Bush's War

[doG]

Well, I guess the site got overloaded. It now says "Service Unavailable". It was a compendium of news clips of politicians statements about the certainty of Saddam's possession and intent to acquire WMDs. It contained some statements from Hillary and her husband that I thought I would share since she's a candidate. If it becomes available again I'll fix the link with more of an abstract on it.

 

Seems the link is working again - http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

 

Many call it Bush's War but this movie shows it was quite a bipartisan effort that began before Bush. It includes statements from Madeline Albright, President Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Jay Rockefeller, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, John Edwards, Evan Bayh and Bush himself.

[Pangloss]

(mod post content removed, since doG got the link fixed, thanks dog)

[Pangloss]

The problem with all those congressional statements is that they were based on the faulty intelligence that was passed along. All intelligence was, as is always the case, funneled through the administration. The administration decides what anybody outside the executive branch gets to see, INCLUDING congress. It HAS to be that way, otherwise you'll never protect undercover sources, for example, or manage the intelligence community sensibly.

 

But in this case it allowed the administration to pre-determine a course of action and then cherry-pick the intelligence to support that choice. The administration appears to have done its analysis with a jaundiced eye, overlooking more than just logical disagreement -- they actually discounted clear evidence that directly refuted what they believed.

 

And I don't mean to put too highbrow a point on what may go down in history as one of the most colossal blunders ever, but the evidence that this is the case is not only overwhelming, it's more or less acknowledged by the Bush administration on several key fronts, ranging from direct statements on certain specifics, to choices of access for interviews, to outright changes in policy.

 

To put it succinctly, the only people defending and rationalizing the Iraq decision at this point are right-side partisans worried about the possibility of a Democrat in the White House next year. And they're preaching to the converted anyway.

 

Now don't get me wrong, there's no evidence that this was a conspiracy over oil or Halliburton or any other nonsense you typically hear from the loony left. That stuff doesn't even pass the stink test in the modern age of access and exposure -- it just isn't logical.

 

But I think at this point several things must be clear from an objective, historical perspective:

 

1) Given the ultimate cost in lives and money, the Iraq War will likely go down as one of the worst blunders of the post-Cold War American solo-superpower era.

 

2) Given the nature of the intelligence community and the current political climate of the country, it's difficult to lay the Iraq War at anybody else's feet. If you'd asked me eight years ago I would have said it impossible, but it appears that one man has produced this situation, all by himself. One man.

 

3) It appears to be the single most defining event of the Bush administration. How could it not be, by any objective measure?

 

So while I can't stand the idiots running around screaming "I told you so" or trying to rate the Bush administration as the "worst president ever", and while I want to instruct them to be careful what they wish for, or point out the bright spots in the Bush years (and there are many), the simple fact of the matter is.... they're basically right. At the root level, all hyperbole aside, when all's said and done, you just can't logically argue that they're wrong.

 

Much though it pains me to admit it.

[iNow]

Did anyone see General Hayden on Meet the Press this morning?

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23868117#23868117

[doG]

The problem with all those congressional statements is that they were based on the faulty intelligence that was passed along.

 

I sort of disagree. This is not a collection of statement claiming Saddam had WMDs, it is a collection of statements claiming Saddam was dangerous and could not be allowed to acquire WMDs. I think that's probably true and there were many people making this claim, not just Bush.

 

So while I can't stand the idiots running around screaming "I told you so" or trying to rate the Bush administration as the "worst president ever", and while I want to instruct them to be careful what they wish for, or point out the bright spots in the Bush years (and there are many), the simple fact of the matter is.... they're basically right.

 

What do you expect when the choices for President were dumb and dumber? We've got the same problem this time, not one true statesman in the bunch.

[Phi for All]

Many call it Bush's War but this movie shows it was quite a bipartisan effort that began before Bush.

The movie service is unavailable again so I haven't watched it, but the above is definitely true. I think the war was a neoconservative effort and there were plenty of Reps and Dem neocons. I must admit to a bit of prejudice when it comes to neocons because I remember a time in the 90s when Irving Kristol and other neocons came out in favor of creationism and wrote magazine articles full of anti-Darwinism rhetoric.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that 9/11 changed GWB's mind about neoconservatism. He was being criticized by the neocons as no better than Clinton up until then. I think neocons like Cheney and Wolfowitz had planned for an Iraq invasion and had so many contingencies already in place that GWB was easily led to invade (after a brief stop in Afghanistan to look for someone). It was an emotional time and the neocons had done the groundwork to make it look completely natural for a Republican to agree to be the world's police, a platform most Reps would disagree with, especially moderate ones like GWB claimed to be.

[PhDP]

Unrelated; Is there a conspiration to replace "the" and "there" for "teh" and "tehre". Not that I care about spelling...

 

ah, I see

[Realitycheck]

The umbrella package "war on terror" was clearly biting off more than we could chew. Iraq was simply the best target available, in terms of actual, bonafide countries available to rape and plunder with tons of oil reserves. Why candy-coat it? What can I say? I was simply a victim of the intel that trickled down to me. How hard can it be to get something right?

 

It was a "serendipitous" target.

[bascule]

Many call it Bush's War but this movie shows it was quite a bipartisan effort that began before Bush. It includes statements from Madeline Albright, President Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Jay Rockefeller, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, John Edwards, Evan Bayh and Bush himself.

 

I think there's quite a bit of difference between spewing anti-Saddam rhetoric and invading his country, ousting him as leader, destroying his government/army and instating another one, then executing him.

 

Bottom line: talk is cheap, and actions speak louder and words. I place the onus of engaging in this war squarely upon Bush.

[Pangloss]

The only problem I have with the above is "executing him". We've done worse, perhaps, but we did not do that.

[iNow]

The only problem I have with the above is "executing him". We've done worse, perhaps, but we did not do that.

 

It might be an exaggeration, though, to suggest that we are completely and absolutely siloed from his execution.

 

 

My attachment is from December 30, 2006. Just a reminder that this is real, and not academic.

 

 

 

 

 

[ATTACH]1774[/ATTACH]

[Realitycheck]

I reference his rap sheet again. He had it coming, by any stretch of the imagination. While I don't agree with the terms under which it was carried out, he still had it coming.

 

http://askquestions.org/details.php?id=8461

[iNow]

I reference his rap sheet again. He had it coming, by any stretch of the imagination. While I don't agree with the terms under which it was carried out, he still had it coming.

Yes, because OF COURSE the best way to teach people that killing is wrong is by killing them.

[Pangloss]

It might be an exaggeration, though, to suggest that we are completely and absolutely siloed from his execution.

 

Which is why I didn't do that.

 

That's a nice picture, but it lacks sound. If it did have sound, what you would hear are the people in the room chanting "Muqtada, Muqtada, Muqtada."

[doG]

I place the onus of engaging in this war squarely upon Bush.

 

But the power to declare war lies solely with Congress. Why do they not deserve any of the burden of accountability?

[iNow]

But the power to declare war lies solely with Congress. Why do they not deserve any of the burden of accountability?

 

Perchance, because we haven't officially declared a state of war with the sovereign nation of Iraq? <shrug>

[doG]

Perchance, because we haven't officially declared a state of war with the sovereign nation of Iraq? <shrug>

 

We didn't? Iraq War Resolution - 107th Congress

[iNow]

Ah, not 100% the same, but good point.

[doG]

Ah, not 100% the same, but good point.

 

How's it different? According to the U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 8 the power to declare war is reserved to the Congress of the U.S.. The President cannot declare war, he/she can only execute the laws passed by Congress, in this case Public Law 107-243.

[bascule]

How's it different?

 

Because it's not a formal declaration of war

[Pangloss]

I agree it's not the same, mainly because Congress was fully aware of the difference and wanted it that way, in part because the White House retained most of the responsibility. We're talking about 500 savvy politicians (and mostly lawyers!) here. (grin)

[doG]

Because it's not a formal declaration of war

 

So Congress has no culpability as an enabler because they authorized the war but didn't technically declare it? IMO, they're hands are every bit as dirty.

[Phi for All]

So Congress has no culpability as an enabler because they authorized the war but didn't technically declare it? IMO, they're hands are every bit as dirty.

Remember, these same people had a secret ballot to vote for funding this "war". I think they knew from the onset how unpopular it would be and wanted to cya so no one could point the finger at who authorized the initial $87B (I think that was the correct figure).

[bascule]

So Congress has no culpability as an enabler

 

No, but the document had open-ended provisions which did not stipulate immediate military action in the way a formal declaration of war would.

 

IMO, they're hands are every bit as dirty.

 

In the end it was Bush who made the decision to invade, not Congress.

[Pangloss]

doG, did you miss my reply to you earlier? If you're going to restate your position and pretend I didn't say anything, I feel obligated to repeat my response. What's up with that?

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=399393&postcount=3

 

The problem with all those congressional statements is that they were based on the faulty intelligence that was passed along. All intelligence was' date=' as is always the case, funneled through the administration. The administration decides what anybody outside the executive branch gets to see, INCLUDING congress. It HAS to be that way, otherwise you'll never protect undercover sources, for example, or manage the intelligence community sensibly.

 

But in this case it allowed the administration to pre-determine a course of action and then cherry-pick the intelligence to support that choice. The administration appears to have done its analysis with a jaundiced eye, overlooking more than just logical disagreement -- they actually discounted clear evidence that directly refuted what they believed.

[/quote']