I think Hell just froze over

[ChadTower]

From the front page of cnn.com:

President Bush today accepted responsibility for going to war in 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," the president said. Bush also called Thursday's elections in Iraq a "watershed moment in the story of freedom."

Wow.  I wonder where this will lead us.

[Sephroth57]

what is a watershed and where can i purchase one

[ChadTower]

I'll watershed in your mouth.

[Sephroth57]

w00t

[Stingray]

Hey, I screwed up and accidently killed 2000 American military men & women. Ain't y'all glad ya elected me?

-S

[ChadTower]

As did dozens of state Senators, each of which approved the action.  They should be unelected too.

[Witchboard]

I think pretty much everybody knew it was faulty intelligence after the fact, it's just the the far left Dems were starting to turn it into a "Bush Lied" campaign when he didn't lie about anything.

[Grasshopper]

What he won't ever admit is that he and his supporters knew most of the intelligence was bogus at the time they went to war.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."

In other words...."not my fault!"

Nothing new here, nothing shocking. Same old attempts to white wash history and pass the buck. He has already said that, even if he knew then what he knows now (ie: No WMD, Saddam not a threat, No Al-Qaeda links) he'd STILL invade Iraq.

You can't bargain with insanity.




mrC

[shmokes]

I think that as far as Bush is concerned it's a load of ---That which is odiferous and causeth plants to grow---.  I think, however, that it's a good political move in terms of mitigating the damage he's done to the Republican party.  We saw a similar thing a few weeks after the Hurricane Katrina debacle of a response.  Bush knows that he's a lame-duck, so this allows him to take some heat off the republican party without having much appreciable impact on himself since he can't run for office again anyway.

But the thing is, it wasn't about faulty intelligence.  Take a look at this very short article from the Cato institute (a conservative thinktank, not a left-wing propaganda site) from 2002.  It is only pointing out the obvious.  Bush WAS NOT going into Iraq because of faulty intelligence.  The intelligence was gathered after Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq, which was probably made long before he ever took office.  He made the decision to unseat Saddam, and THEN sought intelligence that would allow him to make a case to the public.  After 9/11 he found that case extraordinarily easy to make.

When your premises follow your conclusion, rather than the other way around, it's little wonder when they turn out to be false (or are entirely manufactured, for that matter).

[Grasshopper]

Hey, I screwed up and accidently killed 2000 American military men & women. Ain't y'all glad ya elected me?

-S

Don't forget the 30,000 to 100,000 civilians (estimates vary wildly as the US army refuses to count).

[ChadTower]

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong."

In other words...."not my fault!"

Nothing new here, nothing shocking. Same old attempts to white wash history and pass the buck.

You seem to have trouble with reading whole paragraphs.

"As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq," the president said.

Does that not mean that he is responsible for the decision to go into Iraq?

[Witchboard]

I think, however, that it's a good political move in terms of mitigating the damage he's done to the Republican party.

Let's not forget those others who supported this move on the other side of center as well.  He's pretty much taking responsibility for both parties.

[Grasshopper]

Anyway what intelligence? The 45 minute claim? Give me a break. At the time of the invasion the UN weapons inspectors had found precisely nothing. And they were being granted access by Saddam to his facilities, albeit reluctantly. They asked for a little more time to continue looking for WMD and settle the issue once and for all but Bush in his infinite wisdom decided to invade anyway. After 12 years what was the sudden rush? Well the answer is glaringly obvious. Bush intended to go to war regardless of whether the WMDs existed or not.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

"He made a decision based on faulty information just like everybody else did at the time."

Not that I want to go over this again, and again. But this line is just ---That which is odiferous and causeth plants to grow---. With every passing day it becomes more and more apparent that Cheney had cherry-picked intelligence stovepiped to the administration from certifiably shaky sources ("Curveball", Chalabi, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi). This war was then marketed to the american public by the W.H.I.G. (White House Iraq Group) and the false charges against Saddam were trumped up in the pages of the New York Times, Washington Post, etc..through journalists friendly to the administration (Judith Miller, et al). Immediately afterward, the 24-7 news channels referenced these false claims and repeated them ad infinitum. So much so that, in some polls, a huge chunk of American thought Saddam has a direct hand in 9/11!!

Opponents/critics of the war and it's flimsy justifications, both inside and outside the administration, were handily crushed (Plame, Gen. Sinseki, etc) and the chilling effect kept the intelligence community at bay, at least until recently.

Bush got his "War of Choice". Whether he knew the intel was false beforehand is still being investigated, but one thing is for certain, there is way more evidence pointing to the fact that he (and his administration) knew the intel was flimsy and/or false, than there is evidence that he was an innocent bystander, dubbed by a lackadaisical intelligence community, or swarthy tin-pot dictator in the middle east.


mrC

[Harry Potter]

Hmmm. Couldn't see this one coming.

But who cares now. Bush is gone in 2008 so hanging him out to dry would now be a bit pointless.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

You seem to have trouble with reading whole paragraphs.

No I don't.  He has a problem starting paragraphs without first passing the buck.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Wow.  I wonder where this will lead us.

Hopefully, impeachment.



mrC

[ChadTower]

Someone's all erect and pointy today. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Someone's all erect and pointy today. 

Your Momz just got done doing a little dance for me.   


mrC

[ChadTower]

I'll do a little dance in your mouth.

[Witchboard]

MrC... That's a joke, right?

[Stingray]

Dang, I forgot to post my abortions/ flags image. Well too late now, the poocart is already heckbound.

-S

[ChadTower]

The problem all of those quotes, really, is that words mean stuff.

When words mean stuff, they have meanings.  Thus, words have meanings.

So, you would think that words have meanings, but they don't, they just mean stuff.

[Witchboard]

The problem all of those quotes, really, is that words mean stuff.

When words mean stuff, they have meanings.

[ChadTower]

When the ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- that hit the fan comes from your own mouth, the sprayback is too quick to get out of the way.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

MrC... That's a joke, right?  Bush was the only one who thought Saddam has WMDs?  Hmm.. let's see what the Democrats thought on the subject...

Does it matter who thought what? Didn't it matter what could be "proven"?  Why the f*ck do I care what Hillary or Kerry or Bush or Cheney *THOUGHT* Saddam was doing? What really mattered was what could be proven...and the intel that was used to PROVE Saddam was an "imminent threat" turned out to be dead wrong.

All....of.....it......

Bush and his team are the ONLY ones that based a war on it. Oops.


mrC

[ChadTower]

What can be proven is that nearly all Senators, both Replublican and Democrat, voted to approve military action.

They are accountable as well.  They also each made a decision based on faulty intelligence.

Did the Democrat Senators somehow not place those votes of their own free will?

[Witchboard]

I bet the votes came in from Iran, we just didn't catch them that time.

[Goz]

What can be proven is that nearly all Senators, both Replublican and Democrat, voted to approve military action.

They are accountable as well.  They also each made a decision based on faulty intelligence.

Did the Democrat Senators somehow not place those votes of their own free will?

[sarcasm] No they were victims of the evil Republican influence... Maybe Dubya is a Jedi and he used the Jedi mind trick.. [/sarcasm]

[shmokes]

a huge chunk of American thought Saddam has a direct hand in 9/11!!

I can't let a comment like this go by without clarifying.  20 million people could be considered a huge chunk.  It wasn't just a huge chunk.  Polling data gathered just weeks after 9/11 showed that 3% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein/Iraq played a role in 9/11.  Two years later that number had grown to 70%.  Three percent to seventy percent between 9/11 and July 2003!!! 

That public misperception was deliberately manufactured by the Bush administration, starting with his 2002 State of the Union address. 

