The Current Situation In Iraq

Andy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,497
The big picture with full discloser is really this...

Total lie going in which was proven 100% once we got there.


Sorry, Rockefeller report and the post-war senate report, both prove conclusively, there was no lie. Thanks for your time, see you later, bye.
 
Werbung:

The Scotsman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
3,027
Location
South of the Haggis Munching Line
Petraeus himself said it's unlikely that Iraqi security forces can take the lead in all 18 provinces this year, as was recently predicted by the Pentagon.

"The overall trend in Iraq is positive, but we should be skeptical about overly optimistic assessments that we've 'turned the corner' in Iraq," said Eric Rosenbach of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and a former staffer of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

"It's more appropriate to say that we have a long road ahead of us rather than we've turned the corner."

The reason for such caution is that many of the issues that contributed to the Iraq conflict remain unresolved — notably how the various ethnic and religious groups will share power.

Last August, the largest Sunni Arab political bloc pulled out of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's Cabinet, complaining it wasn't getting enough say in decision-making. Talks on a Sunni return broke down this week.

In the north, tensions between Arabs and Kurds are smoldering, especially in key cities such as Kirkuk and Mosul. Mohanad Hazim, a schoolteacher in Mosul, warned that the presence of Kurdish soldiers in his city "is a matter of great worry and concern" among his fellow Arabs.

I think that if you are looking for an "easy out" its un-realistic and would probably cause the collapse of the Iraqi Government and civil war, which would impact on the US in an economic manner in that the oil would probably cease to flow. The best I think that will happen is perhaps a withdrawl from some of the urban areas and the creation of internal buffer zones. The creation of these will allow the Iraqi forces access to US ground and air support when required as well as allow continued training and further to act as a deterent to Iran. You are due to pull out troops shortly anyway the 5 surge battalions are due to rotate out in July so overall troop commitment will come down.

As for a full withdrawl that would be a very precipitous and reckless move.
 

top gun

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
4,940
Location
Ohio, USA
Yes the Sunni's boycotted the 2005 elections but have since agreed to participate in the upcoming elections.

And with a turnout of 80% in the 2005 elections I would say that the average Iraqi citizen has spoken and views for the most part their government as legitimate.

The Sunni's walked away from the table and have not returned.

Yes there was a big turnout at the last election... but there is an obvious reason why. It's all about the power grab... not about democracy. In a democracy you agree to go along and respect the election outcomes even if your side looses. That will just NEVER be the case in Iraq.

And democracy isn't always something we like anyway. We pushed for free and open elections with the Palestinians and got Hamas. Now we want to remove what was democratically elected.

Very slippery slope over there... it's way past time to redeploy the heck out of that astronomically expensive quagmire.
 

top gun

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
4,940
Location
Ohio, USA
Sorry, Rockefeller report and the post-war senate report, both prove conclusively, there was no lie. Thanks for your time, see you later, bye.

Au contraire... so many lies you just can't post em all! :(

Did George W. Bush Invade Iraq by Lying?

Why did Bush start a war that:

Has killed more than 200 American servicemen and women, and seriously injured hundreds more
Has killed thousands of Iraq civilians, many of them women and children
Will cost American Tax payers more than $100 Billion, of money desperately needed here at home
Has destroyed America’s credibility around the world
Has already significantly damaged morale, confidence, and the readiness of the US armed forces


Here’s what Bush said:
Bush’s Claim vs. Reality

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has 500 tons of chemical weapons:

- Sarin gas

- Mustard gas

- VX Nerve agent

Not True
Zero Chemical Weapons Found
Not a drop of any chemical weapons has been found anywhere in Iraq


“U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein
had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable
of delivering chemical agents.”

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has 30,000 weapons capable of dumping chemical weapons on people

Not True
Zero Munitions Found
Not a single chemical weapon’s munition has been found anywhere in Iraq


"We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has a growing fleet of planes capable of dispersing chemical weapons almost anywhere in the world

Not True
Zero Aerial Vehicles Found
Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq


"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda
And implied that Iraq was somehow behind 9/11

Not True
Zero Al Qaeda Connection
To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations have been revealed.


"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq has attempted to purchase metal tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production

Not True
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.


"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites."

Bush speech to the nation – 10/7/2002
Iraq is rebuilding nuclear facilities at former sites.
Not True

Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there


IAEA report to UN Security Council – 1/27/2003

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
Iraq recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa

Not True
The documents implied were known at the time by Bush to be forged and not credible.


"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

VP Dick Cheney – “Meet the Press” 3/16/2003
Iraq has Nuclear Weapons for a fact

Not True

“The IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq."


IAEA report to UN Security Council – 3/7/2003

"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003
Iraq’s Saddam Hussein refused to allow UN inspectors into Iraq

Not True
UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2



As a matter of fact the Bush administration lied 935 times on Iraq!!! :eek: WATCH...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeC27beZr7s
 

The Scotsman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
3,027
Location
South of the Haggis Munching Line
...... That will just NEVER be the case in Iraq. [/B]

Iraq, indeed most middle eastern counrties have never been a democracy its an alien culture for them so that's no surprise really! Do you think that is a consideration that should have been addressed prior to the invasion?

...... Very slippery slope over there... it's way past time to redeploy the heck out of that astronomically expensive quagmire.

Do you think that the USA should be more insular then? Why do you feel that when the job is only halfway through its time to pull out?

Personally I think you do your country a disservice! Surely if you start something you need the guts and determination to see it through? otherwise the rest of the world will just take you as a bunch of quitters and not take you seriously. You have given yourself the rather grand sobriquet TopGun live up to it and put some steel in your backbone :rolleyes:
 

top gun

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2007
Messages
4,940
Location
Ohio, USA
The Scotsman;42646]Iraq, indeed most middle eastern counrties have never been a democracy its an alien culture for them so that's no surprise really! Do you think that is a consideration that should have been addressed prior to the invasion?

Well absolutely. George W. Bush's own father when asked why he didn't follow the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait and all the way to Baghdad in the first Gulf War said this... Because there would be no exit strategy once we got there. Now I'm not the biggest fan of the First President Bush... but he was an old CIA guy. Which made him about a thousand times smarter than his son on foreign policy I guess.

Do you think that the USA should be more insular then? Why do you feel that when the job is only halfway through its time to pull out?

That's the whole point... it will never "be done". Add to that most Americans are so pissed because we now know we were lied to going in. Add to that we already have over 4000 honorable & brave dead soldiers and over 30,000 critically wounded. Add to that the cost is helping to break our economy here at home.

Sometimes you just have to face up to a blunder and let the locals work out there own problem. It's not like we've only been there a year or two. We've been in Iraq longer than the entirety of WW2.


Personally I think you do your country a disservice! Surely if you start something you need the guts and determination to see it through? otherwise the rest of the world will just take you as a bunch of quitters and not take you seriously. You have given yourself the rather grand sobriquet TopGun live up to it and put some steel in your backbone :rolleyes:

The disservice we do is to summit our young men & women to anymore World Policing in a grand Nation Building scheme built entirely on lies.

Our troops acted wonderfully. They completed the mission that Congress allowed which was... Go into Iraq and search out WMD's... (was none). Go into Iraq and take out their Leader Saddam Hussein... (did that... he's dead).

Now why would it be that after "freeing" these people from a dictator the indigenous people themselves shouldn't have the responsibility to set up and run their own country? They should. What we're over there trying to do now is set up yet another Shah of Iran US puppet government. That didn't work before in this region... won't work in Iraq if we stay another year or another 10 years.

I ask myself this and you could too... If tomorrow China invaded my country and tried everything to convert my country to a pro Chinese government... when would I stop trying to snipe off Chinese.

The answer is never... and that is the rub.

Respectfully... it's one thing for other countries to embrace an endless or maybe as John McCain has said 100 year occupation of Iraq... as they leave.

It's quite another to be doin' the dieing for something we now know that was started on a series of lies and is now in reality an internal religious Civil War problem.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeC27beZr7s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtSMyBp0sPA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtCZ-e6L7mY
 

BigRob

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2007
Messages
7,541
Location
USA
The Sunni's walked away from the table and have not returned.

Yes there was a big turnout at the last election... but there is an obvious reason why. It's all about the power grab... not about democracy. In a democracy you agree to go along and respect the election outcomes even if your side looses. That will just NEVER be the case in Iraq.

And democracy isn't always something we like anyway. We pushed for free and open elections with the Palestinians and got Hamas. Now we want to remove what was democratically elected.

Very slippery slope over there... it's way past time to redeploy the heck out of that astronomically expensive quagmire.

I do not know where exactly you get your news, but many of the Sunni's are openly supporting the upcoming elections...

The 2005 elections were a milestone, the fact that the Sunni's did not participate allowed Kurdish groups to gain more power than they otherwise might have, however, many Sunni's are turning away from the violence and towards the electoral process.

From CNN: "At least 80 percent of the Sunnis believe that the battle of the finger is more important, more powerful than the battle of weapons and RPGs," Nadhim said. More than 370 former Sunni insurgents near Balad, 42 miles (68 kilometers) north of Baghdad, recently signed a pledge to stop attacking U.S. and Iraqi security forces.


Obviously there are still kinks to work out and there will be some roadblocks along the way, but hey, if we followed your logic we would never have even arrived at the United States Constitution, since that was not brought into being until 1788. It took us 12 long years of back and forth to figure out our problems after independence, but people kept putting faith in the electoral process, as seems to be the growing trend in Iraq.

I will be the first to tell you that democracy is not always the right path, or move, keep in mind after Hamas the Muslim Brotherhood made large gains in Egypt and we then turned a blind eye to their suppression. That said, this type of thinking came about more so after the Iraq war, and I think the general thinking is that democracy remains the most stable option in Iraq due to the different factions and the almost certainty of a civil war you create by putting only 1 in power.
 

Federal Farmer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
922
Au contraire... so many lies you just can't post em all!


And let's analyze where you've missed the boat. By your own admission, President Bush said
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.”

Our INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS DID provide him with the estimate he told us about, therefore HE DID NOT LIE.

Not True
Zero Munitions Found
Not a single chemical weapon’s munition has been found anywhere in Iraq

I see you've not been paying attention again. We HAVE found chemical weapons munitions in Iraq, ergo, again, he DID NOT LIE. That's also not counting all of the munitions spirited out of the country on the eve of the invasion by Spetznaz troops, and the convoys taking them across the border into Syria and on to Lebanon where they remain today.

Not True
Zero Aerial Vehicles Found
Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq

You're so far wrong on that one that I'm beginning to wonder if you've researched any of this. From Global Security.org
"According to the British dossier Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction released in September 2002, information derived from intelligence were pointing to Iraq having attempted to modify the L-29 jet trainer to allow it to be used as an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) potentially capable of delivering chemical and biological agents over a large area. A CIA analysis cited the L-29 program, noting that these refurbished trainer aircraft are believed to have been modified for delivery of chemical or, more likely, biological warfare agents.

Again, he was informing us of what the intellignece community was telling him. The fact that the intelligence may or may not have been flawed DOES NOT make him a liar.

Not True
Zero Al Qaeda Connection
To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations have been revealed.

You really should read the 9-11 Commission Report. It DETAILS Saddams ties to Al Qaeda, UBL, and other terrorist groups.

Iraqi Ramzi Yousef, the ringleader of the 1993 WTC attacks, entered the US before the attack on an Iraqi passport.

Evidence recovered in Tikrit by US Forces clearly show that Indiana born, Iraqi raised and Al Qaeda member Mr. Abdul Rahman Yasin, who had mixed the explosives for the 1993 WTC attack that killed 6 and injured another 1,042 Americans, had not only been allowed to travel freely in Iraq and visit his father’s home almost daily, but that Saddam gave him sanctuary, a home and a monthly stipend as reward for his role in the attack.

January 5, 2000 – Iraqi VIP facilitator Ahmad Hikmat Shakir was dispatched from Baghdad’s Embassy in Malaysia to meet Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi at the airport in Kuala Lampur where he was ‘employed’. He then took them to their hotel where these soon-to-be 9-11 hijackers met with their fellow conspirators Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash. Five days later Shakir went missing until his arrest in Qatar on September 17, 2001, where documents both on his person at the time of his arrest, and located in his apartment in the subsequent investigation indicated that he was not only involved in the 1993 WTC attacks, but also in the 1995 Al Qaeda plan entitled “Operation Bojinka” which was to simultaneously destroy 12 airliners over the Pacific. (Directly ties Saddam to 9-11)

The Czech government maintains the veracity of it’s intelligence that on April 22, 2001, 9-11 terrorist Mohamed Atta met with Iraqi Diplomat/Intelligence Officer Ahmed Khalin Ibrahim Samir al Ani in Prague, a meeting that resulted in his expulsion due to his activities not being compatible with his diplomatic status.

March 11, 2002- Tariq Aziz announces that Saddam has increased the bounties to be paid to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers from $10,000.00 to up to $25,000.00

March 13, 2002- Carol Ritter of Knight Ritter, reporting from Gaza City said “In a graduation-style ceremony Wednesday, the families of 22 Palestinians killed fighting Israelis received checks for $10,000 or more, certificates of appreciation and a kiss on each cheek- compliments of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.” She added: “The certificates declared the gift from President Saddam Hussein; the checks were cut at a Gaza branch of the Cairo-Amman bank.”

Between March 11, 2002 when Saddam announced the increase in the “bounty”, and the March 20, 2003 start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 28 suicide bombers killed 223, and wounded 1,209 people, including 12 Americans.

Following his capture on April 25, 2002 Iraq’s former Ambassador to Turkey and suspected liaison between Iraq and Al Qaeda admitted that he had met with senior Al Qaeda leaders in 1994 at Saddam Hussein’s request.

April 14, 2002, Special Forces teams operating outside Baghdad captured Abu Abbas, the mastermind behing the Achille Lauro hijacking, where he had been living under the protection of Saddam Hussein since 2000.

April 18, 2002, Khala Khadr al Salahat of the ANO surrendered to members of the First MARDIV. The Sunday Times of London quoted a Palestinian source as saying that al Salahat and Nidal had furnished the Libyans with the Semtex used to bring down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988, killing all 259 on board (including 189 Americans) and another 11 on the ground

According to the May 21, 2002 report entitled Patterns of Global Terrorism, published by the US State Department, Abu Nidal Organization, Arab Liberation Front, Hamas, Kurdistan Workers’ Party, Muhahedin-e-Khalq Organization, and the PLO all operated offices or bases inside Iraq in direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 687.

In testimony before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on July 31, 2002, former Iraqi nuclear weapons chief Khidir Hamza testified that Islamic fundamentalist terrorists from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States had received training in terrorist tactics at the camp at Salman Pak which included training in assassination, explosives and hijacking. This testimony was corroborated an interview of former Iraqi Captain Sabah Khodada in an October 14, 2001 interview on PBS’s Frontline, in which Khodada, who had worked at Salman Pak stated that the training included kidnapping, hijacking of aircraft, trains, and public buses as well as use and concealment of explosives and suicide operations.

Before killing himself rather than be taken alive by US forces in August of 2002, Abu Nidal had been a guest of Saddam Hussein since at least 1999. Nidal, was responsible for attacks in at least 20 countries dating back to the early 1970’s, killing 407 people and wounding another 788.

The October 2002 assassination of US diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman Jordan was arranged by Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the former director of Al Qaeda training bases in Afghanistan, who had fled to Iraq after being wounded during the fall of the Taliban and recovered from his injuries before starting an Ansar al Islam terrorist training camp in Northern Iraq.

The November 14, 2002 edition of the Babylon Daily Political Newspaper, which was published by none other than Uday Hussein, published it’s “List of Honor” in which it listed the names and titles of 600 leading Iraqis including “Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, Intelligence Officer responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama Bin Laden group at the Iraqi Embassy in Pakistan.” Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod was the Iraqi Ambassador to Islamabad in November of 2002. This edition of the paper was found in Baghdad by Federal Court of Appeals Judge Gilbert S. Merritt while assisting in the rebuilding of the Iraqi legal system, and noted in an article in the June 25 edition of the Tennessean that two of his Iraqi associates remembered Iraqi Secret Police going to great lengths to remove the publication from newsstands and homes as it was feared that it could be used as evidence of ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda following the 9-11 attacks.

February 13, 2003 – The government of the Philippines expels Hisham al Hussein, the Second Secretary at the Iraqi Embassy in Manila after discovering through his cell phone records that he had spoken with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, the leaders of Abu Sayyaf immediately before and shortly after their Al Qaeda sponsored group attack in Zamboanga City which resulted in the deaths of two Filipinos and US Special Forces SFC Mark Wayne Jackson.

Manhattan Federal Judge, Harold Baer (a Clinton appointee) has held that Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and others to pay the families of George Eric Smith and Timothy Soulas, who were killed in the 9-11 WTC terrorist attack, $104 Million dollars after hearing evidence “satisfactory to the court” that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and a Federal Judgment has been secured against them.
----------------------------------------------------

As for the rest of your assinine double-talk, the President repeatedly reported what the intelligence agencies were telling him, that DOES NOT make him a liar any more than you repeating what someone tells you, that turns out to be incorrect, makes YOU a liar.
 

The Scotsman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
3,027
Location
South of the Haggis Munching Line
Hi Farmer - you cite in your post above a document from Global Security in which you reference the UK document about WMD published in September 2002. Whilst this may not be widely known outside the UK this document was discredited, it was produced by the press secretary of Tony Blair one Alistair Campbel and is basically regarded as a load of bollox. The point being that they knew the information was being manipulated and that by selling such information to the public as being fact they were in essence lying - although since they distanced themselves from the authors they have "deniability"
 

The Scotsman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
3,027
Location
South of the Haggis Munching Line
Hi Top Gun - I take your points on board and indeed in most cases I agree with you that troops are being used in a cavalier fashion by your and our governments, unfortunately this has been an issue with soldiers since soldiering began; its a part of life soldiers know it and accept it. As long as a squaddie is given decent kit, 3 squares a day and a good NCO he'll fight all day for you and let you bum smokes off him!

The issue is not history upon which we pretty much agree on - its the future and the security of the USA/UK; frankly the Northern Hemisphere if you want to be overly dramatic! You started the fight you've opened pandora's box its all well and good knowing that only hope is left in but you've got to get all the other garbage back in the box. Its a nasty job and its a costly job but if you want a secure future then its got to be done otherwise any terrorist organisation or tinpot little country will as the Vietnamese understood all you have to do is hold out for a few years and they'll bugger off with their tails between their legs!

Those politicians looking for an easy out are deluding themselves and the American people if they think pulling the troops out now is going to be the panacea its a short term fix and it'll come back at you in spades!
 

pocketfullofshells

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
12,009
Location
land of 10,000 lakes and 2 senators again
Hi Farmer - you cite in your post above a document from Global Security in which you reference the UK document about WMD published in September 2002. Whilst this may not be widely known outside the UK this document was discredited, it was produced by the press secretary of Tony Blair one Alistair Campbell and is basically regarded as a load of bollox. The point being that they knew the information was being manipulated and that by selling such information to the public as being fact they were in essence lying - although since they distanced themselves from the authors they have "deniability"

you have anything that shows that? I just ask because that while I know it was shot down basically as wrong, I just never saw any good evidence on it. I do recall that the video of a plane to show the world evidence why Powell was really old footage from pre gulf war. Somthing would be fine if said, like this, taken from before 91, but it was left for people to belive that it was recent footage and evidence.
 

Federal Farmer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
922
Hi Farmer - you cite in your post above a document from Global Security in which you reference the UK document about WMD published in September 2002. Whilst this may not be widely known outside the UK this document was discredited, it was produced by the press secretary of Tony Blair one Alistair Campbel and is basically regarded as a load of bollox. The point being that they knew the information was being manipulated and that by selling such information to the public as being fact they were in essence lying - although since they distanced themselves from the authors they have "deniability"

Hi Scotsman.

As to whether it has, since the beginning of hostilities, been discredited is a matter of complete inconsequence, as it was believed to be credible before the beginnings of hostilities, and as such, there was no lie by President Bush.

This continues to be the main source of friction in this discussion. The fact that some of the intelligence proved to be faulty AFTER the invasion has no effect on the judgements made that led to the invasion, because in order for anything the President said to be a "lie", one must first PROVE that he knowingly misled, or sought to mislead, and nobody has been able to produce any evidence to that end.

Thank you for your imput, and hoist a Guiness for me when you go to the pub.
 
Werbung:

Bunz

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
3,215
Location
Alaska
As to whether it has, since the beginning of hostilities, been discredited is a matter of complete inconsequence, as it was believed to be credible before the beginnings of hostilities, and as such, there was no lie by President Bush.
It certainly does have consequence today. Whether Bush lied or not matters little when considering the fiasco his policy created. Also, ignoring contradictory evidence, twisting numbers and having zero humint sources that were reliable and approving a very poorly planned war. He certainly misled the American people. No question.
This continues to be the main source of friction in this discussion. The fact that some of the intelligence proved to be faulty AFTER the invasion has no effect on the judgements made that led to the invasion, because in order for anything the President said to be a "lie", one must first PROVE that he knowingly misled, or sought to mislead, and nobody has been able to produce any evidence to that end.
I think the judgement calls that were made have turned out to be very detrimental to America. There was zero plan for the day after the statue came down. Not enough troops, an out of work Iraqi army, wishful thinking and wet ears from the begining make for a situation with currently no military end in sight. I fully support long term bases. But this cannot go on forever. We can talk about the surge working to a point, but there was a big blast yesterday. Biggest in a month or two. Tragic, but that situation between the Iraqs is fragile at best.
 
Top