I love George Bush

[Perd Hapley]

Like it or not, he's established a precedent regarding preemptive use of force in defense of our country. Given the nature of our enemies today, it's a precedent that's frightening, but necessary.

I don't know which is the bigger myth, that our war with Iraq was preemptive, or that preemptive war is something novel.

[taurusowner]

Anyone who thinks we started the war with Iraq needs to read up on the cease fire after the first Gulf War, as well as the UN resolutions.  The invasion was a legal response that was spelled out long before it happened.

[Lennyjoe]

Taurusowner hit the nail on the head! I've been saying that all along. But, everyone falls back to the weapons of mass destruction lie. I can tell you one thing, I'm proud to have George W. Bush's signature on my military retirement orders. 

[Monkeyleg]

Guys, I'm not talking about taking actions against Iraq. I'm talking about Afghanistan, a country that harbored terrorists but didn't attack us officially as a country. While it could be argued that Iraq's infractions didn't rise to the level of justifying a full-scale invasion, I'm not arguing that, either. I think that the invasion was the right thing to do, although the reasons had less to do with Saddam and more to do with establishing an effective presence in the region.

Mr. Tactical Pants, when have we invaded a country preemptively? I know that there are other countries that have done so, and so it's not novel, but we have not (unless you count some small incursion into Canada in the 1800's).

All I'm trying to say here is that Bush has been beaten up so badly that most people--even some on this forum--have unfairly relegated him to the dust bin of history, but history will eventually show a different picture.

Bush's primary shortfall was thinking that DC worked the same way that the government in Texas did, and that he could deal in good faith with the Democrats in DC as he did in Texas. He tried to work with them, and got stabbed in the back. Nothing he did was good enough for them or the media, even when he was working with such liberal stalwarts as Ted Kennedy, who bashed Bush on an education bill that they worked together on (it was Kennedy's bill, for crying out loud!).

When I say that Bush did what he did because of love of country, and people drag out Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao, those folks are being ridiculous, not to mention disingenuous. Clinton loved himself more than country; I think we'll see the same in Obama. I'm not entirely sure about Bush 41. Reagan definitely loved country over self. Jimmy Carter? I don't know what he was thinking. Nixon and LBJ loved power, as I think Kennedy did as well.

As I said, we could debate this forever. All I ask is that you look back ten years from now and see if you think the same about GW. Hindsight changed a lot of people's minds about Nixon, and he was redeemed to an extent a couple of decades after leaving office.

[lone_gunman]

Anyone who thinks we started the war with Iraq needs to read up on the cease fire after the first Gulf War, as well as the UN resolutions.  The invasion was a legal response that was spelled out long before it happened.

I agree that we had justification for invasion since Iraq violated terms of the cease fire.

However, Bush never made that point clearly and loudly to the American people.  I don't really understand why he did not.  Instead, he went down the path of accusing Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction and being an imminent threat to US security.  He set himself up for failure in that regard.

He could have simply said, "Iraq will not account for its weapons of mass destruction, we we are going to invade as per the terms of the previous cease fire".  What he ended up saying was something entirely different.

[grampster]

"Mr. Tactical Pants, when have we invaded a country preemptively? I know that there are other countries that have done so, and so it's not novel, but we have not (unless you count some small incursion into Canada in the 1800's)."

Grenada, Cuba and Panama, The Barbary Pirates for instance.  I believe the Marines have landed on other foreign soil as well.  Our homeland was not attacked by any of these, unless you consider the Maine as homeland. 

As for Iraq, everyone seems to forget how most of America howled at Bush 41 for not finishing the job and taking down Saddam in GW-I.  In my view the invasion of Iraq was nothing more than a continuation of some unfinished business that was brought on by Saddam's refusal to follow through on what he signed off on earlier.  The invasion of Iraq was not pre-emptive on that basis.  He invaded Kuwait, we reversed that.  He surrendered and agreed to certain things and failed to live up to the accords.  We then finished the job.  The facts are that Saddam did have poison WMD's; he used them.  He was actively seeking nukes.  In addition he was a viable threat to the region , whether we like those in the region or not and he harbored terrorists.  I shake my head over such unwillingness to admit to facts by so many people.
 
George Bush beat Al Gore in 2000.  Because of that fact alone, George Bush would have been vilified no matter what he did or didn't do.  Iraq is/was just a handy tool for the left to regain power and the sheep and the media went along for the ride.

Just a word about Katrina.  Google Katrina: the media got it wrong.   More interesting facts that a lot of people conveniently forget.  I remember when Air Force One made a low pass over New Orleans shortly after Katrina.  I said to my wife:  "Watch, the press and the left will crucify him for not landing and walking around.  But if he did land and walk around, they'd crucify him for taking a photo op and diverting security to him rather than the task at hand."

George W. Bush is vilified simply because he won an historic election that proved our system and Constitution works under unprecedented stress.  We should have celebrated the 2000 peaceful transer of power in that regard.  The left and the media were sore losers and as a result, have done more to harm our country than anything W has done.     . 

As for the financial meltdown if he is to be criticised for that, it is for not marshalling his Republicans to pull out all the stops 4 or so years ago when they had the chance to possibly slow down the meltdown.  He didn't do that.  He signed McCain-Feingold.  he should have vetoed it.  As for the Patriot Act the sunset clause should have required a 75% majority to repass.

[MechAg94]

I agree that we had justification for invasion since Iraq violated terms of the cease fire.

However, Bush never made that point clearly and loudly to the American people.  I don't really understand why he did not.  Instead, he went down the path of accusing Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction and being an imminent threat to US security.  He set himself up for failure in that regard.

He could have simply said, "Iraq will not account for its weapons of mass destruction, we we are going to invade as per the terms of the previous cease fire".  What he ended up saying was something entirely different.

Maybe we were reading different news sources.  I thought that point was made loud and clear especially with all the hoopla over the UN weapons inspectors.  Minor point I guess as that whole pre-war news cycle lasted for month.

Bush's primary shortfall was thinking that DC worked the same way that the government in Texas did, and that he could deal in good faith with the Democrats in DC as he did in Texas. He tried to work with them, and got stabbed in the back. Nothing he did was good enough for them or the media, even when he was working with such liberal stalwarts as Ted Kennedy, who bashed Bush on an education bill that they worked together on (it was Kennedy's bill, for crying out loud!).

I think this bears repeating.  Bush was blasted no matter what he did even when he agreed with the Democrats.  I think that hurt whatever plans he had domestically and colored the perception of people who read only the headlines.  It didn't help that he had a bunch of moderate, big government Republicans in Congress.  (please don't read this as giving him a pass for his domestic record)

I agree with Grampster on Katrina.  The federal government cannot effectively handle disaster response if the local and state leaders are incompetent.  First response was never FEMA's roll anyway.  Traditionally, the Feds never stepped in immediately.  They worked through the state and local systems.  I guess that has or will change because people are stupid and want to blame the President for everything.  That will all be nationalized. 

[lone_gunman]

Maybe we were reading different news sources.  I thought that point was made loud and clear especially with all the hoopla over the UN weapons inspectors.  Minor point I guess as that whole pre-war news cycle lasted for month.

Bush made the point but not well.  He then overshadowed it by trying to offer conclusive (but erroneus) proof the Iraq still had a lot of WMD and was still making more WMD.  When Colin Powel went to the UN with the vial of whatever he had and satellite photos supposedly showing mobile chemical weapons labs, most people took it to mean that Iraq really had a lot of WMD, and was still actively producing them.  I think the Colin Powell fiasco at the UN essentially wiped out any credibility Bush had left.  Bush changed the problem from one of not accounting for WMD (which violated the cease fire and was enough justification for war) to a more dire problem, ie, Iraq was still making WMD and could imminently attack the US with them.   Neither of these turned out to be true.  Iraq may have still had some WMD, and certainly had not accounted for them.  This is what Bush should have based the decision to go to war on.  Instead, he decided to gamble an claim they still had a lot of WMD, and were making more, and were an imminent threat to the US.

When that proved to be not so much true, he lost credibility.  He should have just stuck with the facts and said Iraq must account for WMD or we would invade.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

When that proved to be not so much true, he lost credibility.  He should have just stuck with the facts and said Iraq must account for WMD or we would invade.

Well, yeah, except that's esactly what Bush did. 

We gave Saddam an ultimatum: account for those WMD to our satisfaction or we're gonna invade.  Saddam didn't hardly even give lip service to complying.  So in we went.

[Beagle]

The other side of the story is that Saddam, while being a PITA about it, largely was complying, and that no evidence of WMD was being found. That version of the story carries at least some weight, because it is the version presented by the people who were actually in Iraq doing the looking. Not to mention because it turns out there wasn't actually any WMD to be found.

The bottom line, though, is that by now we all have our own version of the "facts" -- largely colored less by observation than by preconception and ideological affiliation -- and none of us are likely to change. What will history say? Dunno. My crystal ball doesn't seem to be as worthy of trust as yours... 

[lone_gunman]

Well, yeah, except that's esactly what Bush did.

 

But that's not all he did.  He sent Colin Powell to the UN, and before the world, to show "evidence" of ongoing production of WMD in mobile labs, and declared that Iraq would be able to imminently hurt the US with them.

He took an appropriate justification for war, and then cloudied it all up by adding incorrect information to it.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

 

But that's not all he did.  He sent Colin Powell to the UN, and before the world, to show "evidence" of ongoing production of WMD in mobile labs, and declared that Iraq would be able to imminently hurt the US with them.

He took an appropriate justification for war, and then cloudied it all up by adding incorrect information to it.

Sort of.  Bush and Powell weren't the only ones who thought Saddam had WMD.  They just happened to be the people at the top.  Everyone else thought the same thing, both parties, past and present, all down the line.

The WMD evidence turned into a dog and pony show.  The administration wanted to look like they were being restrained and calculating, like they were reluctant to go to war.  They overplayed it.  They should have acted on righteous indignation and said you've got it coming for antagonizing us for so long and we're not going to put up with that from anyone anymore.

A certain amount of these sorts of political miscalculations are inevitable.  Bush mostly managed to outplay his political adversaries throughout his 8 years.  That time he goofed.  It happens.