The Iraq War is Endangering Our Military

I agree with you that the levels should have gone up earlier but you can’t put the blame solely on the President. Congress has to shoulder some of that blame since Congress sets the troop levels. The JCS did not like it when Mr. Clinton reduced the number of troops and warned this would happen. When I was in the service we had 390k Marines on active duty. Now they hover around 196k and that includes reservist I assume the Army is just as bad off. I remember when the USSR fell everyone of the liberals on both sides of the isle were screaming for a peace dividend reduce the military and use that money for social programs. Mr. Bush 41 agreed but then the Gulf war came along and slowed it down. Mr. Clinton started cutting forces and no one in Congress said a word. It was the politically correct thing to do. Now we need those people and it will take 10 years to build it back up.

It is not that the deployments are long or too many during WWII a person was in for the duration meaning the only way out of active service was death or the end of the war. bring that back and we would have time to build up to safe levels again.

Congress has to approve troop levels but Bush NEVER requested an increase even though he increased the deployments. Since he campaigned in 2000 for a larger military, my question is “WHY in 6 years did he not ask Congress to increase the size of our military?”

The military cuts started with Bush 41 and continued through Clinton. In WWII, the population was behind the war effort and people saw progress toward a successful conclusion. 70% of Americas do not support the Iraq War and there is no sign that we are winning! Iraq was a war of CHOICE not NECESSITY. The reasons we were told for this war have ALL turned out to be invalid. This war will be viewed as one of the most significant mistakes we have ever made and there is a real potential for Iraq to destabilize other Moslem countries in the region!

The military cuts started with Bush 41 and continued through Clinton. In WWII, the population was behind the war effort and people saw progress toward a successful conclusion. 70% of Americas do not support the Iraq War and there is no sign that we are winning! Iraq was a war of CHOICE not NECESSITY. The reasons we were told for this war have ALL turned out to be invalid. This war will be viewed as one of the most significant mistakes we have ever made and there is a real potential for Iraq to destabilize other Moslem countries in the region!

Do you think the war against Germany in World War II was one of positive progression?  Do you think Operation Torch was a great showing of US military effectiveness? How many Americans died in the deserts of Tunisa and how exactly was that helping the United States?

For that matter, in what way was the invasion of continental Europe not a war of choice? Is this something we had to put in?

How strong do you think American support would have been if the media of the time was like the media of today? How do you think teh reporting on the thousands of combat deaths in the deserts of Africa had been reported like the trickle of casualties in Iraq?

Have you ever considered, using today's perspective, how we would have been able to justify the immense cost of invading Nazi occupied Europe today?

The world was at risk from Germany and Japan. That is not the case with Iraq. Iraq was not capable of attacking ANYONE! We have been at war in Iraq LONGER then WWII and are getting farther from success every day!

During WWII we had a military that was drafted for the most part. Today we have an all volunteer force and the way we are stressing both the active and reserve components will cause serious harm. All the ground force Chiefs have said that is the case. Bush has pushed our military beyond their ability given the size.

Yesterday Cheney said that Rummy was the Best Sec Def we ever had. If that is true, why did Bush get rid of such a person? The BS from Bush and Cheney NEVER ENDS!

The world was at risk from Germany and Japan. That is not the case with Iraq. Iraq was not capable of attacking ANYONE! We have been at war in Iraq LONGER then WWII and are getting farther from success every day!

There was such violent opposition to the war in Europe that any attempt to join would have resulted in the impeachment of Mr. Roosevelt; he had to come up with inventive ways to aid Great Briton like the lend lease plan where we loaned the UK warships and ammunition because they could not afford to buy it. It was not until we were attacked by the Japanese was the nation pulled together to fight the Japanese not in Europe. Only after Mr. Hitler declared war on America did the people agree we should fight in Europe so please don’t tell me that crap about the people felt threatened they had their heads buried in the sand saying it was a European problem and there were massive antiwar protests.

President Bush told us before we went in that the war would last longer than he would be in office. Why are you surprised that what he said was true. He understood what this war would mean and how long it would take to fight it. WWII was a simple war with nations to fight, where this war is against organizations. There is no head to cut off to end this war, the only way to win is to kill everyone involved with the enemy until they give up. Fighting this type of war takes about 50 years.

Mr. Bush and his administration never said that Iraq would attack us. They said Saddam had the potential for aiding the AQ types with weapons and safe havens something that was verified by the press when they saw the number three man from AQ in a hospital in Iraq. The man was wounded in Afghanistan. That showed the affiliation of AQ and Iraq because it was one of the special hospitals that only the elite of Iraq were allowed to use. That made it a threat because he could give AQ some of his WMD that was still unaccounted for and let it be used against us. The deal was we would stop fighting the Gulf war if Saddam allowed the UN to account for and destroy all his WMD. Saddam kicked the inspectors out before that was accomplished. Breaking the treaty meaning the war was back on. You sound like the Americans that said we should not go to war with Germany because they did not attack us Japan did. The Presidents State of the Union speech he said, I am paraphrasing here, that anyone that aids, funds, or supports the terrorist in any way were now the enemy of the United States and can expect to be attacked. Remember he said you are either for America or for the terrorist and now was the time to make the choice. He named three nations that were on his crap list, Iran, North Korea, and I think Iraq or Syria. He was very plain that they were going to be attacked if they did not do the right thing.

During WWII we had a military that was drafted for the most part. Today we have an all volunteer force and the way we are stressing both the active and reserve components will cause serious harm. All the ground force Chiefs have said that is the case. Bush has pushed our military beyond their ability given the size.

True it is an all volunteer force. The beauty of this is that the only people in the military are people that want to be there and they fully understand what is expected of them. Sure there will be some that wanted to play in the military but unlike in Vietnam these men and women are there to do their job and they know why they are there. This is proven because re-enlistment is up not down, recruiting goals are being met and exceeded. This was not the case in Vietnam with a draft armed forces.

Yesterday Cheney said that Rummy was the Best Sec Def we ever had. If that is true, why did Bush get rid of such a person? The BS from Bush and Cheney NEVER ENDS!

That is high praise coming from the former Secretary of Defense. I am sure that you understand that at that level of government you kiss the person good bye you don’t kick them out the door. Keep in mind that this is the second time he was appointed Secretary of Defense, it is not like he never had the job before so he was not that bad. That same political pressure that you discount from the press caused this change.

The world was at risk from Germany and Japan. That is not the case with Iraq. Iraq was not capable of attacking ANYONE! We have been at war in Iraq LONGER then WWII and are getting farther from success every day!

How was the United States, specifically, at risk from Germany to the point that we could justify the manpower involved in D-day?  In June 1944, Germany was bottled up.  It was certainly not any sort of imminent threat.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans died liberating Europe. What -specifically- is your justification for that that is different here other than degree?

The United States lost over 100,000 troops (combat deaths) in Europe.  We've lost around 3,000 in Iraq total. Can you honestly say that as of June 1944, Hitler represented a 30X threat to the United States that Saddam posed? What exactly do you think Germany was capable of doing to the US by that point?

Now, for your second part -- the United States STILL has troops in Germany. The "War" part in Iraq was over in 3 months. The occupation of Iraq has been a bloody mess (relative to the war anyway). But again, even adding the actual war and the occpuation, you're still talking fewer casualties than were involved in taking various tiny islands in the Pacific.

During WWII we had a military that was drafted for the most part. Today we have an all volunteer force and the way we are stressing both the active and reserve components will cause serious harm. All the ground force Chiefs have said that is the case. Bush has pushed our military beyond their ability given the size.

What does that have to do with anything? The United States has an active duty military of over 1 million. 140,000 are in Iraq. On what basis do you claim that 140,000 troops is beyond our capacity? 

Seriously: How many divisions are in the following places:

Europe, Korea, North America, Japan.  Do you know? Surely you must know since you are claiming we're overstretched but then again, if you actually did know, I can't see how you can make that claim.

Yesterday Cheney said that Rummy was the Best Sec Def we ever had. If that is true, why did Bush get rid of such a person? The BS from Bush and Cheney NEVER ENDS!

(slaps forehead).  Different people are the right person at the right time. 

Churchill was arguably the best PM that Britain ever had. And yet in 1945, the British tossed him out. By your reasoning, anyone saying that Churchill was a great PM was "full of BS".

 

We were told the Iraq War would be QUICK and Clean. In fact I thing that was the exact words Bush used when the Pope expressed concern about our invading Iraq.

We were told the cost would between 40-60 Billion.

We were told we would be greeted as liberators.

We were told that this would enable a democratic government in Iraq that would enhance our security.

NOT ONE of those things is even close to the results of this war.

We have destabilized not only Iraq but the entire region and have helped create a government like Iran that Bush says is EVIL. We have enabled foreign terrorists to operate in Western Iraq despite the fact we have 130,000 troops in that country. There were no such Foreign Terrorists operating when Saddam was running the country.

Rummy is the worst thing that has ever happened to the Defense dept. His refusal to support increasing the size of our military has caused great harm to both the active and reserve components.

We have lost 3,000 troops; suffered 25,000 injured and spent about 3/4 of a trillion dollars to fight a person that posed no danger to this country. If we were to invade every country that would like to harm our country we would be at war with scores of countries NOW. This administration is the most inept and dangerous we have EVER had in our history. The damage done to this country will take decades to correct. We are hated thought the world. The division internally has never been greater. Many public officials Bush has appointed are incompetent or outright corrupt. We are bankrupting our country with the debt Bush has created. Our education system, despite the Bush policy, is failing. Trade is a joke and we are not protecting our ports and borders. Our laws are not enforced and we are destroying our environment. We are doing very little to rebuild the Gulf and our energy policy consists of tax cuts to oil companies that are making profits by overcharging us for the energy we need and we are more dependent on foreign oil then ever. Two million more people have lost health coverage since Bush took office. The new jobs that Bush claimed are the result of his tax cuts pay 20% less then the jobs that were lost from 2001-2004. The Average Weekly Wage AFTER INFLATION is lower then when Bush took office. The only group that is better off under the Bush economic policy are the wealthy. We have shifted more of the tax burden to the middle income workers and the spread between the rich and poor is expanding at an alarming rate.

That is what Bush and the GOP controlled Congress have done to our country!

COL Gene: This administration is the most inept and dangerous we have EVER had in our history

Well Said. Never thought that i would see this on this site. There is hope after all.

We were told the Iraq War would be QUICK and Clean. In fact I thing that was the exact words Bush used when the Pope expressed concern about our invading Iraq.

You were told the war would be quick by the fairy land press! All administration officials held the same line that the war on terror would be a long one. The war in Iraq would not be easy but the press scoffed and sited the Gulf war as an example. Each war is different, so the way we fight each war will be different.

Greeted as liberators! Ok so you discount the 21k photos of flowers and candy being handed out as we came in. what changed that was the terrorist that showed up. We had more than enough troops too fight and win the war. The mistake was not having enough troops to secure the peace. No one expected more than token resistance from the Iraqis and they pretty much died out after a few months but the replacement of the terrorists from out of the country is what is sparking this mess. The war in Iraq is over but the war on terrorist is just beginning.

The Pope! Name a Pope that supported war any war in the last 100 years. The last thing we need is a holy war which we would have if the Pope endorsed the war. It would take the focus off the terrorist and make it a religious war which we are trying very hard to avoid.

We were told the cost would between 40-60 Billion. We were told we would be greeted as liberators. We were told that this would enable a democratic government in Iraq that would enhance our security. NOT ONE of those things is even close to the results of this war.

You watch too much TV. Think real hard, it took almost 50 years before America settled down as a nation. You are expecting a nation that has never known freedom to in three years be able to stand on its own. It took 15 years for Germany and a little more than 10 years for Japan to get on track. Italy is still a mess politically, after the war they were changing governments faster than you change your underwear.

The cost of the war in Iraq was a little more than billed but that war is over the costs now are for the peace. After WWII we poured billions of dollars rebuilding Europe. Are you saying we should not do the same for these people?

We have lost 3,000 troops; suffered 25,000 injured and spent about 3/4 of a trillion dollars to fight a person that posed no danger to this country.

Not true we lost less than 400 people during the war with Iraq. What we are fighting now is strictly the war on terror. You did not read what I wrote on the cost of the war or the threat he posed, I will not go into it again just scroll up.

