In article ,
says...

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:58:34 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

On 2/26/13 8:30 AM, J Herring wrote:


The Iraq war was initiated because our intelligence, the
intelligence of our allies, the leadership
of Iraq, and our Congress believed or announced the building and
storage of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq.

Salmonbait

--

That's just Herring lying to perpetuate the Bush Administration's
lies.
The Bush Administration and its neocon supplicants cooked the intel
out
of Iraq and cooked it over and over and over, and fed false intel to
our
allies, too. This has been discussed openly for years, the Brits have
discussed how they were duped by cooked intel. The sad thing is that
the
righties are still trying to rewrite the reality of the Bush
Administration's bull**** that got us into Iran.

--------------------------------------------------------------

So, what was his motivations to "cook" the intel and "lie" to the
nation and the world?

I remember hearing, "It's all about the oil". No evidence of that
ever came to be.
I remember hearing, "Revenge for trying to assassinate his father".
No real evidence of that, other than speculation by some.
I remember hearing, "It's Cheney getting Hallibuton contracts" .
Yes, Hallibuton got contracts but they were the only company with the
resources to do them.

So, what's the real reason Bush cooked the intel and lied to the
world? Seems to me that even he is smart enough to realize what the
historical and personal ramifications would be if he knowingly lied
and conducted a war for personal reasons. I just can't buy that. If
he cooked the intel, then so did many others, including many
Republicans and Democrats in the Senate who saw the same reports,
acquired domestically and by our allies. What was Bush doing,
sitting at his computer, modifying the raw data and releasing it to
Congress?




I seem to recall ESAD being one of the biggest "it's all about oil" contenders - along with the rest
of the liberals piling on.

Of course, that's all conveniently forgotten.

No, it's not. We got the conservatives to hell out of the White House,
or else they would probably HAVE gone after the oil. Here's a very good
article:

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle2319.htm

In article ,
says...


Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was becoming increasingly defiant of the
UN resolutions agreed to after the first Gulf War. US and coalition
aircraft patrolling the "no fly" zone were being fired upon. Iraqi
fixed wing aircraft were flying, in defiance of the UN resolutions.
Hussein bragged about his WMD's and was mass murdering many of
innocent Iraqi citizens. His sons were basically thugs. This was
all happening at the end of the Clinton administration and Clinton
warned Bush of increasing problems again with Iraq.


It was happening after 9-11. Bush and his neocons wanted their balls
back. Any target would do, but since Afghanistan scared the bejesus out
of them - and had no oil - Iraq was the best for nation building.
Make everybody American. That's how they view the world.
Bush senior and his crew were sure that Saddam would fall after the Gulf
war. He didn't. Bush junior and his crew were sure the Iraqis would
shower roses on the "liberating Americans." They didn't.
Father and son and their crews were just dumb-asses.
History bears witness.
Oil was supposed to be the cherry on the cake.

If you recall, Bush did not rush into invading Iraq. At least six
months were spent holding meetings and presenting data in the UN. (I
guess he fooled them too.) Bottom line was that Iraq was determined
to be a serious threat again to stability in the region and to those
allies we had in the area.

It took time to build the fabric of lies. How many articles did Judith
Miller of the New York Times write, based on lies fed to her from the
Bush administration? How many appearances by Cheney, Rice, et al, on
Sunday morning shows, lying about aluminum tubes, African uranium
purchases, Atta meeting the Iraqi secret service, and mushroom clouds?
It had to be a lengthy and well orchestrated process to get the dumb-ass
Dems to vote for the war powers act, as they did.
The UN never bought into it and never approved war. I don't know where
you get that.


Hussein refused to allow weapons inspectors to do their job, fueling
more speculation that his claims of having WMD's was real. There
were also conveys of trucks moving "something" out of Iraq and into
Syria, not long before the invasion took place. Hussein was given an
ultimatum for him and his sons to leave. He thumbed his nose at the
UN and the world.


