8 Years of Iraq War Cost Less Than Stimulus Act....

[tieguy]

You can argue with George Bush and Tony Blair about that.
Both of them have publicly admitted Iraq had NO wmd's. It's even wriiten in Tony Blair's new released book.

So, go argue with your political Idol, Bush. I have no patience for this.

klein you will need more then some pretty beach balls to make this argument.

 

[unionman]

Klein is right. Bush and his speeches on the "EVIL DOERS" had all you right wingers singing the national anthem and standing at attention facing the television with a tear running down your cheek as you whispered, I love you Bush.

 

[klein]

klein you will need more then some pretty beach balls to make this argument.

Why, it's not good enough for the 2 former presidents to openly admit, there were no weapons of mass destuction ?
Are you really that brainwashed, that only when Glenn Beck tells you, there we'rent any, it will finally sink into your head ?

 

[moreluck]

Hindsight is always 20/20

 

[Babagounj]

all the available intelligence at the time said yes to wmd's being there.
If you want to blame someone then blame those that actually said they were there.

 

[klein]

A scheduled summit meeting between Chretien and Bush on September 9 focused Canadian attention on Iraq in a more sustained way. Before the summit, Chretien said he wanted clear evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda before his government would support any attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power. "I will see what [Bush] has to say. I will listen, and we will decide," he declared. (17) Public opinion soundings also showed that, in contrast to their strong support for the Afghanistan campaign, more that half of Canadians did not want Canada to be involved if the U.S. attacked Iraq. At the meeting, Chretien praised Bush's leadership in the war on terror and encouraged the president to go to the UN, assuring him that Canada would be involved in any action against Iraq if the Security Council approved. Bush offered no evidence to support the administration's claims, saying simply that he would outline the case in a speech he would make at the UN on September 12.

Involving the UN
In his speech Bush drew attention to Saddam Hussein's rejection of earlier UN disarmament resolutions, and accused the Iraqi regime of continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction and sheltering terrorists, although he offered no proof.

Conclusion: The lack of proof of wmd's in Iraq, could not convince the UN or most other countries to join the US war against Iraq !

 

[over9five]

Conclusion: The lack of proof of wmd's in Iraq, could not convince the UN or most other countries to join the US war against Iraq !

C'mon Klein, wasn't it really because of cowardess or maybe just cheapness, the UN and most other countries were just looking for an excuse NOT to have to join the US? I mean, they knew that with or without them, the US would take care of business while they hid under their desks.

 

[klein]

C'mon Klein, wasn't it really because of cowardess or maybe just cheapness, the UN and most other countries were just looking for an excuse NOT to have to join the US? I mean, they knew that with or without them, the US would take care of business while they hid under their desks.

Most countries see the act of war as a very, very last option.
It ist called national defense department for a reason.

I don't care if you call the rest of the world cowards, others will call them wise not to follow the US with it's lies or falsh info, with no proof, of wmd's and the major reason to start that war.
The US and UK were totally embarassed when they found none.

In the long term the US probably created more upcomming terrorist groups in Iraq now, that will come to haunt you in the future, same as it was the case in Afghanistan.
You must admit, once the US fully pulls out of Iraq it could well become another breeding ground for more terrorists that want to give the US revenge.

1 thing about invading a foreign country, you just don't make a new political friend, (maybe), but you gained a lot of hatred from those that lost finacially, loved ones, or just feel their old good way of life has been taking away.

Besides all that, what was the big rush to invade Iraq without any solid proof, whatssoever ?
Probably a good thing Saddam got removed. But Saddam always kept their neighbor Iran in check.
Iran is the one laughing now, got their nuclear plant built, and probably weapons soon.
Wouldn't have happened under Saddam's watch !

 

[cachsux]

C'mon Klein, wasn't it really because of cowardess or maybe just cheapness, the UN and most other countries were just looking for an excuse NOT to have to join the US? I mean, they knew that with or without them, the US would take care of business while they hid under their desks.

I think we were just desperate to find another place to get oil so we could finally tell Canadians ( one in particular) to shut up about the " USA gets most of its oil from the sandpit,we`re so great,cheap liquor,hot underage girls,blah blah blah".

Hell, double our debt if thats what it`s going to take.

 

[av8torntn]

Conclusion: The lack of proof of wmd's in Iraq, could not convince the UN or most other countries to join the US war against Iraq !

So they look really bad now that it has been proven there were WMD's in Iraq.

 

[klein]

I think we were just desperate to find another place to get oil so we could finally tell Canadians ( one in particular) to shut up about the " USA gets most of its oil from the sandpit,we`re so great,cheap liquor,hot underage girls,blah blah blah".

Hell, double our debt if thats what it`s going to take.

You'll have to battle for more oil with China

[video=youtube;TovQ88V4RL0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TovQ88V4RL0[/video]

So they look really bad now that it has been proven there were WMD's in Iraq.

Be happy, makes Bush and Tony Blair the Hero's of the 20th centery for saving the entire world of those massive weapons of mass destruction !

 

[av8torntn]

Be happy, makes Bush and Tony Blair the Hero's of the 20th centery for saving the entire world of those massive weapons of mass destruction !

Not only did they find some they caught people trying to sell them. That would probably make your head explode to think about that though so keep your head in the sand and keep trying to spread your lie.

 

[klein]

Not only did they find some they caught people trying to sell them. That would probably make your head explode to think about that though so keep your head in the sand and keep trying to spread your lie.

Here, from Tony Blairs new book, just released.
Maybe you should blog him somehow, and stop him from spreading the lies, or come up with a second book telling the truth ?

Tony Blair says did not foresee Iraq "nightmare"

By Karolina Tagaris
LONDON | Wed Sep 1, 2010 10:27am EDT

LONDON (Reuters) - Former British prime minister Tony Blair said on Wednesday he could have not have imagined what he called the "nightmare" that unfolded in Iraq but still did not regret joining the U.S.-led invasion.

In a political memoir Blair echoed previous statements that the 2003 invasion was justified because Saddam Hussein posed a threat and could have developed weapons of mass destruction.

The self-penned volume "A Journey" was published on the day the United States formally ended combat operations in Iraq after a conflict that claimed more than 100,000 deaths, most of them civilians.

Blair, 57, said he felt "desperately sorry" for the lives cut short, but said the mistaken belief that Saddam was hiding weapons of mass destruction was an "understandable error."

"I can't regret the decision to go to war ... I can say that never did I guess the nightmare that unfolded," said Blair, referring to the years of political and sectarian bloodshed in Iraq that followed the invasion.
"I have often reflected as to whether I was wrong. I ask you to reflect as to whether I may have been right."

Blair was the closest ally of former U.S. President George W. Bush over the decision to invade Iraq.
The decision was the most controversial of Blair's 10-year premiership, provoking huge protests, divisions within his Labour Party and accusations he deceived Britons over his reasons for war when weapons of mass destruction were not found.

 

[tieguy]

Why, it's not good enough for the 2 former presidents to openly admit, there were no weapons of mass destuction ?
Are you really that brainwashed, that only when Glenn Beck tells you, there we'rent any, it will finally sink into your head ?

Ah little senior I have some pretty balls for you. you say a quarter will buy you dinner well I have a dollar if you make me happy.

 

[tieguy]

You'll have to battle for more oil with China

[video=youtube;TovQ88V4RL0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TovQ88V4RL0[/video]


Be happy, makes Bush and Tony Blair the Hero's of the 20th centery for saving the entire world of those massive weapons of mass destruction !

they say in cuba a crazy canadian would coat himself in oil before he went trolling for little cubano's

 

[browndevil]

tell that to the 30 million out of work. Unemployment rate back up to 9.6 percent. Bush probably did that too.

Again apples and oranges Tie. I know there are people out of work. What do YOU suggest Obama do? So far he has kept a campaign promise at the time he proposed and is bringing our kids home from a useless war in Iraq. You are a smart man, I know this from the texture of your posts. We are in a depression, FDR didn't get our country out of disparity in under two years. Do you think a McCain-Palin administration would have fared better?

 

[diesel96]

Why no reply Diesel?

Fox news reported two seperate attacks by the Iraqis with chemical weapons on our forces.

Actually yes I did. Do you think that we carried labs around with us or we used field tests? I'll answer it for you because it was a stupid question that I asked. We have people trained to test this material in the field. From the article and i was just playing with the fox news part as hundreds of news sources reported this.

"The Iraqi Survey Group confirmed today that a 155-millimeter artillery round containing sarin nerve agent had been found," Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (search), the chief military spokesman in Iraq, told reporters in Baghdad."

Uh-oh we've got a test.


Then there is this which I guess you also missed.

"Washington officials say the significance of the find is that some chemical shells do still exist in Iraq"

There is so much more that has been found and also made the news. It is comical how you guys keep with the same lies just hoping that somebody will believe you.

For a dollar why was this said in 2006? That would be years after your article.

"But this says: Weapons have been discovered; more weapons exist. And they state that Iraq was not a WMD-free zone, that there are continuing threats from the materials that are or may still be in Iraq," he said

Even the Polish find WMD's in Iraq.

"Polish troops have found two warheads in Iraq believed to contain a deadly nerve agent"

"There is no doubt that the warheads contain chemical weapons," Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski told TVN24"

Yikes it's getting more and more difficult for you to keep up the lie.

all the available intelligence at the time said yes to wmd's being there.
If you want to blame someone then blame those that actually said they were there.

So they look really bad now that it has been proven there were WMD's in Iraq.

Not only did they find some they caught people trying to sell them. That would probably make your head explode to think about that though so keep your head in the sand and keep trying to spread your lie.

C'mon Klein, wasn't it really because of cowardess or maybe just cheapness, the UN and most other countries were just looking for an excuse NOT to have to join the US? I mean, they knew that with or without them, the US would take care of business while they hid under their desks.

These aren't the weapons we went to war for. The WMDs that the invasion were based on were expected to be new, and from an ongoing weapons program. And maybe you don't remember Colin Powell's presentation to the UN about Iraq's supposed WMD-making capabilities?
These are not WMDs but discarded shells. American men and women went to war to protect you and I from WMDs about as toxic as Easy-Off Oven Cleaner. Weapons of Mild Discomfort. Yes, sir. I've got Grasping for Straws on the phone for you guys.
If it were actually true, you don't think the GOP would jump all over this, as validation of bush's war? The worst part is that the dems are so cowed, they didn't even take advantage when it's handed to them on a silver platter.


Go ahead, ignore the Iraq Survey Group's (ISG) final report (also known as the Duelfer report), source..

The Duelfer report concluded that "old, abandoned chemical munitions" found in Iraq -- such as the ones hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra -- are not part of a "chemical weapons stockpile." According to the report [emphasis in original]:

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad's desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

• The scale of the Iraqi conventional munitions stockpile, among other factors, precluded an examination of the entire stockpile; however, ISG inspected sites judged most likely associated with possible storage or deployment of chemical weapons.

Duelfer also appeared on the June 22 broadcast of National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation, where he stated that these munitions are not weapons of mass destruction:

NEAL CONAN (host): The report says hundreds of WMDs were found in Iraq. Does this change any of the findings in your report?
DEULFER: No, the report -- the findings of the report were basically to describe the relationship of the regime with weapons of mass destruction generally. You know, at two different times, Saddam elected to have and then not to have weapons of mass destruction. We found, when we were investigating, some residual chemical munitions. And we said in the report that such chemical munitions would probably still be found. But the ones which have been found are left over from the Iran-Iraq war. They are almost 20 years old, and they are in a decayed fashion. It is very interesting that there are so many that were unaccounted for, but they do not constitute a weapon of mass destruction, although they could be a local hazard.
CONAN: Mm-hmm. So these -- were these the weapons of mass destruction that the Bush administration said that it was going into Iraq to find before the war?
DEULFER: No, these do not indicate an ongoing weapons of mass destruction program as had been thought to exist before the war. These are leftover rounds, which Iraq probably did not even know that it had. Certainly, the leadership was unaware of their existence, because they made very clear that they had gotten rid of their programs as a prelude to getting out of sanctions.
[...]
DEULFER: Sarin agent decays, you know, at a certain rate, as does mustard agent. What we found, both as U.N. and later when I was with the Iraq Survey Group, is that some of these rounds would have highly degraded agent, but it is still dangerous. You know, it can be a local hazard. If an insurgent got it and wanted to create a local hazard, it could be exploded. When I was running the ISG -- the Iraq Survey Group -- we had a couple of them that had been turned in to these IEDs, the improvised explosive devices. But they are local hazards. They are not a major, you know, weapon of mass destruction.
​

 

[wkmac]

The True Cost of the War
by Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Treasury Sec. under Reagan, former associate editor Wall Street Journal

As for mustard and sarin in Iraq, how did it get there is a greater question.

The U.S. State Department, in the immediate aftermath of the incident, took the official position based on examination of available evidence that Iran was partly to blame.

A preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) study at the time reported that it was Iran that was responsible for the attack, an assessment which was used subsequently by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for much of the early 1990s. The CIA's senior political analyst for the Iran-Iraq war, Stephen C. Pelletiere, co-authored an unclassified analysis of the war[23] which contained a brief summary of the DIA study's key points. The CIA altered its position radically in the late 1990s and cited Halabja frequently in its evidence of weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Pelletiere claimed that a fact that has not been successfully challenged is that Iraq was not known to have possessed the cyanide-based blood agents determined to have been responsible for the condition of the bodies that were examined, and that blue discolorations around the mouths of the victims and in their extremities, pointed to Iranian-used gas as the culprit. As of 2010 none of this fact-based evidence has been challenged, all subsequent re-evaluations have been based on careful selection of opinions and speculation by third-parties. Some opponents to the Iraq sanctions have cited the DIA report to support their position that Iraq was not responsible for the Halabja attack.

Joost Hiltermann, who was the principal researcher for the Human Rights Watch between 1992–1994, conducted a two-year study of the massacre, including a field investigation in northern Iraq. According to his analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police documents and declassified U.S. government documents, as well as interviews with scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi defectors and retired U.S. intelligence officers, it is clear that Iraq carried out the attack on Halabja, and that the United States, fully aware of this, accused Iran, Iraq's enemy in a fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack. This research concluded there were numerous other gas attacks, unquestionably perpetrated against the Kurds by the Iraqi armed forces. According to Hiltermann, the literature on the Iran-Iraq war reflects a number of allegations of chemical weapons use by Iran, but these are "marred by a lack of specificity as to time and place, and the failure to provide any sort of evidence". Hiltermann called these allegations "mere assertions" and added that "no persuasive evidence of the claim that Iran was the primary culprit was ever presented."

An investigation into responsibility for the Halabja massacre, by Dr Jean Pascal Zanders, Project Leader of the Chemical and Biological Warfare Project at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute concluded in 2007 that Iraq was the culprit,[dead link] and not Iran.

from wiki article on Halabja Poison Gas attack

And what about bad boy Iran?

The U.S. State Department, in the immediate aftermath of the incident, took the official position based on examination of available evidence that Iran was partly to blame.

A preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) study at the time reported that it was Iran that was responsible for the attack, an assessment which was used subsequently by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for much of the early 1990s. The CIA's senior political analyst for the Iran-Iraq war, Stephen C. Pelletiere, co-authored an unclassified analysis of the war[23] which contained a brief summary of the DIA study's key points. The CIA altered its position radically in the late 1990s and cited Halabja frequently in its evidence of weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Pelletiere claimed that a fact that has not been successfully challenged is that Iraq was not known to have possessed the cyanide-based blood agents determined to have been responsible for the condition of the bodies that were examined, and that blue discolorations around the mouths of the victims and in their extremities, pointed to Iranian-used gas as the culprit. As of 2010 none of this fact-based evidence has been challenged, all subsequent re-evaluations have been based on careful selection of opinions and speculation by third-parties. Some opponents to the Iraq sanctions have cited the DIA report to support their position that Iraq was not responsible for the Halabja attack.

Joost Hiltermann, who was the principal researcher for the Human Rights Watch between 1992–1994, conducted a two-year study of the massacre, including a field investigation in northern Iraq. According to his analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police documents and declassified U.S. government documents, as well as interviews with scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi defectors and retired U.S. intelligence officers, it is clear that Iraq carried out the attack on Halabja, and that the United States, fully aware of this, accused Iran, Iraq's enemy in a fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack. This research concluded there were numerous other gas attacks, unquestionably perpetrated against the Kurds by the Iraqi armed forces. According to Hiltermann, the literature on the Iran-Iraq war reflects a number of allegations of chemical weapons use by Iran, but these are "marred by a lack of specificity as to time and place, and the failure to provide any sort of evidence". Hiltermann called these allegations "mere assertions" and added that "no persuasive evidence of the claim that Iran was the primary culprit was ever presented.

An investigation into responsibility for the Halabja massacre, by Dr Jean Pascal Zanders, Project Leader of the Chemical and Biological Warfare Project at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute concluded in 2007 that Iraq was the culprit,[dead link] and not Iran.

source

As to the need of a stimulus, one has to ask if the central planning state had never re-allocated resources in the economic sphere or used policy to benefit certain market segments thus leading to bubbles, would the ills that effect the economy now even be in play thus giving leverage to politicians to enact such stimulus legislation?

 

[wkmac]

30 Stats. Why the Middle Class is being Crushed

 

[wkmac]

AP as policy not going to promote the latest Iraq myth

Thanks to Glenn Greenwald