Will release of Chilcot Inquiry report on Iraq War lies this week affect the election?

[yurbud]

The farther we get from 9/11, the less credible some of those lies seem, including not just the facts of whether Saddam Hussein had WMD, but the assumption that even if he did, he would dare use them against us or our allies or give them to terrorists who may use them against us or our allies given our THOUSANDS of nukes we had (and have to retaliate with) and even the hundreds Israel has and their willingness to attack their neighbors when they feel the need.

Any politician old enough to remember the Cold War or even vaguely familiar with our nuclear arsenal should have known what Bush was selling was nonsense, and it is likely that the Chilcot Report will show exactly that being discussed behind the scenes as well as the real business and finance motives for turning Iraq into a mass grave and first of several ungovernable free fire zones we've created since like Libya and are seemingly trying to create in Syria.

It is also shameful that the Chilcot Inquiry has no parallel in the United States. For all the problems the Brits have, their pols are at least honest enough to do that, but ours can't be bothered.

[thesquanderer]

1. the U.S. presidential election? No.

Clinton has already said her vote was a mistake. Trump has been saying (somewhat disingenuously, of course) that he was against it from the start.

It might have been a problem for Jeb! if he had gotten the nomination, but that's about it...

[yurbud]

3. a mistake? Did she say a mistake because she believed Bushies or made a political calculation?

The latter would almost be more forgivable.

The first would show lack of intelligence and/or education, which is unlikely for her.

Also, if it's the latter, I'd like to hear what she thought average Americans would get out of the deal.

[synergie]

9. I think the issue here is that the intelligence stated one thing, and that was manufactured

by the Bushies, if you're being told by the intelligence community something in a top secret briefing, a lack of intelligence or education would lead you to brush it off.

Even Bernie did not disbelieve the evidence, he voted for the first AUMF, and his issues with the Iraq war wasn't that he didn't believe the intelligence reports.

[PowerToThePeople]

2. They were not credible on 9/11

[JI7]

4. If Bush was running it may have

[yurbud]

5. and I t doesn't matter for all those in Congress who enabled him?

And rarely obstructed him?

[JI7]

6. he was the president. only way to stop him was to prevent him from the presidency

[yurbud]

7. Republicans didn't get the memo on blind obedience to opposing party presidents

and there was ample historical precedent to show Democrats Republicans wouldn't reciprocate if they let their president have his way.

So either they were stupid, quislings, or they agreed with his policies.

[synergie]

10. If that's the stance you're going to take, the only one who passes your test is Barbara Lee.

She's the only one who questioned giving Bush powers after 911.

When you haven't done that, according to your standards, you were enabling him and rarely obstructing him, by okaying funding for his wars, for instance.

[yurbud]

11. The fact that nearly everyone did it doesn't make it right or in our best interests

The closer a bad vote was to 9/11, the more I give pols a partial pass because of the hysteria and intense political pressure from the Bushies.

But maybe over time we need a housecleaning of the Democratic Party as extensive as what you implied.

And on Iraq, the lies were so egregious and the very framing of the argument ahistorical and stupid on their face, that it can't be justified as a mistake, but instead either corruptl agreement with the unstated goals or cowardice in the face of a uniquely retaliatory administration.

[bemildred]

19. And I'm totally OK with throwing every one of them out of office, if they still hold office.

Stopping the sort of stupidity the Bushites were engaged in is exactly what we elect them to do for us.

[pnwmom]

8. Why should it? Trump supported the Iraq war.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/05/05/16-times-media-let-trump-falsely-claim-he-opposed-iraq-war-beginning/210246

Donald Trump did not oppose the invasion of Iraq. Further, there’s no evidence that he’s ever been a “dove” — and a great deal that he’s been an impulsive supporter of military intervention around the world.

We know this because BuzzFeed News’ intrepid Andrew Kaczynski unearthed an audio recording of him saying he supported it. You can listen to it above. The audio quality is clear.

In the recording, made on Sept. 11, 2002, when it mattered, Howard Stern asked Trump whether he supported the invasion. His answer: “Yeah, I guess so.” On the war’s first day, he called it a “tremendous success from a military standpoint.”

It was the most recent in a series of belligerent statements about Iraq. In 2000, he opined at length in his book how U.S. airstrikes did nothing to stop Iraq’s WMD programs and said it “is madness not to carry the mission to its conclusion” in the context of a new war. He said many times in the late 1990s and early 2000s that George H.W. Bush should have toppled Saddam during the Gulf War.

[yurbud]

12. Trump is a couple of notches below a political opportunist

[Nye Bevan]

13. Since Trump supported the invasion of Iraq, no (nt)

[NCTraveler]

14. Fuck Bush. He will never be elected again. nt.

[yurbud]

15. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Condi should spend the rest of their lives in prison

[NCTraveler]

16. They did themselves in when it comes to elections.

This report will have no bearing on their futures.

[yurbud]

17. It won't, but it should.

[NCTraveler]

18. They aren't running for anything. Nt

[yurbud]

20. is that good enough for you?

[NCTraveler]

21. Yes, the fact they aren't running gives me peace of mind.

Including the fact the country just told the Bush family to fuck of in epic fashion.

[yurbud]

22. Guatemala put murderous leaders on trial and in prison. Are we a less mature democracy than that?

We can't handle our leaders being accountable before the law when their lies result in a war that wasted trillions of dollars, killed hundreds of thousands, and still has deadly consequences today?

[NCTraveler]

23. "Are we a less mature democracy than that?"

I have not studied Guatemalan government. Don't have a good answer for you there. In all honesty, the question amounts to a hill of beans.

"We can't handle our leaders being accountable before the law when their lies result in a war that wasted trillions of dollars, killed hundreds of thousands, and still has deadly consequences today?"

We actually have. Not in the manner you and I would like.

Saddam put murderous leaders on trial, put them in prison, and even murdered them in the streets. Stand up guy there.

I no longer do these false arguments on du. Have a wonderful day.

[yurbud]

24. we put people in prison for following Bush orders to torture and even for leaking ABOUT Bush torture

accountability shouldn't just be for servants of power.

[NCTraveler]

25. "accountability shouldn't just be for servants of power."

No comment of mine that you will find on this board goes against that.

[yurbud]

28. I'm glad to hear it.

[chknltl]

26. IMO, 2 further things regarding Saddam:

1. Saddam was no martyr. This was best later demonstrated by him being found in a covered hole in the ground. Martyrs lead from the front, durring Gulf War 1 Sadam did no leading, he only issued orders from his bunkers. Saddam knew that if he loosed any WMD at anyone outside of Iraq (after Gulf War I), he would be signing his own death warrant....he would have needed to be a martyr to have done so.

2. Prior to Gulf War 1 Saddam believed he could make the upcomming war one between Muslim and infidels. He expected Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and etc. to side with him as allies. It did not work out that way. He later even tried shooting SCUDS at Isreal in an attempt to get them to retaliate militarily. His idea was to make his Muslim neighbors drop their support for the coalition forces.
So prior to Gulf War II, Saddam knew he would be alone against the world should he use WMD in any way shape or form outside of his borders.

I would argue that the very last thing Saddam wanted found anywhere in Iraq was an actual WMD because it would have been all the excuse Bush and Cheney needed to invade his country yet again-a country he knew could not defwnd him.

[yurbud]

27. you don't go to all the work to become absolute dictator of a country just to get yourself and

your country burned off the map.

[chknltl]

30. Unless you are a zealot, a nut or a martyr

There was no evidence that Saddam was any of the above. Prior to Gulf War 2 this was well known. Many tried arguing against going to war using this point in their arguments-i was one who did so too. The inspectors confirmed what we knew, there were no WMD under Saddam's control in Iraq.

We knew damn well that we were being lied into a needless war. For this reason many if not most of us wanted to see impeachment hearings be initiated against President Bush. I lost a lot of respect for some of my Democratic Party as well as many of my fellow DUers durring the weeks directly after Madam Speaker Pelosi took impeachment off the table.

The world as a whole gets it: America was the bad guy in this case....still is being the bad guy over there.

[villager]

29. This would require an American public that both reads, and thinks. nt

[yurbud]

31. What if we made a video of Grumpy Cat reading the report?

[villager]

32. As long as you only mentioned Grumpy Cat, and said nothing about "report"

...while it was going viral.