• 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!

Was George W Bush a good president?[W:439:621]

Was George W Bush a good president?


  • Total voters
    124
  • Poll closed .
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

Where did you get that date? I didn't say anything about 1998.

When was the Iraqi Liberation Act signed?

What were democrats saying about Iraq and WMD in 1998?
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

When was the Iraqi Liberation Act signed?

What were democrats saying about Iraq and WMD in 1998?
The invasion started after the attack of 9/11. The two events were not connected other than the one was used as an excuse for the other, but the invasion of Iraq was not in 1998. What difference would it make if it were? The statement about 40% of Democrats being fooled would still be accurate.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

The invasion started after the attack of 9/11. The two events were not connected other than the one was used as an excuse for the other, but the invasion of Iraq was not in 1998. What difference would it make if it were? The statement about 40% of Democrats being fooled would still be accurate.
You completely miss the point I'm making. It's obvious you didn't watch even the first 10 seconds on the video. The video show democrats in 1998 talking about Saddam and WMD. Nobody in the Bush administration convinced than there was WMD. If anything, the Clinton administration convinced Bush it was there.

Watch the video, or remain ignorant.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

You completely miss the point I'm making. It's obvious you didn't watch even the first 10 seconds on the video. The video show democrats in 1998 talking about Saddam and WMD. Nobody in the Bush administration convinced than there was WMD. If anything, the Clinton administration convinced Bush it was there.

Watch the video, or remain ignorant.
It was Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld who advocated the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The point was made that Democrats supported the invasion.
Therefore, some of the Democrats were fooled.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

It was Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld who advocated the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
The point was made that Democrats supported the invasion.
Therefore, some of the Democrats were fooled.

LOL...

How can they be fooled when they were saying Saddam had to be stopped in 1998?

Is 1998 before or after 911?

Are you capable of following someone elses point, or dead set solid so that no other input is allowed?
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

You completely miss the point I'm making. It's obvious you didn't watch even the first 10 seconds on the video. The video show democrats in 1998 talking about Saddam and WMD. Nobody in the Bush administration convinced than there was WMD. If anything, the Clinton administration convinced Bush it was there.

Watch the video, or remain ignorant.

Now THAT assertion is simply absurd. Nobody in the Bush administration thought Saddam had WMD until the Clinton administration planted the idea? I think Rumsfeld and Cheney, for starters, knew damn well that Saddam had WMD at some point, since he got some from us.

The important question is whether he had them in 2003, when they were used as the impetus for invasion, and a lot of actionable intelligence said he no longer did, and it was ignored.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

The important question is whether he had them in 2003, when they were used as the impetus for invasion, and a lot of actionable intelligence said he no longer did, and it was ignored.
There was intelligence that suggested it might be gone, but nothing solid at all. The fact Saddam interfered with inspections indicated he was hiding it.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

LOL...

How can they be fooled when they were saying Saddam had to be stopped in 1998?

Is 1998 before or after 911?

Are you capable of following someone elses point, or dead set solid so that no other input is allowed?

The PNAC wrote a letter to Clinton in 1998 urging him to remove Saddam, but he didn't bite. When Bush was elected, they found the perfect tool.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

The PNAC wrote a letter to Clinton in 1998 urging him to remove Saddam, but he didn't bite. When Bush was elected, they found the perfect tool.
I'm not familiar with that letter, but assume you are correct. It still doesn't change the facts.

That video show democrats in 1998 and 2002. Recorded words of theirs. They did not need to be convinced after 911, they already believed in the WMD.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

Part 1:

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.

The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.

The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.

Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.

Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.

When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.

I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.

Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.

Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.

It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.

Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.

Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.

"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."

In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.

And so we had to act and act now.

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike - December 16, 1998
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

Part 2:

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.

That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.

They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.

At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.

That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.

Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.

So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.

First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.

The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.

Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.

We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.

The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.

Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.

We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.

But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.

Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.

Transcript: President Clinton explains Iraq strike - December 16, 1998
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

I'm not familiar with that letter, but assume you are correct. It still doesn't change the facts.

That video show democrats in 1998 and 2002. Recorded words of theirs. They did not need to be convinced after 911, they already believed in the WMD.
They launched Operation Desert Fox, you said it yourself. BTW, the Republicans were calling it "Wag The Dog" because Clinton was being impeached in December 1998.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

They launched Operation Desert Fox, you said it yourself. BTW, the Republicans were calling it "Wag The Dog" because Clinton was being impeached in December 1998.

There will always be partisan finger-pointing. Problem is, liberals seem to fall for everything the democrats say. You should be as skeptical of what democrats say as you are of what republicans say.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

There will always be partisan finger-pointing. Problem is, liberals seem to fall for everything the democrats say. You should be as skeptical of what democrats say as you are of what republicans say.
Have you seen this video?

 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

There will always be partisan finger-pointing. Problem is, liberals seem to fall for everything the democrats say. You should be as skeptical of what democrats say as you are of what republicans say.

The tools were the democrats shooting off their mouths...then the deed was done. The tools then blamed Bush for attacking poor, poor Sadam and continued and continued counting the flag draped caskets arriving from Iraq and Afghanistan. I guess their idea of how to accomplish the deed was to destroy the entire country of Iraq with carpet bombing ie...as in Berlin, Dresden and Hamburg Germany, killing every innocent Iraqi in sight.

Bush was a great president, EXCEPT for allowing Chappaquiddick Kennedy to write the No Child Left Behind bill. What a waste of money disaster that is.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

There will always be partisan finger-pointing. Problem is, liberals seem to fall for everything the democrats say. You should be as skeptical of what democrats say as you are of what republicans say.

I think ALL politicians lie. It's part of what they do and who they are. It doesn't matter the party. Politics is a lot like big business.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

Have you seen this video?



Not till now. Wish it was more complete.

Do you really trust edited snippits?

How about more content of what they were saying please...

Powell, 9 seconds. Who is "he?"

Rice, 11 seconds, again, no context.

I have no way of knowing the accuracy of your contention. Any reputable source would have had better context.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

Not till now. Wish it was more complete.

Do you really trust edited snippits?

How about more content of what they were saying please...

Powell, 9 seconds. Who is "he?"

Rice, 11 seconds, again, no context.

I have no way of knowing the accuracy of your contention. Any reputable source would have had better context.

This guy always posts YouTube videos as "evidence." :roll:
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

I just took a a quick look at the poll numbers and it looks like the overwhelming consensus is that G.W. Bush didn't do a good job as president of the USA.

I doubt that many statues of him will ever stand in many town squares.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

This guy always posts YouTube videos as "evidence." :roll:
Well, I found the transcripts of both. At least I do my research.

Here they are:

CNN.com - Transcripts

Longer snippet:
KING: Still a menace, still a problem. But the administration failed, principally because of objections from Russia and China, to get the new sanctions policy through the United Nations Security Council. Now what? Do we do this for another 10 years?

RICE: Well, in fact, John, we have made progress on the sanctions. We, in fact, had four of the five, of the permanent five, ready to go along with smart sanctions.

We'll work with the Russians. I'm sure that we'll come to some resolution there, because it is important to restructure these sanctions to something that work.

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

This has been a successful period, but obviously we would like to increase pressure on him, and we're going to go about doing that.

Transcript: Briefing by Secretary Colin Powell, Foreign Minister Amre Moussa

Longer snippet:

We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.
 
Re: Was George W Bush a good president?

Well, I found the transcripts of both. At least I do my research.

Here they are:

CNN.com - Transcripts

Longer snippet:


Transcript: Briefing by Secretary Colin Powell, Foreign Minister Amre Moussa

Longer snippet:

It's a good find, and she does state that sanctions "are working" and that Iraq is not developing WMD. However, this was a public interview. The government does not reveal what it REALLY knows on television during an interview. Why on earth would anyone think she would put Americans in a state of panic like that? They wouldn't.

We never really know what the government knows. They share with us what THEY want us to know and that is all.
 
Back
Top Bottom