Iraq Battles Islamists in Saddam’s Hometown

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/15/world/meast/iraq-photos-isis/

 

So, we sacrificed how many American troops to back [penis] Chaney's lies and W's grudge to get here? They should both be prosecuted for treason.

 

But he tried to kill W's daddy.

 

It's pretty clear that we charged a windmill there after all. Sad.

 

Agreed. Cheney, the chicken hawk, has never met a war he didn't like. Well, except the one he was asked to fight in.

 

Did Bill and Hilary lie too because they said they were sure there were WMD?

 

Was Bill still receiving PDBs from the NSA & CIA in 2003?

 

Yep. I was in quite a vengeful mode at the time, looking back on it, and was all for it. In hindsight, it was a mistake of tragic proportions. But, time will tell.

 

I don't recall him saying he was acting on old information.

 

Congrats.

You can join John McCain & Lindsey Graham to make a threesome.

 

You want someone that should be in jail. . .


“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

 

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton

“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” — Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” — Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002

 

I'm sure a Senator has the same access to intel as the President. I'm also sure this statement had nothing to do with the Administration exaggerating intel that advanced their preconceived goal while stifling intel that didn't.

 

I see. So her intel is bad and bush's was good? Funny that she's never come out and said that despite a rather large incentive to say as much.

 

No. The intel was manipulated. See Colin Powell.

 

Evidence? Once again. Why not say that given the fact obama used her support consistantly against her in the primaries.

 

Some do.

What is more important is who was controlling the narrative? For what consumer were the intelligence agencies (primarily CIA) preparing assessments? What was the expectation of that intelligence?

The directive was not to assess the state of existing programs but rather to gather intelligence pointing to programs. Key difference.

If that directive drives intelligence gathering then the other consumers of that intelligence can be pretty easily misled if they don't realize that. In truth most likely did - but we were heading down that road and the cultural winds of the day dictated you didn't want to be on the other side of that argument.

 

Which one of those quotes called for the long term occupation of Iraq?

 

yeah this solution really was the right answer.

 

I agree with the last part. A vote against military force was looked down upon.

There was intelligence there that painted a different picture than the Admin wanted to paint. It was stifled. Period. Not to mention that a CIA operative was outed in doing so.