Regime Change in Iraq: a "Mistake"?

[Soggy in NOLA]

Most coherent people should recognize what a "mistake" is. A "mistake" is an action that, viewed properly, was an exercise of poor judgment due to carelessness, inattention, or mis-placed priorities.

The examples are countless, and range from simple to more involved. An advertising manager fails to proofread the copy of a large newspaper ad, and the price is wrong, or a product description is wrong. A manager gives a critical assignment to a "rookie" when there is an experienced person available, and the rookie messes it up.

At the time of the Iraq invasion, there was unanimous agreement in not only the U.S., but in all of the civilized world on basically two things: (a) Saddam Hussein was a bad actor who was a danger to the surrounding countries (e.g., he sponsored terrorist attacks on Israeli and western interests, and paid "bonus money" to the families of suicide bombers in Israel), and (b) Saddam had a large cache of WMD's, the ability to deliver them, as well as the ability to produce more of them on a moment's notice. (Unknown to anyone, Saddam himself promoted this illusion in order to deter Iran from invading Iraq).

Secondarily, the White House had information from Iraqi expats that the majority of the Iraqi population would welcome the invading army with open arms, and that it (the population) was hungry for political freedom and some form of "democracy."

Based on this information - which was not in serious dispute - the question for the President in Congress was, given that information, whether it was advisable to depose Saddam. There can be no doubt, now or then, that strong arguments could have been made for either case at the time. Having him around was a bad thing, but deposing a sitting, relatively stable government is a serious thing, even if it is perceived as "evil."

Twenty-20 hindsight is an odious thing, but even so, it is possible to maintain that it was a "mistake" to depose Saddam, on the basis of the principle that we should not depose sitting governments, even if they are not "nice," by our Western standards. Recent history has shown - and continues to show - that this path, when pursued in the Arab world, leads to anarchy, needless death and destruction, and the rise of militant Islamist fanatics into positions of local control.

But saying that the vote for invasion of Iraq was a "mistake" due to being based on Bush43's "lies" is not only preposterous, but slanderous in the extreme. Both the White House and Congress had access to EXACTLY the same intelligence w/r/t Saddam and his WMD's. The CIA and its tentacles work for the entire federal government, not just for the Administration; each branch of Congress has an Intelligence Committee that is charged with keeping the Congress apprised of the latest and best information available. They do NOT rely entirely on the White House for their information. Furthermore, if the vote had been based on a good-faith belief in the reliability of our intelligence, then it was not a "mistake" at all. If I make a decision based on the best information available at the time, and the resulting action turns out badly, the decision is still valid; the problem was not with the judgment of the decision-maker, but with the provider of the flawed information.

So HRC wants her progressive minions to "forgive" her vote to invade Iraq because it was a "mistake." What exactly does she mean by that? She failed to make the only tenable argument at the time, to wit, that it was bad policy to depose a sitting government, so she overtly went along with the deposition. What was her "mistake"? Why won't she be a mensch and own her vote?

The Bush administration lied the American people into supporting the Iraq war.

The fundamental mistake was committing the US to a ground war that was not justified by US vital interests, in other words, the war was unnecessary.

btw, Barack Obama is president because Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War authorization.

Oh whatever.... prominent Dems were calling for action in Iraq well before Shrub ever entered the WH.

Next...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Most coherent people should recognize what a "mistake" is. A "mistake" is an action that, viewed properly, was an exercise of poor judgment due to carelessness, inattention, or mis-placed priorities.

The examples are countless, and range from simple to more involved. An advertising manager fails to proofread the copy of a large newspaper ad, and the price is wrong, or a product description is wrong. A manager gives a critical assignment to a "rookie" when there is an experienced person available, and the rookie messes it up.

At the time of the Iraq invasion, there was unanimous agreement in not only the U.S., but in all of the civilized world on basically two things: (a) Saddam Hussein was a bad actor who was a danger to the surrounding countries (e.g., he sponsored terrorist attacks on Israeli and western interests, and paid "bonus money" to the families of suicide bombers in Israel), and (b) Saddam had a large cache of WMD's, the ability to deliver them, as well as the ability to produce more of them on a moment's notice. (Unknown to anyone, Saddam himself promoted this illusion in order to deter Iran from invading Iraq).

Secondarily, the White House had information from Iraqi expats that the majority of the Iraqi population would welcome the invading army with open arms, and that it (the population) was hungry for political freedom and some form of "democracy."

Based on this information - which was not in serious dispute - the question for the President in Congress was, given that information, whether it was advisable to depose Saddam. There can be no doubt, now or then, that strong arguments could have been made for either case at the time. Having him around was a bad thing, but deposing a sitting, relatively stable government is a serious thing, even if it is perceived as "evil."

Twenty-20 hindsight is an odious thing, but even so, it is possible to maintain that it was a "mistake" to depose Saddam, on the basis of the principle that we should not depose sitting governments, even if they are not "nice," by our Western standards. Recent history has shown - and continues to show - that this path, when pursued in the Arab world, leads to anarchy, needless death and destruction, and the rise of militant Islamist fanatics into positions of local control.

But saying that the vote for invasion of Iraq was a "mistake" due to being based on Bush43's "lies" is not only preposterous, but slanderous in the extreme. Both the White House and Congress had access to EXACTLY the same intelligence w/r/t Saddam and his WMD's. The CIA and its tentacles work for the entire federal government, not just for the Administration; each branch of Congress has an Intelligence Committee that is charged with keeping the Congress apprised of the latest and best information available. They do NOT rely entirely on the White House for their information. Furthermore, if the vote had been based on a good-faith belief in the reliability of our intelligence, then it was not a "mistake" at all. If I make a decision based on the best information available at the time, and the resulting action turns out badly, the decision is still valid; the problem was not with the judgment of the decision-maker, but with the provider of the flawed information.

So HRC wants her progressive minions to "forgive" her vote to invade Iraq because it was a "mistake." What exactly does she mean by that? She failed to make the only tenable argument at the time, to wit, that it was bad policy to depose a sitting government, so she overtly went along with the deposition. What was her "mistake"? Why won't she be a mensch and own her vote?

The Bush administration lied the American people into supporting the Iraq war.

The fundamental mistake was committing the US to a ground war that was not justified by US vital interests, in other words, the war was unnecessary.

btw, Barack Obama is president because Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War authorization.

Bush lied LOL how ignorant

We know Bush lied because he sent Colin Powell to the UN with fake pictures of non-existent WMD's.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most coherent people should recognize what a "mistake" is. A "mistake" is an action that, viewed properly, was an exercise of poor judgment due to carelessness, inattention, or mis-placed priorities.

The examples are countless, and range from simple to more involved. An advertising manager fails to proofread the copy of a large newspaper ad, and the price is wrong, or a product description is wrong. A manager gives a critical assignment to a "rookie" when there is an experienced person available, and the rookie messes it up.

At the time of the Iraq invasion, there was unanimous agreement in not only the U.S., but in all of the civilized world on basically two things: (a) Saddam Hussein was a bad actor who was a danger to the surrounding countries (e.g., he sponsored terrorist attacks on Israeli and western interests, and paid "bonus money" to the families of suicide bombers in Israel), and (b) Saddam had a large cache of WMD's, the ability to deliver them, as well as the ability to produce more of them on a moment's notice. (Unknown to anyone, Saddam himself promoted this illusion in order to deter Iran from invading Iraq).

Secondarily, the White House had information from Iraqi expats that the majority of the Iraqi population would welcome the invading army with open arms, and that it (the population) was hungry for political freedom and some form of "democracy."

Based on this information - which was not in serious dispute - the question for the President in Congress was, given that information, whether it was advisable to depose Saddam. There can be no doubt, now or then, that strong arguments could have been made for either case at the time. Having him around was a bad thing, but deposing a sitting, relatively stable government is a serious thing, even if it is perceived as "evil."

Twenty-20 hindsight is an odious thing, but even so, it is possible to maintain that it was a "mistake" to depose Saddam, on the basis of the principle that we should not depose sitting governments, even if they are not "nice," by our Western standards. Recent history has shown - and continues to show - that this path, when pursued in the Arab world, leads to anarchy, needless death and destruction, and the rise of militant Islamist fanatics into positions of local control.

But saying that the vote for invasion of Iraq was a "mistake" due to being based on Bush43's "lies" is not only preposterous, but slanderous in the extreme. Both the White House and Congress had access to EXACTLY the same intelligence w/r/t Saddam and his WMD's. The CIA and its tentacles work for the entire federal government, not just for the Administration; each branch of Congress has an Intelligence Committee that is charged with keeping the Congress apprised of the latest and best information available. They do NOT rely entirely on the White House for their information. Furthermore, if the vote had been based on a good-faith belief in the reliability of our intelligence, then it was not a "mistake" at all. If I make a decision based on the best information available at the time, and the resulting action turns out badly, the decision is still valid; the problem was not with the judgment of the decision-maker, but with the provider of the flawed information.

So HRC wants her progressive minions to "forgive" her vote to invade Iraq because it was a "mistake." What exactly does she mean by that? She failed to make the only tenable argument at the time, to wit, that it was bad policy to depose a sitting government, so she overtly went along with the deposition. What was her "mistake"? Why won't she be a mensch and own her vote?

The Bush administration lied the American people into supporting the Iraq war.

The fundamental mistake was committing the US to a ground war that was not justified by US vital interests, in other words, the war was unnecessary.

btw, Barack Obama is president because Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War authorization.

Oh whatever.... prominent Dems were calling for action in Iraq well before Shrub ever entered the WH.

Next...

So you're praising certain Democrats for agreeing with you?

lol, good one

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most coherent people should recognize what a "mistake" is. A "mistake" is an action that, viewed properly, was an exercise of poor judgment due to carelessness, inattention, or mis-placed priorities.

The examples are countless, and range from simple to more involved. An advertising manager fails to proofread the copy of a large newspaper ad, and the price is wrong, or a product description is wrong. A manager gives a critical assignment to a "rookie" when there is an experienced person available, and the rookie messes it up.

At the time of the Iraq invasion, there was unanimous agreement in not only the U.S., but in all of the civilized world on basically two things: (a) Saddam Hussein was a bad actor who was a danger to the surrounding countries (e.g., he sponsored terrorist attacks on Israeli and western interests, and paid "bonus money" to the families of suicide bombers in Israel), and (b) Saddam had a large cache of WMD's, the ability to deliver them, as well as the ability to produce more of them on a moment's notice. (Unknown to anyone, Saddam himself promoted this illusion in order to deter Iran from invading Iraq).

Secondarily, the White House had information from Iraqi expats that the majority of the Iraqi population would welcome the invading army with open arms, and that it (the population) was hungry for political freedom and some form of "democracy."

Based on this information - which was not in serious dispute - the question for the President in Congress was, given that information, whether it was advisable to depose Saddam. There can be no doubt, now or then, that strong arguments could have been made for either case at the time. Having him around was a bad thing, but deposing a sitting, relatively stable government is a serious thing, even if it is perceived as "evil."

Twenty-20 hindsight is an odious thing, but even so, it is possible to maintain that it was a "mistake" to depose Saddam, on the basis of the principle that we should not depose sitting governments, even if they are not "nice," by our Western standards. Recent history has shown - and continues to show - that this path, when pursued in the Arab world, leads to anarchy, needless death and destruction, and the rise of militant Islamist fanatics into positions of local control.

But saying that the vote for invasion of Iraq was a "mistake" due to being based on Bush43's "lies" is not only preposterous, but slanderous in the extreme. Both the White House and Congress had access to EXACTLY the same intelligence w/r/t Saddam and his WMD's. The CIA and its tentacles work for the entire federal government, not just for the Administration; each branch of Congress has an Intelligence Committee that is charged with keeping the Congress apprised of the latest and best information available. They do NOT rely entirely on the White House for their information. Furthermore, if the vote had been based on a good-faith belief in the reliability of our intelligence, then it was not a "mistake" at all. If I make a decision based on the best information available at the time, and the resulting action turns out badly, the decision is still valid; the problem was not with the judgment of the decision-maker, but with the provider of the flawed information.

So HRC wants her progressive minions to "forgive" her vote to invade Iraq because it was a "mistake." What exactly does she mean by that? She failed to make the only tenable argument at the time, to wit, that it was bad policy to depose a sitting government, so she overtly went along with the deposition. What was her "mistake"? Why won't she be a mensch and own her vote?

The Bush administration lied the American people into supporting the Iraq war.

The fundamental mistake was committing the US to a ground war that was not justified by US vital interests, in other words, the war was unnecessary.

btw, Barack Obama is president because Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War authorization.

Bush lied LOL how ignorant

We know Bush lied because he sent Colin Powell to the UN with fake pictures of non-existent WMD's.

You do realize Clinton propped up the war, right?
Operation desert fox?
You do realize a lot of bushs intel came from Clinton, right?
We found WMD's. They were ours.

Clinton didn't invade Iraq. Your rewrite of history will never work, except inside the RW cult.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Most coherent people should recognize what a "mistake" is. A "mistake" is an action that, viewed properly, was an exercise of poor judgment due to carelessness, inattention, or mis-placed priorities.

The examples are countless, and range from simple to more involved. An advertising manager fails to proofread the copy of a large newspaper ad, and the price is wrong, or a product description is wrong. A manager gives a critical assignment to a "rookie" when there is an experienced person available, and the rookie messes it up.

At the time of the Iraq invasion, there was unanimous agreement in not only the U.S., but in all of the civilized world on basically two things: (a) Saddam Hussein was a bad actor who was a danger to the surrounding countries (e.g., he sponsored terrorist attacks on Israeli and western interests, and paid "bonus money" to the families of suicide bombers in Israel), and (b) Saddam had a large cache of WMD's, the ability to deliver them, as well as the ability to produce more of them on a moment's notice. (Unknown to anyone, Saddam himself promoted this illusion in order to deter Iran from invading Iraq).

Secondarily, the White House had information from Iraqi expats that the majority of the Iraqi population would welcome the invading army with open arms, and that it (the population) was hungry for political freedom and some form of "democracy."

Based on this information - which was not in serious dispute - the question for the President in Congress was, given that information, whether it was advisable to depose Saddam. There can be no doubt, now or then, that strong arguments could have been made for either case at the time. Having him around was a bad thing, but deposing a sitting, relatively stable government is a serious thing, even if it is perceived as "evil."

Twenty-20 hindsight is an odious thing, but even so, it is possible to maintain that it was a "mistake" to depose Saddam, on the basis of the principle that we should not depose sitting governments, even if they are not "nice," by our Western standards. Recent history has shown - and continues to show - that this path, when pursued in the Arab world, leads to anarchy, needless death and destruction, and the rise of militant Islamist fanatics into positions of local control.

But saying that the vote for invasion of Iraq was a "mistake" due to being based on Bush43's "lies" is not only preposterous, but slanderous in the extreme. Both the White House and Congress had access to EXACTLY the same intelligence w/r/t Saddam and his WMD's. The CIA and its tentacles work for the entire federal government, not just for the Administration; each branch of Congress has an Intelligence Committee that is charged with keeping the Congress apprised of the latest and best information available. They do NOT rely entirely on the White House for their information. Furthermore, if the vote had been based on a good-faith belief in the reliability of our intelligence, then it was not a "mistake" at all. If I make a decision based on the best information available at the time, and the resulting action turns out badly, the decision is still valid; the problem was not with the judgment of the decision-maker, but with the provider of the flawed information.

So HRC wants her progressive minions to "forgive" her vote to invade Iraq because it was a "mistake." What exactly does she mean by that? She failed to make the only tenable argument at the time, to wit, that it was bad policy to depose a sitting government, so she overtly went along with the deposition. What was her "mistake"? Why won't she be a mensch and own her vote?

The Bush administration lied the American people into supporting the Iraq war.

The fundamental mistake was committing the US to a ground war that was not justified by US vital interests, in other words, the war was unnecessary.

btw, Barack Obama is president because Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War authorization.

Oh whatever.... prominent Dems were calling for action in Iraq well before Shrub ever entered the WH.

Next...

So you're praising certain Democrats for agreeing with you?

lol, good one

I'm not praising anyone.... just saying that you are laying the entire thing on Bush's doorstep, which is ridiculous...

 

[paulitician]

Obviously. We have no right to declare 'Regime Change.' We wouldn't tolerate others declaring it on us. It's an unjust and unwise foreign policy.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Anyway, what's the point? The US lawfully invaded Iraq 12 years ago...

Geeze Louise.

 

[paulitician]

Anyway, what's the point? The US lawfully invaded Iraq 12 years ago...

Geeze Louise.

And then broke a whole lotta laws in the process. How many innocent Iraqi women & children did the U.S. slaughter? Here's a hint... Far more than Saddam Hussein could have ever imagined himself slaughtering.

If the U.S. didn't own the UN and International Justice System, many of its leaders would have been put on trial for War Crimes. But they own it all, so they've gotten away with murder. It's the old sad 'Might makes Right' scenario.

 

[Correll]

Most coherent people should recognize what a "mistake" is. A "mistake" is an action that, viewed properly, was an exercise of poor judgment due to carelessness, inattention, or mis-placed priorities.

The examples are countless, and range from simple to more involved. An advertising manager fails to proofread the copy of a large newspaper ad, and the price is wrong, or a product description is wrong. A manager gives a critical assignment to a "rookie" when there is an experienced person available, and the rookie messes it up.

At the time of the Iraq invasion, there was unanimous agreement in not only the U.S., but in all of the civilized world on basically two things: (a) Saddam Hussein was a bad actor who was a danger to the surrounding countries (e.g., he sponsored terrorist attacks on Israeli and western interests, and paid "bonus money" to the families of suicide bombers in Israel), and (b) Saddam had a large cache of WMD's, the ability to deliver them, as well as the ability to produce more of them on a moment's notice. (Unknown to anyone, Saddam himself promoted this illusion in order to deter Iran from invading Iraq).

Secondarily, the White House had information from Iraqi expats that the majority of the Iraqi population would welcome the invading army with open arms, and that it (the population) was hungry for political freedom and some form of "democracy."

Based on this information - which was not in serious dispute - the question for the President in Congress was, given that information, whether it was advisable to depose Saddam. There can be no doubt, now or then, that strong arguments could have been made for either case at the time. Having him around was a bad thing, but deposing a sitting, relatively stable government is a serious thing, even if it is perceived as "evil."

Twenty-20 hindsight is an odious thing, but even so, it is possible to maintain that it was a "mistake" to depose Saddam, on the basis of the principle that we should not depose sitting governments, even if they are not "nice," by our Western standards. Recent history has shown - and continues to show - that this path, when pursued in the Arab world, leads to anarchy, needless death and destruction, and the rise of militant Islamist fanatics into positions of local control.

But saying that the vote for invasion of Iraq was a "mistake" due to being based on Bush43's "lies" is not only preposterous, but slanderous in the extreme. Both the White House and Congress had access to EXACTLY the same intelligence w/r/t Saddam and his WMD's. The CIA and its tentacles work for the entire federal government, not just for the Administration; each branch of Congress has an Intelligence Committee that is charged with keeping the Congress apprised of the latest and best information available. They do NOT rely entirely on the White House for their information. Furthermore, if the vote had been based on a good-faith belief in the reliability of our intelligence, then it was not a "mistake" at all. If I make a decision based on the best information available at the time, and the resulting action turns out badly, the decision is still valid; the problem was not with the judgment of the decision-maker, but with the provider of the flawed information.

So HRC wants her progressive minions to "forgive" her vote to invade Iraq because it was a "mistake." What exactly does she mean by that? She failed to make the only tenable argument at the time, to wit, that it was bad policy to depose a sitting government, so she overtly went along with the deposition. What was her "mistake"? Why won't she be a mensch and own her vote?

You left out

c: Iraq has well educated liberal population that is aching for Freedom and will be easy to quickly develop into a bastion of Freedom and Democracy in the region.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Most coherent people should recognize what a "mistake" is. A "mistake" is an action that, viewed properly, was an exercise of poor judgment due to carelessness, inattention, or mis-placed priorities.

The examples are countless, and range from simple to more involved. An advertising manager fails to proofread the copy of a large newspaper ad, and the price is wrong, or a product description is wrong. A manager gives a critical assignment to a "rookie" when there is an experienced person available, and the rookie messes it up.

At the time of the Iraq invasion, there was unanimous agreement in not only the U.S., but in all of the civilized world on basically two things: (a) Saddam Hussein was a bad actor who was a danger to the surrounding countries (e.g., he sponsored terrorist attacks on Israeli and western interests, and paid "bonus money" to the families of suicide bombers in Israel), and (b) Saddam had a large cache of WMD's, the ability to deliver them, as well as the ability to produce more of them on a moment's notice. (Unknown to anyone, Saddam himself promoted this illusion in order to deter Iran from invading Iraq).

Secondarily, the White House had information from Iraqi expats that the majority of the Iraqi population would welcome the invading army with open arms, and that it (the population) was hungry for political freedom and some form of "democracy."

Based on this information - which was not in serious dispute - the question for the President in Congress was, given that information, whether it was advisable to depose Saddam. There can be no doubt, now or then, that strong arguments could have been made for either case at the time. Having him around was a bad thing, but deposing a sitting, relatively stable government is a serious thing, even if it is perceived as "evil."

Twenty-20 hindsight is an odious thing, but even so, it is possible to maintain that it was a "mistake" to depose Saddam, on the basis of the principle that we should not depose sitting governments, even if they are not "nice," by our Western standards. Recent history has shown - and continues to show - that this path, when pursued in the Arab world, leads to anarchy, needless death and destruction, and the rise of militant Islamist fanatics into positions of local control.

But saying that the vote for invasion of Iraq was a "mistake" due to being based on Bush43's "lies" is not only preposterous, but slanderous in the extreme. Both the White House and Congress had access to EXACTLY the same intelligence w/r/t Saddam and his WMD's. The CIA and its tentacles work for the entire federal government, not just for the Administration; each branch of Congress has an Intelligence Committee that is charged with keeping the Congress apprised of the latest and best information available. They do NOT rely entirely on the White House for their information. Furthermore, if the vote had been based on a good-faith belief in the reliability of our intelligence, then it was not a "mistake" at all. If I make a decision based on the best information available at the time, and the resulting action turns out badly, the decision is still valid; the problem was not with the judgment of the decision-maker, but with the provider of the flawed information.

So HRC wants her progressive minions to "forgive" her vote to invade Iraq because it was a "mistake." What exactly does she mean by that? She failed to make the only tenable argument at the time, to wit, that it was bad policy to depose a sitting government, so she overtly went along with the deposition. What was her "mistake"? Why won't she be a mensch and own her vote?

The Bush administration lied the American people into supporting the Iraq war.

The fundamental mistake was committing the US to a ground war that was not justified by US vital interests, in other words, the war was unnecessary.

btw, Barack Obama is president because Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War authorization.

Are you going to vote for her this time?

