Jeb Bush and the Stabbed in the Back Myth

[bodecea]

You notice the left wants to talk about Everything and everyone else, but their failing party and Conditions under Obamas reign of Terror?

so what do they do. Go back to IRAQ which under Obama has become a nightmare wreak

but what else do you expect from these lib/dems?

go out and say hey, so what, the PEOPLE just kicked US into Minority in Congress under a Democrat President in two historic midterm elections?
losers can't stand on their OWN bs policies we've lived under for the LAST miserable seven years under Obama

So they resort to their dirty politics of GOTCHA questions. because they are Cowards to stand ON THEIR own

Why don't you address the topic of the thread?

 

[JimH52]

You're the one who must be slow, even the NY Slimes admits there were WMDs

Uh, no, they didn't.

They admitted that there were old canisters of mustard gas that had been buried in 1991.

We didn't got to war over expired canisters of mustard gas.

We went to war because Saddam had nukes and anthrax he was going to give to Al Qaeda, ANY MINUTE NOW.

Stop your god damn lying. Every time you get cornered you spin, lie or deflect

This was old ob

For those not familiar with history, after Germany's defeat in World War I, those responsible for the war promoted something known as the "Dolchstoßlegende", or Stabbed in the Back Myth. In short Germany was winning the war, and the Socialists and Jews and the Left stabbed the Army in the back before Victory could be claimed.

This, of course, paved the way for the Nazis to take power and led Germany to an even more devastating defeat in World War II.

As I watch Jeb Bush flip and flop over whether or not he would have went to war with Iraq in 2003 "knowing what we know now', I see the Right trying to create it's own Stabbed in the back myth.

In this one, we get the refrain that "The Intelligence was Wrong" - As if Bush never would have attacked Iraq had the Intelligence community not given him bad intel. This flies in the face of the historical record, where Dick Cheney personally went to CIA headquarters to squeeze the kind of reports they wanted out of the intelligence, and when the CIA wouldn't give them what they wanted, they cited foreign intelligence sources like the story about yellowcake from Niger.

We get the argument that "Democrats thought Saddam had WMD's, too" and "They voted to give Bush the authorization to use force". The problem with these arguments is that they were made before 9/11 and no one was seriously advocating an invasion to get rid of Saddam. It was Bush and his team who ignored the military and intelligence communities advice on how many troops it would take to subdue Iraq and what the reaction to an invasion would be. We heard things like "The invasion will pay for itself" and "our troops would be welcomed as liberators" until it all went to shit and then we heard, "Well, the Democrats voted for the war, too."

And then we get the argument that the reason why Iraq has collapsed into Civil War was because "Obama pulled out too soon." forgetting the fact that Bush had negotiated a withdrawal and the Iraqis didn't want one American boot on their soil after 2011.

In short, this kind of revisionist history needs to be addressed. Jeb Bush needs to be pressed on it every time he opens his mouth.

"Given what we know now".....what exactly does Obama know now?

Are you slow? NO WMD! THE WRONG VOUNTRY!

You're the one who must be slow, even the NY Slimes admits there were WMDs

Link

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

You are kidding right? You are saying the discovery of old, obselete, and unstable canisters of mustard gas was a good reason to spend a Billion dollars and kills thousands of people? These were wespons that even Saddam probably forgot that he had. And to boot, WE actually helped him develop the weapons.

"The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West."

Now get serious and send me a link that proves we found the WMD that DICK and W said was there. Remember the tubes for the nuclear centrifuges? Show me something that makes your point. Otherwise, admit you lied and failed. Even the GOP is now running from Bush's war in Irag. Why are you holding on to the major mistake of a recovering alcoholic?

 

[bodecea]

For those not familiar with history, after Germany's defeat in World War I, those responsible for the war promoted something known as the "Dolchstoßlegende", or Stabbed in the Back Myth. In short Germany was winning the war, and the Socialists and Jews and the Left stabbed the Army in the back before Victory could be claimed.

This, of course, paved the way for the Nazis to take power and led Germany to an even more devastating defeat in World War II.

As I watch Jeb Bush flip and flop over whether or not he would have went to war with Iraq in 2003 "knowing what we know now', I see the Right trying to create it's own Stabbed in the back myth.

In this one, we get the refrain that "The Intelligence was Wrong" - As if Bush never would have attacked Iraq had the Intelligence community not given him bad intel. This flies in the face of the historical record, where Dick Cheney personally went to CIA headquarters to squeeze the kind of reports they wanted out of the intelligence, and when the CIA wouldn't give them what they wanted, they cited foreign intelligence sources like the story about yellowcake from Niger.

We get the argument that "Democrats thought Saddam had WMD's, too" and "They voted to give Bush the authorization to use force". The problem with these arguments is that they were made before 9/11 and no one was seriously advocating an invasion to get rid of Saddam. It was Bush and his team who ignored the military and intelligence communities advice on how many troops it would take to subdue Iraq and what the reaction to an invasion would be. We heard things like "The invasion will pay for itself" and "our troops would be welcomed as liberators" until it all went to shit and then we heard, "Well, the Democrats voted for the war, too."

And then we get the argument that the reason why Iraq has collapsed into Civil War was because "Obama pulled out too soon." forgetting the fact that Bush had negotiated a withdrawal and the Iraqis didn't want one American boot on their soil after 2011.

In short, this kind of revisionist history needs to be addressed. Jeb Bush needs to be pressed on it every time he opens his mouth.

"Given what we know now".....what exactly does Obama know now?

Are you slow? NO WMD! THE WRONG VOUNTRY!

You're the one who must be slow, even the NY Slimes admits there were WMDs

Where does the "NY Slimes" state that? link for us or be known to make it all up.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You're the one who must be slow, even the NY Slimes admits there were WMDs

Uh, no, they didn't.

They admitted that there were old canisters of mustard gas that had been buried in 1991.

We didn't got to war over expired canisters of mustard gas.

We went to war because Saddam had nukes and anthrax he was going to give to Al Qaeda, ANY MINUTE NOW.

Stop your god damn lying. Every time you get cornered you spin, lie or deflect

This was old ob

"Given what we know now".....what exactly does Obama know now?

Are you slow? NO WMD! THE WRONG VOUNTRY!

You're the one who must be slow, even the NY Slimes admits there were WMDs

Link

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

You are kidding right? You are saying the discovery of old, obselete, and unstable canisters of mustard gas was a good reason to spend a Billion dollars and kills thousands of people? These were wespons that even Saddam probably forgot that he had. And to boot, WE actually helped him develop the weapons.

"The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West."

Now get serious and send me a link that proves we found the WMD that DICK and W said was there. Remember the tubes for the nuclear centrifuges? Show me something that makes your point. Otherwise, admit you lied and failed. Even the GOP is now running from Bush's war in Irag. Why are you holding on to the major mistake of a recovering alcoholic?

GFY, I don't know why I even bother with you. You're an ignorant, lying jackass

 

[JimH52]

You're the one who must be slow, even the NY Slimes admits there were WMDs

Uh, no, they didn't.

They admitted that there were old canisters of mustard gas that had been buried in 1991.

We didn't got to war over expired canisters of mustard gas.

We went to war because Saddam had nukes and anthrax he was going to give to Al Qaeda, ANY MINUTE NOW.

Stop your god damn lying. Every time you get cornered you spin, lie or deflect

This was old ob

Are you slow? NO WMD! THE WRONG VOUNTRY!

You're the one who must be slow, even the NY Slimes admits there were WMDs

Link

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

You are kidding right? You are saying the discovery of old, obselete, and unstable canisters of mustard gas was a good reason to spend a Billion dollars and kills thousands of people? These were wespons that even Saddam probably forgot that he had. And to boot, WE actually helped him develop the weapons.

"The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West."

Now get serious and send me a link that proves we found the WMD that DICK and W said was there. Remember the tubes for the nuclear centrifuges? Show me something that makes your point. Otherwise, admit you lied and failed. Even the GOP is now running from Bush's war in Irag. Why are you holding on to the major mistake of a recovering alcoholic?

GFY, I don't know why I even bother with you. You're an ignorant, lying jackass

Typical RW response. When you are caught in a lie and won't admit that you are cooking the facts, just like W and DICK did, you revert to name calling and obscenities. I am sorry for you. You must live in a very dark and depressing world.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You're the one who must be slow, even the NY Slimes admits there were WMDs

Uh, no, they didn't.

They admitted that there were old canisters of mustard gas that had been buried in 1991.

We didn't got to war over expired canisters of mustard gas.

We went to war because Saddam had nukes and anthrax he was going to give to Al Qaeda, ANY MINUTE NOW.

Stop your god damn lying. Every time you get cornered you spin, lie or deflect

This was old ob

You're the one who must be slow, even the NY Slimes admits there were WMDs

Link

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

You are kidding right? You are saying the discovery of old, obselete, and unstable canisters of mustard gas was a good reason to spend a Billion dollars and kills thousands of people? These were wespons that even Saddam probably forgot that he had. And to boot, WE actually helped him develop the weapons.

"The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West."

Now get serious and send me a link that proves we found the WMD that DICK and W said was there. Remember the tubes for the nuclear centrifuges? Show me something that makes your point. Otherwise, admit you lied and failed. Even the GOP is now running from Bush's war in Irag. Why are you holding on to the major mistake of a recovering alcoholic?

GFY, I don't know why I even bother with you. You're an ignorant, lying jackass

Typical RW response. When you are caught in a lie and won't admit that you are cooking the facts, just like W and DICK did, you revert to name calling and obscenities. I am sorry for you. You must live in a very dark and depressing world.

I wasn't caught in a lie, you were. Moron go bother someone that gives a fuck what you blabber about.

 

[JoeB131]

You're a clueless idiot, what's sad is numerous people tell you that but you keep going through life clueless. Typical left loon

Your concession of the point is duly noted.

But for those interested in facts.

No Bush was not right about Iraq How conservatives misread new Times bombshell - Salon.com

It’s incredible that I have to write this sentence in October 2014, but here it goes. No, George W. Bush was not right about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Now, I know what you’re going say. “But look! The Times says they found WMDs in Iraq! The liberal media was wrong! Bush was right!” No, Bush was still very wrong. Very, very wrong.

Before we get into the actual reasons for why this doesn’t vindicate Bush, let’s think about this logically for moment. If the presence of these weapons proved Bush correct, then it stands to reason that the Bush administration would have come out at some point and said “hey, look at these weapons, we got it right.” But they never did that. They knew the weapons were there, and they had many years to wave them around as proof positive that they didn’t get many thousands of people killed based on false information, so why didn’t they do it?

The reason is very simple, and the Times report conservatives are claiming vindicates Bush actually explains very clearly why it does no such thing: “The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.” Many of the weapons, according to the Times, “appeared to have been designed in the United States, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies.”

The discovery of old, degraded chemical munitions in Iraq is not news. The Bush administration went to war expecting to find older weapons, along with a thriving new chemical weapons program (that didn’t exist). Ten years ago, the final report of the weapons inspectors sent to find Saddam Hussein’s WMDs (commonly known as the Duelfer Report) was released, and it noted that “a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered” in the country, but that Iraq had not produced any new weapons.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You're a clueless idiot, what's sad is numerous people tell you that but you keep going through life clueless. Typical left loon

Your concession of the point is duly noted.

But for those interested in facts.

No Bush was not right about Iraq How conservatives misread new Times bombshell - Salon.com

It’s incredible that I have to write this sentence in October 2014, but here it goes. No, George W. Bush was not right about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Now, I know what you’re going say. “But look! The Times says they found WMDs in Iraq! The liberal media was wrong! Bush was right!” No, Bush was still very wrong. Very, very wrong.

Before we get into the actual reasons for why this doesn’t vindicate Bush, let’s think about this logically for moment. If the presence of these weapons proved Bush correct, then it stands to reason that the Bush administration would have come out at some point and said “hey, look at these weapons, we got it right.” But they never did that. They knew the weapons were there, and they had many years to wave them around as proof positive that they didn’t get many thousands of people killed based on false information, so why didn’t they do it?

The reason is very simple, and the Times report conservatives are claiming vindicates Bush actually explains very clearly why it does no such thing: “The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.” Many of the weapons, according to the Times, “appeared to have been designed in the United States, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies.”

The discovery of old, degraded chemical munitions in Iraq is not news. The Bush administration went to war expecting to find older weapons, along with a thriving new chemical weapons program (that didn’t exist). Ten years ago, the final report of the weapons inspectors sent to find Saddam Hussein’s WMDs (commonly known as the Duelfer Report) was released, and it noted that “a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered” in the country, but that Iraq had not produced any new weapons.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA @ Salon

 

[deltex1]

You're a clueless idiot, what's sad is numerous people tell you that but you keep going through life clueless. Typical left loon

Your concession of the point is duly noted.

But for those interested in facts.

No Bush was not right about Iraq How conservatives misread new Times bombshell - Salon.com

It’s incredible that I have to write this sentence in October 2014, but here it goes. No, George W. Bush was not right about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Now, I know what you’re going say. “But look! The Times says they found WMDs in Iraq! The liberal media was wrong! Bush was right!” No, Bush was still very wrong. Very, very wrong.

Before we get into the actual reasons for why this doesn’t vindicate Bush, let’s think about this logically for moment. If the presence of these weapons proved Bush correct, then it stands to reason that the Bush administration would have come out at some point and said “hey, look at these weapons, we got it right.” But they never did that. They knew the weapons were there, and they had many years to wave them around as proof positive that they didn’t get many thousands of people killed based on false information, so why didn’t they do it?

The reason is very simple, and the Times report conservatives are claiming vindicates Bush actually explains very clearly why it does no such thing: “The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.” Many of the weapons, according to the Times, “appeared to have been designed in the United States, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies.”

The discovery of old, degraded chemical munitions in Iraq is not news. The Bush administration went to war expecting to find older weapons, along with a thriving new chemical weapons program (that didn’t exist). Ten years ago, the final report of the weapons inspectors sent to find Saddam Hussein’s WMDs (commonly known as the Duelfer Report) was released, and it noted that “a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered” in the country, but that Iraq had not produced any new weapons.

The WMD was not acknowledged so as not to embarrass the source of said WMD.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

You're a clueless idiot, what's sad is numerous people tell you that but you keep going through life clueless. Typical left loon

Your concession of the point is duly noted.

But for those interested in facts.

No Bush was not right about Iraq How conservatives misread new Times bombshell - Salon.com

It’s incredible that I have to write this sentence in October 2014, but here it goes. No, George W. Bush was not right about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Now, I know what you’re going say. “But look! The Times says they found WMDs in Iraq! The liberal media was wrong! Bush was right!” No, Bush was still very wrong. Very, very wrong.

Before we get into the actual reasons for why this doesn’t vindicate Bush, let’s think about this logically for moment. If the presence of these weapons proved Bush correct, then it stands to reason that the Bush administration would have come out at some point and said “hey, look at these weapons, we got it right.” But they never did that. They knew the weapons were there, and they had many years to wave them around as proof positive that they didn’t get many thousands of people killed based on false information, so why didn’t they do it?

The reason is very simple, and the Times report conservatives are claiming vindicates Bush actually explains very clearly why it does no such thing: “The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.” Many of the weapons, according to the Times, “appeared to have been designed in the United States, manufactured in Europe and filled in chemical agent production lines built in Iraq by Western companies.”

The discovery of old, degraded chemical munitions in Iraq is not news. The Bush administration went to war expecting to find older weapons, along with a thriving new chemical weapons program (that didn’t exist). Ten years ago, the final report of the weapons inspectors sent to find Saddam Hussein’s WMDs (commonly known as the Duelfer Report) was released, and it noted that “a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered” in the country, but that Iraq had not produced any new weapons.

The WMD was not acknowledged so as not to embarrass the source of said WMD.

The "former republican" thinks Saddam killed the Kurds with insults

 

[PredFan]

1. The intelligence was correct, there WERE WMDs in Iraq.

2. The democrats not only authorized war in Iraq, but they did it when GWB asked them to AFTER 9/11

Talk about revisionist history! The OP is loaded with it.

 

[JoeB131]

The WMD was not acknowledged so as not to embarrass the source of said WMD.

Or it wasn't acknowledged because it would have sounded like the guy who claims hew as going after Moby Dick coming back with a fish that wasn't even a legal keeper.

Point was, these rusted munitions buried in 1991 were NOT a threat to the US, they weren't even potent at that point. They were not the "Mushroom Cloud" that Condi Rice and Dick Cheney constantly talked about in the run up to the war.

 

[MarcATL]

For those not familiar with history, after Germany's defeat in World War I, those responsible for the war promoted something known as the "Dolchstoßlegende", or Stabbed in the Back Myth. In short Germany was winning the war, and the Socialists and Jews and the Left stabbed the Army in the back before Victory could be claimed.

This, of course, paved the way for the Nazis to take power and led Germany to an even more devastating defeat in World War II.

As I watch Jeb Bush flip and flop over whether or not he would have went to war with Iraq in 2003 "knowing what we know now', I see the Right trying to create it's own Stabbed in the back myth.

In this one, we get the refrain that "The Intelligence was Wrong" - As if Bush never would have attacked Iraq had the Intelligence community not given him bad intel. This flies in the face of the historical record, where Dick Cheney personally went to CIA headquarters to squeeze the kind of reports they wanted out of the intelligence, and when the CIA wouldn't give them what they wanted, they cited foreign intelligence sources like the story about yellowcake from Niger.

We get the argument that "Democrats thought Saddam had WMD's, too" and "They voted to give Bush the authorization to use force". The problem with these arguments is that they were made before 9/11 and no one was seriously advocating an invasion to get rid of Saddam. It was Bush and his team who ignored the military and intelligence communities advice on how many troops it would take to subdue Iraq and what the reaction to an invasion would be. We heard things like "The invasion will pay for itself" and "our troops would be welcomed as liberators" until it all went to shit and then we heard, "Well, the Democrats voted for the war, too."

And then we get the argument that the reason why Iraq has collapsed into Civil War was because "Obama pulled out too soon." forgetting the fact that Bush had negotiated a withdrawal and the Iraqis didn't want one American boot on their soil after 2011.

In short, this kind of revisionist history needs to be addressed. Jeb Bush needs to be pressed on it every time he opens his mouth.

Powerful thread. Powerful.

 

[JoeB131]

The "former republican" thinks Saddam killed the Kurds with insults

No, they mostly killed them with bullets. Here's the thing about chemical weapons. They really scare the shit out of people, but they aren't very effective. They weren't particularly effective in WWI, the only time they were used on a large scale. They weren't used in WWII at all.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The "former republican" thinks Saddam killed the Kurds with insults

No, they mostly killed them with bullets. Here's the thing about chemical weapons. They really scare the shit out of people, but they aren't very effective. They weren't particularly effective in WWI, the only time they were used on a large scale. They weren't used in WWII at all.

 

[MarcATL]

You're the one who must be slow, even the NY Slimes admits there were WMDs

Uh, no, they didn't.

They admitted that there were old canisters of mustard gas that had been buried in 1991.

We didn't got to war over expired canisters of mustard gas.

We went to war because Saddam had nukes and anthrax he was going to give to Al Qaeda, ANY MINUTE NOW.

THANK YOU!!!!

 

[JoeB131]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA @ Salon

I realize Salon is well above your literacy level, as you are still struggling with Green Eggs and Ham, but now about answering their point. If WMD's were found, why didn't Bush get out, make a national announcement 'We found WMD's! We were vindicated!"

In fact, Rick Santorum wanted them to do EXACTLY that in 2006. They refused to.

Defense Department Disavows Santorum s WMD Claims ThinkProgress

Today, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) held a press conference and announced “we have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” Santorum and Hoekstra are hyping a document that describes degraded, pre-1991 munitions that were alreadyacknowledged by the White House’s Iraq Survey Group and dismissed.

Fox News’ Jim Angle contacted the Defense Department who quickly disavowed Santorum and Hoekstra’s claims. A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are “not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”

Woooo.. BURN!!!!

 

[JoeB131]

The "former republican" thinks Saddam killed the Kurds with insults

No, they mostly killed them with bullets. Here's the thing about chemical weapons. They really scare the shit out of people, but they aren't very effective. They weren't particularly effective in WWI, the only time they were used on a large scale. They weren't used in WWII at all.

Again, your concession is duly noted. I'm just not sure why you put yourself in for this sort of punishment.

 

[MarcATL]

Stop your god damn lying. Every time you get cornered you spin, lie or deflect

No, you try to pretend you know anything about military stuff, which you don't.

No one went to war over canisters of mustard gas buried in 1991. That's not how Bush sold the war.

SassyIrishAss is simply a far right wing radical partisan hack who's sole job is to lie and defend Republicans at all cost

Plain and simple.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Keep stabbing jeb, joe. Get his ass out of the primaries.