Doctor Fate wrote:danivon wrote:Doctor Fate wrote:True, so by being patient and building international consensus, Bush the cowboy failed? Isn't that a bit funny to you?
If you call planning it from the moment he entered office,
That's just sad. I think you've come to believe the mythology you've read.
What, like the Republican platform for the 2000 election?
. . . rejecting most of your allies, ignoring the facts being presented by inspectors and pressing ahead without UN agreement as being patient and building a consensus, then you'd be right.
Really? Who were all of our allies Bush "rejected?" The UK? Australia? Canada?
Canada opposed the invasion at the time. I was thinking of France (who were with us on Afghanistan and were helping enforce the no-fly zone) and Turkey (key regional allies). Most of NATO objected, and they are by definition US allies. Additionally, Russia was opposed, and the local despots who were our pals were less than united behind it.
As it is, you are just being well, frankly hilarious.
I'm not the one who drank the Michael Moore Kool-Aid. Maybe O'Neill? In any event, I don't think anyone takes claims about Bush being dead set on invading Iraq from his inauguration on seriously--except for a few of you sucking down the rare green-fogged air of huffpo and dailykos and believing it uncritically.
Well, O'Neill's statements are part of it, but key members of the administration were well known as Iraq hawks from before 9/11, and of course there was that election platform. And the reallocation of intelligence resources.
You may not like it. It may be inconvenient. However, it is the historical record. And, that doesn't even count the opinions of President Bill Clinton and many Democrats, including Senator Kerry.
As for the intel, TheManInBlack has it, and I can remember looking at a report based on what was publicly available in late 2002 which predicted almost word for word the key allegations on WMD and explained why they were dubious, at best.
If a rube like me can see it, how come Presidents can't?
Of course the regime were hoping that misinformation would protect them from us (and also be a show of strength regionally). Who would have thought that Hussein was a bit of a fibber, eh? I recall at the time that the UN and IAEA inspectors were asking for more time to check – a matter of months. The ‘patience’ you talk about clearly didn’t extend to getting verification of the facts.
Do I think Bush made it up? No, I think he and others (it doesn't matter that some were Democrats, and some where leaders of British Labour) were just too willing to believe the intel that confirmed their assumptions and justified their actions, and too ready to disregard that which was contrary, and not prepared to await confirmation. The end result was, as TMIB says, a total failure in the one conflict we were already engaged in and a messy occupation in Iraq.
Probably Obama’s fault though, eh?