How fortunate for me! As I was seeking information to debunk arguments of my not-at-all insulting friend burnyourtires, I ran across someone who already has! This really shouldn't have surprised me, since, fortunately, burnyourtires offered nothing new or original.
This brilliant post by Gateway Pundit has already done the work, and I couldn't have done it better. Any lunacy left unadddressed in the post is likely to be found in the comments thread in which an anonymous moonbat barks the usual underdeveloped points. Also be sure to follow his links to similar posts.
Off the top of my head, without even having to try, here is a defense of the "mistakes" by Bush, Rummy, et al, posted by burnyourtires. I just hope he's still reading. His words, alleged Bushie mess-ups, are in bold.
" . . .Greeted with flowers". I have a friend whose son Larry served in Falujah. He loves the Iraqi people, and he says they love marines. This doesn't mean every Iraqi feels the same. Just the liberated ones do. Larry says the problem is with imported terrorists. But what does he know, he was only there.
"Republican Guard let go". You don't know this was a mistake. How do you know they wouldn't have stayed united under another Baathist oppressor, creating a new enemy to depose? You don't know. Experts disagreed, and still do, but you think you know. This isn't even as good as 20/20 hindsight, because in hindsight, we still don't know what would've happened if the Republican guard was left intact.
"No WMD" Wrong again. The latest translated documents show that WMD were being moved out of Iraq prior to the invasion. We've posted on that here: (Yet another reason to believe Saddam had WMD), be sure to follow the links. There's more in Gateway Pundit's post by him and his readers.
"No Iraq govnt set up in 2003, when it should have been"--I'm going to take your word that a Bushie said it would be. Any way, ooh! Heads should roll for this! What difference does success make now, when there was no Iraqi govnt in 2003?
"Not enough troops" Prove it. BTW, a quote of someone else's opinion has weight, but it is not proof. If high-ranking general so-and-so disagrees with high ranking govnt official, it's still a matter of opinion until we know the facts. So please, show me the data that says that sending more troops would've reduced casualties or expense. Show me the data that says we didn't need those troops on reserve. Remember, Bush was criticized for not having troops available for stateside deployment in the hurricane Katrina crisis.
"Iraq oil would pay for the war and the rebuilding"-- Actually, it wasn't promised the oil would pay for the war. How nice would that be? "Here's your freedom! BTW, you owe us $300 billion. Oh, and we're leaving. Good luck with the remaining Baathists, and the foreign terrorists vying to fill the power vacuum!" Is this the brilliant diplomacy of the Left? The oil is meant to pay for the reconstruction. It hasn't yet, but you're right, we should get out now, before it does. Do you play the stock market with that buy high, sell low mentality? How very short-sighted.
"mushroom clouds over Knoxville" How can you read and watch so much news and still be so uninformed? The Bushies never said we'd find nukes. They did say Saddam had a history of having and using WMD, none of which could be shown to have been eradicated. The Dulfer report showed that Saddam did indeed have WMD programs and was pursuing nuclear capability. Who wanted to wait until he's up and running before trying to stop him?
I wonder what burnyourtires thinks of the mistakes of the last sitting democrat president? Did he make mistakes? Some think so, and they don't even work for FOX.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
If you read the Dulfer report, the only conclusive evidence was that Saddam was NOT pursuing any nuclear capability, he was only keeping his scientific base intact for the end of sanctions. Since nobody was ever going to end sanctions, it was an exercise in futility. To quote, "ISG, however, has uncovered no indication that Iraq had resumed fissile material or nuclear weapon research and development activities since 1991."
In his testimony to Congress, Dulfer stated that the chances of non-nuclear WMD being moved out were about 5%. I will take odds of 95% any day of the week.
"Not enough troops." The consequences speak for themselves. But if you insist, check out these guys.
"Greeted with flowers" This has to be a joke. The last poll I heard about, over 75% of Iraqis wanted all coalition troops to leave. So we've won the hearts and minds of an impressive 25%. Lucky us. Since we are building permanent military bases there, as well as an embassy larger than Vatican City, I would guess we are going to stay until the oil runs out in about thirty years.
"Iraq oil would pay for the war and the rebuilding" Good ole Wolfowitz. Such a dreamer.
First of all, shrub and his cronies tried as hard as they could to associate Iraq with 9-11, which was never true. They made Americans believe bin-laden hit new york, he and sadam could hit anywhere USA with WMD, including nuclear weapons.
You will notice a poll taken by thePew poll
supports this.
"The Pew results indicate that the imputation of an Iraq-9/11 link strongly resonates with a majority of Americans, even though most analysts inside and outside government have disputed the suggestion of a direct link, and earlier suggestions by administration officials asserting such a link have been muted. Two-thirds of those surveyed (66%) say they believe "Saddam Hussein helped the terrorists in the September 11 attacks."
Similarly, a large majority of those surveyed believe Saddam is on the threshold of having a nuclear weapons capability. Two-thirds of those surveyed (65%) say they believe Saddam is "close to having" nuclear weapons, and 14% believe he "already has" them.
Your reply says shrub never said Iraq had nuclear weapons, I never said he had them either. I eluded to the fact. Nice try though.
shrub said this in the state of the union
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa",
Maybe shrub was talking about this
shrub's yellowcake here
Cheney never said this You can read the whole transcript if you want:
cheney on meet the press
"We have to think new thoughts about how we deal with that threat, and so when we look at the kind of strategy we want to pursue, we do a number of things. We, obviously, want to defend the homeland, so we spend an enormous amount of time and effort trying to make it a tougher target, but we know defense isn’t enough. You’ve got to have good offense, and we’ve gone aggressively after the terrorists wherever we can find them. We worked the financial circuits and the intelligence and law enforcement efforts. We’ve had great success there recently; Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and others.
But we also have to address the question of where might these terrorists acquire weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons? And Saddam Hussein becomes a prime suspect in that regard because of his past track record and because we know he has, in fact, developed these kinds of capabilities, chemical and biological weapons. We know he’s used chemical weapons. We know he’s reconstituted these programs since the Gulf War. We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization." dick "shotgun" cheney
My "mushroom could over Knoxville" quote is a metafore for what the bush administration was drumming up as justification for war. Maybe you are right in saying shrub never said iraq HAD nuclear weapons, but then again in my post, neither did I. Nice try though.
By the way, incase you missed this
the first time, cheney's mobile bio-labs were balloon filling stations. But they look menicing.
Here is the big one.The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
He goes on to say "It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," Pillar wrote.
You remember Sec of Treasure Paul O'Neill
He's the one that said shrub wanted to go to war with iraq from the minute he got into office. You should read his book.
Oh, and I don't watch a ton of news as you so knowlying suggested, I get everything I need from Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Rush, and Fox. I get everything I need from them. Maybe that's why, as you pointed out, I'm so uninformed. Maybe if I checked out more sources, I'd believe like you do.
Repeat after me, "It's all Clinton's fault, It's all Clinton's fault" If we could only have sex in the white house instead of an unjust war. How many soldiers died trying to clean that dress?
It's nice of you to respond to number 8 in my ten part answer to latebloomers post. What about the rest of it? And those darn Generals that don't know squat, what about them?
oh, i'm answering your response from bottom to top, starting with mushroom clouds over knoxville
Like Steven so eloquently put it, "Iraq oil would pay for the war and the rebuilding" Good ole Wolfowitz. Such a dreamer.
But Steven and I were wrong. They said Iraq could pay for reconstruction. So using shrubs logic, the mission was accomplished one thousand and some odd days ago. He must have thought the war was over and reconstruction will now begin.
The neo-cons estimated the cost of the war at 100-200 billion dollars. Now they say 1-2 trillion. Using your logic, one can't estimate a cost of war or when we will pull out. Didn't I see that in a post somewhere? Why did they estimate the cost then. By the way, you're paying for this war.
The rest of your post on this topic is ridiculous speculation. Speculation is inadmissible in court.
More troops
well, all I can say is pretty much everyone with any clout in the pentagon suggested we use more troops in iraq and shrub didn't listen. And look how well everything has gone since then.
we should have never been over there in the first place. Hurricane Kitrina.
Wasn't shrub playing the guitar in california when all this happened?
Kitrina is a subject we can take a look at if you like.
govnt in 2003
If we had set one up then, like most sane people wanted, instead of waiting, we'd have more trust from the iraqi people. We would have won their hearts and minds because they would have known we weren't occupying their country. I never said a shrub said this, everyone else did.
To tell you the truth, I think once we invaded iraq, nothing was gonna stop the civil war. So maybe not setting up a government in 03-04 didn't really matter.
no wmd.
Sorry, but you're wrong. There were no wmd.
i don't have time to go digging through your old posts to look for links. That's not the way this works. Feel free to paste these links. There are so many.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11272-2004Jan12?language=printer
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-03-02-un-wmd_x.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
Extensive inspections after Iraq's invasion failed to find substantial proof of weapons of mass destruction.[7][8] This has once more brought the various already controversial justifications for the invasion into dispute.[9] Post-invasion Iraq has experienced violence from warring sects and an Iraqi insurgency. Numerous terrorist groups have become active in the area. Elections were held in January 2005.
republican guard
you know those guys we're fighting now, well I hate to tell you this, but many were in the republican guard.
look at it this way. russia invades the usa and lets our national guard go.
that makes alot of sense huh?
These people were saddam’s die hard loyalist, most of them, were Sunni Arabs. I think, the Pentagon rational was, if we kill theses people they will hold a grudge against us, if we let them go, they will go home, thank us and join the new political process in Iraq. he Republican guardsmen went home, replaced their green republican distinct military uniforms, with civilian short white dishdashas, their clean shaven faces with beards, their racist baathist pan Arabism ideology with the wahabi Jihadist alqaeda anti-America Anti-west ideology, and their T-72 tanks, with car bombs.
But don't believe me, believe Colon Powell
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-powell09.html
here's a good thought on too few troops.
1- Iraq’s borders were left unsecured, that lead to all terrorist in the world the likes of Alqaeda, and anybody who has a grudge against America and the west, that includes; some countries intelligence services that are opposed to democracy in the middle east, to move into Iraq and set up shop there. Training camps, bomb factories and kidnapping rings to extort ransom money, to finance their operations.
2- Iraq’s military bases were left unsecured, that lead to the stealing of hundreds of thousands of bombs, artillery shells, munitions, rockets propelled grenades and explosives. These dangerous articles were later sold by ordinary Iraqis to anybody who would pay, even peanuts. The terrorists, are using these items as we speak or write for that matter, to make IED’d and car bombs, that killed thousands of US troops and tens of thousands of Iraqi police and civilians.
http://dailynightly.msnbc.com/2006/03/first_this_mess.html
greeted with flowers
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/
cheney on meet the press
http://www.howardlabs.com/11-03/U.S.%20Was%20Warned%20of%20Disorder.htm
nytimes article. you really should read it
the sweets and flowers quote came from Kanan Makiya. He's kind of like Chalabi. You know the guys, the are the ones who told shrub about the wmd. they gave us the intell to go to war with iraq.
" Kanan Makiya personally assured President Bush that Iraqis would greet the troops with sweets and flowers."
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2006/002/9.24.html
lets see, you have no links in your response, well, you have two links, but one of them refutes what you yourself say. the rest of your post is opinion, and you know what they say about opinions... they're like a$$ho#@s and everyone's got one.
You should do your own research and don't listen to rush and fox all the time. there are other opinions and facts out there. It's not good to take any one sourse as the way it is. Besides, there is no true way it is.
byt
Post a Comment