John McGoldwater admits Iraq was a war for oil
- Thread starter blackascoal
- Start date
"No ..Actually I saw the very thing that Bill Clinton and most of his entire administration saw...WMD...do I need to post the infamous Dim quotes again and again....quotes covering a timeframe from 1996 until about 2003.....Bush was only repeating the things the Dims were harping about for years....the truth is a bitch for Dims of today...thats probably why you ignore and deny it."
Did any of those Dim quotes have calls for invasion?
Did any of those Dim quotes have calls for invasion?
One of my favorite pastimes on this board has become watching BAC effortlessly own the little pea brained simpletons on the right. Although, its somewhat unfair and similar to watching a 2 y/o girl arm wrestle Hulk Hogan. Nonetheless, the little girls' persistence and youthful delusions of grandeur are still amusing.
Although, its somewhat unfair and similar to watching a 2 y/o girl arm wrestle Hulk Hogan. Nonetheless, the little girls' persistence and youthful delusions of grandeur are still amusing.
QFT
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
I just fuckin' love these right-wing geniuses
Bill Clinton didn't order our troops into war .. and Bush made-up a lot of shit Clinton never said or claimed. You think history or the American people blame CLINTON for Iraq?????
I'm no Bill Clinton fan, but to suggest that Iraq rests in his lap is monstrously stupid.
We not only fight wars for oil .. we overthrow democratically elected governments for it.
YIKES !!!
Have you ever has a history class?
If you have it's not apparent.
Start here: The Shah of Iran.
Does "clueless" sound familiar?
Bill Clinton didn't order our troops into war .. and Bush made-up a lot of shit Clinton never said or claimed. You think history or the American people blame CLINTON for Iraq?????
I'm no Bill Clinton fan, but to suggest that Iraq rests in his lap is monstrously stupid.
We not only fight wars for oil .. we overthrow democratically elected governments for it.
YIKES !!!
Have you ever has a history class?
If you have it's not apparent.
Start here: The Shah of Iran.
Does "clueless" sound familiar?
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
1) True... Clinton did not send our troops into Iraq
2) True... Clinton is not to blame for what Bush did in Iraq
However.... it is also true that Clinton had 8 years in which to deal with Iraq using diplomacy through the UN. Again, this does not mean he is responsible for Bush's FUBAR of Iraq. However, Clinton and the UN did fail during those 8 years to resolve the situation.
As for our intervention in the Middle East, it began with the dismantling of the Ottoman empire and has continued to this day.... and yes, it most certainly has a lot to do with oil. Hence the quick flip flop from the US supporting Iran and the USSR supporting Iraq. Neither of us cared which side we were on, we simply cared that the other did not have the favor of both countries.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
3) Iraq had been under sanctions with inspectors crawling all over Iraq Clinton's entire term in office.
4) Deal with what situation? There was no situation and the inspectors said over and over again that Saddam was complying and asked for just a bit more time to complete their work.
What situation, WMD?
Don't you get it .. there wasn't any. Bush and the neocon horde made it up. Bush followed his marching orders from PNAC who instructed Bush to invade Iraq "even if there is no evidence for doing so."
5) PNAC and the Israeli cabal sent a letter to Clinton in 1998 urging him to attack Iraq .. Clinton declined because there was no reason to attack Iraq.
6) PNAC and the Israeli cabal sent George Bush a letter in 2000 instructing him to attack Iraq and lie about it .. Bush complied.
7) Tens of thousands of dead and woiunded American soldiers, countless innocent people mass-murdered, the end of the American Century.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
3) Bullshit... the inspectors left Iraq in 1998 and did not return until Bush built up troop levels
4) Right.... no situation to deal with... the sanctions were in place to resolve nothing. If there was no situation, the sanctions would have been lifted. The fact that they were not, means the situation was not resolved.... and NO, the inspectors did not state that Saddam was complying... at least not while Clinton was in office. The situation was resolving the ceasefire agreement that ended the first Gulf War. That would have led to the lifting of sanctions.
5) ah yes, the inevitable PNAC crap... PNAC had nothing to do with Clinton and the UN failing to resolve the situation. Nothing. They could have resolved it diplomatically, but like many other issues, they chose to ignore it in the hopes the problem would simply go away. Just as they did in Rwanda. Just as the UN is still doing in the Congo and Sudan. I guarantee if Bush were to send troops into the Sudan to stop the genocide, it would take 4.2 minutes for some yahoo at the UN to declare they could have handled things diplomatically.
6) ok... on this, PNAC most certainly could have had an influence.
7) Yes, I am aware of the cluster bang Bush has made of this situation. Which is why I stated that no one should lay the results of his actions on the lap of Clinton.
Bravo, Bravo! That is the smartest f'ing thing you've ever posted!
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Which has little to do with what we are talking about. As I stated, Bush's screw ups are not Clintons fault by any means. However, that is not to say that Clinton couldn't have done a better job given that he had 8 years to use the famous diplomacy skills of the Dems to resolve the issues with Iraq.
The inspectors were NOT in Iraq from 1998 until 2002. Which is contrary to BAC's assertation that they were in Iraq the entire time Clinton was in office. He was also incorrect in stating that Saddam was complying with the inspectors prior to their leaving in 1998.
And during that 4 years the Dims were on TV every chance they got raving and ranting about Saddam, WMD, the danger he posed to the US, Hes trying to get atomic bombs, etc.....4 years of steady fearmongering about Iraq and why Bush wasn't doing anything about this dangerous tyrant ...
But the Dims have their own fantasy world and ignore the facts....
The only thing they got is none of them uttered the word 'invade'...as if thats a big freekin' deal....its pathetic....
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Mr Blix, who has since retired to Sweden, said his inspectors found no compelling evidence that Iraq had a hidden arsenal or was blocking the work of the inspectors. He said there had been only small infractions by Iraq.
"We did express ourselves in dry terms but there was no mistake about the content," he said. "One cannot say there was compelling evidence. Iraq was guilty only of small infractions. The government should have re-evaluated its assessment in the light of what the inspectors found.
"We reported consistently that we found no weapons of mass destruction and I carried out inspections at sites given to us by US and British intelligence and not found anything
On March 7, Mr Blix pleaded for more time to complete his mission and reported that lethal weapons such as Samoud 2 missiles were being destroyed.
Mr Blix said last night: "The things found were all small things. We found dozens of munitions for chemical weapons. They were empty and in a site declared. In relation to Samoud that went beyond 150 kilometers, they (the US and Britain) said it was beyond the permitted limit but I did not feel particularly indignant about that."
On the same day, the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, reported that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any nuclear weapons or was in the process of acquiring them. Mr Blix said: "By then, Mohamed ElBaradei revealed that Niger was not authentic." British intelligence falsely claimed Iraq had been trying to acquire uranium from Niger.
Mr Blix said Mr ElBaradei had also challenged US claims that aluminum tubes found were for WMD purposes. Mr Blix himself also expressed skepticism to the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, about alleged evidence of WMD.
The Iraq Survey Group, set up by the US to search for WMD, found none.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0428-02.htm
I repeat .. Saddam and Iraq were under sanctions the entire length of Clinton's terms in office. There was no dire situation, no cahnce of "mushroom clouds in 45 minutes", no reason whatsoever for Clinton to do anything other than what was already being done.
What WMD?
From the 1998 Congressional Record.
STATEMENT OF JOHN J. MARESCA, VICE PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, UNOCAL CORPORATION
Project for a New American Century Letter to President Clinton
Letter to President Clinton on Iraq
According to PNAC, what was needed to build the pipeline and invade Iraq was ?some catastrophic and catalysing event ? like a new Pearl Harbor"
Why Another Defense Review
Hell to Pay
Sentient Times June/July 2002 issue
US Invasion of Afghanistan was announced months before 9/11
The US Invasion of Afghanistan was Announced Months Before the 9/11 Attacks
QUESTION: At this point, before 9/11 .. WHAT REASON DO THEY HAVE TO ATTACK AFGHANISTAN?
Bush given Afghanistan invasion plans two days before 9/11
US PREPARING FOR A WAR WITH AFGHANISTAN BEFORE 9/11, INCREASING CONTROL OF ASIA BEFORE AND SINCE
October 7, 2001, Bush announces opening of attacks against Afghanistan
CNN.com - Bush announces opening of attacks - October 7, 2001
Former Unocal Consultant Karzai elected new Afghan leader
BBC NEWS * World * South Asia * Karzai elected Afghan leader
John J. Maresca, the Vice President of the Unocal Corporation who had implored Congress to have the Taliban overthrown is installed as the first US Envoy to Afghanistan
September 20, 2001: PNAC Think Tank Pushes for Iraq War
Letter to President Bush on the War on Terrorism
After you read the letter, look and see who signed it?
More "PNAC crap" ??
December 27, 2002, Afghanistan pipeline deal signed
BBC NEWS * South Asia * Central Asia pipeline deal signed
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Well to save everyone scrolling, I won't quote all of that BAC.... but notice... you changed your stance.
1) You originally stated that the inspectors were in Iraq the entire time and were not hindered in their work by Saddam. THAT is the point I stated you were incorrect on. NOW you alter it slightly to state that Iraq was under sanctions the whole time... to which I reply... of course.
2) Blix's comments came in late 2002 and early 2003. Again, not a point I am contesting. I stated that Clinton and the UN did not do a damn thing to resolve the issue PRIOR to Bush ever being elected. Again, this does not mean Clinton or the UN is responsible for Bush's actions... but it does mean they didn't do shit about resolving the issue until AFTER Bush put troops on the border.
3) As I have stated many times in the past, though to be fair I do not know if you were on the particular boards at the time... I agree that Bush did not need to go in when he did. I do believe that eventually war was inevitable... but Bush should have waited until after Afghanistan was resolved.
As for the rest of your post... yes... PNAC... Conspiracies.... yada yada yada. While I do not doubt that they had plans for invasion of many countries on the table, it does not mean they allowed 9/11 to happen to justify it. Al Queda was a problem. Afghanistan was the current country harboring them. I would hope they were making plans. How many bombings were we to take before we did something to stop them???? Two embassies, the USS Cole, the first WTC bombing, etc...
1) You originally stated that the inspectors were in Iraq the entire time and were not hindered in their work by Saddam. THAT is the point I stated you were incorrect on. NOW you alter it slightly to state that Iraq was under sanctions the whole time... to which I reply... of course.
2) Blix's comments came in late 2002 and early 2003. Again, not a point I am contesting. I stated that Clinton and the UN did not do a damn thing to resolve the issue PRIOR to Bush ever being elected. Again, this does not mean Clinton or the UN is responsible for Bush's actions... but it does mean they didn't do shit about resolving the issue until AFTER Bush put troops on the border.
3) As I have stated many times in the past, though to be fair I do not know if you were on the particular boards at the time... I agree that Bush did not need to go in when he did. I do believe that eventually war was inevitable... but Bush should have waited until after Afghanistan was resolved.
As for the rest of your post... yes... PNAC... Conspiracies.... yada yada yada. While I do not doubt that they had plans for invasion of many countries on the table, it does not mean they allowed 9/11 to happen to justify it. Al Queda was a problem. Afghanistan was the current country harboring them. I would hope they were making plans. How many bombings were we to take before we did something to stop them???? Two embassies, the USS Cole, the first WTC bombing, etc...
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
1) I've always said Iraq was under sanctions the whole time. In fact, I said Iraq was under sanctions the entire length of Clinton's term. What I did not acknowledge was when the inspectors were withdrawn by Chief Inspector Richard Butler under the claim that Saddam kicked them out .. which was not true.
2) Again I ask you .. what issue? There was no issue, Saddam was contained and wasn't manufacturing WMD or nuclear bombs. What issue did Clinton need to resolve?
3) Bush needed to go into Iraq .. WHY? What justification was there ever for invading Iraq which posed no threat. Additionally, wouldn't "going in" whenever have the same blowback result of empowering Iran? Wouldn't have the same blowback result of tremendous loss of American power and influence?
Aren't there better solutions than "going in?"
Yes, the Iraq War was a concocted fraud by the Bush Administration, and yes, PNAC was involved, and yes, facts point sinister machinations .. but yada, yada, yada .. we're Americans and we don't have time nor the inclination to deal with truth.
I do understand.
uscitizen
Villified User
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
1) yes, you stated that they were always under sanctions... as I stated, that is the obvious and NOT what I disagreed with you on....
This bolded part is where I said you made an error..... "Iraq had been under sanctions with inspectors crawling all over Iraq Clinton's entire term in office."
A second point on your number one... I did not say Saddam kicked them out in 1998. I stated that they left. Bottom line, they were not there crawling all over Iraq during Clintons entire two terms.
2) AGAIN, I state the issue was the resolution of the ceasefire agreement. Why did they not finish the inspections in the 1990's and then lift the sanctions????? This has nothing to do with Bush or his reasons for war or whether Saddam was contained. This has to do with the fact that the first Gulf War was never resolved. It has to do with the fact that we continued keeping our troops on the border, patroling no fly zones and pissing off half the middle east with our presence on holy soil.
Again, what Bush did is not the fault of the UN or Clinton.... but they most certainly could have resolved the issues of the ceasefire agreement in a diplomatic manner had they chosen to do so. But instead, they continued to let the situation fester until Bush came into office and truly bungled the whole thing.
3) No, I do not believe the blowback would have been the same. Two of the potential outcomes of waiting.
a) It would have given Blix and the UN the time they state they needed, in which they might have finally resolved the issue diplomatically. I do not personally believe this would have occured, but it is certainly a possibility.
b) Blix and the UN being given the extra time, still do not resolve the issue, we go in with a much broader coalition, with focus on Iraq only as Afghanistan would have been resolved under that scenario. Obviously we still would have to avoid the blunders of dismantling the Iraqi army, abu Ghraib etc...
You want to provide evidence of these dark conspiracies led by PNAC, then please go ahead. I would be happy to inform myself. But to trot out the whole, they had plans prior to invading and use that to proclaim some dark conspiracy is a bit of a stretch. The US has plans to defend against/ invade every potential threat on the planet. These plans are updated as situations change. The goal is to be prepared SHOULD we need them. But the existence of such plans does not mean we are going to use them.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Go back to roasting nuts. It is not "nitpicky" to correct someone who states that inspectors were there four years crawling all over Iraq when in fact there were NO inspectors in the country AT ALL.