Old Devil Bush Was Right? Hardly....

[FirstFreedom]

again i will ask, what moral system do you propose the iraqis base their new government on?

How about, that all men and women and created equal, not that women get 1/2 the inheritance of men. Etc., etc., etc.

bountyh is right folks, at least about one thin....If it becomes a theocracy, then it's only a matter of time before there IS NO MORE DEMOCRACY - it will become the muhajadeen or the spanish inquisition or pick-one of the oppressive theocracries thoughout history - it will be a bastion of the squelching of human rights and speech if it is based on Islam. Our soldiers will have died completely in vain if that happens; if there's no freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, etc. Why can't we learn the lesssons of history?

 

[redhawk41]

ok, i seem to be missing the point of this post, so please help me straighten this out:

What exactly is it that "old devil bush" was hardly right about?
what i am getting is that bush said that there would be "democracy" in iraq, and that the iraqis wanting to base the government on the prevailing religious philosophy (islam) means that bush's goal of democracy in iraq has failed. am i at least in the right ballpark here?

FirstFreedom, "Why can't we learn the lesssons of history?". humans, in general, are far to short-sighted both forwards and backwards to learn anything of value from history. that is why every single government in the history of mankind has suffered the exact same fate: it collapses under it's own weight.

How about, that all men and women and created equal, not that women get 1/2 the inheritance of men. Etc., etc., etc.

where are these values enumerated?

 

[Oldphart]

Old Devil Bush was Right? Hardly...

I'm hardly a fan of bountyh, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. If the Iraqi election does ultimately produce a theocratic type of government it will start out reasonably well to get the U.S. troops out of there. Then it will regress to something like what Iran or Saudi Arabia has. In time, if we survive, we'll just have to send our military back in there. By that time, Iran will have gained nuclear weapons and the will to use them.
Just after 9/11, Bush said that this would be a long war. He was absolutely right too, it will last several generations. I suppose I'll be branded some sort of "Islamophobe," but when western countries are showing a declining birth rate among their citizens and the immigrants (muslims) are outbreeding them, it is just a matter of time (a few generations?) before Christians are in the minority here too. When that happens it will be unthinkable to send our Army to re-establish any sort of democracy in Iraq.
After World War II we occupied Japan for many years before we allowed them to govern themselves. That was because the only form of government they had ever known was inimical to any sort of representative democracy. It required that we stay and "guide" them for a generation. It worked too. Now the Left is crying for us to get out of Iraq and let them govern themselves. It won't work. Oh, it'll work for awhile but it'll revert to another dictatorial government, run either by a strong clergy or a strong military. If we yeild to the Left and leave too soon, it will all have been done in vain.

 

[bountyh]

What exactly is it that "old devil bush" was hardly right about?

Off the top of my head:

1) Iraq had stockpiles of VX.

2) Iraq had an active nuke program.

3) Iraq supported Al Qaeda.

4) Iraq was supplying WMD to terrorists.

5) Iraq posed an imminent threat to US citizens or assets.

6) Iraq was hiding WMDs from inspectors.

7) Iraqi people would throw roses at US troops when we occupied their country.

8) The resistance was just a "bunch of thugs" (direct quote from Bush).

9) Bush arrogantly challenges them: "Bring it on!"

10) The US would be able to easily stablize the region and use the oil revenues to pay for the occupation.

11) Other countries would accept our invasion and not see it as unnecessary.

12) The area would be stabilized by our occupation, in reality we have created a shooting gallery for terrorists and a recruiting poster for them.


Those are just twelve things old devil bush was wrong about... but I am hungry and want to go to lunch. Fill in the rest yourself.

 

[bountyh]

Quote:

I just love it when a plan comes together.


Res Ipsa Loquitur
Rich

Sir, I'll temper my reply out of respect for the word "staff" after your name. Suffice to say, you are not the only person who can parse latin phrases and I will tell you a simple truth:

pride goeth before the fall

I could direct you to a smoldering trail of arrogant rednecks who got put through the meat grinder... but that would require that I believe you were worth the effort.

I will simply say this: step back and look at the large view and you will be forced to admit that the people you ridicule as liberals and pacifists have been proven right on virtually every point of argument along the war trial... no WMD's, no nukes, no Al Qaeda link, no imminent threat to the US, no viable exit strategy, no end in sight....

It honestly amazes me how some people on these forums can still show their face after being so thoroughly humiliated... but, like Bush, they just re-write history and carry on when they are wrong.

As to the fate of Iraq: we can all have our own opinion, but threads can be reposted so you may want to be a little less condescending. When Iraq goes to hell, you will need to find somebody to blame it on. Just pray a democrat has found his way back into the oval office so he can take the heat for Bush's lunacy.

