Your ignorance as to the inexorable flow of American politics that led up to this moment is appalling. Consider this article from 1998:

The president said Iraqs refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons, Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

Earlier today I ordered Americas armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces, Clinton said.

Their mission is to attack Iraqs nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors, said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.

Yes, that's right. Bill Clinton, the great messiah of liberal politics, the one who mythically balanced the budget and rewarded himself with some curiously cured cigars, attacked Iraq using identical rhetoric as the Bush administration a few short years later. Your (inept) assertion that all blame needs to be heaped unto Bush and Cheney is simply incorrect. The tide of America's political will had been rising in that direction all through the 90's. Remember also that the war could not have been declared without an act of Congress and there were plenty of politicians from both sides of the aisle that voted to wage this war. Remember that (since it seems you have forgotten, or are all too eager to besmirch one administration and ignore the acts of another).

All things are eventual.

I wonder how many times Joe Biden rehearsed that interview.

John Doe - does it really matter? Can't you just be happy the troops are coming home and that the disaster in Iraq is coming to an end?

WMG-21, The Anti-War crowd likes to ignore History. Facts rarely play to their positions so they just ignore them.

Finally, we leave one country and the right wants us to engage Iran---crazy as bat $hit to continue these wars built on lies.

"Can't you just be happy the troops are coming home and that the disaster in Iraq is coming to an end?"

Disaster? Really? Saddam is gone, violence is down, democracy is blooming and our Soldiers are coming home. That does not sound like a disaster to me. Could it have been done better? Yes, but war is not easy and no amount of planning will ever mare a war go as planned. Mistakes were made but in the end this was an unquestionable victory and a proud moment for the USA.

The only disaster I have seen was the way anti-war Americans tried to undermine our Soldiers in a time of war and give hope to the enemy that they could just wait us out for America to tuck tail and run. Fortunately Bush and Obama had the sense to not bow to that stupidity and stayed the course.

wmg-21: It is you have grasp of half the facts. While what you say WAS true, by the time Bush came in there was no clear intelligence that Hussein had those weapons. This was a cause (or perhaps personal vendetta) in search of a justification. Hence, our intelligence agencies (to their detriment) looked for the facts that would support the administrations desire to take on Iraq.

The second point you miss is the sad miscalculation by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld: that Iraq's would fall all over themselves in gratitude and that there was NO PLAN for what happens after they take Hussein out. Even if we ignore the why of the invasion, the execution was awful. And that is Bush's legacy -- no one elses.

First of all, let's be glad this is over. I spent a year over there and quickly realized how FUBAR the thing was. Hopefully the Iraqis can attain, and maintain, stability. Now for the blame game...

It will truly be worthless if we forget to place the blame where it clearly belongs- George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

I was not aware that two men could cause such a mess. Bush and Cheney should be sitting in a cold cell awaiting trial in The Hague. So, you are half right. Let's not forget though that a lot of people supported this initially, including the current Secretary of State and the current Vice President. In fact, I remember them beating the war drums almost as hard as Bush and Cheney. They should be sitting in cells along with Bush, Cheney, and Rice. Anyone who voted in favor of this should be held accountable. On 1/20/09 Obama had the opportunity, but did nothing. This was when I lost faith in Obama...

Now is a good opportunity to point out that the same political monster is beating the war drums for military action in Iran. Let's not fall into the trap of the TPTB.

Cleareye so if Iraq turns out to be a good friend and solid democracy in the region is it still a mistake? Do you think Libya was justified? As for Adder that place sucked what a hole !

Republic what did you do and where were you at in Iraq? Also what was Obama suppose to do on 1/20/09? Just pull out and watch everything go to hell? Then take the blame for pulling out making sure all the men and woman who died meant nothing? I think Obama made thye right call waiting on the date set by president Bush to do the complete pull out.

You want facts, John? Yes, Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds. So what? They were engaging in open rebellion against the Iraqi Government and were providing aid to the Iranians during a time of war. The Kurds were traitors and enemy combatants. Do you think using chemical weapons is wrong? Guess what? The position of the U.S. Government in regards to NBC usage is: 1) We will never use biological weapons, even in retaliation of their use. 2) We will use nuclear weapons only in retaliation of their use. 3) We reserve the right to use chemical weapons as a first strike option. We have tons of chemical weapons and the Military will use them as they choose.

Fact: Saddam was contained and posed no threat to the U.S. as he had no means to deliver an attack against us, even if he had chemical weapons at the time of the Bush/Cheney led invasion (which he did not). There is no evidence that Saddam ever had biological weapons. The evidence used in the claim that Saddam had yellow cake was elicited from a known untrustworthy source and the one document presented as evidence of Saddam's attempt to obtain nuclear material was proven to be a forged document.

Fact: The Taliban, in just 1 year, by means of jailing poppy farmers until they agreed to destroy their crops, eliminated most of the poppy fields and production of heroin fell by 95% in Afghanistan by Spring of 2001. By Spring of 2002 we had boots on the ground in Afghanistan and soon after the production of heroin was higher than ever. Do you find that peculiar? The U.S. is unable to win the "war on drugs" after 30 years but the Taliban manages it in their country in just 1 year with their limited resources and technology. Ask questions. Who in the U.S. profits from increased production of heroin? How many people are employed in the U.S. to fight the "war on drugs" and imprison and prosecute offenders? How many hundreds of billions of dollars a year is allocated to that "war"?

Fact: The war in Afghanistan did not result in the death of Bin Laden. The location of Bin Laden came from CIA intelligence gathering activites. We could have found and killed Bin Laden without invading Afghanistan and wasting trillions of dollars.

Fact: Almost all 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals. None of them were from Iraq or Afghanistan. Why no retaliation against Saudi Arabia for it's wealthy and influential citizens' funding of that terrorist act?

For the record, I am not anti-war. I spent 9.5 years in the U.S. Army Infantry. War is at times necessary. Iraq and Afghanistan were not necessary wars.

Yep..Brother George Bush and his misinformed band of merry men caused our nation needless lives in Iraq.

Republic another fact is they found a cache of chemical warheads in Iraq while I was there. While this did not meet requirements needed I guess they were there. I feel they thought for sure Iraq had the weapons. I know they hoped putting a democracy in the middle east would spread and cause more democracies to pop up. Wow look whats happened just maybe not in the way they hoped.

Ron B I served with quite a few Infantry in Iraq and I must say they smelled bad were dim and not nearly as good looking as Tankers !

All of you that believe we are leaving Iraq have another think coming. Our embassy in Iraq is the largest in the world. That means it's not an embassy....it's a freaking Guantanamo base to stage troops and supplies do whatever else we want. Hello! WE ARE STILL THERE!

We killed and maimed more innocent civilians of Iraq in two wars than Saddam had since taking power in 1979. This does not change the fact of his attrocities, yet we ignore the very same iron-handed rule in China since we can buy a $4 egg beater at Target or Walmart. Blaming Bushs, Clinton or Obama is just falling right into the distraction of Partisan Politics. These Puppets just act upon the pulling of their strings by forces which are not elected.

Saddam's horrific rule and despotism was undeniably disgusting. US Forces destroying the infrastructure(eight years w/out electricity, running water and human waste sanitation) has only added to the misery. Ripping families apart was as much of the US Invasion as Saddam's rule, though we justify our murderous intrusion based on protecting the US and neighboring nations against Nuclear & Chemical Weapons which existed only in Fear Propaganda(WMDs).

In reality, it was and always has been about securing the Oil Field accessibility for our convenient Financial Lenders/Benefactors, Red China, as well as Europe and others, to be harvested by the major global energy giants at HUGE PROFIT. Enough to buy paving the way into anywhere by any means, which of course means the US Military taking action.

Our Soldiers are pawns to the Military Industrial Complex, yet proudly perform bravely in all conflicts asked/ordered of them. And most Americans are damn proud of the jobs they do. But to have wars based on Energy Security through Imperialism in order to perpetuate immeasurable Profits for the few while diminishing the existence levels of the many through death, crippling disablement and basing an economy on the Tools of Murder is absolutely unsustainable. Just as depending on big Christmas sales numbers won't truly do a damn thing to revive our economy without a manufacturing base.

We have sold our Souls and our US Service members lives, sacrificed our economy, and ruined the environment all based on The Lie that cheap clean Energy will never suffice and that China, and others, do not utilize virtual slave labor to supply us our shiny trinkets, shoes, tools, electronics, etc. Enjoy that bloody iPad,
America...

Yet, seeing the Troops come Home kinda takes the sting off for now.

Welcome Home Troops! It has been too long.

Weird not I was there and saw power on was I imagining it? Granted there were rolling blackouts all the time. As for your bull do we really know the numbers Saddam tortured and killed? As for the oil yes look even now we help topple Libya yet don't invade Syria? Whats one have that the other dosen't. Look at other places that have mass genocide yet we do nothing about it? Is there any wonder why Iran wants nukes with all these other oil rich countries being invaded? Granted Iran has a nut case as a leader and I can definitely get Israel not wanting them to attain nukes as he has threatened multiple times to kill them all. I think maybe people should take a look at what Ron Paul says and maybe it is our policies helping to drive these problems? I think its the responsible and smart thing to do and step back and maybe look at ourselves a little. I am not saying its all our fault at all. However like in anything one must always be looking to adjust strategies if what they are doing is not working.

ninnybon-1990068

I was in the Army as an 11B and spent a year at Corregidor (Ramadi). I don't think Obama should have pulled out immediately, but I do think he should have prosecuted the people who got us into it.

I'm happy the troops are coming home. I wish home was happier for them to come back to. Soldiers, your job is done. Time to go to work, again...

First of all, Thank You for your Service, ninneybon. And welcome home. I am sure you left Iraq with a better future than when you arrived.

Whats one have that the other dosen't.

A LOT more Oil. As well as the ability to raise Oil prices due to an embargo.

Syria pumps about 370,000 barrels a day and exports nearly 150,000 b/d, most of it to Europe, according to estimates by the International Energy Agency.

That is far less than the 1.6m b/d that Libya produced before the start of the civil war.

Syrian oil embargo could hit prices - FT.com

As for your bull do we really know the numbers Saddam tortured and killed?

Call it bull, ignore the point, but consider:

'655000 Iraqis killed since invasion' | World news | The Guardian

or any of the many estimates which put death tolls at over a quarter million civilians. Google 'Iraqi Civilian Deaths since US invasion', as well as 'Saddam Hussein killed how many Iraqis'. I agree with the fact noone can give a definate number for either, but still, I am NOT defending Saddam and his draconian torture/death chambers and Kurdish massacres. Only pointing out how in eight years alone what our invasion of a sovereign country was responsible for while ignoring 9-11's terrorists root countries, primarily Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia

There have been suggestions that Saudi Arabia has some responsibility, having helped finance al-Qaeda, and allowing the organization to flourish. There have been claims that pre-9/11 investigations into al-Qaeda were deliberately blocked via high-level interference from Washington, and that this extends to other groups outside al-Qaeda, in particular individuals from Saudi Arabia. In June 2001, a "high-placed member of a US intelligence agency" told BBC reporter Greg Palast that "after the [2000] elections, the agencies were told to "back off" investigating the bin Ladens and Saudi royals".^[107]

In May 2002, former FBI Agent Robert Wright, Jr. delivered a tearful press conference apologizing to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11. He described how his superiors intentionally obstructed his investigation into al-Qaeda financing.^[108][109] Agent Wright would later tell ABC's Brian Ross that "September 11th is a direct result of the incompetence of the FBI's International Terrorism Unit," specifically referring to the Bureau's hindering of his investigation into Yasin al-Qadi, who Ross described as a powerful Saudi Arabian businessman with extensive financial ties in Chicago.^[110] One month after the attacks, the US government officially identified al-Qadi as one of Osama bin Laden's primary financiers, through his Muwafaq Foundation, and they declared him to be a global terrorist.^[111][112] A former FBI Counter Terrorism Agent commented that for someone like al-Qadi to be involved in 9/11 is "of grave concern."^[113]

In June 2009 lawyers for 9/11 victims provided documents to The New York Times. The families were engaged in a civil suit that sought to hold The Saudi Royal family responsible for supporting Al Qaeda. On June 29, 2009 the United States Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a lower court decision that held that the Royal Family are immune from suits in U.S. courts due to a 1976 law. According to The Times "The documents provide no smoking gun connecting the royal family to the events of Sept. 11, 2001. And the broader links rely at times on a circumstantial, connect-the-dots approach to tie together Saudi princes, Middle Eastern charities, suspicious transactions and terrorist groups". According to the Royal families lawyer “In looking at all the evidence the families brought together, I have not seen one iota of evidence that Saudi Arabia had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks”. There remains substantial unreleased documentation related to these issues.^[114][115]

Responsibility for the September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free

Peace

I'm not claiming that WMDs were found in Iraq, but all this nonsense about Bush going to war (even though it is congress that does this), despite it being 'well-known' that there was good evidence they did not exist is false. I would bet that many people currently calling this a disaster also supported the decision at the time. I knew a few who didn't, but most people supported it. Hindsight has a tendency to make people forget what they originally thought or said. To show that it was in fact, believed that Saddam DID have WMDs, here is a list of what some prominent Democrats said at the time. Right, wrong, whatever Iraq was, it was supported by both sides at the time. Both sides believed they were stopping Saddam before he obtained more powerfull weapons, like nuclear weapons. Oil? well, gas pumps certainly aren't reflecting U.S. oil drilling if thats what happened as so many claim. I am sure it was a factor, yet Obama just barely did something similar in Libya, so once again, both GOP and democrats are oil greedy, or both thought they were doing what was right. That's up to you to decide.

Quotes from Democrats about WMD (Post 9/11)

1. "There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." — Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

   Letter to President George W. Bush signed by 9 Congressmen, including Democrats Harold Ford, Jr., Joseph Lieberman, and Benjamin Gilman.

2. " We should be hell bent on getting those weapons of mass destruction, hell bent on having a credible approach to them, but we should try to do it in a way which keeps the world together and that achieves our goal which is removing the... defanging Saddam.." — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Dec. 9, 2002

   Online with Jim Lehrer — Public Broadcasting Service

3. "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

   Transcript of Gore's speech, printed in USA Today

4. "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

   Transcript of Gore's speech, printed in USA Today

5. "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

   U.S. Senate — Ted Kennedy

6. "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

   Congressional Record — Robert Byrd

7. "When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." —Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

   Congressional Record — Sen. John F. Kerry

8. "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

(cont)

1. "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" — Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

   Congressional Record — Rep. Henry Waxman

2. "In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad. In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

   "It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein wiill continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security."
   Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

   Congressional Record — Sen. Hillary Clinton

3. "The Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with casualty estimates for a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of every past conflict. These estimates should consider Saddam's possible use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops.

   "Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate -attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are ultimately threatened."
   Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Oct. 8, 2002

   Congressional Record — Sen. Ted Kennedy

4. "There is one thing we agree upon, and that is that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. He is a tyrant. He has used chemical and biological weapons on his own people. He has disregarded United Nations resolutions calling for inspections of his capabilities and research and development programs. His forces regularly fire on American and British jet pilots enforcing the no-fly zones in the north and south of his country. And he has the potential to develop and deploy nuclear weapons... — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

   Congressional Record — Sen. Bob Graham

5. But inspectors have had a hard time getting truthful information from the Iraqis they interview. Saddam Hussein terrorizes his people, including his weapons scientists, so effectively that they are afraid to be interviewed in private, let alone outside the country. They know that even the appearance of cooperation could be a death sentence for themselves or their families.

   "To overcome this obstacle, and to discover and dismantle Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, UNMOVIC and the IAEA must interview relevant persons securely and with their families protected, even if they protest publicly against this treatment. Hans Blix may dislike running ''a defection agency,' but that could be the only way to obtain truthful information about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction — Sen. Joseph Biden

   Congressional Record — Sen. Joseph Biden

6. "With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents?
   Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), October 9, 2002

   Congressional Record — Sen. John F. Kerry

7. "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.

   "Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. — Sen. John Edwards, October 10, 2002

Congressional Record — Sen. John Edwards

Sorry for the formatting errors, not easy for me to fix.

You are correct, mnm45, as BOTH Parties are complicit in the Rise of the MIC Machine. A Democratically controlled Congress could have pulled the purse strings after it was apparent that misinformation was used as the premise for invasion of a sovereign nation to the public. Iran, again a f'ed up government, is the next turkey we'll be roasting, it appears based on the arguments and documentation you have presented/shown. We will continue to prop up Pakistan, despite their being a haven for 'terrorists'. Let's not forget the first WMDs SH had were gifts from America to war w/ Iran...

If nothing else, we are great Martyr Makers and Nation Builders!

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq / The Christian Science ...

Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11 - CBS News

Panetta ties war in Iraq to 9/11 attack - Boston.com

and on and on...

BTW, the formatting sure helped these old eyes see clearly the words, but my heart and gut don't buy the rhetoric Professional Politicans puke out.

Peace

it was a republican congress right up until 2006 that followed Bush's lead in taking us into Iraq. It was an illegal war based upon lies, that is one of the reason our European allies did not team up with us, and the ones that did sent very small humanitarian and support forces. The hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis that are dead, or permanently disabled is the true legacy of this clusterf**k.

Finally! Only 129 countries left from which to withdraw our troops.

No matter how much proof you put in front of these Liberal Idiots, they will insist that George Bush had the power to lead all the Democrats down the road to war like the pied piper.

Blind hatred of someone will cloud your judgement libbies.

Wise up ! Steve, I can't tell if you're blind or you just can't read.

Just glad our soldiers are finally getting to come home from that place. I wish both sides of the Political spectrum would change our foreign policy. To fight your own battles. And if you attack us the USA the drones and bombs are coming to finish the job.No foot soldiers

No more AID to these countries period.

I was teaching overseas when we invaded Iraq... and for all of you arguing about what we did and didn't know it pains me to say that the whole world knew that the WMDs didn't exist. The whole world, but not us?

And before the God and country crowd starts arguing with that statement, several years later I was in Iraq. I spent time at Tallil. The outer section of that base protects Ur.

@ John-362791

4,500 dead Americans in a war built on lies is a disaster... and only a war thirsty moron would argue its not.

You can talk about how great it is Saddam is gone, that Democracy is blooming in Iraq (excuse me while I laugh at that one for a couple minutes), and that violence is way down all you want (violence in Iraq is still sky high compared to where it was under Saddam). However if your memory worked and you actually had an understanding of the history you accuse others of ignoring you would know that those reasons are NOT why America went to war. No one, and I mean no one, would have supported the Iraq war at the start if the only stated goal was to remove Saddam and bring Democracy to Iraq. It was the whole "Smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud", mobile chemical weapons labs, and direct links to Bin Laden BS that scared people into supporting the war. We now know none of that was true, and that much of the "proof" about WMD's was known to be BS before it was presented to the people.

So you can turn around and talk about how worth it the war was and all, but the fact is 4,500 good Americans died, and tens of thousands of others have been scarred for life, for what amounted to a bunch of lies. Iraq has Democracy eh? Who gives a damn? Thats not why we invaded the damn country and I can think of 4,500 American families that would much rather have their son, daughter, brother, sister, father, mother back instead. And I don't know about you, but I put a whole lot more value in American lives then I do in some 3rd world country having Democracy.... yet you call speaking out against the Iraq War anti-American? Hah. You keep wrapping yourself in the flag all you want.... but that does not make you any more American then the rest of us.

I love the lunatics of the anti war movement. We went over there and fought keeping the radical aliment their fighting instead of here doing terrorism. Some times you have are so small minded. A blissful look at that part of the world as if they will leave us alone if we leave them alone.

What you do not understand is it is in their everyday teaching that sooner or later they will have to come over here and try to force their false prophet on us. So we either kill them before they come here or sit here and let them come taking Innocent lives rather then fighting people that are trained for it.

It seems like you libs will not be happy until you overturn the constitution, force us to give up our faith, and either give in to your ways or face the consiquences. In the end you just sound like a milder form of the crazy Islamist to me.

Please redo grades 1 through 6, then comment.

Thanks T.

Amen to Titus. Cleareye get a life. President O-throwup is by far the lowest rated president in the history of this country by the numbers recently posted. Bush may have not made the best call but at least he loves his country.

BM-556632, big part of the 'low' rating of obama is due to the wrecked economy. And you know that started under bush/cheney.

Our Troops are coming home for Christmas, let's let up on the inter political party bickering and all try to agree on the fact that our Troops will be home for Christmas. Spent more than one at the DMZ in Vietnam and it's pretty damn lonely. Good Job Troops and welcome Home from ALL of us.

John you have it wrong! Obamas low ratings have to do with his making the economy worse with his policies! Nobody says Obama started the problem he has only compounded the problem with his anti business policies. He has pushed socialism onto us which most Americans do not like. At present I have one of the better health care policies around but with Obamas tax on Cadillac health care plans and the small fine businesses must pay for not providing plans I am worried now that may disappear. Why would you punish a company for providing good health care plans?

Veteran they are filling in to finish up there tours in Kuwait. This is pushing back the rest of our deployments 6 months or so.

So we should thank the lord for all those bombs still going off over there. You are a dreamer. These people have been at war for over a thousand years. When they do not have a neighbor to fight with they fight with each other. We have a crumbling ifrastructure rampant unemployment all because we spent close to two trillion dollars fight a war we had to borrow money to support and you think thats ok. I pity your likes

"John you have it wrong! Obamas low ratings have to do with his making the economy worse with his policies! Nobody says Obama started the problem he has only compounded the problem with his anti business policies. He has pushed socialism onto us which most Americans do not like."

Pure undelterated right wing crap!

I totally agree with you Bread

Total teabag passing of the buck. I would respect them more if they admitted they were wrong now and then. They got to be 100% right ALL the time...everyone else is always wrong dont ya no.

Hey there BM. What does BM stand for? Oh I know. Bowel Movement. Because that's all that is spewing out of your mouth. Obama is a good president. And at least he can say nuclear properly.

No Clifford: don't even think about blaming Obama for Iraq. Blame Bush and Cheney, like Cleareye says above. Why don't you righties admit your mistake-that you folks were responsible for 4500 American lives and the huge, huge amount of money you added to the debt unnecessarily

Takes one to know one BM-556632!!! And you sure would know!!

Mark. Culpability exists on both sides of the aisle. Don't be naive.

ADULTS...act like it. takes one to know one...i know you are but what am i...stick and stones may....JUVENILE...STOP IT

Duhhh Obama only followed the plan that Bush signed with the Iraqi government then had to clean up the mess in Afghanistan the right wingnuts left him with because they spent all the money in Iraq. You people have no idea what you are talking about. Posting old comments from a time when Iraq was a problem and using them to show democrats were for the war is nonsense.

Cliff

Iraq is 100% Bush /Cheney...dont even think of blaming Obama for that dude. Dick totally wanted to get his crooked little hands on all that oil and all those no bid contracts. hes still making money off it...what a crook. He and his friends need to be audited and jailed...total thief.

Taxed-891387, they never asked us to come over and make a mess of their country just to catch a two bit dictator. If you wanna vent anger, talk to GWB and Haliburton.

“I agree that Bush Jr. was a very poor president. However, he was also given bad information and asked to clean up what was originally his dad's mess.”

This is baloney. Just watch the movie called “Fair game” which was based on a true story of Joe and Pam Wilson. Pam was a CIA operator and Joe was a former ambassador to Iraq and Niger. The White House deliberately framed Saddam Hussein and Joe Wilson knew it and reported to the New York Times. Joe and Pam Wilson were crucified and they had to fight for their reputation and lives. It was a good story. None of it would have happened had the Bush and his bad companies not lied about the war in Iraq. Many people died because of the lies by Bush. About 30,000 US soldiers had gone AWOL and being labeled as “Traitors” by our government who initiated an illegal and unwanted war.

It is good that our soldiers are coming but there is no job available in the United States. These soldiers would have to compete with our unemployed and highly qualified and experienced workers. We are talking about 15 million unemployed workers.

It is likely that our soldiers would end up with homeless and die quietly in our dirty backyards. Most soldiers would have a hard time adapting to civilian lives, despite our government’s VA medical help. Our country is broke and our leaders still want to bully other countries.

To be fair to Bush sr., it was the U.N.'s call to lead the charge against Iraq after they invaded Kuwait. The U.N. told Bush sr. that he didn't have the mandate to push into Baghdad. It was like Patton at the end of WW2, when he wanted to go after the Red Army, cause he knew they would cause trouble eventually. Bush sr. knew that Desert Storm was over, but he also knew that American troops would be in Iraq...eventually. Bush jr.'s justification to enter into another war was really about doing what his father wasn't allowed to do, and the oil!

Welcome home troops, we're proud of you!!!

Tarzan he is crying because they will bump up the unemployment numbers ! They will have to count them which will look bad for him. They just managed to discourage like 200k people to quit looking for work driving down the numbers now this is going to ruin all that hard work.

Jimmeez good point maybe just start convoying it to Iran now.

Unlike Nam, we are packing up and coming home without "Gooks on the Fence" chasing us away with our tail between our legs. We will leave behind billions in unaccountable pallets of money and some troop encampment structures.

Like Nam, we had no business being there the way we did.

You know, like was planned all along...

There are many people who are not able to take care of themselves such as Sudan and many African countries, our country does not have the money, resoures to invade and occupy other countries. Going back to Iraq is not an option on the table. Just don't bet on it. Our country is broke and broken.

Oldfarte, Eisenhauer in his briefing to Kennedy, told him we had a long standing committment in indochina, mainly Laos. It turned out to be Vietnam. It wasn't Johnson's decision. It's something he inherited from Kennedy.

Yes and no, Pooch. Eisenhower kept us from getting involved on behalf of the French, when they lost Indochina and, like all military men, was leery of a land war in Asia. It was Kennedy with his "go anywhere, pay any price" liberal nonsense that got the ball rolling. THEN, when he connived at the assassination of Diem, he put us squarely into it. However, according to records of the time, Kennedy was already rethinking the commitment to Vietnam at the time he was assassinated, precisely because the Diem assassination, far from cleaning up the mess, had worsened it. Johnson, however, was terrified at becoming "the man who lost Indochina" and so continued what he thought were Kennedy's policies (Johnson had a huge inferiority complex around Kennedy and thought that if he did what the "Great Man" would have done, it would all work out), bungling them abysmally, however. Prior to Tonkin Gulf, our involvement in that circus (which, ultimately, became my personal involvement with it) was not inevitable. Had Johnson stuck to the intent of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, it might still have been avoided, but it was Johnson who waded in with eyes open and proceeded to muff the job (plenty of blame for Westmoreland, the worst general we've put forward in 200 years of history - Giap had to be laughing his ass off at those Central Highland "Search and Destroy" boondoggles). Nope, while Eisenhower and Kennedy share blame, the mess lies at LBJ's door. It could have been stopped or avoided but for his moronic, murderous policies. Someday, I hope to p*ss on his grave.

TJK you are a idoit Cheney has a heart it is just mechanical!

BS on that one, barbarian. Leaving Saddam in power, post Gulf War 1 was brilliant geo-politics. It kept Al Qaeda OUT of Iraq. It kept Iran checkmated (remember the Iran-Iraq War?) as well as Syria cooperative. It kept the Saudis and Kuwaitis tractable (basing rights, cheap oil - anything to keep those American troops between them and the Iraqis - btw, what happened after we got rid of Saddam and Bush #2 went hat in hand to the Saudis asking them to kindly pump a bit more oil so that our economy didn't go in the toilet back in 2008? That's right, they told him to pack sand - they'd not have done that if they still needed us to keep the Iraqi Army out of their backyard). As a "Tiger in a Cage", Saddam was the most useful thing we had and Bush #1 knew that. THAT is why he cut it short. He had no desire to depose Saddam, he was too useful to us. Indeed, the whole first Gulf War was about tricking Saddam into invading Kuwait, so that we could go in and defang him sufficiently to keep him under control. We didn't want to depose him, just put a leash on him, so that we could use him to keep the rest of the Arabs (and the Persians) in line. Then the idiot son gets into office and invades Iraq DESPITE HIS DAD TELLIN' HIM NOT TO DO IT!

All those people who talk about Bush #1 "not finishing the job" have no clue what "the job" was.

trust me i was in kiwait it all had to do with bush and his oil when someone like suddam who the us put in charge of iraq screws you you want to get rid of him the father could not life went on so now when the opportunity came via 911 and the u.s. went to afgan. and was fighting there the father told his son this is the opp.to get rid of him.

That's pretty much correct. After Iran booted us out in we boosted Saddam's military so he could wage war on them and keep their influence in check. It really is funny that no one really gave a crap that we stopped chasing the Iraqis at the Kuwaiti and Saudi border's back in Desert Storm. It's also the reason we didn't have to give that much of a crap about Iran for another decade. Iraq Sunni Baath Party did a good job of keeping the Shiite mullahs leading Iran from influencing anyone.

Correct "BT/DT". Saddam became our "proxy" against Iran, but he was a kinda distasteful, unreliable ally, so, when he and the Persian Mullahs made peace, leaving Saddam with an overly powerful (and now un-utilized) military, Bush #1 had April Glaspie give ole Saddam a wink when he proposed annexing Kuwait. Saddam took the bait, thereby providing us a "causus belli" with which to go in and chop his military down to manageable size, which we did (but only that - odd how most of the Republican Guard got away, huh? We only cut up a couple Divisions of 'em to show how easily we could do it). We absolutely did NOT want him out of power. Heck, for the 8 years of the Iran-Iraq fight, and notwithstanding that we were convoying their oil tankers, neither the Saudis nor Kuwaitis would give us basing rights, however, the moment Iraqi tanks crossed the Kuwaiti border, old King Khalid was only too happy to let "infidel troops" enter the Kingdom to save his butt (what's the Saudi Military Anthem? Answer: "Onward, Christian Soldiers"). As long as Saddam was a threat, we had all the basing rights (and cheap oil) that Saudi Arabia could provide. Once we booted Saddam, however, we lost all control over the Saudis.

BTW, Bush #1 and the Saudi Ambassador BOTH agreed that Bush#2 should NOT invade Iraq, but Daddy Bush didn't want to squash Junior's ego, so he let him go ahead with Gulf War II. Trillions of dollars and 6,000 dead later, Baby Bush gets to show Daddy what a big boy he is. Dimwits.

And that's why family dynasty's are always a pain in the ass. Some how I can picture the same thing happening in the Horn of Africa if Hillary gets elected in the future. It's just a little too scary how Americans seem to love their sequels.

I dont get sequels.. Most are far inferior to the original. Really if not for the name of Bush or Clinton would G.W or a hillory ever have been elected to anything?

We'll get it right when you can get that spelling of yours right.

Army wife you are correct on that we were suppose to deploy again in October but now we are having the date pushed back 6 months because of all the people leaving Iraq finishing up there tours

Not finishing in Iraq but in places like Kuwait and Afghanistan of course

That is because Bush took us there and Obama is bringing us home instead of stirring up more sheat. Questions?