Rand Corporation Report Says the Iraq War Was Shrubbie's Biggest Blunder

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

There you have it folks, another Vintage Meltdown BY ME, BECAUSE LL IS RIGHT!

The gift that just keeps on giving.

BigTits, in my usual routine you are a pimple on a gnats ass, particularly when you join the rank-in-file of those who declare themselves victors ...

like Obaminable does!

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

The gift that just keeps on giving.

BigTits, in my usual routine you are a pimple on a gnats ass, particularly when you join the rank-in-file of those who declare themselves victors ...

like Obaminable does!

Yet another Classic Meltdown from The Patriarch of the Notorious Idiot Klan, errr Clan.

Keep those gifts a coming.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by bigtex

My point was, and still is, that President Shrub lost focus on the perpetrators of 9/11 when he authorized the ill fated and ill advised Spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Why do you repeat the same weak points over and over again when they are already refuted? There is no reason we couldn't do BOTH - remove Saddam AND hunt down al queda. In fact, having troops and military assets in Iraq made it quicker and easier to shift resources in and out of Afghanistan as needed. Iraq served as a magnet to draw al queda out into the open where we could grind them up (like we did in Fallujah in 2004) instead of hiding out in Pakistan where it was harder to kill the cockroaches. During WW2, did preparing for D-Day cause us to lose focus on the Pacific campaign? Of course not. So your talking point about "losing focus" is silly and dumb. Why are you are too stupid to move on?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

Iraq was a preemptive war. Do you know what preemptive means?

Do you understand the difference between the two. We were the fucking Japan in Iraq. You don't think Japan did a cost analysis before attacking? They got it wrong, just like we did in Iraq. Unless of course you think there is more stability in the region now than before the invasion. That nation building is cost effective and that we will wind up with a net positive, if so may I suggest a book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion

Jesus.

Were you born so fucking arrogant or did you learn it later in life as a way to hide your intellectual deficiencies? Another incredibly facile analogy - "we were the fucking Japan in Iraq". Gee, I didn't realize it was a sneak attack. I seem to recall Bush gave Saddam at least 10 months' advance warning. Got a link for that "cost analysis" performed by Japan? Of course the Supreme War Council miscalculated when they bombed us into WW2, but it wasn't because they got a few numbers wrong in some cost analysis. Their entire strategy was irredeemably flawed and that's why they lost the war.

Personally I am uneasy with the concept of preemptive war and I am not a fan of nation-building either. But only an idiot believes nation building ALWAYS fails. This completely ignores numerous successful historical examples such as postwar Germany and Japan. It could have worked in Iraq if we had tweaked our strategy in smart and timely ways. For a while we seemed to be doing that. Joe Biden assured us in 2010 that a stable, peaceful Iraq would be "one of the great achievements of this administration". But of course, that was before Odumbo decided to pull ALL troops out of Iraq and let our intelligence go dark. So you've drawn the wrong conclusion from all of this, fagboy. Odumbo's premature withdrawal didn't prove nation building doesn't work. It only proved that giving up prematurely makes failure more likely.

.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Why do you repeat the same weak points over and over again when they are already refuted?

Don't tell me, tell the Rand Corpration Report. They determined that The Iraq War was President Shrub's Biggest Blunder.

Don't shoot the messenger!!!!!

FYI, if you have further questions concerning who the "Rand Corporation" is, I found the following source information at the end of the linked article:

"David C. Gompert is an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the RAND Corporation, Hans Binnendijk, is a former National Security Council senior director for defense policy and an adjunct senior researcher at the non-partisan, non-profit RAND Corporation and Bonny Lin is an Associate Political Scientist at the RAND Corporation. This essay first appeared on the RAND Corporation’s website."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/r...ggest-blunder/

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Don't tell me, tell the Rand Corpration Report. They determined that The Iraq War was President Shrub's Biggest Blunder.

Any "port in a storm," huh, BigTits?

If it were the Obaminable Corporation Report, you wouldn't give a shit either.

And if Bush hadn't obtained authorization from Congress and NOT invaded Iraq, and if Iraq had completed building "a bomb" and delivered it to OBL to set off in the Houston ship channel, the Rand Corporation would have (once they got back online) ....

... "determined that" NO "Iraq War was President Shrub's Biggest Blunder."

But since you AND RAND have 20-20 xray hindsight over the horizon vision ....

.... you all are smarter than Bush, Congress, the U.N., and the rest of the civilized world ... WHEN THE DECISION WAS MADE.

I will repeat: You, yourself, proclaimed you were NOT AGAINST THE WAR....

... you just wanted the inspectors to "inspect more"!!!!!

(Of course, you NEVER SAID how much longer! Of course, not!)

Go bet on last Sunday's Texan's game.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by lustylad

It only proved that giving up prematurely makes failure more likely.

Drilling more holes in the bottom of the boat to prove it will sink. Then ..

"I told you so!"

Did WTF's mother do a "cost analysis" before she got knocked up with him?

Probably not. Nor a "cost-benefit" analysis!!!

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Any "port in a storm," huh, BigTits?

If it were the Obaminable Corporation Report, you wouldn't give a shit either.

And if Bush hadn't obtained authorization from Congress and NOT invaded Iraq, and if Iraq had completed building "a bomb" and delivered it to OBL to set off in the Houston ship channel, the Rand Corporation would have (once they got back online) ....

... "determined that" NO "Iraq War was President Shrub's Biggest Blunder."

But since you AND RAND have 20-20 xray hindsight over the horizon vision ....

.... you all are smarter than Bush, Congress, the U.N., and the rest of the civilized world ... WHEN THE DECISION WAS MADE.

I will repeat: You, yourself, proclaimed you were NOT AGAINST THE WAR....

... you just wanted the inspectors to "inspect more"!!!!!

(Of course, you NEVER SAID how much longer! Of course, not!)

Go bet on last Sunday's Texan's game.

Another Awesome Meltdown from the Patriarch of the Idiot Klan, errrr Clan.

Keep up the good Meltdown, errrrr Work!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Don't tell me, tell the Rand Corpration Report. They determined that The Iraq War was President Shrub's Biggest Blunder.

Don't shoot the messenger!!!!!

FYI, if you have further questions concerning who the "Rand Corporation" is, I found the following source information at the end of the linked article:

"David C. Gompert is an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the RAND Corporation, Hans Binnendijk, is a former National Security Council senior director for defense policy and an adjunct senior researcher at the non-partisan, non-profit RAND Corporation and Bonny Lin is an Associate Political Scientist at the RAND Corporation. This essay first appeared on the RAND Corporation’s website."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/r...ggest-blunder/

It's notable how you and your ilk never produced a single statement from any WMD inspector where s/he stated s/he was 100% sure Saddam didn't have WMD before the war resumed, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's notable how you and your ilk never produced a single statement from any WMD inspector where s/he stated s/he was 100% sure Saddam didn't have WMD before the war resumed, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat.

The explanation is rather simple ....

... the inspectors would be out of work, but would have to account for the destruction of the shit they did find..... some of which was recently disclosed.

The more complex explanation is .... the naysayers (BigTits et al) .... would have to admit what the real function of the inspectors was (as opposed to their version) and provide an inventory of ALL material, documents, components, and fully assembled weapons, after having described fully the complete INSPECTION of all facilities in which ALL material, documents, components, and fully assembled weapons were stored, and verify that the Iraqi government had made available ALL material, documents, components, fully assembled weapons, and all facilities in which ALL material, documents, components, and fully assembled weapons were stored. That would REQUIRE the full and complete cooperation of the Iraqi Government.

Picture this: BigTits sitting across the street of a kidnapper's house in which his favorite child is being held while the police negotiated with the kidnapper for six (6) years for release of the child.

I wouldn't use WTF in the "picture," because he would do a "cost analysis' and tell the cops .. don't bother ... and then WTF would just go home. The kid is on his or her own.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's notable how you and your ilk never produced a single statement from any WMD inspector where s/he stated s/he was 100% sure Saddam didn't have WMD before the war resumed, BigKoTex: the BUTTer Bar ASShat.

And on that same note there was no definitive evidence that he had resumed his WMD program. Thus Bush cost this country trillions making an incorrect bet.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

And on that same note there was no definitive evidence that he had resumed his WMD program. Thus Bush cost this country trillions making an incorrect bet.

There is his confession that he intended to do so at the earliest afforded opportunity.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's notable how you and your ilk never produced a single statement from any WMD inspector where s/he stated s/he was 100% sure Saddam didn't have WMD before the war resumed.

First and foremost, I have no "ilk." With that said your statement was on point, which is something out of the ordinary, for you and your "ilk."

in any event, prior to the ill fated and Ill advised Spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq, Hans Blix said he had not found any WMD's. But he needed to continue the inspections for a few more months in order to be certain. In the Shrub Administration's haste to ACCOMPLISH their ill fated and ill advised MISSION, they soon sent Hans and Company packing and proceeded with the invasion.

The following excerpt was taken from a Hans Blix interview one year following the ill fated and ill advised Spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq:

"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003; from 1981 to 1997 he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency. "We went to sites [in Iraq] given to us by intelligence, and only in three cases did we find something" - a stash of nuclear documents, some Vulcan boosters, and several empty warheads for chemical weapons. More inspections were required to determine whether these findings were the "tip of the iceberg" or simply fragments remaining from that deadly iceberg's past destruction, Blix said he told the United Nations Security Council. However, his work in Iraq was cut short when the United States and the United Kingdom took disarmament into their own hands in March of last year.

Blix accused U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of acting not in bad faith, but with a severe lack of "critical thinking." The United States and Britain failed to examine the sources of their primary intelligence - Iraqi defectors with their own agendas for encouraging regime change - with a skeptical eye, he alleged. In the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with U.N. inspections, and in February 2003 had provided Blix's team with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's pre-emptive, unilateral actions "have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere."

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r.../18_blix.shtml

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by bigtex

First and foremost, I have no "ilk." With that said yours was an excellent question, which is something out of the ordinary, for you and your "ilk."

in any event, at the time, Hans Blix said he had not found any WMD's. But he needed to continue the inspections for a few more months in order to be certain. In the Shrub Administration's haste to ACCOMPLISH their ill fated and ill advised MISSION, they soon sent Hans and Company packing.

The following excerpt was taken from a Hans Blix interview one year following the ill fated and ill advised Spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq:

"There were about 700 inspections, and in no case did we find weapons of mass destruction," said Hans Blix, the Swedish diplomat called out of retirement to serve as the United Nations' chief weapons inspector from 2000 to 2003; from 1981 to 1997 he headed the International Atomic Energy Agency. "We went to sites [in Iraq] given to us by intelligence, and only in three cases did we find something" - a stash of nuclear documents, some Vulcan boosters, and several empty warheads for chemical weapons. More inspections were required to determine whether these findings were the "tip of the iceberg" or simply fragments remaining from that deadly iceberg's past destruction, Blix said he told the United Nations Security Council. However, his work in Iraq was cut short when the United States and the United Kingdom took disarmament into their own hands in March of last year.

Blix accused U.S. President George W. Bush and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair of acting not in bad faith, but with a severe lack of "critical thinking." The United States and Britain failed to examine the sources of their primary intelligence - Iraqi defectors with their own agendas for encouraging regime change - with a skeptical eye, he alleged. In the buildup to the war, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis were cooperating with U.N. inspections, and in February 2003 had provided Blix's team with the names of hundreds of scientists to interview, individuals Saddam claimed had been involved in the destruction of banned weapons. Had the inspections been allowed to continue, Blix said, there would likely be a very different situation in Iraq today. As it was, America's pre-emptive, unilateral actions "have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere."

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r.../18_blix.shtml

And not once -- before the war resumed -- did Blix ever state that he was absolutely, 100% sure Saddam didn't have WMD.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And not once -- before the war resumed -- did Blix ever state that he was absolutely, 100% sure Saddam didn't have WMD.

By the same token, consider the following:

And not once - before the war resumed -- did Blix ever state that he was absolutely, 100% sure Saddam did have WMD, during the Spring of 2003.

Duh!

Ok, let's simplify this for the simple minded, shall we?

Blix was sent into Iraq to resume the Weapons Inspections. He arrived with no pre-conceived notion that there were or were not WMD's in Iraq, during the days, weeks and months leading up to the ill fated and ill advised Spring of 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Blix and the Inspectors performed over 700 inspections and only found 3 instances of a possible WMD violation. Blix clearly stated he needed more time to determine whether there were, in fact, WMD's in Iraq, at the time. Before he could make that final and conclusive determination, Blix and crew were sent packing without being able to ACCOMPLISH their MISSION.

Oops, Huge mistake on Shrubbie's part!

For more, read the entire story here:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/r.../18_blix.shtml