Type to search

The Iraq War — 10 Years Later

Memo Pad Politics

The Iraq War — 10 Years Later


Ten years ago, as President George W. Bush took the final, fateful steps to launch the United States’ invasion of Iraq, Christopher Cerf and I were pulling all-nighters, feverishly putting the final touches on our anthology The Iraq War Reader. Having done a previous well-received anthology on the Gulf War, the campaign led by Bush Senior to push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait back in 1991, we felt we had no choice but to offer a sequel. After all, we joked to ourselves, if Junior thought he had to “finish the job,” we did too.

Both of our books were designed to be comprehensive, readable guides to the history, documents and opinions that swirled around these events. We took care to provide a fair and balanced mix of points of view, to let readers make up their own minds about what they thought about the wisdom and justice of these wars.

But truth be told, both Chris and I were deeply skeptical of the proponents of war, having seen with our own research how often government and military officials lie. And so we made sure to include in our second book plenty of evidence from the first Gulf War of how we had been lied to about things as small as the supposed efficacy of the Patriot Missile (it mostly failed to shoot down Scuds) to the monstrous and false claim that Saddam’s troops had ripped babies out of Kuwaiti hospital incubators.

But 10 years ago, it was not a good time to be a war skeptic in America. It rarely is. The vast majority of “smart” and “serious” people had convinced themselves that in the face of Saddam Hussein’s alleged stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction, the prudent thing to do was to go to war to remove him from power.

Skeptics who tried to argue that it was better to let UN weapons inspectors continue monitoring his efforts while maintaining sanctions that hemmed in his regime were deemed foolish and naïve. Regional experts who warned of the danger that a post-Saddam Iraq would collapse into civil war, that Iran would be strengthened, or that any American occupation would be costly and futile, were dismissed as worrying about hypotheticals. Those were seen as abstractions compared to the “reality” that Iraq was on the verge of getting a nuclear bomb, presumably against us.


  1. TZToronto March 15, 2013

    Ten years ago, there were a lot of people who said that Iraq was not stockpiling WMDs. When the occasional remnant of something that was part of a WMD from ten years previous (i.e., the first Gulf War) that had been dismantled and buried was found, proponents of war were quick to say, “See, there’s one of those WMDs.” But they were wrong. The weapons inspectors said there were no WMDs, and Saddam Hussein even gave in to demands to allow inspectors access to the previously off-limits areas. Even so, Bush, et al., screamed, “WMDs!” and “Yellow Cake!!” when there such things just didn’t exist in Iraq. Those who suffered as a result of the crimes of the Bush administration have every right to demand retribution–but there will be none. Violations of international law are only a problem for the little countries, not the USA.

    1. CPAinNewYork March 16, 2013

      There’s one “little country” that is immune from retribution: Israel. They gave us false intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s WMD and have gotten away with their deception. Any time Israel or its domestic fronts like AIPAC says something, I automatically disbelieve it.

      1. Lester Lipsky March 16, 2013

        Oh BS. Israel knew that invading Iraq would be bad for Israel,
        because it would strengthen Iran. Israel has its own crimes to
        account for without being attacked for Bush’s.

        1. CPAinNewYork March 18, 2013

          The invasion of Iraq was carried out for Israel’s protection and to stop Saddam Hussein from flooding the international oil market with Iraq’s oil. Iraq has the world’s second largest reserve of oil.

          The invasion of Iraq was carried out by the lying Republicans and all of the dirtbag neocons, especially Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Feith.

          1. Lester Lipsky March 18, 2013

            It’s true that Wolfowitz, Feith and other such are dirtbag neocons, but
            don’t equate their positions with those of the best interests of Israel.
            Israel’s interests would be better served if those arrogant fools disappeared from the public conversation.

          2. CPAinNewYork March 18, 2013

            I agree, but Israel’s leaders are constantly trying to involve the United States in phony wars that hold no benefit for us. Wolfowitz, Feith and their fellow neocons in AIPAC are active in trying to pressure American legislators and government officials to support Israel’s warlike agenda.

      2. idamag March 18, 2013

        Instead of 9-11 happening because of “they hate our freedoms.” Bush’s words, it happened because the Arab nations think the United States is going to help Israel destroy them. I think we should stop supplying Israel with money and arms. Israel used the Old Testament as their standard for settlements on Palestinian lands. They say God gave them that land. Try and see it from the Palestinians view. If someone came to your house with their holy book and said their holy book gave them your house, you might object.

        1. TZToronto March 18, 2013

          There are people who do that every day in the USA. They’re called banks, and they foreclose on people’s houses.

        2. TZToronto March 18, 2013

          Also, whatever Israel may have wanted or may not have wanted, the planning of the invasion of Iraq by the United States was being done long before 9/11. Bush, et al., would have invaded Iraq eventually without the pretense of 9/11 involvement or if the weapons inspectors had dug up every square inch of Iraq and found no WMDs. There’s oil, after all, and lots of it. I get the feeling that the Bush-ites had no concern whatsoever for the people of Iraq, the lives of the Americans and others that would be lost in the invasion and inevitable occupation, or the foreseeable and tremendous drain on the U.S. Treasury that has left an unfillable hole in the U.S. economy.

        3. CPAinNewYork March 18, 2013

          The Jews say that God gave them Palestine. Their proof? The Old Testament, which was written by Jews. Anybody have any trouble with that “proof”?

          Here’s something else to consider: The word “Palestine” means “land of the Philistines.” The Philistines were there first. The Jews were post-Exodus interlopers.

    2. Dmullins84 March 16, 2013

      I hope and pray if Bush, Cheney, and Rumballs ever go out of country all of them are arrested for war crimes. It would serve them right. This dam war was all about Oil and Monies, and nothing to do with WMD

      1. Independent1 March 16, 2013

        We can hope!!! Nothing would be sweeter than for these three to spend the rest of their lives in jail.

      2. idamag March 18, 2013

        There are countries that have tried them and found them guilty. If they go to those countries they will be arrested.

        1. CPAinNewYork March 18, 2013

          What countries convicted them?

          1. idamag March 18, 2013

            Malaysia had a trial in absentia. Witnesses were drawn from 29 countries. They were found guilty of war crimes. The actual transcript of that trial can be found on the internet.
            Three countries have charged them: Norway, Spain, and Switzerland. If they go to those countries, they will be arrested and tried.

    3. idamag March 18, 2013

      The United Nations already had inspectors lined up to go to Iraq with Hussein’s blessing. They asked the United States to hold off. I watched Colin Powell’s UN presentation, on tv. I said to my friends, that supposed chemical weapons transport looks like a water truck. It turned out to be a water truck. I also remember a newscast where they thought they had found a chemical weapons plant in Iraq and it turned out to be a bleach factory.

  2. Siegfried Heydrich March 15, 2013

    The afflatus of war was breathed upon us all, and we could not resist the siren call of death. Thus has it ever been, thus shall it ever be. We have learned hard lessons, at least for this generation. However, the next generation will inevitably reject our hard won experience and suffer their own collision with reality . . . I simply hope they survive the experience.

    1. Mikeinthedirt March 16, 2013

      Nam with camels.

  3. idamag March 15, 2013

    When I see our veterans, minus legs and arms, it disturbs me. Can we have no feelings for the victims of Bush, cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove?

    1. Mikeinthedirt March 16, 2013

      Estimates around 5 trillion for Vets care. Thanx George.

      1. michael e. sabinas March 16, 2013

        Not only 5 trillion for vet care but the cost of 3 trillion and counting for the cost of the war all by itself I don’t use fuzzy math like Rayan does and I am only a retired Navy guy, but it looks like 8 trillion to me and without using that fuzzy math I would think that 8 trillion would go along way to bring down debt. OR AM I WRONG ?????? oh by the way it should not have been put on a credit card,another 3 trillion in interest ????

    2. Mulligatonney March 16, 2013

      How about the victims of OBama? I don’t want to slow down your Bush-bashing party here, but OBamaRamaLamaDingDong has had troops deployed for going on 5 years.

      Oh yes, sorry – that’s different. He is OBama. He loves us, thinks on a much higher plane that we do and therefore has a much higher reason for overseeing the deaths of our soldiers. His goals are much more insightful and he has no motives beyond his fierce love and loyalty to the middle class and the poor. It’s different when Americans get killed on his watch. (don’t forget the “press pass” he got from our “objective news media” for Benghazi)

      Now, I am not a prophet, but I can predict what is going to follow this post.

      Let’s see if I’m right. You marxists will not be able to help yourselves… Tell me how the deaths of American soldiers are more meaningful now that OBama is the one with his finger on the trigger.

      At least Bush stopped playing golf and taking fancy vacations….

      1. Independent1 March 16, 2013

        Bush stopped playing golf and taking fancy vacations??? Are you serious?? Bush leads all presidents with abusing vacation more than any – during his 1st 4 years he took more than 240 days vacation, and even tied Nixon for taking the longest vacation at one stretch, from August 1, 2001 until after labor day, just a week before the 9/11 attack that he had been warned 7 times about by the CIA and refused to give them the extra funding to try and stop the attack. You are every bit as demented as Lana Wood; you are a complete basket case. obama took less than 130 days vacation during his 1st 4 years, and where he takes that is no business of yours. Bush was traveling back and forth from Washington to his Texas ranch almost every other month, costing millions of dollars to carry the enterage he needed to protect him at the vast Texas Ranch. So suck it up and wake up you!! Clueless one!!!

        1. Mulligatonney March 16, 2013

          Bush took his time off at his ranch in Crawford, TX. Stopped playing golf.

          OBamas take elaborate vacations, hob-nob with Hollywood and celebrities at millions and tens of millions of dollars a shot while in the midst of a sequester OBama himself authored… There is no comparison with expense, either.

          Interesting, though – my main point was that OBama is responsible for the deaths of American soldiers in exactly the same way as Bush. You have zero response about that, but seem to know all about OBama’s vacations and defend them vehemently…

          You make my point for me, you ignorant bastard. You liberals are incapable of objective thought.

          1. Independent1 March 16, 2013

            You have a lot of nerve trying to suggest that Obama is responsible for soldiers dying in wars that Bush and Cheney deliberatly started that ended up killing more than 8,000 Americans before Obama even took office. It’s beyond my comprehension how you can stoop low enough to try and stick up for 2 men that should be in jail for the manslaughter on over 8,000 people. Obama wound down the Iraq war as quickly as was practical given the survival of the Iraq government, and he’s doing the same with Afghanistan. And in the process he has cut America’s war related expenses by Billions, and you also have the nerve to question him spending a few bucks when he does take a vacation – you know where you can stick that – the same place you have your head!!!!!

          2. Mulligatonney March 16, 2013

            I am not trying to suggest anything. I am saying outright that OBama IS responsible for American soldiers getting killed in the Middle East and anywhere else they are getting killed…

            That is what a commander-in-chief does, you ignorant bastard. The troops are there because he wants them there. Period. One word from OBama, and the troops will be on their way home. Not so easy being commander-in-chief, yes?

            Blaming Bush doesn’t work any more. It’s the same thing as saying OBama doesn’t have the ability to think for himself – like he is somehow compelled to finish the mission that Bush began. Like he’s not smart enough to figure something else out if he is so opposed to war. Like he was dealt a hand that he must play. Bullshit. If he was so vehemently opposed to soldiers’ deaths, he would have been smart enough to figure something else out in five years, yes?

            But – he hasn’t. Has he?

            So, the best you can do is respond with the typical, brainwashed rubber-stamped liberal mantra.

            Yes, sigh…it’s still Bush’s fault.

            Is anything OBama’s fault? The debt? The economy? Benghazi?


          3. Independent1 March 16, 2013

            Guess you haven’t heard the recent news that quite a number of the Afghan tribal lords have finally had their fill of the Taliban and are running them out of the country. Our troops standing firm and providing the support the Afghan army has needed is starting to pay off. We may well end up winning this war after all – while Russia failed miserably as have several others that have tried over the past 100 years. But then, the significance of this is well beyond your limited capability to understand. So I’m sure news like this is meaningless to someone with an IQ of around 50.

          4. nobsartist March 17, 2013

            You are full of shit again.

            You win the award.

          5. RobertCHastings March 17, 2013

            he may BE, but you are nothing BUT.

          6. Mulligatonney March 18, 2013

            Yes – OBama’s decision to follow in Bush’s footsteps was probably one of the smarter things he did.

          7. Sand_Cat March 17, 2013

            Yes, sigh, your head is still up your ass.

          8. RobertCHastings March 17, 2013

            You, sweetie, are a pig’s bung masquerading as calamari.

          9. CPAinNewYork March 18, 2013


            This is a no-win situation for the Republican Party, because right-wingers like you are so pissed off that the majority of the American voters decided that they had enough of the Republican Party’s lies and right wing agenda that you can do little more than splutter.

            We’re seeing in the newspapers that the Republican Party is seeking to rejuvenate itself. The only way that they can do that is to jettison their right wing extremists and reconnect with the American voter. If they don’t, they’ll go the way of the old Whig Party in America.

          10. Mulligatonney March 18, 2013

            Possibly they don’t have the courage to support founding principles…

            Quite alright – There are plenty of Americans who will vote for the person who does have the courage to make a stand for the Constitution.

            Ironic, yes? To think that in today’s society of wanton liberal debauchery, it is actually going to take courage to stand for founding principles?

            And yet – you go so willingly with the Pied Piper…

            You truly are ignorant bastards.

          11. CPAinNewYork March 19, 2013

            Dear Mulligatawney:

            The founding principles of the Republican Party, as enunciated in Ripon, Wisconsin in 1854 have no relation to the Party’s problems now. The Party was founded on an anti-slavery platform. it was initially populated by disgruntled members of the Whig Party, including Abraham Lincoln.

            The present Republican Party is in many ways the opposite of the Party in 1854. It is now the party of the rich and has as its goal the suppression of the American middle class.

            Oh and by the way: Since you didn’t know that, it’s obvious that you’re the ignorant one. It’s undetermined if you’re a bastard or not. Don’t bother to explore that question with me. I’m not interested in your paternity.

          12. idamag March 19, 2013

            Absolutely different than the party of Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln

          13. Sand_Cat March 17, 2013

            He doesn’t have a lot of nerve: he obviously has little if any central nervous system, and what there is of that is tucked firmly up his rectum. Don’t dignify his denial, delusion, and trolling to divert attention from Republican crimes with rational replies.

          14. nobsartist March 17, 2013

            We are all looking forward, not backward.

            Pull your head out of your ass.

          15. idamag March 18, 2013

            I don’t know if you should get a CT Scan on your head or not, but the person you used to be is not the person who made the last comment. What has happened to you?

          16. dissentist March 16, 2013

            Good point, you’re right, we should all have been just as furious at Obama when he declared war as when Bush did.. Except oh wait, he didn’t declare a damn thing, he’s still cleaning up the mess Bush left him. So you say the troops dying now are Obama’s fault, but I know better. See we’ve gone down this road before, you’ll literally blame Obama NO MATTER WHAT, so anything you might have to say is invalid. He kept the wars going.. “Obama getting troops killed!!!” If he pulled the troops.. “Obama only knows how to cut and run!!!”

            This is evident by the republicans screaming to high heaven about drone strikes.. Drone strikes have been verified by independent sources(The AP has done surveys in Afghanistan) as being safer for both innocent civilians AND our troops. What this means is that the practical effect of you idiots opposing drones because Obama is in office is you’re literally advocating putting more of our troops in harms way needlessly. We SHOULD call you what you are, traitors to the country, but we don’t, because we’ve all become too soft.. So we call you republicans.

          17. Independent1 March 16, 2013

            Great comments!! Thanks!!

          18. nobsartist March 17, 2013

            Another stupid comment from the king of shit for brains.

          19. Mulligatonney March 16, 2013

            I must be a prophet – I predicted that you would respond in this fashion. So – let me see if I understand your opinion. OBama has been at war for 5 years because of Bush. Isn’t that the same excuse you guys make for the trillions of OBama debt?

            Bush made OBama a terrible president, is what you are really saying – which means you think he would have been a good president if it hadn’t been for Bush. Again, you guys continue to make my point for me.

            OBama good, Bush bad… No matter what evidence is in front of you.

            Have you read Animal Farm? You have been completely propagandized.

          20. Independent1 March 16, 2013

            Sorry to burst your bubble but you’re wrong again. Obama has not run up any “tlrillions of Obama debt”! Obama has cut spending faster over the past 4 years than at any time in American history: Let me give you a recent news tidbit to back that up:

            Federal nondefense discretionary spending — all spending minus defense and entitlements— is on track to hit its lowest level as a share of GDP in more than 50 years, according to data from the Congressional Budget Office.

            At best 1 to 1.5 trillion in spending over the past 4 years can be attributed to Obama; Reagan and the 2 Bushes are responsible for more than 90% or our debt. Reagan is the biggest drunken sailor spendor in American history with an 8.7%/year of average budget increases, followed closely by Bush Jr. at 8.3%/yr and George Sr. at 5.6%/year. Clinton is a distant fourth of the last 5 presidents with a 2.1%/yr increases and Obama has by far the lowest spending ratio of MINUS 1.4% over 4 years.

            And just to embellish a little bit about people dying, are you aware that the past 4 years have been by far the safest for Americas overseas personnel in the past 40 years?? There have been two attacks on our overseas consulates and embassies with only one resulting in someone being killed, Benghazi, with 4 people being killed. In contrast, during Bushes disasterous 8 years, there were 12 attacks on our homeland and overseas, with 11 of them resulting in someone being killed – the death total for Bush jr. is more than 3,300 with more than 3,000 of them being Americans. During Bush Sr.s 4 years there were also 12 attacks on our overseas personnel with someone being killed during all of them with a total of 60 people being killed. During Reagan’s 8 years there were 7 attacks with someone being killed at all of them with a total of 31 people being killed, 17 of them Americans. And that’s not including the 241 marines that were killed while they slept in their barracks in Lebanon during Reagan’s years.

            And I gather you’re to mentally retarded to realize that just because Bush ran out of office that the wars HE STARTED couldn’t be turned off like turning off your light switch. Only someone clueless like yourself would even suggest such a thing.

          21. nobsartist March 17, 2013

            More shit from the king of the shit for brains.

          22. RobertCHastings March 17, 2013

            It’s easy to see, from your intelligent response,that the truth really hurts. If you disagree with what Independent1 had to say, then refute it with facts. If you are unable to effectively dispute what he said, then don’t try to obscure the issue with foul language, you squirrel’s ass sucker.

          23. Mulligatonney March 17, 2013

            …just like your daddy OBama – you socialists sell debt as progress and defend him for the same thing you lambast Bush for.

            No matter what kind of oral exercise you prefer, OBama’s decision to keep troops in the Middle East and initiate a surge in Afghanistan resulted in loss of American lives. Not so easy being commander-in-chief, yes? OBama benefits from the military presence Bush put in place and you give OBama credit for using those resources while still damning Bush for setting the whole thing up. Which is it? Oh, yes – I forgot. OBama good, Bush bad. A modern version of Animal Farm by the new American communist party.

            You guys can’t get out of your own way. You contradict yourselves in the same breath.

            You are to be pitied. Not necessarily by me, but by the Christians you attack so vehemently for their beliefs. But they pray for you. Now speak to me of liberal “tolerance”. It is a total sham.

            You guys don’t tolerate anything or anyone who doesn’t line up for the Kool-Aid just as you do.

          24. Susan March 17, 2013

            I think we can figure out who has drunk the Kool-Aid.

          25. Mulligatonney March 17, 2013

            Very insightful response, “Susie the Socialist”…

            The time honored, “I’m rubber, you’re glue” gambit.

            Another notch in the belt of the American intellectual community.

          26. idamag March 18, 2013

            I would much rather be a socialist than a white supremist.

          27. patuxant March 17, 2013

            So sorry for your hateful spirit, pal. Shows in all your posts. If anyone is “intolerant and self-righteous” , it is a person like you who can’t reason worth a shit. Somebody points out the door to the restroom and you can’t decide which one you should go into unless you get directions from your faux news faves who have the cajones to consider themselves journalists. Yeah, keep wrapping yourself in the flag and hold the cross high, pal! God forbid someone disagrees with your nonsense and says so, and all you come back with is some “ism” the many of which are out there I doubt you know the meaning of. And people who profess such diatribes so as to stir up hate and intolerance are fascists. Oh, and while you are out waving the Constitution and Bill of Right in our faces, try reading it yourself first. Think the concepts apply to ALL, not just to you and people who “think” like you.
            “Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and leave no doubt.”

          28. Mulligatonney March 17, 2013

            …so you begin your post speaking against a “hateful spirit”, then proceed to lace the remainder of your missive with names and profanity.

            Perfect. Thank you for making my point for me, once again. You guys are too easy.

            And, even more incredibly, you got the quote wrong, you ignorant bastard… trying reading a book if you can’t quote something correctly from your own crippled memory.

            The self-professed liberals in today’s society are the ones who claim tolerance, but are more avid imaginary witch-hunters than any I’ve seen in our history. You are the type who stirs up the “hate and intolerance” you speak out so self-righteously against. But you practice the very same behavior you criticize. Just like your sugar-daddy, Hussein…

            Your brand of ignorance is particularly insidious – comparable to the Pharisees of 2,000 years ago, although I am certain you would criticize them, as well – if you even had a notion of what I am speaking of.

            And apparently, you are willing to trade your liberty for your brainwashed misconceptions of what you think your hero in the White House represents. You are the classic proletariat that Marx spoke of, able to be manipulated by simple slogans because you are too goddamned stupid to think for yourself. Except that the ignorant masses he refers to are an order of magnitude more advanced intellectually than you are, and you have the benefit of history to help you arrive at the right conclusion. There is no excuse for your particular brand of ignorance. Except, possibly that your mind is weak and you fall prey to anyone who makes you think you have something important to say without the reinforcement of even a rudimentary education. Reading our founding documents and taking a basic course in Constitution may help you, if you are interested in doing anything besides shooting off your big, fat, ignorant cake-hole.

            Your kind of ignorance goes beyond stupid. You guys have started your own religion and don’t even realize it. But you worship a false god.

            I do know and support the Constitution. But, by your own words, you confirm that you have not the slightest notion of what it means…

          29. RobertCHastings March 17, 2013

            Laced with “names and profanity”? I think we must be reading different posts. What in the “patuxant” post do you consider to be profanity? Just like you folks to lie, obfuscate,and generally just mess up the truth.

          30. patuxant March 17, 2013

            If anyone is overworking profanities, pal, it is you. You just proved what I said as you have used all kinds in this last post anywhere from “ignorant bastard” to “goddamed stupid” (which must be against your proported religion) to “big, fat ignorant cake-hole” to words that are much more demeaning. Point is, you proved what I already wrote. Fool!

          31. Mulligatonney March 17, 2013

            So – I was at last able to put things in a context that you are finally able to understand – thank God.

            You are indeed an ignorant bastard.

            I can see how easily manipulated you are by simple speech and slogans, like Yes! We Can! and Forward! Yes, we can spend ourselves into ruin, and go forward over the cliff.

            A couple more exchanges and I would have been forced to use “Cat In The Hat” rhetoric to communicate with you. As it was, I only had to use an ebonics and rap translator…

          32. patuxant March 17, 2013

            Hey, Stew. Again more ignorance is being shown. Once a fool always a fool. Ignorant Bastard? Takes one to know one. HAHAHAHAHA! And btw..your reference to “ebonics and rap translator” PROVES beyond a doubt you are a racist and a fool!!

          33. Mulligatonney March 17, 2013

            Congratulations – I’ve never actually witnessed someone typing hysterical laughter before.

            …and looks as though I have been successful at last at communicating with you. And all I needed was an ebonics dog whistle…

          34. patuxant March 17, 2013

            Want to communicate with someone who cares? Go stand in front of a full length mirror and have a good laugh!

          35. Mulligatonney March 17, 2013

            Heavens! You’re a real insulter…

            Okay, okay – you’ve convinced me – Ebonics is too sophisticated for you.

          36. idamag March 18, 2013

            Sooner or later those who hate Obama because of his race let it slip.

          37. Mulligatonney March 18, 2013

            With you guys its always about race. If your guy is incompetent, it’s because the “haters” hate him…

            The debt, no budget, Benghazi, free passes to illegal aliens, lawsuits against his own states, gun control, homosexual marriages, guns to Mexican cartels, tax increases without spending cuts, etc. etc.

            Your socialist religion is just as intolerant as the Muslim religion. People who believe in the Constitution must be racists because they disagree with your new “progressive” religion.

            It just can’t be the issues… You have been brainwashed to the point where you cannot allow another point of view.

            So – who’s the racist? Me for thinking OBama is an ideologue who wants to turn America into a socialist nation whose people are controlled by the government, as his history gives ample evidence of?

            Or you – for thinking that everyone who thinks OBama is an incompetent bastard is a racist?

            You guys LOVE to cry racist… Its much more simple than that. He is deliberately carrying out the plans he made with the Chicago political machine and the Ayers family and fulfilling his lifelong commitment to ideologies such as the New Party, Saul Alinsky, Noam Chomsky, Carl Marx, The Weathermen, the two Columbia professors Cloward & Piven, Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, Frank Marshall Davis and the host of other America haters and domestic terrorists that he grew up idolizing.

            What in the hell is so difficult for you leftists to understand about that? I studied OBama’s history and concluded that he means to change the country into a socialist-based government.

            You are the racist – for always thinking the issue is about race. You are petrified with fear, have no sense of individual liberty and want the government to manage your life for you – and you don’t understand those who know what that means.

            Ask the American Indians how much they trust the U.S. Government. Ask the Arabs. Ask those who have paid into Social Security for their entire lives.

            And yet – you keep giving them more and more control of your life.


          38. idamag March 18, 2013

            It is funny you don’t know the difference in hateful and angry. Because stupid people are responsible for the mess we have, I have little tolerance for stupidity. Even though I am not a Democrat, it was not Democrats I seen on television waving signs depicting the President as a clown or as a Nazi. I don’t know which sign you carried, but what was your slogan?

            Many times I faulted the Democrats for choosing not to dignify the hate with a response. And now, and now, they are fighting back – how dare they! It is about time.

            Vernacular determines whether it is hate or anger. Because of what I seen your group of clones doing on television, I voted straight Democrat last election.

          39. RobertCHastings March 17, 2013

            Who said anything about attacking Christians? You’re the one that brought that one up, you dumb ass. As for the Koolaid remark, that simply identifies you as the racist you are.

          40. Mulligatonney March 17, 2013

            Another socialist hollering “racist”… Now – that is indeed a surprise…

            Or – simply Liberalspeak for, “I can’t think of anything of consequence to say so I will holler racist”…

            And, if you haven’t read numerous attacks on Christians on this site, you either have no comprehension of many of the posts or simply choose to practice socio-fellatio on whatever marxist swings his rhetorical weiner within range of your eager proletariat gullet.

            Think for yourself. Read the founding documents, including the Federalist Papers and Articles of Confederation. Read the histories and biographies of the Founders – around 300 – 350 of them, and the writings of their predecessors, like Thomas Paine, John Locke and Alexis DeTocqueville and then – if you are still determined to listen to that crap being grunted out of the walking sphincter that presently occupies the White House – why then, you simply miss the lesson of history.

            What socialist, communist or marxist nation has achieved even close to what the capitalist countries (with all their faults) have? Why then the hurry to move America to socialism?

            It doesn’t work – do you not understand that, you ignorant bastard?

            But don’t worry – the Christians in this country will forgive your colossal stupidity – more than you socialists would do for them.

          41. RobertCHastings March 17, 2013

            Who is it that “can’t think of anything of consequence to say”? You hollar “socialist”, but have no idea what the word means, or what the philosophy signifies. Most of us are nearly as much free-marketers as you, which totally negates your accusations of socialism. The problem with your adherence to “free market” is that the American economy is anything but. Socialism is government ownership of the resources and means of production – that sounds more like what Romney and Bush were trying to do, Romney especially. While your darling Milton Friedman adored the free market and abhored government intervention, he worked for at least two presidents that were counter to everything he advocated. He was an adviser to Richard Nixon, who did something NO other modern president has done, or even thought about, doing – instituting wage and price controls. That’s a REPUBLICAN president, a conservative and a Quaker, violating the very economic tenets that are the underpinnings of the free market system. Sure he was a crook, but he was a REPUBLICAN crook, just like Shrub, who, being responsible for the current condition of our economy and military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, must, rightly, bear the blame for such. I really believe that if you would stop singing the praises of George W. Bush and his cronies and own up to their transgressions, you might, eventually,be accepted into respectable society. However, until that happens, you’ll still be loved by the Swamp People and Little Honey Booboo, maybe.

          42. Mulligatonney March 17, 2013

            Good. You are a free marketeer. Not a three musketeer. I believe in free markets. And individual liberty. And a government with limited Federal power.

            That means you disagree with a lot of the free-market choking policies of the OBama administration. Government control of free markets, and re-distribution of wealth seized from citizens IS socialism. People who support OBama support the slide he is making towards socialism by default..

            And you know of Milton Friedman, which means you have read a little bit, at least, but you still jump to the wrong conclusion. Not once have I claimed to be a Bush supporter or a Republican. I sing no one’s praises. I simply said that liberals champion OBama for doing some of the same things they chastise Bush for. That was it.

            That is what stirs up the liberal “hornets nest” The suggestion that OBama, in spite of his sharp lambasting of the Bush Administration during his campaign, calling the debt “treasonous” and U.S. policies in the Middle East basically the same thing, has now been at war for going on FIVE years and has almost doubled the national debt. And he is praised by his apostles and followers as some kind of champion for a completely inept tenure and an exponential jump toward economic insolvency.

            And his defenders are giving him a free pass, and defending him like cult members defending a known polygamist, while all the while he is milking them for their votes and giving them nothing in return. That is right out of the book of Saul Alinsky or Noam Chomsky.

            I hold our politicians on both sides accountable. They are like two football teams playing for the same owner. But the zealots rooting for the Democrat team are no better than the zealots rooting for the Republican team. That was the entire point.

            The politicians have the American people right where they want them. Until the people take the government back and restore it to the principles upon which it is founded, it’s all basically just cheerleading and one-upsmanship.

            Don’t you get it?

            Soylent Green is people…

          43. RobertCHastings March 18, 2013

            If you had been listening to Obama over the past four + years, you would realize that he, also, is a moderate free-marketer. After all, “that government is best which governs least” is not a conservative dictum. However, what led to the economic collapse in 1929 and in 2007? Unregulated and unfettered financial activities is what happened. During the administration of Herbert Hoover, unregulated banking practices brought about the Great Depression, with unemployment at about %25. During the Clinton administration,over Clinton’s veto, a Republican-controlled Congress deregulated financial institutions, which, logically, led to the eventual financial collapse in 2007, when the housing bubble burst, the mortgage industry foreclosed itself, and derivatives based upon bad mortgage loans finally came due. Unfortunately, the Republican party resists REASONABLE regulation of the industries that precipitated the collapse of 2007, while Democrats DO favor regulation. Free markets are only free when they operate to the benefit of everyone rather than just the Oligarchy which controls so much of our government. Were Obama to do some of the things that W had done, there is no doubt in my mind that he would be chastized by his own party. A war of preemption, cutting taxes without a concurrent reduction in spending, issuing mandates with no funding. Even Clinton knew that if you do what W did, you and your party will have to pay for it. Do you actually know the principles upon which this country is based? Most libertarians don’t because they haven’t bothered to read what the Founding Fathers were writing at the time. Jefferson’s “freedom of religion” clause was based upon the fear that a particular religion could take over and force all other religions either into the closet or to be taxed into nothingness. How did he know this? He lived during the colonial period and religious intolerance was rampant, even in his beloved Virginia. In all but a few of the original thirteen colonies the governments were controlled by one sect, to the exclusion of all others. If some unfortunates happened to be of another denomination, they were 1)encourged to move to another colony, 2) they were not allowed to publicly practice their religion, 3) they were taxed for belonging to a sect other than that which ruled. In some cases, the penalties were more severe. Thomas Jefferson (and others who agreed with him on many issues) was not a Christian, per se, but a secular humanist, thus the fact that “Christ”, “Christian”, and “God” do not appear in either the Declaration of Independence or in The Constitution, references to the above appearing very infrequently. I seriously question whether you have read anything by Noam Chomsky – it would be well above your comprehension level.

          44. Mulligatonney March 18, 2013

            What I did listen to was OBama rag on and on and on about how Bush and the Republicans were stealing from our children’s future when he was campaigning and what I have seen him do since being elected twice is even worse than what he was accusing Bush of doing. And his administration has been woven with a fabric of deception and broken promises.

            I call that bullshit. And unlike you OBama worshippers, I hold him accountable – the same as I do Bush.

            Now according to you guys – that makes me a racist.

            Okay – I think you are a racist for voting for him, along with 96% of the black voters in the country.

          45. idamag March 18, 2013

            Some of these people who claim to be Christians are inviting attack.

          46. Mulligatonney March 18, 2013


            Some of the communists masquerading as liberals on this site are inviting attack.

            Don’t think they are not writing to all you gullible lemmings who gather here and jerk each other off emotionally…

            You are a fertile field for their pens and ideology.

          47. Independent1 March 17, 2013

            Christians I attack so vehemently?? The GOP is America’s largest anti-Christian organization!! Anyone who thinks they’re a Christian and aligns themself with the GOP is a CINO – a Christian in Name Only. Any TRUE Christian would know full well that nothing the GOP stands for is Christian: How can you even say that?? Jesus made it quite clear that anyone who loves the world and money has NOTHING IN COMMON WITH GOD. And if there’s ANYTHING the GOP is about it’s MONEY!!! Why else would t hey be willing to let the needy suffer because they so adamantly refuse to part with even one more dollar of their precious wealth??? Boehner was even tauting today: The debate over new tax revenues is over!! In otherwords, the needy can go die as far as the rich are concerned, we won’t pay one moe dollar in taxes–now take that!! and you call this party Christain!!!! You’re more clueless than even I thought!! If you’re counting on the GOP to lead you to salvation, don’t be surprised when they lead you to damnation!!!!

          48. Mulligatonney March 18, 2013

            16 out of the top 20 richest people in America are Democrats, you ignorant bastard. Rich Democrats are what run Washington at present, you stupendously and phenomenally cretinous, half-witted miscreant. Rich Democrat politicians have no more concern for the poor and middle class than rich Republicans.

            The colossal stupidity of that last statement of yours leads one to think you worship OBama more than you do money OR Jesus…. How is it possible that our society has allowed people like you to become so stupid? You are nothing but a cheap cult follower.

            And, by the way – you just made the argument again for small government, just like the founders did.

            Read Federalist 51, written by James Madison…somewhere in the middle of his fairly short paper he writes something like, “If men were angels, there would be no need for government, but since they are not, the greatest challenge in designing a government capable of controlling its people, is that it first must be obliged to control itself…” very loosely paraphrased, I am sure, but close enough.

            That, in my opinion, is the problem with America’s government today – quite simply it has grown too big, bureaucratic, powerful and ubiquitous (sorry – that means “pervasive” if you are an average socialist and “Eben en ‘yo pawkett”, in ebonics…)

            Love of money, power and pussy has perennially taken men down. That is the entire point, you dull-witted brain donor. The smaller the government, the less power corrupt men have to wield.

            That’s the entire founding philosophy in a nutshell.

            But tell me – you are not going to read Federalist Paper 51 – are you?

            Ignorant bastard…

          49. idamag March 18, 2013

            Ponder that, again. “If men were angels there would be no need for government.” If people were honest there would be no need for laws. If people were kind, there would be no need for police.

          50. Mulligatonney March 18, 2013

            Exactly, you brain donor…

            Have you read Federalist 51 or do you simply want to open your BIG, FAT, CAKE-HOLE for some OBamanite to shove some more crap in?

            Or maybe you prefer exposing your ass… Either end probably works fine for you.

          51. RobertCHastings March 18, 2013

            Rich Democrats – you mean like the Kennedys, who established The Special Olympics and the Peace Corp; Bill Gates who annually gives away billions from his and his wife’s charity; Warren Buffett who gives away a much larger percentage of his wealth annually than Mitt Romney. Which wealthy Democrats are you talking about, or are you just – talking?

          52. Mulligatonney March 18, 2013

            Yeah – like the Kennedys, who just arranged a 1.5 million government handout to study why lesbians are fat while OBama plays golf and arranges a multi million dollar vacation while penalizing Americans for a sequester he himself authored.

            Of course the point is, you stupid bastard – that there are more rich, influential Democrats than there are rich Republicans. So – where is your argument?

            When you vote Democrat, you are voting for rich people, just as those who vote Republican are.

            You should be voting against Big, Too Powerful Government, because that is what history tells us is a people’s undoing.

            But instead, you embrace it. Because you have chosen to believe the lie that the Democrat Party loves the poor and middle class. You have swallowed the bait – hook, line and sinker.

            That’s the real issue – not who is richer, Democrats or Republicans.

            You ignorant bastard.

          53. idamag March 18, 2013

            Don’t confuse him with facts. His mind is made up.

          54. patuxant March 17, 2013

            You make no points except to yourself and your few cronies out here.

          55. Mulligatonney March 17, 2013

            And you socialists continue to champion OBama for the same things you despised Bush for.

            This is the classic definition of hypocrisy.

          56. RobertCHastings March 17, 2013

            Once again the erroneous use of the term “socialists”. And we ceertainly are not championing Obama for continuing Bush’s policies – that has to be about the stupidest thing you have said here. Even you know better than that.
            1) Bush mandated the No Child Left Behind Act, with no funding
            Obama passed “Obamacare”, with funding
            2) Bush got us into two wars, without adequate funding
            Obama is getting us OUT of two wars, and raising taxes on those who benefit most from war to pay for them.
            3) Bush won his first term with fewer votes than his opponent
            Obama won BOTH his elections with the majority, and without the interference of the partisan Supreme Court
            4) Bush, through deregulation and cutbacks on inspectors caused the worst Recession since the Great Depression
            Obama is STILL trying to get us back on our feet, WITH regulation of the financial industries
            5)Bush (and Romney) felt it wasn’t that important to get OBL
            Obama GOT OBL
            6) Bush severely cut veterans’ benefits and treatment
            Obama has restored veterans’ benefits
            7) Bush wanted to privatize Soc. Sec.
            Obama refused privatization
            8) neither Bush was nominated for a Nobel prize
            Obama got one his first year in office
            There are eights FACTS, that are researchable and verifiable. However, don’t let the facts interfere with your opinions.

          57. plc97477 March 17, 2013

            No we champion Obama because he is doing his damnest to clean up the mess that was left him and getting no help or appreciation.

          58. idamag March 18, 2013

            Bush still holds the record for having the lowest approval rating of any president since they started the program. As for socialism, I am sure you will put your hand out or use socialist programs like police, fire departments, Social Security, etc. We are not a socialist country, but we do have socialist programs. You must be among the group that thinks healthcare is a status thing to only be enjoyed b the rich.

          59. idamag March 18, 2013

            Stop being partisans and start being Americans.

          60. Mulligatonney March 18, 2013

            You first, partisan…

          61. RobertCHastings March 18, 2013

            Hey, shit for brains, it is NOT an excuse, it is the REASON. If Barbara Bush had pricticed what she believed (a woman has the right to choose) George W. Bush may very well have never been born; but, then, another onewouldhave run,instead. They’re like vermin, just seeming to multiply indiscriminately. Had there never been a George W. Bush presidency, there would NOT have been US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s as simple as that. Prior to the presidency of George W. Bush, there was no reason to invade Iraq. What part of that don’t you comprehend?

          62. idamag March 18, 2013

            Dissentist, excuse me. What war did President Obama declare?

          63. Sand_Cat March 17, 2013


          64. RobertCHastings March 17, 2013

            Until we are fully withdrawn from both Iraq and Afghanistan, any deaths incurred in those wars lie squarely on W’s shoulders. Afghanistan was a war that was justified. What happened after our invasion of Afghanistan was NOT justified. The mission should have been completed in Afghanistan BEFORE even considering Iraq. However, everyone (except you) now knows that the invasion of Iraq was totally unjustified, an illegal exercise of “The Bush Doctrine” of preemptive strikes, which has, incidentally, left us open to reciprocal behavior from any rogue nation who has a hard on for us. IF, has been threatened by Kim Jung Un, North Korea sends a few nukes our way, preemptively, we really have no recourse, do we? If WE can do it, logically, what prevents anyone else from doing it?

          65. Mulligatonney March 17, 2013

            There you go, genius…

            Bush is once again responsible for anyone who gets killed on OBama’s watch. And of course, the trillions he has spent over USA income.

            What a profound, horrendously stupid statement that is…

            …does that mean the credit for Bin Laden’s assassination goes to George Bush?

            You can’t get OBamacock out of your mouth long enough to do anything but splutter…

          66. CPAinNewYork March 18, 2013

            The war in Afghanistan was not justified. Because it didn’t constitute any threat to us, we should have stayed out.

          67. RobertCHastings March 18, 2013

            Afghanistan had deep ties with Al Qaeda, the people who attacked us on September11, 2001. We already knew about the Taliban, for we had helped to arm them against the Russians, only to have them turn on us when we invaded Afghanistan. OBL had deep ties to Afghanistan, and, until his killing in 2012, the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan was his stomping grounds. Afghanistan DID constitute a threat to the US, as evidenced by their actions on September 11, and those actions were enough to justify war in pretty much anyone’s mind. Sorry you don’t see it that way.

          68. CPAinNewYork March 18, 2013

            If we persist in involving ourselves in other people’s civil wars, we will be constantly having to take “preemptive” action against someone, until we waste our resources in useless wars. We are being bled dry for no good purpose.

            As I see it, we need to disengage from the Middle East. We have no legitimate reason for being there. We can buy the oil that we need on the international market. Other nations do it and appear to be satisfying their needs. We certainly don’t seem to be getting a “price break” from our “wonderful” Saudi allies, who I further believe are bankrolling Al Quaida.

            The warmongers among us like John McCain, Paul Wolfowitz, et al want to constantly involve us in conflicts such as Syria, Iran and Israel. We need to vote them out of office or force our leaders to expel them from positions of influence. They frequently demonstrate allegiance to foreign countries, which I think is tantamount to treason.

          69. RobertCHastings March 18, 2013

            Our attack on Afghanistan was not “other people’s civil war”, it was in response to Sept. 11, 2001, a terrorist act perpetrated by Al Qaeda under the auspices of the Afghanistan government. Unfortunately, the result of our intervention in Iraq has left THAT country in the middle of their own civil war. Paul Wolfowitz has never held elective office, but he has been a valued adviser to Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan. His op-ed piece about 1984 (in Salon?) pretty much laid out the neo-con intentions toward Iraq, for which George W. Bush devised the Bush Pre-emption Policy, a policy that is in direct violation of the Geneva Convention and our own Constitution.

          70. idamag March 18, 2013

            I am not a liberal so I believe I can be objective. You cannot. It is like the abusive parent who takes all their frustrations out on one child (they exist). They just watch for that child to do something so they can hit the child. You are hyper vigilant, looking for something to criticize the President for. There are things that I don’t agree with President Obama on, but I don’t hate him and think everything he does is wrong. President Obama wanted to shut the war down immediately and his advisors told him that Al Qaeda was just waiting in the wings for us to leave. He backed down. I don’t think he should have, but I think his motives are clean.
            The motivations of the evil trio was not clean. The Iraqi war was started with downright lies. You need to watch the film, “Hubris.” Of course you won’t because it will not reinforce what you already believe.
            Another sad thing about today’s Republicans, including you, is that they have to be told what to think and they have to be programmed. They are not allowed to vote their conscience, so they override it.

          71. CPAinNewYork March 18, 2013

            Who constitute the “evil trio.” Are they Bush, Cheney and ….?

          72. idamag March 18, 2013

            Bush was not evil. He was easily led and easy to fool. The evil trio who wanted war at all costs were Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove.

          73. Mulligatonney March 18, 2013

            The last thing you are is “objective”…

            Yes. I am hyper vigilant… I am aware of the trickery of the despot.

            And your metaphors are astonishingly clumsy at best.

            And you tell me to watch a propaganda movie and call Republicans programmed in the same breath. You should try reading the founding documents – or the Constitution instead of some grade C modern liberal film…

            Whatsa mattah? Can’t you think for yourself? Can’t you vote your conscience?

            Are you programmed?

            You also are an ignorant bastard.

          74. idamag March 19, 2013

            BTW, I have studied the Constitution. I also studied the arguments that were used by our founding fathers. I know that when Jefferson drafted the first copy it was rejected because he wanted to abolish slavery. (Yes, he had slaves, but he was disheartened by those who had slaves and were mistreating them.) There were so many arguments that they finally agreed on a basic constitution with the mechanism to amend it when needed.

        2. nobsartist March 17, 2013

          At least he is not a complete fucking asshole like you are.

          1. patuxant March 17, 2013

            Maybe you and your meantally deficient friend can start a cluster so you can stroke each other’s ignorance?

        3. middleclasstaxpayer March 17, 2013

          So when Nancy Pelosi traveled back & forth to CA every week on a private jet, I guess THAT was OK, right?
          And how about the many millions Michelle Obama is CURRENTLY WASTING on her 22 highly paid “assistants??” Let’s calculate that:
          First Lady Michelle Obama’s Servant List and Pay Scale
          TheFirst Lady Requires More Than Twenty Attendants (Thats 22 Attendants to be exact)
          1. $172,200 – Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
          2. $140,000 – Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
          3. $113,000 – Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
          4. $102,000 – Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for the First Lady)
          5. $100,000 – Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
          6. $90,000 – Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
          7. $84,000 – Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
          8. $75,000 – Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
          9. $70,000 – Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
          10. $65,000 – Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
          11. $64,000 – Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
          12. $62,000 – Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
          13. $60,000 – Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
          14. $57,500 – Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
          15. $52,500 – Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary to The First Lady)
          16. $50,000 – Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special=2 0Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide to The First Lady)
          17. $45,000 – Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
          18. $43,000 – Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
          19. $40,000 – Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
          20. $36,000 – Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
          21. $35,000 – Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
          22. $35,000 – Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
          There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties are the facilitation of the First Lady’s social life. One wonders why she needs so much help,at taxpayer expense, when even Hillary, only had three; Jackie Kennedy one; Laura Bush one; and prior to Mamie Eisenhower social help came from the President’s own pocket.

