Iraq and Bush's legacy

[gc1765]

Very well, Bush invaded Iraq because of WMD. There was a consensus among America's political leaders(including most democrats) as well as Britain and others who all saw the same intel, that Iraq was a serious problem that needed an invasion.

Since we now know that there were no WMDs, I take it you agree that invading Iraq was a huge mistake??

[sharkman]

No, I believe that they waited too long in the build up of the second invasion, and Saddam removed the weapons to a sympathetic neighbor, the way he had some of his best jets flown to Iran to avoid being blown to bits by the first invasion. But some Bush supporters do believe it was a mistake.

[GostHacked]

No, I believe that they waited too long in the build up of the second invasion, and Saddam removed the weapons to a sympathetic neighbor, the way he had some of his best jets flown to Iran to avoid being blown to bits by the first invasion. But some Bush supporters do believe it was a mistake.

Why would Saddam fly his planes to Iran? Since Iran is now supplying all those weapons to Iraqi insurgents, and after Iran and Iraq waring with each other for decades, I do not see any benefit of flying those planes to Iran. Once in Iran, they would never leave again. I don't think they had left Iran.

If the US and allies can trace so called weapons back to Iran and the Iranian National Guard, why can't they figure out with at least greater accuracy of where Saddam had shuffled off the toys?

They waited so long because they did not have the catalyst that was 9/11. Once that happened, it opened up the US+allies to point fingers , cry wolf a few times before dropping bombs.

[sharkman]

To clarify, I was meaning that after 9/11, in the build up to the invasion, the US took too long to invade. Once Saddam realized there really would be an invasion, he still had time to remove his weapons.

I'm afraid I can't answer why Saddam would do many of the things he did. But if you are questioning if he actually sent jets to Iran or not, here is a link:

The first week of the air war saw a few Iraqi sorties; but these did little damage, and 38 Iraqi MiGs were shot down by Coalition planes. Soon after, the Iraqi Air Force began fleeing to Iran, with 115 to 140 aircraft flown to Iran.[27] The mass exodus of Iraqi aircraft to Iran took coalition forces by surprise as the Coalition had been expecting the aircraft to flee to Jordan, a nation friendly to Iraq rather than Iran, Iraq's long-time enemy. The Coalition had placed aircraft over Western Iraq to try and stop such a retreat into Jordan. This meant they were unable to react before most of the Iraqi aircraft had made it "safely" to Iranian airbases. The coalition eventually established a virtual "wall" of F-14 Tomcat fighters on the Iraq border with Iran (called MIGCAP) thereby stopping the exodus of fleeing Iraqi fighters. Iran has never returned the aircraft to Iraq and did not release the aircrews home until years later.

(From about a 1/3 of the way down the page of the link)

[WIP]

No, I believe that they waited too long in the build up of the second invasion, and Saddam removed the weapons to a sympathetic neighbor, the way he had some of his best jets flown to Iran to avoid being blown to bits by the first invasion. But some Bush supporters do believe it was a mistake.

Now that we are discovering how inept the "intelligence" was in the leadup to the war, chasing bogus stories like the 'yellow cake uranium' story from Niger, and bogus informants -- remember "Curveball" for example; the Iraqi defector who claimed to have worked at a secret chemical factory? The German secret service realized he was a fraud who didn't have real information or even knowledge of how to make chemical or biological weapons, and passed it on to the C.I.A. The CIA claims to have informed Bush Administration officials who are now playing the blame game, claiming they were misled. Even if they didn't get all of the memos, shouldn't they have been at least a little wary of taking stories at face value from a man who was rewarded with asylum and cash gifts for his stories? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)

So take those stories about WMD's being flown out of Iraq before the invasion with a grain of salt! They are coming from the same sources and being promoted by the same pro war advocates who are still doing damage control and won't admit to being wrong!

Ultimately, there is no sense arguing the WMD debate anyway! What good would a policy of stopping Iraq from getting WMD's be anyway, now that a similar invasion of Iran is impossible and the U.S. is trying to negotiate their way out of confronting North Korea about their nuclear program. Do Bush supporters realize now that "regime change" is a limited option, and that the U.S. can't overthrow every foreign leader they don't like?

[bush_cheney2004]

... Do Bush supporters realize now that "regime change" is a limited option, and that the U.S. can't overthrow every foreign leader they don't like?

No, as "regime change" can always be the objective whether realized or not. Saddam Hussein is not around to enjoy your analysis and conclusion.

[Moonlight Graham]

To clarify, I was meaning that after 9/11, in the build up to the invasion, the US took too long to invade. Once Saddam realized there really would be an invasion, he still had time to remove his weapons.

And destroyed every paper trail having ever had anything to do with these WMD's? And all info on every computer harddrive and disk and email? And dismantled and disposed of the chemical labs? And mobile weapons labs? And all without the CIA seeing any of this via satellite photos etc.?

Saddam did all this and then hid in a tiny hole in the ground? While its honestly hard to believe he didn't have any WMD's pre-invasion, its also hard to believe he could have got rid of all the evidence, and equally hard to believe the U.S. never found any evidence it had existed soon before invasion (and if they did find some, they would have screamed it from the rooftops).

All this is quite moot, since even if Saddam did have WMD's, the war would still have been a horrible idea.

[bush_cheney2004]

...All this is quite moot, since even if Saddam did have WMD's, the war would still have been a horrible idea.

No, it is moot because no matter what the status of WMDs in Iraq, Saddam was going down, realizing the stated US policy for regime change (US Congress - 1998). We can do this the easy way...or the hard way, but it was going to happen.

[WIP]

No, as "regime change" can always be the objective whether realized or not. Saddam Hussein is not around to enjoy your analysis and conclusion.

What colour is the sky in your world? It must be a world where the U.S. still has excess capacity to carry out more regime change operations, but that's not the world the rest of us are living in! Every military analyst, whether supporters or detractors of the War, are realistic enough to be aware that aside from a bombing run, there's nothing else the U.S. can do with Iran! And after the intelligence mess in the lead up to the Iraq Invasion, everyone besides Dick Cheney is doubtful that a bombing mission can succeed in destroying all possible nuclear targets. And since there is no option to put boots on the ground, there is no way of verifying the success of a Iran bombing mission! It looks like the U.S. is going to have no choice but to try to negotiate the best deal possible with the Iranian theocracy that America strengthened by removing their number one enemy - Saddam Hussein. Some day, even you diehard Bush supporters are going to have to wake up to the mess your dear leader has left for his successor, and hope the next president can repair some of the damage!

[Topaz]

Under Bush and Cheney and let NOT forget Cheney is also a part of this war, those two would go into Iran but I don't think they will because if they do they would have to fight Russia and China and right now the military is TIRED and needs to rest. Europe also wouldn't allow an invasion because it would turn to nuclear bombing. Let's hope the next president doesn't think like Bush does because if the US keeps invading other countries for it own reasons then they may pay economically for it. The world shouldn't let Bush and Cheney off pf what hey have done to Iraq and it people.

[bush_cheney2004]

What colour is the sky in your world? It must be a world where the U.S. still has excess capacity to carry out more regime change operations, but that's not the world the rest of us are living in!

That's what Slobodon Milosevic thought too. And Manuel Noriega. And Saddam Hussein. And...

And after the intelligence mess in the lead up to the Iraq Invasion, everyone besides Dick Cheney is doubtful that a bombing mission can succeed in destroying all possible nuclear targets. And since there is no option to put boots on the ground, there is no way of verifying the success of a Iran bombing mission!

There have already been "boots" on the ground. You just don't know about it.

It looks like the U.S. is going to have no choice but to try to negotiate the best deal possible with the Iranian theocracy that America strengthened by removing their number one enemy - Saddam Hussein. Some day, even you diehard Bush supporters are going to have to wake up to the mess your dear leader has left for his successor, and hope the next president can repair some of the damage!

Today Iraq...tomorrow the World!

[bush_cheney2004]

Under Bush and Cheney and let NOT forget Cheney is also a part of this war, those two would go into Iran but I don't think they will because if they do they would have to fight Russia and China and right now the military is TIRED and needs to rest.

Yes....they are resting in about 150 countries around the world. Russia and China sure put up a big "fight" over Iraq, didn't they?

Europe also wouldn't allow an invasion because it would turn to nuclear bombing.

Europe doesn't allow Muslims to assimilate either...so what?

Let's hope the next president doesn't think like Bush does because if the US keeps invading other countries for it own reasons then they may pay economically for it. The world shouldn't let Bush and Cheney off pf what hey have done to Iraq and it people.

See History of the United States of America.

[gc1765]

And destroyed every paper trail having ever had anything to do with these WMD's? And all info on every computer harddrive and disk and email? And dismantled and disposed of the chemical labs? And mobile weapons labs? And all without the CIA seeing any of this via satellite photos etc.?

Saddam did all this and then hid in a tiny hole in the ground? While its honestly hard to believe he didn't have any WMD's pre-invasion, its also hard to believe he could have got rid of all the evidence, and equally hard to believe the U.S. never found any evidence it had existed soon before invasion (and if they did find some, they would have screamed it from the rooftops).

Good point.

Personally, I find it extremely hard to believe that a ruthless, power-hungry dictator who would do anything or kill anyone to stay in power, had WMDs but decided that rather than using those WMDs against the invaders (which was his only hope of staying in power) he simply decided to ship them off and hide in a hole. Very unlikely.

The idea that Saddam had WMDs, but shipped them off to another country prior to the 2003 invasion is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

[GostHacked]

Good point.

Personally, I find it extremely hard to believe that a ruthless, power-hungry dictator who would do anything or kill anyone to stay in power, had WMDs but decided that rather than using those WMDs against the invaders (which was his only hope of staying in power) he simply decided to ship them off and hide in a hole. Very unlikely.

The idea that Saddam had WMDs, but shipped them off to another country prior to the 2003 invasion is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

Only the blind are to beleive that Saddam had the WMDs before the invasion. But this invasion is not about freedom, or anything noble. It is a fallacal nobility that is spewed forth. But the hypocracy of presenting this fallacy, is that the real intentions are about resources and full spectrum dominance. And some people don't have a problem with lying. (edited for grammar)

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/06/nyt.kristof/ Posted in May 6 2008.

When I raised the Mystery of the Missing W.M.D. recently, hawks fired barrages of reproachful e-mail at me. The gist was: "You **! Who cares if we never find weapons of mass destruction, because we've liberated the Iraqi people from a murderous tyrant."

But it does matter, enormously, for American credibility. After all, as Ari Fleischer said on April 10 about W.M.D.: "That is what this war was about."

I rejoice in the newfound freedoms in Iraq. But there are indications that the U.S. government souped up intelligence, leaned on spooks to change their conclusions and concealed contrary information to deceive people at home and around the world.

Consider the now-disproved claims by President Bush and Colin Powell that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger so it could build nuclear weapons. As Seymour Hersh noted in The New Yorker, the claims were based on documents that had been forged so amateurishly that they should never have been taken seriously.

But to some this means nothing. If the real reasons were touted on MSM and the web and without deceit, you may have less people on board with the invasion.

Where are those labs now?

Where are those WMDs now?

Yes we know there was a plan in place. But would that plan be accepted by the populous to accomplish this goal if the real reasons were shouted from the rooftops?? Nope instead Chicken Little and the The Little Boy are running the show.

Edited June 3, 2008 by GostHacked

[bush_cheney2004]

....Yes we know there was a plan in place. But would that plan be accepted by the populous to accomplish this goal if the real reasons were shouted from the rooftops?? Nope instead Chicken Little and the The Little Boy are running the show.

Not only was there a plan, but also a continuing policy to bomb, strangle, disect, and undermine Iraq at every turn. The "populace" re-elected "Chicken Little"....how do the critics explain that?

Edited June 3, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[GostHacked]

Not only was there a plan, but also a continuing policy to bomb, strangle, disect, and undermine Iraq at every turn. The "populace" re-elected "Chicken Little"....how do the critics explain that?

Simple, they were lied to. I thought we went over this.

[sharkman]

And destroyed every paper trail having ever had anything to do with these WMD's? And all info on every computer harddrive and disk and email? And dismantled and disposed of the chemical labs? And mobile weapons labs? And all without the CIA seeing any of this via satellite photos etc.?

Saddam did all this and then hid in a tiny hole in the ground? While its honestly hard to believe he didn't have any WMD's pre-invasion, its also hard to believe he could have got rid of all the evidence, and equally hard to believe the U.S. never found any evidence it had existed soon before invasion (and if they did find some, they would have screamed it from the rooftops).

All this is quite moot, since even if Saddam did have WMD's, the war would still have been a horrible idea.

You don't seem aware that Saddam hid weapons programs from the UN inspectors for years, denying them access to certain "palaces", delaying entry into certain buildings and other locations until the staff there was "ready" for them. They were very good at destroying paper trails and the like. Although you seem to be projecting a pretty high level of record keeping and procedures on the regime of a tinpot dictator.

[bush_cheney2004]

Simple, they were lied to. I thought we went over this.

No, you continue to dodge this issue, as do others. Long after "revelations" about WMD lies and the PNAC, American voters returned the Bush-Cheney team to office. It is part of President Bush's legacy you seem to ignore. He is among a minority of two term US presidents.

How do you explain this when "lies" were readily apparent and exploited by the Democratic Party?

Is it inconceivable to you that America chose President Bush anyway? It is their choice, y'know. Peanut gallery judgements are irrelevant.

Edited June 3, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[sharkman]

Good point.

Personally, I find it extremely hard to believe that a ruthless, power-hungry dictator who would do anything or kill anyone to stay in power, had WMDs but decided that rather than using those WMDs against the invaders (which was his only hope of staying in power) he simply decided to ship them off and hide in a hole. Very unlikely.

The idea that Saddam had WMDs, but shipped them off to another country prior to the 2003 invasion is nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

You may have missed my link from yesterday, where it was shown that Saddam shipped off about 140 fighter jets to another country prior to the US gaining air superiority to the entire country. Therefore he could have done it again.

Have you wondered why Saddam didn't use any WMDs during Desert Storm? In the run up to Desert Storm, he was warned if he used any WMDs in that battle, the US would respond with some WMDs of their own. Wisely he decided not to, and no doubt was warned the same way this time.

[GostHacked]

You don't seem aware that Saddam hid weapons programs from the UN inspectors for years, denying them access to certain "palaces", delaying entry into certain buildings and other locations until the staff there was "ready" for them. They were very good at destroying paper trails and the like. Although you seem to be projecting a pretty high level of record keeping and procedures on the regime of a tinpot dictator.

Here are a couple sources you can check out.

We can trust "Curveball" or we can trust the words of Imad Khadduri.

http://www.iraqsnuclearmirage.com/index_en.php

Iraq simply could not revive the nuclear program after the US led coallition took out Iraq. All the facilities were destroyed by the coalition.

Sharkman

You may have missed my link from yesterday, where it was shown that Saddam shipped off about 140 fighter jets to another country prior to the US gaining air superiority to the entire country. Therefore he could have done it again.

And the reason was because the coalition was blocking the path to Jordan. It was thought that Saddam would ship the planes to friendly Jordan, not the enemy Iran. So it does not make sense. So if they can detect the planes being shipped, why could they not detect the material being shipped on the ground?

BC

No, you continue to dodge this issue, as do others. Long after "revelations" about WMD lies and the PNAC, American voters returned the Bush-Cheney team to office. It is part of President Bush's legacy you seem to ignore. He is among a minority of two term US presidents.

You always say the plan was in place. So the plan was to keep Bush in office. The elections were a joke and a farce. And the issue I am not dodging, but your boys Bush and Cheney do it all the time. So your relevations of them being just are false. Simply because they said one thing did another. That is lying and hypocracy. Bush barley got into office both times. First a court said he was pres, then another very narrow victory. It does not matter what your real plan is, it was never displayed out in the open for everyone to see. The MSM never said boo about it. So how can I take you seriously when you say one thing but do another.

Bush's legacy will not be ignored. It wil be looked on as a large black stain on the so called 'Freedom' image they put forth. It is a joke.

How do you explain this when "lies" were readily apparent and exploited by the Democratic Party?

Right wing smear character assasinations. But then again, there is the fallacy of Left and Right. They are both the same.

Is it inconceivable to you that America chose President Bush anyway? It is their choice, y'know. Peanut gallery judgements are irrelevant.

Even your own rules are irrelevant to you. Peanut.

[sharkman]

Here are a couple sources you can check out.

We can trust "Curveball" or we can trust the words of Imad Khadduri.

http://www.iraqsnuclearmirage.com/index_en.php

Iraq simply could not revive the nuclear program after the US led coallition took out Iraq. All the facilities were destroyed by the coalition.

Sharkman

And the reason was because the coalition was blocking the path to Jordan. It was thought that Saddam would ship the planes to friendly Jordan, not the enemy Iran. So it does not make sense. So if they can detect the planes being shipped, why could they not detect the material being shipped on the ground?

I wasn't referring to Nuclear Weapons. They never had them. I was referring to the chemical and biological type weapons Iraq had already used in other wars. It was these weapons programs Saddam was hiding.

Yes, the path to Jordan was blocked. The point still remains that Saddam sent out 140 fighter jets to another country and could have done the same with his WMDs. And the jet exodus was done during a time of war, say what you will about the US, they would not bomb trucks suspected of carrying chemical weapons to other countries when they were not yet at war with Iraq. The US had such an attack perpetrated on them at Pearl Harbor and rightly would abhor such a move.

While the UN was delaying and obstructing at every move (and France was campaigning privately against the US), Saddam had plenty of time to realize he was going to get invaded again, and that they would be looking for WMD.

[Black Dog]

Yes, the path to Jordan was blocked. The point still remains that Saddam sent out 140 fighter jets to another country and could have done the same with his WMDs.

It's amazing that people still cling to this stuff even after the people who would stand to benefit the most from WMD being found or shown to have existed have thrown in the towel.

say what you will about the US, they would not bomb trucks suspected of carrying chemical weapons to other countries when they were not yet at war with Iraq. The US had such an attack perpetrated on them at Pearl Harbor and rightly would abhor such a move.

Nonsense. The U.S.bombed Iraq numerous times following the 1991 ceasefire. They wouldn't think twice

[sharkman]

They bombed after '91 under UN authority, when Saddam was disobeying rules he was to operate under. At the time of 2003, the UN had taken a rather pro Saddam stance, and the US was trying to build a coalition and invade with UN blessings as before. Bombing runs within Iraqi borders would have thwarted that effort.

The fact remains BD, that Iraq sent 140 fighter jets to Iran, rather than have them destroyed by US forces in '91. This is a precedent and could have been done in the run up to the US invasion of 2003. You have more faith in Saddam than I. I don't believe he would destroy his WMD just because the UN told him to.

[bush_cheney2004]

You always say the plan was in place. So the plan was to keep Bush in office. The elections were a joke and a farce. And the issue I am not dodging, but your boys Bush and Cheney do it all the time.

Yes..you are still dodging. Insulting another nation's democratic election process will get you nowhere. There is no way for you to reconcile this dichotomy, is there?

So your relevations of them being just are false. Simply because they said one thing did another. That is lying and hypocracy. Bush barley got into office both times. First a court said he was pres, then another very narrow victory. It does not matter what your real plan is, it was never displayed out in the open for everyone to see. The MSM never said boo about it. So how can I take you seriously when you say one thing but do another.

Stop being so goddamn naive....and blaming the "MSM". America made a choice, and it was President Bush. Again.

Bush's legacy will not be ignored. It wil be looked on as a large black stain on the so called 'Freedom' image they put forth. It is a joke.

Now you are talking in circles. The "joke" only begins and ends with George W. Bush?

Right wing smear character assasinations. But then again, there is the fallacy of Left and Right. They are both the same.

All is fair in love, war, and politics.

Even your own rules are irrelevant to you. Peanut.

There are no rules.

[GostHacked]

Sharkman

I wasn't referring to Nuclear Weapons. They never had them. I was referring to the chemical and biological type weapons Iraq had already used in other wars. It was these weapons programs Saddam was hiding.

Well here is the thing, it all fell under the catagory of WMDs. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Nuclear and chemical weapons fall under this category, so

While the UN was delaying and obstructing at every move (and France was campaigning privately against the US), Saddam had plenty of time to realize he was going to get invaded again, and that they would be looking for WMD.

If you realized you were going to be invaded because of the WMDs, don't you think he would have just simply stopped them? Or was all this bungled up on purpose to go forth with the invasion? Or could he have possibly ramped up the production in preperation for the invasion? But we now know in retrospect that this was never the case.

I wonder why he never used them.