Will the Bushies Ever Accept the Truth???

[Alexander's Horse]

Drawing up plans doesn't mean anything.

See? Sometimes I help the right.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by rah
Testing the waters.

This is not testing the waters.

According to Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British Ambassador to Washington, who was at the dinner, Blair told Bush he should not get distracted from the war on terror's initial goal - dealing with the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

Bush, claims Meyer, replied by saying: 'I agree with you, Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq.'

...


Vanity Fair quotes a senior American official from Vice-President Dick Cheney's office who says he read the transcript of a telephone call between Blair and Bush a few days later [July 2002].

'The way it read was that, come what may, Saddam was going to go; they said they were going forward, they were going to take out the regime, and they were doing the right thing. Blair did not need any convincing. There was no, "Come on, Tony, we've got to get you on board". I remember reading it and then thinking, "OK, now I know what we're going to be doing for the next year".'

But thank you for illustrating the title of this thread so perfectly. The truth is staring you in the face, and you resort to all sorts of contosion not to have to see it. You're one of the few Republicans I think have integrity, so I am a little disappointed, to say the least.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Agathon
I don't see what the big deal about Saddam was in the first place. After GW1 he couldn't be described as a threat to anyone except perhaps to the people he committed atrocities against.

There -- that is more acccurate than your original statement.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
But MTG in spite of all that, and in spite of Saddam being a mass murderer and all, SURELY he has been seriously and unfairly misunderstood!

This is relevent to what discussion?

[MrFun]

This is part of your earlier statement, Che --

As I recall, Hussein was bending over backwards to try and comply with the ultimatum given him by the Prez (except the last one to get out).



Too often, people assume that psychopaths like Saddam will rationally abide by reasonable demands.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Verto
You act as if regime change in Iraq was something unique to Bush. Congress had already passed the Iraqi Liberation Act, and Clinton had already signed it, years before Bush came into office.

Yes- interestingly enough, Bush in 2000 did state he wanted regime change, but not ONCE did he in the campaign tell the Amercian people we would invade.

And I can bet a pretty penny I think, that 90% of the posters here who backed BUsh would not, in April 2001 have come out and said-you know, we need to invade Iraq and spend hundreds of billions on it. Yes, the congress passed the bill, and Clinto signed it-and then in 199 they both begun planning to enact it-OH wait, they didn't. I really did miss that huge speech by Delay in whcih he urged his fellow congresspeople to get behind Clinton and begin planning the invasion.....OH, wait, IT NEVER HAPPENED.

Before 9/11 Bush would never have had the political capital to even bring up an invasion. Even AFTER 9/11 he got support by counching the war as one against a looming threat, NOT as one of regime change and nation building. Hence all the blather about Saddam avoiding war if he came clean on the WMD's (which would then keep him in power and sort of invalidate the whole 'regime change' notion).

So do feel free to bring this up-becuase in essence, this was a policy passed by a Congress that was more talk than action and a politically wounded rpesident who would not have been able to bring an invasion through that same congress regardless of the law they passed.

And if you have ANY proof otherwise, please bring it forth.

[Whaleboy]

Yeah, this is like one of those fairground attractions where you shoot at the ducks.

Beating up on the righties is getting boring, given that they have no defence.

No, I lied. It will never get boring.

I don't think reasonable people could doubt that Iraq war planning began just after 9/11, indeed I suspect they were going on when Bush came to power, and since 1998 by the PNAC. However, if they lied that such planning had gone on just after 9/11, and this new book seems to show just that, then the Bush camp have a problem.

[rah]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
But thank you for illustrating the title of this thread so perfectly. The truth is staring you in the face, and you resort to all sorts of contosion not to have to see it. You're one of the few Republicans I think have integrity, so I am a little disappointed, to say the least.

I agree that he GW had a hard on for IRAQ. That's not the issues here. Saddam was given opportunities to back down. He had been playing on the edge for a decade and could have easily put on a better face of compliance. Even without full compliance, if he had appeared sincere, it would have gone a long way taking away any reasonable excuse that GW could have manipulated. He didn't. He continued to thumb his nose playing it for whatever political gain he could. This allowed GW to satisfy his desires. A lot of americans believe this, which explains why continued unmaskings/changing of the reasons for it haven't created an across the board uproar. I don't thing most GW bashers truely realize just how many people wish we had finished the job a decade ago so really weren't concerned about any rational for the job to be finally finished. As demonstrated, many looked the other way as the reasons proved to not hold water. Those people just winked and were happy that the bastard finally got his. GW did understand and took advantage of it.

To the accusations of lies and such, I'm not impressed. The final decision to attack came well after 9/11 and could have been still been cancelled. (difficult, but I still believe possible) So a desire for and positioning/manipulating for was just that. Yes, it is splitting hairs, and it's just my opinion.

