• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tapper Grills Cheney: You Really Had ‘Nothing to Do’ with Current Iraq Crisis?

iguanaman said:
No viable WMD's were found. I think we would have heard about it if that were not the case.
Click to expand...

But you did not answer the question? Do YOU consider chemical weapons as WMD's?

Tim-
 
iguanaman said:
Only if they are usable.
Click to expand...

Not as potent to be sure, but usable, absolutely. By the way those pesky ISSI folks have them now.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

IN 2009 the DOD declared that there indeed were chemical weapons found.

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.

"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.
Click to expand...

So then you agree, Iraq had, and still does have WMD's. ;)


Tim-
 
pbrauer said:
That's a lie, the Democrats said some of the similar things, but nowhere the exact same things as the Bush administration said. Where did the Democrats say there was al-qaida in Iraq? In fact those quotes from 1998 from from Bill Clinton were about attacking Iran with Cruise Missiles which they did in December 1998 along with the UK. Those Democrats who voted for the resolution wanted the inspections by the UN to proceed.
Click to expand...

Pete, this is about who supported the war, and you just don't seem to be able to grasp that the House, the Senate and the American people supported it.

Here are a few polls for you from back then on public approval for using the military to remove Saddam:

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Aug. 6-7, 2002
Approve - 69%

CBS News Poll. Aug. 6-7, 2002.
Approve - 66% (59% democrats)

Los Angeles Times Poll. Aug. 22-25, 2002
Approve - 59% (53% democrats)

ABC News Poll. Sept. 12-14, 2002
Approve - 68%

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Sept. 13-16, 2002
Approve - 65%

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Sept. 24-25, 2002.
Approve - 58%

Investor's Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor poll Oct. 7-13
How important is it for US military to remove Saddam
75% - Very or somewhat important
22% - Not very or not at all important

The Gallup Poll. Aug. 5-8, 2002
Would you say you do or do not have a clear idea why the United States is considering new military action against Iraq?
56% - Yes

Of those who said yes, What's The reason why we would want to use military in Iraq:
30% - Fear of Chemical/biological weapons
30% - Fear of terrorism
4% - Iraq had something to do with 9/11 terrorist attacks

October 16, 2002 - The resolution approved on a bi-partisan basis by House and Senate, to authorize the use of military force in Iraq is signed into law.
 
iguanaman said:
No, but I do think he was President and that makes it "on his watch" right? That term is right out of the Republican playbook so you should not quibble about it.
Click to expand...

So you would agree that Iraq falling apart happened on Obamas watch therefore he is responsible, right?

Let's also compare 9 months in office for Bush when 9/11 happened and 5 years in office when Iraq happened.
 
Grim17 said:
Pete, this is about who supported the war, and you just don't seem to be able to grasp that the House, the Senate and the American people supported it.

Here are a few polls for you from back then on public approval for using the military to remove Saddam:

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Aug. 6-7, 2002
Approve - 69%

CBS News Poll. Aug. 6-7, 2002.
Approve - 66% (59% democrats)

Los Angeles Times Poll. Aug. 22-25, 2002
Approve - 59% (53% democrats)

ABC News Poll. Sept. 12-14, 2002
Approve - 68%

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Sept. 13-16, 2002
Approve - 65%

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Sept. 24-25, 2002.
Approve - 58%

Investor's Business Daily/Christian Science Monitor poll Oct. 7-13
How important is it for US military to remove Saddam
75% - Very or somewhat important
22% - Not very or not at all important

The Gallup Poll. Aug. 5-8, 2002
Would you say you do or do not have a clear idea why the United States is considering new military action against Iraq?
56% - Yes

Of those who said yes, What's The reason why we would want to use military in Iraq:
30% - Fear of Chemical/biological weapons
30% - Fear of terrorism
4% - Iraq had something to do with 9/11 terrorist attacks

October 16, 2002 - The resolution approved on a bi-partisan basis by House and Senate, to authorize the use of military force in Iraq is signed into law.
Click to expand...

Of course the pubic supported the war, the Bush administration and the media sold it to them. Because the public supported the war, that put pressure on the politicians to support it as well.

And of course the public was told it would take maybe 6 months to win it and profits from the oil would pay for it.
 
pbrauer said:
Of course the pubic supported the war, the Bush administration and the media sold it to them. Because the public supported the war, that put pressure on the politicians to support it as well.

And of course the public was told it would take maybe 6 months to win it and profits from the oil would pay for it.
Click to expand...

There you go... Forgetting that the democrats also supported the war... Should I post that video again for you?
 
Mason66 said:
So you would agree that Iraq falling apart happened on Obamas watch therefore he is responsible, right?

Let's also compare 9 months in office for Bush when 9/11 happened and 5 years in office when Iraq happened.
Click to expand...

9 months of telling his staff he did not want to hear about Bin Laden, because we only care about Saddam Hussein is more like it. But none the less, Iraq is not attacking the U.S and preventing attacks is the primary job of a President so I don't see the point.
 
pbrauer said:
The horses ass blames President Obama for the conditions today in Iraq, but it is clearly the fault of the Bush administration. If they had not invaded in March 2003, there would not be the strife there is today.

Click to expand...


Cheney told us we'd be welcomed as liberators. He lied. Of course that's not the only thing he lied about, is it?
 
Grim17 said:
There you go... Forgetting that the democrats also supported the war... Should I post that video again for you?
Click to expand...

They lied to everybody, including Congress.
 
Mason66 said:
So you would agree that Iraq falling apart happened on Obamas watch therefore he is responsible, right?

Let's also compare 9 months in office for Bush when 9/11 happened and 5 years in office when Iraq happened.
Click to expand...

The reason Iraq fell apart is because we invaded them, destroyed their military, and then decided we'd won.
 
Hicup said:
Do chemical weapons factories and storage facilities count as WMD's? I see this all the time, people claiming no WMD's were found, BUT, but, they did find them, lots of them, just not NUKES, which apparently is the only true WMD.. It boggles my mind, frankly.

Tim-
Click to expand...

No weapons of mass destruction were ever found. Had they been found, Cheney would have had every reporter in the world there to verify it. It was a big lie, and unfortunately almost everybody bought it.
 
Hicup said:
Not as potent to be sure, but usable, absolutely. By the way those pesky ISSI folks have them now.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

IN 2009 the DOD declared that there indeed were chemical weapons found.



So then you agree, Iraq had, and still does have WMD's. ;)


Tim-
Click to expand...

So your telling me that, once the bush Administration had discovered these 'weapons of mass destruction' they just left them there for anybody to find and use? Sounds like criminal negligence to me.
 
Grim17 said:
There you go... Forgetting that the democrats also supported the war... Should I post that video again for you?
Click to expand...

You mean some Democrats supported giving the President the AUTHORITY to invade Iraq, it really is not the same thing as supporting an invasion. A President should have authority to act if HE believes it necessary. That is why he is called CIC. Bush himself would be the 1st to admit it was HIS decision alone
 
Wiggen said:
So your telling me that, once the bush Administration had discovered these 'weapons of mass destruction' they just left them there for anybody to find and use? Sounds like criminal negligence to me.
Click to expand...

He's talking about useless and degraded OLD stock that the U.N inspectors cataloged in the 90's and decided they were not worth the trouble removing or destroying. None of the chemicals or equipment that was claimed before the war were ever found.
It is a symptom of the revisionism that is frantically try to make Bush into a decent President. Good luck with that.

Here's Bush looking under furniture in the Oval office for the missing WMD's

wmd20042.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I know. I remember when it was found and dismissed as being worthless. I'm just humoring him.
 
pbrauer said:
The horses ass blames President Obama for the conditions today in Iraq, but it is clearly the fault of the Bush administration. If they had not invaded in March 2003, there would not be the strife there is ......]
Click to expand...

Obama goofed. He took out the boots too early. I'm not saying that was wrong, considering the costs and all. But he decided that this was what he would risk. It is his.
 
Beaudreaux said:
the list of Democrats that supported that action and after seeing the exact same intel from multiple nations, not just the US, came to the same conclusion?
Click to expand...
Everyone likes to parade around quotes from Democrats that were based on a 1998 National Intelligence Estimate. How about some quotes based on the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate? You know, the one that was actually used by the Bush Admin. as a basis for war?

Regardless, many Democrats did vote in favor of the AUMF and they are just as responsible as Bush for this brainless policy.

Beaudreaux said:
How do you scrutinize intel from multiple countries that comes to the same conclusion?
Click to expand...
They didn't come to the same conclusion. France and Germany in-particular saw how stupid our rationale for war was, and refused to be a part of the "coalition of the willing". (Remember that stupid "Freedom Fries" fad?) In fact, wasn't that coalition of the willing only comprised of the U.S. and Poland? Two countries??

Beaudreaux said:
How is a response to a national security threat that has overwhelming (The Clinton appointed CIA director called it a "slam dunk") intelligence that a real and present threat exists, "jingoistic?"
Click to expand...
The "slam dunk" comment was George Tenet's answer how easily a war could be sold to the American people. It was not George Tenet's analysis of how much of a threat Iraq posed to the U.S. or any other country.

Beaudreaux said:
If you're referring to the UN inspectors, what if they would have found the chemical weapons and nuclear material that ISIS is now in possession of that ISIS found in Iraq?
Click to expand...
They did! Where are you getting your information? ISIS has not captured any weapons facility that was not already disclosed by Iraq or known by Hanz Blix et. al. In fact, Hanz Blix stated that Iraq was cooperating (for a change), and was asking for more time to inspect, when George Bush ordered them out of the country ahead of the invasion. The last person to kick the UN inspectors out of Iraq was George Bush, not Sadaam Hussein.

Let's just recap this whole thing, shall we? We were attacked by a rag outfit who was given safe-haven in Afghanistan. When the Taliban would not turn over OBL to the U.S., it made perfect sense to invade Afghanistan. Then for some ridiculous reason that I may never understand, we decided to take a wrong turn at the Euphrates and invade Iraq. Who had nothing to do with the attack. Before we were even done in Afghanistan. Based on intelligence that was being fixed and cherry-picked to support going war (DSM), as opposed to the objective truth of the situation. We went to war for a reason that didn't exist, because fair and objective decision making was not part of the process. Thanks only to Team Bush.
 
joG said:
Obama goofed. He took out the boots too early. I'm not saying that was wrong, considering the costs and all. But he decided that this was what he would risk. It is his.
Click to expand...
As regards the choice not to reach an agreement (status of forces) to leave troops behind in Iraq? The administration failed utterly in this regard. In the words of Obama's Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, "we did not get the job done."

Clearly.

Iraq, Sunnis, and Shiites: The U.S. should never have withdrawn its troops in 2011.
 
joG said:
Obama goofed. He took out the boots too early. I'm not saying that was wrong, considering the costs and all. But he decided that this was what he would risk. It is his.
Click to expand...

That was the problem with Bush's "plan" for Iraq. It would only work if we stayed there to enforce it. Some plan.
 
Filthy McNasty said:
As regards the choice not to reach an agreement (status of forces) to leave troops behind in Iraq? The administration failed utterly in this regard. In the words of Obama's Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, "we did not get the job done."

Clearly.

Iraq, Sunnis, and Shiites: The U.S. should never have withdrawn its troops in 2011.
Click to expand...

It takes 2 to tango. Malaki was taking his orders from Iran and they said no more US troops. Should Obama have ousted Malaki? That was the only alternative.

This is a good portrayal of "what we left behind in Iraq"

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/04/28/140428fa_fact_filkins?currentPage=all
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
It takes 2 to tango. Malaki was taking his orders from Iran and they said no more US troops. Should we have ousted Malaki?
Click to expand...
Ironically the Slate article I linked to speaks to all of that. Mrs. Clinton was correct in stating that the administration failed to get the job (status of forces agreement) done. This was at the behest of our current POTUS. So ownership of his decision to completely bug out against the advice of so many in the military and his own administration? Rest on Mr. Obama's shoulders.

Now of course, things have gone to hell in hand basket. And of course we have the terrorist who were too radical for AQ (thanks to our bug out) now safely satiated and smiling as one the most well financed and wealthy terrorist organizations ever. Owing to those banks they were able to walk into and make withdraws from.

It is quite the nasty mess and it would be refreshing if once, just once, either the current administration or their fanatical supporters was able to admit this ain't exactly a good situation. After all, they could have "gotten the job done" but for political reasons, opted not to.:screwy
 
Last edited:
Filthy McNasty said:
Ironically the Slate article I linked to speaks to all of that. Mrs. Clinton was correct in stating that the administration failed to get the job (status of forces agreement) done. This was at the behest of our current POTUS. So ownership of his decision to completely bug out against the advice of so many in the military and his own administration? Rest on Mr. Obama's shoulders.

Now of course, things have gone to hell in hand basket. And of course we have the terrorist who were too radical for AQ (thanks to our bug out) now safely satiated and smiling as one the most well financed and wealthy terrorist organizations ever. Owing to those banks they were able to walk into and make withdraws from.

It is quite the nasty mess and it would be refreshing if once, just once, either the current administration or their fanatical supporters was able to admit this ain't exactly a good situation. After all, they could have "gotten the job done" but for political reasons, opted not to.:screwy
Click to expand...

Actually the decision to not sign the agreement was made by Bush's hand picked man, Malaki who takes his orders from Tehran. I don't know how you can spin that. Ether he would sign an acceptable agreement or not. Is that not correct? Short of deposing him, Obama had no alternatives.
 
Grim17 said:
There you go... Forgetting that the democrats also supported the war... Should I post that video again for you?
Click to expand...
That video doesn't show Democrats wanting war. In December 1998, Clinton hit Iraq with a cruise missile attack, he didn't put boots on the ground. The attack was name Desert Fox, the Republicans mocked him and called it Wag The Dog because Clinton was being impeached at the time and they claimed he just wanted to take the impeachment off the front page.
 
iguanaman said:
Actually the decision to not sign the agreement was made by Bush's hand picked man, Malaki who takes his orders from Tehran. I don't know how you can spin that. Ether he would sign an acceptable agreement or not. Is that not correct? Short of deposing him, Obama had no alternatives.
Click to expand...
I don't really have to "spin" anything. As the New York Times reported way back in 2012, Obama had clearly signaled his lack of interest in hammering out any kind of status of forces agreement. This essentially sabotaged any possible negotiations and made the Malaki regime far less inclined to pay a political price for hammering out such a deal. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/failed-efforts-of-americas-last-months-in-iraq.html

I've got Robert Gates book sitting right here too. Should I just go ahead and agree with you and we can call his words on this matter "spin" too? You know, so as to save you some time? That you don't like these facts I'm speaking about is noted. As is your attempt to paint them as "spin". Good try, no cigar though. ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom