Bill O'Reilly to Dick Cheney "We didn't get anything from Iraq War"

[Futurist110]

Originally Posted by wutitiz

You are not correct. Are we really going over this again. In 2003, most people who study such things believed that Saddam still had WMD:

[/font]

This was a consequence of Saddam's 'deterrence by doubt' strategy, mostly aimed at Iran, which he confirmed in interrogation after his capture.

I guess this just goes to show that "Bush lied, thousands died" is the liberal meme that will never die. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Yes, I get that part, but it was still worth to let the U.N. inspectors in Iraq finish their work in 2003, as well as to try using other avenues of diplomacy (such as trying to get Russia or someone else implement a similar deal with Iraq as it implemented with Syria's chemical weapons this year). In addition, if I recall correctly, there was a British intelligence report in 2002 which stated that Libya was a greater threat than Iraq. The U.S. could have probably gotten this information from the Brits if it wanted to/if it tried to get it.

[Futurist110]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

Invading Iraq was on Cheney and Rumsfeld's to-do list when they went into office:

Until recently, the website The Project for a New American Century, had posted the open letter written in 1998 and signed by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, and a host of others urging President Clinton to invade Iraq. That website is not off line, but with a bit of Googling you can find a lot of comment about it.

It is also worth noting that PNAC talked about how a "new Pearl Harbor" needs to occur in order to implement their agenda (this was from a PNAC report in 2000, if I remember correctly).

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

Cheney and Rumsfeld flat out lied.

I heard Cheney say on the air, "The Iraqi army can put their hands on their WMD stockpiles within 20 mintues."

I heard Rumsfeld say on the air, "We know where the stockpiles are!"

Then later his own intelligence chief would testify before congress: "We had no reliable evidence."

How could Rumsfeld and Cheney truthfully make those remarks about knowing where stockpiles actually were located when the Intelligence Community didn't even have reliable evidence they existed at all?

They did not flat out lie.

Were all these Democrats lying, too?


Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction) - YouTube

[Futurist110]

Originally Posted by Fleet

They did not flat out lie.

Were all these Democrats lying, too?


Democrats on Iraq + WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction) - YouTube

Yes, some/many Democrats also apparently believed that Iraq had WMDs in 2002-2003 and before that point. However, my previous points here still appear to stand.

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by Futurist110

Yes, some/many Democrats also apparently believed that Iraq had WMDs in 2002-2003 and before that point. However, my previous points here still appear to stand.

The point remains that many Democrats were making the same claims.

Were they all lying? Or was it only the Republicans?

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by Fleet

They did not flat out lie.

Were all these Democrats lying, too?

The two men I know were flat-out lying were Cheney and Rumsfeld. I know they lied because I personally know a couple of the people who briefed them, and those people tell me, "That's not what I briefed." The man who briefed Rumsfeld was Admiral Jacoby, who testified before the Senate that "we had no reliable evidence."

I presume the president and Congress knew nothing more than what Cheney and Rumsfeld allowed to be passed on to them.

I would also mention that not only was the Intelligence Community in dispute with Cheney and Rumsfeld over the existence of WMD, but that the Army and Marine Corp disputed them as well regarding the basic strategy of the invasion.

Cheney and Rumsfeld both pushed the idea that the invasion would be cheap and easy, requiring no more than 70,000 troops deployed.

Both General Shinseki (Army Chief of Staff) and General Franks (Commandant, US Marine Corps) publically disputed that, both men saying stolidly: "Our plans call for 250,000 troops." They disputed Rumsfeld at least three times in public, with the press pointing out that they were in dispute of the SecDef, and they still repeated, "Our plans call for 250,000 troops." The fact that a dispute at high level even became public sent a message to us in uniform that the situation was gravely serious--generals choose carefully the swords they fall upon.

The dispute was heated enough that Rumsfeld fired Shinseki and forced Franks to retire.

Why was there such a discrepancy?

Because Rumsfeld and Cheney--being sucked in this time by Achmed Chalabi--believed that the instance Hussein himself was removed from power, the Iraqi army, police force, and people would flip over to support the US troops.

These guys are supposed to be smart. Dictatorship 101: Make sure the people most loyal to you control the army and police forces.

There was no way the Iraqi army and police force would flip. They would either go underground or fight. They'd never flip.

The generals didn't believe for a moment that the Iraqi people would "shower us with roses," as Cheney said in a news conference. Heck, the French didn't even do that when the Allies liberated Paris (the Allies dug up Charles DeGaulle and put him at the head of the formation--the Parisians were cheering DeGaulle, not the Americans who were behind him).

The 70,000 troops consisted of the front-line invasion troops. The full number of 250,000 troops included everyone who would support the 70,000 in the long term as well as forces to retain control of the areas swept through by the frontline forces. They need forces to disarm and control captured enemy troops (which was not done--Iraqi troops were allowed to retain their weapons and their organization in the rear areas).

The Army knows how to run an invasion, they know they need to control the territory, not just march through it. That's why there was such chaos in the country after "mission accomplished."

The whole reason the Jessica Lynch event happened was because the Army was not allowed to have the troops it needed to secure the rear areas. Lynch's maintenance company was moving through a hot combat zone that by the Army's plan would have been firmly under American control.

There were so few support troops that the frontline forces couldn't even be fed reliably.

Cheney and Rumsfeld are just criminal all the way around.

[Ralph_Kirk]

I have to shake my head in sadness over Colin Powell, who should have dropped the "good soldier" policy more than once. His own State Department intelligence had told him the CIA report was bogus, and he challenged George Tenet four times over the UN report. He should have told George Tenet "If you can get your people to convince my people, and I'll accept it."

[Canyon Cat]

Originally Posted by Spaten_Drinker

How about 12 years of no Al Queda attacks on US soil?

How about 200-plus years and no al-CIAda attacks on US soil?

You're welcome.