The Bush legacy

[Caroljo]

Yes, the Commander in Chief who first put them in harm's way.

If they were not there in the first place, would they be dead/maimed?

Not expecting a straight answer.
.

Bush violated that sacred trust time and again, and that is how it is being taught in the overwhelming number of colleges and schools.

Correctly so.

Funny then how sooo many of them wishes Bush was still President....sure, they didn't trust him! Ask them about how much they trust Obama........

 

[Caroljo]

And those volunteer soldiers put a sacred trust in the president......their very lives

That is why it is critical for a President to investigate all available options before putting them in harms way

like Obama has? how many of our military has died under him while he kept them in Iraq and Afghanistan? He is the frikken Comander in Chief or is these military deaths not his fault also?

Obama was dealt two major wars the minute he took office. Neither was well thought out or properly executed. While Bush had an option not to invade, Obama did not have an option of immediate withdrawal

Obama took the advice of his top military advisors on how best to resolve both conflicts and Obama was able to declare "Mission accomplished" where Bush was not

525 military died in Afghanistan under 6 years of Bush. Over 1500 have died up to April 2013. Under Obama the deaths have tripled.

 

[rightwinger]

like Obama has? how many of our military has died under him while he kept them in Iraq and Afghanistan? He is the frikken Comander in Chief or is these military deaths not his fault also?

Obama was dealt two major wars the minute he took office. Neither was well thought out or properly executed. While Bush had an option not to invade, Obama did not have an option of immediate withdrawal

Obama took the advice of his top military advisors on how best to resolve both conflicts and Obama was able to declare "Mission accomplished" where Bush was not

525 military died in Afghanistan under 6 years of Bush. Over 1500 have died up to April 2013. Under Obama the deaths have tripled.

That's horrible isn't it?

If only Bush had not abandoned the war on terror to brusque his blunder in Iraq, Obama would not have had to clean up his mess for him

 

[JakeStarkey]

I realized long ago that stupidity runs deep with you oh Starkey one

That is the man in the mirror you are talking to. You and how you think disgraces America and its heritage. Everything I said above is true.

I know oh Starkey one, if we could all be as wise as you, there would be no one suffering, everything would be free, no one would upset the apple cart...

Takes no Solomonic wisdom to recognize the illness that your type tries to infect America with. We are inoculated against your disease.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, the Commander in Chief who first put them in harm's way.

If they were not there in the first place, would they be dead/maimed?

Not expecting a straight answer.
.

Bush violated that sacred trust time and again, and that is how it is being taught in the overwhelming number of colleges and schools.

Correctly so.

Funny then how sooo many of them wishes Bush was still President....sure, they didn't trust him!

Very, very few wish GWB was still president: only the very stupid ones. GWB would lose by 10 points to Obama, which says bad things about my Republican Party

 

[American Legacy]

If only Bush had not abandoned the war on terror to brusque his blunder in Iraq, Obama would not have had to clean up his mess for him

Obama took a bad situation and made it worse. He asked for the job, failed at it, asked for another chance, failing again....still blaming his predecessor.

Grow up, Peter Pan.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If only Bush had not abandoned the war on terror to brusque his blunder in Iraq, Obama would not have had to clean up his mess for him

Obama took a bad situation and made it worse. He asked for the job, failed at it, asked for another chance, failing again....still blaming his predecessor.

Grow up, Peter Pan.

Wendy, we are talking about Bush and his legacy.

Stay on track.

 

[American Legacy]

If only Bush had not abandoned the war on terror to brusque his blunder in Iraq, Obama would not have had to clean up his mess for him

Obama took a bad situation and made it worse. He asked for the job, failed at it, asked for another chance, failing again....still blaming his predecessor.

Grow up, Peter Pan.

Wendy, we are talking about Bush and his legacy.

Stay on track.

Yes, but pinning Obama's legacy on Bush is not the same thing as Bush's legacy.

 

[Unkotare]

The two failed, illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will forever be Mr. Bush’s wars, and part of his shameful legacy. .

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were neither failed nor illegal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama took a bad situation and made it worse. He asked for the job, failed at it, asked for another chance, failing again....still blaming his predecessor.

Grow up, Peter Pan.

Wendy, we are talking about Bush and his legacy.

Stay on track.

Yes, but pinning Obama's legacy on Bush is not the same thing as Bush's legacy.

And whining about Obama has nothing to do with Bush's legacy.

Please stay on track.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The two failed, illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will forever be Mr. Bush’s wars, and part of his shameful legacy. .

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were neither failed nor illegal.

Yes, Iraq was both, and Iraq is allying with Iran aiding Syria.

You neo-cons fucked America badly. You won't ever get another chance to do it again.

 

[Unkotare]

Not our problem. 100,000 Iraqis were killed under Bush, that is more than Saddam was killing.

Wrong. Not even close.



87% fewer violent deaths annually in Iraq now than under Saddam Hussein

The problem with Bush Bashers is the deal from ignorance! NO facts to substantiate their wild ass claims!

Saddam was starving 115,000 children a year all because HE wouldn't comply with the Oil-for-Food Programme (OFF), established by the United Nations in 1995 (under UN Security Council Resolution 986)[1] was established with the stated intent to allow Iraq to sell oil on the world market in exchange for food, medicine, and other humanitarian needs for ordinary Iraqi citizens without allowing Iraq to boost its military capabilities.

The programme was introduced by United States President Bill Clinton's administration in 1995,[2] as a response to arguments that ordinary Iraqi citizens were inordinately affected by the international economic sanctions aimed at the demilitarisation of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, imposed in the wake of the first Gulf War.
The sanctions were discontinued on 21 November 2003 after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the humanitarian functions turned over to the Coalition Provisional Authority.[3]

As many as 576,000 Iraqi children may have died since the end of the Persian Gulf war because of economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council, according to two scientists who surveyed the country for the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

WHO'S F...KING FAULT???? Idiots! Saddam could have had if he stayed in power another 500,000 children DIE from starvation!
"The sanctions were imposed by the Security Council after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990.
Led by the United States, the Council has rejected many Iraqi appeals to lift the restrictions, which have crippled the economy, until Iraq accounts for all its weapons of mass destruction and United Nations inspectors can certify that they have been destroyed in accordance with several Council resolutions.
In five years 576,000 children starved BECAUSE SADDAM refused to certify WMD destruction!
Iraq Sanctions Kill Children, U.N. Reports - NYTimes.com

Using 115,000 children starved a year because Saddam refused to certify WMD destruction -- From 1995 to 2013 is 18 years!
If Saddam was still in power i.e. Bush's Liberation of Iraq NEVER OCCURRED,

from 1990 to 2013 OVER 2,649,000 children would have STARVED because of Saddam!

I spoke often and at length with several Iraqis long before the war began, and the absolute terror under which the average Iraqi lived during saddam's reign was intense and pervasive.

 

[American Legacy]

But as Afghanistan and Iraq are part of this conversation, I'm genuinely curious from people on both sides of the aisle, what their thoughts are on those two wars.

AFGHANISTAN
The Taliban is a repressive regime giving aid, comfort and shelter to al-Qaeda before and after 9/11. After Bush demanded the expulsion of al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, the U.S. invaded the country and deposed the Taliban to disrupt al-Qaeda operations and pursue justice against the terrorist organization and its supporters.

A quick and successfully prosecuted war then turned into a decade-long occupation by which the Bush administration sought to establish a West-friendly democratic government in Afghanistan which recognized women's rights (among others) and brought the backwards country into the 21st Century. Bush hoped Afghani self-rule would leave us an ally in the region who would help us continue to fight al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups and, possibly, act as a counterweight to Pakistan.

Of course Afghanistan has shown it's hardly willing or capable of transforming into such a thing and it's highly likely the Taliban will reassert control over the entire country after America leaves.

IRAQ
Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator with a record of breaking international law, waging war against his own people, his neighbors and the United States. Hussein was a long-time supporter of terrorism and someone who had pursued the development of WMDs (which are more than just nukes, FYI). In short, Hussein was the most dangerous and unpredictable man in the Middle East at the time, not to mention the most openly hostile to U.S. interests.

Like Afghanistan, our initial invasion of Iraq successfully removed a hostile regime and liberated the people of the country. Also like Afghanistan, our goal of "nation building" wound up bogging us down in a long and unpopular "war" (really, occupation).

Unlike Afghanistan, Bush's surge was successful enough to turn the occupation around and establish military hegemony for the U.S. and the new Iraqi government. However, like the current war, Iraq's alliance with U.S. interests is highly questionable going forward, as it the ability of the new government to stably and capably avoid internal disfunction or disruption from Iran without or jihadists within.

SUMMARY
Both invasions were justifiable at the time and, initially, quite successful. What were our choices, going forward, however? What would have improved the situation? Or was any regime change in either country inevitably going to bring about the worse-case scenario of a regime eventually replacing it that was more hostile to U.S. interests?

At what point did things "go wrong"? What would "victory" have looked like in each instance? Was either war worth it?

It seems to me these questions are absolute key to any evaluation of the Bush legacy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Iraq was not justifiable or legal internationally from the get go. SH eventually would have fallen, because he never would have dared attack the forces surrounding his country. Whether the succeeding state would evaded or survived sectarian warfare is unknowable. What is clear now is that Iraq is allying with Iran and aiding Syria, in what is becoming another sectarian war between Sunni and Shi'ite.

Afghanistan harbored the direct agents instrumental in the Twin Towers plane bombings. The US was internationally justified in invading and overthrowing the Taliban, with one CIA agents death of the 460 plus CIA agents and American mercenaries helping the Northern Alliance. Bush ended any opportunity for crushing the Taliban when he withdrew Spec Ops units and helicopter forces in late 2002 for the invasion of Iraq.

Without the number of troops and solid allies instrumental in recreating Germany and Japan after WWII, we never could have remade Iraq into the USA-supporting ally of the West that guaranteed our ME oil supply, the true reason for invasion.

Historians will continue to handle Bush harshly. Rightly so.

 

[Katzndogz]

History will judge Bush very well as an honorable and decent man guided by principles of right and wrong. History has a way of wiping out liberal lies.

Unlike obama who will cause inevitable comparisons to the Roman Nero.

 

[healthmyths]

But as Afghanistan and Iraq are part of this conversation, I'm genuinely curious from people on both sides of the aisle, what their thoughts are on those two wars.

AFGHANISTAN
The Taliban is a repressive regime giving aid, comfort and shelter to al-Qaeda before and after 9/11. After Bush demanded the expulsion of al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, the U.S. invaded the country and deposed the Taliban to disrupt al-Qaeda operations and pursue justice against the terrorist organization and its supporters.

A quick and successfully prosecuted war then turned into a decade-long occupation by which the Bush administration sought to establish a West-friendly democratic government in Afghanistan which recognized women's rights (among others) and brought the backwards country into the 21st Century. Bush hoped Afghani self-rule would leave us an ally in the region who would help us continue to fight al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups and, possibly, act as a counterweight to Pakistan.

Of course Afghanistan has shown it's hardly willing or capable of transforming into such a thing and it's highly likely the Taliban will reassert control over the entire country after America leaves.

IRAQ
Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator with a record of breaking international law, waging war against his own people, his neighbors and the United States. Hussein was a long-time supporter of terrorism and someone who had pursued the development of WMDs (which are more than just nukes, FYI). In short, Hussein was the most dangerous and unpredictable man in the Middle East at the time, not to mention the most openly hostile to U.S. interests.

Like Afghanistan, our initial invasion of Iraq successfully removed a hostile regime and liberated the people of the country. Also like Afghanistan, our goal of "nation building" wound up bogging us down in a long and unpopular "war" (really, occupation).

Unlike Afghanistan, Bush's surge was successful enough to turn the occupation around and establish military hegemony for the U.S. and the new Iraqi government. However, like the current war, Iraq's alliance with U.S. interests is highly questionable going forward, as it the ability of the new government to stably and capably avoid internal disfunction or disruption from Iran without or jihadists within.

SUMMARY
Both invasions were justifiable at the time and, initially, quite successful. What were our choices, going forward, however? What would have improved the situation? Or was any regime change in either country inevitably going to bring about the worse-case scenario of a regime eventually replacing it that was more hostile to U.S. interests?

At what point did things "go wrong"? What would "victory" have looked like in each instance? Was either war worth it?

It seems to me these questions are absolute key to any evaluation of the Bush legacy.

HERE is where it went wrong!
The notion that politics should “stop at the water’s edge” become an unwritten maxim of American politics in the years immediately after World War II. Today it conjures up images of the partnership between Democratic President Harry Truman and Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg, which produced the centrist congressional majorities responsible for producing the Truman Doctrine, the Marshall Plan, and the North Atlantic Treaty.
Andrei Cherny for Democracy Journal: Water's Edge

That was blown apart by quotes like the following THAT according to this Harvard study PROLONGED the conflict by giving Emboldenment to the terrorists.
A Harvard study found here THE "EMBOLDENMENT EFFECT" shows YES... this was one of the causes for the prolonging!

"Are insurgents in Iraq emboldened by voices in the news media expressing dissent or calling for troop withdrawals from Iraq?
The short answer is YES!!!
According to Radha Iyengar, a Robert Wood Johnson Scholar in health policy research at Harvard and Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at the university's Kennedy School of Government.

STUDY ABSTRACT
Are insurgents affected by information on US casualty sensitivity?
Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an “emboldenment” effect by comparing the rate of insurgent
attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war.
We find in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 5-10 percent.

So when these traitors forgot they were Americans first and that Americans were dying to uphold the concepts of "Freedom of Speech"... these idiots basically
applauded the terrorists! Encouraged the Terrorists! Gave hope to the Terrorists. Blessed the terrorists activities even encouraging the murder of American soldiers!
It makes total sense that when the below statements are heard/read by enemies they are OVERJOYED! Jumping with excitement!
YES... YES even the leaders of America ADMIT the US troops are the bad guys... and we terrorists are the good guys!!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D) "The war is lost, the surge is not accomplishing anything "

U.S. Rep. John Murtha(D) "Our troops killed innocent civilians in cold blood,”

Senator Kerry (D) "American soldiers going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children."

Durbin (D) "must have been done by Nazis, Soviets"--action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.
Senator Obama said "troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians,"

 

[JakeStarkey]

katz and hm and bush are all on the wrong side of history.

They have no sense of decency or balance.

Typical reactionary mental illness.

 

[Dragonlady]

The Iraq War was nothing but a big cash grab for Rumsfeld, Cheney, and other in the Bush cabinet with contacts with defense contractors and ownership of large blocks of shares in corporations supplying/supporting the American troops in Iraq. Cheney, Rumsfeld and others refuse to divest themselves of blocks of large supplier corporations like Haliburton,.

Rumsfeld owned a large share of the company which developed tamiflu and Bush promptly had the US government stockpile the drug for use by the US military at a cost to US taxpayers of $1B, and persuaded Tony Blair to do the same in GB for $500 million. Subsequently it was revealed that reports and data confirming the effectiveness of the drug had never been published and the drug is of little value in fighting the flu. Rumsfeld still got rich pedalling it to the US government.

The problem with the peace is that the Americans didn't include the Iraqi people in the formation of a new government, or in the rebuilding of Iraq. The rebuilding of Iraq was done by independent contractors with ties to the Bush Administration. This pissed off the Iraqi's mightily. They were hungry - starving, and Americans were giving out bagloads of cash to people to rebuild hospitals, schools, and infrastructure, but it all went to foreigners. That's why the Iraqi people turned on on the Americans.

These guys were so greedy, they didn't even leave the room when conflicts of interest arose, which was often. This is the true Bush legacy - mismanagement, corruption and greed.

 

[Unkotare]

The Iraq War was nothing but a big cash grab for Rumsfeld, Cheney, and other in the Bush cabinet with contacts with defense contractors and ownership of large blocks of shares in corporations supplying/supporting the American troops in Iraq. Cheney, Rumsfeld and others refuse to divest themselves of blocks of large supplier corporations like Haliburton,..

Liberals really seem convinced that if they repeat a lie (or some stupidity spoken out of ignorance) often enough...

 

[Lakhota]

IMO, both Bushes should be tried for war crimes. Now, there is a third Bush with dreams of living in the White House.

Bush 41 started the Iraq clusterfuck. Later, Bush 43 really FUBAR'd it.

CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL: Classified Cable Proves US Ok'd Saddam's Kuwait Invasion | Veterans Today

Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?