What if Bush and Cheney ARE delusional?

[turbo]

Which I agreed to in the post I just made:

"If Bush deliberately misled everyone and selectively chose false evidence to bring us to war, he needs to be booted and yes, it is about time we had a new President anyway."

In other words, yes I agree with you.

Thank you! Bush and Cheney lied lied about the truthfulness of the UN weapons inspectors and told the US that they were lying or at best ineffectual in their reporting. We now know the UN inspectors were right. Bush and Cheney outed a NOC CIA agent (Valerie Plame) to punish her husband for not rubber-stamping their made-up claim that Saddam was trying to buy yellow-cake from Niger. NOC agents have no official cover (like embassy agents) and are the most at-risk agents in the CIA. They were mad ad her husband, and outed her and destroyed her career ( which was dedicated to controlling weapons of mass destruction!) Our current administration is a handful of creeps that made up pretenses to wage war on an oil-producing country with no justification.

 

[mathwonk]

what if..??!

 

[drankin]

We're going to have to tough it out for just a little longer, friends.

 

[mathwonk]

the bumper sticker read: "is it 2008 yet?"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

From another thread re the Gonzales hearing:

Gonzo is now having memory problems.

"You have answered `I don't know' or `I can't recall' to close to 100 questions. You are unfamiliar with inner workings of your department," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., scolded. "I urge you to re-examine your performance, and for the good of the department and the good of the country, step down."

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/ledgerenquirer/news/nation/17104984.htm

I couldn't find a transcript yet, but Bush responded today by saying that he was happy and still supporting Gonzales, and "he felt that he [Gonzales] answered your questions". This is found at the 17:00 minute mark here:
http://media.pbs.org/ramgen/newshour/expansion/2007/04/19/20070419_gonzales28.rm?altplay=20070419_gonzales28.rm
from PBS - The News Hour - main page today
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/

Liar or delusional? Or is this just a reckless disregard for factual information - people who will say anything to get what they want or to create the desired spin? People who assume that no one is paying attention so they can get away with anything no matter how obvious? People who have no regard for the truth? People who know that BS said often enough becomes truth? The question in my mind is whether or not Bush even realizes what's happening [delusional] - if he is the unwitting puppet exploited by the likes of Cheney and Rummy. When I see the arrogance combined with his religious beliefs, I see a broad avenue for exploitation.

 

[BobG]

The idea that Congressmen were tricked into voting for the resolution by Bush and Cheney lies is a myth perpetuated by Congressmen. They knew full well what they were voting for.

That's not the same as saying they voted for the resolution because they believed in the reasons given. Bringing the resolution before Congress in October 2002, less than a month before elections, had more to do with the results than whether Congress believed the invasion was right or wrong.

Bush bet on a lack of courage by Congress and it turned out he was right.

There used to be an article by Winslow Wheeler on the Senate debate leading up to the vote that was available for free on the internet. Wheeler writes some very good pieces on the working of Congress, especially on how defense budgets are constructed, and now you have to pay to read them.

You can still go right to the source, The Congressional Record, though. The debate on Iraq starts on Oct 4 and is available here: Congressional Record - Senate. Unfortunately, the debate is intermingled with other Senate business, making the reading a bit tedious - you have to keep skipping past the parts you don't want to read.

The first couple of days have some very intelligent debate about the war. Well, excluding Sen Miller's comments which leave a listener asking more questions about the sex lives of snakes than Iraq - I always cringe when someone self-elevates themselves to Jesus Christ status and begins speaking in parables. But that's more than outweighed by comments from Wellstone, McCain, Byrd, and a few others. The real reason the resolution is passed is summed up by Sen Byrd, right off the bat: Senate debate.

Barbara Boxer shows she understands how Senators come to their decisions - instead of weighing the pros and cons of the invasion itself, they'll have their staffers analyze the effect the Senator's vote will have on voters. Her message is that Senators can vote their best judgement and can sell that vote to the public. At least she deals in reality.

Unfortunately, most Senators' staffs apparently disagreed. The debate eventually degrades into Senators practicing that time honored practice of talking out of both sides of their mouth. Their comments are carefully crafted to provide quotes that they can cherry pick in ensuing election campaigns regardless of how the invasion turns out. At one point, the string of drivel got so bad that one of the Senators, themselves, felt he had to stand up and ask the other Senators to please read the resolution before speaking. As Ivan noted, Clinton's comments were probably the low point of the debate. Reading her comments, one has to wonder if it's fair to have a thread asking if Bush and Cheney are delusional and not have a similar thread for Hillary Clinton.

Some Senators voted based on what they truly believed. They may have been right or they may have been wrong, but they at least did what we paid them for - they did their best for their nation. Not all were up to that task. Sad to say, when asked to weigh one of the most serious questions our leaders can face, a very large number placed their own political careers ahead of the nation.

 

[Astronuc]

Thanks BobG. Byrd's statement was right on.

Let me read that again. Let’s dispose of the 9 pages. All we need is one sentence in order to do exactly what the 9 pages would do. All that is necessary is the President’s own determination. We can save a lot of space. We can save a lot of paper if we want to pass this resolution by cutting it down to one sentence, and that sentence could simply say—and it would be legally the same as this 9-page document—the President is authorized to use the Armed Services of the United States for as long as he wants, wherever he wants, in any manner he wants, without any approval by Congress, as long as he determines it is necessary to defend against a threat posed by Iraq, in his own determination.

Nothing else is needed but that sentence.

I heard the beginning of the Byrd's statement. I would have thought it was enough to encourage a NO vote on the resolution.

 

[BobG]

Thanks BobG. Byrd's statement was right on.

I heard the beginning of the Byrd's statement. I would have thought it was enough to encourage a NO vote on the resolution.

I agree, but I'm a little bit of an isolationist and a very risk averse person.

The opposing viewpoint, and the real reason for Bush wanting to invade, was expressed by Bush about a week after 9/11 and compiled into a foreign policy doctrine by Condoleezza Rice. Senator Bennett of Utah rehashed this during the Senate debate: Bennett's comments. The relevant part of his speech starts on the next page, about halfway down the first column, but I thought the link should start at the beginning of his comments.

I don't agree with the doctrine and the administration definitely squashed any rational debate by misrepresenting the situation to the public before and during the debate, but it's not such a delusional idea not to at least consider the possibilities.

It was, however, somewhat delusional to ignore the effect 10 years of 'reaping the peace dividend' had on the military and it seriously ignored the cultural background and history of the region. I just think any serious analysis would have to conclude that a unified, democratic Iraq would be a miracle, regardless of the strength of our military. It's not impossible to pull off - the odds of South Africa succeeding had to be considered pretty slim - but it would be an accomplishment that would cement one's position as the greatest, or one of the greatest, leaders in world history.

Bush believed he could pull it off. The entire attitude of the Bush administration has been that they are so good at what they do that they create their own reality. That assessment has turned out to be truly delusional.

 

[Astronuc]

I don't agree with the doctrine and the administration definitely squashed any rational debate by misrepresenting the situation to the public before and during the debate, but it's not such a delusional idea not to at least consider the possibilities.

It was, however, somewhat delusional to ignore the effect 10 years of 'reaping the peace dividend' had on the military and it seriously ignored the cultural background and history of the region. I just think any serious analysis would have to conclude that a unified, democratic Iraq would be a miracle, regardless of the strength of our military. It's not impossible to pull off - the odds of South Africa succeeding had to be considered pretty slim - but it would be an accomplishment that would cement one's position as the greatest, or one of the greatest, leaders in world history.

Bush believed he could pull it off. The entire attitude of the Bush administration has been that they are so good at what they do that they create their own reality. That assessment has turned out to be truly delusional.

All good points. The doctrine of Bush is an extension or component of the principle of unitary executive, which based on recent experience seems to based upon the fact that the president is the only one who can determine what is best for the country. That is not a principle found in the Constitution. That is why there are checks and balances, and that is why Congress is given authority of 'advice and consent'. There is always the danger that the president will act with self-interest and/or in the interest of a small group of people (his/her political patrons), which may conflict with the interest of the people and of the nation. Clearly this is the case with Bush.

Some of Bennett's speech -

I can find experts who will tell us this would be the very best thing we could possibly do, and that the Middle East will be much more peaceful, and that liberty will be on the march if we just stand firm. Out of the newspapers we can find plenty of columnists who will tell us that.

I can find other experts who will say this is the greatest disaster we would possibly bring upon the Middle East, and that if we attack Iraq, we will unleash a whole Pandora’s box of problems. The Arab street will rise up, and America will be hated for 100 years. There are plenty of columnists in the newspapers who will tell us that.

I can find experts who will say: Weapons of mass destruction will be used against Israel if we move ahead against Iraq; that there will be biological and chemical attacks not only against Israel but against American installations everywhere; that American multinational companies will become the targets of biological and chemical attacks; and that all of this can be averted if we just continue the discussions. I can find plenty of columnists and people in the newspapers who will tell us that.

Then there are those who say: If we do not act, we will so embolden Saddam Hussein and all the other dictators of the area that they will never move in a peaceful direction; we will have inevitable war, and it will be many times worse than anything that would be triggered by action taken now. Again, in the newspapers, I can find plenty of columnists who will tell us that.

So this is a truly Presidential decision, and it will be made not in George Bush’s head or in the heads of those around him—DICK CHENEY, Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, brilliant people all; they stack up their degrees, they stack up their accomplishments in the world, and this is as glittering an array of talent as any President has ever assembled to advise him on foreign policy matters—but the ultimate decision will be made in the President’s gut because this is a truly Presidential decision fraught with so many unknowable consequences and possible side effects that no one, no matter how smart, can accurately analyze them in advance and come to a neat and tidy and firm conclusion.

I can't see that Cheney or Rumsfeld are brilliant. Arrogant and pompous, vain and self-serving, and perhaps devious and perhaps even demented and depraved, but not brilliant. Rice and Powell are possibly brilliant, but then Rice was so wrong on the Soviet Union.

Bush is not surrounded by brilliant people. Clearly those who maintained that an invasion of Iraq would be "the very best thing we could possibly do, and that the Middle East will be much more peaceful, and that liberty will be on the march if we just stand firm" were wrong. Should they not be identified and disqualified from future public service? Such people ignored or discounted the evidence in favor of their biases and prejudices, or wishful thinking, or wallowed in denial.

Those who maintained that war in Iraq would be "the greatest disaster we would possibly bring upon the Middle East, and that if we attack Iraq, we will unleash a whole Pandora’s box of problems" were pretty much on the mark. Those are the people, perhaps some pessimistic, who bothered to understand the reality.

The invasion of Iraq didn't cause the problem. It was the aftermath of poor and inadequate planning, the lack of security, the brutality imposed on the Iraqi people, the absolute disaster of Bremer and the CPA, the total lack of action on the part of administration appointees and political affiliates who sat on their behinds, who did absolutely nothing and who got paid very well for doing nothing (document by Tomas Ricks, Fiasco and Bob Woodward, State of Denial, and many others places).

Bush and his supporters state that the US will win as long as the US occupation continues. I disagree. Bush is trying to win in a no-win situation. He lost it back in 2003, when he failed to ensure a viable recovery and reconstruction process, not to mention the brutality he unleashed upon the Iraqi people. The longer the US remains, the worse it will get, not only in Iraq, but throughout the area.

For an interesting perspective on the Middle East and the various conflicts, listen to an interview with Thomas Friedman, columnist and author.

Thomas Friedman on Syria's Role in the Mideast Conflict
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5597591

Fresh Air from WHYY, August 1, 2006 · New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman just returned from a trip to Israel, Jordan and Syria. He talks with us about the war between Israel and Hezbollah, and where Syria fits in. "Syria is really at the center of so much of what's going on right now," Friedman says.

 

[GTdan]

Astronuc: You believe that the best option is withdrawal? How do you feel this will affect the region and the US in the future given the current condition of Iraq?

 

[Astronuc]

Astronuc: You believe that the best option is withdrawal? How do you feel this will affect the region and the US in the future given the current condition of Iraq?

Unless the Bush administration changes its policies and approach in Iraq, yes.

I think that the Bush administration has greatly damaged the reputation of the US in the region.

Had there been a viable plan of recovery and reconstruction, the outcome (and current situation and future) would be very different. Saddam was a thug, and IMO had to go along with his sons, Uday and Qusay.

Unfortunately, after a successful invasion, the Bush administration lacked a viable plan. The total de-Baathification program and the dismal of the Iraqi military was a thoroughly stupid move (apparently a Rumsfeld/Cheney idea implemented without protest by Bremer). These people were disenfranchised immediately and many appear to have become the core of the insurgency. Why not? They had nothing to lose. The US government arbitrarily and capriciously removed their ability to support their families.

I don't see the Bush administration making progress toward a sustainable situation, and certainly not a democratic government, in Iraq. I don't think anyone in the Bush administration is capable of such an achievement.

As for the future, I believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others from the Bush administration have severely undermined the security of the US.

 

[pelastration]

Interesting to go back in time!
A thread of 2003: Send our boys home?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=76175&postcount=37

 

[denverdoc]

I saw Bennett sourced above, I lived there at the time. A definite lightweight.
Notice too, that the only soothing remarks in Gonzo's appearance were made my Orrin Hatch, also from Utah. This is a weird state taht should be recused on any real issue. I love it tho for the powder throws, the canyons south, the great canyon uphills, and even more the descents. Great place if you can stand theocracy.

 

[GTdan]

Unless the Bush administration changes its policies and approach in Iraq, yes.

I think that the Bush administration has greatly damaged the reputation of the US in the region.

Had there been a viable plan of recovery and reconstruction, the outcome (and current situation and future) would be very different. Saddam was a thug, and IMO had to go along with his sons, Uday and Qusay.

Unfortunately, after a successful invasion, the Bush administration lacked a viable plan. The total de-Baathification program and the dismal of the Iraqi military was a thoroughly stupid move (apparently a Rumsfeld/Cheney idea implemented without protest by Bremer). These people were disenfranchised immediately and many appear to have become the core of the insurgency. Why not? They had nothing to lose. The US government arbitrarily and capriciously removed their ability to support their families.

I don't see the Bush administration making progress toward a sustainable situation, and certainly not a democratic government, in Iraq. I don't think anyone in the Bush administration is capable of such an achievement.

As for the future, I believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others from the Bush administration have severely undermined the security of the US.

Clearly the war has been mismanaged. But don't you think an immediate withdrawal will be very very bad for the region and the US in the future? Or are you simply picking the least worst option in your opinion due to the lack of good ones at the moment?

 

[Astronuc]

Clearly the war has been mismanaged. But don't you think an immediate withdrawal will be very very bad for the region and the US in the future? Or are you simply picking the least worst option in your opinion due to the lack of good ones at the moment?

The initial question was about withdrawal, not immediate withdrawal. I am looking at the least worst option.

I suppose the US could organize a referendum by the Iraqi people. Let them vote on whether the US should stay or go.

According to Omar Fekeiki, an Iraqi journalist, all h*** will break lose when the US leaves. http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/316/video.html

 

[Mathgician]

I have a question, it may sound like a stupid question, but a simple one. Before we went in, I'm sure we had an agenda and had predictions of the outcome. Did the predictions match the outcome? Now, if we are predicting the all Hell would break loose, is that outcome going to be true?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Saturday, December 25, 2004;

The U.S. military invaded Iraq without a formal plan for occupying and stabilizing the country and this high-level failure continues to undercut what has been a "mediocre" Army effort there, an Army historian and strategist has concluded.

"There was no Phase IV plan" for occupying Iraq after the combat phase, writes Maj. Isaiah Wilson III, who served as an official historian of the campaign and later as a war planner in Iraq. While a variety of government offices had considered the possible situations that would follow a U.S. victory, Wilson writes, no one produced an actual document laying out a strategy to consolidate the victory after major combat operations ended. [continued]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24891-2004Dec24.html

 

[edward]

The resolution signed by congress if I understand it correctly was:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration Thursday will give Congress a proposed resolution that explicitly authorizes the use of military force if President Bush concludes diplomacy will fail to get Iraq to keep its commitments to the United Nations, administration and congressional sources told CNN.

Did Bush try diplomacy?? Not hardly, all we heard before and after the resolution was signed was; "grave and gathering danger" "yellow cake from Niger, We can't allow the first sign of a smoking gun be a mushroom cloud."

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/18/bush.congress.iraq/index.html

Did the inspectors want more time? You betcha.

Though CBS's Dan Rather noted how the UN arms inspectors had found no “smoking gun” and NBC's Tom Brokaw pointed out how they “want more time,” both led their newscasts by stressing how Iraq has failed to comply with the UN resolution. In contrast, ABC's Peter Jennings opened World News Tonight with the words “pleading for time” on screen over a shot of Hans Blix as Jennings stressed: “The inspectors want more time to do their job.”

Inspectors could not find what wasn't there in the first place.
The war was on the Bush Cheney agenda regardless.

Just an opinion but, I was convinced that there were no WMD in the country when Iraq signed the big oil deals with; Russia, Germany and France. If Iraq was loaded with WMD would Saddam have wanted thousands of foreign oil workers wandering around the country.? On the other hand all of the foreign workers being in the country would have put the dampers on any action that Iran might be considering.

The contracts would ,however, convince a couple of American big oil guys that they needed to to invade Iraq before the Russians, Germans, and French workers arrived.

 

[edward]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24891-2004Dec24.html

There was no plan to occupy Iraq because the administration's post invasion plan used the same lame intellignce sources that they had used as a reason to invade in the first place.

 

[mathwonk]

david letterman put it best when discussing dan quayle's "correction" of a kid's spelling of "potato":

"I myself am not always sure whether "potato" has an "e" on the end of it, but there is one word I do know ends in an e : "imbecile".

 

[Art]

Bush's wishful thinking heralds yet another false dawn.

Now this is delusional!

Bush upbeat on Iraq security plan

US President George W Bush has said early indications suggest a security operation begun in Iraq more than two months ago was "meeting expectations".
Mr Bush said that, while there were still horrific attacks such as Wednesday's bombings, the direction of the fight was "beginning to shift".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6577689.stm

The reality;

MNF deaths

Period US UK Other* Total Avg Days

• 4-2007 69 10 0 79 3.76 21
• 3-2007 81 1 0 82 2.65 31
• 2-2007 80 3 1 84 3 28
• 1-2007 83 3 0 86 2.77 31

Iraqi Security Forces and Civilian Deaths
Period Total
Apr-07 1065 (21 days)
Mar-07 1889
Feb-07 1531
Jan-07 1802

Note: Iraqi deaths based on news reports . This is not a definitive count. Actual totals for Iraqi deaths are higher than the numbers recorded on this site.

http://www.icasualties.org/oif/ I doubt the MNF or the Iraqis can take much more of this success.

 

[BobG]

Now this is delusional!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6577689.stm

The reality;
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/ I doubt the MNF or the Iraqis can take much more of this success.

Well, in one sense, the direction of the fight is beginning to shift: Sunni rebels battling al-Qaida

Of course, a report that the civil war is going well is dropping the definition of optimism pretty low when your goal is to avoid a civil war.

 

[Astronuc]

Well, in one sense, the direction of the fight is beginning to shift: Sunni rebels battling al-Qaida

Of course, a report that the civil war is going well is dropping the definition of optimism pretty low when your goal is to avoid a civil war.

If one is in the middle of a civil war, and the goal was to avoid a civil war, then that would seem to indicate failure.

On the other hand, if the goal of the Bush administration is to depopulate Iraq, they are certainly succeeding in that.

 

[Art]

More on Bush's current illusion that his surge plan is working;

Despair stalks Baghdad as plan falters
By Andrew North
BBC News, Baghdad

Trying to get into the centre of Baghdad earlier this week offered one view of how far away the Americans and Iraqi authorities are from gaining control here.
We were at the airport. Just before we were due to leave, the entrance car park was hit by a car bomb.

US troops and private security forces who guard the perimeter locked the whole area down for the next four hours. No traffic was allowed in or out.

While we waited with scores of other vehicles, mortars were fired at the airport. Fortunately for us they landed on the other side of the runway, plumes of smoke shooting into the air.

You won't have heard about any of this because at the same time a series of other far more serious attacks was taking place.

One was at the Sadriya market in the city centre, where a massive car bomb killed more than 140 people.

It was placed at the entrance to a set of barriers put up around another part of the market where a previous single bomb, in February, claimed more than 130 lives.
The market blast "did not penetrate the emplaced barriers" a later US military press release helpfully pointed out, ignoring the fact that the bombers had yet again adapted their tactics with vicious perfection - setting off their device at the point where crowds congregated outside and at the very moment when they were busiest.

The Sunni extremist surge seems to be having more effect than the American one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6575717.stm

US troops die in new Iraq attack
Nine US soldiers have been killed in a suicide bomb attack on a base north of Baghdad, military officials have said.
Some 20 troops and an Iraqi civilian were injured in the attack, which happened in the volatile province of Diyala, to the north-east of Baghdad.

There has been fierce fighting in Diyala recently, pitting US and Iraqi forces against Sunni and Shia militias.

It is thought to be the worst single US loss on the ground since late 2005, when 10 marines died near Falluja.

In January 2007, 12 US soldiers died when a Black Hawk military helicopter crashed near Baghdad.

More than 3,300 US troops have been killed and some 24,300 have been injured in Iraq since the conflict began.

In Baghdad, meanwhile, two car bombs exploded on Tuesday morning near the Iranian embassy, police and witnesses said. At least four people were reported hurt in the blasts.

Two blasts in the same area on Monday left one person dead.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6586501.stm