I just love it when a plan comes together.

OK, track me now....in support of my claim that you jump from premise to conclusion only based upon predilection for conspiracy theory, I offer the following:
.

What you attempt to ridicule is my statement that the admin has repeatedly changed it's position as to why the war was both urgent and necessary. This fact is so well documented, it is like arguing about whether the world is flat. If I wanted to waste the time, I could shut this server down with posts documenting the mistatements and u-turns Bush and his admin have made regarding Iraq's threat to the US. The only excuse they have to offer is they "were given bad intelligence".

I would offer friendly advice that you select someone else to use for target practice.

 

[bountyh]

What exactly is it that "old devil bush" was hardly right about?
what i am getting is that bush said that there would be "democracy" in iraq, and that the iraqis wanting to base the government on the prevailing religious philosophy (islam) means that bush's goal of democracy in iraq has failed. am i at least in the right ballpark here?

With respect to the specific area you ask about, the main things Bush was wrong about are these:

1) That Iraqi's would want a western style democracy given the chance to choose.

2) That the country would somehow "unite" and be more stable if we set up elections. In point of fact, the sunnis are now disenfranchised and boycotted the elections. The wahabbis in saudi Arabia now funnel money to the sunni fighters whose goal it is to destroy the new regime.

Does that sound like a formula for a stable country to you? It sounds like the path to civil war.

3) The US would show other Arab states that "democracy is the way" and that would eventually lead to democracy spreading through the region. In reality, the Arab states are monarchies or theocracies who see democracy as a direct threat... and they will slaughter as many people as necessary to prevent it from happening.

Sound like the road to peace?

4) Bush believed that the show of force would "shock and awe" the terrorists so they would be afraid of us. It has done the opposite. They now know that they can wage a very successful guerilla war against us. Their ranks have steadily swelled since we set up occupation, so clearly they are not intimidated. We will never lose a single battle head on, but they can still destablize the government by killing it's leaders and police forces.

The bottom line is that we created a mess there.... and it was easy to forsee. How can I prove that? A guy named George Bush accurately predicted EXACTLY what would happen if we tried to occupy Iraq, his son was just too stupid to heed his words.



In his memoirs, A World Transformed, written more than five years ago, George Bush, Sr. wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

If only his son could read.

 

[Baxter]

I don't know if he didn't read that, or didn't care. Its quite evident that the 'plan' comprised only of go in, blow up stuff, and win. The 'recovery' phase was 'sell oil and win the hearts and minds'. He's still running on the belief that he can 'wing it' for everything. Planning and reading just don't seem to be his thing.

As usual, the law of 7 P's strikes again.

 

[redhawk41]

bountyh, thank you for the clarification. i can now say that i agree with you.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Bounty-
You need to jump way back, hoss. I suggest deep breaths and a slow 10 count. The Staff moniker entitles me to no more than anyone else; but it does require that you play by the Forum Rules

As you freely admitted, my statement "in support of my claim that you jump from premise to conclusion only based upon predilection for conspiracy theory" attacks the argument;

while your statement, "I could direct you to a smoldering trail of arrogant rednecks who got put through the meat grinder... but that would require that I believe you were worth the effort." attacks the person.

See the difference here, Bounty? I take issue with your argument. You take issue with me. It's more than nuance.
________________________________________

Outside of yours, I've seen no argument here that attempts to "rewrite history". Mike Irwin clearly pointed this out in his rebuttal of your claim that Bush jumped from excuse to excuse in serial succession. History proves your claim false, regardless of all the Op-Ed pieces you may choose to cite. I just didn't feel a need to underscore what Mike had taken apart so efficiently.

As to my using you for "target practice", I wouldn't dream of it. Besides, your arguments provide quite a target-rich environment all on their own.

When Iraq goes to hell, you will need to find somebody to blame it on.

No I won't. Iraq was already IN hell when we went in. I give our guys great credit for trying to save it.

That Iraqi's would want a western style democracy given the chance to choose.

Seems to me a higher percent of them voted in their first democratic election than in most US Elections. I'd say that's one hell of a start. YMMV

That the country would somehow "unite" and be more stable if we set up elections. In point of fact, the sunnis are now disenfranchised and boycotted the elections. The wahabbis in saudi Arabia now funnel money to the sunni fighters whose goal it is to destroy the new regime.
Does that sound like a formula for a stable country to you?

No pain, no gain, Bounty. Shall we only help out in areas where everyone is of like mind? Where there are no factions? Where there are no opposing political parties? Those places don't need help.

The US would show other Arab states that "democracy is the way" and that would eventually lead to democracy spreading through the region.

