Did george w. Bush create isis?

[debbietoo]

The exchange started like this: at the end of Jeb Bush’s town-hall meeting in Reno, Nevada, on Wednesday, a college student named Ivy Ziedrich stood up and said that she had heard Bush blame the growth of isis on President Obama, in particular on his decision to withdraw American troops from Iraq in 2011. The origins of isis, Ziedrich said, lay in the decision by Bush’s brother, in 2003, to disband the Iraqi Army following the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s government.

“It was when thirty thousand individuals who were part of the Iraqi military were forced out—they had no employment, they had no income, and they were left with access to all of the same arms and weapons.… Your brother created isis,’’ she said.

“All right,’’ Bush said. “Is that a question?”

“You don’t need to be pedantic to me, sir,” she said.

“Pedantic? Wow,” Bush said.

Ziedrich finally came forth with her query: “Why are you saying that isis was created by us not having a presence in the Middle East when it’s pointless wars, where we send young American men to die for the idea of American exceptionalism? Why are you spouting nationalist rhetoric to get us involved in more wars?”

Jeb replied by repeating his earlier criticism of President Obama: that Iraq had been stable until American troops had departed. “When we left Iraq, security had been arranged,” Bush said. The removal of American troops had created a security vacuum that isis exploited. “The result was the opposite occurred. Immediately, that void was filled.”

“Your brother created isis” is the kind of sound bite that grabs our attention, because it’s obviously false yet oddly rings true. Bush didn’t like it: he offered a retort and then left the stage. Meanwhile, Ziedrich had started a conversation that rippled across Twitter, Facebook, and any number of American dinner tables. Who is actually right?

Here is what happened: In 2003, the U.S. military, on orders of President Bush, invaded Iraq, and nineteen days later threw out Saddam’s government. A few days after that, President Bush or someone in his Administration decreed the dissolution of the Iraqi Army. This decision didn’t throw “thirty thousand individuals” out of a job, as Ziedrich said—the number was closer to ten times that. Overnight, at least two hundred and fifty thousand Iraqi men—armed, angry, and with military training—were suddenly humiliated and out of work.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/did-george-w-bush-create-isis

No more blaming Obama for ISIS!!! Frankly, I am sick and tired of Obama being made the "scapegoat" for Bush's mistakes.

[FindersKeepers]

GWB didn't create ISIS as we know it today. GWB did follow Bill Clinton's proposal in removing Saddam, however. (See the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act.)

Obama's foreign policies in Egypt, Libya, Iraq and Syria contributed greatly to the rise of ISIS.

The President who must shoulder the heaviest blame is Obama.

[DGUtley]

C'mon Debbie. Do you really believe that we'd be where we are if Chairman Maobama hadn't pulled the troops out and/or had taken Isis as Varsity rather than JV? Obama's foreign policies in Egypt, Libya, Iraq and Syria contributed greatly to the rise of ISIS. The President who must shoulder the heaviest blame is Obama. Hillary is second.

[Cigar]

:geez:Step One: Denial

[debbietoo]

GWB didn't create ISIS as we know it today. GWB did follow Bill Clinton's proposal in removing Saddam, however. (See the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act.)

Obama's foreign policies in Egypt, Libya, Iraq and Syria contributed greatly to the rise of ISIS.

The President who must shoulder the heaviest blame is Obama.

What if Bush had never invaded Iraq? Did you read the article?

[NapRover]

What is Bush had never invaded Iraq? Did you read the article?
If we didn't invade, Iraq would have nukes as well as cleansed out the Kurds with WMDs. In addition, UN resolutions would have been ignored and we might have lost a few pilots.

[Chris]

Bush contributed to the creation of ISIS and Obama to its rise. To focus on the one and not the other is rather partisan.

[Newpublius]

The exchange started like this: at the end of Jeb Bush’s town-hall meeting in Reno, Nevada, on Wednesday, a college student named Ivy Ziedrich stood up and said that she had heard Bush blame the growth of isis on President Obama, in particular on his decision to withdraw American troops from Iraq in 2011. The origins of isis, Ziedrich said, lay in the decision by Bush’s brother, in 2003, to disband the Iraqi Army following the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s government.

“It was when thirty thousand individuals who were part of the Iraqi military were forced out—they had no employment, they had no income, and they were left with access to all of the same arms and weapons.… Your brother created isis,’’ she said.

“All right,’’ Bush said. “Is that a question?”

“You don’t need to be pedantic to me, sir,” she said.

“Pedantic? Wow,” Bush said.

Ziedrich finally came forth with her query: “Why are you saying that isis was created by us not having a presence in the Middle East when it’s pointless wars, where we send young American men to die for the idea of American exceptionalism? Why are you spouting nationalist rhetoric to get us involved in more wars?”

Jeb replied by repeating his earlier criticism of President Obama: that Iraq had been stable until American troops had departed. “When we left Iraq, security had been arranged,” Bush said. The removal of American troops had created a security vacuum that isis exploited. “The result was the opposite occurred. Immediately, that void was filled.”

“Your brother created isis” is the kind of sound bite that grabs our attention, because it’s obviously false yet oddly rings true. Bush didn’t like it: he offered a retort and then left the stage. Meanwhile, Ziedrich had started a conversation that rippled across Twitter, Facebook, and any number of American dinner tables. Who is actually right?

Here is what happened: In 2003, the U.S. military, on orders of President Bush, invaded Iraq, and nineteen days later threw out Saddam’s government. A few days after that, President Bush or someone in his Administration decreed the dissolution of the Iraqi Army. This decision didn’t throw “thirty thousand individuals” out of a job, as Ziedrich said—the number was closer to ten times that. Overnight, at least two hundred and fifty thousand Iraqi men—armed, angry, and with military training—were suddenly humiliated and out of work.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/did-george-w-bush-create-isis

No more blaming Obama for ISIS!!! Frankly, I am sick and tired of Obama being made the "scapegoat" for Bush's mistakes.

Persitent, consistent international meddling begets a state of perpetual conflict and war. Bush didnt start the chain of causation but he was a major link in the chain.

[Chris]

Persitent, consistent international meddling begets a state of perpetual conflict and war. Bush didnt start the chain of causation but he was a major link in the chain.

I believe the chain begins back before WWII...


Middle Eastern oil has enchanted global powers and global capital since the early twentieth century. Its allure has been particularly powerful for the United States. The American romance began in earnest in the 1930s, when geologists working for Standard Oil of California discovered commercial quantities of oil on the eastern shores of Saudi Arabia. In the years that followed, enchantment turned into obsession. Shortly after World War II it became clear that oil was more than merely a coveted industrial commodity. The most visible and celebrated event in that history occurred when Franklin D. Roosevelt hosted ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Ibn Saud, the founding monarch of Saudi Arabia, aboard the USS Quincy on Egypt’s Great Bitter Lake in February 1945. The meeting permanently linked Middle Eastern oil with American national security. It also helped forge one of the twentieth century’s most important strategic relationships, in which the Saudis would supply cheap oil to global markets in exchange for American protection. A bargain was made. And so too was a future tinderbox.

@ America, Oil, and War in the Middle East (http://jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/99/1/208.full)

[Oboe]

Did Debbie really do Dallas?

[Newpublius]

Republicans can blame Democrats and Democrats can blame Republicans and at the end of the day they'll call on my child to sacrifice his life for this Republic. America IS to blame, in a very deep rooted sense.

Want to know who ISNT to blame for ANY of it?

TRUMP

[Cletus]

Bush contributed to the creation of ISIS and Obama to its rise.

This is probably the simplest and best explanation of a very complex issue.

Would ISIS exist today if we had not invaded Iraq? Probably not, although the power vacuum created in Libya by Obama may very well have created something similar, just later.

Would ISIS be the regional terror creating an international footprint if the team of Obama / Clinton had not taken out the Libyan leadership, destabilized the region and allowed the Middle East to go up in flames? Absolutely not.

Both Presidents had a hand in creating the monster that is currently devouring the Middle East. Bush created the conditions that led to its birth and Obama nurtured and fed it until it grew into what it is today.

[Newpublius]

This is probably the simplest and best explanation of a very complex issue.

Would ISIS exist today if we had not invaded Iraq? Probably not, although the power vacuum created in Libya by Obama may very well have created something similar, just later.

Would ISIS be the regional terror creating an international footprint if the team of Obama / Clinton had not taken out the Libyan leadership, destabilized the region and allowed the Middle East to go up in flames? Absolutely not.

Both Presidents had a hand in creating the monster that is currently devouring the Middle East. Bush created the conditions that led to its birth and Obama nurtured and fed it until it grew into what it is today.

Why not though? Did Syria necessarily implode because we invaded Iraq? U mean, maybe theres a nexus but there was akot of unrest in the Arab world which was more steongly related to their basic condition. Those revolts stretched from Tunisia ibto Libya, through Egypt, into Syria......

ISIS isnt that much different from Hezbollah, Hamas, or any other Islamic insurgency, notwithstanding different dogmatic beliefs.

Something comes out of that brew one way or the other. We have been meddling thiugh in that reaso for decades, we shouldbt be surprised when some of them start shooting at us. Prior to WW2 I cant cite a singke jnstance of Islamic terrorism in the US. I can list a couple of German inspired plots......but no, they dont 'hate us for our freedoms'

[zelmo1234]

What if Bush had never invaded Iraq? Did you read the article?

Certainly Sadam would not have allowed them to get as powerful as they are today.

But remember Bush was not the only one that voted on the war. Hillary was all for it too, and she was on the Security council, so she did have all of the same facts that Bush did. Bill Clinton also was on Record as stating that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

And in the shadow of the 911 attack, it would have been a foolish decision to make, and have one of those weapons used against the America people.

[zelmo1234]

Did Debbie really do Dallas?

Dude this is not cool! Debbie is not our her calling people names and posting crap about people

Show some respect. You owe her an apology

[del]

GWB didn't create ISIS as we know it today. GWB did follow Bill Clinton's proposal in removing Saddam, however. (See the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act.)

Obama's foreign policies in Egypt, Libya, Iraq and Syria contributed greatly to the rise of ISIS.

The President who must shoulder the heaviest blame is Obama.

of course he is

:rofl:

because invading iraq was his idea

pathetic

[Oboe]

I'm sorry Debbie.

[Newpublius]

of course he is

:rofl:

because invading iraq was his idea

pathetic

Bush 2 was on the tail end of a decade long conflict that existed between Iraq and the US. Dont forget Hussein invaded Iran, then turned around and invaded Kuwait, threw missiles at Israel and of course he crossed into Saudi Arabia too. We shouldnt have gotten involved, but we did, and so too did Clinton thereafter......even internally he was a menace, using chemical weapons against his own people. Bush 2 doesnt sit in an unique position any more than Obama does.

[Private Pickle]

ISIS started in 1999.... Who was President then again?

[MisterVeritis]

What if Bush had never invaded Iraq? Did you read the article?
What if we had not won WWII?

[MisterVeritis]

“Your brother created isis” is the kind of sound bite that grabs our attention, because it’s obviously false yet oddly rings true.
Right. Your story says the charge is a lie.

Thanks.

[MisterVeritis]

This is probably the simplest and best explanation of a very complex issue.

Would ISIS exist today if we had not invaded Iraq? Probably not, although the power vacuum created in Libya by Obama may very well have created something similar, just later.

Would ISIS be the regional terror creating an international footprint if the team of Obama / Clinton had not taken out the Libyan leadership, destabilized the region and allowed the Middle East to go up in flames? Absolutely not.

Both Presidents had a hand in creating the monster that is currently devouring the Middle East. Bush created the conditions that led to its birth and Obama nurtured and fed it until it grew into what it is today.
Did Barack Hussein O claim he won the Iraq war when he pulled out all of our troops? Sort of.


http://www.breitbart.com/video/2014/08/07/obama-flashback-were-leaving-behind-a-sovereign-stable-and-self-reliant-iraq/

[Chris]

Oboe thread banned for insult and innuendo.

[del]

Bush 2 was on the tail end of a decade long conflict that existed between Iraq and the US. Dont forget Hussein invaded Iran, then turned around and invaded Kuwait, threw missiles at Israel and of course he crossed into Saudi Arabia too. We shouldnt have gotten involved, but we did, and so too did Clinton thereafter......even internally he was a menace, using chemical weapons against his own people. Bush 2 doesnt sit in an unique position any more than Obama does.

bush uniquely invaded iraq

eof

[del]

What if we had not won WWII?

what if superman was a nazi?

[Bo-4]

Junior is the Founding Father.

Well, actually this guy was the Founding Father - but my first assertion was more fun ;-)

https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c628b27c4cbf10722594813b9a6f92ce-c?convert_to_webp=true

[Peter1469]

The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jama%27at_al-Tawhid_wal-Jihad) in 1999, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda) and participated in the Iraqi insurgency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency_(2003%E2%80%9311)) following the March 2003 invasion of Iraq (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq) by Western forces.

[Subdermal]

:geez:Step One: Denial

Such self-diagnosis is commendable.

[Bo-4]

The group originated as Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jama'at_al-Tawhid_wal-Jihad) in 1999, which pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda) and participated in the Iraqi insurgency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency_(2003–11)) following the March 2003 invasion of Iraq (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq) by Western forces.

Sounds about right

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/11/who-founded-isis-abu-musb-al-zarqawi-started-the-terror-group.html

[Subdermal]

bush uniquely invaded iraq

eof

Just blatant dishonesty from leftists. Bush would not have been able to invade Iraq without a bipartisan approval of the petition to Congress to do so. That includes all sorts of leftists who were on board with invading Iraq, including Bill and Hillary, John Kerry and a host of others.

And the need to dissolve the Iraqi Army came as a result of a recommendation of the Joint Chiefs, who recognized that continued access to weapons which the Iraqi Army cached meant that Ba'athists - pro-Saddam forces - would and could continue to engage in guerrilla warfare against our troops.

Such dishonest revisionist spin on the part of Progs is seriously sickening.

[maineman]

I am quite proud of the fact that a majority of democrats in the Congress of the United States voted against the use of force resolution. I am also pleased that most of those who voted for it, have since apologized for doing so.

[Subdermal]

Let's blame Thomas Jefferson for starting ISIS. After all, he had harsh words for the Barbary Pirates.

Anything to deflect from the real culprit, who pulled us out of Iraq and left a vacuum which ISIS filled.

[maineman]

Let's blame Thomas Jefferson for starting ISIS. After all, he had harsh words for the Barbary Pirates.

Anything to deflect from the real culprit, who pulled us out of Iraq and left a vacuum which ISIS filled.

Would you have had us default on our SOFA and have the status of our troops in Iraq change to unwanted enemy occupiers, there against the will of the people of Iraq AND their government?

yes or no is all I really need for an answer here, señor.

[Subdermal]

I am quite proud of the fact that a majority of democrats in the Congress of the United States voted against the use of force resolution. I am also pleased that most of those who voted for it, have since apologized for doing so.

Does that look like a majority to you, brainstem?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237

In fact, you'll see in that chart the following: if the Dems had wanted to, they could have stopped that resolution with a unanimous vote.

Are you proud that they didn't?

:biglaugh:

[maineman]

Does that look like a majority to you, brainstem?

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237

In fact, you'll see in that chart the following: if the Dems had wanted to, they could have stopped that resolution with a unanimous vote.

Are you proud that they didn't?

:biglaugh:

Not only ESL, but Civics as well.... neither did you much good.

Do you understand the difference between the terms, House of Representatives, Senate, and Congress?

apparently not. Study up and learn the meaning of terms so you don't make yourself look like a fool....YET AGAIN.

[maineman]

I say again:

I am quite proud of the fact that a majority of democrats in the Congress of the United States voted against the use of force resolution.

[Subdermal]

You shouldn't attempt to obfuscate what really happened, pencil neck. We know what happened. We know how these votes work, and we know who voted for what.

http://americablog.com/2013/03/in-memoriam-the-iraq-war-how-they-voted-in-the-senate-why-you-should-care.html

Democrat Support for Bush War (http://fpif.org/the_democrats_support_for_bushs_war/)

[Subdermal]

The capitulation of the Democratic Party’s congressional leadership to the Bush administration’s request for nearly $100 billion of unconditional supplementary government spending, primarily to support the war in Iraq, has led to outrage throughout the country. In the Senate, 37 of 49 Democrats voted on May 24 to support the measure. In the House, while only 86 of the 231 Democratic House members voted for the supplemental funding, 216 of them voted in favor of an earlier procedural vote designed to move the funding bill forward even though it would make the funding bill’s passage inevitable (while giving most of them a chance to claim they voted against it).
The claim by Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) and other Democratic leaders unconditional funding was necessary to “support the troops” and to “not leave them in harm’s way” is a lie. If they really supported the troops and wanted them out of harm’s way, they would have passed legislation that would bring them home. The Democrats had other priorities, however.
Pelosi claimed that they had to provide unconditional funding for President Bush’s war in Iraq because they could not get enough Republican support to achieve the two-thirds majority necessary to override a presidential veto. However, they did not need a two-thirds majority to stop funding the war. All they needed to do was to refuse to pass any unconditional funding for the war and instead pass a funding measure that allocated money for the sole purpose of facilitating a safe and orderly withdrawal from Iraq, or, at the very least, a funding measure that set a strict deadline for the withdrawal of troops.
As Speaker, Pelosi could have set the legislative agenda and not allowed any funding bill to come to a vote unless it had such provisions. And, if Bush refused to sign it, he would have been the one to put the troops in harm’s way, not Congress.
No ExcusesSome apologists for the Democrats claim that to not support funding for the supplemental would have allowed political opponents to portray them as “not supporting our troops.” However, three conservative Republican senators—Coburn, Burr, and Enzi—voted against the supplemental because of the $20 billion in domestic, non-war-related expenditures without apparent fear of such charges. So why should the Democrats have been afraid to oppose the measure as well?
And it certainly is no longer the case—as apologists for the Democrats claimed when they supported supplemental spending for the war in previous years—that it would be politically difficult to oppose a key initiative of a popular president now that Bush is one of the least popular presidents in history, a ranking that has come largely as a result of the very war policy for which the Democrats have once again given him a blank check to continue.
There are precedents for Congress to stop war funding over presidential objections in the past. For example, in May 1970, Congress was able to eliminate funding for U.S. troops fighting in Cambodia and President Nixon was forced to withdraw them by June 30. The Democrats could have done the same regarding Iraq, but they obviously did not want to. Democratic majorities were also able to suspend U.S. military operations in Angola, limit U.S. troops in El Salvador to 50, end support for the Nicaraguan Contras, and provide similar restrictions to administration foreign policy without claiming that giving these previous Republican administrations a blank check was necessary to “support our troops.”
Polls show that 82% of Americans wanted Congress to either cut off funding for the war immediately or approve funds for the war with strict conditions. However, the Democrats—assuming they knew better than the American people—decided to go ahead and make possible a vote to provide unconditional funding for the war anyway.
Despite claims to the contrary, Pelosi and the Democrats apparently want the war to continue unabated, even if it means sacrificing the lives of countless additional American soldiers and Iraqi civilians, as well as our national treasury and our country’s long-term security, in their support for Bush’s agenda.

[maineman]

I say again:

I am quite proud of the fact that a majority of democrats in the Congress of the United States voted against the use of force resolution.

EITHER DISPROVE IT, OR RUN AWAY FROM IT.

Do yourself a favor and wisely choose the latter option.

[Subdermal]

I say again:

I am quite proud of the fact that a majority of democrats in the Congress of the United States created the appearance that they voted against the use of force resolution.

You, as usual, are proud only of manipulation, and your cowardice to accept responsibility for the results is apparent.

See above, reinona.

[maineman]

naughty naughty, señor. that's against the rules.

oops.

[Chris]

OK, OK, let's tone it down, get off each other, and onto topic.

[MisterVeritis]

bush uniquely invaded iraq

eof
It wasn't unique. Many have done so.

[MisterVeritis]

What if we had not won WWII?

what if superman was a nazi?
And Batman was a fascist?

My God! Both of my heroes were Democrats!

[MisterVeritis]

Would you have had us default on our SOFA and have the status of our troops in Iraq change to unwanted enemy occupiers, there against the will of the people of Iraq AND their government?

yes or no is all I really need for an answer here, señor.
I suppose it was beyond Barack Hussin O's meager powers to negotiate.

[Peter1469]

He didn't bother to try.

[AZ Jim]

This issue, like many others is complex and has many openings for blame but Republicans always take their most used shortcut. Blame President Obama after all he has become the parties official scapegoat for all things evil. Elected by a handsome margin twice indicates the public as a whole supported him, but not the knuckle dragging low brows of the right.

The Presidents approval rating is 53%, Bush left office at 22% and Congress is hovering around 11%. Get it??

[Chris]

This issue, like many others is complex and has many openings for blame but Republicans always take their most used shortcut. Blame President Obama after all he has become the parties official scapegoat for all things evil. Elected by a handsome margin twice indicates the public as a whole supported him, but not the knuckle dragging low brows of the right.

The Presidents approval rating is 53%, Bush left office at 22% and Congress is hovering around 13%. Get it??


This issue, like many others is complex and has many openings for blame but Democrats always take their most used shortcut. Blame President Bush after all he has become the parties official scapegoat for all things evil.


Elected by a handsome margin twice indicates the public as a whole supported him, but not the knuckle dragging low brows of the right.

Actually he won by a smidgen over 25% of those who could vote, and those low brows voted close to 25% for the other guy. So, no, the public as a whole did not support him.

[AZ Jim]

This issue, like many others is complex and has many openings for blame but Democrats always take their most used shortcut. Blame President Bush after all he has become the parties official scapegoat for all things evil.



Actually he won by a smidgen over 25% of those who could vote, and those low brows voted close to 25% for the other guy. So, no, the public as a whole did not support him.Is it not against forum rules to modify another members post? Shall I report it? I am asking you as a mod.

~snip
That makes Obama the first president to crack 51 percent two elections in a row since Dwight Eisenhower more than a half-century ago. (Sorry, conservatives, Ronald Reagan only reached 50.75 percent in 1980.)

Obama won 26 states and the District of Columbia, piling up 332 electoral votes. You can think of it another way: There is no state in Obama's column which would have swung the election to Romney had he won it. In other words, if Romney had pulled a stunning upset and won California's 55 electoral votes … he'd still have lost. ~snip http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2013/01/04/the-final-2012-presidential-election-results-arent-close

[Chris]

Is it not against forum rules to modify another members post? Shall I report it? I am asking you as a mod.

~snip
That makes Obama the first president to crack 51 percent two elections in a row since Dwight Eisenhower more than a half-century ago. (Sorry, conservatives, Ronald Reagan only reached 50.75 percent in 1980.)

Obama won 26 states and the District of Columbia, piling up 332 electoral votes. You can think of it another way: There is no state in Obama's column which would have swung the election to Romney had he won it. In other words, if Romney had pulled a stunning upset and won California's 55 electoral votes … he'd still have lost. ~snip http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2013/01/04/the-final-2012-presidential-election-results-arent-close



51% of those who voted is 25.something% of all those eligible to vote. 25% is much less than "a handsome margin." He won, without anything approaching mandate.


(Use Report or PM for discussion of moderation. This is a friendly warning.)

[AZ Jim]

51% of those who voted is 25.something% of all those eligible to vote. 25% is much less than "a handsome margin." He won, without anything approaching mandate.


(Use Report or PM for discussion of moderation. This is a friendly warning.)Sorry, I thought a simple question would be ok but I took your advice and used the report button. Thanks. PS It was for violation of rule 8.

[Subdermal]

naughty naughty, señor. that's against the rules.

oops.

Oh. Now you're in favor of adhering to rules?

:biglaugh:

Do you really want me to post a list of your violating posts, bypass?

[Subdermal]

Sorry, I thought a simple question would be ok but I took your advice and used the report button. Thanks. PS It was for violation of rule 8.

Ah! You want the rules suddenly enforced, when over half of your posts are useless personal attacks? Is that what you now claim you want?

:biglaugh:

My understanding was that I could not modify the words of a post. Adding to without removing words was not - I understand - a violation.

[AZ Jim]

Ah! You want the rules suddenly enforced, when over half of your posts are useless personal attacks? Is that what you now claim you want?

:biglaugh:

My understanding was that I could not modify the words of a post. Adding to without removing words was not - I understand - a violation. I was talking to Chris not you. Do yourself a favor and butt out.

[Chris]

Discuss moderation in Reports and PMs not online. Rule 9. Won't warn again.

[debbietoo]

Certainly Sadam would not have allowed them to get as powerful as they are today.

But remember Bush was not the only one that voted on the war. Hillary was all for it too, and she was on the Security council, so she did have all of the same facts that Bush did. Bill Clinton also was on Record as stating that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

And in the shadow of the 911 attack, it would have been a foolish decision to make, and have one of those weapons used against the America people.

Weapons of mass destruction? Did we ever find them? Don't think so. One of my favorite republican presidents is Dwight D. Eisenhower. He warned of the military industrial complex. I don't understand why Eisenhower was so against Kennedy winning the upcoming election, however. Perhaps, because Kennedy was a Democrat!

As the 1954 congressional elections approached, and it became evident that the Republicans were in danger of losing their thin majority in both houses, Eisenhower was among those blaming the Old Guard for the losses, and took up the charge to stop suspected efforts by the right wing to take control of the GOP. Eisenhower then articulated his position as a moderate, progressive Republican: "I have just one purpose ... and that is to build up a strong progressive Republican Party in this country. If the right wing wants a fight, they are going to get it ... before I end up, either this Republican Party will reflect progressivism or I won't be with them anymore."[129] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower#cite_note-129)
On January 17, 1961, Eisenhower gave his final televised Address to the Nation from the Oval Office (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oval_Office).[228] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower#cite_note-DDEFarewell-228) In his farewell speech (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower's_farewell_address), Eisenhower raised the issue of the Cold War and role of the U.S. armed forces. He described the Cold War: "We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose and insidious in method ..." and warned about what he saw as unjustified government spending proposals and continued with a warning that "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military–industrial_complex)."[228] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower#cite_note-DDEFarewell-228)

[Ethereal]

Did george w. Bush create isis?

Along with some help from Hillary Clinton, yes.

[donttread]

The exchange started like this: at the end of Jeb Bush’s town-hall meeting in Reno, Nevada, on Wednesday, a college student named Ivy Ziedrich stood up and said that she had heard Bush blame the growth of isis on President Obama, in particular on his decision to withdraw American troops from Iraq in 2011. The origins of isis, Ziedrich said, lay in the decision by Bush’s brother, in 2003, to disband the Iraqi Army following the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s government.

“It was when thirty thousand individuals who were part of the Iraqi military were forced out—they had no employment, they had no income, and they were left with access to all of the same arms and weapons.… Your brother created isis,’’ she said.

“All right,’’ Bush said. “Is that a question?”

“You don’t need to be pedantic to me, sir,” she said.

“Pedantic? Wow,” Bush said.

Ziedrich finally came forth with her query: “Why are you saying that isis was created by us not having a presence in the Middle East when it’s pointless wars, where we send young American men to die for the idea of American exceptionalism? Why are you spouting nationalist rhetoric to get us involved in more wars?”

Jeb replied by repeating his earlier criticism of President Obama: that Iraq had been stable until American troops had departed. “When we left Iraq, security had been arranged,” Bush said. The removal of American troops had created a security vacuum that isis exploited. “The result was the opposite occurred. Immediately, that void was filled.”

“Your brother created isis” is the kind of sound bite that grabs our attention, because it’s obviously false yet oddly rings true. Bush didn’t like it: he offered a retort and then left the stage. Meanwhile, Ziedrich had started a conversation that rippled across Twitter, Facebook, and any number of American dinner tables. Who is actually right?

Here is what happened: In 2003, the U.S. military, on orders of President Bush, invaded Iraq, and nineteen days later threw out Saddam’s government. A few days after that, President Bush or someone in his Administration decreed the dissolution of the Iraqi Army. This decision didn’t throw “thirty thousand individuals” out of a job, as Ziedrich said—the number was closer to ten times that. Overnight, at least two hundred and fifty thousand Iraqi men—armed, angry, and with military training—were suddenly humiliated and out of work.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/did-george-w-bush-create-isis

No more blaming Obama for ISIS!!! Frankly, I am sick and tired of Obama being made the "scapegoat" for Bush's mistakes.


Hold on , there's plenty of blame to go around. Back in the late 70's we faced a choice.
1) Sacrifice , limit oil consumption and lead the world to the development of alternate energy and then market that to the world or
2) Give in to the megacorps and the perils of electing leaders who make desicions effecting us for decades in 4 year cycles and bully the world into trading oil only in American dollars , and make as much war as possible to keep that flow of oil where we need it.

[MisterVeritis]

Weapons of mass destruction? Did we ever find them?
We found chemical weapons.

[DGUtley]

Weapons of mass destruction? Did we ever find them?

Yes. Read the NYTs.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-new-york-times-reports-wmds-found-iraq/

[debbietoo]

There was never any proof. There were no "alleged weapons of mass destruction". From what I understand, Bush used the "alleged weapons of mass destruction" as an excuse to invade Iraq. Wars make money.

Despite the intelligence lapse, Bush stood by his decision to invade Iraq stating:
But what wasn't wrong was Saddam Hussein had invaded a country, he had used weapons of mass destruction, he had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction, he was firing at our pilots. He was a state sponsor of terror. Removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing for world peace and the security of our country.

In a speech before the World Affairs Council of Charlotte, NC, on April 7, 2006, President Bush stated that he "fully understood that the intelligence was wrong, and [he was] just as disappointed as everybody else" when U.S. troops failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.[80] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#cite_note-80)
Intelligence shortly before the 2003 invasion of Iraq was heavily used as support arguments in favor of military intervention, with the October 2002 C.I.A. report on Iraqi WMDs considered to be the most reliable one available at that time.[81] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#cite_note-81)
"According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons." Senator John Kerry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry) (D-Mass.) - Congressional Record, October 9, 2002[82] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#cite_note-82)
On May 29, 2003, Andrew Gilligan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Gilligan) appears on the BBC's Today program early in the morning. Among the contentions he makes in his report are that the government "ordered (the September Dossier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier), a British Government dossier on WMD) to be sexed up (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexed_up), to be made more exciting, and ordered more facts to be...discovered." The broadcast is not repeated.[83] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#cite_note-83)
On May 27, 2003, a secret Defense Intelligence Agency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Intelligence_Agency) fact-finding mission in Iraq reported unanimously to intelligence officials in Washington that two trailers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory) captured in Iraq by Kurdish troops "had nothing to do with biological weapons." The trailers had been a key part of the argument for the 2003 invasion; Secretary of State Colin Powell had told the United Nations Security Council, "We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails. We know what the fermenters look like. We know what the tanks, pumps, compressors and other parts look like." The Pentagon team had been sent to investigate the trailers after the invasion. The team of experts unanimously found "no connection to anything biological"; one of the experts told reporters that they privately called the trailers "the biggest sand toilets in the world." The report was classified, and the next day, the CIA publicly released the assessment of its Washington analysts that the trailers were "mobile biological weapons production." The White House continued to refer to the trailers as mobile biological laboratories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory) throughout the year, and the Pentagon field report remained classified. It is still classified, but a Washington Post report of April 12, 2006 disclosed some of the details of the report. According to the Post:
A spokesman for the DIA asserted that the team's findings were neither ignored nor suppressed, but were incorporated in the work of the Iraqi Survey Group, which led the official search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The survey group's final report in September 2004 – 15 months after the technical report was written – said the trailers were "impractical" for biological weapons production and were "almost certainly intended" for manufacturing hydrogen for weather balloons.[84] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#cite_note-84)

General Tommy Franks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Franks) was quoted as saying: "I think no one in this country probably was more surprised than I when weapons of mass destruction were not used against our troops as they moved toward Baghdad."[85] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#cite_note-85)
On February 6, 2004, U.S. President George W. Bush (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) named an Iraq Intelligence Commission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Intelligence_Commission), chaired by Charles Robb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Robb) and Laurence Silberman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Silberman), to investigate U.S. intelligence, specifically regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq) and Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction). On February 8, 2004, Dr Hans Blix (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Blix), in an interview on BBC TV (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_1), accused the U.S. and UK governments (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government) of dramatising the threat ofweapons of mass destruction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_mass_destruction) in Iraq (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq), in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq) against the government of Saddam Hussein.

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Next time, find a better way to make money for yourself and your constituents George W. Bush!

Then he makes everyone else take the blame, including the CIA!

[Peter1469]

We found WMD in Iraq, just not in the numbers we were told. They did have the infrastructure to start up production as soon as the sanctions were over.

[zelmo1234]

Weapons of mass destruction? Did we ever find them? Don't think so. One of my favorite republican presidents is Dwight D. Eisenhower. He warned of the military industrial complex. I don't understand why Eisenhower was so against Kennedy winning the upcoming election, however. Perhaps, because Kennedy was a Democrat!

As the 1954 congressional elections approached, and it became evident that the Republicans were in danger of losing their thin majority in both houses, Eisenhower was among those blaming the Old Guard for the losses, and took up the charge to stop suspected efforts by the right wing to take control of the GOP. Eisenhower then articulated his position as a moderate, progressive Republican: "I have just one purpose ... and that is to build up a strong progressive Republican Party in this country. If the right wing wants a fight, they are going to get it ... before I end up, either this Republican Party will reflect progressivism or I won't be with them anymore."[129] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower#cite_note-129)
On January 17, 1961, Eisenhower gave his final televised Address to the Nation from the Oval Office (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oval_Office).[228] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower#cite_note-DDEFarewell-228) In his farewell speech (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower's_farewell_address), Eisenhower raised the issue of the Cold War and role of the U.S. armed forces. He described the Cold War: "We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose and insidious in method ..." and warned about what he saw as unjustified government spending proposals and continued with a warning that "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military–industrial_complex)."[228] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower#cite_note-DDEFarewell-228)

Actually there were more WMDs found than were ever attested too. I believe that Peter can attest to that, my agreement prevents that.

But the point Remains the same Hillary Clinton has access to everything that GWB had access too, and She Boldly support the invasion of Iraq. There were 2 UN resolutions on the use of force, and Congress voted on 2 separate occasions.

Clearly if we were not post 911 it might have been a much harder case to make, But at that time nobody was willing to take the chance.

As for the Military Industrial Complex, that is a Kabul if you will, and is the same thing that is happening between Big Banking and the Government as well.

I know that it sounds like a terrible thing to say, but what is happening to the Poor, Minorities, and Lower middle class, Is exactly what the Progressives in Washington DC want to happen to them.

The Schools being destroyed was not done on accident. Even the allowing of illegals to drive up unemployment and drive down wages is not an accident.

And When I say progressive I don't mean just Democrats. Nearly the entire Group of elected officials Republican and Democrat are in on. There is nothing in this would that is more corrupting that Power. And absolute power is a drug that very few can refuse.

Until the people unite, and demand real change by getting ride of these traitors, They will continue to grow in power and influence. That is why everything that has happened since the end of Reagan has been designed to divide the country.

Remember Reagan was not like by the media, the left or the right. But he was love by the people.

Do you think all of the dirt on Bill was dug up by accident. Bush the elder started by going back on his word. Bush the Younger was easily lead astray and Obama has been little more than a tool of Corporate Finance.

Only by clinging to the Truth together will we survive. And that appears to be a lost cause as well

[DGUtley]

There was never any proof. There were no "alleged weapons of mass destruction". From what I understand, Bush used the "alleged weapons of mass destruction" as an excuse to invade Iraq. Wars make money.

I'm sorry, you are mistaken. "From what I understand" is not knowledge. They found them. They've also been used in Syria. Nice party line, though. FWIW, I personally was against going into Iraq (I felt we had him cornered) but once we were there we had to win. Again, you are wrong. It's a fact.

[Bethere]

I'm sorry, you are mistaken. "From what I understand" is not knowledge. They found them. They've also been used in Syria. Nice party line, though. FWIW, I personally was against going into Iraq (I felt we had him cornered) but once we were there we had to win. Again, you are wrong. It's a fact.

We didn't invade iraq to look for chemical weapons.


Strike 1: We don't want the smoking gun to be amushroom cloud.--condie rice.

Strike 2: They've had an active program to develop nuclear weapons.--dick cheney


Strike 3: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. … The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one.-- bush.

[Chris]

We didn't invade iraq to look for chemical weapons.


Strike 1: We don't want the smoking gun to be amushroom cloud.--condie rice.

Strike 2: They've had an active program to develop nuclear weapons.--dick cheney


Strike 3: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. … The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one.-- bush.


Let's add...

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002

[maineman]

all we found were some rust old artillery shells left over from the Iran-Iraq war. Team Bush told us there was absolute certainty that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's. There was no such absolute certainty. It was a lie.

[Subdermal]

all we found were some rust old artillery shells left over from the Iran-Iraq war. Team Bush told us there was absolute certainty that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's. There was no such absolute certainty. It was a lie.

Or he had bad intel - and parroted it, along with half of the Dem Party. Regardless: more was found than 'rust(y) old artillery shells'.

[MisterVeritis]

all we found were some rust old artillery shells left over from the Iran-Iraq war. Team Bush told us there was absolute certainty that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's. There was no such absolute certainty. It was a lie.
We have discussed this very issue before on this board. Did you fail to participate, maine? If you failed to participate you are mistaken. If you participated you are lying.

Bush kept the finds classified.

[maineman]

Oh. Now you're in favor of adhering to rules?

:biglaugh:

Do you really want me to post a list of your violating posts, bypass?

señor. just admit that you posted the senate vote and thought that it disproved my statement. that would show some grace on your part.

we both know that is not forthcoming, however, don't we?

[maineman]

Or he had bad intel - and parroted it, along with half of the Dem Party. Regardless: more was found than 'rust(y) old artillery shells'.

even Bush's bad intel, as contained within the NIE's on the subject, all contained caveats and qualifiers which made the existence of stockpiles of WMD's less than certain. Team Bush lied and said that absolute certainty existed.

And do tell... what else was found? MisterV claims it's classified..... nice dodge. What say you, señor?

[Subdermal]

Big Picture.

The Establishment Elite are Globalists. If you are Establishment, you are working towards a no borders world.

I believe the strategy was to unleash the chaos locked and in-fighting in the ME on the world. To do that, it was necessary to remove the iron-fisted secular leaders which kept the radicals in check.

The first was Saddam. Qaddafi, Mubarak and Assad (in progress) follow. The subsequent spread of Islamist virus - according to plan - unleashed a plaintive collective wail from the populace of each country, calling for some help.

This - simultaneously - calls for policy which {a} allows these Islamists into these countries, to wreak havoc (√), and completely toothless policy - aka Angela Merkel, and Obama - to suppress their insurrection and violence.

Chaos must ensue, as - in chaos - can the camel's nose of globalism be inserted.

Federalizing law enforcement is a key cog in this effort, whose autonomy passes from Washington to - eventually - Brussels.

That's the plan, IMO. It has been progressing fairly according to schedule.

[MisterVeritis]

even Bush's bad intel, as contained within the NIE's on the subject, all contained caveats and qualifiers which made the existence of stockpiles of WMD's less than certain. Team Bush lied and said that absolute certainty existed.

And do tell... what else was found? MisterV claims it's classified..... nice dodge. What say you, señor?
You failed again. Bush kept the finds classified at the time. Nice dodge.

I was involved, at the time, in developing part of the solution for protecting the destruction sites.

Did you participate here the last time this came up, maine?

[maineman]

so you have knowledge of classified information about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's? Is that your story?

[Subdermal]

señor. just admit that you posted the senate vote and thought that it disproved my statement. that would show some grace on your part.

we both know that is not forthcoming, however, don't we?

Senora: I posted the House Resolution authorizing Use of Force, showing a majority of Dems voting for it - which, without it, couldn't have passed. Just admit that the game of votes is a game, and the Dems are dishonest at their core: they wanted to vote for Use of Force because they're Establishment, but they also needed to provide lemmings like you a mere scintilla of cover so you could rationalize your partisanship yet again.

You couldn't respond to the two links I offered which demonstrate that, which is why you are a loser.

[MisterVeritis]

so you have knowledge of classified information about Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's? Is that your story?
No.The finds have been reported in the press.

If you didn't participate the last time we discussed this shame on you. I suspect you did. Last time Peter made the absurd claim that we provided the chem weapons to Saddam. Do you remember?

Gramps?

[Peter1469]

No.The finds have been reported in the press.

If you didn't participate the last time we discussed this shame on you. I suspect you did. Last time Peter made the absurd claim that we provided the chem weapons to Saddam. Do you remember?

Gramps?

We did sell Iraq chemical munitions in the 1980s. I captured a bunker full of them in Desert Strom.

[maineman]

No.The finds have been reported in the press.

If you didn't participate the last time we discussed this shame on you. I suspect you did. Last time Peter made the absurd claim that we provided the chem weapons to Saddam. Do you remember?

Gramps?

link to this press release please?

[maineman]

Senora: I posted the House Resolution authorizing Use of Force, showing a majority of Dems voting for it - which, without it, couldn't have passed. Just admit that the game of votes is a game, and the Dems are dishonest at their core: they wanted to vote for Use of Force because they're Establishment, but they also needed to provide lemmings like you a mere scintilla of cover so you could rationalize your partisanship yet again.

You couldn't respond to the two links I offered which demonstrate that, which is why you are a loser.

the majority of dems in the house voted against it. sorry. 82 for, 126 against. In math classes taught in English, we learn that 126 is greater than 82.

[maineman]

In the senate, 29 for, 21 against. In math classes taught in English, we learn that 29 + 82 = 111. We also learn that 21 + 126 = 147. Finally, we learn that 147 is greater than 111. Ergo, more democrats in congress voted against the resolution than voted for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution#United_States_House_of_Representat ives

No es ciento cuarenta y siete superior a ciento once en Español también?

[Chloe]

Our foreign policy, along with willing allies, helped created ISIS. No one president is solely responsible since there's basically no difference between Bush and Obama when it comes to their warmongering in my opinion.

[kcvet]

The exchange started like this: at the end of Jeb Bush’s town-hall meeting in Reno, Nevada, on Wednesday, a college student named Ivy Ziedrich stood up and said that she had heard Bush blame the growth of isis on President Obama, in particular on his decision to withdraw American troops from Iraq in 2011. The origins of isis, Ziedrich said, lay in the decision by Bush’s brother, in 2003, to disband the Iraqi Army following the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s government.

“It was when thirty thousand individuals who were part of the Iraqi military were forced out—they had no employment, they had no income, and they were left with access to all of the same arms and weapons.… Your brother created isis,’’ she said.

“All right,’’ Bush said. “Is that a question?”

“You don’t need to be pedantic to me, sir,” she said.

“Pedantic? Wow,” Bush said.

Ziedrich finally came forth with her query: “Why are you saying that isis was created by us not having a presence in the Middle East when it’s pointless wars, where we send young American men to die for the idea of American exceptionalism? Why are you spouting nationalist rhetoric to get us involved in more wars?”

Jeb replied by repeating his earlier criticism of President Obama: that Iraq had been stable until American troops had departed. “When we left Iraq, security had been arranged,” Bush said. The removal of American troops had created a security vacuum that isis exploited. “The result was the opposite occurred. Immediately, that void was filled.”

“Your brother created isis” is the kind of sound bite that grabs our attention, because it’s obviously false yet oddly rings true. Bush didn’t like it: he offered a retort and then left the stage. Meanwhile, Ziedrich had started a conversation that rippled across Twitter, Facebook, and any number of American dinner tables. Who is actually right?

Here is what happened: In 2003, the U.S. military, on orders of President Bush, invaded Iraq, and nineteen days later threw out Saddam’s government. A few days after that, President Bush or someone in his Administration decreed the dissolution of the Iraqi Army. This decision didn’t throw “thirty thousand individuals” out of a job, as Ziedrich said—the number was closer to ten times that. Overnight, at least two hundred and fifty thousand Iraqi men—armed, angry, and with military training—were suddenly humiliated and out of work.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/did-george-w-bush-create-isis

No more blaming Obama for ISIS!!! Frankly, I am sick and tired of Obama being made the "scapegoat" for Bush's mistakes.

no. you did moron

[MisterVeritis]

We did sell Iraq chemical munitions in the 1980s. I captured a bunker full of them in Desert Storm.
I believe I accurately reported what you said earlier. Did maineman participate last time?

[MisterVeritis]

link to this press release please?
Go find them yourself. Your edification is not that important to me. :laugh:

[MisterVeritis]

Our foreign policy, along with willing allies, helped created ISIS. No one president is solely responsible since there's basically no difference between Bush and Obama when it comes to their warmongering in my opinion.
Only one president pulled out of Iraq prematurely.

[maineman]

Go find them yourself. Your edification is not that important to me. :laugh:

I was pretty sure you were making it up.

[MisterVeritis]

I was pretty sure you were making it up.
It bothers me not at all if you continue in in error. Error suits you.

[maineman]

You, as usual, are proud only of manipulation, and your cowardice to accept responsibility for the results is apparent.

See above, reinona.

to reiterate. you have not shown where a majority of democrats in congress voted for the use of force resolution, H.J. Res 114. sorry.

and yeah... I can easily imagine you being a YUGE Ru Paul fan!

[kilgram]

If we didn't invade, Iraq would have nukes as well as cleansed out the Kurds with WMDs. In addition, UN resolutions would have been ignored and we might have lost a few pilots.
Hahaha. Big laughs. Seriously do you believe this bullshit?. It has been dismissed by all, as one of the biggest lies ever told.

Saddam Hussein gave stability to the region. Was removed a power that granted more laicisim to the territory, the same with Libia and Syria. Yes, they were sons of the bitch, and fucking dictators, but you cannot remove a power in an authoritarian world without considering which will be the other force to occupy that position, and the second strongest power in the region was the religion. So, it is obvious what is the replacement for those forces, and they are the roots of ISIS today.

Iraq did not have the capacity to create WMD.

Отправлено с моего Aquaris E5 через Tapatalk

[AZ Jim]

You failed again. Bush kept the finds classified at the time. Nice dodge.

I was involved, at the time, in developing part of the solution for protecting the destruction sites.

Did you participate here the last time this came up, maine?Were it not for Bullshit, you would be speechless.

[MisterVeritis]

Were it not for Bull$#@!, you would be speechless.
I read your posts just to see you surprise me with content. I aimed too high.

[Ransom]

What if Bush had never invaded Iraq? Did you read the article?

George HW Bush?"

Oops

[Common]

Lets go further back how about JFK and LBJ starting Vietman and causing the death of over 50,000 americans and 1,100,0000 vietnamese and viet cong. ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND plus 50,000 americans.

Nam was a Democrat war started by democrats FUCKED ALL UP by liberals and democrats and WE WERE NOT ATTACKED AT HOME BY THE VIETNAMESE. Like muslims attacked us and killed over 3,000 americans.

Liberals always neglect to mention democrats have started more wars and murdered more people that republicans.

Once again. G WBUSH responded to the attack on american soil that murdered over 3,000 americans who were guilty of going to work that morning.

Obama campaigned he would end the war and close gitmo. Hes a total failure, hes done NEITHER. He got us involved in syria and especially libya.

[maineman]

how about that republican Lincoln and all the Americans HE killed?

:rofl:

[Common]

how about that republican Lincoln and all the Americans HE killed?

:rofl:

As usual you made a fool out of yourself. Lincoln is the only republican democrats love

[maineman]

you go back to Viet-fucking-nam and then call me a fool?

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha- big breath -
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[maineman]

Bush invading Iraq as a response to 9/11 is just as nonsensical as if he would have invaded Peru instead.

[kcvet]

Lets go further back how about JFK and LBJ starting Vietman and causing the death of over 50,000 americans and 1,100,0000 vietnamese and viet cong. ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND plus 50,000 americans.

Nam was a Democrat war started by democrats $#@!ED ALL UP by liberals and democrats and WE WERE NOT ATTACKED AT HOME BY THE VIETNAMESE. Like muslims attacked us and killed over 3,000 americans.

Liberals always neglect to mention democrats have started more wars and murdered more people that republicans.

Once again. G WBUSH responded to the attack on american soil that murdered over 3,000 americans who were guilty of going to work that morning.

Obama campaigned he would end the war and close gitmo. Hes a total failure, hes done NEITHER. He got us involved in syria and especially libya.

and now Osama starts Vietnam 2 and 3

[Chloe]

Only one president pulled out of Iraq prematurely.

and neither should have been there in the first place

[maineman]

and neither should have been there in the first place

and the second one got out at exactly the timeframe agreed to by the first one.

[Cletus]

Bush invading Iraq as a response to 9/11 is just as nonsensical as if he would have invaded Peru instead.

That would almost be true if President Bush ordered the invasion as a response to attacks of 11 Sep 01. Unfortunately for you, he didn't.

[maineman]

That would almost be true if President Bush ordered the invasion as a response to attacks of 11 Sep 01. Unfortunately for you, he didn't.

kind of implied by #93, doncha think?

[Cletus]

Do you mean this?



G W BUSH responded to the attack on american soil that murdered over 3,000 americans who were guilty of going to work that morning.

That would be Afghanistan.

[maineman]

and the attempts by Team Bush to tie Saddam's intelligence officials to Muhammed Atta at supposed meetings in Prague BEFORE 9/11? Irrelevant, I suppose?

[kcvet]

Do you mean this?



That would be Afghanistan.

that would be Bill Clinton

[MisterVeritis]

and neither should have been there in the first place
Once there we needed to win. Obama snatched defeat from Victory's jaws.

[MisterVeritis]

and the second one got out at exactly the timeframe agreed to by the first one.
This is such a pathetic excuse.

[maineman]

Iraq was not going to give American personnel immunity from Iraqi courts. Obama did the right thing by leaving it to them.

[Cletus]

and the attempts by Team Bush to tie Saddam's intelligence officials to Muhammed Atta at supposed meetings in Prague BEFORE 9/11? Irrelevant, I suppose?

Pretty much.

By the way, the Czech intelligence people stand by their reports.

[MisterVeritis]

Iraq was not going to give American personnel immunity from Iraqi courts. Obama did the right thing by leaving it to them.
This is a falsehood. It may not be yours but it is a lie.

By the way, what is happening now?

[Cletus]

Iraq was not going to give American personnel immunity from Iraqi courts. Obama did the right thing by leaving it to them.

They would have if we really wanted it. You keep using that as an excuse for Obama's fuckup when the reality is that there are only two possible reasons we didn't have the SOFA we needed... incompetence on the part of the State Department or Obama didn't want it.

[maineman]

They would have if we really wanted it. You keep using that as an excuse for Obama's fuckup when the reality is that there are only two possible reasons we didn't have the SOFA we needed... incompetence on the part of the State Department or Obama didn't want it.

and you claim to know what the Iraqis would have done. That's pretty fucking funny.

nice dodge on the Prague thing, btw.

[maineman]

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/19/459850716/fact-check-did-obama-withdraw-from-iraq-too-soon-allowing-isis-to-grow

"The incomplete sovereignty and the presence of foreign troops are the most dangerous, most complicated and most burdensome legacy we have faced since the time of dictatorship. Iraq should get rid of them to protect its young democratic experiment."
Prime Minister Maliki

[MisterVeritis]

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/19/459850716/fact-check-did-obama-withdraw-from-iraq-too-soon-allowing-isis-to-grow

"The incomplete sovereignty and the presence of foreign troops are the most dangerous, most complicated and most burdensome legacy we have faced since the time of dictatorship. Iraq should get rid of them to protect its young democratic experiment."
Prime Minister Maliki
Nice try. You continue to move that lie forward.

By the way, what are we doing today?

[maineman]

Nice try. You continue to move that lie forward.

By the way, what are we doing today?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/04/us-troops-in-iraq-will-get-immunity

[Common]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/04/us-troops-in-iraq-will-get-immunity

I thought obama ended the war in iraq, why is he putting more troops there.

Bush has been gone 8 yrs this war BELONGS to Obama

[MisterVeritis]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/04/us-troops-in-iraq-will-get-immunity
Those are the same assurances Obama said no to.

[maineman]

I thought obama ended the war in iraq, why is he putting more troops there.



If you have to ask that question, you really don't know enough to intelligently participate in the discussion. Maybe a thread about cooking, or sports, or music would be more up your alley.

[maineman]

Those are the same assurances Obama said no to.incorrect. al-Maliki offered no such assurances.

[Common]

If you have to ask that question, you really don't know enough to intelligently participate in the discussion. Maybe a thread about cooking, or sports, or music would be more up your alley.

Or you can start a thread on making tacos or quesadilla , hes put troops back in Iraq but you just trying to use that to detract from the real facts.

We are still in afghanistan, Gitmo is still open, he instigated and got us involved in libya and got us involved in syria.. He brokered what even democrats are calling a failed deal with iran and paid them 400 million to release hostages. You spin and dance and have your sombrero fall off senor but you can change the facts

8 yrs of hillary and you the same silly crew will be blaming Bush for the deployments she makes

[MisterVeritis]

incorrect. al-Maliki offered no such assurances.
Yeah. he did. The Obama pukes kept undercutting him and insisting on impossible things. Obama is an evil man. And Crooked Hillary is his handmaiden.

[maineman]

Link?

[Cletus]

and you claim to know what the Iraqis would have done. That's pretty fucking funny.

The Iraqis would have done exactly what we TOLD them to do


nice dodge on the Prague thing, btw.

No dodge.

[Common]

Link?

Post a recipe for burritos

[Cletus]

If you have to ask that question, you really don't know enough to intelligently participate in the discussion. Maybe a thread about cooking, or sports, or music would be more up your alley.

So, what are the terms of our current SOFA?

[maineman]

The Iraqis would have done exactly what we TOLD them to do
cuz Cletus sez so? Gmafb



No dodge.

Bullshit. You ran away from it. Total dodge.

[Common]

cuz Cletus sez so? Gmafb


Everyone runs away from you, because you are sooo fearsome behind the screen <shiver> lol

Bullshit. You ran away from it. Total dodge.

[Cletus]

cuz Cletus sez so? Gmafb

No, because they would have.


Bullshit. You ran away from it. Total dodge.

Ran away from it? I said Czech intelligence still stands by their assessment. That assessment has never been proven to be wrong. It is at worst, "unconfirmed". I have no reason to believe their intel is wrong. What do you have?

[maineman]

So, what are the terms of our current SOFA?

In 2008, the United States and Iraq signed a Strategic Framework Agreement for a Relationship of Friendship and Cooperation between the United States and the Republic of Iraq and an Agreement On the Withdrawal of U.S. Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq
41
(Security Agreement). The Security Agreement provided for a form of concurrent jurisdiction which allowed Iraqi jurisdiction over U.S. forces for “grave premeditated felonies ... committed outside duty status and outside agreed facilities” but undertook to provide due process protections. The United States had effective authority under the agreement to decide what constituted duty status in a particular case.
The 2008 Security Agreement expired on Dec. 31, 2011, the date set in 2008 for all U.S. combat forces to leave Iraq, with it the status arrangements expired as well. The United States and Iraq were unable to agree on a follow-on SOFA regime for a continued post- 2011 presence.
However, in June, 2014, in the aftermath of ISIS advances, the United States exchanged diplomatic notes with Iraq that provide “A&T equivalence” immunity from criminal and civil jurisdiction for U.S. forces which have been sent as advisers to Iraq to assist in addressing the current crisis.


http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/236456.pdf

[maineman]

No, because they would have. sez who?




Ran away from it? I said Czech intelligence still stands by their assessment. That assessment has never been proven to be wrong. It is at worst, "unconfirmed". I have no reason to believe their intel is wrong. What do you have?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Atta%27s_alleged_Prague_connection

But Havel later "moved to quash the report once and for all"[12] by making the statement publicly to the White House, as reported in the New York Times. According to the Times report, "Czech officials also say they have no hard evidence that Mr. Ani was involved in terrorist activities, although the government did order his ouster in late April 2001." The New York Times report was described as "a fabrication" by a Ladislav Špaček,[13] a spokesman for Czech president Václav Havel. But Špaček also "said Mr. Havel was still certain there was no factual basis behind the report that Mr. Atta met an Iraqi diplomat."[14] The Times story was a potential embarrassment to Czech prime minister Miloš Zeman after "extensive interviews with Czech and other Western intelligence officials, politicians and people close to the Czech intelligence community revealed that Mr. Zeman had prematurely disclosed an unverified report."

http://www.radio.cz/en/section/curraffrs/a-tale-of-two-attas-how-spurious-czech-intelligence-muddied-the-911-probe

Investigators struggled for weeks to uncover why the Mohamed Atta would fly nearly 5,000 kilometres just to spend a few hours in Prague's international airport, only to return to the Czech capital a couple of days later.
An investigation by an American newspaper published this week, based on files from the German federal police, has confirmed that he didn't; in fact, there were two "Attas" who travelled to Prague in late May/early June 2000.
The case of mistaken identity had serious consequences, as it laid the groundwork for spurious claims by Czech authorities of a secret meeting in Prague between Atta the hijacker and an Iraqi intelligence agent.

I could go on-and on and on and on -but it's late and I have a lot to accomplish in the morning.

[maineman]

Hey Subdermal any luck on getting the math to work out on H.J.Res 114?

[Cletus]

sez who?

Just about anyone who has seen the United States flex its muscle or seen seen skilled diplomats at work or doesn't have his head up Obama's 4th point of contact.

[maineman]

Just about anyone who has seen the United States flex its muscle or seen seen skilled diplomats at work or doesn't have his head up Obama's 4th point of contact.


nothing but a derogatory biased opinion that you, once again, attempt to pass off as fact.

:yawn:

[MisterVeritis]

nothing but a derogatory biased opinion that you, once again, attempt to pass off as fact.

:yawn:
You are in the tank for Obama. Understood.

[maineman]

You are in the tank for Obama. Understood.

you are an irrational Obama hater. Understood.

[Common]

you are an irrational Obama hater. Understood.

Yes senorita everyone who is not a obama ass sniffer such as you must be a hater

[maineman]

Yes senorita everyone who is not a obama ass sniffer such as you must be a hater

and everyone who doesn't have remnants of Trump shit on their nose must be an Obama ass sniffer instead, cuz everyone falls into one category or the other. Sure thing, niñito.

[MisterVeritis]

you are an irrational Obama hater. Understood.
:-)

My hate is rational.

[Subdermal]

Hey @Subdermal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1758) any luck on getting the math to work out on H.J.Res 114?

Any luck demonstrating any honesty on why Dem votes cast attempted to mainnipulate this impression you're trying to shuck?

No? None? How about an explanation for why Dems didn't cut funding for our continued war efforts, when they had every opportunity to do so, per the link I offered?

No? None?

[maineman]

Any luck demonstrating any honesty on why Dem votes cast attempted to mainnipulate this impression you're trying to shuck?

No? None? How about an explanation for why Dems didn't cut funding for our continued war efforts, when they had every opportunity to do so, per the link I offered?

No? None?
As I said... a majority of democrats voted against the use of force resolution. YOU called me on that and posted a link to the Senate roll call, and then, after calling me a brainstem, you asked if that looked like a majority to me. I rammed your lack of understanding of what the word "congress" means right back up your ass, and you have been tap dancing ever since. A majority of democrats in congress voted against the use of force resolution. That's a fact, Pedro. You should be a big boy and just admit when you fucked up.

And why would any American cut funding for our troops on the battlefield? I certainly would have been vehemently against such a vote. When our troops are in harm's way, we MUST continue to give them everything they need to do their jobs there. As long as the CinC is putting our troops in harm's way, it is congress's duty to continue to provide the funding necessary to support them, imho.

[MisterVeritis]

And why would any American cut funding for our troops on the battlefield? I certainly would have been vehemently against such a vote. When our troops are in harm's way, we MUST continue to give them everything they need to do their jobs there. As long as the CinC is putting our troops in harm's way, it is congress's duty to continue to provide the funding necessary to support them, imho.
"Support and defend the Constitution" huh? In your opinion is the Congress just a rubber stamp?

How is it you know so little about the document you swore an oath to protect?

[maineman]

Subdermal.... no comment?
As I said... a majority of democrats voted against the use of force resolution. YOU called me on that and posted a link to the Senate roll call, and then, after calling me a brainstem, you asked if that looked like a majority to me. I rammed your lack of understanding of what the word "congress" means right back up your ass, and you have been tap dancing ever since. A majority of democrats in congress voted against the use of force resolution. That's a fact, Pedro. You should be a big boy and just admit when you fucked up.

And why would any American cut funding for our troops on the battlefield? I certainly would have been vehemently against such a vote. When our troops are in harm's way, we MUST continue to give them everything they need to do their jobs there. As long as the CinC is putting our troops in harm's way, it is congress's duty to continue to provide the funding necessary to support them, imho.

[maineman]

"Support and defend the Constitution" huh? In your opinion is the Congress just a rubber stamp?

How is it you know so little about the document you swore an oath to protect?

The congress gave Bush the authority to use force. The majority of democrats in congress disagreed, of course, but once the troops are on the ground, I believe that congress has the responsibility to ensure they are given the tools they need to do their job. I certainly would not have opposed a resolution that forced Bush to withdraw our troops and end the Iraq war, but such a resolution never passed.

[Truth Detector]

The exchange started like this: at the end of Jeb Bush’s town-hall meeting in Reno, Nevada, on Wednesday, a college student named Ivy Ziedrich stood up and said that she had heard Bush blame the growth of isis on President Obama, in particular on his decision to withdraw American troops from Iraq in 2011. The origins of isis, Ziedrich said, lay in the decision by Bush’s brother, in 2003, to disband the Iraqi Army following the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s government.

“It was when thirty thousand individuals who were part of the Iraqi military were forced out—they had no employment, they had no income, and they were left with access to all of the same arms and weapons.… Your brother created isis,’’ she said.

“All right,’’ Bush said. “Is that a question?”

“You don’t need to be pedantic to me, sir,” she said.

“Pedantic? Wow,” Bush said.

Ziedrich finally came forth with her query: “Why are you saying that isis was created by us not having a presence in the Middle East when it’s pointless wars, where we send young American men to die for the idea of American exceptionalism? Why are you spouting nationalist rhetoric to get us involved in more wars?”

Jeb replied by repeating his earlier criticism of President Obama: that Iraq had been stable until American troops had departed. “When we left Iraq, security had been arranged,” Bush said. The removal of American troops had created a security vacuum that isis exploited. “The result was the opposite occurred. Immediately, that void was filled.”

“Your brother created isis” is the kind of sound bite that grabs our attention, because it’s obviously false yet oddly rings true. Bush didn’t like it: he offered a retort and then left the stage. Meanwhile, Ziedrich had started a conversation that rippled across Twitter, Facebook, and any number of American dinner tables. Who is actually right?

Here is what happened: In 2003, the U.S. military, on orders of President Bush, invaded Iraq, and nineteen days later threw out Saddam’s government. A few days after that, President Bush or someone in his Administration decreed the dissolution of the Iraqi Army. This decision didn’t throw “thirty thousand individuals” out of a job, as Ziedrich said—the number was closer to ten times that. Overnight, at least two hundred and fifty thousand Iraqi men—armed, angry, and with military training—were suddenly humiliated and out of work.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/did-george-w-bush-create-isis

No more blaming Obama for ISIS!!! Frankly, I am sick and tired of Obama being made the "scapegoat" for Bush's mistakes.

:rofl: Nothing more ironic than watching a young low information Liberal lecture Bush on foreign policy and politics while desperately trying to defend the idiot in Chief we currently have.

[Truth Detector]

GWB didn't create ISIS as we know it today. GWB did follow Bill Clinton's proposal in removing Saddam, however. (See the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act.)

Obama's foreign policies in Egypt, Libya, Iraq and Syria contributed greatly to the rise of ISIS.

The President who must shoulder the heaviest blame is Obama.

^Spot on; but I expect these words to fall on dumb and deaf ears of the Liberals.

[Truth Detector]

:geez:Step One: Denial

More irony. :rofl:

[maineman]

GWB didn't create ISIS as we know it today. GWB did follow Bill Clinton's proposal in removing Saddam, however. (See the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act.)


If GWB had followed the proposals of the ILA, we never would have sent US troops into Iraq, as the ILA specifically forbade such action.

[Truth Detector]

What if Bush had never invaded Iraq? Did you read the article?

I am constantly amused by the idiotic and asinine leftist claim that Bush somehow invaded Iraq single handedly. But it is stunning how these same leftist twits pretend that Obama's rapid and unilateral withdrawal against ALL advice to the contrary, even from GWB, didn't create the vacuum and opportunity ISIS sought.

But to compound the naïve stupidity of the man leftist twits lamely defend, he even called them Junior Varsity. It doesn't get much dumber than that folks.

[Truth Detector]

Bush contributed to the creation of ISIS and Obama to its rise. To focus on the one and not the other is rather partisan.

Bush did nothing of the sort. But you cling to that idiotic narrative; it suits you.

Nothing can be dumber than pretending that Saddam hadn't invaded Kuwait and ignored the UN sanctions against him for more than a decade under Clinton's Presidency....or the notion that he wasn't promoting and spreading terror throughout the region.

Yep, in Libertarian and leftist loony land, Saddam was a stabilizing influence that GWB single handedly destroyed by illegally invading a peaceful sovereign nation. :rofl:

[Truth Detector]

Persitent, consistent international meddling begets a state of perpetual conflict and war. Bush didnt start the chain of causation but he was a major link in the chain.

:rofl: Yep; the US meddles while despots, tyrants and terrorists just peacefully go about their business. :rofl:

[Subdermal]

@Subdermal (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1758).... no comment?

You're not worthy of my time. I showed you a Dem majority vote, and I showed you an article which broke down exactly how the Dems avoided supporting the resolution with a majority of both Houses, but simultaneously ensured that the resolution passed.

I further demonstrated that - if the Democrats truly were 'sorry' and 'apologized' for their votes, they would have voted to cut off funding, and ended operations right then and there.

They avoided that too, because they're snakes and do not do what they claim to believe in - they're all talk, and have willing sycophants like you who know what I'm saying is the truth, and place party far ahead of country.

But you don't care, because you have no integrity. You can demonstrate some integrity now by supporting how you're supposedly 'proud' of Dem action, but reconcile their lack of action on cutting off funding.

If you cannot do that, then you're proud of the manipulation only, because that's your ideology.

[maineman]

You're not worthy of my time. I showed you a Dem majority vote, and I showed you an article which broke down exactly how the Dems avoided supporting the resolution with a majority of both Houses, but simultaneously ensured that the resolution passed.

I further demonstrated that - if the Democrats truly were 'sorry' and 'apologized' for their votes, they would have voted to cut off funding, and ended operations right then and there.

They avoided that too, because they're snakes and do not do what they claim to believe in - they're all talk, and have willing sycophants like you who know what I'm saying is the truth, and place party far ahead of country.

But you don't care, because you have no integrity. You can demonstrate some integrity now by supporting how you're supposedly 'proud' of Dem action, but reconcile their lack of action on cutting off funding.

If you cannot do that, then you're proud of the manipulation only, because that's your ideology.

I showed YOU the vote. I showed YOU where a majority of democrats in congress voted against the use of force resolution. You have shown me shit.

FACT: a majority of democrats in congress voted against the use of force resolution. You cannot deny it.

And again, as a retired military man, I applaud the actions of congress which keep our men in the battle space equipped to do their jobs. The vote would have to have been a vote to end the Iraq war and to force Dubya to withdraw. Voting to simply cut off funding is unacceptable when men are in harm's way.

[Truth Detector]

I believe the chain begins back before WWII...

@ America, Oil, and War in the Middle East (http://jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/99/1/208.full)

Unfortunately, your link is quite full of bovine manure. Had it stated UK oil, it would have been slightly more accurate. The war in the Middle East is a direct result of the fall of the ottoman empire and the vacuum left in the Palestine territories when the British Empire decided to abandon their role and leave it to the League of Nations, which then decided to carve an Israeli state out of a tiny insignificant piece of worthless desert.

The terrorist supporting Arabs could not condone such a thing; why even giving Jews a tiny sliver of land was beyond the pale, and as such, the PLA and Arab money has flowed to destroying the tiny state ever since.

As for Iraq; that was the creature created by the same British who desperately sought to protect their oil interests in the region to support their EMPIRE. Europe created the borders that are now the issues we face today, not the United States.

But for you history dunces out there, there never was a nation of Palestine, the borders of the ME have constantly changed and despotism has been a regular occurrence. After the COALITION occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the world had a chance to finally establish some legitimacy to ME politics by giving those nations citizens the right to choose their own leaders in peaceful elections. But as is the case with liberals the world over, they saw opportunity to bring down the conservative governments of the coalition nations and implement their tragic strategy to claim that Bush lied them all into war and that they were mere pawns.

Obama sealed the deal by leaving the region to ISIS whom he moronically claimed was JV.

[Truth Detector]

Did Debbie really do Dallas?

Debbie does dumb. :rofl:

[Truth Detector]

"Support and defend the Constitution" huh? In your opinion is the Congress just a rubber stamp?

How is it you know so little about the document you swore an oath to protect?


The congress gave Bush the authority to use force. The majority of democrats in congress disagreed, of course, but once the troops are on the ground, I believe that congress has the responsibility to ensure they are given the tools they need to do their job. I certainly would not have opposed a resolution that forced Bush to withdraw our troops and end the Iraq war, but such a resolution never passed.

Wow; what a long an convoluted way to admit you are wrong. :rofl:

[Truth Detector]

If GWB had followed the proposals of the ILA, we never would have sent US troops into Iraq, as the ILA specifically forbade such action.

:rofl: Yep, instead he followed the advice by the previous administration and leaders in the Democratic Party:

Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
-- President Bill Clinton (State of the Union Address), Jan. 27, 1998

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.""Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
-- Sen. John Edwards (D, NC) Feb. 24, 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." "
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D, MA) Sep. 27, 2002

"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."
-- State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) Oct. 2, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
-- Senator John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
-- Sen. Harry Reid (D. NV) Oct. 9, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response 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..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
-- Ex President Bill Clinton, Jul. 22, 2003 (Interview with CNN Larry King)

I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening.
-- Rep. Richard Gephardt (D, MT) Nov. 2, 2003

[FindersKeepers]

If GWB had followed the proposals of the ILA, we never would have sent US troops into Iraq, as the ILA specifically forbade such action.



You just made that up!


Perhaps you should better acquaint yourself with the Act and then attempt to argue it.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/4655/text?overview=closed

[maineman]

You just made that up!


Perhaps you should better acquaint yourself with the Act and then attempt to argue it.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/4655/text?overview=closed

I certainly did not just make that up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

"The Act specifically refused to grant the President authority to use U.S. Military force to achieve its stated goals and purposes, except as authorized under the Act in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act."

[Private Pickle]

The exchange started like this: at the end of Jeb Bush’s town-hall meeting in Reno, Nevada, on Wednesday, a college student named Ivy Ziedrich stood up and said that she had heard Bush blame the growth of isis on President Obama, in particular on his decision to withdraw American troops from Iraq in 2011. The origins of isis, Ziedrich said, lay in the decision by Bush’s brother, in 2003, to disband the Iraqi Army following the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s government.

“It was when thirty thousand individuals who were part of the Iraqi military were forced out—they had no employment, they had no income, and they were left with access to all of the same arms and weapons.… Your brother created isis,’’ she said.

“All right,’’ Bush said. “Is that a question?”

“You don’t need to be pedantic to me, sir,” she said.

“Pedantic? Wow,” Bush said.

Ziedrich finally came forth with her query: “Why are you saying that isis was created by us not having a presence in the Middle East when it’s pointless wars, where we send young American men to die for the idea of American exceptionalism? Why are you spouting nationalist rhetoric to get us involved in more wars?”

Jeb replied by repeating his earlier criticism of President Obama: that Iraq had been stable until American troops had departed. “When we left Iraq, security had been arranged,” Bush said. The removal of American troops had created a security vacuum that isis exploited. “The result was the opposite occurred. Immediately, that void was filled.”

“Your brother created isis” is the kind of sound bite that grabs our attention, because it’s obviously false yet oddly rings true. Bush didn’t like it: he offered a retort and then left the stage. Meanwhile, Ziedrich had started a conversation that rippled across Twitter, Facebook, and any number of American dinner tables. Who is actually right?

Here is what happened: In 2003, the U.S. military, on orders of President Bush, invaded Iraq, and nineteen days later threw out Saddam’s government. A few days after that, President Bush or someone in his Administration decreed the dissolution of the Iraqi Army. This decision didn’t throw “thirty thousand individuals” out of a job, as Ziedrich said—the number was closer to ten times that. Overnight, at least two hundred and fifty thousand Iraqi men—armed, angry, and with military training—were suddenly humiliated and out of work.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/did-george-w-bush-create-isis

No more blaming Obama for ISIS!!! Frankly, I am sick and tired of Obama being made the "scapegoat" for Bush's mistakes.

LOL... ISIS was started in 1999... So don't blame Bush either...blame Clinton... It's common knowledge Clinton's inactions in the late 90's directly led to the increase in radical Islamists in the ME.

[FindersKeepers]

I certainly did not just make that up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

"The Act specifically refused to grant the President authority to use U.S. Military force to achieve its stated goals and purposes, except as authorized under the Act in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act."

Wikipedia is "user written," which is why teachers do not allow it as valid research.

Read the section yourself -- in the Act.

The writer of that specific part -- got it wrong.

[maineman]

Wikipedia is "user written," which is why teachers do not allow it as valid research.

Read the section yourself -- in the Act.

The writer of that specific part -- got it wrong.
the section only allows the president to draw down and provide material. He is not authorized to commit personnel to the effort of removing Saddam.

[Truth Detector]

the section only allows the president to draw down and provide material. He is not authorized to commit personnel to the effort of removing Saddam.

Still stupidly trying to pretend that the Iraq Resolution didn't give Bush the authority to invade I see; color me shocked and surprised. It's almost as moronic as pretending that Clinton didn't sit on his hands for eight years and do nothing to enforce UN resolutions on Iraq or take out OBL.

But in Liberal loony land, rhetoric is so much more effective than action right Popeye? :rofl:

[FindersKeepers]

the section only allows the president to draw down and provide material. He is not authorized to commit personnel to the effort of removing Saddam.


Give up, already. Your claim was that the Act forbade military intervention. You were wrong.

It did not specifically "authorize" it, although it provided for military training, equipment and funding to others who might take on Saddam.

There is a huge difference between "forbidding" and "not specifically authorizing."

The ILA expressed our intent to get Saddam out -- it did not forbid military action as you claimed.

[maineman]

There is a huge difference between "forbidding" and "not specifically authorizing."


actually, that is a distinction without a difference. If congress had wanted to give the CinC the option of using US military forces to achieve regime change in Iraq, they would have said so in the ILA. They specifically did NOT say that... which has the exact same effect as specifically forbidding it. Neither Clinton nor Bush could have used the ILA as authorization to send troops into Iraq. That was why the Use of Force Resolution was required.

[FindersKeepers]

actually, that is a distinction without a difference. If congress had wanted to give the CinC the option of using US military forces to achieve regime change in Iraq, they would have said so in the ILA. They specifically did NOT say that... which has the exact same effect as specifically forbidding it. Neither Clinton nor Bush could have used the ILA as authorization to send troops into Iraq. That was why the Use of Force Resolution was required.


I wonder if you argue just for the sake of arguing, because you're way off in left field on this one.

You initially said, in post #157:


If GWB had followed the proposals of the ILA, we never would have sent US troops into Iraq, as the ILA specifically forbade such action.



We've already established that the ILA did nothing of the sort. I gave you the actual wording of the Act and you then cited mumbo-jumbo from Wiki.

The ILA was USED as one of the reasons that Congress should approve military action in Iraq.

The ILA could not say it was an approval of military action. Why? Because the War Powers Resolution specifically tasks a President with getting permission from Congress.

GWB was following the ideas in the ILA when he sought permission to take action against Saddam. Permission that was overwhelmingly granted.

In short -- the ILA set the stage for the 2003 resolution that granted GWB permission to attack.

All of that is documented -- why would you argue that it meant something else and then why would you keep changing your claims each time you find out you are wrong?

You should have backed out of this one graciously right after you discovered what you claimed was NOT in the ILA.

[debbietoo]

The CIA Just Declassified the Document That Supposedly Justified
the Iraq Invasion


If you don't take Wikipedia's word for it, then read this article. More than half of Americans disapprove of Bush's judgment on the Iraq War, as well as many European allies.

Congress eventually (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/shoulders/senateiraqconclusions.pdf) concluded (http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf) that the Bush administration had "overstated" its dire warnings about the Iraqi threat, and that the administration's claims about Iraq's WMD program were "not supported by the underlying intelligence reporting." But that underlying intelligence reporting — contained in the so-called National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that was used to justify the invasion — has remained shrouded in mystery until now.

According to the latest figures compiled by Iraq Body Count, to date more than 200,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed, although other sources say the casualties are twice as high. More than 4,000 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq, and tens of thousands more have been injured and maimed. The war has cost (https://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost-of/war-in-iraq/) US taxpayers more than $800 billion.
In an interview with VICE founder Shane Smith (https://news.vice.com/video/president-obama-speaks-with-vice-news), Obama said the rise of the Islamic State was a direct result of the disastrous invasion.

"ISIL is a direct outgrowth of al Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion," Obama said. "Which is an example of unintended consequences. Which is why we should generally aim before we shoot."

Source:

https://news.vice.com/article/the-cia-just-declassified-the-document-that-supposedly-justified-the-iraq-invasion

And you still want to blame Obama.

The Right and Wrong Questions About the Iraq War

The Iraq war wasn’t an innocent mistake, a venture undertaken on the basis of intelligence that turned out to be wrong. America invaded Iraq because the Bush administration wanted a war. The public justifications for the invasion were nothing but pretexts, and falsified pretexts at that.




Source:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/the-right-and-wrong-questions-about-the-iraq-war/393497/




[*=center]
[*=center]
[*=center]
[*=center]
[*=center]
[*=center]

[maineman]

I wonder if you argue just for the sake of arguing, because you're way off in left field on this one.

You initially said, in post #157:



We've already established that the ILA did nothing of the sort. I gave you the actual wording of the Act and you then cited mumbo-jumbo from Wiki.

The ILA was USED as one of the reasons that Congress should approve military action in Iraq.

The ILA could not say it was an approval of military action. Why? Because the War Powers Resolution specifically tasks a President with getting permission from Congress.

GWB was following the ideas in the ILA when he sought permission to take action against Saddam. Permission that was overwhelmingly granted.

In short -- the ILA set the stage for the 2003 resolution that granted GWB permission to attack.

All of that is documented -- why would you argue that it meant something else and then why would you keep changing your claims each time you find out you are wrong?

You should have backed out of this one graciously right after you discovered what you claimed was NOT in the ILA.

It was the policy of the US at the time the ILA was passed, that we would LOVE to see indigenous Iraqis overthrow Saddam, but that we had absolutely no desire to spill a drop of American blood making it happen. Again... the distinction without a difference. Specifically leaving out the authority for the President to use military personnel assets and allowing just hardware assets has the exact same effect as forbidding the use of military personnel assets. The ILA was an invitation for the anti-Saddam folks in Iraq to rise up and that we would have their backs if they did. But, given the fact that the Iraqi people had heard the previous president make pretty much the same pitch in '91, and then abandon the Marsh Arabs to Saddam's slaughter, it's really no wonder that they Iraqis weren't jumping at the chance to use the promised but not delivered hardware of the DoD.

[FindersKeepers]

Specifically leaving out the authority for the President to use military personnel assets and allowing just hardware assets has the exact same effect as forbidding the use of military personnel assets.

Absolutely wrong. You just keep flinging mud against the wall, hoping something will stick. You've changed your position so many times, I'm getting dizzy watching you go in circles.

There was NO WAY they could put in "authority." It would have been in direct violation of the War Powers Resolution.



The ILA was an invitation for the anti-Saddam folks in Iraq to rise up and that we would have their backs if they did. But, given the fact that the Iraqi people had heard the previous president make pretty much the same pitch in '91, and then abandon the Marsh Arabs to Saddam's slaughter, it's really no wonder that they Iraqis weren't jumping at the chance to use the promised but not delivered hardware of the DoD.

That was ONE of the reasons, but not the main one. The main one was that the US, under Bill Clinton, was taking a formal stance against allowing Saddam to remain in power. He'd lied too many times and was unreliable. Military intervention was NOT ruled out in the ILA as you falsely claimed it was.

Are you one of those guys who just can't admit when he's wrong? You've had a lot of chances so far.

[exploited]

The decision to disband the Iraqi military was indeed disastrous. It did contribute significantly to the problems of Iraq's new government, which in turn resulted in the conditions in which a group like ISIS could form.

So, indirectly, to some degree that I am not able to reasonably declare, Bush helped created ISIS. As did Obama.

However, I should point out that the road to ISIS goes back centuries, even millenia, and it doesn't really matter who created ISIS so much as what we are going to do next.

[Tahuyaman]

I'll bet we could get a hack here to support the claim that Bush had a hand in creating the Third Reich.

[debbietoo]

I'll bet we could get a hack here to support the claim that Bush had a hand in creating the Third Reich

Bush Bank Tied to Nazi Funding

President Bush’s grandfather was a director of a bank seized by the federal government because of its ties to a German industrialist who helped bankroll Adolf Hitler’s rise to power, government documents show.

Prescott Bush was one of seven directors of Union Banking Corp., a New York investment bank owned by a bank controlled by the Thyssen family, according to recently declassified National Archives documents reviewed by the Associated Press.

Fritz Thyssen was an early financial supporter of Hitler, whose National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi) Mr. Thyssen believed was preferable to communism. The documents do not show any evidence that Mr. Bush directly aided that effort. His position with Union Banking never was a political issue for Prescott Bush, who was elected to the Senate from Connecticut in 1952.

Reports of Prescott Bush’s involvement with the seized bank have been circulating on the Internet for years and have been reported by some mainstream news media. The newly declassified documents provide additional details about the Union Banking-Thyssen connection.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/oct/17/20031017-110534-8149r/

[Truth Detector]

I'll bet we could get a hack here to support the claim that Bush had a hand in creating the Third Reich.


Bush Bank Tied to Nazi Funding

President Bush’s grandfather was a director of a bank seized by the federal government because of its ties to a German industrialist who helped bankroll Adolf Hitler’s rise to power, government documents show.

Prescott Bush was one of seven directors of Union Banking Corp., a New York investment bank owned by a bank controlled by the Thyssen family, according to recently declassified National Archives documents reviewed by the Associated Press.

Fritz Thyssen was an early financial supporter of Hitler, whose National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi) Mr. Thyssen believed was preferable to communism. The documents do not show any evidence that Mr. Bush directly aided that effort. His position with Union Banking never was a political issue for Prescott Bush, who was elected to the Senate from Connecticut in 1952.

Reports of Prescott Bush’s involvement with the seized bank have been circulating on the Internet for years and have been reported by some mainstream news media. The newly declassified documents provide additional details about the Union Banking-Thyssen connection.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/oct/17/20031017-110534-8149r/


:rofl:

[Tahuyaman]

Bush Bank Tied to Nazi Funding

President Bush’s grandfather was a director of a bank seized by the federal government because of its ties to a German industrialist who helped bankroll Adolf Hitler’s rise to power, government documents show.

Prescott Bush was one of seven directors of Union Banking Corp., a New York investment bank owned by a bank controlled by the Thyssen family, according to recently declassified National Archives documents reviewed by the Associated Press.

Fritz Thyssen was an early financial supporter of Hitler, whose National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazi) Mr. Thyssen believed was preferable to communism. The documents do not show any evidence that Mr. Bush directly aided that effort. His position with Union Banking never was a political issue for Prescott Bush, who was elected to the Senate from Connecticut in 1952.

Reports of Prescott Bush’s involvement with the seized bank have been circulating on the Internet for years and have been reported by some mainstream news media. The newly declassified documents provide additional details about the Union Banking-Thyssen connection.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2003/oct/17/20031017-110534-8149r/


I knew I would flush out someone.... This debbietoo is refreshing hack though.