Rand Corporation Report Says the Iraq War Was Shrubbie's Biggest Blunder

Spring of 2003, the #1 enemy to the US was al Qaeda, not Saddam and/or Iraq. President Shrub lost focus upon the perpetrators of 9/11 when he authorized the ill fated and ill advised invasion of Iraq. As a result of Shrubbie's historic misculation, America lost 4500+ lives and did so at a cost of $1 trillion.

In a risk vs. rewards scenario, the risk of losing 4500+ American lives at an eventual cost of $1 trillion was not worth Saddam's life. Had your favorite Shrub maintained his focus upon the perpetrators of 9/11, the potential reward (at the time) to the US of OBL's life and/or a dagger in al Qaeda's heart was much greater than that of Saddam's life, especially when you factor in what proved to be the prolonged war in Iraq.

From my perspective, the invasion of Iraq was a huge mistake of historic proportions. It is quite apparent in the report shared by the Rand Corporation, they were not fond of the Iraq risk vs reward either. Why don't you bitch and moan to them!

Idiot!

Over and out! Originally Posted by bigtex

I concur, however, LL has a right to his opinions and is making reasonable points, and you should respect that.

If you could fuck the prom Queen and have her like it then fucking her might be a good idea but if she screams you raped her, gets knocked up and you have to take care of some bastard child for eternity then maybe not. So yes one has to do a cost analysis before taking on such an endeavor. If you wind up wrong then you have to endure the criticism from those one third of Americans who said things might not be so easy.

I believe that Bush thought Iraq would go much like say Bosnia or the Falklands War. Had it, we would not be having this discussion. You and others would have been correct and myself and the other one third of the country would have been wrong.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/russ-b..._b_819426.html

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," Herskowitz told me in our 2004 interview, leaning in a little to make sure I could hear him properly. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander in chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait, and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade . . . if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed, and I'm going to have a successful presidency.' "...


...Bush's circle of preelection advisers had a fixation on the political capital that British prime minister Margaret Thatcher had amassed from the Falklands War with Argentina. Said Herskowitz: "They were just absolutely blown away, just enthralled by the scenes of the troops coming back, of the boats, people throwing flowers at [Thatcher] and her getting these standing ovations in Parliament and making these magnificent speeches." It was a masterpiece of "perception management"--a lesson in how to maneuver the media and public into supporting a war, irrespective of the actual merits. Originally Posted by WTF

Well, you do occasionally get one right!!

If you could fuck the prom Queen and have her like it then fucking her might be a good idea but if she screams you raped her, gets knocked up and you have to take care of some bastard child for eternity then maybe not. So yes one has to do a cost analysis before taking on such an endeavor. Originally Posted by WTF

Fucking the prom queen? Another puerile analogy by fagboy! Just when I thought he might be making sense for a change, he fucks up again.

So your advice to FDR on December 8, 1941 would have been "don't declare war on anyone without first doing a cost analysis"? And if one could have been produced with any semblance of accuracy, would you have run around waving the analysis and yelling "Holy shit! This will cause us to rack up enough debt to exceed our annual GDP! No fucking way can we afford that!"

And that's only the financial costs. How do you propose to do a "cost analysis" for the human toll? We sacrificed over 400,000 lives in WW2. You and littledix are whining about losses in Iraq that are barely 1% of what we endured in WW2. The entire exercise is ridiculous. You can't judge whether any costs are "worth it" without knowing the outcome ahead of time. In war, anything can happen and there are always unintended consequences. Isn't the outcome partly determined by how much effort we are willing to expend in the first place? And what about the costs of doing nothing - how do you weigh that? I'm just glad pussyfooters like you and littledix weren't around after Pearl Harbor to demoralize the Greatest Generation by carping about the burdens and sacrifices they would be called upon to shoulder for all of us.

If you want to criticize the Iraq war, do it intelligently. How was it flawed? In its premises? In its planning? In its objectives? In its execution? In its follow-through/exit strategy? Those are the things that would make an intelligent case, not shallow pronouncements about a "cost analysis".

.

I concur, however, LL has a right to his opinions and is making reasonable points, and you should respect that. Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

As a matter of fact, I do respect the fact that LLIdiot was wrong during the ill fated and ill advised, spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq. And he is wrong now!

...what about the costs of doing nothing - how do you weigh that? Originally Posted by lustylad

It's not too difficult ...



http://cns.miis.edu/reports/pdfs/binladen/indict.pdf

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :
- v. - :
USAMA BIN LADEN, : INDICTMENT
a/k/a “Usamah Bin-Muhammad
Bin-Ladin," : S(9) 98 Cr. 1023 (LBS)

and

Bill Clinton 1998

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."

As a matter of fact, I do respect the fact that LLIdiot was wrong during the ill fated and ill advised, spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq. And he is wrong now! Originally Posted by bigtex

On Monday, ...

............how much did you bet on the Texan's Sunday game the day before?

It's not too difficult ... Originally Posted by LexusLover

Apparently it is "too difficult" for LLIdiot to wrap his feeble mind around. The referenced burning building occurred on 9/11/01 and was perpetrated by al Qaeda, not Saddam.

My point was, and still is, that President Shrub lost focus on the perpetrators of 9/11 when he authorized the ill fated and ill advised Spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq.

LLIdiot is not very good at connecting the dots!

Apparently it is "too difficulty" for you to wrap your feeble mind around. The referenced burning building occurred on 9/11/01 and was perpetrated by al Qaeda, not Saddam.

LLIdiot is not very good at connecting the dots! Originally Posted by bigtex

Actually you can't wrap the air between your ears around the example + you were apparently ambushing animals while they ate when the discussions regarding the enhanced interrogation techniques were ongoing in which persons directly involved with the interrogations were informed as to the "intelligence' that was being related to them with respect to al Qaeda.

The 1993 attack on the World Trade Center was ALSO conducted by al Qaeda!

You might want to talk to Bill about "connecting dots" and doing something, besides getting his knob polished in the Oral Office. You voted for him, right?

The 1993 attack on the World Trade Center was ALSO conducted by al Qaeda! Originally Posted by LexusLover

That being the case, why did President Shrubbie authorize an invasion of Saddam's Iraq, which LLIdiot strongly supported.

Saddam and Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with "the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center" or the burning buildings from 9/11.

That was one of the principle reasons the Rand Corporation concluded (in screaming headlines) the following:

"The Iraq War was George Bush’s Biggest Blunder."

After all of these years, LLIdiot still has extreme difficulty connecting the 9/11 dots.

Idiot!

....why did President Shrubbie authorize an invasion of Saddam's Iraq, which you supported? Originally Posted by bigtex

I ALSO SUPPORTED his Invasion of Afghanistan .... did you?

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...anistan-begins

Oct 7, 2001:
U.S.-led attack on Afghanistan begins

"On this day in 2001, a U.S.-led coalition begins attacks on Taliban-controlled Afghanistan with an intense bombing campaign by American and British forces. Logistical support was provided by other nations including France, Germany, Australia and Canada and, later, troops were provided by the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance rebels. The invasion of Afghanistan was the opening salvo in the United States "war on terrorism" and a response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C."

I have never stated, nor did anyone in the Bush Administration, that Saddam/Iraq had anything to do with the 911 attack on the World Trade Center, but using your "logic" .... the Clinton administration KNEW who was involved in the 1993 WTC attack ... and according to the 911 hearing testimony did not INVADE Afghanistan because the U.S. could not get PERMISSION to enter Pakistani air space from the Pakistanis to conduct an assault on Afghanistan. (Of course it was later revealed, that YOUR MAN CLINTON was "concerned" that the U.S. citizens would think he was stirring up a "war" (invasion) to detract from the blow job revelations, and he had his "hands full" defending his PERJURY.)

And for the record HERE: You, yourself, have posted you were not opposed to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, you thought the U.N. inspectors should have been given some "more time"! (Clinton just gave them 3-4 fucking years .... and Bush another 2 years....totally 5 to 6). No wonder you voted for Obaminable and his YELLOW LINES!!!!!

Here's what your man BILL said about Iraq:

Bill Clinton 1998

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."


911 is what happens when people don't connect the dots and spend their time figuring out how to get their next blow job. Your current selection would rather just call them "Junior Varsity" and Declare himself a Winner by announcing the defeat of the Taliban AND the Terrorists!!!

In fact you proudly announce HE KILLED OBL!!!!! He did?

Sounds like you. Self-Declaration of "Victory" .... And some others on here.

And here is another guy for whom you voted:

"KING: Senator Kerry did your -- did you committee on international opertions and terrorism ever actually fear something like this?

"SEN. JOHN KERRY (R), MASSACHUSETTS: Absolutely. Absolutely.

.....

"We have always known this could happen. We've warned about it. We've talked about it. I regret to say, as -- I served on the Intelligence Committee up until last year. I can remember after the bombings of the embassies, after TWA 800, we went through this flurry of activity, talking about it, but not really doing hard work of responding."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...11/lkl.00.html


And here is another one you supported for President: Gore!!

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/212fin~1.html

1996!!!!

You actually accusing Bush of "losing focus"!!!!

1993
1996
1998
to 2001

8 fucking years and you are whining? You voted for all of them!!!!!!!

It's people like you who facilitate the disrespect for this country by repeatedly supporting people that shamelessly present this country as a bunch of pussies that can be bullied and intimidated throughout the world ...... and you have the audacity to call me an "idiot" ... you are as ignorant as they come!

Like I said: Go ambush some animals while they eat.

The season is almost over!

There you have it folks, another Vintage LLIdiot Meltdown!

There you have it folks, another Vintage Meltdown BY ME, BECAUSE LL IS RIGHT!



Originally Posted by bigtex

FIFY .. No charge, LOSER.

FIFY .. No charge, LOSER. Originally Posted by LexusLover

There you have it folks, another Vintage LLIdiot Meltdown!

So your advice to FDR on December 8, 1941 would have been "don't declare war on anyone without first doing a cost analysis"?

. Originally Posted by lustylad

Iraq was a preemptive war. Do you know what preemptive means?

Do you understand the difference between the two. We were the fucking Japan in Iraq. You don't think Japan did a cost analysis before attacking? They got it wrong , just like we did in Iraq. Unless of course you think there is more stability in the region now than before the invasion. That nation building is cost effective and that we will wind up with a net positive, if so may I suggest a book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion

Jesus.

Fucking the prom queen? Another puerile analogy by fagboy! Just when I thought he might be making sense for a change, he fucks up again.
Originally Posted by lustylad

I'm sorry , I forgot you like guys, just substitute Prom King and it will make sense to you!

[SIZE=3]Iraq was a preemptive war. Originally Posted by WTF

Actually, you are incorrect. That shouldn't surprise anyone but you.

Perhaps this will refresh your recollection:



There was not a "cost analysis" back then either.

There were periodic estimates sent to Congress, which is how WARS are funded....."off budget" so to speak. That's because it's not like building a house.