History Bush: The Greatest Blunder in US History

[Ivan Seeking]

In light of today's report on the alleged Iraqi WMD programs, which we now know never existed after Gulf I, and considering the lack of any significant connection between Iraq and 911, and considering that in spite of Bush's efforts to escape responsibility for his rush to war, and in spite of his efforts to escape responsibility for his decisions and claims made as President of the United States, I think the invasion of Iraq now qualifies as the greatest blunder in foreign policy in US history.

Bush will be remembered in history; exactly as he should be.

 

[omin]

And today we have the technology, communication, databases, videotape, etc, that is empirical representation of the waste that blunder is. But, it will probably take along time for us to see Bush and those Republicans who support him in full codemnattion 20/20 until all that is quantified. Right now, the right-wingers are just not intelligent enough to be ashamed of themselves for what they've encouraged.

 

[graphic7]

The long-awaited CIA report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs says former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein did not possesses stockpiles of weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them.

If you read carefully, you'll notice that the report only investigates whether Saddam possesed WMD stockpiles at the *time* of the U.S invasian in March of 2003. This doesn't investigate whether or not Saddam had a stockpile before this time or not.

This also doesn't exclude the fact that Saddam may have exported his WMD stockpiles before March of 2003.

I'm a Kerry supporter, but you can't be wrong about facts like this.

 

[Loren Booda]

Blaming Bush is like faulting Howdy Doody for Buffalo Bob's indiscretions.

 

[wasteofo2]

What is it with you liberals, trying to undermine the war in Iraq and the President? Do you want the war to fail and Democracy to die? If not, you better stop saying bad things about Bush, how would the troops feel if they heard that people didn't like Bush and that the war was unjustified?

God, liberals, you all hate freedom and want there to be more terrorist attacks on the USA.

 

[Prometheus]

I think the invasion of Iraq now qualifies as the greatest blunder in foreign policy in US history.

I think that you are premature. If god were to come down to Earth and bestow American style democracy on Iraq in the coming months, and if the Iraqis unanimously decided to love the United States for their wonderful assistance in achieving this, then I would consider your statement to be false. Only if Iraq continues as it has been will I agree with you that Iraq is the greatest blunder in US history, far surpassing even the blunder in Vietnam.

 

[Prometheus]

What is it with you liberals, trying to undermine the war in Iraq and the President? Do you want the war to fail and Democracy to die? If not, you better stop saying bad things about Bush, how would the troops feel if they heard that people didn't like Bush and that the war was unjustified?

God, liberals, you all hate freedom and want there to be more terrorist attacks on the USA.

You have a bizarre sense of humor, but it is funny. What is really funny is that there actually are people in this country who would think that your statements are serious and agree with them. Quite humerous, isn't it, and yet sad at the same time.

 

[tumor]

I don't blame Bush for Iraqi fiasco, I blame all of dumb American suckers who were bambozzled into going to war.
Bush did nice job, he needs to be reelected,and then he will **** us all for real.
This country has no right to exist anymore.

 

[wasteofo2]

You have a bizarre sense of humor, but it is funny. What is really funny is that there actually are people in this country who would think that your statements are serious and agree with them. Quite humerous, isn't it, and yet sad at the same time.

Yeah, they're known as people who take Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity seriously.

Rush Limbaugh is on the air from noon-3pm on weekdays, and he's the second most listened to radio program in all of New York City, a very liberal city. Makes you wonder...

 

[Prometheus]

Rush Limbaugh is on the air from noon-3pm on weekdays, and he's the second most listened to radio program in all of New York City, a very liberal city. Makes you wonder...

I agree. People who listen to Limbaugh just to laugh at the hypocritical self-confessed idiot. What people will do for a joke. As to those who actually think his point of view has some merit, ... you are right, it does make me wonder.

 

[check]

So very true... If Bush loses in November I wonder how many Republicans will back away from supporting him... it could happen

 

[wasteofo2]

So very true... If Bush loses in November I wonder how many Republicans will back away from supporting him... it could happen

It won't be how many Republicans back away from supporting him, it'll initially be how many Republicans accuse Democrats of manipulating the vote. If Bush clearly loses, it won't be Republicans backing away from supporting him, it'll be Republicans that never supported him in the first place.

