How long before history condemns Bush's invasion of Iraq? (Cheney, 9/11, Congress)

[mrbob]

It may not happen in the next 10 years - and may not happen until things play out in Iraq - which may take a long, long time....

But how long do you think it will take before historians put Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney in the same category as Robert McNamara for the tens of thousands of Americans he wasted in Vietnam???

I feel that Iraq will only be stable so long as we have a very large troop presence there - but I also feel strongly that we never should have invaded, that Iraq was never a threat to us, and that we should leave as soon as possible.

To me, the eventual outcome will be that Iraq will either descend into Civil War and be split into 3 countries - one Shia, one Sunni and one Kurd.... , or we will have to stay there - forever...

These sects of Islam hate each other, and their hatred goes back 1,000 years... and we could stay there another 1,000 years and then leave and it would be the same result...

I think that the invasion of Iraq, and the real truth about how intelligence contrary to Bush's (the DECIDER'S) desires was actively suppressed by Bush, Cheney and others, will eventually see the light of day, and he will go down as possibly our worse President ever...

I think he will go down as the person who actively enabled Iran to gain a prominent role in the region and who let them develop into a nuclear power...

[sanrene]

You're not paying attention Bagdad Bob. We have won in Iraq, we will be leaving in victory, not defeat (the democrats idea).

History will record that Iraq will be a huge, stabilizing, democratic success story - much to your chagrin, I'm sure.

I'm sure the Left will try to give the credit to Obama, but we all know that if we listened to him, we would have come home in defeat and left Iraq to AQ and Iran.

Bush will get the credit, and rightly so.

[delusianne]

Agree mrb... old-fashioned imperialist hubris....we've got to move past that technique for getting what we want.

[mrbob]

If you think we have 'won' anything in Iraq, then I question your opinions on everything...

Describe Victory to me... Go ahead... I need a laugh...

If you think we have 'won', you are in the distinct minority in this country - I don't care how many flag-lapel-pins you and your chicken-hawk friends wear

What have we 'won' exactly???

And what has the 'cost' been???

[arizona sunset]

Originally Posted by mrbob

If you think we have 'won' anything in Iraq, then I question your opinions on everything...

Describe Victory to me... Go ahead... I need a laugh...

If you think we have 'won', you are in the distinct minority in this country - I don't care how many flag-lapel-pins you and your chicken-hawk friends wear

What have we 'won' exactly???

And what has the 'cost' been???

You and your liberal mindset are nothing sort of a complete joke. If history is going to "condemn" Bush for the "invasion of Iraq" than it is also going to have to condemn all your little spineless and worthless Democrat candidates that went right along with it. That includes every single one that is at the top!: Obama, Biden, Clinton, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Gore, Kerry, Edwards, etc., etc., etc., etc. Everytime a liberal get's his panties in a twist because Bush has kept us from having another terrosit attack, but then goes on to say what a fantastic job Clinton did as president, I just walk away. Not because I couldn't prove them wrong, but because I like to associate with actually intelligent and patriotic people.

[delusianne]

Originally Posted by sanrene

You're not paying attention Bagdad Bob. We have won in Iraq, we will be leaving in victory, not defeat (the democrats idea).

So how do you figure we've won in Iraq? Even Bush (http://http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/12/14/africa/OUKWD-UK-IRAQ-BUSH.php - broken link) isnt nuts enough to say that, and surely you know the generals dont say it. Because we have a security agreement? Because the thousands of terrorists our occupation has created have scooted over, for now, to Pakistan, Afghanistan and Somalia?

And won what - this? We sure didnt win this. Our presence is not vanquishing the foe. We've been playing straight into Osama bin Laden's (you might remember him) plan and correct reading of history - we're spending our money and our military forces on a war against an enemy we can't see, on his property, and creating more enemy as we go.

Unless you want to say we "won" against Saddam, that dictator who was trying to kill us. Is that what you meant?

I know you believe the eventual story, that we went there to install democracy - are we going to be standing by every time we pay for an election to happen over there, in all three sections? Maybe we should just hang around all year every year waiting for election season, it's too expensive to go home and come back. Set up a couple of bases to park our stuff in.... Or we could count on our allies to spell us sometimes - oh, wait a minute.

Originally Posted by sanrene

History will record that Iraq will be a huge, stabilizing, democratic success story - much to your chagrin, I'm sure.

On what besides wishful thinking do you base this announcement.

Originally Posted by sanrene

I'm sure the Left will try to give the credit to Obama, but we all know that if we listened to him, we would have come home in defeat and left Iraq to AQ and Iran.

Bush will get the credit, and rightly so.

Obama never said we would just pull out cold, that's a lie, time to stop spreading them.

[fizbin]

> How long before history condemns Bush's invasion of Iraq?

Uh, it took anyone with eyes open about, oh, twelve seconds at most . . .

[delusianne]

Originally Posted by arizona sunset

You and your liberal mindset are nothing sort of a complete joke. If history is going to "condemn" Bush for the "invasion of Iraq" than it is also going to have to condemn all your little spineless and worthless Democrat candidates that went right along with it. That includes every single one that is at the top!: Obama, Biden, Clinton, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Gore, Kerry, Edwards, etc., etc., etc., etc.

It's a fact that the Bush Administration cooked the books in order to manipulate us, and Congress, and maneuver us into Iraq. And yes, we did invade Iraq, quotation marks or no quotation marks. (P.S. Name calling doesnt make you right, maybe your mother never taught you that? Plus it's against the C-D TOS.)

Originally Posted by arizona sunset

Everytime a liberal get's his panties in a twist because Bush has kept us from having another terrosit attack, but then goes on to say what a fantastic job Clinton did as president, I just walk away. Not because I couldn't prove them wrong, but because I like to associate with actually intelligent and patriotic people.

Bush personally hasnt kept us from another attack. Do you mean the FBI, the CIA and Homeland Security, which will not exactly cease functioning on January 20? As far as Clinton and security go, even John ******** testified the Bush WH didn't do a single blessed thing to strengthen US security until post-9/11 - even after the attacks on the Cole, etc. In the last months of the Clinton presidency the right wing was yelling that Clinton was obsessed with this character bin Laden, by the way, but that's another story.

You can find all this information (and more! ) in the responsible news or government-document source of your choice.

[Fleet]

Originally Posted by delusianne

It's well known that the Bush Administration cooked the books in order to manipulate Congress and maneuver us into Iraq.

Then why did (in 2004) the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approve a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments?

The following year, why did the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly find "no indication that the intelligence community distort the evidence regarding WMD in Iraq?"

Either Bush AND the entire international intelligence community AND the Senate and House intelligence committee "lied" or none of them did.
It can't be both ways.

[my54ford]

since the history books are not nessacarliy written to portray an accurate record of what acttualy happened and are usally written by some pseudo intellectual leftist types I'm sure it won't be long before some hack is trying to teach our kids the lie that you seem to espouse........