Do Republicans regret their Iraq fiasco?

[Dot Com]

Saddam was a terrorist. I am glad he's dead. The prick. Him and his two perverted sadistic sons.

Then you must think getting 4484 US troops killed to kill him was justified. Are you glad about all the tragedy for millions that killing a prick who could do no harm to us has caused over the past twelve years? Glad are ya?

We were at WAR, and all but 13 of your CommiecRAT Senators VOTED for it.... Live with it, idiot, it's HISTORY!

you left out ".....based on biased/manufactured intel provided to them by, among others, Doug Feith."

Ever heard of him Vigilante ?

 

[Dragonlady]

I remember Americans being whipped into a war frenzy by Bush who gulled the media and the Democrats into not rationally opposing his war with the idea that opposition was aiding and abetting terrorists.

Outside the U.S., it was widely published that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and there were many coalition countries which sent token forces to participate in the war.

Those countries who refused to go into Iraq were blasted in the US media. Bush and company played the media like fiddle in the months leading up to the invasion.

No good ever comes from messing around in the Middle East. The place is a quagmire of tribalism and religious conflict and had been since Athens dominated the World.

If the region didn't have so much oil, no one in the west would care.

 

[rdean]

all the rw'ers say that W wasn't a conservative but none of them will say that Admin produced the worst foreign policy disaster in a generation, if not the last century, That coupled w/ Reagan's arming of rw death squads during the cold war (mujadeen & groups in central America) have wasted untold lives and countless TRILLIONS $$$) that helped bring about the current state of affairs. 44 is now busy trying to right Repub messes overseas instead of being able to work on bettering this great nation

Repub response?

An honest GOP response would be:

Our economic policies failed, help move millions of jobs to China and closed over 40,000 factories here and crashed the world economy. So we turned to overseas where we destabilized the entire Middle East which led to the deaths and maiming of tens of thousands of American, cost trillions more and made the world see us as the great danger. And because everything we touched turned disastrous, we work to blame it on the Democrats even though we controlled the every branch of government for 6 years and used reconciliation three times which created even more trillions in debt.
Even more evidence is the fact we kept George Bush away from our last two presidential conventions because he is the face of GOP policy disasters.

Instead, it's a contest of who hates Obama the most. Not unexpected coming from a party that's 90% white, thinks science is a faith, evolution a lie and climate change a conspiracy who believes education is both liberal and for snobs.

 

[Dot Com]

I remember Americans being whipped into a war frenzy by Bush who gulled the media and the Democrats into not rationally opposing his war with the idea that opposition was aiding and abetting terrorists.

Outside the U.S., it was widely published that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and there were many coalition countries which sent token forces to participate in the war.

Those countries who refused to go into Iraq were blasted in the US media. Bush and company played the media like fiddle in the months leading up to the invasion.

No good ever comes from messing around in the Middle East. The place is a quagmire of tribalism and religious conflict and had been since Athens dominated the World.

If the region didn't have so much oil, no one in the west would care.

yabut Repubs could pay back their defense contractor buddies who fill their campaign chests every election cycle.

 

[Dot Com]

An honest GOP response would be:

Our economic policies failed, help move millions of jobs to China and closed over 40,000 factories here and crashed the world economy. So we turned to overseas where we destabilized the entire Middle East which led to the deaths and maiming of tens of thousands of American, cost trillions more and made the world see us as the great danger. And because everything we touched turned disastrous, we work to blame it on the Democrats even though we controlled the every branch of government for 6 years and used reconciliation three times which created even more trillions in debt.
Even more evidence is the fact we kept George Bush away from our last two presidential conventions because he is the face of GOP policy disasters.

Instead, it's a contest of who hates Obama the most. Not unexpected coming from a party that's 90% white, thinks science is a faith, evolution a lie and climate change a conspiracy who believes education is both liberal and for snobs.

 

[Theowl32]

Rdean, wishes saddam was still in power torturing and murdering his people. What a caring liberal.

Watch, ,now as he bends his argument to have it both ways.

Really? We had no reason to invade Iraq. I would take a stable Iraq over this unstable mess Bush created, in a heart beat. And there where no weapons of mass destruction. So where are supposed to go with this bullsh*t?

Bush didn't create it, Obuma's stupid withdrawal from Iraq, left it wide open as Bush had said it would! Apparently many people aren't nuanced enough to know CURRENT HISTORY!!!! Have another cup of Kool Aid, Mary!

You said: Bush didn't create it, Obuma's stupid withdrawal from Iraq, left it wide open as Bush had said it would! Apparently many people aren't nuanced enough to know CURRENT HISTORY!!!!

Now you've gone completely far out tard delusional. How far in the future did you think American troops should have stayed in Iraq and Iraq could remain "stable" on it's own???? You have to be saying we would NEVER leave because Sunni, Kurds, Shiite and ALL the other sects have been at war for over a thousand years. How can you not ******* know that???? **** current history (which you didn't even get right), what about "HISTORY" period?

That's why talking to you kind is so difficult. You don't know anything of value and imagine things will work out the way you imagine without taking pertinent facts into account. What is wrong with you??????????????????

Just one ******* cliche after another from a brainwashed hypocritical asswipe.

 

[Dot Com]

Just one ******* cliche after another from a brainwashed hypocritical asswipe.

don't be so hard on yourself

 

[whutTHEYsay]

10850113

Bush liberated a country

Bush didn't liberate a country. He liberated Shiites who are more friendly to Iran. The Kurds were already liberated with their own autonomous government and army. They ran their own economy apart from Baghdad.

Sunnis were not liberated so you got the basics all wrong. Sunnis that lived in Baghdad became victims of Shiite on Sunni genocide. Sunnis who lived in the west became victims of a AQI that invaded as a result of the bush invasion.

The Sunni part of liberation was never achieved. Now we have ISIS because Bush agreed to pull all troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011 and the Shiites that Bush empowered did not want US troops there any more. They were quite happy that Bush agreed to pull all troops out by a date certain. Apparently the dethroned Baathists were happy with Bush and the Shiite's decision to keep Americans out of Iraq.

Maliki ruined the military and ruined all chances of Sunni reconciliation with the Shiite dominated government that Bush installed by use of military force which cost 4484 Americans their lives.

It is pure ignorance and hatred to lay what Bush did on Obama. Obama was right before the war that it would be dumb to invade Iraq and hinder progress in Afghanistan. Obama cannot be made liable for decisions and deals that Bush made and that turned out so horrible.

 

[Iceweasel]

I agreed with every Senator who voted to give Bush the authority to use military force in October 2002 if Saddam refused to let the UN inspectors back in and cooperate with them. March prior to the invasion Saddam was doing what the UNSC wanted him to do. We were not in a ground war with Iraq and the country was not unstable in March 2003. We were in a ground war after March 19. 2003 so you lied again to defend Bush's dumb war. It was dumb because the inspectors were revealing what it took bush 4484 soldiers to be killed and spent at least a trillion dollars to find out. There were no WMDs in Iraq. Like yellowcake that you so dumbly believed was a violation for being there. So you are dumb about the obvious stuff - why should we pay attention to some things that require a little research and independent thinking?

Wow, you are on a political forum and you are THAT out of touch?

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02
2000
An IAEA team returns to Iraq in January but only to conduct a regular inspection at a declared Iraqi nuclear site. As a state-party to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), Iraq is obliged to allow IAEA inspectors to visit declared sites at least every 14 months. The IAEA makes clear, however, that the limited inspections under the NPT are no substitute for its intrusive inspections in years past and that it cannot give assurances that Baghdad is not covertly seeking nuclear weapons.

The Security Council remains divided throughout the year on relaxing sanctions. Despite disagreements among Security Council members about the new inspection regime, Hans Blix, who previously served as head of the IAEA, is named to run UNMOVIC following a contentious appointment process. The council approves a UNMOVIC work plan, but no UNMOVIC inspector sets foot inside Iraq, which still opposes the return of weapons inspectors.



New York Times Reports WMD Found in Iraq - US News
The New York Times published an article this week that has re-ignited a 12-year-old debate: Was then-President George W. Bush right about Iraq? The report examined U.S. service personnel's encounters with abandoned chemical weapons in Iraq – and some conservatives were quick to pounce on the story as evidence that claims by Bush in the lead-up to the war that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction were true and that the United States' 2003 invasion was justified.

The article by Times reporter C.J. Chivers focused on U.S. soldiers who suffered from exposure to the sulfur mustard and other nerve gases which emitted from the bombs. According to the story, about "5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs" were found scattered across Iraqi soil. The U.S. government buried the cases from both the public and the troops. As a result, injured soldiers did not receive proper medical treatment.

 

[boilermaker55]

Vice President Cheney: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who's a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he's written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.
You on the right have a damn short memory! Perhaps it is on purpose you forget. Yes, that is what it is.Strategic amnesia.

Isn't this the part where Republicans are supposedto blame Iraq on the Democrats?

Bush liberated a country, got rid of Saddam. Obama successfully ended the war. Then he went against his advisers, and now it's a total screw up. What does Obama do? Blame BUSH and plays golf.

 

[Dragonlady]

By the time Republicans get done rewriting history, Bush and Cheney will be as revered as the guys who saved the western world from the imminent threat of Saddams nukes.

Never mind that Saddams rockets couldn't even reach Israel which is just one country over on the same peninsula.

I also liked all of Bush's terror alerts. Orange threat levels. Those were awesome. We were never told exactly what these threats were, just that W and Cheney "saved" us all. Hallelujah.

 

[MaryL]

Didn't Bush Sr. warn against invading Iraq? He was all about this phony protecting Kuwait thing. Sadam was our buddy, we helped him with money and whatnot when he was at war with the Iranians, though, just like we helped the terrorist in Afghanistan fighting the Russians in the 80', Al Qaeda, Bin Laden. We helped the assholes that ended up slaughtering 3000 innocent people in Manhattan. That is what we do. We didn't need to invade Iraq and destabilize the area. Nope. We created the daesh IS folks, we did that .

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Icew 10859203

Wow, you are on a political forum and you are THAT out of touch?

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02
2000
An IAEA team returns to Iraq in January but only to conduct a regular inspection at a declared Iraqi nuclear site. As a state-party to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), Iraq is obliged to allow IAEA inspectors to visit declared sites at least every 14 months. The IAEA makes clear, however, that the limited inspections under the NPT are no substitute for its intrusive inspections in years past and that it cannot give assurances that Baghdad is not covertly seeking nuclear weapons.

I presume you were responding with the IAEA's position on Iraq in the year 2000 for something I said about the UNSC's position in March 2003:

Here is what I wrote that you are obviously quite confused about:

I agreed with every Senator who voted to give Bush the authority to use military force in October 2002 if Saddam refused to let the UN inspectors back in and cooperate with them. March prior to the invasion Saddam was doing what the UNSC wanted him to do

I agreed with the vote in 2002 to authorize war if necessary because Iraq was violating its disarmament deal up until then.

But then in 2003 (not 2000) this is true:

In "March prior to the invasion Saddam was doing what the UNSC wanted him to do"

That was the majority opinion on the UNSC

 

[Dragonlady]

I mostly regret you people voting in obie and losing what was clearly a won war that was making progress to a stable region but you fucked it up.

Obama didn't lose Iraq. Bush did. Bush lost it because he didn't give the Iraqi people the jobs rebuilding their own country. He excluded the Iraqis at every turn.

The the Iraqis were better off under Saddam. They had jobs, food and safety. Under Bush they had no jobs, no food, no money, no infrastructure, and their country was in a shambles. The longer the Americans stayed, the more they were hated.

Saddam Hussein was a Sunni Muslim. His administration persecuted Shiites. The New leadership installed by Bush was Shias who deliberately excluded Sunnis from the new government which caused trouble between the two factions. They persecuted the Sunnis.

There are so many ways that Bush fucked up the whole occupation of Iraq that you can write a handbook on how to alienate a conquered people based on his policies there.

Taking out Saddam Hussein was a huge mistake. As bad as he was, he did maintain stability in the region. When you remove a strongman, it creates a power vacuum in an area where tribalism has been a way of life since before the birth of Christ.

Someone will always try to fill a power vacuum. ISIS is that someone.

Men are talking. Don't you have some vacuuming or cooking you need to be doing?

 

[Iceweasel]

Didn't Bush Sr. warn against invading Iraq? He was all about this phony protecting Kuwait thing. Sadam was our buddy, we helped him with money and whatnot when he was at war with the Iranians, though, just like we helped the terrorist in Afghanistan fighting the Russians in the 80', Al Qaeda, Bin Laden. We helped the assholes that ended up slaughtering 3000 innocent people in Manhattan. That is what we do. We didn't need to invade Iraq and destabilize the area. Nope. We created the daesh IS folks, we did that .

No, the coalition that gathered only was for freeing Kuwait, not invading Iraq. Lefties are the history rewriters, facts say otherwise.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Wow, you are on a political forum and you are THAT out of touch?

Do you have the guts to admit you were wrong and to apologize? Or do you run away like most of the conservatives do after making a blatant error that cannot be erased?

 

[blackhawk]

Do Democrats who saw the same intelligence reports and who voted for and supported the war up until it got tough regert doing so? Yes looking back the war was a mistake and not worth the price we paid to those on the left don't pretend that many of you weren't fully onboard when there tens of thousands of Iraqis on the streets cheering and celeberating the fall of Saddam most of you didn't have a problem with the war until it become politically advantegous for you to do so.

 

[Antares]

We have the House and the Senate....so....no.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

BH 10861544

Do Democrats who saw the same intelligence reports and who voted for and supported the war up until it got tough regert doing so?

When those Democrats voted for an AUMF against Iraq in October 2002 were there UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq? Yes or no?

 

[blackhawk]

BH 10861544

Do Democrats who saw the same intelligence reports and who voted for and supported the war up until it got tough regert doing so?

When those Democrats voted for an AUMF against Iraq in October 2002 were there UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq? Yes or no?

Why would that matter? They based their vote on the same intel as the republicans if you on the left want to continue to use the Iraq war as a political tool fine but stop trying to excuse, justify, and rationalize the actions of the democrats who voted for and supported it. I have stated the war was a mistake and not worth the price we paid I'm not going to make any excuses for the republicans who voted in favor of it they got it wrong and they have to deal with it. The question is will you and the rest of the left do the same with the democrats who voted for it? So far the answer seems to be no.