Jeb Bush and the Stabbed in the Back Myth

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

He did have them, even the report said he did, also that report was from 2004, since then more were found.

Believe what you want, it makes little difference to me. Bush got his war, thousands of bad guys were sent to Allah and it's history.

 

[JoeB131]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA @ Sassy

she keeps digging herself in deeper.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA @ Sassy

Do you and the fake republican cyber sex each other while commenting? Couple of illiterate clowns

 

[deltex1]

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.

Joe must like obabbles strategic patience...wait till its to late....

 

[JimH52]

http://www.newsweek.com/iraq-war-bushs-biggest-blunder-294411

When the George W. Bush administration entered office, its initial focus was on China and military transformation. “Nation building” was anathema. CIA threat briefings concentrated on al Qaeda, not Iraq,8 though efforts to have the new administration deal with al Qaeda failed.

Well before the September 11 attacks, officials at the Pentagon, led by Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, quietly began to consider military options against Saddam. Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley developed a policy of phased pressure on Iraq, which included ratcheting up many of the measures used by the Clinton administration, such as sanctions, weapons inspectors, and aid to the opposition.9

……………………………………………

The thinking went that if the United States could change the regime in Baghdad, it might create a new model of democracy in the Middle East. After all, democracy was on the rise globally in what the political scientist Samuel Huntington called the Third Wave.

…………………………………

This unfinished business concerned Bush directly. Saddam had earlier tried to have assassins attack his father while on a Middle East trip. The fact that Saddam “tried to kill [his] dad” evidently weighed on his decision making.24
...............................................

With the complexity of this situation and with the brain of W, DICK, in the corner for Haliburton, W may have thought he was doing the right thing.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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.

Joe must like obabbles strategic patience...wait till its to late....

Yeah, most people see a threat and do something to prevent it.

 

[JoeB131]

He did have them, even the report said he did, also that report was from 2004, since then more were found.

Believe what you want, it makes little difference to me. Bush got his war, thousands of bad guys were sent to Allah and it's history.

Thousands of Good Guys got sent to - well, nothing happens to anyone after you die, so they just died.

But besides the fact we went to war over a lie and no one will ever believe us again, you have the little problem of how Bush's war actually made things WORSE in that region. Instead of an Iraq that acts as a firewall against Iranian ambitions, we now have an Iraq which is an Iranian Ally.

You have large portions of the country that are petri dishes for breeding a more virulent kind of terrorist than has been produced before. You have violence spilling into neighboring countries.

How was any of this a good idea again? Oh, that's right. We found some old rusty shells full of mustard gas from 1991.

 

[deltex1]

http://www.newsweek.com/iraq-war-bushs-biggest-blunder-294411

When the George W. Bush administration entered office, its initial focus was on China and military transformation. “Nation building” was anathema. CIA threat briefings concentrated on al Qaeda, not Iraq,8 though efforts to have the new administration deal with al Qaeda failed.

Well before the September 11 attacks, officials at the Pentagon, led by Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, quietly began to consider military options against Saddam. Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley developed a policy of phased pressure on Iraq, which included ratcheting up many of the measures used by the Clinton administration, such as sanctions, weapons inspectors, and aid to the opposition.9

……………………………………………

The thinking went that if the United States could change the regime in Baghdad, it might create a new model of democracy in the Middle East. After all, democracy was on the rise globally in what the political scientist Samuel Huntington called the Third Wave.

…………………………………

This unfinished business concerned Bush directly. Saddam had earlier tried to have assassins attack his father while on a Middle East trip. The fact that Saddam “tried to kill [his] dad” evidently weighed on his decision making.24
...............................................

With the complexity of this situation and with the brain of W, DICK, in the corner for Haliburton, W may have thought he was doing the right thing.

Oh.

 

[JimH52]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA @ Sassy

she keeps digging herself in deeper.

Plus she is a nasty mouth female, huh?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

He did have them, even the report said he did, also that report was from 2004, since then more were found.

Believe what you want, it makes little difference to me. Bush got his war, thousands of bad guys were sent to Allah and it's history.

Thousands of Good Guys got sent to - well, nothing happens to anyone after you die, so they just died.

But besides the fact we went to war over a lie and no one will ever believe us again, you have the little problem of how Bush's war actually made things WORSE in that region. Instead of an Iraq that acts as a firewall against Iranian ambitions, we now have an Iraq which is an Iranian Ally.

You have large portions of the country that are petri dishes for breeding a more virulent kind of terrorist than has been produced before. You have violence spilling into neighboring countries.

How was any of this a good idea again? Oh, that's right. We found some old rusty shells full of mustard gas from 1991.

Blah, blah,blah..my best friend was one of those that went and fell, he had no regrets. I think I'll go with him. No shush "Mr Republican"

 

[SassyIrishLass]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA @ Sassy

she keeps digging herself in deeper.

Plus she is a nasty mouth female, huh?

Which one of you is the girl? I'm guessing you are snowflake

 

[Dot Com]

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

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.

^ that

SassyIrishLass needs to stop flailing about/tossing ad homs because her make believe rw myth was debunked

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Oh geeez, a third clown joins in

 

[Dot Com]

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.

Poor, poor, POOR SassyIrishLass and every other rw MURICA right or wrong war monger.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

What myth ? Germans weren't defeated in battle. They were screwed by politicians.

 

[JimH52]

Oh geeez, a third clown joins in

And you still trying to prove your lie is truth.....FRIGIN AMAZING!

 

[Stephanie]

They know the Clinton administration thought Saddam was a danger and said so.
Clinton even bombed him once or twice.

snip:
Bush lied? What Did The Democrats Say About Iraq’s WMD? by T. Jefferson Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 at 4:03 PM EDTORIGINAL PUBLICATION

DATE: JANUARY 30, 2004 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…" –

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 |

Source "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." – President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 |

Source "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program." – President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." – Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 |

Source "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." – Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton. – (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 |

Source "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
all of it here:
Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/4976/?utm_source=glennbeck&utm_medium=contentcopy_link


they don't have anything good to run on under Obama so they resort back to their lying. How anyone can belong to party (democrat) that spins, misleads and lies right in their face is beyond me

 

[deltex1]

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

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.

^ that

SassyIrishLass needs to stop flailing about/tossing ad homs because her make believe rw myth was debunked

Bubba thought the same...

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Oh geeez, a third clown joins in

And you still trying to prove your lie is truth.....FRIGIN AMAZING!

Jimmy, get over yourself, lose the silly and childish clown face and act like a man. Perhaps then I MIGHT take you serious but right now I don't. It's just a fact

 

[JoeB131]

Joe must like obabbles strategic patience...wait till its to late....

Yeah, most people see a threat and do something to prevent it.

Really? If most people saw Saddam as a possible threat in the future, why did Bush have to lie about the threat he posed "RIGHT NOW!!"

Now admittably, after 9/11, we were all really rattled, and Bush took advantage of that kind of fear that his PNAC buddies never would have gotten us to go along with in 1999 or 2000.

But decisions made in fear are never good ones.