Do Republicans regret their Iraq fiasco?

[NotfooledbyW]

Why would that matter

It matters a lot. War was justified based upon the fact Iraq was in violation of international law and S.Hussein's disarmament obligations at the time of the vote. The vote was proper at that time unless you believe in a post 09/11/01 attacked world that S.Hussein should have been left alone to possess WMD if he wanted them. Now if you think S. Hussein was in compliance with international law up through October 2002 you need to become a bit more informed.

I'll take your non answer to my question to be 'no' there were no inspectors on the ground in Iraq in October 2002.

So now I can ask if there were UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq from December 2002 through March 17, 2003? And who's sole decision was it to start a war that forced the inspectors to leave?

You are farther along than most conservatives and libertarians by admitting the Iraq war was a mistake, so if you follow along you will come to learn that it was an avoidable mistake and the reason for the mistake was not faulty ihtelligence in October 2002 when votes were cast to use force IF necessary. It was necessary in October if the UN and the Iraq regime did not act to finalize the disarmament process.

The problem with your impression of what happened is your disregard of the reality that Iraq and the UN acted in good faith to complete the insoection process. But Bush did not respect that process or the progress that was being made to avoid the need for war.

There was no intelligence agents required to find out the inspections were working better than they had ever been.

 

[blackhawk]

Why would that matter

It matters a lot. War was justified based upon the fact Iraq was in violation of international law and S.Hussein's disarmament obligations at the time of the vote. The vote was proper at that time unless you believe in a post 09/11/01 attacked world that S.Hussein should have been left alone to possess WMD if he wanted them. Now if you think S. Hussein was in compliance with international law up through October 2002 you need to become a bit more informed.

I'll take your non answer to my question to be 'no' there were no inspectors on the ground in Iraq in October 2002.

So now I can ask if there were UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq from December 2002 through March 17, 2003? And who's sole decision was it to start a war that forced the inspectors to leave?

You are farther along than most conservatives and libertarians by admitting the Iraq war was a mistake, so if you follow along you will come to learn that it was an avoidable mistake and the reason for the mistake was not faulty ihtelligence in October 2002 when votes were cast to use force IF necessary. It was necessary in October if the UN and the Iraq regime did not act to finalize the disarmament process.

The problem with your impression of what happened is your disregard of the reality that Iraq and the UN acted in good faith to complete the insoection process. But Bush did not respect that process or the progress that was being made to avoid the need for war.

There was no intelligence agents required to find out the inspections were working better than they had ever been.

Why would that matter

It matters a lot. War was justified based upon the fact Iraq was in violation of international law and S.Hussein's disarmament obligations at the time of the vote. The vote was proper at that time unless you believe in a post 09/11/01 attacked world that S.Hussein should have been left alone to possess WMD if he wanted them. Now if you think S. Hussein was in compliance with international law up through October 2002 you need to become a bit more informed.

I'll take your non answer to my question to be 'no' there were no inspectors on the ground in Iraq in October 2002.

So now I can ask if there were UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq from December 2002 through March 17, 2003? And who's sole decision was it to start a war that forced the inspectors to leave?

You are farther along than most conservatives and libertarians by admitting the Iraq war was a mistake, so if you follow along you will come to learn that it was an avoidable mistake and the reason for the mistake was not faulty ihtelligence in October 2002 when votes were cast to use force IF necessary. It was necessary in October if the UN and the Iraq regime did not act to finalize the disarmament process.

The problem with your impression of what happened is your disregard of the reality that Iraq and the UN acted in good faith to complete the insoection process. But Bush did not respect that process or the progress that was being made to avoid the need for war.

There was no intelligence agents required to find out the inspections were working better than they had ever been.

Thank you for the extremely long winded way of saying you won't hold Democrats responsible for their vote but will continue to excuse, and rationalize it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

BH 10862361

Thank you for the extremely long winded way of saying you won't hold Democrats responsible for their vote but will continue to excuse, and rationalize it.

Why would I hold Democrats responsible for a vote that was made with Republicans and in support of the President who made the case that the best way to get inspections restarted with Iraq's cooperation was to authorize force in advance and convince S. Hussein that he had to quit the obstruction and delays and be disarmed to avoid war.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Do they? Considering all the damage it's caused. All the American lives lost or destroyed. The financial cost to the country. Do they ever wonder if it was a bad idea?

What fiasco is that?

Providing for a sound Iraqi Constitutional Republic, Free Elections, a freely elected government?

Or the tearing down of that by obama's pro-Islamic cult policy and his creation of ISIS, which now controls a large percentage of Iraqi territory?

As an American, I can tell you that I regret that the proponents of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle, such as yourself, who voted for the Brown Clown and set a Muslim insurgent in the seat of the US CinC, having 6 years later VASTLY IMPROVED THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF ISLAMIC TERRORISM.

I regret that very much. But then, every American does.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

BH 10861544

Yes looking back the war was a mistake and not worth the price we paid

WrmK 10862756

Providing for a sound Iraqi Constitutional Republic, Free Elections, a freely elected government?

So according to Blackhawk providing for a sound Iraqi Constitutional Republic, Free Elections, a freely elected government was a mistake and not worth the price we paid. Blackhawk is right.

 

[Vigilante]

BH 10861544

Yes looking back the war was a mistake and not worth the price we paid

WrmK 10862756

Providing for a sound Iraqi Constitutional Republic, Free Elections, a freely elected government?

So according to Blackhawk providing for a sound Iraqi Constitutional Republic, Free Elections, a freely elected government was a mistake and not worth the price we paid. Blackhawk is right.

Did we do that with Germany, Japan and Italy within a year after WW II ended?

 

[rdean]

Just like Benghazi and Fast and Furious, Republicans are desperate to make some kind of scandal work. They keep talking about secret CIA reports and secret info proving Saddam had WMD's.

Unfortunately for them, George Bush said he was disappointed there were no WMD's. Cheney said there were no WMD's and even lies about saying there ever were. And now Jeb Bush says there were no WMD's.

Republicans believed Bush when he lied and refused to believe him when he tells the truth. Such silly and mislead people.

 

[Politico]

1. 
   Do Republicans regret their Iraq fiasco?

No more than the Leftytoons who voted to get us into it then and are getting us into more shit now.

 

[Theowl32]

Just like Benghazi and Fast and Furious, Republicans are desperate to make some kind of scandal work. They keep talking about secret CIA reports and secret info proving Saddam had WMD's.

Unfortunately for them, George Bush said he was disappointed there were no WMD's. Cheney said there were no WMD's and even lies about saying there ever were. And now Jeb Bush says there were no WMD's.

Republicans believed Bush when he lied and refused to believe him when he tells the truth. Such silly and mislead people.

Look at how stupid liberals allow themselves to get. Rdean, you are a fucking lost cause you piece of shit.

 

[Iceweasel]

Wow, you are on a political forum and you are THAT out of touch?

Do you have the guts to admit you were wrong and to apologize? Or do you run away like most of the conservatives do after making a blatant error that cannot be erased?

You are a clueless idiot, I'm laughing at you, not running. Pop your head out of your ass and deal with reality for a change. I posted evidence, you sniveled!

 

[Iceweasel]

BH 10862361

Thank you for the extremely long winded way of saying you won't hold Democrats responsible for their vote but will continue to excuse, and rationalize it.

Why would I hold Democrats responsible for a vote that was made with Republicans and in support of the President who made the case that the best way to get inspections restarted with Iraq's cooperation was to authorize force in advance and convince S. Hussein that he had to quit the obstruction and delays and be disarmed to avoid war.

That excuse has more moving parts than a Swiss watch.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Icew 10863944

That excuse has more moving parts than a Swiss watch.

Why? Explain yourself for once. Being truly non-partisan in support of the October 2002 vote that Republicans and Democrats alike voted for is not an excuse. It is a statement of non-partisan fact. I have explained why and what it means. All I get from you is clowning and cliché's. You have not been taught an argument against what I'm saying is most likely the reason. So you have none and can't try to make one.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I posted evidence, you sniveled!

You posted what evidence? When your evidence doesn't hold up you have to adjust for that?

 

[Iceweasel]

Icew 10863944

That excuse has more moving parts than a Swiss watch.

Why? Explain yourself for once. Being truly non-partisan in support of the October 2002 vote that Republicans and Democrats alike voted for is not an excuse. It is a statement of non-partisan fact. I have explained why and what it means. All I get from you is clowning and cliché's. You have not been taught an argument against what I'm saying is most likely the reason. So you have none and can't try to make one.

I can't understand anything for you. You can't accept facts that differ from your beliefs, I posted them, they're still there.

Your hatred of Bush was childish and at this point, clinical. You need professional help. If what you said was remotely true Democrats would have had a field day with it and made it daily headline news.

 

[Iceweasel]

NotFooledbyReality...this proves that you are a lying hate filled idiot.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02
2000
An IAEA team returns to Iraq in January but only to conduct a regular inspection at a declared Iraqi nuclear site. As a state-party to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), Iraq is obliged to allow IAEA inspectors to visit declared sites at least every 14 months. The IAEA makes clear, however, that the limited inspections under the NPT are no substitute for its intrusive inspections in years past and that it cannot give assurances that Baghdad is not covertly seeking nuclear weapons.

The Security Council remains divided throughout the year on relaxing sanctions. Despite disagreements among Security Council members about the new inspection regime, Hans Blix, who previously served as head of the IAEA, is named to run UNMOVIC following a contentious appointment process. The council approves a UNMOVIC work plan, but no UNMOVIC inspector sets foot inside Iraq, which still opposes the return of weapons inspectors.



New York Times Reports WMD Found in Iraq - US News
The New York Times published an article this week that has re-ignited a 12-year-old debate: Was then-President George W. Bush right about Iraq? The report examined U.S. service personnel's encounters with abandoned chemical weapons in Iraq – and some conservatives were quick to pounce on the story as evidence that claims by Bush in the lead-up to the war that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction were true and that the United States' 2003 invasion was justified.

The article by Times reporter C.J. Chivers focused on U.S. soldiers who suffered from exposure to the sulfur mustard and other nerve gases which emitted from the bombs. According to the story, about "5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs" were found scattered across Iraqi soil. The U.S. government buried the cases from both the public and the troops. As a result, injured soldiers did not receive proper medical treatment.[/QUOTE]

 

[NotfooledbyW]

So How much time are you giving Daesh terrorist scum to get to Baghdad?

Peach 9603618

Maliki is bringing in troops because he wants a third term; ISIS not there.

BH 9603639

Not yet give them time.

Have you changed your tune on believing that Daesh terrorist scum can reach Baghdad?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NotFooledbyReality...this proves that you are a lying hate filled idiot.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02
2000

No it proves you are all that and don't know how to read a calendar. What do you think "2000" means there? Iraq and the UN were near completion of the disarmament process in March 2003 when Bush decided to invade. Is someone typing posts for you and reading you stuff? What is your problem?

Your evidence has been rejected - you are three years off..

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NotFooledbyReality...this proves that you are a lying hate filled idiot.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02
2000
The council approves a UNMOVIC work plan, but no UNMOVIC inspector sets foot inside Iraq, which still opposes the return of weapons inspectors.

Do you actually believe that no UNMOVIC inspector set foot inside Iraq in January through March 17 2003?

 

[Iceweasel]

NotFooledbyReality...this proves that you are a lying hate filled idiot.

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_10/iraqspecialoct02
2000
The council approves a UNMOVIC work plan, but no UNMOVIC inspector sets foot inside Iraq, which still opposes the return of weapons inspectors.

Do you actually believe that no UNMOVIC inspector set foot inside Iraq in January through March 17 2003?

2003?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

2003?

Yes 2003. That is when Bush forced the UN inspectors to leave Iraq so he could start bombing Iraq and insert ground troops to find the WMD through war, death and destruction and to ignite Shiite/Sunni civil war which led to the creation of AQI and then they changed their name to ISIL/ISIS.