OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

Lost the Cheney endorsement.

Poor Mittens.

He does realize he is running in the GOP primaries, right? I mean this puts him with the rest of the country but in a GOP primary this is not a smart thing to say considering the primary voters have been brainwashed by years of FoxNews/Rush Limbaugh propaganda.

But….but…but…what about the rape rooms?

In hindsight, we should have finished the job when we started it; in 1990.

Mitt Romney On Iraq War: In Hindsight ‘Obviously We Would Not Have Gone In’

Mitt Romney:  Champion of the obvious.  Minutes ahead when seconds count.  All things to all people.

What about the poor rebels yearning to be free…to sell oil?

Willard finally says some I agree with.
But wait ’til later in the day when he changes his stance.

Had the war only been about WMD you might have a point, but since it was not it appears  that it wasn’t the GOP primary voters that experienced the brainwashing.

The bipartisan Authorization for the Use of Military Force:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm

Yeah, hindsight is cool for spotting the bloody obvious.

For example, in hindsight you should never have deluded yourself into thinking Herbert Cain was a serious candidate for president.

The day is still young. 

The UN “did not” authorize any such action, Mitt

Moreover, we “knew” full well that Saddam possessed no such weapons, Mitt

The Iraq war was conceived well before 9/11, Mitt

Most of them are dead.

I think it will be “explained”.

Yeah I am sure none of the problems that happened post 2003 would have happened in 1991

Deciding you shouldn’t have gone to war doesn’t make it a mistake.  It makes it a travesty.

republicans hate america

“In reality, the UN did not authorize the Iraq War, and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan declared the war illegal. The US used, as its legal justification, the UN resolution authorizing the first Gulf War.”

Partly true but. per usual, you left left a lot out because sometimes the facts don’t suit your hyper-partisan agenda.  

“ but his response might not please some conservatives, who advanced several other rationales for the war when it became apparent that there were no WMD.”

Lie.  Again.  I know what my reasons were for support from the beginning and WMD’s weren’t all that high on the list.  You have a real problem with half-truths, flat out lying, re-writing history, etc.  You should try to be a little more honest and a little less of a propagandist.  I mean, who takes anything you have to say seriously anymore?  Korean Trevor, maybe?  That’s who you’ve become.  Congrats!

You and funky are quite a pair, the entire world believed that Saddam had WMDs because that’s what he wanted us to believe, have you forgotten that the congress gave their approval for this action, your weak attempts to make this a repub problem are disingenuous at best and more likely just the incoherent garbage you’ve been taught to parrot.

Yo, Joey Tribiani, I think you need some help with your scare quote usage.  

But the FACT still remains that Saddam HAD WMD’s and used them!!

Something the Bush whackers still cannot phantom!!

Your right hindsight is 20/20, that’s why Owebumbles will be out on his big ear next November.

“…you left left a lot out…”

Usually a statement such as this is followed by a statement addressing all that was left out.  Usually.

“I know what my reasons were for support from the beginning and WMD’s weren’t all that high on the list.”

Are we supposed to guess what your list is?

Oh, and your just naturally intelligent. Not, just keep parroting the Dem talking points, you’ve got a bunch of different outlets that will make you think you know what your talking about.

lonestar-  ok, I’ll bite.   You say the first part is partly true-  what is a lie, what is not being taken into account?

2) what other reason’s were given AT THE START of Iraq war?  it was WMD, and connection with 9/11 terrorists.  If you say that wasn’t your reason from the start, you need to explain yourself

Duh! 

“Had ” is the operative word.

Actually, I don’t have to explain myself.  I’m not going to spend all afternoon debating the Iraq war.  That wasn’t the point of my post.  Tommy knows he’s not being completely honest.  That’s good enough for me.  

Wrong. UN SecRes 1441.

The Iraq war was conceived well before 9/11, Mitt

Ya think? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

republicans are bad for america, very bad

lonestar-  well, good for you.  Your post is useless to everyone (but Tommy I guess), so it makes you sound like you have no information to back up what you are saying, and then Tommy seems correct to all of us.  Guess you probably should be clearer when you post….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txlXcJDtDwM

what in the world were your reasons if WMDs (no apostrophe needed)  weren’t that high on the list??  Oil?  Freedom for the poor Iraqis who you don’t give two cents for and who were destroyed by this war?  what was the gain, was it enough to offset the terrible death count on both sides or the destruction of a country, the huge cost to the United States, please give me your rationale.

In reality, the UN did not authorize the Iraq War, and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan declared the war illegal. The US used, as its legal justification, the UN resolution authorizing the first Gulf War.

Wrong. Saddam’s material breach of UN SecRes 1441 was both the authorization and the legal justification for the resumption of hostilities. The first Gulf War hadn’t legally ended. There was only a ceasefire in place. And Kofi Annan might as well have declared that the moon is made of cheese for all the authority he had to make such declarations. Annan was just pissed that we put an end to the Oil for Food scam.

A principled teabagger would never admit a mistake, much less issue an apology. That is why they are teabaggers.

You and Boris remind me of Homer Simpson:  “Oooh, that’s good.”  “Oooh, that’s bad.”  “Oooh. . . I can’t figure it out.”

Sorry, it’s just that Iraq is a useless topic to debate.  I’ve come across maybe 2 lefties who say anything other than “Bush lied”.  There aren’t many on the left who are interested in an honest debate about it.  It’s useless…especially at this site; the crazy yahoos outnumber the rational by about 1,000:1

The responsible response would be to assume he still had them since he refused to allow the inspectors full and unfettered access!!

Saddam would still be alive and in power if he would have cooperated and there would have been no Iraqi war.

We found the WMDs?  Wow!  Amazing!  Bush was right!  Ugh, wait, what?  We never found WMDs…hum.  I thought we went to war to find WMDs…you’re saying it wasn’t?

The bar for the Presidency has never been lower, BFD. If a wet-behind-the-ears community organizer with an Alinsky penchant can hold the office, anyone can. And let’s not even get started on what it takes to be VP.

teabaggers and faux noise

No – the responsible person would say we didn’t know if he had weapons, instead of saying HE HAS WEAPONS!!!!  AHHHHHH!!!!

Further, we now know that our military leaders, Colin Powell in particular, were forced by the Bush administration to make the case for war against their better judgement, and that they thought the intel was a fraud.  Did Bush and Darth Vader care?  No…full speed ahead.  They killed more Americans in that war than Al Qaeda.

Please try to keep up….you’re obstructing the rest of the class!!

Or, Obimbo was qualified for anything more than a community organizer. Hindsight is funny like that. That is, if you discount the fact the thousands of us out here were trying to make that connection.

Had things continued, the sanctions that were already weakened, would have been dropped and Saddam would have been free to continue the atrocities he had been all along inflicting on his people, remember the mass graves?.  As far as freedom, it is apparent that freedom is where you and Obama part company, as he was just taking credit the other day for the Iraqis ability to chart their own destiny, impossible without freedom, wouldn’t you say?  Yeah, I know, big flip flopper, but we have to deal with him for another year.

Back to Saddam.  It was the goal to get rid of him since Bush1, they were lighting candles everynight, hoping for him to be taken out during the Gulf 1 bombing.  Alas, it wasn’t to be.

On to Clinton, there was the Regime change legislation that passed overwhelmingly, right after two failed CIA coups and another the UN was involved in. 

Those same congress critters that voted for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force…..the ones who later  claimed Bush lied….  Well, they voted on that Authorization  with the full knowledge of the failed coups, the coups that had nothing to do with WMD but everything to do with human rights.  Are you obsorbing any of this? 

Within a few years after the CIA coups, known of by Congress and the BIPARTISAN regime change legislation, democrats were claiming we went to war on lies.  Chucked all that they supported aside for politics while we had troops at war….and engaged in a propaganda war,

“That’s obviously a long-term project,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “It’s not something you can just throw money at, because Saddam has ruthlessly controlled all the levers in his society that would be building blocks of reasonable opposition. To be candid, we don’t have a lot to build on. It’s not that we’re not interested, but there’s not a lot to work with.”
One reason for the paucity of potential coup-plotters is that the CIA already tried to organize two overthrows of Hussein and blew them both.

The CIA spent more than $100 million in the effort, but it was plagued by squabbling among rival Kurdish groups, and by skepticism in Washington that it could succeed.

Nothing much happened, so during Clinton’s first term the CIA also embraced the Jordan-based Iraqi National Accord. The INA claimed to be organizing a coup against Hussein by dissident Iraqi military officers.

Despite warnings that Hussein had penetrated the INA, senior CIA officers were said to be entranced by the prospect of a “zipless coup” toppling Hussein on the eve of Clinton’s reelection, according to three CIA officers who asked not to be named.

The result instead was a double disaster.

The INA’s coup fizzled in June 1996 when Hussein’s security forces rounded up and executed more than 100 INA supporters.

Emboldened, Hussein sent his troops north against the Kurds in August 1996. There they executed or imprisoned thousands of real and imagined enemies. Thousands more Kurds fled into exile, leaving what remains of Hussein’s internal opposition divided, demoralized and deeply distrustful of America.

http://articles.philly.com/1998-02-12/news/25755018_1_iraqi-opposition-iraqi-exiles-iraqi-national-accord/2

Saddam’s Death Is A Goal, Says Ex-CIA Chief
By Walter PincusWashington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 15 1998; Page A36

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/keyplayers/saddam021598.htm

None of what happened between 1991 and 2003 would have happened.

Yes or no dummy – the argument for war was based on the President’s “intel” that Saddam Hussein currently possessed WMDs.

Let me help you brainiac:
“Simply stated, there
is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass
destruction. ” – Dick Cheney

Everyone knew he HAD weapons in the past which is what he used to kill his own people.  And the UN made him get rid of all the weapons out in the desert or face another invasion.

Is this all coming back to you now?  LOL.  Next you’re going to say Obama started the recession back in 2007!  Hahaha.

http://tinyurl.com/24vbz4j

HInd sigth???  That is rich.  Anyone with at least half the functioning brain of a rat knew ahead of time that there was never any valid reason to march into Iraq.  Republicans, evangelicals and anyone else who supported the policies of the Bush / Cheney administration have a lot of innocent blood on their hands that will be there for eternity.

Uh, no we didn’t. 

Finding an al Qaeda member or Taliban with a weapon they stole from Iraq before they were all destroyed, is not Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction (which is the promise Bush made on going to war – “We have sources
that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field
commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator
tells us he does not have. ” GWB).  Especially since he hated al Qaeda and the Taliban. 

Nice try.  Bush lied, thousands of American soldiers died.

It was Colin Powell that did the forcing, it was Colin Powell that went to the CIA and worked directly with them on his speech.

Originally, Cheney’s team had put together a presentation that would have lasted a couple of days at the UN.  It covered all of the UN Resolutions that Saddam defied as well as the atrocities committed against his people.  Colin Powell’s position was to focus only on WMD, After heated discussions, Cheney’s team’s presentation was scrapped and Colin Powell got the go ahead to work with the CIA on a UN presentation.

It was the CIA that mucked up the intelligence that Powell presented in that speech, and CIA agents were discussing that before Powell gave the speech.

Here’s how it went down with the speech, Powell and the CIA:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&gbv=2&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=7659l19515l0l22183l27l27l0l16l16l0l218l1447l3.6.2l11l0&q=cache:b1g3cwOePGEJ:http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/part7-powell.pdf+colin+powell+cia,+un+speech&ct=clnk

Powell has never been man enough to stand up and admit that it was he who fought to highlight WMD above all the resolutions.

The story of the Republican Iraq War…

1) The Intelligence Community said Sadaam had WMD’s and was planning to use them to attack America.

2) Sadaam denied these claims.

3) The UN was sent in to inspect Iraq to see if they had WMD’s.

4) After many years of inspection and finding nothing, Iraq kicked out the inspectors.

5) The intelligence community, with no evidence, concluded that Iraq MUST have WMD’s and is planning to use them.

6) Bush asked the UN to fight for inspections, Iraq was uncooperative. The UN said there was no proof so action against Iraq was illegal.

7) Bush went to war with Iraq anyway.

8) Turns out the UN was right, there were no WMD’s, no missles, they barely had any guns or bombs and had to develop IED’s as their main source of weaponry. Basically a grenade attached to a string attached to bridge or dug under the road.

9) Finding Bush was wrong, he then covers his tracks by saying we wants to free Iraq of a dictator.

10) Sadaam is dead. Goals change again to creating a Democratic Iraq with a Constitution.

11) Constitution created. Goals change again; Bush now says he wants to create a safe Iraq with no violence, free elections, and a joint government, and an Iraqi policie force and military.

12) All the above were accomplished. Goals change, Iraq must have a stable this, a stable that, more electricity, a booming business district, etc etc etc

13) Bush kicked out of Office.

14) Obama elected.

15) Begins troop withdrawal and sets a timeline for a responsible exit.

16) Ends the war.

17) Moves to create a timeline for Aghanistan and end the war there as well.

Did Cheney’s speech include his quotes?

“We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. ”

I tell you what isn’t in your link right there – anything about Cheney – so why are you trying to mislead us?

As if he or any rational human being would care that you agreed with them.

THE TALIBAN IS NOT THE ENEMY YOU IGNORANT AMERICANS

Not at all. I think it’s important — I know you’ve written about this — to understand what most Americans I think know, which is that we didn’t invade Afghanistan, we did not send U.S. military personnel into Afghanistan because the Taliban were in power. They had been in power. We went into Afghanistan because al Qaeda had launched an attack against the United States from Afghanistan.

And what the Vice President was reflecting is that — and this is related to the reconciliation process that I was just discussing — is that the Taliban, per se — while we are fighting them, it is not the elimination — the elimination of the Taliban is not the issue here. The objective that the President laid out when he laid out his Afghanistan strategy made clear that the number-one principle here is to defeat, dismantle — or disrupt, dismantle and ultimately defeat al Qaeda, as well as help stabilize Afghanistan. And that’s what we’re doing.

Part of that process is our support for the Afghan-led reconciliation talks. The conditions for reconciliation for the Taliban are very clear. But reconciliation has to be a part of the long-term process in Afghanistan if Afghanistan is going to evolve into a peaceful country.

Short and sweet – good post CAR.

Ugh, where have you been?  We still would have had the terrorist acts of 9/11!  Get in your time-machine Delorean, go back and tell Bush Sr. to keep going into Bagdad…then we still have two planes going through the World Trade Center buildings.

Brilliant.  Simply brilliant.

Yes, we did. http://tinyurl.com/rxgu8

And, we haven’t checked Syria. http://tinyurl.com/4jcfg2

Who lied? Well, if Bush and Cheney lied, so did Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi, Bob Graham, Carl Levin, Ted Kennedy, Byrd, Rockefeller, Henry Waxman, and Hillary Clinton. http://tinyurl.com/3btfn

Hey, who lied us into a war for oil in Libya?

There’s a ton of bullshit there, but my favorite is the part where Obama set the timeline for withdrawal.

The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement set the timeline. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

Bush’s plan, and Obama followed it to the letter.

I am talking about current day. Nice try though.

Pablow, you’re still trying to change an immutable fact – Bush and Cheney said Saddam Hussein had WMD and he did not.  Finding a Taliban or al Qaeda member with some nerve gas that they stole from Hussein’s stockpile before it was destroyed is NOT HUSSEIN having WMD.

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. ” – Dick Cheney

Lies, Lies, Lies.

Back from your time-travel yet?  Sorry to tell ya – Bin-Laden still flew the planes idiot.

Back from your time-travel yet?  Sorry to tell ya – Bin-Laden still flew the planes idiot.

You want Bush to take credit for the Stimulus too?  And 10% unemployment?  Of course not.  LOLOLOL

Mislead you on what?  It’s only been almost nine years since Colin Powell gave that speech and we’ve fought that war and you still are unaware of the details?  Then you accuse me of misleading you, if you knew what the hell went on, no one could mislead you.

Cheney  The Untold Story of America’s Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President
Stephen Hayes
Page 389

Cheney’s office would prepare the materials to be used in making the case.  Scooter Libby handled the WMD component; Neil Patel compiled the brief on Iraq’s support for terrorism; and John Hannah organized the case on Saddam Hussein’s long record of abusing human rights.  When they had started their work, President Bush had not decided on who would present the United State’s case to the Security Council.

Libby told his colleagues to prepare for a lengthy presentation, one that might last two days.  His idea, supported by his boss, was that the most persuasive case would be the most exhaustive.  It would be an indictment of the regime in Iraq, tp ne sire, but also of the members of the Security Council who sat by passively as the Iraqis violated tough-sounding agreements. ….Libby and his colleagues spent the last half of January compiling three six-inch binders for their presentation.

~snip~

President Bush decided that his chief diplomat, Secretary of State Colin Powell, would represent the United States at the Security Council.  Almost immediately after he was chosen, Powell rejected the proposal for a two-day presentation.  He wanted something short and hard-hitting.  The address would focus on Iraq’s proscribed weapons, he decided, because most of the UN resolutions on Iraq related to its WMD programs.  It was a logical decision, given his audience, but a second departure from the presentation envisioned by Cheney’s staff, which would have devoted considerably more time to Iraq’s support for terrorism and Saddam Hussein’s history of brutality.

Cheney’s quotes were made prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom  when he and people in our intelligence agencies did believe that Saddam Hussein was in fact reconstituting nuclear weapons.  It was also Dick Cheney that was told prior to Gulf 1 that Hussein was eight years from a nuclear weapon and after the invasion we found out it was two or three years out.  So, there is obvious reasons for Cheney not to trust SH or some in the intelligence community.

It’s pretty sad reading the snickering in this comment section.

Saddam was a sadistic ruler who did unspeakable crimes. What he did to the Mesopotamian marshes and the Arabs there alone, is enough to warrant a intervention! I never hear anyone on the left citing that crazy far-right 60Mins story on this.

Going through the VAST list of crimes should make many citizens of the U.S. PROUD, regardless of what was “sold” to the public by incompetent leaders who failed in the aftermath.

It is those who IGNORE (and mostly don’t know) what Saddam did who have the explaining to do…

As Hitch used to say: “The quickest way to know someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about in regards to Iraq is when they say ‘Saddam was a bad guy, BUT…’ ”

They’d be best to just come out and say “We don’t care to intervene and help tortured people” and be done with it. At least then they’d be MORALLY honest!

Weapons of mass destruction, sheapons of mass destruction. I knew we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq in 1970 it was so obvious.

Guess what, Iraq isn’t in the United States. I don’t give a crap about any crime any where in the world, they all have their own police and I’m not one of them.

You don’t like gays or trees that make no sound when they fall cuz you weren’t there with a camera crew.

You’re saying gays are incapable of honesty? And why the vulgarity? Why not just say gay?

Stop back-peddling you silly goof. 

You posted a link to redacted CIA briefing material as evidence that Cheney wanted one thing, and Powell went rogue (“…Here’s how it went down with the speech…”).  When in fact, the briefing materiel says nothing about Cheney and his influence over the CIA intel.

Then you reach way out and try to defend Cheney by quoting a biography of Cheney, written by Cheney’s official biographer?  LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Boy, I’m surprised that Cheney’s official biographer, Stephen Hayes, Conservative, writer for the Weekly Standard, didn’t write anything bad about Cheney.  HAHAHAHA!

Rio, you’re such a rube.

Then the video of Kurds laying dead on the ground from poison gas was faked? Wow! I never knew that. Thanks Studs Turkel.

About 4,000 Kurds died and 8,500 injured in a gas attack by Hussein. Many more thousands subsequently fell ill or died. And this was just one day. How “mass” is that? You’re a liar and ignorant and perhaps an idiot as well.

And how does one “know” a madman was telling the truth?

If you had Kurdish relatives they’d consider you a mass idiot rolled into one person.

Nice try indeed, by you, that is.  You aren’t fooling anyone.

No doubt, Saddam has mistreated Kurds during his rule. But it’s misleading to say, so simply and without context, that he killed his own people by gassing 5,000 Kurds at Halabja.

the Iraqi forces had attacked Halabja when it “was occupied by Iranian troops. Five thousand Kurdish civilians were reportedly killed.”

In September, 1988, the Star quoted an unnamed U.N. official as saying the Security Council chose to condemn the use of gas in the Iran-Iraq war rather than finger Iraq, generally believed to have lost the war with Iran.

“Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds.”

“The condition of the dead Kurds’ bodies however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.”

“Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town … The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq’s main target”

What? Nothing?

wow, that took 5 seconds to look up and prove you wrong. And when we say weapons of mass destruction as it pertains to the US, we mean Nuclear Bombs and Anthrax

No, I posted the CIA material to let you know how the CIA prepared the speech, how they realized prior to Powell’s presentation that some of it was inaccurate yet failed to stop it, and how Powell was involved in the production of the material.  I added the rest because I knew it to be fact from the extensive reading that I have done throughout the Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom years. 

I study these operations because one, I have had many members of my family in the military and two, I currently have family members serving.  My nephew happened to be one of Saddam’s guards, brings it a bit closer to home, ya think?

Hayes is not Cheney’s official biographer, Cheney was Cheney’s official biographer. 

Recall the spat Powell and Cheney had after Cheney’s biography came out?  Recall any huffing, puffing or denials by Powell after Stephen Hayes book came out?

Case closed, idiot!

Lame.  You could have done better.

Wow James – you’re citing something that happened before the UN made Hussein get rid of his WMD…and I’m the idiot?  The irony.  I think maybe you should sit this one out and let the adults talk.  We can explain it to you later…LOL.

Did the UN make his quit firing on our planes in the no-fly zones?  Did the UN make him pay reparations to Kuwait, close the rape rooms, stop putting his people into shredders?  Return POWs? 

Any of it?  Because that’s what was in the Authorization for the Use of Military Force that was patterned on UN Resolutions that Saddam reneged on. 

From the mid 90′s regime change had been the focus for Iraq.  Two failed coups by Clinton’s CIA, one that the UN delicately unwound and a Congressional authorization for regime change that Clinton signed into law.  There was no lying, just a lot of mistakes by a CIA that was gutted during the Clinton administration, he liked that false sense of peace after the prior administrations ended the Cold War.  Unfortunately, we paid dearly for his lack of attention and defunding of what keeps this country safe.

He didn’t tell anybody anything – he was forced to allow UN inspectors into his country to monitor the disarmament.  Are you really this dumb?  Do you know anything about this? Obviously not.  Go sit back down at the little kids table moron.

#1 I do not believe a word you’re saying about your family.  Nothing personal, it is just too easy for someone to lie on here just to make a point.  Plus, there’s too much room for logical fallacies and hearsay.

#2 Stephen Hayes was his official biographer.  In fact, Cheney got in trouble by the DOD for praising Hayes articles in which he disclosed classified materials and misinterpreted raw
intelligence.See a pattern emerging here?

The case is closed sweetie…Bush lied, thousands of American soldiers died.

Duhhh.

So brownstar, you’re saying Saddam Hussein did have WMDs?  I’m confused – you’re really non-committal.  The whole reason we went to ware with them was because they were a threat, unless all these quotes mean nothing:

Simply stated, there
is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass
destruction.
Dick Cheney August 26, 2002
Right now, Iraq is expanding and
improving facilities that were used for the production of
biological weapons. George W. Bush
September 12,
2002 If he declares he has none, then we will know
that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

The president of the United States and the secretary of defense
would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has
weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not
have a solid basis for saying it.Ari Fleischer December 6,
2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there. Ari
Fleischer January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the
materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX
nerve agent. George W. Bush
January 28, 2003
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his
weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
Colin Powell
February 5, 2003 We have sources
that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field
commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator
tells us he does not have. George W. Bush
February 8,
2003 So has the strategic decision been made to disarm
Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in
Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
Colin Powell March 7, 2003

We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.
Vice President Dick Chaney

 March 16, 2003 Intelligence
gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq
regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal
weapons ever devised. George W. Bush
March 17, 2003
Well, there is no question that we have evidence and
information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological
and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the
course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes. Ari
Fleisher
March 21, 2003 There is no doubt that the
regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And
. . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified,
found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard
them. Gen. Tommy Franks
March 22, 2003 I have
no doubt we’re going to find big stores of weapons of mass
destruction. Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman

March 23, 2003 One of our top objectives is to find
and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites. Pentagon
Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
March 22, 2003 We know
where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and
east, west, south and north somewhat. Donald Rumsfeld

March 30, 2003 Obviously the administration intends
to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find —
and there will be plenty. Neocon scholar Robert Kagan

April 9, 2003 I think you have always heard, and you
continue to hear from officials, a measure of high confidence that,
indeed, the weapons of mass destruction will be found. Ari
Fleischer
April 10, 2003 We are learning more as we
interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people
within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps
he dispersed some. And so we will find them. George W. Bush

April 24, 2003 There are people who in large measure
have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the
weapons of mass destruction in that country. Donald Rumsfeld

April 25, 2003 We’ll find them. It’ll be a matter of
time to do so. George W. Bush
May 3, 2003 I’m
absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and
the evidence will be forthcoming. We’re just getting it just now.
Colin Powell
May 4, 2003 We never believed
that we’d just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that
country. Donald Rumsfeld
May 4, 2003 I’m not
surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam
Hussein — because he had a weapons program. George W. Bush

May 6, 2003 U.S. officials never expected that “we
were going to open garages and find” weapons of mass destruction.
Condoleeza Rice
May 12, 2003 I just don’t
know whether it was all destroyed years ago — I mean, there’s no
question that there were chemical weapons years ago — whether they
were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they’re still
hidden. Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
May 13, 2003

I don’t believe anyone that I know in the administration ever
said that Iraq had nuclear weapons.

Donald Rumsfeld,

May 14, 2003

Before the war, there’s no doubt in my
mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological
and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be
found. Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps

May 21, 2003 Given time, given the number of
prisoners now that we’re interrogating, I’m confident that we’re
going to find weapons of mass destruction. Gen. Richard
Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
May 26, 2003
They may have had time to destroy them, and I don’t know
the answer. Donald Rumsfeld
May 27, 2003 For
bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass
destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the
one reason everyone could agree on. Paul Wolfowitz
May
28, 2003 It was a surprise to me then — it remains a
surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say,
in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it’s not for
lack of trying. We’ve been to virtually every ammunition supply
point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they’re simply not
there. Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
May 30, 2003

My favorite part was number 9 where he claims Bush “covers his tracks by saying he wants to free Iraq of a dictator.”

I believe the AUMF was authored and voted on prior to the November, 2002 elections.  One wonders if you are using military force in Iraq, would that not be to free Iraq of a dictator?  Or, were we just to go over there, demand payment for reparations, ask Saddam nicely to free POWs and to stop killing, raping and torturing his people for goodness sake!  And then leave.

Looking at this tripe again, number 10 is rather stupid.  I guess this (CAR) is not aware of the different operational phases of war:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PBZ/is_3_85/ai_n14695885/

Hey Mitt. When Obama was a Senator and wrote out exactly his reasons as for why we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq you wouldn’t have to worry about hindsight.

Oh and don’t forget Sadaam was the guy actually behind the 911 terror plot which, if that were true, should have been the only reason we should have invaded Iraq.

I hope you’re honest enough to say that you don’t care in public.

Excellent article written by a member of President Reagans Defense cabinet.  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70696_Page2.html

I tried to correct my post but it did not work, you are right, Hayes was the official biographer. 

If what he wrote was in error, there are a number of people that would have challenged it, Powell being number one. 

About my family, I really don’t give a crap what you believe about my personal heroes, I see what you believe and thankfully, they are all above that, I am so blessed.

Obama at least has had 3 years in the school of hard knocks.  Michele and the 6 Dwarfs are a pretty poor hand to draw to.  So in foresight do we want to start over with another 3 year learning cover or leverage what has been done over the past 3 years.  I for one don’t want to fall back to 8 years of failed Bush policies.  Bush policies are like the old cliche burn me once shame you burn me twice shame on me.    

Yeah but in 2011 we now know it to be hogwash.  Chemical Ali was convicted and hung for gassing the Kurds:

“Chemical Ali” executed in Iraq after Halabja ruling

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8479115.stm

Yeah, doesn’t take a lot of time to find sources about Saddam’s killer regime:

Iraq’s ‘Chemical Ali’ gets new death sentence

Evidence against the defendants included eyewitness accounts, official documents and films seized after the fall of Saddam’s regime, and military correspondence among commanders.

Al-Majid faces three previous death sentences for atrocities committed during Saddam’s rule — particularly government campaigns against Shiites and Kurds in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

He was previously sentenced to hang for his role in a brutal crackdown against the Kurds in the late 1980s, known as the Anfal campaign, that killed hundreds of thousands.

The court later issued separate death sentences for his role in the 1991 suppression of a Shiite uprising and for a 1999 crackdown that sought to quell a Shiite backlash to the slaying of Grand Ayatollah Mohammed al-Sadr.

The earlier death sentences against al-Majid have not been carried out in part because of a desire by victims of the gas attacks to see him tried for one of the former regime’s most vicious attacks

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34904200/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/iraqs-chemical-ali-gets-new-death-sentence/

You do know who Chemical Ali is?  If not, it will only take five seconds to find out, just google, Saddam’s cousin hung for gassing kurds.

Btw, my nephew had to guard Saddam’s body after the execution.  He also guarded him while he was alive.  He prefers that he be dead.

I can’t tell from your post – are you disagreeing that the Bush administration sold the Iraq war on the premise of WMDs? 

In a battle with Iran it did appear Saddam  used Chemical weapons.  You’re correct Saddam was a jerk when came to working with UN inspectors.  But first foremost we were at war with Al-Qaeda and did Saddam have any Al-Qaeda history.  The short answer is no.  So what real threat was Iraq to the US and it allies? Answer none.  So why would we attack a country and risk as we know now just under 4500 American lifes in the name of nothing other than Oil?

Even as grappy as the Vietnam war was we thought we defening a country against the spread of communism.  I think history will prove the Iraq war places first as being the US’s worst mistake.  Vietnam place a close second. 

Point is, he has learned nothing. He has stagnated this country. The only positive moves he’s made were to allow some of Bush’s programs to be extended. We are not looking backward, we are looking forward to a new president and a new direction. Much more of this inept clowns administration and we’ll be looking at the second Revolutionary War!

How Romney can sit there with a straight face and lie like that is beyond me.

Go ahead caconservative – you first.  LOL.

Had them before the UN inspectors destroyed them all, as the French, Hans Blix and Scott Ritter tried to tell you.

You’re a bag of wind apologist, trying to find justification when there was none.  We are not the world police.  Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the terrorists, we helped Hussein along with weapons and support before the first gulf war.  This was a personal vendetta on the part of Bush, and I am ashamed that our congress was so willing to go along with it, this is a big reason Hillary didn’t win the nomination,  Please go Christmas shopping or something more constructive, and don’t put out any more of this over long crap.

do you by chance mean “fathom” because phantom makes no sense! 

If you knew anything about the First Gulf War you would know that the Saudi’/s our main benefactors when it comes to raising their Oil Output to help US/us they wanted to keep Saddam in power, Saddam being the head of the “Baathist” party, a mostly Sunni Party in a mostly Shia country, was a “buffer between the Gulf States and the SHIA Islamic Republic Of Iran. But alas Junior didn’t listen to the Saudi’s so now there are uprisings against the Ruling Families or Rulers…In Yemen-almost a civil war there. The President for 30 years has said he would step down Only to turn around on that promise and is staying put. Thanks to the US’ help with Drone’s here too. Then there’s Bahrain, where the Shia’s are making waves too.
Now in both of the countries the US hasn’t helped the “people out”. Yet, there’s Syria, where the Baathist rule also keeping a country that has differing sects of Islam in it, just as there is in Iraq. We can see in hindsight that Saddam did need to use a iron fist ruling the nation. after all Bush & the US has officially killed twice as many Iraqis as Saddam…All based on a Lie that Bush sent out to be broadcast like Propaganda that Hitler put out too..

So let me get this straight. A guy named Chemical Ali, who lived in a sovereign nation, thousands of miles from the United States, was killing some of the people in his country that were against his political beliefs and therefore it is the American obligation to go into that country, remove him from power, or kill him.

So you believe in using America to police the world, right? Nation building overseas using all our resources so we can’t Nation build at home, right?

So everytime a dictator tortures someone, Americans should go to war with that country? Okay, so you know that we should be at war with the world then because this happens in every country, including America. How many people did Rick Perry kill this year??

Yes, perfect. Point being this. Should we spend 2 Trillion dollars and 10 years in war with another country everytime a ruler kills on of his people?

Should we be invading Texas because of all the wrongful deaths Rick Perry is responsible for because of DNA evidence after a death penalty sentence. What about the death penalty at all, isn’t that the same thing as killing people because they don’t agree with your way of life?

Are we the police of the world?? The answer is NO

I think Mitt Romney was exactly right: ‘Obviously We Would Not Have Gone In’

We are not the police of the world and we are not at war with the world. Bad things happen in the world everyday; torture, killings, murders, mass murders, mass starvation, rapes, etc. It is up to each sovereign nation to manage what is within its own borders.

Mitt Romney knows this
Ron Paul knows this
John Huntsman knows this
and all Democrats know this

LIE
That is blatenly not true. Why do I have to factcheck your lie when you should be doing the research yourself?

October 2011 decision to withdraw all American forcesAs reported on Saturday, October 15, 2011, the Obama Administration had decided NOT to have American forces stay in Iraq (barring some last-minute move in the Iraqi parliament when they returned from a break in late November 2011 shortly before the end-of-the-year withdrawal date) because of concerns that they would not have be given immunity from Iraqi courts, a concern for American commanders in the field who also had to worry about the Sadrist response should troops stay and the general state of Iraq’s readiness for transfer of power.

The war was about WMD…that was the legal rationale for intering Iraq.    There was no mystery about it, it was well documented.    Attempting to change history now is a mute point.    As for Bipartisan Authorization…yes, many were fooled by the same documents that were presented as fact.     A Bipartisan Authorization about a war that was a lie, makes the lier the criminal, not the ones deceived.

The entire world did not believe Saddam had WMD, especially not the people who went in with equipment and detected no such evidence of the type of radium that could even be used for a single weapon (by the way, Obama and the Dems, except for Hilliary opposed it as well).    The idea for attacking Iraq was born as soon as GW Bush took office, he stated he wanted a plan to attack Iraq.    At first, Powell stated that this was nonsense and after being grilled by both Bush and Cheney, he went along with the lie (that’s why he later resigned).    In every speech Bush made about 9/11, he put Iraq’s name in it so that the two would be inseparable in the minds of Americans (sort of like brain-washing).    He wanted a quick victory in Iraq because he thought it was going to be easy to occupy Iraq, especially since his father easily drove the Iraqis back across their border but never tried to occupy the country. After GW declared Mission Accomplished, more than 4,000 americans lost their lives.     That’s why the republicans lost the House in 2006 and in 2008, that’s why dems held it against Hilliary during her campaign, it was the American people attempting to stop this stupid idiotic, petty dictator from doing more damage to our country….obviously, the people couldn’t see the financial collapse coming on Bush’s watch….NO ONE COULD BELIEVE THAT ONE UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE EITHER.