One thing I've notice is, those that attempt to bring up some kind of moral relativism between Christianity and Islam are often those who are apologists in some way for radical Islam. And even if certain parallels can be made, in terms of the bad episodes of each religion, there's something to be said for the fact that those people typically have to go back hundreds of years in order to bring up the Crusades or whatever point they're trying to make. Well, it's 2015, and the problem we have is radical Islam, no matter how uncomfortable that fact makes them feel.

As an aside, with the recent taking of Ramadi by ISIS, really got to hand it to Obama. A lot of US soldiers died taking those cities and his "feckless foreign policy," to quote one critic, has nullified all that. And I expect that to continue. He doesn't dare upset his far-left supporters by making any real moves against ISIS. He'll just wait out his term and let the next President deal with it.

mmmmm.... isn't that what your hero George w, bush did. create a war by lying about about the supposed weapons saadam hussien had.

didn't bush create this big mess, and then passed it on to Obama. Obama didn't create it, it was passed down to him.

In your mind, define a real move against ISIS, Ivy ^ And I hate to point this out, but Obama is not far left by any stretch. The latest example is thousands of [actual left wing] Seattle ciizens protesting a Shell oil tanker he approved for arctic drilling and sent to the Port of Seattle by blocking its path with their kayaks. Its crazy look it up. I know a whine a good bit about mislabeling but let's get it right. I agree with you about the state of the public and modern Islam. Pointing to the Crusades, CAN be relevant in certain discussions but at the moment it's accomplishing nothing but taking the lens away from the truth: in 2015, the global problem lies not in Christian extremism but in Islamic extremism. But for some that's a bit hard to comprehend.

I just read an article on Vice titled "With Executions on the Rise, Saudi Arabia is Now Hiring Even More Executioners". The first commenter says, "I'm starting to think the Middle East is actually Game of Thrones in real life." The second commenter says "Terrible. Maybe they should try to read the Q'uran instead of killing people." He was put in his place but there's a kind of cognitive dissonance there that should really scare people right?

I'm not a Bush defender because I was not for the war in Iraq, but there's a difference between lying and being mistaken. There was all kinds of intel back then that did strongly support Saddam Hussein having WMDs. In fact when American troops went in they did find stockpiles of chemical weapons, but they were old stockpiles. Hussein also was interested in nuclear weapons against the Iranians. The Israelis bombed a manufacturing facility. Hussein was uncooperative with inspections, fired on U.S. and allied planes in the No Fly Zone, and put a hit out on George H. W. Bush during the Clinton administration. He was also paying the families of suicide bombers $25K and supported more suicide bombing. He also had a past history of using chemical weapons to commit genocide. Any of those could be considered acts of war. Not only that, but one of his top generals, General Georges Sada, said that they did have newer WMDs and trucked them to Syria in the days leading up to the war. He wrote a book about it giving the details, but most people never heard of him. http://www.amazon.com/Saddams-Secrets-Georges-Hormuz-Sada/dp/1595553304


There's also no evidence - ZERO evidence - that G. W. Bush intentionally tried to deceive anyone. When he first became President he was against starting any wars, but 9/11 changed all that. To him the war in Iraq was a defensive war since Hussein supported terrorism, had WMDs, continued to be a threat to Middle Eastern peace, and continuously violated the restrictions placed on him by the United Nations. Let's not forget that there were Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee who had access to classified information and all of them supported invasion. Even Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and John Kerry voted for the war. So to repeat -- there's nothing to indicate that Bush lied.

Regardless, invading Iraq has to considered the biggest mistake in recent US foreign policy history. If anything, Saddam kept things stable and now we have a much larger threat to the United States than we did before. Maybe Saddam would have nuked the United States or someone else by now but doubtful.

Either nuke the entire region or have dictatorships. It's a different planet, a good buddy of mine did two tours in Iraq - he told me shaking someone's hand is the ultimate sign of disrespect - because they wipe their ass with their hands.

As long as we keep oil producing countries stable that's the best we can hope for.

Maybe you missed this in yesterday's news..

Bush Administration Gave 'False Presentation' Of The True Intelligence, Briefer Charges
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/20/mike-morell-iraq-2016_n_7346990.html

9/11, hawkish administration members, mistaken intelligence reports, and an utterly sensationalist fourth estate (looking at you judy miller) created the perfect storm for the Iraq war. But at the end of the day the burden is still on the president to make the rational decision. I don't think Bush lied about the WMDs per se, he was certainly misled. But once the war drums were beat by Cheney and Wolfowitz (whose policy goals included regime change in Iraq as far back as the 90s and the Iran Iraq war respectively) we all heard a serious lie. And as always, the media saw the potenital for more sensationalism and ran with it. I'm talking of course about this.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html
Point is, there is a lie we can directly connect to the beginning of the Iraq war from Bush himself. I don't however, think the omission of this statement would have stopped the war from happening so it may be a moot point.

cheney said that saadam hussien had nuclear weapons , no intelligence supported that notion. in fact it was a bald face lie. the whole administration of bush-cheney presented false information to the people.

http://theweek.com/articles/555921/george-w-bush-didnt-just-lie-about-iraq-war-what-did-much-worse

this one is for you faithful1

Whatever one thinks about going into Iraq in the first place, Obama inherited a relatively stable situation in Iraq when he took office. However, instead of leaving some troops there to maintain order as he was advised to do, he chose to pull out completely, thus leaving a vacuum for our enemies to fill. And we're now seeing the results of that. However, instead of acknowledging that fact, the kneejerk reaction of Obama supporters is to immediately go further back and start in with the "Bush lied" mantra in order to defend their guy.

http://www.alternet.org/media/paul-krugman-drops-epic-truth-bomb-latest-round-lies-about-iraq-war

for you ivy.

Mike Morell's new book has been shown to have a couple lies in it, so his credibility isn't exactly sky high, and HuffPo is hardly an unbiased source.

Krugman huh? That would be like a hardcore Republican pulling something from Sean Hannity and presenting it as evidence to you. But it is interesting how all these "Bush lied" articles are popping up now. The liberal media stepping up to defend their guy as ISIS continues to advance?

Anyway, like I said, whatever one thinks about the initial Iraq invasion, that doesn't change the fact that Obama "inherited" (to use your word) a relatively stable situation there when he took office. But rather than admit his choice to completely pull out was a mistake, you try to deflect the topic to Bush. Quit being such a partisan hack.

faithful, the man admitted on the chris Matthews show that cheney lied about hussien having nuclear weapons.

hes credible. morell was there.

Maybe a case of hindsight being 20/20, but I agree with this. The situation is far worse and I think we are less safe because of it.

Paul Waldman works for the American Prospect, which is a far-left wing Progressive magazine and hated Bush from the beginning. But even someone that far to the Left can be correct, so I examined the article you linked to and there was nothing in there that proved a deliberate attempt to deceive, which is what a lie is. If a parent tells her son that Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer is real and he repeats that to his friends is he lying? No. He's spreading false information, but he believes that it's true. In the case with intelligence data the nature of the game is that the evidence isn't always clear. The Nigerians and British did say and continue to say that Iraq did have WMDs. Bush had to look at the totality of the intelligence combined with the fact that Hussein wasn't cooperative and was claiming he was actively working on a program to fool the Iranians. Waldman was selective in his article and did exactly what he asserted Bush did, not only that, but he failed to examine details and explain himself to make his case. He was clearly biased and it showed.

Who admitted on the Chris Matthews Show that Cheney lied? Dick Cheney was on Chris Matthews? If he wasn't, then it wasn't an admission. I think you're saying that Morell claimed that Cheney lied, which is different than an admission. If it was an admission then it would be Morell admitting that Morell lied, which I don't think is what you're saying. It's a claim.

I'll see if I can find the link on YouTube and watch it, but you ought to know as much as I do that Chris Matthews like to jump to conclusions and has an anti-Republican bias. He's the Sean Hannity of the Left. Anyway, Morell was the guest and I'll see what he had to say. At any rate, theoretically speaking, even if Cheney did lie it doesn't mean Bush did. They're two different people. But I'm a fair guy and will see what Morell had to say. By the way, I'll probably get a copy of Morell's book, but I'll read his book with the same skepticism that I read books about the Mafia.

I think the evidence of bush and co. lying to go to war is now accepted by most as fact.

however, you and others will never be convinced. so be it.we have differences on this matter.

Binnie, to go along with what the majority things is a logical fallacy, an appeal to majority. It's like saying if everyone else jumps off a cliff we should do it too. The majority of people get their information from the media and don't go to the sources themselves. When I want to know the truth about something I try to go to the original sources, and I don't understand why a person would side with a "majority" when that majority hasn't done this extra research.

By doing a simple Google search I found the original interview of Dick Cheney on "Meet the Press" in 2003: http://www.leadingtowar.com/Transcripts/2003_03_16Cheney.php

If you read it, it's clear that Cheney was talking about acquiring nuclear weapons and restarting the nuclear program. In context, Cheney NEVER said that Hussein had nuclear weapons. At one point in the interview Cheney said that "we believe he has reconstituted nuclear weapons," but in context it's clear that he meant "reconstituted nuclear weapons program." How do I know this? Because that's what he said several other times during the interview. Since I put up the link you can read it for yourself if you don't believe me. In fact this was already shown back in 2003 for anyone interested in taking a look: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/207368/cheneys-supposed-lie-doc-rossetti (the author of the article, Doc Rossetti, is a nome de plume for UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh).

I also watched the Chris Matthews interview of Mike Morell here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2...its_a_joke.html

Chris Matthews repeatedly interrupted Morell and Matthews made the claim that Cheney said Hussein had nuclear weapons, using that out of context quote. Morell actually said the same thing Cheney said. If you watch it, Matthews starts off by asking Morell why Hillary Clinton and the other Democrats voted for the Iraq War, like he's a mind reader. How does he expect Morell to answer that question? Morell then went to explain the context and said that "we" told "them" that he HAS chemical weapons, he has the potential to make biological weapons, and is RECONSTITUTING a nuclear program. That is the SAME WORD CHENEY USED! That's when Matthews used the out of context quote, and based on the out of context quote Morell said what Cheney said was false.

The FACT is that Tim Russert even pointed out that Cheney misspoke:

"MR. RUSSERT: Reconstituted nuclear weapons. You misspoke.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yeah. I did misspeak. I said repeatedly during the show weapons capability. We never had any evidence that he had acquired a nuclear weapon."

The transcript that I just quoted is from September 14, 2003 and was -- and is -- available online for free http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3080244/ns/meet_the_press/t/transcript-sept/#.VV5D7UbNKjx. The original interview was on March 16, but the second interview Cheney did with Tim Russert was only six months later, and that's when Russert pointed out the error. The transcripts for these interviews have been online for twelve years, but Matthews cherry-picked the quote where Cheney misspoke to make his case. Do you, Binnie, not think that Matthews was aware of the second interview? This professional news show host with producers and researchers? I think it's clear that Matthews lied and Cheney didn't. Matthews intentionally tried to show Cheney putting out false information when it's clear he did not. Matthews is the deceiver. Morell only gave an opinion based on the clip Matthews showed him.

we disagree on the facts which got us into the Iraq war, so we will just leave it there. I do commend you for your research.

Okay, Binnie. But the claim that Matthews made that Cheney said Saddam had nuclear weapons is false, and he misled Morell. There shouldn't be any doubt about that.

By the way, I found this Senate report from 2008 that also makes it clear that they were aware that Cheney misspoke in that first interview:

https://books.google.com/books?id=t5idp2...003&f=false

Anyway, I haven't really discussed the facts on what got us into the Iraq War, but if Bush (and now Cheney) lied. Again, my point is they didn't lie. I also said I wasn't for the war. To me, the facts show that they made some mistakes in taking us to Iraq, not that they lied and deceived us. I think Mike Morell even made a good case for that.

I will add this: For years Cheney made links between Hussein and Al Qaeda that didn't exist. Maybe he wanted to believe there were links. Years later, starting in 2004 and definitely by 2006, he was forced to admit they weren't linked. Bush, however, came out and said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Some writers claim that the two groups were enemies, but it's not that simple. There were meetings between the two groups, but they didn't cooperate. They were both Sunni and both hated the USA, but it didn't go further than that. But since Iraq wasn't involved in 9/11 we shouldn't have gone to war against it.

"For years Cheney made links between Hussein and Al Qaeda that didn't exist. Maybe he wanted to believe there were links."

I guess this would depend on what your definition of lying is. Whether it's intentional or not, the public was being misled.

IMO Bremer dismantling the existing Iraqi Army right after the initial invasion was the worst decision made

yes, bremer made a horrible decision about what he termed debathifacation, he dismantled the Iraq army, and that is what eventually led to al-quida, and now isis.

it was a mistake of great magnitude, and no one was held accountable for it. congress should have called for hearing.

Bremer wrote a piece several years back that there were people above him who told him to dismantle the Iraqi army and fire all the Baathists. He agreed with it, though. There were issues with Shiites not being willing to follow orders of Sunni/Baathist superiors.

As for Al-Qaeda in Iraq, if you look up Ansar al-Islam was formed from a merger of two previously existing groups in the Kurdistan area of Iraq in September 2001 -- the same month as the 9/11 attacks. Ansar al-Islam became allied with Al-Qaeda then became Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which later became ISIS. So the roots of ISIS already existed before Bremer and before Bush started the Iraq War. ISIS didn't become a threat in Iraq until after the Obama-ordered pullout of Iraq in 2011. Remember, at that time Obama and Biden both said that Iraq was stable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam

good research faithful. thank you for the info.

Ansar al Islam tied to saddam? Even if so, was it worth the invasion?

Ansar al Islam was part of the Al Qaeda network. It was NOT tied to Saddam. There are reports showing that Bin Laden and his operatives did meet with Iraqi officials, but they never worked together. There was no real relationship between Bin Laden and Saddam. Saddam was too secular for Bin Laden. Cheney hyped up the links between Saddam and Al Qaeda and eventually he had to admit there were no ties between the Iraqi government and Bin Laden. Bin Laden was too radical for Saddam Hussein. Hussein didn't want Sharia law and Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda network (including Ansar al Islam) did.

If Saddam Hussein wasn't such a dick we could have worked with him. He was a foil to Iran and could have been a foil to Al Qaeda, but when the oil for food program was going on Saddam's people started meeting with Bin Laden's people, and the fear was that Saddam was going to bankroll Bin Laden to commit acts of terrorism against the USA, just like Saddam was bankrolling Hamas for suicide bombing against Israel.

Plus back then Saddam was hoarding the food in the oil for food program and letting his own people starve. Does anyone remember how back then the Far Left was claiming the USA was making poor Iraqis starve because of the program? Saddam Hussein was keeping the food, yet the Left-wing was blaming the USA for it. I don't recall exactly, but he may have been trying to starve out the Shiites and the Kurds, because he hated those two groups.

how the fuck did obama inherit a stable invironment in iraq?

we're not supposed to be there so that's why the middle east is unstable now

because of a false war, our country is broke because of a false war

u talk like we we're supposed to have troops in iraq

Obama inherited the war in Iraq, he did not start it.

why do all of these neo- cons want to revise history ?

and one more thing, bush is the one who negotiated the withdrawal of troops from Iraq not Obama.

bush is also the one that fabricated the entire war with iraq

he admitted that he lied, the middle east would be stable if we didn't go to war

americans pockets would be fuller too