Bush's Prophetic Speech in 2007 Fell on Deaf Ears

[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.

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.

Ouch. That last one must have stung you a bit. A mirror can be a depressing thing, especially when you are a libbie.

[DKW 86 7,429]

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/

How many false statements did Kerry, Clinton, et al make?

It was a total govt fail. Primarily bush43, etc, but not entirely.

[AUDub 11,155]

Ouch. That last one must have stung you a bit. A mirror can be a depressing thing, especially when you are a libbie.

Titan, a liberal? BWAHAHAHAHA!

[TexasTiger 12,958]

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.

Ouch. That last one must have stung you a bit. A mirror can be a depressing thing, especially when you are a libbie.

Titan's no "Libbie," but unlike you he has a fully functioning brain.

[cooltigger21 0]

We can play the game of because Bush went into Iraq we now have ISIS. Well we can go back and thank none other than General Colin Powell for the fact that Saddam was still there. We were poised to go in and take him out in the first gulf war. Powell convinced bush 41 not to do that. Not only that but we had encouraged the kurds and others we would at least protect them and even back them in rebellion. We then turned around and didn't do it. Sounds familiar. If Clinton had not insisted on treating the terrorists as criminals subject to the criminal justice system and treated them as an enemy in war 9/11 wouldn't have happened and the Iraq and Afghan wars would never have taken place. Sudan had Bin Laden and was ready to hand him over but Clinton refused because he didn't think he could get a conviction in court. We were hit with the first WTC attack. The blackhawk down in Somalia, the attack on our embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole. Not one single time did he do a damn thing about it and that convinced Bin Laden that he could hit us with the 9/11 attack and nothing would be done about it.

[telling tiger 156]

Yeah...uh...............one of the most socially conservative people here is a liberal?

You are even brighter than I thought and I REALLY thought you were the intellectual beacon and hope for future generations....

Those comprehension skills are on FIRE dude!!!!!

No.............really...they are burning down....good grief....

[homersapien 11,393]

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/

How many false statements did Kerry, Clinton, et al make?

It was a total govt fail. Primarily bush43, etc, but not entirely.

Don't know but the subject is Bush/Cheney and the Iraqi invasion.

[homersapien 11,393]

Ouch. That last one must have stung you a bit. A mirror can be a depressing thing, especially when you are a libbie.

That's good, Titan is a "libbie".

Clueless.

[homersapien 11,393]

We can play the game of because Bush went into Iraq we now have ISIS. Well we can go back and thank none other than General Colin Powell for the fact that Saddam was still there. We were poised to go in and take him out in the first gulf war. Powell convinced bush 41 not to do that. Not only that but we had encouraged the kurds and others we would at least protect them and even back them in rebellion. We then turned around and didn't do it. Sounds familiar. If Clinton had not insisted on treating the terrorists as criminals subject to the criminal justice system and treated them as an enemy in war 9/11 wouldn't have happened and the Iraq and Afghan wars would never have taken place. Sudan had Bin Laden and was ready to hand him over but Clinton refused because he didn't think he could get a conviction in court. We were hit with the first WTC attack. The blackhawk down in Somalia, the attack on our embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole. Not one single time did he do a damn thing about it and that convinced Bin Laden that he could hit us with the 9/11 attack and nothing would be done about it.

You really don't get the chain of logic here, do you?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

Ouch. That last one must have stung you a bit. A mirror can be a depressing thing, especially when you are a libbie.

That's good, Titan is a "libbie".

Clueless.

Theys all libtards.

[AUFAN78 3,911]

Ouch. That last one must have stung you a bit. A mirror can be a depressing thing, especially when you are a libbie.

That's good, Titan is a "libbie".

Clueless.

Theys all libtards.

What up Al?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Ouch. That last one must have stung you a bit. A mirror can be a depressing thing, especially when you are a libbie.

That's good, Titan is a "libbie".

Clueless.

Utterly. It's like someone just pulls a string on his back and dumb stuff comes out.

[TexasTiger 12,958]

Ouch. That last one must have stung you a bit. A mirror can be a depressing thing, especially when you are a libbie.

That's good, Titan is a "libbie".

Clueless.

Utterly. It's like someone just pulls a string on his back and dumb stuff comes out.

More like the string is in a stuck position.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Ouch. That last one must have stung you a bit. A mirror can be a depressing thing, especially when you are a libbie.

That's good, Titan is a "libbie".

Clueless.

Utterly. It's like someone just pulls a string on his back and dumb stuff comes out.

More like the string is in a stuck position.

With what few comments of Titan's I've read, I've never been impressed that he is conservative, just less liberal than most of you other libs.

[TexasTiger 12,958]

Ouch. That last one must have stung you a bit. A mirror can be a depressing thing, especially when you are a libbie.

That's good, Titan is a "libbie". :laugh:/>

Clueless.

Utterly. It's like someone just pulls a string on his back and dumb stuff comes out.

More like the string is in a stuck position.

With what few comments of Titan's I've read, I've never been impressed that he is conservative, just less liberal than most of you other libs.

That just proves how extreme you are.

[homersapien 11,393]

Ouch. That last one must have stung you a bit. A mirror can be a depressing thing, especially when you are a libbie.

That's good, Titan is a "libbie".

Clueless.

Utterly. It's like someone just pulls a string on his back and dumb stuff comes out.

More like the string is in a stuck position.

With what few comments of Titan's I've read, I've never been impressed that he is conservative, just less liberal than most of you other libs.

Titan didn't leave the wackos. The wackos left him!

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Ouch. That last one must have stung you a bit. A mirror can be a depressing thing, especially when you are a libbie.

That's good, Titan is a "libbie". :laugh:/>

Clueless.

Utterly. It's like someone just pulls a string on his back and dumb stuff comes out.

More like the string is in a stuck position.

With what few comments of Titan's I've read, I've never been impressed that he is conservative, just less liberal than most of you other libs.

I just don't feel any need to subscribe to every harebrained position some party or self appointed arbiter of conservatism comes up with.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

From The American Conservative's Rod Dreher, who debunks this in far more detail than I could off the cuff:

The Bush ‘Prophecy’

Posted By Rod Dreher On September 10, 2014

My Facebook feed is filling with a clip from Megyn Kelly’s Fox News Channel show the other night, which featured the chyron headline PRES BUSH’S PROPHETIC IRAQ WARNING ^[1]. The piece features a 2007 statement made by then President G.W. Bush warning against premature withdrawal from Iraq:

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 Qaida. It’d mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It’d mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It’d 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.

Kelly reacts as if she had just heard from Nostradamus, and turns to former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, who then blames Obama for ISIS.

This clip keeps being sent to me as proof that Dubya told us so, and that Obama is an idiot. Let’s remember a few things:

1. Bush sold the Iraq War on the premise that it would be relatively quick, that we would get in there, knock off Saddam, and the grateful Iraqis would respond by setting up a functional democracy in the Middle East, one that would be our ally. Let’s remind ourselves what the Bush administration was saying ^[2], via Dick Cheney, in September 2003, six months after the Iraq war started:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to one of the most quoted passages from MEET THE PRESS when you were on in March, and that was trying to anticipate the reaction we would receive from the Iraqi people. Let’s watch:

(Videotape, March 16, 2003):

VICE PRES. CHENEY: 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 PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s unlikely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with various groups and individuals, people who’ve devoted their lives from the outside to try and change things inside of Iraq.

The read we get on the people of Iraq is there’s no question but what they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: We have not been greeted as liberated.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think we have by most Iraqis. I think the majority of Iraqis are thankful for the fact that the United States is there, that we came and we took down the Saddam Hussein government. And I think if you go in vast areas of the country, the Shia in the south, which are about 60 percent of the population, 20-plus percent in the north, in the Kurdish areas, and in some of the Sunni areas, you’ll find that, for the most part, a majority of Iraqis support what we did.

MR. RUSSERT: People like Ahmed Chalabi, former Iraqis who came in and briefed—you talked about—did they sell us a bill of goods? Did they tell us this would be easier, that we’d be welcomed with flowers, and not the kind of armed resistance we’re being met with?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think they felt—certainly, they were advocates of the U.S. action because they wanted to liberate Iraq from, you know, what has been one of the worst dictatorships of the 20th century, the Saddam Hussein regime. And I see and receive evidence on a fairly regular basis. I mean, if you go out and look at what’s happening on the ground, you’ll find that there is widespread support.

The point is this: you don’t get to praise Bush for his 2007 foresight without recognizing that his catastrophic lack of same embroiled the nation in this pointless war.

2. It was George W. Bush and the Iraqi government who decided when U.S. troops would leave, not Barack Obama. From Time, October 21, 2011 ^[3]:

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that

set the clock ticking

^[4]

on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate.

And as Middle East historian

Juan Cole has noted

^[5]

, “Bush had to sign what the [iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But

ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis

, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the

political risk

^[6]

of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it.

Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal. The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. But President Bush hadn’t anticipated that Iraqi democracy would see pro-U.S. parties sidelined and would, instead, consistently return

governments closer to Tehran than they are to Washington

^[7]

. Contra expectations, a democratic Iraq has turned out to be at odds with much of U.S. regional strategy — first and foremost its campaign to isolate Iran.

President Obama was faulted for not pushing harder against the Maliki government to amend the SOFA so that US troops could stay longer. It may be a fair criticism, but that brings us to the third point:

3. Three out of four Americans in 2011 wanted the president to withdraw all US troops from Iraq. Read the Gallup poll; ^[8] how soon, and how conveniently, we forget. You cannot keep US soldiers in a hopeless war with 75 percent of the country against that policy. Gallup’s poll numbers show that even though the percentage of Americans in 2014 who believe total withdrawal was the right thing is down to 61 percent, that’s still a strong majority. President Obama did what the Iraqis would allow him to do — it’s their country, after all — and what the American people wanted him to do.

This Bush prophecy business is b.s. through and through. It’s important to say that now, because Dick Cheney, one of the principal architects of one of the worst disasters in US foreign policy and military history, is now making an “I Told You So” tour ^[9], back in Washington (a standing ovation ^[10] at AEI!) spreading his wisdom to appreciative conservative audiences. It’s like they let Bernie Madoff work on Wall Street again, or returned the FEMA portfolio to Brownie.

This is Republican poison. And you watch: Rand Paul aside, the whole party is going to swallow it again, like dogs going back to their own vomit.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/the-absurd-bush-prophecy

[TheBlueVue 177]

From The American Conservative's Rod Dreher, who debunks this in far more detail than I could off the cuff:

The Bush ‘Prophecy’

Posted By Rod Dreher On September 10, 2014

My Facebook feed is filling with a clip from Megyn Kelly’s Fox News Channel show the other night, which featured the chyron headline PRES BUSH’S PROPHETIC IRAQ WARNING ^[1]. The piece features a 2007 statement made by then President G.W. Bush warning against premature withdrawal from Iraq:

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 Qaida. It’d mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It’d mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It’d 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.

Kelly reacts as if she had just heard from Nostradamus, and turns to former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, who then blames Obama for ISIS.

This clip keeps being sent to me as proof that Dubya told us so, and that Obama is an idiot. Let’s remember a few things:

1. Bush sold the Iraq War on the premise that it would be relatively quick, that we would get in there, knock off Saddam, and the grateful Iraqis would respond by setting up a functional democracy in the Middle East, one that would be our ally. Let’s remind ourselves what the Bush administration was saying ^[2], via Dick Cheney, in September 2003, six months after the Iraq war started:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to one of the most quoted passages from MEET THE PRESS when you were on in March, and that was trying to anticipate the reaction we would receive from the Iraqi people. Let’s watch:

(Videotape, March 16, 2003):

VICE PRES. CHENEY: 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 PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s unlikely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with various groups and individuals, people who’ve devoted their lives from the outside to try and change things inside of Iraq.

The read we get on the people of Iraq is there’s no question but what they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: We have not been greeted as liberated.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think we have by most Iraqis. I think the majority of Iraqis are thankful for the fact that the United States is there, that we came and we took down the Saddam Hussein government. And I think if you go in vast areas of the country, the Shia in the south, which are about 60 percent of the population, 20-plus percent in the north, in the Kurdish areas, and in some of the Sunni areas, you’ll find that, for the most part, a majority of Iraqis support what we did.

MR. RUSSERT: People like Ahmed Chalabi, former Iraqis who came in and briefed—you talked about—did they sell us a bill of goods? Did they tell us this would be easier, that we’d be welcomed with flowers, and not the kind of armed resistance we’re being met with?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think they felt—certainly, they were advocates of the U.S. action because they wanted to liberate Iraq from, you know, what has been one of the worst dictatorships of the 20th century, the Saddam Hussein regime. And I see and receive evidence on a fairly regular basis. I mean, if you go out and look at what’s happening on the ground, you’ll find that there is widespread support.

The point is this: you don’t get to praise Bush for his 2007 foresight without recognizing that his catastrophic lack of same embroiled the nation in this pointless war.

2. It was George W. Bush and the Iraqi government who decided when U.S. troops would leave, not Barack Obama. From Time, October 21, 2011 ^[3]:

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that

set the clock ticking

^[4]

on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate.

And as Middle East historian

Juan Cole has noted

^[5]

, “Bush had to sign what the [iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But

ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis

, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the

political risk

^[6]

of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it.

Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal. The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. But President Bush hadn’t anticipated that Iraqi democracy would see pro-U.S. parties sidelined and would, instead, consistently return

governments closer to Tehran than they are to Washington

^[7]

. Contra expectations, a democratic Iraq has turned out to be at odds with much of U.S. regional strategy — first and foremost its campaign to isolate Iran.

President Obama was faulted for not pushing harder against the Maliki government to amend the SOFA so that US troops could stay longer. It may be a fair criticism, but that brings us to the third point:

3. Three out of four Americans in 2011 wanted the president to withdraw all US troops from Iraq. Read the Gallup poll; ^[8] how soon, and how conveniently, we forget. You cannot keep US soldiers in a hopeless war with 75 percent of the country against that policy. Gallup’s poll numbers show that even though the percentage of Americans in 2014 who believe total withdrawal was the right thing is down to 61 percent, that’s still a strong majority. President Obama did what the Iraqis would allow him to do — it’s their country, after all — and what the American people wanted him to do.

This Bush prophecy business is b.s. through and through. It’s important to say that now, because Dick Cheney, one of the principal architects of one of the worst disasters in US foreign policy and military history, is now making an “I Told You So” tour ^[9], back in Washington (a standing ovation ^[10] at AEI!) spreading his wisdom to appreciative conservative audiences. It’s like they let Bernie Madoff work on Wall Street again, or returned the FEMA portfolio to Brownie.

This is Republican poison. And you watch: Rand Paul aside, the whole party is going to swallow it again, like dogs going back to their own vomit.

http://www.theameric...d-bush-prophecy

Oh, I dont think ANYONE has ever opined that GWB didn't make mistakes. Show me a President who hasn't. Deposing Saddam Hussein had worldwide sponsorship AND support. Actually 4 other countries supplied troops and 36 more were intimately involved in the aftermath of the 2003 Invasion that 40 other countries were in on ousting SH. No question, mistakes were made by just about everyone including many democrats who also supported the invasion, presumably, based on the intelligence they had at that time.

I would say its not especially even handed to criticize the sitting President for making mistakes if you're unwilling to acknowledge the things he got right. There is NO DOUBT he was right about The Surge, an effort that then Senator Obama voted against, but, subsequently took credit for as a great accomplishment of his administration when justifying withdrawal of ALL US troops in Iraq. In the end, Bush was correct about the consequences of withdrawing too soon. I have no problem acknowledging that and giving him credit. I also have no problem pointing out that in his haste to end the Iraq War instead of finishing winning it, Obama's diplomatic corp made a fatal mistake in asserting insufficient effort negotiating a status of farces agreement to insure our troops immunity. "They wouldn't budge" was the prevailing excuse but it seems they had no problem negotiating for that immunity now or... did they? We currently have approaching 1600 troops on the ground in Iraq. Do they have immunity now?

[cooltigger21 0]

From The American Conservative's Rod Dreher, who debunks this in far more detail than I could off the cuff:

The Bush ‘Prophecy’

Posted By Rod Dreher On September 10, 2014

My Facebook feed is filling with a clip from Megyn Kelly’s Fox News Channel show the other night, which featured the chyron headline PRES BUSH’S PROPHETIC IRAQ WARNING ^[1]. The piece features a 2007 statement made by then President G.W. Bush warning against premature withdrawal from Iraq:

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 Qaida. It’d mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It’d mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It’d 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.

Kelly reacts as if she had just heard from Nostradamus, and turns to former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, who then blames Obama for ISIS.

This clip keeps being sent to me as proof that Dubya told us so, and that Obama is an idiot. Let’s remember a few things:

1. Bush sold the Iraq War on the premise that it would be relatively quick, that we would get in there, knock off Saddam, and the grateful Iraqis would respond by setting up a functional democracy in the Middle East, one that would be our ally. Let’s remind ourselves what the Bush administration was saying ^[2], via Dick Cheney, in September 2003, six months after the Iraq war started:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to one of the most quoted passages from MEET THE PRESS when you were on in March, and that was trying to anticipate the reaction we would receive from the Iraqi people. Let’s watch:

(Videotape, March 16, 2003):

VICE PRES. CHENEY: 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 PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s unlikely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with various groups and individuals, people who’ve devoted their lives from the outside to try and change things inside of Iraq.

