Jeb Bush again changes Iraq answer

LOL Yes, we get it Republicans wanted war. I've cited MULTIPLE top Democrats who also wanted war. Your big deflection of a post doesn't negate my point.

You are an extremist. You are UNWILLING to admit your party's wrongdoings. You are the same as a die-hard Neocon.

Once you are willing to admit the truth, which has been cited over and over again to you, then you have some credibility. You've been lying, changing your stories, and deflecting in this whole thread.

Man up.

 

That seems to be the explanation; that wily devil Bush tricked them. Not the simple answer, that our leaders recognized Saddam as a legitimate threat, and acted on that. And the same people accuse me of conspiracy theories on Benghazi!

 

And that's a lie.

Basically their only policy was fixing the (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up Clinton recession when Clinton's foreign policy negligence came up to bite all of us in the ass.

The ONLY reason President Bush did it was because he wanted to prevent another 9-11. He had the intel that Al Qaeda had moved from Afghanistan to Iraq and he followed up. And a bunch of TRAITORS (better known as Democrats) LIED THROUGH THEIR (*)(*)(*)(*)ING TEETH ABOUT THE WHOLE THING.

That's a lie.

That's a lie. There wasn't then and there isn't today any right wing media.

Saddam WAS linked with Al Qaeda. I proved it. And no matter how many (*)(*)(*)(*)ing times you tell that LIE, it's not going to suddenly turn into the truth.

That's a lie.

Bull (*)(*)(*)(*)ing (*)(*)(*)(*). The media continued to hound Bush from his first day in office because they were throwing a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing tantrum about Algore's Florida (*)(*)(*)(*)up.

They were the TRUTH. Only left wing TRAITORS were making claims and they have since been DISPROVEN.

THAT'S ALSO A (*)(*)(*)(*)ING LIE.

Another LIE.
The Republicans ALREADY WON without a war. Ever heard of this thing called Clinton Fatigue?

ANOTHER (*)(*)(*)(*)ING LIE.

ANOTHER (*)(*)(*)(*)ING LIE.

ANOTHER (*)(*)(*)(*)ING LIE.
The weapons were there.

ANOTHER (*)(*)(*)(*)ING LIE.

ANOTHER (*)(*)(*)(*)ING LIE.

ANOTHER (*)(*)(*)(*)ING LIE.

(Notice to mods, at no time did I come even close to leveling any sort of personal attacks whatsoever. I merely responded to the information fairly and honestly, giving it the attention it deserved.)

 

Except Iraq was never and has never been a national security threat to the U.S. like Japan. And on top of that, after Chris Mathews grills the ex CIA deputy Director Morrell admitting what Cheney was saying about reconstituting nuclear weapons was false and said absolutely nothing about it while Cheney ran with the false information; http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/fmr-cia-deputy-director-grilled-on-iraq-war-447888451643, you can certainly see the dilemma here. Your comparison to the Iraq war with others, have no real connection, because the Iraq war was based on lies. And Hubris proves this; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5FaMbnINwc

 

Incorrect; 3 different presidents assigned multiple carrier groups and a host of other resources to contain the guy. To claim he was no threat to national security is way out there.

And I'm not watching a film created by useful idiots of the enemy who don't realize they are assisting the US's enemies in disseminating propaganda.

 

Well, if you're going to be a Neo-Con like the Bushies and define US national security in terms of oil, then yeah.

But most people define national security in terms of geography, and in that case Saddam was absolutely no threat at all.

He invaded Kuwait (so what - oh, the oil, oops I forgot), and he killed a half million Iranians (who cares - Saddam was the good guy in that war, right? the US was helping him, right?).

Did he have anything to do with terrorism? No. Anthrax? No. Nukes? No.

He had a few thousand canisters of nerve gas, and I mean, that is nothing in today's world. Libya has something like 4 million canisters of nerve gas, Saudi Arabia actually makes the stuff and sells it to others .... Saddam's WMD was only slightly north of nonexistent. Not "entirely" ineffectual (because he did gas the Kurds), but it seems he used up most of what he had, and got the rest taken away.

I mean, the symbolism... the shock and awe and the trillion dollars to go after a guy that hides in a hole.... y'know.... that was Saddam. Big threat. Hiding in freakin' hole. Whoop dee doo.

 

National security is oil. How do you think the world economy works? A world economic collapse wouldn't have an impact on US national security? People all over the world eat because of oil. Many countries import almost all of their oil from the Middle East. Not only would it be an economic disaster if oil flow from the ME stopped, it would be a worldwide humanitarian disaster.

Also, when we invaded Iraq in 1991, Saddam had one of the largest armies in the world. It was in the top 10 in several categories. The only reason it didn't get there again is because of US efforts for 12 years afterwards.

 

Defining US national security in terms of the petrodollar is a very bad idea.

The flow of oil from Iraq did stop, for a while. It was totally insignificant. Prices went up about a nickel.

Do you not remember the war with Iran? He needed soldiers because Iraq and Iran were using "human waves" against each other, they were losing tens of thousands of men in each battle!

I'm not saying Saddam was a good guy, all I'm saying is his interests were elsewhere and he was no threat to the United States.

 

I'm defining national security in terms of it takes oil to eat. Without oil, trucks don't deliver food to grocery stores. Oil is vital to feeding the billions of people on this planet.

I'm talking about all oil from the ME cut off from the West and other developing countries. And we worked with our allies like Saudi to offset the losses from Iraq.

Then I guess you know more than 2 Republican, and 1 Democratic administrations, as well as multiple Joint Chiefs of Staff generals throughout.

 

You've never heard of our oil reserves? We have more than enough oil. We don't need Iraqi oil, and never have. Not even a single drop!

Iraq didn't happen because of oil. Oil was not the reason. Saddam wasn't the reason either. It was something else entirely.

Are you kidding? An ant is a threat to these people, they wake up in the morning and they see nothing but threats.

George W Bush was a threat to the people of the United States. Saddam Hussein wasn't.

 

We are not energy independent. I don't feel like looking, but I would guess we get about a third of our oil from the ME. We would survive, but the economy would be seriously damaged, and there would be rationing of gas. Europe would be hit harder, and Putin has foresaw this, which is why he has so much leverage over them. Developing countries would experience humanitarian disasters the likes of which haven't been seen in centuries. If you don't think that would affect US national security, then it might be best that you stop thinking about what affects national security.

It was a combination of many factors: oil, terrorism, Iranian threat, stability, UN credibility, WMD's, at least hundreds of thousands murdered under Saddam, and finally, we were sick of expending the effort to contain him.

 

Oil was not the reason. And Saddam was not involved with terrorism (in fact he didn't like terrorists and was quite brutal with them when they were captured). As for the rest of it, it's all the PNAC. You can't talk about stability when the US is unleashing a "shock and awe" campaign, you can't talk to me about 100k dead when twice that number were murdered by Dumbya.

However you're getting warm on point #3. Iran is of course also no threat to the United States. They're only a threat to Israel.

 

A bunch of terrorists get together and attack the US, saying their justification is the US military presence in the ME. Our military presence in the ME is because of Saddam. You see no connection to terrorism eh?

Casualties inflicted by the US aren't really available, because everyone throughout the war who was counting casualties, was against the US being involved in Iraq, and thus chalked up every single death to the US. No additional category was provided to show those killed by terrorists/insurgents. Your comment that says people were murdered by Bush shows you aren't interested in facts.

Keep downplaying the importance of oil to world security as you yourself stop at the corner gas station to fill up. And you will stop at that station, even if you have to wait in an 8 hour line to get that gas. Everyone will. Because gas is as important as food or water, and almost everyone will wait in lines to get it in case of shortages. Once you realize how important oil is, you will realize that it would be very irresponsible to just leave the flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf to chance, or the whims of a dictator like Saddam.

 

Certainly it does.NOONE was talking about starting a war before Bush!

 

I was. It didn't take a genius to see that we were on the path to another war with Saddam, even before 9/11. The loser of a war (Saddam) did not want to comply with the conditions for peace; it is a common cause for war, or renewed war. In my opinion, the 1991 conditions for peace were reasonable. It wasn't a situation akin to Germany post WWI. Saddam caused both wars, not Bush.

 

You were a minority of one.

 

Not really. I was in the military at the time of both the Gulf and Iraqi Wars and it was considered conventional wisdom that not finishing off Saddam at the conclusion of the Gulf War meant we would be back. Reading this thread it's almost as if you would never know that Iraq was the central foreign policy occupation of the administration throughout the 1990's.

 

Welcome to the internet age of rewriting history. When one considers the full context over 13 years, it is clear that Saddam started the war, not Bush. But some Democrats and liberals cannot afford for this truth to be known or mainstream, because they undermined the war for years. They cannot be blamed for causing us to lose a war started by a foreign power, so they must rewrite history so that it reflects they simply undermined a war started by a treasonous, lying, POTUS of our own, which sounds like a more plausible reason to undermine a war. But it isn't the truth.

 

After reading all of my textbooks concerning US foreign policy at a prestigious liberal college, the same impression was developed. Almost zero mention of Saddam's actions for 13 years prior; the texts zero in on Bush/Cheney's actions. It's disgusting.

 

Because both of the Iraq wars were nothing but wars designed to cater to the rich. It's that simple! And yes, 4500 plus dead soldiers later, at falsifying these two wars, is way more than disgusting.

 

Multiple Democrats including Hillary received false information. There is a big difference.

 

No, Bush senior started the war that his son finished . Senior had ties with the old company of Zapata Oil, who was tied to Kuwait, while Kuwait was illegally slant drilling for oil on Iraqi soil. When Saddam complained about it to Bush senior, Bush said to Saddam that he wasn't going to get involved with his oil disputes, and told Saddam he would not intervene if Saddam took action. When Saddam took action over Kuwait by invading them, Saddam also invaded Bush's personal oil interests with Kuwait and the company he was tied to. It was then that Bush showed his true intentions by lying to Saddam, then invading him. That is how the real story began with Iraq.

 

Hardly presidential material to get caught with your britches down so early in the game.

 

The problem is, too much time has passed. In order to understand the second Iraq war, one must understand the real truth history of the first.

 

Bush Sr. and Jr. were both train wrecks. It will be a testament to the ignorance of the raging masses if we have a third Bush in the WH.