Poll: Has the Iraq war affected Bush's credibility?

[Siddhartha]

I voted "No, Bush's credibility has not changed" because I did not believe the reasons he gave for the war in the first place.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
That's how we spell it on K-Pak.

a new language.. "it" is spelt... "thrth"... well now I gotta reread all the posts ... I thought I understood..



I find Bush acredible, inspitefull, and gonna fool the easily fooled by praying on each holy day of each religion... that will put him in good stead with all the people .... cept the Catholics (like Me) who know everyone is wrong.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
I voted "No, Bush's credibility has not changed" because I did not believe the reasons he gave for the war in the first place.

I voted the same. His Administration has taken some hits over this Iraq thing but it has also gained because of it too. Now the world knows that when we say we are going to do something unless X happens- we mean it(regardless of it being right or wrong).

CkG

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
I voted "No, Bush's credibility has not changed" because I did not believe the reasons he gave for the war in the first place.

I voted the same. His Administration has taken some hits over this Iraq thing but it has also gained because of it too. Now the world knows that when we say we are going to do something unless X happens- we mean it(regardless of it being right or wrong).

CkG

no wonder most people in the world consider the US the biggest threat now

 

[Zorba]

I personally don't think he has ever had any credibility, but I think that his credibility did decrease with the American people as a whole.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
I voted "No, Bush's credibility has not changed" because I did not believe the reasons he gave for the war in the first place.

I voted the same. His Administration has taken some hits over this Iraq thing but it has also gained because of it too. Now the world knows that when we say we are going to do something unless X happens- we mean it(regardless of it being right or wrong).

CkG

no wonder most people in the world consider the US the biggest threat now

Yeah cuz we all know the world loves people who never follow through with what they say they will do.

The US isn't a threat if you don't mess with them or their interests.

CkG

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
I voted "No, Bush's credibility has not changed" because I did not believe the reasons he gave for the war in the first place.

I voted the same. His Administration has taken some hits over this Iraq thing but it has also gained because of it too. Now the world knows that when we say we are going to do something unless X happens- we mean it(regardless of it being right or wrong).

CkG

no wonder most people in the world consider the US the biggest threat now

Yeah cuz we all know the world loves people who never follow through with what they say they will do.

The US isn't a threat if you don't mess with them or their interests.

CkG

so basicly the rule is "be our bitches or else":disgust:

 

[HappyGamer2]

stop it, stop it, I just can't bare to watch this Bush bashing any longer. stop it now please!!!!. can't you all see the future of the nation is at stake here. When bush is done with his new world order deal we will control much the worlds oil supply. Plus he is just doing what the oil men and what the CIA tell him to do.
Easy easy easy on him now. he is only following orders from the top.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
I voted "No, Bush's credibility has not changed" because I did not believe the reasons he gave for the war in the first place.

I voted the same. His Administration has taken some hits over this Iraq thing but it has also gained because of it too. Now the world knows that when we say we are going to do something unless X happens- we mean it(regardless of it being right or wrong).

CkG

no wonder most people in the world consider the US the biggest threat now

Yeah cuz we all know the world loves people who never follow through with what they say they will do.

The US isn't a threat if you don't mess with them or their interests.

CkG

so basicly the rule is "be our bitches or else":disgust:

You fail to understand what I said and meant. Bush told Saddam to give it up (SH didn't), Bush told Saddam that he needed to turn himself in or we were coming in(SH didn't), then Bush told him to get out cuz we're coming in(S.H didn't) So Bush FOLLWED THROUGH WITH HIS Promise and we went in. You see wether or not you like it- Bush did what he promised to do, which is more than I can say for alot of other leaders.

So... now people know that when Bush says he is going to do something he isn't just bluffing

This isn't a "be my bitch" type of thing - this is a "we agreed on terms and you broke em, now your screwed" thing

CkG

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I did not (do not) support the Iraq War but I certainly believe Bush has tarnished this country and every official associated with the WMD-theory of pre-emptive war. George Will, a horrible pantywaist liberal . . . wrote an excellent column discussing the credibility issue.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
I voted "No, Bush's credibility has not changed" because I did not believe the reasons he gave for the war in the first place.

I voted the same. His Administration has taken some hits over this Iraq thing but it has also gained because of it too. Now the world knows that when we say we are going to do something unless X happens- we mean it(regardless of it being right or wrong).

CkG

Well, I'll agree with half your statement, "Now the world knows that when we say we are going to do something...", that part is true. However, the rest of it is untrue, there was nothing SH could have done, this is the reason Bush rushed into war against the UN's wishes.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
I voted "No, Bush's credibility has not changed" because I did not believe the reasons he gave for the war in the first place.

I voted the same. His Administration has taken some hits over this Iraq thing but it has also gained because of it too. Now the world knows that when we say we are going to do something unless X happens- we mean it(regardless of it being right or wrong).

CkG

Well, I'll agree with half your statement, "Now the world knows that when we say we are going to do something...", that part is true. However, the rest of it is untrue, there was nothing SH could have done, this is the reason Bush rushed into war against the UN's wishes.

SH could have shown proof that he destroyed the WMD(that EVERYONE SAYS HE HAD), SH could have left the country, SH could have NOT kicked the inspectors out way back when, etc....coulda shoulda woulda. To say that there "was nothing SH could have done" to prevent the attack is asinine. Also, there was no "rush" to war. How many months were we building up troops in the area? Oh yeah - 14+!!!

Saddam agreed to cease-fire terms over 12 years ago and he didn't comply. NO ONE claims he was in compliance with those terms, but yet you people sit here and condemn Bush. Blame the problem- not the enforcer.

The truth is, that Saddam could have prevented not only THIS invasion, but the attack in 1998, and also 12+ years of sanctions, if he just would have held up his end of the bargain.

But yeah, it's ALL GWB's fault.

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
I voted "No, Bush's credibility has not changed" because I did not believe the reasons he gave for the war in the first place.

I voted the same. His Administration has taken some hits over this Iraq thing but it has also gained because of it too. Now the world knows that when we say we are going to do something unless X happens- we mean it(regardless of it being right or wrong).

CkG

Well, I'll agree with half your statement, "Now the world knows that when we say we are going to do something...", that part is true. However, the rest of it is untrue, there was nothing SH could have done, this is the reason Bush rushed into war against the UN's wishes.

SH could have shown proof that he destroyed the WMD(that EVERYONE SAYS HE HAD), SH could have left the country, SH could have NOT kicked the inspectors out way back when, etc....coulda shoulda woulda. To say that there "was nothing SH could have done" to prevent the attack is asinine. Also, there was no "rush" to war. How many months were we building up troops in the area? Oh yeah - 14+!!!

Saddam agreed to cease-fire terms over 12 years ago and he didn't comply. NO ONE claims he was in compliance with those terms, but yet you people sit here and condemn Bush. Blame the problem- not the enforcer.

The truth is, that Saddam could have prevented not only THIS invasion, but the attack in 1998, and also 12+ years of sanctions, if he just would have held up his end of the bargain.

But yeah, it's ALL GWB's fault.

CkG

Perhaps SH did not have "proof", it appears that he certainly didn't have WMD.

Yes, it is GWB's fault. He said he had "proof" of SH WMD, now he doesn't. He bashed and belittled France, Blix, and the "Unwilling" for not coming along on the fight against WMD, now he stands smirking and coming up with a new excuse every week(much like the weekly reason for War prior to the invasion)for not finding anything.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Perhaps SH did not have "proof", it appears that he certainly didn't have WMD.

Yes, it is GWB's fault. He said he had "proof" of SH WMD, now he doesn't. He bashed and belittled France, Blix, and the "Unwilling" for not coming along on the fight against WMD, now he stands smirking and coming up with a new excuse every week(much like the weekly reason for War prior to the invasion)for not finding anything.

So the fact that SH didn't have proof means we blame Bush? I thought that the UN laid out specific terms for compliance? Oh well, I guess you don't believe in accountability then if you think SH should have gotten a pass.

So are you going to say that SH didn't have WMD? You surely have to think that if you say that Bush's "proof" statement is false. Maybe he didn't have them when we attacked, but the question that still remains unanswered by SADDAM is where did they go? He said he had them, the UN said he had them, the rest of the world said that he had them, hell - he even USED them.
Saddam had WMD = TRUE.
The UN told Saddam to get rid of them and show proof = TRUE
Saddam didn't meet said requirements agreed upon by the UN and himself. = TRUE

Care to point out a country that didn't believe the above?

Yeah - you are right - it is ALL Bush's fault

The only thing Bush did was remove Saddam's ass from power, WMD was not a "new" issue. Did we need to go in when we did? Maybe, maybe not - but how long and how many chances to fully comply does Saddam get?

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Perhaps SH did not have "proof", it appears that he certainly didn't have WMD.

Yes, it is GWB's fault. He said he had "proof" of SH WMD, now he doesn't. He bashed and belittled France, Blix, and the "Unwilling" for not coming along on the fight against WMD, now he stands smirking and coming up with a new excuse every week(much like the weekly reason for War prior to the invasion)for not finding anything.

So the fact that SH didn't have proof means we blame Bush? I thought that the UN laid out specific terms for compliance? Oh well, I guess you don't believe in accountability then if you think SH should have gotten a pass.

So are you going to say that SH didn't have WMD? You surely have to think that if you say that Bush's "proof" statement is false. Maybe he didn't have them when we attacked, but the question that still remains unanswered by SADDAM is where did they go? He said he had them, the UN said he had them, the rest of the world said that he had them, hell - he even USED them.
Saddam had WMD = TRUE.
The UN told Saddam to get rid of them and show proof = TRUE
Saddam didn't meet said requirements agreed upon by the UN and himself. = TRUE

Care to point out a country that didn't believe the above?

Yeah - you are right - it is ALL Bush's fault

The only thing Bush did was remove Saddam's ass from power, WMD was not a "new" issue. Did we need to go in when we did? Maybe, maybe not - but how long and how many chances to fully comply does Saddam get?

CkG

Where are the weapons and evidence Bush said he had before the war? Where are THEY?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Perhaps SH did not have "proof", it appears that he certainly didn't have WMD.

Yes, it is GWB's fault. He said he had "proof" of SH WMD, now he doesn't. He bashed and belittled France, Blix, and the "Unwilling" for not coming along on the fight against WMD, now he stands smirking and coming up with a new excuse every week(much like the weekly reason for War prior to the invasion)for not finding anything.

So the fact that SH didn't have proof means we blame Bush? I thought that the UN laid out specific terms for compliance? Oh well, I guess you don't believe in accountability then if you think SH should have gotten a pass.

So are you going to say that SH didn't have WMD? You surely have to think that if you say that Bush's "proof" statement is false. Maybe he didn't have them when we attacked, but the question that still remains unanswered by SADDAM is where did they go? He said he had them, the UN said he had them, the rest of the world said that he had them, hell - he even USED them.
Saddam had WMD = TRUE.
The UN told Saddam to get rid of them and show proof = TRUE
Saddam didn't meet said requirements agreed upon by the UN and himself. = TRUE

Care to point out a country that didn't believe the above?

Yeah - you are right - it is ALL Bush's fault

The only thing Bush did was remove Saddam's ass from power, WMD was not a "new" issue. Did we need to go in when we did? Maybe, maybe not - but how long and how many chances to fully comply does Saddam get?

CkG

Where are the weapons and evidence Bush said he had before the war? Where are THEY?

Exactly - where are the weapons that EVERYONE said they knew he had? If you are going to just blame Bush for this then you are just ignorant or blindly partisan. Where are the weapons and evidence that Clinton used as his reasoning in 1998? Oh, I forgot - Bill gets a pass because of the "right-wing conspiracy" And I also ask - does everyone who gave Bush permission to use force lose credibility too? They were spouting the same things that Bush was Need I dig up the links to what Byrd, Clinton(hillary), and etc said?

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Perhaps SH did not have "proof", it appears that he certainly didn't have WMD.

Yes, it is GWB's fault. He said he had "proof" of SH WMD, now he doesn't. He bashed and belittled France, Blix, and the "Unwilling" for not coming along on the fight against WMD, now he stands smirking and coming up with a new excuse every week(much like the weekly reason for War prior to the invasion)for not finding anything.

So the fact that SH didn't have proof means we blame Bush? I thought that the UN laid out specific terms for compliance? Oh well, I guess you don't believe in accountability then if you think SH should have gotten a pass.

So are you going to say that SH didn't have WMD? You surely have to think that if you say that Bush's "proof" statement is false. Maybe he didn't have them when we attacked, but the question that still remains unanswered by SADDAM is where did they go? He said he had them, the UN said he had them, the rest of the world said that he had them, hell - he even USED them.
Saddam had WMD = TRUE.
The UN told Saddam to get rid of them and show proof = TRUE
Saddam didn't meet said requirements agreed upon by the UN and himself. = TRUE

Care to point out a country that didn't believe the above?

Yeah - you are right - it is ALL Bush's fault

The only thing Bush did was remove Saddam's ass from power, WMD was not a "new" issue. Did we need to go in when we did? Maybe, maybe not - but how long and how many chances to fully comply does Saddam get?

CkG

Where are the weapons and evidence Bush said he had before the war? Where are THEY?

Exactly - where are the weapons that EVERYONE said they knew he had? If you are going to just blame Bush for this then you are just ignorant or blindly partisan. Where are the weapons and evidence that Clinton used as his reasoning in 1998? Oh, I forgot - Bill gets a pass because of the "right-wing conspiracy" And I also ask - does everyone who gave Bush permission to use force lose credibility too? They were spouting the same things that Bush was Need I dig up the links to what Byrd, Clinton(hillary), and etc said?

CkG

Where are the weapons and evidence Bush said he had before the war? Where are THEY?
Kerry, Clinton, the UN. None of these started a war. Bush did. I repeat the question.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

BTW, Bush and Co. NEVER wanted to see a piece of intel that did not agree with their POV. That was above all considerations. I knew this before the war, and it never changed. Bush was not to be confused with facts. His mind was already made up. Unlike anyone else though, he gets to start a war when he acts that way.

 

[Tripleshot]

I believed Biush and supported him and this invasion because Bush and his administration, including Cheney, Rumsfield, and Rice, along with all the other in line talking heads drove it home for month after month, in spite of being told by others (France,Germany,the UN) that it was pre-mature because the proof wasn't there. Bush swore he gad it and would produce it.

Bush, put up or shut up ! :disgust:

I believed you then. Until you produce your evidence, I will never believe you again. Not on foreign policy, not on domestic policy, not on tax reduction, prescription drug reform, not on a damn thing.

Time for Bush to be removed from ofice. Vote him out in 2004.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So the fact that SH didn't have proof means we blame Bush? I thought that the UN laid out specific terms for compliance? Oh well, I guess you don't believe in accountability then if you think SH should have gotten a pass.

So are you going to say that SH didn't have WMD? You surely have to think that if you say that Bush's "proof" statement is false. Maybe he didn't have them when we attacked, but the question that still remains unanswered by SADDAM is where did they go? He said he had them, the UN said he had them, the rest of the world said that he had them, hell - he even USED them.
Saddam had WMD = TRUE.
The UN told Saddam to get rid of them and show proof = TRUE
Saddam didn't meet said requirements agreed upon by the UN and himself. = TRUE

Care to point out a country that didn't believe the above?

Yeah - you are right - it is ALL Bush's fault

The only thing Bush did was remove Saddam's ass from power, WMD was not a "new" issue. Did we need to go in when we did? Maybe, maybe not - but how long and how many chances to fully comply does Saddam get?

CkG

I think this may be why we can't see eye-to-eye on this war. In my mind, invading another country is an absolute last resort, after every other option is exhausted. It is only justified in response to a real, significant, and imminent danger to the U.S. or its allies. It is NOT to be used as a negotiating tactic or a lever to persuade others. It is NOT a legitimate tool for empire-building or political gain. It must NOT be based on hearsay or convenience or wishful thinking. It certainly isn't an appropriate response to missing paperwork.

In my opinion, there was no urgency that demanded we invade Iraq. So what if Iraq wasn't complying with 1441 as well as we wanted? So what if we already gave Iraq 12 years to comply? So what if Iraq agreed to these terms (at gunpoint, I might add)? While Iraq's defiance may have been a threat to our egos and our patience, it certainly wasn't a threat to our safety. As the world's greatest democracy and its last remaining superpower, we have a higher responsibility to be responsible and temperate in our dealings with the world. We should be too strong and too noble to overreact to a pipsqueak nuisance like 2003 Iraq.

The most charitable interpretation of Bush's rush to invade Iraq is that his good sense was outgunned by his impatience and his swaggering, shoot-from-the-hip, cowboy mentality. A less favorable view is that his invasion was a cynical, immoral attempt to further his personal and political agenda: distract from his domestic performance, looming financial scandals, and failure to find Osama bin Laden; establish a U.S. footprint in the Middle East; control Iraqi oil, undermining OPEC and benefiting his oil buddies in the process; improve his image in preparation for the 2004 election; establish a 1984-style perpetual state of war; maybe even extract revenge on the guy who wronged his daddy.

Bush had dozens of possible reasons for invading Iraq; we'll likely never know which of them topped his list. In my opinion, none justifies launching a war and killing and maiming thousands of innocent people. None of these justifies burying this country with up to half a trillion dollars of additional debt. Lacking a clear and immediate danger from Iraq, we should have continued the policies of inspections and containment even though it was frustrating and irritating and even a little embarrassing to be jerked around by a scumbag like Saddam Hussein. We're supposed to be big enough to take it.

If I'm reading you right, CkG, you set the bar a little lower on acceptable criteria for war. That's your right, but it means we'll never agree on the justness of Bush's invasion of Iraq.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Exactly - where are the weapons that EVERYONE said they knew he had? If you are going to just blame Bush for this then you are just ignorant or blindly partisan. Where are the weapons and evidence that Clinton used as his reasoning in 1998? Oh, I forgot - Bill gets a pass because of the "right-wing conspiracy"

Come on, that's dishonest and you know it. Everyone knows Iraq had WMDs in the 1990's. There was plenty of disagreement about whether they still had them in 2003, especially once some of the "evidence" was shown to be distorted, even forged.

And I also ask - does everyone who gave Bush permission to use force lose credibility too? They were spouting the same things that Bush was Need I dig up the links to what Byrd, Clinton(hillary), and etc said?

No, I think they also bear responsibility. Bush & Co. have diluted this responsibility, however, by presenting misinformation to Congress, the U.N., and the American public. Bush gives them an out, raising a reasonable doubt about what they would have said and done if they'd been given accurate information. Oh, what a tangled web we weave . . .

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski

Perhaps SH did not have "proof", it appears that he certainly didn't have WMD.

Yes, it is GWB's fault. He said he had "proof" of SH WMD, now he doesn't. He bashed and belittled France, Blix, and the "Unwilling" for not coming along on the fight against WMD, now he stands smirking and coming up with a new excuse every week(much like the weekly reason for War prior to the invasion)for not finding anything.

So the fact that SH didn't have proof means we blame Bush? I thought that the UN laid out specific terms for compliance? Oh well, I guess you don't believe in accountability then if you think SH should have gotten a pass.

So are you going to say that SH didn't have WMD? You surely have to think that if you say that Bush's "proof" statement is false. Maybe he didn't have them when we attacked, but the question that still remains unanswered by SADDAM is where did they go? He said he had them, the UN said he had them, the rest of the world said that he had them, hell - he even USED them.
Saddam had WMD = TRUE.
The UN told Saddam to get rid of them and show proof = TRUE
Saddam didn't meet said requirements agreed upon by the UN and himself. = TRUE

Care to point out a country that didn't believe the above?

Yeah - you are right - it is ALL Bush's fault

The only thing Bush did was remove Saddam's ass from power, WMD was not a "new" issue. Did we need to go in when we did? Maybe, maybe not - but how long and how many chances to fully comply does Saddam get?

CkG

Where are the weapons and evidence Bush said he had before the war? Where are THEY?

Exactly - where are the weapons that EVERYONE said they knew he had? If you are going to just blame Bush for this then you are just ignorant or blindly partisan. Where are the weapons and evidence that Clinton used as his reasoning in 1998? Oh, I forgot - Bill gets a pass because of the "right-wing conspiracy" And I also ask - does everyone who gave Bush permission to use force lose credibility too? They were spouting the same things that Bush was Need I dig up the links to what Byrd, Clinton(hillary), and etc said?

CkG

Where are the weapons and evidence Bush said he had before the war? Where are THEY?
Kerry, Clinton, the UN. None of these started a war. Bush did. I repeat the question.

But they did "attack" unprovoked using WMD as their excuse, yes?

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Exactly - where are the weapons that EVERYONE said they knew he had? If you are going to just blame Bush for this then you are just ignorant or blindly partisan. Where are the weapons and evidence that Clinton used as his reasoning in 1998? Oh, I forgot - Bill gets a pass because of the "right-wing conspiracy"

Come on, that's dishonest and you know it. Everyone knows Iraq had WMDs in the 1990's. There was plenty of disagreement about whether they still had them in 2003, especially once some of the "evidence" was shown to be distorted, even forged.

And I also ask - does everyone who gave Bush permission to use force lose credibility too? They were spouting the same things that Bush was Need I dig up the links to what Byrd, Clinton(hillary), and etc said?

No, I think they also bear responsibility. Bush & Co. have diluted this responsibility, however, by presenting misinformation to Congress, the U.N., and the American public. Bush gives them an out, raising a reasonable doubt about what they would have said and done if they'd been given accurate information. Oh, what a tangled web we weave . . .

1. It is NOT dishonest. IF he had them in the late 90's, then why couldn't/didn't he account for their whereabouts? Oh and that distorted evidence? Might ask France about one of them
2. Congress has NO excuse. They are the "check" to balance out the system and to stop the executive branch for overstepping thier bounds. Congress approved of the action. They had the evidence just like Bush did and if they didn't scrutinize the info at that time, then it is THEIR FAULT too. But then if you claim they had faulty intel - then so did Bush. See, you can't blame one without the other

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
So the fact that SH didn't have proof means we blame Bush? I thought that the UN laid out specific terms for compliance? Oh well, I guess you don't believe in accountability then if you think SH should have gotten a pass.

So are you going to say that SH didn't have WMD? You surely have to think that if you say that Bush's "proof" statement is false. Maybe he didn't have them when we attacked, but the question that still remains unanswered by SADDAM is where did they go? He said he had them, the UN said he had them, the rest of the world said that he had them, hell - he even USED them.
Saddam had WMD = TRUE.
The UN told Saddam to get rid of them and show proof = TRUE
Saddam didn't meet said requirements agreed upon by the UN and himself. = TRUE

Care to point out a country that didn't believe the above?

Yeah - you are right - it is ALL Bush's fault

The only thing Bush did was remove Saddam's ass from power, WMD was not a "new" issue. Did we need to go in when we did? Maybe, maybe not - but how long and how many chances to fully comply does Saddam get?

CkG

I think this may be why we can't see eye-to-eye on this war. In my mind, invading another country is an absolute last resort, after every other option is exhausted. It is only justified in response to a real, significant, and imminent danger to the U.S. or its allies. It is NOT to be used as a negotiating tactic or a lever to persuade others. It is NOT a legitimate tool for empire-building or political gain. It must NOT be based on hearsay or convenience or wishful thinking. It certainly isn't an appropriate response to missing paperwork.

In my opinion, there was no urgency that demanded we invade Iraq. So what if Iraq wasn't complying with 1441 as well as we wanted? So what if we already gave Iraq 12 years to comply? So what if Iraq agreed to these terms (at gunpoint, I might add)? While Iraq's defiance may have been a threat to our egos and our patience, it certainly wasn't a threat to our safety. As the world's greatest democracy and its last remaining superpower, we have a higher responsibility to be responsible and temperate in our dealings with the world. We should be too strong and too noble to overreact to a pipsqueak nuisance like 2003 Iraq.

The most charitable interpretation of Bush's rush to invade Iraq is that his good sense was outgunned by his impatience and his swaggering, shoot-from-the-hip, cowboy mentality. A less favorable view is that his invasion was a cynical, immoral attempt to further his personal and political agenda: distract from his domestic performance, looming financial scandals, and failure to find Osama bin Laden; establish a U.S. footprint in the Middle East; control Iraqi oil, undermining OPEC and benefiting his oil buddies in the process; improve his image in preparation for the 2004 election; establish a 1984-style perpetual state of war; maybe even extract revenge on the guy who wronged his daddy.

Bush had dozens of possible reasons for invading Iraq; we'll likely never know which of them topped his list. In my opinion, none justifies launching a war and killing and maiming thousands of innocent people. None of these justifies burying this country with up to half a trillion dollars of additional debt. Lacking a clear and immediate danger from Iraq, we should have continued the policies of inspections and containment even though it was frustrating and irritating and even a little embarrassing to be jerked around by a scumbag like Saddam Hussein. We're supposed to be big enough to take it.

If I'm reading you right, CkG, you set the bar a little lower on acceptable criteria for war. That's your right, but it means we'll never agree on the justness of Bush's invasion of Iraq.

I didn't need WMD to justify taking Saddam out. I supported Clinton's attack in '98 because I thought we were going to do just that(remove him from power) - but we only bombed the crap out of him. My position from day one( right after the cease-fire) has been that we need to stand firm with the agreement - but we coddled the lunitic for 12+ years instead. I would have been fine with giving him more time but he never showed any interest in fully complying with the agreements. He played games. Saddam should have been gone after the first time he kicked the inspectors out IMO.

CkG

 

[Gaard]

CADkindaGUY - <<So are you going to say that SH didn't have WMD? You surely have to think that if you say that Bush's "proof" statement is false.>>

Why does the fact that one believes Bush's "proof" statement to be false mean that one believe's SH didn't have WMD?


CADkindaGUY - <<Care to point out a country that didn't believe the above?>>

Care to let everyone know whether you are aware that 'believing' isn't the same as 'knowing'?


CADkindaGUY - <<Exactly - where are the weapons that EVERYONE said they knew he had?>>

This is a blatant lie. If you think otherwise, show me.


CADkindaGUY - <<I didn't need WMD to justify taking Saddam out.>>

Just out of curiousity CAD, do you think Bush would've garnered enough support for this war if he had used any other excuse besides WMD as the primary reason?