Do you agree that the Bush administration created a fiasco in Iraq?

2015-01-27T15:49:57-05:00

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

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Jan 27 at 2015 4:01 PM

2015-01-27T16:01:18-05:00

More from our next president in 2004:

"Bush arguably has committed the greatest strategic blunder in modern memory. To put it bluntly, he attacked the wrong target. While he boasts of removing Saddam Hussein from power, he did far more than that. He decapitated the government of a country that was not directly threatening the United States and, in so doing, bogged down a huge percentage of our military in a region that never has known peace. Our military is being forced to trade away its maneuverability in the wider war against terrorism while being placed on the defensive in a single country that never will fully accept its presence.

There is no historical precedent for taking such action when our country was not being directly threatened. The reckless course that Bush and his advisers have set will affect the economic and military energy of our nation for decades. It is only the tactical competence of our military that, to this point, has protected him from the harsh judgment that he deserves.

At the same time, those around Bush, many of whom came of age during Vietnam and almost none of whom served, have attempted to assassinate the character and insult the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with them. Some have impugned the culture, history and integrity of entire nations, particularly in Europe, that have been our country's great friends for generations and, in some cases, for centuries.

Bush has yet to fire a single person responsible for this strategy. Nor has he reined in those who have made irresponsible comments while claiming to represent his administration. One only can conclude that he agrees with both their methods and their message.

Most seriously, Bush has yet to explain the exact circumstances under which American military forces will be withdrawn from Iraq."

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-02-18-veterans-edit_x.htm

Response by Capt Lance Gallardo made Jul 20 at 2015 6:06 PM

2015-07-20T18:06:03-04:00

Two thumbs up if I could. I was vehemently opposed to the invasion of Iraq in 2004. I actually marched in the pouring rain in the month before the invasion of Iraq in the protest against invading Iraq, here in LA. First time I ever did something like that. We continue to reap the bad fruits of that decision. We now have a feckless President who refuses to see himself as a wartime president or have a robust use of force foreign policy. We should have gone to war with Iran given their 35 plus year history of aggression and murderous attacks against Americans and Israelis.

Response by SGT Roberto Mendoza-Diaz made Jul 20 at 2015 9:34 PM

2015-07-20T21:34:12-04:00

I miss Bush.

Response by MSG David Johnson made Jul 20 at 2015 9:35 PM

2015-07-20T21:35:39-04:00

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.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Jul 20 at 2015 10:07 PM

2015-07-20T22:07:00-04:00

I also take up issues along side MSG David Johnson. Chemical weapons were found there. While I was there some were found, but the fix was in - cover it up. This has been something the news media did a drive by on and want it dug deep. I think many owe Bush and company an apology on this matter.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jul 20 at 2015 10:08 PM

2015-07-20T22:08:37-04:00

I dont feel that we should of been in Iraq at all, while saddam was a monster and not a human our reasons for being there were BS.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 20 at 2015 10:17 PM

2015-07-20T22:17:55-04:00

Purely opinion. I will keep mine to myself.

Response by SSG Harry Kellett made Jul 20 at 2015 10:38 PM

2015-07-20T22:38:06-04:00

To say the President is at fault for our county going to war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for serving junk food. It was the mentality of a nation driven by fear and revenge that allowed the war in Iraq to occur. As far as reasons for being there and the impact we had, that is a very long discussion.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jul 21 at 2015 2:27 AM

2015-07-21T02:27:12-04:00

Oh Yeah!

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2015 3:59 AM

2015-07-21T03:59:01-04:00

Yes, by invading it. Then we continued to make a mess by removing dictators friendly to Western interests in favor of democratically elected Islamic extremists.

Response by SFC Oranthal Smith made Jul 21 at 2015 6:08 AM

2015-07-21T06:08:44-04:00

As I sit here reading some of your responses to the question at hand, some of you are spot on and others way out in left field. One and probably the first priority of the Iraq War was Lil. Yes I said it! I was a part of MNC-I in the JOC. GEN Kasey was the man in charge. Sitting in this VTC the topic of discussion was about a part of a major pipeline that had been blown up by insurgents. I have never seen so much emphasis. Needless to say because the nature of this VTC was secured I can't say or have time here to tell you all that we were over there for the wrong reasons!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2015 7:06 AM

2015-07-21T07:06:39-04:00

It's crazy to me that Soldiers still don't know that WMDs were found in Iraq. I guess it's a testament to the effectiveness of media to manipulate public opinion by omitting or focusing on a specific point.

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-new-york-times-reports-wmds-found-iraq/

BOMBSHELL: New York Times Reports WMDs WERE Found in Iraq! - The Political Insider

How many times have we been told that there were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq? I’m pretty sure I’ve heard it millions of times. I’ve read stories …

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2015 8:03 AM

2015-07-21T08:03:20-04:00

Absolutely. It was a foolish war of choice by the Administration. What few gains we got were outweighed by the terrible consequences.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2015 9:05 AM

2015-07-21T09:05:27-04:00

I haven't read this op-ed although I have read all of the Woodward books, and many others including GEN Franks' book. There are few things I find more politically reprehensible than arm chair quarterbacking. No one will ever argue that mistakes weren't made. Personally I think that Rumsfeld as SECDEF was a mistake, I've also read Gates' book and personally heard Rice discuss the whole "Fiasco." People made decisions with the best information they had at the time, but they were human and emotions were definitely involved. History will judge everything, for example Lincoln was considered a very our president at the time, now he is a favorite of many. Let's not call Bush 43 the worst so soon as people are already discovering he was much better than they initially thought. Not to join the party on Bush supporters but I also miss Bush 43, and not just because he paid me better. I also miss Gates.

Response by SFC Michael Jackson, MBA made Jul 21 at 2015 10:33 AM

2015-07-21T10:33:43-04:00

It's time to STOP playing the blame game and pointing fingers. We're not moving forward that way. Iraq may have been a fiasco. However, we did eventually capture Saddam and turn him for trial. It doesn't matter whose fault it is or was. It's in our best interest to move on. I believe the white house administrations do what think it right at the time based on the info they have. Whether they're correct or not will ALWAYS be a matter of debate. Let's just leave it at that.

Response by LTC Nancy Bodyk (Retired) made Jul 21 at 2015 11:28 AM

2015-07-21T11:28:14-04:00

Absolutely. I didn't agree with it while I was on PCS leave in March 2003 when Rumsfeld was going on about how it would be a short quick victory and we'd be gone. I knew then it was a load of bull. It's one thing to kick Saddam out of Kuwait, it was a completely different ball game to overthrow his regime. Gen Shinsheki was right, we needed more boots on the ground to invade Iraq and Rumsfeld made him and Sec White resign because they didn't fall in line with his estimate. And the worst part is Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld sent Colin Powell up to the UN to argue the US position and made him the fall guy for their incorrect intelligence. I deployed to Iraq in May 2003 because I joined the Army and I knew I was signing up to fight this Nation's wars when I joined, I didn't agree with the war. There was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda the perpetrators of 9/11. We took our eyes off the fight in Afghanistan and look what happened as a result.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2015 12:19 PM

2015-07-21T12:19:00-04:00

Response by MAJ James Woods made Jul 21 at 2015 1:34 PM

2015-07-21T13:34:24-04:00

As a Vet from both campaigns, what annoys me is how the Bush administration didn't invest resources into Afghanistan like they did in Iraq. That's where I fault them from a strategic view. Their priorities were questionable.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2015 6:53 PM

2015-07-21T18:53:09-04:00

The worst president we have ever had currently resides in the White House.

Response by SFC Wesley Arnold, Jr made Jul 21 at 2015 9:09 PM

2015-07-21T21:09:14-04:00

Capt Walter Miller, let me start by saying that I'm usually the type the reads twice or three times more posts than I wright. Most of the time I'm straight to the point without writing a book response; however, I couldn't this time.

First let me start by saying that it is my "opinion" that you can't truly blame the actions of POTUS X for continued problems during the appointment of POTUS Y & Z. Some time you have to go back more than one term to "try and lay blame" ... not to mention saying that POTUS is solely responsible for acts of war. Might an Engagement happen at the drop of a hat ... Yes; but, it still requires the US Congress to "declare war".

Below is a lot of the problem from "my point of view" ... So who is truly responsible?

MIDDLE EAST NUCLEAR ACTIVITY

33.Harry S Truman 1945-1953
1950s Nuclear Programs Begins

34. Dwight David Eisenhower 1953-1961

35 John Fitzgerald Kennedy 1961-1963

36. Lyndon Baines Johnson 1963-1969
July 1, 1968 Iran Signs Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

37. Richard Milhous Nixon 1969-1974
Creation of Atomic Energy Body
38. Gerald Rudolph Ford 1974-1977

39. James Earl Cater Jr 1977-1981
Jan. 16, 1979 Shah Flees
Feb. 11, 1979 Khomeini Comes to Power (Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini)

40. Ronald Wilson Reagan, 1981-1989
1983 Use of blister and muster gas (Iraq / Iran War)
1984 Nuclear Program Restarts
1985 Use of nerve gas Tabun (Iraq / Iran War)
Mar 16, 1988 Iraq drops bombs (Mustard Gas, Sarin, Tabun) on Kurdish city Halabja
Late 1980s Help From Pakistani Scientist on Nuclear Program
As late as 1988, US had aided Iraq against Iran

41. George Herbert Walker Bush, 1989-1993
June 4, 1989 New Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei)
Jan. 4, 1991 Begin the air campaign of Operation Desert Storm
Feb 22 1991 Soviet-proposed cease-fire
Feb 24 1991 Operation Desert Sabre
February 28, US cease fire ending the Persian Gulf War. According to the peace terms that Hussein subsequently accepted, Iraq would get rid of all its weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear, biological and chemical weapons).

42. William Jefferson Clinton, 1993-2001
Jan. 8, 1995 Iran and Russia Sign Nuclear Contract
July 1996 Sanctions Against Iran and Libya
May 1999 Proposal for Nuclear-Free Mideast

43. George Walker Bush, 2001-2009
2002 Discovery of Secret Plants
2002, the United States now led by President George W. Bush, sponsored a new U.N. resolution calling for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq; U.N. inspectors reentered Iraq that November. Bush (without further U.N. approval) issued an ultimatum on March 17, 2003, demanding that Saddam Hussein step down from power and leave Iraq within 48 hours, under threat of war. Hussein refused, and the second Persian Gulf War–more generally known as the Iraq War–began three days later.
2003 Nuclear Program Is Suspended (Iran)
Nov. 7, 2004 Violation and New Agreement
Mid-July, 2005 With Laptop Files, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran's Nuclear Aims
Aug. 3, 2005 Ahmadinejad Elected President of Iran
January 2006 Natanz Production Is Restarted
Aug. 26, 2006 Iran Opens a Heavy-Water Reactor
2008 U.S. - Israel Cyberattacks Begin
July 19, 2008 Talks End in Deadlock

44. Barack Hussein Obama, 2009-
April 8, 2009 U.S. Joins Regular Iran Talks
September 2009 Warning on Nuclear ‘Deception’
January 2010 Leaked Gates Memo on U.S. Policy
February 2010 Work on Warhead
Summer 2010 Computer Worms Leak Online; 1,000 Centrifuges Destroyed
June 2010 U.N. Approves New Sanctions
July 15, 2010 Iranian Scientist Defects to U.S., Then Reconsiders
Nov. 29, 2010 Bombings Strike Scientists in Iran (unknown VBIED)
November 2011 West Expands Sanctions, and U.N. Offers Evidence on Nuclear Work
Dec. 4, 2011 A Blow to U.S., as Drone Crashes
Natanz Plant Recovers
Jan. 11, 2012 Bomb Kills Nuclear Scientist
March 2012 New Centrifuges at Natanz
May 24, 2012 Talks With West Falter
July 1, 2012 Embargo on Iranian Oil
August 2012 New Work at Nuclear Site
Sept. 27, 2012 Israel's 'Red Line'
October 2012 Iran's Currency Tumbles
Feb. 6, 2013 U.S. Bolsters Sanctions
Feb. 23, 2013 New Deposits of Uranium
Feb. 26, 2013 Defiant Mood at Talks
March 14, 2013 Iran Nuclear Weapon to Take Year or More, Obama Says
April 8, 2013 Navy Deploying Laser Weapon Prototype Near Iran
April 9, 2013 After Talks End, Iran Announces an Expansion of Nuclear Fuel Production
April 12, 2013 US Blacklists an Iranian and Businesses Over Violation of Sanctions
April 18, 2013 U.S. Arms Deal With Israel and 2 Arab Nations Is Near
April 23, 2013 Fearing Price Increases, Iranians Hoard Goods
May 9, 2013 U.S. Imposes Sanctions on Those Aiding Iran
May 22, 2013 Iran Is Seen Advancing Nuclear Bid
June 2013 U.S. Adds to Its List of Sanctions Against Iran
June 15, 2013 Iran Elects New President
Aug. 28, 2013 Iran Slows Its Gathering of Enriched Uranium, Report Says
Sept. 19, 2013 Iran Said to Seek a Nuclear Accord to End Sanctions
Sept. 24, 2013 Rouhani, Blunt and Charming, Pitches a Moderate Iran in First U.N. Appearance
Sept. 27, 2013 First Direct US-Iran Talk Since 1979
Oct. 16, 2013 Iran Talks Called Substantive
Nov. 11, 2013 Iran Says It Agrees to ‘Road Map’ With U.N. on Nuclear Inspections
Nov. 14, 2013 Obama Calls for Patience in Iran Talks
Nov. 24, 2013 Deal With Iran Halts Nuclear Program
Jan. 12, 2014 Negotiators Put Final Touches on Iran Accord
May 24, 2014 Iran Is Providing Information on Its Detonators, Report Says
July 14, 2014 Iran Outlines Nuclear Deal; Accepts Limit
Aug. 27, 2014 Iran Altering Arak Reactor in Bid for Nuclear Deal
Nov. 3, 2014 Role for Russia Gives Iran Talks a Possible Boost
Nov. 20, 2014 Negotiators Scrambling as Deadline Looms in Nuclear Talks
Nov. 24, 2014 U.S. and Allies Extend Iran Nuclear Talks by 7 Months
April 2, 2015 Iran Agrees to Nuclear Limits, But Key Issues Are Unresolved

Timeline on Iran’s Nuclear Program
By SHREEYA SINHA and SUSAN CAMPBELL BEACHY UPDATED April 2, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/20/world/middleeast/Iran-nuclear-timeline.html?_r=1#/#time243_7170

Inernational Business Times By To Porter
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-escalates-use-chemical-weapons-against-kurds-syria-iraq-1511708

BBC NEWS Saddam's Iraq Key Events (Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/chemical_warfare.stm

Response by SPC D Flynn made Jul 21 at 2015 11:15 PM

2015-07-21T23:15:08-04:00

Nope

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Jul 22 at 2015 9:42 AM

2015-07-22T09:42:42-04:00

"Each and every one of the dangers about which Webb warned has come to fruition. But thoughtful, sophisticated, rational and -- as it turns out -- prescient analysis like this was haughtily dismissed away by the tough-guy political and pundit classes as unserious and wimpy, even when coming from combat heroes. Instead, those who were deemed to be the serious, responsible, and strong national security leaders -- and who still are deemed as such -- were the ones shrilly warning about Iraqi mushroom clouds over our cities; handing out playing cards -- playing cards -- with pictures of the Bad People underneath their comic book nicknames; and making predictions about Iraq which the most basic working knowledge of that country should have precluded."

Response by TSgt Kevin Buccola made Jul 22 at 2015 9:52 AM

2015-07-22T09:52:40-04:00

I disagree with W as the worst President - The mistake was make in 1991 - we should have kept rolling through. After Saddam left Kuwait we ended...that was the mistake.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Jul 22 at 2015 1:01 PM

2015-07-22T13:01:50-04:00

Capt Walter Miller, as you have made your own mind up so solidly, it seems silly to answer the question, though for the record my answer is "in hindsight, yes'". I didn't give you a thumbs-down because I hate doing that, but I did think your first sentence was fairly over-the-top and grossly inaccurate. The Bush administration took hundreds of actions after the 9/11 attacks. One of them was the invasion of Iraq. Others included policy and organizational changes in the US that kept us free from attack on the homeland for over a decade. There were many, many actions taken, some you may disagree with (advanced interrogation techniques, CIA black sites, Guantanamo, etc), and some you may like (Patriot Act, DHS standup, additional linkages between FBI, CIA, and international police and investigation forces, etc). Or you may have decided to hate ALL the actions taken, which would make you quite an outlier among US public opinion. In any case, you included the phrase, "at best criminally incompetent" in your sentence. Not "naiive", "poorly informed", or "grossly negligent," but criminal. At best. So, what would the administration be called at worst? How much further can you go than criminal, when that is the most favorable (in your mind) characterization? Then there's your last sentence. You seem to take the single action of the invasion of Iraq, refer to a cursory examination, and then conclude with "the worst president in our history". We have about 230 years of presidential history to cover, and lots of terms to define, and criteria to discuss....

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Jul 22 at 2015 1:16 PM

2015-07-22T13:16:00-04:00

Response by SPC Andrew Griffin made Jul 22 at 2015 3:56 PM

2015-07-22T15:56:55-04:00

Fiasco isn't the Word! More like BLUNDER! We are still paying for it!

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Jul 22 at 2015 5:44 PM

2015-07-22T17:44:11-04:00

I think that President Bush made the best decisions he could with the information he had available to him from his advisors. Yes its ultimately his decision to say yea or nea, but its not like he woke up on Tuesday and said "lets go get into a war for awhile and see how it plays out".
I don't fully agree with why we went to war, but when the decision was made at least it was made and there was nothing wishy washy about it. And remember he had the support of Congress, they did vote for it after all and even though they later backed away from it like it was a bad dream, he did it the right way.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jul 22 at 2015 9:38 PM

2015-07-22T21:38:03-04:00

Yes I do. I will go no further.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 22 at 2015 10:09 PM

2015-07-22T22:09:06-04:00

No one from Iraq bomb the Twin Towers/Pentagon or hijack any airplanes. So yes the Bush administration created a fiasco in Iraq.

Response by SGT Michael Glenn made Jul 23 at 2015 12:05 AM

2015-07-23T00:05:45-04:00

No I wouldnt, only due to the fact that they didnt just create a fiasco there but here as well. That the Nation was stupid enough to vote the ass into office a 2nd term has always dumbfounded me to the max, next to this dipshit we have now I have never seen a worse jerk in office...

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2015 12:17 AM

2015-07-23T00:17:04-04:00

I see a lot of debates going on with this post sir. I dont want to be locked up for speaking on anything classified or badmouthing a certain administration however I will say this.

I fully support us "Invading Iraq and Afghanistan" whether it was for oil or not I truly dont give a $hit. We had good intentions, THE PROBLEM I have is we should of never gone into either of those countries if we were not going to remain and stabilize the country. History repeats it self over and over if you do not learn from the last time; that explains Afghanistan 100%. In reference to WMDs; I never deployed to Iraq I did however to Afghanistan and I can speak from personal experience. If they were anything similar there is multiple cover ups that Unite States takes blame for and allows the world to judge us on false accusations and false reporting.

Multiple people in this thread have suggest WMDs existed, and its a fact Sarin Gas was used on our troops and I belive estimated 50,000 troops or so are currently suffering the effects of it. We will never know why stuff like this is covered up, we can only hope its not worst the the action being concealed. So I respect that you think BUSH is the worst, but I dont think hes even near the top 5. Our mistake was pulling out, there is multiple reason behind that and not necessarily one finger to point but we did the right thing initially.

Not going to Iraq would be much like us ignoring ISIL/ISIS. How did that work out for us? Give it a few months when were back into "war mode" oh wait we dont have the forces we once did? Open the flood gates again and start mass recruiting Soldiers who are hoping for a free college ride and individuals who dont deserve to wear this uniform because we all have met them across the board in every branch in every service.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2015 7:12 AM

2015-07-23T07:12:38-04:00

I suppose if you go all the way back to Desert Storm you might say we should have closed out Sadaam then. We had half a million troops in the region and could have easily stabilized the country. How it would look today is anyone's guess. But we had the firepower and the manpower right there. I agree that the killing was out of hand but the Iraqi forces would have just kept giving up and we might have used them to secure parts of the country as long as we moved north. Maybe I'm naïve but I've read a lot about what may have been if we had kept going in 1991. Of course 9-11 gave the administration all the excuses they needed to invade. The American people would have invaded Canada back then. We wanted payback. Good discussion! Hooah Sir!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2015 9:28 AM

2015-07-23T09:28:51-04:00

I am in no agreement with you, but I will respond as the reasons in few points.

I have no idea, or could care less about who Jim Webb is, and just wondering that the only opinion you posted was dated 2002. Where was he in 06 through 11? Does any one in your choice of "envisioner" can pin point our vacuum after leaving Iraq by our current POTUS intentions, and correlate it to the Arab spring, ISIS, and Jihad increase worldwide?

Where have you been in the past 7 years? A President who gives weapons to drug dealers, and takes it from citizens, who mingles in local police stories, like the one when he said police acted stupidly? When he sabotages and enrages all our allies, and let China, Russia, North Korea, Isis, and Iran to get even more brazen. When he wags a finger to a member of the FREE PRESS telling him he should know better to ask more difficult questions? How about when he sides with FOREIGN presidents against a law enacted in one of our states, like he did with president fox of mexico? or when under his leadership IRS targets political speech, or appoints a secretary of DHS whose first act was to keep an eye on us, veterans because we were the ones that were damning to our national security. Or go after a random guy who posted a video making fun of muslims instead of offering help to our personnel in Benghazi, and to top it, goes to a FUNDRAISER at las vegas instead of staying put and figure a better response.

As you can tell I could go on an on, but my points of facts are few:

Un resolutions 660,661,662,664,665,667,669, 670, 674,677,678,686 and 687.

Bill Clinton kept talking about Saddam ignoring them 686& 687, and also shot coalition aircraft while enforcing demilitarized zones, all of which constituted acts of wars, unlike Obama, who unilarteraly and without congress approval has extended bombings and sending troops back to Iraq, the same place he ran to get out out of there.

I don't think all presidents are perfect, but the last one has successfully demeaned the office of the presidency.

How about his time with youtube sensation milk bathing bathtub cheerios eating woman, and going on a comedy channel to try to be funny while we just got 5 service members killed in our homeland?

So back to your original question, no I don't think GWB #43 was the worse.

Response by MSgt Alan H made Jul 23 at 2015 10:33 AM

2015-07-23T10:33:23-04:00

I never have and never will agree with both invasions. I believe we have created a vacuum that has allowed ISIS. I agreed with Vietnam which I also think was a fiasco more than Iraq/Afghanistan. As much as we want to, forcing democracy on countries that have known other forms of government or tranny for years is not plausible. Booting Hussein out of Kuwait, I totally agreed with that albeit we let people go that maybe we should not have.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Jul 23 at 2015 11:08 AM

2015-07-23T11:08:52-04:00

Which one, they were both guilty of setting the stage for this.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2015 11:50 AM

2015-07-23T11:50:14-04:00

I Completely disagree.

Under the Bush administration we reached a crossroads in '06 where the war in Iraq was a losing effort and they either had to find a new way forward or get out. Bush pumped more men and resources into it and allowed the commanders t change their approach. This led to the Sunni Surge and Al Qaida being kicked out of the country. In contrast, when we were at a similar crossroads in Vietnam the CIC's were unwilling to commit and instead chose to withdraw from a fight where we constantly won military engagements but the country hated us for winning.

But everything we won with the Surge, was pissed away in 2010-11 when we prematurely withdrew. It still wasn't hopeless but then our opportunity to protect our meager gains and a fragile Iraq was again squandered in 2013 when we did not intervene in Syria.

TL;DR Bush did just fine. His successor has not been nearly as successful and some day history will rightly recognize it.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2015 2:58 PM

2015-07-23T14:58:12-04:00

I think we could have kept our focus in Afghanistan. But, a whole lot of post game reviewing of this is all we are doing now. Lets learn from the bad and the good aspects of this and continue to do our duty, with improved operational experience.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 23 at 2015 5:42 PM

2015-07-23T17:42:20-04:00

Your spot on with this... however it will take a few generations before this truth is accepted by a majority of Americans.

Response by LTC Donell Kelly made Jul 23 at 2015 6:03 PM

2015-07-23T18:03:54-04:00

Couldn't agree more. When GEN Shinseki was fired by Rummy & Wolfie, the testosterone level of GO's in the Pentagon dropped 100 points, and the Emperors were magically clothed again!

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Jul 23 at 2015 8:51 PM

2015-07-23T20:51:02-04:00

Yes, #43 was the worst ever. There is even an assertion among some theorists that Bush was responsible for 9/11 from WITHIN the U.S. so he would have a reason to invade Iraq. But I probably have more insight into the Middle East mindset than Dubya and if he wasn't advised to be prepared to stay in Iraq for 50 years don't even go. All of the WMD had been transferred to Syria long before we got their so Bush also has blood on his hands from all of the Syrian deaths at the hands of Assad.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Jul 23 at 2015 10:23 PM

2015-07-23T22:23:33-04:00

Rolling Stone Names President Obama ‘One of the Most Successful Presidents in American History’

President Obama graces the cover of the latest issue of Rolling Stone.

In the mag, Nobel Prize- winning economist Paul Krugman wrote an amazing piece in defense of President Obama’s presidency.

Mainstream media is often quick to point out President Obama’s perceived failures during his tenure, so it’s refreshing to see a publication highlight his many accomplishments — especially because President Obama’s approval rating is currently the lowest it’s ever been (according to CNBC).

Krugman declares President Obama as one of the “one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history” and acknowledges the harsh and often unfair criticism he endures.

Obama faces trash talk left, right and center – literally – and doesn’t deserve it. Despite bitter opposition, despite having come close to self-inflicted disaster, Obama has emerged as one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history. His health reform is imperfect but still a huge step forward – and it’s working better than anyone expected. Financial reform fell far short of what should have happened, but it’s much more effective than you’d think. Economic management has been half-crippled by Republican obstruction, but has nonetheless been much better than in other advanced countries. And environmental policy is starting to look like it could be a major legacy.

Response by MSgt Alan H made Jul 23 at 2015 10:34 PM

2015-07-23T22:34:24-04:00

Yes.......and it's so sad any of us are still there and more to come.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jul 23 at 2015 11:39 PM

2015-07-23T23:39:53-04:00

No. They were not criminally incompetent. They made some possibly bad decisions; all based on the best information available. The decision to invade will be a debate topic for years. I believe there were WMDs there, and they were moved before 19 March 2003. I also believe we made some bad decisions after we invaded, all with the best intentions I am sure. But, I don't believe anyone is criminally negligent... that is stretch. Is Bill Clinton also criminally negligent? He pulled us out of Somalia rapidly, after 3 Oct 1993, which I am convinced telegraphed to the world, again, that we were weak, and had not stomach for fighting. Things deteriorated for us, and accelerated after the Mog. and his decision to cut and run.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Jul 24 at 2015 12:00 PM

2015-07-24T12:00:37-04:00

Some may say that the War in Iraq could be considered imperialism.

Response by SSG Sean Gallagher made Jul 24 at 2015 12:10 PM

2015-07-24T12:10:01-04:00

Those charges of criminality are sprinkled with horse shit, sir. For someone who sites Rolling Stone Magazine as a credible source, it wouldn't surprise me if you aquired your knowledge of the war in Iraq from Wikipedia or Salon. I will credit you with being the Tom Brady of armchair quarterbacks though.

Response by MAJ Susan Grimm made Jul 24 at 2015 5:38 PM

2015-07-24T17:38:29-04:00

I agree.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jul 24 at 2015 8:05 PM

2015-07-24T20:05:25-04:00

Yes but we are facilitating the fiasco as we speak.

Response by SPC Elaine Brown made Jul 25 at 2015 8:17 AM

2015-07-25T08:17:52-04:00

For thousands of years there have been conflicts in that part of the world and there always will be. The U.S. did not have anything to do with that; we have only been a nation for a little over 200 years.

Response by MSgt Peter Vatistas made Jul 25 at 2015 4:32 PM

2015-07-25T16:32:27-04:00

Actually, I think a lot of people forget that it was the Hussein administration that created the fiasco.

Response by CPO Michael Taylor made Jul 25 at 2015 6:49 PM

2015-07-25T18:49:16-04:00

This is a difficult question for me to answer, since I see myself as a Republican and did vote for him, but my general answer is yes, though I also go along with the many opinions provided here that state this was not fully his fault, mainly due to the very large amount of bad intelligence that was available (or good intelligence that was not available to him). Perhaps the logic that he was the Commander in Chief and therefore must take all responsibility applies, though this is very unfortunate in light of facts as we now know them. I sincerely and deeply feel that his heart was in the right place and had we had more accurate intelligence this entire fiasco that today is a part of our everyday lives may have been minimized.

Response by SFC Joseph Weber made Jul 26 at 2015 6:27 AM

2015-07-26T06:27:32-04:00

Yes.

Response by SGT Craig Northacker made Jul 26 at 2015 8:43 PM

2015-07-26T20:43:22-04:00

The US has demonstrated repeatedly that occupying someone else's country is bad news. Our first major example was our own Revolution. Viet Nam was pretty recent...yet we continue to ignore history. The Halliburton's of the world, and other military centric industrial groups, derive too many dollars to ignore a great opportunity to earn huge contracts. In the 1980's we outspent the Soviets, but we had an enormous stock of conventional weapons, as the Star Wars program and other expensive programs were better PR (per a number of folks) than they were effective. What happens when you have a huge stash? You use it. Anyone who had any understanding of the dynamics present in Iraq should have known what a disaster our occupation would be. Saddam was the way he was for reason. We were not equipped, or prepared, for the civil affairs disasters that would unfold. We got lucky not more troops got hurt the way they were massed - and the fact they were not has been lost somehow in the subsequent sandstorms. I was all for fighting terrorism with a knock-out blow somewhere- but it needs to be done intelligently, efficiently, and effectively. We failed ourselves and created a new generation of problems for our veterans and their families.

Response by SGT Robert James made Jul 30 at 2015 11:43 AM

2015-07-30T11:43:07-04:00

I for one actually saw Russian made Mustard gas artillery rounds. They were part of a daisy chain IED near SADR City in mid-2004. However, they were never found enmasse as purported. As direct support for ODA we did find a very cache of Atropine in an Iraqi "Hospital" in/near the village of Kara Tappa. The locals did not want us to access the room it was in. We forced the door and were pretty taken aback by what we found. KBR or Kellogg, Brown and Root had all aspects of the FOB infrastructure building and support, no one else. Give you two guesses who was actively on the board of that company prior to, during the invasion and the sustainment years of OIF. He made millions if not billions off of our deployments. Now, their infrastructure in Iraq is worse than before we left. We created one heck of a mess there.

Response by Capt Lance Gallardo made Aug 3 at 2015 4:18 PM

2015-08-03T16:18:31-04:00

Capt. Walter Miller-You make a strong case for Jim Webb, but I think the Anti-second Amendment "guns are Evil" Liberal Wing of the Democratic Party would never support a Pro 2nd Amend. Candidate for President. I am going to have a hard time voting for any Presidential Candidate in the upcoming presidential election who either voted in favor of allowing the President in effect to take us to war against Iraq in 2004 or who cannot unequivocally state that invading Iraq in 2004 for the reasons and the evidence offered as a justification, was an unmitigated disaster and probably our worst foreign policy disaster since the Vietnam War. For the record, I am opposed to "going to war" or engaging in war fighting abroad, without requiring at the minimum a partial conscription (draft) of willing Americans to be involuntarily taken away from their lives and pursuits and being required to serve in the armed forces during hostilities. This is my "acid test" as to whether the country has the will and the commitment to make the necessary sacrifices (and not just put it all on the backs of the All Volunteer military) required of the entire country. If you are not willing to go yourself, or send your son (women are still not subject to the draft) to fight and die in a foreign land than I do not think you should be so quick to send the all volunteer military. There are no such things as quick and easy wars as we found our in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wars are often decades long commitments that obligate the country to pay billions and trillions (often in deficit spending since we never raised taxes or war bonds to pay for Iraq or Afghanistan), and lose thousands of our best people, and theemotional and physical wounding of thousands more. Not to mention the psychical trauma that Nations and Peoples who both lose and win wars go through and how that affects their National sense of confidence or willingness to engage in foreign affairs. The US was traumatized by the Vietnam War to the point that I think we decided at some point that we were never going to draft unwilling Americans unless we were in an existential war for our survival, and we thought we could get away with an all volunteer military to do our fighting for us. We are now seeing the limits of fighting our wars on the back of such a small segment of our society. Burnout, endless war deployments, and a military that has never been so disconnected from the American Public. Almost all of the men in my family have served in uniform for three generations. Mostly as draftees, but also as volunteers such as myself and my father (Dad was enlisted Navy 54-59) . Without a peace time draft, we have largely disconnected the military from most American families. We have also created a moral crisis of conscience where Americans wonder if anything is asked of them except "shut up and pay your taxes" and keep shopping. We are also lionizing the people who serve in the military and as many people on RP point out (all vets or currently serving), just because you are in the military does not make you a hero. So at my family get togethers, since almost all the men have served, nobody is particularly in awe of the military because we have all been in the airforce, navy, marines and army (can't recall anyone serving in the Coast Gaurd-I am not sure that draftees were ever inducted into the Coast Gaurd?). It was a rite of passage for most American males that sooner or later you had to go into the Military and it was universally accepted and supported. Not any more, and I definitely blame the disaster we now call the Vietnam War for that fundamental change in American Society. It also changed how Americans thought about what they owed their country in terms of required service.
Why should my son go to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan when there are plenty of people who are willing to volunteer in the military? It also let our politicians have their wars without requiring the national soul searching and agonizing about whether a war is worth the national sacrifice and trauma and disruption (even possible civil unrest-war protests like what we saw during Vietnam), to conscript and train and send draftees to fight and die for wars of uncertain justification or length. This is what both Vietnam left us with, and our moral surrender of personal responsibility for our wars when you leave them to an all volunteer military. The willingness of Americans to send draftees to fight and die in wars, with everything that comes with that, is the acid test for me of whether we have the National Will to go to war or send Americans to fight in these numerous "war zones" across the world. The rise of drone warfare and "airstrikes only" without US troops on the ground engaged with the enemy, is a symptom of this type of mindset, that we can engage in wars and war-fighting without the concurrent National trauma and active questioning by the American Public of the very real costs both in American Lives and treasure that American Wars have on the nation. I am neither a War hawk nor a person who refuses to think about using the military in violence where it is necessary to protect vital American Interests or to protect our allies, or to contain an antagonist. But I think if and when we do send Americans into harm's way it must be All Americans who are at risk of fighting and dying through the means of a partial draft lottery and not just an all volunteer military. I do not think the all volunteer military was ever anticipated or designed to fight a fourteen year war (Afghanistan) or a war of choice like Iraq that lasted longer than WWII. (2004-2010).

Response by Sgt Daniel Timmons made Aug 7 at 2015 10:26 PM

2015-08-07T22:26:19-04:00

Better questions would be, "Who is behind the murders of September 11, 2001 and duped all of us into these wars overseas?" I am in awe of everyone who signed up to defend America. The false flag attack duped me too.

I never thought going into Iraq was legit. Going into Afghanistan was more legit until I got there. I am proud of protecting those peaceful people from the crazies who hurt them but I am starting to think it was all dealing with the drug trades there for the CIA.

Response by LtCol Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2015 10:18 PM

2015-08-12T22:18:17-04:00

Uh, let me think about that.
Yes!!!

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Aug 13 at 2015 3:41 AM

2015-08-13T03:41:00-04:00

This is your opinion. I disagree. Completely There has been far more negligence and malfeasance under this administration

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Aug 13 at 2015 4:40 AM

2015-08-13T04:40:52-04:00

"The Navy has no place for good losers! The Navy needs tough sons of bitches who can go out there and win!" (1926) - Admiral Jonas Ingram

- Quoted in "Starship Troopers" by Robert A. Heinlein

Response by Maj William Gambrell made Aug 14 at 2015 12:37 AM

2015-08-14T00:37:17-04:00

I would highly disagree with you that the administration created any fiasco. I went to all the intel briefs and ran part of a major program external to Irag that Gen Franks flew to see the results.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Aug 21 at 2015 10:54 AM

2015-08-21T10:54:25-04:00

I don't know how long this post has been up. I don't think President Bush an his administration anticipated all the problems we are having in the Middle East. And Obama just wanted out. But know Obama is facilitating Iran in getting nuclear weapons. It is not a matter of if but when.
Our only model was Europe after WWII.

Response by CH (MAJ) Thomas Conner made Aug 27 at 2015 4:36 PM

2015-08-27T16:36:15-04:00

Whoever said Bush was the worse president obviously did not live during the Carter years! How well I remember wondering as a young Private if I was going to get paid at the end of the month!

Response by SPC George Rudenko made Aug 27 at 2015 11:52 PM

2015-08-27T23:52:55-04:00

First there must be acknowledgement that Iraq was not even on the radar in 1989. Hell, we just won the cold war. The first Persian Gulf showed how politics has crossed into a dangerous territory when having direct actions on military goals. But, did we know the fiasco was coming? We haven't done an occupation in 50 years. Surely we did not know how divided the factions in Iraq and surrounding areas were, but we also didn't understand that we were changing from what was traditional tank armor artillery combat to "exclusively" small unit and urbanized warfare. I suppose it's like putting blame for not seeing the blitzkrieg. But our lesson here is to evolve AND limit political involvement on day to day operations.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 28 at 2015 6:27 AM

2015-08-28T06:27:24-04:00

Sir, We occupied West Germany for how long? We occupied Korea since when? Is Bush to blame for El Nino, Beiber, and reality TV? Hussein is to blame for Iraq. Full stop.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Aug 28 at 2015 12:59 PM

2015-08-28T12:59:29-04:00

I saved this from back in the day.

MSNBC Hardball, 1026/04:
MATTHEWS: If you look down the road, do you see more of a manpower,
rather a person power challenge facing us as we have all these
different needs in the world with regard to South Korea, of course,
defending against the potential nuclear development in the North? We
have got the Iranian situation. We have got the Middle East. All these
possibilities. Do we have a big enough Army?

WEBB: I would start from the other end of that. I would say yes, you
may end up seeing problems, particularly in the Guard and reserve,
where this is a second career.
But the starting point is the move into Iraq, separate all the
political considerations aside, was a strategic blunder. And for us to
have such a high percentage of our military tied down in essentially
occupying and attempting to reconstruct a society of a nation is a
very bad idea. And it absorbs people. And it not only absorb people
when you think about enlistments and this sort of thing, it absorbs
people from other areas around the world, so that we can奏 pay proper
attention to security concerns elsewhere.

MATTHEWS: Why do our leaders, starting with the president down, why
did they not expect nationalistic resistance to an occupation in Iraq,
when our whole history of the world tells us, expect people to resist
occupation?

WEBB: You know, the sad thing is, there壮 not a thing that has
occurred in Iraq that was not only predictable but predicted. And
predicted with good military advice to this administration.

MATTHEWS: Did ideology overwhelm military history here? Is that why we
went in with such confidence?

WEBB: My view of it, when Vice President Cheney repeatedly says that
the people who have questioned the war against Iraq don奏 understand
the post-9/11 world, my view is the complete reverse. The people who
did this, this was on their to-do list when they got into the
administration, and they did not...
MATTHEWS: Cheney?

WEBB: Cheney and the whole group that really put this together. They
wanted this as a part of what was going to happen in the Bush
administration. One way or the other, they were waiting for...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: That壮 why they joined, you could argue.

WEBB: And in my view, these people don奏 understand the realities
post-9/11. Post-9/11, this was a bad idea. Pre-9/11, I still would
have opposed it, but at least it was an arguable idea.

MATTHEWS: Because謡hy is it more of a bad idea now since 9/11?

WEBB: Because international terrorism really moved in a dramatic way
from a regional problem to a global problem. We saw that we had to
step to the forefront. We had all the nations of the world with us
after 9/11. And we systematically alienated a huge percentage of the
world at a time we needed their cooperation. We tied down our military
in static positions when we had developed, for 10 or 15 years, we had
worked on a maneuverable military. And now we dumped them into static
positions. So it is a bad idea in terms of international politics, a
bad idea in terms of grand strategy, and a bad idea in how to use the
military.

MATTHEWS: Did we dare the Arab world to take us on in Iraq? The young
men of the Arab world? Did we say, go ahead, make our day, go ahead,
step up to the plate, you got it?

WEBB: Clearly, it was the inevitable consequences of anyone who
thought this through.

MATTHEWS: Like bring it on. That壮 what the president said. And they
did.
WEBB: And well, I think that by putting our people in Iraq, we
certainly made them targets in a way that they wouldn奏 have been if
we were fighting the war against international terrorism from a
position to maneuver.

MATTHEWS: OK. Good luck with the book. "Born Fighting." If you were
teaching at the academies, any one of the academies, would you be
saying, don奏 to go war in Iraq? That was the lesson here?
WEBB: As a policy matter or as a personal matter?

MATTHEWS: As a military history matter, it was a mistake, it was a
blunder?

WEBB: I would say, I would say in terms of national policy, it was a
bad strategic blunder. In terms of talking to an individual, you have
to (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...

MATTHEWS: I僧 talking about course 101 in Annapolis, when you喪e
teaching a course in military history, would you say one of the
lessons of the war with Iraq that began in 2002, or whatever, was
don奏 do it?

WEBB: I would say it was a bad idea. A bad strategic blunder.

MATTHEWS: OK. That壮 fair enough. I don奏 want you to make other
people壮 points. I mean, you喪e a great man, with a great history. You
worked for Reagan. You think this war was a bad idea. James Webb. Your
book is called "Born Fighting."

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Aug 28 at 2015 8:29 PM

2015-08-28T20:29:31-04:00

It seems that many here have very short memories. Many others are simply ignorant of the history because it is so poorly taught. So let's set the record straight. We invaded Afghanistan because it was a nation without government or law (not in any form that the civilized world could recognize). Thus bandits/criminals/pirates/terrorists (call them what you will) were using it to gather, organize, and train for attacks on the civilized world. We remained ignorant of what was happening because most Americans failed to see how it involved them, that is, until the attack that brought down the WTC and killed thousands of civilians going peacefully about their business. We could prosecute those who piloted the suicide planes, but we could go after their bases and attempt to prevent further attacks. We have been largely successful in that effort.

We attempted to build a new "democratic" nation in Afghanistan so that they could clean up their own territory and thus prevent future attacks. Nation building is a fool's errand at best, especially when you are attempting to build a "democracy". (We don't have one. Why would we think it would work any better there?) Thus, that was a mistake.

The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. That was a lawful resumption of hostilities commenced by the Iraqis when they invaded Kuwait. They had violated the provisions of the cease fire and thus called the wrath of nations upon themselves. That was not a mistake.

Inasmuch as few understand the legal niceties of international law, the Bush Administration got sidetracked with the WMD thing. That was a mistake. Yes, there were WMDs. Yes, they could have been delivered into the hands of terrorists. But, WMDs were not the casus belli.

Again, we attempted nation building. Again, a mistake.

Are mistakes illegal? Hell no. They're just mistakes.

There were other mistakes. But these are simply matters of opinion, my opinion. I would have preferred if Bush had reconstituted Civil Defense providing training and support for American citizens to take care of themselves in disasters, terrorist attacks or natural calamities. I would have preferred to see communities organizing and training militia to respond to terrorist attacks. When the terrorist arrives on American soil, the military and intelligence communities have failed. The police are not trained or equipped to respond. It's time for We the People to defend ourselves. (Of course, this opinion flies in the face of the leftists in this country who want to disarm us and pave the way for the terrorists and other criminals).

Lastly, the vitriol being thrown at Bush and Obama is wasted effort. Neither is criminal just because we differ ideologically. Get over it. We don't have time for it.

Response by MSgt Erik Copp made Aug 29 at 2015 10:45 PM

2015-08-29T22:45:09-04:00

Just my opinion, your an idiot.

Response by SGT Scott Bell made Aug 30 at 2015 12:53 PM

2015-08-30T12:53:24-04:00

yes

Response by CWO2 Shelby DuBois made Aug 31 at 2015 9:16 AM

2015-08-31T09:16:57-04:00

Not so much Bush but the Congress in and of itself...PLUS...the military leadership on Capitol Hill who knuckled under and preferred to spend time on politically correct social engineering matters and condemning combat leaders who were doing the jobs they were sent to do. The Dems and the media are the writers of history as they see it... they'll dictate what history books print and what universities teach, truth or not. They've already chosen to ignore accomplishments of our troops. That doesn't fit the end game. A lot of the comments on here are a pretty good example... "Rolling Stone" used to form an opinion? Come on. Just had a conversation with a 30-something who said, "but Jon Stewart said..." Enough.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Aug 31 at 2015 1:04 PM

2015-08-31T13:04:02-04:00

Yes then Obama made it a regional war.

Response by CH (CPT) Heather Davis made Aug 31 at 2015 2:37 PM

2015-08-31T14:37:36-04:00

Article 88 and Article 89 forbids Active Duty and Reserve component talking about their leadership in a disrespectful manner. Rally Point was designed to provide guidance and mentorship not to bash former Presidents!

Response by SGT Roberto Mendoza-Diaz made Sep 2 at 2015 8:19 AM

2015-09-02T08:19:10-04:00

At least Bush didn't draw a red line on the sand and makes the laughingstock of the entire world.

Response by GySgt Moses Lozano made Sep 2 at 2015 10:57 AM

2015-09-02T10:57:07-04:00

Yes

In my opinion, a true Commander in Chief wouldn't agree to any war unless they were ready to gear up and fight too.

Response by CH (CPT) Heather Davis made Sep 2 at 2015 11:12 AM

2015-09-02T11:12:49-04:00

http://fedscoop.com/army-releases-2013-social-media-guide

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 3 at 2015 12:54 PM

2015-09-03T12:54:10-04:00

Are you talking about the First President Bush ? He should have been a General Patton and gone all the way to Turkey, turned left and went into Syria. Maybe 911 would not have happened, it did and we have to deal with the problems now. Let the real Generals fight the War on Terrior not the current Political Generals who just want to make the President happy regardless of there training and War experience.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Sep 4 at 2015 9:22 AM

2015-09-04T09:22:17-04:00

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Sep 4 at 2015 9:32 AM

2015-09-04T09:32:36-04:00

This has been discussed ad nauseum. Give it a rest, CPT.

Response by SGT Scott Bell made Sep 5 at 2015 4:20 PM

2015-09-05T16:20:43-04:00

yes

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Sep 10 at 2015 4:05 PM

2015-09-10T16:05:19-04:00

"An analysis from the intelligence community, provided to lawmakers just prior to the AUMF vote, warned of imminent danger from Iraq -- specifically, that Saddam's regime had stockpiled nukes and cultivated deep ties to the terror organization responsible for 9/11.

"The resulting classified National Intelligence Estimate, prepared in just three weeks time, was a rushed and sloppy product forwarded to members of Congress mere days before votes would be taken to authorize the use of military force against Iraq," states a 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee report on the Iraq War's intelligence failures. "As the Committee's report highlights, the October 2002 Estimate was hastily cobbled together using stale, fragmentary, and speculative intelligence reports and was replete with factual errors and unsupported judgments."

Produced under then-Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), the Intelligence Committee report goes on to detail how unrelentingly warlike statements from senior Bush officials helped slant the analysis.

"It is no coincidence that the analytical errors in the Estimate all broke in one direction," the report says. "The Estimate and related analytical papers assessing Iraqi links to terrorism were produced by the Intelligence Community in a highly-pressurized climate wherein senior Administration officials were making the case for military action against Iraq through public and often definitive pronouncements."

It wasn't a matter of bad intelligence from the field, lawmakers concluded. It was a matter of viable intelligence being spun for political purposes."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/intelligence-isis-war_55f1c249e4b03784e2785ee0

Walt

Claims Of Faulty Intel On ISIS Bring Back Bad Memories Of Iraq

WASHINGTON -- News that senior U.S. intelligence officials may havedoctored analysison the Islamic State weighs heavily on Washington. It suggests that President Barack Obama's intelligence apparatus

Response by SSgt Khanh Pham made Sep 10 at 2015 4:22 PM

2015-09-10T16:22:14-04:00

Depends on what you consider legitimate interests of America!

We have many factions in America, the 1%, the 99%, the military industrial complex, the small business, the big business, the grunts class.

I am sure I dont want my daughter or son to go die in Iraq. I would think other men also feel the same way. The world was faily stable, and the destruction of Iraq seemed like the destablelizing factor. The amount of money US spend on fighting other people, state, ideology, is rediculous, and only increased with more terrorism against other group. If you try spending any money to harm your neighbor next door, the police will likely put you in jail. Yet this action is acceptable at the national and international level?

If Iraq was going to drop the US dollars, and harm the US dollars value. It would have been a natural thing anyway. We could recover or not, but it wont be anything like WW3.

I am all about making more money for us, but We cant go killing people every time they threaten the dollar's value.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Sep 12 at 2015 3:32 AM

2015-09-12T03:32:34-04:00

Response by CDR Mike Kovack made Sep 30 at 2015 4:53 AM

2015-09-30T04:53:47-04:00

"Criminally incompetent" is not language I could agree to. I think the record is pretty secure that intelligence information was cherry picked to give the administration cover for invading Iraq. Over and above that, geopolitically, it was probably the worst foreign policy decision we've made in a long, long time. Don't forget that Iran was, and is, the major bad guy in that region. While Saddam Hussein was in power Iran's power was muted because Iran & Iraq were in a life & death struggle with each other. They share a long, long border with each other. Also, prior to the invasion, Iran was the only Shi'ite power in the region. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, etc. - all Sunni. I think, without question, we destabilized the region for decades to come and created a situation that has allowed Iran (and consequentially Russia & China), to exert tremendous influence over the region in a manner they could not have done prior to the invasion. Probably not the best thing for us. And for any of you who say that Iraq was stable......at any point after the invasion, I think that's highly factually inaccurate and not borne out by the facts.

Response by CH (CPT) Heather Davis made Sep 30 at 2015 5:24 AM

2015-09-30T05:24:38-04:00

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Elements.

(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;

(2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;

(3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and

(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element

(5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.

Explanation.

The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, ad-verse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.

Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not rdinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.

Response by SFC Maury Gonzalez made Sep 30 at 2015 12:18 PM

2015-09-30T12:18:51-04:00

It's george bush fault

Response by LTC Ed Ross made Sep 30 at 2015 12:37 PM

2015-09-30T12:37:08-04:00

The war in Iraq was won until President Obama snatched defeat from the jaws of victory,

Response by Sgt Ramon Nacanaynay made Oct 18 at 2015 9:09 AM

2015-10-18T09:09:38-04:00

Join Veterans For Peace or Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, Fellowship of Reconcilliation or Pax Christi USA.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Oct 18 at 2015 7:56 PM

2015-10-18T19:56:24-04:00

http://www.occupydemocrats.com/newly-released-clinton-email-proves-bush-blair-plotted-iraq-war-a-year-before-launching-it/

Newly Released Clinton Email Proves Bush & Blair Plotted Iraq War A Year Before Launching It

The Republicans' fake email "scandal" just blew up in their faces.

Response by Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin made Oct 20 at 2015 9:28 AM

2015-10-20T09:28:16-04:00

Here's my question to you. Where do you think the Middle East would be had we not gone into Iraq? What would we be doing? You like to play armchair QB, what do you really think would have happened?

Response by PO1 Todd Cousins made Oct 20 at 2015 10:31 AM

2015-10-20T10:31:14-04:00

Sir what are you classifying as weapons of mass destruction? There was a reported sarin IED just outside of Baghdad shortly after the push end. The news covered it for a second and the time. For some reason though it wasn't brought up again.

Response by SPC Luis Mendez made Oct 20 at 2015 2:44 PM

2015-10-20T14:44:49-04:00

Oh man, I'm out of decent words to describe the Iraq thing, and Fiasco doesn't even begin to be one of them. The man GWB has gotten away with a lot, he should be charge with something. Should not be a free man walking the street. His incredible Incompetency before 9-11 and the subsequent Lying about the WMD, Saddam's involvement and Al-quaida in Iraq are IMO Inexcusable.

Response by SPC Luis Mendez made Oct 20 at 2015 3:56 PM

2015-10-20T15:56:46-04:00

Thanks Capt Miller for proving at least to me that NOT everyone in the Military is part of a Giant RUBBER STAMP of the POTUS and Congress. Though the Institution will FOREVER remain so. Critical independent and objective thinking is a Very RARE virtue these days everywhere. And Conscience is a better guidance in life than fanaticism. In the words of Martin Luther: "Is not right neither safe to go against Conscience."

Response by SPC George Rudenko made Oct 20 at 2015 9:21 PM

2015-10-20T21:21:30-04:00

Whether Pres Bush actively did something, omitted or perpetuated.... He was the CIC when it happened. I don't see history dumping on him though. There were WMD's even though old and decrepit. I think what this will show is one president to the next, to the next inheriting one sh!tshow after another and we always want to blame ONE person, when in fact we can trace some american problems back to Ford, Carter, then Regan.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Oct 22 at 2015 1:41 PM

2015-10-22T13:41:35-04:00

Capt Walter Miller - Captain; Mr. Bush was well out of his depth as the President of the United States of America - but he meant well.

I wouldn't say that he was the "worst" president that the US has ever had - but I will grant you that he is definitely in contention for a place on the podium. (I also note that "worst" is susceptible to a variety of definitions depending on what emphasis you want to put on what factors.)

Response by PV2 Scott Goodpasture made Oct 22 at 2015 6:12 PM

2015-10-22T18:12:55-04:00

um, yes. But Exxon Mobil had 34 billion in profit that quarter so.... Justified?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2015 8:21 PM

2015-10-22T20:21:53-04:00

With hind sight I wonder if we should have stayed out of it. During the time I feel it was the right call.

Response by PO1 Alan Broussard made Oct 23 at 2015 12:28 AM

2015-10-23T00:28:56-04:00

at commanders call it was noted. the sea bees helped find bodies of curds, to put in family graves determined by doctors doing DNA test . they found around 13000 , in 1988 50000 were killed in 1993 150000 were killed , they had something powerful. Iraq claimed to kill 800000 between 1980-1988 .The Iraqi people had a history of chemicals and mass destruction, and not cooperating with inspectors ,Why would anyone think they did not . The CIA bought 400 bombs with Sarin gas
check wikipedia ,DOD, NY times,etc
I dont know what was in the russian convoy leaving Iraq through Syria ,But i Know Syria had chemical weapons after russians arrived .
I saw the news the day the twin towers fell, and saw a woman jump .I was sad for her family ,then i stood up and thought i'm not sure what the solution is but i will support my leadership and made sure i was good to go.

Response by PV2 Scott Goodpasture made Oct 28 at 2015 10:15 AM

2015-10-28T10:15:05-04:00

Of course he created a power vacuum. And his buddies Cheney and Rumsfeld created the "cicadas" (alqada) as bush called them. For decades the political system, left and right has betrayed us and the world. They suck.... All of them

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 5 at 2015 3:18 PM

2015-12-05T15:18:18-05:00

worst mistake was Paul Bremer signing the order to disband the Iraqi Army.

Response by Muayad Al-Jburi made Dec 7 at 2015 8:02 PM

2015-12-07T20:02:43-05:00

Is this a good idea or decision for relations with the peoples

http://www.skynewsarabia.com/web/article/797471/%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A8-%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%B9%D9%88-%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B8%D8%B1-%D8%AF%D8%AE%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%94%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%83%D8%A7

ترامب يدعو لحظر دخول المسلمين إلى أميركا

دعا المرشح الجمهوري المحتمل للرئاسة الأميركية دونالد ترامب إلى "فرض حظر شامل وكامل" على دخول المسلمين إلى الولايات المتحدة، الاثنين، إلا أن البيت الأبيض عبر عن رفضه هذه الدعوة.

Response by SSgt Michael Cox made Nov 20 at 2016 1:10 PM

2016-11-20T13:10:53-05:00

First off yes the WMDs were there. Some of our guys and gals had to remove the munitions and others the barrels of chemical weapons. You didn't really think the news would publicly come out and say they were 100% wrong did you. Just like the Zimmerman case took them a week to come out and admit he was Hispanic after saying he was White and they saying he was a White Hispanic. As for Pres. Bush creating ISIS four groups are responsible for that one. The First group is Pres. Obamas White House for having us leave early even after the generals urged him to keep us there longer. The second through forth are the Sheite, Sunni, and the Kurdish leaders that couldn't get along to make a viable government after Sudam was overthrown and executed. Kind of like right now were after the election we have rioting going on and the opposition to the newly elected president won't tell their followers and hardliners to knock it off.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2019 6:02 PM

2019-04-22T18:02:37-04:00

Yes, I am a better person for it.

Response by SSG Ralph Watkins made May 2 at 2022 4:11 PM

2022-05-02T16:11:00-04:00

The Iraqi people were under Saddam's thumb for decades. He was threatening to use WMDs. We knew he had them since the US sold him them during the Iran-Iraq War. Saddam had access to Soviet made weapons as well. WMDs were found in Iraq. Funny how when old munitions were found, the anti-war reporters ran int the other direction. They also ignored the mass graves in Iraq from Saddam's genocide against the Kurds & Shi'a. Yes, there was much BS that went on about WMDs being ready to launch. From elements of the Iraqi mob (alternate govt in exile) to our own VP seeing WMDs in every radio intercept. It still boiled down to Saddam needing to go. Simply killing him would have had his son Uday or Qusay taking charge. One of them would have used WMDs or at the very least, continued the genocide against the other ethnic & religious groups. If you look at history, whenever any nation has been under a long rule of a dictator. it is never very pretty when they are gone. The nation splits apart. All of the hatreds & rivalries that had been pent up over the years explode. Our VP did more to start the war than Bush did but Iraq would have still fallen into disarray at some point. They seem to be doing better now. Iran has always been their threat both directly & indirectly. Either way, Iraq is doing the best it has been in nearly a century.

Response by Sgt Jake Middlebrook made Jun 1 at 2022 10:59 PM

2022-06-01T22:59:24-04:00

Sadly I do agree. Bush senior was very wise not to continue to Baghdad. Apparently W thought if we ousted Hussein Iraq would be like Paris in the Fall of 1944. Hussein's government was brutal and oppressive and apparently that was the only way to keep control of Iraq. Other methods have been tried and none have worked. So contrary to what most of us would like to believe Iraq was better controlled and less of a terrorist threat under a brutal dictatorship. Do what I say or I will have you shot is a very persuasive way to govern the ungovernable and if they refuse to listen then dead men cause no trouble.

Response by SGT Roberto Mendoza-Diaz made Jul 2 at 2022 8:18 AM

2022-07-02T08:18:52-04:00

I’m still missing Bush… and when is Trump coming back? Biden is the worst president ever… way worse than Obama… lesson learned… maybe Bush should try again… maybe then we can go back to normalcy.
PS. You all wanted Trump gone… I hope you are all enjoying Biden though… lol