The WikiLeaks Vindication of George W. Bush

[taichiliberal]

OMG!!!!

FDR and Stalin!!!!!!!

OMG, a stupid, desperate attempt by neocons to defend the Shrub!

Was FDR supporting Stalin when he was laying waste to his population after the defeat of the Nazi's (or before)?

Nope.

Did Rummy go to Iraq with the express purpose of telling Hussein that he won't get USA support if he continued to use WMD against the Kurds?

Nope.

Did Rummy go to firm up those pipeline contracts and concessions?

Yep.

AS YOU CAN SEE FOLKS, JEREMY CAN'T HANDLE FACTS THAT CONTRADICT THE NEOCON MANTRAS AND BELIEFS HE HOLDS SO DEAR. So like every other intellectually bankrupt neocon parrot, he regresses to 6th grade with his cartoon retorts. I leave him to carry on as such.

 

[MikeK]

Another lie? I just proved I was telling the truth in my last post. Ima go head and add illiterate to my lil list for you dude.

The only thing you've proved is that you are typical of those who will stubbornly and aggressively adhere to a lie or a fallacy regardless of the opposing evidence, a frustrating characteristic that causes those who are more reasonable and fundamentally honest to eventually despise you.

Unless you're among those who harbor a perverse wish to be hated I suggest that you wise up. You appear to be too intelligent to believe the nonsense you're putting forth here. So if you continue to insist that Hussein had all those weapons how about telling us why he didn't use them against the army that invaded his country and eventually captured and hanged him?

 

[DiveCon]

Another lie? I just proved I was telling the truth in my last post. Ima go head and add illiterate to my lil list for you dude.

The only thing you've proved is that you are typical of those who will stubbornly and aggressively adhere to a lie or a fallacy regardless of the opposing evidence, a frustrating characteristic that causes those who are more reasonable and fundamentally honest to eventually despise you.

Unless you're among those who harbor a perverse wish to be hated I suggest that you wise up. You appear to be too intelligent to believe the nonsense you're putting forth here. So if you continue to insist that Hussein had all those weapons how about telling us why he didn't use them against the army that invaded his country and eventually captured and hanged him?

that looks more like YOU and the rest of the pathetic libs on this thread
'

 

[ConHog]

Another lie? I just proved I was telling the truth in my last post. Ima go head and add illiterate to my lil list for you dude.

The only thing you've proved is that you are typical of those who will stubbornly and aggressively adhere to a lie or a fallacy regardless of the opposing evidence, a frustrating characteristic that causes those who are more reasonable and fundamentally honest to eventually despise you.

Unless you're among those who harbor a perverse wish to be hated I suggest that you wise up. You appear to be too intelligent to believe the nonsense you're putting forth here. So if you continue to insist that Hussein had all those weapons how about telling us why he didn't use them against the army that invaded his country and eventually captured and hanged him?

Actually, there are a couple theories on why he didn't use them on us. Two of which I find plausible.

1. His shit was junk and didn't work when they did try to use it. Now perhaps you can say the CIA should have known it was junk, but no one is infallible.

2. His commanders told him to **** himself when it was clear he was going to lose (about 10 minutes in) and he ordered them to use them.

He absolutely had WMD, and the will to use them. No one is stupid enough to really believe otherwise.

 

[Londoner]

Does the OP know that the US replaced the democratically elected Mossadegh with the ruthless Shaw because the latter supported US energy needs?

Does the OP know that Western intervention of this nature only served to push the public into the hands of radical groups?

Does the OP know that Ronald Reagan removed Iraq from the official list of terrorist nations so that he could pump money and weapons into Hussein's hands (for the purpose of gaining an ally in the region, especially after Khomeini defeated the Shaw).?

Does the OP know that Reagan sold weapons to the world's leading terrorist nation, Iran, in the 80s -- for the purpose of supporting another ruthless group, the Contras?

Does the OP know that Reagan's CIA developed powerful, lasting ties with the Taliban and the mujahideen (embryonic formation of Al Qaeda) in the 80s... in order to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan?

Carter wanted out of the Middle East through conservation and alternative energy. Reagan, supported by Big Oil and Big Weapons, wanted the opposite: he increased our presence in the Middle East, and formed a network of terrorists alliances that would ultimately radicalize the region and lead to terrible forms of blowback, which -- all tolled -- would get us trapped in the region just like Soviets in the 80s. (Trapped and eventually bankrupted)

Don't take my word for it. Do your own digging bubby. Research who took Iraq off the list of terrorist nations in the 80s. Research the alliances we formed to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. Research things like Iran-Contra or the money the US has poured into Saudi Arabia, which has amounted to keeping a bad terrorist-breeding regime in power for eons.

Stop listening to Right Wing Talk Radio.

Study the Cold War.

Study the geopolitics of globalization and energy.

You are taught to worry about how the other party is centralizing power in Washington.

Poor thing.

You've been lied to.

Do you know what makes government big and expensive and secretive?

(Hint: it's not welfare food programs for poor school children)

[drum roll] It's the Cold War and the War on Terrorism, whose deep structure depends on alliances with bad people. Washington isn't just centrally controlling the United States, it's centrally controlling the globe on behalf of stateless transnationals who ship American jobs overseas and don't pay taxes for their Pentagon bill.

Turn off the radio my man and start studying exactly who and what makes terrorism stronger.

(wow, just wow)

 

[DiveCon]

Another lie? I just proved I was telling the truth in my last post. Ima go head and add illiterate to my lil list for you dude.

The only thing you've proved is that you are typical of those who will stubbornly and aggressively adhere to a lie or a fallacy regardless of the opposing evidence, a frustrating characteristic that causes those who are more reasonable and fundamentally honest to eventually despise you.

Unless you're among those who harbor a perverse wish to be hated I suggest that you wise up. You appear to be too intelligent to believe the nonsense you're putting forth here. So if you continue to insist that Hussein had all those weapons how about telling us why he didn't use them against the army that invaded his country and eventually captured and hanged him?

Actually, there are a couple theories on why he didn't use them on us. Two of which I find plausible.

1. His shit was junk and didn't work when they did try to use it. Now perhaps you can say the CIA should have known it was junk, but no one is infallible.

2. His commanders told him to **** himself when it was clear he was going to lose (about 10 minutes in) and he ordered them to use them.

He absolutely had WMD, and the will to use them. No one is stupid enough to really believe otherwise.

there is a #3 as well

he didnt expect us to actually invade as he had bought off the French, Russians, and Germans and he figured they would keep us from invading
so he had all his stuff in deep storage where he couldnt get it deployed in time to actually use

 

[DiveCon]

Does the OP know that the US replaced the democratically elected Mossadegh with the ruthless Shaw because the latter supported US energy needs?

Does the OP know that Western intervention of this nature only served to push the public into the hands of radical groups?

Does the OP know that Ronald Reagan removed Iraq from the official list of terrorist nations so that he could pump money and weapons into Hussein's hands (for the purpose of gaining an ally in the region, especially after Khomeini defeated the Shaw).?

Does the OP know that Reagan sold weapons to the world's leading terrorist nation, Iran, in the 80s -- for the purpose of supporting another ruthless group, the Contras?

Does the OP know that Reagan's CIA developed powerful, lasting ties with the Taliban and the mujahideen (embryonic formation of Al Qaeda) in the 80s... in order to fight against the Russians in Afghanistan?

Carter wanted out of the Middle East through conservation measures and alternative energy. Reagan, supported by Big Oil and Big Weapons, increased our presence in the Middle East, and formed a network of terrorists alliances that would ultimately radicalize the region and lead to terrible forms of blow back.

Don't take my word for it. Do your own digging bubby. Research who took Iraq off the list of terrorist nations in the 80s. Research the alliances we formed to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan. Research things like Iran-Contra or the money the US has poured into Saudi Arabia, which has amounted to keeping a bad terrorist-breeding regime in power for eons.

Stop listening to Right Wing Talk Radio.

Study the Cold War.

Study the geopolitics of globalization and energy.

You are taught to worry about the centralization of power in Washington.

Poor thing.

You've been lied to.

Washington isn't just centrally controlling the United States, it's centrally controlling the globe.

Do you know what makes government big and expensive and secretive?

Not food programs for school kids.

The Cold War and the War on Terrorism.

Turn of the radio my man and start studying exactly who and what makes terrorism stronger.

(wow, just wow)

WOW is right
that is pathetically WRONG
and btw, the Op that did what you think happened was a joint venture with the UK
and its the Shah, not Shaw

 

[Iowa10000]

why in the world would any one who wants to make others believe something actually take the time to find out what they are preaching is true or has any meaning.

The truth is we invaded a country that we had no reason to fear, and were not at war with. The evidence put fourth was slanted or plain lies and distortions. The truth is that there were more sources that said that Saddam didn't have weapons of MD then there were that did, and the ones that did were way better sources, not paid informants that were without any evidence, who had been exposed by the very people who provided him to the USA and Bush that he was most likely very unreliable and shouldn't be taken seriously. But why not go to war with this information, hell I'm a decider remember.(BUSH)

 

[Londoner]

WOW is right
that is pathetically WRONG
and btw, the Op that did what you think happened was a joint venture with the UK
and its the Shah, not Shaw

So Reagan didn't remove Iraq from the list of terrorist nations, and didn't support Hussein with weapons, and didn't form alliances with the Mujahideen against the Russians in Afghanistan, and didn't form murky behind the scenes weapons relationships with Iran in order to subvert congress and fund the contras? And the US hasn't been pumping money into the ruthless, radical, anti-freedom Saudis since FDR met with Ibn Saud in 1945.

The Cold War, globalization, and energy geopolitics has lead to some questionable alliances. If you want to create or protect supply chains in "bad" places, than sometimes you have to get in bed with bad people. Why? -because they prove to be your best "asset" in a given region. Go into any Walmart. Read the labels on the plastic gadgets, specifically where stuff is made, i.e., the American economy is built partly from resources that come from unstable anti-freedom 3rd world regions. Stabilizing those regions requires tough choices.

Reagan didn't get in bed with Hussein and protect him from being overthrown because he liked him. Reagan didn't take pleasure in the fact that Hussein was ruthless to his own people. Nor did Reagan support the Mujahideen because he loved terrorism. Nope -- he made tough choices to extend American control of vital regions, and some of those choices came back to haunt us. Listen, Reagan needed assets in an imperfect world with limited choices -- and many of those assets were terrorists or corrupt dictators. The only people who don't understand this are the woman and children back on the homeland, who must be protected from the bloodshed because they are too weak to handle it. This is why they (i.e., you) are fed feel-good narratives about spreading freedom.

You have the luxury of hating communist China or terrorist Muslims -- but the American economy would not exist without these people. Where do you think all our stuff comes from. Have the courage to own it. Man up! It's a tough world my friend, and we're getting sick of having to protect your delicate ears from the truth.

 

[DaGoose]

why in the world would any one who wants to make others believe something actually take the time to find out what they are preaching is true or has any meaning.

The truth is we invaded a country that we had no reason to fear, and were not at war with. The evidence put fourth was slanted or plain lies and distortions. The truth is that there were more sources that said that Saddam didn't have weapons of MD then there were that did, and the ones that did were way better sources, not paid informants that were without any evidence, who had been exposed by the very people who provided him to the USA and Bush that he was most likely very unreliable and shouldn't be taken seriously. But why not go to war with this information, hell I'm a decider remember.(BUSH)

I have asked for years for someone who thinks we did the right thing by invading and occupying Iraq to give me one good reason what made it worth over 4000 lives of American military men and women.

And to date nobody has come up with one.

 

[ConHog]

why in the world would any one who wants to make others believe something actually take the time to find out what they are preaching is true or has any meaning.

The truth is we invaded a country that we had no reason to fear, and were not at war with. The evidence put fourth was slanted or plain lies and distortions. The truth is that there were more sources that said that Saddam didn't have weapons of MD then there were that did, and the ones that did were way better sources, not paid informants that were without any evidence, who had been exposed by the very people who provided him to the USA and Bush that he was most likely very unreliable and shouldn't be taken seriously. But why not go to war with this information, hell I'm a decider remember.(BUSH)

How about providing some of those sources which you are claiming were better sources than oh say the CIA .... Oh that's right............

PS - What did we have to fear from Vietnam? Korea? Granada?Nicaragua? Need I continue, or will you read a history book and figure out on your own that ever since the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 the US has had a national policy of projecting our power around the world to prevent the spread of tyranny, and that conservative and liberal Presidents alike have taken advantage of both this policy and their Constitutional powers to send US troops into battle without formal deceleration of war (in fact we have sent troops into foreign countries 58 times, with only 4 of those being declared wars.)

It makes me laugh when I hear you pea brains call Iraq an illegal war. It wasn't a war, and it wasn't illegal. Oh I know the politicians call it a war, but they also call the war on drugs a war, means nothing, the ONLY definition that matters is that of the COTUS and by that definition the POTUS was well within his powers. By the way, after 90 days Congress could have simply refused to fund the "war" and forced the removal of soldiers from the battlefield, had they so chosen.

The COTUS isn't just some stinky piece of paper in the National Archives, you should try reading it sometime.

 

[ConHog]

why in the world would any one who wants to make others believe something actually take the time to find out what they are preaching is true or has any meaning.

The truth is we invaded a country that we had no reason to fear, and were not at war with. The evidence put fourth was slanted or plain lies and distortions. The truth is that there were more sources that said that Saddam didn't have weapons of MD then there were that did, and the ones that did were way better sources, not paid informants that were without any evidence, who had been exposed by the very people who provided him to the USA and Bush that he was most likely very unreliable and shouldn't be taken seriously. But why not go to war with this information, hell I'm a decider remember.(BUSH)

why in the world would any one who wants to make others believe something actually take the time to find out what they are preaching is true or has any meaning.

The truth is we invaded a country that we had no reason to fear, and were not at war with. The evidence put fourth was slanted or plain lies and distortions. The truth is that there were more sources that said that Saddam didn't have weapons of MD then there were that did, and the ones that did were way better sources, not paid informants that were without any evidence, who had been exposed by the very people who provided him to the USA and Bush that he was most likely very unreliable and shouldn't be taken seriously. But why not go to war with this information, hell I'm a decider remember.(BUSH)

I have asked for years for someone who thinks we did the right thing by invading and occupying Iraq to give me one good reason what made it worth over 4000 lives of American military men and women.

And to date nobody has come up with one.

Speaking as a retired military man who served there (twice) I can give you the only reason we needed. The Constitutionally elected Commander in Chief ordered it so, no one is forced to join the military, no one joins the military not knowing that war is a real possibility; so while it is certainly sad that 4,000 Americans have lost their lives in Iraq, not wanting to see soldiers die is not an acceptable reason to not use our military.

Oh, and the untold number of horrors which were not committed by Saddam because of our actions might be a good reason to.

 

[Agit8r]

"The Constitutionally elected Commander in Chief ordered it so"

can anyone point out what is wrong with that statement?

 

[DaGoose]

why in the world would any one who wants to make others believe something actually take the time to find out what they are preaching is true or has any meaning.

The truth is we invaded a country that we had no reason to fear, and were not at war with. The evidence put fourth was slanted or plain lies and distortions. The truth is that there were more sources that said that Saddam didn't have weapons of MD then there were that did, and the ones that did were way better sources, not paid informants that were without any evidence, who had been exposed by the very people who provided him to the USA and Bush that he was most likely very unreliable and shouldn't be taken seriously. But why not go to war with this information, hell I'm a decider remember.(BUSH)

How about providing some of those sources which you are claiming were better sources than oh say the CIA .... Oh that's right............

PS - What did we have to fear from Vietnam? Korea? Granada?Nicaragua? Need I continue, or will you read a history book and figure out on your own that ever since the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 the US has had a national policy of projecting our power around the world to prevent the spread of tyranny, and that conservative and liberal Presidents alike have taken advantage of both this policy and their Constitutional powers to send US troops into battle without formal deceleration of war (in fact we have sent troops into foreign countries 58 times, with only 4 of those being declared wars.)

It makes me laugh when I hear you pea brains call Iraq an illegal war. It wasn't a war, and it wasn't illegal. Oh I know the politicians call it a war, but they also call the war on drugs a war, means nothing, the ONLY definition that matters is that of the COTUS and by that definition the POTUS was well within his powers. By the way, after 90 days Congress could have simply refused to fund the "war" and forced the removal of soldiers from the battlefield, had they so chosen.

The COTUS isn't just some stinky piece of paper in the National Archives, you should try reading it sometime.

Who the hell called it an illegal war? And if your logic is to be believed about "projecting our power around the world to prevent the spread of tyranny" then we had better get crackin' and start invading and occupying dozens of other nations.

Refuse to fund the war? The only thing that would have been worse than our invading and occupying would have been to stop before the job was finished. Simply put.....stopping the funding was NOT a viable option. It would have only left a void that Iran would gladly have filled.

I never questioned the constitutionality of the invasion, only the wisdom of sending our soldiers off to fight and die for no good reason. Iowa10000 was spot on when he posted.... "The truth is we invaded a country that we had no reason to fear, and were not at war with."

 

[DaGoose]

"The Constitutionally elected Commander in Chief ordered it so"

can anyone point out what is wrong with that statement?

Yep.... 'nuff said......

 

[Jeremy]

"The Constitutionally elected Commander in Chief ordered it so"

can anyone point out what is wrong with that statement?

Yup.






Have you seen the average American electorate lately?



* this is not an endoresment of non elected fascist rule

 

[Londoner]

ever since the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 the US has had a national policy of projecting our power around the world to prevent the spread of tyranny

America gets in bed with tyrants when it serves her perceived interests. If radical islamic terrorists can help defeat the Russians in Afghanistan, than so be it.

Please study the difference between fluffy narratives designed for the woman & children back on the homeland, e.g., "Freedom is on the march", "Evil-doers", etc., and the cold hard truth of geopolitics, e.g., if you don't want Iran to win the Iran/Iraq war, than you have to make tough choices, i.e., getting in bed with Saddam Hussein.

Study history. America supported Hussein during some of his worst atrocities. The right needs to turn off talk radio and learn geopolitics. The left needs to stop complaining about the military requirements of running the global market system, while simultaneously enjoying the economic benefits. Without men like Chaney, they couldn't afford the price of filling up their VW Bus.


Ronald Reagan

In September 1980 the Iran-Iraq War began. The United States did not want Iran to win the war. Eventually in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from the list of states supporting international terrorism. They began giving intelligence and military support to Iraq, ordered by President Ronald Reagan without the knowledge of the American people. In November 1983 Iran asked the UN to investigate Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States was aware of Iraq's use of chemical weapons and had intelligence to prove it. The United States had known for over a year that Iraq was using chemical weapons but chose to restore formal relations with Iraq in November 1984. The United States denounced the use of chemical weapons by Iraq but continued to support Iraq.

The Reagan Administration continued it's course with Iraq giving the rest of the Middle East the impression that it did not care if Iraq used chemical weapons on it's neighbors or citizens. In declassified documents released under the Freedom of Information Act Ronald Reagan addressed the concern of oil. This was very important to the United States and one of the main reason for supporting Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war, although the United States claimed to be neutral.

These events led to further destabilization in the Middle East. Iraq and Saddam Hussein answered to no one for there use of chemical weapons at that time.

Photo source: Whitehouse.gov / CC BY 3.0
Research Materials: National Security Archive and Declassified Documents under the Freedom of Information Act

 

[Agit8r]

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever"

--Thomas Jefferson

 

[Liability]

Sadly for Bush, the die is cast. He diverted the war on terror to engage in an unnecessary invasion of a nation that was no longer a threat. In the process he pulled valuable strength from Afghanistan and ended up involving the US in two conflicts that will last over 10 years.

Bush's poor decisions led to the deaths of over 4000 American servicement and 100,000 Iraqi civilians. His decision to ignore basic human rights including torture and denial of the right to a speedy trial will be a stain on his administration and the country that looked the other way

Throw in an economic collapse and you have the formula for worst President in US History

50 million people freed, handling the Clinton pre-recession well, ultimately winning the Iraq war, historic AIDS relief, I could go on.

Wake up.

Freed at what cost? 100,000 deaths? He invaded a country that was not a threat and had not been a serious military force in 10 years. He upset the balance of power in the region and empowered Iran to become an unchecked power broker in the region

The recession happened seven years into Bush's term. He took a budget surplus and turned it into $5 trillion in debt. Once the economy collapsed, Bush's deer in the headlights response allowed a severe recession to almost lead to a worldwide depression

Leftwingshitflinger is still spewing the same tired and oft-refuted talking-pointlesses his ilk have been spewing so endlessly.

 

[rightwinger]

50 million people freed, handling the Clinton pre-recession well, ultimately winning the Iraq war, historic AIDS relief, I could go on.

Wake up.

Freed at what cost? 100,000 deaths? He invaded a country that was not a threat and had not been a serious military force in 10 years. He upset the balance of power in the region and empowered Iran to become an unchecked power broker in the region

The recession happened seven years into Bush's term. He took a budget surplus and turned it into $5 trillion in debt. Once the economy collapsed, Bush's deer in the headlights response allowed a severe recession to almost lead to a worldwide depression

Leftwingshitflinger is still spewing the same tired and oft-refuted talking-pointlesses his ilk have been spewing so endlessly.

It is the Bush legacy...he will have to live with it

By any objective measure, the invasion of Iraq was a major ****-up and Bush ordered the invasion