• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama or Bush?

Obama or Bush?

  • Total voters
    36
MarineTpartier said:
Eh, thats shaky. I think Bush was speaking in the confidence of the info given to him. Its not like he's an intel analyst. I think he has the same excuse LBJ has in that regard. I believe he was told by people he trusted that there was a threat. He did what most Presidents do, he trusted his advisors and made a decision. In that case, it was the wrong one. I do hold him responsible because it was on his watch. But I don't think the mistake was his interpertation of intelligence info. It was his trusting of an untrustworthy subordinate or group of subordinates.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. Many saw it clearly, had foresight, pointed out his errors long before we invaded. For the president of the US, with all the access he had, to miss it? Well, I think you have to willingly suspend disbelief. Remove Curveball, And Chalabi, and his heroes in error, and examine the claims, and I think it becomes clear the president was less than honest. The finding that Fieth inappropriately used intel speaks to this.
 
Mensch said:
I think that to believe Bush lied (using the literal definition of the term) is to believe a conspiracy. What most likely occurred is that Bush pushed forward faulty intelligence because he was a careless president. Lying requires an intent to deceive.
Click to expand...

Not conspiracy in the way we most often speak to it. More he started with the answer, invade Iraq, and sought to find a way to justify it. He had many who also wanted to invade Iraq. The best reason for it I heard came from a conservative think tank, Strafor, who criticized Bush only for telling the wrong lie, one too easily shown false. The idea according to them, was that we needed a base in that area, and Iraq would be a place to have one. I don't know if that is true, but it makes more sense than thinking Bush didn't know what others knew. And let's not forget, we do have a rather large and expensive base there now.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not conspiracy in the way we most often speak to it. More he started with the answer, invade Iraq, and sought to find a way to justify it. He had many who also wanted to invade Iraq. The best reason for it I heard came from a conservative think tank, Strafor, who criticized Bush only for telling the wrong lie, one too easily shown false. The idea according to them, was that we needed a base in that area, and Iraq would be a place to have one. I don't know if that is true, but it makes more sense than thinking Bush didn't know what others knew. And let's not forget, we do have a rather large and expensive base there now.
Click to expand...

We already had a base in Kuwait. That doesn't hold water. And what base are you speaking of in Iraq?
 
MarineTpartier said:
We already had a base in Kuwait. That doesn't hold water. And what base are you speaking of in Iraq?
Click to expand...

My understanding was that wasn't good enough. But then again, it isn't my theory. It is the conservative think tanks theory. The point is, they recognized the lie even though they supported the war. It was a conservative and war supporter who asked me to cnsider it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom