thursday at 9pm on MSNBC you will know why we went into Iraq

[Rat in the Hat]

what part of the facts offered in this documentary do you disagree are facts?

dudes you haven't even seen the Doc yet

Luddly Neddite saw it.

Ask him what the facts are.

 

[Roudy]

Dick Cheney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Cheney was around in the Cater days you silly gits

When were the "Cater days"????

Bush had a party catering business that catered food to the White House foreign policy members.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've already set the DVR to record Thursday Nights RM broadcast. Unlike those who believe they know everything my mind is open and I'm not threatened by any new facts that may come to light. I find it both sad and hilarious that so many who have posted on this thread believe they know the absolute truth behind our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Notwithstanding the cause, the net effect of our invasion and occupation of Iraq is beyond question a failure, maybe the worst failure of a foreign policy in our nations history. The question to be asked today is a simple one, have we learned anything from this fiasco which cost us a horrible amount in blood and treasure?

Some have, some have not. The Neo Cons and Chicken Hawks (many of those speaking are both) are saber rattling over Russia's action in Ukraine and the Yellow Journalists are ginning up the emotions in those who can't think for themselves and have no sense of history or Realpolitik (most of whom can't even define or understand the term, Realpolitik).

We'll see the magical power pushed used as Texas Governor to get Clinton, the CIA and all major Dems to come out against Saddam's WMD's

Look at the watch Bill and repeat after me

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"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

 

[Roudy]

yeah insults to battle facts.

how fucking stupid can you people get?

Did Sadam kill ten thousand Kurds with Chemical weapons? There's your fact. Doh!

 

[Roudy]

I've already set the DVR to record Thursday Nights RM broadcast. Unlike those who believe they know everything my mind is open and I'm not threatened by any new facts that may come to light. I find it both sad and hilarious that so many who have posted on this thread believe they know the absolute truth behind our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Notwithstanding the cause, the net effect of our invasion and occupation of Iraq is beyond question a failure, maybe the worst failure of a foreign policy in our nations history. The question to be asked today is a simple one, have we learned anything from this fiasco which cost us a horrible amount in blood and treasure?

Some have, some have not. The Neo Cons and Chicken Hawks (many of those speaking are both) are saber rattling over Russia's action in Ukraine and the Yellow Journalists are ginning up the emotions in those who can't think for themselves and have no sense of history or Realpolitik (most of whom can't even define or understand the term, Realpolitik).

We'll see the magical power pushed used as Texas Governor to get Clinton, the CIA and all major Dems to come out against Saddam's WMD's

Look at the watch Bill and repeat after me

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"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

I personally think Bush made it a mistake making only about WMD's. In a day and age when 19 Muslims with nothing but box cutters and determination were able to virtually cripple our country and change our way of life forever, who knows what a well financed, and highly militarized and organized Sadam with even more intent to harm Americans could do.

 

[Iceweasel]

I've already set the DVR to record Thursday Nights RM broadcast. Unlike those who believe they know everything my mind is open and I'm not threatened by any new facts that may come to light. I find it both sad and hilarious that so many who have posted on this thread believe they know the absolute truth behind our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Notwithstanding the cause, the net effect of our invasion and occupation of Iraq is beyond question a failure, maybe the worst failure of a foreign policy in our nations history. The question to be asked today is a simple one, have we learned anything from this fiasco which cost us a horrible amount in blood and treasure?

Some have, some have not. The Neo Cons and Chicken Hawks (many of those speaking are both) are saber rattling over Russia's action in Ukraine and the Yellow Journalists are ginning up the emotions in those who can't think for themselves and have no sense of history or Realpolitik (most of whom can't even define or understand the term, Realpolitik).

Lots of talking point catch phrases you learned to mimic there. Nothing substantive. We don't hear much about Iraq these days so that's probably a good thing. The "failure" hasn't been determined yet so your open mind comment was obviously in jest.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I've already set the DVR to record Thursday Nights RM broadcast. Unlike those who believe they know everything my mind is open and I'm not threatened by any new facts that may come to light. I find it both sad and hilarious that so many who have posted on this thread believe they know the absolute truth behind our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Notwithstanding the cause, the net effect of our invasion and occupation of Iraq is beyond question a failure, maybe the worst failure of a foreign policy in our nations history. The question to be asked today is a simple one, have we learned anything from this fiasco which cost us a horrible amount in blood and treasure?

Some have, some have not. The Neo Cons and Chicken Hawks (many of those speaking are both) are saber rattling over Russia's action in Ukraine and the Yellow Journalists are ginning up the emotions in those who can't think for themselves and have no sense of history or Realpolitik (most of whom can't even define or understand the term, Realpolitik).

We'll see the magical power pushed used as Texas Governor to get Clinton, the CIA and all major Dems to come out against Saddam's WMD's

Look at the watch Bill and repeat after me

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"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

You simply don't get it Frank, and that too is sad 'cause you believe you do. There is a difference between Rhetoric and War - the difference is the cost. In the former we kept Iraq at bay by establishing a no fly zone & economic sanctions; Bush, for no reason (as in logical) decided to invade and occupy Iraq with no plan for what was to come next.

What came next were the deaths and wounding - many permanent - of thousands of men and women in the service of our nation, thousands + of Iraqi Civilians, and an administration so consumed by war that our economy and domestic matters were at best second thoughts.

Let me help you out with a couple of Dictionary definitions:

realpolitik, politics based on practical objectives rather than on ideals. The word does not mean “real” in the English sense but rather connotes “things”—hence a politics of adaptation to things as they are. Realpolitik thus suggests a pragmatic, no-nonsense view and a disregard for ethical considerations. In diplomacy it is often associated with relentless, though realistic, pursuit of the national interest.

Realpolitik (from German: real "realistic", "practical", or "actual"; and Politik "politics", German pronunciation: [ʁeˈaːlpoliˌtɪk]) is politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral or ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. The term Realpolitik is sometimes used pejoratively to imply politics that are coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian.

 

[Truthmatters]

yeah insults to battle facts.

how fucking stupid can you people get?

Did Sadam kill ten thousand Kurds with Chemical weapons? There's your fact. Doh!

and you think killing him 20 years after the fact did what?

 

[Truthmatters]

The Bush admin lied about Sadam having WMDs.

they also LIED about dropping white phosphorous on Falughia until they were forced to admit it

 

[Wry Catcher]

yeah insults to battle facts.

how fucking stupid can you people get?

Did Sadam kill ten thousand Kurds with Chemical weapons? There's your fact. Doh!

How many Iraqi non combatants were killed by our reckless invasion and occupation of their nation? No doubt SH was evil and murdered thousands, but was that hell any different than the hell experienced by those maimed and the families of those killed by our efforts?

Who appointed George Bush as Police Chief for the world? Real conservatives understood even before the Iraq Fiasco that we should not act in that capacity - only "fucking stupid people" don't get it.

 

[bedowin62]

very few non-combatants were killed by American or coalition forces.

there are 275 MASS graves from the Saddam years being investigated now.

we have been the world's policeman for generations now matter how much you dont want to admit it




go cry

 

[bedowin62]

yeah insults to battle facts.

how fucking stupid can you people get?

Did Sadam kill ten thousand Kurds with Chemical weapons? There's your fact. Doh!

and you think killing him 20 years after the fact did what?

saddam routinely killed shiite Iraqis by the hundreds all the way to the end you idiot

 

[Iceweasel]

Bush had a party catering business that catered food to the White House foreign policy members.

I'll bet they were all undercover neo-Nazi Urks.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Prove the evidence that will be presented in the documentary has already been common knowledge.

you don't even know what it will be yet and you hate the FACTS

ask that question to the one who said it was already shown....your buddy Luddy.....im just telling you what he said earlier....

 

[Wry Catcher]

very few non-combatants were killed by American or coalition forces.

there are 275 MASS graves from the Saddam years being investigated now.

we have been the world's policeman for generations now matter how much you dont want to admit it




go cry

Really, very few Iraqi civilians died (I didn't say "killed by American Forces" or the dozen or so non British members of the so-called coalition)? Do you have evidence?

Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Suggests ^^^ you don't have a clue, that and your other comments suggest you're rather dumb.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Bush admin lied about Sadam having WMDs.

they also LIED about dropping white phosphorous on Falughia until they were forced to admit it

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"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

When was Bill Clinton in the Bush Administration?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I've already set the DVR to record Thursday Nights RM broadcast. Unlike those who believe they know everything my mind is open and I'm not threatened by any new facts that may come to light. I find it both sad and hilarious that so many who have posted on this thread believe they know the absolute truth behind our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Notwithstanding the cause, the net effect of our invasion and occupation of Iraq is beyond question a failure, maybe the worst failure of a foreign policy in our nations history. The question to be asked today is a simple one, have we learned anything from this fiasco which cost us a horrible amount in blood and treasure?

Some have, some have not. The Neo Cons and Chicken Hawks (many of those speaking are both) are saber rattling over Russia's action in Ukraine and the Yellow Journalists are ginning up the emotions in those who can't think for themselves and have no sense of history or Realpolitik (most of whom can't even define or understand the term, Realpolitik).

We'll see the magical power pushed used as Texas Governor to get Clinton, the CIA and all major Dems to come out against Saddam's WMD's

Look at the watch Bill and repeat after me

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"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

You simply don't get it Frank, and that too is sad 'cause you believe you do. There is a difference between Rhetoric and War - the difference is the cost. In the former we kept Iraq at bay by establishing a no fly zone & economic sanctions; Bush, for no reason (as in logical) decided to invade and occupy Iraq with no plan for what was to come next.

What came next were the deaths and wounding - many permanent - of thousands of men and women in the service of our nation, thousands + of Iraqi Civilians, and an administration so consumed by war that our economy and domestic matters were at best second thoughts.

Let me help you out with a couple of Dictionary definitions:

realpolitik, politics based on practical objectives rather than on ideals. The word does not mean “real” in the English sense but rather connotes “things”—hence a politics of adaptation to things as they are. Realpolitik thus suggests a pragmatic, no-nonsense view and a disregard for ethical considerations. In diplomacy it is often associated with relentless, though realistic, pursuit of the national interest.

Realpolitik (from German: real "realistic", "practical", or "actual"; and Politik "politics", German pronunciation: [ʁeˈaːlpoliˌtɪk]) is politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral or ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. The term Realpolitik is sometimes used pejoratively to imply politics that are coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian.

Even back when I believed that 9/11 was carried our by AQ, I thought Iraq was not the central axis in the "WOT" and maybe Saudi Arabia would have been the next logical place to strike after Afghanistan. It's above my pay grade.

But, now that its ridiculously obvious that AQ had little or nothing to do with carrying out the 9/11 attack; it didn't matter which foreign country we attacked, since none of them were the correct answer.

The Left still cannot come to terms with the loss of their media monopoly. It's funny at this point that we're able to post these statements from the Clinton Administration about Saddam WMD's and the Left still pretends they never happened

 

[Harry Dresden]

Dick Cheney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Cheney was around in the Cater days you silly gits

When were the "Cater days"????

i remember the "Death Valley Days".....with the ol ranger....

 

[jon_berzerk]

We'll see the magical power pushed used as Texas Governor to get Clinton, the CIA and all major Dems to come out against Saddam's WMD's

Look at the watch Bill and repeat after me

"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 Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"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

You simply don't get it Frank, and that too is sad 'cause you believe you do. There is a difference between Rhetoric and War - the difference is the cost. In the former we kept Iraq at bay by establishing a no fly zone & economic sanctions; Bush, for no reason (as in logical) decided to invade and occupy Iraq with no plan for what was to come next.

What came next were the deaths and wounding - many permanent - of thousands of men and women in the service of our nation, thousands + of Iraqi Civilians, and an administration so consumed by war that our economy and domestic matters were at best second thoughts.

Let me help you out with a couple of Dictionary definitions:

realpolitik, politics based on practical objectives rather than on ideals. The word does not mean “real” in the English sense but rather connotes “things”—hence a politics of adaptation to things as they are. Realpolitik thus suggests a pragmatic, no-nonsense view and a disregard for ethical considerations. In diplomacy it is often associated with relentless, though realistic, pursuit of the national interest.

Realpolitik (from German: real "realistic", "practical", or "actual"; and Politik "politics", German pronunciation: [ʁeˈaːlpoliˌtɪk]) is politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral or ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. The term Realpolitik is sometimes used pejoratively to imply politics that are coercive, amoral, or Machiavellian.

Even back when I believed that 9/11 was carried our by AQ, I thought Iraq was not the central axis in the "WOT" and maybe Saudi Arabia would have been the next logical place to strike after Afghanistan. It's above my pay grade.

But, now that its ridiculously obvious that AQ had little or nothing to do with carrying out the 9/11 attack; it didn't matter which foreign country we attacked, since none of them were the correct answer.

The Left still cannot come to terms with the loss of their media monopoly. It's funny at this point that we're able to post these statements from the Clinton Administration about Saddam WMD's and the Left still pretends they never happened

The Left still cannot come to terms with the loss of their media monopoly.

that scares them more then the loss of union monies

by far

which was the central theme behind the

latest idea they coined to have the FCC hang out

in news studios

 

[blastoff]

Hey, Truthmatters was right about all that PROOF, huh?

And now the national uproar is astounding all thanks to Ritchie Maddow. Won't be long now before the Nobel, Pulitizer, and other prizes come rollling in I'm sure.