Utter bull****. Saddam even allowed his palaces to be inspected.
UN inspectors could chopper into any location in Iraq.
The ultimatum came from GWB. The UN wanted no part of it.
You're nuts even suggesting WMD were spirited out of Iraq in convoys of
trucks. Don't you even know that Colin Powell showed clear satellite
shots to the UN of what he claimed to be "mobile WMD production labs?"
But he wouldn't give the UN inspectors the location.
Later shots were taken from the ground by U.S. reporters.
It was a ****ing tractor trailer junkyard.
And the "something" you speak of was probably a ****ing convoy
transporting goat milk.
You really drank the kool-ade on this.


I think mistakes were made, the biggest being underestimating the time
it would take for the country to stabilize after Hussein was found and
removed from power. But I am not convinced that Bush purposely
invaded Iraq for personal political advantage.

The biggest mistake was electing dumb-ass GWB as POTUS. What motivated
him isn't even important. It's his dumb-ass conduct that matters.
You're always going to get dumb-ass motivations from a dumb-ass.
Krause and jps provide plenty of examples from the "other side" when
they shoot off their mouths without thinking first.
Get over it. Reality and facts are all over the internet, so your
"opinions" mean nothing unless backed by facts.

On 2/26/13 12:25 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:58:34 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

On 2/26/13 8:30 AM, J Herring wrote:


The Iraq war was initiated because our intelligence, the
intelligence of our allies, the leadership
of Iraq, and our Congress believed or announced the building and
storage of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq.

Salmonbait

--

That's just Herring lying to perpetuate the Bush Administration's
lies.
The Bush Administration and its neocon supplicants cooked the intel
out
of Iraq and cooked it over and over and over, and fed false intel to
our
allies, too. This has been discussed openly for years, the Brits have
discussed how they were duped by cooked intel. The sad thing is that
the
righties are still trying to rewrite the reality of the Bush
Administration's bull**** that got us into Iran.

--------------------------------------------------------------

So, what was his motivations to "cook" the intel and "lie" to the
nation and the world?

I remember hearing, "It's all about the oil". No evidence of that
ever came to be.
I remember hearing, "Revenge for trying to assassinate his father".
No real evidence of that, other than speculation by some.
I remember hearing, "It's Cheney getting Hallibuton contracts" .
Yes, Hallibuton got contracts but they were the only company with the
resources to do them.

So, what's the real reason Bush cooked the intel and lied to the
world? Seems to me that even he is smart enough to realize what the
historical and personal ramifications would be if he knowingly lied
and conducted a war for personal reasons. I just can't buy that. If
he cooked the intel, then so did many others, including many
Republicans and Democrats in the Senate who saw the same reports,
acquired domestically and by our allies. What was Bush doing,
sitting at his computer, modifying the raw data and releasing it to
Congress?




We took out Saddam because he was threatening Israel. It is the same
reason we will have a war with Iran.



Ahh...another in the Heinz 57 rationales for the Bush Admin lying us
into Iraq.

On 2/26/13 12:52 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:38:15 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/26/13 12:25 PM, wrote:


We took out Saddam because he was threatening Israel. It is the same
reason we will have a war with Iran.



Ahh...another in the Heinz 57 rationales for the Bush Admin lying us
into Iraq.

When you look at what is happening in Iran, it is the most likely
scenario.
The current situation depends more on what Netanyahu does than anyone
in Iran or Washington.

The only question is whether we let Israel start the war or whether we
do it. Politically it may be better for us to do it, like we did in
Iraq.
If Israel starts it we will still be drawn in but we won't have any
cover.


Ahh, I was referring to Iraq. I feel out of my league trying to predict
what Iran, North Korea, or the Pakistanis will do about anything, since
they are run by insane people. Saddam was a butcher, but I don't think
he was in the same league of insanity as the leaders of the countries I
referenced here.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:38:15 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/26/13 12:25 PM, wrote:


We took out Saddam because he was threatening Israel. It is the same
reason we will have a war with Iran.



Ahh...another in the Heinz 57 rationales for the Bush Admin lying us
into Iraq.

When you look at what is happening in Iran, it is the most likely
scenario.
The current situation depends more on what Netanyahu does than anyone
in Iran or Washington.

The only question is whether we let Israel start the war or whether we
do it. Politically it may be better for us to do it, like we did in
Iraq.
If Israel starts it we will still be drawn in but we won't have any
cover.

I don't for the life of me understand why we continue to babysit and
coddle Israel. Unless, of course this is all about wars of the various
gods.

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 13:01:34 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/26/13 12:52 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:38:15 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 2/26/13 12:25 PM, wrote:


We took out Saddam because he was threatening Israel. It is the same
reason we will have a war with Iran.



Ahh...another in the Heinz 57 rationales for the Bush Admin lying us
into Iraq.

When you look at what is happening in Iran, it is the most likely
scenario.
The current situation depends more on what Netanyahu does than anyone
in Iran or Washington.

The only question is whether we let Israel start the war or whether we
do it. Politically it may be better for us to do it, like we did in
Iraq.
If Israel starts it we will still be drawn in but we won't have any
cover.


Ahh, I was referring to Iraq. I feel out of my league trying to predict
what Iran, North Korea, or the Pakistanis will do about anything, since
they are run by insane people. Saddam was a butcher, but I don't think
he was in the same league of insanity as the leaders of the countries I
referenced here.

I'm not convinced that Jim Jung Whatever is crazy. They know they will
be nuked if they should actually start something. Same with Iran. I'm
not concerned about the current Pak leadership, but I am concerned
about their nukes being taken over by religous zealots or if the
leadership there and the Indian leadership miscalculate.

If it was true that Israel was threatened by Saddam, they would have
acted. As it was, we restrained Israel from acting, which was the only
smart thing Bush did. Other than that, he lied about the reasons, and
****ed up Iraq and Afganistan.

Of course, since Fretwell has so much worldly experience working at
IBM 20 years ago, he's gotta be the ****ing expert in that, gun
safety, raising kids, milking goats, and fixing drones. Whatever. How
anyone can listen to him after all his bull**** and unsupported
nonsense astounds me.

"Boating All Out" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...


Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was becoming increasingly defiant of the
UN resolutions agreed to after the first Gulf War. US and
coalition
aircraft patrolling the "no fly" zone were being fired upon. Iraqi
fixed wing aircraft were flying, in defiance of the UN resolutions.
Hussein bragged about his WMD's and was mass murdering many of
innocent Iraqi citizens. His sons were basically thugs. This
was
all happening at the end of the Clinton administration and Clinton
warned Bush of increasing problems again with Iraq.


It was happening after 9-11. Bush and his neocons wanted their balls
back. Any target would do, but since Afghanistan scared the bejesus
out
of them - and had no oil - Iraq was the best for nation building.
Make everybody American. That's how they view the world.
Bush senior and his crew were sure that Saddam would fall after the
Gulf
war. He didn't. Bush junior and his crew were sure the Iraqis would
shower roses on the "liberating Americans." They didn't.
Father and son and their crews were just dumb-asses.
History bears witness.
Oil was supposed to be the cherry on the cake.

If you recall, Bush did not rush into invading Iraq. At least six
months were spent holding meetings and presenting data in the UN.
(I
guess he fooled them too.) Bottom line was that Iraq was
determined
to be a serious threat again to stability in the region and to those
allies we had in the area.

It took time to build the fabric of lies. How many articles did
Judith
Miller of the New York Times write, based on lies fed to her from the
Bush administration? How many appearances by Cheney, Rice, et al, on
Sunday morning shows, lying about aluminum tubes, African uranium
purchases, Atta meeting the Iraqi secret service, and mushroom clouds?
It had to be a lengthy and well orchestrated process to get the
dumb-ass
Dems to vote for the war powers act, as they did.
The UN never bought into it and never approved war. I don't know
where
you get that.


Hussein refused to allow weapons inspectors to do their job, fueling
more speculation that his claims of having WMD's was real. There
were also conveys of trucks moving "something" out of Iraq and into
Syria, not long before the invasion took place. Hussein was given
an
ultimatum for him and his sons to leave. He thumbed his nose at
the
UN and the world.


Utter bull****. Saddam even allowed his palaces to be inspected.
UN inspectors could chopper into any location in Iraq.
The ultimatum came from GWB. The UN wanted no part of it.

-----------------------------
------------------------------

Inspections were allowed only in "approved" areas. Inspectors were
*not* permitted in locations of their own choosing.
There was an active, delaying action taking place.

_______________________________
______________________________-


You're nuts even suggesting WMD were spirited out of Iraq in convoys
of
trucks. Don't you even know that Colin Powell showed clear satellite
shots to the UN of what he claimed to be "mobile WMD production labs?"
But he wouldn't give the UN inspectors the location.
Later shots were taken from the ground by U.S. reporters.
It was a ****ing tractor trailer junkyard.
And the "something" you speak of was probably a ****ing convoy
transporting goat milk.
You really drank the kool-ade on this.


I think mistakes were made, the biggest being underestimating the
time
it would take for the country to stabilize after Hussein was found
and
removed from power. But I am not convinced that Bush purposely
invaded Iraq for personal political advantage.

The biggest mistake was electing dumb-ass GWB as POTUS. What
motivated
him isn't even important. It's his dumb-ass conduct that matters.
You're always going to get dumb-ass motivations from a dumb-ass.
Krause and jps provide plenty of examples from the "other side" when
they shoot off their mouths without thinking first.
Get over it. Reality and facts are all over the internet, so your
"opinions" mean nothing unless backed by facts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a chronology by that ultra right wing news faction .... The
Public Broadcasting System:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../etc/cron.html

worth a read.

On 2/26/13 1:46 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:31:28 -0500, Gogarty wrote:

(Snip)

I have always wondered why the intelligence agencies did not contact foreign
nationals doing business in Iraq. Who knows better what's going on in a
country than those who buy and sell goods and services to that country?

I would hope to hell those who sell goods and services to this country (aka Chinese, etc.) don't
know better than us what's going on here in the way of weapons.



Not to worry...Dick Cheney is analyzing those aluminum tubes and trailers.

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:31:28 -0500, Gogarty wrote:

(Snip)

I have always wondered why the intelligence agencies did not contact foreign
nationals doing business in Iraq. Who knows better what's going on in a
country than those who buy and sell goods and services to that country?

I would hope to hell those who sell goods and services to this country (aka Chinese, etc.) don't
know better than us what's going on here in the way of weapons.
--
Salmonbait

All decisions are the result of binary thinking.

On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:58:34 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:



"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

On 2/26/13 8:30 AM, J Herring wrote:


The Iraq war was initiated because our intelligence, the
intelligence of our allies, the leadership
of Iraq, and our Congress believed or announced the building and
storage of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq.

Salmonbait

--

That's just Herring lying to perpetuate the Bush Administration's
lies.
The Bush Administration and its neocon supplicants cooked the intel
out
of Iraq and cooked it over and over and over, and fed false intel to
our
allies, too. This has been discussed openly for years, the Brits have
discussed how they were duped by cooked intel. The sad thing is that
the
righties are still trying to rewrite the reality of the Bush
Administration's bull**** that got us into Iran.

--------------------------------------------------------------

So, what was his motivations to "cook" the intel and "lie" to the
nation and the world?

I remember hearing, "It's all about the oil". No evidence of that
ever came to be.
I remember hearing, "Revenge for trying to assassinate his father".
No real evidence of that, other than speculation by some.
I remember hearing, "It's Cheney getting Hallibuton contracts" .
Yes, Hallibuton got contracts but they were the only company with the
resources to do them.

So, what's the real reason Bush cooked the intel and lied to the
world? Seems to me that even he is smart enough to realize what the
historical and personal ramifications would be if he knowingly lied
and conducted a war for personal reasons. I just can't buy that. If
he cooked the intel, then so did many others, including many
Republicans and Democrats in the Senate who saw the same reports,
acquired domestically and by our allies. What was Bush doing,
sitting at his computer, modifying the raw data and releasing it to
Congress?

The justification was different for every player. For Bush it was the
insult to his dad and the fact that dad had screwed the Iraqis in the
first gulf war.

For Cheney it was the oil. If they could have controlled the outcome
of the war and installed their puppet government, they could have
controlled a ****load of oil.

For Rumsfeld, who the **** knows. The guy is an asshole.

For the Zionists (Wolfowitz and Pearl), it was to protect Israel.

And everybody in the room was signed up for the other's objective. It
all made sense to them but it was a giant miscalculation. They were
all looking for an excuse to invade Iraq, long before 911.