And by the way, Obama became President because he was an articulate, clean black without a negro dialect

You're an idiot.

Answer the question coward

 

[CowboyTed]

Most coherent people should recognize what a "mistake" is. A "mistake" is an action that, viewed properly, was an exercise of poor judgment due to carelessness, inattention, or mis-placed priorities.

The examples are countless, and range from simple to more involved. An advertising manager fails to proofread the copy of a large newspaper ad, and the price is wrong, or a product description is wrong. A manager gives a critical assignment to a "rookie" when there is an experienced person available, and the rookie messes it up.

At the time of the Iraq invasion, there was unanimous agreement in not only the U.S., but in all of the civilized world on basically two things: (a) Saddam Hussein was a bad actor who was a danger to the surrounding countries (e.g., he sponsored terrorist attacks on Israeli and western interests, and paid "bonus money" to the families of suicide bombers in Israel), and (b) Saddam had a large cache of WMD's, the ability to deliver them, as well as the ability to produce more of them on a moment's notice. (Unknown to anyone, Saddam himself promoted this illusion in order to deter Iran from invading Iraq).

Secondarily, the White House had information from Iraqi expats that the majority of the Iraqi population would welcome the invading army with open arms, and that it (the population) was hungry for political freedom and some form of "democracy."

Based on this information - which was not in serious dispute - the question for the President in Congress was, given that information, whether it was advisable to depose Saddam. There can be no doubt, now or then, that strong arguments could have been made for either case at the time. Having him around was a bad thing, but deposing a sitting, relatively stable government is a serious thing, even if it is perceived as "evil."

Twenty-20 hindsight is an odious thing, but even so, it is possible to maintain that it was a "mistake" to depose Saddam, on the basis of the principle that we should not depose sitting governments, even if they are not "nice," by our Western standards. Recent history has shown - and continues to show - that this path, when pursued in the Arab world, leads to anarchy, needless death and destruction, and the rise of militant Islamist fanatics into positions of local control.

But saying that the vote for invasion of Iraq was a "mistake" due to being based on Bush43's "lies" is not only preposterous, but slanderous in the extreme. Both the White House and Congress had access to EXACTLY the same intelligence w/r/t Saddam and his WMD's. The CIA and its tentacles work for the entire federal government, not just for the Administration; each branch of Congress has an Intelligence Committee that is charged with keeping the Congress apprised of the latest and best information available. They do NOT rely entirely on the White House for their information. Furthermore, if the vote had been based on a good-faith belief in the reliability of our intelligence, then it was not a "mistake" at all. If I make a decision based on the best information available at the time, and the resulting action turns out badly, the decision is still valid; the problem was not with the judgment of the decision-maker, but with the provider of the flawed information.

So HRC wants her progressive minions to "forgive" her vote to invade Iraq because it was a "mistake." What exactly does she mean by that? She failed to make the only tenable argument at the time, to wit, that it was bad policy to depose a sitting government, so she overtly went along with the deposition. What was her "mistake"? Why won't she be a mensch and own her vote?

The Bush administration lied the American people into supporting the Iraq war.

The fundamental mistake was committing the US to a ground war that was not justified by US vital interests, in other words, the war was unnecessary.

btw, Barack Obama is president because Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War authorization.

Are you going to vote for her this time?

And by the way, Obama became President because he was an articulate, clean black without a negro dialect

You're an idiot.

Answer the question coward

I would.
First, Clinton did not vote for war. She voted to make sure the Military were properly supplied in case of war... I remeber it exactly, this war meant to pay for personal armour to save US soldiers lives... Actually went to Bush buddies...

She at least learnt from her mistake and she did not say she would invade Iran like GOP mob...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Most coherent people should recognize what a "mistake" is. A "mistake" is an action that, viewed properly, was an exercise of poor judgment due to carelessness, inattention, or mis-placed priorities.

The examples are countless, and range from simple to more involved. An advertising manager fails to proofread the copy of a large newspaper ad, and the price is wrong, or a product description is wrong. A manager gives a critical assignment to a "rookie" when there is an experienced person available, and the rookie messes it up.

At the time of the Iraq invasion, there was unanimous agreement in not only the U.S., but in all of the civilized world on basically two things: (a) Saddam Hussein was a bad actor who was a danger to the surrounding countries (e.g., he sponsored terrorist attacks on Israeli and western interests, and paid "bonus money" to the families of suicide bombers in Israel), and (b) Saddam had a large cache of WMD's, the ability to deliver them, as well as the ability to produce more of them on a moment's notice. (Unknown to anyone, Saddam himself promoted this illusion in order to deter Iran from invading Iraq).

Secondarily, the White House had information from Iraqi expats that the majority of the Iraqi population would welcome the invading army with open arms, and that it (the population) was hungry for political freedom and some form of "democracy."

Based on this information - which was not in serious dispute - the question for the President in Congress was, given that information, whether it was advisable to depose Saddam. There can be no doubt, now or then, that strong arguments could have been made for either case at the time. Having him around was a bad thing, but deposing a sitting, relatively stable government is a serious thing, even if it is perceived as "evil."

Twenty-20 hindsight is an odious thing, but even so, it is possible to maintain that it was a "mistake" to depose Saddam, on the basis of the principle that we should not depose sitting governments, even if they are not "nice," by our Western standards. Recent history has shown - and continues to show - that this path, when pursued in the Arab world, leads to anarchy, needless death and destruction, and the rise of militant Islamist fanatics into positions of local control.

But saying that the vote for invasion of Iraq was a "mistake" due to being based on Bush43's "lies" is not only preposterous, but slanderous in the extreme. Both the White House and Congress had access to EXACTLY the same intelligence w/r/t Saddam and his WMD's. The CIA and its tentacles work for the entire federal government, not just for the Administration; each branch of Congress has an Intelligence Committee that is charged with keeping the Congress apprised of the latest and best information available. They do NOT rely entirely on the White House for their information. Furthermore, if the vote had been based on a good-faith belief in the reliability of our intelligence, then it was not a "mistake" at all. If I make a decision based on the best information available at the time, and the resulting action turns out badly, the decision is still valid; the problem was not with the judgment of the decision-maker, but with the provider of the flawed information.

So HRC wants her progressive minions to "forgive" her vote to invade Iraq because it was a "mistake." What exactly does she mean by that? She failed to make the only tenable argument at the time, to wit, that it was bad policy to depose a sitting government, so she overtly went along with the deposition. What was her "mistake"? Why won't she be a mensch and own her vote?

The Bush administration lied the American people into supporting the Iraq war.

The fundamental mistake was committing the US to a ground war that was not justified by US vital interests, in other words, the war was unnecessary.

btw, Barack Obama is president because Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War authorization.

Are you going to vote for her this time?

And by the way, Obama became President because he was an articulate, clean black without a negro dialect

You're an idiot.

Answer the question coward

I would.
First, Clinton did not vote for war. She voted to make sure the Military were properly supplied in case of war... I remeber it exactly, this war meant to pay for personal armour to save US soldiers lives... Actually went to Bush buddies...

She at least learnt from her mistake and she did not say she would invade Iran like GOP mob...

Do you ever get dizzy from all the spinning?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

At the time of the Iraq invasion, there was unanimous agreement in not only the U.S., but in all of the civilized world on basically two things: (a) Saddam Hussein was a bad actor who was a danger to the surrounding countries (e.g., he sponsored terrorist attacks on Israeli and western interests, and paid "bonus money" to the families of suicide bombers in Israel), and (b) Saddam had a large cache of WMD's, the ability to deliver them, as well as the ability to produce more of them on a moment's notice.

When you referred to “at the time of the invasion” are you referring to around Mid-March 2003 when W said this to the entire world?

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

 

[Correll]

When you referred to “at the time of the invasion” are you referring to around Mid-March 2003 when W said this to the entire world?

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” DUBYA the DECIDER March 17 2003.

His meaning was clear. Your tactic of focusing down on stupid details and nit picking is an obvious attempt to confuse teh issue, instead of engaging in serious debate.


That is the kind of thing one does, when they know that their stated positions and beliefs have been proven wrong and cannot stand up to real scrutiny.


Why do you support policies that you cannot be honest about?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll wrote: His meaning was clear. 21SEP23-POST#34

NFBW 21SEP23-POST#35 wrote: You are a liar. This sentence is not clear:

DGS49 wrote: At the time of the Iraq invasion, there was unanimous agreement in not only the U.S., but in all of the civilized world on basically two things: (a) Saddam Hussein was a bad actor who was a danger to the surrounding countries (e.g., he sponsored terrorist attacks on Israeli and western interests, and paid "bonus money" to the families of suicide bombers in Israel), and (b) Saddam had a large cache of WMD's, the ability to deliver them, as well as the ability to produce more of them on a moment's notice. (Unknown to anyone, Saddam himself promoted this illusion in order to deter Iran from invading Iraq). 15OCT19-POST#1

NFBW wrote: When DGS49 wrote “At the time” and then cites unanimous global agreement during the ramp up to the invasion of Iraq but excludes any mention of the UN Inspectors while saying SH was “a danger to the surrounding countries”. But during the month of March 2003 at the time of the invasion, none of the surrounding countries regarded Iraq to be a danger. So I asked DGS49 to clarify the specific date that he meant when he wrote ‘at the time’ because I prefer to deal with the minor details commonly known as facts to normal people. You should try them sometime. 21SEP23-POST#35

 

[buckeye45_73]

Clinton didn't invade Iraq. Your rewrite of history will never work, except inside the RW cult.

No but he bombed Iraq so he could get a blow job from an intern

which according to you guys is sexual harassment

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Correll wrote: His meaning was clear. 21SEP23-POST#34

NFBW wrote: Since DGS49 is not responding Perhaps you can explain Correll whether or not you believe DGS49‘s statement is true or false since you think it is clear. 21SEP24-POST#37

DGS49 wrote: At the time of the Iraq invasion, there was unanimous agreement in not only the U.S., but in all of the civilized world …. Saddam had a large cache of WMD's, the ability to deliver them, as well as the ability to produce more of them on a moment's notice. 15OCT19-POST#1

NFBW wrote: When DGS49 wrote the phrase “At the time of the invasion” which is March 2003 and then cites unanimous global agreement that Saddam had a large cache of WMD's, it is simply not true. It was a 4 out of 10 minority of war mongering Republicans in America including the white evangelical Christian base, along with some leaders in the UK, Italy and Spain that agreed with W’s claim about hidden WMD. Most connected inhabitants of the world did not believe that hype. So where do you Correll stand on that? 21SEP24-POST#37

 

[Snouter]

The 9/11 incident involved "dancing israelis" and "Saudi pilots" (if you can believe Saudi idiots fly passenger planes with pinpoint accuracy except of course the "let's roll" disappearing plane). There was absolutely zero evidence Iraq or Afghanistan and any PNAC countries were involved. The fake government fulfilling the PNAC/zionist agenda not being brought to justice is a crime against humanity.

 

[Correll]

Correll wrote: His meaning was clear. 21SEP23-POST#34

NFBW 21SEP23-POST#35 wrote: You are a liar. This sentence is not clear:

DGS49 wrote: At the time of the Iraq invasion, there was unanimous agreement in not only the U.S., but in all of the civilized world on basically two things: (a) Saddam Hussein was a bad actor who was a danger to the surrounding countries (e.g., he sponsored terrorist attacks on Israeli and western interests, and paid "bonus money" to the families of suicide bombers in Israel), and (b) Saddam had a large cache of WMD's, the ability to deliver them, as well as the ability to produce more of them on a moment's notice. (Unknown to anyone, Saddam himself promoted this illusion in order to deter Iran from invading Iraq). 15OCT19-POST#1

NFBW wrote: When DGS49 wrote “At the time” and then cites unanimous global agreement during the ramp up to the invasion of Iraq but excludes any mention of the UN Inspectors while saying SH was “a danger to the surrounding countries”. But during the month of March 2003 at the time of the invasion, none of the surrounding countries regarded Iraq to be a danger. So I asked DGS49 to clarify the specific date that he meant when he wrote ‘at the time’ because I prefer to deal with the minor details commonly known as facts to normal people. You should try them sometime. 21SEP23-POST#35

The specific date does not matter. He has a different opinion on the state of the world opinion. YOu give great weight to the UN inspectors.

That is the crux of the issue. Address that. Demanding specific dates is the type of shit you do, when you are ACTIVELY TRYING TO CONFUSE TEH ISSUE.


You are not a good faith debater, you are just here to spam anti-American and anti-white and anti-christian hate.

 

[Correll]

Correll wrote: His meaning was clear. 21SEP23-POST#34

NFBW wrote: Since DGS49 is not responding Perhaps you can explain Correll whether or not you believe DGS49‘s statement is true or false since you think it is clear. 21SEP24-POST#37

DGS49 wrote: At the time of the Iraq invasion, there was unanimous agreement in not only the U.S., but in all of the civilized world …. Saddam had a large cache of WMD's, the ability to deliver them, as well as the ability to produce more of them on a moment's notice. 15OCT19-POST#1

NFBW wrote: When DGS49 wrote the phrase “At the time of the invasion” which is March 2003 and then cites unanimous global agreement that Saddam had a large cache of WMD's, it is simply not true. It was a 4 out of 10 minority of war mongering Republicans in America including the white evangelical Christian base, along with some leaders in the UK, Italy and Spain that agreed with W’s claim about hidden WMD. Most connected inhabitants of the world did not believe that hype. So where do you Correll stand on that? 21SEP24-POST#37

The feeling he got and I got at the time, listening to the public debate, what that consensus on the subject had been reached.


This is a relatively minor point, NOT. And one of significant nuance. And you are not a good faith debater.


So, even if there is something to be discussed, and/or learned, you are not the person to do it.

Not until you learn how to...not be a dishonest partisan hack.

And until you drop your goal of just spewing anti-American spam.