This administration is the most inept and dangerous we have EVER had in our history.

Please tell me who would have been a better replacement, and what would YOU have done differently. Your failure to even understand the differnce between the press crap and what was actually said by the administration makes your statement suspect.

Many public officials Bush has appointed are incompetent or outright corrupt.

Please tell me who these people are.

We are doing very little to rebuild the Gulf

I take issue with this lie. Three states were hit hard by hurricane Katrina. Only one was run by Democrats. All three got the same treatment from FEMA yet the other two states are up and running how is it that the Gulf area is the only one not rebuilding? And how is that the fault of the federal government? Local corruption is my guess. The state has always kept the poor down and when people were transplanted to other states they found out how bad they had it and don’t want to go back. Keep in mind that the federal government can only act if the governor gives it permission. The other states allowed the feds to go in and do their jobs, not the case in the third state. If the feds were that bad then it would be bad for all three states but when two thirds are up and running and one third is sitting with their hand out saying they need more money more this or more that it is the local government that is at fault.

Our education system, despite the Bush policy, is failing.

I love this argument because my son was a head master at a private school, he gets to hire and fire teachers. The ones in public school have jobs whether they teach or not. When the no child left behind thing came out the first thing they found out was that the teachers could not pass the tests for the grades they were teaching. Surprise the teachers can’t teach. The way to get around it is to teach the test. That is cheating but the kids won’t know they are being short changed. If the teachers do their jobs and teach the material the children would be able to pass the tests. So now we have proof that it is not the kids or their broken homes or they are too stupid to learn or any of the other lies told to excuse the non-performing dues paying teachers which is why the teachers union opposes no child left behind. To fix the education system you need to get rid of teachers that don’t teach. Unions make money and clout by having as many paying members as possible and thinning out the ranks is bad for unions.

I won't argue the rest with you because you just don't understand simple economics or anything that a short reply could hope to get you to see the truth. You will either learn because you want to learn or remain ignorant.

Paladin 77

Bush said the struggle with radical Islamists (what he calls the war on terrorism) would be a long WAR. HE AND HIS underlings told the American People and Congress that the Iraq War would:


Cost would between 40-60 Billion.

Be greeted as liberators.

Enable a democratic government in Iraq that would enhance our security.

NOT ONE of those things is even close to the results of this war.

"What we are fighting now is strictly the war on terror.”

This is not what we are in the middle of and for what we have lost 2,600 lives and most of the injuries. What we are in the middle of is a conflict between factions in Iraq that are fighting to control post Saddam Iraq. Bush wants us to think we are fighting movements like al Qaeda but that is not what is causing the killing in Iraq. Al Qaeda has set up shop in western Iraq but they are not causing this civil war.

"Please tell me who would have been a better replacement, and what would YOU have done differently"

Read my book, George W. Bush Robin Hood For The Rich.


Brown and his four principal subordinates. The Chief Procurement Officer at the White House. The staff rebuilding Iraq that have lost $9 Billion Dollars. The current FEMA Staff that has lost $1 Billion dollars in the Gulf (this is after Brown). Most of the poor in the Gulf have not even started to rebuild. The rubble remains on the sites where there homes were before the storm. There has been NO decision as to rebuilding the levies to withstand a Cat 5 storm. How can you rebuild before we know if the levies are to be constructed to PROTECT the areas prone to flooding?

Before 9/11 Bush was the "Education President” He predicated his solution on Houston that was proven to be a fraud. The man that headed that school system Bush made the Sec of Education and an investigation showed that ALL the claims made about the great success and the 100% graduation rates in Houston was a LIE! Then Bush got his No Child Left Behind Act passed and by his own estimate of the Federal dollars it would take to make HIS PLAN work he under funded by over $24 Billion so far!

The person that does not understand Economics is GWB. He made the very same error as Reagan with his tax cuts to the rich and the Supply side Economics BS. The Comptroller General released a report about 6 month’s ago that documented that the new revenue from the growth created by the tax cuts are only 1/2 the amount of revenue lost by the tax cuts. This is what Bush 41 called, "Voodoo Economics".

In 2001, the first year of the Bush tax cuts 70% went to middle income taxpayers and 30% to the wealthy. By 2004, 70% goes to the wealthy and 30% to middle income taxpayers. That is because of all the BIG cuts to the wealthy were phase in from 2002 to 2010. Estimates show that when ALL the tax cuts are in place by 2010, 90% will go to the top 20%. WE need to keep the tax cuts to middle income tax payers and END the cuts to the top 20%!

Brown and his four principal subordinates. The Chief Procurement Officer at the White House. The staff rebuilding Iraq that have lost $9 Billion Dollars. The current FEMA Staff that has lost $1 Billion dollars in the Gulf (this is after Brown). Most of the poor in the Gulf have not even started to rebuild. The rubble remains on the sites where there homes were before the storm. There has been NO decision as to rebuilding the levies to withstand a Cat 5 storm. How can you rebuild before we know if the levies are to be constructed to PROTECT the areas prone to flooding?

I note that you have "completely" ignored Paladin77's question. Lets try again shall we?

I take issue with this lie. Three states were hit hard by hurricane Katrina. Only one was run by Democrats. All three got the same treatment from FEMA yet the other two states are up and running how is it that the Gulf area is the only one not rebuilding? And how is that the fault of the federal government? Local corruption is my guess. The state has always kept the poor down and when people were transplanted to other states they found out how bad they had it and don’t want to go back. Keep in mind that the federal government can only act if the governor gives it permission. The other states allowed the feds to go in and do their jobs, not the case in the third state. If the feds were that bad then it would be bad for all three states but when two thirds are up and running and one third is sitting with their hand out saying they need more money more this or more that it is the local government that is at fault.

There has been NO decision as to rebuilding the levies to withstand a Cat 5 storm.

And please explain how this is the governments fault. Especially since the funds are given to the "LOCAL GOVERNMENT" for the purposes of rebuilding.

drmiler

The responsibility to design, fund and supervise the levies is a Federal responsibility by the Corps of Engineers. There is state input but it is NOT a state or local project. The port supports our entire country and ONLY the Fed can decide what is to be done with the levies. To rebuild in the low sections without deciding on just what standard the Levies are to be designed and built to withstand is not possible.

In addition the magnitude of the funding goes far beyond the available resources at the State and local level. Since the port area supports commerce for our country, funding and supervision is rightly a Federal not state or local issue.

The number of home destroyed in LA is FAR greater then in the other states and the issue is rebuilding the homes of the POOR who simply do not have the resources to rebuild. I had a conversation with an Insurance Company Claims agent who has been working the Katrina claims and she told me that the majority of the poor people, especially in New Orleans, could not even qualify for low income loans. She had first had knowledge of the situation and said the VAST majority of the individual homes have not been rebuilt and there is NO plan to begin construction.

To return to the subject of this Blog—Today Gen Powell said the military can not deploy more troops to Iraq without causing harm to our ground military services. He also said he doubted that more troops on a temporary basis would be able to control the violence. Now Sen. McCain says we need more troops in Afghanistan. He is probably correct. Since we can not send more troops, he says NATO should come up with the added forces. Guess what Senator, they are NOT willing to provide the added forces and many NATO countries will not allow ANY of their troops to be deployed into combat areas in Afghanistan. If we had not gone into Iraq, we could have properly dealt with the terrorists that caused 9/11.

Please tell me who these people are. My answer:

Brown and his four principal subordinates. The Chief Procurement Officer at the White House. The staff rebuilding Iraq that have lost $9 Billion Dollars. The current FEMA Staff that has lost $1 Billion dollars in the Gulf (this is after Brown). The staff that can not account for 500,000 small arms we sent to Iraq. All are part of the Bush Administration. Then look at the Former Sec Def. He was a DISASTER! The Last Two Secretaries of the Treasury are nothing more then parrots of GWB and his bankrupt fiscal policy.

Here is more of the results from the Bush Administration:

Trade deficit soars to record reflecting higher oil bill
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER (AP Economics Writer)
From Associated Press
December 18, 2006 9:01 AM EST
WASHINGTON - America's deficit in the broadest measure of trade shot up to an all-time high in the summer, reflecting the huge jump in the country's foreign oil bill.

The Commerce Department reported Monday that the current account trade deficit increased 3.9 percent to a record $225.6 billion (euro172.13 billion) in the July-September quarter. That represented 6.8 percent of the country's total economy, up from 6.6 percent of the gross domestic product in the spring quarter.

The current account is the broadest measure of U.S. trade because it tracks not only the flow of goods and services across borders but also investment flows. The figure is closely watched by economists because it represents the amount of money the country must borrow from foreigners to make up the difference between what America imports and what it sells overseas.

The current account deficit is expected to hit a new record for the full year, far surpassing last year's $791.5 billion imbalance even though the shortfall for the fourth quarter is likely to show an improvement, reflecting the drop in oil prices after hitting records this summer.

Democrats, who took over control of the House and Senate in the November elections, attacked President George W. Bush's trade policies, charging that the administration has run up record deficits for five straight years by failing to protect U.S. workers from unfair foreign trade practices.

Critics have singled out the biggest culprit as China, the country which is posting the biggest trade surpluses with the United States. A high-level delegation of seven members of Bush's Cabinet, led by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, held two days of talks in Beijing last week to launch a new strategic economic dialogue with China aimed at resolving long-festering trade problems between the two countries.

However, the two sides reported no breakthoughs after the initial discussions on the biggest issues such as American manufacturers' complaints that China is manipulating the value of its currency to gain trade advantages.

The $225.6 billion (euro172.13 billion) deficit was in line with economists' expectations. It followed a $217.1 billion shortfall in the April-June quarter and topped the previous record of $223.1 billion in the final three months of last year.

The increase in the shortfall last quarter was led by an $8.1 billion (euro6.18 billion) rise in the deficit in goods, which was driven higher by surging global oil prices. America's surplus in services, which includes such things as airline tickets, banking services and consultants' fees, rose by $810 million (euro618.04 million) to $18.3 billion (euro13.96 billion).

The deficit in investment flows - meaning that the United States is now having to pay foreigners more than Americans' earn on their overseas investments - rose by $1.6 billion (euro1.22 billion) to an all-time high of $3.8 billion (euro2.9 billion).

Economists expect that figure to climb even higher in coming years representing the growing size of U.S. assets now in the hands of foreigners, reflecting all of the trade deficits run up over the past three decades.

The category of unilateral transfers, which includes foreign aid and pension payments to Americans living overseas, rose by $406 million (euro309.78 million) to $21.5 billion (euro16.4 billion) in the third quarter.

Drmiler

By the way, the source of the above news is the Commerce Dept which reports DIRECTLTY to Bush!

Drmiler et al

Here is the Powell Stroy:

Powell casts doubt on troop increase; Reid open to short-term surge
By HOPE YEN (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
December 18, 2006 8:34 AM EST

WASHINGTON - Former Secretary of State Colin Powell is casting doubt on a plan under consideration by President George W. Bush that would increase U.S. troops in Iraq, calling the U.S. Army overextended and "about broken."

We were told the Iraq War would be QUICK and Clean. In fact I thing that was the exact words Bush used when the Pope expressed concern about our invading Iraq. We were told the cost would between 40-60 Billion. We were told we would be greeted as liberators. We were told that this would enable a democratic government in Iraq that would enhance our security. NOT ONE of those things is even close to the results of this war. We have destabilized not only Iraq but the entire region and have helped create a government like Iran that Bush says is EVIL. We have enabled foreign terrorists to operate in Western Iraq despite the fact we have 130,000 troops in that country. There were no such Foreign Terrorists operating when Saddam was running the country. Rummy is the worst thing that has ever happened to the Defense dept. His refusal to support increasing the size of our military has caused great harm to both the active and reserve components. We have lost 3,000 troops; suffered 25,000 injured and spent about 3/4 of a trillion dollars to fight a person that posed no danger to this country. If we were to invade every country that would like to harm our country we would be at war with scores of countries NOW. This administration is the most inept and dangerous we have EVER had in our history. The damage done to this country will take decades to correct. We are hated thought the world. The division internally has never been greater. Many public officials Bush has appointed are incompetent or outright corrupt. We are bankrupting our country with the debt Bush has created. Our education system, despite the Bush policy, is failing. Trade is a joke and we are not protecting our ports and borders. Our laws are not enforced and we are destroying our environment. We are doing very little to rebuild the Gulf and our energy policy consists of tax cuts to oil companies that are making profits by overcharging us for the energy we need and we are more dependent on foreign oil then ever. Two million more people have lost health coverage since Bush took office. The new jobs that Bush claimed are the result of his tax cuts pay 20% less then the jobs that were lost from 2001-2004. The Average Weekly Wage AFTER INFLATION is lower then when Bush took office. The only group that is better off under the Bush economic policy are the wealthy. We have shifted more of the tax burden to the middle income workers and the spread between the rich and poor is expanding at an alarming rate. That is what Bush and the GOP controlled Congress have done to our country!

Provide evidence to back up your claims.

I don't recall ever being told the Iraq war would be quick and clean. I recall just the opposite. That this would be a long and difficult struggle.

Moreover, again, 3,000 casualties is pretty tiny comparatively speaking.

And all your rhetoric asside, hundreds of thousands of Americans died to help create the governments like France.  How's that working out for us? Which country thwarts US interests more? France or say Poland?  Had the United States not done the cross-channel invasion, odds are that the Soviets would have overrung western Europe. They still would have collapsed at some point due to the inherent flaws in their system.

I noticed that you answered none of the points I raised. You simply ignored it and went on with a bunch of melodramatic claims. 

Just so you know, I won't allow you to use JU as a propaganda site.  If you're just ging to repost propaganda and ignore any discussion then I'll act.  I won't remove your blog or your account, but we can make sure that none of your blogs are traceable by search engines.

That way, if you're truly writing based on principle, it shouldn't matter to you. But if you're writing here just to take advantage of JU's high google search ranking, well, that's a different matter.

Here are a few clips I found.



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Vatican envoy who met with President Bush Wednesday said he "clearly and forcefully" conveyed a message from Pope John Paul II that a war against Iraq would be a "disaster." "You might start, and you don't know how to end it," said Cardinal Pio Laghi said after his half-hour meeting at the White House. "It will be a war that will destroy human life. Those people that are suffering already in Iraq, they will be in a really bad situation."
Bush takes a tongue-lashing from the Pope over Iraq


John Hooper in Rome and John Aglionby in Singapore
Saturday June 5, 2004
The Guardian
The Pope yesterday subjected George Bush to a very public, relentlessly critical assessment of the US administration's performance in Iraq, attacking "deplorable" abuses of prisoners and calling for an international solution to the country's crisis.





By Martin Wolk
Chief economics correspondent
MSNBC
Updated: 7:25 p.m. ET March 17, 2006

White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey was the exception to the rule, offering an "upper bound" estimate of $100 billion to $200 billion in a September 2002 interview with The Wall Street Journal. That figure raised eyebrows at the time, although Lindsey argued the cost was small, adding, "The successful prosecution of the war would be good for the economy.”
U.S. direct spending on the war in Iraq already has surpassed the upper bound of Lindsey's upper bound, and most economists attribute billions more in indirect costs to the war effort. Even if the U.S. exits Iraq within another three years, total direct and indirect costs to U.S. taxpayers will likely by more than $400 billion, and one estimate puts the total economic impact at up to $2 trillion.
Back in 2002, the White House was quick to distance itself from Lindsey's view. Mitch Daniels, director of the White House budget office, quickly called the estimate "very, very high." Lindsey himself was dismissed in a shake-up of the White House economic team later that year, and in January 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the budget office had come up with "a number that's something under $50 billion." He and other officials expressed optimism that Iraq itself would help shoulder the cost once the world market was reopened to its rich supply of oil.

Transcript for Sept. 14
Sunday, September 14, 2003 GUEST: Dick Cheney, vice president Tim Russert, moderator

VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

From the mushroom clouds to the cost and duration of the war EVERYTHING we were told was a lie. For the $50 Billion cost estimate to be correct, we would have had to end our occupation in about 6 months. We are spending over $100 billion per year to maintain 140,000 troops in Iraq. The people of Iraq DO NOT look at us as LIBERATORS but OCCUPIERS. ALL LIES.

Brown and his four principal subordinates. The Chief Procurement Officer at the White House. The staff rebuilding Iraq that have lost $9 Billion Dollars. The current FEMA Staff that has lost $1 Billion dollars in the Gulf (this is after Brown). Most of the poor in the Gulf have not even started to rebuild. The rubble remains on the sites where there homes were before the storm. There has been NO decision as to rebuilding the levies to withstand a Cat 5 storm. How can you rebuild before we know if the levies are to be constructed to PROTECT the areas prone to flooding?

All of that is handled by the local government not the feds.
there is a board that has been receiving federal money for 30 years to fix or replace the levies where did that money go? The other two states seemed to be able to get the streets cleared and homes rebuilt. You are blaming the federal government for local screw-ups. Please understand this, I used to live in the area, most of the poor are renters not home owners so it would be easy to get the homes rebuilt if the landlords wanted them rebuilt. I am in the business of property management so this is a field I know about. When the hurricanes hit Florida I was managing 50 single family homes. I had the damaged ones up and repaired in under 30 days. I picked up business because of how well I work. If the landlord wants the house fixed it is not that hard. But the Florida government does not get in our way and slow things down like in Louisiana where you have to bribe everyone to do anything. Yes, it looks bad and people wonder why the feds are not more involved but they are restricted by law that says the Governor of the state has to approve their action. This was delayed for days when other Governors were acting in hours. Over a year has gone by and they are still arguing over who will manage the federal money already given them. In every other disaster FEMA has worked well but only in this one state we have a problem. It is all local politics holding up the works and using the feds as a whipping boy.

You can not protect areas prone to flooding. Do like all the other states and make those areas parks.

If we had not gone into Iraq, we could have properly dealt with the terrorists that caused 9/11.

I disagree.

Brown and his four principal subordinates. The Chief Procurement Officer at the White House. The staff rebuilding Iraq that have lost $9 Billion Dollars. The current FEMA Staff that has lost $1 Billion dollars in the Gulf (this is after Brown). The staff that can not account for 500,000 small arms we sent to Iraq. All are part of the Bush Administration. Then look at the Former Sec Def. He was a DISASTER! The Last Two Secretaries of the Treasury are nothing more then parrots of GWB and his bankrupt fiscal policy.

These people were corrupt? They are supposed to be parrots of the President. All of them are it is their job no matter who is in the White House. You do understand how the Executive branch is made up and how it functions right?

From the mushroom clouds to the cost and duration of the war EVERYTHING we were told was a lie. For the $50 Billion cost estimate to be correct, we would have had to end our occupation in about 6 months. We are spending over $100 billion per year to maintain 140,000 troops in Iraq. The people of Iraq DO NOT look at us as LIBERATORS but OCCUPIERS. ALL LIES.

It seems that you are not interested in answeing or debating. most of what you write here is untrue. Please provide proof of your claims or I will not waste my time with your statements. I have more than once refuted your above statements yet you have not countered them or even acknowledged them. Instead you just repeat what you said earlier. If I am wrong I want to know it but you have not even given a small amount of proof that your statements are correct or even honest.

Transcript for Sept. 14 Sunday, September 14, 2003 GUEST: Dick Cheney, vice president Tim Russert, moderator VICE PRES. DICK CHENEY: My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.

We were. There were 21k pictures of it happening. There is video of it happening. Yet you still refuse to admit it happened. This means you are not interested in the truth.

Back in 2002, the White House was quick to distance itself from Lindsey's view. Mitch Daniels, director of the White House budget office, quickly called the estimate "very, very high." Lindsey himself was dismissed in a shake-up of the White House economic team later that year, and in January 2003, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the budget office had come up with "a number that's something under $50 billion." He and other officials expressed optimism that Iraq itself would help shoulder the cost once the world market was reopened to its rich supply of oil.

Yes, it was an estimate for fighting the war. First of all it was an estimate not an exact figure. Take your car into the shop and you get an estimate, it is not always what you will pay. Second the war in Iraq was over in less than a month. War and peacekeeping are not the same thing though they may look the same. What we are doing in Iraq is trying to provide security for the people as they form and act as a government. Like I said before we did not fully come together as a nation until after the Civil war. It takes time and you don't wish to see that.