- George Bush presented intelligence, albeit manipulated intelligence. Trump never presented any evidence for anything, and dismissed intelligence when it went against his lies.
- George Bush asked Congress for authorization to use force.
- George Bush spent about a year persuading people. Donald Trump manufactured consent out of whole cloth. "America First means I get to do what I want!!!!"
- George Bush invaded a country that, at some point in the past, had WMDs but could not prove that it had destroyed them. Trump attacked a country that never possessed any, nor was working on one
Comments (18)
sorted by:
American manufacturing is in such poor shape, we don't even manufacture consent anymore.
We were also actually attacked when Bush went to war.
The excuses were still bullshit, but at least we had something then.
Oh really, tell me about how Iraq attacked us?
I didn't say that.
Oh I'm sorry, what was the country we went to war with when attacked? Cause apparently it wasn't the one involved in 9/11, the second one he invaded was "supposedly".
We were attacked. That is at least a good excuse for war, on paper.
Like I clearly said, though, the excuses were bullshit.
We never should have attacked Iraq and, no, they didn't attack us. I said we were attacked, not that Iraq attacked us. My point is, Iran hasn't done anything to us, and only responded to Israeli attacks. Nothing is new, there was even less excuses here than with George Bush.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKPuxIKl7Lk
An attack is still an attack, bodies and destruction to rile the people up, the flimsiest of pretenses is different than none at all.
Trump is exactly like Bush 43
Regime change is on the menu, boys! /disgusted
Bush attacked Iraq to distract from the fact that Saddam started out as our madman.
A madman we put in place as part of our (then) new "Fuck Iran" policy.
Being a Gen X'er, I have no problem with us bombing Iran; we've been talking about doing it almost as long as I've been alive. If it was this easy, why did we wait so long to do it?
this is you
All good points
Iran was probably working on a WMD.
The real point here is that Iran presented itself as a ripe target after it had been stripped off its air defense infrastructure by Israel. Iran no longer had a leg to stand on and refused to change its position on the negotiation table, despite having less cards to play.
Literal cult. "Yeah, I know that the American intelligence agencies disagree, and that Bibi has said they're 3 weeks away from a bomb for 30 years, but Trump said so!"
Turns out, countries don't surrender when they're the victim of an unprovoked Pearl Harbor. And why should they?
Trump cultists are terrifying. If he started WW3 with Russia, they'd be defending it in the moments before their skin melts off from the retaliation.
The realpolitik situation was that Iran had presented itself as a ripe target and a more powerful geopolitical entity decided to take advantage of the situation.
Just like Russia did with Ukraine.
You might have a few points but last one is pure conjecture. Without proof of WMD, they're the same picture.
How so? They did have WMDs - long before 2003. I think the consensus is that the order went out to destroy them after 1991.
That's different from a country that never had WMD.
Again, where is the proof they did before 2003? You said they couldn't even prove they had them before then.
Bush Jr wanted to go into Iraq to finish he's father's legacy there. Everything else was an excuse.
Well, they used them. Many times. They received them from the Americans and others.
I don't think personal preferences play that much of a role. You have to bring along the establishment with you, after all.