The elephant in the room: George W. Bush

[Kozmik]

How will the President's predecessor effect the 2012 Republican nominee? Newt Gingrich's campaign or Mitt Romney's campaign cannot ignore the eight years of the Bush administration. Or can they?

[BrainGlutton]

Why can't they?

[Little Nemo]

I agree with BrainGlutton. The Republican candidate is going to pretend that the years 2001-2009 never happened. The theme will be every problem we have began when Barack Obama took office and every problem will be solved by removing him from office (and cutting taxes).

[Kozmik]

The Republican candidate is going to pretend that the years 2001-2009 never happened.Barack Obama and the Obama campaign should "pretend" that history ended in 1999 and that the years 2000 - 2011 never happened, and respond that we need to find our Sputnik moment.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Maybe it wasn't that actually bad. Remember that Bush faced a recession when he entered the Oval Office exacerbated by 9-11 and had one when he got out due to the Democratic policy of encouraging home ownership even for those who could not afford it. But his middle years were of great prosperity.

[Euphonious Polemic]

due to the Democratic policy of encouraging home ownership even for those who could not afford it.

My, what a simplistic and entirely unsurprisingly partisan analysis of the financial meltdown you have there. Whew! I'm overwhelmed by your sophisticated take on things!

[Little Nemo]

My, what a simplistic and entirely unsurprisingly partisan analysis of the financial meltdown you have there. Whew! I'm overwhelmed by your sophisticated take on things!It's one I've seen before. Financial deregulation was so overwhelmingly a Republican-led program that Conservative pundits had to really stretch to find something they could use to put the blame on Democrats. Sure, you can say it was all Clinton's fault for signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. But then you were stuck with the fact that Gramm, Leach, and Bliley are Republicans, as were the majority of Congressmen who voted for it.

But there was the Community Reinvestment Act. This was enacted in 1977 (under Carter!) and it said that financial institutions could not refuse to give mortgages in predominantly black neighbourhoods. It didn't make any requirement for anyone to make risky mortgages, it just said you couldn't use race as a risk factor.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act wanted to eliminate this restriction. Clinton drew the line however and said he would veto the bill if the Community Reinvestment Act was overturned. So it survived.

Now according to Conservative pundits, this was the sole cause of the 2007 mortgage crisis. The fact that a law enacted in 1977 was not abolished in 1999. "The Democratic policy of encouraging home ownership even for those who could not afford it" pulled the trigger and thirty years later the economy exploded. No other possible explanation.

[Knorf]

Maybe it wasn't that actually bad. Remember that Bush faced a recession when he entered the Oval Office...

I believe this is incorrect. Cite?

[Robot Arm]

Newt Gingrich's campaign or Mitt Romney's campaign cannot ignore the eight years of the Bush administration. Or can they?My take is that Republicans have grudgingly accepted that the George W. Bush presidency was a failure, but they don't know exactly why. Consequently, the Republican nominee next year should just dust off the Bush campaign playbook. I think he could raise the exact same issues and read the same speeches verbatim, and drum up the same support they did the first time around, as long as he doesn't mention Bush by name.

[Kozmik]

My take is that Republicans have grudgingly accepted that the George W. Bush presidency was a failure, but they don't know exactly why.Because they logically cannot or will not make the argument that the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency was a failure compared to the eight years of the Obama presidency.


The Republican candidate is going to pretend that the years 2001-2009 never happened.Not only that: the Republican candidate is going to pretend that the years 2013 - 2017 never happen, that Barack Obama will not be re-elected.


The Obama campaign response: 2012 never happened. :D

[joebuck20]

Well, for one I don't see any of them clamoring for Bush's endorsement, the same democrats did for Clinton's in 2004 (and likely would have in 2008, had Hillary not run that year).

[BrainGlutton]

Well, for one I don't see any of them clamoring for Bush's endorsement . . .

It would be fun to watch the reactions if he were to offer it.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Maybe it wasn't that actually bad. Remember that Bush faced a recession when he entered the Oval Office exacerbated by 9-11 and had one when he got out due to the Democratic policy of encouraging home ownership even for those who could not afford it. But his middle years were of great prosperity.

That is patently absurd.

It's one I've seen before. Financial deregulation was so overwhelmingly a Republican-led program that Conservative pundits had to really stretch to find something they could use to put the blame on Democrats. Sure, you can say it was all Clinton's fault for signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. But then you were stuck with the fact that Gramm, Leach, and Bliley are Republicans, as were the majority of Congressmen who voted for it.

But there was the Community Reinvestment Act. This was enacted in 1977 (under Carter!) and it said that financial institutions could not refuse to give mortgages in predominantly black neighbourhoods. It didn't make any requirement for anyone to make risky mortgages, it just said you couldn't use race as a risk factor.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act wanted to eliminate this restriction. Clinton drew the line however and said he would veto the bill if the Community Reinvestment Act was overturned. So it survived.

Now according to Conservative pundits, this was the sole cause of the 2007 mortgage crisis. The fact that a law enacted in 1977 was not abolished in 1999. "The Democratic policy of encouraging home ownership even for those who could not afford it" pulled the trigger and thirty years later the economy exploded. No other possible explanation.

Well to be fair, the implementation of the CRA involved quotas. Of course by 2005 the CRA requirements had been watered down and were no longer a constraining factor on bank lending. In fact most of the subprime mortgages were originated by lenders that were not subject to CRA (like Countrywide and Ameriquest) in fact Fannie and Freddie weren't pressured to take on more subprime mortgages by the fed, they were pressured into taking on more subprime by countrywide (and to be fair they should have told Angelo Mozillo to fuck off but they were too concerned about losing market share 9and their bonuses) that they played ball with Mozillo).

Because they logically cannot or will not make the argument that the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency was a failure compared to the eight years of the Obama presidency.


Not only that: the Republican candidate is going to pretend that the years 2013 - 2017 never happen, that Barack Obama will not be re-elected.


The Obama campaign response: 2012 never happened. :D

To be fair, other than the war in Iraq, the unfunded tax cuts, the unfunded medicare part D, the politicization of historically non partisan government agencies, and his handling of Katrina, he really wasn't that bad.

[RTFirefly]

Maybe it wasn't that actually bad. Remember that Bush faced a recession when he entered the Oval Office exacerbated by 9-11 and had one when he got out .... But his middle years were of great prosperity.This is factually false. According to Table A-2 of (big-ass PDF) Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance in the United States: 2010 (http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-239.pdf) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011), neither median income nor mean income ever regained their pre-Bush maximums during those "middle years...of great prosperity," even before the crash.

[RTFirefly]

To be fair, other than the war in Iraq, the unfunded tax cuts, the unfunded medicare part D, the politicization of historically non partisan government agencies, and his handling of Katrina, he really wasn't that bad.Might add a little incident that happened ten Septembers ago to your list.

[Swords to Plowshares]

I don't think Bush (or Clinton for that matter) are directly responsible for the recessions of the past decade. However, people often seem to forget that the massive deficits started under Bush and that he took Clinton's surplus and turned it in to a deficit through his tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Chronos]

Might add a little incident that happened ten Septembers ago to your list. That's not really fair. I mean, he can't take credit for staving off all terrorist attacks, like some have claimed for him, but it's difficult to say that any other president could have prevented 9-11, either. Now, his response to 9-11, that we most certainly can criticize, but Damuri already called out the Iraq War, which was the biggest problem with his response.

[Mosier]

Remember that Bush faced a recession when he entered the Oval Office

cite?

[jsc1953]

cite?

I think he's confusing recessions with market drops. The Dow dropped dramatically in early 2001 (the dot com bubble burst) and on 9/11, but the economy was not in recession during the Bush years.

[Polycarp]

To be fair, other than the war in Iraq, the unfunded tax cuts, the unfunded medicare part D, the politicization of historically non partisan government agencies, and his handling of Katrina, he really wasn't that bad.

"Besides that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" :D

[YogSosoth]

Maybe it wasn't that actually bad. Remember that Bush faced a recession when he entered the Oval Office exacerbated by 9-11 and had one when he got out due to the Democratic policy of encouraging home ownership even for those who could not afford it. But his middle years were of great prosperity.

You mean the 9-11 he failed to prevent even after Clinton warning him about it, and his own people warning him about it? Yeah, sorry, no sympathy for the devil....

[RTFirefly]

That's not really fair. I mean, he can't take credit for staving off all terrorist attacks, like some have claimed for him, but it's difficult to say that any other president could have prevented 9-11, either. Now, his response to 9-11, that we most certainly can criticize, but Damuri already called out the Iraq War, which was the biggest problem with his response.It would be unfair if they had taken the threat of terrorism seriously from the beginning, and had still been unable to prevent the attack.

But they didn't. The Clinton team told them that terrorism would be the biggest threat they'd have to worry about, and it wasn't like the Bush team hadn't heard about the bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the USS Cole bombing in late 2000.

But they decided that whatever Clinton did, they wanted to do something different, so they didn't bother thinking about terrorism, ignoring the infamous August 6, 2001 PDB ("Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.") - as Bush apparently said to the guy who delivered the PDB, "OK, you've covered your ass."

I think it was quite preventable. The main obstacles were information that was either (a) stovepiped, or (b) being blocked from flowing upward to decision-makers. The sort of approach that Clinton and Gore applied to the threat of the Millennium bombings had an excellent chance of overcoming both problems.

Note that I said "excellent chance," not "certainty." Even if Gore had won the election, the attack still might well have worked. We'll never know whether a Gore Administration would have been able to prevent it, because Gore lost the election. And we'll never know whether a Bush Administration that took the pretty obvious upswing of terrorist capabilities seriously would have been able to prevent it, because they didn't try.

And the reason I continue to hold them accountable is that they didn't try. Even when warned in general but strong terms by both the Clinton Administration on the way out the door, and warned in very clear terms on August 6, 2001.

So yeah, I hold them culpable. They deserve it.

[Mosier]

I think he's confusing recessions with market drops. The Dow dropped dramatically in early 2001 (the dot com bubble burst) and on 9/11, but the economy was not in recession during the Bush years.

Yes it was (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_recession).

[Lobohan]

Maybe it wasn't that actually bad. Remember that Bush faced a recession when he entered the Oval Office exacerbated by 9-11 and had one when he got out due to the Democratic policy of encouraging home ownership even for those who could not afford it. Facts are facts, dude. Ideology shouldn't play a role.

But his middle years were of great prosperity.How many jobs were created? How much did middle class incomes go up? How much poverty was removed? How many people had access to health care? How many public works projects were done? How much did the deficit go up needlessly?

[jsc1953]

Yes it was (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_recession).

We were talking about when Bush entered office, not when he left it. You may have wanted to link here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession), but it sounds like this period wasn't technically a recession.

[foolsguinea]

To be fair, other than the war in Iraq, the unfunded tax cuts, the unfunded medicare part D, the politicization of historically non partisan government agencies, and his handling of Katrina, he really wasn't that bad.Twisting the Geneva Accords to allow the kidnap & trial without detention of suspects around the world, that's pretty bad. Of course, Obama's still doing that. But we can hold W responsible for the precedent.

[handsomeharry]

You mean the 9-11 he failed to prevent even after Clinton warning him about it, and his own people warning him about it? Yeah, sorry, no sympathy for the devil....

Wait, are you saying that Bill Clinton knew it would happen on 9-11? Why didn't he go onto national television and tell people about it? He would certainly have had a venue, I'm sure.
How did Clinton get his intelligence that it would be on 9-11, and that it would be by those airlines? Couldn't those intelligence sources have told W?
Or, was it just some mystical ramblings about something going to happen somewhere and it would be big????

hh

[Knorf]

W. Bush did in fact receive warnings from intelligence sources (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SMI402A.html) that terrorists might be planning on using airplanes. He also was warned by the outgoing administration that Al Qaeda was a very serious and probably imminent threat.

[L. G. Butts, Ph.D.]

Maybe it wasn't that actually bad. Remember that Bush faced a recession when he entered the Oval Office exacerbated by 9-11 and had one when he got out due to the Democratic policy of encouraging home ownership even for those who could not afford it. But his middle years were of great prosperity.

I make only 10% more than I did in 2000. Great prosperity there.

On edit: why don't you back up this whole post Curtis and give us cites for all of it...

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

I think he's confusing recessions with market drops. The Dow dropped dramatically in early 2001 (the dot com bubble burst) and on 9/11, but the economy was not in recession during the Bush years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession#United_States


It is considered a recession.
You mean the 9-11 he failed to prevent even after Clinton warning him about it, and his own people warning him about it? Yeah, sorry, no sympathy for the devil....

Then why didn't Clinton actually send in a commando team rather than just lob missiles? Its not as if Gore would have been elected he'd have slayed Bin Laden.

[Lobohan]

Then why didn't Clinton actually send in a commando team rather than just lob missiles? Its not as if Gore would have been elected he'd have slayed Bin Laden.If Gore had been elected he almost certainly wouldn't have left the guys at Tora Bora (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora) hanging so he could focus on the nonsense war in Iraq.

As for Clinton lobbing missiles, he used them where he thought they could do good. Putting soldiers in the field is a big deal, I certainly trust his judgement on the issue more than yours.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

If Gore had been elected he almost certainly wouldn't have left the guys at Tora Bora (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora) hanging so he could focus on the nonsense war in Iraq.

How would the deadlock against Iraq over WMDs have turned out then? There are those who think that Gore would have invaded Iraq just later after gaining international support.
As for Clinton lobbing missiles, he used them where he thought they could do good. Putting soldiers in the field is a big deal, I certainly trust his judgement on the issue more than yours.

He had no problem putting troops in Bosnia, Somalia, and Kosovo although none of them posed a danger to America unlike OBL>

[Lobohan]

How would the deadlock against Iraq over WMDs have turned out then? There are those who think that Gore would have invaded Iraq just later after gaining international support. Oh, from the Coalition of the Willing, I guess I did forget Poland. Bull and Shit. We never would have gotten the UK on board if it weren't for W's winning smile.

He had no problem putting troops in Bosnia, Somalia, and Kosovo although none of them posed a danger to America unlike OBL>Yes, and being part of an international coalition fighting war crimes is different than sending soldiers in to bust up a training camp.

The world isn't as simple as conservatives like to think it is. Unilateral invasions cause problems.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

[QUOTE=Lobohan;14550123]

Yes, and being part of an international coalition fighting war crimes is different than sending soldiers in to bust up a training camp.

Except that Milosevic did not pose a threat to American soil and citizens while Bin Laden did.

The world isn't as simple as conservatives like to think it is. Unilateral invasions cause problems.

Well Obama certainly doesn't mind it too much.

[Little Nemo]

Except that Milosevic did not pose a threat to American soil and citizens while Bin Laden did.And Iraq had as much to do with bin Laden as it did with Milosevic.

Bush didn't invade Iraq to go after Osama bin Laden. He invaded Iraq instead of going after Osama bin Laden.

Obama was the one who got us back on the trail of the guy who attacked the United States.

[Knorf]

How would the deadlock against Iraq over WMDs have turned out then?
What?! You still think Iraq had WMDs?!

[Little Nemo]

How would the deadlock against Iraq over WMDs have turned out then?Pretty successfully. Iraq didn't have WMDs. We wouldn't have invaded Iraq. All those American soldiers wouldn't have died. All those Iraqis wouldn't have died. The resources we wasted in Iraq might have been used against Osama bin Laden and he might have been killed years ago.

[Onomatopoeia]

What?! You still think Iraq had WMDs?!Just give up. Curtis is a true believer, and will never have his mind changed, and will give no consideration to contrary evidence nor acknowledge any facts that don't fit into his jingoistic conservative world view, no matter how often they're repeated, no matter how many cites are provided.

With regard to WMD in Iraq, conservatives need to continue to assert it. Do you think they like being reminded that we invaded (and destroyed) a sovereign nation under completely false pretense? They're afraid that one day, someone with a backbone will be willing to pursue prosecution of those who committed this wholly unjustifiable and illegal act, further, and perhaps irreparably, damaging the conservative brand.

[Little Nemo]

Besides, if you never admit you've made any mistakes, you don't have to learn anything from them.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

What?! You still think Iraq had WMDs?!

Just give up. Curtis is a true believer, and will never have his mind changed, and will give no consideration to contrary evidence nor acknowledge any facts that don't fit into his jingoistic conservative world view, no matter how often they're repeated, no matter how many cites are provided.

With regard to WMD in Iraq, conservatives need to continue to assert it. Do you think they like being reminded that we invaded (and destroyed) a sovereign nation under completely false pretense? They're afraid that one day, someone with a backbone will be willing to pursue prosecution of those who committed this wholly unjustifiable and illegal act, further, and perhaps irreparably, damaging the conservative brand.

No I did not mean that. I meant the crisis with Iraq over the alledged existence of WMDs.

[Knorf]

No I did not mean that. I meant the crisis with Iraq over the alledged existence of WMDs.

Aka, a "crisis" largely manufactured by the Bush administration.

[Onomatopoeia]

No I did not mean that. I meant the crisis with Iraq over the alledged existence of WMDs....which you believe was justification to commit war on Iraq. Listen, it doesn't matter whether or not you honestly believe there were WMD in Iraq. You assert the potential as only one justification (there were others, and just as ridiculous) for a criminal and ultimately genocidal act.

The Bush administration didn't believe there were WMD there either, yet asserted it for the same reason. They were going to invade Iraq no matter what.

I just hope I'm still alive when those megalomaniacs get their comeuppance. Excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting for someone to do the right thing.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

...which you believe was justification to commit war on Iraq. Listen, it doesn't matter whether or not you honestly believe there were WMD in Iraq. You assert the potential as only one justification (there were others, and just as ridiculous) for a criminal and ultimately genocidal act.

The Bush administration didn't believe there were WMD there either, yet asserted it for the same reason. They were going to invade Iraq no matter what.

I just hope I'm still alive when those megalomaniacs get their comeuppance. Excuse me if I don't hold my breath waiting for someone to do the right thing.

Genocidal? And with the benefit of hindsight I've said and will say again I wouldn't have supported Iraq.

[Slithy Tove]

I don't think Iraq has done to the GOP what Vietnam did to the Dems. After 1968, the Democrats not only were not the party of LBJ; they were no longer the party of FDR (and LBJ was more FDR's heir than JFK or Truman were).

The GOP continue to be the Ronnets. Since Reagan didn't actually have a big war (though he always greatly communicated that he wouldn't back down from one if God or Mr Warner insisted on one to punch up the script) the GOP can disassociate Iraq from his legacy, and all the rotating frontrunners can continue to claim to be Ronnier than thou.

[Johnny L.A.]

all the rotating frontrunners can continue to claim to be Ronnier than thou.

Reagan was a Socialist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF17rfZ7bns).

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

I don't think Iraq has done to the GOP what Vietnam did to the Dems. After 1968, the Democrats not only were not the party of LBJ; they were no longer the party of FDR (and LBJ was more FDR's heir than JFK or Truman were).


Big difference. We won in Iraq.

[Kolak of Twilo]

Big difference. We won in Iraq.

You must be posting from the future because I don't think there is anything close to a consensus on that here at the end of 2012.

[Onomatopoeia]

Big difference. We won in Iraq.Sigh. We won? Won what? What did we win? We decimated a country, caused thousands of its citizens to be killed, hundreds of thousands hurt and displaced from their homes, many of those forced to become refugees in neighboring countries, many of whom have still not returned, and of those who have, many had nothing left to return to. We turned a largely secular Sunni controlled state into a quasi theocratic Shiite dominated one. Some win that.

Through our actions, we directly caused Iraq to become a recruiting and training ground for terrorists, and then we supplied the terrorists, not only by ripping apart and destroying families, but businesses, schools, banks, shops, religious institutions, even the basic foundations of the country's infrastructure, like bridges, roads, water and sewage systems, etc... We ripped away the Iraqi people's dignity, and their ability to fend for their families and themselves, or to even provide basic care and sustenance. We took away their humanity, like it was ours to take, like it was nothing.

And then, in the height of cognitive dissonance, America became outraged when the Iraqi people, having had just about enough of being insulted, intruded upon, yelled at, commanded to, falsely arrested, stomped on, shot at, terrorized, raped, and killed, by the very Americans who were ostensibly there to liberate them, notwithstanding the fact that we were never asked to liberate them in the first place, began to band together to repel us from their lives. We started using words like 'insurgents' as though we were somehow a legitimate arm of the Iraqi government, when we were nothing but invaders with no legitimate claim to anything there, not a pebble.

It's taken over eight years to finally extricate ourselves from Iraq, and what do we walk away with? What did we win? Is America in better shape than it was before we spent countless billions of dollars we couldn't afford? No. Are we richer, in any way, for the experience? No. Has our standing in the world, or respect for America, increased because of our action? No. Is Iraq more stable than it was before the war? No. Are the Iraqis grateful for what what we did in and to their country and its people? No. Is America safer as a result of our 'winning' in Iraq? No. Has terrorism been stopped or significantly curtailed since our foray into Iraq? No. Cynically, do we even have control over their oil? No. So, again, what did we win? We toppled a tin pot dictator in a world of tin pot dictators. You consider that a win with over 4000 American troops dead, and counting? I consider it despicable.

[Little Nemo]

Big difference. We won in Iraq.Yes, we did. Back in 1991.

[Slithy Tove]

Oh, but we "won" in Vietnam! We were never defeated on the battlefield; Vietnam is now functionally an entrepreneurial capitalist nation; our effort was born of the noblest motives; so no matter the outcome, our sacrifice was not misspent; I'm sorry, it was the Cold War and we had to fight proxy wars to avoid nuclear ones; I really did do my homework but the dog ate the Pentagon Papers.

I know we're not supposed to insult other members, but this is the kind of bullshit that insults the dead and guarantees there'll be more people killed

[Kozmik]

Oh, but we "won" in Vietnam! We were never defeated on the battlefield; Vietnam is now functionally an entrepreneurial capitalist nation; our effort was born of the noblest motives; so no matter the outcome, our sacrifice was not misspent; I'm sorry, it was the Cold War and we had to fight proxy wars to avoid nuclear ones; I really did do my homework but the dog ate the Pentagon Papers.

I know we're not supposed to insult other members, but this is the kind of bullshit that insults the dead and guarantees there'll be more people killed

The future never happened.

[Mr. Greenjeans]

Sigh. We won? Won what? What did we win? We decimated a country, caused thousands of its citizens to be killed, hundreds of thousands hurt and displaced from their homes, many of those forced to become refugees in neighboring countries, many of whom have still not returned, and of those who have, many had nothing left to return to. We turned a largely secular Sunni controlled state into a quasi theocratic Shiite dominated one. Some win that.

Through our actions, we directly caused Iraq to become a recruiting and training ground for terrorists, and then we supplied the terrorists, not only by ripping apart and destroying families, but businesses, schools, banks, shops, religious institutions, even the basic foundations of the country's infrastructure, like bridges, roads, water and sewage systems, etc... We ripped away the Iraqi people's dignity, and their ability to fend for their families and themselves, or to even provide basic care and sustenance. We took away their humanity, like it was ours to take, like it was nothing.

And then, in the height of cognitive dissonance, America became outraged when the Iraqi people, having had just about enough of being insulted, intruded upon, yelled at, commanded to, falsely arrested, stomped on, shot at, terrorized, raped, and killed, by the very Americans who were ostensibly there to liberate them, notwithstanding the fact that we were never asked to liberate them in the first place, began to band together to repel us from their lives. We started using words like 'insurgents' as though we were somehow a legitimate arm of the Iraqi government, when we were nothing but invaders with no legitimate claim to anything there, not a pebble.

It's taken over eight years to finally extricate ourselves from Iraq, and what do we walk away with? What did we win? Is America in better shape than it was before we spent countless billions of dollars we couldn't afford? No. Are we richer, in any way, for the experience? No. Has our standing in the world, or respect for America, increased because of our action? No. Is Iraq more stable than it was before the war? No. Are the Iraqis grateful for what what we did in and to their country and its people? No. Is America safer as a result of our 'winning' in Iraq? No. Has terrorism been stopped or significantly curtailed since our foray into Iraq? No. Cynically, do we even have control over their oil? No. So, again, what did we win? We toppled a tin pot dictator in a world of tin pot dictators. You consider that a win with over 4000 American troops dead, and counting? I consider it despicable.

Wonderfully said.

The next time Dick Cheney crawls out of his hole to appear on FoxNews, I wish someone would read this to him.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Sigh. We won? Won what? What did we win? We decimated a country, caused thousands of its citizens to be killed, hundreds of thousands hurt and displaced from their homes, many of those forced to become refugees in neighboring countries, many of whom have still not returned, and of those who have, many had nothing left to return to. We turned a largely secular Sunni controlled state into a quasi theocratic Shiite dominated one. Some win that.

I'm not defending the decision to invade Iraq. What I am saying is that the war while bad for the GOP and the country is not on the same level of disaster as Saigon falling. However let me do since you made this post make a few points.


Through our actions, we directly caused Iraq to become a recruiting and training ground for terrorists, and then we supplied the terrorists, not only by ripping apart and destroying families, but businesses, schools, banks, shops, religious institutions, even the basic foundations of the country's infrastructure, like bridges, roads, water and sewage systems, etc... We ripped away the Iraqi people's dignity, and their ability to fend for their families and themselves, or to even provide basic care and sustenance. We took away their humanity, like it was ours to take, like it was nothing.

Is that why there were jubilant crowds as the US troops entered Baghdad and the crowds toppled the statues of Saddam Hussein? How did we exactly strip them of their dignity and humanity? Did we try to destroy their culture or force them to convert?

And then, in the height of cognitive dissonance, America became outraged when the Iraqi people, having had just about enough of being insulted, intruded upon, yelled at, commanded to, falsely arrested, stomped on, shot at, terrorized, raped, and killed, by the very Americans who were ostensibly there to liberate them, notwithstanding the fact that we were never asked to liberate them in the first place, began to band together to repel us from their lives. We started using words like 'insurgents' as though we were somehow a legitimate arm of the Iraqi government, when we were nothing but invaders with no legitimate claim to anything there, not a pebble.

The majority may not have wanted invasion but the majority of Iraq-Kurds and Shias both were oppressed and discrimnated against. Both have gained as a result of the invasion. In addition you seem to paint the American occupation as some support of Soviet occupation of Germany in 1945 or the Nazi occupation of France complete with massacres, deportations, and mass gang rapes.

It's taken over eight years to finally extricate ourselves from Iraq, and what do we walk away with? What did we win? Is America in better shape than it was before we spent countless billions of dollars we couldn't afford? No. Are we richer, in any way, for the experience? No. Has our standing in the world, or respect for America, increased because of our action? No. Is Iraq more stable than it was before the war? No. Are the Iraqis grateful for what what we did in and to their country and its people? No. Is America safer as a result of our 'winning' in Iraq? No. Has terrorism been stopped or significantly curtailed since our foray into Iraq? No. Cynically, do we even have control over their oil? No. So, again, what did we win? We toppled a tin pot dictator in a world of tin pot dictators. You consider that a win with over 4000 American troops dead, and counting? I consider it despicable.

I agree with all this.


Oh, but we "won" in Vietnam! We were never defeated on the battlefield; Vietnam is now functionally an entrepreneurial capitalist nation; our effort was born of the noblest motives; so no matter the outcome, our sacrifice was not misspent; I'm sorry, it was the Cold War and we had to fight proxy wars to avoid nuclear ones; I really did do my homework but the dog ate the Pentagon Papers.

I know we're not supposed to insult other members, but this is the kind of bullshit that insults the dead and guarantees there'll be more people killed

As I've said with hindsight I would not have supported the Iraq war.

[Frank]

Is that why there were jubilant crowds as the US troops entered Baghdad and the crowds toppled the statues of Saddam Hussein?
It's been known for some years that this was a staged photo-op.

As I've said with hindsight I would not have supported the Iraq war.
Who cares about hindsight? Had you been older than six at the time, you would have been eagerly panting at the bait along with the rest of the crew. Perhaps, even at six, you were anyway.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

It's been known for some years that this was a staged photo-op.


Who cares about hindsight? Had you been older than six at the time, you would have been eagerly panting at the bait along with the rest of the crew. Perhaps, even at six, you were anyway.

Well everybody was mistaken about the intelligence. The war happened with strong support by the American people.

[Frank]

Well everybody was mistaken about the intelligence.
There aren't enough roll eyes in the world for this.

The intelligence was staged, massaged, and had lipstick put on its nether parts.

It was very clear to anyone with half a brain that Saddam did not have WMDs. Period.

If the intelligence was so accurate, why, when we invaded, did we not immediately head to the sites of the WMDs to secure them?

[The Tooth]

Well everybody was mistaken about the intelligence. The war happened with strong support by the American people.

No, not everyone. Canadian intelligence stated that while a few rotted shells might be lying around, there was no indication that Iraq had any ongoing weapons programs or stashes, be they north, south, east, or west of Tikrit. Also, since the UNSC didn't actually vote in favour of the war after Powell showed them his cartoons, they didn't buy it either. Even Rumsfeld said long after the fact that he had neglected to mention any facts that didn't support Republican policy regarding invading Iraq.

[The Tooth]

If the intelligence was so accurate, why, when we invaded, did we not immediately head to the sites of the WMDs to secure them?

Well, the Oil Ministry building wasn't about to secure itself, was it?

[Robot Arm]

I stand by my earlier assessment; George W. Bush may have been a failure, but everything he did was right. A Republican who promises the same things will get the same support from the same people.

[Kozmik]

I stand by my earlier assessment; George W. Bush may have been a failure, but everything he did was right.Two words: blowback.

[Onomatopoeia]

I'm not defending the decision to invade Iraq.Yet you rationalize it by declaring it a win for the US.What I am saying is that the war while bad for the GOP and the country is not on the same level of disaster as Saigon falling. That is not what you were saying. That is what you are saying now. The fall of Saigon has nothing to do with this conversation. It is insensitive in the extreme for you to attempt to diminish the absolute tragedy of Iraq by comparing it to a completely unrelated event. Stop deflecting. Is that why there were jubilant crowds as the US troops entered Baghdad and the crowds toppled the statues of Saddam Hussein?Curtis, you're smarter than this.How did we exactly strip them of their dignity and humanity? We bombed them with near-nondiscrimination. We raided homes and arrested sons, fathers, and husbands with little, and sometimes no, evidence of any crime committed. We strolled through neighborhoods we'd previously bombed and shot up, and interrogated people who'd lost everything, at the point of a gun, dismissing their pleas, dismissing their tears, dismissing their wrenching hopelessness. We shot Iraqi citizens dead simply for being too close to our vehicles, or driving too slowly, or simply for target practice. We raped women and, in at least one case, a girl as young as 14, that is after we killed the girl's parents and six year-old brother by shooting them in the head and then burning their bodies. We committed these and many other deplorable acts resulting in the stripping away of any dignity the Iraqi people previously possessed, until they were left hollow and bereft of anything resembling humanity except for the building embers of resentment and hatred that our presence and actions had ignited within them.Did we try to destroy their culture or force them to convert?Of course we did, to the sacred, American religion of democracy. The majority may not have wanted invasion but the majority of Iraq-Kurds and Shias both were oppressed and discrimnated against. Both have gained as a result of the invasion.Why do you continue to attempt to justify that which you repeatedly state you would not have supported? The wholly incidental benefit the Kurds and Shia received do absolutely nothing to diminish our illegal and immoral acts. Do you not understand that it was not our responsibility, our place, nor our right to invade a sovereign nation, and worse, under false pretenses? In addition you seem to paint the American occupation as some support of Soviet occupation of Germany in 1945 or the Nazi occupation of France complete with massacres, deportations, and mass gang rapes.One massacre by American forces is one too many.
One displacement caused by American forces is one too many.
One gang rape by American forces is one too many.

One American justifying the commission of evil upon the innocent is one too many.

As I've said with hindsight I would not have supported the Iraq war.Then stop defending it.

[Bridget Burke]

....Who cares about hindsight? Had you been older than six at the time, you would have been eagerly panting at the bait along with the rest of the crew. Perhaps, even at six, you were anyway.

And if Young Curtis had been of military age during our Southeastern Asia adventure, he would have been vocally for the war. But, alas, his allergies or his asthma or his Asperger's would have prevented him from serving.

A Chicken Hawk, that is....

[BrainGlutton]

In addition you seem to paint the American occupation as some support of Soviet occupation of Germany in 1945 or the Nazi occupation of France complete with massacres, deportations, and mass gang rapes.

That's exactly how it turned out, except that those atrocities were not committed by the occupying troops, but by some sectors of the occupied population against others. At least Hussein (like Tito in Yugoslavia) was able to keep them off each other's throats.

[Damuri Ajashi]

Might add a little incident that happened ten Septembers ago to your list.

That's not really fair. I mean, he can't take credit for staving off all terrorist attacks, like some have claimed for him, but it's difficult to say that any other president could have prevented 9-11, either. Now, his response to 9-11, that we most certainly can criticize, but Damuri already called out the Iraq War, which was the biggest problem with his response.

You mean the 9-11 he failed to prevent even after Clinton warning him about it, and his own people warning him about it? Yeah, sorry, no sympathy for the devil....

It would be unfair if they had taken the threat of terrorism seriously from the beginning, and had still been unable to prevent the attack.

But they didn't. The Clinton team told them that terrorism would be the biggest threat they'd have to worry about, and it wasn't like the Bush team hadn't heard about the bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the USS Cole bombing in late 2000.

But they decided that whatever Clinton did, they wanted to do something different, so they didn't bother thinking about terrorism, ignoring the infamous August 6, 2001 PDB ("Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.") - as Bush apparently said to the guy who delivered the PDB, "OK, you've covered your ass."

I think it was quite preventable. The main obstacles were information that was either (a) stovepiped, or (b) being blocked from flowing upward to decision-makers. The sort of approach that Clinton and Gore applied to the threat of the Millennium bombings had an excellent chance of overcoming both problems.

Note that I said "excellent chance," not "certainty." Even if Gore had won the election, the attack still might well have worked. We'll never know whether a Gore Administration would have been able to prevent it, because Gore lost the election. And we'll never know whether a Bush Administration that took the pretty obvious upswing of terrorist capabilities seriously would have been able to prevent it, because they didn't try.

And the reason I continue to hold them accountable is that they didn't try. Even when warned in general but strong terms by both the Clinton Administration on the way out the door, and warned in very clear terms on August 6, 2001.

So yeah, I hold them culpable. They deserve it.

Wait, are you saying that Bill Clinton knew it would happen on 9-11? Why didn't he go onto national television and tell people about it? He would certainly have had a venue, I'm sure.
How did Clinton get his intelligence that it would be on 9-11, and that it would be by those airlines? Couldn't those intelligence sources have told W?
Or, was it just some mystical ramblings about something going to happen somewhere and it would be big????

hh

W. Bush did in fact receive warnings from intelligence sources (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SMI402A.html) that terrorists might be planning on using airplanes. He also was warned by the outgoing administration that Al Qaeda was a very serious and probably imminent threat.

I'm with Chronos on this. I hate Bush with the fire of a thousand suns but he didn't exactly invite the terrorists to come and fly planes into our buildings. He didn't consider it a credible threat and IIRC we never uncovered any specific evidence of a plot before the fact that we could have foiled.

Twisting the Geneva Accords to allow the kidnap & trial without detention of suspects around the world, that's pretty bad. Of course, Obama's still doing that. But we can hold W responsible for the precedent.

Yeah, that doesn't bother me all that much depending on the circumstances.

Then why didn't Clinton actually send in a commando team rather than just lob missiles? Its not as if Gore would have been elected he'd have slayed Bin Laden.

True but...

If Gore had been elected he almost certainly wouldn't have left the guys at Tora Bora (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora) hanging so he could focus on the nonsense war in Iraq.

And if this didn't convince us that 9/11 wasn't what was driving bush's decisions then nothing would.

As for Clinton lobbing missiles, he used them where he thought they could do good. Putting soldiers in the field is a big deal, I certainly trust his judgement on the issue more than yours.

I'm a big fan of lobbing missiles and using predator drones. I think we used them to great effect in Libya and look forward to using the tactic all across the globe where simple artillery and air support can get rid of bad guys.

How would the deadlock against Iraq over WMDs have turned out then? There are those who think that Gore would have invaded Iraq just later after gaining international support.

He had no problem putting troops in Bosnia, Somalia, and Kosovo although none of them posed a danger to America unlike OBL>

What deadlock? What WMDs? We would never have gotten intl (read NATO support).

BTW, WTF does OBL have to do with Iraq?

Bush didn't invade Iraq to go after Osama bin Laden. He invaded Iraq instead of going after Osama bin Laden.

Quoted for truth.

Obama was the one who got us back on the trail of the guy who attacked the United States.

Back on the trail? He did more than that didn't he?

No I did not mean that. I meant the crisis with Iraq over the alledged existence of WMDs.

It was a crisis taht Bush manufactured to create a pretext for invasion. Frankly he not only fabricated the WMDs, he fabricated a link between Iraq and OBL to make those WMDs a credible threat to the USA. Al qaeda was going to be Saddam Hussein's delivery system for those WMDs.

Genocidal? And with the benefit of hindsight I've said and will say again I wouldn't have supported Iraq.

But you seem to think it was a good idea at the time.

I'm not defending the decision to invade Iraq. What I am saying is that the war while bad for the GOP and the country is not on the same level of disaster as Saigon falling. However let me do since you made this post make a few points.

Sure sounds like youa re defending the decision to invade iraq.

[quote]Is that why there were jubilant crowds as the US troops entered Baghdad and the crowds toppled the statues of Saddam Hussein? How did we exactly strip them of their dignity and humanity? Did we try to destroy their culture or force them to convert?

All contrived, carefully cropped photo ops.

[quote]The majority may not have wanted invasion but the majority of Iraq-Kurds and Shias both were oppressed and discrimnated against. Both have gained as a result of the invasion. In addition you seem to paint the American occupation as some support of Soviet occupation of Germany in 1945 or the Nazi occupation of France complete with massacres, deportations, and mass gang rapes.

It is true that 50 years from now we may have a prosperous stable democratic Iraq that comes oputn of our invasion there. We may also have a prosperous stable democratic Libya, Morocco, Egypt, Yemen, etc. as a result of the organic internally driven democratic movements. I think that as long as we can prevent nuclearization of non-democratic countries, all countries will people will eventually overthrow despotic regimes in favor of more democratic ones.

As I've said with hindsight I would not have supported the Iraq war.

But you do now?

Well everybody was mistaken about the intelligence. The war happened with strong support by the American people.

Not exactly. The invasion occurred based on the link that was created by the administration between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. It was magnified by non existent WMDs that Saddam Hussein was going to give to Osama Bin laden to use against us.

I stand by my earlier assessment; George W. Bush may have been a failure, but everything he did was right. A Republican who promises the same things will get the same support from the same people.

What did he do taht was right?

Maybe it wasn't that actually bad. Remember that Bush faced a recession when he entered the Oval Office exacerbated by 9-11 and had one when he got out due to the Democratic policy of encouraging home ownership even for those who could not afford it. But his middle years were of great prosperity.

Great prosperity? What metric are you using to gauge this?

[Damuri Ajashi]

Yet you rationalize it by declaring it a win for the US.That is not what you were saying. That is what you are saying now. The fall of Saigon has nothing to do with this conversation. It is insensitive in the extreme for you to attempt to diminish the absolute tragedy of Iraq by comparing it to a completely unrelated event. Stop deflecting. Curtis, you're smarter than this.We bombed them with near-nondiscrimination. We raided homes and arrested sons, fathers, and husbands with little, and sometimes no, evidence of any crime committed. We strolled through neighborhoods we'd previously bombed and shot up, and interrogated people who'd lost everything, at the point of a gun, dismissing their pleas, dismissing their tears, dismissing their wrenching hopelessness. We shot Iraqi citizens dead simply for being too close to our vehicles, or driving too slowly, or simply for target practice. We raped women and, in at least one case, a girl as young as 14, that is after we killed the girl's parents and six year-old brother by shooting them in the head and then burning their bodies. We committed these and many other deplorable acts resulting in the stripping away of any dignity the Iraqi people previously possessed, until they were left hollow and bereft of anything resembling humanity except for the building embers of resentment and hatred that our presence and actions had ignited within them.Of course we did, to the sacred, American religion of democracy. Why do you continue to attempt to justify that which you repeatedly state you would not have supported? The wholly incidental benefit the Kurds and Shia received do absolutely nothing to diminish our illegal and immoral acts. Do you not understand that it was not our responsibility, our place, nor our right to invade a sovereign nation, and worse, under false pretenses? One massacre by American forces is one too many.
One displacement caused by American forces is one too many.
One gang rape by American forces is one too many.

One American justifying the commission of evil upon the innocent is one too many.

Then stop defending it.

Bad shit happens in every war. There are very few wars that leave the women unraped, innocent people killed and populations displaced.

I think you can justify at leasst displacement in a just war and I think htat innnocent death is an unavoidable side effect of any war. I would propose that giving a bunch of teenage boys guns amongst a disarmed population is an invitation to rape that must be dealt with by a firing squad unless we are ready to abandon the concept of war altogether (which we will never do unless every other nation does the same, which will never happen).

[Robot Arm]

What did he do taht was right?If you're asking me, not much. Read my first post in this thread.

The topic is about Republican candidates distancing themselves from George W. Bush. My point is that they're not and they don't have to; not in any real sense. The applause lines and talking points are the same now as they were then, just coming out of different mouths. As Qin is demonstrating, the true believers will still defend Bush on the specifics, and still cheer for someone just like him. The years 2001-2009 happened, but they have not learned anything from them.

The Republican nominee should run the exact same campaign that Bush did. The only thing about Bush that's discredited is his name.

[Knorf]

Well everybody was mistaken about the intelligence.
This is a falsehood and always has been. The "everybody" part, I mean. Plenty of reasons to question the "intelligence" in the months leading up to the war came to light, and plenty of people did question it, including the actual UN weapons inspectors actually in Iraq.

Hans Blix, chief UN weapons inspector, said there were no WMDs in the months before the war, and that Iraq was being cooperative. Scott Ritter, former chief weapons inspector, reversed his earlier position and said the following, in June, 1999: "When you ask the question, 'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability."

Cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction). Read the "Between inspections: 1998-2002" section in particular.

There were voices stating that Iraq had no WMDs. Some of us heard them.

The war happened with strong support by the American people.
Your use of the word "strong" abuses the accepted definition.

[Voyager]

The Republican nominee should run the exact same campaign that Bush did. The only thing about Bush that's discredited is his name.

A bit more is discredited. His support of the bailout which saved the economy, for instance. Sure they screwed it up by not attaching strings, but what he did was a lot better than what the mainstream Republicans wanted. His very reasonable immigration plan is also something the Republican base rejects. But mostly I agree with you.

[Voyager]

Well everybody was mistaken about the intelligence. The war happened with strong support by the American people.

Actually no. At the time of the invasion, the majority of the American people wanted only a war with international (UN) support. Which Bush didn't have, since all the major powers except England knew there were no WMDs.
Remember, intelligence in 2001 has no bearing on the correctness of the decision - only intelligence at the time of the invasion. The UN inspectors got to see everything including the places where US intelligence placed WMDs. Listening to the reports of Hans Blix at the time made it very clear to me there were no WMDs. If Bush had proof, or even pictures, they could have shown them to the SC members and the vote on the invasion would have come out differently. Bush and company got more and more rabid as the evidence drained away.

[Little Nemo]

What did he do taht was right?He got elected President twice. I think that's the point Robot Arm is making. To some people it's not about telling the truth or serving the greater good or doing a good job. It's about winning the election and Bush had the formula for that. And if it still works, the Republicans can plug a new candidate into the same formula and use it to get somebody else elected.

[Chronos]

That argument still has to account for the fact that Obama won in 2008, though. A large part of Obama's campaign consisted of "Bush's policies were terrible; I'm going to change them", and the majority of the country agreed with him.

As for "everyone knew" that Iraq had WMDs, that's just not true. Either Bush or someone working for him was working overtime to fabricate that evidence, and surely the fabricators knew that it was fake. And their boss and boss's boss, up to the President, damn well should have known.

[gatorslap]

I thought the right-wing spin nowadays was that the war in Iraq was never about WMDs, it was about bringing democracy to Iraq, and was justified because Saddam Hussein was a bad man who did bad things.

[Onomatopoeia]

I thought the right-wing spin nowadays was that the war in Iraq was never about WMDs, it was about bringing democracy to Iraq, and was justified because Saddam Hussein was a bad man who did bad things.That's a worse argument than Iraq had WMD.

[Kozmik]

That argument still has to account for the fact that Obama won in 2008, though. A large part of Obama's campaign consisted of "Bush's policies were terrible; I'm going to change them"Will a large part of Gingrich's campaign or Romney's campaign consist of "Obama's policies are terrible; I'm going to change them"? How will that work for them?

[Little Nemo]

That argument still has to account for the fact that Obama won in 2008, though. A large part of Obama's campaign consisted of "Bush's policies were terrible; I'm going to change them", and the majority of the country agreed with him.Absolutely true. There's a huge disconnect with reality among conservatives over the 2008 election. They somehow just can't believe that Obama was elected. It must all be some kind of mistake. All they need to do is have another election and give people a chance to vote for a President they want, ie a conservative.

[BrainGlutton]

Absolutely true. There's a huge disconnect with reality among conservatives over the 2008 election. They somehow just can't believe that Obama was elected. It must all be some kind of mistake. All they need to do is have another election and give people a chance to vote for a President they want, ie a conservative.

It was the same in the Clinton years, all of them. For a Dem actually to take the WH after the Reagan Revolution seemed to many RWs an impossible reversal of history, like a Jacobite restoration, it couldn't be real.

[Chronos]

Will a large part of Gingrich's campaign or Romney's campaign consist of "Obama's policies are terrible; I'm going to change them"? How will that work for them? Probably; that is after all a very logical position for the party out of power to take. How well it'll work, we'll have to wait and see.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Sorry I'm responding to this late, also I'm a bit tired so they might be rather incoherent...
Yet you rationalize it by declaring it a win for the US.

No I'm stripping it of exaggerations and seeing it for what it is. If someone was here talking about how Iraq was a wise decision I'd be criticizing him too.

That is not what you were saying. That is what you are saying now. The fall of Saigon has nothing to do with this conversation.

Someone was comparing Iraq to Vietnam which prompted my response here.

It is insensitive in the extreme for you to attempt to diminish the absolute tragedy of Iraq by comparing it to a completely unrelated event. Stop deflecting.

I'm not as seen above. Iraq was bad but its not as bad as Vietnam.

Curtis, you're smarter than this.We bombed them with near-nondiscrimination. We raided homes and arrested sons, fathers, and husbands with little, and sometimes no, evidence of any crime committed. We strolled through neighborhoods we'd previously bombed and shot up, and interrogated people who'd lost everything, at the point of a gun, dismissing their pleas, dismissing their tears, dismissing their wrenching hopelessness. We shot Iraqi citizens dead simply for being too close to our vehicles, or driving too slowly, or simply for target practice. We raped women and, in at least one case, a girl as young as 14, that is after we killed the girl's parents and six year-old brother by shooting them in the head and then burning their bodies.

All these were detestable and horrible crimes and the military should punish them severely. But it was not the policy of the US government unlike say the Japanese at Nanjing or the Nazis in the Eastern Front to rape women or slaughter civilians.

We committed these and many other deplorable acts resulting in the stripping away of any dignity the Iraqi people previously possessed, until they were left hollow and bereft of anything resembling humanity except for the building embers of resentment and hatred that our presence and actions had ignited within them

That ignores the tremendous amount of aid the US has given to Iraq. Not to mention most Iraqis have been more pragmatic than that.

Of course we did, to the sacred, American religion of democracy. Why do you continue to attempt to justify that which you repeatedly state you would not have supported?

I'm showing both sides of the coin that is all. While the Iraq War was bad it wasn't some maniacal war of conquest.

The wholly incidental benefit the Kurds and Shia received do absolutely nothing to diminish our illegal and immoral acts.

It does not but it does disprove the statement that the Iraqis overwhelmingly hate America.

Do you not understand that it was not our responsibility, our place, nor our right to invade a sovereign nation, and worse, under false pretenses? One massacre by American forces is one too many.
One displacement caused by American forces is one too many.
One gang rape by American forces is one too many.

One American justifying the commission of evil upon the innocent is one too many.

I agree.

Then stop defending it.

See above. Although the Iraq War was a disaster many of these statements are inaccurate or a tad bit exaggerated.




What deadlock? What WMDs? We would never have gotten intl (read NATO support).


BTW, WTF does OBL have to do with Iraq?

Nothing. I never said anyting to the contrary.







But you seem to think it was a good idea at the time.

Well I was six then so I can't say what I thought.

Sure sounds like youa re defending the decision to invade iraq.


No being objective and showing the good and bad of it.

All contrived, carefully cropped photo ops.


So nobody was glad Saddam was gone.





What did he do taht was right?

Appoint good Supreme Court justices, give aid to combat AIDS in Africa, build up trade relationships with other countries, cleaned up his own mess in Iraq, attempted immigration reform...


Great prosperity? What metric are you using to gauge this?

General metres of stock market numbers, unemployment rates, and economic growth rates.

[Little Nemo]

Appoint good Supreme Court justicesI strongly disagree on that. Roberts and Alito are bad Justices who were appointed to the Supreme Court to advance conservative interests by judicial activism. And Bush's attempted appointment of Harriet Miers was a major fumble for his administration.
give aid to combat AIDS in AfricaAgree. I'll give Bush credit for having a strong African policy. He did better than most Presidents here.
build up trade relationships with other countriesAnd he did poorly here and in any other area that involved foreign relations.
cleaned up his own mess in IraqHow so? We were still highly involved in Iraq when he left office.
attempted immigration reform...And failed badly mostly due to the anti-immigrant hysteria fomented by his own party.

[Clothahump]

The Republican candidate is going to pretend that the years 2001-2009 never happened. The theme will be every problem we have began when Barack Obama took office and every problem will be solved by removing him from office (and cutting taxes).
No. We will acknowledge that they happened. We will also acknowledge that Obama made the situation worse, not better. A damn sight worse.

[BrainGlutton]

No. We will acknowledge that they happened. We will also acknowledge that Obama made the situation worse, not better. A damn sight worse.

Tell it to the troops.

[Little Nemo]

No. We will acknowledge that they happened. We will also acknowledge that Obama made the situation worse, not better. A damn sight worse.How exactly? Has terrorism gotten worse during Obama's administration than it was during Bush's? Has Obama started more wars than Bush did? Obama may have economic problems but his administration faced economic problems when it started. Bush started with economic prosperity and created economic problems.

[That Don Guy]

Big difference. We won in Iraq.
The real difference is, nobody went into Iraq who didn't willingly join the armed forces at some point. (This is slightly before my time, but, IIRC, there was a time when 19 was old enough to die for your country, but not old enough in 46 states to vote for the person who made that decision.)

[Damuri Ajashi]

Yes it was (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-2000s_recession). Yeah but you can't say Bush inherited a recession. And you certainly can't claim he inherited the sort of economy that Obama inherited.

How would the deadlock against Iraq over WMDs have turned out then? There are those who think that Gore would have invaded Iraq just later after gaining international support.

There are those who think the British royal family are actually lizards. We would NEVER have gained international support. That is why we invaded when we did. There was no building sense of urgency that would eventually lead to broad international support, the sense of urgency was FADING and that is why we moved so precipitously so taht kids like you can look back and say "well at the time it looked like it might have been a good idea" because with the passage of time it was clear that the coalition of the "willing" would come to the same conclusion as the other 90% of the world and realize that there were no WMDs worth worrying about.

[quote]He had no problem putting troops in Bosnia, Somalia, and Kosovo although none of them posed a danger to America unlike OBL>

And OBL was in Iraq?

My point is that they're not and they don't have to; not in any real sense. The applause lines and talking points are the same now as they were then, just coming out of different mouths. As Qin is demonstrating, the true believers will still defend Bush on the specifics, and still cheer for someone just like him. The years 2001-2009 happened, but they have not learned anything from them.

The Republican nominee should run the exact same campaign that Bush did. The only thing about Bush that's discredited is his name.

And you don't think Democrats can do a side by side comparison of Bush with such a Republican candidate?

This is a falsehood and always has been. The "everybody" part, I mean. Plenty of reasons to question the "intelligence" in the months leading up to the war came to light, and plenty of people did question it, including the actual UN weapons inspectors actually in Iraq.

Hans Blix, chief UN weapons inspector, said there were no WMDs in the months before the war, and that Iraq was being cooperative. Scott Ritter, former chief weapons inspector, reversed his earlier position and said the following, in June, 1999: "When you ask the question, 'Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?' the answer is no! It is a resounding NO. Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It is 'no' across the board. So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability."

Cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction). Read the "Between inspections: 1998-2002" section in particular.

There were voices stating that Iraq had no WMDs. Some of us heard them.

If by "some" you mean the vast majority of the world, the UN, NATO, etc. sure but what else you got?

So nobody was glad Saddam was gone.

You made it sound like the whole country was happy. I don't think getting rid of Saddam Hussein was worth it. Do you?

[Omg a Black Conservative]

At this point in time, I'm sure that being tied to Obama is a bigger detriment than being tied to Bush. Bush left office nearly three years ago. Most voters aren't concerned with what happened that long ago, but rather their economic well-being at present.

[Little Nemo]

At this point in time, I'm sure that being tied to Obama is a bigger detriment than being tied to Bush. Bush left office nearly three years ago. Most voters aren't concerned with what happened that long ago, but rather their economic well-being at present.The problem is that the "most voters" you're relying on to vote against Obama in 2012 are the same "most voters" you were relying on to vote against him in 2008. You need to face the fact that you apparently don't have a representative sample.

[Omg a Black Conservative]

The problem is that the "most voters" you're relying on to vote against Obama in 2012 are the same "most voters" you were relying on to vote against him in 2008. You need to face the fact that you apparently don't have a representative sample.

I have no idea what you're getting at in your post, but (1) I voted for Obama in 2008 and (2) last I checked, Bush had a higher approval rating than did Obama, due partly to more people viewing Bush more favorably the further out from his presidency we go and more people viewing Obama more unfavorably the further into his presidency he goes. Whatever happened in 2008 before the start of Obama's presidency will have little bearing on the election next year as when compared to what Obama has done during his presidency.

[Robot Arm]

And you don't think Democrats can do a side by side comparison of Bush with such a Republican candidate?They could make such a comparison; a clip of Bush promising lower taxes and then a clip of Romney promising lower taxes. Do you think it would change very many minds? Lots of Republicans still want all the things Bush promised them, regardless of how it turned out when Bush tried to deliver them.

I have no idea what you're getting at in your post, but (1) I voted for Obama in 2008 and (2) last I checked, Bush had a higher approval rating than did Obama, due partly to more people viewing Bush more favorably the further out from his presidency we go and more people viewing Obama more unfavorably the further into his presidency he goes. Whatever happened in 2008 before the start of Obama's presidency will have little bearing on the election next year as when compared to what Obama has done during his presidency.The classic question is "are you better off now than you were four years ago", in which case conditions at the end of the Bush presidency are entirely relevant. If the economy changes as quickly in the summer of '12 as it did four years previous, who knows what the answer to that question will be by election day.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Will a large part of Gingrich's campaign or Romney's campaign consist of "Obama's policies are terrible; I'm going to change them"? How will that work for them?

Yes. They're running on killing off the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and killing off a few government agencies.