"Cheney wants Americans to blame Obama for a mess Cheney created."

[fmw]

Of course you do because you cannot comprehend the damage a Nuke would do to our economy even if detonated in the middle east

That is a fact.

 

[fmw]

Does Iran have a missile capable of travailing 7000 miles?

I don't think so, but the Iranians certainly aren't going to tell us what they have or don't have. They are so busy building the bomb, I think they are likely to buy the required missiles.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

If you believe Cheney lied then there is nothing I can say to change that.

There is nothing about "believing"... Its the reality of what happend

No one really knows how many Centrifuges Iran has, had, or even when they were developed.

Except the IAEA and various intelligence agencies...

I am not sure that it really matters whether or not Cheney lied, Iran has Centrifuges, when they got them, when the created more really is irrelevant.

So you make all of these statements but what it boils down to is that "you dont care".. :doh
Dear god :lamo

It is the Obama treaty that is the issue and it an issue that all Americans will pay dearly for if not enforced

:roll: Back to the fear mongering. Neo-cons rely so much on fear....

Would you please show me in this article where it supports the claims made in post 61? Seems you want to pick and choose what you want to believe depending on your ideology.

Umm post #61 isnt me.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran

I particularly like this line

In a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, the United States Intelligence Community assessed that Iran had ended all "nuclear weapon design and weaponization work" in 2003

Yea... .Whats your point?

Now would that tell you that Cheney lied?

What?

 

[Conservative]

There is nothing about "believing"... Its the reality of what happend


Except the IAEA and various intelligence agencies...


So you make all of these statements but what it boils down to is that "you dont care".. :doh
Dear god :lamo


:roll: Back to the fear mongering. Neo-cons rely so much on fear....


Umm post #61 isnt me.....


[/B]Yea... .Whats your point?



What?

The NIE disagrees with you and the site posted so you believe the one you want and I will believe the NIE. The NIE report makes Cheney accurate

 

[Fletch]

:roll: Back to the fear mongering. Neo-cons rely so much on fear....

LOL You must conveniently overlook the over-the-top leftist fear mongering on the topic of global warming...or spending cuts...or the war on women...or racism.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

The NIE disagrees with you and the site posted so you believe the one you want and I will believe the NIE. The NIE report makes Cheney accurate

What? What NIE report? Can you post it? Because youre real good at making claims, but not backing up those claims.....

 

[Conservative]

What? What NIE report? Can you post it? Because youre real good at making claims, but not backing up those claims.....

You ought to know that NIE reports are classified but here is the CNN report on the issue

U.S. report: Iran stopped nuclear weapons work in 2003 - CNN.com

I do accept apologies as will Cheney

 

[Absentglare]

LOL You must conveniently overlook the over-the-top leftist fear mongering on the topic of global warming...or spending cuts...or the war on women...or racism.

The difference is that those are real issues that actually effect the American public.

Republicans seem to want to spend money and American lives to wage a war of aggression half a world away for no gain.

 

[Absentglare]

You ought to know that NIE reports are classified but here is the CNN report on the issue

U.S. report: Iran stopped nuclear weapons work in 2003 - CNN.com

I do accept apologies as will Cheney

Good, so President Bush knew that Iran wouldn't have weaponized material until some other schmuck was in office, so just ignore the problem.

Solid defense, why try to stop something that's so far away ?

 

[rhinefire]

If Cheney were president instead of GWB we would not be talking about any issues in the Middle East. Destruction like everything has its place in our world.

 

[Conservative]

Good, so President Bush knew that Iran wouldn't have weaponized material until some other schmuck was in office, so just ignore the problem.

Solid defense, why try to stop something that's so far away ?

It has been claimed that Cheney lied, the NIE report doesn't support that claim thus the problem was created by Obama and his lack of leadership skills along with appeasement which you support. It is Obama that kicks the can down the road just like he did with the SS and Medicare problem by cutting payroll taxes which fund SS and Medicare and as we know both are unfunded to the tune of trillions. Cutting FIT isn't the answer to improving the economy because it defers the cost of SS and Medicare whereas cutting FIT is always the answer but liberals don't like that

 

[TheDemSocialist]

You ought to know that NIE reports are classified but here is the CNN report on the issue

U.S. report: Iran stopped nuclear weapons work in 2003 - CNN.com

I do accept apologies as will Cheney

Oh wait.... You are really confused.
Stopping a nuclear weapons program does not mean you stop your centrifuge program. Because afteralll having centrifuges does not mean or imply you have a nuclear weapons program because centrifuges are essential even for peaceful nuclear programs...

 

[reinoe]

Why on Earth would anyone attempt to have a conversation with conservative?

With a name like that you already know where he stands on every issue.

 

[joG]

I think you should actually read some literature before you call anybody "ignoranti". You can start with the link in the first post. Anyhoo, innstead of posting false conservative narratives cons (and con like posters) are so fond of, why not actually read some “literature.” In this literature we found out Bush was planning to invade Iraq from day 1.

"And what happened at President Bush's very first National Security Council meeting is one of O'Neill's most startling revelations.
“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.
“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”Bush Sought 'Way' To Invade Iraq? - CBS News

whoops, there goes your "bush had no reason to lie" narrative.

"Since we arrived in Iraq, we have conducted more than 400 inspections covering more than 300 sites. All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly. In no case have we seen convincing evidence that the Iraqi side knew in advance that the inspectors were coming. "

Full text: Hans Blix's briefing to the UN security council | World news | The Guardian

whoops there goes your “Saddam not cooperating” narrative



it seems you continue to flail at the thread without even reading the link in the first post. the link you refuse to read didn't "imply some general lies" it clearly delineated the lies by Cheney. Look how you so effortlessly make the transition from empty fact less rhetoric to falsehoods. Cons do the exact same thing.

First of all, thank you for the second link. I had read the paper at the time in a different format and found it nice to reread.

As to its content, I do not really see that it means much. Sure, you selected your quote to make a point. But out of the context it seems to, while hiding the bulk of the content, especially in the second half of the briefing. There Blix points out that he cannot do his job without cooperation and that, though, there had been recent meetings that could mean that Iraq might in future decide to help out in certain questions and so forth, he also says that such cooperation had been lacking since 1991. This is what I had remembered and it is quite plainly put albeit in UN Speak.

As to the first link, I do not see that it contains anything exciting or outside the normal. Sure Bush wanted a different regime there. We wanted different regimes in many countries, as we do right now. It is a fact, that democratic systems are more efficient than autocracies or dictatorships, if the societies can handle them. They are also more compatible with human rights and all that. The US has preferred democratic countries for a long time and tolerated dictatorships, where it seemed necessary, when the priorities had all been reckoned. The 2005 change in norms at the UN was a US initiative and accepted by the General Assembly in this direction, correcting a fundamental error we had made in the original UN Charter. So why would anyone be surprised that we have plans for the removal of dictators, if the circumstances require it?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Thank you so much for your service if indeed you were there. I had three family members also serve in Iraq and they came home with a different opinion. Being "ignorant warhawks" as you call us may or may not be true but the reality is leadership means making decisions based upon the intelligence available thus Bush did the right thing.All SOF agreements are open ended and Bush gave Obama the room to negotiate but Obama and his arrogance refused and decided to appease his base. He lost the peace and that is reality

Is there any point where you would say "Man, we've been there too long, accomplished too little, and paid too dearly, it's time for us to get out of that hellhole and focus on improving the lives of Americans."?

We were there almost a decade. A decade. Contrast that with the other wars America has had. A decade is a LONG time. We lost a LOT of people and paid TRILLIONS of dollars. I see you on here constantly complaining about liberals spending money on Americans, but why would you want to spend TRILLIONS on Iraqis?

If all Obama did was honor a treaty signed by Bush, why do you leftists credit Obama for getting us out of Iraq. Clearly by your own confused rhetoric, it was Bush who accomplished that. But I do love how you Obots constantly portray Obama as a mere bystander to history when it suits your misguided partisanship. Ask yourself this question and do your best to answer honestly in the quiet and emptiness of your own mind: had that 'warhawk' McCain won in 2008 instead of Obama, do you believe he would have kept troops in Iraq? Yes or no. Since it is unlikely that I will get an honest answer here, I will answer the question myself--the answer is yes, McCain would have left troops in Iraq. The decision to honor the SOFA or not was up to Obama, not Bush. Obama made the decision to leave, not Bush. The results of that exit for good or ill belong to Obama, not Bush. I know its tough for leftwing Obama toadies to ever lay anything negative at the feet of their almighty leader, but the guy is president, he made decisions. The decision to leave no troops behind combined with the Syrian revolution is what brought us ISIS. If you remember, in January of 2014 (that would be 5 years AFTER Bush left office) the Great Obama declared ISIS to be a JV team. Remember that? Or is that bit of knowledge too much for the hyper-partisan mind to wrap itself around?

Of course McCain would've kept us there. He was the ****ing lunatic that said we'd stay there another 99 years if that's what it took. Obama ran on ending the war in Iraq, and between these two candidates, the American people chose Obama, because they preferred his policies. If you're upset that we aren't spending another couple of decades and a few more trillions dollars, take it up with the American people. Also, I truly wonder what kind of libertarian wants to take trillions of dollars from taxpayers to give it to Iraqis.

Could Obama have said "**** the treaty" and kept us there forever? Yeah, probably, but that's not what the American people wanted. Sorry that we'd rather focus on improving America than giving out welfare to middle eastern countries who don't want to lift a finger to help themselves.

 

[joG]

Yes, I suppose shooting a missile at the U.S. is fairly trivial.

I did not say it was trivial. It is only that the danger of nuclear Winter outweighs the actual one missile attack.

 

[t4pi0k4]

I 100% Blame Obama for ISIS... it was HIS decision to pull out of Iraq 100%, even against the advice of many US generals.

You can argue, like many liberals.."Well if we never went to Iraq in the first place....blah blah blah" ...you can think it was a good idea or a bad one... it doesn't matter anymore... we did it, that is what happened...And what did Obama do with the situation?? He made it worse, TONS worse.

When you inherit a lose-lose situation, the only rational thing to do is cut your loses, all the more so if whatever the number of $trillions you throw at it it only gets worse and worse!
That's what Obama's administration is doing right now, get some perspective, pause, reflect, try to understand things, make the Arabs understand that if they want to be free, now is the defining moment to fight for it etc.

 

[Fletch]

Of course McCain would've kept us there. He was the ****ing lunatic that said we'd stay there another 99 years if that's what it took. Obama ran on ending the war in Iraq, and between these two candidates, the American people chose Obama, because they preferred his policies. If you're upset that we aren't spending another couple of decades and a few more trillions dollars, take it up with the American people. Also, I truly wonder what kind of libertarian wants to take trillions of dollars from taxpayers to give it to Iraqis.

Could Obama have said "**** the treaty" and kept us there forever? Yeah, probably, but that's not what the American people wanted. Sorry that we'd rather focus on improving America than giving out welfare to middle eastern countries who don't want to lift a finger to help themselves.

Thank you. That was my point. McCain would have kept troops there and Obama could have kept troops there. The idea that Obama was bound by the SOFA to pull out therefore the growth of ISIS is Bushs fault is the bogus argument I was rejecting. The American people and the Iraqis wanted us gone, that is true. But the decision to not leave a residual force was Obamas. So it is Obama that is responsible for the results of that action, not Bush.

 

[Fletch]

The difference is that those are real issues that actually effect the American public.

Republicans seem to want to spend money and American lives to wage a war of aggression half a world away for no gain.

The tactics, however, are the same. And that was the point.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Thank you. That was my point. McCain would have kept troops there and Obama could have kept troops there. The idea that Obama was bound by the SOFA to pull out therefore the growth of ISIS is Bushs fault is the bogus argument I was rejecting. The American people and the Iraqis wanted us gone, that is true. But the decision to not leave a residual force was Obamas. So it is Obama that is responsible for the results of that action, not Bush.

I never said it would be impossible, I said that Obama honored the treaty. McCain could've said "**** the treaty I do what I want", but that was the exact opposite of what the American people wanted. Now, don't let me interrupt your bitching about liberals spending money on Americans. It would be much better if we had spent many more trillions on Iraqis and told the American people to go **** themselves.

I 100% Blame Obama for ISIS... it was HIS decision to pull out of Iraq 100%, even against the advice of many US generals.

You can argue, like many liberals.."Well if we never went to Iraq in the first place....blah blah blah" ...you can think it was a good idea or a bad one... it doesn't matter anymore... we did it, that is what happened...And what did Obama do with the situation?? He made it worse, TONS worse.

Joe Biden even had the idea of dividing Iraq into three countries... the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. But Obama also declined to adhire to his wisdom as well...

Bush made a mistake with handling of the new Iraq government.... many past wars it is almost customary to use the military leaders of the enemy side to be a part of the new government. Bush did not do that.

STOP living in the past and realize the huge mistake it was pulling out of Iraq... We literally left the entire country to die, this could have been avoided... and what was many's main excuse??? "It's too expensive!" "We need to stay out of their business!" "We can't have Americans die""We hate war"
NOW what happened? We now have hundreds of thousands of refuges, a extreme terrorist country killing and murdering thousands of innocents that all could have been avoided.

I'm saying this about Obama because he is the CURRENT president... I will judge the next president for what he does with this inherited situation. In my opinion Obama's incompetence is the reason for this all...

Obama's main excuse is that Iraq became a sovereign nation and they wanted us out, so we had to get out or they would no long be a sovereign nation, "it wasn't his choice to leave Iraq"...
What About Korea? What about Japan? We forced in their constitutions to maintain our military presence in their countries.... and they are still considered sovereign.

You understand that Obama is implying that he really wanted to stay in Iraq but was pushed out by the Iraq government? All at the same time he does speeches all over the liberal base imply the exact opposite?

I'm surprised how many "Libertarians" are financially conservative until it comes to trillions in welfare for Iraqis, then it's all about making it rain.

 

[Fletch]

I never said it would be impossible, I said that Obama honored the treaty. McCain could've said "**** the treaty I do what I want", but that was the exact opposite of what the American people wanted.

What would have cost more: keeping a residual force in Iraq to help stabilize the country or sending those troops back in--as we have now done--to fight a foe we could have prevented?

Now, don't let me interrupt your bitching about liberals spending money on Americans. It would be much better if we had spent many more trillions on Iraqis and told the American people to go **** themselves.

If liberals would spend their own money on things they desire, I wouldn't bitch about it at all. It is that liberalism is a criminal enterprise that steals what they covet that I bitch about.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

What would have cost more: keeping a residual force in Iraq to help stabilize the country or sending those troops back in--as we have now done--to fight a foe we could have prevented? If liberals would spend their own money on things they desire, I wouldn't bitch about it at all. It is that liberalism is a criminal enterprise that steals what they covet that I bitch about.

So you're more noble because you want to steal our money for us to hand out to Iraqis? Sorry, I think I'll side with the people trying to help Americans. I wonder where your priorities lie.

Also, we spent a decade there and we got nothing. We created ISIS. Spending another 10 years and trillions more dollars wouldn't help a region that doesn't want to help itself. Americans have gotten tired of sending better men than you to die for no reason. If you're so committed to the middle east, perhaps you should grab a rifle and head over to take care of it yourself. We have very few troops actively engaging right now in Iraq and Syria, the costs of supporting local nations in the region is miniscule compared to the billions and billions we were spending per day in Iraq.

 

[Fletch]

So you're more noble because you want to steal our money for us to hand out to Iraqis? Sorry, I think I'll side with the people trying to help Americans. I wonder where your priorities lie.

Also, we spent a decade there and we got nothing. We created ISIS. Spending another 10 years and trillions more dollars wouldn't help a region that doesn't want to help itself. Americans have gotten tired of sending better men than you to die for no reason. If you're so committed to the middle east, perhaps you should grab a rifle and head over to take care of it yourself. We have very few troops actively engaging right now in Iraq and Syria, the costs of supporting local nations in the region is miniscule compared to the billions and billions we were spending per day in Iraq.

I wasn't defending the Iraq war itself. Clearly even that great liberal Barak Obama believes we have an interest there or he would not have sent several thousand troops back in there and launched thousands of air strikes on ISIS targets. The question I was addressing was whether the troop pullout was the right course of action or whether leaving a force behind would have served us and the region better. Notice how even Obama recognized his error by not wanting to repeat it in Afghanistan. That war is 14 years old and still we have Americans on the ground to prevent the country from disintegrating. We should have done the same in Iraq. We didn't and now there is a bigger problem.

 

[Conservative]

Oh wait.... You are really confused.
Stopping a nuclear weapons program does not mean you stop your centrifuge program. Because afteralll having centrifuges does not mean or imply you have a nuclear weapons program because centrifuges are essential even for peaceful nuclear programs...

Oh, NIE vs. a website you want to believe? As an Administration Official who should that individual believe

 

[Conservative]

Is there any point where you would say "Man, we've been there too long, accomplished too little, and paid too dearly, it's time for us to get out of that hellhole and focus on improving the lives of Americans."?

We were there almost a decade. A decade. Contrast that with the other wars America has had. A decade is a LONG time. We lost a LOT of people and paid TRILLIONS of dollars. I see you on here constantly complaining about liberals spending money on Americans, but why would you want to spend TRILLIONS on Iraqis?



Of course McCain would've kept us there. He was the ****ing lunatic that said we'd stay there another 99 years if that's what it took. Obama ran on ending the war in Iraq, and between these two candidates, the American people chose Obama, because they preferred his policies. If you're upset that we aren't spending another couple of decades and a few more trillions dollars, take it up with the American people. Also, I truly wonder what kind of libertarian wants to take trillions of dollars from taxpayers to give it to Iraqis.

Could Obama have said "**** the treaty" and kept us there forever? Yeah, probably, but that's not what the American people wanted. Sorry that we'd rather focus on improving America than giving out welfare to middle eastern countries who don't want to lift a finger to help themselves.

We could have said the same thing about Germany and Korea as well, but we didn't. Leadership took the gains we won and built on them by keeping a peace keeping force there but Obama's arrogance and very poor leadership skills were on full display. The cost of keeping troops there to retain our gains would have been a lot less than having to go back in and fight again. It was a terrible decision.

Please stop posting leftwing information. It hasn't cost trillions and the debt is in the 10.6 trillion Obama inherited. The cost of the war is in that debt and is paid yearly, all the costs. Ongoing expenses are paid out of the current budget but since we pulled out the cost of VA is a very small part of the U.S. Budget