Future Lies About Iraq

[adios]

More and significant differences between Iraq and Vietnam than similarties IMO. The Bush administration has performed ineptly in how they've gone about the whole affair. Politically it's hard to imagine someone doing worse. After having my eyes opened regarding the administration tactics in the current effort to pass more immigration laws, I agree that the whole raison d’être for initiating and prosecuting this endeavor that the administration gave is suspect. I still maintain though that the mission changed along the way and the Bush administration decided to go their own way in changing the mission without reaching a political consensus.

When the U.S. military is largely out of Iraq (I'd bet no longer than 2009) I think the aftermath will be much different than it was in Vietnam in what people say about the Iraq incursion and what could have been done differently.

[Metric]

Just a reminder -- the actual "war" phase did go pretty much exactly as planned. Its the nation building and "spreading democracy" part that is completely naive, hopeless and horrendously expensive.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it interesting that [you] are trying to disprove an article written in 2006 by one written from 2005?

[/ QUOTE ]
What article?

[/ QUOTE ]

He quoted an article in 2005; don't you see the date?

[ElliotR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it interesting that [you] are trying to disprove an article written in 2006 by one written from 2005?

[/ QUOTE ]
What article?

[/ QUOTE ]

He quoted an article in 2005; don't you see the date?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so let's recap. The alleged events in question took place in 2002. In 2005, the Iraq Study Group checked this out and found no evidence. That was reported. A year later, Sada, with a book to sell, comes up with his story. And your "argument" is that we should ignore the ISG conclusions in 2005, a year closer to the event, because it is somehow *less* reliable than a report on what happened in 2002 from a year later?

Ummmm.....ok.

Ya gotta love the true believers. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[iron81]

I was more talking about how he didn't link the article. The article wasn't saying that there were WMD's, Wooly's biased interpretation of a report was saying there were WMD's. But that works too.

[LilGreen]

I wouldn't go as far as saying that the Bush administration lied about WMDs. I'd rather say that those claims need some fine tuning.

Also, Iraq sending those darn WMDs to Syria makes sense as much as Bush shipping nukes to Canada.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't go as far as saying that the Bush administration lied about WMDs. I'd rather say that those claims need some fine tuning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would anyone want to give a politician the benefit of the doubt? People with extraordinary amounts of power and influence should be scrutinized more, and held to a HIGHER standard. If anything they should be crucified for even slight omissions or twisting of truths.

[LilGreen]

[ QUOTE ]

Why would anyone want to give a politician the benefit of the doubt? People with extraordinary amounts of power and influence should be scrutinized more, and held to a HIGHER standard. If anything they should be crucified for even slight omissions or twisting of truths.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't forget the nukes Bush shipped to Canada..

[Nonfiction]

[ QUOTE ]
Just a reminder -- the actual "war" phase did go pretty much exactly as planned. Its the nation building and "spreading democracy" part that is completely naive, hopeless and horrendously expensive.

[/ QUOTE ]
The war phase is still going on. Unless you consider daily carbombs, attacks by suicide bombers and insurgent attacks on convoys etc part of normal every day business.

[tehox]

[ QUOTE ]
Casualties in Iraq are 15% of what they were in Vietnam.


[/ QUOTE ]

Because this has anything to do with anything?

Please defend the war if you want to, but I think that if anything is truly demeaning to the troops, it is that "only" 3,500 have been killed and 20,000 horrificily wounded.