COL Gene COL Gene

WHY Did We Need to Attack Iraq in March 2003?

WHY Did We Need to Attack Iraq in March 2003?


This is a question that needs to be answered. I would like to see the Pentagon’s rational for the timing of our invasion of Iraq.

In late 2002 the Pentagon said that Saddam had no offensive military capability.

We had the UN Sanctions in place as well as the No Fly Zones in March 2003.

The UN Weapons inspectors were back in Iraq and David Kay had learned six weeks BEFORE Bush invaded Iraq that the BIO WMD story was not true. He would have also learned there was NO WMD, including nuclear, except for about 500 old Artillery Shells that had been filled with gas in the early 1980’s.

Saddam was not threatening his neighbors nor preparing for military action.

The facts are that there were no military or tactical reasons to initiate an invasion of Iraq in March 2003. In fact had we allowed David Kay to spend another six months with his inspections, the world would have learned what we know today—Saddam did not have WMD. Knowledge that Saddam did not have WMD would have severely weakened his grip on power within Iraq. He used the illusion of WMD to prevent countries like Iran from acting against him as well as to control the internal factions that opposed his rule.

Today it is speculation as to what might have happened in Iraq if Bush had not rushed into a war in March 2003. What is NOT speculation is that in March 2003 there were no reasons to invade Iraq. If the UN inspections were prevented from conducting their inspections or a break down of the UN Sanctions had taken place in late 2003 or 2004, we could have used the military option just as effectively in March 2004 as in March 2003. In fact had Bush taken the time to expand the size of our ground military force, had an invasion been deemed appropriate we would have had the necessary troops to properly secure Iraq after Saddam fell. That would have prevented MOST of the dead and injured American Troops we have suffered.

We need to know WHY it was so urgent to invade Iraq in March 2003. My bet is there is no such rational other then that is what Bush wanted to do. It could be that Bush was afraid to wait for fear that the truth about WMD and the so called danger Saddam posed to the United States and the world was shown to be an illusion.
18,035 views 60 replies
Reply #51 Top
Gene, just wondering, is there anything at all you don't blame Bush for? I'm just wondering if your broken record has any limits?

If Pelosi and Reid are whining that they can't get things passed with a majority on their side, they are just big babies.

They've had ample time to get things accomplished, but (like you) they would rather play infantile games than actually get something done.
Reply #52 Top
Reply By: danielostPosted: Tuesday, November 27, 2007The problem is Bush refuses to allow what the majority want and voted for in 2006 to be enacted into law. you mean that majority that made the senate 50/50



If the Senate were 50/50 Cheney would be voting which he is NOT. The people voted for change in 2006 and Bush and the GOP are preventing the change people want. Just wait until after the 2008 election.

Reply By: ParaTed2kPosted: Tuesday, November 27, 2007Gene, just wondering, is there anything at all you don't blame Bush for? I'm just wondering if your broken record has any limits?If Pelosi and Reid are whining that they can't get things passed with a majority on their side, they are just big babies. They've had ample time to get things accomplished, but (like you) they would rather play infantile games than actually get something done.



I give Bush credit for the RESULTS of his policies. The problem is those results are almost all negative!
Reply #53 Top
There, I gave you a chance to finally say something without mentioning Bush, and you failed miserably.

You just proved that are as myopic as your are mindless. It's too bad you aren't a crackwhore, then at least you would have an excuse... and more purpose in life.
Reply #54 Top
THAT IS A LIE. Bush is the one that is the source of this problem-- It is HIS WAY or THE HIGHWAY! He has crated bad feelings both within the U.S. and with the people in MOST countries!


LOL.  Like democrats are so compromising?  Do you work for the democrats gene?


Reply #55 Top
Just wait until Jan 20, 2009 and you will see!


Oh really gene?

Since you love polls so much....

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll released on Monday.



Reply #56 Top
I guess gene doesn't like the news about Hillary.


Reply #57 Top
Well, no matter what your politics, that's just nasty. Shame on you.


Well, let's see, joe-pro. Over the years I have been called an idiot, lacking in compassion, stupid, been told I wasn't a Christian, been told I'm going to Hell...all byt the "good" Col. Gene. I have outlined my differences with Gene's politics, I have made concrete, valid proposals all to be rebuffed by ad hominem personal attacks. He has done this not only to me but to every other individual who dares to disagree with his viewpoint. Tell me, honestly, that you expect me to engage in rational debate with someone who won't engage at the same level?
Reply #58 Top
Gene isn't the butt of JU jokes, he is the joke of JU's butt. ;~D
Reply #59 Top
Since you love polls so much....
End of quote


Knock, knock... Gene?... Gene?...
Reply #60 Top
he ran away like the coward he is