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

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

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

     
  2. 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 Sistersledge's comment:




    Again, looking back, a big mistake.  $6 trillion is wrong however.  It`s not quite $1 trillion, or about 15% of the debt Obama has heaped on us in 4 short years.

    The cost of the lives lost and the damage done to families..............well, there isn`t a number you can put on that.

    "Was it worth it"........he ll NO!

     

     
  3. 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:

     

    "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



    Thanks Taco - I read every quote, but I think you're pulling a Cheney.  You've quoted 16 people here - of the 16, 10 had a vote, and 5 (Levin, Pelosi, Graham, Kennedy & Byrd) voted no.  Byrd even tried to amend the resolution to prevent indefinite occupation.

    Now, here's some reading for you - tell me again that this guy got lucky ...

     

    What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

    What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

    But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

     

     
  4. 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 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? 

     



    You cant deny the truth. So eat it ya pathetic knuckle draggin thug. It's written in history.

     

     
  5. 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:

     

    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



    Thanks Taco - I read every quote, but I think you're pulling a Cheney.  You've quoted 16 people here - of the 16, 10 had a vote, and 5 (Levin, Pelosi, Graham, Kennedy & Byrd) voted no.  Byrd even tried to amend the resolution to prevent indefinite occupation.

     

    Now, here's some reading for you - tell me again that this guy got lucky ...

     

    What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

    What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

    But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

     

    (QUOTE)




     

    First, these 16 are about 1/10th of what`s available.  Do a search if you would like.

    Second, and most importantly...................HE DIDN`T VOTE!  He didn`t have to vote.  He had the luxury of being an inexperienced STATE senator-community organizer.  If he had to vote it probably would have been "present" as he did 50% of the time when he finally made it to the Senate for his 143 days and 50% voting record.

    Very easy to (4 years later) say......"I was against it" when you never voted on it in the 1st place.

    Good debate.  I enjoy reading your stuff.  I always read it thoroughly.  You always post good info.

     

     
  6. 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 BilltheKat'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? 

     



    You cant deny the truth. So eat it ya pathetic knuckle draggin thug. It's written in history.

     




    Boy, what a great response.  I guess you got me.

    sigh

     
  7. 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 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? 

     



    You cant deny the truth. So eat it ya pathetic knuckle draggin thug. It's written in history.

     

    So, we are back to:

    Either he was so dumb he got us into the war, or he was so smart he completely brainwashed a bunch of progressive liberal politicians to support the war.

    Which is it? Was he dumb, or brilliant?

     
  8. 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 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



    Thanks Taco - I read every quote, but I think you're pulling a Cheney.  You've quoted 16 people here - of the 16, 10 had a vote, and 5 (Levin, Pelosi, Graham, Kennedy & Byrd) voted no.  Byrd even tried to amend the resolution to prevent indefinite occupation.

     

    Now, here's some reading for you - tell me again that this guy got lucky ...

     

    What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

    What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

    But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

     

    (QUOTE)




     

    First, these 16 are about 1/10th of what`s available.  Do a search if you would like.

    Second, and most importantly...................HE DIDN`T VOTE!  He didn`t have to vote.  He had the luxury of being an inexperienced STATE senator-community organizer.  If he had to vote it probably would have been "present" as he did 50% of the time when he finally made it to the Senate for his 143 days and 50% voting record.

    Very easy to (4 years later) say......"I was against it" when you never voted on it in the 1st place.

    Good debate.  I enjoy reading your stuff.  I always read it thoroughly.  You always post good info.

     



    No, no - he did the opposite of what you're saying.  To take advantage of the fact that you don't have a vote, you stay silent until you see the outcome, then take the most popular position at the time of election.  See Romney for countless examples - the few issues that he took a position on (like the bailout) he worded carefully enough that he could argue that he was for the opposite come 2012.

    Obama did the opposite - he took a position so strong and precise, nobody could ever suggest he was pro-war in Iraq.

    But, if you're saying that words don't matter when push comes to shove, and only votes count, then you have to acknowledge that a Dem-only vote would have avoided this catastrophe.  A lot of Dems were wrong, and a lot of Dems chose political expediency but when push came to shove, the majority of Dems in Congress voted no.

     

     

     
  9. 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:

     

    In response to slomag's comment:

     

    In response to tacobreath's comment:

     

    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



    Thanks Taco - I read every quote, but I think you're pulling a Cheney.  You've quoted 16 people here - of the 16, 10 had a vote, and 5 (Levin, Pelosi, Graham, Kennedy & Byrd) voted no.  Byrd even tried to amend the resolution to prevent indefinite occupation.

     

    Now, here's some reading for you - tell me again that this guy got lucky ...

     

    What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

    What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

    But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

     

    (QUOTE)




     

    First, these 16 are about 1/10th of what`s available.  Do a search if you would like.

    Second, and most importantly...................HE DIDN`T VOTE!  He didn`t have to vote.  He had the luxury of being an inexperienced STATE senator-community organizer.  If he had to vote it probably would have been "present" as he did 50% of the time when he finally made it to the Senate for his 143 days and 50% voting record.

    Very easy to (4 years later) say......"I was against it" when you never voted on it in the 1st place.

    Good debate.  I enjoy reading your stuff.  I always read it thoroughly.  You always post good info.

     

     



    No, no - he did the opposite of what you're saying.  To take advantage of the fact that you don't have a vote, you stay silent until you see the outcome, then take the most popular position at the time of election.  See Romney for countless examples - the few issues that he took a position on (like the bailout) he worded carefully enough that he could argue that he was for the opposite come 2012.

     

    Obama did the opposite - he took a position so strong and precise, nobody could ever suggest he was pro-war in Iraq.

    But, if you're saying that words don't matter when push comes to shove, and only votes count, then you have to acknowledge that a Dem-only vote would have avoided this catastrophe.  A lot of Dems were wrong, and a lot of Dems chose political expediency but when push came to shove, the majority of Dems in Congress voted no.

     

     




    Got it.  But, as an Illinois state senator, he had no vote.  It just didn`t matter.  4-5 years later in a campaign, or in a debate, he can say "I was against the war" and look good.  If he was a U.S. senator at the time he would have had to vote.  I wonder if it would have been a NO vote or a typical Obama "present" vote.

    I think the founding fathers were pretty careful so that we will never have a "Dem only" (or Rep only) vote.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

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

    Photo

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

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

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to BilltheKat'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? 

     



    You cant deny the truth. So eat it ya pathetic knuckle draggin thug. It's written in history.

     

     

     

    So, we are back to:

    Either he was so dumb he got us into the war, or he was so smart he completely brainwashed a bunch of progressive liberal politicians to support the war.

    Which is it? Was he dumb, or brilliant?



    He was dumb.  He had full access to the intelligence on the matter. He was commander in chief and had the bully pulpit to lead the country to war.  He made a bad decision that played into the broader schemes of the neo-cons.  No conspiracy, just a poorly thought out decision.

     
  12. 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 ?

     

    Got it.  But, as an Illinois state senator, he had no vote.  It just didn`t matter.  4-5 years later in a campaign, or in a debate, he can say "I was against the war" and look good.  If he was a U.S. senator at the time he would have had to vote.  I wonder if it would have been a NO vote or a typical Obama "present" vote.

    I think the founding fathers were pretty careful so that we will never have a "Dem only" (or Rep only) vote.

     

     

    But if we had been in and out in 2 weeks, and Iraq looked like CandyLand, 4-5 years later in a debate, he could not have pretended he was right.

    I think the founding fathers would be disgusted with what our government has become.  In 2013, we have the technology for every person in the country to vote on whatever issues interest them.  Elected representatives are now just part of the problem.  But I digress :)

     
  13. 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:

     

    Got it.  But, as an Illinois state senator, he had no vote.  It just didn`t matter.  4-5 years later in a campaign, or in a debate, he can say "I was against the war" and look good.  If he was a U.S. senator at the time he would have had to vote.  I wonder if it would have been a NO vote or a typical Obama "present" vote.

    I think the founding fathers were pretty careful so that we will never have a "Dem only" (or Rep only) vote.

     

     

    But if we had been in and out in 2 weeks, and Iraq looked like CandyLand, 4-5 years later in a debate, he could not have pretended he was right.

    I think the founding fathers would be disgusted with what our government has become.  In 2013, we have the technology for every person in the country to vote on whatever issues interest them.  Elected representatives are now just part of the problem.  But I digress :)




    As always.............thanks for the conversation. 

    (pssst, thanks also for shortening up the post)

    Plenty of new topics coming this week I see.  Speak soon.

     

     

Share