I don't have a strong opinion about we should take action here or not. And I don't have a better idea. Last time we went after religious extremists was Afghanistan. Aghanistan was necessary. Iraq was an unnecessary waste created by an irresponsible administration (at best, wildly naive) willing to lie to get what it wanted. Both were poorly handled from the get-go by an administration that wasn't willing to commit sufficient resources early on and to stay in for the long haul until forced to do so, when the mission clearly wasn’t "accomplished
( ... )
I see no evidence that dems produce more successful wars, as a whole. I'm not sure what the dozens of reasons and influencesinfluences making Iraq necessary, you refer to, are. The stated reasons had mostly to do with Al quida support that didn't exist (but did after) and wmds never found, except small quantities in degraded and unusable form, as analyzed by DoD
. The stated reasons had mostly to do with Al quida support that didn't exist (but did after) and wmds never found, except small quantities in degraded and unusable form, as analyzed by DoD
That was the reported reasons. The "truthy" paradigm, as it was.
But they weren't the "stated reasons".
Nor were the WMD's "small" and "degraded". But assuming for the sake of argument that they were - that was a violation of the cease fire that authorized the use of military force to rectify. Thus it wasn't a "lie", under any reasonable standard.
And this is why Democrats can have successful wars. The last successful "R" war was the Civil War, and that was because most of the Democrats were on the other side. Those left in the Union did what they could do lose that one and came really close.
Trivial sized caches of degraded weapons I forgotten corners. That was the governments analysis. And chemical facilities producing drugs that #could# be converted to other uses.
If its corrupting oil for food you're concerned about, then yes, guilty.
We won't agree on this. Neither did the (R) controlled senate intelligence committee in 2006. Terms like "not supported by intelligence" are repeated over and over. Yellow cake, toxic materials, bio weapons. At least, in the unredacted parts. (Postwar findings on Iraq's WMD programs and their link to terrorism and how they compare to prewar assessment...)
Bush claim was tightly integrated with claims of terrorism links. Alsno not found.
No point in continuing. We are unlikely to find common ground.
Reply
Reply
Reply
That was the reported reasons. The "truthy" paradigm, as it was.
But they weren't the "stated reasons".
Nor were the WMD's "small" and "degraded". But assuming for the sake of argument that they were - that was a violation of the cease fire that authorized the use of military force to rectify. Thus it wasn't a "lie", under any reasonable standard.
And this is why Democrats can have successful wars. The last successful "R" war was the Civil War, and that was because most of the Democrats were on the other side. Those left in the Union did what they could do lose that one and came really close.
Reply
If its corrupting oil for food you're concerned about, then yes, guilty.
We won't agree on this. Neither did the (R) controlled senate intelligence committee in 2006. Terms like "not supported by intelligence" are repeated over and over. Yellow cake, toxic materials, bio weapons. At least, in the unredacted parts. (Postwar findings on Iraq's WMD programs and their link to terrorism and how they compare to prewar assessment...)
Bush claim was tightly integrated with claims of terrorism links. Alsno not found.
No point in continuing. We are unlikely to find common ground.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment