More Americans killed by terrorists on George W Bush's watch than any other POTUS

In all fairness one of those guys finally got his Drs appointment it was just a few days after he died. That's progress.

 

rogress, is that any thing like progressives ?

 

That kind of progress defines their ideology perfectly.

 

Neither party is or has been tolerable. They are both branches of the same progressive ideology that was institutionalized by Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR. But you keep pretending like there is a big difference between them if it helps you sleep at night.

 

Bombshell: Bush & Cheney Freed ISIS Leader Because He Was “Harmless”



http://www.occupydemocrats.com/bombshell-bush-cheney-freed-isis-leader-because-he-was-harmless/


While the Republican presidential candidates use every bit of ideological gymnastics to somehow pin the rise of Daesh (ISIS/ISIL) on President Obama, the former commander of U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, Lt. General Michael Flynn dropped an incredible bombshell in an interview with German newspaper Der Spiegel: that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, was in a United States military prison in 2004 – and released because he was deemed “harmless.”

Nothing more perfectly illustrates what a colossal failure the George W. Bush Administration was. While Bush was busy torturing Osama bin Laden’s bodyguards in a desperate and barbaric attempt to rectify his intelligence failures, the mastermind who would found the Islamic State was in their clutches the entire time. Flynn went on to describe how the Bush Administration’s knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 and their catastrophic invasion of Iraq went on to create the colossal quagmire that is the Islamic State.

“We were too dumb. We didn’t understand who we had there at that moment. When 9/11 occurred, all the emotions took over, and our response was, ‘Where did those bastards come from? Let’s go kill them. Let’s go get them.’ Instead of asking why they attacked us, we asked where they came from. Then we strategically marched in the wrong direction.”

He then ripped the Republican war hawks for their relentless calls to invade Syria and provoke war with the Islamic Republic of Iran, rightly recognizing that this kind of foolish arrogance only serves to breed more terrorism and more violence, and got us here in the first place:

“First we went to Afghanistan, where al-Qaeda was based, then we went to Iraq. Instead of asking ourselves why the phenomenon of terror occurred, we were looking for locations. This is a major lesson we must learn in order not to make the same mistakes again. It was huge error. As brutal as Saddam Hussein was, it was a mistake to just eliminate him. The same is true for Moammar Gadhafi and for Libya, which is now a failed state. The historic lesson is that it was a strategic failure to go into Iraq. History will not be and should not be kind with that decision.”

States like Libya, Iraq, and Syria are patchwork nations, forged by colonial powers with little consideration for preexisting informal divisions or the ethnonational demographics of the areas involved. Their viability as nation-states was questionable to begin with; foreign intervention and forced regime change only compound the problems facing the people living within those artificial borders. Simply deposing regimes and hoping for “free and fair elections” is doomed to fail, as Bush and Cheney’s wars have proved to all of us. Constantly obsessed with “showing strength,” the festering morass of overcompensating hyper-masculinity and jingoistic delusions of neocolonial conquest that passes for “foreign policy” among the insecure brutes of the Republican Party is the reason we have a problem with terrorism in the first place.




more proof of Bush's stupidity - how can anyone defend this traitor???

 

As has well been established, Saddam did not pose any threat. Deposing him created the mess we see today. Expanding needless war and maximizing war profiteering is the problem. That along with failure to hold the treasonous criminals accountable is why the problems increases.

 

The Gulf states are not financing terrorism.. They have been fighting it very aggressively for over 15 years.. How can you turn against our friends and ignore our obvious enemies?

 

Friends, financiers and munitions suppliers of our enemies are not our friends

 

As was established he most certainly did. He was prepared to rearm his WMD arsenals as soon as the sanctions were lifted. As the Clinton adminstration stated, as long as he was in power he would remain a threat.

 

Where's your proof?

Hans Blix said the precise opposite as I have already documented enough times on this forum.

 

Really quote him saying so. What he did say to the UN was that Saddam was still not cooperating. But then after we removed Saddam we found out what he was up to even as Bliss was engaged in his foolish inspection.

What do you think Saddam was going to do with those cache's of highly concentrated organophosphates, the precursor chemicals to make nerve gasses, and new chemical weapons shells found in underground bunkers all proscribed materials all hidden from inspection all undeclared.

