So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[edthecynic]

If you turn your back on your allies, you will have NO allies

The House Of Saud are not our allies.

 

[Boss]

If you turn your back on your allies, you will have NO allies

The House Of Saud are not our allies.

They are the ruling royal family of Saudi Arabia so... yes, they are.

 

[Boss]

I was discussing the fact that Pan Arab Socialists don't support rights for women but that wasn't given as an "example of Socialism" it was just a statement of fact which you've not refuted.

Liar, it was your rebuttal to my challenging your use of the term "Socialist," so the context of your "statement" was undeniably an example of proof of Socialism.

Again, you are not providing a direct quote from me citing women as an example of Socialism.

Already posted and linked to your quote. You know it, which is why each time you edit it out in your reply and then do your lie and deny act.

Sorry, you are lying. You have never posted a quote from me giving women or women's rights as examples of Socialism. Not in this thread or any thread. There is nothing for me to edit, the words are simply not there. You are simply lying.

Repeating your lie does not make it any less a lie.

You're the liar here, Eddy. You've not posted a quote from me to support your allegation. You posted something else and tried to infer something into it which I did not say. Whether you have some odd mental illness where the words I post are appearing differently in your mind... I do not know and do not care. You can't claim that I said something I did not say and then support that with some other statement made. But apparently, you think you can.

 

[Faun]

"So now, BUSH caused ISIS?"

Again, just to be clear on the facts:

GWB destabilized the ME with his failed, illegal invasion of Iraq.

As a consequence this gave license to militants and extremists to form and begin a campaign of terror in the Region.

The self-proclaimed 'Islamic state' is a manifestation of Sunni militancy seeking to retake control of the Iraqi government lost when Saddam, a Sunni, was driven from power by the Americans.

Indeed, not only was the failed, illegal invasion a contributing factor, but the post-Saddam policies put into place by the Bush administration also caused further destabilization, when exclusive control of Iraq was given to the Shiite faction.

Blah blah blah, broken record time again?

GWB destabilized the ME with his failed, illegal invasion of Iraq.

The Middle East has been unstable for a long, long, long time.
Wasn't his [Bush's] mission. 2nd largest coalition in military history.
Was not a failure. Completed the mission and withdrew forces in 2011.
Was not illegal. Authorized by Congress, including Hillary Clinton.

As a consequence this gave license to militants and extremists to form and begin a campaign of terror...

I guess you were asleep on 9/11/01? Militants and extremists have been at war with us for 20 years. They began their campaigns of terror many years before Bush invaded Iraq.

when exclusive control of Iraq was given to the Shiite faction.

You mean the democratic elections held across Iraq where the citizens voted in their government for the first time in history and got the purple thumbs? Nothing was "given" to anyone, moron. The people held a fucking election and they elected a majority Shiite council. A helluva lot of that had to do with the fact the Sunnis were actively trying to blow up the precincts and prevent democracy from happening, so they didn't participate.

You sound like one of their little mindless talking head drones they trot out to spew the official propaganda. You're not worth the time for me to have a conversation with, to be honest.

You never stop fluffing Bush, huh? The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11 and the "mission" was all because of Bush. The coalition you speak of was formed from Bush's efforts. Had Bush not been beating his war drum for Iraq, which he began beating in 2001, there never would have been a war in Iraq. If not for Bush, not a single other country in that coalition would have invaded Iraq.

The Iraq war was, is, and always will be, George Bush's war. Anything in that region that results will be on George Bush's head. All the blood that spilled is on George Bush's hands.

Again, the Iraq War coalition was the 2nd largest coalition in military history. So the claim that it was "Bush's War" is simply invalid. Also, I didn't say the Iraq War had anything to do with 9/11. A poster tried to claim the Iraq War caused radical extremist groups to instigate terror attacks and I reminded him that 9/11 was a terror attack by a radical extremist group. So was the attack on the USS Cole, two American embassies and the first attack on the WTC. The holding of hostages in Iran in 1979 was also a radical extremist group instigating terrorism. So there goes that "argument" as well. Shot down like an obsolete Iraqi fighter jet.

Now... as for what is going to happen in the future over there... No, we can't lay the blame on Bush. That's insane, it's like drowning your family then blaming it on the presence of a lake behind your house which your neighbor dug. Sure, if he hadn't dug the lake you wouldn't have had a place to drown your family... but I don't think that excuse is going to fly in court.

We presently have an administration, supported by idiots like you, who are completely feckless and they have pissed away any progress we had made in eliminating terror elements from the region. What is happening over there now is what Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell and others warned you would happen.

None of those attacks against America had anything to do with Iraq. And when you talk about Iraq and 9.11, you are trying, and failing, to establish a connection between the two. There was none.

You must be retarded to not understand that Bush formed the coalition by recruiting every nation he could to join him. Without Bush pressing for war, there would have been no coalition and no war. The war was Bush's war. He wanted it. He called for it. He got it.

Bush to Form 'Vast Coalition' Against Iraqi Regime

As far as Bush's coalition, it was almost all the U.S. and the U.K. 70% of the troops were from the U.S. 20% were from the U.K. All the rest combined were about 10% (average of about 637 troops). Only 9 countries (including the U.K.) sent more than a 1000 troops.

 

[Boss]

"So now, BUSH caused ISIS?"

Again, just to be clear on the facts:

GWB destabilized the ME with his failed, illegal invasion of Iraq.

As a consequence this gave license to militants and extremists to form and begin a campaign of terror in the Region.

The self-proclaimed 'Islamic state' is a manifestation of Sunni militancy seeking to retake control of the Iraqi government lost when Saddam, a Sunni, was driven from power by the Americans.

Indeed, not only was the failed, illegal invasion a contributing factor, but the post-Saddam policies put into place by the Bush administration also caused further destabilization, when exclusive control of Iraq was given to the Shiite faction.

Blah blah blah, broken record time again?

GWB destabilized the ME with his failed, illegal invasion of Iraq.

The Middle East has been unstable for a long, long, long time.
Wasn't his [Bush's] mission. 2nd largest coalition in military history.
Was not a failure. Completed the mission and withdrew forces in 2011.
Was not illegal. Authorized by Congress, including Hillary Clinton.

As a consequence this gave license to militants and extremists to form and begin a campaign of terror...

I guess you were asleep on 9/11/01? Militants and extremists have been at war with us for 20 years. They began their campaigns of terror many years before Bush invaded Iraq.

when exclusive control of Iraq was given to the Shiite faction.

You mean the democratic elections held across Iraq where the citizens voted in their government for the first time in history and got the purple thumbs? Nothing was "given" to anyone, moron. The people held a fucking election and they elected a majority Shiite council. A helluva lot of that had to do with the fact the Sunnis were actively trying to blow up the precincts and prevent democracy from happening, so they didn't participate.

You sound like one of their little mindless talking head drones they trot out to spew the official propaganda. You're not worth the time for me to have a conversation with, to be honest.

You never stop fluffing Bush, huh? The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11 and the "mission" was all because of Bush. The coalition you speak of was formed from Bush's efforts. Had Bush not been beating his war drum for Iraq, which he began beating in 2001, there never would have been a war in Iraq. If not for Bush, not a single other country in that coalition would have invaded Iraq.

The Iraq war was, is, and always will be, George Bush's war. Anything in that region that results will be on George Bush's head. All the blood that spilled is on George Bush's hands.

Again, the Iraq War coalition was the 2nd largest coalition in military history. So the claim that it was "Bush's War" is simply invalid. Also, I didn't say the Iraq War had anything to do with 9/11. A poster tried to claim the Iraq War caused radical extremist groups to instigate terror attacks and I reminded him that 9/11 was a terror attack by a radical extremist group. So was the attack on the USS Cole, two American embassies and the first attack on the WTC. The holding of hostages in Iran in 1979 was also a radical extremist group instigating terrorism. So there goes that "argument" as well. Shot down like an obsolete Iraqi fighter jet.

Now... as for what is going to happen in the future over there... No, we can't lay the blame on Bush. That's insane, it's like drowning your family then blaming it on the presence of a lake behind your house which your neighbor dug. Sure, if he hadn't dug the lake you wouldn't have had a place to drown your family... but I don't think that excuse is going to fly in court.

We presently have an administration, supported by idiots like you, who are completely feckless and they have pissed away any progress we had made in eliminating terror elements from the region. What is happening over there now is what Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell and others warned you would happen.

None of those attacks against America had anything to do with Iraq. And when you talk about Iraq and 9.11, you are trying, and failing, to establish a connection between the two. There was none.

You must be retarded to not understand that Bush formed the coalition by recruiting every nation he could to join him. Without Bush pressing for war, there would have been no coalition and no war. The war was Bush's war. He wanted it. He called for it. He got it.

Bush to Form 'Vast Coalition' Against Iraqi Regime

As far as Bush's coalition, it was almost all the U.S. and the U.K. 70% of the troops were from the U.S. 20% were from the U.K. All the rest combined were about 10% (average of about 637 troops). Only 9 countries (including the U.K.) sent more than a 1000 troops.

Wow... Looks like you're doing a lot of fancy leg work dancing around the fact the Iraq War was the second-largest coalition in military history and not just Bush's war.

Yes, Bush recruited a coalition of the willing to go in and take out Saddam Hussein's regime and help Iraq establish a functioning democracy. It wasn't Bush going it alone... it wasn't just Bush's War.

We have Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Both Clintons, John Kerry (of all people), John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Al Gore, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer... all these people agreeing we need to take out Saddam, voting to authorize the use of force to take him out and giving their blessing to the plan outlined in the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, passed two years before Bush was president, calling for the removal of Saddam and replacing his regime with democracy.

It was NOT Bush's War. Sorry! If you want to believe that instead of the truth, I will simply forevermore refer to you as a "dangling chad."

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11802264

We have Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Both Clintons, John Kerry (of all people), John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Al Gore, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer... all these people agreeing we need to take out Saddam, voting to authorize the use of force to take him out and giving their blessing to the plan outlined in the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, passed two years before Bush was president, calling for the removal of Saddam and replacing his regime with democracy.

No! When do you find enough character, principles, integrity and honesty to admit that it was Bush43 and Bush43 alone that made the stupidest military and foreign policy decision ever to force an end to peaceful and succeeding UNSC WMD inspections under Resolution 1441 in order to start a war to find the WMD suspected of being hidden from those inspectors.

It was no one else besides Bush that made that tragic and costly decision when the potential settlement of the sanctions and WMD violations was but a few peaceful months away. When Kerry and Clinton voted in October 2002 there were no UN inspectors allowed in Iraq so their vote was justified on that basis.

But Iraq fully let the inspectors in and showed absolutely no desire to obstruct the inspection process or its unforeseen progress.

Kerry and Clinton in no way voted to authorize the establishment of democracy in Iraq and the AUMF in 2002 did not authorize a 2093 war for that purpose. The AUMF authorized war if the threat of Iraq's WMD defiance toward the UNSC along with the continued dangerous reality of the threat of the lack of UN inspections continued after the 9/11/01 attacks that occurred under Bush's watch.

You are a good fiction writer but nothing more than that.

And the 1998 Resolution passed had zero inklings of a major U.S. Ground invasion to put up a democracy in Iraq. It was to support and arm Iraqis to do regime change with continued U.S. military support such as enforcing the NFZ's.

Your argument died when you admitted you never heard of Iraq's December offer to let the CIA go into Iraq, not to search for democracy, but to search for hidden active and battlefield ready WMD and production facilities. It died when you were forced to admit the "offer" was made and Bush43 decided alone not to pursue it. You make it sound like Kerry and Clinton were on some kind of war panel giving advice to Bush to kick inspectors out and start a war about the establishment of democracy in Iraq by killing Iraqis. They had no way to influence Bush into making the right decision with regard to giving inspectors more time. More time is what the huge global coalition wanted done, as well as wanting Bush to test Saddam's proactive cooperation offer that became public as the inspections were getting started in December 2002. They had no way to stop Bush from lying to everybody after SH made that major offer and let the inspectors come in and go wherever they wanted to go including his palaces.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Kosh 11759056 Page Sixty One

However ISIS did not thrive like they have until Obama cut and run, but hey far left drones will deny that fact..

I've seen many attacks by Republicans against Obama when he announced a July 2011 withdrawal date at the December 2009 speech at West Point as he announced a 30,000 troop surge in Afghanistan. Here's what one of them said right after Obama said it.

"Msg Id: 529805:1043521 - Posted on 01/01/11 AM by Jumpinjoe1: Yep, and "Fool" knows from links I gave him that the troops on the ground consider this [0711WD] a hindrance since the Afghan population do not believe we are staying. And by cooperating with NATO now, means death by the hands of the Taliban once we pull out in a short period of time."

So I am asking you Kosh why Bush43 is not being visibly held to the same standard by right wingers as Obama was in 2010?. When Bush announced a fixed date for total US withdrawal in January 2009 you are confirming that an announcement such as that has no bearing on the outcome years later. It was Bush that agreed to cut and run from Iraq before he left office. It is in writing and part of history It is absurd to deny there was no impact from the Bush/Maliki SOFA agreement deadlines established in 2008.

 

[Boss]

No! When do you find enough character, principles, integrity and honesty to admit that it was Bush43 and Bush43 alone that made the stupidest military and foreign policy decision ever...

But as I've shown you, it was not the Bush's, this had been official US policy since 1998, signed into law by President Clinton. Some of the most vocal and ardent voices against Saddam came from Democrats.

And we're also seeing it wasn't a stupid military decision at all, if we had stuck with it and not abandoned it like you wanted to do and ultimately did do. We were cleaning these guys clocks on a regular basis over there. They were in total disarray, couldn't keep leaders... we kept killing them. They didn't have time to think about terrorist acts, they were too busy trying to find a cave to hide in.

 

[Boss]

Kerry and Clinton in no way voted to authorize the establishment of democracy in Iraq and the AUMF in 2002 did not authorize a 2093 war for that purpose.

ESTABLISHING A PROGRAM TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ (Senate - October 07, 1998)

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I rise to urge the passage of H.R. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act. Thanks to strong leadership in both Houses of Congress and thanks to the commitment of the Administration toward the goals we all share for Iraq and the region, this legislation is moving quickly. This is the point to state what this legislation is not, and what it is, from my understanding, and why I support it so strongly.
[...]

This bill, when passed and signed into law, is a clear commitment to a U.S. policy replacing the Saddam Hussein regime and replacing it with a transition to democracy. This bill is a statement that America refuses to coexist with a regime which has used chemical weapons on its own citizens and on neighboring countries, which has invaded its neighbors twice without provocation, which has still not accounted for its atrocities committed in Kuwait, which has fired ballistic missiles into the cities of three of its neighbors, which is attempting to develop nuclear and biological weapons, and which has brutalized and terrorized its own citizens for thirty years. I don't see how any democratic country could accept the existence of such a regime, but this bill says America will not.

The Bill passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Debunking False RW argument that Congressional Record - 105th Congress 1997-1998 - THOMAS Library of Congress in 1998 was an authorization to kick out inspectors and commit the U.S. to a massive air and ground invasion in 2003

Here is a perfect example of Boss cherry-picking my response to his false argument that the 1998 Resolution was connected in any legal or technical way to the actual U.S. Invasion of Iraq in March 2003. This is what Boss cited out of the context that I was speaking to which was clearly in sole reference to the Ocrober 2002.vote to authorize war if inspections were not resumed as required by international law and UNSC Resolutions prior to Res 1441.

Boss bolded in pink only half of my statement.


Boss 11810593

.

Kerry and Clinton in no way voted to authorize the establishment of democracy in Iraq and the AUMF in 2002 did not authorize a 2093 war for that purpose.

.

So Boss did HRC vote in 1998? Did both Kerry and Clinton vote in 2002.

Gotcha making another stupid and false argument

(Following is the full excerpt from my reply to Boss: 11802264) NF 11809025

. When Kerry and Clinton voted in October 2002 there were no UN inspectors allowed in Iraq so their vote was justified on that basis. <>. But Iraq fully let the inspectors in and showed absolutely no desire to obstruct the inspection process or its unforeseen progress. <> Kerry and Clinton in no way voted to authorize the establishment of democracy in Iraq and the AUMF in 2002 did not authorize a 2093[2003] war for that purpose. The AUMF authorized war if the threat of Iraq's WMD defiance toward the UNSC along with the continued dangerous reality of the threat of the lack of UN inspections continued after the 9/11/01 attacks that occurred under Bush's watch.

And you could not respond to my further debunking of your phony RW references to 1998:

NF 11809025

And the 1998 Resolution passed had zero inklings of a major U.S. Ground invasion to put up a democracy in Iraq. It was to support and arm Iraqis to do regime change with continued U.S. military support such as enforcing the NFZ's.

So run away again as you so often do and then try to sneak back in with the same dumb arguments and points.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Debunking "all presidents suck" on Iraq so no president's suck and applauding Bush43 for what he did to Iraq and the lives of so many American families that had and still have sons daughters fathers and mothers serving in the US military since he decided to invade Iraq in March 2003.

flacaltenn 11610236 PAGE 33

THEY ALL SUCK AT IT.....

NF 11728163 page 61

This thread has show-cased some very interesting political viewpoints. The "they all suck at it" declaration has to be one of the most self-defeating attitudes if what one is truly interested in finding a way to have meaningful and operational politics and governing in this great country of ours once again. Believing in "they all suck at it" is just another way of saying that 'no one sucks at it" which leads to nowhere. Some suck at it much, much more than others. That was what I thought this thread was about. Those who wish to claim that Obama 'sucks at it' more than any other President ought to be aware of the fact that in order to say such a thing, other Presidents need to be brought into the conversation for any kind of meaningful comparison or discussion to be able to happen. Why does comparison between two Presidents on one major foreign policy topic annoy and scare off so many conservatives?

flacaltenn 11759755 page 64

. From Bush1 thru Clinton, to Bush2 and Obama, we have had an increasingly BAD Iraq policy. From your perspective, you have a MONUMENTAL task to show that Clinton or Obama Sucks less at Mid East policy. ... HIS Iraq "policy" was to do continue killing Iraqis with the containment and bomb them every time he got his ass in trouble.

Keeping in mind that UN Sanctions was not a unilateral US program, It is simple math. Which President directly killed and caused the deaths and injuries of the very most absolutely innocent Iraqi civilians and that includes members of the Sunni Baathist Party? I still find it astonishing that you applaud the one president who killed and harmed the most directly by bombing and shooting them at roadblocks and hiring unqualified contractors to do much of the killing, for no good or justifiable national security reason.

Your explanations continue to muddle your message as to why you applaud Bush 43.


flacaltenn 11610236 PAGE 33

So why are you still arguing about Bush in this thread? I applaud him for doing SOMETHING --- even if it was by accident. ..

Iraq policy since Iraq invaded Kuwait has not been an all bad policy. You don't consider how many lives were saved in the Northern and Southern NFZ's over the first ten to twelve years. The Iraq Kurds could be all wiped out by now. So Bush41 and Clinton certainly were bombing Iraq's military installations over that period to save lives not destroy them. Bush43 ended the only good policy that was in Iraq and effective at saving lives. What you call "honest libs" are in such small minority that their opinion that it was all bad hardly matters in the discussion

You include Bush41 in your long list of President's sucking at producing a good US policy toward the regime of Saddam Hussein and the Baathist Party. That is nonsense unless you stand on the grounds that SH's army should have remained in Kuwait and that Iraq should have been left to pursue nuclear, biological and chemical weapons without hindrance from the entire world. It is a fact that SH did not take his WMD disarmament obligations seriously after Bush41 and the international coalition superbly (in military and diplomatic terms) drove his army back to Iraq where it belonged and liberated Kuwait. How many lives were saved in Kuwait and neighboring countries. Honest Americans will weigh that in their consideration of what was good or bad Iraq policy since 1991.

So based on killing and harming Iraqis - the best president's with policies and actions involving Iraq listed from good #1 to worse #3 are:

#1 Obama
#2 Clinton and Bush41 in a tie.
#3 horrible and the absolute worst - without a speck of doubt - George W. Bush - The 43rd President of the USA. Mainly because he got 4484 American service members killed and 40,000 wounded in the process of killing innocent Iraqis when he had a clear peaceful alternative that the other president's did not have. That alternative to war was over three months of peaceful UN inspections that were working very well and in large part due to the 'threat of war' if Saddam did not comply. That meant that Bush41's invasion and inept occupation were never ever close to being necessary to protect the national security interests of the US or any of our allies..

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Kosh 11759060 Page 62

Yes because the group known as ISIS now started in 1999. And was allowed to flourish under Obama's cut and run policies..

Explain what "allowed to flourish" means to you. And also explain what means Obama had available since becoming President to 'disallow' daesh terrorist scum to flourish and seize territory in Iraq and Syria?

 

[Faun]

"So now, BUSH caused ISIS?"

Again, just to be clear on the facts:

GWB destabilized the ME with his failed, illegal invasion of Iraq.

As a consequence this gave license to militants and extremists to form and begin a campaign of terror in the Region.

The self-proclaimed 'Islamic state' is a manifestation of Sunni militancy seeking to retake control of the Iraqi government lost when Saddam, a Sunni, was driven from power by the Americans.

Indeed, not only was the failed, illegal invasion a contributing factor, but the post-Saddam policies put into place by the Bush administration also caused further destabilization, when exclusive control of Iraq was given to the Shiite faction.

Blah blah blah, broken record time again?

GWB destabilized the ME with his failed, illegal invasion of Iraq.

The Middle East has been unstable for a long, long, long time.
Wasn't his [Bush's] mission. 2nd largest coalition in military history.
Was not a failure. Completed the mission and withdrew forces in 2011.
Was not illegal. Authorized by Congress, including Hillary Clinton.

As a consequence this gave license to militants and extremists to form and begin a campaign of terror...

I guess you were asleep on 9/11/01? Militants and extremists have been at war with us for 20 years. They began their campaigns of terror many years before Bush invaded Iraq.

when exclusive control of Iraq was given to the Shiite faction.

You mean the democratic elections held across Iraq where the citizens voted in their government for the first time in history and got the purple thumbs? Nothing was "given" to anyone, moron. The people held a fucking election and they elected a majority Shiite council. A helluva lot of that had to do with the fact the Sunnis were actively trying to blow up the precincts and prevent democracy from happening, so they didn't participate.

You sound like one of their little mindless talking head drones they trot out to spew the official propaganda. You're not worth the time for me to have a conversation with, to be honest.

You never stop fluffing Bush, huh? The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with 9.11 and the "mission" was all because of Bush. The coalition you speak of was formed from Bush's efforts. Had Bush not been beating his war drum for Iraq, which he began beating in 2001, there never would have been a war in Iraq. If not for Bush, not a single other country in that coalition would have invaded Iraq.

The Iraq war was, is, and always will be, George Bush's war. Anything in that region that results will be on George Bush's head. All the blood that spilled is on George Bush's hands.

Again, the Iraq War coalition was the 2nd largest coalition in military history. So the claim that it was "Bush's War" is simply invalid. Also, I didn't say the Iraq War had anything to do with 9/11. A poster tried to claim the Iraq War caused radical extremist groups to instigate terror attacks and I reminded him that 9/11 was a terror attack by a radical extremist group. So was the attack on the USS Cole, two American embassies and the first attack on the WTC. The holding of hostages in Iran in 1979 was also a radical extremist group instigating terrorism. So there goes that "argument" as well. Shot down like an obsolete Iraqi fighter jet.

Now... as for what is going to happen in the future over there... No, we can't lay the blame on Bush. That's insane, it's like drowning your family then blaming it on the presence of a lake behind your house which your neighbor dug. Sure, if he hadn't dug the lake you wouldn't have had a place to drown your family... but I don't think that excuse is going to fly in court.

We presently have an administration, supported by idiots like you, who are completely feckless and they have pissed away any progress we had made in eliminating terror elements from the region. What is happening over there now is what Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell and others warned you would happen.

None of those attacks against America had anything to do with Iraq. And when you talk about Iraq and 9.11, you are trying, and failing, to establish a connection between the two. There was none.

