Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why wouldnt he bring up the fact that there were terrorists camps inside of Iraq if he was going to invade Iraq? Its kinda dumb that you think he should have hid those facts from the public.
The camps were well-publicized. The fact that they were in North-East Iraq, an area that wasn't in fact under the Iraqi government's control - rather less so.
I actually don't know why the right feels a need to deny what has become self-evident -- the case for the war was exaggerated and in many cases fabricated. Douglas Feith had an office where he would create facts.
Quote:
Paul O'Neill, Bush's first treasury secretary, wrote that Bush could not stop thinking about Iraq even before 9/11. Scott McClellan, although on the sidelines as an assistant press secretary, wrote that the White House was obsessed with selling the war to the public—much of it in secret.
After 9/11, Feith said the threat of renewed aggression was more "troubling and urgent."
Feith conveniently omits the fact that the invasion came even though the job was not completed in Afghanistan. Richard Clarke, a counterterrorism expert, told Bush officials that attacking Iraq would mean largely leaving Afghanistan.
The nation is still paying a price for that blunder. The Taliban is surging back and forcing the United States to send more manpower to the battered country.
The essay by Feith also fails to touch on the lack of preparation in the aftermath of toppling Hussein. We were told we would be treated as liberators, rather than occupiers. We were told Iraqi oil would pay for most of the recovery effort there.
How will liberals and conservatives justify the Iraq war? Liberals were also on this band wagon - and their justification was based on emotional issues..."We must free the poor oppressed woman"....the classic one was "So a little girl can go to school" - These liberal wants also failed ...the infrastructure is so damaged that there are few functioning schools and woman along with men face daily misery due to the chaos that was amplified by American involvement.
From my Canadian perspective the misadventure in Afghanistan is very similar...OUR Liberals were pro-war as far as Afghanistan is concerned - I heard the repeated rhetoric - "so a little girl can go to school" along with the more conservative "Bring them democracy" _Both of our parties are guilty of created more mayhem and carnage - through their attempts to push their values on another culture ...the left and the right were both IDIOTS.
Na they both knew what was at stake..............the US dollar. That is why they agreed on Iraq. The sqealing only started after the dirty work was done and an election was in play. Liberals still lost that though thanks to nominating Hanoi John Kerry and the ambulance chaser Edwards.
The camps were well-publicized. The fact that they were in North-East Iraq, an area that wasn't in fact under the Iraqi government's control - rather less so.
So, the idea that the Iraq government, had locations inside its own country that it couldnt "control", doesnt concern you at all?
So, the idea that the Iraq government, had locations inside its own country that it couldnt "control", doesnt concern you at all?
+1
Wasn't that very similar to Afghanistan or any failed state that becomes a base for terror camps? There is either no government to prevent them or a government too weak to control them being there.
PS: Marines came across a terrorist training camp just 15 miles south of the center of Baghdad.
Wasn't that very similar to Afghanistan or any failed state that becomes a base for terror camps? There is either no government to prevent them or a government too weak to control them being there.
PS: Marines came across a terrorist training camp just 15 miles south of the center of Baghdad.
Posted with TapaTalk
So, your argument is that the U.S. had to invade Iraq, bomb Baghdad and depose Saddam because there were terrorist bases far to the north in Iraq, out of Saddam's control?
If that sounds like a backwards argument designed to justify after-the-fact action, it is.
So, your argument is that the U.S. had to invade Iraq, bomb Baghdad and depose Saddam because there were terrorist bases far to the north in Iraq, out of Saddam's control?
If that sounds like a backwards argument designed to justify after-the-fact action, it is.
Seems legit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
