GW's last days comic strip

[480sx]

Heres a quote from Time mag, the one with BO plastered on the cover. The person of the year issue. It came from their coverage of the 'Who throws a shoe' incident. This is a direct quote from Time mag.

"In an ABC news interview the next day, the President conceded for the first time that Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq before the US invasion, adding, 'So what?".

Pretty much sums it up. My case for worst president ever is still holding water.

[audtatious]

Quick questions, was it a "war on terror" or a "war on Al Quida"? Was Iraq/Saddam supporting terrorists?

[ishkabibble]

Under the Dubya administration, pretty much anyone and anything could be construed as supporting terrorism.

[480sx]

Your first q is understood.

Was Iraq/Saddam supporting terrorists?

He very well could have been supporting people that the United States would define as a terrorlst. However, again, these terrorists were not focused on us. They were fighting in between themselves for control over various sections of the country and opium trade, aka the warlords.

There is a big difference between what we considered terrorists in Iraq and Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda preached death to America, allies and jews while your average 'terrorlst' in Iraq was probably not that concerned with America until our invasion.

Anyway, the main point of me sharing that quote was just to hammer the point that this guy seems as if he really couldnt care less. Its like he doesnt even understand what hes a major part of, and i dont really think he, or that administration does.

We created a whole new generation of people in Iraq now who will see their country in shambles, will hear the rhetoric and promises of radical clerics and will join a Jihad movement. Possibly Al Qaeda, who knows. Possibly something worse.

To all of this, our prior president says, 'So what'? Think about your average middle aged Muslim reading his comments and understanding his sentiment. Think about it from their perspective.

Its not like im surprised or anything by his comment, he has made his demeanor known since day one. Its just some of the final icing on the cake of crap that he and his administration have left America, along with the world.

[OriginalWheelman]

We created a whole new generation of people in Iraq now who will see their country in shambles, will hear the rhetoric and promises of radical clerics and will join a Jihad movement. Possibly Al Qaeda, who knows. Possibly something worse.

Man your crystal ball is working overtime. You really need to stop touting speculation as fact. We also have a whole generation of Iraqis who will see a violent end to a violent past and see a whole new government trying to resolve differences with laws and words instead of AKs and C4.

[480sx]

Iv ignored your crystal ball snide remark before but ill go ahead and get into it here.

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out what causes a person to become a terrorists, or a Muslim extremist. It doesnt take a crystal ball to see that what we are doing is in fact giving people more reasons to hate the US, and join Al Qaeda and other extremist sects. Try to have a little foresight, just a little. Its not having a crystal ball, its just taking what you know of the past, taking into scope the present and putting together a probable future.

While Al Qaeda might be weakened currently, global terrorlst activity is on a rise and the network is larger than it ever was before. Not all terrorists are Al Qaeda. Its the splinter cells among others that we have to worry about.

I suppose i do kinda put this kinda stuff out there as fact.. I concede that it is more educated speculation than fact. Still, IMO its a probable scenario based on my 'crystal ball'.

[OriginalWheelman]

Again it can come down to the definition of terrorlst activity. I'm sure some of that can be attributed the display of it's effectiveness in Iraq. As far as historical precedent, there is no other time where we have gone into a country, ousted it's leadership, and stayed around long enough to solidify a new democratic government. While this has similarities with past situations, it is in fact, entirely different and only time will tell. I think in the end the "use of force" in Iraq will have done more good than harm. The difference between the Iraqis that voted today and the Americans voted in November is for a lot of Iraqis this is the first time they have had a voice. Even the opposition party that boycotted the last election is making a strong showing. They are already realizing there is a better way. They are appreciating democracy because they know what it is like to live without it.

[480sx]

I just mainly fear about the idea of a 'US proped up government' in the middle of the.. Middle east. Its going to be a massive target, from Iran and other extremists, Al Qaeda included.

Its going to take one hell of a commitment from the Iraqi people to keep that government afloat. They are going to be besieged when we leave.

Idk, time will tell. There truly is the possibility that democracy could take hold and stay there for good in Iraq, however its will be one hell of a feat if it happens. More of a testimate to the will of the Iraqi people than to the Americans. However maybe in the long term, if that countries democracy stands, America wont look so bad.

Hell, they have enough oil.. If they can ever get that under 80-90 percent control that could kick start a massive infrastructure build up. Along with setting up the tools needed to deal with the extremists.

[audtatious]

Your first q is understood.

He very well could have been supporting people that the United States would define as a terrorlst. However, again, these terrorists were not focused on us. They were fighting in between themselves for control over various sections of the country and opium trade, aka the warlords.

He was supporting terrorists, that's fact. Congress and the people supported Bush going after countries that support terrorists. Congress approved of Bush's actions and UN resolutions supported them as well. The "limp-wristed" politicians changed their tune and have now gone so far as to call our own troops rapists and murderers in order to cover that they supported the very actions they are so against today.

Fast Forward and those same limp-wrist politicians are STILL claiming that Iraq is a failure. They STILL claim the surge did nothing. It does not matter that there is a Iraqi-elected Gov running the country and it is stabilizing. Bush's failed war? Look at Afghanistan, not Iraq.

[ishkabibble]

He was supporting terrorists, that's fact. Congress and the people supported Bush going after countries that support terrorists.

Yawn. If that's the case, I expect that we will go after all countries who harbor any form of terrorism. We won't. The definition was catered to suit whatever we felt like doing.

I don't get why you guys keep rationalizing the war rather than looking at the fact that the decision to invade Iraq was made pretty much as soon as Bush took office. They just needed an excuse to go in. Their Office of Special Plans found them one.

[OriginalWheelman]

Yawn. If that's the case, I expect that we will go after all countries who harbor any form of terrorism. We won't. The definition was catered to suit whatever we felt like doing.

I don't get why you guys keep rationalizing the war rather than looking at the fact that the decision to invade Iraq was made pretty much as soon as Bush took office. They just needed an excuse to go in. Their Office of Special Plans found them one.

Prove it.

[audtatious]

I don't get why you guys keep rationalizing the war rather than looking at the fact that the decision to invade Iraq was made pretty much as soon as Bush took office. They just needed an excuse to go in. Their Office of Special Plans found them one.

Can you provide a link to the insightful Gov documentation that states Bush was waiting for any chance? If I remember he gave Saddam over a year and a half to meet UN demands before we went in. If Bush simply wanted to go get Saddam cuz he tried to kill his "Dear 'Ole Dad" he could have easily gone in much sooner.

[480sx]

Can you provide a link to the insightful Gov documentation that states Bush was waiting for any chance?

You want government documentation to prove that? You really think that would be available to uhm.. Us?

If I remember he gave Saddam over a year and a half to meet UN demands before we went in.

He didnt however go in as he promised he would to the Senate, the US people, and the world. Where was the Grand Coalition of the Willing?

I can understand rushing offered a strategical advantage from a military perspective. However, honestly.. U.S vs. Iraq? How many advantages do you need rotf. We could have waited.

If Bush simply wanted to go get Saddam cuz he tried to kill his "Dear 'Ole Dad" he could have easily gone in much sooner.

Damn you and your ridiculous coming out of no where statements..

[OriginalWheelman]

You want government documentation to prove that? You really think that would be available to uhm.. Us?

So the lack of evidence is the evidence?

We could have waited.

Right... lets wait until they can put up a huge defense and kill a lot more of our soldiers! Brilliant tactic.

[480sx]

So the lack of evidence is the evidence?

When did i say that?

Right... lets wait until they can put up a huge defense and kill a lot more of our soldiers! Brilliant tactic.

Obviously you know very little of modern warfare and the way our military pretty much dominates any kind of defense you could possibly muster with minimal casualties in an all out war. Spy Sats with simultaneous thermal and night vision capability, Tomahawk's, Fire and Forget rocket propeled GPS guided artillery shells, Predator drones, NLOS(non line of sight) Cannons(so bad ***, google these things) with multiple round simultaneous impact firing capability just to name a few. Total air superiority. Oh, and a battle system that links every individual with every piece of equipment and information that they could possibly need. To say nothing of the training that our spec ops teams and top brass go through who saw and lead that operation from start to finish.

We lost 139 men, and a few tanks from March 19 to May 1st. By May, that war was over and the Iraqi army was devastated.

The point im trying to make is, it wouldnt have mattered how much defense Iraq would have put up. The results would have been similar. Iraq Vs the US under ANY circumstances? Give me a fvking break.

Top military always feels the need for the fastest action possible because for them, strategically it usually offers them the highest possible success rate with minimal collateral damage for an operation. However, this was a very delicate diplomatic situation that required a much more broad strategy than the one that was used.

The need for a quick strike did not even come close to outweighing the need for a unilateral strong response from the world. The bush administration didnt let that happen, as they promised they would.
Modified by 480sx at 11:38 PM 1/31/2009

[ishkabibble]

Prove it.

Can you provide a link to the insightful Gov documentation that states Bush was waiting for any chance?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

Watch it.

[ishkabibble]

The point im trying to make is, it wouldnt have mattered how much defense Iraq would have put up. The results would have been similar. Iraq Vs the US under ANY circumstances? Give me a fvking break.

No kidding.

Crap, we better invade Iceland before they start rebuilding and are able to put up a stronger defense! After all, they might develop WMDs someday, you know. And just look at all of those protesters in the streets, terrorizing their politicians...

[audtatious]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

Watch it.

I've seen it. I've also seen other documentaries on the History Channel and others. Does not change anything to me at all as I have always agreed on some points and disagreed on other stances of the past Administration and their actions.

[audtatious]

No kidding.

Crap, we better invade Iceland before they start rebuilding and are able to put up a stronger defense! After all, they might develop WMDs someday, you know. And just look at all of those protesters in the streets, terrorizing their politicians...

We should have invaded Darfur and other places that the Dems would approve of instead.

You guys go ahead and keep circle jerking your viewpoints as it does not matter today as The One will take care of everything. Altho I don't know why all the troops were not pulled out immediately like he stated in multiple speaches.......

[ishkabibble]

We should have invaded Darfur and other places that the Dems would approve of instead.

A more worthwhile endeavor than Iraq, at least.

Ok, we'll keep circle jerking, you guys keep scissoring.

[OriginalWheelman]

And just look at all of those protesters in the streets, terrorizing their politicians...

Why are you bringing the RNC back up?

[audtatious]

A more worthwhile endeavor than Iraq, at least.

In your opinion. If Bush had gone into Darfur first I'm sure he would have been accused of other "crimes". Darfur was not assumed to have bio capabilities either.

Ok, we'll keep circle jerking, you guys keep scissoring.

KNOCK IT OFF.....we spoon.

[ishkabibble]

Why are you bringing the RNC back up?

I was talking about Iceland. Quit tilting at windmills.

[OriginalWheelman]

I don't see the rulers of Iceland using chemical weapons on their own citizens. I don't see Iceland openly trashing the US. Two completely different situations. Iceland has less to do with Iraq then the RNC with what you said.

[ishkabibble]

I don't see the rulers of Iceland using chemical weapons on their own citizens.

Iraq was using WMDs against its own citizens in 2002-2003?

And this has what to do with them being able to build up a huge defense against our military?

I don't see Iceland openly trashing the US.

Trash talk. Oooooooohhh. Reason to go to war, for sure.

[OriginalWheelman]

There were plenty of reasons for the Iraq war that have been discussed earlier in the thread. Why not go there where I have already argued against everything you're saying.

Trash talk. Oooooooohhh. Reason to go to war, for sure.

No. I'm using it to distinguish differences between Iceland and Iraq. Do you not understand or are you grasping for straws?

[ishkabibble]

I'm sensing a pattern in threads you post in. Weasel out, point at the air stating you have proven someone wrong.

Answer my questions.

[OriginalWheelman]

Iraq was using WMDs against its own citizens in 2002-2003?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...ttack

I never said it was in 2002-2003. I have no idea where you are getting that from. I didn't feel the need to address something this trivial.

And this has what to do with them being able to build up a huge defense against our military?

Nothing. Ask any military personnel if you should give your enemy time to put up a better defense. That's a very noble thought but those seldom have a place when it's a life or death situation.

I'm sensing a pattern in threads you post in. Weasel out, point at the air stating you have proven someone wrong.

Answer my questions.

I already put up a very good case for why the Iraq war started. (Read page 1) I'm not deflecting anything. You've flung conspiracy theories around without backing any of them up. I'll re-quote the bulk of the reasons for the invasion.

The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors. * Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."[2] * Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." * Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people". * Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. * Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq." * Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorlst organizations," including anti-United States terrorlst organizations. * The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, including the September 11th, 2001 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them. * The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. * Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I..._1998

Read on the link. It's an act, signed in 1998, two years before Bush was in office, stating that the US wanted Saddam out.

The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives [2] and by unanimous consent in the Senate. [3] US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998. The law's stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." Specifically, Congress made findings of past Iraqi military actions in violation of International Law and that Iraq had denied entry of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) inspectors into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction. Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.

How can you possibly believe Bush started this war?

[ishkabibble]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...ttack

I never said it was in 2002-2003. I have no idea where you are getting that from. I didn't feel the need to address something this trivial.

Happened in 1988 and had nothing to do with attacks on Americans. Irrelevant unless you somehow put it in context.

Nothing. Ask any military personnel if you should give your enemy time to put up a better defense. That's a very noble thought but those seldom have a place when it's a life or death situation.

Like we've said previously in this thread, we could steamroll Iraq regardless of how much time they had. Also, Iraq was not an imminent threat. Not even remotely close.

You've flung conspiracy theories around

Such as?

I'll re-quote the bulk of the reasons for the invasion.

Most of that was based on flimsy or disputed evidence, and it was not significant enough to start a war. Especially while there was another war going on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I..._1998

Read on the link. It's an act, signed in 1998, two years before Bush was in office, stating that the US wanted Saddam out.

Quite different from sending troops over, especially while a war on another front was already going on.

How can you possibly believe Bush started this war?

His administration sent the troops over. What, did Clinton start the war or something? Maybe we have differing definitions of war.

[OriginalWheelman]

Happened in 1988 and had nothing to do with attacks on Americans. Irrelevant unless you somehow put it in context.

Context: The same leader that ordered these attacks was still in power.

Like we've said previously in this thread, we could steamroll Iraq regardless of how much time they had. Also, Iraq was not an imminent threat. Not even remotely close.

That does not mean that the time to strike was wrong. Letting the opponent build up a better defense is always wrong. Even if we still had the upper hand. When should we have gone in then?

Such as?

Sorry, the Bush admin was out actively duping everyone with filtered intel and propaganda, pushing the case for war. Primary blame lies with them.

And that logic still places the blame primarily with the former Republican administration. They controlled the three branches, two of them almost entirely.

Under the Dubya administration, pretty much anyone and anything could be construed as supporting terrorism.

I don't get why you guys keep rationalizing the war rather than looking at the fact that the decision to invade Iraq was made pretty much as soon as Bush took office. They just needed an excuse to go in. Their Office of Special Plans found them one.

Most of that was based on flimsy or disputed evidence, and it was not significant enough to start a war. Especially while there was another war going on.

Why is it flimsy evidence? Because you say so? Until you offer proof to dispute the validity of the evidence this is another conspiracy theory.

Most of that was based on flimsy or disputed evidence, and it was not significant enough to start a war. Especially while there was another war going on.

Congress did not declare war on Iraq, and the majority of Dems voted against the use of military force.

It wasn't because it wasn't. Most of our military outings have not been Declarations of War.

"There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you're possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we're not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force."

-Alberto Gonzales

By your own words, there was no war. I don't know what these two wars you speak of are. I conceded this argument to you and now you are taking up my old side?

Maybe we have differing definitions of war.

I think you have two completely different definitions of war.

Quite different from sending troops over, especially while a war on another front was already going on.

His administration sent the troops over. What, did Clinton start the war or something?

On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.