Iraq thread for Dogma

[Westside Steve]

Dogma

 

>> The only reason Bush was ever slightly criticized by the right on spending was because of the debacle of his invasion into Iraq.

Some republicans were embarrassed and yet some still refuse to accept it was a debacle.

Others are quietly stating they were concerned about the costs.

The biggest accomplishment of the Iraq war is the Tea Party.

Republicans who are too embarrassed to be republicans anymore.

McCain/Bush would still be in Iraq AND we would be in Iran by now also. All of this without one peep of concern about tax and spend from the right wing News(?) sources. <<

 

We possibly would be in the very same place now had McCain won.

Would you be more or less upset?

Still with a Democrat senate and house I'd expect a hell of a fight NOT to have done it sooner.

And there'd be a firestorm had he proposed sending more troops to the dead end Afghanistan.

Obama has gotten a pass on both.

 

Even in the "right wing media" which consists basically of Fox News commentators and some websites.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

Dogma

 

>> So would wmds, but that didn't stop every conservative pundit and even the former president from believing in a fantasy. Now they're all trying to make it seem like it was a wonderful idea.

 

When's that movie coming out? <<

 

Actually the "proof" was from European and American intelligence and the UN.

Remember before the war but after the invasion of Kuwait Saddam and the UN put together a list of his WMDs and he was ordered to turn them all in or prove they'd been sesdtroyed.

He obstructed the inspectors at nearly every turn.

 

And by the time of the invasion the suspected stockpiles were'nt there.

 

Who knows why?

I suspect Saddam was bluffing to make himself seem more important.

Bad move on his part BUT if you're old enough to remember the election all of Bushs' opponedts in the Dem primary save Kucinich were beating the "Saddam has to go" drum.

 

 

But for the duration the anti war crowd was much more front and center than it is now.

So are you an anti war guy or just an anti Bush guy?

WSS

[dogma]

Dogma

 

>> The only reason Bush was ever slightly criticized by the right on spending was because of the debacle of his invasion into Iraq.

Some republicans were embarrassed and yet some still refuse to accept it was a debacle.

Others are quietly stating they were concerned about the costs.

The biggest accomplishment of the Iraq war is the Tea Party.

Republicans who are too embarrassed to be republicans anymore.

McCain/Bush would still be in Iraq AND we would be in Iran by now also. All of this without one peep of concern about tax and spend from the right wing News(?) sources. <<

 

We possibly would be in the very same place now had McCain won.

Would you be more or less upset?

Still with a Democrat senate and house I'd expect a hell of a fight NOT to have done it sooner.

And there'd be a firestorm had he proposed sending more troops to the dead end Afghanistan.

Obama has gotten a pass on both.

 

Even in the "right wing media" which consists basically of Fox News commentators and some websites.

WSS

 

Possibly.

However, the limp wristed democrats POSSIBLY could have done as they did when Bush invaded in the first place. Cover their butts.

Would I be more upset. Naw. It's all politics.

There's no way to create a FIRESTORM this day and age. I'm to busy playing my PS3, watching American Idol, and trying to keep up with the latest technical toy.

Has Obama gotten a pass? From real liberals. No. They're the one's that Emanual called Retards because they were unhappy with Obama's acquiescence to the right.

The right wing media is Fox, some bloggers, and most of am radio, which plays Rush on sports stations while the working man is eating his lunch in his truck.

It's actually a brilliant strategy.

 

[dogma]

Dogma

 

>> So would wmds, but that didn't stop every conservative pundit and even the former president from believing in a fantasy. Now they're all trying to make it seem like it was a wonderful idea.

 

When's that movie coming out? <<

 

Actually the "proof" was from European and American intelligence and the UN.

Remember before the war but after the invasion of Kuwait Saddam and the UN put together a list of his WMDs and he was ordered to turn them all in or prove they'd been sesdtroyed.

He obstructed the inspectors at nearly every turn.

 

And by the time of the invasion the suspected stockpiles were'nt there.

 

Who knows why?

I suspect Saddam was bluffing to make himself seem more important.

Bad move on his part BUT if you're old enough to remember the election all of Bushs' opponedts in the Dem primary save Kucinich were beating the "Saddam has to go" drum.

 

 

But for the duration the anti war crowd was much more front and center than it is now.

So are you an anti war guy or just an anti Bush guy?

WSS

Who knows why?

Scott Ritter knew why and he kept telling the president and everybody else. They weren't there because they weren't there.

Yes, Sadam played a dangerous and typically stupid game. There's no denying he deserved the type of ending he got.

However, the price we paid hasn't been worth it IMO.

Am I anti-war? At the time an ex army buddy who I work with wanted to kick my ass because I was questioning the invasion. (We were drunk)

My point was,"Why Iraq?" At the time there were active Al Quaeda all over the middle east and parts of Africa. Let alone Afghanistan.

And yes, the democrats were willingly duped.

I wasn't anti Bush in the beginning, but by the end of his term I was convinced that his administration had made so many blunders that it would possibly go down in history as the worst.

Do I hate Bush? No.

Do I hate Rove, Rush, Beck and most of Fox? Possibly.

Do I respect their ingenuity? Yes.

Do I think they're evil and bad for America?

Definitely!

But like I said it's all politics and in the end it will all work out that the pendulum will keep swinging.

I don't know how that's a good thing.

 

 

[Westside Steve]

Who knows why?

Scott Ritter knew why and he kept telling the president and everybody else. They weren't there because they weren't there.

 

 

I'd say Ritter is an unsavory character with an axe to grind and a profit to make.

But you're free to believe he trumps every other intelligence as well as the UN....

As I say I don't know.

 

But lets say he's right (that it was a lie to support an Israeli plot)

 

Do you think Bush Cheney Kerry and Clinton lied about the reasons to take Saddam out?

And if so:

Why?

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

The intelligence on WMDs was wrong, and was also mischaracterized, trumped up, and lied about.

 

Both things are true.

[Paxton]

I just thank God that the Surge solved the problem in Iraq.

[Westside Steve]

The intelligence on WMDs was wrong, and was also mischaracterized, trumped up, and lied about.

 

Both things are true.

 

 

Uh OK.

So by whom and for what purpose?

In your opinin of course.

 

WSS

 

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Come on, man. It's not going to matter what I say. You'd be better off reading about it on your own. It's not hard to find.

 

Check the conclusions of the different intelligence agencies. Check the public statements. Read up on the the Office of Special Plans and what it was for.

 

There's raw intelligence collection, and then there's intelligence that people have verified, or is considered solid. They didn't always use the latter.

[calfoxwc]

It was never a lie.

 

It just didn't pan out that they found them. The truth about why isn't known.

 

Unless it was a lie from the hussein regime in Iraq...

 

If there never were any, it's on the intel. do we really have to post the videos of all those

 

prominent congressional Dems spouting off about the reality of wmds? Seriously?

 

Stop with the leftist whining propaganda.

[dogma]

I prefer to believe Ritter and those who were in the administration who have since stated they knew the evidence was bogus.

Even the evidence presented to the liberals in congress, who yes covered their political butts and went along gung ho!

But, none of that matters because here we are almost 8 years later and it hasn't affected our economy at all.

The economy and the wars are all because of liberals.

There is no conspiracy about the reason for going into Iraq.

The only conspiracy is how the liberals are ruining this country.

 

Leftist whining propaganda?

 

Oh, you mean MSNBC? Who watches that?

 

There's only 1 #1 cable News Network. I don't think their propaganda is leftist leaning.

[Westside Steve]

Come on, man. It's not going to matter what I say. You'd be better off reading about it on your own. It's not hard to find.

 

Check the conclusions of the different intelligence agencies. Check the public statements. Read up on the the Office of Special Plans and what it was for.

 

There's raw intelligence collection, and then there's intelligence that people have verified, or is considered solid. They didn't always use the latter.

 

 

Relax Heck, I know it's a Pavlov thing but take a deep breath and see if you remember any gung ho support of the Iraq invasion from me.

 

I don't think anybody was straight up about why we made that decision.

And I certainly don't believe the ridiculous accusations of the lunatic left.

 

I honestly asked you for an opinion.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

But, none of that matters because here we are almost 8 years later and it hasn't affected our economy at all.

 

Leftist whining propaganda?

 

All I'm saying is that four years ago the Dems promised to defund the war in Iraq if Bush didn't wind it up.

Two years ago there weren't enough Republican votes to stop a much faster withdrawal.

The US could have easily been out of the middle east by now IF that were really a concern.

It wasn't and isn't.

I just wonder why.

Don't you? I assume you voted for Obama.

 

 

Oh, you mean MSNBC? Who watches that?

 

Not too many.

I think when the "liberal media" is mentioned it's 3 of the 4 major networks, CNN and most of the newspapers.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Relax Heck, I know it's a Pavlov thing but take a deep breath and see if you remember any gung ho support of the Iraq invasion from me.

 

I don't think anybody was straight up about why we made that decision.

And I certainly don't believe the ridiculous accusations of the lunatic left.

 

I honestly asked you for an opinion.

WSS

 

They weren't honest about what the intelligence showed. They used it to reach a pre-determined conclusion. The intentionally misled the American people.

 

And then they conducted the war/occupation in a uniquely incompetent way, and lots of people were killed - thousands of Americans, and over 100,000 Iraqis.

 

And the right screams their head off about a stimulus package. I don't get you people, or your priorities.

 

And no, you didn't type much pro-war stuff back then. Because your main political opinion is that you don't like liberals.

 

[Westside Steve]

They weren't honest about what the intelligence showed. They used it to reach a pre-determined conclusion. The intentionally misled the American people.

 

And then they conducted the war/occupation in a uniquely incompetent way, and lots of people were killed - thousands of Americans, and over 100,000 Iraqis.

 

And the right screams their head off about a stimulus package. I don't get you people, or your priorities.

 

And no, you didn't type much pro-war stuff back then. Because your main political opinion is that you don't like liberals.

 

 

I think you're a little angrier than necessary Heck.

 

So I didn't post any pro war stuff because (tell me if I read it right) I don't like liberals?

What the hell do those two things have in commo0n?

 

As for the looney conspiracy theories we have:

Scott Ritter : It was the Jews I tell ya!!

We did it to steal their oil.

Cheney did it to boost Haliburtons profits.

Bush family oil barons.

Saddam tried to kill Bush senior!

And the all time laff riot The Truthers.

 

So yeah Heck that's what we heard from the loons.

Sorry.

 

And lots of people are dying in Afghanistan because it's vital to our national security, right?

 

I just asked you for your opinion on why we do any of this shit.

I'm not attacking you, unless you're a truther/

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

What I'm saying is that you're more concerned with someone from Code Pink (membership: 73) screaming about Halliburton and how much that annoys you than you are with a policy that ends up killing thousands of people, wiping out families, leaving people maimed for life, costs hundreds of billions of dollars, etc., etc.

 

You're more concerned with some liberal screaming "Bush lied, people died" than you are about what actually happened.

 

Scott Ritter, yada, yada.

 

You can't always - always - conduct these conversations on the margins of what's actually important and expect me to give a shit. And you could not have sat through that entire period and not have learned how the intelligence was misused, and how the public was misled. You can do better.

[heckofajobbrownie]

As for Afghanistan, there are parts of it that are vital to our national security. Clearly. Iraq had to do with our national security too. That's not really the point, is it? Unless you're claiming that Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Al Qaeda do not affect our national security.

[Westside Steve]

What I'm saying is that you're more concerned with someone from Code Pink (membership: 73) screaming about Halliburton and how much that annoys you than you are with a policy that ends up killing thousands of people, wiping out families, leaving people maimed for life, costs hundreds of billions of dollars, etc., etc.

 

You're more concerned with some liberal screaming "Bush lied, people died" than you are about what actually happened.

 

Scott Ritter, yada, yada.

 

You can't always - always - conduct these conversations on the margins of what's actually important and expect me to give a shit. And you could not have sat through that entire period and not have learned how the intelligence was misused, and how the public was misled. You can do better.

 

 

Nobody can do better Heck if you refuse to make any substantial comment.

Sorry about your pal Ritter, Dogma brought up that pillar of honor.

Those crack[ot slogans were the basis of the campaign.

And lets not forget how many thousands of words you've dedicated to those who dare call Obama a Muslim......

 

That aside:

 

I've asked you pleasantly enough to tell us why you think it went down.

Hell if you can't ever ever answer anything what's the point?

 

Try this.

Who was at the heart of the conspiracy to distort the intelligence?

Bush and Cheney or some nefarious higher up?

And why do you suppose they did it?

 

Who's the benefactor of propogating such a falsehood knowing it was bound to be exposed in a short time?

 

Just a guess Heck.

WSS

[Westside Steve]

As for Afghanistan, there are parts of it that are vital to our national security. Clearly. Iraq had to do with our national security too. That's not really the point, is it? Unless you're claiming that Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Al Qaeda do not affect our national security.

 

 

Didn't we agree on the notion that Al Queda can plan their devilry from anywhere from a hotel in Berlin to a diner in Tampa?

WSS

[dogma]

All I'm saying is that four years ago the Dems promised to defund the war in Iraq if Bush didn't wind it up.

Two years ago there weren't enough Republican votes to stop a much faster withdrawal.

Part of my argument about how many "liberals" there actually are and why the real ones are pissed.

The US could have easily been out of the middle east by now IF that were really a concern.

It wasn't and isn't.

I just wonder why.

Don't you? My guess. It wouldn't pay off for them to have done so.

I assume you voted for Obama.

Nope, I'm a union guy. I voted Nader.

 

 

Oh, you mean MSNBC? Who watches that?

 

Not too many.

I think when the "liberal media" is mentioned it's 3 of the 4 major networks, CNN and most of the newspapers.

WSS

The liberal media is a myth. It was the first thing the conservative pundits accomplished.

Convince everyone that they are the only ones telling you the truth.

They've done it well. There are very few in the media willing to appear "liberal".

It's brilliant, really.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

The liberal media is a myth. It was the first thing the conservative pundits accomplished.

Convince everyone that they are the only ones telling you the truth.

They've done it well. There are very few in the media willing to appear "liberal".

It's brilliant, really.

 

 

You're delusional.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Like I said, Steve, I have no interest in re-hashing all of this with you. If you think everything they did was honest, in good faith, and what resulted wasn't a catastrophe of massive human proportions, that's fine by me. If you don't think that, that's fine with me too.

[dogma]

You're delusional.

I'm alright.

You're the one worried about liberals around every corner.

[Westside Steve]

Like I said, Steve, I have no interest in re-hashing all of this with you. If you think everything they did was honest, in good faith, and what resulted wasn't a catastrophe of massive human proportions, that's fine by me. If you don't think that, that's fine with me too.

Actually Heck, I was attempting to discuss the matter with you and apparently you're incapable of that.

Tough election I guess.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Hardly incapable, which I'm sure you know. You're just trying to take a slap at me.

 

I just don't see the point.

[calfoxwc]

Typical Heck. Frightened to much, of creating his own thread on ANY subject... (go look)...

and stooping to the cowardly "sniff, I don't see what the point is/I don't want to rehash" boosheet.

You act has gotten stale, Heck. Actually, it got stale back when you and Shep were claiming the final doom and

permanent irrelavence of the Republican party.

We should rehash. The CONGRESS passed a resolution to use force in Iraq. Just because

you continue your baloney, I will now start reposting several of the prominent DEMOCRATS saying

WE HAD TO ACT in IRAQ.

 

To say those dems were just so stupid that they let the intel sway them.....

but that the reps intentionally believed it for criminal purposes....

whatever. You surely miss Shep bragging on you, eh?

 

You must think it's your purpose in life to figure out how to make other people

stop believing in what is true, and start believing your liberals' dishonest spin.

Always the same old crap with you and the rest... if you can't get the rest of the members around here to

stop disagreeing with your lib spin, and proving you are just sold out to the llb side, apparently bought and paid for...

well,

 

keep on keeping on. But several of us are quitting. and we won't go away. sorry if that makes you pout and

leave the forum like Shep and MosquitoZits did. But if you won't honestly talk about subjects around here...

why all the re-iteration of Pelosi/Reid/Michael Moo-er/Barney Frank/Hillary/Soros opposite world crap....?

[Westside Steve]

Hardly incapable, which I'm sure you know. You're just trying to take a slap at me.

 

I just don't see the point.

 

The point?

I'm puzzled by a great deal of why we went into Iraq.

 

I don't think we've gotten a straight answer from just about anybody involved.

Not the reasons for the invasion and not the backlash campaign.

And though I doubt you have a definitive answer, I asssume you've given it some thought.

 

 

WSS

 

[Westside Steve]

So here's what I wonder.

How did the UN Saddam agreement as to the list of weapons go so astray?

Was je bluffing to seem like a big man in the region?

Same about why he impeded the inspectors as flagrantly as he did?

Same deal?

(I say quite possibly)

 

Of the sources of innaccurate intelligence who were wrong and why?

 

Did Bush and Cheney knowingly and flagrantly deceive the public to go to war?

 

Or were they mistaken though admittedly looking for a reason?

 

If they knew how did they expect that wouldn't be discovered and fairly soon?

 

If it were really a conspiracy (I'm not necessarily saying you or I think it was) why not just plant something?

 

Was Powell actually fooled or did he look the other way?

 

If in fact they were duped who then did the duping and to what purpose?

Israel? Someone else?

 

If it were Bush and Cheney who concocted the entire scheme how did they fool all the Dems (save a few) who (as both parties are) usually fight against anything each other claims?

Just politics?

 

 

I'm not picking on you Heck.

I really wonder WTF was going on.

 

I have theories about oil as the foundation of the dollar and what would happen if Hussein switched to the Euro as he promised (among others) but who the hell knows.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oddly enough, I think you're looking too hard for ulterior motives. Most of these questions have pretty simple answers.

 

Like this one: "Of the sources of innaccurate intelligence who were wrong and why?"

 

It'd take a while to go through the different agencies, and who got what right or wrong in each. The one who got it the most right was the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, but the CIA got some things right, too. So did DIA. So did the UN teams. It'd take forever to sort it out, but it's been sorted out. Not all of that information is publicly available, however. But some of it is.

 

But why they got it wrong? Because intelligence is a tough business, and people aren't always good, or even competent. And some people who are competent can also get things wrong.

 

And then you have the people who have an agenda, You have politics. You have pressure from higher-ups. It's a bit of a mess.

[Paxton]

I think Iraq's secretly a liberal war, just like Vietnam. Fortunately, Bush fixed it with the Surge -- he fixed it so good that even Obama couldn't screw it up!