• 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!

George W. Bush Is Intervening in Iraq—Again

I was quoting Barack Obama and what he said. Are you saying that Barack Obama was lying when he called Iraq "Sovereign, stable, and self reliant"?

If it wasnt true...which it wasnt...then yup. Since when dont politicians lie? THey blow BS sunshine up our skirts all the time.

However Obama's lie didnt cause the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, cost us trillions of dollars, caused the killing and maiming of 10s of thousands of American soldiers, and gained us nothing.
 
When Obama made that promise to remove the troops then the SOFA really didn't matter, right?

Obama was willing to leave troops in Iraq. Maliki was dragging his feet on the SOFA because of pressure from Iran and Al Sadr who both wanted ALL Americans to leave. Obama felt it was not worth keeping troops where we were not wanted. We didn't invade Iraq to annex it did we?
 
SH was never a threat to the US.

Are we invading Iran? They are alot further along than SH ever was.

Bush wanted to believe it...or didnt and just used it anyway...to further his own ****tily-thought out agenda in Iraq. And then lied and bullied other countries into joining us. (After doing the same to Congress)

Please see my #509.

No one bullied Congress. They went along because they thought it was the right thing to do or they saw political advantage in it.
 
There was democracy -- albeit imperfect -- in Iraq in 2009. Regardless, Iraq was a better place without Saddam Hussein. Again, the facts are not as you claim.

Who says? Got any proof of that? For the majority of the country that lies in ruins and is still costings us $$$$? Before, some minorities were oppressed, now there is still continual conflict over governing and religion....for everyone.

Was all that worth the 10s of thousands of American soldiers lives? And the ones maimed? And the ones back home now committing suicide, killing family members, dealing with PTSD, looking for jobs, etc?

For nothing, no gain. A sad, unnecessary waste.
 
If it wasnt true...which it wasnt...then yup. Since when dont politicians lie? THey blow BS sunshine up our skirts all the time.

However Obama's lie didnt cause the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, cost us trillions of dollars, caused the killing and maiming of 10s of thousands of American soldiers, and gained us nothing.
No, but his withdrawal made all those sacrifices pointless and the damage done as a result of his retreat will haunt the world for decades.

You apparently know little of Iraq or what was going on at the time preceding the withdrawal. That's not a problem because many millions of other people don't either.
 
Please see my #509.

No one bullied Congress. They went along because they thought it was the right thing to do or they saw political advantage in it.

They were fed the lies. And I bet many were pressured.
 
It was political bull****. From both. It wasnt stabliized and the country was practically destroyed which we had to pay to fix. Many factions were still active...and causing disruption.

They threw nothing away....we had no way to fix what we destroyed and destabilized. Our presence was not helping anything since we didnt have a plan to fix it. We never did btw....GWB didnt give a **** about 'after'....the plan was "we'll bring them democracy,' with no actual plans to do so.

Can anyone name a country where we...or anyone else...has 'brought them democracy' successfully? I cant. You cannot force democracy on a country that is culturally not ready for it. Why did I know that in 2003 but GWB didnt?

From the CFR's Iraq war expert Steven Simon.

This report by Steven N. Simon, the Hasib J. Sabbagh Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, makes a major contribution to that debate.

After the Surge: The Case for U.S. Military Disengagement from Iraq is premised on the judgment that the United States is not succeeding in Iraq and that Iraq itself is more divided and violent than ever. It concludes that the administration’s decision to increase U.S. force levels will fail to prevent further deterioration in the situation—and that there is no alternative policy with the potential to turn things around.

As a result, Simon urges the United States to disengage militarily from Iraq, a disengagement that in his view should involve a negotiated accord with Iraq’s government, a dialogue with Iraq’s neighbors, and new diplomatic initiatives throughout the region. Simon argues that if the United States does all this, it can minimize the strategic costs of its failure in Iraq and even offset these losses in whole or in part.

After the Surge - Council on Foreign Relations
 
No, but his withdrawal made all those sacrifices pointless and the damage done as a result of his retreat will haunt the world for decades.

You apparently know little of Iraq or what was going on at the time preceding the withdrawal. That's not a problem because many millions of other people don't either.

There was no solution. We have no way to fix what we did in Iraq.


So that's BS.
 
I always appreciate the voice of moderation.

Ask all those soldiers who's lives have been lost or ruined.

Ask them about moderation. And their families. Plenty also now see the invasion as wrong.
 
