Bush didn't just lie........

[easyt65]

easyt believed it too apparently. Still does lol

Nice try, but NO.

I believe Hussein served a purpose, to keep Iran in check.

I believe if we wanted to strike a strategic blow in the region we should have take out Syria. Syria was Iran's 'toadie' and funneled weapons / supplies / support from Iran to the PLO to continue the attacks on Israel.

Taking out Syria would have sent a serious message to Iran and would have made a bigger impact in the region than taking down Hussein / Iraq...IMO.

Doing so, however, would have been as 'un-necessary' as going into Iraq. Oh, I believe it wasn't all bad in the fact that we took down a butcher who abusing/murdering his people, but that opens up the conversation regarding does the US have any right to stick our noses into anyone else's business. I thought that was what the useless U.N. was for.

Liberals should also cut the hypocritical crap of condemning W when Obama has done the very same thing SEVERAL times:
- Injecting itself into Egyptian politics, influencing them to move up their election date which benefitted the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood and helped them come to power
- Taking the country to war on his own, by-passing Congress to do so, and using our military to help Al Qaeida take over Libya
- Waging his own proxy war against Assad / Syria.

The US has a serious history of picking and choosing sides / dictators - Hussein, Noriega, Castro, etc...and most of them turning out badly.

...but you're wrong about me 'buying into' anything.

 

[Dot Com]

easyt believed it too apparently. Still does lol

Nice try, but NO.

I believe Hussein served a purpose, to keep Iran in check.

I believe if we wanted to strike a strategic blow in the region we should have take out Syria. Syria was Iran's 'toadie' and funneled weapons / supplies / support from Iran to the PLO to continue the attacks on Israel.

Taking out Syria would have sent a serious message to Iran and would have made a bigger impact in the region than taking down Hussein / Iraq...IMO.

Doing so, however, would have been as 'un-necessary' as going into Iraq. Oh, I believe it wasn't all bad in the fact that we took down a butcher who abusing/murdering his people, but that opens up the conversation regarding does the US have any right to stick our noses into anyone else's business. I thought that was what the useless U.N. was for.

Liberals should also cut the hypocritical crap of condemning W when Obama has done the very same thing SEVERAL times:
- Injecting itself into Egyptian politics, influencing them to move up their election date which benefitted the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood and helped them come to power
- Taking the country to war on his own, by-passing Congress to do so, and using our military to help Al Qaeida take over Libya
- Waging his own proxy war against Assad / Syria.

The US has a serious history of picking and choosing sides / dictators - Hussein, Noriega, Castro, etc...and most of them turning out badly.

...but you're wrong about me 'buying into' anything.

"take out Syria"? lol. You have no idea what you're talking about kid. You know who has naval facilities there and would have had a direct interest in combating that right?

 

[easyt65]

"take out Syria"? lol. You have no idea what you're talking about kid. You know who has naval facilities there and would have had a direct interest in combating that right?

I completely understand and do know what I am talking about. Hell, Iran and Russia are both is Syria now. Russia has bases and troops in Syria NOW, and Obama is STILL trying to overthrow Assad through his miserably failed proxy war. He has been hell-bent on doing so since his ill-advised 'Red Line' debacle.

 

[GWV5903]

Now it is the Democrats fault for not telling him to go fuck himself

Yes that's how it works, it's called taking accountability for your decisions, I know that is a strange concept for lazy Liberals such as yourself...

 

[Dot Com]

"take out Syria"? lol. You have no idea what you're talking about kid. You know who has naval facilities there and would have had a direct interest in combating that right?

I completely understand and do know what I am talking about. Hell, Iran and Russia are both is Syria now. Russia has bases and troops in Syria NOW, and Obama is STILL trying to overthrow Assad through his miserably failed proxy war. He has been hell-bent on doing so since his ill-advised 'Red Line' debacle.

link to that word salad. I'll wait

 

[Mertex]

George W. Bush didn t just lie about the Iraq War. What he did was much worse.

Hillary did as well. She made the case to go to war and then voted to give Bush the authorization to do so; yet liberals can't find it within themselves to blame anyone else but Bush.



Hillary got Americans killed by HER OWN incompetence then lied...then called the grieving family members 'liars'...and Liberals defend her. The hypocritical rabid partisanship demonstrated constantly by Liberals is truly amazing.

Hillary supported the war based on the info Congress was getting from the lying scumbags, Bush/Cheney....you can't blame her, but alas, that's what conservatives do, they twist everything to make themselves not look like the hawks and obstructionists they are.

 

[Mertex]

Now it is the Democrats fault for not telling him to go fuck himself

Yes that's how it works, it's called taking accountability for your decisions, I know that is a strange concept for lazy Liberals such as yourself...

Bwahahaha, says a supporter of a party who blames everything they screw up on someone else....like the Iraq invasion....it's Clinton's fault.....

 

[boilermaker55]

kaz and you are looking in the mirror.

Nobody gives a shit about your big head or the hot air in it.......it's obvious what you are trying to do, deflecting....trying to get away from the original argument, the OP...the fact that Bush lied......because you were never able to prove that he didn't....Faun or Dot or whoever said it was right, all you are doing is Kazzing.

I did not say what you falsely ascribed to me. When do you stop kazzing?

he doesn't.

Bye bye

Couldn't stand being exposed......right?

Much more likely that kaz just doesn't want to waste time on a closed minded lying troll such as yourself. You ignore that which you don't agree with and keep up the steady drum beat of your lie as if it will make your lie true.

But, on the off chance you're just ignorant, why not read this?

No Lie

"...For according to Woodward, there's no evidence the 43rd president of the United States "lied" the nation into war.

Bush's political opponents like to make this claim to delegitimize not just the war but his entire presidency. No man who knowingly and dishonestly took a nation to war is worthy of any kind of honor, hence history's reluctance to focus on the substantive accomplishments of President Lyndon Johnson. Whatever good he did is eclipsed by his use of a fabricated incident in the Gulf of Tonkin to secure congressional authority to increase the number of combat troops being sent to South Vietnam. The notion that Bush lied in similar fashion about Iraq discredits – in the eyes of his political opponents certainly – everything he did, everything he stood for and everything he accomplished.

It's a brutal axe but, according to Woodward, one that is itself based on an untruth. An argument could certainly and persuasively be made, he told moderator Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday," that the Iraq War was a mistake, but "there was no lying in this that I could find."...:

 

[hunarcy]

kaz and you are looking in the mirror.

Nobody gives a shit about your big head or the hot air in it.......it's obvious what you are trying to do, deflecting....trying to get away from the original argument, the OP...the fact that Bush lied......because you were never able to prove that he didn't....Faun or Dot or whoever said it was right, all you are doing is Kazzing.

he doesn't.

Bye bye

Couldn't stand being exposed......right?

Much more likely that kaz just doesn't want to waste time on a closed minded lying troll such as yourself. You ignore that which you don't agree with and keep up the steady drum beat of your lie as if it will make your lie true.

But, on the off chance you're just ignorant, why not read this?

No Lie

"...For according to Woodward, there's no evidence the 43rd president of the United States "lied" the nation into war.

Bush's political opponents like to make this claim to delegitimize not just the war but his entire presidency. No man who knowingly and dishonestly took a nation to war is worthy of any kind of honor, hence history's reluctance to focus on the substantive accomplishments of President Lyndon Johnson. Whatever good he did is eclipsed by his use of a fabricated incident in the Gulf of Tonkin to secure congressional authority to increase the number of combat troops being sent to South Vietnam. The notion that Bush lied in similar fashion about Iraq discredits – in the eyes of his political opponents certainly – everything he did, everything he stood for and everything he accomplished.

It's a brutal axe but, according to Woodward, one that is itself based on an untruth. An argument could certainly and persuasively be made, he told moderator Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday," that the Iraq War was a mistake, but "there was no lying in this that I could find."...:

That's your rebuttal? Sad performance.

 

[rightwinger]

Now it is the Democrats fault for not telling him to go fuck himself

Yes that's how it works, it's called taking accountability for your decisions, I know that is a strange concept for lazy Liberals such as yourself...

I agree

It is usually the Democrats responsibility to tell Republicans they are full of shit and stop their foolishness....Democrats should have known better about Iraq

 

[BlindBoo]

Liberals should also cut the hypocritical crap of condemning W when Obama has done the very same thing SEVERAL times:

Completely false. Not once did he invade and occupy any country.

 

[kaz]

Liberals should also cut the hypocritical crap of condemning W when Obama has done the very same thing SEVERAL times:

Completely false. Not once did he invade and occupy any country.

No, he just bombed Libya from the air until the government fell. He also expanded Afghanistan and followed W's timeline in Iraq. He meddled in Egypt until he pissed off the government who told him to go to hell and he tried to take out the Syrian government until Putin made Obama his bitch.

Sorry, what was your point again???

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Check out what this canidates husband said about it.

 

[rightwinger]

Check out what this canidates husband said about it.

Maybe you can point out where Clinton claims his containment strategy is not working or that we should consider invasion

 

[depotoo]

Seriously?? Seriously?? Her husband had just been in office, knew people, and her hubby had signed into legislation that Saddam needed to be dealt with and removed.
Are you naive or trying to fool the masses that don't know better?

George W. Bush didn t just lie about the Iraq War. What he did was much worse.

Hillary did as well. She made the case to go to war and then voted to give Bush the authorization to do so; yet liberals can't find it within themselves to blame anyone else but Bush.



Hillary got Americans killed by HER OWN incompetence then lied...then called the grieving family members 'liars'...and Liberals defend her. The hypocritical rabid partisanship demonstrated constantly by Liberals is truly amazing.

Hillary supported the war based on the info Congress was getting from the lying scumbags, Bush/Cheney....you can't blame her, but alas, that's what conservatives do, they twist everything to make themselves not look like the hawks and obstructionists they are.

 

[easyt65]

Clinton is not President now, but I can definitely point out how Obama claimed his goal from the start was to 'contain' ISIS, not defeat it, and how HE had successfully contained them....the night before ISIS made a world-class FOOL of Obama by perpetrating the largest attack on France since WW2.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I hear they invented this new thing called peanut butter!

 

[Mertex]

Seriously?? Seriously?? Her husband had just been in office, knew people, and her hubby had signed into legislation that Saddam needed to be dealt with and removed.
Are you naive or trying to fool the masses that don't know better?

George W. Bush didn t just lie about the Iraq War. What he did was much worse.

Hillary did as well. She made the case to go to war and then voted to give Bush the authorization to do so; yet liberals can't find it within themselves to blame anyone else but Bush.



Hillary got Americans killed by HER OWN incompetence then lied...then called the grieving family members 'liars'...and Liberals defend her. The hypocritical rabid partisanship demonstrated constantly by Liberals is truly amazing.

Hillary supported the war based on the info Congress was getting from the lying scumbags, Bush/Cheney....you can't blame her, but alas, that's what conservatives do, they twist everything to make themselves not look like the hawks and obstructionists they are.

Apparently you are another of many ignorant and uninformed Johnny come lately.....of course Clinton signed legislation that Saddam needed to be dealt with....back in the 90's....but apparently you don't know the rest of the story. By the time Bush got elected, Saddam had been dealt with....that is the reason for Operation Desert Fox.


In response to Saddam Hussein's continued refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors, the United States Government planned Operation DESERT FOX in the fall of 1998. The primary mission of DESERT FOX was to strike military targets in Iraq that contributed to its ability to produce, store, maintain, and deliver weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The U.S. government expected to achieve several goals with the operation. First, it would degrade Iraq's ability to create and employ WMD. Second, the attacks would diminish Iraq's capability to wage war against its neighbors. Third, the operation would impress upon Saddam Hussein the consequences of violating international agreements, including allowing United Nations inspectors unfettered access to Iraqi sites. The United States and Great Britain launched Operation DESERT FOX on December 16, 1998, after U.N. Chief Inspector Richard Butler notified the U.N. that Iraq had failed to provide full cooperation during inspections.
Factsheets : Operation Desert Fox

Perhaps that is why you conservatives continue to defend Bush.....you all are so ignorant, don't know history and just blabber nonsense.

Now go do some research you don't continue to appear so stupid as the rest of the ignoramuses who keep claiming that Bill Clinton wanted to invade Iraq when George W. Bush was president, because at that time, Bill Clinton was no longer privy to Intelligence information on Iraq.

 

[BlindBoo]

Liberals should also cut the hypocritical crap of condemning W when Obama has done the very same thing SEVERAL times:

Completely false. Not once did he invade and occupy any country.

No, he just bombed Libya from the air until the government fell. He also expanded Afghanistan and followed W's timeline in Iraq. He meddled in Egypt until he pissed off the government who told him to go to hell and he tried to take out the Syrian government until Putin made Obama his bitch.

Sorry, what was your point again???

Let see there were about 8600 US personnel involved in the Joint NATO operation in carrying out a UN mission in Libya, it pales in compared to 2.5 million US soldiers who served in Iraq over the US Led invasion and occupation. But I suppose we could have let Qaddafi attack Benghazi, no skin off our backs. No comparison no invasion and no US death tolls either. You think Obama made the Egyptian people rise up? The agreement with the Egyptian Military still holds and that's our main concern there. No US troops involved either. In Syria, if you recall there were war ships headed to the area for a limited strike (because Congress wouldn't give Obama any type of a mandate) when Kerry offered them a way to avoid it. No massive invasion there either. Fighting ISIS, 1 special ops causality during a rescue mission and still no authorization from the worthless Congress to fight ISIS.

Like I said the comparison is completely and utterly false.