• 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!

Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS[W:452]

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

So all of the other massive crimes against humanity don't bother you?

List of Saddam's Crimes Is Long - ABC News

A good number of countries in the world also live under brutal dictatorships. We can't go around occupying every country with a horrible government. We would run out of money in a matter of months. Lets think finances here.

Second, there is usually a reason some countries live under dictatorships. Usually their people are barbaric and are politically unstable. Look what happened when Saddam fell. Chaos broke out and
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Do you mean you don't even realize your dishonesty? I don't believe you. But it was nice talking about it with you.

Are you trying to say that at the time Iraq looked like a good decision? The Bush administration literally made stuff up and exaggerated intelligence to get us into this war. The article below literally lays it all out there.
Jeb Bush Re-Writes the History of the Iraq War | Joseph A. Palermo
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Are you trying to say that at the time Iraq looked like a good decision? The Bush administration literally made stuff up and exaggerated intelligence to get us into this war. The article below literally lays it all out there.
Jeb Bush Re-Writes the History of the Iraq War*|*Joseph A. Palermo

From your source:

Jeb and Co. claim that everything was fine in Iraq until Obama failed to keep George W.'s ill-conceived war of aggression running on full throttle. They pretend the 2007 "surge" in Iraq of about 10,000 American soldiers had all but "won" the war and the rise of ISIL/ISIS is Obama's fault. They skip over the pesky fact that it was George W. who negotiated the U.S. troop withdrawal with the Nouri al Maliki regime. (Bush announced the deal at a memorable press conference with Maliki when an Iraqi journalist hurled his shoes at the Leader of the Free World.)

I had just begun skimming the article when I saw this and it struck me as being so biased it reeked of dis-ingenuity.

I don't recall Jeb or anyone in a position to know who said everything was "fine in Iraq until Obama failed."

I think the consensus at the time was that Iraq was relatively stable but it would require a long term commitment of US forces to help maintain that stability.

And the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) could well have been negotiated and agreed upon had the persuasive Obama actually wanted to reach such an agreement.

He didn't.

It would have been politically hazardous for him.

We all know every POTUS has to give some thought to the political ramification of every decision and policy. It is foolish to think otherwise, no matter who the POTUS is or from which political party.

However, we have seen since then that Obama is more than willing to place partisan politics ahead of the good of the country.

And in the final analysis we all can see what happened as a result.

So, whether or not you liked Bushy, you have to admit he was correct on this score.

From the WashPo:

In the summer of 2007, Bush warned of the dire consequence of pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq against the advice of our commanders on the ground. All of Washington was telling Bush that the surge he had launched would fail and that the time had come to withdraw from Iraq and accept defeat.

At a White House news conference on July 12, 2007, Bush declared: “I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we’re ready would be dangerous for Iraq, for the region and for the United States. It would mean surrendering the future of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It would mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It would mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It would mean we’d be increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous.”

He had no idea at the time how prophetic his words would be.

George W. Bush was right about Iraq pullout - The Washington Post
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

From your source:



I had just begun skimming the article when I saw this and it struck me as being so biased it reeked of dis-ingenuity.

I don't recall Jeb or anyone in a position to know who said everything was "fine in Iraq until Obama failed."

I think the consensus at the time was that Iraq was relatively stable but it would require a long term commitment of US forces to help maintain that stability.

And the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) could well have been negotiated and agreed upon had the persuasive Obama actually wanted to reach such an agreement.

He didn't.

It would have been politically hazardous for him.

We all know every POTUS has to give some thought to the political ramification of every decision and policy. It is foolish to think otherwise, no matter who the POTUS is or from which political party.

However, we have seen since then that Obama is more than willing to place partisan politics ahead of the good of the country.

And in the final analysis we all can see what happened as a result.

So, whether or not you liked Bushy, you have to admit he was correct on this score.

From the WashPo:



George W. Bush was right about Iraq pullout - The Washington Post

The Bush era (2006) NIE concluded by consensus amongst the nations intelligence services, that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a direct cause of a sudden increase in global terrorism, and made America less safe! No, Bush gets no credit whatsoever. And Obama certainly has done worse since then in the ME.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

We can cope with ISIS, we just choose not to. Don't mistake the barbarism you see in our absence with how things would be if US troops were still in Iraq.

Saddam murdered an estimate of 1 million people in his 25 years in power. ISIS is small time compared to Saddam.

Nothing like a little exaggeration to help sell an argument. I think you are off by more than 10 fold on your data.... only Heritage Foundations forecast on the budgetary effect of the Bush tax cuts tops this in terms of estimate busts.

The War Crimes of Iraq's Saddam Hussein
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

From your source:



I had just begun skimming the article when I saw this and it struck me as being so biased it reeked of dis-ingenuity.

I don't recall Jeb or anyone in a position to know who said everything was "fine in Iraq until Obama failed."

Seriously? Where have you been in the past few weeks? This is the line that the top Republican candidates have been spouting for the last few weeks.
Jeb Bush blames Iraq unrest on Obama - CNNPolitics.com

I am quoting here:
"ISIS didn't exist when my brother was President. Al Qaeda in Iraq was wiped out when my brother was President," he said. "There were mistakes made in Iraq, for sure, but the surge created a fragile but stable Iraq that the President could've built on and it would've not allowed ISIS."

So basically he is saying that Bush had mostly won the war until Obama failed to to properly occupy the country.

I think the consensus at the time was that Iraq was relatively stable but it would require a long term commitment of US forces to help maintain that stability.

And the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) could well have been negotiated and agreed upon had the persuasive Obama actually wanted to reach such an agreement.

He didn't.

It would have been politically hazardous for him.

We all know every POTUS has to give some thought to the political ramification of every decision and policy. It is foolish to think otherwise, no matter who the POTUS is or from which political party.

However, we hacve seen since then that Obama is more than willing to place partisan politics ahead of the good of the country.

And in the final analysis we all can see what happened as a result.

So, whether or not you liked Bushy, you have to admit he was correct on this score.

From the WashPo:



George W. Bush was right about Iraq pullout - The Washington Post

You don't actually address the main point of the article and also the reason I brought it up. I was making the point that the Bush administration made things up to get into Iraq and were hasty. It wasn't just bad intelligence.

You seem to be implying that a provisional force would have kept Iraq stable. Iraq is a seriously messed up country and is basically made up of a patchwork of ethnic groups that absolutely hate each other. Its government is basically a house full of corrupt weak crooks. Just because there was a lull in the fighting because of a highly expensive surge in the US does not mean that the problem had been mostly solved. Unstable countries like this often have pauses before more fighting. A provisional force would not have been able to stop any of the crazy nonsense that would have sprung up in that God-forsaken hellhole. ISIS spread from Syria and provisional forces would not have been able to stop them. Especially when it would have looked like they were "freeing" Iraq from the Americans. That would have only made them stronger and would have cost thousands more wasted lives of our Soldiers leaving thousands more of our children without mothers and fathers.

It would have taken a permanent occupation force to keep an inherently unstable country stable on a long-term basis. This is not Obama's fault. This is Iraq's and Bush's fault.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

The Bush era (2006) NIE concluded by consensus amongst the nations intelligence services, that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a direct cause of a sudden increase in global terrorism, and made America less safe! No, Bush gets no credit whatsoever. And Obama certainly has done worse since then in the ME.

To use a metaphor, African Killer Bees have been migrating northward from South America for decades.

If left alone they would continue their migration until they are stopped by colder temperatures (one hopes they don't evolve warm winter yellow jackets!).

But any time any living thing gets near their hive they swarm and attack.

Why?

It's their nature. It's what they do.

Now as for the increase in terrorism.

All Muslims are Jihadists. They are commanded by Islamic doctrine to perform jihad in one of the four forms of it. Three being non violent. The other, Jihad by the Sword. But all Jihad is ultimately to help bring about the Prophet's command to all Muslims to help achieve mastery of mankind.

And so Jihadists are continually doing their individual Jihad in their own way in all four forms and in words and deeds large and small. Every day, 24/7 around the world.

They are commanded by Islamic doctrine to perform their acts of jihad in order to conquer the world for Allah and that is what they do.

But whenever Infidels, or Kafirs (any non Muslim is a Kafir) land troops on Islamic lands, no matter that in the case of Desert Storm (in 1990-91) US and Coalition troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia as guests of the sovereign government (the Royal Saudi family), it was an offense to Islam and so the devout Jihadis around the world rose up to try to expel not only the Kafirs but also to expel the Royal family.

That is what devoted Muslims do.

Do we bow to Islamic law?

Do we ignore the Saudi government in favor of religious zealots who want us to convert, become conquered and captives or dead ANYWAY?

It's a complicated matter if you are trying to keep the peace and protect your allies and vital interests.

I will conclude this post with a teaser.

FBI interrogator George Piro said in a CBS 60 Minutes interview that Saddam Hussein confessed to him, after many months of chats and time spent together after he was captured from the spider hole, that he had intentionally bluffed about having WMD's to keep the dreaded Iranians from re-invading Iraq after their bloody war which took more than a million lives combined over ten years of fighting.

And Saddam was more than bluffing about his willingness to destroy Israel if he could. (He'd launched dozens of SCUD missiles into Israel during Desert Storm.)

What was Israel to do when they truly did not know if a WMD 'Sword of Damocles' was hanging over their necks which could wipe them off the map?

What they would do is what they have ALWAYS done when threatened by their hostile neighbors. They eliminate that threat proactively.

But you know how hated Israel is by Muslims.

So what would the Muslim world have done if Israel had launched hundreds of air strikes searching for WMDS and bombing command and control centers without any outward provocation from Iraq to justify their air strikes and/or ground invasion?

That is for another post.

Sorry to ramble.

TD
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

So basically he is saying that Bush had mostly won the war until Obama failed to to properly occupy the country.

You don't actually address the main point of the article and also the reason I brought it up. I was making the point that the Bush administration made things up to get into Iraq and were hasty. It wasn't just bad intelligence.

You seem to be implying that a provisional force would have kept Iraq stable.

[...]

It would have taken a permanent occupation force to keep an inherently unstable country stable on a long-term basis. This is not Obama's fault. This is Iraq's and Bush's fault.

uly 22, 2008, 5:22 PM
McCain: "We Will Come Home In Victory"

Couric: What does victory in Iraq mean to you? And how long are you willing to engage U.S. troops to achieve it?

McCain: We have succeeded in Iraq. We are winning. We will be making additional withdrawals as everybody acknowledged. We may have an advisory capacity as even Sen. Obama agrees. And we may have security arrangements that are in the interest of both countries. But the fact is victory is being achieved now.

A stable society. Secure environment. Functioning government. Functioning legal system. All of the trappings of a nation where people can feel secure in their future in a free and independent nation. And that's what we've succeeded in the strategy which will then mean we are winning the war and bring our troops home.

Couric: What is your biggest fear about bringing troops home too soon, Senator?

McCain: That we lose the fragile success that we have achieved. Al Qaeda is not defeated. They're on the run, but they're not defeated. So my greatest concern is that we announce a date for withdrawal, which would have had devastating consequences if we had done it when Sen. Obama wanted it done.

And we lose all the hard won gains that we achieved at the great sacrifice of American blood and treasure. I don't want that reversed. Sen. Obama had said, well, if things don't go right, he's prepared to send American troops back. I'm prepared to leave when we have victory; so, we will never have to send American troops back.

McCain: "We Will Come Home In Victory" - CBS News

CBS Grudgingly Acknowledges Progress in Iraq, But 'Danger' Ahead --11/26/2007

# ABC's World News, November 22:

DAVID MUIR: Last year on this day, Baghdad was in lockdown after one of that city's deadliest suicide bombings. But the headlines in recent weeks have been different. And today, our Baghdad correspondent, Terry McCarthy, got an extraordinary look at the country, traveling with the number two U.S. General there, Ray Odierno. They made nine stops, visiting several communities that have been notorious for violence. And as Terry reports, the optimism, among Americans at least, is spreading.

TERRY MCCARTHY: From the triangle of death south of Baghdad, to the killing fields of Diyala to the north, to the once deadly deserts of Anbar out west, everywhere we went today, we heard the same thing: Violence is going down. No one is happier than General Odierno, one of the main designers of the U.S. troop surge in Iraq.

[...]

ODIERNO:I think we can be successful here.

MCCARTHY: We have heard others in the top brass sounding optimistic before, but Odierno is not given to hype. And what was even more remarkable about today's trip was how many commanders on the ground now believe they're winning.

[...]

MCCARTHY: The biggest change, local citizens abandoning the insurgency and helping the Americans. Already, the U.S. has signed up 72,000 men to serve as community police. The message we get from U.S. commanders in bases outside Baghdad is pretty much the same wherever we go, cautious optimism. Not only is there a huge increase in Iraqi citizens groups who are coming forward to help the Americans, but overall levels of violence have gone way down.

When the surge started, three or four Americans were being killed every day in Iraq. Now that number has gone down to about one a day. And for Iraqis, reason to be thankful, as well. Civilian deaths in Baghdad are down 65 percent compared to six months ago. Car bombs are down 47 percent. It's important to remember the war is far from over here. Just today, 11 Iraqis were killed in a single attack in southern Baghdad.

[...]

MCCARTHY: Unlike some of the other top brass, General Odierno is a fairly straight shooter and calls it as he sees it. And I think it's very significant that today, even though he's not declaring victory in this war, he clearly thinks they're starting to win.

CBS Grudgingly Acknowledges Progress in Iraq, But 'Danger' Ahead --11/26/2007 | Media Research Center
 
Last edited:
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

It was a darned sight more than that !

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," Bush said after a Cabinet meeting. As evidence, he cited Iraqi intelligence officers' meeting with bin Laden in Sudan. "There's numerous contacts between the two," Bush said.
Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship (washingtonpost.com)
So you disbelieve your own presidents words from 2004 ? Nonsense. The US armed forces were sent into combat on the basis of a known lie tying AQ with Iraq
Did you read that link and who you were quoting?
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Dick Cheney, March 16, 2003:

Vice President Cheney: Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."

Mr. Russert: If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?

Vice President Cheney: Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.

Worst foreign policy disaster since Vietnam.
Do you know who was shooting at the Coalition military, who was murdering the Iraqi civilians, who were threatening the Iraqi people if they tried to vote in their first ever election? I'll save you the time. It was Islamists, the same people who are murdering the Iraqi people over there now, and elsewhere in the Middle East and Africa.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Do you know who was shooting at the Coalition military, who was murdering the Iraqi civilians, who were threatening the Iraqi people if they tried to vote in their first ever election? I'll save you the time. It was Islamists, the same people who are murdering the Iraqi people over there now, and elsewhere in the Middle East and Africa.


What you mean the same people your government set free to do this by deposing Hussein ? Who'd have thunk it :roll:
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Sure they do. And all the crimes against humanity carried out by the United States government against the indigenous people's of America, the crimes against humanity with the US targeting of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the atrocities committed by our CIA against the Latin American community, bother me too, and?

Distraction,

The topic is about Iraqi's loosing will to fight, not USA's dark page in history.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

To use a metaphor, African Killer Bees have been migrating northward from South America for decades.

If left alone they would continue their migration until they are stopped by colder temperatures (one hopes they don't evolve warm winter yellow jackets!).

But any time any living thing gets near their hive they swarm and attack.

Why?

It's their nature. It's what they do.

Now as for the increase in terrorism.

All Muslims are Jihadists. They are commanded by Islamic doctrine to perform jihad in one of the four forms of it. Three being non violent. The other, Jihad by the Sword. But all Jihad is ultimately to help bring about the Prophet's command to all Muslims to help achieve mastery of mankind.

And so Jihadists are continually doing their individual Jihad in their own way in all four forms and in words and deeds large and small. Every day, 24/7 around the world.

They are commanded by Islamic doctrine to perform their acts of jihad in order to conquer the world for Allah and that is what they do.

But whenever Infidels, or Kafirs (any non Muslim is a Kafir) land troops on Islamic lands, no matter that in the case of Desert Storm (in 1990-91) US and Coalition troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia as guests of the sovereign government (the Royal Saudi family), it was an offense to Islam and so the devout Jihadis around the world rose up to try to expel not only the Kafirs but also to expel the Royal family.

That is what devoted Muslims do.

Do we bow to Islamic law?

Do we ignore the Saudi government in favor of religious zealots who want us to convert, become conquered and captives or dead ANYWAY?

It's a complicated matter if you are trying to keep the peace and protect your allies and vital interests.

I will conclude this post with a teaser.

FBI interrogator George Piro said in a CBS 60 Minutes interview that Saddam Hussein confessed to him, after many months of chats and time spent together after he was captured from the spider hole, that he had intentionally bluffed about having WMD's to keep the dreaded Iranians from re-invading Iraq after their bloody war which took more than a million lives combined over ten years of fighting.

And Saddam was more than bluffing about his willingness to destroy Israel if he could. (He'd launched dozens of SCUD missiles into Israel during Desert Storm.)

What was Israel to do when they truly did not know if a WMD 'Sword of Damocles' was hanging over their necks which could wipe them off the map?

What they would do is what they have ALWAYS done when threatened by their hostile neighbors. They eliminate that threat proactively.

But you know how hated Israel is by Muslims.

So what would the Muslim world have done if Israel had launched hundreds of air strikes searching for WMDS and bombing command and control centers without any outward provocation from Iraq to justify their air strikes and/or ground invasion?

That is for another post.

Sorry to ramble.

TD

Some suggested reading.

Iraq war: the greatest intelligence failure in living memory - Telegraph
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Distraction,

The topic is about Iraqi's loosing will to fight, not USA's dark page in history.

Pages!!!! DDD
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Nothing like a little exaggeration to help sell an argument. I think you are off by more than 10 fold on your data.... only Heritage Foundations forecast on the budgetary effect of the Bush tax cuts tops this in terms of estimate busts.

The War Crimes of Iraq's Saddam Hussein

Sooooo... in trying to show that my numbers are off by a factor of 10 you post an "About News" article that does quantify many of the atrocities listed and appears to stop in 1991?

Yeah, not thick enough.

Even more telling is that the one quantifiable atrocity in that article credited Saddam with slaughtering 182,000 Kurds during the al-Anfal campaign which is, if my math is correct, more that the "factor of 10" you claim in your post. Talk about exaggeration to sell an argument! :lamo
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

A paragraph with 3 sentences in my book.

That's cool, I wouldn't hold it against you for not being up to speed on American history and politics.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Thank you for that.

From the cited source.

"Both said that Iraq had no active WMD. Both were ignored or dismissed."

An analogy.

Why did (do) Liberal Americans ignore or dismiss the advice of Conservatives about Barack Obama?

It's clear (in retrospect) that they were (are) right.

I'd say it's because they had no way of verifying the validity of the advice at the time.

And that right there is the crux of the matter of Saddam's WMD's.

There was no way the reports could be confirmed as true or dismissed as B.S.

And in the absence of believable intel the assumption HAD to be that he DID have them and that Israel WAS possibly at existential risk.

And please remember that Saddam was given two or three weeks to either open up to COMPLETELY UNFETTERED weapons inspections OR to find exile in a welcoming country and with him could go all of his family, wives, mistresses and his ill gotten loot from government coffers.

He refused.

Game on.
 
Last edited:
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Thank you for that.

From the cited source.

"Both said that Iraq had no active WMD. Both were ignored or dismissed."

An analogy.

Why did (do) Liberal Americans ignore or dismiss the advice of Conservatives about Barack Obama?

It's clear that they were (are) right.

I'd say it's because they had no way of verifying the validity of the advice at the time.

And that right there is the crux of the matter of Saddam's WMD's.

There was no way the reports could be confirmed as true or dismissed as B.S.

And in the absence of believable intel the assumption HAD to be that he DID have them and that Israel WAS possibly at existential risk.

And please remember that Saddam was given two or three weeks to either open up to COMPLETELY UNFETTERED weapons inspections OR to find exile in a welcoming country and with him could go all of his family, wives, mistresses and his ill gotten loot from government coffers.

He refused.

Game on.

Throw some evidence up on Obama and lets see if I dismiss it!

I don't defend the liberals that supported Bush's war. The material available to call it into question was there all along. FBI field agents sending memos to JEH building headquarters about suspicious behavior amongst individuals of Middle Eastern decent, were ignored. Warnings of men of Middle Eastern decent taking flight lessons was red flagged and also dismissed. Hans Blix said he was receiving access to every designated sight, no WMD's. Accussed Bush of ignoring the facts in favor of his policy. Downing Street acknowledgment that Bush was arranging the intelligence around the policy. Bush's comments of political capital when being a war time president, and how he wouldn't squander it in Iraq as his father had. Joe Wilson calling the president a liar in an editorial in the NYTimes, having confirmed that Hussein hadn't purchased or attempted to purchase yellow cake from Niger. False claims connecting Hussein with AQ/OBL, hyperbolic warnings to gin up fear and thereby support by asking, "do we have to wait for the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud over a US city. The FBI's claim that Bush was misrepresenting the intelligence they had given him to the American public. Powell's thoroughly unconvincing speech to the UN, Curveball, etc., etc., etc..
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Throw some evidence up on Obama and lets see if I dismiss it!

I don't defend the liberals that supported Bush's war. The material available to call it into question was there all along. FBI field agents sending memos to JEH building headquarters about suspicious behavior amongst individuals of Middle Eastern decent, were ignored. Warnings of men of Middle Eastern decent taking flight lessons was red flagged and also dismissed.

Hans Blix said he was receiving access to every designated sight, no WMD's. Accussed Bush of ignoring the facts in favor of his policy. Downing Street acknowledgment that Bush was arranging the intelligence around the policy. Bush's comments of political capital when being a war time president, and how he wouldn't squander it in Iraq as his father had.

Joe Wilson calling the president a liar in an editorial in the NYTimes, having confirmed that Hussein hadn't purchased or attempted to purchase yellow cake from Niger.

False claims connecting Hussein with AQ/OBL, hyperbolic warnings to gin up fear and thereby support by asking, "do we have to wait for the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud over a US city.

The FBI's claim that Bush was misrepresenting the intelligence they had given him to the American public. Powell's thoroughly unconvincing speech to the UN, Curveball, etc., etc., etc..

 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS



Bob Woodward and Fox News. The premier authorities, lol. Sorry dude. 16 intelligence services vs. Fox/Woodward. :lamo
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Bob Woodward and Fox News. The premier authorities, lol. Sorry dude. 16 intelligence services vs. Fox/Woodward. :lamo
Why not directly quote those 16 intelligence sources which say Bush lied?
 
Back
Top Bottom