Bush On Iraq: What Did Dad Say?

[Nottingham]

Bush On Iraq: What Did Dad Say?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Big News Network.com Wednesday 24th September, 2003

Former President Bush said in his memoirs of the Gulf War that invasion of Iraq would leave the United States an occupying power in a hostile land.

As President Bush addressed the United Nations Tuesday talking about Iraq and terrorism, UPI Chief International Correspondent Martin Walker was paging through George H.W. Bush's 1998 book, A World Transformed and came across this passage:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in 'mission creep,' and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs.
snip....


Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different -- and perhaps barren -- outcome."
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=25c98d1e90809ab3

I've always said George W was dumber than his dad! :bounce:

[lindashaw]

1. This is a terrific post!

[Nottingham]

2. I thought so too Linda! Thanks

:bounce:

[booksenkatz]

3. I never thought Herbert-Herbert was dumb

Evil, yes; but not dumb. The Barb-Tail'd She-Dragon is also not dumb, so I'm not sure where ole Dub's blazing ignorance comes from.

[Melsky]

4. Dropped on head as baby?

Took lots of drugs including alcohol?

Maybe he had milk contaminated with rocket fuel?

I don't know why he's dumb, but he is!

I agree, dad smart but evil. George 2 is merely a figurehead to be manipulated by Cheney, Rumsfield, Pearle, etc. People who are more evil than George 1, and have vastly overestimated their intelligence.

[Nottingham]

5. Oh I forgot the evil part! You guys are right!

:bounce:

[NNN0LHI]

6. What made the old man change his mind on this? He was pro-death...

...on the idea of invading Iraq this time. He has said it was a wonderful idea just lately. Wonder if he has come down with Alzheimer's too? I hope not.

Don

[Paschall]

7. Cheney in 1991: Iraqi military threat eliminated

<snip> There have been significant discussions since the war ended about the proposition of whether or not we went far enough. Should we, perhaps, have gone in to Baghdad? Should we have gotten involved to a greater extent then we did? Did we leave the job in some respects unfinished? I think the answer is a resounding "no."

-----

I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? </snip>

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubs/soref/cheney.htm

[NNN0LHI]

8. Looks like we are going to get the answers to all of Cheneys questions now