Pol - Give props to Bush

[Crapshoot]

He's shown an ability lately to take responsibility for his actions - including the faulty intelligence. I admire that, and it bodes well as to his decision making in the future.


From this article: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/...raq/index.html

Bush also accepted responsibility for invading Iraq based on faulty intelligence.

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq," Bush said. "And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that."

Bush's address at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington follows a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll that indicates fewer Americans are opposed to the U.S.-led war there.

[sachmo71]

Ok, props to him.


EDIT: FUCK THAT POLITICAL SHIT

[chinaski]

oh yea what "props" he deserves for this one! Ive shit myself, i shall finally admit it and continue to sit in my dung. hooray!

[Coffee Warlord]

This will end badly.

[B & B]

Nobody, and I mean, nobody thought you could pull off those shiny, huge-ass buttons and you DID IT.

Hell ya, you did it.


Mad props.

[timmynausea]

It is a huge feat for a man to accept responsibility for his actions. I'd also like to commend the President for no longer tattling. He's really growing up.

[MrBigglesworth]

This is not him taking responsibility. This is him wanting to give the impression of taking responsibility while actually blaming the intelligence community. If a losing head football coach said, "As head coach I am responsible for the gameplan. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by firing my defensive coordinator," he wouldn't be taking responsibility, he would be putting the responsibility at the feet of the DC.

If Bush really is accepting responsibility, is he calling invading Iraq a mistake?

[cartman]

But didn't he just say the other day that if he knew then what he knows now, he still would have invaded Iraq? Does that mean the intelligence didn't factor into his decision to invade? If the intelligence wasn't the main reason, what was?

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by cartman

But didn't he just say the other day that if he knew then what he knows now, he still would have invaded Iraq? Does that mean the intelligence didn't factor into his decision to invade? If the intelligence wasn't the main reason, what was?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

If the intelligence wasn't the main reason, what was?

Common sense.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Common sense.

Then you better sign up for the war in North Korea... and Iran... and every South American country with a dictator...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Then you better sign up for the war in North Korea... and Iran... and every South American country with a dictator...

One thing at a time Chubby, one thing at a time.

A copperhead will kill you. It could kill one of my dogs. It could kill one of my grandchildren. It could kill any of my four great grandchildren. They play all the time where I found these killers. And you know, when I discovered these copperheads, I didn't call my wife Shirley and ask her advice, like I do on most things. I didn't yell for help from my neighbors or take it to the city council I just took a hoe and knocked them in the head and killed them. Dead as a doorknob. I guess you could call it a unilateral action. Or pre-emptive or even bellicose and reactive I took their poisonous heads off because they were a threat to me. And they were a threat to my home and my family. They were a threat to all I hold dear.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by From the portion of the article quoted by Crapshoot

Bush's address at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington follows a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll that indicates fewer Americans are opposed to the U.S.-led war there.

The U.S. led a war against the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

One thing at a time Chubby, one thing at a time.

A copperhead will kill you. It could kill one of my dogs. It could kill one of my grandchildren. It could kill any of my four great grandchildren. They play all the time where I found these killers. And you know, when I discovered these copperheads, I didn't call my wife Shirley and ask her advice, like I do on most things. I didn't yell for help from my neighbors or take it to the city council I just took a hoe and knocked them in the head and killed them. Dead as a doorknob. I guess you could call it a unilateral action. Or pre-emptive or even bellicose and reactive I took their poisonous heads off because they were a threat to me. And they were a threat to my home and my family. They were a threat to all I hold dear.

The analogy makes sense, except for the fact that going to war involves putting millions of lives of U.S. soldiers and civilians at risk. Killing a snake takes 10 seconds and does not put anyone at risk other than the guy with the shovel.

I appreciate the force of your convictions, but I just don't think that we can draw a useful analogy between starting a full scale military conflict in every country that we decide is dangerous and killing a garden pest.

Sometimes, you need to fight to protect yourself, and sometimes you need to fight to protect that in which you beleive most strongly. But those decisions must each be made on their own terms, with careful thought and deliberation. War is like nothing else. Analogies to common life just do not serve us well as we try to engage these issues.

[Young Drachma]

I thought this was about newly acquired Brewers pitcher David Bush.

Or maybe, one of those Bush daughters. He can get props for that. Little else.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Killing a snake takes 10 seconds and does not put anyone at risk other than the guy with the shovel.

Except that "the guy with the shovel" in the analogy is "the nation", of which the military is a part.

But those decisions must each be made on their own terms, with careful thought and deliberation.

Like I said, one thing at a time, one thing at a time.

Analogies to common life just do not serve us well as we try to engage these issues.

Neither does paralysis by analysis.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

One thing at a time Chubby, one thing at a time.

A copperhead will kill you. It could kill one of my dogs. It could kill one of my grandchildren. It could kill any of my four great grandchildren. They play all the time where I found these killers. And you know, when I discovered these copperheads, I didn't call my wife Shirley and ask her advice, like I do on most things. I didn't yell for help from my neighbors or take it to the city council I just took a hoe and knocked them in the head and killed them. Dead as a doorknob. I guess you could call it a unilateral action. Or pre-emptive or even bellicose and reactive I took their poisonous heads off because they were a threat to me. And they were a threat to my home and my family. They were a threat to all I hold dear.

Would you accumulate $10,000 in credit card debt and sacrifice one of your children to kill a copperhead on the other side of the county?

[st.cronin]

I honestly don't think I would mind if Barbara Bush was named Empress of the World.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Would you accumulate $10,000 in credit card debt and sacrifice one of your children to kill a copperhead on the other side of the county?

If it threatened my entire family & all future generations as well ?

It's a sad but telling thing that we're saddled with those who hesitate to answer such a question.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If it threatened my entire family & all future generations as well ?

It's a sad but telling thing that we're saddled with those who hesitate to answer such a question.

Does a copperhead on the other side of the county threaten your entire family and all future generations?

EDIT: I guess the question is, how was Saddam threatening your entire family and all future generations?

[Jesse_Ewiak]

To use a common day ancedote, the War was more like if Bigglesworth attacked me from behind, getting up, and beating up albion instead of oh, finding Bigglesworth.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

To use a common day ancedote, the War was more like if Bigglesworth attacked me from behind, getting up, and beating up albion instead of oh, finding Bigglesworth.

That is what the left would like to suggest, but that really wasn't what happened. Iraq was invaded to remove Saddam from power, not to fight terrorism. The WMD and really the threat of the possibility that Saddam would turn over WMD to a terrorist group to attack the US was simply dubbed the poster boy for the war. Later, when it became politically expedient, the Admin. incorporated the War in Iraq into the War on Terror. There were plenty of reasons to remove Saddam from power that had nothing to do with terrorism, just ask Bill Clinton. All of the leading Democrats in the ninties were for regime change in Iraq, because they all believed he had or was working toward WMDs.

From where I sit, the war in Iraq was justified, solely to remove Saddam from Power. I don't believe the Admin lied about intelligence...I think the intelligence just sucked. I believe the admin cited many valid reasons for removing Saddam, and not just the WMD threat. That is why I believe the invasion was justified. I find it duplicitous to argue that Bush was wrong to attack Iraq, when I thought removing Saddam was a good idea back when the Clinton administration came up with it.

As for the thread...I think Bush is too late coming to the table for "props". He initiated a preemptive strike doctrine, that declared that potential threats to the United States would be treated as legitimate targets. When, shortly after the doctrine's first real use, it became apparent that the intelligence portraying a major piece of that threat was wholly incorrect, he made no mention that he might need to re-examine the new preemtive strike doctrine.

Yes I'm happy he said it, but he should have been saying this a hell of a long time ago.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

... he might need to re-examine the new preemtive strike doctrine.

Although you certainly continue to assess & analyze available options, I don't see any reason to bring that up particularly, especially since the doctrine of preemption is clearly the most sound one available to us (in general terms, with regard to entities that threaten this nation, or who attempt to acquire the means with which to do so).

To gin up a quick analogy (because I don't know if what I'm trying to say is all that clear) -- You consciously/sub-consciously decide not to run a red light, because you know it's a bad idea. That doesn't mean there's a need to announce to the passengers in your vehicle "Hey, I've assessed my options & have decided not to run this red light".

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Although you certainly continue to assess & analyze available options, I don't see any reason to bring that up particularly, especially since the doctrine of preemption is clearly the most sound one available to us (in general terms, with regard to entities that threaten this nation, or who attempt to acquire the means with which to do so).

To gin up a quick analogy (because I don't know if what I'm trying to say is all that clear) -- You consciously/sub-consciously decide not to run a red light, because you know it's a bad idea. That doesn't mean there's a need to announce to the passengers in your vehicle "Hey, I've assessed my options & have decided not to run this red light".

If you are basing your decision to preemtively strike a target or another nation on information gathered by our intelligence system, and that system has shown that it may not provite even remotely accurate intelligence, I think it might be wise to reconsider acting on that information.

Until the failings of the intelligence network of the U.S. have been evaluated(and I really don't know what has officially been done in this regard) and corrected, I think the doctrine of preemption should be shelved.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Fine. You say getting Saddam out was a good enough reason. OK, why are the Iraqis more important than the Congolese, Sudanese, and fifty other fucked up places on the planet? Listen, I'd love the ability to knock out every scumbag dictator in the world, but regardless of what some may think, the US still doesn't have that ability. There has to be a threat beyond 'this guy is a MFer' to invade a country.

Second, do you think there was any chance in Hades Bush could've gotten the support to go to war if the reason was 'liberty and democracy?' If ya' do, I have some beautiful wetlands in the Everglades to sell.

[IMetTrentGreen]

That is what the left would like to suggest, but that really wasn't what happened. Iraq was invaded to remove Saddam from power, not to fight terrorism.

well, technically, they thought saddam was a terrorist and would hit us. at least, thats what they said

but if what you say is 100% true, its still beyond retarded. terrorism is the thread, and the world was behind us. we didn't have the resources or need to go into iraq

[Dutch]

There has to be a threat beyond 'this guy is a MFer' to invade a country.

Agreed. Which, by the way, is why we didn't invade all those other places mentioned and why Saddam Hussein/Iraq was quite a bit beyond that phase.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Except he wasn't. WMD's? Nope. Helping out Osama? Nope, especially when compared to oh - Saudi Arabia. Actual work toward WMD's? He thought he was, but there's evidence that he was near to having a nuke as you and I am. Killing his own people? Sure, but like I said, a lot of places worse than Iraq to be unfortunately.

So again, how was Saddam 'beyond the pale'? An SOB who will hopefully get his balls chewed off daily in Hades if there is, sure. But, worse than twenty other dictators currently murdering and raping? Nah.

[Dutch]

To be up front, I'll let you work out the details on your own. There are plenty of answers, many, many of which have been posted on these very boards. I'm not trying to be rude, but you should do some research on your own.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by Dutch

To be up front, I'll let you work out the details on your own. There are plenty of answers, many, many of which have been posted on these very boards. I'm not trying to be rude, but you should do some research on your own.

You're the one who waded into this thread and made a defense of the removal of Saddam - you should be the one to provide evidence for that defense.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Jesse_Ewiak

Except he wasn't. WMD's? Nope. Helping out Osama? Nope, especially when compared to oh - Saudi Arabia. Actual work toward WMD's? He thought he was, but there's evidence that he was near to having a nuke as you and I am. Killing his own people? Sure, but like I said, a lot of places worse than Iraq to be unfortunately.

So again, how was Saddam 'beyond the pale'? An SOB who will hopefully get his balls chewed off daily in Hades if there is, sure. But, worse than twenty other dictators currently murdering and raping? Nah.

I'd also add the number one reason that he should have been removed. He thumbed his nose at the U.N. for twelve freaking years. If no one did anything about it, the U.N. becomes the toothless ineffective body that they aspire to be. Also...the WMD thing is something we know in retrospect. Just before the invasion Hans Blix declared that the Iraqis hadn't even come to the fundamental conclusion that they needed to disarm. I find it hard to blame the admin for citing the WMD threat as a reason to remove Saddam, when I think they really believed he had them/was working on them.

Like I said I thought regime change in Iraq was a good idea when the Democrats came up with it in the ninties, I'm certainly not willing to disparage Bush for actually doing something about it.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by IMetTrentGreen

well, technically, they thought saddam was a terrorist and would hit us. at least, thats what they said.

I think that first part is a bit revisionist. The closest they came was claiming that Saddam might befriend a terror group, based on the same logis as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and provide that group a WMD to use against the U.S.. Now after the invasion started, and they(the admin) wanted to spend more money on Iraq, they lumped Iraq into the War on Terror. This was only done after the invasion was complete, not in the run up to the war.

Originally Posted by IMetTrentGreen

but if what you say is 100% true, its still beyond retarded. terrorism is the thread, and the world was behind us. we didn't have the resources or need to go into iraq

This I agree with...except for that retarded bit. I do agree that we should have dumped the millitary sources into Afghanistan and cleaned that up(finished the job properly) before we went into Iraq. I'll never forget the first time I learned of the disparity in troop levels between Iraq and Afghanistan. It was stunning.

[maxwarrior]

People seem to forget he invaded Kuwait and basically the entire world agreed force should be used. We removed him from Kuwait and he asked for an armistice. Iraq never lived up to the armistice. People also seem to forget that our troops have been there trying to enforce the armistice and Saddam was shooting at them constantly. Our troops have been in harms way in Iraq since 1990. We have been spending millions of dollars each year since 1991 just trying to enforce the armistice. It's about time we finished the job we started in 1990.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by maxwarrior

We have been spending millions of dollars each year since 1991 just trying to enforce the armistice. It's about time we finished the job we started in 1990.

Let's see, we are spending millions of dollars a year and no Americans have died, what should we do? Spend $300 billion and kill 2,000 Americans and 30,000 Iraqi's? Brilliant! We're spending more on debt service now than we spent per year on containment, so the cost of containment argument is a farce.

Likewise, saying Bush was only following Clinton's lead is comical and quite sophomoric in its understanding of the situation. Clinton kept Iraq and Saddam in line with surgical attacks and tough talk. Clinton's forced regime change rhetoric was meant to show resolve and to keep Saddam in line, which worked perfectly. There are several reasons why it was never an actual policy goal of the United States, best stated by George H.W. Bush in his rationale not to go all the way to Baghdad in the first place:

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well.

Except for the capture of Saddam, that's downright prescient. Bottom line is that Clinton did not invade Iraq, he did not want to invade Iraq, and we are not in Iraq because of Clinton.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I think that first part is a bit revisionist. The closest they came was claiming that Saddam might befriend a terror group, based on the same logis as "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and provide that group a WMD to use against the U.S.. Now after the invasion started, and they(the admin) wanted to spend more money on Iraq, they lumped Iraq into the War on Terror. This was only done after the invasion was complete, not in the run up to the war.

I agree with you that they lied to/extorter the public after the invasion started, but I came across these quotes with a two minute Google search:

President George W Bush

Speech in Cincinnati, October 2002:
We know that Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy - the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al-Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al-Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks.

We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America...

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

Pentagon news conference, September 2002:
We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of senior level contacts going back a decade, and of possible chemical and biological agent training. And when I say contacts, I mean between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

We have what we believe to be credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe-haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal non-aggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire... weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3433613.stm

I think that pretty much proves you wrong on the pre-war stuff, but I can find more quotes if you think it would be helpful.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

...

Likewise, saying Bush was only following Clinton's lead is comical and quite sophomoric in its understanding of the situation. Clinton kept Iraq and Saddam in line with surgical attacks and tough talk. ...

Can't....Stop.....Laughing.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Can't....Stop.....Laughing.

Really? How many WMD's did they find in Iraq? How was the nuclear program coming along? Clinton's Iraq policy produced results, that's a fact.

[st.cronin]

I think most people don't know what the word 'extortion' actually means.

[maxwarrior]

I never said anything about Clinton. Besides he was too busy with interns to really solve the problem. He just sat and watched. He offered no real solution to the Saddam problem. The issue here is how long do we do containment, which btw, our friend Osama says is why he attacked us. We were containing from the land of the holy sites. The problem had to be solved and finished. So we either go into Iraq or leave Saudi Arabia with Saddam in power. I'm guessing we can see that just leaving is not a good answer. We need stability in that part of the Middle East. At least some. Our economy and the rest of the worlds is dependent on it. Taking out Saddam is a risky choice (actually very risky), but the one with the most potential.

Let's talk WMD and Nukes. There is no doubt about Iraq having WMD's and wanting to get Nukes. There was no documentation of the WMD's ever being destroyed. Iraq never completely cooperated with the UN inspectors. Don't listen to the Dem's talking points. Every Major country assumed the WMD's were still there, and yes the President and Congress saw mostly the same info. Blame Bush all you want, but Congress passed the authorization of force easily, not just along party lines. They're all at fault some what. It is Bush's vision and he should take the most heat. Did he lie, probably not. I'd bet my money that the boys in intel gave the administration what it thought it wanted to hear. Please the boss.

Bottom line is. We are taking a huge risk with possible huge rewards. A somewhat secure non radical, capitalist Iraq can help solve a lot of issues. A properous Iraq with all Irqis benefitting will be a model for the rest. The biggest problem in the Middle East is the growing population with stagnant economies. Saudi Arabia for example is rich, but it is not creating opportunity or hope for all Saudi's. Politically this area is way behind the rest of the world. Tribes and things are still important. We can only try to help them get it right.

It only took me 30 seconds to find this quote:

"In the months prior to the war, the Administration stressed that regime change through U.S.-led military action would yield benefits beyond disarmament, including liberation from an oppressive regime for the Iraqi people and enhancement of the prospects for peace and democracy throughout the Middle East. The goal of regime change in Iraq had been declared U.S. policy since November 1998. Even before then, U.S. efforts to oust Saddam had been pursued, with varying degrees of intensity, since the end of the Gulf war in 1991."

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/19708.pdf

November 1998. huh. Who was President then??????

I guess Clinton believed Saddam had to go as well. Again, too busy to figure it out. He had more important issues to discuss as he mentored his interns.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by maxwarrior

I never said anything about Clinton. Besides he was too busy with interns to really solve the problem. He just sat and watched. He offered no real solution to the Saddam problem. The issue here is how long do we do containment, which btw, our friend Osama says is why he attacked us. We were containing from the land of the holy sites. The problem had to be solved and finished. So we either go into Iraq or leave Saudi Arabia with Saddam in power. I'm guessing we can see that just leaving is not a good answer. We need stability in that part of the Middle East. At least some. Our economy and the rest of the worlds is dependent on it. Taking out Saddam is a risky choice (actually very risky), but the one with the most potential.

Let's talk WMD and Nukes. There is no doubt about Iraq having WMD's and wanting to get Nukes. There was no documentation of the WMD's ever being destroyed. Iraq never completely cooperated with the UN inspectors. Don't listen to the Dem's talking points. Every Major country assumed the WMD's were still there, and yes the President and Congress saw mostly the same info. Blame Bush all you want, but Congress passed the authorization of force easily, not just along party lines. They're all at fault some what. It is Bush's vision and he should take the most heat. Did he lie, probably not. I'd bet my money that the boys in intel gave the administration what it thought it wanted to hear. Please the boss.

Bottom line is. We are taking a huge risk with possible huge rewards. A somewhat secure non radical, capitalist Iraq can help solve a lot of issues. A properous Iraq with all Irqis benefitting will be a model for the rest. The biggest problem in the Middle East is the growing population with stagnant economies. Saudi Arabia for example is rich, but it is not creating opportunity or hope for all Saudi's. Politically this area is way behind the rest of the world. Tribes and things are still important. We can only try to help them get it right.

It only took me 30 seconds to find this quote:

"In the months prior to the war, the Administration stressed that regime change through U.S.-led military action would yield benefits beyond disarmament, including liberation from an oppressive regime for the Iraqi people and enhancement of the prospects for peace and democracy throughout the Middle East. The goal of regime change in Iraq had been declared U.S. policy since November 1998. Even before then, U.S. efforts to oust Saddam had been pursued, with varying degrees of intensity, since the end of the Gulf war in 1991."

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/19708.pdf

November 1998. huh. Who was President then??????

I guess Clinton believed Saddam had to go as well. Again, too busy to figure it out. He had more important issues to discuss as he mentored his interns.

I'm glad you didn't feel the need to bring up the Lewinsky thing not once but twice. It doesn't really help the cause of the "we're really ticked because of perjury" people when there's a really large contingent that clearly cared about the sex scandal of it. Never mind that these aren't mutually exclusive groups and there are a lot of people who shout about how evil the perjury was but, in reality, it's the sex part that pisses them off. Ok, just had to get that out of the way. On to the useful stuff:

I think the point a couple of people have brought up in this thread is that while a lot of people believe Saddam should be removed, I bet the US has files about 20 or 30 countries that look like that- talking about removal of potential problems. The important question out of this is "why Saddam?" You can produce as many documents as you want saying Saddam was bad- no one is disputing that. What the dispute arises over is why go after him, in particular? If we went after every 2-bit dictator we wanted out at the cost of $300B and 2000 lives- well, the budget would be really fun.

