Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Bush and Blair agree to attack Iraq without UN, even if no WMD found


Crazyhorse1

Recommended Posts

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/NY_Times_to_report_on_secret_0326.html

Bush and Blair agreed to attack Iraq before consulting UN and stipulated they would do so without UN approval and whether or not WMD found. Bush also suggested painting plane with UN signs and flying it over Iraq to draw fire and start war. New documents seem to me conclusive in re to proving that Bush and Blair did not act in good faith in re to Iraq war, but rather schemed to start it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq regardless of the WMD status is not news to me. All you have to do is read reports from the UN inspectors who were on the ground in Iraq in 2002-2003. They went everywhere and found nothing. Access was never denied to them since 1998. Furthermore, Bush did not have the courage of his allegations to send the UN inspectors to the locations where he thought WMD's existed. Bush then violated a UN resolution in witholding this very evidence (satellite photos of an alleged nuclear weapons facility) from the head weapons inspector and simultaneously using that evidence as reason for war.

The part that sticks out to me is that Blair shared that same war-mongering approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could someone PLEASE make this fool go away. He's not even funny anymore. It's just the mad rantings of a loon. Every post gets crazier and crazier. All he does is drag down the level of discussion.

I mean come on. It's not censorship to weed out insanity. :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq regardless of the WMD status is not news to me. All you have to do is read reports from the UN inspectors who were on the ground in Iraq in 2002-2003. They went everywhere and found nothing. Access was never denied to them since 1998. Furthermore, Bush did not have the courage of his allegations to send the UN inspectors to the locations where he thought WMD's existed. Bush then violated a UN resolution in witholding this very evidence (satellite photos of an alleged nuclear weapons facility) from the head weapons inspector and simultaneously using that evidence as reason for war.

The part that sticks out to me is that Blair shared that same war-mongering approach.

Someone seriously needs to check for accurate facts and documentation, because their post if filled with neither of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could someone PLEASE make this fool go away. He's not even funny anymore. It's just the mad rantings of a loon. Every post gets crazier and crazier. All he does is drag down the level of discussion.

I mean come on. It's not censorship to weed out insanity.

I agree. If anyone here is inclined to read the latest post on Rawstory, I'm sure they can read it themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NY Times obtains secret memo of Bush, Blair meeting before Iraq war

and when is he going to be held accountable to the rules....?

It's the same "Downing Street Memo" from last year. Now the New York Times has decided it's news because the New York Times has read the entire thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the reason why this thread was started was to discuss new information pertaining to the pre-war planning. This isn't quite the same as a generic "Bush was wrong in invading Iraq" threads. After all, folks always want more evidence whenever someone brings up this subject - at least the article mentions official government documents, which is closer to being "evidence." The feeling I get, though. is that many feel that such a point is moot; even if Bush., and British ally, Blair, decided to invade Iraq even as they were less-than-honest with the citizens in their nations, that some have decided that the means justifies the end result: That Saddam was an immediate threat and needed to be removed.

It's those feverent supporters, I believe, that will not be swayed - partly out of resentment, I believe, of those who express disatisfaction with Bush's policies, partially because some absolutely support President Bush, no matter what, and some truly feel that Saddam needed to be removed. I can understand these sentiments to a degree: Loyalty can be a virtue and Saddam was a bad guy. But for those who fall into one of the above categories (which isn't comprehensive), you must understand why folks are constantly probing into the pre-war planning: Because no one likes to be deceived, and the feeling is that a deception occured. And a dishonest deception at that with questionable motivations. ("Rebuilding America's Defenses" - PNAC) And by President Bush's "walk and talk," frankly, he's made enemies. The Bush administration decided to pick a direction and to go with it, no matter the cost: Basically, they saddled their horse and have to ride it.

Also, I believe the feeling that some have demonstrated is that the current administration are a bunch of crooks. And this isn't going to help when the issue of trust is presented by those who do not consider themselves fans of the current administration.

Does this post add anything? Probably not, but it was something that at least was as relevant as any post to the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I meant this: Crazy does it all the time.. same with links..

10. When posting anything concerning news articles from outside sources, please include a direct link (i.e., URL) to the origination page/site. Please paste the URL directly atop the post, above a small portion of the article's text (for example, the lead paragraph or a particular sentence or two) . Such a practice provides credibility and attribution to the source of the information, and allows visitors the option to visit the respective websites. You are responsible for the content you post.

If you are posting a published article from a news source, please title your thread in the following format: "SOURCE SHORTFORM: HEADLINE" (Ex. WP: Redskins Sign CB Shawn Springs). Please see our copyright statement:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

In talking about what the NY times is saying:

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times

Has this top foreign policy adviser said this was true.. I'm looking around Google?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How in the hell is this new news? Bush said on National TV that if the UN didn't authorize military action we were going to do it without the UN.

This is what pisses me off about douche-bag liberals. They keep on regurgitating the same old crap and try to make it "new news." Why? Because the cats out of the bag and ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda have been found. They are trying to do damage control on another huge foreign affairs blunder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it would have only been a blunder had liberals been making the decisions.

True. I should have said political blunder.

Also, so our resident lefties don't get "offended" I am talking about the morons in the national media...

Where is all the coverage about the significant finding linking Saddam with Al-Queda? Why is this not headline news like it should be?

and some of you say the media isn't biased. you know the truth. Quit lying to yourself or are you willing to bend your own morals if it means making the otherside look bad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How in the hell is this new news? Bush said on National TV that if the UN didn't authorize military action we were going to do it without the UN.

This is what pisses me off about douche-bag liberals. They keep on regurgitating the same old crap and try to make it "new news." Why? Because the cats out of the bag and ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda have been found. They are trying to do damage control on another huge foreign affairs blunder.

Funny you should bring up the topic of "new news."

The 9/11 commission said two years ago that there was anecdotal evidence that Saddam had ties with Al Qaida. Now we have more anecdotal evidence and you guys are running around saying Bush was totally vindicated on his reasons for invading Iraq including the WMD's that never materialized. :doh:

Not only that, the Duelfer report also said two years ago that Saddam had plans to reconstitute his weapons programs as soon as sanctions were lifted (which wasn't ever going to happen). You guys are saying these newly translated documents that are over ten years old vindicate Bush. Ugh. Those of us who use the traditional American media have been aware of these ties for two years now. Glad you could join us.

You ignored the 9/11 commission. You ignored the Duelfer report. You ignored the Downing Street Memo. You ignored books written by the head weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq leading up to our invasion, and now this. Must be nice to be able to cherry pick facts at convenient times. You use hand written documents from 1995 as your "new news." Surely, you can see the contrdiction there. :2cents:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what pisses me off about douche-bag liberals. They keep on regurgitating the same old crap and try to make it "new news." Why? Because the cats out of the bag and ties between Saddam and Al-Qaeda have been found. They are trying to do damage control on another huge foreign affairs blunder.

You have to remember that the reason that Iraq was invaded that Saddam was implicitly involved with 9-11 - we have no connection with that at this time. And another secondary reason that Saddam became a target was because of WMD's, and this has still yet to be resolved. So, no, the Bush administration has not been vindicated, at least not at this time.

Once again, everyone who disagrees with this policy is not necessarily a "Liberal." Case in point Pat Buchanan and other Right-wing isolationists who do not belive in the Bush policy. In fact, some may argue that the current Bush policy is indeed an activist *liberal* policy and quite different then a true conservative policy, which would involve a more planned approach with the military. Keep in mind that many of the Neo-cons, including some in Bush's administration, are former "Liberals" who have the same liberal international activisim vision. That is why Bush and Blair get along so famously.

And that is the irony - the "conservatives" on this board bemoaning the "liberal's" criticism of a "liberal" Bush - Blair foreign policy. Oh how the world has turned upside down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny you should bring up the topic of "new news."

The 9/11 commission said two years ago that there was anecdotal evidence that Saddam had ties with Al Qaida. Now we have more anecdotal evidence and you guys are running around saying Bush was totally vindicated on his reasons for invading Iraq including the WMD's that never materialized. :doh:

Not only that, the Duelfer report also said two years ago that Saddam had plans to reconstitute his weapons programs as soon as sanctions were lifted (which wasn't ever going to happen). You guys are saying these newly translated documents that are over ten years old vindicate Bush. Ugh. Those of us who use the traditional American media have been aware of this stuff for two years now.

You ignored the 9/11 commission. You ignored the Duelfer report. You ignored the Downing Street Memo. You ignored books written by the head weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq leading up to our invasion, and now this. Must be nice to be able to cherry pick facts at convenient times. You use hand written documents from 1995 as your "new news." Surely, you can see the contrdiction there. :2cents:

And your side said there was no proof/not enough proof to invade. Because there was no "real" proof of any ties. Remember that? Guess not...

Sanctions? You mean the sanctions the left and others in the international community were condeming the US for? And saying the US has killed 500,000 iraqi babies because of it? And it needs to end? You mean that one? Hell, even good Ole Osama thought that was a perfect propaganda tool to use.You wana take a look in the mirror pot? Or would you rather look like a fool some more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still do not believe there was enough proof to invade, Johnny. And don't be surprised if the "proof" is not accepted by those who are disatisfied with the reasoning for the Iraqi invasion. After all, you probably reject the proof of Bush "lying" about the pre-war planning, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your side said there was no proof/not enough proof to invade. Because there was no "real" proof of any ties. Remember that? Guess not...

Sanctions? You mean the sanctions the left and others in the international community were condeming the US for? And saying the US has killed 500,000 iraqi babies because of it? And it needs to end? You mean that one? Hell, even good Ole Osama thought that was a perfect propaganda tool to use.You wana take a look in the mirror pot? Or would you rather look like a fool some more?

...If you prefer to call the facts "your side" go ahead because that appears to be the case. Try reading this slowly, maybe it will sink in the second time through: The....9/11 commission.......said......there........WERE.........connections........between.........Saddam.......and Al Qaida.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still do not believe there was enough proof to invade, Johnny. And don't be surprised if the "proof" is not accepted by those who are disatisfied with the reasoning for the Iraqi invasion. After all, you probably reject the proof of Bush "lying" about the pre-war planning, correct?

I agree the main reason for invasion was WMD which every single country in the World thought Iraq had. However, I dunno about you but being guilty of conspiracy with the terrorist org that killed 3,000 americans against the US is enough for me to invade. I would bet the vast majority of american would feel the sameway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...