Reddit reviews Plan of Attack: The Definitive Account of the Decision to Invade Iraq

yeah,but unlike your stupid bullshit, i can cite my assertion.

so do you really think bob woodward, the recipient for basically every single journalism award in the country, made that up?(see: plan of attack, p. 269) i don't think so, and neither did the house of saud who removed him from his position as saudi ambassador to the us because they thought he was too close to us officials.

your ignorance and arrogance is not allowing you to see one very substantial if not total reason for the invasion of iraq, because you're too fucking dumb to think it through.

pplus you waste my and everyone else's time with your stupidity.

What? Bush borrowed more money than all other presidents before him combined. No matter who came after him, be they republican or democrat, they would have had a massive mess to clean up.

China became our banker under Bush. And he had no contingency plan if anything went wrong.

Don't forget the Downing St. memos and other excuses to put us into Iraq. Bush and Cheney stated that they wanted to go into Iraq well before 911. How is this known? They asked the man (Bob Woodward) who blew the cover on Watergate to cover the White House and he documented this.

Get the book. Read it. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743255488/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=1416558977&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0W1DR98FJFCQVEC51S02

http://www.amazon.com/War-Within-Secret-History-2006-2008/dp/1416558977

Ha ha that's fresh considering Clinton had to handle the clean-up of Bush's war and he managed to keep Saddam in check for 8 years without putting any boots on the ground.

What I am referring to is far different than potential plans --- read this book if you want to learn some details -- I read it a few years back and it was eye-opening.

I'd suggest Drift for general discussion of the military and society. Plan of Attack provides pretty phenomenal inside reporting on the decision to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

It was manufactured by people in Bush's cabinet. The larger intelligence community wasn't telling them what they wanted to hear, and so Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bolton, etc. created their own little organization that pumped out and gave credibility to a false narrative.

Here's a book by Bob Woodward that covers this in much more depth:
https://www.amazon.com/Plan-Attack-Definitive-Account-Decision/dp/0743255488/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1482953017&sr=8-7&keywords=bob+woodward

>My point about it being bipartisan was that both sides of the isle looked at the same intelligence and had the same conclusion.

Sure but the administration fabricated that evidence. People in the administration, including Powell, did the whole road show on the news media to convince the people in favor of war- Powell himself stating that Saddam was "trash" and "waiting to be picked up". As Secretary of State, he holds responsibility.

>if it was manufactured if was probably manufactured by our intelligence community and not Powell.

I think you and I disagree in that I want to hold our leaders accountable whereas you think the blame can just be shifted to someone else.

>before the invasion, there were numerous reports from domestic security agencies that failed to bring up any evidence of WMD along

I have no idea who you think you are talking about but this simply isn't the case. Objections were occasionally voiced to this or that piece of evidence, but no one was saying there were not WMD.

>there was no one in the U.S government top branches who also had access to these reports who seriously believed there were WMD being developed or produced in Iraq.

again, this is completely false. The top administration officials absolutely believed that there were WMDs.

>and still doesn't matter to the government whether they're supporting a dictator or not if it meets their geopolitical goals. wh

the geopolitical goal in question was to replace the nastiest dictator in the middle east with an arabic democracy to drain the swamp of terrorism. there are literally dozens of books about the bush administration that discuss these things, you should try reading some of them.

Maybe because in the years following the invasion, no evidence was found to support the administration's main justifications for the war: namely, Iraq was engaging in large-scale manufacture of biological/nuclear WMDs and Saddam Hussein had ties to Osama bin Laden and the 9-11 attacks?

Or maybe because of the numerous revelations in the years since that indicate Bush was determined to go to war with Iraq and was seeking an excuse to justify it?

This happened pretty recently - it was in all the papers. Maybe read a book or two and educate yourself?

15 years later, Saddam is still dead, and Iraq is the only arab democracy, and those are the two things the war was fought for, somehting which is clear to anyone who has bothered to read about the bush administration. Anyone claiming a lack of clarity simply hasn't bothered to do even the most basic research on the subject. Additional research makes it clear that the war resulted in fewer deaths than Saddam's regime was killing. Anyone repeating the much debunked claim that the administration lied is, at this point, willfully spreading ignorance.

These questions were once debatable, but that time is long passed. they've entered the realm of verifiable history, and this piece seems to be written by someone trapped in 2006.