And then the final ISG report

"Scientific Research and Intention to Reconstitute WMD
Many former Iraqi officials close to Saddam either heard him say or inferred that he intended to resume WMD programs when sanctions were lifted. Those around him at the time do not believe that hemade a decision to permanently abandon WMD programs.Saddam encouraged Iraqi officials to preserve the nation’s scientific brain trust essential for WMD. Saddam told his advisors as early as 1991 that he wanted to keep Iraq’s nuclear scientists fully employed. This theme of preserving personnel resources persisted throughout the sanctions period.

Saddam’s primary concern was retaining a cadre of skilled scientists to facilitate reconstitution of WMD programs after sanctions were lifted, according to former science advisor Ja’far Diya’ Ja’far Hashim. Saddam communicated his policy in several meetings with officials from MIC, Ministry of Industry and Minerals, and the IAEC in 1991-1992. Saddam instructed general directors of Iraqi state companies and other state entities to prevent key scientists from the pre-1991 WMD program from leaving the country. This retention of scientists was Iraq’s only step taken to prepare for a resumption of WMD, in Ja’far’s opinion.
Presidential secretary ‘Abd Hamid Mahmud wrote that in 1991 Saddam told the scientists that they should “preserve plans in their minds” and “keep the brains of Iraq’s scientists fresh.” Iraq was to destroy everything apart from knowledge, which would be used to reconstitute a WMD program.
Saddam wanted people to keep knowledge in their heads rather than retain documents that could have been exposed, according to former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq ‘Aziz. Nuclear scientists were told in general terms that the program was over after 1991, and Tariq ‘Aziz inferred that the scientists understood that they should not keep documents or equipment. ‘Aziz also noted that if Saddam had the same opportunity as he did in the 1980s, he probably would have resumed research on nuclear weapons.
Ja’far said that Saddam stated on several occasions that he did not consider ballistic missiles to be WMD and therefore Iraq should not be subject to missile restrictions. Ja’far was unaware of any WMD activities in Iraq after the Gulf war, but said he thought Saddam would reconstitute all WMD disciplines when sanctions were lifted, although he cautioned that he never heard Saddam say this explicitly. Several former senior Regime officials also contended that nuclear weapons would have been important—if not central—components of Saddam’s future WMD force.
According to two senior Iraqi scientists, in 1993 Husayn Kamil, then the Minister of Military Industrialization, announced in a speech to a large audience of WMD scientists at the Space Research Center in Baghdad that WMD programs would resume and be expanded, when UNSCOM inspectors left Iraq. Husayn Kamil’s intimate relationship with Saddam added particular credibility to his remarks."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/l...final-report/isg-final-report_vol1_rsi-06.htm

 

The statement, as well as the supporting argument, seems to imply that the best measurement of success in the prevention of terrorism is how many Americans died while a particular president was in office. The overriding objective here then is not to diminish terrorism, but to make sure that victims are not American. My contention is that the policies of both governments have created far more enemies than they have neutralized. If the tally of innocent civilian deaths from illegal invasions based on false assumptions (Weapons of Mass Destruction), the absolutely counterproductive efforts to set up democratic human rights respecting governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, the wrongful imprisonment without trial, abuse and even torture of tens of thousands of Muslim 'suspects' in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, the extrajudicial drone assassinations of innocent civilians who died as collateral damage, and the fact that many ISIS members were radicalized as detainees in Iraq's prisons; when all these numbers are added up it is clear that there are far more innocent Muslim victims of the war against terrorism than Westerners. Like Westerners each of these victims have relatives, friends, neighbors and acquaintances, some of which are likely to become radicalized by the experience. I contend that the policies of both governments have greatly increased, not diminished the terrorist threat.

 

What no response?

 

re-post:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/meast/iraq-weapons-inspections-fast-facts/



March 31, 2005 - The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction reports that the intelligence community was "dead wrong" in its assessments of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities before the U.S. invasion.

 

How many Iraqis did Bush's invasion of Iraq kill?

 

Why is success measured in terms of the number of American civilian casualties in the War on Terrorism? If success was based on absolute numbers of innocent civilian deaths the dismal failure of the War on Terrorism would become apparent, and we should see that we have become the evil we sought to destroy!!

 

Please elaborate and refute what I posted, I don't follow blind links, if there is something on the website the copy and paste it here. What exactly were they "wrong about", that he still had ready to go WMD, the ones UNSCOM had cataloged for destruction. Yep being hidden and not stored properly they had mostly deteriorated, the ones we did find hidden from inspectors, but not all were accounted for.

So what? The WMD threat he posed did not begin and with fairly small arsenal you know.