Trump: Bush lied about reason for invading Iraq

[Wilbur Right]

Anyone who is following this with any intelligence is well aware that. in the end, Trump will have 35=% and the only other remaining candidate will have 65%.

In other words....he is the leader statistically.....but not really the leader.

Hey as long as Kasich ends up the nominee I dont care how you all get there.
Cause anyone with any intelligence understands he is the cream of the Republican crop this time around.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Redfish 13547309

Sure Bush was CIC and gave the order, if Hillary was CIC at that time she would have done the same thing, and you fricken well know it.

You know it's not true and based on HRCs own words, just two weeks before the invasion, you now know that HRC very openly and clearly opposed Bush if he did not allow the inspectors more time in order to avoid war.

It is sad but not surprising to see someone cling to their Iraq invasion myths no matter how many facts and direct quotes are put before the soulless eyes of a master of pure fiction Iraq invasion supporter.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

"The alternative was to let the inspectors continue the job they were doing."

Jarhead 13551438

you are poorly informed.

That is what Jarhead tells the author of the only alternative that Bush should have chosen in March 2003. The Clinton's Alternative.

The fact that Bush lied and chose the jarhead, flacaltenn, redfish war alternative presents us with the most meaningful lesson to be learned from the disaster that followed Bush's sole decision to invade Iraq:

War should always be undertaken as a last resort, not a first resort. Specifically when sending in massive amounts US ground troops.

 

[Faun]

This is why Jeb! is at 1% after spening MILLIONS. He took 3 days to come to the conclusion that invading Iraq was not a good idea.

Jeb is toast. Have you seen what Trump did to Jeb's website?

www.jebbush.com

Brilliant!

i don't see it

You don't see Jeb's website because Trump took the domain name from a dumbass Bush who let it expire. Trump now owns it and redirects it to his own website.

Like I said ... brilliant!

 

[Dot Com]

This is why Jeb! is at 1% after spening MILLIONS. He took 3 days to come to the conclusion that invading Iraq was not a good idea.

Jeb is toast. Have you seen what Trump did to Jeb's website?

www.jebbush.com

Brilliant!

i don't see it

You don't see Jeb's website because Trump took the domain name from a dumbass Bush who let it expire. Trump now owns it and redirects it to his own website.

Like I said ... brilliant!

thats what I was thinking but I just looked at his URL not the news blurb about it happening,

funny

 

[Faun]

This is why Jeb! is at 1% after spening MILLIONS. He took 3 days to come to the conclusion that invading Iraq was not a good idea.

Jeb is toast. Have you seen what Trump did to Jeb's website?

www.jebbush.com

Brilliant!

i don't see it

You don't see Jeb's website because Trump took the domain name from a dumbass Bush who let it expire. Trump now owns it and redirects it to his own website.

Like I said ... brilliant!

thats what I was thinking but I just looked at his URL not the news blurb about it happening,

funny

And Bush wants to be president!

... how's he gonna manage the country when he can't even manage his own website??

But it does completely highlight the reality that every Bush is ******* incompetent.

 

[Dot Com]

This is why Jeb! is at 1% after spening MILLIONS. He took 3 days to come to the conclusion that invading Iraq was not a good idea.

Jeb is toast. Have you seen what Trump did to Jeb's website?

www.jebbush.com

Brilliant!

i don't see it

You don't see Jeb's website because Trump took the domain name from a dumbass Bush who let it expire. Trump now owns it and redirects it to his own website.

Like I said ... brilliant!

thats what I was thinking but I just looked at his URL not the news blurb about it happening,

funny

And Bush wants to be president!

... how's he gonna manage the country when he can't even manage his own website??

But it does completely highlight the reality that every Bush is ******* incompetent.

is there a thread on that?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[flacaltenn]

flacaltenn 13549962

Because then Bernie would SMASH her wanting for to continue all the fraud and abuse that the containment brought on..

You and Redfish refuse to accept those Clinton quotes I provided that show both of them in early March 2003 publicly stating their opposition to invading Iraq while UN Inspections were functioning quite well.

So both were opposed to Bush making war to end containment ("containment" in your contorted conclusion expressed here) which was within months of being lifted peacefully and fully in accordance with international law and the UN Charter and Resolution 1441.

So it's odd of you to profess a theory that Bush invaded Iraq to end containment and its dishonest for you to twist the Clinton's public words in March 2003 to mean that they favored war over ending containment through peaceful means of inspections, just like Bush.

That's why no response to the Clinton quotes from you or Redfish.

Of course I responded. I provided you the 3JewRoadShow that BillyJeff sent on the road in 1998 to drum up support for an invasion of Iraq. I don't know WhyTF you're talking about any BillyJeff quotes 3 years AFTER he left office. He conducted a brutal war and containment on Iraq thru the entirely of his term.

And what was it based on??? That Iraq possessed and desired to develop WMDs.
He had no solution to this horrendous policy. And neither did his Mini-Me.. YOU probably didn't either. Didya?

Did you hear any mass of Dems saying the containment was based on lies and needed to end? The UN was ALWAYS within months of a statement of compliance. That's a ruse. The EU had already decided the proof was adequate. YET -- BillyJeff bombed and tortured Iraq up to the end of his term. Based on the "lies"...

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do you think he actually gave any consideration to the Iraqi people? I mean, he didn't give them any consideration AFTER he had invaded and put Bremer in charge of everything and then turned Iraq into a petri dish for Islamic terrorism.

He didn't care about the US soldiers, he didn't care about the people who have been impacted all over the world by Islamic terrorism, and he didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people. Simple as.

I actually think he got it. He felt a sense of urgency to do something because of

1) the toll it was taking on the Iraqi people. And our sanctions should never be designed that way for so long.

2) the mess at the UN with the resignations criticizing the policy from weapons inspectors and humanitarian officials.. And the corruption.

3) the urgency to stop persecuting and killing an entire COUNTRY of Muslim Arabs in a time when he wanted to run a general "War on Terrorism". Looked bad to be bombing Iraq daily and saying we weren't at war with all of Islam..

But you're right. We arrived to NAG the Iraqi people into Democracy and running stuff our way. We became super nannies to a people who were not in the mood to be feeling the love. We ran off their military and govt and tried to make replacements in own image. THAT -- was tone deaf -- to say the least. AND -- it's Bush's fault for taking that advice. But I DON'T fault him for having the balls to do SOMETHING to end 12 VERY BAD years of former US policy. He should have figured out what it was gonna cost us in lives and money before his first term was up...

1) The sanctions were a problem, but people didn't know how to contain someone like Saddam. However did Bush care? I'd doubt it. He wanted Saddam out of the way. Why? Why not Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe? Why not the Kims in North Korea? Why not the DRC (Congo) with all their problems?

Why specifically Iraq?

2) The weapons inspections were what? Bush was told there wasn't a threat, so why did he make out there was a threat when there wasn't? We know, for a fact, that he took dodgy intelligence and added more dodgy to the already dodgy. Why? Saddam was contained at that point in time.

3) Again, the persecution wasn't an issue. People died under Saddam and they died under Bremer. There wasn't much difference there. Bush didn't put things in place to stop it going balls up. Why not?

To end bad US foreign policy, by replacing it with EVEN WORSE foreign policy. Er........

well you are right about one thing, Obama did replace bad foreign policy with EVEN WORSE foreign policy.

Can we stop with this nonsense please? Either talk about what I'm talking about or just don't bother replying.

I just put your post in proper context.

But we agree, Iraq was a stupid waste of American lives and money. What we disagree on is your erroneous claim that Bush did it all on his own, the he convinced the entire world to accept a lie, and that he was such a great communicator that he fooled all of the democrats-----------------or are you saying that Hillary and the dems were too stupid to see the truth? It has to be one or the other.

I didn't claim Bush did it all on his own. In fact I'm not sure it was Bush who was the main player at all. However he was the one in charge of the government at the time, so he takes the responsibility. We could have a long discussion on who did what, and we'd have to guess because a lot of this was never recorded, behind the scenes and no one will ever know. So, to make it more simple, we give the blame to the guy who held the responsibility.

The first thing is that Bush, or someone behind Bush, sent the CIA out to "find" information that suited their needs. The NSA didn't get told to do this, and were subsequently ignored by Bush and his team. Bush was the one who went with the intelligence to other politicians, like Clinton, and told them things.

So, Bush and his team were in the know, they knew what was the truth, and they knew what was fabricated. They then took the fabrication and fabricated it some more. This double fabrication is what was delivered to others.

Were people like Clinton too stupid to see the truth? Maybe not too stupid, but they definitely are politicians who would have also made what was in front of them fit their own agenda for the advancement of their own careers.

Around the world people were saying this was all bullshit. For Clinton, she didn't need to make it bullshit. They probably saw what the people were saying, and the people were saying what the media were saying, and the media were saying what those in charge of the media wanted them to say, and these people also control the politicians.

So Clinton didn't necessarily have the desire to make this the fight that others would have made it.

The problem here is one of a govt system with two parties doing the bidding of the main power people, whoever they are, consciously or sub-consciously.

You can criticize Clinton for being that career politician. But it doesn't really matter, they're all playing the politics game. It'd be like in China where many politicians are getting done for corruption, but they're all corrupt, just some get accused of it, and some walk about without a problem.

However Clinton didn't fabricate things, she just didn't do something. Bush did things, he invented. That's the difference.

 

[flacaltenn]

You are correct FW -- he wasn't saving the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. He was TRYING to save them from over a decade of CRIPPLING economic sanctions (more strict than Iran or NK sanctions) and daily bombing by the USA...

Do you think he actually gave any consideration to the Iraqi people? I mean, he didn't give them any consideration AFTER he had invaded and put Bremer in charge of everything and then turned Iraq into a petri dish for Islamic terrorism.

He didn't care about the US soldiers, he didn't care about the people who have been impacted all over the world by Islamic terrorism, and he didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people. Simple as.

I actually think he got it. He felt a sense of urgency to do something because of

1) the toll it was taking on the Iraqi people. And our sanctions should never be designed that way for so long.

2) the mess at the UN with the resignations criticizing the policy from weapons inspectors and humanitarian officials.. And the corruption.

3) the urgency to stop persecuting and killing an entire COUNTRY of Muslim Arabs in a time when he wanted to run a general "War on Terrorism". Looked bad to be bombing Iraq daily and saying we weren't at war with all of Islam..

But you're right. We arrived to NAG the Iraqi people into Democracy and running stuff our way. We became super nannies to a people who were not in the mood to be feeling the love. We ran off their military and govt and tried to make replacements in own image. THAT -- was tone deaf -- to say the least. AND -- it's Bush's fault for taking that advice. But I DON'T fault him for having the balls to do SOMETHING to end 12 VERY BAD years of former US policy. He should have figured out what it was gonna cost us in lives and money before his first term was up...

because Halliburton/KBR was standing in the wings. Remember the whole "Join us or you won't get any Reconstruction contracts"? Of course you don't.

CNN.com - Transcripts

But first, our top story tonight -- should countries that opposed the war in Iraq be able to bid on lucrative reconstruction contracts? No way, says the Bush administration, today moving to keep billions of dollars from trading partners like France, Germany, Russia, even Canada. Those countries are outraged, and the European Union may take action. Senior White House correspondent John King has details.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The president welcomed members of the Iraqi National Symphony to the Roosevelt Room, happy to talk music but not about another major diplomatic dustup. At issue, a White House decision to block Iraq war opponents from nearly $20 billion in U.S.-funded reconstruction contracts. Bush critics call it hardball retaliation. The White House prefers to call it rewarding allies.

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: These are countries that have been with us from day one. These are countries that are contributing forces, that have been making sacrifices.

KING: This Pentagon memo says restricting the big contracts to Iraqi war allies should encourage the continued cooperation of coalition members. But the administration also hopes the lure of big reconstruction contracts might convince other nations to offer troops, or as the memo put it, "limiting competition for prime contracts will encourage the expansion of international cooperation in Iraq."

You're welcome

Stop going full-retard in attempting to derail the thread

it's not going "full blown retard" to point out that the SAME LIES being discussed in that silly debate moment were the SAME LIES used to justify 12 years of killing and abusing the Iraqi people under containment. The policy that MOST of Bush's "opposition" would allow to tacitly continue.. It's COMPLETELY germane to the topic . In fact -- I would expect by now that SOMEBODY running for President would recognize that. And that a problem needed to solve and NO ONE in that era had the courage to do anything. At least W "did something" to change the previously mad policy.

All the players in that history relied on the EXACT SAME LIES to continue disastrous and deadly US foreign policy. And our CURRENT national debate and dialogue should reveal candidates who RECOGNIZE exactly what went wrong. And not just the sling the poo you crave to consume...

Never answered the question Dottie.. What were the ALTERNATIVES to invading Iraq?? The alternatives that were NOT based on "lies"??? I'm not buying your premise that the exchange between Bush and Trump had the LEAST bit of leadership, knowledge or policy in it. Not convinced that EITHER idiot has a grasp of the magnitude of mistakes that were made.

Do us all a favor Dottie.. Next time you start a thread that you want to micromanage --- send us all scripted responses that fit your preconceived notions of "proper on-topic responses"..

The alternative was to let the inspectors continue the job they were doing.

Had that occurred, we would have discovered there were no WMD or WMD programs, just as we did using Bush's method of taking us to war.

Only there would be about 5,000 more Americans, 100,000+ Iraqis, trillions of dollars less in debt, the Middle East wouldn't be exploding like an active volcano, and no one would have ever heard of ISIS

How many more years? How many more Iraqi children/elderly dying from lack of medicine and food? And HOW TF would you expect that the SAME UN who was found to be ILLEGALLY dealing with the Saddam regime in the Oil for Food program would be a respected broker of truth? Or having a string of Iraq Humanitarian Czars resign and BLAST the containment policy?

It was clear by 1996 -- that there was no massive effort for WMDs in Iraq. The next 6 yrs was arguments over accounting for outdated chemical weapons that had long expired in usefulness.

Saddam STOPPED the inspections after BillyJeff did his Monica Lewinsky/Impeachment bombings and REPEATED the lies. They were DEAD in the water until after he left office. BRIEFLY revived for about 7 months under Bush. Saddam got STRONGER because WE were killing his people for him..

We need to make certain we NEVER do this again as a country. And to let candidates for Prez use this issue as a schoolyard taunt and be amused by it -- is a sign our election vetting is in the crapper. Trump SHOULD have pushed on HIS OPTIONS at the time. Because making decisions comes with risk. And CANDIDATES don't take risks.

All Jeb had to do is point out what the options were. And that NO POLITICIAN was willing to come out from behind the lies to do anything about it..

 

[frigidweirdo]

Bill Clinton never invaded Iraq. His containment strategy worked for 8 years
Hillary was one vote out of 100 Senators, it does not reach the level of culpability of ordering an invasion

Bubba Clinton invaded Bosnia. Hillary said the exact same things about Iraq and WMDs that Bush said. She voted to authorize and fund the foolish invasion. Sure Bush was CIC and gave the order, if Hillary was CIC at that time she would have done the same thing, and you fricken well know it.

Clinton didn't invade Bosnia at all.

UNPROFOR was in Bosnia and it did have US soldiers, but this was 1992 to 1995 and that certainly wasn't an invasion. Then after 1995 it was IFOR which was based on an agreement that had been signed by all parties in the war.

Iraq and Bosnia were completely different situations. But then actually knowing history takes some effort at reading stuff.

Clinton put American troops on the ground in Bosnia, some of them died there. The only difference is the size of the conflict. Both were wastes of American lives and money

Yes, Clinton put troops there, and they were there to help end a conflict, which ended, and to help stabilize a country, which has more or less stabilized. The job was a success. One US soldier died in combat, 11 died in other circumstances, compared to 3,500 who died in Iraq.

Four died in Kosovo, you'd probably have been better off talking about Kosovo, four died there, but then again they did stop genocide.

Why not talk about the Gulf War, I mean, a small country like Kuwait gets invaded, who gives a damn? Oh, yeah, the oil people care, so those lives lost were worth it, right? Whereas losing one life to stop a conflict, and the action was successful is a bad thing....

A waste of money? Sometimes life is worth more than money.... or at least that's what some non-Americans tell me.

you really are a weirdo, only your close friends would know if you are frigid.

All presidents make mistakes, get past the partisan bullshit and deal with reality. Bashing Bush is not going to help elect Hillary, I don't know why you libs think it will.

Yes, all presidents make mistakes.

Some presidents make small mistakes, some make mistakes that will cause us problems for centuries. Bush is in the latter. His mistakes are so huge, so problem causing, and you look back and wonder how anyone could be so stupid. Until you realize that actually, these "mistakes" weren't mistakes at all, they give the right exactly what they wanted.

Will Hillary get elected? Maybe, maybe not. She doesn't have much standing in her way, a guy who'd never be elected president from her own party, and then some goofballs from the Republican Party who are just trying to entertain people.

And I don't even like Hillary, but so far, she's ahead of everyone else.

 

[Faun]

Do you think he actually gave any consideration to the Iraqi people? I mean, he didn't give them any consideration AFTER he had invaded and put Bremer in charge of everything and then turned Iraq into a petri dish for Islamic terrorism.

He didn't care about the US soldiers, he didn't care about the people who have been impacted all over the world by Islamic terrorism, and he didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people. Simple as.

I actually think he got it. He felt a sense of urgency to do something because of

1) the toll it was taking on the Iraqi people. And our sanctions should never be designed that way for so long.

2) the mess at the UN with the resignations criticizing the policy from weapons inspectors and humanitarian officials.. And the corruption.

3) the urgency to stop persecuting and killing an entire COUNTRY of Muslim Arabs in a time when he wanted to run a general "War on Terrorism". Looked bad to be bombing Iraq daily and saying we weren't at war with all of Islam..

But you're right. We arrived to NAG the Iraqi people into Democracy and running stuff our way. We became super nannies to a people who were not in the mood to be feeling the love. We ran off their military and govt and tried to make replacements in own image. THAT -- was tone deaf -- to say the least. AND -- it's Bush's fault for taking that advice. But I DON'T fault him for having the balls to do SOMETHING to end 12 VERY BAD years of former US policy. He should have figured out what it was gonna cost us in lives and money before his first term was up...

because Halliburton/KBR was standing in the wings. Remember the whole "Join us or you won't get any Reconstruction contracts"? Of course you don't.

CNN.com - Transcripts

But first, our top story tonight -- should countries that opposed the war in Iraq be able to bid on lucrative reconstruction contracts? No way, says the Bush administration, today moving to keep billions of dollars from trading partners like France, Germany, Russia, even Canada. Those countries are outraged, and the European Union may take action. Senior White House correspondent John King has details.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN KING, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The president welcomed members of the Iraqi National Symphony to the Roosevelt Room, happy to talk music but not about another major diplomatic dustup. At issue, a White House decision to block Iraq war opponents from nearly $20 billion in U.S.-funded reconstruction contracts. Bush critics call it hardball retaliation. The White House prefers to call it rewarding allies.

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: These are countries that have been with us from day one. These are countries that are contributing forces, that have been making sacrifices.

KING: This Pentagon memo says restricting the big contracts to Iraqi war allies should encourage the continued cooperation of coalition members. But the administration also hopes the lure of big reconstruction contracts might convince other nations to offer troops, or as the memo put it, "limiting competition for prime contracts will encourage the expansion of international cooperation in Iraq."

You're welcome

Stop going full-retard in attempting to derail the thread

it's not going "full blown retard" to point out that the SAME LIES being discussed in that silly debate moment were the SAME LIES used to justify 12 years of killing and abusing the Iraqi people under containment. The policy that MOST of Bush's "opposition" would allow to tacitly continue.. It's COMPLETELY germane to the topic . In fact -- I would expect by now that SOMEBODY running for President would recognize that. And that a problem needed to solve and NO ONE in that era had the courage to do anything. At least W "did something" to change the previously mad policy.

All the players in that history relied on the EXACT SAME LIES to continue disastrous and deadly US foreign policy. And our CURRENT national debate and dialogue should reveal candidates who RECOGNIZE exactly what went wrong. And not just the sling the poo you crave to consume...

Never answered the question Dottie.. What were the ALTERNATIVES to invading Iraq?? The alternatives that were NOT based on "lies"??? I'm not buying your premise that the exchange between Bush and Trump had the LEAST bit of leadership, knowledge or policy in it. Not convinced that EITHER idiot has a grasp of the magnitude of mistakes that were made.

Do us all a favor Dottie.. Next time you start a thread that you want to micromanage --- send us all scripted responses that fit your preconceived notions of "proper on-topic responses"..

The alternative was to let the inspectors continue the job they were doing.

Had that occurred, we would have discovered there were no WMD or WMD programs, just as we did using Bush's method of taking us to war.

Only there would be about 5,000 more Americans, 100,000+ Iraqis, trillions of dollars less in debt, the Middle East wouldn't be exploding like an active volcano, and no one would have ever heard of ISIS

How many more years? How many more Iraqi children/elderly dying from lack of medicine and food?

Fewer years than the 9 years we were at war, getting 5,000 Americans killed and wasted trillions of dollars.

And HOW TF would you expect that the SAME UN who was found to be ILLEGALLY dealing with the Saddam regime in the Oil for Food program would be a respected broker of truth? Or having a string of Iraq Humanitarian Czars resign and BLAST the containment policy?

Didn't impact them during the 4 months they were there.

We need to make certain we NEVER do this again as a country.

Agreed.

And to let candidates for Prez use this issue as a schoolyard taunt and be amused by it -- is a sign our election vetting is in the crapper. Trump SHOULD have pushed on HIS OPTIONS at the time. Because making decisions comes with risk. And CANDIDATES don't take risks.

Trump is not a politician and doesn't play by the rules. That's probably his biggest charm.

All Jeb had to do is point out what the options were. And that NO POLITICIAN was willing to come out from behind the lies to do anything about it..

That would have been a huge mistake since the option was, as I said, letting the inspectors finish their job.

The fact of the matter is Jeb was screwed from the gitgo. He's a Bush. The name is mud. It was just a matter of time before his name got used against him. Especially when he made the unbelievably retarded statement that his brother kept us safe. He basically handed Trump the, "9.11 happened on his watch," retort on a silver platter and wrapped in a bow.

 

[Dot Com]

good post

 

[whutTHEYsay]

flacaltenn 13554508.

Saddam STOPPED the inspections after BillyJeff did his Monica Lewinsky/Impeachment bombings and REPEATED the lies.

That is not factually correct. The bombings came after a series of events where Clinton FIRST threatened to bomb when the inspectors reported lack of cooperation and SH refusal to allow inspections of his palaces. The threat of strikes was called off because Saddam negotiated a deal with inspectors that satisfied them that they would be able to continue their work uninhibited by SH's regime.

Within a month the inspectors reported SH backed out of the deal and they were pulling out of Iraq themselves because there was no more work to be done and sanctions could not be lifted until Iraq was found in full compliance.

Desert Fox was launched because Saddaam Hussein refused to cooperate with inspectors and potential chem bio production facilities were targeted.

The standoff continued, SH was in violation of international law and the NFZs were continued to protect the Kurds and Shiites in the South.

Equating that period as a pack of lies anywhere comparable to Bush's lie after four months of successful inspection is about as absurd as an analysis that anyone could define on this issue.

You can't even get simple facts and timing of events right.

 

[BlindBoo]

Did you hear any mass of Dems saying the containment was based on lies and needed to end?

There were a few, Libertarians (before the TP co-opted the name) mostly. Fact is the only thing Iraq was guilty of was poor accounting. All the supplies the Western allies shipped to Iraq were accounted for, except there was a small percent of precursor chemicals that they simply couldn't account for. So of course the only answer to that was Saddam was secretly producing Chemical weapons. And it only follows that if he was producing CW, he probably was secretly producing the big daddy of all WMD, a nuke. But there was big money involved in the sanctions so the lies snowballed.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Flacaltenn 13554402

Did you hear any mass of Dems saying the containment was based on lies and needed to end?

You have to establish that your generic statement that containment was a mass of lies before anyone needs to respond to your question.

You have not done so and it is very unlikely that you can. Sanctions had legal standing under international law and the UN Charter. That does not necessarily make them good or perfect, but your contention that international laws were twelve years of nothing but a mass of lies is easily dismissed as absurd.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Flacaltenn 13554402

Did you hear any mass of Dems saying the containment was based on lies and needed to end?

Did you ever come across any reports that Saddam Hussein was defiant and non-cooperative or non-compliant under the terms of the Surrender Agreement he made with the UNSC after his army was driven out of Kuwait in 1991?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Bush and company who contrived the war and ram rodded the sordid criminal thing through to its disastrous commencement are equally guilty as those who believed the lies they told to get the war going...this is what turds believe

 

[Dot Com]

Bush and company who contrived the war and ram rodded the sordid criminal thing through to its disastrous commencement are equally guilty as those who believed the lies they told to get the war going...this is what turds believe

the "yabut they voted for it!!!" is indeed a lame excuse given BushCo had a neocon in the pentagon putting-out *cough* "raw" intel into foreign news sources to sway opinion. Add to that, trotting out powell and Condi to fan the flames with lies as well

Douglas J. Feith - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feith joined the administration of President George W. Bush as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy in 2001. His appointment was facilitated by connections he had with other neoconservatives, including Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. With his new appointment in hand, Feith proved influential in having Richard Perle chosen as chairman of the Defense Policy Board.[12] Feith was criticized during the first term of the Bush administration for creating the Office of Strategic Influence. This office came into existence to support the War on Terror. The office's aim was to influence policymakers by submitting biased news stories into the foreign media. Feith played a significant role in the buildup to the Iraq war.[13] As part of his portfolio, he supervised the Pentagon Office of Special Plans, a group of policy and intelligence analysts created to provide senior government officials with raw intelligence, unvetted by the intelligence community.[14] The office, eventually dismantled, was later criticized in Congress and the media for analysis that was contradicted by CIA analysis and investigations performed following the invasion of Iraq. General Tommy Franks, who led both the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and the Iraq War, once called Feith "the dumbest ******* guy on the planet."

I'd like to see any BushCo drone defend that. PLEASE!!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.