There was plenty of information out there casting doubt on the existence of WMD ... the Bush administration chose to ignore it.

 

Don't know if I'd call it plenty. They erred on the side they felt was the safest route for the country at that time. I think history will forgive that. Does Truman take flack for Korea? How many lives were lost there? Johnson and Nixon catch it for Vietnam but Kennedy doesn't. In another 20 or more years Johnson and Nixon might not either.

There was plenty of information out there casting doubt on the existence of WMD ... the Bush administration chose to ignore it.

 

Really? I know there was plenty of propaganda.

 

You act as if you were privy to all of the information that he, the department of defense, and the rest of the world leaders had.

Don't know if I'd call it plenty. They erred on the side they felt was the safest route for the country at that time. I think history will forgive that. Does Truman take flack for Korea? How many lives were lost there? Johnson and Nixon catch it for Vietnam but Kennedy doesn't. In another 20 or more years Johnson and Nixon might not either.

Johnson escalated the war, and Nixon continued it. Kennedy did neither, and may have even pulled out had he lived.

 

It has been reported over the years that Iraqi scientists that had defected told the CIA that the WMD didn't exist. Saddam hadn't used them since before the first Gulf War.

 

We had no proof that WMD existed ... only suppositions.

 

I've always maintained (and there is evidence to support it) that the Bush administration wanted "regime change" in Iraq from the time it took office. In my opinion, they used the fear in the aftermath of 9/11 to help sell the invasion to the American people.

 

I don't see that as erring on the side of caution. As far as I'm concerned, they erred on the side of recklessness.

If the United States invaded every country that had the "capacity", why stop at Iraq?

Why do you think history will be kind to Bush's presidency?

Because when people remove their emotions and bias thinking they will see he wasn't as bad as some people said he was.

Carter is a bitter old man - bottom line. His behavior the past few years is unthinkable for a former president when looked at from a historical perspective.

 

bout the man now from Secret Service agents who worked for him. He played the every-day-man peanut farmer role in public, but it sounds like it was different story behind closed doors.

 

Regardless of his reasons , I applaud President Bush for staying out of the discussion about the current officeholder.

Because when people remove their emotions and bias thinking they will see he wasn't as bad as some people said he was.

Specific issues?

Kanye has apologized to President Bush.

 

 

Of course when Kanye hears President Bush call him "Konway" he might change his mind.

Specific issues?

Aids in Africa for one. He did more for that continent than any previous president. If memory serves me correctly Bush had more minorities in his cabinet than any previous administration. I know it doesn't matter my reasons because they won't change your mind about him. But, let me suggest that people should go behind the rhetoric and do some research.

 

I once thought that John Kennedy was a great president until I did a further study. I believed, as my parents did, that he did a lot for civil rights and I found I was wrong. He wasn't as great as some say he is. It was Lyndon Johnson and Everett Dirksen who passed most if not all of the major civil rights bills of the 1960's.

Johnson escalated the war, and Nixon continued it. Kennedy did neither, and may have even pulled out had he lived.

 

Kennedy did escalated in the sense that he viewed defeating North Vietnam and the advancement of communism as a high priority. Although he felt that South Vietnam should be the ones to do it he did increase US troop presence there. For him to ever believe South Vietnam was going to defeat the North on their own was a pipe dream. Had Kennedy not been killed he would have eventually had no choice but to escalated to the level Johnson did or give up South Vietnam to the North.

We had no proof that WMD existed ... only suppositions.

 

Like I said. Saddam broke numerous UN regulations before the 9/11 attacks even happened. Another interesting point in Bush's book is he states how the UN actually made the decision before 9/11 happened to have Saddam Hussein out of power due to his acts of trying to get WMD's.

 

Everyone thought Saddam had WMD's. Even his top generals believed it! He made everyone believe he did basically so he could use it as a threat. He was bluffing of course. Bush goes over all these points. Just buy the book!!!

Like I said. Saddam broke numerous UN regulations before the 9/11 attacks even happened. Another interesting point in Bush's book is he states how the UN actually made the decision before 9/11 happened to have Saddam Hussein out of power due to his acts of trying to get WMD's.

 

Everyone thought Saddam had WMD's. Even his top generals believed it! He made everyone believe he did basically so he could use it as a threat. He was bluffing of course. Bush goes over all these points. Just buy the book!!!

I am well aware of the WMD issues ... bottom line, any commander-in-chief has the obligation to get it right when he sends our troops to invade a country that didn't attack us. Bush didn't. Period.

 

And ... there is a big difference between working to get Saddam out of power and actually invading the country. Could the former have been achieved through other methods? Perhaps, but I think a sound argument can be made that the "benefits" of the Iraq War weren't worth the costs.

Aids in Africa for one. He did more for that continent than any previous president. If memory serves me correctly Bush had more minorities in his cabinet than any previous administration. I know it doesn't matter my reasons because they won't change your mind about him. But, let me suggest that people should go behind the rhetoric and do some research.

 

I once thought that John Kennedy was a great president until I did a further study. I believed, as my parents did, that he did a lot for civil rights and I found I was wrong. He wasn't as great as some say he is. It was Lyndon Johnson and Everett Dirksen who passed most if not all of the major civil rights bills of the 1960's.

 

Not going to lie NWO, you were one of the last posters on here I thought would be a President Bush fan. :lol:

I am well aware of the WMD issues ... bottom line, any commander-in-chief has the obligation to get it right when he sends our troops to invade a country that didn't attack us. Bush didn't. Period.

 

I am not sure if you have been watching South Park recently but they have a super hero character that they introduced called Captain Hindsight.

Aids in Africa for one. He did more for that continent than any previous president. If memory serves me correctly Bush had more minorities in his cabinet than any previous administration. I know it doesn't matter my reasons because they won't change your mind about him. But, let me suggest that people should go behind the rhetoric and do some research.

 

I beleive he sent more money to help Africa in general than any other president and you are correct about Bush having more minorities in his cabinet. I used that argument numerous times when I would hear people saying he was a racist.