Political - Why can't he admit a mistake ?

[disneydad2]

It's not that the inspectors were kicked out, Iraqi authorities decided to cease all cooperation with the UN inspectors, thus preventing them from doing the inspections work they were in the country to do This was the cause of the withdrawal. Kicked out? Not exactly, but in affect they were.

 

[Chicago526]

Ummm, when was the last time we ever heard any politician apologize about ANYTHING, at least, until caught and forced to do so? IMO, Bush was wrong for going to war, but I'm not holding my breath for him to admit he was wrong, or apologize. No one else in his shoes would, I'm not holding him up to a higher standard (or any standard, really).

Besides, what differance would it make? It would be like closing the barn door after the horse runs away. We're still stuck in a mess with no end in sight. All we can do is exercise our right to vote, and get him out of office.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Galahad
Is there a history of Presidents making these sorts of confessions (there may be, I just don't remember any)?

JFK did in regards to the Bay of Pigs.....Clinton did in regards to the whole Monica thing....just off the top of my head.

That said, I realize it takes an enormous ego to run for president in the first place, and I understand that admitting fault isn't exactly something politicians will do easily. But this president seems awfully adept at making the buck stop anywhere but at his desk.

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by wvrevy


No, I'm not calling you a liar, I'm saying that what you posted was a lie, or at least misleading. The inspectors were IN Iraq prior to our preperations to invade, and they left that time because of US, not because of Saddam.

As to all that "stuff" he was moving around, is that like the nukes that they found the other day that someone on here posted about ?

were the inspectors allowed to travel freely and go where they wanted...??

did Saddam ever kick them out of Iraq..??

 

[chatty]

What he did to his people and others were reason enough for his action.
How many Women,Children and men would had been tortured and killed!
I for one am Glad our President had the guts to rid saddam and his henchmen.
If a brutal dictator here in the US was killing your Family would you not Pray for outside help? I know I would.
Chatty

 

[SunshineSis]

Originally posted by disneydad2
That's new to me. Honestly would like to see a source of that information.

Feel free to Google. Think back to the months leading up to the war. The question was asked time and time again why the U.N weapons inspectors didn't find anything. This was after the war threats started and after U.N. inspectors were given greater access to Iraq. Time and time again, the response from the White House was (paraphrasing of course), "they aren't looking hard enough and in the right places. The weapons are there."

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by mommytutu
That's a selfish attitude. "it's not our freedom"...are you suggesting that an American life is worth more then an Iraqi life? Those Iraqi people they really don't matter do they?

At a time when our security is threatened by real enemies ? Hell no, they don't matter as much to me.

Where are the complaints from you then about our lack of action in Sudan ? Why aren't you up in arms to protect the hundreds of thousands that are being slaughtered over there ? Why don't THEY matter as much to you ?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by MICKEY88
were the inspectors allowed to travel freely and go where they wanted...??

did Saddam ever kick them out of Iraq..??

No and yes. So ? SADDAM WAS NOT A THREAT TO US. Is that really that hard to understand ?

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by Galahad
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".....

Yes, of course so why are we bothering to debate it anyway?

I'm just wondering if the people on my end of the spectrum out number the people on your end, or not? Guess we'll find out in a few months.

 

[ripleysmom]

"There is overhelming evidence that Saddam was linked to Al Qaida, even the 9/11 Commission agreed on that"

Oh yeah? I wouldn't mind seeing some backup for that.

My understanding was that the 9/11 commission did not address Saddam or Iraq to any great extent.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by ripleysmom
"There is overhelming evidence that Saddam was linked to Al Qaida, even the 9/11 Commission agreed on that"

Oh yeah? I wouldn't mind seeing some backup for that.

My understanding was that the 9/11 commission did not address Saddam or Iraq to any great extent.

Sure they did...They stated, in plain english, that they could find no collaborative relationship at all between Saddam and Al Queda. They said that, apparently, the two sides had met once or twice, but that nothing ever came of it. In fact, bin Ladin once helped support a group that urged the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government. (yeah...sure sounds like they were buddy-buddy to me )

 

[mommytutu]

Originally posted by wvrevy
At a time when our security is threatened by real enemies ? Hell no, they don't matter as much to me.

Where are the complaints from you then about our lack of action in Sudan ? Why aren't you up in arms to protect the hundreds of thousands that are being slaughtered over there ? Why don't THEY matter as much to you ?

Actually, they do matter to me. I find the situation very sad. I understand that we can't be everywhere at one time and we must pick our battles. The ones who get taken care of first are the ones who pose the greatest threat to the US. I DO believe that Saddam was up to no good. I will defend that position til the day I die. I don't think Sudan is a threat to the US, but they do need help and I'm glad that is being recongnized now.

 

[ripleysmom]

"What he did to his people and others were reason enough for his action.
How many Women,Children and men would had been tortured and killed!
I for one am Glad our President had the guts to rid saddam and his henchmen.
If a brutal dictator here in the US was killing your Family would you not Pray for outside help? I know I would."


Would you sacrifice your life or children's life to go into another country and end the brutality?

 

[MICKEY88]

Originally posted by wvrevy
No and yes. So ? SADDAM WAS NOT A THREAT TO US. Is that really that hard to understand ?

LOL.... you just agreed 100% with what I stated earlier..the exact thing that you called a lie.......

 

[ripleysmom]

"Sure they did...They stated, in plain english, that they could find no collaborative relationship at all between Saddam and Al Queda. They said that, apparently, the two sides had met once or twice, but that nothing ever came of it. In fact, bin Ladin once helped support a group that urged the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's government. (yeah...sure sounds like they were buddy-buddy to me)"

Thank you!! I read what the other person posted and I thought maybe I was losing it. I was pretty sure that what you posted was the conclusions that they came to....

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by mommytutu
Actually, they do matter to me. I find the situation very sad. I understand that we can't be everywhere at one time and we must pick our battles. The ones who get taken care of first are the ones who pose the greatest threat to the US. I DO believe that Saddam was up to no good. I will defend that position til the day I die. I don't think Sudan is a threat to the US, but they do need help and I'm glad that is being recongnized now.

That's fine...But Saddam's genocide was over a decade ago, while the one in Sudan is ongoing....

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by MICKEY88
LOL.... you just agreed 100% with what I stated earlier..the exact thing that you called a lie.......

Wrong yet again...Your initial post gave the impression that you were saying Saddam kicked the inspectors out right before the war, and that is NOT what happened.

But nice try

 

[jrydberg]

Saddam's genocide continued right up until he was removed from power.

 

[richiebaseball]

Originally posted by rcyannacci
I'm sincerely interested in your sources on this- I haven't found a whole lot of reporting that goes into great, specific detail on Saddam's regime. News has become such an industry here that I'm become quite skeptical of many sources.

Here are a couple of sites.

http://iraqiholocaust.blogspot.com/2004/07/life-under-saddam.html

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html

http://iraqshoahfiles.blogspot.com/

These should offer some history.

Richard

 

[Galahad]

"they aren't looking hard enough and in the right places. The weapons are there."

This is a misleading formulation and it is not what was said at the time. First, we never tried to say that the inspectors weren't trying hard enough. Not even sure where that comes from. But what we did make clear was that it was not the inspectors responsibility to prove or disprove Iraq's compliance. It was not the U.S. or the U.K's role to prove or disprove Iraq's compliance. The position was that after 12 years or games it was now undeniably the responsibility of Iraq to prove its compliance. It was apparently not particularly important to Iraq to prove it and they made no effort to do so.

But even that argues a straw man. In the formation of a strategy for a global war on terror there were a number of places that might have been logical to "start" other than Iraq. But we lacked the immediate context in which to do it. Even if we had concluded, as some have suggested, that we should go to Saudi first, it would have been even a harder sell that it was what needed to be done. I guess, to re-answer the question above...I wish that we had made the case differently. But the administration of the U.S. and the U.K. concluded that approach was a bit too nuanced (for those who like French speaking candidates) to sell. Again, if you accept the premise and nature of a global war on terror as laid out by President Bush and P.M. Blair then the Iraq operation is quite defensible. But if you don't think that is the nature of the war at all then it would make little sense to you.

I think the press, who really aren't particularly bright, have done us a bit of disservice in their spin of the war or terror over the last 3 years. It just wasn't an interesting story all by itself and the reporting on it has been sloppy at best, IMO.