March 20, 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom ... 10 years later , was it worth it ?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: March 20, 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom ... 10 years later , was it worth it ?

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    No it was not worth it.  It`s pretty easy to say that now.  Last night I watched Hillary`s speech on Oct 22, 2002.  She spoke strongly of Saddam`s WMD and the threat that he was to the area and to his own people.  She spoke of the 100`s of thousands of Iraqis he had killed with WMD, and she was adamant about his removal and support for Resolution 114.

     

     

    Hence, part of the reason she lost in 2008...

    ...to an unknown state senator who gave a speech a few weeks earlier in 2002 taking the position against military action.

    Hate if you must, but it turned out he was right.

     

     

     

     




     

    Who hates?  He got lucky.  Hillary, Bill, Gore, Lieberman, Kennedy (who gave a very specific speech about WMD), Kerry, Edwards, Dodd, Daschel, .......and 40 nations were all for Iraq.  And let`s not forget the vote:

    House 300-134

    Senate 77-23

    Yes, this incompetent got lucky and got it right.  If you think that`s why Hillary lost to him, you`re out of your mind.

     

     




     

    Let's set the record straight here...

    House:
    Reps: 215 - 6
    Dems: 82 - 126

    Senate:
    Reps: 48 - 1
    Dems: 29 - 21

    Boy, those Dems sure are lucky.  

    And of the forty nations who supported the invasion, only 6 (including US & UK) actually sent troops to fight.  

     

     


    (QUOTE)

     

    Thanks for proving my point and finally agreeing.  Resolution 114 was voted on and supported by LARGE MAJORITIES in both Houses.

    And.......oh yah, it was a bi-partisan bill authored by Daschel(D) and Lott(R)

     

    You might also consider a search of "Democrats voting for, and in favor of Iraq war".  You will see hundreds of papers, speeches, statements, interviews, etc.............going back to the late 1980`s and right up to 2003, ALL speaking to WMD and taking out Saddam.

     



    Let's put it this way - if there were no Republicans in Congress, this would never have happened.

    Some Dems made a terrible mistake.  All (but 7) Republicans made a terrible mistake.  The majority of Dems were on the right side of history (again).

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: March 20, 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom ... 10 years later , was it worth it ?

    Not completely OT but I guess we're wondering where all this WMD allegedly being used in Syria came from? Any guesses anyone?

     

     

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: March 20, 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom ... 10 years later , was it worth it ?

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

     

    I remember the debates.  I pay attention.  What is funny is you thinking the misinformed, low-information people that voted for the incompetent have EVER watched a (any) debate.

    I`m not "looking harder"..........you should prove your statement.  You can`t.

     



    That selective memory must be a bit fuzzy, then.

     

    I didn't say anything about anyone else watching the debates, so you're confused and deflecting.  Again.

    I don't have to prove an opinion, you wet dope.  And I don't need it confirmed by the media.  Unlike you, I choose to think for myself and form my own opinions.

    Either way, you would try to discount whatever published source I posted from outside of your bubble.

    But since you insist on being obtuse, here's Joan Walsh (a typical MSM pinko for ya) in 2011:

    I’m on record saying I thought Hillary Clinton might fight Republicans harder given her history in the White House. But I also think it’s possible she might have tried to compromise with Republicans, at least to start her presidency. She certainly did so in the Senate, and her vote to authorize military force in Iraq showed a kind of triangulating accommodation that was reason to worry in the 2008 primaries. 

     

    FTR, this took me about 30 seconds to find.

     

     




     

    Speaking of "dopes", you choose the most obscure fool you could find. LOL.  You`re absolutely wrong, and you DID say "didn`t you watch the debates", and cited specifically the 2008 primary debates as a source for people choosing Obama over Hillary.  Not the 1st time you`ve lied and we`re all sure,......won`t be the last.

    I`m not being obtuse and I`m not deflecting at all.  There was overwhelming support from both sides and 40 nations for this war.  I said from the outset, in retrospect, it was wrong and seriously mismanaged.  On this I`m sure we agree.   

    It`s easy (now) to say Obama had it right.  He didn`t have to vote on it, so he lucked out.

    BTW, you didn`t post your "thought" as an "opinion", you posted it as a fact. 

     



    I told you you would shoot the messenger.  So predictable.  That you don't know Joan or Salon makes you "misinformed", I think.

     

    Greg posted a quote from the debate himself.  Despite the inarticulation, the concept is sound: Hillary was for it. Obama was against it.  Advantage: Obama +1.  This isn't even controversial.

    I never argued about the votes in congress.  You did.  They were wrong then, and they still are, and it's still beside the point that many people at the time - even in congress - said it was a bad idea.

    How, exactly, did I "present an opinion as fact", you smelly coo(z)e...?  Even if I did, where is your attempt to disagree and present an alternative argument?  

    Oh right, that would actually require critical thinking on your part.

    Oh...and where's YOUR proof that POTUS was just "lucky"...??  Repeat question (because you dodged it before): Were all of the people against the war just "lucky"...??

     

     

     




     

    RattyMatty, argument over, debate over..............you lose as usual.  You start with insults (wet dope and smelly cooze), not bad insults btw for a gay guy or a ratty broad (which I think and always have that you`re an ugly woman).

    You clearlY stated that Mrs Clinton lost to the incompetent due to her "war vote" and you simply can`t back it up with a factual link, so name calling begins.......you lose.

    Libs kill me.  Even when we agree, you have to find a way to turn it into a disagreement.  The answer to the OP is NO.  We all know this.  But, we cannot take back a majority vote based on the FACTS at the time.

    At least TRY to be honest.  Bush was an awful president.  Obama is the worst president in history.  Obummer was lucky because at the time of the vote on Resoilution 114 he was a state senator-community organizer and DIDN`t have to vote with the big boys.  HE GOT LUCKY!

    Get your head out and stop having my posts deleted.

     

     

     

     

     



     

     

     

     

     




     

     

     

     

     




     

    Tacobreath:

    MattyScornD is absolutely correct.

    It is a fact that Hillary lost the Democratic nomination, in part, because of her vote on the Iraq War and her obstinance in not acknowledging that it was a mistake.

    There are numerous articles which state that this vote was one of the contributing factors in her loss to Obama.

    Here are a few pieces that explicitly state the obvious, that the disasterous war had a direct and profoundly negative impact on Hillary's candidacy.

    Even her husband Bill acknowledged the impact that her Iraq War vote would have on Hillary's ability to secure the nomination. (see last blurb)

    I think you owe MattyScornd an apology.


    And what does MattyScornD's gender or sexual orientation have to do with his ability post anything? Just curious why you would try and use those two traits as some kind of rejoinder.

     

    -----------------------------------------------------------

    Obama, Clinton, Biden and other Democratic presidential candidates opposed legalizing same-sex marriage in 2008, although they endorsed versions of civil unions.

    Clinton's bigger problem that year involved a different issue: opposition to the Iraq war, which had become deeply unpopular with Democratic voters by 2007. Clinton defended her 2002 Senate vote authorizing an invasion of Iraq. Obama, as an Illinois state legislator, had condemned the war from the start. By lagging behind Obama on this key issue as the 2008 primaries approached, Clinton lost valuable ground to the lesser-known lawmaker from Illinois.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HILLARY_CLINTON_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=UTSAC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Here is my short list of reasons for her travails:

    The Iran vote
    Whoever advised Hillary to try to burnish her commander-in-chief credentials by voting to declare the Iranian Army a terrorist organization did her a deep disservice. It cost her dearly, by giving Obama a way to outflank her despite his votes for funding the war in Iraq. The fact that Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd voted against it made her vote all the more vivid, and damaging. (Although not a vote on Iraq, it does show her hawkish bent and, in the judgement of the pundits, that she was out of step with her party)

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22539570/ns/politics-decision_08/t/what-heck-happened-hillary/#.UU0N2Vfwx8c

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    As she does step back into the conversation, though, Clinton could be at pains to avoid a repeat, in whatever form, of the damage her presidential bid incurred from her fateful Senate vote in 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Despite pressure from the left throughout her campaign, Clinton would not acknowledge the vote as a mistake, or reverse her position on it, as her primary opponent John Edwards did.

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/is-hillary-clinton-too-conservative-to-become-president

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The bill Romney signed in 2006 has often been compared to the one President Obama spearheaded last Congress, and that doesn't bode well in a Republican presidential primary.

     But as we get closer to Romney getting into the presidential race (as he is widely expected to do), it may be more helpful to compare Romney's health care bill to something else: then-New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's vote for the Iraq war in 2002.

    That vote turned the front-running Clinton into a vulnerable candidate in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary, as it put her at odds with the general sentiment within the party about the war. Clinton's refusal to apologize for the vote -- as John Edwards did -- ensured that the vote dogged her wherever she went on the campaign trail.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/comparing-romneys-health-care.html

    -----------------------------------------------------------------

      Some felt that she had the nomination locked up but would face a daunting challenge in the general election. Bill Clinton believed the opposite--a point he made repeatedly to anyone who would listen. "This primary is gonna be harder than the general," he would say.

    Clinton's assessment was based primarily on one thing: the anger of the party's liberal base at Hillary's vote to authorize the Iraq War and her continued refusal to recant it. With elections in Iraq scheduled for that December, the body count rising, and sectarian violence raging in the region, calls were intensifying for a troop reduction or even a full-scale withdrawal. On Nov. 13, Edwards, whom the Clintons considered Hillary's most serious rival for the nomination, published an op-ed in "The Washington Post" apologizing for his own Senate vote in favor of authorizing the war. (It's first sentence: "I was wrong.") The pressure was mounting on Hillary to do the same.

    Source: Game Change, by Heilemann & Halpern, p. 39 , Jan 11, 2010


     


    (QUOTE)

     

    Thank you for your interest.  Reading the previous posts could be very helpful for you.  Try starting at the begining.  You will see that when matty started losing the debate, the insults started flying.  You`re upset because I took a wise crack shot AFTER I was called a "wet dope" and a "smelly co oze", (I`m sure you know what that is a reference to).  It`s funny how Libs only see a conservative`s shots and demand apologies but an ideological moonbat can say anything and it`s OK.

    Also, thank you for the opinion (not facts as you state) piece.  I stick by my original argument that (most if not all) people that voted for Obama don`t watch debates and never have, and couldn`t tell you (even today) that Hillary voted for the war in Iraq.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: March 20, 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom ... 10 years later , was it worth it ?

      Five reasons Obama won. Five reasons Clinton lost.

     

    Let the recriminations begin. After one of the greatest upsets in American political history, journalists, historians and bloggers will be talking for years about what happened. In such a close race, the winner (Obama) did plenty of things wrong, and the loser (Clinton) did a lot right. But that's not what we're here for today. First we need to know what tipped the balance. Here are five reasons why he won and five reasons why she lost.

    WHY OBAMA WON
    Message
    Obama's change message was far superior in 2008 to Hillary's experience message. With a majority of Americans telling pollsters the country is on the wrong track, this is a "change election," as even John McCain admitted this week. Obama faced a danger, fueled by Hillary's gibes, that his change message would be too vague and rhetorical. But the combination of wonky policy speeches in early 2007 and a well-designed Web site that proved he was substantive helped him put meat on the strong bones of his themes.

    The basic choice, as I argued from the beginning, was Inspiration vs. Restoration, and even when Obama's hope message flagged among certain constituencies, it worked better overall than nostalgia for the competence of the Clinton years.

    Organization The tone of every organization is set from the top. A fish rots from the head, but the head is also how the fish navigates. Obama started his professional life as a community organizer. In 1992 he led a drive that registered 150,000 Chicago voters. As his shout-out Tuesday night to campaign manager David Plouffe suggests, he looked for—and found—the best organizers in politics, regardless of age. Even had Hillary tried to organize in the caucus states, she would still have likely lost them.

    Obama's superiority in planning and organization, traits that bode well for his presidency, showed up in everything from astonishing fund-raising to wooing superdelegates to social networking. With the exception of his failure to campaign more in Kentucky and West Virginia, which might have limited losses there, his scheduling and advance operations were also strong. The building of a 700-person organization from scratch, almost like an Internet start-up, is one of the unheralded stories of the campaign. To understand how the organizing paid off, consider that Obama had 21 blowout victories of 20 points or more, while Clinton had five.

    Cool One big reason the organization hummed was that "No Drama Obama" let it be known from the start that his people had to be cool in their dealings with each other or they'd be gone. Only two or three staffers have been pushed out, a remarkable number in a campaign.

    Of course, Obama himself is cool. He just is. Detractors can belittle this, but it helps in politics, which has always been partly about style and sex appeal. He also showed that he could take a punch and stay calm, essential for a rookie. Had he lost his cool even once, he would have been toast.

    Candor Obama has not been particularly accessible to the media. For a candidate who stressed transparency, he could use more. But at least he's not your basic BS artist. He doesn't lie or even do much stretching of the truth to suit his purposes. Voters sense this, and even if they think he's full of hot air sometimes, at least he doesn't lie to them. For a politician, this is a huge advantage.

    Respect for the Voters After Obama won 11 straight primaries in February, the campaign looked as if it was over. (Had Clinton won 11 straight, the political establishment would have placed enormous pressure on Obama to drop out.) Then came the Rev. Wright story, which Obama was slow to respond to. But when the video of Wright's offensive sermons circulated, he gave an important speech on race in Philadelphia. He trusted that voters would take the time to hear his complex remarks in context, and he was rewarded with several million views on YouTube. Later, when Wright went wild at the National Press Club, Obama broke entirely with his former pastor, this time in a thoughtful and well-reviewed press conference. He didn't do well in most later primaries, but that was more the result of unfavorable demographics than fallout from Wright. Had Obama handled that explosive story with clumsy answers, he would have been finished.

    The best example of his respect for voters came on the issue of a gas-tax holiday, which exploded on the same day as Wright's rant. That day, April 28, was the first since the New Hampshire primary when it looked as if Obama might actually lose the nomination. His pastor was a hate-America wackjob and Obama was on the wrong side of a popular pander embraced by both Clinton and McCain. Coming out against relief for hard-pressed motorists was a gutsy move. It required a slightly complicated argument and a lot of faith in the intelligence of the public. But it paid off in Indiana and North Carolina, where his campaign went back on track.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: March 20, 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom ... 10 years later , was it worth it ?

    Matthew Dowd /2008

     

    A year ago, Hillary Clinton was 30-points ahead over any rival in the Democratic primary. She had outraised everyone at that point by more than a two to one margin. She had the backing of the majority of the Democratic establishment. She had the backing of a popular former president who happened to be her husband. And she lost.

    So what happened?

    Like any story, the reasons and causes aren't easily reduced to a one paragraph explanation and there were multiple causes for why Clinton lost. I will reflect on just on a few from my perspective.

    This is a race that Clinton could have won and should have won, and came very close. And her gender ultimately didn't have much to do with the loss.

    The following is my attempt at explaining what happened:

    1. She ran for months and months as the candidate of experience and the electorate overwhelmingly wanted change. She wasted many resources and much time arguing and building a case based on experience, and two-thirds of Democratic voters wanted change. She tried turning this around late in the game and Obama owned it at that point.

    2. The political environment of this race was much different than 2004 or 2000. In those elections, strength was the key attribute the country was looking for. The country desired more of a father figure. Today, the country is looking for more a a healing presence, someone more nurturing and demonstrating an ability to bring the American family together -- more of a mothering persona. The country wanted a Mom, and Hillary gave them a Dad. She tried to hard to demonstrate her toughness and strength and voters wanted more caretaking and sensitivity.

    3. Presidential campaigns are always about understanding voters fears, but then asking them to vote their hopes. Clinton did an unbelievable job speaking to voters fears but she never crossed the bridge to speak to voters hopes. She got stuck in the fear equation and voters needed her to move to hope at some point.

    4. The Clinton campaign based their tactical strategy on the idea that this would be a short race and big state victories early would decide it quickly. This primary became a long race and every single caucus or primary mattered. Clinton scrambled to retool the campaign based on a longer effort, in the midst of a heated primary.

    5. Hillary Clinton never separated herself enough from Bill in the course of this race. Voters wanted to see her stand on her own two feet, and understand that on her own she could do the job and it would be her presidency. Every time Bill showed up on the radar it reminded voters that she wasn't on her own. And couple this with fact that Bill Clinton, while having a great political ear and voice advocating on behalf of himself, seems to not be as adept at advocating on behalf of someone else.

    6. The country is looking for something new and hip and next generational, and this is especially true for voters under 30 (the 9/11 generation). Barack Obama gave voters this, and Hillary didn't. Obama was the Ipod of this election, while Clinton was the Walkman. The Walkman is reliable and easy to use and works great, it just doesn't have the hip factor that an Ipod does.

    Obviously, this is only a short list of causes from my own perspective, and equally as important was Obama's candidacy, his message, and his campaign's tactical successes.

    But in the end, this race was in Hillary Clinton's hands and it is a race she should have won, no matter her opponent.

    And dealing with a loss where you didn't have to lose, but for your own actions, is heartwrenching. I do feel for the process she must be going through and will go through. Peace to her.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: March 20, 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom ... 10 years later , was it worth it ?

    And, let`s not forget the COUNTLESS Democrat Congressmen and Senators that won re-election handily despite their votes in favor of Resolution 114.

    Why weren`t they defeated due to their support of the Iraq war?

     

    (answer:  Democrats aren`t too bright)

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: March 20, 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom ... 10 years later , was it worth it ?

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    I never argued about the votes in congress.  You did.  They were wrong then, and they still are



    I wish I could still be baffled by it at this late date.

     

     

    The charge: We were rushed to war in Iraq on faulty/cherry-picked intelligence.

    The defense: Yeah but congress voted for it (omitting: based on that intelligence).

     

     

    Oy.




    Was it a "rush"?  All respect, I remember weeks and weeks of (CSPAN) floor debbates in both Houses.  I remember countless speeches, interviews, papers, news articles, intelligence data, etc,etc..........from 9/11/2001 right through to 3/2003.  Is almost 2 years of debate and research, with weapons inspectors and ignored resolutions, really a "rush"?

    We had Ted Kennedy for Pete`s sake speaking on WMD and the removal of Saddam during that time. 

    Again, I cannot be clearer on this point, THE ANSWER TO THE OP IS NO.  10 YEARS LATER IT WAS NOT WORTH IT!

    But, as I`ve said since the start of this thread, it`s easy to be a Monday morning quarterback.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BilltheKat. Show BilltheKat's posts

    Re: March 20, 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom ... 10 years later , was it worth it ?

    In response to jackbu's comment:

    In response to ms_obstinate's comment:

     

    In response to jackbu's comment:

     

    In response to ms_obstinate's comment:

     

    It's too bad it turned into such a disaster. I for one am not disappointed it ended Saddam's rule..and the endless trips the UN inspectors were making. I'm sure most Iraqis are glad Saddam is gone.

    The blame should not be put on Bush, just as the 9/11/12 attack can't be blamed on Obama. When you have too many hands in the cookie jar, eventually the jar is going to brake.

     




     

    Yes, those endless trips by the un inspectors cost a lot of money.  Only oldie would compare the 9/11/12 attack to a war which killed thousands and cost around a billion dollars.

    Most knew that Sadam was giving the impression that he had weapons, to keep Iran in check.  I think Nation building is one of the most liberal things to do.  It is funny when posters like ms call others liberals, yet have no problem with Bush spending a billion dollars to remove Sadam.  Bush neglected to take the advice of his top advisors of: " once you break it you own it."

     




    THANKS FOR SEARCHING OUT MY POSTS. YOU SEEM OVERLY OBSESSED. I HAVE STUFF TO DO BUT I'M SURE YOU'LL BE HERE FOR HOURS.

     

     




     

    Did not search you out, just surfing some treads and saw your post of which you have posted many times over the years.  

    It is tough to defend a president who invaded the wrong country.  We took our eye of Afganistan when we went into Iraq and prolonged our presence in Afghan.  There was a reason why Bush 41 did not go into Iraq when he drove Sadam out of Kuwait.  He was a true conservative and was not into years of nation building like his liberal son.



    Lil' Bush is a conservative. He ran as a conservative republican. Conservatives and republicans alike voted him into office TWICE! Because you cant admit you voted in  that failure, you are now trying to convince everyone he was a liberal. Are you saying he pulled the wool over the eyes of all those republicans who voted him in?

    What a crock. Take some responsibility for your actions for once.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: March 20, 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom ... 10 years later , was it worth it ?

    "Are you saying he pulled the wool over the eyes of all those republicans who voted him in?"

     

    Heck, according to you and some of your ilk, he and Cheney "pulled the wool over the eyes" of All of America, 40 other nations, the House, the Senate, Lieberman, Dodd, Kennedy, Hillary, Bill, Gore, Edwards, Daschel, Kerry,Albright, Powell, the media, all the world`s intelligence, etc,etc..............and took us into Iraq on a big lie.

    How could such a "dumb-failure" do that to all you (these) wicked smaaaaaht people? 

     
  22. This post has been removed.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: March 20, 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom ... 10 years later , was it worth it ?

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

    "Are you saying he pulled the wool over the eyes of all those republicans who voted him in?"

     

    Heck, according to you and some of your ilk, he and Cheney "pulled the wool over the eyes" of All of America, 40 other nations, the House, the Senate, Lieberman, Dodd, Kennedy, Hillary, Bill, Gore, Edwards, Daschel, Kerry,Albright, Powell, the media, all the world`s intelligence, etc,etc..............and took us into Iraq on a big lie.

    How could such a "dumb-failure" do that to all you (these) wicked smaaaaaht people? 

    2003 was not like it is today - people were behind Bush.  He had a 90% approval rating after 9/11 and it was still around 60% in 2003 (though dropping quickly with every day he did not find Bin Laden).  Everybody wanted to believe the administration, and it takes a pretty skeptical mind to think somebody would deceive America for the purpose of going to war.  Live and learn.

    Taco - when Bush said there was a report that Saddam Hussein purchased yellow cake in Niger in his SOTU, he failed to mention that the CIA had dismissed the report as false a year prior.  Is that a lie?  Maybe not technically, but it's a false argument that he can only make because the truth was classified.

    When Bush said there was an eye-witness account of mobile biological weapons labs in Iraq, and failed to mention that the eye-witness (Curveball) was a known con-man and liar, trying to secure a green card, was that a lie?  Maybe not technically, but it's a false argument that he can only make because the truth was classified.

    When Rumsfeld & Cheney said they knew exactly where the weapons of mass destruction were, was that a lie?  Yeah, I think anybody with objectivity would have to call that one a lie.  

    When Rumsfeld said the war would take "6 days, 6 weeks, I can't see it going six months" was that a lie?  No, but in retrospect a display of gross tactical incompetence.

    When Cheney said we would be "greeeted as liberators" was that a lie?  No, but in retrospect a display of gross tactical incompetence.

    So anybody who opposed the war:

    1) looked past the favoribility of the administration

    2) recognized false arguments despite not being privy to the classified truth

    3) recognized the incompetence of those in charge of execution and

    4) refused to give the benefit of the doubt to the commander in chief and

    5) did not mind being labeled "Dovish" which I think explains the motivations of Clinton, Kerry, Edwards & Dodd, given their eventual presidential aspirations.

    That seems like a lot to ask, but guess what - more than half the Dems in Congress, and a certain State Senator from Illinois were on the right side of history.  That's not luck my friend - that's foresight and courage.  The safest thing in the world was to support the war - and as you pointed out, most Dems with their eyes on the white house did just that.

    If conservatives gave Obama half the faith that liberals gave Bush in 2002-2003, maybe he could actually reverse some the damage you have been crying about for the past 4 years.

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: March 20, 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom ... 10 years later , was it worth it ?

    In response to BilltheKat's comment:

    In response to jackbu's comment:

     

    In response to ms_obstinate's comment:

     

    In response to jackbu's comment:

     

    In response to ms_obstinate's comment:

     

    It's too bad it turned into such a disaster. I for one am not disappointed it ended Saddam's rule..and the endless trips the UN inspectors were making. I'm sure most Iraqis are glad Saddam is gone.

    The blame should not be put on Bush, just as the 9/11/12 attack can't be blamed on Obama. When you have too many hands in the cookie jar, eventually the jar is going to brake.

     




     

    Yes, those endless trips by the un inspectors cost a lot of money.  Only oldie would compare the 9/11/12 attack to a war which killed thousands and cost around a billion dollars.

    Most knew that Sadam was giving the impression that he had weapons, to keep Iran in check.  I think Nation building is one of the most liberal things to do.  It is funny when posters like ms call others liberals, yet have no problem with Bush spending a billion dollars to remove Sadam.  Bush neglected to take the advice of his top advisors of: " once you break it you own it."

     




    THANKS FOR SEARCHING OUT MY POSTS. YOU SEEM OVERLY OBSESSED. I HAVE STUFF TO DO BUT I'M SURE YOU'LL BE HERE FOR HOURS.

     

     




     

    Did not search you out, just surfing some treads and saw your post of which you have posted many times over the years.  

    It is tough to defend a president who invaded the wrong country.  We took our eye of Afganistan when we went into Iraq and prolonged our presence in Afghan.  There was a reason why Bush 41 did not go into Iraq when he drove Sadam out of Kuwait.  He was a true conservative and was not into years of nation building like his liberal son.

     



    Lil' Bush is a conservative. He ran as a conservative republican. Conservatives and republicans alike voted him into office TWICE! Because you cant admit you voted in  that failure, you are now trying to convince everyone he was a liberal. Are you saying he pulled the wool over the eyes of all those republicans who voted him in?

     

    What a crock. Take some responsibility for your actions for once.

    Bush ran as a conservative, governed as a liberal:

    He gave us:

    No Child Left behind

    on 9/10/2001, stood on the wborder between Mexico and the U.S.hite house lawn and announced basically that he was going to open the border.

    Gave us a drug prescription program

    Killed capitalism with TARP.

    Spent more money than any president except Obama

    Was in favor of illegal immigration, supporting McCains immigration bill.

    Had a memorable catch phrase:  " doing the work Americans won't do".

    If that's a conservative, then the word has no meaning.

     

    The problem the left seems to have is not recognizing that, on anything of importance, he completely caved to the left.

    Hence, he is a liberal.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from tacobreath. Show tacobreath's posts

    Re: March 20, 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom ... 10 years later , was it worth it ?

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    "Are you saying he pulled the wool over the eyes of all those republicans who voted him in?"

     

    Heck, according to you and some of your ilk, he and Cheney "pulled the wool over the eyes" of All of America, 40 other nations, the House, the Senate, Lieberman, Dodd, Kennedy, Hillary, Bill, Gore, Edwards, Daschel, Kerry,Albright, Powell, the media, all the world`s intelligence, etc,etc..............and took us into Iraq on a big lie.

    How could such a "dumb-failure" do that to all you (these) wicked smaaaaaht people? 

     

     

    2003 was not like it is today - people were behind Bush.  He had a 90% approval rating after 9/11 and it was still around 60% in 2003 (though dropping quickly with every day he did not find Bin Laden).  Everybody wanted to believe the administration, and it takes a pretty skeptical mind to think somebody would deceive America for the purpose of going to war.  Live and learn.

    Taco - when Bush said there was a report that Saddam Hussein purchased yellow cake in Niger in his SOTU, he failed to mention that the CIA had dismissed the report as false a year prior.  Is that a lie?  Maybe not technically, but it's a false argument that he can only make because the truth was classified.

    When Bush said there was an eye-witness account of mobile biological weapons labs in Iraq, and failed to mention that the eye-witness (Curveball) was a known con-man and liar, trying to secure a green card, was that a lie?  Maybe not technically, but it's a false argument that he can only make because the truth was classified.

    When Rumsfeld & Cheney said they knew exactly where the weapons of mass destruction were, was that a lie?  Yeah, I think anybody with objectivity would have to call that one a lie.  

    When Rumsfeld said the war would take "6 days, 6 weeks, I can't see it going six months" was that a lie?  No, but in retrospect a display of gross tactical incompetence.

    When Cheney said we would be "greeeted as liberators" was that a lie?  No, but in retrospect a display of gross tactical incompetence.

    So anybody who opposed the war:

    1) looked past the favoribility of the administration

    2) recognized false arguments despite not being privy to the classified truth

    3) recognized the incompetence of those in charge of execution and

    4) refused to give the benefit of the doubt to the commander in chief and

    5) did not mind being labeled "Dovish" which I think explains the motivations of Clinton, Kerry, Edwards & Dodd, given their eventual presidential aspirations.

    That seems like a lot to ask, but guess what - more than half the Dems in Congress, and a certain State Senator from Illinois were on the right side of history.  That's not luck my friend - that's foresight and courage.  The safest thing in the world was to support the war - and as you pointed out, most Dems with their eyes on the white house did just that.

    If conservatives gave Obama half the faith that liberals gave Bush in 2002-2003, maybe he could actually reverse some the damage you have been crying about for the past 4 years.

     




    "If conservatives gave Obama half the faith that liberals gave Bush in 2002-2003, maybe he could actually reverse some the damage you have been crying about for the past 4 years."

    Are you kidding my friend?  Do we need to run through the "where we were 4 years ago and where we are today" thing again?  Obama had 2 years of complete (all 3 branches) control............result: disaster.  Look at debt, deficits, (true)unemployment, gas, HC costs, housing..........geesh. C`mon!

     

    For your reading pleasure:

    Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction
    "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

     

Share