Tony B'liar lied and lied again

[cancel2 2022]

I am not sure if the Chilcot Inquiry, which has just opened in London, has had much coverage in the US thus far. I suspect this will change soon enough.

Blair lied and lied again: Mandarins reveal that 10 days before Iraq invasion PM knew Saddam couldn't use WMDs



By Tim Shipman (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=y&authornamef=Tim+Shipman)
Last updated at 10:57 AM on 26th November 2009



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-0757CE75000005DC-793_233x423.jpg

No chemical weapons: Tony Blair speaks to British soldiers



The full extent of how Tony Blair misled the public about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction before and after the Iraq War was laid bare yesterday.
The Chilcot Inquiry heard that just ten days before the invasion of Iraq Mr Blair was told Saddam had no way of using weapons of mass destruction.
And weapons experts revealed that the former Prime Minister took Britain to war based on intelligence that his own spies rated just 'four out of ten' for accuracy.
On the eve of the conflict, intelligence chiefs told Mr Blair that the Iraqi dictator had no warheads capable of delivering chemical weapons, dramatically undermining the Prime Minister's case for war.

Yet Mr Blair gave the go-ahead for the invasion despite strong evidence that Iraq was no threat to Britain.
Then, after the war, officials had to tell Mr Blair not to 'declare success too rapidly' in the quest to find WMD in Iraq as he continued to make misleading statements claiming that 'massive evidence' had been found.

The revelations reinforce the case that intelligence evidence that Saddam was no threat was ignored by Mr Blair to take Britain to war on a false prospectus.
Sir William Ehrman, former Director General of Defence and Intelligence at the Foreign Office, said that on March 10, 2003 - ten days before the start of the war - British spies reported that Iraq had 'disassembled' what chemical weapons it had.
He said: 'On March 10 we got a report saying that the chemical weapons might have remained disassembled and that Saddam hadn't yet ordered their re-assembly and he might lack warheads capable of effective dispersal of agents.'
The evidence was summarised in a Joint Intelligence Committee report circulated in Whitehall on March 19.
Sir William blamed 'contradictory intelligence' for the failure to put the brakes on.




http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-0757956F000005DC-492_468x294.jpg

Blood on your hands: A protester dressed as Tony Blair outside the inquiry into the Iraq war

But Tim Dowse, Foreign Office head of counter-proliferation between 2000 and 2002, also revealed that a month earlier, in February 2003, UN weapons inspector Hans Blix had made clear that he did not believe the mythical weapons existed.

'He raised it at a meeting with ministers,' Mr Dowse said.


More...



What an insult to the dead: Brown accused of 'suffocating' Iraq inquiry by blocking incriminating evidence (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230993/Brown-accused-suffocating-Iraq-inquiry-blocking-incriminating-evidence.html)
UK anger as America refuses to share secrets of new radar-evading fighter jet... that Britain helped pay for (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230724/UK-anger-America-refuses-share-secrets-new-radar-evading-Lockheed-F35-fighter-jet--Britain-helped-pay-for.html)
British officials ruled against 'illegal' ousting of Saddam, Iraq inquiry told (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230364/Iraq-war-inquiry-U-S-administration-discussed-regime-change-overthrowing-Saddam-TWO-years-invasion.html)
Defence Secretary blasts Obama for 'dither' over more troops for Afghanistan (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230569/Defence-Secretary-Bumbling-Bob-Ainsworth-blames-Barack-Obama-British-publics-disquiet-Afghan-war.html)
9/11 as it happened: Website releases pager messages sent on day of attacks (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1230903/9-11-happened-Website-releases-pager-messages-sent-day-attacks.html)


The most damning testimony concerned Downing Street's decision to write the now infamous dossier in September 2002 to make the case for war.

Both WMD experts made clear that 'huge gaps' in intelligence on Iraq were flagged up to ministers, leaving them with no excuse when the caveats were removed from the final dossier.

Sir William said experts concluded that there never was 'an imminent threat' from Iraq, describing it only as a 'clear and present threat'.



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-073CE5C0000005DC-57_224x423.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-07565B6A000005DC-488_224x423.jpg




Risk: Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il were of greater concern than Iraq
He explained that intelligence knowledge of Saddam's weapons programmes was 'patchy' in May 2001, 'sporadic and patchy' in March 2002, and revealed that an August 2002 briefing note for ministers admitted 'we know very little' about Iraq's chemical and biological weapons work since 1998, when weapons inspectors were ejected.

Both witnesses said that in the years before the war Iraq was not even seen as the main threat.
Sir William said: 'In terms of nuclear and missiles, I think Iran, North Korea and Libya were probably of greater concern than Iraq.' Mr Dowse added: 'It wasn't top of the list.'


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-0066E05300000258-470_233x423.jpg

Saddam Hussein had only 'sketchy' links to Al Qaeda


The Government also tried to justify the war in Iraq because WMDs could fall into the hands of terrorists. But Mr Dowse said that Saddam had only 'sketchy' links to Al Qaeda, had 'stepped further back' after the 9/11 attacks and had never passed WMD to terrorists.

By September 2002, as the dossier was being written, Sir William said the intelligence about Saddam's WMD 'remained limited'.
He added: 'The biggest gap in all of that, and one which ministers were extremely well aware of and used extensively, was the lack of interviews with scientists.'
Yet in his foreword to the dodgy dossier, Mr Blair claimed 'beyond doubt that Saddam has continued to produce biological weapons'.

That claim was condemned by the Butler Report into the intelligence in 2004 as 'not a statement it was possible to make' because 'intelligence does not have that degree of certainty'.
Mr Dowse, who worked on the dossier, made clear he had not seen Mr Blair's foreword before publication and took aim at the former Prime Minister, saying: 'With hindsight the Butler committee made a fair comment.'
Sir William admitted that weapons inspectors said that six out of ten intelligence reports proved inaccurate. 'Four out of ten as a strike rate is pretty good,' he said.

But historian Sir Lawrence Freedman, for the inquiry, interrupted: 'Not when you are going to war.'
Mr Dowse later cast serious doubt on the accuracy of Mr Blair's claims after the war, when the Iraq Study Group (ISG) was in the process of exposing that there was no WMD in Iraq.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-0758606E000005DC-767_468x286.jpg

Day one: Chairman John Chilcot (3rd L) speaks during the Iraq Inquiry in central London


In December 2003, nine months after the invasion, Mr Blair was still insisting: 'The ISG has already found massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories.'
Mr Dowse said: 'I did not advise him to use those words', and admitted that officials had told ministers not to 'declare success too rapidly'.
He said: 'My concern was that we should not announce things until we were absolutely certain of our ground because it would have been a disaster, frankly, in PR terms.'
Last night LibDem foreign affairs spokesman Edward Davey said: 'This new evidence shows that the intelligence was, if anything, pointing towards Iraq becoming less of a threat.
'A leader of courage and conviction would have used such evidence to halt the drumbeat for war, but Blair just turned a blind eye to intelligence that contradicted his case.'

And 45-minute warning was misleading too...

Tony Blair's claim that Saddam Hussein could hit British targets in just 45 minutes was misleading, the Iraq Inquiry heard.
The claim was the centrepiece of the so-called dodgy dossier published by Downing Street in September 2002 to justify the case for war.
But Tim Dowse, Foreign Office head of counter proliferation when the dossier was being drawn up, said that it only ever referred to short-range battlefield rockets, not long-range missiles.
That crucial distinction was omitted from the dossier and encouraged the drift to war.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-075CFD49000005DC-984_468x555.jpg

How 'threat' was reported

Mr Dowse said: 'When I saw the report I didn't give it any particular significance because it didn't seem out of line with what we generally assessed to be Iraq's capability in terms of weapons.
'I assumed it was referring to multibarrelled rocket launchers that could be rapidly deployed in a battlefield. It subsequently took on a rather iconic status that I didn't think those of us who saw the initial report gave it.'
Asked about suggestions that the 45-minute claim referred to WMDs which could be used by Iraq to strike another nation, Mr Dowse said: 'I don't think we ever said that it was for use in a ballistic missile in that way.'
Inquiry panel member Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman pointed out: 'But you didn't say it wasn't.'
But Mr Dowse admitted that he had pushed for the inclusion of a paragraph on how some Iraqi missiles could hit British bases in Cyprus.
That became conflated with the 45 minute claim at the time, leaving many members of the public with the impression that weapons of mass destruction could be deployed on longrange missiles to hit British targets.
The dossier eventually read that Saddam's 'military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them. I am quite clear that Saddam will go to extreme lengths, indeed has already done so, to hide these weapons and avoid giving them up'.
In his foreword, Mr Blair wrote: 'What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons, that he continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and that he has been able to extend the range of his ballistic missile programme.'





Explore more:



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230824/Iraq-fourth-WMD-risk-list-inquiry-hears.html#ixzz0Y0Jj8gN3

[Lowaicue]

I am not sure if the Chilcot Inquiry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilcot_Inquiry), which has just opened in London, has had much coverage in the US thus far. I suspect this will change soon enough.

Blair lied and lied again: Mandarins reveal that 10 days before Iraq invasion PM knew Saddam couldn't use WMDs



By Tim Shipman (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=y&authornamef=Tim+Shipman)
Last updated at 10:57 AM on 26th November 2009



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-0757CE75000005DC-793_233x423.jpg

No chemical weapons: Tony Blair speaks to British soldiers



The full extent of how Tony Blair misled the public about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction before and after the Iraq War was laid bare yesterday.
The Chilcot Inquiry heard that just ten days before the invasion of Iraq Mr Blair was told Saddam had no way of using weapons of mass destruction.
And weapons experts revealed that the former Prime Minister took Britain to war based on intelligence that his own spies rated just 'four out of ten' for accuracy.
On the eve of the conflict, intelligence chiefs told Mr Blair that the Iraqi dictator had no warheads capable of delivering chemical weapons, dramatically undermining the Prime Minister's case for war.

Yet Mr Blair gave the go-ahead for the invasion despite strong evidence that Iraq was no threat to Britain.
Then, after the war, officials had to tell Mr Blair not to 'declare success too rapidly' in the quest to find WMD in Iraq as he continued to make misleading statements claiming that 'massive evidence' had been found.

The revelations reinforce the case that intelligence evidence that Saddam was no threat was ignored by Mr Blair to take Britain to war on a false prospectus.
Sir William Ehrman, former Director General of Defence and Intelligence at the Foreign Office, said that on March 10, 2003 - ten days before the start of the war - British spies reported that Iraq had 'disassembled' what chemical weapons it had.
He said: 'On March 10 we got a report saying that the chemical weapons might have remained disassembled and that Saddam hadn't yet ordered their re-assembly and he might lack warheads capable of effective dispersal of agents.'
The evidence was summarised in a Joint Intelligence Committee report circulated in Whitehall on March 19.
Sir William blamed 'contradictory intelligence' for the failure to put the brakes on.




http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-0757956F000005DC-492_468x294.jpg

Blood on your hands: A protester dressed as Tony Blair outside the inquiry into the Iraq war

But Tim Dowse, Foreign Office head of counter-proliferation between 2000 and 2002, also revealed that a month earlier, in February 2003, UN weapons inspector Hans Blix had made clear that he did not believe the mythical weapons existed.

'He raised it at a meeting with ministers,' Mr Dowse said.


More...



What an insult to the dead: Brown accused of 'suffocating' Iraq inquiry by blocking incriminating evidence (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230993/Brown-accused-suffocating-Iraq-inquiry-blocking-incriminating-evidence.html)
UK anger as America refuses to share secrets of new radar-evading fighter jet... that Britain helped pay for (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230724/UK-anger-America-refuses-share-secrets-new-radar-evading-Lockheed-F35-fighter-jet--Britain-helped-pay-for.html)
British officials ruled against 'illegal' ousting of Saddam, Iraq inquiry told (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230364/Iraq-war-inquiry-U-S-administration-discussed-regime-change-overthrowing-Saddam-TWO-years-invasion.html)
Defence Secretary blasts Obama for 'dither' over more troops for Afghanistan (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230569/Defence-Secretary-Bumbling-Bob-Ainsworth-blames-Barack-Obama-British-publics-disquiet-Afghan-war.html)
9/11 as it happened: Website releases pager messages sent on day of attacks (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1230903/9-11-happened-Website-releases-pager-messages-sent-day-attacks.html)


The most damning testimony concerned Downing Street's decision to write the now infamous dossier in September 2002 to make the case for war.

Both WMD experts made clear that 'huge gaps' in intelligence on Iraq were flagged up to ministers, leaving them with no excuse when the caveats were removed from the final dossier.

Sir William said experts concluded that there never was 'an imminent threat' from Iraq, describing it only as a 'clear and present threat'.



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-073CE5C0000005DC-57_224x423.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-07565B6A000005DC-488_224x423.jpg




Risk: Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il were of greater concern than Iraq
He explained that intelligence knowledge of Saddam's weapons programmes was 'patchy' in May 2001, 'sporadic and patchy' in March 2002, and revealed that an August 2002 briefing note for ministers admitted 'we know very little' about Iraq's chemical and biological weapons work since 1998, when weapons inspectors were ejected.

Both witnesses said that in the years before the war Iraq was not even seen as the main threat.
Sir William said: 'In terms of nuclear and missiles, I think Iran, North Korea and Libya were probably of greater concern than Iraq.' Mr Dowse added: 'It wasn't top of the list.'


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-0066E05300000258-470_233x423.jpg

Saddam Hussein had only 'sketchy' links to Al Qaeda


The Government also tried to justify the war in Iraq because WMDs could fall into the hands of terrorists. But Mr Dowse said that Saddam had only 'sketchy' links to Al Qaeda, had 'stepped further back' after the 9/11 attacks and had never passed WMD to terrorists.

By September 2002, as the dossier was being written, Sir William said the intelligence about Saddam's WMD 'remained limited'.
He added: 'The biggest gap in all of that, and one which ministers were extremely well aware of and used extensively, was the lack of interviews with scientists.'
Yet in his foreword to the dodgy dossier, Mr Blair claimed 'beyond doubt that Saddam has continued to produce biological weapons'.

That claim was condemned by the Butler Report into the intelligence in 2004 as 'not a statement it was possible to make' because 'intelligence does not have that degree of certainty'.
Mr Dowse, who worked on the dossier, made clear he had not seen Mr Blair's foreword before publication and took aim at the former Prime Minister, saying: 'With hindsight the Butler committee made a fair comment.'
Sir William admitted that weapons inspectors said that six out of ten intelligence reports proved inaccurate. 'Four out of ten as a strike rate is pretty good,' he said.

But historian Sir Lawrence Freedman, for the inquiry, interrupted: 'Not when you are going to war.'
Mr Dowse later cast serious doubt on the accuracy of Mr Blair's claims after the war, when the Iraq Study Group (ISG) was in the process of exposing that there was no WMD in Iraq.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-0758606E000005DC-767_468x286.jpg

Day one: Chairman John Chilcot (3rd L) speaks during the Iraq Inquiry in central London


In December 2003, nine months after the invasion, Mr Blair was still insisting: 'The ISG has already found massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories.'
Mr Dowse said: 'I did not advise him to use those words', and admitted that officials had told ministers not to 'declare success too rapidly'.
He said: 'My concern was that we should not announce things until we were absolutely certain of our ground because it would have been a disaster, frankly, in PR terms.'
Last night LibDem foreign affairs spokesman Edward Davey said: 'This new evidence shows that the intelligence was, if anything, pointing towards Iraq becoming less of a threat.
'A leader of courage and conviction would have used such evidence to halt the drumbeat for war, but Blair just turned a blind eye to intelligence that contradicted his case.'

And 45-minute warning was misleading too...

Tony Blair's claim that Saddam Hussein could hit British targets in just 45 minutes was misleading, the Iraq Inquiry heard.
The claim was the centrepiece of the so-called dodgy dossier published by Downing Street in September 2002 to justify the case for war.
But Tim Dowse, Foreign Office head of counter proliferation when the dossier was being drawn up, said that it only ever referred to short-range battlefield rockets, not long-range missiles.
That crucial distinction was omitted from the dossier and encouraged the drift to war.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-075CFD49000005DC-984_468x555.jpg

How 'threat' was reported

Mr Dowse said: 'When I saw the report I didn't give it any particular significance because it didn't seem out of line with what we generally assessed to be Iraq's capability in terms of weapons.
'I assumed it was referring to multibarrelled rocket launchers that could be rapidly deployed in a battlefield. It subsequently took on a rather iconic status that I didn't think those of us who saw the initial report gave it.'
Asked about suggestions that the 45-minute claim referred to WMDs which could be used by Iraq to strike another nation, Mr Dowse said: 'I don't think we ever said that it was for use in a ballistic missile in that way.'
Inquiry panel member Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman pointed out: 'But you didn't say it wasn't.'
But Mr Dowse admitted that he had pushed for the inclusion of a paragraph on how some Iraqi missiles could hit British bases in Cyprus.
That became conflated with the 45 minute claim at the time, leaving many members of the public with the impression that weapons of mass destruction could be deployed on longrange missiles to hit British targets.
The dossier eventually read that Saddam's 'military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them. I am quite clear that Saddam will go to extreme lengths, indeed has already done so, to hide these weapons and avoid giving them up'.
In his foreword, Mr Blair wrote: 'What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons, that he continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and that he has been able to extend the range of his ballistic missile programme.'





Explore more:



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230824/Iraq-fourth-WMD-risk-list-inquiry-hears.html#ixzz0Y0Jj8gN3

Well done, Tom. I have been waiting for this. I can remember some of these points being raised on the WOT board prior to the invasion and the arguments that ensued.
Clearly one of the reasons he didnt get the European job.

[/MSG/]

Funny, I saw plenty of chemical weapons during my tour.

[cancel2 2022]

Well done, Tom. I have been waiting for this. I can remember some of these points being raised on the WOT board prior to the invasion and the arguments that ensued.
Clearly one of the reasons he didnt get the European job.

There is much more to come out, hopefully Bush, Blair et al will be seen to be the charlatans they really are.

[cancel2 2022]

Funny, I saw plenty of chemical weapons during my tour.

So please elucidate, if you have personal experience I would like to know.

[/MSG/]

I've mentioned it before a couple times, maybe you weren't active in those threads.

Anyways I did security for EOD (the bomb squad) and supply convoys. During a few stops I saw several stashes of disassembled chemical shells for howitzers. Sarin gas, Mustard gas, and a couple others that I can't remember (Arabic markings and all). Anyways I asked around and it was our guys who discovered them and disassembled them. Unfortunately I wasn't allowed closer then a few meters, but it was at least a couple hundered each time I saw them.

[cancel2 2022]

I've mentioned it before a couple times, maybe you weren't active in those threads.

Anyways I did security for EOD (the bomb squad) and supply convoys. During a few stops I saw several stashes of disassembled chemical shells for howitzers. Sarin gas, Mustard gas, and a couple others that I can't remember (Arabic markings and all). Anyways I asked around and it was our guys who discovered them and disassembled them. Unfortunately I wasn't allowed closer then a few meters, but it was at least a couple hundered each time I saw them.

I believe that this report (http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Research/2004WMDE.htm) covers this point.

[/MSG/]

I believe that this report (http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Research/2004WMDE.htm) covers this point.

Somewhat, as those aren't the kind of weapons to attack another nation. They are however WMDs. I will agree with you that the threat of a NBC attack was exaggerated. But to say that Saddam's WMD stockpile was non-existent is wrong.

[cancel2 2022]

Somewhat, as those aren't the kind of weapons to attack another nation. They are however WMDs. I will agree with you that the threat of a NBC attack was exaggerated. But to say that Saddam's WMD stockpile was non-existent is wrong.

The main problem is that Bush was discussing regime change even before he became President and he was looking for a reason to invade Iraq.

[/MSG/]

The main problem is that Bush was discussing regime change even before he became President and he was looking for a reason to invade Iraq.

I wouldn't say it's a problem until the true reason we invaded is disclosed (oil isn't the reason).

[cancel2 2022]

I wouldn't say it's a problem until the true reason we invaded is disclosed (oil isn't the reason).

Here is something for you to think about.

US discussed Iraq regime change a month after Bush took office, senior British officials say


By John Byrne (http://rawstory.com/2009/author/johnb/)
Tuesday, November 24th, 2009 -- 9:13 am
html .fb_share_link { padding:2px 0 0 20px; height:16px; background:url(http://b.static.ak.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/zAB5S/hash/4273uaqa.gif) no-repeat top left; }Share on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=%3Curl%3E) http://rawstory.com/2009/wp-content/themes/revamped/img/stumbler.png Stumble This! (http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://rawstory.com/2009/11/discussed-iraq-regime-change-month-bush-office-british/&title=US%20discussed%20Iraq%20regime%20change%20a% 20month%20after%20Bush%20took%20office,%20senior%2 0British%20officials%20say)







http://www.rawstory.com/images/new/blair.jpgThe chairman of the British Joint Intelligence Committee in 2001 told investigators Monday that elements of the Bush Administration were pushing for regime change in Iraq in early 2001, months before the 9/11 attacks and two years before President George W. Bush formally announced the Iraq war.
Sir Peter Ricketts, now-Secretary at the Foreign Office, said that US and British officials believed (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-discussing-iraq-regime-change-two-years-before-war-1826635.html) at the time that measures against Iraq were failing: "sanctions, an incentive to lift sanctions if Saddam allowed the United Weapons inspectors to return, and the 'no fly' zones over the north and south of the country."
Ricketts also said that US officials had raised the prospect of regime change in Iraq, asserting that the British weren't supportive of the idea at the time.
"We were conscious that there were other voices in Washington, some of whom were talking about regime change," Ricketts said.
The head of the British Foreign Office's Middle East department, Sir William Patey, told the inquiry that his office was aware of regime change talk from some parts of the Bush Administration shortly after they took office in 2001.

Story continues below...
"In February 2001 we were aware of these drum beats from Washington and internally we discussed it," Patey said. "Our policy was to stay away from that."
"We didn't think Saddam was a good thing, and it would be great if he went, but we didn't have an explicit policy for trying to get rid of him," he added.
A third official, who was policy director for the British Defense Ministry at the time, said the discussions between the US and Britain "weren't serious."
"The question of regime overthrow was, I recall, mentioned but it was quite clear that there was no proposition being put in our direction on that," he quipped.
News of the British officials comments were first reported Tuesday in the UK Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-discussing-iraq-regime-change-two-years-before-war-1826635.html).
Interestingly, the head of Britain's Intelligence Committee told investigators that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared to be in charge of US policy on Iraq until the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
"Up till then we felt that dealing with the State Department, we were dealing with the people who were forming the policy," Ricketts said.
British investigators are probing how Britain got into the Iraq war and if officials misled the public. Already, a leaked report has shown that then-Prime Minister Tony Blair covered up (http://rawstory.com/2009/11/secret-report-blair-misled-public-2002/) British military plans for a full Iraq invasion throughout 2002, claiming at the time that Britain's objective was "disarmament, not regime change."
According to Britain's Sunday Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6625415/Iraq-report-Secret-papers-reveal-blunders-and-concealment.html), the leaked report condemns the almost complete absence of contingency planning as a potential breach of Geneva Convention obligations to safeguard civilians. Coalition forces were “ill-prepared and equipped to deal with the problems in the first 100 days” of the occupation.
Blair's lies to Parliament and the public, widespread problems with the Army's supply chain and radio systems, and poor planning for "once Baghdad had fallen" are now confirmed in the public eye.
Particularly egregious are statements Blair made to Parliament in the build up to the invasion. On Sept 24, 2002, Mr. Blair told members of the British Parliament, “In respect of any military options, we are not at the stage of deciding those options but, of course, it is important — should we get to that point — that we have the fullest possible discussion of those options.”

[TuTu Monroe]

Oh, Christ, Clinton wanted regime change too.


Here is something for you to think about.

US discussed Iraq regime change a month after Bush took office, senior British officials say


By John Byrne (http://rawstory.com/2009/author/johnb/)
Tuesday, November 24th, 2009 -- 9:13 am
html .fb_share_link { padding:2px 0 0 20px; height:16px; background:url(http://b.static.ak.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/zAB5S/hash/4273uaqa.gif) no-repeat top left; }Share on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=%3Curl%3E) http://rawstory.com/2009/wp-content/themes/revamped/img/stumbler.png Stumble This! (http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://rawstory.com/2009/11/discussed-iraq-regime-change-month-bush-office-british/&title=US%20discussed%20Iraq%20regime%20change%20a% 20month%20after%20Bush%20took%20office,%20senior%2 0British%20officials%20say)







http://www.rawstory.com/images/new/blair.jpgThe chairman of the British Joint Intelligence Committee in 2001 told investigators Monday that elements of the Bush Administration were pushing for regime change in Iraq in early 2001, months before the 9/11 attacks and two years before President George W. Bush formally announced the Iraq war.
Sir Peter Ricketts, now-Secretary at the Foreign Office, said that US and British officials believed (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-discussing-iraq-regime-change-two-years-before-war-1826635.html) at the time that measures against Iraq were failing: "sanctions, an incentive to lift sanctions if Saddam allowed the United Weapons inspectors to return, and the 'no fly' zones over the north and south of the country."
Ricketts also said that US officials had raised the prospect of regime change in Iraq, asserting that the British weren't supportive of the idea at the time.
"We were conscious that there were other voices in Washington, some of whom were talking about regime change," Ricketts said.
The head of the British Foreign Office's Middle East department, Sir William Patey, told the inquiry that his office was aware of regime change talk from some parts of the Bush Administration shortly after they took office in 2001.

Story continues below...
"In February 2001 we were aware of these drum beats from Washington and internally we discussed it," Patey said. "Our policy was to stay away from that."
"We didn't think Saddam was a good thing, and it would be great if he went, but we didn't have an explicit policy for trying to get rid of him," he added.
A third official, who was policy director for the British Defense Ministry at the time, said the discussions between the US and Britain "weren't serious."
"The question of regime overthrow was, I recall, mentioned but it was quite clear that there was no proposition being put in our direction on that," he quipped.
News of the British officials comments were first reported Tuesday in the UK Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-discussing-iraq-regime-change-two-years-before-war-1826635.html).
Interestingly, the head of Britain's Intelligence Committee told investigators that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell appeared to be in charge of US policy on Iraq until the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
"Up till then we felt that dealing with the State Department, we were dealing with the people who were forming the policy," Ricketts said.
British investigators are probing how Britain got into the Iraq war and if officials misled the public. Already, a leaked report has shown that then-Prime Minister Tony Blair covered up (http://rawstory.com/2009/11/secret-report-blair-misled-public-2002/) British military plans for a full Iraq invasion throughout 2002, claiming at the time that Britain's objective was "disarmament, not regime change."
According to Britain's Sunday Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6625415/Iraq-report-Secret-papers-reveal-blunders-and-concealment.html), the leaked report condemns the almost complete absence of contingency planning as a potential breach of Geneva Convention obligations to safeguard civilians. Coalition forces were “ill-prepared and equipped to deal with the problems in the first 100 days” of the occupation.
Blair's lies to Parliament and the public, widespread problems with the Army's supply chain and radio systems, and poor planning for "once Baghdad had fallen" are now confirmed in the public eye.
Particularly egregious are statements Blair made to Parliament in the build up to the invasion. On Sept 24, 2002, Mr. Blair told members of the British Parliament, “In respect of any military options, we are not at the stage of deciding those options but, of course, it is important — should we get to that point — that we have the fullest possible discussion of those options.”

[NOVA]

The main problem is that Bush was discussing regime change even before he became President and he was looking for a reason to invade Iraq.

Very interesting article....

to be accurate...regime change was the official policy of the US during the Clinton administration......so the article US discussed Iraq regime change a month after Bush took office (2001)....By John Byrne
is quite misleading to begin with.....regime change was already official US policy.....

Spinning history might work for some pinheads, but the facts will not change .....

[NOVA]

I am not sure if the Chilcot Inquiry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilcot_Inquiry), which has just opened in London, has had much coverage in the US thus far. I suspect this will change soon enough.

Blair lied and lied again: Mandarins reveal that 10 days before Iraq invasion PM knew Saddam couldn't use WMDs



By Tim Shipman (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=y&authornamef=Tim+Shipman)
Last updated at 10:57 AM on 26th November 2009



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-0757CE75000005DC-793_233x423.jpg

No chemical weapons: Tony Blair speaks to British soldiers



The full extent of how Tony Blair misled the public about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction before and after the Iraq War was laid bare yesterday.
The Chilcot Inquiry heard that just ten days before the invasion of Iraq Mr Blair was told Saddam had no way of using weapons of mass destruction.
And weapons experts revealed that the former Prime Minister took Britain to war based on intelligence that his own spies rated just 'four out of ten' for accuracy.
On the eve of the conflict, intelligence chiefs told Mr Blair that the Iraqi dictator had no warheads capable of delivering chemical weapons, dramatically undermining the Prime Minister's case for war.

Yet Mr Blair gave the go-ahead for the invasion despite strong evidence that Iraq was no threat to Britain.
Then, after the war, officials had to tell Mr Blair not to 'declare success too rapidly' in the quest to find WMD in Iraq as he continued to make misleading statements claiming that 'massive evidence' had been found.

The revelations reinforce the case that intelligence evidence that Saddam was no threat was ignored by Mr Blair to take Britain to war on a false prospectus.
Sir William Ehrman, former Director General of Defence and Intelligence at the Foreign Office, said that on March 10, 2003 - ten days before the start of the war -
British spies reported that Iraq had 'disassembled' what chemical weapons it had.

He said: 'On March 10 we got a report saying that the chemical weapons might have remained disassembled and that Saddam hadn't yet ordered their re-assembly and he might lack warheads capable of effective dispersal of agents.'

The evidence was summarised in a Joint Intelligence Committee report circulated in Whitehall on March 19.
Sir William blamed 'contradictory intelligence' for the failure to put the brakes on.

So..Saddam disassembled Chem Weapons....DID HE OR DIDN'T HE...he "might have" ???
seems the intell was ambiguous at best....flimsy evidence for calling a man a liar....


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-0757956F000005DC-492_468x294.jpg

Blood on your hands: A protester dressed as Tony Blair outside the inquiry into the Iraq war

But Tim Dowse, Foreign Office head of counter-proliferation between 2000 and 2002, also revealed that a month earlier, in February 2003, UN weapons inspector Hans Blix had made clear that he did not believe the mythical weapons existed.



'He raised it at a meeting with ministers,' Mr Dowse said.


More...



What an insult to the dead: Brown accused of 'suffocating' Iraq inquiry by blocking incriminating evidence (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230993/Brown-accused-suffocating-Iraq-inquiry-blocking-incriminating-evidence.html)
UK anger as America refuses to share secrets of new radar-evading fighter jet... that Britain helped pay for (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230724/UK-anger-America-refuses-share-secrets-new-radar-evading-Lockheed-F35-fighter-jet--Britain-helped-pay-for.html)
British officials ruled against 'illegal' ousting of Saddam, Iraq inquiry told (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230364/Iraq-war-inquiry-U-S-administration-discussed-regime-change-overthrowing-Saddam-TWO-years-invasion.html)
Defence Secretary blasts Obama for 'dither' over more troops for Afghanistan (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230569/Defence-Secretary-Bumbling-Bob-Ainsworth-blames-Barack-Obama-British-publics-disquiet-Afghan-war.html)
9/11 as it happened: Website releases pager messages sent on day of attacks (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1230903/9-11-happened-Website-releases-pager-messages-sent-day-attacks.html)


The most damning testimony concerned Downing Street's decision to write the now infamous dossier in September 2002 to make the case for war.

Both WMD experts made clear that 'huge gaps' in intelligence on Iraq were flagged up to ministers, leaving them with no excuse when the caveats were removed from the final dossier.

Sir William said experts concluded that there never was 'an imminent threat' from Iraq, describing it only as a 'clear and present threat'.

'an imminent threat' from Iraq,OR a 'clear and present threat'. ?

The US suspected Muslim fanatics were a threat to the country before 9/11
certainly a clear and present danger according to Bill Clinton....
So was it wise for the US to not treat the threat as an "imminent" danger..?
In hindsight, it obviously was not the right attitude to take....

If the UK were hit with chem or bio weapons, would this distinction of "imminent threat" or "clear and present threat" make any damn difference ?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-073CE5C0000005DC-57_224x423.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-07565B6A000005DC-488_224x423.jpg




Risk: Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il were of greater concern than Iraq
He explained that intelligence knowledge of Saddam's weapons programmes was 'patchy' in May 2001, 'sporadic and patchy' in March 2002, and revealed that an August 2002 briefing note for ministers admitted 'we know very little' about Iraq's chemical and biological weapons work since 1998, when weapons inspectors were ejected.

Both witnesses said that in the years before the war Iraq was not even seen as the main threat.
Sir William said: 'In terms of nuclear and missiles, I think Iran, North Korea and Libya were probably of greater concern than Iraq.' Mr Dowse added: 'It wasn't top of the list.'


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-0066E05300000258-470_233x423.jpg

Saddam Hussein had only 'sketchy' links to Al Qaeda


The Government also tried to justify the war in Iraq because WMDs could fall into the hands of terrorists. But Mr Dowse said that Saddam had only 'sketchy' links to Al Qaeda, had 'stepped further back' after the 9/11 attacks and had never passed WMD to terrorists.

By September 2002, as the dossier was being written, Sir William said the intelligence about Saddam's WMD 'remained limited'.
He added: 'The biggest gap in all of that, and one which ministers were extremely well aware of and used extensively, was the lack of interviews with scientists.'
Yet in his foreword to the dodgy dossier, Mr Blair claimed 'beyond doubt that Saddam has continued to produce biological weapons'.

That claim was condemned by the Butler Report into the intelligence in 2004 as 'not a statement it was possible to make' because 'intelligence does not have that degree of certainty'.
Mr Dowse, who worked on the dossier, made clear he had not seen Mr Blair's foreword before publication and took aim at the former Prime Minister, saying: 'With hindsight the Butler committee made a fair comment.'
Sir William admitted that weapons inspectors said that six out of ten intelligence reports proved inaccurate. 'Four out of ten as a strike rate is pretty good,' he said.

But historian Sir Lawrence Freedman, for the inquiry, interrupted: 'Not when you are going to war.'
Mr Dowse later cast serious doubt on the accuracy of Mr Blair's claims after the war, when the Iraq Study Group (ISG) was in the process of exposing that there was no WMD in Iraq.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-0758606E000005DC-767_468x286.jpg

Day one: Chairman John Chilcot (3rd L) speaks during the Iraq Inquiry in central London


In December 2003, nine months after the invasion, Mr Blair was still insisting: 'The ISG has already found massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories.'
Mr Dowse said: 'I did not advise him to use those words', and admitted that officials had told ministers not to 'declare success too rapidly'.
He said: 'My concern was that we should not announce things until we were absolutely certain of our ground because it would have been a disaster, frankly, in PR terms.'
Last night LibDem foreign affairs spokesman Edward Davey said: 'This new evidence shows that the intelligence was, if anything, pointing towards Iraq becoming less of a threat.
'A leader of courage and conviction would have used such evidence to halt the drumbeat for war, but Blair just turned a blind eye to intelligence that contradicted his case.'

And 45-minute warning was misleading too...

Tony Blair's claim that Saddam Hussein could hit British targets in just 45 minutes was misleading, the Iraq Inquiry heard.
The claim was the centrepiece of the so-called dodgy dossier published by Downing Street in September 2002 to justify the case for war.
But Tim Dowse, Foreign Office head of counter proliferation when the dossier was being drawn up, said that it only ever referred to short-range battlefield rockets, not long-range missiles.
That crucial distinction was omitted from the dossier and encouraged the drift to war.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-075CFD49000005DC-984_468x555.jpg

How 'threat' was reported

Mr Dowse said: 'When I saw the report I didn't give it any particular significance because it didn't seem out of line with what we generally assessed to be Iraq's capability in terms of weapons.
'I assumed it was referring to multibarrelled rocket launchers that could be rapidly deployed in a battlefield. It subsequently took on a rather iconic status that I didn't think those of us who saw the initial report gave it.'
Asked about suggestions that the 45-minute claim referred to WMDs which could be used by Iraq to strike another nation, Mr Dowse said: 'I don't think we ever said that it was for use in a ballistic missile in that way.'
Inquiry panel member Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman pointed out: 'But you didn't say it wasn't.'
But Mr Dowse admitted that he had pushed for the inclusion of a paragraph on how some Iraqi missiles could hit British bases in Cyprus.
That became conflated with the 45 minute claim at the time, leaving many members of the public with the impression that weapons of mass destruction could be deployed on longrange missiles to hit British targets.
The dossier eventually read that Saddam's 'military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them. I am quite clear that Saddam will go to extreme lengths, indeed has already done so, to hide these weapons and avoid giving them up'.
In his foreword, Mr Blair wrote: 'What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons, that he continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and that he has been able to extend the range of his ballistic missile programme.'





Explore more:



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230824/Iraq-fourth-WMD-risk-list-inquiry-hears.html#ixzz0Y0Jj8gN3

Without nit-picking the entire article, I find it distasteful to call a man a liar with 20-20 hindsight because he was not correct in weighing the intell he had to work with and was privy to at an earlier time....I'll leave that to the left wing hacks,....the blame game,,, its what they do best

[christiefan915]

Excellent article. I hope to follow this as it unfolds.

There were two articles in my paper this week.

U.K. Documents Show Friction With U.S. on Iraq (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09328/1015936-82.stm#ix0Y1Yk2x2r)

British open unquiry on Iraq (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09329/1016256-82.stm)

[christiefan915]

[QUOTE=tom prendergast;559795]Here is something for you to think about.

US discussed Iraq regime change a month after Bush took office, senior British officials say

<snip>

Our news said the same thing.

O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/)

CNN) -- The Bush administration began planning to use U.S. troops to invade Iraq within days after the former Texas governor entered the White House three years ago, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill told CBS News' 60 Minutes.
(Continued)

[christiefan915]

Without nit-picking the entire article, I find it distasteful to call a man a liar with 20-20 hindsight because he was not correct in weighing the intell he had to work with and was privy to at an earlier time....I'll leave that to the left wing hacks,....the blame game,,, its what they do best

We left wing hacks were calling bush and blair liars way back in 2002 when they were first starting to beat the war drums. Too bad they didn't pay attention, 4683 fantastic people would still be alive and celebrating the holiday today if they had.

[cancel2 2022]

Very interesting article....

to be accurate...regime change was the official policy of the US during the Clinton administration......so the article US discussed Iraq regime change a month after Bush took office (2001)....By John Byrne
is quite misleading to begin with.....regime change was already official US policy.....

Spinning history might work for some pinheads, but the facts will not change .....

I suspect you are referring to H.R. 4655, well here is one pinhead who went to the trouble of reading it unlike your good self. I refer you to specifically to Section 8. (Source (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:))

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.



Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

[cancel2 2022]

Sir Christopher Meyer tells like it is. (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/video/Iraq-War-Chilcott-Inquiry-Former-Washington-Ambassador-Sir-Christopher-Meyer-Gives-Evidence/Video/200911415470565?lpos=Latest+Video_6&lid=VIDEO_2115491_US+%27Desperate%27+To+Link+Iraq+ To+9%2F11&videoCategory=Latest+Video)


(http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/video/Iraq-War-Chilcott-Inquiry-Former-Washington-Ambassador-Sir-Christopher-Meyer-Gives-Evidence/Video/200911415470565?lpos=Latest+Video_6&lid=VIDEO_2115491_US+%27Desperate%27+To+Link+Iraq+ To+9%2F11&videoCategory=Latest+Video)

[NOVA]

I suspect you are referring to H.R. 4655, well here is one pinhead who went to the trouble of reading it unlike your good self. I refer you to specifically to Section 8. (Source (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:))

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.



Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.


Irrelevant Tom...we all know Clinton was not prepared to invade Iraq or use our ground troops in implementing this policy...be that as it may, the policy to oust the Saddam regime already existed.....

Clinton was already using the US military aircraft to bomb, and cruise missiles to attack Iraqi radar installations and any Iraqi aircraft that dared to be in the air in the so called 'no fly' zones....

that is waging war where I come from and to make little of it just because we had no ground troops deployed is just typical gov. doubletalk to placate the stupid....
Anyway, to talk about Bush and regime change as if it was totally new is just bullshit....

[cancel2 2022]

Irrelevant Tom...we all know Clinton was not prepared to invade Iraq or use our ground troops in implementing this policy...be that as it may, the policy to oust the Saddam regime already existed.....

Clinton was already using the US military aircraft to bomb, and cruise missiles to attack Iraqi radar installations and any Iraqi aircraft that dared to be in the air in the so called 'no fly' zones....

that is waging war where I come from and to make little of it just because we had no ground troops deployed is just typical gov. doubletalk to placate the stupid....
Anyway, to talk about Bush and regime change as if it was totally new is just bullshit....

I provided the evidence and you chose to gainsay it, you are still wrong nonetheless.

[NOVA]

I provided the evidence and you chose to gainsay it, you are still wrong nonetheless.

I read it...and it changes nothing...

Do you deny that Clinton was using US aircraft and cruise missiles to destroy Iraqi installations and kill Iraqi soldiers?

No, you can't, of course...you can't deny facts....

Do you deny that the official policy of the US under Clinton was "regime change" in Iraq?

No, you can't, of course...you can't deny facts....

So, the reality of it all is undeniable no matter what HR 4655 says.....Clinton was already using the US military in an attempt to weaken Saddam to the point that Iraqi citizens would rebel against him to provide the final step in "regime change".....the US absolutely playing a vital part....

Its always better to open your eyes to what is actually happening around you instead of just believing what is on the news or in the paper or in some bullshit House Resolution.....
Bombs WERE exploding and people WERE dying in Iraq because of Clinton and his policies.....that is just the unvarnished truth whether you agree or not....

[cancel2 2022]

I read it...and it changes nothing...

Do you deny that Clinton was using US aircraft and cruise missiles to destroy Iraqi installations and kill Iraqi soldiers?

No, you can't, of course...you can't deny facts....

Do you deny that the official policy of the US under Clinton was "regime change" in Iraq?

No, you can't, of course...you can't deny facts....

So, the reality of it all is undeniable no matter what HR 4655 says.....Clinton was already using the US military in an attempt to weaken Saddam to the point that Iraqi citizens would rebel against him to provide the final step in "regime change".....the US absolutely playing a vital part....

Its always better to open your eyes to what is actually happening around you instead of just believing what is on the news or in the paper or in some bullshit House Resolution.....
Bombs WERE exploding and people WERE dying in Iraq because of Clinton and his policies.....that is just the unvarnished truth whether you agree or not....

Holy shit, you know you are wrong but the macho side of you will just front it out regardless. Please note that High Noon was a movie, a great one nonetheless, but still a movie for all that.

[NOVA]

Holy shit, you know you are wrong but the macho side of you will just front it out regardless. Please note that High Noon was a movie, a great one nonetheless, but still a movie for all that.

Well, Its like this TommyBoy....
The only thing that comes to mind is, maybe we are talking about 2 different issues here...

The point I'm making is....Regime change was official policy of the US under the Clinton Administration.....thats just an undeniable fact of history....
and to imply that that policy started under Bush is just wrong.....

Now are you going to seriously deny that fact...???

I never claimed or implied Clinton was going to invade Iraq or drop nuclear bombs on them or anything else.....you can re-read my posts and see for yourself....

If you think I'm wrong about that you going to have to actually prove me wrong....I'll be waiting...





ps

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

Its not difficult to prove historical fact, TommyBoy...

[cancel2 2022]

Well, Its like this TommyBoy....
The only thing that comes to mind is, maybe we are talking about 2 different issues here...

The point I'm making is....Regime change was official policy of the US under the Clinton Administration.....thats just an undeniable fact of history....
and to imply that that policy started under Bush is just wrong.....

Now are you going to seriously deny that fact...???

I never claimed or implied Clinton was going to invade Iraq or drop nuclear bombs on them or anything else.....you can re-read my posts and see for yourself....

If you think I'm wrong about that you going to have to actually prove me wrong....I'll be waiting...





ps

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

Its not difficult to prove historical fact, TommyBoy...



What we are arguing about is the means by which the regime change was to be effected and Clinton specifically ruled out an invasion with land forces. I am sure that there is an official policy for regime change in Iran, Burma, North Korea et al but there isn't going to be any military action to bring it about. I had already showed you HR 4655 and guess what, you then said well look here at what I've found...err HR 4655.

[NOVA]

What we are arguing about is the means by which the regime change was to be effected and Clinton specifically ruled out an invasion with land forces. I am sure that there is an official policy for regime change in Iran, Burma, North Korea et al but there isn't going to be any military action to bring it about. I had already showed you HR 4655 and guess what, you then said well look here at what I've found...err HR 4655.

I've never heard of any "official" policy of regime change in other countries...note the word "official"....
HR 4655 made Iraqi regime change "official" US policy, Clinton policy....

and I DID NOT say or imply the "well look what I found" crap remark...
what I did say is "I read it"...as a matter of fact I read it in 1998 and thats why I wanted to refute the remark someone made that tried to blame Bush for the Iraqi regime change policy....it was Clinton policy, period!

my opinion about Clinton using action military ?
Its obvious to me that and rest of the world that he did indeed use our military against Saddam and it was an ongoing thing....military action does HAVE TO include ground troops....a cruise missile blowing the shit out of some ground installation is military action to everyone but you it seems....
You seem to think if no ground troops are involved, there is no military action....you're obviously wrong, but I'll not continue to argue the point....

Something tells me we're getting nowhere....you accuse of things I didn't say and its not worth the trouble to explaining it over and over....

[cancel2 2022]

I've never heard of any "official" policy of regime change in other countries...note the word "official"....
HR 4655 made Iraqi regime change "official" US policy, Clinton policy....

and I DID NOT say or imply the "well look what I found" crap remark...
what I did say is "I read it"...as a matter of fact I read it in 1998 and thats why I wanted to refute the remark someone made that tried to blame Bush for the Iraqi regime change policy....it was Clinton policy, period!

my opinion about Clinton using action military ?
Its obvious to me that and rest of the world that he did indeed use our military against Saddam and it was an ongoing thing....military action does HAVE TO include ground troops....a cruise missile blowing the shit out of some ground installation is military action to everyone but you it seems....
You seem to think if no ground troops are involved, there is no military action....you're obviously wrong, but I'll not continue to argue the point....

Something tells me we're getting nowhere....you accuse of things I didn't say and its not worth the trouble to explaining it over and over....

I would have thought that there being over 30,000 US soldiers stationed in South Korea ought to tell you something about US policy towards North Korea. I think you are missng the point deliberately because you don't want to admit that HR 4655 specifically ruled out military action with ground troops.

[NOVA]

I would have that there being over 30,000 US soldiers stationed in South Korea ought to tell you something about US policy towards North Korea. I think you are missng the point deliberately because you don't want to admit that HR 4655 specifically ruled out military action with ground troops.

HR 4655 specifically ruled out military action with ground troops.??

I'd be the first to admit that....thats a fact, and I've never claimed otherwise...
war is war with or without ground troops....and 'regime change' in Iraq was OFFICIAL CLINTON ADMINISTRATION POLICY long before President Bush and no amount of of spin will change that fact of history....

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I suspect you are referring to H.R. 4655, well here is one pinhead who went to the trouble of reading it unlike your good self. I refer you to specifically to Section 8. (Source (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:))

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.



Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.



I would have that there being over 30,000 US soldiers stationed in South Korea ought to tell you something about US policy towards North Korea. I think you are missng the point deliberately because you don't want to admit that HR 4655 specifically ruled out military action with ground troops.

then you of course must have something other than your alleged evidence in the first post as your quoted part does not specifically state ground forces....

have anything else or are you just spreading meadowmuffins

[cancel2 2022]

od
then you of course must have something other than your alleged evidence in the first post as your quoted part does not specifically state ground forces....

have anything else or are you just spreading meadowmuffins

My God, even Bravo has accepted that HR 4655 precludes the use of ground forces.

[NOVA]

od

My God, even Bravo has accepted that HR 4655 precludes the use of ground forces.

I fail to see the big deal....so what....

Killing Iraqis with cruise missiles and bombs or killing them with M-16 riflemen....

war means killing the enemy, the method is irrelevant...

anyway the real point is what YOU will admit to....

Your claim about Bush and 'regime change' ,in post 9...is at the very least misleading and verges on plain old lying....and its been proven beyond doubt that "regime change" was official Clinton policy....regardless of the methods.....

Its time you owned up to your bullshit and admit the truth....

[Cancel 2018. 3]

od

My God, even Bravo has accepted that HR 4655 precludes the use of ground forces.

no he didn't...he put a question mark (two actually) to that issue


HR 4655 specifically ruled out military action with ground troops.??

....



regardless....appealing to the authority of bravo doesn't provide evidence....so i'll ask again, do you have anything else? because what you showed did not specifically say ground troops....

[cancel2 2022]

no he didn't...he put a question mark (two actually) to that issue





regardless....appealing to the authority of bravo doesn't provide evidence....so i'll ask again, do you have anything else? because what you showed did not specifically say ground troops....


Jeez, you love to get bogged down in details, Clinton never sanctioned a ground war and Bush did. Both Bush and Blair lied and distorted the facts to go to war, those are the facts and a matter of public testimony from any number of people who were in the know. I would also point that HR 4655 refers to a sum of no more than $97,000,000, so tell me just how long you could finance a ground war with that amount of funding?

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Jeez, you love to get bogged down in details, Clinton never sanctioned a ground war and Bush did. Both Bush and Blair lied and distorted the facts to go to war, those are the facts and a matter of public testimony from any number of people who were in the know.

you made a claim and because you can't back it up, you have to whine about details....details matter, as the "ground troops" was the cornerstone of your argument....without it, your argument with bravo fails...


I would have thought that there being over 30,000 US soldiers stationed in South Korea ought to tell you something about US policy towards North Korea. I think you are missng the point deliberately because you don't want to admit that HR 4655 specifically ruled out military action with ground troops.

you said "specifically"....yet you are now crying about details....if you can't handle someone questioning your SPECIFIC claim, then go tell mommy she needs you to cut some more onions

[cancel2 2022]

you made a claim and because you can't back it up, you have to whine about details....details matter, as the "ground troops" was the cornerstone of your argument....without it, your argument with bravo fails...



you said "specifically"....yet you are now crying about details....if you can't handle someone questioning your SPECIFIC claim, then go tell mommy she needs you to cut some more onions

You're the only one arguing the toss, please explain how you can run a ground war on a budget of $97,000,000? That would hardly pay for the fucking Starbucks, MacDonalds and KFC franchises in the Green Zone. You came in like a white knight to ostensibly defend Bravo who conceded the point already.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You're the only one arguing the toss, please explain how you can run a ground war on a budget of $97,000,000? That would hardly pay for the fucking Starbucks, MacDonalds and KFC franchises in the Green Zone. You came in like a white knight to ostensibly defend Bravo who conceded the point already.

wrong again....

i didn't come here to defend bravo, he or she can take care of his or her self....you made a claim that i knew wasn't true, and all you have done since i called you on your bullshit is deflect, the one thing you haven't done is provide any evidence or proof of your claim....the entire bill doesn't say what you claim, hence why you're running around trying to deflect

you obviously can't stand on your claim, can't find any evidence....and you're too much of a wuss to admit you're wrong....

[Taichiliberal]

I am not sure if the Chilcot Inquiry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilcot_Inquiry), which has just opened in London, has had much coverage in the US thus far. I suspect this will change soon enough.

Blair lied and lied again: Mandarins reveal that 10 days before Iraq invasion PM knew Saddam couldn't use WMDs



By Tim Shipman (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?s=y&authornamef=Tim+Shipman)
Last updated at 10:57 AM on 26th November 2009



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-0757CE75000005DC-793_233x423.jpg

No chemical weapons: Tony Blair speaks to British soldiers



The full extent of how Tony Blair misled the public about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction before and after the Iraq War was laid bare yesterday.
The Chilcot Inquiry heard that just ten days before the invasion of Iraq Mr Blair was told Saddam had no way of using weapons of mass destruction.
And weapons experts revealed that the former Prime Minister took Britain to war based on intelligence that his own spies rated just 'four out of ten' for accuracy.
On the eve of the conflict, intelligence chiefs told Mr Blair that the Iraqi dictator had no warheads capable of delivering chemical weapons, dramatically undermining the Prime Minister's case for war.

Yet Mr Blair gave the go-ahead for the invasion despite strong evidence that Iraq was no threat to Britain.
Then, after the war, officials had to tell Mr Blair not to 'declare success too rapidly' in the quest to find WMD in Iraq as he continued to make misleading statements claiming that 'massive evidence' had been found.

The revelations reinforce the case that intelligence evidence that Saddam was no threat was ignored by Mr Blair to take Britain to war on a false prospectus.
Sir William Ehrman, former Director General of Defence and Intelligence at the Foreign Office, said that on March 10, 2003 - ten days before the start of the war - British spies reported that Iraq had 'disassembled' what chemical weapons it had.
He said: 'On March 10 we got a report saying that the chemical weapons might have remained disassembled and that Saddam hadn't yet ordered their re-assembly and he might lack warheads capable of effective dispersal of agents.'
The evidence was summarised in a Joint Intelligence Committee report circulated in Whitehall on March 19.
Sir William blamed 'contradictory intelligence' for the failure to put the brakes on.




http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-0757956F000005DC-492_468x294.jpg

Blood on your hands: A protester dressed as Tony Blair outside the inquiry into the Iraq war

But Tim Dowse, Foreign Office head of counter-proliferation between 2000 and 2002, also revealed that a month earlier, in February 2003, UN weapons inspector Hans Blix had made clear that he did not believe the mythical weapons existed.

'He raised it at a meeting with ministers,' Mr Dowse said.


More...



What an insult to the dead: Brown accused of 'suffocating' Iraq inquiry by blocking incriminating evidence (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230993/Brown-accused-suffocating-Iraq-inquiry-blocking-incriminating-evidence.html)
UK anger as America refuses to share secrets of new radar-evading fighter jet... that Britain helped pay for (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230724/UK-anger-America-refuses-share-secrets-new-radar-evading-Lockheed-F35-fighter-jet--Britain-helped-pay-for.html)
British officials ruled against 'illegal' ousting of Saddam, Iraq inquiry told (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230364/Iraq-war-inquiry-U-S-administration-discussed-regime-change-overthrowing-Saddam-TWO-years-invasion.html)
Defence Secretary blasts Obama for 'dither' over more troops for Afghanistan (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230569/Defence-Secretary-Bumbling-Bob-Ainsworth-blames-Barack-Obama-British-publics-disquiet-Afghan-war.html)
9/11 as it happened: Website releases pager messages sent on day of attacks (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1230903/9-11-happened-Website-releases-pager-messages-sent-day-attacks.html)


The most damning testimony concerned Downing Street's decision to write the now infamous dossier in September 2002 to make the case for war.

Both WMD experts made clear that 'huge gaps' in intelligence on Iraq were flagged up to ministers, leaving them with no excuse when the caveats were removed from the final dossier.

Sir William said experts concluded that there never was 'an imminent threat' from Iraq, describing it only as a 'clear and present threat'.



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-073CE5C0000005DC-57_224x423.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-07565B6A000005DC-488_224x423.jpg




Risk: Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il were of greater concern than Iraq
He explained that intelligence knowledge of Saddam's weapons programmes was 'patchy' in May 2001, 'sporadic and patchy' in March 2002, and revealed that an August 2002 briefing note for ministers admitted 'we know very little' about Iraq's chemical and biological weapons work since 1998, when weapons inspectors were ejected.

Both witnesses said that in the years before the war Iraq was not even seen as the main threat.
Sir William said: 'In terms of nuclear and missiles, I think Iran, North Korea and Libya were probably of greater concern than Iraq.' Mr Dowse added: 'It wasn't top of the list.'


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-0066E05300000258-470_233x423.jpg

Saddam Hussein had only 'sketchy' links to Al Qaeda


The Government also tried to justify the war in Iraq because WMDs could fall into the hands of terrorists. But Mr Dowse said that Saddam had only 'sketchy' links to Al Qaeda, had 'stepped further back' after the 9/11 attacks and had never passed WMD to terrorists.

By September 2002, as the dossier was being written, Sir William said the intelligence about Saddam's WMD 'remained limited'.
He added: 'The biggest gap in all of that, and one which ministers were extremely well aware of and used extensively, was the lack of interviews with scientists.'
Yet in his foreword to the dodgy dossier, Mr Blair claimed 'beyond doubt that Saddam has continued to produce biological weapons'.

