America attacked Iraq because of Intel that was DEAD WRONG!

on Apr 01, 2005

Under UN rules, ONLY the Security Council has the power to use force . The Security Council DID NOT authorize the US to use force in Iraq.The UN Chief said that the US action was NOT Atuthorized by the UN.

Oh REALLY? Then explain to me the meaning UN resolution 678. That is "if" you can.

The U.N. resolutions gave the U.S. authority.

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

47

COL Gene

on Apr 01, 2005

There was no threat from Iraq thus our attack was an error! That is what Bush does not understand even after the proof in clear that Saddam was no danger to the U S. Attacking a country because the leader is an evil dictator would mean we would be at war all the time all over the world.All Bush had to do is wait and the inspectors that were in Iraq would have discovered that there was no WMD. There was no urgency for him to start a war before we knew the truth about the WMD.

48

T B

on Apr 01, 2005

It is time for President Bush to admit that the United States made an error

CG, your credibility and objectivity has just about hit bottom, you have such a hardon for GW it's pathetic. The intelligence agencies were wrong... yippee doo. Eight years of Clinton helped create it (and I'm not bothering to subtatntiate that here, I've done that before). Naturally, you fail to mention that the Silberman - Robb panel (bipartisan) concluded that:

"The analysts who worked Iraqi weapons issues universally agreed that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments," the report said.

The report lambaste's Tenet (who gave Bush the daily intel briefing). What did the commission find on Tenet?

"the daily reports sent to the president and senior policymakers discussing Iraq over many months proved to be disastrously one-sided."

Hmmm.... who appointed Tenet?????
a) Teletubbie Dipsy

Bill Clinton
c) Vincente Fox
d) Geraldo Rivera

See if you can get this one right.

The obsession with GW is incredibly pitiful. As usual, you cite a finding, fold, spindle and mutilate it, out of context, redirect to something off topic, to provide fodder for more GW bashing.

49

drmiler

on Apr 01, 2005

There was no threat from Iraq thus our attack was an error! That is what Bush does not understand even after the proof in clear that Saddam was no danger to the U S. Attacking a country because the leader is an evil dictator would mean we would be at war all the time all over the world.All Bush had to do is wait and the inspectors that were in Iraq would have discovered that there was no WMD. There was no urgency for him to start a war before we knew the truth about the WMD.

So then are you admiting by omission the fact that the UN gave the US the right to use force? Think carefully now. (UN res 678)

50

COL Gene

on Apr 01, 2005

The issue is not IF the UN gave permission. The issue is that we attacked a country that did not pose any threat to the United States. We have suffered over 1,500 deaths and over 25,000 injuries and have spent $300 Billion to attack a country that was no danger to America. WHY? Everyone would support defending the U S . We were not doing that when we attacked Iraq.

51

drmiler

on Apr 01, 2005

The issue is not IF the UN gave permission. The issue is that we attacked a country that did not pose any threat to the United States. We have suffered over 1,500 deaths and over 25,000 injuries and have spent $300 Billion to attack a country that was no danger to America. WHY? Everyone would support defending the U S . We were not doing that when we attacked Iraq.

Sorry Mr. topic changer but YOUR the one that made it an issue! Here's a direct quote from your post:

lee1776

no UN resolution including 1441 authorized the United States to attack Iraq. the point remains Iraq was not a threat to the United States or Great Britain. that is the only legitimate reason for either of our countries attack Iraq or for that matter any other country. Iraq wasn't capable of attacking either of our countries.

So now you stand corrected not once but twice by a retired "enlisted man"!

52

COL Gene

on Apr 01, 2005

The subject of This Blog is that we made an error in attacking Iraq which did not pose any danger to the US. Sorry I did not change the subject. You are just like Bush, you NEVER admit when you are wrong!

53

COL Gene

on Apr 01, 2005

The subject of This Blog is that we made an error in attacking Iraq which did not pose any danger to the US. Sorry I did not change the subject. You are just like Bush, you NEVER admit when you are wrong!

54

drmiler

on Apr 02, 2005

The subject of This Blog is that we made an error in attacking Iraq which did not pose any danger to the US. Sorry I did not change the subject. You are just like Bush, you NEVER admit when you are wrong!

Look who's talking about never admiting they're wrong. I'll bet I could get 70-75% of the people on JU to say the same about you. And just an FYI you DID change the subject. Original subject was we invaded Iraq over bad intel. If you didn't change the subject, then how the hell did everyone here end up talking about UN resolutions? Once again the quoted section is YOUR post not someone elses!

lee1776

no UN resolution including 1441 authorized the United States to attack Iraq. the point remains Iraq was not a threat to the United States or Great Britain. that is the only legitimate reason for either of our countries attack Iraq or for that matter any other country. Iraq wasn't capable of attacking either of our countries.

55

Furry Canary

on Apr 02, 2005

'I'll bet I could get 70-75% of the people on JU to say the same about you.'
Maybe that tells us more about the politics of 70-75% of JU users than it does about any kind of objective truth.

56

COL Gene

on Apr 02, 2005

drmiler

As you have said polls mean nothing (or at least when they do not support your view). Most of my Blogs are predicated on data or a story that indicated the direction we are going os not good. When data or reports appear to be critical of the policies we are following, you attack something- Me, the data the source. You never consider that it may be the policies we are following that need to be changed because they are not solving the problem at hand. Two examples are our federal deficit and the trade deficit. The facts are claer, both are getting worse and nothing Bush is doing is solving these two important issues! They keep getting worse under his policies!

57

COL Gene

on Apr 02, 2005

drmiler

As you have said polls mean nothing (or at least when they do not support your view). Most of my Blogs are predicated on data or a story that indicated the direction we are going is not good. When data or reports appear to be critical of the policies we are following, you attack something- Me, the data the source. You never consider that it may be the policies we are following that need to be changed because they are not solving the problem at hand. Two examples are our federal deficit and the trade deficit. The facts are claer, both are getting worse and nothing Bush is doing is solving these two important issues! They keep getting worse under his policies!

58

COL Gene

on Apr 02, 2005

Bush does not "piss me off". I want a President that looks at what is going on and is willing to admit when his policies are not working. Then, try something else to solve the problems. Over the past four years, none on the major issues that face the U S have been resolved or made better. In fact they are getting worse and when Bush or the next president finally tries to do something, the solution will be far more painful. I will give up when our leader begins admitting he is wrong and tries other solutions!

59

T B

on Apr 02, 2005

The subject of This Blog is that we made an error in attacking Iraq which did not pose any danger to the US. Sorry I did not change the subject

Really? Looks to me like the subject was bad intelligence.

Two examples are our federal deficit and the trade deficit

The facts surrounding the Bush National Guard Service have been confirmed by the release of his records by DoD

I will give up when our leader begins admitting he is wrong and tries other solutions!

Didn't change the subject? Deficit, National Guard, GW is wrong has exactly WHAT to do with faulty intelligence? Meanwhile, you ignore the fact that Clinton appointed Tenet (who is a the center of the faulty intel debacle) and rant off tangentially on the GW policies as the source of all the world's ills.

Laughable

60

COL Gene

on Apr 02, 2005

"It is time for President Bush to admit that the United States made an error when it preemptively attacking Iraq when it did not pose any significant danger to the United States of America. "

This is the point of the Blog!