Carter: Bush's Impact 'Worst in History'

...but in totality I do not have a problem with going into this war. Coming off of being hit in the back of the head on 09/11 a member of the party that socializes with the gang that did the smacking continued to antagonize the situation. He got what he deserved.

You don't really believe this, do you?

Saddam was a CLOWN. He posed no serious threat. He was playing with us and didn't think we'd go for it. But we did - we fell for it. Big-time. That's all well documented. We had no proof that he was linked to Al-Qaeda. Never. Please tell me you don't still believe that they were in cahoots. Please.

Maybe he got what he deserved, but it wasn't our business doing it, and it wasn't worth what we've PAID thus far (and still will be paying for) in both lives and dollars.
 
that's lame as well. Given a set of facts that merit military response, we will act accordingly.

And what set of facts did we have last time?

We didn't.

That's the point - it's going to be very difficult to trust the next person who says, "Trust me."
 
You don't really believe this, do you?

Saddam was a CLOWN. He posed no serious threat. He was playing with us and didn't think we'd go for it. But we did - we fell for it. Big-time. That's all well documented. We had no proof that he was linked to Al-Qaeda. Never. Please tell me you don't still believe that they were in cahoots. Please.

Maybe he got what he deserved, but it wasn't our business doing it, and it wasn't worth what we've PAID thus far (and still will be paying for) in both lives and dollars.

I have asked you over and over, what have YOU paid?

Saddam had money and hated America, he most certainly could have done damage if given the time with the helps of anti-American islamists.
 
And what I'm saying is that the threat was NOT serious. We were told that it was serious, and as a result many of us believed it. If it had been serious we would've found WMDs.

Hindsight - a beautiful thing.

If it were just the WH believing/stating that WMDs were there then I would agree. Since virtually all (Senators/House Members/Security Council Members/2 different administrations/etc.) believed it, I don't feel the same way. The WH did not create the belief in WMD -- it was already there. They emphasized that belief and I believe they (WH) really believed it too.

This is why I can't leave the Dems out of it. If they didn't believe the same, they could have debated the WMD issue. They didn't (and shouldn't have since they believed it).
 
And US News is THE source for perspective on Neocons, given their penchant for bipartisanship. By the absurd definition printed, there are no neocons.

Nonetheless, I agree with the notion that preventative action has become a necessity today given the non linear nature of modern conflict. One thing we can be sure of - Iraq will no longer sponsor terrorism nor will they sell a nuke to those who would harm us. I'm sure to hear some retort about they now hate us and we're creating enemies today, but I would ask - what's frickin new?

Wrong source, Big Papa - it was the Christian Science Monitor, winner of 7 Pulitzers, not US News (& World Report, I assume you meant). Did you go to the link?

You're right - they won't sell a nuke, b/c they never had one in the first place.
 
And what set of facts did we have last time?

We didn't.

That's the point - it's going to be very difficult to trust the next person who says, "Trust me."
VolinBham has painstakingly set forth the facts. You've chosen to ignore them, but there was clearly consensus on the WMD and general threat that Saddam posed to the region / world as long as he could export his ideas via terrorist groups.

Bury your head in the sand for as long as you'd like and treat wealthy despots of his type with kid gloves in the future and we'll see more and more of them.
 
Here's a quote from Sen. Rockefeller that sums up the mood at the time:

"The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.

But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.

September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!

The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat."

Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia)
Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
Statement of Senator Rockefeller on the Senate floor, October 10, 2002
 
But Rockefeller didn't believe that. He was a part of this premeditated ruse driven by the neocons because they wanted to exercise our military.
 
Hindsight - a beautiful thing.

If it were just the WH believing/stating that WMDs were there then I would agree. Since virtually all (Senators/House Members/Security Council Members/2 different administrations/etc.) believed it, I don't feel the same way. The WH did not create the belief in WMD -- it was already there. They emphasized that belief and I believe they (WH) really believed it too.

This is why I can't leave the Dems out of it. If they didn't believe the same, they could have debated the WMD issue. They didn't (and shouldn't have since they believed it).

As I said, I was duped, and hindsight for me now is very painful. I lived in a town (Austin) where, at the time, most there were skeptical of the WH's claim and justification. I stood up, saying that we should trust our leaders. I was wrong.

Fair pt. on the Dems, but still, they had little control over this - GOP had the WH, House and Senate, right? I'm not a Dem apologist or huge fan. And the crux of this discussion is the war and why we went. And many did in fact debate it and were very vocal in opposition to the war - 126, in fact.

Democrats Who Opposed War Move Into Key Positions - washingtonpost.com

And fair pt. on creating v. emphasizing the belief (about WMD). And I'd add that they exaggerated the threat, knowing what we now know.
 
