Reply With Quote
civil war. which ones are the naysayers?
no it doesn't.
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.
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.
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..
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 ed 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 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?
not this time.
they didn't give a , so lives didn't matter.in spite of any mistakes made in its prosecution.
we know you like war.......from a safe distance.On the other hand, a perfectly prosecuted war, you believe to be illegitimate, is an atrocity.
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.
Yoni, Yoni, Yoni, you've personally invested so much in the Iraq-as-legit-war that you won't eat 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 head 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, head, 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.
And Bush ed up horribly.
If the intel changed once, it can change again.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?
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 that up.
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 ing 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.
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?
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.
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.
Probably. But keeping the President away from the salt is a whole 'nother thing.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/03...y6259635.shtml
you're late to the party. see page 1.
So Bin Laden was welcomed in Baghdad by Saddam?
When did that happen, SnC?
Be specific.
So, Democrats are unprincipled cowards?
The fact is, Democrats agreed with President Bush. Everyone from Hillary "I ain't noways " Clinton to Robert C. "Sheets" Byrd to Ted "Chappaquid " 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 ...
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.
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?
I don't know who this guy is but, he makes some - what I think - are valid points about the very topic raised in this thread.
He's appparently commenting on a Newsweek story that came out this week...
That was yesterday. Here he continues the commentary...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:
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.
Since we couldn't stay on a light-hearted topic like Obama's promises to Mic e 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.
Did Bill Clinton have access?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
