Posted on Jan 27, 2015
Do you agree that the Bush administration created a fiasco in Iraq?
59.6K
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 >1 y ago
Posted >1 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)
15
14
1
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.
(15)
(1)
LCpl Mark Lefler
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin - Invading Afghanistan was something that needed to happen, course you are not asking about that. My feelings is that Saddam and his sons were monsters and needed to go away. I'm not so sure we really thought it out as well as it should of been. A stable Iraq government helped to keep the region stable, albeit in a heavy handed kind of way. I don't believe Isis would exist as it does and obviously there wouldn't be as many dead Iraqi citizens. Getting rid of Saddam isn't a bad thing but I feel we should of put more thought into the long term effects. Saddam at least internationally is very much like the leaders of North Korea, full of piss and wind. He may have a few things on hand but nothing he would use on the international community. The man was insane, not stupid.
(1)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
No, I wasn't. But one would think based on the way Obama has acted that he didn't want us to do that either.
Bad people run countries all over the place. I spent 13 years of my childhood in some rough places within Central and South America as they were moving into more democratic states. For all the criticism spent towards our policies in that region to support dictators, it eventually led to democratic governments. Still those "leaders" were not good people in most cases but ultimately we avoided a Soviet influence which was the objective).
Iraq had the same thing from us which many could also say was a mistake and ultimately Saddam got out of control. So much to where he did not only threaten his own people to keep them in line, but he also threatened the neighboring countries throughout the Middle East. That had to be contained. Saddam was smacked down and instead of backing down he continued to make threats. His history and past capabilities proved he was capable of making good on those threats. He had to be stopped.
Military planning (strategically) is a tricky subject. Especially phase IV operations after the fight is essentially done. No one can predict the outcome of a war and any attempt to plan for it can only be done from a very broad sense. Have you ever been a strategic military planner? If you ever get a chance to look at an OPLAN, take a look at the phase IV portion and tell me how little you see. I can't confirm if the terminology is the same as it has been about 7-8 since I've done joint Strategic Military planning but the concepts should generally still be the same. The point is, there are too many variables to effectively plan the final reconstruction plan of a military operation.
WMDs in Iraq were in fact a reality and no one can honestly deny that. Instead they deflect the argument by saying those we found we the "old ones." Those were still the same ones we were talking about! We may not have found the newest capabilities confirmed by all significant intelligence US and coalition agencies, but that doesn't mean they never existed. It also does not negate the fact that Saddam did still have and continue to purchase the pre-cursor elements for WMDs. Because many of these components were considered dual use, this fact was ignored. That despite the fact that in the same line on the UN resolutions which banned WMD capabilities, it also banned the research, facilities, and components. All those were found.
Still, the biggest thing people need to understand is that Saddam himself confirmed to his interrogators, after his capture, he was working to rebuild his capability soon after the sanctions died out (as they were on the verge of doing). Saddam had and used Chemical weapons on other nations as well as his own, he once attempted to build a nuclear weapon capability which was destroyed by Israeli air strikes, and each time he was smacked down, he kept getting up, making more threats. Saddam had to go.
In his state, Saddam may have had the capability an maybe even the command and control to take ISIS on, but WE did not create ISIS... That is Syria's accomplishment from their own civil war. But know this, Saddam only chance to take ISIS on, like Assad, would have been Chemical or biological weapons. So now were back to square one. Today ISIS is perusing WMD technologies as well. They might even be trying to acquire those which are suspected to have been moved across the Iraq/Syrian border shortly before OIF. Having these capabilities is not something to ignore or mock as "piss in wind". North Korea has the capability to launch a nuke and is perfecting their capability to deliver them to the US. That is not something we should ignore, especially knowing just how insane their leader is. The same can be said about Saddam. The man used his WMDs on internationally as you put it, worst of all he used them on his own people, and he once invaded another nation. Time after time, he created threats and had to be put down. Today he is no longer a problem (so long as we support Iraq in their fight against ISIS).
Bad people run countries all over the place. I spent 13 years of my childhood in some rough places within Central and South America as they were moving into more democratic states. For all the criticism spent towards our policies in that region to support dictators, it eventually led to democratic governments. Still those "leaders" were not good people in most cases but ultimately we avoided a Soviet influence which was the objective).
Iraq had the same thing from us which many could also say was a mistake and ultimately Saddam got out of control. So much to where he did not only threaten his own people to keep them in line, but he also threatened the neighboring countries throughout the Middle East. That had to be contained. Saddam was smacked down and instead of backing down he continued to make threats. His history and past capabilities proved he was capable of making good on those threats. He had to be stopped.
Military planning (strategically) is a tricky subject. Especially phase IV operations after the fight is essentially done. No one can predict the outcome of a war and any attempt to plan for it can only be done from a very broad sense. Have you ever been a strategic military planner? If you ever get a chance to look at an OPLAN, take a look at the phase IV portion and tell me how little you see. I can't confirm if the terminology is the same as it has been about 7-8 since I've done joint Strategic Military planning but the concepts should generally still be the same. The point is, there are too many variables to effectively plan the final reconstruction plan of a military operation.
WMDs in Iraq were in fact a reality and no one can honestly deny that. Instead they deflect the argument by saying those we found we the "old ones." Those were still the same ones we were talking about! We may not have found the newest capabilities confirmed by all significant intelligence US and coalition agencies, but that doesn't mean they never existed. It also does not negate the fact that Saddam did still have and continue to purchase the pre-cursor elements for WMDs. Because many of these components were considered dual use, this fact was ignored. That despite the fact that in the same line on the UN resolutions which banned WMD capabilities, it also banned the research, facilities, and components. All those were found.
Still, the biggest thing people need to understand is that Saddam himself confirmed to his interrogators, after his capture, he was working to rebuild his capability soon after the sanctions died out (as they were on the verge of doing). Saddam had and used Chemical weapons on other nations as well as his own, he once attempted to build a nuclear weapon capability which was destroyed by Israeli air strikes, and each time he was smacked down, he kept getting up, making more threats. Saddam had to go.
In his state, Saddam may have had the capability an maybe even the command and control to take ISIS on, but WE did not create ISIS... That is Syria's accomplishment from their own civil war. But know this, Saddam only chance to take ISIS on, like Assad, would have been Chemical or biological weapons. So now were back to square one. Today ISIS is perusing WMD technologies as well. They might even be trying to acquire those which are suspected to have been moved across the Iraq/Syrian border shortly before OIF. Having these capabilities is not something to ignore or mock as "piss in wind". North Korea has the capability to launch a nuke and is perfecting their capability to deliver them to the US. That is not something we should ignore, especially knowing just how insane their leader is. The same can be said about Saddam. The man used his WMDs on internationally as you put it, worst of all he used them on his own people, and he once invaded another nation. Time after time, he created threats and had to be put down. Today he is no longer a problem (so long as we support Iraq in their fight against ISIS).
(0)
(0)
LCpl Mark Lefler
MAJ (Join to see) - no, not really and where for did this new development come from?
(1)
(0)
14
11
3
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
"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
(14)
(3)
PO2 Mark Saffell
So John you are calling American Special Forces liars? Its part of the official records, WMD's where found in Iraq. Unless you dont consider chemical weapons as bad things. My son in law did two tours there and was injured in a road side bomb so yours and Capt Cowards questions about enough lives and how safe we are under the Coward in the White House are as stupid as his foreign policy.
(1)
(1)
Capt Walter Miller
PO2 Mark Saffell - Unfortunately for your simple-minded interpretation, the Bushies talked constantly about Mushroom clouds. Chemical munitions are just not that big a deal.
Only someone really stupid or really duplicitous would keep bleating about chemical munitions as being a cause to invade Iraq. The threat we heard over and over was -- nuclear weapons, of which Saddam had none and no way to get any.
Iraq was a foreign policy carbuncle for the US because Saddam was a bad person who wished us ill. But it was –invasion-proof- because any likely outcome would only be worse. Dick Cheney said so in 1994. And as Senator Webb said in 2006 – “what happened in Iraq was both predictable and predicted.”
It was criminal incompetence –at best- for the Bushies to invade Iraq.
Walt
Only someone really stupid or really duplicitous would keep bleating about chemical munitions as being a cause to invade Iraq. The threat we heard over and over was -- nuclear weapons, of which Saddam had none and no way to get any.
Iraq was a foreign policy carbuncle for the US because Saddam was a bad person who wished us ill. But it was –invasion-proof- because any likely outcome would only be worse. Dick Cheney said so in 1994. And as Senator Webb said in 2006 – “what happened in Iraq was both predictable and predicted.”
It was criminal incompetence –at best- for the Bushies to invade Iraq.
Walt
(1)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
Yeah let them use them on you and lets hear you say they aren't a big deal. Ask the families who lost people because of them and see if they are a big deal. They are a big enough deal that there are international laws against the use...But that doersnt fit your political agenda so they are no big deal...what a coward you are...please reframe from posting anything to me. I don't deal well with idiots
(1)
(0)
PO2 Robert Cuminale
Capt Walter Miller - If you think only nuclear weapons are the only WMDs take four one week courses in NBC warfare cleanup as I did. Chemical weapons wipe out entire populations with many dying slow agonizing deaths as their lungs fill with fluids after breathing the fumes. In the meantime they live with the pain from the solution burning their skin. Saddam gassed entire villages of Kurds and killed thousands of people.
Why do you think they are banned under the Geneva Convention?
Why do you think they are banned under the Geneva Convention?
(0)
(0)
9
9
0
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.
(9)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
The exchange between the FBI interrogator (Piro) and CBS 60 Min on Saddam statements after his capture:
In fact, Piro says Saddam intended to produce weapons of mass destruction again, some day. "The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," Piro says.
"And that was his intention?" Pelley asks.
"Yes," Piro says.
"What weapons of mass destruction did he intend to pursue again once he had the opportunity?" Pelley asks.
"He wanted to pursue all of WMD. So he wanted to reconstitute his entire WMD program," says Piro.
"Chemical, biological, even nuclear," Pelley asks.
"Yes," Piro says.
Intent, coupled with a history of capability and application, is enough for anyone to understand Saddam wasn't going to stop. He already crossed lines which afforded him significant concern from the western world, the neighboring nations, and the American people.
In fact, Piro says Saddam intended to produce weapons of mass destruction again, some day. "The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," Piro says.
"And that was his intention?" Pelley asks.
"Yes," Piro says.
"What weapons of mass destruction did he intend to pursue again once he had the opportunity?" Pelley asks.
"He wanted to pursue all of WMD. So he wanted to reconstitute his entire WMD program," says Piro.
"Chemical, biological, even nuclear," Pelley asks.
"Yes," Piro says.
Intent, coupled with a history of capability and application, is enough for anyone to understand Saddam wasn't going to stop. He already crossed lines which afforded him significant concern from the western world, the neighboring nations, and the American people.
(0)
(1)
Capt Walter Miller
"What weapons of mass destruction did he intend to pursue again once he had the opportunity?" Pelley asks.
"He wanted to pursue all of WMD. So he wanted to reconstitute his entire WMD program," says Piro.
"Chemical, biological, even nuclear," Pelley asks."
But he didn't.
There was no reason to invade Iraq.
And Iraq -should-have-been- invasion proof, for reasons we have seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY
Walt
"He wanted to pursue all of WMD. So he wanted to reconstitute his entire WMD program," says Piro.
"Chemical, biological, even nuclear," Pelley asks."
But he didn't.
There was no reason to invade Iraq.
And Iraq -should-have-been- invasion proof, for reasons we have seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY
Walt
(1)
(1)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
Intent is what I was speaking to as I have pointed out to you on other threads in this site. Saddam had a history of building the capability and using it. His intent to rebuild is a significant issue, especially when he continued to collect and/or maintain the components required to reconstitute (all of which was banned in the same line which banned the final product itself). From your own posted Snopes article on the yellowcake, "it was unfit for weapons use without costly and time-consuming enrichment." That implies Saddam had a component which had not been disposed of, despite the updated UN resolutions which banned him from having the component. The same goes for the dual use components he had, all of which made no sense for him to have in his country. Much of this consisted of products which could have easily been used to reconstitute a new capability within months.
But for arguments sake let's say we found the WMDs and a terrorist training camp with all the easily confirmable ties to Saddam himself... Would this have changed your mind about going into Iraq? If so, tell me what would be different today in Iraq after the invasion? The fact we didn't find everything does not change the outcome of the operation. You suggested Bush created a fiasco in Iraq, but pretty much the same outcome would have happened regardless of whether we found weapons or not. This only tells me your goal is to simply bash Bush and nothing more.
But for arguments sake let's say we found the WMDs and a terrorist training camp with all the easily confirmable ties to Saddam himself... Would this have changed your mind about going into Iraq? If so, tell me what would be different today in Iraq after the invasion? The fact we didn't find everything does not change the outcome of the operation. You suggested Bush created a fiasco in Iraq, but pretty much the same outcome would have happened regardless of whether we found weapons or not. This only tells me your goal is to simply bash Bush and nothing more.
(1)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
"But for arguments sake let's say we found the WMDs and a terrorist training camp with all the easily confirmable ties to Saddam himself... Would this have changed your mind about going into Iraq? "
What if we found Cylons?
Should we launch Vipers?
The thing about Saddam and training camps and all that is that he would NEVER willingly allow that.
Saddam Hussein was a control freak. An outside organization running a camp on his turf? No way. So what you suggest is about as likely as finding Cylons and maybe a Base Star in orbit.
But the answer to your question is no. We – had we been prudent and kept our true national interests in view, we wouldn’t attack Iraq with a ground force. Because we’d have what we have now, the whole thing gone to pieces – just as Dick Cheney predicted in 1994.
Walt
What if we found Cylons?
Should we launch Vipers?
The thing about Saddam and training camps and all that is that he would NEVER willingly allow that.
Saddam Hussein was a control freak. An outside organization running a camp on his turf? No way. So what you suggest is about as likely as finding Cylons and maybe a Base Star in orbit.
But the answer to your question is no. We – had we been prudent and kept our true national interests in view, we wouldn’t attack Iraq with a ground force. Because we’d have what we have now, the whole thing gone to pieces – just as Dick Cheney predicted in 1994.
Walt
(1)
(0)
7
7
0
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.
(7)
(0)
SFC Michael Jackson, MBA
Capt Walter Miller - the laws exists to protect the liberties of men & women of the nation. If we allow ourselves to fall into the hands of the enermy because the laws ties oir hands. The laws will be useless anyway. the enermy will change them to meet their agenda.
laws have to have adaptability to the evolving needs and requirements of the people.
laws have to have adaptability to the evolving needs and requirements of the people.
(0)
(0)
SFC Michael Jackson, MBA
agreed, i guess the debate is what does better mean. Letting them attack us without fighting back, letting them capture and behead our people w/o retaliation.
better is defined differently based a personal beliefs. Better to me is dominating the enermy, being better marksman, better resourced and equipped, better trained.
i don't look at the moral highground aspect. everyone has a different position where they're at morally. some will kill and torture and be proud of it. Others it disturb or destoy them for a lifetime.
better is defined differently based a personal beliefs. Better to me is dominating the enermy, being better marksman, better resourced and equipped, better trained.
i don't look at the moral highground aspect. everyone has a different position where they're at morally. some will kill and torture and be proud of it. Others it disturb or destoy them for a lifetime.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
6
6
0
Absolutely. It was a foolish war of choice by the Administration. What few gains we got were outweighed by the terrible consequences.
(6)
(0)
SFC Nikhil Kumra
South Park - "...and it's gone"
Full episode: http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s13e03-margaritaville
(1)
(0)
6
6
0
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.
(6)
(0)
SSG John Gillespie
The culture of fear in the general population was inspired, to a large degree, by the Bush administration. The impetus for invading Iraq came from the Bush administration. The false information giving ties to Iraq came from the Bush administration. Later, in a press conference, Bush himself when asked yet again about the Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda link, which his administration pushed forward as part of their justification to Congress and the public for invading Iraq, stated in a matter of fact manner that "No. There's no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda." Of course, by that time we were deeply entrenched in Iraq and barely sustaining any sort of strategic plan in Afghanistan. To attempt to say that Bush held no personal responsibility in all of this and to blame the public at large is to ignore the facts and grievously misunderstand public influence in determining policy decisions and use of military force in this country.
(0)
(0)
SSG Harry Kellett
I'm not solely blaming the public. I'm just stating as I did originally the majority of the population were not opposed to the war. History is being written and do we want to look like a nation of patsies tricked into war? Who do you blame for all of our wars? I bet you'll have to google some information unless you're a historian. In the end America will be who is responsible in the history books and it will likely be a short lesson.
(1)
(0)
SSG Ray Strenkowski
LTC Nancy Bodyk Lets not forget all those in BOTH parties of Congress who supported the war...
(5)
(0)
Capt Lance Gallardo
SSG Ray Strenkowski - Absolutely -one of MANY reasons I would not vote for Hilary even if she was the only name on the Ballot of any ANY party next year. Her hypocrisy is staggering! Luckily for me, there might be several choices . . .
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google