Americans answered their President - Page 6

Originally posted by: chatbuster

given constraints on time, budgets etc, a basic quality a good leader shld have is in terms of setting the right priorities. iraq IMO was way down on priority. if we had to go after terrorists and WMDs, which ultimately is what the war was INITIALLY supposed to be about, we wld have been better served if we had instead gone really hard after the outfits in afghanistan and it's neighboring countries. after all, iraq's possessing WMDs was just a conjecture at best, but some countries' actually proliferating nukes and missiles to shady countries is no conjecture, is it? in any case, starting a war to finish off popsy's unfinished business is not my idea of good priority-setting.

Sahi hai. Ekdum sixer. 👏Bush proved to be a bad leader, both at home and abroad.

Originally posted by: lighthouse

With the benefit of hindsight it is easy to harp on Bush and Iraq war but when Baghdad fell and Hussein sons got killed Bush had the highest approval ratinug. Since then the rise in insurgencies has threatened the stability in the region and in turn been the cause of dissatisfaction at home. War is never the first option but when the enemy causes harm in your home , it is inevitable.

I am not approving Bush or disapproving anyone else but my allegiance will be with the one who tried to fight rather then the one who chose to do nothing and perhaps could have avoided 9/11...

Yeah very logical, whatever you say. There are many nations in the world who have anti-American views. Does that mean you go and bombard each of them? N. Korea, Syria, Iran, Cuba and a lot many. Not going after the real enemy responsible for 9/11, but after someone with a bad blood from the past. Must say a very efficient leader. That points towards a motive to attack Iraq.

Clinton might have failed to identify the sworn enemy who would be threatful to the country in near future, what did Bush administration do? There was a report about the terror plot 2-3 months before 9/11, they had report about terrorist gathering in Malayasia for a bigger event. At least hope that Clinton would have taken a different strategy to fight terrorism post 9/11.

I am not totally convinced Bush planned Iraq invasion with honest reasons. Her are some pointers.

Long before he became president Bush expressed his desire to complete the Iraq job, that his father left unfinished earlier, to be perceived as a strong military leader. (This news story was published in Houston Chronicles back in 2004)
Soon after Bush took office, in Feb 2001, a memo to then Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill revealed that administration was already discussing Political Military Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.
Then we learned from British Cabinet meeting notes, a brief to PM Tony Blair, that the US intelligence on WMD and facts were being fixed around the policy to generate the support for Iraq invasion.
Later in the interview with ABC, Colin Powell (who left this administration half way) admitted that making false case for Iraq War was a 'Blot' on his reputation.

Originally posted by: bhilwara

I am not totally convinced Bush planned Iraq invasion with honest reasons. Her are some pointers.

Long before he became president Bush expressed his desire to complete the Iraq job, that his father left unfinished earlier, to be perceived as a strong military leader. (This news storywas published in Houston Chronicles back in 2004)
Soon after Bush took office, in Feb 2001, a memo to then Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill revealed that administration was already discussing Political Military Plan for Post-Saddam Iraq.
Then we learned from British Cabinet meeting notes, a brief to PM Tony Blair, that the US intelligence on WMD and facts were being fixed around the policy to generate the support for Iraq invasion.
Later in the interview with ABC, Colin Powell (who left this administration half way) admitted that making false case for Iraq War was a 'Blot' on his reputation.

bingo. if we look at mckinsey-type management consultants, they start with a hypothesis and generate "facts" to prove/ disprove it. in this case, these guys went one beyond the consulting folks. it was more like starting with a hypothesis and manufacturing facts on a need-to-prove basis. having a big govt bureaucracy to selectively unearth and creatively present those facts then also helped.