Bush... You Freakin' Idiot

There just seems to not be a way with getting through a week without having to deal with the idiocy of this man. The last time I gave an assessment of one of Bush's speech on the Iraq war, I noted the glaring omissions from his 35-Page "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" (PDF) document. Here's an excerpt from that post.

The document lists a host of challenges but does not mention any strategy for dealing with those challenges. Again, the lack of metrics. What the American people want is to know how far along in the process are we to a defined goal. Is success Iraq producing 10 billion barrels a day or 5 billion barrels? How much electricity is required to note that the electrical grid is up to par to support economic growth?


Bush did a speech on the intelligence that got us into the war. I've had to point out the doublespeak of this Administration before, but this one almost takes the cake. First he says:

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq,"
Then he goes on to say:

"We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of brutal dictator," Bush said. "It is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in his place."
Then he says:

"Saddam was a threat and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power,"
Where to begin with this? He admits that we went to war with faulty intelligence. Americans should have a real problem with this. The decision to go to war is one that should be made with the most clear and accurate information and its necessity should be just as clear. There was no ambiguity on the part of the American people to take military action in Afghanistan. Why? Because it was clear that Al Queda was the organization behind the 9/11 attacks and Afghanistan were unwilling to hand Osama Bin Laden over the US authorities.

Iraq, after a decade of sanctions posed no threat to the United States. And the only reason we thought that he did is because the Bush Administration touted faulty intelligence. My girlfriend got upset with me because I didn't ask the follow up question to find what steps are required to prepare condensed soup. So, for the Bush Administration to fail to delve deeper into the intelligence and certify that it was good intelligence, is absolutely negligent.

Let's move on to the second quote. It is an absolute lie. The only reason Americans supported this war because Iraq was presented as an imminent threat to the United States. The question to this is simple: Would Americans support the preemptive invasion of a country for the sole purpose of removing a dictator and establishing a democracy? The answer to that is absolutely not.

The statement, "The world is better off without Saddam Hussein," is the default talking point for Conservatives to absolve themselves of anything that goes wrong in Iraq allowing them the freedom of mind to ignore everything else? However, note the difference in how Bush phrased it. "Saddam was a threat..." Gone are the days when Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld defined Saddam as a grave and gathering threat to the security of the United States. Those two statements are not equivalent.

But the reason that the talking point is so effective is because a lot of Conservatives are very insecure about this war. That is the reason they grasp on to anything that allows them to say, "Hey, things are going good. I told you so." In fact, a lot of Conservatives are insecure about their political standings and they have come to believe that they are being persecuted for their beliefs. It is why when challenged, they declare Liberals to be trolls, moonbats, say we hate America and declare that because of our opposition, we are aiding and abetting the enemy.

I believe the Bush Administration cherry picked the intelligence to support their agenda. Period. But his constant campaigning to gain support for the war is sickening. Let the results speak for themselves. Don't spend $300 million pushing propaganda to the Iraqi media. They are in the midst of what is happening. They live the good and bad and will judge for themselves.

Nuff Said.... Tomorrow, I'm going to bash my Liberal friends over the head for their BS.

Discussion Starters:

1. Is establishing a democracy a justification for war?
2. The Bush doctrine is to strike them before they strike us. Do you support this doctrine?
3. If yes. Is Iran a grave enough threat to the US to justify war? North Korea?
4. Would you have supported invading Iraq without the WMD charge?

 

11 Responses to Bush... You Freakin' Idiot

  1. Dave Miller Says:
    1. Is establishing a democracy a justification for war?
    It may be depending on your point of view, however, it is not supported by the "just war theory" My question is how do we choose which country to attack in order to install democracy?
    2. The Bush doctrine is to strike them before they strike us. Do you support this doctrine? In theory it works. However, for me the question is one of consistency. If we accept this doctrine as just, doesn't that mean we believe that other countries have that same right? That being said, would it be just for Iran or North Korea to attack the US on the basis that they felt we were going to attack them?
    3. If yes. Is Iran a grave enough threat to the US to justify war? North Korea? It is interesting to me that we chose to invade Iraq before they acheived nuclear capability, but North Korea, who had that ability, was left alone. Iran as they trumpet their true colors, (the Holocaust as myth) and develop nuclear weapons will also somehow not fall into the Bush Doctrine.
    4. Would you have supported invading Iraq without the WMD charge? I didn't support the war in the first place. Anyone who felt Saddam presented a "clear and present danger" to the US before the war was just mistaken. A potential threat to others in the region, perhaps, but to us? Not likely.

    Given the many inconsistencies that are coming to light regarding the US Gov't decision to attack Iraq, here are my questions, why Iraq? Because it was easy? Because it had oil? Because we could?

    If it was for humanitaian reasons, why did we not act earlier either there, or in the other many countries where atrocities were taking place? Like...Darfur to begin.
  2. Rell Says:
    no, yes, no, yes
  3. bold as love Says:
    1- yes, Democracies require help establishing themselves- I mean think about it, if a democracy has to be established -what the hell is there before- usually something really oppressive. The french helped America win freedom against the English- No oppressive system gives up power freely- it has to be taken.
    2- In the technological filled world we live in-the doctrine is sound- As far as any country feeling the need to attack an enemy first if they feel the threat is real- I believed they have the right, North Korea was paid by the clinton administraion to not develope nuclear weapons-but they did it anyway(what the fuck clinton was thinking I do not know) we don't have to do a thing about Iran, Israel will handle that.
    3-yes---oh hell yes
    4- James, I personally would like to see the free contries of the world go on a "freedom tour"- kick ass all over the globe-especially in Africa, that shit has been going on over there since before our ancestors were sold. I would like to see the free world jack China up- that's a whole lot of people needing freeing up- hey my lists goes on and on- I believe any war that liberates people is justified- point blank.

    later'
  4. Diane S. Says:
    Is establishing a democracy a justification for war?

    Hell no. It simply cannot become our mission to democratize the world. It's insane. Not only is it an impossible goal, some cultures just don't gel with democracy. America has this horrible habit of deciding what's best for other nations. It's why so many of them hate us. We need to cut it out.

    The Bush doctrine is to strike them before they strike us. Do you support this doctrine?

    "Pre-emptive strike" is just another name for an act of agression. If you follow the Bush Administration logic on this one, we would do well to nuke the whole world, including our traditional allies, because there is always the chance that any nation could, at some time, turn against us. So let's just kill 'em all.

    This is called "insanity".

    If yes. Is Iran a grave enough threat to the US to justify war? North Korea?

    I said no, but I'm taking this on anyway. Iran and North Korea are potentially serious threats to us. We should watch them very closely, and if they strike us, we should strike back with the fury of God's own thunder. Under no circumstances should we launch a first strike.

    Would you have supported invading Iraq without the WMD charge?

    Well, I didn't support invading Iraq with the WMD charge, so I'm not very qualified to answer this. I can however point out that there are now WMD's in Iraq. We brought them, and are using them.

    So at some point you gotta ask yourself, if WMD's are worth going to war over, how soon is the European Commonwealth (which is growing more anti-American by the day) going to come after us?

    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you murder the hater,
    but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate....Returning violence for violence multiples violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.


    - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

    And all God's children said, "Amen."
  5. blackcaesar Says:
    1. Is establishing a democracy a justification for war?
    the united states was founded on the principle of the desiring
    to establish a democracy. the means by which the democracy was obtained was
    the revolutionary war.
    2. The Bush doctrine is to strike them before they strike us. Do you support this doctrine?
    rediculous. if a kid was in school, and knocked someone out because that someone was a potential bully, the kid would be unjustified. capabilty is different than actuality.

    3. If yes. Is Iran a grave enough threat to the US to justify war? North Korea?
    i said no.
    4. Would you have supported invading Iraq without the WMD charge?
    it seems as if the WMD should have been handled at the united nations.

    i am liberal. please dont bash me over the head. unless you plan on striking me before i strike you of course. in any event. i come in peace.
  6. NewYorkMoments Says:
    I...I....I just can't find the words to describe how nauseated out current government makes me feel...
  7. James Manning Says:
    Don't worry about it blackcaesar, I'm a Liberal as well and the only bashing I do is of Bush...
  8. SRH Says:
    The interesting thing to me while we were building up for Iraq 2, is that the whole time we were getting out forces in position North Korea was screaming at the top of their lungs about how they were making WMD's and flaunting that in the face of the IAEA. Yet we did not invade them.

    None of the conservatives I work with will even entertain a conversation about North Korea v Iraq with me. If the idea was to get WMD's out of the hands of a madman, we should have invaded North Korea, instead of Iraq.
  9. Rell Says:
    maybe it was about getting cheaper oil?
  10. Cynthia Says:
    1. Is establishing a democracy a justification for war?

    I think it is, if the citizens want democracy. It's not for others to decide for you.

    2. Pre-emptive strike.
    If anyone else did this they would be called a terrorist.

    3. If yes. Is Iran a grave enough threat to the US to justify war? North Korea?

    According to McNamara, in the art of war, you never strike someone that can fight back. You can only bluff each other, otherwise there are no winners. If the U.S. uses nuclear weapons, so will North Korea or Iran if the later has them. There will be no winners, only destruction.

    4. Would you have supported invading Iraq without the WMD charge?

    If they had WMDs, invasion wouldn't have been an option.

    Overall, I agree will Rell, the invasion was about oil. Since Iraq never had any WMDs, the U.S. thought they would be easy targets.
  11. blackcaesar Says:
    @cynthia.
    if the citizens want a democracy. yhe citizens should claim it themselves. otherwise, it is to easy to take away.
    also,
    war is not a matter of who has weapons and who doesn't. the battle is decided by the people with superior firepower. the u.s. has that over the iranian and north korean governments. that is not to say that war with them would be easy pickens though. war with them has been averted through diplomacy as far as i can tell. i may be wrong though. i often am.