Replies

It was not a moronic response, and I am not a moron. I know my history, but I also know who has used the term "occupy" to indicate wrongdoing on Bush's part. I also know the history of Iraq, but thanks for the lesson. Your accusation of politics interfering with the strategy in Iraq is still silly. If you were paying attention to the reasons he gave in speeches for going into Iraq, you will know that the presence of WMD was only one of the reasons he gave. The emphasis was only because of the defense given before the UN and their preoccupation with it. If you were observant, you would know that. Quagmire?? LOL! There you go again, using the leftist anti-Bush vocabulary. If you don't want conservatives to think you're one of them, why do you use the same words? (There never was a quagmire). When it was clear that things were deteriorating in Iraq, Bush looked for and found a stronger General with a better plan, and we began to win. Now, since you have accused me of having no integrity (I love that one), and being a moron (my IQ doesn't indicate that), I shall end this lovely discussion. Be thankful that I didn't respond in kind to your ridiculous insults. No more games, newbie. Good day.

Yes, your response was moronic. You have been insulting, so I responded in kind. Go cry in your milk.

You are not paying attention. I'm not using the term occupy to indicate wrongdoing at all. I'm using it to indicate that that is exactly what the US SHOULD HAVE DONE and that not doing so fully and correctly at the outset was a mistake. The Democrats and Muslims used the term occupy to keep Bush from doing it. He obliged them. Further, what I said was that WMD wasn't a necessary reason to go back in. Bush gave the idiots an opening, they took it and he failed to play offense much less defend himself.

The civil war that resulted from the flawed plan resulted in a quagmire (a violent civil war with no US control that could have gone on for years). It's ironic that you are being a word Nazi. The fact is that the light army that Bush used to invade was ill equipped to fully OCCUPY Iraq. Conservatives called for increased troop levels for years but Bush didn't listen. Had he listened, Iraq would have been stable much sooner and the Democrats would have lacked that major issue to win seats with, not to mention giving the GOP an issue to run on.

You may think that you know the history of Iraq but you don't understand it.

Word Nazi?? Now that's pretty funny. No more insults, OK?

I've been paying very close attention to your arguments. That's why I haven't fallen for them.

And I do know the history of Iraq, whether you like it or not. Disagreeing with you on your own particular anti-Bush assessment of what happened in Iraq doesn't imply ignorance (nor stupidity, thank you). I'm glad you fancy yourself an Iraq expert, but there are many other positions other than your own from scholars greater than yourself.

There are many who say that had we invaded with large troop numbers, the Iraqi people would have never come to their own conclusion that they needed to govern together.....that sectarian violence would never have ended had we "occupied" as you suggest we needed to do.

There are many who say that it was the sectarian violence (NOT a "civil war") and the brutality of alQaeda who was inciting that sectarian violence, that eventually convinced the Iraqi people to rid themselves of the enemy and govern in peace (which they are doing now).

There are also experts who understand that it took a length of time for the Iraqi Army to be built up enough to do what they are doing now - controlling their own security.

Petraeus' plan was NOT to "occupy" but to assist with our military force and with our working with the Iraqi people, police and military to help them govern themselves. And it WORKED.

You can argue against success all you want, but we have, in 6 short years, accomplished the nearly impossible task of assisting in creating a democracy in the heart of the Middle East and uniting the people of Iraq.

That is exactly what George W. Bush wanted to do, and he succeeded in doing it. You can be an armchair expert to your heart's delight (and use arguments from wherever you got them, left or right), but the proverbial proof is in the pudding. We won the War in Iraq, and we have our awesome troops and their Commander in Chief - George W. Bush to thank for it.

btw, I'm done with this conversation.

You can blame President Bush for all the problems in the world if you want, but you aren't going to convince us 'morons' who respect him, no matter how hard you try.

He is a man of courage, integrity, strength, patriotism and perseverance, and we 'morons' will respect him for all that he did to strengthen and preserve this great nation.

Have a nice life.