Political - Why can't he admit a mistake ?

[jrydberg]

We were not lied to. Judgements based on the best available information at the time have been flawed.

BTW, the administration has not "changed its tune" on why we went to war. There were numerous reasons from the start. When some of those reasons are based on flawed assumptions, of course they will then highlight the others.

As for other countries, I feel very confident in saying that no dictator on the planet over the past 10 years has come close to Saddam Hussein in depravity, cruelty and desire to dominate every aspect of the people of his country. No one is in the same league.

 

[JMD]

Originally posted by Cebhfhionn
The fact remains that he has made our country look like bullies that don't care what the U.N. has to say.

Why should we do what the UN says? What have they done in the last 20 years that gives them any authority to dictate what we do or do not do.

 

[CEDmom]

Originally posted by debster812
A puppet for whom? Really, I am very curious.

I didn't post this but IMO the Christian Right for one.

 

[shortbun]

Originally posted by bsnyder
What does this have to do with removing Saddam? Because we can't take out EVERY evil dictator, we aren't ever allowed to do the right thing when we can? This "excuse" always strikes me as incredibly lame!

wvrery, please give me your definitions, in the context of your post, of the words "significant link" and "total failure"?

And I would have still supported the war, knowing what we know now. Does that mean I can't admit I made a mistake? No, it means I think Saddam was going to be a continuing danger and the best way to deal with that danger (and liberate 25 million people in the process) was to take him out.

I agree that Saddam was evil. There are loads of evil dictators
in the world. Why lie about why we went to get him and why
destroy the country in the process? Why did there have to be
so much colateral damage and why were we in such a hurry that
we did it without support from many of our allies. I really believe
that GWB did this as a personal vendetta and that type of
loss of life on both sides has no place for such an action. Had
he gone in with highly trained specialists; taken a long time to
collect data and minimalized loss of life and destruction of
personal property, I might have been able to shrug it off. Nearly
1000 Americans are dead. I don't know the loss of life in Iraq in
total. I'm not sure I want to know. He had his intelligence people
collect all the information on his side he could find, sent poor Colin
Powell into the U.N. to lie unknowingly and struck out on his own
with some stupid comment about a "permission slip" like he was
some arrogant adolescent about to be willfull. I see those arrogant adolescents every day I work-I can pick em out in a
croud. I'm convinced I'm right about GWB. He's had his term-
he needs to leave.

 

[caitycaity]

Or do you really thing that is what he said and that is what he thinks?

 

[JMD]

Originally posted by shortbun
Why lie about why we went to get him

What lie? Please explain.

 

[debster812]

Originally posted by SunshineSis
Other individuals in the Bush administration. He is not the brightest of bulbs, and I hold Cheney responsible for most of Bush's decisions.

Then shouldn't your disdain be for the puppeteers, and not the puppet.

Look, I am certainly no fan of President Bush, but I certainly don't think that an 'idiot' is capable of being elected President.

 

[shortbun]

Originally posted by SunshineSis
Other individuals in the Bush administration. He is not the brightest of bulbs, and I hold Cheney responsible for most of Bush's decisions.

Don't forget GHWB and Jim Baker. there are more. They are running the country. Think George was trying to figure out who
to call while he sat in that Kindergarten reading group for seven
minutes?

 

[mommytutu]

Originally posted by Cebhfhionn
The fact remains that he has made our country look like bullies that don't care what the U.N. has to say.

Should Saddam have remained in power? Probably not but I don't think that it has been worth all the lives that have been lost.

I think in comparison to other wars, the loss of lives has been minimal. Over 600,000 died in the Civil War---was that worth it? To say it's not worth all the lives lost is to say those that have paid the price with thier lives died in vain, they fought and died for no good reason, they wasted thier time and died in the process.

As for the UN, even they don't care what they say. If they did care Saddam wouldn't have been able to get away with breaking 17 resolutions.

The price for freedom will always be paid for in blood.

 

[JMD]

Originally posted by shortbun
Don't forget GHWB and Jim Baker. there are more. They are running the country. T

Any evidence to support this or is this just babble?

 

[SunshineSis]

Ummmm, that would be the big old lie about how America was being threatened by Saddam and his WMD's. The Bush administration knew it could use the hysteria following 9/11 to gain support for his little vendetta by claiming we were endangered. As was stated earlier, his support would be much less if he had used the, "Saddam is mean to his people," argument.

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by Galahad
Yep. Count me as one of the great gullible unwashed.

Oh, I don't count you in as one of the unwashed masses!

Does anything at all bother you about Bush's policy in Iraq? If so, are you willing to overlook it because his philosophy jives with everything else you agree with?

 

[shortbun]

Originally posted by JMD
What lie? Please explain.

I SAID I thought GWB's need to get Saddam was personal,
a vendetta regarding his father and the Gulf War. I said
they collected all the intelligence on their side they could find
regarding weapons of mass destruction and went with that.
Weapons inspectors had come out saying they could find nothing
prior to our invading Iraq. Since WMD's would have the best
play in a reason to invade, that's the "bad intelligence" they
collected. I totally feel that the administration is claiming
bad information when they had chosen to ignore the good
intelligence that did not come down on the side of invasion.
If I seem paranoid, it's from 3.5 year of watching a Nixonesque
paranoid run this country. People who grow this big from their
love of power and misuse of it need to be taken from their place
of power right away. They are dangerous.

 

[mommytutu]

Originally posted by wvrevy
he would STILL unilaterally invade that country.

Unilaterally? Really? We had over 30 countries supporting us in Iraq. We certainly aren't there by ourselves.

 

[CEDmom]

Originally posted by jrydberg
We were not lied to. Judgements based on the best available information at the time have been flawed.

BTW, the administration has not "changed its tune" on why we went to war. There were numerous reasons from the start. When some of those reasons are based on flawed assumptions, of course they will then highlight the others.

As for other countries, I feel very confident in saying that no dictator on the planet over the past 10 years has come close to Saddam Hussein in depravity, cruelty and desire to dominate every aspect of the people of his country. No one is in the same league.

Just yesterday Bush was saying the although WMDs haven't yet been found Sadam had the capability to make them so it's a good thing he isn't in power anymore. To me that's a big change from we're certain there are WMD in Iraq and we're going to find them.

I'm curious, it's been so long since the war started but besides WMD and Sadaam's ties to Al-Quada I can't remember any other reasons. Of course both of those haven't been proven.

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by Cebhfhionn
The fact remains that he has made our country look like bullies that don't care what the U.N. has to say.

this arguement cracks me up every time I hear it, it was not that long ago that the very same peopel using it, were arguing that handing over any power to the UN was the first step towards the NEW WORLD ORDER, which would be the downfall of the US...

 

[JMD]

Originally posted by shortbun
I SAID I thought GWB's need to get Saddam was personal,
a vendetta regarding his father and the Gulf War. I said
they collected all the intelligence on their side they could find
regarding weapons of mass destruction and went with that.
Weapons inspectors had come out saying they could find nothing
prior to our invading Iraq. Since WMD's would have the best
play in a reason to invade, that's the "bad intelligence" they
collected. I totally feel that the administration is claiming
bad information when they had chosen to ignore the good
intelligence that did not come down on the side of invasion.
If I seem paranoid, it's from 3.5 year of watching a Nixonesque
paranoid run this country. People who grow this big from their
love of power and misuse of it need to be taken from their place
of power right away. They are dangerous.

That is your opinion. That doesn't answer the question. What did Bush lie about?

As I said before, every world leader and intelligence agency has agreed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He has used them on his own people!!! Did you forget that?

 

[Eeyore1954]

Why should Pres. Bush admit to a mistake that he never made?

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by shortbun
I agree that Saddam was evil. There are loads of evil dictators
in the world. Why lie about why we went to get him and why
destroy the country in the process? Why did there have to be
so much colateral damage and why were we in such a hurry that
we did it without support from many of our allies. I really believe
that GWB did this as a personal vendetta and that type of
loss of life on both sides has no place for such an action. Had
he gone in with highly trained specialists; taken a long time to
collect data and minimalized loss of life and destruction of
personal property, I might have been able to shrug it off. Nearly
1000 Americans are dead. I don't know the loss of life in Iraq in
total. I'm not sure I want to know. He had his intelligence people
collect all the information on his side he could find, sent poor Colin
Powell into the U.N. to lie unknowingly and struck out on his own
with some stupid comment about a "permission slip" like he was
some arrogant adolescent about to be willfull. I see those arrogant adolescents every day I work-I can pick em out in a
croud. I'm convinced I'm right about GWB. He's had his term-
he needs to leave.

This part absolutely cracks me up:

"poor Colin Powell"

Talk about paranoia and arrogance! Your posts reek of both!!!

 

[Galahad]

Does anything at all bother you about Bush's policy in Iraq?

Actually, not much bothers me about it. I think we may have been a bit timid and we may have needed more forces there from time to time. If you accept the declared nature of the war on terror it is perfectly consistent not to have trouble with the policy in Iraq. If you do not accept it it makes sense to be against the policy in Iraq. What makes less sense is the formulation that the President can't just be "wrong" .....he must also be "evil".....