Bush Gets a Bad Rap

The Project for a New American Century was created during the Clinton administration and included a number of those who ended up as significant figures in the Budsh administration - Cheney, for example. The idea was to figure out how to establish long term US domination in the post-cold war era. Among other things, it calls for establishing a long term base of operations in the ME, with Iraq as a significant candidate.

These were the guys in charge in our government during the Bush administration and THEY clearly decided it wasn't going to work.

So, no Maliki was not a puppet, obviously. He was fully autonomous, although we could try to coerce him with threats and aid - like we do.

I don't know where you get your ideas, but I promise you, you've got nothing. Even those who authored this plan, owned Iraq AND owned the US executive branch realized it wasn't going to work.

 

This is where your naivety comes into play. You have been told that Maliki is fully autonomous, and by virtue of the fact he stated and we affirmed that he wanted us to leave, that therefore in your naïve mind, you think that makes the claim automatically true. Maliki is a puppet regime, and everyone knows that. I have already explained this. Maliki stating he didn't want us there, served his purpose of appearing to be independent of America, and OUR purpose of leaving under the auspices of we are leaving a functional government intact. That message gave both sides the spin they wanted to leave with. If you think for one moment that a host and its puppet government aren't going to collaborate in such a fashion, you are very gullible.

Why are you saying even the authors knew it wasn't going to work?....obviously it didn't work. That is not in doubt. My argument would be that it could have worked if we had allowed it. The anti war movement galvanized opinion against the effort, and for that effort to be successful, we need to be fully committed. You present it now that it didn't work as if that is proof that it couldn't.

 

ll
FAW apparantly thinks that this is still 2003, and that he can still peddle all these simplistic rationalizations.

The talk radio right always loved the "appeasement" angle. Munich is a code word for them.

 

If you never heard of the Project for a New American Century than you are totally unqualified to comment on anything having to do with the Iraq War.

Every argument you've offered is right out of their long discredited playbook.

No wonder so much of what you have to say is such utter nonsense.

 

That's all he's got, and he made all of it up. It's right out of the old PNAC playbook, almost word for word. Of course, even they played the Bush team game of trying to pretend that conquering Iraq wasn't an imperialstic adventure.

He also plays the game of claiming that conquering Iraq had noting to do with all the oil sitting under it, dismissing that with condescending ease.

Of course, he can't build a case for any of it, and the history of the Iraq debacle repudiates just about ever claim he makes.

At least he's not stuck in the old Bush ear groove of trying to claim that Bush and Cheney's lurid claims about Iraq WMD's etc were true.

But he has the imperialism thing down pat.

He's also got this obsession with a non existant "anti war movement" which he harps on incessantly ,but can't seem to produce any evidence for .

 

You praise the guy that left a economy in the crapper that so desperately needed to recover and then proceed to bash the current POTUS for having to fix it. Tell me, what were Dubya's "intentions" when he invaded a sovereign nation that had zero to do with 911 and then grandstanding to lie about "Mission Accomplished"????

 

I'M gullible??? I just pointed out that the Bush administration WROTE your plan and THEY determined that it wasn't going to work.

Then, you come back with some sort of nonsense about Obama. Please. Your idea was dead before Obama was in office. And, you still don't get it.

 

You are correct. UN Resolution 1441 did not authorize the United States to start a war on behalf of the United Nations.

The US even planned on coming back to the Security Council to ask for authorization based on the "material breach" argument. Bush said he wanted a vote "whatever the whip count" was.

When it became obvious that the authorization resolution would be vetoed by that same Council, Bush decided to ignore international commitments, force the inspectors out, and start the war unilaterally.

FAW likes to omit or conventiently forget key (and well known) facts like this, because they don't fit his narrative.

He has also manufactured an imaginary "anti war movement", which is the core of his fantasy.

 

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Lutti, John Bolton, were all "fellows" of the Project for a New American Century.

It had its offices in the American Enterprise Institute's building on 15th Street, and was financed by big oil (which is the paymaster for the AEI).

 

Im not so sure about any code word called "Munich", but if you have a specific rationalization that you take exception with, please feel free to do so. Nothing I have said even remotely hints that I think it is 2003; that is a nonsensical assertion.

 

Ad Hominem is the last refuge for a losing argument. A statement like "no wonder so much of what you have to say is utter nonsense", is a cowards way of not addressing anything being discussed. You may not agree with the mindset put forth by the Bush Administration, and you can point to the fact it lost American support and subsequently failed, but the debate about whether it was a worthy goal and could have possibly worked if given the chance is fertile ground for speculation. I believe that the problem with Radical Islam, holds enough potential danger to national security, that it warrants an all out effort to thwart its expansion. We can deal with it now, or deal with it later. Obviously you fall into the kick the can down the road camp. When/ if an enormous tragedy comes out of Radical Islam, you will predictably ignore your stated desire for inaction, and lay the blame on us attacking Iraq, occupying Saudi Land etc. I will blame the mindset behind your inaction. The argument will never end, and everyone will use self serving logic to conclude that the opposite side of the political spectrum is at fault. You can take that to the bank.

The purpose of me starting this thread was to present the logic behind the concept of occupying Iraq. You throw around ad hominems, not because I don't know that of which I speak, but rather because you don't like the opinion that I and the original framers of the policy hold, and you want to intimidate anyone that dares disagree with your narrow view of how things should proceed.

No doubt you mostly agree with Obamas inaction in regards to uprisings in the Middle East. I most certainly disagree, and believe the lack of leadership provided by him on behalf of our country and the world, makes the world a more tumultuous place. It comes down to two entirely different mindsets and ways of viewing the world. Stop trying to throw around baseless invectives that I do not know what I am talking about, because the totality of this thread shows that I do.

 

Yes you are gullible.

"This is where your naivety comes into play. You have been told that Maliki is fully autonomous, and by virtue of the fact he stated and we affirmed that he wanted us to leave, that therefore in your naïve mind, you think that makes the claim automatically true. Maliki is a puppet regime, and everyone knows that. I have already explained this. Maliki stating he didn't want us there, served his purpose of appearing to be independent of America, and OUR purpose of leaving under the auspices of we are leaving a functional government intact, and can claim victory. That message gave both sides the spin they wanted to leave with. If you think for one moment that a host and its puppet government aren't going to collaborate in such a fashion, you are very gullible. "

It wasn't going to work because the American Public, rightly or wrongly, lacked the resolve. The fact that they acknowledged at some point it wasn't going to work has NO bearing whatsoever on whether or not you are gullible. How you try to equate the two is truly a mystery, because the subjects couldn't be more unrelated. I think sometimes people feel they have to say something in response, and when they cant actually refute what was just said, they grasp at a tangential subject to imply that they just refuted what was being discussed. Some people would call that a strawman argument. Not finding myself in that position very often, perhaps I should be more sympathetic to your plight.

 

At no point in this thread have I implied that the Iraq invasion was UN sanctioned. That is so obvious ( and well known), that it goes without saying. This third person talking about me to another person, ascribing false implications to my words or motives, is not an effective means of debate.

Hmmmm... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

You may want to look at this link. It is a long list that details numerous coordinated protests, including hundreds of thousands of people protesting the Iraq war. This is all apparently a part of the (wink wink) "non existent war movement"
LOL.....You know as well as I that there were many protests against the war. How therefore can you possibly rationalize that an anti war movement didn't exist? The notion doesn't make an iota of sense. Frankly, I am shocked to be embroiled in such a meaningless, yet obvious discussion.

 

?? "Puppet state" is just a term of political criticism. It means that the government can't stand on its own or is in some way dependent on some other state.

Iraq is not dependent on us. They have felt quite free to demonstrate that. We give them support. So does Iran.

Bush signed over Iraq to its own government, and it is only a puppet if Iraq decides to be one. And, they have certainly NOT decided that!

We didn't lack resolve. If anything, we lacked a plan and, if anyone else actually thinks like you do, we even lack an understanding of what it means to establish an elected government.

 

We pulled every string in regards to Malikis government. Of course we, nor they would ever say that. To think otherwise is gullible, and lacking in a basic understanding of what is presented to the public in regards to international diplomacy. Maliki never thought for one second he had a government capable of defending itself from intruders, and consequently would never want his puppet masters to leave his side, knowing full well that his country is a powder keg. We pulled EVERY string in that regard, and like any puppet government, he merely went along for the ride. The fact that it is used as an insult doesn't change the fact of its reality. Considering how the government was formed, there has almost never been a more clear cut case of a puppet government than this one. His critics would predictably call it a puppet government, and they would be 100% correct. If this discussion were in another context, and calling it a puppet government were being used to insult the government created by Bush, you would be the first in line to level the accusation. In this context however, and the term puppet government illustrates how of course Maliki is only doing our bidding, you will go to your grave swearing that it is not a puppet government.

In regards to lack of resolve......If the public wants to pull out of a war, there is a lack of resolve. There is nothing there to legitimately debate. You could argue that a lack of planning led to a lack of resolve, but you cannot credibly argue there wasn't a lack of resolve.

 

Same old lie, told again and again, even though two bipartisan investigations said Bush started his war on bad intelligence. Even though he had doubts himself if there were enough evidence to prove Iraq had WMD and was assured by his intelligence there was no doubt, it was a slam dunk. They had it. Time to move on.

 

The Left were just as much responsible for tanking this economy as Bush was. They also pushed for homes for the poor. They also was for the war. They were also for Free Trade and NAFTA that took millions of good paying jobs from this country. So don't keep feeding us it was all Bush's fault. He had nothing to do with Free Trade and NAFTA, both signed and in existence before he came in office. Bush got the full effect of both as most moved out while he was in office.

 

You are very obviously wrong about that.

