• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Proof: Iraq Was A War of CHOICE!

ADK_Forever

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
3,706
Reaction score
1,001
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The latest issue of Vanity Fair has some thoughts from various ex insiders of the Bush administration. The pealing back of his mask is starting. By the time he leaves town, I wouldn't be surprised if his approval ratings are in single digits!

Here's a few quotes from the article at: An Oral History of the Bush White House: Politics & Power: vanityfair.com

Farewell to All That: An Oral History of the Bush White House
The threat of 9/11 ignored. The threat of Iraq hyped and manipulated. Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. Hurricane Katrina. The shredding of civil liberties. The rise of Iran. Global warming. Economic disaster. How did one two-term presidency go so wrong? A sweeping draft of history—distilled from scores of interviews—offers fresh insight into the roles of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and other key players.

Lawrence Wilkerson, top aide and later chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell: We had this confluence of characters—and I use that term very carefully—that included people like Powell, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, and so forth, which allowed one perception to be “the dream team.” It allowed everybody to believe that this Sarah Palin–like president—because, let’s face it, that’s what he was—was going to be protected by this national- security elite, tested in the cauldrons of fire. What in effect happened was that a very astute, probably the most astute, bureaucratic entrepreneur I’ve ever run into in my life became the vice president of the United States.
He became vice president well before George Bush picked him. And he began to manipulate things from that point on, knowing that he was going to be able to convince this guy to pick him, knowing that he was then going to be able to wade into the vacuums that existed around George Bush—personality vacuum, character vacuum, details vacuum, experience vacuum.

Richard Clarke: That night, on 9/11, Rumsfeld came over and the others, and the president finally got back, and we had a meeting. And Rumsfeld said, You know, we’ve got to do Iraq, and everyone looked at him—at least I looked at him and Powell looked at him—like, What the hell are you talking about? And he said—I’ll never forget this—There just aren’t enough targets in Afghanistan. We need to bomb something else to prove that we’re, you know, big and strong and not going to be pushed around by these kind of attacks.

And I made the point certainly that night, and I think Powell acknowledged it, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That didn’t seem to faze Rumsfeld in the least.

It shouldn’t have come as a surprise. It really didn’t, because from the first weeks of the administration they were talking about Iraq. I just found it a little disgusting that they were talking about it while the bodies were still burning in the Pentagon and at the World Trade Center.

Joschka Fischer, German foreign minister and vice-chancellor: During the Kosovo war we had developed a format which was, I think, one of the cheapest models for policy coordinating in the interests of the U.S. [Secretary of State] Madeleine Albright was in the driver’s seat, and the four European foreign ministers discussed with her on a daily basis how the war develops and so on. This was U.K., France, Italy, and Germany, together with the U.S., on the phone. We continued after the war, not every day, but this was the format, to discuss problems and understand the positions. And suddenly it stopped. We had very, very few—I don’t know, two or three times. Only for a very short period when Colin came in, and then it stopped, because the new administration was not interested any longer in a multilateral coordination.

This man belong behind bars for treason. Period.
 
Has there ever been a war that was not a choice? I mean, we can choose to go to war or not go.
 
Big bold and red text wall screaming... I didn't even read much, hurt the eyes really. If you have to put that much effort into making it stand out, that means it's all about emotion, and since emotional screaming flashy "debate" is rarely ever worth the effort to read...

I read the second post, made sense to me.
 
You tried making the same ineffectual points in a previous thread. They were dispelled and discounted there and now you drag out the same tired old jabberwocky.

:doh
 
You tried making the same ineffectual points in a previous thread. They were dispelled and discounted there and now you drag out the same tired old jabberwocky.

:doh

But this time it's in BOLD and RED!
 
Has there ever been a war that was not a choice? I mean, we can choose to go to war or not go.

Yes. Poland being invaded wasn't a choice. There is a difference between war where neither side prior is fighting and being attacked.

As Aragon stated "Open war is upon you...whether you would risk it or not."
 
Back
Top Bottom