$280 Billion, Maybe More, Was It Really Worth It?

[TheDudeDVant]

Originally posted by Rolex
He had everything to gain politically, NUKE.

The electoral college aside, he received less votes than his opponent, making him a president ruling by technicality rather than plurality. The word 'democracy' can hardly be trotted out by one who rules without the majority of a nation voting for you.

He was the sitting president on September 11th, 2001, and the largest budget surplus in history was being plundered into the largest deficit in history, without any war yet.

His popularity was dropping rapidly 6 months after 9-11.

Going to war against anyone is good politics in such a case. It is not good statesmanship or stewardship of the nation, but cynically effective.

Americans will always rally around the president out of a sense of patriotism to their nation and troops. They trust that their president would not lie to them and has used sound judgement before commiting Americans lives.

I believe many are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't lie about the reasons for war. However, the alternative is that he surrounded himself and heeded the advice of incompetent people, for which he is responsible for and no one else.

History is not too favorable toward Lyndon Johnson and his Vietnam legacy. And the simple lesson still not learned is that that all people will fight any perceived invader, regardless of who, or what the invader's intentions are.

You know, the administration specifically refrained from saying that 'democracy' was a goal in Iraq. There has never been any history of democracy in Iraq and the other arab leaders emphatically tried to discourage the president from invading because it would only create a quagmire and stir resentment against America. Notice how few arab troops are in Iraq? They know what they were talking about.

Leaders who rule from a minority position always try to limit those who oppose them. The Patriot Act, the banning of photos of American casualties and coffins, the refusal to acknowledge that any civilians have been killed or wounded is the stuff of pint-sized dictators, not of America.

When the first comment of the Secretary of Defense about the prison abuse is a smirking laugh that his first change is to ban cameras in military prisons, you have to ask yourself what kind of leadership this represents.

The most conservative estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths is almost 12,000. For each person killed, another 7 have been wounded for a total of over 80,000 civilians who have at least 6 friends and relatives who now hate America. That is almost 500,000 enemies in a culture of revenge... so far.

Sarah McLendon, who covered the White House for 50 years and was an equal opportunity thorn in the side to every president since Eisenhower said, "This is the worst president we've ever had." And that was before Iraq.

I have a feeling she has a handle on presidential legacies.

Good read Rolex.

[Toad]

Originally posted by Rolex
The word 'democracy' can hardly be trotted out by one who rules without the majority of a nation voting for you.

 

2000, Bush 47.9%
1996 Clinton, 49.2%
1992 Clinton, 43.0%
1988 Bush 53.4%
1984 Reagan 58.8%
1980 Reagan 50.8%
1976 Carter 50.1%
1972 Nixon 60.3%
1968 Nixon 43.4%
1964 Johnson 60.6%
1960 Kennedy 49.7%

Well, it's been a while since 'democracy' went for trot then, hasn't it?

[Ripsnort]

An interesting editorial that put's the President's rush to war in a unique context...

Rarely in its long history has the West suffered by going to war too soon. On the contrary: among the wars of Western history, the bloodiest were those that started too late.  

This is followed by some historic perspective, and then...

That is why George W Bush has my moral support in the upcoming US presidential election. He may not fathom what he is doing, and he may have made a dog's breakfast of Iraq, but at least he is willing to go straight to war, no questions asked. That is precisely what the world needs.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FJ19Aa01.html

Agree or not with the author's POV, but still a highly recommended read if for nothing else than the broadened appreciation of global conflict that it provides.

[TheDudeDVant]

Originally posted by Toad
2000, Bush 47.9%
1996 Clinton, 49.2%
1992 Clinton, 43.0%
1988 Bush 53.4%
1984 Reagan 58.8%
1980 Reagan 50.8%
1976 Carter 50.1%
1972 Nixon 60.3%
1968 Nixon 43.4%
1964 Johnson 60.6%
1960 Kennedy 49.7%

Well, it's been a while since 'democracy' went for trot then, hasn't it?

Way to totally take the point outta context!!

[TheDudeDVant]

That is why George W Bush has my moral support in the upcoming US presidential election. He may not fathom what he is doing, and he may have made a dog's breakfast of Iraq, but at least he is willing to go straight to war, no questions asked. That is precisely what the world needs.

Wow!! I had no idea!! What a wonderful man Hitler was then! History indeed is written by the victors.. War, precisely what the world needs. Of course!

My gawd rip.. What a fawking great plan!

[Toad]

The word 'democracy' can hardly be trotted out by one who rules without the majority of a nation voting for you.

Sorry. I guess I can't help it when I see such a fatuous statement.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by TheDudeDVant
Wow!! I had no idea!! What a wonderful man Hitler was then! History indeed is written by the victors.. War, precisely what the world needs. Of course!

My gawd rip.. What a fawking great plan!

Nice, you forgot the most important quote before that:
Rarely in its long history has the West suffered by going to war too soon. On the contrary: among the wars of Western history, the bloodiest were those that started too late. [/i]

But don't let that stop a good "anyone but Bush" rant.

[mars01]

Bush had no choice but to use the forces we deployed in the region. The forces we put on the ground made Saddam allow inpections again, yet he was still playing games with everyone.

No choice?  Saddam was a contained threat.  His ambitions for WMDs did not change but his ability to get them did.  

All you guys that are taking this cry to the grave oddly forget that Iran and North Korea as well as Osama Bin Laddin are at the top of the list not Saddam.  How can you tell me that Iraq should have been invaded before...

A) We caught Osama.
B) Stopped North Korea from building Nuclear Weapons
C) Prevented Iran from making any further progress in their pursuit of Nuclear Weapons.

Bush had intelligence from around the world which pointed to Iraq as a threat. We had the forces in place, we had what was presented by almost the whole world as a threat, we had Saddam fediddleing us around and we had a large force sitting on thier hands while Saddam played the UN like a cheap piano.

Are you kidding me!  Hans Blix and all the UN inspectors said Saddam did not have WMDs!  Where is the threat.  At the same time we knew North Korea had Nuclear Weapons.  Hmmm Who's the bigger threat.  Sorry Nuke that dog hasn't hunted for a while.

i think we should be in iraq. the people there need help and we can help them because we are a superpower. the USA is the #1 country in the world and it is our job much like it is the mailmans to bring freedom. president Bush is being guided by the Lord and he will lead us to peace and happiness.

How many people are dying in Sudan.  U.N. Says Sudan Death Toll Reaches 70,000 and you are telling me we were needed in Iraq.   Please!!!  

We are not the world police.  Any of you remember George Bush in the Primary against McCain  - GWB - "The USA should not be involved in Nation Building."  Hmm too bad he flip  flopped on that one.

[slimm50]

OK, I confess I haven't read every word of this thread before replying, but am I the only person responding to this thread who think America is more secure today than before 9/11/01? I really do think we are, if for no other reason than the citizenry is more alert, and everyone realizes the threat of terrorism now affects us directly, and isn't one of those things that just happens somewhere else in the world.

[mars01]

OK, I confess I haven't read every word of this thread before replying, but am I the only person responding to this thread who think America is more secure today than before 9/11/01? I really do think we are, if for no other reason than the citizenry is more alert, and everyone realizes the threat of terrorism now affects us directly, and isn't one of those things that just happens somewhere else in the world.

Slimm I don't think we are more safe, but I do agree with you that as a public we are more aware.  All of which has nothing to do with Bush and everything to do with Osama Bin Laddin.

[TheDudeDVant]

Rarely in its long history has the West suffered by going to war too soon. On the contrary: among the wars of Western history, the bloodiest were those that started too late.

I for one am glad we have never, until now, gone to war too soon.

Your quote is nothing more than speculation from an obvious war monger in belief that war is the answer. Sad really.. But dont let that get in the way of your 'bush excuse #943'....

[Weavling]

Interesting read Rip.  

War sucks, and I wish it could be avoided, but in a world like this, unfortunately war can be necessary.

I think Bush's decision to go in was a good one, especially with the precieved threat according to the intelligence of not just our CIA, but Russia and Britain as well.  Not to mention the ridiculous amount of UN resolutions passed that Saddam was largly ignoring.

In terms of nation building and trying to bring democracy to Iraq?  Well, we took out their government.  I don't think we should leave the Iraqies hanging.  It's a tough job (How many times did Bush say that in the first debate?   ), but it's one we need to persevere through.  

In the long run, I think it will be worth it.

[Yeager]

I certainly dont think we are less safe today, more safe?  I dont want to jinx the last three years..........

For one thing the bush strategy of "slam airplanes into our city buildings and we will visit your countries personally" is a real shocker to those who thought the best we could do was attack empty villiages and aspirin factories in the middle of the night with little guided missles.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Weavling
Interesting read Rip.  

War sucks, and I wish it could be avoided, but in a world like this, unfortunately war can be necessary.

I think Bush's decision to go in was a good one, especially with the precieved threat according to the intelligence of not just our CIA, but Russia and Britain as well.  Not to mention the ridiculous amount of UN resolutions passed that Saddam was largly ignoring.

In terms of nation building and trying to bring democracy to Iraq?  Well, we took out their government.  I don't think we should leave the Iraqies hanging.  It's a tough job (How many times did Bush say that in the first debate?   ), but it's one we need to persevere through.  

In the long run, I think it will be worth it.

Long term, I think so too.  

[Saintaw]

"NUKE" must mean "blind armchair general" in some obscure language... actually, I hope they enable "the draft" and send all of you "armchair generals" over there... that ough to shut you up.