          1. patuxant March 17, 2013

            Don’t start now denigrating the FLOTUS because we can again look at all other first ladies and start really slinging the crapola. Again, share the “Love” not the “Hate”.

          2. RobertCHastings March 17, 2013

            Let’s see, you want to at least try the same calculations for Laura Bush? Why do you want to bring down the First Lady? Even Laura Bush had class, almost as much as Michelle Obama. They are both very intelligent and motivated women.

      2. Hillbilly March 16, 2013

        President Obama has already gotten us out of Iraq and has set a time table to leave Afg., which is more that Bush 2 ever did. Since Bush made the agreement to help Afg. Obama is living up to it. It is not right that our young men and women lose their lives fighting wars that the people in that Country should be fighting. Bush never stop playing golf and taking vacations. Research and you will find Bush took more vacations than any other President before or after him.

        1. Mulligatonney March 16, 2013

          OBama has been at war for going on his fifth year…

          That is a fact.

          Are you saying he is too stupid to figure out how to get out of the war he is in?

          But that’s what the Democrat Party was saying about Bush….

          1. Independent1 March 16, 2013

            No! I’m saying that anyone with a common sense brain knows that you don’t run away from a war you haven’t won yet and you don’t leave Afghanistan in a condition that al Qaeda and the Taliban can turn back into a threat to the U.S. Russia spent 17 years trying to oust the Taliban and failed. Pakistan also tried for years and failed. America has tried for years, and we may just have reached the point of winning because in recent news, a growing number of towns/war lords are turning against the Taliban and running them out of their towns and the country. These are war lords that had been helping he Taliban but suddenly the Taliban has become persona nongrata and more and more war lords are turning against them. So when we finish pulling out in 2014, we may be actually leaving the country in safe hands. Only Republicans are quiters and run from a war before winning it- Nixon did it in Vietnam, Bush would have done it Afghanistan. Bush basically did – he left if floundering knowing that American soldiers were being killed while he only gave them 1/2 the support and attention that they deserved.

          2. nobsartist March 17, 2013

            Common sense?

            That leaves you out.

            Shit for brains.

          3. plc97477 March 17, 2013

            What is your problem? We know you don’t like independent1. What happened did he break your crayon?

          4. CPAinNewYork March 18, 2013

            We’re not going to win the war in Afghanistan. Even if we do win, what would we do with the place?

          5. Sand_Cat March 17, 2013

            Rectal-cranial inversion.

          6. patuxant March 17, 2013

            Do you have any idea how stupid you sound? Get over yourself.

          7. RobertCHastings March 17, 2013

            Well, let’s see, by this time into W’s presidency, he was how long into war? And how many years altogether did Bush have us in war? What you are apparently too stupid to realize is that Bush, Cheney, et al, did NOT want us out of any war, at least not until they had established American hegemony. It is something Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz had been planning since they all were associated with the Reagan administration. Wolfowitz even wrote an op-ed piece about invading Iraq in about 1984, so their wars in the Middle-east were not spur-of-the-moment decisions.

          8. idamag March 18, 2013

            Cheney and Rumsfeld, both, wanted the elder Bush to take our Saddam Hussien. Bush 1 said no so they finally got their wishes with Bush 2. If you listened carefully to Bush 2 and watched his facial expressions, you knew he had some problems and was just a puppet for those who would never have to send their own children into war.

          9. RobertCHastings March 18, 2013

            Unfortunately, Shrub WAS a puppet for Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others, who should all be prosecuted for war crimes. The target was and should have remained Afghanistan, where we are still embroiled. The war in Iraq was definitely choreographed by others than George W.

      3. Sand_Cat March 17, 2013

        Sorry, idiot. Obama may be too attached to Bush’s abusive extensions of executive power, but can never come close to the people killed and maimed by Bush, barring a nuclear war. But go ahead and keep projecting your own ignorance and insanity on Obama and the other “Marxists.”

      4. RobertCHastings March 17, 2013

        Amazing how you people want to blame Obama for these two wars. Especially when you get so distraught about his wanting us to get out of them. I hate to tell you, but the W photo-op with the “Mission Accomplished” banner in the background did NOT mean the wars were over and we had won, and it certainly did not mean that either Iraq or Afghanistan had been rebuilt. Since we destroyed both countries, it is our moral responsibility to rebuild them, which is something neither Bush nor his advisers planned for. And, as we are learning, it costs money to rebuild destroyed countries, ESPECIALLY our own.

        1. plc97477 March 17, 2013

          I think republicans and democrats have different ideas about morality. republicans think hating gays is enough democrats know better.

      5. Angela Walker March 19, 2013

        Mullig, you’re simply full of yourself and at the same time struggling with immense feelings of inadequacy. I recommend about five years of heavy therapy combined with installation of new anti-trolling software in your mainframe.

    3. nobsartist March 17, 2013

      We are all looking forward, not backward.

  4. nobsartist March 15, 2013

    As long as there is no official investigation, lies by the government should be considered standard operating procedure.

    After all, they have been lying to us on a regular basis since 11.22.1963, a day bush says he remembers nothing about.

    Now his awol coke head son is using the same excuse.

  5. latebloomingrandma March 16, 2013

    He also forgot to mention a little know State Senator named Barack Obama. One of the reasons he was against the invasion was that we, as a country, knew so little about the culture over there, and we would truly be starting a mess. I don’t think Cheney, Rummy, and Bush even considered that one iota.

    1. Mark Forsyth March 18, 2013

      They could have cared less.

  6. atc333 March 16, 2013

    The invasion based upon intentionally withheld and misleading disinformation to secure the war vote, was bad enough, but then the massive incompetence and gross mismanagement of the appointed Overseer of Iraq was the crowning touch for the Bush Administration..

    Simply pathetic.

    1. CPAinNewYork March 16, 2013

      You probably mean Bremer. I don’t think that he had much choice, as he was, or maybe still is, Henry Kissinger’s office manager.

      1. Hillbilly March 16, 2013

        I doubt he is working for Kissinger’s anymore since Kissinger died a while back.

        1. Independent1 March 16, 2013

          I just did a search on Henry Kissinger and can’t find any record of him having passed away. Are you sure he has? He was born in 1923 so he would have turned 90 this year.

          1. nobsartist March 17, 2013

            An idiot like you can actually read?

            Perhaps you should clean out your fucking ears and get rid of the booze and your brain will work a little better dumbass.

          2. RobertCHastings March 17, 2013

            Perhaps you should check your facts. Kissinger is, indeed, still alive, and is still, like Cheney, et al, a respected proponent of the neoconservative gospel. It might help if you toned down your rhetoric, you stupid ass mf.

        2. CPAinNewYork March 17, 2013

          I just checked Google. There’s no mention of his having passed away.

          Are you sure of your information?

    2. whodatbob March 16, 2013

      Was not mismanaged. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove managed the war perfectly, all their chronnies got richer. The death and maming of hundreds of thousands of young Americans plus millions of Iraquis insignificant losses.
      Those SOB’s should be hung by their balls in the Iraqui sun.

  7. Rvn_sgt6768 March 16, 2013

    Journalists have somehow moved from reporting news to trying to always creating the news. Most journalists are more like reality show hosts.

  8. Mark Forsyth March 16, 2013

    As soon as I learned that Georgie boy was going to take a run at the presidency,I tried to tell people that if he won we would be going to war. He was so determined and closed minded to truth that there are those who wonder if he himself helped engineer the 9/11 attacks as a ruse for doing so.Regardless,all three of those goddamned lousy sons of bitches should be behind bars.My own soul might be in danger for this but I donot forgive them and I wish for their deaths.It may be the only justice they get.

    1. Independent1 March 16, 2013

      I’m not sure that he helped engineer the attacks, but as quickly as he decided to pull back from pursuing bin Laden, it’s almost as if he was doing it as a ‘Thank You’ to bin Laden for giving him just one more excuse to use in making a case for starting the war. Bush and Cheney are such absolute low-lifes that I wouldn’t have put that past them, despite the enormous loss of life in the 9/11 attacks.

      1. Mark Forsyth March 16, 2013

        While I myself am not prepared to blame Bush for engineering the 9/11 atack,when considering how much info on an imminent attack was ignored by his administration it is easy to see why some folks would accuse him.However,he is beyond doubt guilty of ignoring the intelligence and refusing to do anything to avert it.He also,as we all know,guilty of ignoring the C.I.A. intell on WMD’s because he was determined to start an illegal war.Under the circumstances I would think he realizes that his life is in danger every time he steps off the ranch.

      2. nobsartist March 17, 2013

        Frankly I dont believe that you are sure of much, except that your head is farther up you ass now than it was yesterday.

  9. CPAinNewYork March 16, 2013

    Mr. Sifry’s last paragraph has been partially realized. He writes that the next time we’re being rushed into a war, hopefully “the dissenters will be treated with more respect, and the proponents with less. Many lives will depend on it.”

    The bastards who recently tried to rush us into a war with Iran over supposed nuclear armaments in that country have at least for a time been stymied by voices of caution and reason. Perhaps what helped is the fact that some of the same bastards who got us into the second Iraq war were beating the drums to get us into a war with Iran. An old adage seemingly held true: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me ” The American people proved to be not as stupid as the warmongers thought we were.

    It’s indeed fortunate that the Republican warmonger McCain was defeated in the 2008 election and the Republican warmonger Romney was defeated in the 2012 election.

    Despite their hawkish attitudes, it’s signficant that many of the prominent Republicans diligently avoided military service, e.g. Dubya Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith and Romney,

    1. Sand_Cat March 17, 2013

      Don’t count the warmongers out yet.

    2. nobsartist March 17, 2013

      I suggest you start demanding to be told how Israel got nukes. I will bet the same people that want to go to war against Iran gave the nukes to Israel.

      I will also bet that the bush crime family was involved.

      1. CPAinNewYork March 18, 2013

        I’ll bet you’re right, but why do I have to demand it?

    3. plc97477 March 17, 2013

      dubya didn’t diligently avoid military service. He just went awol and had his daddy keep him out of prison for it.

  10. Jim Myers March 16, 2013

    At least three of the main reasons that our Nation was led into the path of war were never mentioned in this report.

    The first was oil.

    The second was money.

    The third was the ability to funnel HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS to the Military – Industrial Complex.

    I also believe there was a forth reason. I have always believed this was also about retaliation against Saddam Hussein and Iraq for not falling while George H W Bush was President.

    The fact that Dick Cheney, the coward who avoided going to Vietnam because he had better things to do than get his ass shot off, is still revered by the Right Wingers says a lot to me about why they cannot be trusted.

    Not with our Nation. Not with a candy bar. Not with anything.

    1. Independent1 March 16, 2013

      My sense on the 4th was a vendetta that George Jr. had for Saddam for having tried to kill his Dad in a meeting in Kuwait after the 1st Gulf War. I believe George was determined to get Saddam at any cost. However, I’m not sure about the oil bit – I know a lot think that, but for what reason? They thought we wouldn’t get enough oil from Saudi Arabia, Iran and other souces back then? What was starting a war going to do for them? But I agree whole heartedly with the money reason, especially channeling it to all the players associated with running a war – and I think that goes beyond what we consider the “defense industry” – it included a lot of bit players, including rebuilding contractors, security people and others that Cheney handed over no-bid contracts to so they could suck up as much taxpayer money as possible, and obviously channel that back to Cheney and Bush; obviously the biggest fraud scheme ever perpetrated on the American public. Do you realize that the neighborhood where George Jr. lives in now in Texas is one of the most elite in the country? It’s where the most expensive mansion in America now resides.

    2. nobsartist March 17, 2013

      You forgot job creation. The economy was tanking – this was bush’s solution.

      1. Independent1 March 17, 2013

        Your comment suggests that Bush cared about what happened to the country economically which I very much doubt. The only thing George Bush ever cared about was doing whatever he could to separate America’s taxpayers from their hard earned money so he could help deposit their money into his pockets and the pockets of his cronies and political donors. How? By starting wars and giving no bid contracts to crony companies such as Haliburton, Black Water, and many others; by passing unfunded/unwarranted tax cuts that favored the wealthy (including him and Cheney); by passing unfunded drug benefit giveaways to the drug industry to earn kickbacks, by trying to privatize social security as a giveaway to the financial industry hoping again to get kickbacks, by pushing for a disasterous No Child Left Behind Law that created profits for industries associated with education, probably again in the hopes of kickbacks. You don’t leave office and buy a home in probably the most elite neighborhood in America, where the most expensive mansion in the country can found, unlessl you’ve pocketed more money than any normal person could ever spend in a lifetime without really going berserk in spending.

        1. TZToronto March 18, 2013

          No Child Left Behind comes with strings attached. If a school board takes that government money, it has to allow U.S. military recruiters into the schools to convince impressionable youth that the military is the place for them. If it doesn’t take the money, then the recruiters can be denied access. So public schools need the money, and they get military recruiters; private schools don’t need the money, and they get no recruiters. Gotta feed that military-industrial complex–but not with the elite.

    3. idamag March 18, 2013

      Don’t forget the oil fields.

  11. JDavidS March 16, 2013

    Kinda funny. The biggest “hawks” on Dubyas’ team were the clowns who never once put their own asses on the line. Bush, Cheney, Rove et al. Just like Ted “look at my big gun” Nugent. All mouth.

    1. Hillbilly March 16, 2013

      The ones that talk the loudest are usually the biggest Coward and runs and hides when called to duty. Like Romney, he supported the Nam war until he got his draft notices, he got 6 deferrals to not go because he was in College. After graduating no more deferrals so Daddy gets the Mormon church to him to France as a missionary while men like several of my cousings got hit with agent orange and all the bad stuff it causes.

  12. Hillbilly March 16, 2013

    Bush and Cheney need to be trialed as war criminals for the lost of so many lives and the maiming of so many people, they knew when they spoke their first word about WMD that they were lying and they kept on lying. The majority of the plane hijackers were from Saudi Araba and none were from Iraq. Also Bush 2 should be trialed as a traitor, he helped Bin Loden’s family leave the USA and allowed them to fly out of Country when no one else was flying. I believe another Country is also responisble for the Iraq war, I don’t know what Israel said to Bush 2 to get him to fight Iraq for them but it worked. We lost thousands of our young people fighting Israel’s enemy while Israel set on the sidelines and laughed at us. All of the people that served in Bush 2 adminstration should be charged as war criminals

    1. plc97477 March 17, 2013

      There are countries that have tried them and found them guilty. They will probably not be traveling to any of them any time soon.

  13. bardhi ndreca March 18, 2013

    lufta ne irak ishte shum me fajet e shetetit amerikan edhe te anglise ..vetem nga nafta edhe ari i zi po behete lufta ne boten e korruptume

    1. Mark Forsyth March 18, 2013

      In english please?

  14. irishtap March 19, 2013

    From knowing the history of the Bush family, I was immediately dubious about the rush to war. We had an illegitimate commander in chief, whom ignored four dire warnings of impending attack, resulting in 9/11. It was disturbing to realize the ‘real’ danger to the world was the administration of the ‘chief executive’ of the United States. He greatly abused his powers, delivering the savagery of war to hundreds of thousands of innocent people and creating ever lasting hardship for survivors on both sides. He ‘made up a war’, ‘WILLINGLY’ without a shred of evidence (or) conscience for the consequences of his lies. I’ll never forget the image from the New York Times, showing a returned Iraq veteran at his wedding, without a face. The look on his bride’s face was heartbreaking. For anyone out there that has studied the ways of the Bush Family, it can be said the name is synonymous with evil. He, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and that bastard Wolfowitz, among others are war criminals. Scum of the earth…


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.