COL Gene COL Gene

Bush Tries to Cover Up Incompetence in Iraq

▼

Bush Tries to Cover Up Incompetence in Iraq

He hides behind his Generals

from JoeUser Forums



In the past few weeks Bush has been telling us that his Generals tell him more troops would just make the insurrection in Iraq worse. They may be correct and all that is the way Bush is trying to deflect criticism from the way he conducted the war.

From the very first day after Saddam fell, we began loosing control in Iraq. We did not have the force levels we needed as most of the Generals now admit and as Sen. McCain
told us. We did not prevent the old elements of Saddam's forces from operating in the areas we bypassed on our hurry to Baghdad. We did not prevent the terrorists from using the ammo from several hundred ammo dumps thought the country. We did not prevent foreign elements from coming into Iraq and begin terrorist operations. We allowed the insurrection to begin and that has resulted in most of the American deaths and injuries. If we had the forces needed, we would have established control from day one and never allowed the carnage we see day after day in Iraq.

Below is just one link that helps document how inept the Bush plan for this war has been from the start.


http://www.howbushoperates.info/incompetence.html
politics
10,170 views 31 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
You read what you want not what I wrote. I said Bush did not send the number of troops (needed in 2003). I have maintained from the start, including in my book, that the insurrection is a direct result of the fact we never had the force levels needed to ESTABLISH control in Iraq when Saddam fell and we disbanded the Iraqi Army. It is too late now to send more troops. Bush allowed the terrorists both within and from other countries to establish terrorist operations where they did not exist in Iraq prior the our invasion. You are the one caught by the same BS that Bush used.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
My wild-ass guess is that the insurgents wouldn't have been inhibited by twice the initial force levels, Gene. The notion that they would have somehow just thrown up their arms and said "OK, we quit." is pretty far-fetched and mostly a figment of your imagination. The insurrection is a "direct result" of the opposition by Al-Qaeda and remnants of the Baathist regime to America and to the toppling of the old regime. You can have an opinion about what might have happened with higher troop levels but it's just a wild-ass guess, too.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
If we had prevented the use of the Ammo by securing the ammo dumps and been able to occupy the hot beds of Saddam supporters after we went in and cleaned them out and stopped the foreign elements from entering I am sure the insurrection in Iraq would be VERY different. In the first Gulf War we had 500,000 troops in a country that was smaller then Iraq and in a country that wanted to be liberated. If we had had the same level of forces in Iraq, the situation would different today.

Bush violated the time proven tactics of our military—over whelming force. That is what The Army CoS and Gen Franks tried to tell Bush. However, Bush used his extensive military knowledge and ignored the generals. That is why we have the mess we have today. Of course if Bush had not invaded Iraq in the first place we would not be in this mess.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
You read what you want not what I wrote.

And I thought I provided context for your comments by not quoting just individual lines.
So let's continue to go over what you write.

the insurrection is a direct result of the fact we never had the force levels needed to ESTABLISH control in Iraq when Saddam fell and we disbanded the Iraqi Army.

In the first Gulf War we had 500,000 troops in a country that was smaller then Iraq and in a country that wanted to be liberated. If we had had the same level of forces in Iraq, the situation would different today.

It is too late now to send more troops.

So are you advocating a troop increase in Iraq? Sure sounds like it.

I just don't get you. I really am trying to understand your mindset, COL. At what point did it become "too late to send more troops" to put down the insurgency that was created by a lack of troops? Seems to me that you wanted more boots on the ground from the get-go and you continue to support sending more soldiers to Iraq. Just because it's "too late" doesn't mean that the US can't mobilize more troops to make your strategic fantasies come true.

Can't have it both ways, COL.

You are blaming Bush for not sending more troops while simultaneously calling for the government to send enough troops to keep the country from spiraling out of control. Yet you maintain that you don't want more boots on the ground!

Just admit it. Your rhetoric is coming back to bite you in the ass.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
OOOOOOH, he just got caught with his pants down (I will have nightmares for ever with that picture in my mind now). Check this out boys and girls:

#26 by COL Gene
Saturday, January 07, 2006


Bush allowed the terrorists both within and from other countries to establish terrorist operations where they did not exist in Iraq prior the our invasion.


Within is the keyword here. Col has constantly said that there were never any terrorist inside Iraq so Iraq was not a threat to the US, but here he admits that they were inside Iraq.

Col, you just got busted , your on candid camera. Your oblivious, I can't wait to see you get out of this one.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
We heard a lot of noise early on about the negative psychological impact of heavy US "occupation" - offending Arab sensitivities & all that. Since we're all in the wild-ass guessing game here, mine is that the left would be bleating on about US "oppression" in Iraq if we had the place locked down with 500,000 troops. But then I could be wrong.

Cheers,
Daiwa