Right winger
Let’s take a look at the points you made:

The process of dismantling our military began with Bush 41 and continued through the Clinton Admin. We were all blinded by the peace dividend and did not understand the other dangers that the end to the Soviet Union allowed in the Moslem World. Gen Zinni talks about that in his book.

The two reasons the budget was finally balanced in 2000 was because of the tax increases in the latter Reagan Admin and the Bush 41, read my lips, tax increases. That coupled with the extent that Clinton implemented the military cutback and the economic growth in the 1990's did the job. The initial Reagan tax cuts however did not do as he promised and bring the budget into balance by 1985. That was his promise in 1981. What he did was create a structural deficit because the growth rate needed to replace the loss in revenue from his tax cuts was not sustainable even with the growth in the 1990's.

In Match 2003 the military assessment of Iraq and Saddam when ALL the capabilities, both conventional military and WMD were considered showed that Saddam was not able to attack or did he present any danger to the United States. That is clear from the total information that was available in late 2002 and early 2003. The Zinni and Trainor books are the latest to document that fact. Thus when we attacked Iraq we did so against a nonexistent threat.

Just before Bush took office in late December 2000 Clinton warned Bush the biggest threats were North Korea, Iran, the Palestine/ Israeli conflict and Al Qaeda. Bush told Clinton he believed the greatest security issues were Iraq and a missile defense system. Looks as if Clinton was correct and Bush was dead wrong!

gene? please! I really like Bill, but his blatant cowardice allowing the 1993 twin tower bombing, the attacks in Tanzania and Kenya that destroyed our embassies, the attack in Beirut that killed hundreds of marines and what did bill do as way of punishment? he blew up a pill factory.

The attack of sept.11th is because he had the worse foreign policies ever! maybe peanut boy had a worse one. I grant you he had a wonderful domestic plan jobs everywhere, but the death of 3000 innocent Americans lie directly on bills head, all the while he was getting his dick sucked in the oval office, disgracing the 'OFFICE' of the presidency and getting himself impeached to boot.

The process of dismantling our military began with Bush 41 and continued through the Clinton Admin.

Think so? Hm. The force that rolled into Iraq in '91 looked pretty rough n' ready to me. The "Peace Dividend" thing was a Clinton-Era buzz phrase.
The USSR didn't collapse for all and good until 1991, the year before Clinton was elected. That's what gave us the aforementioned "dividend". Bush may have started scaling things down a little, maybe, but Clinton took a machete to the military even while he sent them to hotspots everywhere around the globe, plugging holes.

The two reasons the budget was finally balanced in 2000 was because of the tax increases in the latter Reagan Admin and the Bush 41, read my lips, tax increases. That coupled with the extent that Clinton implemented the military cutback and the economic growth in the 1990's did the job. The initial Reagan tax cuts however did not do as he promised and bring the budget into balance by 1985. That was his promise in 1981. What he did was create a structural deficit because the growth rate needed to replace the loss in revenue from his tax cuts was not sustainable even with the growth in the 1990's.

Well, I'm not an economist by any stretch, but I do remember that things started to slide more than a bit in the late 90s.
Of course, the slide only really picked up force in April 2001, so Bush took the hit even though he was only about 4 months in office. Not long enough to have caused anything.
You'll never convince me that the Bull market we had in the 90s had almost nothing to do with Reagan/Bush and all with Clinton. It doesn't work like that. As far as Reagan's promise of a balanced budget by '85, political promises, especially those dealing with something as fickle as economics, often hold about as much water as a Dixie cup with a hole in it. I think the world of Ronald Reagan, but he did want to be President.

In Match 2003 the military assessment of Iraq and Saddam when ALL the capabilities, both conventional military and WMD were considered showed that Saddam was not able to attack or did he present any danger to the United States. That is clear from the total information that was available in late 2002 and early 2003

Then why did the whole Beltway crowd spend the 90s sweating and wringing its hands in worry and fear, wishing (or at least pretending to, as we saw with the revelation of "Oil for Food") someone would do something about Saddam and his weapons capabilities?

The Zinni and Trainor books are the latest to document that fact.

Books by biased(?) authors, and published before certain documents captured in the war were translated.

Thus when we attacked Iraq we did so against a nonexistent threat.

Perhaps, now I know this is just a personal opinion, but sometimes we do the right things for the wrong reasons. Was it wrong to take Saddam down? No. The way it was done? Who knows?
I do know that the mass graves filled with innocent obstacles to his power will no longer be a problem. I know that the rape and torture rooms will no longer be a problem. I know that dissent will, if all goes well, at least, be tolerated without the annoying consequence of violent death. Is that wrong? I don't think so.

Just before Bush took office in late December 2000 Clinton warned Bush the biggest threats were North Korea, Iran, the Palestine/ Israeli conflict and Al Qaeda.

Then why did Clinton play footsie with N. Korea and let them push us around? Give them everything they wanted?
Because, as in all things, Clinton wouldn't take a stand that might affect his popularity, and played it off for someone else to worry about. Same with Iran, Palestine/Isreal and al Qaeda. And Kosovo, for that matter. He did nothing more than hold things together just long enough, until he got away, and left it for the next guy. In this case it was Bush, who at least wasn't afraid to be unpopular and make hard decisions.
But, somehow, he STILL got reelected. Wow. Maybe people like and appreciate a strong leader, huh?

That's what many people hate about Bush. He stands his ground whether you like it or not. He has character they way Clinton had charm.
People got used to a president who smiled and did what the polls said because he wanted to keep everyone happy so they'd like him, and the hell with what's right or wrong.

Who's the better president? I know what I think, but I'll leave it for history to decide.

9/11 happened because we did not understand the danger posed by terrorists groups. Clinton did bring that to the attention of Bush in December 2000 and Bush did nothing either. 9/11 was NOT just a Clinton failure.

The real failure is the way Bush chose to fight the 9/11 type danger- attacking a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and did not present any real danger to the United States. In so doing he has diverted our limited resources to the WRONG fight and made many new enemies willing to try another 9/11 or worse.

, the attack in Beirut that killed hundreds of marines

Though I agree with the gist of your post, MM, I think this was in 1984, though I could be thinking of something else. One of Reagan's (few) missteps.

9/11 happened because we did not understand the danger posed by terrorists groups.

They were understood perfectly well, from lessons learned by both Reagan and Bush 41. As I pointed out in post #24, Clinton had adequate opportunity to take bin-Laden down, even a plan by the CIA, but refused to do so, even as he thumbed his nose at us and killed innocent Americans. You yourself pointed out that:

Just before Bush took office in late December 2000 Clinton warned Bush the biggest threats were North Korea, Iran, the Palestine/ Israeli conflict and Al Qaeda.

If he felt that al Qaeda was such a threat, why didn't he do anything about that threat when he had the chance?
9/11 was Clinton's fault; Bush just happened to be the one who had to pick up that particular dropped ball, among others.
Just be glad it was Bush and not Gore. We'd still be waiting for the Environmental Impact Study of Ground Zero.

The real failure is the way Bush chose to fight the 9/11 type danger- attacking a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and did not present any real danger to the United States. In so doing he has diverted our limited resources to the WRONG fight and made many new enemies willing to try another 9/11 or worse.

I'm sorry Gene, but I have to say that there haven't been a ton of terror deaths in the States since then, and especially since we invaded a Muslim country in that time. They should have been expected, but haven't materialized. Why is that?

you are correct about the beriut bombing. I miss spoke.

see gene how eaasy it is to aadmit a wrong? try it sometimes.

Where Gene's construct breaks down is his insistence that Saddam's regime was not a threat to the U.S.

In classic military terms, he was not - he did not have a military capable of threatening the U.S. directly. Looking at the war on terror through the prism of WWII or even cold war ideas is a mistake, however, like trying to fight WWII with WW1 strategies. The threat can be (and was) more indirect now. What was evolving in Afghanistan and Iraq was a petri dish for terrorist growth & metastasis. The terrorists needed to be denied access to safe havens where orchestrating their operations was relatively easy. Rightwinger is correct in pointing out that the strategy of taking the fight to them may well be paying off - if, as Gene insists, our strategy is just swelling and emboldening the ranks of the terrorists, where are they and just what have they done outside the middle east lately?

I know that was off-topic, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Your comments on the danger Iraq posed are not correct. The truth is that Saddam did not allow the of activity that you term as Petri dish in Iraq when he was in power. HE was the Power and did not share that with movements like Al Qaeda. He was interested in maintaining a firm hand on Iraq. That is why he continued the illusion of having WMD. That enabled him to deter outside attack (Iran) and keep an internal decent from acting against his ONE MAN control. The Petri dish activity was present in Afghanistan but was not taking place in Iraq until AFTER our invasion. Today that Petri dish activity is again beginning in Afghanistan because we NEVER completed the task and moved on to Iraq. BIG MISTAKE!

WE were in far greater danger in March 2003 from what was taking place in Iran than Iraq. We have used our limited resources against a country that had no intent or ability to attack the United States. For a dictator to attack either directly or indirectly by supplying weapons to an Al Qaeda, for example, would bring a SWIFT end to their power. NO rogue state has EVER attacked a major power much less the world’s only super power.

The facts that the generals have brought to light about the danger Iraq posed to the United States in late 2002 and early 2003 is invaluable. It shows that there was both Intelligence and the Military Assessment available to Bush that was ignored when the choice was made to invade Iraq. As to the added terrorists that we have helped create by the Iraq War, THEY ARE OUT THERE. We have done a better job at stopping them from another 9/11. However EVERY knowledgeable official that has talked about the continuing threat has said IT IS NOT IF BUT WHEN AND WHERE they will attack the United States again.

What Bush has done in Iraq has NOT been effective to reduce the danger from the terrorists and WE enabled the terrorist’s activity in Iraq AFTER we invaded.

What a waste of an article.

Gene is a waste of a lot of things... breath, words, oxygen, life, humanity...

The list for this troll is long and illustrious. Failed at life, failed at business, failed at politics, and now using his own failures as incentive to write about others and try to tear them down.

If you think Saddam wasn't perfectly happy helping those who could not just tweak the US's nose but do some serious damage from time to time, I want some of what you're smokin'. Saddam's chokehold on Iraq & Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq were never mutually exclusive - he was perfectly capable of providing them support, direct & indirect, without risking his authority one bit. The notion that he never would have allowed Al Qaeda to operate in Iraq or never reconstituted his military capabilities is pollyanna-ish at best.

"The truth is that Saddam did not allow the of activity that you term as Petri dish in Iraq when he was in power."

Nope, and it took the murder and torture of literally hundreds of thousands of people over three decades to keep it in check. That the col doesn't have a problem with, it's the ending it that the col doesn't like so much. Hell, in those terms you should be a fan of China.

OH, wait. You have to take the opposite side from Bush no matter the issue, though, no matter the lack of logic behind your stance. I forgot for a second, sorry.

No one ever said Saddam was anything but a sadistic dictator. That is not the issue. The issue is HOW was he a danger to the United States that justified invasion? The answer is that he was NOT A DANGER to us. Here is another former CIA Chief blasting Bush for ignoring the intelligence that did not support what he wanted to do:

Report: Ex-CIA Official Blasts White House
From Associated Press
April 22, 2006 12:42 PM EDT

WASHINGTON - The former chief of the CIA's European operation is accusing the White House of ignoring the spy agency's doubts that Iraq had a budding nuclear program or weapons of mass destruction as the U.S. prepared for war.

"The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy," Tyler Drumheller told CBS' "60 Minutes" for an interview to be broadcast Sunday night. The network released excerpts ahead of the airing.

The White House has denied that intelligence, while flawed, was exaggerated or manipulated in the months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

Drumheller, who retired last year, said the White House ignored crucial information from a high and credible source who claimed that there were no active programs for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. "60 Minutes" identified the source as Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, with whom U.S. spies had made a deal.

CIA Director George Tenet delivered the information to President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other high-ranking officials in September 2002, according to Drumheller. A few days later the administration said it was no longer interested.

Drumheller said he was told about the exchange that followed: "And we said, 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said, 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.'"

CIA spokesman Tom Crispell said Saturday that Drumheller's remarks do not reflect the views of the agency.

Don't backpeddle, Nancy. You're assertion above was that Saddam was doing a better job keeping the peace than we were. To say that you must sanction the tactics he used to do it.

Evidently you don't grant us any leeway because we refuse to use those tactics. You and the traitor generals want us to send in another 250,000 troops so that they can stand around and get shot at, or, since we can't tell insurgents from civiliians, I guess form death squads to crush the civilian population.

More troops doesn't solve the problem, and only an idiot would give insurgents more targets. Only idiots and people who think we should be oppressing the Iraqi people as vehemently as Hussein. By your praise of the "peace" there under his rule you must think we should do the latter.

Notice how this is taken at face value as incorruptible truth, never mind that it has not been corroborated, that it's Drumheller's simple assertion. Would he by chance have... a book coming out? Amazing how these coincidences occur. He may have been CIA Europe chief, but I doubt he was privy to everything. Notice also how they refer to it as "the intel" as if that were the sum total of our intelligence assessment. It's that kind of slant that betrays the bias underlying it - but it fits the preconceived belief so they run with it. Then again, maybe there's something to it - 60 Minutes is totally trustworthy, right?

Bakerstreet

The time for more troops was at the START of the invasion. As much as I disagree with the decision to invade Iraq because they were not a threat to the U. S the issue after Bush made the choice to invade was essentially a tactical one that was a military not a civilian issue. The HOW to fight wars is the province of the military. They have the experience and knowledge of what it takes TO WIN. More troops now are NOT THE ANSWER. That horse has departed the barn and we have suffered MOST of the dead and injured troops because Bush interjected his lack of knowledge into the tactical choices of fighting this war!

Daiwa

The article about the CIA Europe Chief is just one of many. The CIA chief of Intelligence for Iraq, Paul Piller said that Bush cherry picked the intelligence and that the decision to go to war in Iraq was not because of the Intelligence. There are many others including Generals Zinni and Trainor and a growing list that clearly shows it was NOT because of inaccurate intelligence. There was some of that but there was a wealth of other intelligence that Bush ignored that showed the Saddam was NO DANGER to America. That is not what Bush wanted to see or become public because it would have prevented him from doing what he wanted--Invade Iraq and depose Saddam.

Col. We had ample troops to meet the resistance we faced. The enemy melted into the civilian population with the intention of guerilla warfare later, just like Saddam went to live in his hole. More troops help when the enemy is wearing a uniform. Placing large numbers of troops in these cities filled with insurgents would just give them something to shoot at.

The key isn't getting Takrit in line. The key is getting the Iraqi government moving and able to fend for itself. Had we doubled the troops we would have doubled the casualties. Higher concentrations of troops just means they get more killing for their explosives investment.

Bakerstreet
You are dead wrong. First, the MOST experienced military leaders said to properly secure Iraq after the government, Army and police force fell it would take about 500,000 troops to replace that control and maintain calm. Iraq had been a country of factions that did not get along from the time when the British formed Iraq. They, by force, prevented those factions from fighting internally. Saddam did the very same thing. When we invaded, that force was gone and because we did not send a replacement force capable of replacing that control caused what we see today. Almost ALL the most senior military now admit we did not send anything close to the force levels required.

It is not that our military leaders did not know what it would take it was a stubborn Bush and Rumsfeld that did not listed to the experienced leaders. The choice to invade Iraq was a decision properly made by the civilian officials of our government. Even though their decision was an error, they were the people that should have made that choice. The HOW to fight a war is NOT something the civilian officials have the experience or knowledge to decide. Bush and Rumsfeld screwed up BIG time and have cost MOST of the casualties and injuries in Iraq.

The lack of troops meant we could not properly accomplish the following missions:

Secure the borders and limit the foreign terrorists from entering Iraq.

We could not secure the more then 200 ammo dumps that the insurgents used to make the explosives they used to KILL and injure our troops.

We could not prevent the hot beds of the former Saddam military and supporters from forming and conducting the numerous attacks that have brought Iraq close to civil war.

We could not provide the level of security for Iraq to recover from Saddam and our invasion to properly rebuild their country.

We could not protect the oil, water and electrical system because of a lack of manpower.

Now it is too late. The insurrection has developed and it is doubtful weather either the U S or the new Iraqi army and police will be able to prevent the violence we see EVERY DAY even with our 130,000 troops, 20,000 British and the several hundred thousand we claim to have trained.

Everything Bush and Rummy did in fighting this was against the military principals that we have learned and used successfully in the past. The result is the needless death of more then 2,000 troops; about 15,000 of the 17,500 combat injured and hundreds of billions of dollars. That is what I call a screw up of gigantic proportions by the idiot in the White House. The guy that disobeyed Air Force regulations, failed to attend drills and a required training exercise and by his father's contacts got an EARLY HONORABLE discharge.

The guy that disobeyed Air Force regulations, failed to attend drills and a required training exercise and by his father's contacts got an EARLY HONORABLE discharge.

Gene is nothing if not transparent. It seems to always come down to this. How sad.

Col you made some very valid points in your post above

Everything Bush and Rummy did in fighting this was against the military principals that we have learned and used successfully in the past.

Where? The only war we've had that was anything like this at any time in the past is, in fact, Vietnam, and I wouldn't have called that a success, would you?
Gen. Westmoreland was shocked at the reaction of the Vietnamese people; he once said that the "Sicillians threw fruit and flowers at the invading American liberators. The Vietnamese threw hand grenades".
The problem is, as has been noted in the past, everyone is always ready to fight the previous war. It was the same here. Enough troops to take the country, but not enough to keep things in check afterward. It happens. Point to any war in history that ever went off without miscalculations and mistakes.
It's a new book every time....this means the old book has to thrown out and rewritten. Exactly how the Nazis overran Europe in less than two years. Everyone else was still fighting WWI and earlier.

This started out as a classic war. Invasion, defeat of the civilian government and its military and police followed by occupation of a hostile population.

The first gulf war, to a degree Korea and WWII are examples. No matter what you say, it was not possible to accomplish the third phase in Iraq, occupation, with the troop levels Bush sent. That country is a large as California with 25 million people. There were between 300,000- 400,000 former Saddam military that were in the general population. In addition there was the conflict between the three major elements in Iraq that have existed since the country was founded.

What we see EVERY DAY in Iraq and MOST of our dead and injured are because of George W. Bush and his refusal to send the number of troops required to retain control over the population when Saddam's government fell.

No matter how many time I bring up the fact that GWB disobeyed his orders when it was his turn to serve in the military it is STILL TRUE. He should NEVER have been granted an HONORABLE DISCHARGE and without that he would NEVER have been able to run for President. What do you think would happen with our military TODAY if they disobeyed their orders the way their Commander-in-Chief did in 1972-73?