In case you haven't noticed, Obama is about to lose Iraq

You didn't explain why Shrubbie decided to authorize the ill fated and ill advised, spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq, even though the Weapon's Inspector's were requesting a few more months to complete their assigned task.

Unfortunately, Shrubbie's piss poor decision led to 4500+ dead American soldiers at a cost of nearly $1 trillion. Originally Posted by bigtex

You are right when you call it ill advised. Problem is, Bill & Hillary, and many other Democrats you unfailingly, and blindly defend we're among those advisers.

Why do you continue to defend them?

why do you continue to sit in the fence, wish washy Whiny?

Who's sitting on the fence? I think all of them should be tried for war crimes. What? I have to pick and choose which criminals to prosecute based on their ideology? That's stupid even for you, Assup. Well, no. That's around your general level of stupidity.

Exactly how many times does it have to be explained that Bush did NOT go to war illegally. He had prior authorization from the treaty signed by Hussein and he went to the Congress (when he didn't have to) and they voted for war.

As for ill fated and ill advised, how people did we lose FIGHTING the war and how many did we lose trying to keep the peace. The democrats (that's you) supported the war and opposed the peace. Isn't that strange.

The democrats (that's you) supported the war and opposed the peace. Isn't that strange. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Not when they went right on and voted for Obaminable twice and ...

still praise his extraordinary ability to appear and be weak and ineffective.

Exactly how many times does it have to be explained that Bush did NOT go to war illegally. He had prior authorization from the treaty signed by Hussein and he went to the Congress (when he didn't have to) and they voted for war.

As for ill fated and ill advised, how people did we lose FIGHTING the war and how many did we lose trying to keep the peace. The democrats (that's you) supported the war and opposed the peace. Isn't that strange. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You can spin it, but you will not win it.

Didn't you mean to say that W "cut and run" and "did not fulfill his obligations."

From Wiki:

"In September 2004, Lawrence Korb, an Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan, after reviewing the payroll records for Bush's last two years of service, concluded that they indicated that Bush did not fulfill his obligations and could have been ordered to active duty as a result." Originally Posted by bigtex

Seems like you'd remember, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat, that there was a major draw-down in forces after March, 1973, and W, like 10s of thousands of other Vietnam era service personnel (many of whom did not serve their full term), took his Honorable discharge and went home.

"After Vietnam, the Army slashed end strength from 1.3 million soldiers to 780,000 in just a few years."
http://www.armytimes.com/article/201...ea-what-s-come

Whereas, the Air Force cut manning between 1970 and 1975 from 791,349 to 612,751, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004598.html

Meanwhile, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat, your "cut and run" champion -- Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator -- "went to great lengths to avoid the Vietnam-era draft, [and] ... he used political connections to obtain special favors, and that he made promises and commitments which he later failed to honor ... [and that is] all beyond dispute."
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clint...t8sVE7iwmxc.99

And your "smoke and toke" boy Odumbo also never served a day in his lib-retarded life, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat.

Then why was the fuss made about Niger yellowcake?

Wanted to reconstitute and doing so are two totally different things.

We went to war on the assumption he was reconstituting....Bush in a round about way that LL will never admit to said as much. Originally Posted by WTF

It was Wilson and the rest of the lib-retard MSM that made an issue out of Niger's yellow cake. While it served a purpose for the U.S. to determine whether or not Saddam was trying to acquire more yellow cake from Niger, U.S. intelligence services knew Saddam already had a large stock of yellow cake and knew further acquisition was not necessary to reconstitute Saddam's nuclear program.

Without want and desire, none of the other factors mattered.

FBI agent George Piro says Saddam intended to produce weapons of mass destruction again, some day. "The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," Piro says.

"And that was his intention?" Scott Pelley of CBS asks.

"Yes," Piro says.

"What weapons of mass destruction did he intend to pursue again once he had the opportunity?" Pelley asks.

"He wanted to pursue all of WMD. So he wanted to reconstitute his entire WMD program," says Piro.

"Chemical, biological, even nuclear," Pelley asks.

"Yes," Piro says.


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/interrog...s-confessions/

LL's post at #499 highlighting the CBS interview explains why Saddam was so intent to deceive, and Jervis' book explains how that deception played into the intelligence analysis.

there was a major draw-down in forces after March, 1973, and W, like 10s of thousands of other Vietnam era service personnel (many of whom did not serve their full term), took his Honorable discharge and went home. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The drawdown is a valid point! But I don't believe that dog will hunt!

Having been in the military when the Vietnam War drawdown occurred (As I recall, it began in mid to late 1971). I wasn't personally impacted by it because I was on a 4 year enlistment. In other words it was never an option for me and neither did I even give it a 2nd thought at the time.

I do not recall the National Guard or the Reserve units being impacted by the drawdown but I am the first to admit that my exposure to the Guard was minimal once I graduated from Jump School in 1969. Airborne!

If memory serves me correctly, the drawdown only impacted draftee's and not even those who volunteered for the draft. Even though draftees and those who volunteered for the draft had the same 2 year active duty obligation. And even at that it was only a 4 month early out and not 2 years. Perhaps the Guard was impacted differently but if that were the case in Shrubbies situation, than why did Reagan's Asst Sec of Defense reach the following conclusion:

"Bush did not fulfill his obligations and could have been ordered to active duty as a result."

It's extremely difficult to ignore the above ruling. It seems to be very specific!

You get an "A" for effort, if for no other reason than it was a good try! Especially for a member of the Notorious Idiot Klan, errrr Clan.

That is a valid point but if that were the case in W's situation then why would the Asst Sec of Defense for Ronald Reagan have reached the following conclusion:

"Bush did not fulfill his obligations and could have been ordered to active duty as a result."

Having been in the military when the Vietnam War drawdown occurred (I wasn't impacted by it because I was on a 4 year enlistment), I do not recall the National Guard or the Reserve units being affected by it. As I recall the drawdown only affected draftee's and not even those who volunteered for the draft. Perhaps they were but if that would have been the case in Shrubbies situation than Reagan's Asst Sec of Defense would not have said what he did. Originally Posted by bigtex

Bush enjoyed an authorized early-release just as did thousands of other post-Vietnam service personnel, and Bush served "five years, four months, and five days" longer than either of your "toke and smoke" duo you elected, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat.

Bush enjoyed an authorized early-release just as did thousands of other post-Vietnam service personnel, and Bush served " Originally Posted by I B Hankering

If that were the case, why did Reagan's Asst Sec of Defense reach the following conclusion:

"Bush did not fulfill his obligations and could have been ordered to active duty as a result."

IBIdiot, yours was a nice try but as I said earlier, "that dog won't hunt."

But it does bark a lot! (And so do you!)

Woof, Woof!

If that were the case, why did Reagan's Asst Sec of Defense reach the following conclusion:

"Bush did not fulfill his obligations and could have been ordered to active duty as a result."

IBIdiot, your was a nice try, but as I said earlier, "that dog don't hunt." But it does bark a lot!

Woof, Woof! Originally Posted by bigtex

It's your insinuation that is "all bark and no bite", BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat, because Bush 43's authorized and condoned early-release was not illegal, immoral or even remotely unusual for that time period. In fact, the same thing is happening today as the services make their draw-downs, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat; people are being released early in an effort to reach Odumbo's requirements for a smaller, impotent force.

early-release was not illegal, immoral or even remotely unusual for that time period. In fact, the same thing is happening today as the services make their draw-downs Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Who said it was illegal?

I merely quoted one of Reagan's trusted military advisers remarks. In case you missed it, he had the following to say:

"Bush did not fulfill his obligations and could have been ordered to active duty as a result."

If you have any concerns about his remarks, contact him not me.

I am just the messenger!

Link? Originally Posted by bigtex

You must have hit your head when you missed your LZ in Panama, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat, because, if your memory was serving you right, you'd recall that YOU already cited the link where it was reported that Bush 43 requested an early discharge through proper channels and that his request was approved and that he was granted an Honorable discharge for his service.

What type of discharges were Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator and Odumbo awarded, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat?

Bush 43 Originally Posted by I B Hankering

If you have any concerns about Shrubbie's full military service commitment, or lack thereof, they should be referred to Reagan's Asst Sec of Defense who had the following to say:

"Bush did not fulfill his obligations and could have been ordered to active duty as a result."

Any comments or observations should be directed to him, not me.

Don't shoot the messenger!

If you have any concerns about Shrubbie's full military service commitment, or lack thereof, they should be referred to Reagan's Asst Sec of Defense who had the following to say:

"Bush did not fulfill his obligations and could have been ordered to active duty as a result."

Any comments or observations should be directed to him, not me.

Don't shoot the messenger! Originally Posted by bigtex

You must have hit your head really hard when you missed your LZ in Panama, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat, because, if your memory was serving you right, you'd recall that your concerns about Bush 43's service were already addressed in the article YOU cited wherein it was reported that Bush 43 requested an early discharge through proper channels and that his request was approved and that he was granted an Honorable discharge for his service.

Again, what type of discharges were Slick Willie the Perjuring Sexual Predator and Odumbo awarded, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat?