George W Bush's Legacy

[brvheart 1,752]

I think brv is answering the question, "What did Bush do that will have the most lasting effects?" while everyone else is answering, "What will Bush most be remembered for?"

While this may be true, the Supreme Court is definitely what I will remember most about W.

[LadyGrey 6]

hahaha... oh Canebrain. Good one. He worst annual deficit was 490 billion. Obama is going to quadruple that this year. 2009's was 1.6 trillion.

Everyone knows that the reason Obama's deficit is so big is due to the economic crisis, many countries have similarly gigantic deficits for the same reason. It has little to nothing to do with ideology/policy so don't imply that it is. Please keep this kind of stupidity out of my thread.

Mehhh, I'm not sure SC appointments really count. I mean they are basically randomly given to presidents when someone retires. If you like what Alito and Roberts do, that is their own legacy, not Bush's.

This. I don't think I can name who picked what supreme court justice over time. Most presidents get the chance to nominate a justice during their tenure, and they almost always pick someone who matches their ideology. It's nothing unusual, or specific to Bush 43, so I don't think it is something I will consider in my essay.

It is worth noting that "historical legacy" has always been defined by the academy, and professors lean left. It's almost always professional historians who get the last word, via biography and authorship of influential history books. Unless academia suddenly takes a shift to the right, I wouldn't expect Bush's legacy to improve much at all.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_ra...e_United_StatesHere's a link to how (and by whom) presidents are ranked. It should be very useful for your research, as it explains how the rankings came to exist, who carries them out, and some of the reasoning used for them.

Thanks, I always look at that page when considering presidents (in fact, my class teacher has started using it in classes too since I showed it to him), but I hadn't thought to look at who does the rankings and whether they might be biased.One thing that is starting to come out from working on this essay is what "legacy" means, since different groups/individuals will have different perspectives. I suppose there might be some overall legacy which is unbiased (?) but I think I'll need to at least mention in the conclusion that Democrats, Republicans, historians and the international community will all have different views of his legacy.

[brvheart 1,752]

Everyone knows that the reason Obama's deficit is so big is due to the economic crisis, many countries have similarly gigantic deficits for the same reason. It has little to nothing to do with ideology/policy so don't imply that it is. Please keep this kind of stupidity out of my thread.

You're incorrect. I'm not trying to imply it, and trying to actually say that. Obama is wasting billions of dollars more than he needs to. Bush, while he also wasted billions of dollars more than he needed to, wasted a trillion less than Obama (in one year). Why are you not also blasting Cane for 'implying' that Bush ran up a huge deficit? "It wasn't his fault.. it was the war!" Right? "It had little to do with ideology, it was about national security"... correct?

This. I don't think I can name who picked what supreme court justice over time. Most presidents get the chance to nominate a justice during their tenure, and they almost always pick someone who matches their ideology. It's nothing unusual, or specific to Bush 43, so I don't think it is something I will consider in my essay.

You can talk about whatever you want in your essay, but the fact that SB mentioned Warren/Eisenhower proves that people that study history actually do remember this stuff. It's pretty important. In fact, if Americans were polled on Eisenhower's presidential legacy, very few people would have any clue what he did in office. They would know he was a general, but the knowledge would end there. Among people that actually know about his presidency, I would guess that his multiple Supreme Court appointments would definitely be in the top 3 of important decisions that he made.

[CaneBrain 95]

You're incorrect. I'm not trying to imply it, and trying to actually say that. Obama is wasting billions of dollars more than he needs to. Bush, while he also wasted billions of dollars more than he needed to, wasted a trillion less than Obama (in one year). Why are you not also blasting Cane for 'implying' that Bush ran up a huge deficit? "It wasn't his fault.. it was the war!" Right? "It had little to do with ideology, it was about national security"... correct?

Because the war was Bush's choice and it was the wrong one whereas any president that came in after Bush was going to be behind the 8-ball due to Bush's massive screw-ups.The war was (in large part) his poor choice therefore it is no defense to his deficits. I thought that was wildly obvious but I guess not. This idea that the Iraq War just magically happened during Bush's presidency is a fairy tale.as to the further above, yes, I don't listen to much Rush Limbaugh.

[brvheart 1,752]

Because the war was Bush's choice and it was the wrong one whereas any president that came in after Bush was going to be behind the 8-ball due to Bush's massive screw-ups.The war was (in large part) his poor choice therefore it is no defense to his deficits. I thought that was wildly obvious but I guess not. This idea that the Iraq War just magically happened during Bush's presidency is a fairy tale.

Congress voted to go.Also the following policies that you would potentially point to as Bush's bad legacy have all been renewed by Obama:Tax CutsPatriot ActIraq WarAfghan WarNCLB (The bill, shepherded through the Senate by Senator Ted Kennedy, one of the bill's sponsors, received overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. The House of Representatives passed the bill on May 23, 2001 (voting 384-45), and United States Senate passed it on June 14, 2001 (voting 91-8). President Bush signed it into law on January 8, 2002.)

[CaneBrain 95]

Congress voted to go.

Based on faulty intelligence promoted strongly by Bush and Cheney. We all wanted to go when we thought they had WMDs and connections to Al Qaeda. Those were good reasons to go to Iraq. I know it seems SO UNFAIR to pin any responsibility on the President for urging Congress to declare war based on bad intel. But, my mind is made up.And, just to be clear, I relieve every member of Congress who participated in that vote (Dem or GOP) of any responsibility. They were voting based on lies. It was wildly unfair of the press to paint people as flip-floppers for changing their mind about the war later. Their first vote on the issue was tainted by two GIANT lies (or mistakes if you want to be charitable).Also, Obama is merely winding down the Iraq War (which he voted against he first time very presciently). He is actually paying attention to Afghanistan (not ignoring it for Iraq). If you think that show a "renewal" of Bush's policy to Afghanistan I think you are way off. He is also trying to do a dramatic overhaul of NCLB not merely "renew" it. I think renewing the Patriot Act is a terrible idea but then again I have disagreed with Obama on lots of issues. Just because Obama renews something does not justify it. It just reinforces that Obama is not amazing either.

[Balloon guy 158]

What I hope Bush is remembered for:Being president during 9-11 who decided to take the fight to the Islamic terrorist instead of sitting in his own borders and sending the FBI to 'bring them to justice'What he will be remembered for:A president who was at the infancy of 24 hours news programming and extremely partisan opposition party who refused to place this country first but instead did everything they could to politicize every decision Bush made so regain power that they felt was owed to them. As such they all refused to listen to quotes like tese:

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 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." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

I could go on but these kind of make the point.Oh and snopes already verified these and more

[vbnautilus 48]

Even if other people supported or encouraged the action, he is ultimately responsible for doing it. He was the President. If it turns out to be a mistake in retrospect, it is one that he cannot offload onto other people.

[Balloon guy 158]

Also, Obama is merely winding down the Iraq War (which he voted against he first time very presciently). He is actually paying attention to Afghanistan (not ignoring it for Iraq). If you think that show a "renewal" of Bush's policy to Afghanistan I think you are way off. He is also trying to do a dramatic overhaul of NCLB not merely "renew" it. I think renewing the Patriot Act is a terrible idea but then again I have disagreed with Obama on lots of issues. Just because Obama renews something does not justify it. It just reinforces that Obama is not amazing either.

When did Obamamamama EVER vote against going to war in Iraq?I remember he voted to not send money to help the soldiers get the equipment they needed, but luckily there weren't enough other communist sympathizers to side with him so his side went down to defeat like it should have.and other than that what other vote did he EVER cast with regards to Iraq during the Bush years?

[CaneBrain 95]

What I hope Bush is remembered for:Being president during 9-11 who decided to take the fight to the Islamic terrorist instead of sitting in his own borders and sending the FBI to 'bring them to justice'What he will be remembered for:A president who was at the infancy of 24 hours news programming and extremely partisan opposition party who refused to place this country first but instead did everything they could to politicize every decision Bush made so regain power that they felt was owed to them. As such they all refused to listen to quotes like tese:I could go on but these kind of make the point.Oh and snopes already verified these and more

There's a reason so many of those quotes are from 2002. That's when members of Congress all got the same bogus reports that Bush and Cheney promoted as fact. http://zfacts.com/p/581.htmlnotice in that link how many times Bush or his underlings use the phrase "no doubt".A lot of those quotes by Democrats express more that Saddam is a horrible dictator (which we know) and less that he has WMDs. I also see words like "potential"; stuff about we should not let him have WMDs. And I noticed that even in October 2002, Hillary Clinton had the guts to say that there was no evidence that Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda (something Bush and Cheney were stating as fact).

[Balloon guy 158]

Even if other people supported or encouraged the action, he is ultimately responsible for doing it. He was the President. If it turns out to be a mistake in retrospect, it is one that he cannot offload onto other people.

So the president is responsible for how accurate the intelligence from every major world intelligence agency is?Every countries leadership? Including the previous administration?Bush is responsible to verify everything that comes to him from every source even if it is 99% all the same?Even when he is ridiculed by

Maybe John Kerry was pulling a

to egg Bush on so he could run against him in 2004? ( starting at 1:15 )But you are right, when we vote for president, we should get Jack Bauer, Jack Ryan, Dr. House, and Shawn Spenser all rolled up in one and just fire the entire staff of the CIA.

[CaneBrain 95]

When did Obamamamama EVER vote against going to war in Iraq?I remember he voted to not send money to help the soldiers get the equipment they needed, but luckily there weren't enough other communist sympathizers to side with him so his side went down to defeat like it should have.and other than that what other vote did he EVER cast with regards to Iraq during the Bush years?

Actually he voted in favor of funding the Iraq War despite being against it from the very beginning.http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...f_iraq_funding/I guess that makes Bush a communist though since he went to war in Iraq with under-equipped troops and then sent his incompetent buddy Rumsfeld to tell the men on the ground that "you go to war with the army you have". Wait, no that makes him incompetent and negligent not a communist.However, you are right he did not vote against it he just openly campaigned for his Senate seat in Illinois in 2003-2004 on a platform that the war was a giant mistake:As a candidate for his Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama said repeatedly that he would have voted against an $87 billion war budget that had been requested by President Bush."When I was asked, 'Would I have voted for the $87 billion,' I said 'no,' " Obama said in a speech before a Democratic community group in suburban Chicago in November 2003. "I said 'no' unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we're not going to stand a chance."

[vbnautilus 48]

So the president is responsible for how accurate the intelligence from every major world intelligence agency is?Every countries leadership? Including the previous administration?Bush is responsible to verify everything that comes to him from every source even if it is 99% all the same?Even when he is ridiculed by

Maybe John Kerry was pulling a

to egg Bush on so he could run against him in 2004? ( starting at 1:15 )But you are right, when we vote for president, we should get Jack Bauer, Jack Ryan, Dr. House, and Shawn Spenser all rolled up in one and just fire the entire staff of the CIA.

I'd say he is pretty responsible for verifying information that he will go to war over, yes. But again, you are just saying that everyone else also made this mistake, which even if true, does not relieve Bush of responsibility for taking the actions he took.

[CaneBrain 95]

So the president is responsible for how accurate the intelligence from every major world intelligence agency is?Every countries leadership? Including the previous administration?Bush is responsible to verify everything that comes to him from every source even if it is 99% all the same?Even when he is ridiculed by

Maybe John Kerry was pulling a

to egg Bush on so he could run against him in 2004? ( starting at 1:15 )But you are right, when we vote for president, we should get Jack Bauer, Jack Ryan, Dr. House, and Shawn Spenser all rolled up in one and just fire the entire staff of the CIA.

Every country? Every major intelligence agency? Most of our allies wanted ZERO part of the Iraq War because they found it so dodgy. France basically laughed in our face. And the President chooses the leadership at the CIA. So, yes, he is in large part responsible for the intelligence it gathers. Also:Intelligence community claims and doubtsIn the initial stages of the war on terror, the Central Intelligence Agency, under George Tenet, was rising to prominence as the lead agency in the Afghanistan war. But when Tenet insisted in his personal meetings with President Bush that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, V.P. Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld initiated a secret program to re-examine the evidence and marginalize the CIA and Tenet. The questionable intelligence acquired by this secret program was "stovepiped" to the vice president and presented to the public. In some cases, Cheney’s office would leak the intelligence to reporters, where it would be reported by outlets such as The New York Times. Cheney would subsequently appear on the Sunday political television talk shows to discuss the intelligence, referencing The New York Times as the source to give it credence.[19]The prewar CIA testimony was that there was evidence of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade involving Iraq providing al-Qaeda with various kinds of training-combat, bomb-making, and [chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear] CBRN, but that they had no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaeda strike.[20][21] The CIA's report on Iraq's ties to terrorism noted in September 2002 that the CIA did not have "credible intelligence reporting" of operational collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda. According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the CIA reported that "al-Qaida, including Bin Ladin personally, and Saddam were leery of close cooperation," but that the "mutual antipathy of the two would not prevent tactical, limited cooperation." (p. 338) The current consensus view of experts is that although members of Saddam Hussein’s intelligence service may have met with al-Qaeda terrorists over the last decade or so, that there was no evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda were linked operationally.[22] It is now known that the main source for the CIA's claim that Iraq had trained al-Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases included the now recanted claims of captured al-Qaeda leader Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. The CIA has since recalled and reissued all its intelligence reporting about al-Libi’s recanted claims.[23] Likewise, the DIA communicated to President Bush in February 2002 its stance that al-Libi "was intentionally misleading his debriefers."[24]So, I guess they listened to the intel they liked, and ignored the CIA when they had something to say that they didn't like. I wonder if they source they talked about at the bottom gave us bad intel as a result of enhanced interrogation....I cant defend Al Gore and John Kerry. Neither of them could beat George Bush so they are obviously useless. But, none of them made the decision to go to war. Bush did. And he was wrong.

[Balloon guy 158]

There's a reason so many of those quotes are from 2002. That's when members of Congress all got the same bogus reports that Bush and Cheney promoted as fact. http://zfacts.com/p/581.htmlnotice in that link how many times Bush or his underlings use the phrase "no doubt".

So under your logic, the democrats are EXCUSED from their votes and decisions because their intel was wrong.But Bush gets no pass because his intel was wrong?Okay.

A lot of those quotes by Democrats express more that Saddam is a horrible dictator (which we know) and less that he has WMDs. I also see words like "potential"; stuff about we should not let him have WMDs. And I noticed that even in October 2002, Hillary Clinton had the guts to say that there was no evidence that Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda (something Bush and Cheney were stating as fact).

You know what fooled them?When the #2 guy from Al Qaede went to Baghdad for some free medical services...a few months before 9-11But really the sad part is that you are like the rest of the sheep who will grasp at a strawman to draw your conclusion about the entire reason we went to war.We didn't invade Iraq because we thought Saddam was responsible for 9-11, we invaded Aria because they were a terrorist state, who had recently used biological weapons on their own people, were bragging that they were going to get more, had just kicked out the UN inspectors ( because Clinton had forced them to spy on Saddam for him ) and had violated 84 directives that the UN had decreed on them since the first gulf war when they invaded neighbor and upset the oil trading business that the entire world's economy rest on.Looking back I wish we would have just dropped a few cluster bombs on Saddam's palaces, taken the oil fields and nationalized them for the US and then let the Germans and French continue to sell weapons, chemical suits, lab equipment and centrifuges to whomever was left, so we could occasionally bomb them again to remove stock piles left over because the communist quit on us.But Bush had a noble plan to help the Iraqis, problem was the plan was based on the mistaken notion that Iraqis wanted to be free.

[Balloon guy 158]

Actually he voted in favor of funding the Iraq War despite being against it from the very beginning.http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles...f_iraq_funding/I guess that makes Bush a communist though since he went to war in Iraq with under-equipped troops and then sent his incompetent buddy Rumsfeld to tell the men on the ground that "you go to war with the army you have". Wait, no that makes him incompetent and negligent not a communist.However, you are right he did not vote against it he just openly campaigned for his Senate seat in Illinois in 2003-2004 on a platform that the war was a giant mistake:As a candidate for his Senate seat in 2003 and 2004, Obama said repeatedly that he would have voted against an $87 billion war budget that had been requested by President Bush."When I was asked, 'Would I have voted for the $87 billion,' I said 'no,' " Obama said in a speech before a Democratic community group in suburban Chicago in November 2003. "I said 'no' unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we're not going to stand a chance."

Oh, Obama told you he was against it.Okay.

[CaneBrain 95]

So under your logic, the democrats are EXCUSED from their votes and decisions because their intel was wrong.But Bush gets no pass because his intel was wrong?Okay.You know what fooled them?When the #2 guy from Al Qaede went to Baghdad for some free medical services...a few months before 9-11But really the sad part is that you are like the rest of the sheep who will grasp at a strawman to draw your conclusion about the entire reason we went to war.We didn't invade Iraq because we thought Saddam was responsible for 9-11, we invaded Aria because they were a terrorist state, who had recently used biological weapons on their own people, were bragging that they were going to get more, had just kicked out the UN inspectors ( because Clinton had forced them to spy on Saddam for him ) and had violated 84 directives that the UN had decreed on them since the first gulf war when they invaded neighbor and upset the oil trading business that the entire world's economy rest on.Looking back I wish we would have just dropped a few cluster bombs on Saddam's palaces, taken the oil fields and nationalized them for the US and then let the Germans and French continue to sell weapons, chemical suits, lab equipment and centrifuges to whomever was left, so we could occasionally bomb them again to remove stock piles left over because the communist quit on us.But Bush had a noble plan to help the Iraqis, problem was the plan was based on the mistaken notion that Iraqis wanted to be free.

No, under my theory Democratic AND Republican congressman get a pass because they were getting terrible intel that was being filtered through the Bush Admin itself.Nice of you to blame the Iraqi people for the failure of the war. That's pretty good.The bolded paragraph is pretty false. The connection between 9-11 and Saddam was one of the trumpeted reasons for going to war. However, if the bolded was true, which I dont think is the case, then why did bush not invade North Korea? Or Iran? If we invaded every terrorist state that defied the UN, we would run out of military people pretty quickly. If that was the rationale (which it was not), it would be worse. I would rather think that Bush was negligent than horrifically stupid but I am flexible.

[CaneBrain 95]

Oh, Obama told you he was against it.Okay.

No it was a major centerpiece of his Senate campaign in 2003 when the war was still relatively popular (since the Mission was Accomplished after all!). He told the public about it.

[brvheart 1,752]

Based on faulty intelligence promoted strongly by Bush and Cheney. We all wanted to go when we thought they had WMDs and connections to Al Qaeda. Those were good reasons to go to Iraq. I know it seems SO UNFAIR to pin any responsibility on the President for urging Congress to declare war based on bad intel. But, my mind is made up.And, just to be clear, I relieve every member of Congress who participated in that vote (Dem or GOP) of any responsibility. They were voting based on lies. It was wildly unfair of the press to paint people as flip-floppers for changing their mind about the war later. Their first vote on the issue was tainted by two GIANT lies (or mistakes if you want to be charitable).Also, Obama is merely winding down the Iraq War (which he voted against he first time very presciently). He is actually paying attention to Afghanistan (not ignoring it for Iraq). If you think that show a "renewal" of Bush's policy to Afghanistan I think you are way off. He is also trying to do a dramatic overhaul of NCLB not merely "renew" it. I think renewing the Patriot Act is a terrible idea but then again I have disagreed with Obama on lots of issues. Just because Obama renews something does not justify it. It just reinforces that Obama is not amazing either.

How in the world can you say that it's not their fault and in the same breath say that it's Bush's fault for the same intel. That is incredibly ridiculous. If they had to vote for it, if anything, it's MORE their responsibility to verify facts, not less.

[brvheart 1,752]

I'd say he is pretty responsible for verifying information that he will go to war over, yes. But again, you are just saying that everyone else also made this mistake, which even if true, does not relieve Bush of responsibility for taking the actions he took.

Wait, so you are saying that Bush shouldn't believe the CIA or Scotland Yard, but should actually go over to Iraq himself and verify their findings? I don't understand. How would you say he's supposed to 'verify' intelligence anymore than any other president?

Every country? Every major intelligence agency? Most of our allies wanted ZERO part of the Iraq War because they found it so dodgy. France basically laughed in our face. And the President chooses the leadership at the CIA. So, yes, he is in large part responsible for the intelligence it gathers.

This isn't true. Bush verified the CIA reports with the reports from our Allies. They all agreed that Saddam had WMD's.

[Balloon guy 158]

Every country? Every major intelligence agency? Most of our allies wanted ZERO part of the Iraq War because they found it so dodgy. France basically laughed in our face. And the President chooses the leadership at the CIA. So, yes, he is in large part responsible for the intelligence it gathers.

Well, when the Brits, the Russians, the Israelis, the Saudis, the German, the French Spain, Angola, Chad, Peru, Miami Beach Herald and three guys formally from the TV show F Troop all tell you that Saddam has WMDs, you tend to lean that way.They French?Oh you mean the guys who were selling Saddam all the weapons that he had? Since we had already destroyed most of them during the first gulf war. Those French?Or the French who were violating the UN's oil for food program by selling weapons to Saddam in exchange for super cheap oil? Those French?Cause I know you don't mean the DGSE, yea. they were on board with the rest of the world worried about the WMDs in Iraq.

[CaneBrain 95]

How in the world can you say that it's not their fault and in the same breath say that it's Bush's fault for the same intel. That is incredibly ridiculous.

because it was his administration prioritizing, filtering and distributing the intel. And because it was his choices at the CIA who were gathering the intel. And because at the end of the day, he is commander in chief which means foreign engagements and their results are going to be at his feet. Also, a number of people have stated (including George Tenet) that Cheney/Bush deliberately ignored his intel about Iraq. But we cannot prove that of course.

[CaneBrain 95]

Well, when the Brits, the Russians, the Israelis, the Saudis, the German, the French Spain, Angola, Chad, Peru, Miami Beach Herald and three guys formally from the TV show F Troop all tell you that Saddam has WMDs, you tend to lean that way.They French?Oh you mean the guys who were selling Saddam all the weapons that he had? Since we had already destroyed most of them during the first gulf war. Those French?Or the French who were violating the UN's oil for food program by selling weapons to Saddam in exchange for super cheap oil? Those French?Cause I know you don't mean the DGSE, yea. they were on board with the rest of the world worried about the WMDs in Iraq.

A lot of these countries thought it was possible. They did not think it was beyond a doubt. And that is why they criticized us from the moment we set foot in Iraq. The British did back us up from day one though. Australia too.

[Balloon guy 158]

No it was a major centerpiece of his Senate campaign in 2003 when the war was still relatively popular (since the Mission was Accomplished after all!). He told the public about it.

And he based his opinion about the war on??????His buddy William Ayres book?because Obama was given zero intel on a national level, had never been briefed, was never in a position to be given any consideration with regards to national security, or in fact any national issues whatsoever.So what exactly makes Obama's opinion that the war was wrong of any value at all?Because he felt it? Or because he was trying to make sure nobody looked close at his association with Tony Rezko?

[brvheart 1,752]

because it was his administration prioritizing, filtering and distributing the intel. And because it was his choices at the CIA who were gathering the intel. And because at the end of the day, he is commander in chief which means foreign engagements and their results are going to be at his feet.

The CIA and FBI are independent of political parties. Also, as far as I know, the European nations intel agencies are also not Republican controlled.