I was hoping to solve the Iraqi issue diplomatically
Really? Does anyone believe that? Bush wanted diplomacy to work? That's why the UN weapons inspectors who were in Iraq had to leave because Bush announced he was about to invade. Bush and Blair invaded. And what did they gain? Two years later Bush made a video of himself pretending to look for the weapons of destruction around his office. Looking under his desk and joking about it. While Americans died on his order.
Was he hoping to solve it diplomatically or was the image of the mushroom clouds over American cities designed to frighten the Congress and public into compliance with a plan to invade? Would Bush have been happy if there was a diplomatic solution? What would that have looked like? Would Saddam Hussein have allowed UN inspectors in? Would they be allowed to go where they wanted? Do we remember that was the situation when they got pulled from the country for their own safety?
Bush didn't find the weapons in his office or in Iraq because they weren't there. According to the inspectors' report they had been destroyed. Iraq was no immediate threat to the U.S. then but invading has proved to be the worst mistake we've ever made. This president jokes while Americans die and die and come home wounded by the thousands. How many more families have to go through a living hell before this president says, I was wrong, I'm sorry. No, this weak president claims he didn't want to go to war that Saddam made him.
How does he sleep while the rest of us cry? How does he look at himself in a mirror? I'd like to solve the issue diplomatically as well but these incompent, corrupt, greedy, pathetic excuse for leaders may need some help finding the door.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. I am still angry that we went from finding Osama bin Laden (Who is a totally different Muslim than Sadam Hussein) to going into Iraq.
Suddam was not a great person, but the Iraqi citizens were much safer under his rule because he would not have anything to do with bin Laden. We took him out and now Iraq is up for grabs.
Presidnet Bush took advantage of the lack of understanding of the differences between Islamic groups because we, as Americans, are very shallow when it comes to people. We think they are all Muslim and they must be the same so it doesn't matter which country we bombed.
It was an unfortunate turn of events and the changes of reasoning by Bush and Cheney as to why to change of course from the war on terror to the war on the Muslim world made it all more suspicious. And only to be educated later on the past relationship of the Bush family and the Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia (where most of the highjackers of 9/11 came from) only had me realize the obscuring of peoples minds in America seeking justice for the terrible actions of hatred given to us by Al Queda.
To know how evil and ungreatful a man can be, we provided bin Laden with the resources and money to fight Iran to free up the state of Afganistan and to turn around on what he did.
I am behind the times because I still want this man captured tried and executed. But I think Bush had something else in mind. He hated Sadaam and thought as long as we hang a Muslim dictator it will appease the american public that at least we got somebody we considered an enemy, even though he had and never had anything to do with terrorists like bin Laden and crew.
goes to show how shallow we are sometimes. Just look at the t.v. ratings. How dare they try to take away our American Idol from us!!
David McCool at 12:15PM on Jul 13th 2007
2. Bush is simply insane, or so dumb he has to relearn the english language anew every day.
Does anyone even still consider that his justifications for war were not fabricated for PR and popular consumption? We have never heard anything even remotely resembling the truth from him or Cheney. They have collectively done far more harm to our nation than a dozen Benedict Arnold's. Impeachment is the least of the penalty's that should be meted out to him. Charges of treason should be brought.
DaleF at 12:40PM on Jul 13th 2007
3. As for weapons inspectors:
"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."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi
Dec 16th 1998
If Bush has lied about WMD's who was lying to Pelosi in 1998?
Just speculation on my part:
Any President would have been criminally negligent to stand by and watch Iran and Iraq at war, for six years (1982-1988), using WMD's (chemical weapons) on a scale not seen since WWI, and not be interested in who was manufacturing selling and supplying those weapons to Iran/Iraq.
With six years and Reagan era military funding I believe we would have compiled a long list of WMD's we KNOW they bought.
After 911 Libya denounced terrorism and turned in their WMD's. We had a chance to test our intelligence on what we thought they had against what Libya turned in. President Bush then turned up the heat on Saddam. Coincidence, I dont think so.
Our Reagan-era intelligence could have determined Iraq, dispite weapons inspectors reports to the contrary, had bought more WMD's than they may have used, we found or was destroyed. If we know they bought alot more WMD's than we have found wear are they?
Nancy had it right in 1998 and nothing had changed in 2003.
Pete at 1:04PM on Jul 13th 2007
4. yea right. that is what clinton tried to do that the right-wing nuts blamed him for doing. using the 17 "failed" U.N. resolutions as an excuse to go into iraq. bush can keep on trying to spin his "lies". no on is buying and they(repubs) are all jumping ship. diplomatic solution was to keep it on the U.N. table and let the U.N. deal with it. America is in iraq and no one on the U.N. table wants to help. i wonder why?
clinton was smart to keep it on U.N's table due to the fact that the complaint against sadam was humanitarian....genocide. which was happening in other countries(sudan, rwanda, columbia, etc). what would have been clintons call to go into iraq? nothing. for the fact that iraq kept iran at bay with its own border war. remember, reagan supplied iraq with weapons to keep their(iraq/iran) war going on.
so what would have been bush's diplomatic solution? makes you wonder....or was he just "lying" again?
iamchavira at 1:12PM on Jul 13th 2007
5. Well there is no money in peace, everything done in Washington from making laws to deciding foreign policy is created through lobbyism. They are the ones who really rule. The Oil business is a monopoly of the world, one whole conglomerate. Their quarrells affect us all. Oil prices affect everything, from gas for cars and lawn mowers, to making products (plactics, ect.) and powering our homes.
Diplomacy is trying to be the one guy or small group to rule over it all and is done through military might. Always has been that way throughout modern human existence.
Countries have taken over other countries because they have something they want and control, not so they can civilize them. That was just their excuse or their "reasoning."
China has silk, the middle east has oil, South America has (soon had) the Amazon Forest and gold and other precious medals, Afica has diamonds, North America has an abundance of fertile land and game, and the list goes on.
So much blood have been fought by many nations for the control of these items and resources, in the name of God and honor of their country.
David McCool at 1:47PM on Jul 13th 2007
6. David McCool
"Well there is no money in peace..."
The booming Clinton economy was during peacetime. The Bush economy is, statistically at least, on par with the Clinton economy. Our military budget, as a % of GDP, is at all time lows (about 5%). At 5% of GDP the war does not fuel the economy as it did during WWII or even Vietnam.
"Oil prices affect everything..."
In 1991 Saddam had the third largest army in the world, funded by oil. He used that oil money to buy weapons and invade Iran in 1982 and then Kuwait in 1990.
We kicked Saddam out of Kuwait and then we left. We do not occupy Kuwait. We do not pump Kuwait's oil. There is no Trans-Atlantic oil pipeline from Kuwait to the U.S.
Hopefully we can leave Iraq with a government that will use it's oil resources more responsibly and to help the Iraqi people.
If we fail in Iraq and a rogue government prevails then oil will buy many more weapons in Iraq than rice did in Vietnam. Our children will have to go back for a third time to take those weapons away.
Respectfully Pete
Pete at 2:37PM on Jul 13th 2007
7. Were his trusted advisers telling him what he wanted to hear, or merely channeling an agenda to him and convincing him of its legitimacy? Personally, I think the poor guy was set up.
Steve Bonomo at 11:37PM on Jul 13th 2007
8. Phil,
It matters very little how he rationalizes his blunder....
If he has some real regrets now.... maybe it shows that he is not completely insane.
Who voted for this worthless piece of armadillo dung?
Manfred at 8:13PM on Jul 14th 2007
9. well, we could have spent all those hundreds billions taxpayers spent on the Iraq war building the great wall 1000 feet tall all around the borders of Mexico and Canada, and limited air space and travel, feed the poor americans and provide free health care to all citizens and illegal residents as well, isolate America from all global threats and the americans will be all one happy family,and safe having a secure border and living like a caged yellow turkey,..would you have like that
As long as there are men rulers, presidents,imam or kings all over the world..war will always be vicious cycle and will never end..However, I would not bet on Hillary... she is a puppet of all the men hovering over her and nearest to her is the former president I have no respect for
IRT2LTEE at 1:18PM on Jul 19th 2007