March 19th....9th invasion anniversary Cancel The title field is required!

1. Steven Huffstutler

   

   11 posts
   
   3/19/2012 7:03 AM

   Today is the ninth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, aka the "More Than Twice As Long As World War II" war. As its architects and cheerleaders try to rehabilitate their images by crapping out error-riddled books sprinkled with revisionist fairy dust, let's remember what they and their media enablers really said before and after it all went down.
   
   
   "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof---the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
   ---George W. Bush (10/7/02)
   -
   My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."
   ---Colin Powell, United Nations Speech (2/5/03)
   -
   "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."
   ---Dick Cheney (3/16/03)
   -
   "[T]he area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
   ---Donald Rumsfeld (3/30/03)
   -
   Who said war never solved anything?
   ---Brendan Miniter, Assistant Editor, Wall St. Journal (4/8/03)
   -
   "Each morning, we sat reading our copy of The New York Times, The Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times and ruminated on their prophecies of doom and quagmire. Then we looked up to see, on television, correspondents actually embedded with our troops reporting quick advances, one-sided firefights, melting opposition and, finally, welcoming crowds."
   ---Dick Morris (4/15/03)
   -
   "The only people who think this wasn't a victory are Upper Westside liberals."
   ---Charles Krauthammer (4/19/03)
   -
   TED KOPPEL: [Y]ou're not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is going to be done for $1.7 billion?
   ANDREW NATSIOS [Agency for International Development]: Well, in terms of the American taxpayer's contribution, I do. This is it for the US.
   ---Nightline (4/23/03)
   -
   [Liberals] can't deny that President Bush has won his two wars, and won them resoundingly.
   ---Paul Mirengoff, Powerline (4/26/03

   
   
   
   
2. McCallum David K

   
   3/19/2012 9:03 AM

   All statements that turned out not to be factual. But what politician has ever claimed to be factual. We could easily list a litany of statements by the current CIC and find just as many he made during 2008 and 2009 that also aren't close to being the truth. None of which changes a thing...........from Bush's comments to Obama's.
   
   Lets be happy in hindsight that we are pulling out of wars on two fronts and hopefully save a few more of our nations finest.

   
   
   
   
3. Steven Huffstutler

   

   11 posts
   
   3/19/2012 11:03 AM

   Interesting Dave....can't dispute that we were lied to by all of your guys, so try to paint Obama with the same brush. I see what you're doing there, not very crafty is it?

   
   
   
   
4. McCallum David K

   
   3/19/2012 2:03 PM

   Steve not trying to paint him with any one's brush, mine, yours or Bush's. Obama just has not had a war to lie about yet.........well kinda but I digress. A lie is a lie........be it about what the perceived as weapons of mass destruction or how he was going to single handily change the economic climate in just a matter of months(<48) Obama, not I, made the comment if the economy is not improved by 2012 I don't deserve a second term. Of course now it all about semantics.........what constitutes an improvement in the economy. The real jobless figures have not fell significantly, it seems every month or so there is another bill before Congress to extend yet again jobless benefits...........52 weeks, 99 weeks.....3 years? I guess improvement is in the eye of the beholder.
   Lets be thankful as I said earlier that on this anniversary our assistance in one war has ended and lets hope the other ends before the projected pullout in 2014.........yesterday was too late for me.

   
   
   
   
5. Steven Huffstutler

   

   11 posts
   
   3/19/2012 2:03 PM

   I guess that we will agree that our guys need to be brought home now so that the Afghans can continue thier religious war on one another, eh?
   
   Regards,
   
   Steve

   
   
   
   
6. Clay Putnam

   

   33 posts
   
   3/19/2012 4:03 PM

   Sure we all agree it's time that our troops should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. And I'm sure all those quoted above would like a bit of a do over. So would those below.
   
   
   
   
   [youtube">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUeIrUsApuE[/youtube">

   
   
   
   
7. Steven Huffstutler

   

   11 posts
   
   3/19/2012 5:03 PM

   The guys "below" didn't start the thing, Bush and his cronies will just have to take the credit for that pack o' lies.

   
   
   
   
8. Wahlin Scott B

   
   3/19/2012 5:03 PM

   David McCallum said: Steve not trying to paint him with any one's brush, mine, yours or Bush's. Obama just has not had a war to lie about yet.........well kinda but I digress. A lie is a lie........be it about what the perceived as weapons of mass destruction or how he was going to single handily change the economic climate in just a matter of months(<48) Obama, not I, made the comment if the economy is not improved by 2012 I don't deserve a second term. Of course now it all about semantics.........what constitutes an improvement in the economy. The real jobless figures have not fell significantly, it seems every month or so there is another bill before Congress to extend yet again jobless benefits...........52 weeks, 99 weeks.....3 years? I guess improvement is in the eye of the beholder.
   Lets be thankful as I said earlier that on this anniversary our assistance in one war has ended and lets hope the other ends before the projected pullout in 2014.........yesterday was too late for me.

   
   
   5000 points on the Dow and 23 straight months of job growth. He would have had to turn white to please some folks.

   
   
   
   
9. Dennis Cook

   

   1 posts
   
   3/20/2012 6:03 AM

   Scott Wahlin, CGCS said:

   David McCallum said: Steve not trying to paint him with any one's brush, mine, yours or Bush's. Obama just has not had a war to lie about yet.........well kinda but I digress. A lie is a lie........be it about what the perceived as weapons of mass destruction or how he was going to single handily change the economic climate in just a matter of months(<48) Obama, not I, made the comment if the economy is not improved by 2012 I don't deserve a second term. Of course now it all about semantics.........what constitutes an improvement in the economy. The real jobless figures have not fell significantly, it seems every month or so there is another bill before Congress to extend yet again jobless benefits...........52 weeks, 99 weeks.....3 years? I guess improvement is in the eye of the beholder.
   Lets be thankful as I said earlier that on this anniversary our assistance in one war has ended and lets hope the other ends before the projected pullout in 2014.........yesterday was too late for me.

   
   
   5000 points on the Dow and 23 straight months of job growth. He would have had to turn white to please some folks.

   
   
   Scott,
   The Dow was rocking under Bush. At the end of 2007 it was over 13,000. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EDJI& ... f=2005&g=m
   
   The fact is that the left made up a recession that didnt exist and just constantly battered the Bush administration about the economy when it was actually doing well and the average unemployment for all of Bush's 8 years was 5.3%. Every month in 2007 except December had unemployment in the 4 percentile range. That is considered full employment by most economists. Unemployment did not go above 6% until August of 2008. It actually didnt start to trend upward until the dems took over the senate and started talking about reversing the Bush tax cuts and creating all this uncertainty for business. Then with the auto bailouts and the housing crisis, one caused by union greed and the other by bad policy created by the Carter administration, the bottom fell out. You can see the trend in the unemployment numbers since the dems took over congress in 2007 and then they really spiked when Obama won the election. They went up nearly a full percent from the time of the election to the time he was inaugerated. Every business in the country knew they had a target on their back now that he was in office and controlled both houses. They were laying people off left and right. Now unemployment is over 8% and the only way they can get to that number is by reducing the total number of jobs available so the math works in their favor. The Bush adminstration was charged with many of those lost jobs because it was at the end of his administration, but the fact is since the dems took over the Senate in 2007 they manufactured a recession and made every business feel as though they had to protect their assets.
   
   its really amazing that our country would applaud unemployment below 8% right now. Most people feel like it would be a miracle. I seriously dont think we will get back to unemployment under 5% until the govt stops meddling in the private sector so businesses can have a solid idea of what their futures hold. The other factor holding this country back is that government thinks that all money is theirs and that its some kind of thievery that a company gets to keep some of what is theirs to begin with. You libs call them loopholes in the tax code. Us conservatives call it the tax laws. Companies are allowed to claim their expenses and only pay taxes on their actual profits. Obama and all the libs want to eliminate these so called loopholes because they think the money is rightfully the governments. When in reality, it is not. Without private sector companies making money, the government would have nothing. But you libs sure make a big stink out of corporations getting tax breaks and make it out like the government is paying these companies. You say its costing the taxpayers all these millions of dollars, when in reality it doesnt cost the tax payer nothing, because the govt is not writing a check to these people. These companies are just allowed to keep more of what is theirs in the first place. It should be reported that by getting rid of these loopholes its going to cost the private sector billions of dollars, which means its going to reduce companies ability to hire employees.
   
   if the govt could live within its means we wouldnt have people demonizing all these corporations. The way the libs put it, since the govt cant live within its means, its the fault of the evil corporations who do not allow the govt to steal more of their money.

   
   
   
   
10. McCallum David K

    
    3/20/2012 6:03 AM

    Steve do you suggest we keep troops in Afghanistan to help the various tribes fight their religious wars? Simply asking a question as I thought most Americans feel it's time to come home. Now if its an arguement about who got us into this mess , thats another story. We can all stand around in knee deep $%&# and point fingers at who opened the value or we can say "lets clean it up". I thought the point of your comment was simply to remind everyone it was the anniversary of the war.......not who started it or whose fault it is (was)........if that was not your point then perhaps it should have been posted in Politics.
    
    Thanks Scott........as you once again have to bring the r word into any conversation about Obama.........sure we can find that reference in dozens of your post if anyone really cared or had the time to waste looking. I stand by my statement as I am sure Steve does his..........an improvement in the economy is in the eye of the beholder. The fact that the Dow is up 5000 points is totally to irrelevant to the state of the economy for most of the populace. You and I may have a significant play in the market, the guy without a job or on food stamps could give a crap less.............it ain't changed his day to day exsistence one bit.
    
    And we wonder why nothing gets done in Congress........we are in the same boat as them......we find little common ground...........hell even bringing home the troops is not a given apparently.

    
    
    
    
11. Larry Allan

    

    0 posts
    
    3/20/2012 6:03 AM

    Steve was just politely pointing out that there was a lot of lying and manipulation going on during the Bush years. I think that is a fair statement backed by the facts.

    
    
    
    
12. Keith Lamb

    

    3 posts
    
    3/20/2012 7:03 AM

    Larry Allan said: Steve was just politely pointing out that there was a lot of lying and manipulation going on during the Bush years. I think that is a fair statement backed by the facts.

    
    
    Not to mention the lying and manipulation of the housing market and mortgage backed securities during Bush that we are now trying to recover from.

    
    
    
    
13. McCallum David K

    
    3/20/2012 2:03 PM

    Again I never said or insinuated that lies where not told.... sure Dubya didn't do the intelligence work himself....others provided the info that he stood in front of a mic and passed on to the American public. A deliberate lie.....hmm maybe ......bad intel and bad decision making much more likely. Find a politician not lying and he's either out of office or dead. I guess we prefer to stand knee deep in the $#@& and argue over it. If I were not polite to Steve let me apologize.......I thought I merely responded with my thoughts on his comment. Did not know the thread had moved on to the housing market and banking crisis.

    
    
    
    
14. Jon Gansen

    

    1 posts
    
    3/21/2012 7:03 AM

    Keith Lamb said:

    Larry Allan said: Steve was just politely pointing out that there was a lot of lying and manipulation going on during the Bush years. I think that is a fair statement backed by the facts.

    
    
    Not to mention the lying and manipulation of the housing market and mortgage backed securities during Bush that we are now trying to recover from.

    
    
    I dont diagree that Bush to pushed people who couldnt afford a home to make it easier to buy one. When Bush tried to look into new regulations on fannie may and freddie mac he was blocked by Dodd and Barney Frank.

    
    
    
    
15. Steven Kurta

    

    2 posts
    
    3/22/2012 5:03 PM

    ,

    
    
    
    
16. Scott Sewell

    

    0 posts
    
    3/22/2012 6:03 PM

    Is it out of the realm of possibility that our intelligence were fed false information by Saddam himself(through informants)? The threats that he had weapons kept his ego up and kept the countries around Iraq away. Saddam might have never bargained for the invasion though. Just a thought.
    
    Scott Sewell, CGCS

    
    
    
    
17. Keith Lamb

    

    3 posts
    
    3/22/2012 7:03 PM

    Steven Kurta said: ,[img">http://i520.photobucket.com/albums/w327/alohakane123/DX4S.jpg[/img">

    
    
    [img">http://i520.photobucket.com/albums/w327/alohakane123/facebook_like_button_big1.jpg[/img">

    
    
    
    
18. Dennis Cook

    

    1 posts
    
    3/23/2012 5:03 AM

    Steven Kurta said: ,

    
    
    This thing says we are all equal, then why not a flat tax? So everyone pays their fair share

    
    
    
    
19. James Schmid

    

    1 posts
    
    3/23/2012 7:03 AM

    Scott Sewell, CGCS said: Is it out of the realm of possibility that our intelligence were fed false information by Saddam himself(through informants)? The threats that he had weapons kept his ego up and kept the countries around Iraq away. Saddam might have never bargained for the invasion though. Just a thought.
    
    Scott Sewell, CGCS

    
    
    Really? He never would have imagined that we would invade his country? Even though we already did it just a few years earlier?

    
    
    
    
20. Joshua Hicks

    

    0 posts
    
    3/23/2012 1:03 PM

    And we wonder why everything is in the state it is in. Even in this close knit group of pretty like minded individuals we still throw who was right and wrong out there. My side vs your side. Black vs white. Democrat vs republican. My way or your way. Isn't time to veer away from this type of system. Are there really only two sides (opinions) to everything. Just my thoughts but it seems like if we insist that we keep going down this same road of pointing fingers and passing blame then we are destined to stay in the same rut no matter who is in the Presidential office!

    
    
    
    
21. Melvin Waldron

    

    43 posts
    
    3/23/2012 1:03 PM

    Nice Kurta.....Joshua, certainly agree with you on that. Dennis I can agree with you on that if it is enough to finance the country without putting people in really financial straights, the fair tax at times sounds good, but depending how it is written. James, while you are might be correct about what Saddam was thinking, but we invaded Kuwait in the first gulf war to push Saddam back to his country, he might have been gambling that we wouldn't invade a sovereign nation itself.
    
    Mel

    
    Melvin H. Waldron III, CGCS, Horton Smith Golf Course, City of Springfield/Greene County MO
    
    
22. James Schmid

    

    1 posts
    
    3/23/2012 1:03 PM

    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: Nice Kurta.....Joshua, certainly agree with you on that. Dennis I can agree with you on that if it is enough to finance the country without putting people in really financial straights, the fair tax at times sounds good, but depending how it is written. James, while you are might be correct about what Saddam was thinking, but we invaded Kuwait in the first gulf war to push Saddam back to his country, he might have been gambling that we wouldn't invade a sovereign nation itself.
    
    Mel

    
    
    I was pretty young at the time but I was pretty sure that our troops did invade iraq after we went through Kuwait

    
    
    
    
23. Stephen Okula

    

    3 posts
    
    3/23/2012 5:03 PM

    James Schmid said:

    Melvin Waldron, CGCS said: Nice Kurta.....Joshua, certainly agree with you on that. Dennis I can agree with you on that if it is enough to finance the country without putting people in really financial straights, the fair tax at times sounds good, but depending how it is written. James, while you are might be correct about what Saddam was thinking, but we invaded Kuwait in the first gulf war to push Saddam back to his country, he might have been gambling that we wouldn't invade a sovereign nation itself.
    
    Mel

    
    
    I was pretty young at the time but I was pretty sure that our troops did invade iraq after we went through Kuwait

    
    
    In point of history, American and coalition troops did not enter Iraq during the First Gulf War.
    
    Edit: That is inaccurate, some coalition special forces did operate reconnaissance patrols in Iraq during the FGW, and of course air forces were all over it. But regular ground troops did not invade.

    
    
    
    
24. Steven Kurta

    

    2 posts
    
    3/23/2012 5:03 PM

    Bush I -- Iraq invades Kuwait, US chases them back into Iraq with the Iraqi army salting the earth as they went with oil derrick destruction..
    [youtube">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOkWEN6kfy4[/youtube">
    
    Conventional wisdom as to why US got involved: Saudi's got nervous, Bush family and Saudi Royal family are tight.
    
    Bush II -- Iraq drags feet on UN weapons inspection mandate(Resolution 1441), US uses (allegedly) intentionally false (see the CIA, Joe Wilson and yellow cake http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_uranium_forgeries) intel to bolster their case for invasion. US invades Iraq.
    Reasoning: suspected biological/nuclear/chemical weapons production and stockpiling and secondarily to stop Al-Qaeda from gaining a foothold.
    - Number of post-1991 functional nuclear/chemical/biological weapons and weapon making facilities found = zero
    - Amount of evidence tying Iraq to Al-Quaeda operations = none
    
    Conventional wisdom as to why US got involved: Dunno. Looking at who benefits from war is best way to figure out who was invested in it happening before it started -- uncomfortable questions as to what we were really doing there pop up when you start digging especially surrounding cheney/rumsfeld.
    
    This is mostly off the top of my head. I think I'm close, but likely have some of it wrong.
    I'm not THAT old...not as old as Huffstutler anyway. That guy is older than dirt. But I hear he's in the shape of a nineteen year old.

    
    
    
    
25. Keith Lamb

    

    3 posts
    
    3/23/2012 5:03 PM

    Steven Kurta said: .....I'm not THAT old...not as old as Huffstutler anyway. That guy is older than dirt. But I hear he's in the shape of a nineteen year old.

    
    
    
    Nineteen year old what? Several things come to mind.

    
    
    
    
26. Steven Kurta

    

    2 posts
    
    3/23/2012 6:03 PM

    Keith Lamb said:
    
    
    Nineteen year old what? Several things come to mind.

    
    
    
    Yeah see that's the problem. I was trying to figure it out too.
    I'm going with "shoe" or "used thong "

    
    
    
    
27. Keith Lamb

    

    3 posts
    
    3/23/2012 7:03 PM

    Steven Kurta said:

    Keith Lamb said:
    
    
    Nineteen year old what? Several things come to mind.

    
    
    
    Yeah see that's the problem. I was trying to figure it out too.
    I'm going with "shoe" or "used thong "

    
    
    
    I was thinking straight jacket or Yugo, but you know him better than I.

    
    
    
    
28. Steve Nelson

    

    0 posts
    
    3/26/2012 7:03 AM

    Mel
    
    I was pretty young at the time but I was pretty sure that our troops did invade iraq after we went through Kuwait
    
    In point of history, American and coalition troops did not enter Iraq during the First Gulf War.
    
    Edit: That is inaccurate, some coalition special forces did operate reconnaissance patrols in Iraq during the FGW, and of course air forces were all over it. But regular ground troops did not invade.
    
    Sorry Steve, but Mel is correct. Coalition forces swept through the southern Iraq desert in force in what was referred to as the 'left hook' movement, cutting off the retreat of the Republican Guard. French, British, and American armored divisions participated and they went fairly far north before turning east to cut them off.
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DesertStormMap_v2.svg

    
    
    
    
29. Stephen Okula

    

    3 posts
    
    3/26/2012 9:03 AM

    I stand corrected.

    
    
    
    
30. Steve Nelson

    

    0 posts
    
    3/26/2012 10:03 AM

    Stephen Okula, CGCS said: I stand corrected.

    
    
    Most people don't remember Steve. Schwarzkopf had a brilliant plan, including a feigned marine landing complete with Mighty Mo blazing away, while the armored divisions raced into Iraq largely unnoticed. After we completely slaughtered them, to the point that it shocked some people and drew criticism for its brutality, we simply left. Imagine that, win the war and leave (other than an internationally enforced no fly zone for a while). No regime change, no nation building, no decade of quagmire. Leave the fascist tyrant in place to stem islamic fundamentalists. Bush Sr. smarter than Bush Jr.