• 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!

Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance [W:246, 565, *656*]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

And Bush couldn't wait to invade. Which one hurt more?

There's no evidence that Bush, "couldn't wait to invade".
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

So you can't name a policy Reagan used to bring down the USSR? Thanks, got it...

I thought maybe Poppy Bush should get credit, since he was in office when it happened?

So communism isn't a failed economic or political philosophy, Reagan just gave his speeches and USSR caved? Is that the CONservative position?

AFGHANISTAN ring a bell?
Are there any additional strawmen that you wish to construct to distract from the fact that you asked for, and received, a conservative policy success?
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Don't give me this patronizing bull****. You asked for a CON policy success and I gave you one. Also, a "USA Today survey" is about as scientific as voodoo.

How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan


The myth of Ronald Reagan was already looming in the spring of 1997 — when a highly popular President Bill Clinton was launching his second-term, pre-Monica Lewinsky, and the Republican brand seemed at low ebb. But what neoconservative activist Grover Norquist and his allies proposed that spring was virtually unheard of — an active, mapped-out, audacious campaign to spread a distorted vision of Reagan’s legacy across America.

In a sense, some of the credit for triggering this may belong to those supposedly liberal editors at the New York Times, and their decision at the end of 1996 to publish that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. survey of the presidents. The below-average rating by the historians for Reagan, coming right on the heels of Clintons’ easy reelection victory, was a wake-up call for these people who came to Washington in the 1980s as the shock troops of a revolution and now saw everything slipping away.


...The coming contours of the Reagan myth were neatly laid out in a series of short essays from the leaders of the conservative movement: that the Gipper deserved all or at least most of the credit for winning the Cold War, that the economic boom that Americans were enjoying in 1997 was the result of the Reagan tax cut (and not the march toward balanced budgets, lower interest rates and targeted investment), and that the biggest problem with the GOP was, as the title suggested, not Reagan’s legacy but a new generation of weak-kneed leaders who were getting it all wrong.

How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan - Salon.com


James Hershberg: Reagan Should Not be Given Credit for Defeating the Soviet Union--It's More Complicated than that


Historians abhor the idea of attributing a vast, complex phenomenon to a single cause. No one person brought down the Soviet Union, but if I had to choose the one who mattered most, that person would not be Reagan, most of whose policies fit comfortably in the Cold War tradition of containment followed dutifully by presidents from Truman to Carter.

Rather, the historical wild card was Mikhail Gorbachev


History News Network | James Hershberg: Reagan Should Not be Given Credit for Defeating the Soviet Union--It's More Complicated than that
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan


The myth of Ronald Reagan was already looming in the spring of 1997 — when a highly popular President Bill Clinton was launching his second-term, pre-Monica Lewinsky, and the Republican brand seemed at low ebb. But what neoconservative activist Grover Norquist and his allies proposed that spring was virtually unheard of — an active, mapped-out, audacious campaign to spread a distorted vision of Reagan’s legacy across America.

In a sense, some of the credit for triggering this may belong to those supposedly liberal editors at the New York Times, and their decision at the end of 1996 to publish that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. survey of the presidents. The below-average rating by the historians for Reagan, coming right on the heels of Clintons’ easy reelection victory, was a wake-up call for these people who came to Washington in the 1980s as the shock troops of a revolution and now saw everything slipping away.


...The coming contours of the Reagan myth were neatly laid out in a series of short essays from the leaders of the conservative movement: that the Gipper deserved all or at least most of the credit for winning the Cold War, that the economic boom that Americans were enjoying in 1997 was the result of the Reagan tax cut (and not the march toward balanced budgets, lower interest rates and targeted investment), and that the biggest problem with the GOP was, as the title suggested, not Reagan’s legacy but a new generation of weak-kneed leaders who were getting it all wrong.

How Republicans created the myth of Ronald Reagan - Salon.com


James Hershberg: Reagan Should Not be Given Credit for Defeating the Soviet Union--It's More Complicated than that


Historians abhor the idea of attributing a vast, complex phenomenon to a single cause. No one person brought down the Soviet Union, but if I had to choose the one who mattered most, that person would not be Reagan, most of whose policies fit comfortably in the Cold War tradition of containment followed dutifully by presidents from Truman to Carter.

Rather, the historical wild card was Mikhail Gorbachev


History News Network | James Hershberg: Reagan Should Not be Given Credit for Defeating the Soviet Union--It's More Complicated than that
A Reagan hit piece from Salon.com.

Gotcha.:lol:
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Are there any additional strawmen that you wish to construct to distract from the fact that you asked for, and received, a conservative policy success?


Sure, as long as you say it was CONservative policy that ended communism, not communism itself that imploded, I guess you must be right *shaking head*

The point made, to the right winger, like ALL CONservative policies, Bush's invasion on false premises was MORE CONservative failed policy. I think Iraq, the nation Bush invaded, was the topic?
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

A Reagan hit piece from Salon.com.

Gotcha.:lol:


Deny they spent HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS to rewrite history on Ronnie? lol
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Sure, as long as you say it was CONservative policy that ended communism, not communism itself that imploded, I guess you must be right *shaking head*

The point made, to the right winger, like ALL CONservative policies, Bush's invasion on false premises was MORE CONservative failed policy. I think Iraq, the nation Bush invaded, was the topic?
Only siths deal in absolutes. Don't you know that?
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

There's no evidence that Bush, "couldn't wait to invade".

The historical record pretty clearly demonstrates the distortions the administration employed to make the case that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Inspectors who said they didn’t exist were ignored, false stories about aluminum tubes and yellowcake from Africa were peddled assertively, Iraqi defectors that were known liars were used as anonymous sources alleging Saddam’s WMD development, etc.

An investigation by a committee in the House of Representatives in 2004 identified “237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies.” According to the committee, at least 61 separate statements “misrepresented Iraq’s ties to al-Qaeda.” A Senate investigation in 2006 also covered these lies.

9/11 and Iraq: The War’s Greatest Lie « Antiwar.com Blog



On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."


In the initial stages of the war on terror, the Central Intelligence Agency, under George Tenet, was rising to prominence as the lead agency in the Afghanistan war. But when Tenet insisted in his personal meetings with President Bush that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, V.P. Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld initiated a secret program to re-examine the evidence and marginalize the CIA and Tenet. The questionable intelligence acquired by this secret program was "stovepiped" to the vice president and presented to the public

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Only siths deal in absolutes. Don't you know that?

Should be easy to point to one policy CONservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on, we know it wasn't in Iraq!
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

The historical record pretty clearly demonstrates the distortions the administration employed to make the case that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. Inspectors who said they didn’t exist were ignored, false stories about aluminum tubes and yellowcake from Africa were peddled assertively, Iraqi defectors that were known liars were used as anonymous sources alleging Saddam’s WMD development, etc.

An investigation by a committee in the House of Representatives in 2004 identified “237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies.” According to the committee, at least 61 separate statements “misrepresented Iraq’s ties to al-Qaeda.” A Senate investigation in 2006 also covered these lies.

9/11 and Iraq: The War’s Greatest Lie « Antiwar.com Blog



On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period."


In the initial stages of the war on terror, the Central Intelligence Agency, under George Tenet, was rising to prominence as the lead agency in the Afghanistan war. But when Tenet insisted in his personal meetings with President Bush that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, V.P. Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld initiated a secret program to re-examine the evidence and marginalize the CIA and Tenet. The questionable intelligence acquired by this secret program was "stovepiped" to the vice president and presented to the public

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Like I said...
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

There's no evidence that Bush, "couldn't wait to invade".

George Bush raised the issue of Iraq with Tony Blair just three days after the 9/11 attacks, Mr Blair's former foreign policy adviser has said.

George Bush raised Iraq with Tony Blair days after 9/11 - Telegraph

We know that . Bush started looking for an excuse to invade Iraq within days of taking office.



The war that began March 19, 2003, was justified to the country by alarming claims that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and connections to al-Qaida terrorists—almost all of which turned out to be false. Some of the most senior officials in the U.S. government, including President Bush himself, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, asserted these claims in public with absolute confidence, even while privately, ranking U.S. military officers and intelligence professionals were voicing their doubts. Hubris: The Selling of the Iraq War, a documentary special hosted by Rachel Maddow (and based on a book I co-authored with David Corn), provides new evidence that the dissent within the administration and military was even more profound and widespread than anybody has known until now.

“It was a shock, it was a total shock–I couldn’t believe the vice president was saying this,” Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former commander in chief of U.S. Central Command

How the Bush administration sold the Iraq war | MSNBC


HONESTY, TRY IT!
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Should be easy to point to one policy CONservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on, we know it wasn't in Iraq!
But we do know that Reagan executed a specific strategy to end the cold war, and guess what? It ended. For that matter, Nixon ended Vietnam, too. A war started by... who was that again? And there was also the Civil Rights Act... but maybe this is just a little too much at one time?
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Like I said...

It is clear that, even before 9/11, President Bush wanted Saddam Hussein out of power


10/3/00 Debating Al Gore, George W. Bush says he'd commit troops only with an "exit strategy," and he'd be "very careful about using our troops as nation builders."


10/11/00 In a subsequent debate, Bush says: "If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us."

1/30/01 Saddam's removal is top item of Bush's inaugural national security meeting. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill later recalls, "It was all about finding a way to do it. The president saying, 'Go find me a way to do this.'" [Date the public knew: 1/10/04]

2/26/01 Future Iraq Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III says: "The new administration seems to be paying no attention to the problem of terrorism." [Date the public knew: 4/29/04]

9/11/01 Al Qaeda attacks. Minutes taken by a Rumsfeld aide five hours later: "Best info fast. Judge whether good enough [to] hit SH [Saddam Hussein] @ same time. Not only UBL [Usama bin Laden]." [Date the public knew: 9/4/02]


9/12/01 According to counterterror czar Richard Clarke, "[Bush] told us, 'I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this.'" Told evidence against Al Qaeda overwhelming, Bush asks for "any shred" Saddam was involved. [Date the public knew: 3/22/04]

Lie by Lie: A Timeline of How We Got Into Iraq | Mother Jones
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

But we do know that Reagan executed a specific strategy to end the cold war, and guess what? It ended. For that matter, Nixon ended Vietnam, too. A war started by... who was that again? And there was also the Civil Rights Act... but maybe this is just a little too much at one time?

Name the policy? So you are arguing communism isn't a failed policy?


ONE policy CONservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on? 9hint, they weren't on civil rights)
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

I I did, gave you the link

Bush signed SOFA, which "lays out a framework for the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq."

I meant show me where I said what you claimed I said.
Besides ... Obama didn't sign off on a SOFA with Maliki, did he?
But in fairness he really shone on Oprah's sofa ... he's really good at schmoozing his fans.
obama-oprah-reuters-543.jpg
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

I meant show me where I said what you claimed I said.
Besides ... Obama didn't sign off on a SOFA with Maliki, did he?
But in fairness he really shone on Oprah's sofa ... he's really good at schmoozing his fans.
View attachment 67168013

More nonsense from the right. I'm shocked. When you guys have been on the wrong side of EVERY major issue facing the US since it's founding, why am I shocked :)
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

The only relevance I can see in this to our southern border is that occasionally middle easterners will try to jump the border and get us to think they are Mexicans, But middle easterners don't look or sound anything like Mexicans. I don't think our southern border is particularly pertinent to this discussion of what is going on in Iraq. JMNSHO.

I was addressing the notion (maybe not yours) that we should only worry about terrorism against the USA mainland ... that notion has been promulgated by some ... granted, it's usually in defense of Obama withdrawing from the war on terror, but nonetheless, there it is.

Given that, yes, there are M.E. and other infiltrators crossing our open border ... and that was even before what's happening now ... and in that way, establishing a terrorist state, or 2 or 3, in the M.E. from which to launch attacks against our mainland - especially if they're already here.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

More nonsense from the right. I'm shocked. When you guys have been on the wrong side of EVERY major issue facing the US since it's founding, why am I shocked :)

You're not shocked ... you just have nothing to respond with ... it's more like you're flummoxed.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

US military wasn't about to stand for more ambushes and attacks, and wanted to round up and incarcerate suspected terrorists but the installed regime wanted no part of it, now Iraq, it's people, and Malaki will pay the price. If Bush would never have wanted to war with Iraq, none of this would be happening.

Hussein was a brutal dictator but at least he kept those terrorists in check and didn't put up with too much crap, he simply offed them, his intolerance to crap was astonishing. Malaki is such a weak leader.

This ain't the first time the USA has installed a leader who failed. Probably won't be the last either.

There would not have been many ambushes or attacks because we wouldn't have been doing the patrolling. Regardless how we got there, this was a victory now thrown away.:peace
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

ONE policy CONservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on? EVER?

How about one policy the GOP has been correct about and it worked as promised the passed 40 years?

In House and Senate, greater percentages of Repubs than Dems voted for the 1964 CRA.:peace
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

Bet you are first on board to FINALLY decide Bush's war of choice is worth paying for and advocating for an Iraq tax on those 'job creators' to pay for it too right?

I was in favor of a war tax after 9/11.:peace
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

More nonsense from the right. I'm shocked. When you guys have been on the wrong side of EVERY major issue facing the US since it's founding, why am I shocked :)
That would include Lincoln, ya know.
 
Re: Iraq insurgents take Saddam's home town in lightning advance

You're not shocked ... you just have nothing to respond with ... it's more like you're flummoxed.

True, I've known for decades CONservatives have NEVER been on the correct side of ANY US policy that worked!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom