Stunning! Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created

[alpine]

So you are saying Iraq was such a peaceful place when Obama got the office, and he created a big mess out of it?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm............

Maybe you should be appreciating him for getting the American soldiers out of the shit hole before the whole hell broke loose...

When you turn a place into a shit hole should you get "credit" for leaving before you did so?

I'm sure the million or so displaced people and the tens of thousands that have been slaughtered by ISIS in the past 8 months would have a slightly different "take" on that.

Well, to be honest, Iraq was a shit hole before even Bush started the war. Don't blame it on Obama.

When Saddam toppled down by Bush, a religious conflict started. That was the reason why we had a bombing incident every day somewhere in Iraq during the occupation.

I can agree Obama had something to do with ISIS taking off, being so "tough" on Assad was a mistake from the beginning.

But the best thing Obama did was to take the American soldiers out of the way. Middle East is Middle East, you were not able to solve anything with a full invasion, you wont solve anything with a partial one.

Obama did stop American's fighting other peoples wars. And any American should at least appreciate that.

This is not your war. Shia killing sunni, sunni killing shia,... cycle has nothing to do with the US or its policies.

If there should be anybody fighting any war on that soil, it should be fucking muslim countries surrounding. Like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey... If they want to stabilize, they should do it themselves. They are the ones created the biggest chunk of this mess in the first place...

 

[Mac1958]

We seem to think that invading and occupying a sovereign country, killing thousands of its citizens, bombing the shit out of it, and then installing a "leader" of whom we approve is going to work like a charm.

I mean, look at our Middle East track record with this strategy.

Garsh, I can't believe it didn't go well.

.

Hmmm....seemed to work fairly well in both Germany and Japan...

That's why I specified the Middle East.

.

So is the problem with the strategy or is the problem with the Middle East? Would this be the time to point out that the people of the Middle East have repeatedly shown a tendency to totally ignore what would make their lives immeasurably better...Democracy...because they are so intent on killing those that don't agree with their religion?

Our dilemma is that we expect rational behavior from people who have shown an inability to BE rational!

The German and Japanese people were astute enough to realize that acting in that manner ultimately brought not only immense suffering to others but to themselves as well. We offered them Democracy and they willingly accepted.

The question now is how long is it going to take for the players in the Middle East to realize that THEY are their own worst enemies?

I think you're nailing it, and that's the problem. We're dealing with people who largely have a mindset in prior century. The Germans and the Japanese, while they didn't exactly love us, were more advanced and their cultures were not based on murdering anyone who disagreed with their religion.

It's one thing that the Jihadis are uncivilized and vicious. It's another that they have access to arms and technology that can do the job. Not a good place for us, since we just don't approach war like they do.

.

 

[J.E.D]

So you're making the point that ISIS had a home in Iraq during the George W. Bush Administration? Really, Jed? I must have MISSED that somehow!!! Here I thought that Iraq was "over run" by ISIS six years into Barack Obama's Administration! Wow...I must really not have been paying attention!!!

Dance your pants off, guy. That's not what I said. Isis is a direct result of the Bush/Cheney destabilization of the region. That's what I said

But Jed! Barack Obama killed Osama bin Laden and had Al Queda "on the run"! Did he somehow "miss" the briefings that were coming in about the terror group that was so out of control that they got kicked out of Al Queda? I guess this would be another of those things that Barry would have needed to hear about from the media?

It's one of those things that we wouldn't be talking about if Bush hadn't turned Iraq into a terrorist recruitment tool.

 

[alpine]

We seem to think that invading and occupying a sovereign country, killing thousands of its citizens, bombing the shit out of it, and then installing a "leader" of whom we approve is going to work like a charm.

I mean, look at our Middle East track record with this strategy.

Garsh, I can't believe it didn't go well.

.

Hmmm....seemed to work fairly well in both Germany and Japan...

That's why I specified the Middle East.

.

So is the problem with the strategy or is the problem with the Middle East? Would this be the time to point out that the people of the Middle East have repeatedly shown a tendency to totally ignore what would make their lives immeasurably better...Democracy...because they are so intent on killing those that don't agree with their religion?

Our dilemma is that we expect rational behavior from people who have shown an inability to BE rational!

The German and Japanese people were astute enough to realize that acting in that manner ultimately brought not only immense suffering to others but to themselves as well. We offered them Democracy and they willingly accepted.

The question now is how long is it going to take for the players in the Middle East to realize that THEY are their own worst enemies?

I think you're nailing it, and that's the problem. We're dealing with people who largely have a mindset in prior century. The Germans and the Japanese, while they didn't exactly love us, were more advanced and their cultures were not based on murdering anyone who disagreed with their religion.

It's one thing that the Jihadis are uncivilized and vicious. It's another that they have access to arms and technology that can do the job. Not a good place for us, since we just don't approach war like they do.

.

I think this is the same cruelty, same psychology behind it, Germans, Japanese, and Middle East.

But the difference is, how you can reference to them.

No name of a country...

Is it Iraq? or Syria? or Lebanon? or which, who?

Germans were Germans, who are Middle East people?

Well, they are Sunnis and Shias...

Europe had this conflict, well somewhere around 15th, 16th century, I guess...

 

[Oldstyle]

So you're making the point that ISIS had a home in Iraq during the George W. Bush Administration? Really, Jed? I must have MISSED that somehow!!! Here I thought that Iraq was "over run" by ISIS six years into Barack Obama's Administration! Wow...I must really not have been paying attention!!!

Dance your pants off, guy. That's not what I said. Isis is a direct result of the Bush/Cheney destabilization of the region. That's what I said

But Jed! Barack Obama killed Osama bin Laden and had Al Queda "on the run"! Did he somehow "miss" the briefings that were coming in about the terror group that was so out of control that they got kicked out of Al Queda? I guess this would be another of those things that Barry would have needed to hear about from the media?

It's one of those things that we wouldn't be talking about if Bush hadn't turned Iraq into a terrorist recruitment tool.

Since ISIS was spawned in Syria...and Bush had ZERO to do with what's happening there...how is it that Bush is somehow responsible for ISIS? Is Libya Bush's fault as well? Iran? Afghanistan? Liberia? the Sudan? What pray tell...is Barry's fault? He's been in office for six YEARS! Surely HIS foreign policy must have kicked in by now?

 

[Oldstyle]

We seem to think that invading and occupying a sovereign country, killing thousands of its citizens, bombing the shit out of it, and then installing a "leader" of whom we approve is going to work like a charm.

I mean, look at our Middle East track record with this strategy.

Garsh, I can't believe it didn't go well.

.

Hmmm....seemed to work fairly well in both Germany and Japan...

That's why I specified the Middle East.

.

So is the problem with the strategy or is the problem with the Middle East? Would this be the time to point out that the people of the Middle East have repeatedly shown a tendency to totally ignore what would make their lives immeasurably better...Democracy...because they are so intent on killing those that don't agree with their religion?

Our dilemma is that we expect rational behavior from people who have shown an inability to BE rational!

The German and Japanese people were astute enough to realize that acting in that manner ultimately brought not only immense suffering to others but to themselves as well. We offered them Democracy and they willingly accepted.

The question now is how long is it going to take for the players in the Middle East to realize that THEY are their own worst enemies?

I think you're nailing it, and that's the problem. We're dealing with people who largely have a mindset in prior century. The Germans and the Japanese, while they didn't exactly love us, were more advanced and their cultures were not based on murdering anyone who disagreed with their religion.

It's one thing that the Jihadis are uncivilized and vicious. It's another that they have access to arms and technology that can do the job. Not a good place for us, since we just don't approach war like they do.

.

I think this is the same cruelty, same psychology behind it, Germans, Japanese, and Middle East.

But the difference is, how you can reference to them.

No name of a country...

Is it Iraq? or Syria? or Lebanon? or which, who?

Germans were Germans, who are Middle East people?

Well, they are Sunnis and Shias...

Europe had this conflict, well somewhere around 15th, 16th century, I guess...

With all due respect, Alpine...some parts of Europe has been having conflicts over the same type things a lot more recently than the 16th century! The Balkans were as bad as this is only twenty years ago.

 

[Skylar]

So you're making the point that ISIS had a home in Iraq during the George W. Bush Administration? Really, Jed? I must have MISSED that somehow!!! Here I thought that Iraq was "over run" by ISIS six years into Barack Obama's Administration! Wow...I must really not have been paying attention!!!

Dance your pants off, guy. That's not what I said. Isis is a direct result of the Bush/Cheney destabilization of the region. That's what I said

But Jed! Barack Obama killed Osama bin Laden and had Al Queda "on the run"! Did he somehow "miss" the briefings that were coming in about the terror group that was so out of control that they got kicked out of Al Queda? I guess this would be another of those things that Barry would have needed to hear about from the media?

It's one of those things that we wouldn't be talking about if Bush hadn't turned Iraq into a terrorist recruitment tool.

Since ISIS was spawned in Syria...and Bush had ZERO to do with what's happening there...how is it that Bush is somehow responsible for ISIS? Is Libya Bush's fault as well? Iran? Afghanistan? Liberia? the Sudan? What pray tell...is Barry's fault? He's been in office for six YEARS! Surely HIS foreign policy must have kicked in by now?

The 'Arab Spring' is responsible for ISIS. You had brutal, oppressive, and largely agnostic'ish regimes that kept militant Islam is check. Most of which we supported, directly or tacitly. The 'Arab Spring' lead to a domino of collapsing leadership in the region or collapsing political stability and civil war. It was within this considerably chaos that militant islamic organizations like ISIS grew.

ISIS as a powerhouse in the region is a very recent phenomenon.....all post Arab Spring. WIth ISIS growing to real significance in the last 18 months or so.

One could argue that Bush is responsible for the Arab Spring if you took his 'promotion of democracy in the middle east' rhetoric seriously. If not, its a bit of a stretch. And Obama had little to do with either.

 

[EconChick]

I think the "obligation" was for the government of the United States to put pressure on Maliki to do the right thing.

That is no "obligation". The
Problem is in the real world Maliki had his own ideas as to what is "the right thing" since 2007 when he told Bush the end of US troops in Iraq needs to come to an end.

Maliki opposed the US on many occasions:

More than six months after the start of the Syrian uprising, Iraq is offering key moral and financial support to the country’s embattled president, undermining a central U.S. policy objective and raising fresh concerns that Iraq is drifting further into the orbit of an American arch rival — Iran.

National Security
Iraq, siding with Iran, sends “lifeline to Assad”

Washington Post Breaking News World US DC News Analysis

Oh look. It's my favorite liberal dum dum who has absolutely no expertise on this subject lying and misinforming the public again.

What's wrong, StillObsessedWithBush? I trounced you on about 5 other threads where you lied out your teeth about this very subject. You think you're going to find a new crowd of people you haven't lied to or manipulated yet?

And just in case there are.... folks, you're dealing with a pathological liar whom I tried honestly debating on this subject in the first thread it came up in.

He has no military background, no intel background, no time in Iraq, no time with NGOs, no time working with State Department, no time working closely with the White House, and certainly no ability to understand the way diplomacy worked there.

All things I have extensive experience in.

It's unknown whether he's paid to be on this site lying to people, or whether he's just a volunteer political hack, but if incessant lying about a topic on the internet could be punished, he'd be taken all the way to the guillotine.

StillObsessed, I will stay on your lying ass till the elections, because misinforming the public the way you and your idiot friends have in the past 6 years will no longer stand unchallenged....I don't care HOW much you're backed up by a corrupt, lying media.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Vast parts of the country are controlled by some of the most vile people ever to walk the planet and you want to claim that "All is well!"

No need to start lying about my position just because you can't back up your false claim. I have not claimed that "All is well". That is bogus and you must know it. Here is what you have attempted to reply to.

"No first you would need to verify somehow with a credible source that Iraq has ceased to be as free and democratic as it was at the time of Joe Biden's remarks."

When I used the word "ceased" it means that Iraq has 'ceased" to exist in a free and democratic state. Isis has terrorized control of a million people out of 20 million. That is tragic and catastrophic for the people directly involved, but the vast majority of Iraqis continue to be as free and democratic as they were when Biden said what he said.


So you have chosen to exaggerate in favor of the terrorists as part of you politically motivated attacks on Obama.

You are making the same argument that EconChick messed up a while back. Do you agree that Bush handed over a stable Iraq?

Bush handed over a stable Iraq. Obama fucked it up.

 

[EconChick]

so why didn't Bush negotiate a status of forces agreement when he had the leverage?

Another clueless question. Try looking at over a hundred posts on this topic I made in numerous other threads about the same question.

 

[Skylar]

Vast parts of the country are controlled by some of the most vile people ever to walk the planet and you want to claim that "All is well!"

No need to start lying about my position just because you can't back up your false claim. I have not claimed that "All is well". That is bogus and you must know it. Here is what you have attempted to reply to.

"No first you would need to verify somehow with a credible source that Iraq has ceased to be as free and democratic as it was at the time of Joe Biden's remarks."

When I used the word "ceased" it means that Iraq has 'ceased" to exist in a free and democratic state. Isis has terrorized control of a million people out of 20 million. That is tragic and catastrophic for the people directly involved, but the vast majority of Iraqis continue to be as free and democratic as they were when Biden said what he said.


So you have chosen to exaggerate in favor of the terrorists as part of you politically motivated attacks on Obama.

You are making the same argument that EconChick messed up a while back. Do you agree that Bush handed over a stable Iraq?

Bush handed over a stable Iraq. Obama fucked it up.

I wouldn't consider over 300 Coalition deaths in 2008 to be 'stable'. It certainly sucked less than it id in 2007.

 

[Skylar]

so why didn't Bush negotiate a status of forces agreement when he had the leverage?

Another clueless question. Try looking at over a hundred posts on this topic I made in numerous other threads about the same question.

Neither the Iraqi people nor the Iraqi government wanted US troops in Iraq. Its hard to get around opposition like thazt.

 

[EconChick]

Vast parts of the country are controlled by some of the most vile people ever to walk the planet and you want to claim that "All is well!"

No need to start lying about my position just because you can't back up your false claim. I have not claimed that "All is well". That is bogus and you must know it. Here is what you have attempted to reply to.

"No first you would need to verify somehow with a credible source that Iraq has ceased to be as free and democratic as it was at the time of Joe Biden's remarks."

When I used the word "ceased" it means that Iraq has 'ceased" to exist in a free and democratic state. Isis has terrorized control of a million people out of 20 million. That is tragic and catastrophic for the people directly involved, but the vast majority of Iraqis continue to be as free and democratic as they were when Biden said what he said.


So you have chosen to exaggerate in favor of the terrorists as part of you politically motivated attacks on Obama.

You are making the same argument that EconChick messed up a while back. Do you agree that Bush handed over a stable Iraq?

Bush handed over a stable Iraq. Obama fucked it up.

And your credentials are what, idiot?

I'll wait for to never come up with them.......

I'll match mine to yours any day. Except you're scared out of your mind to do that.







Cricketts.













Cricketts.

 

[EconChick]

so why didn't Bush negotiate a status of forces agreement when he had the leverage?

Another clueless question. Try looking at over a hundred posts on this topic I made in numerous other threads about the same question.

Neither the Iraqi people nor the Iraqi government wanted US troops in Iraq. Its hard to get around opposition like thazt.

I don't have the patience to spend time actually posting long, thought out paragraphs of firsthand experience again......since I've already done it multiple times on this forum.....although as we get close to the election, I will take that time again. But in the meantime, your statement is inaccurate.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Oh look. It's my favorite liberal dum dum who has absolutely no expertise on this subject lying and misinforming the public again.

What's wrong, StillObsessedWithBush? I trounced you on about 5 other threads where you lied out your teeth about this very subject. You think you're going to find a new crowd of people you haven't lied to or manipulated yet?

And just in case there are.... folks, you're dealing with a pathological liar whom I tried honestly debating on this subject in the first thread it came up in.

He has no military background, no intel background, no time in Iraq, no time with NGOs, no time working with State Department, no time working closely with the White House, and certainly no ability to understand the way diplomacy worked there.

All things I have extensive experience in.

It's unknown whether he's paid to be on this site lying to people, or whether he's just a volunteer political hack, but if incessant lying about a topic on the internet could be punished, he'd be taken all the way to the guillotine.

StillObsessed, I will stay on your lying ass till the elections, because misinforming the public the way you and your idiot friends have in the past 6 years will no longer stand unchallenged....I don't care HOW much you're backed up by a corrupt, lying media.

Another clueless question. Try looking at over a hundred posts on this topic I made in numerous other threads about the same question.

And your credentials are what, idiot?

I'll wait for to never come up with them.......

I'll match mine to yours any day. Except you're scared out of your mind to do that.

Cricketts.


Cricketts.

I don't have the patience to spend time actually posting long, thought out paragraphs of firsthand experience again......since I've already done it multiple times on this forum.....although as we get close to the election, I will take that time again. But in the meantime, your statement is inaccurate.

The foul-mouth insulter is back from hiding. Threatening to run away again. Nothing new here.

 

[Skylar]

so why didn't Bush negotiate a status of forces agreement when he had the leverage?