That claim was condemned by the Butler Report into the intelligence in 2004 as 'not a statement it was possible to make' because 'intelligence does not have that degree of certainty'.
Mr Dowse, who worked on the dossier, made clear he had not seen Mr Blair's foreword before publication and took aim at the former Prime Minister, saying: 'With hindsight the Butler committee made a fair comment.'
Sir William admitted that weapons inspectors said that six out of ten intelligence reports proved inaccurate. 'Four out of ten as a strike rate is pretty good,' he said.

But historian Sir Lawrence Freedman, for the inquiry, interrupted: 'Not when you are going to war.'
Mr Dowse later cast serious doubt on the accuracy of Mr Blair's claims after the war, when the Iraq Study Group (ISG) was in the process of exposing that there was no WMD in Iraq.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-0758606E000005DC-767_468x286.jpg

Day one: Chairman John Chilcot (3rd L) speaks during the Iraq Inquiry in central London


In December 2003, nine months after the invasion, Mr Blair was still insisting: 'The ISG has already found massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories.'
Mr Dowse said: 'I did not advise him to use those words', and admitted that officials had told ministers not to 'declare success too rapidly'.
He said: 'My concern was that we should not announce things until we were absolutely certain of our ground because it would have been a disaster, frankly, in PR terms.'
Last night LibDem foreign affairs spokesman Edward Davey said: 'This new evidence shows that the intelligence was, if anything, pointing towards Iraq becoming less of a threat.
'A leader of courage and conviction would have used such evidence to halt the drumbeat for war, but Blair just turned a blind eye to intelligence that contradicted his case.'

And 45-minute warning was misleading too...

Tony Blair's claim that Saddam Hussein could hit British targets in just 45 minutes was misleading, the Iraq Inquiry heard.
The claim was the centrepiece of the so-called dodgy dossier published by Downing Street in September 2002 to justify the case for war.
But Tim Dowse, Foreign Office head of counter proliferation when the dossier was being drawn up, said that it only ever referred to short-range battlefield rockets, not long-range missiles.
That crucial distinction was omitted from the dossier and encouraged the drift to war.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/25/article-1230824-075CFD49000005DC-984_468x555.jpg

How 'threat' was reported

Mr Dowse said: 'When I saw the report I didn't give it any particular significance because it didn't seem out of line with what we generally assessed to be Iraq's capability in terms of weapons.
'I assumed it was referring to multibarrelled rocket launchers that could be rapidly deployed in a battlefield. It subsequently took on a rather iconic status that I didn't think those of us who saw the initial report gave it.'
Asked about suggestions that the 45-minute claim referred to WMDs which could be used by Iraq to strike another nation, Mr Dowse said: 'I don't think we ever said that it was for use in a ballistic missile in that way.'
Inquiry panel member Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman pointed out: 'But you didn't say it wasn't.'
But Mr Dowse admitted that he had pushed for the inclusion of a paragraph on how some Iraqi missiles could hit British bases in Cyprus.
That became conflated with the 45 minute claim at the time, leaving many members of the public with the impression that weapons of mass destruction could be deployed on longrange missiles to hit British targets.
The dossier eventually read that Saddam's 'military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them. I am quite clear that Saddam will go to extreme lengths, indeed has already done so, to hide these weapons and avoid giving them up'.
In his foreword, Mr Blair wrote: 'What I believe the assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt is that Saddam has continued to produce chemical and biological weapons, that he continues in his efforts to develop nuclear weapons, and that he has been able to extend the range of his ballistic missile programme.'





Explore more:



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230824/Iraq-fourth-WMD-risk-list-inquiry-hears.html#ixzz0Y0Jj8gN3

:party:

[cancel2 2022]

wrong again....

i didn't come here to defend bravo, he or she can take care of his or her self....you made a claim that i knew wasn't true, and all you have done since i called you on your bullshit is deflect, the one thing you haven't done is provide any evidence or proof of your claim....the entire bill doesn't say what you claim, hence why you're running around trying to deflect

you obviously can't stand on your claim, can't find any evidence....and you're too much of a wuss to admit you're wrong....

I haven't insulted you, yet if you keep on calling me names and I will. It seems to be that you have gone all anal about the fact that the actual words 'ground forces' do not appear in the bill even though it is blindingly obvious what is meant to anybody except a pedant like you. Further discourse on this subject is pointless AFAIK, so I bid you goodnight

[Taichiliberal]

I've mentioned it before a couple times, maybe you weren't active in those threads.

Anyways I did security for EOD (the bomb squad) and supply convoys. During a few stops I saw several stashes of disassembled chemical shells for howitzers. Sarin gas, Mustard gas, and a couple others that I can't remember (Arabic markings and all). Anyways I asked around and it was our guys who discovered them and disassembled them. Unfortunately I wasn't allowed closer then a few meters, but it was at least a couple hundered each time I saw them.

Yeah, and what was the age of those shells....and when exactly was your tour?

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by bravo
Very interesting article....

to be accurate...regime change was the official policy of the US during the Clinton administration......so the article US discussed Iraq regime change a month after Bush took office (2001)....By John Byrne
is quite misleading to begin with.....regime change was already official US policy.....

Spinning history might work for some pinheads, but the facts will not change .....


I suspect you are referring to H.R. 4655, well here is one pinhead who went to the trouble of reading it unlike your good self. I refer you to specifically to Section 8. (Source (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.4655.ENR:))

SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.



Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.



Yeah, ALL the FACTS have a way of frustrating the neocon parrots still defending the Bush/Blair bullshit about invading Iraq.

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by tom prendergast
I provided the evidence and you chose to gainsay it, you are still wrong nonetheless.



I read it...and it changes nothing...

Do you deny that Clinton was using US aircraft and cruise missiles to destroy Iraqi installations and kill Iraqi soldiers?

No, you can't, of course...you can't deny facts....

Actually, it is YOU who are OMITTING FACTS, like the FACT that Clinton's actions were part of the "containment" measures that were started by the Reagan/Bush era. Mind you, the "strategic bombing" decimated the Iraq infrastructure, people and army...making the Shrub's claim of "imminent danger" all the more preposterous. But it was "more or less" in line with the UN agreement of containment. Slick Willy, under pressure from the neocon GOP, initiated the INfamous aspirin factory bombing (for which the GOP ridiculed him for), which interrupted the UN inspectors on the ground..... No one is excusing Slick Willy, but he DID NOT INVADE IRAQ BASED ON DOCTORED INTEL.

Do you deny that the official policy of the US under Clinton was "regime change" in Iraq?

No, you can't, of course...you can't deny facts....

Ahhh, but it is YOU who can't deny the FACT that Clinton DID NOT invade Iraq based on doctored intel, and kept within the parameters laid out by the UN...EXCEPT for the strategic bombing, which was a grey area he exploited.

So, the reality of it all is undeniable no matter what HR 4655 says.....Clinton was already using the US military in an attempt to weaken Saddam to the point that Iraqi citizens would rebel against him to provide the final step in "regime change".....the US absolutely playing a vital part....

But it was NOT invading via doctored intel under Clinton....big fucking difference. Clinton did what he was famous for...straddling the fence and doing just enough to keep both sides happy. Looking back, which has been more damaging and detrimental to Iraq, the region, the American military and American economy.....the Shrub's bogus invasion/occupation or Slick Willy's containment policy?

Its always better to open your eyes to what is actually happening around you instead of just believing what is on the news or in the paper or in some bullshit House Resolution..... You're willful ignorance and myopic revisionism is always a sight to behold.Bombs WERE exploding and people WERE dying in Iraq because of Clinton and his policies.....that is just the unvarnished truth whether you agree or not....

See previous responses above.

[NOVA]

.




See previous responses above.

that Clinton's actions were part of the "containment" measures????

Clinton DID NOT invade Iraq ?????

Who the fuck cares, Clarabell....its all irrelevant...if you dont know what the thread is about, you might just as well STFU and stop making an ass of yourself at every opportunity...


The undeniable fact remains....

regime change was the official policy of the US during the Clinton administration......
so the article "US discussed Iraq regime change a month after Bush took office (2001)"....By John Byrne

is quite misleading to begin with.....regime change was already official US policy and had been since 1998.....

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I haven't insulted you, yet if you keep on calling me names and I will. It seems to be that you have gone all anal about the fact that the actual words 'ground forces' do not appear in the bill even though it is blindingly obvious what is meant to anybody except a pedant like you. Further discourse on this subject is pointless AFAIK, so I bid you goodnight

now you resoprt to lying...

you said it specifically mentioned ground troops.....


because you don't want to admit that HR 4655 specifically ruled out military action with ground troops.

you are again wussing out and claiming its "blindingly obvious"......yet, you said "specifically"......further.....your point was that bravo arguing about clinton's military action and regime change is wrong because --> HR 4655 SPECIFICALLY ruled out military action with GROUND TROOPS (in contra to the military action re the no fly zones, engaging in military combat with saddam's troops under clinton)

it is no wonder you want further discourse on this subject to end.....you're dishonest. at first i thought you just didn't want to admit you're wrong, now, you have elevated it to outright dishonesty.

what a shame

[Taichiliberal]

that Clinton's actions were part of the "containment" measures????

Clinton DID NOT invade Iraq ?????

Who the fuck cares, Clarabell....its all irrelevant...if you dont know what the thread is about, you might just as well STFU and stop making an ass of yourself at every opportunity...


The undeniable fact remains....

regime change was the official policy of the US during the Clinton administration......
so the article "US discussed Iraq regime change a month after Bush took office (2001)"....By John Byrne

is quite misleading to begin with.....regime change was already official US policy and had been since 1998.....


Ahhh, the frustrating sputterings and spewings of a intellectually impotent neocon parrot when faced with FACTS they cannot refute.

Who cares? Obviously YOU do, you dumb fuck! Because if you didn't, you wouldn't be trying so desperately to separate fact from your supposition and conjecture.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - Tony B'liar lied and lied again

There was NOT any military build up or call by Slick Willy to invade Iraq. Period. That little gem is the sole possession of the Shrub & company. TFB if you can't handle the truth.

Regime change via economic and political pressure WHILE WORKING WITH ALLIES IN THE UN is one thing to contend with, regime change through invasion/occupation on false pretenses is quite another.

FACTS, you blithering idiot, historical facts that You cannot distort or BS around. Carry on.:cof1:

[christiefan915]

Oh, Christ, Clinton wanted regime change too.

But he didn't invade a sovereign nation and doesn't have the blood of tens of thousands on his hands.

[TuTu Monroe]

But he didn't invade a sovereign nation and doesn't have the blood of tens of thousands on his hands.

No one knows know what Clinton would have done, but he did manage to bomb an aspirin factory in Sudan. Now, that was brave.:eek:

[cancel2 2022]

No one knows know what Clinton would have done, but he did manage to bomb an aspirin factory in Sudan. Now, that was brave.:eek:

Yep, that really compares with the loss of hundreds of thousands of civilians, nearly five thousand military deaths and getting on for around three trillion dollars spent so far.

[Canceled1]

Yep, that really compares with the loss of hundreds of thousands of civilians, nearly five thousand military deaths and getting on for around three trillion dollars spent so far.

I love watching you come back time after time and having your arse handed to you. Then Vinny and Christie come in to save the day!

It just doesn't get much funnier!

You're like a virulent case of herpes. You NEVER go completely away and you're ALWAYS flaring up!


Oy vey! :palm:

[cancel2 2022]

I love watching you come back time after time and having your arse handed to you. Then Vinny and Christie come in to save the day!

It just doesn't get much funnier!

You're like a virulent case of herpes. You NEVER go completely away and you're ALWAYS flaring up!


Oy vey! :palm:

I glad to know that you had a good time with all the other blue rinse broads at Lake Tahoe, I can just imagine you sitting in front of the slots hour after hour waiting for the big one.

[NOVA]

Amazing....two pinheads get pwned on the specific subject matter in debate...then deflect admitting their stupidity by trying to introduce issues not in question and whine that we don't try to refute those irrelevant issues....its laughable....

[NOVA]

Yeah, ALL the FACTS have a way of frustrating the neocon parrots still defending the Bush/Blair bullshit about invading Iraq.

.regime change was the official policy of the US during the Clinton administration, meaning post 9 is a misleading lie....

thats the subject in debate....refute it or STFU, Clarabell....:rofl:

[TuTu Monroe]

.regime change was the official policy of the US during the Clinton administration, meaning post 9 is a misleading lie....

thats the subject in debate....refute it or STFU, Clarabell....:rofl:

HAHAHAHA, you'll never get that guy to shut up. He's nuts.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

.regime change was the official policy of the US during the Clinton administration, meaning post 9 is a misleading lie....

thats the subject in debate....refute it or STFU, Clarabell....:rofl:

tom is dishonest

[cancel2 2022]

.regime change was the official policy of the US during the Clinton administration, meaning post 9 is a misleading lie....

thats the subject in debate....refute it or STFU, Clarabell....:rofl:

The regime change that was being discussed by the Bush admin, within days of entering the White House, was a full scale land war and not in the least bit comparable to Clinton's use of cruise missiles and no fly zones. Anybody with an ounce of nous knows this is the case, to say anything else is just a pathetic attempt to try to link the two and say they are the same.

There has been years and years of lies, obfuscation and dissemination on the run up to the Iraq War, the truth is finally coming out at the Chilcot Inquiry for all to see, deal with it.


Bravo said earlier:

HR 4655 specifically ruled out military action with ground troops.??

I'd be the first to admit that....thats a fact, and I've never claimed otherwise...
war is war with or without ground troops....and 'regime change' in Iraq was OFFICIAL CLINTON ADMINISTRATION POLICY long before President Bush and no amount of of spin will change that fact of history....

[cancel2 2022]

tom is dishonest

You are entitled to your opinion.

[cancel2 2022]

tom is dishonest

And you are an anally fixated pillock, why don't you read this and then try to spin it?

