The left says Bush left Obama with two useless wars.

[Black Diamond]

And yet Obama campaigned on accelerating Afghanistan and has accelerated it. I guarantee you he doesn't consider it "useless". Why doesn't the left hold Obama accountable for accelerating bush's useless war?

[jimnyc]

Obama made all kinds of claims about Gitmo, Iraq & Afghanistan while campaigning. He's an idiot.

[Thunderknuckles]

Obama made all kinds of claims about Gitmo, Iraq & Afghanistan while campaigning. He's an idiot.
I don't think it's about being an idiot. People make all kinds claims intended to resonate with the voters while campaigning. Some even truly believe in the claims they are making. However, once elected, they have to deal with reality.

[ConHog]

I don't think it's about being an idiot. People make all kinds claims intended to resonate with the voters while campaigning. Some even truly believe in the claims they are making. However, once elected, they have to deal with reality.

I concur with this, with the caveat that Obama is still an idiot.

[Thunderknuckles]

I concur with this, with the caveat that Obama is still an idiot.
:laugh:
Fair enough.

[ConHog]

:laugh:
Fair enough.

Gong for the sweep. :dance:

[Black Diamond]

Obama made all kinds of claims about Gitmo, Iraq & Afghanistan while campaigning. He's an idiot.
He is an idiot and he has broken promises. But in this instance, he kept his promise to escalate Afghanistan. The Left didn't hold his feet to the fire then, and they still don't.

[revelarts]

He is an idiot and he has broken promises. But in this instance, he kept his promise to escalate Afghanistan. The Left didn't hold his feet to the fire then, and they still don't.

most of the anti-war left were really the anti-BUSH left. But there are a few on the left that were/are serious they are still protesting all of the wars and Obama on street corners but they don't get the news and some like Cindy Sheehan And Glen Greenwald who will gripe about Obama's wars and evil deeds every chance they get, some are not protesting but are disillusioned by Obama's actions but still, will still say "He's better than a Republican", as if it maters much, like many on the right excused Bush for Busting the constitution and Growing Gov't etc "he's better than the Democrat" , Yeah Right.

[Gunny]

And yet Obama campaigned on accelerating Afghanistan and has accelerated it. I guarantee you he doesn't consider it "useless". Why doesn't the left hold Obama accountable for accelerating bush's useless war?

Obama has been blaming Bush from Day One. Yet, he'll do a complete flip-flop on the economy in the same sentence. The current state of the economy is Obama's doing.

And I have yet to check and see how many people have died in Iraq since he declared the war over. The guy's a two-faced liar, and when thngs blow up in his face, he blames the Republican House and/or Bush.

The scary thing is, all during the last Democratic primaries he lied his ass off right and left. And the loony left STILL voted for him. They're going to do it again.

[OCA]

And yet Obama campaigned on accelerating Afghanistan and has accelerated it. I guarantee you he doesn't consider it "useless". Why doesn't the left hold Obama accountable for accelerating bush's useless war?

Because getting out of Iraq and concentrating on Afghanistan was the right thing to do.

[Black Diamond]

Because getting out of Iraq and concentrating on Afghanistan was the right thing to do.
So you don't think it's a useless war?

[jimnyc]

Because getting out of Iraq and concentrating on Afghanistan was the right thing to do.

Specifically, why is/was going into Afghanistan a good idea or the "right thing to do"?

[logroller]

Specifically, why is/was going into Afghanistan a good idea or the "right thing to do"?

Afghanistan was/is the central stronghold of Al Qaida: a known terrorist group behind 9/11 and series of post coldwar terrorists acts against the US.

[OCA]

Specifically, why is/was going into Afghanistan a good idea or the "right thing to do"?

Remember 9/11? Who was responsible for 9/11 and where was their stronghold and who was protecting that stronghold?


So you don't think it's a useless war?

Nope.

Useless was Iraq.

[jimnyc]

Afghanistan was/is the central stronghold of Al Qaida: a known terrorist group behind 9/11 and series of post coldwar terrorists acts against the US.

I think I know where you stand, and myself, I was just curious as to what reasoning OCA is basing his opinion on. Many said Iraq was wrong because we shouldn't be involved in wars where we weren't in danger - and I think that would stand with Afghanistan too. If it's too root out terrorism, then Iraq had more than their share there and then some, as do many other countries. If it was about 9/11 and those terrorists, then they were almost exclusively from Saudi Arabia. But only one of the above had 12 years of failed resolutions prior to entering the country. I didn't have a problem with Iraq, nor do I with Afghanistan, but I think it's wrong to say either was better than the other.


Remember 9/11? Who was responsible for 9/11 and where was their stronghold and who was protecting that stronghold?

Bin Laden and his men were responsible, most of them from Saudi Arabia. Many holed up in Afghanistan with the Taliban. Then you also have major Al Qaeda fronts in Turkey, Syria, Pakistan, Iran...

[OCA]

I think I know where you stand, and myself, I was just curious as to what reasoning OCA is basing his opinion on. Many said Iraq was wrong because we shouldn't be involved in wars where we weren't in danger - and I think that would stand with Afghanistan too. If it's too root out terrorism, then Iraq had more than their share there and then some, as do many other countries. If it was about 9/11 and those terrorists, then they were almost exclusively from Saudi Arabia. But only one of the above had 12 years of failed resolutions prior to entering the country. I didn't have a problem with Iraq, nor do I with Afghanistan, but I think it's wrong to say either was better than the other.

Jimmy, point out 1 positive we have gained from from going into Iraq. IOW how is America a better place today for it?


Bin Laden and his men were responsible, most of them from Saudi Arabia. Many holed up in Afghanistan with the Taliban. Then you also have major Al Qaeda fronts in Turkey, Syria, Pakistan, Iran...

So IOW you think we should take on the whole M.E.?

The terrorists from 9/11 were Saudi, no doubt but they hadn't seen Saudi soil in years before that, there homeland was Afghanistan.

[jimnyc]

Jimmy, point out 1 positive we have gained from from going into Iraq. IOW how is America a better place today for it?

Saddam is dead, along with some pretty heavy players in the Al Qaeda terror group...

But your question could also apply to Afghanistan.


So IOW you think we should take on the whole M.E.?

The terrorists from 9/11 were Saudi, no doubt but they hadn't seen Saudi soil in years before that, there homeland was Afghanistan.

That's why there were 2 different fronts. We went into Iraq for one reason, and Afghanistan was about 9/11. Unrelated.

[Black Diamond]

So IOW you think we should take on the whole M.E.?

The terrorists from 9/11 were Saudi, no doubt but they hadn't seen Saudi soil in years before that, there homeland was Afghanistan.
They weren't all Saudi. Atta was from Egypt.

[OCA]

Saddam is dead, along with some pretty heavy players in the Al Qaeda terror group...

But your question could also apply to Afghanistan.

Its been proven and man I don't want to argue shit that was argued on here 7 or 8 years ago, that until we invaded there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq, Sadaam kept a pretty tight lid on extremists has he saw them as a threat to his regime.

In Afghanistan we have basically reduced the power of Al Qaeda to nothing and..............Obama did what Bush couldn't do, smoked Bin Laden.

In fact I think there is a quote where Bush said he no longer cared about getting Bin Laden, the mastermind of 9/11, thats mindblowing.


That's why there were 2 different fronts. We went into Iraq for one reason, and Afghanistan was about 9/11. Unrelated.

So.....and this ought to be great, why did we go into Iraq?


They weren't all Saudi. Atta was from Egypt.

Oh excuse me, 1 was Egyptian, and that changes what?

[jimnyc]

Its been proven and man I don't want to argue shit that was argued on here 7 or 8 years ago, that until we invaded there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq, Sadaam kept a pretty tight lid on extremists has he saw them as a threat to his regime.

In Afghanistan we have basically reduced the power of Al Qaeda to nothing and..............Obama did what Bush couldn't do, smoked Bin Laden.

In fact I think there is a quote where Bush said he no longer cared about getting Bin Laden, the mastermind of 9/11, thats mindblowing.

Don't revise history, it doesn't become you. Suffice to say, terrorism WAS in Iraq, but that wasn't the main reason we went there anyway. It was just a bonus that Al Qaeda intervened and lost a lot of their soldiers. If it weren't for GWB, Bin Laden would still be alive, and even Obama says so himself. The very men and agencies that Bush put on his tail were the same men and agencies that eventually caught up with him. And the waterboarding that Obama and his ilk don't like, perhaps played a major role in finding the scumbag.

Point being, the terrorists are like cockroaches. Any where we "shined the light" and landed in the ME, they would have scurried out for us to kill. But what you're doing, is placing 9/11 and Iraq in the same front - and that was never the reason for Iraq.


So.....and this ought to be great, why did we go into Iraq?

12 years of failed resolutions and a speech heard around the world and viewed billions of times on the 'net - and you don't know why? Whether you agree or not, the reasons were given, and 9/11 wasn't one of them.

But you still haven't answered your own question - how has the US going into Afghanistan making us safer here in the US? There is not a single reason you could give that also wasn't accomplished indirectly by being in Iraq. Dead terrorists and their supporters.

[OCA]

Don't revise history, it doesn't become you. Suffice to say, terrorism WAS in Iraq, but that wasn't the main reason we went there anyway. It was just a bonus that Al Qaeda intervened and lost a lot of their soldiers. If it weren't for GWB, Bin Laden would still be alive, and even Obama says so himself. The very men and agencies that Bush put on his tail were the same men and agencies that eventually caught up with him. And the waterboarding that Obama and his ilk don't like, perhaps played a major role in finding the scumbag.

Point being, the terrorists are like cockroaches. Any where we "shined the light" and landed in the ME, they would have scurried out for us to kill. But what you're doing, is placing 9/11 and Iraq in the same front - and that was never the reason for Iraq.

No revising of history Jimmy, there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq pre invasion.

Again, what was the reason given for invading Iraq? Well the original reason, it changed about once a month there for a while.

No, GWB is not responsible in any, way, shape or form for getting Bin Laden, he basically ignored Afghanistan after getting his ass mired in Iraq.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Q0Lf-iLXs

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0406/p99s01-duts.html

[Black Diamond]

Oh excuse me, 1 was Egyptian, and that changes what?
It makes your statement incorrect, for one thing.

[OCA]

12 years of failed resolutions and a speech heard around the world and viewed billions of times on the 'net - and you don't know why? Whether you agree or not, the reasons were given, and 9/11 wasn't one of them.

But you still haven't answered your own question - how has the US going into Afghanistan making us safer here in the US? There is not a single reason you could give that also wasn't accomplished indirectly by being in Iraq. Dead terrorists and their supporters.

Al Qaeda basically dismantled, that could only be achieved in Afghanistan, that has made America safer.

The resolutions weren't the first reason! Come on, you can say it, I know you can! Its 3 letters and starts with a "W".:laugh2:

[jimnyc]

No revising of history Jimmy, there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq pre invasion.

Again, what was the reason given for invading Iraq? Well the original reason, it changed about once a month there for a while.

No, GWB is not responsible in any, way, shape or form for getting Bin Laden, he basically ignored Afghanistan after getting his ass mired in Iraq.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5Q0Lf-iLXs

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0406/p99s01-duts.html

And I can post a shitload that say otherwise. But one thing we know for sure is that terrorists were there, and many of them have since been eliminated, even if they weren't a reason for going into Iraq. As for what reason we went into Iraq, thats never changed, other than from pundits and internet tough guys. But the reasoning behind the failed resolutions and reasons for entering Iraq remained the same. Read the resolutions. Read GWB's speech to the nation.

As for Bin Laden, yes, Bush helped, whether you want to admit that or not doesn't matter. Were the CIA and military ever called off of the chase? Nope. It continued the entire time and transitioned from one administration to another. MUCH of the intel gained during Bush's term is what was ultimately caught OBL. Afghanistan was never ignored and your rhetoric won't change that.

[Black Diamond]

Al Qaeda basically dismantled, that could only be achieved in Afghanistan, that has made America safer.

The resolutions weren't the first reason! Come on, you can say it, I know you can! Its 3 letters and starts with a "W".:laugh2:
Why occupy Afghanistan? And why stay there until 2024?

[jimnyc]

Al Qaeda basically dismantled, that could only be achieved in Afghanistan, that has made America safer.

The resolutions weren't the first reason! Come on, you can say it, I know you can! Its 3 letters and starts with a "W".:laugh2:

MANY Al Qaeda members have been killed in Iraq, Pakistan and other places. Hell, OBL himself was out of Afghanistan since 2004! Al Qaeda is all over the ME.

And for the reasons, again, READ. Your rhetoric won't change the facts that existed from 1991-2003.

[Black Diamond]

Why do many on the left say bush left us with the useless war in Afghanistan but say nothing of Obama escalating it?

[OCA]

MANY Al Qaeda members have been killed in Iraq, Pakistan and other places. Hell, OBL himself was out of Afghanistan since 2004! Al Qaeda is all over the ME.

And for the reasons, again, READ. Your rhetoric won't change the facts that existed from 1991-2003.

Jimmy, are you not willing to say what the real reason stated for going into Iraq was? It ain't rhetoric.


Why do many on the left say bush left us with the useless war in Afghanistan but say nothing of Obama escalating it?

Because escalating it was the right thing to do.

[Black Diamond]

Because escalating it was the right thing to do.
That doesn't answer the question.

[jimnyc]

OCA, you simply don't care about the reasons and are more interested in "placing blame". Allow me to prove that. Specifically, tell me what was wrong within this speech...


Good evening. Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7 1/2 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the cease-fire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decadelong war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The U.N. Security Council voted 15 to 0 to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the U.N.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then, at the last possible moment, that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the U.N. that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing U.N. resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the U.N. weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to U.N. Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors.

Here are some of the particulars:

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though U.N. resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM report concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act, and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can cripple the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam: If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt, if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

[OCA]

OCA, you simply don't care about the reasons and are more interested in "placing blame". Allow me to prove that. Specifically, tell me what was wrong within this speech...

How many WMD found in Iraq?

[jimnyc]

How many WMD found in Iraq?

Does looking back on mistakes make the reasoning wrong after the fact too? What is wrong with the speech? Is that it, just the WMD's being believed to be there?

[OCA]

That doesn't answer the question.

Sure it does, next?

[Black Diamond]

Sure it does, next?
Kirky, is that you?

[OCA]

Does looking back on mistakes make the reasoning wrong after the fact too? What is wrong with the speech? Is that it, just the WMD's being believed to be there?

Given all the bullshit "mistakes" that they supposedly made in coming to the WMD conclusion and the forging of docs and the Plame case I have to believe that speech is largely hyperbole.

I believe that they planned on going into Iraq long before 9/11 happened, just needed to figure out a reason is all.

