Quote
If you invade a country and claim to do that to improve the lives of its inhabitants you cannot possibly consider leaving the country shred to pieces and with refugees spread all over the world.
Begin rant.
I am fed up with this type of "free pass" non-critical psedo-lie granted this administration for its invasion. There was never a consideration to "invade to improve the lives of Iraqis". Where the hell were you in 2002-2003, during the runup to the invasion? On Mars?
Here, in their own words, are the reasons the Bush administration gave for the necessity of invasion: (emphasis added).
1.
Quote
On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?' "
2.
Quote
In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.
3)
Quote
In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."
4)
Quote
On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
5)
Quote
On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."
This is more than simply "poor intelligence". This is taking poor intelligence and spinning it into a gospel-like truth to justify an invasion. I suggest we remember how we got into Iraq rather than worrying so much about how to get out and the consequences of withdrawl. Go or stay, it will be ugly and brutal.
But to sugar coat the crap we were fed as "poor intelligence" or "to bring democracy to the middle east" or to "improve the lives of Iraqis" is an insult to MY intelligence. We invaded for only one reason - ONE ONLY: We were told that it was imperative to invade to protect ourselves from imminent terrorists attack, sponsored by Iraq, which could include a nuclear device.
And how much truth was in that declaration? None.
Simply poor intelligence? No. At intelligence meetings, both pros and cons are aired - the decision had to have been made to completely and totally ignore any contradictory information. But the one thing it was never, ever about was: "mproving the lives of Iraqis".
Give me a break.
End of rant.
Help
