Why the US Invaded Iraq

[Crabtownboy]

You seem to have forgotten that the things Congress believed were being said long before Bush was in office, and that the Congress had the access to the same intelligence Bush did. If Congress was wrong, they have no one to blame but themselves.

I am not sure you are right when you say that Congress receives the same intelligence as the President. The President gets a daily briefing. I doubt seriously that the CIA or NSA makes all the intelligence available to all 535 members of Congress.

It has been pretty widely reported that Bush was warned that some intelligence he said he would use, or did use was not reliable and came from very dubious sources. But he used it anyway.

Prague, 14 July 2003 (RFE/RL) -- Last week, the White House admitted that in a speech last January, President George W. Bush mistakenly cited a British intelligence report about Iraq seeking uranium in Africa.

That report, the White House said, was later found to be based on forged documents and should not have been included in Bush's annual State of the Union speech.

But just as Bush's critics began to question his use of questionable intelligence to justify the war on Iraq, his administration found a way out -- at least for now -- of its potentially explosive credibility problem.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2003/intell-030714-rfel-162426.htm

Bush blamed the CIA for the mistake.

Senior administration officials tell CBS News the President’s mistaken claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa was included in his State of the Union address -- despite objections from the CIA.

http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cach...dubious+intelligence&hl=cs&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=cz

The most serious blunder, put forth by British intelligence and cited by President Bush in his State of the Union address, involved an assertion that Niger, the West African country, had sold tons of uranium to Iraq. The Central Intelligence Agency, as well as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, acknowledged late last week that the documents were forged, six days after top UN nuclear weapons inspector, Mohamed ElBaradei, said his team had found the documents to lack authenticity.

http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cach...dubious+intelligence&hl=cs&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=cz

 

[LeBuick]

"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 Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998..

And to add, Sadaam denied the UN inspectors free access to the inspections they needed to do. I'm in no way saying Saddam was over there playing nice, my question was why didn't Bush wait for the UN? Why did he feel we should go this alone? We should have continued diplomatic negotiations until the UN decided it was time to go in Iraq. Because we didn't wait, this is now America's war and not that of the UN.

 

[Revmitchell]

And to add, Sadaam denied the UN inspectors free access to the inspections they needed to do. I'm in no way saying Saddam was over there playing nice, my question was why didn't Bush wait for the UN? Why did he feel we should go this alone? We should have continued diplomatic negotiations until the UN decided it was time to go in Iraq. Because we didn't wait, this is now America's war and not that of the UN.

It is hard to take you seriously when you make statements like this.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I am not sure you are right when you say that Congress receives the same intelligence as the President. The President gets a daily briefing. I doubt seriously that the CIA or NSA makes all the intelligence available to all 535 members of Congress.

There are intelligence committees in the Congress who get the intel. They may not get it daily, but they can get it.

 

[LeBuick]

It is hard to take you seriously when you make statements like this.

Soooooo, you don't feel we needed UN support?

 

[OldRegular]

One may not have purpose for a thread; one can, however, wallow in their confusion displaying it for all to see.

Ed

There is something new under the Sun. You and I finally agree on something.:thumbs: :thumbs:

 

[LeBuick]

Ed

There is something new under the Sun. You and I finally agree on something.:thumbs: :thumbs:

That's not new, time just needed to align with destiny etc... :laugh: :thumbs:

 

[LadyEagle]

We should have continued diplomatic negotiations until the UN decided it was time to go in Iraq. Because we didn't wait, this is now America's war and not that of the UN.

The UN is a toothless tiger and Saddam knew it. The UN resolutions had been ignored by Saddam, 16 of them either ignored or defied. The UN wasn't having their planes shot at in the "no fly zone." It was the UK and US who were patrolling the skies. You need to brush up on history, Friend.

 

[Revmitchell]

Soooooo, you don't feel we needed UN support?

What is hard to take seriously is when these idiotic false claims of going it alone are made. As far as the UN goes we now know that they were taking kick back from the oil for food programs which lead them to oppose finalizing the situation in Iraq. There were more than 30 countries involved in finalizing the gulf war. Going it alone is a revision of the facts.

 

[OldRegular]

Well according to some whacko leftist we went to war for oil!

 

[LeBuick]

What is hard to take seriously is when these idiotic false claims of going it alone are made. As far as the UN goes we now know that they were taking kick back from the oil for food programs which lead them to oppose finalizing the situation in Iraq. There were more than 30 countries involved in finalizing the gulf war. Going it alone is a revision of the facts.

I will have to do some checking but I don't recall their being 30 countries involved. The list I recall is;

US
Brits
Australia
Spain (who withdrew after the train station was bombed)
Poland and Kuwait

You say there were 30? Do you have a link?

I also don't recall many democrats voting for the war but that really doesn't matter. Let me do some checking before I respond...

 

[LadyEagle]

I will have to do some checking but I don't recall their being 30 countries involved. The list I recall is;

US
Brits
Australia
Spain (who withdrew after the train station was bombed)
Poland and Kuwait

You say there were 30? Do you have a link?

I also don't recall many democrats voting for the war but that really doesn't matter. Let me do some checking before I respond...

Originally, there were 33 countries:

http://www.iraqwarveterans.org/coalition.htm

To date, there are 54 countries that have joined the Coalition of the Willing--not including Canada, Germany, and France, which have recently offered conditional support. This does not include all of the 15 nations that have offered quiet support. The number of nations to date already eclipses the 1991 Gulf War coalition, which had 38 countries.

http://www.heritage.org/research/iraq/wm225.cfm

 

[LeBuick]

What is hard to take seriously is when these idiotic false claims of going it alone are made. As far as the UN goes we now know that they were taking kick back from the oil for food programs which lead them to oppose finalizing the situation in Iraq. There were more than 30 countries involved in finalizing the gulf war. Going it alone is a revision of the facts.

As for the 30 countries, I find no support of a list that long.

As for going it alone, it was Bush and his administration leading the cause for invading. He began in his Inaugural address when he called them the axis of evil. There was Powell holding up the vile of anthrax and the claims they had long range missiles that could reach the US. This is why congress voted for the resolution and these were never found.

As you pointed out with your quotes from the Clinton administration, I am not saying Saddam was an angel but I still believe had we of waited for the UN to invade we wouldn't have so much responsibility in seeing Iraq back to a stable government. Iraq would be occupied by UN peacekeeping troops which would allow us to pull down some of our forces so we can put more in Afghanistan.

Perhaps going it alone is an exaggeration but waiting on the UN we didn't do.

 

[Jim1999]

I thought it was false intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[LadyEagle]

We did wait on the UN for 16 resolutions and as was stated, the UN oil for food program was corrupt.

I provided the links about the countries above your post, LB.

I do have to say that part of the misinformation about going to war in Iraq has been due in large part to the Bush administration failing to communicate efficiently to the American people and the world. Definite breakdown of communication and a hostile press.

 

[LeBuick]

Originally, there were 33 countries:

http://www.iraqwarveterans.org/coalition.htm

To date, there are 54 countries that have joined the Coalition of the Willing--not including Canada, Germany, and France, which have recently offered conditional support. This does not include all of the 15 nations that have offered quiet support. The number of nations to date already eclipses the 1991 Gulf War coalition, which had 38 countries.

http://www.heritage.org/research/iraq/wm225.cfm

From your first link...

At this time, 28 non-U.S. military forces are contributing to the ongoing stability operations throughout Iraq. These countries are Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Rep, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, , United Kingdom, and Ukraine.

One or both must not be accurate.... I think this is also the largest problem, it is hard to find unbiased facts instead of just people throwing up stuff...

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I thought we invaded just because.

 

[LeBuick]

I thought it was false intelligence regarding weapons of mass destruction.

Cheers,

Jim

It was Jim, that and delivery systems. It was claimed Iraq had long range missiles capable of delivering their chemical weapons to American soil.

 

[LadyEagle]

From your first link...



One or both must not be accurate.... I think this is also the largest problem, it is hard to find unbiased facts instead of just people throwing up stuff...

How hard is it to figure out that there were originally 33 countries, the number dropped to 24 because some countries pulled out, and then over time, more countries joined the coalition to be 54 countries? I'm not an Einstein but even I can deduce. :tonofbricks:

 

[LeBuick]

I thought we invaded just because.

We did, because Bush wanted to. :thumbs: