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
For thousands of years there have been conflicts in that part of the world and there always will be. The U.S. did not have anything to do with that; we have only been a nation for a little over 200 years.
(1)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Jim Webb, 12/06/04:
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."
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."
(1)
(0)
2
1
1
Rolling Stone Names President Obama ‘One of the Most Successful Presidents in American History’
President Obama graces the cover of the latest issue of Rolling Stone.
In the mag, Nobel Prize- winning economist Paul Krugman wrote an amazing piece in defense of President Obama’s presidency.
Mainstream media is often quick to point out President Obama’s perceived failures during his tenure, so it’s refreshing to see a publication highlight his many accomplishments — especially because President Obama’s approval rating is currently the lowest it’s ever been (according to CNBC).
Krugman declares President Obama as one of the “one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history” and acknowledges the harsh and often unfair criticism he endures.
Obama faces trash talk left, right and center – literally – and doesn’t deserve it. Despite bitter opposition, despite having come close to self-inflicted disaster, Obama has emerged as one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history. His health reform is imperfect but still a huge step forward – and it’s working better than anyone expected. Financial reform fell far short of what should have happened, but it’s much more effective than you’d think. Economic management has been half-crippled by Republican obstruction, but has nonetheless been much better than in other advanced countries. And environmental policy is starting to look like it could be a major legacy.
President Obama graces the cover of the latest issue of Rolling Stone.
In the mag, Nobel Prize- winning economist Paul Krugman wrote an amazing piece in defense of President Obama’s presidency.
Mainstream media is often quick to point out President Obama’s perceived failures during his tenure, so it’s refreshing to see a publication highlight his many accomplishments — especially because President Obama’s approval rating is currently the lowest it’s ever been (according to CNBC).
Krugman declares President Obama as one of the “one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history” and acknowledges the harsh and often unfair criticism he endures.
Obama faces trash talk left, right and center – literally – and doesn’t deserve it. Despite bitter opposition, despite having come close to self-inflicted disaster, Obama has emerged as one of the most consequential and, yes, successful presidents in American history. His health reform is imperfect but still a huge step forward – and it’s working better than anyone expected. Financial reform fell far short of what should have happened, but it’s much more effective than you’d think. Economic management has been half-crippled by Republican obstruction, but has nonetheless been much better than in other advanced countries. And environmental policy is starting to look like it could be a major legacy.
(2)
(1)
Capt Walter Miller
"The decision alone to go to war in Iraq, an unnecessary and pointless conflict based on dubious intelligence and hyped threats of nuclear, biological attack, would place Bush squarely in the cellar. Yet there is so much more. In making the case for war, Bush ran roughshod over the international system that his own country had helped to form; angered and undermined key allies and cratered the US image in the world. A failure to prioritize post-war planning ensured that a successful military victory against Saddam Hussein turned into a long-term and disastrous occupation that weakened America even further. It's pretty hard to fight a war that literally does not one thing to further US interests and strengthens the enemy you nominally went to war against in the first place (al Qaeda), but Bush accomplished that feat.
Iraq also diverted necessary resources from the war in Afghanistan and the fight against al Qaeda (leading to further escalation and American loss of life after Bush left office). Bush's second term Freedom doctrine to spread democracy around the world failed badly and opened up the US to charges of hypocrisy (it also led in part to a Hamas government taking over in Gaza). And Bush offered little response as North Korea officially became a member of the nuclear club during his presidency. Bush supporters will argue that it's too early to judge the success of his foreign policy performance. Perhaps, but early judgments are in; and they're not good. It's pretty hard to imagine any situation under which that judgment will be reversed."
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/07/the-best-and-worst-foreign-policy-presidents-of-the-past-century/242781/
Iraq also diverted necessary resources from the war in Afghanistan and the fight against al Qaeda (leading to further escalation and American loss of life after Bush left office). Bush's second term Freedom doctrine to spread democracy around the world failed badly and opened up the US to charges of hypocrisy (it also led in part to a Hamas government taking over in Gaza). And Bush offered little response as North Korea officially became a member of the nuclear club during his presidency. Bush supporters will argue that it's too early to judge the success of his foreign policy performance. Perhaps, but early judgments are in; and they're not good. It's pretty hard to imagine any situation under which that judgment will be reversed."
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/07/the-best-and-worst-foreign-policy-presidents-of-the-past-century/242781/
(1)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
"Bush ran roughshod over the international system that his own country had helped to form..."
I said kinda sort the same thing when I said that by violating the UN Charter the Bushies crossed a very bad line. The UN Charter was essentially written by us for us. It protected the ‘Haves’.
In 1945 that was us.
It was one of the worst things the Bush people did. To attack Iraq for the sake of propping up oil prices, as Gunny Lange rightly points out, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and their aiders and abettors committed treason. They aided the enemies of the United States.
But I think President Obama is a rational and pragmatic guy. Getting the Justice Department to go after that horrid crew of ass wipes would roil the idiots in the country who can barely fog a mirror. It would have made progress in other areas impossible.
Walt
I said kinda sort the same thing when I said that by violating the UN Charter the Bushies crossed a very bad line. The UN Charter was essentially written by us for us. It protected the ‘Haves’.
In 1945 that was us.
It was one of the worst things the Bush people did. To attack Iraq for the sake of propping up oil prices, as Gunny Lange rightly points out, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and their aiders and abettors committed treason. They aided the enemies of the United States.
But I think President Obama is a rational and pragmatic guy. Getting the Justice Department to go after that horrid crew of ass wipes would roil the idiots in the country who can barely fog a mirror. It would have made progress in other areas impossible.
Walt
(2)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Put another way, the Bushies pissed on our guys who died in World War Two in order to give us the modern world with the United States at the top of the heap.
Walt
Walt
(3)
(0)
SPC Luis Mendez
Capt Walter Miller - Nixon did the same and Worst, when he promised a generation of Ingrates and Malcontents to abolish the DRAFT to get their votes. They certainly did reelected him and he did as promised. Funny how he ended up!
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
I think we could have kept our focus in Afghanistan. But, a whole lot of post game reviewing of this is all we are doing now. Lets learn from the bad and the good aspects of this and continue to do our duty, with improved operational experience.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I never have and never will agree with both invasions. I believe we have created a vacuum that has allowed ISIS. I agreed with Vietnam which I also think was a fiasco more than Iraq/Afghanistan. As much as we want to, forcing democracy on countries that have known other forms of government or tranny for years is not plausible. Booting Hussein out of Kuwait, I totally agreed with that albeit we let people go that maybe we should not have.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Germany, Italy, Korea, Revolutionary War??? There are plenty of examples where a despotism has embraced democracy. They all have a lasting foreign support relationship that provided the funds and stability for the new Government.
(1)
(0)
SSG John Gillespie
MAJ (Join to see) - IRT the Revolutionary War: Americans had a long tradition of democracy stemming from England. To say that we had only known despotism up to that point is to completely ignore our own history. The Virginia House of Burgesses was established not long after Jamestown was settled in the early 1600s. You can go look at our own history.
As for Germany and Italy, what makes you think they had no experience with democracy prior to the end of WW2? Both Hitler and Mussolini were democratically elected leaders.
Korea? That's the only nation you have mentioned which did not previously have a democratic tradition. However, they were not ruled by a despot prior to being the target of communist aggression.
In short, you've missed the mark by a wide margin here. I get what you're trying to say but you're not right with the facts of it at all.
As for Germany and Italy, what makes you think they had no experience with democracy prior to the end of WW2? Both Hitler and Mussolini were democratically elected leaders.
Korea? That's the only nation you have mentioned which did not previously have a democratic tradition. However, they were not ruled by a despot prior to being the target of communist aggression.
In short, you've missed the mark by a wide margin here. I get what you're trying to say but you're not right with the facts of it at all.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I wouldn't call it a democracy if the king has full authority to suspend all their power and authority. Japan is a better example for sure.
(0)
(0)
SSG John Gillespie
Well, there's just the thing then. The Magna Carta has prevented the English king from suspending the rule of law since King John was forced to sign it. Despite all the bluster of the excesses of King George's reach in the American colonies, it was the burdens levied by Parliament upon the colonies without representation which set the stage for the Revolutionary War. The House of Burgesses was merely the first colonial government to be formally established in the American colonies. That the form of government it was established under was technically headed by a monarchy is as irrelevant now as it was to those early colonists who participated in the democratic process to establish their own rule of law in early Virginia.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
No I wouldnt, only due to the fact that they didnt just create a fiasco there but here as well. That the Nation was stupid enough to vote the ass into office a 2nd term has always dumbfounded me to the max, next to this dipshit we have now I have never seen a worse jerk in office...
(1)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
"The Republicans complain about Obama not doing enough to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, nor enough to blunt Iran's increasing regional influence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, yet one of their own -- George W. Bush -- had a big hand in aggravating these problems in the first place. On the campaign trail, Republican candidate Jeb Bush recently became red-faced and flummoxed when a college student reminded him that ISIS originated as a derivative from opposition to his brother's invasion of Iraq. Yet another unintended consequence of that same fiasco, however, is the rise of Iran and the acceleration of its nuclear program, which the Democrats should mention to the Republicans. But Hillary Clinton may not be the best candidate to do so, because while she was in the Senate, she gleefully supported Bush's idiotic war of aggression."
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
"Each and every one of the dangers about which Webb warned has come to fruition. But thoughtful, sophisticated, rational and -- as it turns out -- prescient analysis like this was haughtily dismissed away by the tough-guy political and pundit classes as unserious and wimpy, even when coming from combat heroes. Instead, those who were deemed to be the serious, responsible, and strong national security leaders -- and who still are deemed as such -- were the ones shrilly warning about Iraqi mushroom clouds over our cities; handing out playing cards -- playing cards -- with pictures of the Bad People underneath their comic book nicknames; and making predictions about Iraq which the most basic working knowledge of that country should have precluded."
(1)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Jim Webb, 12/06/04:
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."
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."
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
As I sit here reading some of your responses to the question at hand, some of you are spot on and others way out in left field. One and probably the first priority of the Iraq War was Lil. Yes I said it! I was a part of MNC-I in the JOC. GEN Kasey was the man in charge. Sitting in this VTC the topic of discussion was about a part of a major pipeline that had been blown up by insurgents. I have never seen so much emphasis. Needless to say because the nature of this VTC was secured I can't say or have time here to tell you all that we were over there for the wrong reasons!
(1)
(0)
SFC Oranthal Smith
Sir this may be true. But as you and I know there is more to it than just there income.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
I’m still missing Bush… and when is Trump coming back? Biden is the worst president ever… way worse than Obama… lesson learned… maybe Bush should try again… maybe then we can go back to normalcy.
PS. You all wanted Trump gone… I hope you are all enjoying Biden though… lol
PS. You all wanted Trump gone… I hope you are all enjoying Biden though… lol
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Sadly I do agree. Bush senior was very wise not to continue to Baghdad. Apparently W thought if we ousted Hussein Iraq would be like Paris in the Fall of 1944. Hussein's government was brutal and oppressive and apparently that was the only way to keep control of Iraq. Other methods have been tried and none have worked. So contrary to what most of us would like to believe Iraq was better controlled and less of a terrorist threat under a brutal dictatorship. Do what I say or I will have you shot is a very persuasive way to govern the ungovernable and if they refuse to listen then dead men cause no trouble.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The Iraqi people were under Saddam's thumb for decades. He was threatening to use WMDs. We knew he had them since the US sold him them during the Iran-Iraq War. Saddam had access to Soviet made weapons as well. WMDs were found in Iraq. Funny how when old munitions were found, the anti-war reporters ran int the other direction. They also ignored the mass graves in Iraq from Saddam's genocide against the Kurds & Shi'a. Yes, there was much BS that went on about WMDs being ready to launch. From elements of the Iraqi mob (alternate govt in exile) to our own VP seeing WMDs in every radio intercept. It still boiled down to Saddam needing to go. Simply killing him would have had his son Uday or Qusay taking charge. One of them would have used WMDs or at the very least, continued the genocide against the other ethnic & religious groups. If you look at history, whenever any nation has been under a long rule of a dictator. it is never very pretty when they are gone. The nation splits apart. All of the hatreds & rivalries that had been pent up over the years explode. Our VP did more to start the war than Bush did but Iraq would have still fallen into disarray at some point. They seem to be doing better now. Iran has always been their threat both directly & indirectly. Either way, Iraq is doing the best it has been in nearly a century.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google