It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gov. G.W. Bush said if elected President, he'd invade Iraq

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Not that anyone that's been paying attention didn't know this already, but here's proof Bush had his mind made up about invading Iraq before he even was even in the White House...

www.globalresearch.ca...




posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
That makes GW Bush:

a. A man of his word (as Governor)

b. A lying bastard (as President)


All he needed was some incident to push everyone over the edge into war... luckily he knew just the people to make an incident happen.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Does he have any proof of him saying this or are we to take his word for it?

Could be just a publicity stunt to garner attention to his book.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
That makes GW Bush:

a. A man of his word (as Governor)

b. A lying bastard (as President)


All he needed was some incident to push everyone over the edge into war... luckily he knew just the people to make an incident happen.


I think he had delusions of grandeur... it was Cheney that saw the golden goose in Bush.
An incurious buffoon easily manipulated through flattery and false deference.
And the fact that Bush wanted a war with Iraq was the gravy that made Cheney's mouth water. He's the guy who knew the people to make it happen.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ChineseSuperGenius
 


I'm not saying all of that, its very possible he did say it.

I just wonder if he is going to provide proof or if he is just saying it to sell books.

With as many people out there that hates W, it would be a very popular thing to say which could turn into high book sells.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChineseSuperGenius
Just think to be so smart and confident that you can plan to attack your enemy even before you are in a position to do so. That is impressive.


No... he planned the attack in anticipation of being in a position to do so.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ChineseSuperGenius
 


I'm not against the war in Iraq, Saddam was dangerous and needed to go, but dont' justify it by saying that he tried to kill pappy bush.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChineseSuperGenius
reply to post by Angus123
 


Got to give the man his props for planning ahead so well. Look Iraq had it coming regardless of 911 or WMD's. They tried to kill the mans father and more importantly defied the cease fire agreement every step of the way.

I am glad the man had the testes to do what needed to be done and to finish the job his father should have finished. I just wish he had been a little more honest in his justification for the war, but that is hard to do when you have a country full of whiny people. So I forgive his misrepresentation of the facts to accomplish a righteous goal.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by ChineseSuperGenius]


I can agree partially. But they were contained and didn't pose a serious threat to anyone but themselves due to their recklessness. And certainly it hasn't been worth it in terms of our dead and injured soldiers or the price tag.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ChineseSuperGenius
 


No worries.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChineseSuperGenius
reply to post by Angus123
 


Well I agree that they were mostly contained after the first war stripped them of most of thier military equipment. However, I would say we needed to attack for 2 reasons.
1. You cant get the rep that if someone fights a war with you and looses can do whatever they want once they sign a cease fire with TERMS.
2. You cant sit back and let him victimize, torture, murder, and rob his own people after you left him in power.


I am very sympathetic to the plight of the Iraqi's under Sadaam. But they're much worse off now due to sectarian violence, the destroyed infrastructure, and an economy in the septic tank.

In addition, it was the right that for years complained that the U.S. shouldn't be the world's police officer, yet they supported the war from the start and in spite of the disaster it's become, still support it.

I guess their ideals change depending on who sits in the Oval Office more than being true to their principals.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 01:13 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChineseSuperGenius
reply to post by Angus123
 


I dont think invading a country that has violated their cease fire amounts to policing the world. It is more like showing the defeated who is still boss.

I really dont have an issue with the plight of the Iraqi people, because I disagree with Bush's idea of liberating them. I think you defeat them first, then help them out later. Also, we didnt cause sectarian violence, it was just brewing under the surface and now it is having fuel poured on it by AlQueda, Iran, and others.



Again I partially agree. And while we didn't start the sectarian violence, it was our intervention that allowed it bust wide open.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ChineseSuperGenius
 


Exactly but many Americans didn't know that was festering under Saddam. He kept the peace with extreme brutality. Now we have a civil war on our hands.

We don't do good with civil wars.

Korea

Vietnam




posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChineseSuperGenius

I really dont have an issue with the plight of the Iraqi people, because I disagree with Bush's idea of liberating them. I think you defeat them first, then help them out later. Also, we didnt cause sectarian violence, it was just brewing under the surface and now it is having fuel poured on it by AlQueda, Iran, and others.



Wow. Stupidity of this magnitude. I didn't think it was possible.

Ok, who am I kidding of course it's possible. It really is a tragedy that so many in this country fail to differentiate between the Iraqi people and the terrorist regimes that exist there. It is an even greater tragedy that people fail to see how senseless this point of view is.

Crush your enemies! Bring them to submission! Make them tremble before your unspeakable might!

This is not the old world anymore, friend. As the United States raised its fist, the rest of the world raised its eyes. We are no longer regarded highly by the majority of the world's peoples, and President Bush's actions in the Middle East are the primary reasons. If you cannot see that, then you have been watching too much television.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join