Iraq War:10th Anniversary of the Unnecessary, Unpaid-For War

Yes, Fred, OUR "war" only killed 132,000 Iraqi civilians... That's probably a much better outcome than the few thousand that Saddam killed...

So, the FACT that the U.S./Iraq War was based on LIES and cooked intelligence, and that in addition to the 132,000 civilians that were killed, it was somehow worth $6 TRILLION, nearly 5,000 US Dead, 32,000 U.S. wounded, somehow makes it worthwhile? There WERE NO WMD's...There WERE NO MOBILE CHEMICAL WEAPONS LABS...That was all part of the same LIES...

It WAS, in fact, totally worthless, and a waste of money.. But more importantly, it was NOT worth what we paid for it in blood and treasure... And in the minds of the majority of Americans, the deaths of the 4800+ servicemen & woman, the 32,000 disabled and wounded, and the $6 TRILLION we wasted was NOT WORTH IT.

You SHOULD concede... You have nothing left but FauxNews/GOTP talking-points that were disproven and dscredited years ago.

Ex-CIA Analyst: We Knew Intelligence Was Insufficient For Iraq War
I Tried to Make the Intelligence Behind the Iraq War Less Bogus [/i]

Nada Bakos played a key role on the CIA's intelligence team prior to the start of the Iraq War. Now, the former counterterrorism analyst has come out and acknowledged that she was pressured to find a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda that didn't exist.

Bakos recently wrote a piece for Wired Magazine about her efforts to make Iraq intelligence seem "less bogus". On Tuesday, she talked further about the pressures she faced and how she felt the government needed a more valid reason for going to war:

Ten years ago this week, the U.S. invaded Iraq, citing intelligence that turned out to be bogus. I had to work on some of it — and I also had to work on keeping the really, really terrible versions of it out of our analysis.

Specifically, I was a CIA analyst working in the Counterterrorism Center in the overburdened days after 9/11. As analysts, we spend most of our time identifying burgeoning issues based on communications intercepts, reports from CIA case officers, imagery from satellites, accounts from other governments, and piecing together a story.

On Sunday, March 16, 2003, I watched Cheney on “Meet The Press” contradict our assessment publicly. “We know that he [Saddam] has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups,” Cheney said, “including the al-Qaeda organization.” I was basically watching Cheney field-test arguments that we would have to anticipate — and rebut — at CIA. Except instead of asking us questions behind closed doors, Cheney was asserting to the public as fact something that we found to be anything but. I found myself yelling at the TV like I was contesting a ref’s blown call in a football game.

Our Branch Chief, Karen, walked into Cheney’s office with everything we’d uncovered about the Abu Nidal link in June 2003. It seemed airtight. The Secret Service had determined that the paper was made after the date printed on the page. The timeframes didn’t match. The ink was inconsistent with the ink manufactured in the early 1990s purported timeframe of the documents. The chain of command indicated in the documents contradicted the description of the Iraqi intelligence bureaucracy provided by our detainees, even down to incorrect titles. These were forgeries.

After leaving the CIA, I’ve had a lot of time to reflect on this sorry absurd role in intelligence history, and my bit role in it. No intelligence analyst should have to deal with policymakers delving into intelligence work. It sounds bureaucratic and boring, but the distinction matters: CIA doesn’t have a policy agenda, it seeks to inform those agendas. Politicians and appointees have ideas for shaping the world. Mingling the two is a recipe for self-delusion and, as we saw in Iraq, failure.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/03 ... elligence/

Pay no attention to the LIES and COOKED-INTELLIGENCE....

Few thousand Iraqi's? This is what happens when you only listen to the slanted nerds at HuffPo/Slate. Just sanctions were killing tens of thousands of Iraqi's and doesn't include the ethnic cleansing that was going on in Kurdistan and the Shia swamps to the south. Sure the war cost much too much went on too long and too many young Americans and Iraqi's died and were wounded but to think it was all a waste is to put liberal blinders on. The majority Shia now have a stake in the democracy. The oil wealth is now going to the people of Iraq and while they have tons of issues they are a fledgling democracy. I hope they will continue being a example to the other nations in the region like Syria.

LadyJazzer wrote:

Rick wrote: I'm still waiting for evidence, solid proof that the Bush administration lied instead of just believing faulty intel. There is a big difference. I would say there's much more evidence that Hillary lied about not knowing our folks in Benghazi were asking for help and never got any.

Nobody here has the evidence of a lie, but you repeat it over and over like you do. Enlighten me with the evidence.

I've given the sources for the SOLID EVIDENCE...THE SOLID PROOF that the Bush Administration lied. Your refusal to read the book or watch the interviews with the people who were there, and that have proven that it WAS a lie, does not constitute a "lack of evidence" or a "lack of proof." It's not my problem if you do not wish to read it or watch it.

Show me the proof, you can't. A lie is saying something while knowing with certainty that what you are saying is false... like when old Billy said he didn't have sexual relations with Monica... that is a proveable lie.

Don't ya think that if Bush intentionally lied, one of the many Bush hating Democrats would have pushed for impeachment before or during his second term? If the proof of a lie is so obvious, why hasn't anyone in the media come up with the smoking gun that would have destroyed his chances of re-election?

You can read all the books you want and believe all the second hand acccounts you want, but it's not proof that this was anything more than believing Saddam STILL HAD WMD the he DID USE on his own people. And as you know, the US intel was similar to the intel our allies had including GB.

And just in case you forgot, these are people I'm sure you trust... they seem pretty convinced as well:

[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]

LJ,
You honestly believe a man with a history of using WMD's against other nations like Iran and his own people couldn't re-start production very quickly? Or would admitting that destroy your whole "lies" bleeting?

Inflating evidence to justify a war? This has been going on for centuries. Don't be naive.
Or was Clinton's attack on a Sudanese aspirin factory bad inteliigence or another lie?

I've already told you what I "Honestly Believe"...What part of it did you not understand?

I've already laid out the LIES and Cooked-Intelligence that took us into an UNNECESSARY, UNPAID-FOR WAR...(in fact, TWO of them...)

And, "the benefit of a few Kurds and Shiites" was somehow worth $6 TRILLION, nearly 5,000 US Dead, 32,000 wounded, and roughly 132,000 Iraqi civilians dead, later?... And the GOTP finally figures out that they have created this albatross, and hung it around their own necks... And all you've got is: "A few Dems got suckered by Bush's & Cheney's lies and voted for it too..." And TWO unnecessary and UNPAID-FOR wars started by a couple of cowardly "Chicken-Hawks" like Bush/Cheney....

You trust Saddam and incompetent UN weapons inspectors much more than I do.

I trust the TRUTH from RELIABLE SOURCES more than I trust your chicken-hawk right-wing neo-con sources that are trying to protect their own butts.

LadyJazzer wrote: I trust the TRUTH from RELIABLE SOURCES more than I trust your chicken-hawk right-wing neo-con sources that are trying to protect their own butts.

Yes, not like they have an agenda or anything.
Everyone has an agenda. Parsed truth isn't truth.

FredHayek wrote: Yes, not like they have an agenda or anything.
Everyone has an agenda. Parsed truth isn't truth.

Yes...YOU, of all people here, would know the truth of that better than anyone...You are an expert in it.