« Circuit City May Become First Major Victim Of The Deep Recession | Main | Pat Buchanan Gets It Right Again »

Bush "Disappointed" Saddam Didn't Have WMDs

Gu-Faw...

As Bush prepares to hand over to president-elect Barack Obama on January 20 and return to his home in Texas, he acknowledged he had experienced some let-downs during his two terms in office.

"There have been disappointments. You know, not having weapons of mass destruction was a big disappointment," he said, referring to his administration's earlier assertions that former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was stockpiling such arms.

The accusations were used as the basis for the US-led invasion of Iraq, but were subsequently found to be baseless.

"I don't know if you want to call those mistakes or not, but things didn't go according to plan, let's put it that way," Bush said.

Personally I think not having WMDs in the hands of maniacs like Saddam Hussein is good news - a great relief in fact, but Bush thinks differently - we've always known that.

I could understand it if Bush had stated ""There have been disappointments. You know, rushing to judgment and intentionally relying on bad information as a justification to enter Iraq was a big disappointment".... but then he'd be acknowledging he'd made a mistake.

This Republican administration will never admit it when they mistakes, and Bush will never come right out and say "I was wrong." That will require admitting that he and his administration blundered and made poor choices which resulted in the the death of thousands of soldiers and innocent civilians, not to mention the waste of nearly a trillion tax dollars.

That would require being honest with the American people, something these Republicans have great difficulty with.


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 3.3/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3.3/5 (9 votes cast)


Comments (4)

Well, that's one heck of a thing. According to Just Foreign Policy.org, Bush's Iraq misadventure has cost a mere 1,307,319 lives. That's a pretty high human toll just to find out that Saddam was only blustering that he had WMDs in hopes of deterring military action by either the U.S. or Iran. Any idiot should have realized that many of the Mideast leaders are big windbags who lie and brag of outrageous powers that they don't come close to possessing. But Bush wasn't your typical idiot, I guess. Like the absurd Hamas leader who recently claimed that he was going to make Gaza a "graveyard" for the Israeli army. These guys routinely have a line of complete bull compared to the better nations of the world.

I actually feel pretty bad because these Mideast bad guys make massive trouble for themselves and only bring lots of death and destruction to their own people.

The U.S. hasn't brought peace or real democracy to Iraq as of yet. The U.S. had a real good opportunity after the first Gulf War to ask Saddam to step down and peacefully surrender to the World Court for trial for the illegal invasion of Kuwait, but instead Bush #41 yielded to Saudi pressure, and allowed a greatly weakened Saddam to stay in power, with years of tough UN sanctions only making it difficult for an Iraqi mother to buy powdered milk for their babies, and then Bush #43 bombs the heck out of the nation with the overly excessive "shock and awe" and years of Shiite and Sunni tensions take many more lives. The U.S. has certainly brought far more evil than good to Iraq so far. And history books are unlikely to be very kind to George Bush who also left the American economy in complete ruins on his way out the door. Like comic Bill Maher notes, the guy had one last big screw-up on the way out. Like leaving everything a smouldering heap on the way out the door.

Now, I think I'll wait for someone to comment here. "Now, Paul, tell us what you really think?".

doctorj2u:

Hey, you should be happy. At least he was "disappointed". I am a New Orleanian, and he still thinks his response to Katrina was just peachy. The man is simply delusional.

Allen:

The unvarnished review of George W. Bush's presidency reveals a portrait of America he never would have imagined. He was the president who pledged not to pass on big problems. Instead, he leaves a pile for Barack Obama.

And it was one of Bush's heroes, Ronald Reagan, who crystallized the way modern presidents are judged: Are people better off than they were when the president took office? Based on that standard, the Bush report card is mixed at best. It is abysmal at worst.

Huge numbers of people think the country is on the wrong track. Bush has had a negative approval rating for 47 months, the longest streak since such polling began. Almost two-thirds of people polled by the Pew Research Center said Bush's administration will be remembered for its failures. He was handed a country that was in pretty good shape. How you can argue that he's left the country in better shape?

GOP lawmakers didn't seem to mind enjoying the fruits of government largesse for the past eight years while one of their own was in the White House. Now they're struggling to regain footing at a time of economic rout, a record $1.2 trillion budget deficit and an incoming Democratic president claiming a mandate for change.

If the dates each president held office are superimposed on the starting dates of each recession, it shows that, of the 10 recessions since 1950, Republican presidents have started 9 of them! Each Republican President since 1929 has started a recession. One started a depression, another started 3 recessions and Bush has 2. This is a total indictment of the Republican economic model, which favors the unregulated corporations and wall St. over the middle-class working people. The Republican economic model of Supply Side/Trickle-down economics doesn't work.

Tax cuts will NOT solve this problem. Ask a Republican the answer to anything under the sun and they mindlessly chant "tax cut tax cut tax cut." If their "tax cut tax cut tax cut" refrain had worked in creating jobs and raising incomes for the bottoom 90%, we wouldn't be in this mess. The only thing their one-note answer of 'tax cut tax cut tax cut' has done was to increase the after-tax income of the upper 1% by 43.5% between 2003-05 alone!

Businesses don't hire when their taxes go down; business hire when they have customers and they need more employees to fill demand. Tax cuts don't create demand and they don't give businesses customers. Spending directly creates jobs; employed people become customers of businesses. The bigger the spending, the more jobs, and the more customers. This could not be any simpler!!!

Incidentally, a great hew and cry is developing over the cost of the stimulus package. Where were these same people when even more dollars started pouring into the disastrous Irag war? Cost seems to be of little importance when our neo-conservative friends have a war to fight, but surely we must not let such funds be "lavished" on Americans facing financial ruin.

What say you GOP people. Prove that what I have stated is wrong. Truth hurts, doesn't it. Let's face it, the GOP has proven to at least 87% of the people, you don't have a clue.

ke_future:

i'm assuming you mean government spending, allen? the problem with that is that the US government has to borrow money to spend it. either that or raise taxes. and it has been pretty conclusively proven that raising taxes depresses an economy. and increasing dept imposes a long term economic break as well.

for any real, long-term economic growth you need to private sector to generate the spending, not the government. the government is an inefficient user of resources.

the trick is to find that sweet spot where the taxes are low enough to encourage economic growth while also generating a reasonable income for the government.

i'm not a fan of the way that bush and congress (both when run by the R's as well as the D's) raised spending. high long-term spending by any government is just not sustainable.

their tax policies, i think were right, however. or at least more right than wrong.

and btw, this current recession is the fault of both Bush and the Democrats in congress. Most especially Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. and the Great Depression was made worse by the New Deal policies of FDR. at least occording to a recent study by UCLA economists.


Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.