Why isn't bush recieving an impeachment?

[SpyMoose]

Unreasonable? Arn't you the one who wants to suspend belief in all the evedence in order to make Bush into a hero who saved us from hidden WMDs and terrorists who didn't actualy exist?

 

[wesmorris]

No, I'm not.

But it does seem to me that he acted in good faith of the responsibility of his office. Every argument to the contrary I've seen has been incredibly weak.

I think they were pretty sure he had the WMDs, and couldn't afford to risk the possibility, and saw a possibility of reshaping the middle-east through changing Iraq. Of course your superior intellect rejects such simple explanations.

 

[SpyMoose]

From the tidbit about Iraq wanting to buy uranium in Niger which he was warned by the CIA was not reliable before he used it in his state of the union speech, to defectors from his administrators such as Richard Clark who claimed that the administration had been obsessed with manufacturing a case against Iraq even before 9/11 to the more recent downing street memos that explicitly state we were attempting to "fix" the intelligence about Iraq so we could invade while stepping up bombing of the no fly zone to attempt to provoke an attack from Iraq first, all while the American people were being told that military action had not yet been decided on and that diplomatic options were still being pursued. You still claim that the administration acted in "good faith"?

 

[spidergoat]

Originally Posted by spidergoat
SG: Our lives were not in danger from Iraq. ”



That's a presumption that you can't really back up.

Come on guy, they had no air force, no navy, no real army to speak of, and we now know, no WMD's, and we could have found out about the last item without any invasion, since the weapons inspectors were doing their job there.

There is strong evidence (so I've read/heard) that Iraq took down the federal building in OKC.

Give me a break. What makes you think that? If that were so, Bush could have mentioned it as justification, but he didn't.

Have you considered that even IF your life was not in direct danger from Iraq, that doesn't necessarily mean they shouldn't be attacked?

No, we have a war to fight with Islamic terrorists, shouldn't that be the priority right now? We can worry about the human rights violations of other countries later, like in Sudan, which is much larger than anything Saddam did.

If you're charged with protecting 350 million people and some guy in the middle east has been fucking with weapons inspectors for 15 years, breaking every goddamned thing he agreed to in his surrender, would you say the same thing? If you would, you'd be a really really shitty leader IMO.

Huh? Did you know we were baiting Saddam on a daily basis in the no-fly zone? We broke our own rules, dropping bombs on him in order to provoke him and get a justification for taking his oil. He didn't fall for it. I don't think Saddam is a good guy, but let his own nation deal with him like Italy dealt with Mussolini.

You DO KNOW that the insurgents have killed far more Iraqis then we have insurgents right? Well, at least as many. I heard a conservative estimate of 13000. You blame that on us too eh?

None of that would have happened if we didn't invade, so... yes I blame Bush. He also let insurgents raid weapons depots during the initial stages of the invasion by not providing enough troops to guard them, so thanks again there.

They were not trying to kill me. ”


You're talking shit, as you don't know that. In fact, I'm quite sure at least some of them would have killed you given the first opportunity, hippy.

I'm pretty sure Iraqis are not trying to kill me. Without any relevant information, I'll assume the best about them.

Democracy makes the likelihood of clashing with other democracies lessen. When the national motto is a fascist "death to america", then we have increased danger to a neccessary eventual war.

There is nothing about democracies that prevent them from fighting each other.
What if the motto: "death to america" was not fascist, but democratic? They could democratically chose to kick our ass.

Now Al Quida has a place to hide, lucky me. ”



That just baffles me. Dude, you're smarter than that. They were hiding there before, they hide now there now.. and all over the middle east. This way, at least we draw them out of hiding - though at a great cost. I think a more positive and hopeful slant is "now Al Quida has a place to come die".

Dude, chaos in Iraq make it easier for them to get there, and they seem to be better at recruiting than we are.

Unless of course, you'd rather just sit and wait for them to cut off your fucking head.

So, Al Quida psy-ops has you scared enough to over-react? What's one head among the hundreds of thousands dead? Iraq could have been as much of an ally as Pakistan (also a military dictatorship, BTW).

Not buying that story. What did Bush have to do that was more important? ...evidently work on his golf game. ”



Then you are unreasonable, and I will not debate you about this.

Wake up bro, no president vacationed as much as Bush before 9.11. Not that having Bush disturbing President Cheney with offers of a beer bong would have helped us any...

 

[BHS]

From the tidbit about Iraq wanting to buy uranium in Niger which he was warned by the CIA was not reliable before he used it in his state of the union speech, to defectors from his administrators such as Richard Clark who claimed that the administration had been obsessed with manufacturing a case against Iraq even before 9/11 to the more recent downing street memos that explicitly state we were attempting to "fix" the intelligence about Iraq so we could invade while stepping up bombing of the no fly zone to attempt to provoke an attack from Iraq first, all while the American people were being told that military action had not yet been decided on and that diplomatic options were still being pursued. You still claim that the administration acted in "good faith"?

Holy crap. That's about the most concise and lucid post I've ever seen from someone arguing against the Bush administration. I salute you.

That being said, I must of course attempt a rebuttal of your post.

I buy your argument that Bush was keen to get the Iraq issue resolved even before 911. I also buy that the administration was looking for opportunities to justify sending more armed forces into Iraq to end the situation there. But I don't believe that the administration acted in a manner that was contrary to the interests of the American people.

Make no mistake: there was a continuous US military presence in Iraq between 1991 and 2003 and it was a constant thorn in Clinton administration's side. There was ample evidence (since debunked, to the extent that it can presently be debunked) that Iraq had hidden caches of WMD. There were strong suspicions that Saddam was close to developing nuclear weapons. There were also strong suspicions that he was linked to and supportive of a number of terrorist organisations, beyond his known support of Palestinian terrorism. These were not the fevered speculations of neocon conspiracy nuts, but beliefs common to every intelligence agency in the developed world, as well as to the previous Clinton administration, and Richard Clark.

911 was not merely an opportunity for pushing Iraq to the forefront. It also acted as an urgent warning to the administration that the Iraq situation needed to be solved quickly. The Middle East as a region needed an increased US military presence immediately, and the security setup that existed pre-911 with the Saudis was insufficient. Afghanistan is too remote and chaotic to serve as host to a permanent US military instillation. But Iraq is perfect, being centrally located and physically adjoining all of the states most belligerent to America.

My conclusion is that the administration acted as it did because regime change and democratization in Iraq was killing two (and perhaps many more unseen) birds with one stone. I believe that it was the right choice.

 

[wesmorris]

I've basically argued the what BHS does above in posts from prior to, during and after the initial invasion. For now, I'll simply agree with what he said and move on.

 

[dsdsds]

Holy crap. That's about the most concise and lucid post I've ever seen from someone arguing against the Bush administration. I salute you.

That being said, I must of course attempt a rebuttal of your post.

I buy your argument that Bush was keen to get the Iraq issue resolved even before 911. I also buy that the administration was looking for opportunities to justify sending more armed forces into Iraq to end the situation there. But I don't believe that the administration acted in a manner that was contrary to the interests of the American people.

Make no mistake: there was a continuous US military presence in Iraq between 1991 and 2003 and it was a constant thorn in Clinton administration's side. There was ample evidence (since debunked, to the extent that it can presently be debunked) that Iraq had hidden caches of WMD. There were strong suspicions that Saddam was close to developing nuclear weapons. There were also strong suspicions that he was linked to and supportive of a number of terrorist organisations, beyond his known support of Palestinian terrorism. These were not the fevered speculations of neocon conspiracy nuts, but beliefs common to every intelligence agency in the developed world, as well as to the previous Clinton administration, and Richard Clark.

911 was not merely an opportunity for pushing Iraq to the forefront. It also acted as an urgent warning to the administration that the Iraq situation needed to be solved quickly. The Middle East as a region needed an increased US military presence immediately, and the security setup that existed pre-911 with the Saudis was insufficient. Afghanistan is too remote and chaotic to serve as host to a permanent US military instillation. But Iraq is perfect, being centrally located and physically adjoining all of the states most belligerent to America.

My conclusion is that the administration acted as it did because regime change and democratization in Iraq was killing two (and perhaps many more unseen) birds with one stone. I believe that it was the right choice.

Sorry for jumping in this thread (and I haven't read the previous 9 pages) but that's about the most concise and lucid post I've ever seen from someone arguing FOR the Bush administration. I salute you.
I believe that it was the wrong choice. We also don't agree that "The Middle East as a region needed an increased US military presence immediately". The cost of that is prooving to be too high and the consequences will ultimately be counterproductive to the safety (and economic future) of America. And whether it was "right" or "wrong" thing to do for America, I stongly believe that the invasion of Iraq was immoral.

 

[BHS]

Sorry for jumping in this thread (and I haven't read the previous 9 pages) but that's about the most concise and lucid post I've ever seen from someone arguing FOR the Bush administration. I salute you.
I believe that it was the wrong choice. We also don't agree that "The Middle East as a region needed an increased US military presence immediately". The cost of that is prooving to be too high and the consequences will ultimately be counterproductive to the safety (and economic future) of America. And whether it was "right" or "wrong" thing to do for America, I stongly believe that the invasion of Iraq was immoral.

Believe it or not, I think I understand your position and why you believe that I'm wrong. Neither of us can see the future with certain clarity, although we both have ideas of how it might unfold. I guess we'll have to continue to disagree until new light is shed on the situation.

 

[Okeydoke]

Holy crap. That's about the most concise and lucid post I've ever seen from someone arguing against the Bush administration. I salute you.

That being said, I must of course attempt a rebuttal of your post.

I buy your argument that Bush was keen to get the Iraq issue resolved even before 911. I also buy that the administration was looking for opportunities to justify sending more armed forces into Iraq to end the situation there. But I don't believe that the administration acted in a manner that was contrary to the interests of the American people.

Make no mistake: there was a continuous US military presence in Iraq between 1991 and 2003 and it was a constant thorn in Clinton administration's side. There was ample evidence (since debunked, to the extent that it can presently be debunked) that Iraq had hidden caches of WMD. There were strong suspicions that Saddam was close to developing nuclear weapons. There were also strong suspicions that he was linked to and supportive of a number of terrorist organisations, beyond his known support of Palestinian terrorism. These were not the fevered speculations of neocon conspiracy nuts, but beliefs common to every intelligence agency in the developed world, as well as to the previous Clinton administration, and Richard Clark.

911 was not merely an opportunity for pushing Iraq to the forefront. It also acted as an urgent warning to the administration that the Iraq situation needed to be solved quickly. The Middle East as a region needed an increased US military presence immediately, and the security setup that existed pre-911 with the Saudis was insufficient. Afghanistan is too remote and chaotic to serve as host to a permanent US military instillation. But Iraq is perfect, being centrally located and physically adjoining all of the states most belligerent to America.

My conclusion is that the administration acted as it did because regime change and democratization in Iraq was killing two (and perhaps many more unseen) birds with one stone. I believe that it was the right choice.

It looks like the so-called regime change and democratization (thanks to U.S. President Bush) in Iraq has killed 1,700 plus american and hundreds of allied solders, plus many thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. I wonder if they would agree with you?

Okeydoke

 

[Voodoo Child]

There was ample evidence (since debunked, to the extent that it can presently be debunked) that Iraq had hidden caches of WMD.

No, there was merely a lack of evidence that the weapons had been destroyed. There was virtually no positive evidence to support the idea he still had stockpiles of weapons. What is it that you mean by "presently debunked"? Given the US has full access to the country, has spent 600 million dollars to fund the 1400 intelligence officers tear-assing around looking for WMD, I'd say that particular thesis has had the shit debunked out of it.

Make no mistake: there was a continuous US military presence in Iraq between 1991 and 2003 and it was a constant thorn in Clinton administration's side.

Actually, no. There was a military presence in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and on aircraft carriers. It was a thoroughly pleasant thorn-in-the-side, the kind that the US armed forces experienced from the comfy padded seat of an F-14. It did not, to my knowledge, nuke your international standing, cost 100's of billions and kill 1500+ americans.

There were strong suspicions that Saddam was close to developing nuclear weapons.

Suspicions. Not actual evidence. Atleast, not evidence not known to be fraudulent. Where were the facilities? Where was the fissile material?

There were also strong suspicions that he was linked to and supportive of a number of terrorist organisations, beyond his known support of Palestinian terrorism.

His support of palestinian terrorists consisted of giving money to the widows of suicide bombers. That was merely a crude publicity stunt and especially trivial when considering a) the resources he could have devoted to this cause b) the far greater support offered to palestinians by other middle-eastern countries.
Saddam was not thought to be linked to terrorists(atleast not those the US is concerned with) because of ideological incompatibilities, namely that he was a secular leader and had no interest in Islamic terrorism and that the likes of al-qaeda were deeply suspicious of him.

911 was not merely an opportunity for pushing Iraq to the forefront. It also acted as an urgent warning to the administration that the Iraq situation needed to be solved quickly.

Why? Was Saddam involved in 9/11? No. Was he supporting people who were? No. Did he share any ideology with those who perpetrated the crime? No. But what the hell... lets roll. He didn't even have weapons programs, so why was quick action needed? In case he gave the weapons he didn't have to the terrorists he didn't know?

Middle East as a region needed an increased US military presence immediately, and the security setup that existed pre-911 with the Saudis was insufficient.

Why? Would an increased military presence stopped 9/11 or any other terrorist act?

Afghanistan is too remote and chaotic to serve as host to a permanent US military instillation. But Iraq is perfect, being centrally located and physically adjoining all of the states most belligerent to America.

Perfect. Apart from the fact it is an easy country terrorists to enter(bordering all those belligerent countries as it does), there are abundant stockpiles of weapons lying around and a significant portion of the population will offer support to anyone that wants to blow the shit out of US troops.
What benefits will this new base actually deliver? That you won't have to commute to your next idiotic foreign intervention?

 

[mikasa11]

Why? Was Saddam involved in 9/11? No. Was he supporting people who were? No. Did he share any ideology with those who perpetrated the crime? No. But what the hell... lets roll. He didn't even have weapons programs, so why was quick action needed? In case he gave the weapons he didn't have to the terrorists he didn't know?

He was involved. He bought them their box-cutters.

 

[spidergoat]

My conclusion is that the administration acted as it did because regime change and democratization in Iraq was killing two (and perhaps many more unseen) birds with one stone. I believe that it was the right choice.

That's not the point. If Bush had presented his case as such and the congress voted to go to war, then that would be OK (the war planning would still have sucked, though). However, that is not the case that was made before congress and the public. Futhermore, Bush didn't follow through with the Iraq resolution that congress agreed on, specifically that an invasion would not occur if UN inspectors were allowed into Iraq to do their jobs. This is the kind of thing that undermines the UN, which is only as effective to the extent that we are active participants in the process.

 

[Okeydoke]

Bush had his own agenda for Iraq. He would have went into Iraq regardless. Now, the U.S., it's allies and countless thousands of innocent Iraqis are paying the price.

Okeydoke

 

[BHS]

It looks like the so-called regime change and democratization (thanks to U.S. President Bush) in Iraq has killed 1,700 plus american and hundreds of allied solders, plus many thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians. I wonder if they would agree with you?

Okeydoke

I wonder if the thousands of people who ended up in mass graves during Saddam's reign would agree with you.

I know there isn't a professional soldier in the world who doesn't arrange his affairs before going to war, because there's always the chance that they're going to die. They do so willingly, because they believe the army is a good career, and ultimately they believe in the rightness of the causes they are fighting for.

And if you're basing your Iraqi civilian body count on numerical mumbo-jumbo trumped up by peacenik statisticians, you can take that question back, because I'm not justifying it with a response.

 

[Gravity]

Hearing this conversation makes me look forward to watching Amerikkka go down. And I've always LOVED our country, and I fear for my two small children, but we have become a country of fat, brainwashed, selfish, short-sighted, TV lobotomized, morons. We deserve to reap what we've sown.

 

[OliverJ]

Hearing this conversation makes me look forward to watching Amerikkka go down. And I've always LOVED our country, and I fear for my two small children, but we have become a country of fat, brainwashed, selfish, short-sighted, TV lobotomized, morons. We deserve to reap what we've sown.

I feel sorry for your children also.... they are going to be taught that the Country they live in is an evil empire hell bent on killing for oil. Just so YOU can drive your Explorer to the mall to buy some Yankee candles.

I know!!! you can move to China so you wont have any more kids!! Theres your answer bro. Feel free.

 

[mikasa11]

I wonder if the thousands of people who ended up in mass graves during Saddam's reign would agree with you.

That's because they repelled him during a civil war. You don't see Abraham Lincoln being thought of as a killer even though he DID kill the confederate soldiers. It's not because he's a bad man, it's because they wanted freedom from rule the same freedom that the kurds wanted.

(P.S: The weapons/chemicals he used were the ones we gave him.)

Under Saddam's 30 year rule there were roughly 200,000 iraqis killed.

Under Bush's 3 year war so far there were about 60,000 civilians killed.

 

[Gravity]

Not a ''bro'' little boy. Actually, my kids are being brought up on a farm - learning how to be self-sufficiency and reliance. Things that used to be *conservative* traits.

No need to move to China stud, learn a little about debt and who owns that debt. China already owns us. But DON'T WORRY! Keep shopping at Walmart!

And sorry, no SUV at all here - I fund terrorism as little as possible.

 

[BHS]

No, there was merely a lack of evidence that the weapons had been destroyed. There was virtually no positive evidence to support the idea he still had stockpiles of weapons. What is it that you mean by "presently debunked"? Given the US has full access to the country, has spent 600 million dollars to fund the 1400 intelligence officers tear-assing around looking for WMD, I'd say that particular thesis has had the shit debunked out of it.

Let's go over that again, because it doesn't add up. You say there was no proof of weapons stockpiles. Then you go on to say there was no proof that the unproven stockpiles had been destroyed. Huh? Looking for proof of the unproven sounds a little wonky, chum. In fact, Hans Blix and co. had long lists of weapons that had already been verified as part of Iraq's arsenal, including, for instance, militarized bacteria.

Maybe Saddam destroyed it. Doesn't sound like something he'd do. Compliance wasn't exactly his bag. Let's remember that Saddam had over a year between the first talk of invasion and the invasion itself, to secure his most prized possessions, and possibly to arrange for their removal from the country to a sympathetic neighbour. And that particular theory won't be debunked until the Baath are out of Syria. (I know, weak argument. I wouldn't buy it either, but you asked. And I'm not advocating war with Syria. Syria is well on the way to taking care of itself.)

Actually, no. There was a military presence in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and on aircraft carriers. It was a thoroughly pleasant thorn-in-the-side, the kind that the US armed forces experienced from the comfy padded seat of an F-14. It did not, to my knowledge, nuke your international standing, cost 100's of billions and kill 1500+ americans.

Okay then. No troops were actually stationed on Iraqi soil, but they were stationed in Iraqi water, the were patrolling Iraqi airspace and the were defending countries bordering with Iraq, in order to contain Saddam's regime. Doing everthing short of invading Iraq, in other words. While Saddam thumbed his nose at every attempt to force him into compliance with the cease fire agreement he'd signed. This makes him a thorn in the Clinton administration's side, IMHO.

Suspicions. Not actual evidence. Atleast, not evidence not known to be fraudulent. Where were the facilities? Where was the fissile material?

You're right, of course. Suspicions aren't hard evidence. But hard evidence of Saddam having nukes would be something along the lines of Saddam dropping a nuke on Tel Aviv. So the choice comes down to going with an educated guess that vs. waiting for a nightmare scenario to play itself out. This isn't a courtroom drama on TV. This isn't about due process for the accused. It's about making sure we don't have to live with the consequences of letting a genocidal tyrant achieve his nefarious ambitions.

His support of palestinian terrorists consisted of giving money to the widows of suicide bombers. That was merely a crude publicity stunt and especially trivial when considering a) the resources he could have devoted to this cause b) the far greater support offered to palestinians by other middle-eastern countries.
Saddam was not thought to be linked to terrorists(atleast not those the US is concerned with) because of ideological incompatibilities, namely that he was a secular leader and had no interest in Islamic terrorism and that the likes of al-qaeda were deeply suspicious of him.

I love how you know the inside poop about Al-Qaeda's take on the Baath. A quibbing aside: More often than not Saddam was sending support to the parents of Palestinian suicide bombers, as most of them are in their late teens or early twenties when they decide to take the martyr's shortcut to paradise. There's something about taking up a lunatic cause that appeals to young people. But you're right again: Saddam didn't build any multi-billion dollar terrorist training camps out in plain sight, so I guess that's unequivocal proof that he didn't support terrorism.

Why? Was Saddam involved in 9/11? No. Was he supporting people who were? No. Did he share any ideology with those who perpetrated the crime? No. But what the hell... lets roll. He didn't even have weapons programs, so why was quick action needed? In case he gave the weapons he didn't have to the terrorists he didn't know?

Wow, you've tied your whole argument together in one succinct, defining paragraph. I'm actually impressed. You should give lessons to some of your fellow travellers in the Forum. I'm going to ignore the inappropriateness of putting Todd Beamer's words into the mouths of people you clearly despise. (But since I just brought it up, I guess I haven't really ignored it, have I?)

Here's a thought: the next 911 isn't going to be carried out by the same people next time around. Those guys are toast. The goal now is to make sure that the latest incarnation of Al-Qaeda never gets off the ground. That means taking a long hard look at all of The West's enemies. If you're going to treat a regime with kid gloves just because it wasn't tied to 911, you might as well give up trying to prevent terrorism altogether.

Why? Would an increased military presence stopped 9/11 or any other terrorist act?

Perhaps not. But sitting on your hands when Sudan tries to hand you Bin Laden because your lawyers think it's too hard to build a court case against him doesn't help either.

Perfect. Apart from the fact it is an easy country terrorists to enter(bordering all those belligerent countries as it does), there are abundant stockpiles of weapons lying around and a significant portion of the population will offer support to anyone that wants to blow the shit out of US troops.
What benefits will this new base actually deliver? That you won't have to commute to your next idiotic foreign intervention?

D'oh! There's those non-existant weapons stockpiles again! And you're right again: the benefits of the updated US presence means the US is already ahead of the game for the next go-round, meaning it won't be as protracted and painful as it was this time.

FYI, check my member profile. I'm posting from Canada. I guess arguing in favour of American foreign policy, and the defense of The West in general, makes you automatically American to some people. I'll take it as a compliment.

 

[BHS]

That's not the point. If Bush had presented his case as such and the congress voted to go to war, then that would be OK (the war planning would still have sucked, though). However, that is not the case that was made before congress and the public. Futhermore, Bush didn't follow through with the Iraq resolution that congress agreed on, specifically that an invasion would not occur if UN inspectors were allowed into Iraq to do their jobs. This is the kind of thing that undermines the UN, which is only as effective to the extent that we are active participants in the process.

You know what? You've got me. Assuming my theory is correct, then Bush committed a lie of omission. But since I've never seen my theory being presented by the anti-Bush crowd, I think it's safe to assume that they've got something else entirely in mind when they howl that BUSH LIED!!!!

When you plan something as big and complicated as a multi-pronged, multi-national invasion, I think it's safe to assume you're going to get some things wrong. Expecting perfection is ridiculous. And nobody, nobody, in charge of planning a war starts with the "exit strategy" at the top of the to-do list, unless he doesn't give a shit about winning.

What undermines the UN is a Security Council that passes resolutions it has no intentions of enforcing. Or better yet, a Security Council that was designed in such a way that it was virtually impossible that any resolution COULD ever be enforced.