Wow. Those inspections really worked. NOTHING gets passed those clever UN guys.
OK, snarkiness off. In all seriousness, the Duelfer report, which liberals love to use as proof that Saddam didn't have WMD, actually specifically stated that in the run up to the war in Iraq, there was a high level of movement of materials out of Iraq and into Syria. He also concluded that it most likely was materials for WMD. Liberals conveniently ignored this. Of course, they'll continue to ignore it, despite these tapes. They'd only believe it if one of Saddam's nukes was fired up their asses.
What happened in 1995 is not relevant. The question is, and remains, "was the information accurate as presented in the build up to war?" I'm yet to see conclusive proof. However, based on what we have NOT found, I have less trouble believing reports that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" as is stated in the Downing Street memos, the favorite document for Bush supporters to ignore.
One theory is that Sadaam liked to act as though he had these weapons in order to appear powerful. Until the WMDs are found, I will continue my skepticism. Quite frankly, if they are in Syria, they're just as dangerous there (if not more so) than they were in Iraq anyway.
Saddam was motivated to act as though he had these weapons. He had Kurds to keep in line for one thing.
Nevertheless, many right wing apologists for Bush will go to the grave thinking that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. Okay. Great. Whatever. People believe all kinds of crazy things. Some people believe in the Loch Ness monster.
My question is - has Bush done a good job? After convincing everyone that Saddam was a threat, has he made good decisions?
Was it a good decision to leave the occupation to chance and to "being greeted as liberators"? Was it a good decision to go in alone (except for a token force from the UK)? was it a good decision to spread our troops too thin and allow lawlessness to overtake the country?
In short, did Bush make a good decision when he decided to toss out the Powell Doctrine?
"Nobody disputes the tapes' authenticity."
I'll bet Jason and Liz Allen doubt their authenticity. Just another conspiracy hatched by Rove and Cheney, no doubt. My money says the WMDs are in Syria, the other Ba'athist regime.
There are a couple of somewhat interesting theories out there about Saddam's nuke program, though. One is that Iraq didn't have nukes yet, but Saddam wanted everyone to think they did, like posting a beware of dog sign for your 20-year old poodle to scare away burglars. The other theory is that They didn't have nukes, but Saddam's minions were telling him that they did to keep their heads on their shoulders, sorta like Hitler's paper divisions in 1944. "Sure thing boss, we got plenty of tanks. Those Russkies won't even get across the Oder, let alone capture Berlin!"
Either way, Bush didn't lie us into war.
G,
You did not say whether or not you think Bush is doing a good job. Why it so hard for wingnuts to admit that Bush flat out sucks as President?
Why is it so difficult for moonbats to stay on topic?
look, I know you think attacking Iraq with no real plan for the occupation was just a great idea. I get that. You still think that they will great us as liberators I guess.
I know you think the Powell Doctrine was just so much liberal propaganda. Okay. I get it.
I'm asking, when do YOU - G Rex, admit that Bush flat out sucks as a President? What has to happen to provide you with enough proof that he is an abject failure?
Personally, I think the occupation was botched (not that this post is actually about that), but Bush is still the second best President since Nixon.
Holy Cow! The second best President since Nixon. You must not have read Paul Bremmer's book about the President's view of the occupation.
The President's directions seem to have been limited to such slogans as "we're not going to fail" and "pace yourself, Jerry." In Bremer's account, the President was seriously interested in one issue: whether the leaders of the government that followed the CPA would publicly thank the United States. But there is no evidence that he cared about the specific questions that counted: Would the new prime minister have a broad base of support? Would he be able to bridge Iraq's ethnic divisions? What political values should he have? Instead, Bush had only one demand: "It's important to have someone who's willing to stand up and thank the American people for their sacrifice in liberating Iraq." According to Bremer, he came back to this single point three times in the same meeting.
Yep. He is a regular Churchill.
First, that is not such high praise. Presidents since Nixon: Ford, Carter, Reagan , Bush, Clinton, Bush.
Ranking them Reagan, Bush, Bush, Ford, Clinton, Carter, it isn't such a big deal. It isn't exactly a stellar group.
And second, I have read Bremer's book. I reviewed it here at the begining of this month: http://www.jokerstotheright.com/...ar-in-
iraq.html
You obviously have not, as that is a quote from a spun news story, and not from the actual book. Bremer indicates that as time whent along, Bush was supportive of him, and Rumsfeld was a problem in terms of governance, and manipulating Iraqi force numbers, American troop deployments, etc.
*sigh*
Very well then, I will concede that the president has not accomplished all the objectives that he set out before 9/11, before Enron, and before Katrina. Three words: overtaken by events. That's as far as I will go, since what has been accomplished can only be assessed with a historical perspective.
If, for example, I'm still working 30 years from now instead of retiring because I have to support 10 people on welfare because GWB was unable to get meaningful social security reform through the Congress, I will probably be cursing his memory. Or if, 10 years from now, I'm out of work in favor of an illegal alien who will work off the books at half my salary because GWB didn't get immigration reform or border security taken care of. Or if my company goes bankrupt from frivolous lawsuits because Congress manages to block tort reform. Or if my parents die and all of their assets are confiscated by the government in the form of estate taxes which will be spent paying for everybody's Viagra or to pay college tuition for some barely literate pothead who managed to graduate from the public school system anyway because the NEA has protected their monopoly rather than allow school voucher programs. Or if we're paying $5 per gallon for gas but still not drilling in ANWR. Of course, there will be plenty of blame to go around, and I'll stick most of it with Congress or President Hillary or whatever.
Now will you admit that the president didn't "lie us into war" with regards to WMDs? Or that Jimmy Carter was the worst president since Hoover? Or that Bill Clinton accomplished nothing but took credit for everything?
Duelfer reports was dated last year, or 2004. NOT 1995, McKain. I read the report.
Occupation is completely f***ed up. I think the initial decision to invade was the right one, and I do not doubt that Saddam had WMD, and they probably are in Syria and are probably as dangerous, but probably NOT more so (one of those silly liberal guises against the war- it's bad for some people to have WMD, but apparently not Saddam), there as in Iraq.
Jason- Stick to topic. This is not a review of the entirity of the Bush presidency. G Rex was entirely right to call you out on that.
test
Commenting by HaloScan
