Media Welcomes Back Consistently Wrong Iraq ‘Experts’… Wolfowitz, Feith, Bremer, Kristol… Even Judith Miller!

Via HuffPo: CNN’s Erin Burnett Confronts Paul Bremer Over His Iraq Failures

This morning my breakfast was spoiled when Paul Wolfowitz — Paul Wolfowitz! came on MSNBC to pontificate about Iraq. I don’t want to look at that guy, much less hear what he has to say about Iraq of all subjects!

I don’t want to minimize the suffering of the Iraqi people, who are being shafted in the worst possible way by both the Maliki government and the ISIS insurgents, but there is something seriously wrong with our media when Doug Feith is treated as an expert on Iraq (by Politico). For those who don’t remember, Feith was known as “the Undersecretary of Defense for Fiascoes.” General Tommy Franks once described Feith as “the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth.”

And Paul Bremer. Paul Bremer! The guy who started the Sunni insurgency in the first place by disbanding the old Iraqi government and dismissing their entire army without pay. He was on CNN (see video). I don’t like Erin Burnett, but even she is smart enough to realize that Paul Bremer has no business giving anybody advice about Iraq.

We didn’t miss Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, only because he never went away. Kristol infamously predicted the Iraq conflict was “going to be a two month war,” (the war lasted approximately 104 months) and testifying in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee urging military action, he proclaimed that “American and alliance forces will be welcomed in Baghdad as liberators.”

Ari Fleischer is back, too. As Press Secretary in the Bush administration, Fleischer was in charge of selling the illegal invasion of Iraq, claiming “there’s no question that if force is used, it will achieve the objective of preserving the peace far faster than the current path that we’re on.”

Judith Miller, the NYT reporter who spun fanciful tales about Saddam’s nonexistent arsenal of so-called “weapons of mass destruction,” now appears on the Faux News Channel to talk about Iraq. Presumably they even pay her.

What is the matter with our news media?

More info:
Iraq War Boosters Get Second Chance In Media Spotlight
The People Who Broke Iraq Have A Lot of Ideas About Fixing It Now
CNN’s Cuomo Calls Out Bush Administration’s Paul Wolfowitz For GOP Hypocrisy On Iraq
True Chyrons For Bush-Era Iraq War ‘Experts’
Rachel Maddow Hammers Media For Booking Iraq War Hawks Who Got Things So Wrong

  1. #1 by cav on June 17, 2014 - 2:04 pm

    I know it’s so last week, but this is the QED to why college graduates were right to refuse to listen to bullshit from Condi Rice, et al.

  2. #2 by Shane Smith on June 17, 2014 - 4:18 pm

    It is also worth pointing out that the ISIS movement now has the weapons we left after the last time in.

    Just like we created the Saddam problem when we fixed the problem before him, and just like we created the Osama problem when we fixed the Russia problem before him, now we need to fix the ISIS problem we created.

    But don’t worry, they know what to do this time round!

  3. #3 by cav on June 17, 2014 - 4:25 pm

    The right has been rendered totally mad by the arrest of the Benghazi suspect.

  4. #4 by Shane on June 17, 2014 - 8:04 pm

    They only pretended to catch him now in order to help Hilary’s book tour don’t you know…

  5. #5 by cav on June 17, 2014 - 8:06 pm

    Oh, that’s right. She was going down to Mitt, unless something was done.

    • #6 by Larry Bergan on June 17, 2014 - 8:38 pm

      Was lucky enough to retrieve your comment cav. An old Monty Python skit about spam comes to mind.

  6. #7 by cav on June 17, 2014 - 8:38 pm

    Re the Post, It’s bad enough these scoundrels go unpunished, but inviting them on TV and not limiting questions to those containing the word “clusterfuck” is doubly shameful..

  7. #8 by cav on June 17, 2014 - 8:46 pm

    Pstt, Larry. Does this comment make me look fat? Perhaps I should lay off the spam…If you get my drift. TIA

  8. #9 by lake of fire on June 17, 2014 - 9:34 pm

    The jew filth is still running’ the show.

    • #10 by Larry Bergan on June 17, 2014 - 9:51 pm

      You must have been ridiculed in junior high for having “of” for a middle name.

      I’m sorry.

    • #12 by Larry Bergan on June 18, 2014 - 8:14 pm

      The Rachel Maddow segment is a long one, but it’s amazing. Imagine what could happen, if we started to trust the media again.

  9. #13 by cav on June 18, 2014 - 4:02 pm

    Duplicate comment my ass! Yet I can edit this peice of shit til the cows come home. 4 edits, but do you think I could install a little ‘content’? Hell no.

    5 edits.


    • #14 by Larry Bergan on June 18, 2014 - 7:52 pm

      Sorry cav, I couldn’t find your comment in the spam bucket, and I went in thirteen levels. 🙁 🙁

      That gets a double frown.

  10. #15 by cav on June 18, 2014 - 7:58 pm

    I’ll attempt a ‘Thanks anyway’, because ya done good work Larry. I seem to be defunkt.

  11. #16 by cognitive dissonance on June 18, 2014 - 8:16 pm

    Site’s a piece of shit, lacks credibility..sorta like the obamacare site.

  12. #17 by cognitive consonance on June 18, 2014 - 8:22 pm

    Having the same trouble.

    Have people forgotten what the obama narrative was after our people were murdered in Benghazi? The event was a “spontaneous” reaction to a shitty Ben Afleck movie denigrating Islam, no terrorists, no ringleaders…

    Now we are to believe that the instigator has been captured at the very moment Iraq is descending into a black hole.

    In the words of the winged monkey SOS Hillary Clinton (s) another black hole…

    “What does it matter”?

    She, and the boob president are gonna fry.

  13. #18 by cognitive dissonance on June 18, 2014 - 9:11 pm

    And here we thought the murders in Benghazi were non terroristic, leaderless, and the result of Ben Aflecks shitty movie.

  14. #19 by nice wrack! on June 18, 2014 - 9:27 pm

    Pretty sure know nothing Larry fucked the site parameters up with his constant attempts to censor the writings of others.

  15. #20 by Larry Bergan on June 18, 2014 - 9:48 pm

    “Larry fucked the site parameters up”?

    That was pretty broad.

  16. #21 by Larry Bergan on June 18, 2014 - 10:01 pm


    We’ve been through worse!

  17. #22 by nice wrack! on June 19, 2014 - 1:19 am

    When you find a pretty broad Larry, let us know, maybe you will stop obsessing over whether the opinions of others merit your compulsive censorship.

  18. #23 by Richard Warnick on June 20, 2014 - 9:34 am

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: “The only thing I want to hear from Iraq war architects is an apology.”

    • #24 by Larry Bergan on June 20, 2014 - 7:40 pm

      Don’t get mad Krystol, get even!

      I say, “let’s waterboard everybody”, including you, until we start to get some real questions answered here.

      All in good “college prank” fun, of course.

  19. #25 by Anonymous on June 20, 2014 - 4:35 pm

    Says the asshole who led his party to vote to pay for it all every time a dollar was needed.

    He could take some cues from the Tea Party. Best case for an obstructionist congress I ever heard given what we see now of the Iraq debacle.

    Is anyone still listening to this jerk off?

  20. #26 by cav on June 20, 2014 - 6:04 pm

    Barbara Lee’s amendment to prohibit funding combat operations in Iraq failed because 44 Democrats joined 206 GOPers.

    BlueDogs and NeoCons

    • #27 by Larry Bergan on June 20, 2014 - 8:06 pm

      Don’t worry cav. We’ll just vote the bluedogs out on machines manufactured by banks, punchcards designed to fail, false accusations against ACORN, voter caging, polling place intimidation, flyers telling democrats to vote on the wrong day, people signing up voters who throw away democrat registrations and get off scott free, comically long lines at democratic voting locations, fake mobs bussed into Florida to make sure Gore’s votes couldn’t overcome Bush votes.

      And many other methods to make a mockery out of American democracy, but the best one is when exit polls do a 180 in the middle of the night to reflect the outcomes of the voting machines and John Kerry is too scared to fight for the victory we gave him.

      I’m think we may be seeing the media realizing the huge mistakes they’ve made, but I’m not holding my breath.

  21. #28 by Larry Bergan on June 20, 2014 - 8:11 pm

    And one more thing…

    Dick Cheney and the rest of your ilk – too many to list here-. I speak for the American people when I tell you to shut-the-fuck-up and go away!

    Honor your country and the soldiers for once. Just die.

    • #30 by Larry Bergan on June 24, 2014 - 6:41 pm

      From the article:

      Fact: You can’t talk about the Iraq War without addressing the central role the U.S. news media played during the run-up to the invasion, and the fevered and futile hunt for weapons of mass destruction. And that’s why the current move to treat failed war sponsors as knowledgeable experts might also be seen as an effort by some journalists to put behind them the massive media missteps that led to the war.

      Meaning, the reason the press doesn’t think it’s strange having the people who got everything wrong about the war on TV today is because so much of the Beltway press got the same things wrong 11 years ago.