(Source (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec98/cr100598.htm))
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I introduced HR4655, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, in late September in order to give our President additional tools with which to confront the continuing threat to international peace and security posed by Saddam Hussein. For almost 8 years, since the end of Operation Desert Storm, we have waited for Saddam Hussein's regime to live up to its international obligations. After dozens of U.N. Security Council resolutions and compromise after compromise, we have too little to show.
The dilemma of current U.S. policy is dramatically illustrated by the events we have witnessed this past year. In January and February, our Nation was on the verge of launching massive military strikes against Iraq in order to compel Saddam to afford U.N. weapons inspectors access to certain sites that he had declared off-limits. Our Nation stood down after U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Anan brokered a deal in which Saddam promised to behave better in the future. But, our leaders said, if Saddam violates his agreement with Kofi Anan, we will retaliate swiftly and massively.
After spending over $1 billion to build up U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf earlier this year, those additional forces were slowly drawn down and brought home. And then, of course, Saddam reneged on his commitments once again.
Today is the 61st day without U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq. The situation as regards weapons inspections is far worse today than it was back in January and February when our Nation was threatening military action.
One of the reasons our Nation did not undertake military action in February, and one of the reasons our leaders are not today delivering on their threats of swift and massive retaliation, is that the kind of military action they have in mind just might not work. Certainly we can inflict massive damage on Saddam with air strikes. But what if he simply absorbs the damage and continues to defy the U.N.?
As things stand today, we would have only three alternatives in such a situation. First, we could forge ahead with our air strikes, bouncing the rubble in Baghdad, but increasingly making it appear to the world that we are the aggressor, not Saddam. Second, we could mount a second invasion of Iraq by U.S. ground forces. Or, third, we could admit failure and give up.
Of course, none of these alternatives have been considered acceptable. And so today we find our Nation paralyzed by indecision. Saddam has never before been in such clear violation of his international obligations. Our government has never before been so obviously unwilling to do anything about it.
The purpose of the Iraq Liberation Act is to try to break this logjam. It creates a fourth alternative, an alternative that meets both our short-term and our longer-term requirements with regard to Iraq. In the short term, we need to be able to bring more effective pressure to bear on Saddam in order to force him to comply with his international obligations. In the longer term, we need to remove his regime from power.

[Canceled1]

I glad to know that you had a good time with all the other blue rinse broads at Lake Tahoe, I can just imagine you sitting in front of the slots hour after hour waiting for the big one.

Yeah me and the other "blue rinse broads". Hee-hee-hee. Gives me immense satisfaction that you see me so.

'Course you running around skipping like Little Lord Fauntleroy has always been a vision that produces the most giggles, but the fact that the other men here see you for what you truly are, a hysterical, hand-wringing, simpering sop is worth every last second of your disdain and animus.

Carry on chap!

:good4u:

[Canceled1]

And you are an anally fixated pillock, why don't you read this and then try to spin it?

(Source (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec98/cr100598.htm))
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I introduced HR4655, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, in late September in order to give our President additional tools with which to confront the continuing threat to international peace and security posed by Saddam Hussein. For almost 8 years, since the end of Operation Desert Storm, we have waited for Saddam Hussein's regime to live up to its international obligations. After dozens of U.N. Security Council resolutions and compromise after compromise, we have too little to show.
The dilemma of current U.S. policy is dramatically illustrated by the events we have witnessed this past year. In January and February, our Nation was on the verge of launching massive military strikes against Iraq in order to compel Saddam to afford U.N. weapons inspectors access to certain sites that he had declared off-limits. Our Nation stood down after U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Anan brokered a deal in which Saddam promised to behave better in the future. But, our leaders said, if Saddam violates his agreement with Kofi Anan, we will retaliate swiftly and massively.
After spending over $1 billion to build up U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf earlier this year, those additional forces were slowly drawn down and brought home. And then, of course, Saddam reneged on his commitments once again.
Today is the 61st day without U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq. The situation as regards weapons inspections is far worse today than it was back in January and February when our Nation was threatening military action.
One of the reasons our Nation did not undertake military action in February, and one of the reasons our leaders are not today delivering on their threats of swift and massive retaliation, is that the kind of military action they have in mind just might not work. Certainly we can inflict massive damage on Saddam with air strikes. But what if he simply absorbs the damage and continues to defy the U.N.?
As things stand today, we would have only three alternatives in such a situation. First, we could forge ahead with our air strikes, bouncing the rubble in Baghdad, but increasingly making it appear to the world that we are the aggressor, not Saddam. Second, we could mount a second invasion of Iraq by U.S. ground forces. Or, third, we could admit failure and give up.
Of course, none of these alternatives have been considered acceptable. And so today we find our Nation paralyzed by indecision. Saddam has never before been in such clear violation of his international obligations. Our government has never before been so obviously unwilling to do anything about it.
The purpose of the Iraq Liberation Act is to try to break this logjam. It creates a fourth alternative, an alternative that meets both our short-term and our longer-term requirements with regard to Iraq. In the short term, we need to be able to bring more effective pressure to bear on Saddam in order to force him to comply with his international obligations. In the longer term, we need to remove his regime from power.



Is that steam rising out of your knickers I see?

Compose yourself ol chap! :eek:

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You are entitled to your opinion.

its fact...you claimed it specifically said ground troops and you basically said i was dishonest becuase i showed you it didn't say ground troops....

[Cancel 2018. 3]

And you are an anally fixated pillock, why don't you read this and then try to spin it?

(Source (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec98/cr100598.htm))
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I introduced HR4655, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, in late September in order to give our President additional tools with which to confront the continuing threat to international peace and security posed by Saddam Hussein. For almost 8 years, since the end of Operation Desert Storm, we have waited for Saddam Hussein's regime to live up to its international obligations. After dozens of U.N. Security Council resolutions and compromise after compromise, we have too little to show.
The dilemma of current U.S. policy is dramatically illustrated by the events we have witnessed this past year. In January and February, our Nation was on the verge of launching massive military strikes against Iraq in order to compel Saddam to afford U.N. weapons inspectors access to certain sites that he had declared off-limits. Our Nation stood down after U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Anan brokered a deal in which Saddam promised to behave better in the future. But, our leaders said, if Saddam violates his agreement with Kofi Anan, we will retaliate swiftly and massively.
After spending over $1 billion to build up U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf earlier this year, those additional forces were slowly drawn down and brought home. And then, of course, Saddam reneged on his commitments once again.
Today is the 61st day without U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq. The situation as regards weapons inspections is far worse today than it was back in January and February when our Nation was threatening military action.
One of the reasons our Nation did not undertake military action in February, and one of the reasons our leaders are not today delivering on their threats of swift and massive retaliation, is that the kind of military action they have in mind just might not work. Certainly we can inflict massive damage on Saddam with air strikes. But what if he simply absorbs the damage and continues to defy the U.N.?
As things stand today, we would have only three alternatives in such a situation. First, we could forge ahead with our air strikes, bouncing the rubble in Baghdad, but increasingly making it appear to the world that we are the aggressor, not Saddam. Second, we could mount a second invasion of Iraq by U.S. ground forces. Or, third, we could admit failure and give up.
Of course, none of these alternatives have been considered acceptable. And so today we find our Nation paralyzed by indecision. Saddam has never before been in such clear violation of his international obligations. Our government has never before been so obviously unwilling to do anything about it.
The purpose of the Iraq Liberation Act is to try to break this logjam. It creates a fourth alternative, an alternative that meets both our short-term and our longer-term requirements with regard to Iraq. In the short term, we need to be able to bring more effective pressure to bear on Saddam in order to force him to comply with his international obligations. In the longer term, we need to remove his regime from power.

what does this have to do with anything? it doesn't take away from the fact that you lied when you said it specifically mentioned ground troops

[cancel2 2022]

what does this have to do with anything? it doesn't take away from the fact that you lied when you said it specifically mentioned ground troops

My God, you are beyond pathetic.

[NOVA]

The regime change that was being discussed by the Bush admin, within days of entering the White House, was a full scale land war and not in the least bit comparable to Clinton's use of cruise missiles and no fly zones. Anybody with an ounce of nous knows this is the case, to say anything else is just a pathetic attempt to try to link the two and say they are the same.

There has been years and years of lies, obfuscation and dissemination on the run up to the Iraq War, the truth is finally coming out at the Chilcot Inquiry for all to see, deal with it.


Bravo said earlier:

HR 4655 specifically ruled out military action with ground troops.??

I'd be the first to admit that....thats a fact, and I've never claimed otherwise...
war is war with or without ground troops....and 'regime change' in Iraq was OFFICIAL CLINTON ADMINISTRATION POLICY long before President Bush and no amount of of spin will change that fact of history....



Yes, thats what I said....and Yurt has pointed out my mistake......I was absolutely wrong....

I will clarify my inaccurate claim....

Clinton specifically ruled out using ground troops to accomplish HIS POLICY of regime change in Iraq.....not HR 4655
HR 4655 ruled out the use of US military in general , with exception..Sec.4,A,2 I beleive
Unlike Tom and TC the pinhead, I admit it when I make an error....

[Taichiliberal]

.regime change was the official policy of the US during the Clinton administration, meaning post 9 is a misleading lie....

thats the subject in debate....refute it or STFU, Clarabell....:rofl: Yeah, "Clarabell" must get a real laugh out of the geezers at the retirement home. :palm:

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - Tony B'liar lied and lied again

Once again, our intellectually impotent neocon parrot squawks loudly his ignorance....desperately ignoring what has previously transpired. Pity the poor schnook didn't READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY what I stated in the last post. It would have saved him the embarassment.

Laugh, clown, laugh.

[Taichiliberal]

Yes, thats what I said....and Yurt has pointed out my mistake......I was absolutely wrong....

I will clarify my inaccurate claim....

Clinton specifically ruled out using ground troops to accomplish HIS POLICY of regime change in Iraq.....not HR 4655
HR 4655 ruled out the use of US military in general , with exception..Sec.4,A,2 I beleive
Unlike Tom and TC the pinhead, I admit it when I make an error....

Oh, stop lying! Until one of your fellow neocon parrots pointed out your error, you would've REFUSED to admit your error until doomsday. The history of your posts show this.....you don't even recognize when other people agree with you if they have dared questioned the Shrub & company's actions.

Once again, you demonstrate your intellectual impotency and basic dishonesty on something as anonymous as this discussion board. But then again, you do have a knack for thinking using antiquated and childish insults is a substitute for logical debate and discussion. Carry on.

[NOVA]

regime change was the official policy of the US during the Clinton administration, meaning post 9 is a misleading lie....

thats the subject in debate....refute it or STFU, Clarabell...

[Taichiliberal]

Amazing....two pinheads get pwned on the specific subject matter in debate...then deflect admitting their stupidity by trying to introduce issues not in question and whine that we don't try to refute those irrelevant issues....its laughable....





You are truly a pathetic liar....either that or just too damn stupid to comprehend what you read.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - Tony B'liar lied and lied again

[Taichiliberal]

I glad to know that you had a good time with all the other blue rinse broads at Lake Tahoe, I can just imagine you sitting in front of the slots hour after hour waiting for the big one.

He's just a gutless neocon wonk....never debates, just throws rocks from behind the skirts of his equally ignorant compadres. Toss him in the bin like I have....saves on scrolling time.

[Taichiliberal]

regime change was the official policy of the US during the Clinton administration, meaning post 9 is a misleading lie....

thats the subject in debate....refute it or STFU, Clarabell (geezer insult...no relevence to the last 40 years...sad) ...


Post 9 never claimed or implied or insinuated that Clinton didn't have regime change on the mind, you nit. It did state the FACT that the Shrub was gearing up for regime change from the moment he stole into office...and he had NO intention of doing anything else.....Again, for the cheap seats....regime change via embargos, diplomacy, and military containment AFTER a "war" is a BIG difference from invasion/occupation.

Get your head out of Karl Rove's ass and deal with the FACTS, mastermind...or just follow your own advice.

Oh, and for the record:
Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - Tony B'liar lied and lied again

[cancel2 2022]

He's just a gutless neocon wonk....never debates, just throws rocks from behind the skirts of his equally ignorant compadres. Toss him in the bin like I have....saves on scrolling time.

He is a she.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Very interesting article....

to be accurate...regime change was the official policy of the US during the Clinton administration......so the article US discussed Iraq regime change a month after Bush took office (2001)....By John Byrne
is quite misleading to begin with.....regime change was already official US policy.....

Spinning history might work for some pinheads, but the facts will not change .....

Not only was "regime change" a Clinton policy, it was adopted by the Congress in 1998 as official US foreign policy, and not ONLY regime change, but the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act actually called for replacing the regime with a democracy! None of this was Bush's idea, he hadn't even announced he was running for president in 1998.

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
He's just a gutless neocon wonk....never debates, just throws rocks from behind the skirts of his equally ignorant compadres. Toss him in the bin like I have....saves on scrolling time.


He is a she.

Whatever....stupid is as stupid does....and the Loyal End is a living testament to that saying.

[cancel2 2022]

Post 9 never claimed or implied or insinuated that Clinton didn't have regime change on the mind, you nit. It did state the FACT that the Shrub was gearing up for regime change from the moment he stole into office...and he had NO intention of doing anything else.....Again, for the cheap seats....regime change via embargos, diplomacy, and military containment AFTER a "war" is a BIG difference from invasion/occupation.

Get your head out of Karl Rove's ass and deal with the FACTS, mastermind...or just follow your own advice.

Oh, and for the record:
Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - Tony B'liar lied and lied again (http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=560497&postcount=44)

They know that perfectly well but it seems to be more important to score cheap debating points, I will allow Yurt his Pyrrhic Victory.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

My God, you are beyond pathetic.

whatever it takes to keep your dishonesty going....why can't you be honest and admit the bill did not actually specifically say ground troops? it was military in general....yet clinton continued to bomb iraq and engage their airforce....

apparently you have to call me pathetic when you're the dishonest hack who at first couldn't admit your error and now you compound it with outright dishonesty...kind of like your bullshit claim that the brits saved america in WW2

[Taichiliberal]

Not only was "regime change" a Clinton policy, it was adopted by the Congress in 1998 as official US foreign policy, and not ONLY regime change, but the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act actually called for replacing the regime with a democracy! None of this was Bush's idea, he hadn't even announced he was running for president in 1998.

No one said it was the Shrub's idea....lord knows that dumbass had very little going in that department.....but nowhere in the 1998 act does it state that the President breaks the agreement with the UN and violates the Congressional mandate to invade and occupy Iraq.

[NOVA]

Post 9 never claimed or implied or insinuated that Clinton didn't have regime change on the mind, you nit.

