Since Bush thinks he has done nothing wrong… then Iraq is something to be repeated ? Not to get into the ME Domino Theory too much… but if Bush gets the sumpreme court to confirm another election this november, does this mean Syria will be invaded eventually in the next four years ?
Or did he never implied he would chase other “Axis of Evil” countries ?
I want more the perspective of voters. Is voting for Bush voting for another future Iraq ?I’m not a voter, but then neither are you, so I’ll provide my perspective regardless.
Syria is part of the plan, and has always been part of the plan:
The above was written in 1996. Note that the authors are the same PNAC idiots that are now running the US. If you replace “Syria” with “Iraq”, and “criminally involved with international drug traffickers and counterfeiters” with “possessing weapons of mass destruction”, it’s quite obvious that it’s exactly the same bullshit that got the US into Iraq. All part of the plan.
I’m no fan of Bush but your loathing of the man is something to watch.
Bush has not admitted he has done anything wrong. Coming from the control freak administration of the “noble lie” persuasion he’s put together that’s not really a big surprise.
Doesn’t necessarily follow. If he thinks he hasn’t made a mistake, as you propose, then he needs to find a contained, previously aggressive tyrant running a country that once went to war with the US. There aren’t that many out there. As for Syria that would seem to require a degree of flexibility the US currently doesn’t have and likely wont be able to assemble any time soon.
I missed where Bush himself got the Supreme Court he didn’t appoint to confirm his election. Besides it relies on a sufficiently close election that pregnant chads becomes a pop culture icon once again. Remember in 2000 you had the unknown Bush and the known, but uninspiring, Gore. This time, one of the runners has a record to defend.
See my previous bit
What do you mean by chase? Invade? Diplomatically isolate (as if he knew what diplomatic meant) or strategically surround?
Oh, please. Reporters were unable to trick Bush into anwering a series of “gotcha” questions, and you state that Bush thinks he never did anything wrong. Presidents very rarely admit to policy errors while in office.
Firstly, Syria was not included in the “Axis of Evil”. While I don’t agree that there is a real “axis” to speak of there, I would agree that all 3 regimes (NK, Korea, Iraq under SH) are evil. He never said he’d invade any of them, let alone all of them.
No, it’s not. Even if Bush wanted to invade another country, and I don’t think he does, Congress would have to authorize it. They won’t.
JM: I would agree that all 3 regimes (NK, Korea, Iraq under SH) are evil.
Pssst, you’ve got an extra Korea in there instead of an Iran. Other than that, I mostly agree with you.
I think Iraq is likely something to be repeated, but I don’t believe the blame rests solely at Bush’s feet. If you look at a timeline and our role/policy toward Iraq it doesn’t look like a lot of our motivations have changed. Bush wasn’t responsible for what happened in 1963:
I think it’s nice to focus on this being about freedom, but if you don’t buy that reasoning, and think we appear to be doing the same things expecting different results, I doubt things will change anytime soon, regardless of who is in charge. I’m not saying that all of our motivations are selfish, but I think a good chunk of them have been. Jumping forward to 1968 there’s this explanation for our reasoning and involvement:
While I’m not a Bush supporter, and think it’s really too soon to tell what’s going to happen with Iraq, it doesn’t look like our motivations have changed all that much in some respects. I’m not sure the same wouldn’t be true for Kerry as well. I do hold Bush responsible for his role in this, my above quotes weren’t meant as an excuse for his actions.
Buhs has made mistakes. But they were ones of implementation, not goals. Moreover, his mistakes are minor compared to his successes.
This ain’t a quagmire boys and girls. The press can’t stand it, but we are winning. Every day more people in Iraq realize we’re stronger and more honorable than they could imagine. And each day more of them are willing to sign up with us. We are the land of opportunity, and they recognize we’re willing to show them how to become as strong and honorable as we are, and we’ll pay them for the privelage.
We already have strong support among the Kurds and Shi’a, and the Sunnis will increasingly go along because they know if they don’t they will wind up being maginalized and voiceless. the Baathists have failed totally and can no longer present a credible threat. in fact, their ability to kill our soldiers as individuals is not even in the news. The Shi’a extremists are getting a close, personal picture of what it means to be crushed by the US and ignored by, well, the Shi’a in general.
We’ve already won. Our enemies are still in shock and haven’t realized it. If we start losing, you’ll know. You’ll know because you’ll see a real revolt backked by hundreds of thousands of peopel and our troops coming home in body bags by the thousands. They’ve already lost, and they are desperately searching for a way not to.
Thanks. Maybe I was thinking that NK is **doubly ** evil… 
Since this is Greate Debates… Cite?
Or are we merely going to regurgitate the Conservative Talking Points Of The Week™ now, and consider that an argument?
I guess the people of the USA are also in the dark that we have already won, since Iraq is the recognized as the number one problem cited in the latest Gallup Poll. Quite a difference in percetion then between your viewpoint and the rest of the country. :rolleyes:
This is only due to “recent” events. Besides 3/4 of the population don’t feel the dreaded “Fear of War”.
Take a look at the selected trend in March for the Iraq war. (11%)
-LC
Oh, that explains why we are yelling “you shoot like a goat herder” at them like 7th graders?
Well, as long as we are their racial betters, right?
You mean, except for the ones who signed up then abandoned their post when they were asked to do our bidding, and the ones we’ve killed? Yea, the rest are 100% in our camp. So in our camp, that I’m sure you would be happy to take your next vacation to Baghdad for a week with an American flag draped around your shoulders, right?
I think you misunderstand the situation. While dittoheads may count victory by number of bodies on the floor, that has little to do with winning a war, especially one on “terror.” The comic book concept of “we killed more of them so we won” doesn’t quite translate very well to, you know, real life.
Yes, but the trend is up (6 month trend has been 15% concerned with Iraq), which I’ll take to represent not only an increasing fear due to the recent events, but also recognition that the hole we are digging for ourselves continues to get deeper.
As to your 3/4 who aren’t worried about Iraq (i.e., it’s not their #1 worry), if you read the poll you would see that their worries include the economy, unemployment, terrorism, government dissatisfaction, ethics, etc. Overall, only 41% of Americans are satisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time, while 57% are dissatisfied. If Bush doesn’t find a way to turn these numbers around, he is going to be on permanent vacation in Crawford, TX.
You think that he isn’t already?
Instead of bashing your lopsided views... I ask:
Can the USA afford more of these "sucesses" ? Even if they are implemented properly ? (as you seem to imply that Iraq was just mishandled... not wrong, in other words without diplomacy or a plan.)
Can the US afford to "win" another "Iraq" ? A good republican who doesn't like Iraq should he even then vote for Bush ?Republicans have a majority in Congress. Close to or more than 50% of americans think "liberating" Iraq was correct... even though they think it was badly handled. Bush says he didn't do anything wrong.
Why do I feel that its contradictory that they won't authorize another "Iraq" but they support the invasion ? This seems like the idea was right... but we don't want more of it ?
John Mace... what if terrorists manage another 9/11 ? Would Bush manage to get the authorization ?If you can find another country that is in a similar situation as Iraq was, then you might have a point. But there isn’t one.
Depends. If a situtation similar to Afghanistan were found, then perhaps. But I don’t think there is one right now.
True there isn’t one right now… but if you do re-elect Bush and Rove there will be 4 years for something like it too happen… 4 years is a long time. So shouldn’t a new “Iraq” be an election issue ?
I think invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do. If another situation like it arises, I would hope that whoever is president would take similar action.
Iraq is another matter. I would say that was a unique case. All the conspiracy theorists coming out of the woodworks lately talk about about how Bush et al had a plan to invade Iraq from the very beginning. Even if we accept these theories as being true, none of them posit that there were or are plans to invade any other countries.
I never supported the war in Iraq. I never thought it was in America’s interest to invade that country. I’m completely with you on that issue. But I think you are blinded into an irrational belief that Bush is on a roll to start more wars. If anything, his jumping the gun on Iraq will make the US less likely in the near term to start another invasion, not more likely.
So… in your opinion, George Bush is a conspiracy theorist?
It’s no longer the realm of silliness to say that GW’s administration wanted to invade Iraq. It was in the making from day 1, and it was a “go” almost immediately after 9/11. There’s little room for doubt on this one anymore: it’s been confirmed by a number of different sources, including GW himself.
I agree though, that we aren’t going to invade another country anytime soon. Which is part of the reason this war was ill-thought out, and partly because it was so ill-executed.
Well, at least Prime Ministers don’t sputter and blank out when asked an obvious question. Blair was quick and sly when asked: “I always say: that’s for me to know and you to find out.” Pretty darn good.
If conservatives love Bush mainly because of his war drive, can’t they at least admit that Tony Blair is ten times better as a war President than Bush is? I mean, geez, that guy IS a leader, in every sense of the word.