Bush's Place in History.

[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??

[wmrs2]

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??

It is a fact that the USA was 100% successful in the Golf War in that the USA accomplished what it set out to do. So to criticize Bush for doing what he said he was not going to do is not fair. You do want to be fair, don't you?

[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?

[Thorne]

Admittedly a lot of people think like you. But these are your opinions of Bush's arrogance. Even if true, these are your opinions

Yes, this is my opinion, and I clearly stated that it was so.

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?

I agree that G.H. Bush did exactly as he should have done: he abided by the UN mandate to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait. Going beyond that would have been illegal in the first place and risked having our Arabian allies turn against us in the second.

The "liberal press" would have - and did - crucify Bush no matter what he did. It was primarily his conservative base that wanted him to continue to Baghdad and destroy Hussein, along with those in the American public who weren't intelligent enough to understand that he'd done the right thing. And it is my opinion that GW Bush was influenced by that conservative base, probably including his vice president, when he decided to attack. That may not have been his only reason, but I believe it played a significant part.

[wmrs2]

Yes, this is my opinion, and I clearly stated that it was so.


I agree that G.H. Bush did exactly as he should have done: he abided by the UN mandate to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait. Going beyond that would have been illegal in the first place and risked having our Arabian allies turn against us in the second.

The "liberal press" would have - and did - crucify Bush no matter what he did. It was primarily his conservative base that wanted him to continue to Baghdad and destroy Hussein, along with those in the American public who weren't intelligent enough to understand that he'd done the right thing. And it is my opinion that GW Bush was influenced by that conservative base, probably including his vice president, when he decided to attack. That may not have been his only reason, but I believe it played a significant part.

I agree completely. Thanks for putting things in fair perspective.

[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?