Analysis: Bush's personality shapes his legacy

[Chulo]

what is this? an AP write up? OMG!


WASHINGTON – President George W. Bush will be judged on what he did. He will also be remembered for what he's like: a fast-moving, phrase-mangling Texan who stays upbeat even though his country is not.
For eight years, the nation has been led by a guy who relaxes by clearing brush in scorching heat and taking breakneck bike rides through the woods. He dishes out nicknames to world leaders, and even gave the German chancellor an impromptu, perhaps unwelcome, neck rub. He's annoyed when kept waiting and sticks relentlessly to routine. He stays optimistic in even the most dire circumstances, but readily tears up in public. He has little use for looking within himself, and only lately has done much looking back.
Bush's style and temperament are as much his legacy as his decisions. Policy shapes lives, but personality creates indelible memories — positive and negative.
Call it distinctly Bush.
___
Don't be late.
Bush demands punctuality and disdains inefficiency. Every meeting better have a clear purpose. And it better not repeat what he already knows.
He is up early and in the Oval Office by 6:45 a.m. By 9:30 to 10 at night, it's lights out. He likes to be fresh and won't get cheated on his sleep.
In sessions with policy experts, Bush tends to ask questions that get right to the nub of a sticky issue. His top aides speak regretfully about how the country never got to see that side of him, even after all this time. They describe a man who is deeply inquisitive, not blithely incurious as much of the world thinks.
When Bush wants answers, guessing isn't advised.
"He can sniff it out a mile away if you don't have the goods," said White House communications director Kevin Sullivan.
Other people write Bush's speeches, but he'll kick out phrases that he thinks stray from a logical progression. It's about discipline.
You can tell the issues that really get Bush going, because he talks about them differently, more passionately: education, AIDS relief, freedom. They happen to be ones that can be viewed more clearly through a moral lens. That's how he sees the world.
Bush reads the Bible regularly. Another devotion: exercise. He makes time for a workout at least six days a week, wherever he is. And he goes at it hard, especially on his mountain bike on the weekends, when he pushes Secret Service agents to keep up with him. He is competitive and likes to stay in command.
Even eating is approached with sheer purpose.
Bush wants his lunch ready when he is, and wolfs it down. His tastes are clear: maybe a peanut butter and honey sandwich, a BLT, or a burger. Former White House executive chef Walter Scheib learned from Bush never to serve a grilled cheese sandwich unless it came with a side of French's yellow mustard.
The man from a land of cowboy boots orders proper dress in the White House. No jeans allowed in the West Wing. Coat and tie in the Oval Office.
"Orderliness in the process gave him confidence," said Peter Wehner, a former top Bush aide and now a senior fellow at the Ethics & Public Policy Center.
And if you're in Bush's presence, turn off your cell phone. Pity the person who gets the Bush stare when a Blackberry rings at the wrong time.
Then there are his stories. He repeats his favorites. Like the one about the cheery rug in the Oval Office. Or the spectacular rainbow that day in Romania.
Who's going to stop him?
____
Bush's words betray him sometimes.
"They misunderestimated the compassion of our country," Bush said of the Sept. 11 terrorists. "I talk to families who die," he said, meaning the loved ones of those who perish in war. "Childrens do learn when standards are high," he said in promoting his education plan.
Ivy League educated, Bush is good-natured about his verbal trip-ups. Yet he appears to have grown a bit more methodical in public, as if searching carefully for the right words.
His tangled moments have undoubtedly helped shape an unflattering public perception; there are entire books of his "Bushisms." Invariably, though, people who talk to him privately — historians, journalists, dissidents — come away with a very different impression of a meticulous thinker.
It is a paradox of his presidency.
Some of Bush's sillier times are of his own choosing. He doesn't take himself too seriously.
Like his herky-jerky dance moves in Liberia, or his odd little tap dance while waiting for John McCain to show up one day. He likes to back-slap people. And when he's ready to move on, there are telltale signs. To end an event with visitors, he'll say, "Let's get a picture," and that's that.
Bush generally calls people by the labels of his choosing, too. Reporters, Cabinet members, heads of state — anyone is fair game for a nickname. The practice tends to add a touch of familiarity between people and the president, and Bush likes that.
As for fun, Bush is far from the first president with a love for sports, but he may have advanced the cause.
In baseball season, he often has a game on TV, even for soothing background noise while he works. He quietly welcomes ball players to the executive mansion for tours or dinnertime conversation. And regardless of the sport, he loves it every time any championship team comes to the White House.
Their moment is his moment.
__
Bush can flash a temper and impatience. But if he takes criticism personally — and he gets lots of criticism — he tries not to show it.
When former press secretary Scott McClellan wrote a scathing book about Bush's leadership, the president told his senior aides to let it go.
"Find a way to forgive, because that's the way to lead your life," White House press secretary Dana Perino remembers Bush advising her.
Bush is insistently — some say unforgivably — optimistic, no matter how low his poll numbers get.
"Every day has been pretty joyous," he said recently, summing up one of the hardest presidencies ever known.
The toughest moments for him come when he meets the grieving families of the troops he sent to war. Or when he meets severely wounded troops in recovery. Many of the hurting tell Bush they want to get back out in active duty. He is moved by the sacrifice.
"I do a lot of crying in this job," Bush once acknowledged.
He shows consideration to people close to him in little ways. He sends birthday notes to staff members. He remembers little details about their families. When he visits an Army post to thank the troops, he's been known to wander into the kitchen, too, to praise whoever cooked him the french fries.
The president is a proud dad of two grown daughters, Jenna and Barbara. The public got a tiny glimpse of his softer side when Jenna married Henry Hager in May. Bush said afterward that his little girl married a really good guy. First lady Laura Bush says her husband now has a son.
___
Bush is not much for the social scene. He and his wife will go to friends' homes but stay away from restaurants and Washington's other delights. His aides say he doesn't like to cause a security hassle for the public.
That's also why they say he speeds through his foreign travel. Even in the world's more magnificent sites, Bush often skips touristy stuff to stick to business, contributing to that incurious reputation.
"I'm a nester," Bush said.
Nowhere is that more true than at his beloved, secluded ranch in Crawford, Texas. He has spent more than a year of his presidency there.
Bush chops cedar, clears brush and builds mountain bike trails there. The summer heat doesn't bother him so much as enthrall him. He even set up a little competition, true Bush: People who work for him get a coveted T-shirt and bragging rights if they run for three straight miles on days hitting 100 degrees.
He relaxes by reading quite a bit, mostly U.S. and world history. He likes the spy-spoofing "Austin Powers" movies. He chills out with his wife.
His time will soon be his own.
"I will leave the presidency with my head held high," Bush says.
And he will leave behind a lot to remember.
___
EDITOR'S NOTE — Ben Feller covers the White House for The Associated Press.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090103/ap_on_go_pr_wh/distinctly_bush_analysis

[budgie]

When Bush wants answers, guessing isn't advised.
"He can sniff it out a mile away if you don't have the goods," said White House communications director Kevin Sullivan.

His nose must have been blocked when sniffing out those WMD claims then.



You can tell the issues that really get Bush going, because he talks about them differently, more passionately: education, AIDS relief, freedom. They happen to be ones that can be viewed more clearly through a moral lens. That's how he sees the world.

Only problem is the thinks he's always right. Such "moral clarity" often leads to a 'my way or the highway' approach to problem-solving.



"Find a way to forgive, because that's the way to lead your life," White House press secretary Dana Perino remembers Bush advising her.
Bush is insistently — some say unforgivably — optimistic, no matter how low his poll numbers get.
"Every day has been pretty joyous," he said recently, summing up one of the hardest presidencies ever known.

This demonstrates in my view, Bush's disconnect from reality and his lack of empathy. He'll harp on about the 'right to life' for American babies but if an Iraqi kid gets blown up that's 'collateral damage'. Yeah he's a full of forgiveness - for himself.

[Invisigoth]

Bush's failure shapes his legacy

fixed for you.

[vryhpyammoadded]

It’s hilarious how some tiny philosophical differences so shape the reality of people. I can’t wait for the freedom of information act to kick in 25 years from now to reveal more of the truth.

What the higher ups are privy too, along with those philosophic differences so explains all actions taken these past few years and completely legitimizes them if you think on that side of the coin or dams them to hell from the other as you are well aware.

They are all far from the ignorant buffoons you believe and quite capable in enacting near exact what they desire and making do with whatever they end up with.

The real war never ends…

[Bia]

WASHINGTON – President George W. Bush will be judged on what he did. He will also be remembered for what he's like: a fast-moving, phrase-mangling Texan who stays upbeat even though his country is not.

In other words... literally retarded.

[BearInBunnySuit]

I think the real George Bush is nothing like the man caricatured by the media and the liberals. He may not be the best POTUS in history but I certainly don't think he's the worst.

[Jobu]

I think the real George Bush is nothing like the man caricatured by the media and the liberals. He may not be the best POTUS in history but I certainly don't think he's the worst.



I still think he'll go down very much like Truman has.

Very popular at times, very unpopular at times. Truman had an unpopular war in Korea and a new global cold war with the Soviets. Bush had an unpopular war in Iraq and a new global war against jihadi Muslims. History has shown that Truman mostly stuck to his principles and did what he thought was best for the country no matter what it meant for his ratings. I can respect that. I think Bush has done about the same.

Neither was perfect but in the grand scheme of things, I think they both did about the only things that could have been done. They really had no other choices.

[RS_Leo1A5]

His nose must have been blocked when sniffing out those WMD claims then.
I don't think so.
He wanted to attack Iraq so he asked for an official "reason" with at least remote chances of getting accepted by the world. He did'nt have to sniff out a lie he wanted to hear...

There was a great carricature of GWB in a German magazine, back in the days when he tried to get UN approval for an attack on Iraq but failed. It showed him on the phone, saying: "Dad, it's not going well with the Iraq thing. Is there any oil in North Korea?"

[JRT]

They really had no other choices.

It's not like the white house was out of choices regarding Iraq. They just chose the one they did.

[Jobu]

It's not like the white house was out of choices regarding Iraq. They just chose the one they did.

After 12 years of failed sanctions, failed negotiations at the UN, and a failed inspections regime?

There really was no other choice.

[budgie]

I think the real George Bush is nothing like the man caricatured by the media and the liberals. He may not be the best POTUS in history but I certainly don't think he's the worst.


Outside an ever dwindling circle of hardcore Republicans he will be remembered as one of the worst...

[RS_Leo1A5]

There really was no other choice.
But why invent a dubious cover story complete with fake evidence?
Why not simply say: "OK, we finally want to finish the job we left 10 years ago. Anyone want to join us?"
Or
"I gotta proof to Daddy why he had me made POTUS."

[Dinges]

After 12 years of failed sanctions, failed negotiations at the UN, and a failed inspections regime?

There really was no other choice.


I take your premise and say : North Korea , Iran , South Africa etc. etc.

[Jobu]

But why invent a dubious cover story complete with fake evidence?



There was no dubious cover story. The intel community was simply wrong. They often are. Their job is to make the best guesses they can according to the information they've collected. It's not an exact science.

The CIA screws up, regularly. And it will continue to screw up regularly because that is the nature of the business they are in. They failed to see that China was entering the Korean War, they failed to kill Castro, they failed at the Bay of Pigs, they failed to see the Berlin Wall was about to come crashing down, they failed to see 9/11 coming, they've failed in their WMD analyses for decades. From the supposed missile gap to North Korea to South Africa to India and Pakistan to Iraq, and you can bet your ass currently to Iran.

But at the end of the day they are still the best we have and we don;t hear about all their successes so we will still rely on 'em. C'est la vie.

[Jobu]

I take your premise and say : North Korea , Iran , South Africa etc. etc.


Thanks, those examples only further strengthen my argument. I don't think anybody on earth will say North Korea and Iran are inspections/sanctions success stories.

South Africa voluntarily disarmed in a completely transparent manner. Obviously quite different than North Korea, Saddam, or now Iran.

[Dinges]

There was no dubious cover story. The intel community was simply wrong. They often are. Their job is to make the best guesses they can according to the information they've collected. It's not an exact science.

The CIA screws up, regularly. And it will continue to screw up regularly because that is the nature of the business they are in. They failed to see that China was entering the Korean War, they failed to kill Castro, they failed at the Bay of Pigs, they failed to see the Berlin Wall was about to come crashing down, they failed to see 9/11 coming, they've failed in their WMD analyses for decades. From the supposed missile gap to North Korea to South Africa to India and Pakistan to Iraq, and you can bet your ass currently to Iran.

But at the end of the day they are still the best we have and we don;t hear about all their successes so we will still rely on 'em. C'est la vie.


True. But the intell community do intell. Politicians act on intell. That is where the buck stops. You can always blame intell , but politicians sends soldiers into battle.

If they manipulate Intell to their own purposes people tend to die. If that goes down into a quagmire it is easy - blame intell. But intell did not make the choice for action.

