Posted on Jan 27, 2015
Do you agree that the Bush administration created a fiasco in Iraq?
59.7K
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
6
5
1
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....
(6)
(1)
Capt Walter Miller
Jefferson also wrote this:
Frustrated with the excessive length of Pickering’s impeachment, Jefferson appeared to compromise his earlier principles regarding judicial independence, suggesting that “the Constitution ought to be altered so that the president should be authorized to remove a judge from office, on the address of the two houses.”[65] The immediate consequence of the removal of Judge Pickering from office was to embolden Jefferson to encourage members of the House to move on to bigger game. Within an hour after John Pickering was convicted in the Senate, the House voted to impeach Justice Samuel Chase.
So I don't know what your point is.
Walt
Frustrated with the excessive length of Pickering’s impeachment, Jefferson appeared to compromise his earlier principles regarding judicial independence, suggesting that “the Constitution ought to be altered so that the president should be authorized to remove a judge from office, on the address of the two houses.”[65] The immediate consequence of the removal of Judge Pickering from office was to embolden Jefferson to encourage members of the House to move on to bigger game. Within an hour after John Pickering was convicted in the Senate, the House voted to impeach Justice Samuel Chase.
So I don't know what your point is.
Walt
(1)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
During the contest of opinion through which we have passed the animation of discussions and of exertions has sometimes worn an aspect which might impose on strangers unused to think freely and to speak and to write what they think; but this being now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all will, of course, arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good. All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us, then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things.
(0)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
Jefferson was far more of a do-er than either of us will ever be. The two of us are talkers.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
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/
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 …
(5)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Debatable, but that's not what's been said. It was stated no wmd's were found, which is not true.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Correct, as long as you are looking at liberal news media. I am stating this based on my personal opinion based on my experiences following multiple deployments. Conservatives defend the war, liberals "debunk" the reasons for the war. Iraq did have chemical weapons, which are one of the forms of WMD's, whether you agree with the phrasing or not you can't "debunk" the fact that there were chemical weapons in Iraq. At the end of the day we went, it doesn't matter what the reasons for it were because it happened over a decade ago and was a lawful order given by the POTUS.
(2)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
What does it need then? The eye of a newt?
Shame on anyone who makes excuses for that sorry Bush and his traitorous minions.
Walt
Shame on anyone who makes excuses for that sorry Bush and his traitorous minions.
Walt
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
(5)
(0)
CDR Mike Kovack
Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette - I think our invasion created a power vacuum. We never had enough troops in Iraq to do anything but hold back the dam. Iraq is a vast country and while we "held" strategic areas, the bad guys just went where we weren't and waited. We never controlled the country, as you must do, in an invasion scenario.
(2)
(0)
Capt Lance Gallardo
CDR Mike Kovack - Exactly! This was one of the major flaws with the Bush's administration decision to invade Iraq in the first place. They thought they could do it on the cheap, without a decades long commitment to maintain a sizable US Military presence in Iraq for 2-3-4 decades. they completely underestimated the Religious sectarianism they would unleash on Iraq and the surrounding ME country's like Syria. Bush and Cheney are guilty IMO of criminal stupidity and negligence in their decision to invade in the first place, and of all the blunders that followed. Obama screwed up by myopically keeping a campaign promise to get the troops out by X date. The SOF Agreement, who cares, we put the Baghdad government in place, not the Iranians, we should ousted Maliki on our own and imposed a power sharing government on the Iraqis which included Sunnis, and done something similar with their Army (x percentage had to be Sunni enlisted, officer, senior officers, Division commanders, etc.). We didnt want to get that involved with micro-managing the Iraqis affairs and now you have the disaster unfolding in iraq and Syria. We also should have more forcefully warned the Iranians to stay out of Iraq and stop providing the Shia Militias with Arms and especially the deadly EFPs (explosively former penetrators) or else face direct US Military retaliation, and upped the costs considerably for the Iranians to meddle in Iraq.
(1)
(0)
CDR Mike Kovack
Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette - I might agree if we had had enough boots on the ground. I don't think we ever did. I thought the "hearts & minds" campaign I was involved with there in '06 was pretty much in vain. We were not controlling the environment. We were reacting to it. I don't think that's the recipe to establishing our "normal". Granted, I was against the invasion in the first place so there's some bias, but I think once we dissolved the Iraqi army we were basically fighting a slowly losing battle. Don't forget, we were not only trying to establish a democracy, but we had flipped the religious regime on it's head. We had empowered a long downtrodden group (Shias). It will be fodder for study and commentary for a long, long time to come!
(0)
(0)
PO2 Robert Cuminale
' "hearts & minds" campaign" Is that similar to what we did in Viet Nam? We had CB Units putting up power lines and running water pipe and installing pumps in the remotest villages. There'd be a Corpsman to vaccinate them and give them a physical too. The Viet Namese people were supposed to love us for doing all this.
Guess what? They didn't. In fact they didn't love anybody. They didn't care who ruled over them so long as they could go thorough life unmolested, planting rice, running their businesses and not worrying about bombs falling on them.
Guess what? They didn't. In fact they didn't love anybody. They didn't care who ruled over them so long as they could go thorough life unmolested, planting rice, running their businesses and not worrying about bombs falling on them.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Bush and Cheney have openly admitted to committing war crimes.
"The War Crimes Act of 1996 is a law that defines a war crime to include a "grave breach of the Geneva Conventions", specifically noting that "grave breach" should have the meaning defined in any convention (related to the laws of war) to which the United States is a party. The definition of "grave breach" in some of the Geneva Conventions have text that extend additional protections, but all the Conventions share the following text in common: "... committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health."
The law applies if either the victim or the perpetrator is a national of the United States or a member of the U.S. Armed Forces. The penalty may be life imprisonment or death. The death penalty is only invoked if the conduct resulted in the death of one or more victims.
The act was passed with overwhelming majorities by the United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
The law criminalized breaches of the Geneva Conventions so that the United States could prosecute war criminals, specifically North Vietnamese soldiers who tortured U.S. military personnel during the Vietnam War. The Department of Defense "fully support[ed] the purposes of the bill,"[1] recommending that it be expanded to include a longer list of war crimes. Because the United States generally followed the Conventions, the military recommended making breaches by U.S. military personnel war crimes as well "because doing so set a high standard for others to follow."[1] The bill passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and by a voice vote in the House,[1] showing that it was entirely uncontroversial at the time.
Ten years later, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld[2] that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applied to the War on Terrorism, with the unstated implication that any interrogation technique that violated Common Article 3 constituted war crimes.[3] The possibility that American officials and military personnel could be prosecuted for war crimes for committing the "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment"[4] prohibited by the Conventions led to a series of proposals to make such actions legal in certain circumstances, which resulted in the Military Commissions Act of 2006." wiki
Walt
"The War Crimes Act of 1996 is a law that defines a war crime to include a "grave breach of the Geneva Conventions", specifically noting that "grave breach" should have the meaning defined in any convention (related to the laws of war) to which the United States is a party. The definition of "grave breach" in some of the Geneva Conventions have text that extend additional protections, but all the Conventions share the following text in common: "... committed against persons or property protected by the Convention: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health."
The law applies if either the victim or the perpetrator is a national of the United States or a member of the U.S. Armed Forces. The penalty may be life imprisonment or death. The death penalty is only invoked if the conduct resulted in the death of one or more victims.
The act was passed with overwhelming majorities by the United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
The law criminalized breaches of the Geneva Conventions so that the United States could prosecute war criminals, specifically North Vietnamese soldiers who tortured U.S. military personnel during the Vietnam War. The Department of Defense "fully support[ed] the purposes of the bill,"[1] recommending that it be expanded to include a longer list of war crimes. Because the United States generally followed the Conventions, the military recommended making breaches by U.S. military personnel war crimes as well "because doing so set a high standard for others to follow."[1] The bill passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and by a voice vote in the House,[1] showing that it was entirely uncontroversial at the time.
Ten years later, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld[2] that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applied to the War on Terrorism, with the unstated implication that any interrogation technique that violated Common Article 3 constituted war crimes.[3] The possibility that American officials and military personnel could be prosecuted for war crimes for committing the "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment"[4] prohibited by the Conventions led to a series of proposals to make such actions legal in certain circumstances, which resulted in the Military Commissions Act of 2006." wiki
Walt
(1)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
You can call me the Tom Brady of good citizenship. Well, except Brady is a cheat and a crybaby.
Walt
Walt
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
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!
(4)
(0)
CDR Mike Kovack
The treatment of Shinseki sent a clear message to the military on the lead up to Iraq. If the 4 star could be treated that way, whoa be to the lower ranks. Unfortunately Shinseki was correct.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
CDR Mike Kovack
Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette - Saddam had intelligence officers in it because he was spying on it. Hussein was the most secular leader in the Middle East. He distrusted and crushed religious zealotry because that was the biggest threat to his regime. Al Qaeda is nothing but religious zealotry.
(0)
(0)
CDR Mike Kovack
Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette - ;) Careful how you characterize that......we were spying on them too, as well as Al Qaeda! ;)
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Capt Walter Miller
Larry Wilmore ridicules Dick Cheney’s Iran warmongering that even Fox News won’t buy
"There’s something wrong with the world when you lose Jon Stewart and retain Dick Cheney" VIDEO
(2)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Cheney '94: Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire
In this interview from April 15th, 1994 Dick Cheney reveals the reasons why invading Baghdad and toppling Saddam Hussein's regime wouldn't be a great idea. H...
(2)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Of course if you run a giant company that can get giant contracts after an invasion of Iraq and you have deferred compensation based on the performance of that giant company, then invading Iraq becomes a great idea.
Walt
Walt
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
Your spot on with this... however it will take a few generations before this truth is accepted by a majority of Americans.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
GySgt Michael Lange - It's an oligarchy, however it's still a very heterogeneous oligarchy. If the oligarchy ever becomes homogeneous, then we are really screwed.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
PO2 Robert Cuminale
"individuals who dont deserve to wear this uniform because we all have met them across the board in every branch in every service."
Thye aren't unique to the present. We had them 40+ years ago and the Navy was loaded with them.
They'd gotten draft notices and joined the Navy because a ship is better than a fetid jungle. Thye had bad attitudes and some were not above sabotage. Some were giving away basket leave so that people were on leave for 60-90 days total in a year. We seemed to have an abundance of them from up North. Many had 4X10 reserve enlistments. Four months active duty and 10 years of drills once a month and two weeks a year. I hope that they were all called up for active duty.
Thye aren't unique to the present. We had them 40+ years ago and the Navy was loaded with them.
They'd gotten draft notices and joined the Navy because a ship is better than a fetid jungle. Thye had bad attitudes and some were not above sabotage. Some were giving away basket leave so that people were on leave for 60-90 days total in a year. We seemed to have an abundance of them from up North. Many had 4X10 reserve enlistments. Four months active duty and 10 years of drills once a month and two weeks a year. I hope that they were all called up for active duty.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google