Jeb Bush and the Stabbed in the Back Myth

[SassyIrishLass]

Joe must like obabbles strategic patience...wait till its to late....

Yeah, most people see a threat and do something to prevent it.

Really? If most people saw Saddam as a possible threat in the future, why did Bush have to lie about the threat he posed "RIGHT NOW!!"

Now admittably, after 9/11, we were all really rattled, and Bush took advantage of that kind of fear that his PNAC buddies never would have gotten us to go along with in 1999 or 2000.

But decisions made in fear are never good ones.

You should have thought of that before biting your first pillow

 

[ogibillm]

For those not familiar with history, after Germany's defeat in World War I, those responsible for the war promoted something known as the "Dolchstoßlegende", or Stabbed in the Back Myth. In short Germany was winning the war, and the Socialists and Jews and the Left stabbed the Army in the back before Victory could be claimed.

This, of course, paved the way for the Nazis to take power and led Germany to an even more devastating defeat in World War II.

As I watch Jeb Bush flip and flop over whether or not he would have went to war with Iraq in 2003 "knowing what we know now', I see the Right trying to create it's own Stabbed in the back myth.

In this one, we get the refrain that "The Intelligence was Wrong" - As if Bush never would have attacked Iraq had the Intelligence community not given him bad intel. This flies in the face of the historical record, where Dick Cheney personally went to CIA headquarters to squeeze the kind of reports they wanted out of the intelligence, and when the CIA wouldn't give them what they wanted, they cited foreign intelligence sources like the story about yellowcake from Niger.

We get the argument that "Democrats thought Saddam had WMD's, too" and "They voted to give Bush the authorization to use force". The problem with these arguments is that they were made before 9/11 and no one was seriously advocating an invasion to get rid of Saddam. It was Bush and his team who ignored the military and intelligence communities advice on how many troops it would take to subdue Iraq and what the reaction to an invasion would be. We heard things like "The invasion will pay for itself" and "our troops would be welcomed as liberators" until it all went to shit and then we heard, "Well, the Democrats voted for the war, too."

And then we get the argument that the reason why Iraq has collapsed into Civil War was because "Obama pulled out too soon." forgetting the fact that Bush had negotiated a withdrawal and the Iraqis didn't want one American boot on their soil after 2011.

In short, this kind of revisionist history needs to be addressed. Jeb Bush needs to be pressed on it every time he opens his mouth.

"Given what we know now".....what exactly does Obama know now?

Are you slow? NO WMD! THE WRONG VOUNTRY!

You're the one who must be slow, even the NY Slimes admits there were WMDs

You cant be this dumb

 

[deltex1]

Joe must like obabbles strategic patience...wait till its to late....

Yeah, most people see a threat and do something to prevent it.

Really? If most people saw Saddam as a possible threat in the future, why did Bush have to lie about the threat he posed "RIGHT NOW!!"

Now admittably, after 9/11, we were all really rattled, and Bush took advantage of that kind of fear that his PNAC buddies never would have gotten us to go along with in 1999 or 2000.

But decisions made in fear are never good ones.

Fear, my ass. More like picking a bugger out of your nose.

 

[JimH52]

They know the Clinton administration thought Saddam was a danger and said so.
Clinton even bombed him once or twice.

snip:
Bush lied? What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq’s WMD? by T. Jefferson Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 4:03 PM EDTORIGINAL PUBLICATION

DATE: JANUARY 30, 2004 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…" –

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 |

Source "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." – President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 |

Source "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program." – President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." – Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 |

Source "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." – Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. – (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 |

Source "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
all of it here:
Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/4976/?utm_source=glennbeck&utm_medium=contentcopy_link


they don't have anything good to run on under Obama so they resort back to their lying. How anyone can belong to party (democrat) that spins, misleads and lies right in their face is beyond me

"But officer, I may have pulled the trigger, but the gun shop sold me the gun and bullets, and the government approved the sale. So you should arrest them also!"

Good Grief, Staf, give it up. All the Republicans are running from Bush's war. You and Sassy need to run also.

 

[pwjohn]

To start with here, I don't know if this comment is your creation, or something you found and posted here, but you whine about others revising history and then go on to do the exact same thing yourself. So I'm gonna go ahead splash some sorely needed truth on the tail end of your comment.

You see Bush did in fact negotiate the end of the war in Iraq while still in office and when that day finally arrived, a very big deal was made out of the last soldier driving the last motorized whatever peice of equipment out of the country with that image showing up on the front page of every newspaper in the country, every TV news channel on top of that.

And guess who stupidly took credit for ending the war in Iraq.That'sht, our dear leader as he was known back then. lol.

So quit your whining, there's no need for you to revise history because Obama has only himself to blame for this particular shit stain on his administration.

1) THis is my own creation.

2) You seem to want to focus on one minor point in order to ignore the gist of the comment, that the Bush family is trying to rewrite history.

3) How is Obama responsible for Nouri al-Maliki's actions after we left? al-Maliki was the guy Bush put into office, and he was the one who ignored the sensible advise to keep paying the Sunnis and involve them in Government. Not Obama.

4) Again, none of this shit stain, as you say, would have happened if Bush hadn't invaded over weapons that didn't exist with an army too small to do the job,

Well I guess some congratulations are in order than because that was a pretty good rant on your part. But I have to admit, after reading the first few lines, I jumped ahead to the end, or should I say, the point you were trying to make.

But you're sadly mistaken when you claim that I blame Obama for bad behavior on the part of third world Arab Muslim shithole people because you won't find those words in my reply.

All I said was, Obama stupidly took ownership of the wars end. And did so repeatedly for quite sometime after that. He never mentioned, in public anyway, that the wars end was already set in stone by the bush administration. And you know what, I was pretty sure back then Obama had chosen poorly, and for no more reason then to score a political point or two.

 

[JoeB131]

What myth ? Germans weren't defeated in battle. They were screwed by politicians.

Uh, maybe you need to read up on history. The Ludendorf offensive in 1918 failed to defeat the allies, and at that point, Hindenberg, Ludendorf and other German Generals were begging the Kaiser to seek a negotiated peace because victory on the battlefield was no longer possible.

The governments of Germany's allies, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, were collapsing of their own weight at that point.

But the key thing that turned the tide was the revolt by German Sailors at Kiel, when the German High Command tried to sorty a naval attack that would have been suicidal for the High Seas Fleet. After they seized the port, Wilhelm abdicated and the politicians did what they should have done- sued for peace.

 

[ogibillm]

He did have them, even the report said he did, also that report was from 2004, since then more were found.

Believe what you want, it makes little difference to me. Bush got his war, thousands of bad guys were sent to Allah and it's history.

Thousands of Good Guys got sent to - well, nothing happens to anyone after you die, so they just died.

But besides the fact we went to war over a lie and no one will ever believe us again, you have the little problem of how Bush's war actually made things WORSE in that region. Instead of an Iraq that acts as a firewall against Iranian ambitions, we now have an Iraq which is an Iranian Ally.

You have large portions of the country that are petri dishes for breeding a more virulent kind of terrorist than has been produced before. You have violence spilling into neighboring countries.

How was any of this a good idea again? Oh, that's right. We found some old rusty shells full of mustard gas from 1991.

Blah, blah,blah..my best friend was one of those that went and fell, he had no regrets. I think I'll go with him. No shush "Mr Republican"

Bold of you to speak for the dead

 

[hipeter924]

Reagan, Bush Sr, Bush Jr, and now Obama, all had a hand in creating ISIS and other terrorist groups. Screwing up stability in the Middle East was a team effort.

 

[JoeB131]

Blah, blah,blah..my best friend was one of those that went and fell, he had no regrets. I think I'll go with him. No shush "Mr Republican"

Well, you know what, a lot of fine young men served over there, and it is incumbant on the political leaders to make sure they are fighting and dying for worthy causes.

"I'm going to get Saddam because he done tries to kill my Daddy" isn't one of them.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Blah, blah,blah..my best friend was one of those that went and fell, he had no regrets. I think I'll go with him. No shush "Mr Republican"

Well, you know what, a lot of fine young men served over there, and it is incumbant on the political leaders to make sure they are fighting and dying for worthy causes.

"I'm going to get Saddam because he done tries to kill my Daddy" isn't one of them.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, go take a nap

 

[JoeB131]

You should have thought of that before biting your first pillow

Oh, was that supposed to imply Im gay? Sorry, sweetie, totally straight. I just don't do fat ugly chicks like you.

Now how about addressing the point? Saddam wasn't a threat, but Bush used fear to get us to go along with a stupid and immoral war. Now his brother is trying to rewrite history by putting the blame on the intelligence agencies.

 

[JoeB131]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, go take a nap

Wow, you don't take losing arguments well, do you?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, go take a nap

Wow, you don't take losing arguments well, do you?

I didn't lose, pillow biter

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You should have thought of that before biting your first pillow

Oh, was that supposed to imply Im gay? Sorry, sweetie, totally straight. I just don't do fat ugly chicks like you.

Now how about addressing the point? Saddam wasn't a threat, but Bush used fear to get us to go along with a stupid and immoral war. Now his brother is trying to rewrite history by putting the blame on the intelligence agencies.

You seem gay. Maybe it's that "flair" you have. Girl up Joey, be proud and be loud

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They know the Clinton administration thought Saddam was a danger and said so.
Clinton even bombed him once or twice.

snip:
Bush lied? What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq’s WMD? by T. Jefferson Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 4:03 PM EDTORIGINAL PUBLICATION

DATE: JANUARY 30, 2004 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…" –

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 |

Source "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." – President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 |

Source "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program." – President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." – Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 |

Source "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." – Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. – (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 |

Source "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
all of it here:
Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/4976/?utm_source=glennbeck&utm_medium=contentcopy_link


they don't have anything good to run on under Obama so they resort back to their lying. How anyone can belong to party (democrat) that spins, misleads and lies right in their face is beyond me

"But officer, I may have pulled the trigger, but the gun shop sold me the gun and bullets, and the government approved the sale. So you should arrest them also!"

Good Grief, Staf, give it up. All the Republicans are running from Bush's war. You and Sassy need to run also.

And Jeb! got tangled up in his brother's lies.

 

[JoeB131]

Well I guess some congratulations are in order than because that was a pretty good rant on your part. But I have to admit, after reading the first few lines, I jumped ahead to the end, or should I say, the point you were trying to make.

So you have poor reading comprehension skills and you think you can just default to 'But, but, but ...Obama!"

Okay. Moving right along.

All I said was, Obama stupidly took ownership of the wars end. And did so repeatedly for quite sometime after that. He never mentioned, in public anyway, that the wars end was already set in stone by the bush administration. And you know what, I was pretty sure back then Obama had chosen poorly, and for no more reason then to score a political point or two.

Actually, Obama was putting the best face on someone else's fuckup. Not that he can win. When he blames Bush for the things Bush fucked up (which was about everything the guy touched) you guys accuse him of not taking ownership of things.

So let's get back to the OP,w hich is, should we let Bush try to pass off a Stabbed in the Back Myth to cover up how badly his brother messed up?

to which I say, No. Not for a minute.

 

[dilloduck]

What myth ? Germans weren't defeated in battle. They were screwed by politicians.

Uh, maybe you need to read up on history. The Ludendorf offensive in 1918 failed to defeat the allies, and at that point, Hindenberg, Ludendorf and other German Generals were begging the Kaiser to seek a negotiated peace because victory on the battlefield was no longer possible.

The governments of Germany's allies, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, were collapsing of their own weight at that point.

But the key thing that turned the tide was the revolt by German Sailors at Kiel, when the German High Command tried to sorty a naval attack that would have been suicidal for the High Seas Fleet. After they seized the port, Wilhelm abdicated and the politicians did what they should have done- sued for peace.

and did such a horrible job at it that Hitler had an audience that was quite sympathetic to his cause. Everyone knew it wasn't over. That's why no one celebrated any WWI victory. They were happy for an Armistice.

 

[JoeB131]

You seem gay. Maybe it's that "flair" you have. Girl up Joey, be proud and be loud

Really? So you think people who know how to structure a sentence are "gay", a skill you obviously haven't mastered yet?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You seem gay. Maybe it's that "flair" you have. Girl up Joey, be proud and be loud

Really? So you think people who know how to structure a sentence are "gay", a skill you obviously haven't mastered yet?

You're becoming boring, Joey. Take a break and try and think of something really clever and get back to me

 

[Stephanie]

The Democrat party doesn't care it Misleads it's base of voters and plays games with their lives

they know they will still go and vote for them. Just look how Hillary is walking all over them. All the while laughing at them