Iraq: Bush Jr's toxic legacy or Obama's rebuilding failure?

[Engineer]

Are you attempting to continue your failed argument from the other thread that hindsight yields no benefit? I challenge you, yet again, to point out where in my posts your baseless accusations are supported.

I posted this...

There was no intelligence (as your post suggests) that Iraq had anything to do with 911. If that's not your contention, you should change the wording of your post.

You replied with this....

I suppose you should contact Congress from 10+ years ago and voice your displeasure with them authorizing a war just for fun.

To which I replied with this.

There was no evidence 10+ years ago that Iraq had anything to do with 911. Now you're pulling stuff out of your ass.

I clearly stated that there was no intelligence linking 911 to Iraq from which you posted that I should contact congress of 10+ years ago. Again, if it was not your content to suggest that we had evidence that Iraq had something to do with 911, change your wording. Your wording suggests that we had evidence of Iraq involvement in 911. We did not have any such evidence.

 

[mrjminer]

I posted this...



You replied with this....



To which I replied with this.



I clearly stated that there was no intelligence linking 911 to Iraq from which you posted that I should contact congress of 10+ years ago. Again, if it was not your content to suggest that we had evidence that Iraq had something to do with 911, change your wording. Your wording suggests that we had evidence of Iraq involvement in 911. We did not have any such evidence.

I don't need to change my wording; your mind is the only imagining arguments that aren't being made. You failed to comprehend the content of my original post, then you made the false statement that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. You are obviously incorrect; it is you who should change their wording. Otherwise, feel free to enlighten me as to the country the Al-Qaida forces in Iraq we killed were located.

 

[Paul98]

I suppose you should contact Congress from 10+ years ago and voice your displeasure with them authorizing a war just for fun.

When we were getting ready to go to war in Iraq do you think that US intelligence thought that Iraq was majorly responsible for 9/11, or that they thought that Iraq had WMD?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I don't need to change my wording; your mind is the only imagining arguments that aren't being made. You failed to comprehend the content of my original post, then you made the false statement that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. You are obviously incorrect; it is you who should change their wording. Otherwise, feel free to enlighten me as to the country the Al-Qaida forces in Iraq we killed were located.

OOOOOKAY, you are trolling...gotcha.

AQ was not in Iraq until AFTER the US invaded, and even then they are considered a separate group from the "main" AQ that was involved with 9/11.

The fact that you don't know this clearly shows your are either trolling are willfully ignorant of the truth.

 

[MongGrel]

OOOOOKAY, you are trolling...gotcha.

AQ was not in Iraq until AFTER the US invaded, and even then they are considered a separate group from the "main" AQ that was involved with 9/11.

The fact that you don't know this clearly shows your are either trolling are willfully ignorant of the truth.

What he said.

 

[mrjminer]

OOOOOKAY, you are trolling...gotcha.

AQ was not in Iraq until AFTER the US invaded, and even then they are considered a separate group from the "main" AQ that was involved with 9/11.

The fact that you don't know this clearly shows your are either trolling are willfully ignorant of the truth.

What he said.

So, only having splinters of a terrorist organization present in a country does not indicate that the terrorist organization exists in the country, and no AQ members were in Iraq prior to the Iraq War. Magically only after we invaded, AQ just appeared in Iraq out of thin air from having no influence or inroads whatsoever. Clearly, I am the one trolling or willfully ignorant of the truth.

 

[JEDI]

So in other words Obama failed to fix the fucked up mess Bush left him?

yes.
he knew of the mess and still wanted the job.
heck, he even ran for a 2nd term

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

So, only having splinters of a terrorist organization present in a country does not indicate that the terrorist organization exists in the country, and no AQ members were in Iraq prior to the Iraq War. Magically only after we invaded, AQ just appeared in Iraq out of thin air. Clearly, I am the one trolling or willfully ignorant of the truth.

Well, you really keep on digging that hole deeper don't you?

Just to lay out the facts:

1. AQ was NOT in Iraq at all pre-9/11
2. Saddam did NOT aid AQ
3. Saddam was NOT involved in 9/11
4. After the US invaded, many groups eventually came into existence, including AQI, which is a distinct separate entity from the main AQ.

So, do you have any proof that I am wrong? Everything I just typed is supported by multiple factual sources, you can google them if you want.

So post proof of what you are claiming, or STFU. Guess we found another troll to add to P&N.

 

[brandonb]

I don't blame either president since I don't believe either of them really had a real say in what happened there. Wolfowitz ring a bell?

In the first emergency meeting of the National Security Council on the day of the attacks [September 11, 2001], Rumsfeld asked, "Why shouldn’t we go against Iraq, not just al-Qaeda?" with Wolfowitz adding that Iraq was a "brittle, oppressive regime that might break easily—it was doable," and, according to John Kampfner, "from that moment on, he and Wolfowitz used every available opportunity to press the case."[34] The idea was initially rejected, at the behest of Secretary of State Colin Powell, but, according to Kampfner, "Undeterred Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz held secret meetings about opening up a second front—against Saddam. Powell was excluded." In such meetings they created a policy that would later be dubbed the Bush Doctrine, centering on "pre-emption" and the war on Iraq, which the PNAC had advocated in their earlier letters.[35]

Following the declaration of victory in Afghanistan the Bush administration had started to plan for the next stage of the War on Terror. According to John Kampfner, "Emboldened by their experience in Afghanistan, they saw the opportunity to root out hostile regimes in the Middle East and to implant very American interpretations of democracy and free markets, from Iraq to Iran and Saudi Arabia. Wolfowitz epitomised this view." Wolfowitz "saw a liberated Iraq as both paradigm and linchpin for future interventions." The 2003 invasion of Iraq began on March 19.[35]

In March 2005, Wolfowitz was nominated to be president of the World Bank by U.S. President George W. Bush.[44]

In the U.S. there was some praise for the nomination. An editorial in The Wall Street Journal states: "Mr. Wolfowitz is willing to speak the truth to power ... he saw earlier than most, and spoke publicly about, the need for dictators to plan democratic transitions. It is the world's dictators who are the chief causes of world poverty. If anyone can stand up to the Robert Mugabes of the world, it must be the man who stood up to Saddam Hussein."[48]

Wolfowitz is a former steering committee member of the Bilderberg group.[87]

I only put Bilderberg group in there since Stewox has been posting about it.

Not sure how this group or gang of people (that Wolfowitz is part of) gained control of America.

 

[ivwshane]

So, only having splinters of a terrorist organization present in a country does not indicate that the terrorist organization exists in the country, and no AQ members were in Iraq prior to the Iraq War. Magically only after we invaded, AQ just appeared in Iraq out of thin air from having no influence or inroads whatsoever. Clearly, I am the one trolling or willfully ignorant of the truth.

Wow! Clueless has a new name and it's mrjminer!

Here, brush up on your facts before you make an even bigger fool of yourself:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

The OP has gone full retard! I fully expect the next right wing meme to be "Obama didn't fix Iraq".

OP, just because you read it on the internet doesn't mean it's true! Propaganda must be one hell of a drug!

 

[MongGrel]

So, only having splinters of a terrorist organization present in a country does not indicate that the terrorist organization exists in the country, and no AQ members were in Iraq prior to the Iraq War. Magically only after we invaded, AQ just appeared in Iraq out of thin air from having no influence or inroads whatsoever. Clearly, I am the one trolling or willfully ignorant of the truth.

Well he was in with Cheney, I still put it with him being in with Bush senior and prodding Dubya to do it to make cash.

Where many that had a vested interest in invading to make money.

The Original Country Joe Band -- Cakewalk To Baghdad


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zt6XA8VlBOU

 

[K1052]

This outcome was pretty much predetermined after we toppled Saddam, the only questions were how and when. Bush squarely merits all the blame for this.

 

[MongGrel]

Down for the count ?

Hey NM

 

[MongGrel]

This outcome was pretty much predetermined after we toppled Saddam, the only questions were how and when. Bush squarely merits all the blame for this.

+1

 

[mrjminer]

Wow! Clueless has a new name and it's mrjminer!

Here, brush up on your facts before you make an even bigger fool of yourself:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

The OP has gone full retard! I fully expect the next right wing meme to be "Obama didn't fix Iraq".

OP, just because you read it on the internet doesn't mean it's true! Propaganda must be one hell of a drug!

Well, you really keep on digging that hole deeper don't you?

Just to lay out the facts:

1. AQ was NOT in Iraq at all pre-9/11
2. Saddam did NOT aid AQ
3. Saddam was NOT involved in 9/11
4. After the US invaded, many groups eventually came into existence, including AQI, which is a distinct separate entity from the main AQ.

So, do you have any proof that I am wrong? Everything I just typed is supported by multiple factual sources, you can google them if you want.

So post proof of what you are claiming, or STFU. Guess we found another troll to add to P&N.

I never made the claim of 2 or 3. I don't know if Saddam had anything to do with it or not. I do know that intelligence at the time suggested that Iraq had WMDs or was working towards them, and that there were terrorist organizations operating in Iraq.

As for #1, a formal declaration of presence is not the equivalent of a lack of presence. As for #4, the claim is simply foolish; two separate components of the same organization are still part of the same organization.

I don't need to prove you wrong with anything other than basic logic, but, if it helps, you can go ahead and Google the guy who "created" AQ in Iraq. To help you out in your quest, he splintered off AQ into his own militant group in Iraq, set up sleepers prior to the war according to British intelligence, then formally declared the group as AQ later.

Propaganda is a hell of a drug, no doubt.

Anyways, you guys are beyond stupid. No need to further waste my time.

 

[MongGrel]

Your logic is flawed.

 

[mrjminer]

Your logic is flawed.

I forgot to include you in the previous post. You're included in those that are beyond stupid.

 

[MongGrel]

I forgot to include you in the previous post. You're included in those that are beyond stupid.

Seems your a minority of 1.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

I never made the claim of 2 or 3. I don't know if Saddam had anything to do with it or not. I do know that intelligence at the time suggested that Iraq had WMDs or was working towards them, and that there were terrorist organizations operating in Iraq.

As for #1, a formal declaration of presence is not the equivalent of a lack of presence. As for #4, the claim is simply foolish; two separate components of the same organization are still part of the same organization.

I don't need to prove you wrong with anything other than basic logic, but, if it helps, you can go ahead and Google the guy who "created" AQ in Iraq. To help you out in your quest, he splintered off AQ into his own militant group in Iraq, set up sleepers prior to the war according to British intelligence, then formally declared the group as AQ later.

Propaganda is a hell of a drug, no doubt.

Anyways, you guys are beyond stupid. No need to further waste my time.

LOL. Since you are so ignorant or trolling, I guess we have to ask the rest of the obvious questions:

Do you believe that Obama was born in the US?

Do you believe Bush was behind 9/11?

I mean, we need to see exactly how ignorant you really are.

 

[blankslate]

I think the right move if a country is harboring radicals that kamikaze planes into buildings filled with civilians is to take immediate action based on intelligence available at the time instead of sitting around for an indeterminable amount of time trying to get confirmation. Put the shoe on the other foot and ask yourself if the intelligence at the time was correct, would it have been better for us to have sat around for a while and do nothing at all?

Holy fuck...

Iraq didn't help plan the 9/11 attacks. Yet you think we should have invaded Iraq?

By that bizzaro-world logic, why not Saudi Arabia as well since a large number of those 9/11 hijackers happened to be from there?


....

 

[Zebo]

Premise fail.

I dont think Obama said he would rebuild anything. He had a mandate from American People to GTFO and it's actually one promise he kept.

Bush failed at rebuilding. Let museums get raided. Destroyed all stable Iraqi institutions such as .mil, .gov. .corps. cleansing them of perceived enemies. So most graft billions missing. Nothing rebuilt and essentially 2 Trillion going into his buddies coffers.

Let me reword it for you
Iraq: Bush Jr's toxic legacy and rebuilding failure!

Dont worry though Obama has his Libya he fucked up good.

 

[fskimospy]

I think the right move if a country is harboring radicals that kamikaze planes into buildings filled with civilians is to take immediate action based on intelligence available at the time instead of sitting around for an indeterminable amount of time trying to get confirmation. Put the shoe on the other foot and ask yourself if the intelligence at the time was correct, would it have been better for us to have sat around for a while and do nothing at all?

Getting an NIE before launching an invasion of another country should be considered the absolute bare minimum standard of effort. They literally didn't even ask for one.

As to the second point, evaluating the situation as time went on, making adjustments, and using political clout to do what was in our best interests, rather than just making a blanket goal of removing troops and adhering to it. I think since significant time and resources had already been dedicated to helping them defend themselves, you should make sure the goal is fulfilled before abandoning, unless the foreseeable outcome is negative. Bush is not at fault for Obama failing to negotiate our troops staying, and it's doubtful that he did everything in his power to do so since his statements have always indicated that his intention is to pull us out of the region regardless of the outcome. Like I said, though, the blame falls primarily on the Iraqis for failing to handle their current situation; they aren't dealing with some massive internal uprising in the hundreds of thousands, they are simply not even bothering to defend themselves.

The lesson to learn here is that Iraq should get no assistance from us whatsoever in the foreseeable future. Obama performing airstrikes is a mistake, if he ends up going that route. Throwing good money after bad comes to mind.

The agreement to withdraw troops was reached before Obama entered office. I think that Bush signing an agreement for them to leave makes it at least partially on him. I'm unaware of anyone that thinks the Iraqis were inclined to have them stay anyway. What would you have been willing to give Iraq to have them allow us to keep more troops there?

 

[Zebo]

This outcome was pretty much predetermined after we toppled Saddam, the only questions were how and when. Bush squarely merits all the blame for this.

Pretty much? all 16 US intel agencies predicted it.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/25/AR2007052501380.html

Bush Ignored it. Media Ignored it for most part.

Then after the massive blunder to invade the execution was even worse. Dismantleing all stable institutions. No rebuilding. No enough troops to provide security, etc. Bush is to blame from start to end not Obama.


Blair too but not like UK could do anything w/o USA.

 

[Thebobo]

Still waiting

 

[Strk]

Getting an NIE before launching an invasion of another country should be considered the absolute bare minimum standard of effort. They literally didn't even ask for one.




The agreement to withdraw troops was reached before Obama entered office. I think that Bush signing an agreement for them to leave makes it at least partially on him. I'm unaware of anyone that thinks the Iraqis were inclined to have them stay anyway. What would you have been willing to give Iraq to have them allow us to keep more troops there?

People forget that the press conference that Bush got shoes thrown at him was about anything.