re: question #7

The reason I think the military is less and less apt to believe we will meet our goals in Iraq is that our military HAS NO CAPABILITY of reaching our goals in Iraq. That's ENTIRELY in the hands of the Iraqi people, who seem to have little will to make a nation for themselves.

We, on the other hand, have lost our stomach for killing the Iraqis who are causing the problems. So we stand around and get killed. Nice way to "win" a war.

BakerStreet

I agree. That is why it is time to GET OUT!

The lies were that Bush ignored the Intelligence that said his claims that Saddam was a threat were real. Bush ignored the Military assessment that said Saddam was NO THREAT to the U.S. Bush ignored the warnings that invading Iraq would most likely destabilize Iraq and cause our military to become bogged down in Iraq. Despite all this we were told that Saddam was so great a danger we has to Invade Iraq. That was a LIE!!!!!!!!! That Lie caused 3,000 people to be killed and 22,000 to be injured.

I don't know how many times you have been shown to incorrect about this topic, but you still pretend that you haven't.  We have debunked your claims countless times and you still ignore it. 

[I agree. That is why it is time to GET OUT!

Cut and run you mean.  I'm sure glad you weren't in charge in WWII.

"I agree. That is why it is time to GET OUT!"

Sorry, you misunderstood. I said that we are getting killed because we've lost our stomach for shooting Iraqis. We should go back to war with the militias, cretins like Sadr, etc., until the nation decides it's just too damn bloody a proposition to do anything else.

If we can't do that, then sure, we might as well leave.

IslandDog

You have not done anything of the sort.

Three Former CIA Chiefs have said Bush ignored Intelligence that did not support the Invasion. Generals Zinni and Trainer have said the same thing. There is the Military assessment by the Pentagon that said Saddam had no OFFENSIVE MILITERY CAPABILITY. You ignore all this data and make believe Bush told the truth. We also know there was NO WMD. Finally is the latest Woodward book that is full of proof that Bush Lied.

IslandDog You have not done anything of the sort.

BS! Both ID and myself among others, argued you into a corner on this very subject. And when cornered to where you "could not" argue your position anymore, you cut and ran.

Three Former CIA Chiefs have said Bush ignored Intelligence that did not support the Invasion. Generals Zinni and Trainer have said the same thing. There is the Military assessment by the Pentagon that said Saddam had no OFFENSIVE MILITERY CAPABILITY. You ignore all this data and make believe Bush told the truth. We also know there was NO WMD. Finally is the latest Woodward book that is full of proof that Bush Lied

Maybe you should read this book: Link


Or maybe this document: Link

Or even this link:

Link

drmiler

What you posted does not change the statements of the CIA Agents or Generals Trainer and Zinni. It does not change the military assessment that Saddam was not capable of attacking any country. We showed that was correct with the ease we destroyed what military he had in March-April 2003. NOTHING you have said or that Bush has said shows that the United States was in any danger from Saddam in 2002 and there was NO JUSTIFICATION to invade Iraq.

drmiler What you posted does not change the statements of the CIA Agents or Generals Trainer and Zinni. It does not change the military assessment that Saddam was not capable of attacking any country. We showed that was correct with the ease we destroyed what military he had in March-April 2003. NOTHING you have said or that Bush has said shows that the United States was in any danger from Saddam in 2002 and there was NO JUSTIFICATION to invade Iraq.

This is EXACTLY what we're talking about. I give you examples of proof that your line of reasoning "might" have other facets, and what do you do? You ignore it and say it changes nothing. Is it any wonder people think you're a unintelligent moron?

Three Former CIA Chiefs have said Bush ignored Intelligence that did not support the Invasion. Generals Zinni and Trainer have said the same thing. There is the Military assessment by the Pentagon that said Saddam had no OFFENSIVE MILITERY CAPABILITY. You ignore all this data and make believe Bush told the truth. We also know there was NO WMD. Finally is the latest Woodward book that is full of proof that Bush Lied.

And we have showed people that have told the opposite.  The problem with you is that you take someone who writes an anti-Bush book, and take it as the truth.  I have showed these people, including Zinni work with far-left organizations, so they have a biased agenda.

Most of the world believed Saddam had WMD's, and by the U.N.'s own account, Iraqs WMD's have never been fully accounted for. 

19 people living in caves didn't have any OFFENSIVE MILITARY CAPABILITY, but they were able to carry out significant damage to the U.S. 

Woodward is a book author, his book is proof of nothing.

 

NOTHING you have said or that Bush has said shows that the United States was in any danger from Saddam in 2002 and there was NO JUSTIFICATION to invade Iraq.

Many people thought Saddam was a danger col.  I have shown how incompetent someone like Zinni is and you completely ignored it. 

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

What you do col is "cherry pick" the anti-Bush rhetoric, and totally ignore everything else that is presented to you.  You have a one-sided opinion, and you don't tell both sides of the story.

IslandDog

The facts are that Saddam was NOT a THREAT to our country! If Bush had allowed the UN weapons inspectors, who were in Iraq in March 2003, to complete their work, he would have learned that Saddam had no WMD! There was NO reason to act before the weapons inspectors completed their work. Saddam was not about to attack us or did he have the capability to attack us at any time!

19 people didn't have the ability to attack us did they col?  Saddaam had deceived the weapons inspectors for over a decades, and was continuing to do so.  Saddam was a threat because Hillary Clinton said so!

Saddam was not involved with al Qaeda. If that is you’re standard to attack a potential adversary with 19 people who hate us, we should be at war with EVERY COUNTRY ON EARTH!

What are you talking about?

Al-qaeda was fleeing to Iraq after Afghanistan.  We have gone over this many times, but you just don't get it col. 

IslandDog

There was NO Al-Qaeda operating in Iraq until AFTER Bush invaded Iraq. Now they are operating in western Iraq with 135,000 U.S. Troops in Iraq. There was NO connection between 9/11 and Saddam. There were no Nuclear or Bio WMD in Iraq only a few OLD Gas Filled Artillery shells that threatened no one. We were not welcomed as liberators but occupiers and our invasion has created many new radicals that has made us LESS not More safe according to our own National Intelligence Estimate. We have destabilized Iraq and helped form a government in Iraq made up of the same faction as the one that controls Iran. We have done real well!