ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • Middle East Political & Social Issues

The Case for the War in Iraq - Will it Work With Iran? Update! Making the Case to Strike Syria

Updated on July 4, 2017
Saddam Hussein -April 7, 2005
Saddam Hussein -April 7, 2005 | Source

The Arrogance of War Games in the book ‘Hubris: Selling the Iraq War’

"How is the world ruled and how do wars start? Diplomats tell lies to journalists and then
believe what they read." by ____Karl Kraus, Austrian journalist and press critics

I can’t believe, I did not hear about this book.

I heard about the book ‘Imperial Hubris’ by: Mike Scheuer, but not the book ‘Hubris: Selling the Iraq War’ by: Michael Isikoff and David Corn, which is now a documentary.

For Years I was researching, how George W. Bush got away with all the scheming and unfairness, like getting his father to get him transferred out of the Army and into the Air National Guard, to avoid having to serve in Vietnam.

It was purported that GWB went AWOL and intended to find a way to 'legally' desert.

I always thought desertion in time of war was an act of treason, but, I guess it really depends on who is pulling the purse strings.

Rachel Maddow introduced us to a documentary from the book 'Hubris'

The Book Hubris: 'Selling the Iraq War' published October 12 2006; written by Michael Isikoff and David Corn - Documentary Feb 22, 2013 and aired on the Rachel Maddow Show March 20th, 2013.

Excerpts from the transcript of the Rachel Maddow Show

Rachel started her show with: "We start with some jaw-dropping information about American politics that has been reported out by a British news source. It`s the BBC. The BBC has just aired a new documentary based on Oval Office tapes, which proves something about the American presidency and American modern history that even the most conspiratorial among us would not be able to believe were it not all captured on tape, but apparently, it`s all captured on tape."

This documentary captures all the schemes and lies step-by-step, to make a case to declare war with Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction, It was proven and George W. Bush admitted that Saddam Husein had nothing to do with September 11th.

Hubris: Selling The Iraq War (Part 1) February 19, 2013

In this first part of the documentary ‘Hubris: Selling The Iraq War’ speaks of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964 about the power that was given to President Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam to do whatever necessary to fight the North Vietnamese allowing him to send ships, planes and ground troops.

As a result of the Vietnam War the “War Powers Act” was enacted into law, to prevent any president from a declaration of war without the permission of Congress.

It took a month of George Bush campaigning to allow him to declare war on Iraq under the guise of ‘Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.’

After no weapons of mass destructions could be found, the Bush administration said there was a connection between September 11th and Saddam Husain. When no connection to Saddam Husain and September 11thcould be established, the Bush people said it was to free the Iraqi people..

The Wolfowitz connection to the Iraq war.

Step-by-step how we got to where we are

Were these men really just little boys wanting to play war games?

Did, Mr. Bush pick the members of his administration for the sole purpose of going to war with Iraq?

What caused GWB to want to go to war with Iraq? Was it Hubris? (i.e. arrogance, or worse a disconnect with reality?)

I read, heard and have documentation that the Bush administration thought /told the American people that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Do all the republicans know that was a LIE? Or were they duped just like most of the American people?

Condalizza Rice - Her Involvement on Tape

Selling The Iraq War to the American People

In spite of the fact that the Bush administration knew there were no WMDs and Iraq had no connection to September 11th.

That is what we were told, But when the weapons of mass destruction were not found, we were told that Saddam Husein had connections to September 11th, and when that proved to be a lie, we were told it was to liberate the Iraqi people from their Saddam Hussein, their cruel dictator.

In retrospect, did Mitt Romney know the war in Iraq had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, or with September 11th? Because when he was running for President he said, it was to liberate the Iraqi people. Does he believe that?

At Mr. Romney's first speech after he lost the 2012 Presidential election, he still says the war in Iraq was to liberate the Iraqi people.

Did he mention the 32,000 or more American Soldiers who came home with missing limbs and what about the ones who served and now have PTSD.

Did he mention that the 4,486 Americans who died and 115,000 Iraq civilians who died in Iraq? Maybe he thinks like his wife, that serving a Mormon mission is the same as serving in the Military.

At the Republican convention this in 2013, when they picked presidential nominee a speech was given by Condi Rice on foreign policy, who during the Iraq war, was national security adviser. And in her speech still contends that the Iraq war was to keep us from being attacked again, the way we were on 9/11.

These people must think 'Poor and Working class' people are some kind of 'stupid.'

Colin Powell Was Convinced!

Did you believe that Iraq was hiding (WMDs) weapons of mass destruction?

Democrats who fell for the lies, feel shame, they feel duped.

Could this be why President Obama won the election, and why Hilary lost the election?

Will that vote for the Iraq war be held against them forever? It has been brought up more than once in Hillary's 2016 Presidential campaign by her opponents.

Senator Ted Kenned said, it is wrong to go to war before alternatives are exhausted and Senator Robert Byrd, then said I urge all senators to go look at the Vietnam War memorial.

Republicans are digging in their heels and sticking by their lies

How will this ever get right, when the Republicans say it was about liberating the Iraqi people?

It has been 10 years and Republicans don't think the lies matter. And the children who were 10 at that time, and are now 20, how do we teach them that the Iraq war was wrong, especially the Republican children, whose parents are telling them that the democrats are lying. Will they watch the tapes and learn the truth?

Or will they believe the propaganda still being spewed.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, U.S. Army (Ret.) (R): "Others in the party are trying desperately to defend the decision because they see it as impacting their future possibilities of particularly regaining the White House. And still others just don`t want to listen. They`re sort of like that crew that you were describing in your opening remarks that won`t believe the truth even if it hits them in the face. And, incidentally, I was using the LBJ revelations in my seminar today to demonstrate to my students some of the nefarious and venal things that happen at the highest levels of power in this country."

Donald Rumsfelt and The GOP Cult

The American people need to get angry!

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, U.S. Army (Ret.) a guest on the Rachel Maddow show stated: "The American people need to get angry. They need to get as angry as these people were. They need to do things. They need to write their senators, write their representatives, call them. Do whatever they can do within their capacity. Some have a greater capacity than others."

I would like to ask Col. Wilkerson, how do I write to my 'RED' state representative who does not represent anyone who is not Republican, and I am not even sure about that.

Q. Are we ready for the 2014 elections and 2016 Presidential race?

Q. If the Tea Party/Republican/Conservative wins, will he/she make the case for war with IRAN? And is the ground work already being laid?

Update! Making the Case to Strike Syria

When GWB wanted to attack Iraq, claiming they had WMDs, all the while knowing they had NONE. And then it was proven they had NONE. GWB made a mockery of the whole Iraq war. Looking behind the drapes in the White House, pretending to be looking for WMDs, and knowing they were not there.

Is that having an impact on the U.S. Congress's indecision in regards to the Syrian Assad regime's attack on its own people?

Was this a PLAN to provoke the President to strike, so that Syria can say that America has declared war on them?

I just heard Rep. Janice Hahn (D) say that there are alternatives for the President to make, but could not think of one.


Sources: The Rachel Maddow Shows - Documentary

Hubris: Selling the Iraq War (the Book) by Michael Isikoff and David Corn

Thank you Michael, David and Rachel.

© 2013 Shyron E Shenko


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 20 months ago from Texas

      Brad, you say it takes two to gridlock and I should not blame only the Republicans. I am guessing that you did not hear Mitch McConnell say their (the republican’s) only goal was to make President Obama a one term President.

      I guess you did not hear Paul Ryan said that they would overturn everything the President Obama did. How many times did they (the Republicans) try to overturn the Affordable Care Act? 52 times?

      Why, when Osama bin Laden was trapped at Tora Bora, did GWB have him released? Salem, brother of Osama and GWB were good friends.

      WWI: World War I (1914-1919). On 4 November 1918, the Austro-Hungarian empire agreed to an armistice, and Germany, agreed to an armistice on 11 November 1918, ending the war in victory for the Allies.

      WWII: 1939-1945, The Allies - Britain, France, the U.S, the Soviet Union, China, Canada, Australia and others were the winners of World War 2. By 1945 Germany and Japan had suffered a devastating defeat. Both my father and step father were in this war.

      Vietnam War:

      When the North Vietnamese fired directly upon two U.S. ships in international waters on August 2 and 4, 1964 (known as the Gulf of Tonkin Incident), Congress responded with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. This resolution gave the President the authority to escalate U.S. involvement in Vietnam. President Lyndon Johnson used that authority to order the first U.S. ground troops to Vietnam in March 1965.

      President Nixon expanded the war into other countries, such as Laos and Cambodia.

      When the U.S. had withdrawn most of its troops from Vietnam, the North Vietnamese staged another massive assault, called the Easter Offensive (also called the Spring Offensive), on March 30, 1972.

      North Vietnamese troops crossed over the demilitarized zone (DMZ) at the 17th parallel and invaded South Vietnam. The remaining U.S. forces and the South Vietnamese army fought back. (One of my brothers was injured at the DMZ, the other was injured in Kamran Bay)

      On January 27, 1973, the peace talks in Paris finally succeeded in producing a cease-fire agreement. NOT RICHARD NIXON.

      Wikipedia does call the fighting in Vietnam a war.

      Iraq War:

      President Bush would have liked to do something about Iraq earlier in his term, but he was distracted by the events of 9/11, and the subsequent invasion of Afghanistan. as soon as events allowed, he returned his attention to Iraq.

      The George W. Bush administration made a number of allegations against Iraq, including that Iraq was acquiring uranium from Nigeria and that Iraq had secret weapons laboratories in trailers and isolated facilities throughout Iraq. No WMDs found!!!

      You say we need our country to be Purple, I disagree. We need two parties to keep one party for dominating all the citizens. Have you have heard the old saying about Total Power corrupts Totally?

      Have a good weekend.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 20 months ago from Orange County California


      What isn't a fact in my comment?

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 20 months ago from Texas

      Thank you brad for your comments albeit your opinion not facts.

      I wish you well

      Have a blessed day

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 20 months ago from Orange County California


      Obama has had 7 years, for something that happened in the four years of GWB. LBJ escalated and lost Vietnam, Nixon got us out losing the war formally.

      Did we blame LBJ?

      The US hasn't won a war since 1898, why should Iraq be any different.

      Senator Obama took the job of presidency knowing the conditions in the Middle East, and yet he failed to make a difference. Now, ISIS exists because he withdrew the troops from Iraq, and Syria wasn't on the Bush playing field.

      As for congress, it takes two to gridlock, and it is only your opinion that blames the republicans. I think both parties are to blame, and especially their loyal party voters who allow them to continue the gridlock term after term.

      Looking at US history you will see that neither party has had the solutions to our problems, but both parties have caused problems.

      As for proving WMD, it is a lot like proving God. In any case, the congress of the US made a decision to go to war. It doesn't matter who failed the people, we don't have two teams in congress, when congress makes a mistake, the team loses.

      We need a country that sees Purple and not just Blue and Red. Until we can see purple, we will continue to see the US decline. Loyal party voting is not intelligent voting as verified by the results in US history.

      Both parties go up and down like they are on a political seesaw, and seesaws don't move forward, and neither is the US.

      The Federal Income Tax supported for the last 100 years by both parties has been the source of the disparity in wealth, and the decline of the middle class, as well as the rise of the lower class.

      Neither party reigned in the financial industry that took down the economy, or the super global conglomerates that have taken their work overseas to avoid US taxes. Our imports are far greater than our exports. The financial industry and large corporations that have merger, and acquired their competition run the government. They can do this because they are bigger than the US government, and this was verified when US failed to take control of the failed companies. Instead, the executives in the failed companies were using bailout money to give themselves 7 figure bonuses.

      Neither party, and both parties together have failed to protect the people from these giants.

      The search for the guilty is not going to solve the problems of the country, and until a new political paradigm is created, we can't expect any positive change in the country.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 20 months ago from Texas

      Brad, thanks for the comment. You say ISIS couldn't have happened without Obama. ISIS happened because of GWB and his illegitimate war with Iraq.

      Syria: I suggest you look up the "list of wars with Syria.

      Gridlock is not a job, you say. Tell me why the Republicans are making a career out of gridlock.

      What wars has America won you ask? WWI, WWII, Korean, Vietnam, the Gulf War.

      I don't know where you have been for the last 20 years, but when GWB started the war in Iraq and our current President is still trying to get us out of it.

      I don't understand how you can blame our current President. I hope you will look up the date the war in Iraq started.

      Have a good day.

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 20 months ago from Orange County California

      Obama has been president for 7 years plus, and Syria became a problem during his time in office. ISIS couldn't have happened without Obama. Neither Bush, old and younger, or Obama were good presidents.

      Blame the democrats and the republicans and their loyal voters for not doing their job. Gridlock is not a job, and neither is a president doing the work of the congress.

      We haven't won a war since 1898.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 20 months ago from Texas

      Au fait, thank you for the comment, compliment and sharing this. Yes I am sick of the wars and rumors of wars and the saber rattling of the ones who are itching to go, I mean send our military to war without regard for the consequences. All the ones that wanted to go to war did not care with who. I think the next batch of yahoos who are wanting to go to war need to lead the charge into battle.

      I hope you are staying warm.

      Many Blessings and hugs to you dear friend.


    • Au fait profile image

      C E Clark 20 months ago from North Texas

      Very interesting. I don't know about you, but I'm sick of all the wars we're involved in. I wish they would bring all of our people home right this minute and assist the ones who need help to become productive members of society. I don't believe having wars elsewhere prevents those wars from coming here. We have been, and continue to be targets for terrorism and there are currently people in this country who do not have the best interests of this country at heart, so in effect, the war is already here.

      Sharing this of course.

      Hope you were able to enjoy this pretty day. To get chilly again tonight and remain so at least at night for the next 10 days. Blessings and hugs to you and John. Take care . . .

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 2 years ago from Texas

      Mike (peoplepower) Thank you for the history lesson, and the comments, I really do appreciate you.

      Blessings dear friend.

    • peoplepower73 profile image

      Mike Russo 2 years ago from Placentia California

      Shyron: Even though Bashar Al Assad is President of Syria, he is a Shia Alawite. He is in the minority with the majority of his people being Sunni, including ISIS and some of the Kurds In this sense, he is just like Saddam. He has to rule with an iron fist, in order to keep his people in line. But it is the opposite of Iraq. The Sunni are the minority and the Shia are the majority. Currently, Turkey is attacking ISIS in Syria with F16's. However, they are attacking the PKK Kurds also who are our allies that fight against ISIS. The PKK and Turkey have been long time enemies. Talk about a "Soup Sandwich." This is just another reason we should stay the hell out of the mid-east. This is so convoluted!

      Thanks for the update.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 2 years ago from Texas

      Au fait, thank you for the comments and for sharing this.

      I personally do not believe that ISIS would exist if GWB had not invaded Iraq.

      At one point the temperature was 106 degrees F. Sure was miserable.

      Take Care and Blessings and hugs to you my dear friend.

    • Au fait profile image

      C E Clark 2 years ago from North Texas

      Don't suppose the war with ISIS will ever be over, but there shouldn't be any war with Iran with the new agreement in force. Wonder what the world would have been like now if we had never needlessly invaded Iraq?

      Sharing again.

      98 degees and rising for another 3 hours here. Hope you're inside where it's cool. Take care of yourself. If you're not well what difference does anything else make? Blessings . . .

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 2 years ago from Texas

      The sheer scale of this cover-up makes almost laughable the forensic cross-examination of the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan about "anomalies" in the notes of his interview with David Kelly - when the story Gilligan told of government hypocrisy and deception was basically true.

      Those pontificating about Gilligan failed to ask one vital question - why has Lord Hutton not recalled Tony Blair for cross-examination? Why is Blair not being asked why British sovereignty has been handed over to a gang in Washington whose extremism is no longer doubted by even the most conservative observers? No one knows the Bush extremists better than Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA officer and personal friend of George Bush senior, the President's father. In Breaking The Silence, he tells me: "They were referred to in the circles in which I moved when I was briefing at the top policy levels as 'the crazies'."

      "Who referred to them as 'the crazies'?" I asked.

      "All of us... in policy circles as well as intelligence circles... There is plenty of documented evidence that they have been planning these attacks for a long time and that 9/11 accelerated their plan. (The weapons of mass destruction issue) was all contrived, so was the connection of Iraq with al Qaeda. It was all PR... Josef Goebbels had this dictum: If you say something often enough, the people will believe it." He added: "I think we ought to be all worried about fascism (in the United States)."

      The "crazies" include John Bolton, Under Secretary of State, who has made a personal mission of tearing up missile treaties with the Russians and threatening North Korea, and Douglas Fieth, an Under Secretary of Defense, who ran a secret propaganda unit "reworking" intelligence about Iraq's weapons. I interviewed them both in Washington.

      BOLTON boasted to me that the killing of as many as 10,000 Iraqi civilians in the invasion was "quite low if you look at the size of the military operation."

      For raising the question of civilian casualties and asking which country America might attack next, I was told: "You must be a member of the Communist Party."

      Over at the Pentagon, Feith, No 3 to Rumsfeld, spoke about the "precision" of American weapons and denied that many civilians had been killed. When I pressed him, an army colonel ordered my cameraman: "Stop the tape!" In Washington, the wholesale deaths of Iraqis is unmentionable. They are non-people; the more they resist the Anglo-American occupation, the more they are dismissed as "terrorists".

      It is this slaughter in Iraq, a crime by any interpretation of an international law, that makes the Hutton inquiry absurd. While his lordship and the barristers play their semantic games, the specter of thousands of dead human beings is never mentioned, and witnesses to this great crime are not called.

      Jo Wilding, a young law graduate, is one such witness. She was one of a group of human rights observers in Baghdad during the bombing. She and the others lived with Iraqi families as the missiles and cluster bombs exploded around them. Where possible, they would follow the explosions to scenes of civilian casualties and trace the victims to hospitals and mortuaries, interviewing the eyewitnesses and doctors. She kept meticulous notes.

      She saw children cut to pieces by shrapnel and screaming because there were no anaesthetics or painkillers. She saw Fatima, a mother stained with the blood of her eight children. She saw streets, mosques and farmhouses bombed by marauding aircraft. "Nothing could explain them," she told me, "other than that it was a deliberate attack on civilians."

      As these atrocities were carried out in our name, why are we not hearing such crucial evidence? And why is Blair allowed to make yet more self-serving speeches, and none of them from the dock?

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 2 years ago from Texas

      Peoplepower73, for the forum you are welcome. Thanks for the comments.

      However, Colin Powell said Iraq was not a threat 22 September 2003

      Writing in the Daily Mirror, John Pilger reveals that both US Secretary of State Colin Powell and Bush's closest adviser Condoleezza Rice said, in 2001, that Saddam Hussein was effectively disarmed and no threat - putting the lie to their own propaganda.

      Exactly one year ago, Tony Blair told Parliament: "Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program is active, detailed and growing.

      "The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction program is not shut down. It is up and running now."

      Not only was every word of this false, it was part of a big lie invented in Washington within hours of the attacks of September 11 2001 and used to hoodwink the American public and distract the media from the real reason for attacking Iraq. "It was 95 per cent charade," a former senior CIA analyst told me.

      An investigation of files and archive film for my TV documentary Breaking The Silence, together with interviews with former intelligence officers and senior Bush officials have revealed that Bush and Blair knew all along that Saddam Hussein was effectively disarmed.

      Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

      In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

      This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

      Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

      Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenseless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

    • peoplepower73 profile image

      Mike Russo 2 years ago from Placentia California

      Shyron: Douglass Fieth and Paul Wolfowitz were Neocons who were supporting Israel. In Persian Gulf 1, Bush 1 liberated Kuwait from Saddam's troops. Saddam retaliated by firing Scud missiles into Israel. When they talked about him being a threat to his neighbors, that's what they were talking about. Yes, he also gassed the Kurds. When Cheney who was the Secretary of Defense was asked, why didn't you take out Saddam, he said "if we did that, there would be pieces of Sunni, Shia, and Kurds flying off all over the place. Saddam is a Sunni weakened germ that keeps everybody in their place."

      So the Necons who supported Israel were looking for an excuse to take Saddam out when along comes an exiled Shia named Achmed Chalabi. He produces phony documents to show to the Bush 2 administration to prove that Saddam had WMDs. He received these documents from a source, code named Curve Ball and sold them hook line and sinker to Wolfowitz, Fieth and the Bush administration. The documents even included drawings of mobile chemical weapons. Colin Powell then sold the phony documents to the U.N. by presenting a set of Power Point drawings.

      So Chalabi''s motive was to come back to Iraq as the new prime minister, but he fell out of favor with the Bush administration and came back as the minister of the interior. The rest is history. Thanks for giving me this forum. Everything that I have stated can be verified.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 2 years ago from Texas

      Mike (peoplepower), I apologize for taking so long to reply to your comment. Thank you for the comments. I appreciate the history lesson, however I was referring to the GOPs people who would goad any democratic president into a war with any country just so they can say "see, see, Obama (or whoever the democratic president might be) did it too" to justify "W's" attack on Iraq.

      Have a Blessed Memorial Day.

    • peoplepower73 profile image

      Mike Russo 2 years ago from Placentia California

      Shyron: In reference to your update: We use middle east country names as uniforms, as if the Muslims living in those countries have an allegiance to the country they live in. However, the reality is Muslims are divided into three main sects: Sunni, Shia, and Kurds. And members of each of those religions have more allegiance to their form of religion than to their countries. Syria has a Shia Alawhite dictator as its president. His religion is in the minority of Syria. The majority is Sunni. It turns out ISIS is made up of Sunni's. We are currently in negotiations with Iran for a nuclear deal. (Thanks to Israel). If Obama attacks Syria, it will upset Iran. If he attacks, the Sunni's it will upset Saudi Arabia which is made up of a Sunni Majority. Don't forget they buy tons of arms from us. So there you have it. We are between a rock and hard place. I believe Obama's strategy is let them fight it out and may the best religious faction win, but he doesn't say he is looked upon as being weak, and the republicans are trying to capitalize on that.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 2 years ago from Texas

      Au fait, thank you for the comment and sharing. You know what they say? Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, fool me three times makes me an idiot.

      John is happy as a clam with the heat. I hope you are not to hot.

      Blessings and hugs

    • Au fait profile image

      C E Clark 2 years ago from North Texas

      Jeb Bush said he would invade Iraq all over again even knowing what he knows now. What can you expect with his big brother for his advisor?

      Sharing again.

      Hope you're managing to stay cool. Doesn't cool off much at night. Blessings.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 2 years ago from Texas

      Brad, were you born after the war in Vietnam, a war that both my brothers fought in and both wounded, so I know about Vietnam.

      You say you are NOT loyal to any party. You are wrong, that the parties are the cause of the decline. The root cause of the decline in OUR country is the men/women who worship their money gods, (the men who buy the members of the parties),

      I am loyal to my family, my friends and my country. If I were to find out that a Republican were running for the people of this country and working for the people of this country, I would vote for that person.

      After Congress repealed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in January 1971 and President Richard Nixon continued to wage war in Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution (Pub.L. 93–148) over the veto of Nixon in an attempt to rein in some of the president's claimed powers. BTW Richard Nixon was a Republican.

      I thought you said in one of your comments on a different hub, that you are a history buff???

      Were you in the Military?

      President Clinton did not believe in war.

      President Obama was born 8-4-1961 after the war in Vietnam started and he was 14 years old when it ended.

      President Georg Herbert Walker Bush had did away with the draft, so that Jeb Bush would not get drafted, before President Obama was old enough to get caught in it.

      George W. Bush - When he was drafted, his father pulled strings to get out of the line of fire in Vietnam by buying him a place in the Air National Guard and then the patriotic SOB (son of a Bush) went AWOL. You didn't know that? BTW GWB is a Republican.

      Are you sure you are a history buff?

      I will continue as I have always done, to vote for each of the candidates that I think will do the job they are running to do. If they happen to be liberal, then so-be-it. I will not try to dissuade you from voting for the GOP. BTW I think Jeb Bush is more liberal than conservative, but still will not vote for him because of who he is.

      Thank you for the comment!!

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 2 years ago from Texas

      Au fait, thank you for the comment and sharing.

      Yes, if you lie by bragging, you could lose your job, but if you lie and cause death and destruction you get your own TV show (Oliver North) and that was after he was convicted on selling arms to the enemy, and his party (Republican) got together and got the conviction over turned.

      Blessings and hugs dear friend.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 2 years ago from Texas

      Jim Traveler, thank you for the comment, I do appreciate your comment. I hope we don't have more war.

      Blessings and Hugs.

      Stay safe

    • bradmasterOCcal profile image

      bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago from Orange County California

      This hub appears to have no valid points, other than GWB bashing, and blaming the republicans for everything. I am not loyal to any party, and I think that both parties are the root cause of why the US is in a slow but continual decline.

      As far as your comment about GWB, at least he went into the military, unlike Clinton, and Obama.

      We haven't had congress declare a war since WWII.

      In both Vietnam and Iraq congress failed to spend the necessary money to support the troops. And in both wars, the liberals of all kinds were the ones not being patriotic.

      We haven't won a war since the Revolutionary War, winning military battles, as we have seen in both Iraq and Afghanistan is not winning the war. We lost Vietnam, thanks to the American people, and a weak congress. We didn't even win WWII, we gave away Eastern Europe to Russia, who had taken it from the Allies , who had taken it from Germany. This resulted in the Cold War, and now decades after the collapse of the USSR, we are back against Russia.

      North Korea is still active because we lost the Korean War.

      The root cause of all of these losses is the weak congresses, due to the conflicts between the democrats and republicans who can't find a common ground.

      ISIS and ISIL are another example of how the US takes military victories and loses when the politicians and the liberals get weak. Congress, both the democrat and republican have failed the country for the last one hundred years. Congress only moved the country from left to right and back and forth over that time period, at the expense of moving the country forward.

      The loyal party voter is also guilty of letting the parties have their own agenda, one that has not benefited the country.

    • Jim Traveler profile image

      Jim Luca 2 years ago

      We are all looking towards Ukraine and the meeting at Minsk. If diplomacy fails Russia is ready for war and that is not good at all. We are going back to the 60s.

    • Au fait profile image

      C E Clark 2 years ago from North Texas

      Seems like Brian Williams is the only guy who's ever going to be taken to task over this Iraq War, and while what he did isn't right, others have done far worse things seemingly with immunity.


      Hope all's well there. Blessings and hugs to you and John, take care . .

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 3 years ago from Texas

      Au fait, yes, we have been listening/watching the news. I just wish everyone would watch the news and know what is going on.

      Thank you for the comment pin and shareing.

      Blessing and hugs always my dear friend.

    • Au fait profile image

      C E Clark 3 years ago from North Texas

      So far as I know they're still doing airstrikes with the help of other countries who have come together with the U.S. to form a coalition. So other countries are going to be doing airstrikes too, if they haven't already started.

      Pinned to AH and shared with followers!

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 3 years ago from Texas

      wrenchBiscuit, thank you for your words of wisdon. How can we not bring up the past? The past is what got us to the present, the why and how is what we need to remember, so we don't keep doing the same things over and over again.

      You know a lot about our history. I am so glad that Au fait told me about you.

      I believe in the teachings of Jesus, but never thought of his teachings as art until you mentioned it, now that adds a new dimension to my thoughts.

      Following Jesus as a whole body of people. I agree with you on that too. But, greed and the love of money would not permit that.

      Thank you, for your comments. I very much appreciate you.

      Bless you


    • wrenchBiscuit profile image

      Ronnie wrenchBiscuit 3 years ago

      Great Hub!

      I wasn't aware of the 32,000 amputees. In 1866, one-fifth of Mississippi's state budget was used to purchase artificial limbs. People often complain when I bring up the past. But the past is a teacher that we need to listen to. As I have said in other post's, here in the material world, when it comes to whether Jesus was real or not, I don't see that point as the most significant issue.

      What I find most significant is that the teachings of Jesus are a work of art, and as a whole his teachings provide us with an effective moral technology. There are many great philosophers with great ideas, but I focus on Jesus because his teachings are so well known, yet the majority have never followed what amounts to some very good advice; a teaching that could save a lot of lives, limbs, and heartache. John Lennon in a lot of ways captured the spirit of Jesus, but not many pay attention to him either.

      Love, and all that love entails would destroy the military industrial complex, the ruling elite, capitalism, the poverty that it creates, and all of the chains that have bound us to this wheel. We have never truly as a collective whole tried Jesus, to see if Jesus would really work. Even a majority of Christians have never truly followed Jesus. If they had, the historical record would look quite different. We have tried voting, and violence, and violence and voting , over and over again, so we can be certain that these things will never work. Why not try Jesus? What do we have to lose? That is the most important question.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Thank you DDE, for you comment.

      Yes there is lots of corruption, and people doing things and saying someone else did it.

      Thank you for the compliment, appreciate you.


    • DDE profile image

      Devika Primić 4 years ago from Dubrovnik, Croatia

      The Case for the War in Iraq - Will it Work With Iran? Update! Making the Case to Strike Syria an interesting thought here and so corrupt of all this killing and blaming others but I fail to understand this whole situation too complicated. However, you have written an informative hub and one of much debate.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Thank you Aunt Jimi for the comment and sharing. I really appreciate you.

    • Aunt Jimi profile image

      Aunt Jimi 4 years ago from The reddest of the Red states!

      Bush admitted there weren't any WMDs. It was a farce war that cost millions of tax dollars, adding to the debt, and it cost thousands of lives, helping to lower the population. Republicans love war because war equals death. Sharing.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      @Mike, yes, but it was after the invasion of Iraq and just as relevant if not more so, as your post of who believed that Iraq had WMDs, and more relevant as who knew they didn't.

    • profile image

      Mike 4 years ago


      That was 1 1/2 years after the invasion.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas


      October 8th, 2004 The San Diego Union-Tribune:

      WASHINGTON – President Bush and his vice president conceded yesterday in the clearest terms yet that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, trying to shift the Iraq war debate to a new issue – whether the invasion was justified because Hussein was abusing a U.N. oil-for-food program.

      Bush's response was his first reaction to a report released Wednesday by Charles Duelfer, the CIA's top weapons inspector, that contradicted the White House's main argument for invading Iraq.

      Still not good enough for you??? President Bush Admits Iraq Had No WMDs and 'Nothing' to Do With 9/11

      by Democracy Now (reposted)

      Tuesday Aug 22nd, 2006 9:54 AM‎‎

      Iraq nothing to do with 9/11

      Former US President George W Bush still has "a sickening feeling" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, US media report.‎

    • profile image

      Mike 4 years ago

      weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002

      “(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

      “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” — Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

      “Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” — Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

      “Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 – 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.” — Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

      “As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

      “Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.” — Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

      “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

      “Saddam�s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

      “Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration�s policy towards Iraq, I don�t think there can be any question about Saddam�s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.” — Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

    • profile image

      Mike 4 years ago


      If your theories are true, where is all the money that we made off of Iraq's oil reserves? All that war did was put us further in debt and wear out our military equipment.

      As for who believed Iraq had WMDs:

      “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

      “This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

      “Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

      “Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998

      “(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

      “Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

      “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Robert Byrd, October 2002

      “There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

      “What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

      “The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998

      “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

      “I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

      “Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” — Tom Daschle in 1998

      “Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

      “The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

      “I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

      “Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002

      “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Bob Graham, December 2002

      “Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” — Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

      “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

      “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

      “I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

      “The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Rajan, I thought that I and a few friends were/are the only ones who believe that, I am glad to know that you one.

      Thank you for that Rajan.

    • rajan jolly profile image

      Rajan Singh Jolly 4 years ago from From Mumbai, presently in Jalandhar,INDIA.

      Politics is a dirty game, the world over and I firmly believe the war on iraq was for gaining control of the huge oil reserves of that country. Bush deserves to be tried for treason as well as killing of so many innocent people.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Thank you Jaye, I believe just as you do. I really appreciate your reading and commenting on this. But really understand all this bush evil, you would need to read the Unauthorized Bio of George H.W. Bush. The author of the book Webster Tarpley gives an interview.

    • JayeWisdom profile image

      Jaye Denman 4 years ago from Deep South, USA

      I will always believe that George W. Bush was totally inadequate to be president, and Dick Cheney (not Karl Rove) was the real "power" in the Oval Office. He was the most powerful American vice president ever to hold that position, and Georgie was too easily led by him.

      Dubya wanted the Iraq war for two reasons--(1) to get back at Saddam Hussein for being a threat to his daddy, Geo. Herbert Bush, and (2) because his greed for oil allowed him to believe invading Iraq would give the U.S. control of Iraqi oil--and we know how the potential for oil riches affect the Bushes' brains.

      Hawk Cheney, however, wanted a war to pull Halliburton back from the brink of bankruptcy. At the time the war of aggression in Iraq began via claims spun from air about WMDs, Cheney's Halliburton options were only worth about $250,000. I've read that his influence with the Pentagon (ordering no-bid deals for war contractors, of which Halliburton and its subsidiaries were in the top ranks) allowed him to sell his stock options for more than $8,000,000.

      If anyone should deserves to be tried as war criminals with one count of murder for every soldier and civilian killed in Iraq, it is Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. That is obviously not going to happen. All those lives thrown away for nothing, and the perpetrators get away with their crimes. Now Dubya is busily trying to re-write history to salvage his presidential "legacy", while Cheney is so arrogant he doesn't give a damn what anyone thinks of him.

      Add "war profiteer" to the charge of "war criminal." I wouldn't be surprised if all that money Halliburton conveniently "lost" in Iraq is sitting in Cheney's offshore bank account.

      Voted Up++


    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Thank you Aunt Jimi, you are so right. Do you think the Republicans will ever wake up and smell the coffee?

    • Aunt Jimi profile image

      Aunt Jimi 4 years ago from The reddest of the Red states!

      Excellent hub and the reason our stock market crashed. This war was a luxury we couldn't afford and it makes up a big part of the national debt.

      You can bet if Dubya had had to spend his own money to finance this war in order to get even with Sadam for putting a hit on his daddy's head AND in order to steal the Iraqi oil it would have been a lot shorter war, and Dubya might have decided against it all together.

      Look at all the people who died because of this war! And for nothing. And we're still paying for it and our grandchildren will be paying for it. Republicans don't mind putting a nice bloody war on the credit card, but helping a single mother feed her kids or help someone who needs it get medical care? Not on your life! They scream bloody murder as if you were amputating something dear from their body instead of just a few pennies.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Thank you Aunt Jimi, you are right, I just saw a sign on fb that says: Do you know the difference between Iraq and Vietnam? The PUNCH line is, Bush knew how to get out of Vietnam.

      I don't think that many people know how his daddy got him out of the Vietnam war and into the Air National Guard which he deserted. Funny if he were not a rich man's son. Desertion during time of war is Treason.

    • Aunt Jimi profile image

      Aunt Jimi 4 years ago from The reddest of the Red states!

      I'm told one can't stop being an alcoholic until they recognize and admit they have a drinking problem. It's true with any problem a person may have -- the first step is recognizing and admitting it's a problem. Nothing gets fixed until the fact that it's broken is recognized.

      Republicans need to realize that they're being lied to by their Party and by that Party's leadership. But no matter how many lies Republicans tell, the rank and file just keep eating them up and begging for more.

      I repeat, isn't it the Republicans who keep saying you can't fix stupid? That's about the only thing they've got right. Now if they would just look in the mirror and discover what they're talking about!

      Excellent hub that brings out the truth that some people still can't face.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Thank you Au fait for your comment.

    • Au fait profile image

      C E Clark 4 years ago from North Texas

      An interesting hub.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Thank you Aunt Jimi. You are right on, but you missed the gerrymanderer, Tom Delay found guilty and still has not served any jail time.

    • Aunt Jimi profile image

      Aunt Jimi 4 years ago from The reddest of the Red states!

      George W. Bush himself admitted years ago already that there were no WMDs, so it's just a matter of the little people who can't bring themselves to admit they were duped, taken, flim-flammed.

      If they'd just stop supporting Republican con men most of them could wash the egg off their faces for good! They're like a dog I used to have that wouldn't stop trying to make friends with a skunk. Skunk didn't want to play or be friends and every time the dog even suggested getting closer the skunk would spray him again. If the skunk hadn't finally gotten away and the dog didn't know where he went, I expect that skunk would still be spraying the dog cuz he just refused to get the message.

      Republicans are the same way. No matter how many elected Republicans are outed for being crooks (Nixon) and liars (Bachmann and Company) and idiots (G.W. Bush), Republicans just keep going back for more and they they're so humiliated that they can't bring themselves to admit they were taken. But I guess they like it because they just keep going back for more.

      Aren't the Republicans the ones who keep saying you can't fix stupid?

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      I would Carlos if I believed he were. But I believe Kim Jong Un is just Korea's George W. Bush.

    • profile image

      Carlos 4 years ago

      Possibly, are you going to find a way to blame the current Korean problem on George Bush also?

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Thank you for stopping by Carlos. I am thinking we will be busy with Kim Jong Un.

    • profile image

      Carlos 4 years ago

      What are you going to say if Iraqi chemical weapons are found in Syria or the Bekaa Valley? Are you going to claim they were planted there by George Bush?

      Also, do you really think Iran will be in the same place 4 years from now? Little Barry is going to have to take care of the problem by then or provide substantial aid to the Israelis as they take care of it. The point of no return on Iranian nuke development is forecasted for this Summer.

    • Shyron E Shenko profile image

      Shyron E Shenko 4 years ago from Texas

      Au fait, Aunt Jimi and Sooner 28 Thank you for reading and commenting on my hub, sorry it took so long to get back. I had to make some corrections to this hub.

    • profile image

      Sooner28 4 years ago

      It's all about the oil and the influence. Isn't it amusing how conservatives always distrust government, but when it came to Bush and Iraq, most of them questioned nothing?

    • Aunt Jimi profile image

      Aunt Jimi 4 years ago from The reddest of the Red states!

      Excellent hub! Too bad the media won't go after this like they did Watergate. It's worse. Thousands of people died as a result and several thousand of them were Americans. All so Dubya could play war games.

      Voted up and all the rest except funny. Gonna share this one!

    • Au fait profile image

      C E Clark 4 years ago from North Texas

      It has been known for years that there never were any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Even Bush himself admitted it, but die-hard Republicans, the rank and file, can't bring themselves to accept that no matter who says it. If they do it will mean they were duped and who wants to admit they were duped?