COL Gene

BUSH HAS ABANDONED MILITARY VICTORY IN IRAQ

▼

BUSH HAS ABANDONED MILITARY VICTORY IN IRAQ

from JoeUser Forums


The strategy at the White House has changed with respect to the Iraq War. We are now attempting to withdrawal just as soon as we have trained enough Iraq security and military forces. Bush wants to make the withdrawal appear legitimate and when that magic number has been achieved, you will see the troops begin to come home. The truth is we are not winning the military battle against the insurgents. Our military fight and die to secure an area and a few months later the very same elements are operating in that area. We then repeat the action and loose more of our troops. We do not have the manpower to control the entire country and prevent the reintroduction of the insurgent forces in the areas that we cleared with our precious military lives.

When the history books are written about this conflict, it will not be a positive oration. First, the rationale for the war was untrue. Bush supporters will say everyone thought there was WMD and therefore he did not lie as to his reason for attacking Iraq. The problem with that rationale is that the reason given today is to provide the Iraqi people the right to choose their own government. If that were the reason we chose to depose Saddam Hussein, that is the reason that Bush should have provided the Congress of the United States before asking for approval of the war resolution. Bush did not give that reason and this whole process was justified by the imminent danger to the United States. Then Bush said it was to enforce the UN Resolutions however the UN NEVER made the United States or England the enforcement agent for UN resolutions. Another rational Bush gave to remove Saddam was to rid the world of an evil dictator. There are many more evil dictators that exist in this world and Saddam Hussein was not the worst of the lot. If you have any doubt about that, look at what is happening to millions of people in Africa. If we were to provide this choice of the type of government that Bush NOW claims is the reason for the war, why not Cuba 90 miles from Florida? Why not Syria, North Korea, Iran, China or a host of other countries where the people do not have a choice. Why not our so-called ally, Saudi Arabia.

The real reason Bush wanted to invade Iraq may never be known. It was clear that this was in Bush's mind when he first took office. The removal of Saddam Hussein was a discussion item at the VERY FIRST Cabinet meeting. This has been clearly stated by the former Treasury Secretary Paul O' Neal. This was before 9/11, before we were attacked or heard about the War on Terrorism in America. The lesson we must learn is that in the future if a president asks Congress to go war with reasons that are not as stated, that president needs to be impeached and removed from office. If George W. Bush had asked Congress for authorization to attack Iraq so that Iraq people could select their own form of government, the resolution would NEVER have been approved. It is a sad day for this country that our president did not give the actual reason for America to go to war. The Bush LIE has cost America over 1,800 lives, more then 25,000 injured and over $300 billion dollars! It has created thousands if not millions of NEW enemies all over the world!
politics
22,017 views 87 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
First, we did not NEED to go to war. We were not in danger from Iraq. Second, Bush compaigned in 2000 that the military was Too small and did NOTHING to increase its size after he became Commander-in-Chief WHY? Then he gave the overstreached military even more to do with Iraq and he is destroying the Guard and Reserve. There are a number of issues that Bush inherented and EVERY one has gotten worse since he took office-- Social Security, Medicare, Border Security, Trade deficit and the energy problems. Then he added new problems that did not exist in 2001 like Iraq and the annual budget deficit. There is not one major issue facing this country that Bush has solved or improved to ANY degree!!!!!!!!!! The prescription drug program is a NEW mandiate that Bush and his cohorts in Congress passed and have failerd to fund. Even if drug costs were static, we would have a NEW $60 Billion per year obligation with no money to pay for it! That amount will grow as more seniors retire and the cost of drugs go up. It is easy to see how Bush ran his two companies into the ground.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
The truth is that the Conservative GOP controlls Congress and the White House and the PISS POOR results are because of their policies!


Sorry, that's BULLSH*T!!! Like I said the dems can fillibuster everything else why not these failed policies? And don't hand me that crap that the GOP controls the house. We might have control, but the last I looked no member of the GOP was holding a gun to any democrats head. So do not try to lay this all on GW because that would be a major LIE!
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

All these policies start with BUSH. It is his policies that he has gotten through congress that are NOT WORKING. He told us we needed tax cuts because we had a surplus which needed to be returned to the American people. There was NO SURPLUS-- Then as Greenspan and O'Neil said the tax cuts should have be dependent on the surplus to pay for them. WE had no surplus but Bush proposed and the conservatives in Congress passed three of the largest tax cuts in our histrory-- The result deficits. We spend with no plan to pay for the spending. Republicans have complained about the amount of spending and pork Democrats approved when they were in control. Both spending and pork have never been more out of control since the GOP took control of Congress and the White House! Bush has NEVER vetoed a spending bill so he becomes responsible because he failed to act with fiscal balance. We borrow 1 out of every 5 dollars spent by the Fed. Bush continues a trade policy that FAILED for 8 years under Clinton. WHY? Bush claims we need 10,000 more border guards and only requests funding for 200 out of the 10,000 he says are needed. WHY? He tells us we must conserve oil and refuses to deal with low mileage cars which are the biggest wast of oil. WHY? I could go on and on. Bush has not solved and made better any of the major issues facing this country. WHY? The conservative agenda which is what has been enacted is NOT WORKING! We need a change in Congress in 2006 by electing either Moderate Republicans of Democrats.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
drmiler

All these policies start with BUSH. It is his policies that he has gotten through congress that are NOT WORKING. He told us we needed tax cuts because we had a surplus which needed to be returned to the American people. There was NO SURPLUS-- Then as Greenspan and O'Neil said the tax cuts should have be dependent on the surplus to pay for them. WE had no surplus but Bush proposed and the conservatives in Congress passed three of the largest tax cuts in our histrory-- The result deficits. We spend with no plan to pay for the spending. Republicans have complained about the amount of spending and pork Democrats approved when they were in control. Both spending and pork have never been more out of control since the GOP took control of Congress and the White House! Bush has NEVER vetoed a spending bill so he becomes responsible because he failed to act with fiscal balance. We borrow 1 out of every 5 dollars spent by the Fed. Bush continues a trade policy that FAILED for 8 years under Clinton. WHY? Bush claims we need 10,000 more border guards and only requests funding for 200 out of the 10,000 he says are needed. WHY? He tells us we must conserve oil and refuses to deal with low mileage cars which are the biggest wast of oil. WHY? I could go on and on. Bush has not solved and made better any of the major issues facing this country. WHY? The conservative agenda which is what has been enacted is NOT WORKING! We need a change in Congress in 2006 by electing either Moderate Republicans of Democrats.


Dance around the point some more. Go ahead, it just makes you look more foolish! Your right they may have started with Bush. But they "went through" congress to pass. And the congress still has some democrats in it. I also note how you ignored the part about the dems filibustering these failed polocies. Ain't heard squat from them. Just noise from you!
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wish the Democrats had filibustered the tax cuts, and hope if Bush tries to create private accounts in Social Sceurity they do just that in the Senate (there is no such thing in the House). If Bush tries to make his tax cuts perminant, the Democrats MUST filibuster that action. However, the point you fail to acknowledge is that we have a government (White House and a slim majority of Congress) that are making policies that are NOT SOLVING the problems that exist and are actually creating new major issues for our country. We have an administration and a majority of Congress that is not only acting AGINST the best interest of the MAJORITY of Americans but AGINST the wishes of the majority as shown by poll after poll. I hope you enjoy paying for the bankrupt policies that Bush and the conservatives have enacted!!!!!

The noise, as you put it, will be nothing compared to the Trillions of dollars Bush will cost future tax payers!
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
The day the American troops withdraw from Iraq is not too far. The Bushmen are just waiting to hand over power to an Iraqi pupper Regime and declatre victory. The real problem that Iraq faces today is not the violence that the Americsans have unleashed, but a social and economic collapse of the civil society of Iraq. Children who should be in school are having to stay at home, factories are shut, the cities unsafe the hard won economic and political freedom of Iraqi women in peril. The US invasion has literally bombed Mesopotamia back to the days of Nebuchenazzer.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Virupaksha

The real result of the Bush War in Iraq will be known after our troops leave and we see what happens in Iraq. It is possible that the end result will be ugly and the world will place the blame at our doorstep! That may be the Bush legacy for Iraq!
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
The real result of the Bush War in Iraq will be known after our troops leave and we see what happens in Iraq. It is possible that the end result will be ugly and the world will place the blame at our doorstep! That may be the Bush legacy for Iraq!


Great positive thinking col. I bet you wish that Iraq would fail just you can blame Bush. The fact is there are many good things happening in Iraq. Just because the liberal media doesn't report them doesn't mean it isn't happening. Just by you agreeing with bahu shows you are just as bad as the enemy in Iraq. Keep agreeing with his anti-American views col, your true self is showing again.

All you have done is complain about Bush, you accuse Iraq of being a "quagmire", which is not true. Now when troops are going to come home you complain about that. You are a hypocrit col, plain and simple.

Now you whole original topic of this thread has shown how you really don't think about anything but blaming Bush. You have been called out again, so you resort to the usual rhetoric about the deficit. I have a question col. Do you have all your "quotes" and "facts" copied so you just paste them when someone counters your usual rhetoric.

You are a sad individual, and your constant bashing of our troops does nothing but help the enemy.



Children who should be in school are having to stay at home, factories are shut, the cities unsafe the hard won
economic and political freedom of Iraqi women in peril. The US invasion has literally bombed Mesopotamia back to the days of Nebuchenazzer.


Why don't you start reading and you will see the children that could never go to school can go now because of U.S. troops rebuilding the schools.
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
I do not wish ill for Iraq. I also do not look at Iraq through rose colored glasses. There is so security, many areas have no clean water or sewer service. Electric is about the same level as before the war. The oil industry that was to provide for the economic needs is not meeting expectations and unemployment is high. Even the Bush administration has lowered their expectations in Iraq. We will be lucky if the new government can keep the country from civil war. Time will tell and although I hope for a good outcome, I feel there is a segnificant risk of a disaster when the American military leaves.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is so security, many areas have no clean water or sewer service. Electric is about the same level as before the war.


That shows me right there you really have no idea what is going on in Iraq. Shadow just recently posted an article detailing how things like water and electric have surpassed expectations. You dont' take the time to find the good news col, just the bad.


Even the Bush administration has lowered their expectations in Iraq. We will be lucky if the new government can keep the country from civil war. Time will tell and although I hope for a good outcome, I feel there is a segnificant risk of a disaster when the American military leaves.


BS. The only people who talk about civil war in Iraq are the liberals like yourself who are hoping for it. The new government is coming together, security forces are taking over more and more, but that doesn't stop your rhetoric. You are a pathetic individual.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
The real problem that Iraq faces today is not the violence that the Americsans have unleashed, but a social and economic collapse of the civil society of Iraq.
---Bahu Virulentlyantiamericanshit

How did we unleash the violence in Iraq? By toppling their psychopathic, homicidal tyrant, which brought the throngs into the streets to celebrate, or by happily inviting the crazed Moslem zealots to come in from every corner of the world and blow things up?



Children who should be in school are having to stay at home, factories are shut, the cities unsafe the hard won economic and political freedom of Iraqi women in peril.
---Bahu Virulentlyantiamericanshit

Don't lay this at our door, Bahu....are we the ones out their killing them, setting off car bombs and making their hard-won security unstable again? No....that would be their insane fellow Moslems, who would like nothing more than to see the US fail in its mission, even, as we have seen time and again, at the cost of the lives of those they come to "librate" from American "oppression".
Are the women of Iraq safer and more free now than they were in Saddam's era? Of course they are. Are they more free in Iraq (and present-day Afghanistan, for that matter) than in times past? Of course they are. Who do we have to thank for that? Hmmm...THE AMERICANS! Hello! Earth to Bahu! THE BUSH ADMINISRATION! HELLO!


