Is GW the worse President in the last 70 years?

I used to be against the war so I know where you're coming from. I don't even know if I'd support it today if we started all over, but I'll be damned if it doesn't finally seem to be working. I never really thought it would, but it is. Is Iraq safely there yet? No, but the prospects are looking good. And if it does work it will be better for Iraqis AND the rest of the world. If Iraq works and exists as a free and prosperous country for generations, then no death has been in vein.

It seems there's a bit of piling on here so I guess I should back off. You seem like a good guy, grim, I agree with most of gtech's assessment of you, which is generally good. I don't sense an agenda in you like I do in some others. I don't think you hate our country just because you're critical of it, but possibly all the US directed negativity has influenced your thinking a bit. Not thinking critically of the critics is as bad as blindly accepting whatever the government tells you.

 

I just honestly don't see it 'working' to the point you are. Is violence down? Sure it is, that has a lot to do with the US paying off people in Iraq 'which is happening, numerous reports on it' Al Sadr remaining in a cease fire status biding his time, the 'surge' and new tactics which made it extremely difficult for anyone to move to attack like they had in the past. All and all it sounds great, however we can not pay people off forever, we can not maintain our troops in Iraq forever to maintain this 'less violence' aspect, nor is it a guarantee that Al Sadr will continue a cease fire. The very real likely hood of a civil war is still there, I honestly do not see that diminishing at all.

The Iraqi people want us out, to look blindly and say it's 'working' I thinks is truly naive. I would love nothing more than it to be reality, we won, we can pull out and everything be swell. I don't need the US to not win in order to bash Bush 'for the war', or anything of the sort as going in the way we did in the fist place is where my main beef lies. I wish we could have won immediately, it wouldn't of change my opinion that much of 'if' we should have went in.

Winning quickly would of course have cost us less money and allowed us to go after the true terrorists even faster, the same would remain though 'how' we got here which has always been my true beef, followed secondary by the fact we don't have the money for this prolonged conflict. Even if we had it's still 'how' we got here.

That being said isn't it just as likely as the Iraqi's want us out so they can slug it out to determine who will be the true ruling party? A constitution based off of Islam is also far from a 'free' nation IMHO.

Only time will tell. What I am saying is much the same as our own military commanders have been saying, they see progress, they are hopeful, they however are not going to fully let their guard down. I will not fully let my guard down either, some might, I wont as I find doing so extremely dangerous, especially to our men and women in Iraq!

I don't mind piling on one bit, just remain with facts and not fiction is all I ask. I have decided to simply put those on ignore who do nothing more than chant the same debunked claims over and over, and plan to continue to do so.

 

Let's use some sourced material, to correct some of the dishonest "opinion" being used to once again give a victory to terrorists in Iraq, as opposed to supporting "our" troops by recognizing their substantial accomplishments regarding the success of the Surge in Iraq.

First, let me say, that from my experience on this forum, those that have been against the war, regardless of whatever they or others have convinced themselves to believe in, are never going to give "our" troops respect or credit for their magnificent job in pulling off a victory in Iraq.

There is no amount of success, no deeds, no accomplishments, no dozens of sourced articles that show otherwise, that will convince them of anything less than failure. Failure is what they want, it's what they need, in order to validate their "opinions."

The notion of "going into Iraq based upon lies" is common left wing rhetoric. Often repeated by the far left wing, most typically without anything substantial to even back up the "opinion." Unfortunately, these types of people are too easily influenced by "comments" on far left wing blogs like huffpo.

This type of dishonesty can easily be refuted with some simple facts:

1) Iraq did have WMD and used chemical WMD on the Iranians, Kurds and Sunnis.


2) Long before Bush was in office, Democrats had been stating saddam had WMD.

3) Al Gore, the VP of the previous adminstration back in 1992 actually chastised Bush Sr. about Iraq's WMD.


4) Fastforward to 1993, when saddam attempted an assassination and Clinton fired back.


5) Fastforward to 1996. Clinton orders strikes to take out saddam's chemical and biologial weapons program, WMD.


6) Fastforward to 1998. Clinton presents Clear Evidence of Iraqi WMD Program.


7) State of the Union Address of Clinton in 1998. Once again, the subject is saddam and chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. WMD.


8) A nice composite of democrats on WMD.


So it was long known and accepted, prior to Bush's term, that Iraq had WMD. saddam was a menace to the US throughout the 90s, violating it's agreements and, as the democrats pointed out long before Bush was in office, continuing his WMD programs.

Case closed. Anyone that can sit and state that this war was based upon lies, after reading all that *sourced* material is simply a dishonest person.


Surge Working In Iraq.

The notion that al sadr is just sitting by, because he or others are being paid off, is hogwash. In doing a search for something credible to confirm this idea, I've found nothing more than a few comments on far left wing blogs like huffpo. No wonder.

It's no surprise that some might give respect and admiration to terrorists in Iraq by suggesting "they" were responsible for the end in violence, rather than the magnificent work of our troops and the leadership of our general(s) who put together a three part plan to actually do this. On one hand, they suggest they "support the troops," and on the other, they deliberately seek to take away their sacrifices "our" troops made to make this Surge work, by giving the credit away to terrorists. One has to wonder what, if anything, goes through the mind of people like this.

As was done last year, when I posted no less than a dozen articles about the Surge's emerging success in Iraq, the successes are even greater today. But, just like last year, *some* are absolutely disappointed in those successes and as I pointed out above, no matter how successful it is, no matter how much violence is diminished, no matter how hard the US Military AND Iraqi military worked to achieve this, *some* will give their credit away to terrorists, while claiming to "support the troops."

*some* claim they "listen" to what the experts say. Of course, they never cite those so called "experts." Ever wonder why?

Here are some sourced "experts" :

how the surge worked


US monthly toll in Iraq at lowest since invasion


US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost


Quiet Iraq streets leave soldiers yearning for Afghanistan


Iraq's security 'remarkably better'


Iraqis lead final purge of Al-Qaeda


U.S. Cites Big Gains Against Al-Qaeda


Look at what *those* experts are saying. These are not "pretend" experts pulled out of thin air and inserted into opinion. Of course, for *some* it may never be enough. It would interfere with their "opinions." "Opinions" always outweigh facts. "Everyone knows" that!

Here's some opinion. Remember, opinions are not facts, even though *some* believe they are.

Opinion. Last year, I made a post somewhere here where I talked about being frustrated with the Bush administration for not declaring a victory and planning an exit strategy. This is political suicide, IMO. When the Surge started showing tremendous signs of working last year (much to the disappointment of *some* here), I mentioned that it's a good time to start winding things down. Since then, it appears things are moving that way. For Bush NOT to go after this, is just simple stupidity IMO. No, I don't blindly go along with everything Bush says, like Ron Paul supporters do with Ron Paul

Our troops and the Iraqi Military (not Iraqi based terrorists, as *some* would like to give credit to) have made tremendous progress in successfully implementing General Patraeus' Surge strategy. As is clearly sourced (not opinionated from pretend experts, as some do) above, the Surge in Iraq has worked. The Iraqi Military has finally built up. Plans for moving MORE troops home are coming into play. Now the Iraqi government is asking for troop withdrawl. Bush (and McCain) should both be jumping all over this. Sadly, Bush has been rather hesitant.

Why should they jump on it? We don't need to be there forever. We accomplished the mission. saddam was removed. He will not be able to mass murder another million people and dump them in mass graves. al qaida in Iraq has been defeated. The civil war that never was, still isn't. The Iraqi Military is increasing in size and continuing to take on more and more roles and responsibilities.

We don't need to "hand hold." We've achieved a victory (much to the dismay of *some*) and it's time to turn things over. Will it last? It may, it may not. No guarantees have been made. saddam is gone (much to the dismay of some here). We've assisted Iraq taking out murdering islamists who kill innocent Iraqis for virgins. Does that mean they will never blow up innocent Iraqis for virgins again? No and that's not the criteria for defining success. Now it's time to turn things over and let them handle their affaird, NOW that they are able to.

 

Why are you all talk and no action? Why aren't you in Iraq fighting "terrrrrists" and protecting the United States of America? What is your contribution besides just talk and the constant spreading of BS and propaganda? We all pretty much got you figured out man. All one has to do is read between the lines, you constantly promote hate, bigotry and BS! You have 0 ZERO credibility in this forum!

 

LOL.

This must be the most stupid thing posted in this forum in a long long time.

You obviously know nothing about history or guerrilla warfare as you have demonstrated in the previous discussions.

 

I agree, Rebecca. I thoroughly disagree with many of his posts. I do support the United States, as does GTech, in the face of some here who would like to see it destroyed.

I'm trying to think of some things on which GTech and I agree. Chili.....definitely chili!!!!!

 

He is where he's suppose to be whether we agree with the out come or not. We don't know for sure but there is someone who does.

 

What because he actually cites cources and uses facts when he debates instead of that ridiculous post you just submitted? In all honesty I hate that "argument" from people against the war. The for some reason think that one should have to be in Iraq if they support it. Which is a bunch of crap in itself. I support the war but I would never go and enlist. There is a lot of stuff that I support but I have no interest in getting involved with. I support a good economy but Im not going to get a major in economics. I support the cops and fire fighters but im not going to get a job with them. I support my trash being picked up every week. BUT GUESS WHAT. That is not what I want to do. Gtech does not promote hate. He just states an opinion that most of you do not care for and do not want to hear of. For anybody that is into real debating Gtech has credibility.

 

I beg to differ, he uses an extremely limited set of sources to twist a fictional reality that is just that 'fiction'.

After you posted I decided to quickly take a peek at his post.
So many incorrect statements in it, the #1 reason I have put him on ignore is because he makes up his own reality. He bookmarks a few sources and uses them to twist things into something other than they are.

For starters I did not claim Al Sadr was paid, yet he twists it into that.

But also tries to claim he has heard nothing of payouts.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/13/iraq.money.ap/

There are tons of articles on this subject, it's nothing new..

Then to the WMD issue, the 'lies' are not so much on the basis of WMD in themselves, but items such as yellow cake, unmanned arial vehicles being shipped into the US, aluminum tubes, etc, etc. He uses a reasoning such as the guy who said a house was on fire caused by both alien space craft and an electrical short. An electrical short was the cause, but in Gtechs fantasy world since he was partially accurate no lie has been told, no twist has been told. The experts leading up to the war disputed Bush on yellow cake, on aluminum tubes and so much more, not to forget the inspectors were in Iraq able to go anywhere right before we invaded.

Anyone can 'source' enough articles to try to make a point on anything, hell one could prove aliens are among us if they really want to using methods such as this.

His points have been dis proven over and over and over again, many of us including myself are simply sick and tired of debating the same things over and over and over again with someone who has no real sense of reality and ends up using such phrases as 'terrorist supporter, narcissist, popularity contest, etc ' every chance he gets.

Credibility, don't make me laugh. Not when his 'sourced' material is nothing more than a weave of carefully collected articles to try to make a point, all the while forgetting some very key items that makes his argument fold like a deck of cards.

I'm personally glad he's on ignore, where he will stay, until such a time he joins the rest of us in reality.

---
I also see he uses the same old tiring tactic, trying to make it sound like I am giving a victory to 'terrorists in Iraq' instead of our troops for being cautious. Our own military is being cautious as well! It is these types of tactics that are simply unforgivable, yet they are classic Gtech.

A question to all, is giving our men and women 'victory' really more important than what's best for our country and Iraq themselves? I am not taking anything away from what the troops have done, I like our commanders in Iraq will not drop my guard, simple as that.

 

I am not saying its 100% correct. I am just saying that at least he tries to debate and uses facts to do so most of the time.

 

'facts' that have been shown to be incorrect for literally years.

 

Let's correct some more of this dishonesty. As I continue to point out, certain people here simply use their opinion, instead of facts. They can't source anything, because there is nothing to source for their flawed thinking.

Grim suggests:

Two points of dishonesty here:

1) grim does suggest al sadr was paid off.

2) the source used has nothing to do with paying people off not to fight, which he suggested. The article is actually about helping jump start Iraq's economy. I can't think of anything more "twisting" than this. But what else should be expected?

Let's reveiw what grim said:

Is the notion of 'paying people off' not to fight there? Of course it is. Yet grim says he didn't say that, then quotes an article where money is given to Iraqis to help jump start their economy and help out those less fortunate. Sad. Worst attempt I've seen yet.

As usual, grim and his "circle of friends" are unable to source anything to counter when their delusion is countered with solid facts. Instead, as usual, takes the easy road out by dismissing the sources, some of which are the very military commanders he says he supports.

All the while, he gave credit to terrorists in Iraq for any success in the surge, but then denies doing so.

Yet has the nerve to talk about credibility

I believe my point was made. When sources are provided to prove people in this "group" wrong, they don't counter back. Instead, they attack with personal insults, calling people racists, calling names, trying to attack credibility and every other tactic in the book.

Notably missing? Anything to counter sources. Instead, the "oh, boo hoo hoo, we've already countered those before." Really? Then you shouldn't have a problem pointing it out and/or doing it again?

 

This is dishonest.

Two sets of facts are in question, yet nothing is being provided to counter them other than the usual "shown to be incorrect for years." That's pretty lazy, but it's the best we have to work with anymore.

Let's review. First set of facts debunks the dishonest notion that "Bush lied" about WMD to "get us into this war." This sort of dishonesty and left wing mantry has been proven wrong many times here, and I'm always willing to prove it wrong again. Those repeating this left wing rhetoric are never willing to prove otherwise. They just repeat, "Bush lied" in the hopes that if something is repeated often enough, it will become true. Typical left wing flaw.

The sources above conclusively prove such by sourcing where democrats had long known saddam had WMD before Bush was ever in office, and long AFTER Bush WAS in office. So the notion that "Bush lied about WMD to get "us" into war" is dishonest. In order for it to be true, every Democrat and world intelligence agency that noted otherwise from the 90s, all the way through 2003 and beyond has to be lying as well.

No source has been provided to debunk Clinton's speeches and no sources have been provided to debunk the democrats on record noting saddams WMD. I wonder why?

The second issue is, that the Surge is working. This disappoints some, as it did last year when it was sourced and proven the surge was working. One person, in particular even went so far as to try and post dishonest numbers to prove it wasn't, but that was debunked as well. Not only has the Surge worked, but there are literally hundreds of articles from virtually every major expert and news organization out there pointing out it's success. Articles and sources from experts (that someone claims to listen to, but never sources) were provided to illustrate such. But, like last time, doesn't want the Surge to work and rejects any source from "experts" that show the Surge working.

Why is this dishonest? The person claims "'facts' that have been shown to be incorrect for literally years." Really? Because the sources I provided are all from the last sixty days regarding the Surge. What were the dates of his sources? Ah, you noted that as well. He didn't provide any sources. I wonder why?

 

There really shouldn't be a debate about the "belief" that there were WMD in Iraq before the war.

Intelligence sources from around the world all believed Saddam had active WMD and/or was developing WMD prior to the war in 2003. GTech, stating and/or assigning that belief to Dems is political twist that is distorting. The fact is intelligence sources around the world believed Saddam had or was developing WMD and consequently the governments of nations believed the same.

I wish I could find the source. A retired intelligence officer wrote once on how difficult it is to uncover this type of information. The people who work on these types of weaponry tend to be sequestered away from the public. There is the tightest of security. This is what the US did when developing atomic weapons in the 1940's and all nations proceed similarly with the tightest level of secrecy.

60 Minutes published a piece on the US FBI agent that spent time with Saddam Hussein and ultimately pulled some of his secrets before Hussein was executed.

This excerpt from the 60 minutes piece with FBI agent George Piro describes Hussein's thinking about WMD and additionally about his concerns about bin Laden

While Clinton believed, as did everyone else, that Saddam had WMD, it is a political distortion to assign that belief to Democrats. The simple fact is that all in power across the world believed Saddam had WMD, based on the best available information. Any American administration in power during those years would have said the same thing.

The difference is that Bush decided to pursue a war against Saddam Hussein. He not only argued the case about WMD, which all believed, based on the best available evidence, but he made a case to exaggerate the belief. In particular his administration cited the case of Iraq buying uranium from Niger for nuclear weapon development. They made that case and emboldened with commentary that emphasized the threats of mushroom clouds and nuclear bombs.

The supposed Uranium purchase from Niger was specifically debunked by Ambassador Joseph Wilson who was the American sent to Niger to find out if in fact this rumour was true.

IMHO, the issue is not whether Bush argued that Iraq had WMD but rather the evidence and emphases Bush used to justify the war.

 

That is one hell of a post right there. I read that interview a while back. The entire world thought Saddam had wmds and he certainly was trying to develop them. Way to many people these days think otherwise and will deny saddam ever tried to aquire them at all.

 

I was making some guisada de puerco yesterday and thinking about you Not quite chili, but man, it's sure good!

Excellent point. My intention was not to distort or lay blame on Clinton here. In order to illustrate how dishonest "Bush lied about WMD to get us into a war" is, it's important to show others, long before him, believed the same things.

I was trying to track down some sources about how intelligence sources from around the world believed the same thing, but my sources are archived away to make room for newer ones. But I'm glad you pointed that out. It was something I was thinking about when making the case on the previous page, but I really wanted to have some source for it.

Bush's words on this have been the subject of misinformation for years. More information here:

http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html

George Tenet also took responsibility for this and said those words should never have been included in his speech.

Actually, saddam did go uranium shopping in Niger. He had once before and did so in 1999.

That's why it's important to document and source facts, so that opinions are not necessary

Hope you are doing well. Still have a PM from you I need to get around to.

 

Very well put.

I myself from the get go believed Saddam more than likely had some WMD's left over. You however see 'and more than likely put it better' my thoughts as well as most of the nations thoughts that the emphasis of a mushroom cloud, imminent threat and using 9/11 to push the public and congress to support the war.

My wife still makes fun of me til this day as I believed there would be some WMD's, I however did not buy the 'aluminum tubes, yellow cake, unmanned arial vehicles being shipped into the us, etc, etc' that the experts disputed Bush on.

 

His posts seem spot on to me and deeply rooted in reality. Did you read the articles he posted?

 

Excuse me while I finish laughing my ass off.

 

Thanks. I believe it's pretty clear to everyone the difference between solid sourced material and fantasy delusional "opinions" based on blind hatred for a president.

I also believe many of us want to believe a few here are better men than they are conducting themselves as. Problem there is, they keep proving those notions wrong.