I did not say that all soldiers in general are bad guys, is that within the military there are good people and bad, and I am sorry if you misinterpreted me message, Bush administration if you can say that if it was a big disaster, and also was one of the worst presidents of all history, what the puppy, after reviewing in internet find out it was a Marine, not a soldier as I said earlier mind what I say ?, proof only seeks US soldier Throws puppy Off Cliff, there you will see what I mean.

What the British soldiers beating children, look online the exact date of the incident, but only gave me the year 2006, as said before just buscalo on YouTube.

Maybe not agree’re my opinions, but that’s what I think.

Ken,

I mean that HUMINT sources deliberately lied to American Intel in order to get American forces to invade Iraq. It’s no different from our sources in Afghanistan and Pakistan who make stuff up to get us to kill people they have a feud with. From what I know of the HUMINT world, I think I can safely say that every source is a liar, every source is working an angle, and every source is trying to get us to do their work for them.

I think HUMINT sources fed bad information to our Intel agencies, who then repeated that bad information to President Bush, who believed it.

No argument that the MSM hated Bush. They didn’t bother trying to hide it.

The basic issue is that there was no active WMD program in Iraq when we invaded. True or not?

Not.

Yet, more proof.

Also, I’m not sure who you think “tricked” Bush. What I think is that the MSM absolutely hated Bush and sank it’s teeth into that narrative. Then used a media blackout for any story that didn’t back up the idea that Bush was an evil liar or the one that you’re promoting, that he was “tricked”.

I do not think that it is news to anyone that we found WMDs in Iraq. I think it’s pretty much accepted that this happened. Widely.

I also don’t think that it is very strenuously contested that Iraq didn’t have an ACTIVE WMD program at the time of the invasion. Or if one did exist, evidence for it was never found.

Both of those are true statements. I think all commenters and Chris all agree with that.

Now that we’ve found common ground, the bone of contention is whether finding the WMDs, but NOT an active WMD program vindicates W or not.

My vote is that he doesn’t need to be vindicated. He stated his case, got approval from congress, and built a coalition of nations larger than any of the much-touted coalitions that Obama has built in any of his “scope limited incursions”, despite claims to the contrary. Those are the things he’s required to do in order to persecute a just war.

Would I have done it? No. But that doesn’t mean that Bush needs to be “vindicated” for having done so.

WMDs were not the only reason we went in. We went in because of a long list of violated UN requirements that the UN was unwilling to enforce. We went in out of fear that there was an acive WMD program, and with the spectre of terrorists operating on AMerican soil, that was dangerous as hell. Imagine a mustard gas attack on a major sports stadium if you want to stay up all night in a cold sweat.

We went in because of material support lent to these terrorist networks.

And finally, we went in so that we could have a theater of war where we could fight the terrorists, who all flocked to Iraq after the invasion, on foreign soil rather than our own.

I still don’t think it was a good idea, but since I wouldn’t want to put Saddam back in office in excahnge for undoing all that we’ve done “over there”, I guess I supported the war, in hindsight.

I’d have never done it if I had been in charge, but the overall outcome hasn’t been totally awful.

I’d even mention that it is heartening to me to see Obama digging in his heels a bit and telling the Iraqis that we aren’t going to come over and bail them out every time they get in trouble, and if they don’t want to be an ISIS-owned theocracy, they’d better figure out how to counter attack and kick ISIS out.

And they’re doing it, as we speak.

Your entire comment is one long run-on sentence that I cannot parse for the life of me. Try again, please.

Are you saying that American and British Soldiers acted terribly because you have proof that one American soldier threw a puppy? And that because he threw a puppy, that George Bush, and the rest of the US Army are a bad guys? I really am having trouble understanding what you’re saying.

As for Brits beating kids, let’s try to be a little more accurate in our reporting. How about a specific incident? Time, date? Maybe the names of the victims? Because “I heard once that the British Army beat children” is kind of vague and hard to prove or disprove. And it’s a hell of an accusation…