Why didn't George W. Bush take his father's wise advice on Iraq?

Question

Bush Sr. once stated that if we invaded Iraq a second time, we would eventually have to withdraw, and a thug that would make Saddam look like a saint would take over. This was back in the 90s. One of the main reasons why George W. Bush invaded was that Saddam hired someone to assassinate Bush Sr. and Bush wanted revenge. Indeed, he once referred to Saddam as "the man who tried to kill my father." George Bush Sr. warned his son over and over again not to invade Iraq, and that he made a mistake in invading Iraq the first time during the Persian Gulf War, but his son would not listen. Sr. even started to get choked up at a speech when asked about his son's legacy after he leaves offcie, which will be fixed on the Iraq War, and many think he sees how much of a mess his son got this country is. I give Sr. credit. He was not that bad of a President for America compared to his son and it seems he has more sense than his son.

Answer 1

The Neocons got to Bush Jr. and made him a believer in their ideology.

Answer 2

George respects his father. Did you know that when you are younger, most kids hate pretty much their whole family, until they are grown enough to understand what their parents did, and why they did it? Its called adolescence. George Bush is a normal, ordinary human-being, not a God. Pardon, but Rumsfeld, and Cheney are good friends of Bush Sr. Not his enemies. They were all part of the Reagan Cabinet, and know each other well. That is not to say they didn't have disagreements and argue, which is also very normal to do, even when you love someone.

Answer 3

Many in the Bush 41 administration made statements saying it would essentially be too big a job to invade Iraq and take it over during the 90s. There's a Cheney tape too, from 1994 - almost a decade and a half ago.

But you forget the context.

In 1990, Saddam invaded Kuwait. In over fall and winter, Bush 41 assembled a coalition to oust him. During that time, the left said "Bush better not go to Baghdad" and overthrow Saddam. He was threatened with impeachment if he did. So he didn't.

Then during the Clinton years, when literally hundreds of violations of the cease-fire and the inspection scheme (targeting US planes in the no-fly zone, etc.) occurred, Democrats deflected Clinton's "do nothing" stance (other than takling tough and coincidentally launching an attack the day the House was to vote on impeachment) by saying "Bush 41 didn't finish the job." Hence the Bush 41 team pointed out the difficulties.

Then 9/11 happened, and people were much less willing to let threats like Saddam gather strength. And again, Democrats complained that "Bush 43 didn't connect the dots" and prevent the attack. So Bush 43 went to the Un like his dad and gave Saddam one last chance, which was also not taken. So we overthrew Saddam, implementing the regime change that was US policy in 1998. Now Democrats complain about that, here adding many ficticious "details" about conversations, etc. that never occurred.

The risk analysis changed after 9/11. We thought that the risk of letting things continue as they were was more of a problem than any difficulties in Iraq post-Saddam. (Many Democrats agreed at the time, although they seek to deny it now, or say they were "fooled" by the supposedly unintelligent Bush 43.) And things are improving, although mistakes were made.

What did NOT change was the Democrats' reactive complaining and gainsaying any action of the Republicans rather than having a policy of their own.

I am cursed with a long memory. And I am sincerely glad someone asked this question.

PS We also were much more "gung-ho" about war with Germany after Pearl Harbor than we were in protecting our interests after 9/11. When Germany declared war, we fought back - no "peace mission." Good! When Saddam violated the cease fire repeatedly, all we did was talk and talk for a decade. Not much of a "rush to war" in my eyes.

Answer 4

First of all, I really don't think Saddam's supposed assassination attempt on GHW Bush had anything to do with it. In fact there's no evidence that the allegation is even true. It's just another of those stories that appeared in the press during the period before the war when Bush was trying to justify invading Iraq.

The thing about Bush is that everything has always come easy to him. For instance, to this very day he clearly doesn't realize that he passed a long waiting list to get into the Air Nat'l Guard. He ran all his businesses into the ground but still made a lot of money from his dad's rich friends, in fact he never earned an honest dollar in his whole life! He approached campaigning for the presidency with a sense of entitlement because everything else he ever did came easy. He must have just figured he led a charmed life!

Naturally he thought this war would be just as easy. How could he fail when he's never failed before?

Answer 5

Charity is correct, the fact that G.W. senior helped bring down the wall, devalued the Krugerrand to the benefit of most South Africans are wonderful and he was definitely a better statesman than his son. What is done is done however and we must live in the now as much as possible. If Iraqis can not safely lead their own country after the ill fated "Ima gon' git tha Saydame" logic of the current President Bush the moderates of this country and all other countries in the U.N. must step up and find a solution.

Answer 6

It's time for the liberals to start being progressive and actually make progress. We have over a 160,000 of our troops in Iraq and you want to debate what Bush Sr. said 14 years ago . . . It's time for the moderates to UNITE and get something done. You've achieved nothing by posting this. As a liberal, (myself included) we must all hold the individual responsibility of advancing political debate . . . that means no more pot shots for a while. I don't care who said what anymore . . .

Answer 7

"Remember 9-11! That changed everything.

Good try though."

Everytime a liberal tries to state that there is no connection between Saddam and 911, all the cons say nobody says that. They agree there is no connection. I say I see it cons on Y!A make the connection everyday and they don't believe me. Thanks for proving me right.

Ohh btw read the bipartisan 911 commission report.

Back to the original question. Bush listens to nobody. He does not listen to Jim Baker either.

Answer 8

The man doesn't listen

Does he listen to the troops

A poll taken last year showed that an overwhelming majority of troops in Iraq WANTED US OUT OF THERE BY NOW.
http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.dbm?i...
An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.
The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, showed that 29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately,” while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay “as long as they are needed

Does he listen to the generals that have experience

Retired generals are speaking out against this war and the civilian leadership that thought it up and messed it up. Retired, yes. But all senior generals are (or at least consider themselves) members of a rather exclusive club, and when they speak out, it's not impossible that they express the opinions of their active peers.
The list is impressive. In a New York Times op-ed column, retired Major Gen. Paul Eaton, who helped revive the Iraqi army, described Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically" and called for his resignation. Retired Lt. Gen. William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency and now a Yale professor, said in a speech covered by the Providence Journal that America's invasion of Iraq might be the worst strategic mistake in American history.
Publicizing his book, "The Battle for Peace," in a recent "Meet the Press" appearance, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, a four-star former commander of the Central Command, describes administration behavior that ranged from "true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility" to "lying, incompetence and corruption." Another Marine, retired Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold, has written in Time magazine that the Iraq war was unnecessary. Finally, Lt. Gen. Bernard Trainor and Michael Gordon have written a history of the invasion of Iraq, Cobra II, which describes a willfully self-deluding planning process.
Now, on CNN, Maj. Gen. John Batiste also called for Rumsfeld's resignation; the Washington Post reported that Batiste, commander of the First Infantry Division in Iraq during 2004-2005, turned down a third star and a tour in Iraq as the second-ranking U.S. military officer there. He retired rather than continue to work for Rumsfeld.
In one sense, this "revolt" is the last act of the Vietnam War. The current generation of generals served as junior officers during Vietnam, where they swore that, when they held the senior positions, they would never collapse before civilian delusion and zealotry, as had so many of that era's leaders. They sensed, back then, a moral rot at the top. Zinni took to heart the day he was shot three times in Vietnam, and promised that if he lived, he would always say what he thought was right. He has. An early opponent of the Iraq war, he was called a "traitor" by the White House. Now Newbold, who served as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff until October 2002, cites an old anti-Vietnam song, "Won't Get Fooled Again" and concludes: We were.

Did he listen to his father

after Saddam Hussein after Iraqi forces were pushed out of Kuwait in the Gulf War.
"We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
Seems like besides running the CIA and being a one term president, Bush Sr. was a a fortune teller, for his own kid

Answer 9

Bush Sr was wrong

Answer 10

W. takes orders from cheney, who incidently contradicts himself back in 2004 about invading Iraq. If you haven't seen this video re: cheney you have to.

Answer 11

Dubya was blinded by revenge and listened to puds who had alternative motives, basically money.
Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Funny how so many Bush supporters tend to forget that most important fact.