Review of the Iraq Invasion

SeaBreeze

SeaBreeze

Endlessly Groovin'
Location
USA
A review of the Iraq invasion, and the selling of the Iraq War to the American people.

Part 1:




Part 2:




Part 3:


 

[h=1]George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public[/h]http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/michael-morell-bush-cheney-iraq-war


George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public
On "Hardball," Michael Morell concedes the Bush administration misled the nation into the Iraq War.

—By David Corn
| Tue May 19, 2015 7:25 PM EDT


For a dozen years, the Bush-Cheney crowd have been trying to escape—or cover up—an essential fact of the W. years: President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their lieutenants misled the American public about the WMD threat supposedly posed by Saddam Hussein in order to grease the way to the invasion of Iraq. For Bush, Cheney, and the rest, this endeavor is fundamental; it is necessary to protect the legitimacy of the Bush II presidency. Naturally, Karl Rove and other Bushies have quickly tried to douse the Bush-lied-us-into-war fire whenever such flames have appeared. And in recent days, as Jeb Bush bumbled a question about the Iraq War, he and other GOPers have peddled the fictitious tale that his brother launched the invasion because he was presented lousy intelligence. But now there's a new witness who will make the Bush apologists' mission even more impossible: Michael Morell, a longtime CIA official who eventually became the agency's deputy director and acting director. During the preinvasion period, he served as Bush's intelligence briefer.

Appearing on MSNBC's Hardball on Tuesday night, Morell made it clear: The Bush-Cheney administration publicly misrepresented the intelligence related to Iraq's supposed WMD program and Saddam's alleged links to Al Qaeda.

Host Chris Matthews asked Morell about a statement Cheney made in 2003: "We know he {Saddam Hussein} has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Here's the conversation that followed:

snip//

There's the indictment, issued by the intelligence officer who briefed Bush and Cheney: The Bush White House made a "false presentation" on "some aspects" of the case for war. "That's a big deal," Matthews exclaimed. Morell replied, "It's a big deal."

And there's more. Referring to the claims made by Bush, Cheney, and other administration officials that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda, Morell noted, "What they were saying about the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda publicly was not what the intelligence community" had concluded. He added, "I think they were trying to make a stronger case for the war." That is, stronger than the truth would allow.

Morell's remarks support the basic charge: Bush and Cheney were not misled by flawed intelligence; they used the flawed intelligence to mislead.
 
Thank you SeaBreeze. Both Vietnam and Iraq were colossal mistakes which sorely tarnish our history as a great nation. They accomplished nothing and cost in incalculable price in the lives of the brave Americans who fought in those wars. Will we learn from our mistakes? I doubt it. Even today there is a strong and prevailing mood of gingoism coming from the right.
 
Jackie22 said:
George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/michael-morell-bush-cheney-iraq-war


George W. Bush's CIA Briefer: Bush and Cheney Falsely Presented WMD Intelligence to Public
On "Hardball," Michael Morell concedes the Bush administration misled the nation into the Iraq War.

—By David Corn
| Tue May 19, 2015 7:25 PM EDT


For a dozen years, the Bush-Cheney crowd have been trying to escape—or cover up—an essential fact of the W. years: President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their lieutenants misled the American public about the WMD threat supposedly posed by Saddam Hussein in order to grease the way to the invasion of Iraq. For Bush, Cheney, and the rest, this endeavor is fundamental; it is necessary to protect the legitimacy of the Bush II presidency. Naturally, Karl Rove and other Bushies have quickly tried to douse the Bush-lied-us-into-war fire whenever such flames have appeared. And in recent days, as Jeb Bush bumbled a question about the Iraq War, he and other GOPers have peddled the fictitious tale that his brother launched the invasion because he was presented lousy intelligence. But now there's a new witness who will make the Bush apologists' mission even more impossible: Michael Morell, a longtime CIA official who eventually became the agency's deputy director and acting director. During the preinvasion period, he served as Bush's intelligence briefer.

Appearing on MSNBC's Hardball on Tuesday night, Morell made it clear: The Bush-Cheney administration publicly misrepresented the intelligence related to Iraq's supposed WMD program and Saddam's alleged links to Al Qaeda.

Host Chris Matthews asked Morell about a statement Cheney made in 2003: "We know he {Saddam Hussein} has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Here's the conversation that followed:

snip//

There's the indictment, issued by the intelligence officer who briefed Bush and Cheney: The Bush White House made a "false presentation" on "some aspects" of the case for war. "That's a big deal," Matthews exclaimed. Morell replied, "It's a big deal."

And there's more. Referring to the claims made by Bush, Cheney, and other administration officials that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda, Morell noted, "What they were saying about the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda publicly was not what the intelligence community" had concluded. He added, "I think they were trying to make a stronger case for the war." That is, stronger than the truth would allow.

Morell's remarks support the basic charge: Bush and Cheney were not misled by flawed intelligence; they used the flawed intelligence to mislead.
Click to expand...


Jackie... I was going to post this. THIS IS HUGE... and validates what everyone has been saying. Bush and Cheney LIED... there is no denying that now. Why are they not in prison?
 
Last edited:
I did listen and watch most of the posted items. Nothing new in any of them, but a lot of liberal interpretations were plentiful.

Unfortunately this TV station is one of the US poorer ones broadcasting.

http://deadline.com/2015/03/msnbc-ratings-all-time-low-fox-news-wins-cnn-1201402274/

Contrast that to the fate of the NBCUniversal-owned MSNBC, which not only saw a 39% drop in the demo compared to Q1 2014 but its worst quarterly result in the category since Q2 2005. If that almost decade-old result wasn’t enough of a blow, and rising CNN’s fourth consecutive win over MSNBC in prime didn’t cut deep enough, take a look at the gutting the cabler newser’s nighttime offerings are suffering.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dg...down-to-rachel-maddow-chris-matthews-firings/

[h=1]MSNBC Ratings Fall 40%: Countdown to Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews Firings[/h] April 2, 2015 by Daniel Greenfield

CNN and FOX News have stepped up their game. CNN has gone full infotainment under Jeff Zucker and is eating MSNBC’s lunch. Meanwhile MSNBC has the same cast of social justice warriors with occasional interruptions from idiots like Al Sharpton and Chris Matthews offering the same predigested pablum that MSNBC’s younger audience gets in mock form from the Daily Show.
.
.
.
For Q1 2015, MSNBC’s weekday primetime experienced a 45% decrease in key 25-54 demo viewership from Q1 2014. The network’s total daytime demo viewership declined 39% from Q1 2014. Additionally, a key program like The Rachel Maddow Show hit an all-time low in quarterly demo ratings since its Sept. 2008 launch.
......................

Enjoy this person on this station as much as you wish, but her popularity and following is on a continuous down flow since she started. Maddow and MSNBC have been on a down flow since they got started. Hardly a pair to cheer for.

So those that think Maddow is great and MSNBC is powerful, please continue as you wish. I watched most of her programs about the Bush administration. Lots of good information too, but not enough of what caused the US to want to go into Iraq for the second time. There was a general concern among many nations about the stability of Iran under its monster leader. I think the short comments by the English General really set the tone for the ultimate decision to enter Iraq.

I had his comments posted but right now can not find them in my previous thread, which I was not able to find. So here it is once again.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1561891/Gen-Sir-Mike-Jackson-attacks-US-over-Iraq.html

[/FONT]Sir Mike says he satisfied himself on the legality of invading Iraq by careful study of the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and concluded that action was "legitimate under international law without a 'second' resolution.

 
So your response to all these videos.. and to the admission of Michael Morrell is to bash MSNBC? These are videos and can hardly be refuted... and Morrell admitted to Chris Matthews that what Cheney was saying was NOT true.. therefore a LIE... and your defense is to talk about a cable channel's ratings? What possible relevance does that have to the issue that is so blatantly obvious now?
 