VolinBham has painstakingly set forth the facts. You've chosen to ignore them, but there was clearly consensus on the WMD and general threat that Saddam posed to the region / world as long as he could export his ideas via terrorist groups.

Bury your head in the sand for as long as you'd like and treat wealthy despots of his type with kid gloves in the future and we'll see more and more of them.

Okay - If we're going to go after Kim Jong Il, Ahmaninejad, Chavez, and all the others, I'm with you man. Come on - let's do it. Let's take 'em all down.

And you know what? You're right - I don't want to bury my face in the sand, regardless of how much evidence there is that this was an ill-conceived, unjustified war. I don't want to be a coward. I want to join you and stand behind the president and refuse to acknowledge we were wrong, in the face of incredible evidence. I feel a lot better now.
 
Okay - If we're going to go after Kim Jong Il, Ahmaninejad, Chavez, and all the others, I'm with you man. Come on - let's do it. Let's take 'em all down.

And you know what? You're right - I don't want to bury my face in the sand, regardless of how much evidence there is that this was an ill-conceived, unjustified war. I don't want to be a coward. I want to join you and stand behind the president and refuse to acknowledge we were wrong, in the face of incredible evidence. I feel a lot better now.
Again, here's what we know today - Iraq / Saddam will not fund any more terrorism nor provide any NBC capability to anyone interested in destroying us.

What we don't know - Iran will not.......NKorea will not......etc
 
Fair pt. on the Dems, but still, they had little control over this - GOP had the WH, House and Senate, right? I'm not a Dem apologist or huge fan. And the crux of this discussion is the war and why we went. And many did in fact debate it and were very vocal in opposition to the war - 126, in fact.

I count 29 or 30 Dem Senators (including virtually all of the leadership at the time and most since) voting for the authorization. This is about 2/3's majority of the Dems in the Senate.

I don't have the same info for the House but the total vote was 296 - 133 voting for the authorization - Republicans held 223 seats and Dems 202. At a minimum, 73 Dems voted for it but possibly more since some Reps may have voted against.

77% of the Senate and 75% of the House (voting). Both would be considered super-majorities.
 
I have asked you over and over, what have YOU paid?

Saddam had money and hated America, he most certainly could have done damage if given the time with the helps of anti-American islamists.

Sorry - I'll answer it.

What I have paid as an extremely fortunate member of this country pales in comparison to the collective price this country has paid and will continue to pay. This war is not over - the effects of it are not over. And they won't be for a long time. Maybe this is a form of pre-emptive action I can support. Things might not seem all that different for privileged men living in the US like myself, but I bet it's not that far away.

But if you ask what I'm paying? I'll tell you. I'm helping to pay down a national debt that's more than $8 trillion and growing (and I'll be doing that for a long, long time). I'm paying for other services that are getting cut b/c we have to make sacrifices. I am paying by being ridiculed by people I meet from other countries and having to say, "You're right - we were wrong." (We had the world behind us 100% before we went to Iraq, and we've wasted every shred of respect and dignity since. Don't believe me? Talk to a foreigner.) I am paying grief and guilt and sympathy every time I read about innocent young men and women who have died over there, and the horrible effect on their families. And I'm one of the lucky ones.

If you can't tell, it saddens me every single day.
 
Okay - If we're going to go after Kim Jong Il, Ahmaninejad, Chavez, and all the others, I'm with you man. Come on - let's do it. Let's take 'em all down.

And you know what? You're right - I don't want to bury my face in the sand, regardless of how much evidence there is that this was an ill-conceived, unjustified war. I don't want to be a coward. I want to join you and stand behind the president and refuse to acknowledge we were wrong, in the face of incredible evidence. I feel a lot better now.
Kim Jong Il will be addressed when he poses a true threat to American citizens (save those station in SKorea, to whom he poses a threat today) and if the Chinese can withstand destabilization on their border. Unilateral action there makes no sense. Iran has smartly whored themselves to Russia and China, thereby precluding, for now, our acting upon their nuclear program. If we can find a way, I'm for getting any nuclear capability out of the hands of terrorist sponsors, but that probably makes me a neocon. Chavez is immaterial.
 
Sorry - I'll answer it.

What I have paid as an extremely fortunate member of this country pales in comparison to the collective price this country has paid and will continue to pay. This war is not over - the effects of it are not over. And they won't be for a long time. Maybe this is a form of pre-emptive action I can support. Things might not seem all that different for privileged men living in the US like myself, but I bet it's not that far away.

But if you ask what I'm paying? I'll tell you. I'm helping to pay down a national debt that's more than $8 trillion and growing (and I'll be doing that for a long, long time). I'm paying for other services that are getting cut b/c we have to make sacrifices. I am paying by being ridiculed by people I meet from other countries and having to say, "You're right - we were wrong." (We had the world behind us 100% before we went to Iraq, and we've wasted every shred of respect and dignity since. Don't believe me? Talk to a foreigner.) I am paying grief and guilt and sympathy every time I read about innocent young men and women who have died over there, and the horrible effect on their families. And I'm one of the lucky ones.

If you can't tell, it saddens me every single day.

So after a long essay, you are paying nothing. But a lot of words made it look impressive.
 
I count 29 or 30 Dem Senators (including virtually all of the leadership at the time and most since) voting for the authorization. This is about 2/3's majority of the Dems in the Senate.

I don't have the same info for the House but the total vote was 296 - 133 voting for the authorization - Republicans held 223 seats and Dems 202. At a minimum, 73 Dems voted for it but possibly more since some Reps may have voted against.

77% of the Senate and 75% of the House (voting). Both would be considered super-majorities.

Love the research, but what's your point? I supported the war too. I argued my head off in favor of it many, many times. I believed them. I thought we were taking down the next Hitler. A guy who could threaten us at any minute. That wasn't true, and now we know it. A lot of Dems and GOP got duped too. So what does that change?
 
Love the research, but what's your point? I supported the war too. I argued my head off in favor of it many, many times. I believed them. I thought we were taking down the next Hitler. A guy who could threaten us at any minute. That wasn't true, and now we know it. A lot of Dems and GOP got duped too. So what does that change?

If Hitler had been taken down before he became "Hitler" then he never would have been "Hitler". Easy to say Saddam would have never been a threat since we didn't allow him to be.
 
Kim Jong Il will be addressed when he poses a true threat to American citizens (save those station in SKorea, to whom he poses a threat today) and if the Chinese can withstand destabilization on their border. Unilateral action there makes no sense. Iran has smartly whored themselves to Russia and China, thereby precluding, for now, our acting upon their nuclear program. If we can find a way, I'm for getting any nuclear capability out of the hands of terrorist sponsors, but that probably makes me a neocon. Chavez is immaterial.

What? Why no pre-emptive action against these guys? They all have shown the ability to pursue nuclear weapons. Let's get 'em! BPV, don't tell me you've become soft in the past 20 minutes.
 
Kinda makes you wonder on the flip side how much praise Bush would be getting right now if we found WMD and formed a stabilized democratic government.

FDR or Lincoln comparisons any one?
 
So after a long essay, you are paying nothing. But a lot of words made it look impressive.

Thanks for discounting my answer.

What about my neighbor, who lost a son and daughter-in-law in Iraq? Would you tell them the same thing? Are you saying nobody is paying anything for this? Good to know this one's a freebie. On the house.
 
Where did I say no one is paying. I said you are not. As for your neighbor's son, he volunteered to join the military. I am sorry for their loss and always greatful for people that are willing to volunteer to serve this country.
 
Sorry - I'll answer it.

What I have paid as an extremely fortunate member of this country pales in comparison to the collective price this country has paid and will continue to pay. This war is not over - the effects of it are not over. And they won't be for a long time. Maybe this is a form of pre-emptive action I can support. Things might not seem all that different for privileged men living in the US like myself, but I bet it's not that far away.

But if you ask what I'm paying? I'll tell you. I'm helping to pay down a national debt that's more than $8 trillion and growing (and I'll be doing that for a long, long time). I'm paying for other services that are getting cut b/c we have to make sacrifices. I am paying by being ridiculed by people I meet from other countries and having to say, "You're right - we were wrong." (We had the world behind us 100% before we went to Iraq, and we've wasted every shred of respect and dignity since. Don't believe me? Talk to a foreigner.) I am paying grief and guilt and sympathy every time I read about innocent young men and women who have died over there, and the horrible effect on their families. And I'm one of the lucky ones.

If you can't tell, it saddens me every single day.
Those payments are awfully weak. haven't yet heard you gripe about unaffordable social spending that adds more national debt than anything else. Foreigners have been dogging us for years, what's new and if you truly care, I feel very sorry for you. Don't want to talk to a foreigner because they should have no say in US domestic decision making. I just don't buy the guilt line. You've clearly heaped the blame on the administration and guilt arises from being culpable in the results. OK, maybe you've had some grief. I'll have someone in the administration send you a spray of roses and condolence card.
 
Kinda makes you wonder on the flip side how much praise Bush would be getting right now if we found WMD and formed a stabilized democratic government.

FDR or Lincoln comparisons any one?

OE, we'll never know. Who knows how different Bush would've governed?

Nor will we know what kind of president Gore would've been and what the country would look like right now. But I have to live with voting for and supporting Bush in 2000. And it pains me that I made that decision for really silly reasons, like personality and "character" instead of policy.
 
Where did I say no one is paying. I said you are not. As for your neighbor's son, he volunteered to join the military. I am sorry for their loss and always greatful for people that are willing to volunteer to serve this country.

And even if I am not paying, what does that change? Why do you care?
 

VN Store



Back
Top