I remember him as the 'lone voice crying in the wilderness,' on all the Sunday morning TV magazine shows like Face the Nation, This Week, etc. etc. Today we know he was right. However, why was it so hard for so many of us to believe him?

...launching the invasion of Iraq:

"to disarm Iraq" (carefully avoided the words 'nukes' or 'WMD' because he knew that was bullshit)

"to free its people" (no mention of concern for the Iraqi people in the run-up to the war; it was all about Saddam aiding terrorists and causing instability in the Middle East.  Bush didn't give a fuck about the Iraqi people)

"to defend the world from grave danger" (there were far fewer countries participating in the coalition than in the first Iraq war.  The "world" didn't seem that concerned.  Also, what grave danger?  There was no proof of nukes or WMD)

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Ari Fleischer (America's Baghdad Bob) and Doug Feith are just some of those who should be on trial for war crimes.



-- Modified on 3/19/2013 2:29:18 PM

the first was 22 years ago.  because I remember watching live war CNN in the middle of the night nursing my daughter.  I have to admit that I didn't know much about Desert Storm or Iraqi Freedom until the past few years.  I have been torn with my emotions over these wars, having a brother that has done 4 tours since 911.  I like what the author of your article said, that we should thank and welcome home our soldiers.  

When we become a police state here, may our soldiers know they are our family first.  Thank you..

So many American and Iraq lives lost - for what?  For oil.  And to line the pockets of Haliburton and every other company that made a fortune off the war.  Pathetic.  Iraq was no threat to anyone.  They were that little fat kid that talked a lot of trash and treated his friends like crap, but in the end is truly harmless.  

to bridging the gap with returning soldiers into society.  It's really so sad.  He keeps count of the death toll daily from combat and suicides.  God, if there is one.  Please help heal this nation.  Amen.

.

FDR knew about the planned attack on Pearl Harbor!!!!

if you are still rehashing the Iraq war, you need to look at a CALENDAR!!!

..."Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

(It's a misquote, but it's been misquoted so many times that it's become the 'real' quote)

No! And, you Republicans would like pretend the one trillion dollar debt incurred by Bush from the Iraq war, really belongs to Obama.  

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/new-evidence-tony-blair-lied-about-ev

And unlike Bush, Cheney, et. al., Blair is reviled in England by many people and publicly insulted
for his Iraq policy.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4814900/Former-PM-Tony-Blair-reveals-people-are-still-very-abusive-over-his-decision-to-go-to-war-in-Iraq.html

Not that either party has a monopoly on being either right or wrong.

Ask yourself this Matt, would an Obama Admistration have rammed The Patriot Act down our throat? Now ask yourself, would a GOP administration haved rammed ACA down our throats?  

Both were several thousand page bills that no one even read before voting to enact it into law, both were portrayed as absolutely essential for the survival of the country, and as usual the one pushed by the GOP infringed on our civil liberties, and the one pushed by the Dems is destined to cost us trillions and create an ever larger federal government.

Both suck, but the differences are huge.

"It is high time that the people who voted for either Bush or Obama realize that they were sold a pig in a poke.  We are not a two-party system of democracy.  Both candidates come from and represent the same agenda, the only difference between any of them are slight nuances in their rhetoric."

Well, actually it's not always the presidents that are in a rush to war, nor are the first to begin it's drumbeat. It often starts in congress.

Your words

"Both candidates come from and represent the same agenda, the only difference between any of them are slight nuances in their rhetoric"

I maintain that the differences are not "slight nuances" but major fundamental differences.

The GOP has led the assault against our civil liberties, I will grant that Obama & co are not doing a damn thing to reverse that trend, but the GOP are by far the worse in that respect.

The Dems OTOH are leading the charge towards a bigger and bigger, not to mention even more bloated federal government, while the GOP is making at least feeble attempts to slow or stop that trend.

Those are not "slight nuances" IMO, but huge fundamental differences between the two parties.

Though I agree with your post.

Good thing I didn't call you a "fucking moron" for my own mistake, I hate having to say "I am sorry" lol

I guess that means I disagree with Mein and not you, my point stands though, and it appears you agree with me. Or maybe more aptly, "I agree with you", but Go fuck yourself anyhow!!!

Hey, I have a reputation to uphold. lol

We have been subsidizing and paying for a good deal of both their defenses for the past 67 years.

Same goes for the Korean Peninsula since that war ended.

...meeting with Pres. Bush in August, 2011.

"Slam dunk" -- does that sound familiar?

Watch Tenet's face when Colin Powell was addressing the UN.  You don't have to be a body language expert to see that he knew Powell when slinging a load of bullshit (even if Powell didn't know it himself).

And why did Tenet resign for "personal reasons?"

Any way. We wouldn't be spending that money if we didn't think it was in our best interest. Has going to war in Iraq proved to be in our best interest?  

Quite frankly, I didn't read your OP. It must have been about Iraq.

I do not know how much it costs beyond a reasonable estimate of billions of dollars. Not having a dollar amount is irrelevant. I was simply correcting your misstatement regarding WWII.

Clearly we wouldn't have that presence in Germany and Japan had it not been for WWII.  But I won't follow your other misdirection stating that we are spending the money because it's in our own best interest. I could point out (but I am not) that you must believe that ALL federal dollars are spent only on things in our best interest.

You may have considered me to be just another gutter snipe (like some others here), but I backed up my disagreement and correction with actual facts (unlike most of the gutter snipes here).

was responding to, and then you make the statement that: "I could point out (but I am not) that you must believe that ALL federal dollars are spent only on things in our best interest." I never said that. I think you need to get on the same page before commenting.

I never stated that you said "it". I stated that you must believe "it". What you said was, "We wouldn't be spending that money if we didn't think it was in our best interest." That statement by you most certainly implies that federal spending inherently has "our" best interests at its root.

As far as your shock and "wow" factor that I didn't read your OP or Snow's response, what difference does that make? The title of your post, claiming we are no longer paying for WWII just happened to catch my eye. I do not need to know why someone made such a flat assertion in order to figure out that it is patently false.

if you hadn't!  

And, shock of all shocks, I agree with you. That is exactly what we have: "An illusion of choice." Just like most children, at their earliest ages come to understand; to divide is to conquer.

sometimes you go to war with incomplete intelligence.

Ironic, SINCE YOU ALWAYS GO TO WAR WITH INCOMPLETE INTELLIGENCE.

The only lesson here is that there are no certainties.

I sincerely invite your explanation as to how any discussion of the Iraq war could possibly result in any interpretation of your flat assertion, that we are not still paying for WWII, is anything other than false.