Do You Miss Him Yet?

[BlindBoo]

You want to talk about pointless deaths, you merely need to look at a war started where all the terrorists were 1200 miles away from the fighting.

I'm not sure how you contradicted me, maybe you could be a little more specific

We went to Iraq over WMD that was non existent, while ignoring the terrorists who brought down the twin towers who were in Afghanistan.

Gotcha, so you were agreeing with me. W shouldn't have invaded and Obama should have brought the troops home when he took office rather than leaving them there 18 more months to die for nothing

No I am not agreeing with you. W invaded the wrong country and 5,500 service members died for WMD that did not exist and although W did invade Afghanistan, he changed the calculus of deployment and concentrated his efforts in the wrong place. Obama did try to keep troops on the ground but Iraq refused to grant the troops immunity which made staying impossible.

You understand that faux-narrative was debunked by two of Obama's own SecDefs, right? Obama could have left troops there and chose not to.

No it wasn't. It was the Iraqis who forced Bushes hand in negotiating for a new SOFA by the end of 2008 or the troops would have been force to leave then. They wanted the US out and that didn't change when Obama became president.

 

[BluesLegend]

Do you have one shred of evidence to back up your crazy claims? So the Iraq war was "illegal" and "unnecessary" lets hear you back up those claims. Any actual examples of Bush shredding the constitution or are you just blowing smoke? What specifically did Bush do to bring about the economic disaster?

I have found most of the dimwit libs out there foaming at the mouth with hatred of Bush but can't provide a substantiated example of what they accuse him of doing. They were told to hate Bush and complied like a mindless drone.

I never hated Bush. I hated his policies but, unlike the morons who hate the current, good man serving in the Whitehouse, I can disagree vehemently with a person and not hate them. And, the Iraq war was not necessary. Wars are necessary when a nation is attacked or threatened with attack. Iraq neither attacked us nor posed a threat. And the result is a hugely destabilized region. As for the legality, the claim was that the attack on Iraq was to enforce UN sanctions but the UN never authorized the use of force. The Patriot Act shredded the constitution. GITMO violates the constitution. And Bush was not alone in getting the blame for the recession. That blame goes all around and across party lines. But, he was at the helm when the ship crashed so he is responsible.

Which policies specifically? Obama is a liar, do you overlook that? Have you consulted the Democratic party leadership in congress who voted to authorize the Iraq war?

Nearly every Republican voted for the war
Most Democrats voted against it
Bush pulled the trigger in spite of being urged not to

Yet, Republicans still try to blame the Democrats

Democrats voted for the war and gave Bush the victory in Congress he needed. They continued to fund the war, even though they had adequate votes to cut it off.
Yet Democrats still try to blame Bush.

Unfortunate that so many Democrats trusted the Bush Administration to give honest intelligence assessments. They should have known better.

More lame excuse making and ducking responsibility. You forgot to mention intelligence reports from our allies around the world were reporting the same thing. You also forgot to mention it was later confirmed that Sadam was doing all he could to make it appear he had the WMD's.

It would be refreshing to see someone on the left make a good solid point that didn't have to be propped up with lies, half truths, and dishonest spin.

 

[nuhuh]

I never hated Bush. I hated his policies but, unlike the morons who hate the current, good man serving in the Whitehouse, I can disagree vehemently with a person and not hate them. And, the Iraq war was not necessary. Wars are necessary when a nation is attacked or threatened with attack. Iraq neither attacked us nor posed a threat. And the result is a hugely destabilized region. As for the legality, the claim was that the attack on Iraq was to enforce UN sanctions but the UN never authorized the use of force. The Patriot Act shredded the constitution. GITMO violates the constitution. And Bush was not alone in getting the blame for the recession. That blame goes all around and across party lines. But, he was at the helm when the ship crashed so he is responsible.

Which policies specifically? Obama is a liar, do you overlook that? Have you consulted the Democratic party leadership in congress who voted to authorize the Iraq war?

Nearly every Republican voted for the war
Most Democrats voted against it
Bush pulled the trigger in spite of being urged not to

Yet, Republicans still try to blame the Democrats

Democrats voted for the war and gave Bush the victory in Congress he needed. They continued to fund the war, even though they had adequate votes to cut it off.
Yet Democrats still try to blame Bush.

Unfortunate that so many Democrats trusted the Bush Administration to give honest intelligence assessments. They should have known better.

More lame excuse making and ducking responsibility. You forgot to mention intelligence reports from our allies around the world were reporting the same thing. You also forgot to mention it was later confirmed that Sadam was doing all he could to make it appear he had the WMD's.

It would be refreshing to see someone on the left make a good solid point that didn't have to be propped up with lies, half truths, and dishonest spin.

Yes, I remember the Downing Street Memos, those were exceptional intelligence reports by our allies. Too bad they kept it hushed up for 21/2 years before the public found out about them. I didn't forget to mention anything by Saddam, it is the job of intelligence to vet sources and flesh out the danger to our troops in advance of a military movement.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm not sure how you contradicted me, maybe you could be a little more specific

We went to Iraq over WMD that was non existent, while ignoring the terrorists who brought down the twin towers who were in Afghanistan.

Gotcha, so you were agreeing with me. W shouldn't have invaded and Obama should have brought the troops home when he took office rather than leaving them there 18 more months to die for nothing

No I am not agreeing with you. W invaded the wrong country and 5,500 service members died for WMD that did not exist and although W did invade Afghanistan, he changed the calculus of deployment and concentrated his efforts in the wrong place. Obama did try to keep troops on the ground but Iraq refused to grant the troops immunity which made staying impossible.

You understand that faux-narrative was debunked by two of Obama's own SecDefs, right? Obama could have left troops there and chose not to.

No it wasn't. It was the Iraqis who forced Bushes hand in negotiating for a new SOFA by the end of 2008 or the troops would have been force to leave then. They wanted the US out and that didn't change when Obama became president.

So we're going with straight denial of facts then?

 

[The Rabbi]

I never hated Bush. I hated his policies but, unlike the morons who hate the current, good man serving in the Whitehouse, I can disagree vehemently with a person and not hate them. And, the Iraq war was not necessary. Wars are necessary when a nation is attacked or threatened with attack. Iraq neither attacked us nor posed a threat. And the result is a hugely destabilized region. As for the legality, the claim was that the attack on Iraq was to enforce UN sanctions but the UN never authorized the use of force. The Patriot Act shredded the constitution. GITMO violates the constitution. And Bush was not alone in getting the blame for the recession. That blame goes all around and across party lines. But, he was at the helm when the ship crashed so he is responsible.

Which policies specifically? Obama is a liar, do you overlook that? Have you consulted the Democratic party leadership in congress who voted to authorize the Iraq war?

Nearly every Republican voted for the war
Most Democrats voted against it
Bush pulled the trigger in spite of being urged not to

Yet, Republicans still try to blame the Democrats

Democrats voted for the war and gave Bush the victory in Congress he needed. They continued to fund the war, even though they had adequate votes to cut it off.
Yet Democrats still try to blame Bush.

Unfortunate that so many Democrats trusted the Bush Administration to give honest intelligence assessments. They should have known better.

More lame excuse making and ducking responsibility. You forgot to mention intelligence reports from our allies around the world were reporting the same thing. You also forgot to mention it was later confirmed that Sadam was doing all he could to make it appear he had the WMD's.

It would be refreshing to see someone on the left make a good solid point that didn't have to be propped up with lies, half truths, and dishonest spin.

It would be impossible. If they didnt lie, spin, or omit they wouldnt have a single argument.

 

[rightwinger]

I never hated Bush. I hated his policies but, unlike the morons who hate the current, good man serving in the Whitehouse, I can disagree vehemently with a person and not hate them. And, the Iraq war was not necessary. Wars are necessary when a nation is attacked or threatened with attack. Iraq neither attacked us nor posed a threat. And the result is a hugely destabilized region. As for the legality, the claim was that the attack on Iraq was to enforce UN sanctions but the UN never authorized the use of force. The Patriot Act shredded the constitution. GITMO violates the constitution. And Bush was not alone in getting the blame for the recession. That blame goes all around and across party lines. But, he was at the helm when the ship crashed so he is responsible.

Which policies specifically? Obama is a liar, do you overlook that? Have you consulted the Democratic party leadership in congress who voted to authorize the Iraq war?

Nearly every Republican voted for the war
Most Democrats voted against it
Bush pulled the trigger in spite of being urged not to

Yet, Republicans still try to blame the Democrats

Democrats voted for the war and gave Bush the victory in Congress he needed. They continued to fund the war, even though they had adequate votes to cut it off.
Yet Democrats still try to blame Bush.

Unfortunate that so many Democrats trusted the Bush Administration to give honest intelligence assessments. They should have known better.

More lame excuse making and ducking responsibility. You forgot to mention intelligence reports from our allies around the world were reporting the same thing. You also forgot to mention it was later confirmed that Sadam was doing all he could to make it appear he had the WMD's.

It would be refreshing to see someone on the left make a good solid point that didn't have to be propped up with lies, half truths, and dishonest spin.

Hans Blix was on the ground and was telling Bush otherwise
He asked Bush to hold off on his invasion
Bush ignored him

Blix was right and 5000 Americans died

 

[kaz]

No, he did it, it's history.

Speaking of speculation, you haven't explained how you know that Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq and that it's not your speculation they weren't. It's perfectly fair to say we don't know Al Qaeda was in Iraq, but that isn't what you said, you said you know they were not

Wrong again, how about a National Intelligence Estimate? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/19/us/politics/19threat.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print&

First of all, if you post an article to make a point, you need to provide the quote you are referring to, not just say here, read this.

Second, it says we were not "fighting" Al Qaeda in Iraq. You said Al Qaeda was not in Iraq, those are not the same thing, so you still didn't support your claim of great knowledge

But you should have already known all of this if you are actually trying to be in the middle of a debate about it. The bigger question is why don't you instead of quibbling about small points?

You can ask W why we went to fight Al Qaeda when they weren't there. He went to Iraq with the intention of fighting them, it isn't my fantasy we are discussing.

Yes, I did in fact know it. You didn't, you keep claiming that you know that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq,a point you have provided zero evidence of. I agreed we did not go in to fight Al Qaeda, I agreed we don't know they were there.

You, however, went way beyond that and claimed you know, for a fact, they were not there. Again, you are devoid of backup of that claim.

We both oppose the Iraq war. Here's the difference between us. I am comfortable enough to argue the Iraq war with facts. You think since you oppose it you can make any argument that supports your position without any reason to believe what you said is true

You are dishonest. You argue from a slanted view and have not presented a single fact of your own and then call me on not sourcing when I clearly have.When you come up with a single source to establish your veracity and willingness to discuss the truth, I might have some respect for you. That you don't offer a single thing to back up your words makes you a simple partisan hack.

"On September 21, 2001, Bush was told in the President’s Daily Brief that the intelligence community had no evidence connecting Saddam Hussein’s regime to the 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with al Qaeda. This was no surprise. Al Qaeda is a consortium of intensely religious Islamic fundamentalists, whereas Hussein ran a secular government that repressed religious activity in Iraq.

Undeterred, Bush and his people continued to tout the connection. Although the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) determined in February 2002 that “Iraq is unlikely to have provided bin Laden any useful [chemical or biological weapons] knowledge or assistance,” Bush proclaimed one year later, “Iraq has also provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.” And although the CIA concluded in a classified January 2003 report that Hussein “viewed Islamic extremists operating inside Iraq as a threat,” Cheney claimed the next day that the Iraqi government “aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.”

To support their claims that Iraq was training al-Qaeda members, Bush, Cheney, and Colin Powell repeatedly cited information provided by Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, an al-Qaeda prisoner captured shortly after 9/11. An ex-FBI official told Newsweek that the CIA “duct-taped [al-Libi's] mouth, cinched him up and sent him to Cairo” for some “more-fearsome Egyptian interrogations” in violation of U.S. law prohibiting extraordinary rendition. Al-Libi’s account proved worthless. The February 2002 DIA memo reveals al-Libi provided his American interrogators with false material suggesting Iraq had trained al-Qaeda to use weapons of mass destruction. Even though U.S. intelligence thought the information was untrue as early as 2002 because it was obtained by torture, al-Libi’s information provided the centerpiece of Colin Powell’s now thoroughly discredited February 2003 claim before the United Nations that Iraq had developed WMD programs." Iraq A War of Aggression. No WMDs No Connection to Al Qaeda Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

You called me "dishonest," then said exactly what I said.

You said we know Al Qaeda was not in Iraq.

Your quote here says exactly what I said, we don't know Al Qaeda was in Iraq.

Seriously, you don't know the difference between those statements? They are not the same, there is in fact a major difference between them.

You don't have elementary reading skills. Seriously, you need to go back to grade school. Your evidence here completely supports what I said

 

[kaz]

I'm not sure how you contradicted me, maybe you could be a little more specific

We went to Iraq over WMD that was non existent, while ignoring the terrorists who brought down the twin towers who were in Afghanistan.

Um, you understand we invaded Afghanistan FIRST and THEN invaded Iraq, right?

Yes I do and the effort was milquetoast. There were no terrorists in Iraq period. We should have concentrated on Afghanistan early on and stayed there instead of reducing our effort so they could go after Saddam Hussein.

You are so full of shit. Saddam was a terrorist and he armed and funded terrorists

How many billions did Saint Raygun give him? Not to mention all the goodies Saddam was able to buy after the saint took Iraq off the list of Nations who Supported terrorist. Birds of a feather I guess, Ronnie armed and funded terrorist too.

How The United States Illegally Armed Saddam Hussein

OK, Darlene, Saddam wasn't a terrorist because Reagan helped Iraq not be defeated by Iran. Liberals logic, wow, what an oxymoron. That actually sounded good to you?

 

[kaz]

I'm not sure how you contradicted me, maybe you could be a little more specific

We went to Iraq over WMD that was non existent, while ignoring the terrorists who brought down the twin towers who were in Afghanistan.

Gotcha, so you were agreeing with me. W shouldn't have invaded and Obama should have brought the troops home when he took office rather than leaving them there 18 more months to die for nothing

No I am not agreeing with you. W invaded the wrong country and 5,500 service members died for WMD that did not exist and although W did invade Afghanistan, he changed the calculus of deployment and concentrated his efforts in the wrong place. Obama did try to keep troops on the ground but Iraq refused to grant the troops immunity which made staying impossible.

You understand that faux-narrative was debunked by two of Obama's own SecDefs, right? Obama could have left troops there and chose not to.

No it wasn't. It was the Iraqis who forced Bushes hand in negotiating for a new SOFA by the end of 2008 or the troops would have been force to leave then. They wanted the US out and that didn't change when Obama became president.

Wow, your link on that was both fascinating and compelling, no one could dispute that. Oh, wait, you didn't have one...

 

[kaz]

We went to Iraq over WMD that was non existent, while ignoring the terrorists who brought down the twin towers who were in Afghanistan.

Gotcha, so you were agreeing with me. W shouldn't have invaded and Obama should have brought the troops home when he took office rather than leaving them there 18 more months to die for nothing

No I am not agreeing with you. W invaded the wrong country and 5,500 service members died for WMD that did not exist and although W did invade Afghanistan, he changed the calculus of deployment and concentrated his efforts in the wrong place. Obama did try to keep troops on the ground but Iraq refused to grant the troops immunity which made staying impossible.

You understand that faux-narrative was debunked by two of Obama's own SecDefs, right? Obama could have left troops there and chose not to.

No it wasn't. It was the Iraqis who forced Bushes hand in negotiating for a new SOFA by the end of 2008 or the troops would have been force to leave then. They wanted the US out and that didn't change when Obama became president.

So we're going with straight denial of facts then?

He's going with making them up

 

[The Rabbi]

Which policies specifically? Obama is a liar, do you overlook that? Have you consulted the Democratic party leadership in congress who voted to authorize the Iraq war?

Nearly every Republican voted for the war
Most Democrats voted against it
Bush pulled the trigger in spite of being urged not to

Yet, Republicans still try to blame the Democrats

Democrats voted for the war and gave Bush the victory in Congress he needed. They continued to fund the war, even though they had adequate votes to cut it off.
Yet Democrats still try to blame Bush.

Unfortunate that so many Democrats trusted the Bush Administration to give honest intelligence assessments. They should have known better.

More lame excuse making and ducking responsibility. You forgot to mention intelligence reports from our allies around the world were reporting the same thing. You also forgot to mention it was later confirmed that Sadam was doing all he could to make it appear he had the WMD's.

It would be refreshing to see someone on the left make a good solid point that didn't have to be propped up with lies, half truths, and dishonest spin.

Hans Blix was on the ground and was telling Bush otherwise
He asked Bush to hold off on his invasion
Bush ignored him

Blix was right and 5000 Americans died

You mean he was on the ground when he wasnt getting kicked out of the country or denied entry to specific points. Right?
Bush held off the invasion for 18 months. Saddam never came clean, as Ghaddafi did later.

 

[rightwinger]

Nearly every Republican voted for the war
Most Democrats voted against it
Bush pulled the trigger in spite of being urged not to

Yet, Republicans still try to blame the Democrats

Democrats voted for the war and gave Bush the victory in Congress he needed. They continued to fund the war, even though they had adequate votes to cut it off.
Yet Democrats still try to blame Bush.

Unfortunate that so many Democrats trusted the Bush Administration to give honest intelligence assessments. They should have known better.

More lame excuse making and ducking responsibility. You forgot to mention intelligence reports from our allies around the world were reporting the same thing. You also forgot to mention it was later confirmed that Sadam was doing all he could to make it appear he had the WMD's.

It would be refreshing to see someone on the left make a good solid point that didn't have to be propped up with lies, half truths, and dishonest spin.

Hans Blix was on the ground and was telling Bush otherwise
He asked Bush to hold off on his invasion
Bush ignored him

Blix was right and 5000 Americans died

You mean he was on the ground when he wasnt getting kicked out of the country or denied entry to specific points. Right?
Bush held off the invasion for 18 months. Saddam never came clean, as Ghaddafi did later.

Blix was on the ground and reporting there was nothing to see
It was BUSH who kicked him out because Blix was getting in the way of his invasion

Bush needed to get his invasion launched before Blix took away his pretext

Cost 5000 Americans their lives....more than we lost on 9-11

 

[The Rabbi]

Democrats voted for the war and gave Bush the victory in Congress he needed. They continued to fund the war, even though they had adequate votes to cut it off.
Yet Democrats still try to blame Bush.

Unfortunate that so many Democrats trusted the Bush Administration to give honest intelligence assessments. They should have known better.

More lame excuse making and ducking responsibility. You forgot to mention intelligence reports from our allies around the world were reporting the same thing. You also forgot to mention it was later confirmed that Sadam was doing all he could to make it appear he had the WMD's.

It would be refreshing to see someone on the left make a good solid point that didn't have to be propped up with lies, half truths, and dishonest spin.

Hans Blix was on the ground and was telling Bush otherwise
He asked Bush to hold off on his invasion
Bush ignored him

Blix was right and 5000 Americans died

You mean he was on the ground when he wasnt getting kicked out of the country or denied entry to specific points. Right?
Bush held off the invasion for 18 months. Saddam never came clean, as Ghaddafi did later.

Blix was on the ground and reporting there was nothing to see
It was BUSH who kicked him out because Blix was getting in the way of his invasion

Bush needed to get his invasion launched before Blix took away his pretext

Cost 5000 Americans their lives....more than we lost on 9-11

LOL! Sure, go with "revisionism".
The truth is Saddam was as amenable to inspections as the Iranians are now. Inspectors were routinely barred and often kicked out, with little objection from the international world, which was profiting from sanctions anyway.

 

[rightwinger]

Unfortunate that so many Democrats trusted the Bush Administration to give honest intelligence assessments. They should have known better.

More lame excuse making and ducking responsibility. You forgot to mention intelligence reports from our allies around the world were reporting the same thing. You also forgot to mention it was later confirmed that Sadam was doing all he could to make it appear he had the WMD's.

It would be refreshing to see someone on the left make a good solid point that didn't have to be propped up with lies, half truths, and dishonest spin.

Hans Blix was on the ground and was telling Bush otherwise
He asked Bush to hold off on his invasion
Bush ignored him

Blix was right and 5000 Americans died

You mean he was on the ground when he wasnt getting kicked out of the country or denied entry to specific points. Right?
Bush held off the invasion for 18 months. Saddam never came clean, as Ghaddafi did later.

Blix was on the ground and reporting there was nothing to see
It was BUSH who kicked him out because Blix was getting in the way of his invasion

Bush needed to get his invasion launched before Blix took away his pretext

Cost 5000 Americans their lives....more than we lost on 9-11

LOL! Sure, go with "revisionism".
The truth is Saddam was as amenable to inspections as the Iranians are now. Inspectors were routinely barred and often kicked out, with little objection from the international world, which was profiting from sanctions anyway.

No revisionism

History showed that Blix was correct in his assessment of Iraq and that Bush was exaggerating the threat to justify his invasion.

It cost 100,000 lives

 

[nuhuh]

"BUSH: "One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take-

RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.

BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand." Bush Acknowledges Absence Of Al Qaeda In Pre-Occupation Iraq With A So What

Since Iraqis rose up against the U.S. occupation in 2003, the insurgency has spawned a long roster of militant groups -- the 1920 Revolution Brigades, Islamic Army in Iraq, Ansar al-Sunnah, Mujahedeen Army, the Mahdi Army, among others -- drawing on loyalists of the ousted, Sunni-dominated Baathist regime, other nationalists, Islamists, tribal groups and militant Shiites.

Some 30 groups now claim responsibility for attacks against U.S. and government targets, said Ben Venzke, head of the Virginia-based IntelCenter, which tracks such statements for the U.S. government.

Despite this proliferation of enemies, the U.S. command's news releases on American operations focus overwhelmingly on al-Qaida.

During the first half of May, those releases mentioned al-Qaida 51 times, against just five mentions of other groups. When other groups tangle with U.S. forces, they're often described as "al-Qaida-linked," mainly those in the Islamic State of Iraq, an alliance that is dominated by the terror network. If not, they're tagged "criminals," "secret cell networks," or with similar nonspecific names.

In addition, in a year-to-year comparison, the number of U.S. military releases mentioning al-Qaida almost doubled, from 161 in 2005-2006 to 306 in 2006-2007. Even accounting for an increased number of command reports overall, the al-Qaida releases rose by 40 percent.

"How big, then, is AQI? The most persuasive estimate I've heard comes from Malcolm Nance, the author of The Terrorists of Iraq and a twenty-year intelligence veteran and Arabic speaker who has worked with military and intelligence units tracking al-Qaeda inside Iraq. He believes AQI includes about 850 full-time fighters, comprising 2 percent to 5 percent of the Sunni insurgency. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq," according to Nance, "is a microscopic terrorist organization."

And that my friends is what we justified an invasion and a war on.

 

[BlindBoo]

We went to Iraq over WMD that was non existent, while ignoring the terrorists who brought down the twin towers who were in Afghanistan.

Gotcha, so you were agreeing with me. W shouldn't have invaded and Obama should have brought the troops home when he took office rather than leaving them there 18 more months to die for nothing

No I am not agreeing with you. W invaded the wrong country and 5,500 service members died for WMD that did not exist and although W did invade Afghanistan, he changed the calculus of deployment and concentrated his efforts in the wrong place. Obama did try to keep troops on the ground but Iraq refused to grant the troops immunity which made staying impossible.

You understand that faux-narrative was debunked by two of Obama's own SecDefs, right? Obama could have left troops there and chose not to.

No it wasn't. It was the Iraqis who forced Bushes hand in negotiating for a new SOFA by the end of 2008 or the troops would have been force to leave then. They wanted the US out and that didn't change when Obama became president.

So we're going with straight denial of facts then?

You got a frog in your pocket or what? There is no doubt that the Iraqi went to the UN for many years to get them to not renew their authorization for the US occupation and they finally did, thus forcing President Bush to negotiate a SOFA in 2008. You think he did that out of the goodness of his heart?

 

[The Rabbi]

More lame excuse making and ducking responsibility. You forgot to mention intelligence reports from our allies around the world were reporting the same thing. You also forgot to mention it was later confirmed that Sadam was doing all he could to make it appear he had the WMD's.

It would be refreshing to see someone on the left make a good solid point that didn't have to be propped up with lies, half truths, and dishonest spin.

Hans Blix was on the ground and was telling Bush otherwise
He asked Bush to hold off on his invasion
Bush ignored him

Blix was right and 5000 Americans died

You mean he was on the ground when he wasnt getting kicked out of the country or denied entry to specific points. Right?
Bush held off the invasion for 18 months. Saddam never came clean, as Ghaddafi did later.

Blix was on the ground and reporting there was nothing to see
It was BUSH who kicked him out because Blix was getting in the way of his invasion

Bush needed to get his invasion launched before Blix took away his pretext

Cost 5000 Americans their lives....more than we lost on 9-11

LOL! Sure, go with "revisionism".
The truth is Saddam was as amenable to inspections as the Iranians are now. Inspectors were routinely barred and often kicked out, with little objection from the international world, which was profiting from sanctions anyway.

No revisionism

History showed that Blix was correct in his assessment of Iraq and that Bush was exaggerating the threat to justify his invasion.

It cost 100,000 lives

WHat history shows is irrelevant. The truth is Saddam kicked out the inspectors repeatedly and denied them access. Blix had no idea what was going on.

 

[The Rabbi]

Gotcha, so you were agreeing with me. W shouldn't have invaded and Obama should have brought the troops home when he took office rather than leaving them there 18 more months to die for nothing

No I am not agreeing with you. W invaded the wrong country and 5,500 service members died for WMD that did not exist and although W did invade Afghanistan, he changed the calculus of deployment and concentrated his efforts in the wrong place. Obama did try to keep troops on the ground but Iraq refused to grant the troops immunity which made staying impossible.

You understand that faux-narrative was debunked by two of Obama's own SecDefs, right? Obama could have left troops there and chose not to.

No it wasn't. It was the Iraqis who forced Bushes hand in negotiating for a new SOFA by the end of 2008 or the troops would have been force to leave then. They wanted the US out and that didn't change when Obama became president.

So we're going with straight denial of facts then?

You got a frog in your pocket or what? There is no doubt that the Iraqi went to the UN for many years to get them to not renew their authorization for the US occupation and they finally did, thus forcing President Bush to negotiate a SOFA in 2008. You think he did that out of the goodness of his heart?

YTou are in denial that two SecDefs of Obama's both say the same thing: Obama had considerable leverage to renegotiate, and was being asked to do so by many elements in the Iraqi government. He refused to do so and went headlong into retreat, creating a vacuum that military experts had warned about.

 

[BluesLegend]

Which policies specifically? Obama is a liar, do you overlook that? Have you consulted the Democratic party leadership in congress who voted to authorize the Iraq war?

Nearly every Republican voted for the war
Most Democrats voted against it
Bush pulled the trigger in spite of being urged not to

Yet, Republicans still try to blame the Democrats

Democrats voted for the war and gave Bush the victory in Congress he needed. They continued to fund the war, even though they had adequate votes to cut it off.
Yet Democrats still try to blame Bush.

Unfortunate that so many Democrats trusted the Bush Administration to give honest intelligence assessments. They should have known better.

More lame excuse making and ducking responsibility. You forgot to mention intelligence reports from our allies around the world were reporting the same thing. You also forgot to mention it was later confirmed that Sadam was doing all he could to make it appear he had the WMD's.

It would be refreshing to see someone on the left make a good solid point that didn't have to be propped up with lies, half truths, and dishonest spin.

It would be impossible. If they didnt lie, spin, or omit they wouldnt have a single argument.

Hence I have stopped responding to their posts, I mean what's the point.

 

[BlindBoo]

No I am not agreeing with you. W invaded the wrong country and 5,500 service members died for WMD that did not exist and although W did invade Afghanistan, he changed the calculus of deployment and concentrated his efforts in the wrong place. Obama did try to keep troops on the ground but Iraq refused to grant the troops immunity which made staying impossible.

You understand that faux-narrative was debunked by two of Obama's own SecDefs, right? Obama could have left troops there and chose not to.

No it wasn't. It was the Iraqis who forced Bushes hand in negotiating for a new SOFA by the end of 2008 or the troops would have been force to leave then. They wanted the US out and that didn't change when Obama became president.

So we're going with straight denial of facts then?

You got a frog in your pocket or what? There is no doubt that the Iraqi went to the UN for many years to get them to not renew their authorization for the US occupation and they finally did, thus forcing President Bush to negotiate a SOFA in 2008. You think he did that out of the goodness of his heart?

YTou are in denial that two SecDefs of Obama's both say the same thing: Obama had considerable leverage to renegotiate, and was being asked to do so by many elements in the Iraqi government. He refused to do so and went headlong into retreat, creating a vacuum that military experts had warned about.

So when Bush signed the SOFA in 2008 that called for our complete withdrawal why didn't he use this alleged leverage on the Iraq?

Because it wasn't there. The Iraqis had wanted us out of their country since 2003.