President Bush's "Decision Points"

[Liability]

Do you think the intelligence they got was sound?

Not all of it, obviously. The problem is often a matter of interpretation. And how badly some intel got interpreted is a function of how screwed up our State Department had gotten and how ill-equipped (Human Intelligence) our CIA was.

what about Cheney putting pressure on the CIA? or the fact that Bush's cabinet was comprised of individuals who had wanted to attack Iraq for 10 years?

If Vice President Cheney believed that Saddam's Iraq had WMDs, then any "pressure" he put on the CIA was motivated by that belief -- and the possible consequences of such a state of affairs.

And if it so happens that the desire of some advisers to "attack" Iraq coincided with a reason (after 9/11/2001 and in light of the lessons we were drawing about the state of the world because of 9/11) to go after Saddam's regime, that still doesn't mean that the President got manipulated or lied to.

 

[ekrem]

The line about "mushroom clouds" was NEVER intended to be anything than an extreme EXAMPLE

It was implementing fear to silence dissent and legitimize the war-efforts on a national consent within USA. Add a little bit salt of Saddam-Connection to Al-Qaeda and put it on a Axis of Evil.

Your rhetoric is tired, stale and unpersuasive.

My rhetorics are objective narration of that time without caring for partisan little-games within USA.

The cracks in the "system" which you conveniently put on just this side of the Atlantic was -- instead -- always a problem coming from BOTH sides of the Atlantic.

Major players within NATO did not buy the hyped threat-definition of Iraq set by USA. As I said, others also have intelligence capability.
The US came up with a 'Coalition of Willing' which simply were ethical flyweights trying to profit in the shadow of the USA.

 

[elvis]

Not all of it, obviously. The problem is often a matter of interpretation. And how badly some intel got interpreted is a function of how screwed up our State Department had gotten and how ill-equipped (Human Intelligence) our CIA was.

what about Cheney putting pressure on the CIA? or the fact that Bush's cabinet was comprised of individuals who had wanted to attack Iraq for 10 years?

If Vice President Cheney believed that Saddam's Iraq had WMDs, then any "pressure" he put on the CIA was motivated by that belief -- and the possible consequences of such a state of affairs.

And if it so happens that the desire of some advisers to "attack" Iraq coincided with a reason (after 9/11/2001 and in light of the lessons we were drawing about the state of the world because of 9/11) to go after Saddam's regime, that still doesn't mean that the President got manipulated or lied to.

but Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. We used a vast majority of our war resources on a person who didn't attack us, while the perpetrators got away....
how does 9/11 redefine the state of the world?

 

[JW Frogen]

Whether you agree with the decision or not you have to give him this, almost every other President would have said "do, what you have to do, but I don't want to know the details."

Bush says, waterboard, I am making the decision.

The bastard shoots straight.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I heard he rips McCain in the book.

I heard McCain doesn't give a shit what W thinks.

 

[Liability]

what about Cheney putting pressure on the CIA? or the fact that Bush's cabinet was comprised of individuals who had wanted to attack Iraq for 10 years?

If Vice President Cheney believed that Saddam's Iraq had WMDs, then any "pressure" he put on the CIA was motivated by that belief -- and the possible consequences of such a state of affairs.

And if it so happens that the desire of some advisers to "attack" Iraq coincided with a reason (after 9/11/2001 and in light of the lessons we were drawing about the state of the world because of 9/11) to go after Saddam's regime, that still doesn't mean that the President got manipulated or lied to.

but Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. We used a vast majority of our war resources on a person who didn't attack us, while the perpetrators got away....
how does 9/11 redefine the state of the world?

Correct. It wasn't Saddam or his regime who attacked us on 9/11/2001.

But despite his secular nature, that fuck was a state sponsor of terrorists and terrorist organizations. He had indeed helped al qaeda, even. And it was believed (not a lie; an actual belief that preceded the 9/11 attacks and the entire Bush Administration) that the very same fuck had WMDs. Combine those facts togeether, and it was perfectly reasonable to oust him and his regime -- to deprive al qaeda the use of any part of Iraq as a base and deny them any of Iraq's wealth AND deny them access to any part of Saddam's presumed WMDs.

The world had changed because we were no longer going to sit back and treat these considerations as mere legal niceties. And taking out the Saddam regime WOULD have permitted us a terrific forward base of operations for the larger war against the scum who had attacked us IN their home region.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Clearly,...you haven't read any of President Bush's book.

and it's a good bet George W. Bush hasn't either.

I don't doubt for a moment that he used a ghost writer to write or assist in writing the book. (Oh nosies. Not THAT! You pansy hypocritical liberoidal scum are all alike in your hypocrisy.)

But, unlike you, President Bush is able to discuss the matters in his book on a mature and intelligent level.

I bet whoever wrote it is not dying to let people know they wrote a Fairy Tale.

 

[Liability]

and it's a good bet George W. Bush hasn't either.

I don't doubt for a moment that he used a ghost writer to write or assist in writing the book. (Oh nosies. Not THAT! You pansy hypocritical liberoidal scum are all alike in your hypocrisy.)

But, unlike you, President Bush is able to discuss the matters in his book on a mature and intelligent level.

I bet whoever wrote it is not dying to let people know they wrote a Fairy Tale.

Zzzz. You are so boring and trite and ploddingly predictable, Dainty.

You bring nothing to the table. Ever.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Bush Book = Spin

Clearly,...you haven't read any of President Bush's book.

and it's a good bet George W. Bush hasn't either.

why so sensitive about W.? man crush?

 

[elvis]

If Vice President Cheney believed that Saddam's Iraq had WMDs, then any "pressure" he put on the CIA was motivated by that belief -- and the possible consequences of such a state of affairs.

And if it so happens that the desire of some advisers to "attack" Iraq coincided with a reason (after 9/11/2001 and in light of the lessons we were drawing about the state of the world because of 9/11) to go after Saddam's regime, that still doesn't mean that the President got manipulated or lied to.

but Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. We used a vast majority of our war resources on a person who didn't attack us, while the perpetrators got away....
how does 9/11 redefine the state of the world?

Correct. It wasn't Saddam or his regime who attacked us on 9/11/2001.

But despite his secular nature, that fuck was a state sponsor of terrorists and terrorist organizations. He had indeed helped al qaeda, even. And it was believed (not a lie; an actual belief that preceded the 9/11 attacks and the entire Bush Administration) that the very same fuck had WMDs. Combine those facts togeether, and it was perfectly reasonable to oust him and his regime -- to deprive al qaeda the use of any part of Iraq as a base and deny them any of Iraq's wealth AND deny them access to any part of Saddam's presumed WMDs.

The world had changed because we were no longer going to sit back and treat these considerations as mere legal niceties. And taking out the Saddam regime WOULD have permitted us a terrific forward base of operations for the larger war against the scum who had attacked us IN their home region.

was he not supporting terrorist organizations when we were supporting him?
do you think we are closer to getting bin Laden and al zawahiri than we were on March 18, 2003?

 

[ekrem]

(...)
to deprive al qaeda the use of any part of Iraq as a base and deny them any of Iraq's wealth AND deny them access to any part of Saddam's presumed WMDs.
(...)

What Iraqi wealth?
Iraq was under UN sanctions, importing food against oil whilst children were starving. The North and South were patrolled no-fly zones, effectively containing Saddam around central Iraq.
You've no clue what you're talking about.

As for the Al-Qaeda thingy in connection to Iraq: Fairy Tale.

 

[Liability]

but Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. We used a vast majority of our war resources on a person who didn't attack us, while the perpetrators got away....
how does 9/11 redefine the state of the world?

Correct. It wasn't Saddam or his regime who attacked us on 9/11/2001.

But despite his secular nature, that fuck was a state sponsor of terrorists and terrorist organizations. He had indeed helped al qaeda, even. And it was believed (not a lie; an actual belief that preceded the 9/11 attacks and the entire Bush Administration) that the very same fuck had WMDs. Combine those facts togeether, and it was perfectly reasonable to oust him and his regime -- to deprive al qaeda the use of any part of Iraq as a base and deny them any of Iraq's wealth AND deny them access to any part of Saddam's presumed WMDs.

The world had changed because we were no longer going to sit back and treat these considerations as mere legal niceties. And taking out the Saddam regime WOULD have permitted us a terrific forward base of operations for the larger war against the scum who had attacked us IN their home region.

was he not supporting terrorist organizations when we were supporting him?
do you think we are closer to getting bin Laden and al zawahiri than we were on March 18, 2003?

We supported Saddam (to our long-lasting shame) when he was using his WMDs, yes. And? The calculus of who we side with in such matters is always very difficult and has historically bitten us in the ass before. I don't doubt that it will again. We even had a brief period where we worked with bin Laden. If you want to argue that we should take steps to ground our policy a bit more on matters of principle and decency, I'm open to that. But that does not mean we can afford the luxury of entirely giving up pragmatism, too. The business at hand is very ugly and our most divine intentions won't assist us in saving us if we can't act -- even ruthlessly -- from time to time.

"Getting" bin Laden is beside the point. Would it be a wonderful thing to capture him or kill him outright? Yep. But killing him doesn't end the threat of al qaeda. He is ONE leader. He is NOT the entirety of that threat.

And I do believe that had we gone about the business of fighting the Iraq War without all the liberal dissent being generated at home, we might have won it much more expeditiously and even handled the more difficult post-war insurgency problems with much greater alacrity and to much greater effect. And at that point, I believe we could have used Iraq as a proper forward staging area possibly to go after the threats in Afghanistan and maybe even in Iran.

We knew going in that it was going to be a long long set of wars. But our own domestic dissent made it much more protracted and, in my estimation, we ended up abandoning the longer range plans.

 

[Liability]

(...)
to deprive al qaeda the use of any part of Iraq as a base and deny them any of Iraq's wealth AND deny them access to any part of Saddam's presumed WMDs.
(...)

What Iraqi wealth?
Iraq was under UN sanctions, importing food against oil whilst children were starving. The North and South were patrolled no-fly zones, effectively containing Saddam around central Iraq.
You've no clue what you're talking about.

As for the Al-Qaeda thingy in connection to Iraq: Fairy Tale.

Try to be a bit more sophisticated.

Our sanctions (arguably misguided for many reasons, mostly in terms of unintended effect) didn't deprive Saddam of his oil wealth or the vast amount of money he had piled away for his own use. The sanctions ended up adversely impacting the wrong Iraqis, the very people we were hoping to help. But they didn't make a DENT in Saddam's wealth or his ability to provide financial support for Islam Jihadist scum.

 

[Liability]

Clearly,...you haven't read any of President Bush's book.

and it's a good bet George W. Bush hasn't either.

why so sensitive about W.? man crush?

God damn, are you dull. Even your effort to engage in ad hominem is juvenile. You suck at this.

 

[jillian]

But ultimately, who made the decision? Who was the only one who could?

someone who was lead around by the nose?

someone who was manipulated?

someone who wasn't strong enough to stand up to someone stronger and more nefarius?

someone for whom the worst moment of his presidency, a presidency in which 3,000 people died in an attack on one of our largest cities; and a presidency where they lost a city to a flood.... but the worst moment was kanye west being mean to him.

 

[Liability]

But ultimately, who made the decision? Who was the only one who could?

someone who was lead around by the nose?

someone who was manipulated?

someone who wasn't strong enough to stand up to someone stronger and more nefaroius?

someone for whom the worst moment of his presidency, a presidency in which 3,000 people died in an attack on one of our largest cities; and a presidency where they lost a city to a flood.... but the worst moment was kanye west being mean to him.

No evidence of any of the first three bullet points.

The last comment is at least based on a reply President Bush actually gave. And while you might disagree with it and with him on that call, it is apparent to me that he was talking to a slightly different meaning of "low point." Still, that answer did sound kind of stupid. So, you get a generous full point out of four.

So you get a grade of 25%. You fail, jilly.

 

[ekrem]

Try to be a bit more sophisticated.

Our sanctions (arguably misguided for many reasons, mostly in terms of unintended effect) didn't deprive Saddam of his oil wealth or the vast amount of money he had piled away for his own use. The sanctions ended up adversely impacting the wrong Iraqis, the very people we were hoping to help. But they didn't make a DENT in Saddam's wealth or his ability to provide financial support for Islam Jihadist scum.

Saddam was a secular regime, with Christians serving in his regime. Tariq Aziz the most prominent.
Iraq was fully contained and under full-boycot of UN, this was no half-hearted affair, but extended to patrolling North and South of Iraq in so-called no-fly zones.
Every regional neighbour implemented the sanctions, trade was completely cut-off and limited to defined rules of UN like 'food for oil' program.
Iraq was a castrated glass-house, deprived of its claim to be an authority of the state on its own territory in North and South.

Iraq had neither capabilities for power-projection nor cultivating any relations to anyone who was outside Central Iraq.
You're just a Bushbot, if it fits your agenda you'll claim everything.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Try to be a bit more sophisticated.

 

[jillian]

But ultimately, who made the decision? Who was the only one who could?

someone who was lead around by the nose?

someone who was manipulated?

someone who wasn't strong enough to stand up to someone stronger and more nefaroius?

someone for whom the worst moment of his presidency, a presidency in which 3,000 people died in an attack on one of our largest cities; and a presidency where they lost a city to a flood.... but the worst moment was kanye west being mean to him.

No evidence of any of the first three bullet points.

The last comment is at least based on a reply President Bush actually gave. And while you might disagree with it and with him on that call, it is apparent to me that he was talking to a slightly different meaning of "low point." Still, that answer did sound kind of stupid. So, you get a generous full point out of four.

So you get a grade of 25%. You fail, jilly.

*yawn* i love when people like you declare other people fail. lol..

you're surmising that 'the decider' didn't get manipulated by the PNAC crowd. why would an opposing surmise be less credible?

even bush said he didn't think it mattered who wanted to invade. i thought that was a nice deflection.

the pnac was begging clinton in 1998 to invade.

interestingly those same people took over our foreign policy.

Letter to President Clinton on Iraq

Take special note of the signatories on that letter. You'll find many of the names familiar.

Glad to be of assistance to you.

 

[ekrem]

And now he declares himself as a dissent, whilst at that time cultivating rhetorics like 'Axis of Evil' and people like Liability with axial dislocation of their brain just buy everything blindly.