George W Bush: I Have Come To Realise Power Can Be Corrosive

[simple1]

No one is hating in America. Just criticizing the decision to invade Iraq a second time which may be one of the costliest blunders ever. Although it sure did make all the Halliburton guys wealthy.

Criticizing a bad decision of a President, that actually made a lot of bad decisions, is nit hating in America at all. Unusual projection there.

I'm saying that Tony Blair and Great Britain were in it up to their eyeballs, but they get a pass.

We Brits were never asked, hell Blair didn't even consult his cabinet.

From article below. "Lord Turnbull said that the cabinet was effectively not asked to approve the war until three days before fighting began – by which time their options were limited".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/8281731/Tony-Blair-went-to-war-without-cabinet-consent-senior-mandarins-say.html

[geriatrickid]

As much as some people want to bash Bush, he is the only world leader that made a big difference in the developing world in respect to addressing infectious disease. The man's push for the funding of malaria, HIV and pediatric GI illnesses has saved many lives. His work PEPFAR plan for HIV treatment is estimated to have reduced the African mortality by 10% and saved in excess of 1million lives.

As per the ABC news report on the man's legacy; At the opening of the Bush Presidential library, President Clinton said in his travels throughout Africa he had “personally seen the faces of some of the millions of people who are alive today” because of Bush’s policies. Even some of Bush’s most ardent critics have admitted that his foreign policy legacy on Africa continues to have a lasting effect. U2 front-man and activist Bono, who criticized Bush on the Iraq War, nonetheless expressed his admiration for the Republican president on an appearance on the Daily Show last year, telling Stewart that Bush did an “amazing” job in the fight against the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa. “I know that’s hard for you to accept,” Bono said to a surprised crowd and host, “but George kind of knocked it out of the park. I can tell you, and I’m actually here to tell you that America now has 5 million people being kept alive by these drugs. That’s something that everyone should know.”

Whatever his faults, the man also did some tremendous good and I would offer far more good than any of the so called "socially responsible" European governments have done in Africa.

[Exsexyman]

No one is hating in America. Just criticizing the decision to invade Iraq a second time which may be one of the costliest blunders ever. Although it sure did make all the Halliburton guys wealthy.

Criticizing a bad decision of a President, that actually made a lot of bad decisions, is nit hating in America at all. Unusual projection there.

I'm saying that Tony Blair and Great Britain were in it up to their eyeballs, but they get a pass.

You are quite correct in saying that Blair was in it up to his eyeballs, he stood up in parliament and cold bloodedly lied his arse off regarding the non existent WMD. But you are quite wrong to say that he is getting a free pass, certainly in the UK the opposite is the case, where he is pretty much despised by most people, who have seen through his lies. Like most politicians on both sides of the Atlantic his priority has always been self, self self. Like his buddy G W Bush he professes to be a Christian, but the reality is that he long ago started worshipping the other God called Mammon. As soon as he stepped down as Prime Minister he was rewarded for his treacherous lies and was 'employed' by Morgan Stanley as a 'consultant', on a reported salary of $2 million dollars a year. The enclosed link will tell you all you need to know as to why these wars to destabilise countries in the Middle East are fought. And it has absolutely nothing to do with concern for, and bringing freedom to, the poor downtrodden citizens. Anyone who believes that is the case is surely capable of believing six impossible things before breakfast!

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8e4f14a6-179a-11e1-b157-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2V1JIBNP1

[BradinAsia]

You can read the lead up to the war on Wiki. It is far from simple as some seem to think. Then there's the little issue of 500 train cars of yellow cake (which Canada took), anthrax and more found in IQ. Still a mistake sure, based on bad intel. But heck, they were shooting at our jets daily in the no fly zone, makes you mad yeah ? I'd take an honest person over what we have now any day.

"I'd take an honest person over what we have now any day."

OMG, you surely don't mean that George Bush was an honest person.