The read we get on the people of Iraq is there’s no question but what they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: We have not been greeted as liberated.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think we have by most Iraqis. I think the majority of Iraqis are thankful for the fact that the United States is there, that we came and we took down the Saddam Hussein government. And I think if you go in vast areas of the country, the Shia in the south, which are about 60 percent of the population, 20-plus percent in the north, in the Kurdish areas, and in some of the Sunni areas, you’ll find that, for the most part, a majority of Iraqis support what we did.

MR. RUSSERT: People like Ahmed Chalabi, former Iraqis who came in and briefed—you talked about—did they sell us a bill of goods? Did they tell us this would be easier, that we’d be welcomed with flowers, and not the kind of armed resistance we’re being met with?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think they felt—certainly, they were advocates of the U.S. action because they wanted to liberate Iraq from, you know, what has been one of the worst dictatorships of the 20th century, the Saddam Hussein regime. And I see and receive evidence on a fairly regular basis. I mean, if you go out and look at what’s happening on the ground, you’ll find that there is widespread support.

The point is this: you don’t get to praise Bush for his 2007 foresight without recognizing that his catastrophic lack of same embroiled the nation in this pointless war.

2. It was George W. Bush and the Iraqi government who decided when U.S. troops would leave, not Barack Obama. From Time, October 21, 2011 ^[3]:

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that

set the clock ticking

^[4]

on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate.

And as Middle East historian

Juan Cole has noted

^[5]

, “Bush had to sign what the [iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But

ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis

, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the

political risk

^[6]

of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it.

Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal. The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. But President Bush hadn’t anticipated that Iraqi democracy would see pro-U.S. parties sidelined and would, instead, consistently return

governments closer to Tehran than they are to Washington

^[7]

. Contra expectations, a democratic Iraq has turned out to be at odds with much of U.S. regional strategy — first and foremost its campaign to isolate Iran.

President Obama was faulted for not pushing harder against the Maliki government to amend the SOFA so that US troops could stay longer. It may be a fair criticism, but that brings us to the third point:

3. Three out of four Americans in 2011 wanted the president to withdraw all US troops from Iraq. Read the Gallup poll; ^[8] how soon, and how conveniently, we forget. You cannot keep US soldiers in a hopeless war with 75 percent of the country against that policy. Gallup’s poll numbers show that even though the percentage of Americans in 2014 who believe total withdrawal was the right thing is down to 61 percent, that’s still a strong majority. President Obama did what the Iraqis would allow him to do — it’s their country, after all — and what the American people wanted him to do.

This Bush prophecy business is b.s. through and through. It’s important to say that now, because Dick Cheney, one of the principal architects of one of the worst disasters in US foreign policy and military history, is now making an “I Told You So” tour ^[9], back in Washington (a standing ovation ^[10] at AEI!) spreading his wisdom to appreciative conservative audiences. It’s like they let Bernie Madoff work on Wall Street again, or returned the FEMA portfolio to Brownie.

This is Republican poison. And you watch: Rand Paul aside, the whole party is going to swallow it again, like dogs going back to their own vomit.

http://www.theameric...d-bush-prophecy

Oh, I dont think ANYONE has ever opined that GWB didn't make mistakes. Show me a President who hasn't. Deposing Saddam Hussein had worldwide sponsorship AND support. Actually 4 other countries supplied troops and 36 more were intimately involved in the aftermath of the 2003 Invasion that 40 other countries were in on ousting SH. No question, mistakes were made by just about everyone including many democrats who also supported the invasion, presumably, based on the intelligence they had at that time.

I would say its not especially even handed to criticize the sitting President for making mistakes if you're unwilling to acknowledge the things he got right. There is NO DOUBT he was right about The Surge, an effort that then Senator Obama voted against, but, subsequently took credit for as a great accomplishment of his administration when justifying withdrawal of ALL US troops in Iraq. In the end, Bush was correct about the consequences of withdrawing too soon. I have no problem acknowledging that and giving him credit. I also have no problem pointing out that in his haste to end the Iraq War instead of finishing winning it, Obama's diplomatic corp made a fatal mistake in asserting insufficient effort negotiating a status of farces agreement to insure our troops immunity. "They wouldn't budge" was the prevailing excuse but it seems they had no problem negotiating for that immunity now or... did they? We currently have approaching 1600 troops on the ground in Iraq. Do they have immunity now?

Obama asked about immunity, they said no. That was the extent of his negotiating most likely. He had no interest in keeping troops there, especially after he campaigned so hard on ending the war and made it a centerpiece of what his presidency would be.