Jesus, I can't help but feel like the majority of readers pass over those numbers with indifference.  63% of the American population did not spontaneously decide, absent any outside influence, that Iraq played a role in 9/11 (it did not, btw).  It was a carefully orchestrated PR campaign that deliberately planted that belief into the American public's head.

Whatever the Bush administration ever believed about Iraq, they ALWAYS knew that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.  They knew that even if their "intelligence" was solid it still made an incredibly lousy case for war.  Seriously, click that link above and read that Cato Institue article.  It's VERY short.  9/11 was tied to Iraq because that was the REAL case the Bush administration took to the American people.  Everything else is just a distraction.  Those guys are unbelievably slimy.   

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I can't let a comment like this go by without clarifying.

And I appreciate it. I just didn't have the energy to dig up the numbers. Especially since those they are directed at just won't acknowledge them anyhow.


mrC

[Ed_McCarron]

Hey, I screwed up and accidently killed 2000 American military men & women.

Which sucks, granted, but I look at it this way.

Everyone over there knew what they were getting into.  I don't buy into the "Hey, I just wanted money for college" thing.

Last question they asked me before I tried to get into the Air Force was "Are you a conscientious objector?" IE, will you have a problem killing someone if told to?

The ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- just ended up on the other end of the stick for those 2000.  Face it, if you are in someone elses territory, holding a gun, no matter what the reason, someones gonna take offense at it.

And, yes, I lost a friend amongst those 2000.

[shmokes]

What can be proven is that nearly all Senators, both Replublican and Democrat, voted to approve military action.

They are accountable as well.  They also each made a decision based on faulty intelligence.

Did the Democrat Senators somehow not place those votes of their own free will?

While I don't think that they are excused, it's not unimportant that these Senators were supporting the war in an environment that Bush had manufactured where 70% of Americans believed that Iraq was responsible for 9/11.  In an ideal world reelection prospects would not get in the way of doing what's right, but Bush knew that he could get Congress in his pocket if he could convince enough of the American people of the 9/11 connection.  What are your constituents going to think about you if you vote against attacking the person responsible for 9/11?

[shmokes]

Face it, if you are in someone elses territory, holding a gun, no matter what the reason, someones gonna take offense at it.

What's so ignorant about this attitude of, "Hey, it's war.  Death happens in war.  What do you expect?" is that it ignores the fact that we didn't HAVE to go to war.  Of course death happens in war, and the people who sign up for the military, whether they really believed it would happen or not, DO agree to die for their country if necessary.  But that doesn't mean it would be okay for a cammander to say, "Private First Class Henderson, when you signed up for the Army you put your life in our hands.  I order you to shoot yourself in the head!!!"  Something tells me that you wouldn't be okay with that order being given to an American soldier.  You wouldn't say, "Well, afterall, he knew going into it that he could die..."

Soldiers are dying in Iraq right now because of an order nearly as stupid and unnecessary as the ridiculous one in my example above.  For that you hold the commanding officer who gave the order, as well as all his enablers, responsible.

[Witchboard]

Well, what about the Iraq withdrawal vote that was defeated in the House?

[Stingray]

I actually put a lot of time into writing a long and well thought out reply. I then deleted it, because it was sure to piss off at least a few people who I consider to be friends. In the end I  decided to just post something about bacon instead. I like bacon.

-S

[shmokes]

Nothing makes me madder than bacon...

[RetroJames]

What about Holiday Bacon?

[Stingray]

Nothing makes me madder than bacon...

Yeah, but I don't care if I piss you off.

-S

[shmokes]

That's a ridiculous example.

Yes, because ordering soldiers to fight and die, toppling the regime of a small, powerless country that poses no threat to its neighbors, much less the United States, is so much more reasonable.

[shmokes]

What about Holiday Bacon?

Well.....so long as it's nondenominational 

[nostrebor]

What he won't ever admit is that he and his supporters knew most of the intelligence was bogus at the time they went to war.

Fact? You were there when they discussed it?

Just curious where this amazing revelation came from.

[Ed_McCarron]

we didn't HAVE to go to war.

Nope.  You are absolutely right - we didn't.

But, we did.  Now, we're stuck with the outcome.  Good or bad.  And, in my opinion, the requirement to see it through to the end.  Its just a shame noone is really clear on what the end is.

And, while I don't expect -our- president to tell Private Smith to off himself, if he did, I wouldn't be surprised if some percentage of those in his command complied.

[markrvp]

I have to point out what I see as HYPOCRISY here.

A few months ago, Chad was crucified by the liberals here for saying he believed American lives to be more valuable than the lives of people in other countries.

[ChadTower]

What are your constituents going to think about you if you vote against attacking the person responsible for 9/11?

If those Senators are truly interested in doing what they think is right, rather than what they need to do to stay in power, they will vote appropriately. 

"I had to vote that way or my consituents would have not reelected me" is not a valid reason to vote one way or another.

[shmokes]

I don't disagree.  I've made it clear that I have little respect for any of those senators.  I just have considerably less for the guy who orchestrated it.

[Dexter]

It always amazes me the small mindedness of some people. Pointing out the democrats support of the invasion of Iraq and trying to use it to deflect ultimate blame away from the bush regieme is infantile.

Do you think the families and friends of the 100,000+ iraqis killed so far give a damn about democrat support for the invasion/atrocities? Do you think the world does. Do you think it makes one damn bit of difference to the dead?

If saddam launched an attack on the us and killed 100,000+ americans, would it make a difference whether the shia muslims in Iraq supported the attack? The arguement of democrat support based on forged and manipulated information is irrelevance wrapped in misdirection. America invaded Iraq. From the Iraqi peoples perspective, their dictators former ally turned on them, invaded their country, slaughtered their people and are stealing their resources.

There is no right reason to do the wrong thing, a war crime is a war crime. bush claims to be a 'war' president, he led the invasion as commander in chief. The buck stops with him.

[Witchboard]

I apologize Dexter.  I didn't realize you were an American OR an Allied soldier stationed in Iraq in direct contact with the Iraqi people to get their personal views on this.  If we are to believe Aljazeera.net, oops I mean CNN.com, yes, we can hold a single person responsible for the decisions of the many.  I'm not going to argue that we went in for the right reasons, I'm arguing that not just one man is responsible for it.  If the Iraqi people didn't want a Democracy, they wouldn't be walking over their dead to vote for a new government.

If these Senators, be them Democrat or Republican, would grow some balls and stand behind what they've said and how they voted we could at least blame them for one thing... being honest.  That's when hell would really freeze over.  Turning this war into a political campaign is counter productive and just makes the job for our boys and girls that much harder.

You can't change the steps you've taken in the past be them wrong or right.  When they vote in their new government and that government tells us to leave, I say we leave, because at that point we would become a occupier of their country instead of the liberator of it's people.

[Dexter]

..because at that point we would become a occupier of their country instead of the liberator of it's people.

  LOL, cheers for that, best laugh I've had all day. Just remember, america invaded to find wmds. The word 'liberator' only appeared when it became clear there was none to begin with.

[ChadTower]

No one is trying to SUBTRACT blame from Bush.  What we are doing is heaping ADDITIONAL blame onto each of the Senators who authorized force.  Without that authorization Bush had no power to do anything at all.

It was his plan, but without permission, he could not have implemented the plan.  Those who granted permission deserve blame as well.

There is more than enough blame to go around such that we don't need to remove any from Bush in order to spread some onto the Senators who rightly deserve some.

[Witchboard]

..because at that point we would become a occupier of their country instead of the liberator of it's people.

  LOL, cheers for that, best laugh I've had all day. Just remember, america invaded to find wmds. The word 'liberator' only appeared when it became clear there was none to begin with.

Glad to be of service. 

[Dexter]

Glad to be of service.

