Why George W. Bush Really Invaded Iraq

the article at infidels.org to be consistent with the presently accepted rules and norms regarding debate and logic.

he finally passed English 101 LOL

i allmost chocked lol lol

spit it all over the monitor did you??? LOL
Just made my day

Are you saying that SADDAM LIED??????????? Are you saying BUCHANAN LIED??????????????

According to you, the 'elite' all have agendas....why would you think Bush is the only one to have one and yet not consider that Saddam, Buchanan, and most of the UN don't?

You cannot have it both ways with your statements....

TONI

To quote you..."Humans lie all the time". Are you human, Mr Asian American?

As it happens I find Ms. McQuaig's opinions as abrasive and irritating as most of you would, but it's an interesting read nonetheless. She's a Canadian journalist of 30 years standing and her assertions are backed up by research and data.

Rob Boyter

Yes, I'm sure there were several motivations, such as placing a puppet government in Iraq that will serve the economic needs of George W. Bush, among others.

Here is another interesting article on why Bush really invaded Iraq: http://www.vdare.com/misc/macdonald_neoconservatism.htm

Oops! I guess you did

This one's home page seems a rant against illegal aliens.

Actually, that's one I more or less agree there is a problem, but the tone of this site while asking for donations to continue it's work to expose governmental actions regarding illegals seems a bit prejudicial.

Even when a site has a good statement that defines your position well, it's good to take into consideration the overall motivation. At least to acknowledge it and either agree or disagree, or disclaim personal opinion on the sites agenda.

Using sites that have a didicated purpose means you have to acknowledge that their view slants their articles. Actually all sources slant their articles, which is why some sketicism must be maintain when reading anything. But when the opening of the site has an obvious narrow focus, you must wonder even more about their slant and purpose.

JMO

Roger

click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

in check. I have no doubt that neo-cons were part of the equation but only a small proportion of the neo-con movement is of jewish origin.

I think the invasion of Iraq was as much for Daddy Bush's approval as it was for any other motive.

I don't oppose the liberation of Iraq, I think it an important step, I just wish things had been cleaner, reasons more honestly given and a concensus at home and abroad achieved to move in and capture the old ghoul. In terms of short term danger, Iran looks more dangerous than Iraq was when we invaded.

Rob Boyter

His reasons were two:
1) to pay back Saddam for trying to kill his Daddy
2) As a successful "wag the dog" ploy to win first the 2002 Congressional, and then 2004 Presidential/Congressional elections
3) To get graft for large GOP contributors, with Haliburton #1 on the list.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

you really arent beleaving that are you dave you cant be but then you said it ty for the laugh

The reasons he gave the world have been proven false, Mark. And ally after ally is abandoning the "coalition of the willing." Earlier this week Poland announced they're pulling out.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

yes we had bad info duh but look at the results!
open your closed mind dave i know you are tired of eating crow.
stop insulting us with that tripe.

if we wanted to go in just to kill saddam takes 1 man 1 round.
and saddams aloive why? because bush wanted him dead?

nonsence, we wanted the oil then why didnt we take it? prices are high or didnt you look?


and as to poland be deal we pulled most of the work over there any way.

Proof???

and the twilight zone theme songs playing in background

It's clear that you'll believe almost anything. Is that why evolution is a fact for you? Was there a deep, d*ark conspiracy in the election. As far as 'wag the dog', everybody knows that was a Clinton ploy. GW would not copy Billie boy.

"people who don't understand fractions"

His reasons were two:
1) to pay back
2) As a successful
3) To get graft

The US foreign policy hasn't changed a whole lot since the WWII. So I doubt it is due to the Republicans and more due to the much "cemented" foreign policy and hunger for power that is the reason.

mods

"Neocon" as a codename for Jewish? That is to laugh -- another distrator. The only notable neocon that comes to my mind is Wolfowitz -- but the term deals with viewpoints, not the ethnic background of those who hold them!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

... I said not everyone intends that, but read enough articles by those that use it as a slur and it is patently obvious.

So it is derogatory (so you've told us) to call someone that espouses socialist ideology a socialist, but you can feel free to ignore the undercurrents that go along with some labels (neocon) and even the uncontested derogatory nature of a term (Uncle Tom) when it suits you? Interesting ...

Evie

There is no - I repeat, NO - serious conservative alive who fails to see Pat Buchanan's Jewish problem, which is why he's been effectively drummed out of the mainstream of American conservatism, given his tinfoil hat and sent to that backwater where he and his ilk can rot in their bigotry.

Here's what I'm talking about, Dave: (Note: from 1993, but still accurate)

It's the Jews' turn. Over the last year, a number of anti-war arguments have taken center stage. It's a war for oil. It's a war to distract from the war on terrorism or the economy. It's a war to boost the president's ratings or to avenge Saddam's attempt to assassinate the elder Bush. And now, it's the Jews.

"If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this," Virginia Democratic congressman Jim Moran said the other day.

The same week that news came out, Pat Buchanan announced from the pages of his odd little magazine (P.S., the same rag that is cited in the post that started this thread pfc) that "a neoconservative clique seeks to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interest."

He went on: "We charge that a cabal of polemicists and public officials seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America's interests. We charge them with colluding with Israel to ignite those wars ? we charge them with deliberately damaging U.S. relations with every state in the Arab world that defies Israel or supports the Palestinian people's right to a homeland of their own."

In case you didn't know, "neoconservative" is generally - but not always - longhand for "Jewish conservatives."

This has been a long time coming. Buchanan's Jewish problem is well established, of course. He made the same arguments in 1991 about the first Persian Gulf War when, by the way, the majority of Jews in Congress voted against a war waged by an administration whose secretary of state, James Baker, had once declared "F**k the Jews!"

Buchanan's hardly alone, alas. Chris Matthews, the host of MSNBC's "Hardball" has been talking about "neoconservatives" in the current Bush administration the way Joe McCarthy used to talk about communists in the State Department.

For example, obsessed with the influence of Bill Kristol, the Jewish editor of The Weekly Standard, Matthews asked The Washington Post's Dana Milbank about the neoconservatives in the Bush Administration: "Are they loyal to the Kristol neoconservative movement, or to the president?"

Meanwhile, Bob Novak, co-host of CNN's "Crossfire" and arguably the dean of conservative political columnists, has been arguing for years that the war with Iraq is nothing more than an attempt to advance the interests of Israel and its prime minister, Ariel Sharon. And, of course, on the hard left, the charge that American Jews are pushing America to war for Israel's defense is made every day and in every way.

Now, I don't know if anti-Semitism motivates any of these people. And in a sense, I don't care. Oh, sure, on a personal level I suppose I care a little. I'd certainly be interested to hear that Jim Moran spends his free time photocopying the Protocols of the Elders of Zion or that Pat Buchanan donates the proceeds of his books to B'nai B'rith. But as a political matter, I don't really care. It's irrelevant. A distraction.

The charge of anti-Semitism is too hard to prove, too easy to dispute and changes the issue from facts to motives.

What should matter are the facts and the arguments that present them. And, so far, those whining about the pernicious influence of the Jews when it comes this war don't have many facts and even fewer good arguments.

Matthews and Buchanan both claim that the Republican Party has been taken over -"hijacked," in Buchanan's phrase -by rabid neoconservatives with names like Wolfowitz, Perle and Frum. These neocons are forcing a war down the throats of honest conservatives and Republicans.

Buchanan's claims are pure and simple Jew-hating BS, Dave. It deeply disturbs me that you, a good liberal who ostensibly is attuned to such attitudes, can't see this for the claptrap it is.

Maybe Mr.Buchanan, who is to no one's surprise a regular on Chris Matthews' MSNBC show, might consider forming a new political party. I recommend that he recruit Cynthia McKinney, Robert Byrd, Jesse jackson and Al Sharpton as cofounders; at least then we'll have all the loonies in the same place where we can ALL keep an eye on them!