So Eyesys ...

[Links2k]

Because Bush and Cheney pulled the wool over everyone's eyes, and if they couldn't do that they strong-armed them; and the kicker was they did both to Colin Powell, whose UN testimony tipped the balance on The Hill. His whole report was a shameful exercise in hurriedly-compiled and revised half truths at best and outright lies at worst. He at the least strongly suspected it was bogus at the time, knew it was afterwards, and has recanted it since;  and is the reason his political career ended. 
 
- OS

Wasn't Powell the person who warned them that if they break it (Iraq) they would own it? Seems that those words have come to fruition.

[Wingshooter]

I didn't feel this way when he was on the way out, but I would take him back in a heartbeat right now.

Personally, I wished we had him back on day one of O's regime. A lot of people love to hate Bush, but i don't think he wanted to "fundamentally transform" the USA into O's spread the wealth campaign. Bush did things I didn't agree with, but i don't think he and Obama are even in the same league.

[Sam1]

What terrorist need is more fashion ; more Columbian Neckties !

They do it better in Africa, with tires and gas

[Fourtyfive]

They do it better in Africa, with tires and gas

.

Seen that , not a slow enough retaliation , I want more , I don't want to explain what I want , it's too gory for this thread. Even a slow death is too good for the killers. Edited September 4, 2014 by Fourtyfive

[Links2k]

Personally, I wished we had him back on day one of O's regime. A lot of people love to hate Bush, but i don't think he wanted to "fundamentally transform" the USA into O's spread the wealth campaign. Bush did things I didn't agree with, but i don't think he and Obama are even in the same league.

I think that some give Obama too much credit. He's screwed things up simply because he is stupid, not because he's a criminal mastermind. Soon he will be on the rubber chicken circuit making millions without a clue about horrible a job that he's done.

[vontar]

[Ugly]

I think that some give Obama too much credit. He's screwed things up simply because he is stupid, not because he's a criminal mastermind. Soon he will be on the rubber chicken circuit making millions without a clue about horrible a job that he's done.

Haven't you heard of the cloward piven strategy? He's a heartless follower who believes the ends justifies the means. And coincidently he's Muslim. It's not just incompetence.

I think I understand why the hive isn't used more.

[Dustbuster]

Not only did Bush give us O, he gave us ISIS. If we hadn't taken Saddam out in 03, the entire region wouldn't have been destabilized and ISIS wouldn't exist.

The old man was tough and his kids were turds but yes +10

[TMF]

Because Bush and Cheney pulled the wool over everyone's eyes, and if they couldn't do that they strong-armed them; and the kicker was they did both to Colin Powell, whose UN testimony tipped the balance on The Hill. His whole report was a shameful exercise in hurriedly-compiled and revised half truths at best and outright lies at worst. He at the least strongly suspected it was bogus at the time, knew it was afterwards, and has recanted it since; and is the reason his political career ended.

- OS

Sounds like a lot of assumptions which have been made. Bush didn't generate intelligence. If the administration gets intelligence reports which are bad, yet presented as good, they can only make choices based on that.

For as much as Bush has been made out to be an idiot, for him to accomplish this massive operation and manipulate the whole of the intelligence community is either unlikely, or Bush is the smartest guy ever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[btq96r]

Now, while we fault Bush for Iraq, let's not forget that he had the support of Congress and a majority of Americans at the time he invaded.

 

President Bush took almost unfair advantage of the post 9/11 patriotic fervor.  Voting against another Iraq war was a non-starter for any politician or else they would be demonized as soft on terror.  It wasn't a fluke that the vote took place in October 2002, the month before that years mid-term elections.  They knew that election would keep enough votes in their favor. 

 

The truth is that his administration (especially Cheney, Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz) were looking towards Iraq as they were still cleaning rubble in NYC and at the Pentagon.  Every memoir I've read from the Bush administration can attest to that.  They went looking for a fight in Iraq despite having no legitimate reason and got what they wanted.

[R_Bert]

Sadaam proclaimed that he had WMD, UNSCOM and the IAEA beleived him. EMIS units were found, as well as warheads tipped with Sarin gas.

Sadaam brought most of this down on himself by overstating his then-current capabilities with just enough evidence to get his clock cleaned with good reason.

[Omega]

Sadaam proclaimed that he had WMD, UNSCOM and the IAEA beleived him. EMIS units were found, as well as warheads tipped with Sarin gas.
Sadaam brought most of this down on himself by overstating his then-current capabilities with just enough evidence to get his clock cleaned with good reason.

He had WMD, he used WMD, and refused to allow inspections to confirm he no longer had them. My best guess is that it traveled via highway 1 to Syria days before the invasion. He thumbed his nose at the sanctions by selling oil for "humanitarian" needs and using the money for his own purposes with full knowledge of the UN.
Personally, I liked Bush, but would of went to Iraq even if, gag, Clinton or Obama had sent us in.

[TMF]

President Bush took almost unfair advantage of the post 9/11 patriotic fervor. Voting against another Iraq war was a non-starter for any politician or else they would be demonized as soft on terror. It wasn't a fluke that the vote took place in October 2002, the month before that years mid-term elections. They knew that election would keep enough votes in their favor.

The truth is that his administration (especially Cheney, Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz) were looking towards Iraq as they were still cleaning rubble in NYC and at the Pentagon. Every memoir I've read from the Bush administration can attest to that. They went looking for a fight in Iraq despite having no legitimate reason and got what they wanted.

So you're saying that all other elected leaders, that were not George Bush or Dick Cheney, are not responsible for their own vote? Nope. I don't buy that. Each person had a choice. If they made their choice based on whether or not they could hang on to power rather than right vs wrong, it doesn't matter. In fact, I'd say it's worse.

Bush isn't the only elected person with access to the intel at the time of the invasion. Unless Bush was such a mastermind that he was to manipulate every echelon in the CIA, from source handler to director, as well as all those folks in Congress who read the same reports as he did prior to invasion, I call BS.

What I can't understand is at the same time people are saying Obama isn't solely responsible for our current status in the series of international blunders we've suffered, are also claiming that Bush/Cheney were solely responsible when they had more combined support from Congress, Americans and the international community (in 2003) than Obama has at any point in his presidency.

I'm no mathematician, but I can see that does not add up to what you or the other people here are saying. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Bush is as diabolically genius as Cobra Commander.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Oh Shoot]

Sounds like a lot of assumptions which have been made. Bush didn't generate intelligence.

 

No assumptions at all. The "intelligence" was selectively chosen, credence given to known unreliable sources and more reliable intel ignored. Plenty of credible books and documentaries out there.

 

Hell, even Powell himself, who has played his cards as close to his vest as possible, called his testimony a "blot on his record" and said "It will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now."

 

Bush went into Iraq because he had to "do something big" after 9/11, and also to finish what his Daddy didn't. And sure, Cheney was the brain that made it happen, Dubya only supplied the cowboy erection. And it's largely that basic a psychological fact I think a most of the various books and documentations didn't give enough credence.

 

Though I hate to promote anything NBC, the book Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War by Michael Isikoff, is one pretty decent overview. And even the short documentary that Rachael the Commie and MSNBC made from it. Forget who made it, and judge it on the facts of the reporting:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5FaMbnINwc

 

- OS

Edited September 5, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[TMF]

No assumptions at all. The "intelligence" was selectively chosen, credence given to known unreliable sources and more reliable intel ignored. Plenty of credible books and documentaries out there.

Hell, even Powell himself, who has played his cards as close to his vest as possible, called his testimony a "blot on his record" and said "It will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now."

Bush went into Iraq because he had to "do something big" after 9/11, and also to finish what his Daddy didn't. And sure, Cheney was the brain that made it happen, Dubya only supplied the cowboy erection. And it's largely that basic a psychological fact I think a most of the various books and documentations didn't give enough credence.

Though I hate to promote anything NBC, the book Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War by Michael Isikoff, is one pretty decent overview. And even the short documentary that Rachael the Commie and MSNBC made from it. Forget who made it, and judge it on the facts of the reporting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5FaMbnINwc

- OS

The assumptions I'm referring to would be thinking you absolutely know the intentions of the actors involved. Hell, as much as I despise Obama, I can only speculate as to what his intentions are. Could be that he really hates America or he is just that incompetent that he runs the country based on MTV polls. I don't know.

You throw a lot of emotional stuff in there to suggest that this was nothing more than a Texan erection, avenging (?) Bush Sr., or a master plot to get rich on military contracts. I've heard all that stuff, but it can't be all of them together. Has to be one or the other. Which one is it? And to attribute that near-decade long abortion to the Bush/Cheney omnipotent criminal mastermind team, and ignore the thousands of military, intelligence, diplomatic and elected officials involved in the lead up to such a decision is disingenuous.

I never thought Bush was stupid, but in order to be so intelligent and manipulative to have pulled off what you and others are saying would mean he is the smartest man ever, ever. I don't believe that.

Hindsight is 20/20. I think it is easy to cherry pick certain information while ignoring so much quantifiable and intangible influence which led to the invasion to end up at a predetermined conclusion. There are still folks able to convincingly put together short documentaries on how Pearl Harbor was masterminded by our own government, along with 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination. I'm sure, given enough time, I can develop a compelling argument that the Canadian government is responsible for the downfall of the Detroit economy for the purpose of lowering property value in Windsor in order to scoop it up at a greatly reduced price and turn it into a resort town for government elite. All I have to do is leave out all the parts which are actually responsible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Oh Shoot]

....There are still folks able to convincingly put together short documentaries on how Pearl Harbor was masterminded by our own government, along with 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination...

 

Oh, I didn't link that one doc I linked, or even the book it was based on (though I did read it, and it was even more compelling), as some kind of comprehensive end-all proof or anything, just hits the high points of the whole affair, but I'm convinced that an overall all assessment of all available evidence by all the statements from the folks involved provides overwhelming substantive evidence that if actual facts were used as the basis of decision making in the White House, we'd never have set foot in Iraq. And most certainly Congress would not have funded it -- they were the first en masse dupes.

 

And yes, I do think the root of the thing was Dubya's overwhelming and rather desperate desire to "do something" decisive after 9/11 and our fledgling whack-a-mole involvement in Afghanistan wasn't cutting it for him.  My "testosterone" references are mostly euphemistic, and not meant in a true Freudian way,  but I think they're rather descriptive of his mindset, which was more emotional than rational in selecting a target, actually any target he could be convinced would provide vindication. And yes, I think Daddy's previous involvement with Sadaam reinforced that.

 

And yes yes, I do think Bush is that dumb in that way -- whole shebang could never have happened without Cheney. They called Rowe "Bush's Brain" , but Cheney and his minions took over that role during for this endeavor. And I wouldn't be the least surprised to find that Dubya still doesn't to this day fully grok the degree to which he was not in control of the whole idea, let alone the selling of it.

 

- OS

Edited September 5, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[TMF]

Oh, I didn't link that one doc I linked, or even the book it was based on (though I did read it, and it was even more compelling), as some kind of comprehensive end-all proof or anything, just hits the high points of the whole affair, but I'm convinced that an overall all assessment of all available evidence by all the statements from the folks involved provides overwhelming substantive evidence that if actual facts were used as the basis of decision making in the White House, we'd never have set foot in Iraq. And most certainly Congress would not have funded it -- they were the first en masse dupes.

 

And yes, I do think the root of the thing was Dubya's overwhelming and rather desperate desire to "do something" decisive after 9/11 and our fledgling whack-a-mole involvement in Afghanistan wasn't cutting it for him.  My "testosterone" references are mostly euphemistic, and not meant in a true Freudian way,  but I think they're rather descriptive of his mindset, which was more emotional than rational in selecting a target, actually any target he could be convinced would provide vindication. And yes, I think Daddy's previous involvement with Sadaam reinforced that.

 

And yes yes, I do think Bush is that dumb in that way -- whole shebang could never have happened without Cheney. They called Rowe "Bush's Brain" , but Cheney and his minions took over that role during for this endeavor. And I wouldn't be the least surprised to find that Dubya still doesn't to this day fully grok the degree to which he was not in control of the whole idea, let alone the selling of it.

 

- OS

 

I think where I differ from the majority of folks, to include yourself, is I don't believe the errors were made with ill intent, such as increasing wealth or power.  I realize that is generally the goal of 99% of politicians, but I just don't believe it is the case here.  I believe there were good intentions, good being a relative term, which had a really bad outcome.  I reject the notion that Bush did this out of some kind of daddy related issues though.  I think that is a low blow that folks take because they're sore about having father/son presidents.  I don't like that idea either, which is why I voted for McCain in the primary back then.  He was a war hero, after all.

 

To believe that any action by Dubya against Iraq was motivated by efforts of his father, or the attempt on his father's life by Saddam, does not explain Bill Clinton's military action against Saddam's regime, does it?  Why can Slick Willy do it but not Georgie?  If you recall, Clinton is the one who sent cruise missiles into Saddam's intelligence service headquarters, killing a bunch of the very folks who were masterminding the plot against George Sr.  He specifically did this in retaliation for the failed plan.  In 1998, it was the UK and US (headed by Clinton) who said enough was enough with the stonewalling of UN/IAEA inspectors, right?  They bombed Iraq for days.  There are folks on this very site who were deployed to that region during that mess who were on standby to put boots on Iraqi soil.  I don't see Bush or Cheney's evil, oil grubbing hands on that, do you?

 

So why is it nuts that only four years later we started putting Saddam on notice again?  We hit him in '91, 93, 95 and '98.  Each time with a message from the POTUS to not screw with us and toe the line.  If you ask me, Bush gave more time to start spanking Saddam than his predecessors.  In fact, wasn't there some famous quote that Bill Clinton said to Dubya in 2000 on Clinton's way out the door?  Said something about Saddam is going to give him all kinds of trouble or something?

 

  Just prior to upping the rhetoric on Saddam, the chief inspector who left Iraq in '98 had a lot to say about unaccounted for WMDs.  He later on decided to do a 180, perhaps because he saw how his words were being used, but the damage had been done.  Add to that the Iraqi exiles and defectors who were reporting on Saddam's WMD programs.  Granted, the veracity of these claims should have come into question, because these folks wanted the US to force regime change (and put them in power), but they were paraded across LIBERAL networks such as CNN and PMSNBC, which was enough to convince the American public that Saddam had WMDs and was violating the UN resolution.  I don't think Saddam was doing much for his case considering he was on record as saying he'd never allow inspectors back in.  By the time he decided to soften his tone it was too late; we had troops on the border ready to go.  Any President, even Obama, wouldn't have turned back at that point knowing full well that once the war dogs were back in their kennel, Saddam would go back to what he did best, which is ignore the terms of his surrender in '91.

 

Getting back to what I was saying earlier, regarding good intentions, I suppose that there came a point where there was no turning back for the administration.  A "now or never" time, and I believe the prospect of injecting a democracy into the middle east was attractive.  I remember a bunch of quotes back then regarding how democratic nations don't attack each other and such.  I'll admit, back then I would have felt the same; I believe I did.  The idea that a democracy could take hold and spread throughout the region would be death to radical Islam, and would reduce threat of terrorism and stabilize a region which has a huge impact on the market price of a barrel of oil.  It sounds pretty good, don't it.  Of course, back then we were ignorant of how things actually worked in Iraq, and the possibility of second and third order effects which would end up being the exact opposite of what we wanted.  I don't think anyone saw the insurgency coming until the gloomy predictions regarding the de-Ba'athification and disbandment of Saddam's army started to come true.  At that point it was too late and we had the tiger by the tail. 

 

As far as the intelligence goes, I still refuse to believe that Georgie was able to pull the wool over so many people's eyes all by his lonesome.  There were a lot of folks; really smart folks who had access to the same information who had the ability to influence a decision.  Some of those folks were elected to the seats they held, and now try to wash their hands of blame because they claim that they were just going along with it so they'd not get destroyed in a reelection campaign.  The fact that you, or anyone else, could accept that as a reasonable excuse for authorizing a war in which thousands of Americans were killed is beyond my comprehension.  I'd rather have an idiot say he went to war because he had rose colored intentions than hear a "smart" person say they went to war because they wanted to get reelected, don't you agree?

 

More than most, I have good reason to be emotional about what happened there, and what continues to happen there as I type this.  I spent over three years of my life there.  I lost friends of mine.  I spent a lot of time away from my wonderful wife.  I met a lot of good people there who have met horrible deaths at the hands of ISIS, and even more who have been displaced and are living as refugees, with no hope of ever returning home.  So, I do have good reason to be upset about a few things.  With that, I yet try to be rational.  It is easy to assume there is good and evil, and to simplify another's actions as evil to solidify your opinions.  I don't believe that George Bush is evil.  While I've never met him, I know a lot of folks who have.  I could be wrong, of course, but I won't base my opinion on cherry picked information without considering all the other facts out there. 

 

My opinions on the matter don't fit on a bumper sticker, and anyone who does has not taken the time to critically think on the matter.

[Wingshooter]

I know I sure wish we had W dealing with ISIS right now instead of the "apologizer".

[hipower]

I know I sure wish we had W dealing with ISIS right now instead of the "apologizer".

 

Yes.

[RC3]

This thread is getting good. Im gonna sit back and watch.

[Oh Shoot]

This thread is getting good. Im gonna sit back and watch.

 

Well, historical debates about the Iraq invasion aside, according to the left, ISIS, along with all the other domestic and international problems, all pale in comparison with the killer global warming crisis (or climate change, or maybe just the evil of having a climate at all, whatever).

 

You can expect a renewed effort to blame all the world's problems on this intangible enemy, as it's the perfect way to divert attention from government ineptitude and funnel money to the desired recipients without actually tackling any of the real problems facing real people. And of course, to up the ante on those evil Republicans, who only want to war monger while ensuring our children eat, drink, and breathe poison.

 

Hillary: “the most consequential, urgent, sweeping collection of challenges faced by the nation and the world"

 

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/09/05/hillary-clinton-global-climate-change-the-most-consequential-urgent-sweeping-collection-of-challenges-faced-by-world/

 

Kerry: United States’ has a biblical duty to confront climate change at home and abroad in “Muslim-majority” nations:

 

http://freebeacon.com/issues/kerry-scripture-says-u-s-should-protect-muslim-countries-against-global-warming/

 

and, "The global impact of climate change is “the biggest challenge of all that we face right now,”:

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/kerry-climate-change-biggest-challenge-all-we-face-right-now

 

BHO: "The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their plant-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress."

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/31/michaels-barack-obama-the-king-of-climate-change/

 

etc, etc

 

Watch this come into play as a major campaign effort from the left -- ISIS, unemployment, illegal immigration, monetary crises, corruption, malfeasance, ad nauseam: Meh. It's the environment, stupid!

 

- OS

Edited September 5, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[RC3]

Im just reading all the responses. It was such a funny shift from lets go and fight them, to we should have left saddam in place. I will remain neutral and watch the show. I will say this tho, there are some good points.

[Ugly]

I think it's ridiculous. The dems will be proud we are bickering about crap like this.

Clinton must've been wonderful! That'll put the other one in place, great job all!

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="RC3" post="1186658" timestamp="1409959716"]Im just reading all the responses. It was such a funny shift from lets go and fight them, to we should have left saddam in place. I will remain neutral and watch the show. I will say this tho, there are some good points.[/quote] My position will always be consistent. The question I ask is this, what right do we have to intervene in the internal affairs of another nation?

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="Ugly" post="1186661" timestamp="1409960188"]I think it's ridiculous. The dems will be proud we are bickering about crap like this. Clinton must've been wonderful! That'll put the other one in place, great job all![/quote] "We"? Please elaborate.