Friday, May 22, 2015

Why GOP Presidential Candidates Cannot Coherently Answer Questions About Iraq

"Bush And Cheney's Toxic Legacy In Iraq"

Cheney's Lucid 1994 Rationale For NOT Invading Iraq. Conservatives "Must" See This

Hans Blix' Fruitless Search For WMD And Bush/Cheney's Rush To War In Iraq

"The Fall Of Iraq. Jawdropping Video Footage Of Cheney, Albright, Gen Clarke & Others"

"Israeli War Historian, Martin van Creveld's Startling Commentary On The Iraq War"
Excerpt: "For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president’s men. If convicted, they’ll have plenty of time to mull over their sins." War historian Martin van Creveld is the only non-U.S. author whose writings are obligatory reading by America's Officer Corps."

"Bush-Cheney Knew Iraq Wasn't A Threat And That Invasion Was Risky," James Fallows

Why can't GOP presidential candidates coherently answer questions about Iraq?"Suppose... Mr Obama's choice to withdraw troops was the mistake. It then follows that the smart thing to do—the best 'long-term strategy on how to deal with it,' in Mr Bush's words—is to get American boots back on the ground and vindicate the invasion by finishing the job. The problem for hawks like Messrs Bush and Rubio is that this is an impolitic thing to say. ... If the eventual GOP nominee is going to have a shot at the White House, he will need to say that the invasion was a mistake. So it is wise to be on the record saying a version of that now. But this can be awfully hard to do if you don't fully believe it. Messrs Bush and Rubio's botched answers show what happens when politicians vacillate between what they probably really think and what is, all things considered, the politically wise thing to say." The Economist

No comments:

Post a Comment