George Bush live in person saying:

“The decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq. I mean of Ukraine.”

https://twitter.com/i/status/1527092111195226114

I still think that George Bush has done more damage to the US than has Donald Trump (so far).

So I guess now that Trump's no longer president we can go back to hating Dubya?

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

So I guess now that Trump's no longer president we can go back to hating Dubya?

Does that question make any sense to you?
Please explain.

Vintage wrote:

I still think that George Bush has done more damage to the US than has Donald Trump (so far).

I'd say that internationally Dubya has done more damage with his quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan. Internationally Trump managed to insult every ally, killed the Iran treaty and loved sucking up to the likes of Putin and Kim. But Biden has managed to sort out that mess, no doubt helped by Putin's Ukraine war.

Domestically, Trump has done way more damage though. The USA has been polarized for as long as I follow US politics (president Clinton's 2nd term), but Trump really raised the polarization to 11. Not to mention stacking the courts, his botched Covid response and making (politically motivated) violence acceptable amongst team MAGA.

petertenthije wrote:

Vintage wrote:

I still think that George Bush has done more damage to the US than has Donald Trump (so far).

I'd say that internationally Dubya has done more damage with his quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan. Internationally Trump managed to insult every ally, killed the Iran treaty and loved sucking up to the likes of Putin and Kim. But Biden has managed to sort out that mess, no doubt helped by Putin's Ukraine war.

Domestically, Trump has done way more damage though. The USA has been polarized for as long as I follow US politics (president Clinton's 2nd term), but Trump really raised the polarization to 11. Not to mention stacking the courts, his botched Covid response and making (politically motivated) violence acceptable amongst team MAGA.

There has been lots of damage, skepticism, eye rolling toward the US Government long before Trump and Dubya - they just carried on the torch.

Vintage wrote:

George Bush live in person saying:

“The decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq. I mean of Ukraine.”

https://twitter.com/i/status/1527092111195226114

I still think that George Bush has done more damage to the US than has Donald Trump (so far).

Well that explains how badly he has aged...might be keeping him up at night.

Vintage wrote:

George Bush live in person saying:

“The decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq. I mean of Ukraine.”

https://twitter.com/i/status/1527092111195226114

I still think that George Bush has done more damage to the US than has Donald Trump (so far).

And his paintings suck.

Hard to overstate how terrible W was for the country and the world. Incredible that Trump "softened" his image by comparison.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Vintage wrote:

George Bush live in person saying:

“The decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq. I mean of Ukraine.”

https://twitter.com/i/status/1527092111195226114

I still think that George Bush has done more damage to the US than has Donald Trump (so far).

And his paintings suck.

Hard to overstate how terrible W was for the country and the world. Incredible that Trump "softened" his image by comparison.

They are both charlatans - just one as 'compassionate Christian protector of freedom' and the other as 'successful businessman turned maverick'

Of the century? Teleprompter Joe has become the laughingstock of this country. His slips are so common, no one even mentions them.

One of the most damaging was:

"I think what you're going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades. And it depends on what it does. It's one thing if it's a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do.

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/20/10744661 ... -incursion

Days later, Putin invaded Ukraine.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Of the century? Teleprompter Joe has become the laughingstock of this country. His slips are so common, no one even mentions them.

One of the most damaging was:

"I think what you're going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades. And it depends on what it does. It's one thing if it's a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do.

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/20/10744661 ... -incursion

Days later, Putin invaded Ukraine.

Hope your kids never end up with a medical issue because someone will inevitably make fun of them as people make fun of Biden's stutter. Anyone making a 'laughingstock' of a bona fide speech impediment had parents who failed miserably to produce a human with functioning empathy. *tsk tsk*

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Of the century? Teleprompter Joe has become the laughingstock of this country. His slips are so common, no one even mentions them.

Yet more people voted for him rather than the alternative. Enough said.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Of the century? Teleprompter Joe has become the laughingstock of this country. His slips are so common, no one even mentions them.

One of the most damaging was:

"I think what you're going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades. And it depends on what it does. It's one thing if it's a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do.

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/20/10744661 ... -incursion

Days later, Putin invaded Ukraine.

Hope your kids never end up with a medical issue because someone will inevitably make fun of them as people make fun of Biden's stutter. Anyone making a 'laughingstock' of a bona fide speech impediment had parents who failed miserably to produce a human with functioning empathy. *tsk tsk*

Nice straw man, never said anything about stutter. Its about all of his gaffes once he is out of the teleprompter. My citation shows exactly what I am talking about, that was a huge slip, that has cost lives. Elon Musk was even making fun of that.

And no, I don't have any empathy for the most destructive, divisive and incompetent president this country has ever had. If he has deficiency issues he should resign or never had ran for president.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Of the century? Teleprompter Joe has become the laughingstock of this country. His slips are so common, no one even mentions them.

One of the most damaging was:


https://www.npr.org/2022/01/20/10744661 ... -incursion

Days later, Putin invaded Ukraine.

Hope your kids never end up with a medical issue because someone will inevitably make fun of them as people make fun of Biden's stutter. Anyone making a 'laughingstock' of a bona fide speech impediment had parents who failed miserably to produce a human with functioning empathy. *tsk tsk*

Nice straw man, never said anything about stutter. Its about all of his gaffes once he is out of the teleprompter. My citation shows exactly what I am talking about, that was a huge slip, that has cost lives. Elon Musk was even making fun of that.

Not a straw man - those slips are part of the speech impediment. He has fought through it all his life. Have a little heart, if it doesn't pain you too much. Double *tsk tsk*

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Hope your kids never end up with a medical issue because someone will inevitably make fun of them as people make fun of Biden's stutter. Anyone making a 'laughingstock' of a bona fide speech impediment had parents who failed miserably to produce a human with functioning empathy. *tsk tsk*

Nice straw man, never said anything about stutter. Its about all of his gaffes once he is out of the teleprompter. My citation shows exactly what I am talking about, that was a huge slip, that has cost lives. Elon Musk was even making fun of that.

Not a straw man - those slips are part of the speech impediment. He has fought through it all his life. Have a little heart, if it doesn't pain you too much. Double *tsk tsk*

Interesting, I did not know you were an expert in speech impediment. If you are, saying Putin can make a 'minor incursion' into Ukraine and probably nothing happens, that sounds to me and to anyone as a gaffe and a slip. A lot of words in that quotation.

But this administration apologists are getting very creative to justify this disaster. Nice!

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Nice straw man, never said anything about stutter. Its about all of his gaffes once he is out of the teleprompter. My citation shows exactly what I am talking about, that was a huge slip, that has cost lives. Elon Musk was even making fun of that.

Not a straw man - those slips are part of the speech impediment. He has fought through it all his life. Have a little heart, if it doesn't pain you too much. Double *tsk tsk*

Interesting, I did not know you were an expert in speech impediment. If you are, saying Putin can make a 'minor incursion' into Ukraine and probably nothing happens, that sounds to me and to anyone as a gaffe and a slip. A lot of words in that quotation.

But this administration apologists are getting very creative to justify this disaster. Nice!

Not an apologist, just perennially annoyed with factually inaccurate statements of any kind. I don't need to be an expert - other experts and Biden himself have testified to the fact he has the condition. Duh.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Not a straw man - those slips are part of the speech impediment. He has fought through it all his life. Have a little heart, if it doesn't pain you too much. Double *tsk tsk*

Interesting, I did not know you were an expert in speech impediment. If you are, saying Putin can make a 'minor incursion' into Ukraine and probably nothing happens, that sounds to me and to anyone as a gaffe and a slip. A lot of words in that quotation.

But this administration apologists are getting very creative to justify this disaster. Nice!

Not an apologist, just perennially annoyed with factually inaccurate statements of any kind. I don't need to be an expert - other experts and Biden himself have testified to the fact he has the condition. Duh.

If this is a real 'condition'. The more troublesome and dangerous this situation is. The man is the most powerful man in the world. He has become very close to starting WWIII because of this 'condition'.

Anyone else can be more competent than him if this is truly something we should all worry about. Heck I am willing to accept Kamala Harris to replace him, at least with her, we know that she won't start a nuclear war just because of a 'stutter' caused by a 'condition'. The man should resign.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Interesting, I did not know you were an expert in speech impediment. If you are, saying Putin can make a 'minor incursion' into Ukraine and probably nothing happens, that sounds to me and to anyone as a gaffe and a slip. A lot of words in that quotation.

But this administration apologists are getting very creative to justify this disaster. Nice!

Not an apologist, just perennially annoyed with factually inaccurate statements of any kind. I don't need to be an expert - other experts and Biden himself have testified to the fact he has the condition. Duh.

If this is a real 'condition'. The more troublesome and dangerous this situation is. The man is the most powerful man in the world. He has become very close to starting WWIII because of this 'condition'.

Anyone else can be more competent than him if this is truly something we should all worry about. Heck I am willing to accept Kamala Harris to replace him, at least with her, we know that she won't start a nuclear war just because of a 'stutter' caused by a 'condition'. The man should resign.

Why do you pooh-pooh someone's struggle using condition in quotes? Are you now suggesting speech issues aren't real? Or is this like the Roe thread where you refused to acknowledge PPD is a real affliction suffered by millions of women?

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Not an apologist, just perennially annoyed with factually inaccurate statements of any kind. I don't need to be an expert - other experts and Biden himself have testified to the fact he has the condition. Duh.

If this is a real 'condition'. The more troublesome and dangerous this situation is. The man is the most powerful man in the world. He has become very close to starting WWIII because of this 'condition'.

Anyone else can be more competent than him if this is truly something we should all worry about. Heck I am willing to accept Kamala Harris to replace him, at least with her, we know that she won't start a nuclear war just because of a 'stutter' caused by a 'condition'. The man should resign.

Why do you pooh-pooh someone's struggle using condition in quotes? Are you now suggesting speech issues aren't real? Or is this like the Roe thread where you refused to acknowledge PPD is a real affliction suffered by millions of women?

After 2 years in this forum and seeing and reading all sorts of posts about political figures, I don't take seriously at all the concern you supposedly have for someone's struggles.

I read from you directly without citing sources when you were 'speculating' on a certain ailment 45 had based on his speech and his manners when he was in the WH. Without no proof just supposition and speculation. Now you are telling me to be emphatic about someone's 'condition'.

These are politicians we are talking about. I have zero empathy for Biden, the same way you had zero for Trump. Its being honest and consistent.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

And no, I don't have any empathy for the most destructive, divisive and incompetent president this country has ever had. If he has deficiency issues he should resign or never had ran for president.

You mean Dubbya or Trump?

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Interesting, I did not know you were an expert in speech impediment. If you are, saying Putin can make a 'minor incursion' into Ukraine and probably nothing happens, that sounds to me and to anyone as a gaffe and a slip. A lot of words in that quotation.

But this administration apologists are getting very creative to justify this disaster. Nice!

Not an apologist, just perennially annoyed with factually inaccurate statements of any kind. I don't need to be an expert - other experts and Biden himself have testified to the fact he has the condition. Duh.

If this is a real 'condition'. The more troublesome and dangerous this situation is. The man is the most powerful man in the world. He has become very close to starting WWIII because of this 'condition'.

Anyone else can be more competent than him if this is truly something we should all worry about. Heck I am willing to accept Kamala Harris to replace him, at least with her, we know that she won't start a nuclear war just because of a 'stutter' caused by a 'condition'. The man should resign.

How does having stutter start ww3 when verbal diarrhoea on twitter on a daily basis didn't?

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Of the century? Teleprompter Joe has become the laughingstock of this country. His slips are so common, no one even mentions them.

One of the most damaging was:


https://www.npr.org/2022/01/20/10744661 ... -incursion

Days later, Putin invaded Ukraine.

Hope your kids never end up with a medical issue because someone will inevitably make fun of them as people make fun of Biden's stutter. Anyone making a 'laughingstock' of a bona fide speech impediment had parents who failed miserably to produce a human with functioning empathy. *tsk tsk*

Nice straw man, never said anything about stutter. Its about all of his gaffes once he is out of the teleprompter. My citation shows exactly what I am talking about, that was a huge slip, that has cost lives.

"Cost lives"

How many Americans did W kill with his two wars that we lost almost the instant we toppled Saddam and the Taliban? Never mind Iraqis and Afghans? It's probably close to 1M.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

And no, I don't have any empathy for the most destructive, divisive and incompetent president this country has ever had.

You have to marvel at the sheer brain damage you have to have to make a statement like this. "Angela Merkel is the most divisive and incompetent leader Germany has ever had" would be similarly sane.

Willjet wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Not an apologist, just perennially annoyed with factually inaccurate statements of any kind. I don't need to be an expert - other experts and Biden himself have testified to the fact he has the condition. Duh.

If this is a real 'condition'. The more troublesome and dangerous this situation is. The man is the most powerful man in the world. He has become very close to starting WWIII because of this 'condition'.

Anyone else can be more competent than him if this is truly something we should all worry about. Heck I am willing to accept Kamala Harris to replace him, at least with her, we know that she won't start a nuclear war just because of a 'stutter' caused by a 'condition'. The man should resign.

How does having stutter start ww3 when verbal diarrhoea on twitter on a daily basis didn't?

You have to understand that Putin was v v scared of alpha masc dom daddy Trump which is why he didn't invade.

Which is why Russia keeps saying they want him back in power. You need to have maximum MAGA brain rot for that to make sense.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

I read from you directly without citing sources when you were 'speculating' on a certain ailment 45 had based on his speech and his manners when he was in the WH. Without no proof just supposition and speculation. Now you are telling me to be emphatic about someone's 'condition'.

I was sharing concerns some mental health experts had about the last POTUS's pattern of behavior because they were a way to explain his bizarre and irrational decisionmaking that constantly had to be checked and tempered by others in the WH. There is nothing unempathetic about that - I did not put anything in quotes or ridicule the condition. Moving the goalposts is lazy.

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

I read from you directly without citing sources when you were 'speculating' on a certain ailment 45 had based on his speech and his manners when he was in the WH. Without no proof just supposition and speculation. Now you are telling me to be emphatic about someone's 'condition'.

I was sharing concerns some mental health experts had about the last POTUS's pattern of behavior because they were a way to explain his bizarre and irrational decisionmaking that constantly had to be checked and tempered by others in the WH. There is nothing unempathetic about that - I did not put anything in quotes or ridicule the condition. Moving the goalposts is lazy.

How many books are we up to from Trump hires that have now told us what a dumb, insane crackpot he is? Seems like every month there's a new cabinet member hocking a tell all. The best people.

Even though we've known that for decades but gotta sell those books...

MaverickM11 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

AirWorthy99 wrote:

I read from you directly without citing sources when you were 'speculating' on a certain ailment 45 had based on his speech and his manners when he was in the WH. Without no proof just supposition and speculation. Now you are telling me to be emphatic about someone's 'condition'.

I was sharing concerns some mental health experts had about the last POTUS's pattern of behavior because they were a way to explain his bizarre and irrational decisionmaking that constantly had to be checked and tempered by others in the WH. There is nothing unempathetic about that - I did not put anything in quotes or ridicule the condition. Moving the goalposts is lazy.

How many books are we up to from Trump hires that have now told us what a dumb, insane crackpot he is? Seems like every month there's a new cabinet member hocking a tell all. The best people.

Even though we've known that for decades but gotta sell those books...

His WH generated hardly any results other than a conga line of tell all cash grabs.

Aaron747 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

I was sharing concerns some mental health experts had about the last POTUS's pattern of behavior because they were a way to explain his bizarre and irrational decisionmaking that constantly had to be checked and tempered by others in the WH. There is nothing unempathetic about that - I did not put anything in quotes or ridicule the condition. Moving the goalposts is lazy.

How many books are we up to from Trump hires that have now told us what a dumb, insane crackpot he is? Seems like every month there's a new cabinet member hocking a tell all. The best people.

Even though we've known that for decades but gotta sell those books...

His WH generated hardly any results other than a conga line of tell all cash grabs.

If only there was some common denominator here

MaverickM11 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

How many books are we up to from Trump hires that have now told us what a dumb, insane crackpot he is? Seems like every month there's a new cabinet member hocking a tell all. The best people.

Even though we've known that for decades but gotta sell those books...

His WH generated hardly any results other than a conga line of tell all cash grabs.

If only there was some common denominator here

I know right?

You'd think that after the fifteenth book entirely about how "this man is garbage and working with him is pure torture," people might have started to catch on.

Newark727 wrote:

You'd think that after the fifteenth book entirely about how "this man is garbage and working with him is pure torture," people might have started to catch on.

He will always have his bots fans and trolls shills to express unending support for his greatness... the yuugest greatness...

The current President of the US and his predecessor are not subject of this topic, so please keep this thread on topic.

I'm shocked at how badly this man has aged in the years since he left office. Considering that the key people in his administration have never expressed any regret over the decision to go into Iraq, I don't think he will ever either. These people have their legacy to protect. Irritating how he laughs it off.

Edit: This guy also joked about the failure to find Iraqi WMD's back in 2004 when people were dying in large numbers. Granted this was done at a dinner but it was still classless.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/mar/26/usa.iraq

My sense is that GWB, over the years since he left office, has tried to soften his image by crafting this folksy, grandfatherish, nice guy persona. While it may work in some ways, it doesn't change the fact that as President he oversaw one of the most significant political quagmires of the century (Iraq) which resulted in the deaths of thousands/millions of Americans and Iraqi's. A quagmire that was based on faulty intelligence and a quagmire that was prematurely determined a success (Mission Accomplished!)

I'd forgotten he was still alive...

Vintage wrote:

I still think that George Bush has done more damage to the US than has Donald Trump (so far).

MaverickM11 wrote:

Hard to overstate how terrible W was for the country and the world.

People have been surprisingly quick to forget just how much money was pissed away in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention all the lives lost. And there's absolutely nothing to show for it.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Incredible that Trump "softened" his image by comparison.

I still remember how in the mid 2000s people (including me) didn't think it was even possible to have a president stupider than Dubya.

W wasn't a bad president, IMO. In fact, he was one of my favorites. The Iraq war was a blunder, but that was caused IMO by faulty intelligence....I can't necessarily blame the POTUS if he was given bad info and was acting in good faith.

W's actions in the aftermath of 9/11 and his unifying of the country endeared him to many, including me. He had the most badass Presidential moment in recent history in my opinion when he threw out a heater at Yankee Stadium in the fall after 9/11 while wearing a bulletproof vest. Balls of steel.

TriJets wrote:

W wasn't a bad president, IMO. In fact, he was one of my favorites. The Iraq war was a blunder, but that was caused IMO by faulty intelligence....I can't necessarily blame the POTUS if he was given bad info and was acting in good faith.

I have to disagree with you.

Most of the world was telling him that there was no reason to go to Iraq.
Most where also saying that if you DO go in, then prepare for the aftermath, not just the war itself.
He did not listen to either advice. In fact, he ridiculed them (e.g. freedom fries).

TriJets wrote:

W wasn't a bad president, IMO. In fact, he was one of my favorites. The Iraq war was a blunder, but that was caused IMO by faulty intelligence....I can't necessarily blame the POTUS if he was given bad info and was acting in good faith.

W's actions in the aftermath of 9/11 and his unifying of the country endeared him to many, including me. He had the most badass Presidential moment in recent history in my opinion when he threw out a heater at Yankee Stadium in the fall after 9/11 while wearing a bulletproof vest. Balls of steel.

The intelligence was faulty because they had a policy conclusion decided already - invade Iraq - and worked backwards to support it.

MaverickM11 wrote:

Vintage wrote:

George Bush live in person saying:

“The decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq. I mean of Ukraine.”

https://twitter.com/i/status/1527092111195226114

I still think that George Bush has done more damage to the US than has Donald Trump (so far).

And his paintings suck.

Hard to overstate how terrible W was for the country and the world. Incredible that Trump "softened" his image by comparison.

Bush did huge long term damage for the world, but at least it's *kinda* sorting itself out now in the Middle East.

Trump absolutely wrecked any domestic tranquility gained in this country since the 1960s. The polarization is what will destroy America, much worse than any terrorist or nuclear attack ever can.

TriJets wrote:

W wasn't a bad president, IMO. In fact, he was one of my favorites. The Iraq war was a blunder, but that was caused IMO by faulty intelligence....I can't necessarily blame the POTUS if he was given bad info and was acting in good faith.

W's actions in the aftermath of 9/11 and his unifying of the country endeared him to many, including me. He had the most badass Presidential moment in recent history in my opinion when he threw out a heater at Yankee Stadium in the fall after 9/11 while wearing a bulletproof vest. Balls of steel.

I'll say - takes a lot of balls to quietly move Saudi interests out of the country even though the FBI already knows AQ handlers had assistance from their diplomatic assets in the US. Super ballsy.

Also it is incumbent on POTUS to ask the right questions of intel and foment an environment of risk analysis. Hello, Thirteen Days. Hello Ike in Korea.

zkojq wrote:

People have been surprisingly quick to forget just how much money was pissed away in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention all the lives lost. And there's absolutely nothing to show for it.

I think the clique of neocons who got rich (or richer in most cases) because of those wars would beg to differ. Those two wars were thinly veiled forms of corporate welfare in the end.

alberchico wrote:

I'm shocked at how badly this man has aged in the years since he left office. Considering that the key people in his administration have never expressed any regret over the decision to go into Iraq, I don't think he will ever either. These people have their legacy to protect. Irritating how he laughs it off.

Edit: This guy also joked about the failure to find Iraqi WMD's back in 2004 when people were dying in large numbers. Granted this was done at a dinner but it was still classless.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/mar/26/usa.iraq

It was extremely inappropriate to laugh after his mistake. I somehow understand him, we all know how it feels when you messed up bigly. But the people in the audience who laughed should be ashamed of themselves. How many innocent people have been killed in that invasion? And how many US soldiers lost their lives due to the WMDs that never existed. Not funny, but maybe I am just oldfashioned

N14AZ wrote:

how many US soldiers lost their lives due to the WMDs that never existed.

The Iraq war was not about WMDs; WMDs were just a selling point for the masses. The higher ups in Bush administration knew there were no WMDs, although no doubt there were lower echelon zealot types who drank the kool aid.

The fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq has been proven without a doubt.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/07/usa.iraq1
So where did the idea that there were WMDs come from? Israel made it up out of whole cloth. A WMD program would leave evidence and there (obviously) was no evidence.

In 2002, the former head of the Mossad intelligence agency, Efraim Halevy, told a closed meeting of Nato that there were (WMDs) in Iraq.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... raq.israel

He was obviously lying. But nobody in the know believed this lie.

The Iraq war was a plan sold to dimwit Bush for the United States to "conquer" the Middle east. Iraq was to just be the first step, Iran was intended to follow immediately after. The other smaller ME nations were then expected to fall in line.

This was all publicly laid out in the project for a New American Century plan: Cheney and Rumsfeld were both members of PNAC.
Of the 25 founding members of PNAC 10 of them were members of the Bush administration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_f ... an_Century

Why would anyone continue to spread the lie that the Iraq war was about WMDs?

N14AZ wrote:

alberchico wrote:

I'm shocked at how badly this man has aged in the years since he left office. Considering that the key people in his administration have never expressed any regret over the decision to go into Iraq, I don't think he will ever either. These people have their legacy to protect. Irritating how he laughs it off.

Edit: This guy also joked about the failure to find Iraqi WMD's back in 2004 when people were dying in large numbers. Granted this was done at a dinner but it was still classless.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/mar/26/usa.iraq

It was extremely inappropriate to laugh after his mistake. I somehow understand him, we all know how it feels when you messed up bigly. But the people in the audience who laughed should be ashamed of themselves. How many innocent people have been killed in that invasion? And how many US soldiers lost their lives due to the WMDs that never existed. Not funny, but maybe I am just oldfashioned

I think it’s funny, in about the sickest possible way. An idiot realizes he has murdered 500,000 people over a lie told to him by his fake church. He suddenly realizes his legitimacy as a human being is a sham, and that he belongs locked in a prison cell. His whole family knows it, too.

The killings in Iraq happened because Iraqis spoke a middle eastern language, were Muslims, and weren’t white.

I mean Trump did some bad things (minimizing Jan 6 was one thing he got very wrong), but Trump did nowhere near the damage, and committed nowhere near the crimes that Bush did. Bush killed far more people than Putin. Trump was corrupt, in that he stole millions, and tried to steal probably billions. But again… Trump was far from the most successful corrupt US politician. Lately, the real gangsters talk in trillions.

Vintage wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

how many US soldiers lost their lives due to the WMDs that never existed.

The Iraq war was not about WMDs; WMDs were just a selling point for the masses. The higher ups in Bush administration knew there were no WMDs, although no doubt there were lower echelon zealot types who drank the kool aid.

The fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq has been proven without a doubt.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/07/usa.iraq1
So where did the idea that there were WMDs come from? Israel made it up out of whole cloth. A WMD program would leave evidence and there (obviously) was no evidence.

In 2002, the former head of the Mossad intelligence agency, Efraim Halevy, told a closed meeting of Nato that there were (WMDs) in Iraq.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... raq.israel

He was obviously lying. But nobody in the know believed this lie.

The Iraq war was a plan sold to dimwit Bush for the United States to "conquer" the Middle east. Iraq was to just be the first step, Iran was intended to follow immediately after. The other smaller ME nations were then expected to fall in line.

This was all publicly laid out in the project for a New American Century plan: Cheney and Rumsfeld were both members of PNAC.
Of the 25 founding members of PNAC 10 of them were members of the Bush administration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_f ... an_Century

Why would anyone continue to spread the lie that the Iraq war was about WMDs?

I have the feeling you misunderstood my post. I am fully aware about the background of that war. Believe me, when I followed that famous presentation of the secretary of defense where he tried to convince people about the existence of WMDs by showing a sketch of a truck, sold as mobile WMD production unit, I immediately knew that this was a desperate attempt to find a justification to invade Iraq and nothing more than a hoax.

N14AZ wrote:

Vintage wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

how many US soldiers lost their lives due to the WMDs that never existed.

The Iraq war was not about WMDs; WMDs were just a selling point for the masses. The higher ups in Bush administration knew there were no WMDs, although no doubt there were lower echelon zealot types who drank the kool aid.

The fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq has been proven without a doubt.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/07/usa.iraq1
So where did the idea that there were WMDs come from? Israel made it up out of whole cloth. A WMD program would leave evidence and there (obviously) was no evidence.

In 2002, the former head of the Mossad intelligence agency, Efraim Halevy, told a closed meeting of Nato that there were (WMDs) in Iraq.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... raq.israel

He was obviously lying. But nobody in the know believed this lie.

The Iraq war was a plan sold to dimwit Bush for the United States to "conquer" the Middle east. Iraq was to just be the first step, Iran was intended to follow immediately after. The other smaller ME nations were then expected to fall in line.

This was all publicly laid out in the project for a New American Century plan: Cheney and Rumsfeld were both members of PNAC.
Of the 25 founding members of PNAC 10 of them were members of the Bush administration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_f ... an_Century

Why would anyone continue to spread the lie that the Iraq war was about WMDs?

I have the feeling you misunderstood my post. I am fully aware about the background of that war. Believe me, when I followed that famous presentation of the secretary of defense where he tried to convince people about the existence of WMDs by showing a sketch of a truck, sold as mobile WMD production unit, I immediately knew that this was a desperate attempt to find a justification to invade Iraq and nothing more than a hoax.

Then why the perpetuation of the WMD myth? Why not leave that lie behind?
Why not just call a spade a spade?

Even among those we would expect to know, there is a strong aversion to stating PNAC as the driving force behind the invasion of Iraq.

Vintage wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

Vintage wrote:

The Iraq war was not about WMDs; WMDs were just a selling point for the masses. The higher ups in Bush administration knew there were no WMDs, although no doubt there were lower echelon zealot types who drank the kool aid.

The fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq has been proven without a doubt.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/07/usa.iraq1
So where did the idea that there were WMDs come from? Israel made it up out of whole cloth. A WMD program would leave evidence and there (obviously) was no evidence.

He was obviously lying. But nobody in the know believed this lie.

The Iraq war was a plan sold to dimwit Bush for the United States to "conquer" the Middle east. Iraq was to just be the first step, Iran was intended to follow immediately after. The other smaller ME nations were then expected to fall in line.

This was all publicly laid out in the project for a New American Century plan: Cheney and Rumsfeld were both members of PNAC.
Of the 25 founding members of PNAC 10 of them were members of the Bush administration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_f ... an_Century

Why would anyone continue to spread the lie that the Iraq war was about WMDs?

I have the feeling you misunderstood my post. I am fully aware about the background of that war. Believe me, when I followed that famous presentation of the secretary of defense where he tried to convince people about the existence of WMDs by showing a sketch of a truck, sold as mobile WMD production unit, I immediately knew that this was a desperate attempt to find a justification to invade Iraq and nothing more than a hoax.

Then why the perpetuation of the WMD myth? Why not leave that lie behind?
Why not just call a spade a spade?

Even among those we would expect to know, there is a strong aversion to stating PNAC as the driving force behind the invasion of Iraq.

It is NOT a myth that the US government used the alleged existence of WMDs as a justification for the invasion. Very similar to what Russia did now in case of the Ukraine. We all should learn from previous mistakes. As such I think it’s very appropriate to mention this lie in this context again and again.

So I don‘t understand why we should leave that lie behind. Younger generations might not know about all these things you perfectly summarized further above.

N14AZ wrote:

It is NOT a myth that the US government used the alleged existence of WMDs as a justification for the invasion. Very similar to what Russia did now in case of the Ukraine. We all should learn from previous mistakes. As such I think it’s very appropriate to mention this lie in this context again and again.

So I don‘t understand why we should leave that lie behind. Younger generations might not know about all these things you perfectly summarized further above.

Why? Because this lie is still very much alive and accepted as truth for a large segment of the American public. The WMDs and the "it's all about oil" lies create a fog that perfectly obfuscates the mostly hidden truth of the Iraq war.

Do Jews relish the presentation of falsehoods about Jewish beliefs, behavior or genetics? No absolutely not.
Is it accepted to bandy about the lies that abound about 9-11, school shootings, racial myths, global warming etc etc? No it is not, these things can be discussed in good taste, but only in sober discussion, not just used for their entertainment value.

Why is the real cause of the Iraq war different? Why do so many people want to sweep that under the rug and keep repeating over and over: it was all about oil or WMDs WMDs WMDs? Younger generations need to know that our government was manipulated, but that is meaningless unless they know why we invaded Iraq. What the lies were that were used to cover up the truth are irrelevant unless they know the real reason for the invasion.

TriJets wrote:

W wasn't a bad president, IMO. In fact, he was one of my favorites. The Iraq war was a blunder, but that was caused IMO by faulty intelligence....I can't necessarily blame the POTUS if he was given bad info and was acting in good faith.

W's actions in the aftermath of 9/11 and his unifying of the country endeared him to many, including me. He had the most badass Presidential moment in recent history in my opinion when he threw out a heater at Yankee Stadium in the fall after 9/11 while wearing a bulletproof vest. Balls of steel.

Damn, dude! That's the funniest thing I've read in nearly 20 years on this site. And they say Americans don't do irony.

skyservice_330 wrote:

My sense is that GWB, over the years since he left office, has tried to soften his image by crafting this folksy, grandfatherish, nice guy persona. While it may work in some ways, it doesn't change the fact that as President he oversaw one of the most significant political quagmires of the century (Iraq) which resulted in the deaths of thousands/millions of Americans and Iraqi's. A quagmire that was based on faulty intelligence and a quagmire that was prematurely determined a success (Mission Accomplished!)

TriJets wrote:

W wasn't a bad president, IMO. In fact, he was one of my favorites. The Iraq war was a blunder, but that was caused IMO by faulty intelligence....I can't necessarily blame the POTUS if he was given bad info and was acting in good faith.

W's actions in the aftermath of 9/11 and his unifying of the country endeared him to many, including me. He had the most badass Presidential moment in recent history in my opinion when he threw out a heater at Yankee Stadium in the fall after 9/11 while wearing a bulletproof vest. Balls of steel.

I don't think Dubya was a good president and he did oversee the failure that Iraq and Afghanistan were. He also was president when the 2008 crisis happened and while that was decades in the making much of the actions that caused that crash were under his watch.
I do believe that he was very coerced into the Iraq war by his cabinet. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz etc. wanted that war and coerced him into thinking it made sense especially in the shadow of 9/11. Colin Powell IMO made that UN speech with a gun to his head. Granted most of what I know about what actually happened is from an Adam McKay movie.

His mild mannered personality helps him get away with it whereas Trump is crass and rude, but I can't say that one administration was much worse than the other.

However Trump really didn't start a whole lot of military conflicts when he was president. He didn't end them either but then again neither did Obama.

Perhaps its guilt that he said that and maybe he will come out saying that that war keeps him up at night but what is done is done and I am happy that he keeps a low profile as do most of the living presidents today.

The slip didn't even bother me that much. I was more appalled that he then corrected himself and s then said laughingly "Iraq too..hehe" calluosuly disregarding and disrespecting the thousands/millions of soldiers and innocent civilians lost in a debacle based on lies and deception.

phugoid1982 wrote:

calluosuly disregarding and disrespecting the thousands/millions of soldiers and innocent civilians lost in a debacle based on lies and deception.

beyond the direct kills, an argument could be made that he caused the rise of IS / ISIS / Daesh / ISIL or whatever these guys are named this year.

I did not understand Dubya’s “75” remark though. Can someone explain this?