Who Said It?

[iplaw]

quote:
So the CLinton's had the same apparently flawed intelligence.

That's the point.  The retards who say that Bush lied conveniently forget to mention that Clinton was beating the war drum long before.  Did you not read the thread?

[Conan71]

Point is NSU, that DNC strategists know that war is a polarizing issue and used it to their advantage.  By saying the war was propped up by deceit, they stood a better chance of winning some seats in the legislature and to make a strong run for the White House in '08, instead of supporting the war effort.  Their "Bush lied" is nothing more than electioneering.  I mean why let a few facts get in the way of a good story they can sell to the voters, right?  

Personally, I think Clinton might have better estimated or been more realistic about the insurgency which would follow if he took on a full-scale war with Iraq.  He didn't want his legacy to be tainted furter with a protracted war.  He managed to contain Saddam and get the world's mind off the semen stain for a few days.

Hillary can claim we were lied to all she likes, but she sure was convinced of the WMD in 2002.  From how steadfast she was in her claims of action being justified, it's pretty obvious she was doing more than just baking cookies in the White House and had a little better insider information than the average senator.

The world is safer w/o Saddam.  Politically and PR speaking, the largest mistake made was not keeping Hussein contained till after they had scoured every single rat hole in Afghanistan and rooted out Bin Laden, then quietly arrange a good old-fashioned CIA coup with cyanide.

Had Iraq been a six to 12 month milk run, the DNC would have still figured out an angle as to how Bush effed it up.

[rwarn17588]

Beating the war drum and actually *doing* it are two vastly different things, as the last four years of misadventure have proven.

The main reasons I was against the Iraq War was because 1) that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; and 2) I had little confidence in the Bush administration in keeping Iraq stable, or "building the peace," as they say, after the invasion.

If we really wanted to go after the countries that supported the 9/11 perps, Saudi Arabia certainly would have been a justifiable action. But nothing along those lines really happened, so it made me question the administration's commitment to the "war on terror."

I hoped at the time that I was wrong with my lack of confidence with the U.S. stabilizing Iraq. Regrettably, I wasn't.

It was apparent to me that the invasion of Iraq was going to be the easy part. The hard part was keeping the country stable after the fact. I'd been hearing warnings about the religious sects that intensely disliked each other well before the war started. Why Bush's people didn't pay heed to these warnings astounds me.

As for Saddam not even having weapons of mass destruction, well, that just pours salt on the wound.

[iplaw]

1.  Whether Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 was irrelevant.  17 cease-fire violations were all we needed.

2.  You had absolutely no idea that the insurgency would be what it is...no one did, even Scowcroft, whom you posted in his op-ed didn't see that coming.  No one could have anticipated what has since happened and to pretend you anticipated our current situation...  I would love to go back an see your posts from pre-war discussions to see if you really were so clairvoyant...

[aoxamaxoa]

Ipsqueak and Conman need a reality check. This is what happens to "people" who listen to talk radio.

Lots of insiders warned the Busheviks about the consequences of invading Iraq and the numbers needed to do so. They would not hear it....much like Gwee doe doe, Ipsqueak and Conofaman....

I told you guys to lay off the kool aid.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588


If we really wanted to go after the countries that supported the 9/11 perps, Saudi Arabia certainly would have been a justifiable action. But nothing along those lines really happened, so it made me question the administration's commitment to the "war on terror."

We get along better with Saudi Arabia than Iraq [].  

I'd be willing to bet you could trace money out of every Muslim nation to Al-Quaeda.  Other than Bin Laden still having family in SA and many of the 9/11 co-conspirators being SA nationals, I don't believe there was ever a definitive money trail leading from the government of SA to Al-Qaeda.  Saudi Arabia is also not a hostile renegade government either.

The whole clap-trap of Bush finishing "his daddy's war" and the U.S. wanting to profit from Iraqi oil has always been so stupid I have to laugh.  All the reasons behind our invasion of Iraq are not near that transparent.  There is a reason for confidentiality and secrecy levels in intellegence and the executive branch and why the American public is not entitled to every last detail, due to national security issues and not compromising how we go about getting our intelligence.

Bush I shouldn't have stopped until Saddam was removed from power and the Iraq mess likely would be behind us now.  It is still likely it wouldn't have changed the course of history on 9/11.

[iplaw]

Exactly right.  If Bush the elder would have done it, we'd probably have a stable country now.  Back then we weren't dealing with an ongoing war on terror.  Taking him out then wouldn't have had the same tangential consequences as Al-Qaeda wouldn't have been involved at that time stirring the pot and being the proverbial fly in the ointment they are now.

[aoxamaxoa]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Exactly right.  If Bush the elder would have done it, we'd probably have a stable country now.  Back then we weren't dealing with an ongoing war on terror.  Taking him out then wouldn't have had the same tangential consequences as Al-Qaeda wouldn't have been involved at that time stirring the pot and being the proverbial fly in the ointment they are now.

If "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts.....

[Conan71]

I've wondered if halting Iraq I, when they did, was political expediency.  Bush enjoyed great approval ratings through 1991 and the early part of 1992 due to the swift and decisive action over there.  I'm just wondering if they figured any more time spent there was viewed as a "protracted war" and would have hurt his chances for re-election and that's why they didn't go any further.

[aoxamaxoa]

Now that does make sense... never place the greater good in front of your own ambitions, the republican creedo.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I've wondered if halting Iraq I, when they did, was political expediency.  Bush enjoyed great approval ratings through 1991 and the early part of 1992 due to the swift and decisive action over there.  I'm just wondering if they figured any more time spent there was viewed as a "protracted war" and would have hurt his chances for re-election and that's why they didn't go any further.

I think you're correct, and I also think they honestly believed that Saddam would take his lumps and stop making a stir after the a** kicking he got, but after a decade of cease-fire violations and stonewalling the IAEA and UNSCUM we'd had enough.

[rwarn17588]

<conan wrote:

Bush I shouldn't have stopped until Saddam was removed from power and the Iraq mess likely would be behind us now. It is still likely it wouldn't have changed the course of history on 9/11.

<end clip>

Brent Scowcroft has said in interviews that he put a kabosh on Bush I invading Iraq for the very reasons we're seeing now. He essentially did a cost-benefit analysis on invading Iraq, and determined that the very high risks weren't worth it.

As for your second sentence, Conan, I agree.

[iplaw]

quote:
Brent Scowcroft has said in interviews that he put a kabosh on Bush I invading Iraq for the very reasons we're seeing now.

I know we've heard this before, but I can't find a single article written Scowcroft PRE '03 invasion that make such claims.

[rwarn17588]

Google can be your friend, iplaw.

Written by Brent Scowcroft, for the Wall Street Journal, dated Aug. 15, 2002. To make his stance perfectly clear, it's titled "Don't Attack Saddam,"  

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133

I think his stance made the most sense at the time.

[iplaw]

Thanks for the link, but I've already read it.  It says nothing to warn us about what we are currently in.  BTW, I found this interesting article from the Hammer about Mr. Scowcroft giving an interesting take on his "realism" policy position:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801718.html