Huffingtonpost.com:
WASHINGTON — The argument for going to war in Iraq was clearly made. Over and over again, Saddam Hussein was said to be a turn-of-the-millennium Hitler, a madman bent on destroying America with his stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
Of course, that turned out to be false, but at the time, the justification was no mystery. The word “weapons” shows up 1,107 times in the Congressional Record during the period when the House and Senate were voting to grant President George W. Bush the authority to use force against Iraq. The more specific “weapons of mass [destruction or murder]” comes up 368 times.
Now, with Iraq on the verge of unraveling after the departure of U.S. forces, conservative pundits and some politicians who were wrong about Iraq then are declaiming a new reason for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, saying it was to liberate the Iraqis. The United States sacrificed 4,500 Americans in the name of freedom for the Iraqis, and President Barack Obama is blowing it, they say.
For instance, here’s Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas):
Sad but true @benshapiro: It took nearly 4,500 American lives to win freedom for Iraq. It took one president to lose it.
— JohnCornyn (@JohnCornyn) June 13, 2014
This is the biggest crock of crap I have ever heard. Do these jokers think that the rest of us have gone addle-brained? lost our memories? How many times did I hear the promises of weapons of mass destruction? WMD?
Back when the War started, I sat transfixed to my TV, watching those convoys cross the desert, with imbedded reporters. One thing hit me about day 2 of the desert trek. WMD speak had turned to capturing the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. I thought at the time, “They lied. We’re screwed.” Just tell me how right I really was!
At the time, I had a friend who was like a Faux News junkie tell me I was wrong and that no one had ever said ” hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.” Sorry. I heard it all too many times with my own two ears.
Playing the “freeing the Iraqi people” simply enrages me now. Why would we risk the lives of 4000 Americans to randomly free the Iraqi people? That is the lamest, stupidest line I have ever heard on the subject. To those making these false claims: STOP LYING!
My concern now is that we will be told we need to go back so that those who died did, “not do so in vain.” Well, more than 35,000 died in vain in Vietnam and we apparently didn’t learn a damned thing. Now we are sending Special Forces troops back into Iraq–not to engage, so they say, but to train, or retrain, Iraqi military folks. AYSM?
Let’s face it–now it is not about anything but OIL. According to Reuters, Iraq is/was becoming the fastest growing oil exporter–up to 2.8 million barrels per day. And the idea that this oil may be lost to the world market is already sending a “shock” through the oil market–prices for crude oil (and gasoline) are beginning to reflect this concern.
Remember, I and others have discussed the fact that tribalism still exists throughout the Middle East-it is family and tribe in that order then maybe, just maybe, the regional government and, finally, the central government. One Iraqi mayor said on CBS News last night that he didn’t want the Iraqi army in his area-he wanted his OWN security forces–his own tribe so to speak. People he could trust. The same was true in others areas being shown on the news–local militias were going to stop ISIS. Anyone taking bets?
The armchair political opportunists are all over this. If Obama sent in forces, they would be saying that he is going to war without Congressional approval, if he does not they will say he should. When the Iraq war was first being discussed (based on lies) – there was the political will on both sides to move forward. There is no political will to have a response. And why is the US supposed to do this alone – where is Saudi Arabia in this – or other countries – many of those countries who are directly affected by this are very wealthy – but it is our tax dollars that is going to defend them. Why? Where is the TEA Party to say that we do not have the money to fight someone else’s war? Why not have Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE fund it?
George – you are correct – it is all about OIL. And US companies did not even get the contracts.
@Pat.Herve
If I was Obama, I would ask Congress to authorize any actions if THEY want to send troops. Its not up to the President.
Saudi Arabia LIKES ISIS. They are against the Shi’ites and Iran.
I bow to no one when it comes to desiring an aggressive stance, but we should not go back. Obama refused to send air strikes when it was feasible. Doing something now is merely theater. We had a chance to stay there. Both Maliki and Obama wanted us out, so the SOFA negotiations failed.
Oh, well. If the Iraqi gov’t wanted us out….they can’t come crying to us now. No use crying over spilled milk. The time to do something was in 2009. As much as I’d like to see strafing runs on those ISIS bas…people… Do we really want to see military actions being run by the same administration that let their leader out of prison, armed them with stinger missiles, and doesn’t seem to have a clue about geopolitical strategy, tactics, or consequences?
Oh…I forgot the main reason.
If those cowards won’t fight for their country, why should we? Currently, the Iraqi’s are probably the best armed military in the region. The police are well armed and trained.
They ran.
Eff ’em.
I don’t think you will get much of an argument on this blog.
First, the story about lying about WMD was BS political theater sent out as Democratic talking points to win an election. Every intellegence agency and every member of Congress on the intellegence committees saw the information and then voted to go to war. To believe otherwise is to believe in a conspiracy magnitudes larger than the IRS lost e-mail tapes – which may yet result in articles of impeachment.
Second, once the battle was over, it was necessary to re-establish a new Iraqi identity and government. We won that war. Hearts and minds is just aother slogan that Democrats have pissed on to justify leaving — and creating the situation we have now. Instead of an ally bordering Russia, Iran and the back-side of Syria with ties to Afganistan and a back door to protecting Isreal, we left a vacume that even Iran now fears. This is Obama’s fault and nobody elses. But never fear, Obama can establish another red line.
Blue, you are full of it and don’t know what you are talking about. Why are you trying to blame this on the Democrats?
Hearts and minds came right out of the convoy of embedded reporters as they crossed the Kuwait desert into Iraq. I know what I heard.
Your attempts to blame the Democrats for Iraq simply is not going to fly on this blog. maybe someone else will believe your bullshit but I wont.
What I resent is Bremmer’s (Bush’s Envoy to Iraq and the head of the occupying government) call for boots on the ground. He is the one who screwed it up in Iraq. The post WWII West Germany or even Japan models were ignored.
I resent Bremmer also. Right now the only person out of that administration showing any class is George Bush. He is keeping his mouth shut.
The worst of d-bags on this and other matters is Mitt Romney. The guy doesn’t have access to classified intel, and in fact never did much more complicated than work on the Olympics, but is always eager to go on TV and claim that his leadership would have prevented every current-day problem. He is/was clearly unfit to be President – I feel that way about McCain also – either of those men would be a walking disaster.
Rick, I agree with what you just said. McCain is so full of crap. Romney is just full of himself. He needs to go ride his car elevator.
I might not be the happiest with everything Obama has done but compared to the two loser boys,….
You know what would have been nice?
If that gun criminal David Gregory had grilled actual Obama administration people instead of a private citizen. Or someone that seems to be interested in running for office….like Hillary? She’s a twofer. Both former admin person AND probable candidate.
275 Marines to Iraq. Call them targets. Even if they get to lock their bolts (they were removed for both inaugurals) and keep their bullets – do you really think he will allow them to shoot – these people have no problem using civilians and children as shields – do you really think they thought this through? He screwed this one up like he has screwed up everything else. They all need to get out of there now!
Can we assume you didn’t vote for Obama?
My suggestion would be to get a candidate to run who isn’t nasty ass waffling McCain or Romney who sold out to be too cool conservative when he is really a moderate. Republicans, don’t try to be something you aren’t. Also, stop devouring your own.
Bumping off Cantor was one of the dumber things I have seen a party do. Now you have a 50% chance of having no one.
I don’t agree that “bumping off” Cantor is any loss for the GOP. He is an empty shell of a human being who stood for nothing.
I don’t think they have any shot in 2016 though. Doesn’t matter who runs.
Which is not to say that Hillary will be the next President … it should be remembered that she was a prohibitive favorite in 2008, and Democrats collectively decided they didn’t really like her all that much. I’d lay even money some other Democrat takes it from her.
I don’t think they disliked her. Opportunity knocked and black counted more than ovaries. Ovaries aren’t going to energize minorities and get them to the polls. Black is. Sorry to be so sexist/vulgar/whatever. Its the reality of the situation. Some of it is gender based.
Don’t forget that black men could technically vote over 50 years before women of any race could vote. That speaks volumes.
@Moon-howler
Like the majority of people, I would like to take that first vote back. McCain was the devil we knew. Not electing Romney was a mistake we and the world are paying for.
But which Romney would we get? The moderate, health care supporting Romney or the tea party Romney? That’s a real problem.
