President Obama: 487 documented examples of his lying, lawbreaking, corruption & cronyism!

[Spare_change]

Free 10382951

Do you understand that I could do as you have done and list how many have died in combat in Afghanistan after Obama's surge? But that is war

Operation Enduring Freedom was a legitmate war based upon our inherent right to self defense in response to the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks on our soil.

Iraq was a war of Bush's choice whether to let peaceful WMD disarmament continue for a few more months or to invade and occupy to disarm Iraq through violent means instead. Bush made the wrong choice.

The deaths of our troops in Iraq are not comparable for your arguments purposes because the circumstances for starting the two separate wars were ethically so distant.

I opposed Bush's decision to force inspectors out of Iraq and launch a ground invasion.


I supported Bush's decision to respond to the 9/11 terrorist attack by sending troops into Afghanistan. I never stopped supporting our military operations there and I of course supported Obama tripling the number of troops there because it had to be done after five years if Bush focus on his quagmire in Iraq. Had Bush stuck with NATO and finishing the war in Afghanistan it would have gone better In sure. But he did invade Iraq and neglect Afghanistan.

Of COURSE you didn't support the Iraq war --- nobody did NOW.

Amazing how that works --- I guess hindsight really IS 20/20.

You have failed completely to consider the geopolitical situation at that point in time ... you have also failed to consider that up to 70% (depending on the month) were in favor of going into Iraq, or that the Congressional votes were about 69% in the House, and over 70% in the Senate. We won't even discuss the vote in the United Nations in support of the resolution there.

I would maintain that the only thing wrong with going into Iraq is that the new administration lost sight of what the overall goal was, and instead, opted for a short-term solution - kicking the can down the road (as we can see now with the rise of ISIS). The Obama administration developed myopia and didn't listen/absorb/understand what they were told by their military advisers. Rather than considering long-term ramifications, they chose the 'photo op' solution. Frankly, all the heavy lifting had been done in Iraq, and that was the first step toward a Middle East solution.

As we can see today, Obama's action was a serious misjudgment.

While it's true that more than 70% were in favor of the Iraq war; it's my belief that number was that high based on the conditions set forth by the Bush administration to the public, which mostly turned out to be false. Most notably, Iraq stockpiling WMD and the ties to Al-Qaeda. Had America known the truth, I'm certain support would have been a fraction of what it was.

I'm still waiting for those polls.

I suppose, now, you're going to claim that there was a deliberate and orchestrated attempt to mislead the public. Is that where you are going next?

Don't bother --- it's just plain silly.

 

[Spare_change]

SC 10384688

1) It's really convenient, and comforting, to blame Bush for the war in Iraq, as if it were some personal canard of the president.

Who made the decision that the UN inspections from November 2002 through March 17, 2003 would not lead to enforcement of all relevant UNSC Resolutions in Iraq? If not Bush, Whom?

Ask it again -- I'm not sure what you're asking.

 

[DriftingSand]

Obama had four Americans killed? Wow, Bush had over 3,000 killed when he sent them to Iraq to stir up business for his friends.

Then they started getting creative:

On January 2, 2008, Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth died in Iraq after being electrocuted by his shower. It was, according to the medical reports, a slow and painful death. The water pump was not grounded and, when it shorted, the electricity flowed through the pipes and water to kill Sgt. Maseth.

This is not an uncommon event in Iraq and Afghanistan where hundreds have experienced shocks and at least twelve have died in showers built by Haliburton subsidiary, KBR. Haliburton and KBR “won” the no-bid contracts for troop support in the two war zones under the Bush administration. Coincidentally, then-Vice President Cheney was the former CEO of Haliburton but these are two surely unrelated facts.

Addicting Info 8211 Military Contractor Gets Away With Electrocuting American Soldier In Iraq

Far more men died in Afghanistan under Obama in 4 years than died under Bush in 8. Sorry bub ... your savior is a failure.

 

[Faun]

Of COURSE you didn't support the Iraq war --- nobody did NOW.

I marched in the protest (in DC) against the proposed invasion of Iraq because I believed, as the majority of Americans did, that Bush needed to let the inspectors complete the peaceful disarmament process because Iraq was cooperating as it had never done before. There was a chance for peaceful disarmament to work. It would be dumb as Obama said to start another war that would harm the military effort in Afghanistan.


Is it your view that no Americans objected to the proposed invasion of Iraq in favor of continuing the UN inspections?

For one thing, you're wrong when you assert every member of Congress was provided the same intel as Bush. Obviously, only select members of Congress possess the same level of clearance as the president.

Also, you mentioned Iran ... who kept Iran in check before we invaded Iraq?

You're right -- I generalized. What really happens is that the intel committees provlde sanitized briefings to Congress ... the details are redacted, but the summaries are not.

Nobody kept Iran in check --- that's why you have the problems in Syria, Libya, and Palestine. Iran has acted as the Soviet arms broker throughout that region for the past 40 years.

They redacted so much, they turned a 96 page NIE into a 28 page whitepaper. All of the ambiguities and uncertainties were stripped out. What started out as (paraphrasing) Iraq might have WMD became Iraq has WMD. Congress was duped into believing the situation was far more dire than it actually was.

As far as Iran, I disagree. Iraq played a big role in keeping Iran in check. The region was about as stable as it could have been and Iraq was Iran's biggest enemy. On a broader scale, Hussein kept Sunni's and shiite's in check.

Actually, no ... the purpose of redacting is to protect the source, or the methodology, of intel collection. The NIE typically contains all the supporting data to validate the assumption. Believe me, Congress was NOT duped. They were sufficiently briefed, and they knew exactly what the deal was --- it's just politically inconvenient to say that now.

You're right ... Iraq did play a role in keeping Iran in check, BUT .. even during the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq allowed Iran to weapons and war materials to Syria. (Iraq claimed that if weapons were going to Syria, they weren't being used against them). The only thing the I/I war accomplished was to: 1) demonstrate, again, Saddam's willingness to deploy WMD's without regard for his own people, and 2) lower the population level in the area.

Congress could not be sufficiently briefed by classified intel found in the NIE. Most of Congress could not know how thin the threat posed by the Bush administration actually was. Had they known, many more might have voted against it. My recollection was that most Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who had clearance to the NIE, voted against giving Bush the authority to use military force, even though most Democrat Senators voted for it.

As far as Iraq helping keep Iran in check and helping to "stabilize" (I use "stabilize" loosely here) the region ... what good has come from destabilizing the Middle East and making Iran the sole power in that region?

Let's revisit the situation -- -

1) Iran had just been effectively (though, nor formally) defeated by Iraq in the I/I border war.
2) Saddam had a significantly more powerful military, though Iran was being propped up by Russia.
3) Iran's power structure was in flux. There was some movement among certain factions to upset the current theocracy.
4) Iran on the east - Syria/Libya on the west. That was Iraq's position.
5) Removal of Saddam, and a US supported Iraqi government would have cut off Iran from Syria and Libya (helping to stabilize the Palestine-Israel situation - remember, Syria was the primary Hamas sponsor)
6) The Middle East wouldn't have been 'destabilized', the cards would have been reshuffled and Iraq would have become the 'big dog' - a big dog beholden to the US, and Iran would have been squeezed between two US allies.

As for your comments about Congress being briefed or not ... given the protocol for developing those briefings, it is inconceivable for them not to have been told the relevant information. The full briefing, with ALL the data, is given to the appropriate intel committee. They are also told which information will NOT be given to the full Congress. They approve that briefing. That briefing, without changes, is then presented to the Congress. If there are changes in the information (let's say, a new development), the briefing starts over and goes thru the approval process again. Short of a massive conspiracy between the intel community, the President, and the intel committee members of both houses of Congress, the real briefing is presented to the whole Congress.

As we revisit the situation, let us recall what actually took place.

Iraq became the rally cry to attract terrorists. It gave birth to groups like Al-Qaeda in Iraq and ISIS. It turned a six month war into a nine year war. It destabilized the area. It made Iran the super power in the region. And while Iran had perused nuclear technology for decades, it wasn't until around 2002-2003 they pushed their nuclear program into overdrive, leading us to where we are today with them being close to nuclear weapons.

And again, in regards to the NIE... we agree most of Congress did not have access to the classified NIE, therefore, they could not possibly reach conclusions as those who did, based on the same evidence. Much of what they had to go on were based on what they were told by the administration -- which turned out to be false.

And again, in the Senate, most Democrats with the proper clearance voted against it; whereas most other Democrats voted for it. That indicates to me that those with access to the full NIE had better information to work with to make a better qualified decision.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

While it's true that more than 70% were in favor of the Iraq war; it's my belief that number was that high based on the conditions set forth by the Bush administration to the public, which mostly turned out to be false. Most notably, Iraq stockpiling WMD and the ties to Al-Qaeda.

My view is that it was pure outright Admininstation and compliant news media deception that UN Inspectors were not capable of disarming Iraq because Saddam Hussein was concealing his arsenal from them.

But with all the trashing of the UN Americans still preferred that Bush give the inspectors more time.

Look at this:


21. Should the United States take military action against Iraq fairly soon, or should the United States wait and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time?
Take action soon
Give inspectors time
DK/NA

2/5-6/03 35 61 4
2/10-12/03 37 59 3
2/24-25/03 36 62 2
3/4-5/03 35 60 5
3/7-9/03 44 52 4

 

[Spare_change]

Of COURSE you didn't support the Iraq war --- nobody did NOW.

I marched in the protest (in DC) against the proposed invasion of Iraq because I believed, as the majority of Americans did, that Bush needed to let the inspectors complete the peaceful disarmament process because Iraq was cooperating as it had never done before. There was a chance for peaceful disarmament to work. It would be dumb as Obama said to start another war that would harm the military effort in Afghanistan.


Is it your view that no Americans objected to the proposed invasion of Iraq in favor of continuing the UN inspections?

You're right -- I generalized. What really happens is that the intel committees provlde sanitized briefings to Congress ... the details are redacted, but the summaries are not.

Nobody kept Iran in check --- that's why you have the problems in Syria, Libya, and Palestine. Iran has acted as the Soviet arms broker throughout that region for the past 40 years.

They redacted so much, they turned a 96 page NIE into a 28 page whitepaper. All of the ambiguities and uncertainties were stripped out. What started out as (paraphrasing) Iraq might have WMD became Iraq has WMD. Congress was duped into believing the situation was far more dire than it actually was.

As far as Iran, I disagree. Iraq played a big role in keeping Iran in check. The region was about as stable as it could have been and Iraq was Iran's biggest enemy. On a broader scale, Hussein kept Sunni's and shiite's in check.

Actually, no ... the purpose of redacting is to protect the source, or the methodology, of intel collection. The NIE typically contains all the supporting data to validate the assumption. Believe me, Congress was NOT duped. They were sufficiently briefed, and they knew exactly what the deal was --- it's just politically inconvenient to say that now.

You're right ... Iraq did play a role in keeping Iran in check, BUT .. even during the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq allowed Iran to weapons and war materials to Syria. (Iraq claimed that if weapons were going to Syria, they weren't being used against them). The only thing the I/I war accomplished was to: 1) demonstrate, again, Saddam's willingness to deploy WMD's without regard for his own people, and 2) lower the population level in the area.

Congress could not be sufficiently briefed by classified intel found in the NIE. Most of Congress could not know how thin the threat posed by the Bush administration actually was. Had they known, many more might have voted against it. My recollection was that most Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who had clearance to the NIE, voted against giving Bush the authority to use military force, even though most Democrat Senators voted for it.

As far as Iraq helping keep Iran in check and helping to "stabilize" (I use "stabilize" loosely here) the region ... what good has come from destabilizing the Middle East and making Iran the sole power in that region?

Let's revisit the situation -- -

1) Iran had just been effectively (though, nor formally) defeated by Iraq in the I/I border war.
2) Saddam had a significantly more powerful military, though Iran was being propped up by Russia.
3) Iran's power structure was in flux. There was some movement among certain factions to upset the current theocracy.
4) Iran on the east - Syria/Libya on the west. That was Iraq's position.
5) Removal of Saddam, and a US supported Iraqi government would have cut off Iran from Syria and Libya (helping to stabilize the Palestine-Israel situation - remember, Syria was the primary Hamas sponsor)
6) The Middle East wouldn't have been 'destabilized', the cards would have been reshuffled and Iraq would have become the 'big dog' - a big dog beholden to the US, and Iran would have been squeezed between two US allies.

As for your comments about Congress being briefed or not ... given the protocol for developing those briefings, it is inconceivable for them not to have been told the relevant information. The full briefing, with ALL the data, is given to the appropriate intel committee. They are also told which information will NOT be given to the full Congress. They approve that briefing. That briefing, without changes, is then presented to the Congress. If there are changes in the information (let's say, a new development), the briefing starts over and goes thru the approval process again. Short of a massive conspiracy between the intel community, the President, and the intel committee members of both houses of Congress, the real briefing is presented to the whole Congress.

As we revisit the situation, let us recall what actually took place.

Iraq became the rally cry to attract terrorists. It gave birth to groups like Al-Qaeda in Iraq and ISIS. It turned a six month war into a nine year war. It destabilized the area. It made Iran the super power in the region. And while Iran had perused nuclear technology for decades, it wasn't until around 2002-2003 they pushed their nuclear program into overdrive, leading us to where we are today with them being close to nuclear weapons.

And again, in regards to the NIE... we agree most of Congress did not have access to the classified NIE, therefore, they could not possibly reach conclusions as those who did, based on the same evidence. Much of what they had to go on were based on what they were told by the administration -- which turned out to be false.

And again, in the Senate, most Democrats with the proper clearance voted against it; whereas most other Democrats voted for it. That indicates to me that those with access to the full NIE had better information to work with to make a better qualified decision.

The NIE ... you're wrong. The members of Congress have access to a sanitized classified version of the report. It is of lesser classification because the removal of intel-sensitive information (source, method of collection, etc.) All the relevant findings, classified or otherwise, are given to the members, commensurate with their security status. To quote:

"Through the process of election and selection to a seat in the House of Representatives or Senate comes with it a certain public seal of access to information of a sensitive nature. (Few voters likely think about this when they vote, but it’s a key reason trustworthiness often plays a major role in politicking). Both the House and Senate do have security offices and staff – with the responsibility for overseeing access to classified information, among other things.

According to the CIA’s Center for the Study of Intelligence: “There are no written rules, agreed to by both branches, governing what intelligence will be shared with the Hill or how it will be handled. The current system is entirely the product of experience, shaped by the needs and concerns of both branches over the last 20 years.”

Again, keep in mind, that the whole report was vetted by properly cleared members of Congress, who approved the release of specific data to their brethren. In effect, they were not told by the administration - they were told by the Intel committees in their particular branch.

I'm not going to argue with your Pepsi version of what happened ... it's wrong, but it's been popularized. You've gotten a slanted version of reality pumped up your ... uhhhh ... provided to you. There wasn't a particular increase in number of terrorists in the Middle East- but there was a coalescence of disparate groups against a common enemy "The enemy of my enemy ...". But, I believe that, at least among military professionals, that was expected, and even welcomed. It's better to get all your opposition out in the open, and get them on a battlefield that you control. I can think of nothing better than to have our enemies come to an area we control, we have tactical advantage, and we have the strategic initiative.

The problem was - as usual - we allowed military strategy to be dictated by political dictate. The war - and especially Afghanistan - was run by popular opinion polls.

 

[Spare_change]

While it's true that more than 70% were in favor of the Iraq war; it's my belief that number was that high based on the conditions set forth by the Bush administration to the public, which mostly turned out to be false. Most notably, Iraq stockpiling WMD and the ties to Al-Qaeda.

My view is that it was pure outright Admininstation and compliant news media deception that UN Inspectors were not capable of disarming Iraq because Saddam Hussein was concealing his arsenal from them.

But with all the trashing of the UN Americans still preferred that Bush give the inspectors more time.

Look at this:


21. Should the United States take military action against Iraq fairly soon, or should the United States wait and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time?
Take action soon
Give inspectors time
DK/NA

2/5-6/03 35 61 4
2/10-12/03 37 59 3
2/24-25/03 36 62 2
3/4-5/03 35 60 5
3/7-9/03 44 52 4

I assume you never worked in DC - that town couldn't keep a secret if the only person who knew it was dead. They couldn't even keep a blowjob secret, for God's sake. It is so far beyond conceivability that somebody - anybody - could line up a conspiracy to dupe Congress, the press, and the American people, much less pull it off.

You have to remember that DC is full of empire builders - everybody wants to increase his power, build his power base, and take control of more and more. To get all the intel professionals to agree to lie, to hide relevant data, is not only inconceivable, it is an impossibility. Everybody is fighting for the same federal dollar. For the NSA, for example, to discredit the CIA because they were withholding intel data, or vice versa, would be manna from heaven for them. Then, you add in the Defense intelligence Agency, the military branch agencies, and you have to have thousands sign on to your conspiracy.

Now, add to that a bunch of egotistic politicians -- can you imagine anyone keeping the secret when they know that running to the people and pointing out how the rotten Republicans or damnable Democrat are trying to subvert the Constitution? Ain't a chance in the world you can get the members of Congress to be quiet.

Finally, let's talk about the press --- everybody wants to sell papers or air time. Can there be a bigger scoop than a conspiracy to take America to war? Pulitzer prizes? That would be the least of it.

Nahh --- never happen.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SC 10387617

Ask it again -- I'm not sure what you're asking.

In your post 10384688 you started off your Iraq thesis with basically a complaint against everyone who blames Bush (NOW)'for 'his' decision to end the peaceful UN disarming process as if every American were in lockstep with your other view that Americans were hungry for revenge after the al Qaeda attack in September 2001.

You wrote:

1) It's really convenient, and comforting, to blame Bush for the war in Iraq, as if it were some personal canard of the president."

So I asked you, Who made the decision that the UN inspections from November 2002 through March 17, 2003 would not lead to enforcement of all relevant UNSC Resolutions in Iraq? If not Bush, Whom?"

Your complaint is unwarranted because there is no other human being on the planet to blame for ending the inspection process and starting a war other than Bush himself.

And those of us who wanted Bush to give the inspectors more time have every right to criticize and blame Bush for not giving them the time. There was no pressing threat that Iraq had to be invaded in March.
You have no right to criticize up to 60% of Americans who didn't agree with you back then.

21. Should the United States take military action against Iraq fairly soon, or should the United States wait and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time?
Take action soon
Give inspectors time
DK/NA
02/05-06/03 35 61 4
02/10-12/03 37 59 3
02/24-25/03 36 62 2
03/04-05/03 35 60 5
03/07-09/03 44 52 4


The New York Times CBS News Poll

 

[Spare_change]

SC 10387617

Ask it again -- I'm not sure what you're asking.

In your post 10384688 you started off your Iraq thesis with basically a complaint against everyone who blames Bush (NOW)'for 'his' decision to end the peaceful UN disarming process as if every American were in lockstep with your other view that Americans were hungry for revenge after the al Qaeda attack in September 2001.

You wrote:

1) It's really convenient, and comforting, to blame Bush for the war in Iraq, as if it were some personal canard of the president."

So I asked you, Who made the decision that the UN inspections from November 2002 through March 17, 2003 would not lead to enforcement of all relevant UNSC Resolutions in Iraq? If not Bush, Whom?"

Your complaint is unwarranted because there is no other human being on the planet to blame for ending the inspection process and starting a war other than Bush himself.

And those of us who wanted Bush to give the inspectors more time have every right to criticize and blame Bush for not giving them the time. There was no pressing threat that Iraq had to be invaded in March.
You have no right to criticize up to 60% of Americans who didn't agree with you back then.

21. Should the United States take military action against Iraq fairly soon, or should the United States wait and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time?
Take action soon
Give inspectors time
DK/NA
02/05-06/03 35 61 4
02/10-12/03 37 59 3
02/24-25/03 36 62 2
03/04-05/03 35 60 5
03/07-09/03 44 52 4

I think I can interpret your chart ----- 02/05 - 06/3 Take action soon 35% Give inspectors time 61% Don't know 4% ---- have I got that right?

Given the question asked, I would not interpret that to be a valid reflection of the answer you're trying to construct. Try again.

By the way, I'm curious what the other 20+ questions were.

 

[asaratis]

Too bad only 487 were documented. I'd bet a thousand dollars that the actual number is 10 times greater. Got to give him credit, though. He's a perfect politician and mouthpiece for the powers that pull the strings.

A list of Obama's lies far exceeds a list of his each day in office. The man lies every single day. He is a pathological liar. I'd bet more on that!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

10387804

never worked in DC - that town couldn't keep a secret if the only person who knew it was dead.

I don't think anything was kept secret. Everything I have written is about what happened in public. Right before our very eyes.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Given the question asked, I would not interpret that to be a valid reflection of the answer you're trying to construct. Try again.

Of course you would not but why not?


Here's the link to the other questions

The New York Times CBS News Poll

 

[Freewill]

Free 10382951

Do you understand that I could do as you have done and list how many have died in combat in Afghanistan after Obama's surge? But that is war

Operation Enduring Freedom was a legitmate war based upon our inherent right to self defense in response to the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks on our soil.

Iraq was a war of Bush's choice whether to let peaceful WMD disarmament continue for a few more months or to invade and occupy to disarm Iraq through violent means instead. Bush made the wrong choice.

The deaths of our troops in Iraq are not comparable for your arguments purposes because the circumstances for starting the two separate wars were ethically so distant.

I opposed Bush's decision to force inspectors out of Iraq and launch a ground invasion.


I supported Bush's decision to respond to the 9/11 terrorist attack by sending troops into Afghanistan. I never stopped supporting our military operations there and I of course supported Obama tripling the number of troops there because it had to be done after five years if Bush focus on his quagmire in Iraq. Had Bush stuck with NATO and finishing the war in Afghanistan it would have gone better In sure. But he did invade Iraq and neglect Afghanistan.

Wait a second, I thouth it was the Saudis that were responsible, what in the hell gives? It is my opinion that there was little difference between the Taliban of Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq. The only difference I see is that for whatever reason the left decided that Afghanistan was the "good" war. The one we had to fight. No we didn't have to fight either war. But we did and lying about it now doesn't help one bit.

That you think there was little difference between the Taliban and Saddam Hussein pretty much disqualifies you from any compelling contributions to this discussion.

I suppose you are going to qualify evil.

 

[Freewill]

SC 10384688

The public was clamoring for the administration to do something - anything - to satisfy their need for revenge.

The public by the end of February 2004 was not clamoring for the administration to do something - anything - to satisfy their need for revenge by invading Iraq.

Get off your high horse and quit speaking for the majority of Americans that were satisfied with going into Afghanistan but wanted no part of invading Iraq without UN approval.

Polls tell us the majority of Americans by the end of February 2003 wanted Bush to give the UN inspectors more time,

So you are wrong.


SC 10384688

As for this absolute nonsense that Bush lied to Congress, the people, and everybody else in the world - every member of Congress was given the same information Bush got from his advisers, every member of the respective intel committees knew exactly what he did.

My view was and still is that Bush was correct in September 2002 to demand that Iraq get into compliance with its WMD disarmament obligations or face war because Iraq would be a threat to the region and US if it remained in illegal possession of WMD of the chemical or biological weapon type, it could give those types of weapons to an al Qaeda type operation. Bush had a point.

So your argument does not work on me.

Feel free to point out those polls that didn't want us to go into Iraq. Perhaps you can show me the Congressional action taken to stop it, as well. I'll wait here.

All intelligence, at that time, clearly indicated that Saddam was not in compliance, Saddam himself said they weren't in compliance, and did every thing to confuse and obfuscate the inspection processes. Look guilty - act guilty - be guilty.

First of all, Notfooled didn't say there were polls indicating the public didn't want us to invade, he said there were polls just before we invaded revealing that most preferred letting the U.N. inspectors complete the job they were sent in to do.

Secondly, while I agree Hussein was deliberately obfuscating, he was denying being in possession of WMD, which did turn out to be true.

He never denied it and if you believe he did that disqualifies you from further discussion.

Saddam Hussein 'lied about WMDs to protect Iraq from Iran'
Saddam Hussein told the FBI that he misled the world into believing Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, according to declassified interview transcripts.

 

[Freewill]

SC 10384688

The public was clamoring for the administration to do something - anything - to satisfy their need for revenge.

The public by the end of February 2004 was not clamoring for the administration to do something - anything - to satisfy their need for revenge by invading Iraq.

Get off your high horse and quit speaking for the majority of Americans that were satisfied with going into Afghanistan but wanted no part of invading Iraq without UN approval.

Polls tell us the majority of Americans by the end of February 2003 wanted Bush to give the UN inspectors more time,

So you are wrong.


SC 10384688

As for this absolute nonsense that Bush lied to Congress, the people, and everybody else in the world - every member of Congress was given the same information Bush got from his advisers, every member of the respective intel committees knew exactly what he did.

My view was and still is that Bush was correct in September 2002 to demand that Iraq get into compliance with its WMD disarmament obligations or face war because Iraq would be a threat to the region and US if it remained in illegal possession of WMD of the chemical or biological weapon type, it could give those types of weapons to an al Qaeda type operation. Bush had a point.

So your argument does not work on me.

Feel free to point out those polls that didn't want us to go into Iraq. Perhaps you can show me the Congressional action taken to stop it, as well. I'll wait here.

All intelligence, at that time, clearly indicated that Saddam was not in compliance, Saddam himself said they weren't in compliance, and did every thing to confuse and obfuscate the inspection processes. Look guilty - act guilty - be guilty.

The whole sham BS about Congress being hood winked by Bush goes out the window when you consider Hillary. She supported the war and she said exactly the same things Bush did. Is she a Bush dupe or did she have a source of insider information? Those with BDS are so deluded.

 

[Spare_change]

Given the question asked, I would not interpret that to be a valid reflection of the answer you're trying to construct. Try again.

Of course you would not but why not?


Here's the link to the other questions

The New York Times CBS News Poll

See? This is my point --- you selectively chose a single question that seemed to support your position. However, when you look at the survey in toto, you get a completely different picture. For example:

The latest New York Times/CBS News Poll is based on telephone interviews conducted March 7 to 9, 2003, with 1,010 adults throughout the United States.

1. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as President? 56 – 89% approval

2. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling foreign policy? 51 – 75% approval

4. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq? 51 – 54% approval

8. Do you approve or disapprove of the United States taking military action against Iraq to try and remove Saddam Hussein from power? 66 – 74% approval

9. How would you rate the way the United Nations is handling the situation with Iraq? Is it doing a good job or a poor job handling Iraq? 48 – 58% Good job

12. Do you think the Bush Administration has presented enough evidence to show that military action against Iraq is necessary right now, or haven't they done that yet? 45 – 52% yes

13. What if the U.N. Security Council votes against the U.S. sponsored resolution to take military action against Iraq? Would you approve or disapprove of the U.S. taking military action against Iraq to try and remove Saddam Hussein from power without U.N. approval? 55% approval

15. Do you have confidence that George W. Bush will make the right decision about a possible war with Iraq or are you uneasy about his approach? 52% yes

16. Do you have confidence in George W. Bush's ability to deal wisely with an international crisis, or are you uneasy about his approach? 46 – 55% over time have confidence

20. Overall, is Congress asking too many questions about President Bush's policy toward Iraq, or isn't Congress asking enough questions? 18 – 22% too many, 44-51 not enough

22. Which of these comes closest to your opinion 1. Iraq's development of weapons is a threat to the United States that requires military action right now, OR 2. Iraq's development of weapons is a threat that can be contained with inspections for now, OR 3. Iraq's development of weapons is not a threat to the United States at all? 46 – 50% requires action

23. From what you know so far about Iraq's level of cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors, how much would you say Iraq is cooperating C a lot, some, not much, or none at all? Some 36 not much 41 not at all 20

24. From what you have seen or heard so far, how much progress have the U.N. weapons inspectors made in finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq --- a lot, some, not much, or none at all? 47 some 33 not much 8 none at all

25. In your opinion, is George W. Bush more interested in removing weapons of mass destruction from Iraq, or is George W. Bush more interested in removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq? Remove Saddam 29- 26% Weapons 51 – 53%

32. Do you think removing Saddam Hussein from power is worth the potential loss of American life and the other costs of attacking Iraq, or not? 46 – 57% worth it

34. Suppose U.S. military action in Iraq would result in substantial Iraqi civilian casualties, then would you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iraq? 46 – 50% favor

35. Suppose U.S. military action in Iraq meant that the U.S. would be involved in a war there for months or even years, then would you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iraq? 47 – 49 Favor 46 - opposed

47. Do you think removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq will lead to greater stability in the Middle East, less stability, or won't it have any effect on the stability of the Middle East? 55 greater stability – 19 less

53. If the United States takes military action against Iraq, do you think the threat of terrorism against the United States will increase, decrease, or stay about the same? 44 – 64% increase\

Hardly the picture of an electorate that was being fooled ... they seem to pretty much know what was going on, and understood the cost of taking action. Further, they clearly thought the US was on the right track, and showed much less confidence in the UN.

 

[Faun]

Free 10382951

Do you understand that I could do as you have done and list how many have died in combat in Afghanistan after Obama's surge? But that is war

Operation Enduring Freedom was a legitmate war based upon our inherent right to self defense in response to the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks on our soil.

Iraq was a war of Bush's choice whether to let peaceful WMD disarmament continue for a few more months or to invade and occupy to disarm Iraq through violent means instead. Bush made the wrong choice.

The deaths of our troops in Iraq are not comparable for your arguments purposes because the circumstances for starting the two separate wars were ethically so distant.

I opposed Bush's decision to force inspectors out of Iraq and launch a ground invasion.


I supported Bush's decision to respond to the 9/11 terrorist attack by sending troops into Afghanistan. I never stopped supporting our military operations there and I of course supported Obama tripling the number of troops there because it had to be done after five years if Bush focus on his quagmire in Iraq. Had Bush stuck with NATO and finishing the war in Afghanistan it would have gone better In sure. But he did invade Iraq and neglect Afghanistan.

Wait a second, I thouth it was the Saudis that were responsible, what in the hell gives? It is my opinion that there was little difference between the Taliban of Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq. The only difference I see is that for whatever reason the left decided that Afghanistan was the "good" war. The one we had to fight. No we didn't have to fight either war. But we did and lying about it now doesn't help one bit.

That you think there was little difference between the Taliban and Saddam Hussein pretty much disqualifies you from any compelling contributions to this discussion.

I suppose you are going to qualify evil.

So now you're under the delusion that two things are pretty much the same because they share something in common?

There is a world of difference between the Taliban and Hussein. Most notably, in terms of terrorism which affected the U.S., the Taliban allowed and provided sanctuary to the terrorists which attacked us. Hussein, while he supported terrorism against Israel, did not support Al-Qaeda or global terrorism. Contrary to claims made by some on the right, there was no operational relationship between Hussein and Al-Qaeda. Another key difference was that Hussein was not actually a threat to the U.S.; whereas the Taliban, by supporting and harboring Al-Qaeda, was. Then you've got the religious differences. The Taliban are a radical rightwing of fanatical religious zealots stuck in the middle ages. Hussein led a secular Iraq. Another difference is that Hussein was the internationally recognized leader of Iraq. The same could not be said of the Taliban.

 

[Spare_change]

Free 10382951

Do you understand that I could do as you have done and list how many have died in combat in Afghanistan after Obama's surge? But that is war

Operation Enduring Freedom was a legitmate war based upon our inherent right to self defense in response to the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks on our soil.

Iraq was a war of Bush's choice whether to let peaceful WMD disarmament continue for a few more months or to invade and occupy to disarm Iraq through violent means instead. Bush made the wrong choice.

The deaths of our troops in Iraq are not comparable for your arguments purposes because the circumstances for starting the two separate wars were ethically so distant.

I opposed Bush's decision to force inspectors out of Iraq and launch a ground invasion.


I supported Bush's decision to respond to the 9/11 terrorist attack by sending troops into Afghanistan. I never stopped supporting our military operations there and I of course supported Obama tripling the number of troops there because it had to be done after five years if Bush focus on his quagmire in Iraq. Had Bush stuck with NATO and finishing the war in Afghanistan it would have gone better In sure. But he did invade Iraq and neglect Afghanistan.

Wait a second, I thouth it was the Saudis that were responsible, what in the hell gives? It is my opinion that there was little difference between the Taliban of Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq. The only difference I see is that for whatever reason the left decided that Afghanistan was the "good" war. The one we had to fight. No we didn't have to fight either war. But we did and lying about it now doesn't help one bit.

That you think there was little difference between the Taliban and Saddam Hussein pretty much disqualifies you from any compelling contributions to this discussion.

I suppose you are going to qualify evil.

So now you're under the delusion that two things are pretty much the same because they share something in common?

There is a world of difference between the Taliban and Hussein. Most notably, in terms of terrorism which affected the U.S., the Taliban allowed and provided sanctuary to the terrorists which attacked us. Hussein, while he supported terrorism against Israel, did not support Al-Qaeda or global terrorism. Contrary to claims made by some on the right, there was no operational relationship between Hussein and Al-Qaeda. Another key difference was that Hussein was not actually a threat to the U.S.; whereas the Taliban, by supporting and harboring Al-Qaeda, was. Then you've got the religious differences. The Taliban are a radical rightwing of fanatical religious zealots stuck in the middle ages. Hussein led a secular Iraq. Another difference is that Hussein was the internationally recognized leader of Iraq. The same could not be said of the Taliban.

Tunnel vision again, my friend. Open your eyes ... consider the whole situation, not just that part that seems to support your argument.

 

[Faun]

SC 10384688

The public was clamoring for the administration to do something - anything - to satisfy their need for revenge.

The public by the end of February 2004 was not clamoring for the administration to do something - anything - to satisfy their need for revenge by invading Iraq.

Get off your high horse and quit speaking for the majority of Americans that were satisfied with going into Afghanistan but wanted no part of invading Iraq without UN approval.

Polls tell us the majority of Americans by the end of February 2003 wanted Bush to give the UN inspectors more time,

So you are wrong.


SC 10384688

As for this absolute nonsense that Bush lied to Congress, the people, and everybody else in the world - every member of Congress was given the same information Bush got from his advisers, every member of the respective intel committees knew exactly what he did.

My view was and still is that Bush was correct in September 2002 to demand that Iraq get into compliance with its WMD disarmament obligations or face war because Iraq would be a threat to the region and US if it remained in illegal possession of WMD of the chemical or biological weapon type, it could give those types of weapons to an al Qaeda type operation. Bush had a point.

So your argument does not work on me.

Feel free to point out those polls that didn't want us to go into Iraq. Perhaps you can show me the Congressional action taken to stop it, as well. I'll wait here.

All intelligence, at that time, clearly indicated that Saddam was not in compliance, Saddam himself said they weren't in compliance, and did every thing to confuse and obfuscate the inspection processes. Look guilty - act guilty - be guilty.

First of all, Notfooled didn't say there were polls indicating the public didn't want us to invade, he said there were polls just before we invaded revealing that most preferred letting the U.N. inspectors complete the job they were sent in to do.

Secondly, while I agree Hussein was deliberately obfuscating, he was denying being in possession of WMD, which did turn out to be true.

He never denied it and if you believe he did that disqualifies you from further discussion.

Saddam Hussein 'lied about WMDs to protect Iraq from Iran'
Saddam Hussein told the FBI that he misled the world into believing Iraq still possessed weapons of mass destruction because he feared revealing his weakness to Iran, according to declassified interview transcripts.

Bush said Hussein did deny it. Was Bush lying??

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." - George Bush, 2.8.2003

 

[Faun]

Free 10382951 Operation Enduring Freedom was a legitmate war based upon our inherent right to self defense in response to the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks on our soil.

Iraq was a war of Bush's choice whether to let peaceful WMD disarmament continue for a few more months or to invade and occupy to disarm Iraq through violent means instead. Bush made the wrong choice.

The deaths of our troops in Iraq are not comparable for your arguments purposes because the circumstances for starting the two separate wars were ethically so distant.

I opposed Bush's decision to force inspectors out of Iraq and launch a ground invasion.


I supported Bush's decision to respond to the 9/11 terrorist attack by sending troops into Afghanistan. I never stopped supporting our military operations there and I of course supported Obama tripling the number of troops there because it had to be done after five years if Bush focus on his quagmire in Iraq. Had Bush stuck with NATO and finishing the war in Afghanistan it would have gone better In sure. But he did invade Iraq and neglect Afghanistan.

Wait a second, I thouth it was the Saudis that were responsible, what in the hell gives? It is my opinion that there was little difference between the Taliban of Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq. The only difference I see is that for whatever reason the left decided that Afghanistan was the "good" war. The one we had to fight. No we didn't have to fight either war. But we did and lying about it now doesn't help one bit.

That you think there was little difference between the Taliban and Saddam Hussein pretty much disqualifies you from any compelling contributions to this discussion.

I suppose you are going to qualify evil.

So now you're under the delusion that two things are pretty much the same because they share something in common?

There is a world of difference between the Taliban and Hussein. Most notably, in terms of terrorism which affected the U.S., the Taliban allowed and provided sanctuary to the terrorists which attacked us. Hussein, while he supported terrorism against Israel, did not support Al-Qaeda or global terrorism. Contrary to claims made by some on the right, there was no operational relationship between Hussein and Al-Qaeda. Another key difference was that Hussein was not actually a threat to the U.S.; whereas the Taliban, by supporting and harboring Al-Qaeda, was. Then you've got the religious differences. The Taliban are a radical rightwing of fanatical religious zealots stuck in the middle ages. Hussein led a secular Iraq. Another difference is that Hussein was the internationally recognized leader of Iraq. The same could not be said of the Taliban.

Tunnel vision again, my friend. Open your eyes ... consider the whole situation, not just that part that seems to support your argument.

It's not just what supports my position. There is a world of difference between the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Just as there was a world of difference between the reasons for invading Afghanistan and invading Iraq.