Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Iraq war my biggest regret, Bush admits

Options
«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,284 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Doesn't mean he thinks he made the wrong decision on the basis of what he knew.

    Think of how often you've received correspondance beginning with 'Regretfully' or 'We regret to inform you.' Pretty much just means 'It's unfortunate, but this is how it is'

    NTM


  • Options
    #3
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    Bush IMO is an abject failure who is too thick skinned to realize it. He said I do believe that he is leaving office with his head held high. I hope the Americans have learned a lesson and never elect such an individual again who has brought destruction and financial ruin on a global scale. Is there anything good that he achieved in office?


  • Options
    #4
    dresden8
    Registered Users Posts: 3,289 ✭✭✭dresden8


    Has the American Government learned yet that you shouldn't believe stuff that the Brits download from the internet?

    That would be a great leap forward in intelligence capabilities in it's own right.


  • Options
    #5
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,236 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Mr.Micro wrote: »
    Bush IMO is an abject failure who is too thick skinned to realize it... Is there anything good that he achieved in office?
    If there was any positive from the GW Bush era, it has been overshadowed by his gross incompetence, warming the White House seat for 8 years and doing nothing to mitigate the huge financial meltdown that now occurs, while at the same time almost doubling the federal deficit to an historic high.
    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Doesn't mean he thinks he made the wrong decision on the basis of what he knew.
    "What he knew?" Either he is the most ignorant president in US history, or he had a hidden agenda. I believe that he and Cheney knew that there were no WMD, and suckered the US Congress and the American people into an unjustified war, playing on their post-9/11 fears, hysteria, ignorance, and Middle Eastern bigotry. What was the hidden agenda? The same as for past empires, the control of a scarce resource tied to their economy, in this case: OIL.


  • Options
    #6
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    dresden8 wrote: »
    Has the American Government learned yet that you shouldn't believe stuff that the Brits download from the internet?
    .

    Actually, even the Brits didn't believe that, as otherwise they wouldn't have performed such a cynical rewrite. Plus the remark re "facts being fixed around the policy" in the leaked July 2002 Cabinet memo.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Doesn't mean he thinks he made the wrong decision on the basis of what he knew.

    Yes it bloody well does.


  • Options
    #8
    Ruskie4Rent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,088 ✭✭✭Ruskie4Rent


    Blue_Lagoon wrote: »
    I believe that he and Cheney knew that there were no WMD, and suckered the US Congress and the American people into an unjustified war, playing on their post-9/11 fears, hysteria, ignorance, and Middle Eastern bigotry. What was the hidden agenda? The same as for past empires, the control of a scarce resource tied to their economy, in this case: OIL.

    It wasn't a case of them knowing there were no WMD. They didn't know. They just pushed forward with a war agenda without being sure because it worked in their favour.
    So it seems anyway.


  • Options
    #9
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,236 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Ruskie4Rent wrote: »
    It wasn't a case of them knowing there were no WMD. They didn't know.
    Then what was all that manufactured evidence leaked or otherwise reported to the press about:
    • yellow cakes falsely reported as purchased from an African country by Saddam?
    • outing the CIA wife of the investigator (by Cheney's aide) that found no evidence of yellow cake purchases in Africa?
    • so called centrifuge tubes (that CIA analysts said were really rocket tubes)?
    • Colin Powell appearing with a vial of power suggesting that if it were anthrax from Saddam everyone could die in the UN meeting he addressed?
    • completely ignoring the most recent inspection team reports and analyst estimates that Saddam could not have WMD rearmed?
    • falsely claiming that Saddam and Osama bin Laden collaborated?
    Bush-Cheney and Company knew that Iraq posed no threat to the United States, but being one of the leading sources of oil in the world, they did just like past empires have, they manufactured a pretext for war, scared their people into believing the nonsensical evidence they offered (above), then attacked without a "real" coalition of supporting countries (just USA and Tony Blair's military, the rest being token).

    The French knew that no WMD existed, and when they challenged Bush and his motives, Bush threw a public trantrum and had Washington DC change the name from French fries to Freedom Fries as an insult to the French.

    If they didn't know, why were they going to so much trouble to manufacture evidence?

    Hitler knew that Poland was no military threat to the "New" expanded Germany, but he manufactured evidence of the Polish crossing the boarder in 1939 and attacking German radio stations and other things. Bush knew that Saddam was no real threat to the United States and manufactured evidence as a pretext for war. Hitler wanted to control Polish resources, Bush wanted to control Iraqi oil. What's the difference? It's Empire naked!


  • Options
    #10
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Ruskie4Rent wrote: »
    It wasn't a case of them knowing there were no WMD. They didn't know. They just pushed forward with a war agenda without being sure because it worked in their favour.
    So it seems anyway.

    One might question why the British "sexed up" the imformation released to the public. If you read the Butler report, which is conservative in its conclusions, you can see some rather damning examples. You'd also wonder why there were saying this in private, re the Americans -
    2002 wrote:
    IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

    Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

    C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
    (my bold)
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece

    And to the Brits, on the Brits.......
    In the UK House of Lords last month, Lord Butler, who headed an investigation into the intelligence which took Britain into the war, was scathing about that - though his speech went largely unreported in the media.
    He accused Tony Blair of being "disingenuous" in the way he used intelligence - Whitehall-speak for "deliberately misleading". "[Mr Blair] told Parliament... that the picture painted by our intelligence services was 'extensive, detailed and authoritative'. Those words could simply not have been justified by the material that the intelligence community provided to him."
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6472935.stm

    The idea that - with its electronic surveillance, spy sattellites and planes - the US would be unable to determine whether or not there existed the infrastructure required for any significant threat of WMD is ridiculous.


  • Options
    #11
    Peteee
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 2,432 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peteee


    Nodin wrote: »
    The idea that - with its electronic surveillance, spy sattellites and planes - the US would be unable to determine whether or not there existed the infrastructure required for any significant threat of WMD is ridiculous.

    Not disagreeing with you here, but to butcher a Simpsons quote

    "All we've been able to tell from satellite photos is that the WMD's aren't on the roof"

    From all I've read CIA has quite a lack of HUMINT and relies too much on technology.
    Colin Powell appearing with a vial of power suggesting that if it were anthrax from Saddam everyone could die in the UN meeting he addressed?

    Again, from reading Fiasco (Excellent book about the US military in Iraq and why it went wrong) Colin Powell was basically bullied to go in front of the UN with that evidence. He didn't believe it, and kept on asking at each bullet point (Photos of mobile WMD plants or whatever etc) "Are we sure this intelligence is correct?" he was basically told it was.

    As for Bush's legacy... well it wont be pretty. Theres a small chance he may be vindicated for his Iraq decision in 30/40 years time but I doubt it. And his domestic policies have been as bad. He won't be well regarded.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Blue_Lagoon wrote: »
    Hitler knew that Poland was no military threat to the "New" expanded Germany, but he manufactured evidence of the Polish crossing the boarder in 1939 and attacking German radio stations and other things.
    Well, one thing that has been airbrushed from history was that Poland, between the World Wars, was not exactly the model of international peace or democracy, and was criticized for it's repeated aggressions towards it's neighbours on a number of occasions, including by Churchill.

    Of course, this does not justify Germany's and the USSR's (the latter being another airbrushed piece of history) invasion of Poland, but it should remind us that things often look quite different with the benefit of hindsight than they do at the time.


  • Options
    #13
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    he continues to blame the cia, when it was the dod messing around with the intelligence.

    _they knew_


    The Danish evening paper, Ekstra Bladet, reports that foreign minister Per Stig Moeller has provided the parliament with written documentation to show that the prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, was aware of a UN report indicating that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, eleven days before the government submitted a parliamentary bill to invade Iraq. Fogh has previously denied all knowledge of the report.
    This development may signal a rift in the Liberal-Conservative coalition and ultimately lead to a parliamentary majority to launch an investigation of Denmark's participation in the invasion.
    http://ekstrabladet.dk/nyheder/lederen/article1091725.ece


  • Options
    #14
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    Pathetic. If that ignorant son of bitch thinks his guilt is any less than it is because he "regrets" it, he's an even sorrier fool than I took him for. His crocodile tears are too little too late, the deed is done, Iraq is in ruins, and several hundred thousand people are dead or maimed and it is all his fault.

    He can never be forgiven for his actions and the blame is entirely his. It doesn't matter if he thought it was a mission from god or did it as a means of getting cheap oil or whatever, the evidence was not there to begin with and he acted in a reprehensible and unjustifiable manner and millions of innocent people suffered because of his actions.

    He can take his regret and shove it.


  • Options
    #15
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,236 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    lostexpectation wrote: »
    _they knew_
    Bush and Cheney knew there were no WMD before they started manufacturing evidence as a pretext to war; false evidence used to scare the American people and hoodwink the US Congress into compliance. It was all about the control of a scarce resource: OIL!

    In a different context I remember the clue from "Deepthroat" to news reporters about how to crack the Nixon-Watergate case. "Follow the money!" Bush was a former oil man. Bush received campaign contributions from the US oil lobby. Iraq was one of the largest sources of oil reserve and production. Since the second invasion of Iraq, US oil corporations have reported historic profits. Connect the dots. Duh!


  • Options
    #16
    lostexpectation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,082 ✭✭✭lostexpectation


    our lot knew too


  • Options
    #17
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,284 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Here's an unexpected endorsement.
    The Dalai Lama, a lifelong champion of non-violence on Saturday candidly stated that terrorism cannot be tackled by applying the principle of ahimsa because the minds of terrorists are closed.

    "It is difficult to deal with terrorism through non-violence," the Tibetan spiritual leader said delivering the Madhavrao Scindia Memorial Lecture here.

    He also termed terrorism as the worst kind of violence which is not carried by a few mad people but by those who are very brilliant and educated.

    "They (terrorists) are very brilliant and educated...but a strong ill feeling is bred in them. Their minds are closed," the Dalai Lama said.

    He said that the only way to tackle terrorism is through prevention. The head of the Tibetan government-in-exile left the audience stunned when he said "I love President George W Bush." He went on to add how he and the US President instantly struck a chord in their first meeting unlike politicians who take a while to develop close ties.

    NTM


  • Options
    #18
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    That Dali Lama is a pretty cool and unassuming guy, and now with your posting I’ll also consider him quite enlightened. I got to say hello to him on a street in a little town of Hellertown, PA this past summer while he was walking with his entourage to a McDonalds (if you can believe that).


  • Options
    #19
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    That Dali Lama is a pretty cool and unassuming guy, and now with your posting I’ll also consider him quite enlightened. I got to say hello to him on a street in a little town of Hellertown, PA this past summer while he was walking with his entourage to a McDonalds (if you can believe that).
    Really?

    This would be the same Dali Lama who referred to Mao Tse Tung (you know, the chap who caused between 20 and 43 million Chinese to die of starvation with his 'Great Leap Forward') as "the timely rain to nourish the land".

    It's also the same Dali Lama who was all pally with and took donations from Shoko Asahara in the eighties.

    Let's not forget that this is also the same Dali Lama who received CIA funding.

    So, I really would not put him on a pedestal all that quickly if I were you.


  • Options
    #20
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Here's an unexpected endorsement.



    NTM


    ....but whats that go to with Iraq?


  • Options
    #21
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....but whats that go to with Iraq?
    It's the moral equivalent of grasping at straws.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,284 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Closest thread subject I could find. I'm not one to create new threads for every single thing which appears.

    NTM


  • Options
    #23
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Manic Moran wrote: »
    Closest thread subject I could find. I'm not one to create new threads for every single thing which appears.

    NTM

    Good, because I'd hate to think you doing the old 'terrorism & Iraq = OMG INVADE' thing at this stage of the game.


  • Options
    #24
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    I really worry about the mental health of so many here once George W Bush leaves office. Is physiological help for BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) covered under a government health system? I believe Tom Dashle is lobbying to have therapy for BDS paid for by private insurance carriers here in the states. Now I’ll do my best to keep the blood pressure up for the hard-liners, but I doubt it will suffice as a worthy substitute.

    Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.


  • Options
    #25
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    If it's any consolation, it seems to be a bi-partisan condition: there's lots of it about in reaction to the Obama presidency. At least it took eight years for people to get that pissed off with the Bush presidency - how paranoid do you have to be to have the same reaction to someone who isn't even president yet?


  • Options
    #26
    mackerel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27 ✭mackerel


    Somebody should have told him Cheney was his biggest mistake.


  • Options
    #27
    Matt Holck
    Registered Users Posts: 9,706 ✭✭✭Matt Holck


    lostexpectation wrote: »
    he continues to blame the cia, when it was the dod messing around with the intelligence.

    _they knew_

    Bush's father was once head of the CIA


  • Options
    #28
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.

    ...Doesn't that rather ignore the fact there are and were a number of valid reasons to dread the policies, the Presidency, nay the very existence of GW Bush in a position of global authority, the Iraq war being but one of them?


  • Options
    #29
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    If it's any consolation, it seems to be a bi-partisan condition: there's lots of it about in reaction to the Obama presidency. At least it took eight years for people to get that pissed off with the Bush presidency - how paranoid do you have to be to have the same reaction to someone who isn't even president yet?

    Very true about partisanship, but I think you’re confusing paranoia with research and analysis.


  • Options
    #30
    Otacon
    Registered Users Posts: 6,721 ✭✭✭Otacon


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Very true about partisanship, but I think you’re confusing paranoia with research and analysis.

    Oh the ironing!

    If anything, you were the one that was confusing it. We have lived through the Bush years, we know what has happened so that is more research and analysis than the ODS paranoia.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    I really worry about the mental health of so many here once George W Bush leaves office. Is physiological help for BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) covered under a government health system? I believe Tom Dashle is lobbying to have therapy for BDS paid for by private insurance carriers here in the states. Now I’ll do my best to keep the blood pressure up for the hard-liners, but I doubt it will suffice as a worthy substitute.
    Personally I don't particularly mind GWB. I think he did not have the aptitude to deal with foreign policy when he took office. I also believe that he had some very bad advice around him; notably in the form of Rumsfeld and Chaney. And, of course, I am still to this day perplexed as to the logic behind the invasion of Iraq. Even a conspiracy theory would not really justify it. Even Bush has finally conceded that it was a dumb idea - as much as he can.

    I just think he was a poor US president. His father was much better and has not been credited for a lot of what he did. I think Clinton wasn't terribly good either. Oddly, I believe that Nixon was an excellent president. But GW was pretty poor by most standards.

    And while I'd agree that there are quite a few idiots out there who think he's the devil incarnate, there are equally a few idiots who also are still convinced that he can do no wrong.

    Sorry, Afghanistan made sense. Iraq didn't. It was dumb. No matter how you look at it. Deal with it and move on.


Advertisement