Bush: The Greatest Blunder in US History

[Ivan Seeking]

Is "blunder" the correct word? Blunder: to make a mistake through stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness
I think it was a "scam": a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation
The Iraq operation was and still is an intentional set-up by PNAC.

As this pertains to the election in November, it is only necessary to understand that at the least, Bush demonstrated stupidity, ingorance, and carelessness in leading this nation. There is no reason to start slinging mud.

 

[Loren Booda]

Who among us here has risked their life in the current conflict in Iraq?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If you read carefully, you'll notice that the report only investigates whether Saddam possesed WMD stockpiles at the *time* of the U.S invasian in March of 2003. This doesn't investigate whether or not Saddam had a stockpile before this time or not.

This also doesn't exclude the fact that Saddam may have exported his WMD stockpiles before March of 2003.

I'm a Kerry supporter, but you can't be wrong about facts like this.

Actually, the report to Congress was that he never restarted his WMD programs after Gulf I. His nuclear program fell into disarray and was effectively non-existant within six years.

 

[member 5645]

You know, as far as I remember not too long before the war there were weapon inspectors in Iraq, nothing was found, there wasn't anything there no matter how hard they looked. Then Bush and his administration decides that Saddam must have WMDs and be connected with the terror network. Now we look again and WHAT? still nothing and Bush still insists on WMDs. Meanwhile North Korea publicly announced they were creating WMDs at the time and Bush ignored them all together.

I do believe you are unaware of how the inspections process is intended to work.


HINT: Inspectors don't go digging around in the sand trying to find something.

 

[pelastration]

HINT: Inspectors don't go digging around in the sand trying to find something.

High-tech imaging from planes and satellites. The technology is there.

 

[member 5645]

High-tech imaging from planes and satellites. The technology is there.

Again, those craft are not directed by the inspection team. The planes and satellites are from member countries who were told, and agreed, to assist in the inspection progress any way they could. The US did so by providing as much daming information as possible. We wanted to make sure they caught everything, so we gave them everything that looked suspicous.
Then the inspectors did their job - they INSPECTED.

Inspections DO NOT WORK without cooperation from the inspected party. It is a requirement that Saddam work with inspectors for a goal of PROVING he had disarmed per his signed armistace. The goal wasn't to make sure we uncovered everything. It was to make sure he uncovered everything.

S Africa was a proper inspections process. Again, they said "we want to rejoin the world community". They handed over documents, provided scientists, gave unfettered access to sites without delay. Then the inspectors gave a green light for being clear.

Blix himself said that Saddam was still not fully cooperating, that the soil samples didn't accoutn for ALL of the stockpiles he had admitted to having, and that things would have to be even further open for inspections to be successful. While he stressed that things were GETTING better, he also stressed that cooperation was not at the level expected.

That is the goal of inspectors, not playing sherlock holmes in the desert. You don't just say "The admitted weapons are hidden well, so they must not exist." You don't leave that kind of weaponry around without accountability.

 

[megashawn]

like Edwards said, this is the first war-time administration to not create jobs. Every war previous has created tons of more jobs, yet we see close to 1million net job losses since Bush's reign began.

Maybe the war wasn't a blunder (even though they blatantly lied about the reasoning), but certainly most everything else this administration has done, is doing, or attempting to do is.

sorry, couldn't contain it.

 

[i_wish_i_was_smart]

i don't believe taking out Saddam is going to make such a big difference, as soo as the US pulls out, completely, more or less, its going to go back to the same crap, a religios group or whatever is going to take power by force or democracy, then declare dictatorship, then bush the third, fourth or fith will have to do it all over again, the country intself is so devided and so unstable, its never going to work

 

[selfAdjoint]

I'm with you, smart. The south wants to be a Shariah tyrrany like Iran, the middle wants to be a Shariah tyranny like Saudi Arabia, and the Kurdish north wants to pick up everything that isn't nailed down. Ten years from now, unless something wonderful happens, the Iraqis are going to be pining for the good old days of Saddam.

The people I really sympathize with are the Iraqi women. Saddam, with all his evils, gave them a semi-modern role in society, and the future for them looks like back to veils and stoning.

 

[Prometheus]

for an infinite amount of time

An infinite amount, is it?

I cannot fathom why ANY of you are so hell bent on wanting to keep in place an AWFUL system.

You are missing the point completely. COMPLETELY. You are missing the point infinitely, to use your phraseology. I think that nobody on this forum wanted to keep Saddam in power. However, more important questions were how high a price is justified for removing him and how many lies can Bush tell before it is too many?

Do you really think that removing Saddam was justified no matter what the cost. In other words, even if the cost is infinite, as you say, do you consider that nothing else matters in relation to removing Saddam?

 

[member 5645]

1>An infinite amount, is it?


2>You are missing the point completely. COMPLETELY. You are missing the point infinitely, to use your phraseology. I think that nobody on this forum wanted to keep Saddam in power. However, more important questions were how high a price is justified for removing him and how many lies can Bush tell before it is too many?

3>Do you really think that removing Saddam was justified no matter what the cost. In other words, even if the cost is infinite, as you say, do you consider that nothing else matters in relation to removing Saddam?

1>Yes, infinite. You continue to question me. We arne't speaking, I'm typing. Reread if you missed the first time around...

in·fi·nite ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nf-nt)
adj.
Having no boundaries or limits.
Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.

2>A large faction of this forum wanted to keep in place a system that would keep Saddam in power. Whether they WANTED the end result, they still support/supported doing JUST THAT. Well, why don't you answer that question? Apparently we passed that point before ANY lives were lost in the most recent conflict (oh wait, thousands were dying under sanctions.)

3>I never said that, implied it, or anything. No. If you really want to discuss this, you could ask me questions without trying to imply that I said any of that.

 

[Prometheus]

1>Yes, infinite. You continue to question me. We arne't speaking, I'm typing. Reread if you missed the first time around...

in·fi·nite ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nf-nt)
adj.
Having no boundaries or limits.
Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.

You go to such great lengths to define this word. However, this does not make your original usage any more accurate or mreaningful.

2>A large faction of this forum wanted to keep in place a system that would keep Saddam in power. Whether they WANTED the end result, they still support/supported doing JUST THAT. Well, why don't you answer that question?

What question? As I said, you are completely missing the point. I do not think that a single person on this forum wanted to keep in place a system that would keep Saddam in power. It is simply that they did not want to change the system with no thought at all of the consequences, and with no concern about whether the consequences might lead to am even worse situation. Do you still not understand my point? Do you still think that my point is without any merit at all?

 

[kat]

What question? As I said, you are completely missing the point. I do not think that a single person on this forum wanted to keep in place a system that would keep Saddam in power. It is simply that they did not want to change the system with no thought at all of the consequences, and with no concern about whether the consequences might lead to am even worse situation. Do you still not understand my point? Do you still think that my point is without any merit at all?

I don't think he's missing the point. I suspect you are along with all of those who echo your same ole dreary proclamation. I also suspect that it's all well and good to declare that you weren't for keeping Saddam in power when no body has pressed you too hard for an alternative. So, I suggest a moratorium on those type of comments until you and your ilk come up with an alternative that didn't keep him in power which contained no risk that the consequences might lead to a worse situation. Until then you should probably just shuttup cause my other suspicion is that people like you aren't helping any and definitely are undermining.

 

[Prometheus]

I don't think he's missing the point. I suspect you are along with all of those who echo your same ole dreary proclamation. I also suspect that it's all well and good to declare that you weren't for keeping Saddam in power when no body has pressed you too hard for an alternative. So, I suggest a moratorium on those type of comments until you and your ilk come up with an alternative that didn't keep him in power which contained no risk that the consequences might lead to a worse situation. Until then you should probably just shuttup cause my other suspicion is that people like you aren't helping any and definitely are undermining.

My, isn't this the stupidest post I have read in a while. You and your ilk really can sling the ****. You say nothing of value, but it is really full of it. You post a large paragraph, but it is completely devoid of anything but garbage. Why don't you go back to the hold you crawled out of, and return when you have something constructive to say.

 

[Zantra]

people you're just trying to justify Bush screwing up. Saddam wasn't worth the price- he wasn't a threat, and there were no WMDs. To think otherwise is to delude yourself. If you equate the loss of life in this war, the economic impact, and turning the rest of the world against us to toppling Saddam, then you really have psychosis. excuses and lies(you can say "deception" but let's call a spade a spade.) That's all Bush has provided, even while wreaking havoc on our nation. God help us if he gets reelected.

To claim it was our right "just because we're americans" is arrogant and stupid. God forbid we ever have a true chrisis we can't handle internally in the future, because we'll be getting the international finger salute. If you take away the "WMD" excuse, we basically just said "we're bigger and we don't how you're running your country, so we'll do it for you". While that would have been great with international support, instead Bush just made us like like conquerors, not liberators.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Has anyone noticed the obvious fallacy in the Bush argument? The report on Iraq stated that Saddam fantasized about regaining his WMD program after the sanctions were lifted.

In other words, the sanctions were working.

 

[kat]

My, isn't this the stupidest post I have read in a while. You and your ilk really can sling the ****. You say nothing of value, but it is really full of it. You post a large paragraph, but it is completely devoid of anything but garbage. Why don't you go back to the hold you crawled out of, and return when you have something constructive to say.

Lol, what no alternative plan?

 

[member 5645]

1>You go to such great lengths to define this word. However, this does not make your original usage any more accurate or mreaningful.


2>What question? As I said, you are completely missing the point. I do not think that a single person on this forum wanted to keep in place a system that would keep Saddam in power. It is simply that they did not want to change the system with no thought at all of the consequences, and with no concern about whether the consequences might lead to am even worse situation. Do you still not understand my point? Do you still think that my point is without any merit at all?

1>Great lengths? Copy paste sir. Instead of beating around the bush, why don't you just come out and say it?
BTW, my usage is correct and what I intended.

2>So everyone here supported regime change, just not in the way we did it?
worse situation?-

Mortality in the Iraqi Population

before and after the imposition of the embargo



Year No. of Deaths
1989 (before the embargo) 27,334
1990 (embargo imposed in 6/8/1990) 32,464
1991 95,942
1992 123,463
1993 128,023
1994 133,681
1995 138,784
1996 140,281

Mortality in under 5 age- per month

No. of Deaths per Month
July 1990 (1 month before the ambargo) 539
July 1998 6,452

Mortality in under 5 age- per year

Year No. of Deaths
1989 7,110
1990 8,903
1991 27,473
1992 46,933
1993 49,762
1994 52,905
1995 55,823
1996 56,997


http://www.unesco.org/delegates/iraq/effects_health.htm

Again, you pull the straw man When did I say your point was without merit at all? Do this again and you can go debate yourself.

 

[member 5645]

Lol, what no alternative plan?

You are better at getting to him than I

 

[Prometheus]

Lol, what no alternative plan?

Did you not notice the post immediately above yours? Look again.

You are difficult to believe. You claim that you are wondering if it is at all possible for anyone in the world to come up with an alternative to having an idiot like Bush unilaterally decide to burn bridges with his allies and go off half cocked on an invasion where he had no plan once the airplanes had dropped all of their bombs, based on a set of justifications that prove to be completely false?

You really don't care that Bush lied about why we went to war?
You really don't care that Bush had no plan to win the peace?
You really don't care that Bush alienated our allies?
You really don't care that Bush is a moron?

I guess that you don't. Come up with an alternative. What a joke.

 

[member 5645]

You really don't care that Bush lied about why we went to war?

Can you show a willing intent on behalf of Bush himself to state falsities as the truth, in order to deceive someone (american people)??
Being wrong is not the same thing as lying.

