Discussion for article #236477
That’s right, Ricky. But would you have invaded then knowing what you knew THEN.
2 Likes
“I will tell you, it is three countries I would not have invaded: Iraq, Canada, and… Ok… Iraq…Canada… let’s see. I can’t. The third one, I can’t. Sorry. Oops”
2 Likes
“I think if you look what’s happened today, and the answer is no. I mean, with that hindsight, no, I would not have done that.”
Yet the Republicans continue the slam President Obama, the one guy who was smart enough to think the war was wrong before we went to war.
“Potential 2016 presidential candidate and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry ® on Monday said…”
…whatever he thinks the polls show is most popular. This fucking twit can’t solve the puzzles on the back of a box of BooBerry and we’re supposed to believe he can reason his way through the morass of blind MIC holy-warring his party ALWAYS relies on when they have the WH? Bullshit. He’d be dancing to the neocon bagpipes before he unscrambled the first 4-letter word on the back of the box during breakfast his first day in office.
Potential 2016 presidential candidate and indicted former Texas Gov. Rick Perry ®…
Fixed it for you TPM.
You’re welcome.
3 Likes
Perry’s already too busy preparing for Obama’s invasion and subjugation of Texas, but is planning a “shock and awe” preemptive strike, using the Texas State Guard and the Confederate Air Force, against Costa Rica.
Perhaps, Canada because In a recent study, a quarter of America’s schoolchildren thought Canada was a dictatorship http://econ.st/1L0mcQb
The National Assessment of Educational Progress, which periodically tests sample-groups of America’s children on various subjects, this week released disappointing results for history, geography and civics for 13-year-olds. Pupils showed no improvement since 2010. Most know little about history: only 1% earned an “advanced” score in that subject. Geography scores are even worse. Most did not understand time zones, and a quarter thought Canada was a dictatorship. Results have been flat since 1994.
B.S. Guvnah.
What a pussy…
Clearly Perry, Bush, Rubio and most of the other potential GOP candidates don’t seem to get the importance of the, “Knowing what we know now . . .” question. The hindsight it asks begs a larger question: Given all the criticism on the WMD “intelligence” between 9/11 and March, 2003, why did not Bush, Cheney, etc. ever question the wisdom of the decision to invade? They were wrong! More importantly, how should that hindsight inform the decisions of the current and future presidents?
Oliver Cromwell’s 1650 “rule” should be mandatory guidance to all of these fools making decisions that may result in much killing: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.”
But then, they are all fools.
Ooh! Ooh! I can answer this and I’m not running for president (and I’m smart enough to know that I never will even consider it, but anything other than this answer should be on the tip of the tongue of anyone considering running for national office.):
I would have never invaded Iraq because:
- The U.S. and other NATO countries had Saddam’s Iraq contained by No Fly Zones so much so, that it had depleted its air defenses, essentially had nothing it could offer in the way of an air attack at all.
- Saddam was an enemy of Al Qaeda, the sole perpetrators of the Sept. 11, 2001 attack on U.S. buildings and commercial air travel, which had no presence within Iraq and U.S. Intelligence knew this.
- Iraq is a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the U.S. or any U.S. allies, although there was a slight question of whether it was a threat to Israel there were other nations that were more active aggressors to the nation of Israel, so any act of aggression toward Israel would violate a host of U.S. and International laws.
- To back up the last reason, the U.N. voted against any aggression toward Iraq and its own weapons inspectors had turned up nothing as proof by the Bush Administration that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.
I lean hard on the first two reasons and it was because of those that I was positive that the whole run up to war was just a diplomatic ploy by Bush/Cheney and that the whole threat to attack was so absurd an idea that it would never happen.
Boy, was I wrong.
"**You know,
this whole issue
of this question that gets asked-
If you-
With what you know today,
would you have ordered the invasion of Iraq?
I think
if you look [siv] what’s happened today
and [sic]
the answer is
No.
I mean,
With that hindsight,
no,
I would not have done that**."
He knew this question was coming. He had weeks- weeks at least, more accurately years- to consider his response. compose it, frame it, refine it, test it out with family, friends, aides, advisers and consultants, hone it, rehearse it, NAIL it down. He could reliably predict even how the question would be constructed, and tailor his response accordingly. He’s not been governor for a long time now and he’s not be ‘otherwise employed’ (Who would employ him, and at what?). He’s had an abundance of time and other resources to prepare his response with art, science, common sense and good old American savvy. There was only one problem:
the messenger.
Well, maybe more than that: it appears he’s incapable of doing ANY of the several things necessary to providing even merely a reasonably comprehensible response to this question.
Before I leave, I’d just want to say … a moment please … hold on, there; don’t get over-excited … where am I? Let’s see: I talked about that; I answered the thing … Nope, drawing a blank. Well anyway they’re telling me now the limo’s about to arrive out front any second , so, I don’t know if this is adios, or God speed, I suppose it depends on whether you’re Christian like me, but anyway, see you around, pards.