Posted on Jan 27, 2015
Do you agree that the Bush administration created a fiasco in Iraq?
61.6K
826
457
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 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 103
0
0
0
First off yes the WMDs were there. Some of our guys and gals had to remove the munitions and others the barrels of chemical weapons. You didn't really think the news would publicly come out and say they were 100% wrong did you. Just like the Zimmerman case took them a week to come out and admit he was Hispanic after saying he was White and they saying he was a White Hispanic. As for Pres. Bush creating ISIS four groups are responsible for that one. The First group is Pres. Obamas White House for having us leave early even after the generals urged him to keep us there longer. The second through forth are the Sheite, Sunni, and the Kurdish leaders that couldn't get along to make a viable government after Sudam was overthrown and executed. Kind of like right now were after the election we have rioting going on and the opposition to the newly elected president won't tell their followers and hardliners to knock it off.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Is this a good idea or decision for relations with the peoples
http://www.skynewsarabia.com/web/article/797471/%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A8-%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%B9%D9%88-%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B8%D8%B1-%D8%AF%D8%AE%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%94%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%83%D8%A7
http://www.skynewsarabia.com/web/article/797471/%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A8-%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%B9%D9%88-%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B8%D8%B1-%D8%AF%D8%AE%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%94%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%83%D8%A7
ترامب يدعو لحظر دخول المسلمين إلى أميركا
دعا المرشح الجمهوري المحتمل للرئاسة الأميركية دونالد ترامب إلى "فرض حظر شامل وكامل" على دخول المسلمين إلى الولايات المتحدة، الاثنين، إلا أن البيت الأبيض عبر عن رفضه هذه الدعوة.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
worst mistake was Paul Bremer signing the order to disband the Iraqi Army.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
at commanders call it was noted. the sea bees helped find bodies of curds, to put in family graves determined by doctors doing DNA test . they found around 13000 , in 1988 50000 were killed in 1993 150000 were killed , they had something powerful. Iraq claimed to kill 800000 between 1980-1988 .The Iraqi people had a history of chemicals and mass destruction, and not cooperating with inspectors ,Why would anyone think they did not . The CIA bought 400 bombs with Sarin gas
check wikipedia ,DOD, NY times,etc
I dont know what was in the russian convoy leaving Iraq through Syria ,But i Know Syria had chemical weapons after russians arrived .
I saw the news the day the twin towers fell, and saw a woman jump .I was sad for her family ,then i stood up and thought i'm not sure what the solution is but i will support my leadership and made sure i was good to go.
check wikipedia ,DOD, NY times,etc
I dont know what was in the russian convoy leaving Iraq through Syria ,But i Know Syria had chemical weapons after russians arrived .
I saw the news the day the twin towers fell, and saw a woman jump .I was sad for her family ,then i stood up and thought i'm not sure what the solution is but i will support my leadership and made sure i was good to go.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
With hind sight I wonder if we should have stayed out of it. During the time I feel it was the right call.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Capt Walter Miller - Captain; Mr. Bush was well out of his depth as the President of the United States of America - but he meant well.
I wouldn't say that he was the "worst" president that the US has ever had - but I will grant you that he is definitely in contention for a place on the podium. (I also note that "worst" is susceptible to a variety of definitions depending on what emphasis you want to put on what factors.)
I wouldn't say that he was the "worst" president that the US has ever had - but I will grant you that he is definitely in contention for a place on the podium. (I also note that "worst" is susceptible to a variety of definitions depending on what emphasis you want to put on what factors.)
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Capt Walter Miller - Captain; Indeed.
And on bad days I think that that is the general level of political thinking in the US today.
Canada just had an election that tossed out the entire government and put in a new one - the election campaign was 72 days long and many people were complaining that that was too long. The US still has over 365 days to go in its Presidential election campaign and even then isn't guaranteed to produce a result that changes anything.
Mind you, there is an old adage (the source of which I can't track down) to the effect that the US system was designed to slow down a naturally impetuous and fractious people while the Canadian system was designed to speed up a naturally cautious and lethargic people.
With all the "dynasty" talk floating around the US Presidential election, I though that you might enjoy the comment which I heard on the radio the other day - "Justin Trudeau is the ultimate millenial, he just moved back into his parents' house.".
And on bad days I think that that is the general level of political thinking in the US today.
Canada just had an election that tossed out the entire government and put in a new one - the election campaign was 72 days long and many people were complaining that that was too long. The US still has over 365 days to go in its Presidential election campaign and even then isn't guaranteed to produce a result that changes anything.
Mind you, there is an old adage (the source of which I can't track down) to the effect that the US system was designed to slow down a naturally impetuous and fractious people while the Canadian system was designed to speed up a naturally cautious and lethargic people.
With all the "dynasty" talk floating around the US Presidential election, I though that you might enjoy the comment which I heard on the radio the other day - "Justin Trudeau is the ultimate millenial, he just moved back into his parents' house.".
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Whether Pres Bush actively did something, omitted or perpetuated.... He was the CIC when it happened. I don't see history dumping on him though. There were WMD's even though old and decrepit. I think what this will show is one president to the next, to the next inheriting one sh!tshow after another and we always want to blame ONE person, when in fact we can trace some american problems back to Ford, Carter, then Regan.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Sir what are you classifying as weapons of mass destruction? There was a reported sarin IED just outside of Baghdad shortly after the push end. The news covered it for a second and the time. For some reason though it wasn't brought up again.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Here's my question to you. Where do you think the Middle East would be had we not gone into Iraq? What would we be doing? You like to play armchair QB, what do you really think would have happened?
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Couple things.
1. Iraq would probably gone totally to shit after Saddam passed off the scene, as it did when we removed him. Iran might still have gained a lot of influence, rise of ISIS, instability in Syria. All that.
2. The US Military would NOT (as it does today) look like grossly incompetent hyper-children destroying everything in its path. I think this is pretty important. After Desert Storm (possibly because I was there) the US Military looked hyper-competent. This, because they got to run their “Team Yankee” fantasy shit storm over the way overmatched – but heavily mechanized – Iraqis.
Giving that latter away, as the Bushies did, was very harmful to the country. We’d be a lot better off if people didn’t think the US Military was a joke.
Walt
1. Iraq would probably gone totally to shit after Saddam passed off the scene, as it did when we removed him. Iran might still have gained a lot of influence, rise of ISIS, instability in Syria. All that.
2. The US Military would NOT (as it does today) look like grossly incompetent hyper-children destroying everything in its path. I think this is pretty important. After Desert Storm (possibly because I was there) the US Military looked hyper-competent. This, because they got to run their “Team Yankee” fantasy shit storm over the way overmatched – but heavily mechanized – Iraqis.
Giving that latter away, as the Bushies did, was very harmful to the country. We’d be a lot better off if people didn’t think the US Military was a joke.
Walt
(2)
(0)
Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin
1. "Gone totally to shit"? I'm sorry please translate that into something coherent. How would they have gone to shit when the argument for not invading was the claim that that sanctions were working. How would Saddam pass off the scene? Saddam had a goal of becoming the Caliphate, much like ISIS is trying to create now. Do you really think we had him contained as each of the coalition forces pulled out of the sanctions and Northern/Sothern watch? Do you not find it ironic that Obama admits now that sanctions do not work for Iran but was all for them in Iraq?
2. What the hell are you talking about? You may have served in Desert Storm and that's great but to claim we've become incompetent since is complete BS. Destroying everything in it's path? What war are you talking about? The same shit storm you speak of was also performed during Desert Storm as well. We essentially knocked down the 4th largest army in the world. Tanks, Scuds, IADS were heavily taken out just the same.
You are bitching about the method in which we attacked but did not answer my questions. Your problem is, you can't answer the question. You cannot confidently or definitively say Al Qaeda would not have continued to spread, ISIS (a product of Syria, not Iraq) would not have risen, or Saddam would not have managed to rebuild his capabilities.
You're having a great time assigning blame to Bush and applauding the current President, and yet every time Obama screws up or whines about "what Bush did", you defend him. If your defense for not being able to fix the problem is to blame your predecessor for the problem, you are going to be an ineffective leader and you will fail to fix the problem. How effective would an officer in the military be if he came into an assignment and all he did was complain about the organization's issues, blaming them on his perception of incompetence by his predecessor? Have you ever sat in a room where the so called leader continues to focus and rehash past decisions and actions taken by people who are no longer in the room and fails to move on? I have... very little was accomplished because this officer could not move on and work on the problem at hand. This is what Obama is doing.
Military Advisor - Mr President, ISIS is fighting a civil war in Syria and it's spilling over into Iraq where they're not prepared to handle the threat without our help. Especially after you pulled most of them out.
President Obama - This is all Bush's fault! If we had not invaded Iraq, we would not have ISIS! I only pulled them out because that was the original plan by Bush!
Military Advisor - That's great Mr President, in the meantime, do you want us to contain the problem? By the way Sir, you are the President, you have the power to change decisions set in motion but not carried out by the previous administration.
President Obama - But it's still Bush's fault.
Military Advisor - Whatever you say Mr President, do you have a decision on whether we should contain the problem?
President Obama - Let Iraq handle their own problem. It's all Bush's fault anyway
Military Advisor - Ok Sir.
2. What the hell are you talking about? You may have served in Desert Storm and that's great but to claim we've become incompetent since is complete BS. Destroying everything in it's path? What war are you talking about? The same shit storm you speak of was also performed during Desert Storm as well. We essentially knocked down the 4th largest army in the world. Tanks, Scuds, IADS were heavily taken out just the same.
You are bitching about the method in which we attacked but did not answer my questions. Your problem is, you can't answer the question. You cannot confidently or definitively say Al Qaeda would not have continued to spread, ISIS (a product of Syria, not Iraq) would not have risen, or Saddam would not have managed to rebuild his capabilities.
You're having a great time assigning blame to Bush and applauding the current President, and yet every time Obama screws up or whines about "what Bush did", you defend him. If your defense for not being able to fix the problem is to blame your predecessor for the problem, you are going to be an ineffective leader and you will fail to fix the problem. How effective would an officer in the military be if he came into an assignment and all he did was complain about the organization's issues, blaming them on his perception of incompetence by his predecessor? Have you ever sat in a room where the so called leader continues to focus and rehash past decisions and actions taken by people who are no longer in the room and fails to move on? I have... very little was accomplished because this officer could not move on and work on the problem at hand. This is what Obama is doing.
Military Advisor - Mr President, ISIS is fighting a civil war in Syria and it's spilling over into Iraq where they're not prepared to handle the threat without our help. Especially after you pulled most of them out.
President Obama - This is all Bush's fault! If we had not invaded Iraq, we would not have ISIS! I only pulled them out because that was the original plan by Bush!
Military Advisor - That's great Mr President, in the meantime, do you want us to contain the problem? By the way Sir, you are the President, you have the power to change decisions set in motion but not carried out by the previous administration.
President Obama - But it's still Bush's fault.
Military Advisor - Whatever you say Mr President, do you have a decision on whether we should contain the problem?
President Obama - Let Iraq handle their own problem. It's all Bush's fault anyway
Military Advisor - Ok Sir.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Elements.
(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;
(2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;
(3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and
(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element
(5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.
Explanation.
The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, ad-verse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.
Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not rdinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.
Elements.
(1) That the accused was a commissioned officer of the United States armed forces;
(2) That the accused used certain words against an official or legislature named in the article;
(3) That by an act of the accused these words came to the knowledge of a person other than the accused; and
(4) That the words used were contemptuous, either in themselves or by virtue of the circumstances under which they were used. Note: If the words were against a Governor or legislature, add the following element
(5) That the accused was then present in the State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of the Governor or legislature concerned.
Explanation.
The official or legislature against whom the words are used must be occupying one of the offices or be one of the legislatures named in Article 88 at the time of the offense. Neither “Congress” nor “legislature” includes its members individually. “Governor” does not include “lieutenant governor.” It is immaterial whether the words are used against the official in an official or private capacity. If not personally contemptuous, ad-verse criticism of one of the officials or legislatures named in the article in the course of a political discussion, even though emphatically expressed, may not be charged as a violation of the article.
Similarly, expressions of opinion made in a purely private conversation should not rdinarily be charged. Giving broad circulation to a written publication containing contemptuous words of the kind made punishable by this article, or the utterance of contemptuous words of this kind in the presence of military subordinates, aggravates the offense. The truth or falsity of the statements is immaterial.
(0)
(0)
SPC Luis Mendez
GWB is NOT the POTUS anymore, neither the current Congress is the same it was in 2001-03.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google