# If not Bush, then who? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 14, 2009, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-bush-then-who/493068 "2009-04-14T15:09:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2009, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-bush-then-who/493068/61 "2009-04-15T12:56:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Without truely knowing what everybody thought back then you can why its easy to think people have flipped flopped and hopped on the bush bashing bandwagon. Personally, I’ll admit I supported the war back at the time of the invasion. No point in denying it; my posts on the subject must still be there for anyone who wants to search them out. I based my beliefs at the time on a mistaken premise. I didn’t vote for George Bush but he was the President. And I trusted the office. I thought that a President wouldn’t lie about something like going to war. There were plenty of people around who were saying that Iraq did not have an active WMD program. But the President and his administration said that they had intelligence that there were such programs. (Again, the records are there for anyone who wants to check this.) I figured that the President had access to information that the rest of us did not have and he knew things that the rest of us did not. So when he asked us to trust him, I did. It turned out, of course, that my belief was wrong and my trust was misplaced. The doubters were right and Iraq did not have any active WMD program. Bush did not have any secret intelligence otherwise. He just chose to believe what he wanted to believe despite the facts on the ground. And let’s be clear about this: Bush lied. He didn’t say that it was his opinion that Iraq had WMD’s. He said it was a fact. And it was not. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2009, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-bush-then-who/493068/62 "2009-04-15T14:11:44Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And at any rate, Saddam was an ENEMY of Al Qaeda; So? If you are trying to clean up criminal gangs, do you only go after the Bloods, cause the Crips haven’t caused a lot of problems lately? Or do you just clean up the whole mess? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2009, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-bush-then-who/493068/63 "2009-04-15T14:22:03Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > So? If you are trying to clean up criminal gangs, do you only go after the Bloods, cause the Crips haven’t caused a lot of problems lately? Or do you just clean up the whole mess? Priorities. If the Bloods causing you far more trouble and going after the Crips would compromise your ability to stop the Bloods, then you make some choices instead of fucking around. ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2009, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-bush-then-who/493068/64 "2009-04-15T14:27:21Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Want to buy a bridge? Perhaps you should re-read the comments in 2002/3 of people like Al Gore. Statements like > [@Al Gore in 2002](#): > > Nevertheless, Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. in [this](http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020923-gore01.htm) anti-Bush speech. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2009, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-bush-then-who/493068/65 "2009-04-15T14:29:05Z")
And a better analogy there would be a gang in LA is causing you trouble so you don’t go after a gang in New York who caused you trouble in the past and MIGHT cause you trouble in the future…at least, you don’t go after them until you’ve taken care of that pesky gang in LA causing you trouble right now. There was no reason to go after Iraq when and how we did it. We could have kept up the pressure on Saddam as long as we were able to keep the sanctions going. Once enough pressure was applied and the sanctions removed…well, at that point we might have wanted to consider a military option if it looked like Saddam was attempting to rearm in any kind of serious way. And in the mean time we could have been fighting AQ and the Taliban in Afghanistan and doing a lot better of a job than we’ve BEEN doing there. Now we have the worst of both worlds…things have significantly slipped in Afghanistan despite initial success and they are only getting worse now because we diverted our attention. On the other side Iraq has been a cluster fuck and THAT is now heating back up again too…I read we might not be able to pull out of some areas we intended too by June. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2009, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-bush-then-who/493068/66 "2009-04-15T14:33:15Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Perhaps you should re-read the comments in 2002/3 of people like Al Gore. Perhaps you should consider who politicians are, and what they do. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2009, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-bush-then-who/493068/67 "2009-04-15T15:14:45Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Bush named the “Axis of Evil” in 2002. They were Iraq, Iran and North Korea. > > Of those three Iraq (at the time at least) was not sponsoring terrorists nor seeking WMD. North Korea however was developing nuclear weapons and missile technology to deliver those nukes and Iran is considered one of the leading sponsors in the world for terrorism (and today…and probably then…we know Iran is seriously after nukes). > > So which of those three would you focus on? Glorious Leader went after the one schmuck who was no threat at all. > > Brilliant (sarcasm alert) The axis of Evil speech was so stupid. He names 3 countries as the axis and then attacks one of them without provocation. What did he think the other two would do? They immediately started to arm themselves. Then we claim they are wrong for doing that. That is exactly what any logical leadership would do. Iran has been waiting to be attacked by the US or Israel . Yet we think they are wrong for wanting a nuke to save themselves . Then Bolton named the Beyond the Axis countries as Cuba,Syria and Lybia. This is International stupidity. There is no peace possible with leaders who do things like that. Oh yes, Cheney babysat the CIA to get them to buy into the Iraq WMD story. He spent a lot of time to make sure the reports would agree to their lies. ---
**Author:** ![PoorYorick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PoorYorick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PoorYorick)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2009, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-bush-then-who/493068/68 "2009-04-15T15:38:02Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > My father was a career officer, I recognize that a military is sometimes necessary, and ours is very good at what they do. But we have always held the position in this country that the military answers to civilian leadership. The decision to go to war rests with civilians, and should be debated on civilian terms. Since we’re quoting military personnel, my brother is a high-ranking career Army officer. I thoroughly enjoy my debates with him about a lot of issues, but we hardly ever discuss whether invading Iraq was a good move or not. The one time we did, his contribution was mostly embarrassed throat clearing. I didn’t have the heart to get into it with him. I love and admire him, and it would have been a bit like railing against someone’s skin-head brother. Yeah, winning the argument would have been like shooting fish in a barrel, but at the expense of making my brother feel like crap about something he already knew but felt he had to defend. For the record, _any_ US military officer who thinks invading Iraq was a good idea is an idiot. That’s pretty much a given for me. ETA: Er, needless to say, I wasn’t referring to my brother when I used the phrase “skin-head brother.” A very infelicitous analogy on my part. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2009, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-bush-then-who/493068/69 "2009-04-15T15:41:32Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Perhaps you should re-read the comments in 2002/3 of people like Al Gore… I don’t give a shit what Al Gore or anyone else had to _say_ back at the dawn of time. What mattered then and what matters now is actual evidence. Powell’s evidence at the UN sucked, and it _never_ got any better. Everyone who believed that crap was a fool. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2009, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-bush-then-who/493068/70 "2009-04-15T15:42:50Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > Perhaps you should re-read the comments in 2002/3 of people like Al Gore. Statements like > > in [this](http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2002/iraq-020923-gore01.htm) anti-Bush speech. Nothing in there said that Iraq definitely HAD WMDs, nor does it say that Iraq was a threat to the US. Under the UN Charter, it is illegal to overthrow an another government for any reason other than self-defense. Iraq being a threat to “the stability of the Persian Gulf” was not a legal justification for invasion. For that matter, even the possession of banned weapons would not have been a justification as long as Iraq had no ballistic ability to threaten the US with them. The US attack on Iraqi sovereignty could have only been legally justified if Bush had been able to PROVE – not suggest, not hypothesize, not speculate, not make shit up – that Iraq had both the physical ability and the immediate intent to harm the US. He never proved it. Many of us in the run up to the invasion were _screaming_ that he hadn’t proven it, and we were right. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2009, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-bush-then-who/493068/71 "2009-04-15T15:47:08Z")
> [@](#): > > There was no reason to go after Iraq when and how we did it. We could have kept up the pressure on Saddam as long as we were able to keep the sanctions going. Once enough pressure was applied and the sanctions removed…well, at that point we might have wanted to consider a military option if it looked like Saddam was attempting to rearm in any kind of serious way. I agree. If Saddam Hussein was the problem, then it was not a problem that needed a invasion to be solved. Saddam had already been contained. Iraq had been cordoned off in 1991 and there was no sign that policy was falling apart in 2003. One of the advantages that democracies have over dictatorships is that democratic institutions can endure while dictators always eventually die. We could have done that same thing with Saddam we’ve done with Castro; outwait him. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2009, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-bush-then-who/493068/72 "2009-04-15T17:10:37Z")
I spent some time last night reading over old threads from late 2002 and early 2003 about the ramp up to Iraq. It’s fascinating, if retrospectively frustrating, to see how utterly cocksure the hawks were and how condescending and dismissive they were of those opposed to the invasion. The certainty and confidence of the hawks in those threads sometimes rises to ridiculous levels. There were people saying it would be over in 48 hours with no US casualties. Flat declarations were made over and over again that Saddam absolutely had WMDs and all us liberals were going to look stupid. It was even alleged that Saddam had nulear capabilities. Objections that Bush had never produced any evidence of WMDs were typically met with assertions that Bush had secret information that we didn’t have (why he refused to share that info with the UN was never explained). Then, after the invasion, we got a few breathless threads from righties gloating prematurely over false reports of WMD’s being fired at our troops, or giant chemical weapons factories being discovered. It’s kind of fun watching the dancing and taunting in those threads crumble to shit. The worst of the hawks was that guy **Bluesman**. He claimed to have some kind of intel billet in the Air Force (he was probably full of shit), and he posted all kinds of “my post is my cite” garbage about what he “knew” and how sorry and stupid all our pathetic, liberal assholes were going to look once we got into Iraq. He actually once said, in Cartman-like fashion, “I AM THE AUTHORITY.” Then, after the invasion, he ran away from the boards and never came back. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2009, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-bush-then-who/493068/73 "2009-04-15T17:25:12Z")
Yeah…I can certainly sympathize about how the liberals were treated in the run up to the invasion. I remember some of those threads and even participated in some of them (I hope I wasn’t as over the top as DtC is describing). People were frustrated and angry, they were lashing out…and Saddam was a great target given the history between the US and Iraq. People wanted revenge and for whatever reason invading Afghanistan just didn’t give them the satisfaction…probably because there weren’t any big buildings to hit with smart bombs and such for the nightly news, there were no large troop formations to destroy…and also because the Taliban didn’t have a ‘face’ to most American’s…like Saddam did. Most American’s just couldn’t wrap their minds around the nebulous Taliban (who most probably hadn’t heard of pre-9/11)…while everyone ‘knew’ Saddam, knew about his invasion of Kuwait, ‘knew’ he had WMD and was plotting against the US, etc etc. And so we allowed ourselves to be lead by the nose to a war that we didn’t need on shaky, at best, pretenses. I allowed MYSELF to be lead by the nose to initially support such a war, thinking that it would be the best course for the US to at least knock off one enemy in the region and to create a democratic state in the region that would become a good ally to the US in a critical area in years to come. Like a lot of folks in those early thread I was wrong. But I don’t think Bush was the root of the blame…he just road the river of public outrage, anger and frustration. To be sure he diverted it or nudged it here or there…but at the root I’m to blame…as well as most American’s…for the attitudes and blindness and frustrated rage. Not Bush, not the Republican’s…but Bush, the Republicans, the Democrats and the American people. Everyone who initially supported war…and who re-elected Bush for a second term after that war (thankfully I can say that I didn’t make THAT mistake…nor did I vote for him initially either of course but I did support his taking us to war in Iraq). -XT ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2009, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-bush-then-who/493068/74 "2009-04-15T17:45:49Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Yeah…I can certainly sympathize about how the liberals were treated in the run up to the invasion. I remember some of those threads and even participated in some of them (I hope I wasn’t as over the top as DtC is describing). I think you were one of those who was saying you were trusting that Bush knew more than we did, but I don’t remember you as being one of those who were sneering at the doubters. I think most of those who were really obnoxious about it have long since stopped posting here (and some have been banned). There are several (including you, **Scylla** , **Airman** and a few others) who supported the invasion initially, then were able to admit you got it wrong, which is greatly appreciated. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2009, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-bush-then-who/493068/75 "2009-04-15T18:16:37Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I think you were one of those who was saying you were trusting that Bush knew more than we did, but I don’t remember you as being one of those who were sneering at the doubters. I think most of those who were really obnoxious about it have long since stopped posting here (and some have been banned). > > There are several (including you, **Scylla** , **Airman** and a few others) who supported the invasion initially, then were able to admit you got it wrong, which is greatly appreciated. Bad memory. XT sneers and insults when he disagrees. He is almost always wrong, but never apologizes for his belief in authorities or his nasty remarks. I often ask him why he resorts to insults when in debates. It is always some one elses fault. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2009, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-bush-then-who/493068/76 "2009-04-15T21:54:06Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Bad memory. XT sneers and insults when he disagrees. He is almost always wrong, but never apologizes for his belief in authorities or his nasty remarks. I often ask him why he resorts to insults when in debates. It is always some one elses fault. Perhaps he is responding to this tone? If you need to make this a personal complaint about a poster, take it to the **BBQ Pit**. [/Modding] ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2009, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-bush-then-who/493068/77 "2009-04-15T22:09:40Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > And let’s not forget that Saddam was a sponsor of terrorism. For instance, he sheltered Abu Nidal and paid the families of a number of Palestinian suicide bombers. Interestingly, I had already addressed part of this [earlier in the thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11037636&postcount=31). He did not start sporadically handing out money to the families of bombers until we were already threatenig him with war: it was an effort to get the other Arab states to oppose us as we sought war. Abu Nidal was a sick man in retirement by the time he moved to Iraq with the intention of living out his days in a more or less neutral country from which he would not be extradited. Hussein was simply not a significant sponsor of terrorism. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2009, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-bush-then-who/493068/78 "2009-04-15T22:14:46Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > So? If you are trying to clean up criminal gangs, do you only go after the Bloods, cause the Crips haven’t caused a lot of problems lately? Or do you just clean up the whole mess? What you don’t do when you are having trouble with the Bloods is shoot the Crips so the Bloods can move in. In practical terms, Bush was pretty much the Al Qaeda President; he fought their enemies and promoted their cause. Probably in no small part because Bush and his fellow Republicans deep down approve of Al Qaeda - a group of religious fanatics - than Saddam Hussein, who was a secularist. In their eyes, something far worse than mere mass murder; better to kill for a God than do anything without one. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2009, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-bush-then-who/493068/79 "2009-04-15T23:25:27Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] Probably in no small part because Bush and his fellow Republicans deep down approve of Al Qaeda - a group of religious fanatics - than Saddam Hussein, who was a secularist. In their eyes, something far worse than mere mass murder; better to kill for a God than do anything without one. [/QUOTE] :rolleyes: Good grief…this goes beyond irrational. I find it hard to take such a statement serious, even coming from you who are irrational about the subject of both Bush AND religion (yeah, this was a twofer for you). Either you are trying to yank our collective chain, have taken hyperbole to new, er, depths, or you need to seriously consider a 12 step program… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 15, 2009, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-bush-then-who/493068/80 "2009-04-15T23:46:43Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > :rolleyes: Good grief…this goes beyond irrational. I find it hard to take such a statement serious, even coming from you who are irrational about the subject of both Bush AND religion (yeah, this was a twofer for you). Oh, please. “Anything is better than godlessness” is a pretty common attitude. The Right is quite open in it’s hatred of secularism, and believers have always thought that nothing is worse than secularism; thus ( for example ) the enthusiasm for supporting fascists by believers, since they were enemies of the _ **godless** _ Communists. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-bush-then-who/493068.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-not-bush-then-who/493068.md?page=5)