@Cargosquid
Whose SOFA was signed in 2008 which dictated that we would be out by 2011? Just asking.
Oh…. the Bush agreement was that we would leave. I don’t have a problem with that. It’s actually a good policy. That way, Bush’s policy was DEFINITELY done. Anything that happens after he is out of office is on the next guy.
That is why I said that Obama needed to negotiate a new one. Both he and Maliki didn’t want us there, so the negotiations failed.
YES! THIS! You are one of the few people to finally put it so bluntly and clearly. Now, if a Republican, especially a white male, had said this..there would be huge cries of “RAAAAAAACIST! WOMAN HATER!”.
It’s reality. I am not sure America is ready for a woman president. Women often hate other women who are successful. The gender sweep is there but I don’t think it is as powerful as a race sweep. I would support Hillary. I wouldn’t support Sarah Palin. I don’t think women will vote for other women just because they are women. They have to agree with what the politician stands for.
I think Obama came along at a critical time. I had a hard time with it when Hillary was bumped, but I got over it. I don’t think the content of what I said was sexist but the language I used was.
@Moon-howler
Doesn’t matter.
Either Romney would be better than this corrupt incompetent.
I don’t believe Obama is a corrupt incompetent.
Romney was an excellent, well-qualified candidate. He probably would have been a very capable president. His problem was that he couldn’t get out of his scary primary season costume quickly enough. I think he was overcompensating for having appeared somewhat reasonable and intelligent in 2008 and was determined not to make that mistake again.
Moon, I don’t agree with that analysis. And, I think America is more than ready for a female President right now.
Being female was at least as much an advantage for Clinton as being black could ever have been for Obama. I don’t think that being black was any advantage for him overall, including in the primaries. The thorny issue of race is the most difficult to straddle politically.
Clinton had a lead in polls, had wrangled the support of nearly every major player in the party, and had friends controlling the party apparatus. She appeared to have won it. And then there was an exodus of supporters – Ted Kennedy being the highest profile “defection”. People just weren’t inspired by her. She has no compelling ability to inspire or to bring people together. If you examine her history, particularly during her husband’s Presidency, she is an unlikable personality – shrill, whiny to the point of tears, and taking things far too personally. In all the tell-alls of that era, she emerges as someone whose effect on his Presidency was that she took things more personally than she should have, and saw the world in good/evil friend/enemy terms more than those around her did.
IMO her biggest advantage at this point is that she is female. I for one would love to see her as President because the Republicans and FOX News would go BANANAS and it would be funny to watch. But in terms of temperment, ability to lead or inspire, or competancy – she lacks. Her biggest selling points are that she’s female, and that her husband will be hanging around possibly able to help her.
I would vote for her to get another round of Bill.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the female/black issue.
I think Obama had a charismatic personality that captivated many people. Hillary is a vintage highly intelligent woman. He is a youngish, personable man of mixed race who knows how to display both sides of his mixed heritage. He had been groomed for this post since 2004–maybe even longer ago than that.
Oh, and as an example of how not ready for prime time she was in 2008 – when Obama starting to gain on her, she and Bill were both almost quoted as saying to everyone around them “Don’t the party voters realize HE’S BLACK”? That was actually the point that I started to exhibit a preference, for Obama. The Clintons’ sense of entitlement was strong, and their supposed progressivism went out the window. It was a meltdown of sorts.
I never heard either of them say that. It doesn’t sound very Clintonian.
I was actually personally disappointed in them. It was part and parcel of my estrangement from the democratic party, watching the “first black President”, the man who had sold us on civil rights being a core part of his being, unable to stomach the idea that a black man might defeat his wife.
I still like the Clintons mainly because I think the country prospered. They were also self made people. I relate. I got interested in them early on and took my daughter and her friend down to Richmond to meet them. I was hooked. Both the girls crawled over 4 rows of people to shake hands with him.
She’s put a shiny veneer on herself – created an image of herself as cool and calm and collected. But I suspect that under pressure her truer self will emerge – an angry person, who feels entitled, and who has a hard time maintaining respect for other perspectives and viewpoints.
She may well be the next President. I may well pull the lever for her. But I wouldn’t bet the farm on it. I think we’ve got a 90% chance the next President is a Democrat, but no more than a 50% chance that it’s her.
I am not betting on anything. Eric Cantor should be a lesson learned on betting on politicians.
“Romney was an excellent, well-qualified candidate. He probably would have been a very capable president.”
Not because of anything that he said or did, but he’s a Rorscach test for race almost.
To a lot of white people, particularly conservative ones, he looks like a leader and a trustworthy guy.
To the majority of non-whites, he looks like an elitist buffoon. The kind of guy who has gotten ahead in life through charm and looks and grabbing what he can, but who is not nearly as capable as he thinks he is.
He inspires confidence in a subset of Americans, but leaves many cold.
I could never see myself voting for a corporate raider like Romney … I think he was an awful candidate. Strong jaw and nice tan and all, just not a good nominee.
Getting back to the Iraq situation.
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2014/06/shrugging-at-abyss.html
Makes a lot of good points. Make sure to read all the comments.
Apparently our oh so informed press is completely missing the fact that the Iraqi army IS fighting back and that their top generals were assassinated.
We still shouldn’t intervene though.
Heh…one commenter suggested that the Israelis offer to help out the Iraqi Army.
@blue
The CIA and NSA were debunking the yellowcake rumor in Feb 2002 – a full year before Colin Powell went before the UN and Bush mentioned it in his state of the union speech – http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,463779,00.html – talk about who changed the talking points.
I support Obama’s decision not to intervene in Iraq. We never shoulda been here
@Moon-howler
You mean he’s doing this badly ON PURPOSE?!
That’s even worse.
Hillary’s fascist mindset is coming to the fore:
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2014/06/hillary-clinton-cannot-let-you-hold.html
Excerpt:
But I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation.
Yes? Do tell. We’re going to balance those competing values? We’re going to cool down and actually think about everything? NO! The next thing she says is:
We cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people.
Whoa! That’s the line I was looking for. Read it again and see how shocking it is. Not only did Hillary completely turn her back on “balanc[ing] competing values” and “more thoughtful conversation,” she doesn’t want to allow the people on one side of the conversation even to believe what they believe. Those who care about gun rights and reject new gun regulations should be stopped from holding their viewpoint.
_________________
This comes from a liberal blogger/lawyer/college professor who votes Democrat.
I don’t know what you’re babbling about. This thread is about Iraq.@Cargosquid
@Starryflights
Actually, you are right. I posted this on the wrong thread…..thinking I had hit the open thread.
My mistake.
The situation in Iraq and the middle east in general is very complicated and does not lend itself well to blog posts, the typical pot-shots at politicians notwithstanding.
I am certainly no expert on this, but what I have learned over the years is that much of the current strife emanates from the arbitrary delineations that the British imposed after WWI. Various factions- Sunnis, Shiites, etc., have been fighting since at least 700 AD, and the British established artificial “countries” that no one over there really bought into. For the most part, only brutal dictators have managed to keep the factions in check.
The more recent problems in Iraq are directly traceable to the removal of Saddam, which destabilized the power structure between Iran-Iraq-Syria. He was undoubtedly a bad guy, but we removed him and didn’t manage the situation well, allowing a government that didn’t represent all the factions and in fact favored one in particular. Iran saw an opportunity to spread it’s influence and took it. What we see now was inevitable as soon as the US military wasn’t occupying the country. Should we have stayed there forever, like Korea?
Now we have no good options. Partner with Iran and push back ISIS? Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism world-wide and a stated enemy of Israel. Partner with Saudi Arabia, who finances ISIS and whose people financed and participated in 9-11? Air strikes that will likely result in civilian deaths?
Some say we should have addressed the situation in Syria sooner. Which terrorist group should we have supported there? I see no good answers to any of this, but I do see Russia and Iran benefiting from it. And it all started with the destabilization of Iraq.
Absolutely it is complicated. I believe we personally destabilized a country in a preemptive attack. Saddam was a vicious bastard but he kept the country pretty much on track. He and Tito had a lot in common. Both basically said, if you fight I am going to kill you. If they fought, he killed them. They pretty much learned. Look what happened when Tito died. Look what happened when Saddam was removed and executed.
@Cargosquid
Please don’t start that here…re: labeling Hillary Clinton a facist. I seriously don’t want that kind of stuff here. You know Elena and I are Hillary supporters.
Plus, I don’t care for the label fascist. If I can resist doing it on Dick Cheney…anyone should be able to do it.
@Moon-howler
“You know Elena and I are Hillary supporters. ”
Okay…no more “fascist.”
But since I believe you and Elena to be intellingent women, why in tarnation do you support her? She’s incompetent and dishonest.
@middleman
Speaking from a purely military point of view….not agreeing or disagreeing with any of your statement except what I say below:
A) you are right about any involvement in Syria. Of course, since our President DID send arms…. ISIS has Stinger missiles.
B) ISIS got tired of losing in Syria and so….realized that there was a huge country south of them.
C) Guerrillas in the open! Tactically, now is the perfect time to crush them! Not to save the Iraqis. But we are still in a war with Al Quaeda, and ISIS is their ally. Use the Iraqis as bait.
http://seanlinnane.blogspot.com/2014/06/see-you-in-new-york.html
CAUTION! Pictures include ISIS atrocities.
This expert states that now is the time to send in any quick reaction forces, ie, Air Force, 82 Airborne, Marines, etc.
However, one commenter made a good point. Once we start mobilizing, the rats would fade into the populace. However, I think that is easier said than done. If they change tactics, they lose the advantage, the locals don’t like them, and they’ll get killed by the tribes. Just like the last time. Iraqi Sunnies don’t like Shiites. But they ALSO don’t like foreign Al Q killers coming in and taking over. The Sunni tribes got tired of that and started shooting them. THAT is when it changed for us in Iraq.
Why do we support Hillary? I suppose I could ask you the same question about why you have defended/supported some of the absolute despicable Aholes on here that you have supported. Let’s see, for starters, I bet you voted for Cuccinelli? Since we live in different districts, its hard to actually draw out someone.
@Moon-howler
You could ask me, and I’d answer.
You wouldn’t agree with the reasons. I liked his smaller gov’t positions. I liked his 2nd amendment stance. I liked the fact that he wants to repeal Obamacare for the good of the country. I disagree with his attempt to run for governor. He should have stayed at AG and let Bolling have it…THEN run. Even then, it was only two things that kept him out of office. The lack of support by the mainstream GOP and the insertion of a fake libertarian paid for by the Democratic party into the race.
So, what makes Hillary so attractive as a candidate? What has she done or supported that is so good? Her record does NOT speak for success.
You are right, I wouldn’t agree with those reasons for me but it is your opinion.
I have always thought the Clintons have done a good job. Her record as a senator as well as a Secretary of state suited me. Her record does speak for success as I see success.
@Moon-howler
“Her record does speak for success as I see success.”
Um….what did she succeed at?
http://capitolcityproject.com/state-department-cant-name-one-accomplishment-clinton-run-initiative/
If you can name one thing…you will be doing better than the State Dept.
Same thing as a Senator
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-hanft/the-curious-myth-of-hilla_b_87613.html
During her tenure, she didn’t actually DO anything. As Sec of State, our standing in the world….DROPPED. But that is not HER fault. That would be her boss. She merely carries out his orders.
She appears to be a somewhat competent bureaucrat. Is THAT what you want as a President?
She was well respected around the world and repaired some of our Bush era image.
What did you want her to do, unseat Obama?
@Moon-howler
Well respected by whom?
I don’t want her to do anything. THAT is the point.
To be honest, I think that while she would have been a disaster as President, she STILL would have been a better president than Obama.
But, at the moment, I see no qualifications that shows she even knew what she was doing as Sec. of State or as a Senator. She was merely a bureaucrat. She repaired nothing. Our standing and respect is lower than when Bush was in office. The other nations may not have liked him..but they respected him. Obama is a laughing stock.
But, as you say..that’s just my opinion.
I guess that means you wont be voting for her for prez?
Cargo, I think you have it backwards. I believe the other nations liked GWB, they didn’t respect him.
Perhaps the President is a laughing stock to you but the rest of the world, not really. A little too much right wing propaganda reading, once again.
@Moon-howler
The Washington Post is right wing propaganda? The BBC?