The Petraeus Paradox

[Nbadan]

TYT nails it home...


4uxe4BDBc-Y

[Nbadan]

Sen. Feingold takes Petraeus and Crocker to the woodshed...


N-cfDBzAEIE

[DarrinS]

It's weird, if Patraeus presents good news, dims call him Gen. Betray-Us. If he presents bad news, he is their hero.


Regardless of your stance on the Iraq war, you have to admit, Barbara Boxer is a cunt.

[Nbadan]

Define ' good news from Iraq' please....

[O-Factor]

Define ' good news from Iraq' please....

:rolleyes

How about us winning? But I bet you want us to fail miserably huh?

[boutons_]

Winning an occupation?

Winning as referee of a n-way civil war?

(Shiite Maliki attacked, and failed, other Shiites last week.)

Winning what?

[Nbadan]

Yeah, everytime the Iraqi government fails to meet a US benchmark the politicians in the U.S. and the Maliki government in Iraq, that got it ass handed to them by Al-Sadr, moves the goal-posts....so define 'winning in Iraq'...please...

[Ocotillo]

:rolleyes

How about us winning? But I bet you want us to fail miserably huh?
Dipshit.

[Budkin]

"Stay the course."

"We are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here."

"The surge is working."

"Cut and run."

"9/11."


Ok, do all the ignorant Republican sheep have their talking points in order yet?

[BonnerDynasty]

"Stay the course."

"We are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here."

"The surge is working."

"Cut and run."

"9/11."


Ok, do all the ignorant Republican sheep have their talking points in order yet?

Who do you support for president this year? Do you support any of them? We will see who the real sheep is up in hur. :hungry:


My bad. We are just suppose to settle for the lesser of two evils. Settling for the lesser of two evils will keep this country strong for 200 more years. Baaaaaahhhh

[Nbadan]

P3wned! I wish Sen. Menendez was my Senator...fuck HutcH!


C9886kZcrMg

[boutons_]

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/SherfJ/2008/SherfJ20080409A_low.jpg

[Yonivore]

P3wned! I wish Sen. Menendez was my Senator...fuck HutcH!


C9886kZcrMg
The video stops just short of this exchange:


Biden: Senator, thank you very much. I would invite the Ambassador, I know your embassy has that data on number of people in schools et cetera. If you believe the data stated by the Senator is not accurate, according to your embassy records, I would appreciate it if you would submit it. If not, we’ll assume what was given here by the Senator as to school, water, etc. is correct.

Crocker: We’d appreciate that opportunity, Mr. Chairman, and Senator Menendez, if it would be possible to get the data you have. . .

Menendez: Nods, somewhat disgustedly.
so, during the video I do not recall Senator Menendez saying from what "reliable reports" he was drawing his statistics.

Where'd he get them? And, are they accurate?

Oh, the characterization of Menendez's nod is from DailyKos, they posted the transcript.

[PEP]

Its a good thing the pussies of today werent around in WWII, we wouldnt have even fought back after Pearl Harbor.

They would have said we deserved it for stopping their shipments of oil.

[Yonivore]

Anyone who's divorced or lost money on stocks knows that decisions are made on the basis of imperfect or incomplete information all the time. But one of the problems with retrospective analysis is that although we know how things turned out we can never be quite sure what would have happened if we took the other turning.

Albert Einstein, manifestly one of the most intelligent persons who ever lived, urged President Roosevelt to prevent a threat (http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml#first) which turned out to be completely illusory, an act he later called "the greatest mistake" of his life.

Einstein warned Roosevelt that Germany was working on an atomic bomb and that unless the United States began efforts of its own it might face a new and unanswereable weapon. Einstein wrote:


Since the outbreak of the war, interest in uranium has intensified in Germany. I have now learned that research there is carried out in great secrecy and that it has been extended to another of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institutes, the Institute of Physics. The latter has been taken over by the government and a group of physicists, under the leadership of C. F. von Weizsäcker, who is now working there on uranium in collaboration with the Institute of Chemistry. The former director was sent away on leave of absence, apparently for the duration of the war. ...

