retired_the gizmo

and now howard tries to do bush's dirty work for him and talk **** about obama. why? some sort of international conservative white people solidarity?

retired_musiclova31

no. it's because howard is cuunt. plain and simple really.

thank **** his reign of terror will end this year \o/

retired_ks reddy

Here's some reading. Only really worthwhile for those who know how to read:

This is a letter, from the man the CIA paid a hundreds of thousands of dollars to to say Iraq had no WMD, to the UN:

Dear Kofi

He blames everything on the UN/US/UK/Butler/Blix, rather than formally inviting in the inspection teams as the UN had requested and expected that he do.

And here's the last UNMOVIC report. 3 weeks before the invasion, when the troops were massing on the border and Saddam was frantically trying to dig himself out of his hole, prior to his rushing off to hide in one.

Don't see them saying Iraq's clean?

All during the Bush tenure so nothing about the relentless ****-ups made by your dahling democrats in the preceeding decade. Is that okay Daaaaave? If not I suggest you either stick to discussing such stuff on the Kos or Huffington, or make a note in the first post that you don't want to hear any dissenting views.

retired_princess160

Bert, it is really simple.

a) Bush knew there were no WMD
b) Bush attacked Iraq under the pretense there were WMD there
c) Bush has committed crimes against peace

What's the point arguing, really?

I know I'm not gonna. Night

retired_ks reddy

You didn't read that lot in 11 minutes. I refer you to the original post.

retired_the gizmo

dissenting views is one thing. consistently irrelevant, digressive views is something else. you don't discuss topics, you pile digression upon digression until the original topic has been completely obscured and you're working on timelines in a different decade. takes a special kind of person to hang on to the lies even after the truth comes out.


here it is simply.

did iraq fully disarm? NO
were there worries he still had wmd? YES
is it a change at all from the previous decade? NO
was there evidence pointing both way regarding wmd? YES
did he purposely withhold evidence pointing against? YES
was the rationale for war sold on the basis of certainty versus probability? YES

retired_ks reddy

For me the whole thing dates back to the invasion of Kuwait. Everything since is important because it's all connected.

I'd agree with all your points there except the last one, which I'm not sure I understand?

retired_the gizmo

"Saddam has WMDs and mobile lab facilities and he will launch them against us if we don't stop him"

"Saddam has not complied with UN inspectors and we are receiving conflicting intelligence whether or not he will be able to put together a WMD program at some point in the future."

one of these is the lie that will send us to war. the other takes into account all the intelligence factors and represents the truth.

retired_the gizmo

and it may be all connected but especially if you tie everything back to kuwait you have to ask yourself what the tipping point was for war. what had changed in 10 years? nothing. so why? the american people were not going to be convinced to go to war bases on the status quo. people weren't scared of the status quo. yellow cake and aluminum tubes had to be created out of whole cloth, while ahmed chalabi's goons fed us the information which benefitted him and which bush was dying to hear.

read woodward's book on the war and you'll see that cheney was taking raw intel from the field and analysing it himself ffs.

retired_ks reddy

Not sure who the first is quoting, and the second would more truthfully read "Saddam has not complied with UN inspectors and we are receiving conflicting intelligence as to whether or not he still retains WMDs"

Whole thing was a load of crap, politicians thinking the public needed to be personally frightened to support killing an unhinged loon such as Saddam. But if the politicians knew they were lying, why no planting of evidence in Iraq? Would that have been very difficult to cover up?