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

[NotfooledbyW]

Kosh 10175662

So in other words the far left trusted Saddam!

There is no need for 'other words' . My words always suffice. If you cannot cite my words it tells me you cannot lay a glove on them and now you are reaching out of desperation to make your non-truths relevant. I am not 'far left' and I never would have trusted Saddam Hussein on anything.



Kosh 10175662

Even the UN showed that Saddam could not be taken at his word, yet the far left would

I have never suggested that the UN inspectors should take Saddam Hussein or members of his regime seriously and without proper verification. But I do consider the mid-December 2002 offer by Saddam's highest ranking official that was dealing with the UNSC at that time to allow thousands of Americans CIA, FBI and Military to come into Iraq to work alongside the inspectors to try to find the WMD that was suspected of being hidden there. That is not taking SH at his word to accept such a significant offer if the aim was to avoid war. Bush Bush brushed it right off..... Rumsfeld doubted the messenger was a part of Saddam's inner circle. The man making the offer was Amir al Saadi... the Iraqi general who signed all the documents with the UNSC on the inspection agreements and coordination of getting the inspections up and rolling again.

So don't change my words and argue with your versions. You look pathetically weak minded whey you do that.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Kosh 10175667

Once again proving what I have been posting all along, to the far left the history of Iraq began in 2003.

I wrote NF 10175663

The history of the US invasion of Iraq that occurred right in the middle of the UN inspectors conducting the most successful inspection operation in Iraq with Iraq's full cooperation prior to the date that the war was started - did in fact begin in March 2003.

So why did you change that and lie that I wrote it your way? Not me: The history of Iraq began in 2003? Why do you keep up the lie that I represent the far left? Me: The history of Iraq did not start in 2003, but the history of the war started by GWBush when there was no war going on did begin in 2003. The war was called Operation Iraqi Freedom it started in March 2003. It ended in December 2011. It has a history and suffering and Failures all its own. You can't refute that so you change what I write.

 

[Kosh]

Kosh 10175662

So in other words the far left trusted Saddam!

There is no need for 'other words' . My words always suffice. If you cannot cite my words it tells me you cannot lay a glove on them and now you are reaching out of desperation to make your non-truths relevant. I am not 'far left' and I never would have trusted Saddam Hussein on anything.



Kosh 10175662

Even the UN showed that Saddam could not be taken at his word, yet the far left would

I have never suggested that the UN inspectors should take Saddam Hussein or members of his regime seriously and without proper verification. But I do consider the mid-December 2002 offer by Saddam's highest ranking official that was dealing with the UNSC at that time to allow thousands of Americans CIA, FBI and Military to come into Iraq to work alongside the inspectors to try to find the WMD that was suspected of being hidden there. That is not taking SH at his word to accept such a significant offer if the aim was to avoid war. Bush Bush brushed it right off..... Rumsfeld doubted the messenger was a part of Saddam's inner circle. The man making the offer was Amir al Saadi... the Iraqi general who signed all the documents with the UNSC on the inspection agreements and coordination of getting the inspections up and rolling again.

So don't change my words and argue with your versions. You look pathetically weak minded whey you do that.

Actually you did with everyone of your far left propaganda laced posts..

You were saying that we should have trusted Saddam to comply!

That is exactly what you are saying!

You are saying that you trusted Saddam to comply..

When you stop posting far left propaganda then you will stop being called out on it.

But then again the far left believes that the history of Iraq started in 2003.

 

[Kosh]

Kosh 10175667

Once again proving what I have been posting all along, to the far left the history of Iraq began in 2003.

I wrote NF 10175663

The history of the US invasion of Iraq that occurred right in the middle of the UN inspectors conducting the most successful inspection operation in Iraq with Iraq's full cooperation prior to the date that the war was started - did in fact begin in March 2003.

So why did you change that and lie that I wrote , the history of Iraq began in 2003? Why do you keep up the lie that I represent the far left? The history of Iraq did not start in 2003, but the war started by GWBush when there was no war going on did begin in 2003. The war was called Operation Iraqi Freedom it started in March 2003. It ended in December 2011. It has a history and suffering and Failures all its own. You can't refute that so you change what I write.

And you are far left you have proven that even with this post!

You post debunked far left propaganda and expect others to prove you wrong?

So that is a far left poster all the way!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Kosh 10175667

Once again proving what I have been posting all along, to the far left the history of Iraq began in 2003.

I wrote NF 10175663

The history of the US invasion of Iraq that occurred right in the middle of the UN inspectors conducting the most successful inspection operation in Iraq with Iraq's full cooperation prior to the date that the war was started - did in fact begin in March 2003.

NF 10175679

So why did you change that and lie that I wrote , the history of Iraq began in 2003? Why do you keep up the lie that I represent the far left? The history of Iraq did not start in 2003, but the war started by GWBush when there was no war going on did begin in 2003. The war was called Operation Iraqi Freedom it started in March 2003. It ended in December 2011. It has a history and suffering and Failures all its own. You can't refute that so you change what I write.

Kosh 10175683

And you are far left you have proven that even with this post! <> You post debunked far left propaganda and expect others to prove you wrong? <> So that is a far left poster all the way!

You continue to avoid the debate by claiming "to the far left the history of Iraq began in 2003" when this discussion is not about the entire history of Iraq going back to Biblical times or even before then. This discussion is related to the US invasion of Iraq; when it began and when it ended. So do you have some dates in mind when Operation Iraqi Freedom began and ended other than the official dates that I believe are the most honest and factual to go by. Or do you just have a problem with being honest and factual in general?

 

[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.

 

[Camp]

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.

 

[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

 

[Redfish]

doesn't matter. it was a bi-partisan vote. Both parties voted to authorize and fund that fiasco, then as we were about to accomplish something, obama pulled the plug. Now we have ISIS taking over the entire region. Ever since WW2, our foreign policy has been a disaster.

Yeah, a disaster.

That is unless you really want oil producing countries like Iraq, Iran, Venezuela and Libya, who were anti-US, to be unstable as a warning to other OPEC members not to turn against the US or else see their countries turn into raging disasters.
Also unless you happen to be selling weapons to the US govt that continually needs to use them against the growing threat of [insert the group of the moment in the Middle East] who are trying to take over the puppet government of Iraq.
Also unless you happen to have policies that are about being tough on terrorists and other such things (like criminals) and then when there is nothing happening you feel almost naked, now with the problems in the Middle East you can claim to be tough on terror.

So people think it's going swimmingly.

your view of the world is very sad indeed. Your hyper-partisanship has destroyed your ability to think logically. The defective liberal gene is real, you prove it every day

 

[frigidweirdo]

your view of the world is very sad indeed. Your hyper-partisanship has destroyed your ability to think logically. The defective liberal gene is real, you prove it every day

Saying that, if you actually had the ability to have a good argument, would you need to spend your whole time trying to put people down?

You haven't made a point about anything I said. You just insult. Well done you, get a nice star for doing well in class today.

However this isn't hyperpartisan.

This is seeing things for what they really are.

We know the US only goes into military situations when US interests are at play. We know the ONLY two interests at play in Iraq are oil and Israel, and they didn't go in in 2003 because of Israel.

We know it was a complete mess up. We know the longer the occupation lasted the more companies like Halliburton would make. We know that ISIS is being bombed to hell by the USAF and we know defence contractors are making a lot of money selling the USAF these weapons.

Any of this you don't agree with?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

You have to wonder whether they are merely backing their horse blindly, whether they actually like the effects of what has happened, more terror, more fear for their party to fight against, more money going to defence companies and the like, or whether they are just ignorant to what is going on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

They are fighting what they consider "anti-American liberalism" but cannot define what that means with normal definitions and terms. Anybody they don't understand or don't like is merely an evil liberal to them. Ask for explanations, and they just yell louder.

 

[Redfish]

your view of the world is very sad indeed. Your hyper-partisanship has destroyed your ability to think logically. The defective liberal gene is real, you prove it every day

Saying that, if you actually had the ability to have a good argument, would you need to spend your whole time trying to put people down?

You haven't made a point about anything I said. You just insult. Well done you, get a nice star for doing well in class today.

However this isn't hyperpartisan.

This is seeing things for what they really are.

We know the US only goes into military situations when US interests are at play. We know the ONLY two interests at play in Iraq are oil and Israel, and they didn't go in in 2003 because of Israel.

We know it was a complete mess up. We know the longer the occupation lasted the more companies like Halliburton would make. We know that ISIS is being bombed to hell by the USAF and we know defence contractors are making a lot of money selling the USAF these weapons.

Any of this you don't agree with?

I agree that going into Iraq as we did was a mistake, so was going into viet nam. Yes, defense contractors make money, they also provide millions of good paying jobs for american workers.

Halliburton is the only company that does what it does, it takes high risk jobs in dangerous places and is well paid for that. If you don't like them making money, start a company and compete with them.

 

[SwimExpert]

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

His soul, it seems.

Will is correct, as usual. It's really a shame that Will-style Republicans have become such a dying breed. These idiot CINOs don't comprehend that they live in a house built by people like Will, and are trashing the place.

 

[SwimExpert]

I Honestly believe that some of Obamas polices during the arab spring with Eytpt, Lybia, syria and iraq rank far worse than the invasion of iraq.

There is definitely plenty of room to argue that perspective. But it's also worth noting that the alternative was to double down on the flawed approach of World Police interventionism.

 

[1776]

The US military won the war in Iraq, the politicians lost the control of Iraq because of mistakes with the rebuilding process. Removing Saddam was a good and smart choice, the mistakes following up that choice don't change that fact.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I agree that going into Iraq as we did was a mistake, so was going into viet nam. Yes, defense contractors make money, they also provide millions of good paying jobs for american workers.

Halliburton is the only company that does what it does, it takes high risk jobs in dangerous places and is well paid for that. If you don't like them making money, start a company and compete with them.

You've move this away from what we're talking about.

It isn't about Halliburton making money from a necessary situation. This is Halliburton making a LOT of money from a situation which has lasted far longer than it should have done. A situation that was made longer right at the start when they made an absolute balls up of the post war period and made sure there was a huge power vacuum that was clearly going to be filled by someone.

Now, the question everyone has to ask is, was this done on purpose. A destabilized OPEC country not only benefits the Republican Party who want to be tough on terror (you need terror to be tough on it) but it also benefits those who give a lot of money to the Republican Party.

Halliburton is a perfect example of this.

OpenSecrets.org Search

Top Contributor to member. How many Republicans can you see? In 2014 alone, I've posted below. Halliburton is the top contributor to all of these. There are two Democrats in this list. Gene Green from Texas and John Barrow from Georgia. Both are known as Republican states. Barrow has been targeted by the Republicans as a seat they feel they can win. Happens to be the only white democrat in the south.
Both are on the Energy and Commerce Committee, which is probably why they get money from Halliburton. The Chairman, Fred Upton also appears on this list. Without Halliburton the coffers of the Republican Party would be a little lighter.

• Halliburton Co to Andy Harris (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Bill Flores (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Bill Johnson (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Bill Shuster (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Blake Farenthold (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Bob Gibbs (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Charles W. Boustany Jr (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Chris Stewart (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Cory Gardner (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Cynthia Marie Lummis (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Darrell Issa (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Dave Camp (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Dean Heller (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Diane Black (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Doc Hastings (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Douglas L. Lamborn (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Fred Upton (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Gene Green (D) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Glenn Thompson (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to James E. Risch (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to James Lankford (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to James M. Inhofe (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Jeff Duncan (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Jeff Sessions (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to John Barrow (D) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to John Culberson (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to John L. Mica (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Kevin Brady (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Kevin Cramer (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Kevin McCarthy (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Louis B. Gohmert Jr (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Markwayne Mullin (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Pete Olson (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Randy Weber (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Rob Bishop (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Scott Tipton (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Steve Scalise (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Steven Daines (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Ted Cruz (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Ted Poe (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Thad Cochran (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Tim Scott (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Tim Walberg (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Tom Marino (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Tom McClintock (R) in 2014
• Halliburton Co to Tom Reed (R) in 2014

Lobbying happened to increase massively in 2004. I wonder why.

Basically Halliburton, with a VP in the White House did extremely well out of the Iraq affair.

Other companies will be doing extremely well now, those who produce stuff for the USAF.

US interests at play. The need to keep these wars going is strong in some parts. I don't think Obama is strong enough to stop all of this happening. This is his weakest point.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The US military won the war in Iraq, the politicians lost the control of Iraq because of mistakes with the rebuilding process. Removing Saddam was a good and smart choice, the mistakes following up that choice don't change that fact.

Were they mistakes?

Removing the army and police force was the largest "mistake". It brought a political power vacuum to the streets of Iraq.

The consequences were al-Qaeda in Iraq. Helps Bush, firstly because he said al-Qaeda was there already. Secondly because he wanted Islam to the new common enemy, to have al-Qaeda getting in the news looking bad and killing Americans benefited his position. The media would pick up on it more, would listen more to "the war on terror" and "al-Qaeda" every time he said it and the people would become more and more aware of how bad al-Qaeda are.

The problem in 2001 was Hugo Chavez trying to get OPEC members, especially those who hated the US, onto his side. Iraq was one of these. An unstable Iraq reduced the power of OPEC, reduced the chances of oil prices being artificially manipulated by OPEC.
The coup d'etat against Chavez in 2002 supported by the infamous democracy promotion department of the US govt (which they claim they're going to stop sending to dangerous places) and which took down a democratically elected leader in the name of democracy (who'd make this stuff up?) and to stop the power of OPEC. (and also Libya and the sanctions against Iran)

Also the other consequences were the US would have to spend longer in Iraq and various companies who give lots of money to Republicans would be making a lot of money.

There seem to be too many positives for the Republican Party for this to be merely a mistake in my view.

 

[Londoner]

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.

You are totally insane.

Obama honored an agreement Bush signed.
In October 2008 George W. Bush was president when the Status of Forces Agreement was drafted and ratified by Iraqi lawmakers a month later in November 2008. The pertinent part of the agreement that President Obama honored was that, “All the United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.

With the government and structure he left in place, Bush failed to anticipate the sectarian conflicts that the Surge left in place. Bush didn't understand the region when he invaded, and he didn't understand it when he left it as an unstable powder keg, one that ignited conflicts and power struggles in neighboring Syria
Bush was urged to give representation to the primary sects: Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish - but he didn't understand the region enough to do this, so he left in place a terribly weak government that could not manage the ensuing conflicts (without a terminal U.S. occupation).

Bush was presented with a strategy that called for separating rival sectarian groups through a decentralized federal system of Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia regions. Instead, Bush opted for a temporary, militarily enforced peace that allowed him to claim a temporary victory - a victory that was tenuously held together by a centralized and coercive authoritarianism that did not have the political means to control the region.

Bush left the country much worse than he found it.