Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We dispensed with Saddam and his army in no time. If that had been the plan we would have been in and out in no time.
A large part of the plan was that there was no plan.
Predictably, the entire country was plunged into utter chaos. The civilian population was left w/o electricity, water, all the basics as a direct result.
Bob Woodward's State of Denial goes into great detail how they really had nothing in place to manage the post-invasion environment. Subsequent events strongly support that.
Republicans loved squandering trillions in Iraq, and want to do the same in Iran.
So true.
Trillions of taxpayer dollars spent to blast more bomb craters in the middle east sand and camel dung is "protecting our freedoms." And "no cost is too high to maintain our liberty!"
But how about some infrastructure repair, you Pubs? We taxpayers need some improvements here at home.
"Pork barrel!" cry the Pubs in congress.
They just hate spending taxpayer funds to benefit taxpayers.
It was none of our business. If we had done nothing Iraq would still be the relatively modern (for middle east standards) country with the occasional nasty episode to keep the extremists down.
This is why I say whether he went in on a lie or not doesn't matter. Here it is 12 years later and things are a mess.
Read the OP again. It is focused on one thing: the question of whether Bush/Cheney lied about WMD in order to invade Iraq.. The answer is no.
Having an accurate historical record is important in an of itself. Accuracy DOES matter.
What you are doing is committing the logical fallacy of 'moving the goalposts.' Moving the Goalposts
You can post a thread about whether we should have gone to Iraq, what a mess it turned into, etc. This one is about whether "Bush lied, thousands died."
Read the OP again. It is focused on one thing: the question of whether Bush/Cheney lied about WMD in order to invade Iraq.. The answer is no.
Having an accurate historical record is important in an of itself. Accuracy DOES matter.
What you are doing is committing the logical fallacy of 'moving the goalposts.' Moving the Goalposts
You can post a thread about whether we should have gone to Iraq, what a mess it turned into, etc. This one is about whether "Bush lied, thousands died."
My first post addressed that. It's a non issue. Lie or not it was a failure.
A large part of the plan was that there was no plan.
Predictably, the entire country was plunged into utter chaos. The civilian population was left w/o electricity, water, all the basics as a direct result.
Bob Woodward's State of Denial goes into great detail how they really had nothing in place to manage the post-invasion environment. Subsequent events strongly support that.
This I can agree with 100%. The planning for 'Phase IV' (occupation) was a muddle and an afterthought. Also they did not know anything about the internals of Iraq, and how to deal with the tribal and sectarian fault lines that were uncovered after Saddam was deposed.
This is accurate and legit criticism of W Bush, and there are others to be made. What I don't understand is the seeming need to make up false criticisms, such as "Bush lied thousands died" or that the war was a major culprit re our national debt (the war cost $806 billion, not "trillions").
Read the OP again. It is focused on one thing: the question of whether Bush/Cheney lied about WMD in order to invade Iraq.. The answer is no.
Having an accurate historical record is important in an of itself. Accuracy DOES matter.
What you are doing is committing the logical fallacy of 'moving the goalposts.' Moving the Goalposts
You can post a thread about whether we should have gone to Iraq, what a mess it turned into, etc. This one is about whether "Bush lied, thousands died."
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
My first post addressed that. It's a non issue. Lie or not it was a failure.
Your first post does not address anything. You're just restating your assertion that 'it matters none' with nothing to back it up.
Quote:
It's irrelevant. It matters none. Lie or the truth he got us into a war we had no business being in and screwed it up.
Again, historical accuracy does matter. If nothing else, we can't let any political factions out there, whether left or right, get away with disseminating inaccuracies to the unwashed masses. If one faction gets away with it, others will follow.
Especially in the context of democracy, historical accuracy is critical.
This I can agree with 100%. The planning for 'Phase IV' (occupation) was a muddle and an afterthought. Also they did not know anything about the internals of Iraq, and how to deal with the tribal and sectarian fault lines that were uncovered after Saddam was deposed.
This is accurate and legit criticism of W Bush, and there are others to be made. What I don't understand is the seeming need to make up false criticisms, such as "Bush lied thousands died" or that the war was a major culprit re our national debt (the war cost $806 billion, not "trillions").
The cost is much higher than 806 billion, although in itself is a significant figure.
I didn't read much of the OP, nor any responses, but he lied about as much as Obama did about "you can keep your insurance if you like it".
Bush might or might not have outright lied. Obama gave bad and incomplete information.
Both should have, and DID know better. Why do people start threads trying to defend politicians? They are mostly indefensible.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.