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
1
1
0
1
1
0
Article 88 and Article 89 forbids Active Duty and Reserve component talking about their leadership in a disrespectful manner. Rally Point was designed to provide guidance and mentorship not to bash former Presidents!
(1)
(0)
CH (CPT) Heather Davis
CPT Miller the topic of this conversation could possibly put many active duty and reserves in jeopardy. Rally Point was created to mentor and develop the next generation. I thank you for paving the way before me. Your profile is impressive, that being said I know you were taught to be respectful of the authority pointed over you.
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Not really.
This is more my style:
"Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about. Hell yeah! I'm for debating anything. Rhode Island says yea!" - Stephen Hopkins, 1776
Walt
This is more my style:
"Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about. Hell yeah! I'm for debating anything. Rhode Island says yea!" - Stephen Hopkins, 1776
Walt
(2)
(0)
SPC Luis Mendez
Question: Is GWB the POTUS? If NOT then end of argument for articles 88 - 89. The Capt is Right thru and thru.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Capt Walter Miller
It became a regional war because the guy who could keep a lid on it -- Saddam Hussein -- was taken out of the equation.
Bad idea.
Walt
Bad idea.
Walt
(3)
(0)
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Not so much Bush but the Congress in and of itself...PLUS...the military leadership on Capitol Hill who knuckled under and preferred to spend time on politically correct social engineering matters and condemning combat leaders who were doing the jobs they were sent to do. The Dems and the media are the writers of history as they see it... they'll dictate what history books print and what universities teach, truth or not. They've already chosen to ignore accomplishments of our troops. That doesn't fit the end game. A lot of the comments on here are a pretty good example... "Rolling Stone" used to form an opinion? Come on. Just had a conversation with a 30-something who said, "but Jon Stewart said..." Enough.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
This is your opinion. I disagree. Completely There has been far more negligence and malfeasance under this administration
(1)
(0)
SSgt Alex Robinson
Walt, we have lost almost every gain in Iraq under Obama. We spent much in blood and treasure to win and yet today ISIS controls almost all of Iraq. Bush was not perfect nor was everyone under his command but Obama has an inept view of the world
(1)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
"As many in the military publicly acknowledge here for the first time, the guerrilla insurgency that exploded several months after Saddam's fall was not foreordained. In fact, to a shocking degree, it was created by the folly of the war's architects. But the officers who did raise their voices against the miscalculations, shortsightedness, and general failure of the war effort were generally crushed, their careers often ended. A willful blindness gripped political and military leaders, and dissent was not tolerated."
(2)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
CMDCM Homer Stinson - The Bush Administration signed the surrender agreement, I mean SOFA.
"The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011."
- wiki
It was best we got out any way. Maybe you'd rather keep our guys in Iraq where they are useless than repair our roads and bridges here.
Walt
"The U.S.–Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (official name: Agreement Between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq On the Withdrawal of United States Forces from Iraq and the Organization of Their Activities during Their Temporary Presence in Iraq) was a status of forces agreement (SOFA) between Iraq and the United States, signed by President George W. Bush in 2008. It established that U.S. combat forces would withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. combat forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011."
- wiki
It was best we got out any way. Maybe you'd rather keep our guys in Iraq where they are useless than repair our roads and bridges here.
Walt
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Better questions would be, "Who is behind the murders of September 11, 2001 and duped all of us into these wars overseas?" I am in awe of everyone who signed up to defend America. The false flag attack duped me too.
I never thought going into Iraq was legit. Going into Afghanistan was more legit until I got there. I am proud of protecting those peaceful people from the crazies who hurt them but I am starting to think it was all dealing with the drug trades there for the CIA.
I never thought going into Iraq was legit. Going into Afghanistan was more legit until I got there. I am proud of protecting those peaceful people from the crazies who hurt them but I am starting to think it was all dealing with the drug trades there for the CIA.
(1)
(0)
LtCol (Join to see)
Most of them were Saudi nationals. There was not one Iraqi on any of the three planes.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I for one actually saw Russian made Mustard gas artillery rounds. They were part of a daisy chain IED near SADR City in mid-2004. However, they were never found enmasse as purported. As direct support for ODA we did find a very cache of Atropine in an Iraqi "Hospital" in/near the village of Kara Tappa. The locals did not want us to access the room it was in. We forced the door and were pretty taken aback by what we found. KBR or Kellogg, Brown and Root had all aspects of the FOB infrastructure building and support, no one else. Give you two guesses who was actively on the board of that company prior to, during the invasion and the sustainment years of OIF. He made millions if not billions off of our deployments. Now, their infrastructure in Iraq is worse than before we left. We created one heck of a mess there.
(1)
(0)
SGT Robert James
It takes a dictator to rule over international terrorists, rapists and various other miscreants. Saddam Hussein had accomplished this through iron fisted death squads, embezzlement/outright taking of oil for food money. What people do not realize or want to realize is that the US employs people just like Saddam all over the world to do our military industrial complexes dirty work unbeknownst to the general public.
(0)
(0)
SGT Robert James
Looking back I think the atropine was being stocked by the Kurds in case Saddam tried to pull off some sort of Chemical hail Mary pass before we could prevent it.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
The US has demonstrated repeatedly that occupying someone else's country is bad news. Our first major example was our own Revolution. Viet Nam was pretty recent...yet we continue to ignore history. The Halliburton's of the world, and other military centric industrial groups, derive too many dollars to ignore a great opportunity to earn huge contracts. In the 1980's we outspent the Soviets, but we had an enormous stock of conventional weapons, as the Star Wars program and other expensive programs were better PR (per a number of folks) than they were effective. What happens when you have a huge stash? You use it. Anyone who had any understanding of the dynamics present in Iraq should have known what a disaster our occupation would be. Saddam was the way he was for reason. We were not equipped, or prepared, for the civil affairs disasters that would unfold. We got lucky not more troops got hurt the way they were massed - and the fact they were not has been lost somehow in the subsequent sandstorms. I was all for fighting terrorism with a knock-out blow somewhere- but it needs to be done intelligently, efficiently, and effectively. We failed ourselves and created a new generation of problems for our veterans and their families.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
This is a difficult question for me to answer, since I see myself as a Republican and did vote for him, but my general answer is yes, though I also go along with the many opinions provided here that state this was not fully his fault, mainly due to the very large amount of bad intelligence that was available (or good intelligence that was not available to him). Perhaps the logic that he was the Commander in Chief and therefore must take all responsibility applies, though this is very unfortunate in light of facts as we now know them. I sincerely and deeply feel that his heart was in the right place and had we had more accurate intelligence this entire fiasco that today is a part of our everyday lives may have been minimized.
(1)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
The Bushies knew none of that crap was true. They lied and good people died. That is right.
Walt
Walt
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google