• 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!

Wikileaks show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq-With Surprising Results

buck said:
BTW: The war had never actually ended. A cesefire predicated upon Saddam following the requirements laid out in that document was signed. Saddam didn't follow through on his obligations and the cease fire ended. We were still in a war posture.
Click to expand...

Again, that was with the UN, under the security council. You can't leave the UN and still use that reasoning.
 
SE102 said:
So they make up a threat, find nothing, then find a little something BINGO making the lie excusable.
Click to expand...

Please be specific. Who lied and about what?
Seriously.

.
 
zimmer said:
Please be specific. Who lied and about what?
Seriously.

.
Click to expand...

lie1    /laɪ/ Show Spelled
[lahy] Show IPA
noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
–noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

Lie | Define Lie at Dictionary.com

Didn't someone chronicle 935 lies? In any case, in concert with his administration, they hinted at links between Saddam and OBL. Use a technique called anchoring, in which you use the words, Saddam, terrorism and 9/11 to anchor a connection in the mind of audience, which is why so many people belived Saddam was behind 9/11. Used intel inappropriately (Curveball, Libi, and Chalibi and his heors in error) that was doubted and presented it as if there were no doubts. Where I come from, these things alone are enough to support calling him a liar.
 
Boo Radley said:
2) Dangerous? How dangerous? It has to reach the level of having to be invaded.
Click to expand...

That’s rather the rub, isn’t it? You (and most democrats really) prefer to wait until a threat has reached a level that we can no longer do anything about before you finally want to get involved. Let the threat grow and grow, then, maybe we’ll get involved.

Mere dangerous is not enough.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. PS. I truly find “mere dangerous” to be laughable. You take care of threats when they are evident. You don’t keep passing the buck as both Bush1 and Clinton did. When that happens, the danger levels have increased to a point where they can not really be managed any longer. Saddam has acknowledged that he still had the scientists available and had every intention of restarting his WMD program once Bush left him alone. If the threat had not been taken care of while still “mere dangerous” he would have eventually gotten to a point where he was “semi- dangerous or even higher (we can call that plain dangerous if you like). In other words, the threat was never going to be eliminated, as you like to claim.


Outside of polticial sites like this, I don't see much of the public even aware, let alone convinced by that argument.
Click to expand...


Ah, I always love the people that know what is on everyone’s minds. I had many discussions with co-workers and friend (republicans and democrats) and almost all thought that Saddam acting in that manner meant that he almost certainly had something. I’ve even had some fairly recent conversations with people, and they always agree on that point. So, I see the exact opposite of you. For you to announce that the images on TV of weapons inspectors being turned away and delayed didn’t have any affect on peoples perceptions just seems like a very silly argument.

And remember, inspectors were on the ground. They were asking for time. They were not convinced invasion was warranted. The evidence suggests there was nothing Saddam could have done to prevent invasion. It was always just a matter of when. Just because it wasn't easy, again, doesn't justify leaping all the war to invasion and war, especially considering the cost.
Click to expand...

If only we based our security on the thoughts of UN weapons inspectors who only get a part of the picture then you might have a great point. Still, I don’t see how it was a “leap” to war. The ceasefire agreement had been in violation for a long time (going back to Clinton). Numerous resolutions later an invasion finally occurred.

Again, that was with the UN, under the security council. You can't leave the UN and still use that reasoning.
Click to expand...

Sure you can. Saddam failed to follow through with his obligations, the UN passed a resolution that serious consequences would follow if he didn't follow through. He didn't follow-through and serious consequences followed. I don't care what some other countries thought was meant by serious consequences. You can't get much more serious then what happened. Bush even went the additional step of getting authorization for the war from congress.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
In any case, in concert with his administration, they hinted at links between Saddam and OBL.
Click to expand...

There were meetings between Saddam and those affiliated with al-queda. However, it was discovered that Saddam did not trust al-queda for various reasons. Nonetheless, Saddam was actively seeking to increase his ability to use "terrorist-like activities" for political reasons, to increase his asymmetric warfare abilities, etc.

Boo Radley said:
Use a technique called anchoring, in which you use the words, Saddam, terrorism and 9/11 to anchor a connection in the mind of audience, which is why so many people belived Saddam was behind 9/11.
Click to expand...
Bush stated there was no link between al-queda and Saddam to the public. There was worry previously that there WAS a connection due to meetings mentioned before and his harboring of known terrorists.

Did the administration use propaganda to gain support for the war? Yes, like what is done by every leader in American history during wartime.

Boo Radley said:
Used intel inappropriately (Curveball, Libi, and Chalibi and his heors in error) that was doubted and presented it as if there were no doubts. Where I come from, these things alone are enough to support calling him a liar.
Click to expand...
Welcome to politics.

I assume you aren't dumb enough to believe what a car-sales man tells you at face value. Why are you so credulous to what politicians tell you?
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
No, we were told there were STOCKPILES of WMDs, none of those STOCKPILES were found.

I don't think Bush lied to get us into Iraq, but I do think he made his decisions based on weak analysis and information.
Click to expand...

You weren't really intending to dig this all up again were you? It's deja vu all over again. :lol:
 
buck said:
That’s rather the rub, isn’t it? You (and most democrats really) prefer to wait until a threat has reached a level that we can no longer do anything about before you finally want to get involved. Let the threat grow and grow, then, maybe we’ll get involved.
Click to expand...

My neighbor is an asshole. He might one day lose it. I could just go shoot him, but I would hold up well in court arguing that he migth one day go too far. You and Bush and his supporters tend to put the world in such clear terms, either we kill him now, or we die. Of course, as CATO pointed out. If Saddam was that kind of threat, why weren't we dead already?

You have to make judgements concerning the level of threat. No reasonable person suggested that Saddam was capable of posing a serious threat to the US. heck, the ease with which he fell attests to this. Even that incredible defense he put up in the first Gulf war showed clearly he could be taken any time we wanted, hence not the kind of threat that warranted invasion the cost we paid, and continue to pay.


Sure it is. PS. I truly find “mere dangerous” to be laughable. You take care of threats when they are evident. You don’t keep passing the buck as both Bush1 and Clinton did. When that happens, the danger levels have increased to a point where they can not really be managed any longer. Saddam has acknowledged that he still had the scientists available and had every intention of restarting his WMD program once Bush left him alone. If the threat had not been taken care of while still “mere dangerous” he would have eventually gotten to a point where he was “semi- dangerous or even higher (we can call that plain dangerous if you like). In other words, the threat was never going to be eliminated, as you like to claim.
Click to expand...

The rub is in taking car eof. As Saddam was bottled up and incapable of even defending hims self, what you miss is that he was dealt with. And the trheat to us is still not eliminated. In fact, it is worse today. Saddam was a no body, but a no body who helped keep Iran in check. Today, we have give aid to our enemies and helped iran to be stronger in the region (that's why they helped us go into Iran). You might want to investigate the first time Chalibi betraryed us.




Ah, I always love the people that know what is on everyone’s minds. I had many discussions with co-workers and friend (republicans and democrats) and almost all thought that Saddam acting in that manner meant that he almost certainly had something. I’ve even had some fairly recent conversations with people, and they always agree on that point. So, I see the exact opposite of you. For you to announce that the images on TV of weapons inspectors being turned away and delayed didn’t have any affect on peoples perceptions just seems like a very silly argument.
Click to expand...

I don't claim to know what is on everyones mind. No where did I make that claim. Strawman much? And no, if one stoppe dand thought for but a few moments, you would realize we saw most of his weapons destroryed. It was possible and believed that he had some left over wmds, but not that he had stockpiles or that he was gorwnig with active programs. No evidence supported the growing claim, that is, unless . . . of course . . .you used intel inappropriately. Without Curveball, Chalabi, or Libi, the case can't be made at all.


If only we based our security on the thoughts of UN weapons inspectors who only get a part of the picture then you might have a great point. Still, I don’t see how it was a “leap” to war. The ceasefire agreement had been in violation for a long time (going back to Clinton). Numerous resolutions later an invasion finally occurred.
Click to expand...

Instead of Curveball, Chalibi and Libi? Again, the point is they were on the ground, slowly making progress by their judgment. If we were interested in the inspections and the process, we would have waited. We weren't.

Sure you can. Saddam failed to follow through with his obligations, the UN passed a resolution that serious consequences would follow if he didn't follow through. He didn't follow-through and serious consequences followed. I don't care what some other countries thought was meant by serious consequences. You can't get much more serious then what happened. Bush even went the additional step of getting authorization for the war from congress.
Click to expand...

No, the UN did not say what those consequence would be or that they would be merited out by the US. And did you notice congress did not declare war? Cowards though they be, the fact is they did not declare war, and some even argued that he had to it within the UN. But, let's not let facts slow us down. ;)
 
scourge99 said:
There were meetings between Saddam and those affiliated with al-queda. However, it was discovered that Saddam did not trust al-queda for various reasons. Nonetheless, Saddam was actively seeking to increase his ability to use "terrorist-like activities" for political reasons, to increase his asymmetric warfare abilities, etc.
Click to expand...

During the cold war, we met with the Russians as well. Does that mean we were in league with them? We meet with the Talabn now, meet with inusrgants in Iraq, and always meet with our enemies in some capacity. Do these meetings equal us working with them? And what he wanted does not equal what he was able to do.

Bush stated there was no link between al-queda and Saddam to the public. There was worry previously that there WAS a connection due to meetings mentioned before and his harboring of known terrorists.

Did the administration use propaganda to gain support for the war? Yes, like what is done by every leader in American history during wartime.
Click to expand...

He did. True. But as otherrs pointed out, that was when asked directly, and after he had so completely anchored the connection in the public mind. I ran into some yesterday who still believes Saddam was behind 9/11 and that Bush told him he was. True, there are likely few of those left, but misinformation dies a slow, hard death.

Also, it isn't just Bush. Read Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others. The adminsitration did a good job of having members of the administration pushing the message.

Welcome to politics.

I assume you aren't dumb enough to believe what a car-sales man tells you at face value. Why are you so credulous to what politicians tell you?
Click to expand...

At one level I agree with you. And frankly, if it were just politics, involving run of the mill lying, as they all do this, I wouldn't bat an eye. I accept as too many of us do that politicians lie. Lies that send us to war are far too serious for me to dismiss this war. If you're going to ask those I love to go into harms way, I don't ask, I demand that you tell the truth. If you can't tell the truth, you don't deserve the right to send young men and women to war. And I don't care who did it in the past.
 
Boo:

Saddam had 12-years and 16 UN resolutions.
He had and used WMD.
He threw out the Inspecteurs de la UN for years.
Hans Blix stated he was not cooperating and said they had lied about weaponized WMD.
Clinton and the Dems gave warning about war; in fact Clinton sent Cohen out to sell the possibility and gave us a memorable presentation of Anthrax... and Saddam.
After 911, Saddam was given a last chance. All our allies agreed... even the UN agreed he had WMD.
David Kay said we were lucky... because the chance of a terrorist hooking up with WMD was real due to the decay in Iraq.
We discovered a Nuke Black Market from this exercise.
Libya's out of the business.
AND at the same time... we realized the Iranians had an 18-year nuke program. Intel failures in closed societies works both ways.
That's not a complete list, but more than enough.

Hell, Hillary told Code Pink she had knowledge only a first lady (and other insiders) could get about Saddam. There was no lying. Colin Powell isn't totally stupid... they connected the dots that went back more than a decade.

Given the facts, Bush did the right thing, and got the votes to do it.

.
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Boo:

Saddam had 12-years and 16 UN resolutions.
He had and used WMD.
He threw out the Inspecteurs de la UN for years.
Hans Blix stated he was not cooperating and said they had lied about weaponized WMD.
Clinton and the Dems gave warning about war; in fact Clinton sent Cohen out to sell the possibility and gave us a memorable presentation of Anthrax... and Saddam.
After 911, Saddam was given a last chance. All our allies agreed... even the UN agreed he had WMD.
David Kay said we were lucky... because the chance of a terrorist hooking up with WMD was real due to the decay in Iraq.
We discovered a Nuke Black Market from this exercise.
Libya's out of the business.
AND at the same time... we realized the Iranians had an 18-year nuke program. Intel failures in closed societies works both ways.
That's not a complete list, but more than enough.

Hell, Hillary told Code Pink she had knowledge only a first lady (and other insiders) could get about Saddam. There was no lying. Colin Powell isn't totally stupid... they connected the dots that went back more than a decade.

Given the facts, Bush did the right thing, and got the votes to do it.

.
Click to expand...

How can anyone believe Bush did the right thing? Taking Saddam out was not worth the trillion dollars and thousands of lives. It was the biggest mistake in history.

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0405/The-Iraq-war-still-a-massive-mistake
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
My neighbor is an asshole. He might one day lose it. I could just go shoot him, but I would hold up well in court arguing that he migth one day go too far. You and Bush and his supporters tend to put the world in such clear terms, either we kill him now, or we die. Of course, as CATO pointed out. If Saddam was that kind of threat, why weren't we dead already?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to go through the whole thing, but that's not quite the same. It would be more similar to your neighbor being arrested 12 years ago for shooting and poisoning a bunch of his neighbors. After serving a bit in prison, he recieves probation. The stipulations of that probation was that he not be allowed to own any guns and if the police come by with a warrant he must allow them in to search his house. A bunch of different police departments over the course of many years do an investigation and most arrive at the same conclusions - your neighbor has purchased guns in violation of his probation. They attempt to serve warrants to search his house, but he refuses to let them in - or if he does let them in it's only after a few hours of delay. Finally they arrrest your neighbor. They then search his home, but only found old guns just lying around. Some are not serviceable some are not. In the meantime all the liberals are claiming that all of the police departments lied and people died or some such silly slogan.
 
Last edited:
USA-1 said:
How can anyone believe Bush did the right thing? Taking Saddam out was not worth the trillion dollars and thousands of lives. It was the biggest mistake in history.

The Iraq war: still a massive mistake - CSMonitor.com
Click to expand...

That trillion will turn out to be a bargain in the big picture, far better than any trillion Obama spent. We should have crushed him once he started playing games after losing Gulf War 1... but by then the UN was in the process of proving they are corrupted to the core.

The soldiers volunteered, God Bless them, and the great majority believed in their mission.

.
 
Last edited:
bicycleman said:
Glad to see you are an equal opportunity labeler because there were Democrats who voted for that war.




Satellite photos.



Tell me. Did we attack Syria? If not, why didn't we? I'm not privy to CIA briefings. Maybe you are and will enlighten your readers.
Click to expand...

1) Yeah, equal opportunity, the fools in the White House and the Democrat and Republican fools in Congress who voted yea in order not to look weak. All those fools and short-sighted 'leaders.'

2) Satelitte photos are a part of intelligence. Another part would be knowledge of the contents of the trucks. We don't know what was in them.

3) We have attack plans, and other types of war plans for many different countries. They don't mean anything.
 
zimmer said:
That trillion will turn out to be a bargain in the big picture, far better than any trillion Obama spent. We should have crushed him once he started playing games after losing Gulf War 1... but by then the UN was in the process of proving they are corrupted to the core.

The soldiers volunteered, God Bless them, and the great majority believed in their mission.

.
Click to expand...

That trillion was flushed down the toilet. The US will have gained absolutely nothing.
 
zimmer said:
Boo:

Saddam had 12-years and 16 UN resolutions.
He had and used WMD.
He threw out the Inspecteurs de la UN for years.
Hans Blix stated he was not cooperating and said they had lied about weaponized WMD.
Clinton and the Dems gave warning about war; in fact Clinton sent Cohen out to sell the possibility and gave us a memorable presentation of Anthrax... and Saddam.
After 911, Saddam was given a last chance. All our allies agreed... even the UN agreed he had WMD.
David Kay said we were lucky... because the chance of a terrorist hooking up with WMD was real due to the decay in Iraq.
We discovered a Nuke Black Market from this exercise.
Libya's out of the business.
AND at the same time... we realized the Iranians had an 18-year nuke program. Intel failures in closed societies works both ways.
That's not a complete list, but more than enough.

Hell, Hillary told Code Pink she had knowledge only a first lady (and other insiders) could get about Saddam. There was no lying. Colin Powell isn't totally stupid... they connected the dots that went back more than a decade.

Given the facts, Bush did the right thing, and got the votes to do it.

.
Click to expand...

UN reolutions? Seems the guys who despise the UN the most think it was a good idea we went to war to enforce their resolutions.

He had used WMD, you are right. In the early 1980s, while we were his ally during the Iraq-Iran war, he used them on the Iranians and on his own people. We continued to back him anyway. At that time, we turned a blind eye.

Clinton warned about war, but did not invade. Bush should not have attacked either. He should have asked his father why he didn't invade Baghdad in 1991. There were very good reasons, and W. Bush could have learned from them.
 
tryreading said:
Clinton warned about war, but did not invade. Bush should not have attacked either. He should have asked his father why he didn't invade Baghdad in 1991. There were very good reasons, and W. Bush could have learned from them.
Click to expand...


Dick Cheney had a bit to say about that during the first Iraq war.
 
buck said:
Yeah.. You "knew" alright. :roll:

The very next time a dangerous country is acting like they have WMD's and not fullfilling their agreements under international treaties, i'm sure Obama will yell for them to "go get that TryReading guy". Think of all the money that can be saved by just trusting our national defence to you. Sure, you'll be wrong almost all of the time, but just think - you'll always have Iraq. The one time you were right.
Click to expand...

I'll take it. Being right about Iraq is not too bad.

But the thing is, it was so easy. Let's see. Korea, Vietnam... Okay, there's some good history to base an attack and invasion decision on.

Let's do the math:

Korea + Vietnam = Don't fall for it again!


buck said:
Well, IMO there were and will be further benefits from this invesment. But if the only one you can see is the little bit of WMD that we found, good for you.
Click to expand...

Investment? Whaaahahahahahahahahaha.
 
Boo Radley said:
During the cold war, we met with the Russians as well. Does that mean we were in league with them? We meet with the Talabn now, meet with inusrgants in Iraq, and always meet with our enemies in some capacity. Do these meetings equal us working with them? And what he wanted does not equal what he was able to do.
Click to expand...
Are you claiming to know what discussions occurred or did not occur between Saddam and known terrorists?

Are you claiming that Saddam had a BBQ and tea party with known terrorists organizations and that is it?


Boo Radley said:
He did. True. But as otherrs pointed out, that was when asked directly, and after he had so completely anchored the connection in the public mind.
Click to expand...
Its not the administrations job to correct every moron who misunderstands or misinterprets what they say, especially if they end up agreeing with what they want.

Boo Radley said:
I ran into some yesterday who still believes Saddam was behind 9/11 and that Bush told him he was. True, there are likely few of those left, but misinformation dies a slow, hard death.
Click to expand...
And there are people who believe aliens live on earth in reptilian form and control the government. I don't care about their misinformed beliefs either.


Boo Radley said:
At one level I agree with you. And frankly, if it were just politics, involving run of the mill lying, as they all do this, I wouldn't bat an eye. I accept as too many of us do that politicians lie. Lies that send us to war are far too serious for me to dismiss this war. If you're going to ask those I love to go into harms way, I don't ask, I demand that you tell the truth. If you can't tell the truth, you don't deserve the right to send young men and women to war. And I don't care who did it in the past.
Click to expand...
Some people may feel that way. Others such as myself see this as politics as usual. Politics that haven't changed since long before this government was formed.
 
scourge99 said:
Are you claiming to know what discussions occurred or did not occur between Saddam and known terrorists?

Are you claiming that Saddam had a BBQ and tea party with known terrorists organizations and that is it?
Click to expand...

No, and I don't have to claim that. The mere fact that anyone met is not evidence of collaboration. If Bush or anyone else is going to claim a working relationship, they have to prove it. They have to present evidence. And when we meet with known terrorist, and we do, we are neither working with them or having a BBQ and tea party. You're silliness attempts to mask not addressing the point.

Its not the administrations job to correct every moron who misunderstands or misinterprets what they say, especially if they end up agreeing with what they want.

And there are people who believe aliens live on earth in reptilian form and control the government. I don't care about their misinformed beliefs either.
Click to expand...

It's their job not to cloud the issue. Bush's speeches were carefully crafted. The administrations efforts, like say Cheney concerning Atta, for example, speak to this and what they are responsible for.


Some people may feel that way. Others such as myself see this as politics as usual. Politics that haven't changed since long before this government was formed.
Click to expand...

Not sure war is politics. Sorry for anyone who sees it that, personally. War is suffering. To inflict that without just cause and merely call the lying politics is something I really can't accept. Sorry.
 
tryreading said:
Investment? Whaaahahahahahahahahaha.
Click to expand...

4262972122_19999bba46_o.jpg


I love me some wahaha!
 
Boo Radley said:
No, and I don't have to claim that. The mere fact that anyone met is not evidence of collaboration. If Bush or anyone else is going to claim a working relationship, they have to prove it.
Click to expand...
Boo Radley said:
They have to present evidence.
Click to expand...
Prove and present evidence to who? You?

Are you simply being skeptical (E.G., "I don't know if saddam was linked to terrorists or attempting to build relationships") or are you DENYING it (E.G., Saddam was NOT doing these things).



Boo Radley said:
And when we meet with known terrorist, and we do, we are neither working with them or having a BBQ and tea party. You're silliness attempts to mask not addressing the point.
Click to expand...
Are you claiming that the only evidence are these meetings? Are you unaware of saddam's other activities?


Boo Radley said:
It's their job not to cloud the issue. Bush's speeches were carefully crafted. The administrations efforts, like say Cheney concerning Atta, for example, speak to this and what they are responsible for.
Click to expand...
so you'd prefer that leaders say "we aren't 100% positive about Saddam having this or that but we think its probably a good idea. Please support us."

Boo Radley said:
Not sure war is politics. Sorry for anyone who sees it that, personally. War is suffering. To inflict that without just cause and merely call the lying politics is something I really can't accept. Sorry.
Click to expand...
Your personal feelings and what you can or can't accept is irrelevant to me.

Do you have anything to debate on this matter besides your opinion (E.G., "I can't accept it")?
 
Last edited:
scourge99 said:
Prove and present evidence to who? You?

Are you simply being skeptical (E.G., "I don't know if saddam was linked to terrorists or attempting to build relationships") or are you DENYING it (E.G., Saddam was NOT doing these things).
Click to expand...

If they make the claim to me, yes to me. No matter who they make the claim to, they have to present evidence. We shold not be tools and just acept everything said without evidence.



Are you claiming that the only evidence are these meetings? Are you unaware of saddam's other activities?
Click to expand...

I'm fully aware. And there is nothing linking him to working with al qaeda. nothing that held up anyway.


so you'd prefer that leaders say "we aren't 100% positive about Saddam having this or that but we think its probably a good idea. Please support us."
Click to expand...

I prefer the truth. The evidence we had supported that he was not growing and gathering.


Your personal feelings and what you can or can't accept is irrelevant to me.

Do you have anything to debate on this matter besides your opinion (E.G., "I can't accept it")?
Click to expand...

There's an element of opinion in all arguments. Nothing wrong with that either. I don't suggest here I rule the world. But I do ask, is they are reason the government wastes a loved one's life that matters to you? Or are their lives just expendable and cause or truth meaningless to you?
Click to expand...
 
tryreading said:
UN reolutions? Seems the guys who despise the UN the most think it was a good idea we went to war to enforce their resolutions.
Click to expand...
Nice try.

The resolutions are only indications of how toothless the UN was and how long he was gaming with WMD. I know of no Republican using the UN as a reason to go to war. It does illustrate a time line.

He had used WMD, you are right. In the early 1980s, while we were his ally during the Iraq-Iran war, he used them on the Iranians and on his own people. We continued to back him anyway. At that time, we turned a blind eye.
Click to expand...
And what does that have t do with the fact he had weapons, lost a war and signed on to disarm as part of the agreement when they lost the war.

Clinton warned about war, but did not invade. Bush should not have attacked either. He should have asked his father why he didn't invade Baghdad in 1991. There were very good reasons, and W. Bush could have learned from them.
Click to expand...
Clinton was setting the stages, but we know Bill... polls didn't show support, and the only time he would go against polls is when it's military generals. Then he'll fire off some firecrackers into an Afghan Camel's rear, and a Sudanese pill factory.

Bush 41 didn't roll into Baghdad because it was part of the UN Resolution to oust Saddam from Kuwait. Had Bush 41 tromped into Baghdad, the left would have screamed bloody murder.

So what have we learned?

.
 
Last edited:
Just a note. The first Bush explained rather well why going into Baghdad was a bad idea. Wish jr. had read his book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom