Posted on Jan 27, 2015
Do you agree that the Bush administration created a fiasco in Iraq?
59.5K
848
457
51
33
18
Senior officials of the Bush Administration were at best criminally incompetent in their actions after the attacks on the World Trade Center.
"Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Tommy Franks spent most of their time and energy on the least demanding task - defeating Saddam's weakened conventional forces - and the least amount on the most demanding - rehabilitation of and security for the new Iraq. The result was a surprising contradiction. The United States did not have nearly enough troops to secure the hundreds of suspected WMD sites that had supposedly been identified in Iraq or to secure the nation's long, porous borders. Had the Iraqis possessed WMD and terrorist groups been prevalent in Iraq as the Bush administration so loudly asserted, U.S. forces might well have failed to prevent the WMD from being spirited out of the country and falling into the hands of the dark forces the administration had declared war against."
(Michael R. Gordon & Gen. Bernard Trainor, Cobra II, pp. 503-504)
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/
Jim Webb, in September, 2002, wrote an Op-Ed in The Washington Post vehemently arguing against the invasion of Iraq. It is striking just how right Webb was about virtually everything he said, and it is worth quoting at length to underscore what "serious, responsible national security" viewpoints actually look like:
"Other than the flippant criticisms of our "failure" to take Baghdad during the Persian Gulf War, one sees little discussion of an occupation of Iraq, but it is the key element of the current debate. The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years. Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay. . . ."
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/10/jim-webb-marty-peretz-and-our-serious.html
Jim Webb should be our next president.
To stay on point, anyone who makes even a cursory examination of the record will find that Bush 43 was the worst president in our history.
Walt
"Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Tommy Franks spent most of their time and energy on the least demanding task - defeating Saddam's weakened conventional forces - and the least amount on the most demanding - rehabilitation of and security for the new Iraq. The result was a surprising contradiction. The United States did not have nearly enough troops to secure the hundreds of suspected WMD sites that had supposedly been identified in Iraq or to secure the nation's long, porous borders. Had the Iraqis possessed WMD and terrorist groups been prevalent in Iraq as the Bush administration so loudly asserted, U.S. forces might well have failed to prevent the WMD from being spirited out of the country and falling into the hands of the dark forces the administration had declared war against."
(Michael R. Gordon & Gen. Bernard Trainor, Cobra II, pp. 503-504)
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/
Jim Webb, in September, 2002, wrote an Op-Ed in The Washington Post vehemently arguing against the invasion of Iraq. It is striking just how right Webb was about virtually everything he said, and it is worth quoting at length to underscore what "serious, responsible national security" viewpoints actually look like:
"Other than the flippant criticisms of our "failure" to take Baghdad during the Persian Gulf War, one sees little discussion of an occupation of Iraq, but it is the key element of the current debate. The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years. Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay. . . ."
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/10/jim-webb-marty-peretz-and-our-serious.html
Jim Webb should be our next president.
To stay on point, anyone who makes even a cursory examination of the record will find that Bush 43 was the worst president in our history.
Walt
Military science
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)
Iraq
George W. Bush
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 103
41
38
3
My thumbs down was for an individual that says Bush 43 was the worst President in our history has not looked back at every President.
I also take issue with those who claim there were no WMDs in Iraq, I have pictures from a Soldier who had blisters all over both arms and his chest after he picked up an aetilerry round to put it in a stockpile for destruction.
I also take issue with those who claim there were no WMDs in Iraq, I have pictures from a Soldier who had blisters all over both arms and his chest after he picked up an aetilerry round to put it in a stockpile for destruction.
(41)
(3)
MSG (Join to see)
LTC Nancy Bodyk (Retired) - if you were completely unaware that there was WMDs in Iraq and liberals were lying to you all along, I can only hope you got out before 9/11.
(2)
(1)
LTC Nancy Bodyk (Retired)
MSG Maestes, where is the proof? If WMD had been found the military would have had it al over the news because the Administration was taking a pounding. So again other then a very small number of artillery rounds where is it? This has nothing to do with liberals or republicans, it's called visual proof.
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Former head of US special forces admits: Islamic State would not exist if Bush didn’t invade...
The former commander of U.S. special forces in Afghanistan and Iraq admitted that strategic blunders by the Bush administration had led to the rise of Islamic State militants.
(1)
(0)
SGT Jon Watt
A little known historical fact - A&E ran a broadcast in early 2004, it only ran one time, despite the fact that A&E used to run broadcasts over and over and over again. My uncle saw the show that night it ran, and waited until the next day to let me know about it. It was about covert missions going into Iraq and destroying WMD. My uncle told me, so that I could tell a very close friend of mine about the broadcast. My friend "Bob" holds a stick in his mouth to type on a keyboard in order to communicate with people, he is tied into his bed and into his wheelchair, he has to have a suppository for bowel movements, he has to be fed by someone else. He was the crew chief on a Pavlow taking an 18 man Seal team into destroy WMDs that had been identified by CIA/NSA personnel. When i told "Bob" about the A&E broadcast, the first comment was "who talked"? It was a different mission than his - it had 17 people on it. On "Bob's" mission, only 3 people were left alive - it took 3 days for the first guy to die. I don't remember how many the show said died out of that mission. It was immediately after that broadcast that President Bush came out and said, "We have no proof of weapons of mass destruction." While I have no proof, I and others that saw that broadcast (and I talked to others besides my uncle who remembered seeing it) are of the opinion that President Bush made a deal - squash the broadcast and he would make the announcement he made.
Consider this - we all know how the media does - would those men who are paying a heavy price have had any peace if others in the media had gotten ahold of this? NO. Consider this - CIA and NSA were reporting WMDs - CIA is State Department with its Secretary of State, and NSA is Department of Defense with its own cabinet level secretary. It took someone in position over both Departments to take the heat and make the decision to report what Bush reported.
Consider this - British, Spanish, and Israeli intel also had information on the existence of WMD in Iraq. They all backed the American position, two of the three committed military forces to the war in Iraq. But they did not refute Bush when Bush made the decision to report "No WMD proof." Why? In my opinion, it was due to the prestige of the US President.
Now what kind of man puts his men before himself? What kind of President puts servicemen before his own personal honor? A leader - a true leader - the kind of leader that we were all taught to be.
There may have been better Presidents than George W Bush, but not in our lifetimes.
Then, when I was in Iraq, I met soldiers who were part of the invasion forces - soldiers who told me that chemicals had been used against them - but that their commanders made the tactical decision to not report to the news media. Why not report it? Because what would it have done to the mothers and wives back home? Support for the War was already split, it probably would have gotten worse. But now, roughly 20 years later, those facts are coming out.
What's my opinion of Bush? He is a man who served as a true leader but will probably never get the full credit he deserves.
Consider this - we all know how the media does - would those men who are paying a heavy price have had any peace if others in the media had gotten ahold of this? NO. Consider this - CIA and NSA were reporting WMDs - CIA is State Department with its Secretary of State, and NSA is Department of Defense with its own cabinet level secretary. It took someone in position over both Departments to take the heat and make the decision to report what Bush reported.
Consider this - British, Spanish, and Israeli intel also had information on the existence of WMD in Iraq. They all backed the American position, two of the three committed military forces to the war in Iraq. But they did not refute Bush when Bush made the decision to report "No WMD proof." Why? In my opinion, it was due to the prestige of the US President.
Now what kind of man puts his men before himself? What kind of President puts servicemen before his own personal honor? A leader - a true leader - the kind of leader that we were all taught to be.
There may have been better Presidents than George W Bush, but not in our lifetimes.
Then, when I was in Iraq, I met soldiers who were part of the invasion forces - soldiers who told me that chemicals had been used against them - but that their commanders made the tactical decision to not report to the news media. Why not report it? Because what would it have done to the mothers and wives back home? Support for the War was already split, it probably would have gotten worse. But now, roughly 20 years later, those facts are coming out.
What's my opinion of Bush? He is a man who served as a true leader but will probably never get the full credit he deserves.
(0)
(0)
35
33
2
SGT Roberto Mendoza-Diaz
Haters gonna hate, however, no matter how many times I get down voted, I is still gonna miss Bush.
(0)
(0)
SGT Roberto Mendoza-Diaz
SSG David Gentile - First off my name is SGT Mendoza-Diaz, show some respect. Secondly and lastly you are entitled to your own opinion as I am.
(0)
(0)
SGT Roberto Mendoza-Diaz
SSG David Gentile - Please inform my COC about my conduct, I beg you. I need help because I miss Bush.
(0)
(0)
SGT Roberto Mendoza-Diaz
SSG David Gentile - I didn't called anyone names but this individual called me a coward. He doesn't know who I am. Please refer to previous posts before start judging and before knowing who to judge.
(0)
(0)
24
24
0
SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS
1stSgt (Join to see) Top, I am with you. Too many personal attacks and comments which create angst. I joined this site to share ideas and commentary with other military personnel and don't really want the stress of bickering between us. I served in Iraq, I know what I saw and I know why I was there. That will always be enough for me.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google