When Everyone Agreed About Iraq

[Redfish]

I see.

So the President has no choice. If Congress approves funding for a war, the President has no choice but to go to war.

Yes?

.

OK, you are putting out a theoretical situation where a sitting president would decide not to implement a war or military action that was authorized and funded by congress. Nice intellectual question, but not pertinent to this thread.

The lefties in this thread have claimed that Bush lied about intel and put US troops into a war that congress did not approve of or fund--------that is simply inaccurate.

It's not a theoretical question.

Are you saying that President George W Bush, Commander in Chief of the United States of America in 2003, had no choice but to go to war once Congress approved funding for it?

Is that what you are saying?

It's not a theoretical question.

.

yes, technically he could have ignored congress and not done anything. but as someone else said-------its a stupid question.

 

[Mac1958]

OK, you are putting out a theoretical situation where a sitting president would decide not to implement a war or military action that was authorized and funded by congress. Nice intellectual question, but not pertinent to this thread.

The lefties in this thread have claimed that Bush lied about intel and put US troops into a war that congress did not approve of or fund--------that is simply inaccurate.

It's not a theoretical question.

Are you saying that President George W Bush, Commander in Chief of the United States of America in 2003, had no choice but to go to war once Congress approved funding for it?

Is that what you are saying?

It's not a theoretical question.

.

yes, technically he could have ignored congress and not done anything. but as someone else said-------its a stupid question.

BINGO, we have a winner.

Case closed, I'll save this page for future reference.

.

 

[Mac1958]

It's not a theoretical question.

Are you saying that President George W Bush, Commander in Chief of the United States of America in 2003, had no choice but to go to war once Congress approved funding for it?

Is that what you are saying?

It's not a theoretical question.

.

yes, technically he could have ignored congress and not done anything. but as someone else said-------its a stupid question.

BINGO, we have a winner.

Case closed, I'll save this page for future reference.

.

And, by the way, thanks for having the balls to answer the question.

Unlike others.

.

 

[Redfish]

It's not a theoretical question.

Are you saying that President George W Bush, Commander in Chief of the United States of America in 2003, had no choice but to go to war once Congress approved funding for it?

Is that what you are saying?

It's not a theoretical question.

.

yes, technically he could have ignored congress and not done anything. but as someone else said-------its a stupid question.

BINGO, we have a winner.

Case closed, I'll save this page for future reference.

.

only you would save a confirmation of your stupidity.

 

[Mac1958]

yes, technically he could have ignored congress and not done anything. but as someone else said-------its a stupid question.

BINGO, we have a winner.

Case closed, I'll save this page for future reference.

.

only you would save a confirmation of your stupidity.

Yes, I know, now we go to the obligatory personal insults.

All the same, thanks for answering my question.

.

 

[expatriate]

you are wrong, that has been demonstrated many times in this thread, continuing to repeat the same crap only makes you look like an ignorant partisan fool.

Are you suggesting that Team Bush did NOT state, on several occasions, that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD's?

sure they did, so did clinton, gore, kerry, hillary, the UK, the UN, france, germany, saudi arabia, japan, spain, italy, the EU, the US congress, and the UK parliament.

they may have all been wrong, but it was not just "team bush".

Are you suggesting that, when Team Bush said that there was no doubt, even when they KNEW FULL WELL that doubt existed within the intelligence community, they were NOT making a statement they knew to be false?

 

[Redfish]

BINGO, we have a winner.

Case closed, I'll save this page for future reference.

.

only you would save a confirmation of your stupidity.

Yes, I know, now we go to the obligatory personal insults.

All the same, thanks for answering my question.

.

OK, Mac. I think you may not be as radical as you try to pretend to be. but you need to know when to back off on some of the left wing BS.

and for the record, your question was theoretical.

 

[Seawytch]

To answer the OP...no, I don't remember when "everyone" agreed about Iraq. I remember when most people were behind the President after 9/11...and then he invaded the wrong country.

 

[Mac1958]

only you would save a confirmation of your stupidity.

Yes, I know, now we go to the obligatory personal insults.

All the same, thanks for answering my question.

.

OK, Mac. I think you may not be as radical as you try to pretend to be. but you need to know when to back off on some of the left wing BS.

and for the record, your question was theoretical.