      The media has egg on it’s face from over ten years ago and they didn’t bother to even clean it off. The coverage was never “fair and balanced” on ANY television “news” show, including Phil Donahue’s show which was quickly canceled because he wanted people who told the truth.

      All I had at the time was dial-up internet. Every place I frequented there turned out to be right. The war was a scam from the start. The invasion of Iraq was planned by the bastards in 1997 and was documented on the PNAC site before they took the part about America needing a new Pearle Harbor event off.

      Seeds of democracy?

      Seeds of out-of-control capitalism was the real aim. People who promoted that aim were payed well and couldn’t lose, moneywise. Others, like Phil Donahue got disappeared.

      Sorry MSNBC, but what about PNAC?

    • #32 by Larry Bergan on June 24, 2014 - 7:06 pm

      Is Judith Miller Dick Cheney’s mom?

      Criticizing wars of choice which nobody wins isn’t helpful?

      There is a reason all of these “experts” went into seclusion after the utter failure of their money-grubbing policies finally seeped through the American conscienceless. It’s time for all of them to spend much more time in Cheney’s undisclosed basement/bunker.

  22. #33 by Larry Bergan on June 24, 2014 - 7:10 pm

    Off topic, but I went through 925 spam comments yesterday and 350 spam comments today and only found one brewski comment yesterday which I released.

    Maybe the worst is over.

    If you’re like me, you love having your comments show up immediately. I wouldn’t even begin to surmise 🙂 that somebody would be hacking this site, which is controversial to liars.

  23. #34 by lazy larry on June 24, 2014 - 8:11 pm

    Don’t imagine it would take much to qualify as spam in lazy Larry Bergen’s world.

    Intellectually lazy I would qualify, he says he works, dunno what kind of bargain that is for his employer.

    • #35 by Larry Bergan on June 24, 2014 - 10:04 pm

      You spelled my name wrong.

      How would I know how to delete your comments or not, when you don’t even have the same name from comment to comment, lazy?

      Don’t worry. The spam comments don’t resemble human beings yet and I released a comment you made.

  24. #36 by lazy larry on June 25, 2014 - 11:30 pm

    Don’t try to figure it out Larry..wouldn’t want you to burst your brain bubble.

  25. #37 by cav on June 26, 2014 - 5:33 pm

    So Obama is going to train and arm people to fight the Syrian rebels we previously trained and armed who are going into Iraq to fight the people we trained and armed there who replaced the guy we overthrew after we trained and armed him?

    • #38 by Richard Warnick on June 27, 2014 - 9:58 am

      Woody Allen nailed the cluelessness of U.S. foreign policy back in 1971 when he wrote “Bananas.” There is a scene of American paratroopers in a plane bound for fictional San Marcos, where Fielding Mellish (Allen) has accidentally ended up as the leader of the rebels.

      Any word on where we’re heading?

      I hear it’s San Marcos.

      For or against the government?

      ClA’s not taking any chances. Some of us are for it and some of us are gonna be against it.

      So today the USA is forming a de facto alliance with Syrian dictator Assad and the Iranians to fight against insurgents supported by our other allies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

      Slate’s Joshua Keating:

      A bit less than a year ago, it seemed extremely likely that the U.S. would drop bombs on Assad’s military. Today the U.S. is seriously considering dropping bombs on Assad’s enemies.

  26. #39 by Larry Bergan on June 26, 2014 - 9:30 pm

    In Cheney’s universe it all makes sense, even if it looks like a steaming plate of shit to those on the outside. He just needs two more terms as fake vice president and you’ll really see things start to happen.

  27. #40 by Richard Warnick on June 27, 2014 - 9:44 am

    If You Were An Iraq War Critic, You’re Probably Not Being Asked To Go On TV

    In an email to The Huffington Post, [former Senator Kent] Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, offered two possible explanations. The first, he said, is “simply the incompetence of the media.” The second is “the shrillness of those trying desperately to rewrite history to cover their own devastating failures.”

    • #41 by Larry Bergan on June 28, 2014 - 10:02 pm

      It always used to be only war protesters that were accused of being shrill, but that was because we didn’t have any forum whatsoever.

      I think it’s telling that the people who have had the entire forum since Bush Jr’s. supreme court stole the whitehouse are being shrill.

  28. #42 by lazy larry on June 27, 2014 - 10:08 am

    When the US is destroyed all Americans can openly discuss our combined lack of vision, in the grand picture, no reference will be made to this side or that domestically..only that the American people, and America….failed..

    • #43 by cav on June 27, 2014 - 12:27 pm

      They told us they’d represent us. We listened to them. Hence, the FAILURE!

  29. #44 by lazy larry on June 27, 2014 - 6:50 pm

    How’s it feel to be a bunch of losers?

    Red team, blue team..whatever, cellar dwelling…


    • #45 by cav on June 28, 2014 - 9:18 am

      You mean like some knee-jerk pacifists who hate America, want it to fail, are afraid of guns, and are childish, weak, passive and effeminate?

      You win…now please back away from the Nuke.

      • #46 by Anonymous on June 29, 2014 - 11:40 pm

        That groups pathetic weakness and penchant for denying the realities around them has led directly to this situation.

        Should have fought harder sooner. Refer the Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitzhen. “We just didn’t love freedom enough”. Quite sad.

  30. #47 by Richard Warnick on June 29, 2014 - 2:51 pm

    New York Times Public Editor Criticizes Paper’s Iraq Coverage

    “On the Op-Ed pages and in the news columns, there have been very few outside voices of those who opposed the war last time, or those who reject the use of force now,” Sullivan wrote Saturday. “But the neoconservatives and interventionists are certainly being heard.”

  31. #48 by cav on June 29, 2014 - 3:41 pm

    Talk among yourselves.

  32. #49 by brewski on April 18, 2015 - 11:09 am

    • #50 by Richard Warnick on April 19, 2015 - 2:14 pm

      This video shows how easy it is to take statements out of their historical context for cheap partisan purposes.

      A number of Democratic politicians were wrong about Saddam’s Iraq, and some even made the mistake of using the misleading term “weapons of mass destruction” which conflated nonexistent nuclear weapons with far less lethal chemical and biological weapons. But none of them advocated an illegal invasion of Iraq, which is what Bush ordered in 2003.

      Many in Washington were probably aware of the intelligence errors prior to the first Gulf War. At that time, it was thought that Saddam Hussein wasn’t developing nuclear weapons. But the bombing campaign coincidentally revealed the existence of an Iraqi uranium enrichment plant using World War II Electromagnetic Isotope Separation (EMIS) technology instead of centrifuges.

      In summary, the IAEA report says that following the August 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Iraq launched a “crash program” to develop a nuclear weapon quickly by extracting weapons grade material from safe-guarded research reactor fuel. This project, if it had continued uninterrupted by the war, might have succeeded in producing a deliverable weapon by the end of 1992.

      On the other hand, a thorough regime of weapons inspections after the Gulf War made sure that Saddam’s regime had no usable chemical and biological weapons, and no projects to manufacture any. And of course the endlessly-repeated “smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud” talking point (invented by Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson) was complete and utter bullshit. But it had a superficial air of credibility for those who didn’t have access to or didn’t understand the latest intelligence. After all, Saddam’s regime did implement a secret nuclear weapons program in 1990 when we weren’t looking for one.

      President Bush cannot be excused for lying about the existence of so-called “weapons of mass destruction.” He was briefed on the truth, which was that Iraq had no such weapons.

      On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers.

      • #51 by Larry Bergan on April 19, 2015 - 4:21 pm

        What Richard said.

      • #52 by brewski on April 19, 2015 - 9:29 pm

        You are delusional:

        John Kerry: “With such strong evidence in front of them, it is now incumbent on the UN to respect its own mandates, and stand up for our common goal of either bringing about Iraq’s peaceful disarmament or moving forward with the decisive military victory of a multilateral coalition.”

        “It’s about doing what’s right for the country. I’m worried about the national security of our nation and doing what’s correct. I want the president to continue to work through the multilateral structure, and I’d like to see us get the support of other countries, but I’ve always recognized that you need to face up to the threat of weapons of mass destruction.”

        John Edwards: “I’ve long argued that Saddam Hussein is a grave threat and that he must be disarmed. Iraq’s behavior during the past few months has done nothing to change my mind….Secretary of State Powell made a powerful case. This is a real challenge for the Security Council to act.”

        • #53 by Richard Warnick on April 20, 2015 - 3:52 pm

          Note the key phrases here: “work through the multilateral structure,” and “challenge for the Security Council.” Not,”hey let’s just wage an illegal war of aggression in violation of the UN Charter, because who’s gonna stop us?”

          I suppose more Dems could have pointed out that Iraq did not actually pose a threat to anyone except its neighbors, but Karl Rove chose October 2002 as the time to vote on the Iraq AUMF, right before an election and the media were already pounding the war drums.

          Look at the situation now. The Tea-GOP can’t be bothered to authorize the war against ISIS eight months after it started.

          • #54 by brewski on April 20, 2015 - 4:54 pm


          • #55 by Larry Bergan on April 20, 2015 - 6:52 pm

            The Republicans hate it when a Democratic president talks of war because they know how THEY use it to get what they want. Why let the Democrats have that kind of power?

            When Clinton was going into Kosovo, the Republicans just went nuts, accusing him of trying to get his private life out of the news, because that’s something THEY would do. They would be perfectly fine with that.

            Painting the two parties as exactly the same only happens when we have a Democratic president. The hypocrisy on every issue is stunning to see.

          • #56 by Larry Bergan on April 20, 2015 - 6:56 pm

            When Richard talks about media beating the war drums when Bush was there, it is the understatement of the century, so far. It was a fanfare to end all fanfares, all brought to you with the attack Cheney let happen.

          • #57 by brewski on April 21, 2015 - 2:46 pm

            Clinton went into Kosovo? Show me the UN approval!! It was an illegal war crime!! Clinton should be indicted as a war criminal according to Richard.

          • #58 by Larry Bergan on April 21, 2015 - 4:51 pm

            Yes there were questions about the Kosovo intervention at the time, but nobody remembers it because it went quickly, no American soldiers died, the outcome was excellent and Clinton went there to help people, not to get rich.

            Motive matters.

          • #59 by brewski on April 21, 2015 - 11:50 pm

            “hey let’s just wage an illegal war of aggression in violation of the UN Charter, because who’s gonna stop us?”

            – Richard Warnick

  33. #60 by Larry Bergan on April 18, 2015 - 2:48 pm

    Vote for Jeb!

    • #61 by brewski on April 18, 2015 - 9:39 pm

      Just shows what a bunch of liars Dems are. They make Republicans look like Mother Theresa.

  34. #63 by brewski on April 22, 2015 - 2:21 pm

    From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule. In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. — The New York Times

    • #64 by Larry Bergan on April 22, 2015 - 5:52 pm

      Are you talking about the chemical weapons Rumsfeld delivered to Saddam? It’s amazing they were able to get any information using FOIA. The first thing Bush did when he got in office was to greatly weaken the law that Johnson signed and Cheney advised Ford not to strengthen.

      • #65 by brewski on April 22, 2015 - 11:47 pm

        You mean the same FOIA law that the Obama administration just ignores now and refuses to produce documents which have been legally requested?

        • #66 by Larry Bergan on April 23, 2015 - 8:59 am


          His birth certificate?

          Michelle’s vegetable garden?

          • #67 by brewski on April 23, 2015 - 9:15 am

            Larry, please try to pay attention before you form your conclusions.


          • #68 by Larry Bergan on April 23, 2015 - 1:33 pm

            I’ll admit, that’s not something I could defend.

            That being said, I wonder how many of the FOIA requests were made by hostile political opponents and designed to clog up the whole process or make the administration look bad.

            Interested parties might have also been lightly tugging Obama sleeve. (emphasis mine):

            Anyone who seeks information through the law is generally supposed to get it unless disclosure would hurt national security, violate personal privacy or expose business secrets or confidential decision-making in certain areas. It cited such exceptions a record 554,969 times last year.

            Your link also says efforts to strengthen the FOIA law died in the House last year. That would be the Republican house, no?

          • #69 by brewski on April 23, 2015 - 2:10 pm

            That is exactly the point. You don’t get to ignore FOIA requests just because you might “look bad”. That is abuse of power for political purposes. This coming from the man who promised the most ethical and transparent administration in history?

          • #70 by Larry Bergan on April 23, 2015 - 3:09 pm

            I already told you that wasn’t something I could defend.

            I also can’t defend making “national security” or “911” as a catch all defense of, literally, everything. That was an absolute hallmark of the Bush administration, and it seems to have seeped into the next. What did you expect?

          • #71 by brewski on April 23, 2015 - 5:00 pm

            And then you couldn’t stop yourself with your “That being said…..”

            You just have to take something that is the difference between right and wrong and make it partisan. Some things aren’t partisan. They are just wrong. But you people make them partisan.

          • #72 by Larry Bergan on April 23, 2015 - 6:56 pm

            You never replied to me about Newt Gingrich’s word list.

            If that isn’t wrong, what is!

            You want me to kneel at your feet and praise your wisdom in finality, when you won’t even give me a thumbs up.

            Fuck you!

          • #73 by brewski on April 23, 2015 - 8:36 pm

            What the hell does Newt Gingrich have to do with anything?

            You make it sounds like your people don’t have their own focus-group tested code words too.

          • #74 by Larry Bergan on April 23, 2015 - 10:09 pm

            That was a non-answer about Gingrich’s word list and you know it.

            There weren’t any “code words”, they were just words given to his “rising stars” to memorize for the purpose of using against Democrats, and his congressional pawns actually memorized them to use on his Fox “news” channel.

            Jesus! We’re discussing this on an embedded comment thread on a post from a blog that nobody reads from last year, and you won’t even give us your name…

            Can you just answer the question?

          • #75 by brewski on April 23, 2015 - 10:13 pm

            What question?
            And yes, it was an answer.

          • #76 by Larry Bergan on April 23, 2015 - 11:25 pm

            Whose question?

            The one about flying pigs?

          • #77 by Larry Bergan on April 23, 2015 - 11:26 pm

            Where have I come?

          • #78 by Larry Bergan on April 23, 2015 - 11:27 pm

            I have an idea!

            NO! I really have an idea…

            Stay tuned.

    • #79 by Richard Warnick on April 23, 2015 - 9:55 am

      Chemical weapons have a shelf life. I never doubted the existence of old stockpiles of mostly unusable chemical munitions in Iraq. Don’t forget our illegal invasion was conducted by troops in full MOPP gear, including protective suits. Yet Saddam’s forces never used chemical weapons to defend Iraq.

      That’s not anywhere close to the existential threat that they used to promote a war of aggression – “The smoking gun could come in the form of a mushroom cloud,” according to the infamous Michael Gerson talking point that was repeated on every TV talk show.

      • #80 by brewski on April 23, 2015 - 11:22 am

        Richard, yes or no question:
        Was Saddam in full compliance with all of the terms of the conditional surrender agreement of 1991?

        • #81 by Richard Warnick on April 25, 2015 - 1:23 pm

          I have no idea without researching the answer. Which I don’t have time for. I noted that Saddam’s forces did not deploy any chemical weapons even when his regime was facing an existential threat in 2003. This fact strongly implies they had no usable chemical weapons available. Certainly they had nothing they could use against the USA, more than 6,000 miles away.

          The relevant point is, the UN Security Council never authorized the invasion of Iraq. That’s why it was illegal. Now, 12 years later, I think just about everyone is agreed on the history.

          • #82 by brewski on April 25, 2015 - 4:16 pm

            You don’t have time for facts and history? Of course not. Why would I expect that you would let getting facts and history in the way of your pre-determined conclusion?

            False. A conditional surrender mean conditional surrender. If those conditions were broken, and the UN Security Council confirmed this, which they did, then conditional surrender is over. Which is why all of those Dems voted for it.

            It is false that Saddam didn’t use chemical weapons if American soldiers were actually harmed by those chemical weapons. It is also false to try to induce that since Saddam didn’t use chemical weapons (which isn’t true anyway) that he didn’t have them. You’re just making shit up now, as usual.

            You mean illegal just like Clinton and Kosovo?

          • #83 by Richard Warnick on April 27, 2015 - 9:09 am

            I don’t have time to do research assignments for you. Especially because the point you are trying to make is irrelevant.

            What pundits are now pleased to call “a war of choice” (where the strategy is offensive instead of defensive) is only legal if the UN Security Council authorizes it. They didn’t, and Kofi Annan famously said that the invasion of Iraq violated the UN Charter.

            History records that Saddam’s forces did not deploy chemical weapons to defend against our invasion. You can’t rewrite history to suit your love of the Bush administration.

            Clinton’s action in Kosovo, as you well know because we have debated this before, was justified based on collective defense under the NATO treaty.

          • #84 by brewski on April 27, 2015 - 11:46 am

            NATO is not the UN.

          • #85 by Richard Warnick on April 28, 2015 - 9:09 am

            I know the difference between NATO and the UN. More to the point, I know the difference between collective self-defense and an illegal war of aggression.

          • #86 by brewski on April 28, 2015 - 9:51 am

            You said any war not approved by the UN was illegal. Period. So Clinton’s action in Kosovo was not approved by the UN. Period. Ergo, Clinton is a war criminal NATO notwithstanding according to your words.

            Collective self defense? Kosovo? Really? What NATO member was being attacked?

            According to NATO the operation sought to stop human rights abuses in Kosovo, and it was the first time that the organisation used military force without the approval of the UN Security Council.

            Again, you just make shit up.

          • #87 by Richard Warnick on April 28, 2015 - 1:11 pm

            I never, ever, said what you claim I said. There are three legal ways for a country to go to war:

            1. In response to a direct attack
            2. Joining an ally in collective self-defense
            3. When authorized by the UN Security Council

            The USA can join in collective self-defense with any nation (e.g. South Vietnam) not only NATO members. But if NATO goes to war, we should be with them.

            Let’s be honest. The Tea-GOP is sore about Kosovo because it took Monica Lewinsky off the front pages, not because they are opposed to illegal wars.

  35. #88 by brewski on April 28, 2015 - 4:49 pm

    Source please.

  36. #89 by Larry Bergan on April 28, 2015 - 5:29 pm

    Hey brewski:

    What do you think about George Jr. criticizing Obama’s handling of the wars he started? Personally, it makes me sick.

    • #90 by brewski on April 28, 2015 - 8:37 pm

      What goes around comes around. Obama has spent the last 6 years blaming W for everything from the the extinction of the dinosaurs to make pattern baldness.

      • #91 by Larry Bergan on April 28, 2015 - 10:29 pm

        It’s Clinton’s fault!

        Sound familiar?

        • #92 by brewski on April 29, 2015 - 7:11 am

          I don’t recall W blaming Clinton for 6 years. You have some evidence?

          • #93 by Larry Bergan on April 29, 2015 - 12:51 pm

            They told W. not to say that. It was taken care of by everybody else. It was a mantra, like “he lied”, “he lied”.

          • #94 by brewski on April 29, 2015 - 2:25 pm

            Have a bong hit Larry.

          • #95 by Larry Bergan on April 29, 2015 - 6:10 pm

            brewski, your memory must be shot. You can’t remember the constant blaming of Clinton for everything?

          • #96 by brewski on April 29, 2015 - 7:14 pm

            I just remember Clinton taking credit for everything, and he still is.

  37. #97 by Richard Warnick on April 30, 2015 - 1:41 pm

    Jon Stewart Grills Judith Miller On Iraq War Reporting

    You’d think Judith Miller — the disgraced New York Times reporter who helped rally the country into a $2 trillion, 10-year war — would do us a favor and slink into obscurity. Alas, Miller is hawking a new book…


    • #98 by Larry Bergan on April 30, 2015 - 3:45 pm

      I haven’t listened to it yet, but Bill Maher invited Miller on his show. I don’t care what she says there, I think it’s unacceptable for anybody who did so much harm to be allowed to pimp a book or defend herself. But then Maher contributed to Ann Colter’s fame, so there’s a precedent here.

    • #99 by Larry Bergan on April 30, 2015 - 3:48 pm

      If Bush Jr. The Second takes office, Dick Cheney will be back in his old office at the white house whether he appoints himself as vice president or not. The guy they call the vice president will get a new office.

      The glee will be palatable. Like sprinkling phosphorus on your salad.

    • #100 by brewski on April 30, 2015 - 4:04 pm

      If Ms. Miller is “disgraced” then what do you call the current Dem presumptive nominee for president?

      • #101 by Larry Bergan on April 30, 2015 - 5:37 pm

        If Bush Jr. The First isn’t disgraced, who is. You supported this guy until the Republican structure allowed you and even W. to dist himself.

        Do you remember when he was looking under his desk to find the WMD’s

        I just sent Bernie $10. How much did you send to Jeb?

        • #102 by brewski on April 30, 2015 - 8:08 pm

          I won’t support Jeb.

          I am waiting for others to join.

          • #103 by Larry Bergan on April 30, 2015 - 9:01 pm

            Any sane Republicans on the horizon? Doesn’t seem to be their modus operandi.

          • #104 by brewski on April 30, 2015 - 9:54 pm

            Maybe Kasich.

          • #105 by Larry Bergan on May 1, 2015 - 12:11 pm

            Kasich was in the Gingrich congress for a number of years. He probably memorized the word list. He had a show on Fox “news”. They won’t let you have a show on Fox unless you’re a liar.

            I think I can see why you like him.

          • #106 by brewski on May 1, 2015 - 3:05 pm

            Dems have their own word lists. Stop pretending that they are any different.

          • #107 by Larry Bergan on May 2, 2015 - 6:01 pm

            Democrats in congress never got a list of pejoratives to use when talking about Republicans and words of praise when talking about Democrats.

            You cannot make that claim, but you know that. You don’t care. You’re going to make the claim anyway. A true republican/libertarian/bagger, or whatever they’re calling themselves now.

      • #108 by Richard Warnick on May 1, 2015 - 3:06 pm

        Apples and oranges comparison. As an alleged “journalist” (for the New York Times, no less, which meant she was setting the agenda for other news media) Judy Miller had an obligation to get the facts. Instead, she uncritically published Bush administration propaganda.

        I don’t know why Senator Hillary voted to authorize an invasion of Iraq (conditioned, mind you, on UN Security Council authority that never materialized). I suspect it was a purely political calculation. As a senator Al Gore voted against the authorization for Operation Desert Storm and then failed to become President (after winning the 2000 election). Anyway, Hillary calculated wrong. She has already paid a high price for her mistake, and we had to wait 11 years for an apology.

        BTW where is Bush’s apology?

        • #109 by brewski on May 1, 2015 - 3:57 pm

          There was no “condition”. You just make shit up.

          • #110 by Richard Warnick on May 1, 2015 - 4:38 pm

            Read the 2002 AUMF.

            As you no doubt remember, Colin Powell went to the UN Security Council seeking authorization to invade Iraq, and it was not given.

          • #111 by brewski on May 1, 2015 - 6:03 pm

            I read it before I posted. There is no “condition”.

          • #112 by Richard Warnick on May 2, 2015 - 5:46 pm

            Why did the Bush administration send Colin Powell to ask the UN Security Council to authorize the invasion of Iraq?

          • #113 by brewski on May 2, 2015 - 6:07 pm

            Doesn’t change what the AUMF says in it at all. Can you read?

          • #114 by Richard Warnick on May 2, 2015 - 6:21 pm

            I can read pretty well, especially the part where Congress instructs the President to “obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council…” Before Bush did it, who seriously believed the United States of America would ever initiate a war of aggression? The intent of Congress was clear – get a UN Security Council resolution! Otherwise the invasion of Iraq would violate international law, as everyone understood at the time.

          • #115 by brewski on May 3, 2015 - 1:01 pm

            There was no “condition”. And you edited the sentence to change its meaning. There was not requirement or precondition. The full sentence reads:

            The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council….

            Expressing a support for an effort is not a condition. So no, you cannot read.

          • #116 by Richard Warnick on May 3, 2015 - 3:54 pm

            I agree with the following analysis. It will be in all the history books, except brewski’s.

            Did Congress REALLY Vote For The Iraq War?

            If you ignore all the endless litany of “whereas” after “whereas”, and skip to the end of the 2002 Authorization To Use Military Force, it seems Congress approved a conditional AUMF, not a blank check.

            …There were no existing UN resolutions authorizing force. The US tried to get a new one [and failed].

            …Congress allowed Bush to roll right over them with a carefully crafted strategy just before the election. Bush claimed he was interested in the viability of the UN… and resolutions had to be enforced. He claimed he was not interested in a war, it was a last resort. In reality he was stalling for time… until weather conditions were optimum. He never cared what Congress or the UN wanted. He was going to invade either way and played the public, Congress, and the UN like a fiddle… and We The People have let him get away with war crimes.

            This is the scenario when important questions of war and diplomacy fall victim to domestic politics. Now the USA is a rogue war criminal nation, thanks to Bush (OK, thanks to Cheney and Rove because Bush can plausibly claim he didn’t understand what was happening).

          • #117 by brewski on May 3, 2015 - 4:23 pm

            Of course you do, that’s what you do when the words on the page are not what you just said they say. Nice backtracking of your previous opinion. So now your position is you found some anonymous commenter to a blog who parrots back you what what you already feel. Gee, how persuasive.

          • #118 by Richard Warnick on May 3, 2015 - 9:13 pm

            Up-is-downism. The Bush administration was determined to go to war against Iraq, and when they were unable to obtain UN Security Council approval, they went ahead with a war of aggression — ignoring the clear intent of Congress.

            The AUMF wasn’t a declaration of war, and did not authorize a violation of the UN Charter. It could not, because under our Constitution treaties are the “supreme law of the land.”

            UN weapons inspectors were actually on the ground in Iraq right up until they had to be withdrawn to escape the imminent U.S. invasion!

            Some Dems actually convinced themselves that the AUMF could make war unnecessary. Including this guy (emphasis added):

            Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations.

            “I believe we have an obligation to protect the United States by preventing him from getting these weapons and either using them himself or passing them or their components on to terrorists who share his destructive intent,” said Gephardt, who helped draft the measure.

            Former ambassador Joseph Wilson:

            “[T]he Democratic leadership essentially caved in. The combination of threats of defeat at the polls with presidential promises that the congressional resolution would provide him the ammunition he needed to negotiate a strong UN resolution on disarmament proved to be too much for careerist politicians.”

            When he signed the October 2002 AUMF, President Bush himself claimed that “I have not ordered the use of force… I hope the use of force will not become necessary.”

          • #119 by Larry Bergan on May 3, 2015 - 9:44 pm

            Gephardt sure dropped off the face of the earth.

            All the Republicans that got us into this can’t wait to get back in the White House.

          • #120 by brewski on May 3, 2015 - 9:51 pm

            No amount of rationalization and re-storytelling changes the fact that your previous statements were verifiably false.

          • #121 by Richard Warnick on May 3, 2015 - 9:54 pm

            Wrong. The AUMF was conditional on a UN Security Council resolution. Congress does not have the power to authorize a war of aggression.

          • #122 by brewski on May 3, 2015 - 11:08 pm

            Sure they do. There is nothing in the US Constitution which says Congress can’t authorize force without UNSC approval. And there is nothing conditional in the AUMF bill. You can keep restating falsehoods over and over and they are still falsehoods.

          • #123 by Richard Warnick on May 4, 2015 - 9:38 am

            Ever hear of the Supremacy Clause?

            This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…

            Chapter I, Article 2, paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter:

            All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

            Like I said, the U.S. Congress lacks the power to authorize a war of aggression. Therefore they did not.

          • #124 by brewski on May 4, 2015 - 10:29 am

            Nothing in that says that the US needs UNSC approval to enforce conditional surrenders which the UNSC confirmed have been violated.

          • #125 by Richard Warnick on May 4, 2015 - 1:19 pm

            You’ve been reading right-wing fractured fairy tales again. There was no violation of the 1991 cease-fire (even if there had been, the USA could not act unilaterally). There was no UN Security Council resolution that authorized the invasion of Iraq. In reality, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan declared the invasion a breach of the UN Charter.

            These attempts to obfuscate don’t fool anybody. It’s like the Bush OLC memos that tried to make torture look legal. The Bush administration lied, plain and simple.

          • #126 by brewski on May 4, 2015 - 3:12 pm

            Yes there were numerous breaches of the 1991 conditional surrender.
            Yes the UNSC confirmed it.
            No, the US doesn’t need permission to enforce a treaty.

            And again, if UN permission is your standard, then the action in Kosovo was illegal. Your shifting rules and double-standards only further reveal the vacuousness of your argument.

    • #128 by Richard Warnick on May 4, 2015 - 4:05 pm

      UN Charter, Chapter VII, Article 51: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense…”

      You do know that is a 9/11 conspiracy and climate change denial website?

      • #129 by brewski on May 4, 2015 - 4:41 pm

        Remind me which NATO member states were being attacked in 1999?

        • #130 by Richard Warnick on May 4, 2015 - 5:33 pm

          Legitimacy of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia

          Because the NATO actions in Kosovo were taken after consultation with all members, were approved by a NATO vote, and were undertaken by several NATO members, NATO contends that its actions were in accordance with its charter.

          • #131 by brewski on May 4, 2015 - 6:00 pm

            1. You didn’t answer my question
            2. NATO is not the UN
            3. NATO doesn’t get to tell the UN what is legal under the UN charter
            4. You are quoting a Wikipedia page which regurgitates NATO’s feelings
            5. You are quoting a Wikipedia page which is essentially an op-ed piece which parrots back to you your feelings. Are you kidding?
            6. Tell that to Annan, Chomsky and your other heroes who you seem to be ignoring now.

          • #132 by Richard Warnick on May 4, 2015 - 8:59 pm

            I get it. You don’t agree with NATO’s justification for intervening to save people in Kosovo. It’s true, NATO is not the UN – but three of the five states with permanent seats on the Security Council were founding members of NATO.

            I actually agree with Kofi Annan on the subject of the Kosovo intervention. I disagree with Chomsky’s view. Neither is a “hero” to me.

          • #133 by brewski on May 4, 2015 - 9:00 pm

            No, you don’t get it.

  38. #134 by brewski on May 4, 2015 - 5:16 pm

    “The NATO action represents a threat to the “very core of the international security system” founded on the UN Charter, Secretary-General Kofi Annan observed in his annual report to the UN in September.”

    Noam Chomsky

    ” Kosovo has cast into sharp relief the fact that Member States and regional organizations sometimes take enforcement action without Security Council authorization…..

    the proliferation of regional and subregional arrangements, the preference for so-called “coalitions of the willing”, the increasingly divergent views within the Council, and the emergence of the single super- Power and new regional Powers have all contributed to the present situation….

    my reaction to the decision of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to take enforcement action without seeking explicit Security Council authorization was … I identified the Security Council as having the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security….

    unless the Security Council is restored to its preeminent position as the sole source of legitimacy on the use of force, we are on a dangerous path to anarchy…”

    Kofi Annan, on smacking around Richard Warnick’s “collective defense” non argument.

    • #135 by Richard Warnick on May 4, 2015 - 9:06 pm

      I agree with Kofi Annan’s statement I linked to above.

      To put that statement in context, the UN Security Council could not solve the Kosovo crisis because of the Russian veto power. But it was a classic case where the prompt and decisive application of military force could and did save more lives than it cost – and peace and justice were the outcome.

      I agree with Annan’s concern that this sort of thing is not always (or even usually) a good idea. Just look at Libya. He was right to worry.

      Some people view foreign policy and national security policy in terms of American domestic politics and hyper-partisanship. I don’t.

      • #136 by brewski on May 4, 2015 - 10:49 pm

        So then, what is your standard? You previously stated unequivocally that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was illegal because it didn’t have UNSC approval. But now you are saying that UNSC approval isn’t actually necessary when you don’t want it to. So which is it? Is it required or not required? Is it required sometimes but not other times? It is required except when Russia threatens a veto? Please explain how it is you principles keep changing depending on which answer you already decided you wanted to get to.

        • #137 by Richard Warnick on May 5, 2015 - 8:02 am

          I think it’s funny that you think you can get away with misquoting me when I’m right here. As you know, I said there are three legitimate ways to go to war:

          1. In response to a direct attack.
          2. In defense of an ally (collective defense).
          3. Pursuant to a UN Security Council resolution.

          For the 2003 invasion of Iraq, none of these apply. What the American media were please to call “pre-emptive war” was in fact an illegal war of aggression under international law.

          • #138 by brewski on May 5, 2015 - 11:39 am

            I think it’s funny how you try to convince me of your sets of rules to people you don’t like when you don’t apply those rules to people you do like.

            None of those three rules applied in Kosovo. No NATO member was attacked.

            Kofi Annan said it was illegal. And according to your rules, evenly applied, so should you.

      • #139 by Larry Bergan on May 5, 2015 - 10:48 am

        Lively and interesting conversation!

        I’m staying the heck away because I don’t know beans about war authority, however, I WOULD say that it’s obvious the Bush administration wanted war for profit and power in the executive branch, whereas Clinton didn’t have a nefarious reason and probably tried to prevent another Bosnia. Wesley Clark did a remarkable job carrying that out.

        As I said earlier, the reason matters here.

        • #140 by Richard Warnick on May 5, 2015 - 11:42 am

          According to right-wing mythology, Monica Lewinsky was the reason for the Kosovo intervention.

          • #141 by Larry Bergan on May 5, 2015 - 1:15 pm

            I was really upset about what Clinton was doing. It really shocked me to see all those people who dressed, and looked just like us wandering around with their possessions and Clinton was responsible. That just threw me for a loop.

            Dana Rohrabacher was on TV just going bat crazy, saying he KNEW Clinton was doing this to take the attention off his affair. That kind of reasoning just made me slap my forehead.

            The whole thing was over in no time at all without turning an aircraft carrier around at sunset for a presidential photo-op and declaring “mission accomplished”. It was just gone, and everybody seemed to be better off for it.

            There is no comparison to Iraq in any sense. I mean, can you imagine in your wildest dreams that Clinton would land on an aircraft carrier to declare victory over Slobodan, (sort of looked like Gingrich, huh)? 🙂 I know Bush didn’t ever say he personally landed that jet, but there were people on the “news” insinuating he did and I’m not so sure that if the story had stuck, Karl Rove wouldn’t have let it stand. Thank God we had Al Gore’s internet by that time.

            I wonder if that’s why Michael Deaver died so young. Embarrassment over what he created. 🙂

          • #142 by brewski on May 5, 2015 - 1:56 pm

            According to left-wing mythology, the Chief Executive getting a blowjob from an unpaid government intern on government property was a “private matter”.

          • #143 by Larry Bergan on May 5, 2015 - 11:33 pm

            I said you weren’t as bad as Hannity, brewski. Don’t push it.

            Clinton left office with higher ratings then God Reagan. People knew Monica was a private matter.

          • #144 by brewski on May 5, 2015 - 11:57 pm

            A government intern on government property with her ultimate reporting superior? It is a violation of Federal HR regulations and policies. Not private.

            Committing perjury and getting your law license suspended is not a private matter.

            “Today, I signed a consent order in the lawsuit brought by the Arkansas Committee on Professional Conduct which brings to an end that proceeding.

            I have accepted a five-year suspension of my law license, agreed to pay a $25,000 fine to cover counsel fees, and acknowledged a violation of one of the Arkansas model rules of professional conduct because of testimony in my Paula Jones case deposition. ”

            William Jefferson Clinton

          • #145 by Larry Bergan on May 6, 2015 - 12:46 am

            You’re right. Waterboarding war crimes are much less serious.

          • #146 by Richard Warnick on May 6, 2015 - 7:12 am

            I’ve said before that Clinton brought disgrace on the Oval Office… and Bush brought disgrace on the United States of America.

          • #147 by brewski on May 8, 2015 - 9:14 am

            Clinton isn’t just a disgrace. It was illegal and not private.

