Bush's Lies Caused The Iraq War

[rightwinger]

If Bush had told us up front that we would have to keep troops in Iraq forever before he invaded, we would have told him to go **** himself

Instead, he told us we would be treated as liberators

If only FDR would have told us the war would last 4 years and we would be occupying those countries for over 60 years what would you have told him?

The Iraq War Was a Good Idea, If You Ask the Kurds

RW would have looked at the "D" after his name and given him the thumbs up. If it was a Republican, he'd have said the war was based on lies.

Yes...I think WWII was a good idea
and No....the Iraq invasion was a massive blunder

 

[kaz]

Like
like what is the meaning of is....is. Great dodge.

Nope, two different words with two different meanings interchanged to fool some people into believing outlandish conclusions. It's a typical tactic of the Right wing echo chamber to fool their parrots.

Demise means they are wiped out, decimate means a large percentage is wiped out. To say they are not synonyms I would agree with, but they are shades of grey from each other. Clearly Obama saying either about Al Qaeda is a strong statement they are very weak. What exactly are you claiming is misleading?

The German Army was decimated at Stalingrad. They were still had a strong army.

Now that's a word game. The German army at Stalingrad, the subject in your first sentence, was not strong after Stalingrad. They surrendered and the survivors were taken prisoner. You changed the subject to the German army in general.

So you think when Obama kept talking about Al Qaeda being "decimated" he meant they were still a strong army, they had just suffered some losses? That's what he was trying to convey? You believe that?

He also called ISIS JV. Did that mean they were a strong army also?

I was referring to the German Army overall. They lost almost a million axis soldiers with the defeat at Stalingrad, about 25% of their men in uniform that could not be replaced.

So no one said the

If Bush had told us up front that we would have to keep troops in Iraq forever before he invaded, we would have told him to go **** himself

Instead, he told us we would be treated as liberators

If only FDR would have told us the war would last 4 years and we would be occupying those countries for over 60 years what would you have told him?

The Iraq War Was a Good Idea, If You Ask the Kurds

RW would have looked at the "D" after his name and given him the thumbs up. If it was a Republican, he'd have said the war was based on lies.

Yes...I think WWII was a good idea
and No....the Iraq invasion was a massive blunder

So you agree with what I pointed out? That was quite a comeback...

 

[BlindBoo]

Like

It's the war of word

Demise and decimate do not have the same meaning. CNS seems to be using them as if they were the same. I didn't see anywhere in that article where he used the term vanquished either. But if he did I'm sure his speech writers would have qualified it with an "on the way to being" or something

like what is the meaning of is....is. Great dodge.

Nope, two different words with two different meanings interchanged to fool some people into believing outlandish conclusions. It's a typical tactic of the Right wing echo chamber to fool their parrots.

Demise means they are wiped out, decimate means a large percentage is wiped out. To say they are not synonyms I would agree with, but they are shades of grey from each other. Clearly Obama saying either about Al Qaeda is a strong statement they are very weak. What exactly are you claiming is misleading?

When I was living in an apartment building I would regularly decimate the roach population. I could never insure their complete demise(in my living space) until I bought a house. Clearly his speech writers didn't intend for him to claim the group was exterminated. The article's title claimed one thing but the body of the report proved he never said demise or vanquished.

And you believe when Obama kept saying Al Qaeda was "decimated" that he meant to imply it was no thang, they'd be back shortly as strong as ever like roaches? But they had taken a momentary setback?

Yeah I believed I said those very words "Like ******* Cock Roaches, those bastards will be back. They'll spread to other area of the Muslim world that hates us and fester into more radical ***** for us to kill later"

 

[rightwinger]

Nope, two different words with two different meanings interchanged to fool some people into believing outlandish conclusions. It's a typical tactic of the Right wing echo chamber to fool their parrots.

Demise means they are wiped out, decimate means a large percentage is wiped out. To say they are not synonyms I would agree with, but they are shades of grey from each other. Clearly Obama saying either about Al Qaeda is a strong statement they are very weak. What exactly are you claiming is misleading?

The German Army was decimated at Stalingrad. They were still had a strong army.

Now that's a word game. The German army at Stalingrad, the subject in your first sentence, was not strong after Stalingrad. They surrendered and the survivors were taken prisoner. You changed the subject to the German army in general.

So you think when Obama kept talking about Al Qaeda being "decimated" he meant they were still a strong army, they had just suffered some losses? That's what he was trying to convey? You believe that?

He also called ISIS JV. Did that mean they were a strong army also?

I was referring to the German Army overall. They lost almost a million axis soldiers with the defeat at Stalingrad, about 25% of their men in uniform that could not be replaced.

So no one said the

If Bush had told us up front that we would have to keep troops in Iraq forever before he invaded, we would have told him to go **** himself

Instead, he told us we would be treated as liberators

If only FDR would have told us the war would last 4 years and we would be occupying those countries for over 60 years what would you have told him?

The Iraq War Was a Good Idea, If You Ask the Kurds

RW would have looked at the "D" after his name and given him the thumbs up. If it was a Republican, he'd have said the war was based on lies.

Yes...I think WWII was a good idea
and No....the Iraq invasion was a massive blunder

So you agree with what I pointed out? That was quite a comeback...

It has nothing to do with party affiliation and everything to do with the strategic and political blunders of Bush

 

[kaz]

Like
like what is the meaning of is....is. Great dodge.

Nope, two different words with two different meanings interchanged to fool some people into believing outlandish conclusions. It's a typical tactic of the Right wing echo chamber to fool their parrots.

Demise means they are wiped out, decimate means a large percentage is wiped out. To say they are not synonyms I would agree with, but they are shades of grey from each other. Clearly Obama saying either about Al Qaeda is a strong statement they are very weak. What exactly are you claiming is misleading?

When I was living in an apartment building I would regularly decimate the roach population. I could never insure their complete demise(in my living space) until I bought a house. Clearly his speech writers didn't intend for him to claim the group was exterminated. The article's title claimed one thing but the body of the report proved he never said demise or vanquished.

And you believe when Obama kept saying Al Qaeda was "decimated" that he meant to imply it was no thang, they'd be back shortly as strong as ever like roaches? But they had taken a momentary setback?

Yeah I believed I said those very words "Like ******* Cock Roaches, those bastards will be back. They'll spread to other area of the Muslim world that hates us and fester into more radical ***** for us to kill later"

LOL, glug glug on the kool-aid. Yeah, obviously he meant to convey it was a short term setback for them and they would be right back in strength. Total honesty. Those darned Republicans are just twisting it, not you. Laughing out loud...

 

[Ibentoken]

The left undermined Bush for five years on Iraq and now expects the right to support Obama and his war in Iraq and Syria.

**** YOU.

How did they do that?

This is the part where you play dumb, huh.

 

[BlindBoo]

Nope, two different words with two different meanings interchanged to fool some people into believing outlandish conclusions. It's a typical tactic of the Right wing echo chamber to fool their parrots.

Demise means they are wiped out, decimate means a large percentage is wiped out. To say they are not synonyms I would agree with, but they are shades of grey from each other. Clearly Obama saying either about Al Qaeda is a strong statement they are very weak. What exactly are you claiming is misleading?

When I was living in an apartment building I would regularly decimate the roach population. I could never insure their complete demise(in my living space) until I bought a house. Clearly his speech writers didn't intend for him to claim the group was exterminated. The article's title claimed one thing but the body of the report proved he never said demise or vanquished.

And you believe when Obama kept saying Al Qaeda was "decimated" that he meant to imply it was no thang, they'd be back shortly as strong as ever like roaches? But they had taken a momentary setback?

Yeah I believed I said those very words "Like ******* Cock Roaches, those bastards will be back. They'll spread to other area of the Muslim world that hates us and fester into more radical ***** for us to kill later"

LOL, glug glug on the kool-aid. Yeah, obviously he meant to convey it was a short term setback for them and they would be right back in strength. Total honesty. Those darned Republicans are just twisting it, not you. Laughing out loud...

If you say he said that al Qaeda was demised then you're just lying to yourself. So, what the CNS story did was lie about what the president said in the headlines, knowing that most Americans don't read past them. Lying not twisting.

 

[HenryBHough]

Bush bombed four (4, libs) countries.

Obama, so far, has bombed seven (7 libbiechiks).

Which, if either, deserved a Peace Prize?

 

[kaz]

If you say he said that al Qaeda was demised then you're just lying to yourself.

Great point ... if I'd said that. I didn't.

So, what the CNS story did was lie about what the president said in the headlines, knowing that most Americans don't read past them. Lying not twisting.

And the lie was about the lie the President of the United States was saying when he said Al Qaeda was "decimated." Clearly that was meant to convey an impression which was false.

 

[BlindBoo]

If you say he said that al Qaeda was demised then you're just lying to yourself.

Great point ... if I'd said that. I didn't.

So, what the CNS story did was lie about what the president said in the headlines, knowing that most Americans don't read past them. Lying not twisting.

And the lie was about the lie the President of the United States was saying when he said Al Qaeda was "decimated." Clearly that was meant to convey an impression which was false.

People hear what they want to hear.........

In fact, in his speech announcing the killing of Osama bin Laden, Obama warned that the U.S. needs to “remain vigilant” because “al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us.”

Obama, May 1, 2011: The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda. Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will — remain vigilant at home and abroad.

Since that time, Obama has repeatedly warned of the ongoing terrorist threat posed by al Qaeda and its affiliates.

Some examples:

“Now, make no mistake, our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth.” — Obama at theNational Defense University on May 23, 2013.

“For the foreseeable future, the most direct threat to America, at home and abroad, remains terrorism, but a strategy that involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks is naive and unsustainable.” — Obama delivering thecommencement address at West Point on May 28, 2014.

“Violent extremism is still out there, and we have got to stay on top of it.” — Obama on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno,” Aug. 7, 2013.

“The fact is, that danger remains. While we have put al Qaeda’s core leadership on a path to defeat, the threat has evolved, as al Qaeda affiliates and other extremists take root in different parts of the world.” — Obama in his State of the Union Address on Jan. 28, 2014.

Did Obama Declare Terrorist Threat 8216 Gone 8217
​

 

[Dot Com]

for those who haven't seen this :

 

[deltex1]

OBABBLE spent all his life fighting W...now he talks just like him. I hear he will retire in Texas...Austin of course.

 

[deltex1]

And we need to remember this one...

If you say he said that al Qaeda was demised then you're just lying to yourself.

Great point ... if I'd said that. I didn't.

So, what the CNS story did was lie about what the president said in the headlines, knowing that most Americans don't read past them. Lying not twisting.

And the lie was about the lie the President of the United States was saying when he said Al Qaeda was "decimated." Clearly that was meant to convey an impression which was false.

People hear what they want to hear.........

In fact, in his speech announcing the killing of Osama bin Laden, Obama warned that the U.S. needs to “remain vigilant” because “al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us.”

Obama, May 1, 2011: The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda. Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must –- and we will — remain vigilant at home and abroad.

Since that time, Obama has repeatedly warned of the ongoing terrorist threat posed by al Qaeda and its affiliates.

Some examples:

“Now, make no mistake, our nation is still threatened by terrorists. From Benghazi to Boston, we have been tragically reminded of that truth.” — Obama at theNational Defense University on May 23, 2013.

“For the foreseeable future, the most direct threat to America, at home and abroad, remains terrorism, but a strategy that involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks is naive and unsustainable.” — Obama delivering thecommencement address at West Point on May 28, 2014.

“Violent extremism is still out there, and we have got to stay on top of it.” — Obama on “The Tonight Show with Jay Leno,” Aug. 7, 2013.

“The fact is, that danger remains. While we have put al Qaeda’s core leadership on a path to defeat, the threat has evolved, as al Qaeda affiliates and other extremists take root in different parts of the world.” — Obama in his State of the Union Address on Jan. 28, 2014.

Did Obama Declare Terrorist Threat 8216 Gone 8217
​

happened. ... You had a video that was released by somebody who lives here, sort of a shadowy character who -- who made an extremely offensive video directed at -- at Mohammed and Islam --

LETTERMAN: Making fun of the Prophet Mohammed.

OBAMA: Making fun of the Prophet Mohammed. And so, this caused great offense in much of the Muslim world. But what also happened, extremists and terrorists used this as an excuse to attack a variety of our embassies, including the one, the consulate in Libya.



Read more: What the President Said About Benghazi RealClearPolitics
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

 

[TheIceMan]

If Bush had told us up front that we would have to keep troops in Iraq forever before he invaded, we would have told him to go **** himself

Instead, he told us we would be treated as liberators

Really? Anyone capable of understanding the region would have known that whole "liberator" crap was BS. So you're blaming your lack of education on what a politician told you to believe?

You're acting like a victim of Bush when you're a victim of yourself.

You can't get people who don't understand the concept of western democracy to change their lives and everything they believe in just because you say it's so.

 

[TheIceMan]

Oh, and where'd he lie? Besides being a typical arrogant American like YOU? He said it was going to be a long haul from Day One.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

NF 9409243

Actually there is no evidence that Bush told the truth on March 17 2003 when he declared to all the world that he had intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised from UN inspectors. He lied that Iraq was not cooperating with the UN inspectors on March 7 through 17 to start a war and has been lying everyday since and will continue to lie as long as there are people out there that fall for it.

RR 9863904

If Bush had told us up front that we would have to keep troops in Iraq forever before he invaded, we would have told him to go **** himself <> Instead, he told us we would be treated as liberators

IM 9875912

Really? Anyone capable of understanding the region would have known that whole "liberator" crap was BS. So you're blaming your lack of education on what a politician told you to believe? <> You're acting like a victim of Bush when you're a victim of yourself. <> You can't get people who don't understand the concept of western democracy to change their lives and everything they believe in just because you say it's so.

So you are wrong Ice Man. The war was declared to be necessary by Bush per my post 9409243 and the lies associated with that. What *rightwinger points out is not necessarily a lie by Bush but very bad and piss poor judgement by the leader of the Free World.

Look at the ridiculousness of your argument. You expect Joe six pack to know what's up but you have no expectation for a Republican President and his national security team to know a fairly simple reality prior to starting a war of aggression against a sovereign government overseeing a population of 20 million mostly Muslim people that would not take lightly toward a mostly Judaeo/Christian/non-believers nation's invading army.

And on top of that you don't seem to reconcile the fact that every sitting US President and world leader has access to intelligence that the rest of us don't have at our disposal. Advantage President when it comes to national security matters. Presidents need to be trusted to a certain degree but Bush 43 was not trustable. He apparently didnt learn that from his dad. His earthly dad, not the heavenly one.
.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

TT 9406591 regarding KNB 9404070.

I will defend Bush's decision to invade Iraq, since he got the votes in Congress and UN Resolution 1441 to back him up. You defend Saddam Hussein.

Bush's decision to invade Iraq was made in disregard to the votes in Congress he received in October 2002. The authorization demanded that Bush could decide to use increased military force against for two reasons. (A) to enforce relevant UN Security Council resolutions against Iraq and (B) defend the national security of the United States.

Bush did neither with his decision to invade.. With regard to (A) Bush did not enforce UNSC resolution 1441 which became in November 2003 the over-riding UN relevant resolution with regard to Iraq. With regard to (B) it is impossible to decide that the security of the USA was threatened worse in March 2003 than it was in October 2002 because there were no WMD inspections taking place in October but there were very robust inspections taking place in March when Bush decided to make war instead.

No rational human being veteran or not would support Bush's decision to invade Iraq on national security basis or as part of enforcing UNSC resolution 1441.

Your support is pure political bias and nothing more than that TooTall.

 

[TooTall]

TT 9406591 regarding KNB 9404070.

I will defend Bush's decision to invade Iraq, since he got the votes in Congress and UN Resolution 1441 to back him up. You defend Saddam Hussein.

Bush's decision to invade Iraq was made in disregard to the votes in Congress he received in October 2002. The authorization demanded that Bush could decide to use increased military force against for two reasons. (A) to enforce relevant UN Security Council resolutions against Iraq and (B) defend the national security of the United States.

Bush did neither with his decision to invade.. With regard to (A) Bush did not enforce UNSC resolution 1441 which became in November 2003 the over-riding UN relevant resolution with regard to Iraq. With regard to (B) it is impossible to decide that the security of the USA was threatened worse in March 2003 than it was in October 2002 because there were no WMD inspections taking place in October but there were very robust inspections taking place in March when Bush decided to make war instead.

No rational human being veteran or not would support Bush's decision to invade Iraq on national security basis or as part of enforcing UNSC resolution 1441.

Your support is pure political bias and nothing more than that TooTall.

Partisan political bias is your middle name.

I support the President that removed a tyrant and made most of the leading Democrats that voted for it happy. You support a brutal dictator that had used WMD's to kill thousands of his own people in the past and was starving thousands of his own people when he was invaded.

To each his own!

 

[whutTHEYsay]

KNB 9404070

Bush lied to you and cost you trillions of dollars. Why are you still loyal to him? He would never show you that kind of loyalty.

TT 9406591 regarding KNB 9404070.

I will defend Bush's decision to invade Iraq, since he got the votes in Congress and UN Resolution 1441 to back him up. You defend Saddam Hussein.

NF717 9902041

Bush's decision to invade Iraq was made in disregard to the votes in Congress he received in October 2002. The authorization demanded that Bush could decide to use increased military force against Iraq for two reasons. (A) to enforce relevant UN Security Council resolutions against Iraq and (B) defend the national security of the United States.

TT718 9902493

I support the President that removed a tyrant and made most of the leading Democrats that voted for it happy.

I notice you cannot refute my response in post 717 9902041. That is quite expected, because you obviously cannot refute it. I would have supported Bush invading Iraq if it were true that Iraq did not allow the UN inspectors back in and Iraq did not cooperate fully with the UN inspectors prior to Bush deciding to invade. That is because Saddam Hussein would have been in violation of UNSC Resolution 1441 and international law and the threat that Iraq actually had WMD would have been highly likely. What happened instead was that Iraq did not have WMD and they were cooperating with the UN to prove that they did not have them to avoid a war. And I know that it is a fact that Bush signed the USA up in November 2002 to give Iraq a final opportunity to comply with all the relevant previous UN resolutions against Iraq.

 

[TooTall]

KNB 9404070

Bush lied to you and cost you trillions of dollars. Why are you still loyal to him? He would never show you that kind of loyalty.

TT 9406591 regarding KNB 9404070.

I will defend Bush's decision to invade Iraq, since he got the votes in Congress and UN Resolution 1441 to back him up. You defend Saddam Hussein.

NF717 9902041

Bush's decision to invade Iraq was made in disregard to the votes in Congress he received in October 2002. The authorization demanded that Bush could decide to use increased military force against Iraq for two reasons. (A) to enforce relevant UN Security Council resolutions against Iraq and (B) defend the national security of the United States.

TT718 9902493

I support the President that removed a tyrant and made most of the leading Democrats that voted for it happy.

I notice you cannot refute my response in post 717 9902041. That is quite expected, because you obviously cannot refute it. I would have supported Bush invading Iraq if it were true that Iraq did not allow the UN inspectors back in and Iraq did not cooperate fully with the UN inspectors prior to Bush deciding to invade. That is because Saddam Hussein would have been in violation of UNSC Resolution 1441 and international law and the threat that Iraq actually had WMD would have been highly likely. What happened instead was that Iraq did not have WMD and they were cooperating with the UN to prove that they did not have them to avoid a war. And I know that it is a fact that Bush signed the USA up in November 2002 to give Iraq a final opportunity to comply with all the relevant previous UN resolutions against Iraq.

Iraq was playing the UN inspectors for fools and they must have known it.

Resolution 1441 stated that Iraq was in material breach of the ceasefire terms presented under the terms of Resolution 687. Iraq's breaches related not only to weapons of mass destruction(WMD), but also the known construction of prohibited types of missiles, the purchase and import of prohibited armaments, and the continuing refusal of Iraq to compensateKuwaitfor the widespread lootingconducted by its troops during the1990–1991 invasion and occupation. It also stated that "...false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations."

During the lead-up to war in March 2003, United Nations weapons inspectorHans Blixsaid that Iraq made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting the "proactive" but not always "immediate" cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441.

Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted.