Free Republic

LOL! (Pant-pant) LOL! (pant-pant)

Jealous?

This is a bunch garbage that they continuously get away with this crap!

Go screw yourself.

On that point, I reply:

Then why are we not at war with Iran and North Korea?

This being a particularly valid response in light of the fact that NK now possesses a nuclear bomb - or the precursor to one, depending on how the evidenced is assessed - and a missile that can reach anywhere in the U.S. They have also demonstrated their technological competence in placing a satellite in orbit, which now overflies the U.S. (all of this, of course, raises the question of China’s role) ... And yet we allow NK this latitude while we continue to justify the invasion of Iraq for its possession of a far lesser peril (poison gas / nerve agents) to U.S. interests.

Moreover, on the point of sponsoring terrorism ... Iran was then, and still is now, the greatest sponsor of terrorism around the globe - and yet we have not invade Iran.

This brings up a strategic point as well. It is postulated that the true reason that Bush chose to take down Saddam Hussein is that, having presence in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. would have Iran in a pincer from which to attack on two fronts. This would thus lend credence to the assertion that the Bush Administration would have conducted the invasion of Iraq on any pretext available - even with the most questionable of evidence to support such an attack.

Would it not have been better to just invade Iran? particularly since Iraq would likely have taken advantage of such opportunity to attack Iran itself?

I summation, I can only conclude with a phrase my mother was oft fond of using: “oh, what tangled webs we weave when we first weave to deceive.”

Jaundiced reading of the story ... It is plainly stated that both the Bush and Blair Administrations massaged and exaggerated the “intelligence,” that they ignored protocol in not thoroughly vetting and cross checking ... In more honest circles of discussion this is otherwise known as “lying.”

First attempt went to wrong FReeper - I apologize for that.

OK ... here are my contentions with your post:

There was not one legitimate reason to invade Iraq - not one.
Iraq was never a threat to the United States.
Saddam Hussein had no ties to the September 11th attacks on us.

GWB did not even use the (at least) legitimate) reason of Hussein breaking the terms of the Gulf war cease fire. he came up with what was a much contested issue of WMDs (and I am not including poison gas, since, again, not a threat to the U.S.) The pretext was about Hussein looking to develop or acquire nuclear weapons - and none of that panned out.

So, then came the assertion that the WMDs were transported, just before the start of the U.S. invasion, into Syria. there was even satellite imagery that showed heavy convoys, of Russian origin, moving from Iraq into Syria.

This raise several questions:

Were our Intel assets wrong at the onset?
Did GWB mus-interpret or misrepresent the significance of the data?
If there were in fact substantial WMDs in Iraq (not just old degrading stores of poison gas) then what happened to them?

And as a corollary to that question, go three more:

1.) When were they transported?
2.) To where were they transported?
3.) By whom were they transported?

If it is true that Russia was involved, then why did GWB not call the Russians out on their treachery?

If Syria was involved, then why not invade Syria?

If GWB was so gun ho to invade Iraq over the presence of WMDs - a nation having a third rate military force, then should he not also have been concerned about Syria receiving same from Iraq by way off Russian intervention?

IOW - GWB was quite ready, on a matter of “principle,” to invade a country whose military was an easy pushover - he was quite happy to engage Iraq in what was perceived to be an easy victory ... But Russia? Oh, not so fast there - since the Bear would have likely nuked us into oblivion for the effort ... and Russia is an ally of both Syria and Iran. So then, besides upholding his father’s honor, what was the point of the exercise? The WMDs - if they in fact exist - are now either in the hands of Assad, or else they were returned to Russia. Either way, the U.S. committed 2 trillion dollars and an incalculable loss of human life to an neo-con nation building adventure that gave us a big fat zero for the effort.

There was not one legitimate reason to invade Iraq - not one.
Iraq was never a threat to the United States.
Saddam Hussein had no ties to the September 11th attacks on us.

GWB did not even use the (at least) legitimate) reason of Hussein breaking the terms of the Gulf war cease fire. he came up with what was a much contested issue of WMDs (and I am not including poison gas, since, again, not a threat to the U.S.) The pretext was about Hussein looking to develop or acquire nuclear weapons - and none of that panned out.

So, then came the assertion that the WMDs were transported, just before the start of the U.S. invasion, into Syria. there was even satellite imagery that showed heavy convoys, of Russian origin, moving from Iraq into Syria.

This raise several questions:

Were our Intel assets wrong at the onset?
Did GWB mus-interpret or misrepresent the significance of the data?
If there were in fact substantial WMDs in Iraq (not just old degrading stores of poison gas) then what happened to them?

And as a corollary to that question, go three more:

1.) When were they transported?
2.) To where were they transported?
3.) By whom were they transported?

If it is true that Russia was involved, then why did GWB not call the Russians out on their treachery?

If Syria was involved, then why not invade Syria?

If GWB was so gun ho to invade Iraq over the presence of WMDs - a nation having a third rate military force, then should he not also have been concerned about Syria receiving same from Iraq by way off Russian intervention?

IOW - GWB was quite ready, on a matter of “principle,” to invade a country whose military was an easy pushover - he was quite happy to engage Iraq in what was perceived to be an easy victory ... But Russia? Oh, not so fast there - since the Bear would have likely nuked us into oblivion for the effort ... and Russia is an ally of both Syria and Iran. So then, besides upholding his father’s honor, what was the point of the exercise? The WMDs - if they in fact exist - are now either in the hands of Assad, or else they were returned to Russia. Either way, the U.S. committed 2 trillion dollars and an incalculable loss of human life to an neo-con nation building adventure that gave us a big fat zero for the effort.

WOW! I trust you, or some other FReeper, made a separate thread of this endorsement? This minister hit every relevant point. He really hit a home run. This needs to be put out across FR.

THAT WAS PRICELESS! BAM! SLAM!

Tell you what ...

I am not one for posting attack pieces - BUT ...

You Cruz supporters know no bounds, you never let up off Trump ...

So I decided “sauce for the goose.” You don’t like it? Tough sh*t. Don’t throw crap around and it won’t be hurled back into your face.

Trump’s supporters did not start this war, you Cruz people did - and right from the start. So, now, I really do not give a flying squirrel’s butt of playing “nice” any longer.

You jackasses wanted a FReepin war - now you got one ... I’m all in for take no prisoners, no mercy, no quarter. Whatever I can find, I am going to throw - right, wrong or indifferent - I just don’t give a damn. I’ll do all I can to destroy your guy - just like you work to destroy mine. In the end we’ll get Hillary - and then you’ll have nothing. Consider this my virtual middle finger thrown in your arrogant Freeping face.

Again, you cannot or will not answer the questions.

You are either intellectually shallow, or else insincere.

Discussion over.

Did Trump VOTE to go to war with Iraq? No.

Quit with your attempts to make Donald Trump responsible for what the politicians did of their own free will.

Donald Trump did not commit the U.S. to a 13-year war on a false pretense ... GWB and his cabal of nation-building neo-cons did. The Democrats went along for their own political reasons - and Trump disagreed with them too.

Donald Trump was right - and they were wrong. End of discussion om that general point.

Did Bush, fail to follow up on the WMD “missing” angle?

Were there WMDs or not?

If they were trucked to Syria, then why did GWB not know of that situation?

If he did know of that situation, then why did he not act on it, rather than state he was wrong about the presence of WMDs?

See, I am aware that you will not or can not answer those questions.

Again, either:

GWB’s Administration was incompetent
GWB’s Intel assets were incompetent
GWB was lying
GEB was a coward

Those are your choices. Pick one - or several - but stop attempting to defend the indefensible.

Snopes? Really? THAT’s your source? You just revealed yourself to be a useful idiot.

Can you bend over an lick your own butt hole also? We’d like to see a pic of that too!

YAWN.

Excellent post.

GHB despised Reagan (”Voo-doo economics”) - as did the entire Bush Family. So, there you go.

SPOT ON ASSESSMENT!

I will think and write circles around you, buddy.