 

[Zantra]

ahh denial.. and I don't mean the river.. Right now people are riding the coat tails... if Bush looses, it will be a very lonely trip back to texas. As far as Iraq, the most common argument I hear in response to Bush being wrong is "well Saddam needed to go anyhow". While that may be true, doing so under the guise of a misconception, after going against so many countries and the UN to do it, is a fool's errand. It's akin to winning a race by tripping everyone else ahead of you along the way, and then going "hah! I would have won anyways". The end never justifies the means.

As far as troop morale- I think if I were a soldier I'd rather know the truth. If I'm going to die for my country, I want the real reasons, not some misleading hype to make me feel better about my sacrifices. It's like finding out Jim Jones put something in the kool aid and not telling his followers because it would be such a huge "downer". However, some people are more comfortable in their own little uptopia where Bush is a perfect leader, and only a victim of circumstance-who am I to take a dump in their wheaties?

*shrug*

 

[Gokul43201]

Ah, a Bush bash-fest ! Bash on !

 

[hanuman]

How to poat a new post

Dear All,
some how I am not able to understand how to punch in a question?
so I am useing this reply mode.
Can anyone guide me?
Hanuman

In light of today's report on the alleged Iraqi WMD programs, which we now know never existed after Gulf I, and considering the lack of any significant connection between Iraq and 911, and considering that in spite of Bush's efforts to escape responsibility for his rush to war, and in spite of his efforts to escape responsibility for his decisions and claims made as President of the United States, I think the invasion of Iraq now qualifies as the greatest blunder in foreign policy in US history.

Bush will be remembered in history; exactly as he should be.

 

[Evo]

hanuman, either do as you did and select "quote" or "post reply" and type your question.

Welcome to the forum!

 

[Prometheus]

ahh denial.. and I don't mean the river ...

Nice post.

 

[pelastration]

In light of today's report on the alleged Iraqi WMD programs, which we now know never existed after Gulf I, and considering the lack of any significant connection between Iraq and 911, and considering that in spite of Bush's efforts to escape responsibility for his rush to war, and in spite of his efforts to escape responsibility for his decisions and claims made as President of the United States, I think the invasion of Iraq now qualifies as the greatest blunder in foreign policy in US history.

Bush will be remembered in history; exactly as he should be.

Is "blunder" the correct word? Blunder: to make a mistake through stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness
I think it was a "scam": a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation
The Iraq operation was and still is an intentional set-up by PNAC.

 

[russ_watters]

...and getting yourself impeached over a BJ is probably the biggest general Presidential blunder in US history.

As for foreign policy, is Vietnam too general to get the gold on this? Yalu (? North Korea)river?

Somalia was pretty dumb, but I guess death-toll (gross, not net) is what is important.

And you must be a Reagan fan...

 

[Gokul43201]

...and getting yourself impeached over a BJ is probably the biggest general Presidential blunder in US history.

As for foreign policy, is Vietnam too general to get the gold on this? Yalu (? North Korea)river?

Somalia was pretty dumb, but I guess death-toll (gross, not net) is what is important.

And you must be a Reagan fan...

You've got to be a Reagan fan to call this the worst foreign policy screw up. Reagan helped establish more dictators and fundamentalists around the world than your average James Bond baddy with hopes of world domination would care to shake hands with...but I don't want to derail this thread, so let's just stick to the Bush bashing.

(hanuman, were you asking how to start a new thread ? You do that by clicking the "New Thread" icon at the top left in the relevant sub-forum/section.)

 

[physicsuser]

PF better watchout because Bush is comming for your nucular program...

 

[Zantra]

Nice post.

I just call it like i see it..

 

[CJames]

Oh come on. Why is there such a liberal bias in all intelligent conversations. God, you go to a college and look, everybody's a liberal. Talk to a bunch of physicists and there all liberal. Talk to artists and writers and they're all liberal. What's with that? I mean, you all must be so blinded by your intelligence, creativity, and open-mindedness to see what you would have believed if you weren't exposed to them. If there's anything American shouldn't be, it's a place where people can accept other ways of life.

 

[BobG]

There's one key difference between a 'blunder' and an 'unsuccessful' effort. If the worst you get out failure is a bruised ego, it was only an unsuccessful effort. If you failed to plan for the possibility of an unsuccessful effort and that failure leaves you materially worse off than before, it was a blunder.

Viet Nam wound up having a humiliating end. Other than that, the US was not materially affected by what happened in Viet Nam. Same goes for stationing marines in Beirut. Same goes for Somalia. Same would have gone for Bosnia and Kosovo - in fact, success really didn't affect us any more than a failure would have.

The same can't be said for Iraq. Unless there is (or was) a contingency in place to deal with the possibility of the 'Balkanization' of Iraq or total civil war, Iraq was a major blunder.

The only comparable 'blunder' I can think of was the Cuban missile crisis. It was provoked by Kennedy stationing missiles in Turkey. His contingency plan was to remove the missiles, but the crisis came too close to being a disaster to be treated as just a mistake or an unsuccessful effort.

 

[Prometheus]

...and getting yourself impeached over a BJ is probably the biggest general Presidential blunder in US history.

We are talking about the greatest blunder by a president in US history, and you are bringing up the incredibly stupid and self-serving Republican power grab. As horrendous as the Republicans were in this respect, it does not match up to the idiocy of Bush and his actions. Nice try, though.

 

[Artman]

I'm sorry, but I don't see removing a tyrant from a land under sanctions for ten years as the largest blunder in US history.

I'm not saying I agree with the war, but the situation in that country was dire before the war as well. I will reserve judgement on whether or not this was truly a blunder until I see how their political future unfolds and how the rest of the world reacts to the new leadership (lifting of sanctions, rebuilding of infrastructure, humanitarian aid, etc).

 

[LURCH]

In light of today's report on the alleged Iraqi WMD programs, which we now know never existed after Gulf I, and considering the lack of any significant connection between Iraq and 911, and considering that in spite of Bush's efforts to escape responsibility for his rush to war, and in spite of his efforts to escape responsibility for his decisions and claims made as President of the United States, I think the invasion of Iraq now qualifies as the greatest blunder in foreign policy in US history.

Bush will be remembered in history; exactly as he should be.

A report which could not have been written if not for the war. The information needed to reach this conclusion was not available before the war. That's why there was a war; because Saddam would not allow weapons inspections to take place peacefully. So he had to be forced to give up the necessary information. (BTW; I saw the interview with the Director of the CIA regarding this report, and he said that there is no reasonable doubt that Saddam was seeking WMD developement.)

The war was fought because Saddam was not cooperating with weapons inspections. To show that the war was fought under false pretenses, one would have to show that Saddam was cooperating with weapons inspections.

My vote for greatest blunder would be trying to "peacefully negotiate" with Afghanistan's Taliban government. As we sat idly and tried to talk nice to resolve our diffeences, they attacked again and again, until in the end thousands of inocent civilians paid the price for our lack of action. I for one am glad we didn't repeat that mistake, and suffer a Sarin or Mustard-gass (which we now know Iraq did have) attack in downtown LA.

 

[member 5645]

LEt's reinstate saddam, put sanctions back in place, put our bases back in Saudi Arabia, reinstate the no-fly zone... that was all working so great before.
I can't see why we wouldn't want to continue to kill so many Iraqis without holding Saddam accountable, continue to antagonize the saudis with our bases, continue to be fired on by Iraq, and still wonder how long until Saddam develops WMD.

It makes me sick to think of the reality so many of you wish for continuance of.

 

[Prometheus]

It makes me sick to think of the reality so many of you wish for continuance of.

Your words certainly do sound like you are sick. Not only sick, but somewhat delusional. Are you trying to make everyone else sick? It sounds like it.

 

[member 5645]

Your words certainly do sound like you are sick. Not only sick, but somewhat delusional. Are you trying to make everyone else sick? It sounds like it.

That's real cute. Adding more to this forum than you ever did before I see.

The reality of the pre war situation was as I described above for an infinite amount of time, or go in and change it. I disagree with the way things have been done, but I cannot fathom why ANY of you are so hell bent on wanting to keep in place an AWFUL system.

 

[selfAdjoint]

LEt's reinstate saddam, put sanctions back in place, put our bases back in Saudi Arabia, reinstate the no-fly zone... that was all working so great before.
I can't see why we wouldn't want to continue to kill so many Iraqis without holding Saddam accountable, continue to antagonize the saudis with our bases, continue to be fired on by Iraq, and still wonder how long until Saddam develops WMD.

It makes me sick to think of the reality so many of you wish for continuance of.

Nobody's suggesting any of that. The fact is that the Bush administration blew off our allies, spent us from budget balance into overwhelming debt, and attacked a foreign country on false pretenses, which had one good result, overthrow of Saddam, and many bad results, such as that we are now hated by big majorities not only in Islam, but in all the rest of the world too. Not to mention all the thousands of people who have been killed, and the puppet government, and..., and...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A report which could not have been written if not for the war. The information needed to reach this conclusion was not available before the war. That's why there was a war; because Saddam would not allow weapons inspections to take place peacefully. So he had to be forced to give up the necessary information. (BTW; I saw the interview with the Director of the CIA regarding this report, and he said that there is no reasonable doubt that Saddam was seeking WMD developement.)

There is no reasonable doubt that Saddam had fantasies. So what? Do we start wars over people's imaginations? Apparently so.

By the way, we have a whole new reason for the war - the oil for food program. Its funny how this never came up until now. What will it be tomorrow?

The war was fought because Saddam was not cooperating with weapons inspections. To show that the war was fought under false pretenses, one would have to show that Saddam was cooperating with weapons inspections.

So what you are saying is that Bush did not tell us and the rest of the world that we were attacking Iraq because they were an imminent threat to our National Security?

What you mean is that this was Bush's rationalization to snub the UN and to alienate most of our allies.

 

[member 5645]

Nobody's suggesting any of that. The fact is that the Bush administration blew off our allies, spent us from budget balance into overwhelming debt, and attacked a foreign country on false pretenses, which had one good result, overthrow of Saddam, and many bad results, such as that we are now hated by big majorities not only in Islam, but in all the rest of the world too. Not to mention all the thousands of people who have been killed, and the puppet government, and..., and...

And I can handle that. However, the statement being made from the beginning of this thread harps on the lack of WMD and link between Iraq and 9/11, not the pathetic execution of the war post decision.

And for the little quip at the end ;)...
Thousands killed < Sanction deaths
'puppet government' = interim government (and is standard fare throughout history when putting democracy in place)

 

[member 5645]

1>There is no reasonable doubt that Saddam had fantasies. So what? Do we start wars over people's imaginations? Apparently so.

2>By the way, we have a whole new reason for the war - the oil for food program. Its funny how this never came up until now. What will it be tomorrow?

3>So what you are saying is that Bush did not tell us and the rest of the world that we were attacking Iraq because they were an imminent threat to our National Security?

4>What you mean is that this was Bush's rationalization to snub the UN and to alienate most of our allies.

1>Are you really going to take intent blocked by sanctions down to "fantasies"?? haha, let's stick to reality here.
2> I find nothing humorous about that at all. It's sick and some of the largest part of why I think sanctions are so stupid on a non-democratic country.
3>And you are going to tell me that you knew something Bush, Clinton, France, Germany, Russia, the UN, and John Kerry didn't? Everyone was feeding from the same information bag with a noncompliant Saddam sitting at the other end.
4>...

 

[Ba]

You know, as far as I remember not too long before the war there were weapon inspectors in Iraq, nothing was found, there wasn't anything there no matter how hard they looked. Then Bush and his administration decides that Saddam must have WMDs and be connected with the terror network. Now we look again and WHAT? still nothing and Bush still insists on WMDs. Meanwhile North Korea publicly announced they were creating WMDs at the time and Bush ignored them all together.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Is "blunder" the correct word? Blunder: to make a mistake through stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness
I think it was a "scam": a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation
The Iraq operation was and still is an intentional set-up by PNAC.

As this pertains to the election in November, it is only necessary to understand that at the least, Bush demonstrated stupidity, ingorance, and carelessness in leading this nation. There is no reason to start slinging mud.

 

[Loren Booda]

Who among us here has risked their life in the current conflict in Iraq?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If you read carefully, you'll notice that the report only investigates whether Saddam possesed WMD stockpiles at the *time* of the U.S invasian in March of 2003. This doesn't investigate whether or not Saddam had a stockpile before this time or not.

