PDA

View Full Version : Obama set to formally end Iraq war



Roger Perry
08-31-2010, 04:56 PM
Obama was an early critic of the war, speaking out against it during the U.S. invasion in early 2003 and promising during his presidential campaign to bring the conflict to an end. The White House sees Tuesday’s benchmark as a promise kept and has gone to great lengths to promote it as such, dispatching Vice President Joe Biden to Iraq to preside over a formal change-of-command ceremony and raising Tuesday night’s remarks to the level of an Oval Office address, something Obama has only done once before.

Administration officials have been careful to avoid equating the end of the combat mission with a mission accomplished. That was the phrase on the now-infamous banner that flew on an aircraft carrier seven years ago when President George W. Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq, a symbol the Bush White House came to deeply regret as the war dragged on.

Ahead of Tuesday night’s remarks, Obama also planned to speak with Bush. While Bush’s decision to invade Iraq was criticized by many — including Obama — the troop surge Bush ordered in 2007 has been credited with tamping down violence in Iraq and helping keep the country from falling into a civil war. Among the unanswered questions about Tuesday’s address is whether Obama will give Bush any credit for the role the surge played in leading the war to its end.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/33051

Buzz
08-31-2010, 05:13 PM
There you go bringing up Bush again. Don't you know he's not president anymore? ;-)

Roger Perry
08-31-2010, 05:18 PM
There you go bringing up Bush again. Don't you know he's not president anymore? ;-)

Was just trying to give him a little credit. I guess that is not allowed either.

the troop surge Bush ordered in 2007 has been credited with tamping down violence in Iraq and helping keep the country from falling into a civil war.

Buzz
08-31-2010, 05:22 PM
I was just trying to beat the wingers to the punch.:D

road kill
08-31-2010, 05:41 PM
I was just trying to beat the wingers to the punch.:D

Yeah, your rapier like wit beat us all to the punch.:p
We were trying to think of what to say, but you saved us.

Is the Daily Show on now??

RK

depittydawg
08-31-2010, 10:01 PM
Obama was an early critic of the war, speaking out against it during the U.S. invasion in early 2003 and promising during his presidential campaign to bring the conflict to an end. The White House sees Tuesday’s benchmark as a promise kept and has gone to great lengths to promote it as such, dispatching Vice President Joe Biden to Iraq to preside over a formal change-of-command ceremony and raising Tuesday night’s remarks to the level of an Oval Office address, something Obama has only done once before.

Administration officials have been careful to avoid equating the end of the combat mission with a mission accomplished. That was the phrase on the now-infamous banner that flew on an aircraft carrier seven years ago when President George W. Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq, a symbol the Bush White House came to deeply regret as the war dragged on.

Ahead of Tuesday night’s remarks, Obama also planned to speak with Bush. While Bush’s decision to invade Iraq was criticized by many — including Obama — the troop surge Bush ordered in 2007 has been credited with tamping down violence in Iraq and helping keep the country from falling into a civil war. Among the unanswered questions about Tuesday’s address is whether Obama will give Bush any credit for the role the surge played in leading the war to its end.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/33051

I can't give Obama much credit here. The war was winding down when he rode into Dodge. He could, and should have brought the troops home a long time ago. Also, his escalation of the Afgan war flies in the face of his clam at keeping his promises. At a time when critical domestic needs mandate attention and resources, he has not responded fast enough in cutting military spending and stimulating economic activity at home. So far he still gets a C- on my grade card.

Buzz
08-31-2010, 11:38 PM
Is the Daily Show on now??

RK

I thought Jon was going on vacation?

Clay Rogers
09-01-2010, 01:34 AM
So, if the war is really over and the US military is not conducting combat missions in Iraq anymore, why is there still over 5000 special operators left in country? And before you say for support, special ops role is not support, never has been and never will be. Special Ops is combat oriented and thats a fact. So maybe, just maybe this is just an act to make him look good about fulfilling a campaign promise he made.

dnf777
09-01-2010, 06:03 AM
And before you say for support, special ops role is not support, never has been and never will be. Special Ops is combat oriented and thats a fact. So maybe, just maybe this is just an act to make him look good about fulfilling a campaign promise he made.

Special ops does whatever is asked of it by the chain of command. That includes psyops, and other support roles, in addition to combat operations.

dnf777
09-01-2010, 06:05 AM
Hey, lets all pay attention to Paul Wolfowitz's comments. He was so RIGHT ON when he assured us that the war would pay for itself, and wouldn't cost taxpayers much at all!



There is no shame in washington.

Hew
09-01-2010, 07:32 AM
Kind of a disjointed speech by Obama last night. Dude was all over the board on a variety of topics. At times he's giving stirring and eloquent praise to the troops and then he's off on economics spiel and then back to the troops, then on to "we're all Americans" then back to.... He seems to have lost some of his speechifyin' mojo. Perhaps he was constrained because it's impossible to be much of a cheerleader when he knows that what's going through everyone's heads is, "If it was up to him we would have lost."

I wonder if he was wearing his trademark mom jeans below the desk?

david gibson
09-01-2010, 08:08 AM
Obama was an early critic of the war, speaking out against it during the U.S. invasion in early 2003 and promising during his presidential campaign to bring the conflict to an end. The White House sees Tuesday’s benchmark as a promise kept and has gone to great lengths to promote it as such, dispatching Vice President Joe Biden to Iraq to preside over a formal change-of-command ceremony and raising Tuesday night’s remarks to the level of an Oval Office address, something Obama has only done once before.

Administration officials have been careful to avoid equating the end of the combat mission with a mission accomplished. That was the phrase on the now-infamous banner that flew on an aircraft carrier seven years ago when President George W. Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq, a symbol the Bush White House came to deeply regret as the war dragged on.

Ahead of Tuesday night’s remarks, Obama also planned to speak with Bush. While Bush’s decision to invade Iraq was criticized by many — including Obama — the troop surge Bush ordered in 2007 has been credited with tamping down violence in Iraq and helping keep the country from falling into a civil war. Among the unanswered questions about Tuesday’s address is whether Obama will give Bush any credit for the role the surge played in leading the war to its end.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/33051

ROGER, TRY HARD TO JUST BOLD WHAT YOU WANT TO EMPHASIZE. WE WILL GET THE POINT. MAKING IT 3 SIZES BIGGER MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A SIXTH GRADER POSTING IN ALL CAPS AND GIVES YOU EVEN LESS CREDIBILITY THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE. I KNOW THATS HARD TO DO, BUT YOU NEED EVERY GRAM OF CRED YOU CAN GET.

just tryin' to help regards

david gibson
09-01-2010, 08:15 AM
Kind of a disjointed speech by Obama last night. Dude was all over the board on a variety of topics. At times he's giving stirring and eloquent praise to the troops and then he's off on economics spiel and then back to the troops, then on to "we're all Americans" then back to.... He seems to have lost some of his speechifyin' mojo. Perhaps he was constrained because it's impossible to be much of a cheerleader when he knows that what's going through everyone's heads is, "If it was up to him we would have lost."

I wonder if he was wearing his trademark mom jeans below the desk?

in those types of speeches he uses only one teleprompter. its clear it makes a difference, we see how bad he is with no teleprompters.

M&K's Retrievers
09-01-2010, 09:18 AM
"

I wonder if he was wearing his trademark mom jeans below the desk?

I think he looks more presidential wearing his bicycle crash helmet.:rolleyes:

Clay Rogers
09-01-2010, 11:56 AM
Special ops does whatever is asked of it by the chain of command. That includes psyops, and other support roles, in addition to combat operations.


Having spent 5 years in special ops, I can guarantee you we don't do support roles. Special ops is used for intel gathering, which in a hostile environment is a combat role, troop training, which again in a hostile environment is a combat role(ask any green beret who trained the guerillas in vietnam) and mentoring foreign troops, which means going out on patrols with the foreign troops. All of these are combat roles.

Support roles are cooks, supply, engineers(not combat engineers), maintance guys and medical personnel. Not knocking any of these MOS's, because without them, front line troops can't complete their mission.

I will wager money that the rangers, green berets, SEALS, and CIA black ops won't be doing any cooking or passing out linen.

I still believe this was done so he could get back some of his MOJO before the mid-term elections.

What would you like to bet that before it is all said and done, we will need another surge in Irag?

dnf777
09-01-2010, 02:18 PM
Having spent 5 years in special ops, I can guarantee you we don't do support roles. Special ops is used for intel gathering, which in a hostile environment is a combat role, troop training, which again in a hostile environment is a combat role(ask any green beret who trained the guerillas in vietnam) and mentoring foreign troops, which means going out on patrols with the foreign troops. All of these are combat roles.

Support roles are cooks, supply, engineers(not combat engineers), maintance guys and medical personnel. Not knocking any of these MOS's, because without them, front line troops can't complete their mission.

I will wager money that the rangers, green berets, SEALS, and CIA black ops won't be doing any cooking or passing out linen.

I still believe this was done so he could get back some of his MOJO before the mid-term elections.

What would you like to bet that before it is all said and done, we will need another surge in Irag?

I guess my time spent with JSOPS supporting the Operation Southern Watch from Prince Sultan Air Base in KSA was all so secret, they just TOLD us were were a support mission?

And the USSOC web site is decoying when they state, amongst the more common combat roles, they they indeed have a support role as well?

My bad.

Clay Rogers
09-01-2010, 04:34 PM
I guess my time spent with JSOPS supporting the Operation Southern Watch from Prince Sultan Air Base in KSA was all so secret, they just TOLD us were were a support mission?

And the USSOC web site is decoying when they state, amongst the more common combat roles, they they indeed have a support role as well?

My bad.


Look, I am not gonna get into a pissing match over this, so tone back the sarcasm. We can argue all you want, I know what I did the 5 years I was there. And maybe the USSOC web site is stating that our support role includes training foreign troops. But if a squad of rangers or green berets are out training with iraqi police or what the hell ever, and a fire fight erupts, do you think the rangers or greenies are gonna sit back and shout instructions to the iraqi troops, or do you think they are gonna dig in and fight? I know what they are gonna do, and its called combat.

And as far as you being TOLD you were on a support mission, that just proves my statement from earlier. YOU were in the medical corp right? The last time I checked they were support.

So, yea, I guess it is your bad. Hooah!!!

david gibson
09-01-2010, 04:44 PM
Look, I am not gonna get into a pissing match over this, so tone back the sarcasm. We can argue all you want, I know what I did the 5 years I was there. And maybe the USSOC web site is stating that our support role includes training foreign troops. But if a squad of rangers or green berets are out training with iraqi police or what the hell ever, and a fire fight erupts, do you think the rangers or greenies are gonna sit back and shout instructions to the iraqi troops, or do you think they are gonna dig in and fight? I know what they are gonna do, and its called combat.

And as far as you being TOLD you were on a support mission, that just proves my statement from earlier. YOU were in the medical corp right? The last time I checked they were support.

So, yea, I guess it is your bad. Hooah!!!

you have to excuse dnf. he's the type that would put in for a purple heart if someone farted on him.

black0989
09-01-2010, 04:50 PM
you have to excuse dnf. he's the type that would put in for a purple heart if someone farted on him.

Haha,

This makes me laugh.

Semper Fi

paul young
09-01-2010, 05:32 PM
What would you like to bet that before it is all said and done, we will need another surge in Irag?[/QUOTE]



boy, do i ever hope you're wrong. but, i'm not taking that bet.-Paul

dnf777
09-01-2010, 08:30 PM
you have to excuse dnf. he's the type that would put in for a purple heart if someone farted on him.

Yeah, and you and black0989 are the kind of low-class trash that would say something like that.

I only have an ARCOM, AAM w/OLCs, ASR, SWA ribbon.

Sorry if that's not good enough for you, but I won't put in for bogus awards like some people have.

I don't know who you are or where you're from black, but if you really served in the Marines, I will congratulate you on you service...not insult you, even though you took that liberty with me, and you don't even know me. You might be a veteran, and I salute you for that, but you're low class in any case.

Clay Rogers
09-01-2010, 09:24 PM
you have to excuse dnf. he's the type that would put in for a purple heart if someone farted on him.

That remark is not cool dude. He did serve his country, did you? Never heard you mention your military service before, but if you did, thanks. I don't know dnf, but from reading his posts, I think him to be a stand up guy, and would welcome him into a duck blind anytime. It is OK to disagree with someone and not resort to mud slinging. That is why WE served, so you could have your opinion.

Gerry Clinchy
09-02-2010, 12:05 AM
Caught a clip of a radio show (not sure who I was listening to) ... a former Israeli soldier (now living in the US for 20 years) called in with a point he caught in Obama's speech (that many might have missed).

His point was that O referred to "about 4400" US soldiers losing their lives in Iraq. The Israeli said, "It was not about 4,400. It was exactly 4,432."

Perhaps this shows the difference between a soldier and a politician. To the soldier, every life lost is very important.

M&K's Retrievers
09-02-2010, 12:15 AM
Caught a clip of a radio show (not sure who I was listening to) ... a former Israeli soldier (now living in the US for 20 years) called in with a point he caught in Obama's speech (that many might have missed).

His point was that O referred to "about 4400" US soldiers losing their lives in Iraq. The Israeli said, "It was not about 4,400. It was exactly 4,432."

Perhaps this shows the difference between a soldier and a politician. To the soldier, every life lost is very important.

Wow! Typical Obama.

depittydawg
09-02-2010, 12:52 AM
Wow! Typical Obama.

No, typical politician. Obama didn't kill those soldiers. George Bush did. And he did for money. Lest we say the lowest of all common denominators in a politician.

M&K's Retrievers
09-02-2010, 01:23 AM
No, typical politician. Obama didn't kill those soldiers. George Bush did. And he did for money. Lest we say the lowest of all common denominators in a politician.

Bush killed those solders? For the money? What money? Oh, Obama didn't kill any of them either. He just "rounded down" when talking about American lives lost.

depittydawg
09-02-2010, 01:30 AM
Bush killed those solders? For the money? What money? Oh, Obama didn't kill any of them either. He just "rounded down" when talking about American lives lost.

Follow the money trail. Who gained in the War in Iraq? What companies prospered? What politicians were connected to those companies? There was a time when I thought they invaded Iraq for the oil. Then they never took the oil. The only common denominator as the President (Mr Bush) made bad decision after bad decision, was that the US treasury was shrinking rapidly and the coffers of a few corporations were growing astronomically. Connect the dots.

JDogger
09-02-2010, 01:47 AM
Bush killed those solders? For the money? What money? Oh, Obama didn't kill any of them either. He just "rounded down" when talking about American lives lost.

The numbers of KIA have never been precise for any war. To many MIA, POW's to make #'s exact. Total # of casualties? What's your guess? Here? Now? Then?

Every COC bears responsibilty, and so do we. Nothing operates without some responsibility, theirs, yours, ours.

Sometimes, we all lose.

JD

M&K's Retrievers
09-02-2010, 02:38 AM
The numbers of KIA have never been precise for any war. To many MIA, POW's to make #'s exact. Total # of casualties? What's your guess? Here? Now? Then?

Every COC bears responsibilty, and so do we. Nothing operates without some responsibility, theirs, yours, ours.

Sometimes, we all lose.

JD

Hmmmm? I think I'll let you clean up tonight.

dnf777
09-02-2010, 05:56 AM
Caught a clip of a radio show (not sure who I was listening to) ... a former Israeli soldier (now living in the US for 20 years) called in with a point he caught in Obama's speech (that many might have missed).

His point was that O referred to "about 4400" US soldiers losing their lives in Iraq. The Israeli said, "It was not about 4,400. It was exactly 4,432."

Perhaps this shows the difference between a soldier and a politician. To the soldier, every life lost is very important.

Come on Gerry....given that the number, unfortunately, is still changing almost daily, I think its better to not speak specifically. If he said "4432", and the number at the end of his speech became 4433, he would catch flack. Well, I guess he did anyway.

dnf777
09-02-2010, 05:59 AM
Bush killed those solders? For the money? What money? Oh, Obama didn't kill any of them either. He just "rounded down" when talking about American lives lost.

I think in the larger sense, when the President, as Commander-in-Chief sends troops into battle, yes, he should accept responsibility for the outcomes. He certainly didn't hesitate to put on a media blitz on a carrier deck with "Mission Accomplished" and take credit......so like it or not, as many before him have done, he should accept responsibility for the white markers in Arlington.

I'll leave the motivations for the war to historians.....frankly, I don't know. They shifted what--4 times during the build-up and war?

Clay Rogers
09-02-2010, 12:53 PM
I think in the larger sense, when the President, as Commander-in-Chief sends troops into battle, yes, he should accept responsibility for the outcomes. He certainly didn't hesitate to put on a media blitz on a carrier deck with "Mission Accomplished" and take credit......so like it or not, as many before him have done, he should accept responsibility for the white markers in Arlington.

I'll leave the motivations for the war to historians.....frankly, I don't know. They shifted what--4 times during the build-up and war?


I agree with you. The blood of our troops ultimately stains the hands of the Commander in Chief. That is why I believe that there should be some prerequiste that someone running for the office of President should have served in military, doesn't matter the branch or job, just have served. That way they know what it is like to be deployed, have to leave your family and friends, and know what military life is all about. I know they have advisors for such, but it's not the same. You can read all the books on war, watch all the movies on war and listen to old vets talk of their time at war, but you really don't know what it's like to you have been there. Maybe then, it would make them think harder before making the decision.

depittydawg
09-02-2010, 10:57 PM
I agree with you. The blood of our troops ultimately stains the hands of the Commander in Chief. That is why I believe that there should be some prerequiste that someone running for the office of President should have served in military, doesn't matter the branch or job, just have served. That way they know what it is like to be deployed, have to leave your family and friends, and know what military life is all about. I know they have advisors for such, but it's not the same. You can read all the books on war, watch all the movies on war and listen to old vets talk of their time at war, but you really don't know what it's like to you have been there. Maybe then, it would make them think harder before making the decision.

A better idea would be that before a commander guy sends our sons and daughters to battle, he must send his own.

david gibson
09-02-2010, 11:19 PM
A better idea would be that before a commander guy sends our sons and daughters to battle, he must send his own.

oh yeah thats just brilliant. :rolleyes:

depittydawg
09-03-2010, 01:02 AM
oh yeah thats just brilliant. :rolleyes:

You're right A better idea would be to simply obey the constitution and Require a declaration of War from congress prior to sending troops into combat.

M&K's Retrievers
09-03-2010, 01:04 AM
A better idea would be that before a commander guy sends our sons and daughters to battle, he must send his own.

You have said some dumb things but this may be the dumbest. We are all dumber for having read this post. Please stop.

ducknwork
09-03-2010, 06:23 AM
A better idea would be that before a commander guy sends our sons and daughters to battle, he must send his own.

Someone better get Sasha and Malia some youth model 20 ga pumps.

david gibson
09-03-2010, 08:30 AM
You're right A better idea would be to simply obey the constitution and Require a declaration of War from congress prior to sending troops into combat.

your 3 yr old grandkid must have gotten in to your computer, this actually makes sense

gman0046
09-03-2010, 09:21 AM
Thats an excellent example why dippy was voted the site biggest Nimrod.

ducknwork
09-03-2010, 09:22 AM
You're right A better idea would be to simply obey the constitution and Require a declaration of War from congress prior to sending troops into combat.

SO does that mean that Bush really didn't send our troops to war like you lefties love to throw in our faces? It was actually Congress, which, by the way, includes democrats? What a revelation!!

road kill
09-03-2010, 09:28 AM
You're right A better idea would be to simply obey the constitution and Require a declaration of War from congress prior to sending troops into combat.


I am surprised Yardley or Lil' Yardley didn't post this link, being sticklers for facts and accuracy and all!!:rolleyes:


Dawg, please read this, then apologize to the class;


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

United States House of Representatives

Party Ayes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3

126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.
6 of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)
Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.


United States Senate

Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0


21 (42%) of 50 Democratic Senators voted against the resolution: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), Wyden (D-OR).
1 of 49 Republican Senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).
The only Independent Senator voted against the resolution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)






Just tryin to help............


RK

david gibson
09-03-2010, 09:34 AM
I am surprised Yardley or Lil' Yardley didn't post this link, being sticklers for facts and accuracy and all!!:rolleyes:
Dawg, please read this, then apologize to the class;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
Just tryin to help............
RK

because they only are sticklers for facts and accuracy when it supports their leftist agenda or says something bad about Bush or Palin.

they are really so very predictable, its almost cute

dnf777
09-03-2010, 10:51 AM
If you recall, Bush sent troops into war, then all over the media declared that they're already in harm's way, and not to support them is unpatriotic. Confusing "them" with his war agenda. Brilliant move, and it worked perfectly.

Roger Perry
09-03-2010, 10:58 AM
SO does that mean that Bush really didn't send our troops to war like you lefties love to throw in our faces? It was actually Congress, which, by the way, includes democrats? What a revelation!!

Do you really believe Congress would have voted to invade Iraq if they had not been lied to about Saddam having WMD and would use them against the U.S.

NATO did not even believe that and that is why they refused to join in on the war.

Saddam tried to kill my daddy and I have to defend his honor:rolleyes:

Regards

doramider7
09-03-2010, 11:14 AM
I was just trying to beat the wingers to the punch.:D

Yeah, your rapier like wit beat us all to the punch.
We were trying to think of what to say, but you saved us.

Is the Daily Show on now??

ducknwork
09-03-2010, 11:56 AM
Good news deppity! I think you may soon be voted the second biggest nimrod on here! Look at the post above, we have a new troll!

road kill
09-03-2010, 12:46 PM
Good news deppity! I think you may soon be voted the second biggest nimrod on here! Look at the post above, we have a new troll!

Hmmmmmm, that was my post.
A robot spammer??



RK

Cody Covey
09-03-2010, 01:52 PM
Do you really believe Congress would have voted to invade Iraq if they had not been lied to about Saddam having WMD and would use them against the U.S.

NATO did not even believe that and that is why they refused to join in on the war.

Saddam tried to kill my daddy and I have to defend his honor:rolleyes:

Regards

First of all do you think that Bush made that up? It was info that came from the intelligence community and is pretty well documented. Secondly you proclaim that Bush is the dumbest president we ever had but then go on to say he bamboozled all of congress

Roger Perry
09-03-2010, 04:15 PM
First of all do you think that Bush made that up? It was info that came from the intelligence community and is pretty well documented. Secondly you proclaim that Bush is the dumbest president we ever had but then go on to say he bamboozled all of congress

The american people and Congress would fall for most anything after the planes flew into the world trade center on 9/11.

Cody Covey
09-03-2010, 04:28 PM
The american people and Congress would fall for most anything after the planes flew into the world trade center on 9/11.

So you think the Bush administration forged intel documents?

Roger Perry
09-03-2010, 04:41 PM
So you think the Bush administration forged intel documents?

Had to laugh, you used Bush and intellegence in the same sentence, but to answer your question.

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. (http://dir.salon.com/topics/weapons_of_mass_destruction/) No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA (http://dir.salon.com/topics/cia/) among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

Cody Covey
09-03-2010, 05:32 PM
You're really going to try and quote someone who was in charge of the National Intelligence Estimate which said that Baghdad has nuclear and biological weapons. and not just a little bit but 100 to 500 tons of it. Not only that but he has been caught lying to try and cover his own tail. Come back when you have something more credible.

david gibson
09-03-2010, 10:07 PM
Had to laugh, you used Bush and intellegence in the same sentence, but to answer your question.

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. (http://dir.salon.com/topics/weapons_of_mass_destruction/) No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA (http://dir.salon.com/topics/cia/) among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

dude you are really too much.

so saddam never used wmd on his own people? that he did is a fact. so i guess he just used all he had and never made any more. and - only what he was told by Tenet was believable - because it fits your agenda - if Tenet said he had wmd you would say Tenet was the liar. you conveniently believe what you want to believe, but we dug up several dozen MIGs buried in the sand, and former Iraqi general Sada detailed how WMD was smuggled to syria in russian 737's with seats removed. google it. and god only knows how much wmd could be buried - its a lot smaller than MIGs.

so yeah - saddam had no wmds. because they were insyria or buried.

you remind me of the wimpy guy in the bell tower in "Saving Private Ryan" who sat there and cried because he was too much of a coward to come to the aid of his fellow soldier.

i cant believe "men" like you actually exist

wouldnt choose you for mine or the foxhole next to me or the 100 meters downhill regards

Cody Covey
09-03-2010, 11:29 PM
dude you are really too much.

and - only what he was told by Tenet was believable - because it fits your agenda - if Tenet said he had wmd you would say Tenet was the liar.actually Tenet did say there were WMD's just not in the excerpt that Roger got. If you read other interviews Tenet gave after he left he says that the intel community did not believe Iraq was behind 9/11 but did believe that had mass stock piles of WMD's

Roger Perry
09-04-2010, 10:54 AM
actually Tenet did say there were WMD's just not in the excerpt that Roger got. If you read other interviews Tenet gave after he left he says that the intel community did not believe Iraq was behind 9/11 but did believe that had mass stock piles of WMD's

The article was probably too long for him to read. The right only believe what they want to believe.

Roger Perry
09-04-2010, 10:55 AM
dude you are really too much.

so saddam never used wmd on his own people? that he did is a fact. so i guess he just used all he had and never made any more. and - only what he was told by Tenet was believable - because it fits your agenda - if Tenet said he had wmd you would say Tenet was the liar. you conveniently believe what you want to believe, but we dug up several dozen MIGs buried in the sand, and former Iraqi general Sada detailed how WMD was smuggled to syria in russian 737's with seats removed. google it. and god only knows how much wmd could be buried - its a lot smaller than MIGs.

so yeah - saddam had no wmds. because they were insyria or buried.

you remind me of the wimpy guy in the bell tower in "Saving Private Ryan" who sat there and cried because he was too much of a coward to come to the aid of his fellow soldier.

i cant believe "men" like you actually exist

wouldnt choose you for mine or the foxhole next to me or the 100 meters downhill regards

You do remember that there was a no fly zone don't you?

road kill
09-04-2010, 11:01 AM
You do remember that there was a no fly zone don't you?

Not prior to the war.



RK

dnf777
09-04-2010, 11:04 AM
Not prior to the war.



RK

Uh, yeah, since the first Gulf War. I was part of Operation Southern Watch, patrolling the southern no-fly zone. That was in 98-99, well before Bush II's war.

road kill
09-04-2010, 11:08 AM
Uh, yeah, since the first Gulf War. I was part of Operation Southern Watch, patrolling the southern no-fly zone. That was in 98-99, well before Bush II's war.

That zone was minimal and changed when the war started.
Syria was not included, flights came in and out of Baghdad dailey.
Labeled primarily as "humanitarian."



RK

road kill
09-06-2010, 09:41 AM
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100905/D9I204T00.html

"It ain't over till it's over."

Evidently the Iraqi's didn't hear Obama's speech!!




RK

Roger Perry
09-06-2010, 11:42 AM
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100905/D9I204T00.html

"It ain't over till it's over."

Evidently the Iraqi's didn't hear Obama's speech!!




RK

The American troops who joined the fight and provided cover fire for Iraqi soldiers pursuing the attackers were based at the compound to train Iraqi forces, said U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Eric Bloom. Iraqi forces also requested help from U.S. helicopters, drones and explosives experts, he said. No American troops were hurt, Bloom said.

Gerry Clinchy
09-06-2010, 11:44 AM
If this drawdown, made to fulfill a campaign promise, results in total breakdown in Iraq, could this be as big a blow to Obama's presidency as if he had kept the troops there?

If it was a mistake to go to Iraq (and many on this forum hold that it was), we still incurred a responsibility once we got there. Is it just as big of a mistake to leave the country in disarray that results in conditions that are as bad (or worse) than before?

Boy, it sure sounds like Vietnam all over again ... except that the North Vietnamese seemed to have more cohesive ruling ability than the very divided factions present in Iraq.

dnf777
09-06-2010, 11:48 AM
If this drawdown, made to fulfill a campaign promise, results in total breakdown in Iraq, could this be as big a blow to Obama's presidency as if he had kept the troops there?

If it was a mistake to go to Iraq (and many on this forum hold that it was), we still incurred a responsibility once we got there. Is it just as big of a mistake to leave the country in disarray that results in conditions that are as bad (or worse) than before?

Boy, it sure sounds like Vietnam all over again ... except that the North Vietnamese seemed to have more cohesive ruling ability than the very divided factions present in Iraq.



Nicely said. It won't be the first time (as you point out), nor will it likely be the last time. (unless the republicans get their way and completely finish off the USA in the upcoming years!)

The part I agree with the most, is that is was a mistake to go in the first place. We now know (as many did back then) the Saddam posed NO THREAT to the US. The bogus justification that followed that one, "Saddam is mean to his people and must go"....well, let's see. He killed roughly 4000 of the Kurds.....we killed how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians to "protect" them and set them free?

this was was a total wash from the inception to "completion", and its still not over. Oh, but its Obama's fault, I'm sure some will say.

Well, I sort of agreed with you. Hope I don't get called "little Clinchy" for saying so, by the bosom buddies...:rolleyes:

Clay Rogers
09-06-2010, 12:03 PM
You guys hear about the attack on the army post in Baghdad yesterday? Only the beginning. Can you say Resurge in Iraq? Still willing to take bets. That country was not ready to fend for itself. It will only get worse.

david gibson
09-06-2010, 12:30 PM
Nicely said. It won't be the first time (as you point out), nor will it likely be the last time. (unless the republicans get their way and completely finish off the USA in the upcoming years!)

The part I agree with the most, is that is was a mistake to go in the first place. We now know (as many did back then) the Saddam posed NO THREAT to the US. The bogus justification that followed that one, "Saddam is mean to his people and must go"....well, let's see. He killed roughly 4000 of the Kurds.....we killed how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians to "protect" them and set them free?

this was was a total wash from the inception to "completion", and its still not over. Oh, but its Obama's fault, I'm sure some will say.

Well, I sort of agreed with you. Hope I don't get called "little Clinchy" for saying so, by the bosom buddies...:rolleyes:

STILL bringing up Bush??

Gerry Clinchy
09-06-2010, 12:30 PM
He killed roughly 4000 of the Kurds.....

While I have no figures at hand, I'd guess that Saddam's hit list, overall, totalled more than just the 4000 Kurds.


we killed how many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians

Is this # validated? Even 100,000 would seem like a large #. But I'm willing to be educated. Would this # include civilians killed by insurgents? Or would the latter be in addition?


Oh, but its Obama's fault, I'm sure some will say.


No, I would assess the blame where it would belong. If Bush made one mistake, and Obama the other ... then each would be held responsible for their individual misjudgments.

Nixon may have gotten us out of Vietnam, but it was predicted that the south would fall when he did. And it did. I may not believe that we should have been in Vietnam, but geez! I wish that some lesson would have been learned from what happens about a gross withdrawal. One obvious repeated error was not requiring any accountability from the local govt we supported. Corruption was rampant in S Vietnam, as it appears to be in Iraq. Of course, given the record of our own govt ... maybe they don't know much about identifying corruption and cleaning it up.

All things considered, if there were real dangers from either Saddam or N Vietnam, I'd say that Saddam was more dangerous.

Am I hedging? Yes. I don't feel I have enough information (some would be public & some would not) to know, unequivocally, if either of these two people (B or O) made the "right" decisions.

dnf777
09-06-2010, 01:44 PM
While I have no figures at hand, I'd guess that Saddam's hit list, overall, totalled more than just the 4000 Kurds.



Is this # validated? Even 100,000 would seem like a large #. But I'm willing to be educated. Would this # include civilians killed by insurgents? Or would the latter be in addition?



No, I would assess the blame where it would belong. If Bush made one mistake, and Obama the other ... then each would be held responsible for their individual misjudgments.

Nixon may have gotten us out of Vietnam, but it was predicted that the south would fall when he did. And it did. I may not believe that we should have been in Vietnam, but geez! I wish that some lesson would have been learned from what happens about a gross withdrawal. One obvious repeated error was not requiring any accountability from the local govt we supported. Corruption was rampant in S Vietnam, as it appears to be in Iraq. Of course, given the record of our own govt ... maybe they don't know much about identifying corruption and cleaning it up.

All things considered, if there were real dangers from either Saddam or N Vietnam, I'd say that Saddam was more dangerous.

Am I hedging? Yes. I don't feel I have enough information (some would be public & some would not) to know, unequivocally, if either of these two people (B or O) made the "right" decisions.


Interesting that we DON'T have any numbers, isn't it?
I've heard different numbers ranging from 70,000 to one million. Both seem a little extreme, so I'd put the truth somewhere in between.

We never should have re-entered Iraq, and to this day, I have not heard a legitimate reason for doing so.

DG: And I don't recall mentioning Bush in my post. However, if we talk of bogus claims to justify a war, I can understand why your mind would jump to your hero, Bush.

Gerry Clinchy
09-06-2010, 02:15 PM
Interesting that we DON'T have any numbers, isn't it?


Interesting? or odd? The original invasion and "war" seemed to have relatively little involvement of innocent civilians. It's hard to imagine that tens of millions of innocent civilians were subject to "collateral damage" in the type of guerilla warfare that has ensued. But that could be an erroneous perception.


We never should have re-entered Iraq, and to this day, I have not heard a legitimate reason for doing so.


I don't think I presented any opinion on going to Iraq?

When O took office, he knew we were in Iraq :-) He wanted the job in spite of having to handle that hot potato. The answer left to unfold is whether he handled it well, or not. I'd have to say that he was the one (and his staff) who had the most information to evaluate how to proceed.

With Nam, nobody seemed to care any longer what the consequences were, they just wanted out. There were certainly those who feared for the safety of those who had worked with the Americans. Fears, it appears, turned out to be well-founded. However, Vietnam turns out not to have been of any pivotal consequence in world affairs.

In the case of Iraq, they have oil that could be useful to many unfriendlies. I'd say disarray in Iraq would have more serious consequences for the US and its allies. I would expect O (and his staff) to have fully evaluated those risks in their decisions. How well they have done that will ultimately be revealed.

depittydawg
09-06-2010, 03:19 PM
You guys hear about the attack on the army post in Baghdad yesterday? Only the beginning. Can you say Resurge in Iraq? Still willing to take bets. That country was not ready to fend for itself. It will only get worse.

Better vote - Does anybody care?

gman0046
09-06-2010, 03:37 PM
It won't be too long before Obongolo has to send US troops to Iraq.

Clay Rogers
09-06-2010, 09:48 PM
Better vote - Does anybody care?


Apparently you do. You sure post enough about it. Your tune will change when it happens.

depittydawg
09-06-2010, 11:25 PM
Apparently you do. You sure post enough about it. Your tune will change when it happens.

When what happens? When the Iraq "democracy" evolves into the next middle east dictatorship, theocracy, or Monarchy? Why would I care? Why would anyone in the United States care?

Clay Rogers
09-07-2010, 12:09 AM
When what happens? When the Iraq "democracy" evolves into the next middle east dictatorship, theocracy, or Monarchy? Why would I care? Why would anyone in the United States care?


Keep up dawg, I said none of that in my post that you quoted. When Obama has to send more troops to Iraq to stabilize the region because he decided to pull out too early. This was just an attempt to keep a campaign promise, the only one out of several dozen that he has kept, by the way.