President Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld had been to Iraq several times, and each time they went they never once came back with the truth, that Iraq was a mess. Never once did they come with the correct conclusion that needed to be made. This is now fact that Bush had the wrong conclusions, you can’t debate it anymore!
The Republicans never cared that Bush and friends had the wrong conclusions after their returns from Iraq.
Therefore, it is hard to take this dishonest line of thinking from them seriously.
Even if Obama did go, and came back with a conclusion they didn’t like, they would just use that as a club to beat him over the head.
Earn some credibility first Rob.
Hannitized - 08:06am on 06/05/2008
He won’t go before the election because what he will find does not correlate with his anti-war policy.
docdave - 09:06am on 06/05/2008
Obama does not want to go to Iraq, because it would distract with his policy of appeasement, which is to cut and run from Iraq, thereby giving the terrorists what they want, while getting nothing in return. He has already decided to do this for political purposes, and therefore the facts on the ground are meaningless to him. He wants to give Ajad and the terrorists a big present, in hopes that they will love him. He does not care about this country or our interests.
robert108 - 10:06am on 06/05/2008
Bob, do you wipe or are you a bidet man?
realitybasedbob - 11:06am on 06/05/2008
The Republicans never cared that Bush and friends had the wrong conclusions after their returns from Iraq.
Therefore, it is hard to take this dishonest line of thinking from them seriously.
And your conclusions, H? Are they based on your conversations with General Petraeus and other commanders and “boots on the ground?”
It seems to me that Mr. Peter Hegseth is way more qualified to assess the situation in Iraq than either you or Obama. The “dishonest line of thinking here” isn’t that of Hegseth who has actually been to Iraq and seen conditions there first hand, but yours instead.
With neither military training and experience from which to establish a competent and knowledgeable perspective, nor a first hand, on-the-scene assessment, I’d say its you and Obama who need to “earn some credibility.”
Bat One - 11:06am on 06/05/2008
Bat: As you well know, if you win a war, you were right, and if you lose a way, you were wrong. Since we are winning(because we were right to go to Iraq), Obambi wants us to lose, by announcing he is going to cut and run from the fight, if elected. He wants to change our victory into a defeat, to appease the terrorists. It’s not really all that complicated.
robert108 - 12:06pm on 06/05/2008
What you are all missing is that he would see what he wanted, it does not matter what facts are put before him. In his defense, he HAS to. What should he do, tell the anti-war nazis they’re wrong? Who would vote for him? (other than the duped, of course) If they are better, I want to know...if they are not, I want to know. Hanna..says Bush and Co. presented this great image of Iraq, yet all they did was say it’s not as bad as the MSM says it is. It wasn’t good, we all know that..I wish we’d never went in. But, when people say “Bush lied”, “war for oil”, “illegal war” and all the other BS, they are just spouting what they’ve been told to. However, of COURSE it was for oil, but not directly, it was to protect our “partners” in the region from being taken over by a dictator who would hold us hostage. So what? You’d bitch if our economy came to a standstill if Saddam DID have WMDs and use them to take over all of the oil wouldn’t you? You’d bitch if they hanged you with a new rope (as my grandma would say).
JPGR - 12:06pm on 06/05/2008
What you are all missing is that he would see what he wanted, it does not matter what facts are put before him. In his defense, he HAS to. What should he do, tell the anti-war nazis they’re wrong? Who would vote for him? If they are better, I want to know...if they are not, I want to know. Hanna..says Bush and Co. presented this great image of Iraq, yet all they did was say it’s not as bad as the MSM says it is. It wasn’t good, we all know that..I wish we’d never went in. But, when people say “Bush lied”, “war for oil”, “illegal war” and all the other BS, they are just spouting what they’ve been told to. However, of COURSE it was for oil, but not directly, it was to protect our “partners” in the region from being taken over by a dictator who would hold us hostage. So what? You’d bitch if our economy came to a standstill if Saddam DID have WMDs and use them to take over all of the oil wouldn’t you? You’d bitch if they hanged you with a new rope (as my grandma would say).
JPGR - 12:06pm on 06/05/2008
Sorry for the dbl post, it said I messed up the Human? security thingy.
JPGR - 12:06pm on 06/05/2008
As you well know, if you win a war, you were right, and if you lose a way, you were wrong.
R108,
True enough! But one has to be intelligent enough, experienced enough, and objective enough to make the distinction between winning and losing. I see no evidence to indicate that Mr. Obama meets any of the criteria for passing judgment on the situation in Iraq.
This is a logical fallacy.
President Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld had been to Iraq several times, and each time they went they never once came back with the truth, that Iraq was a mess. Never once did they come with the correct conclusion that needed to be made. This is now fact that Bush had the wrong conclusions, you can’t debate it anymore!
The Republicans never cared that Bush and friends had the wrong conclusions after their returns from Iraq.
Therefore, it is hard to take this dishonest line of thinking from them seriously.
Even if Obama did go, and came back with a conclusion they didn’t like, they would just use that as a club to beat him over the head.
Earn some credibility first Rob.
He won’t go before the election because what he will find does not correlate with his anti-war policy.
Obama does not want to go to Iraq, because it would distract with his policy of appeasement, which is to cut and run from Iraq, thereby giving the terrorists what they want, while getting nothing in return. He has already decided to do this for political purposes, and therefore the facts on the ground are meaningless to him. He wants to give Ajad and the terrorists a big present, in hopes that they will love him. He does not care about this country or our interests.
Bob, do you wipe or are you a bidet man?
And your conclusions, H? Are they based on your conversations with General Petraeus and other commanders and “boots on the ground?”
It seems to me that Mr. Peter Hegseth is way more qualified to assess the situation in Iraq than either you or Obama. The “dishonest line of thinking here” isn’t that of Hegseth who has actually been to Iraq and seen conditions there first hand, but yours instead.
With neither military training and experience from which to establish a competent and knowledgeable perspective, nor a first hand, on-the-scene assessment, I’d say its you and Obama who need to “earn some credibility.”
Bat: As you well know, if you win a war, you were right, and if you lose a way, you were wrong. Since we are winning(because we were right to go to Iraq), Obambi wants us to lose, by announcing he is going to cut and run from the fight, if elected. He wants to change our victory into a defeat, to appease the terrorists. It’s not really all that complicated.
What you are all missing is that he would see what he wanted, it does not matter what facts are put before him. In his defense, he HAS to. What should he do, tell the anti-war nazis they’re wrong? Who would vote for him? (other than the duped, of course) If they are better, I want to know...if they are not, I want to know. Hanna..says Bush and Co. presented this great image of Iraq, yet all they did was say it’s not as bad as the MSM says it is. It wasn’t good, we all know that..I wish we’d never went in. But, when people say “Bush lied”, “war for oil”, “illegal war” and all the other BS, they are just spouting what they’ve been told to. However, of COURSE it was for oil, but not directly, it was to protect our “partners” in the region from being taken over by a dictator who would hold us hostage. So what? You’d bitch if our economy came to a standstill if Saddam DID have WMDs and use them to take over all of the oil wouldn’t you? You’d bitch if they hanged you with a new rope (as my grandma would say).
What you are all missing is that he would see what he wanted, it does not matter what facts are put before him. In his defense, he HAS to. What should he do, tell the anti-war nazis they’re wrong? Who would vote for him? If they are better, I want to know...if they are not, I want to know. Hanna..says Bush and Co. presented this great image of Iraq, yet all they did was say it’s not as bad as the MSM says it is. It wasn’t good, we all know that..I wish we’d never went in. But, when people say “Bush lied”, “war for oil”, “illegal war” and all the other BS, they are just spouting what they’ve been told to. However, of COURSE it was for oil, but not directly, it was to protect our “partners” in the region from being taken over by a dictator who would hold us hostage. So what? You’d bitch if our economy came to a standstill if Saddam DID have WMDs and use them to take over all of the oil wouldn’t you? You’d bitch if they hanged you with a new rope (as my grandma would say).
Sorry for the dbl post, it said I messed up the Human? security thingy.
R108,
True enough! But one has to be intelligent enough, experienced enough, and objective enough to make the distinction between winning and losing. I see no evidence to indicate that Mr. Obama meets any of the criteria for passing judgment on the situation in Iraq.