Home
"Long Road to Hell, America in Iraq" whether you all like watching CNN or not, program is worth watching. And the following "Blindsided: How ISIS Shook the World" and "Targeting Terror: Inside the Intelligence War"...

If America was ever duped (including myself) it was putting that seedy beady-eyed [bleep] Bush in office not just once but twice.

More and more of his own administration staff is coming out and speaking about what really went on, and about his agenda from get-go to invade Iraq.

Opening a can of worms doesn't even begin to describe the results!


Phil
Yeah because B Hussein Obama has done so much better
I just hope Americans take out the garbage


http://www.breitbart.com/california...rge-obama-sidestep-congress-gun-control/
LOL the [bleep] usual misdirect. What BHO has or hasn't done is not the OP.
Its wayyy above your level of understanding pinhead grin





CNN exposed again

http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/25/e...-rand-paul-during-2013-benghazi-hearing/
Yeah, too bad that Al Gore guy didn't win...
ROFLMAO
When ya can't defend anything about the Iraq [bleep] bring up AL Gore.
Great timing - will get the Republicans into the White House for sure!
Maybe, probably wouldn't have been an Iraqi war, or Afghanistan, might have been some 7,000 or so more sons and daughters living, not to mention their prospective kids. Probably would have been more parents today that would have had Grand-kids they won't have now. Probably wouldn't be in the fix were in today, possibly looking at the start of WW3. Can almost guarantee you that the economy would have been in better shape.

But we'll never know now!


Phil
If only the democrats wouldn't have pushed bush into war with iraq, and then turn around and blame him for the war...
Democrats are such devious pricks.






I doubt the 'communist in charge' would have pursued justice in Afghanistan after 9/11. I believe him to be a muslim sympathizer.
ISIS is Husseins creation.
Why don't we hear anymore about that wonderful Arab Spring that the @sshole in Chief used to like to blow about?
Winter is setting in and I'll bet it'll be dark and long.
That Iraqi Crow tasty today?
Does anybody remember what the vote was on the Use of Force in Iraq? Maybe one of the leftists can post that up for us.
A Congressional vote based on drummed up information you mean... that vote! Where Clark is now saying on the very night of the twin-towers collapse, Bush specifically told his cabinet to find something, find anything that would allow him to go into Iraq.......... you mean that vote?


Phil
imo, Bush didn't make a mistake by invading Iraq.

he made a mistake in trying to stay and run his "lil America" come to the ME


as others have pointed out on this thread already, it never ceases to amaze me the hypocrisy of the liberal left.

Every Dem of note almost without exception was on board with invading and getting rid of Hussein.

and while Phil/Greyghost and SAC may not be as liberal as the folks they surround themselves with most of their day

it's pretty evident to most here they are way more liberal than most guys that post here


Bush made a huge blunder imo&e with us staying in Iraq and trying to create a democracy.


the culture in the ME is anathema to democracy from what I can glean.


I can't hardly believe that almost 8 years into the Hussein presidency (another Hussein that we should have gotten rid of imo) the liberals focus is on GWB.

the hypocrisy is stunning, the economy collapsed on GWB's watch, but much of the problems with our economy were created during the Clinton Administration. the left never wants to discuss that.

now they want to thrust upon us the worst of the Clintons, a power hungry old bitch, that will lie through her teeth just for the practice it provides


stuff will come to a head one of these days, there's a day to pay the piper.

when that happens it's going to be ugly for all of us.


but I'll cast my lot with the Constitution, freedom loving Americans that are the backbone of this country.

I'd rather die with them than celebrate a victory with the liberals if they are indeed successful in turning this once great country into some bastardized version of Socialist Europe.
Originally Posted by Greyghost
A Congressional vote based on drummed up information you mean... that vote! Where Clark is now saying on the very night of the twin-towers collapse, Bush specifically told his cabinet to find something, find anything that would allow him to go into Iraq.......... you mean that vote?


Phil


Go ahead and listen to the Democrat quotes in the above video. If Bush lied, then so did damn near every Democrat in a leadership position - and for years prior. Revisionism only works on the slow and the young. I'm neither.
Gayghost said he was going to leave when he got pissed at me a few years back, so he's as full of [bleep] as he ever was. Poor conflicted weasel loves to post about military hardware, but heaven forbid you ever use it.
Originally Posted by 2legit2quit



as others have pointed out on this thread already, it never ceases to amaze me the hypocrisy of the liberal left.

Every Dem of note almost without exception was on board with invading and getting rid of Hussein Saddam.




Hey, let's not get folks confused about whether we're talking about the dictator of Iraq or the current POTUS.

But as you CORRECTLY point out, the Democrats'--along with Greyghost's and SACharlie's and Paddler's--selective memory has erased whole banks of data about how they fell all over each other trying to jump on the war-wagon, not once, but twice.

They also conveniently forget about the daily news out of the United F u c k i n g Nations reporting daily for months and months on the international outrage over Saddam's obstruction of Hans Blix's UN weapons inspectors, and the multiple resolutions passed by the General Assembly and the Security Council prior to taking military action against Iraq. Nor the intelligence sources from the U.K., France, and Germany warning of Saddam's WMD programs.

All they can remember is to keep chanting like the sheep from Animal Farm... "Four legs good, two legs bad," er, I mean, "Bush lied, people died".

Yeah, Bush did it all. Singlehandedly.

Jeez, what a buncha maroons.

You're right, Doc.

I was well north of the Mutla Ridge watching the glow on the northern horizon from the Coalition strikes on Basra during Operation Desert Fox... Supposedly for violating no-fly zones, interfering with UN inspectors, etc. I guess it was just a "wag-the-dog" coincidence that the Prez at the time was under a lot of pressure for lying about his sloppy cigar handling. Lies must only matter when they're told by Republicans.

Still... It was a hell of a training opportunity.
Ahh beautiful Basra!

I spent a lot of time there.

Nice weather, friendly locals.

Whats not to love!
Originally Posted by 2legit2quit


now they want to thrust upon us the worst of the Clintons, a power hungry old bitch, that will lie through her teeth just for the practice it provides


No I don't want to see a HRC as prez.
Let's also recall that shortly after Iraq was invaded, Ghadafi in Libya admitted and ended his nuclear program, probably assuming he was next to be invaded. So let's say we don't invade Iraq. And Ghadafi decides he can keep developing a nuke, and actually gets one or two built. Then gets overthrown in 2012. Now the nuke is in the hands of someone else. Maybe a good guy, maybe not.

Meanwhile in Iraq, which we didn't invade, Saddam continues on his reign, until one day he keels over dead. Maybe with help from one of his sons, who were bona fide psychopaths. And the son launches all their chem weapons at everybody. smirk

I think we probably did over-reach on Iraq. But I also think, sooner or later, Iraq was going to be a big problem. Hindsight being 20/20, most experts now think Saddam was more worried about Iran than the U.S. Maybe face to face talks with him would have made him realize we were ready to invade, and forced him to relent, or maybe not.

We might at this moment be in a pickle just as bad, if not worse, had we not gone in.
Originally Posted by 2legit2quit
" ... as others have pointed out on this thread already, it never ceases to amaze me the hypocrisy of the liberal left. ..."


And let's not forget that President Bill Clinton -- the Democrats favorite whoremonger -- was offered Osama Bin Ladin's head on a platter by two foreign intelligence services and TWICE, refused to take him in to custody or kill him. Also, Billy Boy refused to do anything at all about the first bombing of the Twin Towers. Democrats refuse to remember that.

Only a few months into Bush's first term, he'd inherited a car load of shyt from the worthless coward Bill Clinton and the Democrats and it resulted in ................



We're still paying for Clinton's unforgivable mistakes and cowardice. Democrats + unmitigated hypocrites, one and all.

L.W.
Originally Posted by Leanwolf


And let's not forget that President Bill Clinton...Osama Bin Ladin's...

Just more misdirection away from the OP. Man up and admit the Iraq invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein was a complete [bleep].
SA

I have no dog in this fight, but Leanwolf is 100% right. Bin Laden was in fact targeted, and the green light was requested, more than once.

Bill Clinton would not give the order, in spite of the fact that Bin Laden was known as the mastermind behind a series of bombings and attacks long before 9/11

The embassy in Nairobi Kenya in 1998

The USS COLE suicide attack in which more than a dozen were killed and dozens wounded. (I don't recall the exact numbers) in 2000

Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, embassy bombing in 1998

1993 north tower truck bombing

etc, etc.


ALL of these were on Bill Clinton's watch and when it came time to order the killing of the person who masterminded these attacks that left literally HUNDREDS of innocents dead, Clinton did not have the intestinal fortitude to have the scum bag jihadist killed.

The terrorist world was shown that America was weak, under Clinton and it only emboldened them. That is the schit sandwich that Bush inherited.
Fine Clinton could have and should have! The OP is about the Iraq [bleep].
Numerous missile attacks were launched trying to get Bin Laden in 98', but both technology and intel wasn't what it is now. Numerous times he was missed and/or wasn't where he was supposed to be at the time... and the one time that Clinton stated that he could have got him and didn't which has so frequently been used by the Right Wing Extremist to vilify him.... he would have had to take out a village containing 300+ women an children!

Now back to Bush and his [bleep]-UP's, how about ISIS having been developed back in the years between 2003 and 2006 in a prison camp Bucca, and not only having the current leader in their hands but allowed him to freely teach and preach to the other prisoners stating that it helped keep the prisoners calm, and then releasing the guy in Dec, 2006 because he was thought to be of help and no risk. Yea that was real smart!

Then there was the Bush plan to disband the Iraqi military and let them roam free, with nothing to do but organize, Yep that was real smart to!

Then there was also the guy that the Bush administration put in charge of the Iraqi government and turned on us pretty much kicking us all out! that was a bush plan also! and Yep real smart too.

And you all wonder where ISIS was formed and from who, and then want to blame it on OBAMA...

Biggest mistake I made was staying in the GOP as long as I did and voting for the [bleep] twice buying into all the lies.


Phil

Originally Posted by watch4bear
If only the democrats wouldn't have pushed bush into war with iraq, and then turn around and blame him for the war...
Democrats are such devious pricks.


Shifty little fuqkers to say the least.
Originally Posted by SAcharlie
Fine Clinton could have and should have! The OP is about the Iraq [bleep].



Just can't connect the dots can ya, not surprising given your posting history.
Originally Posted by DocRocket
But as you CORRECTLY point out, the Democrats'--along with Greyghost's and SACharlie's and Paddler's--selective memory has erased whole banks of data about how they fell all over each other trying to jump on the war-wagon, not once, but twice.

They also conveniently forget about the daily news out of the United F u c k i n g Nations reporting daily for months and months on the international outrage over Saddam's obstruction of Hans Blix's UN weapons inspectors, and the multiple resolutions passed by the General Assembly and the Security Council prior to taking military action against Iraq. Nor the intelligence sources from the U.K., France, and Germany warning of Saddam's WMD programs.


History is only for those that want to learn not for those pushing an agenda.......
Yep they could have ended the whole thing in 15 minutes. The rest of the muslim world would still be shaking and we wouldn't have needed a Nuclear treaty with those ass wipes in Iran.
You must have been in another world, the UN was never for going to war. And as to daily reports of obstruction, maybe and only if you were listening to FOX!

The whole point is that is was all over information that Bush new was false.

Not to mention that even after the war nothing was found that hadn't been destroyed and/or rendered inactive and useless for any military purpose since the 91 gulf war.

A lot of hype about information from a defected scientist even the CIA had reported to be a fraud and had no use for, but Bush had a use for him and even got him to appear before Congress.


Phil
Quote
the UN was never for going to war



The UN is a lot like a democrat; condemn loudly, then hide when chit hits the fan grin



UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990



a.. Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal
invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."


b.. Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and
implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to
restore international peace and security in the area."


UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991



a.. Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.


b.. Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.


c.. Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from
its illegal invasion of Kuwait.


UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991



a.. Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or
rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and
biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and
components and all research, development, support and manufacturing
facilities."


b.. Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear
weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or
manufacturing facilities.


c.. Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or
rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic
missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair
and production facilities."


d.. Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass
destruction.


e.. Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty.


f.. Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the
elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated
that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of
Iraq's nuclear weapons program.


g.. Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.


h.. Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist
organizations to operate in Iraq.


i.. Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis
and others.


j.. Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.


UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991



a.. "Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences
of which threaten international peace and security."


b.. Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.


c.. Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian
organizations to those in need of assistance.


UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991



a.. "Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.


b.. "Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations
under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.


c.. Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security
Council deems Iraq in full compliance.


d.. Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of
its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.


e.. Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and
unrestricted access.


f.. Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass
destruction, and related materials and facilities.


g.. Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights
throughout Iraq.


h.. Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for
UN and IAEA inspectors.


UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991



a.. Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.


UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994



a.. "Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.


b.. Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner
to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.


c.. Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.


d.. Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.


UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996



a.. Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of
mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.


b.. Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow
immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996



a.. "Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's
"clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.


b.. Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow
immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997



a.. "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN
inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687,
707, 715, and 1060.


b.. Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow
immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


c.. Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to
Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.


UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997



a.. "Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN
inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715,
and 1060.


b.. Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow
immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


c.. Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to
Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.


UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997



a.. "Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN
resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft
operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring
equipment.


b.. Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.


c.. Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow
immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998



a.. Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and
allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any
violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."


UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998



a.. "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation
with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable
contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and
1154.


b.. Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and
allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.


UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998



a.. "Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease
cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and
other resolutions.


b.. Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation"
with UN and IAEA inspectors.


UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999



a.. Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections
Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).


b.. Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted
access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.


c.. Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.


d.. Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to
its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without
discrimination.

Additional UN Security Council Statements


In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also
issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council
regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs. The list of
statements includes:

a.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1991
b.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 5, 1992
c.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 19, 1992
d.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 28, 1992
e.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 6, 1992
f.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 11, 1992
g.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 12, 1992
h.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, April 10, 1992
i.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 17, 1992
j.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, July 6, 1992
k.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, September 2, 1992
l.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1992
m.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 24, 1992
n.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 8, 1993
o.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 11, 1993
p.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 18, 1993
q.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1993
r.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1993
s.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 8, 1994
t.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 19, 1996
u.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 14, 1996
v.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, August 23, 1996
w.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 30, 1996
x.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 13, 1997
y.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 29, 1997
z.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 13, 1997
aa.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 3, 1997
ab.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 22, 1997
ac.. UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 14, 1998


Quote

The whole point is that is was all over information that Bush new was false.




The democrats were convinced way before Bush was elected.


Quote
Not to mention that even after the war nothing was found that hadn't been destroyed and/or rendered inactive and useless for any military purpose since the 91 gulf war.


Complete lie. 750 tons of WMDs were destroyed in front of UN inspectors, 250 tons went missing before the invasion.
Originally Posted by tex_n_cal
Let's also recall that shortly after Iraq was invaded, Ghadafi in Libya admitted and ended his nuclear program, probably assuming he was next to be invaded. So let's say we don't invade Iraq. And Ghadafi decides he can keep developing a nuke, and actually gets one or two built. Then gets overthrown in 2012. Now the nuke is in the hands of someone else. Maybe a good guy, maybe not.

Meanwhile in Iraq, which we didn't invade, Saddam continues on his reign, until one day he keels over dead. Maybe with help from one of his sons, who were bona fide psychopaths. And the son launches all their chem weapons at everybody. smirk

I think we probably did over-reach on Iraq. But I also think, sooner or later, Iraq was going to be a big problem. Hindsight being 20/20, most experts now think Saddam was more worried about Iran than the U.S. Maybe face to face talks with him would have made him realize we were ready to invade, and forced him to relent, or maybe not.

We might at this moment be in a pickle just as bad, if not worse, had we not gone in.


Good post. I'll just add in my view it wasn't an over reach in as much as a poorly executed plan AND a naïve and PC view of the mentality over there. We should have gone in with at least 300K men vice the 140 that went in, that way we could have HELD as we pushed the Iraqi Army back and kept all the war material away from the ensuing insurgency. Also, we should have kept the Army hierarchy INTACT, giving them a good command and control structure to build on and lastly and perhaps most crucial, is this trying to foist democracy on a people that simply do not possess the acumen to grasp it and instead just kept the country ruled along tribal lines in the British model..
hindsight being what it is, i wonder how big Al and Joe would have handled the situation?
Originally Posted by Greyghost
"Long Road to Hell, America in Iraq" whether you all like watching CNN or not, program is worth watching. And the following "Blindsided: How ISIS Shook the World" and "Targeting Terror: Inside the Intelligence War"...

If America was ever duped (including myself) it was putting that seedy beady-eyed [bleep] Bush in office not just once but twice.

More and more of his own administration staff is coming out and speaking about what really went on, and about his agenda from get-go to invade Iraq.

Opening a can of worms doesn't even begin to describe the results!


Phil
Dubya's presidency was all about putting into place the imperatives found in the Project For A New American Century. All the neocons who wrote that report were in charge during his presidency. Bush was window dressing.
Originally Posted by Greyghost
You must have been in another world, the UN was never for going to war. And as to daily reports of obstruction, maybe and only if you were listening to FOX!


Please read Watch4bear's post immediately following this ridiculous post of your own, then get back to me on that, hmm?

Originally Posted by Greyghost
The whole point is that is was all over information that Bush new was false.


I'd like to respond, but I have no idea what you just said. Would you like to try that again, maybe in English this time?

I thought you couldn't possibly look or sound more ridiculous than you did with the first statement I quoted above, then you followed with the second. Unbelievable.

Originally Posted by Jorge
...Good post. I'll just add in my view it wasn't an over reach in as much as a poorly executed plan AND a naïve and PC view of the mentality over there. We should have gone in with at least 300K men vice the 140 that went in, that way we could have HELD as we pushed the Iraqi Army back and kept all the war material away from the ensuing insurgency. Also, we should have kept the Army hierarchy INTACT, giving them a good command and control structure to build on and lastly and perhaps most crucial, is this trying to foist democracy on a people that simply do not possess the acumen to grasp it and instead just kept the country ruled along tribal lines in the British model.....


Damn that Shinseki! He should have warned us! blush

What the hell could a West Point graduate with 4 stars, 3 Bronze Stars for Valor and 2 purple hearts know, that a Wyoming Congressman with 5 draft deferments doesn't? Or a frat boy from the the Texas Air Guard with a bomber jacket? Or Rummy? Sometimes you don't know what you don't know?

Pathetic!

Sycamore
Originally Posted by 12344mag
Originally Posted by SAcharlie
Fine Clinton could have and should have! The OP is about the Iraq [bleep].



Just can't connect the dots can ya, not surprising given your posting history.


SACommie isn't interested in connecting dots. That would imply he has the ability to comprehend logic, order, or justice. All SACommie and his ilk are interested in is taking away the things others have worked for.



Iraq should be an uninhabitable piece of glass today along with several other countries in the middle east. We need to get back to where when we fight a war or attack we do it to win.
You know; it was those liberal gut eaters worried about civilian casualties. They always worry about the enemy more than their own troops.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/27/arlington-national-cemetery-short-30000-wreaths-du/
Originally Posted by Greyghost
You must have been in another world, the UN was never for going to war. And as to daily reports of obstruction, maybe and only if you were listening to FOX!

The whole point is that is was all over information that Bush new was false.

Not to mention that even after the war nothing was found that hadn't been destroyed and/or rendered inactive and useless for any military purpose since the 91 gulf war.

A lot of hype about information from a defected scientist even the CIA had reported to be a fraud and had no use for, but Bush had a use for him and even got him to appear before Congress.


Phil




You wear willful ignorance like a merit badge.
To believe a Liberal actually wants us to win any conflict, is simply comical.

Apparently, the Bush/Cheney misdirection plan still hasn't reached its expiration date.
© 24hourcampfire