• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Tenth anniversary of Iraq invasion noted--

Help Support Ranchers.net:

littlejoe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
1,635
Reaction score
0
Location
Montana, East Slope
HOUSTON (The Borowitz Report)—In a sombre ceremony attended by former members of the Bush administration, the former Vice-President Dick Cheney marked the tenth anniversary of making up a reason to invade Iraq.

The ceremony, held on the grounds of the Halliburton Company headquarters, brought together the former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and other key members of the lying effort.



Calling the assembled officials "profiles in fabrication," Mr. Cheney praised them for their decade of dedication to a totally fictitious rationale.

"Making up a reason to invade a country is the easy part," Mr. Cheney told them. "Sticking to a pretend story for ten years—that is the stuff of valor."

Mr. Cheney added that their "steadfast charade had raised the bar for all future administrations."

"When it is time to invade Iran or Venezuela, will the President have the will to make up an entirely fake reason to do it?" he asked. "That remains to be seen."

The ceremony ended on an emotional note, as Mr. Cheney placed a wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown W.M.D.

Former President George W. Bush, who was said to be otherwise engaged, was represented at the event by a nude self-portrait.


Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/03/cheney-marks-tenth-anniversary-of-pretending-there-was-reason-to-invade-iraq.html#ixzz2O0RsYXFA
 
One should never listen to a Democrat, I suppose.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"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."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
 
"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."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

She left out the part about Iraq breaking several UN Resolutions and shooting at our planes that were monitoring them under a UN mandate.

The Iraqi people have hope now. They had none then. I'm proud of my country for freeing them. If they lose their freedom, it won't be our fault.
 
I'll gladly debate anyone who wishes on the logic of invading Iraq in the aftermath of 9-11.

And I'll say it again (last time I said this the old man about had a coronary :lol: ), the actual invasion and defeat of Saddam's forces went about as well as could be expected.
 
CAKEWALK!

"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 2/13/02

"Support for Saddam, including within his military organization, will collapse after the first whiff of gunpowder."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"Desert Storm II would be in a walk in the park... The case for 'regime change' boils down to the huge benefits and modest costs of liberating Iraq."
- Kenneth Adelman, member of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 8/29/02

"Having defeated and then occupied Iraq, democratizing the country should not be too tall an order for the world's sole superpower."
- William Kristol, Weekly Standard editor, and Lawrence F. Kaplan, New Republic senior editor, 2/24/03



2008-03-20-mission.jpgHOW MANY TROOPS WILL BE NEEDED?

"I would be surprised if we need anything like the 200,000 figure that is sometimes discussed in the press. A much smaller force, principally special operations forces, but backed up by some regular units, should be sufficient."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"I don't believe that anything like a long-term commitment of 150,000 Americans would be necessary."
- Richard Perle, speaking at a conference on "Post-Saddam Iraq" sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, 10/3/02

"I would say that what's been mobilized to this point -- something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably, you know, a figure that would be required."
- Gen. Eric Shinseki, testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, 2/25/03

"The idea that it would take several hundred thousand U.S. forces, I think, is far from the mark."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/27/03

"I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us keep [troop] requirements down. ... We can say with reasonable confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of American troops is way off the mark...wildly off the mark."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03

"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to image."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the House Budget Committee, 2/27/03

"If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave."
- President George W. Bush, 6/28/05

"The debate over troop levels will rage for years; it is...beside the point."
- Rich Lowry, conservative syndicated columnist, 4/19/06

WHAT ABOUT CASUALTIES?

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
- President George W. Bush, response attributed to him by the Reverend Pat Robertson, when Robertson warned the president to prepare the nation for "heavy casualties" in the event of an Iraq war, 3/2003

"Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
- Barbara Bush, former First Lady (and the current president's mother), on Good Morning America, 3/18/03

"I think the level of casualties is secondary... [A]ll the great scholars who have studied American character have come to the conclusion that we are a warlike people and that we love war... What we hate is not casualties but losing."
- Michael Ledeen, American Enterprise Institute, 3/25/03

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

"Iraq is a very wealthy country. Enormous oil reserves. They can finance, largely finance the reconstruction of their own country. And I have no doubt that they will."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The likely economic effects [of the war in Iraq] would be relatively small... Under every plausible scenario, the negative effect will be quite small relative to the economic benefits."
- Lawrence Lindsey, White House Economic Advisor, 9/16/02

"It is unimaginable that the United States would have to contribute hundreds of billions of dollars and highly unlikely that we would have to contribute even tens of billions of dollars."
- Kenneth M. Pollack, former Director for Persian Gulf Affairs, U.S. National Security Council, 9/02

"The costs of any intervention would be very small."
- Glenn Hubbard, White House Economic Advisor, 10/4/02

"When it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayer, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government and the international community."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 3/27/03

"There is a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be U.S. taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people. We are talking about a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon."
- Paul Wolfowitz, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, testifying before the Defense Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 3/27/03

"The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid."
- Mitchell Daniels, Director, White House Office of Management and Budget, 4/21/03

"Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for ther own reconstruction."
- Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary, 2/18/03

HOW LONG WILL IT LAST?

"Now, it isn't gong to be over in 24 hours, but it isn't going to be months either."
- Richard Perle, Chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, 7/11/02

"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990. Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 11/15/02

"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?"
- Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03

"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could be six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
- Donald H. Rumsfeld, U.S. Secretary of Defense, 2/7/03

"It won't take weeks... Our military machine will crush Iraq in a matter of days and there's no question that it will."
- Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03

"There is zero question that this military campaign...will be reasonably short. ... Like World War II for about five days."
- General Barry R. McCaffrey, national security and terrorism analyst for NBC News, 2/18/03

"The Iraq fight itself is probably going to go very, very fast. The shooting should be over within just a very few days from when it starts."
- David Frum, former Bush White House speechwriter, 2/24/03

"Our military superiority is so great -- it's far greater than it was in the Gulf War, and the Gulf War was over in 100 hours after we bombed for 43 days... Now they can bomb for a couple of days and then just roll into Baghdad... The odds are there's going to be a war and it's going to be not for very long."
- Former President Bill Clinton, 3/6/03

"I think it will go relatively quickly...weeks rather than months."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03

I'll make it simple for you Whitewing-- How many of these statements fed to us by the politicians and politicians puppets was true or actually happened?....

And especially now with Iraq's government again killing its own people- and on the verge of a complete civil war--- was all the cost (monetarily and human suffering) worth it?
 
The invasion of Iraq was the trigger point for all the unrest in the Middle East...all of it.
 
I see quotes from that rambling list of yours from a total of three "politicians". The rest is a hodge-podge of non-elected officals, columnists, and swining dicks offering their opinions on a range of topics.

The comments of the politicians:

"If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave."
- President George W. Bush, 6/28/05

The above statement was true. When commanders asked for a surge in troops, Bush complied. I haven't looked at the record, but I'd imagine that today's King was probably against the surge. Am I right?

Here Bill Clinton offers his opinion. Are opinions true or false old man?

"Our military superiority is so great -- it's far greater than it was in the Gulf War, and the Gulf War was over in 100 hours after we bombed for 43 days... Now they can bomb for a couple of days and then just roll into Baghdad... The odds are there's going to be a war and it's going to be not for very long."
- Former President Bill Clinton, 3/6/03

Here VP Dick Cheney offers his opinion:

"I think it will go relatively quickly...weeks rather than months."
- Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03

The 2003 invasion of Iraq lasted from 19 March 2003 to 1 May 2003, and signaled the start of the conflict that later came to be known as the Iraq War, which was dubbed Operation Iraqi Freedom by the United States. The invasion consisted of 21 days of major combat operations, in which a combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland, invaded Iraq and deposed the Ba'athist government of Saddam Hussein. The invasion phase consisted primarily of a conventionally-fought war which concluded with the capture of the Iraqi capital of Baghdad by American forces.

As you can see, Dick Cheney was correct. The invasion of Iraq lasted weeks, not months. TRUE

Now again, in an effort to keep you focused, do you wish to argue the merits of the invasion or not?
 
kolanuraven said:
The invasion of Iraq was the trigger point for all the unrest in the Middle East...all of it.

You're right. I keep forgetting that 9-11 happened after the invasion of Iraq. My bad.

Beriut marine barracks bombing: 23 October 1983

World Trade Center Bombing: 26 February 1993

Khobar Tower Bombing: 25 June 1996

Kenya and Tanzania Embassy Bombings: 7 August 1998

USS Cole Bombing: 12 October 2000

Shall I continue? :roll: :roll: :roll:
 
kolanuraven said:
The invasion of Iraq was the trigger point for all the unrest in the Middle East...all of it.

Unrest and/or violence has nothing to do with Sunni vs. Shia in the Middle East?
 
kolanuraven said:
The invasion of Iraq was the trigger point for all the unrest in the Middle East...all of it.

yep we should have left them under dictators.. :shock: :roll:
sarcasm.gif











He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
 
U.S., U.K. Waged War on Iraq Because of Oil, Blair Adviser Says

London, May 1 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. and U.K. went to war against Iraq because of the Middle East country's oil reserves, an adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair said.

Sir Jonathan Porritt, head of the Sustainable Development Commission, which advises Blair's government on ecological issues, said the prospect of winning access to Iraqi oil was ``a very large factor'' in the allies' decision to attack Iraq in March.

``I don't think the war would have happened if Iraq didn't have the second-largest oil reserves in the world,'' Porritt said in a Sky News television interview.

Opponents of the war, including some members of Blair's Labour Party, have said that the conflict was aimed at securing Iraqi reserves to benefit Western economies and oil companies. U.S. and U.K. leaders have repeatedly rejected that, saying the war began because Iraq held illegal weapons and threatened other countries.
 
Oldtimer said:
U.S., U.K. Waged War on Iraq Because of Oil, Blair Adviser Says

London, May 1 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. and U.K. went to war against Iraq because of the Middle East country's oil reserves, an adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair said.

Sir Jonathan Porritt, head of the Sustainable Development Commission, which advises Blair's government on ecological issues, said the prospect of winning access to Iraqi oil was ``a very large factor'' in the allies' decision to attack Iraq in March.

``I don't think the war would have happened if Iraq didn't have the second-largest oil reserves in the world,'' Porritt said in a Sky News television interview.

Opponents of the war, including some members of Blair's Labour Party, have said that the conflict was aimed at securing Iraqi reserves to benefit Western economies and oil companies. U.S. and U.K. leaders have repeatedly rejected that, saying the war began because Iraq held illegal weapons and threatened other countries.

Is this your attempt at debating the merits of launching the invasion of Iraq?
 
Sir Jonathan Porritt, head of the Sustainable Development Commission

:lol2:


Best get your quotes from MSNBC

MSNBC Almost Entirely Dominated By Opinion: Pew Study

CNN, which has branded itself around reporting resources and reach, cut back between 2007 and 2012 on two areas tied to that brand—in-depth story packages and live event coverage. Even so, CNN is the only one of the three big cable news channels to produce more straight reporting than commentary over all. At the other end of that spectrum lies MSNBC, where opinion fills a full 85% of the channel's airtime.

Pew found that Fox News spent 55 percent of the time on opinion and 45 percent of the time on reporting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/msnbc-opinion-cable-news_n_2900160.html
 
And the fact of the matter is that, irregardless, the war was won when Bush left office and all the chosen one had to do was to sustain. He's f***ed that up just like most everything else. What a tribute to those that made the ultimate sacrifice.
 
"
``I don't think the war would have happened if Iraq didn't have the second-largest oil reserves in the world,'' Porritt said in a Sky News television interview."


I thought that was North Dakota
:shock:
 
Big Muddy rancher said:
"
``I don't think the war would have happened if Iraq didn't have the second-largest oil reserves in the world,'' Porritt said in a Sky News television interview."


I thought that was North Dakota
:shock:

I was sure wishing with all the experience in GDP growth OT has had, he'd come up North and show us how to manage a "boom" :lol: :lol:


Economic growth in the province in 2011 was 5.1 per cent followed by 3.5 per cent last year.

Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Alberta+economy+continuing+impressive+boom/8119277/story.html#ixzz2O3RABm3Y
 
kolanuraven said:
The invasion of Iraq was the trigger point for all the unrest in the Middle East...all of it.

Yep and I bet you believe a poorly made little seen video was the cause of the Benghazi attack, Gitmo was used as a recruiting tool for terrorists to attack the US and gee I'm betting you think the Fort Hood Shootings were just work place violence and Fast and Furious was George Bush's fault and the Black Panthers weren't intimidating votes during the 2008 election . :roll:

Keep following that Dem. yellow brick road Kola :roll:
 
Whitewing said:
I'll gladly debate anyone who wishes on the logic of invading Iraq in the aftermath of 9-11.



Yup, they were primarilly Saudi's, hiding in Afghanistan---gotta hit either Iraq or possibly New Jersey, for starters.

quote--"And I'll say it again (last time I said this the old man about had a coronary :lol: ), the actual invasion and defeat of Saddam's forces went about as well as could be expected.

Yup, the most powerful militiary nation the world has ever known had little trouble with the 'invade and defeat' of a 4th class power--I'll second that.

Trouble is---remember the dumbass flying backseat in his flight suit---held up returning carrier--for "mission accomplished" horseshit?---Said dumbass had no second act, thought it was done deal.

Might want to look up how many lives--and TRILLIONS of dollars---this ill conceived and mismanaged abortion has cost the U.S, afore you git your hair all slickumed back and debatin suit ironed.
 
Oldtimer said:
U.S., U.K. Waged War on Iraq Because of Oil, Blair Adviser Says

London, May 1 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. and U.K. went to war against Iraq because of the Middle East country's oil reserves, an adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair said.

Sir Jonathan Porritt, head of the Sustainable Development Commission, which advises Blair's government on ecological issues, said the prospect of winning access to Iraqi oil was ``a very large factor'' in the allies' decision to attack Iraq in March.

``I don't think the war would have happened if Iraq didn't have the second-largest oil reserves in the world,'' Porritt said in a Sky News television interview.

Opponents of the war, including some members of Blair's Labour Party, have said that the conflict was aimed at securing Iraqi reserves to benefit Western economies and oil companies. U.S. and U.K. leaders have repeatedly rejected that, saying the war began because Iraq held illegal weapons and threatened other countries.

If you don't think it was about oil, name the countries we've invaded that are run by nutcase despots that have -o- natural resources we're short of.
 

Latest posts

Top