Rand Corporation Report Says the Iraq War Was Shrubbie's Biggest Blunder

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I wouldn't use WTF in the "picture," because he would do a "cost analysis' .

We are 18 TRILLION dollar in debt. At what point do you think doing a cost analysis is prudent?

Jesus Christ man you sound like a loony liberal that never looks at long term cost. You think this debt will not gome back yo bite us in the ass.


.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by bigtex

By the same token, consider the following:

And not once - before the war resumed -- did Blix ever state that he was absolutely, 100% sure Saddam did have WMD, during the Spring of 2003.

Duh!

Ok, let's simplify this for the simple minded, shall we?

Blix was sent into Iraq to resume the Weapons Inspections. He arrived with no pre-conceived notion that there were or were not WMD's in Iraq, during the days, weeks and months leading up to the ill fated and ill advised Spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Blix and the Inspectors performed over 700 inspections and only found 3 instances of a possible WMD violation. Blix clearly stated he needed more time to determine whether there were, in fact, WMD's in Iraq, at the time. Before he could make that final and conclusive determination, Blix and crew were sent packing without being able to ACCOMPLISH their MISSION.

Oops, Huge mistake on Shrubbie's part!

For more, read the entire story here:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r.../18_blix.shtml

Your simple minded post is a 'token' of true intellectual dishonesty. Your absence of proof is not proof of anything. That's why Blix never emphatically stated as much.

Saddam's generals said Saddam had WMD. Iraq's regional neighbors said Saddam had WMD. HUMINT sources for the U.S. said that Saddam had WMD.

Without your 20/20 hindsight you couldn't possibly prove that Saddam wasn't really good at hiding what was going on. That's exactly the conclusion reached by both the WMD Commission and the Butler report, wherein both summarized that the intelligence community was correct in suggesting that Saddam was probably seeking to re-arm his military forces with WMD (a fact Saddam admitted to). The conclusion in those two reports is, in part, based on these known facts: 1) Saddam had had WMD in the past. 2) Saddam had strong incentives to reconstitute his arsenal. 3) He had the money to refinance such a reconstitution. 4) He had trained, competent technicians who could reconstitute his stockpile of WMDs. 5) He had the necessary materiel on hand to proceed with such a reconstitution. 6) He repeatedly stalled and deceived the inspectors—which begged the question—“What is he hiding?” There was only one way to "prove" Saddam didn't have WMD, and that's the option Bush chose.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Jackie, I have never disputed the fact that Saddam was a pain in the ass thug. But during the spring of 2003, our dispute was with al Qaeda, not Iraq. Saddam had nothing, whatsoever to do with 9/11, al Qaeda did. Shrubbie's lost focus upon the true perpetrator's of 9/11 and we senlessly lost 4500+ American lives because of it.

But BT, being a President who listened to a Democratic run Congress and a vote of 296-133 then President Bush said:

"The House of Representatives has spoken clearly to the world and to the United Nations Security Council: the gathering threat of Iraq must be confronted fully and finally," said President Bush, after telephoning House leaders to thank them for the vote".

I suppose some on the left would like to think that President Bush would do as our current president does, and just take Executive Action, he might have made some wrong decisions as any human being does, but due to the love of his country, he ran his administration as the founding fathers wished, that is, by the laws that govern this nation, that is to say, the Constitution, not how he damn well wanted to run things.

[i'va biggen]

Bigtex you and the Rand Co will not win this chicken dick is a expert on blunders he does it daily, plus he has a backup in Cherie.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Bigtex you and the Rand Co will not win this chicken dick is a expert on blunders he does it daily, plus he has a backup in Cherie.

They should get their own Reality Show.

The name of the show would be appropriately titled The House of Idiot's!

It should be a laugh a minute!

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Bigtex you and the Rand Co will not win this chicken dick is a expert on blunders he does it daily, plus he has a backup in Cherie.

When someone makes a point and you are too stupid to offer a counter-argument - and too lazy even to find and quote a counter-argument from the Rand study you posted without reading it - yes little eva, then you can't win.

Originally Posted by bigtex

They should get their own Reality Show.
The name of the show would be appropriately titled The House of Idiot's!

But hey, at least you can vent your frustration at your lack of argumentative skills and your inability to persuade others by calling them idiots! You clowns couldn't debate your way out of a brown paper bag!

.

[Jackie S]

If ISIS over runs all of Iraq, and sets up their idea of utopia on earth, do you think ole Saddam will look up from what ever hell he is in and say......."miss me yet"

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by lustylad

When someone makes a point and you are too stupid to offer a counter-argument - and too lazy even to find and quote a counter-argument from the Rand study you posted without reading it - yes little eva, then you can't win.




But hey, at least you can vent your frustration at your lack of argumentative skills and your inability to persuade others by calling them idiots! You clowns couldn't debate your way out of a brown paper bag!

.

Look green slime named lusty lass crawled from under his rock.Was anyone talking to it?

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

... you all are smarter than Bush, Congress, the U.N., and the rest of the civilized world ... WHEN THE DECISION WAS MADE.

That's a pretty low bar to set.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by WTF

We are 18 TRILLION dollar in debt.

When do you?

How much of the $8 Trillion added by Obaminable went to the military?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

That's a pretty low bar to set.

I didn't set it. But I didn't ignore it either, and still don't.

The current excuse for a President ignores his intelligence and military advisors, and relies on ....



and



and

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I didn't set it. But I didn't ignore it either, and still don't.

The current excuse for a President ignores his intelligence and military advisors, and relies on ....



and



and

Moe, Larry, and Curly here are about as naive and stupid as one can be when it comes to the realities of dealing with Muslim Extremist.

A couple of days ago, some reporters caught Bill Clinton at some fund raiser, nd asked him about Hillary being President.

I honestly believe that what ever sliver of Statesmanship is left in President Clinton compelled him to almost say, "no Fukin' way".

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

When do you?

How much of the $8 Trillion added by Obaminable went to the military?

How much of that 8 TRILLION was due to low tax receipts left over from the 2008 meltdown.

But you once again are changing the subject.

By you standards we should not have to do a cost analysis to protect our citizens. One would assume you use that same standard on making sure our citizens are not only safe but healthy...Obamacare.