No..It didn't....it did imply Bush was the mastermind behind 'regime change'...
thats why I said it was misleading....got it now, boy ?....



It did state the FACT that the Shrub was gearing up for regime change from the moment he stole into office...and he had NO intention of doing anything else....

.Again, for the cheap seats....regime change via embargos, diplomacy, and military containment AFTER a "war" is a BIG difference from invasion/occupation.

What war, Clarabell....who was talking about regime change via embargos, diplomacy, and military containment after this imaginary war...???

Get your head out of Karl Rove's ass and deal with the FACTS, mastermind...or just follow your own advice.

You fair better to get you head out of your own ass and into a superior person's ass..... like Roves....Clarabell
:good4u:
Oh, and for the record:
Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - Tony B'liar lied and lied again (http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=560497&postcount=44).

[NOVA]

No one said it was the Shrub's idea....lord knows that dumbass had very little going in that department.....but nowhere in the 1998 act does it state that the President breaks the agreement with the UN and violates the Congressional mandate to invade and occupy Iraq.

"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:rofl:

[cancel2 2022]

whatever it takes to keep your dishonesty going....why can't you be honest and admit the bill did not actually specifically say ground troops? it was military in general....yet clinton continued to bomb iraq and engage their airforce....

apparently you have to call me pathetic when you're the dishonest hack who at first couldn't admit your error and now you compound it with outright dishonesty...kind of like your bullshit claim that the brits saved america in WW2

As I have already stated, I will allow your Pyrrhic Victory as it seems to matter so much to you.

[NOVA]

"[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

woopdeedoo....Scarry stuff....


Odd...they didn't mention this strange UN agreement that floats around in TC hollow skull....

[Taichiliberal]

"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:rofl:

And where does he say invade? occupation? He utilized the containment policies that were set up BY THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION. That was Daddy Bush, remember bunky? That meant no fly zones, strategic bombings, economic embargos, and UN weapons inspectors.

Nothing about invasion or occupation in his 8 years.

See chuckles, his words in 1998 were followed up by the actions above....unlike the Shrub & company, who invaded and occupied a country that was NOT a threat, as ALL the facts available showed.

Keep laughing, you clown, keep laughing.....because over 4,000 dead and over 30,000 wounded & maimed must be hysterical for one who's head is so far up Karl Rove's ass.

[Taichiliberal]

"[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

woopdeedoo....Scarry stuff....


Odd...they didn't mention this strange UN agreement that floats around in TC hollow skull....


That's because the UN agreement was NOT violated until the infamous Aspirin factory strike, you blithering idiot!

And thanks for proving my point......Slick Willy WAS NOT about invasion and occupation. In fact, if you had done your homework proper, you would have noted that these policies were a CONTINUATION of what was initiated by the PREVIOUS administration....that was Daddy Bush, don't cha know.

Next time, know what the fuck you're talking about before you assume a condescending attitude, chuckles....makes you look less foolish. Carry on.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

As I have already stated, I will allow your Pyrrhic Victory as it seems to matter so much to you.

you lied, got busted....yet you still act like its not your fault....moron :pke:

[NOVA]

That's because the UN agreement was NOT violated until the infamous Aspirin factory strike, you blithering idiot!

And thanks for proving my point......Slick Willy WAS NOT about invasion and occupation. In fact, if you had done your homework proper, you would have noted that these policies were a CONTINUATION of what was initiated by the PREVIOUS administration....that was Daddy Bush, don't cha know.

Next time, know what the fuck you're talking about before you assume a condescending attitude, chuckles....makes you look less foolish. Carry on.

Get a clue, Clarabell....that letter was written 2 months after the infamous Clinton fuckup....

Bush had troops IN Iraq, you fool....killing the ragheads far across the Iraqi border.....(don't cha know)....
His agreement with the coalition was not to enter the city of Baghdad and confront Saddam....and he kept his word to the coalition as an honorable man would.......

[NOVA]

"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:rofl:

No invasion, no occupation.....

I thnk he meant harsh words and stern looks....thats Clintons idea of 'the bottom line'.....:rofl:

[TuTu Monroe]

No invasion, no occupation.....

I thnk he meant harsh words and stern looks....thats Clintons idea of 'the bottom line'.....:rofl:

Reminds me of the weak president we have now.

[Onceler]

Reminds me of the weak president we have now.

It doesn't take strength to send OTHER people needlessly into a war of choice.

I love how the right keeps trotting out the '90's quotes on WMD's from Dems. I still haven't seen one that calls for the invasion of Iraq.

[NOVA]

It doesn't take strength to send OTHER people needlessly into a war of choice.

I love how the right keeps trotting out the '90's quotes on WMD's from Dems. I still haven't seen one that calls for the invasion of Iraq.

Well tool, there are some words that you'll never hear used by politicians, unless they have the balls to actually mean them......

but then, you'll never hear Clinton say he committed perjury, either, but any honorable person won't deny that fact....he'd say he didn't tell the truth, or he misled, or use other innocent wounding words to say it...

just like the Democrats did from 1995 up until 2003.....tiptoe and tapdance all around ...... trying to scare Saddam, to threaten him ....but even he knew they were cowards full of big talk and no stomach for what needed to be done....he probably never dreamed some of them would vote for the War Resolution.....

Now its the same thing we see with Obama and North Korea and Iran....they know this "emperor has no balls"....

[Lowaicue]

Reminds me of the weak president we have now.

Trouble is, stupid, that the man YOU think was strong brought your nation to its weakest point ever.
Even under Carter we had a modicum of respect for you.
Even under HW we gave you the benefit of the doubt.
When Clinton mislaid his cigar we chuckled at the right wing foolishness but it did not damage the United States.
Under the most stupid national leader since Idi Amin you were brought almost to your knees.
Of course, you are so small that someone on their knees is still big and wonderful to you.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Trouble is, stupid, that the man YOU think was strong brought your nation to its weakest point ever.
Even under Carter we had a modicum of respect for you.
Even under HW we gave you the benefit of the doubt.
When Clinton mislaid his cigar we chuckled at the right wing foolishness but it did not damage the United States.
Under the most stupid national leader since Idi Amin you were brought almost to your knees.
Of course, you are so small that someone on their knees is still big and wonderful to you.

You are positively insane! Do you think The Obama has helped to restore ANY measure of respect for the United States? With all his jetting around the globe, apologizing at every stop, bowing to despots, refusing to support democracy, insisting on supporting radical Islam and Socialism? We have the FRENCH lecturing us on our weak foreign policy with Iran... We have the Communist Chinese lecturing us about capitalism! And the Russians just doing whatever they damn well please!!

You are totally full of shit, and it is literally spewing from every orifice! Why can't you be content to fuck up your own country and leave us to hell alone?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The main problem is that Bush was discussing regime change even before he became President and he was looking for a reason to invade Iraq.

So this assertion has been proven erroneous. Of course Bush was discussing it, as was anyone who had anything to do with American foreign policy, because our official policy had already been established. Bush didn't need a reason to invade Iraq, the United States Congress had already established a reason, to change the regime to democracy. Now, was Bush "justified" in taking this action? I believe he was, Iraq had violated 17 previous UN mandates and showed NO signs of ever cooperating with the international community.

You nitwit pinheads can bitch and moan all you like, but the bottom line is this, you can't tell us what we are supposed to do when all attempts at diplomatic resolution fails, other than to use military force. Even a retarded idiot realizes there is no other viable option at that point, which is precisely why the U.S. Congress authorized the use of military force, when diplomatic efforts had been exhausted.

[Onceler]

It's an absurd, insane rewriting of history to say that all options had been exhausted, and that war was a necessity.

Good ol' Dixie.

[Lowaicue]

Do you think The Obama has helped to restore ANY measure of respect for the United States?

You better frickin well believe it, mister. And if you crawled from under your stone for long enough to let the sun dry out what you think is a brain you would know.
He may be good, he may be bad. At THIS moment in time he is making people like me, who have spent a lifetime in international trade, reconsider our position towards your country.
If he fails we are back to the bush years, if he succeeds YOUR miserable existence, for one, will get better .... IF you have the intelligence to let it.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You better frickin well believe it, mister. And if you crawled from under your stone for long enough to let the sun dry out what you think is a brain you would know.
He may be good, he may be bad. At THIS moment in time he is making people like me, who have spent a lifetime in international trade, reconsider our position towards your country.
If he fails we are back to the bush years, if he succeeds YOUR miserable existence, for one, will get better .... IF you have the intelligence to let it.

Well, I am sorry, but we currently have over 10% unemployment, with massive inflation soon to follow. I don't think we can afford to let him "succeed" ...whatever the fuck that means! International trade? You think that is some kind of problem for us? We run a massive trade deficit, and have done so for years. We have no problems finding people to sell us their shit, in fact, most of our real problems stem from the fact that we don't produce anything anymore, we can't compete on the world stage, because the labor unions have driven us out of the market.

He will ultimately fail, because Socialism ultimately fails. Simple as that! In the meantime, we will hear the Socialist sycophants trying to convince us that 'capitalism' has failed, but capitalism is what is being abandoned now, thrown under the bus for the statist notions of the anti-capitalist liberal left.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It's an absurd, insane rewriting of history to say that all options had been exhausted, and that war was a necessity.

Good ol' Dixie.

Well, I pose the question to you again, stupid.... What option had not been tried yet? Let's be honest here, what in the world would you have suggested, that we hadn't already attempted? Go ahead, take your time, I realize you are a little slower than the others....

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
... still waiting....
...
...
...
...
...
...
...

That's right, bird brain, everything else had already been tried, numerous times. We imposed sanctions, Saddam ignored them, we passed resolutions condemning his actions, he laughed at us... we tried every possible diplomatic effort, only to be made a mockery of and scoffed at by Saddam Hussein. We even had the unanimous support of the United Nations in demanding he abide by the resolutions passed, and he flipped us the bird and said "fuck you!" So.... tell me genius... what else could we have done?

[Lowaicue]

Well, I am sorry, but we currently have over 10% unemployment, with massive inflation soon to follow. I don't think we can afford to let him "succeed" ...whatever the fuck that means! International trade? You think that is some kind of problem for us? We run a massive trade deficit, and have done so for years. We have no problems finding people to sell us their shit, in fact, most of our real problems stem from the fact that we don't produce anything anymore, we can't compete on the world stage, because the labor unions have driven us out of the market.

He will ultimately fail, because Socialism ultimately fails. Simple as that! In the meantime, we will hear the Socialist sycophants trying to convince us that 'capitalism' has failed, but capitalism is what is being abandoned now, thrown under the bus for the statist notions of the anti-capitalist liberal left.

You do not know what you are talking about. Not ONCE did I mention selling stuff to you. 10% unemployment? tough shit. Other countries have had that and not whined like the squeaking wheel on your new house.
He may well fail. If he does it will be because half brains like you are so far up their own arses they cannot see the possibility that this man MIGHT just MIGHT make you a better country. It will have jack shit to do with socialism because he is further from frickin socialism that Genghis Khan! Socialist my arse! Dixie have you EVER been outside your country? Ever? Cos, brother, you sure act like a home tied hick.

[Lowaicue]

Well, I pose the question to you again, stupid.... What option had not been tried yet? Let's be honest here, what in the world would you have suggested, that we hadn't already attempted? Go ahead, take your time, I realize you are a little slower than the others....

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
... still waiting....
...
...
...
...
...
...
...

That's right, bird brain, everything else had already been tried, numerous times. We imposed sanctions, Saddam ignored them, we passed resolutions condemning his actions, he laughed at us... we tried every possible diplomatic effort, only to be made a mockery of and scoffed at by Saddam Hussein. We even had the unanimous support of the United Nations in demanding he abide by the resolutions passed, and he flipped us the bird and said "fuck you!" So.... tell me genius... what else could we have done?

Just a little wide of the mark there. Just a little.

[Onceler]

Well, I pose the question to you again, stupid.... What option had not been tried yet? Let's be honest here, what in the world would you have suggested, that we hadn't already attempted? Go ahead, take your time, I realize you are a little slower than the others....

...
...
...
...
...
...
...
... still waiting....
...
...
...
...
...
...
...

That's right, bird brain, everything else had already been tried, numerous times. We imposed sanctions, Saddam ignored them, we passed resolutions condemning his actions, he laughed at us... we tried every possible diplomatic effort, only to be made a mockery of and scoffed at by Saddam Hussein. We even had the unanimous support of the United Nations in demanding he abide by the resolutions passed, and he flipped us the bird and said "fuck you!" So.... tell me genius... what else could we have done?


Here's the deal, moron. I guess you didn't notice, but....SADDAM DIDN'T HAVE ANY WMD'S.

Did you miss that or something?

Oh, and as of March, 2003, Hans Blix was reporting to Congress that his teams had unfettered access to ALL suspected weapons sites. So, basically, had they been allowed to continue, they would have discovered that SADDAM DIDN'T HAVE ANY WMD'S, and that war was completely unnecessary.

But Mr. Blue Jean just had to rush in, to achieve "greatness"...

[NOVA]

It's an absurd, insane rewriting of history to say that all options had been exhausted, and that war was a necessity.

Good ol' Dixie.

Well, it was voted on in the US Congress and with a bi-partisan majority, PASSED.....think you're so smart? Run for election,,,,:pke:

[Onceler]

Well, it was voted on in the US Congress and with a bi-partisan majority, PASSED.....think you're so smart? Run for election,,,,:pke:

Well, there is your rewriting of history. Sorry, but it was not a declaration of war. In fact, most legislators - Dem & GOP, including DICK ARMEY - made statements on the day of the signing that they were assured by the President, and expected of him, that he would continue diplomatic efforts and inspections, and would only use the force authorized if absolutely necessary.

Deal w/ it.

[NOVA]

You better frickin well believe it, mister. And if you crawled from under your stone for long enough to let the sun dry out what you think is a brain you would know.
He may be good, he may be bad. At THIS moment in time he is making people like me, who have spent a lifetime in international trade, reconsider our position towards your country.
If he fails we are back to the bush years, if he succeeds YOUR miserable existence, for one, will get better .... IF you have the intelligence to let it.

If he fails, our country succeeds in avoiding the stigma of socialism...we don't need you and never have....we are the most successful country on earth because of who we are, not because we kowtowed to Europe or Asia or anyone else........get over it

[NOVA]

Well, there is your rewriting of history. Sorry, but it was not a declaration of war. In fact, most legislators - Dem & GOP, including DICK ARMEY - made statements on the day of the signing that they were assured by the President, and expected of him, that he would continue diplomatic efforts and inspections, and would only use the force authorized if absolutely necessary.

Deal w/ it.

Maybe you ought to read the WAR RESOLUTION (aka, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002)and have someone explain it to you....

[Onceler]

Maybe you ought to read the WAR RESOLUTION (aka, Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002)and have someone explain it to you....

I have read it. Numerous times.

You don't understand it, and never have. And, once again, I think it speaks volumes that you want to give Dems so much "credit" for the decision to go in...

[christiefan915]

No one knows know what Clinton would have done, but he did manage to bomb an aspirin factory in Sudan. Now, that was brave.:eek:

Yes, how could the the CIA and the military and everybody else who "identified" the place have gotten it so wrong?

No need to explain, Toots, I get it. Clinton used faulty intelligence in his atttack and gets excoriated by RWs. bush used faulty intelligence in his invasion and gets praised by RWs.

The difference between us is that I strongly criticized Clinton for this action while you guys are still trying to justify the war.

A soil sample obtained clandestinely by U.S. intelligence led the
Clinton administration to conclude that the Sudanese plant was secretly
developing a key ingredient in deadly VX nerve gas, a U.S. intelligence
official said Monday...

"By the first week in September, Defense Secretary William Cohen admitted that he "should have known" that Al-Shifa made medical and agricultural products..."

"Terrorism suspect Osama bin Laden tried to develop chemical weapons to use against U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf, a high-ranking CIA official has said."

"Bin Laden's drive to obtain the chemical weapons could be linked to the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, which was bombed by the United States in late August, said John Gannon, chairman of the CIA's National Intelligence Council."

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Here's the deal, moron. I guess you didn't notice, but....SADDAM DIDN'T HAVE ANY WMD'S.

Did you miss that or something?

Oh, and as of March, 2003, Hans Blix was reporting to Congress that his teams had unfettered access to ALL suspected weapons sites. So, basically, had they been allowed to continue, they would have discovered that SADDAM DIDN'T HAVE ANY WMD'S, and that war was completely unnecessary.

But Mr. Blue Jean just had to rush in, to achieve "greatness"...

Yes, of course you are right... 2 years after Bush claimed he had WMD's, there were no drugs found in his apartment! RETARD!

You have the eyewitness testimony from CaptBillyTheKid in this very thread! YES, Saddam Hussein did have WMD's!

In March of 2003, we have 100k troops on Saddam's borders, ready to invade! Of course he said he would allow unfettered access then! Stop your retard brain from buzzing for a second and try to rationalize why Hans would be telling the UN this, if Saddam had been cooperative? It's because in the previous report, Hans stated he was not being given full access... that was before we put warships in the Persian Gulf and 100k troops on his borders.

[cancel2 2022]

you lied, got busted....yet you still act like its not your fault....moron :pke:

Who you calling a moron, fuckwit!!

[cancel2 2022]

Yes, how could the the CIA and the military and everybody else who "identified" the place have gotten it so wrong?

No need to explain, Toots, I get it. Clinton used faulty intelligence in his atttack and gets excoriated by RWs. bush used faulty intelligence in his invasion and gets praised by RWs.

The difference between us is that I strongly criticized Clinton for this action while you guys are still trying to justify the war.

A soil sample obtained clandestinely by U.S. intelligence led the
Clinton administration to conclude that the Sudanese plant was secretly
developing a key ingredient in deadly VX nerve gas, a U.S. intelligence
official said Monday...

"By the first week in September, Defense Secretary William Cohen admitted that he "should have known" that Al-Shifa made medical and agricultural products..."

"Terrorism suspect Osama bin Laden tried to develop chemical weapons to use against U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf, a high-ranking CIA official has said."

"Bin Laden's drive to obtain the chemical weapons could be linked to the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, which was bombed by the United States in late August, said John Gannon, chairman of the CIA's National Intelligence Council."

It the same old shit over and over again, it never get any better though.

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Who you calling a moron, fuckwit!!

you...you're dishonest, have been caught red handed and you make bogus claims about britain in WW2 and refuse to back it up because you know its bogus....

how sad to be you

[Canceled1]

you...you're dishonest, have been caught red handed and you make bogus claims about britain in WW2 and refuse to back it up because you know its bogus....

how sad to be you

"It the same old shit over and over again, it never get any better though."

[NOVA]

I have read it. Numerous times.

You don't understand it, and never have. And, once again, I think it speaks volumes that you want to give Dems so much "credit" for the decision to go in...

Ironic that todays Dem. Sec. of State voted for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002...didn't she realize that military force could include the use of bombs, aircraft, artillery, missiles, and GROUND TROOPS....?

Can we call you Clarabell II...????

[TuTu Monroe]

I have read it. Numerous times.

You don't understand it, and never have. And, once again, I think it speaks volumes that you want to give Dems so much "credit" for the decision to go in...

Surrrre, you read it. What a crock.:(

[Onceler]

Surrrre, you read it. What a crock.:(

How is that a crock? Lord, are you an f'in idiot.

It's not a 100 page document or anything. I have actually read the thing about a dozen times, because people keep telling me it was a declaration of war.

And guess what, idiot? IT WAS NOT.

[Canceled1]

How is that a crock? Lord, are you an f'in idiot.

It's not a 100 page document or anything. I have actually read the thing about a dozen times, because people keep telling me it was a declaration of war.

And guess what, idiot? IT WAS NOT.

Well then break it down paragraph by paragraph then. Should be a walk in the park, eh?

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
That's because the UN agreement was NOT violated until the infamous Aspirin factory strike, you blithering idiot!

And thanks for proving my point......Slick Willy WAS NOT about invasion and occupation. In fact, if you had done your homework proper, you would have noted that these policies were a CONTINUATION of what was initiated by the PREVIOUS administration....that was Daddy Bush, don't cha know.

Next time, know what the fuck you're talking about before you assume a condescending attitude, chuckles....makes you look less foolish. Carry on.


Get a clue, Clarabell(insult that rates with those old enough to have watched Howdy Doody on b/w the color television)....that letter was written 2 months after the infamous Clinton fuckup....

No shit sherlock! Why the fuck do you think they wrote it? Hint: JUSTIFICATION for the strike....which was really unnecessary given that "surgical" or "strategic" air strikes were part of the program that Daddy Bush started as part of the containment of Hussein after the first Gulf War. Still, it was an infringement of the UN agreement...especially since it interrupted the UN weapons inspectors under Butler on the ground....BUT it was NOT invasion/occupation. Get that through your thick skull.

Bush had troops IN Iraq, you fool....killing the ragheads far across the Iraqi border.....(don't cha know).... Really? Are you referring to Daddy Bush? Because the Gulf War DID NOT have troops marching into Baghdad or Faleujah. One of the criticisms by the right wingnuts was that Daddy Bush "didn't finish the job". A matter of history, a matter of fact. You must be erroneously referring to the Shrub's invasion/occupation....look up the definitions, because invasion comes before occupation, genius. And THAT was based on a bunch of lies and doctored up intel. See bunky, you should KNOW your subject matter....because it would save me a lot of time schooling you. His agreement with the coalition was not to enter the city of Baghdad and confront Saddam....and he kept his word to the coalition as an honorable man would.......

Man, get the crack out of the pipe....Daddy Bush was as big a liar as his son regarding Iraq. When he ran to the UN parading the Kuwaiti family that swore Iraqi troops were slaughtering babies in a hospital infirmary for the tipping point to garner approval for engagement, it was later discovered that was a big fucking lie. Also, do a little research regarding a conversation between fmr. Amb. Glaspie and Hussein right before the Iraq/Kuwait conflict....if you have the guts to do honest research.

Daddy Bush was TOLD by the military that invasion of Iraq was NOT an option, as it was NOT a doable or viable plan. Pity his son didn't follow suit.

See bunky, no matter how you twist and turn, lie and deny...the COMPLETE FACTS and the logic derived from them will be your undoing. The Brits are taking Blair to tasks for his BS complicity...I hope they have more guts to do the right thing than our wussy gov't.

[Taichiliberal]

No invasion, no occupation.....

I thnk he meant harsh words and stern looks....thats Clintons idea of 'the bottom line'.....:rofl:

No, you chuckling chowderhead...he meant continuing "strategic bombing", economic embargo, no fly zones, UN weapons inspectors.....the SAME policy initiated by Daddy Bush AFTER the Gulf War. A matter of history, a matter of fact...Slick Willy doing what he did best, straddle the fence.

Jeezus, how do you manage with the neocon blinders on 24/7?

[Taichiliberal]

Well tool, there are some words that you'll never hear used by politicians, unless they have the balls to actually mean them......

but then, you'll never hear Clinton say he committed perjury, either, but any honorable person won't deny that fact....he'd say he didn't tell the truth, or he misled, or use other innocent wounding words to say it...

just like the Democrats did from 1995 up until 2003.....tiptoe and tapdance all around ...... trying to scare Saddam, to threaten him ....but even he knew they were cowards full of big talk and no stomach for what needed to be done....he probably never dreamed some of them would vote for the War Resolution.....

Now its the same thing we see with Obama and North Korea and Iran....they know this "emperor has no balls"....

To paraphrase a famous Saturday Nite Live, "Bravo, you ignorant neocon slut"!

Do you know how many Iraqi citizens were killed in the "strategic bombings" that were carried on by the Clinton Administration? And THAT was ADDED on to the same actions under Daddy Shrub.....12 years of strategic bombings that reduced the Iraqi infrastructure to crap....one of the reasons why all the reasons for the Shrub's invasion was even a bigger joke. By that time, Iraq had nearly no airforce, an army reduced to less than 1/3 it's strength, and a severely damaged infrastructure that could NOT replenish or properly supply it. Small wonder the invasion was so easy.

Did you even READ a newspaper from 1992 through 2000? Remember all the critics regarding the economic embargos...how BOTH wingnuts and liberals pointed out that the people suffered more than the regime heads?

Tiptoe? The country was fucked, the regime contained. THAT'S why no politician with an 8th of a brain in the Dem party would beat the war drum. And mind you, this was with the Shrub & company was NOT releasing ALL the intel to the Congress and the Senate. Yeah, Hussein was our boy and we supplied him with the materials for WMD's for the Iran/Iraq war. So yeah, we knew he had stuff at one time...but by the time the second wave of WMD inspectors were in mid-stride, Hussein teeth had either been pulled or were to withered to be any threat.

As for your impotent saber rattler venom about Obama and Korea....do you see Korea attacking anyone? Grow up.

[Taichiliberal]

You are positively insane! Do you think The Obama has helped to restore ANY measure of respect for the United States? Yeah, because unlike you, I listen to other news sources like the BBC, NPR, BusinessWeek, the WSJ...and the consensus is that the allies that left the Shrub in the lurch over Iraq all breathed a sigh of relief when that dummy's reign came to an end, and Obama won a fair election. With all his jetting around the globe, apologizing at every stop, bowing to despots, refusing to support democracy, insisting on supporting radical Islam and Socialism? Newsflash for you genius....I can supply articles and pics of Daddy Bush, Reagan, Nixon, and the Shrub kowtowing to "despots".....as well as blithely doing business with them...so spare us all your hypocritical neocon brayings. Oh, and when you can provide QUOTES and DOCUMENTS of Obama supporting radical Islam and socialism (NOT your fevered rantings), let us know. We have the FRENCH lecturing us on our weak foreign policy with Iran...Well, willfully ignorant neocons like you wouldn't know that the Iranian mullahs (the power behind the presidency there) were reaching out for negotiations for YEARS after Clinton left office. As with everything else, the Shrub blew it with his "axis of evil" bullshit. We have the Communist Chinese lecturing us about capitalism! Hey, they've got us by the economic short hairs...so no matter how two faced and hypocritical they are, they just remind us of that. You should know that this situation was building for years...and you can thank corporate america and all the presidents since 1980 for that. And the Russians just doing whatever they damn well please!! And why shouldn't they, they are not Soviets anymore. Cold War is over, stupid...we "won". Remember toodles, any whining you do about Russia best be balanced by your own country doing the SAME DAMNED THING.

You are totally full of shit, and it is literally spewing from every orifice! Why can't you be content to fuck up your own country and leave us to hell alone?

Projecting again bunky?

[NOVA]

Wow...four incoherent rants in row ...obviously talking to yourself ....how positively entertaining, Clarabell.....we should rename you "SuperClown".....
Toying with you at all has become boring in the extreme......you're like a boxer, decked by Ali three or four times thats just too fuckin' stupid
to stay on the mat where you belong.......its embarrising to sucker you into looking like a moron day after day....I don't want to give others the
impression I'm a bully.....people like you, too fuckin' narrow minded to consider historical fact, isn't worth the trouble conversing with....
Anyone responing to you might just as well try reasoning with a rabid dog or a burning hemorroid, for all the good it does.....right now, there is
a rerun on TV of Hee Haw that will, no doubt, be more interesting than you.....

[christiefan915]

"It the same old shit over and over again, it never get any better though."

... is it that you take humbrage to my opinion on it?

I don't take humbrage to your opinion on it..."

[Taichiliberal]

Wow...four incoherent rants in row ...obviously talking to yourself ....how positively entertaining, Clarabell.....we should rename you "SuperClown".....
Toying with you at all has become boring in the extreme......you're like a boxer, decked by Ali three or four times thats just too fuckin' stupid
to stay on the mat where you belong.......its embarrising to sucker you into looking like a moron day after day....I don't want to give others the
impression I'm a bully.....people like you, too fuckin' narrow minded to consider historical fact, isn't worth the trouble conversing with....
Anyone responing to you might just as well try reasoning with a rabid dog or a burning hemorroid, for all the good it does.....right now, there is
a rerun on TV of Hee Haw that will, no doubt, be more interesting than you.....



Translation: our intellectually impotent, willfully ignorant neocon parrot cannot logically or factually refute or disprove anything I stated....so like a petulant child he stamps his little feet and wails all sort of invective, suppostion and self aggrandizing conjecture.

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - Tony B'liar lied and lied again

Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - Tony B'liar lied and lied again




He's done folks! "Bravo" indeed!