Thanks Cut and Run Democrats

[Xenophon]

I wonder if he's proud of his accomplishment.

The real sad thing is how many people claim he has 'ingretity' and say 'they admire him.'

 

[ozzmdj]

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


As he set on his ass

 

[nodoginnafight]

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

And when we got there - we found out that Clinton had apparently achieved this goal, huh?

 

[nodoginnafight]

ozzmdj: I've never been a Clinton fan - I think what he did re: Lewinsky was morally reprehensible. But your drawing attention to his apparent success in dismantling the weapons of mass destruction threat in Iraq is eye opening. Maybe I should re-evaluate my distaste for his administration ..............

 

[ozzmdj]

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

And when we got there - we found out that Clinton had apparently achieved this goal, huh?

As the weapon inspectors were being kick out every other day

 

[nodoginnafight]

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

And when we got there - we found out that Clinton had apparently achieved this goal, huh?

As the weapon inspectors were being kick out every other day

oh ..... you mean when our troops were allowed to examine everything and everywhere, they FOUND SOMETHING?????????????????????

 

[jillian]

oh ..... you mean when our troops were allowed to examine everything and everywhere, they FOUND SOMETHING?????????????????????

actually, had he bothered to read Hans Blix's final report, he'd know that the issues of access had been worked out in advance of the invasion. Saddam was a blustering little dictator, but he wasn't stupid... and he didn't want to be bombed out of existence.

 

[jillian]

I wonder if he's proud of his accomplishment.

was it powell's decision? or was it a decison bush made with the saudi's and the others in the region in exchange for bin sultan AFB?

 

[Meister]

IF we accept this premise is true, then Bush had 2 1/2 years to "fix" what was wrong with our intelligence.

Your claim also doesn't address intelligence doctoring which has been firmly established.

2 1/2 years of fixing something as covert as intelligence? It probably takes a decade or more to fix something like that.
I don't buy in the intell doctoring....can you give a nonbias source to what your stating? I ain't saying your wrong, but the only place where I heard it was MSNBC.
I found it myself...thank you.

So you're saying that 2 1/2 years are not enough to fix a single agency? So I guess, you're not buying the theory that Obama "owns" this war now, or that he "owns" this economy now?????

If 2 1/2 years isn't enough time to fix a single agency, then certainly 9 months isn't enough to fix a war and a broken economy?????????????????????????

Sorry, you are tripping over your own talking points.

The intelligence used to convince congress to go along with Bush on Iraq was wrong. No real debate there.
So it's clear that congress can't really be blamed for believing the bad intell. But can Bush be blamed? Unclear - was he aware of the intelligence doctoring or was it a Cheney operation that Bush was unaware of? I'll leave you all to debate those finer points. But it's clear to me that the "blame difusion" game is just that - a game.

Maybe you don't like the Democratic members of Congress - fair enough. Maybe you don't like the Republicans in Congress - also fair enough.

But trying to get Congress to accept a share of the blame for one of our nation's biggest screw-ups is simply not supported by any facts or evidence. Wishful thinking don't make it so ....

I'm saying that when it comes to "intelligence"...you just don't go out an hire a few people to go covert. This is a deep operation and there is a lot more than just hiring. People have to be bought, and or placed in sensitive areas. But, you knew that.
Show me where I have ever said that Obama owns the war? Show me one post where I have said that...if you can't, I will accept an apology. If you won't appologize then just STFU.
As for the economy...he was handed a mess...no one is arguing that. But, if his policies aren't working, then at some point, yes he does own the economy.
One thing you don't understand is that it is a recession, they come and go, and always have with our economy, it's a natural cycle in the market. I do see that we are probably at the bottom of the recession and and it is starting to turn up....not sure, but maybe. This is happening with only about 10-11% of the stimulus money being used.

 

[nodoginnafight]

oh ..... you mean when our troops were allowed to examine everything and everywhere, they FOUND SOMETHING?????????????????????

actually, had he bothered to read Hans Blix's final report, he'd know that the issues of access had been worked out in advance of the invasion. Saddam was a blustering little dictator, but he wasn't stupid... and he didn't want to be bombed out of existence.

well, all I know for sure is that this poster is dredging up a lot of quotes from Clinton (who I am no fan of) talking about how determined he was to dismantle the Iraq weapons of mass destruction program. And considering we didn't find any when we put the boots on the ground throughout the country, it would seem that Clinton achieved that goal.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Show me where I have ever said that Obama owns the war? Show me one post where I have said that...if you can't, I will accept an apology. If you won't appologize then just STFU.

Show me one quote where I claimed you DID say Obama owns the war or the economy and I will provide apology. Otherwise YOU apologize or STFU!
if you are reffering to:

So I guess, you're not buying the theory that Obama "owns" this war now, or that he "owns" this economy now?????

That's a question. If you can answer it without all the STFU crap - or claiming that I attempted to answer the question myself - that would be a lot more honest.

One thing you don't understand is that it is a recession, they come and go, and always have with our economy, it's a natural cycle in the market.

One thing YOU obviously don't understand is that I have posted MANY times that IMHO potus gets more credit than they deserve when the economy is rolling good and more blame than they deserve when the economy is poor. I believe that there are much bigger forces at work and have said so.

So tell you what - you stop making unfounded assumptions on what I "understand" and what I don't "understand", as well as what I have said and what I have not said and I will agree to do the same - WITHOUT all the STFU crap!

 

[noose4]

SIX BOMBS, 95 DEAD - CARNAGE AND DESPAIR RETURN TO IRAQ...Hellish scenes as six bomb blasts rip through Baghdad leaving at least 95 dead and 536 wounded | Mail Online

You got your wish

how many American troops were killed?

 

[ozzmdj]

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

As money and training was given to muslin terrorist all over the region and the WORLD.

 

[jillian]

well, all I know for sure is that this poster is dredging up a lot of quotes from Clinton (who I am no fan of) talking about how determined he was to dismantle the Iraq weapons of mass destruction program. And considering we didn't find any when we put the boots on the ground throughout the country, it would seem that Clinton achieved that goal.

that's pretty much my feeling... which doesn't obviate the possibility that weapons were moved out of the country and hidden but under those circumstances, invasion was pointless anyway.

what was neccessary was intel...

so what did the admin do? allowed farsi interpreters to be fired b/c they were gay.

 

[rightwinger]

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

As money and training was given to muslin terrorist all over the region and the WORLD.

If thats your rationale, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia

 

[ozzmdj]

This is to easy kooks...............Proof that Saddam bankrolls terrorism: documents seized by Israel in raids against Palestinian Authority offices in the West Bank in recent months detail massive terror funding from the Iraqi dictator | Insight on the News | Find Articles at BNET

 

[nodoginnafight]

Thank goodness Clinton took out his WMD

 

[nodoginnafight]

Show me where I have ever said that Obama owns the war? Show me one post where I have said that...if you can't, I will accept an apology. If you won't appologize then just STFU.

Show me one quote where I claimed you DID say Obama owns the war or the economy and I will provide apology. Otherwise YOU apologize or STFU!
if you are reffering to:

So I guess, you're not buying the theory that Obama "owns" this war now, or that he "owns" this economy now?????

That's a question. If you can answer it without all the STFU crap - or claiming that I attempted to answer the question myself - that would be a lot more honest.

One thing you don't understand is that it is a recession, they come and go, and always have with our economy, it's a natural cycle in the market.

One thing YOU obviously don't understand is that I have posted MANY times that IMHO potus gets more credit than they deserve when the economy is rolling good and more blame than they deserve when the economy is poor. I believe that there are much bigger forces at work and have said so.

So tell you what - you stop making unfounded assumptions on what I "understand" and what I don't "understand", as well as what I have said and what I have not said and I will agree to do the same - WITHOUT all the STFU crap!

Don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I would be very interested in your response.

 

[ozzmdj]

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

Notice the word AGAIN kooks

 

[Vast LWC]

A lot of blame, but not aimed at the correct source.

The real culpret is Bush Senior, not junior.

He involved US forces in a landwar in Asia and refused to finish the job, instead he punted to the UN and the situation was never resolved.

I would respecfully disagree. Bush Senior did in fact finish the job.

The primary mission of Desert Storm was to remove the Iraqi threat to surrounding nations, which he was quite successful at. Post-Desert Storm Iraq was effectively castrated militarily. The "No-Fly" Zone and international sanctions against Iraq had further weakened Saddam's ability to threaten his neighbors to next-to-nil, by the time the US invaded again.

Iraq and Afghanistan are not places the US should be in, in fact the only place the US should be in the US.

Now here, I agree. We shouldn't have been involved militarily to begin with in the Middle East. However, it is true that once we were engaged, we created more problems for ourselves that forced us to go into afghanistan.

Why we went into Iraq again, however, with no immediate need, is beyond me.

By the time of W's invasion, we could have pretty much stopped the no-fly zone and the sanctions and Hussein still wouldn't have been able to rebuild militarily for decades, if at all, considering his immediate neighbors, Iran and Saudi Arabia, didn't like him at all.

Back to the present day, if Iraqis want a country its up to them, frankly saying they were 'better off' under Saddam is like saying Jews were better off under Hitler, it just doesn't work. Life was ok in Iraq IF you were a Sunni and a baathist, if you were a Shia or some other party it sucked.

Better off as opposed to what?

Better off than if they had a peaceful transition to a new government? Almost certainly.

However, what they got is a war that will have caused, either directly or indirectly, close to a million deaths. Some through violence, some through lack of infrastructure, some through disease that would not otherwise have occurred, etc, etc.

Even during the most violent periods of the civil war the Kurds were fighting against him, Hussein never came close to killing a tenth of that number.

Oh sure, Hussein was an evil dictator, but he was no Hitler.

So the question is: "Was it worth hundreds of thousands of people dead to get rid of one, rather weak, dictator?"

Neither you nor I know the answer to that, we'd have to ask the Iraqis.

Bush jr made the wrong choice in 03, to save face he attacked, knowing the UN was giving up trying to police Saddam (the 'sanctions' were ending in 2004 and would not be renewed) Bush thought he could end the problem quickly and relitively cheaply. It was easy to take Iraq, but then the mistakes began, Bush sent Jay Gardner to Iraq to plan out what to do, and then ignored everything he recommended and instead appointed L Paul Bremer as imperial overlord. Things went downhill from their till Patreus came up with a COIN strategy that worked.

Agree with all, but would add that Bush had separate motives involved control of oil production, and that Mr Bush lied to the American people in order to make the war happen.

In addition, Bush's mistakes began well before Jay Gardner, and continued until well after Bremer.

Petraeus did his job quite well, but everything he did was only a temporary measure. There is no way the US could have kept troops in Iraq to police the country indefinitely. Talk about a waste of lives and resources, that would have been a disaster in the long term. Yet another disaster, that is.

What goes on there now is their problem, they let foriegners into their country and they are the ones that have to do something about it.

We never should have been in the region in the first place, the 'liberation of Kuwait' was a UN deal, and as always happens when the UN is involved, things get worse instead of better.

But now I see... you're a pure libertarian, aren't you?

Just out of curiosity, and not that it's any of my business, but did you vote libertarian in the last election?