Well, at least it's not just the American...

[Yonivore]

...people to whom he's lied.

Doctors tell Barack Obama to quit smoking (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/01/barack-obama-told-to-quit-smoking)


Obama promised Michelle when he embarked on his campaign to become president he would quit, at the time he said he was smoking about eight a day.
Eight a day my ass. Eight a day isn't a habit, that's a choice.

This is the gem of the article though...


The doctors also recommended "moderation of alcohol intake".
Does the dude have a drinking problem too? I don't recall this ever being mentioned as part of a President's annual physical before.

I bet this moron is a complete wreck behind the scenes; smoking and drinking his ass off.

[Spurminator]

:lmao

[Darrin]

Well, he did split a beer with someone at the White House as a part of a photo-op.

[ElNono]

Dude had Dijon mustard!

On his hamburger!

Elitist condiments!

[George Gervin's Afro]

...people to whom he's lied.

Doctors tell Barack Obama to quit smoking (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/01/barack-obama-told-to-quit-smoking)


Eight a day my ass. Eight a day isn't a habit, that's a choice.

This is the gem of the article though...


Does the dude have a drinking problem too? I don't recall this ever being mentioned as part of a President's annual physical before.

I bet this moron is a complete wreck behind the scenes; smoking and drinking his ass off.




Weapons of Mass Destruction

Announcing the invasion of Iraq on March 19, 2003, Mr. Bush said, “Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”

Two months into the war, on May 29, 2003, Mr. Bush said weapons of mass destruction had been found.

“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories,” Mr. Bush told Polish television. “For those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them."

On Sept. 9, 2004, in Pennsylvania, Mr. Bush said: “I recognize we didn't find the stockpiles [of weapons] we all thought were there.”




Nation Building and the War in Iraq

During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush argued against nation building and foreign military entanglements. In the second presidential debate, he said: "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be.'"

The United States is currently involved in nation building in Iraq on a scale unseen since the years immediately following World War II.

During the 2000 election, Mr. Bush called for U.S. troops to be withdrawn from the NATO peacekeeping mission in the Balkans. His administration now cites such missions as an example of how America must "stay the course."

[Yonivore]

For George...


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

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

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

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[George Gervin's Afro]

For George...

Which one of those gave the final ok to go to war? Better yet, who was the dumbass president who relied on faulty information to invade Iraq?

[spursncowboys]

Which one of those gave the final ok to go to war? Better yet, who was the dumbass president who relied on faulty information to invade Iraq?
:lol
ffwwooooooosh
over your head.

[DMX7]

God Damnit!!! I hate elitest like Obama. With their fancy "education" and "stuff".

[ChumpDumper]

The word of the day is shrewish.

[boutons_deux]

how's dem ankle's taste, PussyEater? :lol

nip, nibble, suck, lick dem ankles

[Crookshanks]

Hmmm - two of the biggest health issues facing Americans are the illnesses resulting from tabacco use and alcohol abuse - seems the Prez is not setting a very good example. Of course, he has the best healthcare in the world - so I guess it's not a problem for him.

[ChumpDumper]

The word of the day is shrewish.

[jack sommerset]

Hmmm - two of the biggest health issues facing Americans are the illnesses resulting from tabacco use and alcohol abuse - seems the Prez is not setting a very good example. Of course, he has the best healthcare in the world - so I guess it's not a problem for him.

"Do as I say not as I do" will be his campaign slogan 2012.

[Darrin]

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Good evening.
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability. The inspectors undertook this mission first 7 1/2 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The U.N. Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the U.N.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the U.N. that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing U.N. resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the U.N. weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to U.N. Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing. In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though U.N. resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past. Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence.

For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program. It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions. Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment. Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance. As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament. In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program." In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness.

Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors. This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq. They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare. If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East. That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people. We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world. The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties. Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion. We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction.

If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so. In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that.

May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

He took care of this problem in 1998. There were no WMD because we had already used our forces to rid the World of them. Clinton had more cover than Pres. Bush because Saddam had stopped cooperating with Weapons Inspectors. He was violating UN sanctions and so we did a military strike to remove any possibility of the threat.



U.N.: Iraq had no WMD after 1994
By Bill Nichols, USA TODAY
UNITED NATIONS — A report from U.N. weapons inspectors to be released today says they now believe there were no weapons of mass destruction of any significance in Iraq after 1994, according to two U.N. diplomats who have seen the document.
The historical review of inspections in Iraq is the first outside study to confirm the recent conclusion by David Kay, the former U.S. chief inspector, that Iraq had no banned weapons before last year's U.S-led invasion. It also goes further than prewar U.N. reports, which said no weapons had been found but noted that Iraq had not fully accounted for weapons it was known to have had at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

The report, to be outlined to the U.N. Security Council as early as Friday, is based on information gathered over more than seven years of U.N. inspections in Iraq before the 2003 war, plus postwar findings discussed publicly by Kay.

Kay reported in October that his team found "dozens of WMD-related program activities" that Iraq was required to reveal to U.N. inspectors but did not. However, he said he found no actual WMDs.

The study, a quarterly report on Iraq from U.N. inspectors, notes that the U.S. teams' inability to find any weapons after the war mirrors the experience of U.N. inspectors who searched there from November 2002 until March 2003.

Many Bush administration officials were harshly critical of the U.N. inspection efforts in the months before the war. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in August 2002 that inspections "will be a sham."

The Bush administration also pointedly declined U.N. offers to help in the postwar weapons hunt, preferring instead to use U.S. inspectors and specialists from other coalition countries such as Britain and Australia.

But U.N. reports submitted to the Security Council before the war by Hans Blix, former chief U.N. arms inspector, and Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, have been largely validated by U.S. weapons teams. The common findings:

Iraq's nuclear weapons program was dormant.

No evidence was found to suggest Iraq possessed chemical or biological weapons. U.N. officials believe the weapons were destroyed by U.N. inspectors or Iraqi officials in the years after the 1991 Gulf War.

Iraq was attempting to develop missiles capable of exceeding a U.N.-mandated limit of 93 miles.

Demetrius Perricos, the acting executive chairman of the U.N. inspection teams, said in an interview that the failure to find banned weapons in Iraq since the war undercuts administration criticism of the U.N.'s search before the war.

"You cannot say that only the Americans or the British or the Australians currently inspecting in Iraq are the clever inspectors — and the Americans and the British and the Australians that we had were not," he said.

Yet, we were able to put Inspectors back on the ground in 2002.


US is misquoting my Iraq report, says Blix
By Judith Miller and Julia Preston in New York
February 1 2003




Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix arrives at UN headquarters in New York. Photo: AFP


Days after delivering a broadly negative report on Iraq's cooperation with international inspectors, Hans Blix challenged several of the Bush Administration's assertions about Iraqi cheating and the notion that time was running out for disarming Iraq through peaceful means.

In an interview on Wednesday, Dr Blix, the United Nations chief weapons inspector, seemed determined to dispel any impression that his report was intended to support the United States' campaign to build world support for a war to disarm Saddam Hussein.

"Whatever we say will be used by some," Dr Blix said, adding that he had strived to be "as factual and conscientious" as possible. "I did not tailor my report to the political wishes or hopes in Baghdad or Washington or any other place."

Dr Blix took issue with what he said were US Secretary of State Colin Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents.

Similarly, he said, he had not seen convincing evidence that Iraq was sending weapons scientists to other countries to prevent them from being interviewed.



advertisement

advertisement

Nor had he any reason to believe, as President George Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists, or that his inspection agency had been penetrated by Iraqi agents and that sensitive information might have been leaked to Baghdad.

Finally, he said, he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda. "There are other states where there appear to be stronger links," such as Afghanistan, Dr Blix said. "It's bad enough that Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction."

Russia has also denied any knowledge of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda extremists. The Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, said on Thursday that "so far, neither Russia nor any other country has information about Iraq's ties with al-Qaeda".

"If we receive such information we will analyse it," he said. "Statements made so far are not backed by concrete documents and concrete facts."

Meanwhile the founder of a militant Islamist group in northern Iraq has denied US reports that his organisation was the secret link between Baghdad and al-Qaeda.

Mullah Krekar, a refugee in Norway, said Saddam was his foe, and the Kurdish Islamist said he had no contact with al-Qaeda.

He said that he could prove that his Ansar al-Islam (Supporters of Islam) organisation, which controls a sliver of land in northern Iraq, had "no contact with al-Qaeda, with Osama [bin Laden], with Saddam Hussein, with Iran or Iraq".

Ansar's role is at the heart of the US's latest attempt to demonstrate a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

The New York Times, agencies

It is a rush to war, a case built on lies, and strong-arming anyone who had a pulpit to speak from and didn't believe the lies. The cost is over 700 billion dollars, 35,000 injured Americans, 4,300 American lives lost, and 104,000 Iraqis dead.

Dick Cheney was pulling briefing material for Iraq on January 18, 2001. They lied, they cheated, and it is illegal. To allow them to speak for any political party, to have a voice in the media, is shameful. And it turned my stomach what happened at CPAC.

[Yonivore]

Which one of those gave the final ok to go to war? Better yet, who was the dumbass president who relied on faulty information to invade Iraq?
Well, George, you might have a point if the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein hadn't spent the previous 12 years defying every UN Security Council resolution issued against him, committing atrocities against his own people, creating possibly the largest man-made environmental catastrophe in history, blustering about his weapons, and avoiding, stonewalling, and threatening weapons inspectors.

But, since he did, you don't have a point.

Then, you put it all in the context of a time when the United States had just been savagely attacked by an organization with ties to the regime and whom were praised by Saddam Hussein for their actions and, I think the invasion was a no brainer.

But, alas, you're stuck on stupid.

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Yoni cares about the environment in Iraq.

[Darrin]

well, george, you might have a point if the ba'athist regime of saddam hussein hadn't spent the previous 12 years defying every un security council resolution issued against him, committing atrocities against his own people, creating possibly the largest man-made environmental catastrophe in history, blustering about his weapons, and avoiding, stonewalling, and threatening weapons inspectors.

But, since he did, you don't have a point.

Then, you put it all in the context of a time when the united states had just been savagely attacked by an organization with ties to the regime and whom were praised by saddam hussein for their actions and, i think the invasion was a no brainer.

But, alas, you're stuck on stupid.

there was no connection between saddam and al qaeda!!!! January 18, 2001 that's when the vice-president ordered the president-elect briefed on military options on iraq!

[ChumpDumper]

They're still translating the documents!

[DMX7]

Well, George, you might have a point if the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein hadn't spent the previous 12 years defying every UN Security Council resolution issued against him, committing atrocities against his own people, creating possibly the largest man-made environmental catastrophe in history, blustering about his weapons, and avoiding, stonewalling, and threatening weapons inspectors.

But, since he did, you don't have a point.

Then, you put it all in the context of a time when the United States had just been savagely attacked by an organization with ties to the regime and whom were praised by Saddam Hussein for their actions and, I think the invasion was a no brainer.

But, alas, you're stuck on stupid.

You're a little late. Even republicans like Bill-O have already admitted it was a mistake and unjustified.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Well, George, you might have a point if the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein hadn't spent the previous 12 years defying every UN Security Council resolution issued against him, committing atrocities against his own people, creating possibly the largest man-made environmental catastrophe in history, blustering about his weapons, and avoiding, stonewalling, and threatening weapons inspectors.

But, since he did, you don't have a point.

Then, you put it all in the context of a time when the United States had just been savagely attacked by an organization with ties to the regime and whom were praised by Saddam Hussein for their actions and, I think the invasion was a no brainer.
But, alas, you're stuck on stupid.


But, alas, you're stuck on stupid.

[DarrinS]

For the record, I really don't care if Obama has a few smokes.


Did GGA really invoke the "Bush lied, people died" line 4-posts into this thread?

[mogrovejo]

A thread about Obama and cigarettes is really about how terrible Bush was.

Obama is becoming the invisible president, to borrow the title of Ralph Ellison's book. He's politically invisible just like the narrator of the novel was socially invisible. His supporters absolutely ignore him - he's merely the guy who isn't Bush. Hmm, it's amazing the number of similarities and contact points between the book and Obama's presidency. I wonder if besides the obsession with Bush there's some hidden, even unconscious racism from the liberals that "voted for Obama".

[Yonivore]

A thread about Obama and cigarettes is really about how terrible Bush was.
It's all they've got.


Obama is becoming the invisible president, to borrow the title of Ralph Ellison's book. He's politically invisible just like the narrator of the novel was socially invisible. His supporters absolutely ignore him - he's merely the guy who isn't Bush. Hmm, it's amazing the number of similarities and contact points between the book and Obama's presidency. I wonder if besides the obsession with Bush there's some hidden, even unconscious racism from the liberals that "voted for Obama".
:toast

[George Gervin's Afro]

A thread about Obama and cigarettes is really about how terrible Bush was.

Obama is becoming the invisible president, to borrow the title of Ralph Ellison's book. He's politically invisible just like the narrator of the novel was socially invisible. His supporters absolutely ignore him - he's merely the guy who isn't Bush. Hmm, it's amazing the number of similarities and contact points between the book and Obama's presidency. I wonder if besides the obsession with Bush there's some hidden, even unconscious racism from the liberals that "voted for Obama".

No, the thread is an illustration that the same people here who criticize Obama for not being honest with the American people were silent when their guy misled us to war. I'd want to forget that too..

[George Gervin's Afro]

For the record, I really don't care if Obama has a few smokes.


Did GGA really invoke the "Bush lied, people died" line 4-posts into this thread?

I'd want to forget what he did as well but unfortunately we are still involved in the mess he created. I guess you can pretend we aren't in Iraq anymore..

[Yonivore]

I'd want to forget what he did as well but unfortunately we are still involved in the mess he created. I guess you can pretend we aren't in Iraq anymore..
1) Why did the Democrat-controlled Congress pass the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq?

2) Why hasn't the Democrat-controlled Congress passed legislation that would require the President to cease all military action in Iraq?

3) Why hasn't President Obama kept his campaign promise to withdraw from Iraq?

Why? Because it is a legitimate military action.

If the Democrats aren't willing to stand behind all their criticism -- even after standing beside President Bush (until March 2003) -- with concrete action they are perfectly capable of taking, then all they've said over the past 7 years about the illegitimacy of "Bush's War in Iraq" is just a bunch of political rhetoric designed to keep people like you keeping people like them in power.

By the way, same goes for enhanced interrogation.

Because there are no actions to indict any Bush official for any criminal wrongdoing, all the bluster is -- well -- just bluster.

[Yonivore]

No, the thread is an illustration that the same people here who criticize Obama for not being honest with the American people were silent when their guy misled us to war. I'd want to forget that too..
Tell us, again, what was the lie Bush used to mislead us into a war in Iraq?

[Yonivore]

You're a little late. Even republicans like Bill-O have already admitted it was a mistake and unjustified.
Why would I care what Bill O'Reilly thinks any more than I care what you think?

[nkdlunch]

Tell us, again, what was the lie Bush used to mislead us into a war in Iraq?


Iraq has WMDs

[rjv]

For George...


well, now you are getting it. they are all liars!

[Yonivore]

Iraq has WMDs
Who, in a position to affect government policy, did not believe the same at the time.

Furthermore, you'd have to demonstrate how President Bush believed otherwise for it to be a lie.

[nkdlunch]

Who, in a position to affect government policy, did not believe the same at the time.

Furthermore, you'd have to demonstrate how President Bush believed otherwise for it to be a lie.

no you don't. that's the silliest thing I heard all week. :lol

it's like me saying. I just banged your sister. So you have to demonstrate I beleive otherwise for it to be a lie?? :lmao you funny

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why did the Democrat-controlled Congress pass the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq?


2) Why hasn't the Democrat-controlled Congress passed legislation that would require the President to cease all military action in Iraq?



Addressing the resolution, currently being debated in Congress, authorizing him to use military force against Iraq, President Bush explained that its passage did not mean that war was imminent or unavoidable. Instead, said the president, "The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something."


Stating that while he hoped military action against Iraq would not be required, Bush said it might be both unavoidable and difficult. Calling extended delay of action against Iraq to be "the riskiest of all options," Bush contended that "the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become."



3) Why hasn't President Obama kept his campaign promise to withdraw from Iraq?



"Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010 our combat mission in Iraq will end," Obama said, laying out a new war strategy.

"I intend to remove all US troops from Iraq by the end of 2011," Obama said, adding the post-2010 residual force would number between 35,000 and 50,000 troops.


Why? Because it is a legitimate military action.

:lmao


If the Democrats aren't willing to stand behind all their criticism -- even after standing beside President Bush (until March 2003) -- with concrete action they are perfectly capable of taking, then all they've said over the past 7 years about the illegitimacy of "Bush's War in Iraq" is just a bunch of political rhetoric designed to keep people like you keeping people like them in power.


"My view is that nobody is above the law, and if there are clear instances of wrongdoing, those people should be prosecuted just like any ordinary citizen; but generally speaking, I´m more interested in looking forward than I am in looking backward."


By the way, same goes for enhanced interrogation.

Because there are no actions to indict any Bush official for any criminal wrongdoing, all the bluster is -- well -- just bluster.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Tell us, again, what was the lie Bush used to mislead us into a war in Iraq?


Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell said that some aluminum tubes Iraq attempted to buy were intended for use in a uranium centrifuge to create nuclear weapons. These were the only physical evidence he had against Iraq. But it turns out this evidence had been rejected by the Department of Energy and other intelligence agencies long before Bush used them in his speeches. [NYTimes] [MotherJones] [CNN]


Bush and his team repeatedly claimed that Iraq possessed mobile weapons labs capable of producing anthrax. Colin Powell showed diagrams of them at his speech before the UN to justify invading Iraq. These claims originated from Curveball, a discredited Iraqi informer who fed Bush many of the stories related to WMD. On May 29, 2003, two small trailers matching the description were found in Iraq. A team of bio-weapons experts examined the trailers and concluded they were simply designed to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. But, for over a year, Bush claimed these were part of Iraq's bio-weapons program. The expert's report was suppressed and only recently made public. [WashPost] [ABC]


I guess his case was so strong that he had to use information that he knew not to be correct...

[Yonivore]

You didn't answer any of the questions, George.

[George Gervin's Afro]

2) Why hasn't the Democrat-controlled Congress passed legislation that would require the President to cease all military action in Iraq?

Because the war is over.

Anything else?.


We are withdrawing from Iraq.

Anything else?

[jack sommerset]

Because the war is over.

Anything else?.


We are withdrawing from Iraq.

Anything else?

Wow....incredible....Genius. Mark another victory up for George. The war is over, game over. Good job George!!!!!

[Yonivore]

Because the war is over.

Anything else?.
Why didn't they do anything the past 7 years?

And, the "war is over" because President Bush ignored Harry Reid, when he declared the war lost, and defeated al Qaeda in Iraq.


We are withdrawing from Iraq.

Anything else?
I'll bet we're in Iraq in 2012 and beyond.

Congress could have defunded the action, any time, and forced the President to withdraw immediately. President Obama could have ordered troops out on January 21, 2009.

[in2deep]

no you don't. that's the silliest thing I heard all week. :lol

it's like me saying. I just banged your sister. So you have to demonstrate I beleive otherwise for it to be a lie?? :lmao you funny

:lol

[George Gervin's Afro]

Why didn't they do anything the past 7 years?

And, the "war is over" because President Bush ignored Harry Reid, when he declared the war lost, and defeated al Qaeda in Iraq.


I'll bet we're in Iraq in 2012 and beyond.

Congress could have defunded the action, any time, and forced the President to withdraw immediately. President Obama could have ordered troops out on January 21, 2009.

Oh of course they could have left the troops high and dry in Iraq but they didn't amd rightfully so. I'll remind you that the GOP was ok with sending in the troop without the appropriate supplies whch undeniably caused troop deaths. So I guess I'd like to know why the President and the GOP sent Americans into harms way without the necessary tools to protect themselves?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Wow....incredible....Genius. Mark another victory up for George. The war is over, game over. Good job George!!!!!

:lmao

And jack used to complain that I was obssesed with him..... The war is over. haven't you heard? Mission was accomplished!

[Yonivore]

Oh of course they could have left the troops high and dry in Iraq but they didn't amd rightfully so. I'll remind you that the GOP was ok with sending in the troop without the appropriate supplies whch undeniably caused troop deaths. So I guess I'd like to know why the President and the GOP sent Americans into harms way without the necessary tools to protect themselves?
Now you want to re-prosecute the war?

Are we to expect a person that believes the whole military action was illegitimate not to criticize how it was prosecuted?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Now you want to re-prosecute the war?

Are we to expect a person that believes the whole military action was illegitimate not to criticize how it was prosecuted?

what?

[clambake]

poor yoni.

terminally stupid.

[in2deep]

looks like yonivore is just pulling words out of the dictionary and assembling in a way that makes no fucking sense :lol

[Yonivore]

:lol

George, if you agreed with the invasion of Iraq, you would be more tolerant of missteps taken in the prosecution of the war.

For instance; people who disagreed with our involvement in World War II bitched and moaned for decades about the many military fubars committed during that war.

Do you know there were 750 soldiers that died in the rehearsal for the D-Day invasion?

One death -- no matter the cause -- in an illegitimate war is unforgivable...any death in a legitimate war is a cost worth bearing.

So, either you believe the invasion of Iraq was justified and legitimate and, therefore, are willing to accept the inevitable tragedies (which, by the way, have been the fewest of any military action of comparable size) or, you think the invasion is illegitimate and will find gross criminality in every death.

It is for this very reason I said, "Are we to expect a person that believes the whole military action was illegitimate not to criticize how it was prosecuted? "

I'm not the one stuck on stupid.

[Yonivore]

looks like yonivore is just pulling words out of the dictionary and assembling in a way that makes no fucking sense :lol
That; or, you have a reading comprehension problem.

[clambake]

yoni comparing ww2 with iraq lol

[Yonivore]

yoni comparing ww2 with iraq lol
The naysayers are the same.

Pick a war; the principle still applies.

[clambake]

The naysayers are the same.

Pick a war; the principle still applies.

no it doesn't.

[in2deep]

The naysayers are the same.

Pick a war; the principle still applies.

civil war. which ones are the naysayers?

[Yonivore]

civil war. which ones are the naysayers?
Clever.

But, there were people from the North that opposed the North's involvement and there were people from the South that opposed the South's involvement.

And, to those people, nothing justified the war.

[Yonivore]

no it doesn't.
Sure it does.

A war you believe is legitimate can be justified in spite of any mistakes made in its prosecution. On the other hand, a perfectly prosecuted war, you believe to be illegitimate, is an atrocity.

[George Gervin's Afro]

:lol

George, if you agreed with the invasion of Iraq, you would be more tolerant of missteps taken in the prosecution of the war.

For instance; people who disagreed with our involvement in World War II bitched and moaned for decades about the many military fubars committed during that war.

Do you know there were 750 soldiers that died in the rehearsal for the D-Day invasion?

One death -- no matter the cause -- in an illegitimate war is unforgivable...any death in a legitimate war is a cost worth bearing.

So, either you believe the invasion of Iraq was justified and legitimate and, therefore, are willing to accept the inevitable tragedies (which, by the way, have been the fewest of any military action of comparable size) or, you think the invasion is illegitimate and will find gross criminality in every death.

It is for this very reason I said, "Are we to expect a person that believes the whole military action was illegitimate not to criticize how it was prosecuted? "

I'm not the one stuck on stupid.

I bought the justifcation in the begining but as time went on I realized I was lied too... then Bush lost me on everything else. You don't lie to people to get them to support war..

[Yonivore]

I bought the justifcation in the begining but as time went on I realized I was lied too... then Bush lost me on everything else. You don't lie to people to get them to support war..
I don't believe he lied and I believe the invasion of Iraq is a justified today as it was in 2003.

If anyone in Congress truly believed otherwise, they would have passed legislation to withdraw the AUMF in Iraq long ago. Everything the Democrats have done in opposition to President Bush, since 2003, has all been political rhetoric. They've done nothing concrete that demonstrates they truly believe the action of illegitimate.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I don't believe he lied and I believe the invasion of Iraq is a justified today as it was in 2003.

If anyone in Congress truly believed otherwise, they would have passed legislation to withdraw the AUMF in Iraq long ago. Everything the Democrats have done in opposition to President Bush, since 2003, has all been political rhetoric. They've done nothing concrete that demonstrates they truly believe the action of illegitimate.


If his case was so strong, then why use intel that was 'disputable'? Why omit concerns about the informaiton he presented to the country to garner support for the war? Why?

[clambake]

A war you believe is legitimate can be justified
not this time.

in spite of any mistakes made in its prosecution.
they didn't give a shit, so lives didn't matter.

On the other hand, a perfectly prosecuted war, you believe to be illegitimate, is an atrocity.
we know you like war.......from a safe distance.

[Yonivore]

If his case was so strong, then why use intel that was 'disputable'? Why omit concerns about the informaiton he presented to the country to garner support for the war? Why?
The intelligence on WMDs wasn't the only justification for the invasion and you know it.

Just re-read the AUMF in Iraq.

And, all intelligence is disputed internally, the president has to choose what he believes to be the best intelligence.

Take the recent Iranian fiasco. Intelligence said they weren't developing nuclear weapons. Bush didn't believe them, Obama did.

Who is right on that one?

[George Gervin's Afro]

The intelligence on WMDs wasn't the only justification for the invasion and you know it.

Just re-read the AUMF in Iraq.

And, all intelligence is disputed internally, the president has to choose what he believes to be the best intelligence.

Take the recent Iranian fiasco. Intelligence said they weren't developing nuclear weapons. Bush didn't believe them, Obama did.

Who is right on that one?

So in other words, he told us what he thought we needed to know. Until Obama invades Iran it's a moot point.

[boutons_deux]

Yoni, Yoni, Yoni, you've personally invested so much in the Iraq-as-legit-war that you won't eat shit that you were and still are totally wrong.

"president has to choose what he believes to be the best intelligence."

.... that supported his oil-grab war and suppressed all intelligence the didn't. aka cherry picking.

EVERYTHING that has come out since, and recently the inquiry in UK, supports that dickhead was going into Iraq no matter what, and 9/11, WMD, 'bad man', were all just lying pretexts to grab the oil. Even Wolfie and Greenspan said the only reason Iraq was of any interest was its oil.

dubya, dickhead, black Addington, Wolfie, Rummy, Condi, Feith, etc are all war criminals for starting a bogus war.

And Yoni also say the US has 100s of $Bs to kill, but not a few $Bs to help Americans live.

[ChumpDumper]

And, all intelligence is disputed internally, the president has to choose what he believes to be the best intelligence.And Bush fucked up horribly.


Take the recent Iranian fiasco. Intelligence said they weren't developing nuclear weapons. Bush didn't believe them, Obama did.

Who is right on that one?If the intel changed once, it can change again.

What did Bush do about Iran again?

What did bush do about North Korea again?

Bush decided to attack Iraq because it was relatively easy, and he even managed to fuck that up.

[Yonivore]

So in other words, he told us what he thought we needed to know.
I believe he acted under the authority given him, by the United States Congress, in their AUTHORIZATION (Authorization = Authority) TO USE MILITARY FORCE IN IRAQ.

As soon as it became apparent he wasn't fucking around and would, in fact, exercise that authority; if Congress disagreed, they could have just as easily rescinded that authority by either repealing the AUMF or passing clarifying legislation.

They didn't.


Until Obama invades Iran it's a moot point.
Whether or not Obama decides to take military action against Iran will probably have no relationship with whether or not that action needs to be taken.

[ChumpDumper]

Whether or not Obama decides to take military action against Iran will probably have no relationship with whether or not that action needs to be taken.Just like Bush's decision to take military action in Iraq had no relationship with whether or not that action needed to be taken.

Did it need to be taken in Iran under Bush?

How about North Korea?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I believe he acted under the authority given him, by the United States Congress, in their AUTHORIZATION (Authorization = Authority) TO USE MILITARY FORCE IN IRAQ.

As soon as it became apparent he wasn't fucking around and would, in fact, exercise that authority; if Congress disagreed, they could have just as easily rescinded that authority by either repealing the AUMF or passing clarifying legislation.

They didn't.


Whether or not Obama decides to take military action against Iran will probably have no relationship with whether or not that action needs to be taken.

I know you're not stupid Yoni. You know as well as I do that politically that wasn't an option. In addtion to that we had started to hear "if you don't support the war you support terrorists". Bush and company were politicizing the complaints and objections so you can stop insulting my intelligence with the:


they could have just as easily rescinded that authority by either repealing the AUMF or passing clarifying legislation.

[Marcus Bryant]

Dude drinks and smokes too much. I'm shocked. Not to mention he's grayed a lot since taking office. Same thing happened to his predecessor.

Hopefully the White House mess keeps the evil corporate salt away from the president.

[spursncowboys]

there was no connection between saddam and al qaeda!!!! January 18, 2001 that's when the vice-president ordered the president-elect briefed on military options on iraq!

u7n3ivH3pCQ

[Winehole23]

Hopefully the White House mess keeps the evil corporate salt away from the president.Probably. But keeping the President away from the salt is a whole 'nother thing.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/03/02/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6259635.shtml

[spursncowboys]

Iraq has WMDs

you're late to the party. see page 1.

[ChumpDumper]

u7n3ivH3pCQSo Bin Laden was welcomed in Baghdad by Saddam?

When did that happen, SnC?

Be specific.

[Yonivore]

I know you're not stupid Yoni. You know as well as I do that politically that wasn't an option. In addtion to that we had started to hear "if you don't support the war you support terrorists". Bush and company were politicizing the complaints and objections so you can stop insulting my intelligence with the:
So, Democrats are unprincipled cowards?

The fact is, Democrats agreed with President Bush. Everyone from Hillary "I ain't noways tard" Clinton to Robert C. "Sheets" Byrd to Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy said there were WMDs and many of those people made wilder claims than the administration made...right up until March 2003.

The sea-change in Democrat rhetoric, post-invasion, is the clearest demonstration of who, in fact, politicized the debate on Iraq.

They claimed Vice President Cheney had attempted to sway the intelligence information they were given. An independent investigation of that claim proved it to be untrue.

They claimed President Bush lied in the SOTUA. The context of the reported lie, itself, proved this claim to be untrue -- even though they clinged to that one for a very, very long time.

They claimed Joseph Wilson's mint julip trip to proved Iraq wasn't trying to buy uranium from Niger when, in fact, the CIA said his report did more to bolster the claim than to disprove it.

And on and on and on for the remainder of the President's term in office.

Gitmo, "torture," The Surge failed and the war is lost...

It is the Democrats that politicized the war on terrorism.

If your assertion were true, Democrats would have spent the last 6 years of the Bush administration cow-towing to the administration instead of trying to undermine his foreign policy, at every turn, with political rhetoric. Or, if they truly believed their rhetoric, they would have spent the last 6 years of the Bush administration introducing legislation that would stop him.

They did neither.

Stop demonstrating your ignorance on the issue.

[George Gervin's Afro]

So, Democrats are unprincipled cowards?

The fact is, Democrats agreed with President Bush. Everyone from Hillary "I ain't noways tard" Clinton to Robert C. "Sheets" Byrd to Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy said there were WMDs and many of those people made wilder claims than the administration made...right up until March 2003.

The sea-change in Democrat rhetoric, post-invasion, is the clearest demonstration of who, in fact, politicized the debate on Iraq.

They claimed Vice President Cheney had attempted to sway the intelligence information they were given. An independent investigation of that claim proved it to be untrue.

They claimed President Bush lied in the SOTUA. The context of the reported lie, itself, proved this claim to be untrue -- even though they clinged to that one for a very, very long time.

They claimed Joseph Wilson's mint julip trip to proved Iraq wasn't trying to buy uranium from Niger when, in fact, the CIA said his report did more to bolster the claim than to disprove it.

And on and on and on for the remainder of the President's term in office.

Gitmo, "torture," The Surge failed and the war is lost...

It is the Democrats that politicized the war on terrorism.

If your assertion were true, Democrats would have spent the last 6 years of the Bush administration cow-towing to the administration instead of trying to undermine his foreign policy, at every turn, with political rhetoric. Or, if they truly believed their rhetoric, they would have spent the last 6 years of the Bush administration introducing legislation that would stop him.

They did neither.

Stop demonstrating your ignorance on the issue.

it's very simple Yoni.. Bush had everything in front of him and decided to withold legitimate concerns about the evidence he was using to push for this war.. The war we had to fight! I know this must be hard for you to get your head around. You can't change this FACT. The Democrats did not have access to the 'other' side of the information. Care to address that? I wonder why this was?..hmmm mushroom clouds, drones capable of hitting US in 45 minutes... Of course no one wants this to happen so we have to Fight! .... NONE of that was true.... ZERO...

So take your " but,but,but, the Democrats agreed with him BS.." You choose to stay stupid.

Please explain to use how the 'necessary war' was waged when our troops didn't have the proper equpiment? I mean seriously you have never even suggested that this was a concern to you mr chickenhawk..

We all know the GOP support the troops better... it showed in the justification of the war and the way our troops were sent in ...

[Yonivore]

it's very simple Yoni.. Bush had everything in front of him and decided to withold legitimate concerns about the evidence he was using to push for this war.. The war we had to fight! I know this must be hard for you to get your head around. You can't change this FACT. The Democrats did not have access to the 'other' side of the information. Care to address that? I wonder why this was?..hmmm mushroom clouds, drones capable of hitting US in 45 minutes... Of course no one wants this to happen so we have to Fight! .... NONE of that was true.... ZERO...

So take your " but,but,but, the Democrats agreed with him BS.." You choose to stay stupid.
Democrats, in Congress, had access to the same intelligence as the President. They had independent briefings by intelligence officials and attempts to claim the administration tried to drive the intelligence in a particular direction, for their consumption, were investigated and proven untrue.


Please explain to use how the 'necessary war' was waged when our troops didn't have the proper equpiment? I mean seriously you have never even suggested that this was a concern to you mr chickenhawk..

We all know the GOP support the troops better... it showed in the justification of the war and the way our troops were sent in ...
I think you fail to consider the entirety of the situation. But, that's okay, you have the benefit of a cynical hindsight that's been adopted by many who hated the President. I think if you would go back and honestly look at the sense and statements of Democrats from September 2001 through February 2003, you won't find much disagreement with the President and, contrary to your statements, the intelligence community is independently responsible to Congress and, in fact, delivers independent briefings to Congressional leaders.

We had just been attacked.

There was a real sense Iraq posed a significant threat -- that was growing (and not just because the administration told us so).

al Qaedans were fleeing Afghanistan to Iraq in increasing numbers.

At the time, Democrats gave no indication they disagreed with the President's assessment -- as evidenced by their statements and passage of the AUMF in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein did nothing to dissuade the West of its belief he was in possession of and was developing WMDs. In fact, he intentionally gave the impression he, in fact, did have such weapons.

No war plans survives first contact with the enemy. Had troops gone into theater with the up-armored vehicles that were later developed and delivered because the prevalent use of Iranian shaped IED's had been foreseen with more clarity, what's to say they wouldn't have been subjected to some other unforeseen weapon?

[Yonivore]

I don't know who this guy is but, he makes some - what I think - are valid points (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODExMjM4ZmZkZTZhZjMwNmIzMGUyMmI5YmZmZmIzMmI=) about the very topic raised in this thread.

He's appparently commenting on a Newsweek story (http://www.newsweek.com/id/234281) that came out this week...


Re: Mission Accomplished

It’s a long story and I’ll have more to say about it tomorrow. But for now, do consider this quote:


And yet it has to be said and it should be understood — now, almost seven hellish years later — that something that looks mighty like democracy is emerging in Iraq. And while it may not be a beacon of inspiration to the region, it most certainly is a watershed event that could come to represent a whole new era in the history of the massively undemocratic Middle East.
First Joe Biden declares Iraq to be one of the great successes of the Obama administration; now Newsweek is publishing pieces on the “rebirth” of that nation. While things can still unwind and no success can be considered final just yet, it is still quite an extraordinary moment — and a deeply heartening one. And one that didn’t happen by accident.
That was yesterday. Here he continues the commentary...


Following up on my post from yesterday, I wanted to return to the Newsweek cover story on Iraq, which declared that “something that looks mighty like democracy is emerging in Iraq. And while it may not be a beacon of inspiration to the region, it most certainly is a watershed event that could come to represent a whole new era in the history of the massively undemocratic Middle East.”

Here are some further thoughts on the story and what it tells.

1. The progress in Iraq has been truly remarkable, especially when one considers where things were at the end of 2006. Iraq was caught in a death spiral. The odds were stacked against us. And most people in Iraq and America — including almost all of the political class and virtually the entire foreign policy establishment — had given up on the possibility of success. The main question for them was the terms of our retreat and de facto surrender.

2. In Iraq we have seen the rebirth of a nation. The “emergence of politics” in Iraq — including the willingness of its political leadership to engage in compromise; the Iraqis’ passion for democratic processes and willingness to set aside sectarianism; a free press; and the respect and legitimacy the Iraqi military has gained among its people — is unprecedented in the Arab world. But the successes there remain fragile and can still be undone. Iraq has proven to be treacherous terrain for foreign powers.

3. With the passage of time, President Bush’s decision to champion a new counterinsurgency strategy, including sending 30,000 additional troops to Iraq when most Americans were bone-weary of the war, will be seen as one of the most impressive and important acts of political courage in our lifetime. And those who fiercely opposed the so-called surge were not only wrong in their judgment; in some instances their actions were shameful. (I have in mind those who insisted the surge was failing long after it was clear it was succeeding. For a recapitulation of the words and actions of the critics of the surge, including Barack Obama and Joe Biden, go here (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/obama-s-war-11263) and here (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/329myyan.asp)).

4. Those like Joe Klein and Tom Ricks, who claimed the Iraq war was “probably the biggest foreign policy mistake in American history” (Klein’s words (http://www.time.com/time/question/ask_joe_060130.html)) and “the biggest mistake in the history of American foreign policy” (Ricks’s words (http://books.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/02/27/there_are_no_good_answers_in_iraq)), were wrong. Ricks went so far as to say in 2009 that “I think staying in Iraq is immoral.”

Now, if we had followed the counsel of Klein and Ricks and not implemented the surge, their predictions might have been closer to the mark. (Bush’s decision was one of “adolescent petulance” and “the decision to surge was made unilaterally, without adequate respect for history or military doctrine,” Klein wrote on April 5, 2007.) As it is, if the positive trajectory of events continue and Iraq does end up reshaping the political culture of the Arab Middle East, the Iraq war will, on balance, have advanced American interests in the region.

5. What has unfolded in Iraq is not an accident or based on luck. It was the result of one of the most astonishing military turnarounds in American history. The story of how that happened, and the men who made it happen, will be studied for generations. And Gen. David Petraeus — whose views pre-2007 were not widely shared and were often resisted within the military chain of command — has already secured his place among the greatest wartime generals in American history.

6. The former American ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker — another one of the heroes of this effort — said it as well as anyone has when he stated, “In the end, how we leave and what we leave behind will be more important than how we came.”

The war has taken longer and been harder than any of us ever wished. There were terrible mistakes in judgment along the way. But very late in the day those mistakes were corrected, allowing something good and hopeful to emerge in Iraq.

A nation that was broken is on the mend. A warring country is now peaceable, no longer a military threat to its neighbors or the region. A genocidal dictator is dead and gone. The Iraqi people are free. And a nation that was our enemy continues to work closely with us in rebuilding what was a shattered society.

In 2006, the Middle East scholar Fouad Ajami wrote a powerful and stylistically beautiful book, The Foreigner’s Gift: The Americans, the Arabs, and the Iraqis in Iraq (http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=0743236688). That gift, Ajami said, was the idea of consensual government. It is a gift we gave the Iraqis at the cost of many American lives and much treasure. It is a gift they appear to have received.

“Iraq seemed the most forbidding place for a campaign of reform, the hardest soil,” Ajami wrote during the darkest days of the war. “Yet every now and then, that country offered glimpses of hope that Iraqis may yet pull off a decent political world that works. There were days its sectarianism seemed like an affliction that would never go away. Then there were hints that the multiplicity of its communities could yet support a politics, and a culture, of pluralism.”

The Iraqis were not as enchanted with tyranny or indifferent to democracy as some critics of the war insisted.

What America has done for Iraq, which had been brutalized for so long, may not be the noblest act in our history. But it ranks quite high. The Iraq war was, in fact, a war of liberation. And the liberation appears to be working. Nothing is guaranteed; “Everything in Iraq is hard,” Ambassador Crocker once said. But regardless of where one stood on the war and the surge, what we see unfolding in Iraq today is something to be grateful for, and to take pride in.
Since we couldn't stay on a light-hearted topic like Obama's promises to Michelle to quit smoking, let's rehash the war, eh?

I have said, all along, that history will vindicate President Bush and his decision to invade Iraq. That prediction may actually come to pass sooner than I thought.

[spursncowboys]

it's very simple Yoni.. Bush had everything in front of him and decided to withold legitimate concerns about the evidence he was using to push for this war.. The war we had to fight! I know this must be hard for you to get your head around. You can't change this FACT. The Democrats did not have access to the 'other' side of the information. Care to address that? I wonder why this was?..hmmm mushroom clouds, drones capable of hitting US in 45 minutes... Of course no one wants this to happen so we have to Fight! .... NONE of that was true.... ZERO...

So take your " but,but,but, the Democrats agreed with him BS.." You choose to stay stupid.

Please explain to use how the 'necessary war' was waged when our troops didn't have the proper equpiment? I mean seriously you have never even suggested that this was a concern to you mr chickenhawk..

We all know the GOP support the troops better... it showed in the justification of the war and the way our troops were sent in ...

Did Bill Clinton have access?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Did Bill Clinton have access?

are you joking?

[SnakeBoy]

Did GGA really invoke the "Bush lied, people died" line 4-posts into this thread?

It makes sense...Obama smokes-->Smoking Gun-->Iraq-->Bush Lied, People died.

[Yonivore]

It makes sense...Obama smokes-->Smoking Gun-->Iraq-->Bush Lied, People died.
And, there you have it!

So, speaking of Bill Clinton, how is that nation-building coming in the Balkans?

[ChumpDumper]

Since we couldn't stay on a light-hearted topic like Obama's promises to Michelle to quit smoking, let's rehash the war, eh?

I have said, all along, that history will vindicate President Bush and his decision to invade Iraq. That prediction may actually come to pass sooner than I thought.Great. Bush won right?

Why didn't we leave while he was still in office?

[spursncowboys]

are you joking?

No but judging by your statement maybe I am assuming something different since you didn't give anything specific. Care to explain?

[George Gervin's Afro]

No but judging by your statement maybe I am assuming something different since you didn't give anything specific. Care to explain?

Explain what? Spit it out..what are you talking about?

[Oh, Gee!!]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147847

[LnGrrrR]

A thread about Obama and cigarettes is really about how terrible Bush was.

Obama is becoming the invisible president, to borrow the title of Ralph Ellison's book. He's politically invisible just like the narrator of the novel was socially invisible. His supporters absolutely ignore him - he's merely the guy who isn't Bush. Hmm, it's amazing the number of similarities and contact points between the book and Obama's presidency. I wonder if besides the obsession with Bush there's some hidden, even unconscious racism from the liberals that "voted for Obama".

He is becoming invisible because he's turning his back on his base, and doing the same "triangulation" bullshit that Clinton pulled. Obama's turned his back on civil liberties, using the same bs justification that Bush used, and trying to imprison foreigners forever with no ability to be tried in court.

What about gay rights policy? DADT has gone nowhere, and neither have many other plans. How about a public health care option? NOPE!

He's doing what Dems do best... being a big wuss.

[Yonivore]

He is becoming invisible because he's turning his back on his base, and doing the same "triangulation" bullshit that Clinton pulled. Obama's turned his back on civil liberties, using the same bs justification that Bush used, and trying to imprison foreigners forever with no ability to be tried in court.

What about gay rights policy? DADT has gone nowhere, and neither have many other plans. How about a public health care option? NOPE!

He's doing what Dems do best... being a big wuss.
Vote Republican!

[George Gervin's Afro]

Vote Republican!

I thought you were a conservative? tea party type who doesn't like rinos..are you leaving behind your principles mr principled poster?

[Yonivore]

I thought you were a conservative? tea party type who doesn't like rinos..are you leaving behind your principles mr principled poster?
Okay...vote Libertarian. But, in presidential politics, it is more about preventing the worst candidate from gaining office than electing the best.

[Yonivore]

On further reflection, maybe I should have just posted, "You think Democrats would learn."