To Republicans: if by some divine miracle George Bush came out tomorrow and said......?

Question

"The invasion of Iraq was based on poor intelligence, and we clearly didn't know that a sectarian bloodbath would follow the invasion. I was expecting it to be like the first Gulf War! My bad. If I knew that it was going to get this out of control back in 2002 and cost so many billions of dollars, I would have shelved the idea and focused on improving border security, port security, education, the hunt for Bin Laden, and creating better VA hospitals and giving the military more pay instead"

If he said this, would you still insist that the War in Iraq was a brilliant decision? Remember, we all know he would NEVER say this, but lets PRETEND, ok?

Brett, I will agree and concede the point that Gulf War 1 showed Saddam had the power to intimidate and blackmail and interrupt the flow of oil, if you are willing to concede that he was in a MUCH more powerful position back then when he reached a favorable conclusion with the war in Iran, he had Washington against Iran, he had a military that wasn't dismantled by Gulf War 1 yet, and he was still capable of doing all of these terrible things.

There, you are wrong. Right before the invasion, he actually let Hans Blix and the inspectors in when threatened with force. I agree with the threat, but the actual force should have been held back. The security council would have voted with us if Saddam kicked them out one more time. Hans Blix asked for a few more months. It takes almost a decade to enrich uranium, even if someone did give it to him. Lets not forget that he had no fly zones all over his country, and an embargo which clearly worked. Condi Rice admitted right after being sworn in "he was not trying to rebuild his military." Now, all we had to do is keep the the threat alive, and if he thumbed his nose at the world again, we would have the whole world on our side. However, I think with enough pressure by the US and having troops in a neighboring country ready to go was all that was needed. The invasion was not necessary.

Answer 1

No, it would be more like this:
"Look, the invasion, I mean, occupation, I mean, liberation of Iraq was based on intelligence that we had at that time, and now that more...more...more intel has come out, well, we really know more than we did before, and, well, what we know now is that we should have thought about the sectar- sector-

Answer 2

If he said that, I'd say he was an idiot.

The war in Iraq was about the free flow of oil from the gulf, and how a nuclear armed Iraq would be a severe an untenable threat to that flow, after GW1. In GW1, Saddam showed a propensity to blackmail, threatening to attack Saudi Arabia unless it agreed to raise the price of oil from 18 to 23 dollars per barrel.

GW understood that, given nuclear weapons, Iraq might very well try again to control mid-east oil prices, at his whim.

We had to depose Saddam, and make certain Iraq NEVER has nuclear weapons technology. Everything else is just a smoke screen.

And it wasn't about him HAVING nuclear weapons, it was about assuring he never would.

EDIT: He was definately in a better position pre-GW1 than any time after, is that the point I need to concede? DONE!

Unfortunately, he had regional-dominance ambitions. Nuclear weapons would make him untouchable, and he knew it. If he ever doubted the need, he didn't again after GW1. His ambitions were clear.

You know, had he given immidiate access every time the inspectors showed up at a factory gate, GW2 wouldn never have happened. But by delaying entry (sometimes by HOURS) our intelligence people figured he was hiding something. Moving stuff before he let the inspectors in. Then he completely kicked out the inspectors.

We couldn't risk that he actually WAS hiding something. Otherwise, why not give immidiate, unfettered access each and every time the UN guys showed up?? He gambled, he lost.

Answer 3

I think Bush is a decent guy, but I've always disagreed on the Iraq war.

Strategically, from a WW2 sort of perspective, the Iraq invasion makes alot of sense. It divides Iran from Syria and would have made perfect sense if we were fighting a conventional war. But we're not.

I stick with my first knee-jerk reaction to 18 Saudi Arabians flying planes into what they considered to be the power center of the west's economic nerve center. We should have responded in kind by bombing Mecca ("muslim central" for the Islamic religion of death) until there wasn't anything left.

This would have ended any and all terrorism against America and Americans everywhere in the world because they would have painfully discovered that we're willing to hit any target in response to a terrorist attack.

Instead we play around like a bunch of panzies prosecuting our own soldiers, afraid to hit mosques, hospitals, etc. etc. etc.

When we find our balls, we'll win the war declared against us by the religion of death.
.

Answer 4

no, actually he said something much better....
"where errors were made, the responsibility lies with me and me alone"

To be honest, I don't care if he had WMD, (which I do believe he was producing), I don't care if some thought Saddam didnt' get a fair trial, I don't expect democracy to be an overnight development in a country that has never had any sort of freedom.
But I do care, that those 100s of 1000s of people were needlessly tortured and murdered. I care that it was a normal day for Saddam and his boys to rape a woman on her wedding day, I care that he was running his own personal holocaust. That is what I care about. So yes I do agree with the war. Sorry.

Answer 5

You think all Republicans "insist that the War in Iraq was a brilliant decision?"

NO!

Maybe a few do, but many believe it was the best decision he could have made with the incomplete information he had to work with! With 20/20 hindsight, we'd all make some different decisions.

Many think he was not wise, but that we lack wisdom as a country when we bicker & fight each other with our soldiers in harms way.

Answer 6

you are the first person I have ever seen refer to the war in Iraq as a "brilliant decision". I think pretend time is over now, it's for real and we have to see it through. to leave it incomplete would be worse than the fact that we started it in the first place.

Answer 7

Ya see, I've been paying attention to Iraq pre 1989, so no matter what George would or would not say would have little impact on what just "was". The military is being paid enough.

Answer 8

I suppose he's an overly located guy that has a "imaginative and prescient" of ways he wishes the sector to be and he does not backtrack since any person does not consider him. He is a rock and does not sway since his strategies are not "trendy". I nonetheless love W, he has had it difficult on account that he has been in workplace. And sure, I voted for him two times. Gore and Kerry, come on, wherein might we be now?

Answer 9

I honestly tried to PRETEND that this speech took place, but I found it impossible. That would be so out of character for Bush as to be simply impossible. If nothing else, the man is resolved and unwavering in his policy concerning Iraq and the overall war on terror - and I believe that is a good thing.
Well thought out and presented question.

Answer 10

What an excellent Que. I'm sure these Rep's will find some answer for it!!!

Bush is eating his words with his tail tucked in between his legs!
Remember: " mission accomplished " banner? You can't find the original footage! if you see it, it's marked black!! HA! SO PATHETIC!! CHARLATANS THEY ARE!!