Bush's Place in History.

[mkemse]

If nothing else on Bush, his legacy could very well boli down to his failed foreign policies

[Thorne]

If nothing else on Bush, his legacy could very well boli down to his failed foreign policies

Again, you're assuming that they have, indeed failed. While it's true that they may appear to have failed over the short term, the long term effects of his presidency have yet to be known.

Abraham Lincoln was considered a terrible president at the time. His significance to history wasn't realized until long afterwards.

Not to say that Bush can be compared to Lincoln. No one would be more surprised than I if he were seen to be anything other than a poor, if not downright bad, president.

[mkemse]

Again, you're assuming that they have, indeed failed. While it's true that they may appear to have failed over the short term, the long term effects of his presidency have yet to be known.

Abraham Lincoln was considered a terrible president at the time. His significance to history wasn't realized until long afterwards.

Not to say that Bush can be compared to Lincoln. No one would be more surprised than I if he were seen to be anything other than a poor, if not downright bad, president.

More so Iraq, when he annouced we were going in he said we would be in and out in 90 days, that was almost 8 years ago, we needed to focus on Afganistan not over through Iraq, Bin Laden and the Taliban are/were in the Tora Bora Mountain, not in Iraq, we had no reason to go into Iraq, they has nothing to do with 911 we should have placed all our forces and efforts in Afghanistan
Even if Iraq had connecion to 911 which Bush addmitted they did not, Bin Ladin was never there, he is who we are after

CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, during a discussion of President Bush’s recent trip to the Middle East on Monday’s "American Morning," cited her discussion with unnamed "analysts and experts," and concluded " it's hard to discern any evidence of any success on this trip whatsoever." "American Morning" substitute co-host Kyra Phillips, following-up to Amanpour’s analysis, remarked, "Well, critics have come forward and said, okay, whether it's his policies in Iraq, Lebanon, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he's failed everywhere."
The three-minute segment, which was the last in the 6 am Eastern hour of the CNN program, came after a report by CNN correspondent Aneesh Raman, which summarized the President’s trip. Amanpour, in response to Phillips’ "failed everywhere" statement, gave a more nuanced take on President Bush’s foreign policy track record. "Well, events have moved beyond anybody's expectations and control.... If you look in Lebanon, the elected U.S.-backed Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is not in control. Hamas is in control because it has a superiority -- rather Hezbollah, in terms of weapons. So the U.S.-backed allies there are not in control, basically, only in name only and de facto."

In her final question to Amanpour, Phillips continued her dour take on the Bush record. "And so is it him, is it his advisors? I mean, a lot of people are saying, he's got to do something for his legacy. He's got this Iraq war that's just tarnished his image and the Republican Party, but he continues to come home empty-handed. So can he even win?"

Amanpour replied, "Well, it's about policy, many of the analysts are saying. Policy is being pursued that has not paid off, in terms of the ends that presumably were imagined." She then concluded by going back to the issue of Lebanon, specifically, talking about the recent flare-up between the Lebanese government and Hezbollah.

The full transcript of the Amanpour/Phillips segment from Monday’s "American Morning:"

KYRA PHILLIPS: CNN's chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour joining us now. Did he [President Bush] achieve anything on this five-day tour?

He Samolia Policy FAiled, his Policy on Soviet Georgia Fail, his Policy with the Palastinians failed, their President has NO control there, the Palastianes are controlled by Hama not by
their President
you look in Lebanon, the elected U.S.-backed Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is not in control. Hamas is in control because it has a superiority -- rather Hezbollah, in terms of weapons. So the U.S.-backed allies there are not in control, basically, only in name only and de facto
Mahmoud Abbas was elected to lead the Palastinian, yet Hama controls everthin,g anotherfailed US Bush Policy, he was backed bythe Bush Adminstration and chosen by the people of Palastine

[DuncanONeil]

More so Iraq, when he annouced we were going in he said we would be in and out in 90 days, that was almost 8 years ago, we needed to focus on Afganistan not over through Iraq, Bin Laden and the Taliban are/were in the Tora Bora Mountain, not in Iraq, we had no reason to go into Iraq, they has nothing to do with 911 we should have placed all our forces and efforts in Afghanistan
Even if Iraq had connecion to 911 which Bush addmitted they did not, Bin Ladin was never there, he is who we are after

CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, during a discussion of President Bush’s recent trip to the Middle East on Monday’s "American Morning," cited her discussion with unnamed "analysts and experts," and concluded " it's hard to discern any evidence of any success on this trip whatsoever." "American Morning" substitute co-host Kyra Phillips, following-up to Amanpour’s analysis, remarked, "Well, critics have come forward and said, okay, whether it's his policies in Iraq, Lebanon, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he's failed everywhere."
The three-minute segment, which was the last in the 6 am Eastern hour of the CNN program, came after a report by CNN correspondent Aneesh Raman, which summarized the President’s trip. Amanpour, in response to Phillips’ "failed everywhere" statement, gave a more nuanced take on President Bush’s foreign policy track record. "Well, events have moved beyond anybody's expectations and control.... If you look in Lebanon, the elected U.S.-backed Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is not in control. Hamas is in control because it has a superiority -- rather Hezbollah, in terms of weapons. So the U.S.-backed allies there are not in control, basically, only in name only and de facto."

In her final question to Amanpour, Phillips continued her dour take on the Bush record. "And so is it him, is it his advisors? I mean, a lot of people are saying, he's got to do something for his legacy. He's got this Iraq war that's just tarnished his image and the Republican Party, but he continues to come home empty-handed. So can he even win?"

Amanpour replied, "Well, it's about policy, many of the analysts are saying. Policy is being pursued that has not paid off, in terms of the ends that presumably were imagined." She then concluded by going back to the issue of Lebanon, specifically, talking about the recent flare-up between the Lebanese government and Hezbollah.

The full transcript of the Amanpour/Phillips segment from Monday’s "American Morning:"

KYRA PHILLIPS: CNN's chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour joining us now. Did he [President Bush] achieve anything on this five-day tour?

He Samolia Policy FAiled, his Policy on Soviet Georgia Fail, his Policy with the Palastinians failed, their President has NO control there, the Palastianes are controlled by Hama not by
their President
you look in Lebanon, the elected U.S.-backed Prime Minister Fouad Siniora is not in control. Hamas is in control because it has a superiority -- rather Hezbollah, in terms of weapons. So the U.S.-backed allies there are not in control, basically, only in name only and de facto
Mahmoud Abbas was elected to lead the Palastinian, yet Hama controls everthin,g anotherfailed US Bush Policy, he was backed bythe Bush Adminstration and chosen by the people of Palastine

Where did he say in and out in 90 days?
Al Quaida also was seen and likely operating in Iraq, but that is not the reason for going into Iraq. UN resolution 1440 was the proximate reason.

The quotes you use from CNN are disjointed and make no sense.

[Belgarold]

Where did he say in and out in 90 days?
Al Quaida also was seen and likely operating in Iraq, but that is not the reason for going into Iraq. UN resolution 1440 was the proximate reason.

The quotes you use from CNN are disjointed and make no sense.

Again I respectfully submit you are wrong, way wrong. Al Quaida was NOT in Iraq, Never in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Hussein's Iraq was very secular and Al Quaida CLAIMS to be a religious organization. Al Quaida became part of Iraq only because we invaded. THESE are the facts.

Bush and Cheney were planning to invade Iraq before 9/11. Our national tragedy was USED by the Bush administration to justify their folly of a War.

[DuncanONeil]

Again I respectfully submit you are wrong, way wrong. Al Quaida was NOT in Iraq, Never in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Hussein's Iraq was very secular and Al Quaida CLAIMS to be a religious organization. Al Quaida became part of Iraq only because we invaded. THESE are the facts.

Bush and Cheney were planning to invade Iraq before 9/11. Our national tragedy was USED by the Bush administration to justify their folly of a War.

Your facts are in error. Members of the Al Quaida hierarchy met with Saddam in Iraq. So there was some complicity there. I note that you completely dismiss the fact that Al Quaida was not the proximate cause of our entry into Iraq, but actions taken by the UN. Seems to me that your desire to denigrate the former President has blinded you to the actual facts of the campaign in Iraq in favor of the "common knowledge" version.

Prior to 9/11 there was no direct desire to invade Iraq. At that time we were still engaged in attempting to secure Saddam's co-operation with the terms of the cease fire of the 1991 conflict. Something he consistently refused to do.

One could make a case that your anger at losing the elections in 2000 and 2004 has colored your evaluation of the world scene since than.

[Belgarold]

Your facts are in error. Members of the Al Quaida hierarchy met with Saddam in Iraq. So there was some complicity there. I note that you completely dismiss the fact that Al Quaida was not the proximate cause of our entry into Iraq, but actions taken by the UN. Seems to me that your desire to denigrate the former President has blinded you to the actual facts of the campaign in Iraq in favor of the "common knowledge" version.

Prior to 9/11 there was no direct desire to invade Iraq. At that time we were still engaged in attempting to secure Saddam's co-operation with the terms of the cease fire of the 1991 conflict. Something he consistently refused to do.

One could make a case that your anger at losing the elections in 2000 and 2004 has colored your evaluation of the world scene since than.

LOL. Well, I see that when you can't justify your 'facts' you turn to personal attacks. And I don't get all my news from Fox News, with their partisan viewpoints.

And it has been proven (unless you are Dick Cheney, who believes what he wants to believe, and damn the facts) that Hussein and Al Quaida hated one another.

AND Bush wanted war with Iraq and, what is more important, CHENEY wanted war with Iraq.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Your facts are in error. Members of the Al Quaida hierarchy met with Saddam in Iraq. So there was some complicity there..

On June 16, 2004 the 911 Commission reported that it had not found any "collaborative connection" between Hussein's government and Al Qaeda. There was NO complicity between those two.

[Dr_BuzzCzar]

Your facts are in error. I note that you completely dismiss the fact that Al Quaida was not the proximate cause of our entry into Iraq, but actions taken by the UN. Seems to me that your desire to denigrate the former President has blinded you to the actual facts of the campaign in Iraq in favor of the "common knowledge" version.

The Security Council did agree to one resolution, UNSC Resolution 1441, that called on Iraq to disarm its weapons of mass destruction and cooperate with UN inspectors, but did not include an authorization for the use of force against Iraq. In Resolution 1441, the Security Council indicated that it would remain 'seized' of the matter, meaning that it continued to assert its authority as the final international arbiter of the use of force in the matter.

When the US went back to the Security Council for a second and follow-up resolution to 1441, this one to provide authorization to proceed to war against Iraq, the Security Council refused to comply with the US demand for such authorization on the grounds that it wanted to give the UN inspectors more time to finish their work.

We did not go into Iraq under UN authority.

Cite: May/June 2003 Issue of "Foreign Affairs" magazine article by Dr. Michael Glennon.
"On October 25... After intensive, behind-the-scenes haggling, the council responded to Bush's challenge on November 7 by unanimously adopting Resolution 1441, which found Iraq in 'material breach' of prior resolutions, set up a new inspections regime, and warned once again of 'serious consequences' if Iraq again failed to disarm. The resolution did not explicitly authorize force, however, and Washington pledged to return to the council for another discussion before resorting to arms.

[DuncanONeil]

I am supposed to accept your unsupported statement that you are correct.

As for this country having plans to invade any given country, that surprises you? We have plans to invade many places. That is the nature of planning. Not to consider if the planners do not plan they become rusty at it. I would not be surprised if plans exist to invade Mexico and Canada. Does that mean we intend to invade? Try coming up with some support for your claim.

[mkemse]

I am supposed to accept your unsupported statement that you are correct.

As for this country having plans to invade any given country, that surprises you? We have plans to invade many places. That is the nature of planning. Not to consider if the planners do not plan they become rusty at it. I would not be surprised if plans exist to invade Mexico and Canada. Does that mean we intend to invade? Try coming up with some support for your claim.

Coorect and I beie;ve Bush had ven discused invading Iran over their Nuclear Program because of their unwillingness to end it
It would neevr suprised me if we invaded any coutry, from my view point our Country (The USA) has alway seemed to have this need to install our Democratic was of life omn eveyone, without asking, do the people of that country want it
We need to stop policing the wolrd and take care of our own just my thoughts ans opinions

[wmrs2]

Again I respectfully submit you are wrong, way wrong. Al Quaida was NOT in Iraq, Never in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Hussein's Iraq was very secular and Al Quaida CLAIMS to be a religious organization. Al Quaida became part of Iraq only because we invaded. THESE are the facts.

Bush and Cheney were planning to invade Iraq before 9/11. Our national tragedy was USED by the Bush administration to justify their folly of a War.

Your observation is correct about Al Quaida not being in Iraq. Your conclusions miss the point that Al Quaida is a world enemy of the USA. Wherever the presence of the USA is, that is where Al Quaida will attack us. That is the way it has always been with Al Quaida. When Al Quaida attacks us again, I hope the liberal press and anti war liberals will give Obama more support than they gave Bush. He will need our support to protect the country and keep it free.
wmrs2

[mkemse]

Where did he say in and out in 90 days?
Al Quaida also was seen and likely operating in Iraq, but that is not the reason for going into Iraq. UN resolution 1440 was the proximate reason.

The quotes you use from CNN are disjointed and make no sense.

That was all CNN posted it was listed as the complete interview
When Bush annouced our plans to invade IRaq with "Shock and Awe" I belived he said he planned for troops to be in there for about 90 days or so, but no long term stay there:", in an interview a few days before he left office, he said "Yes the war has gone on much, much longer then we had planned, we did not realize how many terrorists we would be dealing with, how many insurents"

Well it would seem to me that if our country to War, you would make it a point to know the size of your enemy and know you are dealing with say 200,000 insurents and knowwhatthey are using to weapons ect

Evertime someone too him to task on this he always seemd to say "Our Inteligence was based on Fault Information" how can you go to war based on Faulty Interligence, you look at what you have, verify it make sure sll the info you have is a current as is avaiialbe at that time and check and if need be recheck it, you don't just go in then 3 years or 5 years later say "Well, we had no idea how many enemy we would be fighting" that makes no sense makes no sense

[Thorne]

how can you go to war based on Faulty Interligence, you look at what you have, verify it make sure sll the info you have is a current as is avaiialbe at that time and check and if need be recheck it, you don't just go in then 3 years or 5 years later say "Well, we had no idea how many enemy we would be fighting" that makes no sense makes no sense

Unfortunately, faulty intelligence is one of the hazards of war. There's no way to determine, with absolute certainty, that your intelligence is accurate until you actually have troops on the ground. By then it's too late. That's what is referred to as "the fog of war." Modern intelligence gathering methods may reduce that fog to a heavy mist, but there are still no guarantees.

I think the biggest problem we had in going to war with Iraq was our own leaders' arrogance in believing that such a small country could actually defy the United States. And as for the true reasons for the war, I'm firmly convinced that a major role was played by Bush's attempting to placate those people who felt his father had "chickened out" by not invading Iraq during the first Gulf War. Public opinion may have had more to do with the fall of Sadam than anything else.

[mkemse]

Unfortunately, faulty intelligence is one of the hazards of war. There's no way to determine, with absolute certainty, that your intelligence is accurate until you actually have troops on the ground. By then it's too late. That's what is referred to as "the fog of war." Modern intelligence gathering methods may reduce that fog to a heavy mist, but there are still no guarantees.

I think the biggest problem we had in going to war with Iraq was our own leaders' arrogance in believing that such a small country could actually defy the United States. And as for the true reasons for the war, I'm firmly convinced that a major role was played by Bush's attempting to placate those people who felt his father had "chickened out" by not invading Iraq during the first Gulf War. Public opinion may have had more to do with the fall of Sadam than anything else.

Ok I understand that, but I also believe that Bush's real reason for gfoing intoIraq was NOT alleged WMD but rather to save face and cover and make up for his Father faiire in The Golf War, iI believe and this is only my opnion, that Iraq was done to finish what Bush Senior was not able to
Asfar as Sadam's fall, that may have been an excuse to go in, but Bush was even convinced apparently at 1 time that Sadamwas heavily involed in the 911 attackm but ion what I have read, Sadam and Bin Laden did not care much for each much less be co horts in 911, i just can't see that and I neverday or heard anything indcating that Iraq had anything to so wth the attack except for "What The White House FELT" do you invade a country on fellings or on Intelligence??

[DuncanONeil]

Proximate cause for the commencement of action against Iraq was UN resolution 1441. On the strength of that it can be said that it was not Bush's desire to take unilateral action against Iraq.

[wmrs2]

Unfortunately, faulty intelligence is one of the hazards of war. There's no way to determine, with absolute certainty, that your intelligence is accurate until you actually have troops on the ground. By then it's too late. That's what is referred to as "the fog of war." Modern intelligence gathering methods may reduce that fog to a heavy mist, but there are still no guarantees.

I think the biggest problem we had in going to war with Iraq was our own leaders' arrogance in believing that such a small country could actually defy the United States. And as for the true reasons for the war, I'm firmly convinced that a major role was played by Bush's attempting to placate those people who felt his father had "chickened out" by not invading Iraq during the first Gulf War. Public opinion may have had more to do with the fall of Sadam than anything else.

Admittedly a lot of people think like you. But these are your opinions of Bush's arrogance. Even if true, these are your opinions. Father Bush had pledged to the UN and allied nations that he would not invade Baghdad. He was honor bound to stop and did not "chickened out" as you call it. Think how the liberal press would have crucified Father Bush had he finished the job in 1991. It seems to me that liberal thinkers are going to damn a Bush no matter what direction is taken. Do you agree that there is truth in what I say?

[DuncanONeil]

No intelligence is one hundred percent accurate. Being as it is based on incomplete information and best guess estimates.
Were we to wait for certainty it would be too late.

[wmrs2]

That was all CNN posted it was listed as the complete interview
When Bush annouced our plans to invade IRaq with "Shock and Awe" I belived he said he planned for troops to be in there for about 90 days or so, but no long term stay there:", in an interview a few days before he left office, he said "Yes the war has gone on much, much longer then we had planned, we did not realize how many terrorists we would be dealing with, how many insurents"

Well it would seem to me that if our country to War, you would make it a point to know the size of your enemy and know you are dealing with say 200,000 insurents and knowwhatthey are using to weapons ect

Evertime someone too him to task on this he always seemd to say "Our Inteligence was based on Fault Information" how can you go to war based on Faulty Interligence, you look at what you have, verify it make sure sll the info you have is a current as is avaiialbe at that time and check and if need be recheck it, you don't just go in then 3 years or 5 years later say "Well, we had no idea how many enemy we would be fighting" that makes no sense makes no sense

Counties going to war rarely have the true picture of their enemy. Evil dictators go to war when their intelligence tells them they will win. The USA goes to war over principles of freedom and justice no matter what the odds are. That is the way our country has survived and will survive if Obama does the same as Bush did, don't you think? We must decide if we are going to act on principle like Bush did or only defend freedom when we have enough money or power like the liberals do today. It comes down to a way of thinking, doesn't it?