Congratulations Washington Liberal Pundits and Elites:

[KLATTU]

Na

The prize for most often to lied to the electorate, belongs to GW, hands down. Amazing how some folks have complete amnesia for the years 2000-2008.

How quickly people forget . He lied us into war by lying about Iraq's WMD. {snicker}

He was also not truthful about how the twin Towers actually came down. ( melting steel?? please)

{Guffaw}

 

[eohrnberger]

Na

The prize for most often to lied to the electorate, belongs to GW, hands down. Amazing how some folks have complete amnesia for the years 2000-2008.

You are fairly new here, but it's been well documented and explored here in the forums that GW wasn't lying. WMDs were found in Iraq (what'd Sadaam gas the Kurds with if not?), as was Yellow Cake.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

You are fairly new here, but it's been well documented and explored here in the forums that GW wasn't lying. WMDs were found in Iraq (what'd Sadaam gas the Kurds with if not?), as was Yellow Cake.

Post 1/2

:lamo Man you guys really are masters of spin....

1.)Why would the CIA claim this? " In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion." CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq - World news - Mideast/N. Africa - Conflict in Iraq | NBC News

2.) If your talking about the ****ty weapons that were sealed and are essentially useless then you guys really are the masters of political spin and historical revisionism and is nowhere near what Bush claimed to go to war in Iraq :lamo ...
"In an interview with The Intercept, Charles Duelfer, head of the CIA’s definitive post-war investigation of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, explained that “Saddam didn’t know he had it … This is stuff Iraqi leaders did not know was left lying around. It was not a militarily significant capability that they were, as a matter of national policy, hiding.”
The chemical ordnance described in the Times series falls into two categories:
1.)The first was munitions that had been sealed in bunkers at Iraq’s Al Muthanna weapons complex by U.N. inspectors during the 1990s. The inspectors destroyed enormous quantities of chemical weapons at Al Muthanna between 1992 and 1994, including 480,000 litres of live chemical weapons agent, but some could not be incinerated because it was too dangerous to move it. The U.N. and U.S. knew these chemical weapons were there, Saddam Hussein knew they knew, and there was no way for the Iraqi military to access them without the world immediately finding out. But after the invasion the U.S. failed to secure the site, and insurgents broke into the bunkers to retrieve some of the munitions. This is well-known to anyone who follows this issue closely. However, the U.S. media, as Duelfer puts it, periodically “rediscover this and get excited about it.” (The Intercept explained some aspects of the remaining Al Muthanna munitions last fall.)
2.)The second category was simply ordnance that the Iraqi military had lost track of. Says Duelfer, “Keeping in mind that they used 101,000 munitions in the Iran-Iraq War … it’s not really surprising that they have imperfect accounting. I bet the U.S. couldn’t keep track of many of its weapons produced and used during a war.” And as the Times series notes, Iraq’s chemical shells often looked identical to its conventional ones: “An X-ray of internal features was sometimes the only way to tell [the difference].”
https://theintercept.com/2015/04/10...s-media-still-cant-get-iraqi-wmd-story-right/

"The capture was confirmed on Thursday in a release from the International Atomic Energy Association, which said that the nuclear watchdog is “aware of the notification from Iraq and is in contact to seek further details.” But it turns out that the “uranium compounds” seized are of little to no threat to the general population. Spokesperson Gill Tudor continued on to say that the organization believes “the material involved is low-grade and would not present a significant safety, security or nuclear proliferation risk. Nevertheless, any loss of regulatory control over nuclear and other radioactive materials is a cause for concern.”
When the IAEA says that the uranium captured is “low-grade,” they mean that the radioactive material has not been further enriched to a point that it can be used in a nuclear weapon. While lower enriched uranium can possibly used in a “dirty bomb” — a weapon where conventional explosives are used to spread radioactive material across a wide area — that doesn’t appear to be a concern in this situation either. In a follow-up story, Reuters found the same thing in speaking with Olli Heinonen, a former IAEA chief inspector. “You cannot make a nuclear explosive from this amount, but all uranium compounds are poisonous,” Heinonen told Reuters. “This material is also not ‘good’ enough for a dirty bomb.” No, There Are Still No WMDs In Iraq | ThinkProgress

 

[TheDemSocialist]

You are fairly new here, but it's been well documented and explored here in the forums that GW wasn't lying. WMDs were found in Iraq (what'd Sadaam gas the Kurds with if not?), as was Yellow Cake.

post 2/2

"Despite the fact that the article repeatedly points out that none of its revelations validate the claims made to justify the war, it has still been seized upon by hawks as some kind of retroactive justification. This is not just ahistorical; it evinces an absolutely staggering ignorance of the realities of American involvement in Iraq.
The inconvenient truth is that the U.S. was aware of the existence of such weapons at the Al Muthanna site as far back as 1991. Why? Because Al Muthanna was the site where the UN ordered Saddam Hussein to dispose of his declared chemical munitions in the first place. Those weapons that could not safely be destroyed were sealed and left to decay on their own, which they did. The site was neither “active” nor “clandestine” – it was a declared munitions dump being used to hold the corroded weapons which Western powers themselves had in most cases helped Saddam procure.
The fact that people thoroughly invested in supporting the war apparently had no idea about this is in many ways emblematic of their complete cluelessness about the country which they helped destroy." https://theintercept.com/2014/10/15/despite-attempts-revise-history-bush-still-wrong-iraqi-wmds/

But I get it. Anything to justify the precious little war that completely destroyed a region and lead to the consequences we are now seeing in the region. :sarcasticclap

 

[yankintx]

You are fairly new here, but it's been well documented and explored here in the forums that GW wasn't lying. WMDs were found in Iraq (what'd Sadaam gas the Kurds with if not?), as was Yellow Cake.

And who set the post invasion policy, which was a total FU. I may be new here, but I served 3 tours in Iraqi, and yes Bush does get the blame from the troops. You cant deny that Bush2, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice totally screwed the pooch, were you there ?

 

[yankintx]

Leftists hate America and they will go to any lengths to see that it is punished.

I lean left, and served 3 tours in Iraqi, would you say I hate America? Guess what, there alots of (Gasp) Dems in the military, do they hate America?

 

[yankintx]

You are fairly new here, but it's been well documented and explored here in the forums that GW wasn't lying. WMDs were found in Iraq (what'd Sadaam gas the Kurds with if not?), as was Yellow Cake.

Was not discussing the reasons we went to war, I know why went to war and am not arguing that point, so stop assuming. I am talking about the post invasion, that went well didn't it? To the folks who scream Benghazi, what Hillary did was minuscule compared to what the last GOP Pres and his ideologues got us into, and then couldn't even manage the debacle, that is negligence in the first degree. I was there, and witnessed first hand the screw up post invasion, but of course there is that GOP amnesia again, Hillary will be indicted for negligence when that gang of screw ups is indicted.

 

[eohrnberger]

Was not discussing the reasons we went to war, I know why went to war and am not arguing that point, so stop assuming. I am talking about the post invasion, that went well didn't it? To the folks who scream Benghazi, what Hillary did was minuscule compared to what the last GOP Pres and his ideologues got us into, and then couldn't even manage the debacle, that is negligence in the first degree.

Fair enough.

I agree with you on that the post-invasion plan was little more than one massive **** up, trying to do it on the cheap is no way to occupy a nation, which they should have realized was needed to be done.

I'll even go so far as saying that in 20-20 hindsight, it was a mistake to invade Iraq. Should have left that one alone and focused on Afghanistan. But I can also understand why the Navy would get tired of Sadaam's troops shooting AA missiles at their CAP enforcing the no fly zone, which was going on since the end of Gulf 1.

As for Benghazi, had there been no indication or warning of an impending attack, had there been the requested security detail, at least once in the dozen or so times requested, had there been the appropriate military response at the onset of the attack, and above all, had not this administration attempted to misdirect the entire thing on a stupid Internet video, yeah, then not such a big deal. But since all these things . . . . . very, very bad judgement at a minimum, and frustrating the appropriate congressional oversight and investigation . . . worse yet. POTUS disqualifying one might even say, had the press bothered to cover it as much as they did with glee every single person that uttered the statement 'Bush lied'. . . . Who knows.

 

[yankintx]

Fair enough.

I agree with you on that the post-invasion plan was little more than one massive **** up, trying to do it on the cheap is no way to occupy a nation, which they should have realized was needed to be done.

I'll even go so far as saying that in 20-20 hindsight, it was a mistake to invade Iraq. Should have left that one alone and focused on Afghanistan. But I can also understand why the Navy would get tired of Sadaam's troops shooting AA missiles at their CAP enforcing the no fly zone, which was going on since the end of Gulf 1.

As for Benghazi, had there been no indication or warning of an impending attack, had there been the requested security detail, at least once in the dozen or so times requested, had there been the appropriate military response at the onset of the attack, and above all, had not this administration attempted to misdirect the entire thing on a stupid Internet video, yeah, then not such a big deal. But since all these things . . . . . very, very bad judgement at a minimum, and frustrating the appropriate congressional oversight and investigation . . . worse yet. POTUS disqualifying one might even say, had the press bothered to cover it as much as they did with glee every single person that uttered the statement 'Bush lied'. . . . Who knows.

Thank you

I find it incredible that Dr Rice, a historian herself, could not see what was happening. They do not want us in the region, every western power that has gone in with guns has come out regretting it, including us. Any historian (including myself) could see what was going to happen. The Arabs do not want a western style Democracy, and we do not need to be shoving it down there throat. I will vote for Sec Clinton, does that mean that I want to destroy America, a country I spent 20 years defending?

 

[eohrnberger]

Thank you

I find it incredible that Dr Rice, a historian herself, could not see what was happening. They do not want us in the region, every western power that has gone in with guns has come out regretting it, including us. Any historian (including myself) could see what was going to happen. The Arabs do not want a western style Democracy, and we do not need to be shoving it down there throat. I will vote for Sec Clinton, does that mean that I want to destroy America, a country I spent 20 years defending?

I have far less a problem with the 'Classic Liberals' of say the Kennedy era. Heck, I might have been one myself. I have a real problem with the disconnect between the liberal principals of then and the liberals of now.

Hillary is a special case for my scorn and distrust. That woman and her husband should have never achieved any sort of power, as corrupt as they are (IMHO), and everything needs to be done to keep any further power away from them.

 

[yankintx]

I have far less a problem with the 'Classic Liberals' of say the Kennedy era. Heck, I might have been one myself. I have a real problem with the disconnect between the liberal principals of then and the liberals of now.

Hillary is a special case for my scorn and distrust. That woman and her husband should have never achieved any sort of power, as corrupt as they are (IMHO), and everything needs to be done to keep any further power away from them.

There is no centrist in the GOP anymore, they are not welcome, especially a gay one like me, is it any wonder I dropped the GOP? When I was a kid, I watched the entire Watergate episode, and Nixon's dishonesty, I learnt real early not to expect to much from politicians, ya I have been around for a while. Lots of average Americans have since viewed ANY politician with skepticism.