For those that think it was ALL a lie or misinformation...you might want to read this article from that known Right Wing Rag the New York Times...http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=Banner&module=span-ab-top-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

 

Five years after President George W. Bush sent troops into Iraq, these soldiers had entered an expansive but largely secret chapter of America’s long and bitter involvement in Iraq.

 

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

 

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

If anyone has a problem with Bush's supposed recklessness but can some how justify Hilary's actions with Benghazi, I think they have issues with logic and reality.

Sounds like you might have a reading comprehension problem. Doesn't really matter whether one calls it a lie, or a fabrication, or an embellishment, or a stretching of facts, or a knucklehead application of intelligence, or a rush to judgment before all the facts were known ... the end result was and is a massive mistake.

 

Cowboy hubris at its best.

 

I'll ask again, do you hold the same contempt for Hillary and the POTUS over Benghazi?

This thread is about the degree of GWB's incompetence, not Hillary. I would also add that Benghazi is a rowboat compared to the battleship Iraq, which cost 4,500 or so American lives and upwards of $800 billion. What's upsetting to me as much as the WMD question is all this nonsense from Bush at the time about how Iraq was going to be a beacon of democracy. It's as if GWB and his chief adviser Cheney never got a briefing on religious-tribal alliances in the Middle East.

If Bush was incompetent, so was every single Senator and Representative (GOP and Dem) who voted to invade along with numerous others like Gore, Bill Clinton, Sec of State Albright and others who had been stating steadfast that Iraq without question had WMD and had verbally approved of invasion.

I'm one who pretty much never wants us to go to war.

 

But count me among those who believe that bad intel was the primary culprit here. Did we go in prematurely? Yes.

 

I don't think the intel was bad. I think we took too long acting on it.

This thread is about the degree of GWB's incompetence, not Hillary. I would also add that Benghazi is a rowboat compared to the battleship Iraq, which cost 4,500 or so American lives and upwards of $800 billion. What's upsetting to me as much as the WMD question is all this nonsense from Bush at the time about how Iraq was going to be a beacon of democracy. It's as if GWB and his chief adviser Cheney never got a briefing on religious-tribal alliances in the Middle East.

 

Of course, let's deflect and not answer the question at all.

 

Your steadfast, the Right is evil and the Left is great, would be humorous if it weren't so utterly sad.

 

You, and those like you, on both sides of the aisle, are what is wrong with politics in America today.

This thread is about the degree of GWB's incompetence, not Hillary. I would also add that Benghazi is a rowboat compared to the battleship Iraq, which cost 4,500 or so American lives and upwards of $800 billion. What's upsetting to me as much as the WMD question is all this nonsense from Bush at the time about how Iraq was going to be a beacon of democracy. It's as if GWB and his chief adviser Cheney never got a briefing on religious-tribal alliances in the Middle East.

 

TTP, I actually have come around a lot on the Iraq war and agree with you that it was a mistake going in. However, you (and many others) make it sound like Bush did this on his own with no support from anyone else in the US. Most dems in Congress could not wait to back Bush at the time because it was politically popular to do so. Then when it did not work out as planned, they jumped ship and called him a liar - because it was politically popular to do so. I just don't think you can have it both ways...

TTP, I actually have come around a lot on the Iraq war and agree with you that it was a mistake going in. However, you (and many others) make it sound like Bush did this on his own with no support from anyone else in the US. Most dems in Congress could not wait to back Bush at the time because it was politically popular to do so. Then when it did not work out as planned, they jumped ship and called him a liar - because it was politically popular to do so. I just don't think you can have it both ways...

What's troubling is that GWB and his cowboy neocon advisers decided to invade a country ... then they looked for a reason to do so. For the record, 133 Dems in the House and 23 in the Senate voted against the war, so let's put to rest this notion that everyone got duped by faulty intelligence.

What's troubling is that GWB and his cowboy neocon advisers decided to invade a country ... then they looked for a reason to do so. For the record, 133 Dems in the House and 23 in the Senate voted against the war, so let's put to rest this notion that everyone got duped by faulty intelligence.

 

OK then, the MAJORITY of the Dems voted to go to war.

 

Why let facts get in the way of a good talking point though right?

What's troubling is that GWB and his cowboy neocon advisers decided to invade a country ... then they looked for a reason to do so. For the record, 133 Dems in the House and 23 in the Senate voted against the war, so let's put to rest this notion that everyone got duped by faulty intelligence.

 

:laugh: Boy you never disappoint with the entertainment value.