You must be retarded to not understand that Bush formed the coalition by recruiting every nation he could to join him. Without Bush pressing for war, there would have been no coalition and no war. The war was Bush's war. He wanted it. He called for it. He got it.

Bush to Form 'Vast Coalition' Against Iraqi Regime

As far as Bush's coalition, it was almost all the U.S. and the U.K. 70% of the troops were from the U.S. 20% were from the U.K. All the rest combined were about 10% (average of about 637 troops). Only 9 countries (including the U.K.) sent more than a 1000 troops.

Wow... Looks like you're doing a lot of fancy leg work dancing around the fact the Iraq War was the second-largest coalition in military history and not just Bush's war.

Yes, Bush recruited a coalition of the willing to go in and take out Saddam Hussein's regime and help Iraq establish a functioning democracy. It wasn't Bush going it alone... it wasn't just Bush's War.

We have Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Both Clintons, John Kerry (of all people), John McCain, Joe Lieberman, Al Gore, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer... all these people agreeing we need to take out Saddam, voting to authorize the use of force to take him out and giving their blessing to the plan outlined in the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act, passed two years before Bush was president, calling for the removal of Saddam and replacing his regime with democracy.

It was NOT Bush's War. Sorry! If you want to believe that instead of the truth, I will simply forevermore refer to you as a "dangling chad."

Holyfuckingshit!

The 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act denied U.S. military action to remove Hussein. That is what they voted for. So yes, the Iraq war is Bush's. He pressed the U.N. to go along with it. He sent Colin Powell, armed with nothing but lies, to present a case to the U.N. for war. When all that failed to get the U.N. on board with supporting a military invasion of Iraq (which the 1998 ILA prohibited), Bush formed his own coalition.

Bush owns the Iraq war.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

But as I've shown you, it was not the Bush's, this had been official US policy since 1998, signed into law by President Clinton. Some of the most vocal and ardent voices against Saddam came from Democrats.

Why did you reply dishonestly to my entire post? You have shown absolutely no case that the 1998 law was intended to have the USA force 200 functioning UN inspectors out of Iraq in order to force regime change and democracy in Iraq by a massive ground invasion and bombing the crap out of Baghdad. The kicking inspectors out and ground war and 4484 dead Anericans iarr entirely on Bush43 and no one else.

You should quit trying to bs your way through that 1998 argument .

Show us where it says kick inspectors out and send 200,000 U.S. Troops into Irsq to force democracy in either the 1998 law or the 2002 AUMF.

 

[Boss]

Debunking False RW argument that Congressional Record - 105th Congress 1997-1998 - THOMAS Library of Congress in 1998 was an authorization to kick out inspectors and commit the U.S. to a massive air and ground invasion in 2003

I never made such a claim... that's ALL YOU buddy!

The issue is the idea of taking out Saddam and establishing a democracy in Iraq. It's hard to spin the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act into anything else. No it didn't authorize war... at the time, we didn't think war would be needed. But I never claimed it authorized war, only that it established as official US foreign policy, overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime and replacing it with democracy.

War became inevitable when Saddam failed to comply with UN1441. Bush did not kick out inspectors, they were perfectly free to stay if they wanted to. The authorization to use military force came from Congress who voted overwhelmingly in favor of it.

 

[Boss]

Holyfuckingshit!

The 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act denied U.S. military action to remove Hussein. That is what they voted for. So yes, the Iraq war is Bush's. He pressed the U.N. to go along with it. He sent Colin Powell, armed with nothing but lies, to present a case to the U.N. for war. When all that failed to get the U.N. on board with supporting a military invasion of Iraq (which the 1998 ILA prohibited), Bush formed his own coalition.

Bush owns the Iraq war.

This bill, when passed and signed into law, is a clear commitment to a U.S. policy replacing the Saddam Hussein regime and replacing it with a transition to democracy. This bill is a statement that America refuses to coexist with a regime which has used chemical weapons on its own citizens and on neighboring countries, which has invaded its neighbors twice without provocation, which has still not accounted for its atrocities committed in Kuwait, which has fired ballistic missiles into the cities of three of its neighbors, which is attempting to develop nuclear and biological weapons, and which has brutalized and terrorized its own citizens for thirty years. I don't see how any democratic country could accept the existence of such a regime, but this bill says America will not. ~John Fucking Kerry

(...Except the part of America who is brain-dead moronic and completely hypocritical because they seem to have selective amnesia that comes and goes around election time.)

 

[NotfooledbyW]

11814096

No it didn't authorize war... at the time, we didn't think war would be needed. But I never claimed it authorized war, only that it established as official US foreign policy, overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime and replacing it with democracy.

Why did you respond to my post where I was addressing the 2002 AUMF that Kerry and Clinton voted for because there were no iUN inspectors in Iraq? They would not have given Bush the authority that they did if Bush claimed at the time that he would invade Iraq base upon the 1998 law. You are trying to muddle your way out of the one of goofiest arguments of all. You are trying to blame 1998 democrats for kicking UN inspectors out of Iraq and launching the 2003 invasion when you now admit the 1998 law had nothing to do with authorizing a massive ground invasion and US occupation of Iraq. So again why did you respond to my comment about the 2002 AUMF by supplying a link and quote to the 1998 act?

Why did you respond that way if that is not what you meant? It's dishonest is what it is.

 

[Boss]

11814096

No it didn't authorize war... at the time, we didn't think war would be needed. But I never claimed it authorized war, only that it established as official US foreign policy, overthrowing Saddam Hussein's regime and replacing it with democracy.

Why did you respond to my post where I was addressing the 2002 AUMF that Kerry and Clinton voted for because there were no iUN inspectors in Iraq? They would not have given Bush the authority that they did if Bush claimed at the time that he would invade Iraq base upon the 1998 law. You are trying to muddle your way out of the one of goofiest arguments of all. You are trying to blame 1998 democrats for kicking UN inspectors out of Iraq and launching the 2003 invasion when you now admit the 1998 law had nothing to do with authorizing a massive ground invasion and US occupation of Iraq. So again why did you respond to my comment about the 2002 AUMF by supplying a link and quote to the 1998 act?

Why did you respond that way if that is not what you meant? It's dishonest is what it is.

Actually, the Congressional record shows that the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act was very much a centerpiece of the argument Bush's supporters presented to Congress to obtain the 2002 AUMF. So you are just flat out wrong.

As for what who woulda done if they had known what? Your argument is like a "rape victim" admitting they gave consent but they wouldn't have done so if they had known what an asshole the person was, so therefore it was a rape. The AUMF was granted... regardless of why or what they were thinking, the AUMF granted Bush the authority from Congress to launch the invasion. Period... end of discussion.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

11814567

Actually, the Congressional record shows that the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act was very much a centerpiece of the argument Bush's supporters presented to Congress to obtain the 2002 AUMF. So you are just flat out wrong.

.

No you are lying, The threat of WMD and the illegal "non-presence" of UN inspectors from 1998 to 2002 was not just the centerpiece, it was the only justification for US military force being used against Iraq as worded in the 2002 AUMF. And to further put poop on your ridiculous parade of arguments Bush did agree and sign onto UN Res 1441 which explicitly gave SH a final opportunity to let the inspectors back in, which he did. So the regime change as an argument for war flew out the window and is gone / lost for all eternity.

Yet you cling on, Hoss, to the shamed Bush carcass. The rot has affected your ability to reason and think on your own.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

War became inevitable when Saddam failed to comply with UN1441

Another one of your meaningless opinions and not a fact in any way shape or form. Only the UNSC majority, and without a permanent member veto, could declare Iraq in material breach of UN Res 1441. Blix never once said that Iraq was not complying and recommend to reconvene the Council on what to do about it. It never happened Hoss. You need to quit that lie too. And the truth is the largest coalition in the world on Iraq wanted to see the inspections continue.

Your Bush43 was in the minority on the 15 member Council. Bush poked a hot stick into the eyes of the world community and invaded Iraq mostly on his own.

He claimed Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from the 1441 inspection regime. Have you heard about any intelligence since that claim that backs Bush's March 17, 2003 announcement about hidden WMD that he and he alone decided to start a war instead of letting the inspections continue.