely by the U.S. government in their efforts to get some compensation.”

He also says national security implications are at stake, suggesting that since Saudi officials were not held accountable for Sept. 11 they have not been restrained in backing a spread of Islamic extremism that threatens United States interests. Saudi leaders have long denied any connection to Sept. 11.

Mr. Graham’s focus on a possible Saudi connection has received renewed attention because of claims made by victims’ families in a federal court in New York that Saudi Arabia was responsible for aiding the Sept. 11 hijackers and because of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed against the F.B.I. in Florida."


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jul 4, 2016)

*Big Oil in Iraq*

Short video here. 




> *Bill Moyers Essay: Big Oil in Iraq*
> 
> *June 27, 2008*
> 
> After a long exile, Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP are back in Iraq. The war-torn country is in chaos and 4,000 American soldiers have died, but the oil industry is enjoying swollen profits. In this essay, Bill connects the dots to explain the role of oil in the US decision to wage war against Iraq.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Sep 2, 2016)




----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 2, 2016)

Trump Lies...   Period..


----------



## Carla (Sep 3, 2016)

I just found this thread and watched the videos. My husband and I were sitting on a fifth floor deck down in Norfolk looking out on the ocean when the ships all began pulling out. He looked at me and said there's something very serious happening. That was the beginning of the first Gulf War.

These videos really fill in the dots. We always doubted the information we were being fed, something about it just didn't seem "right". They knew it wasn't true what they were saying about WMD, they basically staged this whole thing to go into Iraq. A costly war (wars) and we are still over there. Sadly, so many people lost their lives and many more wounded because of faulty heresay intelligence they chose to use. I think the report was  honest--these people worked closely with the White House and seem to be quite credible. A lot of people felt duped when they were unable to find anything! Appreciate you posting this, thanks. It's a history lesson.


----------

