History Bush: The Greatest Blunder in US History

[Ivan Seeking]

Whoops, I'm sorry, Iran Contra involved Bush's father.

 

[member 5645]

1>Okay, what do you call it when we dream? The fact is that with the sanctions in place he was crippled.



2>Humorous? I was repeating what Cheney said today about why we went to war. Like I said, I wonder what the reasons will be tomorrow.



3>Ah, what you are saying is that Bush isn't responsible for his actions. This is a typical response to defend catastrophic failures in judgement. In fact, when I sat and watched the testimony by Powell and Rummy to the UN, I sat in utter amazement that these jokers had nothing more to go on. You can say what you want but this was my position from the start. Later, Powell admitted that he also was not comfortable with their claims. But his job was to serve the President.

Also, are you telling me that Clinton, France, Germany, Russia, the UN, and Kerry gave the order to invade Iraq?

1>If that is the point of your statement, then the REAL point is that there was no way to know this otherwise. There was NOT cooperation, and sanctions were set to be in place indefinitely. That is what you wanted/want? Read the numbers above for the deaths that were caused due to this practice, and still, only now after a different path can you even say that sanctions were working. Lack of cooperation by Saddam alone has always been the key test of whether sanctions were working. No cooperation means no ability to know if the sanctions were effective. That is the huge flaw in a system based on a despotic dictator telling the truth.
2>you said funny, just saying I don't find it funny. So he disregarded the other reasons previously stated? Or was just adding benefits to us going in? Link to him stating 'to bust up the oil for food scandal' was the reason for goign in?
3>Your statement was "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 was the point of you making the statement? My point in response was that any statement was made off the same intelligence everyone else believed, even those against the war. Based on this information, I fail to see any damning point if Bush did say Iraq was an imminent threat. I never said anything about post-war accountability. I have already stated in this thread that I have issues with that.

 

[member 5645]

Cute. You claim that being an idiot is not the same as lying. Good one. How would you like me to show this intent?

You may want to think about rewording that sentence. They AREN'T the same.
You can't show the intent, and we know that. You made the charge that Bush "LIED about why we went to war?"

Can you show me this lie? I mean, if I were simply mistaken, LIE is a pretty hefty charge, no matter how stupid I am. You guys would get a lot further with your rhetoric if you could just easily back it with substance. I mean, post war incompetance would give you a better footing than a statement that you cannot prove (to my knowledge...if I don't add this caveat, I could be told I LIED instead of was just wrong)

 

[Artman]

I think that Kat's request for an alternate method of removing Sadaam is a valid point. The rising death toll due to the sanctions, should not be ignored. To say that the sanctions were working to keep Sadaam crippled does not address the fact that they were killing the Iraqi people and were being blamed on the USA by Sadaam and his supporters.

We learned following the first World War and the incredible depression in Germany that if left unchecked this kind of economic situation is a perfect breeding ground for hatred and power struggle. So what I want to know is, how would you have removed the sanctions to save the Iraqi people, and yet still keep Sadaam in check or remove him from power without resorting to war?

 

[russ_watters]

Has anyone noticed the obvious fallacy in the Bush argument? The report on Iraq stated that Saddam fantasized about regaining his WMD program after the sanctions were lifted.

In other words, the sanctions were working[/size].

Are you saying sanctions are meant to be permanent?

Oh yes, Russ, as for your vote for domestic policy blunders, [btw, getting a BJ is not domestic policy]

Actually, getting a BJ while on the phone conducting domestic policy is a domestic policy issue (iirc, it was also a foreign policy issue...). Whether you consider that a blunder or not is up to you.

but if you wish to cite scandals, have you ever heard of Watergate? Iran Contra? Do you remember Agnew? Let's see...hmmm. those were also all Republican administrations weren't they. In fact, many of Bush's friends were involved in all cases; like Cheney and Rummy.

Certainly - I did say you seem to be a Reagan fan. In any case, the point is that scandals and blunders happen a lot. Every administration has them.

Personally, I consider 9/11 a far worse blunder than Iraq. I don't really consider Iraq a blunder, but even if I did, we've lost about 1,000 people, virtually all of them soldiers. We lost about 3,000 on 9/11 - virtually all civilians. I consider 9/11 to be by far the biggest national security lapse ever in the US.

Whoops, I'm sorry, Iran Contra involved Bush's father.

Well, "involved," but not very much unless you buy into the Regan-took-an-eight-year-nap theory. I don't - he knew exactly what he was doing.

 

[russ_watters]

[phat, thanks for the numbers - clearest representation I've seen]

I think that Kat's request for an alternate method of removing Sadaam is a valid point. The rising death toll due to the sanctions, should not be ignored. To say that the sanctions were working to keep Sadaam crippled does not address the fact that they were killing the Iraqi people and were being blamed on the USA by Sadaam and his supporters.

We learned following the first World War and the incredible depression in Germany that if left unchecked this kind of economic situation is a perfect breeding ground for hatred and power struggle. So what I want to know is, how would you have removed the sanctions to save the Iraqi people, and yet still keep Sadaam in check or remove him from power without resorting to war?

Its a nasty double-eged sword, isn't it? I personally blame the deaths on Saddam for making the sanctions necessary, but I can certainly see why people would blame them on us (as the default UN scapegoat - these were, after all, UN sanctions). Anyway, sanctions work for their intended purpose while in effect, but they don't cure the problem and the side effects (terrorism and death) are as bad as the symptoms the sanctions ease. Quite frankly, it seems to me to be exactly the type of compromise Democrats like to make - and as long as we're quiet about it, maybe people won't notice the side effects.

I've never seen an Iraq -> Germany analogy before. It fits well.

 

[russ_watters]

...such as that we are now hated by big majorities not only in Islam, but in all the rest of the world too.

Are you saying the French are likely to become terrorists? People in the rest of the world may be annoyed at us right now, but there is a big difference between that and the real hatred directed at us from he mid-east.

Not to mention all the thousands of people who have been killed...

See phat's stats.

and the puppet government...

See the Marshal Plan.

 

[Gokul43201]

[phat, thanks for the numbers - clearest representation I've seen]

Clearest ?? I don't see how !

I'm sure if I quoted the same information, someone from the right would challenge me saying :

"So...are you saying that the increase is due strictly to the sanctions, as opposed to...radiation levels from DU, the crippling effect of fighting the Kuwait War on the Iraqi economy, the billions of dollars worth of infrastructure that was destroyed by allied missiles and bombs, or any other factors ?

Can we get something better then supposition and innuendo here? please?"

 

[Gokul43201]

Whoops, I'm sorry, Iran Contra involved Bush's father.

...and people (or vermin) like Elliot Abrams, who plead guilty on charges of lying to Congress on multiple occasions (to avoid the bigger charges that were harder to prove.), and was appointed by Bush Jr. as the NSC's senior director for democracy, human rights and international operations - a post that does not require Senate approval.

 

[BobG]

A couple have mentioned that the decision to invade Iraq had to be based on information available before the war. The Senate's Intelligence Committee took a look at the pre-war assessment:

Had responsible persons in the administration read the report and compared it others, they would have realized the information was essentially the same ... only the conclusions changed. The CIA's NIE was the only intelligence report suggesting Iraq was an imminent threat. Other intel information available disagreed with much of the CIA's report. The general congress didn't have access to the classified version of the report - they basically were presented the conclusions as verified fact.

A transcript of the Senate's review of prewar intellligence is here: http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/5792

Conclusions 8 and 11 are kind of interesting. Conclusion 8 talks about the drastic change in reporting styles and Conclusion 11 talks about possible pressure placed on the CIA to alter their conclusions. They found no evidence of CIA analysts altering their conclusions due to outside pressure.

Most of the 'failure' is placed directly on the CIA and it's hard to say how reasonable it was for the administration to be misled by faulty intelligence, but people make decisions like this all the time.

Your wife's car's ABS light is constantly lit, the mechanic says the light is malfunctioning, not the brakes and charges you $40. The light doesn't come on anymore. Do you trust him?

Your wife's car's ABS light is constantly lit, the mechanic says your entire ABS system has to be replaced at a cost of $1295. You throw a fit, refusing to pay even the diagnostic charge. The mechanic takes a second look and finds that it is the light that is malfunctioning, not the brake system, and charges you $40. The light doesn't come on anymore. Do you trust him?

Your wife's car is covered by an extended warranty and the mechanic has done over a $1000 worth of work on your brake system during repeated trips to the mechanic and, still, the ABS light comes back on a day or two after the car has been repaired. The mechanic finally discovers that the only real malfunction is a defective ABS light. The light doesn't come on anymore. Do you trust him?

 

[Artman]

I'm sure if I quoted the same information, someone from the right would challenge me saying :

"So...are you saying that the increase is due strictly to the sanctions, as opposed to...radiation levels from DU, the crippling effect of fighting the Kuwait War on the Iraqi economy, the billions of dollars worth of infrastructure that was destroyed by allied missiles and bombs, or any other factors ?

Can we get something better then supposition and innuendo here? please?"

The title of this post makes an enourmous claim "Bush: the biggest blunder in US history." As long as there are possiblities that this was not a blunder, that statement is not fully substantiated. The burdon of proof should lie with the accuser, niot the accused. Besides, which of those items could not have been improved by the lifting of sanctions, removal of Sadaam and the availability of foreign aid to the Iraqi people?

 

[Gokul43201]

The title of this post makes an enourmous claim "Bush: the biggest blunder in US history." As long as there are possiblities that this was not a blunder, that statement is not fully substantiated. The burdon of proof should lie with the accuser, niot the accused. Besides, which of those items could not have been improved by the lifting of sanctions, removal of Sadaam and the availability of foreign aid to the Iraqi people?

I've made it clear, in a previous post, that I do not agree with the title of this thread. Nor am I trying to give Saddam the benefit of doubt for anything.

I'm merely complaining about russ' repeated assertions that phatmonky's post "clearly" proves that the sanctions were the cause of all these deaths. Seems to me like a lowering of standards.

 

[Spectre32]

Actually... It's not Bush's fault that allot of what happened. The real person to blame was Clinton. He was that one that let the attacks build up(Uss Cole, all of bombing of embassy’s, etc etc) As soon as Somalia went to crap, and people complained, that’s when he grew a vag on the terrorism front. The director of CIA, from day one, said the biggest threat to America was Osama Bin Laden. So what does he do? Nothing. Oh wait he launches a few cruise missiles at "training camps." Also let's not kid ourselves, all of you Die hard democrats should know that whoever gets elected, the outcome is going to be the same. Kerry with all of his crap and Bush with his, all ends up at the same place after 4 years. So I mean people say this is a big election... but it's not really, because Iraq is going to dictate allot. So I'm waiting for next terms election.

October 2002: Kerry Voted For Use Of Force Resolution Against Iraq. Kerry and Edwards voted for the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. (H. J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea)

Also with the screw up in Iraq, me must also consider this. Dicky and Rummy wanted to go in initaly... Bush was undecided, and Powell said No. So really those two convinced bush to get into Iraq. Rummy was pushing Iraq from day one, like he had some sort of score to settle. I suggest you guys read Bush at War and Plan of Attack. There both relly good books, and then you don't sound like a jackass when your talking on the forums.( that was directed to no one in particular, just as a general statement)

 September 2004: Kerry: Iraq Is "The Wrong War In The Wrong Place At The Wrong Time." "Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry on Monday called the invasion of Iraq ‘the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time’ and said his goal was to withdraw U.S. troops in his first White House term." (Patricia Wilson, " Kerry on Iraq: Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time", Reuters, 9/6/04)

See it's the same crap over and over... I want someone with Answers and a real stragety. Wesly Clark should have won against Kerry, cause he's a badass, ands knows what's up.

 

[Prometheus]

You can't show the intent, and we know that. You made the charge that Bush "LIED about why we went to war?"

Let us say that I agree with you and decide to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. He is an idiot, and he has no ability to think. The fact that he selectively evaluated the evidence is not his fault, because he is stupid. The fact that he decided that we needed to hurry so quickly that it is ok if we alienate our allies is justified because he is an impulsive idiot.

Bush told us the reasons for going to war. Those reasons turn out to be in error. In other words, Bush convinced the country to go to war for reasons that were not true. Bush therefore used fallacious reasons. I believe that someone with some brains would not have been in such a hurry, would not have been so selective in the evidence that he accepted, and would not have go off half-cocked like the idiot that he is.

Now, you are claiming that I must somehow prove in a manner that you accept that he did lied with premeditated intent. I see no need for this. He made statements that were not true. He must be held responsible for that. Passing the buck is not an option that I recognize as valid in this case. It does not matter to me that I cannot convince you that he had intent to lie. The fact of the matter is that he did make untrue statements repeatedly in an attempt to coerce the American people.

By the way, do you recognize that Cheney lied? He is still maintaining several points that no one in the administration other than he is making. Or, do you believe that Cheney is telling the truth as well.

A quick look at dictionary.com defines lie in a couple of ways. Notice that the first one is:
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Only in the second (as in not first) definition does it indicate that a lie can also be understood as possessing intent to deceive.

 

[Spectre32]

Bush told us the reasons for going to war. Those reasons turn out to be in error. In other words, Bush convinced the country to go to war for reasons that were not true. Bush therefore used fallacious reasons. I believe that someone with some brains would not have been in such a hurry, would not have been so selective in the evidence that he accepted, and would not have go off half-cocked like the idiot that he is.

Well I assume your a democrat, So i say look at my post above. You Boy kerry voted to go to war with Iraq.

 

[Prometheus]

Well I assume your a democrat,

For the sake of argument, why don't you assume that you are wrong, since you are, and then try again.

So i say look at my post above. You Boy kerry voted to go to war with Iraq.

Since Kerry is not my boy, what are you left with? A dumb Bush and his lies. Sorry.

How does your contention here, even if it were true, which it is not, justify the mistakes and incompetance of Bush that I pointed out in the citation that you referred to?

 

[BobG]

I think that Kat's request for an alternate method of removing Sadaam is a valid point. The rising death toll due to the sanctions, should not be ignored. To say that the sanctions were working to keep Sadaam crippled does not address the fact that they were killing the Iraqi people and were being blamed on the USA by Sadaam and his supporters.

We learned following the first World War and the incredible depression in Germany that if left unchecked this kind of economic situation is a perfect breeding ground for hatred and power struggle. So what I want to know is, how would you have removed the sanctions to save the Iraqi people, and yet still keep Sadaam in check or remove him from power without resorting to war?

Using your argument, there were quite a few other countries which should have had their governments replaced before we ever got around to giving Iraq a new government. Comparing life expectancy, literacy rates, poverty and human rights abuses:

Iraq had the 47th lowest human development index and ranked 15th in human rights abuses.
Sierra Leone worst in human development index, 5th in human rights abuses.
DemRepCongo had the 21st lowest human development index and ranked 1st in human rights abuses.
Rwanda ranked 9th lowest in HDI and 2nd in human rights abuses.
Pakistan 26th and 11th.
There's several other examples from the following lists :
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2001/en/pdf/Addendum4.pdf
http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2001/en/pdf/back.pdf
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Tables/4_col_tables/0,5737,258329,00.html

All are a perfect breeding ground for hatred and power struggle. FYI - Afghanistan ranked 16th in human rights abuses and in the bottom five for HDI.

You can't (and shouldn't) replace every government that is doing an inept job. The decision on Iraq should have been based solely upon Iraq's threat to us, either directly or indirectly.

 

[Spectre32]

For the sake of argument, why don't you assume that you are wrong, since you are, and then try again.

Since Kerry is not my boy, what are you left with? A dumb Bush and his lies. Sorry.

How does your contention here, even if it were true, which it is not, justify the mistakes and incompetance of Bush that I pointed out in the citation that you referred to?

I assume you were democrat, so since you are not, then my accuization is false. Sorry.

 

[BobG]

A few have disagreed with the title of this thread or feel that you should wait until the results are into decide whether Iraq was a blunder or not.

It's the soundness of the thinking and the planning that determine whether it is a blunder or not. If a person makes a huge blunder and still succeeds, it's just lucky - not good planning. Likewise, good planning and decision making don't ensure success - they just make it extremely likely.

In spite of a multitude of people who's job it is to know, the Bush administration invaded Iraq on bad information with an insufficient number of forces and there is no sign that they had prepared for anything other than a best case scenario.

It's a blunder regardless of how things eventually turn out.

 

[studentx]

How do you prepare for carbombs and suicidebombers?

 

[pelastration]

You Boy kerry voted to go to war with Iraq.

Sure.
Kerry based his vote on information and motives given by the president. Now it's clear that info and motives were intentionally false.
Who to blame?
Kerry for his vote or Bush for his scam?
Who "made" the cause to vote?

 

[BobG]

How do you prepare for carbombs and suicidebombers?

Are carbombs and suicide bombers a new tactic?

A truck full of explosives was used both in Oklahoma City and in the '93 attack on the World Trade Center. Suicide bombers have been a fact of life in the Palestinian-Israel conflict for quite a few years.

While you can't defend every attack successfully, it certainly shouldn't have been a surprise that they would occur.

 

[Prometheus]

How do you prepare for carbombs and suicidebombers?

I am sorry, but I don't understand who you are referring to with your pronoun 'you'.

Furthermore, are you really asking how the administration might have prepared for them, or are you asking how they might have anticipated that they might be used?

What exactly is your point, and who are you addressing it to?

 

[kat]

Sure.
Kerry based his vote on information and motives given by the president. Now it's clear that info and motives were intentionally false.
Who to blame?
Kerry for his vote or Bush for his scam?
Who "made" the cause to vote?

Not exactly, Kerry can't blame Bush for his vote. The National Intelligence Estimate was written for Kerry and other senate members. In the fall of 2002, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee had requested that the CIA produce the document so that senators would have up to date intelligence to base their votes on. Unfortunately, If memory serves me correctly, Kerry later admitted to not having bothered to read the intelligence report.

 

[pelastration]

Not exactly, Kerry can't blame Bush for his vote. The National Intelligence Estimate was written for Kerry and other senate members. In the fall of 2002, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee had requested that the CIA produce the document so that senators would have up to date intelligence to base their votes on. Unfortunately, If memory serves me correctly, Kerry later admitted to not having bothered to read the intelligence report.

That's not my point.
Bush wanted this war.
So there was need to vote.
When the Senate voted it was based on intelligence influenced by Feith, Wurmser, Rumsfeld, Perle ... all from PNAC. They wanted this war.
When Kerry voted he based his opinion on "facts".
But these "facts" were false.
You can not blame Kerry to have voted "yes" if the information given to the Senate was incorrect.
You should blame the guys how organized the scam.

Bush used this to show call Kerry a flip-flop, but Bush himself is a flop-flop all over his policy. Almost everything he did was wrong or went wrong. Flop-Flop or FLOP^2.
I can't understand kat that a smart (?) women like you prefer a flop-flop like Bush as your leader.

 

[Spectre32]

That's not my point.
Bush wanted this war.

Again He DID NOT want to go to war with Iraq. He wanted to mess Afganastan up. Rummy and Cheney were pushing for war. Initaly Bush was unsure as what he wanted to do.

Bush used this to show call Kerry a flip-flop, but Bush himself is a flop-flop all over his policy. Almost everything he did was wrong or went wrong. Flop-Flop or FLOP^2.

C'mon dude, it's proven fack that Kerry voted for forcable movementr in Iraq, and then when his chances of becomming presidnet increased, all of a sudden his views changed. And by your logic "everything that bush did went wrong, and therefore he is flop-flopping himself"? C'mon That dosen't even make sense Hes not flip-floping himself, otherwise right now he would be saying, No i didn't want to send troops into iraq. Christ, he F-ed up, that's all. He didn't Flip-Flop.

 

[pelastration]

Again He DID NOT want to go to war with Iraq. He wanted to mess Afganastan up. Rummy and Cheney were pushing for war. Initaly Bush was unsure as what he wanted to do.

C'mon dude, it's proven fack that Kerry voted for forcable movementr in Iraq, and then when his chances of becomming presidnet increased, all of a sudden his views changed. And by your logic "everything that bush did went wrong, and therefore he is flop-flopping himself"? C'mon That dosen't even make sense Hes not flip-floping himself, otherwise right now he would be saying, No i didn't want to send troops into iraq. Christ, he F-ed up, that's all. He didn't Flip-Flop.

If Rummy and Cheney wanted war and Flop-Flop didn't that means he's not a real president. That means Cheney is the real president. That means Flop-Flop is not a real Leader.

 

[Spectre32]

Frist off it takes quite a Man to be president of the US, to say he's not a leader is a lie. You call him a flip flop I ask you to present hard facutal proof As I have, for Kerry.

 

[Prometheus]

Again He DID NOT want to go to war with Iraq. He wanted to mess Afganastan up. Rummy and Cheney were pushing for war. Initaly Bush was unsure as what he wanted to do.

We all recognize that Bush does not have the intelligence to make decisions for himself, nor are his handlers stupid enough to let him. But I think that Bush wanted to overthrow Saddam to show his daddy that he is better than him.

C'mon That dosen't even make sense Hes not flip-floping himself, otherwise right now he would be saying, No i didn't want to send troops into iraq. He didn't Flip-Flop.

You are right. If he were flip-flopping, he would say that the reason for going to war with Iraq was never because of WMDs, but instead because of xxx (where xxx is the raison du jour).

 

[Prometheus]

Frist off it takes quite a Man to be president of the US,

Support this contention with hard facts. Also, provide evidence that a woman could not do the job.

to say he's not a leader is a lie.

It would also be meaningless. Yes, he is the leader of the country, even though he is a puppet of Cheney and the neo-cons. To say that he is an idiot, a failure, and a divider of the country is true, is it not?

You call him a flip flop I ask you to present hard facutal proof

Get real. What is his justification for the war in Iraqa? How many times has that changed. Was he not very against the 9/11 commission? Now what? Are you seriously contending that you have never seen any evidence that Bush has ever flip-flopped? Just read the news, unless you consider it all to be left-wing lies.