Backstabbing George Bush (1 Viewer)

[danarhea]

Many of Bush's former Neocon allies now say that it was wrong to go into Iraq. OK so far, but there seems to be a problem from here. Some of them, most notably Francis Fvkyama and George Will, are blaming the administration. Here is an example:

'By invading Iraq, the Bush administration created a self-fulfilling prophecy: Iraq has now replaced Afghanistan as a magnet, a training ground and an operational base for jihadists, with plenty of American targets to shoot at.'

Oops, see where the problem is now? These are the guys who convinced Bush to go to Iraq in the first place, and now they wish to pin all the blame on Bush? Sorry, but that just wont cut it. They bear much more responsibility than the president, since it was their idea in the first place. These are the guys who convinced Bush that the aftermath of the war would be Iraqis giving flowers to our soldiers, not killing them.

However, historians will remember these guys. In my opinion, the Bush backstabbers should be given the harshest treatment by the historians, certainly much harsher than Bush, whose only crime was to listen to them. True, as Commander in Chief, Bush does bear responsibility for the mess we have now, but the Neocons who pushed the plan deserve nothing less than the complete contempt of the American people, both Democrats and Repubicans alike. I can forgive Bush, but I cannot forgive the planners, who are now Bush's backstabbers, as they now look to scapegoat Bush for their own actions.

Article is here.

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Backstabbling George Bush

In my opinion This is a flame thread and belongs in the basement........

 

[danarhea]

Re: Backstabbling George Bush

In my opinion This is a flame thread and belongs in the basement........

No it isnt. This is an honest piece which shows that Richard Perle, George Will, and others, who talked Bush into Iraq, are now trying to pin the whole mess on him.

As for your accusation, I will simply ignore it.

 

[KCConservative]

Re: Backstabbling George Bush

No it isnt. This is an honest piece which shows that Richard Perle, George Will, and others, who talked Bush into Iraq, are now trying to pin the whole mess on him.

As for your accusation, I will simply ignore it.

By replying to Navy's post, you did everything but ignore it. :lol:

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Backstabbling George Bush

No it isnt. This is an honest piece which shows that Richard Perle, George Will, and others, who talked Bush into Iraq, are now trying to pin the whole mess on him.

As for your accusation, I will simply ignore it.

Well I hope the moderators don't.The title to the thread itself is flame.........

 

[Navy Pride]

Re: Backstabbling George Bush

By replying to Navy's post, you did everything but ignore it. :lol:

He starts more flame threads then I do and that is saying something.......

 

[aps]

Re: Backstabbling George Bush

Well I hope the moderators don't.The title to the thread itself is flame.........

Navy Pride, it's not an inflaming title. He's talking about people who once supported George Bush's decision to go into Iraq and how they have changed their minds, which could be perceived as backstabbing George Bush. If the article is true, I think that the title of this thread is appropriate.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Perle's quote slays me with mirth:

'We should have understood that we needed Iraqi partners.'
​

I guess he's decided that Chalabi's INC didn't really count. Which is pretty much what the CIA, DIA and the INR had been saying all along. They said that, and they said that in addition to having little or no support w/in Iraq, that Chalabi had 'mis-appropriated' millions of US taxpayer's dollars and shouldn't be trusted.
Yet, the Bush Admin thought they knew better.

 

[Captain America]

Title schmitle..... we could start a thread on Mother Teresa and some folks here could steer it to the basement in a matter of minutes.:roll:

 

[danarhea]

Title schmitle..... we could start a thread on Mother Teresa and some folks here could steer it to the basement in a matter of minutes.:roll:

Actually, the real problem here is that a couple of people dont seem to know the difference between a verb and an adjective.

 

[MSgt]

Actually, the real problem here is that a couple of people dont seem to know the difference between a verb and an adjective.

They're spelled differently?

 

[Gill]

shows that Richard Perle, George Will, and others, who talked Bush into Iraq

Richard Perle and George Will TALKED Bush into going into Iraq????

You've got to be kidding me!!!

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Richard Perle and George Will TALKED Bush into going into Iraq????

Richard Perle is a member of and former chairman of the President's Defense Policy Advisory Board. Further Perle is one of the folks who were picked to "tell [GWB] where Kosovo is," the Vulcans. The Vulcans (they got to pick their own name) were Bush's foreign policy advisors.

So, yes, in a very real way, Richard Perle, ( his defense industry holdings, and his multiple conflict of interest scandals) talked GWB into invading Iraq

 

[stsburns]

Many of Bush's former Neocon allies now say that it was wrong to go into Iraq. OK so far, but there seems to be a problem from here. Some of them, most notably Francis Fvkyama and George Will, are blaming the administration. Here is an example:



Oops, see where the problem is now? These are the guys who convinced Bush to go to Iraq in the first place, and now they wish to pin all the blame on Bush? Sorry, but that just wont cut it. They bear much more responsibility than the president, since it was their idea in the first place. These are the guys who convinced Bush that the aftermath of the war would be Iraqis giving flowers to our soldiers, not killing them.

However, historians will remember these guys. In my opinion, the Bush backstabbers should be given the harshest treatment by the historians, certainly much harsher than Bush, whose only crime was to listen to them. True, as Commander in Chief, Bush does bear responsibility for the mess we have now, but the Neocons who pushed the plan deserve nothing less than the complete contempt of the American people, both Democrats and Repubicans alike. I can forgive Bush, but I cannot forgive the planners, who are now Bush's backstabbers, as they now look to scapegoat Bush for their own actions.

Article is here.

Peace Propaganda Website, find some other idiot to believe your BS.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/index.html

 

[danarhea]

Peace Propaganda Website, find some other idiot to believe your BS.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/index.html

Here we go again. Once more, it is time to pin you down ............

Do you admit or deny the statements that were made by Will, Perle, and others? Time for something other than a 2 second sound bite based on ADS.

 

[stsburns]

Here we go again. Once more, it is time to pin you down ............

Do you admit or deny the statements that were made by Will, Perle, and others? Time for something other than a 2 second sound bite based on ADS.

I HATE THE MEDIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Get used to it! :mrgreen:

 

[danarhea]

I HATE THE MEDIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Get used to it! :mrgreen:

OK, so you hate the media. Cant say I blame you either. They are whores. I am sure we can agree on that.

So once again, do you admit or deny the statements quoted in this thread? Its an easy yes or no question, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the media. Whether the media quoted them or not, or the political leanings of the media in question are immaterial to the question at hand. Perle, Will, and the others either made those statements or they didnt. Which is it?

Do you admit or deny the statements?

 

[vandree]

However, historians will remember these guys. In my opinion, the Bush backstabbers should be given the harshest treatment by the historians, certainly much harsher than Bush, whose only crime was to listen to them.

You have to be kidding. The Bush administration chose to believe what fit their goal. They disregarded the opinions of all the experts on Iraq (opinion that was based on experience) in favor of opinions based on ideals. You can't base your foreign policy on the opinions of people who don't know anything about other countries and/or cultures.

Besides why backstabbing? It is way better to admit to be wrong and change the path you are on than stubbornly continue in the one you know to be wrong.

 

[danarhea]

You have to be kidding. The Bush administration chose to believe what fit their goal. They disregarded the opinions of all the experts on Iraq (opinion that was based on experience) in favor of opinions based on ideals. You can't base your foreign policy on the opinions of people who don't know anything about other countries and/or cultures.

Besides why backstabbing? It is way better to admit to be wrong and change the path you are on than stubbornly continue in the one you know to be wrong.

1) I take this approach, because I remember a time when Bush was my governmor. He was pragmatic back then - NOT a Neocon. In Texas, governor is only a figurehead position, but for the most part, I thought Bush did well. I voted for Buchanan in 2000, but was not disappointed when Bush won that year. Bush only became a poor president because he followed the ways of PNAC after he was elected.

2) I call it backstabbling because they are not just critisizing the president. Some of them are refusing to take responsibility for their part in it. They just want to blame Bush, while acting like they had nothing to do with the poor decisions that were made. Not all of them, but yes, some of them. That is why I call it backstabbing.

 

[Navy Pride]

You have to be kidding. The Bush administration chose to believe what fit their goal. They disregarded the opinions of all the experts on Iraq (opinion that was based on experience) in favor of opinions based on ideals. You can't base your foreign policy on the opinions of people who don't know anything about other countries and/or cultures.

Besides why backstabbing? It is way better to admit to be wrong and change the path you are on than stubbornly continue in the one you know to be wrong.

What planet do you come from? Every country in the world said Saddam had WOMD.....Almost every politician said he had them too and voted almost unanimously to give GWB the authority to take him out..........Get a clue.......

 

[Carl]

These are the guys who convinced Bush to go to Iraq in the first place, and now they wish to pin all the blame on Bush? Sorry, but that just wont cut it.

I think it's an error of observation to contend that any media pundit convinced George Bush of anything concerning the war. The most that can be claimed is that they supported the effort.

