(1) I said we were going to talk about political assassinations. So let’s do it.

We have seen how even without the argument of WMD’s, Iraq presented a clear danger to the US and a major base for terrorist activities.

[Original Twatter status/952426283098673152 ]

(2) And how those WMDs did, in fact, exist, despite the propaganda to the contrary...And the continuing lies that are still costing lives in Syria.

[Original Twatter status/953200917352013824]

(3) Original plans for the invasion of Iraq were complicated from the start by the unconscious meddling of certain political figures.

Half of the US forces were supposed to enter from Turkey and hook up with our Kurdish allies, using the Incirlik NATO air base near Adana, Turkey.

(4) The plan called for thousands of Marines to be airlifted in helicopters into Northern Iraq.

But, of course, Turkey had to approve the use of the base on its territory.

NATO had already given the OK.

(5) The base was already in use as HQ for the enforcement of the Northern no-fly zone, but by February of 2003, it was becoming certain that Turkey would not grant authorization.

(6) The Turks held fast, and when the invasion finally launched in March, it was done without Turkey.

(Though when the Turks figured they were being left out, they came around later.)

(7) Dozens of ships with thousands of troops of the 4th infantry division, supplies, and equipment already positioned in the Mediterranean, had to make the long trip around the Suez Canal and the straits of Bab-el-Mandeb into the Persian Gulf and Basra, delaying their arrival.

Remember Bab-el-Mandeb?

(8) Why did Turkey refused the authorization? You may ask.

For starters, they never liked the idea of empowering Kurds.

But there were also prominent American politicians undercutting the US.

Like this traitorous bitch, who would later cause a major rift AS THE WAR WAS GOING ON.

(9) By 2005, as the war in Iraq bogged down into an asymmetric model for which our forces were ruefully unprepared, Democrats saw the opportunity to exploit it for political gain.

(10) The same characters who had not only supported the invasion of Iraq but vehemently called for it, switched tunes.

It was Bush’s war!

He stubbornly went alone!

(11) All lies.

As will see, things were already turning around, and far from "going it alone" the Bush Administration had, if anything, bent over backwards to create the very international coalition demanded by the Dimms.

(12) In fact, that coalition included Australia, Poland, Spain, United Kingdom,United States, Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy,

(13) Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Panama, Philippines, Portugal, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, South Korea, Turkey, Ukraine, Uzbekistan…and 27 more countries.

Quite alone, indeed!

(14) But the lies stuck, the propaganda worked, and the Dimms rode the midterms to control of the House and Senate, which they immediately used for electoral purposes undermining the war effort at every turn.

(15) The initial strategy of consolidation of forces in large bases did not work out.

Cut off from intelligence, our forces were responding late and had lost the initiative, and 2004-2005 were not good years.

(16) The Democrats smelled blood and milked that situation for all its worth.

Opposition to the war reached a feverish pitch in political circles and the press.

(17) In the meantime, two great Americans were changing the course of the war:

Stanley McChrystal and @GenFlynn.

(17) Under McChrystal, Gen. Flynn changed the way intelligence was processed in revolutionary ways.

By integrating and sharing information in real time between forces on the ground, interrogators and analysts, for the first time our troops were proactive.

(18) From a handful of raids per month, they were able after one year to carry up to 400 raids per month.

They disrupted al Qa’ida and decimated its leadership but, more importantly, they were able to discover the true nature of the enemy’s organizational structure.

(19) The Bush administration, to its credit, learned, and in 2007 sent General Petraeus who had commanded the 101st in the early stages of the war and had spent a couple of years at Ft. Leavenworth writing (with Gen. Mattis), a new Counterinsurgency manual

(20) General Petraeus had to report his findings to Congress, but what he found upon his arrival in the US, before he could say a word, was this:

On September 10, 2007, the Clinton affiliated group, "", set a new low in political discourse.

(21) Yet, General Petreaus gave his unvarnished opinion, and the Surge was on.

A surge that completely vanquished al-Qa’ida in Iraq.

But Congress had changed.

Successfully exploiting the anti-war mood they had promoted, the Democrats now controlled House and Senate.

(22) Barely a month after General Petreaus gave his report, Nancy Pelosi was undermining the war and creating conflicts with our allies.

Like this:

(23) There was no political consideration for this, no urgent need, not even a legitimate rationale; and the only result was to produce a rift with a NATO ally that had finally come around and was vital in the war effort.

Her actions in this matter amount to treason.

Show more

@Debradelai Utter scum . Add to it the phony culture of corruption leveled at Bush. Corruption exuded fro:dingy Harry & Pelosi, the epitome of corruption.

@masterblaster @Debradelai

I am constantly amazed at your knowledge of these matters. I learn a lot and so thank you.
Gander has arrived in my mail box , so that is my next read.

The biggest problem I and others face, is being able to discern the truth, about matters we are no experts in. Whose voices can we trust? Politicians, (like us all), can lie, some make a habit of it! I am appalled at Pelosi''s venality, but why? She must know it puts US serviceman lives at risk!

Show more

@Hilarious @Debradelai Possibly. Or McChrystal bought the BS about Afghanistan being the “Good war”. Imagine his surprise when he got canned.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
QuodVerum Forum

Those who label words as violence do so with the sole purpose of justifying violence against words.