'Why We Did It' The Iraq War
 

by Rhodes scholar Rachel Maddow. I'll have to watch this one, it's being recorded here tonight.

Keep us informed.

I'm recording it as well. I hope she can do it as straightforward documentary and not in her typical snarky, preachy tone.

Is she going to interview Dick Cheney?

I don't think so, but I think she has a few higher-ups, including Anthony Zinni.

I'll tell you the real reason.

It amounted to the Bush Family wanting some Junior High School payback against Saddam Hussain because Saddamn went out on his balcony and fired his rifle in celebration of Daddy Bush's re-election defeat effectively saying "I'm still President of my country and you're not, neener, neener."

This insult infuriated the Bush's and was the primary motivation for both George and Jeb (it was supposed to be Jeb) to go after the Presidency in order to get payback.

Everything else was just window dressing. The real reason was "Payback".

I admit to liking snarky.

It's, also, why I adore Keith Olbermann.

Oh so it's not a documentary but an opinion piece.

Iraq: A Decade of Hell

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=rtuk08E09cw

My belief is that it was a long time goal of Dick Cheney to target Iraq that went back to the Gulf War days....

its a totally subjective belief that goes back to a citation credited to him in a military requirements manual that was written before 9-11 that had I to complete in the Navy shortly after the 2003 war had began. The author was mentioning the projection of sea power and had mentioned how Iraq should be contained....then the bookmark showed a reference to something Cheney had wrote.

Military Reqirements of 1C and Chief......Dave knows what I am referring to.

The plan for the takeover of Iraqs' oilfields were number one priority of the Shrub's administration from day one. No news there.

From this dude? A self professed Anarcho Capitalist who pals around with Alex Jones and his ilk. You don't take these people seriously, do you Dan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux

No bombshell revelations as far as I can see. Bush and crew are still a bunch of lying neo con war criminals who got off scott free.

It was all Obamas fault. We were attacked on 9/11 because BHO is a pussy and went to war in Iraq, because he's a tyrannical dictator. I know this to be true, because some guy who goes by the user name of "Total Patriot" told me so on a Tea Party blog. It HAS to be true, because patriots have honor and never lie.

:rolleyes:

Dave

+1 Miss his take on current events.


Missed the first half. Recorded the rest. Will look for a rebroadcast. Only the foolish didn't see it for what it was at the time.


Barney

The upshot of the show was that it was an effort to ensure Saddam's oil was released into the world markets. There was a lot of (selectively edited) proof to underlie this assertion. You can be sure that Iraq would not have been invaded were it not for the fact that they controlled 10% of the world's oil. No news there.

I felt he sounded pretty dead on, you want to watch Rachel Maddow. Who is a leftwing loon without a balanced view.

Agreed about the oil Finn. It is a legit interest and paid for his attempts to destabilize things.

If you read the statements on Saddam by both Bush and Clinton it's obvious the plans were sitting on the shelf for a while. Our masters wanted him gone.

Pete

It is a great indictment of the MSM and the Democrats that there was NO effective anti-war voice in the media at the time. Most saw that position as a looser, and were not willing to be on the 'wrong' side of it, either public-approval wise, or circulation/ratings wise.

Joe Wilson, Phil Donohue and Dan Rather.......

And we know what happened to them.

John

This is NOT the same thing, in fact the comparison is idiotic and could -- I'm sure be expressed better -- but time is short...

Recently, folks have wondered how Hitler got the whole country to go along. Above, is a query (of a MUCH different thing!) about how the Republicans could get the whole country to go along.

It's because, somehow, the idea of NOT going along became unpatriotic, repulsive and shunned.

I've often wondered how that occurs.

Post 9-11 was an unusual time I think. Both parties followed their leaders who appear to have been in very close agreement.

Pete

Bush and his handlers treated 9/11 as a golden opportunity to clamp down on individual liberties. And yes, one of the most cogent critiques of the Obama administration is that they have not done enough to reverse the post-9/11 power grab.

Regards,

D-Ray

Not just reverse!

Pete

It could actually be said that, under Obama, civil liberties have been further eroded. I'm not talking about the NSA, really. That stuff started before way 2008. I'm talking about the targeting of US citizens for assassination and the imprisonment of whistle blowers like Chelsea Manning and John Kiriaku.

John

Reverse it? They have treated it more like a knick-knack. Pick it up, look at it, and then put it back on the shelf. Hard to understand how an administration that can push through the ACA seems to suffer from an "if you're not sure what to do with it don't do anything" syndrome on so many other issues.

Don't ya just love second terms? :)

Pete

Trying to give the Democrats equal blame for the Iraq War is bullshit.

You and your kind own this one Pete.

I do not know about Manning...or Snowden. I look at it like this: both took oaths and passed securtiy clearances in order to get the access the nation entrusted to them. More importantly the tax payers (many of whom without health insurance and working in low paying jobs) were paying their salarys....and providing "free" health care for them (in Manning's case in particular...Snowden probably had his provided to him by the sub-contractor who was being paid off by tax payers) because of their military jobs.



So how did those two repay us?


How do you know that Manning has not been responsible for outings overseas in which pro-Americans have been hurt or killed?

Damn! And I thought Pete was the PC version of Sarah Lee!

John

And this is why the Constitution needs to be adhered to. I screamed like a S.O.B. when Bush was pulling all this crap & my "Conservative" allies treated me as if I was a friend of the terrorists.

I actually got into a fist fight with a Phoenix bus driver over this subject. We didn't agree on this subject & he took a swing at me. After that, I took out all the dislike I have for the Feds on his head. He not only got stomped, he lost his job as well. :rolleyes:

Yeah no one was really jumping up and down yelling Stop! to the Bush Adminstratrion. That includes me too.

They repaid us handsomely by exposing the criminal and unconstitutional actions of the government.

C'mon, Robbin! You know better than that.

John

Besides Snowden is in bed with Mr Anschluss as we speak.

Manning was young and immature so I think his sentence was pretty fair..he can get out someday.

Snowden? I would throw him under the bus if I saw him...figuratively of course.

you do not know what Wiki-leaks has wrought.

plus in the future pro-Americans in dangerous places may be less willing to help us because of Wiki-leaks

Yes I am a Cold War liberal people always forget that for some reason.

There are unemployed people who would kill to have an job like Snowden..and they would not beytray the United States either if they had such employment.

It would be interesting to see what Al would've done. I remember the 08 primaries, Hillary tried to be the responsible one talking about a phased withdrawal (which was already underway) while Obama said 10 months and out no exceptions.

Regardless:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

Hillary

And this:

"Clinton told King: "People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Bill July 03

I am unsure of whether we should've or shouldn't have. Regardless it wasn't personal.

Pete

I seem to recall this Illinois Senator... :D

I'm looking for the speech when I first noticed our current President but I cannot find it. As a guess, it was in IL. Direct quotes are Iraq is a "bad war" and that we should bring Vets home "right."

It was outdoors and there were lots of people.

That was the day I unabashedly thought, "it really doesn't matter if there are WMD's, it's not as if Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. This is just dumb. Past then, I started pressing that point home every opportunity I got.)

Of course, there were no WMD's. :rolleyes:

That's the day I went from a closet GWB hater to openly fuck 'em.

I doubt any of us fully knows the results of Wiki-leaks' disclosures but I think you're sort of turning things on their heads. If there have been dire consequences stemming from the Wiki-leaks revelations, the responsibility for them, in my view, sits squarely on the shoulders of our government. If they hadn't committed, or covered up, these crimes, there would have been nothing to "leak" and there would have been no blow-back.

John

How is telling the American people that their government is violating our laws and our constitution and trampling on our rights in any sense a betrayal of the US?

John