A decision required in an hour or less.

Such as Bill Clinton's decision not to eliminate Bin Laden as a terrorist threat?

LN, many see the above (all true) as rationalizing. While I'm not sure we will ever have true stabilization, there have been positive outcomes nonetheless.

 

However...

 

Many cannot get over the fact that we went into Iraq not simply to overturn a ruthless leader but instead to nip the supposed problem of WMDs. With most believing that a)there were no WMDs and b)it was not the real reason we went in, its tough to justify the "other" positive outcomes.

 

 

 

I don't consider it rationalizing at all and I appreciate the fact that you are willing to acknowledge that there have been some positive outcomes. IBut in addition to the WMDs justification, I remember reading and hearing the things I listed as other justifications for invading Iraq at the time the invasion was announced.

 

I think the people that feel the Presidency was robbed from Gore in 00 and have been anti Bush since then are so blinded by their animosity and betterness (and yes, we have some of those folks on here) that they can't see the forest for the trees. They want to use the no-WMDs situation to jab a stick in Bush's eye so badly that they don't want to see or acknowledge all the possible long term benefits to our invasion of Iraq. They don't want to remember all the other justifications because they rather dwell on the fact that there were no WMDs.

 

And I don't want to re-hash the WMDs debate in this thread, but if you want to search old threads to find my post, I posted a link that reviewed the Commission that investigated the intelligence available at the time and found that there was substantial justification for Bush to conclude there were WMDs in Iraq. As it turned out, either the intel was faulty or Hussein was able to get them out prior to or during the invasion. If the former, its really kind of hard (unless a person is simply close minded and blinded by bitterness) to blame a President that had been in office for less than 2 years for the poor work done by our intel agencies given the fact that developing intel in dictatorship states takes a long time to occur. That responsibility lies with his predecessors (perhaps including his father).

 

If there weren't these justifications, why do people think Bush decided to invade Iraq? And for the love of God, I hope no one says because Hussein attempted to or threatened to kill Bush's father. That's so lame and ridiculous I can't understand how any objective person could even argue it. Was it the need to protect the oil for our country (I'll bet a lot of the people that were making the argument that such was not a valid justification several years ago were recently singing another tune when oil was at $4 a gallon and jobs were being lost and prices raised as a result). Was it because Bush is sometype of imperialistic monster? I'd like to read the support for that conclusion.

 

I think that Bush and his advisors understood how Iraq presented us an opportunity to change the disastrous situation in the middle East. I do agree with those that felt that some of Bush's advisors came into "office" with the desire to remove Hussein. That may sound sinister to some, but to me it sounds like men with deep and vast knowledge of the middle East realized that Hussein was a wacko and dangerous man and realized that the removal of him and the creation of a stable and democratic Iraq could be the thing that could be the element of change in the middle East.

 

Anyway, I digress and I apologize for it. To get back to your point, it is not after the fact rationalization. The positives that are happening in Iraq were some of the justifications announced by the Administration at the time of the invasion.

LN, many see the above (all true) as rationalizing. While I'm not sure we will ever have true stabilization, there have been positive outcomes nonetheless.

 

However...

 

Many cannot get over the fact that we went into Iraq not simply to overturn a ruthless leader but instead to nip the supposed problem of WMDs. With most believing that a)there were no WMDs and b)it was not the real reason we went in, its tough to justify the "other" positive outcomes.

How can you say MOST believed there were no WMD's there when MOST of the intelligence community said they were there? And MOST of congress voted to go in. What MOST are you talking about. I personally believe they were there to a degree. We didn't go in soon enough an they had time to remove them. Now I am not saying they had a couple dozen long range nukes laying around but to think they had nothing is foolish.

How can you say MOST believed there were no WMD's there when MOST of the intelligence community said they were there? And MOST of congress voted to go in. What MOST are you talking about. I personally believe they were there to a degree. We didn't go in soon enough an they had time to remove them. Now I am not saying they had a couple dozen long range nukes laying around but to think they had nothing is foolish.

 

 

For clarification, MOST NOW believe there were no WMDs. I'd guess a faction out there believes that the President and his advisers knew that as well.

I don't consider it rationalizing at all and I appreciate the fact that you are willing to acknowledge that there have been some positive outcomes. IBut in addition to the WMDs justification, I remember reading and hearing the things I listed as other justifications for invading Iraq at the time the invasion was announced.

 

I think the people that feel the Presidency was robbed from Gore in 00 and have been anti Bush since then are so blinded by their animosity and betterness (and yes, we have some of those folks on here) that they can't see the forest for the trees. They want to use the no-WMDs situation to jab a stick in Bush's eye so badly that they don't want to see or acknowledge all the possible long term benefits to our invasion of Iraq. They don't want to remember all the other justifications because they rather dwell on the fact that there were no WMDs.

 

 

 

Most people remember seeing Colin Powell testifying about WMDs and that being the #1 reason for the authorization to go into Iraq.

 

If you polled Americans today, including those who supported the Iraq invasion, the vast majority would say that the reason given for the invasion was the issue of WMD.

 

While I can be very cynical, I'm not convinced President Bush went into this invasion lying to the public. I might think that some of his hawk-ish advisers went in for other reasons but I don't put that same level of cynicism on the President.

 

The general public is now very cynical, though, when it comes to any new "episodes." Its going to be a tough sell.

A decision required in an hour or less.

 

These are all real world scenarios that our next President could have to confront: If China decides to invade Taiwan, I think we may need to make crucial decisions within an hour. If the Russians decide to roll into the capital of Georgia and invade Lithunia and the other former Soviet countries, we may need to make crucial decisions within an hour. If Israel launches missile strikes into Iran and Syria retaliates with an invasion into Israel, we may need to make crucial decisions within an hour. If Pakistan launches an all out invasion on the Kurdish portion of Iraq, we may need to make crucial decisions within an hour. If N. Korea ends up developing nukes for itself or for Iran, Syria or any other country antagonistic towards us, we may need to make crucial decisions within an hour.

 

Frankly, there is a host of scenarios that could require the next President to make crucial foreign policy decisions in a short period of time. If we only are giving the President an hour to make decisions as you suggest on the type of scenarios I've laid out, then I for dang sure want a President that has experience and a well developed knowledge of foreign policy, intelligence and military capabilities and has developed relationships with the leaders of our allies. . I know that you don't want to admit it because McCain has that experience and knowledge and Obama does not, and the acknowlegment of such would cause some previously undecided voters to vote for McCain, but we are living in a very, very scary time in our country's history. Now is not the time to put an inexperienced leader in the Oval office in my opinion.

 

Look, I am not trying and have not tried to belittle Obama. For the 100th time, I agree he is a charismatic, bright and intelligent man. Admittedly, his voting record is too liberal for me, but if I became convinced that his campaign messages espousing a more moderate tone were indicative of how he would lead as a President (which for me would require him to start having a more moderate voting record over the next 4-8 years) AND if he spent the next 4-8 years becoming more involved in foreign policy, intelligence and military matters, I could see myself voting for him down the road. Heck, I voted for Jimmy Carter, so I'm not someone that can't vote for a Democrat. And if these two men were running in a different time in America's history, without all the real world threats to the U.S. (and I'll even admit for argument sake if you want me to, some of which were caused by Bush's mistakes), this issue maybe would not be such a big deal for me. But we have to face what we are dealing with and get past whose fault it is we are dealing with them.