In the summer of 1939 Dr. Szilard put before me his views concerning the potential importance of uranium for national defense. He was greatly disturbed by the potentialities involved and anxious that the United States Government be advised of them as soon as possible. Dr. Szilard, who is one of the discoverers of the neutron emission of uranium on which all present work on uranium is based, described to me a specific system which he devised and which he thought would make it possible to set up a chain reaction in un-separated uranium in the immediate future. Having known him for over twenty years both from his scientific work and personally, I have much confidence in his judgment and it was on the basis of his judgment as well as my own that I took the liberty to approach you in connection with this subject.
The consensus after the war was that Hitler was never even close to obtaining an atomic weapon. If the Second World War had been fought to keep Hitler from conquering the world with atomic weapons it would technically have been a mistake. "The German 'uranium project' - which had been set up in 1939 to investigate nuclear reactors, isotope separation and nuclear explosives - amounted to no more than a few dozen scientists scattered across the country. Many of them did not even devote all of their time to nuclear-weapons research. The Manhattan Project, in contrast, employed thousands of scientists, engineers and technicians, and cost several billion dollars."

Technically a mistake. Yet the question of whether it was right to topple Hitler, or even to attempt the development of American atomic weapons, is a larger one which gets no clearer over the years. Even the facts, which we take to be the bedrock of reality are never as clear-cut as we would like them to be. Today, even after more than 60 years of historical research and the occupation of Germany, there are still claims that Hitler really had an atomic weapons project which was simply not recognized at the time. German historian Rainer Karlsch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitlers_Bombe) claims to have uncovered archival evidence to show "the development and testing of a possible ... radiological weapon (a so-called 'dirty bomb') or a hybrid-nuclear fusion weapon. Under supervision of the SS, from 1944–45, German scientists in Thuringia tested some form of "nuclear weapon", possibly a dirty bomb (for the differences between this and a standard fission weapon, see nuclear weapon design). Several hundred prisoners of war are alleged to have died as a result. Karlsch's primary evidence are alleged vouchers for the atomic weapon attempts, a preliminary plutonium bomb patent from the year 1941 (which had been known about, but not yet found), and conducted industrial archaeology on the remains of the first experimental German nuclear reactor."

The state of knowledge among US policymakers leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom is amply demonstrated in the video below. It's easy to be right -- in hindsight.


1_CepS8u9wQ&hl

But what does being right mean? As the recent NIE on Iran showed, what we "know" is constantly subject to revision. The Associated Press (http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/17364564.html) says that Hillary Clinton was "right in essence, wrong in details" of a campaign anecdote involving a woman's health care that she is accused of concocting. Now the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1207486215610&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) implies that a forthcoming report will show that mysterious September 6 Israeli Air Force strike on a Syrian nuclear weapons facility involved WMDs transferred to Syria by Saddam Hussein. Could Saddam have had a WMD program after all? Why not? After all, everyone is now as "sure" that Saddam didn't have nuclear weapons as they were once "sure" that he had them.

But the problem of retrospectively assessing the correctness of historical decisions is we can't tell whether making the "correct" decision would have led to a happier ending. Nobody can say how a world without the Manhattan Project would have have turned out. We don't know what lies down the path untaken. We only know where we are.


Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveller, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

[Yonivore]

David Corn (http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2008/04/iraq-petraeus-congress-testimony.html) is depressed at the inability or incapacity of Congressional Democrats to discredit the Surge.


The committee Democrats missed an opportunity to confront vigorously the front men for Bush's war in Iraq. It was not as if they hoisted a white flag. They did cite facts and figures that undermine the overall thrust of Petraeus' and Crocker's presentations. They raised pointed criticisms. They griped about the costs of the war. But it did not add up to much of an assault on Bush's policies. Given that congressional opposition to the war has lost much steam in the past year, perhaps this was to be expected. After all, Democrats in Congress appear to have given up on passing any legislation that would alter U.S. policies in Iraq. They know the public agrees with them on the war. (Warner noted that up to 80 percent of Americans don't believe the war was worth it.) But the Democrats have been stymied by a president who refuses to pull back in Iraq.

With Petraeus and Crocker spending two high-profile days on Capitol Hill to appear before four committees, the Democrats have a chance to undercut the White House story—which has gained traction within the media (if not within the public)—that the surge has been a success. In the opening round, they did not do much to inconvenience Petraeus and Crocker. It was not an entirely triumphant appearance for the pair, but it was good enough for anyone who favors a continuation of the current course in Iraq, and that includes their boss in the White House.
Corn thinks the "big news" in Petraeus testimony is that there isn't going to be a definite drawdown to pre-Surge levels any time soon. He may wish to consider another candidate for the headline. Admiral Fallon left CENTCOM amid rumor that he and Petraeus had clashed over the subject of how to respond to Iran. A recent spate of articles quoting Petraeus shifting the focus of operations to Iranian and Iranian backed groups suggests that the real context of the Surge and what follows is no longer driven by events in Iraq, but in its Islamic neighbor. That change in emphasis the "real news". Petraeus said in his testimony to Congress (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040801378.html):


Though a Sadr standdown order resolved the situation to a degree, the flare-up also highlighted the destructive role Iran has played in funding, training, arming, and directing the so-called Special Groups and generated renewed concern about Iran in the minds of many Iraqi leaders. Unchecked, the Special Groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.
In his testimony, Petraeus argued that a framework for the nonviolent resolution of ethnic differences now existed and would eventually succeed unless it was derailed. "Ethno-sectarian competition in many areas is now taking place more through debate and less through violence. In fact, the recent escalation of violence in Baghdad and southern Iraq was dealt with temporarily, at least, by most parties acknowledging that the rational way ahead is political dialogue rather than street fighting." Though many challenges remained the train was on track to reach the station unless someone dynamited it. The two parties who aim to do the dynamiting are al-Qaeda and Iran. Regarding Iran, Petraeus said:


We have also focused on the Special Groups. These elements are funded, trained, armed, and directed by Irans Qods Force, with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraqs seat of government two weeks ago, causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital, and requiring Iraqi and Coalition actions in response. Iraqi and Coalition leaders have repeatedly noted their desire that Iran live up to promises made by President Ahmedinajad and other senior Iranian leaders to stop their support for the Special Groups. However, nefarious activities by the Qods Force have continued, and Iraqi leaders now clearly recognize the threat they pose to Iraq. We should all watch Iranian actions closely in the weeks and months ahead, as they will show the kind of relationship Iran wishes to have with its neighbor and the character of future Iranian involvement in Iraq.
This statement must have hung in the air in Congress like a cloud of undissipated cigarette smoke, at least over whoever was listening, because it raised the question of 'what happens if Iran doesn't stop its campaign of subversion in Iraq?' What then? Petraeus provides no answer except to suggest that the key lies in strengthening Iraq against Iranian encroachments.

It's hard to say what lies ahead. My guess is that Petraeus himself doesn't know how the confrontation with Iran will play out. And that is the fascination with watching events unfold between Maliki and Sadr: it is freighted with information about how all sides (the Iraqi government, Iran and the Coalition) are going to deal with this conflict. Interestingly enough, Petraeus has explicitly mentioned the role of the "Lebanese Hezbollah" in training Sadr's men. This suggests that Petraeus regards the problem in theater-wide or regional terms, not simply as a problem that is confined to Iraq.

Corn seems to think that the proper role of the Democratic Congressmen was to discredit or attack the Surge. I would have thought their first duty was to listen to Petraeus and think about America's strategic choices in the region. But then it's 2008 and we all know what that year signifies.

The Ayatollah Sistani has sent a message (http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/04/ayatollah_sistani_on.php) to the Mahdi Army: "the law is the only authority in the country". The question of whether Sistani would pull Sadr's chestnuts out of the fire in the same way he saved him in his earlier adventures has been answered: not this time.


Sistani spoke through Jalal el Din al Saghier, a senior leader of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a rival political party to the Sadrist movement. Saghier was clear that Sistani did not sanction the Mahdi Army and called for it to disarm.

"Sistani has a clear opinion in this regard; the law is the only authority in the country," Saghier told Voices of Iraq, indicating Sistani supports Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki and the government in the effort to sideline the Mahdi Army. "Sistani asked the Mahdi army to give in weapons to the government."
The conflict between Maliki and Sadr was from the beginning a struggle for supremacy within the Shi'ite community in Iraq. It was not, as some have claimed, a kind of entertainment or show of strength staged by the Iranian leadership to demonstrate how they could switch the violence on and off in Iraq. As events as have shown the switch is no longer in Iranian hands.

Amir Taheri in the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/04102008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/irans_busted_iraq_bid_105852.htm?page=0) claims that that Maliki's actions against Sadr were a spoiling attack timed to break up a "Tet Offensive"-style operation designed to grab headlines in the crucial period before General Petraeus was due to testify before Congress. Teheran was counting on simultaneously seizing key communities in the belief that America would not have the reserves to intervene nor Maliki the nerve to act on his own. It was, Taheri writes,


a gamble that proved too costly. That's how analysts in Tehran describe events last month in Basra. Iran's state-run media have de facto confirmed that this was no spontaneous "uprising." Rather, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) tried to seize control of Iraq's second-largest city using local Shiite militias as a Trojan horse. ...

The Iranian plan - developed by Revolutionary Guard's Quds (Jerusalem) unit, which is in charge of "exporting the Islamic Revolution" - aimed at a quick victory. To achieve that, Tehran spent vast sums persuading local Iraqi security personnel to switch sides or to remain neutral.
Taheri's article claims the goal of the Iranian-sponsored Tet was far more immediate, designed to exploit the gap left by the British withdrawal before it could be filled by newly-raised Iraqi battalions. In this space they would run rampage. Then, according to Taheri, they hoped the Najaf clergy would broker a ceasefire to freeze the gains which Sadr's militia hoped to gain in the first hours of surprise. Unfortunately for Sadr, Maliki struck first. And as in boxing, no punch hurts so much as the haymaker that beats the one you were in the process of throwing. Taheri writes:


Tehran's decision to make the gamble was based on three assumptions:

* Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki wouldn't have the courage to defend Basra at the risk of burning his bridges with the Islamic Republic in Iran.

* The international force would be in no position to intervene in the Basra battle. The British, who controlled Basra until last December, had no desire to return, especially if this meant getting involved in fighting. The Americans, meanwhile, never had enough troops to finish off al-Qaeda-in-Iraq, let alone fight Iran and its local militias on a new front.

* The Shiite clerical leadership in Najaf would oppose intervention by the new Iraqi security forces in a battle that could lead to heavy Shiite casualties.
Thus the refusal of Sistani to intervene -- worse still his statement that "the law is the only authority in the country" -- meant the end of JAM's last hope. Sadr can no longer hope for salvation by listening for the bell. Any bells that he hears are ringing in his head.

But Sadr is really small potatoes though the many newspapermen perversely think of him as the uncrowned king of Iraq, and the "winner" of the recent confrontation. What recent events really signify is that Maliki, not Iran's Khamenei, is the master of southern Iraq, or at least that the control of southern Iraq is now in dispute between the two. This means that there are now two political power centers in the Shi'ite arc. One center is based in Teheran and the other is based in Iraq. While the hard reality of a properous Kurdistan and the presence of a Sunni population whose insurgency was only so recently beaten (and which may flare up upon provocation) means that the Shi'ites can never control all of Iraq, southern Iraq is now the locus of an alternative polity within Shi'ism. Thus, Iran's failed gamble is not only a foreign defeat for the Qods; it is a domestic political setback for the theocracy.

Because the stakes are so high Iran has no choice but to lick its wounds and try again. This is one fight Teheran really can't afford to lose. As Amir Taheri says, "this was just the first round. The struggle for Iraq isn't over." The second round, when it comes, will probably be a variation of the "Tet" strategy, just as this was.

Things are just a bit too nuanced for Democrats, I fear.

[xrayzebra]

^^Yoni all the dimms want to do is surrender as soon as possible
and create more social programs here in the good old USA. Things
are on track for them with the high price of oil and stopping the
trade agreements. Now if they can just nationalize a few industries.

[ChumpDumper]

I ripped off this blog to make myself look smart:
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2008/04/remaking-past.html

Iraq was a back idea poorly executed. Saddam wasn't going to do anything to the US. Period.

[PixelPusher]

Things are just a bit too nuanced for Democrats, I fear.
Iran's motives are just a bit too nuanced for Neocons, I fear.

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070809/070809_al-Maliki_vmed_1p.widec.jpg

[boutons_]

Yoni's bullshit is that Repugs/WH/neo-cunts were really serious about the WMD threat from Saddam.

Gates was the CIA functionary, 25 years ago, who started the movement in the early 80s to compromise the hard intelligence orientation of the CIA, to be replaced with intelligence that met political objectives. So the CIA purposely "missed" the collapse of its main enemy of decades, the USSR, so the MIC could keep enriching itself with Reagan ramping up the defense expenditure when there was no real USSR threat. It's all about the US plutocracy/kleptocarcy enriching itself, just like the Fed and Wall Street.

So dubya saying "oops, sorry, bad WMD intel" is nothing but BS covering up the fact that the CIA knew the intel was bad, cherry picked, Saddam was no WMD threat.

The neo-cunts decided, in the 90s, to "regime change" Saddam, install a pupper (now Maliki), occupy Iraq for decades, and obtain from whateever puppet the production-sharing oil leases for the US/UK oilcos that would last decades.

GWOT had fuck all do with invading Iran. The WTC was welcome sideshow and pretext for Repugs, raping the confidence of the American people, exploited to go after Iraq's oil.

[Yonivore]

Iran's motives are just a bit too nuanced for Neocons, I fear.

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070809/070809_al-Maliki_vmed_1p.widec.jpg
So, explain their motives.

[boutons_]

Motives?

The puppet Maliki wants the US out of Iraq, like the vast of Iraqis do.

"So?"

Shiite Maliki knows adjacent Shiite Iran is a source of support, for now and long term. Iraq doesn't want Iran IN Iraq, just like the Viet Cong took aid from ChiCom but didn't want China in VN, and China didn't occupy VN after the US left VN.

Territorialisms, nationalism, tribalism count. Iraqi and Iranians aren't the same tribe or ethnic group.

So now the stupid, bungling, incompetent, naive bully dubya finds his handpicked, supported-by-US puppet Maliki being more open friendly with US-enemy, axis-of-evil Iran, while telling dubya to get out of Iraq.

you're doing a heckuva job, dubya


Maliki attacks Muqtada trying to destroy his militia and his support among the people before holding the much delayed elections. Maliki's playing the disenfranchisement game like a good Repug.

Dammit, dubya and Iraq are so fucked up.

The surge has failed, even militarily. What has worked is Petraeus buying off the Sunnis for some peace. Money for peace never works long term. Petraeus hasn't "won" anything except to buy time until he retires and dubya and dickhead are out of office.

Dammit, dubya and Iraq are so fucked up.

[DarrinS]

Yoni's bullshit is that Repugs/WH/neo-cunts were really serious about the WMD threat from Saddam.

Gates was the CIA functionary, 25 years ago, who started the movement in the early 80s to compromise the hard intelligence orientation of the CIA, to be replaced with intelligence that met political objectives. So the CIA purposely "missed" the collapse of its main enemy of decades, the USSR, so the MIC could keep enriching itself with Reagan ramping up the defense expenditure when there was no real USSR threat. It's all about the US plutocracy/kleptocarcy enriching itself, just like the Fed and Wall Street.

So dubya saying "oops, sorry, bad WMD intel" is nothing but BS covering up the fact that the CIA knew the intel was bad, cherry picked, Saddam was no WMD threat.

The neo-cunts decided, in the 90s, to "regime change" Saddam, install a pupper (now Maliki), occupy Iraq for decades, and obtain from whateever puppet the production-sharing oil leases for the US/UK oilcos that would last decades.

GWOT had fuck all do with invading Iran. The WTC was welcome sideshow and pretext for Repugs, raping the confidence of the American people, exploited to go after Iraq's oil.



"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[ChumpDumper]

None of those guys gave the order to invade.

Or appointed the guys who mishandled the invasion and occupation so badly.

[boutons_]

The difference is that Clinton didn't start a war and dubya did.

Clinton was trying inspections, talking, whatever. Iraq was stable, Sunni/Baathist/secular Saddam served as a buffer against Shiite/theocracy Iran.

Not a great situation but "good enough", certainly infinitely better than what we've had since 2003 and will continue to have for many years. Iran's influence in Iraq and elsewhere is now much increased.

you're doing a heckuva job, dubya.


The decision to invade AND INDEFINITELY OCCUPY Iraq was primarily, above all a political decision, an imperialist grab for oil. Was made in the late 90s by the neo-cunts so it was totally unrelated to the WTC.

Iraq was not a threat to USA,
invading Iraq was not pre-emptive,
Iraq was not involved in the GWOT.

[PixelPusher]

So, explain their motives.

Diversification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversification_(finance))