Well, did the surge work or not?

No, I'm used to liberals twisting the facts to attempt to re-write history. Don't strain yourself. It won't work with me.

peace to youraying:

 

Then you're concluding that the surge failed. Correct?

 

Should we invade Iran for their nuclear program? Bush said he had proof they existed which is how he presented it to the congress. We didn't invade because Saddam claimed to have a loaded gun, we invaded because Bush said he had proof the gun was loaded.

 

Being in the military I thought everyone wanted to keep going. I know the generals and military sure did.

 

There you go again, you are trying to re-write history. Our intellegence agency, as well as the Russians, French, Brits etc., concluded Sadaam had WMD.

Bush didn't have to tell congress, congressional leaders had access to the same intellegence reports as the president. Those leaders, democrats and republicans alike, voted to go to war in Iraq based on that intellegence.

Part of the intellegence was Sadaam's own statements that he had WMD and was planning to use it.

Sadaam was waving a gun and claiming it was loaded. He was threatening us. Bush did the only thing he could. He eliminiated the threat.

Obama didn't argue the intellegence was wrong. Obama voted against going to war believing Sadaam had WMD and was threatening us with it. Obama wanted to continue the talking until another massacre of Americans occurred.

Even then, he would have probably blamed the U.S.A, along with the rest of the liberal hate America club.

peace to youraying:

 

Liberals don't "hate America." You can find as many liberal patriots as conservative patriots. Liberals do hate it when the country they love follows misguided advice which seems to primarily come from conservatives these days. During the American Revolution most Americans were against fighting the British. Who were most of these? Conservatives who had a lot of wealth or who had connections with the crown.

Do you really think Nathan Hale or Patrick Henry were conservatives? Never. They were radicals, revolutionaries, liberals.

 

Sorry dear, I am trying to correct the fact. You are the one distorting history. You can't help it, you are in line with the Republican talking points.

The House and Senate's knowledge was limited to a top secret report entitled National Intelligence Estimate in Oct. 2002, a classified 92-page report which was provided by the Bush administration. IOW, they knew what the Bush administration told them. This vote was rushed through in a matter of days just like the Obama stimulus package. I don't think most read the document, like the Obama stimulus package, they went by what others were saying. The declassified portion can be found here.

The deal breaker from that document was;

This was a Republican talking point and was never proven to be fact. There was never proof Saddam made these claims or the claims/threats alone would have been reason to invade. Bush would not have needed the 92 page document if Saddam made these threats against the US that soon after 9/11.

Again, that was another Republican twisting of facts but was never proven to be true.

I really had to laugh because you fell for that one hook, line and sinker.

Obama was sworn in as US Senator on 1/4/2005. He was not a Senator when they voted for the war. That is why he didn’t vote for or against it. However, in Oct 2002 as Illinois state Senator he did speak out against the war at an anti-war rally. The text of his speech can be read here. http://progressivesforobama.net/obamas-2002-antiwar-speech/ Obama was very verbal about being against the war in Iraq being very careful not commit political suicide. Look how tightly he walked the line in his speech against the war in Iraq;

 

The surge worked but O'bama is not man enough to admit it! Sad that such an egoist is president!

 

The Obama supporters here seem to be saying that the war in Iraq is doomed to failure no matter what.

So my question is why doesn't Obama just bail - now in total?

Wouldn't that be what his followers want anyway?

 

What is failure when there is no clear defined mission? Saddam is dead, a new government has/is being installed via elections and the Iraqi's for a large part is securing their own country. I don't see this as a failure or leaving in defeat.

 

That's not what Obama has consistently said. But let's face it: He was wrong on the surge.

Trying to say we shouldn't have been there is avoidance of the issue. It's like the firefighter refusing to put out the fire because someone else shouldn't have torched it to begin with. That's simply a bad argument.

Yes, had we not gone there there would have been no need for the surge. But we were there, and the question then became, how best do we solve the problem. Obama was on the wrong side. It is good to see that he switched. Yet he broke another campaign promise in doing so.

But you can't make decision based on stuff you find out later. You have to operate on what know and believe at the time. Had Saddam been more forthcoming, it would have been handled differently. Had the world community handled it differently, it would have been different. But it wasn't.

You guys, in a misguided and unwise attempt to defend Obama's indefensible choices reach back to the past. The past is over. We have to live in the present.

 

Then you would say that Bush did not fail in Iraq?

Or are you trying to have it both ways?

 

:thumbs: ...............

 

If we leave and the Iraqis have established a stable democratic country which can defend itself and keep the peace then bush succeeded in the war on Iraq. The war was mostly of his doing so I think he should get all the credit or criticism.

 

That really sounded kinda......STUPID !

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro
What irks democrats the most is that America's military forces won a war.

What irks them secondmost is that not more of them died doing it.

If only more of them had obliged the defeatists and been killed, democrats might have been able to turn victory into defeat.[/quote]

Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro
That really sounded kinda......STUPID ![/quote]

It is STUPID because it is true!

 

Bush's failure was invading Iraq.

 

>What irks democrats the most is that America's military forces won a war.

America has not won a war since the Japanese surrendered in Tokyo Bay.
For that matter, America has not declared a war since Pearl. America makes commando raids and gets out of Dodge.

We just invaded Pakistan, again. When will that war be declared won? Before it is announced?

 

Like he said, what irks liberal democrats is the success of America's military forces. They can't stand it, and say anything to discredit it.

USA...USA...USA...USA...USA...USA...USA...USA...USA...USA...USA...USA

peace to youraying: