ISRAEL - IRAN - SYRIA - HAMAS - HEZBOLLAH - WWWIII?

Regarding the need to invade, Bush defrauded congress, the UN, the world, and the American people. Just look at the yellowcake affair, in which it was perfectly clear that Iraq was not in the process of getting the stuff. But Bush lied about this in the S of U speech.

It is a cheap shot to conflate the Bush administration and Israel. Yes, I hate and loathe Bush, but it is based on the facts and figures. You seem to love anything about him, which makes you too biased to discuss him and his administration.

Then you have no moral authority to criticize anybody who hates and loathes Israel with far more evidence and reason to do so than you have to hate and loathe President Bush for the decision to invade Iraq. Many have posted reams of evidence, along with content of EVERY credible investigation conducted thus far, to prove that President Bush did not act autonomously nor without careful consideration and a high degree of consensus to conduct the invasion of Iraq.

Those who loathe and hate Israel, whether they admit they do or not, and even those who don't but who justify the Palestinians conduct because of Israel's behavior, can be legitimately accused of blind prejudice and bias that ignores the facts of the case.

For you to assume that those who loathe and hate President Bush are somehow less prejudiced and biased and ignore the facts of the matter any less is just not reasonable. The facts are against your point of view re the decision to invade Iraq no matter how much you want to believe that your point of view is the right one.

There have been few honest critics more vocal about the excesses and incompetency of the Bush administration more than I have been such a critic and your insult is unwarranted and unsupportable. I am capable of seeing where Israel is wrong and, unlike Israel's more vocal critics, I am capable of seeing where Israel is right or at least reasonably justified in what it does.

Are you capable of seeing where President Bush is right along with where he has been wrong; and, unlike his more irrational critics, are you capable of seeing where he was at least reasonably justified in any decision he has made?

If you want to be a credible advocate for Israel, you have to be willing to be reasonable yourself.

Foxie, You never learn. You wrote: Who the hell are you talking about when you say "those?"

It is a straw man argument without any evidence to prove it. Your absolutes are ridiculous and ignorant.

By the way, in the paper today I read that while Turkey invaded northern Cyprus (1970s) and annexed it, displacing tens of thousands of Greek Cypriots, the disposessed Greeks are now to get their property back.

Maybe Israel should send some lawyers to learn about the process.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/01/cyprus-displaced-european-union-greece

Interesting iunctim.

Not familiar with iunctim. I do think people who judge anybody as having no redeeming qualities and having done absolutely nothing right probably are not credible in their judgment of that other person.

Ditto for those who blame Israel for all of the Middle East mess and who can bring themselves to fault the Palestinians for nothing and vice versa.

Gad, those allegations are stupid as well as ignorant!

There was no Bush grab for Iraq oil. The USA has paid to the Iraq government the market price for each and every barrel of Iraq oil the USA has obtained from Iraq.

Whether there was or was not a cooperative relationship between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein is irrelevant. Al-Qaeda was in fact in Iraq for a year and 3 months before the USA invaded Iraq in March 2003. Al Qaeda grew rapidly after many members of al-Qaeda had fled from Afghanistan to Iraq in December 2001 to escape the USA's invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001. Al-Qaeda continued to grow rapidly in Iraq after the USA's invasion of Iraq, until the USA's Surge stopped and reversed that growth.

And where did Bush ever say that they were getting it?

His exact words were..."The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

So, he didnt say they were getting it, nor did he say they had any.
He said they had recently TRIED to get it.
There is a big difference.

Also, he credited the info to the British govt, not our intelligence services.

It is an interesting fact that Bush, by lying us into the war with Iraq, killed and injured hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and caused the death and injury of tens of thousands of Americans. Since Israel became a country, it killed about 10,000 Pals, most of whom were fighters.

I have not seen valid criticisms of Israel. I have seen perfectly valid criticisms of Bush. To a large extent, he ruined our country. He came into office as a compassionate conservative. However, little did the public know that his compassion applied only to wealthy individuals and corporations.

mm, The huge difference is when he ties that statement with what the Bush administration had the world believe; that Saddam already had WMDs and ties to al Qaida.

A statement spoken in isolation of anything else they have said will have an entirely different meaning.

It's about inference. I'm sure it's not necessary for us to re-dig up those statements made by Bush, Cheney, and his administration.

Regarding Bush's hope for grabbing Iraq's oil, see below.


Cheney's Oil Maps
Can the Real Reason for War be This Crass?
By MANO SINGHAM

Now that the official case for attacking Iraq made by the US and British governments has started to unravel, the question of the real reason for unleashing this death and destruction has become a hot topic of conversation again.

During the run-up to the invasion on Iraq, while speaking at teach-ins and other forums and taking part in other anti-war activities, I was somewhat skeptical of those who argued that the war was simply about getting hold of Iraqi oil for American oil companies. I cringed a little at the slogans and placards that said "No blood for oil!" , "No war for oil!", etc., and disagreed with those that the attack was due to a simple quid pro quo between the administration and its oil company cronies. While I found the administration's case for war to be unbelievable, the 'war for oil' thesis seemed to me to be a far too simplistic approach to global politics.

I fancied my self to be a much more sophisticated geo-strategic analyst. Of course, the fact that Iraq had the world's second largest reserves could not be coincidental and definitely played a role in the war plans. But I thought it more likely that broader geopolitical concerns were more dominant, such as showing the world that the US had the power to enforce its will anywhere, and to establish a long-term and secure strategic base in the middle east from which to ensure dominance of the region. To the extent that oil played a role, I thought that purpose of the war was not mainly to divert Iraqi oil revenues to US companies but instead to ensure control over the oil flow to the rest of the world so that economic rivals such as Europe and Japan, whose economies were dependent on middle east oil, would be forced to be subservient to US global interests and pressure.

The thought that the war was actually about making money for individuals and corporations in the short term did not seem to me to be credible. That was too petty and crass.

That was why I was stunned to read the press release put out by the public interest group Judicial Watch on July 17, 2003. This organization, along with the Sierra Club, had argued that both the membership of the Energy Task Force chaired by Vice-President Cheney and the proceedings of its meetings should be made public and had sought the information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) since April 19, 2001. The Vice President had vigorously opposed this opening up of its activities and so a lawsuit was filed. On March 5, 2002 the US District Judge ordered the government to produce the documents, which was finally done by the Commerce Department just recently.

The Judicial Watch press release states that these released documents "contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts." The documents, which are dated March 2001, are available on the Internet at: www.JudicialWatch.org."

The press release continues: "The Saudi Arabian and United Arab Emirates (UAE) documents likewise feature a map of each country's oilfields, pipelines, refineries and tanker terminals. There are supporting charts with details of the major oil and gas development projects in each country that provide information on the projects, costs, capacity, oil company and status or completion date."

This foreign policy involvement is a somewhat surprising turn of events. The original FOIA case was initiated (before 9/11 and before the ratcheting up of the attack on Iraq) because of more domestic concerns, specifically suspicions that the membership of the Energy Task Force may have included people such as Ken Lay of Enron Corporation who may have been in a position to exercise undue influence over government energy policy at the expense of the public interest.

Now, other news items come to my mind, all pointing in the direction of Cheney. Although generally keeping a low profile in his frequent stays at his hideout, Cheney has been one of the most adamant proponents of attacking Iraq and hyping its threat. He has made some of the most authoritative statements that Iraq already had weapons of mass destruction, saying things like "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." (August 26, 2002) and "And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." (March 16, 2003), the latter statement made just three days before the invasion.

It is also Cheney who reportedly had the most involvement in the fraud involving Iraqi uranium purchase from Niger, reportedly initiating the sending of Ambassador Wilson to that country to investigate. It is also Cheney who is reportedly the driving force behind the President's foreign policy and serves as his main strategist and mentor.

So perhaps my friends in the antiwar movement were right all along. Perhaps we have reached such a nadir that foreign policy (and even wars) can be made, and people sent to certain death, for such crass reasons. Perhaps it is time to put the Vice-President under much closer scrutiny.

Mano Singham is a physicist and educator at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. He can be reached at: [email protected]

-- counterpunch.org

Is that so?
According to the latest numbers, there have been 4283 Americans killed in Iraq, and approx 46,000 wounded or otherwise injured in Iraq.
Of that, 181 have died of self- inflicted wounds.
Now, you cannot say that those 181 would still be alive if we hadnt gone to Iraq, because you dont know that.
You cannot know what their mental state was or would have been.

As for the wounded, almost 30,000 of them were not wounded or hurt enough to require evac.

And as for those wounded requiring air evac, over 30,000 of them were from NON-Hostile wounds.
That means they were hurt due to reasons other then enemy action.
That would include accidents, self-inflicted wounds, illness, etc.

http://icasualties.org/Iraq/index.aspx

And in Afghanistan, 682 Americans have died.
http://icasualties.org/oef/

So, a total of less then 5000 Americans have died in both Iraq AND Afghanistan.

Where do you get "tens of thousands of Americans", when that isnt even close to the actual number.
You are seriously stretching the truth.

So let me get this straight!!!
If you think something was INFERRED, then the inference is just as valid as what was actually said?

There are some things in life it's impossible to teach people when they have myopia. I will not waste my time trying to explain something as simple as the example I gave. Go chase your own tail.

From Wiki:

To cover all the bases (From FactCheck):

Sorry, but you did say it was about inference.


So its a simple question...does inference count for more then what was actually said?

Whether there was or was not a cooperative relationship between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein is irrelevant. Al-Qaeda was in fact in Iraq for a year and 3 months before the USA invaded Iraq in March 2003. Al Qaeda grew rapidly after many members of al-Qaeda had fled from Afghanistan to Iraq in December 2001 to escape the USA's invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001. Al-Qaeda continued to grow rapidly in Iraq after the USA's invasion of Iraq, until the USA's Surge stopped and reversed that growth.

just because you say something twice and highlight part of it doesn't make it true

ican is a broken record/parrot who doesn't know what they are saying, but love to repeat it ad nauseum.