Like Him Or Hate Him...Romney DEAD ON...2007...IRAQ

[KNB]

Bush and Cheney lied to invade Iraq, which as was pointed out, had nothing to do with 9/11.

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein
Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction
U.S. Intelligence and Iraq WMD
The Record on CURVEBALL
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/IraqWarPart1-Timeline.pdf
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I:*The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART II: Was There Even a Decision?
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART III: Shaping the Debate
The Torture Archive

Afghanistan: Lessons from the Last War

 

[MACAULAY]

Psychic Republicans. Be afraid, liberals! Be very afraid!

Cheney in 1994 on Iraq - YouTube

...............................................

I thank you for this remembrance of Cheney, and he was a smart man, and a man with guts, a real American...and he probably got it right in what he said then. Everybody ought to watch that tape of Cheney talking about what to do about Iraq in 1994.

And, I wish someone with more expertise and energy and youth than me would take up the project of collecting the Liberal Media Conniption that followed Cheney's comments. He and Bush I were called fools for not taking out the dangerous psychopathic Saddam Hussein when all we had to do was chase a thoroughly defeated, very cowardly army Army out of Baghdad.

The Liberal Press eviscerated them. I was, and am, convinced, that if Bush II made an error in judgment in invading Iraq to take down a psychopathic Saddam Hussein by chasing a thoroughly defeated and cowardly Army out of Baghdad...it was prompted in part by the memory of the HELL the Liberal Press gave Bush I for not doing the exact same thing.

But between the two decisions that each Bush had to make over the same issue, there was one small fact to be considered...the vicious attack on New York City by psychopaths who actually constitute young Saddam Husseins.

It is an interesting phenomenon how Party Fervor can confuse things. I am down in the Mississippi, and still angrier about what happened in New York and more fearful that it will happen to New York again...apparently than folks in New York.

The next attack may well be a dirty bomb. Do you think they will waste it on Mississippi.

Cheney and the Bushes fought the good fight as they saw the light to fight it.

Was the Liberal Media going to second guess them no matter what they did?

Hell Yes.

Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attack on 9/11. Let me REPEAT that again.

Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attack on 9/11.

---------------------------------

Sir: Try to relax...it is just a political discussion.

Artificial boundarys drawn up after WWI that made one part of a Demented Culture be named Syria and another part named Iraq and another Yemen etc. etc...has nothing do with the Psychopathology of Islam....which we came to dread after the vicious and devastating attack on New York.

Maybe we made some mistakes in learning to fight a new kind of war...a war against a Stateless enemy. Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats made some mistakes learning to fight a guerrilla war in Vietnam.

In any event, my point was that the Liberal Media attacked the Bushes viciously when they DIDN'T take out Saddam, and then attacked them just as viciously when they DID. Do you want address that head on? Or bob and weave some more?

 

[jillian]

We made a terrible mistake in not electing Romney when we had the chance. He can think ahead.

neocon loons and their perpetual unnecessary war machine.

here's the REAL reality... WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN THERE

 

[JakeStarkey]

But who cares?

The neo-cons want world war III to enrich the petro companies.

 

[Political Junky]

McCain, Graham and their fans would love to go to war anywhere today.

 

[JakeStarkey]

MACAULAY completely misreads what the "liberal" media about Iraq.

Bad intelligence accepted by Bush and forced onto the Dems led to the worst foreign policy mistake in American history.

If Romney were president, we would have more of our troops in harms' way and getting killed for nothing. I thought he was going to end the war despite what he was obviously saying, that he would keep the troops there.

Let the sunnis and shia fight each other in front of Baghdad for twenty years while we continue develop energy independence.

 

[Katzndogz]

Holy shit, Romney is a political moron. Most people with a functioning brain knew long before 2007 what was going to happen in Iraq after allied forces pulled out. Those sectarian/tribal lunatics are back to doing what they've always done. Toppling Saddam was a very, very stupid thing to do. Saddam kept the lid on that cesspool of religious lunatics.

Obama didn't seem to know.

Really? He was against the Iraq invasion.

Wasn't he "present"?

 

[Dirk the Daring]

MACAULAY completely misreads what the "liberal" media about Iraq.

Bad intelligence accepted by Bush and forced onto the Dems led to the worst foreign policy mistake in American history.

If Romney were president, we would have more of our troops in harms' way and getting killed for nothing. I thought he was going to end the war despite what he was obviously saying, that he would keep the troops there.

Let the sunnis and shia fight each other in front of Baghdad for twenty years while we continue develop energy independence.

'Forced onto the Dems...'

Delusional.

 

[KNB]

MACAULAY completely misreads what the "liberal" media about Iraq.

Bad intelligence accepted by Bush and forced onto the Dems led to the worst foreign policy mistake in American history.

If Romney were president, we would have more of our troops in harms' way and getting killed for nothing. I thought he was going to end the war despite what he was obviously saying, that he would keep the troops there.

Let the sunnis and shia fight each other in front of Baghdad for twenty years while we continue develop energy independence.

'Forced onto the Dems...'

Delusional.

In a way, yes, the lies were forced on all of us with terror alert gay rainbow color charts, extremely convenient domestic anthrax attacks, constant "liberal" media propaganda pounding the war drums by replaying every conceivable angle of the second tower getting hit, and outright lies about Nigeria, aluminum tubes, WMD, smoking guns and mushroom clouds.

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein
Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction
U.S. Intelligence and Iraq WMD
The Record on CURVEBALL
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/IraqWarPart1-Timeline.pdf
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I:*The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART II: Was There Even a Decision?
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART III: Shaping the Debate
The Torture Archive

Afghanistan: Lessons from the Last War

 

[Dirk the Daring]

MACAULAY completely misreads what the "liberal" media about Iraq.

Bad intelligence accepted by Bush and forced onto the Dems led to the worst foreign policy mistake in American history.

If Romney were president, we would have more of our troops in harms' way and getting killed for nothing. I thought he was going to end the war despite what he was obviously saying, that he would keep the troops there.

Let the sunnis and shia fight each other in front of Baghdad for twenty years while we continue develop energy independence.

'Forced onto the Dems...'

Delusional.

In a way, yes, the lies were forced on all of us with terror alert gay rainbow color charts, extremely convenient domestic anthrax attacks, constant "liberal" media propaganda pounding the war drums by replaying every conceivable angle of the second tower getting hit, and outright lies about Nigeria, aluminum tubes, WMD, smoking guns and mushroom clouds.

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein
Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction
U.S. Intelligence and Iraq WMD
The Record on CURVEBALL
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB326/IraqWarPart1-Timeline.pdf
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART I:*The U.S. Prepares for Conflict, 2001
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART II: Was There Even a Decision?
THE IRAQ WAR -- PART III: Shaping the Debate
The Torture Archive

Afghanistan: Lessons from the Last War

Um no. In no way actually.

 

[Bfgrn]

...............................................

I thank you for this remembrance of Cheney, and he was a smart man, and a man with guts, a real American...and he probably got it right in what he said then. Everybody ought to watch that tape of Cheney talking about what to do about Iraq in 1994.

And, I wish someone with more expertise and energy and youth than me would take up the project of collecting the Liberal Media Conniption that followed Cheney's comments. He and Bush I were called fools for not taking out the dangerous psychopathic Saddam Hussein when all we had to do was chase a thoroughly defeated, very cowardly army Army out of Baghdad.

The Liberal Press eviscerated them. I was, and am, convinced, that if Bush II made an error in judgment in invading Iraq to take down a psychopathic Saddam Hussein by chasing a thoroughly defeated and cowardly Army out of Baghdad...it was prompted in part by the memory of the HELL the Liberal Press gave Bush I for not doing the exact same thing.

But between the two decisions that each Bush had to make over the same issue, there was one small fact to be considered...the vicious attack on New York City by psychopaths who actually constitute young Saddam Husseins.

It is an interesting phenomenon how Party Fervor can confuse things. I am down in the Mississippi, and still angrier about what happened in New York and more fearful that it will happen to New York again...apparently than folks in New York.

The next attack may well be a dirty bomb. Do you think they will waste it on Mississippi.

Cheney and the Bushes fought the good fight as they saw the light to fight it.

Was the Liberal Media going to second guess them no matter what they did?

Hell Yes.

Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attack on 9/11. Let me REPEAT that again.

Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attack on 9/11.

---------------------------------

Sir: Try to relax...it is just a political discussion.

Artificial boundarys drawn up after WWI that made one part of a Demented Culture be named Syria and another part named Iraq and another Yemen etc. etc...has nothing do with the Psychopathology of Islam....which we came to dread after the vicious and devastating attack on New York.

Maybe we made some mistakes in learning to fight a new kind of war...a war against a Stateless enemy. Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats made some mistakes learning to fight a guerrilla war in Vietnam.

In any event, my point was that the Liberal Media attacked the Bushes viciously when they DIDN'T take out Saddam, and then attacked them just as viciously when they DID. Do you want address that head on? Or bob and weave some more?

There is no liberal media. We have a corporate media who asked ZERO questions in the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

AGAIN...Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attack on 9/11.

What we NOW know from G.W. Bush's first Treasury Secretary, the invasion of Iraq was discussed 10 days into the administration.

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq - CBS News

going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."

 

[Contumacious]

Holy shit, Romney is a political moron. Most people with a functioning brain knew long before 2007 what was going to happen in Iraq after allied forces pulled out. Those sectarian/tribal lunatics are back to doing what they've always done. Toppling Saddam was a very, very stupid thing to do. Saddam kept the lid on that cesspool of religious lunatics.

That is true. Saddam was a general scumbag. But he was NOT a muslin fanatic, women had far more rights than they do now. He never allowed AQ to infiltrate Iraq.

.

 

[MACAULAY]

Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attack on 9/11. Let me REPEAT that again.

Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attack on 9/11.

---------------------------------

Sir: Try to relax...it is just a political discussion.

Artificial boundarys drawn up after WWI that made one part of a Demented Culture be named Syria and another part named Iraq and another Yemen etc. etc...has nothing do with the Psychopathology of Islam....which we came to dread after the vicious and devastating attack on New York.

Maybe we made some mistakes in learning to fight a new kind of war...a war against a Stateless enemy. Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats made some mistakes learning to fight a guerrilla war in Vietnam.

In any event, my point was that the Liberal Media attacked the Bushes viciously when they DIDN'T take out Saddam, and then attacked them just as viciously when they DID. Do you want address that head on? Or bob and weave some more?

There is no liberal media. We have a corporate media who asked ZERO questions in the run up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

AGAIN...Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attack on 9/11.

What we NOW know from G.W. Bush's first Treasury Secretary, the invasion of Iraq was discussed 10 days into the administration.

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq - CBS News

going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."

------------------------------

If you are going to response to me, it seems that you would respond to the issue I raised. Makes sense doesn't it?

Why the Liberal Media raised Hell against the Bushes when they didn't take Saddam out, and then raised just as much Hell against them when they did take him out. That happened.

If you are not going to address that, I think you ought to start your own thread.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Mitt Romney Predicted What’s Happening In Iraq Now In 2007

Just as Romeny was correct regarding RUSSIA in which he was laughed at by OBAMA on stage...

My...MY...

Romney In 2007 Predicts What Is Happening In Iraq With Specifics - YouTube

Obama BOTS?

What have YOU to say for Obama making prophecy come true?

FAILURE be Obama's Name...and ALL that support his sorry ass.

So what's your point? That Bush fucked up by ending the prospect of the US spending trillions on a perpetual troop presence in Iraq?

And the prophecy? When have our troops gone back in, in greater numbers than before? When did that happen? I missed that.

That clip is 2007 btw. John McCain was nominated, the guy who was comfortable with idea of having troops in Iraq for the next 100 years.

You people want troops in every country there are Islamist extremists? Are you insane?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Psychic Republicans. Be afraid, liberals! Be very afraid!

Cheney in 1994 on Iraq - YouTube

...............................................

I thank you for this remembrance of Cheney, and he was a smart man, and a man with guts, a real American...and he probably got it right in what he said then. Everybody ought to watch that tape of Cheney talking about what to do about Iraq in 1994.

And, I wish someone with more expertise and energy and youth than me would take up the project of collecting the Liberal Media Conniption that followed Cheney's comments. He and Bush I were called fools for not taking out the dangerous psychopathic Saddam Hussein when all we had to do was chase a thoroughly defeated, very cowardly army Army out of Baghdad.

The Liberal Press eviscerated them. I was, and am, convinced, that if Bush II made an error in judgment in invading Iraq to take down a psychopathic Saddam Hussein by chasing a thoroughly defeated and cowardly Army out of Baghdad...it was prompted in part by the memory of the HELL the Liberal Press gave Bush I for not doing the exact same thing.

But between the two decisions that each Bush had to make over the same issue, there was one small fact to be considered...the vicious attack on New York City by psychopaths who actually constitute young Saddam Husseins.

It is an interesting phenomenon how Party Fervor can confuse things. I am down in the Mississippi, and still angrier about what happened in New York and more fearful that it will happen to New York again...apparently than folks in New York.

The next attack may well be a dirty bomb. Do you think they will waste it on Mississippi.

Cheney and the Bushes fought the good fight as they saw the light to fight it.

Was the Liberal Media going to second guess them no matter what they did?

Hell Yes.

We were attacked on 9/11 because we were meddling in affairs in the Middle East that were none of our business.

 

[Rotagilla]

Holy shit, Romney is a political moron. Most people with a functioning brain knew long before 2007 what was going to happen in Iraq after allied forces pulled out. Those sectarian/tribal lunatics are back to doing what they've always done. Toppling Saddam was a very, very stupid thing to do. Saddam kept the lid on that cesspool of religious lunatics.

...killed his own people...mutilated women's genitals...gassed women and children...

...what else could on possibly want from a leader?

He was our boy when he was killing iranians for us.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Psychic Republicans. Be afraid, liberals! Be very afraid!

Cheney in 1994 on Iraq - YouTube

...............................................

I thank you for this remembrance of Cheney, and he was a smart man, and a man with guts, a real American...and he probably got it right in what he said then. Everybody ought to watch that tape of Cheney talking about what to do about Iraq in 1994.

And, I wish someone with more expertise and energy and youth than me would take up the project of collecting the Liberal Media Conniption that followed Cheney's comments. He and Bush I were called fools for not taking out the dangerous psychopathic Saddam Hussein when all we had to do was chase a thoroughly defeated, very cowardly army Army out of Baghdad.

The Liberal Press eviscerated them. I was, and am, convinced, that if Bush II made an error in judgment in invading Iraq to take down a psychopathic Saddam Hussein by chasing a thoroughly defeated and cowardly Army out of Baghdad...it was prompted in part by the memory of the HELL the Liberal Press gave Bush I for not doing the exact same thing.

But between the two decisions that each Bush had to make over the same issue, there was one small fact to be considered...the vicious attack on New York City by psychopaths who actually constitute young Saddam Husseins.

It is an interesting phenomenon how Party Fervor can confuse things. I am down in the Mississippi, and still angrier about what happened in New York and more fearful that it will happen to New York again...apparently than folks in New York.

The next attack may well be a dirty bomb. Do you think they will waste it on Mississippi.

Cheney and the Bushes fought the good fight as they saw the light to fight it.

Was the Liberal Media going to second guess them no matter what they did?

Hell Yes.

Cheney 1992:

"... the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth?

And the answer is, not that damned many.

So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

So now you think Cheney was wrong. Now you want to return to Iraq and get bogged down in the problems of trying to govern it.

Gulf War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[LoneLaugher]

...............................................

I thank you for this remembrance of Cheney, and he was a smart man, and a man with guts, a real American...and he probably got it right in what he said then. Everybody ought to watch that tape of Cheney talking about what to do about Iraq in 1994.

And, I wish someone with more expertise and energy and youth than me would take up the project of collecting the Liberal Media Conniption that followed Cheney's comments. He and Bush I were called fools for not taking out the dangerous psychopathic Saddam Hussein when all we had to do was chase a thoroughly defeated, very cowardly army Army out of Baghdad.

The Liberal Press eviscerated them. I was, and am, convinced, that if Bush II made an error in judgment in invading Iraq to take down a psychopathic Saddam Hussein by chasing a thoroughly defeated and cowardly Army out of Baghdad...it was prompted in part by the memory of the HELL the Liberal Press gave Bush I for not doing the exact same thing.

But between the two decisions that each Bush had to make over the same issue, there was one small fact to be considered...the vicious attack on New York City by psychopaths who actually constitute young Saddam Husseins.

It is an interesting phenomenon how Party Fervor can confuse things. I am down in the Mississippi, and still angrier about what happened in New York and more fearful that it will happen to New York again...apparently than folks in New York.

The next attack may well be a dirty bomb. Do you think they will waste it on Mississippi.

Cheney and the Bushes fought the good fight as they saw the light to fight it.

Was the Liberal Media going to second guess them no matter what they did?

Hell Yes.

Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attack on 9/11. Let me REPEAT that again.

Iraq had NOTHING to do with the attack on 9/11.

---------------------------------

Sir: Try to relax...it is just a political discussion.

Artificial boundarys drawn up after WWI that made one part of a Demented Culture be named Syria and another part named Iraq and another Yemen etc. etc...has nothing do with the Psychopathology of Islam....which we came to dread after the vicious and devastating attack on New York.

Maybe we made some mistakes in learning to fight a new kind of war...a war against a Stateless enemy. Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats made some mistakes learning to fight a guerrilla war in Vietnam.

In any event, my point was that the Liberal Media attacked the Bushes viciously when they DIDN'T take out Saddam, and then attacked them just as viciously when they DID. Do you want address that head on? Or bob and weave some more?

Liberal media........my ass.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Was Romney right in 2002?

 

[Kosh]

I see the far left is still pushing their debunked propaganda.