He could be called many things, but please don't use the words "honest",

bright" or "good" in the same sentence with George Bush.

[NeverSure]

No one is hating in America. Just criticizing the decision to invade Iraq a second time which may be one of the costliest blunders ever. Although it sure did make all the Halliburton guys wealthy.

Criticizing a bad decision of a President, that actually made a lot of bad decisions, is nit hating in America at all. Unusual projection there.

I'm saying that Tony Blair and Great Britain were in it up to their eyeballs, but they get a pass.

You are quite correct in saying that Blair was in it up to his eyeballs, he stood up in parliament and cold bloodedly lied his arse off regarding the non existent WMD. But you are quite wrong to say that he is getting a free pass, certainly in the UK the opposite is the case, where he is pretty much despised by most people, who have seen through his lies. Like most politicians on both sides of the Atlantic his priority has always been self, self self. Like his buddy G W Bush he professes to be a Christian, but the reality is that he long ago started worshipping the other God called Mammon. As soon as he stepped down as Prime Minister he was rewarded for his treacherous lies and was 'employed' by Morgan Stanley as a 'consultant', on a reported salary of $2 million dollars a year. The enclosed link will tell you all you need to know as to why these wars to destabilise countries in the Middle East are fought. And it has absolutely nothing to do with concern for, and bringing freedom to, the poor downtrodden citizens. Anyone who believes that is the case is surely capable of believing six impossible things before breakfast!

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8e4f14a6-179a-11e1-b157-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2V1JIBNP1

So please tell me why Brits are so quick to bash America or Americans, when it was apparently Blair and Bush who got us all into this? Britain supplied more troops per capita than the US did, and were in it up to their eyeballs.

Again, I'm not defending the assault on Iraq. I was against it from the beginning and still don't understand why it was done. I don't see anything of value taken, not even their oil.

I just don't understand why Brits will bash the US for it, when they provided more horsepower per capita to the invasion than the US did.

Can anyone explain it please? I have nothing against the British people, but I've never understood why so many act as if it was just the US.

[NeverSure]

So please tell me why Brits are so quick to bash America or Americans, when it was apparently Blair and Bush who got us all into this? Britain supplied more troops per capita than the US did, and were in it up to their eyeballs.

Again, I'm not defending the assault on Iraq. I was against it from the beginning and still don't understand why it was done. I don't see anything of value taken, not even their oil.

I just don't understand why Brits will bash the US for it, when they provided more horsepower per capita to the invasion than the US did.

Can anyone explain it please? I have nothing against the British people, but I've never understood why so many act as if it was just the US.

I for one am prepared to acknowledge the part that Blair and the British military took in the war crimes in Iraq - and Afghanistan of that matter. However, Bush and those who controlled him were running the show.

If that's the case, then please tell me who was controlling Bush? Bush ain't all that.. Some people give him to much credit IMHO.

Edited June 2, 2013 by craigt3365
Corrected name of Blair

[Mosha]

So please tell me why Brits are so quick to bash America or Americans, when it was apparently Blair and Bush who got us all into this? Britain supplied more troops per capita than the US did, and were in it up to their eyeballs.

Again, I'm not defending the assault on Iraq. I was against it from the beginning and still don't understand why it was done. I don't see anything of value taken, not even their oil.

I just don't understand why Brits will bash the US for it, when they provided more horsepower per capita to the invasion than the US did.

Can anyone explain it please? I have nothing against the British people, but I've never understood why so many act as if it was just the US.

I for one am prepared to acknowledge the part that Blair and the British military took in the war crimes in Iraq - and Afghanistan of that matter. However, Bush and those who controlled him were running the show.

If that's the case, then please tell me who was controlling Bush? Bush ain't all that.. Some people give him to much credit IMHO.

Big business and the people who own the Federal Reserve.

[Hedghog]

Unfortunately High IQ.

