Posted on Jan 27, 2015
Do you agree that the Bush administration created a fiasco in Iraq?
66.9K
814
450
49
31
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 11 y ago
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 101
3
3
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.
(3)
(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
2
2
0
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.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Join Veterans For Peace or Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, Fellowship of Reconcilliation or Pax Christi USA.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
"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
"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
(2)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
"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."
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
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.
In my opinion, a true Commander in Chief wouldn't agree to any war unless they were ready to gear up and fight too.
(2)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Bush being a deserter is sorta negative capital on that. He had a 6 year obligation but did not participate for the last 18 months of his commitment, making him, strictly speaking, a deserter.
http://awolbush.com/
Walt
http://awolbush.com/
Walt
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Bush and Cheney have openly admitted being parties to torture. And yet the laws are not allowed to operate against them.
Walt
Walt
(2)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Asked if waterboarding should be used on a terror suspect, Bush's reply was, "Damn right"
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/05/bush.book/
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/05/bush.book/
(2)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Capt Walter Miller - Never any question that Bush and Cheney were aware of water boarding but still no admission of torture. The article assumes torture but that is only the author's assumption. Again, no evidence, just opinion. The one fact that is demonstrable is that those who hate Bush and Cheney will assume the worst interpretation of every utterance and act. To be fair, the same is true of those who hate Obama (...Clinton, Carter, Reagan...) Once upon a time Americans respected their President. When the election was over and the smoke cleared, people generally got behind him. Sure, there were criticisms but they tended not to get so personal. No all criticism is harsh and very personal. I tend to believe that this reflects a growing abyss between those who want to live as free individuals and those who want a paternal government making all decisions and accepting all blame rather than true personal animosities towards the persons themselves. We are either going to have to reconcile this dichotomy or create a dual society wherein government provides for those who opt in and leaves the rest of us alone. Personally, that's all I want: To be left the hell alone. Sadly I don't see Republicans or Democrats favoring that stance, and thus don't harbor as much ill will towards either Bush or Obama. I look at each objectively and see failure through misfeasance rather than malfeasance. Methinks that you have an axe to grind with Bush and that may account for your insistence on the criminality of his acts. Am I being unfair in my assessment?
(1)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
"Never any question that Bush and Cheney were aware of water boarding but still no admission of torture."
What on Earth. That is pathetic.
Walt
What on Earth. That is pathetic.
Walt
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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."
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."
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google