The Democrats were the ones pushing for the removal of arms before Bush even got into office. Anything Bush said, the Dems had said previously in Clintons administration. This was a team, game, simple.
Quit making it so #W$# complicated people.
Why are Republicans having so much trouble with the Iraq question?
- Thread starter lucas80
- Start date
Quit making it so #W$# complicated people.
Off the top of my head, I would answer that we weren't winning. And we weren't keeping a lid on anything. All going into Iraq did was to pop the lid off.
And kill lots of people. It's was no more of a threat now than it was then. Difference is, that the country itself is in turmoil. It has become a martyr.
The questioners think the respondents "have trouble with the question" if they don't answer the way the questioners want them to answer. In this case, the only acceptable answer is "No, of course not; President Bush was an idiot to do it, and it caused all the problems that President Obama is valiantly trying to overcome today."
This is a curious observation since they very clearly had problems with the question. Take Rubio, for example. Right after the Bush mess up, he clearly stated that he thought going into Iraq was a mistake. Sounds good, right? He's in the clear. But a week later, he did an interview, and it was uncovered that he flip flopped because he had previously argued that going into Iraq was a good thing. He looked pretty bad by no longer being able to give a definitive answer and had to pretend like he didn't understand the question just like Bush.
http://theweek.com/articles/555921/george-w-bush-didnt-just-lie-about-iraq-war-what-did-much-worse
Coincidentally this article popped up on the MS news feed today.
Coincidentally this article popped up on the MS news feed today.
False on so many levels. The question is very simple to answer if you have the balls to do it. Question = knowing what we do now, was it a good idea or a bad idea to go into Iraq?
Answer = Good or bad...that's it. No in between, no yammering on about hypotheticals just answer the damn question. Bush and Rubio couldn't do it and it's hilarious. If Rubio would've just said "good idea" or "bad idea", Wallace would've stopped. You really think Wallace wanted Rubio to say "bad idea"? Republicans are slowly starting to realize they are on the wrong side of history on this decision and they're doing everything in their power to minimize that, and the funny thing is, they are only making themselves look dumber/weaker in the process. The answer is simple...TERRIBLE idea/decision.
Well if "The Week" says so, it must be true.
Love this part;
"The intelligence wasn't "mistaken," as the Bush administration's defenders would have us believe today. The intelligence was a mass of contradictions and differing interpretations. The administration picked out the parts that they wanted — supported, unsupported, plausible, absurd, it didn't matter — and used them in their campaign to turn up Americans' fear.
This is one of the many sins for which Bush and those who supported him ought to spend a lifetime atoning. He looked out at the American public and decided that the way to get what he wanted was to terrify them."
These Democratic leaders in the Clinton Administration must have done the same thing way, way, way before GWB ever got elected. This douche didn't mention that in this piece. Wonder why?
Love this part;
"The intelligence wasn't "mistaken," as the Bush administration's defenders would have us believe today. The intelligence was a mass of contradictions and differing interpretations. The administration picked out the parts that they wanted — supported, unsupported, plausible, absurd, it didn't matter — and used them in their campaign to turn up Americans' fear.
This is one of the many sins for which Bush and those who supported him ought to spend a lifetime atoning. He looked out at the American public and decided that the way to get what he wanted was to terrify them."
These Democratic leaders in the Clinton Administration must have done the same thing way, way, way before GWB ever got elected. This douche didn't mention that in this piece. Wonder why?
It sounds like it was written by an 8 year old.
No mention of the Democratic members of Congress who voted to go to war saying the exact same things that GWB said. Jesus...watch the Youtube video and tell me different.
The difference in his answers was the time frame involved. When he said it was a decision he would have made he was talking about the information Bush was working with at the time he made the decision not the "what we know now" qualifier. Different time frames, different answers. You do understand that correct?