I do not wish ill for Iraq
--ColdefectiveGenes

I find this highly unlikely...it don't doubt one bit that if Iraq fails to come through this trial and sinks into civil war and mass murder in the wake of our withdrawal, you would not smile smugly and utter a warm chuckle, just because your personal Satan failed.



There is so security, many areas have no clean water or sewer service.
---ColdefectiveGenes

More than under Saddam, and if the insurgents would just leave well enough alone, there would be even more and better service. But alas, your Moslem allies over there keep on blowing up substations and water lines and pumping stations, just to keep things off balance.



Time will tell and although I hope for a good outcome,
---ColdefectiveGenes

snort-snicker--snort...yeah right, Klink.

One last thing here...I want to ask Bahu how much time he's spent in Iraq and where? For him to say that we

literally bombed Mesopotamia back to the days of Nebuchenazzer


would seem to indicate personal, intimate knowledge of the entire nation at the present time. How about it, Bahu? How long and/or often have you been in Iraq? Or are you just working up opinions from the dark, negative news you choose to read?
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush talked about invading Iraq during the 2000 election campaign. It predated September 11 by at least a year. Project for a New American Century published articles in 2000 and before justifying why the invasion of Iraq and Iran was 'necessary' in 2000. The strategy though always seemed badly argued, in fact there was no strategic goal beyond increasing American hegemony.

The Administration never believed the WMD lie, in fact Richard Perle admitted this after the conquest but justified it as a 'bureaucratic necessity' at the time to justify the invasion.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Administration never believed the WMD lie, in fact Richard Perle admitted this after the conquest but justified it as a 'bureaucratic necessity' at the time to justify the invasion.


The administration didn't believe it huh? How come that every intell agency in the world did? Or are you going to try and tell me that everyone else got their intell from us? Sorry but that dog don't hunt. We've been through this before.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top
All you Bushies fail to answer, if the REAL reason Bush invaded Iraq was to give the Iraqi people the right to choose their government, then WHY WAS THAT NOT THE REASON BUSH GAVE TO CONGRESS FOR THE WAR AUTHORIZATION?

WHY DID BUSH TALK ABOUT REMOVING SADDAM AT HIS FIRST CABINET MEETING BEFORE 9/11?

If Iraq goes into civil war after our military leave, it will be a SAD day beacuse that will mean our dead and injured military accomplished NOTHING in Iraq!
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
TOTALWAR OR NO WAR!

A POX ON BOTH YOUR HOUSES!

GIVE BUSH A BULL-HORN AND A MOUND OF RUBBLE... HE'S ONE HELL OF A CHEERLEADER! HE HAD ME FOOLED THAT DAY TOO.

WE NEED A REAL LEADER WHO WILL COMMITT TO TOTAL WAR OR PULL BACK HOME AND DECLARE WAR ON BLOOD-OIL.

B0YCOTT OIL...

MAKE A DEAL WITH CHINA AND DESTROY THE MIDDLE EAST, CARVING UP THE OIL, TURNING THAT SAND TOLIET INTO A FILLING STATION FOR BMWS, ETC.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
All you Bushies fail to answer, if the REAL reason Bush invaded Iraq was to give the Iraqi people the right to choose their government, then WHY WAS THAT NOT THE REASON BUSH GAVE TO CONGRESS FOR THE WAR AUTHORIZATION?

WHY DID BUSH TALK ABOUT REMOVING SADDAM AT HIS FIRST CABINET MEETING BEFORE 9/11?

If Iraq goes into civil war after our military leave, it will be a SAD day beacuse that will mean our dead and injured military accomplished NOTHING in Iraq!


Aww be quite you old fool!
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
can't we all just get along. i luv u all very much. it hurts me in the darkest recess of my ... that we don't just hold hands and sing songs. i iuv the col. i luv the dr. why can't man love eachother too?
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
my bad breath could settle the whole sordid affair. Fresh faces on joeuser make me sneeze.
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
the stuff that pours out of my ass after a big mexican-tai dinner sells for $3.00 per gallon. Get a load of that...