Another clueless question. Try looking at over a hundred posts on this topic I made in numerous other threads about the same question.

Neither the Iraqi people nor the Iraqi government wanted US troops in Iraq. Its hard to get around opposition like thazt.

I don't have the patience to spend time actually posting long, thought out paragraphs of firsthand experience again......since I've already done it multiple times on this forum.....although as we get close to the election, I will take that time again. But in the meantime, your statement is inaccurate.

Since you're quoting yourself as a source, why don't you just give us the thread and post number of your evidence.

For example, the post I just quoted was #314. That an say a link like this:

Stunning Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created Page 16 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Would be enough to save yourself the time of retyping the same reply and us the difficulty of finding one post among tens of thousands on this forum.

 

[alpine]

We seem to think that invading and occupying a sovereign country, killing thousands of its citizens, bombing the shit out of it, and then installing a "leader" of whom we approve is going to work like a charm.

I mean, look at our Middle East track record with this strategy.

Garsh, I can't believe it didn't go well.

.

Hmmm....seemed to work fairly well in both Germany and Japan...

That's why I specified the Middle East.

.

So is the problem with the strategy or is the problem with the Middle East? Would this be the time to point out that the people of the Middle East have repeatedly shown a tendency to totally ignore what would make their lives immeasurably better...Democracy...because they are so intent on killing those that don't agree with their religion?

Our dilemma is that we expect rational behavior from people who have shown an inability to BE rational!

The German and Japanese people were astute enough to realize that acting in that manner ultimately brought not only immense suffering to others but to themselves as well. We offered them Democracy and they willingly accepted.

The question now is how long is it going to take for the players in the Middle East to realize that THEY are their own worst enemies?

I think you're nailing it, and that's the problem. We're dealing with people who largely have a mindset in prior century. The Germans and the Japanese, while they didn't exactly love us, were more advanced and their cultures were not based on murdering anyone who disagreed with their religion.

It's one thing that the Jihadis are uncivilized and vicious. It's another that they have access to arms and technology that can do the job. Not a good place for us, since we just don't approach war like they do.

.

I think this is the same cruelty, same psychology behind it, Germans, Japanese, and Middle East.

But the difference is, how you can reference to them.

No name of a country...

Is it Iraq? or Syria? or Lebanon? or which, who?

Germans were Germans, who are Middle East people?

Well, they are Sunnis and Shias...

Europe had this conflict, well somewhere around 15th, 16th century, I guess...

With all due respect, Alpine...some parts of Europe has been having conflicts over the same type things a lot more recently than the 16th century! The Balkans were as bad as this is only twenty years ago.

But that was a nationalist+religious in its sense. If you ask them who they fought, they will not say catholics or orthodox, they will say Serbs vs Croats.

Nationalistic idea vs Religious idea.

Thats the difference.

Nationalistic idea belongs to a much later layers of our history, comparing to Religious ideas. But not too far from what we call "civilized"

We seem to think that invading and occupying a sovereign country, killing thousands of its citizens, bombing the shit out of it, and then installing a "leader" of whom we approve is going to work like a charm.

I mean, look at our Middle East track record with this strategy.

Garsh, I can't believe it didn't go well.

.

Hmmm....seemed to work fairly well in both Germany and Japan...

That's why I specified the Middle East.

.

So is the problem with the strategy or is the problem with the Middle East? Would this be the time to point out that the people of the Middle East have repeatedly shown a tendency to totally ignore what would make their lives immeasurably better...Democracy...because they are so intent on killing those that don't agree with their religion?

Our dilemma is that we expect rational behavior from people who have shown an inability to BE rational!

The German and Japanese people were astute enough to realize that acting in that manner ultimately brought not only immense suffering to others but to themselves as well. We offered them Democracy and they willingly accepted.

The question now is how long is it going to take for the players in the Middle East to realize that THEY are their own worst enemies?

I think you're nailing it, and that's the problem. We're dealing with people who largely have a mindset in prior century. The Germans and the Japanese, while they didn't exactly love us, were more advanced and their cultures were not based on murdering anyone who disagreed with their religion.

It's one thing that the Jihadis are uncivilized and vicious. It's another that they have access to arms and technology that can do the job. Not a good place for us, since we just don't approach war like they do.

.

I think this is the same cruelty, same psychology behind it, Germans, Japanese, and Middle East.

But the difference is, how you can reference to them.

No name of a country...

Is it Iraq? or Syria? or Lebanon? or which, who?

Germans were Germans, who are Middle East people?

Well, they are Sunnis and Shias...

Europe had this conflict, well somewhere around 15th, 16th century, I guess...

With all due respect, Alpine...some parts of Europe has been having conflicts over the same type things a lot more recently than the 16th century! The Balkans were as bad as this is only twenty years ago.

There always have been a Serbia and a Croatia, but there have never been a Syria nor an Iraq.

Thats the reason why it is such a challenge to hold them together.

Because they never existed in the first place...

They are just a failed attempt of "Nation Building"..., a very disappointing one too...

 

[NotfooledbyW]

On 09-08-2014 at 01:42 PM

He has no military background, no intel background, no time in Iraq, no time with NGOs, no time working with State Department, no time working closely with the White House, and certainly no ability to understand the way diplomacy worked there. All things I have extensive experience in.

EconChick has all that extensive experience but did not know what I did about the Bush/Maliki SOFA of 2008. It needed to be passed by Iraq's Parliament. Perhaps she was just a gopher all this time. So She was caught in a huge 'SPECIFIC' lie and all she does now is go around calling me a liar and then running away again. Glad she's here. Maybe she'll stay this time

 

[Mustang]

President Bush warned that if we pulled out of Iraq too soon, it would be dangerous for Iraq, the region and the United States; it would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaeda. It would mean we are risking mass killings on a grand scale. It would allow the terrorists to replace the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d have to return at a later date to confront an enemy who is even more dangerous.



President Obama is trying to blame Bush but he won the war and Obama then handed over to ISIS.

Listen to this clip. He thinks people will fall for his blaming Bush for what is obviously his failure.








Stunning Bush Predicted Iraq Disaster Obama Actually Created www.independentsentinel.com

LOL!

How odd!

Why do I say that? Because certain people tried to warn Bush that invading Iraq had all the potential to be an unmitigated disaster which could affect the people, the region, and the US for years (if not decades).

So what are we supposed to do if the Iraqis can't clean up their own country after we've spent billions training their soldiers who either won't fight or engage in sectarian bloodshed? Are we supposed to continue to sacrifice Americans lives and spend billions more just to try to salvage Bush's tattered reputation? I don't think so.

Bush was an idiot who got us into the mess in Iraq for reasons that almost certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with the rationale we were given for the war. Now they want to blame Obama for the fact that the fiasco so many predicted (which the Bush people dismissed as either disloyalty, a lack of patriotism, cowardice, or just a plain old lack of a can-do attitude) once the predictions of the US being greeted with sweets and flowers was revealed to be a fantasy when the insurgency began and the sectarian violence between the Sunnis and the Shias raged back and forth?

While Bush was (and still is) a fool, I often reserved my harshest condemnation for me like William Krystol who get out there to peddle bad ideas and seem to be able to sway the opinions of so many who should no better given Krystols' track record (He was an early Palin booster).

But the idea that conservatives are going to succeed in laying the blame for what's now happening in Iraq (ISIS is a Sunni-sponsored attempt at retaking the reigns of power) on Obama is laughable. They'll only succeed in formulating an argument which conservatives will accept because of their penchant to embrace revisionist history in all it's forms if and when it paints themselves as heroes or victims by blaming anyone and everyone else for their own policy failures.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

008

Iraq is the only place the lib media can correctly say WMD was not found. Can the lib media guarantee you they didn't go somewhere else?

With all that military background, intel background, time in Iraq, time with NGOs, time working with State Department, and time working closely with the White House, EconChick believes in the WMDWMF "WMD were Moved Fairy".

She believes in that myth but to this day defends Bush for invading Iraq to find WMD there based upon intelligence that supposedly knew exactly where the WMD was in Iraq, but didn't have the intelligence that it was being moved, and still don't know that it was moved to where. Perhaps that was EconChick's intelligence contribution to the cause of killing tens of thousands of Iraqis for no national security reason and getting 4554 US troops killed in that process.

I can see EconChick, briefing Lil Dubya that she knows the WMD was moved. And when asked by somebody in the room prior to the war asked 'to where'. EconChick well we don't know where, we just know it has been moved.

Bush's oh what they hell. Lets invade Iraq anyway just for the hell of it . I want Saddam's pistol for my souvenoir collection. If it costs a trillion dollars and thousands of lives to get it .. so be it. I'm a war president.