“The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq,” President Bush told Charles Gibson of ABC News. “A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein.” So if the intelligence had correctly concluded that Iraq didn’t have WMDs, Gibson asked, would there have been a war? “You know, that’s an interesting question,” Bush said. “That is a do-over that I can’t do. It’s hard for me to speculate.”
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Raptor on Open thread 11/21
- janeeyre on Open thread 11/21
- Regular on Open thread 11/21
- XXX on Open thread 11/21
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on ACORN stole election?
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
70 Comments
Of course intelligence mattered.
Shrub has none.
Now, what additional mistakes were made with the U.S. economy? And with the automobile industry? And with politics? And by our high paid U.S. Senators and Congressmen who were supposed to be overseeing this whole mess?
They aren’t OUR high-paid U.S. Congressmen, they are the banks’.
And no, he knew we would be going to Iraq the day he took office.
“JWink” –
Our “high-paid” Senators and Congressmen are paid how much?
How much do the CEOs of General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler get paid?
Somehow I suspect you, “JWink,” aren’t that big a fan of the government you claim “…were responsible to be overseeing this whole mess.”
Can we put you, “JWink,” on the list of those Americans who are advocating more regulation of business?
Total BS.
WorstPresidentEver wanted to invade and the WMD’s were just a pretext.
“CapnAmerica” alleges –
“WorstPresidentEver wanted to invade and the WMD’s were just a pretext.”
Actually “WorstPresidentEver” didn’t have an agenda; it was Cheney.
For Shrub to have had an agenda would have depended on his knowing something about what’s going on.
The more you know about George WMD Bush, the more you know he doesn’t know much of anything and doesn’t give a damn.
let the history revisionism begin…
Here is the question I want the SOB asked.
“Does it bother you on even some small level how hated you are and the the damage you are seen as having caused? I mean, you are probably the most hated man on the face of the Earth. How does that feel?”
Isn’t there some political law/rule that states ” If you elect stupid, stupidity follows? Case in point.
Have you noticed that the threads where the editor tees Bush up for the squad of lib haters score very well in the number of posts?
Predictable as a hog at feeding time.
And the wingnuts defending bushco are predictably silent on the mess their dear leaders have made of this nation.
Dont worry though outie. The adults are in charge again and, as usual, they will clean up this republican mess. One in a looooooong line of republican messes.
Of course the intelligence doesnt matter. Cheney already had plans to go, and was waiting on a “new Pear Harbor”. When one didnt appear immediately, he had to create on.
And shrub may have been clueless, but he had his daddy issues to work out, and going after saddam was his way of showing his old man who’s the better bush.
And now we all know who was the “better bush”.
Nice work repukes. You must be so proud of the last eight years.
“It’s hard for me to speculate.”
Not surprising coming from Bush who isn’t known for his intellectual capacity.
And didn’t I just hear that “Jeb” is probably going to run for Senator? Doesn’t he know that people are sick of the Bushes?
Guess I should have read further down on the page before posting here.
” ‘Telligence? ‘Course I got telligence; that’s what I get from the tellie! I’m telligencificated ‘cuz of it! I also get radiated from my Fm.” George Bush
Which groups on the lecture circuit will be paying to hear from bush after he leaves office? Is there an insomnia group?
There’s LOTSA money in those church coffers. I predict he’ll make a ton of money speaking to churches, Klan groups, and Concerned Women of America.
Isnt it interesting that none of the wingnuts are actually defending bush? Just whining about us. Arti Johnson was right.
Interestink. Veeery interestink!
“let the history revisionism begin…”
History revision? Did you say history revision?
Heheheheheh. HAHAHAHAAHA. ROFLMAO.
That’s why kkkarl rove and karen hughes are back on the white house payroll trying to salvage bush’s legacy.
We want history told. They want history revised and whitewashed.
Aint gonna happen. Too much damage out there documenting the destruction wrought by bushco.
Of course there would still have been a War, it was planned years before by the PNAC. Dang Pee’Nackers.
But the deal is, Sadam is out of power, and Iraq will be better off in the long run. The wrongs that were made are done and gone, and Bush has done his Job in improving the mess he made. Obama will clean the rest of it up.
“Barnie” tries –
“…Bush has done his Job in improving the mess he made.”
Like giving the arsonist for almost putting out the fire he set.
“giving the arsonist credit.”
oops
let the history revisionism begin…
Uh, yeah. By BUSH.
Yes, the spinmeisters (e.g. Dana Perino) and liars are fanning out in force (viz. Karen Hughes, Ari Fleisher, hey, where’s McClelland?) trying to blame Bush’s judgment and performance on the intelligence folks. That’s like blaming the troops. Bush’s War was based on lies; his lies. Bush’s legacy will be his Misbegotten War, which he paid for off-budget by borrowing billioins from China, his God Awful Deficit, his corruption, cronyism and incompetence, his Recession which could yet become a Depression (see it yet, Phil Gramm?). Sorry, Dana. More spin, more lies won’t cover up this elephant in the room. But a few subpoenas, a few grand juries and a special prosecutor or two might help shed light on the truth.
…and Iraq will be better off in the long run.
Tell that to the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and the 4000+ U.S. troops and their families.
Saddam could have easily been taken out in a much quieter and much less deadly-to-the-people way. But Halliburton and all the rest wouldn’t have made anything off of it that way.
It was determined in advance that we would go into the Middle East. Because of all that oil, we needed a strong “presence” there. Between Iran and Iraq, the latter was the easist.
Tell that to the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis and the 4000+ U.S. troops and their families.
Yeah, I know. Just saying that what’s done is done. The best we can do, is learn from it, so we don’t get duped again. Plus Bush isn’t completely to blame, his whole administration orchestrated this conundrum and Bush is basically the fall guy, because he’s the head hauncho everyone see’s on t.v. while the his administration gets to sit in the shadows. The only person who I can’t really say that about is William Kristol the founder of PNAC who openly defends the administrations actions on t.v., while admitting mistakes were made. Yes I know that Iraq, Iran, and Syria were on PNAC’s list. But that’s over, we’ll just have to deal with Iraq now, and it’s only to get better there, and they will be better off in the long run, and our soldiers didn’t die for nothing over there. They gave their lives for something greater and more selfless than the freedom of our country, they gave their lives so people in another country can be free. Quit sucking on those lemons, and make some lemonade, you sourpusses.
I notice that STILL the wingnuts here are not defending bushco.
Veeeeery interestink.
Posts crossed.
“Bush is basically the fall guy”
pobrecito
“they gave their lives so people in another country can be free”
They gave their lives for oil, military contractor profits, and bush’s daddy issues.
I’m sorry for them and for their families, but it doesnt change the truth.
It’s always Oil Oil Oil.
Do you own a car?
Do you heat your home with anything other than a wood burning fireplace or stove?
If the answer to either of the above is Yes, you are part of the problem and can look yourself in the mirror if that is what you believe this war to be about.
Do you guys ever think, that Foreign Policy issues, are a little more complicated than Saying something like, “Iraq was just about the oil” well duh oil is a part of it, but we had multiple goals with Iraq. Have easier access to oil, get rid of the dictator Sadam, Free Iraq people, Rebuild Iraq, attract terrorists to Iraq so we could dispose of them there instead of combing the whole world for them, make lots of money for weapons manufactures and all the other companies and corporations that took part in the War effort, and I’m sure there are a ton of other reasons pre-planned, and reasons and goals that came into the picture during the war as well. You see, it’s never about one thing, it’s never as simple as blaming it on one thing like oil. There was nothing we could have done to stop this war, it was planned and orchestrated years before, and with a little bit of luck on part of the Administration from having us the public so worked up in fear over terrorism, we were easily duped by blatant lies into a War that was unnecessary on paper. The end result hasn’t come yet, there will be reverberations for years to come, but just as much good will have been done as bad. The soldiers on the ground doing their job every day, interacting with the Iraqi people are doing more good than everything, what is sad is that people can only focus on the negatives. But improvements would never happen if we didn’t focus on the negatives. Now it’s good to see the problems so we can fix them, but that is exactly what’s wrong with this country is more than anything is a bad attitude it seems most people have. Bad attitudes are contagious, I’m sure you guys know, hanging around negative people will bring you down, even if it’s friends or family, so it would be nice if people can regain some optimism again, because the pessimism will just further spiral us into more problems. I don’t hang out with negative minded people, they are a drain on your emotions, and this whole country is negative right now about the economy, and it’s just going to perpetuate the recession. Life’s not black and white, right or wrong if you noticed, so blaming it all on the oil isn’t going to cut it.
The really chilling part was the media complicity, and not just conservative mouthpieces.
In the run-up to war, skepticism was a rarity among journalists inside the Beltway. Journalist Bob Simon of 60 MINUTES, who was based in the Middle East, questioned the reporting he was seeing and reading. “I mean we knew things or suspected things that perhaps the Washington press corps could not suspect. For example, the absurdity of putting up a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda,” he tells Moyers. “Saddam…was a total control freak. To introduce a wild card like Al Qaeda in any sense was just something he would not do. So I just didn’t believe it for an instant.” The program analyzes the stream of unchecked information from administration sources and Iraqi defectors to the mainstream print and broadcast press, which was then seized upon and amplified by an army of pundits. While almost all the claims would eventually prove to be false, the drumbeat of misinformation about WMDs went virtually unchallenged by the media. THE NEW YORK TIMES reported on Iraq’s “worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb,” but according to Landay, claims by the administration about the possibility of nuclear weapons were highly questionable. Yet, his story citing the “lack of hard evidence of Iraqi weapons” got little play. In fact, throughout the media landscape, stories challenging the official view were often pushed aside while the administration’s claims were given prominence. “From August 2002 until the war was launched in March of 2003 there were about 140 front page pieces in THE WASHINGTON POST making the administration’s case for war,” says Howard Kurtz, the POST’s media critic. “But there was only a handful of stories that ran on the front page that made the opposite case. Or, if not making the opposite case, raised questions.”
“Buying the War” examines the press coverage in the lead-up to the war as evidence of a paradigm shift in the role of journalists in democracy and asks, four years after the invasion, what’s changed? “More and more the media become, I think, common carriers of administration statements and critics of the administration,” says THE WASHINGTON POST’s Walter Pincus. “We’ve sort of given up being independent on our own.”
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html
Point/Counterpoint, wherein the “journalist” moderator does no work and checks no facts, is not journalism, and never has been.
Would a strong presence of a Democratic Union in the middle east make the region and the world safer?
Barnie, with all due respect, I think PNAC was indifferent to the freedom of the Iraqi people. Their goals involved strategic power and, if the Iraqis got freedom from it, fine (if they didn’t get in the way). If they became a problem, brutally crushing them would not have been unacceptable to PNAC’s pundits.
Not that there wasn’t a fair degree of Rumsfeldian incompetence in play, to complicate the matters.
If that all seems excessively cynical, I refer you to the treatment of Iraqi civilians by the US over the past 5 years. It seemed very much like the treatment of Palestinians taken it its logical extreme.
I beg to differ, I think freeing the Iraqi people from Sadam and rebuilding Iraq as a Democratic Nation was part of the main plan. If the other part of the plan was having access to oil, and other financial agendas then they would definitely want to free the Iraqi people and rebuild Iraq. Because if they didn’t, that would make them look like evil money hungry capitalist. See, they need a good goal, a moral victory, to offset the immoral victories they set out to accomplish. So in the end, they can say, yeah we may have had some ulterior motives, but our main goal was to free the Iraqi people, plus there is money to be made in rebuilding a nation anyway, so why wouldn’t they have wanted that as part of their main plan.
“Sadam is out of power, and Iraq will be better off in the long run.”
We said that back when we helped Saddam take over in the first place.
Re: Barnie
Irony really is lost on those most in need of it.
Barnie – if all that wonderful moral stuff was behing Cheney/Bush’s actions then why didn’t they say so? And why their inaction in Darfur and Congo?
Because if they didn’t, that would make them look like evil money hungry capitalist.
You have a point. Maybe they really believed the “greeted as liberators” BS. But then, we now know that the famous toppling of Saddam’s statue was staged by the US military.
I think the actual freedom of the Iraqis was less important to them then the US perception thereof.
than
Ok, Iraq is going to go all to hell, and it will be taken over by a terrorist organization, and millions of people will die, and our soldiers efforts over there were for nothing, so that you can tell their parents that they died in vain for an unworthy cause. If that scenario would make you happy because it fits your beliefs that nothing ever good will come out of Iraq, then you should move out of this country and join a terrorist organization. It’s that kind of hopeless negative attitude that Terrorism groups target to recruit people, because they know those people have nothing to live for, and would like nothing more than to blow themselves up and a bunch of people around them, for their self inflicted hatred that they blame society and the world.
“It’s that kind of hopeless negative attitude that Terrorism groups target to recruit people…” — Barnie
————–
Or we could use this lesson that we should have learned before Iraq but didn’t. This isn’t a negative attitude it is one filled with hope. Hope that America won’t have to repeat this failure again.
Barnie – you are incredibly full of shit. I HOPE that Bush’s DELIBERATE fiaco can be fixed. But don’t you dare try to blame us for Bush’s DELIBERATE actions in Iraq. It is YOUR boy who wanted this. And no, the damage cause to my country and to iraq by YOUR boy does not make me happy. But I do wonder why it all makes you so happy – is it because you plan to blame it all on Obama?
Mr. Kia firmly believes that lowering taxes raises revenue.
Increasing population and a growing economy apparently don’t increase tax revenue . . . only lowering taxes especially on the rich.
So . . . let’s lower all taxes to zero. That way government can make more money than ever and pay down the national debt in just a few years . . .
“If that scenario would make you happy because it fits your beliefs that nothing ever good will come out of Iraq, then you should move out of this country and join a terrorist organization.”
Iraq… the cradle of civilization. Plenty of good has come out of Irag. But nothing good ever comes out of a country invading another country.
Barney blathers that, It’s that kind of hopeless negative attitude that Terrorism groups target to recruit people, because they know those people have nothing to live for, and would like nothing more than to blow themselves up
Really, Barn? You know what motivates terrorists? And because thinking people everywhere consider Bush as the WorstPresidentEver, we’re supporting terrorists?
Yeah . . . well . . . that explains why you’re a CONservative. No thought required . . .
Mr_Kia
Posted December 4, 2008 at 11:05 am | Permalink
Would a strong presence of a Democratic Union in the middle east make the region and the world safer?
*****
Depends. The Palestinians had an election and they put Hamas into power.
The first thing the US did was to use an international embargo to crush Palestinian democracy.
The US tried to do the same thing to Hugo Chavez who was democratically elected to various offices some ten times.
Fortunately, in that case, they did not succeed.
I’m not a Neo Con, Conservative, or Did I vote for Bush once. I’m not blaming anyone for the actions in Iraq. I’m blaming you people for a bad attitude. I don’t hold any hatred for Bush, I hold some resentments. But I do not hate the man, placing all the blame squarely on his shoulders is childish. Our country isn’t ran by one man, it’s ran by hundreds of thousands of people if not millions, that are all citizens. I think Iraq will evolve nicely, I not only hope so, I believe so, I have that kind of faith in our country to right our wrongs, and make the best of it. I’m just sick of hearing and reading so much negativity, if it’s all for the sport of argument, then whatever, play your little games.
Of course the intelligence on Iraq mattered! Why do you think they worked so hard to invent it? Bush and the neo-cons in the cabinet wanted a quick and easy overthrow of Saddam from the minute they came into power, as the beginning of their middle-east domino theory. We would install democracy in Iraq, and all the other countries would see how wonderful it was and immediately convert! And it worked almost as well as their economic theory!
“I’m blaming you people for a bad attitude.”
So, if we just get ourselves some good drugs and put on a drug-induced smile the terrorists will simply disappear and Iraq will magically become a peaceful democracy. And I suppose that if we get enough drugs the economy will bloom too.
Our country isn’t ran [sic] by one man, it’s ran [sic] by hundreds of thousands of people if not millions, that are all citizens.
Wow, for not being “childish,” that sure is childish.
Given the number of Americans who wet their pants everytime they see a beard and turban, the government and its de facto propaganda arm–Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, et al.–can do anything it wants.
Plus Bush isn’t completely to blame, his whole administration orchestrated this conundrum
I don’t remember ever saying he is. I usually say “the Bush admin” or “Bushco”. The man isn’t smart enough to do much of anything on his own, except maybe clear brush. And I’m not sure they want him handling a chainsaw.
As for the orchestrators of the invasion want to tout the democracy b.s., just how far down the list of their “reasons” was that? No, they wanted a strong presence in the ME. They wanted to control oil. And if given the chance, they’d do it again. There IS still time. The India/Pakistan thing may be a blessing for Iran. Somebody else has grabbed world attention, so there’s not much of a way Bushco can create a new story to invade Iran. Let me finally say that “blessing” is not a good word, because the loss of life is never a blessing. But it has played down Iran, although I seriously doubt Congress would have gone along with another Bushco invasion after the Iraq fiasco.
bth,
All it would take is legalizing pot and putting a reasonable tax on it to end our economic woes. It’s the biggest cah crop in the country- bigger than wheat, bigger than soybeans, bigger than biofuel corn- and it’s currently tax-free! Besides, legalizing it would save a bundle on courts and prisons as well. And we’d all let our smiles be our umbrella in these stormy times!
Barnie,
I sincerely hope your vision of a peaceful and loving democracy in Iraq comes true. I have reservations about that actually happening. The only thing the Iraqi government has agreed on is that U.S. troops must leave.
Will there be more bloodshed? I have no doubt there will be. We were not “saving” people in Iraq. Granted, Saddam was a very bad man, but to take him out by invading his country was using an ax, instead of a scalpel.
Yeah, legalizing pot and tax it…
That’s the answer – a nation full of drug induced lackies – great…
Jed,
I agree. And while they’re at it, they might give legalizing prostitution a try, too.
“That’s the answer – a nation full of drug induced lackies – great…”
Yep – that’s what Barnie wants.
“That’s the answer – a nation full of drug induced lackies – great…”
That’s ironic, because, a lot of the people I know only realized the BS this nation pushes when they started using drugs.
Grateful_Dave
Posted December 4, 2008 at 1:06 pm | Permalink
“That’s the answer – a nation full of drug induced lackies – great…”
That’s ironic, because, a lot of the people I know only realized the BS this nation pushes when they started using drugs.
—————————————————-
You mean all the one’s on Acid trips kidnapped by UFO’s? LOL
Mr_KIA …. yep ! that’d be the ones.
drug induced lackies – like Rush?
bth
Posted December 4, 2008 at 1:19 pm | Permalink
drug induced lackies – like Rush?
============
like Obama?
Reggie,
“That’s the answer – a nation full of drug induced lackies – great…”
Do you really think that legalizing it is going to make that much difference in the number of pot smokers? Considering that nearly three quarters of the population has already tried it, I’d say we’re about as stoned as we’re going to get. Might as well make some revenue off it. And if it’s legally available, say sold in liquor stores, it’s gonna put a lot of illegal dealers out of business.
One of my favorite tag lines – You don’t have to smoke to be Norml.
http://norml.org/
“I’d say we’re about as stoned as we’re going to get.”
THere is a big difference between trying pot and smoking it regularly. Just ask Bill Clinton.
RoaCH,
I was one of the few that actually believed Clinton when he said he tried it once and didn’t like it. People who haven’t smoked tobacco often have trouble smoking pot the first time. Tobacco is the real gateway drug!
Looks like all you have to do to get the small government cons clamoring and demanding Big government is mention weed
so what are you gonna do, jed. Make it legal to possess and jail people who plant the seeds in their own gardens. The reason pot isn’t legal is there’s no way to make money off of it.
Barnie you give the PNAC far too much credit. Rage is Principally right in their goal was not a concern for the Iraqis. They saw the U.S. as the biggest kid on the block and as such it should have its way. They really did not think anyone would or could stand in our way. Their desire was to reshape the Middle East and for that matter the world by force.
It being the easiest way since they did not think anyone could stop us.
Iraq was to be a jumping off point, then Iran afterwards Syria till finally we would had conquer the entire middle east including our “Friends” there . Delusional is the perfect word for their ideology. The PNACs concept of Democracy is one where the personal freedoms of the people is to be spied upon and the controlling factor would decide your freedom.