Interesting article on Iraq's non-existant WMDs.

You know, I read this a couple years ago, and I don't think people really know about it, or ever will. It was like page 12 news at the time.
 
Ok, we get it, there were no WMD's in Iraq, let it go. Hindsight is only 20/20, and the best intelligence the world community had at the time indicated that he did have them. If you want to blame George Bush for lying about WMD's in Iraq, you'd have to blame nearly every politician in this country, Democrat and Republican alike, along with just about every other world leader as well. I suppose Obama might be free of blame, as he claims he was always opposed to the war. Of course, he wasn't in the Senate at the time to vote for the initial war, and by the time he was there, it was politically convenient for him to oppose it, so who knows how he would have gone on the issue. We can't turn back time now, so let's just drop the silliness here.
 
[quote name='spmahn'] I suppose Obama might be free of blame, as he claims he was always opposed to the war. Of course, he wasn't in the Senate at the time to vote for the initial war, and by the time he was there, it was politically convenient for him to oppose it, so who knows how he would have gone on the issue.[/QUOTE]

The odd thing is, though, if Obama really was so against the war in Iraq, why would he put someone who voted for it in charge of his foreign affairs?
 
[quote name='spmahn']Ok, we get it, there were no WMD's in Iraq, let it go. Hindsight is only 20/20, and the best intelligence the world community had at the time indicated that he did have them. If you want to blame George Bush for lying about WMD's in Iraq, you'd have to blame nearly every politician in this country, Democrat and Republican alike, along with just about every other world leader as well. I suppose Obama might be free of blame, as he claims he was always opposed to the war. Of course, he wasn't in the Senate at the time to vote for the initial war, and by the time he was there, it was politically convenient for him to oppose it, so who knows how he would have gone on the issue. We can't turn back time now, so let's just drop the silliness here.[/QUOTE]
Saddam Hussein managed to fool what is supposedly the best intelligence community in the world, not to mention the majority of our politicians. I'm not blaming any one person, but it is embarrassing that some third world dictator managed to fool one of the biggest powers in the world.

"American intelligence" indeed.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The odd thing is, though, if Obama really was so against the war in Iraq, why would he put someone who voted for it in charge of his foreign affairs?[/QUOTE]

How's that odd? What a good 99%(not exact but it was high) of our politicians voted for it. It would be some pretty slim picking if you use that as a criteria.
 
There are two possible situations - either:

Obama felt the decision to go to war was a right one based on the information we had - and thus attacked Bush' decision unfairly.

Obama felt the decision to go to war was a bad one - and thus promoted someone to the head of the class who he feels makes bad decisions.
 
[quote name='spmahn']Ok, we get it, there were no WMD's in Iraq, let it go. Hindsight is only 20/20, and the best intelligence the world community had at the time indicated that he did have them. If you want to blame George Bush for lying about WMD's in Iraq, you'd have to blame nearly every politician in this country, Democrat and Republican alike, along with just about every other world leader as well. I suppose Obama might be free of blame, as he claims he was always opposed to the war. Of course, he wasn't in the Senate at the time to vote for the initial war, and by the time he was there, it was politically convenient for him to oppose it, so who knows how he would have gone on the issue. We can't turn back time now, so let's just drop the silliness here.[/QUOTE]

So what if there are a few hundred thousand brown people killed, let it go! Fvck! Why are you LIEberals so pissed when we get pushed into a war on a false pretense that the UN/US inspectors on the ground were screaming didn't exist? We should totally blame the foreign governments that didn't rise up and take us on over Iraq! France, China and Russia? fuck THOSE GUYS for not stopping the US from invading Iraq. We had a motherfvcking coalition of the willing! POLAND, bitches, DON'T FORGET POLAND, BITCHES! It's not like there were anti-Iraq rallies before the invasion that ended up being the largest anti-war rallies in history or anything. How was Bush supposed to know? No one told him the information he was being spoon fed by his team of ideologically motivated numbskulls was obtained through sources the CIA and German intelligence had already dismissed, so how could you blame him? It's not like anyone's life depended on it, or you know, a million people's lives. The Buck Stops Here... or actually right over there, where plausible deniability begins!

And Barack HUSSEIN Obama should have been elected sooner so he could be against President Bush sooner! It's totally his fault.

Jesus fvck you're retarded.
 
[quote name='Cheese'] Fvck! fuck motherfvcking c bitches, BITCHES! numbskulls fvck retarded.[/QUOTE]


your vocabulary just amazed me. Also what happened to shaqfu?
 
[quote name='spmahn']Ok, we get it, there were no WMD's in Iraq, let it go. Hindsight is only 20/20, and the best intelligence the world community had at the time indicated that he did have them. If you want to blame George Bush for lying about WMD's in Iraq, you'd have to blame nearly every politician in this country, Democrat and Republican alike, along with just about every other world leader as well. I suppose Obama might be free of blame, as he claims he was always opposed to the war. Of course, he wasn't in the Senate at the time to vote for the initial war, and by the time he was there, it was politically convenient for him to oppose it, so who knows how he would have gone on the issue. We can't turn back time now, so let's just drop the silliness here.[/QUOTE]

Yes! We have to end the silliness.

To that end let's all agree that giving Republicans control of the government was a thoroughly bad idea, promise to never make the same mistake again, and just drop the subject.
 
I take it Msut was unable to come up with an alternative.
I can supply two others.

1) Obama felt the decision to go to war was a right one based on the information we had - and thus attacked Bush' decision unfairly.

2) Obama felt the decision to go to war was a bad one - and thus promoted someone to the head of the class who he feels makes bad decisions.

3) Obama is a complete moron and doesn't know what he's doing.

4) Obama honestly felt the decision to go to war was a bad one at the time, but made Clinton his SotS regardless, because he felt she was the most qualified candidate for the job. Which means he must of felt he had slim pickings if the most qualified candidate was one he felt would be in favor of a war that he obviously knew was a bad idea.

Any other alternatives? Can anyone out there defend this?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']4) Obama honestly felt the decision to go to war was a bad one at the time, but made Clinton his SotS regardless, because he felt she was the most qualified candidate for the job. Which means he must of felt he had slim pickings if the most qualified candidate was one he felt would be in favor of a war that he obviously knew was a bad idea.

Any other alternatives? Can anyone out there defend this?[/QUOTE]

Because you should always deal with people that agree with you 100% on everything. Never, EVER deal with anyone that might have an alternate view or perspective — it breeds doubt. If you only listen to the opinions of your own ideologues then you can be sure to make all the right decisions, ignorance=victory!!

Please note that Colin Powell was against invading Iraq, yet was SoS under Bush. Now, I'll be the first to say Bush was an idiot, but not seeking counsel from someone who disagreed with him. As it turned out, it was his bevy of Yes-Men that ruined him.

Clinton admitted her vote on Iraq was a mistake. As Secretary of State she still answers to the President. It's not like she's out there signing treaties and starting wars all on her own. The Clintons, both Bill and Hillary, are amazingly popular overseas and know all the players on the field. She is uniquely qualified for the position. What about her job so far has anyone been judgmental about?
 
I'm not against dealing with people who don't agree with me. However - and I can only speak for myself - if I were President, I would have a hard time putting someone in charge of my foreign affairs after they voted in favor of going into war in a situation that I, before I was even President, could tell was obviously a horrible idea. War is a *huge* thing. The Iraqi War was a huge cluster-phuk. I knew it from the beginning (really, I did... hell, I questioned going into Afghanistan while everyone else was waving their flags and burning Dixie Chicks CDs*). Obama says he knew it. So why put someone in charge of foreign affairs who couldn't see through all the bull****?

*Yes, I know this actually started more in connection with Iraq than Afghanistan, it was just something that I never understood...
 
There were large convoys of Russian trucks carrying "stuff" out of the country days before the invasion. It can't be proven it was WMD's, but it is suspicious.

And honestly, even if they did find WMDs somewhere in Iraq today, does anyone really care?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm not against dealing with people who don't agree with me. However - and I can only speak for myself - if I were President, I would have a hard time putting someone in charge of my foreign affairs after they voted in favor of going into war in a situation that I, before I was even President, could tell was obviously a horrible idea. War is a *huge* thing. The Iraqi War was a huge cluster-phuk. I knew it from the beginning (really, I did... hell, I questioned going into Afghanistan while everyone else was waving their flags and burning Dixie Chicks CDs*). Obama says he knew it. So why put someone in charge of foreign affairs who couldn't see through all the bull****?

*Yes, I know this actually started more in connection with Iraq than Afghanistan, it was just something that I never understood...[/QUOTE]

The President is in charge of foreign affairs, the SoS is his chief advisor, but it's ultimately up to him. The question remains, has she done anything as SoS to complain about? So far it seems she's doing a pretty good job

[quote name='thrustbucket']There were large convoys of Russian trucks carrying "stuff" out of the country days before the invasion. It can't be proven it was WMD's, but it is suspicious. [/QUOTE]

That's a load of horse-hocky according to the Iraq survey group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group
 
[quote name='Cheese']
That's a load of horse-hocky according to the Iraq survey group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Survey_Group[/QUOTE]

I'm sure it is, according to them.

There are claims all over the map by many sources.

But the bottom line is, who cares. Even if they found 13 nukes buried there tomorrow, would anyone care or feel differently about the Iraq invasion? If someone could prove they were moved into Syria just before the invasion, would anyone care? Really?

Does anyone honestly think that such a discovery is going to suddenly make any of the people that have been against the Iraq war do a 180?
 
But they're not from 'all over the map,' they all seem to be from the same source. They all source John Shaw, and some of the stories linked have nothing to do with Russian Trucks, but more with a 2004 report of 380 tons of missing conventional weapons that were, fairly obviously, stolen by what became the insurgency a month after the invasion.

Would it change anyone's mind? Not likely, but to say, "Let it go," when there are several hundred thousand dead bodies involved is ridiculous.
 
[quote name='Cheese']The President is in charge of foreign affairs, the SoS is his chief advisor, but it's ultimately up to him. The question remains, has she done anything as SoS to complain about? So far it seems she's doing a pretty good job[/QUOTE]

I suppose I could always mention the visit to China that pretty much ticked off the entire international community when she blew off their Human Rights abuses.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I suppose I could always mention the visit to China that pretty much ticked off the entire international community when she blew off their Human Rights abuses.[/QUOTE]

Oh, they're always pissed when we don't rub their noses in that while we're there. It's one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't situations. Too much of our trade & debt is tied in with China, so it might not be the best time to insult them in their own house.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top