George Will says W 2003 decision is worst foreign policy decision in U.S. history

[Redfish]

Maybe George Will has done this just to position himself to be better able to attack presumptive Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016 for her support of the Iraq War...

...eh?

She isn't even a presumptive candidate at this point. The momentum is all for Fauxcohontas Warren, Chief Big Bullshitter.

Is that why you're exhibiting so much fear of her?

Fear of whom? Hillary, whom the Dems cant stand, or Warren, who couldnt get elected dog catcher?

She's a US Senator, retard.

So was obama, whats your point?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Redfish, Kosh, and bigrebnc have failed in this thread. They will not answer the points, merely shout and vilify, like four year olds.

Bush had several options to choose from in 2003.

He chose the wrong one that has further destabilized the ME.

The neo-cons will be vilified by historians as have the isolationists of the later 1930s. Rightfully so.

Yes, going into Iraq as we did was a mistake, we agree.

What we don't agree on is your claim that Bush did it all on his own.

The truth is that both parties bought the bogus intel and authorized and funded the Iraq fiasco.

Bush pulled the trigger. Nobody else had control of that trigger.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So lets ban all lobbying and the legal bribery known as political contributions from all organizations, including unions. OK?

Yep!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Maybe George Will has done this just to position himself to be better able to attack presumptive Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016 for her support of the Iraq War...

...eh?

She isn't even a presumptive candidate at this point. The momentum is all for Fauxcohontas Warren, Chief Big Bullshitter.

Is that why you're exhibiting so much fear of her?

Fear of whom? Hillary, whom the Dems cant stand, or Warren, who couldnt get elected dog catcher?

She's a US Senator, retard.

So was obama, whats your point?

Your mentally retarded boyfriend Rabbi said she couldn't get elected dogcatcher.

 

[Kosh]

Redfish, Kosh, and bigrebnc have failed in this thread. They will not answer the points, merely shout and vilify, like four year olds.

Bush had several options to choose from in 2003.

He chose the wrong one that has further destabilized the ME.

The neo-cons will be vilified by historians as have the isolationists of the later 1930s. Rightfully so.

Yes, going into Iraq as we did was a mistake, we agree.

What we don't agree on is your claim that Bush did it all on his own.

The truth is that both parties bought the bogus intel and authorized and funded the Iraq fiasco.

Bush pulled the trigger. Nobody else had control of that trigger.

Nope! Bush unlike Obama went to congress before he did anything..

On the other hand the far left clearly supports Obama's illegal wars..

 

[Redfish]

She isn't even a presumptive candidate at this point. The momentum is all for Fauxcohontas Warren, Chief Big Bullshitter.

Is that why you're exhibiting so much fear of her?

Fear of whom? Hillary, whom the Dems cant stand, or Warren, who couldnt get elected dog catcher?

She's a US Senator, retard.

So was obama, whats your point?

Your mentally retarded boyfriend Rabbi said she couldn't get elected dogcatcher.

did she run for dogcatcher? I think his point was that on the national stage she could not win any office, even national dogcatcher.

 

[The Rabbi]

Redfish, Kosh, and bigrebnc have failed in this thread. They will not answer the points, merely shout and vilify, like four year olds.

Bush had several options to choose from in 2003.

He chose the wrong one that has further destabilized the ME.

The neo-cons will be vilified by historians as have the isolationists of the later 1930s. Rightfully so.

Yes, going into Iraq as we did was a mistake, we agree.

What we don't agree on is your claim that Bush did it all on his own.

The truth is that both parties bought the bogus intel and authorized and funded the Iraq fiasco.

Bush pulled the trigger. Nobody else had control of that trigger.

That's wrong. Congress could have voted not to fund the war at any time. And in fact the Dems passed resolution after resolution condemming the war but never voted to cut funds.

 

[The Rabbi]

She isn't even a presumptive candidate at this point. The momentum is all for Fauxcohontas Warren, Chief Big Bullshitter.

Is that why you're exhibiting so much fear of her?

Fear of whom? Hillary, whom the Dems cant stand, or Warren, who couldnt get elected dog catcher?

She's a US Senator, retard.

So was obama, whats your point?

Your mentally retarded boyfriend Rabbi said she couldn't get elected dogcatcher.

Which is true. Outside of Assholechuessettes no one takes her seriously.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Let me make sure I understand what you are claiming. Are you claiming that the war in Iraq was started and continued in order to make money for Halliburton? Is that your claim?

If so, is obama also on their payroll for continuing that war and starting another one in Syria?

Nope, it's not what I am claiming. However this is one more reason to go in.

The first reason was for oil. However a prolonging of the situation helped companies like Halliburton and others. A flare up of problems like with ISIS also helps problems and to keep such businesses wanting it to keep going. So why not invade Iraq and then make the most of the situation. There were 10 good reasons to mess it up.

 

[Redfish]

Let me make sure I understand what you are claiming. Are you claiming that the war in Iraq was started and continued in order to make money for Halliburton? Is that your claim?

If so, is obama also on their payroll for continuing that war and starting another one in Syria?

Nope, it's not what I am claiming. However this is one more reason to go in.

The first reason was for oil. However a prolonging of the situation helped companies like Halliburton and others. A flare up of problems like with ISIS also helps problems and to keep such businesses wanting it to keep going. So why not invade Iraq and then make the most of the situation. There were 10 good reasons to mess it up.

If you really think that our government is that corrupt, then you must support revolution or secession. Do you really believe that our government would sacrifice the lives of american kids in order to make corporate profits?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Invading Iraq, revolution, or secession?

Gloom'n'Doom from the extreme far right.

 

[Kosh]

Invading Iraq, revolution, or secession?

Gloom'n'Doom from the extreme far right.

And the far left would much rather see the world burn than admit they were wrong!

Obama cuts and runs, starts illegal wars, dissolves due process and the far left still defends their messiah at all costs.

More proof that the far left left should not be in charge of anything dealing with government..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, what a bunch of horse crap from the subversive far rightbot.

George Will is right, your far side is wrong. Mitch and John are not listening to you guys at all.

 

[Kosh]

Oh, what a bunch of horse crap from the subversive far rightbot.

George Will is right, your far side is wrong. Mitch and John are not listening to you guys at all.

Yes we know you are trying to get your post count up!!

The far left will drone on and on instead of admitting they were wrong!

They support Obama's illegal wars and dissolving Due Process..

 

[frigidweirdo]

If you really think that our government is that corrupt, then you must support revolution or secession. Do you really believe that our government would sacrifice the lives of american kids in order to make corporate profits?

No, I support a change in the way elections are held so that the people actually have a choice in the matter.

Do I believe that the govt would sacrifice the lives of American kids for profits. Hell yes I do.

These same people convinced Bolivia to privatize their water industry among many industries for some nice loans for the immoral corrupt people at the World Bank, this left 25% of the citizens of La Paz without water. They did this for profit. Did they blink an eye lid? No they did not, in fact they were spending their extra money on themselves.

Iraq was for cheaper oil. 5,00 Americans, who knows how many Iraqis died so they could pay less for their fuel. Did they give a damn about the Americans and British soldiers being killed? No they did not. I doubt they even thought about it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ninja 10175273

you trust the UN inspectors?

Absolutely! And a thousand times more than I would trust a man who claimed this was just cause for starting a war.

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

That is because inspectors were right which was proven by the fact after the war started there were no WMD to be found in Iraq of any real consequence - Iraq did not have 'the most lethal weapons ever devised' bu. But Bush was not just wrong - Bush lied on March 17 2003 to the American people and the military people whom he was about to get them engaged in a major unnecessary war that he was not prepared to engage at all. He lied because ten days earlier he had no intelligence that allowed him to make that claim. Ten Days earlier he would have allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power.as was documented in a draft resolution that he authorized to be sent to the UN Security Council giving that council ten days to declare Iraq in compliance or authorize war. If the council had ten days to declare Iraq in compliance it means that Bush did not have intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised.

Think about it. Bush lied about the intelligence he had to justify starting a war. And think about the UN Inspectors being right when they did not find evidence of WMD being hidden in Iraq while Bush was lying on the world stage.

And you question trusting the inspectors. What is wrong with you. hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved had we told Bush to go to hell with his damned bad idea about starting a war in Iraq.

Bill Clinton and other democrats said the same exact thing about Saddam in 98 and 99
and don't ask for a link because if you do it proves you are a partisan hack
It's a known fact that clinton and other democrats were beating the war drum for Iraq.

And Clinton responded to Saddam's violations with three days of shock and awe from Dec. 16 - 19, 1998 He sent approx. 1,000 bombs and cruise missiles into Iraq that destroyed palaces, barracks, military facilities and a long list of suspected WMD storage and development sites. No ground troops or invasion necessary. No American casualties.

There is no way of knowing if you hit the right target without putting boots on the ground

In December 2002 Saddam Husseon offered just that and idiot Bush turned him down. US military boots and CIA shoes were invited in - peaceably - in order to work with UN inspectors to verify that no WMD stockpiles existed in Iraq. We could have found out what Bush got 4484 Americans killed in Action - that those weapons did not exist. Why didnt Bush give the peaceful boots on the ground a shot. There is no sane reason to have turned down Saddam's offer.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

ninja 10175273

you trust the UN inspectors?

Absolutely! And a thousand times more than I would trust a man who claimed this was just cause for starting a war.

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

That is because inspectors were right which was proven by the fact after the war started there were no WMD to be found in Iraq of any real consequence - Iraq did not have 'the most lethal weapons ever devised' bu. But Bush was not just wrong - Bush lied on March 17 2003 to the American people and the military people whom he was about to get them engaged in a major unnecessary war that he was not prepared to engage at all. He lied because ten days earlier he had no intelligence that allowed him to make that claim. Ten Days earlier he would have allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power.as was documented in a draft resolution that he authorized to be sent to the UN Security Council giving that council ten days to declare Iraq in compliance or authorize war. If the council had ten days to declare Iraq in compliance it means that Bush did not have intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was concealing the most lethal weapons ever devised.

Think about it. Bush lied about the intelligence he had to justify starting a war. And think about the UN Inspectors being right when they did not find evidence of WMD being hidden in Iraq while Bush was lying on the world stage.

And you question trusting the inspectors. What is wrong with you. hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved had we told Bush to go to hell with his damned bad idea about starting a war in Iraq.

Bill Clinton and other democrats said the same exact thing about Saddam in 98 and 99
and don't ask for a link because if you do it proves you are a partisan hack
It's a known fact that clinton and other democrats were beating the war drum for Iraq.

And Clinton responded to Saddam's violations with three days of shock and awe from Dec. 16 - 19, 1998 He sent approx. 1,000 bombs and cruise missiles into Iraq that destroyed palaces, barracks, military facilities and a long list of suspected WMD storage and development sites. No ground troops or invasion necessary. No American casualties.

There is no way of knowing if you hit the right target without putting boots on the ground

In December 2002 Saddam Husseon offered just that and idiot Bush turned him down. US military boots and CIA shoes were invited in - peaceably - in order to work with UN inspectors to verify that no WMD stockpiles existed in Iraq. We could have found out what Bush got 4484 Americans killed in Action - that those weapons did not exist. Why didnt Bush give the peaceful boots on the ground a shot. There is no sane reason to have turned down Saddam's offer.

Dumb ass Saddam was playing cat and mouse with everybody even your beloved UN.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Redfish, Kosh, and bigrebnc have failed in this thread. They will not answer the points, merely shout and vilify, like four year olds.

Bush had several options to choose from in 2003.

He chose the wrong one that has further destabilized the ME.

The neo-cons will be vilified by historians as have the isolationists of the later 1930s. Rightfully so.

Fruit loop you are stupid, even the creators of obamacare called you stupid.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

br 10192475

Dumb ass Saddam was playing cat and mouse with everybody even your beloved UN.

That is not true. In December 2002 SH offered Bush a chance to send the CIA in to Iraq to search for the WMD that he clearly said was not there. Bush rejected the offer.

You are greatly fooled by Dubya if you believe what you said. And we found out after the US invasion that there were no WMD's in Iraq to play cat and mouse over.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

br 10192475

Dumb ass Saddam was playing cat and mouse with everybody even your beloved UN.

That is not true. In December 2002 SH offered Bush a chance to send the CIA in to Iraq to search for the WMD that he clearly said was not there. Bush rejected the offer.

You are greatly fooled by Dubya if you believe what you said. And we found out after the US invasion that there were no WMD's in Iraq to play cat and mouse over.

It most certainly was true.