As A Wise Man, Umm, Guy, Once Said

You can keep arguing that your ideas are right, but the bottom line is that you don't believe in even the possibility of a responsible opposition unless they sort of agree with you.

If by suggesting they first display some elemental humanity, you are correct.

So you cannot tell me an example of a lie he told related to Iraq. [/quote]

How about Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction?

That was a monumental lie, why bother with all the other lies, we'll be here all night.

The World is still dealing with the consequences of his disastrous presidency. He may no longer be president, but the damage is still ongoing, and will be for many years to come.

I'll re-post part of something I posted earlier in this thread:

Yes, I know you decided to swallow the bullshit, the rest of us aren't so stupid.

What's amazing is despite all the evidence that it's bullshit, you still refuse to accept the obvious.

There's religious fanatics more in touch will reality than you.

Trying to impeach the poster, rather than argue his assertions, is an invalid argument. You lose the debate.

Sez you, lickspittle extraordinaire.

Next.

Er - yeah - You certainly demolished us all.

None so blind as those that will not see.

Clearly George W. Bush was not the perfect president and just as there are very few liberal A2K posters who defend everything President Obama says and does, there were very few conservative posters who did the same with Bush. Declaring otherwise is a gross exaggeration or a lie.

Granted, the extent to which liberal members do defend Obama is often seen by conservative members as, at best, excessive, but I'm sure the same can be said for how liberal members felt about those who ever defended Bush.

If we are honest, sometimes we defend positions with which we are not entirely in agreement, because traditional opponents, “the other side” are attacking them.

A presidential decision to go to war results in death and destruction. There is no two ways about it and in this light such decisions deserve more scrutiny than others. So, though, do presidential decisions to maintain a war, join a war, or boost efforts in either. Refusing to apply the same degree of scrutiny to those decisions because of party affiliation is hypocritical, and there is no two ways about that either.

The decision to withdraw from a war before it is won, and the manner in which the withdrawal is accomplished also can result in death and destruction and so it is also deserving of intense scrutiny. Someone who opposed a war or military involvement is, perhaps, likely to ignore the consequences of withdrawal, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

The decision to launch the Iraq War has been thoroughly debated in this forum, and some would say it has been debated ad nauseum. Correct me if I am wrong, but there hasn't been any new revelations concerning the topic that might inspire fresh debate. This isn't to say that continued debate on the Iraq War should be somehow forbidden. Obviously people can discuss whatever they please, but to constantly inject it into discussions of new issues seems, either an attempt at diversion, an expression of someone's obsession or a debating tactic that falls somewhere on the long list of logical fallacies.

This thread doesn't provide the best of examples because it wasn't necessary intended for the discussion of the current situation in Iraq, but as the originator has already stated, it also wasn't intended to single out Bush for criticism. Given such loose parameter, any related subject is relevant, including this one.

I would ask all who incessantly respond to criticism of Obama with either "Bush did it too," or "Bush did this..." how they reacted to the similar comments when Bush was the target of criticism, and Clinton was used as a diversion. Did you think "Wow, I hadn't thought of that."; "You got me there, I guess I was wrong to criticize Bush." or "Jeeze I am a hypocrite because I never criticized Clinton for anything!" Or, did you think "What the hell does that have to with whether or not Bush is wrong?" Did it stop you from criticizing Bush?

And a lot of us get caught up in hyperbole and, to one extent or the other, tarring our opponents with broad brushes, or over generalizing about liberals or conservatives. I certainly have.

But to steadfastly maintain the outlandish exaggeration, the all-encompassing demonization, and a viewpoint so narrow if couldn't accommodate a sheet of paper, in the face of rational criticism, that takes a special sort of zealous, stubborn stupidity. It's funny how this behavior by some quickly marks them as a wing-nut, a nasty ideological loon, while when displayed by others it is seen as a sign of passion, or commitment; even admirable defiance.

Go figure.

You and Edgar are trying to make a man with no eyes see. An impossibility.

What were the repercussions of Clinton's presidency, a spunky dress, and you've banged on about that ad nauseam. There's a huge Al Qaida force operating in Syria and Iraq now, all as a direct result of Bush's actions.

I don't care to revisit the consequences of Clinton's presidency, but the least of them was Monica's dress. You keep confusing me with someone else who apparently thinks his fly zipped was the worst thing a president has ever done.

Have you ever heard of the doctrine of intervening cause? You should look it up.

Bush pissed all over that when he invaded Iraq. Kosovo was a success, and unfortunately Bush used that success to screw up royally.

What was so bad wasn't all the lies that sent us in, but that there was absolutely no plan of what to do post invasion. First we had the chaos of no security, then the whole public infrastructure was de Ba'athified, forgetting that to hold a minor public position in Saddam's Iraq, you had to be a party member.

Not only did that make it incredibly hard for the state to function, it caused deep resentment and lead to the sectarianism that's running rampant in Iraq today.

Not one of which you can back up in a fair discussion. When someone disagrees with your claim and states an opposing argument, you just descend into personal insult, rather than argue the topic. In an actual debate, you would be disqualified.

incorrect

Well, here's one example of someone who believed at the time that he might well have them.

From a speech Sen. Edward Kennedy gave on September 27, 2002 at the School of Advanced International Studies:

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

By definition, you can't eliminate the impact of intervening causes through the original action that sets events in motion. No matter how poor the Bush decisions or how poorly he and his Administration acted, they couldn't possibly have made future decisions or actions better or worse.

We agree, though, that the post invasion segment of the strategy was poorly planned and executed.

We don't agree that it led to sectarian strife.

The Shiite resentment of the Sunni pre-dated the invasion. Toppling the regime allowed it to morph into action.

No carefully crafted plan for a post-war Iraq, no matter how well executed was going to erase sectarian strife, but it might have better controlled it.

The real culprit is Nouri al-Maliki, he more than Bush, Obama or anyone other than the leaders of ISIS is responsible for this mess.

Not sure, though, what the US could have been expected to do about Maiki. He won an election generally considered fair.

Saddam, had he not been overthrown, might possibly have been able to keep sectarian violence under wraps with the lash, but, in large measure, due to his oppression of the Shiia, it was simmering there all along; waiting to be unleashed.

The US under Bush and Obama all along urged the Iraqi government to be inclusive of the Sunni and the Kurds. The Kurds really just needed to be left alone, the Sunni needed to be "forgiven" and included. Clearly there was never a meaningful reconciliation effort made and Maliki has exacerbated the tensions, which opened the door for ISIS.

Still, despite, whatever one thinks about the decision to invade, and all the mistakes the Bush Administration made post-invasion, the Surge and counter-terrorism plan of General Petraeus stabilized the country. Obama may have been against the war from the beginning, but like the economy, he inherited Iraq. The condition of an inheritance is not an excuse for making it worse, and if it was a mess when passed along there was a responsibility to try and make it better.

While an argument can be made that a continued military presence in Iraq would have helped to curb the excesses of Maliki, no one can do so with convincing certainty that it would have. The resulting Sunni resentment and unrest might have set the stage for ISIS incursions, but a relatively modest but robust American military presence would have almost certainly been able to turn them back. The reported number of ISIS soldiers is only roughly 5,000.

The main issue under consideration now is what the US can and must do in response to the situation. If the consideration and decision can be helped by revisiting past decisions, then Obama's are as fair game as those of Bush, and since he, not Bush, is the current president, the onus is on him to make the right call.

Should we be fortunate enough to have a Republican president succeed Obama, I can't wait to see the response of his or her critics to defenses based on no more that "But Obama did the same thing! or "It was Obama's fault!"