Skip

Sleeping with the president is not a good idea.
September 19, 2004 7:18 AM   Subscribe

Sleeping with the president is not a good idea. Bush had no answers to big questions, such as 'what happens on the morning after.' The Daily Telegraph reports that documents show Prime Minister Tony Blair signed up to the U.S. policy of regime change in March 2002, a year before the conflict started... after he was warned that postwar stability would be difficult and the U.S. had few answers. Oh, no problem. This week, Bush said he is 'pleased with the progress' in Iraq.'
posted by fleener (14 comments total)

 
Bush is either lying again or utterly and dangerously delusional, and Blair was an enabling fool to go along with him. Blair actually is maybe the one person on earth that could have stopped this shit by refusing to play along re: Iraq--It gave Bush legitimacy. And meanwhile, Britain's reducing their troop levels in Iraq.
posted by amberglow at 7:27 AM on September 19, 2004


He has to be "pleased with the progress" for campaign reasons, because he can't possibly admit that (A) things are not really going well at all and (B) it was a huge mistake in the first place.
posted by Foosnark at 7:32 AM on September 19, 2004


Bush can keep kidding himself, but when will the American public wake up and realize what an utter failure this war has been? We were told we would be greeted as liberators, yet the Iraqis overwhelmingly want us out. Are Iraqis safer in their daily lives? No, they were actually safer under Saddam (obviously not if they somehow crossed him). Have we reduced the threat of terrorists using Iraq as a base of operations? No. Have we killed many thousand Iraqis, many of whom were mere innocent bystanders? Yes. Have we lost many American lives? Yes. Could we have devoted more effort to tracking down Al Qaeda if we weren't bogged down in Iraq? Yes. If we had used just a fraction of the money spent in Iraq could we have improved homeland security? Yes. Does anybody really believe that Iraq stands much of a chance of developing into a stable democracy, much less spreading that democracy around the Middle East? Only fools.
posted by caddis at 7:39 AM on September 19, 2004


> Does anybody really believe that Iraq stands much of
> a chance of developing into a stable democracy, much less
> spreading that democracy around the Middle East?
> Only fools.

I'm a fool.
posted by Turtle at 7:45 AM on September 19, 2004


reducing troop levels when Sir General Jackson says We're back at war in Iraq hardly ties in with Blair's decision to cut troop levels.

here's a Telegraph artice on the leaked memos etc

perhaps the root cause is blair's hubris and genial naivety

Looks like the Labour conference is going to be interesting....
posted by quarsan at 7:47 AM on September 19, 2004


Let Bush say everything is peachy. Kerry should jump on those claims. No one believes Bush, not even the neocons. The only difference comes in who is willing to admit the emperor has no clothes.
posted by fleener at 8:42 AM on September 19, 2004


It's nice that Blair has vowed to defeat evil. Once Darth Vader and Dr. Robotnik have been invaded we will truly be safe.
posted by influx at 9:00 AM on September 19, 2004


influx: It's nice that Blair has vowed to defeat evil

It would be amusing if Blair actually said that but he hasn't, or at least I could find no evidence of it in your linked article. Iyad Allawi though is quoted as being "adamant democracy would prevail against the "forces of evil" operating in his country" - which believe his sincerity or not, is the sort of thing a pro-democracy leader is meant to say. It seems your sneering is a little misplaced.
posted by pots at 10:02 AM on September 19, 2004


what about Dr Evil then?
posted by matteo at 10:04 AM on September 19, 2004


Its amazing how many people still think going to iraq was a good idea. I don't see how they're coming to that conclusion
posted by bob sarabia at 11:39 AM on September 19, 2004


I missed the part back then when he said it was going to be easy. Glad to see you all imagined it so clearly though. Better get back to Dan Rather's latest fantasy...I mean expose.
posted by HTuttle at 8:15 PM on September 19, 2004


HTuttle, you're not serious. You can't be. You were asleep or in a coma prewar?

When they said we'd be greeted as liberators? On "Meet the Press" in March 2003, Cheney blithely dismissed Tim Russert when the host asked what would happen if "we're not treated as liberators but as conquerors." Would the American people be "prepared for a long, costly and bloody battle with significant American casualties?"
Not to worry, said Cheney: "I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators." Cheney dismissed Gen. Eric Shinseki's view of how many troops an occupation would require: "To suggest that we need several hundred thousand troops there after military operations cease, after the conflict ends, I don't think is accurate. I think that's an overstatement." Have we forgotten this, too?
--from here, and just one small example.
posted by amberglow at 8:20 PM on September 19, 2004


here's more, from March 03
posted by amberglow at 8:31 PM on September 19, 2004


I missed the part back then when he said it was going to be easy.

It was right after he said we have proof Iraq has WMDs. Don't worry, though, no one else was paying attention either.

Nice fact-checking, amberglow. I loves it when people back up their statements on MeFi. Kudos/Props.
posted by hoborg at 8:41 AM on September 20, 2004


« Older WWJD? Why, kill the fag and lie to God about it...   |   What big eyes you have! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post