Why does the left continue to HUMILIATE themselves on the WMD issue?

[Procrustes Stretched]

It is a FACT that large caches of WMD's were in fact located in Iraq.

What world do you inhabit?

this is not a politics thread. it is a conspiracy thread

 

[J.E.D]

.

Why in the world would someone want to bring the subject of this horrific disaster back up?

.

Some people just don't know when to quit.

 

[Mac1958]

,

So evidently the argument here is that Bush was right to go into Iraq, even with hindsight. That would mean that Bush would have gotten approval if he had gone to the American public and said the following:

"My fellow Americans: Saddam has sarin gas. Therefore, we're going to go into Iraq, get rid of Saddam and set up a democracy. It will cost us multiple trillions of dollars -- no, not billions, TRILLIONS -- that we'll need to borrow, but that's just the beginning. Thousands of young American soldiers will die; thousands more will be mutilated physically; thousands more will be mutilated mentally; thousands of young American children will no longer see Mommy or Daddy again. And, as an added consequence of taking out Saddam, we will eliminate the one mitigating factor in the region that is keeping Iran from running amok.

"But Saddam has sarin gas, so all of that will be worth it. So here we go. Thanks for your time."

And Americans from coast to coast would cheer. "Yeah, go get 'im, George. Here, take my son".

Right?

Ah... so this is the new narrative? Now that we can no longer scream "Bush lied", we have to move the goalposts and claim "it wasn't worth it".

It's so easy to play the coward, isn't it Mac? So much easier to bow to and appease your enemies, rather than stand up and punch them in the mouth.

Why do the right thing that is so hard, when you can play the coward - which is so easy, right?

And when that Sarin Gas and other WMD's were unleashed on American's, it would be the liberals, the libertarian's, and people like Mac here who would scream the loudest that government "did not protect my son". Just like 9/11. In one breath, the cowards (liberals and libertarians) scream that Bush is a "war mongering maniac" with blood dripping from his teeth, just looking for a fight. In the very next breath, they claim that he sat back, did nothing about Al Qaeda (in the whopping 8 months he had and working under Clinton's depleted defense budget), and allowed 9/11 to happen.

That's the thing about cowards. Their arm-chair, hindsight strategists who will bitch no matter what you do.

So the terrible costs we have paid, and will continue to pay, were worth it to you. Just to get rid of Saddam and his sarin gas. And I notice in your quote of my post that you somehow forgot to include the touching photo of the young child reaching out to her father in his casket. Almost as if you're avoiding it.

I appreciate your honesty. I don't know how you can do it, I don't know what drives you to be this way, but I appreciate your honesty.

.

 

[tjvh]

Truth needs no defenders. But ignorance must be challenged.

There were no nuclear weapons, not biological weapons and nothing but some standard non-lethal chemical antipersonnel wepons to be found.

Nothing they found was of the WMD class, lad.

Wrong... Apparently you never bothered to read UNSCOM 1441 either. A missile with a range greater than 250km was also defined as a WMD. Kind of hard to argue with reality. LINK: Al-Samoud II - Iraq Special Weapons [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WdV2hT3Mow4]The Iraq Invasion Archive-Day 2-Al Samouds fired into Kuwait - YouTube[/ame]

A missle is defined as a weapon of mass destruction?

Interesting.

By whom?

The UN Security Council. UNSCOM resolution 1441. Try reading it once before making a complete ass out of yourself. WMD's encompass much more than just Chemical, Biological, and nukes.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I wonder if the neo-cons would be twisting themselves into such absurd contortions to justify this hideous war if the person who was responsible for putting us there had a (D) after his name.

Aw, just kidding, I know they wouldn't.

.

 

[P@triot]

,

So evidently the argument here is that Bush was right to go into Iraq, even with hindsight. That would mean that Bush would have gotten approval if he had gone to the American public and said the following:

"My fellow Americans: Saddam has sarin gas. Therefore, we're going to go into Iraq, get rid of Saddam and set up a democracy. It will cost us multiple trillions of dollars -- no, not billions, TRILLIONS -- that we'll need to borrow, but that's just the beginning. Thousands of young American soldiers will die; thousands more will be mutilated physically; thousands more will be mutilated mentally; thousands of young American children will no longer see Mommy or Daddy again. And, as an added consequence of taking out Saddam, we will eliminate the one mitigating factor in the region that is keeping Iran from running amok.

"But Saddam has sarin gas, so all of that will be worth it. So here we go. Thanks for your time."

And Americans from coast to coast would cheer. "Yeah, go get 'im, George. Here, take my son".

Right?

Ah... so this is the new narrative? Now that we can no longer scream "Bush lied", we have to move the goalposts and claim "it wasn't worth it".

It's so easy to play the coward, isn't it Mac? So much easier to bow to and appease your enemies, rather than stand up and punch them in the mouth.

Why do the right thing that is so hard, when you can play the coward - which is so easy, right?

And when that Sarin Gas and other WMD's were unleashed on American's, it would be the liberals, the libertarian's, and people like Mac here who would scream the loudest that government "did not protect my son". Just like 9/11. In one breath, the cowards (liberals and libertarians) scream that Bush is a "war mongering maniac" with blood dripping from his teeth, just looking for a fight. In the very next breath, they claim that he sat back, did nothing about Al Qaeda (in the whopping 8 months he had and working under Clinton's depleted defense budget), and allowed 9/11 to happen.

That's the thing about cowards. Their arm-chair, hindsight strategists who will bitch no matter what you do.

So the terrible costs we have paid, and will continue to pay, were worth it to you. Just to get rid of Saddam and his sarin gas. And I notice in your quote of my post that you somehow forgot to include the touching photo of the young child reaching out to her father in his casket. Almost as if you're avoiding it.

I appreciate your honesty. I don't know how you can do it, I don't know what drives you to be this way, but I appreciate your honesty.

.

Just curious Mac - where are all of your photo's of the young children reaching out to their father's in the caskets after 9/11?

If I live to be a 1,000 - I'll never understand how people who share your view of closing the barn door after the horses have run away is good policy

If your reactive (like you people claim Bush was with Afghanistan), then you're attacked relentlessly for letting American civilians die. If you're proactive (like Bush was with Iraq), then you're attacked relentlessly for the death of American soldiers. I guess you people are going to bitch relentlessly no matter what, eh Mac?

For my money, I'd rather see 1,000 soldiers die than one American citizen - and most soldiers I know agree with me. But it would appear you have a different opinion on that.

 

[P@triot]

.

I wonder if the neo-cons would be twisting themselves into such absurd contortions to justify this hideous war if the person who was responsible for putting us there had a (D) after his name.

Aw, just kidding, I know they wouldn't.

.

I can only speak for myself - and if Barack Hussein himself had ordered the operations in Iraq and achieved the same results (ie the capture of Saddam Hussein), then I would agree with it 100%.

The REAL hypocrisy is how the left goes ape shit over Iraq, calling it an "illegal war" when in fact Bush properly received Congresses approval for the operations, while Barack Hussein has sent forces into operations around the world WITHOUT the approval of Congress and has also moved arms to Al Qaeda to assist them in Syria - and not one bad word about it from the left.

 

[Billo_Really]

The REAL hypocrisy is how the left goes ape shit over Iraq, calling it an "illegal war" when in fact Bush properly received Congresses approval for the operations, while Barack Hussein has sent forces into operations around the world WITHOUT the approval of Congress and has also moved arms to Al Qaeda to assist them in Syria - and not one bad word about it from the left.

Just because Congress gives the authorization for war, doesn't mean the invasion is legal according to international law.

But since you think all we need is for Congress to give the green light for war to make it legal, then you must also think that it was okay for Hitler to annex Poland.

 

[Mac1958]

Ah... so this is the new narrative? Now that we can no longer scream "Bush lied", we have to move the goalposts and claim "it wasn't worth it".

It's so easy to play the coward, isn't it Mac? So much easier to bow to and appease your enemies, rather than stand up and punch them in the mouth.

Why do the right thing that is so hard, when you can play the coward - which is so easy, right?

And when that Sarin Gas and other WMD's were unleashed on American's, it would be the liberals, the libertarian's, and people like Mac here who would scream the loudest that government "did not protect my son". Just like 9/11. In one breath, the cowards (liberals and libertarians) scream that Bush is a "war mongering maniac" with blood dripping from his teeth, just looking for a fight. In the very next breath, they claim that he sat back, did nothing about Al Qaeda (in the whopping 8 months he had and working under Clinton's depleted defense budget), and allowed 9/11 to happen.

That's the thing about cowards. Their arm-chair, hindsight strategists who will bitch no matter what you do.

So the terrible costs we have paid, and will continue to pay, were worth it to you. Just to get rid of Saddam and his sarin gas. And I notice in your quote of my post that you somehow forgot to include the touching photo of the young child reaching out to her father in his casket. Almost as if you're avoiding it.

