Bush's State of the Union Address: The Final Chapter

[bobbob1313]

What the flying fukk does that have to do with The War in Iraq?

 

Whoosh.

 

That's the sound of the point flying right past you.

 

People die in war. It sucks. The point is we are there already, you need to get past that fact. If we pull out now, tons of more people will die, maybe not necesarrily Americans, but does that make their lives less worthy?

 

Can you garauntee we wouldn't be in Iraq if Gore was in office? No, you can't. You will say you will because you are an idiot, but you can't. He very well may have gone in.

[Sir Stewart]

Can you garauntee we wouldn't be in Iraq if Gore was in office? No, you can't. You will say you will because you are an idiot, but you can't. He very well may have gone in.

It struck me recently that maybe the reason the Democratic Party has been a pushover for most of Bush's presidency concerning the war on terror, is that they quietly admit to themselves that they'd be doing the same things.

[bobbob1313]

It struck me recently that maybe the reason the Democratic Party has been a pushover for most of Bush's presidency concerning the war on terror, is that they quietly admit to themselves that they'd be doing the same things.

 

I mean, of course it ruffles a lot of people's feathers to say so, but both parties in our country are 2 sides of the same coin. They are not all that different, for the most part.

[bjorn_skurj]

I would just about bet my immortal soul that Gore would not have gone into Iraq.

[owl]

I mean, of course it ruffles a lot of people's feathers to say so, but both parties in our country are 2 sides of the same coin. They are not all that different, for the most part.

 

To be honest, I'm getting tired of hearing about it. To say that they are the same seems more like an excuse for people to say "everything sucks" instead of thinking about what needs to be done. The parties disagree on many issues, including religion, environment, welfare, social security, taxes, government involvement, privacy, terrorism, homosexuality, abortion, etc. In fact, our elected Democrats and Republicans disagree on just about everything.

 

The only real commonality between the two parties is that industry dollars talk more than the Americans the politicians are supposed to represent.

 

I would just about bet my immortal soul that Gore would not have gone into Iraq.

 

[bobbob1313]

I would just about bet my immortal soul that Gore would not have gone into Iraq.

 

It's easy to say that because we'll never know how things would have developed. Unfortunately, MOST Democrats did support the Iraq war, so at the very least, it wasn't all Bush.

 

To be honest, I'm getting tired of hearing about it. To say that they are the same seems more like an excuse for people to say "everything sucks" instead of thinking about what needs to be done. The parties disagree on many issues, including religion, environment, welfare, social security, taxes, government involvement, privacy, terrorism, homosexuality, abortion, etc. In fact, our elected Democrats and Republicans disagree on just about everything.

 

The only real commonality between the two parties is that industry dollars talk more than the Americans the politicians are supposed to represent.

 

The majority of "issues" they disagree on are ones that don't really matter on anything more than a philosophical level. To be honest, the only thing they truly disagree on is "Big government" vs. "slightly more big government". Everything else is a result of that, and to be honest, the republicans can huff and puff all they want about gay marriage, abortion, or other so called "moral" issues, but at the end of the day, the power to change those things doesn't lie in their hands. It is in the hands of the supreme court.

[owl]

That's true, but you've also just pointed out another reason why Bush's presidency will be influential for years to come (Supreme Court).

 

It's easy to say that because we'll never know how things would have developed. Unfortunately, MOST Democrats did support the Iraq war, so at the very least, it wasn't all Bush.

 

I seriously doubt that Gore would've gone through all the trouble to try to partially fabricate and sell the Iraq war to us.

[bobbob1313]

That's true, but you've also just pointed out reason why Bush's presidency will be influential for years to come (Supreme Court).

 

Judges can only go so far in their interpretations of the constitution. They can't justify many of the things Bush would like with the constitution.

[bjorn_skurj]

It's easy to say that because we'll never know how things would have developed. Unfortunately, MOST Democrats did support the Iraq war, so at the very least, it wasn't all Bush.

I suspect that was mostly out of fear of a backlash from a war-enthusiastic populace rather than any great love for the enterprise. Anyone with half a brain could tell in 2003 that if we went in there, we would be there for at least 10 years and likely a lot longer.

[bobbob1313]

The biggest problem with the Iraq war wasn't that we went in. It was that we didn't have a plan once we went in.

[owl]

Judges can only go so far in their interpretations of the constitution. They can't justify many of the things Bush would like with the constitution.

Thank God.

 

Maybe it's because I'm a Democrat, but I would definitely like to see a Democrat in office over a Republican, whether the parties are similar or not.

 

The biggest problem with the Iraq war wasn't that we went in. It was that we didn't have a plan once we went in.

I dunno. I think I would've preferred to have not gone in at all. (If we're truly having success in Iraq, though, I'm not going to try to argue that we should leave right now.)

 

There is something screwed up about the logic that we should spend $474 billion on a war in Iraq when we could've easily used half the money in America to make a huge difference in national security and other areas. Not that Republicans justify spending that kind of money on anything but war.

