START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
News & Politics

Rant

It's Bush's Fault

Posted 29 months ago|48 comments|587 views
Written by
On the following website, an article attributes an interesting quote to Obama's whitehouse.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSISL12983720090831


"The White House sought on Monday to pin the blame for the grave state of the war in Afghanistan on the Bush administration, which made Iraq its top military priority.

'This was underresourced, underfunded, undermanned and ignored for years,' White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said."

I don't guess it matters that the U.S. kicked the terrorists' collective butts out of Iraq and Afghanistan was calling.

When, if ever, will it be the Obama administration's fault?

Unless I am mistaken, Bush never cast blame on Clinton.
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
29 months ago: Redstateguy, Iraq wasn't a haven for terrorists until the invasion. I'm honestly not sure you know this, but Iraq was a secular state. Not a nice one, sure, but certainly not friendly to jihadists.

The current sorry state of Afghanistan really is the Bush administration's fault. Did you simply block out news reports of the deterioration last year and the year before?

The crybaby picture is more apt than you think, by the way, but not for the reasons you want.
29 months ago: Oh, and regarding when "it" will be Obama's fault, the answer is *never*. It will never be Obama's fault that Bush ignored Afghanistan. Other things will certainly be his fault, to be sure, but this one's entirely Bush's. He wanted a war with Iraq, and let Afghanistan fester.

While we're on the topic of blame, I have a challenge for you. Do your own Googling on whether Bush ever blamed Clinton. You can start with day 1 of the Bush administration, in which they falsely accused the Clintons of trashing the White House before leaving.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
29 months ago: Yes, HNN is exactly correct and let's go the wayback machine and quote from a USA Today article, dated Aug 8th, 2002. To quote:

"On issues ranging from terrorism to the recent rash of corporate misbehavior, administration officials — and sometimes even Bush himself — often suggest that the real problem is eight years of Clinton. The former president does not agree."

Hello Pot? Kettle? In fact, that cry-baby picture looks like Bush.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-08-29-presidential-feud_x.htm
29 months ago: "Many Americans refuse to admit or ignore that Saddam Hussein was committing genocide on his own people."

Oh, we admit it, and we don't ignore it. But why Iraq and not Rwanda, Darfur, or any place else?

"Many people ignore the fact that 9/11 had nothing to do with the Iraq war."

No, those of us who were against the war made it quite clear we didn't see a reason to invade.

"Many people ignore that President Bush publicly made that known."

Please explain that to... President Bush. "After the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States, and war is what they got. Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq. Objections to war often come from principled motives. But let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power. We're seeking all the facts. Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations." -State of the Union Address (1/20/04)

Bush always stopped just a hairsbreadth short of outright saying Saddam orchestrated 9/11.

"Many people are ignorant to think the War is with Iraq not the War is in Iraq."

Which I'm sure the civilians *living* in Iraq really appreciate.

"Many people refuse to believe that misinformation was collected about Iraq's WMD capabilities and the President and his cabinet based his decisions on it."

That would be because the administration largely manufactured it. Colin Powell, for instance, went to the UN with his famous little bottle of toxin and bad information: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un.

Bush put all the resources he could into nation-building in Iraq, depleting manpower resources that could have been used in Afghanistan. That left a mess in both countries.
29 months ago: HEYNN.
Bush's strategy was brilliant in a number of ways.
Aside from arguing Iraq was the place to attack, we made all the terrorists come to us in one place. It was like shooting fish in a barrel. Brilliant!
And, how to you respond to the FACT that there have been no more attacks here in America?
The terrorists changed their minds?
29 months ago: After the war in Iraq had recently started, I remember the Israeli ambassador to the United States stating:
"Americans, again, are showing much, much courage."

Despite effort, I do not believe liberals will be able to rewrite history.
29 months ago: "Bush's strategy was brilliant in a number of ways."

I'll give him that, but not in the way you intended it.

"Aside from arguing Iraq was the place to attack, we made all the terrorists come to us in one place. It was like shooting fish in a barrel. Brilliant!"

Try saying that to an Iraqi civilian's face. You would deserve every moment of the beat-down you'd receive for that. We made a country - you know, a place where people live - into a hell-hole.

"And, how to you respond to the FACT that there have been no more attacks here in America?"

I have a rock that keeps terrorists away. What's my proof? Well, there haven't been any terrorists since I got this rock. You wanna buy it? You can put it right next to Homer Simpson's rock that keeps tigers away.

"The terrorists changed their minds?"

No, they just had easier access to American targets. In Iraq. A country that didn't attack us on 9/11/2001 or any other date.

redstateguy, I know that in your mind, all the scary brown people living in the Middle East are the same, but they're really not. The Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11, and turning their country into a war-torn terrorist haven wasn't a nice thing to do.
29 months ago: @scotmanster

* Majority of Americans agreed to the war
A majority of Americans agreed to Prohibition, too. Didn't make it right, workable, or based on sound reasoning.

Look... A majority of Americans were successfully frightened into supporting the war. In September 2003, 7 in 10 thought Saddam had something to do with 9/11, largely because of the Bush administration's campaign to conflate the two (again, without every quite stating as fact that Saddam was actually involved). Here's a story on that remarkable statistic from the time: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A32862-2003Sep5?language=printer

* Iraqis glad Saddam is gone.
Yes, the Iraqis are glad he's gone. But ask them if they're glad the Americans are there, and you'll get a much more negative response. It's a complicated, complex situation.

Continued...
29 months ago: * The war was not a total failure
A couple of things... First, your arguments amount to support for manifest destiny. It's as if the fact that the war was illegal, that it was an invalid response to 9/11, and that the American people were tricked into supporting it don't matter as long as you can find a silver lining.

Let me pour some cold water on that: The new system of government we've imposed on Iraq is a messy, complicated affair with all kinds of strictures in place to prevent the people from directly electing Islamic extremists. We're afraid to give them a full democracy, because we know they'll vote Iraq into an Islamic state.

So if Iraq's new democracy basically isn't, and more people are dying violently there daily than they did under Saddam Hussein, what precisely have we accomplished? Oh sure, they have "freedom" now... But freedom's hard to feed a family with. Freedom's hard to heat a wood-stove with.

* Obama's approval rating
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html. It would be higher, except Rasmussen - which typically skews very conservative - has a serious outlier.
29 months ago: "But the decision to remove Saddam from power cannot be viewed in isolation from 9/11." - George W. Bush

I love that quote. It sums up everything about Bush's need for this war in one tiny soundbyte.

Yes, it most certainly can be "viewed in isolation from 9/11." Mr. Bush didn't want it to be, and strove to ensure that 7 in 10 Americans believed the two were related, but saying something doesn't make it true.

Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq was a secular state, not an Islamic one. He didn't harbor terrorists. He didn't like Osama bin Laden (you know, the guy who actually did attack us on 9/11, and has since orchestrated further terrorism, since he's still freakin' alive) and the feeling was mutual.

Without the conflation of the two, there was no reason to invade. None. Not a single one. The U.N. arms inspectors agreed Saddam was disarmed, and they were right. Iraq had not attacked us or anyone else. Osama bin Laden was in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Iraq, in this case, was simply the *desired* target, not the correct one.

One other thing about this quote I love... It lumps all Middle Eastern countries together. Oh sure, it's not his intended goal, but it's the end result. Once you start amalgamating al Qaida and Iraq in people's minds as some amorphous, evil, Islamic "Saddam bin Laden" death-monster caricature, you've basically convinced them that everyone in that entire part of the world is identical.
JAK Gladney
JAK Gladney
Saint Albans, WV
29 months ago: Many Americans refuse to admit or ignore that Saddam Hussein was committing genocide on his own people.

I assume you're speaking of the Kurds? First, the Kurds were to Iraq what American Indians were to our forbears--never really seen as "Iraq's own". Secondly, chemical warfare was used against the Kurds during George H.W. Bush's administration. What was the response? Were ambassadors recalled in protest? Did Bush 41's admin. take their case before the international community? No, and no. U.S. military aid to Iraq only increased in the aftermath (Bush 41's national security directive: "Normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer-term interests and and promote stability in both the Gulf and the Middle East"). I can't tell you how much I hate hearing this weepy, human rights argument for invasion spoken from the mouths of otherwise grim political realists. If a liberal advanced this argument, he'd be cursed as naive and told that turning a blind eye to the sins of one of the region's few secular leaders fit our larger foreign policy goals. And he'd deserve that lecture. Same is true for crocodile tears over "rape rooms", the plight of women, etc.
29 months ago: "So you are saying Americans are killing Iraqi's on purpose? I know you don't think this. So you are saying Genocide is going on now in Iraq? You do know that Saddam was a violent dictator and committed Genocide on his people don't you? He was found guilty by his own people of it.."

That's a non sequitor. No, I'm saying that due to the overall instability in Iraq, people are dying. How much of it is caused by American military activity and how much caused by jihadists now free to roam the country, I have no idea. And it doesn't make a difference, at least not to Iraqi civilians who miss the days when the electricity stayed on all the time and the economy was relatively stable.

Saddam had decades of being a maniacal dictator, and still never managed to reach the average daily body count we've given Iraq.

Again, if more people die daily post-invasion than pre, what precisely have we accomplished? If the people of Iraq would elect an America-hating Islamic regime if given a real democracy, what precisely have we accomplished? If Osama bin Laden is still at large, not rotting in a jail cell or dead, what precisely did invading Iraq accomplish?
29 months ago: What facts? That Iran and Iraq - mortal enemies - would band together and resist us in Afghanistan? That's complete nonsense.
Altruist
Altruist
Eugene, OR
29 months ago: I think the war in Afghanistan is not only Bush's fault, but also Reagan's. We set up and armed Al Queda and the other mujahideen in Afghanistan in the early 80's to defeat the Soviets. When that happened we abandoned the country that was in dire need of humanitarian aid. Anyone that has seen "Charlie Wilson's War" knows this. Had we helped them build schools, roads, power plants, hospitals etc. The Taliban would not have taken over the country.

When the Taliban were kicked out, the United States did little more than supply air power. It was the local warlords, especially the Northern Coalition that did most of the fighting. What sort of deal did we make to get them do all of our fighting for us. I haven't read anything about this but I suspect we promised them that they could maintain their power, which included the ability to make heroin. The Taliban had reduced poppy growing 90%. Right after they were kicked out Afghanistan became the major exporter of Heroin producing 85% of Europe's supply.
So just as Reagan financed the contras by smuggling drugs, was Bush complicit in the heroin trade to overthrow the Taliban? Talk about blowback!

Once the Taliban were out, we should have gone in and given them humanitarian aid and helped them rebuild their country. Instead Bush abandoned them again just as Reagan did, and moved on to Iraq, which had nothing to do with the war on terrorism.
29 months ago: @scotmanster

Incomprehensible? Plenty. Outright enemies? Not so much... One of the things the United States was afraid of during Vietnam was that the Chinese and Vietnamese would side together in a big, communist bloc. We ignored their historical enmity, and were frankly surprised when that didn't come to pass.

Again, Iran and Iraq were *enemies*. They were very unlikely to side together to kick us out of Afghanistan, especially considering we were getting rid of the Taliban. No one in the region likes the Taliban.
29 months ago: Can you name a specific falsehood in "Charlie Wilson's War?" And can you please stop with the "anti-American" namecalling? Conservatives do not have a lock on patriotism. Pointing out when we are in the wrong does not equate to hatred of America.
29 months ago: RSG, You should have inserted a silver spoon in his mouth.

Noni, to ask anyone to stop with the anti-american name calling after reading your sludge? That is ripe to the core. Your posts are beyond the realm. They are purley "SOVIET" most of the time. Do you have a clue or do you just sit in a dark closet all day playing on the internet?

It is a real question.
29 months ago: No, it's a childish insult in a comment oddly lacking in content. TCG, I'm getting very tired of juvenile namecalling in place of honest intellectual debate.
29 months ago: Let me lay this on you then.

In the late 50's and all of the 60's, I grew up with a "Russian Jew" next door. That family was one of the most "American" families I have ever seen. Their stories would shock you. Go ahead and ridicule. Go ahead and post your veiled hate. Go ahead and hide in your closet. We really don't care. It is your loss not ours.
29 months ago: Heynnnn.
Thanks for being here and trying.
You're in this one with a vengeance.
Why do you liberals always (I repeat always) bring race into it? "Brown" people in the middle east?
The old Iraqi system of government included rape rooms.
You have your blue tinted glasses on.

Altruist:
If you want to go there, Jimmy Carter is solely (and I repeat solely) responsible for the scumbag, nazi, islamofascist pigs being in control of Iran. For crying out loud.
29 months ago: @TCG

What in the world are you even going on about? I was talking about the legality and wisdom of invading Iraq, and you're... I don't even know what you're trying to get at. Something about how terrible Russia was for Jewish people, but what does that have to do with the conversation at hand? I guess this ties into your idea that I'm secretly a Stalinist or something, but I have no idea how that's even remotely on topic.

@redstateguy

"Why do you liberals always (I repeat always) bring race into it? "Brown" people in the middle east?"

We'll stop bringing race into it when you start looking at the Middle East as more than a homogeneous collection of generically Islamic people. Again... Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaida. Iraq and Iran are populated by people who have both religious and ethnic differences, and have been enemies for years. Painting the entire region with a single brush and refusing to see the differences is your issue, not mine. The "scared of brown people" comment was meant to mock the attitude that led to fears of "Saddam bin Laden."

"The old Iraqi system of government included rape rooms."

And this justifies the invasion how...? We didn't invade under a humanitarian pretext. We invaded because the Bush administration convinced us they were a clear and present danger.
29 months ago: heynnn.
(This may be a learning point.)
How do you know how I look at the Middle East?
Could it be you are assuming some things that may not be completely accurate?
Could you be looking through blue tinted glasses?
29 months ago: @redstateguy

How do I know? Because you make despicable comments like this:

"Aside from arguing Iraq was the place to attack, we made all the terrorists come to us in one place. It was like shooting fish in a barrel."

Just so we're clear, you gloated over turning a country into a haven for terrorists. It's as if you never thought about how people living there might feel about it, and how it might radicalize them. I think this comment of yours grants wonderful insight into how you think about the Middle East.
29 months ago: How soon we forget.

Do you recall our flabergasted, liberal, state run media with their jaws dropped wide open watching Iraqis walk through the desert for miles and miles and PROUDLY holding up and displaying their dyed or painted finger after their first national vote in their lives?

The only radicalized Iraqis were....no wait, all those radicalized Muslims were non-Iraqis.

I believe history is on my side on this one.
29 months ago: The photos of purple-dyed fingers were inspiring, yes? Too bad that bizarre electoral mechanics had to be applied instead of direct democracy, since so many of those purple fingers represented votes for radical Islamic fundamentalists.

Redstateguy, you're bouncing from topic to topic now. I mention the ongoing violence in Iraq (August's violence death tole of civilians alone is 537 people), and instead of answering this, you pretend I never mentioned it and talk about the wonders of their new fake democracy. And you still haven't mentioned how any of this justifies the invasion in the first place.
29 months ago: @scotmanster

Thank you for clearing that up, although it surprises me to hear anti-American government sentiment described as a bad thing coming from conservatives.
29 months ago: heynnnn.
That's what terrorists do. They murder people.
This is called a WAR. The fat lady ain't sung yet.

I do not know if I am able, in my mind, to justify invading Iraq. I think his plan to make the terrorists run in front of our guns was brilliant though.

I'm torn, and I'm going to bed. I sincerely hope you have nice dreams yourself.
29 months ago: Thank you. Good night, and I honestly hope morning comes with clarity on Iraq. I hate to leave you with a dark thought before bed, but this one can't be helped: Getting terrorists to run in front of your guns only helps if you're not doing anything that generates more terrorists to replace them.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
29 months ago: "Redstateguy, Iraq wasn't a haven for terrorists until the invasion"


Check out this montage of videos (most of them taken in context, being entire speeches) of Democrats criticizing Bush Sr. for attempting to co-exist with Iraq.

http://brianakira.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/clinton-kerry-gore-call-for-war-against-saddams-iraq/

Then see if you can call the Iraq war Bush's "daddies' oil-war crusade in Iraq".

In the videos Al Gore vilifies Bush Sr. for not taking action against Saddam Hussein for crimes against humanity, harboring terrorists against the U.S., and other high crimes, including ballistic nuclear missile technology.

Remember, this is the same man who cried out "He betrayed this country! He played on our fears!!" Watch as he becomes the first former Vice President to accuse a sitting president of Nazi like tactics.

Watch as William J. Clinton orders missile strikes on Iraq on two separate occasions "reducing (Saddam's) ability to threaten...America's interests."

Watch as Bill Clinton explains how he ordered a cruise missile attack on Iraq, in retaliation for the assassination plot targeting Bush Sr.

Watch Clinton as he says:
"Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation’s wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."

Watch Kerry as he says we need to continue Afghanistan with Saddam Hussein.
29 months ago: "Your argument does not make sense is all I am saying. You say you care about Iraqi's and how many are dying. But you say it was not right for the USA to topple Saddam's regime..The same regime that was tried and found guilty of genocide of his own people."

If more people are dying on a daily basis post invasion than pre, it's a net loss. Right now, we're in net loss territory. No one argues that Saddam was a nice man, but if our daily body count is exceeding his, then the Iraqis would have been better off if we'd never invaded.

That aside, there's also the question of whether or not a war based on false pretexts and an invalid juxtipostion or Iraq and al Qaida is morally justifiable. Do the ends justify the means? Be careful with this one... "Yes" is the answer of torturers and war criminals throughout history. America is better than that.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
29 months ago: "What facts? That Iran and Iraq - mortal enemies - would band together and resist us in Afghanistan? That's complete nonsense."

"Look at how many incomprehensible allegiances where formed in any war and tell me likewise."

"Incomprehensible? Plenty. Outright enemies? Not so much... One of the things the United States was afraid of during Vietnam was that the Chinese and Vietnamese would side together in a big, communist bloc."

During WWII we formed an alliance with our good buddy, the USSR. During Vietnam, we were more worried about the Soviet MiG's, and teams of Soviet "advisors" to the the Kong than we were about the Red Chinese menace.
29 months ago: OOTB, I'm familiar with most of those quotes. In 1990, George Herbert Walker Bush had a real coalition (instead of the laughable "coalition of the willing") and the support of other Middle Eastern states that feared an aggressive and imperialistic Iraq. That would indeed have been a reasonable time, with the support of neighbor states and the rest of the world, as well as the Iraqi people, to remove Saddam.

Here's something I'd like my conservative friends to remember: Times change. What is true in one decade may not be true in another.

Iraq in 2003 was a threat to no other country, had been contained by years of weapons inspections and enforcement of a no-fly zone, and was a secular state in a region that was otherwise growing more radical. The dynamics that would have made an overthrow of Saddam's government a reasonable decision no longer existed. The states that would have supported that decision in 1991 regarded Gulf War II as a bizarre response to 9/11, akin to beating up the neighbor of someone who insulted you.

So yes, back then Democrats said Bush Sr. should have finished the job. And yes, back then they were right.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
29 months ago: "In 1990, George Herbert Walker Bush had a real coalition (instead of the laughable "coalition of the willing") and the support of other Middle Eastern states that feared an aggressive and imperialistic Iraq."

OK, I get it.

Bush Sr. had a real coalition of nations AND the blessings of the U.N., and the dems said he was wrong for not extending the war and finishing the job, regardless of what the rest of the world thought.

Bush Jr., on the other hand, wanted to finish the job, but he was wrong, for going against the views of the rest of the world.

Makes sense to me.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.
All Categories | Arts & Entertainment  |  Culture & Lifestyle  |  Economy  |  Food  |  Health  |  News & Politics  |  Offbeat  |  People  |  Products  |  Science & Technology  |  Sports  |  Travel

Frequently Asked Questions  |  Community Guidelines  |  Editorial Reviews  |  Get Paid to Post  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap  |  Report Spam/Abuse

©2012 RantRave