  39. #149 by Richard Warnick on May 16, 2015 - 10:55 am

    WaPo’s Greg Sargent on John Ellis (“Jeb”) Bush’s Iraq invasion gaffe:

    In this framing, the question becomes: Will you admit that you were misled into supporting a war that everyone now agrees in hindsight was an unnecessary and tragic mistake?

    But this leaves out a big part of the story of the run-up to the war, which is that some people were arguing at the time against invading Iraq, on the grounds that the evidence was all right there in plain sight that Iraq did not pose a threat imminent enough to justify an invasion.

    Some of us said at the time that even in the case of an imminent threat, a war of aggression is still illegal and wrong. Did we attack the Soviet Union during the Cold War because their ICBMs posed an imminent threat?

  40. #150 by Larry Bergan on May 16, 2015 - 11:46 am

    I must have supernatural powers. There wasn’t any doubt in my mind that we were being rushed to war like a “ONE DAY ONLY” sale at the store. Andy Card even said they were rolling out a new product.

    Robert Greenwald knew what was happening. It just defies logic to think the entire congress didn’t know what was happening. They’re all standing there with out any clothes on, and have been for over a decade. What a sad spectacle this is.

    And for Jeb to say he didn’t know what he would do even after being given a chance to say the word “no” when asked again just boggles the mind. Are we going to keep this horrible lie going just so W’s feelings don’t get hurt?

    Hillary is nearly as bad for saying she had bad intelligence for her vote. Bernie Sanders is definitely my guy!

    • #151 by Richard Warnick on May 16, 2015 - 9:23 pm

      Sadly, in 2002 Clinton did not bother to read the 90-page, classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. If she had, she might have seen the footnotes that flatly contradicted what Bush administration officials were claiming on TV.

      Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton and authorizing the war in Iraq

      • #152 by brewski on May 16, 2015 - 9:28 pm

        I guess that makes her disqualified to be President.

        • #153 by Richard Warnick on May 17, 2015 - 11:04 am

          If we could see that she learned from her mistakes, it would not be disqualifying. But Hillary doesn’t appear to be that kind of politician.

      • #154 by Larry Bergan on May 16, 2015 - 10:13 pm

        Bernie Sanders didn’t vote for the war, but he couldn’t make the news if he accidentally killed Obama’s dog with a gyrocopter. A couple of days after he announced, NPR had a program where every single candidate came up at least once, but even though Bernie made more then any other candidate on his first day, he was left out of the discussion.

        That liberal media. 🙁

        • #155 by brewski on May 17, 2015 - 1:12 am

          I see Sanders on the news all the time.

          You must be watching some networks who have some bias.

          • #156 by Larry Bergan on May 17, 2015 - 12:36 pm

            I thought you said you didn’t watch Fox “news”.

            I saw that on YouTube last night. It was obvious that the reason they invited Sanders on was to get him to trash Hillary or make him lose his temper so they could play it – you know – over and over and over.

            Unfortunately Bernie knew exactly what the interview was being conducted for and didn’t give them what they wanted. Did you know Sanders has only been on that old stalwart, “Meet The Press” one time?

            I’m going to try to find out if he was on this morning anywhere.

  41. #157 by brewski on May 16, 2015 - 9:31 pm

    The National Intelligence Estimate concluded that the United States had “compelling evidence” that Iraq was restarting its efforts to develop a nuclear bomb and had concealed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons from U.N. inspectors after the cease-fire that ended the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

    That was wrong, but that wasn’t established until after a U.S. -led army toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s government in April 2003.

    • #158 by Richard Warnick on May 17, 2015 - 11:08 am

      You have to read the un-redacted version of the Iraq NIE, which was recently declassified (emphasis added).

      Thirteen years ago, the intelligence community concluded in a 93-page classified document used to justify the invasion of Iraq that it lacked “specific information” on “many key aspects” of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs.

      But that’s not what top Bush administration officials said during their campaign to sell the war to the American public. Those officials, citing the same classified document, asserted with no uncertainty that Iraq was actively pursuing nuclear weapons, concealing a vast chemical and biological weapons arsenal, and posing an immediate and grave threat to US national security.

      …According to the newly declassified NIE, the intelligence community concluded that Iraq “probably has renovated a [vaccine] production plant” to manufacture biological weapons “but we are unable to determine whether [biological weapons] agent research has resumed.” The NIE also said Hussein did not have “sufficient material” to manufacture any nuclear weapons and “the information we have on Iraqi nuclear personnel does not appear consistent with a coherent effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program.”

      …The most controversial part of the NIE, which has been picked apart hundreds of times over the past decade and has been thoroughly debunked, pertained to a section about Iraq’s attempts to acquire aluminum tubes. The Bush administration claimed that this was evidence that Iraq was pursuing a nuclear weapon.

      National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice stated at the time on CNN that the tubes “are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs,” and that “we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

      The version of the NIE released in 2004 redacted the aluminum tubes section in its entirety. But the newly declassified assessment unredacts a majority of it and shows that the intelligence community was unsure why “Saddam is personally interested in the procurement of aluminum tubes.” The US Department of Energy concluded that the dimensions of the aluminum tubes were “consistent with applications to rocket motors” and “this is the more likely end use.” The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research also disagreed with the intelligence community’s assertions that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.

      The Big Lie is the false claim (by many who know better, or ought to know) that the intel was wrong. Actually, the secret intel was correct but the Bush administration ignored it and concocted a bogus story about a “smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.” The media bought it, to their shame.

      • #159 by brewski on May 17, 2015 - 9:37 pm

        It is pretty bizarre how you read things and what the document actually says. The un-redacted document very strongly and clearly states that Saddam is developing WMD. Whether or not the CIA “lacked “specific information” ” doesn’t change the point. It also quite strongly describes Saddam’s program of deception and obstruction with the UN inspectors, which is a violation of the conditional surrender by itself. So the un-redacted document does nothing to change the point that the intelligence community really did think and really did tell the WH and others that Saddam is developing WMD regardless of lack of specificity to certain details. So the only Big Lie is your Big Lie.

        You believe what you want to believe. You would make a good Mormon.

    • #160 by Richard Warnick on May 17, 2015 - 11:18 am

      And there’s MORE

      One of the most significant parts of the NIE revealed for the first time is the section pertaining to Iraq’s alleged links to al Qaeda. In September 2002, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed the US had “bulletproof” evidence linking Hussein’s regime to the terrorist group.

      “We do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad,” Rumsfeld said. “We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of senior-level contacts going back a decade, and of possible chemical- and biological-agent training.”

      But the NIE said its information about a working relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq was based on “sources of varying reliability” — like Iraqi defectors — and it was not at all clear that Hussein had even been aware of a relationship, if in fact there were one.

      “As with much of the information on the overall relationship, details on training and support are second-hand,” the NIE said. “The presence of al-Qa’ida militants in Iraq poses many questions. We do not know to what extent Baghdad may be actively complicit in this use of its territory for safehaven and transit.”

      …All told, this is the most damning language in the NIE about Hussein’s links to al Qaeda: While the Iraqi president “has not endorsed al-Qa’ida’s overall agenda and has been suspicious of Islamist movements in general, apparently he has not been averse to some contacts with the organization.”

      Only a half-dozen senators and a few House members read past the NIE’s five-page summary. At the time, it was common knowledge in Washington that the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq no matter what, so the NIE could have been seen as immaterial to the actual decision to go to war.

      • #161 by Larry Bergan on May 17, 2015 - 12:40 pm

        Absolutely disgusting but after, all, it’s what God wanted. What was George, Rumsfeld or Cheney supposed to do?

  42. #162 by Richard Warnick on May 17, 2015 - 9:54 pm

    Krugman on John Ellis (“Jeb”) Bush’s Iraq invasion gaffe:

    Incredibly, Mr. Bush resorted to the old passive-voice dodge, admitting only that “mistakes were made.” Indeed. By whom? Well, earlier this year Mr. Bush released a list of his chief advisers on foreign policy, and it was a who’s-who of mistake-makers, people who played essential roles in the Iraq disaster and other debacles.

    Seriously, consider that list, which includes such luminaries as Paul Wolfowitz, who insisted that we would be welcomed as liberators and that the war would cost almost nothing, and Michael Chertoff, who as director of the Department of Homeland Security during Hurricane Katrina was unaware of the thousands of people stranded at the New Orleans convention center without food and water.

  43. #163 by Larry Bergan on May 18, 2015 - 12:34 pm

    It would be nice if I could loot a 7-11 store and get out of it by saying, “mistakes were made”. I’m am so tired of that one. And then there’s that other one, “It was immoral, but probably not illegal”. Even better if you’re sure to get the right judge upon appeal.

    • #164 by brewski on May 18, 2015 - 12:38 pm

      Are you quoting Hillary?

      • #165 by Larry Bergan on May 18, 2015 - 12:48 pm

        Why are you ignoring Bernie Sanders? He’s running as a democrat. What Sanders says about the TPP is spot on.

        What do YOU think about the TPP. Forget Hillary.

        • #166 by brewski on May 18, 2015 - 3:01 pm

          What makes you think I am ignoring Bernie Sanders? I have quoted him on here may times. For example,

          “What I do not support is, under the guise of immigrant reform, a process pushed by large corporations which results in more unemployment and lower wages for American workers….As you well know, we remain in the midst of a severe recession. Real unemployment, once you consider people who’ve given up looking for work, is close to 14 percent, and in some parts of the country is even higher. For minorities it’s very high, and we’ve got to address that. You have massively high unemployment for young people,…. as someone who was led to believe that what economics was about was supply and demand, if you need workers in a certain area, you need to raise wages. I have a hard time understanding the notion that there’s a severe need for more workers from abroad….. But this is a massive effort to attract cheap labor, a great disservice to American workers.”

          • #167 by Larry Bergan on May 18, 2015 - 6:50 pm

            …if you need workers in a certain area, you need to raise wages.

            Sure you didn’t mean to edit that part out? 🙂

            I’m glad you like Sanders. What’s it gonna be on your ballot: Sanders or Bush?

          • #168 by brewski on May 18, 2015 - 7:35 pm

            Yes, I did not mean to edit that out. He is absolutely right and he agrees with me about this and not with pretty much everybody else on OneUtah who want open borders and cheap labor.

            I don’t like Bush either. I don’t think he will be the nominee.

          • #169 by Larry Bergan on May 18, 2015 - 10:15 pm

            How old is that quote. do you have a link?

          • #170 by brewski on May 18, 2015 - 11:20 pm

            So Bernie Sanders and Lou Dobbs agree.

            Like I keep saying, the OWS and the Tea party share a lot in common. I’m not kidding.

  44. #171 by brewski on May 18, 2015 - 11:19 pm


    “What concerns me,” Senator Sanders said, “are provisions in the bill that would bring low-wage workers into this country in order to depress the already declining wages of American workers. With poverty increasing and the middle-class shrinking, we must not force American workers into even more economic distress.”

  45. #172 by Richard Warnick on May 19, 2015 - 10:42 am

    Jeb Bush Says His Brother Was Misled Into War By Faulty Intelligence. That’s Not What Happened.

    George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Co. were not misled by lousy intelligence; they used lousy intelligence to mislead the public.

    …For the Bush-Cheney gang, it truly did not matter what the intelligence said. They were not victims. They were the perps.

    The lies will never stop.

    • #173 by brewski on May 19, 2015 - 2:08 pm

      David Corn? Hahahaha!

  46. #174 by Richard Warnick on May 19, 2015 - 12:23 pm

    Iraq War Supporters Run For The Hills

    But they still won’t admit they were wrong in 2003, and that the invasion was (1) based on lies, and (2) illegal and a war crime.

  47. #175 by Richard Warnick on May 19, 2015 - 12:36 pm

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC): It’s Obama’s Fault

    You see, Saddam Hussein “had a lot to do with destabilizing the region.” The Bush administration must have stabilized it, in Graham’s mind, by invading Iraq (?) Then President Obama re-destabilized everything, and here we are!

  48. #176 by Richard Warnick on May 19, 2015 - 12:47 pm

    Josh Marshall:

    [T]he truth is painful and clear: Iraq wasn’t a good faith mistake. It was a calamity based on lies and willful deceptions. Much of that was clear at the time. It’s all clear now.

    • #177 by brewski on May 19, 2015 - 2:09 pm

      TPM? Hahahaha!!

    • #178 by Larry Bergan on May 19, 2015 - 4:05 pm

      I smell a big rat!

      All of the sudden, the media wants to get to the truth about Iraq and are grilling everybody on it.

      See this for what it is: it’s happening a year and a half before the election and the media even has enough time to pound on it for a while until Americans are tired of the question and will notice that nobody who committed these war crimes is going to face even a slap on the hand.

      When the debates start, all every candidate has to say is, “oh stop it, we’ve been over this again and again”. 🙁

  49. #179 by Richard Warnick on May 19, 2015 - 4:04 pm

    Much as the Tea-GOP wants to re-write history, it’s not going to happen. The invasion of Iraq was illegal and based on lies, pure and simple.

    • #180 by Larry Bergan on May 19, 2015 - 4:06 pm


    • #181 by brewski on May 19, 2015 - 4:45 pm

      As soon as you call for the arrest of Bill Clinton then you will have some credibility. Until then you are a partisan hack.

      • #182 by Richard Warnick on May 19, 2015 - 5:17 pm

        (1) President Clinton didn’t order the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

        (2) When did you call for a war crimes indictment of anybody?

        • #183 by brewski on May 19, 2015 - 6:23 pm

          1) President Clinton order the attack on a country without UN approval. There was no clear and present danger to the UN or any NATO country. So under the Warnick Rule, Clinton is a war criminal.

          2) How is this relevant to anything?

  50. #184 by brewski on May 19, 2015 - 10:26 pm

    As President Obama contemplated whether to authorize the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, he was told by CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell that the evidence indicating that Iraq had W.M.D.s before the Iraq war was “much stronger” than the evidence that bin Laden was living in the Abbottabad compound. “And I’m telling you, the case for W.M.D. wasn’t just stronger—it was much stronger,” he told the president.

    • #185 by Larry Bergan on May 20, 2015 - 7:36 am

      CIA agent with a new book on Fox “news”?

      It must be true.

      • #186 by brewski on May 20, 2015 - 8:20 am

        If Elizabeth Warren said something on Fox News, then would it be less credible?

        • #187 by Larry Bergan on May 20, 2015 - 11:59 am

          Elizabeth Warren doesn’t say the things she does to embarrass anybody or bring wealth and power to her buddies. She’s like Americas mother; she cares about this country and it’s people.

          This guy is a disgrace to honest people who work in the CIA.

          • #188 by brewski on May 20, 2015 - 2:49 pm

            Morrell worked for Obama. He was in the Obama administration. Obama was his boss. So how is it that Morrell is not credible because he was interviewed on Fox but any over lefty would be? Make sense!

          • #189 by brewski on May 20, 2015 - 2:52 pm

            Elizabeth Warren just says things that are laughably untrue. She is delusional and has no idea what she is talking about. I want her to run to she can get laughed off the stage.

          • #190 by Larry Bergan on May 20, 2015 - 5:58 pm

            Obama can’t appoint people to the CIA. I doubt this guy ever had respect for the negro in the white house. Obama is under constant pressure from the war makers and this dude is just helping them out while trying to make a profit at the same time.

            Elizabeth Warren isn’t in it for the money or war and you think SHE’S the one without integrity. To the corner with you!

          • #191 by brewski on May 20, 2015 - 6:02 pm

            What makes you such a racist? Were you raised to be that way?

            Warren was paid $461,000 to be a professor at a non-profit tax-empt school.

          • #192 by Larry Bergan on May 20, 2015 - 8:02 pm

            She could still be making that too, if she wasn’t trying to make it possible for others to get an education, among many other things.

    • #193 by Richard Warnick on May 20, 2015 - 8:29 pm

      I tend to assess military ops based on risk/reward.

      A four-helicopter raid on Abbottabad, Pakistan was low risk/high reward. Worst case = bin Laden not there, and about 40 troops, largely Navy SEALs, KIA. Luckily that didn’t happen. One helicopter was lost, no U.S. casualties. No collateral damage of course, except bin Laden’s rental house got torn down later. Arguably a win (though capturing bin Laden and putting him on trial might have avoided giving al-Qaeda another martyr). Americans celebrated spontaneously in the streets.

      Invading Iraq was high risk/zero reward. Worst case (this actually happened) = no WMDs at all (war of aggression based on lies), 4,810 KIA (on our side), 133,000 – 147,000 direct civilian casualties, tremendous damage to infrastructure, Iraq destabilized/plunged into civil war, millions of refugees and internally displaced persons, USA guilty of war crimes, at least $2.21 trillion war cost (just counting the bill paid by American taxpayers). The occupation was by definition unwinnable for us – occupations always end in a withdrawal. Iran won the war. Zero benefit to U.S. national security – probably negative on that score. Americans protested in the streets – largest anti-war protests ever.

      Bottom line: CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell, like too many so-called “experts” in Washington, seems incapable of strategic thought. This is why our military has such a miserable win-loss record. How do these people get hired and promoted?

      • #194 by brewski on May 20, 2015 - 11:51 pm

        It wasn’t Morrell’s role to make strategic decisions. That is what the President is supposed to do. So, strategically thinking, perhaps it might not have been, you know strategically, a good idea to 100% leave Iraq before they were ready, especially since that is not what he was being advised by the people on the ground there.

        BTW, I assume you agree Obama is a war criminal too for all of his illegal and extra-UN murdering.

        • #195 by Richard Warnick on May 21, 2015 - 8:22 am

          According to your account, Morell was providing advice to the President of the United States. Bad advice, IMHO.

          As far as Iraq withdrawal, former President Bush signed that deal before he left office. Take it up with him! Tea-GOP attempts to rewrite history will always fail, because… there are history books.

          President Obama is a war criminal, if anyone cares about technicalities. And he’s been waging an illegal war without congressional authorization for nine months now. Thanks to the Bush administration, it appears that America now has a “unitary executive” form of government (aka “the Decidership” or “Imperial Presidency”). I don’t know how we can get back to a representative democracy.

          • #196 by brewski on May 21, 2015 - 9:05 am

            What advice did Morrell give which was bad, IYHO, specifically?

          • #197 by Larry Bergan on May 21, 2015 - 3:15 pm

            I’m guessing everybody’s heard about this one by now. Yikes!

            Great job Mathews!

          • #198 by Richard Warnick on May 21, 2015 - 4:57 pm

            You said Mike (“That’s not my job”) Morrell advocated against the Abbottabad raid, at the same time claiming that there was a strong case for Iraqi WMD in 2002 (there wasn’t). On September 18, 2002 George Tenet briefed President Bush on the non-existence of these so-called WMDs (a ridiculous term that lumps together nuclear weapons with much less destructive weapons, and leaves out the whole question of delivery systems – also nonexistent).

            Also I don’t like the implication that the invasion of Iraq could be justified in any way. Even if Saddam Hussein had a nuclear warhead mounted on an ICBM aimed at Washington, that would not have made the invasion of Iraq legal. What he actually had was 600 tons of yellowcake (surplus from the Osirak reactor the Israelis bombed in 1981) that was left unsecured by the U.S. Marines and looted by poor Iraqis in the chaos – they actually dumped out the uranium because they wanted the barrels to store water! I think some of them died. Here in a nutshell was the worst national security screw-up in American history.

            How is it that a guy like Morrell is still employable outside of Wal-Mart? CBS hired him, just like the WaPo hired Michael Gerson. WTF?

            These unrepentant neocons (has even one of them apologized?) are always wrong, yet never in doubt. They remind me of what Talleyrand once said of the House of Bourbon: “They have learned nothing, and forgotten nothing.”

          • #199 by brewski on May 21, 2015 - 6:45 pm


          • #200 by Richard Warnick on May 21, 2015 - 8:42 pm

            I agree. The Bush administration’s attempted justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq was completely false.

          • #201 by brewski on May 21, 2015 - 9:49 pm

            No, Morrell did not “advocated against the Abbottabad raid”. He never said that once. You don’t know how to read.

          • #202 by Richard Warnick on May 21, 2015 - 10:03 pm

            You tell me. What would have been the point of Morrell telling President Obama that the false claims of Iraqi WMD were better sourced than bin Laden’s whereabouts?

            BTW I think Sy Hersh got the truth – it’s more likely than not that somebody in the Pakistani government gave us bin Laden’s address, which the CIA then confirmed via surveillance. That makes more sense than the official story.

          • #203 by Larry Bergan on May 21, 2015 - 10:32 pm

            Richard said:

            You tell me. What would have been the point of Morrell telling President Obama that the false claims of Iraqi WMD were better sourced than bin Laden’s whereabouts?

            That hit me like a ton of bricks. What difference would that possibly make? We’re talking about the difference between hundreds of thousands of deaths, ground troops ect. vs a few possible deaths.

            Morrell is probably wanting to crawl under a rock and take his book with him. Chris Mathews was probably unable to contain himself this time.

          • #204 by brewski on May 21, 2015 - 11:38 pm

            People live in a world of making decisions with partial and imperfect information. It is somebody’s job to assign probabilities to them. Nothing is 100% and nothing is 0%. So Morrell was providing the CIA’s judgement (for example) that the probability of OBL being in the house in Abbottabad was (say) 50% and the 2002 CIA assessment of Saddam having WMD at the time was 90%. Morrell was providing assessment and probabilities based on what the CIA thought at the time.

            “In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.”

            New York Times

          • #205 by Larry Bergan on May 22, 2015 - 1:41 am


            And from what administration, exactly, were those heavily redacted documents obtained under president Johnson’s Freedom of Information Act?

          • #206 by Larry Bergan on May 22, 2015 - 1:46 am

            And brewski:

            Can you name George W. Bush’s first act in office?

            3… 2… 1…

          • #207 by brewski on May 22, 2015 - 8:04 am

            Bush’s first act in office:
            “set up the Office of Faith Based Initiatives and created centers in various existing departments to deal with faith based initiatives.”

          • #208 by Richard Warnick on May 22, 2015 - 8:30 am

            Apparently, the Commander-in-Chief correctly decided the CIA was full of shit, and made the right decision despite the advice of Mike (“That’s not my job”) Morrell. Possibly President Obama had access to the information provided by a former Pakistani intel officer?

            Where do you get a 90 percent probability of a WMD threat when the threat is actually zero? Remember, even during the invasion when the Iraqi regime had nothing to lose no chemical weapons were deployed (probably because they were unusable). Of course the mythical nuclear and biological weapons were utterly nonexistent. The difference between the truth and Bush administration’s claims in 2002 could not possibly have been any wider.

          • #209 by brewski on May 22, 2015 - 10:24 am

            Where do you get zero from ex ante? You keep stating information ex post.

          • #210 by Richard Warnick on May 22, 2015 - 11:27 am

            Iraq posed a zero so-called WMD threat to the USA in 2002. This was abundantly clear at the time. Scott Ritter said so. Hans Blix said so.

            On February 11 — less than five weeks before the invasion — I told U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice I wasn’t terribly impressed by the intelligence we had received from the U.S., and that there had been no weapons of mass destruction at any of the sites we had been recommended by American forces. Her response was that it was Iraq, and not the intelligence, that was on trial.

            At the beginning of 2003 Blix reported to the U.N. that Iraq most probably neither possessed WMDs or the means to produce them.

            But the lies repeated so loudly and often by Bush administration officials drowned out the facts. Even today, some people remain unable to distinguish between unusable stocks of old chemical weapons and a “threat.” And people still seem confused by the difference between enriched uranium, highly-enriched uranium, and nuclear weapons.

          • #211 by brewski on May 22, 2015 - 12:16 pm

            “The Security Council,
            Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

            Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

            Recognizing the threat Iraq’s noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

            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,

            Further recalling that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

            Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than one hundred and fifty kilometres, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,


            Deploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998,

            Deploring the absence, since December 1998, in Iraq of international monitoring, inspection, and verification, as required by relevant resolutions, of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, in spite of the Council’s repeated demandsthat Iraq provide immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), established in resolution 1284 (1999) as the successor organization to UNSCOM, and the IAEA; and regretting the consequent prolonging of the crisis in the region and the suffering of the Iraqi people,

            Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,

            Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,

            Determined to ensure full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions with its obligations under resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions and recalling that the resolutions of the Council constitute the governing standard of Iraqi compliance,

            Recalling that the effective operation of UNMOVIC, as the successor organization to the Special Commission, and the IAEA, is essential for the implementation of resolution 687 (1991) and other relevant resolutions,

            Noting the letter dated 16 September 2002 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Iraq addressed to the Secretary-General is a necessary first step toward rectifying Iraq’s continued failure tocomply with relevant Council resolutions,

            Noting further the letter dated 8 October 2002 from the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to General Al-Saadi of the Government of Iraq laying out the practical arrangements, as a follow-up to their meeting in Vienna, that are prerequisites for the resumption of inspections in Iraq by UNMOVIC and the IAEA, and expressing the gravest concern at the continued failure by the Government of Iraq to provide confirmation of the arrangements as laid out in that letter,

            Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait, and the neighbouring States,

            Commending the Secretary General and members of the League of Arab States and its Secretary General for their efforts in this regard,

            Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions,….”

            the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15–0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab states such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.

          • #212 by Richard Warnick on May 22, 2015 - 2:26 pm

            So where is this 90 percent threat that Iraq is going to annihilate us? I don’t see it. There wasn’t even enough evidence to trigger Dick Cheney’s infamous one percent doctrine. No, it was a zero percent “threat,” if that word can even be applied to nonexistent weapon systems.

            Until 2002, I never thought the USA could go to war based on absurd lies and assumptions. What an awful crime it was, followed by no punishment at all for the perps (plenty of consequences for the rest of us).

          • #213 by brewski on May 22, 2015 - 7:09 pm

            What the fuck are you talking about?

          • #214 by Richard Warnick on May 22, 2015 - 10:36 pm

            I’m talking about a breach of the U.N. Charter. The USA has been a rogue nation since 2003.

            Oh, and you claimed the CIA said there was a 90 percent certainty that Iraq was going to wipe us out with their awesome WMD arsenal that didn’t exist in reality.

          • #215 by brewski on May 23, 2015 - 9:19 am

            No, not since 2003. Since 1998 when Clinton illegally violated the UN Charter and illegally waged war without the UN’s approval. Why don’t you say the US has been a roque nation since 1998?

          • #216 by Richard Warnick on May 23, 2015 - 9:38 pm

            First, nobody equates the 1998 air raids on Iraq that lasted 4 days with the full-scale invasion and occupation that began in 2003 and lasted eight years.

            Second, are we supposed to believe you are concerned about violations of the UN Charter now?

  51. #217 by brewski on May 20, 2015 - 11:55 pm

    Another GOP and Fox News-er who was against invading Iraq and parts of the Patriot Act.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: