The President's biggest regret

For my part, I'm sorry I allowed myself to get personal. The way I was raised, if someone talks in a disrespectful way about someone you love, then you react in a way where that person won't do it again.

Looking back with the 20/20 of hindsight, I realize Bill Huffman didn't mean it in the way I took it, and I want to say "I'm sorry" to him.

Bill....I have great respect for you as a person, as well as an extremely helpful contributor to this board, and I'm sorry we had this misunderstanding.

Let's agree to disagree about political issues?

 

I think that the US was let down on Iraq and the same is going on in Afghanistan. Some European Nations have deployed their troops in Afghanistan with rules of engagement and in zones that makes their presence symbolic at best.

The Dutch are currently fighting alongside Australian troops, but where are the Germans and French? I do not think that the Bush Administration can be blames for the European lack of moral fiber. If Bush can be blamed, then so can Tony Blair, John Howard, the former Australian Prime Minister as well as the leader of every other country that has troops in the firing line, such as Canada.

These leaders have not been able to persuade the Europeans as well. The Europeans do not make their foreign policy on the grounds that they like the US President. They make it based on their own interests. They are happy to let the US and others to do the heavy lifting. This does not mean that the heavy lifting is not necessary, just that everybody is not sharing the load. It remains to be seen if this will change.

On Iraq

Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction eg gassing the Kurds;

He intentionally wished to create the belief that he may have weapons of mass destruction. Why otherwise would he refuse to co-operate with US weapons inspections?

He had a history of extreme violence and adopting an anti western aggressive stance;

There was no dissenting intelligence service in any country about the fact that he most likely was developing or had developed weapons of mass destruction. There was an opportunity to state otherwise to the world via the UN forum. Nobody did, they just argued about the response.

Did some of the countries arguing about the response, trade with Iraq? France and Russia certainly did. You can make your own judgement about whether they would act in own self interest to the detriment of the rest of the world. Russia has proved that beyond doubt recently I would think.

There is no dispute after the event and even now that Hussein was intent upon acquiring weapons of mass destruction, only whether he had achieved this goal or not. He had tried to develop, for example, an artillery piece that could deliver a nuclear projectile. The Israelis stopped that. Did anybody criticise the Israelis for that? Not a word was mentioned.

Should Bush and the rest who went into Iraq with him waited until the weapons were obvious and deployed ? How would diplomacy have worked with Russia and France backing Iraq? Perhaps it might be like the present situation in Iran? Diplomacy hasn't worked there yet, even with all the European support. Lets see what happens there now.

Under the Bush doctrine, has the USA been successfully attacked by a terrorist organization? Do people really think that the terrorists would stop trying?

To say that Bush acted unilaterally is insulting to those nations who have their soldiers returned in body bags from Afghanistan and Iraq. Admittedly, the US has suffered the most, but it is not alone.

It has been some time since I wore the jungle greens, but as I understand military law, enemy out of uniform can be summarily shot after a drumhead courtmartial before an Officer. The best example can be found with the US execution of enemy soldiers dressed in US military police uniforms in the battle of the Bulge. All were shot after court martial.

Why should then guerrilla forces in Afghanistan and Iraq be any different?

In respect of US domestic politics, you guys know best, I have no opinion. Internationally, I rate him a non failure. If he was, then he had plenty of company.

 

I agree with Chip on his views about a Political Topics sub-forum on a distance learning discussion forum (and the same might be said for Off-Topics). Political discussions by their very nature create divisions between otherwise reasonably intelligent people because of the way in which people cling to and defend their long-held and cherished belief systems. Thus, for example, a liberal might believe that Bush is an evil man who ordered up fake intelligence in order to declare war on Iraq and a conservative might believe that Bush is a good Christian who was deceived by evil underlings in the State Department, but the fact of the matter is that the Government Printing Office will not likely have the original historical source materials published for another 25 years or so and hence neither side will have absolute proof for their position for quite awhile (and some of us might not even be alive when the verdict of history upon Mr. Bush is finally handed down). Verdicts of history, by their very nature, must wait a generation or so for the partisan passions to cool down a bit. The point of having a distance learning discussion board should be to help newbies find good distance learning programs offering the degrees they want and need and to help them avoid the degree mills. Shoving swords down each other's throats over political differences doesn't really advance that goal.

 

Thank you for the kind words, Bruce. Sorry that my comment was unclear, I simply meant to say that I thought that if we took a deep breath, relaxed, and contemplated/enjoyed what is really important in our life then the political disagreements would hopefully fall into a level of importance much lower than what it seemed at the time.

Regarding agreeing to disagree on the political issues, I have learned over the years that I need to forgive myself when I have come to an inaccurate conclusion. Therefore, it is only fair that I look past it when my friends have come to their own wrong conclusions.

 

History will judge Bushie as a drunkard and doper who fried his mind and made irrational decisions again and again. He, and his ilk, have literally bankrupted the US economy over the past eight years. He initiated an invasion without a single legitimate reason based on his friends' (who are benefiting mightily) wishes. If you think Bush ran the show, you have seriously overlooked Chaney and gang.

I think Obama's first act as President should be to apologize to the world for Bush's megalomania and then have Bush tried before the World Court for crimes against humanity.

Bush created the civil war in Iraq by removing the lid that was keeping the country from boiling over - no matter how rough the conditions were, Hussein was the lid. Now that Bush has wrecked the Iraqi kitchen by exploding a pressure cooker, he wants to leave the mess to those he assaulted. "Sorry, but I have had enough of the mess I made - you deal with it" Bush.

We will have to live with the repercussions of his actions for decades. And people wonder why the US is loathed in many places around the world.


j.

 

You should really seek counseling.

 

Perhaps you should take some of your own advice, Bruce. Denial is a serious condition.

Sometimes I am astounded by political Pollyannas.

Here's a thought for you: I have been a life-long republican. Add that into the mix. That's for 42 years now. Because of Bush's incompetence and all the good old boy networks that have a grip on McCain's cojones, I could no longer support my party's presidential candidate. He would have led us into WWIII, if we are not already well embroiled in it because of the current incumbent.

Bush has been out of control and involved the US in a double-front war against entities that defy boundaries, place and time. Then money spent on this boondoggle of a war would be far better used here at home. Let alone the loss of lives we have suffered because of his folly.


j.

 

Well Jim, in my opinion, someone who really believes that the President of the United States should abandon US sovereignty by allowing ANY of their citizens to be tried by the World Court, never mind the prior President, has something wrong with them.

 

Now that Obama's been elected, the European elites are ecstatic. But that doesn't mean that Europe intends to return to a world leadership role. (Assuming that it was equipped to do it.) It means that they think that the US is going to become like them and behave like they do.

My worry is that they are right. So I'm not sure if the world can expect to see the United States doing very much 'heavy lifting' in the future. Given the fact that the new American administration was elected on an anti-war platform and given the deep financial crisis, there's not going to be very much Washington interest in military adventures.

So the bad-actors of the world will essentially get a green-light, knowing that US troops won't be confronting them. (And it's hard to imagine who will lead a response if we don't.) The US will join the Europeans in calling for negotiations, and if compromising our own principles doesn't receive a response, we will get tough and issue a strongly worded condemnation. Meanwhile Iran will conduct its nuclear weapons tests, Israel and Taiwan will be on their own, and Europe will be ever more dependent on its Russian energy imports.

The world has condemned the US for "hegemony" and for acting like a "cowboy". Well, now we're going to see how everyone likes it when we don't. So when the shit hits the fan and the next bloody confrontation looms, it won't do any good to ask "Where are the Americans?"

We won't be coming.

 

Gee, that would be a really good precedent for any incoming president to have the outgoing president put on trial over differences in policy. Can one imagine any sane individual even wanting to become president if he/she knew that his/her successor is very likely going to put him/her on trial at the expiration of his/her term of office?

 

The French had a vested interest in Sadam being retained in Iraq. They had close relationships wih him for thirty years. They built a nuclear reactor for him which was destroyed by an Israeli air attack. I wonder why the Israelis attacked the nuclear reactor? He was only going to use it for peace!!! Yeah sure!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France%E2%80%93Iraq_relations

The Russians had supplied him with military weaponry for years and had conituned to do so despite the so called sanctions. They were never going to support the US.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/dastych022706.htm

He had attempted to obtain a supergun for the delivery of weapons of mass destruction. Mossad killed the developer of the gun.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/other/supergun.htm

The evidence is clear that Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction and was attempting to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Diplomacy was never going to work with the French and Russians working against it. The option was then either attack him or leave him to get on with it. The option that the world wanted the least is that the Hussein attaining a nuclear weapon. Without US intervention, that was a highly probable outcome.
Perhaps the management of the war is open to debate, but the war itself was most likely inevitable.

A "parallel universe" exists with Iran. What do people think will happen with Iran? Diplomacy has not panned out. Where to now? More diplomacy? Sooner or later, the hard option has to be considered or a nuclear armed Iran will be a reality. If it isn't considered, the nuclear reality can swim across the Atlantic to the US and probably will. I can assure you the French and Russians won't be there to support any intervention in Iran , regardless who is in the Whitehouse.

The Bush Administration has had probably the toughest foreign policy situation for years. Hyperbole aside, I don't think that this is going to get any easier. People don't want to put too much expectation on the new President.

Charisma, for example, would not have changed a thirty year policy by France. It was making the bucks big time in Iraq, charisma was not going to overpower the financial incentive. Presidential power in the US will only impact in foreign policy if the US can deliver hard options offshore. Lets see what happens with Iran when the batters change at the home plate. I sincerely wish the new guy all the best, but lets give the other bloke credit where it is due.

 

Hussein had a policy. Committed a bunch of crimes and was tried by the courts there because that's where it took place. Perhaps, the Iraqis should charge Bush with those crimes, extradite him and try him under their law. Got a problem with the sauce being the same with the goose as it was for the gander? Too many double standards in play here folks. Has ZIP to do with a difference in policies between Bush and Obama folks. Get a grip. Bush has violated human rights HERE, there and everywhere.

Try this one out, if you can wrap your mind around it: The US has had ONLY one place were citizens were presumed guilty until the citizen proved they were innocent. That is before the IRS. Bush added another, pardon the term, Gestapo, with the same traits called Homeland Security.

Been following the abuse of powers, human rights and law they are exercising in the name of protecting the US? Another Bush legacy that will haunt the citizens of the US forever and a day.


j.

 

I guess the Germans should have tried and executed FDR or Truman also? That's the only reasonable response when someone removes a genocidal dictator, right?

 

I believe you are guilty until proven innocent for possion of illegal drugs in some circumstances (property confiscation).

 

Civil forfeiture is done via court order (due process); the property isn't forfeited by the police, it's merely seized and held in abeyance pending the court's decision.

 

I was either not alive during their times or was too young to remember their Presidencies. Those who were and lived through their times should be the ones to say one way or another.

Since when did previous wrongs rationalize current Presidential behavior?


jim

 

So, we were wrong to go to war in 1941?

By the way, tell the World Court they're going to be trying a lot more people than President Bush, including the Vice President-elect and the 2004 Democratic nominee for President;

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

As John Adams once said, "Facts are stubborn things".

 

oh shoot! We should have elected another cowboy! Damn, if only I could take my vote back. Ay dios mio.


Abner

 

um... that might be intended to be humorous, but to me, it goes beyond the realm of discussing the *topic* and touches on the *poster*, the sort of post we've always tried to discourage...

 

And he is an administrator at that.


jim