George Bush and the War in Iraq

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Turtlecream
Turtlecream

226

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 Turtlecream
Member since 2009 • 226 Posts

As far as I can remember, when the events of 9/11 occurred, the overwhelming majority of the entire nation in addition to Congress supported George Bush's request to go to war. People believed that, like Pearl Harbor, the United States should retaliate since we were attacked. When it was known that George Bush wanted to go to war, his approval rating was extremely high (almost 90%, right).

Knowing all this, why is it that so many people specifically blame George Bush and label him as a horrendous President, even though he clearly did what the nation wanted him to do? Am I missing something, or did I get something wrong?

Avatar image for psychobrew
psychobrew

8888

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#2 psychobrew
Member since 2008 • 8888 Posts
You're missing the reason why the electoral college exists.
Avatar image for Maniacc1
Maniacc1

5354

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#3 Maniacc1
Member since 2006 • 5354 Posts
Americans wanted retaliation against Al Qaeda, who conducted acts of terror on 9/11, you're right. But what does that have to do with the Iraq War?
Avatar image for l4dak47
l4dak47

6838

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#4 l4dak47
Member since 2009 • 6838 Posts
The general population always like the idea of going to war and punishing our enemies. They never think about the long-term consequences of war. When those consequences happen, they always blame the President, when in reality they should be blaming themselves.
Avatar image for Wolls
Wolls

19119

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#5 Wolls
Member since 2005 • 19119 Posts
I think that would support to go the war in Afghanistan, but it was the war in Iraq that more people are pissed about cos it seems to be more about oil than nation security. I could be wrong but i dont think i am.
Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
HoolaHoopMan

14724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 HoolaHoopMan
Member since 2009 • 14724 Posts
Perhaps because Iraq was not involved in 9/11 and Bush pushed faulty intelligence forward in order to start a war. That might be a reason to dislike him, just saying.
Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#7 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts
A) I blame congress for caving in.. IN to both the Patrioit Act and Iraq War.. Something I am critical of Obama over.. B) I hold more blame towards the Bush adminstration becuase they got contridictory reports that they conviently ignored, such reports were never presented within congress..
Avatar image for CosmicZombie
CosmicZombie

1585

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 CosmicZombie
Member since 2010 • 1585 Posts

You dont spell Al Qaeda like that

Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
hartsickdiscipl

14787

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#9 hartsickdiscipl
Member since 2003 • 14787 Posts

I think most people took issue with the war in Iraq, not the military action targeted directly at Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The war in Iraq was a completely different beast. Bush and his administration used the 9/11 attacks and the patriotic fervor that it sparked in the US as an excuse to invade Iraq as well.

Avatar image for UT_Wrestler
UT_Wrestler

16426

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#10 UT_Wrestler
Member since 2004 • 16426 Posts
It's amazing how many democrats in congress act like they "opposed" the war in Iraq when they voted to authorize it; Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden both voted to invade Iraq when they were in the senate, and now they act like it was all Bush's fault.
Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#11 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

It's amazing how many democrats in congress act like they "opposed" the war in Iraq when they voted to authorize it; Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden both voted to invade Iraq when they were in the senate, and now they act like it was all Bush's fault.UT_Wrestler

Though there is some definite criticism that can be leveled towards congress.. Its not a fitting criticsm in comparison to the Bush Adminstration.. They recieved reports that contridcted their percieved views which they conviently ignored.. These contridictory reports and claims that threw doubt into the mix was erraidcated in the version that was put forward during congress..

Avatar image for UT_Wrestler
UT_Wrestler

16426

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#12 UT_Wrestler
Member since 2004 • 16426 Posts

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]It's amazing how many democrats in congress act like they "opposed" the war in Iraq when they voted to authorize it; Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden both voted to invade Iraq when they were in the senate, and now they act like it was all Bush's fault.sSubZerOo

Though there is some definite criticism that can be leveled towards congress.. Its not a fitting criticsm in comparison to the Bush Adminstration.. They recieved reports that contridcted their percieved views which they conviently ignored.. These contridictoryreports and claims that threw doubt into the mix was all but erraidcated in the version that was put forward during congress..

This is what the democrats in congress want you to believe; they're not real good about taking responsibility for their own actions.
Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#13 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]It's amazing how many democrats in congress act like they "opposed" the war in Iraq when they voted to authorize it; Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden both voted to invade Iraq when they were in the senate, and now they act like it was all Bush's fault.UT_Wrestler

Though there is some definite criticism that can be leveled towards congress.. Its not a fitting criticsm in comparison to the Bush Adminstration.. They recieved reports that contridcted their percieved views which they conviently ignored.. These contridictoryreports and claims that threw doubt into the mix was all but erraidcated in the version that was put forward during congress..

This is what the democrats in congress want you to believe; they're not real good about taking responsibility for their own actions.

:| No where did I say that congress on either side were blameless.. But this doesn't some how contridict the point they were fed bad information and made completely unaware of contridictory reports intil after the vote..

Avatar image for SquatsAreAwesom
SquatsAreAwesom

1678

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 SquatsAreAwesom
Member since 2009 • 1678 Posts

As far as I can remember, when the events of 9/11 occurred, the overwhelming majority of the entire nation in addition to Congress supported George Bush's request to go to war. People believed that, like Pearl Harbor, the United States should retaliate since we were attacked. When it was known that George Bush wanted to go to war, his approval rating was extremely high (almost 90%, right).

Knowing all this, why is it that so many people specifically blame George Bush and label him as a horrendous President, even though he clearly did what the nation wanted him to do? Am I missing something, or did I get something wrong?

Turtlecream

Because we all realized it was an inception planted in our minds by an evangelically inspired loony toon.

Imagine if someone burned your house with your family in it. Knowing that you had a killer's instrinct to seek revenge, the police chief tips you off that it was done at the hands of a local street gang. You go and pop that leader and his offcers in the head. Now not only are you in prision but you have an entire gang looking to kill you now. Still, you should be happy, right? Sure. However that's when you overhear the correctional officers mention that the police chief had lied to you. He just wanted you to take care of a gang leader he had been trying to put away his entire career on the force.

Avatar image for UT_Wrestler
UT_Wrestler

16426

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#15 UT_Wrestler
Member since 2004 • 16426 Posts

I don't know where you're getting this nonsense from, they had the same intelligence as the whitehouse when they voted. If it were ever actually proven that the Bush administration was actually holding back intelligence to manipulate the vote, he would have been impeached immediately.

Avatar image for Plzhelpmelearn
Plzhelpmelearn

1270

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 Plzhelpmelearn
Member since 2010 • 1270 Posts

The war in Iraq was started under the pretext that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction. This turned out to be incorrect and everyone blames Bush for not knowing the intelligence was incorrect. In reality it was as much Hussein's fault as anyones because he continually denied weapons inspectors proper access into his facilities as was mandated after Desert Storm. This forced the US to make the decision solely on intelligence, which always carries a certain amount of risk, instead of hard facts.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#17 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

I don't know where you're getting this nonsense from, they had the same intelligence as the whitehouse when they voted. If it were ever actually proven that the Bush administration was actually holding back intelligence to manipulate the vote, he would have been impeached immediately.

UT_Wrestler

They have already been numerosu stories in which the Bush adminstration ignored reports that contridicted their perceptions.. This is nothing new :|, I am not defending the democrats in this because if I were a representative i would have still voted no even if he were developing WMD's.

Avatar image for dercoo
dercoo

12555

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 dercoo
Member since 2006 • 12555 Posts

There really should have only been 1 Iraq war, but we ended the 1st war before it was finished (and the mad man hanged).

Avatar image for UT_Wrestler
UT_Wrestler

16426

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#19 UT_Wrestler
Member since 2004 • 16426 Posts

The war in Iraq was started under the pretext that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction. This turned out to be incorrect and everyone blames Bush for not knowing the intelligence was incorrect. In reality it was as much Hussein's fault as anyones because he continually denied weapons inspectors proper access into his facilities as was mandated after Desert Storm.

Plzhelpmelearn
That was the other problem; he was willfully breaking UN treaties and should have been ousted just for that, aside from whether or not he actually had WMDs. It's really sad how 2 of our biggest allies in the middle east, Hussein and Bin Laden, turned into our biggest enemies.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180120

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180120 Posts
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]It's amazing how many democrats in congress act like they "opposed" the war in Iraq when they voted to authorize it; Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden both voted to invade Iraq when they were in the senate, and now they act like it was all Bush's fault.UT_Wrestler

Though there is some definite criticism that can be leveled towards congress.. Its not a fitting criticsm in comparison to the Bush Adminstration.. They recieved reports that contridcted their percieved views which they conviently ignored.. These contridictoryreports and claims that threw doubt into the mix was all but erraidcated in the version that was put forward during congress..

This is what the democrats in congress want you to believe; they're not real good about taking responsibility for their own actions.

It was the truth. They voted with the information Bush wanted them to have....
Avatar image for UT_Wrestler
UT_Wrestler

16426

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#21 UT_Wrestler
Member since 2004 • 16426 Posts
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]

I don't know where you're getting this nonsense from, they had the same intelligence as the whitehouse when they voted. If it were ever actually proven that the Bush administration was actually holding back intelligence to manipulate the vote, he would have been impeached immediately.

They have already been numerosu stories in which the Bush adminstration ignored reports that contridicted their perceptions.. This is nothing new :|, I am not defending the democrats in this because if I were a representative i would have still voted no even if he were developing WMD's.

But what you're trying to say the administration did is blatantly illegal and is a very impeachable offense; so if there was any substance to these "stories", then Bush wouldn't have even made it to the end of his first term.
Avatar image for UT_Wrestler
UT_Wrestler

16426

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#22 UT_Wrestler
Member since 2004 • 16426 Posts

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Though there is some definite criticism that can be leveled towards congress.. Its not a fitting criticsm in comparison to the Bush Adminstration.. They recieved reports that contridcted their percieved views which they conviently ignored.. These contridictoryreports and claims that threw doubt into the mix was all but erraidcated in the version that was put forward during congress..

LJS9502_basic

This is what the democrats in congress want you to believe; they're not real good about taking responsibility for their own actions.

It was the truth. They voted with the information Bush wanted them to have....

And once again you guys are only believing what they want you to believe; if it were ever proven he actually held back intelligence to manipulate a congressional vote, he'd have been impeached; and since that never happened, this info you believe is nothing more than a 'story'.

Avatar image for EmpCom
EmpCom

3451

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 EmpCom
Member since 2005 • 3451 Posts
Because the average american thinks that the us military is some sort of super army that can smash anything in its path , then the bodybags start coming home and reality sets in
Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
hartsickdiscipl

14787

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#24 hartsickdiscipl
Member since 2003 • 14787 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] This is what the democrats in congress want you to believe; they're not real good about taking responsibility for their own actions.UT_Wrestler

It was the truth. They voted with the information Bush wanted them to have....

And once again you guys are only believing what they want you to believe; if it were ever proven he actually held back intelligence to manipulate a congressional vote, he'd have been impeached; and since that never happened, this info you believe is nothing more than a 'story'.

In the legal world, what you're saying is probably true. But in the real world, politicians get away with murder every day.

Avatar image for UT_Wrestler
UT_Wrestler

16426

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 0

#25 UT_Wrestler
Member since 2004 • 16426 Posts
[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"]

It was the truth. They voted with the information Bush wanted them to have....LJS9502_basic
And once again you guys are only believing what they want you to believe; if it were ever proven he actually held back intelligence to manipulate a congressional vote, he'd have been impeached; and since that never happened, this info you believe is nothing more than a 'story'.

In the legal world, what you're saying is probably true. But in the real world, politicians get away with murder every day.

Manipulating information to start a war is a MAJOR offense, presidents have been impeached for far less.
Avatar image for hartsickdiscipl
hartsickdiscipl

14787

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#26 hartsickdiscipl
Member since 2003 • 14787 Posts

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] And once again you guys are only believing what they want you to believe; if it were ever proven he actually held back intelligence to manipulate a congressional vote, he'd have been impeached; and since that never happened, this info you believe is nothing more than a 'story'.

UT_Wrestler

In the legal world, what you're saying is probably true. But in the real world, politicians get away with murder every day.

Manipulating information to start a war is a MAJOR offense, presidents have been impeached for far less.

Only if the guys doing the impeaching aren't on your side or in your pocket to start with.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#27 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="UT_Wrestler"] And once again you guys are only believing what they want you to believe; if it were ever proven he actually held back intelligence to manipulate a congressional vote, he'd have been impeached; and since that never happened, this info you believe is nothing more than a 'story'.

UT_Wrestler

In the legal world, what you're saying is probably true. But in the real world, politicians get away with murder every day.

Manipulating information to start a war is a MAJOR offense, presidents have been impeached for far less.

Blame a spineless democrat party if anything.. But I honestly think they were part of the problem as well.. They accepted teh Patriot Act in passing it, even though the majority have been quoted as never reading the full act.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180120

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180120 Posts

And once again you guys are only believing what they want you to believe; if it were ever proven he actually held back intelligence to manipulate a congressional vote, he'd have been impeached; and since that never happened, this info you believe is nothing more than a 'story'.

UT_Wrestler

No I'm not believing what I want to believe. I believe the facts that were presented. As to impeachment...at the time you may recall the Republicans had control....so it wasn't going to happen.

Avatar image for sogni_belli
sogni_belli

950

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 sogni_belli
Member since 2010 • 950 Posts

It's amazing how many democrats in congress act like they "opposed" the war in Iraq when they voted to authorize it; Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden both voted to invade Iraq when they were in the senate, and now they act like it was all Bush's fault.UT_Wrestler

You chose the wrong Democrats to list. Although many Democrats backed away from their "yes" votes to authorize military action, Clinton and Biden stood fully behind their "yes" votes. Clinton refused to go back on her vote, even when her campaign advisors counseled her to do so. This was one of the issues which cost her the Democratic base during the '08 Democratic primaries/caucuses. In the end, her husband finessed it with his WA Post op-ed piece, in which he defined Hillary's argument (support the war vote but oppose the execution of the war and its aftermath). The American public, however, did not buy the argument and rejected her presidential bid.

Joe Biden, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chose the same route as Clinton. It didn't work for him either.

You have a valid point about Dems backing away from their "yes" votes, but you chose the wrong individuals to illustrate the point. Check your facts.

Avatar image for princeofshapeir
princeofshapeir

16652

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#30 princeofshapeir
Member since 2006 • 16652 Posts

From what I can discern from the TC's post, he is confusing the Iraq War with the Afghanistan War, which is not unsurprising, considering the media misinformation regarding the two invasions to this day.

First, the September 11, 2001 attacks prompted the Bush administration to demand that the Taliban, who was suspected of harboring Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, to hand him over. The Taliban refused, and we invaded Afghanistan within a few months. This was in 2002.

The Iraq War began in 2003. The initial reason for the war was that Saddam Hussain was harboring Weapons of Mass Destruction in his country, according to an unnamed intelligence report that the administration never bothered to show to the public or congress. Presenting a summarized version of this report to the Republican-majority congress while playing on the fears the country still faced after 9/11, not to mention the presence of corporate interests in another large-scale war, Bush easily won congressional approval to invade Iraq. The backing of the public was not at all surprising considering the expert role the media played in being pressured by the administration into using the president's "intelligence sources" as proof that Iraq posed a genuine threat to the United States.

The invasion of Iraq and the push of U.S. forces into Baghdad was unprecedented and devastating to the city (part of the infamous "Shock and Awe" campaign, echoing the German Blitzkrieg used in World War II). Fighter planes dropped bombs on the city for nights, while the military stormed the capital and Saddam's Republican Palace. Thousands were dead following the initial invasion (an estimated 450,000 Iraqis are presumed dead since the 2003 invasion - these are official U.S. estimates). After a few months, fighting seemed to have died down, Saddam was in hiding, and his government in tatters. The Republican Palace was transformed into a sort of extravagant hotel for U.S. higher-ups and reporters. Now that Saddam was out of power, the search for weapons of mass destruction would be underway.

They were never found. To this day, neither the U.S. military nor U.N. weapon inspectors have found any nuclear or biochemical weapons that would pose a threat to the United States or its allies. The Iraqi weapons program was, in fact, officially disbanded in 1991 after the Gulf War. Another part of the Bush Administration's rationale for the Iraq War was that Saddam held a link to al Qaeda operatives - this was unfounded. No significant link was ever discovered between Hussein and al Qaeda.

The Administration realized that its "intelligence" regarding WMDs was facing scrutiny and questioning. They immediately abandoned it as the rationale for the war and contended that they had invaded "to free the Iraqi people". The war was codenamed "Operation Iraqi Freedom". The irony in this was astounding - hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians had been killed as a result of the U.S. invasion, the country's government and infrastructure lay in shambles, the collapse of Hussein's Ba'athist regime prompted an insurgency of Shia militant groups, and to this day true stability in Iraq has yet to be achieved. The truth is that Iraq before the war was a legitimately better place for the Iraqi people, despite being ruled by Saddam Hussein; women were given equal opportunity, the quality of education was remarkably high, the impact of American culture could be visibly felt, and the standard of living of the average Iraqi was higher than it currently is now.

The fact about the Iraq War is that it did not benefit the American people or the Iraqi people. Those who truly benefitted were George W. Bush and his administration, who profitted from the war, as did the weapons industry. The invasion of Iraq and the destruction of a once relatively peaceful and prosperous city has made our country less secure and added to the rhetoric of terrorist groups across the world. What it all boils down to is this: Bush lied to the American people and Congress regarding the reasons for invading Iraq. U.N. reports confirm that Iraq disbanded its weapons program in 1991, while Bush proclaimed that he had intelligence reports that stated the opposite. The fact that he never released these reports to the public or substantiated the source, and that we never found WMDs in Iraq since we invaded in 2003, is more than enough proof to prove that he lied and is thus liable for criminal prosecution.

We should hang our heads in shame for what our government did to Iraq and its terrible expenditure of American lives. More than 3,000 American soldiers died in the Iraq War since 2003 - this number is greater than the amount of Americans killed in the 9/11 attacks. The lies and the realities surrounding the war are a derision and mockery of the values that the United States government should stand for.