Doesn't mean common sense,

[craigt3365]

A few posts have been removed from view and a few others have had edits. Please use people's names properly. Whether you like them or not, please show some respect and abide by forum rules.

[Evolare]

Its refreshing to get some honest words coming from a politician.

We say thailand is corrupt and it is but the difference with them and western politicians is that western politicians are much better at disguising the corruption as something else. One thing i quite enjoyed with dubya was his sense of humor and silly antics...and of course all the bloopers and i think obama will beat dubya (george w) in the unpopularity ratings very soon.

His campain words change and hope...very altered to chains and nope...

Edited June 2, 2013 by Evolare

[NeverSure]

So please tell me why Brits are so quick to bash America or Americans, when it was apparently Blair and Bush who got us all into this? Britain supplied more troops per capita than the US did, and were in it up to their eyeballs.

Again, I'm not defending the assault on Iraq. I was against it from the beginning and still don't understand why it was done. I don't see anything of value taken, not even their oil.

I just don't understand why Brits will bash the US for it, when they provided more horsepower per capita to the invasion than the US did.

Can anyone explain it please? I have nothing against the British people, but I've never understood why so many act as if it was just the US.

I for one am prepared to acknowledge the part that Blair and the British military took in the war crimes in Iraq - and Afghanistan of that matter. However, Bush and those who controlled him were running the show.

If that's the case, then please tell me who was controlling Bush? Bush ain't all that.. Some people give him to much credit IMHO.

Big business and the people who own the Federal Reserve.

OK, I'll let it go at that. I don't see how the Federal Reserve had any influence on Great Britain, but maybe big business did. It's well known that Cheney was entrenched with Halliburton. I still can't get the connection as to why Blair and Great Britain got involved.

I do appreciate people here not arguing that Blair and Great Britain were in on it too.

As a peon, I'll probably never know why we invaded Iraq. I was dumbfounded at the time. For one thing, if the reason was WMDs and both Britain and the US had solid intelligence, it seems they would have just gone and gotten those. Even then we had the ability to just take them out. I don't know how one would know for sure they had them but not know where they were.

Not so long ago Israel took out WMDs in Syria with just an overflight. That didn't seem so difficult.

Thanks for the respectful and honest conversation.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts deleted.

[Exsexyman]

So please tell me why Brits are so quick to bash America or Americans, when it was apparently Blair and Bush who got us all into this? Britain supplied more troops per capita than the US did, and were in it up to their eyeballs.

Again, I'm not defending the assault on Iraq. I was against it from the beginning and still don't understand why it was done. I don't see anything of value taken, not even their oil.

I just don't understand why Brits will bash the US for it, when they provided more horsepower per capita to the invasion than the US did.

Can anyone explain it please? I have nothing against the British people, but I've never understood why so many act as if it was just the US.

I for one am prepared to acknowledge the part that Blair and the British military took in the war crimes in Iraq - and Afghanistan of that matter. However, Bush and those who controlled him were running the show.

If that's the case, then please tell me who was controlling Bush? Bush ain't all that.. Some people give him to much credit IMHO.

In my opinion Tony Blair is, if anything, more culpable. Without his willingness to abandon any moral compass he may have had,(If he ever had one in the first place), and place himself at the forefront , banging the drum for the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration would have found it very difficult to do so. They would have been out on a limb. But Blair was blinded by the dollar signs in front of his eyes. Who knows what went on in the private meetings he had with G W Bush in the months leading up to the invasion, when the deal was done between them. Between them they were determined to invade come what may, and if this meant lying to Parliament, 'sexing up' the 'dodgy dossier' regarding the non existent WMD,(which cost poor Dr David Kelly his life), so be it. Remember Hans Blix, who was sent to Iraq to investigate the WMD claims, who came back reporting that they didn't exist. He was promptly fired, and replaced with somebody more complient who would come up with the answer they wanted to hear. Blair went along with the whole dishonest debacle for his own avaricious reasons. Despite his self proclaimed christian convictions, all the evidence since he stood down as Prime Minister suggests that his true God is money, and lots of it. It is a fact that after the invasion of Iraq J P Morgan were 'selected' to run the new Western trade bank there, replacing the state owned Iraqi bank. It is also a fact that as soon as Tony Blair stood down as British PM he was appointed as a consultant to J P Morgan on a salary of at least $2 million dollars, some estimates put it even higher. A child could join the dots here. Tony Blair is a charlatan, albeit a very clever one, whose only driving force is self enrichment. This link throws some light on that.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/26/tony-blair-accused-of-blending-diplomacy-with-business-deals-documentary.html

Never sure, you say that you can't see anything of value taken from the war in Iraq, with respect i think you are being a little naive. The reality is that the country has been pillaged, basic infrastructure like clean water, proper sewerage systems, electricity etc which were destroyed by Western bombing, is still vitually non existent nearly ten years on. This despite 'no bid' contracts worth billions of dollars being awarded to Western corporations to address these problems, with the massive profits going straight back to the US, with no benefit at all to the Iraqi economy, or in most cases no benefit to the US taxpayer either. The same applies, albeit maybe on a smaller scale to British companies too. It is obscene.

http://www.ifg.org/analysis/globalization/IraqTestimony.html

[Naam]

His IQ is reportedly 126. He is far from stupid.

[Shotime]

I wonder who really had the power. He's too dim to run a hairdryer let alone an aggressive military power. It must have been those shadowy figures who always stood by his shoulder.

Whoever wrote his little speech should be sacked. How on earth could he be prompted to say words to the effect that 'he doesn't 'feel sorry for them' and that they were 'volunteers' in war'? He never did have much in the way of speaking skills, I suppose.

They were basically cannon fodder.I wonder if G.W. will ever face a war crimes trial. Cheney (sp?) called the shots for the military-industrial demons.

I just discovered the RT network here. It's the anti-Fox news channel. I think it's from Russia, but they seem to know what is really going on. It's scary.

[Ulysses G.]

I just discovered the RT network here. It's the anti-Fox news channel. I think it's from Russia, but they seem to know what is really going on.

Yeah, RT "seem to know what is really going on."

Russia Today is a cynical, opportunistic propaganda machine, churning out anti-Western lies and distortion to a ready and willing online audience. An audience willing to believe anything, to listen to any charlatan, as long as it confirms their prejudices. I’ve written about conspiracy theories in this magazine before, and Russia Today is rife with them. If you’re willing to believe the propaganda of a gutless and bootlicking organisation like Russia Today, you’ll believe anything. http://notsoreviews.com/2012/07/20/dont-be-fooled-russia-today-is-trash/

[OldChinaHam]

I just discovered the RT network here. It's the anti-Fox news channel. I think it's from Russia, but they seem to know what is really going on.

Yeah, RT "seem to know what is really going on."

Russia Today is a cynical, opportunistic propaganda machine, churning out anti-Western lies and distortion to a ready and willing online audience. An audience willing to believe anything, to listen to any charlatan, as long as it confirms their prejudices. I’ve written about conspiracy theories in this magazine before, and Russia Today is rife with them. If you’re willing to believe the propaganda of a gutless and bootlicking organisation like Russia Today, you’ll believe anything. http://notsoreviews.com/2012/07/20/dont-be-fooled-russia-today-is-trash/

I am afraid I stopped watching when Alyona Minkovski left RT.

She was really one hot babe who also had Bush's number.

I am sure that Bush would have loved to watch Alyona, too.

If they had allowed him to watch, while he was in the White House.

Edited June 2, 2013 by OldChinaHam

[BookMan]

I just discovered the RT network here. It's the anti-Fox news channel. I think it's from Russia, but they seem to know what is really going on.

Yeah, RT "seem to know what is really going on."

