Georg HW Bush and Brent Scowfrof book

[Chief skin]

A World Transformed a book which was coauthored by Bush and Scowcrof and published in 1998 explains the RATIONALE for not INVADING Iraq after Saddam was driven out of Kuwait quote below

"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs...We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq... there was no visible "exit strategey" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the UN mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land".

A prophetic statement made by the former President and his National security advisor, they knew back then that it would be a quagmire. The likes of Rush, Hannity, and junior can spin this ill fated policy 7 ways to Sunday. The fact remains former administration officials considerd it and ruled against it as the costs far outweigh the gains . Sad situation for the country that junior does not listen or value the advice of his Dad.

[BlueTalon]

Sad situation for the country that junior does not listen or value the advice of his Dad.

You can think that if you want, but dad messed up in a lot of ways. Besides, if junior HAD followed in daddy's footsteps, the anti-Bush croud would be complaining loudly about that.

You seem to be of the opinion that if something is difficult, it shouldn't be attempted.

The fact remains former administration officials considerd it and ruled against it as the costs far outweigh the gains.

There were a few historical event that took place between Bush I and Bush II, the one of primary significance being 9/11 and the war on terror. In the late 80's/early 90's, it might have been possible to come to the conclusion that it would be better for us to leave Saddam in power and not mess with Iraq more than we did (though I disagreed then, and historical hindsight has proven it to be a rather stupid decision). I don't believe that was possible in a post 9/11 world. You obviously may disagree -- but the guy we elected to make those decisions sees thing more my way than your way.

And the ninnies in Congress agreed, and authorized it, at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate.

[Larry]

Actually, I remember one line that was used during a Schwartzkopf press briefing that's stuck in my head ever since I heard it.

Norm was explaining that we'd achieved pretty much total victory, and that there was really only one place on the map where there was still fighting going on. He explained that this one place was still fighting because our mission was to destroy Iraq's armour units, while leaving their infantry intact, and in this one plave, the armour and infantry were mixed in together, making that mission more complicated.

The only reason I can think of for a mission like that, is that someone abore Schwartzkopf had decided that it was desirable to eliminate Saddam's offensive capability, while leaving his defense relatively intact.

In short, we were taking casualties while trying to avoid excessive Iraqi casualties.

(There are a lot of things I liked about the way Bush handled Desert Storm. Things like building a coalition, not demanding territory from Iraq. I even approved of what I assume was a deliberate decision to mispronounce Saddam's name, to prevent him from simply pulling out of Kuwait after trashing the place. I think the way he handled that did more to improve goodwill towards the US than any event since, say, Apollo 11.)

[chomerics]

There were a few historical event that took place between Bush I and Bush II, the one of primary significance being 9/11 and the war on terror.

To bad Saddam was not related to 9-11 then huh. It kind of defeats your initial justification for invading a sovern nation doesn't it? IF this WAS the war on terror, why not Syria or I have an idea, how about Saudi Arabia? You know, the counrty where the 9-11 terrorists were from? That would actually make sense wouldn't it.

In the late 80's/early 90's, it might have been possible to come to the conclusion that it would be better for us to leave Saddam in power and not mess with Iraq more than we did (though I disagreed then, and historical hindsight has proven it to be a rather stupid decision).

Which is the stupid decision, the sanctions or the invasion? How many US citizens died because of Saddam being in power? How many nations were invaded after the gulf war? How many weapons programs did he have in effect? Every single reason given as a justification about Iraq has been proved to be false, no WMDs, no "stockpiles", no imminent threat, no mobile labs, nothing. But you were just O.K. with the invasion then huh.

Now, what would you say if Clinton was the one who invaded Iraq? Would you still feel the same? Somehow, I doubt it.

BTW, how many times are you going to continut to equate the invasion on Iraq with 9-11? If you want to use those two in the same sentence, and try to equate the two as Bush does, you need to back it up with some solid evidence. We have been all over this before, and every piece of evidence used as a justification for the invasion has been false or doctored by misleading information. What we did was akin to going to our neighbours house and beat them up because our child got beat up by a kid in school. :doh:

[Larry]

Um, just a small point, here, chom,

I believe that his point was that 9/11 changed us, not that Saddam planned 9/11.

[Chief skin]

Junior and the neocons had a hardon for Iraq ever since the 2000 inaugural. They were looking for a reason any reason to go after Saddam and then Binladen's 911 falls in to there lap, that is Binladen not Saddam's 911. The iraq war policy was borne of deception, dishonesty, arrogance, and incompetence.

[Larry]

I'll agree that Bush 2 had a plan for Iraq before he was even elected. (Although, I'll point out: One piece of evidence that's often cited as "proof" that Bush was planning to invade, was a map, used by Cheny's energy task force, of the Iraqi oil industry. However, Cheney used two maps for that task force. The other was a map of Saudi. And I don't hear anybody claiming that Bush came into office planning on conquering the Saudis.)

But, did Bush decide that 9/11 was the excuse he needed to do what he was planning on, anyway? Or did Bush, when confronted by a crisis, tend towards blaming the crisis on the people that he already had a problem with, anyway?

After the Oklahoma City bombing, a lot of people assumed it was Arab terrorists. Is that because we were all looking for an excuse for a war? Or because, in our minds, the picture labled "terrorist" is an Arab picture? (If the same thing had happened in Great Brittan, would it be shocking if initially people suspected the IRA?)

Lots of people, after 9/11, decided that this was clearly a signal that what's needed, here, was whatever they'd been saying, before 9/11. Bush's eaction was to suspect Saddam. Kerry's reaction was to dust off the laws he'd been pushing for 10 years, to track financial crimes.

I even remember hearing one Congressman announce that, after 9/11, our first action needed to be repealing the Capital Gaines tax.

Yes, after 9/11, their first reaction was to blame Saddam (followed closely by "Blame Clinton" ). But that doesn't necessarily prove any evil intent.