And, once in power, he chose to use his forces to remove Sunnis from government and carry out military operations against his own Sunni population. He also turned Shiite militias loose on Sunnis. He was doing that even when we still had operational troops in Iraq. We were highly opposed to this, obviously. We wanted Iraq to be one nation. We expended a lot of effort on constructing a government that had Sunni representation.

This is defining proof that he was NOT a puppet.

Then, he told us to get our troops out - once again proving he was NOT a puppet of ours.

These were both key issues - perhaps THE key issues. And, today they are still the key issues. And, in both cases Maliki and his successor have done exactly what we didn't want them to do. Yet YOU think it is a puppet regime???


"Pull out of a war"??? The war as defined was OVER once Bush signed on the dotted line. Subsequent to that, we were/are guests. Period. By definition.

 

You took one side and completely ignored the facts. Ever since Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate GHW Bush his TX cowboy wannabe son and the Republican party had been looking for an excuse to invade Iraq. The Bush administration and his cabinet told nearly 1000 bare faced lies to attempt to justify and gain support for an invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein. Iraq never had anything to do with 9/11 yet within minutes after the plane crashed into the Pentagon Rumsfeld ordered his staff to prepare an invasion plan of their sovereign nation. Anyone who reads this letter addressed to Bill Clinton in 1998 and still doesn't realize that they had been obsessed with Saddam for at least five years needs a little counseling. Not only that they need to realize that taking out the would be assassin of GHW Bush ultimately cost the lives of 4500 young Americans and the wounding of 35,000 others.

December 18, 1998


The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is
not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more
serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming
State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course
for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy
that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That
strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand
ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment
of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have
demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to
uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to
ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially
diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely,
experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological
weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter
many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets.
As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of
confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a
seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam
does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we
continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and
allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil
will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the
first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the
magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness
of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or
threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake
military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein
and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a
strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts.
Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the
dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN
resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf.
In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in
the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of
mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security
interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future
at risk.

Sincerely,


Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey
Robert B. Zoellick


As far as the economy....Bush assumed a balanced budget with surpluses projected all the way to the outyears including completely paying off the national debt then cut taxes for his oil buds not once but twice, 2001 and 2003 using reconciliation to block Democrat opposition then doubled the national debt.

 

I agree, it was a puppet government. We had to install someone who the people knew and trusted. We couldn't just wipe out the government and walk away like we did in Libya, (look at how that turned out). We helped them set up a democracy, showed them how to make a Constitution, but let them write it themselves. Showed them how to hold elections where millions came and voted back in that puppet government even under the threat of death. Bush wanted to keep troops there to prevent from happening just what happened. But Maliki had a lot of dissention from within and laid down a rule that Bush couldn't except. So a withdraw date was fixed. But everyone felt if tensions flared up after our withdraw, Iraq would allow troops back in. But Obama never tried. He wiped his hands of Iraq. When Iraq asked for simple drones to help fight ISIS coming down from Syria, Obama wouldn't even do that, calling them a bunch of Jr. Varsity farmers and doctors, pretending to be soldiers. Even after taking over almost half of Iraq, Obama did nothing until public out cry made him do something.

 

Sort of matches these quotes don't it? What year did Bush take office?

Skip to comments.
Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction
davidstuff ^ | 1/4/03 | davidstuff

Posted on ‎1‎/‎5‎/‎2004‎ ‎12‎:‎28‎:‎26‎ ‎AM by freedom44

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." --Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them." -- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." -- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

 

You do know Mr. Finley that Johnson's lie to start the Vietnam War cost the life of over 58,000 of our people, about 12 times as many as what Iraq and Afghanistan both cost us together.

 

What is America and Obama looked on since Obama took office? The President of Turkey refuses to talk to him. The Prince of Saudi Arabia said he has made a mess of the Middle East. He sold out the President of Egypt and pissed off Israel and Saudi Arabia. He refused to give arms to Ukrainian to help fight off Russian backed rebels. Made Libya into a terrorist strong hold.We are no longer trusted or looked up to. He has made a mess of the whole Middle East and I haven't even touched on Iran.

 

The only nation now really willing to fight the ISIS is Jordan and how did Obama handle that?

Obama denied request from Jordan for Predator drones in ...
www.washingtontimes.com/.../obama-denied-req...
The Washington Times
3 days ago - Obama rejected Jordanian King Abdullah's pleas for Predator drones ... The refusal, disclosed by a House Armed Services Committee member, ...

 

We could be so much more effective bombing the hell out of the ISIS if Turkey would let us use their air fields. We wouldn't have to send our planes so far and put them in more danger. Turkey is a NATO member. But they are pissed at Obama for his inaction in Syria and refuses to do it. Other nations are reluctant to help because they don't trust Obama to follow through and leave them hanging out to dry. So tell me all you Liberals that seem to love everything this President does. What do you think of him when the truth is thrown in your face? All you want to do is blame Bush and Republicans and this man is the worst President we ever had and I haven't even started on what his immigration policy will cost us.