 

[Gokul43201]

If you're looking for "letter of the word" falsehoods, you probably won't find them. But being clever with how you word things doesn't imply that you have not mislead the people. It only means there are some very smart people doing the speech-writing, and okaying language.

Do the words have to come from Bush's mouth, or will you accept words from other representatives of the Bush White House, like the Press Sec, the VP, the NSA, etc ?

I'm not sure where 40% of the people (as of last week) got the impression that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 ?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

1>Are you really going to take intent blocked by sanctions down to "fantasies"?? haha, let's stick to reality here.

Okay, what do you call it when we dream? The fact is that with the sanctions in place he was crippled.

2> I find nothing humorous about that at all. It's sick and some of the largest part of why I think sanctions are so stupid on a non-democratic country.

Humorous? I was repeating what Cheney said today about why we went to war. Like I said, I wonder what the reasons will be tomorrow.

3>And you are going to tell me that you knew something Bush, Clinton, France, Germany, Russia, the UN, and John Kerry didn't? Everyone was feeding from the same information bag with a noncompliant Saddam sitting at the other end.

Ah, what you are saying is that Bush isn't responsible for his actions. This is a typical response to defend catastrophic failures in judgement. In fact, when I sat and watched the testimony by Powell and Rummy to the UN, I sat in utter amazement that these jokers had nothing more to go on. You can say what you want but this was my position from the start. Later, Powell admitted that he also was not comfortable with their claims. But his job was to serve the President.

Also, are you telling me that Clinton, France, Germany, Russia, the UN, and Kerry gave the order to invade Iraq?

 

[Prometheus]

Can you show a willing intent on behalf of Bush himself to state falsities as the truth, in order to deceive someone (american people)??
Being wrong is not the same thing as lying.

Cute. You claim that being an idiot is not the same as lying. Good one. How would you like me to show this intent?

Just listen to the guy. He is still denying what investigators say.

He does not have the brains or the integrity to examine his ideas in light of evidence. Many of our allies were unconvinced by the evidence, but Bush ignored them. He is a moron, and you give him the incredible benefit of the doubt and consider it a simple mistake that his ignorant evaluation of the evidence lead to major mistakes..

Although different from Bush, consider Cheney. He said today that the report showing that his primary reason for supporting the war was based on a mistake was proof that he was correct. He has consistently ignored the evidence and claimed that any evidence at all proves that he was right. Do you consider that Cheney is being honest, but that he just continues to be mistaken, making the same mistake he was making a year and a half ago?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm noticing that no one is coming up with any examples of greater blunders in foreign policy. Does this mean that we all agree? Vietnam is certainly a runner up, but really we got sucked in slowly on that one; over several adminstrations.

Oh yes, Russ, as for your vote for domestic policy blunders, [btw, getting a BJ is not domestic policy], but if you wish to cite scandals, have you ever heard of Watergate? Iran Contra? Do you remember Agnew? Let's see...hmmm. those were also all Republican administrations weren't they. In fact, many of Bush's friends were involved in all cases; like Cheney and Rummy. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0882164.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Whoops, I'm sorry, Iran Contra involved Bush's father.

 

[member 5645]

1>Okay, what do you call it when we dream? The fact is that with the sanctions in place he was crippled.



2>Humorous? I was repeating what Cheney said today about why we went to war. Like I said, I wonder what the reasons will be tomorrow.



3>Ah, what you are saying is that Bush isn't responsible for his actions. This is a typical response to defend catastrophic failures in judgement. In fact, when I sat and watched the testimony by Powell and Rummy to the UN, I sat in utter amazement that these jokers had nothing more to go on. You can say what you want but this was my position from the start. Later, Powell admitted that he also was not comfortable with their claims. But his job was to serve the President.

Also, are you telling me that Clinton, France, Germany, Russia, the UN, and Kerry gave the order to invade Iraq?

1>If that is the point of your statement, then the REAL point is that there was no way to know this otherwise. There was NOT cooperation, and sanctions were set to be in place indefinitely. That is what you wanted/want? Read the numbers above for the deaths that were caused due to this practice, and still, only now after a different path can you even say that sanctions were working. Lack of cooperation by Saddam alone has always been the key test of whether sanctions were working. No cooperation means no ability to know if the sanctions were effective. That is the huge flaw in a system based on a despotic dictator telling the truth.
2>you said funny, just saying I don't find it funny. So he disregarded the other reasons previously stated? Or was just adding benefits to us going in? Link to him stating 'to bust up the oil for food scandal' was the reason for goign in?
3>Your statement was "So what you are saying is that Bush did not tell us and the rest of the world that we were attacking Iraq because they were an imminent threat to our National Security? ". What was the point of you making the statement? My point in response was that any statement was made off the same intelligence everyone else believed, even those against the war. Based on this information, I fail to see any damning point if Bush did say Iraq was an imminent threat. I never said anything about post-war accountability. I have already stated in this thread that I have issues with that.

 

[member 5645]

Cute. You claim that being an idiot is not the same as lying. Good one. How would you like me to show this intent?

You may want to think about rewording that sentence. They AREN'T the same.
You can't show the intent, and we know that. You made the charge that Bush "LIED about why we went to war?"

Can you show me this lie? I mean, if I were simply mistaken, LIE is a pretty hefty charge, no matter how stupid I am. You guys would get a lot further with your rhetoric if you could just easily back it with substance. I mean, post war incompetance would give you a better footing than a statement that you cannot prove (to my knowledge...if I don't add this caveat, I could be told I LIED instead of was just wrong)

 

[Artman]

I think that Kat's request for an alternate method of removing Sadaam is a valid point. The rising death toll due to the sanctions, should not be ignored. To say that the sanctions were working to keep Sadaam crippled does not address the fact that they were killing the Iraqi people and were being blamed on the USA by Sadaam and his supporters.

We learned following the first World War and the incredible depression in Germany that if left unchecked this kind of economic situation is a perfect breeding ground for hatred and power struggle. So what I want to know is, how would you have removed the sanctions to save the Iraqi people, and yet still keep Sadaam in check or remove him from power without resorting to war?

 

[russ_watters]

Has anyone noticed the obvious fallacy in the Bush argument? The report on Iraq stated that Saddam fantasized about regaining his WMD program after the sanctions were lifted.

In other words, the sanctions were working.

Are you saying sanctions are meant to be permanent?

Oh yes, Russ, as for your vote for domestic policy blunders, [btw, getting a BJ is not domestic policy]

Actually, getting a BJ while on the phone conducting domestic policy is a domestic policy issue (iirc, it was also a foreign policy issue...). Whether you consider that a blunder or not is up to you.

but if you wish to cite scandals, have you ever heard of Watergate? Iran Contra? Do you remember Agnew? Let's see...hmmm. those were also all Republican administrations weren't they. In fact, many of Bush's friends were involved in all cases; like Cheney and Rummy.

Certainly - I did say you seem to be a Reagan fan. In any case, the point is that scandals and blunders happen a lot. Every administration has them.

Personally, I consider 9/11 a far worse blunder than Iraq. I don't really consider Iraq a blunder, but even if I did, we've lost about 1,000 people, virtually all of them soldiers. We lost about 3,000 on 9/11 - virtually all civilians. I consider 9/11 to be by far the biggest national security lapse ever in the US.

Whoops, I'm sorry, Iran Contra involved Bush's father.

Well, "involved," but not very much unless you buy into the Regan-took-an-eight-year-nap theory. I don't - he knew exactly what he was doing.

 

[russ_watters]

[phat, thanks for the numbers - clearest representation I've seen]

I think that Kat's request for an alternate method of removing Sadaam is a valid point. The rising death toll due to the sanctions, should not be ignored. To say that the sanctions were working to keep Sadaam crippled does not address the fact that they were killing the Iraqi people and were being blamed on the USA by Sadaam and his supporters.

We learned following the first World War and the incredible depression in Germany that if left unchecked this kind of economic situation is a perfect breeding ground for hatred and power struggle. So what I want to know is, how would you have removed the sanctions to save the Iraqi people, and yet still keep Sadaam in check or remove him from power without resorting to war?

Its a nasty double-eged sword, isn't it? I personally blame the deaths on Saddam for making the sanctions necessary, but I can certainly see why people would blame them on us (as the default UN scapegoat - these were, after all, UN sanctions). Anyway, sanctions work for their intended purpose while in effect, but they don't cure the problem and the side effects (terrorism and death) are as bad as the symptoms the sanctions ease. Quite frankly, it seems to me to be exactly the type of compromise Democrats like to make - and as long as we're quiet about it, maybe people won't notice the side effects.

I've never seen an Iraq -> Germany analogy before. It fits well.

 

[russ_watters]

...such as that we are now hated by big majorities not only in Islam, but in all the rest of the world too.

Are you saying the French are likely to become terrorists? People in the rest of the world may be annoyed at us right now, but there is a big difference between that and the real hatred directed at us from he mid-east.

Not to mention all the thousands of people who have been killed...

See phat's stats.

and the puppet government...

See the Marshal Plan.

 

[Gokul43201]

[phat, thanks for the numbers - clearest representation I've seen]

Clearest ?? I don't see how !

I'm sure if I quoted the same information, someone from the right would challenge me saying :

"So...are you saying that the increase is due strictly to the sanctions, as opposed to...radiation levels from DU, the crippling effect of fighting the Kuwait War on the Iraqi economy, the billions of dollars worth of infrastructure that was destroyed by allied missiles and bombs, or any other factors ?

Can we get something better then supposition and innuendo here? please?"

 

[Gokul43201]

Whoops, I'm sorry, Iran Contra involved Bush's father.

...and people (or vermin) like Elliot Abrams, who plead guilty on charges of lying to Congress on multiple occasions (to avoid the bigger charges that were harder to prove.), and was appointed by Bush Jr. as the NSC's senior director for democracy, human rights and international operations - a post that does not require Senate approval.

 

[BobG]

A couple have mentioned that the decision to invade Iraq had to be based on information available before the war. The Senate's Intelligence Committee took a look at the pre-war assessment:

Had responsible persons in the administration read the report and compared it others, they would have realized the information was essentially the same ... only the conclusions changed. The CIA's NIE was the only intelligence report suggesting Iraq was an imminent threat. Other intel information available disagreed with much of the CIA's report. The general congress didn't have access to the classified version of the report - they basically were presented the conclusions as verified fact.

A transcript of the Senate's review of prewar intellligence is here: http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/5792

Conclusions 8 and 11 are kind of interesting. Conclusion 8 talks about the drastic change in reporting styles and Conclusion 11 talks about possible pressure placed on the CIA to alter their conclusions. They found no evidence of CIA analysts altering their conclusions due to outside pressure.

Most of the 'failure' is placed directly on the CIA and it's hard to say how reasonable it was for the administration to be misled by faulty intelligence, but people make decisions like this all the time.

Your wife's car's ABS light is constantly lit, the mechanic says the light is malfunctioning, not the brakes and charges you $40. The light doesn't come on anymore. Do you trust him?

Your wife's car's ABS light is constantly lit, the mechanic says your entire ABS system has to be replaced at a cost of $1295. You throw a fit, refusing to pay even the diagnostic charge. The mechanic takes a second look and finds that it is the light that is malfunctioning, not the brake system, and charges you $40. The light doesn't come on anymore. Do you trust him?

Your wife's car is covered by an extended warranty and the mechanic has done over a $1000 worth of work on your brake system during repeated trips to the mechanic and, still, the ABS light comes back on a day or two after the car has been repaired. The mechanic finally discovers that the only real malfunction is a defective ABS light. The light doesn't come on anymore. Do you trust him?