Iraq and Bush's legacy

[gc1765]

I had often wondered how much of a factor this played in the reason for going to war in Iraq. According to McClellan, the reason for going to war was to create a "legacy" for Bush, a legacy he would achieve if he could bring peace to the middle east, and that WMDs were just an excuse:

Bush's real motivation for war

In Iraq, McClellan added, Bush saw "his opportunity to create a legacy of greatness," something McClellan said Bush has said he believes is only available to wartime presidents.

The president's real motivation for the war, he said, was to transform the Middle East to ensure an enduring peace in the region. But the White House effort to sell the war as necessary due to the stated threat posed by Saddam Hussein was needed because "Bush and his advisers knew that the American people would almost certainly not support a war launched primarily for the ambitions purpose of transforming the Middle East," McClellan wrote.

"Rather than open this Pandora's Box, the administration chose a different path — not employing out-and-out deception, but shading the truth," he wrote of the effort to convince the world that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, an effort he said used "innuendo and implication" and "intentional ignoring of intelligence to the contrary."

link

Do you agree with McLellan's assessment? Did Bush's legacy play a role in the decision to go to war? It is interesting to note that Bush's approval rating increased greatly prior to the war in Afghanistan. Perhaps he decided to double down in the hopes that a war in Iraq would further increase his popularity? His approval ratings also went up prior to and during the war in Iraq.

link

The irony is that if there is one thing which will give Bush a bad legacy, it is the war in Iraq.

[bush_cheney2004]

I had often wondered how much of a factor this played in the reason for going to war in Iraq. According to McClellan, the reason for going to war was to create a "legacy" for Bush, a legacy he would achieve if he could bring peace to the middle east, and that WMDs were just an excuse:

True enough on the surface, but there were more interesting reasons in play. WMDs (even before Bush) were always the pretext for military policy against Iraq.

If Iraq had been pacified much sooner and at lower costs in lives and dollars, President Bush would be hailed as a goddamn genius.

[eyeball]

If Iraq had been pacified much sooner and at lower costs in lives and dollars, President Bush would be hailed as a goddamn genius.

Instead, he cocked things up beyond all recognition and will be reviled as a goddamn moron.

Nice nic by the way.

[bush_cheney2004]

Instead, he cocked things up beyond all recognition and will be reviled as a goddamn moron.

No balls....no blue chips. Either way......he made you pay attention. It's not like you gave a rip about Iraq or Iraqis before Bush came along.

Edited May 29, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[marcinmoka]

Bush & Cos, biggest mistake? Dumbing down the message with regards to what is at stake.

While they obviously had to sell the issue to an often naive and happy-go-lucky public, painting the world with nothing but childish dichotics and catch phrases (good/evil, liberty, freedom, etc) hardly do the matter justice. Explaining that our prosperity and very way of life would of been far more reaching (though obviously less pc, granted, they never seemed too preoccupied with that issue in the first place). I find knowing that my children risk greater economic hardship to be far more persuasive argument. Shame they didn't.

Edited May 29, 2008 by marcinmoka

[August1991]

Instead, he cocked things up beyond all recognition and will be reviled as a goddamn moron.

You are taking a very narrow and even ignorant view of world history in that comment. It's the view of a typical western leftist who believes that our civilization is a natural state. Bush believes otherwise.

One direct consequence of the invasion of Iraq is that Qaddafi opened up. More generally, Syria and Iran were put on the defensive.

The US had to respond forcefully to the attack in September 2001. Doing nothing was not an option, and quibbling about details is irrelevant. In many cases, we are dealing with people who come from a different century and have a medieval view of existence. What they understand is the raw power of the US military. For the moment, this is what separates our civilized life in the West from a horrible descent into barbarism.

eyeball, have you travelled much abroad?

----

BTW, I strongly agreed with NATO's attack against the Taliban but I was opposed to Bush's decision to get rid of Saddam. If I had been in Chretien's shoes, I would have done the same (but I don't know if I would have had the courage/stubborness to oppose a British PM and US president.)

IMV in 2003, an invasion of Iraq was like a foreign invasion of Quebec or Canada. It would just exacerbate all the natural faultlines as various domestic groups try to gain an advantage through the foreign military power. (If Russians or Chinese invaded Canada, imagine how French/English/Allophone/Maritime/Albertans/Urban/Rural would align with the foreign power to advance their own interests.)

In Iraq now, this is all irrelevant and what is far more important, every person in every country in the Middle East is looking at Iraq and thinking - this could be me.... The invasion of Iraq was not about Iraq. It was about the Middle East in general and so-called "stability".

----

Blair's argument about the spread of WMD gave me pause. This will be a grave threat in the future. Car/suicide bombs are/were a terrible feature of life in the Middle East. (9/11 was a big car/to suicide bomb.) I fear that a group is going to try the ultimate car/suicide nuclear bomb.

Blair argued that Saddam's regime had to be stopped. Blair was one of the first to travel to Libya. As I say, the invasion of Iraq, the Iraq war and the public hanging of Saddam were not about Iraq. They were strong signals to people and dictators outside of Iraq.

[GostHacked]

No balls....no blue chips. Either way......he made you pay attention. It's not like you gave a rip about Iraq or Iraqis before Bush came along.

Actually I am familiar with another Bush that happened to invade Iraq the first time. You recall that whole Kuwait thing right? I have been paying attention for some time. One of the few.

[WarBicycle]

Scumbag leftest George Soros owns the publishing company that published Scott McClelland's book.

[gc1765]

Scumbag leftest George Soros owns the publishing company that published Scott McClelland's book.

And? What does that have to do with anything?

[eyeball]

You are taking a very narrow and even ignorant view of world history in that comment.

Well, I'm in good company at least, because its a view that's shared by billions and its one that will last till the end of history.

[sharkman]

And? What does that have to do with anything?

George Soros is a left wing moonbat whose hard left activism includes owning a publishing company that has published several hate Bush books. This is just another one that the lefties will gobble up word for word without realizing that McClelland himself was critical of such books until the price was right for him. He's nothing but a hired mudslinger.

[Topaz]

You are taking a very narrow and even ignorant view of world history in that comment. It's the view of a typical western leftist who believes that our civilization is a natural state. Bush believes otherwise.

One direct consequence of the invasion of Iraq is that Qaddafi opened up. More generally, Syria and Iran were put on the defensive.

The US had to respond forcefully to the attack in September 2001. Doing nothing was not an option, and quibbling about details is irrelevant. In many cases, we are dealing with people who come from a different century and have a medieval view of existence. What they understand is the raw power of the US military. For the moment, this is what separates our civilized life in the West from a horrible descent into barbarism.

eyeball, have you travelled much abroad?

----

BTW, I strongly agreed with NATO's attack against the Taliban but I was opposed to Bush's decision to get rid of Saddam. If I had been in Chretien's shoes, I would have done the same (but I don't know if I would have had the courage/stubborness to oppose a British PM and US president.)

IMV in 2003, an invasion of Iraq was like a foreign invasion of Quebec or Canada. It would just exacerbate all the natural faultlines as various domestic groups try to gain an advantage through the foreign military power. (If Russians or Chinese invaded Canada, imagine how French/English/Allophone/Maritime/Albertans/Urban/Rural would align with the foreign power to advance their own interests.)

In Iraq now, this is all irrelevant and what is far more important, every person in every country in the Middle East is looking at Iraq and thinking - this could be me.... The invasion of Iraq was not about Iraq. It was about the Middle East in general and so-called "stability".

----

Blair's argument about the spread of WMD gave me pause. This will be a grave threat in the future. Car/suicide bombs are/were a terrible feature of life in the Middle East. (9/11 was a big car/to suicide bomb.) I fear that a group is going to try the ultimate car/suicide nuclear bomb.

Blair argued that Saddam's regime had to be stopped. Blair was one of the first to travel to Libya. As I say, the invasion of Iraq, the Iraq war and the public hanging of Saddam were not about Iraq. They were strong signals to people and dictators outside of Iraq.

Wait a minute. WE do not know for SURE who was behind 9/11 we only know what the US says and their intel. can't be any better than the info. the White House was sending out about Iraq. Bush did exactly nothing when the FBI tried several times to tell him that an attack may happen. Bush chose the intel. of Iraq but not the intel of an attack could happen and with that info. the White house let it happen and perhaps helped it happen. Now, that the west are into Afghanistan and Iraq , there is more of a reason for the so-called terrorist to attack the west.

[Guest American Woman]

If Iraq had been pacified much sooner and at lower costs in lives and dollars, President Bush would be hailed as a goddamn genius.

And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

Fact is-- Iraq wasn't pacified much sooner, and it hasn't been at a low cost in lives and dollars, and Bush is far from being any kind of genius, which is why he isn't being hailed as one; quite the opposite, actually.

Well, I'm in good company at least, because its a view that's shared by billions and its one that will last till the end of history.

I'm one of those people. Bush definitely "cocked things up beyond all recognition and will be reviled as a goddamn moron."

Edited May 29, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle.

But neither you or your aunt have balls....President Bush does.

Fact is-- Iraq wasn't pacified much sooner, and it hasn't been at a low cost in lives and dollars, and Bush is far from being any kind of genius, which is why he isn't being hailed as one; quite the opposite, actually.

An obvious admission that the invasion was never an issue, since it was consistent with US policy for Iraq going back to 1991. Vietnam was "cocked up" too....so we can add more presidents to the list?

No matter...one day as a "cocked up" president beats any day "cocked down".

[Guest American Woman]

But neither you or your aunt have balls....

That's right. So "if" doesn't count for anything, eh?

An obvious admission that the invasion was never an issue, since it was consistent with US policy for Iraq going back to 1991. Vietnam was "cocked up" too....so we can add more presidents to the list?

It's hardly any kind of "admission," obvious or otherwise, that "the invasion was never an issue." It's a statement of fact; your "ifs" are about as relevant as the "if my aunt had balls" observation. In other words, it's a totally moot point whether or not Bush would be hailed as a genius as you claim because none of your "ifs" even come close to being reality.

No matter...one day as a "cocked up" president beats any day "cocked down".

That's a matter of opinion, and it doesn't surprise me at all that it's yours.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's right. So "if" doesn't count for anything, eh?

Of course it does...criticism about more troops for the invasion and occupation, exit strategy, even saving museum artifacts...everything but the existing policy of deposing Saddam (regime change). Killing and starving Iraqis was secondary even before Bush took office.

[Guest American Woman]

Of course it does...criticism about more troops for the invasion and occupation, exit strategy, even saving museum artifacts...everything but the existing policy of deposing Saddam (regime change). Killing and starving Iraqis was secondary even before Bush took office.

Speak for yourself.

There were plenty of people who saw this war exactly for what it was before it even started. There were plenty of people who saw Bush exactly for what he is before the war even started.

As I said, your "ifs" are meaningless, and in light of how things turned out, your idea of how Bush would be viewed is totally and completely moot; totally meaningless.

Edited May 29, 2008 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Speak for yourself.

I always do.

There were plenty of people who saw this war exactly for what it was before it even started. There were plenty of people who saw Bush exactly for what he is before the war even started.

So what...what did they do about it? Wait....I remember...they re-elected him President of the United States of America.

As I said, your "ifs" are meaningless, and in light of how things turned out, your idea of how Bush would be viewed is totally and completely moot; totally meaningless.

No, all we established is that you and your aunt(s) do not have "balls".

[Topaz]

I always do.

So what...what did they do about it? Wait....I remember...they re-elected him President of the United States of America.

No, all we established is that you and your aunt(s) do not have "balls".

Come on BC, the election of Bush was a lie like the WMD's!

[peter_puck]

Scumbag leftest George Soros owns the publishing company that published Scott McClelland's book.

It amazes me that even when his conservative allies turn against him, some people can find a way to believe Bush is a victim of the leftist media.

[bush_cheney2004]

Come on BC, the election of Bush was a lie like the WMD's!

I don't think so.....John Kerry and all the "truthers" couldn't get the job done. That will be his legacy.

[peter_puck]

Bush & Cos, biggest mistake? Dumbing down the message with regards to what is at stake.

If people understood what was at stake in Iraq, they would never have voted for the idiot-in-chief. In Iraq, all that was at stake was the Bush legacy, both his and his father's.

Really, what sort of threat was Iraq to the US ? Saddam and Al Queda were bitter enemies. There are graves all over Iraq full of Al Queda types that dissappeared in the middle of the night under Saddam's regime. Saddam served to contain Iran, another bitter enemy of the US.

Saddam had a military that the US could smush like a bug. Unlike Iran and Syria, he had no WMD's.

Now, you have Al Queda being able to get recruits which, until the US invasion, was one of the most secular in the middle east. Iran has left the reservation, with a REAL nuclear weapons program. Islamic terrorist organizations are seeing their ranks swell from people's reaction to the invasion.

[bush_cheney2004]

It amazes me that even when his conservative allies turn against him, some people can find a way to believe Bush is a victim of the leftist media.

President Bush is no victim...he will finish two complete terms and there isn't going to be any impeachment....tell-all books by ex-staffers just isn't the same thing!

[Kitchener]

Shock, surprise, etc. Bush's admin deceived the public and the media were compliant. Golly! Where would we be without Scott McClellan to make a few more whore's dollars -- oops, I mean, to explain these controversial ideas to us.

No sane person failed to realize these things 4, probably 5 years ago. But McClellan kept lying his ass off for the admin as long as he was paid to. His sudden change of heart means less than nothing.

I think it's worth considering how McClellan bullshitted when Richard Clarke blew the whistle on the misrepresentations and incompetence of the Bush White House:

Q Why do you think he's doing this?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, why, all of a sudden, if he had all these grave concerns, did he not raise these sooner? This is one-and-a-half years after he left the administration. And now, all of a sudden, he's raising these grave concerns that he claims he had. And I think you have to look at some of the facts. One, he is bringing this up in the heat of a presidential campaign. He has written a book and he certainly wants to go out there and promote that book.

As rational people knew then, and as McClellan admits now, Clarke was right and McClellan was deliberately, self-consciously lying about it. Now McClellan wants a pat on the back and $29.99 per copy as a reward for his sudden attack of honesty?

[Topaz]

President Bush is no victim...he will finish two complete terms and there isn't going to be any impeachment....tell-all books by ex-staffers just isn't the same thing!

Don't be too sure on that....last night Scott said that it was Bush himself that gave Libby permission to out Plame. As Bush came back on AirForce One as Scott recalls he asked Bush if he knew about Libby and outing Plame and he said yeah I do, I gave permission.