[TheBlueVue 177]

From The American Conservative's Rod Dreher, who debunks this in far more detail than I could off the cuff:

The Bush ‘Prophecy’

Posted By Rod Dreher On September 10, 2014

My Facebook feed is filling with a clip from Megyn Kelly’s Fox News Channel show the other night, which featured the chyron headline PRES BUSH’S PROPHETIC IRAQ WARNING ^[1]. The piece features a 2007 statement made by then President G.W. Bush warning against premature withdrawal from Iraq:

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 Qaida. It’d mean that we’d be risking mass killings on a horrific scale. It’d mean we’d allow the terrorists to establish a safe haven in Iraq to replace the one they lost in Afghanistan. It’d 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.

Kelly reacts as if she had just heard from Nostradamus, and turns to former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, who then blames Obama for ISIS.

This clip keeps being sent to me as proof that Dubya told us so, and that Obama is an idiot. Let’s remember a few things:

1. Bush sold the Iraq War on the premise that it would be relatively quick, that we would get in there, knock off Saddam, and the grateful Iraqis would respond by setting up a functional democracy in the Middle East, one that would be our ally. Let’s remind ourselves what the Bush administration was saying ^[2], via Dick Cheney, in September 2003, six months after the Iraq war started:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to one of the most quoted passages from MEET THE PRESS when you were on in March, and that was trying to anticipate the reaction we would receive from the Iraqi people. Let’s watch:

(Videotape, March 16, 2003):

VICE PRES. CHENEY: 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 PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s unlikely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with various groups and individuals, people who’ve devoted their lives from the outside to try and change things inside of Iraq.

The read we get on the people of Iraq is there’s no question but what they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: We have not been greeted as liberated.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think we have by most Iraqis. I think the majority of Iraqis are thankful for the fact that the United States is there, that we came and we took down the Saddam Hussein government. And I think if you go in vast areas of the country, the Shia in the south, which are about 60 percent of the population, 20-plus percent in the north, in the Kurdish areas, and in some of the Sunni areas, you’ll find that, for the most part, a majority of Iraqis support what we did.

MR. RUSSERT: People like Ahmed Chalabi, former Iraqis who came in and briefed—you talked about—did they sell us a bill of goods? Did they tell us this would be easier, that we’d be welcomed with flowers, and not the kind of armed resistance we’re being met with?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think they felt—certainly, they were advocates of the U.S. action because they wanted to liberate Iraq from, you know, what has been one of the worst dictatorships of the 20th century, the Saddam Hussein regime. And I see and receive evidence on a fairly regular basis. I mean, if you go out and look at what’s happening on the ground, you’ll find that there is widespread support.

The point is this: you don’t get to praise Bush for his 2007 foresight without recognizing that his catastrophic lack of same embroiled the nation in this pointless war.

2. It was George W. Bush and the Iraqi government who decided when U.S. troops would leave, not Barack Obama. From Time, October 21, 2011 ^[3]:

In one of his final acts in office, President Bush in December of 2008 had signed a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the Iraqi government that

set the clock ticking

^[4]

on ending the war he’d launched in March of 2003. The SOFA provided a legal basis for the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq after the United Nations Security Council mandate for the occupation mission expired at the end of 2008. But it required that all U.S. forces be gone from Iraq by January 1, 2012, unless the Iraqi government was willing to negotiate a new agreement that would extend their mandate.

And as Middle East historian

Juan Cole has noted

^[5]

, “Bush had to sign what the [iraqi] parliament gave him or face the prospect that U.S. troops would have to leave by 31 December, 2008, something that would have been interpreted as a defeat… Bush and his generals clearly expected, however, that over time Washington would be able to wriggle out of the treaty and would find a way to keep a division or so in Iraq past that deadline.”

But

ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis

, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the

political risk

^[6]

of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it.

Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.

So, while U.S. commanders would have liked to have kept a division or more behind in Iraq to face any contingencies — and, increasingly, Administration figures had begun citing the challenge of Iran, next door — it was Iraqi democracy that put the kibosh on that goal. The Bush Administration had agreed in 2004 to restore Iraqi sovereignty, and in 2005 put the country’s elected government in charge of shaping its destiny. But President Bush hadn’t anticipated that Iraqi democracy would see pro-U.S. parties sidelined and would, instead, consistently return

governments closer to Tehran than they are to Washington

^[7]

. Contra expectations, a democratic Iraq has turned out to be at odds with much of U.S. regional strategy — first and foremost its campaign to isolate Iran.

President Obama was faulted for not pushing harder against the Maliki government to amend the SOFA so that US troops could stay longer. It may be a fair criticism, but that brings us to the third point:

3. Three out of four Americans in 2011 wanted the president to withdraw all US troops from Iraq. Read the Gallup poll; ^[8] how soon, and how conveniently, we forget. You cannot keep US soldiers in a hopeless war with 75 percent of the country against that policy. Gallup’s poll numbers show that even though the percentage of Americans in 2014 who believe total withdrawal was the right thing is down to 61 percent, that’s still a strong majority. President Obama did what the Iraqis would allow him to do — it’s their country, after all — and what the American people wanted him to do.

This Bush prophecy business is b.s. through and through. It’s important to say that now, because Dick Cheney, one of the principal architects of one of the worst disasters in US foreign policy and military history, is now making an “I Told You So” tour ^[9], back in Washington (a standing ovation ^[10] at AEI!) spreading his wisdom to appreciative conservative audiences. It’s like they let Bernie Madoff work on Wall Street again, or returned the FEMA portfolio to Brownie.

This is Republican poison. And you watch: Rand Paul aside, the whole party is going to swallow it again, like dogs going back to their own vomit.

http://www.theameric...d-bush-prophecy

Oh, I dont think ANYONE has ever opined that GWB didn't make mistakes. Show me a President who hasn't. Deposing Saddam Hussein had worldwide sponsorship AND support. Actually 4 other countries supplied troops and 36 more were intimately involved in the aftermath of the 2003 Invasion that 40 other countries were in on ousting SH. No question, mistakes were made by just about everyone including many democrats who also supported the invasion, presumably, based on the intelligence they had at that time.

I would say its not especially even handed to criticize the sitting President for making mistakes if you're unwilling to acknowledge the things he got right. There is NO DOUBT he was right about The Surge, an effort that then Senator Obama voted against, but, subsequently took credit for as a great accomplishment of his administration when justifying withdrawal of ALL US troops in Iraq. In the end, Bush was correct about the consequences of withdrawing too soon. I have no problem acknowledging that and giving him credit. I also have no problem pointing out that in his haste to end the Iraq War instead of finishing winning it, Obama's diplomatic corp made a fatal mistake in asserting insufficient effort negotiating a status of farces agreement to insure our troops immunity. "They wouldn't budge" was the prevailing excuse but it seems they had no problem negotiating for that immunity now or... did they? We currently have approaching 1600 troops on the ground in Iraq. Do they have immunity now?

Obama asked about immunity, they said no. That was the extent of his negotiating most likely. He had no interest in keeping troops there, especially after he campaigned so hard on ending the war and made it a centerpiece of what his presidency would be.

I have my doubts that Obama asked. I wouldn't be surprised to find that he sent Lurch over to ask for it and when Maliki said no they said, "damn, I hate that...OK" packed their s*** and left.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Deposing Saddam Hussein had worldwide sponsorship AND support.

Based on faulty intelligence and/or lies.

I would say its not especially even handed to criticize the sitting President for making mistakes if you're unwilling to acknowledge the things he got right. There is NO DOUBT he was right about The Surge, an effort that then Senator Obama voted against, but, subsequently took credit for as a great accomplishment of his administration when justifying withdrawal of ALL US troops in Iraq. In the end, Bush was correct about the consequences of withdrawing too soon. I have no problem acknowledging that and giving him credit. I also have no problem pointing out that in his haste to end the Iraq War instead of finishing winning it, Obama's diplomatic corp made a fatal mistake in asserting insufficient effort negotiating a status of farces agreement to insure our troops immunity. "They wouldn't budge" was the prevailing excuse but it seems they had no problem negotiating for that immunity now or... did they? We currently have approaching 1600 troops on the ground in Iraq. Do they have immunity now?

You and others keep saying "insufficient effort" but offer no real proof of such a charge. Dreher rightly points out that it wasn't just up to Obama or his team anyway. There were immense political pressures being brought to bear on the Iraqi side of this as well. The Iraqi people wanted us out. Powerful Muslim clerics who have the ear of huge swaths of the population wanted us out. The government was fledgling and precarious from the start. They were in no position to buck the people on this.

That said, I don't know what sort of immunity they have now, but I do know that circumstances on the ground with ISIS are a lot more dire than what was going on back in 2010. And you've had significant changes in who is running Iraq's government now. So I would imagine they are much more amenable to US/NATO help dealing with these guys than they were 4 years ago when hardly anyone had even heard of this group.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Deposing Saddam Hussein had worldwide sponsorship AND support.

Based on faulty intelligence and/or lies.

I would say its not especially even handed to criticize the sitting President for making mistakes if you're unwilling to acknowledge the things he got right. There is NO DOUBT he was right about The Surge, an effort that then Senator Obama voted against, but, subsequently took credit for as a great accomplishment of his administration when justifying withdrawal of ALL US troops in Iraq. In the end, Bush was correct about the consequences of withdrawing too soon. I have no problem acknowledging that and giving him credit. I also have no problem pointing out that in his haste to end the Iraq War instead of finishing winning it, Obama's diplomatic corp made a fatal mistake in asserting insufficient effort negotiating a status of farces agreement to insure our troops immunity. "They wouldn't budge" was the prevailing excuse but it seems they had no problem negotiating for that immunity now or... did they? We currently have approaching 1600 troops on the ground in Iraq. Do they have immunity now?

You and others keep saying "insufficient effort" but offer no real proof of such a charge. Dreher rightly points out that it wasn't just up to Obama or his team anyway. There were immense political pressures being brought to bear on the Iraqi side of this as well. The Iraqi people wanted us out. Powerful Muslim clerics who have the ear of huge swaths of the population wanted us out. The government was fledgling and precarious from the start. They were in no position to buck the people on this.

That said, I don't know what sort of immunity they have now, but I do know that circumstances on the ground with ISIS are a lot more dire than what was going on back in 2010. And you've had significant changes in who is running Iraq's government now. So I would imagine they are much more amenable to US/NATO help dealing with these guys than they were 4 years ago when hardly anyone had even heard of this group.

Well, would you say this admin is particularly transparent in providing information about that? He promised the most transparent admin in the country's history ...would you say he's done that? As far as hearing of this group, they've been around since 638AD waving THE SAME flag. Differnt name same game but oh yeah Obama claimed just because they had on a Laker jersey didn't make the Koby Bryant.If nobody had heard of them 4 years ago, who would you blame that on?

There continues to be a lot of push back with an emphasis on re-litigating the wisdom of the Iraq Invasion as if that provides a free pas for ineptitude NOW. I disagree that intentional lies were used to justify the invasion and you;re basically the first "conservative" that Ive seen who seems agreeable to that depiction of the case.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Well, would you say this admin is particularly transparent in providing information about that? He promised the most transparent admin in the country's history ...would you say he's done that?

Even if he's the least transparent president ever, it adds no credibility to rank speculation.

As far as hearing of this group, they've been around since 638AD waving THE SAME flag. Differnt name same game but oh yeah Obama claimed just because they had on a Laker jersey didn't make the Koby Bryant.If nobody had heard of them 4 years ago, who would you blame that on?

Don't play semantics. ISIS is a different beast from even Al Qaida.

There continues to be a lot of push back with an emphasis on re-litigating the wisdom of the Iraq Invasion as if that provides a free pas for ineptitude NOW. I disagree that intentional lies were used to justify the invasion and you;re basically the first "conservative" that Ive seen who seems agreeable to that depiction of the case.

You need to read more conservatives then.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Well, would you say this admin is particularly transparent in providing information about that? He promised the most transparent admin in the country's history ...would you say he's done that?

Even if he's the least transparent president ever, it adds no credibility to rank speculation.

As far as hearing of this group, they've been around since 638AD waving THE SAME flag. Differnt name same game but oh yeah Obama claimed just because they had on a Laker jersey didn't make the Koby Bryant.If nobody had heard of them 4 years ago, who would you blame that on?

Don't play semantics. ISIS is a different beast from even Al Qaida.

There continues to be a lot of push back with an emphasis on re-litigating the wisdom of the Iraq Invasion as if that provides a free pas for ineptitude NOW. I disagree that intentional lies were used to justify the invasion and you;re basically the first "conservative" that Ive seen who seems agreeable to that depiction of the case.

You need to read more conservatives then.

Actually who is speculating here. You insist they wouldn't budge. What is your source for that other than what this admin has reported? Based on their demonstrated willing to lie themselves to suit their purposes, I tend to put more stock in their predecessors' words than i do theirs .Im not playing semantics. They are an off shoot of Al Qaeda and have operated under the same flag for well over a 1000 years. Are you disputing that based on them "changing jersies' or what?

I dont need to read more conservative who are simply playing the issue politically....no thanks.