I was only speaking on the removal of Osama bin Laden from this planet.

 

I could be wrong but I was thinking that it was known that Iraq would be in limbo for decades after we invaded it and killed Saddam and tried to implement democracy. Still a long way to go on that. I'm really not sure how to fix it or if it ever will be fixed. I'm thinking the birth of ISIS is similar to the birth of the Taliban when the US left Afghanistan in the 80s thus creating Osama bin Laden. I could be wrong in this line of thinking though.

 

I'm real glad Bush instituted the policies to go after bin Laden after 9/11. Glad we finally got him.

I'm real glad Bush instituted the policies to go after bin Laden after 9/11. Glad we finally got him.

 

 

I liked those policies also. It's obvious they were needed and they worked.

Never said it was. Same as Mother Jones. Biased.

 

 

That's my point. Clizzy was the only person who challenged what was said in the initial post. As soon as he challenged it the first reply was "your source is biased".

 

That makes no sense when the initial post is an editorial from a biased website about a NY Times column.

That's my point. Clizzy was the only person who challenged what was said in the initial post. As soon as he challenged it the first reply was "your source is biased".

 

That makes no sense when the initial post is an editorial from a biased website about a NY Times column.

 

So if he had posted it from the NYT you would be OK with it? It says what it says.

So if he had posted it from the NYT you would be OK with it? It says what it says.

 

There is a difference in what it actually says vs how it was interpreted by many.

So if he had posted it from the NYT you would be OK with it? It says what it says.

 

What Clizzy said. The NY Times didn't say what JD said. From what I gathered the NY Times still took issue with how Bush handled it.

I read the entire NYT article.

 

To say that there were no WMD in Iraq is a false statement. Was it a current, thriving program? Probably not. Were the munitions found able to be used against the coalition? Some could have been.

 

The most disturbing thing to me from the article is the way our soldiers were treated. Shameful.

I read the entire NYT article.

 

To say that there were no WMD in Iraq is a false statement. Was it a current, thriving program? Probably not. Were the munitions found able to be used against the coalition? Some could have been.

 

The most disturbing thing to me from the article is the way our soldiers were treated. Shameful.

 

We 100% agree on your last statement. THAT is what we should be screaming about.

I read the entire NYT article.

 

To say that there were no WMD in Iraq is a false statement. Was it a current, thriving program? Probably not.

 

But the war was sold partly , if not mostly, on the supposed finding that there were active programs. Twitter, FB, and this page are filled with smart people thinking this NYT article somehow proved the President and his administration were correct when it reality it does not.

 

Sadly, we'll focus on the "right vs wrong" instead of the coverup and lack of care to the soldiers.

But the war was sold partly , if not mostly, on the supposed finding that there were active programs. Twitter, FB, and this page are filled with smart people thinking this NYT article somehow proved the President and his administration were correct when it reality it does not.

 

Sadly, we'll focus on the "right vs wrong" instead of the coverup and lack of care to the soldiers.

 

FWIW in the first post I Bolded the quote where the officer was basically saying he was told to cover it up. I thought that was a big deal that's why I Bolded it!

But the war was sold partly , if not mostly, on the supposed finding that there were active programs. Twitter, FB, and this page are filled with smart people thinking this NYT article somehow proved the President and his administration were correct when it reality it does not.

 

Sadly, we'll focus on the "right vs wrong" instead of the coverup and lack of care to the soldiers.

 

Kind of interpreting your own idea there, aren't you. I read stockpiles of weapons, which of course there now appears that there were. With no access allowed how would we know if they were capable of being used? This is a very long way from the 'no WMD's in Iraq" argument.

Here is my question...if there was as it seems to have been a cover up that WMD's were found and according to WikiLeaks a few labs as well, WHY WAS IT COVERED UP?

 

You'd think that the Pentagon and White House would want that info out there. Especially since we were already hearing "Bush Lied People Died" at that point.

But the war was sold partly , if not mostly, on the supposed finding that there were active programs. Twitter, FB, and this page are filled with smart people thinking this NYT article somehow proved the President and his administration were correct when it reality it does not.

 

Sadly, we'll focus on the "right vs wrong" instead of the coverup and lack of care to the soldiers.

 

I understand what the war was partly sold on. Let's be fair, the argument was also made that Saddam was helping train terrorists.

 

I was pointing out that those that like to bash Bush for everything from the Iraq war to it raining, that continue to state there were no WMD in Iraq, are incorrect.

 

As I stated before, the most disturbing thing from the article is the way our soldiers were thrown under the bus.

Here is my question...if there was as it seems to have been a cover up that WMD's were found and according to WikiLeaks a few labs as well, WHY WAS IT COVERED UP?

 

You'd think that the Pentagon and White House would want that info out there. Especially since we were already hearing "Bush Lied People Died" at that point.

 

If they were found 2009 and after, we know the answer to that question.

I understand what the war was partly sold on. Let's be fair, the argument was also made that Saddam was helping train terrorists.

 

I was pointing out that those that like to bash Bush for everything from the Iraq war to it raining, that continue to state there were no WMD in Iraq, are incorrect.

 

As I stated before, the most disturbing thing from the article is the way our soldiers were thrown under the bus.

 

I agree with the last sentence.

 

I'm having a hard time remembering facts around WMDs. Did Bush ever admit that there weren't WMDs in Iraq or am I misremembering that? I keep thinking of a time when the words "bad intelligence" were used but I can't remember who, what, when, where or why they were used.