Bush Screwed Up In Iraq

Wow, I'm psychic. I knew this byline before I even read the article.

COL, I actually agree with a few of your talking points. But you're working against yourself by repeating the same points without providing solid evidence to back it up.

Maybe your book has the solid evidence I'm looking for, I don't know. But you're poorly advertising it through your blog, and not enticing me, at least, to even take a second look.

Wow, I thought you had taken a vacation or had given up or something.

Once again no links to prove your points. It's always up to us to have to Google up your stories to see if they have any validity. If you really were trying to prove a point you would at least make the effort to let us know where do you get your proof from. It would be easier to prove us wrong if you did that, but instead your whole article is more of an opinion than a point.

There was no immediate danger from Iraq in early 2003. Even if Saddam had the WMD that Bush claimed, he had no way to use any WMD against the Unites States.

So you were there to see and prove this?

If Saddam had the means to deliver WMD he would never have used it against the United States because of the consequences.

It was my understanding that he wouldn't exactly use them against us but provide them to those who could and would use them against us no matter the consequences, terrorist to be exact.

The U N had weapons Inspectors in Iraq in early 2003 and had we allowed them to complete their inspections we would have learned what we know today-Saddam had no WMD.

Inspectors that were not allowed to do their job, I gotta wonder why? If he had nothing to hide why all the run around and not allowing them to go where they wanted? Not to mention that there is no proof that he disposed of the weapons that he originally had and was ordered to destroy.

Well it's nice to know your still alive, not that I wished you weren't I would never do such a thing, at least not first. I'm sure TW is gonna have a field day with this.

Items 2-6 are established facts. Items 8-10 are likewise established facts. Item 7 is what Bush is afraid could happen. This week Bob Baer a 21 year CIA agent and former Station Chief in Iraq said that our actions in Iraq are not helping the United States become safer. Our troops have become part of the problem and without the Iraqi people taking responsibility for their security there can not be an end to the terrorism. Elections are a first step but without security the elections will mean nothing. DoD claims there are some 10,000 terrorists. Even if that number is low, there are 27 Million people in Iraq. If they can not STOP the attacks and bring the terrorists under control, then HOW can our 150,000 troops be expected to do the job? It is time to turn the security of Iraq OVER to the Iraqi people. If they choose not to accept that responsibility then a civil war will most likely result. The REAL bottom line will be what type of Government results in Iraq when they are on their own. We may find that wat we have helped create will not be to our liking!

What a startlingly fresh perspective. No matter how many HUNDRED times you say this col, it's like I've only heard it, well, a few hundred times. It makes me wonder how bad things really are when you are forced to regurgitate the same sad little liturgy over and over.

The U N had weapons Inspectors in Iraq in early 2003 and had we allowed them to complete their inspections we would have learned what we know today-Saddam had no WMD.

No way to know that, Gene - nothing but your speculative opinion.

Bush had intelligence available to him that was NOT available to Congress which contradicted his claim that Saddam had WMD. Bush only used the intelligence that supported his decision to invade Iraq.

Been over this in many of your other threads - one person's "ignore" is another person's "discount" and there is not a shred of evidence that the administration deliberately withheld from Congress any information it knew to be true in a pre-meditated deception plan - this is what you want to imply, but it is simply not true.

The White House told everyone that the war was to be quick and clean.

This is patently false. Get out the tapes & transcripts - President Bush always said it would be difficult and a long-term effort. In fact, the invasion succeeded in toppling Saddam much faster than any of the planners expected. Further, every significant milepost in the pre-invasion plan has been met on time. That the administration did not correctly anticipate everything has been repeatedly conceded.

The REAL bottom line will be what trpe of Government governs Iraq when they are on their own.

This is the "have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too pre-fense" - the only outcome is failure, whether we succeed or not. Pure hedging and a garbage argument.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Items 2-6 are established facts. Items 8-10 are likewise established facts. Item 7 is what Bush is afraid could happen. This week Bob Baer a 21 year CIA agent and former Station Chief in Iraq said that our actions in Iraq are not helping the United States become safer. Our troops have become part of the problem and without the Iraqi people taking responsibility for their security there can not be an end to the terrorism. Elections are a first step but without security the elections will mean nothing. DoD claims there are some 10,000 terrorists. Even if that number is low, there are 27 Million people in Iraq. If they can not STOP the attacks and bring the terrorists under control, then HOW can our 150,000 troops be expected to do the job? It is time to turn the security of Iraq OVER to the Iraqi people. If they choose not to accept that responsibility then a civil war will most likely result. The REAL bottom line will be what type of Government results in Iraq when they are on their own. We may find that wat we have helped create will not be to our liking!

1-4 are "total BS as are 8-10. Note the key word in #10? That would be "had". He's had one all along, it's just that none of you wanted to hear it. And NO one has any idea if #7 will come to pass. 5&6 are possibilities. And the ex-CIA chief? There's a reason he's an ex. Do you know what it might be? Lets put it this way I will not give credence to one mans word when so many others say the opposite.

Maybe your book has the solid evidence I'm looking for, I don't know.

The only thing solid that the C.O.L.'s book should be associated with is normally only semi-solid. Given the C.O.L.'s repeated rantings, it's probably much more hot and runny (a bit like the Diarrhea of the mouth/keyboard he seems to have)

Just use the pages for the t.p. most of us know the book must be filled with (given the author).


Lets say it all together


STOP FEEDING THE C.O.L. TROLL

(written in pink as a dose of Pepto-Bismol for those that actually stumble into the C.O.L.'s dung heap of bashin' articles)

The UN inspectors had to leave Iraq just prior to Bush starting the invasion. That is a fact.

Bush had Intel that said he was full of BS and ignored it - CIA, DIA and dept of energy.

Bush himself told the Pope that the Iraq war was going to be quick and clean. Cheney told us our troops would be treated as liberators. DoD Ass Sec of Def. said the cost would be about 40 Billion

Bush ignored both the Army CoS and Gen Franks who said it would take 300,000 troops to secure Iraq.

Most senior Generals not admit the conduct of the war and the lack of troops allowed the terrorists to operate. The disbanding of the Iraq Army was another error and now we are trying to rebuild the Iraq Army from nothing.

We have alienated most of the world and have given the radical Moslems a tool to get more radicals. That is what Bob Baer said this week. He believes the Iraq war has made us less safe not not more safe.

The CIA has admitted there was no terrorist operations in Iraq under Saddam. They have also admitted that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Bush still does not have a way out of Iraq.

There are the facts even though you Bushies do not like them. The only lasting thing will be what type of government developes in Iraq in the future. If we wind up with another Iran or a country that allows terrorists to operate in Iraq, We have lost!



t

Bob Baer is entitled to his opinion. That he has one doesn't make things so, any more than you having an opinion makes it so (or me, for that matter).

However, if anyone is bending events & facts to fit their pre-conceived notions and acknowledging only selective reality, it is you, Gene. The opinions of those who are in a position to know and who feel things are going better (Lieberman?) than the media portrayals would have us believe mean nothing to you.

Cheers,
Daiwa

ALL that I have stated in this Blog is TRUE with the exception of the type of Government that develops in Iraq. Only time will answer that issue. Bob Baer has spent 21 years in the CIA and is considered an expert on Iraq. His opinion is of value.

Col why do you constantly bring up the same liberal talking points. You aren't going to get Bush out of office. I see good things are happening with the economy so you have to go back to the usual Iraq bs.

Col, why don't you go fight with the terrorists? You obviously want them to win like they do, you hate Bush like they do. You have so much in common.

Just to go through some of your bs.

They have also admitted that Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Bush never said Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11. Why do you keep repeating this liberal lie?

Bush still does not have a way out of Iraq.

To be honest col, you don't what Bush has. Just because he doesn't personally call you and update you on the "plan" doesn't mean anything. Get over it.

If Joe Schmo said "Tony Blair is actually a Muppet, controlled by Karl Rove," and you came here on your blog and said "Joe Schmo said Tony Blair is actually a Muppet, controlled by Karl Rove," you could claim that what you said on your blog was absolutely "true" and be correct.

However, Tony Blair would still not be a Muppet.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Well if Bush knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 then why did he attack them? That means that Bush knew Iraq had NIOTHING to do with the War on Terrorism. Then why did we kill over 2,100 Americans to invade a country that had nothing to do with those that attacked us? These are not Lberal ideas they are basic questions that the Bush never answers.

We brought the War on Terrorisn into Iraq when we deposed Saddam and dismantled their Army. If Bush had a way out of Iraq, why are we still there getting our troops killed every week?

Bush did screw up by first going into Iraq and then by the way he choose to fight the war. He is a looser and it is our military that is paying the price of his failure!

