Justice Department: We will sue Alabama if it doesn't comply with voting law

[Orbitus]

It was recently declassified that they did have WMDs! or do you live under a rock? And lets for argument sake there wasn't WMDs, the intelligence handed to him said there was, he didn't lie it would have been bad intelligence. And when he asked IRAQ to let us in to check to see if they did, they refused, after warnings and they still refused was when war declared

It took Congress act of approval to declare war which was supported by republicans AND DEMOCRATS or have you been living under a rock and forgot that?

Hate Bush all you want but for goodness sake stop the ignorance you're spilling out

Who cares if they had 30 year old mustard gas or whatever. Bush sold the US on pretenses that they were building nukes with the aluminum tubes that they were buying. Instead it was for normal rockets.

[Poopymonster]

The more targeted link is this one; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD_co...vasion_of_Iraq

And the most important line is this;

the Iraq Intelligence Commission concluded that the judgements of the U.S. intelligence community about the continued existence of weapons of mass destruction and an associated military program were wrong.

If I may *cough*

We don't need no facts, probably metric facts, all those millimeters, centimeters, centipedes...communist centipedes. Goddamn communist centipede facts!

[Merkava]

Amazing how Bush straight face lied to all of congress to invade Iraq on false pretenses.

That is amazing! Good thing you have a link for that.

EVERYTHING that is currently going on with ISIS should be attributed to him as well.

You see, there's this guy, named Obama? Right? With me so far?

[Orbitus]

That is amazing! Good thing you have a link for that.



You see, there's this guy, named Obama? Right? With me so far?

No I am not with you and I did provide a link and so did Endus that there were NO WMDs IN IRAQ.

Obama didn't create ISIS, Bush did by invading Iraq with no reason. Bush also negotiated the troop withdrawal and the SOFA. When Obama got into office, the new Prime Minister of Iraq said no to the SOFA, so we pulled out all of the troops. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/wo...eave.html?_r=0

So who are we to blame? That is right, Bush for an unneeded invasion because there was no WMDs, and Prime Minister Maliki for not agreeing to keep troops in Iraq with the SOFA agreement. Obama was going to leave up to 10,000 troops there but they couldn't get the agreement together. So to say that Obama is at fault for ANY of this, is PURE ASININE BULLSHIT.

[Paranoid Android]

Yes the logic that if Saddam was still in power and lets say Syria somehow became what it is today. I do not see how Isis, since its made up former Iraq officials and Sunni minority along with foreigners. So why would Saddam's Sunni's form a revolt against Saddam.

[Merkava]

No I am not with you and I did provide a link and so did Endus that there were NO WMDs IN IRAQ.
.

And that = a lie how again?

Obama didn't create ISIS, Bush did by invading Iraq with no reason. Bush also negotiated the troop withdrawal and the SOFA. When Obama got into office, the new Prime Minister of Iraq said no to the SOFA, so we pulled out all of the troops. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/wo...eave.html?_r=0
.

Are you Orbitus van Winkel? Were you asleep between the years 2008 and 2011? Bush negotiated troop withdrawl? Are you high? He signed a SOFA that was always meant to be renegotiated. Joe Biden even bet his vice presidency on being able to get it done. Here's a question for you if you're fully awake; how do we have more than 3000 troops in Iraq right now, more than the lowest number advisers proposed to leave in 2011, with no SOFA?

[Wells]

Orbitus, I think at this point arguing with someone who still supports the Iraq War is going to be a lot like trying to argue with a Japanese soldier in the south Pacific who still thinks there's a war on.

[breadisfunny]

You mean Bush right? Because he caused more damage and 1000 Obamas will ever cause. Every Republican candidate so far is going to be worse for the economy and debt than Obama ever was. I mean your boy Trump will cost us $12 TRILLION just for his tax plan alone.

it's hooked just nod and agree.

[Orbitus]

And that = a lie how again?


Are you Orbitus van Winkel? Were you asleep between the years 2008 and 2011? Bush negotiated troop withdrawl? Are you high? He signed a SOFA that was always meant to be renegotiated. Joe Biden even bet his vice presidency on being able to get it done. Here's a question for you if you're fully awake; how do we have more than 3000 troops in Iraq right now, more than the lowest number advisers proposed to leave in 2011, with no SOFA?

Because Bush specifically stated to the American people that we were invading Iraq because they had Al-Qaeda and the WMDs, specifically making nuclear material. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...found-in-iraq/
I quote from the article itself where Bush stated in a speech in Cincinnati on October 7th, 2002:

The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons…. Surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet, Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world…. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.

None of that came out to be true.

And yes, BUSH DID NEGOTIATE THE TROOP WITHDRAWAL. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archiv...0081214-2.html Even George W. Bush Whitehouse.gov records don't agree with you.
More sources:
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/...ent-leave.html
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/21/abou...aq_withdrawal/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111801118.html
http://mediamatters.org/research/201...bama-fo/200380
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...se-iraq-107874
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...overdrive.html

I can find more if you would like.

- - - Updated - - -

Orbitus, I think at this point arguing with someone who still supports the Iraq War is going to be a lot like trying to argue with a Japanese soldier in the south Pacific who still thinks there's a war on.

It's sad isn't it?

[Merkava]

Orbitus, I think at this point arguing with someone who still supports the Iraq War is going to be a lot like trying to argue with a Japanese soldier in the south Pacific who still thinks there's a war on.

Again, you can reply to me if you choose, I'll answer you. Unless you don't have anything to add and just want to take shots from the sidelines.

- - - Updated - - -

Because Bush specifically stated to the American people that we were invading Iraq because they had Al-Qaeda and the WMDs, specifically making nuclear material. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...found-in-iraq/
I quote from the article itself where Bush stated in a speech in Cincinnati on October 7th, 2002:


None of that came out to be true.

Again, how does that equate with a lie? Maybe you don't know the definition of the word. Let me help you.

Lie, a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood

And yes, BUSH DID NEGOTIATE THE TROOP WITHDRAWAL. http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archiv...0081214-2.html Even George W. Bush Whitehouse.gov records don't agree with you.
More sources:
http://www.politicususa.com/2014/06/...ent-leave.html
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/21/abou...aq_withdrawal/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111801118.html
http://mediamatters.org/research/201...bama-fo/200380
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...se-iraq-107874
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...overdrive.html

I can find more if you would like.

Mediamatters? Salon? A blog with the subtitle Real Liberal Politics? Now, everone here knows that you're notorious for not reading of understanding your own links. In the Bush link you gave, it only says the framework is laid for a withdrawl date. You don't seem to understand The SOFA was always meant to be renegtiated. That's why Bush said this

PRESIDENT BUSH: First of all, we're here at the Iraqi -- at the request of the Iraqi government. It's an elected government. There are certain benchmarks that will be met -- such as troops out of the cities by June of '09. And then there's a benchmark at the end of the agreement.

As to the pace of meeting those agreements, that will depend of course upon the Iraqi government, the recommendations of the Iraqi military, and the close coordination between General Odierno and our military.

Again, you don't understand that the SOFA was always meant to be renegotiated. Bush couldn't have known what Iraq would be like in 3 years. That's why Biden bet his own vice presidency that they would sign a new SOFA. If forces had to leave according the SOFA that Bush signed, then why in the hell was Obama negotiating with Iraq in 2010?

Negotiations between the U.S. and Iraq for a new SOFA began in fall 2010. There were late-night meetings at the fortified compound of then Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, and in video conferences between Baghdad and Washington. In June 2011, diplomats and Iraqi officials said that President Obama had told Prime Minister Maliki that he was prepared to leave up to 10,000 soldiers to continue training and equipping the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF). Mr. Maliki agreed, but said he needed time to line up political allies. Eventually, he gained authorization to continue talks with the U.S. on keeping troops in Iraq.

If the SOFA was set to expire, and troops had to leave according to the withdrawl date that Bush arranged, why the fuck were they wasting their time negotiating?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Orbitus]

Again, you can reply to me if you choose, I'll answer you. Unless you don't have anything to add and just want to take shots from the sidelines.

- - - Updated - - -



Again, how does that equate with a lie? Maybe you don't know the definition of the word. Let me help you.




Mediamatters? Salon? A blog with the subtitle Real Liberal Politics? Now, everone here knows that you're notorious for not reading of understanding your own links. In the Bush link you gave, it only says the framework is laid for a withdrawl date. You don't seem to understand The SOFA was always meant to be renegtiated. That's why Bush said this

Again, you don't understand that the SOFA was always meant to be renegotiated. Bush couldn't have known what Iraq would be like in 3 years. That's why Biden bet his own vice presidency that they would sign a new SOFA. If forces had to leave according the SOFA that Bush signed, then why in the hell was Obama negotiating with Iraq in 2010? If the SOFA was set to expire, and troops had to leave according to the withdrawl date that Bush arranged, why the fuck were they wasting their time negotiating?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Yeah you are done. I just linked you over half a dozen sources and you hand waved them away like they don't matter. Sorry you can't read what is in front of your fucking face. Get the fuck out of here.

[Merkava]

Yeah you are done. I just linked you over half a dozen sources and you hand waved them away like they don't matter. Sorry you can't read what is in front of your fucking face. Get the fuck out of here.

I asked you to make your case. You chose to link to documents that you didn't read and partisan opinion pieces.

I can do the same.

Washington Times; Obama adjusts Iraq narrative, now blames Bush for troop withdrawal
CBS News Leon Panetta criticizes Obama for Iraq withdrawal
Free Beacon; Obama Was Warned Repeatedly of Consequences of Withdrawal from Iraq
President Obama took credit in 2012 for withdrawing all troops from Iraq. Today he said something different.
No, U.S. Troops Didn’t Have to Leave Iraq

See, it's not hard to just google terms and post links to stuff and think you've proven your point. What's hard to do is actually have a discussion based on what you actually know. If we were sitting at a table having this discussion would you just pull out your phone and google "Iraq is Bush's fault," show me your search results and declare your point made? Because I can do the exact same thing with only changing one word in that search. And that's exactly what you're doing here, and it kind of defeats the purpose of having and participating in a discussion forum.

So, rather than telling me to fuck off again, why don't you, in your own words, if you can, tell me why you disagree with the points that I've raised and attempt to answer the questions that I've asked?

[Orbitus]

I asked you to make your case. You chose to link to documents that you didn't read and partisan opinion pieces.

I can do the same.

Washington Times; Obama adjusts Iraq narrative, now blames Bush for troop withdrawal
CBS News Leon Panetta criticizes Obama for Iraq withdrawal
Free Beacon; Obama Was Warned Repeatedly of Consequences of Withdrawal from Iraq
President Obama took credit in 2012 for withdrawing all troops from Iraq. Today he said something different.
No, U.S. Troops Didn’t Have to Leave Iraq

See, it's not hard to just google terms and post links to stuff and think you've proven your point. What's hard to do is actually have a discussion based on what you actually know. If we were sitting at a table having this discussion would you just pull out your phone and google "Iraq is Bush's fault," show me your search results and declare your point made? Because I can do the exact same thing with only changing one word in that search. And that's exactly what you're doing here, and it kind of defeats the purpose of having and participating in a discussion forum.

So, rather than telling me to fuck off again, why don't you, in your own words, if you can, tell me why you disagree with the points that I've raised and attempt to answer the questions that I've asked?

You are just going back on ignore, you have no credibility if you hand wave even sources from GWB's own whitehouse.gov archive links.

[Merkava]

You are just going back on ignore, you have no credibility if you hand wave even sources from GWB's own whitehouse.gov archive links.

I didn't hand wave. I believe I even quoted him from the link you provided. I just explained that your link doesn't what you think it says. And, again, even so, if all troops had to be out in December of 2011, what were we negotiating with Iraq for in 2010?

Again, make your case if you can, don't just google and paste search results.

[oxymoronic]

Yes the logic that if Saddam was still in power and lets say Syria somehow became what it is today. I do not see how Isis, since its made up former Iraq officials and Sunni minority along with foreigners. So why would Saddam's Sunni's form a revolt against Saddam.

maybe he dies taking a shit, your logic is foul and stupid and only what you want to believe.