Who's to Blame for the Mess in Iraq?

Democrats reneged on the promise to support the S. Vietnamese with arms and training in 1975 by defunding the agreement. Obama and the Democrats repeated the same action in 2011 with the abandonment of Iraq. Twice wars were won and twice traitorous Democrats gave the victory to the enemy. Now we watch as the Middle East is falling to al Qaeda/ISIS. Yes, no matter what Obama tells us, we do have boots on the ground in Iraq at this very moment. Believe me ISIS is frothing at the mouth to capture or kidnap one or more American soldiers.

[video]https://t.reembed.com/0e66as05w_jD0Sq6893POWV5[/video]​

 

The Dangerous Lie That 'Bush Lied' - Wall Street Journal
http://www.wsj.com/articles/laurence-h-silberman-the-dangerous-lie-that-bush-lied-1423437950
Feb 8, 2015 - It is astonishing to see the “Bush lied” allegation evolve from antiwar slogan .... of WMD and that the CIA was absolutely certain of it's 'evidence'.

~~~~~~~~~~~~​

Bush Didn't Lie About Iraq Having WMDs | The Daily Caller
http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/18/stop-it-liberals-bush-didnt-lie-about-iraq-having-wmds/
May 18, 2015 - Predictably, some liberals have used the occasion to again trot out the wholly dishonest spin that the Bush administration concocted evidence ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~​

Revelations of WMDs in Iraq Vindicate George W. Bush
http://www.rantpolitical.com/2014/10/16/revelations-of-wmds-in-iraq-vindicate-george-w-bush/
Oct 16, 2014 - As concrete evidence begins to make its way into the public's view, left-wing ... Maybe the unrelenting claims that “Bush lied” by the mainstream ...

~~~~~~~~~~~~​

Inside the Ring: Syria, Iraq and weapons of mass destruction
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-syria-iraq-and-weapons-of-mass-des/?page=all
Sep 18, 2013 - The U.S.-Russia agreement to dismantle Syria's chemical weapons is reigniting ... existed in Syria, much less that part of it had been moved from Iraq, or that all of ... brokers in helping collect poison gas shells being used in Syria,” he said. ... “Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual ...

 

The mainstream right-wing media has done a good job of spinning the definition of WMD (a term for which no "book definition" exists). In the run-up to our misguided adventure in the desert Bush/Cheney/Rice and crew were talking in apocalyptic terms about mushroom clouds over the homeland. Now that we're in the post-mortem stage the definition of WMDs has magically transmogrified downward to include poison gas shells.

 

Really? Didn't the Democrats in Congress ALSO vote along with the Republicans to go to war? Didn't they, in fact, DEMAND a new vote in Congress so they could have the opportunity to go along with the vote for war? Didn't Democrats like Pres. Bill Clinton, his wife Senator Hillary, and most of the Democrat leadership in Congress all state EXACTLY the same things about Saddam's WMDs as Bush did BEFORE Bush even became President?
You libs LOVE to try to rewrite history, don't you? Time to face the reality and recognize the fact that removing Saddam from power was the RIGHT THING TO DO, just as it was to bring Democracy to that nation and win the war AS BUSH DID!! And it was your weak and incompetent Messiah that threw it all away and not only made the deaths of 4000 American soldiers meaningless, but has now allowed tens of thousands of additional innocent men, women, and children to be massacred by a new terrorist regime because he lacked the guts of a leader like GW Bush!

 

Then I'd say we were there more than long enough. You can never kill off the crazies. New one born everyday.

 

Yes, it's "magical" that we consider the intentional murder of the thousands of Saddam's own people in 1988 at Halabja with his use of chemical weapons "mass destruction". I'm sure you libs would love to erase that terminology from our language, just as Obama has forbid the term, "Muslim terrorist" in his administration. You're under the delusion that simply by softening words, you have done enough to minimize the problem!
The ignorance of liberals continues to shine through!

 

Silly boy there are crazies and then there are the band wagoners what we have now is people who are climbing on the band wagon. That's happening because we didn't slap down the crazies years ago.Again the last go round Kitchner stomped a mud hole in the Mahdi Army and the crazies were quiescent for more than a century.

 

This is revisionist history on your part. In 1988 Saddam was our guy. We looked the other way when confronted with his misdeeds against his own people because he killed enough Iranians to satisfy the wildest neo-con wet dream -- using "WMDs" that we sold or gave to him. Some of us were paying attention.

 

Sort of like Qaddafi, odd how some people never learn...

 

Isn't that what I said?

That's where the 'gutless' part comes in. Really, you ought to READ a post before disagreeing with it.

 

How long will the US be responsible for Iraq's security? If not two years, would it be 20? 200?

When there wasn't a chance Iraq would give US Troops immunity, what would Obama's personal intervention have accomplished? Should we ignore Iraq's sovereignty like we did in 2003 and send in our troops anyway?

 

May I point out that during the first incursion and also the second into Iraq our forces were very aware of the possible attacks by Saddam using chemical or biological weapons.
http://www.nytimes.com/cfr/international/slot1_040203.html?_r=1&

 

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend". In 1988, Iran was the enemy of America just as it is today. The politicians in the U.S., were more than happy to ally themselves with Saddam to combat Iran. You may have forgotten the takeover of the American Embassy and 144 hostages taken and held for more than a year under Jimmy Carter. OH, I forgot that happened under a "Democrat" administration they find it difficult to revise the situation, so that goes into the memory hole.

 

This issue has been settled. The Bush Administration and his gaggle of neocons are 100% responsible for the mess in Iraq.

 

Only to a liberal.

The matter is not decided.

And liberals are complacent in this too because they supported the war way back when.

 

Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had virtually nothing to do with Iraq. Still don't. The Iraq mess started with the de-Baathification of the Iraqi military (Bush/Bremer).

 

Complicit.

Yes, many uninformed liberals failed to question the so called intelligence.... and the recommendations made by the PNAC ........

 

2007 might have been when the extremists assumed the name ISIS, but they were founded well before that.

 

I believe ISIS came about in 2011.......

 

What was to be gained by questioning the intelligence and being called 'soft on terror' with an election coming up? Gutless. Absolutely gutless.

 

Once again, I believe ISIS had its origins well before that. I think it was inevitable once the military was de-Baathified and the colonels lost their paychecks.

 

Anyone who questioned Dubya's position was marginalized.. including the Arabs, diplomats, oilmen and historians.... including Colin Powell.

 

How can you say anybody supported the war with the (*)(*)(*)(*)storm of bogus intel being disseminated at the time? And when I say 'anybody', I'm including a bunch of marginally honest Republicans.

 

General Petraeus had already solved that problem. After the SOFA expired in 2011 the Strategic Framework Agreement (SFA) signed by Bush and al-Maliki in 2008 was the long term political solution which included ensuring the security of Iraq, both internally and externally, was to be maintained with support from the US. Obama has completely ignored that agreement. You will only hear him talk about the SOFA and how he had no choice but to leave Iraq. But he never talks about his political options under SFA.

 

Here you go:

[video=youtube;N5p-qIq32m8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8[/video]

Eat it. Get yourself an egg and beat it.


This public service message was brought to you by the makers of aluminum. Aluminum The miracle material of the century.