This also doesn't exclude the fact that Saddam may have exported his WMD stockpiles before March of 2003.

I'm a Kerry supporter, but you can't be wrong about facts like this.

Actually, the report to Congress was that he never restarted his WMD programs after Gulf I. His nuclear program fell into disarray and was effectively non-existant within six years.

 

[member 5645]

You know, as far as I remember not too long before the war there were weapon inspectors in Iraq, nothing was found, there wasn't anything there no matter how hard they looked. Then Bush and his administration decides that Saddam must have WMDs and be connected with the terror network. Now we look again and WHAT? still nothing and Bush still insists on WMDs. Meanwhile North Korea publicly announced they were creating WMDs at the time and Bush ignored them all together.

I do believe you are unaware of how the inspections process is intended to work.


HINT: Inspectors don't go digging around in the sand trying to find something.

 

[pelastration]

HINT: Inspectors don't go digging around in the sand trying to find something.

High-tech imaging from planes and satellites. The technology is there.

 

[member 5645]

High-tech imaging from planes and satellites. The technology is there.

Again, those craft are not directed by the inspection team. The planes and satellites are from member countries who were told, and agreed, to assist in the inspection progress any way they could. The US did so by providing as much daming information as possible. We wanted to make sure they caught everything, so we gave them everything that looked suspicous.
Then the inspectors did their job - they INSPECTED.

Inspections DO NOT WORK without cooperation from the inspected party. It is a requirement that Saddam work with inspectors for a goal of PROVING he had disarmed per his signed armistace. The goal wasn't to make sure we uncovered everything. It was to make sure he uncovered everything.

S Africa was a proper inspections process. Again, they said "we want to rejoin the world community". They handed over documents, provided scientists, gave unfettered access to sites without delay. Then the inspectors gave a green light for being clear.

Blix himself said that Saddam was still not fully cooperating, that the soil samples didn't accoutn for ALL of the stockpiles he had admitted to having, and that things would have to be even further open for inspections to be successful. While he stressed that things were GETTING better, he also stressed that cooperation was not at the level expected.

That is the goal of inspectors, not playing sherlock holmes in the desert. You don't just say "The admitted weapons are hidden well, so they must not exist." You don't leave that kind of weaponry around without accountability.

 

[megashawn]

like Edwards said, this is the first war-time administration to not create jobs. Every war previous has created tons of more jobs, yet we see close to 1million net job losses since Bush's reign began.

Maybe the war wasn't a blunder (even though they blatantly lied about the reasoning), but certainly most everything else this administration has done, is doing, or attempting to do is.

sorry, couldn't contain it.

 

[i_wish_i_was_smart]

i don't believe taking out Saddam is going to make such a big difference, as soo as the US pulls out, completely, more or less, its going to go back to the same crap, a religios group or whatever is going to take power by force or democracy, then declare dictatorship, then bush the third, fourth or fith will have to do it all over again, the country intself is so devided and so unstable, its never going to work

 

[selfAdjoint]

I'm with you, smart. The south wants to be a Shariah tyrrany like Iran, the middle wants to be a Shariah tyranny like Saudi Arabia, and the Kurdish north wants to pick up everything that isn't nailed down. Ten years from now, unless something wonderful happens, the Iraqis are going to be pining for the good old days of Saddam.

The people I really sympathize with are the Iraqi women. Saddam, with all his evils, gave them a semi-modern role in society, and the future for them looks like back to veils and stoning.

 

[Prometheus]

for an infinite amount of time

An infinite amount, is it?

I cannot fathom why ANY of you are so hell bent on wanting to keep in place an AWFUL system.

You are missing the point completely. COMPLETELY. You are missing the point infinitely, to use your phraseology. I think that nobody on this forum wanted to keep Saddam in power. However, more important questions were how high a price is justified for removing him and how many lies can Bush tell before it is too many?

Do you really think that removing Saddam was justified no matter what the cost. In other words, even if the cost is infinite, as you say, do you consider that nothing else matters in relation to removing Saddam?

 

[member 5645]

1>An infinite amount, is it?


2>You are missing the point completely. COMPLETELY. You are missing the point infinitely, to use your phraseology. I think that nobody on this forum wanted to keep Saddam in power. However, more important questions were how high a price is justified for removing him and how many lies can Bush tell before it is too many?

3>Do you really think that removing Saddam was justified no matter what the cost. In other words, even if the cost is infinite, as you say, do you consider that nothing else matters in relation to removing Saddam?

1>Yes, infinite. You continue to question me. We arne't speaking, I'm typing. Reread if you missed the first time around...

in·fi·nite ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nf-nt)
adj.
Having no boundaries or limits.
Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.

2>A large faction of this forum wanted to keep in place a system that would keep Saddam in power. Whether they WANTED the end result, they still support/supported doing JUST THAT. Well, why don't you answer that question? Apparently we passed that point before ANY lives were lost in the most recent conflict (oh wait, thousands were dying under sanctions.)

3>I never said that, implied it, or anything. No. If you really want to discuss this, you could ask me questions without trying to imply that I said any of that.

 

[Prometheus]

1>Yes, infinite. You continue to question me. We arne't speaking, I'm typing. Reread if you missed the first time around...

in·fi·nite ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nf-nt)
adj.
Having no boundaries or limits.
Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.

You go to such great lengths to define this word. However, this does not make your original usage any more accurate or mreaningful.

2>A large faction of this forum wanted to keep in place a system that would keep Saddam in power. Whether they WANTED the end result, they still support/supported doing JUST THAT. Well, why don't you answer that question?

What question? As I said, you are completely missing the point. I do not think that a single person on this forum wanted to keep in place a system that would keep Saddam in power. It is simply that they did not want to change the system with no thought at all of the consequences, and with no concern about whether the consequences might lead to am even worse situation. Do you still not understand my point? Do you still think that my point is without any merit at all?

 

[kat]

What question? As I said, you are completely missing the point. I do not think that a single person on this forum wanted to keep in place a system that would keep Saddam in power. It is simply that they did not want to change the system with no thought at all of the consequences, and with no concern about whether the consequences might lead to am even worse situation. Do you still not understand my point? Do you still think that my point is without any merit at all?

I don't think he's missing the point. I suspect you are along with all of those who echo your same ole dreary proclamation. I also suspect that it's all well and good to declare that you weren't for keeping Saddam in power when no body has pressed you too hard for an alternative. So, I suggest a moratorium on those type of comments until you and your ilk come up with an alternative that didn't keep him in power which contained no risk that the consequences might lead to a worse situation. Until then you should probably just shuttup cause my other suspicion is that people like you aren't helping any and definitely are undermining.

 

[Prometheus]

I don't think he's missing the point. I suspect you are along with all of those who echo your same ole dreary proclamation. I also suspect that it's all well and good to declare that you weren't for keeping Saddam in power when no body has pressed you too hard for an alternative. So, I suggest a moratorium on those type of comments until you and your ilk come up with an alternative that didn't keep him in power which contained no risk that the consequences might lead to a worse situation. Until then you should probably just shuttup cause my other suspicion is that people like you aren't helping any and definitely are undermining.

My, isn't this the stupidest post I have read in a while. You and your ilk really can sling the ****. You say nothing of value, but it is really full of it. You post a large paragraph, but it is completely devoid of anything but garbage. Why don't you go back to the hold you crawled out of, and return when you have something constructive to say.

 

[Zantra]

people you're just trying to justify Bush screwing up. Saddam wasn't worth the price- he wasn't a threat, and there were no WMDs. To think otherwise is to delude yourself. If you equate the loss of life in this war, the economic impact, and turning the rest of the world against us to toppling Saddam, then you really have psychosis. excuses and lies(you can say "deception" but let's call a spade a spade.) That's all Bush has provided, even while wreaking havoc on our nation. God help us if he gets reelected.

To claim it was our right "just because we're americans" is arrogant and stupid. God forbid we ever have a true chrisis we can't handle internally in the future, because we'll be getting the international finger salute. If you take away the "WMD" excuse, we basically just said "we're bigger and we don't how you're running your country, so we'll do it for you". While that would have been great with international support, instead Bush just made us like like conquerors, not liberators.