Bush admits he was clueless about Iraq

[westkoast]

Oh, don't get me wrong.  The reasons we were given for going to war were garbage, because our intelligence community failed us *AGAIN*.  The reasons we were given do not justify the war.

HOWEVER, we had other reasons to go to war - namely, to enforce the U.N. sanctions that Iraq *DID* violate.  Of course, that wasn't the reason we were given, so I now hold the President accountable to the reasons he *DID* give rather than the ones he SHOULD HAVE given.

Right war, wrong time (when the inspectors were back vs. when they had been kicked out), wrong reason (WMD as opposed to violation of U.N. sanctions).  If the U.N. is too weak or too slow to react, like it or not, the burden falls upon the United States as the world's only remaining superpower.  As a superpower, we're not only condemned for what we do, but for what we *DON'T* do when we know we should have.  We have to be active toward the good of the world because no one else CAN be.  We can't be isolationists, despite the attractiveness of the possibility.

With power comes responsibility, and we need people who understand that.  Kerry doesn't understand the need to act.  Bush doesn't understand the need to act for the right reasons.  That's why neither man is fit to run the country.

Joe, could Sadaam spitting in the UN's face be a reason for us to goto war?  Sure it could be.  Would it be good enough reason to rally the nation behind?  Probably not.  The full fleged support from millions of Americans came from fear of WMDs and us being attacked.  Had they known what we know now I can guarentee that a huge chunk of those supporters would not support a US invasion strickly on Sadaam breaking UN policy.  Especially if the UN was against it, its there policy.  You are dead on, we (the American people) were told we were going to war for the wrong reasons.  I feel like we have been lied to.  I also feel that blame also needs to be placed on the administrations shoulders along with the intelligence agencies shoulders.  They gave bad info and the administration did not double and triple check.

Personally I feel the world is no better or worse with Sadaam not around.  Maybe Kuwait will disagree with me.  Him being jailed hasn't change my life here in America.  I don't feel any safer now that he is gone than I did before.

[JoMal]

If the "new" motivation for the war was because the in-place government was run by bad people who had to be neutralized, then wouldn't we be in the Sudan, North Korea, or elsewhere right now as well?

If the original justification for this war was because of suspected WMD, and then because the government sanctioned the exportation of terrorism, then perhaps our leaders just misspelled the country of intent and we were supposed to invade Iran instead. Oops.

It is our sworn duty as citizens of this democracy to question our leaders about their actions, especially when they apparently select any old country to invade, build up a false reasoning for the action, and thumb their nose at the rest of the world when they suggest we slow up a bit before taking action. Our jobs are to replace the administration if it performs contrary to our beliefs. This invasion had no immediate basis or justification for protecting American interests. The UN sanctions were working. Hussain, while certainly not a nice guy, was not threatening us, his neighbors, or working with terrorist.

Iran, however, hates us, and also hates Iraq, and it sure looks like they may have manipulated our gullible leaders by placing misleading information in our intelligence system to encourgage the U.S. in invading their enemy for them, while they are on the verge of developing the bomb. So is North Korea.

Now, I ask you. Does it make sense to invade a country you KNOW has contacts with terrorists who have attacked the U.S. (Iran or North Korea), but who you also know has the bomb and certainly what we are calling WMD's, instead of an oil-rich country with a loud-mouthed, sadistic leader who you can make yourself look good knocking off while going in and controlling these wonderful oil fields?

Makes you wonder who is really the sadistic leader who has to be disposed.

[Lurker]

Makes you wonder who is really the sadistic leader who has to be disposed.

Ah-nold!

That was too easy, JoMal.

[JoMal]

It would take more then UN sanctions and an invasion from U.S. armed forces to rid us of the Governator now. His Capital Pill Box is way too fortified.

[rickortreat]

Yeah, but the difference is Ahnold was elected fair and square.  Not that I understand that, but it was California's choice.  

Besides who in their right mind would want that job.  Governing a state that's up to it's eyeballs in debt.  Very hard to be responsible and do the right thing wahen you're broke.  Sort of like the rest of the country is now, thanks to a Republican administration!

The Republicans talk about tax and spend Liberals, but everytime a Republican gets in the White House, we go further into debt.  What's up with that?   :crazy:   They speak out of both sides of their mouth!

Not that the Dems are necessarilly any better, but we were actualy getting better under Clinton.  Bush managed to undo all of that in one term, and you want to give him another shot?   :eek2:  

[Ted]

The Republicans talk about tax and spend Liberals, but everytime a Republican gets in the White House, we go further into debt.  What's up with that?   :crazy:   They speak out of both sides of their mouth!

Not that the Dems are necessarilly any better, but we were actualy getting better under Clinton.  Bush managed to undo all of that in one term, and you want to give him another shot?   :eek2:

I was still fairly young and disinterested in politics during the Clinton years, but I heard that Congress had a larger share than Clinton in balancing the budget. Anyone have a contrasting opinion on that?

[jn]

Ted much credit should go to Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, along with of course, the tax revenues generated from the tech boom.  

SOME members of Congress deserve credit, but not many.  If I recall correctly the group of legislators who really pushed deficit reduction called themselves the Concorde Coalition and included members of both parties.  

[Ted]

Ted much credit should go to Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, along with of course, the tax revenues generated from the tech boom.  

SOME members of Congress deserve credit, but not many.  If I recall correctly the group of legislators who really pushed deficit reduction called themselves the Concorde Coalition and included members of both parties.

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. I remembered something about a bipartisan group behind the push for a balanced budget. I remember Newt and some other prominent repubs trying to give all credit to the repub congress, but I know it was more of a bipartisan effort.

On tax revenues. I'm in an MBA tax planning course right now, and I'm seeing how messed up our tax code is. I believe in a somewhat progessive tax rate, but the number of loopholes and legit tax avoidance gambits are unbelievable. A smart rich person will pay little more than the average middle class tax payer. For example, Teresa Heinz Kerry's real tax rate was roughly 15%. That's less than what I paid last year, and I make bubkiss.

But still, I believe the tax code has very little to do with success in balancing the budget. More money running through the economy and wise government spending seem more important.