You whine about me supposedly using “misdireaction” and then you go on about me being “fooled” that “SH did not cooperate with the inspectors.” I have never addressed the issue of whether Hussein cooperated with the inspectors. I have never posted a thought on the topic either in 2002-2003 or in the current nonsense.
It is a minor lie that is overwhelmed by the actions of the Bush administration in every aspect of their charge to war.
Bush linking Iraq to the WTC/Pentagon attacks and then Cheney continuing to harp on that lie years after even Bush admitted it was false.
All the lies of the Office of Special Plans.
Valerie Plame.
Rumsfeld overriding the Joint Chiefs of Staff to insist that they use a reduced number of troops for the invasion and refusing to allow them to plan for a lengthy occupation.
The clear evidence that the administration knew that there were no WMDs in Iraq, such as the fact that not one unit was detailed to secure, much less investigate, any WMD sites during the invasion.
Concluding that the “magnitude” of the claims of Hussein’s (lack of) cooperation issue is so great as to need to be specially addressed is ridiculous.
Anyone who has bothered to read the stories of the OSP or the background of Powell’s UN adventure knows that there was no “intelligence failure.” Everyone else has already chosen to ignore that part of history.
I have never opposed asking a question. I oppose your hysteria on the topic.
I do not think that knowing information is silly. I think that raving for months over a single, fairly minor aspect, of the enormous botched phenomenon of the Second Gulf War is silly.
You are proving my point that you are indeed ‘fooled by Dubya’ to this moment. Dubya needs people like you T&D who have stuck their head in the sand on the topic of successful inspections and the reality that Iraq cooperated seriously enough to avert war.
When you declare that inspections were a minor aspect of the casus belli for war that is a great big smooch on Bush’s behind and exactly what he needs to continue improving his legacy on his decision to invade Iraq.
Not addressing the inspection process is exactly what Bush supporters want most people to do. That was the problem with the two major documentaries (PBS and Hubris) that we have seen thus far. They both generally skim over the inspection process, going from the Bush Admin hype of WMD prior to the AUMF vote and say a few words about the French pissing Colin Powell off, and then Boom… it’s straight to Shock and Awe.
Unexamined belief in this speculative narrative (cited below) shows you have paid no attention to the language written in the AUMF and the relevance to the AUMG that UNSC Res 1441 was to the process and the successful inspections that followed.
If Bush did what you claim to be the reality you described on 8/12 my point that we need further mainstream journalists taking a harder look as many specifics of the Bush Casus Belli for war, is made even stronger. Bush has made a false casus belli for war and you consider his false claim to be “a minor lie.”. That of course is the Great Bush lie and myth that S.H. refused to cooperate with the Post 1441 inspections.
You have admitted at the top of this post that you*,“have never addressed the issue of whether Hussein cooperated with the inspectors.”* and that you, "have **never posted a thought **on the topic (that “SH did not cooperate with the inspectors) either in 2002-2003 or in the current nonsense.”
So have you posted ‘no thoughts’ because you have ‘no thoughts’ and if you have ‘no thoughts’ I find it odd that you think you can criticize me for ‘having thoughts’ on the grave matter that got so many killed and wounded and cost so much. The grave matter of Bush’s false ‘casus belli’ for his justification of invading Iraq.
And your no non-thinking about inspections is critical because apparently all the ‘thoughts’ you have thus provided as Bush’s greatest lies my be summed up appreciably in this statement:
*The reason why recognizing the true reality that *‘inspections were highly successful’ is much more crucial to holding Bush accountable for his decision to invade rather than your “the whole WMD nonsense was invented by the administration” is for the simple undeniable fact that ‘the whole invented WMD nonsense’ is a bi-partisan casus belli for war (October 2002) that does not make the Bush Administration fully accountable for the decision to invade, after it was clear that the inspections were working (March 2003)
My point is that Bush’s decision to invade despite the fact that it was widely and easily known that inspections were working and that most of that (October 2002) bi-partisan WMD nonsense had been debunked by that very successful UNSC inspection process as well.
So the decision to invade Iraq despite successful inspections is not a bi-partisan error or misjudgment or deceptive run up to war.
But many here appear to have stopped thinking about the run up to the war after the AUMF was passed. And did not start thinking again until Bush actually started the war.
The inspection process, as T&D admits was blocked out his mind and remains blocked to this day.
It appears that my mention of it must be defined as hysterical nonsense, so has not to disturb such a calm and settled mind on the matter of the casus belli for war.
T&D prefers the Bi-partisan Casus Belli as does Bush.
The first thing out of an Iraq invasion supporters mouth if you bring up holding Bush accountable in full for the war are this words, “Democrats Believed Saddam Had WMD Too”.
But that was prior to inspections … and the only reason that inspections did not provide the answer in a peaceful manner was that Bush, not Saddam Hussein, put an end to the inspections.
Bush and no other human on this planet is responsible for making that decision to go to war because as T&D points out … for weather reasons. Bush may have made that decision in September 2002, but the inspections are the major event following the vote for the AUMF that matters.
So any suppression of “thought” or “thinking” or “analysis” of the importance of the inspections… works handily in Bush’s favor.
Those who favor this ‘suppression’ by calling it hysterical nonsense are truly being fooled by Dubya. It is ironic that a few anti-Iraq-invasion types here are so adamant that what happened during the inspection phase of the run-up to war is not relevant or important.
Bush supporters are the usual crowd that say inspections were not working… or as John Mace wrote in July 2003, that S.H. was defiant toward the UNSC disarmament process, so Bush was justified to invade.
But T&D has posted no thoughts on it. That is quite interesting after all.
It’s early yet for Bush, but only three of the last nine Presidents were less popular in retrospect than their average approval rating while in office: Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush.
Bush isn’t continuing to improve his legacy, he’s getting less popular as time goes by. Which is only to be expected, the futher removed from office he is, the more readily Republicans can admit his failings without threatening their tribal identity or current political prospects, as new Republican leaders (and Presidents) will have taken his place.
First, there is no “suppression,” only a lack of fascination.
Second, I never called an interest in the inspection process “hysterical nonsense.” I said that your overworked monomania on the topic appears to be a demonstration of hysteria.
I have made my point in this thread and I doubt that I will respond to your next error-filled, oddly spun, wall of text.
[QUOTE=Human Action;16571201
Bush isn’t continuing to improve his legacy, he’s getting less popular as time goes by. Which is only to be expected, the futher removed from office he is, the more readily Republicans can admit his failings without threatening their tribal identity or current political prospects, as new Republican leaders (and Presidents) will have taken his place.[/QUOTE]
In my view, any favorable rating for Bush over 33% is a despicable outcome.
A big part of putting it back where it belongs would be for the main stream news media to start stomping out the “Bush wanted peace but S.H. did not cooperate” lie.
They won’t do it, unless more people demand the truth be told. Status Quo seems acceptable around here.
Could it be the Gallup piece I linked to in that post? It just might!
You didn’t read the Gallup piece, did you? If you had, you’d have learned that it’s normal for Presidents to become more popular after they are out of office than they were upon leaving office. For most, this popularity bump actually makes them, on average, more popular out of office than they were, on average, while in office. The exceptions? Johnson, Nixon, and George W. Bush.
A parallel to Bush’s situation is Carter’s. Both left office with the same dismal approval rating, 34%. Since leaving office, Carter is more popular (56% average retrospective approval) than he was while in office (46% average approval). Bush? Less popular: 47% retrospective, 49% average.
Richard Freakin’ Nixon has a 33% average retrospective approval rating, so if that’s your target for Bush, good luck. It might happen, but you’re in for a long wait. As I wrote, tribal identity is too strong for enough Republicans to push it that low to renounce Bush this early. But the early trend points to Bush being historically unpopular, along with his fellow war-monger Johnson and Nixon.
And just who are you to decide where an ex-President’s approval rating “belongs”, or that people’s opinions are all based on lies, instead of reflecting informed opinions? The arrogance you exude at all times is nauseating.
Ten years on, only 53% of Americans even think the war was a mistake. People that think the war was a good idea aren’t likely to care about the flimsy pretexts used to launch it, now are they?
Did you write that H.A.? And why are you proclaiming the exact opposite of the two polls I cited?
Fox News Poll: Bush’s Favorable at 49%, Obama 52% - For Release Wednesday, April 24, 2013
George W. Bush’s approval rating just hit a 7-year high. Here’s how. By Chris Cillizza and Sean Sullivan, Published: April 23 at 6:30 am - Days before the official opening of his presidential library, George W. Bush is experiencing something of a comeback when it comes to his public image.
Probably because a Fox news poll isn’t worth the powder to blow it’s own nose, especially on this message boards, while a Gallup poll is given a lot more weight. Are you sure you aren’t a closet Republican, NFBW??
I think anywhere over 33% is despicable. What is wrong with that? I didn’t say I could decide where it belongs.
Here is what I wrote, if you are interested in what I actually wrote.
Do you agree with the general idea that those people who think Bush was OK and that invading Iraq was not so bad are basing their opinions on lie. I don’t see any ‘informed opinion’ that could lead to any positive opinion about Bush or his decision to invade Iraq.
That is why I also posted the Washington Post Poll which reported essentially the same thing.
I did not support the invasion of Iraq as you did XT. So my non-Republicanism is quite solid. You are the one with the problem in that arena.
And the Gallup Poll in no way contradicts the Fox or Washington Post polls that I cited.
So, did you not read the Gallup piece, or not understand it, or what? You’re comparing Bush’s present approval to his approval rating upon leaving office. Hence, a 7-year high. Gallup showed that this happens to almost every President since they’ve been polling, the exceptions being Johnson and Clinton. Given that, how should we evaluate an ex-President’s popularity? Gallup’s metric is to compare average retrospective approval to average in-office approval, rather than to approval upon leaving office. Using that metric, Bush’s legacy is going rather poorly.
You also actually wrote:
So, at least at that time, you did feel qualified to decide where Bush’s approval belonged.
No, I don’t, certainly not to any overwhelming degree. I’m sure some think Hussein was behind 9/11 or that the UN found VX gas rockets, because some people are ignorant and others are fools. That said, you need to understand that for many people, invading Iraq was a moral good: it toppled a brutal dictator and paved the way for some sort of democracy. Also, for many people, the UN’s opinions are worth less than nothing. Not everyone applied the same calculus you did.
I understand those views exist. I also understand that those views are not ‘informed opinions’ - and more concretely - There was no authorization to use force by Congress to topple a brutal dictator as some kind of ‘moral good’ or to ‘pave the way for some sort of democracy’.
These stupid people should be informed that this ‘moral good’ crap is exactly that. Crap! And you further support my case that the public needs to be educated about what the Authorization to Use Force was about and the ties to the UN inspections that was written into it.
I still don’t know what is wrong with wanting the historical and legal truth being more forcibly told… instead of letting the stupid going on think that invading Iraq was some kind of moral good.
The invasion supporters are already working up the narrative that Obama blew the great achievement Bush put into play into Iraq by failing to keep US troops stationed there after Bush’s SOFA agreement expired.
If Iraq falls into severe and irreversible chaos and some form of dictatorship emerges once again, you can bet, all these stupid people who think invading Iraq was some kind of moral mission will be stupid enough and eager to believe that Obama is the one who blew it.
Why are they not informed opinions? There’s nothing uninformed about a view that regardless of whether the WMDs existed or Bush lied or even if the war was legal, removing Hussein from power was a good thing to do, and morally justified. That’s how you get 47% of people saying the war wasn’t a mistake: they think the benefits of it outweigh the costs. I don’t agree with that view, but it’s not uninformed.
There’s nothing wrong with that, except for when the things you claim as truths, such as the idea that the war was illegal under domestic law, that there is a problem.
You’re never going to convince every person that the war was a mistake, at least not for decades to come, because there are tribal identities at stake. American politics at this historical moment is a partisan pissing match. You should be aware of that, as you are an example of it. Republicans are going to blame the Democrat, and Democrats are going to blame the Republican.
Is that in the ‘Authorization to Use Force’ clause?
And Sorry, Mace. That act you cited prohibits the use of direct armed force. Do you are wrong again. You have cited excerpts of something but have not read the entire document.
It’s part of the justification for the invasion. All the “whereas” clauses are the reasons for the use of military force. And since the AUMF came after that bill, it supersedes it. The AUMF obviously does authorize the use of force.
Are you kidding? There is no reasonable or intellectual or informed basis to accept even the slightest perception that “…removing Hussein from power was a good thing to do, and morally justified”. And I realize you don’t agree with the majority view who think that way, but why would you give that thinking any validity by calling it an informed opinion.
And this acceptance of mass ignorance and mass moral irresponsibility does not refute my point that members of Congress authorized war for a specific purpose involving the threat of WMD and to influence Iraq to submit to the legally required inspections in order to avert war. **That vote at the time **was rationally oriented and had moral and legal justification because it was a fact in October 2002 that Iraq was in violation of its disarmament agreement under international law. However Iraq was not in violation of international law under 1441 because it authorized Iraq to accept a ‘final opportunity to comply’.
There was no authorization to use force to remove Hussein from power as a good thing to do, and it was not authorized because it *would be morally justified to do *. If you wish to argue that the authorization was written and voted on that basis, you would need to show where and how that might be. If you do not wish to argue that point, it is obvious that your argument that people who think toppling Saddam was a moral and good thing to do should be considered *an informed opinion *is baseless and untrue.
I am not claiming as truth that the war was illegal under domestic law. It may well be, but I am not a legal expert.
I am simply pointing out that the language of the AUMF required Bush to ‘enforce all relevant UNSC Resolutions with regard to Iraq’ and that language did in fact attempt to restrain Bush which is contrary to the concocted ‘truth’ that is prevalent here that there were no restraints. Now whether there is feasibility to prosecute/impeach Bush over his refusal to comply with the language he was granted, is not my concern.
Your last response is not related to what I wrote. However I’m not under any kind of impression that I can convince every person that the war was a mistake.
I expect those who have entered the profession of journalism to simply begin to push back on the myths that surround the run up to the US invasion of Iraq.
My desire would be to convince enough ‘informed’ people that it is necessary for such a thing as non-tribal mainstream objective journalism to regain it’s esteemed place in our culture once again. And since Iraq was the issue where mainstream journalism went astray of it’s purpose and values, Iraq should be the issue where they bring themselves back. Journalism must rise and remain high above partisan political tribalism. We need it there again.
I am aware of that plus more. What you wrote doesn’t apply much to the misconceptions about Iraq that I’ve been addressing. Republicans are not blaming Democrats, they are calling Democrats hypocrites for “voting for the war” in October 2002 and then opposing the war when it went bad. And the reason Republicans get away with that 'half-truth, false narrative, is because the main stream news media and the Democrats largely go along with this notion that in October 2002, there was a pure vote for war without restraints and there was no meaningful relationship to the UN inspections and to UNSC Resolution 1441 assigned to Bush. Bush has thus never been strongly challenged for the ‘sole decision’ he made in March 2003 without a single Democrat in the room, to put an end to peaceful disarmament in order to use the violence of military force instead to disarm Iraq outside of UNSC enforcement.
I wish Democrats were more tribal instead of accepting the Republican driven half-truth that Bush was given a blank check for war in October 2002 and had no obligation to assess the national security threat after four months of Iraq’s cooperation and the validity and success of UNSC inspections in March 2003.
People like T&D who admits to having no thoughts about the success of the inspections and no desire to have a thought about the inspections, make the case that something needs to be done about that level of non-thought on the cause of the US invasion of Iraq.