Why we went to war in Iraq

[Faithfulee]

I'm not sure what I'd give credit to Bush for, but it is clear to me that many will give him too much.

How about

Keeping the US free from Islamic terrorst attack
Deposting sad man in Iraq and liberating Iraq people
facilitating the second democracy in the Middle East

Routing alQaeda in Iraq

And that list deals only deals with Iraq.
Do you think that President Bush deserves credit for the above?  If not, why not?

Acuman has a point also

You could start giving him credit for his resolve because without that, Saddam might have had nuclear weapons by now. 

[SquirleyWurley]

I will give him credit for resolve, sure.  I will also give him credit for stubbornly insisting on removing a dictator, I mean, he did pick on one of the evil tyrants in the world.

I will give much credit to those who actually planned and organized maneuvers, and those who followed orders ethically, efficiently, professionally, bravely.

I will give him credit for going into Afghanistan (but who wouldn't), but I'd also be critical of him dividing our forces when there was still work to do.

I do not know that Saddam would have nukes by now.  I do not know that Iraq will turn out democratic or constitutional or sane, or have civil/human rights.

[Faithfulee]

I will give him credit for resolve, sure.  I will also give him credit for stubbornly insisting on removing a dictator, I mean, he did pick on one of the evil tyrants in the world.

I will give much credit to those who actually planned and organized maneuvers, and those who followed orders ethically, efficiently, professionally, bravely.

I will give him credit for going into Afghanistan (but who wouldn't), but I'd also be critical of him dividing our forces when there was still work to do.

I do not know that Saddam would have nukes by now.  I do not know that Iraq will turn out democratic or constitutional or sane, or have civil/human rights.

President Bush deserves the credit that you offer, thank you.

No one knows if Iraq will turn our democratic,  but if we support President Bush and America  there is a very good chance that they will..  And that is a Miricle compared to the situation a year ago before the surge.

What we do know is that Iraq does NOT HAVE NUKES,   and that is another tribute to US policy.

[SquirleyWurley]

President Bush deserves the credit that you offer, thank you.

I don't demonize Bush or think he must always be wrong, etc.  I still dislike him.

No one knows if Iraq will turn our democratic,  but if we support President Bush and America  there is a very good chance that they will..  And that is a Miricle compared to the situation a year ago before the surge.

I don't think supporting Bush is associated with a 'very good chance'

What we do know is that Iraq does NOT HAVE NUKES,   and that is another tribute to US policy.

Chaos can limit an enemies ability to perform, is that all you mean, though?

[Faithfulee]

Wurley

Why do you dislike President Bush?

Do you give him credit for keeping the US free from Islamic terrorist attack?
Do you give him credit for reducing you tax burden?

And don’t you think that winning the war in Iraq is a worthy goal of a US President?

And why cannot you associate President Bush with the current democracy in Iraq?

And finally, do you agree  with the premise that the best defense against Islamic terrorism in a functioning democracy?

[Acumen]

Chaos can limit an enemies ability to perform, is that all you mean, though?

Yes, organized chaos can certainly affect the ability of enemies to perform.  In fact, a resolve to engage in organized chaos will also affect the ability of enemies to perform.

[SquirleyWurley]

I appreciate the utility of chaos sometimes, sure.  I don't think much has been gained for the US by it, though, in this case.  I mean, I don't think we can really have much influence over China's ability to get Iraq's oil, and I don't think we will really have that much of a position with just a base or so in Iraq (although it may very well be that just a base or two in Iraq would be VERY useful to us in the future, so I might backtrack on that).

Why do I dislike Bush?  Well, just on an emotional level, perhaps on a philosophic level about certain types of rhetoric... I dislike Bush for a lot of the same reasons I don't like Obama, frankly, there's something about the way he talks that's smarmy, evasive, talking nice for the choir with empty b.s., and then on top of it Bush sets things up very well for demagogues to bully the opposition, all that is something I have visceral reactions to.

Ever been to a multi-level-marketing seminar, just to see how awful it could be?  Yikes!  That's how I feel when listening to Bush or Obama.

Technically, on his method/manner of politics, I'm more concerned with the way he so easily ignores the other party, protest groups, etc., and is so dismissive of them.  Also, the Patriot Act was passed far too speedily, with WAY too little discussion/debate, and any criticism was written off as unpatriotic/traitorous, and THAT harmed our political culture, and BUSH and other Republicans really contributed to that.  THEY OUGHT TO BE ASHAMED.  Bob Bar (Republican) had made some good criticisms of the Patriot Act, etc., over the years.

I think McCain is SO MUCH better on all of these issues, compared to Bush.  McCain is MUCH better at engaging those who are in the other party, talking with those who have differences of opinion, acknowledging subtleties, etc.  I wish he was in there intead of Bush these last 8 years.

Do you give him credit for keeping the US free from Islamic terrorist attack?

Every soldier, etc. who killed a Taliban or OBL operative did that, everyone who did good spy work, etc., did that.  No politician did that.

Do you give him credit for reducing you tax burden?

I'm not easily bought by either party.  One party will throw money at one set of industries/businesses/endeavors/entitlements, the other party has a different set, that's all.

And don’t you think that winning the war in Iraq is a worthy goal of a US President?

It hasn't happened yet, and it is unclear what the benefits to the US are, but it is worthy to take out a dictator... it's just best when it is done wisely and with good planning and when the rhetoric/style/manner of the hawks is better for the political culture/environment.  I.e., this 'freedom fries' nonsense and liberal bashing is destestable.

And why cannot you associate President Bush with the current democracy in Iraq?

1) I certainly don't like democracy when that means unchecked majority rule.  I like constitutional republics with checks/balances and safeguards against abuses by the majority (democratic mob), serious respect for civil/human rights.  I don't see enough gains on that front in Iraq just yet.

2) And finally, do you agree  with the premise that the best defense against Islamic terrorism in a functioning democracy?

Democracy (unchecked majority rule) is a very bad thing, it's tyranny, right up there with dictatorship.  A constitutional republic (as qualified above), IS a very good defense, but I have to stress the SERIOUS RESPECT FOR CIVIL/HUMAN RIGHTS part.

[Acumen]

Technically, on his method/manner of politics, I'm more concerned with the way he so easily ignores the other party, protest groups, etc., and is so dismissive of them.  Also, the Patriot Act was passed far too speedily, with WAY too little discussion/debate, and any criticism was written off as unpatriotic/traitorous, and THAT harmed our political culture, and BUSH and other Republicans really contributed to that.  THEY OUGHT TO BE ASHAMED.  Bob Bar (Republican) had made some good criticisms of the Patriot Act, etc., over the years.

What is there to debate?  It was passed with bipartisan approval in the interests of our national security.

[Faithfulee]

Wurley

I think you are coming around to seeing the value of the war in Iraq.

While President Bush led the country into the war, he also was responsible for the casualties in the early years.

Thus he is also responsible for the situation today.  He pushed for the “surge” at a time when the dims and Obama were pushing for a withdrawal that was tantamount to surrended.

The surge worked and today there is great hope for a peaceful democratic Iraq.  I share your caution about the form that it will take, but it is far better than  under  sad man, and certainly better than the instability of the past years.  Progress is being made and we should be proud of  America’s  actions in bringing Iraq to where it is today.

Instead we have a Democrat party that is whining and complaining and saying that their plan to surrender was better than what actually happened.

[Acumen]

Instead we have a Democrat party that is whining and complaining and saying that their plan to surrender was better than what actually happened.

Right, and I think that is a shame.  I wonder if the republican party ever bashed a democrat president  during wartime and pressured for a pullout?  Seriously, I don't know. 

[SquirleyWurley]

What is there to debate?  It was passed with bipartisan approval in the interests of our national security.

The patriot act is very complicated, it's a very big bill, it required more discussion, questions, scrutiny, and it wasn't just Democrats who felt it was rushed and flawed.  Again, Bob Bar, a Republican, had concerns.  So did Ron Paul, a libertarian.  It wasn't just democrats.  But those who wished to look into the details re: civil rights concerns, practicality concerns, concerns about beurocracies, etc., were dismissed, alienated, ignored, whether they were Republicans or Democrats or whatnot, but especially the Democrats were dismissed, etc.  This wasn't good for the country.  It fostered the division/divisiveness in our country, the way the Bush Admin and the Republican leadership handled it.  Again, they ought to be ASHAMED.

[SquirleyWurley]

I think you are coming around to seeing the value of the war in Iraq.

I always thought there could be some value to the war in Iraq, and when I voiced opposition it was pretty consistently about concerns about poor planning, rushing, overlooking diplomatic manoevers, being a bit too cold towards UN discussion, and I was critical of the way many Democrats just went along with things, too.

Thus he is also responsible for the situation today.  He pushed for the “surge” at a time when the dims and Obama were pushing for a withdrawal that was tantamount to surrended.

Well I figure commanders on the ground know whether a surge is likely to be helpful or not, and good commanders might get a message up the command-chain.  Even if the plan is for quick pull-out, that doesn't mean you necessarily overlook an opportunity to do some kicking of a**.

Instead we have a Democrat party that is whining and complaining and saying that their plan to surrender was better than what actually happened.

Some of it, yes, but there is always that sort of rhetoric during war, it's just the flip side to the hawk rhetoric.

[Acumen]

What is there to debate?  It was passed with bipartisan approval in the interests of our national security.

The patriot act is very complicated, it's a very big bill, it required more discussion, questions, scrutiny, and it wasn't just Democrats who felt it was rushed and flawed.  Again, Bob Bar, a Republican, had concerns.  So did Ron Paul, a libertarian.  It wasn't just democrats.  But those who wished to look into the details re: civil rights concerns, practicality concerns, concerns about beurocracies, etc., were dismissed, alienated, ignored, whether they were Republicans or Democrats or whatnot, but especially the Democrats were dismissed, etc.  This wasn't good for the country.  It fostered the division/divisiveness in our country, the way the Bush Admin and the Republican leadership handled it.  Again, they ought to be ASHAMED.

I don't see the problem.  The democrats control congress, if they didn't want the bill to be renewed, then they would have voted it down.

[SquirleyWurley]

There was quite a bit of a rush, the schedule was such that Democrats didn't have enough time to really examine and discuss it, debate was cut short, and Democrats weren't tolerated when they asked important questions, the whole thing went by much too quickly.

More Democrats should have simply voted against it, yes, but then the spin would have been ridiculous, they were swindled into moving too quickly by pressuring manipulators.  Too many of them decided to move on it rather than appear the way they would be depicted if they objected to strenuously.

[Acumen]

There was quite a bit of a rush, the schedule was such that Democrats didn't have enough time to really examine and discuss it, debate was cut short, and Democrats weren't tolerated when they asked important questions, the whole thing went by much too quickly.

I doubt that.  The democrats control congress, and they very much use an unpopular Bush as a leverage point whenever they need to.  Right now, 68% of the American public is for drilling off shore for oil, and yet we don't see Pelosi and her ilk budging on that issue when our economy is in the gutter. 

More Democrats should have simply voted against it, yes, but then the spin would have been ridiculous, they were swindled into moving too quickly by pressuring manipulators.  Too many of them decided to move on it rather than appear the way they would be depicted if they objected to strenuously.

There is no reason to vote against a bill that will offer our citizenry better national security from the recent advent of terrorism on U.S. soil, especially since there has been nothing substantial on record in terms of the government violating our civil rights with the enacted bill. 

[Faithfulee]

We went to war in Iraq because Congress voted to do so.

Six years into the war the Democrats said “oops” and  convinced enough Americans to get them in control of Congress.  The Dems failed to micromanage the war and to do as Obama voted, to surrender in Iraq and remove our troops.

President Bush corrageously, after consulting with our Military leaders, authorized the surge.  This was at a time when the casualties were high and news from Iraq was bad.  It was controversial then and still is in the eyes of Obama. 

The result has been spectacular,  a virtual elimination of US casualties,  alQueada  retreated and the Iraq government started to function as a democratic institution.

Obama is a fool to continue to denigrate the surge, but perhaps he has no choice because he and the dims have a stake in us DEFEAT in Iraq.

Instead, it is turning out as I have been saying for years now.  The US liberated millions of Iraqis from a ruthless dictator,  quelled the violence, and facilitated a functioning democracy in the Middle East.

If we capitalize on this success, it will turn the decision of going to war into a great attribute for America and President Bush.  Dims cannot stand that so we get the idiotic posturing of Obama.

Cheers for President Bush

God Bless America 

[SquirleyWurley]

I doubt that.  The democrats control congress, and they very much use an unpopular Bush as a leverage point whenever they need to.

Politically, all hell could have broken loose if they appeared unpatriotic on the Patriot Act.  They were either a bit cowardly about it,  or lazy about it, they decided to criticize it after voting for it.  Stupid and inconsistent.

There is no reason to vote against a bill that will offer our citizenry better national security from the recent advent of terrorism on U.S. soil, especially since there has been nothing substantial on record in terms of the government violating our civil rights with the enacted bill.

There were concerns about taking a closer look at the wire tap provisions, the definition of 'terrorist', etc., the way intelligence services were being re-organized, questions about potential abuses which might not get caught because of the way the Patriot Act was designed.  Some of the Patriot Act was in fact modified some years later for these reasons, which may have prevented some abuses.

When there is lack of transparency, lack of accountability to another power/branch, there is cause for increased scrutiny and concern.  There was a lot going on with the Patriot Act and various Executive Orders that raised caution flags for people like Republican Bob Bar, Ron Paul, and various Democrats, and some other Republicans, who with varying degrees of intensity, expressed criticism, concern, a desire to look at things more closely.  That process was rushed too quickly.

Whenever police powers are increased and secrecy is an issue, it's a very complex and delicate situation IF you are concerned about being aware of potential abuses, catching existing abuses, having enough accountablility, enough of a check.  It is completely valid to question these things.  The Founding Fathers were quite suspicious on such questions, in their day, and it is quite patriotic to bring back some of that kind of suspicion, when so many changes are made, when such secrecy is involved.

It's hard to tell how well various checks are working, how well things are prevented or caught, how accountable things really are.  It's ok to disagree in assessing this sort of thing.  It's not ok to shout 'unpatriotic' or 'stupid', etc., to those who are concerned.  Many of the Founding Fathers would have retorted quite vehemently to the lack of concern for these issues which was expressed by the Bush Administration and the Republican Party.  Perhaps there are enough checks, perhaps the worst has been prevented, perhaps the worst would be caught, perhaps there is little danger.  But perhaps the opposite is true.  Hard to tell.  Especially with secret courts and with processes controlled ONLY or MOSTLY by the Executive Branch.

[Acumen]

I appreciate your thoughtful response, and I certainly understand cautioning ourselves to the potential abuses of power.  However, we have to weigh the costs versus the benefits.  And right now, the costs would be to high to politic around and retard an important national security process because some critics wanted a little more time.

I often get suspicious when politicians ask for more time.  First, the legislative branch is extremely slow and inefficient at getting things done.  There is a lot of bureaucratic tape to cut through to get the smallest of procedures or policies enacted.   I don't know this for sure, but I would bet that there was plenty of time to assess the renewal for the patriot act.  There may not have been enough time comparable to other bills or renewals, but probably enough time to hash out the more important parts of the act.

We pay these men and women a good salary to convene and work together on things essential to the protection and wellbeing of our citizenry, and most often they are either on vacation or conveniently absent from important votes.  I'm sorry, I just don't buy there wasn't enough time.

And if there wasn't enough time, we can always change the bill and perfect it as we go. 

[SquirleyWurley]

right now, the costs would be to high to politic around and retard an important national security process because some critics wanted a little more time.

I appreciate your concern for timely action and avoiding political delays.  I think that concern needs to be balanced with the concerns I mentioned.  It is fine for different people to evaluate the balance a bit differently, it's hard to tell how much is too much delay, sometimes it's hard to distinguish politicking from reasonable concern/caution, sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between appropriate swiftness and reckless abandon/manipulation.

So for those reasons I was troubled by the deep divide in our country especially in the years the Patriot Act was made/passed.  That was a time where less rhetorical b.s. and more communication and discussion was important for the health of our political culture.  The media and the politicians in DC didn't help, they made things worse.

I often get suspicious when politicians ask for more time.  First, the legislative branch is extremely slow and inefficient at getting things done.  There is a lot of bureaucratic tape to cut through to get the smallest of procedures or policies enacted.

Well, that's the nature of checks and balances, that's the nature of a democratic republic -- things don't happen as quickly as when you have, say, a monarchy.

I don't know this for sure, but I would bet that there was plenty of time to assess the renewal for the patriot act.  There may not have been enough time comparable to other bills or renewals, but probably enough time to hash out the more important parts of the act.

From what I heard/understand, it was a very large and complicated bill and there was comparatively very little time to read the whole thing and think about it sufficiently.  But if that was the only problem, I might chalk that up as anxiety to get things done.  Unfortunately, those who complained about this time issue were lampooned and denigrated.  That's really shameful.

And if there wasn't enough time, we can always change the bill and perfect it as we go.

Yes.  And there have been some changes, by both the Supreme Court, and by the Legislative Branch.

[Faithfulee]

It's hard to tell how well various checks are working, how well things are prevented or caught, how accountable things really are.  It's ok to disagree in assessing this sort of thing.  It's not ok to shout 'unpatriotic' or 'stupid', etc., to those who are concerned.  Many of the Founding Fathers would have retorted quite vehemently to the lack of concern for these issues which was expressed by the Bush Administration and the Republican Party.  Perhaps there are enough checks, perhaps the worst has been prevented, perhaps the worst would be caught, perhaps there is little danger.  But perhaps the opposite is true.  Hard to tell.  Especially with secret courts and with processes controlled ONLY or MOSTLY by the Executive Branch.

This discussion has changed from "why we went to war in Iraq" to a discussion of the laws we implemented as a result of the 9/11/01 attack.

Pragmatically, the libs may not like some of the words and are worried about abuses, but the fact is that the laws have worked and we have not been attacked in the US snce 9/11/01.

That is a president's primary obligation and the new President had better keep up that record rathe than "liberalize" our laws and leave us open for terrorist attack.

Iran tested a warhead that could portend a nuclear attack on the US, and is another reason for us to hold firm and stand tough against these Islamic terrorists.