I appreciate your honesty. I don't know how you can do it, I don't know what drives you to be this way, but I appreciate your honesty.

.

Just curious Mac - where are all of your photo's of the young children reaching out to their father's in the caskets after 9/11?

If I live to be a 1,000 - I'll never understand how people who share your view of closing the barn door after the horses have run away is good policy

If your reactive (like you people claim Bush was with Afghanistan), then you're attacked relentlessly for letting American civilians die. If you're proactive (like Bush was with Iraq), then you're attacked relentlessly for the death of American soldiers. I guess you people are going to bitch relentlessly no matter what, eh Mac?

For my money, I'd rather see 1,000 soldiers die than one American citizen - and most soldiers I know agree with me. But it would appear you have a different opinion on that.

I don't understand what 9/11 has to do with Saddam, sarin gas and the horrible price we're paying. Why did you make that comparison?

I don't think one soldier should die, not one soldier should be damaged for life, not one soldier's family should be destroyed, over a stupid decision by his Commander in Chief. Worse, a decision based on dishonesty. There's more than one way to do anything and Bush clearly chose the wrong way. And part of what he did before we went in was to scare the public about Saddam and nuclear weapons. There's no way that fact can be spun. I don't think anyone, including you, believes he would have had public support for anything else but nuclear weapons.

I hate even thinking about this.

.

 

[JoeB131]

Just curious Mac - where are all of your photo's of the young children reaching out to their father's in the caskets after 9/11?

If I live to be a 1,000 - I'll never understand how people who share your view of closing the barn door after the horses have run away is good policy

If your reactive (like you people claim Bush was with Afghanistan), then you're attacked relentlessly for letting American civilians die. If you're proactive (like Bush was with Iraq), then you're attacked relentlessly for the death of American soldiers. I guess you people are going to bitch relentlessly no matter what, eh Mac?

For my money, I'd rather see 1,000 soldiers die than one American citizen - and most soldiers I know agree with me. But it would appear you have a different opinion on that.

So when are you signing up to enlist, Poodle? Aren't soldiers American citizens?

The thing about Afghanistan was that we created our own monster there. The Soviets went in to help the "communist" government do horrible things like teach women how to read and shit, and a bunch of religious assholes like Bin Laden didn't like that, so they went to fight them.

And your hero, Ronald Reagan called them "Freedom Fighters" and gave them Stinger Missiles and shit, and they killed thousands of Soviets.

And then we were all surprised when these guys turned on us? Seriously.

The problem with Bush's pro-active solution in Iraq was that Saddam was already disarmed and contained. He had nothing to do with 9/11, and probably has as much reason to worry about Bin Laden as we did. But Bush saw an oppurtunity to avenge his family.

(Hint to Republicans- you need to stop nominating guys like Bush Jr. and Romney who are avenging family honor.)

So we lost 5000 lives, Iraq is now an ally or Iran instead of a buffer state containing it, we spent a trillion dollars we don't have.

 

[P@triot]

The REAL hypocrisy is how the left goes ape shit over Iraq, calling it an "illegal war" when in fact Bush properly received Congresses approval for the operations, while Barack Hussein has sent forces into operations around the world WITHOUT the approval of Congress and has also moved arms to Al Qaeda to assist them in Syria - and not one bad word about it from the left.

Just because Congress gives the authorization for war, doesn't mean the invasion is legal according to international law.

But since you think all we need is for Congress to give the green light for war to make it legal, then you must also think that it was okay for Hitler to annex Poland.

"International law" - one of the liberals favorite fallacies of the left

It amazes me how the left has zero concept of law. To have "international law", you must have an international enforcement agency. Who would that be Mr. boy? To have "international law", you must have an international court. You must have an international judge. Who would those be Mr. boy?

Furthermore, the US went before the UN and received security resolutions which Saddam violated. The military operations to remove Saddam Hussein from power were the most legal military actions in world history.

 

[Zona]

The Republicans made up an unprovoked war to win elections and left others to pay for it while reducing their own taxes ...

Well, this should shut down this thread.

 

[P@triot]

So the terrible costs we have paid, and will continue to pay, were worth it to you. Just to get rid of Saddam and his sarin gas. And I notice in your quote of my post that you somehow forgot to include the touching photo of the young child reaching out to her father in his casket. Almost as if you're avoiding it.

I appreciate your honesty. I don't know how you can do it, I don't know what drives you to be this way, but I appreciate your honesty.

.

Just curious Mac - where are all of your photo's of the young children reaching out to their father's in the caskets after 9/11?

If I live to be a 1,000 - I'll never understand how people who share your view of closing the barn door after the horses have run away is good policy

If your reactive (like you people claim Bush was with Afghanistan), then you're attacked relentlessly for letting American civilians die. If you're proactive (like Bush was with Iraq), then you're attacked relentlessly for the death of American soldiers. I guess you people are going to bitch relentlessly no matter what, eh Mac?

For my money, I'd rather see 1,000 soldiers die than one American citizen - and most soldiers I know agree with me. But it would appear you have a different opinion on that.

I don't understand what 9/11 has to do with Saddam, sarin gas and the horrible price we're paying. Why did you make that comparison?

I don't think one soldier should die, not one soldier should be damaged for life, not one soldier's family should be destroyed, over a stupid decision by his Commander in Chief. Worse, a decision based on dishonesty. There's more than one way to do anything and Bush clearly chose the wrong way. And part of what he did before we went in was to scare the public about Saddam and nuclear weapons. There's no way that fact can be spun. I don't think anyone, including you, believes he would have had public support for anything else but nuclear weapons.

I hate even thinking about this.

You "can't understand why" this comparison was made?!? First of all, are you seriously going to sit here and try to take the stance the two are not linked? Even though the entire Iraq operation revolved directly around 9/11 and Al Qaeda.

Second, the reason you are going to pretend is because you have no answer (and that would be because you are wrong). You're sooooo *sniffle* *sniffle* over these photos of a child reaching out to the casket of her father - the SOLDIER. Where are all your sniffles for the 3,000 American's that dies on 9/11? I guess you don't care about them because they don't align with your political ideology, uh?

I'll state it again (and eagerly await a reasonable, mature response - not this bullshit you just posted pretending like you don't understand):

If your reactive (like you people claim Bush was with Afghanistan), then you're attacked relentlessly for letting American civilians die. If you're proactive (like Bush was with Iraq), then you're attacked relentlessly for the death of American soldiers. I guess you people are going to bitch relentlessly no matter what, eh Mac?

 

[JoeB131]

"International law" - one of the liberals favorite fallacies of the left

It amazes me how the left has zero concept of law. To have "international law", you must have an international enforcement agency. Who would that be Mr. boy? To have "international law", you must have an international court. You must have an international judge. Who would those be Mr. boy?

Furthermore, the US went before the UN and received security resolutions which Saddam violated. The military operations to remove Saddam Hussein from power were the most legal military actions in world history.

If it was so wonderful, why are you here defending it 10 years later after nearly everyone else agrees it was a terrible idea?

The fact is, all this fingerpointing is interesting, but the very fact that there is fingerpointnig at this point, shows it was a failure.

Victory has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan. The fact you are trying to put this orphan on the doorstep of the UN Or the Democrats in Congress is because, on some level, you know it was a clusterfuck.

 

[Mac1958]

Just curious Mac - where are all of your photo's of the young children reaching out to their father's in the caskets after 9/11?

If I live to be a 1,000 - I'll never understand how people who share your view of closing the barn door after the horses have run away is good policy

If your reactive (like you people claim Bush was with Afghanistan), then you're attacked relentlessly for letting American civilians die. If you're proactive (like Bush was with Iraq), then you're attacked relentlessly for the death of American soldiers. I guess you people are going to bitch relentlessly no matter what, eh Mac?

For my money, I'd rather see 1,000 soldiers die than one American citizen - and most soldiers I know agree with me. But it would appear you have a different opinion on that.

I don't understand what 9/11 has to do with Saddam, sarin gas and the horrible price we're paying. Why did you make that comparison?

I don't think one soldier should die, not one soldier should be damaged for life, not one soldier's family should be destroyed, over a stupid decision by his Commander in Chief. Worse, a decision based on dishonesty. There's more than one way to do anything and Bush clearly chose the wrong way. And part of what he did before we went in was to scare the public about Saddam and nuclear weapons. There's no way that fact can be spun. I don't think anyone, including you, believes he would have had public support for anything else but nuclear weapons.

I hate even thinking about this.

You "can't understand why" this comparison was made?!? First of all, are you seriously going to sit here and try to take the stance the two are not linked? Even though the entire Iraq operation revolved directly around 9/11 and Al Qaeda.

Second, the reason you are going to pretend is because you have no answer (and that would be because you are wrong). You're sooooo *sniffle* *sniffle* over these photos of a child reaching out to the casket of her father - the SOLDIER. Where are all your sniffles for the 3,000 American's that dies on 9/11? I guess you don't care about them because they don't align with your political ideology, uh?

I'll state it again (and eagerly await a reasonable, mature response - not this bullshit you just posted pretending like you don't understand):

If your reactive (like you people claim Bush was with Afghanistan), then you're attacked relentlessly for letting American civilians die. If you're proactive (like Bush was with Iraq), then you're attacked relentlessly for the death of American soldiers. I guess you people are going to bitch relentlessly no matter what, eh Mac?

So now you're linking Saddam to 9/11. Wow, flashback.

Rottweiler, you're so out there, so consumed with ideology and denial, that this is a waste of time. What I don't know is whether (a) you really believe this stuff, or (2) this is all just a game with you, and I strongly suspect I never will.

Let's do this: Rottweiler, you're absolutely right. This war was righteous and a bargain at half the price. Bush is a true American hero. He really nailed it. And everyone knows it. And thank goodness we have brave and strong American patriots like you to remind us. U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

I don't really know what else to say here.

.

 

[kiwiman127]

I don't understand what 9/11 has to do with Saddam, sarin gas and the horrible price we're paying. Why did you make that comparison?

I don't think one soldier should die, not one soldier should be damaged for life, not one soldier's family should be destroyed, over a stupid decision by his Commander in Chief. Worse, a decision based on dishonesty. There's more than one way to do anything and Bush clearly chose the wrong way. And part of what he did before we went in was to scare the public about Saddam and nuclear weapons. There's no way that fact can be spun. I don't think anyone, including you, believes he would have had public support for anything else but nuclear weapons.

I hate even thinking about this.

You "can't understand why" this comparison was made?!? First of all, are you seriously going to sit here and try to take the stance the two are not linked? Even though the entire Iraq operation revolved directly around 9/11 and Al Qaeda.

Second, the reason you are going to pretend is because you have no answer (and that would be because you are wrong). You're sooooo *sniffle* *sniffle* over these photos of a child reaching out to the casket of her father - the SOLDIER. Where are all your sniffles for the 3,000 American's that dies on 9/11? I guess you don't care about them because they don't align with your political ideology, uh?

I'll state it again (and eagerly await a reasonable, mature response - not this bullshit you just posted pretending like you don't understand):

If your reactive (like you people claim Bush was with Afghanistan), then you're attacked relentlessly for letting American civilians die. If you're proactive (like Bush was with Iraq), then you're attacked relentlessly for the death of American soldiers. I guess you people are going to bitch relentlessly no matter what, eh Mac?

So now you're linking Saddam to 9/11. Wow, flashback.

Rottweiler, you're so out there, so consumed with ideology and denial, that this is a waste of time. What I don't know is whether (a) you really believe this stuff, or (2) this is all just a game with you, and I strongly suspect I never will.

Let's do this: Rottweiler, you're absolutely right. This war was righteous and a bargain at half the price. Bush is a true American hero. He really nailed it. And everyone knows it. And thank goodness we have brave and strong American patriots like you to remind us. U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

I don't really know what else to say here.

.

Good move, it's basically impossible to even try to generate any sense at all from Rottweiler. When someone denies historical facts in favor of opinion, it's time to move on and leave him in his own fantasy land.

 

[P@triot]

"International law" - one of the liberals favorite fallacies of the left

It amazes me how the left has zero concept of law. To have "international law", you must have an international enforcement agency. Who would that be Mr. boy? To have "international law", you must have an international court. You must have an international judge. Who would those be Mr. boy?

Furthermore, the US went before the UN and received security resolutions which Saddam violated. The military operations to remove Saddam Hussein from power were the most legal military actions in world history.

If it was so wonderful, why are you here defending it 10 years later after nearly everyone else agrees it was a terrible idea?

The fact is, all this fingerpointing is interesting, but the very fact that there is fingerpointnig at this point, shows it was a failure.

Victory has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan. The fact you are trying to put this orphan on the doorstep of the UN Or the Democrats in Congress is because, on some level, you know it was a clusterfuck.

Sadly, because self-admitted communists like you continue to make up your own version of history and work like hell to spread your misinformation.

Furthermore, at what point did I ever say it wasn't a "clusterfuck"?!? I'll be the FIRST person to say it was a complete and total clusterfuck (well, no the operation itself - which completed the objective of removing Saddam Hussein from power, but the transition to the Iraqi people was a total clusterfuck).

There is a big difference between ILLEGAL and INCOMPETENT. What the Bush Administration did with Iraq was far from illegal. However, the total execution of what the Bush Administration did in Iraq was incompetent.

 

[P@triot]

Good move, it's basically impossible to even try to generate any sense at all from Rottweiler. When someone denies historical facts in favor of opinion, it's time to move on and leave him in his own fantasy land.

Now that is funny. You are seriously unhinged, aren't you? I've provided links with FACTS - links that even include MSBNC (the radical left-wing propaganda arm of the dumbocrat party). And in your mind, that's "denying historical facts"?

I guess denying reality is just easier for you than admitting that Bush was in fact right and justified for entering Iraq, uh?

 

[P@triot]

So now you're linking Saddam to 9/11. Wow, flashback.

Rottweiler, you're so out there, so consumed with ideology and denial, that this is a waste of time. What I don't know is whether (a) you really believe this stuff, or (2) this is all just a game with you, and I strongly suspect I never will.

Let's do this: Rottweiler, you're absolutely right. This war was righteous and a bargain at half the price. Bush is a true American hero. He really nailed it. And everyone knows it. And thank goodness we have brave and strong American patriots like you to remind us. U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

I don't really know what else to say here.

Here's how I would handle this situation (and I would assume any intelligent, mature adult would) if the situation were reversed and Barack Hussein lead us into military operations based on his assertion that the nation in question had WMD's and it turned out to be true (and assuming I'm a passivist sissy like most liberals and/or libertarians)...

While I don't agree with what Barack Hussein did <insert complaints here - death of soldiers, cost, etc.>, the facts show that Barack was correct in his assertion that the nation had WMD's.

See how easy that is? Nobody said you have to like what occurred - but to deny that WMD's didn't exist to justify your feelings is just absurd. Don't rewrite history because you hate Bush.

On a side note - I'm still curious why you could give a fuck about the 3,000 innocent civilians that died on 9/11? I mean, you seem to have a genuine concern for well armed, well trained soldiers that voluntarily accept the risk and know ahead of time what they are getting into - all major advantages that the 3,000 victims didn't have that day.

With 9/11, the left asserts that Bush was "reactive" and is responsible for the death of 3,000 Americans. On Iraq, the left asserts that Bush was "proactive" and created an "illegal" and "unnecessary" war. So I guess no matter what Bush does (proactive or reactive), he's just wrong?

 

[JoeB131]

"International law" - one of the liberals favorite fallacies of the left

It amazes me how the left has zero concept of law. To have "international law", you must have an international enforcement agency. Who would that be Mr. boy? To have "international law", you must have an international court. You must have an international judge. Who would those be Mr. boy?

Furthermore, the US went before the UN and received security resolutions which Saddam violated. The military operations to remove Saddam Hussein from power were the most legal military actions in world history.

If it was so wonderful, why are you here defending it 10 years later after nearly everyone else agrees it was a terrible idea?

The fact is, all this fingerpointing is interesting, but the very fact that there is fingerpointnig at this point, shows it was a failure.

Victory has a thousand fathers, but failure is an orphan. The fact you are trying to put this orphan on the doorstep of the UN Or the Democrats in Congress is because, on some level, you know it was a clusterfuck.

Sadly, because self-admitted communists like you continue to make up your own version of history and work like hell to spread your misinformation.

Furthermore, at what point did I ever say it wasn't a "clusterfuck"?!? I'll be the FIRST person to say it was a complete and total clusterfuck (well, no the operation itself - which completed the objective of removing Saddam Hussein from power, but the transition to the Iraqi people was a total clusterfuck).

There is a big difference between ILLEGAL and INCOMPETENT. What the Bush Administration did with Iraq was far from illegal. However, the total execution of what the Bush Administration did in Iraq was incompetent.

Two ways you can tell when Poodle has lost an argument.

He uses bigger fonts, and calls people who he disagrees with "communists".

No, man, the clusterfuck was going in to start with. There wasn't a way to transition Saddam out of power without it being a clusterfuck, and everyone knew it at the time.

The problem is, our stated goal was in contradiction to our interests. If you gave most Iraqis a vote, they'd have voted for a theocratic state like Iran.

The legality issue was that our justification for going in was Saddam had nukes and he was sponsoring Al Qaeda. Neither of these things turned out to be true after we invaded and interrogated those in charge.