It's time for you to start apologizing, Mr. Bush

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

namkcuR

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Messages
10,770
Location
Kettering, Ohio
The search is officially over. The weapons inspectors and CIA analysts are done searching. Kaput. And they have now said on the record, explicitly, as has the White House, that there are NO WMDs in Iraq. Well, I'll be darned. That's a shocker if I ever heard one. So there goes your 'main' reason for invading Iraq nearly two years ago. And I've been thinking, Mr. Bush, that with all the consequences and and negative aftereffects of this war, some of which are still happening, that maybe you should be apologizing to a few people.

Why don't you start out by going to to Congress and verbally apologizing to them for blatently lying to them at multiple State Of The Union addresses.

Then you should probably call up Colin Powell(if he's already left) and apologize to him for making him speak what he knew to be lies, to the United Nations.

For that matter, you should probably make it first priority at the next cabinet meeting to apologize to any and all cabinet members whose reputations you may have tarnished during this war. Except for Donny, Dick, and Condi, of course. No point in apologizing to your partners.

At this point you should probably go on national television in prime time and apologize to the American people for lying to them, taking their country to war on false pretenses, and for pissing away unprecedented world support after 9/11 and making their country hated by much of the international community. Even if it wasn't your fault and it was in fact the fault of the CIA(EXTREMELY unlikely), you should still apologize to the American people as a symbolic gesture. That's sort of the idea of being Chief Of State. See, a U.S. President is both symbolic Chief Of State AND Commander And Chief.

And after that, you should probably get around to the most important apologies of all. The apologies that matter more than any others. The apologies that may well make their recepients only despise you more. You should write authentic letters of apology to every mother, father, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, grandmother, grandfather, and friend of any of the (now nearing) 1300 men and women in the armed forces who died in this war. And I don't mean that you should tell the appropriate people on your staff to write a letter for you to sign and them to xerox 1300 times. I mean sit at your desk in the oval office, and write that letter. It should probably be a few pages long if it is to adequately express your remorse and guilt for being responsible for their loved ones' dying for a lie. For them having to bury their loved ones. For a parent having to outlive their child. For a little kid that won't remember his/her father when he gets older. For a wife who has become a widow all too soon. For a youngest child who lost the older brother they always looked up to. For a person who lost his/her best friend. Just to scratch the surface. Tell them how profoundly and deeply sorry you are for your lie.

I realize I'm asking a lot from a guy who answered 'Oh, absolutely' when asked by Barbara Walters if he, knowing what he does now, would do it[the war] again. If, however, you do get all that done, you could try taking a nap. Apologizing for presidential mistakes is an extremely exhausting practice. Pictures of baggy-eyed Nixon and even more baggy-eyed Clinton come to mind. Yeah, other presidents have usually apologized for their fuckups. But now that I think about it, you may not be able to take a nap. I'd be astonished if you could sleep knowing what you know.
 
Last edited:
I don't think Dubya will ever have problems sleeping. :|


I'll just leave it at that.
 
So are you saying that they knew all along that there were no WMD's whatsoever and that Saddam had totally disarmed and yet they decided to go to war anyway and since then there has been zilch benefit from it?

I think that the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons speaks for itself. The regime was not entirely transparent in its disarment during the 1990's and did so deliberately. It presented a source of instability in the ME and if the regime collapsed without a force to secure it then the Iranians may well have been able to swoop through and then hold all the gulf states at their mercy. Getting rid of the regime prevents this from happening, removed the risk of WMD proliferation from Iraq too terrorists through whatever avenues and brings about the real possibility of a democratic arab nation - essentially draining one swamp of fascism and violence hopefully inspiring reform and revolution throughout the region over the next few decades delivering the cultural change that is the check mate in the war against radical Islam.
 
Last edited:
A_Wanderer said:
So are you saying that they knew all along that there were no WMD's whatsoever and that Saddam had totally disarmed and yet they decided to go to war anyway and since then there has been zilch benefit from it?

What I'm saying is that at the outset, Bush led Congress and the American people to believe that he was totally certain that there were WMDs in Iraq, when in fact, he was nowhere even close to approaching the vicinity of certain, and yet he continued to say that it was an 'absolute certainty' that there were WMDs there. That's what I'm saying.
 
namkcuR said:


What I'm saying is that at the outset, Bush led Congress and the American people to believe that he was totally certain that there were WMDs in Iraq, when in fact, he was nowhere even close to approaching the vicinity of certain, and yet he continued to say that it was an 'absolute certainty' that there were WMDs there. That's what I'm saying.

You're unfortunately wrong. It was the majority of the intellligence in the world that believed there were WMD's in Iraq. Quit trying to rewrite history to suit your own purpose.

I guess in hidsight you can see things so clear.
 
I think that the reason there were no WMD is because Bush did not rush to war, he fucked around in the UN knowing full well that it would give the regime months to destroy or remove anything incriminating.

Intelligence is rarely a business of certainty.
 
ImOuttaControl said:


You're unfortunately wrong. It was the majority of the intellligence in the world that believed there were WMD's in Iraq. Quit trying to rewrite history to suit your own purpose.

I guess in hidsight you can see things so clear.

Oh, so THAT'S why all of the international support we had after 9/11 suddenly morphed into international disbelief and resentment. And THAT'S why our list of allies with regards to Iraq is pathetically short. Thank you for finally shedding light on that.
 
A_Wanderer said:
I think that the reason there were no WMD is because Bush did not rush to war, he fucked around in the UN knowing full well that it would give the regime months to destroy or remove anything incriminating.

Intelligence is rarely a business of certainty.


He didn't 'fuck around' in the UN enough. Certainly not enough to prevent the international community for giving a collective metaphorical middle finger to the U.S.
 
A_Wanderer said:
I think that the reason there were no WMD is because Bush did not rush to war, he fucked around in the UN knowing full well that it would give the regime months to destroy or remove anything incriminating.

So you think rushing to war's a good idea?
 
namkcuR said:


Oh, so THAT'S why all of the international support we had after 9/11 suddenly morphed into international disbelief and resentment. And THAT'S why our list of allies with regards to Iraq is pathetically short. Thank you for finally shedding light on that.


Living in denial. Do you want me to list all the sources that said Iraq had WMD's?
 
ImOuttaControl said:



Living in denial. Do you want me to list all the sources that said Iraq had WMD's?

Intelligence can be flawed. It's the president's job to to decide which of it is accurate and which of it isn't. If he's not sure about the accuracy of certain intelligence, he doesn't act on anything based on that intelligence until he gets more, more accurate, intelligence. Period. Bush failed that test. The intelligence wasn't accurate enough and he went ahead anyway.
 
It is not the presidents Job to decide the accuracy of intelligence, that is the job of intelligence analysts who make the assesments that wind up at the presidents desk - the president counts on the agencies assessments when making decisions to attempt to unload failures onto Bush alone makes a mockery of the way the system works.

Unless you are now or ever have worked directly in the intelligence community or within a presidential administration I do not think you are in any position to unload blame upon any single party. Most intelligence services in the world thought that the regime still posessed banned weapons. The history of aquisition was there, the obfuscation of weapons inspectors was there and the removal of inspectors and subsequent years of unchecked actions were there. Making it out like all the intelligence that suggested weapons being there is totally wrong is dishonest and implausible. I think that the truth of the matter lies somewhere in between the regime having nothing and the regime having fully stocked arsenels. They had bits and pieces, expertise and programs ready to be reactivated when sanctions were dropped. Read the senate report into WMD intelligence before jumping on the President for his decisions.
 
Last edited:
ImOuttaControl said:



Living in denial. Do you want me to list all the sources that said Iraq had WMD's?

And they were dead wrong.

The denial is that the US administration and intelligence agencies (and those of other nations such as Britain) really thought there were WMDs. They saw "evidence" of WMD because they wanted to see evidence of WMD's, not because it was actually there. And it's not just that there are no WMD's, there is extremely little, if any, evidence that there were any (or even serious research/development) for the past several years before the was began.
 
indra said:


And they were dead wrong.

The denial is that the US administration and intelligence agencies (and those of other nations such as Britain) really thought there were WMDs. They saw "evidence" of WMD because they wanted to see evidence of WMD's, not because it was actually there. And it's not just that there are no WMD's, there is extremely little, if any, evidence that there were any (or even serious research/development) for the past several years before the was began.

Okay, then the vast majority of countries "wanted to see evidence of WMD's." Remember, Even france, russia, germany...ect all agreed there were weapons there.
 
I'll rephrase:

Yes, intelligence analysts assess the intelligence. However, it is up to the president to decide whether or not any given assessment he recieves, is solid and clear enough in its position to be used as a reason to act, in any way. In THIS, Bush failed, in my mind, because, the assessment was not solid or clear enough to prove that there were WMD, but Bush acted on it anyway.
 
indra said:


And they were dead wrong.

The denial is that the US administration and intelligence agencies (and those of other nations such as Britain) really thought there were WMDs. They saw "evidence" of WMD because they wanted to see evidence of WMD's, not because it was actually there. And it's not just that there are no WMD's, there is extremely little, if any, evidence that there were any (or even serious research/development) for the past several years before the was began.

Yep.
 
Did you know what happened after 1991? When the war was over and Saddam declared most of what he had the intelligence services were shocked by what they saw. He had a weapons program far in advance of anything that they had imagined, his nuclear capacity was within years of completion and he had an advanced biological and chemical weapons program. The intelligence assessments prior did not consider this. They underestimated what was there and that is a very dangerous mistake, the same underestimation has occured time and time again from Libya to Egypt where the intelligence services didnt have a full picture and missed the mark.

In Iraq Saddam had obfuscated the inspectors, the logical conclusion was that he retained weapons. The inspectors were ultimately kicked out of the country and no inspections occured, the Iraqi economy suffered under sanctions which Saddam could have lifted if he showed that he disarmed fully and in compliance with the ceasefire agreements - he did not. The conclusion reached by most people was that Saddam retained some WMD capacity and his noncompliance with inspectors was because of this - that was considered the most likely reason a leader would allow sanctions to remain in place (we now know that he was making billions of dollars by illegally selling oil with the full complicity by certain individuals within the UN). With hindsight you choose to attack making out that the intelligence services were delusional in their thinking that Saddam retained WMD.

Fact is that Saddam did not verifiably disarm and the action taken was a long time coming and right. GWB made his decision to go to war with what he knew at the time. The US is in there now ensuring a longer term goal in the war against radical Islam (democratisation of the Islamic world) is able to work.

> There is no longer any threat posed by Saddam now or into the future nor the doomsday scenario of a massive Persian superpower extending its dominion over the Arab gulf states and literally controlly most of the worlds energy resources.
> A democratic Iraq is being built by the Iraqi people and it will be a significant victory in the GWOT.
> Being between two democratic neighbours will put presure on the Iranian Mullahs to liberalise.
> The US has killed a many terrorists and has diverted resources of the terrorist organisations.
> Iraqi's are coming back to their contry by the thousands (a net influx into the country) and Iraq is improving day by day from a failed socialist dictatorship to a democratic arab state where the oil wealth is not consolidated in the hands of a single dictator.
> No longer are tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians being killed by malnutrition under the sanctions which were manipulated by Saddam.
 
Last edited:
namkcuR said:
I'll rephrase:

Yes, intelligence analysts assess the intelligence. However, it is up to the president to decide whether or not any given assessment he recieves, is solid and clear enough in its position to be used as a reason to act, in any way. In THIS, Bush failed, in my mind, because, the assessment was not solid or clear enough to prove that there were WMD, but Bush acted on it anyway.

Excellent namkcuR, that is very well put!

and since Bush doesn't like to read all this "stuf" including newspapers and such, why would he bother to read intelligence reports. These decisions were not just made by W but given to him by other. Actually he's not totally responsible just so totally neglectful of what was being told to him, that he took it all in and... nah bullshit there was only one plan from the get-go.
I don't believe anything he has to say, I can't stand behind him on anything he professes to do and I will never get over the fact that he is a complete and total Yale educated idiot. He is not my president, he's just the figure head of this pathetic political climate at the moment.
I don't hold him as a reflection of all the republican party, since I know too many republicans who are not behind this President at all.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't really, it verified that those nations who were opposed to the war in Iraq had a vested interest in seeing Saddam remain in power. It also demonstrates that the anti-war crowd can be totally myopic in relation to abuses that the UN is responsible for and doesnt give a stuff about the suffering of anybody until it suits their political agenda (just like most other people with agendas), one would think that the greatest heist in history would cost a few jobs in the great gravy train but then one would be dead wrong.
 
Last edited:
xinsrc_442010214124010903941.jpg

US President George W. Bush begins his second term with a lower approval rating than other US presidents after their reelection in the past five decades, according to the results of a poll released on Thursday. (File photo: Yahoo)
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-01/14/content_2459220.htm
 
i don't know if he should apologize about the inaccuracy of the intelligence, but i do think he should apologize for scaring the living fucking hell out of the american people with lurid tales of "mushroom clouds" and nukes being floating up the East River that would level the UES. i think he should apologize for linking SH directly and indirectly at every single opportunity to 9-11. i think he should apologize for removing our Special Forces from the Tora Bora mountains and effectively neutering the hunt for OBL (the real bad guy) in order to move more troops and satellites to the gulf.
 
ImOuttaControl said:


You're unfortunately wrong. It was the majority of the intellligence in the world that believed there were WMD's in Iraq. Quit trying to rewrite history to suit your own purpose.

I guess in hidsight you can see things so clear.

Excellent point....

the UN SECURITY COUNCIL believed there were WMD. THey did not agree with the course of action, but they most definitely believed there were WMD.
 
While we are at it, I think all of the Democrats who sent President Bush a well detailed letter calling for military action should apologize.

I think President Clinton should apologize and Hillary for their statements about Iraq.

I think Each and Every Senator and Congressman who voted to give the President the power to invade Iraq should apologize as well.
 
I don't mean to jump into the fire pot but I did a *huge* project on all of this and one thing was pretty clear..
That Iraq had never had the capabilities to make WMD's until the USA gave them to Saddam to suit the US's purposes...But when the US moved out, so did much of that capability..So really, Saddam was never any threat...however there is *no* denying he was a terrible person, and that alone is reason enough to take him out, but then if Bush wants to play world police he's got a heck of a lot of work to do...and then there's the whole North Korea isssue, a leader who has threatened the US...
 
~BrightestStar~ said:
I don't mean to jump into the fire pot but I did a *huge* project on all of this and one thing was pretty clear..
That Iraq had never had the capabilities to make WMD's until the USA gave them to Saddam to suit the US's purposes...But when the US moved out, so did much of that capability..So really, Saddam was never any threat...however there is *no* denying he was a terrible person, and that alone is reason enough to take him out, but then if Bush wants to play world police he's got a heck of a lot of work to do...and then there's the whole North Korea isssue, a leader who has threatened the US...

So in doing your project, you would have come accross information that it wast the Western European Nations that supplied a majority of the technology and capabilities as opposed to the US. Or maybe you did not dig deep enough.

There have been a couple dozen threads on this......within the past two years.
 
Irvine511 said:
. i think he should apologize for linking SH directly and indirectly at every single opportunity to 9-11.

I don't think he ever linked Saddam directly. Perhaps you have a quote? I'm not sure about lurid tales either.
 
Back
Top Bottom