Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Bob Woodward: Bush Didn't Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War

Bob Woodward: Bush Didn't Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War

+7
VectorMan
Hospital Bob
KarlRove
2seaoat
polecat
Sal
gatorfan
11 posters

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 3]

gatorfan



"Former President George W. Bush did not lie about the presence of weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq War, journalist Bob Woodward said Sunday.

The argument has been used for years by Democrats and other detractors, but Woodward said on "Fox News Sunday" that his own 18-month investigation showed that Bush was actually skeptical that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had WMDs as Saddam claimed.

Though plenty of mistakes were made in the invasion of Iraq, Bush actually told CIA Director George Tenet, "Don’t let anyone stretch the case on WMD," Woodward said.

The reason the United States went into Iraq was "momentum," he said.

"That war plan kept getting better and easier, and finally at the end people were saying, 'Hey, look, it'll only take a week or two.'"

Though it can be argued the war was a mistake, Woodward told host Chris Wallace, "there was no lie in this that I could find."

As for President Barack Obama's decision to leave no residual force behind when American troops left Iraq in December 2011, Woodward indicated it would have been better to have left 10,000-15,000 troops behind as "an insurance policy" as military commanders suggested.

"We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still, 65 years or so after the war," Woodward said. "When you’re a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies, and he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision — but clearly a factor."

http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/george-wbush-weapons-of-mass-destruction-iraq-war/2015/05/24/id/646530/?Dkt_nbr=13074-1&nmx_source=The_Hill&nmx_medium=widget&nmx_content=121&nmx_campaign=widgetphase2

Floridatexan

Floridatexan


Bob Woodward is a fraud...has been since Watergate.

Sal

Sal

Momentum??

That's the excuse???

Jebus ....

gatorfan



Floridatexan wrote:
Bob Woodward is a fraud...has been since Watergate.  

What sort of "proof" do you have he is a fraud? Or is it simply you just don't like the message since it differs from the unqualified bloggers you use as references?

gatorfan



Sal wrote:Momentum??

That's the excuse???

Jebus ....

That was probably some of it, once the rock started rolling down the hill maybe they couldn't stop it - particularly when many other country's were involved.

Doesn't make it right though, invading was a huge mistake and an even bigger mistake came after when they disbanded the Iraqi Army in its entirety. Fools.

But then 20-20 hindsight is great.....

Sal

Sal

I'm not sure "fraud" is the right term for Woodward.

I think "irrelevant publicity whore" is more accurate.

Sal

Sal

gatorfan wrote:
That was probably some of it, once the rock started rolling down the hill maybe they couldn't stop it - particularly when many other country's were involved.

Doesn't make it right though, invading was a huge mistake and an even bigger mistake came after when they disbanded the Iraqi Army in its entirety. Fools.

But then 20-20 hindsight is great.....

That's some high octane bullshit right there.

They "couldn't stop it"??

Give me a break.

And, the momentum was being provided by the "many other countries involved"??

Bitch, puhleeze ...

You must mean Poland.

If there was momentum coming from anywhere, it was from our very own MIC, with whom Dick and Dubya are very well acquainted.

polecat

polecat

Bob Woodward: Bush Didn't Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War Brian-williams-iraq

gatorfan



Sal wrote:
gatorfan wrote:
That was probably some of it, once the rock started rolling down the hill maybe they couldn't stop it - particularly when many other country's were involved.

Doesn't make it right though, invading was a huge mistake and an even bigger mistake came after when they disbanded the Iraqi Army in its entirety. Fools.

But then 20-20 hindsight is great.....

That's some high octane bullshit right there.

They "couldn't stop it"??

Give me a break.

And, the momentum was being provided by the "many other countries involved"??

Bitch, puhleeze ...

You must mean Poland.

If there was momentum coming from anywhere, it was from our very own MIC, with whom Dick and Dubya are very well acquainted.

I keep forgetting you aren't capable of participating in an adult dialogue without resorting to shallow snark.

2seaoat



"We have 30,000 troops or more in South Korea still, 65 years or so after the war," Woodward said. "When you’re a superpower, you have to buy these insurance policies, and he didn’t in this case. I don’t think you can say everything is because of that decision — but clearly a factor."

No Bob, superpowers do NOT flush their resources down the toilet. This sentence suggesting that Iraq was a zone of critical interest which required 20k troops is as faulty as his review of the run up to the invasion of Iraq. The entire premise of the war in Iraq WAS a lie which I bought hook, line, and sinker as I supported the invasion, and revisionist history does not change the facts which Tex has given ample proof that those around the President were trying to justify the invasion. It was a mistake. It was not by accident. It is a mistake to have America military in the Middle East, and Woodard whose father was a republican chief judge has returned to the roost where MIC expenditures correlate with good policy despite the facts contrary to that conclusion. We do not have to buy insurance policies and if Israel and the Saudis want to buy the same they should spend their money and commit their troops to the same......America is done with the Middle East and like President Reagan, we are cutting and running.

Sal

Sal

gatorfan wrote:
I keep forgetting you aren't capable of participating in an adult dialogue without resorting to shallow snark.

Well, I got kicked out of the knitting circle for being too snarky, so I can't argue with that, "butt buddy, girly boy".

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

gatorfan wrote:
Floridatexan wrote:
Bob Woodward is a fraud...has been since Watergate.  

What sort of "proof" do you have he is a fraud? Or is it simply you just don't like the message since it differs from the unqualified bloggers you use as references?

I don't think you realize that Woodward (& Bernstein) were considered heroes during the Watergate scandal. But if you look closer, everything was not as it appeared to be then. In 2002, Woodward wrote a book: BUSH AT WAR. At that point, he was obviously referring to the war in Afghanistan, because there was no war in Iraq. I have rarely come across such obsequious pablum...it was like reading nothing. I don't know why he even bothered to write it...except to polish his own credentials.

I don't answer questions that have a foregone conclusion.

Sal

Sal

"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program...Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."

Guess who said that ....

Prevarication?  Sure.

Dissembling?   Yup.

Distortion?  Naturally.

Misrepresentation?

Falsity?

Mendacity?

Fraudulent, distorted whoppers that consigned hundreds of thousands of human beings to their early, unnatural deaths?

Uh huh, uh huh, uh huh, uh huh.

But lying?

Don't be ridiculous.

polecat

polecat

Bob Woodward: Bush Didn't Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War Talkingpoints

Sal

Sal

It's really not terribly surprising that Woodward would say this.

He's become the quintessential DC villager, and would say just about anything at this point to make a splash at the Georgetown cocktail parties.

The surprise is that there are rubes willing to believe it.

Or, maybe they're just partisan hacks.

KarlRove

KarlRove

by Sal Today at 11:10 am
I'm not sure "fraud" is the right term for Woodward.

I think "irrelevant publicity whore" is more accurate.
------
That would be Hillary

Sal

Sal

Hillary irrelevant?

Are the polls lying to you again, PeeDawg?

KarlRove

KarlRove

She's as electable as Nixon would be right about now.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

The 2016 Republican contenders have no choice but to face the reality of the fact that the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was the worst foreign policy mistake by our country in the last 100 years. No amount of propaganda can change this.

Their only hope is to declare Iraq a mistake, throw George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, et al., under the bus, and try to shift the debate  away from Iraq onto something more worthy, such as the economic recovery.  Iraq is proving to be a heavy weight against Republican chances if they can't move discussion past this.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

KarlRove wrote:She's as electable as Nixon would be right about now.

In the past, you have made bold election predictions, and have been proven 100% wrong in every case.

You one day may be waltzing down the hallway in your squadron area, and passing a full-color portrait of president-elect Clinton hanging on the wall. It'll be the one that replaces President Obama's portrait. Razz

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

gatorfan



ZVUGKTUBM wrote:The 2016 Republican contenders have no choice but to face the reality of the fact that the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was the worst foreign policy mistake by our country in the last 100 years. No amount of propaganda can change this.

Their only hope is to declare Iraq a mistake, throw George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, et al., under the bus, and try to shift the debate  away from Iraq onto something more worthy, such as the economic recovery.  Iraq is proving to be a heavy weight against Republican chances if they can't move discussion past this.

Of course liberals want Iraq (Bush era - not Obama era) to stay on the radar, ignoring of course the fact most people NOW know about the intelligence failures and the end result decision (wrong one) to invade. You know, like the Democrat front-runner HRC who voted right along with the plan.

One has to wonder if HRC is going to throw Obama under the bus for HIS many mistakes in the Mid East, not the least of which are the disasters in Syria and Libya.

Markle

Markle

polecat wrote:Bob Woodward: Bush Didn't Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War Brian-williams-iraq

He's the only one who lied. Even leading Democrats admit that fact. It is pathetic that in 2015, with ISIS now taking over the Middle East.

Progressives are so desperate they are forced to ignore the disaster happening today and sputter like an ailing motorboat but, but, but...what about 2002?

Sal

Sal

Anyone who doesn't understand that the utter insanity of invading and occupying a post-Ottoman, post-colonial, sectarian kleptocracy, with absolutely no plan of how to proceed after seizing the capital, in a region of artificial borders and eternal blood feuds, led directly to ALL of the chaos we're currently witnessing in the ME, should be disqualified from any discussions regarding foreign affairs.

That's a nice way of telling you to shut your ignorant piehole, Markie.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

gatorfan wrote:
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:The 2016 Republican contenders have no choice but to face the reality of the fact that the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq was the worst foreign policy mistake by our country in the last 100 years. No amount of propaganda can change this.

Their only hope is to declare Iraq a mistake, throw George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, et al., under the bus, and try to shift the debate  away from Iraq onto something more worthy, such as the economic recovery.  Iraq is proving to be a heavy weight against Republican chances if they can't move discussion past this.

Of course liberals want Iraq (Bush era - not Obama era) to stay on the radar, ignoring of course the fact most people NOW know about the intelligence failures and the end result decision (wrong one) to invade. You know, like the Democrat front-runner HRC who voted right along with the plan.

One has to wonder if HRC is going to throw Obama under the bus for HIS many mistakes in the Mid East, not the least of which are the disasters in Syria and Libya.

I knew it was BS from the very beginning.  I remember reading the headline...the first time the Iraq invasion was imminent.  It was a classic bait & switch...and I second Sal's motion.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Markle wrote:He's the only one who lied.  Even leading Democrats admit that fact.  It is pathetic that in 2015, with ISIS now taking over the Middle East.

Progressives are so desperate they are forced to ignore the disaster happening today and sputter like an ailing motorboat but, but, but...what about 2002?

Bob Woodward: Bush Didn't Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War AnimatedLaughterPink

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 3]

Go to page : 1, 2, 3  Next

Pensacola Discussion Forum » Politics » Bob Woodward: Bush Didn't Lie About WMDs to Justify Iraq War

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum