[ZackS]

So I was checking my email and I got a message with about 300 fw: tags in he subject. I rolled my eyes, about to delete but then noticed that it was from one of my friends who very rarely sends out regular emails and never before a stupid chain one. So I open it up, read, smile and think: "Hey, this ought to light a firecracker right inside the asses of all those Bush apologists over at MacNN!" Here's the text contained in the email.

In his memoirs, "A World Transformed," written five years ago, George Bush, Senior, wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War.

"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles.

Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

If only his son could read.

FLAME ON!

[mr. natural]

Been there, done that.

You're a smart guy, Zach, why don't you try this thread for a more meaty meal.

[ZackS]

I've searched the forum to make sure it wasn't done before and I didn't find anything. Bush's foreign policy is as asinine as his domestic. Let's leave the threads separate.

[zigzag]

That kinda reminds me of the time a reporter asked Charles Barkley about a statement he had allegedly made. Barkley denied it. The reporter pointed out that it had come directly from Barkley's own autobiography, to which Barkley replied "I was misquoted."

[MacGorilla]

This has been said before in many ways ands the general consensus here is that the Iraq job is being botched. Nothing new here.

[Uday's Carcass]

that was all fine and dandy back before 9/11. But that event changed everything, and the security concerns of the United States can no longer rely on the appeasement and puke pacifism of the United Nations. I'm sure Bush Sr. would agree to that.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
that was all fine and dandy back before 9/11. But that event changed everything, and the security concerns of the United States can no longer rely on the appeasement and puke pacifism of the United Nations. I'm sure Bush Sr. would agree to that.

Actually, if you'll recall, Bush Sr. was speaking out AGAINST invading Iraq without UN backing or a valid coalition including other Arabs. He said within a week or so of the invasion when he was a paid public speaker at an event.

I'm sure you better stop thinking you're sure what Bush sr. thinks just because you wish it so.

[mr. natural]

This quote by G.H.W. Bush may not have been used as a thread starter in and of itself, but I posted the exact same quote on Sept. 20th in a thread about Iraq.

Meanwhile the real perversion is happening right here in our own backyard, as linked to above (shameless plug, i know), but go ahead and beat a dead horse.

[Uday's Carcass]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Actually, if you'll recall, Bush Sr. was speaking out AGAINST invading Iraq without UN backing or a valid coalition including other Arabs. He said within a week or so of the invasion when he was a paid public speaker at an event.

I'm sure you better stop thinking you're sure what Bush sr. thinks just because you wish it so.

you're stretching what I said. Sure, Bush Sr. was opposed to an attack without a UN mandate. However, 9/11 has changed the security situation and a new security and foreign policy stance has since formed in that day's terrible wake. No doubt he'd agree to that, even if he was against Gulf War Two.

[moki]

Originally posted by ZackS:
In his memoirs, "A World Transformed," written five years ago, George Bush, Senior, wrote the following to explain why he didn't go after Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War.

"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles.

Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

Clearly Bush the elder was a wise man. Most of what he noted has indeed come to pass, though the final chapter remains to be written.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
you're stretching what I said. Sure, Bush Sr. was opposed to an attack without a UN mandate. However, 9/11 has changed the security situation and a new security and foreign policy stance has since formed in that day's terrible wake. No doubt he'd agree to that, even if he was against Gulf War Two.

Bush Sr.'s statements mean that there should be a *complete* plan before... rather than get stuck in the situation with no way out.

Something his son did ignore. Bush invaded, yet doesn't have the cash to rebuild as he says will be done. So he goes begging for money. He didn't have a plan to Capture Saddam until in the country. To late. Rebuilding plans? Still changing.


Bush Sr. predicted today a decade ago. Bush Sr. knew one thing better than any president. Unless you are 100% positive, wait. Bush Jr. didn't listen.

Bush went in, knowing what the costs were, but didn't have the money secured (Despite even Republicans, and the UN asking where the rebuilding money would come from).

The costs were well known before we crossed the border. Bush knew rebuilding would cost more than he had... but he didn't bother securing money until he was inside.

Making the US look like fools, putting countries on the line, increasing instability in a volitile region (Al Queda activity according to terrorism experts is at an all time high in Iraq, with no end in site.... thanks to a complete lack of law in regions where troops are lacking).

Bush Sr. knew you need a complete plan, and can't adlib a war. Bush Jr. is learning the hard way.

This is like buying a new house the day you find out your boss is going to fire you tomorrow. It's irresponsible. Especially when you know what's going to happen in advance.

[Spliffdaddy]