New Memos Detail Early Plans for Invading Iraq

[Baculus]

Note: This is not about the Downing Street Memo, but additional papers and memos that just recently became known.

New Memos Detail Early Plans for Invading Iraq

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050615/ts_latimes/newmemosdetailearlyplansforinvadingiraq

By John Daniszewski Times Staff Writer Wed Jun 15, 7:55 AM ET

LONDON — In March 2002, the Bush administration had just begun to publicly raise the possibility of confronting

Iraq. But behind the scenes, officials already were deeply engaged in seeking ways to justify an invasion, newly revealed British memos indicate.

Foreshadowing developments in the year before the war started, British officials emphasized the importance of U.N. diplomacy, which they said might force

Saddam Hussein into a misstep. They also suggested that confronting the Iraqi leader be cast as an effort to prevent him from using weapons of mass destruction or giving them to terrorists.

The documents help flesh out the background to the formerly top-secret "Downing Street memo" published in the Sunday Times of London last month, which said that top British officials were told eight months before the war began that military action was "seen as inevitable."

President Bush and his main ally in the war, British Prime Minister

Tony Blair, have long maintained that they had not made up their minds to go to war at that stage.

"Nothing could be farther from the truth," Bush said last week, responding to a question about the July 23, 2002, memo. "Both of us didn't want to use our military. Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."

Publication of the Downing Street memo at the height of Britain's election campaign at first garnered little notice in U.S. media or other British newspapers. But in the weeks that followed, anger has grown among war critics, who contend that the document proves the Bush administration had already decided on military action, even while U.S. officials were saying that war was a last resort.

The new documents indicate that top British officials believed that by March 2002, Washington was already leaning heavily toward toppling Hussein by military force.

Condoleezza Rice, the current secretary of State who was then Bush's national security advisor, was described as enthusiastic about "regime change."

Although British officials said in the documents that they did not think Iraq's weapons programs posed an immediate threat and that they were dubious of any claimed links between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda, they indicated that they were willing to join in a campaign to topple Hussein as long as the plan would succeed and was handled with political and legal care.

The documents contain little discussion about whether to mount a military campaign. The focus instead is on how the campaign should be presented to win the widest support and the importance for Britain of working through the

United Nations so an invasion could be seen as legal under international law.

Michael Smith, the defense writer for the Times of London who revealed the Downing Street minutes in a story May 1, provided a full text of the six new documents to the Los Angeles Times.

Portions of the new documents, all labeled "secret" or "confidential," have appeared previously in two British newspapers, the Times of London and the Telegraph. Blair's government has not challenged their authenticity.

They cover a period when reports had begun appearing that the Bush administration was forming plans to go after Hussein in the next phase of its "war on terrorism." A Feb. 10, 2002, article in the Los Angeles Times, for instance, said that the U.S. was considering action against Hussein that might require a massive number of U.S. troops.

Published accounts, including those by the Washington Post's Bob Woodward and former U.S. counter-terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke, said that Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld began focusing on Iraq soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and the

Pentagon.

In his Jan. 29, 2002, State of the Union address, Bush described Iraq,

Iran and

North Korea as part of an "axis of evil."

The documents present a picture of a U.S. government fed up with the policy of containing Iraq, skeptical of the U.N. and focused on ousting Hussein.

Blair's advisors were weighing how Britain could participate in a war. The need to establish a policy on Iraq led to a flurry of meetings between senior U.S. and British officials and internal British government memos in advance of a Bush-Blair summit in April 2002 at the president's ranch near Crawford, Texas. (According to one of the subsequent documents that has been leaked, a British Cabinet briefing paper written in July 2002, Blair gave Bush a conditional commitment at the Texas summit to support military action to remove Hussein.)

In one memorandum, dated March 14, 2002, and labeled "secret — strictly personal," Blair's chief foreign policy advisor, David Manning, described to the prime minister a dinner he had had with Rice.

"We spent a long time at dinner on Iraq," wrote Manning, now the British ambassador to the U.S. "It is clear that Bush is grateful for your [blair's] support and has registered that you are getting flak. I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a Parliament and a public opinion that was different from anything in the States. And you would not budge either in your insistence that, if we pursued regime change, it must be very carefully done and produce the right result. Failure was not an option."

The memo went on to say:

"Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed. But there were some signs, since we last spoke, of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks…. From what she said, Bush has yet to find answers to the big questions:

• How to persuade international opinion that military action against Iraq is necessary and justified;

• What value to put on the exiled Iraqi opposition;

• How to coordinate a US/allied military campaign with internal opposition (assuming there is any);

• What happens the morning after?"

Manning told Blair that given Bush's eagerness for British backing, the prime minister would have "real influence" on the public relations strategy, on the issue of encouraging the United States to go first to the United Nations and on any U.S. military planning.

Manning said it could prove helpful if Hussein refused to allow renewed U.N. weapons inspections.

"The issue of weapons inspectors must be handled in a way that would persuade Europe and wider opinion that the U.S. was conscious of the international framework, and the insistence of many countries on the need for a legal basis. Renewed refusal by Saddam to accept unfettered inspections would be a powerful argument," Manning wrote Blair.

Four days after the Manning memo, Christopher Meyer, then the British ambassador in Washington, wrote to Manning about a lunch he had with Paul D. Wolfowitz, then the U.S. deputy secretary of Defense and a leading proponent in the administration of confronting Hussein. Meyer said in the memo that he had told Wolfowitz that U.N. pressure and weapons inspections could be used to trip up Hussein.

"We backed regime change," he wrote, "but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option. It would be a tough sell for us domestically, and probably tougher elsewhere in Europe."

Meyer wrote that he had argued that Washington could go it alone if it wanted to. "But if it wanted to act with partners, there had to be a strategy for building support for military action against Saddam. I then went through the need to wrong-foot Saddam on the inspectors and the [u.N. Security Council resolutions] and the critical importance of the [Middle East peace process] as an integral part of the anti-Saddam strategy. If all this could be accomplished skillfully, we were fairly confident that a number of countries would come on board."

Another memo, from British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on March 22, 2002, bluntly stated that the case against Hussein was weak because the Iraqi leader was not accelerating his weapons programs and there was scant proof of links to Al Qaeda.

"What has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September," Ricketts wrote. "Attempts to claim otherwise publicly will increase skepticism about our case….

"U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is so far frankly unconvincing," he said.

Ricketts said that other countries such as Iran appeared closer to getting nuclear weapons, and that arguing for regime change in Iraq alone "does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam." That was why the issue of weapons of mass destruction was vital, he said.

"Much better, as you [straw] have suggested, to make the objective ending the threat to the international community from Iraqi WMD before Saddam uses it or gives it to terrorists," he said. A U.N. Security Council resolution demanding renewal of weapons inspections, he says, would be a "win/win."

"Either [Hussein] against all the odds allows Inspectors to operate freely, in which case we can further hobble his WMD programs, or he blocks/hinders, and we are on stronger grounds for switching to other methods," he wrote.

The arguments that Iraq had illegal, hidden weapons of mass destruction, programs to develop more of them, and that it might give them to terrorists were to become some of the Bush administration's chief reasons for the war. When no weapons were found, the administration blamed faulty intelligence and said the war still was justified because it ended Hussein's brutal dictatorship and allowed an emerging democratic government.

In November 2002, the U.S. and Britain managed to get a toughly worded resolution through the Security Council that reintroduced arms inspectors into Iraq for the first time since 1998. However, it fell short of authorizing the use of force against Hussein's government.

Straw, writing to Blair on March 25, 2002, expressed concern about a lack of support among members of Parliament from the governing Labor Party.

"Colleagues know that Saddam and the Iraqi regime are bad," he wrote. "But we have a long way to go to convince them as to: The scale of the threat from Iraq, and why this has got worse recently; what distinguishes the Iraqi threat from that of e.g. Iran and North Korea so as to justify military action; the justification for any military action in terms of international law; and whether the consequences really would be a compliant, law-abiding replacement government.

"Regime change per se is no justification for military action; it could form part of the method of any strategy, but not a goal," he said. "Elimination of Iraq's WMD capacity has to be the goal."

The new documents also include an earlier 10-page options paper, dated March 8, 2002, from the overseas and defense secretariat of the Cabinet Office, sketching out options for dealing with Iraq. The thrust of the memo was that the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq after the 1991 Persian

Gulf War were likely to fail, and that, in any case, the U.S. had already given up on them.

"The U.S. has lost confidence in containment," the document said. "Some in government want Saddam removed. The success of Operation Enduring Freedom [the military code name for the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan], distrust of U.N. sanctions and inspection regimes, and unfinished business from 1991 are all factors.

"Washington believes the legal basis for an attack already exists. Nor will it necessarily be governed by wider political factors. The U.S. may be willing to work with a smaller coalition than we think desirable," it said.

The paper said the British view was that any invasion for the purpose of regime change "has no basis under international law."

The best way to justify military action, it said, would be to convince the Security Council that Iraq was in breach of its post-Gulf War obligations to eliminate its store of weapons of mass destruction.

The document appeared to rule out any action in Iraq short of an invasion.

"In sum, despite the considerable difficulties, the use of overriding force in a ground campaign is the only option that we can be confident will remove Saddam and bring Iraq back into the international community," it said.

[NoCalMike]

Old news, but don't worry it will get no-sold by the "defending our freedom" crowd.

[Fred Jones]

The problem lies in the delivery. Old news, new news, wrong news, right news. If you presented this material in 2002 or 2003 you would have been labeled a traitor and unpatriotic and been heckled by the right wing.

Now, the right just calls it old news. Nothing to worry about. They eff'ed up, but that's ok because the administration doesn't accept responsiblity for anything anyway.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Whats that saying "hope for the best prepare for the worst"

I am almost certain right now we also have invasion plans for Iran, North Korea and Saudia Arabia

I do think though (from my observations) it was pretty clear we were going to invade in early 2002. My only beef was letting the world know every little detail about the battle plan and allowing Saddam a full year to prepare

And I think this line is very important

"What has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September," Ricketts wrote. "Attempts to claim otherwise publicly will increase skepticism about our case

And I think the admin failed to make that very clear, with exception to Rumsfeld's looking at "Iraq through the 9/11 prism" comment

[NoCalMike]

Originally posted by Fred Jones

The problem lies in the delivery. Old news, new news, wrong news, right news. If you presented this material in 2002 or 2003 you would have been labeled a traitor and unpatriotic and been heckled by the right wing.

Now, the right just calls it old news. Nothing to worry about. They eff'ed up, but that's ok because the administration doesn't accept responsiblity for anything anyway.

Well I am a lefty liberal calling it old news, simply because if you look up my posts and replies from back then, I among others, were trying to get this information out back then, while being called "america-haters" and "hippies" I am just calling it old news, because to anyone that has been paying attention for the past few years, it is just that, news that was available back then if you really wanted to go searching. It doesn't discredit, or invalidate any of the information in the memo, it is still valid in 2005, but it just sucks that this kind of information will STILL be looked at with blind eyes because people simply don't want to believe it.

[Fred Jones]

Easy NoCalMike, didn't mean to offend someone that doesn't vote Republican. I am just tired of the right calling everything "old news", and stating the Democrats are just stirring up trouble.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan

Whats that saying "hope for the best prepare for the worst"

I am almost certain right now we also have invasion plans for Iran, North Korea and Saudia Arabia

I'd be willing to bet you any amount of money in the world that we have absolutely NO plans for invading Saudi Arabia.

I do think though (from my observations) it was pretty clear we were going to invade in early 2002. My only beef was letting the world know every little detail about the battle plan and allowing Saddam a full year to prepare

So you had no problem about "cooking the books" in order to bring our country to war??? Are you serious??? Besides, weren't you against the invasion? Maybe I have you confused with another poster, but I thought you were initially against Iraq.

And I think this line is very important

"What has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein's WMD programs, but our tolerance of them post-11 September," Ricketts wrote. "Attempts to claim otherwise publicly will increase skepticism about our case

No, there were NO WMD programs, it was all a pack of lies built around invading a country for their natural resource. Do you honestly think if Iraq had no oil we invade? Can you honestly answer the question yes? I have a real hard time believing this looking at your first response, that we were going to invade early 2002. Just trying to see where you are coming from SHF. . .

As for the Iran plans, it isn't old news, it hasn't been in the news at all. I knew about the plans a few months ago from some inside information, but as far as I know, the US press has not covered it.

Can you guys imagine the "libral media" if it was Clinton doing this? Heell, it would be on every TV station, on every front page newspaper and on every radio station in the country. . . but then again, in America, all you have to do is put up a web page and people take it as gospel :doh:

[chomerics]

Originally posted by NoCalMike

but it just sucks that this kind of information will STILL be looked at with blind eyes because people simply don't want to believe it.

Yes, this is true, but I'm not sure if I've ever seen a report on an Iraqi invasion. I think that was where Fred was going with it.

[NoCalMike]

Chomerics, it is not just oil, also ideal locations for international military bases right in the heart of the middle east, so on one hand yes we are after Iraqi oil, but ideally that is only the beginning, and it likely to get uglier in the future if we stay on the current course of planning. I am sure you have read PNAC.

I am still amazed that people think it was acceptable for us to strike Iraq and in effect draw tens of thousands of terrorists into their country where they weren't in the first place. We should have kept out efforts on seeking them out where they were instead of drawing them into a country that we attacked for a totally different reason.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Originally posted by chomerics

I'd be willing to bet you any amount of money in the world that we have absolutely NO plans for invading Saudi Arabia.

I bet we have plans for invading virtually every potential hot spot in the world. SA would qualify as one.

For example if radicals overthrew the royal family, you think we would really NOT invade that place?

So you had no problem about "cooking the books" in order to bring our country to war??? Are you serious??? Besides, weren't you against the invasion? Maybe I have you confused with another poster, but I thought you were initially against Iraq.

Initially I was. Around May of 2002. I thought an assanation of Hussien would be better (that whole I don't like fellow Muslims being ruled by dictators thing) however realizing that it would do little to end the tyranny in Iraq, tossing out the bathists and freeing 26 million fellow Muslims turned into a better alternative for me.

And after realizing how much we had underwritten Hussien during the 1980s, well it made sense that we go and clean up this mess and take out this monster. And quite honestly I am pretty damn sick of Muslims being ruled by dictators and nobody in the West really giving a damn.

No, there were NO WMD programs, it was all a pack of lies built around invading a country for their natural resource. Do you honestly think if Iraq had no oil we invade? Can you honestly answer the question yes? I have a real hard time believing this looking at your first response, that we were going to invade early 2002. Just trying to see where you are coming from SHF. . .

I am not that niave to think dollar signs were not in people's eyes. However, looking at what people thought at the time and basing it on intel from many sources (which at the time was deemed credible, remember the words "Slam dunk case") and the fact that having a military base of operations in Iraq moves us out of SA, and puts us in position to hit hot spots in the Middle East (Iran, Syria, SA) when neccessary.

And yeah I thought it was pretty clear some sort of invasion would occur. Right around the time Sharon pinned Arafat, Cheney was traveling around the Middle East attempting to drum up support.

That got put on the back burner with the crisis in the Holy Land in March of 2002. I think if that whole nonsense didn't happen an invasion would have occured by November of 2002.

[Fred Jones]

You can add unfinished business and revenge to the list. Finish the business HW Bush started and revenge for the attempt on his life during the Clinton years.

[@DCGoldPants]

I think two things here.

#1. Old news.....at this point, it doesn't matter. Nobody takes responsibility anymore.

#2. We don't have a legit plan for invading S.A.. How can you have a real plan based on if the Royal Family is overthrown? By whom? When? What cities in what order? What kind of weapons do they have? What kind of outside support?

Too many questions to have a real plan for them right now.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Originally posted by NoCalMike

I am still amazed that people think it was acceptable for us to strike Iraq and in effect draw tens of thousands of terrorists into their country where they weren't in the first place. We should have kept out efforts on seeking them out where they were instead of drawing them into a country that we attacked for a totally different reason.

Another interesting quote by Rumsfeld before the war

"This can be almost like a fly trap for terrorists"

And it has become that. We have drawn them in and our professional army is fighting them, rather then police officers and fire fighters in America

It just amazes me that people in America do not realize that short of disbanding the United States of America there are many people that want nothing but to destroy and kill Americans. Traveling through the Middle East you'll see it

[@DCGoldPants]

a Fly Trap would mean that recruitting numbers throughout the regions aren't still doing just fine.... that we've caught them and they can't keep expanding, like they are.

Fine enough to send these people into Iraq and still have enough to operate in other countries.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Originally posted by Bufford

a Fly Trap would mean that recruitting numbers throughout the regions aren't still doing just fine.... that we've caught them and they can't keep expanding, like they are.

Fine enough to send these people into Iraq and still have enough to operate in other countries.

What I find kind of funny is how people really think that invading caused terrorist numbers to swell.

What people don't think about is just what lack of chivalry these thugs have. They jump on bandwagons basically and like to be part of a winner, if it makes sense.

9/11 was seen by extremists over there as a victory against the US. You don't think that didn't inspire a whole generation of terrorists?

[SkinsHokieFan]

Oh no I see Chom has been lurking in this thread for about 10 minutes now

I am eagerly awaiting his 5 page response but I'll have to wait till tommorow to respond

Off to bed and I'll return when this is a 5 page thread

[chomerics]

Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan

I bet we have plans for invading virtually every potential hot spot in the world. SA would qualify as one.

For example if radicals overthrew the royal family, you think we would really NOT invade that place?

Actually, I don't think this has even been thought of by the Bush administration. Mainly because they would not want their best buds pissed at them. If invasion plans were leaked to the Saudis, I think they'd be a little peeved.

Initially I was. Around May of 2002. I thought an assanation of Hussien would be better (that whole I don't like fellow Muslims being ruled by dictators thing) however realizing that it would do little to end the tyranny in Iraq, tossing out the bathists and freeing 26 million fellow Muslims turned into a better alternative for me.

And after realizing how much we had underwritten Hussien during the 1980s, well it made sense that we go and clean up this mess and take out this monster. And quite honestly I am pretty damn sick of Muslims being ruled by dictators and nobody in the West really giving a damn.

This is a much better argument, and I concur with your beliefs to a point, but was it in the best intrest of the country? That's one of my MAJOR problems with Iraq. If we wanted a staging ground, we could have still used Afghanistan. We could have built up that country with little or no insurgence, seeing as the Taliban was not a well liked group. This would have changed the Muslim worlds opinion of the US drastically.

Now, I think we are the poster child for what is wrong with the world. We give the extremists their own recruiting material, and we have concentrated on the wrong areas. Iraq has been and continues to be an absolute disaster because we have a person in charge who does not know what he is doing. . . I mean we're talking about a guy who's failed miserably at everything he's touched (except for the Rangers) and has been promoted for it each and every time.

I am not that niave to think dollar signs were not in people's eyes. However, looking at what people thought at the time and basing it on intel from many sources (which at the time was deemed credible, remember the words "Slam dunk case") and the fact that having a military base of operations in Iraq moves us out of SA, and puts us in position to hit hot spots in the Middle East (Iran, Syria, SA) when neccessary.

THe evidence was not credible, and we knew it. The "slam dunk" quote from Tenet was a convienient quote for blame, but when did it get said? It was right before Christmas of 2002. This was AFTER we had already decided to invade and cook the intel to make it appear as if Saddam was a threat to America. We knew there was no evidence on Iraq, yet we still invaded. We went to war, unprovoked, in front of the whole world, on phoney trumped up intel reports (which we KNEW were false) and we ended up with blood on our hands.

As for the military base deal, I agree we should be out of SA. We never should have been there in the first place, we should have left after Gulf War I. The thing is, we are moble enough to where we can be anywhere on the planet in 24 hours, and we can have a battle ready army of 100K troops ready in 90 days. We don't need, nor did we ever need Iraq as a staging ground. It only gives the insurgence more targets to hit.

And yeah I thought it was pretty clear some sort of invasion would occur. Right around the time Sharon pinned Arafat, Cheney was traveling around the Middle East attempting to drum up support.

Yes, and it was WAY before the slam dunk quote. . .

That got put on the back burner with the crisis in the Holy Land in March of 2002. I think if that whole nonsense didn't happen an invasion would have occured by November of 2002.

Possibly, but I doubt it. Remember the rhetoric? We were going there as a "last resort", but we weren't, it was a complete snow job on the American people. We had already diverted money from Afghanistan to Iraq.

The bottom line is we are there now, and we have to fix this ship. We have an administration that has destroyed our name everywhere, and has absolutely no clue on how to win this war. When Bush declared "Combat operations in Iraq are over", there were under 200 dead soldiers. Now, there are over 800% more casualities, and from anywhere between 25K and 100K dead Iraqis. This is not working and we need to change it. I've been saying this for a couple of years, but people are FINALLY starting to listen.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan

Oh no I see Chom has been lurking in this thread for about 10 minutes now

I am eagerly awaiting his 5 page response but I'll have to wait till tommorow to respond

Off to bed and I'll return when this is a 5 page thread

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Just wanted to add that I am reading Ghost Wars now. I just started the book, but it is great so far, I have learned a LOT of stuff about the mujahedeen (sp?) and what went on in Afghanistan and Iran during the invasion, and the takeover. I'll let you know when I am done with the book.

[NoCalMike]

Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan

What I find kind of funny is how people really think that invading caused terrorist numbers to swell.

What people don't think about is just what lack of chivalry these thugs have. They jump on bandwagons basically and like to be part of a winner, if it makes sense.

9/11 was seen by extremists over there as a victory against the US. You don't think that didn't inspire a whole generation of terrorists?

How are you deciphering Insurgents & Terrorists though? It seems you put them all in one group and that is the problem. The insurgency is IRAQIs who for whatever reason are displeased with the occupation, and want american troops and our overall presence out of Iraq, ala they want to keep control of their oil, and they don't want their country used for U.S. military bases. Terrorists on the other hand are the ones hell bent on taking over the world. It is two different groups entirely.

Now, it was expected for the number of TERRORISTS to grow after 9/11, for the reasons in your quote above, however what this administration did not anticipate is that the IRAQI Insurgency numbers would keep getting bigger in numbers even though Bush/Cheney/Rummy would like to act like all is well, just as long as the american taxpayer signs over another 80 billion every few months.

[Baculus]

This particular information is new news, because it speaks of specific details and conversations. And details that show that the Bush administration has not been honest. It demonstrates that the show that Colin Powell made in front of the U.N. was merely for appearance. That Bush's assertion to the American people - you and me - that the administration were trying other options before war was false. That, all along, they had other plans, but they put window dressing on their spin so it appeared they were exploring these other options. All to deceive the mothers and fathers of soldiers into thinking that the best options were being explored before sending their sons and daughters off to war.

I just cannot believe that Bush and the administration was so obviously dishonest, and it is met with a shrug with some folks. So much for restoring the "integrity and honesty" back to the White House.

What a sham.

By the way, we've had invasion plans since 1989 for Iraq.

[stevenaa]

"a Fly Trap would mean that recruitting numbers throughout the regions aren't still doing just fine.... that we've caught them and they can't keep expanding, like they are."

You wan't to support that assertion with statistics. It's hilarioius to see people stating how we are creating so many more terrorists. Do terrorists participate in some sort census so we can tell how there recruiting is going?

Seems to me the world has been quiet on the Terrorism front other then what's going on in Iraq. The problem is certainly not solved, but we are fighting them closer to THIER homes.

A bully respects nothing but force. Terrorists are nothing more then bullies, and right now we are showing them we will use force. No matter where we would have struck in the Middle East, we'd be divided on the action taken.

[chomerics]

Originally posted by stevenaa

You wan't to support that assertion with statistics. It's hilarioius to see people stating how we are creating so many more terrorists. Do terrorists participate in some sort census so we can tell how there recruiting is going?

No, but we can tell by the increased insurgent attacks, and our baseline intel on their numbers. Not like the administration would ever admit that what they are doing is wrong, they never have before so why start now?

Seems to me the world has been quiet on the Terrorism front other then what's going on in Iraq.

Really??? You must not have paid attention to the Senate hearings about 6 months ago, or when we had to redact a report which said the exact same thing as you. Terrorism has gone up exponentially since the invasion of Iraq, it has NOT decreased. If you want to see the testimony of Rumsfield and the ripping McCain gave him for his ridiculous statements, and blatent ignorance of facts, let me know, I'll track it down for you.

A bully respects nothing but force. Terrorists are nothing more then bullies, and right now we are showing them we will use force. No matter where we would have struck in the Middle East, we'd be divided on the action taken.

No, we invaded a country not because of terrorism, but under the GUISE of terrorism. Make no bones about it, Iraq was not about terrorism, and we now have various memos and facts leaked through FOIAs which corroberate my side of the story. Iraq was invaded for a multitude of reasons, but terrorism was NOT one of them, you were lied to and unfortunately you bought the BS. One day history will prove me right, and this will be looked at as a dark time in American history. . . that is if we still have a country left after another 4 years of this utter waste of oxygen running our country. By then, we will ALL own China about 40K just in government debt.

[Kilmer17]

3 years from now, another Republican will win the white house, and Im going to giggle my ass off.

[NoCalMike]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

3 years from now, another Republican will win the white house, and Im going to giggle my ass off.

Well your probably correct, because in 2004 getting Bush re-elected was as easy as raising the terror level and putting Tom Ridge's mug on TV every other day when Bush's opponent would go up in percentage. So if the american people are as easily duped in 2008, then we get what we deserve I suppose. That and electronic voting machines without a paper trail will certainly help.(Which ironically, Arnold is trying to bring to CA)

[Hooper]

Hopefully both parties will do a little bit better this time around with their candidates. Everybody was a loser the last time around.