[ChadTower]

Common sense would dictate that if this were about oil that we would have taken some oil.

My home heating oil bill was off the charts this month. 

[RetroJames]

Glad to be of service. 

Unfortunately, the invasion is close to costing the american tax-payer, not the haves and have mores, the ordinary worker, close to 1/2 a trillion dollars. Not really a laughing matter.

What is also not a laughing matter is two major, and amazingly profound "intelligence failures" including and since 9/11.

To me, this is absolutely unacceptable.

[markrvp]

Common sense would dictate that if this were about oil that we would have taken some oil.

My home heating oil bill was off the charts this month.

[ChadTower]

What is also not a laughing matter is two major, and amazingly profound "intelligence failures" including and since 9/11.

To me, this is absolutely unacceptable.

I find it somewhat unrealistic to think that the Gov't is able to know what everyone on the planet is doing at all times.

This is a new enemy, one with complications we have not seen before.  This is our first covert opposition from a closed society.  We cannot place agents.  We cannot infiltrate and we cannot pay off people to talk. 

Up until now the only closed society we have ever clashed with was Japan and we didn't have to infiltrate them to know they were coming. 

These people aren't white so we can't just walk amongst them.  They are extremely closed socially so we can't make our way in and we cannot convert existing social members to turn for our benefit.

Given all of these challenges it is unsurprising that we are having as much trouble as we are with Intelligence.

[Witchboard]

Glad to be of service.

[RetroJames]

What is also not a laughing matter is two major, and amazingly profound "intelligence failures" including and since 9/11.

To me, this is absolutely unacceptable.

I find it somewhat unrealistic to think that the Gov't is able to know what everyone on the planet is doing at all times.

This is a new enemy, one with complications we have not seen before.  This is our first covert opposition from a closed society.  We cannot place agents.  We cannot infiltrate and we cannot pay off people to talk. 

Up until now the only closed society we have ever clashed with was Japan and we didn't have to infiltrate them to know they were coming. 

These people aren't white so we can't just walk amongst them.  They are extremely closed socially so we can't make our way in and we cannot convert existing social members to turn for our benefit.

Given all of these challenges it is unsurprising that we are having as much trouble as we are with Intelligence.

Hooey. Do it. Fix it. Figure it out, or get out of the way.

There just aren't alot of "do-overs" in this game. We may only get one more strike before we are out.

I'm honestly not trying to be flippant, but these are major major MAJOR failures in intel. I can pay my dog a few billion dollars and get the same results. And I do not see this as a "this party did this" or "that party didn't do the other thing."  All of that BS takes away from the real issue.

There are obviously serious problems, fix it or fail.

[ChadTower]

They got caught with their pants down, basically.  They spent 75 years building a massive intelligence infrastructure for a specific style of enemy.  When an enemy came along that did not fit that paradigm they were and remain unable to adjust as quickly as the enemy can.

By now they are so big and slow and corrupt that they will never be what the public wants them to be.  This enemy is small enough, yet still well funded enough, to be nearly impossible to monitor via anything other than grain of sand on a beach methods.

[Grasshopper]

I have to point out what I see as HYPOCRISY here.

A few months ago, Chad was crucified by the liberals here for saying he believed American lives to be more valuable than the lives of people in other countries. 

The 2000 troops who lost their lives were doing so to remove an evil dictator who killed his own people.  These Americans gave their lives to save the lives of innocent Iraqi and U.S. citizens.

Those of you pointing out that 2000 Americans died needlessly in some chicken ---Cleveland steamer--- country are demonstrating that you place no value on the lives of the citizens of Iraq.  You are saying you would be happier if Saddam Hussein were still in power killing his innocent citizens.

Whether you agree with Chad or not, at least he's not a coward.  He said the lives of Americans are more precious to him than others.  Some of you who criticized him for that statement are the same ones saying Iraq doesn't matter and America should have let Saddam kill whoever he wanted as long as it didn't affect us here in the U.S. 

Those of you saying it was unnecessary for 2000 Americans to die are really saying - "hey I don't care how many people in the world are murdered as long as it's not Americans, especially troops under Bush's command."

People in glass houses shouldn't cast stones.




Now that I've got that off my chest I think I'll go have some bacon.

I wouldn't presume to speak for all "liberals". But FWIW I'll give you my position.

I'm not against toppling evil dictators in principle. Indeed, in a few rare cases a regime is so evil and destructive that it has to be toppled whatever the cost e.g. Nazi Germany. But if there is absolutely no alternative to "regime change" I want it to take place in a consistent legal framework of international law. I want there to be a thorough analysis of the costs vs benefits to the ordinary people of the country/region concerned. I want clear objectives. I want a coherent plan to achieve those objectives. I want an exit strategy. I want sufficient resources set aside to give a reasonable chance of success.

I start off from the premise that most wars throughout history (even when the cause has been just) have left ordinary people worse off than they were before, even those people who were lucky enough to find themselves on the winning side.

Look at Iraq. Their already fragile infrastructure has been decimated, 30,000 to 100,000 civilians have died, and they now stand on the brink of civil war. I know you have to balance that against the fact that Saddam killed thousands of his own people. but what really matters is what was likely to happen in the future.

Very few people complained over Clinton's (technically illegal) intervention in the former Yugoslavia. But the difference in Yugoslavia was that the atrocities were ongoing. Most of Saddam's atrocities actually took place well over a decade ago when Iraq was friendly with the US. In recent years he had been kept under intense scrutiny and successfully contained. Sure it was messy and occasionally frustrating but by and large it worked. If Saddam had continued to gas whole villages I'm sure most people would have supported the invasion.

[ChadTower]

Hey wait, I have just now realized something.

[ChadTower]

Most of Saddam's atrocities actually took place well over a decade ago when Iraq was friendly with the US. In recent years he had been kept under intense scrutiny and successfully contained. Sure it was messy and occasionally frustrating but by and large it worked. If Saddam had continued to gas whole villages I'm sure most people would have supported the invasion.

This logically begs the question:

Should Saddam have been arrested and tried before an Iraqi court to face his crimes?  That is what is happening right now as a result of the US Invasion.  Do the Iraqi people deserve to have Saddam removed and prosecuted in their own court?

[markrvp]

I wouldn't presume to speak for all "liberals". But FWIW I'll give you my position.

I'm not against toppling evil dictators in principle. Indeed, in a few rare cases a regime is so evil and destructive that it has to be toppled whatever the cost e.g. Nazi Germany. But if there is absolutely no alternative to "regime change" I want it to take place in a consistent legal framework of international law. I want there to be a thorough analysis of the costs vs benefits to the ordinary people of the country/region concerned. I want clear objectives. I want a coherent plan to achieve those objectives. I want an exit strategy. I want sufficient resources set aside to give a reasonable chance of success.

I start off from the premise that most wars throughout history (even when the cause has been just) have left ordinary people worse off than they were before, even those people who were lucky enough to find themselves on the winning side.

Look at Iraq. Their already fragile infrastructure has been decimated, 30,000 to 100,000 civilians have died, and they now stand on the brink of civil war. I know you have to balance that against the fact that Saddam killed thousands of his own people. but what really matters is what was likely to happen in the future.

Very few people complained over Clinton's (technically illegal) intervention in the former Yugoslavia. But the difference in Yugoslavia was that the atrocities were ongoing. Most of Saddam's atrocities actually took place well over a decade ago when Iraq was friendly with the US. In recent years he had been kept under intense scrutiny and successfully contained. Sure it was messy and occasionally frustrating but by and large it worked. If Saddam had continued to gas whole villages I'm sure most people would have supported the invasion.

This is a well articulated and thoughtful argument.

[ChadTower]

The main problem with what he was proposing is that it requires a nonsovereign international body to prepare the plan, analyze the plan, and implement the plan using the resources of many nations.

There is no such body.  The UN purports to be that body but the UN has never proven its ability to do anything anywhere approaching that scale.

[nostrebor]

I wouldn't presume to speak for all "liberals". But FWIW I'll give you my position.

I'm not against toppling evil dictators in principle. Indeed, in a few rare cases a regime is so evil and destructive that it has to be toppled whatever the cost e.g. Nazi Germany. But if there is absolutely no alternative to "regime change" I want it to take place in a consistent legal framework of international law. I want there to be a thorough analysis of the costs vs benefits to the ordinary people of the country/region concerned. I want clear objectives. I want a coherent plan to achieve those objectives. I want an exit strategy. I want sufficient resources set aside to give a reasonable chance of success.

I start off from the premise that most wars throughout history (even when the cause has been just) have left ordinary people worse off than they were before, even those people who were lucky enough to find themselves on the winning side.

Look at Iraq. Their already fragile infrastructure has been decimated, 30,000 to 100,000 civilians have died, and they now stand on the brink of civil war. I know you have to balance that against the fact that Saddam killed thousands of his own people. but what really matters is what was likely to happen in the future.

Very few people complained over Clinton's (technically illegal) intervention in the former Yugoslavia. But the difference in Yugoslavia was that the atrocities were ongoing. Most of Saddam's atrocities actually took place well over a decade ago when Iraq was friendly with the US. In recent years he had been kept under intense scrutiny and successfully contained. Sure it was messy and occasionally frustrating but by and large it worked. If Saddam had continued to gas whole villages I'm sure most people would have supported the invasion.

This is a well articulated and thoughtful argument.  I have no problem with it.  I welcome more posts like this if we have to have political debates on an arcade building forum....

In the almost 2 years I have been visiting this forum, this is the first reasonable political exchange I have experienced. My appreciation to both sides for making reasonable statements rather than biased tripe, which seem to be the norm here.

[ChadTower]

I too should applaud the jerking off to Jon Stewart's Daily Show downloads.

[nostrebor]

Well, I was actually referring to Mark's previous statements, aimed at Grasshoppers comments. Once he gets done with Grasshopper, things do seem to erode somewhat

[ChadTower]

I do not applaud the jerking off to Patrick Stewart's Daily Show downloads.

[fredster]

Let's not confuse "Blame" with "the credit".

I'll repeat one more time what I think the entire war was about. Because we are all speculating.  Shmokes is speculating that Bush knew the intel was bad and actually pushed for the war.  So is Mr. C.

So as long as we are speculating here's a repost of what I said before - I

t irritates me that nobody can truly appreciate the absolute brilliance of the Iraq War.  We let these governments fester for 30 years and fall into corruption and religious zealots spawn terrorists to kill Israel.

My theory is that Carter started this. He didn't back the Shaw of Iran and showed these Muslims weakness in his failed attempt at rescuing the US ambassadors. Not only that, he gave credibility to Arafat, Bad Mistake.
Next we have Reagan that only made one or two missile drops and actually supported Saddam. He also gave birth to OBL by backing him against the Russians. Bad Mistake.
Next we have Bush 1 that did NOTHING to clear this up. By the time it got to Clinton, these people had twisted their victories into somekind of mission from God.  Clinton was so handicapped most of his administration with Whitewater and Monica and Waco and the Cole and the first tower bombing and of course, our own domestic terrorists he couldn't point his attention outward that far.  Black hawk down showed how much we could commit.

So we are weak and puny to these guys. We were spoiled and the biggest target they could find to show their might without reprisals.

Bush comes in wanting to adjust Social Security and shore up the economy from a fall, an BAM. OBL and his minions are all over us. We let them build up until they are a force. Our lax attitude to the Middle East has let these people run wild in our country.

Afghanistan is riddled and destroyed because of the lack of US and international action to rebuild it after the Russian Vietnam there.  Nobody wants it but OBL finds a safehaven and a place to build his Muslim Utopia.

When we are hit, we are totally pissed. Nobody hits the US like that, nobody. Even Mr.C was with Bush on that war.

Bush wins the war that even the Romans couldn't win. Russia tried for years to subdue that country and we did it in days.

But we still have Saddam. He's across the border. He is getting out of the box by selling oil to everybody that has a vote in the UN.  France and Russia are backing him because he's using his countries resources to pay them off.  They are into him for Billions, and there is more comming. Soon he'll be out of the UN sanctions and back into power. Bush 1's gamble to let his own people kill him failed miserably.

He's gonna get out, and there is no telling what he will do. Go after Iran and start a nuclear war. Recapture Kuwait.  Pakistan is wavering on total anarchy, with atomic bombs pointed at India.  They are poor in Pakistan and corrupt. Saddam is sitting on an endless fortune. Plus he has his legacy, his two maniacal sons. It's a recipe for the beginning of Armageddon.

So Bush has the pieces in place to sweep forward. The international community agrees Saddam has WMD, as I recall there were very few naysayers at the time.  Bush has a choice, retract and stop the military action like is father did, or wipe him out before he gets to the postion of power he would have by now. Retract and he risks the reported WMD will be transfered to the terrorists via Saddam or delivered personally by Saddam. Advance and he destroys a madman.

If Saddam had bribed enough people and got out of the UN sanctions, he would have bought more and more equipment from France and Russia.  As a full partner in the international community he would have retooled his Army, which prior to GW1 was the 4th largest in the world.

Instead W decides to take care of this while has the chance.  His advisors are confident that we can and will remove Saddam and the resistance will be small. We'll clean it up and be out of there like we did in Afghanistan.

The best and probably planned outcome - create a stable government in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, and Iraq.  Setup a band of democracies through the middle of the Middle East and isolate Lybia, Syria and Iran.

The gamble stabilizes the political situations there for a generation and removes any Saddam made barriers to peace in Israel and the Palestinians.

Freaking Brilliant boys. He saved the world and you can't see it.  You can't appreciate it because the vision is so broad and breathtaking that he should have his face carved on Mount Rushmore.

Instead you think we should have approached the whole thing with negotiation and police actions.  Well, Rocky said it best to Bullwinkle:
"ah that trick never works"

So we didn't get out of there unscathed like we have prior to this. Iran and Syria through curves to us by sending in militia to destabalize the area and drive us out.  They all had a DVD of "Black Hawk Down" as a guideline (Thank you Mr. Clinton).

We lost a lot of good men. Men I admire and was once one of about 15 and 20 years ago.  I know people over there and they are proud to be able to support us.

Bush may have been wrong about the aftermath. The Dems supported him just to give him enough rope to hang himself hoping it would be a "quagmire" so they could win the next election. (Remember Kerry's speaches at the time Mr. C? He supported the war too.)  The Republicans had to fall in line.

10 years from now I hope that we will look back and see this as a bold vision that paid off.  I hope that you are all wrong and "myopic" in your assesment of the situation. 

That's my view of it. Freaking Brilliant.

[ChadTower]

How does the lunatic still sitting on a nuclear arsenal in Iran fit into that?

[fredster]

I think the gamble they were taking was that if Iraq fell, Iran would be too scared to retaliate, and more in line with negotiations.  I didn't think they estimated the forces Syria and Iran would send into Iraq once it fell.

The administration over estimated the Iraq people's reaction.  I guess that all those years under Saddam and all the wars took the fight out of the most of them.  All the vocal people and civil leaders were either under Saddam or dead. Plus, Saddam wasn't captured at first, so many were holding back I'm sure.

Back in 2001,2002, there was still a lot of hope that the Iranian youth would opt for a more western change in the culture, but obviously that's not happening. 

The adminstration gambled on fear, not defiance.