BOMBSHELL: Trump Lied – His ‘Armada’ Was NOT Headed Toward North Korea At Al

So your defense is that Trump speaks like a moron and you can never really tell what the Idiot In Chief means

He said "We're sending an armada...." is technically correct in that we were sending this "armada" SOMEWHERE....

But he was talking about NK and it was obvious that the buffoon was referring to THAT.

And who in the 21st Century calls a Naval battle group an "Armada" anyway???

 

There is nothing that can stop the MSM from pounding the Russian drum except themselves. I believe Trump is too fast for the numbskulls in the MSM.

 

Count how many times you've said Russians in this thread and you can see why. Look within grasshopper.

 

You can document politicians making throw away claim to that effect. What you can't document is any of them calling for a US invasion. Nor can you document anyone in Clinton world suggesting that it was a good idea to start a war without knowing whether the claims were real or not.

I can document that the US, and therefore the Bush adminstration, knew that Iraq has suspended its nuclear program in 1996. Therefore, when Cheney started talking about ":mushroom clouds" he was lying, and he knew it.

 

I see you are unable to address the thread topic.....Trump is a Putin puppet, the sooner you accept this, you will begin to understand why you are unable to stay on topic. It's called critical thinking, try to familiarise yourself with it. Tks.

 

A blinding glimpse of the obvious. The entire world knew that.

 

What a pathetic attempt to dance by reality!

Sorry, but removing Sadaam was going to be the easy part, and everyone knew it. Even the Bushies, who deliberately undermanned the war effort in anticipation of a quick and easy victory.

What came next was always the challenge, one that Cheney and Rumsfeld had no plan for whatsoever.

We were supposed to be greeted with cheering crowds, flowers and candy. Instead we were greeted with justifiable suspicion,

Few people believed that the war was over when Bush cynically paraded across the aircraft carrier deck in a cod piece under a banner (which the White House later tried to blame on the crew of the carrier).

A month later, Iraqis blew up the UN delegation, promoting them to leave. This was just after Paul Brennan disbanded the Iraqi army, and hundreds of thousands of would be Sunni militants disappeared into the crowds with their weapons.

Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn Rule" applied. The Americans broke Iraq, and they would up owning it.

The Iraqi officer corps formed the core of ISIS in Iraq, and have only recently been suffered serious defeat (a fact never acknowledged by right wing media).

Of course, in the comic book world of right wing American thinking, anyone with a gun not aimed at somebody else is a "terrorist" and labels are indescriminately handed out without any care toward fact or acccuracy.

Bill Clinton launched airstrikes against Iraq because the Iraqi air force would periodically challenge the no fly zone. He had no plans to start a war. He wasn't that stupid.

It took George W Bush to do that.

 

Good post, but Bill Clinton was that stupid - he admitted that he envied Bush for having the opportunity to use military force on such a spectacular scale. Never underestimate the stupidity of the very bipartisan corrupt political class.

 

US Foreign Policy does not change with changing governments

 

Of course it does.

 

No, not significantly. What Trump is doing in the Middle and Far East, Clinton would have done as well. They would just be following what Obama and Bush did

 

Actually, it depends on why he really did it.

 

We have Democrats that first told us Saddam was the mother of wars. We would lose tens of thousands just to get rid of Saddam or capture him.

Franks lost about 135. And I mean killed in action.

The post war did not work as planned.

Planned was: Iraqis had people that could run the country. I have not seen their thousands of pages of war plans, nor have you, but common sense tells me they did plan for things going wrong. Bremer showed up to work with the Iraqis. Iraqis in Iraq had their own ideas of who they wanted as possible leaders.

I don't know what ISIS is composed of. How you could know amounts to a puzzle.

Democrats are clueless what the actual Franks plan was. I urge them to read his fine book and they will find out.

Undermanned is a common wailing by Democrats. What do they know about wars? If they think Powell Doctrine, technology moved Franks far past that. Franks essentially used the General William DePuy doctrine. It was much more tested. Powell never led combat troops as a General officer.

Study the General DePuy doctrine and you get a better idea of what Franks did. Forget Powell.

It amounted to the bigger club theory. Franks did not wage war that way. Franks also had the use of many more thousands than just Americans. Franks made use of high tech. Franks would call that force multipliers. Franks would box in the Iraqis Trap them and they were then easy targets from the air.

What was underestimated was the kick back by the insurgents. Insurgents planted bombs or used vehicle bombs. How can Bush get blamed for those deaths? Who blamed Obama for bomb deaths caused by others? No democrat blamed Obama for any deaths.

Cheney and Rumsfeld were merely kept informed. Franks and his guys did the planning. Even the Joint Chiefs of staff were told by Franks to knock this off, they were not in charge. Franks was.

To blame Cheney is to not know a thing about what actually happened. To blame Rumsfeld is to assume he commanded. Franks and his troop commanders commanded. Franks make it clear to Bush that he would not tolerate any messing around by those his senior. That was Franks deal with Bush. If Bush or the quislings wanted to plan any war, then find some other General to do that.

Democrats to this day have no clue until I tell them who planned the war. General Franks .... type it a few times. He did it.

If one thinks all the crowds plan to cheer, they are crazy. But we saw very happy celebrations by the Iraqis and they ripped Saddam's photos off public buildings and enjoyed freedom for the first time in their lives.

Mission Accomplished was put on the Aircraft Carrier. Was it still at Iraq? Had it not accomplished it's mission?

It was for the navy.

Bush was much more loved by the Military than Obama could ever be. I think Trump is loved as well.

To describe what Bush did on the ship and not know why is why Democrats will go to their graves never getting it.

It was needed or the relief agencies never would enter Iraq. They were one of the keys to the end of the war. They would show up with food, clothing and help with shelter. But until Bush declared major combat was over, they refused to enter Iraq. General Franks made the request to Bush or Bush would not have said that on the ship.

What started the insurgency was the blowing up of the major Mosque. The UN attack was very devestating since the NGOs would bail out if major combat started again.

Bush gave his speech on May 1, 2003 for the major purpose to get the NGO community involved.

The UN bombing did not happen the next month. It happened August 19, 2003.

http://www.un.org/en/memorial/baghdad2003.asp



Brennan gets blamed for the vanished Iraq army but they had already vanished. And furthermore, the free Iraqi leaders wanted them gone. They fear the troops would work for Saddam and undo what Bush had done for them.

Franks managed to preserve much of the infrastructure. But he did blow up bridges. This trapped Iraqi forces and was why he blew them up. He put them into boxes where he could deal with them.

Some of Saddam's Officer's who went to ISIS are precisely why Bremer ordered them disbanded. Still, Bremer had no viable way to get the defeated army to assemble. Who would lead them? The officers who formed ISIS?

That to you is your plan or the Powell plan?

Bill Clinton gave his reasons and he alleged Saddam had plenty of WMD. I know Saddam was firing at the Bill Clinton Air Force. It was a stupid ban of sorts. Clinton needed to fix the problem and not leave it for Bush to fix.

I have suggested many times two of the very best books on this subject. And written by commanders. They planned it. They know how to whip Saddam in less than a month. They knew the facts. And yes, some of them were Democrats. Democrats love to spin this story but they never admit to reading the correct books.

 

Where were the cheering crowds when Clinton bombed Iraq? Did they cheer Clinton in the former Yugoslavia?

And for Obama. Where were the cheering crowds when Obama ruined Libya?

Why is it that the General Franks plan that took out a nation in 3 weeks so derided? By Democrats who still have to explain the lack of cheer leaders where Obama waged his wars.

 

Can you imagine some history teacher talking to a class as Tom did? If you missed that he does not know the history, you missed his real message. That being he does not know much of what he speaks.

I will be very happy to help Democrats truly understand what was done when Bush was president. I have no idea why Obama managed to ruin countries and yet escape the blame.

 

True. I think Clinton would have taken a little longer to have bombed so many countries and sent so many troops all around the world in the first 100 days. But hey, he needed some way of directing the news away from those other issues about him that are now no longer on the front page

 

Clinton waged war on an innocent nation for over 3 months. He relentlessly bombed Yugoslavia. Clinton was never bashful in using war tools.

 

So, because you said so is the only reason.

 

Well, there would have at least been some consistency on messaging re foreign policy.......this one seems to be make it up as you go.

 

In fact, US Foreign Policy does change with changing governments. It has already changed radically since Trump took office. The change is not subtle or hard to see.

 

Actually, it also changes multiple times in one day.......because they are severely incompetent.

 

It is always a challenge to see the truth through a strong personal bias. It is a challenge we all face.

 

LOL! Thanks for backing me up.

 

No I think the moron actually believed that he could force Democracy on the Middle East. F course with Democrach would come Capatilism whch I guess would have allowed Big Oil to control the Middle East. Either way Bush appears to have been clueless.

 

So Bush lied to them as well as the American people. It was Bush who invaded the country in a rush before the UN could finish proving there were no weapons. Unless you can possibly explain why there was such a rush to invade There is every reason to suspect Bush of having another reason than his imaginary weapons.