The issue is not IF the UN gave permission. The issue is that we attacked a country that did not pose any threat to the United States. We have suffered over 1,500 deaths and over 25,000 injuries and have spent $300 Billion to attack a country that was no danger to America. WHY? Everyone would support defending the U S . We were not doing that when we attacked Iraq.

Sorry Mr. topic changer but YOUR the one that made it an issue! Here's a direct quote from your post:

lee1776 no UN resolution including 1441 authorized the United States to attack Iraq. the point remains Iraq was not a threat to the United States or Great Britain. that is the only legitimate reason for either of our countries attack Iraq or for that matter any other country. Iraq wasn't capable of attacking either of our countries.

So now you stand corrected not once but twice by a retired "enlisted man"!

The subject of This Blog is that we made an error in attacking Iraq which did not pose any danger to the US. Sorry I did not change the subject. You are just like Bush, you NEVER admit when you are wrong!

The subject of This Blog is that we made an error in attacking Iraq which did not pose any danger to the US. Sorry I did not change the subject. You are just like Bush, you NEVER admit when you are wrong!

The subject of This Blog is that we made an error in attacking Iraq which did not pose any danger to the US. Sorry I did not change the subject. You are just like Bush, you NEVER admit when you are wrong!

Look who's talking about never admiting they're wrong. I'll bet I could get 70-75% of the people on JU to say the same about you. And just an FYI you DID change the subject. Original subject was we invaded Iraq over bad intel. If you didn't change the subject, then how the hell did everyone here end up talking about UN resolutions? Once again the quoted section is YOUR post not someone elses!

lee1776 no UN resolution including 1441 authorized the United States to attack Iraq. the point remains Iraq was not a threat to the United States or Great Britain. that is the only legitimate reason for either of our countries attack Iraq or for that matter any other country. Iraq wasn't capable of attacking either of our countries.

'I'll bet I could get 70-75% of the people on JU to say the same about you.'
Maybe that tells us more about the politics of 70-75% of JU users than it does about any kind of objective truth.

drmiler

As you have said polls mean nothing (or at least when they do not support your view). Most of my Blogs are predicated on data or a story that indicated the direction we are going os not good. When data or reports appear to be critical of the policies we are following, you attack something- Me, the data the source. You never consider that it may be the policies we are following that need to be changed because they are not solving the problem at hand. Two examples are our federal deficit and the trade deficit. The facts are claer, both are getting worse and nothing Bush is doing is solving these two important issues! They keep getting worse under his policies!

drmiler

As you have said polls mean nothing (or at least when they do not support your view). Most of my Blogs are predicated on data or a story that indicated the direction we are going is not good. When data or reports appear to be critical of the policies we are following, you attack something- Me, the data the source. You never consider that it may be the policies we are following that need to be changed because they are not solving the problem at hand. Two examples are our federal deficit and the trade deficit. The facts are claer, both are getting worse and nothing Bush is doing is solving these two important issues! They keep getting worse under his policies!

Bush does not "piss me off". I want a President that looks at what is going on and is willing to admit when his policies are not working. Then, try something else to solve the problems. Over the past four years, none on the major issues that face the U S have been resolved or made better. In fact they are getting worse and when Bush or the next president finally tries to do something, the solution will be far more painful. I will give up when our leader begins admitting he is wrong and tries other solutions!

The subject of This Blog is that we made an error in attacking Iraq which did not pose any danger to the US. Sorry I did not change the subject

Really? Looks to me like the subject was bad intelligence.

Two examples are our federal deficit and the trade deficit

The facts surrounding the Bush National Guard Service have been confirmed by the release of his records by DoD

I will give up when our leader begins admitting he is wrong and tries other solutions!

Didn't change the subject? Deficit, National Guard, GW is wrong has exactly WHAT to do with faulty intelligence? Meanwhile, you ignore the fact that Clinton appointed Tenet (who is a the center of the faulty intel debacle) and rant off tangentially on the GW policies as the source of all the world's ills.

Laughable

"It is time for President Bush to admit that the United States made an error when it preemptively attacking Iraq when it did not pose any significant danger to the United States of America. "

This is the point of the Blog!

"It is time for President Bush to admit that the United States made an error when it preemptively attacking Iraq when it did not pose any significant danger to the United States of America. " This is the point of the Blog!

But that's not the title of the blog, is it? Change once again? Failing polices (your opinion) do NOT equal bad intel! It's time for you to admit that you've been shown wrong once again.

That's the point of this post.

'I'll bet I could get 70-75% of the people on JU to say the same about you.' Maybe that tells us more about the politics of 70-75% of JU users than it does about any kind of objective truth.

Well go back and look at the posts. 19 different people replyed to this post, 10 of them more or less had the same opinion of the COL as me. 7 did not! And 2 people really had no opinion. Sorry furry, the col only deals with objective truth when it backs his position. And when "proven" wrong will not back down. Also to the point is no matter what the topic, with the col it "always" turns into a Bush bash fest!

With Bush supporters like you, there is no reason to be optimistic about the future. The issue here is the we attack a country in error. The error is blamed on the intelligence and the purpose of the article is to get our fearless leader to admit that the attack was a mistake. He is still says we should've gone to war, risk our military and spend hundreds of billions of dollars even though the the rationale he used to justify the attack is dead wrong. Some leader!

With Bush supporters like you, there is no reason to be optimistic about the future. The issue here is the we attack a country in error. The error is blamed on the intelligence and the purpose of the article is to get our fearless leader to admit that the attack was a mistake. He is still says we should've gone to war, risk our military and spend hundreds of billions of dollars even though the the rationale he used to justify the attack is dead wrong. Some leader!

YOU need to get a grip there Mr Topic changer! You start on bad intel and end up bashing Bush. Why am I not surprised. Your arrogance amuses me. And for you to think that this article will EVER be read by GW or will make the SLIGHTEST changes in the current policies is the heigth of arrogance! For better or worse, he IS our leader for at least 3 more! Get used to it!

You miss the mark. It was not error; in fact, it is obvious that Bush knew that Iraq presented zero (0) threat to America's national security. If Bush believed for a moment that Iraq had a way to strike back at America in response to a preemptive attack the way North Korea presumably would, then Bush would never have attacked Iraq. It is opportunism to attack a defenseless opponent.



Do you think he would actually attack a country that could unleash weapons of mass destruction, such as North Korea? I seriously think not. Bush and his cronies wanted the oil. The war was, therefore, simply nothing more than a business venture. Make no mistake that Republicans do not give a crap about the soldiers they send off to the slaughter. It’s about profits above people. It's that simple, that despicable. It’s the same story: the poor man holds the bag, coming home missing limbs, etc. Your blood, their profits. Down with the oil-oligarchy! Boycott oil; bolt from Iraq now! Peace & Love throughout the universe, to all life forms, except Republicans.

"Man, I'm about to write to Bush and ask him to just admit he was wrong (even though he wasn't, the intelligence was, duH)...."

Don't bother writing in a much as I'm quite certain that Big Brother is already hip to the skinny that you're peddaling. Don't be an Oswald; the man is always on the look out for a patsy. BTW, Bush wouldn't waste a breath defending you, or doing anything for you; in fact, you'd probably end up givinging him a good laugh; that is, were he to get wind of your articles devoted to defending his honor and integerity, he'd undoubtedly get a hell of a good laugh, an attack verging on the hysteical. So I ask, why defend him? Why play the fool and be the man's bitch?

The reason many small countries want nuclear weapons is to prevent countries like the United States from attacking them. It is doubtful a rogue state would attack the United States or any other major power even if they had a few nuclear weapons. If they did their fate would be sealed and what is most important to them, their country, would disappear. The real danger remains from a radical group like the Islamic fundamentalists getting their hands on these weapons and using them. They do not have the same thing to lose as a dictator of a rogue state and would not hesitate to use these weapons against us.

Do you think he would actually attack a country that could unleash weapons of mass destruction, such as North Korea? I seriously think not. Bush and his cronies wanted the oil. The war was, therefore, simply nothing more than a business venture. Make no mistake that Republicans do not give a crap about the soldiers they send off to the slaughter. It’s about profits above people. It's that simple, that despicable. It’s the same story: the poor man holds the bag, coming home missing limbs, etc. Your blood, their profits. Down with the oil-oligarchy! Boycott oil; bolt from Iraq now! Peace & Love throughout the universe, to all life forms, except Republicans.

This is without a doubt the "most" ignorant", uninformed statement I've seen in quite a while. Grow a brain will ya? As much as I dislike and disagree with the COL at least his posts usually have some brains behind them.

drmiler

I do not think the reason Bush went to war was about oil. It is true, that posession of nuclear weapons would limit action such as we took in Iraq.

drmiler I do not think the reason Bush went to war was about oil. It is true, that posession of nuclear weapons would limit action such as we took in Iraq.

Like I said COL. I usually don't care for what you post nor your attitudes. And I'm relativly sure you don't like mine. But your arguements usually have some kind of thinking (in my view, skewed thinking but thinking none the less)behind them. The above idiot put ZERO thinking into their post.

As a member of the military, and the intelligence community, I would like to take personal blame for the war in Iraq.

Not only did I personally field information to the president, Congress, and the U.N. I helped form the declaration of war, and fielded our troops. I sent them intentionally in the paths of IEDs. I gave the orders for Abu Grahib.

The improvement and personal freedoms achieved in the lives of millions of Iraqis is completely against the tyranical American oil oligarchy I was trying to establish. I killed Jimmy Hoffa. I was the third gunman on the grassy knoll. Even as we speak, I'm entering all of you into my secret database whilst (and at the same time) listening to all of your phones. That's right, all of them. Just me.

Bad, bad intel. Don't I feel sheepish?