“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Friday, November 06, 2015

What this country needs is a straight talking president capable of unambiguous clear answers to a simple question

WAS IT A MISTAKE FOR THE US TO HAVE INVADED IRAQ?




2003



2015

35 comments:

  1. It was a mistake to stop the single best killer of arabs, moslems and persians in the world.


    Because if we had not gone into Iraq?

    Saddam would have killed several million more by now.

    The only thing that is certain in this world is death and taxes.

    So Monday morning quarterbacking gets you nowhere.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bush claimed that Saddam was an ally of al Qaeda, a complete lie.

    Saddam Hussein was ideologically opposed to al-Qaeda and didn’t allow it to operate in the part of Iraq under his control (though an al-Qaeda related group, Ansar al-Islam, operated in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq). The notion of an alliance between him and al-Qaeda was a fantasy invented to provide some sort of an answer to the question: why are you invading Iraq, when you say that the greatest threat to the west is al-Qaeda? Saddam Hussein was ideologically opposed to al-Qaeda and didn’t allow it to operate [in Iraq] … The notion of an alliance between him and al-Qaeda was a fantasy

    There was no threat against the US from Iraq, despite the lies of Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld and the Neocons:

    While Tony Blair was pushing for war with Iraq based on WMD, Tony Blair didn’t mention to the House of Commons that he had received an intelligence assessment a month earlier, which
    (1) said there was no evidence that Iraq had provided chemical or biological materials to al-Qaeda, and
    (2) judged that any collapse of the Iraqi regime would increase the risk of chemical and biological warfare technology or agents finding their way into the hands of al-Qaeda and associated groups

    CASE IN POINT

    In interviews given for a new biography, George H. W. Bush, 91 lets loose against Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, whom he clearly blames for many of the failures of the presidency his son, George W. Bush. But if you attend carefully to what he said, it is clear that he actually was slamming the Neoconservative cabal that Cheney and Rumsfeld brought to Washington with them. He said:
    “I don’t know, he just became very hardline and very different from the Dick Cheney I knew and worked with . . . The reaction [to 9/11], what to do about the Middle East. Just iron-ass. His seeming knuckling under to the real hard-charging guys who want to fight about everything, use force to get our way in the Middle East.”

    Who were the “hard-charging guys” who were constant war-mongers, to whom Cheney “knuckled under?”

    They are mainly Neoconservatives, a group of old Cold Warriors, many of whom had been Democrats, who were dismayed by the Democratic Party’s turn left in the 1970s and the rise of a New Left within it that was critical of Israel. They therefore threw in with Ronald Reagan and then W. Most were Jewish Americans, though R. James Woolsey (former CIA director) and John Bolton were Neoconservatives as well (Woolsey said he was the only Episcopalian of the lot).

    Richard Perle, who was appointed to the Pentagon oversight board.

    Paul Wolfowitz, who had wanted to invade Baghdad at the conclusion of the Gulf War in 1991, but who was slapped down by Bush Sr., then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, and Secretary of State James Baker.

    Cheney and Rumsfeld brought Wolfowitz, who was obsessed with Iraq and alleged in sprng, 2001, that “Iraqi terrorism” was more of a menace than Usama Bin Laden’s al-Qaeda, to Washington in January 2001 as Deputy Secretary of Defense.

    Douglas Feith, then the no. 3 man at the Pentagon, the biggest imperialist since Cecil B. Rhodes, opposed the Oslo Peace Accords and his former law partner was a spokesman for Israeli squatters on Palestinian land in the West Bank.


    http://www.juancole.com/2015/11/neocons-presidency-warning.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rubio is just another Republican not fit to be president.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By all means vote for Bernie, whose program is to take from guys like you who have actually created something on the general principle that 'you didn't create that' and give it to those that didn't on the grounds they did.

      How you've arrived at buying into this line of horse shit is simply beyond my capacity to understand.

      Delete
  4. It is impossible to overstate the damage done by Bush and Israeli - first Neocons. So far, they have gotten away with it. For what it is worth, they will not escape the history of it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ron Paul: Neocons Demand Escalation In Syria
      The neocons – and their left-interventionist allies – have been planning regime change in Syria since at least 2006.


      By Ron Paul | October 12, 2015

      The neocons – and their left-interventionist allies – have been planning regime change in Syria since at least 2006. Last week’s launch of Russian military strikes on ISIS and al-Qaeda at the request of the Syrian government has very quickly changed their plans. Now they are pushing President Obama to escalate, including directly against the Russians! Today’s Liberty Report looks at the increasingly dangerous situation and takes apart some of the media lies:

      SEE THE THIRD VIDEO ON THE POST

      Delete
    2. " For what it is worth, they will not escape the history of it."

      Wow are you going to line us up and shoot us? Put us on rail card and gas us?

      What method of punishment will you dole out?

      Delete
    3. Syria?

      A shit nation that supported terrorism, strangled lebanon, murder it's leaders...

      It's baathist party was akin to the nazi party...

      Every administration since assad the father took over the county wanted regime change

      "He participated in the 1963 Syrian coup d'├ętat which brought the Syrian Regional Branch of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party to power"

      Delete
  5. You voted for it.

    The best reason I've found yet for not going into Iraq is the one stated by WiO above.

    On the other hand look how well things are working out due to Obama.....the entire region is in utter chaos, the moslems are killing one another with great glee and in massive numbers....'Syria' is no more.....nor is 'Iraq'.....nor 'Libya'......

    What really worries me is a nuclear Iran.

    That is scary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      You voted for it.

      Bush was a pig in a poke. The alternative was Al Gore.

      Who knew the damage one man could do?

      .

      Delete
    2. Now that you know how much damage a single fool can do rake a look at how bad is could get if that fool we're Donald Trump! Nothing is worse than an fool who believes he's brilliant.

      Delete
  6. Obama has said no to the pipeline.

    The unions are pissed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      Thousands of temporary jobs for what, a year?

      After that 35.

      .

      Delete
    2. 35 what ?

      Here the US had a chance to pipe Canadian bitumen to southern refineries...
      ... The US said nope.

      I think they should refine the crap where they dig it up.

      Delete
    3. CNN's Van Jones says Keystone pipeline only creates 35 permanent jobs

      By Katie Sanders on Monday, February 10th, 2014 at 4:52 p.m.



      Van Jones?

      that is your source?

      In July 2009 he became embroiled in a controversy[9] over his past political activities, including a public comment disparaging congressional Republicans, his name appearing on a petition for 911Truth.org, and one-time involvement with a socialist collective during the 1990s.[10][11][12][13] For these issues, Van Jones was heavily criticized by conservatives.[14] Jones resigned from the position in early September 2009.[9] "On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me," Jones said in his resignation statement. "They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."[10]


      Van Jones? the Commie?

      He's your source?


      Delete
    4. Earlier activism[edit]
      In 1992, while still a law student at Yale, Jones participated as a volunteer legal monitor for a protest of the Rodney King verdict in San Francisco. He and many other participants in the protest were arrested. The district attorney later dropped the charges against Jones. The arrested protesters, including Jones, won a small legal settlement. Jones later said that "the incident deepened my disaffection with the system and accelerated my political radicalization."[20] In October 2005 Jones said he was "a rowdy nationalist"[17] before the King verdict was announced, but that by August of that year (1992) he was a communist.[17]

      Delete
    5. .

      It's my understanding the cost equation doesn't work for Canada.

      .

      Delete
    6. They criticized Jones for his past political activities, including his involvement with STORM (Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement) and his support for Mumia Abu-Jamal, a prisoner sentenced to death for murdering a police officer in a highly controversial trial.


      yep supports a cop murderer...

      Delete
    7. .

      :o)

      Calm down, son.

      I heard the number in a discussion of Obama's rejection of the deal today. Can't remember whether it was on FOX, CNN, or CNBC. But it wasn't by Van Jones and the number has been used by a number of people before. As I recall, it came out of the State Department analysis of the deal that was put out last year.

      Sorry, to ruin your night. You looked like you were having fun but sometimes you need to check more than one google link. Or, maybe you were just looking to vent on Van Jones and needed to get it out. If so, enjoy.

      .

      Delete
    8. .

      Ash, my line above

      It's my understanding the cost equation doesn't work for Canada.

      was in response to your comment...

      I think they should refine the crap where they dig it up.

      .

      Delete
    9. .

      By the by, WiO, there is a second lesson to be learned from the Van Jones affair above. That lesson is that before before denigrating someone as a source, it is probably smart to double check to make sure that he is actually wrong on the matter in question.

      From Politifact,

      CNN's Van Jones says Keystone pipeline only creates 35 permanent jobs

      Punditfact ruling on the claim:

      Jones’ claim is True.

      It's called 'The Blind Squirrel Rule'.

      .

      Delete
    10. The cost equation for the tar sands in general has always been iffy. Ya building refineries is expensive and transporting refined product more costly and dangerous. Canada has a rep for selling it's raw resources as opposed to the value added products made from them. It is big oil driving the game for the most part and I think they want to feed refineries they already own.

      Delete
    11. Maybe 35 jobs running the pipeline (though even that sounds low) but I'm sure there would be other jobs at the refinery and post refinery end.

      Delete
    12. .

      Look up the state department report or read the Van Jones article I posted.

      When I was in purchasing, I occasionally visited refineries. There were a lot of pipes and computers but very few people. Besides, in Canada's case the costs, given the current market and trends, would argue against building a new facility. I don't remember all the details but I put up the numbers a few years ago when you brought up this same question.

      .

      Delete
    13. .

      ...but I'm sure there would be other jobs at the refinery and post refinery end.

      They might put up more pipes, extend the refinery, add some computers. People? Not so much.

      .

      Delete
  7. The guys were good, but the people (at that forum) love Hillary.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Great source Quirk.

    But what's this about only 35 jobs ?

    That sounds like efficiency to me.

    Truck it all in pickup trucks you could create 350,000 jobs, clog the highways, pollute Mother Earth..

    Quirkean Environmentalism !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      ...simply beyond my capacity to understand.

      Yes, we know spud. Don't think about it. The pain will go away.

      .

      Delete
    2. In your usual 5,000 words or less, Quirk, do you want efficiency, or jobs ? Energy, or wood stoves ? Electricity, or candlelight ?

      Delete
    3. .

      That you would couch this particular issue in the terms you have once again puts on display the limits of the Idaho education system, that or the inadequacy of its mental health support system.

      Seek help. Even if you must travel to another state.

      If you can't riddle this message out please show it to your wife or daughter.

      [Note to Bob's Wife or Daughter: If by some chance you are reading this post please seek medical (mental) help for your husband/father. Do so immediately. His bizarre thoughts and words as posted on this blog are disturbing. I fear he may eventually hurt himself or someone else. While I am sure this situation is not new to you, I believe it is time to act.

      Sincerely,

      Quirk]

      .

      Delete