LITTLE DIP-SHIT SIGING OFF TO GO SLIP INTO MY SHEET

Reply #45 from JoeUser Forums Top
All you Bushies fail to answer, if the REAL reason Bush invaded Iraq was to give the Iraqi people the right to choose their government, then WHY WAS THAT NOT THE REASON BUSH GAVE TO CONGRESS FOR THE WAR AUTHORIZATION?


We have answered you many times, but it doesn't fit your "blame Bush" agenda so you ignore it.



WHY DID BUSH TALK ABOUT REMOVING SADDAM AT HIS FIRST CABINET MEETING BEFORE 9/11?


Why did Clinton sign an executive order citing regime change in Iraq?
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
A intelligent person learns when something does not work and tries a different approach--


"A intelligent person" would know to put an N after that A.

Sorry. Grammar police on patrol.
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
IslandDog

You have not given ANY reason why Bush lied to Congress as to the reason we should invade Iraq. Clinton did not invade Iraq nor did he ask Congress for authorization to go to war. That was Bush! There was not ONE WORD about giving the Iraqi people the ability to secect their government in the Bush justification for war! Had Bush said to Congress and the American People I want to risk our military so the Iraqi people can select the type of government they want, there would not have been a war resolution passed by Congress! BUSH LIED TO GET WHAT HE WANTED! He and Chene should be IMPEACHED! Unlike the Clinton Lies, the Bush/Chene lies took the lives of our military!
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top
You have not given ANY reason why Bush lied to Congress as to the reason we should invade Iraq.
--ColdefectiveGenes

Col, it's been presented to you time and time again that the reason we went to war was for the WMDs...there were, as we have admitted, none, even though for 10 years, everyone everyone, and their uncle Vinnie, that worked in DC thought their were. You won't accept this because cornflakes like you actually prefer to see conspiracies where there are none and, as Island Dog pointed out, it doesn't fit with your anti-Bush rhetoric anyway, so you ignore that point.



Clinton did not invade Iraq nor did he ask Congress for authorization to go to war.
---CdG

No, he just skirted around it and avoided the issue as much as he could, just like he did the Osama problem, and most of the big things that might affect his popularity points. but, as Island D pointed out in post #45, which I noticed you coveniently passed over, he did sign an order recommending regime change. I'm sure, though, that he dodged around when it came to his actually doing something about it. He was, after all, more concerned with being liked than keeping the world, and America, safe from maniacal tyrants.


And it's Cheney, you know...not "Chene".
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yikes! Is there no limit to the number of exclamation points JU allows in one post? I have some valium if you need it, Col
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top
You know, as I read the posts, any posts, by the Col and Bahu, for example, I'm reminded of friends of ours; the husband served in Iraq in 2003, arriving just after the invasion and leaving in December.
They're both supremely anti-Bush and are not for the war, both mainly because of everything he saw when he was there. His experience was not a good one, I guess.
Every time I point out some good that's happening over there, they shoot it down with some negative point....only thing is, he hasn't actually been in Iraq for almost 2 years. Every opinion he has, and everything he says and thinks about the war, is based on information that's 2 years out of date. And of course, what biased coverage he gets from the media outlets.
Now, this would be equivalent to a guy getting wounded in the Battle of the Java Sea in 1942 (which was lost to the rapidly advancing Japanese) and being sent home for good. Everything he saw indicated that the Japs were an unbeatable force and that we were losing. In 1944, if he only listened to negatives, as they do, he'd still have been reeling off the bad news, without knowing for himself what was really going on.

Our friend's wife complained constantly that the soldiers never get what they need, as in supplies and such. I countered that that has been the complaint of every soldier since the dawn of organized warfare, and that it was Clnton's policies that made the present force, not Bush's. She ignored that, and just continued to complain about Bush, no matter what I said.
This sounds so much like Bahu and the Col...no matter what you say, they just plow over it and ignore it. Yep, that's them....except, of course, for the fact that my friend has actually BEEN to Iraq.