QuickSilver said:
So your response to all these videos.. and to the admission of Michael Morrell is to bash MSNBC? These are videos and can hardly be refuted... and Morrell admitted to Chris Matthews that what Cheney was saying was NOT true.. therefore a LIE... and your defense is to talk about a cable channel's ratings? What possible relevance does that have to the issue that is so blatantly obvious now?
Click to expand...

So here we go again with your false accusations and such. I said I watched those videos and found them interesting. I also said that the station you seem to admire is one of the poorest in the business. Both facts.
 
BobF said:
So here we go again with your false accusations and such. I said I watched those videos and found them interesting. I also said that the station you seem to admire is one of the poorest in the business. Both facts.
Click to expand...

All I did was ask you what relevance the ratings of MSNBC has to the fact that we were lied into a war... I certainly didn't falsely accuse you of anything... it's right there in your post! Where is the accusation?
 
QuickSilver said:
All I did was ask you what relevance the ratings of MSNBC has to the fact that we were lied into a war... I certainly didn't falsely accuse you of anything... it's right there in your post! Where is the accusation?
Click to expand...

Did you read my post today or the one I posted a couple days back where I quote the English General who suggested we go after Saddam for Saddam's lies and threats. We did not go into a war on us lies as you and some others insist on. That is definitely a lie of the far left liberals and not of the US government of many years back. At that time we even had many of the Democrats supporting what was happening. Something you seem to forget. There is no reason for your attacks on me for thinking different from you, as that is a freedom for both of us in this forum and in the US.
 
BobF said:
Did you read my post today or the one I posted a couple days back where I quote the English General who suggested we go after Saddam for Saddam's lies and threats. We did not go into a war on us lies as you and some others insist on. That is definitely a lie of the far left liberals and not of the US government of many years back. At that time we even had many of the Democrats supporting what was happening. Something you seem to forget. There is no reason for your attacks on me for thinking different from you, as that is a freedom for both of us in this forum and in the US.
Click to expand...

Michael Morell is a longtime CIA official who eventually became the agency's deputy director and acting director. During the preinvasion period, he served as Bush's intelligence briefer.

Morell admitted on the air that Cheney was lying. Morell is hardly a source that can be described as a far left Liberal.. AND yes.. there were Democrats that supported the invasion... erroneously believing the LIES Bush and Cheney were feeding to Congress in order to get the war they wanted. So.. again.. where am I attacking YOU? I'm disagreeing with your beliefs. Why do you feel that when someone disagrees with you it is a personal attack?
 
So you don't like the way I think. I don't like the way you think either. So why continue with your continued attacks against me or others that do not just lay back and accept your twisted ideas compared to mine. Get a life and allow others the same rights you claim for yourself alone.
 
BobF said:
So you don't like the way I think. I don't like the way you think either. So why continue with your continued attacks against me or others that do not just lay back and accept your twisted ideas compared to mine. Get a life and allow others the same rights you claim for yourself alone.
Click to expand...

Very odd. But rest assured... I HAVE a life... AND I will continue to voice my views in this forum... you are free to view them as attacks against you if you wish. but I won't stop.. so perhaps putting everyone who disagrees with you on ignore would be a way to make you feel better?
 
QuickSilver said:
Very odd. But rest assured... I HAVE a life... AND I will continue to voice my views in this forum... you are free to view them as attacks against you if you wish. but I won't stop.. so perhaps putting everyone who disagrees with you on ignore would be a way to make you feel better?
Click to expand...

You may have a life and you should also allow others to have a life without your attacks. Speak of you mind only and allow others to have a mind of their own without personal insults or attacks. Likely something you are finding hard to do. Post your opinions without telling others they are wrong. Most of us on this forum and other forums I use do that. It is not hard to do. I did not tell you to stop posting, it is all in your twisted way of thinking and posting.
 
QuickSilver said:
Jackie... I was going to post this. THIS IS HUGE... and validates what everyone has been saying. Bush and Cheney LIED... there is no denying that now. Why are they not in prison?
Click to expand...

I don't know why people are arguing the point here.
Of course they lied.
The first casualty of war is truth.
It always has been.

Only the very young and naïve believe otherwise.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
I don't know why people are arguing the point here.
Of course they lied.
The first casualty of war is truth.
It always has been.

Only the very young and naïve believe otherwise.
Click to expand...

I think that having Michael Morell openly admit that what Cheney was saying was NOT true is the final nail in the coffin of the notion that perhaps they really believe it "at the time".. All the rhetoric of "if we only knew then what we know now" is blown out of the water by his admission. The fact is.. they DID know what we know now... They KNEW there were no WMDs and that Iraq did not reconstitute nuclear weapons.. Cheney KNEW it was not true, but he fed the lie to Congress.. If there was a shred of doubt... that has been put to rest.
 
What is Gulf War Mark II? Is this what you call the second invasion of Iraq? If so, then the quotes from the English General hold true. He was tired of Iraq's leader and his constant telling lies to the UN inspectors. Now those were some lies to be concerned about.
 
I believe the ONLY invasion in the Middle East was the 1st Afghanistan invasion after 911. However, Bush tired of that and didn't even go after Bin Laden. Said he couldn't care less where he was. Bush couldn't have cared less about Afghanistan... his sights were set on Iraq LONG before 911 even happened.
 
The real reason for the second invasion of Iraq was the comment from General Sir Mike when he said the lies of Iraq's leader over ten years was enough reason to enter and find the truth.
 
Bob, that is never enough reason to go to war unless the Commander in Chief is a psychopath.
Which national leader doesn't lie through his teeth when it suits him?
We'd be engaged in war without end if that was a reason to send in the invading troops.

I never believed the rationalisations for the attack on Iraq.
Our PM talked up the WMD argument but I don't think even he believed that.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
Bob, that is never enough reason to go to war unless the Commander in Chief is a psychopath.
Which national leader doesn't lie through his teeth when it suits him?
We'd be engaged in war without end if that was a reason to send in the invading troops.

I never believed the rationalizations for the attack on Iraq.
Our PM talked up the WMD argument but I don't think even he believed that.
Click to expand...

Not sure but what Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, might have been a nut. For all his years as leader he tortured the people constantly. He kept putting the UN inspectors off base with lies and faked up inspections. He was more than just a little liar as one of his reasons was to keep Iraq alerted to Iraq's abilities to attack, true or false. The Gen Sir Mike took the quickest way after over 10 years of lies and distortions. With Russia, China, and France unwilling to vote, there was little hope in ending the over 10 years of military oversight as Iraq was not going to change as long as Saddam was allowed to be in charge.

What we see being argued today does not fit into the situation so many years back. It has become wishful thinking and little else.
 
BobF said:
Not sure but what Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, might have been a nut. For all his years as leader he tortured the people constantly. He kept putting the UN inspectors off base with lies and faked up inspections. He was more than just a little liar as one of his reasons was to keep Iraq alerted to Iraq's abilities to attack, true or false. The Gen Sir Mike took the quickest way after over 10 years of lies and distortions. With Russia, China, and France unwilling to vote, there was little hope in ending the over 10 years of military oversight as Iraq was not going to change as long as Saddam was allowed to be in charge.

What we see being argued today does not fit into the situation so many years back. It has become wishful thinking and little else.
Click to expand...


However, be that as it may.... Iraq was STABLE.. there was no ISIS. He kept the religious wars at bay. He was technically a Sunni, but more of a secularist. Do you prefer how the ME is NOW?

What is even more evident, by the refusal of the Shiite military forces to even fight.. is the fact that WE want democracy and our Western way of governing much more than the Iraqi people do. They are more than happy with their Theocratic style of governance. I don't see how much more plain they can make it. We need to let them settle whatever they need to and let them get on with the way of life they have known for centuries.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top