ISIS Takes Control of Mosul

[hog88]

You and I both can say for certain that Bush/Cheney invading Iraq was a major mistake. We would not have had all the lose of life and injures to ofur service men and women with the invasion, nor would we have spent trillions of dollars in Iraq for no justified reason.

Yes, in hindsight the invasion and more importantly the occupation were mistakes. But the rise of ISIS cannot be solely attributed to the removal of Saddam.

 

[hog88]

I'm also referring to Operations Southern and Northern Watch where we had thousands of troops rotate through that hellhole and dropped a great deal of money for nothing more than enforcing UN sanctions. And with no clear end in sight. Iraq sponsored a terrorist attack or attempt? We'd bomb the crap out of them and go back to patrolling the skies. Light up a couple of our fighters with a SAM? We'd bomb that and go back to patrolling.

I think the invasion was justified. It wasn't sold right at all, but in the end the removal of Saddam from power was righteous in my opinion. But the aftermath of rebuilding that nation was the problem. The insurgency would never had gotten almost out of control had they used the same blueprints from Germany and Japan in the aftermath. There still would have been problems, but by and large, Iraq would have had a different face today.

Should have kept the Iraqi military in tact and allowed certain Bathists to remain in positions of authority.

 

[lawgator1]

It does seem like the evolving GOP message, in the echo chamber of Fox, has become: The Iraq War would have been a success had we stayed there longer.

If I'm a Dem strategist, I'm delighted with that refrain. And wishing you good luck with that.

 

[Grand Vol]

The Kurds pretty much ruled their region and it remained under control, correct?

That central part has been a mess.

As well as the southern portion that was predominately Shi'a controlled. The bad fighting you heard about on the news was mainly confined to the central regions with sporadic violence elsewhere.

 

[lawgator1]

As well as the southern portion that was predominately Shi'a controlled. The bad fighting you heard about on the news was mainly confined to the central regions with sporadic violence elsewhere.

That is my understanding, too.

The political problem for the GOP is that every single argument they make leads inexorably to the conclusion that the situation for the Iraqis would still suck if Hussein were alive and in power, but that the US and the West in general would be a whole lot better off if we had let the Iraqis develop their own solution to the problem.

Honestly, it is the one thing where I find myself siding with Rand Paul almost enough to vote for him. Military force is fine when you are facing an impending attack. But this nation building crap in the ME has failed over and over and over and over. And it always leaves everyone worse off than if we had left well enough alone.

 

[hog88]

That is my understanding, too.

The political problem for the GOP is that every single argument they make leads inexorably to the conclusion that the situation for the Iraqis would still suck if Hussein were alive and in power, but that the US and the West in general would be a whole lot better off if we had let the Iraqis develop their own solution to the problem.

Honestly, it is the one thing where I find myself siding with Rand Paul almost enough to vote for him. Military force is fine when you are facing an impending attack. But this nation building crap in the ME has failed over and over and over and over. And it always leaves everyone worse off than if we had left well enough alone.

Good thing none of the serious GOP candidates have a voting record for the invasion. Who on the Dem side can say the same? Or who on the Dem side has a record of failed nation building?

 

[lawgator1]

Good thing none of the serious GOP candidates have a voting record for the invasion. Who on the Dem side can say the same? Or who on the Dem side has a record of failed nation building?

Another failed GOP talking point.

I'll grant you that the American people are short sighted, and have low attention spans. But even they realize that a bunch of folks voted for that war because they were misled by the Bush-Cheney administration.

So go ahead. Embrace the failure some more.

In my view, a GOP candidate is far better off fessing up that it was an enormous mistake, and should not be repeated, and pledge to 1) work on better intelligence and decisionmaking; and, 2) not letting the tail of wanting a war wag the dog of actually doing it.

Make no mistake. # 2 is exactly what happened here. And Jeb ought to just quit fumbling and stick to it was a mistake. Leave it at that. Everyone knows it. Just admit it and move on.

 

[Gramps]

Yes, in hindsight the invasion and more importantly the occupation were mistakes. But the rise of ISIS cannot be solely attributed to the removal of Saddam.

I think Saddam would have stooped ISIS as soon as they entered his country. He would not have considered them the JV team. He was a cold cruel dictator that kept his country in line. As bad as this sounds, a cruel dictator may be needed to keep the peace in that region of the world.

 

[hog88]

Another failed GOP talking point.

I'll grant you that the American people are short sighted, and have low attention spans. But even they realize that a bunch of folks voted for that war because they were misled by the Bush-Cheney administration.

So go ahead. Embrace the failure some more.

In my view, a GOP candidate is far better off fessing up that it was an enormous mistake, and should not be repeated, and pledge to 1) work on better intelligence and decisionmaking; and, 2) not letting the tail of wanting a war wag the dog of actually doing it.

Make no mistake. # 2 is exactly what happened here. And Jeb ought to just quit fumbling and stick to it was a mistake. Leave it at that. Everyone knows it. Just admit it and move on.

Hillary has voted for, supported and was in the inner circle for more failed military/foreign policy decisions than any R candidate. It looks to me that she is the only one that has some splanning to do.

 

[hog88]

I think Saddam would have stooped ISIS as soon as they entered his country. He would not have considered them the JV team. He was a cold cruel dictator that kept his country in line. As bad as this sounds, a cruel dictator may be needed to keep the peace in that region of the world.

His army wasn't all that effective remember. Besides who knows what side he would have taken in the Syrian civil war?

 

[Gramps]

Hillary has voted for, supported and was in the inner circle for more failed military/foreign policy decisions than any R candidate. It looks to me that she is the only one that has some splanning to do.

Agree but poor ole Jeb has a little splanning to do also. He is going to have to decide if he supports his brother invading or not. He is putting himself in the same category as Kerry and Romney for being know as a flip-flopper. He flips his position every other day on this, it seems.

He should have known the question of Iraq would be coming up at some point in the campaign and been prepared for it.

 

[hndog609]

Late to the party and sorry if similar thought has already been posted but I'd have liked to have seen a smaller step in the "or else" category regarding the weapons inspection. Iraq had a pretty spotty record with compliance and I'd have liked to have seen something along the lines of "You show it or we blow it." Inspectors go where they want/when they want or we simply blow up anything we consider suspicious, at our discretion, until inspection is allowed. There would be nothing off the "boom" list either, including the F'ing royal palace if we so chose. (probably not but we make it clear that's not for Saddam to decide)

Maybe we still end up with an invasion, I don't know, but I'd have tried stepping up the severity before going all Shock and Awe.

 

[Gramps]

His army wasn't all that effective remember. Besides who knows what side he would have taken in the Syrian civil war?

He would have taken the government side. Remember that is where he hid all his wmd.

 

[allvol123]

Another failed GOP talking point.

I'll grant you that the American people are short sighted, and have low attention spans. But even they realize that a bunch of folks voted for that war because they were misled by the Bush-Cheney administration.

So go ahead. Embrace the failure some more.
n.

Well that is a solid defense counselor.

I'm sure as POTUS no one would ever try to mislead her. All our enemies and allies are straight up.

 

[lawgator1]

Well that is a solid defense counselor.

I'm sure as POTUS no one would ever try to mislead her. All our enemies and allies are straight up.

And with respect to the Iraq War, there were some pretty powerful people within that administration who could be characterized as the former, not the latter.

Cheney and Wolfowitz amongst them, imo.

 

[hog88]

Agree but poor ole Jeb has a little splanning to do also. He is going to have to decide if he supports his brother invading or not. He is putting himself in the same category as Kerry and Romney for being know as a flip-flopper. He flips his position every other day on this, it seems.

He should have known the question of Iraq would be coming up at some point in the campaign and been prepared for it.

Not that I like or support Jeb but I call BS. All he has to do is say yes, with the same intel the Senate received I would have supported the invasion. That is not flip-flopping, that is painting Hilly into a corner.

 

[hog88]

He would have taken the government side. Remember that is where he hid all his wmd.

You should be SOS since you have all the answers and can read the future.

He would have taken whatever side best suited him.

 

[lawgator1]

Not that I like or support Jeb but I call BS. All he has to do is say yes, with the same intel the Senate received I would have supported the invasion. That is not flip-flopping, that is painting Hilly into a corner.

He has to say three things:

1) Based on the intel that was given out by the administration at the time, he would support it.

2) The intel at the time was wrong.

3) Based on what we now know, no, he would not support it.



He'll be asked question about why # 2 occurred, and they will not be easy to answer, i.e. was it manipulated, how did they get it so wrong, etc. But he can answer to that he doesn't know and pledge to not have it happen again, and that would work. That would all be correct.

 

[hog88]

He has to say three things:

1) Based on the intel that was given out by the administration at the time, he would support it.

2) The intel at the time was wrong.

3) Based on what we now know, no, he would not support it.



He'll be asked question about why # 2 occurred, and they will not be easy to answer, i.e. was it manipulated, how did they get it so wrong, etc. But he can answer to that he doesn't know and pledge to not have it happen again, and that would work. That would all be correct.

He doesn't have to answer that, all he has to say is that it wouldn't happen on his watch.

Hillary who was in the Senate is the one who really has to answer that question. She will also have to answer why as SOS we supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, why did Libya collapse after we helped take out Gaddafi, why the indecision and inaction in Syria and so on.

 

[agent|orange]

He doesn't have to answer that, all he has to say is that it wouldn't happen on his watch.

Hillary who was in the Senate is the one who really has to answer that question. She will also have to answer why as SOS we supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, why did Libya collapse after we helped take out Gaddafi, why the indecision and inaction in Syria and so on.

Great questions to ask and good luck getting anything of substance from Hillary. She's a professional politician and a complete snake.

 

[lawgator1]

He doesn't have to answer that, all he has to say is that it wouldn't happen on his watch.

Hillary who was in the Senate is the one who really has to answer that question. She will also have to answer why as SOS we supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, why did Libya collapse after we helped take out Gaddafi, why the indecision and inaction in Syria and so on.

I agree, he can dodge it. But he needs to say the intel was wrong, that his brother and his administration was wrong.

As to HRC and Iraq, her answer is pretty simple: I was misled by the intelligence provided to us by Bush-Cheney. Just like everyone else.

 

[agent|orange]

I agree, he can dodge it. But he needs to say the intel was wrong, that his brother and his administration was wrong.

As to HRC and Iraq, her answer is pretty simple: I was misled by the intelligence provided to us by Bush-Cheney. Just like everyone else.

The entire Curveball fiasco is really interesting. It's one of those "would make a good movie" type of things.

I'll say no more.

 

[hog88]

I agree, he can dodge it. But he needs to say the intel was wrong, that his brother and his administration was wrong.

As to HRC and Iraq, her answer is pretty simple: I was misled by the intelligence provided to us by Bush-Cheney. Just like everyone else.

Nice that you ignore the other questions she must answer. You working on her staff?

 

[Velo Vol]

As to HRC and Iraq, her answer is pretty simple: I was misled by the intelligence provided to us by Bush-Cheney. Just like everyone else.

Maybe she can get by with that. But in an ideal world with a zealous press, she, and all candidates, would be forced to explain what she learned about how to handle unreliable intelligence, which seems to be an American constant.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Webster's Dictionary rewrite of the word "irony" follows.

Megan Kelly and her guests say this is all Obama's fault. And that comes directly from such credible sources as Bush administration officials.


I can't believe they have the gall to blame anyone other than themselves. It's mind boggling.

Unless of course your computer was low on blue font.