Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
For one thing, you're wrong when you assert every member of Congress was provided the same intel as Bush. Obviously, only select members of Congress possess the same level of clearance as the president.I have sat here, and dutifully read every one of the 53 posts thus far.
I am absolutely amazed by the level of ignorance, naivete, and downright lies on both sides of this discussion. There's an old saying, "You're allowed to have an opinion about everything, whether you know anything about it or not." Well, it certainly has been stressed here.
1) It's really convenient, and comforting, to blame Bush for the war in Iraq, as if it were some personal canard of the president. Those who do are guilty of a lack of understanding of the world reality at that time, refuse to consider the geopolitical situation, and have conveniently forgotten their own complicity. Bush had been president for 6 months when the first intel about a potential terrorist attack began to surface. Frankly, presidents after six months barely know where the bathrooms are in the WH, much less have an in-depth grasp of the geopolitical situation. They rely on their advisers to provide them insight, alternatives, and recommendations.
In this case, the idea that 19 terrorists would capture three airplanes and slam them into buildings was, simply, beyond the pale. It was not something terrorists had ever tried, no intercepted data revealed this plan. It simply just wasn't an alternative. Data that would indicate that would tend to be disregarded ... reports that indicated increased terrorist activities would be seriously considered, but flying airplanes into buildings would have, in all probability, have been given very little credibility.
So, 9/11 happened - now, a response had to be orchestrated. It would have been easy to bomb Riyadh, SA into submission (more on that later), but you have give the administration credit for not over-reacting. Instead, they looked at the total Middle East situation. There needed to be developed a total strategy to resolve the complete Middle East problem, not just punish a small group of people who had the temerity to attack the US. Such an attack would only exacerbate the Middle East problem.
No one seriously questioned that Iran was the primary source of trouble in the ME, and would have to be dealt with. However, Iraq had the 3rd largest Army in the world, and had a history of using WMDs. If the coalition attacked Iran directly, Iraq would step into the power vacuum, and in conjunction with Syria and Libya, present a more formidable foe in the future.
In addition, Iraq occupied a unique geographical position in the Middle East. If you look at a map, Turkey and Iraq control the western borders of Iraq, and Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan control the eastern Iranian border. Given the working agreements with Pakistan and Turkey, controlling Iraq and Afghanistan isolates Iran from other terrorist-supporting states, such as Syria and Libya. The primary reasons Iraq was selected: 1) Iraq was an active supporter of terrorism, 2) Iraq was a serious military challenge, 3) Iraq had a proven track record of war crimes and WMDs, and 4) Iraq occupied a crucial tactical geographical position.
As for this absolute nonsense that Bush lied to Congress, the people, and everybody else in the world - every member of Congress was given the same information Bush got from his advisers, every member of the respective intel committees knew exactly what he did. The public was clamoring for the administration to do something - anything - to satisfy their need for revenge. All the decision makers knew the deal, and all of Congress voted for it. It's nice, convenient, and it satisfies our need to ignore our own complicity, but the reality is, we were all complicit in that decision.
It is impossible for us to admit that we participated in a decision that we now regret ... therefore, we have to find somebody to blame. Some blame Bush ... but most blame Cheney. It's a lot easier than looking in the mirror.
2) Post-Bush, Obama has had an "anti-war at all costs" agenda. He sabotaged the Iraq SOFA discussions in order to advance his pre-election promise to get us out of Iraq, over the objec ... errr .... recommendations of his military advisers. He delayed his surge decision in Afghanistan over 90 days (how long does it take to make a decision, anyway?) and then, only provided about 60% of the troops requested. He compounded that by arbitrarily defining a withdrawal date, and announced it to the public, thus greatly hampering actions in-country. Some will agree with his approach, some will oppose it. But, the simply truth is that he has no taste for war - under any circumstances.
The infamous 'red line in the sand' scenario is another example - he threatened, and then he failed to back it up. We can talk about 'consensus' and 'international opinion', but the fact is that he said it, and he has to back it up. His retreat greatly harmed his position in the international community.
3) As for the lying .... Obama is an idealist. He intentionally uses 'misstatements' to accomplish his political goals, He, frankly, doesn't care one way or the other what people think of his honor. He strongly believes that he will be judged by his legacy, not by his methodology. Right or wrong? Who knows?
Also, you mentioned Iran ... who kept Iran in check before we invaded Iraq?
They redacted so much, they turned a 96 page NIE into a 28 page whitepaper. All of the ambiguities and uncertainties were stripped out. What started out as (paraphrasing) Iraq might have WMD became Iraq has WMD. Congress was duped into believing the situation was far more dire than it actually was.For one thing, you're wrong when you assert every member of Congress was provided the same intel as Bush. Obviously, only select members of Congress possess the same level of clearance as the president.I have sat here, and dutifully read every one of the 53 posts thus far.
I am absolutely amazed by the level of ignorance, naivete, and downright lies on both sides of this discussion. There's an old saying, "You're allowed to have an opinion about everything, whether you know anything about it or not." Well, it certainly has been stressed here.
1) It's really convenient, and comforting, to blame Bush for the war in Iraq, as if it were some personal canard of the president. Those who do are guilty of a lack of understanding of the world reality at that time, refuse to consider the geopolitical situation, and have conveniently forgotten their own complicity. Bush had been president for 6 months when the first intel about a potential terrorist attack began to surface. Frankly, presidents after six months barely know where the bathrooms are in the WH, much less have an in-depth grasp of the geopolitical situation. They rely on their advisers to provide them insight, alternatives, and recommendations.
In this case, the idea that 19 terrorists would capture three airplanes and slam them into buildings was, simply, beyond the pale. It was not something terrorists had ever tried, no intercepted data revealed this plan. It simply just wasn't an alternative. Data that would indicate that would tend to be disregarded ... reports that indicated increased terrorist activities would be seriously considered, but flying airplanes into buildings would have, in all probability, have been given very little credibility.
So, 9/11 happened - now, a response had to be orchestrated. It would have been easy to bomb Riyadh, SA into submission (more on that later), but you have give the administration credit for not over-reacting. Instead, they looked at the total Middle East situation. There needed to be developed a total strategy to resolve the complete Middle East problem, not just punish a small group of people who had the temerity to attack the US. Such an attack would only exacerbate the Middle East problem.
No one seriously questioned that Iran was the primary source of trouble in the ME, and would have to be dealt with. However, Iraq had the 3rd largest Army in the world, and had a history of using WMDs. If the coalition attacked Iran directly, Iraq would step into the power vacuum, and in conjunction with Syria and Libya, present a more formidable foe in the future.
In addition, Iraq occupied a unique geographical position in the Middle East. If you look at a map, Turkey and Iraq control the western borders of Iraq, and Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan control the eastern Iranian border. Given the working agreements with Pakistan and Turkey, controlling Iraq and Afghanistan isolates Iran from other terrorist-supporting states, such as Syria and Libya. The primary reasons Iraq was selected: 1) Iraq was an active supporter of terrorism, 2) Iraq was a serious military challenge, 3) Iraq had a proven track record of war crimes and WMDs, and 4) Iraq occupied a crucial tactical geographical position.
As for this absolute nonsense that Bush lied to Congress, the people, and everybody else in the world - every member of Congress was given the same information Bush got from his advisers, every member of the respective intel committees knew exactly what he did. The public was clamoring for the administration to do something - anything - to satisfy their need for revenge. All the decision makers knew the deal, and all of Congress voted for it. It's nice, convenient, and it satisfies our need to ignore our own complicity, but the reality is, we were all complicit in that decision.
It is impossible for us to admit that we participated in a decision that we now regret ... therefore, we have to find somebody to blame. Some blame Bush ... but most blame Cheney. It's a lot easier than looking in the mirror.
2) Post-Bush, Obama has had an "anti-war at all costs" agenda. He sabotaged the Iraq SOFA discussions in order to advance his pre-election promise to get us out of Iraq, over the objec ... errr .... recommendations of his military advisers. He delayed his surge decision in Afghanistan over 90 days (how long does it take to make a decision, anyway?) and then, only provided about 60% of the troops requested. He compounded that by arbitrarily defining a withdrawal date, and announced it to the public, thus greatly hampering actions in-country. Some will agree with his approach, some will oppose it. But, the simply truth is that he has no taste for war - under any circumstances.
The infamous 'red line in the sand' scenario is another example - he threatened, and then he failed to back it up. We can talk about 'consensus' and 'international opinion', but the fact is that he said it, and he has to back it up. His retreat greatly harmed his position in the international community.
3) As for the lying .... Obama is an idealist. He intentionally uses 'misstatements' to accomplish his political goals, He, frankly, doesn't care one way or the other what people think of his honor. He strongly believes that he will be judged by his legacy, not by his methodology. Right or wrong? Who knows?
Also, you mentioned Iran ... who kept Iran in check before we invaded Iraq?
You're right -- I generalized. What really happens is that the intel committees provlde sanitized briefings to Congress ... the details are redacted, but the summaries are not.
Nobody kept Iran in check --- that's why you have the problems in Syria, Libya, and Palestine. Iran has acted as the Soviet arms broker throughout that region for the past 40 years.
Freewill said:Do you understand that I could do as you have done and list how many have died in combat in Afghanistan after Obama's surge? But that is war
They redacted so much, they turned a 96 page NIE into a 28 page whitepaper. All of the ambiguities and uncertainties were stripped out. What started out as (paraphrasing) Iraq might have WMD became Iraq has WMD. Congress was duped into believing the situation was far more dire than it actually was.For one thing, you're wrong when you assert every member of Congress was provided the same intel as Bush. Obviously, only select members of Congress possess the same level of clearance as the president.I have sat here, and dutifully read every one of the 53 posts thus far.
I am absolutely amazed by the level of ignorance, naivete, and downright lies on both sides of this discussion. There's an old saying, "You're allowed to have an opinion about everything, whether you know anything about it or not." Well, it certainly has been stressed here.
1) It's really convenient, and comforting, to blame Bush for the war in Iraq, as if it were some personal canard of the president. Those who do are guilty of a lack of understanding of the world reality at that time, refuse to consider the geopolitical situation, and have conveniently forgotten their own complicity. Bush had been president for 6 months when the first intel about a potential terrorist attack began to surface. Frankly, presidents after six months barely know where the bathrooms are in the WH, much less have an in-depth grasp of the geopolitical situation. They rely on their advisers to provide them insight, alternatives, and recommendations.
In this case, the idea that 19 terrorists would capture three airplanes and slam them into buildings was, simply, beyond the pale. It was not something terrorists had ever tried, no intercepted data revealed this plan. It simply just wasn't an alternative. Data that would indicate that would tend to be disregarded ... reports that indicated increased terrorist activities would be seriously considered, but flying airplanes into buildings would have, in all probability, have been given very little credibility.
So, 9/11 happened - now, a response had to be orchestrated. It would have been easy to bomb Riyadh, SA into submission (more on that later), but you have give the administration credit for not over-reacting. Instead, they looked at the total Middle East situation. There needed to be developed a total strategy to resolve the complete Middle East problem, not just punish a small group of people who had the temerity to attack the US. Such an attack would only exacerbate the Middle East problem.
No one seriously questioned that Iran was the primary source of trouble in the ME, and would have to be dealt with. However, Iraq had the 3rd largest Army in the world, and had a history of using WMDs. If the coalition attacked Iran directly, Iraq would step into the power vacuum, and in conjunction with Syria and Libya, present a more formidable foe in the future.
In addition, Iraq occupied a unique geographical position in the Middle East. If you look at a map, Turkey and Iraq control the western borders of Iraq, and Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan control the eastern Iranian border. Given the working agreements with Pakistan and Turkey, controlling Iraq and Afghanistan isolates Iran from other terrorist-supporting states, such as Syria and Libya. The primary reasons Iraq was selected: 1) Iraq was an active supporter of terrorism, 2) Iraq was a serious military challenge, 3) Iraq had a proven track record of war crimes and WMDs, and 4) Iraq occupied a crucial tactical geographical position.
As for this absolute nonsense that Bush lied to Congress, the people, and everybody else in the world - every member of Congress was given the same information Bush got from his advisers, every member of the respective intel committees knew exactly what he did. The public was clamoring for the administration to do something - anything - to satisfy their need for revenge. All the decision makers knew the deal, and all of Congress voted for it. It's nice, convenient, and it satisfies our need to ignore our own complicity, but the reality is, we were all complicit in that decision.
It is impossible for us to admit that we participated in a decision that we now regret ... therefore, we have to find somebody to blame. Some blame Bush ... but most blame Cheney. It's a lot easier than looking in the mirror.
2) Post-Bush, Obama has had an "anti-war at all costs" agenda. He sabotaged the Iraq SOFA discussions in order to advance his pre-election promise to get us out of Iraq, over the objec ... errr .... recommendations of his military advisers. He delayed his surge decision in Afghanistan over 90 days (how long does it take to make a decision, anyway?) and then, only provided about 60% of the troops requested. He compounded that by arbitrarily defining a withdrawal date, and announced it to the public, thus greatly hampering actions in-country. Some will agree with his approach, some will oppose it. But, the simply truth is that he has no taste for war - under any circumstances.
The infamous 'red line in the sand' scenario is another example - he threatened, and then he failed to back it up. We can talk about 'consensus' and 'international opinion', but the fact is that he said it, and he has to back it up. His retreat greatly harmed his position in the international community.
3) As for the lying .... Obama is an idealist. He intentionally uses 'misstatements' to accomplish his political goals, He, frankly, doesn't care one way or the other what people think of his honor. He strongly believes that he will be judged by his legacy, not by his methodology. Right or wrong? Who knows?
Also, you mentioned Iran ... who kept Iran in check before we invaded Iraq?
You're right -- I generalized. What really happens is that the intel committees provlde sanitized briefings to Congress ... the details are redacted, but the summaries are not.
Nobody kept Iran in check --- that's why you have the problems in Syria, Libya, and Palestine. Iran has acted as the Soviet arms broker throughout that region for the past 40 years.
As far as Iran, I disagree. Iraq played a big role in keeping Iran in check. The region was about as stable as it could have been and Iraq was Iran's biggest enemy. On a broader scale, Hussein kept Sunni's and shiite's in check.
Free 10382951Freewill said:Do you understand that I could do as you have done and list how many have died in combat in Afghanistan after Obama's surge? But that is war
Operation Enduring Freedom was a legitmate war based upon our inherent right to self defense in response to the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks on our soil.
Iraq was a war of Bush's choice whether to let peaceful WMD disarmament continue for a few more months or to invade and occupy to disarm Iraq through violent means instead. Bush made the wrong choice.
The deaths of our troops in Iraq are not comparable for your arguments purposes because the circumstances for starting the two separate wars were ethically so distant.
I opposed Bush's decision to force inspectors out of Iraq and launch a ground invasion.
I supported Bush's decision to respond to the 9/11 terrorist attack by sending troops into Afghanistan. I never stopped supporting our military operations there and I of course supported Obama tripling the number of troops there because it had to be done after five years if Bush focus on his quagmire in Iraq. Had Bush stuck with NATO and finishing the war in Afghanistan it would have gone better In sure. But he did invade Iraq and neglect Afghanistan.
Free 10382951Freewill said:Do you understand that I could do as you have done and list how many have died in combat in Afghanistan after Obama's surge? But that is war
Operation Enduring Freedom was a legitmate war based upon our inherent right to self defense in response to the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks on our soil.
Iraq was a war of Bush's choice whether to let peaceful WMD disarmament continue for a few more months or to invade and occupy to disarm Iraq through violent means instead. Bush made the wrong choice.
The deaths of our troops in Iraq are not comparable for your arguments purposes because the circumstances for starting the two separate wars were ethically so distant.
I opposed Bush's decision to force inspectors out of Iraq and launch a ground invasion.
I supported Bush's decision to respond to the 9/11 terrorist attack by sending troops into Afghanistan. I never stopped supporting our military operations there and I of course supported Obama tripling the number of troops there because it had to be done after five years if Bush focus on his quagmire in Iraq. Had Bush stuck with NATO and finishing the war in Afghanistan it would have gone better In sure. But he did invade Iraq and neglect Afghanistan.
The public was clamoring for the administration to do something - anything - to satisfy their need for revenge.
As for this absolute nonsense that Bush lied to Congress, the people, and everybody else in the world - every member of Congress was given the same information Bush got from his advisers, every member of the respective intel committees knew exactly what he did.
Free 10382951Freewill said:Do you understand that I could do as you have done and list how many have died in combat in Afghanistan after Obama's surge? But that is war
Operation Enduring Freedom was a legitmate war based upon our inherent right to self defense in response to the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks on our soil.
Iraq was a war of Bush's choice whether to let peaceful WMD disarmament continue for a few more months or to invade and occupy to disarm Iraq through violent means instead. Bush made the wrong choice.
The deaths of our troops in Iraq are not comparable for your arguments purposes because the circumstances for starting the two separate wars were ethically so distant.
I opposed Bush's decision to force inspectors out of Iraq and launch a ground invasion.
I supported Bush's decision to respond to the 9/11 terrorist attack by sending troops into Afghanistan. I never stopped supporting our military operations there and I of course supported Obama tripling the number of troops there because it had to be done after five years if Bush focus on his quagmire in Iraq. Had Bush stuck with NATO and finishing the war in Afghanistan it would have gone better In sure. But he did invade Iraq and neglect Afghanistan.
Wait a second, I thouth it was the Saudis that were responsible, what in the hell gives? It is my opinion that there was little difference between the Taliban of Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq. The only difference I see is that for whatever reason the left decided that Afghanistan was the "good" war. The one we had to fight. No we didn't have to fight either war. But we did and lying about it now doesn't help one bit.
SC 10384688The public was clamoring for the administration to do something - anything - to satisfy their need for revenge.
The public by the end of February 2004 was not clamoring for the administration to do something - anything - to satisfy their need for revenge by invading Iraq.
Get off your high horse and quit speaking for the majority of Americans that were satisfied with going into Afghanistan but wanted no part of invading Iraq without UN approval.
Polls tell us the majority of Americans by the end of February 2003 wanted Bush to give the UN inspectors more time,
So you are wrong.
SC 10384688As for this absolute nonsense that Bush lied to Congress, the people, and everybody else in the world - every member of Congress was given the same information Bush got from his advisers, every member of the respective intel committees knew exactly what he did.
My view was and still is that Bush was correct in September 2002 to demand that Iraq get into compliance with its WMD disarmament obligations or face war because Iraq would be a threat to the region and US if it remained in illegal possession of WMD of the chemical or biological weapon type, it could give those types of weapons to an al Qaeda type operation. Bush had a point.
So your argument does not work on me.
Of COURSE you didn't support the Iraq war --- nobody did NOW.
All intelligence, at that time, clearly indicated that Saddam was not in compliance, Saddam himself said they weren't in compliance, and did every thing to confuse and obfuscate the inspection processes. Look guilty - act guilty - be guilty.
Perhaps you can show me the Congressional action taken to stop it, as well. I'll wait here.
We won't even discuss the vote in the United Nations in support of the resolution there.
Congress could not be sufficiently briefed by classified intel found in the NIE. Most of Congress could not know how thin the threat posed by the Bush administration actually was. Had they known, many more might have voted against it. My recollection was that most Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who had clearance to the NIE, voted against giving Bush the authority to use military force, even though most Democrat Senators voted for it.They redacted so much, they turned a 96 page NIE into a 28 page whitepaper. All of the ambiguities and uncertainties were stripped out. What started out as (paraphrasing) Iraq might have WMD became Iraq has WMD. Congress was duped into believing the situation was far more dire than it actually was.For one thing, you're wrong when you assert every member of Congress was provided the same intel as Bush. Obviously, only select members of Congress possess the same level of clearance as the president.I have sat here, and dutifully read every one of the 53 posts thus far.
I am absolutely amazed by the level of ignorance, naivete, and downright lies on both sides of this discussion. There's an old saying, "You're allowed to have an opinion about everything, whether you know anything about it or not." Well, it certainly has been stressed here.
1) It's really convenient, and comforting, to blame Bush for the war in Iraq, as if it were some personal canard of the president. Those who do are guilty of a lack of understanding of the world reality at that time, refuse to consider the geopolitical situation, and have conveniently forgotten their own complicity. Bush had been president for 6 months when the first intel about a potential terrorist attack began to surface. Frankly, presidents after six months barely know where the bathrooms are in the WH, much less have an in-depth grasp of the geopolitical situation. They rely on their advisers to provide them insight, alternatives, and recommendations.
In this case, the idea that 19 terrorists would capture three airplanes and slam them into buildings was, simply, beyond the pale. It was not something terrorists had ever tried, no intercepted data revealed this plan. It simply just wasn't an alternative. Data that would indicate that would tend to be disregarded ... reports that indicated increased terrorist activities would be seriously considered, but flying airplanes into buildings would have, in all probability, have been given very little credibility.
So, 9/11 happened - now, a response had to be orchestrated. It would have been easy to bomb Riyadh, SA into submission (more on that later), but you have give the administration credit for not over-reacting. Instead, they looked at the total Middle East situation. There needed to be developed a total strategy to resolve the complete Middle East problem, not just punish a small group of people who had the temerity to attack the US. Such an attack would only exacerbate the Middle East problem.
No one seriously questioned that Iran was the primary source of trouble in the ME, and would have to be dealt with. However, Iraq had the 3rd largest Army in the world, and had a history of using WMDs. If the coalition attacked Iran directly, Iraq would step into the power vacuum, and in conjunction with Syria and Libya, present a more formidable foe in the future.
In addition, Iraq occupied a unique geographical position in the Middle East. If you look at a map, Turkey and Iraq control the western borders of Iraq, and Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan control the eastern Iranian border. Given the working agreements with Pakistan and Turkey, controlling Iraq and Afghanistan isolates Iran from other terrorist-supporting states, such as Syria and Libya. The primary reasons Iraq was selected: 1) Iraq was an active supporter of terrorism, 2) Iraq was a serious military challenge, 3) Iraq had a proven track record of war crimes and WMDs, and 4) Iraq occupied a crucial tactical geographical position.
As for this absolute nonsense that Bush lied to Congress, the people, and everybody else in the world - every member of Congress was given the same information Bush got from his advisers, every member of the respective intel committees knew exactly what he did. The public was clamoring for the administration to do something - anything - to satisfy their need for revenge. All the decision makers knew the deal, and all of Congress voted for it. It's nice, convenient, and it satisfies our need to ignore our own complicity, but the reality is, we were all complicit in that decision.
It is impossible for us to admit that we participated in a decision that we now regret ... therefore, we have to find somebody to blame. Some blame Bush ... but most blame Cheney. It's a lot easier than looking in the mirror.
2) Post-Bush, Obama has had an "anti-war at all costs" agenda. He sabotaged the Iraq SOFA discussions in order to advance his pre-election promise to get us out of Iraq, over the objec ... errr .... recommendations of his military advisers. He delayed his surge decision in Afghanistan over 90 days (how long does it take to make a decision, anyway?) and then, only provided about 60% of the troops requested. He compounded that by arbitrarily defining a withdrawal date, and announced it to the public, thus greatly hampering actions in-country. Some will agree with his approach, some will oppose it. But, the simply truth is that he has no taste for war - under any circumstances.
The infamous 'red line in the sand' scenario is another example - he threatened, and then he failed to back it up. We can talk about 'consensus' and 'international opinion', but the fact is that he said it, and he has to back it up. His retreat greatly harmed his position in the international community.
3) As for the lying .... Obama is an idealist. He intentionally uses 'misstatements' to accomplish his political goals, He, frankly, doesn't care one way or the other what people think of his honor. He strongly believes that he will be judged by his legacy, not by his methodology. Right or wrong? Who knows?
Also, you mentioned Iran ... who kept Iran in check before we invaded Iraq?
You're right -- I generalized. What really happens is that the intel committees provlde sanitized briefings to Congress ... the details are redacted, but the summaries are not.
Nobody kept Iran in check --- that's why you have the problems in Syria, Libya, and Palestine. Iran has acted as the Soviet arms broker throughout that region for the past 40 years.
As far as Iran, I disagree. Iraq played a big role in keeping Iran in check. The region was about as stable as it could have been and Iraq was Iran's biggest enemy. On a broader scale, Hussein kept Sunni's and shiite's in check.
Actually, no ... the purpose of redacting is to protect the source, or the methodology, of intel collection. The NIE typically contains all the supporting data to validate the assumption. Believe me, Congress was NOT duped. They were sufficiently briefed, and they knew exactly what the deal was --- it's just politically inconvenient to say that now.
You're right ... Iraq did play a role in keeping Iran in check, BUT .. even during the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq allowed Iran to weapons and war materials to Syria. (Iraq claimed that if weapons were going to Syria, they weren't being used against them). The only thing the I/I war accomplished was to: 1) demonstrate, again, Saddam's willingness to deploy WMD's without regard for his own people, and 2) lower the population level in the area.
That you think there was little difference between the Taliban and Saddam Hussein pretty much disqualifies you from any compelling contributions to this discussion.Free 10382951Freewill said:Do you understand that I could do as you have done and list how many have died in combat in Afghanistan after Obama's surge? But that is war
Operation Enduring Freedom was a legitmate war based upon our inherent right to self defense in response to the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks on our soil.
Iraq was a war of Bush's choice whether to let peaceful WMD disarmament continue for a few more months or to invade and occupy to disarm Iraq through violent means instead. Bush made the wrong choice.
The deaths of our troops in Iraq are not comparable for your arguments purposes because the circumstances for starting the two separate wars were ethically so distant.
I opposed Bush's decision to force inspectors out of Iraq and launch a ground invasion.
I supported Bush's decision to respond to the 9/11 terrorist attack by sending troops into Afghanistan. I never stopped supporting our military operations there and I of course supported Obama tripling the number of troops there because it had to be done after five years if Bush focus on his quagmire in Iraq. Had Bush stuck with NATO and finishing the war in Afghanistan it would have gone better In sure. But he did invade Iraq and neglect Afghanistan.
Wait a second, I thouth it was the Saudis that were responsible, what in the hell gives? It is my opinion that there was little difference between the Taliban of Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq. The only difference I see is that for whatever reason the left decided that Afghanistan was the "good" war. The one we had to fight. No we didn't have to fight either war. But we did and lying about it now doesn't help one bit.
While it's true that more than 70% were in favor of the Iraq war; it's my belief that number was that high based on the conditions set forth by the Bush administration to the public, which mostly turned out to be false. Most notably, Iraq stockpiling WMD and the ties to Al-Qaeda. Had America known the truth, I'm certain support would have been a fraction of what it was.Free 10382951Freewill said:Do you understand that I could do as you have done and list how many have died in combat in Afghanistan after Obama's surge? But that is war
Operation Enduring Freedom was a legitmate war based upon our inherent right to self defense in response to the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks on our soil.
Iraq was a war of Bush's choice whether to let peaceful WMD disarmament continue for a few more months or to invade and occupy to disarm Iraq through violent means instead. Bush made the wrong choice.
The deaths of our troops in Iraq are not comparable for your arguments purposes because the circumstances for starting the two separate wars were ethically so distant.
I opposed Bush's decision to force inspectors out of Iraq and launch a ground invasion.
I supported Bush's decision to respond to the 9/11 terrorist attack by sending troops into Afghanistan. I never stopped supporting our military operations there and I of course supported Obama tripling the number of troops there because it had to be done after five years if Bush focus on his quagmire in Iraq. Had Bush stuck with NATO and finishing the war in Afghanistan it would have gone better In sure. But he did invade Iraq and neglect Afghanistan.
Of COURSE you didn't support the Iraq war --- nobody did NOW.
Amazing how that works --- I guess hindsight really IS 20/20.
You have failed completely to consider the geopolitical situation at that point in time ... you have also failed to consider that up to 70% (depending on the month) were in favor of going into Iraq, or that the Congressional votes were about 69% in the House, and over 70% in the Senate. We won't even discuss the vote in the United Nations in support of the resolution there.
I would maintain that the only thing wrong with going into Iraq is that the new administration lost sight of what the overall goal was, and instead, opted for a short-term solution - kicking the can down the road (as we can see now with the rise of ISIS). The Obama administration developed myopia and didn't listen/absorb/understand what they were told by their military advisers. Rather than considering long-term ramifications, they chose the 'photo op' solution. Frankly, all the heavy lifting had been done in Iraq, and that was the first step toward a Middle East solution.
As we can see today, Obama's action was a serious misjudgment.
1) It's really convenient, and comforting, to blame Bush for the war in Iraq, as if it were some personal canard of the president.
First of all, Notfooled didn't say there were polls indicating the public didn't want us to invade, he said there were polls just before we invaded revealing that most preferred letting the U.N. inspectors complete the job they were sent in to do.SC 10384688The public was clamoring for the administration to do something - anything - to satisfy their need for revenge.
The public by the end of February 2004 was not clamoring for the administration to do something - anything - to satisfy their need for revenge by invading Iraq.
Get off your high horse and quit speaking for the majority of Americans that were satisfied with going into Afghanistan but wanted no part of invading Iraq without UN approval.
Polls tell us the majority of Americans by the end of February 2003 wanted Bush to give the UN inspectors more time,
So you are wrong.
SC 10384688As for this absolute nonsense that Bush lied to Congress, the people, and everybody else in the world - every member of Congress was given the same information Bush got from his advisers, every member of the respective intel committees knew exactly what he did.
My view was and still is that Bush was correct in September 2002 to demand that Iraq get into compliance with its WMD disarmament obligations or face war because Iraq would be a threat to the region and US if it remained in illegal possession of WMD of the chemical or biological weapon type, it could give those types of weapons to an al Qaeda type operation. Bush had a point.
So your argument does not work on me.
Feel free to point out those polls that didn't want us to go into Iraq. Perhaps you can show me the Congressional action taken to stop it, as well. I'll wait here.
All intelligence, at that time, clearly indicated that Saddam was not in compliance, Saddam himself said they weren't in compliance, and did every thing to confuse and obfuscate the inspection processes. Look guilty - act guilty - be guilty.
Of COURSE you didn't support the Iraq war --- nobody did NOW.
I marched in the protest (in DC) against the proposed invasion of Iraq because I believed, as the majority of Americans did, that Bush needed to let the inspectors complete the peaceful disarmament process because Iraq was cooperating as it had never done before. There was a chance for peaceful disarmament to work. It would be dumb as Obama said to start another war that would harm the military effort in Afghanistan.
Is it your view that no Americans objected to the proposed invasion of Iraq in favor of continuing the UN inspections?
Congress could not be sufficiently briefed by classified intel found in the NIE. Most of Congress could not know how thin the threat posed by the Bush administration actually was. Had they known, many more might have voted against it. My recollection was that most Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who had clearance to the NIE, voted against giving Bush the authority to use military force, even though most Democrat Senators voted for it.They redacted so much, they turned a 96 page NIE into a 28 page whitepaper. All of the ambiguities and uncertainties were stripped out. What started out as (paraphrasing) Iraq might have WMD became Iraq has WMD. Congress was duped into believing the situation was far more dire than it actually was.For one thing, you're wrong when you assert every member of Congress was provided the same intel as Bush. Obviously, only select members of Congress possess the same level of clearance as the president.I have sat here, and dutifully read every one of the 53 posts thus far.
I am absolutely amazed by the level of ignorance, naivete, and downright lies on both sides of this discussion. There's an old saying, "You're allowed to have an opinion about everything, whether you know anything about it or not." Well, it certainly has been stressed here.
1) It's really convenient, and comforting, to blame Bush for the war in Iraq, as if it were some personal canard of the president. Those who do are guilty of a lack of understanding of the world reality at that time, refuse to consider the geopolitical situation, and have conveniently forgotten their own complicity. Bush had been president for 6 months when the first intel about a potential terrorist attack began to surface. Frankly, presidents after six months barely know where the bathrooms are in the WH, much less have an in-depth grasp of the geopolitical situation. They rely on their advisers to provide them insight, alternatives, and recommendations.
In this case, the idea that 19 terrorists would capture three airplanes and slam them into buildings was, simply, beyond the pale. It was not something terrorists had ever tried, no intercepted data revealed this plan. It simply just wasn't an alternative. Data that would indicate that would tend to be disregarded ... reports that indicated increased terrorist activities would be seriously considered, but flying airplanes into buildings would have, in all probability, have been given very little credibility.
So, 9/11 happened - now, a response had to be orchestrated. It would have been easy to bomb Riyadh, SA into submission (more on that later), but you have give the administration credit for not over-reacting. Instead, they looked at the total Middle East situation. There needed to be developed a total strategy to resolve the complete Middle East problem, not just punish a small group of people who had the temerity to attack the US. Such an attack would only exacerbate the Middle East problem.
No one seriously questioned that Iran was the primary source of trouble in the ME, and would have to be dealt with. However, Iraq had the 3rd largest Army in the world, and had a history of using WMDs. If the coalition attacked Iran directly, Iraq would step into the power vacuum, and in conjunction with Syria and Libya, present a more formidable foe in the future.
In addition, Iraq occupied a unique geographical position in the Middle East. If you look at a map, Turkey and Iraq control the western borders of Iraq, and Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan control the eastern Iranian border. Given the working agreements with Pakistan and Turkey, controlling Iraq and Afghanistan isolates Iran from other terrorist-supporting states, such as Syria and Libya. The primary reasons Iraq was selected: 1) Iraq was an active supporter of terrorism, 2) Iraq was a serious military challenge, 3) Iraq had a proven track record of war crimes and WMDs, and 4) Iraq occupied a crucial tactical geographical position.
As for this absolute nonsense that Bush lied to Congress, the people, and everybody else in the world - every member of Congress was given the same information Bush got from his advisers, every member of the respective intel committees knew exactly what he did. The public was clamoring for the administration to do something - anything - to satisfy their need for revenge. All the decision makers knew the deal, and all of Congress voted for it. It's nice, convenient, and it satisfies our need to ignore our own complicity, but the reality is, we were all complicit in that decision.
It is impossible for us to admit that we participated in a decision that we now regret ... therefore, we have to find somebody to blame. Some blame Bush ... but most blame Cheney. It's a lot easier than looking in the mirror.
2) Post-Bush, Obama has had an "anti-war at all costs" agenda. He sabotaged the Iraq SOFA discussions in order to advance his pre-election promise to get us out of Iraq, over the objec ... errr .... recommendations of his military advisers. He delayed his surge decision in Afghanistan over 90 days (how long does it take to make a decision, anyway?) and then, only provided about 60% of the troops requested. He compounded that by arbitrarily defining a withdrawal date, and announced it to the public, thus greatly hampering actions in-country. Some will agree with his approach, some will oppose it. But, the simply truth is that he has no taste for war - under any circumstances.
The infamous 'red line in the sand' scenario is another example - he threatened, and then he failed to back it up. We can talk about 'consensus' and 'international opinion', but the fact is that he said it, and he has to back it up. His retreat greatly harmed his position in the international community.
3) As for the lying .... Obama is an idealist. He intentionally uses 'misstatements' to accomplish his political goals, He, frankly, doesn't care one way or the other what people think of his honor. He strongly believes that he will be judged by his legacy, not by his methodology. Right or wrong? Who knows?
Also, you mentioned Iran ... who kept Iran in check before we invaded Iraq?
You're right -- I generalized. What really happens is that the intel committees provlde sanitized briefings to Congress ... the details are redacted, but the summaries are not.
Nobody kept Iran in check --- that's why you have the problems in Syria, Libya, and Palestine. Iran has acted as the Soviet arms broker throughout that region for the past 40 years.
As far as Iran, I disagree. Iraq played a big role in keeping Iran in check. The region was about as stable as it could have been and Iraq was Iran's biggest enemy. On a broader scale, Hussein kept Sunni's and shiite's in check.
Actually, no ... the purpose of redacting is to protect the source, or the methodology, of intel collection. The NIE typically contains all the supporting data to validate the assumption. Believe me, Congress was NOT duped. They were sufficiently briefed, and they knew exactly what the deal was --- it's just politically inconvenient to say that now.
You're right ... Iraq did play a role in keeping Iran in check, BUT .. even during the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq allowed Iran to weapons and war materials to Syria. (Iraq claimed that if weapons were going to Syria, they weren't being used against them). The only thing the I/I war accomplished was to: 1) demonstrate, again, Saddam's willingness to deploy WMD's without regard for his own people, and 2) lower the population level in the area.
As far as Iraq helping keep Iran in check and helping to "stabilize" (I use "stabilize" loosely here) the region ... what good has come from destabilizing the Middle East and making Iran the sole power in that region?
Of COURSE you didn't support the Iraq war --- nobody did NOW.
I marched in the protest (in DC) against the proposed invasion of Iraq because I believed, as the majority of Americans did, that Bush needed to let the inspectors complete the peaceful disarmament process because Iraq was cooperating as it had never done before. There was a chance for peaceful disarmament to work. It would be dumb as Obama said to start another war that would harm the military effort in Afghanistan.
Is it your view that no Americans objected to the proposed invasion of Iraq in favor of continuing the UN inspections?
SC 10386824We won't even discuss the vote in the United Nations in support of the resolution there.
Do you think UNSC Resolution 1441 was an authorization for a US invasion of Iraq?
