Jeb Bush again changes Iraq answer

Ah now you're back tracking. You claimed earlier than John Kerry made these speeches AFTER the vote.

Now that you've been caught lying, your credibility is shot.

I can't have a rational debate with someone who chooses to lie, as I've cited numerous factual sources, against your opinions.

 

No he didn't and it still stands.

We didn't conquer and yes it all had a bearing.

They were, go read the ILA and the ATUMF.

I don't find is surprising many don't remember the reasons we removed Saddam as the MSM and Democrats have so propagandized the issue into one singular focus, the small amount of ready to go WMD UNSCOM had cataloged. And the was was perfectly legal.

And I don't subscribe to conspiracies.

No, not yet but the current Commander in Chief has it heading that way now.

 

Here is where you claimed it cost $1B for the entire decade. Later you changed it to $1B per year, probably because you realized I read your link.

Here is where I refute your $1B per year number, by showing how much it costs to run just an aircraft carrier.

And here is where you attempt to refute my costs claim by stating a falsehood. The US did not maintain a carrier fleet in the Persian Gulf since 1971 as you say. A US carrier spent a few months on station in the Gulf in 1974. I believe 3 carriers were sent to the Gulf for about a year during the Iranian hostage crisis. Also, I think a carrier briefly responded in 1987 to Iranian attacks on international shipping. There was absolutely nothing like the carrier presence since Saddam.

Are you serious? I just debunked your Atta assertion, and 5 others you made just 10 posts ago in post 190. You linked the press release of the report, and I linked the actual report here: http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf

Again, amendment 121 on page 148 says that there is not enough evidence to say one way or the other whether Atta was in Prague. That's different from what you are saying, which is Atta definitely was not in Prague. Evidence please. (And I correct my post 190 where I said the Report confirmed Atta was in Prague, that was simply the Report quoting the Czech govt saying that).

I am stating facts; you accuse me of bogus claims, when I have made it clear who is making bogus claims in this thread.

 

As I said in another reply to another post on this......Jeb's problem is that the weasel can't figure out how far under the bus to throw his brother to advance himself.

 

He should have stayed the course, and justified the invasion, while learning from the mistakes. He may not win on that narrative this time. But in the future, I guarantee that these people in Iraq are going to come for us. If they are able to inflict another 9/11 style attack, those that were saying stay the course in Iraq, will politically crush their opponents.

 

Mc cain thought we should stay the course in viet nam
He was delusional. Just unwilling to accept that viet nam was a failure
And would have remained a failure, and leaving viet nam has not been a catastrophy

Same is true of iraq
After putting so much into the place, it is hard to walk away
But a small remaining us presence would not have changed what has happened
Which was an iraqi leadership problem
And there is just no way that either the iraqis or the anericans were up for a large continuing combat presence.

The ironic truth is that iran is our most effective military partner in fighting isil

Bottom line
No one is
Going to be elected president running on fond nostalgia for combat in iraq
And jeb bush figured that out
His future became more important than his brothers past

 

We will see. It depends on if our govt remains competent enough to prevent another 9/11 style attack. If terrorists succeed in killing thousands again, I think everyone who was around on 9/11 knows, US public opinion can change rapidly. Questions will be asked about why we withdrew.

 

Bush declared war under the joint congressional resolution.

That required him to state to congress within a tight time constraint why it was that he declared war.

Go read what he said.

Also, on the eve of the war Sec. State Powell stated that if Saddam gave up his WMDs, there would be no war. He placed that statement in a full page spread in the Wall Street Journal.

The clauses in the joint resolution that start with "whereas" are there as being descriptive of a situation. They are NOT causes for war. Read them. For example, the fact that they used gas on Iran (as facilitated by Rumsfeld) is not a cause for war.


Your comment about conquest is silly. We conquered Iraq to the fullest possible extent of the word. What we did with it afterwards proves we conquered it.

 

Kinda depends upon the link between withdrawal and any future attack

Sadly the islamista threat is like whack-a-mole
Where ever you hit them they will pop up elsewhere
Yemen, Somalia,Libya, tribal territories of pakistan, chechnia, Egypt, syria, or some new spot
Havng troops in iraq does not solve the problem
It would not prevent future attacks

 

Read my convo with this poster.

 

Since the extreme left-wing whacko media just loves to ask gotcha questions of Republicans, like the current one going around now which is..."if knowing what we know now, would you have voted for the use of force authorization in Iraq?"

Well, I think it's only fair if the extreme left-wing whacko media would ask Hillary the following questions...

"If you knew then what you know now, would you have still voted for the Iraq use of force authorization?"​

And...

"In 1975, if you knew then what you know now about Bill's infidelities, would you have still married him?"​

The "needs to be asked" gotcha questions for Hillary

 

Interesting.

That seemingly has nothing to do with anything I stated. Normally you points are very well thought out and thought provoking. Can you reiterate and place into context according to how that relates to my statements?

 

No, for some reason you asked me to comment on one specific quote in a link you provided.

I did so.

You're trying to make it into something else.

 

My whole entire point is that you think that President Bush was behind this conspiracy that Iraq had WMDs, when it's VERY clear that both sides thought so, even well before Bush took the hot seat. There's more than enough factual evidence we've posted, especially John Kerry's lengthy speech that dictates the DEMOCRAT view of Iraq and WMDs. Once that's acknowledged, we're good.

 

Yes, I see where he is the one that is calendar challenged as he used an erroneous timeline to explain away Kerry's comments. I would qualify any accusations of lying with the possibility he could be so overconfident in his narrative that he isn't paying attention to detail. He keeps saying this or that was discredited a long time ago, but doesn't provide evidence. Just because liberal pundits and media talked about this stuff for a few years, doesn't mean it was discredited.

 

You decided that my $1 billion figure was for ten years. I never actually said that, and had you bothered to read the link I posted you would know that.

Regarding your claims regarding our premanent Naval presence in the Persian Gulf, explain this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Fifth_Fleet

As for Cheney's repeated claims about Mohammad Atta, they were indeed false.

Atta rented a car in Virginia Beach the day he was supposed to be meeting with Iraqis in Prague. There are other suggestions to the effect that Cheney and Rumsfeld tried to pressure intelligence officials into validating this claim so they could use it in a speech (Cheney had already used it). This is likely, as the pattern of senior Bush officials pressuring staff to make the facts fit the spin is very well documented.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2005/06/13/1081/cheney-cited-evidence-that-was-known-to-be-false/

 

Well we keep posting facts which is the right thing to do. The Democrats had a HUGE hand in the Iraq WMD intelligence reports.

 

I didn't bother to do it on this thread because one gets tired of doing it over and over again.

Post the claims, and I'll cite the facts. I've been doing this for over a decade now, and the claims that Bush dead enders are still making are just as bogus as they ever was.

This history of the Iraq war has been written. There is no question that it was never necessary, that Sadaam was a paper tiger, that no WMD's were found, and that the invasion unleashed a civil war, just as the people who tried to caution Bush and Cheney warned it would.

 

There's your first problem. You assume that everyone who calls the Democrats out on their lies is a fan of Bush. It's what the EXTREME left does.

 

Not even is Dick Cheney is head of the vice-presidential search committee and he appoints himself VP again.

 

So Democrats took the country to war so they wouldn't be called names?

Well that's a profile in courage.

 

My whole point is that George W Bush and Dick Cheney had decided they wanted a war. It wasn't a conspiracy. But there is little question that this became the Adminstration's principle policy objective in the fall of 2001.

I am not a subscriber to the view that Bush wanted it for silly reasons like avenging his daddy, or any of the other equally silly notions.

There was a growing movement in the conservative foreign policy establishment towards a war even before Bush became President.

The Project for a New American Century was practically campaigning for it by 1999. Nearly every senior member of Bush's White House staff, and many of his senior Pentagon officials came from PNAC. Right wing media is peppered with it as well.

After 9/11, I believe that they concluded that they could sell the public on a war that they thought would be quick and easy (they said so), by scaring them, and falsely trying to link Iraq with Al Quida in the public's mind.

Nearly all of the Adminstration's carefully worded and parsed public comments were made with that in mind. The media went along like sheep (the right wing media bellowed, the rest of the media agreed). When you review the Administration's claims, they often do not come right out and make claims, but they do everything short of that. Of course, we know now that Bush DID use claims that he knew were false, and that the White House tried repeatedly to pressure intelligence analyists to certify the authenticity of other dubious claims.

Karl Rove once famously commented that "war was something the Republicans could win on" around the time that the Bush adminstration politicized the decision to go to war by scheduling the vote on the AUMF resolution in Congress the week before an election.

The Texas oil men who made up much of Bush's team saw an opportunity to conquer Iraq, install a puppet government, and gain control of Iraq's oil reserves for American companies on terms the Americans would dicatate. Discussion along these line were held between Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmed Chalabi as early as the fall of 2001. About that same time Chalabi was also sitting with Rumsfeld plotting the war.

It was evident to the world that Bush was contemplating starting a war in Iraq the night he gave his infamous "axis of evil" speech. Oil and gold prices started to go up quickly in the weeks after that speech as the world discounted the American's chances of achieving a long term success in Iraq.

While right wingers can post that same collection of quotes demonstrating that Democrats also believed some of the stories about WMD's there are two crucial elements that are always left out of the right wing rationalization.;

First, none of the remarks made before 2001 were made in the context of supporting a military invasion. There was absolutely NO call for war with Iraq before Bush's 2002 speech. NONE. (except for the aforemention PNAC, of course).

Second, the quotes from Democrats in the days leading up to the vote on the AUMF reflect the consensus that was presented to them in a NIE that was deliberately doctored by the Pentagon to seriously understate the intelligence community's lack of confidence in much of the claims that were being publically cited, and their near total lack of confidence in the Iraqi National Congress, which was the White House's primary source for most of these claims.

Bush wanted a war. He thought it was going to be quick and easy. He gave no thought to what might happen if his plan went wrong. Rove predicted that a victory in Iraq would secure a permanent Republican majority. The oil men saw Iraq's huge reserves as a bulwark against Saudi Arabia and OPEC, and a way for them to reorder the oil world and return it to the days when the price of oil was set by the Texas Railroad Commission. The military contracting industry saw it as a golden opportunity for boodle and graft (they weren't wrong there).

All the forces that drove the Bush administration drove a collective hubris, and a collective belief that war was a good idea that would be quick, easy and insure American hegomony in the Persian Gulf.

The only thing they didn't think about was their total lack of knowledge or understanding of the country they were attacking, and their total lack of any sort of plan in case things go wrong (which in a war, tends to be right after the first shot);

But oil was most certainly a factor.

 

As far as democratic support for the invasion

GIVE ME A (*)(*)(*)(*)ING BREAK! You liberals never give up. President Bush was ANYTHING but a manipulator. He was the ONLY president since Reagan who actually had respect for the office. JEEZ! You DemoKLANers will stop at nothing.
Bush didn't lie. He didn't manipulate ANYTHING. He showed ALL OF CONGRESS the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing data and left NONE of it out.
BUSH WASN'T A (*)(*)(*)(*)ING OBAMA, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE. HE TOLD THE (*)(*)(*)(*)ING TRUTH.

What Bush should have done is keep campaigning and keep SHOUTING THOSE LOUD MOTHER(*)(*)(*)(*)ERS DOWN. He had the bully pulpit of the office. He was popular enough to win reelection in a landslide. He should have fought back, instead of letting the DemoKlan control the national dialogue.

Absolutely. After all, those ********s aren't even (*)(*)(*)(*)ing human beings, huh? They might as well be Saddam's SLAVES, his rape subjects, his chemical weapon victims.

In other words, HIS OWN PEOPLE WERE THE SAME AS THE JEWS TO HITLER. And you liberals had no problem with the United States invading Germany.

SAME (*)(*)(*)(*)ING THING.

It's too late. The Middle East is (*)(*)(*)(*)ed, thanks to Obama. All we can do is give Israel enough money to build 1000 nuclear silos because that's what it's going to come to.

Certainly we can't do anything with this incompetent mother(*)(*)(*)(*)er we have in the White House today. I don't envy President Walker's job. He has a lot of (*)(*)(*)(*)ing (*)(*)(*)(*) to clean up.

 

As anyone can see, you did say it was $1B for the the decade. I read the link, and I don't believe even the $1B per year number. What, is globalsecurity.org irrefutable? I posted what it costs to field an aircraft carrier. Saddam caused us to field several aircraft carriers to contain him. That cost alone goes a long way toward $1B per year.

Explain what? This article mentions almost nothing about carriers in the Gulf before 1990. I claimed Saddam caused us to field aircraft carriers to contain him. You said we always had an aircraft carrier fleet in the Persian Gulf. I said no we didn't, and explained the few instances that a US carrier transited the Gulf prior to 1990. Now you post this, and say explain it. You are the one that must explain that we were already fielding an aircraft carrier fleet in the Gulf for decades. I know we didn't. Go ahead and try to say we did. I've already checked the deployment history of every single carrier the US has ever made that was either decommissioned after 1971, or still on active service. We didn't.

First you tried to say the Senate Intelligence Committee's Phase II report said this, and after I debunked it, you are saying that this left wing site confirms what you say. I'm not bothering with it. There is a good chance that, like you, the entire article is based on the so-called Senate findings you first mentioned.

That is not what you have been doing in this thread; you have been posting unsupported talking points, which is fine, until you start claiming they are irrefutable evidence.

Not if I, and others like me, have anything to say about it.

Because the US expended a lot of effort for 13 years to make it so.

Which doesn't absolutely refute that Saddam didn't have them.

Iran, AQ, Daish, and other insurgents/terrorists unleashed a civil war, not Bush.

Not many of our leaders in the govt did this prior to the invasion. I can't name one, except maybe Bernie Sanders? I know there are a few more. But the vast majority, including Hillary Clinton, were not saying this prior to the invasion. And those that did were saying these things were going to happen for the wrong reasons.

Then you are mistaken. Saddam and AQ wanted a war, not Bush or Cheney.