patrick.net

socal2 says

Trump truther said "Bush Lied" about WMD's.

Let's see:
- Bush lied deliberately when he said there was a link between Iraq and 911
- Bush lied deliberately when he said chemical weapons are weapons of "mass destruction" (not more mass destruction than fragmentation bombs) that require preemptive war (if it was the case we would have to attack dozens of other countries).
- Bush lied deliberately when he said they "knew where they were" and used terms like "slam dunk", and then produced numerous faked evidence including satellite pictures, phony yellow cake and aluminum tube intelligence, etc.... He may really have "thought" such weapons existed, but that's not what he said and sold.

So yes, absolutely, he lied his way into this.

socal2 says

What pray tell would Trump have Bush do in his first 8 months in office to prevent what Clinton couldn't do in 8 years?

He could have asked details about threats and asked what was being done about it. He could have been on their backs, made sure they worked together, and were actually addressing the issues instead of sitting on it.
Instead, as I remember, he took a month of vacations and played golf.

Have to give Trump credit--continuing to float the idea of a 3rd party candidacy is genius. If the establishment screws him over to hand it to Rubio, he just runs as a 3rd party and Republicans are toast.

https://gma.yahoo.com/donald-trump-floats-idea-third-party-run-again-185012463--abc-news-topstories.html#

Heraclitusstudent says

So yes, absolutely, he lied his way into this.

If Bush was "lying" - a whole fuck ton of the US Congress and government agencies were lying too.

Why must you pimp ISIS propaganda?

www.youtube.com/embed/iSwSDvgw5Uc

Trump's spokeswoman is a 9/11 troofer too?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-spokeswomans-old-911-tweet-gets-new-life/article/2583299

socal2 says

If Bush was "lying" - a whole fuck ton of the US Congress and government agencies were lying too.

Why must you pimp ISIS propaganda?

socal2 says

If Bush was "lying" - a whole fuck ton of the US Congress and government agencies were lying too.

Why must you pimp ISIS propaganda?

Is the truth ISIS propaganda?
WTF?
Bush created ISIS. So don't come here and give us lessons about what is ISIS propaganda.

Your reaction is exactly the problem and Trump is exactly right: "under George W. Bush, the Republican Party allowed its understanding of politics to be corrupted. For whatever reason, under Bush, the GOP became a party that let self-aware rhetorical posturing dictate the way policy was formulated. The result was failure across the board. Worst of all was the ensuing failure of memory as Republicans forgot the winning arts and sciences. In so doing, they enabled America to lose its way in the hall of mirrors — and lose its greatness."

Refusing to acknowledge reality is what losers do. So I'll say it again:

- Bush lied deliberately when he said there was a link between Iraq and 911
- Bush lied deliberately when he said chemical weapons are weapons of "mass destruction" that require preemptive war.
- Bush lied deliberately when he said they "knew where they were" and used terms like "slam dunk", and demonstrated numerous pieces of intelligence all of which turned out to be completely wrong . He may really have "thought" such weapons existed, but that's not what he said and sold.

Remove these 3 points and you are left with reality: Bush deliberately created this war out of nothing.

Heraclitusstudent says

Your reaction is exactly the problem and Trump is exactly right: "under George W. Bush, the Republican Party allowed its understanding of politics to be corrupted. For whatever reason, under Bush, the GOP became a party that let self-aware rhetorical posturing dictate the way policy was formulated. The result was failure across the board. Worst of all was the ensuing failure of memory as Republicans forgot the winning arts and sciences. In so doing, they enabled America to lose its way in the hall of mirrors — and lose its greatness."

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. " We're an empire now, and when we act,we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

- W senior official, believed to be Karl Rove, quoted by Ron Suskind.

That's the very essence of Hubris, bitches.

Heraclitusstudent says

Is the truth ISIS propaganda?

Nope.

But your "Bush Lied" lie is ISIS prop. Bgmall level crazy.

BTW - when Bush left office, the Middle East was far more stable and HOPEFUL with multi-ethnic political parties, elections, Arab Spring and even the Iranians out in the streets peacefully protesting against the nutter Mullahs. Gadaffi turned over his WMD program and was playing ball with the the EU and US, ISIS' predecessor AQI held virtually no territory and got the holy shit kicked out of them by US troops and Sunni tribes.

Granted all of those gains came at a much higher cost than everyone hoped. All Obama had to do was not fumble the ball and waste the hard won gains handed to him. The Middle East was at a similar inflection point that Europe was after the implosion of Communism.

But since Obama foolishly pulled every last fucking troop from Iraq to win the 2012 election, folks like you and Thundercommie think they can blame the entire destabilization of the Middle East, rise of ISIS, refugees, radical Islam on the neocons and Bush.

socal2 says

BTW - when Bush left office, the Middle East was far more stable and HOPEFUL with multi-ethnic political parties, elections, Arab Spring and even the Iranians out in the streets peacefully protesting against the nutter Mullahs. Gadaffi turned over his WMD program and was playing ball with the the EU and US, ISIS' predecessor AQI held virtually no territory and got the holy shit kicked out of them by US troops and Sunni tribes.

That's quite colorful. Just because Obama is am effete dickwad doesn't mean that Bush did something better. When you start a war that many lives you better have a damn good reason and strategy. GW1 was legit (though all wars should have formal declaration by congress), an ally got attacked. Bushs GW2 wasn't, although a mild case could be made that the UN and effete Hans Blix never put their foot down and stood by their words to enforce measures on Iraq with military force. I believe Bush truly was into nation building and spreading of democracy but that doesn't excuse such a royal fuck up and throwing countries more backwards than they were under their former rulers. They are both piss-poor presidents.

I think this just strengthens his appeal. He's increasingly hated by both the right and the left. He's got something going for him.

socal2 says

But your "Bush Lied" lie is ISIS prop. Bgmall level crazy.

What part of what I said is not reality?:
- was there a link with Al Qaeda and 911? Nope absolutely not.
- are chemical weapons in the hand of a dictator a reason to start a war? Nope absolutely not. Otherwise we would have to attack at least Syria, and probably dozens of other countries.
- Was any of the specious intelligence presented by Bush as a "Slam dunk" in fact correct? Nope. absolutely none of it was. There was no chemicals.
If anything I just said is incorrect please explain why.
This stuff is just plain obvious facts.

Granted Obama acted like a moron and made things worse, but none of this would have happened if not for Bush 'wisdom'.
Now you have a situation where war is spreading. Russia is in bombing everyone except ISIS. Turkey is bombing Iraq Kurds. Turkey and Saudis, 2 key allies in the area are in fact supporting ISIS. Iran troops are in Iraq helping Shiites.
The entire thing is a mess of unbelievable proportion. Not one country in on US side. And all this why?
Because the moron Bush lied his way in there.

Because the libby obama pulled out way too early to appease libbyNation.
Look, you start something like this, nation building, upgrading backward civilizations to the modern era, you better be ready to stay for the long term, anywhere between 50-100 years.
We should have kept 50K troops minimum in there, and paid for it by borrowing a couple of their oil wells for the duration.
South Korea, Japan, Germany. Historical examples of what can be accomplished with a long term plan, long being 50-100 yrs.
It cost us a lot for those countries...the kicker here is that iraq could have been set up as self funded easily.

Heraclitusstudent says

The entire thing is a mess of unbelievable proportion. Not one country in on US side. And all this why?

SoftShell says

Because the libby obama pulled out way too early to appease libbyNation.

Look, you start something like this, nation building, upgrading backward civilizations to the modern era, you better be ready to stay for the long term, anywhere between 50-100 years.

We should have kept 50K troops minimum in there, and paid for it by borrowing a couple of their oil wells for the duration.

South Korea, Japan, Germany. Historical examples of what can be accomplished with a long term plan, long being 50-100 yrs.

It cost us a lot for those countries...the kicker here is that iraq could have been set up as self funded easily.

You forgot about the cost in terms of young men's lives.

SoftShell says

Because the libby obama pulled out way too early to appease libbyNation.

Perhaps you should read the Status of Forces Agreement that Bush signed. Also note that when GW sold us on this war, it was supposed to be a quicky. It was not supposed to last nearly 10 years, and was definitely not supposed to be a 50-100 year endeavor. Also, we have bases in Germany for our own strategic purposes, not to keep the peace in Germany.

Heraclitusstudent says

- Was any of the specious intelligence presented by Bush as a "Slam dunk" in fact correct? Nope. absolutely none of it was. There was no chemicals.

If anything I just said is incorrect please explain why.

No chemicals?

Well here are 400 rockets filled with Sarin that the CIA bought and destroyed in Iraq in 2006. These were just some of the weapons we knew Saddam didn't destroy from previous UN declarations. Why would Saddam hide these "old" rockets from the UN and lose his life and regime in the process?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have-bought-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

Here's more WMD reports.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

Again, there are PLENTY of legitimate criticisms for going to war and how it was implemented.

But why do you have to be a ISIS monkey and lie by saying that our government knowingly lied us into Iraq to go kill Muslims or steal oil or something?

Just use common sense. Why would Bush and company knowingly use WMD's as the major rationale for enforcing UN resolutions if they knew all along it was a lie? If they are Machiavelli genius enough to lie about starting a war. How hard would it have been for them to plant some WMD's during the 6 years they were in Iraq during Bush's presidency?

Anyway - here we are 13 years later and the Middle East is imploding before our eyes, refugee crisis of epic proportions, terrorist attacks in Europe with ISIS and Iran likely to have nukes within a few years. And some dopes are still jabbering on and on about "Bush Lied, People Died".

socal2 says

Here's more WMD reports.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

Try reading past the headlines next time. Like to the paragraph that says:
The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West.

These aren't weapons. They are toxic leftover junk no one kept track of. Some, not many but some, could be refurbished into weapons by experts who know what they were doing. But that's not what Bush sold as the reason for going to Iraq.

socal2 says

Well here are 400 rockets filled with Sarin that the CIA bought and destroyed in Iraq in 2006. These were just some of the weapons we knew Saddam didn't destroy from previous UN declarations. Why would Saddam hide these "old" rockets from the UN and lose his life and regime in the process?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have-bought-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

You posted this awhile back and it was debunked then. This was some rogue Iraqi(s) that probably stole the weapons so they could sell them on the black market. Since the almost certainly were duds by now, they were happy to get some $$ from the US. Do you have any evidence Saddam was hiding them? Like you said--why would he hide old weapons that were of very questionable value and risk his life over them?

socal2 says

Just use common sense. Why would Bush and company knowingly use WMD's as the major rationale for enforcing UN resolutions if they knew all along it was a lie?

They obviously wanted to attack Iraq for a different reason.

socal2 says

Anyway - here we are 13 years later and the Middle East is imploding before our eyes, refugee crisis of epic proportions, terrorist attacks in Europe with ISIS and Iran likely to have nukes within a few years. And some dopes are still jabbering on and on about "Bush Lied, People Died".

That's precisely why. Bush started us down this horrible path.

tatupu70 says

South Korea, Japan, Germany. Historical examples of what can be accomplished with a long term plan, long being 50-100 yrs

None of those took 50 years.

The libby obama lmao

Obama is more or less a Republican

There is no word misused more often than Liberal in the context of American politics

Calling out W's bullshit hasn't hurt Trump much:

The first two polls on the list were entirely conducted after the debate. Note: Likely Voters, not merely Registered.

socal2 says

Well here are 400 rockets filled with Sarin that the CIA bought and destroyed in Iraq in 2006.

I think Tatu answered that:
tatupu70 says

You posted this awhile back and it was debunked then. This was some rogue Iraqi(s) that probably stole the weapons so they could sell them on the black market. Since the almost certainly were duds by now, they were happy to get some $$ from the US. Do you have any evidence Saddam was hiding them? Like you said--why would he hide old weapons that were of very questionable value and risk his life over them?

socal2 says

But why do you have to be a ISIS monkey and lie by saying that our government knowingly lied us into Iraq to go kill Muslims or steal oil or something?

Because I watched in 2002 Bush bring out iraq from nowhere and start building this unbelievable narrative to attack it. I watched them bring up aluminum tubes, yellow cake from Africa, mobile apparatus, etc, etc.... all of which turned out to be completely wrong. I read report of Cheney assembling his own intelligence team to create the intelligence, etc, etc...
It's just extraordinary that a US president would go to such length to lie deliberately about his motives in order to deliberately attack a sovereign country that had nothing to do with 911 and had never threatened the US. And even 400 rockets filled with Sarin would be a VERY lame excuse to attack an other country without provocation.
Again Syria used some gas weapons against its rebels. So why not attack Syria by the same rational.
It's bizarre that some people would still cling to this narrative in spite of the fact it was debunked so many times from so many different angles. If it was not obvious to you in 2003 it should at least be now.

This is not ISIS propaganda this is the truth. The truth, and the respect for reality, is the basis for all morality.
The very existence of ISIS is due to Bush's lies.

The only real defense for Bush is that he was kept in the dark about the lie. Because clearly Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et. al. knew how shaky it was. And calling it shaky is being VERY charitable.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/iraq-war-wmds-donald-rumsfeld-new-report-213530

Please take a look at this material as to what we don’t know about WMD,” Rumsfeld wrote to Air Force General Richard Myers. “It is big.”

tatupu70 says

The only real defense for Bush is that he was kept in the dark

From the outside I could see all along this was BS. If he couldn't from the inside, he is an even bigger moron than he looks like. Frankly I don't think that's possible.

It's like the real-estate bubble: How dumb did he have to be to watch it happen and do absolutely nothing?