Setting the Iraq Record Straight: Because Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and a gaggle of Republican consultants are incapable of articulating a defense of the Bush-43 administrations...

JMHO Loc: Utah

Because Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and a gaggle of Republican consultants are incapable of articulating a defense of the Bush-43 administrations prosecution of the Iraq War, an independent observer more schooled in the science of persuasive communication must intervene for the sake of the historical record. Here goes.

Contrary to revisionist history, the Iraq War was far from a discretionary war of choice. All the worlds major intelligence agencies agreed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, an assessment ratified by Bill Clinton and his CIA Director (slam dunk, remember?). The 9/11 Commission later documented numerous contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

But wait, wasnt the message from the 9/11 report just the opposite, i.e., no collaboration between al-Qaeda and Saddam? That is the partisan canard, but the text of the report merely denies any operational or tactical relationship involving Saddam and al-Qaeda. You see, the Democrat commission members wormed that compromise language into the final copy to ground their deceptive spin -- for the benefit of the inattentive public -- of no collaboration period. Sort of how $9.95 seems closer to $9 than $10 if you look at it fast and dont think about it, the Democrats trust our brain-dead populace to overlook the operational modifier -- and the subliminal scheme seems to have worked. The key, ironic fact is that absence of operational collaboration leaves open the possibility of strategic interaction between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Get it?

Obviously, a Saddam connected to al-Qaeda in any way creates a more definite exigency for military action by the U.S. and the coalition President Bush assembled. (No go-it-alone cowboy was Mr. W, also in contrast to the political caricature.) In the 9/11 aftermath, no U.S. administration could have responsibly neglected to connect the dots among Saddam, WMD, and al-Qaeda -- especially with no degrees of separation -- as most of the Democrats in Congress agreed at the time.

Another convenient fiction is that Bush and Cheney fabricated the WMD evidence, but the two were exonerated of that smear by the Robb-Silverman report, a Senate investigation, and the Butler report in the U.K. Perhaps some readers did not know that. Of course, if President Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq, why would he have invaded using that pretext only to find inevitable evidence that he was lying? The Bush detractors have yet to answer that one.

So, if true that no Iraq WMD were found after the war, that means there werent any? Obviously, such a stretch violates the logical prohibition against proving a negative (and the Iraq Survey Group succumbed to that lapse, to a degree). Recall the Russian truck caravan from Iraq to Syria on the eve of the war in 2003. What was Saddam so eager to transfer out of his country? Where did Syria get its present WMD? Not assuming anything here, but what a coincidence!

Speaking of, not only Syria but even Libya had WMD. You also know that Iran, Israel, and Pakistan presently have WMD, not to mention Hizballah, and Iran will soon diversify into a new WMD product line. Can we believe that nearly every country in the region except Iraq had WMD of one kind or another, especially since Saddams Iraq had used WMD in the 1980s? Ultimately, Saddam acknowledged that he would soon have re-started his nuclear weapons program if we had not invaded, which establishes the Iraq wars necessity.

The punchline on Iraq WMD: How much of it has actually turned up in postwar Iraq? Apart from a small amount of bioweapon material, there were those 500 canisters of chemical weapons found in 2006. You hadnt heard? See Walter Pincus in the Washington Post (7/1/06), assiduously suppressed by the mainstream media because the news does not fit their propaganda narrative, and as if such a weaponry stash doesnt count. (Maybe Bush planted it.) Degraded? Only partly; the chem cache had potential lethality in the mass casualty range.

Then there was Saddams stockpile of yellowcake uranium, also found long after the 03 invasion. Yes, those 16 words in Bushs notorious speech proved to be true. And if you did not already know any part of the preceding recital, you should be asking yourself why not? Everything reported here is verifiable, objective fact. A rather important correction of the public mythology, is it not? But why dont we hear this from prominent Republicans?

Other details we can wish Dick Cheney or others had emphasized lately, or ever:

Among the multiple justifications for our Iraq intervention were that Saddam was violating the Gulf War armistice and U.N. inspection terms, and committing acts of war against the U.S. almost daily by firing on our aircraft. Another of the legitimate purposes was humanitarian, i.e., ridding a nation and the world of a heinous tyrant and mass murderer. The liberal Democrat humanitarian façade often is exposed as tedious posing, such as now with their demonstrated contempt for humanitarian motives.

The Democrat critics mock Mr. Cheneys prediction that our military would be greeted as liberators in Iraq. They seem to think he was wrong. They should view the old footage of Iraqis lining the streets to greet our liberating forces -- as liberators. Then they should review the Iraqi public opinion polls on the subject following Saddams overthrow. (Even Megyn Kelly swallowed the Democrat propaganda, apparently.) Cheney was right. Of course, he never said the Saddamites or al-Qaeda would be among those celebrating our arrival.

At least the Democrats have finally given up on their war for oil mantra. And if so wrong about that, what else?

Please note that Bush, Cheney, and the U.S. military won the war in Iraq twice: the major combat phase and the insurgency phase. Bush and Cheney have been vindicated strategically. Saddams arsenal was neutralized, and al-Qaeda was indeed routed, humiliated, and denied a nation-state staging area for more attacks on the U.S. The biggest mistake along the way was Rumsfelds small-footprint strategy, but once Mr. Bush found the right general in David Petraeus, à la Lincoln and Grant, our side achieved the double victory and bequeathed a relatively stable situation.

Tragically, we now have a president who is throwing those priceless gains away. But what would we expect from one who declares that he is uncomfortable with the concept of victory. Or is it time to think the unthinkable? The liberal Democrats always were obsessed with sabotaging Bushs war so it would be seen as a Republican defeat, accruing to their own partisan advantage.

So whats the problem with Republicans? Why is this device -- telling the truth -- so alien to them when the truth is on their side? If the Dems can get so much mileage out of untruth, why not use reality in reply? Might some of those Republican political consultants be Democrat plants or double agents? Again, every premise in this presentation is demonstrably factual -- yet contrary to prevailing perception, a real tribute to Democrat big lie skill.

Perhaps we can agree with the Democrats that Bush/Cheney did commit one atrocity against the American polity. Faced with relentless Democrat defamation, Mr. Bush in particular never answered back while in office, and still hasnt. That passivity is a major blunder in mass communication strategy because it cedes the arena to the opposition. When the audience hears only one side, cognition is shaped in accordance and attitude formation follows. It was precisely such marketing malpractice by the Bush political operation that led to Bush fatigue and the election of a catastrophic president named Barack H. Obama. Thanks a lot, guys.

So, does any reader still think political packaging qua marketing communication is only peripheral cosmetics?

John F. Gaski, A long time registered Democrat

Unclet Loc: Amarillo, Tx

JMHO wrote:

Because Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and a gaggle of Republican consultants are incapable of articulating a defense of the Bush-43 administrations prosecution of the Iraq War, an independent observer more schooled in the science of persuasive communication must intervene for the sake of the historical record. Here goes.

Contrary to revisionist history, the Iraq War was far from a discretionary war of choice. All the worlds major intelligence agencies agreed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, an assessment ratified by Bill Clinton and his CIA Director (slam dunk, remember?). The 9/11 Commission later documented numerous contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

But wait, wasnt the message from the 9/11 report just the opposite, i.e., no collaboration between al-Qaeda and Saddam? That is the partisan canard, but the text of the report merely denies any operational or tactical relationship involving Saddam and al-Qaeda. You see, the Democrat commission members wormed that compromise language into the final copy to ground their deceptive spin -- for the benefit of the inattentive public -- of no collaboration period. Sort of how $9.95 seems closer to $9 than $10 if you look at it fast and dont think about it, the Democrats trust our brain-dead populace to overlook the operational modifier -- and the subliminal scheme seems to have worked. The key, ironic fact is that absence of operational collaboration leaves open the possibility of strategic interaction between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Get it?

Obviously, a Saddam connected to al-Qaeda in any way creates a more definite exigency for military action by the U.S. and the coalition President Bush assembled. (No go-it-alone cowboy was Mr. W, also in contrast to the political caricature.) In the 9/11 aftermath, no U.S. administration could have responsibly neglected to connect the dots among Saddam, WMD, and al-Qaeda -- especially with no degrees of separation -- as most of the Democrats in Congress agreed at the time.

Another convenient fiction is that Bush and Cheney fabricated the WMD evidence, but the two were exonerated of that smear by the Robb-Silverman report, a Senate investigation, and the Butler report in the U.K. Perhaps some readers did not know that. Of course, if President Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq, why would he have invaded using that pretext only to find inevitable evidence that he was lying? The Bush detractors have yet to answer that one.

So, if true that no Iraq WMD were found after the war, that means there werent any? Obviously, such a stretch violates the logical prohibition against proving a negative (and the Iraq Survey Group succumbed to that lapse, to a degree). Recall the Russian truck caravan from Iraq to Syria on the eve of the war in 2003. What was Saddam so eager to transfer out of his country? Where did Syria get its present WMD? Not assuming anything here, but what a coincidence!

Speaking of, not only Syria but even Libya had WMD. You also know that Iran, Israel, and Pakistan presently have WMD, not to mention Hizballah, and Iran will soon diversify into a new WMD product line. Can we believe that nearly every country in the region except Iraq had WMD of one kind or another, especially since Saddams Iraq had used WMD in the 1980s? Ultimately, Saddam acknowledged that he would soon have re-started his nuclear weapons program if we had not invaded, which establishes the Iraq wars necessity.

The punchline on Iraq WMD: How much of it has actually turned up in postwar Iraq? Apart from a small amount of bioweapon material, there were those 500 canisters of chemical weapons found in 2006. You hadnt heard? See Walter Pincus in the Washington Post (7/1/06), assiduously suppressed by the mainstream media because the news does not fit their propaganda narrative, and as if such a weaponry stash doesnt count. (Maybe Bush planted it.) Degraded? Only partly; the chem cache had potential lethality in the mass casualty range.

Then there was Saddams stockpile of yellowcake uranium, also found long after the 03 invasion. Yes, those 16 words in Bushs notorious speech proved to be true. And if you did not already know any part of the preceding recital, you should be asking yourself why not? Everything reported here is verifiable, objective fact. A rather important correction of the public mythology, is it not? But why dont we hear this from prominent Republicans?

Other details we can wish Dick Cheney or others had emphasized lately, or ever:

Among the multiple justifications for our Iraq intervention were that Saddam was violating the Gulf War armistice and U.N. inspection terms, and committing acts of war against the U.S. almost daily by firing on our aircraft. Another of the legitimate purposes was humanitarian, i.e., ridding a nation and the world of a heinous tyrant and mass murderer. The liberal Democrat humanitarian façade often is exposed as tedious posing, such as now with their demonstrated contempt for humanitarian motives.

The Democrat critics mock Mr. Cheneys prediction that our military would be greeted as liberators in Iraq. They seem to think he was wrong. They should view the old footage of Iraqis lining the streets to greet our liberating forces -- as liberators. Then they should review the Iraqi public opinion polls on the subject following Saddams overthrow. (Even Megyn Kelly swallowed the Democrat propaganda, apparently.) Cheney was right. Of course, he never said the Saddamites or al-Qaeda would be among those celebrating our arrival.

At least the Democrats have finally given up on their war for oil mantra. And if so wrong about that, what else?

Please note that Bush, Cheney, and the U.S. military won the war in Iraq twice: the major combat phase and the insurgency phase. Bush and Cheney have been vindicated strategically. Saddams arsenal was neutralized, and al-Qaeda was indeed routed, humiliated, and denied a nation-state staging area for more attacks on the U.S. The biggest mistake along the way was Rumsfelds small-footprint strategy, but once Mr. Bush found the right general in David Petraeus, à la Lincoln and Grant, our side achieved the double victory and bequeathed a relatively stable situation.

Tragically, we now have a president who is throwing those priceless gains away. But what would we expect from one who declares that he is uncomfortable with the concept of victory. Or is it time to think the unthinkable? The liberal Democrats always were obsessed with sabotaging Bushs war so it would be seen as a Republican defeat, accruing to their own partisan advantage.

So whats the problem with Republicans? Why is this device -- telling the truth -- so alien to them when the truth is on their side? If the Dems can get so much mileage out of untruth, why not use reality in reply? Might some of those Republican political consultants be Democrat plants or double agents? Again, every premise in this presentation is demonstrably factual -- yet contrary to prevailing perception, a real tribute to Democrat big lie skill.

Perhaps we can agree with the Democrats that Bush/Cheney did commit one atrocity against the American polity. Faced with relentless Democrat defamation, Mr. Bush in particular never answered back while in office, and still hasnt. That passivity is a major blunder in mass communication strategy because it cedes the arena to the opposition. When the audience hears only one side, cognition is shaped in accordance and attitude formation follows. It was precisely such marketing malpractice by the Bush political operation that led to Bush fatigue and the election of a catastrophic president named Barack H. Obama. Thanks a lot, guys.

So, does any reader still think political packaging qua marketing communication is only peripheral cosmetics?

John F. Gaski, A long time registered Democrat

Because Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and a gaggle ... (show quote)

Good Post - Thanks

cant beleve Loc: Planet Kolob

MSM= mostly someone's magination.

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

JMHO wrote:

Because Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and a gaggle of Republican consultants are incapable of articulating a defense of the Bush-43 administrations prosecution of the Iraq War, an independent observer more schooled in the science of persuasive communication must intervene for the sake of the historical record. Here goes.

Contrary to revisionist history, the Iraq War was far from a discretionary war of choice. All the worlds major intelligence agencies agreed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, an assessment ratified by Bill Clinton and his CIA Director (slam dunk, remember?). The 9/11 Commission later documented numerous contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

But wait, wasnt the message from the 9/11 report just the opposite, i.e., no collaboration between al-Qaeda and Saddam? That is the partisan canard, but the text of the report merely denies any operational or tactical relationship involving Saddam and al-Qaeda. You see, the Democrat commission members wormed that compromise language into the final copy to ground their deceptive spin -- for the benefit of the inattentive public -- of no collaboration period. Sort of how $9.95 seems closer to $9 than $10 if you look at it fast and dont think about it, the Democrats trust our brain-dead populace to overlook the operational modifier -- and the subliminal scheme seems to have worked. The key, ironic fact is that absence of operational collaboration leaves open the possibility of strategic interaction between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Get it?

Obviously, a Saddam connected to al-Qaeda in any way creates a more definite exigency for military action by the U.S. and the coalition President Bush assembled. (No go-it-alone cowboy was Mr. W, also in contrast to the political caricature.) In the 9/11 aftermath, no U.S. administration could have responsibly neglected to connect the dots among Saddam, WMD, and al-Qaeda -- especially with no degrees of separation -- as most of the Democrats in Congress agreed at the time.

Another convenient fiction is that Bush and Cheney fabricated the WMD evidence, but the two were exonerated of that smear by the Robb-Silverman report, a Senate investigation, and the Butler report in the U.K. Perhaps some readers did not know that. Of course, if President Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq, why would he have invaded using that pretext only to find inevitable evidence that he was lying? The Bush detractors have yet to answer that one.

So, if true that no Iraq WMD were found after the war, that means there werent any? Obviously, such a stretch violates the logical prohibition against proving a negative (and the Iraq Survey Group succumbed to that lapse, to a degree). Recall the Russian truck caravan from Iraq to Syria on the eve of the war in 2003. What was Saddam so eager to transfer out of his country? Where did Syria get its present WMD? Not assuming anything here, but what a coincidence!

Speaking of, not only Syria but even Libya had WMD. You also know that Iran, Israel, and Pakistan presently have WMD, not to mention Hizballah, and Iran will soon diversify into a new WMD product line. Can we believe that nearly every country in the region except Iraq had WMD of one kind or another, especially since Saddams Iraq had used WMD in the 1980s? Ultimately, Saddam acknowledged that he would soon have re-started his nuclear weapons program if we had not invaded, which establishes the Iraq wars necessity.

The punchline on Iraq WMD: How much of it has actually turned up in postwar Iraq? Apart from a small amount of bioweapon material, there were those 500 canisters of chemical weapons found in 2006. You hadnt heard? See Walter Pincus in the Washington Post (7/1/06), assiduously suppressed by the mainstream media because the news does not fit their propaganda narrative, and as if such a weaponry stash doesnt count. (Maybe Bush planted it.) Degraded? Only partly; the chem cache had potential lethality in the mass casualty range.

Then there was Saddams stockpile of yellowcake uranium, also found long after the 03 invasion. Yes, those 16 words in Bushs notorious speech proved to be true. And if you did not already know any part of the preceding recital, you should be asking yourself why not? Everything reported here is verifiable, objective fact. A rather important correction of the public mythology, is it not? But why dont we hear this from prominent Republicans?

Other details we can wish Dick Cheney or others had emphasized lately, or ever:

Among the multiple justifications for our Iraq intervention were that Saddam was violating the Gulf War armistice and U.N. inspection terms, and committing acts of war against the U.S. almost daily by firing on our aircraft. Another of the legitimate purposes was humanitarian, i.e., ridding a nation and the world of a heinous tyrant and mass murderer. The liberal Democrat humanitarian façade often is exposed as tedious posing, such as now with their demonstrated contempt for humanitarian motives.

The Democrat critics mock Mr. Cheneys prediction that our military would be greeted as liberators in Iraq. They seem to think he was wrong. They should view the old footage of Iraqis lining the streets to greet our liberating forces -- as liberators. Then they should review the Iraqi public opinion polls on the subject following Saddams overthrow. (Even Megyn Kelly swallowed the Democrat propaganda, apparently.) Cheney was right. Of course, he never said the Saddamites or al-Qaeda would be among those celebrating our arrival.

At least the Democrats have finally given up on their war for oil mantra. And if so wrong about that, what else?

Please note that Bush, Cheney, and the U.S. military won the war in Iraq twice: the major combat phase and the insurgency phase. Bush and Cheney have been vindicated strategically. Saddams arsenal was neutralized, and al-Qaeda was indeed routed, humiliated, and denied a nation-state staging area for more attacks on the U.S. The biggest mistake along the way was Rumsfelds small-footprint strategy, but once Mr. Bush found the right general in David Petraeus, à la Lincoln and Grant, our side achieved the double victory and bequeathed a relatively stable situation.

Tragically, we now have a president who is throwing those priceless gains away. But what would we expect from one who declares that he is uncomfortable with the concept of victory. Or is it time to think the unthinkable? The liberal Democrats always were obsessed with sabotaging Bushs war so it would be seen as a Republican defeat, accruing to their own partisan advantage.

So whats the problem with Republicans? Why is this device -- telling the truth -- so alien to them when the truth is on their side? If the Dems can get so much mileage out of untruth, why not use reality in reply? Might some of those Republican political consultants be Democrat plants or double agents? Again, every premise in this presentation is demonstrably factual -- yet contrary to prevailing perception, a real tribute to Democrat big lie skill.

Perhaps we can agree with the Democrats that Bush/Cheney did commit one atrocity against the American polity. Faced with relentless Democrat defamation, Mr. Bush in particular never answered back while in office, and still hasnt. That passivity is a major blunder in mass communication strategy because it cedes the arena to the opposition. When the audience hears only one side, cognition is shaped in accordance and attitude formation follows. It was precisely such marketing malpractice by the Bush political operation that led to Bush fatigue and the election of a catastrophic president named Barack H. Obama. Thanks a lot, guys.

So, does any reader still think political packaging qua marketing communication is only peripheral cosmetics?

John F. Gaski, A long time registered Democrat

Because Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and a gaggle ... (show quote)

This should be posted monthly. Every time anyone has made any statements along this line, a large number of people have just said we are lying, and others chose to believe the trolls. Remember this and keep it in front of the American citizens, not only before elections but all the time.

skott Loc: Bama

JMHO wrote:

Because Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and a gaggle of Republican consultants are incapable of articulating a defense of the Bush-43 administrations prosecution of the Iraq War, an independent observer more schooled in the science of persuasive communication must intervene for the sake of the historical record. Here goes.

Contrary to revisionist history, the Iraq War was far from a discretionary war of choice. All the worlds major intelligence agencies agreed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, an assessment ratified by Bill Clinton and his CIA Director (slam dunk, remember?). The 9/11 Commission later documented numerous contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

But wait, wasnt the message from the 9/11 report just the opposite, i.e., no collaboration between al-Qaeda and Saddam? That is the partisan canard, but the text of the report merely denies any operational or tactical relationship involving Saddam and al-Qaeda. You see, the Democrat commission members wormed that compromise language into the final copy to ground their deceptive spin -- for the benefit of the inattentive public -- of no collaboration period. Sort of how $9.95 seems closer to $9 than $10 if you look at it fast and dont think about it, the Democrats trust our brain-dead populace to overlook the operational modifier -- and the subliminal scheme seems to have worked. The key, ironic fact is that absence of operational collaboration leaves open the possibility of strategic interaction between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Get it?

Obviously, a Saddam connected to al-Qaeda in any way creates a more definite exigency for military action by the U.S. and the coalition President Bush assembled. (No go-it-alone cowboy was Mr. W, also in contrast to the political caricature.) In the 9/11 aftermath, no U.S. administration could have responsibly neglected to connect the dots among Saddam, WMD, and al-Qaeda -- especially with no degrees of separation -- as most of the Democrats in Congress agreed at the time.

Another convenient fiction is that Bush and Cheney fabricated the WMD evidence, but the two were exonerated of that smear by the Robb-Silverman report, a Senate investigation, and the Butler report in the U.K. Perhaps some readers did not know that. Of course, if President Bush knew there were no WMD in Iraq, why would he have invaded using that pretext only to find inevitable evidence that he was lying? The Bush detractors have yet to answer that one.

So, if true that no Iraq WMD were found after the war, that means there werent any? Obviously, such a stretch violates the logical prohibition against proving a negative (and the Iraq Survey Group succumbed to that lapse, to a degree). Recall the Russian truck caravan from Iraq to Syria on the eve of the war in 2003. What was Saddam so eager to transfer out of his country? Where did Syria get its present WMD? Not assuming anything here, but what a coincidence!

Speaking of, not only Syria but even Libya had WMD. You also know that Iran, Israel, and Pakistan presently have WMD, not to mention Hizballah, and Iran will soon diversify into a new WMD product line. Can we believe that nearly every country in the region except Iraq had WMD of one kind or another, especially since Saddams Iraq had used WMD in the 1980s? Ultimately, Saddam acknowledged that he would soon have re-started his nuclear weapons program if we had not invaded, which establishes the Iraq wars necessity.

The punchline on Iraq WMD: How much of it has actually turned up in postwar Iraq? Apart from a small amount of bioweapon material, there were those 500 canisters of chemical weapons found in 2006. You hadnt heard? See Walter Pincus in the Washington Post (7/1/06), assiduously suppressed by the mainstream media because the news does not fit their propaganda narrative, and as if such a weaponry stash doesnt count. (Maybe Bush planted it.) Degraded? Only partly; the chem cache had potential lethality in the mass casualty range.

Then there was Saddams stockpile of yellowcake uranium, also found long after the 03 invasion. Yes, those 16 words in Bushs notorious speech proved to be true. And if you did not already know any part of the preceding recital, you should be asking yourself why not? Everything reported here is verifiable, objective fact. A rather important correction of the public mythology, is it not? But why dont we hear this from prominent Republicans?

Other details we can wish Dick Cheney or others had emphasized lately, or ever:

Among the multiple justifications for our Iraq intervention were that Saddam was violating the Gulf War armistice and U.N. inspection terms, and committing acts of war against the U.S. almost daily by firing on our aircraft. Another of the legitimate purposes was humanitarian, i.e., ridding a nation and the world of a heinous tyrant and mass murderer. The liberal Democrat humanitarian façade often is exposed as tedious posing, such as now with their demonstrated contempt for humanitarian motives.

The Democrat critics mock Mr. Cheneys prediction that our military would be greeted as liberators in Iraq. They seem to think he was wrong. They should view the old footage of Iraqis lining the streets to greet our liberating forces -- as liberators. Then they should review the Iraqi public opinion polls on the subject following Saddams overthrow. (Even Megyn Kelly swallowed the Democrat propaganda, apparently.) Cheney was right. Of course, he never said the Saddamites or al-Qaeda would be among those celebrating our arrival.

At least the Democrats have finally given up on their war for oil mantra. And if so wrong about that, what else?

Please note that Bush, Cheney, and the U.S. military won the war in Iraq twice: the major combat phase and the insurgency phase. Bush and Cheney have been vindicated strategically. Saddams arsenal was neutralized, and al-Qaeda was indeed routed, humiliated, and denied a nation-state staging area for more attacks on the U.S. The biggest mistake along the way was Rumsfelds small-footprint strategy, but once Mr. Bush found the right general in David Petraeus, à la Lincoln and Grant, our side achieved the double victory and bequeathed a relatively stable situation.

Tragically, we now have a president who is throwing those priceless gains away. But what would we expect from one who declares that he is uncomfortable with the concept of victory. Or is it time to think the unthinkable? The liberal Democrats always were obsessed with sabotaging Bushs war so it would be seen as a Republican defeat, accruing to their own partisan advantage.

So whats the problem with Republicans? Why is this device -- telling the truth -- so alien to them when the truth is on their side? If the Dems can get so much mileage out of untruth, why not use reality in reply? Might some of those Republican political consultants be Democrat plants or double agents? Again, every premise in this presentation is demonstrably factual -- yet contrary to prevailing perception, a real tribute to Democrat big lie skill.

Perhaps we can agree with the Democrats that Bush/Cheney did commit one atrocity against the American polity. Faced with relentless Democrat defamation, Mr. Bush in particular never answered back while in office, and still hasnt. That passivity is a major blunder in mass communication strategy because it cedes the arena to the opposition. When the audience hears only one side, cognition is shaped in accordance and attitude formation follows. It was precisely such marketing malpractice by the Bush political operation that led to Bush fatigue and the election of a catastrophic president named Barack H. Obama. Thanks a lot, guys.

So, does any reader still think political packaging qua marketing communication is only peripheral cosmetics?

John F. Gaski, A long time registered Democrat

Because Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and a gaggle ... (show quote)

Well this post is revisionist history. Lets start with everyone agreed. Neither the French, nor the Germans agreed. We made fun of them. They were correct.
Also, the threat was get rid of your WMD's or we will attack you. We then attacked and found nothing. He gave them to neighboring countries, but we never said he could not.
Also, If the WMDs were the reason for the war, why did the reason change after we did not find WMDs? It became "we are spreading democracy to the region" followed by well, "Saddam was a bad guy". Did I miss all this or just make it up in my mind?
The worst part is that I kinda wish Saddam was still there controlling that area, don't you?

JMHO Loc: Utah

skott wrote:

Well this post is revisionist history. Lets start ... (show quote)

Sources? Credible ones, anyway. I hear nothing but a libtard recycling the old LSM and Democrat's talking points...no proof, just rhetoric. I guess you didn't read the "WMDs" part of the article.

You libtards cease to amaze me, all you can do is echo what the liberal media tells you, without doing any REAL RESEARCH on your own.

As for your stupid comment "I kinda wish Saddam was still there controlling that area, don't you?", HELL NO! The guy was a thug! He wasn't any better than Al Qaeda!

skott Loc: Bama

JMHO wrote:

Sources? Credible ones, anyway. I hear nothing b... (show quote)

Well there is the conservative stupid rearing its head. You didn't list any sources yourself. He wasn't part of or in favor of Al Qaeda. He was in control of his area though. What did you think would happen in the area? Maybe they would embrace democracy and still control the other groups? Those two ideas don't work together. Now the region has real problems. The only government that every works in that area with those people is a dictatorship.

JMHO Loc: Utah

skott wrote:

Well there is the conservative stupid rearing its head. You didn't list any sources yourself. He wasn't part of or in favor of Al Qaeda. He was in control of his area though. What did you think would happen in the area? Maybe they would embrace democracy and still control the other groups? Those two ideas don't work together. Now the region has real problems. The only government that every works in that area with those people is a dictatorship.

And, we have the moron libtard, espousing his LSM left-wing bullsh*t opinion, with no facts.. You don't know what would happen if that thug had stayed in power, you're just pulling it out of your ass, typical of you libtards. That region had problems under Hussein, but you don't give a crap about that. Dictatorship is the only thing that will work in that area? Are you ever naive, and just plain ignorant.

skott Loc: Bama

JMHO wrote:

And, we have the moron libtard, espousing his LSM left-wing bullsh*t opinion, with no facts.. You don't know what would happen if that thug had stayed in power, you're just pulling it out of your ass, typical of you libtards. That region had problems under Hussein, but you don't give a crap about that. Dictatorship is the only thing that will work in that area? Are you ever naive, and just plain ignorant.

What else has worked? And I know how it is going now in the region.

JMHO Loc: Utah

skott wrote:

What else has worked? And I know how it is going now in the region.

????????

What worked was Bush handing a winning plan in Iraq to your home boy Obama, who couldn't lead horse to water. What didn't work was Obama bailing out without a Status of Forces agreement. Al Qaeda filled the void, and the ISIS Sunni's filled the void. Now, we have a mess.

I'm through with you, post your ignorant left-wing blather on some other poster. I prefer to debate some one who has some grey matter between their ears. Bye bye.

skott Loc: Bama

JMHO wrote:

????????

What worked was Bush handing a winning plan in Iraq to your home boy Obama, who couldn't lead horse to water. What didn't work was Obama bailing out without a Status of Forces agreement. Al Qaeda filled the void, and the ISIS Sunni's filled the void. Now, we have a mess.

I'm through with you, post your ignorant left-wing blather on some other poster. I prefer to debate some one who has some grey matter between their ears. Bye bye.

You just cant stand another opinion. Bush only had it working because of a huge amount of troops. Were we supposed to leave them there forever? No even Bush had a date for leaving.

JMHO Loc: Utah

skott wrote:

You just cant stand another opinion. Bush only had it working because of a huge amount of troops. Were we supposed to leave them there forever? No even Bush had a date for leaving.

I don't have a problem with opinions, providing they're halfway intelligent.

We should have left a contingency force, number being determined by military commanders. But, Obama had no interest in obtaining a Status of Forces Agreement.

Bush did not provide an exact date because NO RESPONSIBLE PRESIDENT OR MILITARY COMMANDER TELLS THE ENEMY WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO PULL OUT!!!!!!!!

Mr Shako Loc: Colo Spgs

JMHO wrote:

And, we have the moron libtard, espousing his LSM left-wing bullsh*t opinion, with no facts.. You don't know what would happen if that thug had stayed in power, you're just pulling it out of your ass, typical of you libtards. That region had problems under Hussein, but you don't give a crap about that. Dictatorship is the only thing that will work in that area? Are you ever naive, and just plain ignorant.

The thought that Sadsdam was a thug is right on. He started out as a Baath Party "hit man..." much like a Mafia "wiseguy." In fact, he often bragged about killing others who the Baath wanted eliminated.

CDM Loc: Florida

skott wrote:

Well this post is revisionist history. Lets start ... (show quote)

I am interested in where you found documented history of Iraq transferring WMD's to other countries. Can you suggest a source for that info? Thanks...

Pap Pap Loc: Etna, PA

Where do you think that Syria got it's WMD's. And What about the 500 barrels of chemical weapons that were found ? No WMD's, NOT.