Bush Gets a Bad Rap

Its of no consequence.........because it is of no consequence. You are bringing it up presumably to imply that Democrats fully supported him throughout his presidency, absent of political motive, when in fact, that 85% was a temporary outgrowth of nationalism that predictably occurs after virtually every national tragedy. Considering that 50% is the critical number that any winning presidential candidate must clear, the existence of a 50% approval rate does absolutely nothing to back up your conclusion

The term axis of evil doesn't mean they must be unstable, yet you make that implication in a desperate attempt to make the term incorrect. They are in fact tumultuous, violent places. I personally do not really believe that North Korea should have been added to the list because they do not have a logical connection, but my guess would be it was added to not give the impression that we were targeting merely Middle Eastern countries. That was an attempt to appease the leftist word police, and in my opinion he shouldn't have bothered.

Oh yes, I remember this silly talking point well. A question asked by a reporter at a news conference about the Iraq war, where Bush dismissed Bin Laden as unimportant in relation to the mission being discussed at the time. The left takes this one snippet, and uses it to twist reality in perpetuity moving forward.

There you go with the pumping thing. An American company "pumping" oil is an infittesimally TINY proportion of oil revenues. To pretend like that is the impetus is absolutely preposterous. If making money were the goal, we would have simply taken their oil. To suggest otherwise is just silly. You are taking a tiny proportion of revenues tangentially related to oil, and spinning a conspiracy theory in reverse to imply this was about taking their oil. Its silly, and lacking in even a shred of realistic plausibility. You really need to get your head out of the bombastic left wing blogosphere. These are the same people who were convinced that Bush planned 9/11.

I just did.

The issue is that a growing lack of support from the American people wary of war, spurred on by a robust anti war movement enjoying carte blanch from a willing media, failed to engender trust in the concept that we planned to stay for the duration. Nobody wants to hang their hats on American supported revolution, when the Americans will leave and the barbarians will return bent on punishing those that supported the Americans. You can pretend like this dynamic didn't exist, but you will simply be ignoring reality.

Of course it wasn't 1968. We had an all volunteer military which stopped young people from protesting in the streets. With that being said, if you think for one minute that an anti war sentiment wasn't being purposefully generated through countless outlets, and didn't enjoy carte blanch with a willing media, you are blind to reality. Of course an anti war movement existed, and for that matter ALWAYS exists with every war. There is a belief that since Vietnam, we as a country will never again be able to galvanize American support through the duration of any protracted war. Sadly, that belief is likely correct. The irony is, that our anti war forces embolden our enemies, and in the face of insurmountable military odds, they know they can defeat America by creating just enough havoc to give the anti war movement traction. Our anti war movement is expressly vested in our defeat.

Oh how cute. You are doubling down on war for oil myth, using the tangential pumping of oil as your proof. Silly, but persistent, I will give you that.

So you believe that todays problem with Radical Islam is an outgrowth of troops temporarily stationed in Saudi Arabia. While yes, Bin Laden made mention of this at some point in time, your steadfast belief that this is the driving backbone of the movement is adorably ignorant.

We have already discussed this subject at some length. In the interests of not being redundant, scroll back.

You didn't outright state this, but your implication about how bungled the operation was, definitely implies it.

Solely due to the fact that it became apparent after a year or so that the Anti War movement in the United States was not going to allow an indefinite commitment to allow that country to truly become self sufficient and stable. The indefinite commitment is the aspect that would serve as the deterrent. Without that, it is simply a matter for radicals to wait until the US is gone ( see ISIS.)

Because the entire situation in the Middle East is infinitely complex, you would instead rather ignore it. The world will one day pay a steep price for this inaction.

This is an utter, 100% lie. I did no such thing. About as close as I have come to doing so has been to say that barbarians are in control of government in far too many places. At no point have I lumped the whole of Islam into one homogenous group. You only wished that I had, so that you could feign indignation

 

That doesn't even make sense. Iraq was a poor nation, NOT well funded. They did NOT have the most advanced WMD program in the area - we proved they were NOT producing WMDs, including that they had NO nuclear program.

As we see today, WE destabilized that country by what we did. We used our influence to install Maliki, who then used his power in civil war and in eliminating representation of a large percent of the population - disenfranchisement that WE used him to effect from soon after our conquest. ISIS is present because of what WE established in Iraq.

Claiming we didn't have influence in forming the government of Iraq is just factual in error. We set up their form of government. And, when the elections produced a near tie between several contenders for the top position, we put our full weight behind Maliki - the guy who helped us disenfranchise the Sunnis.

And, once they have sovereignty (which Bush signed over to them) THEY get to choose our level of presence and influence, not us.


Or, are you suggesting we should have reconquered Iraq?

 

Pitching the current situation with ISIS, a repressive Iraqi government, millions of disenfranchised individuals, the US present in only small numbers and SUPPORTING that repressive government, the problem spilling over into the region - THAT is what you think was worth trillions of dollars and thousands of our finest kids???

It's unbelievable to me that you could possibly think our actions were anything but the largest mistake the US has made in our entire history of existence.

 

It's people were poor. Its government wasn't. They had been selling oil to some ( Russia) on the world market for several years, and funding themselves quite well at that time. Their WMD program was well documented and in fact partially dismantled all throughout the 90's, until Saddam essentially kicked out the weapons inspectors. The lack of finding WMD's in any great quantity does NOT mean they weren't shipped elsewhere ( Syria). At any rate, they had violated I believe it was 23 violations of the cease fire agreement from 91, so the justification for resuming those hostilities was well established. Iraq was a good staging point strategically for the United States, and Saddams failure to abide by the ceasefire agreement provided more than ample justification for doing so, provided we saw it as a strategic advantage to take that course of action.

ISIS is present because we didn't follow through with what we started. Even if you disagree with the decision to go into Iraq, after that had been done, to withdraw completely was an enormous blunder.

Who claimed we didn't have any influence in forming the Iraqi government? Our error was in not maintaining that influence. We backed off in asserting our will, precisely due to the American anti war movement and the resulting discontent domestically. Once it was apparent we weren't staying for the duration, Maliki was dead in the water.

To sit back and pretend like we just couldn't do a thing about it is preposterous. There would be no need to reconquer. Maliki was always our puppet, and we allowed him the latitude to present our withdrawal to his people, however he best saw fit. This notion that they kicked us out is laughable.

 

It is very important to note that in this nation's history, prior to Bush, there has NEVER been tax cuts in a time of war let alone two wars.

 

I think that the current situation with Radical Islam is an enormous tragedy in the making. I think that because the situation is infinitely complex, that you think our best course of action is to ignore it. Appeasement virtually never works with tyrants, and we as a world will one day pay a steep price for this inaction. I think the danger that exists from Radical Islam is worth going to war, and yes in war, deaths do occur. In any legitimate historical context of war, the deaths we incurred in this conflict are historically low.

Its unbelievable to me that you think appeasement is going to make this situation better. No doubt, at some point in the future (1 yr, 5 yrs, 10 yrs, 30 yrs), one of these terrorist organization are going to detonate a nuclear bomb in some populous city in the West, and then and only then will we as a civilized people give this problem its proper due, and put forth the commitment that will be required to end it once and for all. You can pay the price now, or you can pay the price later. Unfortunately, the option of paying it later comes with far greater costs, both monetarily and in lives lost.

 

True, but only if you believe our missions were as stated by the Bush Administration. I believe our real mission was to destabilize that region to the greatest extent possible. If you believe that, all our actions line up very neatly.

 

If we had maintained even a small presence, strategically there is absolutely NOTHING that Sunnis could do to gain power. You can argue that maybe it should have been broken into two countries, and there is a legitimate argument for that concept, but since we left, we closed any possibility of allowing that eventuality to evolve. Instead we have allowed barbarians to control how the country evolves. Under no circumstance is that a good thing.

 

Interesting theory. What in your estimation would be our benefit from a destabilized Middle East ?

 

Bull. We had their oil sales substantially restricted, as was their trade. Iraq was poor under Sadam.

And, your WMD claims remain nonsense. Under Reagan, WE helped them with WMDs. By the time we had inspectors in Iraq immediately before the war, the dire predictions of "mushroom clouds" from Condi Rice and the totally irresponsible Bush administration were proven to be nonsense.

Then, you follow that up with the totally unsubstantiated claims of shipping WMDs elsewhere? First of all, they still had to be making the material, and we found nothing of that. Beyond that, no substantial WMDs have been found since that could possibly be traced to Iraq. And, if Iraq didn't have them and wasn't producing them, then we had no complaint with Iraq. Seriously. We don't conquer nations on the grounds of unsubstantiated suppositions.

THEN, you fall back on that nonsense about "resuming" the war. That argument was never made - it's purely YOU trying for a post facto justification. In fact, documents at the Army War College in Carlisle show that claiming THAT as a basis for war was not legitimate. Remember that the UNSC resolution subsumed those prior resolutions, and the ceasefire, belonged to the UN, not the US.

 

I will state once again. Its people were poor, and hurting from sanctions. With that being said, the sanctions had been partially lifted, and Russia had continued trading with them the entire time. The funneling of "Oil for Food" money into the government and NOT to the people was well documented.The Iraqi government was well funded.

Nothing in my statement that we partially dismantled their WMD program in the 90s, then were virtually kicked out by Saddam is incorrect. Im not sure what is the relevance of bringing Reagan into the equation, other than some smarmy jab that has no bearing on the situation. I don't recall any dire PREDICTION from Condi Rice relative to mushroom clouds. I don't suppose you have a link to that PREDICTION do you?

In instances where a murder weapon is never found, does that mean there wasn't a murder? That's not to imply that Im claiming that is proof that WMD's existed, but its correctly leaving open the possibility that they did.

The position of the U.S. and U.K. is that the invasion was authorized by a series of U.N. resolutions dating back to 1990. "Resolution 1441 declared that Iraq was in "material breach" of the cease-fire under U.N. Resolution 687 "

Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

Nothing is worth going to a war that can't be won, that doesn't qualify as a just war, and that can't even hope to make things better.

Appeasement?? More of your assumptions run amok.

We've made numerous mistakes in the ME.

I'm saying that if you want to propose more slaughter, you better state your specific objective, how that is going to be achieved and how we would follow through with that to make things both stable and better.

And, you can take your "appeasement" accusations and ...

 

Unequivocally, it can be won. It merely takes a sufficient commitment

Its not an assumption. You believe that it cannot be won, thus advocate flowery language in the hopes that we wont create any more terrorists. You probably think the most effective measure we can take is to separate out the words Islam and radical.

True. The problem in the Middle East is infinitely complex. To pretend like that minefield could be traversed without any mistakes, is an unreasonable standard. We made numerous mistakes in WW2 as well, and for that matter every other war. War is an ever changing game, and to pretend like one conducts one without any mistakes is just nonsensical.

and accurately pin them to your beliefs.

 

Then, think of the reality: He did, and that and his legacy of fraudulently-pretexted multi-trillion dollar nation-building fiascos, soaring deficits, and a monumental economic collapse have dictated that the GOP keep him far away from the campaigns of any and all of the party's candidates ever since.

It may be the appropriate choice, but becomes a real conundrum for brother Jeb.

 

Don't tell me "it" can be won.

There is no similarity between the issues in the ME today and WWII.

And, this thread is about the Bush administration - an administration that made the largest single mistake in US history. And, YOU want to DEFEND that???

 

IT CAN BE WON

No similarity other than the fact, that along with every other war throughout history, that mistakes have been made.

It is about the Bush administration yes. You seem to have a firm grip on the obvious. What gave it away?.....was it the title of the thread perhaps?

 

1441 did NOT authorize military action.

Not even Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld believed you on that rubbish.

That was made explicitly clear before any nation signed that resolution. In fact, the first draft resolution for 1441 included such an authorization and it became immediately clear that such a resolution would not pass. So, it was edited and our ambassador to the UN at the time (Negroponte) stated that our reading of the resulting wording was that it did not authorize any enforcement.- that such enforcement would require further agreement from the UNSC.

The US tried for that further agreement, and it became clear that the UNSC was NOT in favor of military action against Iraq.

As for previous resolutions, 1441 clearly states that it subsumes all previous resolutions - thus 1441 became the standing resolution on Iraq.

 

More of that "it" thing?

We don't go to war over "it". We don't even discuss "it". "It" isn't an issue.

If you want to propose war, you need to say more than "it".

 

Now you are unnecessarily parsing words. UN1441 clearly tied it to the ceasefire. Domestically, our resolution obviously didn't have 1441( UN Parlayance) in its title, but HJ resolution114 very clearly stated "Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors." as one of its primary justifications. You can play word games all that you like, but the fact remains that the failure to abide by the ceasefire agreement was a primary stated justification for going to war.

You claim that the USSC was NOT in favor of going to war, is a 100% fabrication. The case never sniffed the Supreme Court, and was in fact dismissed at the circuit level.

- - - Updated - - -

Being that we were discussing Iraq, I would have assumed that you know what "IT" refers to. Perhaps I gave you too much credit. My bad.

 

I guess since you can't defend or document your claims (and we know you can't), you have to put words in other people's mouths and then argue with them. This is ususally the place that Bush dead enders eventually wind up in.

This is not a talking point.

The unit that had been tasked with the hunt for Bin Laden was disbanded in 2006.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html?_r=0

The hunt had been de-emphasized far earlier, as early as the spring of 2003. Bush forgot about Al Quida, except as a rhetorical device, and was focused on his war in Iraq instead. I can bury you in evidence. You're the one with no substance here.

And equally idiotic claim. Iraq's oil production was at 3 million bpd in 2003, and quickly went to zero. At the time, Iraq was the world's forth or fifth largest producer. Withdrawing that production from world markets pushed global oil prices from about $40 to $100 per barrel in short order. Big oil wins, with or without Iraqi production.

The production sharing agreements that the US was trying to impose on Iraq, had several componants. One, they de nationalized Iraqi oil production and replaced the IPC with "Production sharing agreements" negotiated with individual oil companies for the rights to develop individual fields. These agreements allowed for Iraq to retain 28% of the oil revenue from produced oil, leaving the remaining 72% in the hands of the oil companies. This was pricisely the REVERSE of the nationalized arrangement, and a vastly more generous deal for the oil companies than any other oil producing nation offers. It's not surprising that the Bush adminstration's objective of codifying this arrangement through an act of the Iraqi Parliment failed. Bush officials tried right up to their last days in office to put it over.

Moreover, once Iraq oil production was resumed, the prize was even bigger. In 2012, it was estimated that Iraq oil production could reach 6 million bpd, equal to the US. And since the Bush adminstration's plans was to split 72% of the revenue from this booty between 4 companies (Exxon, Chevron, BP, and Shell) the payoff was potentially huge. I'll document all of this if you like.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/10/121009-iraq-oil-production/

Your' nonsense about "itty bitty" not only doesn't make any sense, it's not even an argument.

I guess that since you can't deny that the war spun out of control even before it started, and continued to spiral downward until the country had dissolved into civil war three years later, you have to pretend that nothing that was actually going on is relevant and that growing concern and opposition to the war was actually the product of a mythical anti war left.

This nonsense was actually promoted by the Bush adminstration itself. Bush adminstration officials constantly urged right wing media to new heights of jingoism, paid fake reporters to "go around" the media, and, at one point even sponsored a junket called the "truth tour", sending right wing talk radio hosts to yuk it up in the Green Zone while reading talking points prepared by a GOP public relations firm. But the "good news" was generally of the Potemkin Village sort, and people continued to notice that things weren't actually improving in Iraq.

Again, regarding your putting the "troops getting mowed down" claim. Not only did I not say that, but you're doubling down trying to put words in my mouth.

Now regarding things that you have implied and denied, your whole occupation as deterrence scenario rests on the notion that all Islamic states will react positively to it, and that they are all somehow related. You dismiss them as barbrians and savages as an entire group. And since you've done it repeatedly throughout this thread, there's little point in denying it.

You'll have to give it to most of the planet as well. Because that's what most of the planet believes. The strategy is blatantly obvious.

One of the amazing things is that many Americans work hard at not believing it.

It's easier to believe the long discredited WMD claims and the "iminent threat" rhetoric, even though both of these were called into question even before the war started, and neither of them turned out to have any basis in fact.

It's convenient for you to claim that our real purpose was a permanent military occupation and the installation of a puppet government. You consistantly ignore the fact that the American people were never told that this was the objective, something I find interesting. You can't deny that fact. Yet, you cling to it as a core assumption of your logic. Should we assume that Bush lied to the American public in order to bury them deep in a military committment that would not be easy to get out of? That's what your reasoning suggests.

And how do you explain the idea that you're pushing that we occupy Iraq, the country with the second largest proven reserves of oil on the plant, and yet claim that all that oil isn't relevant?????

Who's peddling the baloney here? (hint, I've got the evidence, you don't).

I don't have to scroll back. You have yet to make a substantive point here.

At the risk OF being reduntant, I will ask when you were expecting Bush to go on TV and level with the American public? When was he going to admit that he scared the American public into supporting the unprovoked invastion of a major country for the purpose of installing a permanent military occupation to serve as a colonial deterrent to various government and movements in and around the region. You are saying that this is the purpose of the Iraq war. But that's not what Americans were told, and you know it. (fully how you keep trying to ignore it).

I never said that either, so you're trying to put words in my mouth again. It's also an either/or fallacy. Not much point in spending any more time on it.

At least you avoided the ususal trap that Bush dead enders ususally fall in by trying to pretend that the lurid claims that Bush and his protoges were making were accurate or had some basis in reality.

 

The UNSC was clearly NOT in favor of military action. Bush removed the issue from the UNSC when he found there was NO chance of getting them to agree to pull out inspectors and commence the military conquest.

UNSC means the United Nations Security Council, not some US court.

You STILL haven't said what you mean by "it". So, you say "it" has to do with Iraq. OK. What about Iraq? Are you backing what Obama is already doing? Or, WHAT???

We've been through the Bush fiasco. You don't get to say "Iraq" and then claim it means something better than it meant last time!

 

I couldn't give a rip about the United Nations Security Council. It is an enormous mistake to cede our decision making to an international body, especially with Parliamentary rules that give veto power to other singular countries which renders its decisions as distinctly partisan and subject to economic whims that affect the veto power members.As such, we should withdraw from its auspices immediately. Its failure to act in all matters Middle East renders it as useful as the now defunct league of nations.

This has already been established. "It" referred to the Iraq conflict that began in 2003. Winning "it", referred to gaining strategic advantage by having a base of operations within the Middle East that could serve as a deterrent to future radical uprisings, and react to those that inevitably would arise."It" would have entailed staying until which point the new Iraqi government was stable enough to defend itself, no matter how long that would take. "It" would be nice if the Iraqi people had a new functioning stable government, but from our perspective, that aim is secondary at best. The primary aim is to serve notice that the Western world is no longer going to sit idly by and let a growing threat gather, and "it" would serve notice that our commitment is indefinite. "It would entail encouraging moderates in the region to stand up and seize power for the good of its people. Nothing would encourage a moderate uprising like a rock solid commitment from the civilized world to stand by their side until the very end of the barbaric rule that exists in far too many countries in that part of the world. Currently, moderates do not believe in our commitment, and sadly, their suspicion is correct. Strength and commitment are the only things that deter barbarians, and the Left is what embodies the underlying weakness that exists in the civilized world.

Do I back what Obama has done?....do you mean pull out all troops even though the Iraqi government was dysfunctional?....Absolutely NOT. Our position in the world landscape has never been weaker than under Obama, and the world at this point lacks a leader. His hands off policy, and continued threats that don't materialize, are the precise reasons why ISIS, probably the biggest threat to Global security since Hitler, is now enjoying the gains and growth they are now experiencing. The only thing that Obama is doing, is trying to run out the clock, hoping against hope that the ensuing tragedy doesn't happen on his watch. I find his position to be much more concerned about his legacy amongst his small but rabid far left base, and completely unconcerned with making the tough decisions that are needed to safeguard our national security interests.

 

Ah, perhaps you are referring to the "Project for a New American Century" document suggesting we conquer Iraq for THAT purpose while using pretty much anything as a pretext.

But, Bush made Iraq a nation with Maliki in charge. And, Maliki didn't want us there, which gave US troops no cover of law for their actions and denied the US a legal basis for staying - outside of Maliki's agreement, which neither he nor his predecessor are/were even slightly interested in giving.

This was all decided under Bush. But, it doesn't matter. Any president would have set up a government in Iraq and NO government of Iraq was going to be interested in a US army of occupation.

You are suggesting that Obama should have removed the government of Iraq. Then, your crzy idea just stops. You somehow think that removing that government that WE set up and occupying that nation against its will is a solution!!! But, you say NOTHING AT ALL about a solution - only about conquering Iraq - AGAIN!!

Just out of curiosity, what the heck do you think the regional reaction would be to the US overthrowing a nation that we set up, while promising permanent occupation? What do you think the EU, China, India, Russia, or anyone else would think of that? What do you think America would think of that?

I can't emphasize enough how empty, incomplete, illegal and poorly thought through your idea is so far.

Please tell me you aren't posting here with nothing more than THAT.

 

I didn't agree with everything Dubya did, but due to his proper intentions and many good accomplishments, I was proud to call him President! Obama, the lying scumbucket, has had the slowest econominc recovery since WWII, has made us a laughing stock in the world, has not acted like a CIC, and does not meet that privilege of being called President!

 

I cant say that I am specifically familiar with the "Project for a New American Century", but I have noticed you talking about it incessantly. Beyond that, I don't see its relevance to this discussion

This belief of yours is predicated on ignorance. Yes, there are a lot of shady back room dealings that go on, especially in international politics, and what is reported for public consumption, is NOT what goes on behind closed doors. Maliki was a puppet government. Everyone knows this. If in any other context, even you would acknowledge it was a puppet government. There is NO WAY whatsoever that a tinhorn leader, in place solely as the titular head of a puppet government, is going to even attempt to dictate anything in regards to when the military that is rebuilding their country is going to leave. Being that we were going to leave, it served that puppet governments efforts to appear legitimate to pretend as if you are kicking them out. If you think for one second that we didn't dictate those terms 100%, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

Please tell me you don't honestly believe that a puppet regime dictated the terms of withdrawal for its host government? You must be extremely naïve.

Your assumption couldn't possibly be more off base. There would be no government to remove and reconquer....we ARE the government. Maliki regime is a puppet, pure and simple. We wanted to get out, and Maliki, to give the impression of legitimacy, opted to present it as if he kicked us out. If you believe that a puppet government(parasite), has the desire or ability to kick out the supporting ( host) government, you are incredibly naïve.

Nobody said anything about overthrowing the government we set up, except you. You are prattling on regarding an incorrect assumption on your part. How would other countries react?...they wouldn't, because we wouldn't have to overthrow the puppet government we put in place.

If your assumption were correct, and us staying in Iraq would have required us to overthrow the government we put in place, yes, my argument would be incomplete and poorly thought out. Since your assumption is 100% incorrect however, your characterization of my argument is wholly off base. You are shockingly naïve, and it reflects in your assumptions.

Condescension, when not warranted, is simply silly. You haven't earned the right to be condescending, and have done little more than express a childlike view of the world that believes everything you are told by politicians, without daring to apply an ounce of common sense or free thought into the equation. Im not speaking to conspiracy level stuff here, just simply use some common sense and acknowledge that the notion that a puppet regime could or would want to kick out its host is bereft of logic.