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

The Reconquista of Iraq and the USA is underway.

Thanks Obama. Originally Posted by gnadfly

First reestablish what was once the Moorish/Islamic Caliphates and Emirates. From there, continue with bringing the rest of the world into radical Islamic Law.

They see two major "houses" in the world. They see the "House of Peace," and the "House of War." The "House of Peace" is the Islamic Nation. The "House of War" is the land of the Infidels... the land that should be in the process of inclusion into the Islamic Nation.

Many of the music videos in that region show symbolism of the whole world being Islam.

You are preaching to numbnutted parrots squawking the Rush: Sean: Levin: Ingram, latest talking point.

All are ignorant of the fact the invasion of Iraq helped Iran more than any other player in the region. Originally Posted by WTF

I've been debating liberals for the past decade. Throughout these past 10 years, you guys consistently have advanced the same or similar points. These points are reflective of what I see in liberal media sources. I've came to my conclusions independent of those talking heads that you mention. When we have several people coming to the same conclusion based on reviewing the cold hard facts, you do not have a situation where a group of people are parroting what they're hearing from a group of other people.

The invasion of Iraq did not help Iran. One thing that people keep forgetting is that since the invasion of Iraq, Iran has seen major demonstrations. These demonstrations keep getting bolder. The Iranian people want what the Iraqis are currently enjoying. It doesn't stop there, their flanked on the other side by Afghanistan.

Remember, our actions in the Middle East was a catalyst for the Arab spring. The Iranians have a stronger grip over the Iranian people. Had the trend that we developed in the Middle East continued, we would've eventually seen an "Arab Spring" in Iran.

Thanks to this administration's failures in foreign policy, the possibility of that happening is decreasing.

Also, Saudi Arabia is one of Iran's chief nemesis. The Iraqis were nothing compared to Saudi Arabia. So no, our invasion of Iraq was not the biggest help to Iran. It put Iran in between two different countries in two different stages of democracy. That's not what you would want if you were in control of Iran with an iron fist.

Our invading Iraq and Afghanistan are two of the worst things that we could've done to Iran.

You do not understand the politics in that region. And you damn sure do not understand the Status of Forces Agreement
.

Bush 43 won Iraq just like Bush 41 did. Temporally. Make up your mind....do you want to keep spending money and lives in that region when we have plenty of oil now here in this country? You are playing politics with American lives and money. Originally Posted by WTF

based on what you've argued on this thread, it's blatantly obvious that you do not understand politics in that region and also you do not understand the process of getting a SOFA agreement.

Groups of people in that region will align with the group that they see will be stronger/victorious. The Iraqis saw that if the United States left some troops in Iraq, to train the Iraqis, the Iraqi military would rapidly progress to being able to handle these kinds crisis sooner.

In order to get to that, they would've agreed to extend the Status of Forces Agreement that we had in 2011.

As we did in Vietnam, we had victory secured in Iraq. It required the current administration to nurture our gains. Even in United States, our democracy is just one generation away from disappearing. It's up to the current generation to maintain it. Anything that we create is temporary and requires our efforts to keep continuous.

The war in Iraq was not about oil. Again, we get most of our oil from North America and from our continental shelf in the Caribbean. The reason we get most of our oil in North America is because it's very efficient to pipe that oil in vice shipping it in. This was a fact before the Iraq war, this is a fact now.

The Iraq War was about strategic security in the face of asymmetrical warfare.

The current administration needs to do something quick to reverse the tide against ISIS. The last thing we need is a repeat of what the Democrats did in the face of Vietnam. If we standby and let Iraq fall, and if we failed to do what we need to do, we send a message to the world that we are unreliable.

When that happens, we won't get cooperation in the next country that we have to liberate to secure our long term protection... even if that country is Iraq.

Thanks to the current administration, and his policies in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere in the world, the United States has lost credibility. Our enemies do not fear us anymore. They see us as being nothing but a paper tiger.

The premise of the thread was misguided. The Iraq war was lost the minute we invaded. Bush Cheney and the war supporters never thought there would be sectarian violence. You were wrong LL. We found that out at a cost of four thousand plus American soldiers lives plus a long term cost of four TRILLION dollars.

What Bush accomplished was strengthening Iran, weakening this country and now you idiots want to blame Obama.


If you want to blame Obama for something blame him for not getting out of Afghanistan sooner. Originally Posted by WTF

The premises of this thread are accurate. The United States won the Iraq War with a straight cut victory. I know that for a fact, I was among the last of the combat troops that left Iraq. I saw it with my own eyes.

We were consistently winning from 2003 through 2011. Immediately after the invasion, the newly liberated areas started to see drastic improvements. For example, the consistent blackouts resulted from the increased energy usage that came with improving lifestyles.

Those of us that supported the war knew that there was going to be sectarian violence. Those of us that supported war understood history. We understood that it was going to take years to defeat the remnants of the resistance. We also understood that it'd take years to defeat the insurgents. This has been the case in wars fought throughout history.

But we, the war supporters, understood the very things that you guys did not understand. We understood that war dissent back in the US would enable the resistance against the coalition. This happened in Vietnam, this happened again in Iraq. In fact, an anti-American cleric specifically stated that he was to turn Iraq into another Vietnam.

The strategy here was to outlast the American Electorate and increase dissent against the war. Those of you who opposed the Iraq war enabled the anti-Iraqi forces to fight the US forces. If support for the Iraq war remained strong, if terrorist attacks against our troops didn't break the majority of our resolve, the anti-Iraqi forces would have given up earlier.

The AIF were counting on the antiwar people to successfully pressure the United States to pull the troops out.

In fact, during a speech in the flight deck, President Bush spelled out that there was a long road ahead, a long dangerous road ahead. Although he said that major combat operations were over, he never said anything about minor combat operations being over. If you read the text of his speech in context, you would see a warning that we would still be fighting over there for years.

Also, you do not speak for those that died over there. The vast majority of those that died over there died believing something very similar to what I'm arguing here.

When we are fighting an entity that wants to exterminate our civilization and replace it with an Islamic caliphate, you are damn straight we will spend what we have to spend to prevail over them.

Also, President Bush strengthened this country. The United States was declining as a superpower in the late 1990s. George Bush halted that decline, reversed it, it started to make it stronger. With Pres. Obama in power, we started to decline as a superpower again.

His foreign policies has made the United States a laughing stock. Our allies are starting to have misgivings about us, and our enemies are no longer fearing us.

George Bush's policies did not strengthen Iran, it just put them in a situation that threatens their way of governing.

You hypocritical dumb Tea Wipe....how long and how much money did you want to spent in Iraq. First you bitch about the deficit and then you want to stay in a country that did not want us there. We were always going to lose Iraq...We could have split it up like Biden wanted to do. I was a early supporter of that plan. Bush lost any chance of a peaceful transition when he dumped the Sunnies...the ones that knew how to run the fucking country and gave it the Iranian backed Shites. The Kurds are the only ones with their shit together. Originally Posted by WTF

how much money do we have to spend in that region? As much as it'll take for us to accomplish our ultimate objectives. You bring up the deficit, the deficit was decreasing from 2003 to 2007. We had both Iraq and Afghanistan going on during that timeframe. The deficit shot up in 2007. You have to find another explanation besides the wars to explain the deficit.

You're also wrong about us losing in Iraq. Again, we were winning the moment we rolled into Iraq, and we were winning up until the last of the US forces pulled out of Iraq. The majority of people who have gone to Iraq would tell you that we won the Iraq war.

Splitting up the country would have been a dumb thing to do. That plan would've worked had all the groups agreed where their boundaries were. Unfortunately, the boundaries of what they considered was theirs overlapped. Nobody would've been happy with the split country. They would've had boundary disagreements to fight over.

No, Bush did not dump the Sunnis. He facilitated the creation of a provisional government and a follow-on government that included all groups. Remember, the Sunni awakening represented the Sunnis "coming into the fold."

You're also forgetting that the government that's now in place was voted in by popular election. We didn't put them there, the Iraqi people put them there. As for implying a connection between the Iranians and Iraqi Shiites. The Iranians would back Shiites in any part of the region, not just Iraq.

The Kurds have their act together partly because they operated under our northern no-fly zone. With no control Iraqi over the airspace, the Kurds were free to do what they wanted to do. All they needed was the invasion of 2003 to really fully develop.

WTF: Were those folks shooting at us soon after we liberated them?

After the NAZIs fell, we dealt with the SS Werewolf in post-World War II Germany:

http://www.feldgrau.com/werwolf.html

Once trained in sabotage and varying forms of deadly mischief, teams of these Werwolf Kommandos, comprised mostly of HJ volunteers, but commanded by older, battle-experienced hand-picked cadre from the German Army and Waffen-SS, would operate behind the enemy lines as guerrillas, creating deadly mishap amongst the occupying forces, and relaying useful intelligence to a central Armed Forces entity (Supposedly in un-occupied territory).

These guys did things like plant bombs on the side of roads, string decapitation wire across roads, and do other things to attempt to kill allied Soldiers.

Also, our base in Japan has suffered mortar attacks relatively recently:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article...okota-Air-Base

As much as I hate to see The USA made a fool of, I think we should get the hell out and let the religious knuckle draggers, (ie, Muslims), kill each other until their hearts are contents.

In the mean time, develop all of our energy sources, including fossil fuels, wind, solar, hydro-electric, and so on so we don't need that fuckin bunch of "Jed Clampetts" for anything. Originally Posted by Jackie S

First, this assumes that we were in Iraq because of oil. That wasn't the case. We were in Iraq for long-term security purposes.

Second, pulling out from that region and letting them sort things out by killing each other is the worst thing that we could do. Sooner or later, someone will take charge the way the Taliban did in Afghanistan. This someone would be in charge of a radical entity that would establish a Taliban style government in each of these countries. That is one of their goals, to reestablish the Moorish/Islamic caliphates and emirates. The next step after that will be to expand and establish caliphates throughout the world.

The radical elements of the entity that we are fighting believe in a manifest destiny. This manifest destiny entails bringing the rest of the world into the folds of their version of radical Islam.

We have to remain engaged in that region until we could permanently cause change in a positive direction.

Earth to "Trending" Idiot:

"From where did ISIS spring? One of George W. Bush's most toxic legacies is the introduction of al Qaeda into Iraq, which is the ISIS mother ship." Originally Posted by bigtex

The real reason for entering Iraq was asymmetrical in nature. Under asymmetrical warfare, you don't need to have a military capable of attacking United States to be a threat. With Al Qaeda proving that it was willing to strike within the United States, and with a dictator not coming clean with this the WMD programs, we were in an asymmetrical situation that's comparable to being in the room full of easily flammable liquids with a man playing with matches. We had to go into Iraq, which was a perfect next stop in the war terror.

Under asymmetrical warfare, an enemy doesn't need a blatant partnership with another enemy to be seen as operating in lockstep as if they were in partnership.

People who have absolutely no clue, about the threat that the United States faces, don't see that the enemy that we are facing has visible and invisible parts. This enemy uses traditional and nontraditional means of warfare. Iraq under Saddam, the Taliban, Abu Sayef (sp) in the Philippines, Hamas, the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and any other terror group that believes in killing the infidel, are part of a single entity.

Our enemy does not recognize the borders separating the Arab countries, Muslim countries, or areas under different Muslim sects. In their eyes, every predominantly Muslim country is part of the Islamic nation. Their ultimate goal is to establish a global Islamic caliphate. The first step would be to create several Taliban style governments across the Middle East. Once the Middle East is turned into a revived Moorish/Islamic caliphate, the next step would be to work on the rest of the world.

This war was never just about 9/11, Al Qaeda, Afghanistan, and the Taliban. These were just symptoms of the real issue. This issue is a radical Islamic war to eradicate the West, and to establish global Islamic caliphate's around the world.

With Saddam Hussein hosting radical terrorist conventions, and making death to America speeches, it doesn't take a genius to figure out who he would choose to side with between the United States or Al Qaeda.

"An enemy of an enemy is a friend" -- Arab saying

If you look at the map the Middle East, and see Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Lebanon, and Jordan, you'll see that we have turned the Middle East into a checkerboard of countries in different stages of democracy.

Up to 2005, I predicted a ripple effect that would happen as a result of our interventions into Afghanistan and Iraq. I argued that once these two countries progressed on the path that we set them on, the rest of the Arab world would want the same thing.

What I predicted ended up becoming the Arab Spring which started a few years later. The Obama administration failed to capitalize on this Arab spring.

What I predicted ended up becoming the Arab Spring which started a few years later. The Obama administration failed to capitalize on this Arab spring. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Just a quick commendation for a truly superior "carpet-bombing" run.

One minute you posts this shit...

The next hypocritical post of yours is this!... Originally Posted by WTF

It's "hypothetical" that Bill Clinton thought there were WMD's in Iraq?

So, did his WIFE .... the First Lady Wanta-Be-President!

What she didn't believe was ....

.... that he was getting a blow job in the other end of "the house"!!!!

BTW: Your "buddy" BigTitsLiar is the one who constantly brings up WMDs .. that's all he's got!

http://nypost.com/2010/10/25/us-did-find-iraq-wmd/

"US Did Find Iraq WMDs"

No, that's not what they're saying. Criticizing the failure of the current administration, to nurture the victory that we handed to them, does not constitute them seeing this as a "stupid" war. Quotation marks used strongly.

The current administration made it difficult for the Iraqis to agree on a SOFA. He could've got one, the Iraqis wanted one, but the current administration continued to up ante to guarantee that they would not get a security agreement with us.



First, don't stick the military with the Democrats. The military is predominantly conservative. We strongly supported Bush and his efforts to get us into Iraq. Many had no problems going back to Iraq more than once.

Second, the Democrats have historically been the party of appeasement. The Democrats have consistently argued for a course of action that would've amounted to us giving up the fight. The Democrats wanted us to cede to the south during the Civil War. The Democrats consistently worked against the military as it fought in Vietnam. Democrat policy combined with antiwar protesters aimed at pulling US troops out of Vietnam. The goal the military was/is to fight and win. When they did win, the Democrats in Congress and their supporters on the streets of America lost the war for us on US soil. In 2006, the Democrats tried the same stunt with regard to Iraq war.

Thanks to the indirect propaganda efforts of the Soviet Union, which began the 1930s, the Soviets have successfully morphed the Democratic Party into the party of modern appeasement, and the party of increased socialism. The Soviet Union may be gone, but there efforts continue to work its magic on the current policies of the Democratic Party.

Their current antics with regard to Iraq is just another example of them pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory.




Anyone who didn't have a clue about Iraq, who opposed anything that present Bush wanted to do, wanted Republicans to fail, argued that Iraqis will fail. Part of that argument included them arguing that this would be something that would turn into a civil war.

The US military knew all along what the long-term plan for Iraq would be. The military knew that an Iraq pullout would not happen until the Iraqi government was capable of holding itself up. This included the ability to prevent different factions from fighting each other. We accomplished that long before we ultimately pulled out.

What didn't get mentioned in the news is that the Iraqi military effectively fought the pockets of insurgency that was still there.

The current crisis in Iraq stemmed from the current administration's failure to capitalize on the initial crisis in Syria. You guys did not predict that. Even if Saddam were in power, that terrorist group would've overran northern Iraq.

This is not a civil war. This is an outright invasion, this isn't a situation where we have two political groups fighting each other in Iraq. This is nothing like the Civil War in the US or any other country that had a traditional civil war.

And those that opposed the Iraq war argued that there will be a civil war in Iraq after the troops left, they were doing so because they wanted the troops and Bush to lose. They were doing it out of spite not because they knew anything. When it came to the situation surrounding Iraq, they didn't know jack.

This current crisis is a result of Obama dropping the bubble. His failure to initially take advantage of the initial crisis in Syria allowed this terrorist group to grow stronger. Had he done what a real president would've done, this terrorist group would not have gained prominence or strength. They certainly would not have been able to spill over into Iraq.

This isn't a failure because we refuse to listen to you guys, this is a failure because you guys chose somebody that proved to be as indecisive as we predicted he would be.



The United States was in position of strength. Once 2011 rolled around, the Iraqis were arguing for us to have at least 10,000 troops stay behind to train, provide guidance, provide intelligence, and provide other related support to help strengthen Iraqi military.

They knew that they needed time to fully get to where they needed to be to be strong enough to deal with a crisis that they're dealing with right now. Our ambassador that was there didn't receive guidance for the White House and how to capitalize on this.

There was no will on Pres. Obama's part to utilize the strength to get the SOFA extended.



] That was based on conditions on the ground. This called for combat troops to be out of the country by the summer of 2010, and the remainder of the troops to be out of the country by the end of 2011. The option was there for both sides to negotiate an extension of that agreement in order to keep a contingent of troops over there to provide training, guidance, and leadership.



A lot of people equate that mission accomplished sign as Bush declaring the war over. The vast majority those people have never been in the Navy. That, "Mission Accomplished," sign was something the ship was saying to the world. In order not to use the ships funds, they requested that the White House generate a sign for them.

If you actually listen to the speech that George Bush made on the flight deck, he only declared major combat operations over. And in that same speech, he laid out the fact that we would be facing continued dangers in that country. He also mentioned a timeline for withdrawal, and that was when the country was a strong democracy able to secure itself.

We did precisely that before the timeline of withdrawal called for us to leave.



] Given the urgency that the Iraqis wanted us to keep troops there, they would've given us a SOFA. They wanted at least 10,000 US troops in the Green zone to train Iraqi troops. New Iraqi soldiers, and new Iraqi security forces, would've been cycled through the Green zone to receive training. They also would've received maintenance training. In other words, we would've been there long enough to create a continuum of training to continue to strengthen Iraqi military.

We would've instilled in them the concept of cyclical and continuous training.

With our not being able to do that, the Iraqi forces deteriorated. You could thank the current administration for that failure.

Given the importance that the Iraqis placed on leaving some US troops in the Green zone, it would've made perfect sense to keep the US presence in that country the same way we The US presence in Germany, Japan, and South Korea.



The crisis in Iraq and Syria can be traced directly to the failures of the Obama administration. When Pres. Obama became the president, our foreign-policy became his responsibility. What happened with regards to Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world where we're trying to create change, falls on Pres. Obama's shoulders.

As far as blaming someone else, that's something that's consistent among the Democrats. Just look at how Pres. Obama consistently blamed Bush in his first term, and look at how he consistently blamed Congress. He had a lapdog media willing to echo his argument.

But if you look at the policies pushed by the Democrats, versus the Republicans, you'll see that the Democrats push policies to make up for, "someone else's," wrongs. A perfect example of this is the gun control issue. They like to blame the gun, but not the idiot that's irresponsible with the gun. There are other examples that show that the Democrats like to levy blame on somebody else. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Thanks for serving, however you are just another republican ass kisser who blames everything on the democrats or independents, So you have lost your credibility.

. That is one of their goals, to reestablish the Moorish/Islamic caliphates and emirates. The next step after that will be to expand and establish caliphates throughout the world.
. Originally Posted by herfacechair

Glenn Beck is that you?

What a fucking buffoon. Or in political talk ...just another neocon.

Up to 2005, I predicted a ripple effect that would happen as a result of our interventions into Afghanistan and Iraq. I argued that once these two countries progressed on the path that we set them on, the rest of the Arab world would want the same thing.

What I predicted ended up becoming the Arab Spring which started a few years later. The Obama administration failed to capitalize on this Arab spring. Originally Posted by herfacechair

You are delusional.

You are a liberal wanting to spend others money and lives trying to make the world over as you see fit. You are no different than the small group of fucked up radical Muslims you speak of.

how much money do we have to spend in that region? As much as it'll take for us to accomplish our ultimate objectives. You bring up the deficit, the deficit was decreasing from 2003 to 2007. We had both Iraq and Afghanistan going on during that timeframe. The deficit shot up in 2007. You have to find another explanation besides the wars to explain the deficit.

Originally Posted by herfacechair

Spend as much as it takes? There you have it folks. What he calls for is a permanent military state. And you want other folks to fund your obsession. Read the way Empires collapse...hint it is by spending more on wars/resources than those wars/resources produce. Simple math.

No, that's not what they're saying. Criticizing the failure of the current administration, to nurture the victory that we handed to them, does not constitute them seeing this as a "stupid" war. Quotation marks used strongly.

The current administration made it difficult for the Iraqis to agree on a SOFA. He could've got one, the Iraqis wanted one, but the current administration continued to up ante to guarantee that they would not get a security agreement with us.... Originally Posted by herfacechair

Just a quick commendation for a truly superior "carpet-bombing" run. Originally Posted by RedLeg505

+1 Excellent posts, herfacechair, and welcome back.

Why on earth would you ba stupid enough to think anyone would answer your asinine questions? Originally Posted by i'va biggen

It's an opportunity for your ignorant ass to demonstrate that you're not an idiotic Odumbo buffoon, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. .

And the monkey is smarter than the Idiot! Originally Posted by bigtex

Your lame-ass *jumped* to the wrong conclusion again, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat.

Thanks for serving, however you are just another republican ass kisser who blames everything on the democrats or independents, So you have lost your credibility. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Ever listen to one of your arguments EVA? Stupid.... Someone can take the time and have the patience to write this stuff down for you and what do you do? Call him a name or two. What do you not do? You don't rebut one single charge other than call them a "republican ass kisser" (do you have proof of that?) and therefore everything that they say has no credibility. Think about that EVA. That is how stupid you sound when you go off like that. Now if you don't want the democrats blamed for everything then tell your masters to get their shit in one sock and start doing some smart things. After all, we did find remnants of WMDs in Iraq so why do your friends keep saying that it is not true? I am on the Gulf War syndrome list (for nerve agent exposure) from the first Gulf War so I know that Hussein had something. Why do you and your friends keep denying the obvious? The big lie theory?

Ever listen to one of your arguments EVA? Stupid.... Someone can take the time and have the patience to write this stuff down for you and what do you do? Call him a name or two. What do you not do? You don't rebut one single charge other than call them a "republican ass kisser" (do you have proof of that?) and therefore everything that they say has no credibility. Think about that EVA. That is how stupid you sound when you go off like that. Now if you don't want the democrats blamed for everything then tell your masters to get their shit in one sock and start doing some smart things. After all, we did find remnants of WMDs in Iraq so why do your friends keep saying that it is not true? I am on the Gulf War syndrome list (for nerve agent exposure) from the first Gulf War so I know that Hussein had something. Why do you and your friends keep denying the obvious? The big lie theory? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Judy you are so dumb it must hurt You are just another blame someone else it is never any reason to take responsibility for your actions. We found WMD'S Glad to see you were there also.

+1 Excellent posts, herfacechair, and welcome back.



It's an opportunity for your ignorant ass to demonstrate that you're not an idiotic Odumbo buffoon, Ekim the Inbred Chimp. .

Chimpaholic retard you are the DMFOTB. You are the documented "babbling buffoon"

Your lame-ass *jumped* to the wrong conclusion again, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

After all, we did find remnants of WMDs in Iraq so why do your friends keep saying that it is not true? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Where are the "environmentalists" and the "global warming" freaks?



Whining.

Ever listen to one of your arguments EVA? Stupid.... . After all, we did find remnants of WMDs in Iraq so why do your friends keep saying that it is not true? I am on the Gulf War syndrome list (for nerve agent exposure) from the first Gulf War so I know that Hussein had something. Why do you and your friends keep denying the obvious? The big lie theory? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

JD, maybe you can inform GWB that you have found WMD's in Iraq.

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/8/2...ts_iraq_had_no
Now, look, I didn’t — part of the reason we went into Iraq was — the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had ]weapons of massdestruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question — my answer to your question is, is that — imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

You know, I’ve heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived, and then, you know, kind of that we’re going to stir up the hornet’s nest theory. It just — just doesn’t hold water, as far as I’m concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

REPORTER: What did Iraq have to do with that?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

REPORTER: The attack on the World Trade Center?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Nothing, except for it’s part of — and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.

AMY GOODMAN: President Bush at his news conference yesterday.

Spend as much as it takes? There you have it folks. What he calls for is a permanent military state. And you want other folks to fund your obsession. Read the way Empires collapse...hint it is by spending more on wars/resources than those wars/resources produce. Simple math. Originally Posted by WTF

WTF, good post. Bush lowered taxes and got the USA involved in two wars instead of just one. Bush took the small surplus that Clinton gave to him and turned it into a deficit that just kept growing. The math just won't work with this "spend as much as it takes" approach. You need to increase taxes or start a war tax. We have been in Iraq 12 plus years, spent 4 trillion and counting, 4 thousand lives lost and the Iraq government still can't defend itself without outside help.

JD, maybe you can inform GWB that you have found WMD's in Iraq.

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/8/2...ts_iraq_had_no
Now, look, I didn’t — part of the reason we went into Iraq was — the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had ]weapons of massdestruction. It turns out he didn’t, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction. But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda. And so my question — my answer to your question is, is that — imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.

You know, I’ve heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived, and then, you know, kind of that we’re going to stir up the hornet’s nest theory. It just — just doesn’t hold water, as far as I’m concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

REPORTER: What did Iraq have to do with that?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

REPORTER: The attack on the World Trade Center?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Nothing, except for it’s part of — and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.

AMY GOODMAN: President Bush at his news conference yesterday. Originally Posted by WTF

+ 1,000,000

WTF, excellent post.