Great. Now explain why democratic congress funded the war they were "against".

Everyone screwed up with Iraq, in multiple ways. That is why we don't have any business getting involved with sovereign nations.

"If I'd known beforehand that Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, I would not have supported the war."

How Profound....

That fact is Hussein had everyone fooled

That's easy to say after the fact isn't it? Lets face it, the politicians don't know what they're doing, their lobbyists are a bunch of fucking crooks who know exactly what they're doing and the press is a bunch of cowards.

He is still wrong. Bush and company cherry picked the intelligence to lead us to war.

Great. Now explain why democratic congress funded the war they were "against".

Hey anytime you want to cut the funds to a war in progress feel free... you will hear republiclown wailing into the stratosphere about how much the Dems hate our troops. You know this shit is so disingenuous coming from the right... assholes...

That fact is Hussein had everyone fooled

Bullshit... not one nation in the region felt Iraq was a threat... not one nation in the region put boots on the ground for Bush-Hole... oh they were more than happy to be our filling stations... made them rich to do so.... but not one drop of muslim blood from an Islamic nation in the region... where Saddam was a threat... assisted us in ousting him... or finding those illusive WMD's... not one was part of the coalition forces...that should have been a clue right there... on the other hand there were plenty fighting against US presence there... fact is Bush-hole had you fooled.

republiclown insist on being such fucking victims

That fact is Hussein had everyone fooled

Bullshit...

exactly that! Not all of us were fooled.

It is just very hard to tell the Mob they are full of shit.

"but not one drop of muslim blood from an Islamic nation in the region..."

Of course those same nations were out in the streets cheering the loss of 3000 american lives. Sure, bring more western influence into a region where you are all hated, we will be happy to join and help.

Bullshit...

"exactly that! Not all of us were fooled."

"It is just very hard to tell the Mob they are full of shit."

A northern cal lib blogger and some state senator, who would no doubt be against any war, and the mob missed it. Who would have thought?

They did find WMD evidence. They moved all the stuff out before we got there.

Of course those same nations were out in the streets cheering the loss of 3000 american lives. Sure, bring more western influence into a region where you are all hated, we will be happy to join and help.

riiiight fly 49,000 sorties in 3 weeks and crush their infrastructure killing until numbers for no reason and damn it!... no fucking parades... no rosewater and rice....

A northern cal lib blogger and some state senator, who would no doubt be against any war, and the mob missed it. Who would have thought? you forgot 80% of the world was against our going in you nit wit... the ones fooled were in the minority... but you and Bush-hole decided to go it alone... got you asses hand to you too... trillion dollars later thanks for nothing assholes.

"I blew it," Miller writes. "If I'd known beforehand that Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, I would not have supported the war."

I guess the gas he used on his own people and Iran was just a "wepon of little destruction"? Damn, I guess it was, nothing got blown up!!!!

Of course those same nations were out in the streets cheering the loss of 3000 american lives. Sure, bring more western influence into a region where you are all hated, we will be happy to join and help.

#9 | POSTED BY CRISPEE_OC

Oh cookie, you aren't so bright, is you?

You do remember Beck had thousands in the street the other day? The Dem and GOP National Conventions bring thousands in the streets. PETA even puts thousands in the streets occasionally. Thousands in the streets does not mean a unified nation. Some of them hate us. Some of them don't. Lots of the southern portion of the middle east get along with us. We've been getting much closer with more than a few other nations too. Get over it.

They did find WMD evidence. They moved all the stuff out before we got there.

yea... we all saw that headline right next to "Mission Accomplished".

Now...Can you say the same thing then post a link from an actual news source?

"I guess the gas he used on his own people and Iran was just a "wepon of little destruction""

That certainly wasn't what Bush was referring to; it's not like he said "we have to go in and get back the weapons of mass destruction we sold Saddam in the first place".

"They did find WMD evidence. They moved all the stuff out before we got there."

If that's the case, the way Bush executed the Iraq war was a phenomenal fuck-up.

A northern cal lib blogger and some state senator, who would no doubt be against any war, and the mob missed it. Who would have thought?

#10 | Posted by crispee_oc

Thinking...yes...that would be a new concept to you. I that is why guess you missed all the others who also doubted the existence of any WMD. (other than what the USA actually supplied them).

I imagine you were one of those who thought that "smoking gun" would be a Mushroom Cloud right?

"They did find WMD evidence."

In the ten-year-old shells, long buried in the sand, which had expired more than a half-decade prior???

Here's a hint, Hannity: It can't be a WMD if there's no "M" and there's no "D". If one of those shells were broken open, and the jelly smeared on someone's leg, it would --gasp! -- cause a nasty burn.

No "M", no "D",

oooh they just hate it when "we say we told you so"!

That is why I say it often.

"Oh cookie, you aren't so bright, is you?"

Define bright... I am bright enough to see your brilliant assesment that some like us and some don't. What seems rather "dull though, is that it missed my sarcastic remark about countries in the region willing to join the coalition. As for getting the other insightful remark about getting over it... What should I be getting over, or gotten over, since 2003?

I imagine you were one of those who thought that "smoking gun" would be a Mushroom Cloud right?
#18 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-09-02 05:52 PM |

You should have stopped after "I imagine" instead of yapping on Doooner.

I read his piece. Did he ever explain why he decided to come out now with this?

"I read his piece. Did he ever explain why he decided to come out now with this?"

I am more surprised it is a thread on Drudge. I doubt many here will comment on this part of the article. Imagine how many posts it would render useless in the last four years.

A lot of people -- from Bill Clinton to the German and Israeli intelligence services -- believed the same thing. But I'm skeptical of what people claim to "know" in many other areas of public life. I wasn't skeptical enough about this. I argued back then about the risks of inaction outweighing the risks of action. When I look over those columns today, from the distance of nearly eight years, they seem reasonable and serious.

Except, of course, that their premise was utterly wrong. If I'd known beforehand that Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, I would not have supported the war. I don't believe President Bush misled the country about these facts, because many other sources held the same view of Hussein's capabilities. (I don't believe Colin Powell was intentionally misleading anyone at the United Nations either, but it turned out not to be his finest hour.)

Agreed, CRISPEE.

"If I'd known beforehand that Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, I would not have supported the war. I don't believe President Bush misled the country about these facts, because many other sources held the same view of Hussein's capabilities. (I don't believe Colin Powell was intentionally misleading anyone at the United Nations either, but it turned out not to be his finest hour.) "

I remember that day quite vividly. I was sure Powell's presentation would show 'em. I couldn't wait, thinking this'll shut them up.

Afterward, all I could think was That's it?!? That's all we've got??? Some cartoons that guess at what might be there??? No real proof?!?!?

That was the exact moment they lost my support.

#26...

The difference of course is that we have the luxury of guessing if it is true or not. People forget Hussein had plenty of time to come clean and avoid his demise, he played chicken against the wrong guy.

I don't believe President Bush misled the country about these facts, because many other sources held the same view of Hussein's capabilities.

Either he intentionally misled us or he was a complete ignoramus.

I believe and the evidence tends to show that he intended to attack Iraq all along and that he cherry picked the evidence to steer the country down this disastrous path of Armageddon. You should be happy as that is actually conceding that there was some glimmer of intelligence and reason behind his actions.

"I remember that day quite vividly. I was sure Powell's presentation would show 'em. I couldn't wait, thinking this'll shut them up.

Afterward, all I could think was That's it?!? That's all we've got??? Some cartoons that guess at what might be there??? No real proof?!?!?

#26 | Posted by Danforth"

No fucking shit. I was almost as flabbergasted as when the headlines came out after the first Bush-Gore debate declaring it a draw. Wtf?

I remember that day quite vividly. I was sure Powell's presentation would show 'em. I couldn't wait, thinking this'll shut them up.

I remember Powell's body language and the way he spoke and thinking "He's lying."

It wasn't the same Colin Powell we got to know in Desert Storm. It was like somebody had chopped his balls off.

He BLEW it?
I guess rtards aren't as opposed to gay sex as they want jeebus freaks to believe..........

I love this country---we do these post-mortems and then when it serves our financial interests in the future, we'll make the same decisions. Right/wrong don't drive our decisions (although we'll market our decisions as such) but economics does.

he played chicken against the wrong guy.

Winning a war doesn't justify a war.

Do you recall the WMD "logic" before the war? If Saddam admits he has WMD, that justifies the invasion. If Saddam denies he has WMD, that means he's lying and it justifies the invasion.

That's not chicken, that's bullying.

He kicked the UN weapons inspectors out because they were infiltrated by CIA spies. Then, kicking UN weapons inspectors out was used as justification for the war.

Saddam didn't want to play chicken, he wanted to run the other way. We cornered him and beat him up.

The invasion was practically a foregone conclusion ever since the publication of the PNAC document.

A lot of people -- from Bill Clinton to the German and Israeli intelligence services -- believed the same thing. But I'm skeptical of what people claim to "know" in many other areas of public life. I wasn't skeptical enough about this. I argued back then about the risks of inaction outweighing the risks of action. When I look over those columns today, from the distance of nearly eight years, they seem reasonable and serious.

Except, of course, that their premise was utterly wrong. If I'd known beforehand that Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, I would not have supported the war. I don't believe President Bush misled the country about these facts, because many other sources held the same view of Hussein's capabilities. (I don't believe Colin Powell was intentionally misleading anyone at the United Nations either, but it turned out not to be his finest hour.)

#24 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-09-02 06:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Agreed, CRISPEE.

#25 | Posted by OohRah at 2010-09-02 06:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's all very fine, but the next time very serious people tell you that the new Hitler (Iran?) will soon destroy your mom's apple pie, you'll line up again (not physically, of course) and call anyone who dares challenge you anti-American. Just like last time.

"but not one drop of muslim blood from an Islamic nation in the region..."

Of course those same nations were out in the streets cheering the loss of 3000 american lives. Sure, bring more western influence into a region where you are all hated, we will be happy to join and help.
#9 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-09-02 05:25 PM

The ONLY "nationals" that were dancing, laughing and acting utterly joyous were a group of Mossad agents who infiltrated New York posing as movers. These Israeli even knew precisely where the first plane was going to strike and videoed the entire attack. Doesn't that seem the least bit suspicious to you? Their vans were filled with explosives and video equipment - one van was stopped on the Brooklyn bridge and the other one WAS PAINTED WITH A 757 SMASHING INTO THE TWIN TOWERS. It exploded in front of the officers who surrounded it and the two Israeli who ran from the scene were caught, but then the FBI fucking released them!

They apparently raided multiple vaults under the WTC buildings, loaded the three with demolition and guided planes into the towers in an extremely precise act of terrorism against the United States, murdering thousands of innocent civilians and propping up the bullshit impetus for a Middle Eastern war that now pumps Iraqi oil through the Haifa pipeline to Israel. The only guarded pipeline - and it's Israeli. Doesn't that seem suspicious to you? The oil ministry is guarded, the energy ministry is not. Iraqi do not have working sewage system, and the privatization of the war costs even more in failed "reconstruction". Hundreds of thousands of American soldiers have been killed and maimed based on the lies and treachery of your damned Repig administration.

The George Washington Bridge, not the Brooklyn Bridge.

The day after Netanyahu claimed the attack was "It's very good! Well, it's not good, but it will generate sympathy (for Israel)."

A lot of people -- from Bill Clinton to the German and Israeli intelligence services -- believed the same thing.
The guy who would know best, Hans Blix, didn't believe it.

I don't believe President Bush misled the country about these facts, because many other sources held the same view of Hussein's capabilities.
That's false.
Most people knew the "centrifuge tubes" were missile casings.
Most people knew Iraq did not posses technology to make WMD-capable UAVs.
Most people knew a chemical sprayer RV was no threat to America.
Most people knew the yellowcake uranium claim was a lie.

That fact is Hussein had everyone fooled

#3 | POSTED BY 2008ATL

This is completely wrong. A lot of nations (including France and Germany) were protesting the way the US was pushing an illegal and criminal war.

Hussein was trying to fool everyone. He wanted the Iranians to think he had the WMDs. He was afraid the Iranians were going to invade. The Iraqi military could not repulse an Iranian invasion. It was Saddam's last card.

BET-
Regarding your #34...

In light of the absence of the cache of WMDs we thought we'd see I think there will be a higher threshold of credible evidence to support going in with bombers and possible troops the next time around. Especially if the POTUS is a Dem.

We may be in a "boy who cried wolf" mentality and that, too, is dangerous. Because if, in fact, Iran is poised to get nuclear capability, will we have the fortitude to destroy - and - will we have the support of the American people?

I could rehash the rationale for France, etc, to not support our little trip into Iraq as well as the myriad of other entities who also believed he had WMD - to include his own military leaders. Those points have been beaten to death from all angles.

I'd be interested in your take on how you (and others who opposed Iraq) will react when a Dem POTUS tries to make the case for attack.

"Great. Now explain why democratic congress funded the war they were "against"."

Pretty simple if you aren't totally stupid, Democrats were unwilling to leave our troops in a foreign land fighting a foolish war without all of the equipment and supplies they needed. They could oppose the war yet still support the troops, a concept too complex for the simpletons of the right.

"I'd be interested in your take on how you (and others who opposed Iraq) will react when a Dem POTUS tries to make the case for attack."

As it should have been true on Iraq the case for any attack should be judged on its merits, too many of the Democrats who voted to give Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq did not even read the intelligence reports they were given, those who did mostly opposed the invasion.

DANNI-
Because you're hearing the "evidence" from a Dem POTUS, does that make you more or less comfortable you're being told the truth?

Is there any specific threshold of evidence you deem sufficient to warrant attack? How likely is any administration to fully disclose all of what we know about an enemy (and thus compromise our intelligence gatherers) in order to win over sufficient public support?

The difference of course is that we have the luxury of guessing if it is true or not. People forget Hussein had plenty of time to come clean and avoid his demise, he played chicken against the wrong guy.

#27 | Posted by crispee_oc

Wuit bring up facts. It doesn't help the story.

Bush-hole insisted that Iraq was a threat to the region... okay... some contrast...
Those from the region that engaged in the Desert Storm Conflict:

AFGHANISTAN - 300 troops
BAHRAIN - 400 personnel, 36 aircraft
BANGLADESH - 6,000 troops
EGYPT - 40,000 troops (5,000 special forces paratroopers)
KUWAIT - 11,000 troops, 2 missle boats, 1 barge, A-4 Skyhawks 

OMAN - 25,500 troops, 63 airplanes, 4 Exocet-armed ships
QATAR - 1 squadron of Mirage F-1E fighters
SAUDI ARABIA - 118,000 troops, 550 tanks, 180 airplanes
SYRIA - 17,000 troops, 300 T-62 tanks
UNITED ARAB EMRIATES - 40,000 troops, 80 planes, 


Bush-holes excellent adventure to rid the region of a threat:
0
Well not exactly...0... I mean... they offered to be our refueling stations... and Turkey sort of considered it... in a way... kinda...

You can argue all you want about how difficult it was to get accurate intelligence... but people in the region... with closer sources... and competitive sources did not feel threatened by Saddam Hussein... they were more afraid of him when he was our ally against Iran... and that didn't mean much.

I'd be interested in your take on how you (and others who opposed Iraq) will react when a Dem POTUS tries to make the case for attack.

If we are attacked.. we go after them. I was all for Bush-hole doing a surgical removal of bin Laden and his party boys from Afghanistan... although...he did lose me when he told us to go shopping instead of engaging the nation... he effectively "sent us to our room" while he handled things... which is the wrong thing to do... of course if we were to be involved he couldn't have used the fear tact as easily to make his case against Iraq to those that were happy to go shopping instead of be involved...

the most embarassing thing to me was what a bunch of fucking cowards Americans became in lieu of that conflict instead of emboldened... all Bush-hole had to do was flash an image of bin Laden and people lost the ability to think...which is pretty much what has become of the republiclown party... all someone has to do is point in the direction and say those people are gonna hurt you... and you knee jerk yourselves into fits

"Wuit bring up facts. It doesn't help the story.
#44 | Posted by Sniper"

Is that even English?

Is that even English?
#46 | Posted by mOntecOre

Only in the sense that Hendrix's "Blah, blah, woof, woof n' woof, woof, blah, blah" was "English."

I guess we should consider the source. It probably makes sense to Snippy.

Pundit Admits He 'Blew It'..

more PROOF that "Pundits" suck ass....

sorry, Loser: "if i had known beforehand" doesn't cut it as an apology.

who didn't know beforehand?

The difference of course is that we have the luxury of guessing if it is true or not. People forget Hussein had plenty of time to come clean and avoid his demise, he played chicken against the wrong guy.
#27 | Posted by crispee_oc

nonsense... Saddam offered to do a televised debate with Bush-hole on the days leading up to the war... that is a matter of public record... Bush-hole declined... Saddam also rendered the missiles he legitimately had useless by bending the tail fins... to demonstrate he wasn't a threat... another matter of record...essentially Bush-hole destroyed at an unarmed country...

and let bin Laden slide

"nonsense... Saddam offered to do a televised debate with Bush-hole on the days leading up to the war... that is a matter of public record... Bush-hole declined..."

Yeah I know, that evil Bush. How dare he not take Saddam up on that offer. Let me guess, you think Obama should take up the request of the nutjob in Iran and debate him as well.

"Saddam also rendered the missiles he legitimately had useless by bending the tail fins... to demonstrate he wasn't a threat... another matter of record...essentially Bush-hole destroyed at an unarmed country..."

It's not like he violated something like 20 UN resolutions either, right?

It's not like he violated something like 20 UN resolutions either, right?

Oh, so you're listening to what the UN has to say these days?

You might want to check out a little thing called the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...

Good one Snoofy... I love it when the conservdroids get all about the UN when it is convienient.

Yeah I know, that evil Bush. How dare he not take Saddam up on that offer. Let me guess, you think Obama should take up the request of the nutjob in Iran and debate him as well.

No... I know why... because Bush-hole stunk at extemporaneous speech... Bush-hole couldn't conjugate a sentence in English and ironically Saddam could... you have this idea that Bush-hole was not a crazy fuck?... you are aware he started his discussion about going into Iraq to get the man that tried to kill his daddy... just because someone does not agree with U.S. policies does not make them a nut job.

It's not like he violated something like 20 UN resolutions either, right?

he was accused of violating 20 resolutions... but we will never know the truth of that because... the fact of the matter is... Bush-hole told him to disarm... and he did... and then Bush-hole bombed a nation that could not defend itself...murdering and maiming...innocent civilians while assholes like you cheered and did the happy dance...feeling all brave and shit...fuck you...

BTW I think Obama would do much better on the debate floor with our current adversaries... on his worst day... than any of the republiclowns on your short list contenders. It strikes me that engaging in debate "with a crazy person" is a better approach to prevent war than slaughter any day of the week...fuck you again

"BTW I think Obama would do much better on the debate floor with our current adversaries... on his worst day... than any of the republiclowns on your short list contenders. It strikes me that engaging in debate "with a crazy person" is a better approach to prevent war than slaughter any day of the week...fuck you again."

There you have it. We need to "engage" our current adversaries and debate the issues which we disagree. All we need to do is come together and find common ground. Let's recognize the likes of Kim, Ahmjob, Castro, Chavez as equals, and simply sit down and debate. Instead of demonizing or being critical of how they govern, lets accept it and trust they will never be a theat or problem. Like a fairy tale, and the world will live happily ever after.

#55 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-09-04 12:12 PM | Reply

We should negotiate.

There you have it. We need to "engage" our current adversaries and debate the issues which we disagree. All we need to do is come together and find common ground. Let's recognize the likes of Kim, Ahmjob, Castro, Chavez as equals, and simply sit down and debate. Instead of demonizing or being critical of how they govern, lets accept it and trust they will never be a theat or problem. Like a fairy tale, and the world will live happily ever after.

Yeah perhaps Bush-hole could have been reasoned with... and he wouldn't have invaded a defenseless nation... because someone tried to kill his dadd-eh.

Kim, Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad haven't invaded a country because someone tried to kill their dadd-ehs have they? but Bush-hole did... so who is the tyrant? who is the mad man?

World leaders tried to reason with Bush-hole... he was in stoppable... so who is the mad man tyrant?

The US has invaded nations on several occasions... so who are the tyrants?...rather wannabe tyrants... since the US usually gets its ass handed to it.

Iraq: America's first preemptive war.

"Where'd I put those WMD's?" - W at a fundraiser commenting with a video of him looking under his desk.

Ya, big joke, wasn't it, W?

"Where'd I put those WMD's?" - W at a fundraiser commenting with a video of him looking under his desk."

Or of course it was at the annual WH Correspondent Dinner. Which I am sure you know is a "roast" like event. You really are pathetic AU, do you ever go a day without thinking about Bush?

"Kim, Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad haven't invaded a country because someone tried to kill their dadd-ehs have they? but Bush-hole did..."

Just so I am up to date... What are the latest percentages of Bush's Iraq agenda? Has revenge caught up with oil?

It was in very poor taste in light of 4400 dead and 35,000 wounded in his preemptive war of choice, troll.

CRISPEE

As long as you right wingers continue to blame Obama for our economic problems I'll keep reminding you of just who created the mess. Quit and I'll never bring up Bush. Y'all went straight from blaming Clinton to Obama as though 2001-2009 never happened and GOP policies didn't leave us in a hell of a mess.

Naive liberals make this a vary scary world.

AMERICANUNITY....why not blame BO, this jr senator was a no show for most votes. Lame duck leadership.

#62...

Blah, blah, blah... All I did was correct you about the setting when you spewed your daily Bush this or that. It certainly wasn't a prelude to some rant about Clinton, Obama the GOP... Obviously, your reaction just buys into the pathetic icon.

Just so I am up to date... What are the latest percentages of Bush's Iraq agenda? Has revenge caught up with oil?

Bush-hole himself stated... matter of record... that he could have "cut a deal" if it was about oil.

Naive liberals make this a vary scary world.
I beg your pardon??? I didn't run around scared and voted for Bush-hole because I thought he was better at protecting the country from the big bad terrorists... never mind that he was playing golf when he was notified an attack was eminent...

I wasn't afraid of what Saddam could do...... I have no problem with Muslims living and worshiping in my neighborhood... I have no problem with Mexicans... conservatoids are the ones that run from every shadow... all someone has to do is point in a direction and you go screaming about what a threat they are...how everyone wants to steal your freedom.. how everyone hates us cause we're free...how everyone is a communist... republiclowns are the biggest bunch of pissy pant cry babies in the country... afraid of everything including god... you're fucking cowards... paranoid, rabid, cowards.

Just so I am up to date... What are the latest percentages of Bush's Iraq agenda? Has revenge caught up with oil?

"Bush-hole himself stated... matter of record... that he could have "cut a deal" if it was about oil"

OK, so the revenge factor has over taken the oil factor. Got it.

heeelllloooooo....we get most of our oil from mexico and canada... duh

Bush-hole was an idiot

"heeelllloooooo....we get most of our oil from mexico and canada... duh"

You seem to be speaking to someone outside the "it was a war for oil" crowd. Or basically your own party, who according to you are the minority to the "revenge" crowd.

Jan. 11, 2004
Bush Sought ‘Way' To Invade Iraq?
O'Neill Tells '60 Minutes' Iraq Was 'Topic A' 8 Months Before 9-11

"Everything's there: Memoranda to the President, handwritten "thank you" notes, 100-page documents. Stuff that's sensitive," says Suskind, adding that in some cases, it included transcripts of private, high-level National Security Council meetings. "You don't get higher than that."

And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.

"From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," says O'Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, ‘Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."

You seem to be speaking to someone outside the "it was a war for oil" crowd. Or basically your own party, who according to you are the minority to the "revenge" crowd.

I think Bush-hole lacked the ability to see Saddam and Iraq objectively... it was a family matter... an ego trip... his father went to war... but didn't oust Saddam... and Saddam tried to have his father assassinated... when he was on a trip to Kuwait... or so it is said...Laura was along for the ride on that trip...
if he had been a lawyer or judge he would have been recused from prosecuting... but because he was president... and republiclowns as paranoid by nature... he was allowed to do his dirt... and millions were killed, or maimed for life... and you fuckers did the happy dance...

there is no doubt tho.. he did think that the revenues from oil would pay for the war and the rebuilding of Iraq... and weirdest thing is he/they thought Iraqis would be grateful for having their nation destroyed, loved ones, friends and families killed... he was hell bent on doing it... and there was no stopping him. That alone demonstrates that he lacked empathy for the Iraqi people... or humanity...the same shit you and your ilk accuse other leaders of.republiclowns

BTW you don't know my party... I just know I resent stupidity and how this nation acted relative to Iraq..