Alaska Darin Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Fair enough. You may not like that argument or find it compelling, but that isn't the issue. Had the administration successfully made the case that Iraq would ultimately be a threat, and that that justified going to war - note, those are hypotheticals - instead of letting one guy make the case that they had AQ links and another make the case that they had WMD and another make the case that there was genocide and another talk about creating a democratic Middle East etc... had they gotten consensus for action on that single argument instead of getting a consensus by cobbling together disparate arguments of varying accuracy, then they would have been much better off politically. It really wouldn't have mattered. Germany, France, and Russia were going to make it an issue on the world stage because of how much money they stood to lose once a war started. Politically, Iraq was a total loser from the beginning. I'll agree that the Administration made it even worse than it would have been because they were buffoons but that should have been expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 I don't like Pelosi and think her reaction to this is mealy-mouthed bull sh--. I cannot really say what good she has done for her party or her country. I guess her constituents might know. On the other hand - if in 2003 she'd spilled the beans on torture, she might then have been "recalled" or "impeached" or whatever. Which wouldn't have been a great tragedy; however I also suspect that she might have been eligible to be charged with treason....at least according to the ruling party's rules. I am not sure therefore what good her revelation would have done. Anyway I would not cry if this gets rid of her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Really? It's clear? Provide the clarification. "You !@#$ed up - you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it! Maybe we can help." -Otter Why don't you prove they did not. They are equal branches of government after all. Why wouldn't they have the same information. This the first time you heard this? Doesn't fit into your Bush conspiracy paradigm I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Why don't you prove they did not. They are equal branches of government after all. Why wouldn't they have the same information. Is that a serious question? The intelligence agencies work for, and report to, the Executive branch. The Director of National Intelligence reports directly to the President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted May 15, 2009 Share Posted May 15, 2009 Is that a serious question? The intelligence agencies work for, and report to, the Executive branch. The Director of National Intelligence reports directly to the President. I guess it just depends on what you choose to believe. The Bush Administration didn't want war; they were not hiding some secret deep dark secret evil agenda. Congress had the same information. It wasn't good information , BTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 I guess it just depends on what you choose to believe. The Bush Administration didn't want war; they were not hiding some secret deep dark secret evil agenda. Congress had the same information. It wasn't good information , BTW. I have calmed quite a bit on my take of Bush with time, but that seems a bit much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fastback Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 I guess it just depends on what you choose to believe. The Bush Administration didn't want war; they were not hiding some secret deep dark secret evil agenda. Congress had the same information. It wasn't good information , BTW. I'm a pretty conservative person who voted for Bush twice, and I'm calling BS on this. This is Bush's war. Whether he wanted it himself or was talked into it by his Staff is debatable (I think he acted on bad advice myself). But I believe the record is clear that he wanted this war. And let me also say that there appeared to be evidence in support of some of their claims. But much of the 'big picture' they painted has been proven to be a reach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 I have calmed quite a bit on my take of Bush with time, but that seems a bit much. Well. I don't think so. Those saying he was so unprepared for it, probably true, at the same time saying it was some diabolical scheme to avenge his daddy. Please. Please stop on the Bush hatred. And no, in case anybody was wondering, I have had zero fishing invites so far!! He really is a jerk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Well. I don't think so. Those saying he was so unprepared for it, probably true, at the same time saying it was some diabolical scheme to avenge his daddy. Please. Please stop on the Bush hatred. And no, in case anybody was wondering, I have had zero fishing invites so far!! He really is a jerk. Did Bush want war? Dunno. The real questions are (IMO): Did Chaney and Rumsfeld want war? Was the intelligence gathered without influence or bias from the Executive branch, of were they instructed (or persuaded) to bias their interpretations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 I'm a pretty conservative person who voted for Bush twice, and I'm calling BS on this. This is Bush's war. Whether he wanted it himself or was talked into it by his Staff is debatable (I think he acted on bad advice myself). But I believe the record is clear that he wanted this war. And let me also say that there appeared to be evidence in support of some of their claims. But much of the 'big picture' they painted has been proven to be a reach. I'll go even further. Not only did Bush definately want it, Clinton would have liked it too when he was president - remember, we were only in a 'cease-fire'. and there were regular combat incidents including the four-day bombing Operation Desert Fox. The difference is that 9/11 changed the political landscape and made a resumption of full hostilities a real possibility. Clinton couldn't. Bush could, and was strongly motivated to go the extra mile to take advantage. In fact, I'd bet that if Obama were elected in 1992 and had dealt with Hussein through the nineties, he'd be wishing to himself that he could send the troops in too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Well. I don't think so. Those saying he was so unprepared for it, probably true, at the same time saying it was some diabolical scheme to avenge his daddy. Please. Please stop on the Bush hatred. And no, in case anybody was wondering, I have had zero fishing invites so far!! He really is a jerk. Time will tell. Eventually, we will find out at least some of the motivations behind it all. I think that the administration (not necessarily Bush) was at the very least, lukewarm on the idea. There were lots of reasons to do so mind you: It was an unstable influence in the region It was a convenient target, in that a majority of the world (not the other powers that be, that have a vested interest...France, Russia, China) held a dim view of the country, especially in the Middle East region. It occupies a strategic point in the Middle East, allowing the country that controls it a lot of power in the region. The other 432 reasons the Bush administration listed. Did Bush do what he thought was right? Probably. Is Obama doing what he thinks is right? Probably. I have a feeling history will not be kind to either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Did Bush want war? Dunno. The real questions are (IMO): Did Chaney and Rumsfeld want war? Was the intelligence gathered without influence or bias from the Executive branch, of were they instructed (or persuaded) to bias their interpretations? Sure. Bush was a puppet. Keep it up. So not the truth. But who cares. From this point forward , we have fearless leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Time will tell. Eventually, we will find out at least some of the motivations behind it all. I think that the administration (not necessarily Bush) was at the very least, lukewarm on the idea. There were lots of reasons to do so mind you: It was an unstable influence in the region It was a convenient target, in that a majority of the world (not the other powers that be, that have a vested interest...France, Russia, China) held a dim view of the country, especially in the Middle East region. It occupies a strategic point in the Middle East, allowing the country that controls it a lot of power in the region. The other 432 reasons the Bush administration listed. Did Bush do what he thought was right? Probably. Is Obama doing what he thinks is right? Probably. I have a feeling history will not be kind to either. yep, time will tell. thanks for your take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 Sure. Bush was a puppet. Keep it up. So not the truth. But who cares. From this point forward , we have fearless leader. I didn't say any of those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 On the other hand - if in 2003 Quite a start to that year. Where were all the people in this country "stirring the pot?" Oh wait, most of them were banging the war drums even if are saying now that they thought the war was a bad idea... Those are the true lemmings! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted May 16, 2009 Share Posted May 16, 2009 I didn't say any of those things. Sorry man. I'm with you on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts