Trump: Bush lied about reason for invading Iraq

[Redfish]

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........

well you are right about one thing, Obama did replace bad foreign policy with EVEN WORSE foreign policy.

 

[Redfish]

He would have had he been POTUS.

No, he wouldn't have since he wouldn't have launched a ground invasion into Iraq as Bush idiotically did.

How the fuck do you know that? you are one of the biggest morons on this forum.

Spits the idiot who I just busted lying on another thread. Seems you're still butthurt over that. LOL

And I know that because he was president for 8 years and never did when he had the chance, if that was what he wanted to do.

I never lie. You will never "bust" me. You are incompetent and do not have the mental abilities to even participate in a discussion with me.

Bullshit. You claimed there were Democrats who backed Schumer when he suggested Bush nominees be denied confirmation by the Senate.

You then couldn't name a single one.

You claim to know what was in Clinton's head, Bush's head, and Hillary's head. Is that because you want to give head to all of them?

More bullshit. I never said I knew what was in any of their heads. I said Clinton had 8 years to go to war with Iraq had that been the route he cared to take -- and he didn't.

Democrats who agreed with Schumer:

Reid, Pelosi, Durban, Clinton, just to name 4. Now, are you claiming that Schumer was the ONLY democrat who said that no Bush appointee would get a hearing in the senate?

yes, Clinton did not go to war in Iraq, he chose Bosnia. What's your point?

 

[Redfish]

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.

Which "big guys" are causing radical muslim terrorism?

 

[Redfish]

Redfish 13540230

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

So you are wrong. Will you admit that? Both Clinton's expressed publicly in early March 2003 that they opposed Bush going to war as long as the inspection process was in progress. You've been wrong a very long time. It must come as a shock to you that you could be so wrong all this time. Or don't you care if you state things that are not based on the facts.

Don't feel bad, most on the left, the right, and very many in between, have never tried to understand Senator Clinton's vote on Iraq in the context of this very well put together time line:

.
On October 11, 2002, the day Hillary Clinton and others in the Senate voted on the Iraq war resolution, certain things were known, and other things were not known.

On October 11, 2002, everyone knew:
1. The text of the resolution, which stated that prior to any military action the President must first determine that reliance on peaceful means will not protect the security of the US, or enforcement of UN Security Council Resolutions,
2. The US and its allies were negotiating a UN Security Council resolution to compel new intrusive inspections in Iraq,
3. The publicly disclosed Key Judgments from the National Intelligence Estimate, and
4. That the neocons were talking about regime change and disparaging the idea of inspections.

On October 11, 2002 almost no one knew:
5. The extent to which George Bush was or was not bluffing about regime change,
6. That Colin Powell's power and authority would be neutralized by Cheney and Rumsfeld,
7. The extent to which Cheney and Rumsfeld had short-circuited the institutional integrity of the Pentagon and the CIA, and
8. The extent to which the NIE was based on cooked intelligence

In other words, almost no one knew the extent to which the Bush administration was undercutting all of our administrative and constitutional checks and balances. Even today, we don't know the extent of it.

So on October 11, 2002, almost no one could be expected to foresee that:
9. Bush would flagrantly abuse the discretion afforded him under terms of the joint resolution, specifically, his refusal to attempt to reconcile the inspectors' intelligence with the NIE, prior to the invasion, and
10. Bush's agreement to proceed with the inspections process was a sham from the beginning.

And what was Hillary Clinton saying during the months after her vote?

"Hillary Clinton tells Irish TV she is against war with Iraq," Irish Times, February 8, 2003

"Hillary Clinton prefers 'peaceful solution' in Iraq," Associated Press March 3, 2003
"[Clinton said the US] should continue its attempts to build an international alliance rather than going to war quickly with Iraq...nspection is preferable to war, if it works, the New York Democrat said."