Two contradictions for you, Bounty: Libya and Saudi Arabia. Now I know the "Big Picture" types would prefer that Democracy spring forth full grown. It just doesn't happen that way in the Real World. But then, "Big Picture" types don't live in the Real World.

As to what Bush Senior said: I guess we can begin to parse everyone's position from lifted statements. Let's look to the Vaunted Left in whom your hopes and prayers lie:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

Yet you conclude that Bush changed positions? That's simply laughable Bounty.
Rich

 

[Baxter]

So how many different sound bites does it take to prove that Bush did change positions? They've changed their justification to the press at least a half dozen times. Last one I heard from Condi was that Saddam was known to be 'cavorting with terrorists'. If he'd tried to sell that day one we'd have laughed at him.

I fail to see the situation as 'fixed' in any respect. The Iraqi people now get to worry about terrorists, we're short 1000+ good soldiers and $200+billion, there's more terrorists joining up and moving in from Saudi, and Lybia had been talking to us for years about disarming.

Oh.. and now that we've ignored North Korea for long enough, they've got the bomb, don't like the US, and need money.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Baxter-
Sound Bites is much of the problem with your position. No human being ever says the same thing, the exact same way, twice in a row. You take that to conclude they are "changing stories". Fallacy of Composition.

Unfortunately, every one of the "sound bites" presented above proves that some pols CLEARLY have changed positions.

Libya? For the first time Libya is cooperating with inspections and visibly disarming.

As to North Korea or Iran, I have heard this same bellow for two years, ad nauseum. It begs the question: "What about North Korea"? What exactly does engagement in Iraq have to do with it?

I see only two ways you can answer:
1) "We could have used the troops to go against Korea."
2) "Korea is only building nukes because we invaded Iraq." (ie: They're just acting "defensively".)

Hopefully you can come up with a third answer that makes some sense.
So, since you brought it up, I put the question to you:
What about Korea? What should Bush have done there that he wasn't able to do because of Iraq?
Please be specific. The "paid more attention" answer is threadbare....governments, by design, are required to multi-task.
Rich

 

[Baxter]

When they change the official line to the same question 'Why are we in Iraq then?', its a changing story, not just different ways of saying the same thing. How many different reasons have they gone through once their previous has been discounted as groundless?

Andy why must I do the googling for everyone who wants facts?

Libya-US negotiations were in progress in 99 during the Clinton administration.

"In fact, Libyan representatives offered to surrender WMD
programmes more than four years ago, in then-secret negotiations with
US officials," said Inyk, who opened the talks.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/libya/2004/libya-040309-irna01.htm

What part does Iraq have to do with it? Its the biggest distraction from NK since it became an issue. We've conveniently ignored them for the past two years.

NK isn't making nukes to prevent us from invading, they're doing it to blackmail us into supporting a failed economy for a few years more.
There's nothing that he couldn't 'do because of Iraq'. He chose to ignore it and focus the country upon Iraq instead. Negotiation takes time, communication, and patience. We all know what pleasure GW takes in processes that require international diplomacy, communication, and patience.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

And why must I do the googling for everyone who wants facts?

You needn't. But when you state personal perception as fact you are bound to provide a source when challenged. Still looking for one.

Libya:
Ahhh, the famous revelation from Martin Indyk, former Senior Clinton Advisor. Let's look at that. Clinton "started" negotiations with Libya. Bush brought home real progress. Who get's the credit? I'll leave that up to you, Baxter, so long as you're willing to be consistent as to the following: The 9-11 Hijackings were in operational planning under Clinton. They occurred on Bush's watch. Who takes the responsibility?

You don't get to eat that pickle from both ends at once.

What part does Iraq have to do with it? Its the biggest distraction from NK since it became an issue.

The dreaded, "He wasn't paying attention" gambit. Ummm, do you currently pay attention to your job, your personal security, your wife, your kids, your health, your future and your spirit all in the same time span of life. It's called "multi-tasking", Baxter. People do it; governments do it.

But you haven't answered the question: What opportunities with RNK did Bush pass up because of Iraq? We know Clinton gave the North Koreans lots of attention (especially during fundraisers ). Perhaps Bush could have offered to double their ability to convert Plutonium as Bill Clinton had? But then, it wouldn't be difficult to make that offer and still handle Iraq.
Rich

 

[Baxter]

The dreaded, "He wasn't paying attention" gambit. Ummm, do you currently pay attention to your job, your personal security, your wife, your kids, your health, your future and your spirit all in the same time span of life. It's called "multi-tasking", Baxter. People do it; governments do it.

So since Iraq started, what has been done about RNK? Nada.. That's not multitasking, its called ignoring a problem. You want me to come up with ideas better than what's been done, aka nothing? dunno.. that's a tough one..

And as for 911.. Read todays paper.. Once again, they ignored a threat even when spelled out to them. http://www.newsobserver.com/nation_world/story/2115165p-8494669c.html

 

[randersonabq]

Bismarck

Remeber the old Otto von Bismarck quote- "all of the Balkans are not worth the bones of a Pomeranian Grenadier"? That's how i feel about Iraq!

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Baxter-
You're dancing around the issue. Here's your argument in a nutshell:

- US has forces in Iraq
- Bush has not solved the North Korean problem
Ergo, US forces in Iraq is the cause for not solving problems in North Korea.

A = B
C = Q
Therefore A is the cause of World Problems.

It's an embarrassing nonsequitur of logic; unless you already held your "conclusions" and are simply looking for sound bites for those with double digit IQ.

Now, if you'd like to start a separate thread about the problems in North Korea, I'm your huckleberry. But lets stick to the point of this thread: The Iraqi elections and Bounty's "demonstration" that they somehow prove a march toward Totalitarianism. If you can't link North Korea to that debate, the issue is simply not pertinent.
Rich

 

[LawDog]

I could direct you to a smoldering trail of arrogant rednecks who got put through the meat grinder

I know that you aren't referring to The High Road.

LawDog

 

[gburner]

As one of those 'arrogant rednecks' that were allegedly
left in a smoldering heap beside a meat grinder, I'd like to offer some observations.
-I am not smoldering, though Rich's response to Bounty was.

-For having been run thru a 'meat grinder', I'm amazingly intact (though I think it was a wood chipper that I was put thru).

-Bounty's arguments in recent months are not as intact.
-The assertion that the Bush Admin. is doing nothing re. RNK is preposterous.

-We are (were) engaged in multilateral talks with them until RNK broke them off with their most recent gambit.
The oher players in the talks are Russia, China, Japan and South Korea.

-We are attempting a similar strategy with Iran, letting the EU negotiate containment of their nuclear desires.

-The left continues to be schizophrenic in its view of our President ie...He's stupid and illiterate/He's a brilliant manipulator and world criminal mastermind; he's a reckless cowboy/He's slow and plodding; He doesn't consult our allies/he lets our allies do too much; He's too tied to the Christian right/He's cynical, amoral and conniving, etc.

and the beat goes on.......

 

[Fred Hansen]

It's been five days Bounty, I'd have thought that you would introduce at least one forged document from the desk of Dan Rather by now. What good is an argument without 100% accurate forged documents to back it up? If Dan is busy maybe Mikey Mooooore or Jayson Blair can help you out.

Wouldacouldashouldakindasortamighta "news" about the democratic future of Iraq deserves better from you.

 

[bountyh]

Outside of yours, I've seen no argument here that attempts to "rewrite history".

OK, then let me make sure I carefully abide by the rules. I will simply say that I don't consider it worth my time addressing an ISSUE as ridiculous as disputing the fact that the Bush admin has repeatedly "rewritten history" by lying about what they said and what they knew and when, and as to the causations that made the war imparative.

The statement above attempts to sidestep the issue... you have seen no argument "here" that rewrites history? As far as I know, the Bush admin members do not frequent this forum... but most of the forum members here espouse their utterings as gospel. Ergo, the "rewriting" observation is accurate... unless you want to rewrite that too.

The Iraqi elections and Bounty's "demonstration" that they somehow prove a march toward Totalitarianism.

Since someone seems enthralled with the logic course they took (and I am stuck with these three useless college degrees) I will waste a bit more time and point out the logical fallacy of this statement: it is formally entitled "straw man" because you create a false argument then ridicule it. I never said that the results prove a "march toward totalitarianism", what I did say is what the news has said: the Iraqis have voted in a theocracy whose clerics are closely aligned with Iran. It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots ad see that this is a very bad outcome for the situation and extremely dangerous.... it is also a complete rejection of the admin's intervention as his hand picked candidates finished a DISTANT third (got beat by the Kurds at the preliminary count released today). Based on the results, I think a repressive regime evolving in Iraq is a very likely outcome.... but the point of the original thread is that this thing has already "gotten away" from Bush. He swore to give them freedom and they are freely heading toward a government heavily influenced by our staunch enemy.... Iran.

But what I did say which you ignored stands unrefuted: the track record of seeing the most probable outcomes of the Iraq "adventure" has been very accurately mapped by those you ridicule, and the admin has failed almost 100%. That alone should make one tend to suspect them as an information source... or, one's common sense would also lead to the logical likely outcome of the present circumstances.

bountyh, thank you for the clarification. i can now say that i agree with you.

You're welcome, always a pleasure to hear from someone who isn't Bushblind.