Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Bush Takes Blame for Iraq Invasion, Intel.

Dec 14, 2005 9:53AM PST

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Basically
Dec 14, 2005 10:38AM PST

President Bush has taken the same stance as other President's in the past....The Buck Stops Here.

Would you have expected anything less of him? I never did.

Everyone here has known for quite a while that the intel was bad...it doesn't change anything that is going on now, and we aren't leaving, and he isn't resigning.

Now...if the President has taken responsibility for going to Iraq over bad intel...and all the rest of the country's representatives read the same intel and agreed we should be there, where is your outrage over their decision-making? Are they equally to blame for us being in Iraq or have you conveniently let them all off the hook by not demanding that they all resign as well?

TONI

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Please lock this thread:(
Dec 14, 2005 10:45AM PST
- Collapse -
Why?
Dec 14, 2005 10:48AM PST

If it was Saddam who admitted to murder, would you still ask for it to be locked?

- Collapse -
sadamm is a mass
Dec 14, 2005 10:49AM PST

muderer. no one whos of the right mind can say bush is.
and ask the "free and alive" iraqis do they want saddam back?

- Collapse -
How many, Iraqis and Americans...
Dec 14, 2005 1:01PM PST

have died since GW Bush decided to invade and occupy Iraq? HE said he took responsibility for it, so lets just talk about how many, ok? Let's NOT talk about Saddam, Hitler or anyone else but GW. How many people have died since George Walker Bush DECIDED to invade and occupy Iraq? No matter who has killed who, how many HAVE in fact died? Well, actually, we can simply talk about how many Americans have died. If you were responsible for that amount, what do you think GW would suggest for a sentence?

- Collapse -
none as its a war
Dec 14, 2005 1:05PM PST

the 2000 who died died honerablly.
not buried or gassed.
anfd the terriosts have killed how many iraqis?

- Collapse -
None?
Dec 14, 2005 1:22PM PST

Even the President is willing to admit that 30,000(more or less) have been killed.

- Collapse -
she asked what sentence he should recieve
Dec 14, 2005 7:35PM PST

our president didnt bral any laws so none

- Collapse -
NO, she didn't
Dec 14, 2005 7:45PM PST

She said

Well, actually, we can simply talk about how many Americans have died. If you were responsible for that amount,

Then asked

what do you think GW would suggest for a sentence?

She wasn't asking what the President should be sentenced to.

She asked what GW "would sentence you to" IF "you were responsible".

- Collapse -
well as he didnt break the law its rediculas
Dec 14, 2005 7:52PM PST

and as of now over 2,000 have died.
but look at whats happeing there voteing there.some naysayers said never happen.

lots of people eating crow over that seems all the naysayers didnt know what they were talking about did they, most armchair warriors dont know which end of a gun you point at your enemy.
now jp chew your food well.

- Collapse -
now jp chew your food well
Dec 14, 2005 8:36PM PST

Zinger?

- Collapse -
what gives you that idea
Dec 14, 2005 8:42PM PST

i was concerened about youWink

- Collapse -
b/s!!
Dec 14, 2005 8:05PM PST

Well, actually, we can simply talk about how many Americans have died. If you were responsible for that amount, what do you think GW would suggest for a sentence?

She wasn't asking what the President should be sentenced to.
She asked what GW "would sentence you to" IF "you were responsible"


the inference is perfectly clear!

GW killed 2000
if you killed 2000 what would GW sentence you to

i.e. GW should be sentenced


...

- Collapse -
Speaking of inference
Dec 14, 2005 8:42PM PST

When the President gave speech on reason for invading Iraq he "inferred" Al Quaeda and Saddam were "linked". ( But won't admit it)

BUT he didn't "say it" so it doesn't count.

So, If you don't say it it doesn't count?

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) fishing?
Dec 14, 2005 8:44PM PST
- Collapse -
LOL! You can't even believe that yourself, Mark!
Dec 14, 2005 1:27PM PST

You just said ZERO!

- Collapse -
i was rerfering to this line
Dec 14, 2005 7:38PM PST

If you were responsible for that amount, what do you think GW would suggest for a sentence he didnt do anything wrong so no sentence is needed.

and how many have died arouls 10,000 give or take, and who killed them, greatest majority is there own people, (suicide bombers killed way more then us).

but then again you know that, been said here in se for months.
some like to blame it all on us but then they dont think saddam was bad to his people.

- Collapse -
bullshitbullshitbullshit
Dec 14, 2005 2:18PM PST
Well, actually, we can simply talk about how many Americans have died. If you were responsible for that amount, what do you think GW would suggest for a sentence?

YOU'RE STATING THAT THE RESULT OF THE ADMINISTRATIONS DECISION IS MURDER.....
- Collapse -
Maybe
Dec 14, 2005 11:20AM PST

"If you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow."
-Author: John Wayne

- Collapse -
bullshitbullshitbullshit
Dec 14, 2005 2:20PM PST

GW BUSH ADMITTED TO MURDERING 2000 US SOLDIERS?


.

- Collapse -
What was the result of his "mistake"
Dec 14, 2005 2:27PM PST

talking death toll?

- Collapse -
so now it's a "mistake".....
Dec 14, 2005 6:39PM PST

yesterday you called Bush a murderer.........


.

- Collapse -
you cant have it both ways
Dec 14, 2005 7:41PM PST

but then you werent right the 1st timeHappy
when the president sent us in he was under the impresion the WMDs were there, as did all the other countrys, and your great UN.
so unless you can prove he new was bad info you just need to get over that again you people are wrong

- Collapse -
One little thing.
Dec 14, 2005 11:15AM PST

***and all the rest of the country's representatives read the same intel and agreed we should be there,***

From a Robert Byrd speech.

The Administration claims that the Congress had the same intelligence as the President before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that there was no misrepresentation of the intelligence. But neither claim is true.

The intelligence agencies are in the control of the White House. All information given to the Congress was cleared through the White House, and the President had access to an enormous amount of data never shared with the Congress. There was a filter over the intelligence information that the Congress received, and that filter was the Administration which was actively engaged in hyping the danger and lusting after this war in Iraq. Remember the talk of weapons of mass destruction, mushroom clouds, and unmanned drones? The so-called proof for war was massaged before it was sent to the Congress to scare members and leaked to reporters to scare the people.

No independent commission has stated that the case for war was indisputable. Commissions have looked at how the intelligence fell short. But none have yet examined possible political manipulation.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) UMMMM, then why did they VOTE for it?
Dec 14, 2005 11:46AM PST
- Collapse -
Shades of Nixon
Dec 14, 2005 11:51AM PST

Are you actually suggesting another Republican Presidential conspiracy is afoot?

Good grief........

TONI

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) when the truth fails whats left
Dec 14, 2005 12:02PM PST
- Collapse -
Nobody knows because it isn't being investigated.
Dec 14, 2005 2:36PM PST

Anyway, about my post.

You say congress got the self-same intel that Bush had. Robert Byrd says different, that it was ''filtered''. It's just that I've heard this ''same intel'' thing until I think my ears will bleed. Now I don't know, but I assume it was not nearly as complete - at the very least.

I didn't want a fight, just to add that little tid-bit.

- Collapse -
nor will we forget
Dec 14, 2005 12:01PM PST

the democrats agreed

- Collapse -
I think the timing makes it suspect, Toni.
Dec 14, 2005 12:34PM PST

Maybe he's really had a change of heart and is at last willing to own up to mistakes -- the first step in not repeating them. But given his long track record of refusing to admit even obvious mistakes, it seems to many a contrived PR move, and not a true admission of responsibility for a less than ideal outcome.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!