On March 18, 2003, everyone (who was willing to look) knew with substantial certainty that:
11. UN inspections had discredited the NIE,
12. The White House made no effort to reconcile the inspectors findings with their prior intelligence assumptions,
13. The White House offered nothing substantive to refute the inspectors' findings,
14. Hans Blix said the inspectors, who found nothing that presented even a remote danger to the US or Europe, could complete their work in a matter of months,
15. George Bush had promised to call for another Security Council vote to invade, ("Everyone will show their cards,") and totally disregarded that promise a few days later,
16. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and others said their was insufficient basis for launching a war at that time,
17. Most of our allies were - including Britain - also advocating more time for the inspections to be completed, and
18. Mainstream media never seriously considered or reported Numbers 11 through 16 above.

Put another way, Number 18 meant that, at a time in the world when a journalist's professionalism and integrity counted most, Helen Thomas stood virtually alone in the Beltway press corps, courageously asking hard questions while surrounded by cowards. Tim Russert's sycophancy stands out because he repeatedly lied about the inspectors.

To this day, Chris Matthews forgets about the elephant in the room. He interviewed White House speech writer Michael Gerson, John McCain, and George Tenet, each of whom repeated the canard that they believed at the time of the invasion that Saddam had WMD. Matthews never referenced the reports by Blix and ElBaradei, which prove that their "beliefs" were based on a reckless indifference to the truth.

Chris Matthews Rewrites History about the Clintons and the Origins of the Iraq War

Key Paragraph:

(So on October 11, 2002, almost no one could be expected to foresee that:
9. Bush would flagrantly abuse the discretion afforded him under terms of the joint resolution, specifically, his refusal to attempt to reconcile the inspectors' intelligence with the NIE, prior to the invasion, and
10. Bush's agreement to proceed with the inspections process was a sham from the beginning.)

Those claiming to have known that are making that claim in hindsight.

I am not wrong, the record is clear on what was said, who said it, and when. Hillary Clinton is as guilty as Bush. But she did land under sniper fire, so all is well, idiot.

 

[Care4all]

No, he wouldn't have since he wouldn't have launched a ground invasion into Iraq as Bush idiotically did.

How the fuck do you know that? you are one of the biggest morons on this forum.

Spits the idiot who I just busted lying on another thread. Seems you're still butthurt over that. LOL

And I know that because he was president for 8 years and never did when he had the chance, if that was what he wanted to do.

I never lie. You will never "bust" me. You are incompetent and do not have the mental abilities to even participate in a discussion with me.

Bullshit. You claimed there were Democrats who backed Schumer when he suggested Bush nominees be denied confirmation by the Senate.

You then couldn't name a single one.

You claim to know what was in Clinton's head, Bush's head, and Hillary's head. Is that because you want to give head to all of them?

More bullshit. I never said I knew what was in any of their heads. I said Clinton had 8 years to go to war with Iraq had that been the route he cared to take -- and he didn't.

Democrats who agreed with Schumer:

Reid, Pelosi, Durban, Clinton, just to name 4. Now, are you claiming that Schumer was the ONLY democrat who said that no Bush appointee would get a hearing in the senate?

yes, Clinton did not go to war in Iraq, he chose Bosnia. What's your point?

gawd, you are something else when it comes to your lies lies and lies.

Schumer never said any of the Supreme Court or Judge nominees/appointees under Bush should not get a hearing....EVER.

What he said was they needed to VET his candidates better...vetting candidates is through hearings dumbo.

 

[Redfish]

How the fuck do you know that? you are one of the biggest morons on this forum.

Spits the idiot who I just busted lying on another thread. Seems you're still butthurt over that. LOL

And I know that because he was president for 8 years and never did when he had the chance, if that was what he wanted to do.

I never lie. You will never "bust" me. You are incompetent and do not have the mental abilities to even participate in a discussion with me.

Bullshit. You claimed there were Democrats who backed Schumer when he suggested Bush nominees be denied confirmation by the Senate.

You then couldn't name a single one.

You claim to know what was in Clinton's head, Bush's head, and Hillary's head. Is that because you want to give head to all of them?

More bullshit. I never said I knew what was in any of their heads. I said Clinton had 8 years to go to war with Iraq had that been the route he cared to take -- and he didn't.

Democrats who agreed with Schumer:

Reid, Pelosi, Durban, Clinton, just to name 4. Now, are you claiming that Schumer was the ONLY democrat who said that no Bush appointee would get a hearing in the senate?

yes, Clinton did not go to war in Iraq, he chose Bosnia. What's your point?

gawd, you are something else when it comes to your lies lies and lies.

Schumer never said any of the Supreme Court or Judge nominees/appointees under Bush should not get a hearing....EVER.

What he said was they needed to VET his candidates better...vetting candidates is through hearings dumbo.

I think you need to look up the quote. that's exactly what he said.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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

No. HRC stated quite publically her opposition to invading Iraq on March 3, 2003 in favor of continuing inspections. Bush chose war over continued inspections. Hillary didn't lie that she had intelligence leaving no doubt that SH was hiding the most lethal wespons ever devised so the inspections must be ended in favor of war. Bush lied about having intelligence as I explained before. HRC made no so lie.

 

[Redfish]

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

No. HRC stated quite publically her opposition to invading Iraq on March 3, 2003 in favor of continuing inspections. Bush chose war over continued inspections. Hillary didn't lie that she had intelligence leaving no doubt that SH was hiding the most lethal wespons ever devised so the inspections must be ended in favor of war. Bush lied about having intelligence as I explained before. HRC made no so lie.

your left wing version of history is interesting, wrong, but interesting.

But, what is W running for this year? why so much focus on him? Trump said what you libs have been saying for years. You should be voting for Trump

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Clinton didn't invade Bosnia at all.

UNPROFOR was in Bosnia and it did have US soldiers, but this was 1992 to 1995 and that certainly wasn't an invasion. Then after 1995 it was IFOR which was based on an agreement that had been signed by all parties in the war.

Iraq and Bosnia were completely different situations. But then actually knowing history takes some effort at reading stuff.

 

[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.

Clinton didn't invade Bosnia at all.

UNPROFOR was in Bosnia and it did have US soldiers, but this was 1992 to 1995 and that certainly wasn't an invasion. Then after 1995 it was IFOR which was based on an agreement that had been signed by all parties in the war.

Iraq and Bosnia were completely different situations. But then actually knowing history takes some effort at reading stuff.

Clinton put American troops on the ground in Bosnia, some of them died there. The only difference is the size of the conflict. Both were wastes of American lives and money

 

[Faun]

No, he wouldn't have since he wouldn't have launched a ground invasion into Iraq as Bush idiotically did.

How the fuck do you know that? you are one of the biggest morons on this forum.

Spits the idiot who I just busted lying on another thread. Seems you're still butthurt over that. LOL

And I know that because he was president for 8 years and never did when he had the chance, if that was what he wanted to do.

I never lie. You will never "bust" me. You are incompetent and do not have the mental abilities to even participate in a discussion with me.

Bullshit. You claimed there were Democrats who backed Schumer when he suggested Bush nominees be denied confirmation by the Senate.

You then couldn't name a single one.

You claim to know what was in Clinton's head, Bush's head, and Hillary's head. Is that because you want to give head to all of them?

More bullshit. I never said I knew what was in any of their heads. I said Clinton had 8 years to go to war with Iraq had that been the route he cared to take -- and he didn't.

Democrats who agreed with Schumer:

Reid, Pelosi, Durban, Clinton, just to name 4. Now, are you claiming that Schumer was the ONLY democrat who said that no Bush appointee would get a hearing in the senate?

yes, Clinton did not go to war in Iraq, he chose Bosnia. What's your point?

No link, no credibility. You have to prove it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

No. HRC stated quite publically her opposition to invading Iraq on March 3, 2003 in favor of continuing inspections. Bush chose war over continued inspections. Hillary didn't lie that she had intelligence leaving no doubt that SH was hiding the most lethal wespons ever devised so the inspections must be ended in favor of war. Bush lied about having intelligence as I explained before. HRC made no so lie.

your left wing version of history is interesting, wrong, but interesting.

But, what is W running for this year? why so much focus on him? Trump said what you libs have been saying for years. You should be voting for Trump

History happens. We don't not talk about Hitler, or Napoleon, or Julius Caesar because they're not running for anything.

What Bush did happened. Accepting the "truth" of what happened.

Yes, Trump is saying something the Republicans aren't saying and he's still getting support. Maybe it's because people realize they were duped by Bush, or they just in it for the entertainment. Either way, Clinton did what she did with information that wasn't correct, Bush did what he did with information he knew wasn't correct and still misused the information anyway. That's just what happened.

 

[Faun]

No, he wouldn't have since he wouldn't have launched a ground invasion into Iraq as Bush idiotically did.

How the fuck do you know that? you are one of the biggest morons on this forum.

Spits the idiot who I just busted lying on another thread. Seems you're still butthurt over that. LOL

And I know that because he was president for 8 years and never did when he had the chance, if that was what he wanted to do.

I never lie. You will never "bust" me. You are incompetent and do not have the mental abilities to even participate in a discussion with me.

Bullshit. You claimed there were Democrats who backed Schumer when he suggested Bush nominees be denied confirmation by the Senate.

You then couldn't name a single one.

You claim to know what was in Clinton's head, Bush's head, and Hillary's head. Is that because you want to give head to all of them?

More bullshit. I never said I knew what was in any of their heads. I said Clinton had 8 years to go to war with Iraq had that been the route he cared to take -- and he didn't.

Democrats who agreed with Schumer:

Reid, Pelosi, Durban, Clinton, just to name 4. Now, are you claiming that Schumer was the ONLY democrat who said that no Bush appointee would get a hearing in the senate?

yes, Clinton did not go to war in Iraq, he chose Bosnia. What's your point?

Clinton didn't want to go to war in Iraq.

 

[frigidweirdo]

13534847That 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.

Clinton didn't invade Bosnia at all.

UNPROFOR was in Bosnia and it did have US soldiers, but this was 1992 to 1995 and that certainly wasn't an invasion. Then after 1995 it was IFOR which was based on an agreement that had been signed by all parties in the war.

Iraq and Bosnia were completely different situations. But then actually knowing history takes some effort at reading stuff.

Clinton put American troops on the ground in Bosnia, some of them died there. The only difference is the size of the conflict. Both were wastes of American lives and money

Yes, Clinton put troops there, and they were there to help end a conflict, which ended, and to help stabilize a country, which has more or less stabilized. The job was a success. One US soldier died in combat, 11 died in other circumstances, compared to 3,500 who died in Iraq.

Four died in Kosovo, you'd probably have been better off talking about Kosovo, four died there, but then again they did stop genocide.

Why not talk about the Gulf War, I mean, a small country like Kuwait gets invaded, who gives a damn? Oh, yeah, the oil people care, so those lives lost were worth it, right? Whereas losing one life to stop a conflict, and the action was successful is a bad thing....

A waste of money? Sometimes life is worth more than money.... or at least that's what some non-Americans tell me.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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........

well you are right about one thing, Obama did replace bad foreign policy with EVEN WORSE foreign policy.

Can we stop with this nonsense please? Either talk about what I'm talking about or just don't bother replying.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

gipper 13540438

He would have had he been POTUS.

That is a rediculous unsubstantiated bogus assumption. Bill Clinton is quoted in early March 2003 that Bush should continue inspections for as long as it takes and avoid war.

 

[Redfish]

How the fuck do you know that? you are one of the biggest morons on this forum.

Spits the idiot who I just busted lying on another thread. Seems you're still butthurt over that. LOL

And I know that because he was president for 8 years and never did when he had the chance, if that was what he wanted to do.

I never lie. You will never "bust" me. You are incompetent and do not have the mental abilities to even participate in a discussion with me.

Bullshit. You claimed there were Democrats who backed Schumer when he suggested Bush nominees be denied confirmation by the Senate.

You then couldn't name a single one.

You claim to know what was in Clinton's head, Bush's head, and Hillary's head. Is that because you want to give head to all of them?

More bullshit. I never said I knew what was in any of their heads. I said Clinton had 8 years to go to war with Iraq had that been the route he cared to take -- and he didn't.

Democrats who agreed with Schumer:

Reid, Pelosi, Durban, Clinton, just to name 4. Now, are you claiming that Schumer was the ONLY democrat who said that no Bush appointee would get a hearing in the senate?

yes, Clinton did not go to war in Iraq, he chose Bosnia. What's your point?

No link, no credibility. You have to prove it.

GFY. everything does not have to linked. Everyone who was alive during that time knows that Reid, Pelosi, Durban, and Clinton agreed with Schumer.

So I ask you one final time. Are you claiming that Schumer was the only democrat who wanted to block Bush nominees?

 

[Redfish]

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........

well you are right about one thing, Obama did replace bad foreign policy with EVEN WORSE foreign policy.

Can we stop with this nonsense please? Either talk about what I'm talking about or just don't bother replying.

I just put your post in proper context.

But we agree, Iraq was a stupid waste of American lives and money. What we disagree on is your erroneous claim that Bush did it all on his own, the he convinced the entire world to accept a lie, and that he was such a great communicator that he fooled all of the democrats-----------------or are you saying that Hillary and the dems were too stupid to see the truth? It has to be one or the other.

 

[Redfish]

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.

Clinton didn't invade Bosnia at all.

UNPROFOR was in Bosnia and it did have US soldiers, but this was 1992 to 1995 and that certainly wasn't an invasion. Then after 1995 it was IFOR which was based on an agreement that had been signed by all parties in the war.

Iraq and Bosnia were completely different situations. But then actually knowing history takes some effort at reading stuff.

Clinton put American troops on the ground in Bosnia, some of them died there. The only difference is the size of the conflict. Both were wastes of American lives and money

Yes, Clinton put troops there, and they were there to help end a conflict, which ended, and to help stabilize a country, which has more or less stabilized. The job was a success. One US soldier died in combat, 11 died in other circumstances, compared to 3,500 who died in Iraq.

Four died in Kosovo, you'd probably have been better off talking about Kosovo, four died there, but then again they did stop genocide.

Why not talk about the Gulf War, I mean, a small country like Kuwait gets invaded, who gives a damn? Oh, yeah, the oil people care, so those lives lost were worth it, right? Whereas losing one life to stop a conflict, and the action was successful is a bad thing....

A waste of money? Sometimes life is worth more than money.... or at least that's what some non-Americans tell me.

you really are a weirdo, only your close friends would know if you are frigid.

All presidents make mistakes, get past the partisan bullshit and deal with reality. Bashing Bush is not going to help elect Hillary, I don't know why you libs think it will.

 

[Camp]

Spits the idiot who I just busted lying on another thread. Seems you're still butthurt over that. LOL

And I know that because he was president for 8 years and never did when he had the chance, if that was what he wanted to do.

I never lie. You will never "bust" me. You are incompetent and do not have the mental abilities to even participate in a discussion with me.

Bullshit. You claimed there were Democrats who backed Schumer when he suggested Bush nominees be denied confirmation by the Senate.

You then couldn't name a single one.

You claim to know what was in Clinton's head, Bush's head, and Hillary's head. Is that because you want to give head to all of them?

More bullshit. I never said I knew what was in any of their heads. I said Clinton had 8 years to go to war with Iraq had that been the route he cared to take -- and he didn't.

Democrats who agreed with Schumer:

Reid, Pelosi, Durban, Clinton, just to name 4. Now, are you claiming that Schumer was the ONLY democrat who said that no Bush appointee would get a hearing in the senate?

yes, Clinton did not go to war in Iraq, he chose Bosnia. What's your point?

No link, no credibility. You have to prove it.

GFY. everything does not have to linked. Everyone who was alive during that time knows that Reid, Pelosi, Durban, and Clinton agreed with Schumer.

So I ask you one final time. Are you claiming that Schumer was the only democrat who wanted to block Bush nominees?

You can not find a link because you are distorting what Schumer said to start with. You are lying about the Schumer comment. He did not call for a 'no vote, no hearing, no consideration'. He said that after putting two far-right justices on the court, they should not put another one on it. He was suggesting a conservative of more moderate credentials be considered.
You are caught in the talking point lie and are unable to get out of it.