[Bia]

True. But the intell community do intell. Politicians act on intell. That is where the buck stops. You can always blame intell , but politicians sends soldiers into battle.

If they manipulate Intell to their own purposes people tend to die. If that goes down into a quagmire it is easy - blame intell. But intell did not make the choice for action.

OR... when the boss fukcs up... someone on a lower level takes the blame.
I am sure this is the case with WWMD and Bush Admin.

Cheney/Rumsfeld... they have a special corner in hell for folks like you... god probobly wont send Bush to hell he's too stupid and simply followed the emporer.


:P

[Dinges]

OR... when the boss fukcs up... someone on a lower level takes the blame.
I am sure this is the case with WWMD and Bush Admin.

Cheney/Rumsfeld... they have a special corner in hell for folks like you... god probobly wont send Bush to hell he's too stupid and simply followed the emporer.


:P


He'd lose his way.

"You said right didnja! Eheheheh! ... Where my flightsuit? ... Now watch this drive!"

[Jobu]

But intell did not make the choice for action.

Intel informed the choice for action.

If your intel chief tells you that Saddam has WMDs, you believe it.
If your country was just attacked and suffered mass casualties from a terrorist group which seeks WMDs for even larger attacks, you act to prevent that from happening in every way you can.

Bush really had no choice other than to make sure it would not happen on his watch. Terrorists wanted WMDs, Saddam was believed to have em, they both shared a common enemy. To not act when that sort of nexus was a very real possiblity would have been unthinkable. You can't take that chance.

[budgie]

After 12 years of failed sanctions, failed negotiations at the UN, and a failed inspections regime?

There really was no other choice.


There was always another choice. A weakened and hobbled Iraq was not a threat to its neighbours. Saddam had no airforce, no ties to al Qaeda and no WMD. The choices abounded.

[Dinges]

Intel informed the choice for action.

If your intel chief tells you that Saddam has WMDs, you believe it.



But did the intel not disprove that? Before action was taken. British intel ( and the poms are good at it ) said nay. Colin Powell afterwards said the intel was flawed - and he was a insider. It is all conjecture.

Politicians running blowing hot air - as per usual ad infinitum. Que sera sera.

[Jobu]

Colin Powell afterwards said the intel was flawed - and he was a insider.

And he was correct about this. The intel was flawed. And it had been flawed for years. It was flawed when Clinton told us Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and it was flawed when Bush told us the same thing.

[Dinges]

Then why the war?

[Jobu]

There was always another choice. A weakened and hobbled Iraq was not a threat to its neighbours. Saddam had no airforce, no ties to al Qaeda and no WMD. The choices abounded.

He had contacts with Al Qaeda and was believed to still have WMD's.
What came of those contacts was unknown at the time. What he did with the unaccounted for WMD materials is still unknown since he never gave proof of its destruction.

So at the time, there really was no other choice. Saddam had to go.

[Jobu]

Then why the war?

#1. Saddam had to go.
#2. His sons could not be allowed to succeed him.
#3. We believed he still had WMD's and were not about to wait until he found a reason to work with Al Qaeda or a similiar group intent on inflicting as many casualties as possible in America.
#4. The French, Germans, and Russians were pressing to let Saddam out of his box. He was already making billions off them in the Oil for Food scam. So, containment was not a long-term option.
#5. Daily fire on our planes in the No Fly Zone as well as countless other violations of the cease-fire agreement.
#6. Establishing an ally in the heart of the Middle East would be a blow to Islamists in the long run. A prosperous, democratic Iraq will do more to win the GWoT than any other battle.

etc. etc.

[Dinges]

He had contacts with Al Qaeda and was believed to still have WMD's.
What came of those contacts was unknown at the time. What he did with the unaccounted for WMD materials is still unknown since he never gave proof of its destruction.

So at the time, there really was no other choice. Saddam had to go.


Nope. Now you are grasping at straws. Please put up a better argument. There are thousands of people reading this - so please prove it.

[CG51]

http://ca.youtube.com/v/EkqrI3IibYI&feature=related

[Dinges]

Sorry bendy , can't see nuffing

[Jobu]

Nope. Now you are grasping at straws. Please put up a better argument. There are thousands of people reading this - so please prove it.

Prove what?

[budgie]

#1. Saddam had to go.
#2. His sons could not be allowed to succeed him.
#3. We believed he still had WMD's and were not about to wait until he found a reason to work with Al Qaeda or a similiar group intent on inflicting as many casualties as possible in America.
#4. The French, Germans, and Russians were pressing to let Saddam out of his box. He was already making billions off them in the Oil for Food scam. So, containment was not a long-term option.
#5. Daily fire on our planes in the No Fly Zone as well as countless other violations of the cease-fire agreement.
#6. Establishing an ally in the heart of the Middle East would be a blow to Islamists in the long run. A prosperous, democratic Iraq will do more to win the GWoT than any other battle.

etc. etc.

People continue to delude themselves.

Of the justifications listed only #3 allowed Bush to pursue the war and that argument turned out to be false. There were no WMD and there was no AQ'connection'. Without (over)selling the flimsy evidence to support these to Congress and the Public, the administration would never have gotten support for the war. The sanctions, no fly-zones and Saddam's general nastiness would never have been enough. All solid components of the neocon mythos surrounding the war but all superfluous to the argument. Congress and the public would never have bought in without the lynchpin:

The lynchpin, in this case, was the accusations: Saddam bought yellowcake, he'd send crop-dusters laden with WMD flying over US cities, he'd give bin laden a dirty bomb to leak radiation in Manhattan and, and....OMFG he's standing right behind you now, RUN!

Without the panic scare based on the CIA's phoney 'slam dunk' evidence there would have been no invasion. Bush will be remembered for lying his country into a costly invasion and occupation of a middle-eastern quagmire.

[Jobu]

I disagree.

I think there were more than enough reasons to get rid of Saddam and his sons whether one of the reasons (WMD stockpiles) turned out to be based on faulty intel or not.

In fact, I think Clinton should have done it years earlier when it became apparent that Saddam would never completely cooperate with the terms of the cease-fire.

[Dinges]

And I reiterate , then why not do the same with Kim Jong Il , the Generals in Myanmar and Robert Mugabe. They are all dictators that willingly destroy their own countries for power and privilege.

You just do not go and usurp a person because he was a naughty boy or tried to kill your daddy! There are things as international law.

[Jobu]

And I reiterate , then why not do the same with Kim Jong Il , the Generals in Myanmar and Robert Mugabe. They are all dictators that willingly destroy their own countries for power and privilege.

You just do not go and usurp a person because he was a naughty boy or tried to kill your daddy! There are things as international law.


Are the generals in Myanmar a threat to the United States and our interests? Nope.
Did we fight a war with the generals in Myanmar and impose conditional rules for them to follow in return for a cease-fire? Nope.

Is Mugabe a threat to the USA or our interests? Nope.

Kim Jong Il? Different situation. He can build his nukes, talk smack, drink his cognac, enslave his people, starve them, and place entire families in prison for generations and it makes no difference. Why? He has China to protect him.

Saddam had no such protection. He thought he could count on the French and Russians to stand by his side but when the **** hit the fan, they stood aside and watched him get taken down.

[Dinges]

Was Saddam a threat to the US?

[Jobu]

Was Saddam a threat to the US?

Yep. .

[Dinges]

Please elaborate.

[Jobu]

Please elaborate.


Look at his history and his intent.

[Dinges]

But what direct threat did he pose?

[vryhpyammoadded]

I lean towards Jobu’s opinion that Saddam had to go and for some of his reasons specified but I believe Bush and his allies’ underestimated the power of the international lefts angst, pacifism and apology social conditioning machine at flipping once allied governments to antagonist along with the surprise that long established and secure alliances were in fact not so, although, it was overdue exposing how weak those bonds really were. Now maybe this dose of diplomatic reality might peel back a bit of that idealist shine people try so hard to delude themselves into admiring.

I saw the process up to Saddam’s removal, and others, as sort of a collective world plea to “rid itself of these meddlesome tyrants, ala Henry and Becket” with a little “would a volunteer to please step forward” to take care of Saddam with all but a few nations on the opportunist sly, nudge, wink taking a step back to ensure the more aggressive US and buddies take the point. It was pretty slick and expected by a few of us.

Then again, I don’t think Bush and allies really cared though. Saddam’s destiny was written back in 91 anyway and the oil there desperately needed new management in thier opinon. I really don’t think Saddam would have settled for anything less than martyring Iraq to sooth his fat ego and continue his comfortable lifestyle. Like a child, he’d rather break it than share.

Oh come now Prion, one despot at a time please… Devouring weak competitors under the ever watchful gaze of the supposedly fair, civilized, progressive paradigm takes time, careful planning and a keen sense of when to stick the knife in. Saddam was ripe, the others are getting there.

International Law? That fantasy only lasts as long as humanity is willing to abide by it and without an ultimate arbiter other than maybe say Darwin. Who’s to say which sovereign is right or wrong, the majority, karma, god? The hypocrisy has been getting out of hand with all players and a trial will likely occur in a few years resetting everything to the new paradigm. International law and cooperation will then be all the rage once more.

Dam, my cynicism is on overdrive today.

[IraGlacialis]

Very popular at times, very unpopular at times. Truman had an unpopular war in Korea and a new global cold war with the Soviets. Bush had an unpopular war in Iraq and a new global war against jihadi Muslims. History has shown that Truman mostly stuck to his principles and did what he thought was best for the country no matter what it meant for his ratings. I can respect that. I think Bush has done about the same.
That is why it is best to wait at least two presidential terms before making anything resembling a solid assessment of any presidency.

Truman was really disliked while he was in office, yet history tends to treat him quite favorably and and many times put him as one of the top ten.

Same as that history may show that Bush was a man guided by his principles and in the long run, did what he thought was best for this nation, with evidence of successful fruit brought forward from his presidency (whether that fruit comes right after he leaves office or a couple decades).
Then again, history may also show that, for his personal qualities, his presidency was a complete cluster**** that left this nation the laughing-stock of the international community and created a mess that his successors will have to pick up for terms to come.
Or maybe it will just be a mixture of those two descriptions.

Who knows; only time will tell.

[Dinges]

I lean towards Jobu’s opinion that Saddam had to go and for some of his reasons specified but I believe Bush and his allies’ underestimated the power of the international lefts angst, pacifism and apology social conditioning machine at flipping once allied governments to antagonist along with the surprise that long established and secure alliances were in fact not so, although, it was overdue exposing how weak those bonds really were. Now maybe this dose of diplomatic reality might peel back a bit of that idealist shine people try so hard to delude themselves into admiring.

I saw the process up to Saddam’s removal, and others, as sort of a collective world plea to “rid itself of these meddlesome tyrants, ala Henry and Becket” with a little “would a volunteer to please step forward” to take care of Saddam with all but a few nations on the opportunist sly, nudge, wink taking a step back to ensure the more aggressive US and buddies take the point. It was pretty slick and expected by a few of us.

Then again, I don’t think Bush and allies really cared though. Saddam’s destiny was written back in 91 anyway and the oil there desperately needed new management in thier opinon. I really don’t think Saddam would have settled for anything less than martyring Iraq to sooth his fat ego and continue his comfortable lifestyle. Like a child, he’d rather break it than share.

Oh come now Prion, one despot at a time please… Devouring weak competitors under the ever watchful gaze of the supposedly fair, civilized, progressive paradigm takes time, careful planning and a keen sense of when to stick the knife in. Saddam was ripe, the others are getting there.

International Law? That fantasy only lasts as long as humanity is willing to abide by it and without an ultimate arbiter other than maybe say Darwin. Who’s to say which sovereign is right or wrong, the majority, karma, god? The hypocrisy has been getting out of hand with all players and a trial will likely occur in a few years resetting everything to the new paradigm. International law and cooperation will then be all the rage once more.

Dam, my cynicism is on overdrive today.

No worries.:)

I too believe Saddam was ripe for the picking. But a threat to the lives of any people must be a priority to all involved. That is where my argument comes in - if you create a premise of action against tyrants you have a default responsibility to continue acting accordingly. Or not at all.

[Jobu]

if you create a premise of action against tyrants you have a default responsibility to continue acting accordingly. Or not at all.



No.

Your responsibility as a President is to do what is in the best interests of your country.

If that means befriending Mubarak while removing Saddam so be it. If that means befriending Noriega only to later take him out when you no longer need him, so be it. If that means allying with Stalin to take out Hitler, so be it.

That's the reality of the world we live in.

[BearInBunnySuit]

Your responsibility as a President is to do what is in the best interests of your country.

I believe (and hope) this is what motivated him to go into Iraq and whether that decision was right or not will become more apparent as time goes on.

[bababooey]

Bush, the white knight, slayed the evil Saddam and the Princess was saved. And we all lived happily ever after.

[Dinges]

No.

Your responsibility as a President is to do what is in the best interests of your country.

If that means befriending Mubarak while removing Saddam so be it. If that means befriending Noriega only to later take him out when you no longer need him, so be it. If that means allying with Stalin to take out Hitler, so be it.

That's the reality of the world we live in.


And obviously invading Iraq was not in the best interest of the US. Afghanistan - Yes. Iraq - Not.

[Baboonass]

The lynchpin, in this case, was the accusations: Saddam bought yellowcake, .


He never needed to.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/05/world/main4235028.shtml


In any case, the intell communities did not "screw up" as some of you so eloquently phrased it, the intel was sound within the parameters they were alowed to operate in.

Pay close attention to the phrase "within the parameters they were alowed to operate in".


Anyway, as usual, there is far more info about Iraq then what you read or hear about in the news.

[Red River]

I've always been a Bush supporter. My father was graced with the honor to work for two Presidents and travel the world with them. As his son I was given the unique oppurtunity to spend some time, all of 20 minutes, with Bush in Waco Texas. But those 20 minutes were more then enough to feel inspired. Talking to him was an amazing experience, the charisma he lacks in front of large groups is made up for by the impression he leaves on a person when speaking to them one on one.

[Dinges]

He never needed to.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/05/world/main4235028.shtml


In any case, the intell communities did not "screw up" as some of you so eloquently phrased it, the intel was sound within the parameters they were alowed to operate in.

Pay close attention to the phrase "within the parameters they were alowed to operate in".


Anyway, as usual, there is far more info about Iraq then what you read or hear about in the news.


But cherry-picking intel to fit your premise is bound to become a first class "screw up".

[Jobu]

But cherry-picking intel to fit your premise is bound to become a first class "screw up".


Was it cherry picking when the Clinton administration used the same intel and came to same conclusions...

or is it only cherry picking if you choose to act on those conclusions?

[Dinges]

Was it cherry picking when the Clinton administration used the same intel and came to same conclusions...

or is it only cherry picking if you choose to act on those conclusions?


Ask Valerie Plame.

[Baboonass]

But cherry-picking intel to fit your premise is bound to become a first class "screw up".



A) The intel agency doesn't "cherry pick" the information they pass on. It gets catagorized by priority and is only an analysis of the facts and lead to "best guess". The tighter the information, the better the analysis.

B) When this info is passed on, it is up to the leadership to employ an action. These actions are based on the intel they recieve.


Everything up to that point led our leadship (and others) to believe that Saddam was actively working on WMD programs.

With any analyisis, there are going to be detractors or conflicting information from other sources. This could be real or CI, there is no real way of knowing.


Anyway, WMD was certainly highlighted, but only one of our multiple reasons for the invasion. Unfortunatly, it's become a major point of contention and everything else has been marginalized.

[Baboonass]

Ask Valerie Plame.

LOL!!!!


Oh brother, there's a serious can of worms you do not want to open up.


She's a tool, she liked everyone knowing who she was and abused her possition to further her own agenda.

Her being "outed" was purposterous.

[Dinges]

A) The intel agency doesn't "cherry pick" the information they pass on. It gets catagorized by priority and is only an analysis of the facts and lead to "best guess". The tighter the information, the better the analysis.

B) When this info is passed on, it is up to the leadership to employ an action. These actions are based on the intel they recieve.


Everything up to that point led our leadship (and others) to believe that Saddam was actively working on WMD programs.

With any analyisis, there are going to be detractors or conflicting information from other sources. This could be real or CI, there is no real way of knowing.


Anyway, WMD was certainly highlighted, but only one of our multiple reasons for the invasion. Unfortunatly, it's become a major point of contention and everything else has been marginalized.

I agree.

But so many countries's Intel org's share. But because of ideology the admin ignored good intel. And people died.

[Dinges]

LOL!!!!


Oh brother, there's a serious can of worms you do not want to open up.


She's a tool, she liked everyone knowing who she was and abused her possition to further her own agenda.

Her being "outed" was purposterous.

No argument. Just highlighting all possible point of views.

[Baboonass]

I agree.

But so many countries's Intel org's share. But because of ideology the admin ignored good intel. And people died.



Not really.

"Shared" intel is only shared because is benifits the country of origin. Is this intel real, or is it CI?


In the world of information, the US does not have friends, it has interests. This applies to every nation.

Our greatest allies have other allies who are our enemies.

Way of the world.

Obviously, mistakes were made, but insufficent intel on the WMD program is more or less inconsiquencial to the overall picture, stratigically anyway.

Politically it was/is a disaster.

Hindsight; never should have referenced WMD in our invasion statements.