The big lie about Iraq

[Rockfish1]

Let me start here: I'm pretty sure that the Bush administration really did believe that Saddam had "WMDs", and in this they were in good company. But the case for war was still deeply dishonest.

First, the "WMD" formulation is spurious. Yes, most believed that Saddam still had chemical (and maybe even biological) weapons, but lumping these in with nuclear weapons is scaremongering. Chemical and biological weapons are to nuclear weapons as BB guns and slingshots are to . . . well, to nuclear weapons. They just aren't the same thing -- particularly insofar as our security is concerned.

Second, there wasn't any way Saddam could threaten us with anything unless he had links to al Qaeda, which he didn't have, and the evidence that he did was bullshit at the time. Nevertheless, the Bush administration did everything in its power to link Saddam (erroneously) with al Qaeda, and as a result most Americans erroneously believed Saddam had culpability for 9/11. Without this there would have been no case for war.

Third, the administration's (erroneous) case that Saddam had an active nuclear program was bullshit. Aluminum tubes: bullshit. Yellowcake: bullshit. Like it did for all of its other bullshit claims, the Bush administration leaked bullshit about Saddam's (nonexistent) nuclear program to reporters like Judith Miller, who dutifully published it in places like the (liberal) New York Times. Then, when asked what the truth was on "news" shows like Meet the Press, assholes like Dick Cheney would say, "Well, I can't comment on confidential intelligence, but the New York Times has reported that . . ." Complete and utter bullshit ensued.

Fourth, the Bush administration misled us about both the likely cost of the war and, more importantly, about the number of troops that would be required to secure the peace -- because if we knew the truth about this we'd know that it would be impossible to secure the peace. The Bush administration fired those who tried to tell us the truth.

But most fundamentally, the Big Lie was that the Iraq War had anything to do with intelligence about Iraqi WMDs. If the Bush administration had been basing its decisions on the intelligence, it would never have invaded Iraq, because the intelligence community believed that an invasion would lead to pretty much exactly the disasters that ensued. The Bush administration settled on "WMDs" as a justification for a war that it had unjustifiably decided to fight while the rubble from the World Trade Center was still smoldering -- if not before. I don't know why the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq, but "WMDs" were just an agreed upon rationalization. If you're defending the Bush administration's decision on the basis of WMDs, you're a sap.

But the real problem for us today is that the Very Serious People think that the correct question is, "Based on what we know now, was the invasion of Iraq a mistake?" It is a testament to the stupidity of the Republican Presidential field that this is regarded as a difficult question. Analogous questions:

Based on what you know now, would you still:

(1) Sail on the Titanic?

(2) Attack the entire Lakota nation at Little Big Horn?

(3) Lead Pickett's charge?

(4) Greenlight "Manimal"?

(5) Watch "Lost" all the way to the end?

No. Obviously not.

For Presidential candidates, though, James Fallows explains what the correct question is here. The correct answer is that, based on what we knew at the time, people (like me) who supported the invasion were foolish.

 

[DougS]

I disagree. I did watch Lost all the way to the end..... Twice

 

[DougS]

But more important than that is: Did Don Draper come up with the Coke ad?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Let me start here: I'm pretty sure that the Bush administration really did believe that Saddam had "WMDs", and in this they were in good company. But the case for war was still deeply dishonest.

First, the "WMD" formulation is spurious. Yes, most believed that Saddam still had chemical (and maybe even biological) weapons, but lumping these in with nuclear weapons is scaremongering. Chemical and biological weapons are to nuclear weapons as BB guns and slingshots are to . . . well, to nuclear weapons. They just aren't the same thing -- particularly insofar as our security is concerned.

Second, there wasn't any way Saddam could threaten us with anything unless he had links to al Qaeda, which he didn't have, and the evidence that he did was bullshit at the time. Nevertheless, the Bush administration did everything in its power to link Saddam (erroneously) with al Qaeda, and as a result most Americans erroneously believed Saddam had culpability for 9/11. Without this there would have been no case for war.

Third, the administration's (erroneous) case that Saddam had an active nuclear program was bullshit. Aluminum tubes: bullshit. Yellowcake: bullshit. Like it did for all of its other bullshit claims, the Bush administration leaked bullshit about Saddam's (nonexistent) nuclear program to reporters like Judith Miller, who dutifully published it in places like the (liberal) New York Times. Then, when asked what the truth was on "news" shows like Meet the Press, assholes like Dick Cheney would say, "Well, I can't comment on confidential intelligence, but the New York Times has reported that . . ." Complete and utter bullshit ensued.

Fourth, the Bush administration misled us about both the likely cost of the war and, more importantly, about the number of troops that would be required to secure the peace -- because if we knew the truth about this we'd know that it would be impossible to secure the peace. The Bush administration fired those who tried to tell us the truth.

But most fundamentally, the Big Lie was that the Iraq War had anything to do with intelligence about Iraqi WMDs. If the Bush administration had been basing its decisions on the intelligence, it would never have invaded Iraq, because the intelligence community believed that an invasion would lead to pretty much exactly the disasters that ensued. The Bush administration settled on "WMDs" as a justification for a war that it had unjustifiably decided to fight while the rubble from the World Trade Center was still smoldering -- if not before. I don't know why the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq, but "WMDs" were just an agreed upon rationalization. If you're defending the Bush administration's decision on the basis of WMDs, you're a sap.

But the real problem for us today is that the Very Serious People think that the correct question is, "Based on what we know now, was the invasion of Iraq a mistake?" It is a testament to the stupidity of the Republican Presidential field that this is regarded as a difficult question. Analogous questions:

Based on what you know now, would you still:

(1) Sail on the Titanic?

(2) Attack the entire Lakota nation at Little Big Horn?

(3) Lead Pickett's charge?

(4) Greenlight "Manimal"?

(5) Watch "Lost" all the way to the end?

No. Obviously not.

For Presidential candidates, though, James Fallows explains what the correct question is here. The correct answer is that, based on what we knew at the time, people (like me) who supported the invasion were foolish.

You know, I remember things about the election of Bush very well. I was still nominally a Republican at the time, although I had voted largely Democratic in 1998, even voting for Bayh over Helmke, despite then (and still now) being a big fan of Helmke. It was the fact that I was in a difficult transition phase that makes it so memorable. I attended our election day party as a Bush supporter (although I had actually voted for a third-party candidate as a protest vote, knowing my vote was meaningless anyway). When it first looked like Bush was going to win, I remember a number of us joking about the fact that, "Well, guess we'll be invading Iraq now." It was just supposed to be funny, but how did we not remember that later? Somehow, 9/11 made us all pull the wool over our eyes, even when Bush was engaging in a fraud that we had previously all suspected he would anyway. Someone had a thread a couple of weeks ago - you, I think - that involved the power of fear. I'm not sure anything in recent history better highlights the power of fear than the willingness we all demonstrated in invading Iraq.

 

[Rockfish1]

But more important than that is: Did Don Draper come up with the Coke ad?

We should have a separate thread about that. Seriously.

 

[Rockfish1]

You know, I remember things about the election of Bush very well. I was still nominally a Republican at the time, although I had voted largely Democratic in 1998, even voting for Bayh over Helmke, despite then (and still now) being a big fan of Helmke. It was the fact that I was in a difficult transition phase that makes it so memorable. I attended our election day party as a Bush supporter (although I had actually voted for a third-party candidate as a protest vote, knowing my vote was meaningless anyway). When it first looked like Bush was going to win, I remember a number of us joking about the fact that, "Well, guess we'll be invading Iraq now." It was just supposed to be funny, but how did we not remember that later? Somehow, 9/11 made us all pull the wool over our eyes, even when Bush was engaging in a fraud that we had previously all suspected he would anyway. Someone had a thread a couple of weeks ago - you, I think - that involved the power of fear. I'm not sure anything in recent history better highlights the power of fear than the willingness we all demonstrated in invading Iraq.

I didn't fall into fear. But just to emphasize how repelled I am by my own reaction, let me just say that the awful Tom Friedman expresses it here. "Suck on this," is what he said, and it was part of what I felt. I want never to do that again, because it is ignorant and stupid.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I didn't fall into fear. But just to emphasize how repelled I am by my own reaction, let me just say that the awful Tom Friedman expresses it here. "Suck on this," is what he said, and it was part of what I felt. I want never to do that again, because it is ignorant and stupid.

I'm sure that reaction was widespread, but whatever caused it in you, I think fear was probably a driving primeval force for many.

I wasn't leading the charge at the time as much. I was still young and finishing my shift into radical liberalism. For me, the reaction was more acquiescence: "Fine, whatever, let's go bomb the hell out of 'em."

 

[Rockfish1]

You know, I remember things about the election of Bush very well. I was still nominally a Republican at the time, although I had voted largely Democratic in 1998, even voting for Bayh over Helmke, despite then (and still now) being a big fan of Helmke. It was the fact that I was in a difficult transition phase that makes it so memorable. I attended our election day party as a Bush supporter (although I had actually voted for a third-party candidate as a protest vote, knowing my vote was meaningless anyway). When it first looked like Bush was going to win, I remember a number of us joking about the fact that, "Well, guess we'll be invading Iraq now." It was just supposed to be funny, but how did we not remember that later? Somehow, 9/11 made us all pull the wool over our eyes, even when Bush was engaging in a fraud that we had previously all suspected he would anyway. Someone had a thread a couple of weeks ago - you, I think - that involved the power of fear. I'm not sure anything in recent history better highlights the power of fear than the willingness we all demonstrated in invading Iraq.

Your point about fear: It's no accident that one of our greatest Presidents said, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Fear unmans us, unhinges us, turns ourselves against one another, makes us all fools. That ought to be clear but isn't. Deeper, though, why are we afraid of these pissants far away? Or maybe to be clearer about it, why are Republicans so disproportionately afraid of these pissants far away?

I will give up exactly nothing to defend against ISIS, al Qaeda, or any of these other assholes.

 

[davegolf]

Policy controlled by fear, isolationism or being pro-active, Those will be major topics of discussion during this next Presidential cycle and I am sure we will have a lot of options.

 

[hoot1]

WMD were only part of discussion and atmosphere which followed 9/11.

First of all, 9/11 put the country in a state of shock. A rave of patriotism rose which hadn't been seen since WWII. GWB appeared to be the decisive leader which the country needed as we scrambled to find a response to the act of aggression. A poll indicated that some 72% of the Americans thought Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Saddam was repeatedly cast as an evil tyrant who used chemical weapons on his own people. We couldn't locate and capture bin Laden, but removing Saddam and using Iraq as a base to rout al Qaeda seemed to have merit. After all, Iraq would be an ideal place to install a democracy complete with human rights, and this form of government could become a model for the entire M.E.

In looking back, it is easy to forget how the country felt after 9/11. The American people demanded a response. GWB and his administration gave them a response. The response didn't work out as hoped. Not finding WMD is just one of many setbacks which have occurred since the invasion of Iraq.

The question I often ask myself is whether things would have turned out more favorably if say an Al Gore had been president. My answer to this question is... probably not given the mood of the country and the strong probability that the consensus of expert opinions offering advice to GWB would not have been all that much different for someone else in the Oval Office.

 

[Ladoga]

WMD were only part of discussion and atmosphere which followed 9/11.

First of all, 9/11 put the country in a state of shock. A rave of patriotism rose which hadn't been seen since WWII. GWB appeared to be the decisive leader which the country needed as we scrambled to find a response to the act of aggression. A poll indicated that some 72% of the Americans thought Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Saddam was repeatedly cast as an evil tyrant who used chemical weapons on his own people. We couldn't locate and capture bin Laden, but removing Saddam and using Iraq as a base to rout al Qaeda seemed to have merit. After all, Iraq would be an ideal place to install a democracy complete with human rights, and this form of government could become a model for the entire M.E.

In looking back, it is easy to forget how the country felt after 9/11. The American people demanded a response. GWB and his administration gave them a response. The response didn't work out as hoped. Not finding WMD is just one of many setbacks which have occurred since the invasion of Iraq.

The question I often ask myself is whether things would have turned out more favorably if say an Al Gore had been president. My answer to this question is... probably not given the mood of the country and the strong probability that the consensus of expert opinions offering advice to GWB would not have been all that much different for someone else in the Oval Office.

Thanks for a very good post, hoot. Somehow we talk around the fact that the name is "terrorism". It uses fear - TERROR - as a weapon and when acts of terrorism succeed, that works. It worked on 9/11. The only surprise that the American people were so strongly in support of any and all attacks on anyone who might have been remotely associated with the 9/11 particular brand of terrorism or who might have been an Islamic despot - Saddam Hussein needed killing - is that an even much higher level of support didn't occur.

 

[VanPastorMan]

WMD were only part of discussion and atmosphere which followed 9/11.

First of all, 9/11 put the country in a state of shock. A rave of patriotism rose which hadn't been seen since WWII. GWB appeared to be the decisive leader which the country needed as we scrambled to find a response to the act of aggression. A poll indicated that some 72% of the Americans thought Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Saddam was repeatedly cast as an evil tyrant who used chemical weapons on his own people. We couldn't locate and capture bin Laden, but removing Saddam and using Iraq as a base to rout al Qaeda seemed to have merit. After all, Iraq would be an ideal place to install a democracy complete with human rights, and this form of government could become a model for the entire M.E.

In looking back, it is easy to forget how the country felt after 9/11. The American people demanded a response. GWB and his administration gave them a response. The response didn't work out as hoped. Not finding WMD is just one of many setbacks which have occurred since the invasion of Iraq.

The question I often ask myself is whether things would have turned out more favorably if say an Al Gore had been president. My answer to this question is... probably not given the mood of the country and the strong probability that the consensus of expert opinions offering advice to GWB would not have been all that much different for someone else in the Oval Office.

Hoot, when we say that no WMD's were found are we talking exclusively about nuclear weapons? The reason I ask this is because when I was a pastor in Illinois the Son in Law of a prominent family in the church came to speak to us about being a marine reserve over in Iraq. He said they found lots of chemicals,even found some under a tennis court that were hidden.

 

[Rockfish1]

Hoot, when we say that no WMD's were found are we talking exclusively about nuclear weapons? The reason I ask this is because when I was a pastor in Illinois the Son in Law of a prominent family in the church came to speak to us about being a marine reserve over in Iraq. He said they found lots of chemicals,even found some under a tennis court that were hidden.

The son-in-law of a prominent family in the church was wrong.

 

[Rockfish1]

WMD were only part of discussion and atmosphere which followed 9/11.

First of all, 9/11 put the country in a state of shock. A rave of patriotism rose which hadn't been seen since WWII. GWB appeared to be the decisive leader which the country needed as we scrambled to find a response to the act of aggression. A poll indicated that some 72% of the Americans thought Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Saddam was repeatedly cast as an evil tyrant who used chemical weapons on his own people. We couldn't locate and capture bin Laden, but removing Saddam and using Iraq as a base to rout al Qaeda seemed to have merit. After all, Iraq would be an ideal place to install a democracy complete with human rights, and this form of government could become a model for the entire M.E.

In looking back, it is easy to forget how the country felt after 9/11. The American people demanded a response. GWB and his administration gave them a response. The response didn't work out as hoped. Not finding WMD is just one of many setbacks which have occurred since the invasion of Iraq.

The question I often ask myself is whether things would have turned out more favorably if say an Al Gore had been president. My answer to this question is... probably not given the mood of the country and the strong probability that the consensus of expert opinions offering advice to GWB would not have been all that much different for someone else in the Oval Office.

I disagree that President Gore would have invaded Iraq, and people came to believe that Saddam was involved in 9/11 because the Bush administration falsely encouraged them to believe it. In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks only a small percentage of us believed that Saddam played a role, but after the Bush administration repeatedly suggested otherwise, people erroneously came to believe it. Unsurprisingly, those who accepted the administration's disinformation were disproportionately likely to support the war.

 

[Rockfish1]

Thanks for a very good post, hoot. Somehow we talk around the fact that the name is "terrorism". It uses fear - TERROR - as a weapon and when acts of terrorism succeed, that works. It worked on 9/11. The only surprise that the American people were so strongly in support of any and all attacks on anyone who might have been remotely associated with the 9/11 particular brand of terrorism or who might have been an Islamic despot - Saddam Hussein needed killing - is that an even much higher level of support didn't occur.

A typically incoherent post.

 

[Circlejoe]

In looking back, it is easy to forget how the country felt after 9/11. The American people demanded a response.

Exactly why we needed leadership to do what was best for the country, not what made people feel better. This is why I supported Obama over Clinton. She responded to the situation with a political solution...what best satisfies the majority of the voters. Obama looked at what he thought was the best option for the country. Bush and Cheney simply lied to push the opinion in support of invasion. Why they wanted to invade Iraq is another question. But there is no doubt they lied about the intelligence.

 

[Noodle]

But more important than that is: Did Don Draper come up with the Coke ad?

Yes. Otherwise the last scene does not really make sense. John Hamm also has said that he thinks Don came up with the Coke ad. Also, the location of the Coke ad looks almost identical to where Don is in the last shot (doing yoga at the Esalen-like complex). Even some of the people in the Coke ad look similar to some of the people at the retreat in the show. see this great story for more info on the real person who created the Coke ad and some other tidbits related to the final episode: http://nypost.com/2015/05/18/meet-t...nd-coca-colas-i-want-to-buy-the-world-a-coke/

Better question is whether Coke paid anything for the last scene. My wife and I have both heard Coke ads this week that use the song. Neither of us recall hearing any of these ads prior to the final episode. On the other hand, the article linked above says that the Mad Men producers got permission from Coke to use the ad. Gee, if that is true, I wonder how long it took Coke to say yes.

And I still have a crush on the woman in the opening shot of the Coke ad. Brings back memories of my childhood for sure.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Let me start here: I'm pretty sure that the Bush administration really did believe that Saddam had "WMDs", and in this they were in good company. But the case for war was still deeply dishonest.

First, the "WMD" formulation is spurious. Yes, most believed that Saddam still had chemical (and maybe even biological) weapons, but lumping these in with nuclear weapons is scaremongering. Chemical and biological weapons are to nuclear weapons as BB guns and slingshots are to . . . well, to nuclear weapons. They just aren't the same thing -- particularly insofar as our security is concerned.

Second, there wasn't any way Saddam could threaten us with anything unless he had links to al Qaeda, which he didn't have, and the evidence that he did was bullshit at the time. Nevertheless, the Bush administration did everything in its power to link Saddam (erroneously) with al Qaeda, and as a result most Americans erroneously believed Saddam had culpability for 9/11. Without this there would have been no case for war.

Third, the administration's (erroneous) case that Saddam had an active nuclear program was bullshit. Aluminum tubes: bullshit. Yellowcake: bullshit. Like it did for all of its other bullshit claims, the Bush administration leaked bullshit about Saddam's (nonexistent) nuclear program to reporters like Judith Miller, who dutifully published it in places like the (liberal) New York Times. Then, when asked what the truth was on "news" shows like Meet the Press, assholes like Dick Cheney would say, "Well, I can't comment on confidential intelligence, but the New York Times has reported that . . ." Complete and utter bullshit ensued.

Fourth, the Bush administration misled us about both the likely cost of the war and, more importantly, about the number of troops that would be required to secure the peace -- because if we knew the truth about this we'd know that it would be impossible to secure the peace. The Bush administration fired those who tried to tell us the truth.

But most fundamentally, the Big Lie was that the Iraq War had anything to do with intelligence about Iraqi WMDs. If the Bush administration had been basing its decisions on the intelligence, it would never have invaded Iraq, because the intelligence community believed that an invasion would lead to pretty much exactly the disasters that ensued. The Bush administration settled on "WMDs" as a justification for a war that it had unjustifiably decided to fight while the rubble from the World Trade Center was still smoldering -- if not before. I don't know why the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq, but "WMDs" were just an agreed upon rationalization. If you're defending the Bush administration's decision on the basis of WMDs, you're a sap.

But the real problem for us today is that the Very Serious People think that the correct question is, "Based on what we know now, was the invasion of Iraq a mistake?" It is a testament to the stupidity of the Republican Presidential field that this is regarded as a difficult question. Analogous questions:

Based on what you know now, would you still:

(1) Sail on the Titanic?

(2) Attack the entire Lakota nation at Little Big Horn?

(3) Lead Pickett's charge?

(4) Greenlight "Manimal"?

(5) Watch "Lost" all the way to the end?

No. Obviously not.

For Presidential candidates, though, James Fallows explains what the correct question is here. The correct answer is that, based on what we knew at the time, people (like me) who supported the invasion were foolish.

Let me start here: I'm pretty sure that the Bush administration really did believe that Saddam had "WMDs", and in this they were in good company. But the case for war was still deeply dishonest.

First, the "WMD" formulation is spurious. Yes, most believed that Saddam still had chemical (and maybe even biological) weapons, but lumping these in with nuclear weapons is scaremongering. Chemical and biological weapons are to nuclear weapons as BB guns and slingshots are to . . . well, to nuclear weapons. They just aren't the same thing -- particularly insofar as our security is concerned.

Second, there wasn't any way Saddam could threaten us with anything unless he had links to al Qaeda, which he didn't have, and the evidence that he did was bullshit at the time. Nevertheless, the Bush administration did everything in its power to link Saddam (erroneously) with al Qaeda, and as a result most Americans erroneously believed Saddam had culpability for 9/11. Without this there would have been no case for war.

Third, the administration's (erroneous) case that Saddam had an active nuclear program was bullshit. Aluminum tubes: bullshit. Yellowcake: bullshit. Like it did for all of its other bullshit claims, the Bush administration leaked bullshit about Saddam's (nonexistent) nuclear program to reporters like Judith Miller, who dutifully published it in places like the (liberal) New York Times. Then, when asked what the truth was on "news" shows like Meet the Press, assholes like Dick Cheney would say, "Well, I can't comment on confidential intelligence, but the New York Times has reported that . . ." Complete and utter bullshit ensued.

Fourth, the Bush administration misled us about both the likely cost of the war and, more importantly, about the number of troops that would be required to secure the peace -- because if we knew the truth about this we'd know that it would be impossible to secure the peace. The Bush administration fired those who tried to tell us the truth.

But most fundamentally, the Big Lie was that the Iraq War had anything to do with intelligence about Iraqi WMDs. If the Bush administration had been basing its decisions on the intelligence, it would never have invaded Iraq, because the intelligence community believed that an invasion would lead to pretty much exactly the disasters that ensued. The Bush administration settled on "WMDs" as a justification for a war that it had unjustifiably decided to fight while the rubble from the World Trade Center was still smoldering -- if not before. I don't know why the Bush administration decided to invade Iraq, but "WMDs" were just an agreed upon rationalization. If you're defending the Bush administration's decision on the basis of WMDs, you're a sap.

But the real problem for us today is that the Very Serious People think that the correct question is, "Based on what we know now, was the invasion of Iraq a mistake?" It is a testament to the stupidity of the Republican Presidential field that this is regarded as a difficult question. Analogous questions:

Based on what you know now, would you still:

(1) Sail on the Titanic?

(2) Attack the entire Lakota nation at Little Big Horn?

(3) Lead Pickett's charge?

(4) Greenlight "Manimal"?

(5) Watch "Lost" all the way to the end?

No. Obviously not.

For Presidential candidates, though, James Fallows explains what the correct question is here. The correct answer is that, based on what we knew at the time, people (like me) who supported the invasion were foolish.

Don't forget former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill said they were planning on invading Iraq from day 1. 9/11 really had nothing to do with the invasion, it was just a bonus that got some people on board easier.

 

[Rockfish1]

Don't forget former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill said they were planning on invading Iraq from day 1. 9/11 really had nothing to do with the invasion, it was just a bonus that got some people on board easier.

That's a good point. Here is a detailed, link-studded discussion of just that issue, concluding:

"As available documentation and a review of the literature show, the Bush administration was well along the path to war before the 9/11 attacks, and certainly well before the protracted 2002-2003 debates over the re-admission of weapons inspectors to Iraq and a U.N. resolution to legitimize the targeting of Baghdad. At this point, the weight of evidence supports an observation made in April 2002 by members of the covert Iraq Operations Group – Iraq “regime change” was already on Bush’s agenda when he took office in January 2001. (Note 33) September 11 was not the motivation for the U.S. invasion of Iraq -- it was a distraction from it."

 

[mjvcaj]

No, the real problem was horrendous execution by the current administration and lack of care for the resulting early pull out.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

No, the real problem was horrendous execution by the current administration and lack of care for the resulting early pull out.

Early pull out? I think you need to look at why we left. Iraq is a sovereign nation and they didn't want us there anymore. Just look at the status of forces agreement signed by Dubya'. We had to leave. Unless you just want to invade again.

 

[Rockfish1]

No, the real problem was horrendous execution by the current administration and lack of care for the resulting early pull out.

We withdrew from Iraq as required by a status of forces agreement signed by George W. Bush -- and that was by far the best Iraq decision he ever made. Obama was wise to execute the withdrawal the SOFA required.

Post-invasion Iraq is a basket case and would have been so no matter what we did. It is very likely hopeless. The last thing we ought to do is wade back in.

 

[mjvcaj]

We withdrew from Iraq as required by a status of forces agreement signed by George W. Bush -- and that was by far the best Iraq decision he ever made. Obama was wise to execute the withdrawal the SOFA required.

Post-invasion Iraq is a basket case and would have been so no matter what we did. It is very likely hopeless. The last thing we ought to do is wade back in.

Then stop giving ISIS any coverage. Time to ignore the problem and hope it takes care of itself (i.e. Syria and hezbollah fight ISIS to the death).

This half assed approach is bullshit.