Elder Bush defends record on Iraq

[subgenius]

Critics since the Gulf War have said the elder Bush made a mistake by not sending forces into Baghdad to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power after quickly liberating Kuwait.
"I believe we would have lost faith back then with our allies if we'd said we were just kidding; we're now going to march into Baghdad," Bush said

"We underestimated his brutality," Bush said. "We underestimated the cruelty to his own people" to hold on to power.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/28/sprj.irq.bush.elder/index.html

So did he do good, or make a mistake?
At least Dubya isn't worried about losing faith with our allies.
How could he have "misunderestimated" Saddam's cruelty after the gassings of his people (allegedly), having had to go to war with him, our troops probably having been subjected to chemical agents, and Saddam's brutality to the Kuwaiti people?
How do you defend your record, and admit you were wrong at the same time?
:confused:

[Advocate]

Originally posted by subgenius
How do you defend your record, and admit you were wrong at the same time?

I don't know if you want a serious answer to this, but IMHO what he is saying is that he did the best he could with the information he had at the time. In hindsight it turns out he was wrong, but I don't think very many people in 1991 thought we would still be dealing with Saddam in 2003. I am pretty sure the elder President Bush didn't think so or he would have had the troops continue to Baghdad.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Advocate


I don't know if you want a serious answer to this, but IMHO what he is saying is that he did the best he could with the information he had at the time. In hindsight it turns out he was wrong, but I don't think very many people in 1991 thought we would still be dealing with Saddam in 2003. I am pretty sure the elder President Bush didn't think so or he would have had the troops continue to Baghdad.
When you win a war, you don't negotiate a treaty. According the PBS's Frontline, after we won we didn't have anyone who knew how to draw up a surrender. Thus the Iraqui's were able to insert all kinds of terms favorable to themselves.
Don't have to be a rocket scientist to think of the word "unconditional."
Bush I's statement about losing faith with the allies doesn't wash with me. After you risk your people's lives, and win, you don't give away the store, for the sake of not losing faith with those that were on your side.
Still don't know why it was so mysterious that Saddam was nuts then, as he is now, and that you might as well finish the job. He had just torched the oil fields and gassed our troops (much less his previous 10 year history of atrocities) for goshsakes. They obviously had that in mind when Bush I encouraged Saddam's opposition to revolt and finish the job, but then let them be massacred. Why did that happen?
Bush I admits he made a mistake, then how and why do you defend it at the same time?
Those that don't learn from history.....
It was one of two things: stupidity (human mistake and understandable and fogiveable), which he has a hard time coming to terms with, or something else, which I haven't figured out yet.

[corplinx]

Why is it that all the people who demanded we _only_ liberate kuwait during Gulf 1 have the loudest mouths now about not taking out Saddam back then? Anyone else getting tired of it?

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by subgenius

When you win a war, you don't negotiate a treaty. According the PBS's Frontline, after we won we didn't have anyone who knew how to draw up a surrender. Thus the Iraqui's were able to insert all kinds of terms favorable to themselves.

This sounds like crap, really. There is no single larger collection of experts of military law than the legal officers of the US armed forces. Either you or Frontline must be getting something very wrong here.

MattJ

[subgenius]

"There is no single larger collection of experts of military law than the legal officers of the US armed forces."
Not only does this sound like "military intelligence," but they happened not to be around at the right time.
Bush I has said he made a mistake. Could he be right? Could others make mistakes?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by corplinx
Why is it that all the people who demanded we _only_ liberate kuwait during Gulf 1 have the loudest mouths now about not taking out Saddam back then?
To whom are you referring, specifically? Wasn't me.

Did Bush I have to accede to these alleged demands?

[subgenius]

I read his lips. They were chapped.
I love George H. W. though. He plays a round of golf in about 90 minutes or less!
He talks to himself while playing. Saw him on TV one time muttering, "The crowd senses the presence of 'Mr. Smooth'." :D
Have used that line ever since.

[Crossbow]

If you can actually determine what the reasoning was for the Iraq policy penned by the elder Bush, I say: Good Luck!

To explain, every time I hear the elder Bush talk about the Gulf War, he provides a different reason as to why it was ended when it was.

First reason (prior to the war), we need to move on Iraq now because in six months they will have the bomb and it will be much tougher to get rid of them then.

Second reason (during the war), Saddam is the worst man since Hitler and after the war there will be a War Crimes Trial.

Third reason (just before the end of the war), the deal was to get Iraq out of Kuwait. The war was never supposed to be about invading Iraq since the coalition forces would never go along with that.

Fourth reason (just after the war), Bush called on the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam.

Fifth reason (just after the revolts), when the revolts did occur, Bush never supported them.

Sixth reason (some weeks after the revolts), the International Sanctions would be continued until Saddam is removed from power.

Seventh reason (when Bush was running for re-election), there should have been a better surrender; as the Japanese did after WWII where they came on board a US warship, laid down their sword, and signed the surrender documents.

Eighth reason (after Bush leaves office), I did not authorize an invasion since so many Americans would be killed doing so and I did not want their deaths on my soul.

Ninth reason (I heard him say on CNN a few weeks ago), there was no need for the US to invade Iraq since all of our information indicated that Saddam would not remain in power for more than a year.

Stay tuned for further rationales.