Haven't we heard this before?

[Gunny]

All the evidence, before and after the invasion, indicated that Saddam had complied with the program he agreed to. UN inspectors in the run up to the invasion found no evidence of the weapons programs claimed by Chimpy and Co, and would likely have found none, even had they not been ordered out of Iraq by the Bush administration. That was borne out by the utter lack of any credible evidence reconstituted weapons programs after the invasion.

Indeed, the invasion was a flawless operation, except that there were not enough troops to secure Iraqi Army facilities as they passed them by. As a result, the Iraqi irregulars were able to loot these facilities to supply their nascent insurgency. Chimpy and Rummy ignored General Shinseki's, and others, warning that "several hundred thousand" troops would be required to not only win the war, but to secure the peace.

And yes, the hands of our troops were tied, but not in the way you are asserting. They were tied by the Administration who failed to send in the numbers of troops required to secure the peace and seal the borders. Our troops were hampered by administrators in Iraq who were appointed more for their political ties than the core competencies needed to rebuild Iraq and secure the peace.

Failing to hold the Administration accountable for these, and their many other failures and frauds in Iraq, is disingenuous..at best. At worst, it is willful ignorance of the kind most commonly found in the families of alcoholics where the enablers deny the reality at hand in order to maintain the peace and their own delicate internal equilibrium which reality constantly threatens to shatter.

Why hold the administration accountable for going to war based on a premise most of the world believed? You probably did too, unless you decided not to just because Bush said it was so.

You willfully ignore the facts of who and what Saddam Hussein was every time you launch into one of your anti-Bush diatribes on the topic.

And you needn't be too overly-concerned in regard to holding Bush "accountable" for what you perceive he did wrong. Twenty years and four presidents down the line form now you'll be some crotchety old fuck posting anti-Bush shit on message boards.

 

[manu1959]

i do not understand the logic of this.....is the argument since bush lied we should withdraw?

what if i can prove bush did not lie, there were wmds and 911 was not an inside job....will you support the troops and the war then?

 

[manu1959]

all the manipulated Intel said Saddam had wmbs all the real Intel said he didn't the invasion was planned years earlier in the pnac plan ,and 911 was the false flag operation used to put the plan into action ,911 was an inside job

was wtcI an inside job? the cole?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Why hold the administration accountable for going to war based on a premise most of the world believed? You probably did too, unless you decided not to just because Bush said it was so.

You willfully ignore the facts of who and what Saddam Hussein was every time you launch into one of your anti-Bush diatribes on the topic.

And you needn't be too overly-concerned in regard to holding Bush "accountable" for what you perceive he did wrong. Twenty years and four presidents down the line form now you'll be some crotchety old fuck posting anti-Bush shit on message boards.

Because most of the world DIDN'T believe the premise.