I screwed up, so what of it?

Bush admits Iraq flub
By NEDRA PICKLER

President Bush finishes his speech on the war in Iraq at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., Nov. 30, 2005. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak/File)

WASHINGTON (AP) - President George W. Bush accepted responsibility on Wednesday for going to war with faulty intelligence, but firmly defended a decision that has deeply divided the country. "We cannot and will not leave Iraq until victory is achieved," he said.

See entire story here:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2005/12/14/1352804-ap.html

O.k., if he just admitted that the intelligence was wrong, and accepts responsibility for that, does that make every single one of his defenders and supporters re: this issue now wrong?

What about those defenders whose case did not rely on the accuracy of the intelligence?

If they're defending him without questioning how credible the intelligence is, yet supporting the war, are they worth listening to?

-AC

You're only a good as your advisor's...And advisor's are only human with receiving information also...

Originally posted by debbiejo
And advisor's are only human with receiving information also...

receiving or fabricating, what's the difference right?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If they're defending him without questioning how credible the intelligence is, yet supporting the war, are they worth listening to?

-AC

Yes, because there are plenty of possible reasons for supporting the war that had nothing to do with intelligence claims about weapons capability.

Originally posted by debbiejo
You're only a good as your advisor's...And advisor's are only human with receiving information also...

Haha...That's a good one! 'Blame your friends'...I hear that's a good way to earn respect.

If you are deciding whether or not to go to war, which will result in the deaths of thousands of people, you should check whether your information is correct a thousand times. If that information turns out to be faulty, then you should suffer the same fate as someone who commits manslaughter. Which probably equates to state-condoned murder in the US...

However, if you deliberately lied about the quality of the 'intelligence', what fate should you suffer then...? (Think about it in relation to the ghetto-thug who commits murder as a retaliation to a perceived loss of face...)

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yes, becauwe there are plenty of possible reasons for supporting the war that had nothing to do with intelligence claims about weapons capability.

Yet we know from Scott Ritter & William Pitt (A former UN weapon's Inspector & an expert on the Middle East) that the war was Illegal. In their book, War On Iraq; What Team Bush Doesnt Want You To Know, there’s no denying the logic and the expertise of its authors' arguments.

Had the war in Iraq ensued just after the US backlash on the Kuwaiti affair, then yes, it would have avoided all the controversy that arose after 9/11's "War on Terror".

In the '80's Saddam was being a threat to his own people, just as late as 1989 when he commited atrocities. Yet The defense department led by Donald Rumsfeld refused to, despite the atrocities outlined in the report, vote in favor of a United Nations resolution calling for an inquiry into Iraq's treatment of its population and possibly indicting Hussein for war crimes and human rights abuses.

Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, The US joined to free Kuwait by the opressor and also called on the Shiites to uprise against Saddam with the promise that they would be freed and have Saddam toppled.

Then what happened ? They didnt help them and left the Shiites to face the music of Hussein when they betrayed them.

They had ample reasons beack then. This time round they hardly had anything leaving the UN and the rest of the world to be WTF ? Why now and not then ? What a bunch of beaurocrats !

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

I will be so glad when he is out of office only so I dont have to see anymore of these whining threads.

you dont have to read them you know 😗

There again, would you REALLY trust a story like this when it comes from a person named Nedra Pickler? 😉

Originally posted by Jedi Priestess
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

I will be so glad when he is out of office only so I dont have to see anymore of these whining threads.

Hahaha, as long as there are conflicting sides then people will always be bitching about who is in power.

-AC

Originally posted by GCG
Yet we know from Scott Ritter & William Pitt (A former UN weapon's Inspector & an expert on the Middle East) that the war was Illegal. In their book, War On Iraq; What Team Bush Doesnt Want You To Know, there’s no denying the logic and the expertise of its authors' arguments.

Had the war in Iraq ensued just after the US backlash on the Kuwaiti affair, then yes, it would have avoided all the controversy that arose after 9/11's "War on Terror".

In the '80's Saddam was being a threat to his own people, just as late as 1989 when he commited atrocities. Yet The defense department led by Donald Rumsfeld refused to, despite the atrocities outlined in the report, vote in favor of a United Nations resolution calling for an inquiry into Iraq's treatment of its population and possibly indicting Hussein for war crimes and human rights abuses.

Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, The US joined to free Kuwait by the opressor and also called on the Shiites to uprise against Saddam with the promise that they would be freed and have Saddam toppled.

Then what happened ? They didnt help them and left the Shiites to face the music of Hussein when they betrayed them.

They had ample reasons beack then. This time round they hardly had anything leaving the UN and the rest of the world to be WTF ? Why now and not then ? What a bunch of beaurocrats !

Well, I am sorry, but I think it is very broad to say their logic about the illegality cannot be denied, because there is certainly a case to be made that UN resolutions against the Iraqis made the war legal. The rest of your post is about morality, which is nothing to do with legality, but there are plenty of moral arguments that can be made for the war also- just ask the Kurds.

When you consider that no country was opposing the war on the grounds of intelligence before it happened (conceding that the Iraqis probably had the weapons but simply differing on the means of dealing with that), then trying to make everything hinge on the intelligence is a bit of a non sequitur.

Face it- the intelligence was only used as a botched attempt to try and sell the war to the people. It was a cock up, but it wasn't actually the issue at hand.

Ush has a point, altho I don't consider the other reasons as valid (Personal opinion) There are lots of other reasons why ppl could be in favor of the war.

actually, they didn't have a good reason back then. The Kuwaiti royal family hired an actress to testify before congress and fabricated facts, saying they were a democracy despite being an autocratic kingdom. We went to war in Iraq in the name of democracy. Kuwait has yet to hold an election or to give women any freedoms.

in case anyone was wondering, the actress i speak of spread the thing about iraqis dumping babies out of incubators. She was employed by the PR firm of Hill and Knowlton. for those of you like kidrock or feceman who think this is a bunch of liberal propoganda, here's a conservative source for ya. http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7164

I was talking about the second gulf war

I was saying that before, they had ample reasons to topple him. This time round they gave inexistant reasons, while we might just speculate about what other unofficial reasons may have been concealed by deception.

Originally posted by PVS
you dont have to read them you know 😗

true that, but unfortunately until razmataz turns the ignore thread function back on, Im still stuck looking at the titles which is bad enough 😖

I just dont understand how you all can argue this for over a year now. Doesnt it get old?

If it did ever get old, it would be akin to an acceptance of Bush's actions. So, I hope that never comes to pass.

It is vital that the outrage of so many people continues unabated until these atrocities cease.