Iraq War Wasn't A 'Failure'

[Kathianne]

On another thread on a different topic, it's been said that the Iraq War was a failure. Just not true. While one of the reasons cited for initiating the was, WMD's, didn't pan out as expected; the other, more numerous reasons were fulfilled. In the case of providing for a more financially fair and more democratic Iraq, beyond the most optimistic forecasts:

http://thecurrencynewshound.com/2011/04/10/iraqs-per-capita-standard-of-living-has-improved-a-lot-and-best-levels-of-countries-of-the-region/


Iraq’s per capita standard of living has improved a lot and best levels of countries of the region <small> Posted: April 10, 2011 in Iraqi Dinar/Politics (http://thecurrencynewshound.com/category/iraqi-dinarpolitics/)
Tags: Baghdad (http://thecurrencynewshound.com/tag/baghdad/), Business and Economy (http://thecurrencynewshound.com/tag/business-and-economy/), Economic (http://thecurrencynewshound.com/tag/economic/), Economy of Iraq (http://thecurrencynewshound.com/tag/economy-of-iraq/), Iraq (http://thecurrencynewshound.com/tag/iraq/), Iraqi dinar (http://thecurrencynewshound.com/tag/iraqi-dinar/), Iraqi people (http://thecurrencynewshound.com/tag/iraqi-people/), middle east (http://thecurrencynewshound.com/tag/middle-east/) </small>

The issue of standard of living of the Iraqi people met (citizen), an economist and an official at the Iraqi Ministry of Planning Abdul Zahra al-Hindawi, who stressed on the levels of improvement witnessed by the rate of per capita income of Iraq recently and the impact on a basket of purchases...



https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/iz.html




<tbody>
Economy - overview (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html#2116):

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/field_listing_on.gif (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2116.html#iz)


An improving security environment and foreign investment are helping to spur economic activity, particularly in the energy, construction, and retail sectors. Broader economic development, long-term fiscal health, and sustained improvements in the overall standard of living still depend on the central government passing major policy reforms. Iraq's largely state-run economy is dominated by the oil sector, which provides more than 90% of government revenue and 80% of foreign exchange earnings. Since mid-2009, oil export earnings have returned to levels seen before Operation Iraqi Freedom.


</tbody>

<tbody>




http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2011-07-19-foreign-investment-iraq-investors-business_n.htm


WASHINGTON — Foreign investment is beginning to pour into Iraq this year, fueled by a growing confidence in the country's stability.

The amount of new foreign investment deals is on track to double this year, according to a report by Dunia Frontier Consultants, which specializes in emerging markets. In the first half of this year, Iraq attracted $45.6 billion in foreign investment, about $3 billion more than all of last year, the report says.


The rush of investment this year reflects a new confidence in Iraq's stability and a reduction in risk, analysts say. "This is money talking," said Campbell Harvey, professor of finance at Duke University in North Carolina.


U.S. companies have been slow to get in on the investment opportunities in Iraq, even lagging behind countries that opposed the war, such as France.


Last year, French companies represented 9.9% of the foreign investment in Iraq, compared with 4.7% for American companies, the Dunia report says.


"U.S. companies tend to be more risk-averse than their European counterparts and certainly their regional counterparts," said Nicholas Skibiak, emerging markets director at Dunia.


The U.S. Chamber of Commerce (http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Organizations/Political+Bodies/United+States+Chamber+of+Commerce) has been urging American companies to consider investments in Iraq and pushing the U.S. government to more aggressively represent the interests of American businesses in the country...




</tbody>

<tbody>








</tbody>

[jimnyc]

Certain goals may not have been achieved - but the ultimate goal of war is to defeat your enemy and kill more of them than they do you. In that respect, the USA annihilated the Iraqi army and insurgency against our troops. Only those 'wanting' to see our government fail would call Iraq a loss. It would have been nice to kill the bad people and make Iraq a perfect place to live, but the latter is up to the Iraqi citizens themselves.

[Anton Chigurh]

Everyone seems to have forgotten the Oil For Food scandal - which never would have come to light without the toppling of Saddam...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme#Abuse

Saddam was literally, BUYING votes on the UN Security council. It's little wonder that body opposed the invasion....

[Kathianne]

Too many forget or never knew the 'goals' in Iraq. They were stated time and again, but the one that is repeated by those on the left and Paulinistas is about WMD's:

http://www.themoderntribune.com/george_bush_speech_february_26,_2003_plans_for_ira q_and_iraq_war.htm



...In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. (Applause.) This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country -- and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. (Applause.)


The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq. (Applause.)


The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us. (Applause.)


Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them. (Applause.)

If we must use force, the United States and our coalition stand ready to help the citizens of a liberated Iraq. We will deliver medicine to the sick, and we are now moving into place nearly 3 million emergency rations to feed the hungry.


We'll make sure that Iraq's 55,000 food distribution sites, operating under the Oil For Food program, are stocked and open as soon as possible. The United States and Great Britain are providing tens of millions of dollars to the U.N. High Commission on Refugees, and to such groups as the World Food Program and UNICEF, to provide emergency aid to the Iraqi people.



We will also lead in carrying out the urgent and dangerous work of destroying chemical and biological weapons. We will provide security against those who try to spread chaos, or settle scores, or threaten the territorial integrity of Iraq. We will seek to protect Iraq's natural resources from sabotage by a dying regime, and ensure those resources are used for the benefit of the owners -- the Iraqi people. (Applause.)



The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected. (Applause.)



Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before -- in the peace that followed a world war. After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety, in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home.



There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. (Applause.) The nation of Iraq -- with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people -- is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom. (Applause.)



The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. And there are hopeful signs of a desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the "freedom gap" so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times. Leaders in the region speak of a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater politics participation, economic openness, and free trade. And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward politics reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region. (Applause.)





