The 3rd and Final Presidential Debate! Lions and Tigers and Ayers? OH MY!

[barbelith]

My "Oh Jeez" sarcastic smile response was when someone calling the United States elected president a criminal.

Bush is literally a criminal, because he broke the law with his warrantless wiretap program. There's no way around that. Why should we assume an elected US president can't or won't commit a crime? Did we forget Nixon, Reagan and Clinton?

Don't make me go get my other post to what times were like in Iraq before Bush put the smack down.

Fewer people were dying each year. But putting that aside, what Iraq was like prior to the invasion has nothing to do with whether or not Bush is a criminal.

I suppose he should have just let Saddam continue to rape and torture people.

That's not why we went in and you know it.

 

[Mesa]

People are still getting "raped and tortured" in Iraq and probably in higher numbers than during Saddam's regime. Not to mention the number of terrorist and Al-Qaeda went from 0% to what we have now.

I stopped reading at "probably"

 

[Mesa]

People are still getting "raped and tortured" in Iraq and probably in higher numbers than during Saddam's regime. Not to mention the number of terrorist and Al-Qaeda went from 0% to what we have now.

Oh yeah, by the way, Marines are now leaving a safer and freed Fallujah and handing it back to the Iraqi people. No thanks are necessary. Shoot, I guess this story isn't important enough to report on, because I've seen very little coverage in the media.

https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,439612,00.html

WASHINGTON — When Marine Maj. Gen. John Kelly deployed to Iraq in February, the violence had fallen so low in Anbar province that he began figuring out how to start closing bases and prepare to go home.

In the last 10 months the Marines in Fallujah have done what was unthinkable before the surge began — they have quietly transferred out of one of Anbar province's largest cities. FOX News has learned in an exclusive interview with Kelly from Fallujah that 80 percent of the move is complete. In February there were 8,000 Marines living at Fallujah base. Now there are about 3,000 left. By Nov. 14 there will be none.

"We will shut down the command function here and I will move; my staff has already started to move," Kelly, the commander of Multinational Force-West, told FOX News in an exclusive interview via satellite. "We will turn the lights off here."

They will hand the Fallujah base over to their Iraqi counterparts on Nov. 14, having relocated themselves and thousands of combat vehicles to the desert base of Al Asad to the west. Marines will no longer be seen in city centers such as Fallujah — a major step toward leaving Iraq, and one step closer to Iraq's goal of having U.S. troops out of its population centers by mid-2009 — one of the key points enshrined in the Status of Forces Agreement being reviewed on Capitol Hill today.

 

[hoodonit00]

Oh yeah, by the way, Marines are now leaving a safer and freed Fallujah and handing it back to the Iraqi people. No thanks are necessary. Shoot, I guess this story isn't important enough to report on, because I've seen very little coverage in the media.

https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,439612,00.html

I've said it in a prior post. The true success of the Iraq war will not be known for years. "IF" a stable govt. can keep the peace in Iraq and some stablility in the Middle East the war and George Bushs' presidency will be viewed as a success to future generations.

 

[Kuzeh]

It's incredible how some people still think the Iraq invasion was "right"...
and also think the U.S. helped the world by doing so ...

 

[Mesa]

It's incredible how some people still think the Iraq invasion was "right"...
and also think the U.S. helped the world by doing so ...

It's also funny how ignorant some people are

 

[Kuzeh]

It's also funny how ignorant some people are

Exactly!!

 

[Mesa]

Exactly!!

So you wont even acknowledge the fact the US leaving a safer Falluja and handing it back to the Iraqi people is a good thing?

 

[Kuzeh]

So you wont even acknowledge the fact the US leaving a safer Falluja and handing it back to the Iraqi people is a good thing?

You know, for a while I thought you were messing with people here with your extremist right-wing views, but seems like you really do believe in the stuff you write... that's pretty scary... when:
4,200 coalition soldiers
7,400 iraqi soldiers
and about 90,000 civilians
are death

And you still think this is right, you're a twisted sad person ...
sorry, I can't talk with you anymore ...
so good luck and I hope someday you find light in your path ...

 

[Mesa]

You know, for a while I thought you were messing with people here with your extremist right-wing views, but seems like you really do believe in the stuff you write... that's pretty scary... when:
4,200 coalition soldiers
7,400 iraqi soldiers
and about 90,000 civilians
are death

And you still think this is right, you're a twisted sad person ...
sorry, I can't talk with you anymore ...
so good luck and I hope someday you find light in your path ...

So, we should have just let Saddam continue to commit mass murders? I suppose you think the U.S. taking on and defeating Nazi Germany during WWII was a bad idea too?

 

[bwills]

Bush is literally a criminal, because he broke the law with his warrantless wiretap program. There's no way around that.

Umm, sorry, this just isn't the case no matter how much you wish it were. Forget any legal defense of the NSA program. All you need to know that confirms it's perfectly legal is the fact that the Democrats, who have owned Congress for the last 2 years, have not started any sort of proceedings. All we've gotten from them on the matter is hot air. Believe me, if they thought they had any legal leg to stand on, they would've already had Bush under oath.

But aside from that, there are plenty of National Law scholars who say the NSA stands up to any legal challenge.

 

[bwills]

Kuzeh - all those numbers you cite are fairly accurate except for the civilian numbers. The numbers are all over the board here. The AP says it's 34,832. Iraq Coalition Casualty Count puts it at 43,099. Brookings says it's 133,616. But regardless, those numbers pail to Saddam's body count. He killed 100,000 Kurds alone between 1987-1989. If you count the Iran/Iraq war, which Saddam started, you can tack on an additional 1.1 million. He was a bloody, murdererous tyrant by any logical definition.

 

[LChinoz]

Where were those WMDs?

 

[Kuzeh]

So, we should have just let Saddam continue to commit mass murders? I suppose you think the U.S. taking on and defeating Nazi Germany during WWII was a bad idea too?

Kuzeh - all those numbers you cite are fairly accurate except for the civilian numbers. The numbers are all over the board here. The AP says it's 34,832. Iraq Coalition Casualty Count puts it at 43,099. Brookings says it's 133,616. But regardless, those numbers pail to Saddam's body count. He killed 100,000 Kurds alone between 1987-1989. If you count the Iran/Iraq war, which Saddam started, you can tack on an additional 1.1 million. He was a bloody, murdererous tyrant by any logical definition.

We all know the reason Iraq was invaded wasn't because of Saddam being a murderer ... believing that is just naive. And I agree he was a sick tyrant, but, so is W. I can't believe some people don't see it.

Where were those WMDs?

Probably here:

 

[LChinoz]

Iraq was linked to 911 how again?

 

[bwills]

Kuzeh - and believing the absolute worst about Pres. Bush and why he chose to invade Iraq is equally naive in my opinion. Here are the indesputable facts:

1) We were attacked primarily by Saudi nationals from Iraq's backyard.
2) Almost 3000 Americans are killed by the largest attack on U.S. soil
3) Both domestic and foreign intelligence stated that Saddam had WMDs.
4) The UN believed he had WMDs and had passed 16 resolutions for Iraqi compliance with disarmament before resolution 1441, which was the final resolution promising "serious consequences."
5) High ranking Senators from both parties believed he had WMDs. They all saw the same intelligence President Bush saw, they sat on the same intelligence committees, and were intimately involved with the situation. They all drew the EXACT SAME CONCLUSION and authorized the use of force. Bill Clinton believed this as well.

You have a president who has just suffered the largest foreign attack on U.S. soil in the history of the country and all the intellignce cis confirming that Iraq has WMDs. It is my belief that President Bush was not willing to take any chances that Iraq might cooperate with the enemies of the U.S. and get these weapons into the hands of terrorists who had already demonstrated an ability to hit us from the inside. It was a risk/reward decision and he errored on the side of caution.

Did he did a poor job of managing expecations? Sure. Were mistakes made? Absolutely. But for the Pres. to be villified the way he has been for the past 8 years is what's criminal in my mind. I do not believe for a second that the Pres. had any other motive for invading Iriq other than the preservation of this country.

 

[Mesa]

Kuzeh - and believing the absolute worst about Pres. Bush and why he chose to invade Iraq is equally naive in my opinion. Here are the indesputable facts:

1) We were attacked primarily by Saudi nationals from Iraq's backyard.
2) Almost 3000 Americans are killed by the largest attack on U.S. soil
3) Both domestic and foreign intelligence stated that Saddam had WMDs.
4) The UN believed he had WMDs and had passed 16 resolutions for Iraqi compliance with disarmament before resolution 1441, which was the final resolution promising "serious consequences."
5) High ranking Senators from both parties believed he had WMDs. They all saw the same intelligence President Bush saw, they sat on the same intelligence committees, and were intimately involved with the situation. They all drew the EXACT SAME CONCLUSION and authorized the use of force. Bill Clinton believed this as well.

You have a president who has just suffered the largest foreign attack on U.S. soil in the history of the country and all the intellignce cis confirming that Iraq has WMDs. It is my belief that President Bush was not willing to take any chances that Iraq might cooperate with the enemies of the U.S. and get these weapons into the hands of terrorists who had already demonstrated an ability to hit us from the inside. It was a risk/reward decision and he errored on the side of caution.

Did he did a poor job of managing expecations? Sure. Were mistakes made? Absolutely. But for the Pres. to be villified the way he has been for the past 8 years is what's criminal in my mind. I do not believe for a second that the Pres. had any other motive for invading Iriq other than the preservation of this country.

Facts? What good are those for? Most people don't want to look at facts.

BTW: on your post

 

[bwills]

Iraq was linked to 911 how again?

Simple. They weren't. But your premise is false.

All the intelligence, both foreign and domestic, stated that Iraq had WMDs. Bill Clinton believed it. John Kerry believed it. Hillary Clinton believed it. Congress believed it. The U.N. believed it, etc, etc.

After 911 where terrorists demonstrated the ability to hit us from within, Pres. Bush made the decision that he was unwilling to live with the risk that Saddam might cooperate with these people, who were right in his backyard by the way, and get these weapons into their hands.

That's the primary reason we invaded Iraq.

 

[LChinoz]

Simple. They weren't. But your premise is false.

All the intelligence, both foreign and domestic, stated that Iraq had WMDs. Bill Clinton believed it. John Kerry believed it. Hillary Clinton believed it. Congress believed it. The U.N. believed it, etc, etc.

After 911 where terrorists demonstrated the ability to hit us from within, Pres. Bush made the decision that he was unwilling to live with the risk that Saddam might cooperate with these people, who were right in his backyard by the way, and get these weapons into their hands.

That's the primary reason we invaded Iraq.

Let's see...so, according to you, after the largest attack on US soil, we immediately decided to NOT go after those responsible, but rather were worried about the possibility of another dictator in another country who had nothing to do with it cooperating with our enemies by providing WMDs he ended up not having?

This is why 8 years later we have not gotten those responsible...

 

[hoodonit00]

Where were those WMDs?

They're in Syria.