The Bush Admin. Never Lied To Justify the Invasion of Iraq.

[Dot Com]

^I'm of two minds about the Great Depression and the New Deal. It has been the subject of annual research papers that are routinely assigned to my students.

1) On one hand, I think strictly from an economics perspective the actions by both Hoover (who most people don't know, lots of the New Deal actions were continuations of policies he advocated) and FDR tended to prolong the Depression.

2) From a social/political depression, I think it would have been very unreasonable to have let the Depression "run it's course". Even if that made it come to an end sooner. Too many people were being hurt too badly to make any kind of realistic case for federal govt. nonintervention.

FDR understood that the Depression was not about economic statistics, it was about people suffering.

He did something about it, just like any leader would

yep. Thats what a real leader does as opposed to secretly trading arms to terrists, to help him win an election, like the Gipper did

YES, I went there

 

[bedowin62]

my god leftnutz

FDR isnt president

your failing community activist is!

 

[Theowl32]

Sitting here waiting for one liberal to give me a better explanation than rightwinger on why there has never been any official charges on Bush for deliberately lying and causing deaths of millions (funny how the liberals say he caused the deaths of millions isn't it) other than the good Obama not wanting to drag the US through the mud. Yeah, cause Obama would never want to drag the US through the mud would he? Naaah, not him. He loves America. I mean his wife for the first time in her contrived life became proud to be an American in 2008. How could they want to ever drag a country they love so much through the mud? I mean between his apology tours, he.....never mind. Done with my sarcasm.

So, according the liberals (get this) they think Bush is as guilty as Hitler, however the good Obama chose to not investigate him for the sake justice cause he was acting like Gerald Ford when he pardoned Nixion for spying on 5 democrats where no one died.

Yes, that is right. In rightwinger's liberal logic, he equated what Nixon did to what Hitler did. Why? Cause the liberals (ones like rightwinger and all of the others including that moron that does not know our own soldiers were water boarded in training) equate Bush to Hitler. That, includes rightwinger, who, said it was a noble thing that Obama did not call for an investigation into Bush's obvious lies that resulted in millions of deaths.

So, the liberals actually make Obama to be some kind of hero. Let us go over this again, cause I just want to be clear here. Liberals think Bush deliberately lied about wmds that resulted in the deaths of millions of people......for oil. Liberals think Bush was just like Hitler. Rightwinger says the only reason Obama did not call for an investigation for the sake of justice was because he cared too much about America and did not want to drag the country through the mud.

Somehow that did not make liberals like rightwinger even more upset. Then again, rightwinger thinks Nixon spying on 5 democrats is the same thing as Hitler exterminating 6 million people. Oh, and the morons on the left think Bush killed millions of Iraqi citizens.

So, let me know when Bush is brought up on charges by the UN for the obvious deliberate lies. LOL at the liberals being wrong about everything.

You all see camp talk about how he would have saved those people in superdome by doing random drops of bottled water in various spots around it? No coordination, no set plan. He would have simply flown a helicopter in there and dropped water and stuff in there.

LOL at liberals and their contradictions along with their bullshit.

 

[Dot Com]

I'm a 47 year old History Teacher who specializes in 20th century American History. Half my cousins served in Iraq. One of my students lost both legs in Afghanistan. A neighbor from down the road from my parents house lost both legs in Iraq.

Quit slandering a person who believes differently from you.

Sen Warren (D-MA) was a teacher too. Whats your view of her?

As to the OP, judging by your post count, did you join the forum primarily to bring up this issue? If you're a student of contemporary history then you've heard of Doug Feith & his "Office of Strategic Intelligence" in the Pentagon, no doubt?

No.

I joined years ago. Posted a handful of times then changed jobs, moved, had to get a new computer, forgot my logons for a whole bunch of sites and frankly got too busy with real life for awhile.

I brought up this subject because it seems particularly relevant given the situation in Iraq and all the Obama partisans announcing that his is "Bush's fault" (even though he hasn't been in office for 5 and a half years.

The thing is, their war-profiteering Admin was warned about the consequences by scholars AND (then) Sen. Obama, that it would blow up in our faces. "Keeping a lid on it", at GREAT cost in blood & treasure, IS NOT a winning foreign policy strategy.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...the-nyt-advocating-against-invading-iraq.html
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[bedowin62]

Sen Warren (D-MA) was a teacher too. Whats your view of her?

As to the OP, judging by your post count, did you join the forum primarily to bring up this issue? If you're a student of contemporary history then you've heard of Doug Feith & his "Office of Strategic Intelligence" in the Pentagon, no doubt?

No.

I joined years ago. Posted a handful of times then changed jobs, moved, had to get a new computer, forgot my logons for a whole bunch of sites and frankly got too busy with real life for awhile.

I brought up this subject because it seems particularly relevant given the situation in Iraq and all the Obama partisans announcing that his is "Bush's fault" (even though he hasn't been in office for 5 and a half years.

The thing is, their war-profiteering Admin was warned about the consequences by scholars AND (then) Sen. Obama, that it would blow up in our faces. "Keeping a lid on it", at GREAT cost in blood & treasure, IS NOT a winning foreign policy strategy.

YAWN
you idiot; just post nonsense all day. can you prove Republicans "war-profitted" as a group any more than say; somebody like Diane Feinstein; who's husband got billions in war contracts?

 

[Dot Com]

Reminds me of the OP:

Why Are We Listening To These People?

A stopped clock is right twice a day, but in the Orwellian world that is U.S. mainstream media it seems that stopped clocks are always right — as long as one doesn’t look too much into the background, that is, to see the rusted, smashed-up innards of the clocks themselves. For a perfect example of this inexplicable ability of the media to never hold people accountable, just look at how American media has responded to the advance of extremist Sunni guerrillas across northern Iraq.

It’s like going back in time to 2003, when all things Iraq were still fresh and horrifyingly new. Eleven years ago, pundits, government officials and “experts” trotted out by right-wing think tanks assured us that war against Iraq was both necessary and extremely expedient. Why, some said, the war would pay for itself! We would be greeted with chocolates and flowers, said others. Yes, of course, the “liberated” people of Iraq would naturally get along and form a Madisonian democracy even though they had no history or cultural experience of it! The media, compliant as ever, lapped it up.

 

[bedowin62]

Reminds me of the OP:

Why Are We Listening To These People?

A stopped clock is right twice a day, but in the Orwellian world that is U.S. mainstream media it seems that stopped clocks are always right — as long as one doesn’t look too much into the background, that is, to see the rusted, smashed-up innards of the clocks themselves. For a perfect example of this inexplicable ability of the media to never hold people accountable, just look at how American media has responded to the advance of extremist Sunni guerrillas across northern Iraq.

It’s like going back in time to 2003, when all things Iraq were still fresh and horrifyingly new. Eleven years ago, pundits, government officials and “experts” trotted out by right-wing think tanks assured us that war against Iraq was both necessary and extremely expedient. Why, some said, the war would pay for itself! We would be greeted with chocolates and flowers, said others. Yes, of course, the “liberated” people of Iraq would naturally get along and form a Madisonian democracy even though they had no history or cultural experience of it! The media, compliant as ever, lapped it up.

"trotted out by right-wing think tanks"?

why do you Soros-tardz come here to spew to others the same idiotic lies you told yourselves?
there is a laundry-list of Dems who believed Saddam was a threat of WMDs.

you're such an idiot

 

[AmericanFirst]

After 9-11 we gave Bush a 9-11 Card

It allowed him to do anything he thought necessary to fight terrorism. We gave him the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Afghanistan and even looked the other way when he engaged in torture

But what Bush really wanted was Iraq. But nobody could link Iraq to 9-11. So what could Bush do?

Claim that Saddam was going to give WMDs to terrorists. We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

Bush lied

And most of the dimwits agreed with Bush prior to him taking off ice and up to it became a political football. But now we know Bush was right. Roll over cry and shut up idiot.

 

[Discombobulated]

The Bush Administration Never Lied In Order to Justify the Invasion of Iraq

The entire mantra of “Bush lied, people died” has been the refrain of critics of the Iraq War and the Bush Admin. For years. It has been repeatedly used in an attempt to destroy the Bush Admin. And delegitimize the U.S. led invasion for years.
Allowing this to go unchallenged was one of the greatest mistakes of the Bush Admin.
And on two separate levels the claim simply does not hold up.

1) Before the U.S. led invasion, President Bush questioned CIA Director George Tenet about the evidence supporting the existence of WMDs in Iraq. According to the Bob Woodward book, Tenet exclaimed that it was a “slam dunk” in favor of evidence showing WMDs.
What was President Bush supposed to do? Tenet was a Clinton appointee with no reason to lie or suck up to Bush.
The only answer I’ve ever been given is that Bush should’ve looked at the intelligence sources himself. This is completely ridiculous. A president does not go around interviewing Iraqi dissidents.
President Bush would’ve been foolish not to take the positive declarations of the CIA Director at face value.

2) Lying about WMDs in Iraq makes no logical sense. We’re supposed to believe that the Bush admin. Lied to justify an invasion…that would inevitably reveal that lie to the world.
The ONLY explanation I’ve heard regarding this from the “Bush lied” people is that “they figured the war would be so popular that no one would care”. Which is ridiculous beyond belief.

Were there WMDs in Iraq at the time of the invasion? Almost certainly not. But the CIA Director said there were and any president would be foolish not to act on that claim.

If your oncologist insists that you have cancer do you ask to see the lab reports yourself and interview the lab techs? Of course not! Probably you schedule surgery or chemo whichever that same doctor recommends.
Were mistakes made during the occupation of Iraq that cost thousands of American lives? Most certainly. But that is another issue that has nothing to do about the legitimacy of the invasion.

Did the Bush admin. Emphasize the stronger parts of their argument in favor of invading? Of course they did! This is what you do when making a case to a jury or to the American people. You have no obligation to argue both sides. There were plenty of opponents of the invasion to argue the other side.

Either way, there is ZERO evidence that the Bush Admin. ever deliberately and knowingly promoted false information to justify the invasion of Iraq.

There was no immediate imperative to invade Iraq and they knew that. They exaggerated the threat to justify their decisions.

 

[g4racer]

What special treatment should a history teacher receive? When it comes to US History there is a 50-50 chance it is not going to be the truth. Present day media may force that to change but the cause and effect are not what they appear. I find the History of the for the period between the landing of the Pilgrims and the end of the Civil War to be extremely inaccurate. The greatest errors are the reasons events occurred being tailored to provide a more honorable and courageous report of events.
Today everything is questioned which may help.
I'll use 4 examples:
1.
Why did the Pilgrims go to Holland? Religious Freedom.
Why did they leave Holland? Good question. They found the religious freedom they claimed they claimed they were seeking but it appears they didn't find what they were seeking.
Why did the Pilgrim come to the New World? Religious Freedom. They then set up a community that more repressive for anyone outside their religion than they had experienced in England. As far as the natives go, the Pilgrims appeared to have raided Indian villages from the beginning and justified their actions by saying, "Well, the Indians are only savages."
2. Our Founding Fathers: If many of our founding fathers had their lives looked into as Bill Clinton had experienced we would have had only a few names on the bottom of documents which now exist. Not a founding father; but a great person, good old Ben Franklin. Why was he one of the last ones to join the revolutionary movement? Do you think that his expecting a land grant that extended to the Pacific had anything to do with it? Once he found out that he would not be getting it he joined. I don't think anyone can blame him for that.
Fortunes were being made smuggling. What was about to happen to the price of tea at the time of the Tea Party? It was planned for a great quantity be shipped the Colonies and at a low price, which would have eliminated a large amount of income from some extremely wealthy smugglers.
3. An almost 100 year jump. What was the reason for the Civil War? Slavery was a minor reason. The inability of the mills in the north to get cotton may have been the major one. It appear the growers in the south were selling their cotton to England at a high price. The easy solution is to blockade ports in the south. All of a sudden Slavery was elevated to a higher level.
4. Iraq and Kuwait go together.
I suggest people do a little more reading and while doing it look up "diagonal drilling". We had an issue a few decades ago here in the USA between TX and LA.
G. W. Bush may not have used accurate information at the time of the invasion. The reason for the invasion may never be known. A question should be asked; but will not be answered. Did he know the information he had could have been wrong? We then entered into the period we should call, "The Reason of the Week". How many reasons were presented for our invading? I lost count. I don't consider myself anyone special; but even I would have started questioning Intel when I had to come up with the third reason. The last reason was for humanitarian reasons. If that was true there are/were for worse countries that should have been considered.

I was born in Somerville, MA and attended Concord High School. We moved to Bedford when I started JR. High. I recall the re-enactment of the Battle of Lexington and noticed the changes which occurred.
The first few I saw had a lot of Colonists turn and run as the British approached. It happened slowly; but over time fewer turned and ran. I imagine the reason the account changes is the same as the re-enactment has changed.
I did read an English History book and found it informative. I guess it makes a big difference as to where you are standing as to what you see. It could be that you only see what you want to see.

 

[Theowl32]

What special treatment should a history teacher receive? When it comes to US History there is a 50-50 chance it is not going to be the truth. Present day media may force that to change but the cause and effect are not what they appear. I find the History of the for the period between the landing of the Pilgrims and the end of the Civil War to be extremely inaccurate. The greatest errors are the reasons events occurred being tailored to provide a more honorable and courageous report of events.
Today everything is questioned which may help.
I'll use 4 examples:
1.
Why did the Pilgrims go to Holland? Religious Freedom.
Why did they leave Holland? Good question. They found the religious freedom they claimed they claimed they were seeking but it appears they didn't find what they were seeking.
Why did the Pilgrim come to the New World? Religious Freedom. They then set up a community that more repressive for anyone outside their religion than they had experienced in England. As far as the natives go, the Pilgrims appeared to have raided Indian villages from the beginning and justified their actions by saying, "Well, the Indians are only savages."
2. Our Founding Fathers: If many of our founding fathers had their lives looked into as Bill Clinton had experienced we would have had only a few names on the bottom of documents which now exist. Not a founding father; but a great person, good old Ben Franklin. Why was he one of the last ones to join the revolutionary movement? Do you think that his expecting a land grant that extended to the Pacific had anything to do with it? Once he found out that he would not be getting it he joined. I don't think anyone can blame him for that.
Fortunes were being made smuggling. What was about to happen to the price of tea at the time of the Tea Party? It was planned for a great quantity be shipped the Colonies and at a low price, which would have eliminated a large amount of income from some extremely wealthy smugglers.
3. An almost 100 year jump. What was the reason for the Civil War? Slavery was a minor reason. The inability of the mills in the north to get cotton may have been the major one. It appear the growers in the south were selling their cotton to England at a high price. The easy solution is to blockade ports in the south. All of a sudden Slavery was elevated to a higher level.
4. Iraq and Kuwait go together.
I suggest people do a little more reading and while doing it look up "diagonal drilling". We had an issue a few decades ago here in the USA between TX and LA.
G. W. Bush may not have used accurate information at the time of the invasion. The reason for the invasion may never be known. A question should be asked; but will not be answered. Did he know the information he had could have been wrong? We then entered into the period we should call, "The Reason of the Week". How many reasons were presented for our invading? I lost count. I don't consider myself anyone special; but even I would have started questioning Intel when I had to come up with the third reason. The last reason was for humanitarian reasons. If that was true there are/were for worse countries that should have been considered.

I was born in Somerville, MA and attended Concord High School. We moved to Bedford when I started JR. High. I recall the re-enactment of the Battle of Lexington and noticed the changes which occurred.
The first few I saw had a lot of Colonists turn and run as the British approached. It happened slowly; but over time fewer turned and ran. I imagine the reason the account changes is the same as the re-enactment has changed.
I did read an English History book and found it informative. I guess it makes a big difference as to where you are standing as to what you see. It could be that you only see what you want to see.

Cool can we report all of the true things about Obama too?

Starting with his school history? No? Thought not.

 

[g4racer]

Why not? If you can back your information there appears to be nothing wrong with that. To be fair I suggest you do it for all though. I have a feeling that you are only interest in muck though. Shall we include the Industrialists that made this country what it is today?

 

[chikenwing]

Did Republicans question the big government USAPATRIOT Act and domestic spying?

Many many have and still do,but who was in a postion to end it,and didn't?

 

[bedowin62]

Did Republicans question the big government USAPATRIOT Act and domestic spying?

Many many have and still do,but who was in a postion to end it,and didn't?

left-wing nutjobs keep forgetting they've been the majority of the US Government for 8 years in a row when they act as if Republicans and/or Bush are still in charge

or are these whines just admissions of left-wing ineptitude?

 

[Dayton3]

Once again, people seem to forget that

1) No bid contracts are common for the U.S. federal govt.

2) Halliburton was being awarded no bid contracts by the Clinton Admin. Years BEFORE Dick Cheney was ever Vice Presidents.

 

[MikeK]

Once again, people seem to forget that

1) No bid contracts are common for the U.S. federal govt.

Does that mean there is nothing wrong with the practice?

2) Halliburton was being awarded no bid contracts by the Clinton Admin. Years BEFORE Dick Cheney was ever Vice Presidents.

Does that mean Clinton wasn't just as corrupt as Cheney?

 

[MikeK]

I stop listening to ANY argument that starts off with "Bush started an illegal war(s)".

Both the Afghanistan and Iraq operations in 2001 and 2003 were authorized by the U.S. Congress, in votes that were pretty bipartisan IIRC.

Congressional authorization automatically makes a conflict 'legal" in the case of the United States.

It doesn't matter what Congress was told. It doesn't matter what Congress believed. They had the power to say yes or no. They exercised their power to say yes.

War authorized. War legal. Case closed.

I wish I could say I don't believe you are a history teacher.

But I can't say that because I do believe it. I believe it because I am painfully aware that the U.S. educational system presently ranks seventeenth in the developed world.

Seventeenth.

 

[g4racer]

From a political standpoint it is not easy to change things once they have been started. What would the response have been if a pullout was done? The responses I would expect from the GOP and TP would be extremism if he pulled out and if remained in, which he did, I would expect nothing less than what you are say now. Once in we, as a nation, had to accept responsibility and had little to do with who won the election. If John McCain had won little would have been said by you. Did the GOP bring in Palin just so they would lose No matter who was elected a lot of blame was going to be dumped on him.
I disagree with a lot of things President Obama, I did not see the GOP as having a working solution. Some things he did might have even been helpful but I don't believe that anyone from the right would admit it. The subject of the Birth Certificate is still going on and I do not believe it was ever honestly questioned. It was done for harassment and distraction.
This type behavior is from the business segment.
Speedring went court claiming AOC stole a process called "Super Polishing" which prevented AOC from using the process. AOC could not fabricate metal mirror components to be in spec with out the process. Speedring dropped the case a few years later because they could not put the case off any longer. Both companies obtained the information on the process from the same source, 1917 or 1919 ATM book 3. ATM = Armature Telescope Making.

 

[Dayton3]

No bid contracts are pretty much a requirement for defense related work.

Because no sane private company is going to agree to a competitive bidding, fixed price contract when the U.S. federal govt. can radically change the specifications of defense related projects at will.

Just look at Northrop at the B-2 bomber.

Northrop had been working on the B-2 nearly a decade when in 1986 (IIRC) the Pentagon suddenly told them they wanted it to have low level capability which required a massive redesign and a huge increase in costs.

Which is why most defense contracts like that are "cost plus" (guaranteed profit margin).

 

[GWV5903]

The facts whisper louder than your childish accusations but being from Texas, you wouldn't know anything about facts or logic or civility. What is it you're trying to say that keeps getting edited?

Dum Dum, they are not accusations...

KIDS is what was edited mullet...

And I made up the edit the second time...

Hell I would be jealous of Texas too, but you don't have to make it so obvious...

The only place that is jealous of Texas is latrines in Mississippi.

Is that it? "Latrines in Mississippi" someone needs to because your crap is so