Intelligence does not get things as wrong as they supposedly got things in Iraq, it simply doesn't happen on that large of a scale.

They were fixing the intel.


Kirky, is that you?

Anything of substance other than the crying about the left?

I mean we can start the conversation about inconsistencies on the right too if you'd like.

Or are you a partisan hack(RSR) and believe the right does no wrong?

[Black Diamond]

So the left says bush left us with two useless wars because escalating afghanistan was the right thing to do. Paulie Numbnuts will hopefully explain.

[jimnyc]

Given all the bullshit "mistakes" that they supposedly made in coming to the WMD conclusion and the forging of docs and the Plame case I have to believe that speech is largely hyperbole.

I believe that they planned on going into Iraq long before 9/11 happened, just needed to figure out a reason is all.

Intelligence does not get things as wrong as they supposedly got things in Iraq, it simply doesn't happen on that large of a scale.

They were fixing the intel.

Well, they must have started cooking the intel with a different president, and a different congress, and a different time - because that speech is from 1998 and was delivered to the nation in 1998. The reasons are eerily consistent to that being told to us by GWB and the intel world throughout 2002/3 when we entered Iraq. Unless of course you think Bush somehow had Clinton in his pocket too.

Only proves that you don't read, for one, as you would have seen it wasn't Bush. And secondly, proves that the reasons given in 2003 remained consistent from the early 90's till we went in.

[OCA]

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_09/Iraquraniumchronology

[Black Diamond]

Anything of substance other than the crying about the left?

I mean we can start the conversation about inconsistencies on the right too if you'd like.

Or are you a partisan hack(RSR) and believe the right does no wrong?
The right is full of inconsistencies. Iraq was a mistake. I piss both sides of the political spectrum off.

[OCA]

Well, they must have started cooking the intel with a different president, and a different congress, and a different time - because that speech is from 1998 and was delivered to the nation in 1998. The reasons are eerily consistent to that being told to us by GWB and the intel world throughout 2002/3 when we entered Iraq. Unless of course you think Bush somehow had Clinton in his pocket too.

Only proves that you don't read, for one, as you would have seen it wasn't Bush. And secondly, proves that the reasons given in 2003 remained consistent from the early 90's till we went in.

Sure that speech is from Bubba, he is in on it too.

[Gunny]

Kirky, is that you?

He's about as bad.

[jimnyc]

Sure that speech is from Bubba, he is in on it too.

:big fucking rolling eyes smiley that we don't have here on DP:

[OCA]

The right is full of inconsistencies. Iraq was a mistake. I piss both sides of the political spectrum off.

Iraq was a huge mistake and here is the biggest one: ok we went in, the cow is out of the barn so we should do it right, right?

No, we invade, capture Sadaam and then proceed to nationbuild(something W said he wasn't for) and all the while our guys get slaughtered in a sectarian civil war which we should've never been involved in in the first place.


:big fucking rolling eyes smiley that we don't have here on DP:

So let me see if I have this straight: after all the fuckups, and there were countless dozens, you still believe everything was on the up and up?


He's about as bad.

Bad meaning?

Anything to add today Gunny? Anything of substance or you gonna troll this thread too?

[Gunny]

Given all the bullshit "mistakes" that they supposedly made in coming to the WMD conclusion and the forging of docs and the Plame case I have to believe that speech is largely hyperbole.

I believe that they planned on going into Iraq long before 9/11 happened, just needed to figure out a reason is all.

Intelligence does not get things as wrong as they supposedly got things in Iraq, it simply doesn't happen on that large of a scale.

They were fixing the intel.

What mistakes were those? You mean we KNOW Saddam had WMDs because we sold him the dual use precursors to them and the CIA taight him to manufacture them? Well, besides THOSE facts ....

They didn't have it wrong in Iraq. The anit-Bush smear machine had it wrong. That would include YOU.

You're right. The intel ISN'T that wrong. Clinton sat on his ass while we stewed on the border while Saddam fired at our planes, and hampered US security inpectors for 8 years. Want to blame Iraq on someone? Blame it on Bill Clinton. He regularly turned a blind eye to Saddam violating both a UN mandate and a cease fire agreement with the US.

Try taking your little bS story to a leftwingnut board where they'll believe the propaganda.


http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_09/Iraquraniumchronology

No sale. Try again. Are you some DU spy, or what? You're singing their song, for sure.


Bad meaning?

Anything to add today Gunny? Anything of substance or you gonna troll this thread too?

Yeah. You're full of shit, as usual. If all you've got is your insults to sling, I suggest you take them to the Cage where they belong and try in THIS thread to get some facts straight. I doubt it's much in question who the foul-mouthed troll is. You just can't take what you try to dish out.

And don't mistake me for you other "buddy". I'll take you in the cage and spank you so bad you'll be crying in your little skirt.

So how about YOU add something. You know, based on fact and truth. So far, you're running a straight "zero".

[ConHog]

How many WMD found in Iraq?

Same as how many Osama Bin Laden's found in Afghanistan? Oh , that's right he/they hauled ass out of the country when we showed up.

Now deny that Saadam used WMD against his own people in the early 1990s.

[Black Diamond]

Iraq was a huge mistake and here is the biggest one: ok we went in, the cow is out of the barn so we should do it right, right?

No, we invade, capture Sadaam and then proceed to nationbuild(something W said he wasn't for) and all the while our guys get slaughtered in a sectarian civil war which we should've never been involved in in the first place.
So why does the left make excuses for Obama escalating a war they claim to be useless?

[jimnyc]

Sure that speech is from Bubba, he is in on it too.

He worked with the Bush administration to cook the intel, it was all some big plot behind multiple administrations, congresses, CIA and other intel leaders as well as all the security committees? That's a LONG list of people needing to have been involved in one hell of a plot. And yet, with all of the wisdom in the world, and all the plotting in the world, someone forgot to just simply plant a "wmd" somewhere? Years and years and years of planning, they seize control of the country, but they couldn't simply place something, anywhere in Iraq that would have put the entire thing to rest? Maybe that part of the conspiracy got dropped while the transition of the administrations was occurring!

You can't read one simple speech to the end. But then demand to know "why" we went into Iraq. Like I said, you had no desire to know the storied history and the reasons why, you're just looking for ammo so you can place blame. You want to blame Clinton & GWB of cooking the intel, and have us believe Obama is a hero. Tsk, Tsk.

[logroller]

He worked with the Bush administration to cook the intel, it was all some big plot behind multiple administrations, congresses, CIA and other intel leaders as well as all the security committees? That's a LONG list of people needing to have been involved in one hell of a plot. And yet, with all of the wisdom in the world, and all the plotting in the world, someone forgot to just simply plant a "wmd" somewhere? Years and years and years of planning, they seize control of the country, but they couldn't simply place something, anywhere in Iraq that would have put the entire thing to rest? Maybe that part of the conspiracy got dropped while the transition of the administrations was occurring!

You can't read one simple speech to the end. But then demand to know "why" we went into Iraq. Like I said, you had no desire to know the storied history and the reasons why, you're just looking for ammo so you can place blame. You want to blame Clinton & GWB of cooking the intel, and have us believe Obama is a hero. Tsk, Tsk.

Well this thread sure did take turn down the conspiracy theory path: Insert [youtube illuminati video here]

On a serious note, I do place some blame on GH Bush. He shoulda kicked Saddam out of Iraq circa 1991.

[jimnyc]

Well this thread sure did take turn down the conspiracy theory path: Insert [youtube illuminati video here]

On a serious note, I do place some blame on GH Bush. He shoulda kicked Saddam out of Iraq circa 1991.

Been having this same argument since 2003! LOL

But yep, I agree, he should have been taken care of way back when. Lots of mistakes and bad calls if you look back throughout the years.

[ConHog]

Been having this same argument since 2003! LOL

But yep, I agree, he should have been taken care of way back when. Lots of mistakes and bad calls if you look back throughout the years.

He should have been BIn Ladened in 03 instead of another invasion.

[OCA]

What mistakes were those? You mean we KNOW Saddam had WMDs because we sold him the dual use precursors to them and the CIA taight him to manufacture them? Well, besides THOSE facts ....They didn't have it wrong in Iraq. The anit-Bush smear machine had it wrong. That would include YOU. You're right. The intel ISN'T that wrong. Clinton sat on his ass while we stewed on the border while Saddam fired at our planes, and hampered US security inpectors for 8 years. Want to blame Iraq on someone? Blame it on Bill Clinton. He regularly turned a blind eye to Saddam violating both a UN mandate and a cease fire agreement with the US.Try taking your little bS story to a leftwingnut board where they'll believe the propaganda.No sale. Try again. Are you some DU spy, or what? You're singing their song, for sure.Yeah. You're full of shit, as usual. If all you've got is your insults to sling, I suggest you take them to the Cage where they belong and try in THIS thread to get some facts straight. I doubt it's much in question who the foul-mouthed troll is. You just can't take what you try to dish out.And don't mistake me for you other "buddy". I'll take you in the cage and spank you so bad you'll be crying in your little skirt. So how about YOU add something. You know, based on fact and truth. So far, you're running a straight "zero".Fuck you Gunsel, post some links drunk, your opinions are worth exactly shit.


Same as how many Osama Bin Laden's found in Afghanistan? Oh , that's right he/they hauled ass out of the country when we showed up.Now deny that Saadam used WMD against his own people in the early 1990s.Doesn't matter Connie, not our dog. If that was the case we should've finished the job in Gulf I.Fact:WMD was the reason given for the invasion, as of Feb.16, 2012 no WMD found in Iraq.


He worked with the Bush administration to cook the intel, it was all some big plot behind multiple administrations, congresses, CIA and other intel leaders as well as all the security committees? That's a LONG list of people needing to have been involved in one hell of a plot. And yet, with all of the wisdom in the world, and all the plotting in the world, someone forgot to just simply plant a "wmd" somewhere? Years and years and years of planning, they seize control of the country, but they couldn't simply place something, anywhere in Iraq that would have put the entire thing to rest? Maybe that part of the conspiracy got dropped while the transition of the administrations was occurring! You can't read one simple speech to the end. But then demand to know "why" we went into Iraq. Like I said, you had no desire to know the storied history and the reasons why, you're just looking for ammo so you can place blame. You want to blame Clinton & GWB of cooking the intel, and have us believe Obama is a hero. Tsk, Tsk.It was all bullshit Jimmy, you and I both know it.Sad, how many Americans died in vain.


Been having this same argument since 2003! LOLBut yep, I agree, he should have been taken care of way back when. Lots of mistakes and bad calls if you look back throughout the years.Especially trying to nation build on cooked intel in 2003.


What mistakes were those? You mean we KNOW Saddam had WMDs because we sold him the dual use precursors to them and the CIA taight him to manufacture them? Well, besides THOSE facts ....They didn't have it wrong in Iraq. The anit-Bush smear machine had it wrong. That would include YOU. You're right. The intel ISN'T that wrong. Clinton sat on his ass while we stewed on the border while Saddam fired at our planes, and hampered US security inpectors for 8 years. Want to blame Iraq on someone? Blame it on Bill Clinton. He regularly turned a blind eye to Saddam violating both a UN mandate and a cease fire agreement with the US.Try taking your little bS story to a leftwingnut board where they'll believe the propaganda.No sale. Try again. Are you some DU spy, or what? You're singing their song, for sure.Yeah. You're full of shit, as usual. If all you've got is your insults to sling, I suggest you take them to the Cage where they belong and try in THIS thread to get some facts straight. I doubt it's much in question who the foul-mouthed troll is. You just can't take what you try to dish out.And don't mistake me for you other "buddy". I'll take you in the cage and spank you so bad you'll be crying in your little skirt. So how about YOU add something. You know, based on fact and truth. So far, you're running a straight "zero".I gotta reply to this drunken rant again.You are serious Gunsel? Those things I posted are facts, unargueable facts. Hell even the right acknowledges it.Quit trolling, very unbecoming of staff.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_from_Congress_regarding_Downing_Street_memo

[Gunny]

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_from_Congress_regarding_Downing_Street_memo

You done proving you don't know what you're talking about, or what? Your biggest mistake is thinking you are actually my peer. My 1st grade boy is your peer. ANd he's more intelligent and knowledgable. He doesn't buy leftwingnut propaganda.

You don't fool anyone but yourself.

[OCA]

You done proving you don't know what you're talking about, or what? Your biggest mistake is thinking you are actually my peer. My 1st grade boy is your peer. ANd he's more intelligent and knowledgable. He doesn't buy leftwingnut propaganda.

You don't fool anyone but yourself.

You have nothing left but trolls..................you used to be so good, what happened? The booze?

[Gunny]

You have nothing left but trolls..................you used to be so good, what happened? The booze?

I'll tell you again ...

Either bring an argument backed by REAL facts and REAL truth ....or go home.

You want to try and take me on personally, feel free tot ake to the cage. I'll rip your sorry ass up one side and down the other. The fact is, the biggest troll on this board is YOU. All you do is start shit with people. Guess you picked the wrong one this time. You troll, then the facts get laid on you and you start insulting.

So either insult me where it's allowed or shut the f*ck up. Either way, you ply with some facts in THIS thread and you insult in the Cage. Those are the rules of the board.

[OCA]

I'll tell you again ...

Either bring an argument backed by REAL facts and REAL truth ....or go home.

You want to try and take me on personally, feel free tot ake to the cage. I'll rip your sorry ass up one side and down the other. The fact is, the biggest troll on this board is YOU. All you do is start shit with people. Guess you picked the wrong one this time. You troll, then the facts get laid on you and you start insulting.

So either insult me where it's allowed or shut the f*ck up. Either way, you ply with some facts in THIS thread and you insult in the Cage. Those are the rules of the board.

You are allowed to flame but I can't flame you? Is that how it is Gunsel?

Blah blah blah...........you couldn't tell a fact from your ass. Go back and reread the thread clown, its filled with facts.

Thats your M.O., when you can't refute anything you just scream "LEFTWING" "TROLL" in order to deflect from the facy you ain't got shit.

Pathetic.

[Gunny]

You are allowed to flame but I can't flame you? Is that how it is Gunsel?

Blah blah blah...........you couldn't tell a fact from your ass. Go back and reread the thread clown, its filled with facts.

Thats your M.O., when you can't refute anything you just scream "LEFTWING" "TROLL" in order to deflect from the facy you ain't got shit.

Pathetic.

Wah. Please wipe your tears from my screen. I told you to take it to the Cage. More than once. Apparently you ain't got the balls to do anything but derail and ruin a thread.

You call me pathetic when you don't have any balls, pussy Greek? Grow a set and take it where it goes and quit pasting your Desitin all over the rest of this board to soothe the fit of your pampers.

[OCA]

Wah. Please wipe your tears from my screen. I told you to take it to the Cage. More than once. Apparently you ain't got the balls to do anything but derail and ruin a thread.

You call me pathetic when you don't have any balls, pussy Greek? Grow a set and take it where it goes and quit pasting your Desitin all over the rest of this board to soothe the fit of your pampers.

Gunny, Gunny, Gunny.................go back and read your first post to me in this thread, you flamed the shit out of me in a thread where there was decent conversation taking forth.

Accept the blame like a man but know that your behavior is very unbecoming of a staff member.

[ConHog]

Wah. Please wipe your tears from my screen. I told you to take it to the Cage. More than once. Apparently you ain't got the balls to do anything but derail and ruin a thread.

You call me pathetic when you don't have any balls, pussy Greek? Grow a set and take it where it goes and quit pasting your Desitin all over the rest of this board to soothe the fit of your pampers.

Will you please stop derailing threads? Thanks.

[ConHog]

Fuck you Gunsel, post some links drunk, your opinions are worth exactly shit.

Doesn't matter Connie, not our dog. If that was the case we should've finished the job in Gulf I.Fact:WMD was the reason given for the invasion, as of Feb.16, 2012 no WMD found in Iraq.

It was all bullshit Jimmy, you and I both know it.Sad, how many Americans died in vain.

Especially trying to nation build on cooked intel in 2003.

I gotta reply to this drunken rant again.You are serious Gunsel? Those things I posted are facts, unargueable facts. Hell even the right acknowledges it.Quit trolling, very unbecoming of staff.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_from_Congress_regarding_Downing_Street_memo

OCA my OPINION is that Bush wanted revenge for what Saadam did to his daddy back in the day (remember the alleged hired assassin?) and the WMD was the flimsiest of excuses to do so, BUT that asshole at least at one time had chemical WMDs of that we are certain.

[OCA]

OCA my OPINION is that Bush wanted revenge for what Saadam did to his daddy back in the day (remember the alleged hired assassin?) and the WMD was the flimsiest of excuses to do so, BUT that asshole at least at one time had chemical WMDs of that we are certain.

Again, something we agree on. I believe wholeheartedly that that is the major reason behind it, they coopted Bubba to get in on it.

[ConHog]

Again, something we agree on. I believe wholeheartedly that that is the major reason behind it, they coopted Bubba to get in on it.

So you don't believe we should have taken care of Saadam? I disagree with the method we used, but I agree with getting rid of him.

[OCA]

So you don't believe we should have taken care of Saadam? I disagree with the method we used, but I agree with getting rid of him.

Getting rid of Sadaam was good and it was bad. Yeah he was a real bastard to his own people but believe it or not he was a stabilizing force in the M.E., he didn't let any of that religious sectarian bullshit take place under his watch, it was his way or the wood chipper.


My whole beef with Gulf II is ok, yeah the reasons we gave were complete bullshit but we went and if we are gonna go lets go gung ho balls out, we didn't and alot of people died needlessly.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/interviews/bremer.html
Example:

We had Fallujah surrounded in 2004, had all the bad guys in there for the mother of all battles, Bremer is more concerned about not fucking up an upcoming election so he pressures the POTUS and he orders the troops to pull back...........the rest is history, alot of people got smoked by the insurgency that formed up from those idiots in Fallujah.

We could've finished it right there.

[WayInstain]

Getting rid of Sadaam was good and it was bad. Yeah he was a real bastard to his own people but believe it or not he was a stabilizing force in the M.E., he didn't let any of that religious sectarian bullshit take place under his watch, it was his way or the wood chipper.


My whole beef with Gulf II is ok, yeah the reasons we gave were complete bullshit but we went and if we are gonna go lets go gung ho balls out, we didn't and alot of people died needlessly.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/interviews/bremer.html
Example:

We had Fallujah surrounded in 2004, had all the bad guys in there for the mother of all battles, Bremer is more concerned about not fucking up an upcoming election so he pressures the POTUS and he orders the troops to pull back...........the rest is history, alot of people got smoked by the insurgency that formed up from those idiots in Fallujah.

We could've finished it right there.

True dat. That city should have burned to the fucking ground. Or at least have some b-2s and 52s do some old school carpet bombing runs just for nostalgia.

[OCA]

Our problem is we still have a hangover militarily from Vietnam. We are so afraid of killing some innocents(collateral damage) that we will risk our soldiers' lives in order to save a few civilians.

Did FDR worry about that shit around 42-45? Hell no! If you live for instance near a munitions factory on the Rhine river well that was tough shit............you died.

[ConHog]

Getting rid of Sadaam was good and it was bad. Yeah he was a real bastard to his own people but believe it or not he was a stabilizing force in the M.E., he didn't let any of that religious sectarian bullshit take place under his watch, it was his way or the wood chipper.


My whole beef with Gulf II is ok, yeah the reasons we gave were complete bullshit but we went and if we are gonna go lets go gung ho balls out, we didn't and alot of people died needlessly.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/yeariniraq/interviews/bremer.html
Example:

We had Fallujah surrounded in 2004, had all the bad guys in there for the mother of all battles, Bremer is more concerned about not fucking up an upcoming election so he pressures the POTUS and he orders the troops to pull back...........the rest is history, alot of people got smoked by the insurgency that formed up from those idiots in Fallujah.

We could've finished it right there.

See, I believe we should have sent a SpecOp team and just assassinated Sadaam and his idiot sons, no need to invade.

[logroller]

See, I believe we should have sent a SpecOp team and just assassinated Sadaam and his idiot sons, no need to invade.
Sadly, assassinations aren't US policy... not enough paperwork.:salute:

[logroller]

Our problem is we still have a hangover militarily from Vietnam. We are so afraid of killing some innocents(collateral damage) that we will risk our soldiers' lives in order to save a few civilians.

Did FDR worry about that shit around 42-45? Hell no! If you live for instance near a munitions factory on the Rhine river well that was tough shit............you died.
The were pretty badass back then; How about Churchill, that guy was ruthless-- big fan of fire-bombing. My favorite quote of his, "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it." :clap:

[CSM]

Our problem is we still have a hangover militarily from Vietnam. We are so afraid of killing some innocents(collateral damage) that we will risk our soldiers' lives in order to save a few civilians.

Did FDR worry about that shit around 42-45? Hell no! If you live for instance near a munitions factory on the Rhine river well that was tough shit............you died.

Just an observation: It isn't the military that became sensitive to collateral damage. They worry about it now because the civilian overseers of our military have made minimumization of collateral damage a priority over all other considerations in planning and executing military operations. Our civilian leadership would rather see US military personal suffer the consequences of war than see our enemies inconvenienced.

[Gunny]

Well this thread sure did take turn down the conspiracy theory path: Insert [youtube illuminati video here]

On a serious note, I do place some blame on GH Bush. He shoulda kicked Saddam out of Iraq circa 1991.

Disagree. Bush could NOT kick Saddam out in 91. It amazes me what gets lost in the sauce, or people don't know about the 1st Gulf War.

In return for a promise to push Saddam out of Kuwait but NOT pursue him or his regime into Iraq, the US/coalition forces got:

* Unrestricted use of ALL Arab airspace.

* An airbase in Saudi Arabia

* An airbase in Bahrain

BOTH which were crucial to the ease of which we took Saddam out. Otherwise, we would have been restricted to attacking Kuwait/Iraq solely by flying over Kuwait from the sea. Iraq was not approachable any other way without flying over another Arab nation's airspace.

The left just has managed to try and erase that significant part of the situation from history. Bush completed the mission he agreed to and set out to do: Kick Saddam out of Kuwait.

If ANYONE is to blame, it's Bill Clinton who did his best to do nothing about Saddam for 8 years. Saddam shot at our planes regularly. Encroached on the no-fly zone any time he was in the mood. And racked up 50-something violations of UN resolutions. Hampering UN weapons inspectors not the least.

[revelarts]

For what it's worth rewind a bit


What mistakes were those? You mean we KNOW Saddam had WMDs because we sold him the dual use precursors to them and the CIA taught him to manufacture them? Well, besides THOSE facts ....

They didn't have it wrong in Iraq. The anit-Bush smear machine had it wrong. That would include YOU.
....

So how about YOU add something. You know, based on fact and truth. So far, you're running a straight "zero".


Been having this same argument since 2003! LOL

But yep, I agree, he should have been taken care of way back when. Lots of mistakes and bad calls if you look back throughout the years.

Some people always wnat to reference 1986- 1998 evidence of WMD's for a war in Started 2003 when there was no evidence to justify a war.

Hans Blix March 2003
...Nevertheless, intelligence agencies have expressed the view that proscribed programs have continued or restarted in this period. It is further contended that proscribed programs and items are located in underground facilities, as I mentioned, and that proscribed items are being moved around Iraq. The working document does contain suggestions on how these concerns may be tackled.

Mr. President, let me conclude by telling you that UNMOVIC is currently drafting the work program which Resolution 1284 requires us to submit this month. It will obviously contain our proposed list of key remaining disarmament tasks. It will describe the reinforced system of ongoing monitoring and verification that the council has asked us to implement.

It will also describe the various subsystems which constitute the program; for instance, for aerial surveillance, for information from governments and suppliers, for sampling, for the checking of road traffic, etc.

How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can -- cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament, and at any rate verification of it, cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude induced by continued outside pressure, it will still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons and draw conclusions. It will not take years, nor weeks, but months.

Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programs. "




Gen Powells Chief of Staff has Publicly Stated he and Powell were lied to by People controlled by Bush Cheny and Rumsfeld.
Officails in Britian Admit they where instructed to "sex up" the intel. LIE.

details and even MORE proof posted here

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?31220-Iraq-war-the-Intel-was-Cooked-on-purpose

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?29618-My-My-It-Seems-Wikileaks-Also-Show-That-All-Those-Intelligence-Agencies-Were-Right