Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(American Thinker)   Contrary to revisionist history, the Iraq War was far from a discretionary "war of choice"   (americanthinker.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

2125 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Aug 2014 at 1:04 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



174 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-08-11 09:57:27 AM  
Lots of assertions and conclusions but no argument or evidence presented to support them.  Lots of astounding ignorance on display as well.  We had more contact and cooperation with members of al Qeda (many of whom were once the Mujahadin  that Reagan compared to our Founding Fathers) than secularist Saddam Hussein did before we invaded.  Saddam had key lieutenants who were Shi'ites and Kurds and he appealed to nationalism and Pan-Arabism for popular political support (to the extent that matters in any authoritarian dictatorship) and not religion until that became convenient during the Kuwait war.  Al Qeda had no presence in Iraq before the Bush Cheney invasion, but after the invasion and colossal farkup of a nation building policy they tried to implement al Qeda had a presence and support from the alienated Sunni tribes.
 
2014-08-11 10:04:33 AM  
If we were still occupying Iraq, we'd have found those WMDs, too

/Full-retard Monday is cranked up to 12
 
2014-08-11 10:09:36 AM  
I wonder whatever happened to those mobile bioweapons labs and all that yellowcake.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-08-11 10:19:15 AM  
I like how people who are trying to revise history start out by calling actual history revisionist.
 
2014-08-11 10:48:39 AM  
The war was immoral and there were no WMD, rolling meth labs or any other reason to invade; GW Bush lied, Cheney lied and they should both be tried at The Hague along with Rice, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and others.

American stinker: brain damaged monkeys throwing poop at the wall.
 
2014-08-11 11:26:57 AM  
It's still real to these poor devils.
 
2014-08-11 11:31:20 AM  
FTFA: "The key, ironic fact is that absence of operational collaboration leaves open the possibility of strategic interaction between Saddam and al-Qaeda.  Get it?"

Yeah, nice gag! Very funny.
 
2014-08-11 11:34:41 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-08-11 11:38:44 AM  
Better the devil you know.
 
2014-08-11 11:43:29 AM  
He is correct, it was not a "war of choice." It was an invasion of choice.
 
2014-08-11 11:46:41 AM  
All the world's major intelligence agencies agreed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction

Which ones?   Sure.  We know he had them at one point.  Of that, the US government could be certain.

The author is a long-time registered Democrat -- and an occasional registered Republican -- which should dispel any impression of partisanship.  His recent books include Frugal Cool (Corby 2009), and The Language of Branding (Nova Science 2011).

That doesn't mean he's right.
 
2014-08-11 11:48:32 AM  

dr_blasto: GW Bush lied, Cheney lied and they should both be tried at The Hague along with Rice, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and others.


The US Government would never let that happen, for obvious reasons. That doesn't mean we can't wish ass cancer upon them as karmic retribution, however.
 
2014-08-11 11:48:57 AM  
The author is a long-time registered Democrat

Seems legit
 
2014-08-11 11:51:23 AM  

vpb: I like how people who are trying to revise history start out by calling actual history revisionist.


This truth is a lie, so let us replace it with lies which we will call "truth."

They do realize that all of us actually LIVED through that time, so we clearly remember all of the bullshiat that was thrown at us in an effort to convince the public that we needed to do this, yeah?
 
2014-08-11 11:59:48 AM  
On one hand, the premise of the article is intriguing on the other had, American Thinker.
 
2014-08-11 12:05:07 PM  

doyner: Better the devil you know.


Seriously.  I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who never thought they'd miss Saddam, yet here we are.
 
2014-08-11 12:09:42 PM  

nekom: doyner: Better the devil you know.

Seriously.  I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who never thought they'd miss Saddam, yet here we are.


healingiraq.blogspot.ca

Woman's rights above all else, really went down the shiatter after Saddam.
 
2014-08-11 12:10:03 PM  
You libtards need to face facts.

If not for President Bush's decisive action against the threat of Saddam Hussein's impending global takeover, you'd all be speaking Iraqi now.
 
2014-08-11 12:12:33 PM  
mrshowrules:
Woman's rights above all else, really went down the shiatter after Saddam.

Definitely.  Saddam was a brutal bastard, I don't think anyone disputes that, but his Iraq was largely secular.  Sort of like Iran before the revolution.  Now it's in danger of becoming an Islamic theocracy.
 
2014-08-11 12:12:49 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: I wonder whatever happened to those mobile bioweapons labs and all that yellowcake.


i586.photobucket.com
 
2014-08-11 12:34:45 PM  
Who the Fark wrote that turd of an article?

an independent observer more schooled in the science of persuasive communication

These words...

Seriously, that was the worst attempt at historical revisionism yet.

Invading Iraq was inevitable because A) WMD and B) Al Qaeda? That's this shiat-for-brains' argument here? Really?

First, everyone knew Saddam had degraded, practically useless, old bio-weapons and they also knew that Israel had destroyed Saddam's one serious attempt at a nuclear program.

The only ones claiming Saddam was a real threat to his neighbors and the US was the Bush government based on what we now know to be completely fabricated evidence.

Second, preventing the rise of Islamic fundamentalism was the primary reason for the west's support of Hussein for all those decades.

After the toppling Saddam's regime those fears quickly proved all too true as sectarian violence destroyed a once secular nation and turned it into a hotbed for radical Islamic fighters.

To the point where ISIS is now slaughtering with abandon as mad dreams of a pan-caliphate Islamic state fill their heads.

So basically this point is the exact opposite of the truth.

Then there was Saddam's stockpile of yellowcake uranium, also found long after the '03 invasion. Yes, those 16 words in Bush's notorious speech proved to be true.

Wow, what a disingenuous ass. The world knew full well that Saddam had a stockpile of yellowcake. 550 metric tonnes of it. Had it since 1991 sitting around in rusty containers since the Israeli strike in '81.

It wasn't found "long after the invasion".Troops took over the well known Tuwaitha nuclear site shortly after taking Baghdad.

The yellowcake there was eventually sold by the Iraqi government to the Canadian one for "tens of millions" of dollars.

Bush's 16 words "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of Uranium from Africa" are STILL A LIE.

The fact that this asswipe tells this massive whopper in the paragraph below the one where he accuses others of trying to propel a "propaganda narrative" gets him an extra smack across the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

This is what passes for Deep Thoughts from the right these days?

Pathetic.
 
2014-08-11 12:37:53 PM  
The Iraq War was only ever about getting revenge on Saddam for not stepping down after Desert
Storm.  And the GOP would have told the same lies and used the same script (that is, WMDs) even if
9/11 hadn't happened.
 
2014-08-11 12:38:09 PM  

nekom: mrshowrules:
Woman's rights above all else, really went down the shiatter after Saddam.

Definitely.  Saddam was a brutal bastard, I don't think anyone disputes that, but his Iraq was largely secular.  Sort of like Iran before the revolution.  Now it's in danger of becoming an Islamic theocracy.


I think there might be a false assumption that Iraq is capable of stability without a sadistic/brutal leader.  At the end of the day, the US imposed its values on Iraq.  That moving towards freedom/democracy was more important than sustaining oppression/stability/relative comfort.  It was a huge mistake and daddy Bush knew it and so did Obama at the time.  Hillary voted for the war.
 
2014-08-11 12:42:43 PM  
Everyone *thought* Saddam had WMD.

Well, everyone except the people on the ground like Hans Blix and the UN, who we ignored or ridiculed.
 
2014-08-11 12:44:11 PM  

DjangoStonereaver: The Iraq War was only ever about getting revenge on Saddam for not stepping down after Desert
Storm.  And the GOP would have told the same lies and used the same script (that is, WMDs) even if
9/11 hadn't happened.


Not true.

Before the second Iraq War: Iraq had a nationalized oil field with no help from outside oil companies.
After the seconrd Iraq War: Iraq has no nationalized oil production, outside oil companies control the production of oil.

Mission accomplished.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-08-11 12:48:18 PM  

Lando Lincoln: vpb: I like how people who are trying to revise history start out by calling actual history revisionist.

This truth is a lie, so let us replace it with lies which we will call "truth."

They do realize that all of us actually LIVED through that time, so we clearly remember all of the bullshiat that was thrown at us in an effort to convince the public that we needed to do this, yeah?


Their target audience isn't looking for factual accuracy.
 
2014-08-11 12:52:21 PM  

vernonFL: Everyone *thought* Saddam had WMD.

Well, everyone except the people on the ground like Hans Blix and the UN, who we ignored or ridiculed.


What still gets me is that we know he HAD, at the very least nerve gas as he used it against the Kurds way back when.  I've always wondered what happened to their chemical weapons program.  Did Saddam scrap it on his own?  Was he lied to and maybe he thought he still DID have them when he didn't?  Seems to me if you're a brutal dictator with a history of using them, you wouldn't be inclined to just give them up.

Some expired shells with traces were found but that was about it.
 
2014-08-11 12:54:51 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: You libtards need to face facts.

If not for President Bush's decisive action against the threat of Saddam Hussein's impending global takeover, you'd all be speaking Iraqi now.


HA!  Stupid conservatard...Iraqis speak muslinish
 
2014-08-11 01:01:45 PM  
Well, good to see that this is going to get some use again...

lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2014-08-11 01:04:51 PM  
"Because Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, and a gaggle of Republican consultants are incapable of articulating a defense of the Bush-43 administration's 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. "

Oh, that is a promising opening.

"All the world's major intelligence agencies agreed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction"

Aaaand there we go. No, not even close. And those who did relied heavily on US intelligence.

"wasn't 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."

Yes, yes it was. I read the report a while ago, but I'm pretty sure it said that Al Qaeda approached the Iraqi government for potential cooperation, and they were basically told to pound sand.

"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. "

Because he wanted to invade to secure the oil fields and needed a good reason to invade, and didn't care what people thought afterwards? Or convinced himself it would go so swimmingly well no one would care if the facts didn't quite pan out in the end?

This is pretty awesome: "Can we believe that nearly every country in the region except Iraq had WMD of one kind or another, especially since Saddam's 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 war's necessity."

Yes, since Iraq is the only country that was invaded by the US since the 80s, and forced to remove their WMDs. But don't dwell on that for any period of time, I'll just shift the topic yet again to "but he WOULD have..."

"Apart from a small amount of bioweapon material, there were those 500 canisters of chemical weapons found in 2006..." which expired in 1988. " assiduously suppressed by the mainstream media because the news does not fit their propaganda narrative, and as if such a weaponry stash doesn't count." Or because it was LEFTOVER FROM THE PREVIOUS WAR and therefore not newsworthy.

"The Democrat critics mock Mr. Cheney's 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 Saddam's 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." Yeah, they treated us as liberators for a whole week! He was right!

"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." Hahahahahaha.

"The author is a long-time registered Democrat -- and an occasional registered Republican -- which should dispel any impression of partisanship." Methinks he doth protest too much.

That was spectacular. Shine on you crazy diamond.
 
2014-08-11 01:07:30 PM  
Honestly, I tried to read it.  Just couldn't finish it.
 
2014-08-11 01:07:34 PM  
Georgie boy had to take out Saddam for his daddy (didn't Saddam try to off GHWB?), and in doing so made the next 50 years in the Middle East that much worse of a quagmire.

But hell, there was money to be made for all the right people!
 
2014-08-11 01:09:02 PM  
American Thinker (sic)

 c2.staticflickr.com
 
2014-08-11 01:09:06 PM  
The Bush Camarilla made a lot of promises to their backers that involved pallets of cash and no bid contracts.

That war was a done deal as soon as he won the presidency.
 
2014-08-11 01:09:55 PM  

Lando Lincoln: vpb: I like how people who are trying to revise history start out by calling actual history revisionist.

This truth is a lie, so let us replace it with lies which we will call "truth."

They do realize that all of us actually LIVED through that time, so we clearly remember all of the bullshiat that was thrown at us in an effort to convince the public that we needed to do this, yeah?


I remember it like it was yesterday. I'm not even all that intelligent and it was obvious to me that the 'evidence' was just made-up bullcrap. I thought to myself at the time that there was no way people would fall for that baloney reasoning about supposed WMDs, especially since Iraq had jack squat to do with 9/11, but man did I overestimate the American public. I've since grown much, much more cycnical/realistic.
 
2014-08-11 01:10:04 PM  
The new meme is we had to do "something" so the thing that we did was the only option we had.  Idiots use  false dichotomies because they work on idiots.
 
2014-08-11 01:10:54 PM  
Yes, but what you're missing is that Republicans love to be lied to, and isn't that the real truth?
 
2014-08-11 01:10:59 PM  
Lets see what the Derp-o-Sphere thinks about this current Iraq Situation

i.imgur.com
 
2014-08-11 01:11:55 PM  
These days, anyone that speaks up about how Iraq was the right thing to do is automatically put in the "dumbf**k" category.  No exceptions.
 
2014-08-11 01:13:10 PM  
i.chzbgr.com
 
2014-08-11 01:13:16 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: I wonder whatever happened to those mobile bioweapons labs and all that yellowcake.


Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... yellow cake.

img.fark.net
 
2014-08-11 01:13:54 PM  
Lando Lincoln: They do realize that all of us actually LIVED through that time, so we clearly remember all of the bullshiat that was thrown at us in an effort to convince the public that we needed to do this, yeah?

They are too stupid to remember what they had for breakfast yesterday, and yet are still convinced that they are mentally superior to everyone else, so in their sad little bubbles, they are convinced that they will have no trouble selling this garbage to the general public.

Kinda reminds me of the old D&D cartoon showing a group of Orcs in rusty, dented armor, with the leader telling the rest, 'Den, after we disgizes ourselfs as Paladins and sneaks into da castle..."
 
2014-08-11 01:15:23 PM  
your government actin' stank then call me over
 
2014-08-11 01:16:08 PM  
Please note that Bush, Cheney, and the U.S. military won the war in Iraq twice:

The liberal Democrats always were obsessed with sabotaging "Bush's war" so it would be seen as a Republican defeat, accruing to their own partisan advantage.

 Might some of those Republican political consultants be Democrat plants or double agents? Again, every premise in this presentation is demonstrably factual


PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY?  I guess when they are responsible for actually doing something, they'll step in to take the credit.  Until then, it's all Obama and Clinton's fault, and anything good that happens is the result of Reagan's policies.
 
2014-08-11 01:16:13 PM  

vpb: I like how people who are trying to revise history start out by calling actual history revisionist.


s.hswstatic.com
 
2014-08-11 01:17:39 PM  
Merkin Stinker
 
2014-08-11 01:18:17 PM  

dangelder: Yes, but what you're missing is that Republicans love to be lied to, and isn't that the real truth?


They seem to exist in this universe where truth is something that's believed rather than something based on fact. Truth based on fact is often something they don't want to be true, so they don't "believe" it. By contrast, they "believe" things that aren't based on fact but these beliefs become truth because they want them to be true. It's almost pitiable because of its reliance on childlike fantasy.
 
2014-08-11 01:19:54 PM  
FTA: "The key, ironic fact is that absence of operational collaboration leaves open the possibility of strategic interaction between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Get it?"

ie. I mean, they all have "Muhammad" in their name right? Coincidence? I THINK NOT!

Jesus that website is full of retards, and i don't mean that in the negative way. I just mean it's full of actual retards.
 
2014-08-11 01:20:50 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: The author is a long-time registered Democrat

Seems legit


A McCain Democrat, no doubt.
 
2014-08-11 01:22:09 PM  
From a cynical, realpolitik point of view the Iraq invasion made perfect sense. Invade a strategically-located dictatorship, install a secular democracy (Iraq already had the "secular" thing going on), reap the gratitude of the Iraqi people, install permanent military bases to intimidate Iran and Syria, suck in all that sweet, sweet oil. It made perfect sense... right up until September 11, 2001. Then all bets went out the window and Afghanistan became, or should have become, our top priority. The Bush administration's crime did not consist of their secret plan to invade Iraq, it lay in their failure to abandon that plan when a more serious situation arose. By attempting to carry out two invasions--one justified, one not--on a single dime, Bush/Cheney made a mess of two countries at once, failed to achieve any of our goals in either of them, and destroyed our good name, our economy, and the lives and prospects of tens of thousands of Americans. That's why they should both be in jail.
 
Displayed 50 of 174 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report