Bush's Prophetic Speech in 2007 Fell on Deaf Ears

[homersapien 11,392]

He was against the war from the beginning and never once waivered from that. He ran on that promise in 2008 and he bragged about it in the 2012 campaign. He had already claimed Al-Qeida was decimated and that they were on the run. There was no way in hell he was going to keep any troops there. The anti war people that make up the base of the democrat party would have revolted if he had not pulled out.

Well, let's not forget that there were enough people that didn't make up the "base of the democratic (sic) party" to constitute a majority of Americans. :-\

[homersapien 11,392]

Scary accurate.

http://www.inquisitr...-today-in-iraq/

"I know some in Washington would like us to start leaving Iraq now. To begin withdrawing before our commanders tell us we are 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 increasing the probability that American troops would have to return at some later date to confront an enemy that is even more dangerous."

In other words, his decision to invade was a huge mistake.

As I recall, by this time he had finally figured out to stop listening to Cheney.

[TheBlueVue 177]

In other words, his decision to invade was a huge mistake.

Just remember when you vote for Hillary in 2016, or Biden for that matter, that neither had regrets in their support for the war. I guess that strikes Kerry off the 2016 list since he voted for it before he voted against it. Kerry's kinda like BO, he couldn't make up his mind.

Yep, they were wrong, too. Very disappointing. It was obvious.

They just didn't have the luxury of 20 - 20 hindsight from which to form their opinion like you Tex. Regardless of how wrong it WAS, that was then and this is now. Continuing to whine incessantly about the mistakes THEN doesn't do much to solve the current dilemma that ISIS presents NOW.

The rest of the world didn't require hindsight then and neither did I. And hindsight doesn't help you at all. And I didn't start the thread about how prescient Bush was in 2007. If that's a valid topic then so is 2002. You need to quit whining. It's all you do.

LOL. The Lord has spoken. Your arrogance is hilarious and I mean it. The rest of the world? There were over 50 allies that joined the US in Iraq and a UN resolution in support of US taking action. What "rest" of the world are you referring to Tex?

[homersapien 11,392]

In other words, his decision to invade was a huge mistake.

Just remember when you vote for Hillary in 2016, or Biden for that matter, that neither had regrets in their support for the war. I guess that strikes Kerry off the 2016 list since he voted for it before he voted against it. Kerry's kinda like BO, he couldn't make up his mind.

I'm fine with the good ole USA taking the lead, just no American boots on the ground except as advisors, and PAY us for leading.

Islamic terrorism spreading ? I bet you forgot, "Al Qaeda is on the run"....didn't you ? lol

Wars are won on the ground. You can't "lead" without being on the ground. We can however, provide lots of support - including advisers - to the people who actually win the war.

And I don't think we are entitled to be payed for whatever support we provide.

That's what I said......American troops may be on the ground, as advisors only.

I've heard that before.

[homersapien 11,392]

In other words, his decision to invade was a huge mistake.

Just remember when you vote for Hillary in 2016, or Biden for that matter, that neither had regrets in their support for the war. I guess that strikes Kerry off the 2016 list since he voted for it before he voted against it. Kerry's kinda like BO, he couldn't make up his mind.

Yep, they were wrong, too. Very disappointing. It was obvious.

They just didn't have the luxury of 20 - 20 hindsight from which to form their opinion like you Tex. Regardless of how wrong it WAS, that was then and this is now. Continuing to whine incessantly about the mistakes THEN doesn't do much to solve the current dilemma that ISIS presents NOW.

BS. They knew what the extent of the Iraqi threat was. The WMD thing was just a sales gimmick.

And yeah, lets just forget about our past errors. That's a great way to get better. Let's just wake up in a brand new world every day!

[quietfan 233]

]I don't disagree completely. I will say this about Iraq. In the backdrop of 9/11 you have a man who had WMD in past and had used them. He refused to allow inspectors in to the country. He was making all kind of claims about what he was going to do. Can you afford to take the chance he is bluffing? I'm betting that the chemical weapons in Syria came from Iraq.

I have heard more than one person express the opinion that "Saddam's WMD's were spirited out to Syria". I don't know of any hard evidence to prove the point one way or another, but it doesn't make any sense to me.

If he had them, why didn't he use them against us? Why go to all the trouble to develop WMD's if you're going to give up the war and your regime without using them? I see no logic behind the idea of "Well, gee...I've got these WMD's, but I'll just go ahead and let the Americans win and capture me, and send my most powerful weapon(s) to Syria."

Also, Syria has close ties to Iran, Saddam's mortal enemy. Why give your weapons to the friend of your enemy rather than use them in hopes of saving your own neck? And at that time Assad still had an iron grip on things in Syria. I don't think Saddam sent them to some rebel faction or terrorist group in Syria; if weapons were sent across the border, they would have ended up in Assad's hands.

I think the chemical weapons that Assad used were manufactured by his own regime.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

In other words, his decision to invade was a huge mistake.

Just remember when you vote for Hillary in 2016, or Biden for that matter, that neither had regrets in their support for the war. I guess that strikes Kerry off the 2016 list since he voted for it before he voted against it. Kerry's kinda like BO, he couldn't make up his mind.

I'm fine with the good ole USA taking the lead, just no American boots on the ground except as advisors, and PAY us for leading.

Islamic terrorism spreading ? I bet you forgot, "Al Qaeda is on the run"....didn't you ? lol

Wars are won on the ground. You can't "lead" without being on the ground. We can however, provide lots of support - including advisers - to the people who actually win the war.

And I don't think we are entitled to be payed for whatever support we provide.

That's what I said......American troops may be on the ground, as advisors only.

I've heard that before.

That's a good point homer. I'd prefer that the Arab League handle all of this with NO Americans involved because this is a religious war and not like those we've involved ourselves in the past, but I don't have the confidence in them at all.

[CircleDrill 178]

Bush: "If we don't stay, there will be bigger problems later."

Obama: "I said I would end the war, and I did it."

[cooltigger21 0]

He was against the war from the beginning and never once waivered from that. He ran on that promise in 2008 and he bragged about it in the 2012 campaign. He had already claimed Al-Qeida was decimated and that they were on the run. There was no way in hell he was going to keep any troops there. The anti war people that make up the base of the democrat party would have revolted if he had not pulled out.

Well, let's not forget that there were enough people that didn't make up the "base of the democratic (sic) party" to constitute a majority of Americans. :-\/>

He doesn't care about the majority of Americans. The rest of the people, while war weary,would not have been up in arms had troops stayed.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

And I don't think we are entitled to be payed for whatever support we provide.

All the costs of Gulf War I were paid for by nations other than the USA. The USA paid $ZERO. At least GHWB had real business sense to do that unlike W who raided our treasury and dumped it all in the middle east.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Well, back in the "good ole days" we would have assassinated Maliki and replaced him with (somebody).

I miss those days.

[cooltigger21 0]

]I don't disagree completely. I will say this about Iraq. In the backdrop of 9/11 you have a man who had WMD in past and had used them. He refused to allow inspectors in to the country. He was making all kind of claims about what he was going to do. Can you afford to take the chance he is bluffing? I'm betting that the chemical weapons in Syria came from Iraq.

I have heard more than one person express the opinion that "Saddam's WMD's were spirited out to Syria". I don't know of any hard evidence to prove the point one way or another, but it doesn't make any sense to me.

If he had them, why didn't he use them against us? Why go to all the trouble to develop WMD's if you're going to give up the war and your regime without using them? I see no logic behind the idea of "Well, gee...I've got these WMD's, but I'll just go ahead and let the Americans win and capture me, and send my most powerful weapon(s) to Syria."

Also, Syria has close ties to Iran, Saddam's mortal enemy. Why give your weapons to the friend of your enemy rather than use them in hopes of saving your own neck? And at that time Assad still had an iron grip on things in Syria. I don't think Saddam sent them to some rebel faction or terrorist group in Syria; if weapons were sent across the border, they would have ended up in Assad's hands.

I think the chemical weapons that Assad used were manufactured by his own regime.

Nobody knows for certain. There was a lot of activity along the border shortly before the war started. As to why he would put them there and not use them against us, I think he believed he could come out of this with his regime still basically intact and that he could get those weapons back later. I have yet to see anything indicating any kind of facility for making them in Syria. We will never know for certain on this. The weapons that were used in Syria were in Assads' hands originally. The rebels managed to overtake these places and get their hands on them. Tehran is helping and pushing ISIS. Assad has been brutal against everyone. He will not allow a fundamentalist takeover of his country

[Elephant Tipper 430]

BS. They knew what the extent of the Iraqi threat was. The WMD thing was just a sales gimmick.

And yeah, lets just forget about our past errors. That's a great way to get better. Let's just wake up in a brand new world every day!

Statements like yours are often repeated but with no credible supporting evidence. You should either come up with supporting facts or put a lid on it, otherwise you're an incredible mind reader of what those in the administration were thinking.

My conviction has always been that Cheney and Bush were honestly zealous in defense of our homeland with no other ulterior motives, only the intel was bad, very bad, bad enough to fool 48 other nations as well. And now we continue to pay for dumping a $1 trillion in the sands of Iraq.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

In other words, his decision to invade was a huge mistake.

Just remember when you vote for Hillary in 2016, or Biden for that matter, that neither had regrets in their support for the war. I guess that strikes Kerry off the 2016 list since he voted for it before he voted against it. Kerry's kinda like BO, he couldn't make up his mind.

Yep, they were wrong, too. Very disappointing. It was obvious.

They just didn't have the luxury of 20 - 20 hindsight from which to form their opinion like you Tex. Regardless of how wrong it WAS, that was then and this is now. Continuing to whine incessantly about the mistakes THEN doesn't do much to solve the current dilemma that ISIS presents NOW.

Do you hear yourself? You should think about this one. That is a lot of hypocrisy.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

BS. They knew what the extent of the Iraqi threat was. The WMD thing was just a sales gimmick.

And yeah, lets just forget about our past errors. That's a great way to get better. Let's just wake up in a brand new world every day!

Statements like yours are often repeated but with no credible supporting evidence. You should either come up with supporting facts or put a lid on it, otherwise you're an incredible mind reader of what those in the administration were thinking.

My conviction has always been that Cheney and Bush were honestly zealous in defense of our homeland with no other ulterior motives, only the intel was bad, very bad, bad enough to fool 48 other nations as well. And now we continue to pay for dumping a $1 trillion in the sands of Iraq.

What kind of evidence do you want? The fact that there was no nuclear program in Iraq? There was no stockpile of yellow cake. The aluminum tubes were in fact NOT suitable for centrifuges, there weren't any suitcase nukes, there were no facilities producing poisonous gas or biological weapons. There were no ties to Al Qaeda. The source of the intel seems to be Cheney's office. Hell, Dick Armie says his support was based on Cheney lying to him. Cheney outed a CIA agent who was involved in refuting his yellow cake lie. Dick Cheney is not a good or noble man.

[AUisAll 2]

We left Iraq due to an agreement Bush signed with the Iraqi government to leave by a certain date. No other arrangement for us to remain could be agreed upon because the Iraqi government would not agree to shield our troops from being prosecuted locally for any crimes. We were not going to subject our troops to whatever kangaroo court got set up due to them fighting back against local terrorists. So the deadline came and we left on schedule roughly.

I'm not sure how that gets laid at Obama's feet.

Bull Sh-t. We could have forced a Status of Forces agreement on them and made them like it. This is just another cop-out from Obama and his supporters. Bush said what would happen, basically warning his successor and the American people and Obama ignored it and here we are-right where Bush said we would be.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that discussing anything with you weightier than a Styrofoam packing peanut is a waste of time.

I understand the truth hurts and common sense and logic is foreign to you and your ilk. Obama is a complete POS and anyone that still supports him is an ignorant fool. Excuses, lies and failure is all Obama has left and the sheep just parrot right a long.

[DKW 86 7,429]

If there is one thing that we should have learned form all the bungling that Carter did back in 1979-80 is that we need to stay out of the Middle East. It is THE "Political Turd" of our times. If you go into to handle anything, you get turd all over you.Carter learned this the hard way with the Hostage Negotiations. Reagan found out the same with deploying Marines there.

These are not Western Cultured Civilized folks. Maybe the upper class 5% are but the masses are not. they are in no way ready for democracy. They are not ready for self governance. They in fact reject the idea of self governance. They worship (literally) the idea of a Authoricratic Caliphate. They do not like even our ideas of freedom, civil rights, equal rights for women, protecting the minorities. These ideas are as foreign as can be. Getting in there for any reason other than to kill some terrorists and getting the hell out was a mistake. They are right about one thing: they are ready for a 50 year war. That is their timetable for the destruction of Israel. We are not ready to dedicate that amount of time, blood, money to a war with a mongrel horde. In a way, I wish Israel would leave. That way the Sunnis and the Shiites could just start butchering themselves for the next 100-1000 years.

I read the "Writings of Josephus" doing research on a class i was teaching. If you haven't read Josephus, you should. It will teach you a lot about the Middle Eastern Mind. It will also re-define the word zealot. Zealot is a word we should apply only to those like the zealots at Masada. In Jerusalem, as the Roman Army approached in the year 70, after having literally decimated all the region North of Jerusalem, Josephus a Jew Scribe was put into service to talk with the Jews. He begged, begged, begged for them to surrender and save Jerusalem and the Temple. The Jewish Zealots would not. There were factions inside the city that were warring with each other, not fighting the Romans but slaughtering each other in the streets. They fought so much that they looked up one day and saw the Romans had taken the walls without any bloodshed. The Zealots continued to fight within themselves even harder. The Romans just basically sat back and watched. Josephus watched as his kinsmen were slaughtering each other and were getting more and more out of their minds. The Romans, as they entered into Jerusalem, were horrified to see that the women, children, and elderly were left to starve to death in the homes as the Zealots retreated inward. The scenes of death in the homes were more than even the Roman butchers could handle. The Zealots were feeding only themselves and dragging the food and the gold inward as they retreated and fought among themselves. The Romans got even more disgusted and when it did come time to act they were ruthless to the small remnant left that hadn't butchered themselves. Josephus saw it all.

That friends is either what we are dealing with or close to it. What is going on in Iraq right now has gone on for millennia before in the region. The best thing we can do is to stay the hell away.

[cooltigger21 0]

If there is one thing that we should have learned form all the bungling that Carter did back in 1979-80 is that we need to stay out of the Middle East. It is THE "Political Turd" of our times. If you go into to handle anything, you get turd all over you.Carter learned this the hard way with the Hostage Negotiations. Reagan found out the same with deploying Marines there.

These are not Western Cultured Civilized folks. Maybe the upper class 5% are but the masses are not. they are in no way ready for democracy. They are not ready for self governance. They in fact reject the idea of self governance. They worship (literally) the idea of a Authoricratic Caliphate. They do not like even our ideas of freedom, civil rights, equal rights for women, protecting the minorities. These ideas are as foreign as can be. Getting in there for any reason other than to kill some terrorists and getting the hell out was a mistake. They are right about one thing: they are ready for a 50 year war. That is their timetable for the destruction of Israel. We are not ready to dedicate that amount of time, blood, money to a war with a mongrel horde. In a way, I wish Israel would leave. That way the Sunnis and the Shiites could just start butchering themselves for the next 100-1000 years.

I read the "Writings of Josephus" doing research on a class i was teaching. If you haven't read Josephus, you should. It will teach you a lot about the Middle Eastern Mind. It will also re-define the word zealot. Zealot is a word we should apply only to those like the zealots at Masada. In Jerusalem, as the Roman Army approached in the year 70, after having literally decimated all the region North of Jerusalem, Josephus a Jew Scribe was put into service to talk with the Jews. He begged, begged, begged for them to surrender and save Jerusalem and the Temple. The Jewish Zealots would not. There were factions inside the city that were warring with each other, not fighting the Romans but slaughtering each other in the streets. They fought so much that they looked up one day and saw the Romans had taken the walls without any bloodshed. The Zealots continued to fight within themselves even harder. The Romans just basically sat back and watched. Josephus watched as his kinsmen were slaughtering each other and were getting more and more out of their minds. The Romans, as they entered into Jerusalem, were horrified to see that the women, children, and elderly were left to starve to death in the homes as the Zealots retreated inward. The scenes of death in the homes were more than even the Roman butchers could handle. The Zealots were feeding only themselves and dragging the food and the gold inward as they retreated and fought among themselves. The Romans got even more disgusted and when it did come time to act they were ruthless to the small remnant left that hadn't butchered themselves. Josephus saw it all.

That friends is either what we are dealing with or close to it. What is going on in Iraq right now has gone on for millennia before in the region. The best thing we can do is to stay the hell away.

If they would keep it there, I wouldn't care. These people are determined to spread their religion and their warped view of things to the rest of the world.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

BS. They knew what the extent of the Iraqi threat was. The WMD thing was just a sales gimmick.

And yeah, lets just forget about our past errors. That's a great way to get better. Let's just wake up in a brand new world every day!

Statements like yours are often repeated but with no credible supporting evidence. You should either come up with supporting facts or put a lid on it, otherwise you're an incredible mind reader of what those in the administration were thinking.

My conviction has always been that Cheney and Bush were honestly zealous in defense of our homeland with no other ulterior motives, only the intel was bad, very bad, bad enough to fool 48 other nations as well. And now we continue to pay for dumping a $1 trillion in the sands of Iraq.

What kind of evidence do you want? The fact that there was no nuclear program in Iraq? There was no stockpile of yellow cake. The aluminum tubes were in fact NOT suitable for centrifuges, there weren't any suitcase nukes, there were no facilities producing poisonous gas or biological weapons. There were no ties to Al Qaeda. The source of the intel seems to be Cheney's office. Hell, Dick Armie says his support was based on Cheney lying to him. Cheney outed a CIA agent who was involved in refuting his yellow cake lie. Dick Cheney is not a good or noble man.

You nullify your entire argument by implying that the evidence "seems to be Cheney's office". The word "seems" means YOU DON'T KNOW. Your assertion is pure conjecture that Cheney sought to deceive America that a war might be started. You do not know the man's intentions other than those he stated and you are foolish to pretend otherwise.

The IAEA continued to have difficulty determining with 100% certainty whether SH's nuclear program had been dismantled, even as late as 2003. In fact, two of the most credible witnesses that proclaimed the continuation of the program came from within SH's government, one being SH's own son-in-law General Kamil and the other being a nuclear scientist Salman Zweir, who had previously worked on the Iraqi nuclear program.

http://www.nci.org/new/iraq-ib.htm

The aluminum tubes you refer to were capable of being modified for a nuclear program.

SH continued a cat and mouse game which underscored the uncertainty of his nuclear program. For YEARS SH was given ample opportunity to comply fully but he chose to obfuscate. According to IAEA inspector Hans Blix:

March 7, 2003: UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Hans Blix tells the Security Council that Iraq's cooperation with the inspectors in providing information about past weapons activities has improved, although Baghdad has not yet complied with its disarmament obligations. UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors had stated during briefings to the Security Council on January 27 and February 14 that Iraq was gradually increasing its cooperation with the United Nations. Yet, both deemed the cooperation insufficient. http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/iraqchron

You and others of like mind want to ascribe evil to Dick Cheney, ascribing deceit and dishonesty to him. For what reason(s) ? Oil is the most common claim, and for his own personal gain. Laughable nonsense. People like you want to be perceived as ferreting out the transgressors who took us to war, instead you look stupid. Cheney pursued his obligation to keep America safe. You on the other hand want to divide America from within.

Your hindsight is not even close to 20/20. You act like you're the progenitor of fact when you don't even have a clue.

The greatest problem America continues to face is accurate collection of intelligence, not leadership or ethics with men like Dick Cheney. I'd been found solidly in his camp any day rather than one made of foolish rants like yours.

[TheBlueVue 177]

If there is one thing that we should have learned form all the bungling that Carter did back in 1979-80 is that we need to stay out of the Middle East. It is THE "Political Turd" of our times. If you go into to handle anything, you get turd all over you.Carter learned this the hard way with the Hostage Negotiations. Reagan found out the same with deploying Marines there.

These are not Western Cultured Civilized folks. Maybe the upper class 5% are but the masses are not. they are in no way ready for democracy. They are not ready for self governance. They in fact reject the idea of self governance. They worship (literally) the idea of a Authoricratic Caliphate. They do not like even our ideas of freedom, civil rights, equal rights for women, protecting the minorities. These ideas are as foreign as can be. Getting in there for any reason other than to kill some terrorists and getting the hell out was a mistake. They are right about one thing: they are ready for a 50 year war. That is their timetable for the destruction of Israel. We are not ready to dedicate that amount of time, blood, money to a war with a mongrel horde. In a way, I wish Israel would leave. That way the Sunnis and the Shiites could just start butchering themselves for the next 100-1000 years.

I read the "Writings of Josephus" doing research on a class i was teaching. If you haven't read Josephus, you should. It will teach you a lot about the Middle Eastern Mind. It will also re-define the word zealot. Zealot is a word we should apply only to those like the zealots at Masada. In Jerusalem, as the Roman Army approached in the year 70, after having literally decimated all the region North of Jerusalem, Josephus a Jew Scribe was put into service to talk with the Jews. He begged, begged, begged for them to surrender and save Jerusalem and the Temple. The Jewish Zealots would not. There were factions inside the city that were warring with each other, not fighting the Romans but slaughtering each other in the streets. They fought so much that they looked up one day and saw the Romans had taken the walls without any bloodshed. The Zealots continued to fight within themselves even harder. The Romans just basically sat back and watched. Josephus watched as his kinsmen were slaughtering each other and were getting more and more out of their minds. The Romans, as they entered into Jerusalem, were horrified to see that the women, children, and elderly were left to starve to death in the homes as the Zealots retreated inward. The scenes of death in the homes were more than even the Roman butchers could handle. The Zealots were feeding only themselves and dragging the food and the gold inward as they retreated and fought among themselves. The Romans got even more disgusted and when it did come time to act they were ruthless to the small remnant left that hadn't butchered themselves. Josephus saw it all.

That friends is either what we are dealing with or close to it. What is going on in Iraq right now has gone on for millennia before in the region. The best thing we can do is to stay the hell away.

Excellent post and provides a lot of perspective, however, "staying the hell away" can be interpreted in a number of ways. I totally agree with not re-engaging in the ME with boots on the ground, however, I am all for the US taking a leadership role in assisting with the destruction of ISIS.

[TheBlueVue 177]

BS. They knew what the extent of the Iraqi threat was. The WMD thing was just a sales gimmick.

And yeah, lets just forget about our past errors. That's a great way to get better. Let's just wake up in a brand new world every day!

Statements like yours are often repeated but with no credible supporting evidence. You should either come up with supporting facts or put a lid on it, otherwise you're an incredible mind reader of what those in the administration were thinking.

My conviction has always been that Cheney and Bush were honestly zealous in defense of our homeland with no other ulterior motives, only the intel was bad, very bad, bad enough to fool 48 other nations as well. And now we continue to pay for dumping a $1 trillion in the sands of Iraq.

What kind of evidence do you want? The fact that there was no nuclear program in Iraq? There was no stockpile of yellow cake. The aluminum tubes were in fact NOT suitable for centrifuges, there weren't any suitcase nukes, there were no facilities producing poisonous gas or biological weapons. There were no ties to Al Qaeda. The source of the intel seems to be Cheney's office. Hell, Dick Armie says his support was based on Cheney lying to him. Cheney outed a CIA agent who was involved in refuting his yellow cake lie. Dick Cheney is not a good or noble man.

You nullify your entire argument by implying that the evidence "seems to be Cheney's office". The word "seems" means YOU DON'T KNOW. Your assertion is pure conjecture that Cheney sought to deceive America that a war might be started. You do not know the man's intentions other than those he stated and you are foolish to pretend otherwise.

The IAEA continued to have difficulty determining with 100% certainty whether SH's nuclear program had been dismantled, even as late as 2003. In fact, two of the most credible witnesses that proclaimed the continuation of the program came from within SH's government, one being SH's own son-in-law General Kamil and the other being a nuclear scientist Salman Zweir, who had previously worked on the Iraqi nuclear program.

http://www.nci.org/new/iraq-ib.htm

The aluminum tubes you refer to were capable of being modified for a nuclear program.

SH continued a cat and mouse game which underscored the uncertainty of his nuclear program. For YEARS SH was given ample opportunity to comply fully but he chose to obfuscate. According to IAEA inspector Hans Blix:

March 7, 2003: UNMOVIC Executive Chairman Hans Blix tells the Security Council that Iraq's cooperation with the inspectors in providing information about past weapons activities has improved, although Baghdad has not yet complied with its disarmament obligations. UNMOVIC and IAEA inspectors had stated during briefings to the Security Council on January 27 and February 14 that Iraq was gradually increasing its cooperation with the United Nations. Yet, both deemed the cooperation insufficient. http://www.armscontr...heets/iraqchron

You and others of like mind want to ascribe evil to Dick Cheney, ascribing deceit and dishonesty to him. For what reason(s) ? Oil is the most common claim, and for his own personal gain. Laughable nonsense. People like you want to be perceived as ferreting out the transgressors who took us to war, instead you look stupid. Cheney pursued his obligation to keep America safe. You on the other hand want to divide America from within.

Your hindsight is not even close to 20/20. You act like you're the progenitor of fact when you don't even have a clue.

The greatest problem America continues to face is accurate collection of intelligence, not leadership or ethics with men like Dick Cheney. I'd been found solidly in his camp any day rather than one made of foolish rants like yours.

Hear, hear..well said but, no matter how significant your argument nor how much merit it contains, you're wasting your time with ichy. In his mind, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and George W Bush were the perpetrators of ALL the evil that currently exists in the world. Evil men, all, who set out to intentionally deceive the entire world for personal gain.

[homersapien 11,392]

And I don't think we are entitled to be payed for whatever support we provide.

All the costs of Gulf War I were paid for by nations other than the USA. The USA paid $ZERO. At least GHWB had real business sense to do that unlike W who raided our treasury and dumped it all in the middle east.

I commented on the wisdom of the elder Bush elsewhere.

[homersapien 11,392]

BS. They knew what the extent of the Iraqi threat was. The WMD thing was just a sales gimmick.

And yeah, lets just forget about our past errors. That's a great way to get better. Let's just wake up in a brand new world every day!

Statements like yours are often repeated but with no credible supporting evidence. You should either come up with supporting facts or put a lid on it, otherwise you're an incredible mind reader of what those in the administration were thinking.

My conviction has always been that Cheney and Bush were honestly zealous in defense of our homeland with no other ulterior motives, only the intel was bad, very bad, bad enough to fool 48 other nations as well. And now we continue to pay for dumping a $1 trillion in the sands of Iraq.

There are lots of books on the subject. They may have convinced themselves for all I know, but it was clearly the raison d'etre for the invasion and there weren't any there.

Cheney and Bush were idiots regardless of their motivations. How much time and effort were put into planning and preparing for the post-war occupation phase?

No matter how poorly Obama has performed, in comparison to the Bush/Cheney regime, he has been a welcome relief. I'll take inaction over action any day if the action is doing something really stupid.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

We left Iraq due to an agreement Bush signed with the Iraqi government to leave by a certain date. No other arrangement for us to remain could be agreed upon because the Iraqi government would not agree to shield our troops from being prosecuted locally for any crimes. We were not going to subject our troops to whatever kangaroo court got set up due to them fighting back against local terrorists. So the deadline came and we left on schedule roughly.

I'm not sure how that gets laid at Obama's feet.

Bull Sh-t. We could have forced a Status of Forces agreement on them and made them like it. This is just another cop-out from Obama and his supporters. Bush said what would happen, basically warning his successor and the American people and Obama ignored it and here we are-right where Bush said we would be.

It's becoming increasingly obvious that discussing anything with you weightier than a Styrofoam packing peanut is a waste of time.

I understand the truth hurts and common sense and logic is foreign to you and your ilk. Obama is a complete POS and anyone that still supports him is an ignorant fool. Excuses, lies and failure is all Obama has left and the sheep just parrot right a long.

The next time anything resembling truth or common sense comes flowing from your keyboard, it'll be the first. And you know nothing of my "ilk", which is abundantly demonstrated by the latter half of your worthless post.

[homersapien 11,392]

Cheney/Bush Lies about Iraq:

http://www.cnn.com/2...1/23/bush.iraq/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush and his top aides publicly made 935 false statements about the security risk posed by Iraq in the two years following September 11, 2001, according to a study released Tuesday by two nonprofit journalism groups.

"In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003," reads an overview of the examination, conducted by the Center for Public Integrity and its affiliated group, the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

According to the study, Bush and seven top officials -- including Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- made 935 false statements about Iraq during those two years.

The study was based on a searchable database compiled of primary sources, such as official government transcripts and speeches, and secondary sources -- mainly quotes from major media organizations.

The study says Bush made 232 false statements about Iraq and former leader Saddam Hussein's possessing weapons of mass destruction, and 28 false statements about Iraq's links to al Qaeda.....

Other links:

http://www.informati...article4882.htm

http://rense.com/general58/dadmin.htm

http://www.motherjon...aq-war-timeline

http://antiwar.com/b...o-wmds-in-iraq/

http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.1839347

http://nation.time.c...on-saddams-wmd/

http://www.counterpu...said-what-when/