Knowing what we know now, would Obama and Hillary have still abandoned Iraq like they did?

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

That is arguable. Saddam Hussein committed the first aggression when he invaded Kuwait in Aug. 1990. After we evicted him from Kuwait in Operation Desert Storm, he spent the next 12 years (1991-2003) shooting SAMs at our pilots enforcing the no-fly zone that he had agreed to and thumbing his nose at his other obligations including a dozen UN resolutions. Even before 9/11, our military was getting fed up with this act and the need for us to keep a significant and costly presence in the region to keep Saddam bottled up. It annoys me how today's critics of our 2003 Iraq invasion deliberately overlook the fact that an overwhelming consensus of US policy-makers and politicians on both sides of the aisle believed Bush Sr. made a big blunder when he didn't get rid of Saddam back in 1991 and stopped the ground war after 100 hours.

See, you're doing it again. We're talking about 2003, try and stay with us. It annoys you does it? That politicians believe Daddy Bush made a mistake by not going full tilt? What in the name of Zeus' butthole does that have to do with being against the invasion in 2003? You would love to rewrite history, I know, but Daddy Bush DIDN'T get rid of Saddam. Good thing for little Shrub that he didn't. He got to use Saddam as a scapegoat for his invasion plans 12 years later. A costly presence in the region to keep Saddam bottled up? Are you fucking shitting me? We are going to end up spending over $6 TRILLION dollars after we finish paying off this fucking war. I guarantee that a few flyovers a day could have continued in perpetuity for a lot less than that.

Thumbing your nose doesn't buy you a full-fledged invasion. No, we had to lie and make up shit about yellow cake and nuclear ambitions. 20/20 hindsight is a funny thing. Yeah, maybe we should've gotten rid of Saddam in 1990, but we didn't. Maybe if your dad could go back, he'd have sprung for the more expensive condom. Either way, we'll never know.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

See, you're doing it again. We're talking about 2003, try and stay with us. It annoys you does it? That politicians believe Daddy Bush made a mistake by not going full tilt? What in the name of Zeus' butthole does that have to do with being against the invasion in 2003? You would love to rewrite history, I know, but Daddy Bush DIDN'T get rid of Saddam. Good thing for little Shrub that he didn't. He got to use Saddam as a scapegoat for his invasion plans 12 years later. A costly presence in the region to keep Saddam bottled up? Are you fucking shitting me? We are going to end up spending over $6 TRILLION dollars after we finish paying off this fucking war. I guarantee that a few flyovers a day could have continued in perpetuity for a lot less than that.

Thumbing your nose doesn't buy you a full-fledged invasion. No, we had to lie and make up shit about yellow cake and nuclear ambitions. 20/20 hindsight is a funny thing. Yeah, maybe we should've gotten rid of Saddam in 1990, but we didn't. Maybe if your dad could go back, he'd have sprung for the more expensive condom. Either way, we'll never know.

Go FUCK YOURSELF on this Memorial Day, you disgusting piece of shit. I hope your faggoty ass gets beaten with chains by biker vets today. What truly sickens me is how partisan gutter snipers like you have no shame about trying to score political points on the backs of our dead and wounded soldiers while you piously pretend to support the troops. Of course, we know you don't like to be reminded about how stupid the libtard Democrats have looked on every important war vote over the past 30 years. Makes you squirm, doesn't it? Let's recap the history, shall we?

First, Democrats voted overwhelmingly against the 1990/91 Persian Gulf War. Ooops! That one turned out well, making them look stupid and unpatriotic. To compensate for this mistake, they voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which called for Saddam's ouster and was signed into law by your pal Bubba. When Bush Jr. decided to follow through and actually make it happen, many Dems (including a majority of Senators) voted in favor of the 2003 invasion. Ooops! Then when that started to go sour, they wanted to cut and run so they came out against the 2007 surge – just in time to see it succeed in pacifying Iraq. Ooops! Then soon after Odumbo got elected, they tried to take credit for ushering in a “stable” and “representative” Iraq - with Biden calling it “one of the great accomplishments of this administration” - while stupidly failing to leave any troops behind to keep it that way. Ooops!

So the Dems have consistently gotten it wrong on Iraq. And they have been wrong in a flip-flopping way that makes it obvious they view our military servicemen and women as cynical pawns whose sacrifices in lives and limbs are secondary to their political ambitions. Democrats have amply demonstrated they cannot be trusted with the nation's foreign policy or security. They have no guiding principles beyond political expediency and doing what the polls say will help them get elected.


“....Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary.... The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.”

- Bob Gates in “Duty”


.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

"Weak" intelligence does not constitute a lie, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

It seems to with Hillary and Obama regarding Benghazi.

Which is my point...we give some politicians passes and others we f o not...depending on our political slant it seems.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

All or nothing!

No...i quoted wtf i believe in. Our common ground if you will. Nothing more.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

on both sides of the aisle believed Bush Sr. made a big blunder when he didn't get rid of Saddam back in 1991 and stopped the ground war after 100 hours.

Turns out he didn't.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by andymarksman

Unlike the invasion of Iraq in 2003, we were not the aggressor in Korea. Agreed?

Unlike the invasion of Korea in 1950, and to bring about a momentary cease-fire in a war, Iraq had signed an armistice with the U.S. and other allies which included stipulated, binding clauses that Saddam constantly violated and ignored and served as the basis for renewed hostilities against Iraq.

Originally Posted by lustylad

That is arguable. Saddam Hussein committed the first aggression when he invaded Kuwait in Aug. 1990. After we evicted him from Kuwait in Operation Desert Storm, he spent the next 12 years (1991-2003) shooting SAMs at our pilots enforcing the no-fly zone that he had agreed to and thumbing his nose at his other obligations including a dozen UN resolutions. Even before 9/11, our military was getting fed up with this act and the need for us to keep a significant and costly presence in the region to keep Saddam bottled up. It annoys me how today's critics of our 2003 Iraq invasion deliberately overlook the fact that an overwhelming consensus of US policy-makers and politicians on both sides of the aisle believed Bush Sr. made a big blunder when he didn't get rid of Saddam back in 1991 and stopped the ground war after 100 hours.

+1

Originally Posted by WTF

It seems to with Hillary and Obama regarding Benghazi.

Which is my point...we give some politicians passes and others we f o not...depending on our political slant it seems.

Actually, the intelligence in regards to Benghazi was good and accurate, e.g., it's what predicated the Brits withdrawing their consular personnel from Benghazi. Meanwhile, Hildabeast violated her position of trust and chose to ignore the intelligence and failed to provide proper security. That led to the deaths of the ambassador and Smith.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

See, you're doing it again. We're talking about 2003, try and stay with us. It annoys you does it? That politicians believe Daddy Bush made a mistake by not going full tilt? What in the name of Zeus' butthole does that have to do with being against the invasion in 2003? You would love to rewrite history, I know, but Daddy Bush DIDN'T get rid of Saddam. Good thing for little Shrub that he didn't. He got to use Saddam as a scapegoat for his invasion plans 12 years later. A costly presence in the region to keep Saddam bottled up? Are you fucking shitting me? We are going to end up spending over $6 TRILLION dollars after we finish paying off this fucking war. I guarantee that a few flyovers a day could have continued in perpetuity for a lot less than that.

Thumbing your nose doesn't buy you a full-fledged invasion. No, we had to lie and make up shit about yellow cake and nuclear ambitions. 20/20 hindsight is a funny thing. Yeah, maybe we should've gotten rid of Saddam in 1990, but we didn't. Maybe if your dad could go back, he'd have sprung for the more expensive condom. Either way, we'll never know.

Actually Dipshit of the Year nominee, we are talking about NOW and the future. It is my thread after all. If you failed to understand that we have left 2003 behind then you're a moron. So don't go around throwing around shit that you can't catch yourself. If you truly believe that Iraq is going to cost us 6 trillion dollars then most of that (5 trillion) is on Obama.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Actually, the intelligence in regards to Benghazi was good and accurate, e.g., it's what predicated the Brits withdrawing their consular personnel from Benghazi. Meanwhile, Hildabeast violated her position of trust and chose to ignore the intelligence and failed to provide proper security. That led to the deaths of the ambassador and Smith.

Please provide a link to that IB. I'm not, not believing you but I can not find confirmation. I seem to recall having read that they had pulled out a full year before...Here . I found this:

http://www.factandmyth.com/benghazi/...acts-and-myths
In retrospect it appears pretty obvious that more could have been done to address the thin security at the Benghazi embassy. The SSCI report lists a number of a warnings in regards to a build up in Libya (including Benghazi) and does implicate the State Department as not being more proactive (though it adds caveats):
Despite the clearly deteriorating security situation in Benghazi and requests for additional security resources, few significant improvements were made by the State Department to the security posture of the Temporary Mission Facility. Although the Mission facility met the minimum personnel requirements ~or Diplomatic Security agents as accepted by the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli at the time of the August 15 EAC meeting (specifically, the three Diplomatic Security agents were assigned to guard the Mission compound), the Committee found no evidence that significant actions were taken by the State Department between August 15, 2012, and September 11, 2012, to increase security at the Mission facility in response to the concerns raised in that meeting. 65
According to the report of the ARB, “there appeared to be very real confusion over who, ultimately, was responsible and empowered to make decisions based on both policy and security concerns” at the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, and the Mission facility in Benghazi.
Additionally, the uncertain future of the Mission facility, due to its one-year expiration in December 2012, contributed to a lack of continuity for security staff and constrained decision-makers in Washington regarding the allocation of security enhancements to that facility. 68
When reviewing these events, it’s easy to imagine how “obviously” foreseeable this all must have been. In reality however, Banghazi was only one of nearly 300 areas of concern. In the six months leading to September 11th, 2001, there were 281 threats to diplomats, embassies, diplomatic facilities, consulates, etc worldwide.
Furthermore, the ARB report pointed out that certain security upgrades were implemented (even if they were insufficient in retrospect).

[WTF]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Actually Dipshit of the Year nominee, we are talking about NOW and the future. It is my thread after all. If you failed to understand that we have left 2003 behind then you're a moron. So don't go around throwing around shit that you can't catch yourself. If you truly believe that Iraq is going to cost us 6 trillion dollars then most of that (5 trillion) is on Obama.

You are lying yet again JB. Read the link below and try and educate yourself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...a60_story.html

The U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq will cost taxpayers $4 trillion to $6 trillion, taking into account the medical care of wounded veterans and expensive repairs to a force depleted by more than a decade of fighting, according to a new study by a Harvard researcher.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Go FUCK YOURSELF on this Memorial Day, you disgusting piece of shit. I hope your faggoty ass gets beaten with chains by biker vets today. What truly sickens me is how partisan gutter snipers like you have no shame about trying to score political points on the backs of our dead and wounded soldiers while you piously pretend to support the troops. Of course, we know you don't like to be reminded about how stupid the libtard Democrats have looked on every important war vote over the past 30 years. Makes you squirm, doesn't it? Let's recap the history, shall we?

First, Democrats voted overwhelmingly against the 1990/91 Persian Gulf War. Ooops! That one turned out well, making them look stupid and unpatriotic. To compensate for this mistake, they voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which called for Saddam's ouster and was signed into law by your pal Bubba. When Bush Jr. decided to follow through and actually make it happen, many Dems (including a majority of Senators) voted in favor of the 2003 invasion. Ooops! Then when that started to go sour, they wanted to cut and run so they came out against the 2007 surge – just in time to see it succeed in pacifying Iraq. Ooops! Then soon after Odumbo got elected, they tried to take credit for ushering in a “stable” and “representative” Iraq - with Biden calling it “one of the great accomplishments of this administration” - while stupidly failing to leave any troops behind to keep it that way. Ooops!

So the Dems have consistently gotten it wrong on Iraq. And they have been wrong in a flip-flopping way that makes it obvious they view our military servicemen and women as cynical pawns whose sacrifices in lives and limbs are secondary to their political ambitions. Democrats have amply demonstrated they cannot be trusted with the nation's foreign policy or security. They have no guiding principles beyond political expediency and doing what the polls say will help them get elected.


“....Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary.... The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying.”

- Bob Gates in “Duty”


.

You're doing it again. You cannot stay on task. We are not talking about the past, but that's the only thing you know how to do. You continue to try and move the target of what we're discussing. We are talking about the invasion of Iraq in 2003. You're hopelessly hung up on republican and democrat.

The military as pawns? Like Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld used them as their personal lackeys to secure the Iraqi oil? Don't fucking talk to me about using soldiers as pawns you disingenuous cunt.

At some point, Iraq has to take responsibility for its own direction and success. I thought republicans were the party of personal responsibility? Unless it's their own responsibility we're talking about, right?

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Actually Dipshit of the Year nominee, we are talking about NOW and the future. It is my thread after all. If you failed to understand that we have left 2003 behind then you're a moron. So don't go around throwing around shit that you can't catch yourself. If you truly believe that Iraq is going to cost us 6 trillion dollars then most of that (5 trillion) is on Obama.

No, it's not. Goddamn, you're just about as dumb as they cum. What do you mean 'if I believe'? We borrowed the goddamn money, idiot. We have to pay it back.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by WTF

Please provide a link to that IB. I'm not, not believing you but I can not find confirmation. I seem to recall having read that they had pulled out a full year before...Here . I found this:

http://www.factandmyth.com/benghazi/...acts-and-myths
In retrospect it appears pretty obvious that more could have been done to address the thin security at the Benghazi embassy. The SSCI report lists a number of a warnings in regards to a build up in Libya (including Benghazi) and does implicate the State Department as not being more proactive (though it adds caveats):
Despite the clearly deteriorating security situation in Benghazi and requests for additional security resources, few significant improvements were made by the State Department to the security posture of the Temporary Mission Facility. Although the Mission facility met the minimum personnel requirements ~or Diplomatic Security agents as accepted by the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli at the time of the August 15 EAC meeting (specifically, the three Diplomatic Security agents were assigned to guard the Mission compound), the Committee found no evidence that significant actions were taken by the State Department between August 15, 2012, and September 11, 2012, to increase security at the Mission facility in response to the concerns raised in that meeting. 65
According to the report of the ARB, “there appeared to be very real confusion over who, ultimately, was responsible and empowered to make decisions based on both policy and security concerns” at the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, and the Mission facility in Benghazi.
Additionally, the uncertain future of the Mission facility, due to its one-year expiration in December 2012, contributed to a lack of continuity for security staff and constrained decision-makers in Washington regarding the allocation of security enhancements to that facility. 68
When reviewing these events, it’s easy to imagine how “obviously” foreseeable this all must have been. In reality however, Banghazi was only one of nearly 300 areas of concern. In the six months leading to September 11th, 2001, there were 281 threats to diplomats, embassies, diplomatic facilities, consulates, etc worldwide.
Furthermore, the ARB report pointed out that certain security upgrades were implemented (even if they were insufficient in retrospect).

He's full of shit as usual. Why do you think he keeps up with the grubergoober shit, post after motherfucking post. Because he has nothing else. It's a smokescreen for his stupidity. They thought it was because of the mohammed movie because that is what they were being told on the ground in Libya by the people there. He gives Bush a pass on Iraq, when the intelligence was cooked, but Obama gets no such treatment.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

Please provide a link to that IB. I'm not, not believing you but I can not find confirmation. I seem to recall having read that they had pulled out a full year before...Here . I found this:

http://www.factandmyth.com/benghazi/...acts-and-myths
In retrospect it appears pretty obvious that more could have been done to address the thin security at the Benghazi embassy. The SSCI report lists a number of a warnings in regards to a build up in Libya (including Benghazi) and does implicate the State Department as not being more proactive (though it adds caveats):
Despite the clearly deteriorating security situation in Benghazi and requests for additional security resources, few significant improvements were made by the State Department to the security posture of the Temporary Mission Facility. Although the Mission facility met the minimum personnel requirements ~or Diplomatic Security agents as accepted by the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli at the time of the August 15 EAC meeting (specifically, the three Diplomatic Security agents were assigned to guard the Mission compound), the Committee found no evidence that significant actions were taken by the State Department between August 15, 2012, and September 11, 2012, to increase security at the Mission facility in response to the concerns raised in that meeting. 65
According to the report of the ARB, “there appeared to be very real confusion over who, ultimately, was responsible and empowered to make decisions based on both policy and security concerns” at the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, and the Mission facility in Benghazi.
Additionally, the uncertain future of the Mission facility, due to its one-year expiration in December 2012, contributed to a lack of continuity for security staff and constrained decision-makers in Washington regarding the allocation of security enhancements to that facility. 68
When reviewing these events, it’s easy to imagine how “obviously” foreseeable this all must have been. In reality however, Banghazi was only one of nearly 300 areas of concern. In the six months leading to September 11th, 2001, there were 281 threats to diplomats, embassies, diplomatic facilities, consulates, etc worldwide.
Furthermore, the ARB report pointed out that certain security upgrades were implemented (even if they were insufficient in retrospect).

Certainly what occurred in Libya was a boon to al Qaeda all across North Africa and deep in the Sahel, which includes parts of Mauritania, Mali, and Niger. The fledgling government that replaced Qadhafi’s lacked even a rudimentary ability to govern and militias with various ideologies reigned in large parts of the country.

Because of this lack of governance, during the spring and summer of 2012, the security situation across Libya, deteriorated. CIA analysts accurately captured this situation, writing scores of intelligence pieces describing in detail how the situation in Libya was becoming more and more dangerous. One of them from July was titled Libya: Al Qaeda Establishing Sanctuary. These pieces were shared broadly across the executive branch and with the members and staff of the intelligence committees in Congress.

With the anniversary of 9/11 on the horizon and the security situation throughout much of the Arab world in flux, in early September 2012 the CIA had sent out to all its stations and bases worldwide a cable warning about possible attacks. There was not any particular intelligence regarding planned attacks; we routinely sent such cables each year on the anniversary of 9/11—but we did want our people and their US government colleagues to be extra vigilant.
(Politico)

Whereas the CIA and U.S. military bases took added precautions on the anniversary of 9/11, Hildabeast directed Stevens to an outpost that didn't even meet minimum standards for security on the anniversary of 9/11, as you noted in the ARB report. Further, the Brits and the Red Cross closed up and left in June:

Jihadists twice set off explosives at the consulate prior to the incident that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, and announced threats on Facebook about escalating attacks on Western targets in the run-up to the 9/11 anniversary....

Security deteriorated significantly in June. On June 10, a man fired a rocket-propelled grenade in broad daylight into a convoy carrying the British ambassador to Libya. Later that month, the Red Cross was attacked again. By the end of June, the British Consulate and the Red Cross closed their facilities in Benghazi. By the start of July, the U.S. Consulate was one of the only Western targets left in the city. (Source)

Libya: We gave U.S. three-day warning of Benghazi attack

American diplomats were warned of possible violent unrest in Benghazi three days before the killings of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three members of his team, Libyan security officials say.

The claim came as the country's interim President, Mohammed el-Megarif, said his government had information that the attack on the US consulate had been planned by an Islamist group with links to al-Qa'ida and with foreigners taking part. (Source)

Originally Posted by WombRaider

He's full of shit as usual. Why do you think he keeps up with the grubergoober shit, post after motherfucking post. Because he has nothing else. It's a smokescreen for his stupidity. They thought it was because of the mohammed movie because that is what they were being told on the ground in Libya by the people there. He gives Bush a pass on Iraq, when the intelligence was cooked, but Obama gets no such treatment.

It was Odumbo's naive, unilateral foreign policy of appeasement -- a "lesser security profile" so as not to irritate the Mussulman -- and Hildabeast's ego that killed Stevens and Smith, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Whereas the CIA and U.S. military bases took added precautions on the anniversary of 9/11, Hildabeast directed Stevens to an outpost that didn't even meet minimum standards for security on the anniversary of 9/11, as you noted in the ARB report. Further, the Brits and the Red Cross closed up and left in June:









It was Odumbo's naive, unilateral foreign policy of appeasement -- a "lesser security profile" so as not to irritate the Mussulman -- and Hildabeast's ego that killed Stevens and Smith, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

No, it wasn't. Stevens turned down additional security. They were due to turn over the outpost to the Libyans two days after the attack. Clinton did not order him to go there. You're lying again.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

No, it wasn't. Stevens turned down additional security. They were due to turn over the outpost to the Libyans two days after the attack. Clinton did not order him to go there. You're lying again.

You're a lying jackass, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Hicks testified that Hildabeast directed Stevens to go to Benghazi, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. And Stevens was directed to not ask for additional security, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

Because Mr. [State Department Undersecretary Patrick] Kennedy had refused to extend the special forces security mission, State Department protocol required Chris [Stevens] to decline Gen. Ham's two offers to do so, which were made after Aug. 6. (WSJ)

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb "told the top security officer at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, the Libyan capital, not to bother asking for additional help when the military team was sent home." (WaPo)