Originally Posted by Chief Bones

Posted by a member of a local forum:

I realise that he does a lot of Bush bashing in this post ... but ... his reasoning and his rationale coincides with the findings of many investigations and historical observations of the last 4 1/2 years.

I believe that my opinion of King George is well known on this forum ... I have made no 'BONES" about how I feel (excuse the pun).

LEAVE THE REALISATION THAT WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO DEAL WITH IRAQ SOONER OR LATER OUT OF YOUR DISCUSSIONS ... IT HAS NO BEARING ON THIS POST.

WAS THIS GENTLEMAN VERY FAR OFF THE MARK?

Well I think if all you are looking for are negatives then he is probably spot on, the problem is that in only looking for negatives you only get about half the story.

My personal belief is that while I am not GWB fan and infact would rate him as one of the worst US presidents in US history not everything he has done was wrong he has without a doubt destroyed US international relations for centuries to come and to a large degree made the world a far less secure place but he has also been forced to fight a war that cant be won, replaced a severly retarded bunch of religious freaks in Afghanistan and got rid of a thug in Iraq (While I dont support the Iraq invasion I dont think anyone can be sorry to see the end of Hussein).

Originally Posted by MontyB

Well I think if all you are looking for are negatives then he is probably spot on, the problem is that in only looking for negatives you only get about half the story.

My personal belief is that while I am not GWB fan and infact would rate him as one of the worst US presidents in US history not everything he has done was wrong he has without a doubt destroyed US international relations for centuries to come and to a large degree made the world a far less secure place but he has also been forced to fight a war that cant be won, replaced a severly retarded bunch of religious freaks in Afghanistan and got rid of a thug in Iraq (While I dont support the Iraq invasion I dont think anyone can be sorry to see the end of Hussein).

I will go so far as to say that some of the results are ones that I could have backed up if the approach had been different ... Afghanistan was a fight that had to be fought because the AlQaeda were being sheltered by a government that was so inimical to our way of life that they automatically qualified as terrorist members of AlQaeda.

As far as Saddam is concerned, we would have had to address that problem at some time in the future ... I just DO NOT believe the reasons that were originally used as justification were the real reason for the invasion ... I will ALWAYS believe the primary reason GW made his decision was out of revenge. That is one very good reason for me to actively dislike him ... too many of our young warriors have died because he couldn't control his personal feelings.

Just a quick question Chief, if you feel we would have had to face the Iraq war anyway, why get upset over the reasons given vs the true reasons? Either way our people would have been put in harm's way.

The deer gets killed whether the killer is a hunter looking for a trophy rack or a hunter to put meat on the table. The end result is the same regardless of the reason(s).

I doubt the President is sitting in his office gloating over how he stopped someone from doing his family harm by going to war over it. (We are talking about the alleged "hit" put out on his father right?) So this "personal feelings" idea, to me, is a bit out there.

MH
Are you going to set there and try to tell me that using an out-and-out lie is alright??? If I remember, the Republicans tried to impeach Bill Clinton for lying about a sexual encounter. Bush lied about the reasons we absolutely had to go to war with Iraq.

Is this worse (no one really injured) than using a lie to take us to war (1,000s killed and injured)???

If you believe that Clinton's crime was so much worse than Bush's, we will never reach agreement on this question.

I believe Bush's crime was 1,000's of times worse than Clinton's picadillo.

I believe they both violated a law however...........

I am not condoning lying at all. I said regardless of the reason(s) given then, now, and in the future, the end result is the same. We go to war.

As for the illegality of Clinton vs President Bush: Clinton lied under oath, as far as I know President Bush has not. . yet.

Again, who is to say who lied, misled, obfuscated, deterred, or otherwise implied something was not the truth. Seems to me there was confusion and still is about the accuracy of various reports that are floating around. Even the "experts" can not agree on much of it. Alot of information given to the media and other outlets for the widest dissemination possible. Who put it out there? Who put it together? Who stands to benefit the most from the inner turmoil of the US? Lots of questions that can be asked of both sides but all I see either side doing is pointing fingers.

I do find it extremely unlikely, let me stress that extremely unlikely that the President launched us into war just because he got his feelings hurt.

By the way, where did this little tidbit of information come from that said the President launched us to war over personal feelings? I have heard this rumor before but pretty much discounted it as a bunch of fecal material, and worthy of the same attention.

MH
The information was presented in the media and before a Senate investigating panel (I grant you I can't give the relevant dates or who was testifying) ... the testimony was that the president elect and a select group of his supporters were having an informal meeting when the tidbit about Saddam's plan to assassinate Bush Senior was discussed. GW asked one of his advisers about the advisability of looking into a response aimed at Saddam's intransigence over the inspectors. The person testifying stated it was his impression that GW was just looking for an excuse to invade Iraq. I grant you it was 'just' an impression ... but if an 'insider' who knew Bush quite well had this kind of impression then I believe it isn't impossible but probable that revenge 'could' have been a major factor in GW's decision.

A Bush supporter (of course) would disagree with me ... it is just my own common sense that makes this deduction based upon testimony from an insider.

Originally Posted by Chief Bones

The person testifying stated it was his impression that GW was just looking for an excuse to invade Iraq. I grant you it was 'just' an impression ... but if an 'insider' who knew Bush quite well had this kind of impression then I believe it isn't impossible but probable that revenge 'could' have been a major factor in GW's decision.

A Bush supporter (of course) would disagree with me ... it is just my own common sense that makes this deduction based upon testimony from an insider.

Impressions are just like opinions if you ask me. Who was this person testifying and what/who are their loyalties to?

Many times people mistake my actions and/or feelings to be something they are not. They may have the 'impression' that I don't really care because I don't ask alot of questions, they may have the 'impression' that I am mad because of something they did or did not do because I just look at them and walk away. This from people that have known me for 2+ years.

Right now my wife thinks I am mad at here for whatever reason. I am not, I am 'brooding' over the death of a friend. I have told her this but she thinks I am mad at her still for whatever reason. *shrugs unknowingly* it is her opinion. I am not going to go out of my way to convinve her she is wrong after I have already told her she is wrong. This, from a person that has known me for 5+ years.

I am fairly certain we have all been in similar situations. So while you have your opinion, I also have mine.

Chief I think we can both agree that when it comes to President Bush we are just going to disagree for the most part.

You dislike the man for many reasons, some personal, some political. I can't say I like him or dislike him as a person. I can't even say I dislike him for his politics. On the other hand I can't even say I like him for both reasons. But, he is the elected official and I will support him as far as need be until I am proven wrong in my own little pea brain.

I gave an oath when I enlisted and again when I reenlisted. I will stand by that oath.

Here it is 4.5 years on from the 9-11 attacks and I'd like to look at what has changed, what has not, and what has or has not been done.

Justice. First target should have been the man who attacked us, Osama bin Laden. He is still free. He is still organizing attacks. He is still issuing public statements. We have not really even done anything serious to look for him since Bush began his misadventure in Iraq. Bush went from two days after 9/11, declaring: "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our No. 1 priority, and we will not rest until we find him.” He also made several references to old west, WANTED: Dead or Alive posters. Sadly only six months later, laying political groundwork for the Iraq war, the president said: "I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." He has shown this to be true. The man who caused this 9-11 attacks is being left to do as he will so Bush can settle his old family score in Iraq.

Actually, a heck of a lot has been done to al Qaeda. Their primary base of operations has been converted into a US ally. Khalid Sheik Mohammed (planned 9/11), and al Nashiri (planned the USS Cole bombing, which Clinton - according to this guy's logic - didn't do anything about) were captured, as well as a couple of #3s that were promoted when KSM was captured. They are Abu Faraj al-Libbi andHamza Rabia . Also killed was Amjad Hussain Farooqi, who was involved in the murder of the journalist, Daniel Pearl. Of course, the US also captured and killed hundreds of al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan. Their latest attack (on the oil complex in Saudi Arabia) showed just how bad things are going for them. They couldn't pull off a job in their own backyard. No wonder bin Laden's calling for a truce.

Look, I want bin Laden dead. However, you are talking about capturing one guy in a mountainous area with symathetic pockets of people. It's more important to dismantle al Qaeda. So, we're taking the fight to them in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, the Phillipines, the Horn of Africa (especially the AIAI),etc.

National Security. The other big bugaboo Bush and Company talked about was National Security. They used these attacks to consolidate yet more power in Washington DC. They used it to create an entire new government bureaucracy called the Homeland Security Department. This is the department that was supposed to protect us from all danger. From Chemical attacks. From Nuclear attacks, and from biological attacks. Yet it has been completely flummoxed by that biological agent known as standing water in the Gulf Coast and one of its sub-agencies FEMA has been exposed as utterly and completely incompetent and a place friends of campaign donors get put in charge of rather than professionals at disaster management, well at least under the Bush administration.

Actually, he needs to update his information. Popular Mechanics reviewed the particulars prior and after Katrina hit. They found:

MYTH:"The aftermath of Katrina will go down as one of the worst abandonments of Americans on American soil ever in U.S. history."--Aaron Broussard, president, Jefferson Parish, La., Meet the Press, NBC, Sept. 4, 2005
REALITY: Bumbling by top disaster-management officials fueled a perception of general inaction, one that was compounded by impassioned news anchors. In fact, the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest--and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm's landfall.
Dozens of National Guard and Coast Guard helicopters flew rescue operations that first day--some just 2 hours after Katrina hit the coast. Hoistless Army helicopters improvised rescues, carefully hovering on rooftops to pick up survivors. On the ground, "guardsmen had to chop their way through, moving trees and recreating roadways," says Jack Harrison of the National Guard. By the end of the week, 50,000 National Guard troops in the Gulf Coast region had saved 17,000 people; 4000 Coast Guard personnel saved more than 33,000.
These units had help from local, state and national responders, including five helicopters from the Navy ship Bataan and choppers from the Air Force and police. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries dispatched 250 agents in boats. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), state police and sheriffs' departments launched rescue flotillas. By Wednesday morning, volunteers and national teams joined the effort, including eight units from California's Swift Water Rescue. By Sept. 8, the waterborne operation had rescued 20,000.
While the press focused on FEMA's shortcomings, this broad array of local, state and national responders pulled off an extraordinary success--especially given the huge area devastated by the storm. Computer simulations of a Katrina-strength hurricane had estimated a worst-case-scenario death toll of more than 60,000 people in Louisiana. The actual number was 1077 in that state.

So with the exception of Patriot Acts one and two which attack our Constitutional freedoms and creating a concentration camp in Cuba not much has been done here.

The USA PATRIOT Act does no such thing. Largely, it broke down "the wall" set up during the previous administration that forbid our intelligence services to properly coordinate with law enforcement. It also provided the same tools police use for other crimes to be used for counterterrorist operations.

Let's put aside the blustery rhetoric concerning the USA PATRIOT act. There's a reason that it passed with widespread, bi-partisan support and why it continues to be renewed with widespread, bi-partisan support.

International Relations.

After the 9-11 attacks the sympathy and good will of all the non-Muslim world was with the USA, how has that changed? Well first we created a naziesque concentration camp in Cuba, because what we do there is illegal under both our law and international laws and treaties we are signatory meant it had to be somewhere not really US soil. A military base in Cuba fit the bill.

First, I strongly resent the NAZI comparison. Our troops serve honorably. There are problems, but the US uses its authority to punish those out of line.

There has never been a death at Gitmo. Those in the camps receive meals respecting their religious convictions, religious materials, legal counsel during their hearings, have coorespondence with their families via mail, etc. This is not "naziesque." Its a prison to house those suspected of being terrorists.

Then Bush created out of a tissue of lies, a war the rest of the world told him over and over again were lies and the war was not needed. For months Cheney and the rest of the administration outright lied and told the American people Saddam had massive quantities of weapons of mass destruction and had serious ties to 9-11 and was in fact one of those responsible for the attacks on our soil. Not only were all of these lies, but they had the evidence that shows all of them were lies and they didn't care, they wanted this war and they created it.

First, I was an intelligence analyst from 1990-2002. The consensus opinion during that entire time was that Iraq had WMDs. There was no need to "cook the books," since the books already stated Iraq had WMDs. This is why Clinton ordered Operation Desert Fox and changed the US policy toward Iraq to include regime change. The author can continue to insist "Bush lied," but only shows his ignorance of the situation.

The administration, time and again, stressed that it did not have any evidence to suggest Iraq was involved in 9/11. They did, however, note that the concept of "threat" changed dramatically that day and, as a result, they could no longer trust a murderous dictator to be good to his word.

This administration of chicken hawks who all avoided Vietnam, and none of whom have children in the fight are sending our kids to die in Iraq so Bush could avenge his father and Cheney can add to the bottom line of Halliburton. Iraq continues to degrade as more and more people are radicalized by all the violence.

Rumsfeld served honorably, as did Bush. While I feel Bush got the Air Guard assignment because of connections, he still served and had an important mission within the Texas Air Guard. He also volunteered for Vietnam.

Trying to teach Muslims democracy is as doomed to fail as trying to teach pigs to sing.

Like all racist comments, this one is also false. Had the author bothered to inform himself, he would notice that the nation with the largest Muslim population in the world is a vote-casting republic Link Further, India has approximately 130 million Muslims and is a functioning democracy. The Afghanis have held successful elections with great turnout and the Iraqis have held three elections, as well. Finally, the election reforms in Egypt (small, but a start), Kuwait (women's sufferage), and Saudi Arabia (women voted to the Jeddah Board of Commerce) are all promising starts.

First, I strongly resent the NAZI comparison. Our troops serve honorably. There are problems, but the US uses its authority to punish those out of line.

There has never been a death at Gitmo. Those in the camps receive meals respecting their religious convictions, religious materials, legal counsel during their hearings, have coorespondence with their families via mail, etc. This is not "naziesque." Its a prison to house those suspected of being terrorists.

But AE did you include or exclude the suicide attempts? If you excluded them have you ever wondered why the tried to end their lives? Why do the Red Cross, Amnesty, Human Right Watch etc write such negative articles about Gitmo?
Luckily the people, who have been detained for about 4 years without charges, get legal counsel.... but from whom? From the same people who put them there under these conditions in the first place! Off course it pales in comparisson with a Treblinka, Auschwithz or Sobibor. But Gitmo is a very ugly stain on America's human right efforts. You might disagree with me but don't dismiss my thoughts, because I am not the only one who thinks so!

Rumsfeld served honorably, as did Bush. While I feel Bush got the Air Guard assignment because of connections, he still served and had an important mission within the Texas Air Guard. He also volunteered for Vietnam.

Volunteering is very easy when you know that your chances of danger are slim. Again, you disagree. But there are many people who think his silver spoon saved him from any danger during the Vietnam war.

Originally Posted by Marinerhodes

I gave an oath when I enlisted and again when I reenlisted. I will stand by that oath.

You just made a statement that will NOT elicit a disagreement from me ... as a matter of fact ... If you had said anything else, I would have questioned your honor as an active duty Marine. SEMPER FI Marine.......SEMPER FI