Would ANY Bush Basher care to refute these statements???

[rightwinger]

MUSINGS ON IRAQ 8220 We Will Be Greeted As Liberators 8221 Why The Bush Administration Saw Iraq As A War Of Liberation

Meet The Press in March, just before the invasion. Russert asked the Vice President what would happen if the public did not welcome the Americans, and Iraq turned into a long and bloody occupation. Cheney responded, “I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. … The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want is to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

Polling of Iraqis after the 2003 invasion showed that many did welcome the U.S, but quickly turned against it. In April 2003,nearly 50% of Iraqis saw the Americans as liberators. Half a year later in October, that had dramatically changed as only one in six held that view. In April 2004,a USA Today/CNN/Gallup survey found that 71% of Iraqis saw the U.S. as occupiers, 46% said that they had done more harm than good in Iraq, while only 19% said the U.S. were liberators. In June, only 2% of the public had a favorable opinion of the Coalition. As the polls showed, many people were happy that Saddam was overthrown. The post-war chaos that followed in the wake of the Coalition forces quickly spoiled that mood. It seemed as if Muklis was prophetic when he warned the White House that Iraqis would quickly turn on the Americans if they didn’t see immediate benefits from the invasion.

The American public and even Congress were given terribly mistaken and often fabricated facts about the Iraqi invasion. As I said before, we will be paying for MISSION ACCOMPLISHED for years to come.

I would like to remind a simple minded pissant that the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED was aimed at honoring the US Carrier and the US Sailors that had clearly accomplished the mission they were sent to perform. Anti-American fucktards twisted it to dishonor our military and the Commander in Chief.

If it was, why did Bush fail to mention it in his speech?

CNN.com - Bush makes historic speech aboard warship - May. 1 2003

 

[TooTall]

The UN SANCTIONS put in place by the UN simply asked Saddam "please certify you don't have WMDs" continued while Saddam let 576,000 children starve!
In five years 576,000 children starved BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
The sanctions were imposed by the Security Council after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990. Led by the United States, the Council has rejected many Iraqi appeals to lift the restrictions, which have crippled the economy, until Iraq accounts for all its weapons of mass destruction and United Nations inspectors can certify that they have been destroyed in accordance with several Council resolutions.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

NOW you idiots tell me IF Saddam refused to CERTIFY and he obviously didn't care about the starving kids... would you believe he HAD WMDs?
Would you believe his son in law?
A) Saddam was not ready to say he had NO WMDs and willing to let 576,000 kids starve.
B) Saddam WAS proven by the Democrats to having used WMDs on his own people.
C) Saddam was proven to pay $25,000 for suicide terrorists.
D) Ask Saddam's son-in-law...oh wait you can't Saddam killed him when he went back to Iraq... good guy your buddy Saddam!
E) And of course you probably don't agree after 9/11 there was NO need to think Saddam was involved right?
F) Were you aware that Seven days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, anonymous letters laced with deadly anthrax spores began arriving at media companies and congressional offices. Over the ensuing months, five people died from inhaling anthrax and 17 others were infected after exposure. And of course you knew that your buddy Saddam HAD nothing to do with it...even Saddam Hussein's son-in-law defected to Jordan and told the truth.
It admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.
And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production.

Oddly, Republicans claimed to invade because of UN sanctions

Yet, when that same UN asked them to hold off the invasion until more evidence came in........they ignored them

They invaded because of WMDs. No wait, it was oil. Um...it was UN sanctions. When you decide the reason they invaded, let me know...

OIL...says who?

Are you paying attention??? The plans to invade Iraq were already being discussed 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

What we NOW know from G.W. Bush's first Treasury Secretary, the invasion of Iraq was discussed 10 days into the administration.

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq

Going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq - CBS News

How utterly ignorant you are about what goes on at the Pentagon. I could find at least one document detailing the invasion and occupation of Canada and/or Mexico. That is what they do. Plan for contingencies that they hope they will never have to implement.

AND how f...king ignorant both YOU and the Pentagon are by using the term "INVASION"!
Why did you excuse Clinton for calling it the "Liberation of Iraq" then?
The use of the word is a negative...even Invasion of Mexico! YOU don't seem to comprehend how words have MEANINGS and I would not be
favorable to the Invasion of America by ISIS![/QUOTE]

I don't tell the Pentagon what words to use in their contingency plans.

 

[healthmyths]

Oddly, Republicans claimed to invade because of UN sanctions

Yet, when that same UN asked them to hold off the invasion until more evidence came in........they ignored them

They invaded because of WMDs. No wait, it was oil. Um...it was UN sanctions. When you decide the reason they invaded, let me know...

OIL...says who?

Are you paying attention??? The plans to invade Iraq were already being discussed 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

What we NOW know from G.W. Bush's first Treasury Secretary, the invasion of Iraq was discussed 10 days into the administration.

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq

Going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

"From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime," says Suskind. "Day one, these things were laid and sealed."

As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this,'" says O'Neill. "For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap."

And that came up at this first meeting, says O'Neill, who adds that the discussion of Iraq continued at the next National Security Council meeting two days later.

He got briefing materials under this cover sheet. "There are memos. One of them marked, secret, says, 'Plan for post-Saddam Iraq,'" adds Suskind, who says that they discussed an occupation of Iraq in January and February of 2001. Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

"It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions," says Suskind. "On oil in Iraq."

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

"The thing that's most surprising, I think, is how emphatically, from the very first, the administration had said 'X' during the campaign, but from the first day was often doing 'Y,'" says Suskind. "Not just saying 'Y,' but actively moving toward the opposite of what they had said during the election."

Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq - CBS News

How utterly ignorant you are about what goes on at the Pentagon. I could find at least one document detailing the invasion and occupation of Canada and/or Mexico. That is what they do. Plan for contingencies that they hope they will never have to implement.

AND how f...king ignorant both YOU and the Pentagon are by using the term "INVASION"!
Why did you excuse Clinton for calling it the "Liberation of Iraq" then?
The use of the word is a negative...even Invasion of Mexico! YOU don't seem to comprehend how words have MEANINGS and I would not be
favorable to the Invasion of America by ISIS!

I don't tell the Pentagon what words to use in their contingency plans.[/QUOTE]
What an ignorant comment! Did I say you even had the intelligence to say something let alone TELL the Pentagon? How f...king dumb are you?
But obviously you don't read very well which means you are to be pitied or your are dumb!

 

[Camp]

Liberation could and actually was used to describe a coup, civil uprising, civil war or regime change instigated with and by internal forces. Invasion has a different meaning. It refers to troops violently or forcefully entering a country or region.

The long list of statements made by various politicians were refuted and explained over a decade ago. There just always seems to be someone who regurgitates them and refuses to face reality. The statements used are either obsolete, having become null and void after changes occurred due to time and changing events, misrepresentation (lies) or misguided trust of the Bush/Cheney administration and misuse of the legislation given to Bush to conduct the invasion.
The Bush/Cheney defenders are screaming and whining that because people believed their lies and misrepresentations it isn't Bush/Cheney lies responsible for the war, the responsibility goes to those who believed the lies and misrepresentations.

 

[jknowgood]

Liberation could and actually was used to describe a coup, civil uprising, civil war or regime change instigated with and by internal forces. Invasion has a different meaning. It refers to troops violently or forcefully entering a country or region.

The long list of statements made by various politicians were refuted and explained over a decade ago. There just always seems to be someone who regurgitates them and refuses to face reality. The statements used are either obsolete, having become null and void after changes occurred due to time and changing events, misrepresentation (lies) or misguided trust of the Bush/Cheney administration and misuse of the legislation given to Bush to conduct the invasion.
The Bush/Cheney defenders are screaming and whining that because people believed their lies and misrepresentations it isn't Bush/Cheney lies responsible for the war, the responsibility goes to those who believed the lies and misrepresentations.

Bush didn't lie, can't you get that talking point out of your head?

 

[healthmyths]

Liberation could and actually was used to describe a coup, civil uprising, civil war or regime change instigated with and by internal forces. Invasion has a different meaning. It refers to troops violently or forcefully entering a country or region.

The long list of statements made by various politicians were refuted and explained over a decade ago. There just always seems to be someone who regurgitates them and refuses to face reality. The statements used are either obsolete, having become null and void after changes occurred due to time and changing events, misrepresentation (lies) or misguided trust of the Bush/Cheney administration and misuse of the legislation given to Bush to conduct the invasion.
The Bush/Cheney defenders are screaming and whining that because people believed their lies and misrepresentations it isn't Bush/Cheney lies responsible for the war, the responsibility goes to those who believed the lies and misrepresentations.

You are judging based on 20/20 hindsight.
I am obviously not dishonest about my understanding of what happened in 2001!
I like most of us (except really smart people like you..yea right!) had information to deal with in 2001 and we had 3,000 people killed by avowed Islamic terrorists.
We also KNEW Saddam used anthrax on people and weeks right after 9/11 we had 5 people die as well as government offices receiving anthrax attacks.
Again all of which we had ALL indications were the responsibility of enemies of the USa.
90% of Americans were anxious about further 9/11 attacks and Anthrax was just one more log to the fire.
BUT of course totally INFORMED people like you oh...waste of breath on you!
The point is it is the EASIEST thing to act pious and knowledgeable AFTER the fact idiot!
EVERYONE except idiot savants like you had all the indicators that it was the RIGHT thing to do in removing Saddam, regardless of WMDs or not!
1.2 million children are alive today because Saddam is gone and to me that is worth every dime of the "Liberation of Iraq"!

 

[rightwinger]

Liberation could and actually was used to describe a coup, civil uprising, civil war or regime change instigated with and by internal forces. Invasion has a different meaning. It refers to troops violently or forcefully entering a country or region.

The long list of statements made by various politicians were refuted and explained over a decade ago. There just always seems to be someone who regurgitates them and refuses to face reality. The statements used are either obsolete, having become null and void after changes occurred due to time and changing events, misrepresentation (lies) or misguided trust of the Bush/Cheney administration and misuse of the legislation given to Bush to conduct the invasion.
The Bush/Cheney defenders are screaming and whining that because people believed their lies and misrepresentations it isn't Bush/Cheney lies responsible for the war, the responsibility goes to those who believed the lies and misrepresentations.

Bush didn't lie, can't you get that talking point out of your head?

Bush either lied or was just plain stupid
He botched his decision to abandon the war on terror to attack Iraq
He botched his assessment of WMDs
He botched his evaluation of the population treating us as liberators
He botched his assesment of the probability of starting a civil war
He underestimated US Casualties
He underestimated the time we would need to be in Iraq
He underestimated the number of troops needed to keep the peace
He underestimated the amount of allied support

 

[jknowgood]

Liberation could and actually was used to describe a coup, civil uprising, civil war or regime change instigated with and by internal forces. Invasion has a different meaning. It refers to troops violently or forcefully entering a country or region.

The long list of statements made by various politicians were refuted and explained over a decade ago. There just always seems to be someone who regurgitates them and refuses to face reality. The statements used are either obsolete, having become null and void after changes occurred due to time and changing events, misrepresentation (lies) or misguided trust of the Bush/Cheney administration and misuse of the legislation given to Bush to conduct the invasion.
The Bush/Cheney defenders are screaming and whining that because people believed their lies and misrepresentations it isn't Bush/Cheney lies responsible for the war, the responsibility goes to those who believed the lies and misrepresentations.

Bush didn't lie, can't you get that talking point out of your head?

Bush either lied or was just plain stupid
He botched his decision to abandon the war on terror to attack Iraq
He botched his assessment of WMDs
He botched his evaluation of the population treating us as liberators
He botched his assesment of the probability of starting a civil war
He underestimated US Casualties
He underestimated the time we would need to be in Iraq
He underestimated the number of troops needed to keep the peace
He underestimated the amount of allied support

So Clinton was stupid also? Oh and Hillary supported the war. You want her to be the next president, a war monger?

 

[healthmyths]

Liberation could and actually was used to describe a coup, civil uprising, civil war or regime change instigated with and by internal forces. Invasion has a different meaning. It refers to troops violently or forcefully entering a country or region.

The long list of statements made by various politicians were refuted and explained over a decade ago. There just always seems to be someone who regurgitates them and refuses to face reality. The statements used are either obsolete, having become null and void after changes occurred due to time and changing events, misrepresentation (lies) or misguided trust of the Bush/Cheney administration and misuse of the legislation given to Bush to conduct the invasion.
The Bush/Cheney defenders are screaming and whining that because people believed their lies and misrepresentations it isn't Bush/Cheney lies responsible for the war, the responsibility goes to those who believed the lies and misrepresentations.

Bush didn't lie, can't you get that talking point out of your head?

Bush either lied or was just plain stupid
He botched his decision to abandon the war on terror to attack Iraq
He botched his assessment of WMDs
He botched his evaluation of the population treating us as liberators
He botched his assesment of the probability of starting a civil war
He underestimated US Casualties
He underestimated the time we would need to be in Iraq
He underestimated the number of troops needed to keep the peace
He underestimated the amount of allied support

YUP BUSH did UNDERESTIMATE the traitorous nature and well documented biased MSM which idiots like YOU believe were "objective".
Bush also grossly underestimated the total hatred of him by people that were willing to encourage the terrorists by calling our troops these terms:

Senator Kerry (D) called our troops TERRORISTS..."American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Remember Kerry EARLIER SAID...
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an
oppressive regime .... to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
.... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

then Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

If Bush LIED so did these democrats!

"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberation could and actually was used to describe a coup, civil uprising, civil war or regime change instigated with and by internal forces. Invasion has a different meaning. It refers to troops violently or forcefully entering a country or region.

The long list of statements made by various politicians were refuted and explained over a decade ago. There just always seems to be someone who regurgitates them and refuses to face reality. The statements used are either obsolete, having become null and void after changes occurred due to time and changing events, misrepresentation (lies) or misguided trust of the Bush/Cheney administration and misuse of the legislation given to Bush to conduct the invasion.
The Bush/Cheney defenders are screaming and whining that because people believed their lies and misrepresentations it isn't Bush/Cheney lies responsible for the war, the responsibility goes to those who believed the lies and misrepresentations.

Bush didn't lie, can't you get that talking point out of your head?

The Bush administration most certainly lied. They concocted the lie of a threat to the US that didn't exist.

 

[rightwinger]

Liberation could and actually was used to describe a coup, civil uprising, civil war or regime change instigated with and by internal forces. Invasion has a different meaning. It refers to troops violently or forcefully entering a country or region.

The long list of statements made by various politicians were refuted and explained over a decade ago. There just always seems to be someone who regurgitates them and refuses to face reality. The statements used are either obsolete, having become null and void after changes occurred due to time and changing events, misrepresentation (lies) or misguided trust of the Bush/Cheney administration and misuse of the legislation given to Bush to conduct the invasion.
The Bush/Cheney defenders are screaming and whining that because people believed their lies and misrepresentations it isn't Bush/Cheney lies responsible for the war, the responsibility goes to those who believed the lies and misrepresentations.

Bush didn't lie, can't you get that talking point out of your head?

Bush either lied or was just plain stupid
He botched his decision to abandon the war on terror to attack Iraq
He botched his assessment of WMDs
He botched his evaluation of the population treating us as liberators
He botched his assesment of the probability of starting a civil war
He underestimated US Casualties
He underestimated the time we would need to be in Iraq
He underestimated the number of troops needed to keep the peace
He underestimated the amount of allied support

So Clinton was stupid also? Oh and Hillary supported the war. You want her to be the next president, a war monger?

Bush proposed the war and Bush was the decider

It was his call to make and he blew it

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberation could and actually was used to describe a coup, civil uprising, civil war or regime change instigated with and by internal forces. Invasion has a different meaning. It refers to troops violently or forcefully entering a country or region.

The long list of statements made by various politicians were refuted and explained over a decade ago. There just always seems to be someone who regurgitates them and refuses to face reality. The statements used are either obsolete, having become null and void after changes occurred due to time and changing events, misrepresentation (lies) or misguided trust of the Bush/Cheney administration and misuse of the legislation given to Bush to conduct the invasion.
The Bush/Cheney defenders are screaming and whining that because people believed their lies and misrepresentations it isn't Bush/Cheney lies responsible for the war, the responsibility goes to those who believed the lies and misrepresentations.

Bush didn't lie, can't you get that talking point out of your head?

Bush either lied or was just plain stupid
He botched his decision to abandon the war on terror to attack Iraq
He botched his assessment of WMDs
He botched his evaluation of the population treating us as liberators
He botched his assesment of the probability of starting a civil war
He underestimated US Casualties
He underestimated the time we would need to be in Iraq
He underestimated the number of troops needed to keep the peace
He underestimated the amount of allied support

So Clinton was stupid also? Oh and Hillary supported the war. You want her to be the next president, a war monger?

You got 8 years of President Obama because Hillary supported the war.

 

[rightwinger]

Liberation could and actually was used to describe a coup, civil uprising, civil war or regime change instigated with and by internal forces. Invasion has a different meaning. It refers to troops violently or forcefully entering a country or region.

The long list of statements made by various politicians were refuted and explained over a decade ago. There just always seems to be someone who regurgitates them and refuses to face reality. The statements used are either obsolete, having become null and void after changes occurred due to time and changing events, misrepresentation (lies) or misguided trust of the Bush/Cheney administration and misuse of the legislation given to Bush to conduct the invasion.
The Bush/Cheney defenders are screaming and whining that because people believed their lies and misrepresentations it isn't Bush/Cheney lies responsible for the war, the responsibility goes to those who believed the lies and misrepresentations.

Bush didn't lie, can't you get that talking point out of your head?

The Bush administration most certainly lied. They concocted the lie of a threat to the US that didn't exist.

We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud

 

[jknowgood]

Liberation could and actually was used to describe a coup, civil uprising, civil war or regime change instigated with and by internal forces. Invasion has a different meaning. It refers to troops violently or forcefully entering a country or region.

The long list of statements made by various politicians were refuted and explained over a decade ago. There just always seems to be someone who regurgitates them and refuses to face reality. The statements used are either obsolete, having become null and void after changes occurred due to time and changing events, misrepresentation (lies) or misguided trust of the Bush/Cheney administration and misuse of the legislation given to Bush to conduct the invasion.
The Bush/Cheney defenders are screaming and whining that because people believed their lies and misrepresentations it isn't Bush/Cheney lies responsible for the war, the responsibility goes to those who believed the lies and misrepresentations.

Bush didn't lie, can't you get that talking point out of your head?

The Bush administration most certainly lied. They concocted the lie of a threat to the US that didn't exist.

That has been debunked, move along.

 

[Camp]

Liberation could and actually was used to describe a coup, civil uprising, civil war or regime change instigated with and by internal forces. Invasion has a different meaning. It refers to troops violently or forcefully entering a country or region.

The long list of statements made by various politicians were refuted and explained over a decade ago. There just always seems to be someone who regurgitates them and refuses to face reality. The statements used are either obsolete, having become null and void after changes occurred due to time and changing events, misrepresentation (lies) or misguided trust of the Bush/Cheney administration and misuse of the legislation given to Bush to conduct the invasion.
The Bush/Cheney defenders are screaming and whining that because people believed their lies and misrepresentations it isn't Bush/Cheney lies responsible for the war, the responsibility goes to those who believed the lies and misrepresentations.

Bush didn't lie, can't you get that talking point out of your head?

I isn't a lie. I is an accepted fact of history. It became facts of history when years after the invasion and occupation of Iraq, claims that were made were proven to be false. Bush claimed in his State of the Union Address following 9/11 that Iraq was aiding and protecting al Qaeda. That has proven beyond any doubt to have been a lie. He might not have connected Saddam to 9/11, but he claimed Saddam was in collusion with the terrorist group that was.

 

[jknowgood]

Liberation could and actually was used to describe a coup, civil uprising, civil war or regime change instigated with and by internal forces. Invasion has a different meaning. It refers to troops violently or forcefully entering a country or region.

The long list of statements made by various politicians were refuted and explained over a decade ago. There just always seems to be someone who regurgitates them and refuses to face reality. The statements used are either obsolete, having become null and void after changes occurred due to time and changing events, misrepresentation (lies) or misguided trust of the Bush/Cheney administration and misuse of the legislation given to Bush to conduct the invasion.
The Bush/Cheney defenders are screaming and whining that because people believed their lies and misrepresentations it isn't Bush/Cheney lies responsible for the war, the responsibility goes to those who believed the lies and misrepresentations.

Bush didn't lie, can't you get that talking point out of your head?

Bush either lied or was just plain stupid
He botched his decision to abandon the war on terror to attack Iraq
He botched his assessment of WMDs
He botched his evaluation of the population treating us as liberators
He botched his assesment of the probability of starting a civil war
He underestimated US Casualties
He underestimated the time we would need to be in Iraq
He underestimated the number of troops needed to keep the peace
He underestimated the amount of allied support

So Clinton was stupid also? Oh and Hillary supported the war. You want her to be the next president, a war monger?

You got 8 years of President Obama because Hillary supported the war.

No, we got 8 years of Obama because of idiots like yourself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberation could and actually was used to describe a coup, civil uprising, civil war or regime change instigated with and by internal forces. Invasion has a different meaning. It refers to troops violently or forcefully entering a country or region.

The long list of statements made by various politicians were refuted and explained over a decade ago. There just always seems to be someone who regurgitates them and refuses to face reality. The statements used are either obsolete, having become null and void after changes occurred due to time and changing events, misrepresentation (lies) or misguided trust of the Bush/Cheney administration and misuse of the legislation given to Bush to conduct the invasion.
The Bush/Cheney defenders are screaming and whining that because people believed their lies and misrepresentations it isn't Bush/Cheney lies responsible for the war, the responsibility goes to those who believed the lies and misrepresentations.

Bush didn't lie, can't you get that talking point out of your head?

Bush either lied or was just plain stupid
He botched his decision to abandon the war on terror to attack Iraq
He botched his assessment of WMDs
He botched his evaluation of the population treating us as liberators
He botched his assesment of the probability of starting a civil war
He underestimated US Casualties
He underestimated the time we would need to be in Iraq
He underestimated the number of troops needed to keep the peace
He underestimated the amount of allied support

YUP BUSH did UNDERESTIMATE the traitorous nature and well documented biased MSM which idiots like YOU believe were "objective".
Bush also grossly underestimated the total hatred of him by people that were willing to encourage the terrorists by calling our troops these terms:

Senator Kerry (D) called our troops TERRORISTS..."American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Remember Kerry EARLIER SAID...
"Without a question, we need to disarm Saddam. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an
oppressive regime .... to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
.... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...."Kerry , Jan. 23. 2003

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D)"Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

then Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

If Bush LIED so did these democrats!

"..deny Iraq the capacity to develop WMD".Bill Clinton,1998
"..most brutal dictators of Century", Biden,1998
"Iraq compliance with Resolution 687 becomes shell game"..Daschle 1998
"He will use those WMDs again,as he has ten times since 1983" ..Berger Clinton Ntl. Secur. Advr 1998
"posed by Iraq's refusal to end its WMD programs" Levin 1998
"Saddam has ignored the mandate of the UN and is building WMDs and the means to deliver.." Levin 2002
"Saddam has been engaged in development of WMDs which is a threat.."Pelosi 1998
"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building WMDS.."Albright 1999
"Saddam to refine delivery systems, that will threaten the US..."Graham 2001
"Compelling evidence Saddam has WMDs production storage capacity.." Graham 2002
"Iraq's search for WMDs ...will continue as long as Saddam's in power"..Gore 2002
"Saddam retains stockpiles of WMDS.."Byrd 2002

Why did 147 Democrats vote against the Iraq War Resolution, and only 7 Republicans?

Why were 21 times as many Democrats right than were Republicans?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberation could and actually was used to describe a coup, civil uprising, civil war or regime change instigated with and by internal forces. Invasion has a different meaning. It refers to troops violently or forcefully entering a country or region.

The long list of statements made by various politicians were refuted and explained over a decade ago. There just always seems to be someone who regurgitates them and refuses to face reality. The statements used are either obsolete, having become null and void after changes occurred due to time and changing events, misrepresentation (lies) or misguided trust of the Bush/Cheney administration and misuse of the legislation given to Bush to conduct the invasion.
The Bush/Cheney defenders are screaming and whining that because people believed their lies and misrepresentations it isn't Bush/Cheney lies responsible for the war, the responsibility goes to those who believed the lies and misrepresentations.

Bush didn't lie, can't you get that talking point out of your head?

Bush either lied or was just plain stupid
He botched his decision to abandon the war on terror to attack Iraq
He botched his assessment of WMDs
He botched his evaluation of the population treating us as liberators
He botched his assesment of the probability of starting a civil war
He underestimated US Casualties
He underestimated the time we would need to be in Iraq
He underestimated the number of troops needed to keep the peace
He underestimated the amount of allied support

So Clinton was stupid also? Oh and Hillary supported the war. You want her to be the next president, a war monger?

You got 8 years of President Obama because Hillary supported the war.

No, we got 8 years of Obama because of idiots like yourself.

That is how you lose arguments. Thanks.

 

[jknowgood]

Liberation could and actually was used to describe a coup, civil uprising, civil war or regime change instigated with and by internal forces. Invasion has a different meaning. It refers to troops violently or forcefully entering a country or region.

The long list of statements made by various politicians were refuted and explained over a decade ago. There just always seems to be someone who regurgitates them and refuses to face reality. The statements used are either obsolete, having become null and void after changes occurred due to time and changing events, misrepresentation (lies) or misguided trust of the Bush/Cheney administration and misuse of the legislation given to Bush to conduct the invasion.
The Bush/Cheney defenders are screaming and whining that because people believed their lies and misrepresentations it isn't Bush/Cheney lies responsible for the war, the responsibility goes to those who believed the lies and misrepresentations.

Bush didn't lie, can't you get that talking point out of your head?

I isn't a lie. I is an accepted fact of history. It became facts of history when years after the invasion and occupation of Iraq, claims that were made were proven to be false. Bush claimed in his State of the Union Address following 9/11 that Iraq was aiding and protecting al Qaeda. That has proven beyond any doubt to have been a lie. He might not have connected Saddam to 9/11, but he claimed Saddam was in collusion with the terrorist group that was.

The main reason we went to war was because Saddam refused to comply with un resolutions. Bush gave Saddam plenty of time to comply. Saddam lied, so he died.

 

[jknowgood]

Bush didn't lie, can't you get that talking point out of your head?

Bush either lied or was just plain stupid
He botched his decision to abandon the war on terror to attack Iraq
He botched his assessment of WMDs
He botched his evaluation of the population treating us as liberators
He botched his assesment of the probability of starting a civil war
He underestimated US Casualties
He underestimated the time we would need to be in Iraq
He underestimated the number of troops needed to keep the peace
He underestimated the amount of allied support

So Clinton was stupid also? Oh and Hillary supported the war. You want her to be the next president, a war monger?

You got 8 years of President Obama because Hillary supported the war.

No, we got 8 years of Obama because of idiots like yourself.

That is how you lose arguments. Thanks.

Because of facts? Obama is the worse president in history. Carter is happy, he says thanks N.Y. couldn't of done it without the ignorance of liberals.