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

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.

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).

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

Yes but we are facilitating the fiasco as we speak.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.