Surprised there's no thread on this. The report into our involvement in the Iraq War was published today. It can be read here. In short, it makes the following findings, among others:- - That we did not exhaust all peaceful options before going to war and that there was no imminent threat from Iraq in March 2003. - That we sent troops in unprepared - That Blair was essentially sucking Bush's cock and was determined to cave in to American desires come what may, and it seems was simply trying to find a way to do it - That the threat from Saddam Hussein was significantly overstated - That we pretty much had no plan for what would happen after the war - That Blair over estimated his influence on Bush So, mostly what those of us with a brain have suspected for years. But now it's official! Interestingly the report also absolves Blair and his government from lying and deliberately "dressing up" evidence (the dodgy dossier, etc).
No one ever claimed (in the U.S. at least) that Iraq was an imminent threat. It isn't the fault of the United States or President Bush for what Tony Blair "thought". At any rate we still appreciate your assistance in eliminating Saddam Hussein's regime.
Ha ha, Dayton I love that you rate the report of someone else "dumb". This has been a seven year long inquiry involving millions of pages. But you know better. The US did. It claimed we urgently needed to tackle the supposed WMD problem. If it wasn't imminent, what in your mind was the justification for invasion? Nobody is saying it is. Blair should've grown a pair and refused to go along with the war. But what was the fault of the US was nonetheless being the driving force behind the whole affair and seeking British support. The blame for that lies squarely with Bush. That isn't the point and you know it. The war was unnecessary and overall achieved very little. I don't think the families of dead servicemen are much consoled by your insincere platitudes while you continue to justify the whole endeavour because of some stupid partisan need to.
Where did President Bush say the words "eminent threat"? And Saddam Hussein was still acting in a hostile manner to the United States. Why do you think Bill Clinton bombed Iraq repeatedly off and one for 8 years?
Ah, so now you're deciding to play games and pretend that if POTUS didn't personally utter those two specific words, that you somehow win the argument. But everyone can read post #3, including you.
The invasion of Iraq had broad bipartisan support. More than 1991 Operation Desert Storm did for that matter.
The support at the time doesn't equate to a retrospective assessment of what actually happened. Many member of Parliament supported British involvement. But after learning more and seeing what happened many have changed their minds. Your point isn't relevant....as it's not about how many Democrats, it's about you not being able to accept that one of your Republican heroes fucked up bigtime.
He didn't fuck up. We removed Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime. When Bush left office Iraq was doing pretty well. Then came Obama who sold Iraq down the river.
Really? All the quotes from Bush and members of his administration stating in no uncertain terms that Iraq was an imminent threat, and your argument is going to be that Bush himself didn't use a THAT EXACT PHRASE?
From Bush's State of the Union address prior to the war. Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country. The threat was not going to be allowed to become an imminent one.
Putting aside all of the statements he made that used that were fundamentally the same, your original claim was that NOBODY in the United States ever claimed Iraq was an imminent threat, and post #3 includes multiple members of the Bush administration either using or concurring with those exact words. Even in the most literal sense, your initial statement is demonstrably false. On top of which the statement that Bush himself never used that precise phrase is irrelevant, because he used many other phrases that mean exactly the same thing.
I think it was John Kerry who was pushing the "imminent threat" line. Hillary's position was that the UN can't be trusted to act and we can't afford to wait until we get hit like we did on 9/11.
You claimed that no one in the US ever stated that Iraq was an imminent threat. You were presented with evidence that multiple people in the Bush administration did indeed use those exact words, or responded in the affirmative when asked precisely that question, or used synonyms such as "urgent" or "immediate" threat. You don't get to shift the goal posts after you've been proven to be a liar. That is cowardly. Act like a true Christian, admit you were wrong, and move on.
And yet he said just the opposite, despite the misleading LA Times headline. He said we must not wait until the threat is imminent.
From Bush's State of the Union address prior to the war, which is what the LA Times article is quoting: Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack. With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained: by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country. The word "imminent" only appears once in his speech, and it's to note that the threat is not imminent.