Were any of these met 100%? No, nature of the beast. On the other hand, problems during the war such as the prisons and looted museums, were addressed later. Many of the loot was returned and there was reform brought into the prisons.

[jimnyc]

Everyone seems to have forgotten the Oil For Food scandal - which never would have come to light without the toppling of Saddam...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-for-Food_Programme#Abuse

Saddam was literally, BUYING votes on the UN Security council. It's little wonder that body opposed the invasion....

Those opposed to any form of war will cover their ears and go "blah blah blah". Unless WMD's were found in major stockpiles, anything short of that is lies and failures. They quickly forget the litany of reasons we were involved with Iraq and UN resolutions for 12 years. It gathered steam all along and the entire world saw it coming into play. It could have been EASILY avoided if Saddam and his regime simply cooperated. He chose to play a cat and mouse game instead. He lost.

And if so many people lied... maybe not the greatest of arguments, but makes ME think anyway - why not simply plant a few WMD's somewhere and claim you found them? That would have been VERY, VERY easy to accomplish. But I supposed they lied about every last detail but forgot to plant just one plane's worth of WMD's which would have changed the way people saw things forever. Many mistakes all the way around, from 1991 until this very day. But no amount of "lies" would have mattered if Saddam gave unfettered access to want the IAEA wanted for so many years.

[jimnyc]

Were any of these met 100%? No, nature of the beast. On the other hand, problems during the war such as the prisons and looted museums, were addressed later. Many of the loot was returned and there was reform brought into the prisons.

Good post, Kath! If one would truly look at the resolution and demands in their entirety, they would see a very LONG list of demands and things required. Iraq barely scratched the surface in all of these requirements. Everyone concentrated 100% on WMD's, which of course was important, but then acted like the other list of reasons suddenly were never a goal. It's either a dislike for war, a dislike of government or a dislike for the administration that was in place. But no amount of disliking will change the facts that were in these resolutions for so many years, and blabbing about no WMD's and lies does absolutely nothing to change all of the other reasons.

[Anton Chigurh]

Those opposed to any form of war will cover their ears and go "blah blah blah". Unless WMD's were found in major stockpiles, anything short of that is lies and failures. They quickly forget the litany of reasons we were involved with Iraq and UN resolutions for 12 years. It gathered steam all along and the entire world saw it coming into play. It could have been EASILY avoided if Saddam and his regime simply cooperated. He chose to play a cat and mouse game instead. He lost.

And if so many people lied... maybe not the greatest of arguments, but makes ME think anyway - why not simply plant a few WMD's somewhere and claim you found them? That would have been VERY, VERY easy to accomplish. But I supposed they lied about every last detail but forgot to plant just one plane's worth of WMD's which would have changed the way people saw things forever. Many mistakes all the way around, from 1991 until this very day. But no amount of "lies" would have mattered if Saddam gave unfettered access to want the IAEA wanted for so many years.And the abuse of the Oil for Food program wasn't known and also wasn't one of the goals of the Iraq invasion - it was discovered because of it.

The WMDs are in Syria, as we're about to find out when that regime topples soon.

[jimnyc]

Here's a good read, that leaves out "storytelling" and gives an overall picture of Iraq, even before UN resolutions. I'm going to list a bunch, scattered from throughout, but follow the link at the end to read MUCH more, and links at the bottom of the site for even more reading.

Pre-War quotes from Democrats, not that we haven't seen the list a billion times. But here's just a tiny portion...


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

"Fateful decisions will be made in the days and weeks ahead. At issue is nothing less than the fundamental question of whether or not we can keep the most lethal weapons known to mankind out of the hands of an unreconstructed tyrant and aggressor who is in the same league as the most brutal dictators of this century."
Sen. Joe Biden (D, DE), Feb. 12, 1998


Iraq and a History of Terrorism

On March 20, 1990, four months prior to the invasion of Kuwait, the Chicago Tribune asked, "Why is Bush gentle with the Butcher of Baghdad?" The newspaper was upset a British journalist had been recently hanged in Iraq as a spy. Saddam had also declared a school holiday to swell the crowds ordered to demonstrate in front of the British embassy. The Iraqi propaganda minister declared, "Mrs. Thatcher wanted him alive, we gave her the body."

On March 31, 1990, months prior to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, The Post-Standard (Syracuse, NY) reported that five people were indicted for illegally exporting nuclear warhead triggering devices to Iraq. The article reported, "Hussein is one of the world's foremost sponsors of terrorism. Numbered among his clients are a varied assortment of highjackers, bombers and kidnappers around the world."

On January 16, 1991 President George H.W. Bush announced that twenty eight countries with forces in the Gulf began military operations to remove Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait. "Some may ask: Why act now? Why not wait? The answer is clear: The world could wait no longer. Sanctions, though having some effect, showed no signs of accomplishing their objective. Sanctions were tried for well over 5 months, and we and our allies concluded that sanctions alone would not force Saddam from Kuwait. While the world waited, Saddam Hussein systematically raped, pillaged, and plundered a tiny nation, no threat to his own. He subjected the people of Kuwait to unspeakable atrocities -- and among those maimed and murdered, innocent children."

During the first Gulf War, on February 4, 1991, the Washington Times wrote an article titled, "Terrorist Camps Deserted in Iraq." The article reported that several terrorist camps inside Iraq were abandoned shortly after the start of the allied bombing campaign. One camp in the western desert was operated by the terrorist Abu Nidal for weapons and explosives training. A terrorist camp near Bagdad was operated by Abu Ibrahim, leader of the Arab Organization May 15. And another terrorist camp near Bagdad was occupied by terrorists of unknown affiliation. Later, after the war, the Washington Times wrote another article dated November 24, 1992 reporting that terrorists were once again training at a camp near Bagdad in violation of the cease-fire terms that ended the Gulf War.

On February 4, 1992, The Canadian Press reported, "A Palestinian ex-businessman said Tuesday he was sent on a bombing mission to Europe in 1982 by an Iraqi-based guerrilla group whose leader had close connections with the Baghdad government. Adnan Awad told a U.S. Senate hearing he took a sophisticated briefcase bomb to Switzerland where he was to blow up either an Israeli or an American installation but could not bring himself to do it." Awad said the leader of the group, Abu Ibrahim, had an "open and clear" relationship with the Iraqi government and enjoyed special privileges "like any big officer in Iraq."

On June 6, 1992, the Associated Press reported that, "U.S. officials knew Palestinian terrorists were finding a safe haven in Baghdad, but for eight years the Reagan and Bush administrations rejected congressional attempts to punish Iraq, newly declassified documents show." A July 1, 1986 memo to then-Secretary of State George Shultz said, "The Iraqis initially endeavored to preserve their terrorist assets, resorting to subterfuge to divert attention from their continued support for terrorist groups." The memo was declassified by the State Department at the request of Rep. Sam Gejdenson, D-Conn.

During the 1992 presidential campaign, Al Gore criticized the first Bush administration for its "blatant disregard" of Iraq's ties to terrorism. On September 29, 1992 Al Gore said, "The Reagan-Bush administration was also prepared to overlook the fact that the terrorists who masterminded the attack on the Achille Lauro and the savage murder of American Leon Klinghoffer, fled with Iraqi assistance. Nor did it seem to matter that the team of terrorists who set out to blow up the Rome airport came directly from Baghdad with suitcase bombs." Al Gore went on to say, "There might have been a moment's pause for reflection when Iraqi aircraft intentionally attacked the USS Stark in May of 1987 killing 37 sailors, but the administration smoothed it over very fast."

Connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda


On August 20, 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack against a chemical weapons factory in Sudan. The cruise missle strike was in retaliation for the August 7, 1998 truck bomb attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya which killed more than 200 people and wounded more than 5,000 others. The chemical weapons factory in Sudan was funded, in part, by Osama bin Laden who the U.S. believed responsible for the embassy bombings. Richard Clarke, a national security advisor to President Clinton, told the Washington Post in a January 23, 1999 article that the U.S. government was "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts had produced a powdered substance at that plant for use in making VX nerve gas.

On August 25, 1998 the Fort Worth Star-telegram reported a link between Iraq and the Sudanese chemical weapons factory destroyed by the United States in a cruise missile attack. The chemical weapons factory was hit because of links to Osama bin Laden who the U.S. believed responsible for the recent embassy bombings. A senior intelligence official said one of the leaders of Iraq's chemical weapons program, Emad al-Ani, had close ties with senior Sudanese officials at the factory. The intelligence official also said a number of Iraqi scientists working with al-Ani attended the grand opening of the factory two years earlier. Emad Husayn Abdullah al-Ani surrendered to U.S. military forces on April 18, 2003.

On November 5, 1998 a Federal grand jury in Manhattan returned a 238-count indictment charging Osama bin Laden in the bombings of two United States Embassies in Africa and with conspiring to commit other acts of terrorism against Americans abroad. The grand jury indictment also charged that Al-Qaeda had reached an arrangement with President Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq whereby the group said that it would not work against Iraq, and that the two parties agreed to cooperate in the development of weapons.

On January 11, 1999, Newsweek magazine ran the headline "Saddam + Bin Laden?" The subheadline declared, "It would be a marriage made in hell. And America's two enemies are courting." The article points out that Saddam has a long history of supporting terrorism. The article also mentions that, in the prior week, several surface-to-air missiles were fired at U.S. and British planes patrolling the no-fly zones and that Saddam is now fighting for his life now that the United States has made his removal from office a national objective.

On January 14, 1999, ABC News reported, "Saddam Hussein has a long history of harboring terrorists. Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, the most notorious terrorists of their era, all found shelter and support at one time in Baghdad. Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction."

On February 13, 1999, CNN reported, "Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday. Bin Laden's whereabouts were not known....." The article reports, "Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden....."

On February 14, 1999, an article in the Aberdeen American News claimed U.S. intelligence officials were worried about an alliance between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The article said bin Laden had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official near Qandahar, Afghanistan in late December 1998 and that "there has been increasing evidence that bin Laden and Iraq may have begun cooperating in planning attacks against American and British targets around the world." Vincent Cannistraro, former head of counterterrorism at the Central Intelligence Agency said, "It's clear the Iraqis would like to have bin Laden in Iraq." The article said that in addition to Abu Nidal, another Palestinian terrorist by the name of Abu Ibrahim was also believed to be in Iraq.


Life in Iraq under Saddam

As well as ensuring his absolute control inside Iraq, Saddam tried to make Iraq the dominant power of the region. In pursuit of these objectives he led Iraq into two wars of aggression against neighbors, the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait.

On June 27, 1993 Vice President Al Gore said, "But there's no question about the fact that he and his Baathist regime in Iraq rule by terror and atrocity, and they have intimidated the people of Iraq by imposing such suffering upon them to let him remain in power. He tortures people, kills people and so he has remained in power and that's unfortunate."

The Oil-for-Food Program was established by the United Nations in 1995 and it terminated in late 2003. Its intent was to allow Iraq to sell oil on the world market in exchange for food, medicine, and other humanitarian needs. The program was introduced as a response to arguments that ordinary Iraqi citizens were inordinately affected by the economic sanctions aimed at demilitarizing Saddam Hussein's Iraq, imposed in the wake of the first Gulf War. Under UN supervision, the Oil-for-Food program became a major financial scandal allowing Saddam to pocket billions of dollars through kickbacks and other illicit deals. In addition to the billions of dollars Saddam received illegally under Oil-for-Food, many more billions were gained by smuggling oil to neighboring countries outside of the program. During this period, the United States Navy searched thousands of ships bound for or departing Iraq as part of its Maritime Intercept Operations and the enforcement of U.N. economic sanctions.

The Baath Party was the only legal political party in Iraq. It pervaded all aspects of Iraqi life. Membership, was necessary for self advancement and conferred benefits from the regime.

Army officers were an important part of the government's network of informers. Suspicion that officers had ambitions other than the service of the President led to immediate execution. It was routine for Saddam to take pre-emptive action against those who he believed might conspire against him.

Human rights abuses under Saddam:
4000 prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib Prison in 1984.
3000 prisoners were executed at the Mahjar Prison between 1993 and 1998.
About 2500 prisoners were executed between 1997 and 1999 in a "prison cleansing" campaign.
122 male prisoners were executed at Abu Ghraib prison in February/ March 2000. A further 23 political prisoners were executed there in October 2001.
In October 2000, dozens of women accused of prostitution were beheaded without any judicial process. Some were accused for political reasons.
Women prisoners at Mahjar were routinely raped by their guards.
Methods of torture used in Iraqi jails include using electric drills to mutilate hands, pulling out fingernails, knife cuts, sexual attacks and 'official rape'.
Prisoners at the Qurtiyya Prison in Baghdad and elsewhere were kept in metal boxes the size of tea chests. If they did not confess they were left to die.

Saddam issued a series of decrees establishing severe penalties for criminal offences. These include amputation, branding, cutting off ears, and other forms of mutilation. Those found guilty of slandering the President could have their tongue removed.

http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/

[revelarts]

looking for silver lining are we now?

Sure God can get good out of anything. Doesn't mean you defend every action as good when it clearly is not.





But Iraq not a failure?


Well again you have to look at the whole picture not just a portion.

•2.5 million Iraqis fled the country because of the war. those that had the means to do so.
•200-300 thousand dead Iraqis
•Uncounted injured
•Significantly risen birth defects, spontaneous abortions and cancers esp near war zones because of depleted uranium, white phosphorous and other chemicals.
•New vice Prez on trail for death squads
•Billions of their gov't dollars stolen and squandered during occupation
• A decimated infrastructure that for the past 10 years we've done little to restore.
•etc etc

The last named item on the list is probably where the some of the economic growth is. Rebuilding the infrastructure. lots more money to be made their too that's not failure i guess.

[Anton Chigurh]

looking for silver lining are we now?:lol:

You're way on the wrong side of history, as you well know.

[jimnyc]

And the abuse of the Oil for Food program wasn't known and also wasn't one of the goals of the Iraq invasion - it was discovered because of it.

The WMDs are in Syria, as we're about to find out when that regime topples soon.

They can find enough WMD's in Syria to destroy the entire planet, and many will not be convinced of anything at all. But if nothing is found, it'll still be "evidence" of something, or a conspiracy of course.

And honestly, as much as WMD's in the wrong hands of anyone bothers me, I'm just wondering how long the international community stands by idly while Assad has his own citizens killed. The "arguments" brought forth so many times about war i "why", why don't we help in places where there is true genocide, but only go to places where they have oil or something we need. How many Syrian citizens must die before it becomes an issue for the international community? Or do we just let everyone die since we're bullies and shouldn't get bothered in other countries business?

[jimnyc]

looking for silver lining are we now?

Sure God can get good out of anything. Doesn't mean you defend every action as good when it clearly is not.





But Iraq not a failure?


Well again you have to look at the whole picture not just a portion.

•2.5 million Iraqis fled the country because of the war. those that had the means to do so.
•200-300 thousand dead Iraqis
•Uncounted injured
•Significantly risen birth defects, spontaneous abortions and cancers esp near war zones because of depleted uranium, white phosphorous and other chemicals.
•New vice Prez on trail for death squads
•Billions of their gov't dollars stolen and squandered during occupation
• A decimated infrastructure that for the past 10 years we've done little to restore.
•etc etc

The last named item on the list is probably where the some of the economic growth is. Rebuilding the infrastructure. lots more money to be made their too that's not failure i guess.

Do you know what WAR is, Rev? All you did was just give a list of reasons as to why we WON in Iraq. From a military standpoint, we won in every aspect.

Always criticizing our own government. Always criticizing our troops. And always defending rogue nations and dictators.

What Iraq's government does, and what their citizens do now, is totally in their hands. Only people like yourself will blame everything on the US.

[jimnyc]

:lol:

You're way on the wrong side of history, as you well know.

He's just in the wrong country, being a hater of everything USA and defender of all the evil around the world.

[revelarts]

Here's a good read, that leaves out "storytelling" and gives an overall picture of Iraq, even before UN resolutions. I'm going to list a bunch, scattered from throughout, but follow the link at the end to read MUCH more, and links at the bottom of the site for even more reading.

Pre-War quotes from Democrats, not that we haven't seen the list a billion times. But here's just a tiny portion...





Connections between Iraq and Al-Qaeda




http://www.reasons-for-war-with-iraq.info/

Interesting you don't want want to respond honestly to any of the info i posted in the other thread but can pull a list of Saddams sins -real and imagined- out of the hat.




In the Downing St Memo British intelligence chief Richard Dearlove. The minutes contain an account of Dearlove’s report that President George W. Bush had decided to bring about "regime change" in Iraq by military action; that the attack would be "justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD"; and that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

We've got 2 things here Jim,
1st hand account of British intel Cheif's clear knowledge of How Bush/Blair wanted to justify the War they wanted. And 2 that they were going to "FIX", lie, about the intelligence to do it.

Why lie if the mountain of evil was enough to go to war Jim.
it was not. it's called invasion. which is a war crime to do so and why the Admin spent SOO much effort talking about WMDs etc..

In the list you have there you mention over an over that multiple admins DID NOT think Saddam could be attacked. and we DID NOT attack him, why no legal reason to do so.
We harbour terrorist cells unwillingly. and we court some terrorist we like. Pakistan horbored Bin Ladin, the Suadis harbor terrorist and fund terrorist now. as well as other nations.

You can post what demos thought and what Saddam did all day long.
none of that was a stuff was a legal cause to go to war and the Bush admin KNEW it so they "FIXED" the intel Jim.


But you'll ignore this to.


later

[revelarts]

He's just in the wrong country, being a hater of everything USA and defender of all the evil around the world.

Hater of every unconstitutional and illegal thing the U.S. gov't does yes.
If that make me a hater of "America" what has America become Jim?

[jimnyc]

Sure, we just imagined the atrocities that Saddam committed on his own citizens. Ignore the evils and ignore 12 years of failed UN resolutions. :lol:

Where's that bury your head in the sand picture? Or the one of the guy with his own head in his ass? LOL

We disagree, Rev. I've never ignored anything from you other than some videos. I simply am a more logical person relying on more facts than rhetoric, and adding up both sides and coming to conclusions. I seriously think you go into things with your mind made up and simply read what supports your hatred for all things US government.

[revelarts]

Sure, we just imagined the atrocities that Saddam committed on his own citizens. Ignore the evils and ignore 12 years of failed UN resolutions. :lol:

Where's that bury your head in the sand picture? Or the one of the guy with his own head in his ass? LOL

We disagree, Rev. I've never ignored anything from you other than some videos. I simply am a more logical person relying on more facts than rhetoric, and adding up both sides and coming to conclusions. I seriously think you go into things with your mind made up and simply read what supports your hatred for all things US government.

So what's your comment about the downing st memo...
Oh no comment !!!COUGH!!!

but lets see, you pick Half of a part of what i said and run a sentence together on that. and name call a bit. Then you tell me how much more logical and balanced you are
THEN you say MY mind is made up?:rolleyes::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[revelarts]

Sure, we just imagined the atrocities that Saddam committed on his own citizens. Ignore the evils and ignore 12 years of failed UN resolutions. :lol:

Where's that bury your head in the sand picture? Or the one of the guy with his own head in his ass? LOL

We disagree, Rev. I've never ignored anything from you other than some videos. I simply am a more logical person relying on more facts than rhetoric, and adding up both sides and coming to conclusions. I seriously think you go into things with your mind made up and simply read what supports your hatred for all things US government.

And BTW i thought the u.S constitution was the U.S. gov't Jim.

[jimnyc]

So what's your comment about the downing st memo...
Oh no comment !!!COUGH!!!

but lets see, you pick Half of a part of what i said and run a sentence together on that. and name call a bit. Then you tell me how much more logical and balanced you are
THEN you say MY mind is made up?:rolleyes::laugh::laugh::laugh:

I've discussed the memo many times before. I acknowledged that wrongdoing was done. I don't think George Bush and Dick Cheney sat at a table and mapped out a plan to defraud the nation into war.


And BTW i thought the u.S constitution was the U.S. gov't Jim.

You're wrong. The Constitution is certainly the baseline for our government, but to assume that every last detail of government is determined by the constitution is naive. More decisions and such is done by our government daily that really has nothing to do with the COTUS, even legally speaking. And as far as the UN is concerned, I don't see much about them in our Constitution, and yet we use it as well as a gauge of sorts for the international community.

Congress voted and congress gave the OK and funding in addition to it. Whether you like it or not, it was fully constitutional, although I'm sure you'll disagree.

[darin]

I lost my gallbladder in iraq.

[Abbey Marie]

Too many forget or never knew the 'goals' in Iraq. They were stated time and again, but the one that is repeated by those on the left and Paulinistas is about WMD's:

http://www.themoderntribune.com/george_bush_speech_february_26,_2003_plans_for_ira q_and_iraq_war.htm




Were any of these met 100%? No, nature of the beast. On the other hand, problems during the war such as the prisons and looted museums, were addressed later. Many of the loot was returned and there was reform brought into the prisons.

Heck, even Hitler didn't succeed 100% in his (extermination) goals. And that was not for want of trying.

[Kathianne]

Heck, even Hitler didn't succeed 100% in his (extermination) goals. And that was not for want of trying.

No war goes as 'planned.' The civilian leaders hope that the military leaders under them, understand the goals and can motivate those under them to carry out the best they can. By the time those 'doing the execution' of plans are doing so, how many levels and how many changes in theater would allow 100%?

[gabosaurus]

I consider Iraq a failure because we never should have been there in the first place. We sacrificed a lot of lives so Dubya could settle a personal grudge with Saddam.

[jimnyc]

I consider Iraq a failure because we never should have been there in the first place. We sacrificed a lot of lives so Dubya could settle a personal grudge with Saddam.

You've been repeating that same retarded phrase for years, even though both parties were in agreement over the years about Iraq, and there were myriad of reasons given in full text of the UN resolutions. Your little quips like this show how ignorant you are on the subject and how you're just a parrot repeating crap. You'd rather play the grudge game than acknowledge what was ignored for 12 years, and 9 years and a LOT of democrats before GWB even got into office.

[gabosaurus]

You've been repeating that same retarded phrase for years, even though both parties were in agreement over the years about Iraq, and there were myriad of reasons given in full text of the UN resolutions. Your little quips like this show how ignorant you are on the subject and how you're just a parrot repeating crap. You'd rather play the grudge game than acknowledge what was ignored for 12 years, and 9 years and a LOT of democrats before GWB even got into office.

The "U.N. resolutions" thing is always selectively enforced. Funny how conservatives openly despise the work of the U.N. until it serves their purposes.
ConReps have been hiding behind this story for the last decade. They don't want to consider the REAL reasons behind 9-11, and how it was exploited for personal and political gain. It has been made into a game that trivializes a lot of lost lives, thanks to a bunch of buffoons in the White House and the mindless zealots who have always supported them.
In fact, you people enjoyed the game so much that you want to play it again, in Iran or Syria or whatever. You like to sit at home, watch the ceaseless carnage and yell out "take that towelheads!" The Americans who die during such are just collateral damage.

[Roo]

The "U.N. resolutions" thing is always selectively enforced. Funny how conservatives openly despise the work of the U.N. until it serves their purposes.
ConReps have been hiding behind this story for the last decade. They don't want to consider the REAL reasons behind 9-11, and how it was exploited for personal and political gain. It has been made into a game that trivializes a lot of lost lives, thanks to a bunch of buffoons in the White House and the mindless zealots who have always supported them.
In fact, you people enjoyed the game so much that you want to play it again, in Iran or Syria or whatever. You like to sit at home, watch the ceaseless carnage and yell out "take that towelheads!" The Americans who die during such are just collateral damage.

You a truther gabby?

[jimnyc]

And funny you want to talk about hiding and the UN, which is what you're doing to protect a man literally responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. There's nothing for "conreps" to hide behind, as these facts were there beginning in 1991, throughout the Democrat era where it was apparently OK, and into GWB's hands, then into 2003 where 12 years of waiting was enough.

We like to do, and witness, what liberal idiots are to weak and cowardly to accomplish, which is protecting our nation, our allies and others in need. You would rather hug trees, take away guns and whine.

[jimnyc]

You a truther gabby?

I don't believe she is, she's just an accomplished troll, and of course your typical liberal who can't seem to think for herself.

[fj1200]

The "U.N. resolutions" thing is always selectively enforced. Funny how conservatives openly despise the work of the U.N. until it serves their purposes.

Which begs the question of why are libs so vehemently opposed to any action that would bring legitimacy to the UN?

[revelarts]

....even though both parties were in agreement over the years about Iraq, and there were myriad of reasons given in full text of the UN resolutions. You'd rather play the grudge game than acknowledge what was ignored for 12 years, and 9 years and a LOT of democrats before GWB even got into office.

I thin Kath and others also put a lot of stock in the U.N resolutions breakage by Saddam
But Jim the U.S. has broken and is Breaking a U.N resolution NOW do we deserve to be attacked as well?


US CONTINUES TO VIOLATE THE UN RESOLUTION ON SYRIA BY ARMING AND FUNDING THE FSA The US has broken UN Security Council Resolution 2042 regarding Syria’s continuing conflict, says the president of the Syrian UN Association. The resolution authorizes the dispatch of UN observers to the Middle-Eastern country.
The analyst added that Washington has violated the terms of the resolution by sending material assistance to the armed groups and terrorist gangs in Syria.
The United Nations has called for the deployment of a 300-person observation mission in Syria, as observers say there is a “chance of progress to curb the unrest in the country”.
UN Chief Ban Ki-Moon says the proposed mission will greatly contribute to end the armed violence in Syria, while calling on President Bashar al-Assad to pledge fully to the ceasefire and the proposed peace plan.
Press TV has conducted an interview with George Jabour, president of the Syrian UN Association, to further discuss the US taking a double-standard position on the Syrian conflict. The following is a transcription of the interview..
http://syria360.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/us-continues-to-violate-the-un-resolution-on-syria-by-arming-and-funding-the-fsa/


Also Check
http://antiwar.com/blog/2012/06/19/details-on-us-aid-to-syrian-rebels/



It's Said that Israel has broken about 65 plus U.N. resolutions over the course of existence, at least many years as Iraq.

So please don't claim it's just that Iraq was attacked because of that.

The U.S. and Israel SHOULD break any U.N. resolution that not in it's best interest. the U.N. resolutions has no final binding power on Us or any sovereign nation, it's a voluntary organization.
But it's not the law. And should not be.

And in this case the rules have been applied unfairly.

[jimnyc]

So please don't claim it's just that Iraq was attacked because of that.

Please don't tell me you've read everything I've written on this subject and concluded I've hung my hat solely on the UN? If so, that explains why a handful of you are completely lost and have one track minds as to why we went into Iraq.

I personally think the UN is useless if they don't work together. And I think our government, to a lesser extent, feels similarly. But it is the international community of voices, and it behooves us to continue relations at this point and work with as many others as possible for a better world. But sometimes action needs to be taken, even when others in the UN don't agree because they are getting kickbacks and such. And it wasn't just the US who did and thought so - read about the coalition of the willing and you'll find we were FAR from being alone.

[jafar00]

looking for silver lining are we now?

Sure God can get good out of anything. Doesn't mean you defend every action as good when it clearly is not.





But Iraq not a failure?


Well again you have to look at the whole picture not just a portion.

•2.5 million Iraqis fled the country because of the war. those that had the means to do so.
•200-300 thousand dead Iraqis
•Uncounted injured
•Significantly risen birth defects, spontaneous abortions and cancers esp near war zones because of depleted uranium, white phosphorous and other chemicals.
•New vice Prez on trail for death squads
•Billions of their gov't dollars stolen and squandered during occupation
• A decimated infrastructure that for the past 10 years we've done little to restore.
•etc etc

The last named item on the list is probably where the some of the economic growth is. Rebuilding the infrastructure. lots more money to be made their too that's not failure i guess.

You missed one aspect. If the goal was to destabilise Iraq and the rest of the region, it was a resounding success.
107 killed yesterday in bomb attacks
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/07/23/uk-iraq-bomb-idUKBRE86M06S20120723

[jimnyc]

You missed one aspect. If the goal was to destabilise Iraq and the rest of the region, it was a resounding success.
107 killed yesterday in bomb attacks
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/07/23/uk-iraq-bomb-idUKBRE86M06S20120723

Sorry, people remain responsible for their own actions. The terrorists and criminals are responsible for these actions, not the United States. This is more to blame on Islam ideology than anything the US did or did not do.

[gabosaurus]

Sorry, people remain responsible for their own actions. The terrorists and criminals are responsible for these actions, not the United States. This is more to blame on Islam ideology than anything the US did or did not do.

So the Bush administration is responsible for nothing? In the eyes of many, the Bushies were also terrorists and criminals.

[jimnyc]

So the Bush administration is responsible for nothing? In the eyes of many, the Bushies were also terrorists and criminals.

They are not responsible for the actions of terrorists and criminals in Iraq, at any time. Period. Those who choose to commit crimes are responsible for their own actions. If they took advantage of any instability, it's still 100% their responsibility for any crime/murder they commit.

[darin]

So the Bush administration is responsible for nothing? In the eyes of many, the Bushies were also terrorists and criminals.


Hey Gab - why is my wife 'impure'?

[Kathianne]

I thin Kath and others also put a lot of stock in the U.N resolutions breakage by Saddam
But Jim the U.S. has broken and is Breaking a U.N resolution NOW do we deserve to be attacked as well?




It's Said that Israel has broken about 65 plus U.N. resolutions over the course of existence, at least many years as Iraq.

So please don't claim it's just that Iraq was attacked because of that.

The U.S. and Israel SHOULD break any U.N. resolution that not in it's best interest. the U.N. resolutions has no final binding power on Us or any sovereign nation, it's a voluntary organization.
But it's not the law. And should not be.

And in this case the rules have been applied unfairly.

I did not mention the UN at all, not today. As long as you wish to compare the cases of Iraq though and Israel, pray tell the countries involved in voting for the resolutions of each. You will find time and again, that the Islamic countries with some allied dictators from South & Central America, and son some, a handful of European entities banded together against Israel. Some of those same votes were pulled to vote against Iraq, along with nearly all Europe, Canada, US, Japan, and many others.

The above is only one reason that I don't believe the US should be in the UN or the UN in the US.

[Kathianne]

So the Bush administration is responsible for nothing? In the eyes of many, the Bushies were also terrorists and criminals.

"In the eyes of many" doesn't really deal with anything. That some folks that later became OWS and other that are Islamicists doesn't carry a whole lot of weight. Truth is, Bush & Co let the opposition define the war about WMD and lost the media campaign. Doesn't mean that what was done was wrong.

[revelarts]

Please don't tell me you've read everything I've written on this subject and concluded I've hung my hat solely on the UN? If so, that explains why a handful of you are completely lost and have one track minds as to why we went into Iraq.

I personally think the UN is useless if they don't work together. And I think our government, to a lesser extent, feels similarly. But it is the international community of voices, and it behooves us to continue relations at this point and work with as many others as possible for a better world. But sometimes action needs to be taken, even when others in the UN don't agree because they are getting kickbacks and such. And it wasn't just the US who did and thought so - read about the coalition of the willing and you'll find we were FAR from being alone.
...They quickly forget the litany of reasons we were involved with Iraq and UN resolutions for 12 years. .....


I did not mention the UN at all, not today. As long as you wish to compare the cases of Iraq though and Israel, pray tell the countries involved in voting for the resolutions of each. You will find time and again, that the Islamic countries with some allied dictators from South & Central America, and son some, a handful of European entities banded together against Israel. Some of those same votes were pulled to vote against Iraq, along with nearly all Europe, Canada, US, Japan, and many others.

The above is only one reason that I don't believe the US should be in the UN or the UN in the US.

As far as the UN as a tool is Concerned were pretty much agreed, theoretically the org could be of some use but in many cases they are a waste and potential trouble.

But you both have mentioned the resolutions as PART of the reason we needed to/should have gone to war with Iraq "EVEN IF there were no WMDS".

My point , which i keep trying to pin you guys to, is that NOTHING individually or collectively that Saddam did added up to a internationally viable legal reason to invade the country. It's is against treaty and international law to invade a country that has not attacked you. period.
the Reason the Bush Admin went to UN was to present reasons that could get past our own war crime treaties and international Law. The UN makes it legal to gang up on a country and invade if you can get the right people to agree.
All the horrors that Saddam did, did not add up to reason to invade attack his country.

WMDs was the shoe horn that the Bush/Blair admins used to try to make it NOT STINK.

If you want to rationalize that our own Nuremberg treaty against aggressive war, which we ratified WW2 , Does not include someone as evil as Hussein so it doesn't matter if it was illegal that's fine, but just don't con me or yourselves into thinking that it was ever anything other than an aggressive invasion move, faux justified by a series premeditated deception.

As far as what Bush Said were the REAL reasons Over and Over again. He said WMDS.

here is a list of the the major speeches he gave from his candidacy to after the invasion. you can read them in full and see if i'm "cherry picking" I'm not the Jist is CLEAR.
Jim Kath you and other may believe there where dozens of other reasons to attack Saddam but WMDs is what Bush Lead with. It was the trump card and it was based on deception.




ANd if there's MORE times of BUSH talking about other reasons for the war than about WMD's and Terrorist links I'd like to see them.
But in his major messages.

For the record.


------------------------------
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../16/le.00.html (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0001/16/le.00.html)
CNN: Gov Bush Jan 2000 Iowa
BLITZER: It's almost exactly nine years since your dad, the president of the United States, accepted a cease-fire with Saddam Hussein in Iraq in exchange for full Iraqi agreement to comply with U.N. weapons inspectors. But for the last year, there have been no weapons inspection teams in Iraq at all. If you were president today, what would you do about it?
BUSH: I would continue to keep the pressure on the Iraqi government. I would continue to insist that inspectors be left -- allowed into the country. I would continue to insist that Iraq complied with the cease-fire arrangement.
BLITZER: But they're in violation of the agreement right now.
BUSH: Absolutely. Absolutely. And we shouldn't be sending mixed signals. And if any time I found that the Iraqi's were developing weapons of mass destruction, they wouldn't exist any more.
BLITZER: Who wouldn't exist, the weapons?
BUSH: The weapons of mass destruction, yes. I'm not going to -- they just need to hear that from a potential president, that if we catch them in violation of the agreement, if we in any way, shape or form find out that they're developing weapons of mass destruction that there will be action taken, and they can just guess what that action might be.
BLITZER: And you're not going to spell it out here today?
BUSH: No, sir.
BLITZER: You're not going to spell it out here today?
BUSH: No, sir.
----------
The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist.
"There's never been a report like that issued from this agency," Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said yesterday in a telephone interview from the agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria.
"We've never put a time frame on how long it might take Iraq to construct a nuclear weapon in 1998," said the spokesman of the agency charged with assessing Iraq's nuclear capability for the United Nations.
---------------------------
George W. Bush
Commencement Address at the United States Military Academy at West Point
West Point, New York
June 1, 2002
The gravest danger to freedom lies at the perilous crossroads of radicalism and technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile technology -- when that occurs, even weak states and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been caught seeking these terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us, or to harm us, or to harm our friends -- and we will oppose them with all our power. (Applause.)


…We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. (Applause.)
Homeland defense and missile defense are part of stronger security, and they're essential priorities for America. Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. (Applause.) In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act. (Applause.)….
--------
George W. Bush
American Enterprise Institute (The Future of Iraq)
Washington, DC
February 26, 2003
...In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world -- and we will not allow it. (Applause.) This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country -- and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. (Applause.)
The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East….
…We will also lead in carrying out the urgent and dangerous work of destroying chemical and biological weapons. We will provide security against those who try to spread chaos, or settle scores, or threaten the territorial integrity of Iraq. We will seek to protect Iraq's natural resources from sabotage by a dying regime, and ensure those resources are used for the benefit of the owners -- the Iraqi people.
he world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values,

Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state….
Without this outside support for terrorism, Palestinians who are working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position to choose new leaders.

In confronting Iraq, the United States is also showing our commitment to effective international institutions. We are a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. We helped to create the Security Council. We believe in the Security Council -- so much that we want its words to have meaning. (Applause.)
The global threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction cannot be confronted by one nation alone. The world needs today and will need tomorrow international bodies with the authority and the will to stop the spread of terror and chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. A threat to all must be answered by all. High-minded pronouncements against proliferation mean little unless the strongest nations are willing to stand behind them -- and use force if necessary. After all, the United Nations was created, as Winston Churchill said, to "make sure that the force of right will, in the ultimate issue, be protected by the right of force."
…Protecting those boundaries carries a cost. If war is forced upon us by Iraq's refusal to disarm, we will meet an enemy who hides his military forces behind civilians, who has terrible weapons, who is capable of any crime.


----------------
George W. Bush
march 19 2003
the day the War began
My fellow citizens, at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger….
...Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly, yet our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.
-----------


George W. Bush
Remarks at Camp Lejeune
Camp Lejeune, NC
April 3, 2003
...The United States and our allies pledged to act if the dictator did not disarm. The regime in Iraq is now learning that we keep our word. (Applause.) By our actions, we serve a great and just cause: We will remove weapons of mass destruction from the hands of mass murderers. Free nations will not sit and wait, leaving enemies free to plot another September the 11th, this time, perhaps with chemical or biological or nuclear terror. And by defending our own security, we are freeing the people of Iraq from one of the cruelest regimes on Earth. (Applause.)....

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

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/st...6356046&page=5 (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/story?id=6356046&page=5)
Dec. 1, 2008 ABC NEWS Interview
GIBSON: You've always said there's no do-overs as President. If you had one?
BUSH: I don't know -- the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.

GIBSON: If the intelligence had been right, would there have been an Iraq war?
BUSH: Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld. In other words, if he had had weapons of mass destruction, would there have been a war? Absolutely.
GIBSON: No, if you had known he didn't.
BUSH: Oh, I see what you're saying. You know, that's an interesting question. That is a do-over that I can't do. It's hard for me to speculate.
…GIBSON: Greatest disappointment?
BUSH: Well, I mentioned one, and that is no weapons of mass destruction. I think another -- in Iraq.….


----------
http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/.../02.08.04.html (http://www.presidentialrhetoric.com/speeches/02.08.04.html)

[jimnyc]

My point , which i keep trying to pin you guys to, is that NOTHING individually or collectively that Saddam did added up to a internationally viable legal reason to invade the country. It's is against treaty and international law to invade a country that has not attacked you. period.

How many times has the US actually even declared war officially, Rev? And in how many of those wars/skirmishes/battles was the US attacked?

[grannyhawkins]

I lost my gallbladder in iraq.

Gud Lawd!!! I hope your not still suffering. Lest we forget the sacrifices of real men, women and children and for that I thank you.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

And the abuse of the Oil for Food program wasn't known and also wasn't one of the goals of the Iraq invasion - it was discovered because of it.

The WMDs are in Syria, as we're about to find out when that regime topples soon.

I agree they are there, not sure if the info will be so freely given out by those that get control of them when Syria falls. Those set to take control are Islamists or else obama would not be supporting them . There will be an accounting of their choosing about the WMD's.
THEY ARENT EXACTLY KNOWN FOR THIER HONESTY AND INTEGRITY..
Just sayin'-Tyr