Helluva job, Bushie!

He alwso purportedly said he made all the weapons of mass destruction noise more to scare Iran than us. That part should have been obvious to the CIA's best-and-brightest drones. What an intelligence failure.

What an intelligence failure.
#2 | Posted by Diablo

That's only if you still believe that they weren't looking for intel to support their decision (made pre 2000 election) to go into Iraq.

That part should have been obvious to the CIA's best-and-brightest drones. What an intelligence failure.

On the flip side, the Iranian intelligence community and super-spy Chalabi did a pretty good job of getting rid of Saddam, cleansing the sunnis from government and handing Iraq over to the shia theocracy without spending a dime or a drop of blood.

James Bond would be green with envy.

"He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 ... a four-day aerial attack,"

Trained by clinton's actions.

The only good part about the iraq debacle is that so many soldiers died needlessly and the cost, financial and political, was so great, your country just might think twice next time about conducting business through war, for there were no other reasons for this illegal invasion. An even greater wish, though even more unlikely, would be that the majority of your countrymen develop the ability for critical thinking.

That's called history, Snoopy. You may want to read some sometime, so you don't always come off like a knee-jerk Republican cock-sucker.

So Bush is actually Clinton's fault.

The only good part about the iraq debacle is that so many soldiers died needlessly...

so you think its good when soldiers die needlessly Taco, what a low life spic greeser you must be

So Bush is actually Clinton's fault.

#8 | Posted by cbob
no but Obama is definteluy Bushes fault!

Hussein, business partner with BushI, thru Pennzoil, and Cheney, thru Haliburton.

When he acted independently, they moved to kill him. When he offered to leave Iraq, they ignored and hushed up that story too.

Bush's failure certainly lead to the failure of the Conservative movement, which is ironic since there was nothing Conservative or Liberal about Bush. The man was a political entity unto itself with loyalty to no one.

Trained by clinton's actions.

#5 | Posted by Sniper

Exactly how many KIAs were there under Clinton, while he was successful, as Rice and Powell and Cheney said, in keeping Saddam in a box?

Reality and the right...

Sigh...

That's called history, Snoopy. You may want to read some sometime, so you don't always come off like a knee-jerk Republican cock-sucker.

But coming across like a knee-jerk Democrat cock-sucker is just fine, right Lettuce?

So Bush is actually Clinton's fault.

#8 | Posted by cbob at 2009-07-02 01:15 PM

No. Bush was the fault of all the idiots who voted for him.

Twice.

every penny that this country spends on intelligence is wasted

No. Bush was the fault of all the idiots who voted for him.

Twice.

#15 | Posted by jerrytarkanian

thats right knucklehead

and the choices were gore and kerry......yeah that would work allright...please..

and remember the first time I voted for bush AND tom delay....how bout them apples kuncklehead

SHIT
what the fuck am I doing throwing those soft balls to you
you arent capable of using them.......lol

Anyone with a brain was saying this BEFORE the invasion.
Including UN Weapons inspectors and Hans Brix.

Why are righties always the last figure it out?

Helluva job, Bushie!

#1 | Posted by LetUsPrey

Yes, it was.

Kicked ass!

so you think its good when soldiers die needlessly Taco, what a low life spic greeser you must be

#9 | Posted by reinsurelaw at 2009-07-02 01:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

Read it the way you want, but if you don't learn a little bit from this lesson, then your opinion and the value you place on your own soldiers is even lower than the one you assign to me. I'm saying that the loss should hopefully lead to understanding of the real cost of war... that your pretend patriotism displayed by flag waving and bumper stickers is pure fucking bullshit and have unfortunately become the only way you and your fellow citizens pretend to support or care for your troops. If you really cared for them, you would be more critical of the reasons why they are sent to war in the first place.

Now you can either learn or keep being a stupid flag-waving, car-magneted fuck. I'm betting on the latter.

Yes, it was.

Kicked ass!

#20 | Posted by Eddie

Yeah, he fucked up two wars and unleashed 'shock and awe' on the economy. Woo hoo!

Saddam was doing his best to pretend he had these WMDs but if you saw Powell's embarassment in front of the UN, it was pretty clear that if he did have these weapons we had no real proof of it.

James Bond would be green with envy.

#4 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-07-02 01:10 PM

More of a Mission Impossible except it was not our IMF that pulled this off this one. I guess we all know who "Division Seven" is now.

Yes, it was.

Kicked ass!

#20 | Posted by Eddie at 2009-07-02 01:36 PM

oh yeah! mucho ass was kicked and we all had such a wonderful time too.

what the fuck am I doing throwing those soft balls to you
you arent capable of using them.......lol

#18 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2009-07-02 01:31 PM |

You're much more of a pro at handling "soft balls" ,akflababble.

Yes, it was.

Kicked ass!

#20 | Posted by Eddie

Yeah, he fucked up two wars and unleashed 'shock and awe' on the economy. Woo hoo!

#22 | Posted by reinheitsgebot

Let's see...

The war ended successfully...

The economy would have been righted by now,

BUT WAIT!

Obama and the Dems in Congress are fucking up any chances of recovery.

Hmmmmm...

You're not that stupid are you?

The war ended successfully...

The economy would have been righted by now,

BUT WAIT!

Obama and the Dems in Congress are fucking up any chances of recovery.

Hmmmmm...

You're not that stupid are you?

Posted by Eddie at 2009-07-02 01:47 PM

It seem you are. I am not sure if I should FF that or view it as the cry for help is seems like.

Anyone with a brain was saying this BEFORE the invasion.
Including UN Weapons inspectors and Hans Brix.

Why are righties always the last figure it out?

#19 | Posted by briwo

Because morons like you (and millions of Libs and lazy assholes) have NEVER figured it out.

You've been told!

The outcome of the war is successful. The American empire is intact, the oil is secure and still being traded through OPEC.

There. Done.

Get it?

Didn't think so.

Why are righties always the last figure it out?

#19 | Posted by briwo

Because until the GOPper party admits it, they refuse to believe it. Dealing with facts is just hard werk.

Party before Country.

It seem you are. I am not sure if I should FF that or view it as the cry for help is seems like.

#27 | Posted by kanrei

you're kidding, right?

Do you even know what's happned in the last year?

So, your opinion is that Obama was handed a problem. Then why did he break it even more?

The willing idiots in this country are amazing!

If the war was ended successfully, then why did more people die after "Mission Accomplished" than before? Why did an operation to find WMD's turn into Operation Iraqi Freedom if it was such a success?

Why was Grey Davis recalled if the economy didn't crash until Obama and the Dems in Congress were in control? What about Enron? Tyco? Arthur Andersen Accounting?

Short memories must be the key to being a member of the GOP.

Chimpy's #1 rimlicker thinks Iraq was successful. Bwahahaha. The Ayatollahs in Teheran can't thank Chimpy enough for removing Saddam and putting the Shia in charge. The smoking ruins of the first MBA president's reign of error will require a long,long,long time to clean up.

#21 | Posted by panchovilla at 2009-07-02 01:37 PM

what country are you from and why do you enjoy coming here and ripping on the U.S.? you act like you know so much about us, one might incorrectly think you actually live here or GIVE A DAMN about us. your opinions on us are moot. go back to your cave.

besides, the only bumper stickers i see these days say Obama on them.

*** FBI Agent: Saddam Didn't Think US Would Invade ***

..........he didn't think we were stupid enough....

..........we showed him.........

If the war was ended successfully, then why did more people die after "Mission Accomplished"
#31 | Posted by kanrei

The mission, Kanrei, like I said before, was to secure the oil and to stop Saddam's attempt at cooperating with the Iranians to form a new Oil Cartel.

The mission was accomplished at the time he said it.

If you want it to be something else like most of the Libs, then go ahead.

The mission of keeping your Wal-mart open was accomplished! Metaphoricly speaking.

Another FF Eddie and this one gets flagged!

Saddam's attempt at cooperating with the Iranians to form a new Oil Cartel

ROFLMAO at Eddie! Saddam and the Iranians working together? Again: ROFLMAO at Eddie!

He alwso purportedly said he made all the weapons of mass destruction noise more to scare Iran than us. That part should have been obvious to the CIA's best-and-brightest drones. What an intelligence failure.

Everybody with a clue in the CIA was fully aware of that.

As, honestly, were Rummy, Wolfy, Powell, and probably Bush.

They just thought a war would go well for them. That's a rare thing.

Chimpy's #1 rimlicker thinks Iraq was successful. Bwahahaha. The Ayatollahs in Teheran can't thank Chimpy enough for removing Saddam and putting the Shia in charge. The smoking ruins of the first MBA president's reign of error will require a long,long,long time to clean up.

#32 | Posted by reinheitsgebot

I'm just the messenger, dumbass. Chimpy kept your Wal-mart open so that you'd have a place to shop!

I don't like the idea that America is an empire, but that's what it is.

Chimpy saved it!

Now, let's take it down.

"besides, the only bumper stickers i see these days say Obama on them."

Probably true, the McCain supporters got tired of being laughed at when they stopped at traffic lights.

*** FBI Agent: Saddam Didn't Think US Would Invade ***

..........he didn't think we were stupid enough....

..........we showed him.........

He misunderestimated Dubya's stupidity, that's for sure.

The mission, Kanrei, like I said before, was to secure the oil and to stop Saddam's attempt at cooperating with the Iranians to form a new Oil Cartel.

Saddam and the ayatollahs hated each other. You're being delusional. And if the plan was to stop Iran and Iraq from cooperating, how fucking stupid did Bush have to be to set up a pro-Iranian shia theocracy to run Iraq and its oil fields? You do remember President Amandapajamas' super star visit to Baghdad, while Cowboy George had to sneak into some desert airbase in the middle of the night?

If showing the world how stupid the righties are was the Mission, it was truly Accomplished. after reading the rightwingnuts posts here, I'm beginning to see why the righties were so pro-Schiavo. They are living proof you really don't need a brain to function.

I don't think McCain people took them off so much as the stickers themselves jumped off the cars in a suicide attempt.

Another FF Eddie and this one gets flagged!

Saddam's attempt at cooperating with the Iranians to form a new Oil Cartel

ROFLMAO at Eddie! Saddam and the Iranians working together? Again: ROFLMAO at Eddie!

#36 | Posted by kanrei

Kanrei, are you being stupid on purpose?

Look it up. LOL

fact: The Iranians are trying to start their own banking system and oil cartel. The Russians and very interested. The Chinese are extremely interested. The Japanese are cooperating. They've been working on this for decades. Venezuela is trying to get in on the deal that Iran has with Japan.

fact: Saddam was very interested in getting in on this deal as well, but he was stopped.

"The American empire is intact, the oil is secure and still being traded through OPEC."

Actually, their primary goal was privatizationof the oil in Iraq and they most certainly did not get that. The invasion was a complete failure when compared to the goals that the neocons had for doing it in the first place.
From an economic stand point, it was a disaster for America.

The mission, Kanrei, like I said before, was to secure the oil and to stop Saddam's attempt at cooperating with the Iranians to form a new Oil Cartel.

And that is a legal justification for invading another country?

Is that what passes for a clear and present danger to the wingbots now?

The Iranians are trying to start their own banking system and oil cartel. The Russians and very interested. The Chinese are extremely interested. The Japanese are cooperating. They've been working on this for decades. Venezuela is trying to get in on the deal that Iran has with Japan.

When does the US invade China?

#40 | Posted by northguy3

The neocons are in bed with the Iranian Government (not the people).

The question is, does Obama obey the neocons?

"So Bush is actually Clinton's fault."

Absolutely.

No blow job, no stained dress.

No stained dress, no proof of a lie.

No lie, no impeachment.

No impeachment, Gore coulda run n' won, instead of what happened. Most people were decently happy with the way things had been going throughout the '90s. Without l'affaire Lewinsky and its aftermath, they'd probably have voted for more of the same.

So, yeah, I think a case can be made that Clinton is responsible for eight years of Bush.

What a douche bag. Eddie thinks that he wouldn't be able buy his wife's favorite brand of moustache wax at Wal-Mart if Dubya hadn't blundered and invaded Iraq.

Actually, their primary goal was privatizationof the oil in Iraq and they most certainly did not get that.

#43 | Posted by danni

So, please tell me, that Bushco and his cronies could get rich?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Eddie,
The truth is this:

Iran tried for years to get rid of Saddam and failed. They saw the election of Bush and knew of the 9-11 attacks and began an intense operation of faking intelligence to show Saddam was a threat to America. People involved in government for a long time, like Richard Clarke saw through it, but the Bush Neo-Cons ignored the info and went ahead with their plans. Iran waited until we ran "free elections" and then, through intimidation, terror, and bribes, was able to secure an Iran-friendly government in Iraq thus doing what they had tried to do for 30 years. We were the pawns and Iran got the better of us.

What a douche bag. Eddie thinks that he wouldn't be able buy his wife's favorite brand of moustache wax at Wal-Mart if Dubya hadn't blundered and invaded Iraq.

#48 | Posted by reinheitsgebot

Some people are just too stupid.

Read the post before responding, moron.

You are on the unenlightened side of this argument and the funny thing is that you think you're not.

"So Bush is actually Clinton's fault."

Absolutely.

That I agree with. The right wing played Gore with the whole "he can't have disgraced Bubba campaign for him" and that is what did him in. By not asking one of the most popular presidents to stand on the sideline during a campaign was foolish.

Dumbya ran on "restoring honor and dignity" to the whitehouse. In 8 years he has managed to bankrupt the nation disgrace the office.

Worst President Ever.

"
"So Bush is actually Clinton's fault."

Absolutely.

No blow job, no stained dress.

No stained dress, no proof of a lie.

No lie, no impeachment.

No impeachment, Gore coulda run n' won, instead of what happened."

Undeniable. I hope Bill someday actually acknowledges the damage to America his stupid indiscretion caused.

This is not an intelligence failure - that is a smoke screen in the blame game.

This is a LOGIC failure. The WHOLE premise of the invasion of the Iraq war was to keep WMD out of the hands of the Iraq government.

OF COURSE the NEW Iraq govt is going to need to pursue WMD or get invaded by its neighbors. Thus we invade a country to prevent them from getting WMD, then turn RIGHT AROUND and support the new government of Iraq to obtain WMD. So they can fight off Iran.

Helluva a Job BUSHIE!

The Iraq war was a success because it woke up many Muslims to the ongoing evils of the west-- thei west's whole socio-economic system is now in collapse.

Because of the war, many Muslims became more media savvy, more literate, and closer to their faith.

In fifty years Muslims will be running the world. Mark my words.

"Dumbya ran on "restoring honor and dignity" to the whitehouse. In 8 years he has managed to bankrupt the nation disgrace the office."

Dubya figured his presidency was a success because he hadn't been caught having an affair (with a woman).

If the war was ended successfully, then why did more people die after "Mission Accomplished"
#31 | Posted by kanrei

The mission, Kanrei, like I said before, was to secure the oil and to stop Saddam's attempt at cooperating with the Iranians to form a new Oil Cartel.

The mission was accomplished at the time he said it.

If you want it to be something else like most of the Libs, then go ahead.

The mission of keeping your Wal-mart open was accomplished! Metaphoricly speaking.

#35 | Posted by Eddie

correct, war of aggression, war crime.

thanks for playing.

So, please tell me, that Bushco and his cronies could get rich?

You mean they haven't? You have not been paying attention. How many hundreds of billions have been wasted over there? You think it went companies that were not politically connected? If you do, you are a fool.

The purpose of the war was to privatize the oil, that was clear from Cheney's secret energy meetings and why they fought so hard to keep them secret. Did it happen? No. The Iraqi government did something a little inconvenient to Bushco... gave him the old purple finger on the privatization.

But another objective was to raise the price of oil so that they could all make money. At $150 per barrell they were all making money at the expense of the world economy.

We were the pawns and Iran got the better of us.

#50 | Posted by kanrei

nice try, and this shows thinking in a vaccum.
But history doesn't prove your argument. On the contrary. Study the last 100 years of Iran, you'll see that the US and Britain have been controlling Iran even in the last 30 years. Esp, in the last 30 years. Iran, however, wants desparately to break out and become a Super Power and has a very good chance of doing that, but, unfortunately, there are too many groups wh want the control. Too much chaos. US and Britain are taking advantage of that.

"""Let's see...

The war ended successfully...""""

lol. What exactly did you succeed in doing?

correct, war of aggression, war crime.

thanks for playing.

#57 | Posted by truthhurts

I agree.

What are you going to do about taking down the Empire?

Study the last 100 years of Iran, you'll see that the US and Britain have been controlling Iran even in the last 30 years.

LOL! I would say "logic and reason have left the building," but I am pretty sure Eddie never had it.

What are you going to do about taking down the Empire?

#61 | Posted by Eddie

keep speaking the truth.

"""Let's see...

The war ended successfully...""""

lol. What exactly did you succeed in doing?

#60 | Posted by panchovilla

I didn't get anything.

I was against it from the beginning.

The neocons succeeded however. And they succeeded very well.

Study the last 100 years of Iran, you'll see that the US and Britain have been controlling Iran even in the last 30 years.

LOL! I would say "logic and reason have left the building," but I am pretty sure Eddie never had it.

#62 | Posted by kanrei

Don't give up so soon. You were just getting interesting. I like the way you think outside the box.

Rcade,
With Jeffin, BoOB, and now Eddie, it is time to rename this place "The Conspiracy Retort" I think.

Eddie,
Iran has been at war with the West since at least 1972. The 1979 hostage crisis was their declaration of war against America. We aided Saddam because he was opposed to Iran just like we aided Osama because he fought Russia. Iran was behind the 1983 Marine attacks. Iran sponsors Hamas. Iran does want to be a super power, you are right about that, but Saddam was in the way of that and Iran got us to remove him for them.

hmmmmm Eddie doesnt seem to be saying anything that us learned lefties have been saying for years. Iraq was about controlling the oil.

We ousted Saddam who was an impediment to that control.

We helped install what we hope will be a western friendly iraqi govt.

This does not mean lower prices at the pumps.

This means western oil companies to benefit from access to the oil.

The one thing I have said all along is that the WMD reports were almost 100% correct, they just put a "Q" at the end of "IRAN."

Eddie,
I was getting rude. I am sorry. You have been polite with me and I was not.

The economy would have been righted by now,

BUT WAIT!

Obama and the Dems in Congress are fucking up any chances of recovery

for me this is where Eddie goes off the boat.

Iraq and our current economic crises are tied up in the same knot. $3Trillion wasted in Iraq have contributed to the economic pains we are suffering from, but they go far deeper than Iraq and there is no way the conservative policies which created the economic crises would have righted our economy.

I figure in the next 30 or so years we will be forced to reduce our empire substantially.

Rcade,
With Jeffin, BoOB, and now Eddie, it is time to rename this place "The Conspiracy Retort" I think.

#66 | Posted by kanrei

So, OPEC doesn't exist?

LOL

I love it.

The reason the right was successful in waging the war in Iraq, as this thread shows, is that the right all agreed while the left, all opposed to the war, did so for different reasons and would start fighting amonst themselves.

"The neocons succeeded however. And they succeeded very well."

That must explain the Democratic majority in both houses and the Obama Presidency.
When I see Dick Cheney he doesn't look like someone who is happy.

Our nation post 9/11 was in the mood to kick ass and forgot a small thing called justice-aided and abetted by a willing media.

hmmmmm Eddie doesnt seem to be saying anything that us learned lefties have been saying for years. Iraq was about controlling the oil.

#68 | Posted by truthhurts

This is what true Conservatives say. You are thinking of neocons.

True Conservatives stepped aside during the Bush years because a Republican was in office and that was good enough for them. THEY betrayed their own cause by supporting Bush regardless of what he did and that led directly to Obama. Ironically, the True Liberals are now doing the same thing.

We helped install what we hope will be a western friendly iraqi govt.

This does not mean lower prices at the pumps.

This means western oil companies to benefit from access to the oil.

#68 | Posted by truthhurts

But that's not what the intent of the war was, this is a side-effect.

Most Libs think that this is what Bush was doing. I LOL every time I hear it. It's comical to watch the confusion.

Eddie,
Please see my #70 in regards to your #72.

sorry eddie but us on the left have been saying for 7+ years that the invasion of iraq was about controlling their oil. for those who knew that and supported it anyway,well I can only figure they either benefited as company execs or were fooled into thinking that meant lower gas prices.

Ironically, the True Liberals are now doing the same thing.

#77 | Posted by kanrei a

not all of us.

Eddie,
I was getting rude. I am sorry. You have been polite with me and I was not.

#70 | Posted by kanrei

That's alright.

Most Libs think that this is what Bush was doing. I LOL every time I hear it. It's comical to watch the confusion

I don't believe it was about Oil or about Liberation- it was about doing what daddy didn't. It was Oedipal. It was Dubya wanting to be the one you think of when you hear "President Bush" instead of his father.

But that's not what the intent of the war was, this is a side-effect.

Most Libs think that this is what Bush was doing. I LOL every time I hear it. It's comical to watch the confusion.

#78 | Posted by Eddie

I am confused by your point, could you expand?

not all of us.

#81 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-07-02 02:39 PM |

No, thank G-d not all of you. Helen Thomas restored my faith in her today too.

The one thing I have said all along is that the WMD reports were almost 100% correct, they just put a "Q" at the end of "IRAN."

#69 | Posted by kanrei

Of course! It was a shame to get the war (invasion) started. It wasn't really a war. It was an invasion.

My belief is that Iraq has the 2nd largest proven reserves of oil and that we could not allow it to be controlled by Saddam.

Pretty simple.

I am giving Obama a chance and I am happy about some of the things he is doing but not happy about other things.

I believe we need to push a very liberal/progressive agenda for REAL lasting and effective change in the way of doing things, this type of majority comes around very rarely.

Of course! It was a shame to get the war (invasion) started. It wasn't really a war. It was an invasion.

#86 | Posted by Eddie

It was a war of agression, a war crime.

FACT.

It certainly was a war crime. The issue before us is "would proving it destroy this country?" If it was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt we were lied to into a war, how would it affect the workings of government in the future and its credibility to the people?

not all of us.
#81 | Posted by truthhurts

Nope. Not all of us.

It certainly was a war crime. The issue before us is "would proving it destroy this country?" If it was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt we were lied to into a war, how would it affect the workings of government in the future and its credibility to the people?

#90 | Posted by kanrei at

absolutely positively NOT. It would prove our strength, it would have a purifying effect in the long run. Instead we let the cancer eat our nation.

It comes down to precedent.

We let Nixon slide so the scum saw the precedent of unfettered and power that answers to noone. The same fucks who fucked up the bush administration learned that lesson under Ford.

In the future power will see that they can do most anything and not have to answer for it.

That is the biggest danger of the past 8 years.

I was just asking. I personally can see where it would strengthen us and where it might weaken us, so I just put it out there as a philosophical question.

For example, if we can prove we were lied to about Iraq, would we ever trust them if/when the real invasion to stop a direct and imminent threat to the US was about to be needed?

America has a serious need for such pain. That pain is coming to us and the longer we avoid it the worse it will be, whether economically or politically.

Personally I see a revolution coming following an economic collapse.

"It certainly was a war crime. The issue before us is "would proving it destroy this country?" If it was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt we were lied to into a war, how would it affect the workings of government in the future and its credibility to the people?

#90 | Posted by kanrei at"

It made the people more suspicious than ever of their government and eventually if that distrust grows the government will be incapable of governing...just like the USSR. Don't think it can't happen here, let the international corporatists have another decade of destroying the country and there won't be much worth saving.

For example, if we can prove we were lied to about Iraq, would we ever trust them if/when the real invasion to stop a direct and imminent threat to the US was about to be needed?
#94 | Posted by kanrei

I don't like the implications of your argument here.

The big question being will that revolution be reactionary and conservative (nationalistic and agressive) or liberal and socialist (poor and middle class and self destructive).

We have the seeds of both in our nation-a rampant militarism combined with the economic instability of rich over poor.

every penny that this country spends on intelligence is wasted

#16 | POSTED BY GEORGEISADRUNK AT 2009-07-02 01:28 PM | REPLY | FLAG: Idiot

For example, if we can prove we were lied to about Iraq, would we ever trust them if/when the real invasion to stop a direct and imminent threat to the US was about to be needed?
#94 | Posted by kanrei

AMerica can start by stopping seeing boogey monsters around every corner and realize that being alive makes us vulnerable. An attack, even something as harsh as 9/11 does not threaten us, that the truest danger is the one from within.

It was a war of agression, a war crime.

FACT.

#89 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-07-02 02:43 PM

That would be a big jail cell. Assuming you hold Congress to the same standard.

TH,
We COULD do that, but, being humans, the odds of us ever coming close is non-existent. The human being is a creature of extremes tragically. I would like to think we as a nation would learn of the deceit and grow from it, but I fear we as a nation would learn of it and say "screw it!"

what country are you from and why do you enjoy coming here and ripping on the U.S.? you act like you know so much about us, one might incorrectly think you actually live here or GIVE A DAMN about us. your opinions on us are moot. go back to your cave.

besides, the only bumper stickers i see these days say Obama on them.

#33 | Posted by edb at 2009-07-02 01:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Canada and I do and don't rip on the u.s., I rip on policies and actions that are obviously stupid, bordering on the criminal, like iraq. Grow pair and stop sniveling.

but I fear we as a nation would learn of it and say "screw it!"
#102 | Posted by kanrei

We've been doing that for more than a few years now.

There was a brief glimmer of unity after 9-11, but that was quickly destroyed by the "how can we use this tragedy to move our agenda" of most politicians.

"There was a brief glimmer of unity after 9-11"

I was in Peru as part of a health mission then and didn't come back until November. Didn't see much unity by the time I got home. But I do remember the national guard and their AK's at penn station.

Hell, I still see those guardsmen and their AK's.

It was a war of agression, a war crime.

FACT.

#89 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-07-02 02:43 PM

That would be a big jail cell. Assuming you hold Congress to the same standard.

#101 | Posted by crispee_oc at

do I have to repeat AGAIN how congress did not authorize the invasion of Iraq?

oh wait here is my post from a couple days ago

here is the resolution language:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

continuing threat posed by Iraq

AND

Enforce ALL relevant UN Resolutions

NO UN RESOLUTION AUTHORIZED INVASION. UN Resolution required that the matter come back for discussion-meaning a second resolution for use of force. Bush KNEW he needed a second resolution, Bush DRAFTED a second resolution, Bush said NO MATTER WHAT he was going to call for a vote on the 2nd Resolution-he did not.

It was a proven FACT that Iraq posed no threat to the US in March 2003. Inspectors found NO EVIDENCE.

Therefore, UN resolutions did not call for invasion and Iraq posed no threat to the US.

Therefore, Bush had no authority.

"The big question being will that revolution be reactionary and conservative (nationalistic and agressive) or liberal and socialist (poor and middle class and self destructive)."

Yes indeed, that is the big question. I think it would depend on the military and that is one reason I have always supported the draft. The idea of having a "professional military" is dangerous to democracy. When it is made up of thousands of "citizen soldiers" it is unlikely that they would turn their guns on the citizens as they have in Iran.

That would be a big jail cell. Assuming you hold Congress to the same standard.

#101 | Posted by crispee_oc at

do I have to repeat AGAIN how congress did not authorize the invasion of Iraq?

So you are saying had Bush not received the votes he still would have invaded?

The Iraqi leader had also intended to restart the weapons program and had the means to do it.

"He still had the engineers. The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," Piro said. "He wanted ... to reconstitute his entire WMD program."

Nuf said...

It was a proven FACT that Iraq posed no threat to the US in March 2003. Inspectors found NO EVIDENCE.

Therefore, UN resolutions did not call for invasion and Iraq posed no threat to the US.

Therefore, Bush had no authority.

More Bush hater talk...

What was clear in March 2003 was the fact that Saddam as stated in the article pretended to have WMD's. Everyone thought he had them...

Most of the intel agencies around the world thought he had them because he stated that he has them.

After the envasion we found that he was full of crap and you want to revolk the presidents right to protect the US After the fact.

My question here is....

Do you now think N Korea has them?

How about Iran?

Do they both have the bomb?

What should we do about that? Wait until Bethlahem is glowing maybe?

The outcome of the war is successful. The American empire is intact, the oil is secure and still being traded through OPEC.

Eddie, one of the driving ideas behind Cheney and the neo-cons Bush ket run the Pentagon was to break OPC, not keep it alive and well.

Did your mom have any kids that lived?

do I have to repeat AGAIN how congress did not authorize the invasion of Iraq?

So you are saying had Bush not received the votes he still would have invaded?

#110 | Posted by crispee_oc

I would say that question is irrelevant. He was not authorized to attack Iraq but to confront the continuing threat posed by Iraq. Proven Iraq was no threat, therefore no authority, pretty simple actually.

The Iraqi leader had also intended to restart the weapons program and had the means to do it.

"He still had the engineers. The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," Piro said. "He wanted ... to reconstitute his entire WMD program."

Nuf said...

#111 | Posted by bashthis

so we started a war because one man wanted WMD, ok gotcha nice precedent.

More Bush hater talk...

What was clear in March 2003 was the fact that Saddam as stated in the article pretended to have WMD's. Everyone thought he had them...

TH: Simply not true. NO EVIDENCE as stated by the UN Inspectors. Many of the "claims" were already proven false by March 2003. Early March, Democratic leader sent a letter to Bush stating intelligence was wrong.

Most of the intel agencies around the world thought he had them because he stated that he has them.

TH: Simply Not True. War is not justified without definitive proof at least. Even assuming that were true, that is STILL not justification for an invasion. However there was no concensus. It becomes a matter for the jury.

After the envasion we found that he was full of crap and you want to revolk the presidents right to protect the US After the fact.

TH: So the justification is that we KNOW he had WMD and he doesnt. Ok. Nice. Seems a nation should have a little more certainty over the justification for an invasion. However it was KNOWN before hand no WMD, no THREAT, NO EVIDENCE per the inspectors. Other illegal actions would be deceit to congress over the accuracy and strength of the intelligence that Iraq had WMD, torture used to gain false intelligence used to justify the invasion (which was done).

My question here is....

Do you now think N Korea has them?

TH: Yes, however to my knowledge we havent invaded NK.

How about Iran?

TH: Not sure.

Do they both have the bomb?

TH: Not sure.

What should we do about that? Wait until Bethlahem is glowing maybe?

TH: Diplomacy, it is tough war is/should be a last option.

War is justified to stop and invasion or possibly to prevent an IMMINENT THREAT. The US has signed a treaty with the UN and the UN requires a resolution for the use of force. WE had neither.

It is just dishonest to say that IRaq posed any serious threat in 2003. They MAY have had a desire to obtain WMD, but that is NOT justification for an invasion, sorry.

More Bush hater talk...

What was clear in March 2003 was the fact that Saddam as stated in the article pretended to have WMD's. Everyone thought he had them...

TH: Simply not true. NO EVIDENCE as stated by the UN Inspectors. Many of the "claims" were already proven false by March 2003. Early March, Democratic leader sent a letter to Bush stating intelligence was wrong.

Most of the intel agencies around the world thought he had them because he stated that he has them.

TH: Simply Not True. War is not justified without definitive proof at least. Even assuming that were true, that is STILL not justification for an invasion. However there was no concensus. It becomes a matter for the jury.

After the envasion we found that he was full of crap and you want to revolk the presidents right to protect the US After the fact.

TH: So the justification is that we KNOW he had WMD and he doesnt. Ok. Nice. Seems a nation should have a little more certainty over the justification for an invasion. However it was KNOWN before hand no WMD, no THREAT, NO EVIDENCE per the inspectors. Other illegal actions would be deceit to congress over the accuracy and strength of the intelligence that Iraq had WMD, torture used to gain false intelligence used to justify the invasion (which was done).

My question here is....

Do you now think N Korea has them?

TH: Yes, however to my knowledge we havent invaded NK.

How about Iran?

TH: Not sure.

Do they both have the bomb?

TH: Not sure.

What should we do about that? Wait until Bethlahem is glowing maybe?

TH: Diplomacy, it is tough war is/should be a last option.

War is justified to stop and invasion or possibly to prevent an IMMINENT THREAT. The US has signed a treaty with the UN and the UN requires a resolution for the use of force. WE had neither.

It is just dishonest to say that IRaq posed any serious threat in 2003. They MAY have had a desire to obtain WMD, but that is NOT justification for an invasion, sorry.

"He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998."

Oh, like bombing the hell out of Iraq and patrolling the "No Fly Zone"? Appeasement at it's best.

Is there justification for such acts of war?

do I have to repeat AGAIN how congress did not authorize the invasion of Iraq?

#107 | Posted by truthhurts

Yes you do have to repeat your lie again.

October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

oh you mean her vote that war was a LAST option after diplomacy failed? that vote?

of course there was a WHOLE lot learned from October 2002 till March 2003 and since bush was given the authority to do a certain thing, yet the REQUIRED PRECONDITION for his actions were not present, well that makes his act illegal.

"He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998."

Oh, like bombing the hell out of Iraq and patrolling the "No Fly Zone"? Appeasement at it's best.

Is there justification for such acts of war?

#118 | Posted by phys_ill

such acts of war? you mean our illegal no fly zones?

Maybe we all need some of that good stuff 'Eddie' and 'truthhurts' are smoking... the feelgooders..

well you could try refuting what I state but that would be too much trouble, just believe the lies you are told, life is much esier when you dont have to think

#121 | Posted by truthhurts

Legality for the U.N. is like oil-for-food.

measuring yourelf by others.....

If the UN processes were so onerous or unseemly we had the option of a. not accepting the UN charter as a treaty and b. not including hte UN in our resolutions.

"He still had the engineers. The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," Piro said. "He wanted ... to reconstitute his entire WMD program."

The UN did NOTHING to stop Saddam from moving forward. China and Russia among other Security council countries were invested in the Baath Party.

Ideally, I put US interests over UN interests, especially after 9-11 -- but that's a personal issue I got.

So, TRUTHBTOLD do YOU agree that the bombing raids taken by the Clinton Admin. were acts of war?

"He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 ... a four-day aerial attack,"

Trained by clinton's actions.

#5 | Posted by Sniper at 2009-07-02 01:13 PM | Reply | Flag

YEAH!!!

Clinton should have sent 5000 soldiers to their deaths and cost us close to a trillion dollars instead.

Guess the joke was on him as some presidents follow up their words with actions.