Abandoning the war on islamic terrorists is not what I'm talking about. That needs to continue in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. The Iraqi occupation has nothing to do with that. When we are gone, the rags fighting the civil war will be killing each other. The islamic terrorists there are only there because we gave them easy targets to attack when they can no longer easily get to America. We beat them by leaving. I also never said anything about leaving the region. We have bases, fleets, and forces all over the region and we have for many decades. We ain't leaving he middle east. Withdrawing troops from the civil war in Baghdad doesn't even mean bringing them home to Kansas. They can go to Kuwait where they can be handy if needed, but out of harms way. They can go and seal the Iranian and Syrian borders to starve the civil war of munitions. Or they can go to Afghanistan and fight the taliban and al qaida terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11. What consititutes this "victory" that you speak of? Do you see any sign of it? is the failed strategy of the last four years going to produce it? Fish, the problems left in Iraq are political, not military. We need fewer troops and more diplomats. Make the Iraqis responsible for their own security. He actually said that after it got ugly. They originally told us the Iraqis would greet us as liberators. Bush landed on the aircraft carrier almost four years ago and thought it was "Mission Accomplished".
Glad to see Rex is back! You know I now think the war was a mistake and the main reason is that we now have the same problem with Iran that we had with Iraq. We really made that part of the world more unstable then ever at least for the short term. Having said that I like many other Americans want to kick ass and win so we can leave whether our reasons are right or wrong. I think the attitudes of some have been wrong from the beginning such as Rex Jr. here. Anybody who says Bush lied is misleading people or ignorant of the truth. http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/clinton_12-16.html From CNN http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/17/iraq.clinton/ "The president urged Americans to be ready for a possible attack on Iraq, and he warned that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had used biological weapons against his own people -- and would likely use the weapons again unless he were prevented from doing so." Bill Clinton "Clinton said Iraq still posed a threat to the national security of the United States and the "freedom-loving world." "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." Bill Clinton Some have tried to change history and say Iraq was never a threat on here lately, look at what the last president has said! Edit: I want to apologize to Rex because he isn't this bad. You are more like a liberal Ramah so welcome back Ramah!
Everyone agrees Saddam was a bad guy. So what should we have done about it? You don't have to invade his nation, occupy it and take him out. We controlled him from 1991 to 1998 quite cheaply and effectively by putting in the UNSCOM weapons inspectors, who destroyed about 96% of his WMD by 1997. The rest they figured was lost or bad accounting. They were correct, and some of that remainder was found after we invaded in 2003, but no newly created WMD were found. The part about Bush lying to the people was about the reasons for going to war: Saddam had WMD (Colin Powell address to the UN) Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US Iraq is ground central in the war on terror. Iraq is connected to the 9/11 attack (meeting in Germany between Al Qaeda and Iraq agent). All of this has been proven false. Our own search teams found no WMD, Iraq was not an immenent threat to the US, and the 9/11 Commission found "no collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda so it was not part of the 9/11 attack and could not have been "ground central in the war on terror". The Senate Armed Services Committee has just received testimony from the Dept. of Defense Inspector General regarding the activities of Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, who did not conduct intelligence activities, but who produced reports for the Bush administration (he was appointed by Bush), asserting that the meetings occurred between Al Qaeda and Iraq in Germany, which the intelligence community knew to be false. He was critical of the CIA in reports that the CIA never saw, so they had no opportunity to defend themselves. But Bush acted on the Feith positions anyway. Acting on a political appointee and ignoring the real intelligence community. That is the irresponsibility that irks me. Read about it here: http://www.dodig.mil/IGInformation/archives/OUSDP-OSP Brief.pdf Now, if Saddam was a bad guy, and he was, what are our options to deal with him? That is where Bush failed, in addition to manipulating the intelligence. We did not have to invade Iraq to control Saddam. In the fall of 2002, the UN put Hans Blix and an inspection team into Iraq to look for WMD, and guess what, he found NONE. Now if Colin Powell KNEW where they were and had satilite photos of them, we would have given the locations to Blix and found them in the fall of 2002. So the UNSCOM team effectively controlled Saddam from 1991 to 1998, at a paltry price compared to the $4 Billion per month we spend now out of the supplementary budgets for the war, and we made Saddam accept Blix in the fall of 2002, and we could have put him in again and left him and controlled Saddam WITHOUT INVADING and taking over operation of the country, and stepping into the "quagmire" as Dick Cheney called the situation in a defeated Iraq in 1991 as Secretary of Defense under Bush I, while explaining why the US should NOT invade Iraq. We had other options to deal with Saddam that were effective and proven to work, at a fraction of the price we are spending today just in dollars, not counting the cost in lives and serious injuries. To say just because Bush said this would be a long hard struggle, so he didn't lie, is to find one thing he had right and ignore all the basic mistakes and misjudgements of the administration. And that's not right. Besides, what Bush said was that the war on terror would be long and hard, and he was not speaking about Iraq at the time, rather the ongoing worldwide struggle against Al Qaeda, so he doesn't get a pass on that.
You obviously didn't read my post? It was dumb for us to invade Iraq and the strategy was far dumber afterwards. "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. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 John Kerry and Hillary Clinton lied, people died.:hihi: :thumb: http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html Its right there for you to read folks! When discussing this subject you have to separate the before and after part of Iraq, Hindsight is 20/20 and we didn't have all the information then as we do have now. If the president or someone inside the administration misled or tampered with evidence let them go to trial and be convicted or impeached. Just assuming a lie doesn't mean everyone is guilty unless you are the media.
The Kerry quote authorizes the use of force "if necessary". The discretion was left to the president, who exercised poor discretion, and people died. Hillary's quote says "if left unchecked", Saddam is a threat. It did not say we had to invade. There are other ways to "check" Saddam, we used them from 1991 -1998. Nothing there says we had to invade. That buck stops at the commander in chief. Now when congress voted to give Bush the authority to attack without seeing the evidence for themselves, well, I think both bodies rolled over on their responsibility to declare war, which is true for all of them, repubs and dems.
I agree although this wasn't the case during the Clinton years. Now your talking, aint it funny that the Dems don't want any of blame and its all Bush's fault! One more thing, if you think Hillary consulted the Bush administrations opinions only on Iraq you are sadly mistaken. She knew more about Iraq for far longer than George W Bush. I've said it before, the left once again tries to have it both ways. Hillary isn't so stupid that she would only base her vote on her opponents information. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10313850/site/newsweek/ MSNBC, Newsweek quote: "Clinton has used her platform on Armed Services to educate herself on defense issues. She receives briefings from military officials and calls big thinkers from her husband's Rolodex, including Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke, for advice. Some of those who've met with her have come away surprised by her command of the material. Former secretary of Defense William Perry went into one briefing expecting lots of interruptions. Instead, the pair spent two solid hours during which Clinton grilled him with detailed questions. "I started to worry I'd run short of material," joked Perry. For her efforts, she has begun to win respect within military circles. Retired Gen. Jack Keane, the former vice chief of the Army whom she's consulted about Iraq, says he's praised her to "the guys"—meaning the Pentagon brass." Edited for correction and add Link
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/496689p-418608c.html "Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies - including our vital ally, Israel." John Edwards http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11654734/ "SEN. EDWARDS: I don’t think I was the only one who was wrong, but I’m the one who had to make the judgment about how to vote on this resolution about Iraq. I listened to the information we got on the Intelligence Committee which I served on. I talked to former Clinton administration officials. And it turns out that the very premise for voting for the resolution and for the invasion of Iraq, which was the presence of weapons of mass destruction, was inaccurate. It was wrong. I had an independent responsibility to make a judgment and cast this vote. It turns out that the vote was wrong and my judgment was wrong." ------------------------------------------------------------------- It is a myth that Democrats relied on intel from the Bush administration only. It is a flat out lie and politics by the left to blame the Bush administration alone for their intel.
http://www.dodig.mil/IGInformation/archives/OUSDP-OSP Brief.pdf This is the executive summary from the report, and Douglas Feith, who was appointed by Bush, was putting out reports to the senior decision makers that was not consistent with the concensus of the intelligence community, and his role was not intelligence gathering. He "expanded" his role. And this was who Bush was listening to, and he was discrediting the CIA in his reports. The right can't put this on the dems. The buck stops with the president. The resolution that was passed did not tell the president to go to war, that was his decision. Both houses of congress were controlled by the repubs, so regardless of how Clinton, Kerry, or Edwards voted, it is not on them, it is on Bush and the repubs, and that is no revision of history, that is the history. Here's the main part of the resolution: At this point it was up to the presidents "determination of what was appropriate". The vote in the senate was 77 for and 23 against, all 23 against were dems, except for Jeffords, the Independent (formerly repub). This is not equally on the dems as the repubs. The american voters said so last November.
Yeah! Saddam, Usay, Qusay.:thumb: I agree with SD (despite your artful selection of out of context phrasing to suggest it's all Bush). Was intelligence flawed? Probably (the fault for that could be discussed if you wish to bring up Democrat administrations). Did Bush and his band of wascally wabbits intentionally manipulate reports to mislead America? No. Jump on the liberal bandwagon and bash Bush all you want to, but don't ignore the beloved Democrats who were all for the incursion. Anyway, see my 1st sentence. It's all worth it to rid the planet of those 3 murderous bastards. Note: ImpeachBush need not respond. I put your sorry ass on Ignore as soon as I saw your name. By the way sourdough. I think you hit the nail on the head. It's got to be Rex. I can tell that just by reading his thread titles. Please people. Lock the doors when you're done.