[bjorn_skurj]

The biggest problem with the Iraq war wasn't that we went in. It was that we didn't have a plan once we went in.

I would rank going in in the first place as the critical error, but not having a plan has made this harder than it had to be.

[bobbob1313]

I would argue going into Iraq wasn't an inherently terrible idea, given what we thought we knew at the time. We could've saved alot of time, lives, and money if we had simply thought it through, and for that, the Democrats need to take some blame. Instead of voting to allow it to happen, they (and everyone else, nobody is safe from criticism) should have made sure we knew we had a plan for stabilizing the region.

[Sir Stewart]

I would argue going into Iraq wasn't an inherently terrible idea, given what we thought we knew at the time.

 

Don't you remember what it was like around that time? Millions & millions didn't believe what "we thought we knew at the time." I didn't believe it for a second. I felt like we were being bamboozled from the start of the runup. The warmongers didn't believe it either.

[bjorn_skurj]

I would argue going into Iraq wasn't an inherently terrible idea, given what we thought we knew at the time. We could've saved alot of time, lives, and money if we had simply thought it through, and for that, the Democrats need to take some blame. Instead of voting to allow it to happen, they (and everyone else, nobody is safe from criticism) should have made sure we knew we had a plan for stabilizing the region.

Compare the kind of evidence Bush offered with the kind of evidence Kennedy had of missiles in Cuba.

[radiokills]

after 7 years i learned not to bother.

[Good Old Neon]

Don't you remember what it was like around that time? Millions & millions didn't believe what "we thought we knew at the time." I didn't believe it for a second. I felt like we were being bamboozled from the start of the runup. The warmongers didn't believe it either.

 

Agreed, there was a rather large, yet as equally ignored chorus of CIA folks, military veterans and former inspectors, Scott Ritter in particular, who tried to warn the administration, while also doing their best to educate the public, of what would happen post-invasion. Their words have proven disturbingly prophetic. Unfortunately, they were all but ignored by the very same press who, once upon a time, stood as a counterbalance to the sort of wool the administration used to blanket our eyes.

 

Several weeks prior to the invasion, while the drum beats were at their loudest, I recall listening to a report on NPR, the story involved CIA agents (who wished to remain anonymous) stating they were being pressured to cook the books, cherry pick intelligence that fit the case for war, while also downplaying or suppressing information, much of it gathered by Scott Ritter and others, that proved Saddam no longer had wmd

[bobbob1313]

I think it is sort of silly and useless to debate whether we should have invaded Iraq. Despite the fact that the reality didn't match what we were told, many of the problems we faced could have been avoided had we actually sat down and thought out a plan for the war. Instead, both sides blindly followed the President into the war without questioning it. I halfway believe the democrats were rooting for a disaster in Iraq so they could use it to blast the republicans.

 

Regardless, debating whether we should have gone in 5 years ago is all kinds of pointless. We need to figure out a plan for the future that won't leave the area worse off then before. I believe this is possible, but not if we sit around playing the blame game trying to figure out who's fault it was, who lied, who did everything wrong. We all fucked up here. Even if you didn't support the war, chances are the person you elected into office did. This isn't just on Bush. And rather than sitting here blaming him, it would be better to try to figure out how to make the best of a fucked up situation.

 

And really, treehugger, they need to be thrown in jail? I'm assuming you think the whole Clinton beej thing was overblown, right? He broke more laws than Bush did. Neither should be in jail.

[bjorn_skurj]

1. Generally, what historians do is debate, analyze, theorize about stuff that's already happened. The utility in this is that perhaps something will be learned and applied to a future situation. One may hope that Iraq has put an end, at least for a while, to adventurous nation-building, but people thought that in the post-Vietnam era too.

2. There were a lot of people who didn't go along with this war from the minute the "Axis of Evil" phrase left Bush's lips and had the moral courage to say so in public. Many of them took a lot of shit for it, too, before the majority soured on the war.

[ShuckOwens]

I know 4000 people that are irreversibly damaged from The President being in office. They're dead.

Yeah. 4000 dopes who were duped into becoming Bush's baby killers.

 

What I love more than "instant historical perspective" (now the norm), is assuming that no one in the military had personal convictions or beliefs that led to them signing up for the mission.

[John Smith]

600,000 people were irreversibly damaged by Lincoln's presidency.

 

This quote is a perfect example of damage being done by Bush & co. They and their supporters continually point out things that various presidents have done throughout history. Mainly they completely distort what actually occurred in order to support their position, but a side effect has been for the legacy of past presidents have been tarnished a little each time Bush compares his actions to theirs.

 

It's easy to say that because we'll never know how things would have developed. Unfortunately, MOST Democrats did support the Iraq war, so at the very least, it wasn't all Bush.

 

Hopefully you do understand the politcal ramificatiosn of voting no at the time, don't you? It would be like voting no to the upcoming "stimulus package" during an election year. The package will do very little for the economy, at least that is what the economists say. However regardless of what the actual and intended effects of the package are, it is plitical suicide to vote against popular programs.

 

Judges can only go so far in their interpretations of the constitution. They can't justify many of the things Bush would like with the constitution.

 

So far the judges have not had too much trouble with Bush. The problem will come when they start issuing opinions which curtail the powers of president Obama, where in the past they supported those powers for Bush. He has not appointed conservative judges as much as he has appointed party loyalists. It is what the adminsitraion has been all about...getting the loyalists into as many positions as possible

 

 

The biggest problem with the Iraq war wasn't that we went in. It was that we didn't have a plan once we went in.

 

No actually the biggest problem was invading a soverign nation posing no threat to us or its neighbors. Not having a plan was simply a side effect of the "shock and awe" politcal assault to sell the war. I'm sure they were flabbergasted that they were able to sell it so easily and i their haste they simply followed the PNAC plan to invade with minimal sized military force as a display of our power. Unfortuantely the PNAC plann simply wished that the people would love us once we got there. Didnn't happen, should never have happened.

 

 

I would argue going into Iraq wasn't an inherently terrible idea, given what we thought we knew at the time. We could've saved alot of time, lives, and money if we had simply thought it through, and for that, the Democrats need to take some blame. Instead of voting to allow it to happen, they (and everyone else, nobody is safe from criticism) should have made sure we knew we had a plan for stabilizing the region.

 

It was aterrible plan from day one. I predicted this war the day the supreme court handed down it's decision. The democrats need to take zero blame this is 100% lock stock and barrell a Bush/PNAC project. The democrats could have voted aginst it and he was still going in regardless. Sadly now that the whole region is a mess no matter what happens the Bush apologists will blame others. They will take credit for any peace achieved and hand out blame if thigs continue on their present course. I can here it now..."But the surge was working then President Obama removed the troops and look what happened..."

[John Smith]

Yeah.

What I love more than "instant historical perspective" (now the norm), is assuming that no one in the military had personal convictions or beliefs that led to them signing up for the mission.

 

You know what I love...seeing people who support the war 100% , people who say this is the biggest threat to ever face the United States (morons) and then see those same military age people back away from recruiters because they want to finissh school or they just got a job or some other excuse. Sorry but if this is the biggest threat our nation has ever faced and you believe it, then you should be getting your ass out there and living your convictions. But even the college republicans who are staying home in droves, like they did in Vietnam, knwo that what they say is a farce. In 20 years these same people are going to be making a play for the leadership of our country. I will not forget them.

[caliber66]

And really, treehugger, they need to be thrown in jail? I'm assuming you think the whole Clinton beej thing was overblown, right? He broke more laws than Bush did. Neither should be in jail.

Direct result of Clinton lying about getting mouth sex from Monica Lewinsky? He has to apologize to Hillary.

 

Direct result of Bush lying about WMD in Iraq? Combat deaths of thousands of U.S. soldiers and collateral deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

 

Regardless of how many laws were actually broken, which would you say has farther-reaching repercussions for a greater number of people?

[cryptique]

I would argue going into Iraq wasn't an inherently terrible idea, given what we thought we knew at the time.

There were plenty of people in appropriate positions (CIA, etc.) who knew that what the Bush administration was trumpeting as the great Iraqi threat was complete and utter bullshit. Bush & Co. simply chose not to listen to those people. They'd had the Iraq invasion on their agenda for years already before Bush was installed in the White House.

 

We could've saved alot of time, lives, and money if we had simply thought it through, and for that, the Democrats need to take some blame. Instead of voting to allow it to happen, they (and everyone else, nobody is safe from criticism) should have made sure we knew we had a plan for stabilizing the region.

...or they should have voted no. That's what I blame the Democrats for. What's more important -- saving the country from a disastrous, unnecessary war, or getting re-elected? Most of them chose the latter.

 

Granted, the administration was filling their ears with all kinds of nightmare scenarios about Hussein (that "mushroom cloud" comment, for example), but the correct intelligence was there if people had just sought it out. Bush has tried to make it look like there was a breakdown in the intelligence community, but really, it was their own intelligence initiatives, conducted outside the normal channels, that were wrong.

[John Smith]

And really, treehugger, they need to be thrown in jail? I'm assuming you think the whole Clinton beej thing was overblown, right? He broke more laws than Bush did. Neither should be in jail.

 

 

Interesting how the perjury trap set up for Clinton revolving around a personal issue is blown up to be a greater crime and event than what has occurred the last seven years. I also find it interesting that the perjury trap set for Clinton revolving around a personal issue not related at all to the running of the united states is still a larger issue to Bush supporters than things like oh Perjury involving the exposure of a US spy. Especially when the SPy perjurer was given multiple chances to extricate himself from the lies. How many times was libby brought back in to clarify testimony? At least Rove had the sense to change his story to match what he knew the prosecutor already knew. But it all pales in comparison to lying about a personal mater. And remeber the origins of that lie...an investigation into a failed real estate venture.

 

But please list these laws CLinton has supposedly broken. We all know Bush's phillosophy which has has stated publicly more than once...if we do it it's legal. SO by definition he can't break the law because he is above it.