Over the summer of 2002. Bush stepped up his case for a preemptive attack outlining the new doctrine for pre-emptive attacks in a commencement speech at West Point.
Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser during the first Bush administration warned against a "go-it-alone" strategy. "An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken," Scowcroft wrote.
Lawrence Eagleburger, who served in the first Bush administration spoke out, saying the nation needs answers before any war against Iraq.
Air attacks rocked Baghdad with thunderous explosions that filled the skies with flames and huge clouds of smoke as U.S. aircraft unleased the "shock and awe". The massive Republican Palace complex along the winding Tigris River took the brunt of the first wave. Airstrikes damaged Baghdad's Peace Palace, a building used for visiting dignitaries. He said the Flowers Palace, a museum was also hit.
2007-04-03 08:21:19 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Oh yeah! He'd do it all again because he's absolutely certain he was right. Besides Bush's entire purpose for becoming president was to only to have a 2 term presidency to follow his Daddys so they would be in history books. They want their dynasty to be important and that has nothing to do with what is accomplished while in office. Only what will go down in history.
2007-04-03 08:34:11 · answer #1 · answered by MissWong 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The war in Iraq was decided on Sept 11th 2001. Hours after the WTC fell. He was attacking no matter what the evidence.
Note from Rumsfeld's notes on the day. Obtained by FOIA
General Myers to find the "[b]est info fast . . . judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time - not only UBL [Usama Bin Laden]" (as discussed on p. 334-335 of the 9/11 Commission Report and in Bob Woodward's Plan of Attack).
Yes he'd do it again...
2007-04-03 08:33:17 · answer #2 · answered by ScooterLibby 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What would you expect from an alcoholic and ex Coke Head like George Walker Bush who has the brain the size of a peanut. As long as Dickless Cheney has control of the puppet it would still turn out the same way.
2007-04-03 08:45:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
With the benefit of hindsight I am sure there are a lot of things the president would do differently.
No so the democrats. They would still do absolutely nothing about the attacks on 9/11. If they are elected to the white house that is what they will continue to do about terrorism. Nothing.
.
2007-04-03 08:27:34 · answer #4 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Only a fool will not learn from past mistakes
SO your answer is YEP he'd do the same all over again
2007-04-03 08:26:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm sure no one would.
And neither would FDR have done WWII the same way.
Hindsight is 20-20.
If you keep looking back, you can't look forward.
2007-04-03 08:25:46 · answer #6 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I try not to live in the past. Hopefully the President doesn't either.
What's done cannot be undone, so no use wishing otherwise. Even mistakes are learning experiences, we cannot improve ourselves without them soemtimes.
2007-04-03 08:27:16 · answer #7 · answered by Frank 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Of course he would do it all again the same way. His tiny mind simply cannot comprehend that he could possibly be wrong.
2007-04-03 08:26:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm sorry to say, I believe he would. I Don't think even now, that him, or the people around him, realize they have led us into the abyss.
2007-04-03 08:26:22 · answer #9 · answered by Simon M 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He has been a failure at everything he has done in life, so I don't think he would want to break his streak.
2007-04-03 08:24:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