Posted on 05/19/2015 6:51:55 AM PDT by rktman
Liberals, please stop it with the Iraq war lies.
There is plenty of criticism that can be leveled against George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, but he didn’t deliberately mislead the country about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
With the new cool question for 2016 Republican contenders being “knowing what we know now, would you have invaded Iraq,” the debate about pre-Iraq war intelligence has once again come to the forefront. Predictably, some liberals have used the occasion to again trot out the wholly dishonest spin that the Bush administration concocted evidence and pressured the intelligence community into saying that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Here’s Peter Beinart, who actually supported the Iraq war, propagating this nonsense in The Atlantic:
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
But we all know that we are going to have a domestic force just as powerful and well funded as the military.
The POS can use the DHS (or any of the other 3 letter agencies) as the new Amerikan gestapo, but we all know that whatever the POS says or proclaims, he will do whatever suits him, or what whatever his boss (Satan) tells him to do.
If Satan is the king of lies, 0bama is the son of lies.
You want them to stop lying? Take away their control of the broadcast information streams. They only lie because the Liberal Media allows them to get away with it.
Well all except (almost) faux news. I’ve gotten to the point that even they’re a little too left of center. So you have the sophomoric lyin’ king whining about one solitary broadcast news outlet. Really? You would think he might have something a little more important to attend to. Like cleaning (or having cleaned) his balls for the next tee time.
You are right. It was common knowledge among our troops that those warehouses had been emptied and the contents transported to Syria. It is really infuriating to hear the media continue to lie, and no one is standing up and correcting them.
Ping for later
Lots of demonkkkrat back up info assembled by a couple of FReepers for reference.
Just once I’d like to see them ask a Democrat, “Knowing what you know now, would you still support removing all our troops from Iraq? Or are you cool with ISIS running rampant all over the middle east?”
Bush did have the support of Congress, the people, the Western world, and also many ME countries. And one other matter is being overlooked. The UN - Bush was going to the UN for a resolution to go into Iraq. It seems like it was twelve years and many resolutions - usually blocked by Russia (Iraq was Russia’s client state and supplied their military material and advisors.) Eventually the UN did provide the resolution to invade and the coalition, led by the US, did so in a mighty way. The military war was won in a text book type victory - winning peace was something else.
Even if he had WMD’s (and I have no reason to believe he did not) the people who were immediately and directly threatened by the WMDs were rather blasé about it. The countries in the region and the countries close enough to be within missile range in Europoe did not seem overly concerned to me.
The UN issued stern warning after stern warning, but other than that did not seem to in a great rush to do anything about it.
So my question AT THE TIME was: Why is this our problem? The countries directly threatened by the WMDs, even those previous at war with or invaded by Iraq didn’t seem to be that concerned ... not concerned enough to coordinate their own forces to go in after Saddam. Even Israel did not seem all that concerned and I find it hard to believe that Mossad could not have taken Saddam out if Israel had wanted him dead.
Even Turkey didn’t seem concerned enough about Saddam’s WMDs to even allow us to invade Iraq from their country ... right next door. Right within missile range of WMD’s
Even Jordan, right smack against Iraq advised against the Iraq war.
I was not the only one AT THE TIME asking why all these countries didn’t seem all that concerned about Saddam’s WMDs.
So why were we so concerned when its direct neighbors were not? This is what I asked over and over AT THE TIME and since ... to much opprobrium, which I’m sure I’ll get here again.
So to me the question of whether Saddam had WMDs is the wrong question. I say he did. The question is why were we seemingly the only ones concerned enough about it to go to full scale war with Iraq?
Also, we could have taken Saddam out without a full scale invasion. Or we could have just bombed the suspected WMD sites. It would probably have killed a lot of Iraqis but fewer of our people would have to die.
The UN trash talks us all the time for doing their bidding.
I would have preferred we take the UN out instead of Saddam.
So, I still do not understand why we had to go in there like we did ... and especially all the dumb “hearts and minds” stuff. And I do not understand why we need to stay there FOREVER to “keep the peace”, an absurd concept in a part of the world where they have been fighting each other for over 1000 years.
As much as I love George Bush he made me mad by not mentioning this. At least I never heard him say anything.
Stand up George, even at this late date and slap the Hell out of the lame stream media!
Good question. Unfortunately no member of the LSM will dare to ask it for fear of being thrown off Hillary’s entourage,
amen
Also, was going into Iraq because of the WMD the only reason?
The right needs to turn this on the left by changing a few words and make it about obamacare - "knowing what we know now, would you have passed this ACA legislation?"
Why wasn’t Clinton and Carter asked - “knowing what you now know... How would YOU have dealt with LBJ’s Vietnam situation???”
HMMMMMMMMMMMM????
First. Who died and left the whole world in Americas control? So we just go bomb and overrun country’s because?
The Constitution says nothing about US being the policeman of the world. I think maybe we need to mind our own G.D. business and leave the rest of the world alone.
I don’t know. I can’t figure out why we would go in the manner we did based on the reasons given, even given that there were WMDs.
Good question. Unfortunately no member of the LSM will dare to ask it for fear of being thrown off Hillary’s entourage.
Of course, if there were a GOOD journalist, he’d speak right up in HOPES of being thrown off Hillary’s entourage.
It’s just a theory of mine, but bear with me. What country is the major regional power in that area of the world and has been ruled by fundamentalist Muslims since the 1979 revolution? That would be Iran. Iran, even then, was working on its nuclear program and was a major regional power.
Now, go and get a globe or a map. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, it was a no-brainer that we would be invading Afghanistan. If we also were to send a large troop contingent into Iraq, what country on that globe or map would be completely surrounded by US troops? That’s right, the same country that has been a hostile regional power intent on developing an nuclear program, Iran. What better way to constrain Iran without a direct confrontation than to surround it with large numbers of troops. I’m pretty sure that until the troops were withdrawn from Iran, the Ayatollahs were on their best behavior. We didn’t hear any talk of nuclear deals with Iran before we pulled out of Iraq, did we? We had the situation under our control until O pulled us out.
Even Madeline Halfbright understood that “what happens over there affects us here.” Hussein in Iraq, and the Ayatollahs in Iran supported terrorist groups. It is not unthinkable that either or both of those leaders could have provided a terrorist group with a WMD to be used to target an American city. That’s why it made sense to invade Iraq.
“Provide for the common defense...” Those words are right in the preamble. That is one of the main purposes of the federal government. While you might disagree with the idea of invading Iraq in particular, an isolationist stance is simply not a viable option in the modern world. The defense of America involves defending allies and other geopolitically strategic areas. One of those is certainly the Middle East, especially given that it’s the central location of a group of people with an ideology that causes them to attack our civilians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.