Cheney marks 10 years pretending there was a reason to invade Iraq

[gabosaurus]

Nice article in the New Yorker. Bring your sense of humor with you. If you indeed have one.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/03/cheney-marks-tenth-anniversary-of-pretending-there-was-reason-to-invade-iraq.html

[jimnyc]

I've always hated that crappy magazine. I didn't even know they had an online version of that crap. Not surprising that people like that resort to humor though, when they can't argue with the facts.

[NightTrain]

While I'm sure you think he's every bit as witty as Bill Maher, it would seem that someone else thought he's really not - judging by that broken nose.


Next time try for a chuckle with The Onion for satire.

4710

[avatar4321]

There were countless reasons to go to war. Just because you disagree with those reasons doesn't mean they dont exist.

[Robert A Whit]

I want to say suddenly she learns something but I don't actually believe she learned a thing.

I can't blame her. As Michael Savage and millions of others have informed Democrats, their ideology is a disease of the mind.

What they believe simply is not true.

They want us to forget that Democrats were eager for combat. Based on the acts of Bill Clinton, bombing the Middle East was a great idea. Based on words, of course, they pretend they did not want to attack. But they attacked not only the ME, but took their combative ways into the Balkans, the home of WWI.

We can of course show the proof that Democrats were full partners in war with Iraq. They were speaking in favor of removing Saddam long before Bush was elected. They even passed a public law that had the mission to get rid of Saddam.

They forgot.

We did not.

[KitchenKitten99]

While I'm sure you think he's every bit as witty as Bill Maher, it would seem that someone else thought he's really not - judging by that broken nose.


Next time try for a chuckle with The Onion for satire.

4710

wow, he not only fell from the ugly tree, he hit every branch on the way down...which explains his nose. Yikes. :puke: You couldn't drink that guy good looking...

[Little-Acorn]

When I saw the title of the thread and noted the hysterical fibs, I guessed that little gabby was the poster.

And she was.

This is getting pretty easy on this forum.

[aboutime]

Oh no! Another STOOOOOOPID thread from the Queen of STOOOOPID....Gabby.

still wondering if gabby was Born that stoooopid, or if she learned to be stoooopid!

[gabosaurus]

Cheney was famous with his Weapons of Mass Deception.
I suppose we could congratulate Bush and Cheney for their ability to pull one over on the rest of us.

[Robert A Whit]

Cheney was famous with his Weapons of Mass Deception.
I suppose we could congratulate Bush and Cheney for their ability to pull one over on the rest of us.

Notice we never did see any of the weapons of mass destruction alleged by Clinton yet even he, much later than he claimed to destroy them, signed a law declaring Saddam must be removed. And he continued to bomb the, as it turns out, innocent Iraqis.

Why did Clinton and most Democrats plead with the public they supported the war Bush handed to Saddam on a silver platter?

We know the truth. It is not the story told by Democrats. They must explain the wanton bombing of Yugoslavia and they can't. Where was that Genocide? The Red Cross found nothing at all of evidence to support that whopper of a lie.

Clinton would not have kept bombing Iraq had they had no mass weapons surely?

But he kept bombing them. Bombed them till the day he left office.

For Democrats enjoyment ...


http://youtu.be/FCVZlLBchVE

[gabosaurus]

A president's war is his legacy. Clinton was just as deceptive as Bush was. Clinton got his rocks off in the Oval Office. Bush got his rocks off by starting a war.

Clinton knew an attack was coming. He had read the CIA reports and warnings from foreign agents. It was near the end of his second term, so he left it on the table.
Bush came in and ignored all the warnings. He didn't consider them "substantial." Or perhaps he knew an attack would galvanize public sentiment in favor of his plan to attack Iraq, which he had been planning since the Gulf War.
The fact that Clinton was stupid doesn't excuse the fact that Bush was stupid.

[Robert A Whit]

A president's war is his legacy. Clinton was just as deceptive as Bush was. Clinton got his rocks off in the Oval Office. Bush got his rocks off by starting a war.

Clinton knew an attack was coming. He had read the CIA reports and warnings from foreign agents. It was near the end of his second term, so he left it on the table.
Bush came in and ignored all the warnings. He didn't consider them "substantial." Or perhaps he knew an attack would galvanize public sentiment in favor of his plan to attack Iraq, which he had been planning since the Gulf War.
The fact that Clinton was stupid doesn't excuse the fact that Bush was stupid.

Out of respect for your family, why don't you let that NERD do your talking. I expect he won't say what you say.

Were you to read all the background including heavily annointed books explaining all of this, your tune would change faster than a parrots does.

I am reading Democrat spin when reading your posts. Sorry to say this but I have studied the most important books on this topic and can assure you that had those authors lied, they could not all tell the same lies. Clinton no more knew an attack was coming than did Bush. That was a total shock.

As Abe's war was his legacy as was FDRs, I agree that Bush and Clinton share the legacy for wars against the Middle East. I don't know why Clinton was so stupid as to make war on a nation with virtually no resources that was already in the process of breaking apart.

I wish Bush had not invaded Iraq and I wish he had done that war the same way he did Afghans war. Use the natives and let them bloody each other. It works. Bush however still had to deal with a public law Clinton signed declaring it official US policy to get rid of Saddam. Saddam was one evil SOB but I say help the citizens beat him. Keep our men out.

But history is and not as I might wish.

I wonder though. Why do you trust the CIA to be correct of an attack to come but not correct over WMD?

That paper handed to Bush as I studied it gave off the impression to not worry, the FBI knew all about how it might happen and was dealing with it. They did not deal with it correctly. But that is not Bush's fault.

A well known FBI agent that died on 911 in one of the twin towers was running all over till he quit the FBI pleading with the FBI to get serious. They did not. He took the job where he got killed.

But as to what got up to Clinton or Bush, none of that hair on fire stuff got to them due to the way the FBI sat on the stuff that some of the FBI knew but could not get leadership there to deal with it.

[Drummond]

There were countless reasons to go to war. Just because you disagree with those reasons doesn't mean they dont exist.:clap::clap::clap:

[avatar4321]

Cheney was famous with his Weapons of Mass Deception.
I suppose we could congratulate Bush and Cheney for their ability to pull one over on the rest of us.

Sure completely ignore anything that's been said in the thread and dont bother questioning where Syria got the chemical weapons they are using this very day.

[jafar00]

There were countless reasons to go to war. Just because you disagree with those reasons doesn't mean they dont exist.

Name 3

[avatar4321]

Name 3

1) After 9/11 we declared war on terror and every state that supports it. the Iraqi government had a policy of supportng terror.
2) The prospect of allowing WMDs to fall into the hands of terrorists was deemed unacceptable to many in the post 9/11 world. The fact that those weapons were shipped to Syria and are currently being used should tell us what kind of danger those weapons were. It's a shame we failed in that mission.
3) The liberation of Iraq from the despot Saddam Hussien who was in violation of the peace accords that ended Desert Storm.
4) To enforce UN resolutions since they lacked the power and will to do so.
5) To create a nation of allies within a region full of sworn enemies.

Not really that tought. Like I said, you might not agree wih the reasons, but that doesnt mean there are no reasons.

[gabosaurus]

1) After 9/11 we declared war on terror and every state that supports it. the Iraqi government had a policy of supportng terror.
2) The prospect of allowing WMDs to fall into the hands of terrorists was deemed unacceptable to many in the post 9/11 world. The fact that those weapons were shipped to Syria and are currently being used should tell us what kind of danger those weapons were. It's a shame we failed in that mission.
3) The liberation of Iraq from the despot Saddam Hussien who was in violation of the peace accords that ended Desert Storm.
4) To enforce UN resolutions since they lacked the power and will to do so.
5) To create a nation of allies within a region full of sworn enemies.


1 -- The Saudis supported terror and the Bushies kissed their feet. Based on the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens and financed by the Saudi government, we should have invaded them instead of Iraq.

2 -- There were no WMDS other than the totally useless relics left over from the first Gulf War. Everything else is BS.

3,4,5 -- So we selectively chose Iraq over the other violators such as Iran, Syria, Libya and various African nations. We knew the terrorists were based in Afghanistan and Pakistan, so went sent 10,000 troops there and 110,000 to Iraq.
Bush had an agenda and was going to fulfill it, no matter what.

[Kathianne]

I've always hated that crappy magazine. I didn't even know they had an online version of that crap. Not surprising that people like that resort to humor though, when they can't argue with the facts.

That was humor? Really?

[avatar4321]

1 -- The Saudis supported terror and the Bushies kissed their feet. Based on the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens and financed by the Saudi government, we should have invaded them instead of Iraq.

2 -- There were no WMDS other than the totally useless relics left over from the first Gulf War. Everything else is BS.

3,4,5 -- So we selectively chose Iraq over the other violators such as Iran, Syria, Libya and various African nations. We knew the terrorists were based in Afghanistan and Pakistan, so went sent 10,000 troops there and 110,000 to Iraq.
Bush had an agenda and was going to fulfill it, no matter what.

Again, Just because you disagree with the reasons doesn't mean there weren't any. (Im not at all sure why this is a difficult concept to understand)

[jimnyc]

1 -- The Saudis supported terror and the Bushies kissed their feet. Based on the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens and financed by the Saudi government, we should have invaded them instead of Iraq.

2 -- There were no WMDS other than the totally useless relics left over from the first Gulf War. Everything else is BS.

3,4,5 -- So we selectively chose Iraq over the other violators such as Iran, Syria, Libya and various African nations. We knew the terrorists were based in Afghanistan and Pakistan, so went sent 10,000 troops there and 110,000 to Iraq.
Bush had an agenda and was going to fulfill it, no matter what.

No other country had 12 years of failed resolutions and refusals to allow inspections, not to mention the outright games they played with them. Many countries around the world also were on this same exact page, they were all part of the coalition and all thought this was the right thing to do. But, as usual, your argument is "Bush".

And you are CLUELESS about the WMD's and simply regurgitating crap heard elsewhere. Where are the TONS of documented barrels of toxins that were ACCOUNTED FOR and tagged by inspectors in 1998? Saddam outright REFUSED to account for these. Much of it was not weaponized. That means that the shelf life is almost 25x longer than when it is weaponized. It can sit there idly until it is mixed, loaded in a warhead and used. And like I said, TONS of these weapons were accounted for and tagged by UN inspectors, only to go missing. Sorry, not a relic, and not being able to find them doesn't mean they didn't exist - because they DID exist and there was proof. Maybe Bush made the UN inspectors "fake" account for them while BlowBoy was in office in '98?

[aboutime]

1 -- The Saudis supported terror and the Bushies kissed their feet. Based on the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens and financed by the Saudi government, we should have invaded them instead of Iraq.

2 -- There were no WMDS other than the totally useless relics left over from the first Gulf War. Everything else is BS.

3,4,5 -- So we selectively chose Iraq over the other violators such as Iran, Syria, Libya and various African nations. We knew the terrorists were based in Afghanistan and Pakistan, so went sent 10,000 troops there and 110,000 to Iraq.
Bush had an agenda and was going to fulfill it, no matter what.



gabby. Your 4719, and it shows with every post you make.

[Drummond]

Name 3

You're seriously asking this ?

Well, I can think of several !

First and foremost ... and from which other reasons can spring ... there was the need to resolve, once and for all, the WMD issue. Saddam had failed to coherently answer UN Resolution 1441, which required him either to account for WMD stocks, or provide proof that he didn't have any. Saddam's response was just to DENY that he had any, necessitating the inspections which followed.

Those inspections were a farce, too useless to prove what he did or didn't have. Result .. the ONE means left to resolve this was to invade Iraq.

So there's your first reason.

Flowing from this was concern in case he did have them.

1. Would he do dodgy deals with terrorists that would allow terrorists to acquire any ?

2. Would he use any more himself ? (remember the gassing of the Kurds).

3. Would he ever develop the capability of striking at countries such as the UK, or even the US ... and even if not, how about US bases nearer to Iraq ? Or any other NATO country ?

4. If finally allowed to keep WMD's, and in the process face down world opinion and efforts to keep him in check ... this would provide proof to OTHER maverick or tinpot dictators that they could do the same. Fast-forward a few years and see such proliferations become the norm !

5. ... Not forgetting ... Saddam's regime had an abysmal human rights record. Just within Iraq .. torture chambers. Rape rooms. Remember the discoveries of the mass graves.

There you have it, Jafar. Maybe there are more reasons I've overlooked, but there it all is, reasons aplenty to justify the 2003 Iraq invasion.

There's enough there, I suggest, to make the case that if Saddam had NOT been deposed, such a failure would've constituted a crime against humanity.

[aboutime]

You're seriously asking this ?

Well, I can think of several !

First and foremost ... and from which other reasons can spring ... there was the need to resolve, once and for all, the WMD issue. Saddam had failed to coherently answer UN Resolution 1441, which required him either to account for WMD stocks, or provide proof that he didn't have any. Saddam's response was just to DENY that he had any, necessitating the inspections which followed.

Those inspections were a farce, too useless to prove what he did or didn't have. Result .. the ONE means left to resolve this was to invade Iraq.

So there's your first reason.

Flowing from this was concern in case he did have them.

1. Would he do dodgy deals with terrorists that would allow terrorists to acquire any ?

2. Would he use any more himself ? (remember the gassing of the Kurds).

3. Would he ever develop the capability of striking at countries such as the UK, or even the US ... and even if not, how about US bases nearer to Iraq ? Or any other NATO country ?

4. If finally allowed to keep WMD's, and in the process face down world opinion and efforts to keep him in check ... this would provide proof to OTHER maverick or tinpot dictators that they could do the same. Fast-forward a few years and see such proliferations become the norm !

5. ... Not forgetting ... Saddam's regime had an abysmal human rights record. Just within Iraq .. torture chambers. Rape rooms. Remember the discoveries of the mass graves.

There you have it, Jafar. Maybe there are more reasons I've overlooked, but there it all is, reasons aplenty to justify the 2003 Iraq invasion.

There's enough there, I suggest, to make the case that if Saddam had NOT been deposed, such a failure would've constituted a crime against humanity.


Sir Drummond. Jafar is much like Gabby. Both of them have made up their minds, been convinced to believe what others have told them, or taught them...while never bothering to question, or verify the Actual, Honest Facts.
Dealing with both of them is like throwing Mud up against a wall, and hoping it will stick...while they spray the wall with a hose.