Do Republicans regret their Iraq fiasco?

[zeke]

You forget that the Iraq action passed because democrats supported it too

You forgot to mention what heroes those stupid Democrats are to the Republican party. They (Dems) gave you assholes who supported the war, political cover. Someone you could point to (like you do all the time) and say, see, those Democrats voted for it to. Cause they believed the same bullshit we Republicans did.

Doesn't say much for the Republicans when you need those Dems to give you cover. Of course there were 9 Republicans who voted AGAINST invading Iraq. How come you don't celebrate them? Is it because you still think invading Iraq was a good idea? Then you should really like those Democrats.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Bush won the Iraq war in May 2003. It was the Democrats who messed it up

No, actually Obama successfully ended the Iraq war, before he fucked it up. Also if you can read that banner says mission accomplished, meaning that crews mission was accomplished. It doesn't say we won the war. Why do you want to use our soldiers accomplishment for political points. The way you counted soldiers deaths till Obama became president.

It says the crews mission was accomplished? I guess it was convenient that Bush's podium was placed in front of it. Somethings just happen it seems

If they were celebrating the crews mission being accomplished, why didn't Bush mention it in his speech?

Because he was saying this:

Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

 

[deltex1]

You forget that the Iraq action passed because democrats supported it too

You forgot to mention what heroes those stupid Democrats are to the Republican party. They (Dems) gave you assholes who supported the war, political cover. Someone you could point to (like you do all the time) and say, see, those Democrats voted for it to. Cause they believed the same bullshit we Republicans did.

Doesn't say much for the Republicans when you need those Dems to give you cover. Of course there were 9 Republicans who voted AGAINST invading Iraq. How come you don't celebrate them? Is it because you still think invading Iraq was a good idea? Then you should really like those Democrats.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz for Zeke.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bush won the Iraq war in May 2003. It was the Democrats who messed it up

No, actually Obama successfully ended the Iraq war, before he fucked it up. Also if you can read that banner says mission accomplished, meaning that crews mission was accomplished. It doesn't say we won the war. Why do you want to use our soldiers accomplishment for political points. The way you counted soldiers deaths till Obama became president.

It says the crews mission was accomplished? I guess it was convenient that Bush's podium was placed in front of it. Somethings just happen it seems

If they were celebrating the crews mission being accomplished, why didn't Bush mention it in his speech?

Because he was saying this:

Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

Right, and then Obama withdrew all the troops so he could declare victory, spike the football and turn the Middle East over to his brothers in Jihad: the JV Team and somehow that's Bush's fault

 

[jknowgood]

Rdean, wishes saddam was still in power torturing and murdering his people. What a caring liberal.

Watch, ,now as he bends his argument to have it both ways.

Really? We had no reason to invade Iraq. I would take a stable Iraq over this unstable mess Bush created, in a heart beat. And there wasn't any weapons of mass destruction. So where are we supposed to go with this bullsh*t?

Obama successfully ended the Iraq war, remember? Iraq is now Obama's doings.

 

[Iceweasel]

Obama didn't lose Iraq. Bush did. Bush lost it because he didn't give the Iraqi people the jobs rebuilding their own country.

I couldn't stop laughing after that.

 

[jknowgood]

TA 10855321

he fired everyone in the pentagon with experience,

He did? When did that happen? Name some names. Obama kept Gates and Petraeus just to name a couple.

The same Petraeus that liberals once called a traitor? That's probably why Obama kept him on, but fired him when he found out he wasn't.

 

[jknowgood]

Bush won the Iraq war in May 2003. It was the Democrats who messed it up

No, actually Obama successfully ended the Iraq war, before he fucked it up. Also if you can read that banner says mission accomplished, meaning that crews mission was accomplished. It doesn't say we won the war. Why do you want to use our soldiers accomplishment for political points. The way you counted soldiers deaths till Obama became president.

It says the crews mission was accomplished? I guess it was convenient that Bush's podium was placed in front of it. Somethings just happen it seems

If they were celebrating the crews mission being accomplished, why didn't Bush mention it in his speech?

Because he was saying this:

Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

And Obama said he ended a successful Iraq.

 

[kaz]

What was sold: Mushroom cloud

What was found: Old Mustard Gas

Result: Lie

As I said, you people keep lying that you were lied to. You even lie about the lie you were supposedly told. No one said he had nuclear weapons

 

[NotfooledbyW]

TA 10855321

he fired everyone in the pentagon with experience,

He did? When did that happen? Name some names. Obama kept Gates and Petraeus just to name a couple.

The same Petraeus that liberals once called a traitor? That's probably why Obama kept him on, but fired him when he found out he wasn't.

I didn't call Petraeus a traitor. Who are you having a discussion with? I admired Petraeus since he testified in Congress in September 2007 that the US /Bush had to negotiate with the insurgents to get out of Iraq. that was testimony in the US Senate. Petraeus was a smart general about fighting insurgencies. The liberals never caught on to that reality.

But TimothysAlaska has been proven to be spreading false information and now you have joined him in that insidious behavior. Obama did not fire Petraeus. Petraeus resigned because a personal scandal. I was sorry to see that happen. But there is no need to lie that Obama fired him. That was a stupid lie on your part.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

And Obama said he ended a successful Iraq.

No he didn't ... he added that Iraq had challenges ahead. He ended US troops dying in the war that Bush started in March 2003 to find the WMD that the inspectors were doing just fine getting at the truth that there were none there that were not accounted for and known werer there.

The Cost of Ignoring UN Inspectors: An Unnecessary War with Iraq
Posted on March 5, 2013 by Greg Thielmann

You need to read something more than the Limbaugh Letter if you read anything at all . This would be very good start:

The Cost of Ignoring UN Inspectors An Unnecessary War with Iraq

The Known “Knowns”

The IAEA and UNMOVIC inspectors provided an up-to-date, reality-based assessment of Iraq’s WMD programs before the U.S.-led invasion began. Their findings should have led to a careful reassessment of the by then out-of-date U.S. National Intelligence Estimate from October 2002 that Bush administration officials had cherry-picked to build a case for military action.

We now know that the assessments of Blix and El Baradei were correct – ten years ago, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction or active WMD programs – but we also know that Saddam Hussein retained his interest in pursuing them. Saddam’s successors in Baghdad today have neither such weapons nor the interest in developing them. These realities lead to two different narratives about the war.

Read the entire link. Of course it is facts-based information that may not be much use to you.

 

[zeke]

But TimothysAlaska has been proven to be spreading false information and now you have joined him in that insidious behavior. Obama did not fire Petraeus. Petraeus resigned because a personal scandal. I was sorry to see that happen. But there is no need to lie that Obama fired him. That was a stupid lie on your part.

Just part of the re writing of the history of the Bush administration. In a couple more years, right wingers will claim that Bush was forced to invade Iraq by the Democrats in Congress. We are almost there now.

 

[jknowgood]

TA 10855321

he fired everyone in the pentagon with experience,

He did? When did that happen? Name some names. Obama kept Gates and Petraeus just to name a couple.

The same Petraeus that liberals once called a traitor? That's probably why Obama kept him on, but fired him when he found out he wasn't.

I didn't call Petraeus a traitor. Who are you having a discussion with? I admired Petraeus since he testified in Congress in September 2007 that the US /Bush had to negotiate with the insurgents to get out of Iraq. that was testimony in the US Senate. Petraeus was a smart general about fighting insurgencies. The liberals never caught on to that reality.

But TimothysAlaska has been proven to be spreading false information and now you have joined him in that insidious behavior. Obama did not fire Petraeus. Petraeus resigned because a personal scandal. I was sorry to see that happen. But there is no need to lie that Obama fired him. That was a stupid lie on your part.

Don't remember General betreaus?

 

[jknowgood]

And Obama said he ended a successful Iraq.

No he didn't ... he added that Iraq had challenges ahead. He ended US troops dying in the war that Bush started in March 2003 to find the WMD that the inspectors were doing just fine getting at the truth that there were none there that were not accounted for and known werer there.

The Cost of Ignoring UN Inspectors: An Unnecessary War with Iraq
Posted on March 5, 2013 by Greg Thielmann

You need to read something more than the Limbaugh Letter if you read anything at all . This would be very good start:

The Cost of Ignoring UN Inspectors An Unnecessary War with Iraq

The Known “Knowns”

The IAEA and UNMOVIC inspectors provided an up-to-date, reality-based assessment of Iraq’s WMD programs before the U.S.-led invasion began. Their findings should have led to a careful reassessment of the by then out-of-date U.S. National Intelligence Estimate from October 2002 that Bush administration officials had cherry-picked to build a case for military action.

We now know that the assessments of Blix and El Baradei were correct – ten years ago, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction or active WMD programs – but we also know that Saddam Hussein retained his interest in pursuing them. Saddam’s successors in Baghdad today have neither such weapons nor the interest in developing them. These realities lead to two different narratives about the war.

Read the entire link. Of course it is facts-based information that may not be much use to you.

He said he ended the Iraq successfully.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

kaz 10857042

As I said, you people keep lying that you were lied to.

I have never claimed that Bush lied about WMD in October through November 2002. I know for a fact that Bush lied after the UN inspectors returned to Iraq in December 2002. His biggest lie had nothing to do with the 2002 NIE report on Iraq's WMD. Bush was correct to use the threat of military force in October 2002 because Iraq had not allowed UN inspectors in since 1998.


Bush claimed to have new intelligence in March 2003 that 'left no doubt' that Iraq was concealing WMD currently in March 2003 from the UN inspection teams that were there.

Looking back on the information the UN inspectors provided to the Security Council ten years ago helps confirm the validity of the second narrative. The administration’s case – plausible (if problematic) when it was first laid out in October 2002 – had, by early March 2003, been riddled with holes. Accusations that Iraq was hiding chemical weapons, producing biological weapons, and actively pursuing nuclear weapons was contradicted by the evidence gathered from the UN inspectors in the field and undermined further by the Iraqi actions being taken under the inspectors’ supervision.

If history validates and vindicates the role played by the IAEA and UNMOVIC in the Iraq WMD saga, it must also acknowledge the instrumental contribution made by the United States in backing them up with the threat of force. Indeed, Saddam Hussein is unlikely to have allowed the return of UN inspectors without both a credible threat of U.S. military force being used and a display of UN Security Council unity in demanding a full accounting. Without their return to Iraq after a four-year absence, there would have been insufficient basis for concluding that Saddam had been contained.

The Cost of Ignoring UN Inspectors An Unnecessary War with Iraq

The Cost of Ignoring UN Inspectors: An Unnecessary War with Iraq
Posted on March 5, 2013 by Greg Thielmann


Ignoring the UN Inspectors is lying too. Bush claims even today that he wanted to disarm Iraq peacefully. That goal was easily in Bush's grasp. He ignored it. He lied by omission .

 

[NotfooledbyW]

jkno 10857206

Don't remember General betreaus?

Of course I remember it. Did you call General Petraeus that?

 

[jknowgood]

jkno 10857206

Don't remember General betreaus?

Of course I remember it. Did you call General Petraeus that?

No, just liberals.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

No, just liberals.

I never did. So why are you including me with anyone else? I have always supported and admired Petraeus. Do you always just make things up about what other people think and write?

 

[Misty]

Regardless of his methods and tactics, Saddam kept those people in line over there.

You think there's be an ISIS if Saddam was still running things?

Saddam was a terrorist. I am glad he's dead. The prick. Him and his two perverted sadistic sons.

 

[jknowgood]

No, just liberals.

I never did. So why are you including me with anyone else? I have always supported and admired Petraeus. Do you always just make things up about what other people think and write?

I said you're kind, usually most liberals go with the talking points of the day.