You've left out William F. Buckley, Jr., who has also become critical of Iraq and in fact claims we've failed.

Both Will and Buckley, among others, also were critical of Reagan and his Soviet policy. Most particularly his Gorbachev-era policy during his second term.

This article speaks both to those days, and to your contention that the critics have no legs to stand on, while analyzing the similar predicament both Reagan and Bush face(d).

Late in 1987, William F. Buckley started a campaign in the National Review against ratification of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty, the signal achievement of the Reagan-Gorbachev negotiations and the first accord to reduce American and Soviet nuclear arsenals. Senate conservatives, led by Jesse Helms of North Carolina and Steven Symms of Idaho, proposed amendments to the treaty that were unacceptable to the Soviets and would have torpedoed the accord. Bernard Rogers, a former NATO commander, led an advertising and letter-writing campaign against the treaty that compared President Reagan to Neville Chamberlain, the British prime minister who appeased Hitler. George Will, the conservative columnist, described the 1988 Moscow summit between Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev as "moral disarmament."

The pundits must...well..."pundit". Removed as they necessarily are from the full information and position of command, they should always be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[danarhea]

I think it's an error of observation to contend that any media pundit convinced George Bush of anything concerning the war. The most that can be claimed is that they supported the effort.

You've left out William F. Buckley, Jr., who has also become critical of Iraq and in fact claims we've failed.

Both Will and Buckley, among others, also were critical of Reagan and his Soviet policy. Most particularly his Gorbachev-era policy during his second term.

This article speaks both to those days, and to your contention that the critics have no legs to stand on, while analyzing the similar predicament both Reagan and Bush face(d).



The pundits must...well..."pundit". Removed as they necessarily are from the full information and position of command, they should always be taken with a grain of salt.

We are not talking just about media pundits here. We are talking about Perle, Fvkiyama, and other people who were members of the Project for the New American Century, of which Dick Cheney is also a founding member. It was his defense paper which PNAC was started around. Some of these members were prominent in Bush's cabinet, and it was their idea to go to war. They wanted this war, and had been pushing it since 1999, according to their own web site.

Bush was a pragmatic Governor, but his view changed racially after he got to the oval office. His views were changed by THEM.

This is not a war about oil, as the Liberals claim, but a war based on a flawed ideology.

EDIT: Welcome to Debate Politics, Carl.

 

[Carl]

Bush was a pragmatic Governor, but his view changed racially after he got to the oval office. His views were changed by THEM.

Perhaps. But I remain of the opinon that the collapse of the two World Trade Center towers had a more motivational effect than the words of any pundits or think-tank ponderers.

This is not a war about oil, as the Liberals claim, but a war based on a flawed ideology.

I believe your statement constitutes a Fallacy of False Dilemma.

I don't believe that either of your options is accurate, and I subscribe to the belief that there are many other possible rationale. Most of which are quite reasonable, and don't represent either bombast or flaw.

 

[vandree]

What planet do you come from? Every country in the world said Saddam had WOMD.....Almost every politician said he had them too and voted almost unanimously to give GWB the authority to take him out..........Get a clue.......

Planet reality. Of course Saddam Hussein had WMD in 1991, but that was over 20 years ago. The weapons inspectors had accounted for 95% of S Hussein's WMDs. Even if you want to believe that he was able to stockpile chemical and biological weapons, let me remind you that such weapons and agents have a limited shelf life. In other words by the year 2003 they were totally uneffective.

I suggest you get a clue and do some reading. I strongly suggest "Iraq Confidential" by Scott Ritter. Besides we found no WMDs in Iraq, did we?!

 

[Gill]

Planet reality. Of course Saddam Hussein had WMD in 1991, but that was over 20 years ago. The weapons inspectors had accounted for 95% of S Hussein's WMDs. Even if you want to believe that he was able to stockpile chemical and biological weapons, let me remind you that such weapons and agents have a limited shelf life. In other words by the year 2003 they were totally uneffective.

I suggest you get a clue and do some reading. I strongly suggest "Iraq Confidential" by Scott Ritter. Besides we found no WMDs in Iraq, did we?!

Does someone need to post the quotes from leading Dems and liberals supporting the fact that Saddam Hussein was a danger to the world and had WMDs??

Scott Ritter?? Is the same Scott Ritter that was paid $400,000. to produce a so called documentary praising Saddam Hussein. Is this also the same Scott Ritter that was arrested for trying to meet underage girls after chatting with them on the internet??