• 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!

Was George W Bush a good president?[W:439:621]

Was George W Bush a good president?

  • Total voters
    124
  • Poll closed .
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

I'm not an American so I don't know. But did Bush have the integrity to thank the weapon inspectors who effiectivly got rid of the WMD before the invasion and therby help to stop the Iraq war from becoming an even bigger mess? Because invasion of Iraq totally failed at securing weapon sites So if Iraq had WMD those most likely would have ended up in the hands of terrorist.

Also how much criticism did Bush get from starting a war that would most likely have lead to WMD in the hands of terrorist if he would have been right about the WMD?
 
Last edited:
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?


Iraq never had WMDs in the first place. And there was more than enough evidence before 2003 to demonstrate that. Plenty of people in government were aware of this; the American-century types at the top just didn't care.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

DifferentDrummr said:
Iraq never had WMDs in the first place. And there was more than enough evidence before 2003 to demonstrate that. Plenty of people in government were aware of this; the American-century types at the top just didn't care.
Click to expand...

That is entirely false! They had WMD and we knew about it. This is why we demanded accountability for it. They may not have had any viable WMD left when we invaded, but they did have it before.

Again, it was their lack of cooperation in following through with the agreements from the first Gulf war.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?


I hate to tell you this, but the "Liar, liar, pants on fire" argument loses its power as you age. (Unless you're a turtle, apparently.)
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Iraq never had WMDs in the first place. And there was more than enough evidence before 2003 to demonstrate that. Plenty of people in government were aware of this; the American-century types at the top just didn't care.
Click to expand...


Absolute nonsense.

Of-course Saddam had WMD.

A long list of Democratic politicians going back to the late 90s even agreed that he had WMD and something needed to be done about it.

Of-course they turned on him when they needed to construct a false narrative about his " lies ".

Unfortunately, our Country is filled with easilly influenced and easilly manipulated people, who bought their BS hook line and sinker

You're a great example of that
 

Saddam had chemical weapons at one time.
Fact is, none were found during the invasion.

Saddam had no nukes. The story of his buying yellocake from Africa turned out to be false.

Now, instead of (admittedly brutal dictator) Saddam Hussain, Iraq is being taken over by the Islamic nutters who are determined to build a caliphate in Iraq and Syria. Any guesses as to whether they have chemical weapons?
 

You miss the point with that argument.

He kept us from verifying his compliance with UN resolution. After 9/11 it was a big concern to see disposition of the WMD we knew he had previously. Any intelligent person would not discount the possibility he didn't allow verification because maybe he gave it to terrorists, or wanted to keep it himself.
 
Iraq was crawling with UN inspectors before the invasion. What any intelligent person should have seen was that taking him out would lead to a power vacuum, which is exactly what has happened. What any intelligent person could have seen was that attempting to create a democracy in Iraq was a far, far more difficult proposition than it was being promoted as being. Unfortunately, the intelligent people didn't prevail in the decision to invade Iraq.
 
They were not able to do their job properly. I'm sorry if you don't understand their lack of accomplishing their job, because of Saddam's noncompliance.
 
Lord of Planar said:
They were not able to do their job properly. I'm sorry if you don't understand their lack of accomplishing their job, because of Saddam's noncompliance.
Click to expand...

and therefore, the proper response was to take out Saddam Hussain and create a power vacuum with the predictable result we're seeing now.
 
Dittohead not! said:
and therefore, the proper response was to take out Saddam Hussain and create a power vacuum with the predictable result we're seeing now.
Click to expand...
As undesirable as that is, yes. It was the best option.

Remember,

Hindsight is 20-20.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Intelligent people are supposed to have foresight.
Click to expand...
Foresight includes seeing probable and improbable outcomes. To know with certainty what the outcome is going to be would requre time travel, or to be an accurate psychic.

Do you really expect that?
 
I said 'before 2003.' You just proved exactly nothing.

Other than that our country is filled with easily influenced and easily manipulated people who bought the New American Century BS hook line and sinker. And provided a great example.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
I said 'before 2003.' You just proved exactly nothing.

Other than that our country is filled with easily influenced and easily manipulated people who bought the New American Century BS hook line and sinker. And provided a great example.
Click to expand...


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


Sometimes I wonder how so many people could have been so easily manipulated and influenced by Democrat talking points.

To the point where they allowed themselves to be so influenced by Democrat talking points that they traded away any semblance of objectivity for a bunch of false narratives.

And then I remembered this....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/us/politics/05campaign.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

And this.........

Election 2012: Obama re-elected to second term - NY Daily News

And realize Millions and millions of Americans just aren't that bright.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Foresight includes seeing probable and improbable outcomes. To know with certainty what the outcome is going to be would requre time travel, or to be an accurate psychic.

Do you really expect that?
Click to expand...
I expect them to foresee the probable outcomes. What we've seen in Iraq was a probable outcome. Baghdad becoming the center of a democratic nation and friendly to the US, which was to have been greeted as liberators, was a pipe dream of the most unlikely sort.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Foresight includes seeing probable and improbable outcomes. To know with certainty what the outcome is going to be would requre time travel, or to be an accurate psychic.

Do you really expect that?
Click to expand...
No, but I expect plans and implementation of said plans, for both the probable and the improbable outcomes.

Which is impossible when conflicting political positions of politicians who don't really give a damn are the actual guiding force behind the implementation.
 

OK, who do you blame them?

The politicians who held course on going to war, or those who flipped on the issue?
 
Lord of Planar said:
OK, who do you blame them?

The politicians who held course on going to war, or those who flipped on the issue?
Click to expand...
Both.

The course was wrong, and flipping was wrong.
 
Fenton said:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

... (other silly quotes deleted)
Click to expand...

Again, none of which proves that Iraq had WMDs during the 2002-2003 propaganda blitz. Because, in fact, it did not.

Not surprisingly, you failed to demonstrate anything but your ability to post URLs.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

DifferentDrummr said:
Iraq never had WMDs in the first place. And there was more than enough evidence before 2003 to demonstrate that. Plenty of people in government were aware of this; the American-century types at the top just didn't care.
Click to expand...

Yes to the question if Iraq had WMD before the invasion the answer is no.

I also think it can be a intersting question if invading a country is a good way of getting rid of WMD:s? Because Iraq din't have WMD, we knewer know, still the answer seems to be no. Because of all the weapon depots raided and all the conventional weapons ending up in the hands of criminals and terrorists after the invasion.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?


BTW.... I have taken you to task on some other things, but I failed to thank you for this post. I had meant to do so, I just got busy and did not post much near the end of June. In this case, I learned something and stand corrected. Good post. I debate politics to learn; I did learn something here where my impressions were in error.

So I am clear, you did teach me the roots of the NeoCon movement... how it played out in practice, is a completely different discussion for a later day.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Again, none of which proves that Iraq had WMDs during the 2002-2003 propaganda blitz. Because, in fact, it did not.

Not surprisingly, you failed to demonstrate anything but your ability to post URLs.
Click to expand...

It proves that the left manufactured the narrative that " Bush lied " AND it proves that this Country is loaded with easilly manipulated sheeple.

People actually believed that nonsense.
 
Fenton said:
It proves that the left manufactured the narrative that " Bush lied " AND it proves that this Country is loaded with easilly manipulated sheeple.

People actually believed that nonsense.
Click to expand...

"It"

What is this "it"?

Wasn't that a horror movie from the 1950s?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…