I'd make a lousy left-winger. I disagree with them on several points.

And my question was as specific as this thread, and pertained precisely to this thread, and it was based entirely on the events of 2003. I know you didn't like the question, I know you tried to avoid it, but at least you ultimately answered it.

.

 

[Redfish]

Are you suggesting that Team Bush did NOT state, on several occasions, that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD's?

sure they did, so did clinton, gore, kerry, hillary, the UK, the UN, france, germany, saudi arabia, japan, spain, italy, the EU, the US congress, and the UK parliament.

they may have all been wrong, but it was not just "team bush".

Are you suggesting that, when Team Bush said that there was no doubt, even when they KNEW FULL WELL that doubt existed within the intelligence community, they were NOT making a statement they knew to be false?

this has already been covered. If you think they "knew it to be false" then go right ahead and believe that. do you also believe that the UN knew it to be false? how about the UK and the EU? how about saudi arabia and israel? were they all in on it?

can your partisan hatred have actually killed that many of your brain cells?

 

[Redfish]

To answer the OP...no, I don't remember when "everyone" agreed about Iraq. I remember when most people were behind the President after 9/11...and then he invaded the wrong country.

wytch, you should have stayed in the gay marriage thread---at least you know something about that topic.

 

[expatriate]

you are wrong, that has been demonstrated many times in this thread, continuing to repeat the same crap only makes you look like an ignorant partisan fool.

Are you suggesting that Team Bush did NOT state, on several occasions, that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD's?

We've been through this lots of times.

YOU are the liar.

President Bush and folks in his Administration DID say that there was "no doubt" that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMDs.

Even if that was incorrect, however, that is not a valid basis on which to claim that it was a "lie." You remain a dishonest bullshit flinging asshole liar.

Fact.

so you are saying that, when Bush and folks in his administration DID say that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD's, they were all totally unaware that doubt did, in fact exist within the intelligence community? You are saying that NONE of them had read the intelligence assessments that contained a myriad of caveats and qualifiers that did indeed cast doubt on the absolute certainty of Saddam's stockpiles?

It would seem that, if you are so hellbent on defending their HONESTY, that you must then be willing to admit to their profound incompetence. The only way that someone on Team Bush could say that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and have that not be a lie, would be for them to have willfully neglected to read the documents provided to them by the intelligence community. Which was it? Prevarication, or total criminal incompetence?

Clearly, you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass.

 

[Seawytch]

To answer the OP...no, I don't remember when "everyone" agreed about Iraq. I remember when most people were behind the President after 9/11...and then he invaded the wrong country.

wytch, you should have stayed in the gay marriage thread---at least you know something about that topic.

(the threads you run away from?)

Fish, I have two of these...you?

 

[Redfish]

Are you suggesting that Team Bush did NOT state, on several occasions, that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD's?

We've been through this lots of times.

YOU are the liar.

President Bush and folks in his Administration DID say that there was "no doubt" that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMDs.

Even if that was incorrect, however, that is not a valid basis on which to claim that it was a "lie." You remain a dishonest bullshit flinging asshole liar.

Fact.

so you are saying that, when Bush and folks in his administration DID say that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD's, they were all totally unaware that doubt did, in fact exist within the intelligence community? You are saying that NONE of them had read the intelligence assessments that contained a myriad of caveats and qualifiers that did indeed cast doubt on the absolute certainty of Saddam's stockpiles?

It would seem that, if you are so hellbent on defending their HONESTY, that you must then be willing to admit to their profound incompetence. The only way that someone on Team Bush could say that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and have that not be a lie, would be for them to have willfully neglected to read the documents provided to them by the intelligence community. Which was it? Prevarication, or total criminal incompetence?

Clearly, you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass.

do you ask the same questions about the UN, UK, EU, germany, france, spain, italy, japan, saudi arabia, israel, russia, et. al? if not, then you are nothing but a partisan hack.

 

[expatriate]

To answer the OP...no, I don't remember when "everyone" agreed about Iraq. I remember when most people were behind the President after 9/11...and then he invaded the wrong country.

wytch, you should have stayed in the gay marriage thread---at least you know something about that topic.

the point is exactly correct. I, for one, a lifelong democrat, was totally behind Bush's actions in the immediate wake of 9/11. I was completely supportive of his actions in Afghanistan and even wrote the Department of the Navy volunteering to come out of retirement and back on active duty to assist in the efforts there.

I was NOT supportive of his decisions to effectively abandon the fight against Al Qaeda and to shift targets to Iraq.

 

[Redfish]

To answer the OP...no, I don't remember when "everyone" agreed about Iraq. I remember when most people were behind the President after 9/11...and then he invaded the wrong country.

wytch, you should have stayed in the gay marriage thread---at least you know something about that topic.

(the threads you run away from?)

Fish, I have two of these...you?

then you either know the truth and choose to lie about it, or you are a bad example of a partisan hack.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

To answer the OP...no, I don't remember when "everyone" agreed about Iraq. I remember when most people were behind the President after 9/11...and then he invaded the wrong country.

wytch, you should have stayed in the gay marriage thread---at least you know something about that topic.

Fish, I have two of these...you?

Thanks for your service. Congrats on the medals. But like having a diploma doesn't actually make you well educated, having medals doesn't make you one an expert on this topic.

The trite and oft repeated lib-diculous claim that "Booooooosh invaded the wrong country" is actually just an opinion.

One need not have served to have a contrary opinion; and the contrary opinion isn't wrong just because you don't agree with it.

 

[expatriate]

We've been through this lots of times.

YOU are the liar.

President Bush and folks in his Administration DID say that there was "no doubt" that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMDs.

Even if that was incorrect, however, that is not a valid basis on which to claim that it was a "lie." You remain a dishonest bullshit flinging asshole liar.

Fact.

so you are saying that, when Bush and folks in his administration DID say that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD's, they were all totally unaware that doubt did, in fact exist within the intelligence community? You are saying that NONE of them had read the intelligence assessments that contained a myriad of caveats and qualifiers that did indeed cast doubt on the absolute certainty of Saddam's stockpiles?

It would seem that, if you are so hellbent on defending their HONESTY, that you must then be willing to admit to their profound incompetence. The only way that someone on Team Bush could say that there was NO DOUBT that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and have that not be a lie, would be for them to have willfully neglected to read the documents provided to them by the intelligence community. Which was it? Prevarication, or total criminal incompetence?

Clearly, you wouldn't know a fact if it bit you in the ass.

do you ask the same questions about the UN, UK, EU, germany, france, spain, italy, japan, saudi arabia, israel, russia, et. al? if not, then you are nothing but a partisan hack.

I personally felt that anyone who stated certainty about Saddam's stockpiles was full of shit. Of the leaders of the countries you have listed, however, none of them had the ability or actually DID send American men and women to die in Iraq, did they? It has nothing to do with being partisan. I served in the middle east many years ago. I know a bit more about the players on that stage than most folks do. If Bush had been a democrat, I STILL would have been incensed by his invasion of Iraq.

 

[Redfish]

To answer the OP...no, I don't remember when "everyone" agreed about Iraq. I remember when most people were behind the President after 9/11...and then he invaded the wrong country.

wytch, you should have stayed in the gay marriage thread---at least you know something about that topic.

the point is exactly correct. I, for one, a lifelong democrat, was totally behind Bush's actions in the immediate wake of 9/11. I was completely supportive of his actions in Afghanistan and even wrote the Department of the Navy volunteering to come out of retirement and back on active duty to assist in the efforts there.

I was NOT supportive of his decisions to effectively abandon the fight against Al Qaeda and to shift targets to Iraq.

Look, we agree that Iraq was a stupid waste of american lives and money. Bush, congress, the UN, and everyone else made a very bad judgement. Viet Nam was equally stupid but on a larger scale. neither accomplished anything.

the only point I am trying to make here is that Bush did not do it alone and he did not lie about the intel. believing bad intel is not lying.

 

[expatriate]

To answer the OP...no, I don't remember when "everyone" agreed about Iraq. I remember when most people were behind the President after 9/11...and then he invaded the wrong country.

wytch, you should have stayed in the gay marriage thread---at least you know something about that topic.

(the threads you run away from?)

Fish, I have two of these...you?

so do I. Thank you for your service. It is good to see instances where retired military folks like us can distance ourselves from the sheep.