Ford disagreed with Bush on invading Iraq

[Frances Bavier]

Saddam Hussein was deposed as a result of this war. That is "worthwhile," no matter how you spin it. Not saying that, in and of itself, justified the war, but certainly was "worthwhile" in the realm of cause and effect.

 

The removal of Saddam Hussein could have been achieved with F-A-R less force than we have used, at a much lower cost in terms of lives and money expended.

 

I agree that the removal of Hussein was a positive (I have no desire to "spin" it), and yet, even that has resulted in an unexpected outcome. At least, it is not the outcome that the neocons that had Bush's ear predicted. Those same neocons predicted that we would be hailed as liberators, and a democratic government would be welcomed with open arms by the populace of Iraq and could be held up as a beacon for the Middle East. Obviously, that is not the case, nor was either of the true outcomes unforseeable.

 

I don't see Bush's legacy as a President being positive if it is judged on the "elimination" of Hussein, versus the cost of having accomplished it.

 

 

Frances

[leatherneck]

I would have to tweak this, and say that it's in everyone's best interest if Bush gets it right. Like you, I would love to think that none of our soldiers have given their lives in an unworthy cause, but I fear that that is exactly what is happening. In that sense, I see the war in Iraq as being eerily similar to Vietnam.

 

The issue that is important is not how Bush is viewed by historians, but rather, if anything worthwhile is achieved by this war. At this point, the majority of Americans clearly think that is not the case.

 

 

Frances

 

 

I assumed (dangerously) that the historians would rate it as a good move if anything worthwhile is achieved by the war. But that's not always the case. So the first sentence of your second paragraph states what I intended more accurately. Thanks.

 

And I understand your feelings and other people's feeling about Iraq. My original post in this thread addressed how people at the time of the pardon thought it was a terrible move. And its only after a significant time had passed that people realized how smart the pardon was. Lets all hope that in 20-30 years we look back at the Iraq invasion and feel the same way.

[HHSDad]

I assumed (dangerously) that the historians would rate it as a good move if anything worthwhile is achieved by the war. But that's not always the case. So the first sentence of your second paragraph states what I intended more accurately. Thanks.

 

And I understand your feelings and other people's feeling about Iraq. My original post in this thread addressed how people at the time of the pardon thought it was a terrible move. And its only after a significant time had passed that people realized how smart the pardon was. Lets all hope that in 20-30 years we look back at the Iraq invasion and feel the same way.

I'm afraid that by the time we get 30 years down the road, the invasion of Iraq will look like an operation in futility. I says this because I believe in the next 30 years there will be parts of SW Asia that glow in the dark. I fear that the Middle East is doomed to a war that costs millions of lives.