D'uh. Candidate Bush ran on taking out Saddam. Dubya packed his Administration with the PNACers who were ferevently praying for a reason to invade Iraq. Dubya was listening only to Chalalbi the Iranian spy's drunken buddy Curveball and Bush knew before the SOTU that the yellowcake letter was a forgery.

9-11 wasn't the reason for Iraq, it was the excuse.

Naive zionists and a fake cowboy lead to war by the Iranian secret service.

So when are we getting out?

No Shit Sherlock. Thank G=d I never supported this Illegal War of Aggression. That must royally suck for those that did. May I suggest Truck loads full of Lava Handsoap and rubbing alcohol. You're gonna need it.

Larry

war crimes can seem so innocuous.

there was no justification for an invasion of iraq

it was a war of agression.

america will never be the same

So when are we getting out?

End of 2011, if not sooner. Or will righties be missing McLoser's 100 year war? I love how Iraq went from being the front in the war on global terror under Bush to a mistake under Obama in the righties mind. Or what passes for a mind.

Sort of like the...

...World is hell-bent on Climate Change?

Measure twice, cut once. As true now as ever.

Measure twice, cut once.

Unless you're a Republican, then just hack away and God will be guiding your hand. And more thought & research on climate change happened while you read this than went in to the planning of post-invasion Iraq. At least outside Tehran. The mad ayatollahs certainly had their plans ready for taking over after Bush got rid of Saddam for them.

Sort of like the...

...World is hell-bent on Climate Change?

Measure twice, cut once. As true now as ever.

#6 | Posted by BENDOR at 2009-11-28 05:42 PM |

Fucking Idiot.

Fucking Idiot.

#8 | Posted by jerrytarkanian

Ignorant lamb.

Boy, this is fun. Your turn.

Now he tells us. Not that anybody needs telling these days, even the right doesn't bother to defend it any more.

Some of us didn't need telling back in 2002. One look at Bush and his complete unfitness as President, Cheney and his energy discussions with maps of the Iraqi oilfields on the wall and Clarke and O'Neill's assertions that invading Iraq was on the agenda from Day One of Bush's presidency.

If all that somehow escaped you all you had to do was to read up the agenda that the Bush administration members and other neocons of the Project for a New American Century helpfully laid out in detail.

I remember the polls very clearly:

Go to war: 9%
Don't go to war: 91%

LOL. The cowboy did it anyway. LOL.
War is NEVER a solution.

Be Well.

You have to remember, Chimpy was full of himself after the success of letting his former business partner's brother escape from Tora Bora.

"Ignorant lamb"?

Back Off!

LOL!

"Ignorant lamb"?

Back Off!

LOL!

#13 | Posted by jerrytarkanian

Well, I couldn't refer to you as an ignorant sheep until after...

...you've read the proposed Copehagen Agreement.

You have to remember, Chimpy was full of himself after the success of letting his former business partner's brother escape from Tora Bora.

Hell, he even managed to get al queda agents charter flights home before any real Americans could fly. And his best saudi buddy, Bandar Bush actually helped fnance the attacks, but was given a pass, cause family values. But Bush knew how to work the righty scheeple, if even for just long enough. Remember how they lined up to buy pictures of him fleeing to Cornhole Nebraska with every Air Force plane available escorting him?

Steal a Lot and They Make You King!

As the years go by the Iraq discussion will fade and time will cover up and cover over all the crimes of the Bush Regime and its evil minions like Tony Blair.In the meanwhile Bush,Cheney,Blair etc will live out their lives in luxury and with complete criminal immunity just like Henry Kissinger!

As the years go by the Iraq discussion will fade and time will cover up and cover over all the crimes of the Bush Regime and its evil minions like Tony Blair.In the meanwhile Bush,Cheney,Blair etc will live out their lives in luxury and with complete criminal immunity just like Henry Kissinger!

Basically, spot on. And the war will be associated with the last president before pulling out (if we do) like Nixon / Vietnam.

That is why history will judge Bush as just an average president down the road.

Poodle Blair must be crapping his pants-UK is art of the ICC-he could end up charged as a war criminal. I'm sure, as great a guy as Bush is, he'd be willing to go to London and answer questions under oath to help Tony-o out, and perjury be damned.

Right, aflac?

Boy You sure don't hear an awful lot from the Righties about this anymore. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Wonder why that is Hmmmmmmmmmmmm Funny dat Be in triplicate. Ehhhhhhhhhh

Larry

Boy You sure don't hear an awful lot from the Righties about this anymore.

Obama is doing a terrible job cleaning up Clinton's mess in Iraq.

Sincerely;

The Right

That is why history will judge Bush as just an average president down the road.

#17 | Posted by andyuhenet at 2009-11-28 07:22 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Average??? you're joking, right?

Average for Republicans-just a very low bar. But I think even that is misoverestimating Bush. Even Ike and Nixon only surrendered once.

Lfth - please read anticad's post. I agree with what he is saying. Yes, Bush will be judged as an average President because history forgets the scandals that were hot button at the time.

"One look at Bush and his complete unfitness as President,"...says Brock.

When the other party puts up a complete buffoon like Gore to run against W, the folks out there, in their infinite wisdom, picked the lesser of two evils. (W legitimately won Floria, so stow that argument.)

Then that party picks Kerry, the Dilettante's Dilettante. So the people held their collective noses and did W again.

If W made stupid errors, chalk them up, in part, to the elitist democrats who always know better than the common man.

"(W legitimately won Floria, so stow that argument.)"

Were I to be taking your position, I'd want to see that one stowed, too. It remains very much open to discussion as to who "legitimately won Florida."

Interesting that you'd rely on "the folks out there, in their infinite wisdom," who, of course, voted for Gore.

In 50 years kids in school will be taught that after Sep. 11, in a heightened state of awareness against terrorism, our President and Congress thought that Iraq, a country that had broken sanctions in the past and had a history of aggression was actively trying to get Nukes.

This is not necessarily the truth, but that's how it will be framed. There will be no mention of Unocal or Haliburton, because there is no reason to. Maybe in some college class where they have more time in the semester to teach whatever the Professor is interested in, and only then only poli-sci people will care. For High School school though the Iraq debacle will be just 1 day of class, for people who just want to memorize dates to get good grades on tests.

Now, history would mention scandal if President Bush had been impeached, not even kicked out, just impeached, because it would be historically relevant. That didn't happen, so the reasons for Iraq decision will slowly fade from American history.

That didn't happen, so the reasons for Iraq decision will slowly fade from American history.
Posted by andyuhenet

Yep.

i disagree, we have not seen all the fall out from iraq, it is simmering now.

a parrallel is the Spanish american war. people remember it as an illegitimate war to benefit the rich-remember the maine and you give me the pictures i will supply the war are two of the three best remembered quotes of the era.

people will remember bush for iraq, 9/11, and the economic collapse.

iraq will forever be combined with no wmd, no justification and torture

"It remains very much open to discussion as to who "legitimately won Florida"." says Doc above.

Sort of like how the Presidential election results for Texas and Illinois in 1960 are very much open to discussion. Now if THAT one would have gone the other way...no McNamera, no Bay of Pigs, no Viet Nam.

Lfth - please read anticad's post. I agree with what he is saying. Yes, Bush will be judged as an average President because history forgets the scandals that were hot button at the time.

#23 | Posted by andyuhenet at 2009-11-29 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You're likely correct.... I just cant even begin to bring myself to use the term "average" at this point in time.

No argument with you post except you're leaving out a whole bunch of tools used by the Bush machine.

1. a lot of people felt it was unpartiotic to vote for someone who opposed Nam.

2. "christians" were duped into a moral delimma. (as if anyone in polotics were "moral")

3 then you have the whole "terror threat level" thingy that your average redneck could not overcome without voting the bush co. Ever see the speech that Cheney gave about terror threats right before election???? the highest threat levels were in SWING STATES...

4. lets not forget the "preservation of marriage" scam that was added to the ballot in many states.
In my state there was an ammendment to protect marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman.. It was bogus because the state const. already defined it that way. But if it'll get Bubba et al out to come vote.....

legal yes ethical no

"A noun, a verb and 9/11."

LFT, for your #3, I did a quick search and I found a NYTimes article saying that Ridge was "pushed" to raise the threat level but he refused.

I also thought the threat level was a national thing and not for each state, and I would hope that something so obvious as terror threats in Florida, Virginia, Arizona (I don't remember what the swings were in 2004) would be pretty transparent for the average voter.

#33 | Posted by andyuhenet at 2009-11-29 05:50 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Are you sying Cheney never warned of potential attacks in swing states (calling them by name) right before the presidential election?

I thought you were saying they actually changed the threat level. I don't remember that speech but I believe you. That is transparently political, I don't remember a stink being raised about it though, surprisingly. All I remember is RatherGate and swiftboating, haha.

I'll have to google that speech.

Damnit dude I spent 6 minutes watching that youtube video waiting for that speech snippet, and I didn't see it. I even watched that moron Sean Penn and it looked like he was on Maher's show.

For the life of me I can't find text of the speech where Cheney ids swing states and terror threats directed at them before election night. But I agree that terror was used politically.

I thought it was in the vid. hang on and I'll start a hunt.

FTA:

If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States

You're right, definitely was politicizing terror.

When you made the statement:
Ever see the speech that Cheney gave about terror threats right before election???? the highest threat levels were in SWING STATES...

I read that to mean a speech where VP Cheney would be like: New Mexico faces threats blah blah blah and Wisconsin has to worry about blah blah blah and then there's Florida who has to worry about blah blah blah.

But he was in a state Bush narrowly lost (Iowa) making the speech you linked one from a swing state, so you're accurate.

Thanks for the link.