Amazing George H.W. Bush quote

Where is he now????????????


"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." -Pres. George H.W. Bush

MzPip
:dem:

I'm not suprised he said it, but a link would be dandy!!!

"A World Transformed" published in 1998.

It's an excerpt from the 1999 book "A World Transformed" by Brent Scowcroft and G. H. W. Bush. Here's a longer excerpt:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in ‘mission creep,’ and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, there was no viable ‘exit strategy’ we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

Here's a few links: http://www.thememoryhole.org/mil/bushsr-iraq.htm
http://fuller.mit.edu/peace/dad_knows_best.html
http://www.salon.com/politics/conason/2002/09/12/bush/

Maybe that's why he wanted Jr. in there. Historians would rate him higher afterwards.

"History shows that George W Bush should have just listened to his father..."

:)

relative to the idiot son. Hell, this stray cat outside my house would look good compared to Shrub.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

since so many of Georgie Boy's advisors are from Poppy's team.

All the grief that George I was given for not going after Saddam, not FINISHING the job, shows that at least he was playing by the rules. The UN resolution and the team GHWB put together was about getting Iraq out of Kuwait. Once that was done, he did not push the issue.

I know we are in big trouble when I start missing Dubya's Dad. :crazy:

MzPip
:dem:

which, personally, I really respected the elder Bush for. However, it caused him untold anguish from the RW. Now, the RW is having it their way and shoving it in the old man's face.

I remember the arguing over going to Baghdad. Kinda like the arguing over going to Peking a while back.

Gives you an idea about what leadership and statesmanship are. Truman was absolutely right that the mandate was the 38th parallel, and we couldn't expand the mission simply because we thought it might be a good idea. Firing MacArthur was risky, but Truman figgered you gotta do what you gotta do. And he was right, and it didn't hurt him a bit in the end.

BushI didn't have to go so far as firing anybody, since the coalition would have folded the minute he ordered Schwartzkopf to Baghdad and everyone knew that. We don't know what he would have done if he could have gotten away with it, but I like to think he still would have stayed with the original mission.

DimSon fell right into the trap. And he's still acting like nothing's wrong. Or even slightly unusual.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/28/politics/28TEXT_BUSH.html?pagewanted=print&position=

BUSH: It is important for me to protect national security. You're talking about the presidential daily brief.

It's important for the writers of the presidential daily brief to feel comfortable that the documents will never be politicized and/or unnecessarily exposed for public purview.

And so, therefore, kind of, the first statements out of this administration were very protective of the presidential prerogatives of the past and to protect the right for other presidents -- future presidents to have a good presidential daily brief.

Now having said that, I am -- we want to work with Chairman Kean and Vice Chairman Hamilton, and I believe we can reach a proper accord to protect the integrity of the daily brief process and at the same time allow them a chance to take a look and see what was in the certain daily briefs that they would like to see.