Yeah.

Real fucking shocked.

I’ve been throwing Devon Largio’s paper at people for a while now, but no one ever seems to give a shit.

This is going to disappear very quickly. The hardcore supporters won’t care because they’ll agree with it. Those of us who have always opposed the war will show it to the people who don’t care one way or another.

Got that? They were going to take Saddam out regardless of whether the claims of WMD were true or not and they were willing to lie if they had to to make it happen.

No, I didn’t get that.

I see Cheney saying the intelligence was wrong.  I see him saying they still would have gone to war if the intelligence had been right ("Iraq has no WMD").

I don’t see him saying they were “willing to lie if they had to”.  Where is that?

How many people did the Saddam regime have to kill before some king of intervention was initiated?

400,000 deaths in fifteen years.

Let’s not foget either just who helped put Saddam in power, the C.I.A.

Of course Britain was also involved in the creation of Iraq:

In 1921, the country of Iraq was created, its first government chosen, and its future determined-not in Baghdad, but at a closed-door meeting of British officials and specialists in the Semiramis Hotel in Cairo. Two pro-British Iraqis were present.

The Royal Air Force didn’t drop gas bombs on the Iraqis- only because they hadn’t yet perfected the necessary technology - but British forces did bombard Shi’a rebels with poison-gas-filled artillery shells, and RAF conventional air assaults were murderous as well, as described by one wing commander: “Within forty-five minutes a full-size village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured.” In crushing this first anti-British revolt, between 6,000 and 9,000 Iraqis were killed by March 1921.

whether the United States would have gone ahead with the invasion anyway if the CIA had reported that Saddam did not, in fact, have such weapons(1), Cheney said yes(2).

(1)"Mr Vice President, Iraq doesn’t have weapons of Mass destruction”

(2) “Lets go to war”

Which bit don’t you get Daryll?

Sorry to double, but Eyes must have hit ‘enter’ seconds before I did.

How many people did the Saddam regime have to kill before some king of intervention was initiated?

So why not use this as the reason? Is it because, for instance, China has a brutal dictatorship, WMD, invaded another country and has killed thousands of its own people. At least Saddam allowed freedom of religeon!

Or maybe

Let’s not forget either just who helped put Saddam in power, the C.I.A.
Of course Britain was also involved in the creation of Iraq:

Hmm always tricky when a favourite son turns on you.  Just ask the Victims of the original 9/11 (1973).

So why not use this as the reason? Is it because, for instance, China has a brutal dictatorship, WMD, invaded another country and has killed thousands of its own people. At least Saddam allowed freedom of religeon!

Can’t take the chance of offending China, need their cheap goods, can’t risk rising inflation rates, that may cause a recession.

That situation will not last however.

China & Oil.

DaveC: I see Cheney saying the intelligence was wrong.

He’s only admitting it was wrong coz we found out, from other than govt sources, that it was wrong.
If he and his GOPs had been able to muzzle those people Cheney and his fucking whores would still be preaching their original bullshit.
In one way or another it was always about oil. It was never about saving Iraqis from their leader.

Something I wrote a coupla years ago: You see, Dubya’s Plan A was:
First we, ‘The Coalition of the Willing’ (didn’t that sound so Biblical?), will spend tax-payers’ money with our arms suppliers (US Corporations) to flatten Iraq and satisfy some lobby groups (all lobby groups aren’t necessarily in the USA. Dubya’s extended political family has taken $1.4 Billion from the House of Saud who control 25% of the world’s oil reserves, and therefore Dubya feels so indebted to the House of Saud that he has censored 28 pages from Congress’ 911 report, as if the Saudi royals are somehow more worthy of the US governments concern than the victims of 911. Never before has a US president been so closely tied to a foreign power that harbours and supports their mortal enemies. Dubya had to get the US public to take their eyes off Usama bin-a-bit-of-a-thorn-in-the-US-ass, a Saudi … Saddam and his WODs sounded invitingly credible … but, I’ve digressed …again).
Then we, the US (not the rest of us), will issue contracts to all our mates (eg Halliburton) to re-build it and as a bonus … we, the US, control the governments in the area and the oil. It should be a nice little earner for us at the tax payer’s expense.

And some of the US public have taken years to see through the scam.
Compared to the Bush clan, Machiavelli was a liberal.
Some of the information above was gleaned from a very interesting book: House of Bush – House of Saud by Craig Unger

Always a laugh to be had from Daryl! - For jeebers sake people - He’s a well established troll on this site! - DONT FEED THE TROLLs!!!

They took out Saddam because he was harboring Al Quaeda, got that?

This morning there was a Republican on CNN who was asked why so many people (roughly 48%) still believe that Saddam/Iraq was involved in 9/11.

He said that Republicans have never said that Saddam/Iraq was involved in 9/11 and that this was a lie promoted by Democrats who want to discredit Republicans. However, he did say that Al Quaeda was and is in Iraq and must be defeated. See how easy that was to clarify??

So now instead of being about WMD, 9/11, democracy, or about removing a despot who murdered his people, the war in Iraq is ACTUALLY about getting rid of the terrorists (like Bush did in Afghanistan, no doubt). Somehow Bush fails to mention that the growth of Al Quaeda in Iraq can be directly attributed to the power vacuum left when Bush invaded.

On one thing Bush might be telling the truth: A failed policy in Iraq seems likely to make America less safe. (It is HIS policy mind you, but hey, let’s forget about past mistakes, right?)

Here’s a lesson on lying:

Always include some element of truth in your lie. It makes your entire story seem plausible.

Why do so many Americans believe that Saddam was harboring Al Qaeda, or had WMDs?  For the same reason that so many Americans believe that the world is less than ten thousand years old: wishful thinking.  They’ve got some text, or some position, they want to believe in, and don’t let pesky facts get in the way.

I love reading or hearing people who are GOP apologists talk about what Bush and Cheney said.  It reminds me of that link that was posted on here that shows what a conservative sees when they read the NY Times.

Shelley: Always include some element of truth in your lie. It makes your entire story seem plausible.

A modicum of intelligence and a good memory doesn’t go astray either.

Zilch: ...many Americans believe ...

I suppose if you believe in fairy stories you’re more likely to believe in just about anything.

Adolph Hitler: The great masses of the people… will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.

= GOP. 

A modicum of intelligence and a good memory doesn’t go astray either.

None, too far, LuckyJohn, none too far . . .

wait a sec… Shelley, you’re Americanadian!

Patness, I’m Canadian—but that info wasn’t recorded way back when I signed up as a member, and since I’ve lost my password (and can’t seem to get it back), I’m a Canadian when I post as a guest, but an American when I post from my desktop (which automatically logs me in and has my password recorded somewhere in its depths).

Shelley, the forgot password function isn’t working for you? If nothing else, email me a password and I’ll change it for you.

No, it doesn’t seem to be—I’ve sent you an email with a new one. Thnks, Les.