Jeb Bush and the Stabbed in the Back Myth

[deltex1]

It's quite ironic...whining about WMD that "weren't there", while closing our eyes to Iran which eveyone acknowledges is about to be "there".

 

[deltex1]

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.

You're saying she is different from your lineup of assholes? ( not acknowledging the truth of what you said)

 

[Flipper]

It seems that Jeb doesn't even want to win. He's just going through the motions, because he's expected to.

Just like Daddy in his second campaign...

 

[JoeB131]

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

Uh, one could hope, but the problem is, he's actually better than most of what you have. Which is kind of a sad commentary on the state of the GOP.

 

[JoeB131]

It's quite ironic...whining about WMD that "weren't there", while closing our eyes to Iran which eveyone acknowledges is about to be "there".

I don't think anyone is closing their eyes to Iran.

I think people are asking sensible questions, like 'Why is this OUR problem, exactly?"

 

[deltex1]

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

Uh, one could hope, but the problem is, he's actually better than most of what you have. Which is kind of a sad commentary on the state of the GOP.

You need to tend to your own pile of shit, Joe.

 

[deltex1]

It's quite ironic...whining about WMD that "weren't there", while closing our eyes to Iran which eveyone acknowledges is about to be "there".

I don't think anyone is closing their eyes to Iran.

I think people are asking sensible questions, like 'Why is this OUR problem, exactly?"

If that's not our problem, we have no problems.

 

[JimH52]

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

Joe just proved you a liar and an idiot and you laugh. Go ahead and spew some more obscenities, if it makes you feel better.

 

[JoeB131]

If that's not our problem, we have no problems.

How is anything Iran does OUR problem?

Not Israel's Problem. Not Saudi Arabia's Problem.

America's problem.

Give me a good reason why even ONE American soldier should die over something Iran is doing.

If anything, the Iranians are doing hte fighting against ISIS that we won't do.

 

[JoeB131]

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

Uh, one could hope, but the problem is, he's actually better than most of what you have. Which is kind of a sad commentary on the state of the GOP.

You need to tend to your own pile of shit, Joe.

Guy, i'm still a registered Republican. I get craploads of mailing from them looking for money.

But to the point, the GOP used to be a sensible party. Not so much anymore. Too many rich sugar daddies spouting too much crazy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“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.”

The intelligence was bad because the decision had already been made to attack Iraq, where it was then a matter of scraping together the 'intelligence' to 'justify' an illegal, unwarranted invasion.

Jeb is consequently stuck with his brother's ridiculous lie, as it doesn't make any difference "knowing what we know now,” because regardless the 'intelligence' the invasion was going to happen.

 

[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

Joe just proved you a liar and an idiot and you laugh. Go ahead and spew some more obscenities, if it makes you feel better.

Salon is proof of nothing. It's a far left wing hack site, nothing more and nothing less

 

[deltex1]

“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.”

The intelligence was bad because the decision had already been made to attack Iraq, where it was then a matter of scraping together the 'intelligence' to 'justify' an illegal, unwarranted invasion.

Jeb is consequently stuck with his brother's ridiculous lie, as it doesn't make any difference "knowing what we know now,” because regardless the 'intelligence' the invasion was going to happen.

I would not argue strenuously with your second paragraph. That's what you do when you go to war...you demonized your enemy. Saddams Iraq was our enemy...we were in a state of war with them when W dropped the hammer...

 

[deltex1]

If that's not our problem, we have no problems.

How is anything Iran does OUR problem?

Not Israel's Problem. Not Saudi Arabia's Problem.

America's problem.

Give me a good reason why even ONE American soldier should die over something Iran is doing.

If anything, the Iranians are doing hte fighting against ISIS that we won't do.

How does Iran differ from any other potential enemy?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

From the quoted Duelfer report:

Among the key findings of the September 2004 report by Charles Duelfer, who succeeded Mr. Kay as ISG head, are that Saddam was pursuing an aggressive strategy to subvert the Oil for Food Program and to bring down U.N. sanctions through illicit finance and procurement schemes; and that Saddam intended to resume WMD efforts once U.N. sanctions were eliminated. According to Mr. Duelfer, “the guiding theme for WMD was to sustain the intellectual capacity achieved over so many years at such a great cost and to be in a position to produce again with as short a lead time as possible. . . . Virtually no senior Iraqi believed that Saddam had forsaken WMD forever. Evidence suggests that, as resources became available and the constraints of sanctions decayed, there was a direct expansion of activity that would have the effect of supporting future WMD reconstitution.”

 

[JoeB131]

Salon is proof of nothing. It's a far left wing hack site, nothing more and nothing less

Actually, it's writing and reporting is far better than anything you see on the Right Wing Sites...

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Salon is proof of nothing. It's a far left wing hack site, nothing more and nothing less

Actually, it's writing and reporting is far better than anything you see on the Right Wing Sites...

Except the author was guilty of cherry picking the Duelfer Report to suit his/her agenda. Busted

 

[JimH52]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA @ Sassy

 

[JoeB131]

Among the key findings of the September 2004 report by Charles Duelfer, who succeeded Mr. Kay as ISG head, are that Saddam was pursuing an aggressive strategy to subvert the Oil for Food Program and to bring down U.N. sanctions through illicit finance and procurement schemes; and that Saddam intended to resume WMD efforts once U.N. sanctions were eliminated.

But the point was, he didn't have them at the point we went to war with him. You don't go out and arrest people for crimes they MIGHT commit.

Remember, the justification for the war was that Saddam had Weapons RIGHT NOW that he was going to hand over to Al Qaeda and other bad actors.

Except that he didn't have weapons of Mass destruction and he wasn't working with Al Qaeda.

 

[JoeB131]

Except the author was guilty of cherry picking the Duelfer Report to suit his/her agenda. Busted

You mean, the relevant parts like "Saddam didn't have an active WMD Program"?

those parts.

But not to worry, we had the Pre-Crime division working on crimes Saddam might commit in the future.