Things i like about George.W.Bush

Wait, physgrad. You're saying: "Bush didn't lie, because no WMD were found"?

George W Bush, the incompetent president who has started the first preemptive war of our country against a sovereign nation that posed no threat to us - nor to anybody else - that is costing us our fathers, mothers, sons and daughters lives and their mental health, and four to five billion dollars every month which sees no end of the chaos created in Iraq. The president who claimed he was a "uniter and not a divider," but has accomplished the worst division in our country and our allies. The president who brought us "No Child Left Behind," which are destroying our schools with the most closings of schools in the history of this country, while we fall further behind in math and science compared to other developed countries. The president that gave us a drug benefit plan that will cost over two trillion dollars that should have been used to secure social security, but instead will make the drug companies richer, and our seniors paying more for the same drugs sold cheaper in Canada. The president who doesn't see the increase in the middle class who have lost their health insurance from 40 million to close to 45 million. The president who wanted to implement a personal investment scheme as part of social security that would have reduced benefits for future retirees by over forty percent. The president who has accomplished the decreased value of our currency against other major currencies by as much as 46 percent against the Euro during his tenure. The president who has been at the helm while the value of our stock investments decreased by 40 percent for the DOW and 60 percent for the Nasdaq. The president who has mismanaged the war and our economy, and yet was reelected to serve a second term. Americans are crazy!

You got that right, CI.

I thought of something I like.
He sometimes wears hats that fit.

Europe: totally right..he wasn't lying, as lying involves intent to deceive.

You lost all credibility at that point. (Actually, before that, but I don't want to be petty.)

physgrad, When the president and his henchmen ignored the warnings that the "intelligence" was based on several Iraqis and not verified by our own people, it involves deceit and lying. There have been many many reports on this very subject; you must just ignored them. You should go back and reread the SOU speech by Bush and Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council. They used 9-11 as an excuse to attack Iraq rather than concentrate on catching or killing Osama - the real culprit.

But a few years earlier, when they didn't pay attention to "intelligence" about an impending attack, you attack him for that as well. Can't have it both ways.
He looked at intelligence, as did many other world leaders and members of Congress and they all came to the same conclusion, SH had weapons and was a threat. Maybe it has come out since that the intelligence at the time wasn't accurate, but hindsight is 20/20. Given what they knew at the time, it is not lying.

"Impending attack" is much different from "No WMDs." Maybe logic is your weak point.

Nope...my logic is just fine. Are you refering to the 2003 SOU and the Feb 2003 presentation that Bush and Powell both used 9/11 for an excuse to attack Iraq? If so, could you point out exactly where they did that? Read them both and can't find that.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

You should try reading this. From the CIA website 1 January Through 30 June 1999.



Even the Un agreed that in 1999 they didn't know what he had and had indeed started rebuilding his abilities. Are you going to berate the UN for lying as well?

iraq again...

Was the invasion justifiable..or more appropriately did bush lie?

Lets see, given the same set of initial conditions, would it be ok for a reasonable person to repeat the same decision, in this test we have assume no knowledge of anything learnt post invasion. So lets review our initial conditions:

1. Conflicting intelligence reports which indicate SH might have WMDs

2. SH's refusal to comply with previously agreed upon weapons inspection

3. An inexplicable hate for your country and your main ally in the region(read israel).

4. Post 9/11 realization that terrorists can hit the American mainland (in this respect 9/11 impacts the Iraq decision)

5. SH's support for terrorists.

Gven these factors the decision to invade Iraq and remove the SH regime seems justifiable to me. Thus I can see how it would seem justifiable to others. I dont need to stretch my imagination to reach the same decision, and nor would a lot of other reasonable people.

So if one can understand how a reasonable person might decide to invade iraq, is it so hard to acknowledge that bush's actions were justifiable to his conscience. Thus he didn't lie about Iraq. No intent to deceive enters this.

He must have them custom made, or can you actually buy them that big

Normally, we would see something from Tico at this point demanding that proof be provided for this statement. However, since this is something that he agrees with, we will see no such demand.

Dammit! You're right, Intrepid: Please provide proof that Bush had an intent to deceive.

Proof Bush Fixed the Facts...
The secret Downing Street memo



SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY



DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.


The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.


(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)


MATTHEW RYCROFT

The Sunday Times - Britain

Are you suggesting that the US cannot use SH's history of aggression against him when considering weather or not he has WMDs?

Also given the current situation with Iran, The US is concerned about its nuclear capability.

So if you are saying that the Iraq invasion was not justified as other countries have WMDs as well, then what is ure suggestion?
If the Us had invaded Iran, then the objection would be, why Iran and not Iraq. The point being to get somewhere you have to start somewhere.

Yeah, we gotta start somewhere, so let's start just killing people at random until we hit the right spot and noone has WMDs except for us.

SHeesh

Cycloptichorn

Did you read what your wrote phygrad? Are you serious? Warm up the F18's.... we have new targets!
SHeesh

Heres the point of the post:
1. The article stated that the nuclear capability of Iran was a greater threat than Iraq's WMD program.
note that at that time, both of these were guesses based on conflicting intel.

2. I then claim that Iran's WMD program should not be included in the Iraq decision.

3. The reason being that if it were included as some kind of reason not to attack Iraq, then it would imply Iran was a greater threat and that one actually needed to attack Iran instead. If that had been the historical result, then posters opposed to the 'war' would be using Iraqi aggression and reports of WMD as an excuse to stop the 'war' in Iran. So the only end result tht would make some happy would have been inaction.

From points already posted on this thread, I can see justification of the war. So inaction in my opinion was not an option.