Russia Today is a cynical, opportunistic propaganda machine, churning out anti-Western lies and distortion to a ready and willing online audience. An audience willing to believe anything, to listen to any charlatan, as long as it confirms their prejudices. I’ve written about conspiracy theories in this magazine before, and Russia Today is rife with them. If you’re willing to believe the propaganda of a gutless and bootlicking organisation like Russia Today, you’ll believe anything. http://notsoreviews.com/2012/07/20/dont-be-fooled-russia-today-is-trash/

Russia Today (RT) is a super slick propaganda machine. I'm not sure if it offers its cable channel free but every Hotel I stay in Thailand seems to have had it and i'm sure this is repeated around the world.

What distinguishes RT from previous propaganda machines is its 24 hour worldwide reach and its ready acceptance around the globe in the traditional anti-soviet countries.

It produces a product as hard hitting news and breaking stories with no acknowledgement of its real agenda.

Fox News might be biased, but it has nothing on RT

Edited June 2, 2013 by BookMan

[OldChinaHam]

I just discovered the RT network here. It's the anti-Fox news channel. I think it's from Russia, but they seem to know what is really going on.

Yeah, RT "seem to know what is really going on."

Russia Today is a cynical, opportunistic propaganda machine, churning out anti-Western lies and distortion to a ready and willing online audience. An audience willing to believe anything, to listen to any charlatan, as long as it confirms their prejudices. I’ve written about conspiracy theories in this magazine before, and Russia Today is rife with them. If you’re willing to believe the propaganda of a gutless and bootlicking organisation like Russia Today, you’ll believe anything. http://notsoreviews.com/2012/07/20/dont-be-fooled-russia-today-is-trash/

Russia Today (RT) is a super slick propaganda machine. I'm not sure if it offers its cable channel free but every Hotel I stay in Thailand seems to have had it and i'm sure this is repeated around the world.

What distinguishes RT from previous propaganda machines is its 24 hour worldwide reach and its ready acceptance around the globe in the traditional anti-soviet countries.

It produces a product as hard hitting news and breaking stories with no acknowledgement of its real agenda.

Fox News might be biased, but it has nothing on RT

Yes, agreed in many cases. But this is even more reason to watch it! This is just called soft power.

And you will be seeing much more of it from China in the coming years, this country is now making great effort to put together news programming that can be as good as that of RT.

Who likes government run news, anyway?

Still, plenty of fun to watch, and you can learn a lot if you keep your whits about you.

Which I never do.

Edited June 2, 2013 by OldChinaHam

[F430murci]

I wonder who really had the power. He's too dim to run a hairdryer let alone an aggressive military power. It must have been those shadowy figures who always stood by his shoulder.

Whoever wrote his little speech should be sacked. How on earth could he be prompted to say words to the effect that 'he doesn't 'feel sorry for them' and that they were 'volunteers' in war'? He never did have much in the way of speaking skills, I suppose.

They were basically cannon fodder.I wonder if G.W. will ever face a war crimes trial. Cheney (sp?) called the shots for the military-industrial demons.

I just discovered the RT network here. It's the anti-Fox news channel. I think it's from Russia, but they seem to know what is really going on. It's scary.

Not sure why mods deleted this before, but his dad. He went to his father a lot and according to Barbara Bush in mud 2000, Jr. relied upon and listened to his father a lot. Father probably had way more influence on Bush's administration member with whom he had the ling relationship.

Bush, however, still had the power and is still responsible. A lot of chefs in that kitchen perhaps led to bad decisions, particular when certain chefs had certain personal agendas.

I believe toward the end he began to realize how he was manipulated and tried to do things that he believed in. I actually began to like him as a person and felt a bit sorry for him. His demeanor and the way he spoke revealed a lot of regret the last two years.

He made an effort to change his legacy and I believe he shut a lot of people out that had manipulated him for years toward the last two years. The damage, however, had been done and was irreversible at that point.

Edited June 2, 2013 by F430murci

[FDog]

Sorry, he comes off as pretty darned stupid.

If he really has a high IQ, that doesn't mean he used it.

Clearly his bizarre fundamentalism (God talks to him when making big decisions, yeah right) was a crutch.

His Iraq war invasion was the biggest foreign policy mistake in American history.

England provided one-third of the troops for the Iraq invasion. There were more than 20 countries in that invasion, including Thailand.

Tony Blair stood before his country and stated that there were weapons of mass destruction which had to be taken out.

Now of course it's all Bush's fault. Certainly it's all the US fault. Never mind that Britain has high quality intelligence who themselves said there were WMDs,

Both the US Congress and the British Parliament voted to go to war. That's a lot of people. Even liberal Democrats in the US congress voted to declare war on Iraq.

So how do you explain Britain providing 1/3 of the troops with approval from Parliament, along with 20 other countries, and then blame Bush?

Your revisionist history makes you look like what you are, speaking of IQ.

I blame it all on Tony Blair and the Brits.

Why other countries joined in is easy to explain.

'You are either with us or against us'.

So with the US being an economic power the smaller countries just joined in to not be offside with the good old US of A.

Also many countries had very little intelligence on WMD as most of that intelligence came from the USA. So most of the world believed Bush when he lied about the WMD's and just hoped they would be found.

Now that the majority of the world knows the US govt will lie to them to get their own way they may not be so quick to back them next time.

You're kidding, right? The UK doesn't have really good intelligence of its own? 1/3 of the troops which invaded Iraq were British. Tony Blair told his nation there were WMDs from the UK's intelligence. The UK told the world there were WMD's.

What's a WMD? I never heard anyone say he had nukes. Saddam Hussein had killed thousands of people with poison gas during the Anfal campaign. His own people tried him and hanged him.

I didn't support the invasion of Iraq, believing that it was up to the people to get rid of Hussein if that was their choice. Many countries have had revolutions to remove leaders and I felt that was up to the people if they wanted it.

I didn't vote for or support Bush either although I now think Gore would have been worse. He's crazy.

But I don't buy the idea that anyone lied. Many think those WMD's were moved to Syria as Hussein saw the invasion coming. Many believe they are still there. I don't think anyone on this forum really knows what happened but I put my beliefs on the clear fact that the British intelligence, on their own, also believed the WMD's were there and voted to go to war.

Too many make this into an American invasion which it wasn't. More than 20 countries including Thailand provided troops for that invasion.

I think this is another hate America thread, not an objective thread.

So what was Thailand's intelligence on the WMD's that led to them sending troops. I doubt they had any except what was given to them by the US.

Australia didn't have it's own intelligence to show Iraq had WMD's

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/howard-ignored-advice-and-went-to-war-in-iraq-20130411-2ho5d.html

The US was leading the way, most countries just believed and followed them so that they weren't seen to be 'against' them.

So using the 20 countries providing troops scenario to indicate that those 20 countries had independent intelligence indicating WMD's is just wrong.

[samran]

I'll always struggle to be critical.

Unless you were sitting in that chair, getting the same information and advice that he did, then you are never going to be fully aware of the forces leading to him making a call on Iraq. People elect people into these positions to make the tough calls that can't be made by some junior flunky farther down the decision tree. And by tough decisions, I mean the ones that no matter what decision they make, there will still be huge losers. In this case, the question was, "how to I best ensure that there is not another attack on US soil on my watch"?

You elect them, you place your trust in them, for the most part you have to believe the decision they've made is the best one, on balance, for the country.

[F430murci]

I'll always struggle to be critical.

Unless you were sitting in that chair, getting the same information and advice that he did, then you are never going to be fully aware of the forces leading to him making a call on Iraq. People elect people into these positions to make the tough calls that can't be made by some junior flunky farther down the decision tree. And by tough decisions, I mean the ones that no matter what decision they make, there will still be huge losers. In this case, the question was, "how to I best ensure that there is not another attack on US soil on my watch"?

You elect them, you place your trust in them, for the most part you have to believe the decision they've made is the best one, on balance, for the country.

Okay, so who really believed that we could go in and take out Sadam Hussien in a few months, the people of Iraq would cheer and put us on their Christmas list, we could then immediately leave and Iraq would be a better and more stable place.

Either Bush administration believed that in which case they were stupid or they had another more surreptitious agenda.

[Scott]

I spent several years in Iraq. It was a country that was replete with false information. Saddam was always everywhere, he was seen everywhere, he knew everything....he was the boogyman. There were WMD everywhere, and everyone seemed to know he had them, but no one seemed to know where. It was a country that was full of false information.

My staff was certain I was a CIA agent as did everyone where I lived. I asked them one time, since I was under 24 hour guard and had no phone service and only they could speak the language on the two way radio, where I got information and who I passed it on to. I mean, they knew everybody I met with and they knew I didn't speak either Arabic or Kurdish.

Any information coming from Iraq was questionable at best.

[F430murci]

I spent several years in Iraq. It was a country that was replete with false information. Saddam was always everywhere, he was seen everywhere, he knew everything....he was the boogyman. There were WMD everywhere, and everyone seemed to know he had them, but no one seemed to know where. It was a country that was full of false information.

My staff was certain I was a CIA agent as did everyone where I lived. I asked them one time, since I was under 24 hour guard and had no phone service and only they could speak the language on the two way radio, where I got information and who I passed it on to. I mean, they knew everybody I met with and they knew I didn't speak either Arabic or Kurdish.

Any information coming from Iraq was questionable at best.

Living on the edge. Had to be very tense at times and I bet it puts the little daily aggravations and annoyances in perspective.

If WMD was an automatic green light to invade, why weren't we in North Korea, Syria, Iran, and etc. in 2003.

Perhaps Iraq had zero do do with WMD and more to do with hit attemp on Sr. reaction to 911, and a misuse of power by someone adiitrdly letting power go to his head.

[skippybangkok]

I miss him, he always provided great material for late night shows.

[Ulysses G.]

I'll always struggle to be critical.

Unless you were sitting in that chair, getting the same information and advice that he did, then you are never going to be fully aware of the forces leading to him making a call on Iraq. People elect people into these positions to make the tough calls that can't be made by some junior flunky farther down the decision tree. And by tough decisions, I mean the ones that no matter what decision they make, there will still be huge losers. In this case, the question was, "how to I best ensure that there is not another attack on US soil on my watch"?

You elect them, you place your trust in them, for the most part you have to believe the decision they've made is the best one, on balance, for the country.

Okay, so who really believed that we could go in and take out Sadam Hussien in a few months, the people of Iraq would cheer and put us on their Christmas list, we could then immediately leave and Iraq would be a better and more stable place.

Either Bush administration believed that in which case they were stupid or they had another more surreptitious agenda.

My guess has always been that they felt if they could establish a real Western-friendly democracy run by Arabs that the other countries in the region would want to emulate them - kind of what the Arab spring was supposed to be. It seems to me that they gave the people in the region way too much credit for the possibility of acting sensibly. The first George Bush had it right.

Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome- George Bush (Senior)

Edited June 2, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[geriatrickid]

Although, the USA gets lambasted on Iraq, it seems that the bashers conveniently forget the pressure that was brought to bear on the west by the Gulf State countries. The Gulf States were demanding action be taken. These are the countries that provide much the EU's oil. In case anyone forgets, it was Kuwait that Iraq attempted to annex, and it was the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain that were scared of Iraq as there were hostile relations. Why do some people forget that the sanctions imposed upon Iraq were not working. Multiple countries were busting the sanctions including some of the EU's own, and it was shown that even some UN related officials were profiting from the "oil for food" program.

Let's fast forward to Syria. Today we see the same situation. Countries in the region are demanding that the west take action against Syria.. Again France and the UK are making the same mistake of acting upon their client states in the Gulf region's requests. Only the USA has resisted. Do you think the USA has learnt from the Iraq war fiasco? I think it has. Let's go back to Libya. It was the EU that pushed the Libyan intervention and not the USA, although it was the USA that got stuck with a large part of the workload. And yet, today we have the same arguments of Europeans blaming the USA for the Libyan war. Apparently, EU nationals are oblivious to the aggressive actions Italy, France, the UK and Spain had adopted prior to the invasion.

The Iraq war will be judged differently in a decade once the region settles down. IMO, Iraq is better off without Hussein. Yes, there are bombings and sectarian strife. However, if one looks back at the brutal regime of Iraq, there were similar fights with the Kurds, the Marsh arabs, and with neighbours. People lived in terror of the government. It is unfair to blame Bush for the Iraq results, Why? Becaause Iran has been intentionally funding many of the terrorist groups and has been intentionally destabilizing Iraq since day 1. Why does Bush get blamed for this, and no one holds the Iranians and the regimes friends in Russia responsible?

[chuckd]

I spent several years in Iraq. It was a country that was replete with false information. Saddam was always everywhere, he was seen everywhere, he knew everything....he was the boogyman. There were WMD everywhere, and everyone seemed to know he had them, but no one seemed to know where. It was a country that was full of false information.

My staff was certain I was a CIA agent as did everyone where I lived. I asked them one time, since I was under 24 hour guard and had no phone service and only they could speak the language on the two way radio, where I got information and who I passed it on to. I mean, they knew everybody I met with and they knew I didn't speak either Arabic or Kurdish.

Any information coming from Iraq was questionable at best.

Before leaving Saudi in 2008, I had the pleasure of a Saudi General, an old friend, dropping by my office for a visit. He had returned to Riyadh from the Eastern Province and, during our chat, he told me he had been assigned to command an SF detachment on the Iraqi border just for possible actions required by the coalition during the initial invasion phase. During our chat I asked him if he had any idea where the WMDs had gone.

He told me Syria.

Perhaps questionable information as well, but I had worked with him since he was an aspiring young officer and trusted him.

[OldChinaHam]

I'll always struggle to be critical.

Unless you were sitting in that chair, getting the same information and advice that he did, then you are never going to be fully aware of the forces leading to him making a call on Iraq. People elect people into these positions to make the tough calls that can't be made by some junior flunky farther down the decision tree. And by tough decisions, I mean the ones that no matter what decision they make, there will still be huge losers. In this case, the question was, "how to I best ensure that there is not another attack on US soil on my watch"?

You elect them, you place your trust in them, for the most part you have to believe the decision they've made is the best one, on balance, for the country.

Okay, so who really believed that we could go in and take out Sadam Hussien in a few months, the people of Iraq would cheer and put us on their Christmas list, we could then immediately leave and Iraq would be a better and more stable place.

Either Bush administration believed that in which case they were stupid or they had another more surreptitious agenda.

My guess has always been that they felt if they could establish a real Western-friendly democracy run by Arabs that the other countries in the region would want to emulate them - kind of what the Arab spring was supposed to be. It seems to me that they gave the people in the region way too much credit for the possibility of acting sensibly. The first George Bush had it right.

Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome- George Bush (Senior)

Just one question though --- Do you really think the government of the USA wants a true democracy, which is to say a democracy which governs and acts according to the will of the people? When you say a Western-friendly democracy, you do not really mean democracy if the majority of the people do not feel friendly to the "West". So it is not a democracy that the USA is necessarily hoping to establish. It could be any government which follows the will of the US that would be most to the liking of Washington, democratic or not does not really matter, that much.

Edited June 2, 2013 by OldChinaHam