Skip to main content

Who ignored all the pre war warnings in 2002?  Those that for what ever reason, wanted us to invade Iraq, no matter what.  Oil, Halliburton stock, billions to be made, if we invaded.  That stock sure did jump once we invaded Iraq.

What about Iraq, after we leave?  Isn't that going to be a problem?  Not for President Bush or Cheney.    And so, now we live the "Warnings that were clear, back in 2002"

In 2002, prior to our invasion, many qualified, smart, reasoned people tried to explain to then President, George Bush,  (Cheney) how an invasion on Iraq would be a long term disaster, with unachievable goals, and possibly create unrepairable damage within the middle east, after we leave Iraq.   And after we left Iraq, it would turn into a civil war.

"Critics of the invasion claimed that it would lead to the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians and soldiers as well as Coalition soldiers, and that it would moreover damage peace and stability throughout the region and the world."  

There was also skepticism of U.S. claims that Iraq's secular government had any links to Al-Qaeda, the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist group considered responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

We all know that the skepticism was correct. Fox News and the Bush White house, has yet to admit they were wrong, and ignored the experts.  They will not admit they were wrong.  They will also dodge any blame for the current events in Iraq.

Chances are they will get away with it, and we won't find any major media reviewing the actual history of who was warned, and when.

The Opposition to going into war with Iraq was huge.   Originally, 82% of the country was against us going into a war with Iraq, and were ignored by the media.  The 11% of approval came from the war cheerleaders at Fox News, who have a lot of blame for the constant bombardment of "Pre-War" anticipation and cheer leading.  It was like they knew exactly when we were going to get into a war, and they ramped up the pro war propaganda machine.  Fox News managed to get half the country into favoring of us invading Iraq about two weeks prior to us starting this war.  Their main reason was "Saddam attacked us on 9-11"   Fox News has erased this part of history.

The opposition to the war manifested itself most visibly in a series of worldwide protests against the Iraq War during February 2003, just before the invasion of Iraq starting on March 20, 2003. Alternative news website said:

    "Poll results available from Gallup International, as well as local sources for most of Europe, West and East, showed that support for a war carried out "unilaterally by America and its allies" did not rise above 11 percent in any country. Support for a war if mandated by the UN ranged from 13 percent (Spain) to 51 percent (Netherlands)" (From The Wiki peeps)

And here is the reason for this history lesson.  Experts tried to explain to President Bush/ Cheney that an attack on Iraq would only give Al-Qaeda a huge boost to its recruiting efforts, and after we leave Iraq, there would be increased risk that the real weapons of mass destruction would end up in the hands of terrorists.

"There was also criticism of Coalition policy by those who did not believe that military actions would help to fight terror, with some believing that it would actually help Al-Qaeda's recruitment efforts; others believed that the war and immediate post-war period would lead to a greatly increased risk that weapons of mass destruction would fall into the wrong hands (including Al-Qaeda)."

More info on very qualified people begging our President's Bush/Cheney NOT to attack Iraq.

On July 28, 2002, eight months before the invasion of Iraq, the Washington Post reported that "many senior U.S. military officers" including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff opposed an invasion on the grounds that the policy of containment was working.[7]

A few days later, Gen. Joseph P. Hoar (Ret.) warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the invasion was risky and perhaps unnecessary.

Morton Halperin, a foreign policy expert with the Council on Foreign Relations and Center for American Progress warned that an invasion would increase the terrorist threat.[8]

In a 2002 book, Scott Ritter, a Nuclear Weapons Inspector in Iraq from 1991–98, argued against an invasion and expressed doubts about the Bush Administration’s claims that Saddam Hussein had a WMD capability.[9] He later accused the Bush administration of deliberately misleading the public.

My point.  In 2002 Fox News and the Bush / Cheney team went forward with our attacking Iraq.   Fox News did not broadcast the opinion's of those who tried to explain that if we did attack Iraq, at some point, we would have to end that war and leave, and once we were gone, Iraq would fall into a crisis or a civil war.  

We are possibly at that point now, and this is when Fox News, the President's Bush and Cheney and all of those who ignored the warnings of a post -war Iraq, and the potential for a disaster, need to be called out.  

We all know, President Obama will be set up, by those at Fox News, and possibly CNN as somehow being "his fault" there is the exact crisis in Iraq that was clearly explained to then President Cheney, & Bush.  ( I have always felt Bush was a complete idiot, and had zero chance of being in charge or anything, other than finger painting, and Cheney was calling the shots.)  

So, I feel it's time for the real history lesson, on exactly who warned who, back in 2002.

I would imagine Rachel Maddow would do some info on this history lesson, before those larger networks and stations start to shape this into "How could Obama let this happen to us narrative"

Or, possibly on The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell ?

Or possibly on "All In with Chris Hayes "

Those are my fav show's.  

I understand this is a crude, limited, and incomplete diary, but it just never ceases to amaze me how Fox News simply get's away with omitting history.  I hope someone at the tv machine company has some video from 2002 to show.  

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Cheney/Bush wars were a a disaster on purpose; in (7+ / 0-)

    Chaos you can steal.

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:08:09 AM PDT

  •  Will Obama be able to resist the call to send (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    in air-strikes and more escalation?  Syria and Iranian involvement?  

    Will Obama be able to get out of office without more war?

    Moar War!  The siren call of the very wise people (not).

    the dog you have, is the dog you need. - Cesar Millan

    by OregonWetDog on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:14:32 AM PDT

    •  "Won't Rule Anything Out" (0+ / 0-)

      Just seeing it on CNN.

      Often this statement is a signal to some foreign government, but in this case I doubt there's a recipient in Iraq who's terribly concerned about what we might rule in at this point.

      The statement is probably for domestic consumption only.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:36:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Iran Is Already Supporting Maliki's Defense Of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Baghdad. And they've pledged more soldiers.

      Apparently the Iraqi deserters are Sunnis who sympathize with the Sunni fighters invading from Syria.

      If Iran is on the ground there, allied with Iraq, I say Thank Goodness. Let the Shia and the Sunni hack each other to bits.

      Obama's insistence on negotiations with Iran was critically smart. No matter what's going on in Iraq (or what McWar and the other neo-cons say about it), I think it's more dangerous for the U.S. to be diverted from the on-going degeneration of Pakistan.

    •  Yes -- Maddow did a history lesson, back to '75 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Be sure to watch Maddow 6/12 on Vietnam '75 and Iraq '14.

      Very insightful.  Don't let the GOP start the war anew.

  •  Remember what Cap'n Mal Reynolds once said: (5+ / 0-)

    "Half of writing history is hiding the truth."

    I'll bet Roger Ailes has that quote hanging in his office.

    For my own safety, I had to assume you were a bad guy with a gun. Sorry.

    by here4tehbeer on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:27:07 AM PDT

    •  What They're Far Too Little Credited For: (3+ / 0-)

      Half of both of those things happens in the original moment.

      I was struck from the very beginning of the Admin or let's say, shortly after once they realized they needed to restate everything Reagan said as soon as he said it: every message appeared to be aimed as much at the history books as at domestic immediate consumption. Often it seemed they were tossing aside the consequences of a message in the short term, to be sure it was in the record books for future use.

      I'm not satisfied we've seen the last of the purposes of that.

      It's probably the creepiest thing about that Admin in my memory.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:40:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Juan Cole, before the war: (4+ / 0-)
    As a result of resentment against this neocolonialism, the likelihood is that al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations will find it easier to recruit angry young men in the region and in Europe for terrorist operations against the US and its interests. The final defeat of the Baath Party will be seen as a defeat of its ideals, which include secularism, improved rights for women and high modernism. Arabs in despair of these projects are likely to turn to radical Islam as an alternative outlet for their frustrations. The Sunnis of Iraq could well turn to groups like al-Qaida, having lost the ideals of the Baath. Iraqi Shi’ites might become easier to recruit into Khomeinism of the Iranian sort, and become a bulwark for the shaky regime in Shi’ite Iran.

    A post-war Iraq may well be riven with factionalism that impedes the development of a well-ensconced new government.

    Those who support an Iraq war argue that the potential negative fall-out consists of improbable scenarios that are no more likely to come to fruition than did the dire forecasts about overthrown Arab regimes in 1990. They argue that if we can get a genuinely democratic, modern Iraq out of the war, its beneficial effects will radiate throughout the region. They may be right. But it is worth remembering that we were promised a democratic Kuwait in 1991 and a democratic, stable Afghanistan in 2002, and have yet to see either.

    "Trust me... I've been right before." ~ Tea party patriot

    by Calvino Partigiani on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:29:41 AM PDT

  •  "New Strategy Vindicates Ex-Army Chief Shinseki" (3+ / 0-)

    New York Times

    Published: January 12, 2007

    WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 — After President Bush told the nation on Wednesday night that he was ordering a rapid increase of American forces in Iraq, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki was not among the retired officers to offer instant analysis on television.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:49:51 AM PDT

  •  I used to repost (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    this article from march 2003 annually at the now defunct POAC forums.

    But others involved in the oil industry say the Pentagon's indifference to the names of the bases was poorly considered. "You have this atmosphere of suspicion and apprehension now, and that's just among your allies," Jan Stuart, head of research for global energy futures at ABN Amro , the Dutch investment bank, said. "And in this atmosphere, you call your own supply effort this. It's mind-boggling the degree of insensitivity. There is little doubt the Americans will win the war, but you have to wonder how people who are so insensitive are going to win the peace."

    222 house republicans support the Ryan budget that would convert Medicare to a premium-support program. In other words, they want to repeal Medicare and replace it with a system that works just like Obamacare.

    by happymisanthropy on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 01:11:28 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site