Bush's mistake in Iraq

[optimus prime]

If Obama had been elected president in 2000 then you would have still gone to war with Iraq and so would have Britain.

How can you be so certain?


It required an administration of lunatics headed by a man determined from day one to be a war president, to be able to embark upon a war that was based on the most laughable information.

Obama is not perfect but he's not in the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Pearle league by any stretch of the imagination. He just isn't that reckless and arrogant, there's no reason to suggest he would of definetley bought into all the bull. At the very least there would have been more emphasis on weapons inspections.

I read an article by a political expert in the Times or Telegraph and they were adamant that it made no difference who the President or Prime Minister was, the US and UK would have gone to war with Iraq.

I agree with them. The main reason Obama wants out is to get votes and because America have achieved some of their goals. America hasn’t achieved their goals in Afghanistan so they will move their troops there under Obama as President.

 

[HughJass]

Yeah, and how about those weapons inspections, and the fact that Hussein kicked-out the weapons inspectors? But OH NO.....that didn't make anybody suspicious that maybe he was LYING about not having WMDs, did it?

when is suspicion a good enough reason to build a case for war? if anything it was just a good enough reason to insist on more inspections.

All this business about Saddam 'hiding his WMD stash' was built on nothing more than whispers, , fantasies, neocon neurosis and 'information' from Curveball. UNSCOM knew it was baloney and it was confirmed before the invasion by Blix. Period.

Then comes this obligatory 'oh he had them, he just smuggled them out to Syria with the help of the Russians'

 

[HughJass]

I read an article by a political expert in the Times or Telegraph and they were adamant that it made no difference who the President or Prime Minister was, the US and UK would have gone to war with Iraq.

Just one person's opinion.


Obama didn't have a family history with Saddam and an Obama whitehouse wouldn't have been stacked entirely with neocons.

 

[Bryan]

Yeah, and how about those weapons inspections, and the fact that Hussein kicked-out the weapons inspectors? But OH NO.....that didn't make anybody suspicious that maybe he was LYING about not having WMDs, did it?

when is suspicion a good enough reason to build a case for war?

That's a very good question, and I don't presume to have an answer for it.

if anything it was just a good enough reason to insist on more inspections.

I generally agree with you.

All this business about Saddam 'hiding his WMD stash' was built on nothing more than whispers, , fantasies, neocon neurosis and 'information' from Curveball. UNSCOM knew it was baloney and it was confirmed before the invasion by Blix. Period.

Then comes this obligatory 'oh he had them, he just smuggled them out to Syria with the help of the Russians'

I want to emphasize something here that you may not understand: even though I've lived here in Texas for the last 40 years, I have never, I repeat NEVER voted for George W. Bush. Not for President, not for Governor of Texas. And why have I never voted for him? Because the guy is an idiot. He doesn't even have the intellect to be Governor of Texas, much less President of the United States. But he's not a LYING idiot, just an idiot!

There's plenty of good reasons to criticize Bush's policies, without having to make up this stupid garbage about how he supposedly "lied" to the public about Iraq. Let's stay away from the silly slanderous accusations against Bush, and stick with a calm and objective evaluation of his policies and performance.

 

[HughJass]

There's plenty of good reasons to criticize Bush's policies, without having to make up this stupid garbage about how he supposedly "lied" to the public about Iraq. Let's stay away from the silly slanderous accusations against Bush, and stick with a calm and objective evaluation of his policies and performance.

The whole 'diddums was mislead' that gets wheeled out, mainly by the r's, is just pathetic imho.

Pressuring or financing people to effectivly produce the lies for you and then citing their lies as evidence is just as dishonest and indefensible as an outright lie. It's just a very clever, lawyerish way of being able to fabricate information and then absolve yourself of any responsibility, when everything goes tits up nobody can really prove that you lied, you can just say you were 'mislead' by the dodgy chap who you bought the lies from. It's a bit of genius *** covering.

Hearing what they wanted to hear, especially when all the experts are yelling the opposite, is the realm of pure deception. Any disagreement is a matter of symantics imo.

 

[Shoot_The_Glass]

watch rob newmans history of oil

bush didnt make a mistake invading iraq,it was on the cards all along.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 5741878159