From the article:
"I've found over the years that conservatives who supported the war get particularly angry at the assertion that Bush lied us into war. No, they'll insist, it wasn't his fault: There was mistaken intelligence, he took that intelligence in good faith, and presented what he believed to be true at the time. It's the George Costanza defense: It's not a lie if you believe it.
Here's the problem, though. It might be possible, with some incredibly narrow definition of the word "lie," to say that Bush told only a few outright lies on Iraq. Most of what he said in order to sell the public on the war could be said to have some basis in something somebody thought or something somebody alleged (Bush was slightly more careful than Dick Cheney, who lied without hesitation or remorse). But if we reduce the question of Bush's guilt and responsibility to how many lies we can count, we miss the bigger picture.
What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history. Spend too much time in the weeds, and you risk missing the hysterical tenor of the whole campaign.
That's not to say there aren't plenty of weeds. In 2008, the Center for Public Integrity completed a project in which they went over the public statements by eight top Bush administration officials on the topic of Iraq, and found that no fewer than 935 were false, including 260 statements by President Bush himself"
Personally, drove me bonkers at the time. The administration, when commenting about Iraq, without fail, immediately mentioned 9/11 and Al Qaeda and nuclear weapons. None of which had anything at all to do with Iraq. Whatever the true motive was (likely a mish-mash imo) it was not because of yellow cake or some meeting in Prague).
"I've found over the years that conservatives who supported the war get particularly angry at the assertion that Bush lied us into war. No, they'll insist, it wasn't his fault: There was mistaken intelligence, he took that intelligence in good faith, and presented what he believed to be true at the time. It's the George Costanza defense: It's not a lie if you believe it.
Here's the problem, though. It might be possible, with some incredibly narrow definition of the word "lie," to say that Bush told only a few outright lies on Iraq. Most of what he said in order to sell the public on the war could be said to have some basis in something somebody thought or something somebody alleged (Bush was slightly more careful than Dick Cheney, who lied without hesitation or remorse). But if we reduce the question of Bush's guilt and responsibility to how many lies we can count, we miss the bigger picture.
What the Bush administration launched in 2002 and 2003 may have been the most comprehensive, sophisticated, and misleading campaign of government propaganda in American history. Spend too much time in the weeds, and you risk missing the hysterical tenor of the whole campaign.
That's not to say there aren't plenty of weeds. In 2008, the Center for Public Integrity completed a project in which they went over the public statements by eight top Bush administration officials on the topic of Iraq, and found that no fewer than 935 were false, including 260 statements by President Bush himself"
Personally, drove me bonkers at the time. The administration, when commenting about Iraq, without fail, immediately mentioned 9/11 and Al Qaeda and nuclear weapons. None of which had anything at all to do with Iraq. Whatever the true motive was (likely a mish-mash imo) it was not because of yellow cake or some meeting in Prague).
Thank you for proving -- or at least illustrating -- my point. You won't accept any answer except one, and when you don't hear it, you accuse others of "having trouble" with the question.
Rubio erred in going further after answering the question, and trying to point out the distinction between a bad decision and a decision that had bad results. There IS a difference. Bush -- and Hillary and just about everybody else -- made a good decision, not a bad one, to go into Iraq, because they could only base it on what they believed to be the best information.
Maybe you and others could understand it better if it were put differently. In other words, instead of saying it was a good decision, one could say it was the correct decision. But I really don't think you care.
There IS a small faction on the Right that would disagree. That is, they say the Republicans should defend the result of the decision as well as the correctness of making it at the time. They cite the removal of Saddam, etc. They point out that if Obama hadn't effed up the withdrawal, it would be more obvious that invading was the correct decision.
Bush didn't lie. Period. End of story. This has been proven time and time and time again.
I wrote a reply that apparently I didn't get posted properly. Will wait awhile to see if it shows up, I guess.
In a related matter, I see someone is trying to foist the HROT liberal definition of "lie" off on the rest of us as accurate. I'm not going to wade through that morass again. George Costanza was correct. A statement is not a lie unless the person making it knows it is untrue or should know it is untrue. That is the difference between lying and being wrong, a difference that some on this board have absolutely refused to acknowledge. If it isn't enough to point out what the dictionary says and what the courts have said, it's pointless to keep beating that horse.
In a related matter, I see someone is trying to foist the HROT liberal definition of "lie" off on the rest of us as accurate. I'm not going to wade through that morass again. George Costanza was correct. A statement is not a lie unless the person making it knows it is untrue or should know it is untrue. That is the difference between lying and being wrong, a difference that some on this board have absolutely refused to acknowledge. If it isn't enough to point out what the dictionary says and what the courts have said, it's pointless to keep beating that horse.
Let's put the blame where the blame belongs. The whole mess was manufactured by Mr. Cheney because it seemed pretty evident Cheney was the puppeteer in this fiasco. Bush was merely the face on the front page. Dick Cheney should have been criminally charged. A POS, if there ever was one.
And to the OP... they are playing for votes and their stances will change before the primaries based on who the masses project as a stronger candidate.
What a funny reality in which you live. If you want it enough, or repeat it enough, VOILA it is proven truth. Kind of remind me of Dorothy clicking her heels in the Land of Oz.
Of course agreeing in the Land of LCOz requires adherence to your particular brand of facts be damned. http://www.publicintegrity.org/politics/white-house/iraq-war-card
Read the entire thread now.....even the weird part......and this has kind of been alluded to, but why can't we get this question asked and answered by the esteemed former Senator from New York? You know, someone who actually voted for this? All this is, is a "gotcha" question the media is asking of Republicans......only one of these guys are going to win the nomination, so maybe that's when this question (maybe) should be asked. But, if people think anyone other than Hillary is going to win the democratic nomination, they're just kidding themselves.....which circles back to my point. Why hasn't this been asked of Hillary? Someone who actually voted for this.......does anyone really care what Jeb Bush thinks about this if he isn't in line to be the next president? Or Rubio or Christie......it just seems manufactured.
This is fair. However, the esteemed former Senator from New York already lost one nomination due to the vote so she has probably been practicing the answer for 8 years. Might even have draft versions in an old email account.
Whether you think she is being honest, and she probably isn't, Hillary did answer this. She said her vote was wrong given what we know now.
Hillary Clinton said that during the 08 campaign.
As an aside for newbies, I tried to have this debate back in the day in the Land of LCOz, but at the time his partisan delusions were focused on being greeted as liberators, the war taking 6 mos tops, spreading democracy,and how the war would pay for itself. And then it was all MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Now all he has to say is he didn't lie cause he really believed his own bs.
As an aside for newbies, I tried to have this debate back in the day in the Land of LCOz, but at the time his partisan delusions were focused on being greeted as liberators, the war taking 6 mos tops, spreading democracy,and how the war would pay for itself. And then it was all MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Now all he has to say is he didn't lie cause he really believed his own bs.
Doesn't make it any less of a "gotcha" question that really has no relevance.
Rubio wasn't even in congress at the time. What relevance is it to ask him?
I recall that a few early naysayers were immediately labeled as unpatriotic by the White House and went quietly slinking away
http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/18/stop-it-liberals-bush-didnt-lie-about-iraq-having-wmds/
Please read and comment if you would like. LC is correct.
Please read and comment if you would like. LC is correct.
The HRIC radio network presents a live post-inauguration press conference
Ed Henry to White House Press Secretary: "Did President Clinton pronounce Marine Corps with a p?"
WHPS: "You're confusing her with President Obama. President Clinton has demonstrated time and again that the voters can feel secure when she takes that 3 A.M. phone call."
EH: "Is it true she is considering action against Iran?"
WHPS: "Ed as you know President Clinton made a pledge not to repeat the mistakes in Iraq."
EH: "So that's a no?"
WHPS: "Ed, I can assure you there are no WMDs in Iran. Nor will there be in the future. President Obama fixed all that."
EH: "So the United Nations report claiming their priority goal of obtaining WMDs is false?"
WHPS: "We respect the UN but they are flat out wrong. Iran is not pursuing WMDs. Their leaders gave President Clinton a pinky swear on this."
EH: " But . . . "
WHPS: "Ed let me stop you right there. The voters elected a geopolitical genius back in November. Fox News is making a mountain out of a . . ."
* * * * * * * * * *
Ed Henry to White House Press Secretary: "Did President Clinton pronounce Marine Corps with a p?"
WHPS: "You're confusing her with President Obama. President Clinton has demonstrated time and again that the voters can feel secure when she takes that 3 A.M. phone call."
EH: "Is it true she is considering action against Iran?"
WHPS: "Ed as you know President Clinton made a pledge not to repeat the mistakes in Iraq."
EH: "So that's a no?"
WHPS: "Ed, I can assure you there are no WMDs in Iran. Nor will there be in the future. President Obama fixed all that."
EH: "So the United Nations report claiming their priority goal of obtaining WMDs is false?"
WHPS: "We respect the UN but they are flat out wrong. Iran is not pursuing WMDs. Their leaders gave President Clinton a pinky swear on this."
EH: " But . . . "
WHPS: "Ed let me stop you right there. The voters elected a geopolitical genius back in November. Fox News is making a mountain out of a . . ."
BOOM!
Last edited:
What the hell difference does it make if Rubio was in Congress or not at the time? He's running for President NOW! It's a very simple question...knowing what we know now, was it a good idea or a bad idea? You either support the original decision and the results or you don't. I'll try it with you...knowing what you know NOW, was it a good decision or a bad one?
Of course I'm correct. Investigations and hearings have been held by Bush critics, in Congress and in other countries. All -- in some cases very reluctantly -- concluded the administration didn't lie.
The problem here, as I mentioned before, is people who think a lie is something with which they disagree, or at best, something that is wrong. Which isn't what the dictionary says, and isn't what the courts have said. The single point that identifies a lie is not that the comment was incorrect, but that it was incorrect and the person who made it knew (or should have known, in some cases) that it was incorrect, but knowingly uttered it, anyway.
A lie isn't the same thing as a broken promise or an incorrect statement. I am willing to grant the President Obama didn't lie when he said Obamacare would save the average American family thousands of dollars a year. I think he believed it was true because that was what he had been told by people he trusted. Conversely, in the past couple of years when he continued to say everyone could keep their doctor and their insurance if they liked it, he was lying because he and everybody else had discovered by then that it simply wasn't true.
This isn't rocket science. It's basic English. And you don't have to think very hard to understand it. If a lie simply meant saying something that turned out to be untrue, we wouldn't even need a special word for it.
I'm not running for office. So my opinion on it doesn't matter. But I'll play.
Afghanistan was the right idea, Iraq was not. However, Obama has done a brilliant job of setting us up to where we may have no choice but to go back in. But he will bauk at deploying any more assets than he has as of now. That way he can skirt any blame when his successor has no choice but to commit more military resources.
Guys, they both lied. All Presidents lie.
Bush lied to kill a war-starting, torture-obsessed dictator who publicly threatened to kill a former President of the United States.
Obama lied to "fundamentally change" America into a third world nation.
nuff said.
Bush lied to kill a war-starting, torture-obsessed dictator who publicly threatened to kill a former President of the United States.
Obama lied to "fundamentally change" America into a third world nation.
nuff said.
Nope, still here, dickhead.
I've been a regular poster on this board for 12 years, and I can't ever remember seeing your screen name before. What a completely irrelevant douchebag you must be.
And what this douchebag forgets is that the propaganda started BEFORE 2002. It started in Bill Clintons administration. Stupid article that claims lies, while also lying.
See, it's not hard is it. We agree Bush made a horrible decision, probably one of the worst ones ever by a U.S. President in my opinion. But now it's Obamas fault right?
Similar threads