That's why there are a lot of people who say it's a good war and a just war- he should have been removed from power. But, that doesn't mean we had to do it now and in this manner. And it seems like the info was doctored or at least fudged to convince people he was an emminent threat when he wasn't. But hindsight is 20/20, I suppose.

SI

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm glad you didn't feel the need to bring up the Lewinsky thing not once but twice. It doesn't really help the cause of the "we're really ticked because of perjury" people when there's a really large contingent that clearly cared about the sex scandal of it. Never mind that these aren't mutually exclusive groups and there are a lot of people who shout about how evil the perjury was but, in reality, it's the sex part that pisses them off. Ok, just had to get that out of the way. On to the useful stuff:

Sex Scandal or no, any PRESIDENT who commits a FELONY should no longer have been President, regardless of what he lied about. Now, onto your other points:

I think the point a couple of people have brought up in this thread is that while a lot of people believe Saddam should be removed, I bet the US has files about 20 or 30 countries that look like that- talking about removal of potential problems. The important question out of this is "why Saddam?" You can produce as many documents as you want saying Saddam was bad- no one is disputing that. What the dispute arises over is why go after him, in particular? If we went after every 2-bit dictator we wanted out at the cost of $300B and 2000 lives- well, the budget would be really fun.

Because he was a danger TO US. Those 20 or other dictators were not a a danger to Americans, but Saddam was. You think for a quick second that if he knew he could get away with it, he wouldn't aid a terrorist group in some fashion to attack us again? If you want to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt, dispite his past records, that's you. Of course, if the Dems had their way, we're be trying to find out WHY Osama attacked the US, or trying to NEGOTIATE with Saddam so we can do UN-mandated inspections. 12 years of Saddam thumbing his nose at us is long enough.

I still say WMD's were there, and Iraq simply moved them. Saddam knew he couldn't beat us, knew we were gonna invade, why not move them and try to make the US look like a food internationally?

That's why there are a lot of people who say it's a good war and a just war- he should have been removed from power. But, that doesn't mean we had to do it now and in this manner. And it seems like the info was doctored or at least fudged to convince people he was an emminent threat when he wasn't. But hindsight is 20/20, I suppose.

He WAS an eminent threat. I for one am tired of the US being a reactive country. I'm tired of the "Let's wait until they attack us, so we can justify reacting" attitude of the Clinton Democrats. Looks great to the international community, but then again, they're not the one being attacked. If we're proactive, and take out the threats before they truly become threats, we minimize innocent American lives. And AMERICAN lives are the only ones I care about.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by maxwarrior

He offered no real solution to the Saddam problem.

What problem? There were no WMD's, he was no threat to us, at least not any more of a threat than Castro has been for 60 years. I mentioned already why Bush hasn't provided any solution: the cost paid was much worse than decades of containment.

Originally Posted by maxwarrior

Let's talk WMD and Nukes. There is no doubt about Iraq having WMD's and wanting to get Nukes. There was no documentation of the WMD's ever being destroyed.

What happened to the WMD's, did the magic WMD fairy come and take them from under Saddam's pillow one night?

Originally Posted by maxwarrior

Every Major country assumed the WMD's were still there, and yes the President and Congress saw mostly the same info.

Are you serious? Seriously, I mean, how could you even believe that? There have been about 50 million reports about other countries that warned the US that there was no evidence for Iraq having WMD's, including France and Germany. And they both saw the same info? Are you kidding? The president gets a daily brief and is in charge of the intelligence and report making faculties of the country. This has been debunked by every major news organization.

Originally Posted by maxwarrior

Blame Bush all you want, but Congress passed the authorization of force easily, not just along party lines. They're all at fault some what.

Congress deserves some of the blame, especially for the decision to go to war, but not so much for the terrible way in which it was conducted. The Dems in congress were fighting the first Persian Gulf war again. They got burned in the first vote, and didn't want to get burned again. They were on the wrong side of both votes, one reason I didn't cry any tears when Daschle was ousted.

Originally Posted by maxwarrior

I'd bet my money that the boys in intel gave the administration what it thought it wanted to hear. Please the boss.

Then what do you make of the reports of Bush not taking the IAEA and CIA's advice and refusing to take items, since found to be bullshit, out of his speeches, specifically about the aluminum tubes and search for Uranium in Africa?

Originally Posted by maxwarrior

It only took me 30 seconds to find this quote:

"In the months prior to the war, the Administration stressed that regime change through U.S.-led military action would yield benefits beyond disarmament, including liberation from an oppressive regime for the Iraqi people and enhancement of the prospects for peace and democracy throughout the Middle East. The goal of regime change in Iraq had been declared U.S. policy since November 1998. Even before then, U.S. efforts to oust Saddam had been pursued, with varying degrees of intensity, since the end of the Gulf war in 1991."

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/19708.pdf

November 1998. huh. Who was President then??????

I guess Clinton believed Saddam had to go as well. Again, too busy to figure it out. He had more important issues to discuss as he mentored his interns.

Clinton: Saddam should not be in charge of Iraq.

Bush: Saddam should not be in charge of Iraq, and we are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars and sacrifice thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives to take him out and leave behind crappy state anyway

It's a subtle but important difference.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

He WAS an eminent threat.

How was he an imminent threat?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Sex Scandal or no, any PRESIDENT who commits a FELONY should no longer have been President, regardless of what he lied about. Now, onto your other points

But clearly, it wasn't the perjury you like to focus on. That's all my point was.

Because he was a danger TO US. Those 20 or other dictators were not a a danger to Americans, but Saddam was. You think for a quick second that if he knew he could get away with it, he wouldn't aid a terrorist group in some fashion to attack us again? If you want to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt, dispite his past records, that's you. Of course, if the Dems had their way, we're be trying to find out WHY Osama attacked the US, or trying to NEGOTIATE with Saddam so we can do UN-mandated inspections. 12 years of Saddam thumbing his nose at us is long enough.

You don't think those others who we'd like to be removed are a threat to us in that fashion. If we want them out of power, it's not because we think they're all flowers and sunshine. Using your test, "if {insert X dictator} could get away with it, {insert X dictator} would aid a terrorist group in some fashion to attack us", too. We'll get back to this below.

Oh, I like how you slipped in "again" there. Because, as it has been shown time and time again, it was Saddam who helped aid the terrorists who went after us. Wait, he didn't? Wow- it's impressive the way people bite at propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

He WAS an eminent threat. I for one am tired of the US being a reactive country. I'm tired of the "Let's wait until they attack us, so we can justify reacting" attitude of the Clinton Democrats. Looks great to the international community, but then again, they're not the one being attacked. If we're proactive, and take out the threats before they truly become threats, we minimize innocent American lives. And AMERICAN lives are the only ones I care about.

Yeah, I'm still a bit unclear on the eminent threat. There's no effing way in hell he has missiles that could make it over here. He was an eminent threat to the region (read: Israel) but those aren't the American lives you care about.

So, to sum up. You were worried about Saddam going after Americans. Never mind that he never has been able to attack Americans nor was he going to be capable of attacking Americans. Tho he might have been able to supply terrorists with weapons to go after us, tho we've never found a link to that. Just checking.

By this logic, we should be invading every country with a dangerous dictator in it, since, if given the chance they would go after us. So, when should we hit North Korea- they've actuallly got a nuclear program that people have seen? So has Iran and they've got it in for us. Heck, I'm sure Castro would fund terrorists if given the chance and we wouldn't even have to sail halfways around the world. So, when are we going to go after these countries and with what troops and what money?

SI

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by Bush

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq," Bush said. "And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that."

That's all well and good... he's taking responsility for going into Iraq and responsibility for fixing the intelligence. He should have taken responsibility for that a long, long time ago.

Now if he took responsibility for the intelligence he relied apon to go into Iraq and the refusal to listen to the "good" intelligence... then I'd give him props.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

One thing at a time Chubby, one thing at a time.

It would be nice if that "one thing at a time" strategy used some sort of meaningfull priority list in the future...

[Joe Canadian]

BTW... Clinton had sex!!

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I agree with you that they lied to/extorter the public after the invasion started, but I came across these quotes with a two minute Google search:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3433613.stm

I think that pretty much proves you wrong on the pre-war stuff, but I can find more quotes if you think it would be helpful.

Giggles You provided quotes that said exactly what I said they said. They feared that Iraq might give WMDs to a terror group based on the "enemey of my enemy is my friend" possibility. All the quotes you did is show that the admin was touting that Saddam had contact with terror groups. You've cited quotes backing up my argument. They didn't equate Saddam with Terrorism in the run up to the war. They feared he might aid terror groups, but they didn't claim he was a terrorist by any stretch.

As for Clinton talking tough and using surgical strikes to what was it? In Line. That's what I found laughable. We blew up some anti aircraft weaponry. President Clinton continued to enforce the sanctions against Iraq that were put in place by the U.N. before he was President. There may have been tough talk, but the issue was settled before he was in office. Saddam was simply not bothered by the things the Clinton Admin did to him. He was just as big a problem for Bush II as he was for Clinton.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Really? How many WMD's did they find in Iraq? How was the nuclear program coming along? Clinton's Iraq policy produced results, that's a fact.

Yes, None, Not as well as Saddam wanted, in fact almost non-existant.

As for President Clinton's policies accomlishing those things? No. The sanctions were from the U.N., and they were already in place when he took office.

The sanctions were working. That appears to be clear now. Before the war though, that wasn't the case. Blix felt they hadn't even come to grips with the idea that they needed to disarm. They actively interfered with the inspectors at every turn. There was plenty of reason to believe that Saddam had, or was hiding on WMDs. We didn't know if the sanctions were working. France and Germany weren't even saying that Iraq didn't possess WMDs (They said they had no Proof, that was it. They certainly weren't running around citing intelligence to the contrary, or even disputing the U.S. Reports). They just argued we should let the process drag out ad-infinitum. You can pull out an odd report or two from the period claiming that Iraq didn't have WMDs, but honestly not many folks doubted that premise in the run up to the invasion. The Admin chose that as the poster boy for war for a reason...they thought it was true.



I clearly haven't drunk the Kool-aid that some have. As I'm not willing to go out as far on a limb as WVU, but really I'll argue all day about whether or not the invasion was the right thing to do or not. I'm still behind it 100%. As for the post war planning(or lack thereof), the timing, the rush to war, and some other things I'm right there criticizing the admin. For the choice to go to Iraq in the first place....I'm still a believer. Saddam needed to go.

[Coder]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

BTW... Clinton had sex!!

Oh NOES!!! Let's get rid of this immoral regime right this minute...


oh.. he's no longer president? oooookay.

Btw.. I hear there are WMD in the United States.. should we invade? Whaddayasay?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Giggles You provided quotes that said exactly what I said they said. They feared that Iraq might give WMDs to a terror group based on the "enemey of my enemy is my friend" possibility. All the quotes you did is show that the admin was touting that Saddam had contact with terror groups. You've cited quotes backing up my argument. They didn't equate Saddam with Terrorism in the run up to the war. They feared he might aid terror groups, but they didn't claim he was a terrorist by any stretch.

Blen, here they are again:

President George W Bush

Speech in Cincinnati, October 2002:
We know that Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy - the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al-Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al-Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks.

We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after 11 September, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America...

Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld

Pentagon news conference, September 2002:
We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of senior level contacts going back a decade, and of possible chemical and biological agent training. And when I say contacts, I mean between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

We have what we believe to be credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe-haven opportunities in Iraq, reciprocal non-aggression discussions. We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire... weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

I've highlighted all of the verbs. If, as you say, they are saying that Al-Q and Iraq MIGHT get together, then the verbs should be in the future tense. But what do we find? They're all in the past tense! I'd think you'd be hard pressed to find another single person on the planet not in the Bush administration that would say that those statements are forward looking and not implying a current connection between Al-Q and Iraq.

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

As for Clinton talking tough and using surgical strikes to what was it? In Line. That's what I found laughable. We blew up some anti aircraft weaponry. President Clinton continued to enforce the sanctions against Iraq that were put in place by the U.N. before he was President. There may have been tough talk, but the issue was settled before he was in office. Saddam was simply not bothered by the things the Clinton Admin did to him. He was just as big a problem for Bush II as he was for Clinton.

Some anti-aircraft weaponry? I know it wasn't a huge war where we could show other countries how big our manhood was, but I guess that Desert Fox got the job done. If anything, it was a lot cheaper than Bush's plan:

Originally Posted by BBC

In December 1998, the US and Britain launched a three-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets...The official aim of the cruise missile and bombing attacks on some 100 targets across Iraq was to “degrade” Saddam Hussein’s ability to produce weapons of mass destruction...As well as facilities associated with chemical and biological weapons production, the targets included sites housing the regime’s secret police and elite Republican Guard forces, airfields, air defence sites and a Basra oil refinery.

Blen, you sometimes have good comments, but you are just plain factually inaccurate in your posts in this thread.