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

[The Rabbi]

So now you're a George Will fan?
Who cares? Bush won the Iraq War, Obama lost it.
Obama lost in Afghanistan
Obama's foreign policy is the worst in history.

No, Bush didn"t. You lie the moment you open your mouth, you disgusting fuckwad.

Now, on to the OP: interesting stuff, considering the George Will sang Pres. Bush's praises for a long, long, long time.

Did you fart? You have nothing to contribute here, Statistheilhitler. The laundry called. Your brown shirt is ready.

 

[The Rabbi]

So now you're a George Will fan?
Who cares? Bush won the Iraq War, Obama lost it.
Obama lost in Afghanistan
Obama's foreign policy is the worst in history.

And yet not a single poster on the board actually believes that, and neither do you.

My god man....what would it cost you to actually be objective and a little honest?

It would cost him the price of acquiring an ounce of character.

You support lying cheating scumbag Democrats and applaud them for lying.
What could you possibly know about character?

I PROVED you have none in that racism thread where you lied about your racism and kept lying about it even after your verbatim quotes had been shoved in your face.

That's what I know.

You know nothng. You proved nothing. You dont know what racism is nor could you disprove any of my factual statements.

 

[kaz]

This is more indication that it was not a failure or mistake to abide by the terms of the 2008 Bush Maliki SOFA when Obama presided over the end of the war that truly was the worst foreign policy decision in U.S. history.

Please, showing again you're StillobsessedwithW. As much as I oppose the Iraq invasion, it wasn't even the worst policy failure happening in 2003. That would be trying to nation build in Afghanistan. A monumentally stupid idea that has failed repeatedly through history.

As for history though, these are a few no brainer worse than Iraq:
Treaty of Paris:
Spanish American War
The Vietnam war
Letting Russia take half of Europe after WWII
The Bay of Pigs

While it wasn't our job, at least we took out a despot who started two middle east wars by invading other nations, used chemical weapons on both other countries and his own people, killed hundreds of thousands of Shiites, funded terrorism and tried to murder as many Kurds as he could. To call that the worst is ridiculous.

 

[Saigon]

No, only the blind partisans refuse to believe that.
It is really funny. The libs here simply cannot believe we won the Iraq War. No matter how many times I point out we achieved every objective set in the Congressional Resolution the answer is always "Ya-butt". There's always a caveat, always a carp, always a gripe. They cant let it go.

But you ARE the blind partisan, obviously. It's hardly open to question, surely?

Anyone who can think for themselves will look at events case-by-case and call them as they see them. You can't do that.

I'm baffled you would even bother denying it. You could NEVER, ever support Dems in anything, anymore so than you could criticise your team for anything. That's miles beyond you, dude.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, only the blind partisans refuse to believe that.
It is really funny. The libs here simply cannot believe we won the Iraq War. No matter how many times I point out we achieved every objective set in the Congressional Resolution the answer is always "Ya-butt". There's always a caveat, always a carp, always a gripe. They cant let it go.

But you ARE the blind partisan, obviously. It's hardly open to question, surely?

Anyone who can think for themselves will look at events case-by-case and call them as they see them. You can't do that.

I'm baffled you would even bother denying it. You could NEVER, ever support Dems in anything, anymore so than you could criticise your team for anything. That's miles beyond you, dude.

We did not win the Iraq War because you cannot win a war that you should never have started in the first place.

 

[NYcarbineer]

btw, If this is a genuine, sincere, and unequivocal concession by Will that he was wrong about invading Iraq, then good for him.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, only the blind partisans refuse to believe that.
It is really funny. The libs here simply cannot believe we won the Iraq War. No matter how many times I point out we achieved every objective set in the Congressional Resolution the answer is always "Ya-butt". There's always a caveat, always a carp, always a gripe. They cant let it go.

But you ARE the blind partisan, obviously. It's hardly open to question, surely?

Anyone who can think for themselves will look at events case-by-case and call them as they see them. You can't do that.

I'm baffled you would even bother denying it. You could NEVER, ever support Dems in anything, anymore so than you could criticise your team for anything. That's miles beyond you, dude.

Is it true or false that we achieved every objective we set?

 

[The Rabbi]

No, only the blind partisans refuse to believe that.
It is really funny. The libs here simply cannot believe we won the Iraq War. No matter how many times I point out we achieved every objective set in the Congressional Resolution the answer is always "Ya-butt". There's always a caveat, always a carp, always a gripe. They cant let it go.

But you ARE the blind partisan, obviously. It's hardly open to question, surely?

Anyone who can think for themselves will look at events case-by-case and call them as they see them. You can't do that.

I'm baffled you would even bother denying it. You could NEVER, ever support Dems in anything, anymore so than you could criticise your team for anything. That's miles beyond you, dude.

We did not win the Iraq War because you cannot win a war that you should never have started in the first place.

Seriously? I guess no one won WWI by that measure.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, only the blind partisans refuse to believe that.
It is really funny. The libs here simply cannot believe we won the Iraq War. No matter how many times I point out we achieved every objective set in the Congressional Resolution the answer is always "Ya-butt". There's always a caveat, always a carp, always a gripe. They cant let it go.

But you ARE the blind partisan, obviously. It's hardly open to question, surely?

Anyone who can think for themselves will look at events case-by-case and call them as they see them. You can't do that.

I'm baffled you would even bother denying it. You could NEVER, ever support Dems in anything, anymore so than you could criticise your team for anything. That's miles beyond you, dude.

We did not win the Iraq War because you cannot win a war that you should never have started in the first place.

Seriously? I guess no one won WWI by that measure.

No one did. The eventual consequence of WWI was the rise of Nazism.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, only the blind partisans refuse to believe that.
It is really funny. The libs here simply cannot believe we won the Iraq War. No matter how many times I point out we achieved every objective set in the Congressional Resolution the answer is always "Ya-butt". There's always a caveat, always a carp, always a gripe. They cant let it go.

But you ARE the blind partisan, obviously. It's hardly open to question, surely?

Anyone who can think for themselves will look at events case-by-case and call them as they see them. You can't do that.

I'm baffled you would even bother denying it. You could NEVER, ever support Dems in anything, anymore so than you could criticise your team for anything. That's miles beyond you, dude.

Is it true or false that we achieved every objective we set?

That's irrelevant if the objectives set were not just causes to go to war for in the first place.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, only the blind partisans refuse to believe that.
It is really funny. The libs here simply cannot believe we won the Iraq War. No matter how many times I point out we achieved every objective set in the Congressional Resolution the answer is always "Ya-butt". There's always a caveat, always a carp, always a gripe. They cant let it go.

But you ARE the blind partisan, obviously. It's hardly open to question, surely?

Anyone who can think for themselves will look at events case-by-case and call them as they see them. You can't do that.

I'm baffled you would even bother denying it. You could NEVER, ever support Dems in anything, anymore so than you could criticise your team for anything. That's miles beyond you, dude.

We did not win the Iraq War because you cannot win a war that you should never have started in the first place.

Seriously? I guess no one won WWI by that measure.

No one did. The eventual consequence of WWI was the rise of Nazism.

And the result of WW2 was the rise of the Soviet Union an the Cold War. THe result of that was the rise of Islamic terrorism. ANd the result of that was....
Based on what you sauy no one ever won a war.
You're dismissed.

 

[Mustang]

So now you're a George Will fan?
Who cares? Bush won the Iraq War, Obama lost it.
Obama lost in Afghanistan
Obama's foreign policy is the worst in history.

If Bush won the Iraq War then Modonna (the pop star) successfully fulfilled her 80s and 90s goal to reestablishing chaste behavior as the ideal for young girls.

 

[The Rabbi]

So now you're a George Will fan?
Who cares? Bush won the Iraq War, Obama lost it.
Obama lost in Afghanistan
Obama's foreign policy is the worst in history.

If Bush won the Iraq War then Modonna (the pop star) successfully fulfilled her 80s and 90s goal to reestablishing chaste behavior as the ideal for young girls.

Not sure who "Modonna" is. So you might be right

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NYc 10165694

We did not win the Iraq War because you cannot win a war that you should never have started in the first place.

That is true and it is underscored by the fact that the objective for the invasion was not attainable because there were no WMD to be removed from the possession of the Baathist regime. There is no victory in a war that was initiated to end a threat that did not exist.

 

[deltex1]

(1) Executive Branch statements about goals for the Iraq War

(a) “Victory In Iraq Defined“, part of Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, November 2005:

Helping the Iraqi People Defeat the Terrorists and Build an Inclusive Democratic State

As the central front in the global war on terror, success in Iraq is an essential element in the long war against the ideology that breeds international terrorism. Unlike past wars, however, victory in Iraq will not come in the form of an enemy’s surrender, or be signaled by a single particular event — there will be no Battleship Missouri, no Appomattox. The ultimate victory will be achieved in stages, and we expect:

In the short term:

An Iraq that is making steady progress in fighting terrorists and neutralizing the insurgency, meeting political milestones; building democratic institutions; standing up robust security forces to gather intelligence, destroy terrorist networks, and maintain security; and tackling key economic reforms to lay the foundation for a sound economy.

In the medium term:

An Iraq that is in the lead defeating terrorists and insurgents and providing its own security, with a constitutional, elected government in place, providing an inspiring example to reformers in the region, and well on its way to achieving its economic potential.

In the longer term:

(a) An Iraq that has defeated the terrorists and neutral

(b) An Iraq that is peaceful, united, stable, democratic, and secure, where Iraqis have the institutions and resources they need to govern themselves justly and provide security for their country.

(c) An Iraq that is a partner in the global war on terror and the fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, integrated into the international community, an engine for regional economic growth, and proving the fruits of democratic governance to the region.

(b) Highlights of the Iraq Strategy Review, National Security Council, January 2007

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Sounds to me like was being objective. And I agree with him.
And you are arrogantly presumptuous.

Or do you honestly think that an administration's actions in countries as turbulent as Libya, Syria or Iraq are based on some kind of liberal vs conservative strategy, and never the 'twain shall meet?

Well, duh! The uber-lefty obama undermined the efforts and successes of the Bush-era in Iraq in order to appease his insulated, neocon, stuck-in-the-60's, anti-Vietnam war constituencies.

 

[Redfish]

Certainly a terrible decision, but I can think of a half dozen that must rank as much worse.

But certainly I think everyone realises what a terrible mistake the Iraq invasion was, and it baffles me that even the most staunch Republican would say otherwise. It is always better to learn from history than just pretend that an obvious failure was a notable success.

both parties authorized and funded the iraq fiasco. Bush did not do it alone. They were ALL wrong, just as they were ALL wrong on Viet Nam.

 

[BullKurtz]

Will has never understood Iraq....that's okay, he doesn't know much about baseball either. ABC threw him out because he's like Peggy Noonan wearing a bow tie...self-absorbed and boring. Few leftists will ever get over Iraq which is weird because none of them had the guts to go there, right or wrong. Same as our era dirtbags...they wanted Vietnam lost to prove everybody else wrong. It's what they were taught by fellow travelers in the public schools....if we ever intend this Nation to be anything but a sodomite sewer again, the schools must be closed, boarded up, every teacher and admin fired...have a national debate about what we want future children taught and by whom before those schools reopen the doors.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

BB 10165493

The libs here simply cannot believe we won the Iraq War. No matter how many times I point out we achieved every objective set in the Congressional Resolution the answer is always "Ya-butt".

There is no "Ya" "yes" or "yeah" in my rebuttal to your fooled-by-Bush delusions. Military force against Iraq was authorized in the October 2002 AUMF for only two reasons. Both were required.It was not one or the other.

One was IF it became necessary to protect the national security of the USA. The second was IF it was necessary to enforce relevant UNSC resolutions with regard to Iraq. One month after the AUMF was passed and at Bush's request, the UNSC unanimously passed Resolution 1441. That resolution gave Saddam Hussein a final opportunity to comply with all the resolutions filed against his regime over the years.

So Bush did not achieve the one critical AUMF objective to enforce UNSC resolutions to disarm Iraq at all or from the start. In fact Bush defied UNSC 1441 and did the opposite of enforcing it. So how was it that the AUMF objective was achieved when the objective was to disarm Iraq without war if possible. But Bush started a war after telling the UN inspectors to leave.

You can't build a case based on the AUMF. Trying to do that is absurd.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

And here everyone was thinking it was JFKs and LBJs adventures in Vietnam.... Lol