Obama was willing to leave troops in Iraq. Maliki was dragging his feet on the SOFA because of pressure from Iran and Al Sadr who both wanted ALL Americans to leave. Obama felt it was not worth keeping troops where we were not wanted. We didn't invade Iraq to annex it did we?
So despite promising to end the war Obama was still willing to leave the troops? Okay, then he would have had to renegotiate the SOFA, something Bush had to get in place with Iraq and something that is commonplace with all countries and over 80 with the US alone.

Why couldn't BHO negotiate a new SOFA, as everyone expected he would? Do you really believe a pipsqueak like Maliki could force the greatest military the world has ever seen, and the most powerful man in the world, to just leave? You are buying that?
 
Who says? Got any proof of that? For the majority of the country that lies in ruins and is still costings us $$$$? Before, some minorities were oppressed, now there is still continual conflict over governing and religion....for everyone.

Was all that worth the 10s of thousands of American soldiers lives? And the ones maimed? And the ones back home now committing suicide, killing family members, dealing with PTSD, looking for jobs, etc?

For nothing, no gain. A sad, unnecessary waste.

The United Nations:

18 June 2009


SC/9684



[h=1]Security Council Commends Iraq on Important Efforts to Strengthen Democracy, Improve Security, Combat Sectarian Violence, in Presidential Statement[/h]






Security Council
6145th Meeting (AM)



Special Representative Describes Progress, ‘Growing Hope’ for Future;
Iraq Tells Council Country Basing Actions on ‘Ballot Boxes and Not Bullet Boxes’
The Security Council today commended the important efforts made by the Government of Iraq to strengthen democracy and the rule of law, to improve security and public order and combat terrorism and sectarian violence across the country, following a debate among its members and a briefing by the outgoing head of the United Nations Mission in Iraq.

In a statement read out by the Foreign Minister of Turkey, Ahmet Davutoğlu, whose delegation holds the rotating presidency for June, the Council reaffirmed its commitment to Iraq’s independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity, and emphasized the importance of the stability and security of Iraq for its people, the region, and the international community.

It also reaffirmed its full support for the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) in advising, supporting and assisting the Iraqi people and Government to strengthen democratic institutions, advance inclusive political dialogue and national reconciliation, and, among other tasks, facilitate regional dialogue.

The Council underscored UNAMI’s important role in support of the Iraqi people and Government to promote dialogue, ease tension and develop a just and fair solution for the disputed internal boundaries. The Council called on the parties to participate in an inclusive dialogue towards that goal. It also strongly endorsed UNAMI’s continued assistance to the Iraqi people and Government in preparations for the upcoming elections.

The Council congratulated the departing Special Representative, Staffan de Mistura, on his strong leadership of UNAMI, and expressed deep gratitude to all United Nations staff in Iraq for their courageous and tireless efforts.

Every so often, said Mr. de Mistura in his briefing, the United Nations was given, if lucky, the chance, and also the right mandate, political support and resources, to deliver. And every so often the timing, the team, the mission objective and the drive came together to make it work.

Reflecting on United Nations involvement in Iraq during two of the country’s most critical and formative years, he said: “We have together helped to turn the page on how the Iraqis view us, the Organization, the international community and their leaders. And we have contributed to Iraq assuming a new standing among the world community as an increasingly stable and sovereign nation”.

In seeking to combine strategic thinking and operational solutions, the Mission had chosen, with the Council’s blessing, time-sensitive entry points in areas where the United Nations could make a difference and be allowed to act as an honest broker, he said. It sought to be selective and incremental in identifying “quick wins” to build credibility by trying to demonstrate that it could deliver and by proving that it could be creative and reliable in the use of its main asset -- international legitimacy.

The past two years, he noted, had seen the Iraqis slowly shedding sectarian divisions, bringing their differences into the legislative arena, turning up in the polls to declare their preference for the country’s return to normality. The Government had increasingly exercised its sovereignty, administering a State that enjoyed broad support, as shown in the recent provincial elections. The Iraqi State was consistently building credible and independent institutions: a functioning cabinet; a reliable parliament; an experienced electoral commission, and an increasingly capable security force. . . . .
 
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

That statement was true.

Except he left out the fact that the investigation by his own administration. had already identified the documents that the British Govt. obtained as forgeries. Not telling the whole truth is still a lie.


In fact, the Niger story, as documented by journalist Seymour Hersh (New Yorker, 3/31/03) and others, was based on crudely forged documents. In addition, the administration's own investigation in March 2002 concluded that the story was bogus. As one former State Department official (Time, 7/21/03) put it, "This wasn't highly contested. There weren't strong advocates on the other side. It was done, shot down."

Bush's use of the Niger forgeries has received considerable media attention in recent days. Much of this reporting has been valuable, and some outlets have broadened the inquiry beyond one passage in a speech. The Washington Post's Walter Pincus (7/16/03), for example, suggests that the uranium claim remained in the State of the Union address because "almost all the other evidence had either been undercut or disproved by U.N. inspectors in Iraq."

Bush Uranium Lie Is Tip of the Iceberg
 
Ask all those soldiers who's lives have been lost or ruined.

Ask them about moderation. And their families. Plenty also now see the invasion as wrong.

They're seeing the withdrawal as wrong, and if they aren't then they are poorly informed.
 
Except he left out the fact that the State Dept. had already identified the documents that the British Govt. obtained as forgeries. Not telling the whole truth is still a lie.




Bush Uranium Lie Is Tip of the Iceberg

No. The forgeries and the British report were two separate streams. We ourselves identified the forgeries very early.
 
Except he left out the fact that the investigation by his own administration. had already identified the documents that the British Govt. obtained as forgeries. Not telling the whole truth is still a lie.

FYI: The British stand behind their report to this day.
 
Not telling the whole truth is still a lie.

Except when America-hating leftists purposely spread propaganda to slander this country. Then, their lying is just part of being a good commie.
 
Last edited:
Except when America-hating leftists purposely spread propaganda to slander this country. Then, their lying is just part of being a good commie.

I'de say Bush did a pretty good job of hating on America. If he didn't hate America then why did he allow 911 and kill 3000 innocents, invade Iraq under false pretenses and kill 4000 more Americans and then promote a Housing bubble that robbed 1000's of their homes? If that's not hate I don't know what is.
 
FYI: The British stand behind their report to this day.

LOL You mean they stand by their false report.


March 7, 2003-July 7, 2003: US and Britain Continue to Maintain They Have Evidence Iraq Was Trying to Buy Uranium from Niger; Evidence Based on Forged Documents

After the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports that the Niger documents (see March 2000) are not authentic (see March 7, 2003), the US and British governments stand behind their claim that Iraq had sought uranium from an African country. The two countries maintain that they have additional evidence—from multiple sources—but do not elaborate. Pressed by journalists and inspectors to reveal their evidence, the two governments refuse. The IAEA tells Reuters that when it asked the US and Britain whether or not they have additional evidence that Iraq had tried to procure uranium, the answer was “no.” [Reuters, 3/26/2003]

The Iraq-Niger Uranium Controversy and the Outing of CIA Agent Valerie Plame Wilson: British Support of Iraq-Niger Uranium Claims
 
snopes.com: Yellowcake Uranium Removed from Iraq

More BS and half truths. The yellow cake removed from Iraq in 2008 was found and ID'd by UN weapon inspectors long before Bush. There is no evidence that any of it was obtained after 1991.

The yellowcake removed from Iraq in 2008 was material that had long since been identified, documented, and stored in sealed containers under the supervision of U.N. inspectors. It was not a "secret" cache that was recently "discovered" by the U.S, nor had the yellowcake been purchased by Iraq in the years immediately preceding the 2003 invasion. The uranium was the remnants of decades-old nuclear reactor projects that had put out of commission many years earlier: One reactor at Al Tuwaitha was bombed by Israel in 1981, and another was bombed and disabled during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Moreover, the fact that the yellowcake had been in Iraq since before the 1991 Gulf War was plainly stated in the Associated Press article cited in the example above:
Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam's nuclear efforts.

Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.
 
OK then we will call it willful deception then. There is very much evidence that Bush must have known that claims he made about Saddam's WMD's were far from written in stone. Shouldn't a President be held responsible for exaggeration of the verifiable veracity of claims he made in his 2003 State of the Union for example? Claims that all turned out to be false? Error is one thing but purposely not telling the whole truth is also a sort
of lie.

Yes, Bush lied about Iraq: Why are we still arguing about this? - Salon.com
It is only willful if the person speaking is trying to deceive, which implies that he knows that what he's saying is untrue, which, of course, is lying.
 
Back
Top Bottom