I guess my problems is that the anti-bushies think this is such a big shocking and important revelation that makes GW unqualified to be president. UNqualifying every politician that has ever bent the truth and there wouldn't be more than a handful left. We're talking about politicians for christ's sake. Politicians lying, the world is going to end.

I will admit that 25 years, this probably would have more impact on my thinking. I was more idealistic back then. Now I am more realistic. Old age sucks in terms of that. The sad part is that it doesn't seem as important to as many of those 25 years younger as it did then.

[Whaleboy]

To the accusations of lies and such, I'm not impressed. The final decision to attack came well after 9/11 and could have been still been cancelled. (difficult, but I still believe possible)

I doubt that. The logical conclusion of the arguments used by the Bush camp leads to the UN being the best route and the US abiding by the no-war stance. Bush wanted that war, the conclusion was pre-ordained and the premises merely ad-hoc'd into place. Were the grounds for those premises to change, it is reasonable to assume that new ones would simply have been slotted into place.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by MrFun
This is part of your earlier statement, Che --

As I recall, Hussein was bending over backwards to try and comply with the ultimatum given him by the Prez (except the last one to get out).

This was true.

Too often, people assume that psychopaths like Saddam will rationally abide by reasonable demands.

Too often people assume that a brutal dictator is incapable of rational action or thought, despite decades of evidence to the contrary. Hussein may have been murderous. He may have been brutal. He was not, however, so out of touch with reality that he thought he could win a war with the United States.

The increasingly desperate actions of the Iraqi regime showed they were definately scared that the U.S. would invade and were trying to do what they could to placate us. The demands Bush had were impossible to comply with. Even we cannot comply with the demands we made. The difference is, we don't have to.

[GePap]

Originally posted by rah
I agree that he GW had a hard on for IRAQ. That's not the issues here. Saddam was given opportunities to back down. He had been playing on the edge for a decade and could have easily put on a better face of compliance. Even without full compliance, if he had appeared sincere, it would have gone a long way taking away any reasonable excuse that GW could have manipulated. He didn't. He continued to thumb his nose playing it for whatever political gain he could.

So which goal of the war did you support rah? Becuase if the goal you supported was regime change and creating a democratic Iraq, Saddam by definition had NO chance to back down other than complete surrender of his power and his family's power.

I agree with you that Saddam was an arrogant ***** that helped bring about his own fall-BUT again, IF we begin to change hisotry to say the goal was always regime change, at least for most Americans, then you have to say that war was inveitable, becuase why wopuld Saddam simply leave Iraq after all he built?

[rah]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I doubt that. The logical conclusion of the arguments used by the Bush camp leads to the UN being the best route and the US abiding by the no-war stance. Bush wanted that war, the conclusion was pre-ordained and the premises merely ad-hoc'd into place. Were the grounds for those premises to change, it is reasonable to assume that new ones would simply have been slotted into place.

You're right, that was very possible.
But we're all allowed opinions, and while very likely, not completely a lock. I think there was a way for him to wiggle off that hook.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by MrFun
This is part of your earlier statement, Che --

As I recall, Hussein was bending over backwards to try and comply with the ultimatum given him by the Prez (except the last one to get out).

This was true.

Too often, people assume that psychopaths like Saddam will rationally abide by reasonable demands.

Too often people assume that a brutal dictator is incapable of rational action or thought, despite decades of evidence to the contrary. Hussein may have been murderous. He may have been brutal. He was not, however, so out of touch with reality that he thought he could win a war with the United States.

The increasingly desperate actions of the Iraqi regime showed they were definately scared that the U.S. would invade and were trying to do what they could to placate us. The demands Bush had were impossible to comply with. Even we cannot comply with the demands we made. The difference is, we don't have to.

Remember the mistake that happened when Chamberlain thought Hitler would comply with world peace??

[rah]

Originally posted by GePap


So which goal of the war did you support rah? Becuase if the goal you supported was regime change and creating a democratic Iraq, Saddam by definition had NO chance to back down other than complete surrender of his power and his family's power.

I agree with you that Saddam was an arrogant ***** that helped bring about his own fall-BUT again, IF we begin to change hisotry to say the goal was always regime change, at least for most Americans, then you have to say that war was inveitable, becuase why wopuld Saddam simply leave Iraq after all he built?

I didn't need one. I'm one of those I described, that think we didn't finish the job in the first place. Saddam was given a reprieve but his ego wouldn't let him abide by the agreements that were signed. (under duress of course ) He caused continued suffering of his people to continue flipping us off. On top of everything else, that was enough. Yes, not the most rational thought process.

Yes it would be nice if the US would look at other evil people across the world and act more consistently, but the resources and the public will isn't there to do that. (and a lot of those evil people are smart enough to suck up better) Yes, a sometimes grim picture.

[Bosh]

Remember the mistake that happened when Chamberlain thought Hitler would comply with world peace??

Yes, that's a completely apt comparison considering the massive might of the Iraqi army pre-war. I'm sure they were on the verge of attempting world conquest.