Trump: Bush lied about reason for invading Iraq

[flacaltenn]

Re: holier than thou on Iraq policy argument.

flacaltenn 13544369

But as I've also told you -- the 12 years of death and destruction that we had inflicted on IRAQ -- and that YOUR SIDE had no plan for fixing --- was based on those same damn lies.. What part of that don't you understand?

I understand that you have formed an opinion that was made after some event that you won't reveal. Your evidence that containment was based on lies is nothing but that. An opinion based on heresay. The NFZs were effective in saving lives - specifically the Kurds and that was part of containment.

Your 'containment was all lies' argument still does not forgive Bush for lying in order to start a ground invasion and occupation of Iraq. There is no relationship between containment and actual invasion that forced Bush to order a ground invasion. He should have let the inspections continue as both Clinton's stated publically during the weeks before the invasion.

Your holier than thou 'containment was all lies' argument shows you have little respect or concern for international law and the purpose of the United Nations. You have not studied the entire situation very well regarding Iraq since SH SURRENDERED to an international coalition and signed a ceasefire agreement agreeing to UN inspections as one condition of his surrender.

No one knows what Saddam Hussein would have done if he was not contained for a full decade before he finally decided to allow inspections for real in December 2002 under the threat of war if he didn't.

Give us an explanation as to why the Clinton's public position in March 2003 that I just posted against the war in favor of completing the diplomatic inspection process makes no difference in the odd conclusion you have saddled upon your mind.

What WAS the god awful Containment policy based on? Has NOTHING to do with me. Or my opinions. It was based on the same lies that Iraq possessed WMDs. How do you not KNOW this? Clinton BOMBED Iraq right up until the time he left office. And CONTINUED to kill the children and elderly with that policy. He was not attempting to get Saddam to comply. The harder we pounded them, the more SH dug in.

And Clinton also managed to ignore the resignations of 3 TOP UN officials put in charge of humanitarian efforts to reduce the suffering. They all made SCATHING statements about the containment effort and would not be a part of it. ALL THIS while you had OTHER key officials at the UN caught getting kickbacks from Saddam himself for violations of the Oil for Food program. Do I CARE about the UN? No I don't. They were corrupt and inept as well.
So no -- I don't have a lot of respect for UN processes. But that also has nothing to do with the evidence they provided that CLEARLY indicated the WMD case was wholly overstated.

No additional inspections were required by 2002. The argument was over accounting for USELESS EXPIRED chemical weapons. SOMEBODY needed to fix it.

And in that debate spectacle that Dottie is so fixated on -- If Jeb had asked Trump the questions I posed a page ago. Trump's ONLY VALID answers would be to choose to drop the containment and slam SH if he twitched or do a quick invasion to remove the guy and get out. Those ARE the "better solutions".. But instead -- we learn NOTHING about how well these 2 mental midgets understand the situation and choices available at the time.

 

[Dot Com]

Lets stay on-topic shall we mkaythanks

Trump calls the last repub admin out for premeditated colossal disaster because the guys brother, who was up on the stage w/ him, claimed he kept us safe.

Seriously people. You look dumb deflecting the thread.

This is about a candidate saying his bro kept us safe Another candidate- Trump pointed out that 9/11 happened on this watch AND the optional war, based on lies, he got us into which has not "kept us safe"

Thanks guys.

Read the OP if you're not sure. This is a election- based, thread dealing w/ Trump and Jeb! only

Thanks

 

[flacaltenn]

Re: holier than thou on Iraq policy argument.

flacaltenn 13544804

Anyone who was not prepared to drop the containment and stop using the same lies to justify it -- are just as guilty.

How did you arrive at that conclusion? How did a decade of US containment policy cause or coerce Bush to lie to the entire world about hidden WMD on the eve of starting a full scale bombing and ground invasion into Iraq in March 2003?

It's simple logic. (Well maybe not for a partisan shill still defining himself publicly as NotFooledbyW).. If Bush's invasion was based on the WMD lies. Then the 12 year of crappy containment policy was ALSO based on the same lie. Why were we starving and killing children and elderly and bombing them daily? BECAUSE IT WAS ASSERTED that Iraq possessed WMDs.. That's why we had that crummy policy for 12 years. Same damned lie.

 

[flacaltenn]

Lets stay on-topic shall we mkaythanks

Trump calls the last repub admin out for premeditated colossal disaster because the guys brother, who was up on the stage w/ him, claimed he kept us safe.

Seriously people. You look dumb deflecting the thread.

This is about a candidate saying his bro kept us safe Another candidate- Trump pointed out that 9/11 happened on this watch AND the optional war, based on lies, he got us into which has not "kept us safe"

Thanks guys.

Read the OP if you're not sure. This is a election- based, thread dealing w/ Trump and Jeb! only

Thanks

Gee -- In the Title it says -- Bush lied about reason for invading Iraq.. I think exploring that Lie is fair game. Or looking at what answers we SHOULD have gotten from the clowns you adore. I understand you have a script in your mind about this all being about bashing Republicans -- but NEITHER party had a good solution for the problem that Bush TRIED to fix.

Go ask Hillary what SHE would have done during 1996 to 2000 with regards to Iraq if you want to see some yucks. Put HER up against her husbands actions.. The Repub nominee ought to do just that. And whoever UNDERSTANDS the situation and the options and is HONEST about what should have happened -- will ding BOTH the actions of Dems and Repubs.

YOU want to pretend there WAS NO PROBLEM.. I'm gonna remind you there was BIG problem. And SOMEONE had to fix it SOMEHOW.. Didn't see any other US politicians proposing solutions to Iraq? Did you?

 

[Dot Com]

You've lost it Sport. This is between two candidates running for the Repub nomination. Not you going back 30 yrs to justify that failed war started by Bush jr. Thread bumps are appreciated but you're coming across as obsessed seeing as you've been deflecting my thread for how many hours now?

For the third time, virtually all the candidates, INCLUDING Jeb! admit that Iraq was an avoidable blunder that George rushed into head- on and every school child knows that their reasons changed multiple times and were all debunked.

You're scary obsessed guy. Go out in the street and tell people that decade+ long death trap was justified and see the reactions you get.

 

[flacaltenn]

Saddam was a terrorist who slaughtered over half million of his own people. He would still be at it, or worse, if Bush hadn't taken him out. And here I thought you leftists were a compassionate bunch.

That 1/2 million includes military casualties from the Iran war and the Kuwait war. You take those out and our policy of containment and bombing killed FAR more than that.

Incorrect. He slaughtered half a million Iraqis, including a couple hundred thousand Kurds, and another 300 thousand during the rebellion of 91. AND, another 300 thousand in Iran war. So, just for shits, we'll call it a cool million, give or take...

I'm not sure why this is even being debated.

Bush did not go into Iraq to save the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. Had this been Bush's policy, then he'd have invade other countries with evil dictators that like to kill their own people. He didn't. Simple as.

You are correct FW -- he wasn't saving the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. He was TRYING to save them from over a decade of CRIPPLING economic sanctions (more strict than Iran or NK sanctions) and daily bombing by the USA...

 

[frigidweirdo]

Saddam was a terrorist who slaughtered over half million of his own people. He would still be at it, or worse, if Bush hadn't taken him out. And here I thought you leftists were a compassionate bunch.

That 1/2 million includes military casualties from the Iran war and the Kuwait war. You take those out and our policy of containment and bombing killed FAR more than that.

Incorrect. He slaughtered half a million Iraqis, including a couple hundred thousand Kurds, and another 300 thousand during the rebellion of 91. AND, another 300 thousand in Iran war. So, just for shits, we'll call it a cool million, give or take...

I'm not sure why this is even being debated.

Bush did not go into Iraq to save the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. Had this been Bush's policy, then he'd have invade other countries with evil dictators that like to kill their own people. He didn't. Simple as.

You are correct FW -- he wasn't saving the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. He was TRYING to save them from over a decade of CRIPPLING economic sanctions (more strict than Iran or NK sanctions) and daily bombing by the USA...

Do you think he actually gave any consideration to the Iraqi people? I mean, he didn't give them any consideration AFTER he had invaded and put Bremer in charge of everything and then turned Iraq into a petri dish for Islamic terrorism.

He didn't care about the US soldiers, he didn't care about the people who have been impacted all over the world by Islamic terrorism, and he didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people. Simple as.

 

[Jackson]

You've lost it Sport. This is between two candidates running for the Repub nomination. Not you going back 30 yrs to justify that failed war started by Bush jr. Thread bumps are appreciated but you're coming across as obsessed seeing as you've been deflecting my thread for how many hours now?

For the third time, virtually all the candidates, INCLUDING Jeb! admit that Iraq was an avoidable blunder that George rushed into head- on and every school child knows that their reasons changed multiple times and were all debunked.

You're scary obsessed guy. Go out in the street and tell people that decade+ long death trap was justified and see the reactions you get.

Lets stay on-topic shall we mkaythanks

Trump calls the last repub admin out for premeditated colossal disaster because the guys brother, who was up on the stage w/ him, claimed he kept us safe.

Seriously people. You look dumb deflecting the thread.

This is about a candidate saying his bro kept us safe Another candidate- Trump pointed out that 9/11 happened on this watch AND the optional war, based on lies, he got us into which has not "kept us safe"

Thanks guys.

Read the OP if you're not sure. This is a election- based, thread dealing w/ Trump and Jeb! only

Thanks

This thread is about Jeb? Because he said his brother kept us safe? Make up your mind or get your titles right!
Trump: Bush lied about reason for invading Iraq
Now, if Bush lied, where is your proof?

 

[Dot Com]

This thread is about Jeb? Because he said his brother kept us safe? Make up your mind or get your titles right!
Trump: Bush lied about reason for invading Iraq
Now, if Bush lied, where is your proof?

Stop wasting my time.

Seriously "Where did Bush lie"? You should do standup

 

[flacaltenn]

You've lost it Sport. This is between two candidates running for the Repub nomination. Not you going back 30 yrs to justify that failed war started by Bush jr. Thread bumps are appreciated but you're coming across as obsessed seeing as you've been deflecting my thread for how many hours now?

For the third time, virtually all the candidates, INCLUDING Jeb! admit that Iraq was an avoidable blunder that George rushed into head- on and every school child knows that their reasons changed multiple times and were all debunked.

You're scary obsessed guy. Go out in the street and tell people that decade+ long death trap was justified and see the reactions you get.

You don't even want to discuss what you SAY you want to discuss. I asked you how Hillary would respond if she was asked to justify her husbands 8 years of handling "the Iraq problem" -- Wouldn't that amuse you also?? Bringing up Mad Albright's comments and the Monica eve bombings, and ignoring all those resigning UN Humanitarian Aid Envoys and weapons inspectors? If you're only interested in the spectacle. That would be even MORE entertaining I think..

For the third time, virtually all the candidates, INCLUDING Jeb! admit that Iraq was an avoidable blunder that George rushed into head- on and every school child knows that their reasons changed multiple times and were all debunked.

And what would THEY have done? Isn't that the real interview question? Why wasn't Trump asked what he would have done? Maybe build a wall and make them pay for it? It's ALL BullShit unless YOU know what THEY would have done.

If you know what each of them WOULD have done Dottie -- Please tell me. Or we might all be interested in what YOU wanted to do in the 1990s when the UN was reporting deaths of up to 30,000 children/elderly per year from the effects of containment.

 

[Jackson]

Well, I guess you should not have started a thread if you didn't want a dialogue. You crazy?

 

[Illya. K. Makrus]

Saddam was a terrorist who slaughtered over half million of his own people. He would still be at it, or worse, if Bush hadn't taken him out. And here I thought you leftists were a compassionate bunch.

That 1/2 million includes military casualties from the Iran war and the Kuwait war. You take those out and our policy of containment and bombing killed FAR more than that.

Incorrect. He slaughtered half a million Iraqis, including a couple hundred thousand Kurds, and another 300 thousand during the rebellion of 91. AND, another 300 thousand in Iran war. So, just for shits, we'll call it a cool million, give or take...

I'm not sure why this is even being debated.

Bush did not go into Iraq to save the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. Had this been Bush's policy, then he'd have invade other countries with evil dictators that like to kill their own people. He didn't. Simple as.

You are correct FW -- he wasn't saving the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. He was TRYING to save them from over a decade of CRIPPLING economic sanctions (more strict than Iran or NK sanctions) and daily bombing by the USA...

Do you think he actually gave any consideration to the Iraqi people? I mean, he didn't give them any consideration AFTER he had invaded and put Bremer in charge of everything and then turned Iraq into a petri dish for Islamic terrorism.

He didn't care about the US soldiers, he didn't care about the people who have been impacted all over the world by Islamic terrorism, and he didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people. Simple as.

I don't blame Bush for "not caring about the Iraqi people", but he led us into a war which costs lives of OUR soldiers and trillions of dollars. Guess what? We are not winning! We don't even know what our strategic goals are! It's a total mess, and Bush is responsible for that mess. Now the right wing establishment want to paint it as a success, they're like the naked emperor with his "new clothes". Now everybody is enjoying a good laugh.

 

[flacaltenn]

Saddam was a terrorist who slaughtered over half million of his own people. He would still be at it, or worse, if Bush hadn't taken him out. And here I thought you leftists were a compassionate bunch.

That 1/2 million includes military casualties from the Iran war and the Kuwait war. You take those out and our policy of containment and bombing killed FAR more than that.

Incorrect. He slaughtered half a million Iraqis, including a couple hundred thousand Kurds, and another 300 thousand during the rebellion of 91. AND, another 300 thousand in Iran war. So, just for shits, we'll call it a cool million, give or take...

I'm not sure why this is even being debated.

Bush did not go into Iraq to save the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. Had this been Bush's policy, then he'd have invade other countries with evil dictators that like to kill their own people. He didn't. Simple as.

You are correct FW -- he wasn't saving the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. He was TRYING to save them from over a decade of CRIPPLING economic sanctions (more strict than Iran or NK sanctions) and daily bombing by the USA...

Do you think he actually gave any consideration to the Iraqi people? I mean, he didn't give them any consideration AFTER he had invaded and put Bremer in charge of everything and then turned Iraq into a petri dish for Islamic terrorism.

He didn't care about the US soldiers, he didn't care about the people who have been impacted all over the world by Islamic terrorism, and he didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people. Simple as.

I actually think he got it. He felt a sense of urgency to do something because of

1) the toll it was taking on the Iraqi people. And our sanctions should never be designed that way for so long.

2) the mess at the UN with the resignations criticizing the policy from weapons inspectors and humanitarian officials.. And the corruption.

3) the urgency to stop persecuting and killing an entire COUNTRY of Muslim Arabs in a time when he wanted to run a general "War on Terrorism". Looked bad to be bombing Iraq daily and saying we weren't at war with all of Islam..

But you're right. We arrived to NAG the Iraqi people into Democracy and running stuff our way. We became super nannies to a people who were not in the mood to be feeling the love. We ran off their military and govt and tried to make replacements in own image. THAT -- was tone deaf -- to say the least. AND -- it's Bush's fault for taking that advice. But I DON'T fault him for having the balls to do SOMETHING to end 12 VERY BAD years of former US policy. He should have figured out what it was gonna cost us in lives and money before his first term was up...

 

[frigidweirdo]

That 1/2 million includes military casualties from the Iran war and the Kuwait war. You take those out and our policy of containment and bombing killed FAR more than that.

Incorrect. He slaughtered half a million Iraqis, including a couple hundred thousand Kurds, and another 300 thousand during the rebellion of 91. AND, another 300 thousand in Iran war. So, just for shits, we'll call it a cool million, give or take...

I'm not sure why this is even being debated.

Bush did not go into Iraq to save the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. Had this been Bush's policy, then he'd have invade other countries with evil dictators that like to kill their own people. He didn't. Simple as.

You are correct FW -- he wasn't saving the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. He was TRYING to save them from over a decade of CRIPPLING economic sanctions (more strict than Iran or NK sanctions) and daily bombing by the USA...

Do you think he actually gave any consideration to the Iraqi people? I mean, he didn't give them any consideration AFTER he had invaded and put Bremer in charge of everything and then turned Iraq into a petri dish for Islamic terrorism.

He didn't care about the US soldiers, he didn't care about the people who have been impacted all over the world by Islamic terrorism, and he didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people. Simple as.

I don't blame Bush for "not caring about the Iraqi people", but he led us into a war which costs lives of OUR soldiers and trillions of dollars. Guess what? We are not winning! We don't even know what our strategic goals are! It's a total mess, and Bush is responsible for that mess. Now the right wing establishment want to paint it as a success, they're like the naked emperor with his "new clothes". Now everybody is enjoying a good laugh.

It was always going to be a mess.

If you look at the causes of terrorism, it's generally the big boys who cause it.

The IRA, you don't need to look hard to see that the whole thing happened because of the actions of the British govt.
ETA, the same but for the Spanish govt.

The goals and aims of the whole thing were "a secret", well, not really, but many people know what they are, but many choose to ignore them.

The first goal was to disrupt OPEC and get oil prices lower. This was actually a success. The coup d'etat in Venezuela in 2002 was also part of this. Targeting Iran since 2001, and attacking Libya were also a part of this (yes, I know Obama did it, however McCain was all over it and Obama did what a career politician would do).

Other goals were there, helping Israel out against their enemy of Saddam and other minor goals, but reducing the impact of OPEC was the big one.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That 1/2 million includes military casualties from the Iran war and the Kuwait war. You take those out and our policy of containment and bombing killed FAR more than that.

Incorrect. He slaughtered half a million Iraqis, including a couple hundred thousand Kurds, and another 300 thousand during the rebellion of 91. AND, another 300 thousand in Iran war. So, just for shits, we'll call it a cool million, give or take...

I'm not sure why this is even being debated.

Bush did not go into Iraq to save the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. Had this been Bush's policy, then he'd have invade other countries with evil dictators that like to kill their own people. He didn't. Simple as.

You are correct FW -- he wasn't saving the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. He was TRYING to save them from over a decade of CRIPPLING economic sanctions (more strict than Iran or NK sanctions) and daily bombing by the USA...

Do you think he actually gave any consideration to the Iraqi people? I mean, he didn't give them any consideration AFTER he had invaded and put Bremer in charge of everything and then turned Iraq into a petri dish for Islamic terrorism.

He didn't care about the US soldiers, he didn't care about the people who have been impacted all over the world by Islamic terrorism, and he didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people. Simple as.

I actually think he got it. He felt a sense of urgency to do something because of

1) the toll it was taking on the Iraqi people. And our sanctions should never be designed that way for so long.

2) the mess at the UN with the resignations criticizing the policy from weapons inspectors and humanitarian officials.. And the corruption.

3) the urgency to stop persecuting and killing an entire COUNTRY of Muslim Arabs in a time when he wanted to run a general "War on Terrorism". Looked bad to be bombing Iraq daily and saying we weren't at war with all of Islam..

But you're right. We arrived to NAG the Iraqi people into Democracy and running stuff our way. We became super nannies to a people who were not in the mood to be feeling the love. We ran off their military and govt and tried to make replacements in own image. THAT -- was tone deaf -- to say the least. AND -- it's Bush's fault for taking that advice. But I DON'T fault him for having the balls to do SOMETHING to end 12 VERY BAD years of former US policy. He should have figured out what it was gonna cost us in lives and money before his first term was up...

1) The sanctions were a problem, but people didn't know how to contain someone like Saddam. However did Bush care? I'd doubt it. He wanted Saddam out of the way. Why? Why not Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe? Why not the Kims in North Korea? Why not the DRC (Congo) with all their problems?

Why specifically Iraq?

2) The weapons inspections were what? Bush was told there wasn't a threat, so why did he make out there was a threat when there wasn't? We know, for a fact, that he took dodgy intelligence and added more dodgy to the already dodgy. Why? Saddam was contained at that point in time.

3) Again, the persecution wasn't an issue. People died under Saddam and they died under Bremer. There wasn't much difference there. Bush didn't put things in place to stop it going balls up. Why not?

To end bad US foreign policy, by replacing it with EVEN WORSE foreign policy. Er........

 

[NotfooledbyW]

flacaltenn 13546596

You are correct FW -- he wasn't saving the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. He was TRYING to save them from over a decade of CRIPPLING economic sanctions (more strict than Iran or NK sanctions) and daily bombing by the USA...

He who?

Do you mean Bush43?

If thats who he is, you must be joking, right?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Jackson 13546608

Now, if Bush lied, where is your proof? Seriously "Where did Bush lie"?

its already in this thread:

Si Modo 13516818

So, if you say GWB's rationale for invasion of Iraq was WMDs, how is it he lied?

Dubya's justification for invading Iraq was announced by him on March 17, 2003 which was that he had intelligence the leaves no doubt that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from the (then current) UN WMD inspection regime.

That is a lie that is tightly verifiable by the fact that about ten days before that March 17 announcement, Bush43 sent Colin Powell to the UNSC with a draft resolution that would have allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power.

That means that on March 10, Bush did not have that doubtless intelligence before him. If he did, he was obligated by UNSC Res 1441 to hand over such Intel to the UN inspectors so they could verify whether it was true or not.

So if you believe that Bush was not lying on March 17, 2003 you need to explain how such undoubtable intelligence on Iraq hiding a lethal arsenal of WMD from 200 UN inspectors that had been on the ground in Iraq for four months, suddenly appeared in the Oval Office, just in time to justify the start of an invasion.

Bush's lie on March 17 2003 is easily proven and easily understood if you want to know the truth.

 

[Redfish]

13534847

. I said that the resolution would not have passed without dem votes, that is true.

That resolution passed in October 2002. Bush was not necessarily lying about WMD in October 2002. That is except the fact that he said he wanted to have the UNSC disarm Iraq PEACEFULLY.

That means because UN inspectors were not in Iraq in October 2002, there was justification to threaten war in order to get the inspectors back. Those were not lies to get Dem support for the authorization. Guess what? Saddam Hussen allowed the inspectors back in and the vast majority of nations by March 2003, wanted continued inspections not US invasion.

So the vote in October 2002 had nothing to do with Bush's LIE on March 17, 2003. That's when Bush committed the big WMD lie. (See my previous post)

The front runner in the GOP field knows Bush lied. Why don't you? The vote in October 2003 had nothing to do with Bush's WMD lie. Why try to defend him based on the October vote? He was not lying about WMD in Iraq then.

The GOP can't stop Trump from telling the truth about the Iraq invasion. Your storyline blaming Dems five months before Bush decided to invade doesn't work anymore. Bush lied, peopled died. Trump is right, you are wrong.

If Bush lied then so did both Clintons because they both said the exact same things at the exact same time.

I am not defending Bush, he screwed up, but you are trying to defend the dems who spoke the exact same "lies" at the exact same time.

My only point is that they all have blood on their hands. To put it all on Bush is just partisan bullshit.

Bill Clinton never invaded Iraq. His containment strategy worked for 8 years
Hillary was one vote out of 100 Senators, it does not reach the level of culpability of ordering an invasion

Bubba Clinton invaded Bosnia. Hillary said the exact same things about Iraq and WMDs that Bush said. She voted to authorize and fund the foolish invasion. Sure Bush was CIC and gave the order, if Hillary was CIC at that time she would have done the same thing, and you fricken well know it.

 

[Redfish]

Jackson 13546608

Now, if Bush lied, where is your proof? Seriously "Where did Bush lie"?

its already in this thread:

Si Modo 13516818

So, if you say GWB's rationale for invasion of Iraq was WMDs, how is it he lied?

Dubya's justification for invading Iraq was announced by him on March 17, 2003 which was that he had intelligence the leaves no doubt that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from the (then current) UN WMD inspection regime.

That is a lie that is tightly verifiable by the fact that about ten days before that March 17 announcement, Bush43 sent Colin Powell to the UNSC with a draft resolution that would have allowed Saddam Hussein to remain in power.

That means that on March 10, Bush did not have that doubtless intelligence before him. If he did, he was obligated by UNSC Res 1441 to hand over such Intel to the UN inspectors so they could verify whether it was true or not.

So if you believe that Bush was not lying on March 17, 2003 you need to explain how such undoubtable intelligence on Iraq hiding a lethal arsenal of WMD from 200 UN inspectors that had been on the ground in Iraq for four months, suddenly appeared in the Oval Office, just in time to justify the start of an invasion.

Bush's lie on March 17 2003 is easily proven and easily understood if you want to know the truth.

stating something that you believe to be true is not lying. But if that's your position, then Hillary lied about Iraq too, just like she lies about everything else.

 

[Redfish]

That 1/2 million includes military casualties from the Iran war and the Kuwait war. You take those out and our policy of containment and bombing killed FAR more than that.

Incorrect. He slaughtered half a million Iraqis, including a couple hundred thousand Kurds, and another 300 thousand during the rebellion of 91. AND, another 300 thousand in Iran war. So, just for shits, we'll call it a cool million, give or take...

I'm not sure why this is even being debated.

Bush did not go into Iraq to save the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. Had this been Bush's policy, then he'd have invade other countries with evil dictators that like to kill their own people. He didn't. Simple as.

You are correct FW -- he wasn't saving the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. He was TRYING to save them from over a decade of CRIPPLING economic sanctions (more strict than Iran or NK sanctions) and daily bombing by the USA...

Do you think he actually gave any consideration to the Iraqi people? I mean, he didn't give them any consideration AFTER he had invaded and put Bremer in charge of everything and then turned Iraq into a petri dish for Islamic terrorism.

He didn't care about the US soldiers, he didn't care about the people who have been impacted all over the world by Islamic terrorism, and he didn't give a damn about the Iraqi people. Simple as.

I don't blame Bush for "not caring about the Iraqi people", but he led us into a war which costs lives of OUR soldiers and trillions of dollars. Guess what? We are not winning! We don't even know what our strategic goals are! It's a total mess, and Bush is responsible for that mess. Now the right wing establishment want to paint it as a success, they're like the naked emperor with his "new clothes". Now everybody is enjoying a good laugh.

It could have been won, we were winning until obozo unilaterally declared defeat and pulled out.

I think we all agree that the mid east is a huge mess, but it has gotten worse under Obama's incompetence and weakness.