Not learning from our mistakes

[BT]

You went into Iraq for the same reason the same people who pushed you in are now pushing you into Iran:  for OIL. 

If that is true, where is it?

[sirs]

Doesn't seem like I need a lesson in English language theory to understand the phrase "always been" Sirs. The next sentence qualifies the phrase. President Bush is using straight forward English, why can't you?

So, you don't want to see the quotes by Bush as to why we went in originally.  Possibly might skew yet another preconceived notion of what is is, and perhaps the context of when and why Bush said what you quote him to be saying? 

[_JS]

So, you don't want to see the quotes by Bush as to why we went in originally.  Possibly might skew yet another preconceived notion of what is is, and perhaps the context of when and why Bush said what you quote him to be saying?

So what he said there was not true? The goal has not always been to leave a free and democratic Iraq in Saddam's place? 

[sirs]

So what he said there was not true? The goal has not always been to leave a free and democratic Iraq in Saddam's place? 

Who said what he said wasn't true.  I referenced the when & the why he said it.  After our inital taking out of Saddam and AFTER taking out the WMD threat, it's completely plausible that his statement is now perfectly legit.  Point being, I can show you countless quotes of what Bush has said, as to why we went in in the 1st place.  And it'll also demonstrate that it didn't reference that it's "always been our goal" to Democratize Iraq.  Simply a moral obligation AFTER the fact.  You think it wise that we left immediately upon taking out Saddam??  Really??

Again, we're getting this effort to blurr timelines & rationales, when it can't be any made any simpler.
1) We went in with the intention of taking out Saddam's WMD threat posed to us by their being potentially offloaded/sold to terrorist groups that Saddam had both direct & indirect connections with.  Following 911 and the intel that Bush was given at the time, it would have been irresponsible had we not made Saddam comply with the Global Community or face the serious consequences, if he did not

2) AFTER we took out the threat (Mission Accomplished), and the primary INTENTION of why we went in in the 1st place, we;
   a) could have left the Iraqis with this gaping power vacuum, ripe for all sorts of Terrorists cells to set up shop, ala what they had done in Afghanistan, before our intervention there.
   b) had a moral obligation to help rebuild and instill freedom in a society that was completely oppressed by a murderous dictator and his fascist-like government, ripe with Government sanctioned rape rooms, and executions for daring to dissent.  In other words, "fix Iraq"

Peronsally, I'm glad Bush chose b)

And I don't think it can be made much simpler, nuance not required

[domer70]

The irony is, Sirs, that you report (and distort) this with a straight face. From the wonderful perch of hindsight, the Iraq venture was a terrible blunder. Further, the plan to democratize Iraq was in the administration's mind from the start, although perhaps not featured until the other rationales for war dissolved. We simply could not abandon Iraq to its potential for anarchy in the absence of an occupying force. It is certain beyond cavil that Bush and his neo-con planners had early on (before invasion) settled on promoting a democratic transformation of the beleagured country. That served their ideology and geo-political ambitions. Bush didn't stumble upon Natan Sharansky's book as a casual afterthought. Now, given the FACTS of the invasion and the ouster of Saddam, it was perfectly within US rights, and a policy I supported until its futility became apparent, to promote democracy as a form of government the Iraqi nation could, more or less, "choose." While the initial invasion was based on chimera, the effort to democratize fell to an underground resistance, a cadre of terrorists, and a growing sectarian strife actually, or mimicking, a civil war. The whole thing is a disaster so far. The best we can hope for is simply and realistically "the best we can hope for." And that outcome will not parallel the administration's grand hopes of a shining democratic city on a hill, as I, for one, had so naively believed.

[sirs]

The irony is, Sirs, that you report (and distort) this with a straight face. From the wonderful perch of hindsight, the Iraq venture was a terrible blunder. Further, the plan to democratize Iraq was in the administration's mind from the start, although perhaps not featured until the other rationales for war dissolved. We simply could not abandon Iraq to its potential for anarchy in the absence of an occupying force. ......

Not at all, domer.  Quite the contrary in fact.  the effort to dilute the rationale as to why we went into Iraq in the 1st place, then condemn Bush and the administration for "switching rationales" is the epitome of distortion.  The timeline demonstrates the what, when, and why, as it relates to rhetoric being used by both the administration, and in demonstrating the flawed accusatory attempts by Bush's critics. 

We can all argue of it was wise to go in, what we could/should have done better, and how much of a disaster it is currently, all thanks to hindseight.  But INITIALLY, the reasons and rhetoric provided were clear and concise.  The vast majority of the congress critters echoed precisely that as well.  What has transpired afterwards is distincly seperate from why we went in, in the 1st place.  Those that want to ignore such, and/or blurr the "why's" we went in, are the folks that are perpetuating distortion, at near symphonic levels

[Universe Prince]

That's gotta be the most surrealistic debate I've witnessed in quite a long time.

It's the most something anyway.

Let me straighten you guys out.

You went into Iraq for the same reason the same people who pushed you in are now pushing you into Iran:  for OIL.

I didn't believe that then, and I don't believe it now. If it was for oil, Haliburton and/or some major oil company would have been in there pumping it out by now. Not happening.

Secondary objective: to permanently emasculate an important regional enemy of Israel.  (Mission accomplished.)

That is a possiblity.

You could not possibly have gone in because of WMD because
1.  There is no conceivable way that Iraq, a country of 23 million people, even with nuclear weapons, could pose any kind of threat to the U.S.A.

How many people live there would have zero relation to the effectiveness of any nuclear weapons they might have produced. And as North Korea has shown, even small countries can have ambitions of making ICBMs. So while I agree that we should have known the true state of Iraq's weapons program, the first point in your list is just stupid.

2.  The WMD allegations relied in part on obviously forged evidence
3.  The WMD allegations all came from the same source (Iraqi National Congress, an exile group.)

I agree, the nature of the intelligence should have been a giant red flag. I am left wondering if it was, and no one paid any attention to it.

4.  Saddam had never risked his army in any confrontation with the U.S., sought an American green light before invading Kuwait, pulled his army out of Kuwait without engaging the U.S.  and was, years later, much weaker militarily than he was when he first had the chance to engage the U.S. militarily.

What has that to do with the possibility of WMD?

5.  The U.S. was unable to convince the biggest European powers or Canada of the "threat."

Yet, as I recall, all those countries agreed that Iraq had WMD. The difference of opinion was about whether to attack or to let the U.N. inspectors continue.

6.  The "President's" advisors had for years advocated the invasion of Iraq in writing, lamenting only that they lacked the pretext for doing so.
7.  The rapidly expanding Chinese, Indian and other economies clearly indicated that a future demand-supply crunch is coming in oil and some kind of pre-emptive action would clearly be desirable. 

Only a total moron could believe in the face of this evidence that the U.S. had found convincing evidence of a "WMD threat" or that its motivation to invade Iraq was anything other than oil.  That so many of the "Invade Iraq" gang were Jews and ardent Zionists, and that the results of this buffoonery were so clearly of benefit to Israel,  indicate at least some influence from the Likud party and/or the Mossad in pushing these plans along.

You have not given me one good reason why oil was the goal. You said it was, but you haven't actually supported that, other than to say so. Anyway, I agree that the supposed evidence of the supposed Iraqi WMD programs was questionable. I had questions back when we invaded, but I confess I was still not skeptical enough. And despite everything, I still do believe that the intentions for going into Iraq were good intentions. Wrong headed intentions perhaps, based on faulty evidence and faulty thinking, but good intentions nonetheless.

In view of the above, that some people are still debating causes and/or motive to stay in terms of WMD, "war on terror," "bringing democracy to the region," "fixing Iraq," etc. is just ludicrous.

I realize you want to ascribe nefarious plans to Bush et al, as if they were some sort of Saturday morning cartoon villains praying to evil to give them power. But I don't believe the world works that way. Yes, some people do want power and more power, but I think what we have here is a Citizen Kane situation where the idea is that they seek power because they think they're going to protect the people by controlling the people. Whether you think the cause of going into Iraq was taking out Saddam Hussein or protecting Israel, it's all about fixing Iraq. And my initial point remains the same. Apparently America still thinks we can fix the world if we just use enough military force, never realizing that the desire to fix the world is where we are going wrong in the first place.

[domer70]

Bush was charged not only with knowing the situation, but mastering it. We hold our presidents to high standards. I will point to one item: the "mobile WMD labs" testified to by Sec. Powell at the Security Council were a fantasy concocted by a lone Iraqi interlocutor, soon to be found flaky and untrustworthy. He should have been "outted" long before the damage was done. And Bush was in charge ...

[sirs]

Bush was charged not only with knowing the situation, but mastering it. We hold our presidents to high standards. I will point to one item: the "mobile WMD labs" testified to by Sec. Powell at the Security Council were a fantasy concocted by a lone Iraqi interlocutor, soon to be found flaky and untrustworthy. He should have been "outted" long before the damage was done. And Bush was in charge ...

And he was told that the WMD situation was a slam dunk, and acted accordingly as any responsible President would & should have done.  His descisions didn't rely on 1 "flaky person" as you see it, but on a global corroboration of intel sources.  By all means, Bush will be held to account on how Iraq turns out.  History will be the defining arbitor as to how well Bush handled the situation, & not by a bunch of blogging pundits, on the internet

[_JS]

Why is it so important for you to separate the original justification for pre-emptively invading Iraq and the poor planning for occupying Iraq after the removal of Saddam Hussein?

Ostensibly the administration would have had a plan in place for handling the occupation before the invasion ever began, correct? So in essence, separating the two is an exercise in rather bizarre semantics.

By the way, I was by no means attacking the president in my posts.

[sirs]

Why is it so important for you to separate the original justification for pre-emptively invading Iraq and the poor planning for occupying Iraq after the removal of Saddam Hussein?

Because certain folks keep trying to blurr the 2 then condemn Bush for switching rationales, and/or falsely imply an original intention of "Fixing Iraq", when we should have no business trying to fix any country, just because it needs fixing. 

[_JS]

Certainly we are engaged in nation building under this administration. That came with acceptance of both the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Truth be told we haven't done a very good job with Afghanistan and Iraq...well, it is even close to resembling an actual nation enough so that it can be rated.

You can't accept the invasion without the nation building. They came as a set, otherwise it is like playing a quarter of football then calling it quits. If people didn't accept that then it was the administration's fault for not making it clear to the public.

[Universe Prince]

So killing them all first is going to solve the problem? No one is going to object to this? There are no bad outcomes with this plan? We just kill them all, and we're home free?

Yes...probably the terrorists that such killing is targeted towards...not really...yep

Wow. That is really naive.

Then stick with a specific connotation of what "fixing Iraq" is supposed to be.  Is it specific to WMD & removing Saddam from power or not??

No. It encompasses the entirety of American actions in Iraq.

That's because you're purposely misusing WMD, in this debate.  How I was using it was how it was relevent.  Take a couple of excedrin and stop trying to twist how I'm using WMD, is my suggestion

How you were using it was relevant. Oh, I get it, if I say going into Iraq for the WMD was going in to fix Iraq, that's irrelevant, but when you say we went into Iraq for the WMD that is relevant. I'm misusing it because I don't agree with you. Okay. I need to write that down... agreeing with Sirs=relevant... disagreeing with Sirs=irrelevant...

Except for the fact that you made specific reference to WMD & fixing Iraq. 

So? if I said "using Drano" was "fixing the clog in the sink" would you think I meant using Drano and only using Drano was fixing the clog in the sink?

Look Prince, if you inadvertantly put yourself in a corner, & now you're trying to act as if you never limited your statement, fine.

No, you're just trying to pin me down to something I didn't say.

It would have been nice foryou to make that concession and clarification early on.  Instead you keep going around and around with the already fraudulant claim how fixing Iraq is = to ..... whatever it is you think it's equal to.

Let me write that down too... disagreeing with Sirs=fraudulent...

1st it was with everything we're apparently doing in Iraq, then it became taking out WMD & Saddam, now we're back to square 1.

Never left square 1. I only had to speak specifically of WMD and the Iraqi government because you insisted, in capital letters, that part was not about fixing Iraq. No reason why, just that it's not.

I've already conceded that we're currently "fixing Iraq", but that was NOT the reason nor intentions of our going in.

And I never disagreed with that. Never, as in it didn't happen, as in not even once, as in not ever.

You seemed to be convinced otherwise, yet your changing parameters for "fixing Iraq" have me to the point, that no matter what's said, your position will be unbendingly flexible....nor completely understood either.

Unbendingly flexible? That makes no sense. My parameters never changed. As for you not understanding what I say, I suppose that could be my fault, but I don't know how to say what I said any more plainly than I already have. I don't know how to say it in such a way that you cannot read something into it that isn't there. I wish I could.

[Plane]

"... the administration's grand hopes of a shining democratic city on a hill,..."



Did we underestimate how much resistance there would be to putting the people of Iraq in charge of their government?

I seem to remember that it was plainly stated that what we desired was a strong and prosperous democracy which would be an example to the rest of the region .

I can see why the authoritarian governments that surround Iraq do not like the idea , much as the monarcys of Europe were against the French Revolution.

Are we sure that the time has come to abandon this ambition? Most of Iraq has voted now and our fight is in defense of the will of the people.


Perhaps we will fail but to fail in noble purpose is better than to succeed in ignoble .

[sirs]

I got off your merry-go-round Prince.  The back & forth of what "fixing Iraq" meant to you vs I was simply getting far too fatiguing & frustrating to deal with.  Maybe another time