Mosul falls

[Crabtownboy]

Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act on 10/31/1998, plunging millions of taxpayer dollars into supporting a Democratic uprising, or in other words, starting a civil war.

Here are his words on 12/16, same year.



You'll note, as referenced in my O/P, that after Bush was elected, the democrat leadership never recanted the rhetoric.

That does not change the historic fact that Bush gave the orders to start the war. No one else could. It is ultimately his responsibility, his legacy.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

You make it his legacy only by distortion and willful ignorance. History shows the build-up started before Bush.

I'm also pretty sure you know a president cannot authorize war. Bush had a democrat congress who had to do that, first.

 

[Crabtownboy]

You make it his legacy only by distortion and willful ignorance. History shows the build-up started before Bush.

I'm also pretty sure you know a president cannot authorize war. Bush had a democrat congress who had to do that, first.

Who gave the order that began the war?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I already held Bush responsible for his role, in this very thread. Question answered.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Did you know the Regime Change in Iraq policy, signed by Clinton, had plans for a post Sadaam government ?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Did you know the Regime Change in Iraq policy, signed by Clinton, had plans for a post Sadaam government ?

If you have a regime change policy it would be a given that plans were being made for that new regime.

One problem with Bush was he had no exit strategy.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

How do you suppose Clinton planned to put in a new government, without forcibly removing the first one ?

 

[Crabtownboy]

How do you suppose Clinton planned to put in a new government, without forcibly removing the first one ?

That would be pure speculation and a waste of time.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Or, it would force you to examine your denial.

It would be the height of political naiveté to deny we would have been in Iraq regardless of the 2000 election. If you actually read the documents involved, you have to conclude we were going to remove Sadaam, and it was declared so in 1998.

If you can show me anything that makes my statements false, then do so.

 

[Revmitchell]

That would be pure speculation and a waste of time.

Of course it is. because it does not fit your narrative.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Or, it would force you to examine your denial.

It would be the height of political naiveté to deny we would have been in Iraq regardless of the 2000 election. If you actually read the documents involved, you have to conclude we were going to remove Sadaam, and it was declared so in 1998.

If you can show me anything that makes my statements false, then do so.

I have not denied anything about Clinton. I have not called your statements false. I have said that Bush bears the greatest responsibility as he is the one that gave orders starting that misadventure.

In fact we were not there in 2000.

There are tons of what if documents in the government, in each administration playing out all kinds of scenarios. It would be the height of follow not to have such studies, just as it would be the height of folly not to have lessons learned studies.

So you hate Clinton. So you say he wanted war. Could well be. But he did not give the order sending our military into harms way.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Actually, he did. He is the president, like it or not, who committed us to regime change, in Iraq. His hands are dirty in this.

Let's also not forget Kofi "Oil For Food" Annan and his corrupt U.N..

The democrat aversion to the war started only after they demanded it.

 

[Matt Black]

It's the start of the new Islamic Caliphate in northern Iraq and Syria

 

[Bro. Curtis]

This is a disaster, no doubt.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

ISIS... so if they're in Libya, we're buddies. But if they cross into Iraq or Syria, they are enemies?

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Tom Clancy is prophetic yet again -- posthumously, this time, though it was happening before his death.

Remember the "United Islamic Republic" of Executive Orders? It's forming now.

In the southern part of the ancient Roman Empire.

Hm.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Actually, he did. He is the president, like it or not, who committed us to regime change, in Iraq. His hands are dirty in this.

Let's also not forget Kofi "Oil For Food" Annan and his corrupt U.N..

The democrat aversion to the war started only after they demanded it.

Yes, and no.
He wasn't committed to regime change, per se.
Remember, the PNAC crowd was highly critical of his lack of action with respect to Saddam. They used to proudly display their letter to then-President Clinton on the PNAC site, until they took the site down.

Regards,
BiR

 

[poncho]

Iraq Under Siege By U.S. Funded Terrorists

Prison Planet.com
June 14, 2014

Alex breaks down the history of the middle east empires, the meddling of the West in the Middle East and how the US has been funding Al Qaeda from it’s inception through today.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/iraq-und...errorists.html

Bush and Clinton were puppets of those who benefit most from war. Same as Obama is now.

I don't need to say who benefits most from these "wars" do I?

When it gets right down to brass tacks it doesn't matter who "started" the war. What matters is who benefits from it. And who doesn't. There's no such thing as a democrat or republican war. There's only wars for the benefit of a very few. And those very few who profit from these "wars" gain more power and control over us by waging these "wars".

All the phoney baloney leftie vs rightie propaganda aside "war is a racket". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3_EXqJ8f-0

It's time to wake up.