If <insert your candidate> had been President during and after 9/11...

[lazur]

Given the political climate, it seems an appropriate question.

But more than that, I'd like to present a point of view. It happens to be 'my' point of view about the logic behind going into Iraq, and also my opinion on why so many politicians were 'onboard' with Bush.

Now mind you, this is simply how I see things - based on what I'd seen and read in the news during 9/11 and after, and then my observations through my friends and co-workers, obviously through my family, and just through the world in general.

I have no idea what it's like to be President. Not one of us does, I suspect. You see a lot on TV and movies and the news, all merely glimpses into a world most of us imagine to be 'complex' and 'professional'.

Following 9/11, it felt like the world was a different place, almost alien and unrecognizable. People were worried about nukes going off in random cities around the country, as they'd seen on TV a dozen or more times probably. Politicians weren't as 'professional' lately, many calling out for 'justice for America' over the airways, with most of us nodding in agreement; nothing about the government really seemed all that complex, either. It was simple concept - let's get the bad guys.

But also, the worst things imagineable were being imagined by everyone in the days following 9/11. We didn't know what to expect next. You could almost say that the U.S. was in a state of 'panic'. It was a very low drone of wide-scale panic, perhaps, maybe even unnoticeable to the rest of the world, being as prideful as Americans are, but we could sense it and in our solemn state, we knew 'collectively' that humankind had just entered a very dark chapter in its life.

Not long after we went into Afghanistan, as if he was taking advantage of the 'crisis' unfolding in the U.S., I remember hearing on the news that Saddam had begun paying $25,000 to the Palestinian families of suicide bombers in order to encourage more people to come forward as suicide bombers against Israel. Then other news stories began to break about how Saddam wasn't cooperating with weapons inspectors. We also found out that he was telling his own military Generals that they had WMDs at their disposal, and that they'd use them if they had to.

Imagine your candidate hearing these reports less than a year after 9/11, while we're still at war in Afghanistan.

Reports also began to break about a certain 'important' al-Qaeda operative in Afghanistan - someone named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He was the leader of a notorious al-Qaeda militant organization called al-Tawhid, and he was fighting along side the Taliban against the 'U.S. Invasion' of Afghanistan. Your candidate then learns that al-Zarqawi relocated to Iraq (possibly after being injured by US bombing in Afghanistan) and has restarted his militant organization there, in the security of a sovereign nation. (Whether Saddam knew or supported al-Zarqawi is unimportant, imo. By virtue of the fact that Saddam did not remove al-Zarqawi from his country, he was lending his support.)

What would your candidate have done?

Mind you, this isn't a defensive tactic for Bush. Personally, I think the man is simple-minded. I also think he's completely the wrong 'type' of person for the job of President. He's not 'incompetent', but he is 'inadequate' for the position. He's not articulate, and he's not able to present himself intelligently to the world at large on a consistent enough basis. But I also do NOT believe he's an 'evil' man. What I also believe is, because of his simple-mindedness, that Bush is exceptionally (maybe too) impressionable by the company he keeps, and I'd bet most of his decisions are made by people other than himself through 'consensus'.

Irrespective of whether there's a common belief that the war in Iraq has been 'mishandled', and even disregarding the reasons for going to war having been 'not entirely true', I can honestly state that if any candidate currently running for President hadn't reacted in the same way Bush did strategically, under those same circumstances, I'd have some serious questions for that candidate on just how, through all of the uncertainty, chaos and death of 9/11, he or she could even be willing to take the chance.

Again, that's my REAL perspective on 9/11 and what followed. You may certainly have a different perspective, and I'd be just as interested in hearing yours as I am thinking about mine, so please do not respond that this is somehow biased to one side or the other. I'm coming at this from a purely 'logical' point of view, as I've observed things.

Perhaps you have different observations. Would love to hear them.

 

[Matt]

Basically any president would've been forced to invade Afgahnistan. Hell, they would've faced impeachment if they did not. The American people demanded blood shed, plain and simple.

Bush's biggest mistake, was going on TV and saying "we're coming for ya Osama Bin Laden in 72 hours if the Taliban doesn't hand you over. Heeeheeeheee!" Special ops teams should've already been in Afgahnistan looking at that point. You shouldn't go on national television and say "Hey, we're coming for you, so run away."

