No Foresight, No Hindsight

[shostakovich]

In a Charlie Gibson interview, he asked George Bush about his biggest regret. Bush said it was the bad intelligence that led to the war in Iraq. Bad memory or outright lie? Bush wanted to depose Saddam. He cherry-picked the intelligence that supported WMD info, although there was plenty of intelligence that questioned it.

Then Gibson asked that if Bush knew there were no WMD, would there still have been a war? Bush said he really couldn't speculate on that. The obvious answer is "Yes", but Bush dodged honesty again.

Bush also said Saddam would not let the inpectors search. That's also a lie. They had carte Blanche. Whether or not WMD were in Iraq, they could not be accessed under the surveillance of the inspectors. WMD was clearly a bogus pretext. And it was Bush that told the inspectors to leave just before the war began. Their search was hampered by Bush rather than Saddam.

As we have found over 8 terrible years, Bush and his thugs had no foresight regarding the war in Iraq (not to belabor the other areas of no foresight). Now, for the sake of a charitable legacy, he's painting himself as a victim of circumstance rather than the incompetent fool that he is. His rear vision is pitifully as bad as his forward.

A bit of "left wing" commentary has it that he was also temperamentally ill equipped to be governor of Texas, and a predictable disaster on the international scene. I imagine there will be more pot-shooting in the remaining lame duck days. I HOPE SO! The bastard has gotten too much of a pass for too long. Sympathy would be wasted on him. Normally I'm against kicking a man when he's down, but in Bush's case, he deserves a lot more.


STILL ANGRY ABOUT THE VOTES OF 2000 AND 2004. BUSH COULDN'T HAVE BEEN SUCH A DISASTER WITHOUT THEM.
Shos

[barfle]

I remember noting that the weapons inspectors reported getting full cooperation from the Iraqis, but were ordered to leave, not by Saddam but by us.

It's quite clear Bush depended on "intelligence" that supported his position, and it was a disaster.

I don't know how Republicans can forgive him for the damage he's done to their party, or how Jeb can forgive him for making the ascent to the throne impossible for anyone named "Bush."

[Shapley]

Here is a timeline of inspections in 2003:

Sep.18 England Blix attacks Iraq weapons 'spin'

Elsewhere: Iraq, Aug.21: Chemical Ali in U.S. custody
Jul.13 England Blix slams UK Iraq WMD claim
Mar.18 Iraq U.N. inspectors begin withdrawal
Mar.10 Iraq U.S.: Iraq has illegal drone aircraft
Mar.7 UN Security Council Inspectors report
Mar.2 Iraq Iraq destroying more missiles
Feb.28 Iraq Blix welcomes Iraq's missile pledge
Feb.27 Baghdad Iraq says it will destroy missiles Iraq has informed the United Nations that it will comply with an instruction from chief inspector Hans Blix
Feb.21 UN UN tells Iraq to destroy missiles
Feb.14 UN Inspectors: No banned arms found Blix and ElBaradei did not rule out the possibility that weapons of mass destruction may exist in Iraq
Feb.9 Washington White House dismisses inspectors' optimism
Iraq Iraq releases documents
Feb.8 Baghdad Inspectors in Baghdad talks
Feb.7 Iraq UN interviews more Iraqi scientists
Feb.3 Iraq 'Leftover' warheads found
Jan.27 UN Blix: Baghdad doesn't accept disarmament The U.N.'s chief weapons inspector and ElBaradei, in charge of nuclear-related inspections, presented their progress report
Jan.25 Baghdad Scientists refuse U.N. talks
Jan.24 Washington White House rejects lengthy inspections
Jan.20 Iraq Iraq promises UN more co-operation
Jan.19 Iraq Top inspectors report 'some progress'
Jan.18 Iraq UN to confront Iraq over documents
Jan.17 Washington White House: Iraqi warheads 'troubling'
Jan.16 Iraq U.N. finds empty warheads One team discovered empty chemical warheads. Inspectors paid visit to the private homes of Iraqi scientists
raq Inspectors issue Iraq ultimatum
Jan.15 Iraq Inspectors visit Saddam palace
Jan.13 UN Blix demands evidence on Iraq
Iraq Inspectors 'need time'
Jan.9 UN Blix: Many unanswered questions on Iraq
Jan.6 Baghdad No 'smoking gun' in Iraq Director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency said that so far it has not found evidence
Iraq Inspectors are spying, says Saddam
Jan.1 Iraq U.N. aerial searches stalled

year 2002

Dec.26 Iraq Experts question Iraq scientists
Dec.21 USA US calls for tougher Iraq inspections
Dec.20 Washington US agrees to share Iraq intelligence
UN Blix wants intelligence from U.S., U.K.
Dec.19 UN 'Little new' in Iraq declaration
Dec.8 UN Iraq report arrives at United Nations
Dec.7 Baghdad Iraq hands over arms declaration Iraq has delivered its voluminous inventory of its weapons programs to U.N. inspectors, a day ahead of a deadline
Dec.6 Iraq U.N. to keep tight lid on Iraqi declaration
Dec.5 Iraq Saddam: Give U.N. inspectors a chance
Dec.4 Iraq Iraq condemns inspectors as 'spies'
Dec.3 Iraq Saddam's palace opens up
Nov.18 Baghdad UN Inspectors Arrive Weapons inspectors, backed by a tough new resolution 1441, are back in Iraq for the first time since January 1998
Nov.8 UN UN inspector hopeful on Iraq mission
UN Security Council U.N. passes Iraq resolution 1441 Security Council resolution demands unfettered access for U.N. inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction

The inspectors were only allowed back in because we delivered an ultimatum. The cooperation was spotty, at best, with Iraq trying to give no more than was needed to prevent war. Hans Blix apparently was content to allow ultimatum deadlines to pass with no action, in exchange for incremental cooperation. President Bush, however, believed that we needed to stick to our ultimatums.

President Hussein stated, after his capture, that it was necessary for him to maintain the illusion of a WMD programme, in order to keep Iran out. He feared Iran more than he feared the US, because the US had a history of empty threats, and he expected, at worst, more air strikes with no ground assualt, which he had weathered before. This President said he would not deliver empty threats, and he was true to his word. Some people are content with empty threats, I prefer a man that is true to his word. I still believe, in this context, that history will be kinder to this President than you are willing to be.

[BigJon@Work]

Shos, you should get over it.

[jamiebk]

Shos, you should get over it.

It will take the country about 3-4 years to "get over it" economically. Additionally our children will bear legacy of Bush's economic policies and war for years after that. ... so, no, I won't get over it. For the first time in my life I am ashamed to admit that I am a Republican.

[Shapley]

It will take the country about 3-4 years to "get over it" economically. Additionally our children will bear legacy of Bush's economic policies and war for years after that. ... so, no, I won't get over it. For the first time in my life I am ashamed to admit that I am a Republican.

As has been pointed out, Bush' failure economically is primarily a failure to fix policies put in place before him. The current problems have been a long time a comin'. I agree he could have prevented them, but he didn't cause them. His policies differed very little from his predecesssors', with the exception of increased tax breaks, which are not a cause of the problem.

So, I ask, where are the champions in the legislator who offered solutions to the current problem over the course of the past few years.

Unemployment, BTW, always rises following hikes in the minimum wage, which was raised in July 2007 and July 2008, and will be raised again in July 2009. That was not a Bush policy, though it was signed by him....

[jamiebk]

It will take the country about 3-4 years to "get over it" economically. Additionally our children will bear legacy of Bush's economic policies and war for years after that. ... so, no, I won't get over it. For the first time in my life I am ashamed to admit that I am a Republican.

As has been pointed out, Bush' failure economically is primarily a failure to fix policies put in place before him. The current problems have been a long time a comin'. I agree he could have prevented them, but he didn't cause them. His policies differed very little from his predecesssors', with the exception of increased tax breaks, which are not a cause of the problem.

So, I ask, where are the champions in the legislator who offered solutions to the current problem over the course of the past few years.

Unemployment, BTW, always rises following hikes in the minimum wage, which was raised in July 2007 and July 2008, and will be raised again in July 2009. That was not a Bush policy, though it was signed by him....

HIS administration had EIGHT years! Sorry...no excuse for his actions or inactions

[Shapley]

HIS administration had EIGHT years! Sorry...no excuse for his actions or inactions

Eight years. Six of them with a Republican Congress. The economy crashed after the Congress changed hands. Less than two years with Democrats in power, and the economy's gone to Hell in a handbasket. Of course, those two years have been marked by a policy of .... nothing. No major accomplishments, no reform, except as a response to events. No foresight, just hindsight.

I don't know if the economy would have come to this had the Republicans kept power, but the fact is it collapsed more than a year after they lost it. That is something to think about....

[jamiebk]

[The economy crashed after the Congress changed hands. Less than two years with Democrats in power, and the economy's gone to Hell in a handbasket. Of course, those two years have been marked by a policy of .... nothing. No major accomplishments, no reform, except as a response to events. No foresight, just hindsight.

I don't know if the economy would have come to this had the Republicans kept power, but the fact is it collapsed more than a year after they lost it. That is something to think about....

If nothing was changed than the course set by the Bush administration was clearly flawed and set the stage for a major economic disaster. The Demos were useless in changing anything and in fact the country kept on the same course that the Reps set up in the prior 6 years. So....to me, I place blame squarely on the Bush administration where it belongs.

[Shapley]

If nothing was changed than the course set by the Bush administration was clearly flawed and set the stage for a major economic disaster. The Demos were useless in changing anything and in fact the country kept on the same course that the Reps set up in the prior 6 years. So....to me, I place blame squarely on the Bush administration where it belongs.

And what power does the President have to change course without legislative action? If the Democrats, who came to power on a perception of changing course, failed to do so, does that not signal their tacit approval of the policy direction in place? If they have approved, through action or inaction, of that policy, does it not become their policy, as well? You are willing to label this the "Bush Administration policy", even though it is essentially the Clinton Administration policy unaltered, which would suggest that you accept inheritance of said policy of the administration by default. Why is this not the case for Congress, as well?

As I've noted, however, the economic situation fell apart only after we were operating under a budget passed by a Democrat-controlled Senate. It also began to unravel following the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which were protected from government oversight by Democrats. It appears the first dominoes were, in fact, Democrat dominoes....

The Demos were useless.....

On this much we agree.....

[barfle]

The inspectors were only allowed back in because we delivered an ultimatum. The cooperation was spotty, at best, with Iraq trying to give no more than was needed to prevent war. Hans Blix apparently was content to allow ultimatum deadlines to pass with no action, in exchange for incremental cooperation. President Bush, however, believed that we needed to stick to our ultimatums.

President Hussein stated, after his capture, that it was necessary for him to maintain the illusion of a WMD programme, in order to keep Iran out. He feared Iran more than he feared the US, because the US had a history of empty threats, and he expected, at worst, more air strikes with no ground assualt, which he had weathered before. This President said he would not deliver empty threats, and he was true to his word. Some people are content with empty threats, I prefer a man that is true to his word. I still believe, in this context, that history will be kinder to this President than you are willing to be.

I went to your linked site, and found that the various dates reported there often had links themselves. Here's a quote from the first one, Sept 18, 2003:

However Blix told British radio Thursday that Washington and London "over-interpreted" intelligence about Saddam's weapons.

Comparing the two countries to medieval witch-hunters, Blix said the British and U.S. governments convinced themselves Iraq posed a threat based on evidence that was later discredited -- including forged documents about alleged attempts to buy uranium for nuclear weapons.

"In the Middle Ages when people were convinced there were witches they certainly found them. This is a bit risky," Blix said.

We sent someone to tell us what was happening, then we fired him for telling the truth. Despicable.

[Shapley]

The President never used the forged documents as evidence, despite the lies of Joseph Wilson and of Hans Blix. The President said there was evidence that Iraq tried to obtain Uranium from Niger, a statement that was consistent with Joseph Wilson's report, which stated that Iraq had made trade overtures to Niger. The forged documents puported to show that Iraq had received a commitment from Niger to deliver Uranium. Neither the President nor the British Prime Minister suggested such a thing. There is no evidence that either government used the forged documents as evidence to support their claims, which is logical given that the documents support a claim that was never made.

Additionally, Joseph Wilson claimed to have recognized the documents as forgeries, although he later was forced to admitt that he had not seen them. Hans Blix was parroting the claims of Wilson.

[jamiebk]

If nothing was changed than the course set by the Bush administration was clearly flawed and set the stage for a major economic disaster. The Demos were useless in changing anything and in fact the country kept on the same course that the Reps set up in the prior 6 years. So....to me, I place blame squarely on the Bush administration where it belongs.

And what power does the President have to change course without legislative action? Can you say VETO?...I knew you could... If the Democrats, who came to power on a perception of changing course, failed to do so, does that not signal their tacit approval of the policy direction in place? If they It's not approval...fact is that they were stymied every step of the wayhave approved, through action or inaction, of that policy, does it not become their policy, as well? You are willing to label this the "Bush Administration policy", even though it is essentially the Clinton Administration policy unaltered, which would suggest that you accept inheritance of said policy of the administration by default. Why is this not the case for Congress, as well? Republican congress most of the time

As I've noted, however, the economic situation fell apart only after we were operating under a budget passed by a Democrat-controlled Senate. ItGee and it only took a year to shatter it?...I think NOT. also began to unravel following the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which were protected from government oversight by Democrats. It appears the first dominoes were, in fact, Democrat dominoes....

The Demos were useless.....

On this much we agree.....

[jamiebk]

The President never used the forged documents as evidence, despite the lies of Joseph Wilson and of Hans Blix. The President said there was evidence that Iraq tried to obtain Uranium from Niger, a statement that was consistent with Joseph Wilson's report, which stated that Iraq had made trade overtures to Niger. The forged documents puported to show that Iraq had received a commitment from Niger to deliver Uranium. Neither the President nor the British Prime Minister suggested such a thing. There is no evidence that either government used the forged documents as evidence to support their claims, which is logical given that the documents support a claim that was never made.

Additionally, Joseph Wilson claimed to have recognized the documents as forgeries, although he later was forced to admitt that he had not seen them. Hans Blix was parroting the claims of Wilson.

Ahhhh...the mysterious "yellow cake" that never showed up.

[Shapley]

Ahhhh...the mysterious "yellow cake" that never showed up.

Never showed up where? It was never purchased. The President said Iraq 'tried to obtain' said yellowcake.....

[Shapley]

[quote="jamiebkCan you say VETO?...I knew you could... [/quote]

Veto What? If there is no legislation, there can be no veto....

It's not approval...fact is that they were stymied every step of the way

How so? What legislation did they propose?

Republican congress most of the time

I said that. I also pointed out that the collapse did not occur during the Republican control of Congress.

Gee and it only took a year to shatter it?...I think NOT.

Perhaps, perhaps not, but the fact is the Democrats did nothing to prevent it, and it did collapse on their watch. And they did campaign on a policy of changing course. Did the course change? If so, then the fault is entirely theirs due to their alterations; if not, the fault is partly theirs due to their complicity.

[shostakovich]

I have no plans for "getting over it", BigJon. Bush deserves volumes of villification as far as I'm concerned. A big part of our crappy economy is directly tied to the tremendous waste of money (energy and lives) that went into (and continues to go into) the Iraq misadventure.

Shap, I agree completely that the mostly democratic congress was a major disappointment for the last 2 years. Reid and Pelosi were particularly poor. I hope they both lose their positions. However, now we will have a chance to measure progress with a democratic congress and a bright president in contrast to our democratic congress with a dim bulb. Recovery will be a "tough slog", but it should be noticeable within the next 2 years.
Shos

[BigJon@Work]

I have no plans for "getting over it", BigJon. Bush deserves volumes of villification as far as I'm concerned.

Sorry, I was just channeling OT for a minute. Feel free to stew in your hatred.

A big part of our crappy economy is directly tied to the tremendous waste of money (energy and lives) that went into (and continues to go into) the Iraq misadventure.

It could be argued that the war spending propped up the economy for far longer than it should have . . .

[shostakovich]

Yes, on a gigantic Asian credit card that we will sometime have to pay for. There will be no bailout for the U.S. The concept of "buy now, pay later" has lulled this nation into a false sense of comfort. We are now starting to feel the discomfort that it produces. The escalation of unemployment is just starting. It will probably explode in 2009 unless Obama can work some magic by mid year or so.
Shos

[Haggis@wk]

I have no plans for "getting over it", BigJon.

Yawn. Old news, we've moved on. You're in the majority now, lording it over us peons. I plan to "stick it to the man," Power to the people!! You Fascistia thugs!!!!!

p.s. Gitmo's staying open...........