If Joe Schmo said "Tony Blair is actually a Muppet, controlled by Karl Rove," and you came here on your blog and said "Joe Schmo said Tony Blair is actually a Muppet, controlled by Karl Rove,"

No, the headline would read "Blair a Rove-Controlled Muppet" and would not mention Joe Schmo at all. Because then COL Curmudgeon would be providing a reference for this completely cockamamie statement. Just like every other unsubstantiated, cockamamie statement that issues from COL Johnny One Note's keyboard.

And then he would swear to his dying breath that the original statement was true.

Diversionary. Why did it need to be about terrorism? Hussein had voided the cease fire he agreed to. He had fired on our aircraft. He had paid $10k a head to the family of Palestinian suicide bombers. He was stealing billions from the oil for food program and starving thousands of Iraqi children.

YOU need for this to be about WMDs and 9-11 to make your point, but that doesn't mean that is what it is about. Again, it's sad to the point of making you look deranged that you have to come back and reiterate drek like this after you have hashed it out a hundred times and received the same answers over and over and over. Seek help.

Like the Command Master Chief said in the movie "Navy Seals:....."Seek life elsewhere"!

Bakerstreet

Saddam paying 10K to Palestinians, violating UN resolutions or being evil has NOTHING to do with being a danger to the United States. In fact Iran & North Korea were far greater dangers then Iraq.

Island Dog

Cheney said Saddam was connected to 9/11 even AFTER that was shown to be untrue. If Cheney said it Bush approved of it even though the actual words did not come out of Bush's mouth. It is not a Denocrat lie it was part of the BS to get congress to approve going to war.

There is no way Congress would have approved going to war to give Iraq the right to Vote. The war was sold on a non existant danger that Saddam posed to this country. It was all BS pure and simple.

"Saddam paying 10K to Palestinians, violating UN resolutions or being evil has NOTHING to do with being a danger to the United States. In fact Iran & North Korea were far greater dangers then Iraq."

Again, diversionary. You're basing your moral judgement on the assumption another nation has to be a threat to the mainland US in order to be a valid target for war. As I said Hussein had engaged our forces time and time again. If you look at the history of US military action in the last 100 years, you'll find that we were rarely directly threatened. Your values aren't universal or objective "truth".

You try and pretend the Hussein didn't support terrorism, that he wasn't a threat, that the war in Iraq was somehow an oddity, but you have to use very precise definitions to make your point. In reality, we've fought wars with much, much less provocation than Iraq. You know that, too, you simply need to validate your hate and don't mind stretching the truth to do it.

Before we go to war there needs to be a direct danger to our country. Going to war because the leader is Evil or to allow a democratic form of government is NOT a reason to go to war. There are a lot of countries that do not have our system or that have dictators. The lodgic Bush used would mean we would be at war all over the world. Bush got Congress to allow this war on the completely false basis that Iraq was a danger to our security. That was not true even if Saddam had WMD. Iran and North Korea were far greater dangers then Iraq in 2003. They have many of the weapons that Bush said Saddam had. They have governments that hate us and have far more powerfil military forces than Iraq.

Bush screwed up by attacking Iraq!

Oh Col. (PS why do you call yourself that?? )

Just in case you ever hear someone say we do not have a stategy for winning in Iraq, you can ask them to read this.

Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages

* Short term , Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
* Medium term , Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
* Longer term , Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.


Strategy for Victory is Clear

* We will help the Iraqi people build a new Iraq with a constitutional, representative government that respects civil rights and has security forces sufficient to maintain domestic order and keep Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists. To achieve this end, we must pursue an integrated strategy along three broad tracks , which together incorporate the efforts of the Iraqi government, the Coalition, cooperative countries in the region, the international community, and the United Nations.

* The Political Track involves working to forge a broadly supported national compact for democratic governance by helping the Iraqi government:

o Isolate enemy elements from those who can be won over to the political process by countering false propaganda and demonstrating to all Iraqis that they have a stake in a democratic Iraq ;

o Engage those outside the political process and invite in those willing to turn away from violence through ever-expanding avenues of participation; and

o Build stable, pluralistic, and effective national institutions that can protect the interests of all Iraqis, and facilitate Iraq 's full integration into the international community.

The Security Track involves carrying out a campaign to defeat the terrorists and neutralize the insurgency, developing Iraqi security forces, and helping the Iraqi government:

o Clear areas of enemy control by remaining on the offensive, killing and capturing enemy fighters and denying them safe-haven;

o Hold areas freed from enemy influence by ensuring that they remain under the control of the Iraqi government with an adequate Iraqi security force presence; and

o Build Iraqi Security Forces and the capacity of local institutions to deliver services, advance the rule of law, and nurture civil society.

The Economic Track involves setting the foundation for a sound and self-sustaining economy by helping the Iraqi government:

o Restore Iraq 's infrastructure to meet increasing demand and the needs of a growing economy;

o Reform Iraq 's economy, which in the past has been shaped by war, dictatorship, and sanctions, so that it can be self-sustaining in the future; and

o Build the capacity of Iraqi institutions to maintain infrastructure, rejoin the international economic community, and improve the general welfare of all Iraqis.

Our Victory Strategy Is (and Must Be) Conditions Based

* With resolve, victory will be achieved, although not by a date certain.

o No war has ever been won on a timetable and neither will this one.

* But lack of a timetable does not mean our posture in Iraq (both military and civilian) will remain static over time. As conditions change, our posture will change.

o We expect, but cannot guarantee, that our force posture will change over the next year, as the political process advances and Iraqi security forces grow and gain experience.

o While our military presence may become less visible, it will remain lethal and decisive, able to confront the enemy wherever it may organize.

o Our mission in Iraq is to win the war. Our troops will return home when that mission is complete.


Oh and in case you are interested in where this came from.. LOL of all silly places our Presidents Office.

" Before we go to war there needs to be a direct danger to our country. Going to war because the leader is Evil or to allow a democratic form of government is NOT a reason to go to war.

According to you, maybe, but there is no such rule. As a matter of fact most of the wars in the last 100 years haven't met that criterea, and a great many in the entire history of the US haven't.

So, while you may feel your perspective is superior, it's just your own subjective values on the subject, which are no more or less correct than anyone elses. You can say you differ with Bush, but all this bleating about Bush breaking some imposed rule is silly.

Hussein fired on our aircraft. That was plenty enough to start a number of wars in previous history, and I listed several other excuses on top of that. If you want to say all those other wars were illegitimate, too, fine, but don't cherry pick just because you don't like Bush.

Before we go to war there needs to be a direct danger to our country. Going to war because the leader is Evil or to allow a democratic form of government is NOT a reason to go to war

What a TOTAL CROCK!!!! Was Germany a direct danger to the US? Nope, don't think so. Japan was. So there goes your so called theory right out the window. And in case you forgot Saddam was firing on our aircraft. And in doing so made himself a "direct danger" to the US.

And btw....GW got congress to do "nothing"! They did it themselves when presented with our own and everyone elses intelligence reports.

Iraq was a piss ant. Germany had created a major security problem in the world and was working with Japan that attacked us. Iraq was NOTHING like that. No matter what you all say, if we knew in 2003 what we know today the Congress would NEVER have given Bush permission to go to war.

This was was an error no matter how it turns out. we have created more terrorists that are willing to attack us by invading Iraq. We still have NOT cought the person responsible for 9/11. WHY?

Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. Bush conducted the war in a way that allowed the terrorists to operate in Iraq. Bush diverted our attention and military from the country responsible for 9/11.

Iraq was a piss ant.

But he was still a piss ant willing to kill Americans on a daily bases. Or do you not consider American servicemen enforcing International treaties not American citizens?

You are crying for those servicemen's lives on the line today, while not willing to do anything about the servicemen's lives that Saddam was trying to snuff out daily before.

While your so fast about screaming you have no proof that Saddam had WMD, where is your proof that Saddam did not have WMD. Remember Saddam had over ten years to produce a detailed list of the destruction of all the documented WMD that he provided earlier in 1991 at the end of the first war. He failed to account for over half the documented material to the weapon inspectors. You always love to site the weapons inspectors stating that they had not found physical WMD, but choose to ignore the part of their report saying they had no proof of the disposal of know WMD.

Bush was wrong to invade Iraq. Bush conducted the war in a way that allowed the terrorists to operate in Iraq.

You are also willing to ignore that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq receiving Free Medical treatment from wound received in Afghanistan and safe haven from us when we invaded.

In fact Iran & North Korea were far greater dangers then Iraq.

So based on this comment I can start a new article that C.O.L. wants to go to war against Iran and North Korea and be factually correct just like most of the pulp fiction that the C.O.L. has written, no?


AGAIN people, stop feeding the j.u. troll. Let him die from a lack of attention....