Iraq critics concede military progress

[Booker Floyd]

its easy to look back 4 years later, but go back to the political climate at the time.  anyone who spoke out against the war hated america, didn't support the troops and was a huge bleeding heart liberal pussy.  Freedom fries anyone!!??!

So what?

[The Dog]

its easy to look back 4 years later, but go back to the political climate at the time.  anyone who spoke out against the war hated america, didn't support the troops and was a huge bleeding heart liberal pussy.  Freedom fries anyone!!??!

So what?

 the war drums were being beaten so loud the anti-war side wasn't heard.  it was total bullshit to be attacked for speaking out against the admin.

[DevilHatesALoser]

in regards to the whole "you're lazy if you believed all the BS in 2003" nonsense.? I love how thats the rights new drum to beat on.? So its OUR fault for letting the war happen!?!?? ? Sounds like something Coulter or O'reily would say.? In other words, its fucking retarded.

its easy to look back 4 years later, but go back to the political climate at the time.? anyone who spoke out against the war hated america, didn't support the troops and was a huge bleeding heart liberal pussy.? Freedom fries anyone!!??!

I am not claiming it is your fault. ?I'm simply stating that you're not a vicitim like you and many others would want to be. ?Your pals on this board were against the war, they seemed to have the facts. ?Basicially what your post says is that you were peer pressured to support the war. ?So you're ok with sending other people to fight all under peer pressure, cause that is what your post says. ?The information was available for you to look at. ?I'd set my watch and warrant that you did no research at all; you just sat at home and went along with it.

Ultimately it was congress and the President who sent us to war. ?They did have the information and it was their job to do the research. ?Some voted against it, most voted for it based on the intel they had. ?Personally I don't believe that the intel against WMDs was very viable, I believed that there were WMDs over there. ?No intel is 100% and unfortunately this time the intel was inaccurate. ?But to call Bush a liar and claim he openly deceived the nation is wishful thinking on the parts of millions of wannabe intellectuals.

My point is people had all the information they needed in 2002, 2003. ?People went either way on the issue. ?The majority of Americans went with the government's final decision which again, strengthens my argument that no one was deceived. ?Do you really think for a moment if the intel was obviously that bad, that the Democrats would have let the GOP bang the drums of war?

I'm tired of heraing people say they were duped when they took no effort whatdoever to look at it themselves. ?I bet you were chanting freedom fries the whole way Butters. ?Me, I was against the war from day one. ?Not because I care about Iraq but because I see no reason for a nation not to be allowed to defend themselves with WMDs. ?If Iraq had made a threat to harm us, then we could attack, but Iraq was a soverign nation and I couldn't have cared less about risking my own hide to remove a dictator that tortured people in another land. ?

However, the time for debate ended in March 2003 and it is now my responsibility to do what is necessary to protect America from future attacks and carry out the current orders. ?I personally think the war has been advantageous in that it has consolidated the terrorist effort in one central location. ?I'd rather fight them in their breeding ground (and remember, the leaders are coming from Syria and Iran - they aren't being made in Iraq) then in my hometown. ?I place a value on America and its allies lives that I don't on our enemies.

[Booker Floyd]

Ultimately it was congress and the President who sent us to war.  They did have the information and it was their job to do the research.  Some voted against it, most voted for it based on the intel they had.  Personally I don't believe that the intel against WMDs was very viable, I believed that there were WMDs over there.  No intel is 100% and unfortunately this time the intel was inaccurate.  But to call Bush a liar and claim he openly deceived the nation is wishful thinking on the parts of millions of wannabe intellectuals.

Congress was weak and complicit, but it was the administration that pursued the agenda in a reckless manner.  That agenda was in place from the start of administration - before, actually - and their cherry-picking of intelligence was dishonest and dangerous.  I dont see the good in lazy, vague "Bush lied" chants, but I do think its wrong to argue that his administration wasnt dishonest, not to mention crass, in their pursuit of war.  Instead of carefully considering the implications of intelligence they didnt favor, they cherry-picked and crudely capitalized on the sensitive political climate so they could rush in. 

I agree that the "everybody else was doing it" argument deserves little sympathy.

[The Dog]

Ultimately it was congress and the President who sent us to war.  They did have the information and it was their job to do the research.  Some voted against it, most voted for it based on the intel they had.  Personally I don't believe that the intel against WMDs was very viable, I believed that there were WMDs over there.  No intel is 100% and unfortunately this time the intel was inaccurate.  But to call Bush a liar and claim he openly deceived the nation is wishful thinking on the parts of millions of wannabe intellectuals.

Congress was weak and complicit, but it was the administration that pursued the agenda in a reckless manner.  That agenda was in place from the start of administration - before, actually - and their cherry-picking of intelligence was dishonest and dangerous.  I don't see the good in lazy, vague "Bush lied" chants, but I do think its wrong to argue that his administration wasn't dishonest, not to mention crass, in their pursuit of war.  Instead of carefully considering the implications of intelligence they didn't favor, they cherry-picked and crudely capitalized on the sensitive political climate so they could rush in. 

I agree that the "everybody else was doing it" argument deserves little sympathy.

as do i.  you articulated my point better than i did.  i was actually for the war in the beginning b/c of all the lies and misinformation.  silly me to trust my government.

my point was those who were speaking out against the war weren't listened too.  they were labeled unamerican and not patriotic and so forth.  THAT is lazy.

[SLCPUNK]

Ultimately it was congress and the President who sent us to war.  They did have the information and it was their job to do the research.  Some voted against it, most voted for it based on the intel they had.  Personally I don't believe that the intel against WMDs was very viable, I believed that there were WMDs over there.  No intel is 100% and unfortunately this time the intel was inaccurate.  But to call Bush a liar and claim he openly deceived the nation is wishful thinking on the parts of millions of wannabe intellectuals.

How many times do you have to ignore the facts?

That facts are that Bush kicked the inspectors out of Iraq, not anybody else.

The facts are Bush lied about the connection to AQ and Saddam. Saddam was a secularist who despised Al Queda, just as the Sunnis do now.

The facts are that Bush was told by CIA not to use the intel, that it was shaky, not to be trusted. But he turned around and used that intel anyway.

The facts are that congress voted to give W authorization to go to war as a last result, after diplomacy was exhausted. Bushie turned around and kicked the inspectors out and went to war.

The facts are that Bush's war for the "Hearts and Minds" in Iraq is nothing more than a powerful recruiting tool for AQ and young Muslim men. Nobody in the Muslim world believes we are there to spread democracy. They see us as occupiers, and as an attack on Islam.

The facts are that Sunnis hate AQ and want them out, that AQ makes up less than five percent of the "insurgents" in Iraq. They can deal with the AQ element themselves, without our help.

The facts are that our presence in Iraq goes beyond Osama's wildest dreams. It's more than he ever hoped for.

[DevilHatesALoser]

How many times do you have to ignore the facts?

How many times do you need to be told that your loosely correlated and poorly proven evidence does not count as fact?

That facts are that Bush kicked the inspectors out of Iraq, not anybody else.

Right, cause they couldn't get access to the areas they needed to and Hans Blix id jack shit.

The facts are Bush lied about the connection to AQ and Saddam. Saddam was a secularist who despised Al Queda, just as the Sunnis do now.

Bush never came out and blamed Iraq for 9/11.  There was some evidence that AQ had met with Iraqi leaders, but you're right, Sadam did not want religious extremist in his country.  The whole "Bush/Cheney tied Iraq to 9/11" is over played.  Granted, they didn't go out of there was to deny alot of Neo-Con pundits, but AQ ties were never a primary factor.  The whole Al Qaeda had ties to Iraq is about as accurate as Farenheit 911's claim of Al Qaeda ties to Bush.

The facts are that Bush was told by CIA not to use the intel, that it was shaky, not to be trusted. But he turned around and used that intel anyway.

The fact is one member of the CIA told Bush that the intel was not strong enough to use as the basis for the war.  Amazing how you take the word of one person over a hundred others.  Again, you cherry pick your information to confrom to your preconceived ideas and beliefs.

The facts are that congress voted to give W authorization to go to war as a last result, after diplomacy was exhausted. Bushie turned around and kicked the inspectors out and went to war.

Congress knew we were going to war and they were signing off on it.  To claim anything less is a play on symantics and intellectually dishonest.  It's about as believable and upholds as well as Clinton saying "that depends on what the definition of [is] is."  Congress approved and condoned the war.  They supported it until it started goign south and then the excuses came flying.

The facts are that Bush's war for the "Hearts and Minds" in Iraq is nothing more than a powerful recruiting tool for AQ and young Muslim men. Nobody in the Muslim world believes we are there to spread democracy. They see us as occupiers, and as an attack on Islam.

  I'll give you this, because I personally believe this.  but as someone who has spoken to actual people who live in the Middle East, it's a mixed bag.  They love us, but they hate us.  They don't draw this left and right line that you'd like to create.  Those most adimantly against our presence there are the same folks we'll probably invade next (read Iran and Syria).

The facts are that Sunnis hate AQ and want them out, that AQ makes up less than five percent of the "insurgents" in Iraq. They can deal with the AQ element themselves, without our help.

   This is a hard one to prove.  If one is influence by Al Qaeda or the same belief structure as AQ, do they count?  Civilians aren't learning how to make IEDs (which are responsipble for 70% of our casualties), they're being taught by an outside source.  That source is AQ and Iran.

The facts are that our presence in Iraq goes beyond Osama's wildest dreams. It's more than he ever hoped for.

Nah, Bin Laden dreams of a Islamic run world where you and I have long been killed.  He's hoped for alot more, but you're right. He's definitely happy.  However, we keep killing em as he keeps making em.  Eventually he's gonna run out.

[SLCPUNK]

It's good to see you being honest for a change (ie, name change.) I'll be back to answer your typical poop response later when I'm in the mood (once I hit my thumb with a hammer or something.)

[DevilHatesALoser]

It's good to see you being honest for a change (ie, name change.) I'll be back to answer your typical poop response later when I'm in the mood (once I hit my thumb with a hammer or something.)

I've always been honest.  Some people can't make that same claim (at least while being honest).

[SLCPUNK]

I've always been honest.

Lets not get carried away now...

Where did Flagg go?

Now it's Walter 'eh?

[Prometheus]

ok the simple questions that should be answered by everyone

was saddam a bad guy?

would teh US ended up in Iraq at some point in the future?

would it have been better to go on 03 or wait for something to come up to go in and take him out?

can you support troops and not the war?

now, I support the US troops and their military commanders in Iraq and the Ghan. I support colation troops in there as well. I beleive that the intel used was crap and bush fucked up.... plain and simple. However I also understand from everything about saddam that he was a bad guy and needed to be taken out in 91....... and he remained bad up to and including the 2003 invasion. Did he deserve what he got?..... ya i think so. I feel taht the US and her allies would have ended up in Iraq at some point in the near future regardless, simply because of the crap that sadam was pulling/had pulled/ and could attempt to pull in the future. Even with bad intel with the global stand up of the US and her allies made 03 the best time to say hey we should take care of him now and get it done. You can support teh troops and not the war..... but i support both in the sence that saddam got ousted......

Now here is something I said b4, on several occasions, dating back to before the 03 invasion................... not enough troops to provide security for a country the size of Iraq...........Rummy fucked up and asked "what is the min amount of boots on teh ground to overthrow saddam.........and he never asked how many will i need to  be able to secure and provide security after the destruction of saddams regieme. thats why the surge is working, and troop levels need to be matained/increased through 08 and into '10. If you can give the goverment of Iraq the ability to matain security for her people the people will respect the goverment more, and the goverment will actually start to be able to lead.......well maybe

[Booker Floyd]

Interesting video of Dick Cheney from 1994:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emydd%2Ecom%2Fbb

[fuckin crazy]

I didn't have to click the link, to know that it was, "that dick Cheney".

[DevilHatesALoser]

It's good to see you being honest for a change (ie, name change.) I'll be back to answer your typical poop response later when I'm in the mood (once I hit my thumb with a hammer or something.)

You never did respond.  Can't say I'm suprised.

[Prometheus]

Interesting video of Dick Cheney from 1994:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Emydd%2Ecom%2Fbb

haha


now thats some ironic shit..... i can barely remember watching that back in the day..... and had totaly forgotten about it... good find man

[SLCPUNK]

It's good to see you being honest for a change (ie, name change.) I'll be back to answer your typical poop response later when I'm in the mood (once I hit my thumb with a hammer or something.)

You never did respond.  Can't say I'm suprised.

You see, I have responded, to your same lies, and strawman arguments for years now.

What you posted is no different than anything else you have posted since day one. It's mostly straw man bullshit: false accusations that you argue against using the same old lies that this administration does. Fox news, bullshit du jour, repackaged crap that is fooling nobody. Same pig, new lipstick.

The difference today is that I'm sick of regurgitating it all for you-it simply is not worth my time.

Mr. Big soldier man who still hasn't set foot in the quagmire he so proudly promotes.

[DevilHatesALoser]

Tsk tsk.  Still unable to reply intelligently when challenged.  As you know through our PM (which you initiated and I politely responded too), my "service" in Iraq is beyond my control.  I'll be there soon enough, but the powers that be changed some things around.  Good to know you're the same old SLC, never lacking in stall tactics and regurgitated statements.  Whenever you get called out, you just lash out.  Soon you'll begin the next step and have one of your "minions" make false accusations against me on your behest.  You're a true gentleman and scholar.

[SLCPUNK]

Tsk tsk.  Still unable to reply intelligently when challenged.  As you know through our PM (which you initiated and I politely responded too), my "service" in Iraq is beyond my control.  I'll be there soon enough, but the powers that be changed some things around.  Good to know you're the same old SLC, never lacking in stall tactics and regurgitated statements.  Whenever you get called out, you just lash out.  Soon you'll begin the next step and have one of your "minions" make false accusations against me on your behest.  You're a true gentleman and scholar.

Well starters I don't believe you. You have lied so often in the past.

Second: You are lying about me, which backs up my first comment (see above.) Anybody here knows I post sources, links, and provide plenty of valid arguments through the years (all of which turned out to be correct btw.) Yet here you still are lying about my conduct.

Third, as I've said, I've replied to this shit before. Let's do a quick run down, shall we?

How many times do you need to be told that your loosely correlated and poorly proven evidence does not count as fact?

CIA officials (plural) coming forward to say that they told Bush that the WMD bit was simply not true before the invasion. This was reported by CNN, CBS, and so on. As it turned out, there was no fucking WMD, so logically that would bring one to believe what? That those guys giving interviews are what? Ding DONG!!! Telling the the truth!

Right, cause they couldn't get access to the areas they needed to and Hans Blix id jack shit.

Huh? English? What?

They were co-operating with Blix. Bush kicked the inspectors out-period. Not Saddam, which was one of Bush's many lies.

Bush never came out and blamed Iraq for 9/11.

No shit. More strawman bullshit from you. Nobody said he did. But he and his administration danced along that line and blurred it all up. Hinting often that there was a connection, then taking it back later. Just like you.

  The whole "Bush/Cheney tied Iraq to 9/11" is over played. 

Yea, overplayed by Bushco and Fox, nobody else.

The fact is one member of the CIA told Bush that the intel was not strong enough to use as the basis for the war.  Amazing how you take the word of one person over a hundred others.  Again, you cherry pick your information to confrom to your preconceived ideas and beliefs.

False claims and accusations. There have been plenty of whistle blowers over the years. "Hundreds of others"? Who? Where? When? Kind of like that bullshit you guys say about "The whole world was behind us and believed the same intel." What a load of crap.

"Several British government memos from the period prior to the war?s beginning, leaked to the press earlier this year, make clear that the British government did not agree with the Bush Administration?s assessment of Saddam Hussein.  Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy adviser to Prime Minister Blair, told the Prime Minister in a memo that ?the [Bush Administration?s] case was thin.  Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.?  He also noted that ?the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.?

(Memo, 7/23/02, as reported in The Sunday Times, 5/1/05)

"Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told the Prime Minister that ?there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with UBL [Osama bin Laden] and Al Qaida? and that ?in the documents so far presented it has been hard to glean whether the threat from Iraq is so significantly different from that of Iran and North Korea as to justify military action.?

(Memo, 3/25/02, provided to Los Angeles Times, 6/15/05)

Congress knew we were going to war and they were signing off on it.  To claim anything less is a play on symantics and intellectually dishonest.

You want semantics, look in the mirror.

?Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence  information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material?Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers.

Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country.  In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not include in the NIE.  And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information has not been cleared for release.?

(Washington Post, 11/13/05)


Senator Clinton:  ?I take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible.  Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation.? (10/10/02)

Senator Lincoln: ?Today, I make a difficult choice.  I choose to give our President the authority to take military action against Iraq if necessary because I believe him when he says he does not want to go to war.  I take our President at his word that disarming Saddam Hussein peacefully is his first choice.  I support the notion that a unified Congress sends a strong message to our allies and gives our Secretary of State more leverage as he negotiates a new and tougher U.N. resolution that mandates weapons inspections in Iraq with military consequences if Saddam resists.? (10/10/02)

Senator Schumer:  ?Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.  The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and it is determined to make demands of the civilized world mean something.  I will, therefore, take the President at his word and do my very best to hold him to it.? (10/10/02)

Nah, Bin Laden dreams of a Islamic run world where you and I have long been killed.  He's hoped for alot more, but you're right. He's definitely happy.  However, we keep killing em as he keeps making em.  Eventually he's gonna run out.

The latest NIE report said Iraq has become the recruiting ground for Islamic nut jobs. Absolutely what OBL wanted. That's been front page news-are you going to claim I pulled that out of my ass too?

[DevilHatesALoser]

on 2nd thought, why even bother

[SLCPUNK]

on 2nd thought, why even bother

Tsk tsk.  Still unable to reply intelligently when challenged.