[quote] [b]Helen Thomas (Whitehouse reporter):[/b] Prime Minister Blair took full personal responsibility for taking his nation into war under falsehoods -- under reasons that have been determined now to be false. Is President Bush also willing to take full, personal responsibility --

[b]Scott McClellan (Bush's spokesman):[/b] I think Prime Minister Blair said that it was the right thing to do; that Saddam Hussein's regime was a threat.

[b]Helen Thomas:[/b] Those were not the reasons he took his country into war. It turned out to be untrue, and the same is true for us. Does the President take full, personal responsibility for this war?

[b]Scott McClellan:[/b] The issue here is what do you to with a threat in a post-September 11th world? Either you live with a threat, or you confront the threat.

[b]Helen Thomas:[/b] There was no threat.

[b]Scott McClellan:[/b] The President made the decision to confront the threat.

[b]Helen Thomas:[/b] Saddam Hussein did not threaten this country.

[b]Scott McClellan:[/b] The world -- the world, the Congress and the administration all disagree. They all recognized that there was a threat posed by Saddam Hussein. When it came to September 11th, that changed the equation. It taught us, as I said --

[b]Helen Thomas: [/b]The Intelligence Committee said there was no threat.

[b]Scott McClellan:[/b]As I said, it taught us that we must confront threats before it's too late.

[b]Helen Thomas:[/b] So the President doesn't take full responsibility?

[b]Scott McClellan:[/b] The President already talked about the responsibility for the decisions he's made. He talked about that with Prime Minister Blair.

[b]Helen Thomas:[/b] Personal responsibility?

Scott McClellan: Terry, go ahead. [/quote] Whitehouse Press Briefing

Bush is amazing. Even as president he's a completely perfect being, making NO mistakes while taking NO responsibility for his administration's actions.

Either the buck always stops just outside his office or he doesn't have the moral strength to say "Sorry - I made a mistake"

[b]"I accept full personal responsibility for the way the issue was presented and therefore for any errors made."[/b] Tony Blair

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

I don't think he needs to fall on the sword, but as captain of the ship, he needs to take responsibility to some extent. Even something to the effect of, "this happened on my watch, and I therefore accept responsibility for it" would suffice. His failure to acknowledge the obvious, that someone under his command dropped the ball, strains his credibility, IMO.

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

He should take responsibility because he's the President and commander in chief of armed forces.

He now says on the campaign trail that even though we didn't find the wmd's that saddam needed to be dealth with anyway.

Any Chief Executive of any organisation understands that the buck stops with them. The same has got to be true of a Prime Minister/President. I'm pleased to see that Tony Blair follows this old adage!

I'm waiting for an apology...

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

[quote=superdave]He now says on the campaign trail that even though we didn't find the wmd's that saddam needed to be dealth with anyway.[/quote]

Revisionist history.

The thing is this: Is the world a better place without Saddam in power? Of course. Should we have deposed him at some point? For the sake of argument, let's say yes.

The problem is that, let's face it, we went to Iraq because W had a hard-on for Saddam from the word go and was going to try to figure out a reason to go in there. I don't think it is too much of a stretch to suggest that, at a minimum, this fact skewed the intelligence he received because, as a practical matter, if your boss wants to do something and you can provide him with a basis for doing it, it will increase your stature in his or her eyes.

Now we find ourselves stuck in Iraq with no good plan for getting out, troops dying every day, civilians being beheaded, and our global stature in the world steadily declining because Bush wanted to get the guy that tried to kill his Dad. We can't leave now, because the area would be even less stable then when we arrived. Is this going to continue to happen every time Bush gets a wild hair?

Now, Bush is looking at Iran. We're already spread awfully thin, surely he's not dumb enough to start another war without finishing what we've started in Afghanistan and Iraq, is he? I don't know about you folks, but I'd like to see Osama bin Forgotten's head on a platter before we start sending troops elsewhere.

My $.02.

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

The reason we went into Iraq is simple. The previous documents by UN inspectors stated Iraq had WMDs. PERIOD. The latter report from IRAQ, stated, they were gone...but where did they go? Saddam was not cooperating with the international community. All he had to do was tell us where the documented WMD's had gone. He refused to. How long was the UN going to dick around like they always do and appease a tyrant? Bush took a stand. Despite whatever perceived personal vendetta he might have had against Saddam, and i'm not denying that fact, Saddam still needed to go. PreEmptive action needed to be taken. The whole 9/11 panel was formed (in theory) to decide if something preemptive could have been done to stop 9/11 and thwart terrorism. Bush took pre emptive action against a tyrant who could have possibly harmed the world in the future, and we all know Saddam was capable of such atrocities. This doesn't link Saddam to 9/11, does not say Bush blames Saddam for 9/11, merely says, "You're a bad guy, and we're stopping you now before you do any more harm." Now, he's getting blamed for it, by the same panel and the left. How about making up your mind libs?

[quote=toasty][quote=superdave]He now says on the campaign trail that even though we didn't find the wmd's that saddam needed to be dealth with anyway.[/quote]

Now, Bush is looking at Iran. We're already spread awfully thin, surely he's not dumb enough to start another war without finishing what we've started in Afghanistan and Iraq, is he? I don't know about you folks, but I'd like to see Osama bin Forgotten's head on a platter before we start sending troops elsewhere.

My $.02.[/quote]

Something to keep in mind.

In all of this political 9/11 panel, slinging back and forth trying to lay blame...it is the liberals who have laid the foundation for going into Iran, not Bush.

In the libs attempt to discredit Bush's administration for going to war with Iraq, they are now providing evidence that Iran posed much more of a threat than Iraq ever did. Iran is now being linked to 9/11, nuclear technology, terrorism by the left, again, in an attempt to say, "Hey, why did we go into Iraq when we should have gone into Iran - LOOK at the evidence!"

So now...Bush..."Okay, lets go into Iran then."

Surely tho, sooner or later, the libs will flip flop in typical fashion and somehow say..."errr, ugh...er...we don't need to go to war with Iran, WARMONGER WARMONGER!!!"

:roll:

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

[quote=Jenks]In all of this political 9/11 panel, slinging back and forth trying to lay blame...it is the liberals who have laid the foundation for going into Iran, not Bush.[/quote]

Could you please elaborate on this a bit? Who is making assertions about Iran? All I've seen about it (lately) is something Bush said a few days ago about how links between Iran and 9/11 were being investigated. Is this related to something from the 9/11 panel report?

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

^many members of the left in the seante...can't be arsed to find their names, but i'm not lying here. :P

also...

your very own liberal news sources...

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/national/18panel.html[/url]

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6581-2004Jun25.html[/url]

eh, crap this is going to be tedious. just go to Google and search for yourself, evidence is everywhere...and it's not the right saying it. You can bet your ass it'll be the right taking action tho, since the left just sits around and waits for something to happen. :P

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

[quote=Jenks]^many members of the left in the seante...can't be arsed to find their names, but i'm not lying here. :P[/quote]

It's 6pm here, I have beer at home, and I can't be arsed to try to find it now either, so I think we're in the same boat. ;)

I'm sure that cosmo or delirious will dig something up eventually - they are great at finding "evidence" of how democrats or republicans are each responsible for the world's woes. :P Come on, guys - give us something. ;)

[quote] [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/national/18panel.html[/url]

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6581-2004Jun25.html[/url] [/quote]

These are talking mostly about the findings of the 9/11 panel. I was under the impression that the panel was bipartisan? In that case, it would be both parties that are pointing fingers.

I can see why either side would be politically interested in putting some blame on Iran. You gave decent reasons for the democrats above. For republicans, the best thing Bush ever had going for him (in the eye of the public - or shall we say job approval polls) was being the decisive man of action who took action to bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice (ie, everythng up to Iraq). Now that it's obvious that Iraq wasn't ever so much in that picture, and that whole ordeal has turned into a huge mess, drumming up those patriotic 9/11 emotions by finding some yet-to-be punished culprits will do nothing but help him.

Who benefits the most from "liberating" Iran? Aside from defense contractors, that is. :D

[quote]eh, crap this is going to be tedious. just go to Google and search for yourself, evidence is everywhere...and it's not the right saying it. [/quote]

I imagine it's both sides. Both are scrambling for any political advantage in this election year that they will point a finger at just about anything except their respective golden-boy candidates.

[quote]You can bet your ass it'll be the right taking action tho, since the left just sits around and waits for something to happen. :P[/quote]

Of course they are going to be the ones to take action - they are the ones in charge right now. ;)

It's kind of the same situation as when Clinton first came into office - the democrats had the presidency and control of one (I believe) house of congress. So, the republicans just bitched a lot but never really did much of anything except try to "get" Clinton. Just bided their time until the elections.

8 years later, the republicans have control of the executive branch and the congress - so the democrats can really do nothing but sit around and bitch, try to make Bush look bad, and hope for their chances in November.

Fuck this election and political maneuvering bullshit - let's put them ALL in a huge gladiator ring with axes, maces and swords. Maybe get some tigers or grizzly bears running around to add the occasional unexpected surprise mangling. Whoever is the last person alive is the supreme emperor of America until they die. ;)

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

[quote] was under the impression that the panel was bipartisan?[/quote]

:CrackUp:

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

I just love the way Americans have turned the term 'liberal' into some kind of abuse and keep banging on about the 'liberal media' and 'pinkos', etc. Like all 'liberals' are some sort of communists...

Like you've even forgotten what it means. It's very amusing from this side of the Pond.

lib?er?al ?(lbr-l, lbrl) adj.

a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor. b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.

3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.

:roll:

i mean...THE LEFT.

DEMOCRATS.

you get the point...even across the pond surely.

[color=white]GODDAMN TREE HUGGERS![/color]

i mean...THE LEFT.

DEMOCRATS.

you get the point...even across the pond surely.

[color=black]GODDAMN TREE HUGGERS![/color][/quote]

I wasn't picking on you Jenks - I get your point. I was just generalising on a trend I've noticed recently. And no, I don't hug trees.

:P hey, where did that come from?

[color=white]yeah, save the fucking whales too.[/color]

[quote=Jenks]:P hey, where did that come from?

[color=white]yeah, save the fucking whales too.[/color][/quote]

Where did what come from?

[color=white]save your ass first.[/color]

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

i can see that. :roll:

[color=white]way to fuck it up euro, lol.[/color]

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

[quote=Jenks][quote] was under the impression that the panel was bipartisan?[/quote]

:CrackUp:[/quote]

Well, let's break down the members...you can find information on each on the 911 commission website ([url]http://www.9-11commission.gov/[/url]), and it is quite easy to find party information online.

Thomas H. Kean - [color=red]Republican[/color] Chair

Lee H. Hamilton - [color=blue]Democrat[/color] Vice Chair

Richard Ben-Veniste - [color=blue]Democrat[/color] Fred F. Fielding - [color=red]Republican[/color] Jamie S. Gorelick - [color=blue]Democrat[/color] Slade Gorton - [color=red]Republican[/color] Bob Kerrey - [color=blue]Democrat[/color] John F. Lehman - [color=red]Republican[/color] Timothy J. Roemer - [color=blue]Democrat[/color] James R. Thompson - [color=red]Republican[/color]

5 Democrats, 5 Republicans. The chaiman is a republican, the vice-chair is democrat. How is that not bipartisan? Are the republicans on it not conservative enough to really be considered "republicans"? Are they actually pinko-commie-liberals in disguise? ;)

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

[quote=Jenks]In the libs attempt to discredit Bush's administration for going to war with Iraq, they are now providing evidence that Iran posed much more of a threat than Iraq ever did. Iran is now being linked to 9/11, nuclear technology, terrorism by the left, again, in an attempt to say, "Hey, why did we go into Iraq when we should have gone into Iran - LOOK at the evidence!"

[/quote]

Yeah, I guess we lefty pinkos should have known that if we give the right an excuse to go wage war somewhere, they're going to take it, even if that wasn't the point to begin with. The way you paint it, it suggests that conservatives are just waiting for an excuse -- as in:

"I only came here to do two things -- kick some ass, and drink some beer. Looks like we're almost out of beer..." Clint, in [i]Dazed and Confused[/i]

:wink:

I've got no problem with going into another country and doing what we've got to do, and I don't think we have to wait to be attacked before we do it. With that said, flying off half-cocked is the wrong way to go about it.

Getting back to Bush's failure to accept any responsibility, compare the Iraq effort to situation in the corporate world. If you were in a high level position in corporate America and fucked something up as badly as Rumsfeld fucked up this war effort, you would be summarily canned. Rumsfeld, however, gets accolades from his boss for his fine service. The Bush adminstration is either in denial or is way more fucked up than I ever dreamed.

Bush should come out and say, "Hey, we kinda fucked this up, but what's done is done, the world is better off without Saddam, lets move on."

[quote]The Bush adminstration is either in denial or is way more fucked up than I ever dreamed.[/quote]

oh, they're plenty fucked up, that's for sure.

Ashcroft needs to bleed a slow death. (granted, by just typing that, i've been put on ECHELON's watch list.) But i'm surely not the first person to think this, or type it.

Rumsfeld can suck a fat one too as far as i'm concerned...right along with Dick Cheney.

Basically, i can't stand much of the administration, but i'll be goddammed if i'm going to hand the country over to the democratic party waiting to hand out their entitlements. And really, who even knows what the Democratic party stands for these days? Definitely not the strong party it used to be.

[img]http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/kerry_wafflehouse.jpg[/img]

[quote=Jenks]Bush should come out and say, "Hey, we kinda fucked this up, but what's done is done, the world is better off without Saddam, lets move on."[/quote]

Seriously, if he had done this long ago, I doubt his approval rating would have dropped at the rate it did over the last few months.

[quote=toasty][quote=Jenks]Bush should come out and say, "Hey, we kinda fucked this up, but what's done is done, the world is better off without Saddam, lets move on."[/quote]

Seriously, if he had done this long ago, I doubt his approval rating would have dropped at the rate it did over the last few months.[/quote]

There are a million things Bush could've done to save himself. It seems that, with the advice of his right-wing advisers, he simply won't make those tough decisions. They'd rather just carry on with the same old shit.

His choice :lol: Plays right to Kerry's advantage.

Believe it or not ... He is in charge god damn it! He has the last word I think ... and this makes him responsible for all this.

^ the difference is...i'm really not having much of a problem with a lot of it.

[quote=Jenks]^ the difference is...i'm really not having much of a problem with a lot of it.[/quote]

No, just the vice-President, the Secretary of Defence and the Attorney General. Not much of a problem at all!

^^the WMD and Iraq stuff fella...

even hating those three you mentioned, it's still better than the alternative...sucks doesn t it?

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

[quote=Jenks]i can see that. :roll:

[color=white]way to fuck it up euro, lol.[/color][/quote]

See what?

[color=#EEEEEF]oops[/color]

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

Bush should take responsibility for taking the country into a war which was based on erroneous intel. He SHOULD NOT take responsibility for the false intel itself. He had and has nothing to with intelligence gathering or interpreting. CIA, FBI, NSA, ..... their arrogance is what fucked it all up.

Dont get me wrong, the war needed and needs to be fought, but don't say "WMD" say "Saddam is a crazy fuck and he is threatening us and everyone else. Right now we have enough problems with terrorists so we are just going to take Saddam out and avoid having him to worry about later"

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

[quote=neur0t0xin64]He SHOULD NOT take responsibility for the false intel itself. He had and has nothing to with intelligence gathering or interpreting. [/quote]

I would not expect him to do this, but does anyone else think that it is possible that Bush's obvious desire to go into Iraq skewed the intel? I don't even mean that Bush said to anyone, "I want you to find me an excuse to go into Iraq" (although I don't think that would surprise me) -- I just mean that the folks up top said to themselves, "we've been asked to determine if there was a link to Iraq, so let's try to argue for one."

Just a thought... :unsure:

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

[quote=toasty][quote=neur0t0xin64]He SHOULD NOT take responsibility for the false intel itself. He had and has nothing to with intelligence gathering or interpreting. [/quote]

I would not expect him to do this, but does anyone else think that it is possible that Bush's obvious desire to go into Iraq skewed the intel? I don't even mean that Bush said to anyone, "I want you to find me an excuse to go into Iraq" (although I don't think that would surprise me) -- I just mean that the folks up top said to themselves, "we've been asked to determine if there was a link to Iraq, so let's try to argue for one."

Just a thought... :unsure:[/quote]

No mistake here. Intel was as good as it gets. You get a maybe it's there or maybe not. You pick what you think it is and move on it. We don't have the luxury of waiting for Saddam or any terrorist supporting bastard or rogue jerk-off to build up their weapons with illegal trade and hope he doesn't do something stupid and that the whole f'n mess goes away. You either strike with what you know or let it grow and hope it doesn't tear your ass off later. Those days of letting this crap build and build is over. We should redraw the map in that region with democracies, Iraq is as good a start for that as we could hope for. Let those terrorist bastards flood that place with assholes, let them meet their maker on that battlefield rather than here. We are at war and it will get a whole hell of a lot worse before we can make it better. 1993 was the first major terrorist bombing in the US, then 911 on 2001, thats 8 years for a spectacular strike, we will be do for another before 2007, Im sure it will come sooner than that. Just think of it this way, since nothing really has change significantly in this country in the way of security, and I'm talking about tracking people, especially people of a particular race - we will be doomed to another strike. Get off your asses out there and take personal responsibility for being a dumbass if you think this shit about taking responsibility for an error? really makes sense (the whole world stated he had WMDs long before we were there). Please enough with the leg-humping love feast about WMDs, put the goal of the war into perspective, to eliminate terrorism and their supporters.

Ahhh.. I feel better. (US Citizens) Vote for whoever you want, just don't be surprised if you vote for a guy who doesn't have the ballz of making a decision and staying the course. :RockOn:

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

[quote=digitalghost1]No mistake here. Intel was as good as it gets.[/quote]

The Pentagon is investigating whether Chalabi gave misleading intel from Iran to the CIA, as "proof." How could that intel be "as good as it gets?"

It's obviously the WORST intel you can get... being from your enemy.

[quote=digitalghost1]You get a maybe it's there or maybe not. You pick what you think it is and move on it. We don't have the luxury of waiting for Saddam or any terrorist supporting bastard or rogue jerk-off to build up their weapons with illegal trade and hope he doesn't do something stupid and that the whole f'n mess goes away. You either strike with what you know or let it grow and hope it doesn't tear your ass off later. [/quote]

So, while Iraq maybe/maybe not has a few WMDs, you let a nuclear threat by North Korea "build and build?"

North Korea has nukes which can hit the USA, according to Congressional reports (link available, if needed). Why hit Iraq, where the intelligence was sketchy, and not North Korea, a CURRENT threat.

[quote=digitalghost1]Those days of letting this crap build and build is over. [/quote]

No, it's not. The North Korean threat is building and building.

[quote=digitalghost1]We should redraw the map in that region with democracies, Iraq is as good a start for that as we could hope for. Let those terrorist bastards flood that place with assholes, let them meet their maker on that battlefield rather than here. We are at war and it will get a whole hell of a lot worse before we can make it better.[/quote]

Hmmm... it might, but this is definately NOT the way Bush had planned the war. They thought the troops would be out of the country by now. They thought they would be "greeted as liberators." And if Bush knew it was going to be such a prolonged mess, why didn't he tell the American people before the war started?

[quote=digitalghost1]1993 was the first major terrorist bombing in the US, then 911 on 2001, thats 8 years for a spectacular strike, we will be do for another before 2007, Im sure it will come sooner than that. Just think of it this way, since nothing really has change significantly in this country in the way of security, and I'm talking about tracking people, especially people of a particular race - we will be doomed to another strike. Get off your asses out there and take personal responsibility for being a dumbass if you think this shit about taking responsibility for an error? really makes sense (the whole world stated he had WMDs long before we were there). Please enough with the leg-humping love feast about WMDs, put the goal of the war into perspective, to eliminate terrorism and their supporters.[/quote]

Maybe if the US wasn't in other countries, killing locals, a lot less people would want to commit terrorist attacks against the US. Maybe they'd even THANK the US for being so generous. An overwhelming proportion of people worldwide were against this war from the very beginning. Considering the mess it's been, what do those people NOW think of the US?

[quote=digitalghost1] Ahhh.. I feel better. (US Citizens) Vote for whoever you want, just don't be surprised if you vote for a guy who doesn't have the ballz of making a decision and staying the course. :RockOn:[/quote]

Do you have "balls" when you make a mistake, based on bad information, and then carry on making that same mistake over and over again? Don't you have more balls to admit the mistake and then take steps to rectify the problem?

Vote for Bush if you want to "stay the course"

[quote][b]There has been poor operational planning and execution on the ground. And to think that we are going to ?stay the course,? the course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit, or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course. Because it's been a failure[/b] [/quote] Ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni :Down:

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

[quote=digitalghost1]

No mistake here. Intel was as good as it gets. You get a maybe it's there or maybe not.[/quote]

Where are you getting this? If there is one thing that has come from the investigation into our Iraq and 9/11 intel, it is that the US intelligence agencies are in serious need of being revamped and that the intel we acted on in Iraq was dead wrong (and that neither Clinton nor Bush acted on intel that was right). I'd say our intelligence was shit.

Also, I understand that the primary difference between the draft versions of the pre-war intel reports on Iraq and the final versions is that the final versions dispense with any qualifying language like "we believe," "we have found some evidence that," "some sources have indicated that," etc. and, importantly, completely delete contrary evidence regarding WMDs. This makes a huge difference, as it turns heavily qualified statements into statements of fact -- the final report did not say "maybe its there and maybe its not," as you suggest -- it said "WMDs are there."

Whether the intel was deliberately skewed is a debateable point, but the fact of the matter is that it was not even close to objective.

Re:: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD erro

[quote=delirious] The Pentagon is investigating whether Chalabi gave misleading intel from Iran to the CIA, as "proof." How could that intel be "as good as it gets? It's obviously the WORST intel you can get... being from your enemy."[/quote]

Chalabi wasn't the only intel they used, get real. Russia, UN, Britian, Israel all said the same thing. We had all the indications, even from the past 20 years of history that Saddam was willing and able to use WMDs, the problem was how long would it take for him to pass them to Terrorist.

[quote=delirious] So, while Iraq maybe/maybe not has a few WMDs, you let a nuclear threat by North Korea "build and build?"

North Korea has nukes which can hit the USA, according to Congressional reports ( link available, if needed). Why hit Iraq, where the intelligence was sketchy, and not North Korea, a CURRENT threat. [/quote]

Simple, one big reason CHINA.

[quote=delirious] No, it's not. The North Korean threat is building and building. [/quote]

I agree. That bastard Kim Jong Ill is in the cross hairs.

[quote=delirious] Hmmm... it might, but this is definately NOT the way Bush had planned the war. They thought the troops would be out of the country by now. They thought they would be "greeted as liberators." And if Bush knew it was going to be such a prolonged mess, why didn't he tell the American people before the war started? [/quote]

Yes, he did say the war on terror (which includes Iraq) would be long and difficult.

[quote=delirious] Maybe if the US wasn't in other countries, killing locals, a lot less people would want to commit terrorist attacks against the US. Maybe they'd even THANK the US for being so generous. An overwhelming proportion of people worldwide were against this war from the very beginning. Considering the mess it's been, what do those people NOW think of the US? [/quote]

Seriously, these people don't need us to help inspire them to come kill us, they have their own schools and leaders ready to do it for them. An overwhelming proportion of people were for peace when Hilter set out to invade Poland too, that doesn't mean it's right.

[quote=delirious] Do you have "balls" when you make a mistake, based on bad information, and then carry on making that same mistake over and over again? Don't you have more ballsto admit the mistake and then take steps to rectify the problem? [/quote]

The only mistake was that we didn't take care of this fugger in '91. It's about time this bastard Saddam was kicked out of Iraq for good. Believe me, I know, those people are greatful for this freedom. That's not a mistake that's a gift that not only you and I should enjoy. WMDs weren't found but that's great Im glad they werent (I hope they didn't get to syria), but that wasn't the only reason to get the job done, we needed to wipe Saddam out before this problem got to the level of us throwing nukes, or bio-chems at each other, that's the whole point. We don't need that crap floating around into the US, Israel, Kuwait, or any other country. It's really not that far fetch to see a day when WMDs show up in terrorists hands and the next thing you know there is a mushroom cloud in a major city. It's only a matter of time, but Saddam will be one less asswhole capable of actually succeeding at this.

[quote=delirious] Vote for Bush if you want to "stay the course" There has been poor operational planning and execution on the ground. And to think that we are going to ?stay the course,? the course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit, or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course. Because it's been a failure - Ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni :Down:[/quote]

Don't leave out the fact that the strategic decision to go into Iraq is still valid. I agree, more needs to be done to shape up the reconstruction effort and prepare Iraq for elections and a more stable condition. Gen. Zinni has it right, there needed to be more planning on the aftermath of the war, clean-up was botched. They should have declared martial law immediately in places like falluja and parts of Bahgdad to name a few. Again, this all belies the fact that we were there to get Saddam and to prevent WMDs from being used by terrorists, that will never happen now. Next goal, get Iraq up on it's feet and let these people become a beacon of hope in the region. As Bush says the terrorists will share in a huge defeat once the situation can be become more stable and the elections and a free Iraq are allowed to grow.

Re: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD error

Blair should go. He knew he was spinning his stories with only a shred of fact, the rest was written around a few dodgy sources which weren?t checked properly. He lied to us the British people and made us fight his war so he could cosy up to Bush.

As for needing to invade Iraq, there have been no WMDs in iraq for the last 10 years, i?m surpised that Saddam could have built a house, let alone a fcuking nuke. From the sources that i have seem it seems saddam was playing a dangerous game of bluff, to try and keep his neighbours and the UN scared so they didn?t realise what a shambles the Army and generally the country had become.

The colation went into iraq for political reasons not to save the fcking world from a nuclear holcust.

Re: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD error

[quote=Morgan";p="54623]Blair should go. He knew he was spinning his stories with only a shred of fact, the rest was written around a few dodgy sources which weren?t checked properly. He lied to us the British people and made us fight his war so he could cosy up to Bush.

As for needing to invade Iraq, there have been no WMDs in iraq for the last 10 years, i?m surpised that Saddam could have built a house, let alone a fcuking nuke. From the sources that i have seem it seems saddam was playing a dangerous game of bluff, to try and keep his neighbours and the UN scared so they didn?t realise what a shambles the Army and generally the country had become.

The colation went into iraq for political reasons not to save the fcking world from a nuclear holcust.[/quote]

Yes there are also political and strategic reasons, what's your point?

Re: Bush takes no personal responsibility for Iraq WMD error

This war was all about WMD?s, and now things have been fucked up everyone is shouting ?the world is better off without Saddam?. What a lame excuse. If that would be the reason, there would be a lot more wars to be fought, but it ain?t gonna happen. The Bush administration clearly had it?s mind set to Iraq, period. It was a war that should NOT have been started, I was there demonstrating in Berlin against it.

There have almost constantly been threats to the US or Europe, the shift just went from Russia and it?s satellite states to the Middle East. The cold war ended, the new war went underground. Again I say that you do not fight terrorists by invading countries. They live among the people, so the best way of dealing with them is through special ops: less display of activities, more accuracy.

About Saddam having WMD?s: he was forced to dismantle them, and was monitored doing it. The question was if he had enough funds to contruct new ones out of sight, or was able to hide the leftovers. Blix didn?t find any, but was pulled out prematurely. It all smells like one big fix to me. And I really have no respect whatsoever left for my own Prime-minister who was totally delighted that he was invited to have breakfast with W, crawling all over the place and kissing his arse. I hope he had to swallow, too. And then Balkendende (our PM) said he supported the US politically, but not military. But as soon as the dirty work was done, our country sent in troops to help maintain order in Iraq...in the most remote area possible. In addition to that, he totally wrecked this country with his economical reforms, saving money from those areas that should not be touched at all: health care and education.

I don?t know what disgusts me more: the war, or our PM acting like a total arse-licking-piece-of-shit. He had surgery last week on his foot. I hope he gets gangrene and dies from it.

:Barf:

Look that fact is just this week an Iraqi scientist, MAHDI OBEIDI, who worked on Saddams nuclear program for over a decade, publicly said that Saddam wanted to use nuclear weapons for destruction. You can read it in his book 'THE BOMB IN MY GARDEN'. We had evidence all over the globe, Russia, Great Britain, even Egypt that said that it was an imminent threat. So we found nothing, if Bush came out and said 'sorry we(I) were mislead with misinformation, I made a mistake' would you liberals then be content? Would you respect him? Would you forgive him for going into Iraq?? The answer is not just 'no' but 'FUCK NO' So what does it matter? If a man raped your little sister then said 'sorry' would you forgive him? What joy would you guys get from hearing Bush take 'personal responsibility'??? Hmmmm, where is the accountability of John Kerry. He recieved the same information as a member of the national intelligence committee(ooops he missed 87% of the meetings-fact) He is on the record dozens of times saying Iraq needs to be 'disarmed immediately'. Where is the call for Kerry to say 'Im sorry'???????? You liberals make salacious charges about Bush and the War, fact is we're there now, we're not leaving anytime soon, and everybody needs to unite and stop the felacious insinuations.

I'm outraged NeUrO!!

I hope to God Bush gets voted out in November.

[quote=ezzjoe";p="56849]I hope to God Bush gets voted out in November.[/quote]

ezzjoe, I hope for humans, not God, that you find your spirit next to Laci Peterson and Ron Goldman, alone in your decadant tomb of tricky and serpentine shiftiness. your veracious appetite for calculating and guile betrayal is mendacious. have a great day.

ps: just joking!