Lets pretend that Bush started the war on good faith.

[bruce21040]

Lets assume that bush was given intel reports that confirmed Iraq had the weapons of mass destruction and that the plan was for them to be used against the United States.
Having these reports in hand, he decided to stop an attack on our soil before it could happen by invading Iraq, and removing these weapons.

Now, once the war had been launched, and the bushmeister discovered that these reports were wrong, how does he back out of Iraq safely at this point?

Please keep the answers in line with the fable I wrote above.
after all, I think that the American people now realize that this was all about oil.
As a matter of fact, I think that Afghanistan was about oil also.
The pipeline must go through at all costs.

I just wish that the republicans would have run someone else other than bush. That my friends would have been a strong message.

[proud patriot]

1. If he had started it in good faith he would of admitted error by now

IMHO

[bruce21040]

5. I agree.

But how exactly should the lying piece of shit (can I say that here without being banned?) back out now that he has destroyed a country?

If all he wanted was saddam, he could have got him without all of the bloodshed.

I wonder how he sleeps at night.

[leftofthedial]

7. you are REQUIRED to say that here.

n/t

[wtmusic]

2. Then Santy Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy

would have helped him stop those bogeymen from Iraq! :silly:

[Wonk]

3. Let's pretend the moon is made of cheese.

What kinds of crackers and pate would work with it to make the best quality hors d'oeuvres?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/071703.c_.shtml

O peration
I raqi
L iberation
W e
A re
R ighteous

[VolcanoJen]

15. Pure Duck Foie Gras, accompanied by whole-grain English wafers.

}( }( }(



or, for the busy executive, try this all-in-one basket by Altura:



}( }( }(

[Eye and Monkey]

4. He could just say "Never mind."

[bacchant]

6. Let's pretend this isn't a stupid thread

oops, sorry I can't. Bush is a fucking criminal, no two ways about it. The piece of shit knew exactly what he was doing.

[wuushew]

8. He can back out by apologizing, brining in the U.N. and giving up the oil

basically the Kucinich plan.

[maggrwaggr]

9. why should I waste my time with your fable?

Seriously. That's not how it happened, so what's the point?

[RoyGBiv]

10. Exit Strategy

The question behind the question is what should the exit strategy be. What we should have done is not premised on whether WMD's were found. That was merely the rationale for war, that is, it's a lie regardless of whether the intel was correct. What we did once we got there is almost entirely divorced from WMD's because once we bombed Iraq's infrastructure to dust, we were committed to rebuilding it. But, we didn't really do that. What we did was set about trying to mold Iraq in the image that BushCo wanted it to be, not a democracy, but a puppet state with a false democratic face.

BushCo screwed this up in so many ways and on so many levels before he even gave the final order that began the bombing campaign that questions about what he should have done once it started becoming apparent the intel was wrong are irrelevant. What's made it even worse are the horrendous policy decisions he's made since, the people he's put into power in Iraq, and the fact that he's intensifying the rhetoric about this being a war of the Christian vs. the Muslim worlds. Bush is the Don Rickles of diplomacy.

There currently is no exit strategy, and there never has been. The premise behind the Bush Doctrine is nothing less than a new face on the old imperialism. And it will destroy this nation entirely if we try to maintain it.

[Mountainman]

11. You can't make that assumption knowing what we know.

Bush did not make the decision to go to war. He is nothing more than a place holder. The plan to go to war with Iraq was hatched before the 2000 election. John O'Neil said it was the topic of the first cabinet meeting. Clarke said that the administration was determined to go to war with Iraq and neglected the terrorists threat.

The UN and our own weapons inspectors said that Saddam had no WMD's and was not a threat to us. The CIA also said that there was no nuclear program in Iraq.

We had no justifiable lawful reason to attack Iraq. Any way you want to cut it the decision to go to war was immoral and wrong.

[sadiesworld]

12. Presumably, if * had been acting (in good faith) on reports of

an imminent attack he would have had far more international support from the outset. Or, if he had really been interested in WMD, he would have let the inspectors finish their work.

It is difficult for me to separate Bushco's lies from the extent of the current mess.

If you're simply asking what * should do now--:shrug:

Beg forgiveness? Fire the neo-cons (well, I guess that would be most of the admin) and start talking to people like Clark and Zinni? Just leave and be prepared to go back in when/if civil war erupts?

[nonconformist]

13. Ok, pretending that Bush had good intentions

Is practically impossible to do given the circumstances. Sorry. If he really did have good intentions, he would have worked hard on building a broad-based coalition beforehand. He would have had respect for the UN and listened to the opinions of the inspectors that knew more about Iraq's weapons than anyone. He would have cared enough to make sure there was a clear and concise plan for Iraq, including an exit strategy.

Since he did none of those things, I can't pretend he did this with good intentions - therefore, the scenario you provide isn't logical enough to give a meaningful answer.

[countmyvote4real]

14. He/We can’t back out safely. He burned all bridges in the process.

* destroyed the credibility of the US at home and abroad by setting the precedent of invading another country without provocation. In your exercise we must assume that * believed there was a serious threat. * was right to go to the UN to make the case, but * blew it when he ignored them and the voices here at home when he chose to invade anyway.

It was alarming to the opposition here at home when he did this in the name of our country. It was just damn arrogant to the rest of the world when he summarily dismissed their appeals for more tangible warrants before launching the invasion he subsequently marketed as “shock and awe.”

This was followed by the leveraging of contracts based on being “with us or against us” and then these were largely awarded to Halliburton and their subsidiaries. Competitive bids from coalition countries were still declined in favor of contracts benefiting domestic contractors.

In the meantime, we’ve had several truth telling books from * administration insiders that contradict the assumption that Hussein’s Iraq was really the terror that it seemed to be. From their vantage point it seems more like an obsession for unfinished business or just more oil business or both. It was just as transparent then as it is now.

If you still believe in giving * the benefit of the doubt, there will be no “oops I goofed” apology from the * administration under any assumed circumstances. These guys and gals are small-minded bullies with huge egos. They cannot and will not accept any criticism of their judgment or agenda no matter how many people have to die to defend it. Not that any of them have ever put their lives on the line in service to their country.

No wonder why the rest of the world has questions about *’s war on terrorism. Who IS zooming who?

[Only Me]

16. well,

Lets assume that bush was given intel reports that confirmed Iraq had the weapons of mass destruction and that the plan was for them to be used against the United States.
Having these reports in hand, he decided to stop an attack on our soil before it could happen by invading Iraq, and removing these weapons.

This hypothetical report, doesn't say 'imminent danger'much less unmistakable proof of a current date situation.

Our intelligence reports have always said someone, somewhere has plans to do something to us somehow. But unless, the intelligence is unmistakable and corroborated with many people close to the situation, covert people on the ground, current satellite images, unmistakable evidence to support impending danger. We just don't attack every country that ever hated us.

In otherwords, even IF he had proof of WMD in Iraq. That doesn't prove Saddam even had the resources to carry through with any of them anytime in the near future. That is were putting people in positions to find, conclusively, what the situation was and what our options were. Thats what we have all these intelligence groups and billion dollar spy satellites for. Too be sure.

No responsible, supposedly educated, person would have jumped the gun and started an all out war like this. I believe his
intelligence reports were as phony as he is.

[VolcanoJen]

17. Let's not, and say we did.

}( We'd be just like the Bushies then, wouldn't we?? }(

[Zorra]

18. Let's make one thing perfectly clear: Bu$h is a mental midget, and

nothing but a PNAC frontman. Read about the PNAC if you want to know what is happening in Iraq. It's totally obvious.

[Hamlette]

19. you have two choices

assuming your facts to be true:
1. You pull all the troops out immediatey then you say "Weapons of mass destruction? I thought you said Leopards of grass destruction. Nevermind." The rest of the world steps in and cleans up our mess. 2. You pray you can keep enough Americans fooled while to try to bring some stability to the country long eoungh to get out and declare victory. Then when it falls apart you say: "the Iraqis have to take responsibility for their own problems. We gave them everything and they threw it away."

Under either option, wait 25 years for Rumsfled to write an opera entitled "Fog of War II" which opens on Broadway to rave reviews.

Rise, lather, repeat. For the next 2,000 years.

[loudsue]

20. Bruce....you're asking a lot here.

If there was a mature, responsible, intelligent "adult" in the White House, ALL of this would have looked entirely different. Even if Saddam really DID have WMD's, and FULLY INTENDED to use them against the U.S. (rather than Israel, which might have been easier, closer, and maybe more logical, given the region), our government already knew that they had no air force to speak of left, after the sanctions and the Iran/Iraq war and Desert Storm. He hardly had much military strength at all left. Hell! Even I knew that! And I didn't have all the information a government agent would/should have, which of course would be available to the president.

What would logically follow? That Saddam would just send a nuke or a "pox" over here, and then sit there and thumb his nose at the U.S.? Saddam didn't have the military strength left to follow through with any "attack" -- he'd be blown to smithereens! Saddam wasn't NEARLY as stupid as bush. He would know better than to pick a stupid fight with the bullies across the globe. He, of all dictators, did not have a death wish. He protected himself every way to Sunday! Never even slept in the same place two nights in a row.

The whole war idea, from the very beginning, was based on absolute foolishness. And THAT, my friend, is why MILLIONS of people, ALL OVER THE GLOBE, took to the streets to protest the war BEFORE it started. It was soooooooooo obvious to those who paid any attention whatsoever.

Do you know what kind of outrage it takes to motivate MILLIONS of people, ALL OVER THE GLOBE, to take to the streets? Is it something you do on a weekly/yearly basis? Have you EVER? You've gotta have your heart in it. You've gotta be pretty damned convinced you are right about something. If MILLIONS of protesters knew, BEFORE the war started, that it was insane....surely bush knew that he was blowing smoke up everyone's butts. If he had been a responsible adult who was sincerely "concerned", he would have done a helluva lot more to avoid war, and to deal with the threat openly.

None of that happened, because that wasn't the case.

For 200+ years, the United States leadership has had the good sense NOT to get our troops involved in Middle East wars -- groups who have hated each other for thousands and thousands of years. The whole place has always been a powder keg. Diplomacy has always been the ONLY option, for clear-headed presidents. We've opened Pandora's Box now, and it's only going to get worse from here.

You're right about one thing, however: If the republicans had run someone else against bush in this election, it certainly would have made an impact. The problem is, it's the wingnuts like bush -- the extreme right wingers -- who are in power in the republican party now. Making orphans out of the REAL republicans.
:kick:

[JPJones]

21. It's plausible, when you have someone with a sub 100 IQ

running the country.