The WikiLeaks Vindication of George W. Bush

[midcan5]

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing." Dwight D. Eisenhower

How America has changed since Ike? We are now 'the land of the scared and frightened wingnuts on the right and other assorted corporate stooges.'


"Meanwhile, corporate America and its international allies continue to do their bit. Joining PayPal and Amazon, who had already cut off their services to WikiLeaks, most of the remaining venues through which the internet journal is funded are also freezing out the organization -- MasterCard, Visa, and a Swiss bank that WikiLeaks used to process donations. All of these organizations are obviously responding to government pressure.

What is perhaps most remarkable is that this joint action by the world elite to shut down WikiLeaks – which has been operating for four years – comes after the release of diplomatic cables, not in response to earlier leaks which provided detailed evidence of crimes and atrocities committed by the perpetrators and continuers of Washington’s Terror War. I suppose this is because the diplomatic cables have upset the smooth running of the corrupt and cynical backroom operations that actually govern our world, behind the ludicrous lies and self-righteous posturing that our great and good lay on for the public. They didn’t mind being unmasked as accomplices in mass murder and fomenters of suffering and hatred; in fact, they were rather proud of it. " Chris Floyd Chris Floyd: Truth in Chains

 

[Mr. Shaman]

WikiLeaks' newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction (emphasis added). ... Chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam's toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict -- and may have brewed up their own deadly agents."

Yeah....let's all try to forget those troublesome-videos. It's History-rewrite time; an ol' Bush-favorite!!!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYI7JXGqd0o[/ame]

*​

"In his memoir "Decision Points," former president George W. Bush passionately defends his 2003 decision to invade Iraq, citing, among other things, a Jan. 27, 2003, report to the U.N. Security Council by Hans Blix, the Swedish director of the U.N. inspectors who had spent two months looking for Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

But Bush makes selective use of Blix's January report, citing elements that support the idea that Hussein was not cooperating and leaving out parts that indicate his government was. More to the point, however, Bush fails to mention two subsequent Blix pre-invasion reports in February and early March, weeks before U.S. bombs struck Baghdad. Those show Iraq cooperating with inspectors and the inspectors finding no significant evidence that Hussein was hiding such arms programs.

In one of several passages in the book where he questions his decisions, Bush writes that he should have pushed harder on the intelligence, but adds, "at the time the evidence and logic pointed in the other direction." His most interesting personal reflection follows: "If Saddam doesn't actually have WMD, I asked myself, why on earth would he subject himself to a war he most certainly will lose?"

Hussein did not have those weapons and the inspections were beginning to show it, but neither Bush nor most Americans at the time were prepared to accept the idea that it is almost impossible to prove a negative.

Back in 2005, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking intelligence" to justify going into Iraq. Bush responded by saying, "It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." He should have remembered that as he wrote this section of his book." - Bob Woodward

*

I guess none of the "fact-checkers", at BUSHCO, watch C-SPAN.

​

 

[asterism]

You two can spout off all you want but it still would not bring back the 4000 (plus) American soldiers who died for no good reason.

Bush waged war on a nation who was absolutely no threat to us or anyone else.

Like rightwinger posted......

Abandoning the war on terror to attack Iraq was wrong
The reasons for invading Iraq were wrong
The threat from Iraq did not justify an invasion
Not getting a proper alliance was wrong
The number of troops dedicated to the invasion were inadequate
The assessment of the political situation in Iraq was wrong
The assessment of the Iran/Iraq/Saudi balance of power was wrong
The assessment of the vulnerability of US troops was wrong

Major strategic blunder

It's just too bad so many American soldiers had to pay for that blunder.

both you and rightwinger are completely wrong

Feel free to tell WHY the statements below are wrong either individually or collectively. (Of course you can always give me a personal attack and neg me too. That seems to be your style.)

Abandoning the war on terror to attack Iraq was wrong
The reasons for invading Iraq were wrong
The threat from Iraq did not justify an invasion
Not getting a proper alliance was wrong
The number of troops dedicated to the invasion were inadequate
The assessment of the political situation in Iraq was wrong
The assessment of the Iran/Iraq/Saudi balance of power was wrong
The assessment of the vulnerability of US troops was wrong

Abandoning the war on terror to attack Iraq was wrong

I disagree, it was not abandoning the war on terror. Iraq was the next front as evidenced by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's relocation to Iraq after his camp in Afghanistan was routed by the US.

The reasons for invading Iraq were wrong

I disagree. Enforcing a cease-fire is justification enough, especially when faced with two enemies both gaining power by convincing their allies and people that the US was a "paper tiger."

The threat from Iraq did not justify an invasion

Only if one assumes that Saddam's successful manipulation of the UN Security Council in dropping the sanctions wasn't going to result in more regional aggression. It's a tough call to make, but nobody can make that case that all Saddam wanted to do was live peacefully within his own country. His material support to other terrorist organizations and his implicit support for Al Qaeda (either active or through negligence) was a serious threat.

Not getting a proper alliance was wrong

Western Europe didn't have the resources, the stones, nor the inclination to fight our war. It's been like that for centuries - we bail them out they don't bail us out. That said, their predictions of catastrophic military defeat were just as wrong. I'll bet next time they are faced with appeasing a dictator or joining with us against him they'll go with the winner.

The number of troops dedicated to the invasion were inadequate

That's not true. We took far fewer casualties than the "tens of thousands" predicted. We controlled the entire country in a matter of weeks. The occupation is a completely separate matter.

The assessment of the political situation in Iraq was wrong

True. Nation building was a boondoggle and a severe fuck up. The military is not a peacekeeping force and it never should be.

The assessment of the Iran/Iraq/Saudi balance of power was wrong

What would be different right now?

The assessment of the vulnerability of US troops was wrong

In the occupation, yes but not the invasion.

 

[DaGoose]

links from reliable unbiased sources?
post them

Oh boy, here we go again. I know what will happen........

1) I will post links

2) You will "pooh pooh" them and call them biased

3) I will ask you to challenge the facts regardless of the source

4) You will get mad again, make personal attacks and "neg rep" me just because you can't refute anything

What the hell...........Here's one.........

"A presidential commission said Thursday that "the intelligence community was dead wrong in almost all of its prewar judgments" on Iraq's arsenal."

USATODAY.com - Iraq weapons assessments 'dead wrong,' Bush told

Stand by for more.

uh, that doesnt prove your case
the intel WAS dead wrong
the stockpiles didnt exist

Then what the hell are you arguing with me about? I supported rightwingers contention that the reasons for invading Iraq were wrong and you disagreed (before you agreed).

and btw, stop bitchin and whining about a neg rep
it makes you look like a pussy

Then you need to stop giving me neg reps and throwing a pussy fit just because you're losing an argument. Because it rightfully makes you look like an idiot

First, I don't care about rep points but obviously you care a lot about them. But I was under the impression that they should be used for certain things and not because you're getting pissed off and losing an argument. And.....

Second, questioning my livelyhood which had absolutely nothing to do with the thread was the height of idiocy.

 

[asterism]

Feel free to tell WHY the statements below are wrong either individually or collectively. (Of course you can always give me a personal attack and neg me too. That seems to be your style.)

Abandoning the war on terror to attack Iraq was wrong
The reasons for invading Iraq were wrong
The threat from Iraq did not justify an invasion
Not getting a proper alliance was wrong
The number of troops dedicated to the invasion were inadequate
The assessment of the political situation in Iraq was wrong
The assessment of the Iran/Iraq/Saudi balance of power was wrong
The assessment of the vulnerability of US troops was wrong

as if it will be worth it

the war on terror was NOT abandoned
the reasons for invading Iraq were and are valid
some not as valid as others
we DID find SOME WMD, just not the STOCKPILES that were expected
the numbers were valid, they got it done and in rather short time
it was the POST invasion period that was messed up
the last three are just as wrong as the above

Wow. I'm impressed. You CAN disagree without personal attacks and negging someone!!

the war on terror was NOT abandoned

(Not totally but what would have happened had we applied the same force looking for Bin Laden?)

the reasons for invading Iraq were and are valid
some not as valid as others

(Really? I'd love to hear the reasons that would justify the deaths of over 4000 American soldiers.)

we DID find SOME WMD, just not the STOCKPILES that were expected

(Imagine that.)

the numbers were valid, they got it done and in rather short time

(Then why the need for the surge?)

it was the POST invasion period that was messed up

(No, it was invading in the first place.)

the last three are just as wrong as the above

(All of the assessments turned out to be wrong. I can post links if you like.)

the war on terror was NOT abandoned

(Not totally but what would have happened had we applied the same force looking for Bin Laden?)

He may have ended up dead or still living in a cave. Zarqawi and Zawahiri would then be running things. Other than the symbolic loss, we'd still be fighting the same loose organization of allied terrorist groups but this time without a big win on our side, being the complete eradication of Saddam's military.

the reasons for invading Iraq were and are valid
some not as valid as others

(Really? I'd love to hear the reasons that would justify the deaths of over 4000 American soldiers.)

Enforcing a cease-fire and taking out the head of a State Sponsor of Terror.

we DID find SOME WMD, just not the STOCKPILES that were expected

(Imagine that.)

Dual agent sarin shells that were reported destroyed were indeed found. These aren't old useless relics, they are extremely dangerous weapons that are every bit as lethal now as they were 20 years ago.

the numbers were valid, they got it done and in rather short time

(Then why the need for the surge?)

To secure the country during the occupation.

it was the POST invasion period that was messed up

(No, it was invading in the first place.)

Only if you link the nation building blunder with the invasion.

 

[DaGoose]

both you and rightwinger are completely wrong

Feel free to tell WHY the statements below are wrong either individually or collectively. (Of course you can always give me a personal attack and neg me too. That seems to be your style.)

Abandoning the war on terror to attack Iraq was wrong
The reasons for invading Iraq were wrong
The threat from Iraq did not justify an invasion
Not getting a proper alliance was wrong
The number of troops dedicated to the invasion were inadequate
The assessment of the political situation in Iraq was wrong
The assessment of the Iran/Iraq/Saudi balance of power was wrong
The assessment of the vulnerability of US troops was wrong

I disagree, it was not abandoning the war on terror. Iraq was the next front as evidenced by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's relocation to Iraq after his camp in Afghanistan was routed by the US.



I disagree. Enforcing a cease-fire is justification enough, especially when faced with two enemies both gaining power by convincing their allies and people that the US was a "paper tiger."



Only if one assumes that Saddam's successful manipulation of the UN Security Council in dropping the sanctions wasn't going to result in more regional aggression. It's a tough call to make, but nobody can make that case that all Saddam wanted to do was live peacefully within his own country. His material support to other terrorist organizations and his implicit support for Al Qaeda (either active or through negligence) was a serious threat.



Western Europe didn't have the resources, the stones, nor the inclination to fight our war. It's been like that for centuries - we bail them out they don't bail us out. That said, their predictions of catastrophic military defeat were just as wrong. I'll bet next time they are faced with appeasing a dictator or joining with us against him they'll go with the winner.



That's not true. We took far fewer casualties than the "tens of thousands" predicted. We controlled the entire country in a matter of weeks. The occupation is a completely separate matter.



True. Nation building was a boondoggle and a severe fuck up. The military is not a peacekeeping force and it never should be.

The assessment of the Iran/Iraq/Saudi balance of power was wrong

What would be different right now?

The assessment of the vulnerability of US troops was wrong

In the occupation, yes but not the invasion.

One thing is certain......had President Clinton been the one to invade Iraq you wingnuts would be taking the opposite view.

In all of the justification for why we supposedly needed to invade and occupy Iraq I have yet to see anyone say that what we did was worth the lives of over 4000 American soldiers. And that begs the question.......

How many more American soldiers are you willing to send over to fight and die? Give me a number.

 

[asterism]

"Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing." Dwight D. Eisenhower

How America has changed since Ike? We are now 'the land of the scared and frightened wingnuts on the right and other assorted corporate stooges.'


"Meanwhile, corporate America and its international allies continue to do their bit. Joining PayPal and Amazon, who had already cut off their services to WikiLeaks, most of the remaining venues through which the internet journal is funded are also freezing out the organization -- MasterCard, Visa, and a Swiss bank that WikiLeaks used to process donations. All of these organizations are obviously responding to government pressure.

What is perhaps most remarkable is that this joint action by the world elite to shut down WikiLeaks – which has been operating for four years – comes after the release of diplomatic cables, not in response to earlier leaks which provided detailed evidence of crimes and atrocities committed by the perpetrators and continuers of Washington’s Terror War. I suppose this is because the diplomatic cables have upset the smooth running of the corrupt and cynical backroom operations that actually govern our world, behind the ludicrous lies and self-righteous posturing that our great and good lay on for the public. They didn’t mind being unmasked as accomplices in mass murder and fomenters of suffering and hatred; in fact, they were rather proud of it. " Chris Floyd Chris Floyd: Truth in Chains

You can post the platitudes all you want, but there was no military threat requiring our forces to be in Kosovo or Somalia. All cutting and running from those debacles demonstrated with the weak stomach our leadership had in fighting wars. In the case of Somalia it exacerbated the threat from Al Qaeda by giving Bin Laden some intel on how successful the emotional response to defeats in battles would be for him.

 

[DiveCon]

Oh boy, here we go again. I know what will happen........

1) I will post links

2) You will "pooh pooh" them and call them biased

3) I will ask you to challenge the facts regardless of the source

4) You will get mad again, make personal attacks and "neg rep" me just because you can't refute anything

What the hell...........Here's one.........

"A presidential commission said Thursday that "the intelligence community was dead wrong in almost all of its prewar judgments" on Iraq's arsenal."

USATODAY.com - Iraq weapons assessments 'dead wrong,' Bush told

Stand by for more.

uh, that doesnt prove your case
the intel WAS dead wrong
the stockpiles didnt exist

Then what the hell are you arguing with me about? I supported rightwingers contention that the reasons for invading Iraq were wrong and you disagreed (before you agreed).

and btw, stop bitchin and whining about a neg rep
it makes you look like a pussy

Then you need to stop giving me neg reps and throwing a pussy fit just because you're losing an argument. Because it rightfully makes you look like an idiot

First, I don't care about rep points but obviously you care a lot about them. But I was under the impression that they should be used for certain things and not because you're getting pissed off and losing an argument. And.....

Second, questioning my livelyhood which had absolutely nothing to do with the thread was the height of idiocy.

dipshit, what was wrong with the intel?
the fact the STOCKPILES didnt exist
not that there was no WMD found


giving you a neg rep when you deserved it for the bullshit you posted is not ME whining
you are whining because you GOT the neg rep
now man up and stop whining

 

[rightwinger]

Quote: Originally Posted by DaGoose
The number of troops dedicated to the invasion were inadequate

That's not true. We took far fewer casualties than the "tens of thousands" predicted. We controlled the entire country in a matter of weeks. The occupation is a completely separate matter.

The Bush administration looked at Iraq as an invasion and then the Iraqi people would "treat us as liberators" Rumsfeld intentionally kept the number of invading troops low to make it look like Iraq was not a major military effort.

Gen Shinseki, Chief of Staff of the Army, reported that US would need a troop strength of 125,000 and would have to remain in Iraq for an extended period of time. Rumsfeld publicly called him an idiot and fired him for it

Major strategic blunder by Bush and it ended up costing thousands of soldiers their lives

 

[asterism]

Feel free to tell WHY the statements below are wrong either individually or collectively. (Of course you can always give me a personal attack and neg me too. That seems to be your style.)

Abandoning the war on terror to attack Iraq was wrong
The reasons for invading Iraq were wrong
The threat from Iraq did not justify an invasion
Not getting a proper alliance was wrong
The number of troops dedicated to the invasion were inadequate
The assessment of the political situation in Iraq was wrong
The assessment of the Iran/Iraq/Saudi balance of power was wrong
The assessment of the vulnerability of US troops was wrong

I disagree, it was not abandoning the war on terror. Iraq was the next front as evidenced by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's relocation to Iraq after his camp in Afghanistan was routed by the US.



I disagree. Enforcing a cease-fire is justification enough, especially when faced with two enemies both gaining power by convincing their allies and people that the US was a "paper tiger."



Only if one assumes that Saddam's successful manipulation of the UN Security Council in dropping the sanctions wasn't going to result in more regional aggression. It's a tough call to make, but nobody can make that case that all Saddam wanted to do was live peacefully within his own country. His material support to other terrorist organizations and his implicit support for Al Qaeda (either active or through negligence) was a serious threat.



Western Europe didn't have the resources, the stones, nor the inclination to fight our war. It's been like that for centuries - we bail them out they don't bail us out. That said, their predictions of catastrophic military defeat were just as wrong. I'll bet next time they are faced with appeasing a dictator or joining with us against him they'll go with the winner.



That's not true. We took far fewer casualties than the "tens of thousands" predicted. We controlled the entire country in a matter of weeks. The occupation is a completely separate matter.



True. Nation building was a boondoggle and a severe fuck up. The military is not a peacekeeping force and it never should be.



What would be different right now?

The assessment of the vulnerability of US troops was wrong

In the occupation, yes but not the invasion.

One thing is certain......had President Clinton been the one to invade Iraq you wingnuts would be taking the opposite view.

Not me, not by a long shot. I certainly didn't oppose Clinton sending me to Somalia and actively tried to get on the next team headed to Kosovo.

In all of the justification for why we supposedly needed to invade and occupy Iraq I have yet to see anyone say that what we did was worth the lives of over 4000 American soldiers. And that begs the question.......

I don't think there is anything that would convince you. Enforcing a cease-fire is good enough for me. After I left active duty I voluntarily took a semester off and went to Kuwait to prepare for what we thought was going to be another invasion when Saddam put major troop forces on the border in 1994.

How many more American soldiers are you willing to send over to fight and die? Give me a number.

100,000. The threat is that severe in my educated opinion.

 

[DiveCon]

I disagree, it was not abandoning the war on terror. Iraq was the next front as evidenced by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's relocation to Iraq after his camp in Afghanistan was routed by the US.



I disagree. Enforcing a cease-fire is justification enough, especially when faced with two enemies both gaining power by convincing their allies and people that the US was a "paper tiger."



Only if one assumes that Saddam's successful manipulation of the UN Security Council in dropping the sanctions wasn't going to result in more regional aggression. It's a tough call to make, but nobody can make that case that all Saddam wanted to do was live peacefully within his own country. His material support to other terrorist organizations and his implicit support for Al Qaeda (either active or through negligence) was a serious threat.



Western Europe didn't have the resources, the stones, nor the inclination to fight our war. It's been like that for centuries - we bail them out they don't bail us out. That said, their predictions of catastrophic military defeat were just as wrong. I'll bet next time they are faced with appeasing a dictator or joining with us against him they'll go with the winner.



That's not true. We took far fewer casualties than the "tens of thousands" predicted. We controlled the entire country in a matter of weeks. The occupation is a completely separate matter.



True. Nation building was a boondoggle and a severe fuck up. The military is not a peacekeeping force and it never should be.



What would be different right now?



In the occupation, yes but not the invasion.

One thing is certain......had President Clinton been the one to invade Iraq you wingnuts would be taking the opposite view.

Not me, not by a long shot. I certainly didn't oppose Clinton sending me to Somalia and actively tried to get on the next team headed to Kosovo.

In all of the justification for why we supposedly needed to invade and occupy Iraq I have yet to see anyone say that what we did was worth the lives of over 4000 American soldiers. And that begs the question.......

I don't think there is anything that would convince you. Enforcing a cease-fire is good enough for me. After I left active duty I voluntarily took a semester off and went to Kuwait to prepare for what we thought was going to be another invasion when Saddam put major troop forces on the border in 1994.

How many more American soldiers are you willing to send over to fight and die? Give me a number.

100,000. The threat is that severe in my educated opinion.

actually, GHW Bush sent the troops to Somalia, in dec after he lost the election

 

[rightwinger]

I disagree, it was not abandoning the war on terror. Iraq was the next front as evidenced by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's relocation to Iraq after his camp in Afghanistan was routed by the US.

I disagree. Enforcing a cease-fire is justification enough, especially when faced with two enemies both gaining power by convincing their allies and people that the US was a "paper tiger."

Only if one assumes that Saddam's successful manipulation of the UN Security Council in dropping the sanctions wasn't going to result in more regional aggression. It's a tough call to make, but nobody can make that case that all Saddam wanted to do was live peacefully within his own country. His material support to other terrorist organizations and his implicit support for Al Qaeda (either active or through negligence) was a serious threat.

Iraq was not a threat to its neighbors and had been effectively neutralized for the last decade. Saddam was obsessed with one thing...Maintaining his power in Iraq...he had given up thoughts of expanding his empire. They were NOT involved in 9-11 and were NOT involved in international terrorism. Bush claimed we needed to invade Iraq NOW not because we needed to liberate its people but because of WMDs and a potential nuclear threat.

That assessment proved to be wrong.

By pulling troops away from Afghanistan, and more importantly, pulling our military inteligence out of Afghanistan he allowed Bin Laden and the Taliban leadership to reestablish itself in northern Pakistan. By pulling troops into Iraq, Bush weakened security in the Afghan provinces and allowed the Taliban to reclaim territory.

Once Obama took office he was forced to redirect the war on terrorism to where it belonged. He had to redeploy troops and recapture previously forfeited territory as well as intensify drone strikes and Pakistani military attacks on Taliban and AlQaeda strongholds.
None of this would have been necessary if Bush had not taken his eye off the ball

 

[asterism]

One thing is certain......had President Clinton been the one to invade Iraq you wingnuts would be taking the opposite view.

Not me, not by a long shot. I certainly didn't oppose Clinton sending me to Somalia and actively tried to get on the next team headed to Kosovo.



I don't think there is anything that would convince you. Enforcing a cease-fire is good enough for me. After I left active duty I voluntarily took a semester off and went to Kuwait to prepare for what we thought was going to be another invasion when Saddam put major troop forces on the border in 1994.

How many more American soldiers are you willing to send over to fight and die? Give me a number.

100,000. The threat is that severe in my educated opinion.

actually, GHW Bush sent the troops to Somalia, in dec after he lost the election

Half true, so did Clinton. There were two separate missions with separate diplomatic structures. The first in 1992 was an emergency stability measure to protect the existing (mostly private) groups and get them out. In 1993 it became a UN mission and that was all Clinton.

 

[rdean]

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

U.S. removes 'yellowcake' from Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq - msnbc.com

For 20 years nothing was don't with those leftovers and suddenly they are "proof" of a "nuclear program"?

What the hell is wrong with you people? Grow up and stop "inventing". You outta be ashamed of yourselves.

 

[DiveCon]

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

U.S. removes 'yellowcake' from Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq - msnbc.com

For 20 years nothing was don't with those leftovers and suddenly they are "proof" of a "nuclear program"?

What the hell is wrong with you people? Grow up and stop "inventing". You outta be ashamed of yourselves.

Bush put in more troops, Clinton pulled a lot of them out
basically left too few to do the missions and depended on other nations for backup
never should have been sent there in the first place, but once there, they needed to have support capable to deal with the contingency

 

[asterism]

I disagree, it was not abandoning the war on terror. Iraq was the next front as evidenced by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's relocation to Iraq after his camp in Afghanistan was routed by the US.

I disagree. Enforcing a cease-fire is justification enough, especially when faced with two enemies both gaining power by convincing their allies and people that the US was a "paper tiger."

Only if one assumes that Saddam's successful manipulation of the UN Security Council in dropping the sanctions wasn't going to result in more regional aggression. It's a tough call to make, but nobody can make that case that all Saddam wanted to do was live peacefully within his own country. His material support to other terrorist organizations and his implicit support for Al Qaeda (either active or through negligence) was a serious threat.

Iraq was not a threat to its neighbors and had been effectively neutralized for the last decade. Saddam was obsessed with one thing...Maintaining his power in Iraq...he had given up thoughts of expanding his empire. They were NOT involved in 9-11 and were NOT involved in international terrorism. Bush claimed we needed to invade Iraq NOW not because we needed to liberate its people but because of WMDs and a potential nuclear threat.

That assessment proved to be wrong.

By pulling troops away from Afghanistan, and more importantly, pulling our military inteligence out of Afghanistan he allowed Bin Laden and the Taliban leadership to reestablish itself in northern Pakistan. By pulling troops into Iraq, Bush weakened security in the Afghan provinces and allowed the Taliban to reclaim territory.

Once Obama took office he was forced to redirect the war on terrorism to where it belonged. He had to redeploy troops and recapture previously forfeited territory as well as intensify drone strikes and Pakistani military attacks on Taliban and AlQaeda strongholds.
None of this would have been necessary if Bush had not taken his eye off the ball

Afghanistan is the priority only because there is no safe harbor in Iraq. You are free to think whatever you wish about Saddam. I've found that many left wingers are less than honest about their perceptions depending on who they are getting them from, and I chuckle when they project and demonstrate their ignorance.

I don't think an honest debate on this subject is possible with you.

 

[asterism]

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

U.S. removes 'yellowcake' from Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq - msnbc.com

For 20 years nothing was don't with those leftovers and suddenly they are "proof" of a "nuclear program"?

What the hell is wrong with you people? Grow up and stop "inventing". You outta be ashamed of yourselves.

Bush put in more troops, Clinton pulled a lot of them out
basically left too few to do the missions and depended on other nations for backup
never should have been sent there in the first place, but once there, they needed to have support capable to deal with the contingency

(I assume you're talking about Somalia) That is simply not the case, buddy.

 

[rightwinger]

I disagree, it was not abandoning the war on terror. Iraq was the next front as evidenced by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's relocation to Iraq after his camp in Afghanistan was routed by the US.

I disagree. Enforcing a cease-fire is justification enough, especially when faced with two enemies both gaining power by convincing their allies and people that the US was a "paper tiger."

Only if one assumes that Saddam's successful manipulation of the UN Security Council in dropping the sanctions wasn't going to result in more regional aggression. It's a tough call to make, but nobody can make that case that all Saddam wanted to do was live peacefully within his own country. His material support to other terrorist organizations and his implicit support for Al Qaeda (either active or through negligence) was a serious threat.

Iraq was not a threat to its neighbors and had been effectively neutralized for the last decade. Saddam was obsessed with one thing...Maintaining his power in Iraq...he had given up thoughts of expanding his empire. They were NOT involved in 9-11 and were NOT involved in international terrorism. Bush claimed we needed to invade Iraq NOW not because we needed to liberate its people but because of WMDs and a potential nuclear threat.

That assessment proved to be wrong.

By pulling troops away from Afghanistan, and more importantly, pulling our military inteligence out of Afghanistan he allowed Bin Laden and the Taliban leadership to reestablish itself in northern Pakistan. By pulling troops into Iraq, Bush weakened security in the Afghan provinces and allowed the Taliban to reclaim territory.

Once Obama took office he was forced to redirect the war on terrorism to where it belonged. He had to redeploy troops and recapture previously forfeited territory as well as intensify drone strikes and Pakistani military attacks on Taliban and AlQaeda strongholds.
None of this would have been necessary if Bush had not taken his eye off the ball

Afghanistan is the priority only because there is no safe harbor in Iraq. You are free to think whatever you wish about Saddam. I've found that many left wingers are less than honest about their perceptions depending on who they are getting them from, and I chuckle when they project and demonstrate their ignorance.

I don't think an honest debate on this subject is possible with you.

You can't deny historical fact. Bush brought us into a preemptive war against a nation that was not a threat to the US or its neighbors. Bush was tasked to fight the war on terrorism. Iraq was not a terroristic threat. Bush botched the war in Iraq and his inadequate manning allowed the insurgents to take over the country and kill 4000 Americans


History will judge Bush accordingly

 

[DiveCon]

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.

U.S. removes 'yellowcake' from Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq - msnbc.com

For 20 years nothing was don't with those leftovers and suddenly they are "proof" of a "nuclear program"?

What the hell is wrong with you people? Grow up and stop "inventing". You outta be ashamed of yourselves.

Bush put in more troops, Clinton pulled a lot of them out
basically left too few to do the missions and depended on other nations for backup
never should have been sent there in the first place, but once there, they needed to have support capable to deal with the contingency

(I assume you're talking about Somalia) That is simply not the case, buddy.

yes, it was Somalia, and GHW Bush put in a LARGE amount of troops(enough to provide the proper support)
Clinton pulled a bunch of them out and depended on the UN for backups
i remember this quite well as i was really pissed at GHWB for putting troops in harms way knowing Clinton would have to deal with it
i didnt trust Clinton to look out for the better interests of the troops, and history bears out my lack of trust in him'

 

[rdean]

Bush put in more troops, Clinton pulled a lot of them out
basically left too few to do the missions and depended on other nations for backup
never should have been sent there in the first place, but once there, they needed to have support capable to deal with the contingency

(I assume you're talking about Somalia) That is simply not the case, buddy.

yes, it was Somalia, and GHW Bush put in a LARGE amount of troops(enough to provide the proper support)
Clinton pulled a bunch of them out and depended on the UN for backups
i remember this quite well as i was really pissed at GHWB for putting troops in harms way knowing Clinton would have to deal with it
i didnt trust Clinton to look out for the better interests of the troops, and history bears out my lack of trust in him'

Clinton removed troops from harms way and involved the UN because Clinton wasn't looking out of the "better interests of the troops"? This is "circular logic" at it's worst.