The invasion of Afgahnistan has one of the biggest ironies of the Bush administration tied to it. If Bush invaded Afgahnistan and Afgahnistan alone, both Bush and Rumsfeld would've gone down as military geniuses. Rumsfeld's blitzkreig strategy was brilliant for Afgahnistan. Unfortunately, due to their eagerness to invade Iraq, we completely ****ed up the actual occupation and now Afgahnistan is slowly falling apart from the inside. It doesn't help that Rumsfeld insisted we use the same strategy in Iraq that we did in Afgahnistan without considering that the strategy was inappropriate for Iraq and it kinda bit him in the ass. He will now go down as one of the worst defense secretaries ever.

 

[The Senator]

Basically any president would've been forced to invade Afgahnistan. Hell, they would've faced impeachment if they did not. The American people demanded blood shed, plain and simple.

Bush's biggest mistake, was going on TV and saying "we're coming for ya Osama Bin Laden in 72 hours if the Taliban doesn't hand you over. Heeeheeeheee!" Special ops teams should've already been in Afgahnistan looking at that point. You shouldn't go on national television and say "Hey, we're coming for you, so run away."

The invasion of Afgahnistan has one of the biggest ironies of the Bush administration tied to it. If Bush invaded Afgahnistan and Afgahnistan alone, both Bush and Rumsfeld would've gone down as military geniuses. Rumsfeld's blitzkreig strategy was brilliant for Afgahnistan. Unfortunately, due to their eagerness to invade Iraq, we completely ****ed up the actual occupation and now Afgahnistan is slowly falling apart from the inside. It doesn't help that Rumsfeld insisted we use the same strategy in Iraq that we did in Afgahnistan without considering that the strategy was inappropriate for Iraq and it kinda bit him in the ass. He will now go down as one of the worst defense secretaries ever.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[lazur]

Basically any president would've been forced to invade Afgahnistan. Hell, they would've faced impeachment if they did not. The American people demanded blood shed, plain and simple.

Bush's biggest mistake, was going on TV and saying "we're coming for ya Osama Bin Laden in 72 hours if the Taliban doesn't hand you over. Heeeheeeheee!" Special ops teams should've already been in Afgahnistan looking at that point. You shouldn't go on national television and say "Hey, we're coming for you, so run away."

The invasion of Afgahnistan has one of the biggest ironies of the Bush administration tied to it. If Bush invaded Afgahnistan and Afgahnistan alone, both Bush and Rumsfeld would've gone down as military geniuses. Rumsfeld's blitzkreig strategy was brilliant for Afgahnistan. Unfortunately, due to their eagerness to invade Iraq, we completely ****ed up the actual occupation and now Afgahnistan is slowly falling apart from the inside. It doesn't help that Rumsfeld insisted we use the same strategy in Iraq that we did in Afgahnistan without considering that the strategy was inappropriate for Iraq and it kinda bit him in the ass. He will now go down as one of the worst defense secretaries ever.

You've made some good points, but I'm not sure you understood my question (and that's probably my fault for not conveying it clearly enough).

Let me rephrase:

The U.S. is in Afghanistan when the following things occur:

- Saddam postures against the U.S. by stating he'll shoot down military aircraft if they come into his airspace, and further by shutting down UN sactioned WMD inspections.
- Saddam is telling his own military that they have WMDs and will use them.
- Saddam is paying 25k to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers against Israel.

All of this begins happening right after 9/11 as the U.S. military is fighting in Afghanistan. Further, a key al-Qaeda operative flees Afghanistan to Iraq to set up operations.

Why shouldn't the President have gone into Iraq under those circumstances?

I agree that the messaging and logic weren't very well conveyed by Bush, but the question, to me at least, is still valid.

 

[Matt]

You've made some good points, but I'm not sure you understood my question (and that's probably my fault for not conveying it clearly enough).

Let me rephrase:

The U.S. is in Afghanistan when the following things occur:

- Saddam postures against the U.S. by stating he'll shoot down military aircraft if they come into his airspace, and further by shutting down UN sactioned WMD inspections.

It was a UN issue. Not a US issue. We had our hands tied elsewhere.

- Saddam is telling his own military that they have WMDs and will use them.

Again, we were too hasty. Bush took the first bit of information we had to support this and ran with it.

- Saddam is paying 25k to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers against Israel.

Frankly, we are not Israel's sword, and I think they need to stop treating us as such. Israel brings a lot of **** down on themselves. Its mean to say, buts its true. The government will go and **** with Palestine, and Iraq, and Iran, and various other countries and then the second one of them decides to push back, Israel says "You better not or we'll sic the US on you!" It really does lead to a lot of our problems and the next president needs to put a stop to it. We don't get enough out of that relationship to justify it.

All of this begins happening right after 9/11 as the U.S. military is fighting in Afghanistan. Further, a key al-Qaeda operative flees Afghanistan to Iraq to set up operations.

Why shouldn't the President have gone into Iraq under those circumstances?

I agree that the messaging and logic weren't very well conveyed by Bush, but the question, to me at least, is still valid.

Frankly, I just don't think they would've. War should be an absolute last resort. None of these issues warranted the US military overthrowing the Hussein regime. I doubt any other president would've done it. I really do believe it was personal with Bush and that caused him to at the very least over exaggerate the evidence supporting WMDs and rush into war with them.

 

[lazur]

It was a UN issue. Not a US issue. We had our hands tied elsewhere.

I agree and disagree. While it was a UN issue, it was an issue raised by the U.S. due to specific interests the U.S. had in maintaining peace (aka sometimes also called 'compliance') in the region.

Again, we were too hasty. Bush took the first bit of information we had to support this and ran with it.

Maybe, but I'm not talking about each 'bit' of information. I'm talking about the 'increasing' amount of bad news coming from the direction of Iraq, immediately after your country has been attacked, knowing that some of al-Qaeda's responsible agents who were in Afghanistan suddenly fled into Iraq while Saddam is up to all of his other crazy crap?

Frankly, we are not Israel's sword, and I think they need to stop treating us as such. Israel brings a lot of **** down on themselves. Its mean to say, buts its true. The government will go and **** with Palestine, and Iraq, and Iran, and various other countries and then the second one of them decides to push back, Israel says "You better not or we'll sic the US on you!" It really does lead to a lot of our problems and the next president needs to put a stop to it. We don't get enough out of that relationship to justify it.

Whatever our relationship to Israel, to me, is irrelevant. In my 'crazy view' Israel is a necessity in the region of the Middle East. Israel serves as a distraction, with its 'American' ways, to leaders in Middle Eastern countries, creating a buffer between 'them' and 'us'. One day, if that changes, their focus would most certainly turn toward new adversaries, just as ours would. I would argue that it already has reached that point, but that it started long before we ever went into Iraq.

Israel requires our protection, because its presence ultimately protects the U.S.

Back in 2001, when Israel ceased to be a large enough distraction, and 9/11 occurred, the gloves came off. Any Middle Eastern country posturing against the U.S. during that time would have been in jeopardy, but especially Iraq with its murdering dictator, a history of 'crimes against humanity', and at the time a deliberate violation of all the UN's resolutions, and doing so exactly in the wake of a National Emergency of the 'oppressive' country which brought it to this state, which it now absolutely HATES.

Iraq has become our updated 'distraction'.

Frankly, I just don't think they would've. War should be an absolute last resort. None of these issues warranted the US military overthrowing the Hussein regime. I doubt any other president would've done it. I really do believe it was personal with Bush and that caused him to at the very least over exaggerate the evidence supporting WMDs and rush into war with them.

Again, I'm talking about the culimation of 'bad news' at a time in history when the 'National Security' of the U.S. was perceived as being very much at great risk by everybody, citizen and politician alike. I'm not saying going into Iraq was right or wrong in what it produced, I'm saying that it was probably more likely an outcome than most can or will admit. It was still during a time when 9/11 was fresh on everyone's minds, and few opposed it as a result. Which also explains why so many Politicians were in favor of it in the first place.

At least it makes more sense than the 'we didn't have all of the information' complaint, thus perpetuating 'personal vendetta' or other similarly concocted conspiracy theories depicting Bush's 'actual' intentions for going to war, when there's absolutely no information available that supports the 'suspicion'.

We're all a bunch of paranoid freaks nowadays, it seems. Maybe we've had good reason to be. Who knows.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Basically any president would've been forced to invade Afgahnistan. Hell, they would've faced impeachment if they did not. The American people demanded blood shed, plain and simple.

Bush's biggest mistake, was going on TV and saying "we're coming for ya Osama Bin Laden in 72 hours if the Taliban doesn't hand you over. Heeeheeeheee!" Special ops teams should've already been in Afgahnistan looking at that point. You shouldn't go on national television and say "Hey, we're coming for you, so run away."

The invasion of Afgahnistan has one of the biggest ironies of the Bush administration tied to it. If Bush invaded Afgahnistan and Afgahnistan alone, both Bush and Rumsfeld would've gone down as military geniuses. Rumsfeld's blitzkreig strategy was brilliant for Afgahnistan. Unfortunately, due to their eagerness to invade Iraq, we completely ****ed up the actual occupation and now Afgahnistan is slowly falling apart from the inside. It doesn't help that Rumsfeld insisted we use the same strategy in Iraq that we did in Afgahnistan without considering that the strategy was inappropriate for Iraq and it kinda bit him in the ass. He will now go down as one of the worst defense secretaries ever.

Like JMan, I couldn't agree more. Great post.

 

[HUMAN]

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

See anything missing?

 

[lazur]

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

See anything missing?

I'm not really grasping how that's relevant, unless your point is that Bush hasn't caught Bin Laden yet? Understand something here - I'm not defending Bush's actions before, during or after 9/11. I'm asking how YOUR candidate would have handled it differently - perhaps naively on my part, with an attempt at soliciting 'constructive' conversation (not all of us are right about everything in this situation, I hope we can at least admit that much), so that maybe we can come to some kind of consensus on what we think are 'really' important aspects or events of the situation.

Maybe this is just the wrong kind of topic for this crowd.

 

[Kelly]

Looking at September 11, 2001 ALONE, not Iraq, not our policy right now with Iran, but that day only............Bush did what he could do...I think our nation did what it needed to do. I think McCain would have handled it pretty much the same way. I believe Clinton would have handled it very similar as well. Obama, is where I have a big question.......I have no idea.....I'm not sure if thats a positive or a negative for him...but honestly, I have a big "?" there.


For me personally, the President that would have gotten me through that day much easier would be Ronald Reagan...I remember him after the Beirut bombing, and the hour after hour that he spent going down the line of family of the soldiers that were killed....I've never seen anything like that before or since....it was was a sad moment.....and yet I so proud of my president on that day.

 

[rdh007]

Basically any president would've been forced to invade Afgahnistan. Hell, they would've faced impeachment if they did not. The American people demanded blood shed, plain and simple.

Bush's biggest mistake, was going on TV and saying "we're coming for ya Osama Bin Laden in 72 hours if the Taliban doesn't hand you over. Heeeheeeheee!" Special ops teams should've already been in Afgahnistan looking at that point. You shouldn't go on national television and say "Hey, we're coming for you, so run away."

The invasion of Afgahnistan has one of the biggest ironies of the Bush administration tied to it. If Bush invaded Afgahnistan and Afgahnistan alone, both Bush and Rumsfeld would've gone down as military geniuses. Rumsfeld's blitzkreig strategy was brilliant for Afgahnistan. Unfortunately, due to their eagerness to invade Iraq, we completely ****ed up the actual occupation and now Afgahnistan is slowly falling apart from the inside. It doesn't help that Rumsfeld insisted we use the same strategy in Iraq that we did in Afgahnistan without considering that the strategy was inappropriate for Iraq and it kinda bit him in the ass. He will now go down as one of the worst defense secretaries ever.

I agree, as well. He had me at Afghanistan and he lost me at Iraq.

 

[Matt]

I'm not really grasping how that's relevant, unless your point is that Bush hasn't caught Bin Laden yet? Understand something here - I'm not defending Bush's actions before, during or after 9/11. I'm asking how YOUR candidate would have handled it differently - perhaps naively on my part, with an attempt at soliciting 'constructive' conversation (not all of us are right about everything in this situation, I hope we can at least admit that much), so that maybe we can come to some kind of consensus on what we think are 'really' important aspects or events of the situation.

Maybe this is just the wrong kind of topic for this crowd.

Not really. You are simply trying to force the point that any candidate would've had no choice but to invade Iraq following 9/11 and in turn justify Bush's actions and frankly that is a factual inaccuracy.

 

[Matt]

Looking at September 11, 2001 ALONE, not Iraq, not our policy right now with Iran, but that day only............Bush did what he could do...I think our nation did what it needed to do. I think McCain would have handled it pretty much the same way. I believe Clinton would have handled it very similar as well. Obama, is where I have a big question.......I have no idea.....I'm not sure if thats a positive or a negative for him...but honestly, I have a big "?" there.

For me personally, the President that would have gotten me through that day much easier would be Ronald Reagan...I remember him after the Beirut bombing, and the hour after hour that he spent going down the line of family of the soldiers that were killed....I've never seen anything like that before or since....it was was a sad moment.....and yet I so proud of my president on that day.

I feel the same way about Obama, Kel, and that sort of worries me. There are times when action is necessary. The invasion of Afgahnistan, for example. And I fear that Obama would sit down and try to talk to the Taliban first. It would in essence be the same mistake Bush made with his "turn over Bin Laden" deadline. It is pretty much saying "Go ahead and get out of the country, Bin Laden."

 

[lazur]

Not really. You are simply trying to force the point that any candidate would've had no choice but to invade Iraq following 9/11 and in turn justify Bush's actions and frankly that is a factual inaccuracy.

What is factually inaccurate? Please elaborate. I'm looking at the situation unto itself, irrespective of who was in office. Based on the circumstances, I'm asking how and why someone else may have responded differently despite the 'signs' indicating to many that going into Iraq was necessary.

This has nothing to do with Bush.

 

[The Senator]

What is factually inaccurate? Please elaborate. I'm looking at the situation unto itself, irrespective of who was in office. Based on the circumstances, I'm asking how and why someone else may have responded differently despite the 'signs' indicating to many that going into Iraq was necessary.

This has nothing to do with Bush.

The problem with your logic on Iraq is quite simple. The argument presented to Congress and the UN justifying the invasion, as well as the intelligence gathered and presented to those bodies, were done so by the Bush administration. The State Department and the Department of Defense was under the control of Bush and his officials. They produced the blueprint for war and produced the 'correct' intelligence to move a war with Iraq up on the agenda.

Had someone else been President... Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Hillary or Obama... on the Democratic side... they probably wouldn't had the same goals that Bush and co. had. They probably wouldn't have placed Iraq as a top priority. They may have seen it as a threat... but I don't think they'd jump into it as quickly and carelessly as Bush did.

Would a war with Iraq have happened under a different president? It's hard to say. But it's even harder to say that this hypothetical situation would produce the same intelligence and the same lust for war with Iraq as was produced by the Bush administration. I don't think war with Iraq was inevitable and unavoidable.

 

[lazur]

The problem with your logic on Iraq is quite simple. The argument presented to Congress and the UN justifying the invasion, as well as the intelligence gathered and presented to those bodies, were done so by the Bush administration. The State Department and the Department of Defense was under the control of Bush and his officials. They produced the blueprint for war and produced the 'correct' intelligence to move a war with Iraq up on the agenda.

Right, and I suspect that all politicians in favor of going into Iraq (most of them, let's remember) were given as much of the information as we had at the time. I think most politicians looked at the 'totality' of the threat presented by Iraq - not just that they had WMDs.

Had someone else been President... Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Hillary or Obama... on the Democratic side... they probably wouldn't had the same goals that Bush and co. had. They probably wouldn't have placed Iraq as a top priority. They may have seen it as a threat... but I don't think they'd jump into it as quickly and carelessly as Bush did.

You're attributing 'other' factors to Bush's decision for going into Iraq that have never been verified or substantiated in any way. "Bush had a personal vendetta." "Bush was in it for the oil." Even if these are 'true', there's no way of ever proving them, so are we all just to assume that because you and some others believe Bush did this for 'personal reasons', we should all just climb on board and believe it's true?

Given the number of politicians involved at the time (including most of the ones you mentioned) who were in favor of going into Iraq at the time, I have a very hard time believing that they 'didn't have all of the facts'. I mean, if they didn't have all of the facts, why didn't any of them make that claim during that time? Seems like they should have, doesn't it?

Would a war with Iraq have happened under a different president? It's hard to say. But it's even harder to say that this hypothetical situation would produce the same intelligence and the same lust for war with Iraq as was produced by the Bush administration. I don't think war with Iraq was inevitable and unavoidable.

I do think the war IN Iraq was inevitable (note that I didn't say 'with' because that's also factually incorrect). I think Saddam had been pushing the world's buttons for quite some time before 9/11, but then to amp up the button pushing during and after 9/11 was just plain stupid on his part. I don't see how it could have resulted in any other course of action.

 

[bell110]

If my candidate was president (Paul) we probably would not have gone into Iraq. Like everybody, I was angry about 9/11, but when I started seeing quesionable judgements from our leader, I knew things were going to be bad. McCain might have gone into Iraq, but I think he would have handled it better.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

I don't know, I seriously like to think given the stuff he went through during the Clinton admin. that Gore would've taken the threats of terrorist attacks more seriously in the months leading up to 9-11.
let's say that they were unable to thwart them.
I believe that Gore and his advisers would've pursued an aggressive campaign in Afghanistan, hopefully capturing Bin Laden, given the former obsession of the Clinton admin. with him.
now, thei would've created an ongoing occupation in Afghanistan, which could've resulted in either of the following.

one: the US preoccupies itself with military objectives and thus, it becomes an occupying force hated by the locals, strife and conflict ensue.

two: learning from the Afghanistan war of the early 90's and late 80's the US pours millions into infrastructure and security, through manipulation they install a government that's actually representative of the populace, but, with a hidden agenda to de-radicalize the region.

the rest?
speculation, to long to really flesh out here without it looking like a Harry Turtledove novel.

 

[Shifty]

If you make the arguement that the intelligence says Iraq is a threat, okay.
But where the Bush administration set itself as one of the worst in history was the Iraq Occupation. The incompetence from Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Bremer, Wolfowitz, the Green Zone filled with young people who had no reason to be there, etc. in the first portion of the Iraq War caused the mess that still exists today.

If McCain, who had combat experience, had been president I would hope the Occupation would've been handled better.
Those first few months were critical and the Bush Administration needed a year's worth of preparation and some common sense plans, like say not disbanding the Army and pissing off 500,000 Iraqi men who knew how use weapons and were now unemployed or bringing people who could speak Arabic, or use the large amount of documents already created to assist in rebuilding Iraq or police the streets and prevent the second wave of extreme looting.

 

[Kelly]

There were several groups that made the wrong decision about going into Iraq.....The State Department, the Dept. of Defense, Great Britain intelligence, US Intelligence, Senate, President...........ALL screwed up in this area................BUT....the buck stops at the President.....as it should.

 

[The Senator]

You're attributing 'other' factors to Bush's decision for going into Iraq that have never been verified or substantiated in any way. "Bush had a personal vendetta." "Bush was in it for the oil." Even if these are 'true', there's no way of ever proving them, so are we all just to assume that because you and some others believe Bush did this for 'personal reasons', we should all just climb on board and believe it's true?

There was a documentary about Donald Rumsfeld a few years ago... I forgot what it was called... but one of his advisers claimed that Rumsfeld had wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein before he even began his job as Defense Secretary. That isn't the epitome of truth, I'm sure... but when you look at how Bush approached this war, the way he turned away weapons inspectors before they could do their job, the way he kept hinting at the American people that a war was coming... it's hard to see that there wasn't something personal there. This war was grossly mismanaged from the planning stage, and I don't feel as though any other President-- regardless of party-- would have approached it with the same carelessness as Bush did, if they would even consider invading Iraq at all.

Right, and I suspect that all politicians in favor of going into Iraq (most of them, let's remember) were given as much of the information as we had at the time. I think most politicians looked at the 'totality' of the threat presented by Iraq - not just that they had WMDs.

Given the number of politicians involved at the time (including most of the ones you mentioned) who were in favor of going into Iraq at the time, I have a very hard time believing that they 'didn't have all of the facts'. I mean, if they didn't have all of the facts, why didn't any of them make that claim during that time? Seems like they should have, doesn't it?

Funny thing about politicians... they constantly think about their own re-election, and most of them wouldn't act in a way which would sacrifice their chances of returning to the House or Senate. Bush was extremely popular when he announced his plans to invade Iraq, and the idea was popular with Americans as well. Had many of those politicians voted against going to war, they may have ended up defeated in the next election cycle.

So I'm not sure many of these politicians even looked at the 'evidence.' They looked at the opinion polls, saw what their constituents thought, and went with it.

I do think the war IN Iraq was inevitable (note that I didn't say 'with' because that's also factually incorrect). I think Saddam had been pushing the world's buttons for quite some time before 9/11, but then to amp up the button pushing during and after 9/11 was just plain stupid on his part. I don't see how it could have resulted in any other course of action.

I'm sorry, I disagree.

I think removing Saddam Hussein was inevitable. I think any President would have made an effort to dispose of him if they had the chance.

But I don't think a war was inevitable. Or at least, I don't think the mismanaged fiasco we got ourselves into was inevitable. Any intelligent leader would have understood that the so-called "surge" should have been done immediately to counter the insurgency early in the game. Any intelligent leader would have realized that the prime targets were Saddam and his loyalists. Acting on those two things alone, any intelligent leader would have been able to take out Hussein, drafted a new government, and re-established normalcy in Iraq within a year or two at the most. Obviously, a peace keeping force would still be needed, but the situation in Iraq would probably be a whole lot "better" if another President was at the helm.

 

[Marx]

Not really. You are simply trying to force the point that any candidate would've had no choice but to invade Iraq following 9/11 and in turn justify Bush's actions and frankly that is a factual inaccuracy.

I agree. The only reason we went into Iraq is because George W. Bush wanted to. I strongly believe that no other candidate would have gone there.

 

[SuperFerret]

I agree. The only reason we went into Iraq is because George W. Bush wanted to. I strongly believe that no other candidate would have gone there.

I agree. It had always seemed to me that it was a family kind of thing to go after Saddam.

 

[Marx]

I do think the war IN Iraq was inevitable (note that I didn't say 'with' because that's also factually incorrect). I think Saddam had been pushing the world's buttons for quite some time before 9/11, but then to amp up the button pushing during and after 9/11 was just plain stupid on his part. I don't see how it could have resulted in any other course of action.

A civil war in Iraq is what was inevitable. The United States waging war on Iraq (because let's face it, war IN or WITH is a matter of semantics,) would not be in the cards. Is that to say that some kind of military coup from within the country wouldn't have been attempted? Absolutely not. An eventual coup was inevitable.

 

[lazur]

I agree. The only reason we went into Iraq is because George W. Bush wanted to. I strongly believe that no other candidate would have gone there.

Again, we're talking about the 'totality' of bad news coming from Iraq just after 9/11:

- Possible WMDs. Everyone believed it. Saddam was telling his own military they had them.
- Threatening US aircraft that had every right to be in his 'airspace' due to the UN resolutions.
- Paying terrorists 25k to successfully bomb and kill Palestinians.
- Refusing to cooperate with weapons inspectors.

Perhaps I'm just being an idealist, but I tend to think that the politicians on board with going into Iraq back in those days were making the 'right' decision based on the circumstances. I agree that he's never been the 'right' guy for the job as President, but I just don't see all of this 'malicious' intent that others do.

For me, the problem was never 'why' we went into Iraq. I understood that, and despite how much 'backpeddling' has happened since then by 50% of the politicians in favor it at the time, I still believe most politicians made the decision not because of 'popularity', but because given the attack we'd just experienced, the number of lives we'd just lost, it would have been irresponsible NOT to go into Iraq.

However, I certainly agree with everyone else on how poorly it was managed after that point.

And I'm still not getting this whole 'personal agenda' thing people are attributing to Bush. There's no evidence whatsoever. Personally, I think the man is too simple-minded to be as manipulative as he'd need to be in order to pull something like this off without 'cause'.