one of the bush, cheney, wolfiwitz forign policy triumphs

[wardd]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1664728.html

Iraq-Iran Ties Grow Stronger As Iraq Rises From The Ashes

[Durnik]

Hmmm, to paraphrase Cheney, "nobody ever saw _that_ possibility".. ;-)

enjoy
bobby

[wardd]

at the time it was an unknown unknown

[Nicholas Carey]

The sheer incompetence of Bush fils and his cronies was mind-boggling. They couldn't even install a loyal/reliable puppet in Iraq.

[Farfalla]

What a joke they turned out to be, the 3 stooges had nothing on these guys.
But unfortunately where the 3 Stooges only hurt each other these idiots have cost the US a trillion dollars, and thousands of lives, not to mention all the lives of their allies and all the civilians killed.
All for what, so that their biggest enemy in the ME has a new and powerful friend.
Actually it's not a total FU if you realise that the real motives were so that their mates in all the big oil companies and the MIC could make a fortune and that's what it was all about anyway.
All the rest is just irrelevant to them.

[skuthorp]

And you still can't charge them with treason?
(Oh yes, I forgot, loss of US face and precedent. You can't have the Pres/C in C, the Vice pres and their functionaries made responsible for what amounts to mass murder and fraud can you.)

[purri]

When I worked here in the belly of the beast it was well known what the real result would be. However the usual suspects parroted the party line.

[Paul Pless]

However the usual suspects parroted the party line.

As they continue to do so. . .

[John Smith]

And you still can't charge them with treason?
(Oh yes, I forgot, loss of US face and precedent. You can't have the Pres/C in C, the Vice pres and their functionaries made responsible for what amounts to mass murder and fraud can you.)

We can't get most of the loyal republicans to agree they screwed up. I wrote in my book, which I wrote just before the invasion, that I did not believe Saddam had any of these weapons and posed no threat. When I voiced that opinion at a family gathering I was asked to leave.

With one exception, not a one of those people has admitted I was right and/or apologized. To this day they refuse to accept that either war was a mistake or that they contribute to the deficit they are now so concerned about.

The media, as usual, didn't help. They speculated about what was in all those drums we found: turned out not to be anything related to weapons. My one friend called me when we found all the protective suits. "Doesn't that prove he had the weapons?" he asked. I replied, "The were all in storage. Doesn't that prove he no longer has these weapons?"

I think it is extremely important that as we look back at this catastrophe we put it into proper perspective. When the first plane hit the towers, I, like many, first thought "accident". When Bush heard of that plane hitting the tower, he was in the motorcade on the way to the school. He later claimed he saw that plane hit the first tower (not possible) and he assumed it to be an accident.

Put in the context of what we now know HE KNEW at that time, our President had a responsibility to assume it was an attack. He should not have continued on to the school. Among the things he knew that we didn't"

Clinton's personal warning of Al Queda and Bin Laden, including their responsibility for the Cole attack
The January 25 memo from Richard Clarke (That Condi first testified didn't exist, then admitted it existed, but didn't say what Clarke said it said, then was declassified and said exactly what he had claimed. Take her off the vp list.
The August 6 memo that again, it had to be dragged on of Ms. Rice was a warning that Bin Laden was determined to attack in the USA and hijacking planes was probable.
The Hart/Rudman report on terrorism

Those interested might also Google Hilary Clinton's floor speech of Oct. 10, 2002 wherein she explains why she was voting for the Iraq resolution. Reason number 1 was that this resolution might force Saddam to grant the UN weapons inspectors access and he could be disarmed of any weapons without military force. Saddam did grant that access and Bush yanked the inspectors. IMO that was because he knew they'd not find any, and he didn't want to disarm Saddam, he wanted to invade the country. Reason number 2, which Bush also rendered pointless was that if Saddam continued to deny access to the inspectors, Bush would be in a stronger position to get a broader coalition to invade.

Instead he went down a path that led to "freedom fries".

There is little doubt in my mind that Bush was going to invade Iraq under any circumstances. The reason he made NO effort to make hijacking planes more difficult after the Aug. 6 memo was any kind of attack would help him invade Iraq. I doubt he anticipated an attack of that magnitude, but I don't doubt he wanted something to leverage the country.

[John Smith]

When I worked here in the belly of the beast it was well known what the real result would be. However the usual suspects parroted the party line.

this is the problem with parties. Let us not forget that in spite of evidence and testimony to the contrary, the right still believes we got Bin Laden because of water boarding.

[wardd]

this is the problem with parties. Let us not forget that in spite of evidence and testimony to the contrary, the right still believes we got Bin Laden because of water boarding.

they have to believe it or their whole world view begins to unravel

[Gerarddm]

I am perfectly happy to see those men tried for war crimes, first and foremost Richard Bruce Cheney.

And they could. Ever wonder why Kissinger says at home? Possible detention for war crimes if he gets abroad ( justified, IMHO - Chile, Cambodia ).

[skipper68]

Benjamin Franklin was right! ' The loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or imagined from aboard." James Madison. ' If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." James Madison. "I believe their are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation s." James Madison. Too bad we as citizens ignored the warning from our founders. IMO, Let Iran have Iraq- we have spilled WAY too much American blood on an unworthy cause.

[Canoeyawl]

So, if we get Mittens with say Condi as VP and Trump as Secretary of state, what will we have to look forward to in the war with Iran?
Plenty of job opportunities I guess...

[John Smith]

I'm wondering if Romney survives the convention. If not, what happens?

[Canoeyawl]

I don't think they have a choice, he brings too much money to the table and that is what they live for.

[Paul Pless]

I'm wondering if Romney survives the convention.

seriously?

[Durnik]

So, if we get Mittens with say Condi as VP and Trump as Secretary of state, what will we have to look forward to in the war with Iran?
Plenty of job opportunities I guess...

Trump as Sec of State? Well, why not? If they're determined to make a farce of the U.S. government, let's make a truly colossal farce of it! ;-)

enjoy
bobby

[bobbys]

I am perfectly happy to see those men tried for war crimes, first and foremost Richard Bruce Cheney.

And they could. Ever wonder why Kissinger says at home? Possible detention for war crimes if he gets abroad ( justified, IMHO - Chile, Cambodia ).

.

HHMMM perhaps you should remember Joe Biden claimed Victory in Iraq was the great accomplishment of his presidency.

Course this was after they said the surge would not work.

So your guys wanted to run on Iraq then wanted the victory crown.

How do you spell hippo crite again?

[bobbys]

What a joke they turned out to be, the 3 stooges had nothing on these guys.
But unfortunately where the 3 Stooges only hurt each other these idiots have cost the US a trillion dollars, and thousands of lives, not to mention all the lives of their allies and all the civilians killed.
All for what, so that their biggest enemy in the ME has a new and powerful friend.
Actually it's not a total FU if you realise that the real motives were so that their mates in all the big oil companies and the MIC could make a fortune and that's what it was all about anyway.
All the rest is just irrelevant to them.

.

Pot meet kettle.

Argentina said today five British companies were illegally exploring for oil off the Falklands, Bloomberg reported.
The activities of Rockhopper Exploration, Desire Petroleum Public Limited Company, Argos Resources, Falkland Oil and Gas Limited and Borders & Southern Petroleum were “illegal and clandestine” and cleared the way for legal action, the government said, according to the Buenos Aires Herald.
The companies "are not authorized by the Argentine government under law," Agence France-Presse reported, citing a resolution published in Argentina's Official Bulletin by Energy Secretary Daniel Cameron.
More from GlobalPost: Would 'Cristina Forever' be good for Argentina?
Britain has ruled the Falklands since 1833.
Analysts estimate that the oil reserves around the Falklands – which Argentina has long claimed as part of its territory -- could be worth tens of billions of dollars, AFP said.
Until now they have remained untapped.
More from GlobalPost: Argentina's oil grab: crude or shrewd?
Three decades after Argentina’s invasion of the island triggered the Falklands War, which ended in humiliating defeat for Buenos Aires and caused the deaths of 649 Argentine and 255 British servicemen, tensions between the two countries remain high.
Ads by Google

• Buy This "Gas Killer" NowThis stock could end the gasoline engine as we know it... www.StreetAuthority.com

Rising crude oil prices and dwindling reserves in the North Sea have lured British companies to the Falklands, located 8,000 miles (12,900 kilometers) from Britain.
The tiny territory is called the Malvinas in Argentina.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/n...ons/americas/a

[LeeG]

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Or in the case of GW, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the merry band of neocons, how can you be wrong when you've got all that power?

[LeeG]

.


Course this was after they said the surge would not work.

it didn't

[John of Phoenix]

Argentina? WTF?!

[bobbys]

Argentina? WTF?!

.

Bush/Cheney.. WTF?

[bobbys]

at the time it was an unknown unknown

.

What is Known is Romney is running not Bush/Cheney no matter how desperate you are to bring them into it.

[LeeG]

.

What is Known is Romney is running not Bush/Cheney no matter how desperate you are to bring them into it.

a lot of Romneys foreign policy experts are the same chicken hawks who sold GW on the invasion of Iraq. John Bolton, Doug Feith, etc. In a nutshell it's "more enemies, fewer friends".


http://www.thenation.com/article/167...n-war-cabinet#

After the twin disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan, you’d think Republicans would be more skeptical of interventionism and the neocons more humbled. Yet the party’s major neoconservative institutions, like FPI, AEI and Heritage, have pushed aggressively for US intervention in Libya, Iran and Syria. “How do you get out of this state of interminable war?” asks Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Powell. “My party has not a clue. In fact, they want to deepen it, widen it and go further, on Chinese and Japanese dollars.” Wilkerson says he was “astonished by how much the neocons seem to still have influence,” and that he was “scared to death” about the prospect that people like McCain and Graham would have sway over foreign policy. I asked Cato’s Preble why the neocons haven’t lost more clout in GOP circles after the failures of the Bush years. ”They’ve crafted this narrative around the surge, claiming Iraq was, in fact, a success,” Preble says. “They’ve ridden that ever since.”

http://www.wrmea.org/component/conte...gn-policy.html


The neoconservative influence was, in any event, made clear in Romney's speech, which, in addition to its often messianic tone, repeatedly celebrated U.S. "exceptionalism" and the necessity for a new "American Century."

"I'm here today to tell you that I am guided by one overwhelming conviction and passion," he told cadets in the audience. "This century must be an American Century."
...

Aaron David Miller, a former diplomat and Mideast specialist at the Wilson Center in Washington, DC, compared the speech to Bush's first term. "He can get America into a lot of trouble with tough talk, no strategy, and a failure to understand the world in which we live," Miller said. "We saw that movie in 2003. No sequels please."

[John of Phoenix]

Bush/Cheney.. WTF?

The title of thread is "one of the bush, cheney, wolfiwitz forign policy triumphs". That's why all the comments are about them.

As much as I dislike repeating myself, "Argentina? WTF?!"

[pipefitter]

One thing is for certain, or more certain anyway, is the issue of Iraq/wmd is over, finally. . .after what. . .20+ years? It really would have been nice if Clinton could have finished it in the 8 years he was in office while it was still fresh and new. I guess it was just more convenient for him to pick and choose what he inherited from the previous administration. Just sweep the other stuff under the rug.

I really wish that the Democrats would quit creating these voids that allow Bush/Cheneys to get in office. I'd really like to have more confidence in your chosen party, but the weak, hindsight criticisms aren't making you look any better. Were you guys even born yet during the 90's? If so, where the hell were you then?

[Farfalla]

.

Pot meet kettle.

Argentina said today five British companies were illegally exploring for oil off the Falklands, Bloomberg reported.
The activities of Rockhopper Exploration, Desire Petroleum Public Limited Company, Argos Resources, Falkland Oil and Gas Limited and Borders & Southern Petroleum were “illegal and clandestine” and cleared the way for legal action, the government said, according to the Buenos Aires Herald.
The companies "are not authorized by the Argentine government under law," Agence France-Presse reported, citing a resolution published in Argentina's Official Bulletin by Energy Secretary Daniel Cameron.
More from GlobalPost: Would 'Cristina Forever' be good for Argentina?
Britain has ruled the Falklands since 1833.
Analysts estimate that the oil reserves around the Falklands – which Argentina has long claimed as part of its territory -- could be worth tens of billions of dollars, AFP said.
Until now they have remained untapped.

Why don't you go and start a thread about this. It's frankly stupid to keep intruding on other threads with this rubbish.

The reason that you look so foolish continually posting this junk is that you give the very reply right in your own material.

Britain has ruled the Falklands since 1833.

How the hell are these companies doing anything illegal when this has been British territory since before half the states in the US existed or before you stole Hawaii!!
you guys would laugh if someone laid a claim to hawaii now!

So please start another thread if you want to keep going but frankly you have been shown to be totally wrong every time you've brought it up so why keep embarrassing yourself?

Time to go back to the 3 Stooges!

[bobbys]

a lot of Romneys foreign policy experts are the same chicken hawks who sold GW on the invasion of Iraq. John Bolton, Doug Feith, etc. In a nutshell it's "more enemies, fewer friends".


http://www.thenation.com/article/167...n-war-cabinet#

After the twin disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan, you’d think Republicans would be more skeptical of interventionism and the neocons more humbled. Yet the party’s major neoconservative institutions, like FPI, AEI and Heritage, have pushed aggressively for US intervention in Libya, Iran and Syria. “How do you get out of this state of interminable war?” asks Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Powell. “My party has not a clue. In fact, they want to deepen it, widen it and go further, on Chinese and Japanese dollars.” Wilkerson says he was “astonished by how much the neocons seem to still have influence,” and that he was “scared to death” about the prospect that people like McCain and Graham would have sway over foreign policy. I asked Cato’s Preble why the neocons haven’t lost more clout in GOP circles after the failures of the Bush years. ”They’ve crafted this narrative around the surge, claiming Iraq was, in fact, a success,” Preble says. “They’ve ridden that ever since.”

http://www.wrmea.org/component/conte...gn-policy.html


The neoconservative influence was, in any event, made clear in Romney's speech, which, in addition to its often messianic tone, repeatedly celebrated U.S. "exceptionalism" and the necessity for a new "American Century."

"I'm here today to tell you that I am guided by one overwhelming conviction and passion," he told cadets in the audience. "This century must be an American Century."
...

Aaron David Miller, a former diplomat and Mideast specialist at the Wilson Center in Washington, DC, compared the speech to Bush's first term. "He can get America into a lot of trouble with tough talk, no strategy, and a failure to understand the world in which we live," Miller said. "We saw that movie in 2003. No sequels please."

.

Lets cut to the chase of this whole thread.

Condi was being considered .

Libs are hoping to pin Iraq on Condi..

[bobbys]

Why don't you go and start a thread about this. It's frankly stupid to keep intruding on other threads with this rubbish.

The reason that you look so foolish continually posting this junk is that you give the very reply right in your own material.


How the hell are these companies doing anything illegal when this has been British territory since before half the states in the US existed or before you stole Hawaii!!
you guys would laugh if someone laid a claim to hawaii now!

So please start another thread if you want to keep going but frankly you have been shown to be totally wrong every time you've brought it up so why keep embarrassing yourself?

Time to go back to the 3 Stooges!

.

LOL You really stretch when you try and justify stealing for oil.

You keep bringing up Hawaii, If you think thats a wrong does that justify your Wrong..

Odd i thought we left Iraq thats what the thread is about.

Why do you not leave the Falklands or Negotiate.

That Pie to big too share?

[Farfalla]

The residents are having a referendum to decide and under the UN Bill of Rights they are guaranteed that right.

Please start another thread and I'll happily make you look foolish there, this is not the place.

[LeeG]

.

Lets cut to the chase of this whole thread.

Condi was being considered .

Libs are hoping to pin Iraq on Condi..

fart

[PeterSibley]

.

LOL You really stretch when you try and justify stealing for oil.

You keep bringing up Hawaii, If you think thats a wrong does that justify your Wrong..

Odd i thought we left Iraq thats what the thread is about.

Why do you not leave the Falklands or Negotiate.

That Pie to big too share?

The Falklands were uninhabited on discovery, the Portuguese being the first visitor, next came the British . Then the French, Americans ,a few failed Argentinian colonisation attempts . Not a good claim. Next.

[hanleyclifford]

I always believed Saddam was our best friend in the region. He kept the Iranians busy. Bush was a nincompoop for starting that war; waddi di fuhka was he thinking?

[Tom Montgomery]

Saddam thumbed his nose at the U.S. and attempted to kill Dubya's daddy.

[hanleyclifford]

Saddam thumbed his nose at the U.S. and attempted to kill Dubya's daddy.

Dubya's daddy tried to take him out but didn't finish the job. Can you blame Saddam for wondering how could the US and Bush (both of them) be so stupid?

[wardd]

.

Lets cut to the chase of this whole thread.

Condi was being considered .

Libs are hoping to pin Iraq on Condi..

that wasn't even on my mind

she hasn't a snowballs chance in he11

[John Smith]

.

HHMMM perhaps you should remember Joe Biden claimed Victory in Iraq was the great accomplishment of his presidency.

Course this was after they said the surge would not work.

So your guys wanted to run on Iraq then wanted the victory crown.

How do you spell hippo crite again?

I speak only for myself. Invading Iraq was one of the two biggest mistakes in modern history. Invading Afghanistan was the other. I have held that position since before we invaded either.

The goal of the Iraq invasion was to make a more stable middle east. Anything short of that is failure. Does it look more stable yet?

[John Smith]

.

What is Known is Romney is running not Bush/Cheney no matter how desperate you are to bring them into it.

Where have many of Romney's support staff come from?

[John Smith]

One thing is for certain, or more certain anyway, is the issue of Iraq/wmd is over, finally. . .after what. . .20+ years? It really would have been nice if Clinton could have finished it in the 8 years he was in office while it was still fresh and new. I guess it was just more convenient for him to pick and choose what he inherited from the previous administration. Just sweep the other stuff under the rug.

I really wish that the Democrats would quit creating these voids that allow Bush/Cheneys to get in office. I'd really like to have more confidence in your chosen party, but the weak, hindsight criticisms aren't making you look any better. Were you guys even born yet during the 90's? If so, where the hell were you then?

I don't understand what Clinton could have finished. The first Gulf War ended under Bush, the elder, and pretty much on the terms he wanted.

[skuthorp]

Condi eh? If so the prospective Rep. VP will be smarter than their Pres. Not for the first time in recent GOP history however.

[bobbys]

The Falklands were uninhabited on discovery, the Portuguese being the first visitor, next came the British . Then the French, Americans ,a few failed Argentinian colonisation attempts . Not a good claim. Next.

.

. Argentina did occupy the Falklands in 1820, and maintained a tenuous colony until the British displaced them. It is upon this fact that Argentina's strongest claim is based. . Still, there is no doubt the acting Argentine governor was forcibly ousted from the islands by the British, and that this displacement was protested by the government of Argentina as a breach of its sovereignty. The grounds cited by the British for imposing control are dubious at best. In fact, the Argentine assertion that the British were seeking to control the seas near Cape Horn is correct..

Now Oil is being discovered.

Given BPs irresponsible actions and Failure for England to share in the spoils I think you would agree the Argentinians have cause to worry.

Perhaps its neither here nor there but when a person of the Empire proceeds to lecture on Bush/oil/war/bad they need to see there is a log in their eye they cannot see...

[purri]

Cough. The mainland of the Argentine was a Spanish colonial outpost with no contiguous right for the newly emergent Argentine republic to assume the same (sovereign right). International law y'know.

[Nicholas Carey]

.

. Argentina did occupy the Falklands in 1820, and maintained a tenuous colony until the British displaced them. It is upon this fact that Argentina's strongest claim is based. . Still, there is no doubt the acting Argentine governor was forcibly ousted from the islands by the British, and that this displacement was protested by the government of Argentina as a breach of its sovereignty. The grounds cited by the British for imposing control are dubious at best. In fact, the Argentine assertion that the British were seeking to control the seas near Cape Horn is correct..

Eh? The Argentine wreckers cum pirates that "settled" the Falklands were removed by the Unted States sloop USS LEXINGTON in 1832 under the command of Master Commandant Silas Duncan. You can read Duncan's \after-action report here:

http://www.ussduncan.org/silas_page13.htm

The history of the Falklands is...complex...but Argentina's claim is probably the poorest of the bunch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...lkland_Islands

If you wanted to be pendantic, France has arguably the strongest claim under the doctrine of "first in time". They established a settlement in 1764; the British in 1765. Somehow Spain managed to convince France and Britain to cede posssesion on the grounds that they apparently sailed by a few times in the 16th and 17th centuries, marking it on charts.

You might want to read up on the history there.

[bobbys]

Barack Obama recently declared himself to be “neutral” on the Falklands, which is bad enough. But he is more than just “neutral”. His administration is actively siding with Argentina’s calls for a negotiated settlement. .

Im just following my Presidents Foreign policy recommendations.

Libs say we do not work with him yet when we do we meet obstructionism.

[PeterSibley]

We?

[PeterSibley]

Eh? The Argentine wreckers cum pirates that "settled" the Falklands were removed by the Unted States sloop USS LEXINGTON in 1832 under the command of Master Commandant Silas Duncan. You can read Duncan's \after-action report here:

http://www.ussduncan.org/silas_page13.htm

The history of the Falklands is...complex...but Argentina's claim is probably the poorest of the bunch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...lkland_Islands

If you wanted to be pendantic, France has arguably the strongest claim under the doctrine of "first in time". They established a settlement in 1764; the British in 1765. Somehow Spain managed to convince France and Britain to cede posssesion on the grounds that they apparently sailed by a few times in the 16th and 17th centuries, marking it on charts.

You might want to read up on the history there.

It's demonstrable that he doesn't .

[John Smith]

Condi eh? If so the prospective Rep. VP will be smarter than their Pres. Not for the first time in recent GOP history however.

NOt going to happen. Condi won't survive the Aug 6 memo testimony.