Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Timeline of the Bush Administration's Road to War in Iraq

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 07:16 PM
Original message
A Timeline of the Bush Administration's Road to War in Iraq
The road that led to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003 may be conceptualized in the form of two parallel timelines. One timeline involves documentation of the Bush administrations determination and plans for war, interspersed with concurrent public pronouncements that it was primarily seeking a peaceful solution to its conflict with Iraq.

The other timeline (actually, a series of timelines by subject area) involves the Bush administrations accumulation of evidence of the need for war, along with its marketing of that evidence to the American Congress, news media and people, interspersed with accumulating evidence that the evidence accumulated and marketed by the Bush administration was phony.

This post begins the first timeline shortly after George W. Bush took office in January 2001 (though its roots began much earlier), several months prior to the September 11th attacks on our country that provided the Bush administration with its primary excuse for war. The second timeline, concerning the accumulation and subsequent marketing of evidence of the supposed danger that Iraq posed to us, begins within hours of the 9-11 attacks.

In composing these timelines I used a presentation from the September/October edition of Mother Jones, which I shortened, organized, slightly expanded at some points, and linked to references, in an attempt to make the situation as crystal clear as I could. My goal was to develop a relatively short synopsis that would be capable of convincing all but the brain-dead and the heartless that for the sake of our country and for the sake of the world, there is a crucial need to remove the Bush administration from office and to try many of those who compose it for war crimes.

In order to highlight the contrasts, I put the Bush administrations denials of its pre-existing determination to go to war (from the first timeline) in red, as well as the evidence that contradicts the Bush administrations phony evidence (from the second timeline).


Documentation of the Bush administrations determination and plans for war and accompanying denials

1-30-01: Ten days after taking office, at Bushs first national security meeting, the top item on the agenda is finding an excuse for invading Iraq.

3-5-01: Pentagon produces Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts, including a map of areas for potential oil exploration, for Cheneys task force.

9-20-01: Bush tells Tony Blair, When we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.

9-20-01: PNAC letter to Bush: Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

11-21-01: Bush to Rumsfeld: What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.

1-29-02: Bush delivers his Axis of Evil speech, written by his speech writer David Frum after being asked Can you sum up in a sentence or two our best case for going after Iraq?

3-8-02: First Downing Street memo prepared by top Britain national security aid states that Washington believes the legal basis for an attack on Iraq already exists

3-22-02: Downing Street memo states US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is so far frankly unconvincing It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam.

March 2002: Cheney tells Republican senators that the question is no longer if the U.S. will invade Iraq but when.

4-4-02: Bush to Blair: I made up my mind that Saddam needs to go.

5-23-02: Bush states his opposition to hearings on the 9-11 attacks.

June 2002: Condoleeza Rice to a deputy raising doubts about the need for war with Iraq: Save your breath. The president has already made up his mind.

July 2002: Bush approves secret request from General Tommy Franks for $700 million in war preparations.

7-23-02: Downing Street memo written by Britain foreign secretary after visit with U.S. officials: Military action was now seen as inevitable The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy

August 2002: White House Iraq Group created to market war.

8-7-02: Bush given Iraq war plan by General Franks.

8-20-02: Bush: We may or may not attack. I have no idea yet

8-26-02: Cheney: 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 and against us.

9-16-01: Rumsfeld: The president hasnt made a decision to do anything with respect to Iraq.

9-25-02: Bush: You cant distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.

October 2002: Bush administration decided not to take out al-Zarqawi because any terrorist in Iraq helps case for war. According to a former NSC member, People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the presidents policy of preemption against terrorists.

10-8-02: Knight Ridder report: A growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administrations double-time march toward war. These officials charge that administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books

10-16-02: Bush to U.S. public: I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary.

November 2002: CIA station chiefs at a secret meeting in London: War is inevitable, just a few months away.

11-7-02: Bush: War is not my first choice. Its my last choice.

12-31-02: Bush to U.S. press: You said were headed to war in Iraq. I dont know why you say that Im the person who gets to decide, not you.


January 2003: Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin to Scooter Libby, on being pressured to bolster the WMD intelligence: Im not going back to the well on this. Weve done our work.

1-31-03: Notes of meeting between Bush and Blair make clear that Bush intends to invade Iraq even if U.N. inspectors found no evidence of WMD.

3-7-03: U.S., Britain, and Spain present resolution to Saddam Hussein giving him an ultimatum to disarm by March 17 or face war.

3-8-03: Bush: We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq.

3-20-03: U.S. begins war on Iraq.


Accumulation and marketing of phony evidence of Saddam Husseins intentions and development of WMD, in order to support war in Iraq

The efforts to tie Saddam Hussein to the 9-11 attacks on our country were initiated remarkably quickly, especially considering the amazingly slow response mounted against the attacks themselves. Within two days of 9-11, the following occurred:

9-11-01: Five hours following the attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon, minutes taken by a Rumsfeld aide stated Best info fast. Judge whether good enough {to} hit SH {Saddam Hussein}

9-12-01: Bush tells counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. Bush asks for any shred of evidence that Saddam was involved.

Nevertheless:

9-21-01: Bush briefed by intelligence community that there is no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the 9-11 attacks.

But despite this, the Bush administration proceeded with its plans.

In order to make the subsequent efforts of the Bush administration to gather and market evidence of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities of Saddam Hussein easier to follow, the following is a description of overlapping time lines according to subject area:


Efforts to obtain information through torture

January 2002: Captured Al Qaeda operative, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, states while being tortured that Al Qaeda has received chemical weapons from Iraq.

February 2002: Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) intelligence summary says that al-Libis statement about Al Qaeda receiving chemical weapons from Iraq lacks pertinent details and that it is most likely false and based solely on his desire to stop being tortured. Report also notes that it is unlikely that Saddam would provide assistance to Al Qaeda.

4-9-02: Bush speaking to CIA Director George Tenet about captured Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah: I said he was important, youre not going to let me lose face on this are you?... Do some of those harsh methods really work? Zudaydah is then tortured and speaks of several plots.


Claim that Iraq purchased enriched uranium from Africa

The most serious threat that the Bush administration tried to establish was that Saddam Hussein was making a concerted effort to develop a nuclear weapons program. A major component of that effort was the allegation that he had purchased enriched uranium (often referred to as yellowcake) from Niger. The Bush administration clung to that claim despite a great deal of evidence against it:

3-5-02: Joe Wilson tells CIA that there is no indication that Iraq is buying yellowcake.

Summer 2002: The French debunk the theory that Iraq tried to obtain yellowcake from Niger: We told the Americans, Bullshit. It doesnt make any sense.

October 2002: National Intelligence Estimate report states claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium {i.e., yellowcake} in Africa are highly dubious.

10-6-02: NSC memo to White House on the claim that Iraq attempted to obtain uranium from Niger: The evidence is weak the Africa story is over-blown.

3-3-03: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) tells U.S. that the Niger uranium documents were forgeries.

3-7-03: IAEA: After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq.

3-8-03: Joe Wilson on CNN: I think its safe to say that the U.S. government should have or did know that the {Niger documents were} fake before Dr. ElBaradei mentioned it in his report at the U.N. yesterday.


But despite all that, on 12-7-02, the Bush administration discredited a report by Iraq to the United Nations, documenting all of its unconventional arms, on the basis that the report didnt mention the alleged uranium that it acquired from Niger, and it used that discredited allegation as one of its major excuses for going to war.


Claim that Iraq intended to use aluminum tubes to produce enriched uranium for use in a nuclear weapon

The other major alleged evidence pointing to a nuclear weapons program in Iraq was the Iraqis purchase of aluminum tubes, which the Bush administration claimed was proof that they intended to use them to enrich uranium for use in a nuclear weapon. In September of 2002, the Bush administration began to push that bogus claim:

9-7-02: Bush claims a new U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report states Iraq is six months from developing a nuclear weapon though no such report existed.

9-8-02: Judith Miller of the New York Times cites anonymous administration officials as saying that Saddam has repeatedly tried to acquire aluminum tubes specially designed to enrich uranium.

9-8-02: Cheney on Meet the Press: We do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon.

They pushed that claim to the end, despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary:

9-23-02: Institute for Science and International Security releases report calling the aluminum tube intelligence ambiguous and warning that U.S. nuclear experts who dissent from the Administrations position are expected to remain silent

1-9-03: IAEA says that the aluminum tubes sought by Iraq are likely for artillery rockets, rather than centrifuges for uranium concentration.

1-24-03: IAEA to Washington Post: It may be technically possible that the tubes could be used to enrich uranium, but youd have to believe that Iraq


And then, in Bushs January State of the Union speech he put both the yellow cake and the aluminum tubes claims together to scare his country into believing that Iraq posed a nuclear threat to us:

1-28-03: Bush State of the Union speech: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Saddam has tried to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production and has mobile biological weapons labs.


Claims by Curveball for Iraqi WMD programs

Another major claim of the Bush administration, for the existence of a biological weapons program in Iraq, was based on the allegations of an Iraqi defector who went by the code name of Curveball. Again, this claim was maintained by the Bush administration to the end, despite substantial and accumulating evidence against it:

May 2002: DIA says that Curveballs claims that Iraq has mobile weapons labs are likely lies.

September 2002: Germans warn CIA that Curveball is crazy and probably a fabricator.

2-4-03: CIA agent e-mail regarding the validity of information coming from Curveball: We sure didnt give much credence to this report when it came out. Why now? (Response from CIA Iraqi Task Force was Lets keep in mind the fact that this wars going to happen regardless of what Curveball said or didnt say)

2-8-03: U.N. team searches Curveballs former work site and disproves many of his claims.


But despite all this, Secretary of State Colin Powell used Curveballs evidence in his speech to the United Nations on February 5, 2003, to justify a U.S. invasion of Iraq.


Other evidence against a WMD threat posed by Iraq

Other evidence against the claim that Iraq posed a WMD threat to the United States came from a variety of sources, the most important of which were the official reports by the United Nations concerning their extensive efforts to ascertain a threat:

3-15-02: British intelligence report states that there is only sporadic and patchy evidence of Iraqi WMD. There is no intelligence of any {biological weapons} production facilities.

September 2002: All 30 American relatives of Iraqis who were sent to Iraq as CIA moles report that Iraq has abandoned its WMD program.

9-26-02: Classified DIA report concludes that there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons.

10-7-02: CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin, in a letter to Congress: The likelihood of Saddam using WMD unless attacked is very low.

1-9-03: Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix says that no smoking guns have been found in Iraq.

1-27-03: U.N. press release: It would appear Iraq had decided in principle to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection Weapons inspectors have examined 106 locations and found no evidence that Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons program.



Conclusion

The above timelines thoroughly demonstrate that:

1) The invasion of Iraq was a major priority of the Bush administration long before the 9-11 attacks on our country;

2) Bush went to great lengths, including the use of torture to force confessions out of people, to establish that Iraq had or was developing programs for the production of weapons of mass destruction that would likely be used against the U.S.; and,

3) Despite the fact that no credible evidence could be found to support those claims, the Bush administration nevertheless used them to justify an invasion of a country that posed no threat to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Poiuyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 08:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. Good work. Bush talked about invading Iraq before he was even elected
Houston: Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999, said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. It was on his mind. He said to me: One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. And he said, My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. He said, If I have a chance to invade.if I had that much capital, Im not going to waste it. Im going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and Im going to have a successful presidency.

more -

http://www.gnn.tv/articles/article.php?id=761
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freedomburn Donating Member (225 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Kicked like a soccer ball and voted. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #1
26. Thank you - That information is very interesting, somewhat surprising, and
horrifying at the same time.

At first I was somewhat surprised to hear that because I tend to think of George Bush as a mere puppet who doesn't have any independent thoughts. But that's somewhat careless of me.

What we have here then is a guy who thinks it's nifty to start wars because that boosts his ego and makes him seem important in the eyes of the world. Also, it makes up for a lifetime of under-achievement.

Truly horrifying, but I guess that neither I nor anyone else should be surprised to hear that.
:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. The road was paved by elements in Corporate America
Edited on Sun Aug-20-06 08:26 PM by Dover
Corporate war machine gathers speed
By Ismael Hossein-zadeh

There is strong evidence that as the Bush administration is mulling over plans to bomb Iran, the simmering conflict between high-ranking military professionals and militaristic civilian leaders is bursting into the open.

The conflict, festering ever since the invasion of Iraq, has now been heightened over the US administration's policy of an aerial military strike against Iran. While civilian militarists, headed by

Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, are said to have drawn plans to bomb Iran, senior commanders are openly questioning the wisdom of such plans. <1>

The administration's recent statements that it is now willing to negotiate with Iran might appear as a change or modification of its plans to launch a military strike against that country. But a closer reading of those statements indicates otherwise: such pronouncements are premised on the condition that, as President George W Bush recently put it, "The Iranian regime fully and verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment."

In light of the fact that suspension of uranium enrichment, which is nothing beyond Iran's legitimate rights under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is supposed to be the main point of negotiation, Iran is asked, in effect, "to concede the main point of the negotiations before they started". <2>

Military professionals question the administration's plans of a bombing campaign against Iran on a number of grounds. For one thing, they doubt that, beyond a lot of death and destruction, the projected bombing raids can accomplish much, ie, destroy Iran's nuclear program.


..snip..

Calling such business and/or ideologically driven warmongers "civilian militarists", military historian Alfred Vagts points to a number of historical instances of how civilian militarists' eagerness to use military force for their nefarious interests often led "to an intensification of the horrors of warfare". For example, he points out how in World War II, "civilians not only anticipated war more eagerly than the professionals, but played a principal part in making combat ... more terrible than was the current military wont or habit". <4>

..cont'd

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH16Ak01.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paparush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #2
17. Damn Straight! Watch the film "Why We Fight" Basically, we're
fighting for quarterly profits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #2
27. War with Iran - I'm glad you brought that up
In fact, I should have mentioned it in my OP, as the fear that this administration is now thinking about doing the same thing with Iran was a primary reason why I posted this article.

The people running our country are a bunch of criminals with no consciences, whose only concern is enhancement of their already bloated power and wealth. They will go to war at the drop of a pin, with no concern for the consequences as long as they think it will help themselves. This is so scary that it's difficult to contemplate or fathom how bad it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
notadmblnd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. Thank you for this
good stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ioo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 08:52 PM
Response to Original message
5. WOW!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
6. Well done, thank you!
It's just too bad none of it will change any minds...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #6
28. Thank you -- Of course there are many people whose minds it won't change
There are few Duers whose minds it will change, because there are few of us who are not already convinced that the Iraq war was based on lies.

And then there are a sizable minority of Bushbots and die hard Republicans whose minds it won't change because they never open their minds.

But there are also a lot of very poorly informed people out there, especially given the sorry state of our news media today. And many of them do have open minds. So I see no reason why the providing of clear and accurate information to uninformed but reasonable people couldn't change their minds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RedEarth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
7. TWOThumbs Up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwdeviant Donating Member (48 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
8. Excellent work!
Nice solid citations and a great summary make this an invaluable resource.

One thing, does this line "9-16-01: Rumsfeld: The president hasnt made a decision to do anything with respect to Iraq." have the wrong year or is it in the wrong place? Really sorry to carp on minor details after all your hard work, but you know how people get if there's ANYTHING wrong (they focus on the error rather than the brilliance).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. Thank you very much - Yes, the Rumsfeld quote date of 9-16-01 is a typo
It should be 9-16-02. Thanks for picking that up.

And welcome to DU :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #8
18. Hi jwdeviant!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ninkasi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 10:16 PM
Response to Original message
9. Amazing post
I'm bookmarking, because you have very clearly shown what happened. I want to take the time to go follow the links you've given. Thanks for a brilliant post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WiseButAngrySara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-20-06 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
10. This is excellent! KNR and bookmarked. ....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
11. The words of bush, March 2002: "Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID6...

"F___ Saddam. We're taking him out." Those were the words of bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase. The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile. bush left the room.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #11
29. That is truly disgusting and terribly scary
See post # 1 on this thread for insights into what's going on in the idiot's mind. It talks about how Bush was dying to do this even before he became pResident.

Our country and the world are in the hands of evil (and some stupid) monsters.

But I can't say that it is 100% the fault of the people who run our country. Our national news media are tremendously irresponsible, and they have allowed this to happen by their selective reporting of news to help Bush and his puppetmasters steal two elections and make Americans think that everything is just fine when in fact we are sinking into tyranny.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:08 AM
Response to Original message
12. Well done k&r and bookmarked!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 01:21 AM
Response to Original message
13. Excellent!
Thank you and K&R!

And for all who appreciate inputting or accessing additional timelines on the Bush Admin on this and many more topics, also don't forget cooperativeresearch.com (Center for Cooperative Research)

Great job TFC! Bookmarking.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
30. Thank you chill wind - and thanks for the CCR site
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:09 AM
Response to Original message
14. K & R Thank you for putting this together in one place.
Of course, reliving this nightmare will ruin my night. All the frustration and disappointment, trying to tell people that it was all a bunch of horseshit and writing and calling my worthless "representatives" and the non-responses from the Democrats that were all so damn eager to go along with this crime.

Well again, great job! :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #14
33. Thank you greyhound - Sorry about ruining your night.
Keep up the pressure, and maybe we'll turn things around yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lilypad_567 Donating Member (70 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:40 AM
Response to Original message
15. dear time for a change
i try to reply to your democratic value journal but couldn't, i know this off topic with the current journal that you are writing, but i think that this might sounds like a good argument with those who oppose a women right to choose. maybe one can ask someone who is for life, said that if you are really for life, than shouldn't you be for all from of life. why is it wrong for the government to fund research on stem cell, but than it is okay for private corporations to do it, because don't it make the blases(?) human no matter if it is publicly funded or privately funded, is it less of a life if a private corporation does it? if it is wrong for the government to fund it, than should private companies not be allow to fund it either. shouldn't there be some amendment that said stem cell research is illegal be they public or privately funded, because should your belief in life is so strong, that you should oppose any or all sorts of fund that does stem cell research? if stem cell research is wrong, than what about those that can benefits from it? aren't you than against life, if you oppose something that can save someone life? if it is murder for a women to get an abortion, than shouldn't't you be for health care, so that the women don't have to resort to abortion in the first place? if women have the necessity that they need to raise a child, than she shouldn't need to seek an abortion? if and when the child is born, shouldn't you than be for all that there should be to make the child life easier, meaning that the child should be provided with proper health care?, should the child social program not be cut?, shouldn"t the child receive the education there is, even if that means that they are going to public school, and shouldn't you be for a better livable wages, if the mother isn't as educated as she is, so that she can take care of the child? and what if the child turn out to be a homosexual, should you, who call yourself a pro lifer, and said that it is murder for a women to get an abortion, should you not that allow the fetus's, that the women was going to abortion, but was force to carry to term, be allow to be with whoever they chose? if the fetus was a homosexual, than aren't you for life more if you allow them to married, after all they were once a fetus? shouldn't you be for government regulation on corporation/businesses so that it will protect the child, that was once a fetus? shouldn't protection continue after the fetus is born? why is that you are so wiling to fight for a fetus life, but than once it is born, you are oppose to anything that can make it life better? what about sex education, aren't you for life, if you give them the right information about safety toward sex? and if a war is to be fallen upon you, shouldn't you be oppose to it, even if that means that the other person be they evil or whatever, because should not your belief in life be so strong that you would be against a war, just like the iraq war. no matter how much you see justification in the war, should still be against it because it is killing and taking away a life, be they innocent iraqi, saddam, those that are loyal to saddam, or even the terrorist such as al que-da, hamas, et etc. and if you are really for life, than shouldn't you be against the death penalty, because you are taking away a life, even if the person did commit a crime, should you be against it because you believe in life after all, isn't that what it means being for life, because if you are for life, than you be for all forms of life. and what about the protection of the environment, shouldn't you be for protecting it, because it will make the future much a better place for those that are being carried in the womb?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #15
36. Those are all very good points lilypad
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 05:07 PM by Time for change
The problem is that the Bush administration and its fellow Republicans just pretend to be pro-life in order to get votes. They aren't pro-life at all, as you have been able to see through. They are just HYPOCRITES :grr:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
19. Cheney on Meet the Press: We do know, with absolute certainty,"
Absolute certainty...Well we know with absolute certainty that Republicans LIE their asses off don't we?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mandate My Ass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
20. excellent work
thank you.

K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
21. Facts don't lie, but facts acts are too unthinkable and painful to accept
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Annces Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
22. Recommended - thanks n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dems Will Win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
23. I love timelines!
We need one that shows the timeline of mistakes and the run-up to Civil War, such as letting the militias keep their weapons after first saying they must disarm, etc.

That's what we need to show the US public for the elections Iraq is going to get a lot worse now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IWantAChange Donating Member (974 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. outstanding..................
facts, when presented in a concise coherent manner really do make the case that this Administration has to be given serious consideration as the worst in American history...............
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
professor_grove Donating Member (49 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
25. great job
but do we need yet another time line to prove that * and his mobsters are filth? And why is there a gap from march of 01 to late September? Why isnt the PDB mentioned?

Instead of time lines, we now need to list ways to hold accountable the politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, who have made all this possible.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #25
43. Thank you professor - I don't think that WE need a time line or anything
else in order to be convinced that Bush and his mobsters are filth. There are very few DUers who need much convincing on that score. But my main hope in putting together this time line was that it would be useful in convincing the as yet unconvinced. I believe that the good majority of us at DU have friends, co-workers, family, acquaintances, etc., who fall into that category.

With regard to the gap, this was not meant to be all inclusive. I said at the beginning of the OP that I wanted to make it as short and concise as possible, so that the unconvinced would be encouraged to read it. Perhaps I fell short of my goal on that score. But there was just so much that I wanted to include that I had a hard time leaving stuff out (except that it did save time to leave stuff out).

I don't know what you mean by PDB?

And you're right that we need to hold our politicians accountable. It's hard to do when the news media, voting machine companies, and most of the big money is aligned against us. But we do have to find ways.

And welcome to DU :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
professor_grove Donating Member (49 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #43
53. pdb =
Edited on Tue Aug-22-06 12:36 PM by professor_grove
presidential daily briefing. The document this cancer of the universe received in Aug 01 informing him that Osama was determined to strike the US using airplanes.

He was on vacation (when is this scummy waste of human dna NOT?) and ignored it.

Any time line regarding Iraq should include the day this criminal mind was born some 60 years ago, thats how far it goes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Yeah, I thought of including that
But I left it out because I it wasn't directly applicable to the plans for war or the faking of evidence as an excuse to go to war.

I think of the pdb as additional evidence that the Bush administration knew of the 9-11 attacks well before they occurred and purposely allowed them to go forward. Actually, I believe that they planned and carried them out themselves:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

But that's another story, and I didn't want to get into that in this post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
31. Great post! But W wanted Iraq even before he "won" the election
Edited on Mon Aug-21-06 02:18 PM by mistertrickster
in 2000.

See my article, "DUBYA THE MAGNIFICIENT."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/02/10/23_...

Questioned at a presidential primary debate in December 1999, Bush said, '''If I found in any way, shape or form that he was developing weapons of mass destruction, I'd take 'em out. I'm surprised he's still there.''

Brit Hume, one of the two journalists questioning Mr. Bush and the other five candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, asked, ''Take him out?''

Mr. Bush answered, ''The weapons of mass destruction.''' (New York Times, 4 Dec. 1999).

Despite his "clarification," a lot of listeners believed-and still believe-Mr. Bush was referring as much to "him" as to "them." Ultimately, it makes little difference, as Mr. Bush well knows-our military can't take out the weapons without controlling the man who controls the weapons.

On other occasions the Bush campaign was even blunter. Then lead foreign-policy adviser, Condoleezza Rice declared in June of 2000: "Regime change is necessary." Other Bush campaigners who are now major players in drafting Iraqi policy had already mapped out plans on how Saddam Hussein could be overthrown. "Both Mr. Perle and Robert Zoellick, a former top aide to Gov. Bush's father, advocate specific steps to oust Saddam." (The Wall Street Journal, 28 June 2000) They recommended carving out chunks of Iraq militarily which would humiliate Saddam Hussein and provide a base for operations. Such a plan would force him to attack, and his massed forces could then be annihilated.

Even as far back as 1998, Paul Wolfowitz, now Deputy Secretary of Defense, and fellow Bush campaign advisers Richard Armitage now Deputy Secretary of State, Dov S. Zakheim and the aforementioned Mr. Perle wrote an open letter to former President Clinton "urging the administration to recognize a provisional government of Iraq headed by the INC," the opposition group, the Iraqi National Conference. (The Washington Post, 3 June 2000)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #31
40. Very nice, and prescient article
You say "What truly motivates this war remains a mystery".

I have thought so many hours over this question.

You go on to answer it by talking about the oil and the war profiteering issues, and I definitely believe that's a big part of it -- but perhaps no all of it.

Poster number 1 in this thread brings up some ideas that I also think are very important -- and horrifying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
young_at_heart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
32. How are they able to sleep at night?
It's really hard to fathom their thinking on all of this and their ability to rationalize what they have done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #32
46. That's a great question, and one that I'm intensely interested in
I've posted some ideas on this question including:

As noted by John Dean in his book, "Conservatives without Consciences", they have no consciences:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Similarly, I have looked at them simply as being evil, which is perhaps much the same thing, since evil people lack consciences I believe:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

And along similar lines, they are cowards:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
34. K & R for GREAT work
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
35. Don't forget Mar. 2002, "F---k Sadaam, we're taking him out"
Bush's Alderaan

F--- Saddam, Bush said. Were taking him out. March 2002

By Robert Parry
April 8, 2003

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2835.ht...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TacticalPeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #35
45. He may as well have said "Fuck Osama. We're letting him go."
July 29 In early 2002, the U.S. campaign against al-Qaida Operation Enduring Freedom was revving high. U.S. commandos readied themselves for lightning strikes in the dusty plains of Afghanistan or the deserts of Yemen; aerial drones buzzed the skies rigged with cameras and missiles, controlled by technicians on the ground; surveillance planes high overhead listened for electronic whispers of Taliban holdouts.

BUT, AS Operation Enduring Freedom kept al-Qaida on the run, the White House was already planning for war against Iraq. Sources say that in the spring of 2002, key weapons in the war against terror such as the commandos, the drones and the high-tech surveillance planes were rotated out of Afghanistan. Now experts tell NBC there was a clear tradeoff as the United States let up on al-Qaida to pursue regime change in Iraq.

A former national security official in the Bush administration tells NBC News Senior Investigative Correspondent Lisa Myers the White House was warned that the buildup against Saddam might provide a respite for Osama bin Laden and his henchmen. There were decisions made, says Flynt Leverett, a former director at the National Security Council in the Bush White House, to take key assets, human assets, technical assets, out of theater in Afghanistan in order to position them for the campaign to unseat Saddam.

snip

... commanders wanted to engage what sources call a viable mission against an al-Qaida target. After all, in the past they had used the missiles on the remotely piloted drones to strike at terrorists. But in this case, because of the Iraq war, there was not a Predator they could use. The al-Qaida target got away.

Whats more, members of the CIAs elite special activities division and the Armys entire 5th Special Forces Group (Green Berets), whod hunted down hundreds of al- Qaida terrorists, were pulled out of Afghanistan. The 5th, based in Fort Campbell, Kent., specializes in the Middle East and Central Asia. These soldiers are the ones who speak Arabic and Central Asian languages, so its only natural that they were some of the first to head to Afghanistan. But in May 2002, according to Army Special Operation Command spokesman Maj. Rob Gowan, the 5th Group was pulled out of Afghanistan and brought back to Fort Campbell. The 5th Group would deploy later for Iraq.

In Afghanistan they were replaced chiefly by the 3rd Special Forces Group, which is trained culturally and linguistically to operate in sub-Saharan Africa. The A-Team members speak French and various African languages, which would be of no value in the craggy Hindu Kush mountain range. Other Green Berets stepping into Afghanistan came from the 7th Group, which specializes in Latin America and has Spanish language skills.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/viewtopic.php?topic=26824&...


President AWOL's clueless 'leadership'

:grr:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
37. His statements today ought to be added to the timeline.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
38. The timeline that's in every DUer's head. Now everyone else can see it.
Absolutely incredible how obvious it all was. And is. And there's even more to it than you show.

Now, like others said here, how do we begin the holding of accountability?

Congress? Media? Where are you..........?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. The media are essential the servants of the Republican Party
And therein lies a major part of the problem in my view:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I believe that there are a lot of well intentioned Democratic Congresspersons and Senators, but they are afraid of what the news media will do to them if they appear too liberal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:30 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Absolutely right on.
You've spelled it out very simply, and completely. I like how you think. Just the plain facts. It's hard to believe this administration ever got close enough to sit in the Oval office more than once.

So here we are, waiting. I keep thinking "this is it". But we'll see what it takes to catch on and drag this maladministration into the jaws of justice.

Thanks for your clear presentations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
42. And don't forget folks
That the http://www.downingstreetmemo.com website also has a timeline, Misled into War: A Timeline database at http://downingstreetmemo.com/timeline

Hope you can all make good use of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #42
44. Thank you Terre
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #44
48. De nada
and thank you for the terrific reminder. :)

It's just a real shame, to put it mildly, that any of this happened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
47. Outstanding, as always.


"Never Forget: George W. Bush willfully violated National Security to cover-up his willful launch of a war of aggression and illegal occupation of Iraq."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. Thank you ul
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livingonearth Donating Member (451 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
49. Great job! Very good resource.
I'm new to DU and this is exactly the type of information I came here for. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-21-06 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. That's great to hear, thank you
There is a great wealth of information on DU - I've learned so much since I joined.

I hope you enjoy it. :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Aug-22-06 07:29 AM
Response to Original message
52. Bookmarked!
Thank you for all this info!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-23-06 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #52
55. nice research!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 23rd 2014, 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC