Bush's War

[doG]

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

 

 

 

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

 

Bush asked for the authority to do so and they did knowing his intentions...

 

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

 

Are you trying to say that the Senate Intelligence Committee is filtered by the administration? When they decide to investigate someone or something that they have to ask the administrations permission? Was the UKs intelligence bad because of the U.S. administration also? Was their bad information also filtered by the administration?

 

If you really believe all of that its even more evidence of the incompetence of these congressional members and more reason they should be packing their bags with Bush.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, I'm not sure why anyone would absolve congress of a thing, they're as guilty if not moreso. He wanted to invade another nation and they approved it. Those of us against the idea of the war even if the intelligence had been correct, can maintain that makes no difference to their responsibility.

 

In one very important way, they are worse than Bush. Bush, straight up, believes and insists on war to fix our terror problem. The administration made no bones about it then, and still doesn't now. But congress? The slimy little bastards have flip flopped about the whole war, one day they're passing the buck to Bush junior, the next day they're acting like it's all wrong, then they're going to pull the troops and bring them home, then they admit they need to stay there...etc. I can't keep up with them anymore.

 

Pangloss is right about savvy politicians. From a purely political standpoint, it was beautiful - none of the blame, all of the glory - depending on the outcome they were, and essentially are, covered.

[bascule]

Bush asked for the authority to do so and they did knowing his intentions...

 

Provided they even knew Bush's intentions were to go from zero to all out invasion without any sort of intermediate steps in resolving the situation, why do you feel that means "they're hands are every bit as dirty" as the Commander in Chief who actually ordered the invasion?

[Saryctos]

Could have all been avoided if Germany would have given us access to "curveball" when we asked for it.

[bascule]

Could have all been avoided if Germany would have given us access to "curveball" when we asked for it.

 

I think this war was nigh unavoidable as soon as Bush took office

[ParanoiA]

I think this war was nigh unavoidable as soon as Bush took office

 

It was unavoidable the moment the congress lost their backbone and gave him war powers. How can you possibly separate the two?

 

I understand where Bush is coming from, but not these weiners you're defending. Bush thinks war and the whole superpower game is best for the business of america. That comes from a long line of idiots that idolize world power status and rationalize international authority. That's one dude. One.

 

Congress is made up of lots and lots of dudes - about 535 total. 373 of those dudes voted to give Bush the power to INVADE. That's a grand total of 374 idiots. They had all the intellectual and legislative power at their disposal, and they chose to give war powers to the idiot.

 

Congress seems to only be interested in protecting themselves, like true politicians. While Bush stands up and takes his licks from the public, your precious congress hides in the back row..or at least the democrat ones.

[bascule]

Two things:

 

1) Bush is Commander in Chief. He could've invaded Iraq without Congress's authority. Sure, the Constitution says that Congress has the power to declare war, but they didn't. We invaded a country and ousted its leader without ever declaring war.

 

Sure, Congress were ripe f*cking morons for giving him their blessing. I'm not defending them for that. But it's not like Congress was some brick wall between Bush and Iraq.

 

2) Bush made the decision to invade, not Congress. Had Bush decided not to invade Iraq, we wouldn't be in Iraq. Had Congress decided not to give Bush his blessing, we'd probably still be in Iraq.

[doG]

Congress is made up of lots and lots of dudes - about 535 total. 373 of those dudes voted to give Bush the power to INVADE. That's a grand total of 374 idiots. They had all the intellectual and legislative power at their disposal, and they chose to give war powers to the idiot.

 

Consider this: http://justcontinuing.blogspot.com/2006/05/who-is-at-fault.html

 

Who's really at fault?

[ParanoiA]

Consider this: http://justcontinuing.blogspot.com/2006/05/who-is-at-fault.html

 

Who's really at fault?

 

Preaching to the choir here. We get exactly what we asked for, what we voted for. Personally, I didn't, so I've earned the right to rib those that did.

 

1) Bush is Commander in Chief. He could've invaded Iraq without Congress's authority. Sure' date=' the Constitution says that Congress has the power to declare war, but they didn't. We invaded a country and ousted its leader without ever declaring war.

 

Sure, Congress were ripe f*cking morons for giving him their blessing. I'm not defending them for that. But it's not like Congress was some brick wall between Bush and Iraq.[/quote']

 

Absolutely they should have declared war, and they didn't so they could cover their scared little asses. They were afraid to take a stand and so they didn't - no backbone. They only got their courage once the country slowly woke up to the reality of what we had done. Their sworn job was to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION. Declaring war is a fundamental part of that job.

 

Yes they were a BUNCH of morons that could have been a brick wall between Bush and Iraq. It has required congressional approval to maintain this war. Bush couldn't mount any reasonable invasion without their support. They're even more ridiculous than Bush. He's one guy. They are bunches of guys - and yet still made the same stupid decision. WTF??

 

2) Bush made the decision to invade, not Congress. Had Bush decided not to invade Iraq, we wouldn't be in Iraq. Had Congress decided not to give Bush his blessing, we'd probably still be in Iraq.

 

How is he supposed to do that without any money? Yes, he could mount a pathetic little invasion without congress, and then nothing would come of it without support. Not even Bush is that stupid.

 

Why, oh why are you trying so hard to protect men and women sworn to protect our constitution that shucked their responsibility? Particularly considering what it has cost us both in blood and moral integrity. Consider the money they make, the retirement they enjoy, the medical coverage they get, the prestige, the power - and for what? So they can stab the american people in the back and allow an idiot to wage war without sticking their necks out? No excuse for this.

[Pangloss]

Are you trying to say that the Senate Intelligence Committee is filtered by the administration? When they decide to investigate someone or something that they have to ask the administrations permission? Was the UKs intelligence bad because of the U.S. administration also? Was their bad information also filtered by the administration?

 

No, I agree they could have asked better questions, and chose not to. But they had no reason to ask those questions, at least until they had a basis for thinking the information they were given was false, and by then the invasion was a fait accompli.

 

So says Republican Senator Chuck Hagel in his new book.

 

 

Yeah, I'm not sure why anyone would absolve congress of a thing, they're as guilty if not moreso.

 

I haven't absolved anybody, but by that reasoning then you and I equally guilty, and while you seem to support that notion above a couple posts back, I DON'T. I will accept responsibility for voting for Bush in 2000, but I changed my mind in 2004 in part because of Iraq, so I don't think Iraq is ultimately my fault, even though I had access to the same intelligence and the opportunity to ask the same questions as Congress, and roughly the same degree of control over the situation (by our votes) that congress did.

 

Why I think that way is because I expect a system of checks and balances on intelligence analysis to work as written, and not be subverted by a predetermined goal that automatically rejects contrary evidence.

 

I don't know, this blame-shifting just smells like reactionary partisanship to me. I get that it sucks that your man gets attacked by Michael Moorons, but so what? Let's deal with truth and let the chips fall where they may, guys. That's why they call them the lessons of history.

[ParanoiA]

I haven't absolved anybody, but by that reasoning then you and I equally guilty, and while you seem to support that notion above a couple posts back, I DON'T. I will accept responsibility for voting for Bush in 2000, but I changed my mind in 2004 in part because of Iraq, so I don't think Iraq is ultimately my fault, even though I had access to the same intelligence and the opportunity to ask the same questions as Congress, and roughly the same degree of control over the situation (by our votes) that congress did.

 

I'm not sure I'm following your logic here. I have always said we get the government we deserve and we are responsible for who is elected to office - but that's as a collective. We, as a society, get exactly what we ask for election after election. But that doesn't mean I, personally, got what I asked for, nor does it mean I personally share the blame for the decisions made by those I personally didn't elect.

 

I also would never presume the same level of facts, evidence, information, intellectual support, and etc as our elected officials. It's their job to be experts in governing. So, no, I don't blame us directly either. But I have to accept the reality that politicians won't get elected if we don't elect them. We seem to like leaders that are more concerned about their careers than the nation, as we keep electing people that appear "perfect" and I believe only a con artist can be "perfect" to the american public.

 

I don't know, this blame-shifting just smells like reactionary partisanship to me. I get that it sucks that your man gets attacked by Michael Moorons, but so what? Let's deal with truth and let the chips fall where they may.

 

Not sure what you're refering to here. There's a lot of partisanship in the blame game, and I find both parties at fault to varying degrees. Republicans are wrong, in my opinion, philosophically. Democrats are wrong, in my opinion, by supporting tenuous philosophy more or less depending on the mood of the public and the election cycle. Obviously, I have a bigger problem with democrats here.

 

Of course, that's all oversimplified generalizations.

[Pangloss]

Well I'm not trying to cast aspersions on anybody's opinion, I just don't get this desire to lump congress into it when the little info they had was all created and directed from the same predetermining, non-listening source.

 

I think what drives a lot of this blame-congress business right now is the desire to hold either Hillary or McCain accountable (depending on whom you ask) and prevent them from reaching the White House, and the rest of it is motivated by a desire to defend President Bush's legacy.

 

Thankfully history, unlike politics, just doesn't work that way. Over the fullness of time we've come to understand how little congress knew, how carefully that information was controlled, and how powerless they (or anybody else) were to do anything about it. Over time this will eventually reach the level of public understanding, but at the moment I think we're still in a politicized mode.

[ParanoiA]

Well, I can assure you I have no desire to defend Bush's legacy, although I have a strong desire to defend the ridiculous rhetoric that is used to criticize him. I figure he should be criticized accurately, for his philosophy. Instead I think people try to paint his intent as being malicious when he clearly believes he's doing the right thing.

 

Maybe that doesn't make any difference to most people, but it does to me. I'm probably guilty of it as well, but I certainly try not to be because you can't trust your conclusions when you're jaded.

 

Also, remember that for some of us the intelligence was irrelevant so it doesn't really matter how much of this information was controlled (and I do agree it was a con). Also, they didn't declare war. I know this doesn't make a difference to your position, but it does for us non-interventionist types. I don't think we should let anyone involved in the decision for Iraq intervention off the hook.

[bascule]

Why, oh why are you trying so hard to protect men and women sworn to protect our constitution that shucked their responsibility? Particularly considering what it has cost us both in blood and moral integrity.

 

I certainly blame them. They f*cked up... bad. Really bad, but...

 

I really find it hard to blame the idiots who went along with a scheme masterminded by a cloistered totalitarian group who managed to get voted into control of the country. I mean, that's happened before in history and all, during certain historical periods involving a country starting a world war, and I really can't blame the people who voted them into power. In that case, the Germans. Sure, the German people were making the wrong decision, but can you really blame them? The Treaty of Versailles compelled them to do something, just like 9/11 compelled Americans to do something, even if it was a really stupid option. Not to say that voting Hitler into power is tantamount to authorizing Bush to invade Iraq... if necessary.

 

But... Bush and friends really wanted to invade Iraq. They certainly didn't care what the UN had to say, and effectively committed an international crime. Would Bush be dumb enough to invade Iraq without the funding for a sustained occupation? Who am I to say... I'd sure hope not. But I wouldn't put it past him.

 

All that said, we have two groups: those architecting war with Iraq, and the idiots who were asleep at the wheel and let the whole scheme take place. The idiots are dumb, but they certainly aren't active participants (well, most of them... there were certainly neocons active in Congress). I find blaming the majority of congress for Iraq about as convincing as blaming the German people for voting Hitler into power.

 

(...awaits the first lol Godwin's Law lol...)

[doG]

I don't know, this blame-shifting just smells like reactionary partisanship to me.

 

What blame shifting? It certainly hasn't been any intent of mine to shift any blame, only to point out that there are plenty of others that deserve their share of the blame. It's the election season and everyone needs to be aware of all the waffling politicians that deserve the limelight of blame as much as Bush does. Bush is gone since he's not eligible for reelection but those that are need not be reelected to any position in government.

[Pangloss]

Um, that's one of the funniest posts I've read here in a while, doG, although I don't think you really meant it to be funny.

[iNow]

Back to the title of the thread...

 

A fantastic special by PBS Frontline, called "Bush's War." I just watched part one of this special, and as per usual, I am in awe of PBS's ability to cover a story in depth.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

 

 

Watch it for yourself online.

[doG]

I just watched part one of this special, and as per usual, I am in awe of PBS's ability to cover a story in depth.

 

I noticed immediately the dismal coverage of Congress' role. In over 400 interviews including a variety of people from the Reagan, Clinton and Bush administrations and the justice department but I could not find one interview with anyone in Congress. What did Congress know or not know? When did they know it? To what extent did they question it? To what extent did Congress represent its constituents before voting to authorize military force? Did Congress do the job it is elected to do? Did Congress do their job even half as well as PBS has? I think not, send 'em all home this election season.

[ParanoiA]

I second that. I was impressed with PBS's presentation, but as usual, not too impressed with completion. They brought up terrific insights and truths related to Bush and the rushed NIE report, the tunnel vision and spin and etc, complete with the standard still photos with slow zoom and chilly background music that could make Mother Teresa suddenly appear like the antichrist.

 

But they didn't talk about congress really at all. Definitely covered their butts as they indirectly strengthened the notion that congress was entirely tricked with no responsibility whatsoever.

[iNow]

I enjoyed the special so much, I wound up watching Part 2 before going to sleep last night. Stupid 3am nights on a weekday. I'm tired.

 

 

I agree, it would have been nice to see the Congress angle. That's key. However, you can tell that they had a hard enough time fitting all of the information they did into the 4-5 hours, so I'll cut them some slack.

 

Also, I sort of wonder if Congress really would have been able to do anything. As the presentation on Bremmer showed when he was "viceroy," even those in charge could not keep key individuals from just acting and doing the things they wanted. The actions were siloed and there was no single source of power to coordinate and control everything else.

 

Either way... maybe we'll see a good special on the congress' role soon.

 

 

<yawn> I am glad I stayed up and watched it, but work and school today are going to be challenging.

[Pangloss]

I watched it in high def when it came on. I thought about starting a thread on it but I held off since it wasn't really new, but it's funny how often it's been coming back to me over the subsequent period.

 

I think the main thing about it that's useful is that it just does a great job summarizing a complex issue. These details are important, and we need to pay attention to them in order to learn the lesson here and stop it from happening again.

[iNow]

It makes me feel more humane towards Bush. I don't care how good of a leader you are, it's really difficult to organize a room full of "elephants" like that. Strange... Soon... cats and dogs will start getting along, too.

[Pangloss]

Yes, elephants indeed. I think there's still a lot of story to be told about the relationships between figures like Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and (importantly!) the "lesser" figures like Wolfowitz, Armitage, et al. It's also interesting to compare and contrast this group with the same roles in previous administrations -- the Nixon and Kennedy cabinets are fascinating comparisons -- and to look at what worked (and a lot did!), what didn't work, and why.

 

And you know what's most prominent amongst the mysteries remains Bush's personal opinions about his people and their political predispositions. Isn't it interesting how little of that story has been told? People often assume that he was just unaware of their politics, but some aspects of Bob Woodward's books suggest otherwise, and I have a feeling that there's a very interesting story there, which we may or may not ever hear.