Many of us on this blog have been critical of the Iraq war from the outset as a war based on a false claim by the Bush Administration and then perpetuated by political cynicism by both Democratic and Republican leaders who did not want to be accused of “losing” the war. The costs were paid by soldiers and taxpayers in a war where the U.S. was often openly opposed by government figures and demonized in many parts of the country. It was clear that we were propping up a government that could not maintain order or loyalty across the country. Now, shortly after our withdrawal of combat troops, one of the most costly “victories” of the war — Fallujah — has been retaken by Al Qaeda as militants threaten additional takeovers in the country. Despite this history, members of Congress are already complaining that we should have continued the ground war longer at the cost of more American lives and billions of dollars.
Sen. John McCain, Arizona, and Lindsey Graham, South Carolina, took to the airways to accuse President Obama of misleading the American people that the Iraqi leaders wanted the U.S. to withdraw forces and that the resulting consequences were “as tragic as they were predictable” and suggested Obama misled Americans into believing that Iraqi leaders wanted U.S. forces out of their country. They again ignore the lack of success under both Bush and Obama in stabilizing the country as an outside force or the opposition of many Americans to the loss of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars on this war. It took Al Qaeda just three days to take the city despite heavy fighting.
In a joint statement the senators proclaimed that “[w]hen President Obama withdrew all U.S. forces … over the objections of our military leaders and commanders on the ground, many of us predicted that the vacuum would be filled by America’s enemies and would emerge as a threat to U.S. national security interests. Sadly, that reality is now clearer than ever.” So the solution was to prolong the war while members like Graham have called for war with Iran in a new military campaign.
We secured the city in 2004 after some of the bloodiest battles of the war. Anbar province itself remained an area of intense fighting throughout the war. Roughly a third of the 4,486 U.S. troops killed in Iraq died in Anbar and we lost roughly 100 just in the November 2004 battle for control of Fallujah.
McCain and Graham referred to those dead in calling for more U.S. combat troops in Iraq: “Thousands of brave Americans who fought, shed their blood, and lost their friends to bring peace to Fallujah and Iraq are now left to wonder whether these sacrifices were in vain.” Clearly, the answer as to Fallujah is yes for now. However, McCain and Graham avoid their responsibility in supporting the war in the beginning with little inquiry into the false claims of the Bush Administration or their support for the continuation of the war. They continued to support the wars at the cost of hundreds of billions as we cut key scientific, educational, and environmental programs at home. The question should be whether “these sacrifices were in vain” after entering a war on false pretenses and then opposing a withdrawal to save American lives.
There are tribes who are opposing Al Qaeda but this conflict reflects divisions that are hundreds of years old, including the worsening Sunni v. Shiite divide. There never was an end strategy in our involvement in Iraq. Even now, McCain and Graham oppose the concept of withdrawal while the country is unstable. Since it has been unstable, even under a dictatorship, you can do the math.
I do not lack sympathy for the plight of Iraqis — most of whom do not appear to support Al Qaeda, though polls show a high level of opposition to the United States as well. However, this is their country and their fight.
We have a growing crisis in this country over an economy that continues as an issue to be kicked down the road by this President and this Congress. We have cut educational, health, and scientific programs that will undermine our growth and competitiveness in the future. Yet, we have members of Congress who want to not only engage new enemies but reengage past enemies in military operations.
Source: Washington Post
Max-1, I have read the PNAC is now officially disbanded.
….http://www.aei.org/scholar/paul-wolfowitz/
Experience
Chairman, U.S.-Taiwan Business Council, 2008-present
President, World Bank Group, 2005-2007
They started a new organization, and judging from Wolfowitz position in it, I believe it’s name… USGovInc.
They were going to name it M&M Enterprises, but that name had already been copyrighted. LOL.
davidblue, Good thing you put in the Catch 22 clip, otherwise the M&M reference would have gone over the head of many folks here. It is simply incredible that any rational group who actually wants to get something done properly would ever hire Wolfowitz. Making a $3 trillion mistake and millions of dead, maimed, and displaced would seem to qualify him to only push a broom at the very least, and at best a trial before the ICC and a prison cell for the rest of his life.
Perhaps Wolfowitz did not make a mistake. Methinks his strategy brought about the exact conditions desired by his cohorts and masters. Divide Conquer and Rule.
A wealthy and powerful few, have and continue, to benefit immensely from his “errors” ….. How convenient …. 🙁 :o(
Hopefully the icon shows a sad face.
… Because if they called it a new Reichstag fire, it would have been to obvious.
Project for the New American Century
last updated: March 21, 2013
http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was established in 1997 by a number of leading neoconservative writers and pundits to advocate aggressive U.S. foreign policies and “rally support for American global leadership.” One of the group’s founding documents claimed, “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.”[1]
Project for the New American Century
http://youtu.be/9sg_NRC8ozk
Like bin laden and Sadam…
The USGovInc will dispose of their creations when they tire of their use. History…
I need a little guidance here….. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. but I’m certain that the parents of the young people we sent to Iraq, to die for nothing… aren’t laughing now
DavidM is back with his old tricks again. He tries very hard every time but fails miserably because his ends justify the means rather than the other way around..
After 9-11, there was no reason to invade Iraq but focus on Afghanistan and get Osama in which Bush/ Cheney failed and by invading Iraq, Afghanistan was ignored. It became a lose lose situation.
Bush/Cheney did not know the difference between Shias and Sunni. The result is that they were so ignorant and focused on war mongering that they forgot that Shia Iraq would favour Shia Iran.
Yes, Saddam was no angel and the same goes for lots of our so called friends in the Middle East with whom we are in bed with- Saudi Arabia, etc etc.
Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 but Bush/Cheney made them into Siamese twins.
Cheney made millions by selling oil equipment to Saddam when he was the top Honcho of Halliburton.
http://www.rense.com/general29/sse.htm
We sold WMD’s to Iraq.
http://www.rense.com/general53/ronnie.htm
After spending trillions of precious dollars, losing thousands of lives, we still do not realise that it was a big mistake with a myopic vision.
Bush used emotional blackmail to the congress to get his invasion of Iraq approved. Many politicians got sucked in his lies. It is the duty of the Head of the State- El Presidente- to make a decision just in case the information regarding WMD’s was false.Bush made the wrong decision and we will be paying for it for many decades to come.
This is an odd topic for a site featuring legal issues. So perhaps the discussion needs some additional focus.
When the UN would not take a bite of the apple, the United State formed a coalition [of sorts] to invade Iraq and retaliate for 9-11. But neither Saddam Hussein nor Iraq had anything whatsoever to do with 9-11. The only weapons of mass destruction Saddam used were on Kurds living in Iraq near the borders with Syria, Turkey and Iran. And for exposing the truth about uranium hexafloride, Wilson and Phlame got crucified. In the war between Iran and Iran, we funded and backed Saddam, Rumsfeld even personally delivering Saddam a check.
So on what legal basis did we invade? None. It was all about crude oil and getting back against Saddam for allegedly putting out a hit contract on Bush 41 after 1991, Saddam’s organization of OPEC, and the 1973 oil embargo. The hit on Bush 41 was retaliation for Desert Storm. But the people inhabiting Iraq have claimed Kuwait for thousands of years. It was about oil, plain and simple. If a nation would not join the coalition, they could not get contracts to rebuild Iraqi oil infrastructure. What a lie that was! [Can’t you hear Cheney promoting this idea in the White House and Powell arguing against it.]
After 9-11, we invaded Iraq on the cheap. And it cost us dearly. Without a doubt, we still do have enemies. Just look in the mirror, stupid!
Many of those commenting above see this as fact. This was an illegal war. But we are too chicken to punish those who voted for it. The list includes most all senators.
Maybe, just maybe, it is high time we beat our swords into plow shears and our spears into pruning hooks and studied war no more. Isaiah 2:5. Our troops who returned will be suffering from lost limbs and PTSD for decades. Afghanistan’s story is different. But the outcome is not!
Absolutely they lied. David, there are whole books about this. Look up the Downing Street Memo and look up info on “Curveball”. This govt. made up intelligence which it had “confirmed” by other friendly nation’s intelligence agencies. It knew “Curveball” was a joke, it knew the info was untrue. See what you think!
Jill wrote: “Absolutely they lied.”
So if Hillary Clinton or John Kerry run for any kind of political office, you would not vote for them? I assume also you would discourage anybody else from voting for them?
Darren,
I agree with you that the war should have ended immediately. Charles Ferguson’s film, “No End in Sight”, is really interesting to watch because it shows clearly that no rational plan was in place for dealing with the aftermath of going to war.
I do not think we are in either Iraq or Afghanistan because we fear terrorists. I believe those places are cash cows for wealthy, connected people in the war/financial industries as well as for people in our govt. connected to those industries.
One of the things that the 9/11 Commissioners would like declassified is the information about the Saudi govt.’s funding of the operation on that day. How embarrassing that USGinc. didn’t go to war against the govt. that really did fund the 9/11 attacks. If this were about the war on terror and the need to bomb the crap out of governments which finance terrorism, we would have bombed Saudi Arabia. Instead that govt. is our BFF and we send them all kinds of weapons. I therefore cannot conclude this govt. cares about terrorist attacks except as they may be useful to destroy the rule of law and break asunder our nation.
Jill, I agree the war was illegal but once it was started, for whatever reason, it should have ended immediately. When the US and its allies pushed the Iraqi army out of Kuwait with the exception of no-fly-zones etc it was a done deal. (though hawks in the US government and in the military thought it should go all the way to Baghdad and take out President Hussein) fortunately cooler heads prevailed.
I agree face is a lot of the reason for staying in Afghanistan especially, but many in the gov’t fear the rise of a terrorist controlled state with a large base to stage operations. I don’t know if this will happen but one has to wonder how many terrorists the US has presently faced in the US by actors based out of Afghanistan. So is the threat truly worth breading more threats and it being worth the cost of continuing in these countries.
David, It is now known that the govt. did know very well that they were lying to the American people. There’s the whole history of “Curveball”. It was all made up. Not one person in the govt. who claimed we went to war for WMD was telling the truth.
Darren, The Iraq war was illegal. It was a war of aggression. The US does not have a legal right to get rid of heads of state without cause, even those we put in power and blessed for years! And yes, once we had destroyed that nation, we did have an obligation to rebuild it. Far from doing that, we made their people’s lives an even worse living hell.
Jill wrote: “Not one person in the govt. who claimed we went to war for WMD was telling the truth.”
So you believe Hillary Clinton and John Kerry lied to us? I’m skeptical. What evidence do you have that these government officials lied to us?
What DavidM said. President GW Bush gave President Hussein the choice. “get out” or face war. President Hussein chose not to leave and the US invaded. That we got him out of power it was time to leave, the goal having been accomplished. At least there would have been some measure of civil structure left in the country. Some would argue there is a responsibility, and I believe their is under the Geneva convention to help rescusitate a country after a war, far less damage could have been had if we cleaned up a few areas, tried at least to seed some ideas for another government of the Iraqi populace, and got out.
Using the specious logic espoused by blood spattered warmongering senators, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, if the US government had only sacrificed more American, South Korean, Australian, Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian and Thai lives along with throwing tens of billions of US dollars at US defense contractors the US would have prevailed in it’s
warpolice-action in Vietnam.Too bad the reasoning to oust Saddam was based on lies…
… It makes the apologists seem that much more despirate.
davidm Once again you show total lack of knowledge of simple facts. Hussein did NOT have a massive army when the US invaded Iraq again. If you just use a little bit of intelligence, or have a bit of knowledge you would not say stupid things. The reason the US was able to only deploy about 100,000 troops was that Iraq had such a small army and weapons. During the first Gulf War, that army WAS about 1,000,000 troops which is why the UN had over 600,000 troops. If you will recall, the US only paid one TENTH of the cost and only 60% of the troops. Hussein was NO military threat to ANYBODY in the region at the time of the W Bush invasion. Bush and his cronies made up the intel to justify the war.
I agreed with the resolution to authorize sending US troops to Kuwait to force UN inspectors into Iraq. That would not have come about without those troops on Iraq’s borders. When the inspectors went in, they were ABSOLUTELY clear that NO WMDs existed, and the only contention was that Iraq could not account for a couple of tons of chemical. That was NOT sufficient to say that they were a threat. The INRC was even more emphatic that there was ZERO nuclear threat.
The reason Qaddafi gave up his plans for nukes was NOT the US invasion of Iraq, but for the more prosaic reason that the Paki who provided the materials CHEATED him. The stuff he got was worthless, and when he realized that, Qaddafi told on him to the US and exposed him. The world does NOT revolve around you or the USA.
The irony is that if Bush had listened to the US Army leaders like Shinseki, he might have actually pulled it off since the Army said it needed a minimum of two hundred thousand troops for any occupation. Of course, cowards and cheats like Cheney and Wolfowitz knew far more than the Army folks since they thought they were smarter and had run big operations like their office staff. I am disgusted at such apologists for incompetence, treason, and cowardice.
randyjet wrote: “Once again you show total lack of knowledge of simple facts. Hussein did NOT have a massive army when the US invaded Iraq again. If you just use a little bit of intelligence, or have a bit of knowledge you would not say stupid things.”
My previous post said that buildup was prior to Kuwait. It indicates the mindset of this leader.
randyjet wrote: “The reason the US was able to only deploy about 100,000 troops was that Iraq had such a small army and weapons.”
That is your interpretation. Iraq was known to have 350,000 troops at the time. Another interpretation is that we focused on our superior air force to deliver Shock and Awe.
randyjet wrote: “Hussein was NO military threat to ANYBODY in the region at the time of the W Bush invasion.”
This is your interpretation presented without evidence.
randyjet wrote: “When the inspectors went in, they were ABSOLUTELY clear that NO WMDs existed, and the only contention was that Iraq could not account for a couple of tons of chemical.”
This is factually incorrect. Following Kuwait, WMD’s were found in Iraq. There also were situations where the Iraqi’s fired warning shots at inspectors to keep them from intercepting vehicles suspected of carrying WMD’s. Although Iraq previously denied any WMD program, they finally admitted to one, but said it was only for defensive purposes. Iraq blocked the use of helicopters UNSCOM teams. When IAEA inspectors found documents related to WMD’s, Iraq prevented the inspectors from leaving for 4 days. The UN passes resolution for inspection and verification, and Iraq refuses to comply declaring that UN resolution SCR 715 is unlawful. Iraq finally admits to 89 missiles and chemical weapons, but claims it destroyed them shortly after Kuwait. Iraq prevents Inspectors from inspecting the Ministry of Agriculture and they stage a 17 day sit-in. Some three and a half years after Kuwit, UNSCOM inspectors destroy WMD production facilities. The next year Kuwait admits again that it has biological weapons, despite their previous denials. UNSCOM searches the Tigris river and finds 200 missile parts. The next year, a facility for biological WMD’s is destroyed. Then Iraq refuses to cooperate with inspectors…. for more than 2 years. Finally they are ready to let inspectors back in. When inspections are resumed, they find 12 chemical WMD warheads. Later they tag 32 Al Samoud II Missiles. Next they find drone aircraft with a size and range that violates the UN prohibitions. Inspectors withdraw and the war starts.
See a quick timeline at the following link:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/meast/iraq-weapons-inspections-fast-facts/
randyjet wrote: “Bush and his cronies made up the intel to justify the war.”
So you say without a shred of evidence. The acknowledgment of Bush is that he relied upon bad intelligence reports. Most notably was an Iraqi code named Curveball who was a chemical engineer interviewed by Germans in Germany. He now admits to fabricating his intelligence in order to topple the dangerous Hussein.
And I think I made it very clear that I am not an apologist for Bush, Cheney, or anybody else. I blame them because they led our Congress into voting the way they did. I also blame them for falling for the bad idea of nation building based upon a foundation of sand.
You can disagree all you like, call me whatever names you like, but it is quite apparent that you speak from your own authority rather than educating us with facts and logic. It is easy to call people liars. It is not so easy to demonstrate how they lie. President Clinton made it easy to show he was a liar when he got on tv and directly lied and then admitted his lie. Congressman Weiner basically did the same thing. President Obama has demonstrated it as well several times in regards to spying and healthcare. But when you go to President Bush, where is the evidence he lied? All you have is your assumption, your suspicion, your gut feeling, or whatever it is that tells you that he lied about the intel. What about the Senate Intelligence Committee? Do they have any responsibility? Do any of the Democrats who supported the war bear any responsibility? Why don’t you claim that they lied too? They relied upon the same intel reports that Bush did.
The bottom line is that our government believed it and they apparently were wrong. That doesn’t mean that the world is not a safer place without Hussein. From my perspective, we would have been dealing with a Hitler. When Hitler first was released from prison, a lot of people saw the danger, but a lot of people said it was none of our business. Well, it eventually became our business after the whole world was thrust into war. What if we had a crystal ball that showed you what would have happened if Hussein was not made to face justice from his citizens, and it showed you that he was just like Hitler, intent on building an empire through wiping out opposition? Would that change your mind?
. When inspections are resumed, they find 12 chemical WMD warheads. Later they tag 32 Al Samoud II Missiles.
davidm I had more respect for you that was justified since you leave out lots of things in your so called violations that were found after Blix and El Baradi made their reports. The 12 warheads you cite were NOT warheads at all since there was NO warhead in 11 of them. It is like a parole officer going to a parolees house and finding 11 empty bullets, and one live one and charging him with a parole violation. we have some such folks on this site who may tell us if that is enough to revoke a parole, I doubt it is. Then you FAIL to mention the FACT Iraq agreed to destroy the missiles that were too big. Then in your response you confuse the military ability before Gulf War I with the second one. Then use as the justification for Gulf War II the facts that were true for the first one. That is beyond rationality and ABSURD! GET REAL!
As for the outright lies, I guess you have been asleep for most of the discussion about Obama here. The FACT is that if you accuse Obama of lying about the intel collection on US citizens, you also have to accuse BUSH of doing the same and worse since he not only lied,, but BEGAN the programs. Bush lied about the use of torture, and about the use of illegal prisons around the world. Then the FACT is that Bush either is incompetent, a fool, or a liar about the intel on the justification for the Iraq war. Then Kerry and the Democrats also said Bush LIED about the resolution that Kerry, and others, myself included supported to get inspectors back into Iraq. They were NOT told that Bush had already decided to invade NO MATTER WHAT. Later Bush’s actions made this perfectly clear that he had in fact lied to Congress. Then we have the FACT that Powell knew that most of what Bush said as justification for invading was BS and refused to allow much of that crap into his speech to the UN. So even Powell KNEW that Bush was lying, and Powell has stated that the speech was his personal LOW POINT in his long governmental service since he did not cut out even more. We KNOW for a FACT, that Cheney, Wolfowitz and others cooked the books with their own intel group that supplanted the regulars. I also know for a FACT that Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld figuratively SPIT on Gen Shinseki because he gave the opinion that the US Army professionals had for the numbers needed to secure Iraq.
On a personal level W Bush lied about his military service, illegally wore a Presidential unit citation ribbon he had no right to wear on his uniform, used his political pull to get out of two of his six year commitment, lied about the number of DUIs he had on his criminal record. I don’t have the time or inclination to list his manifold lies.
To say that Hussein is in any way comparable to Hitler is delusional unless you think that Iraq has the same resources as Germany did. That alone shows your lack of judgment. It took most of the world to defeat Hitler, it took only 100,000 troops to take down Iraq. Does that not bother you at all?
randyjet wrote: “The 12 warheads you cite were NOT warheads at all since there was NO warhead in 11 of them. It is like a parole officer going to a parolees house and finding 11 empty bullets, and one live one and charging him with a parole violation.”
I would say a better analogy is the parole officer finding 11 unloaded guns and 1 loaded gun. Yeah, that’s a parole violation.
randyjet wrote: “Then in your response you confuse the military ability before Gulf War I with the second one. Then use as the justification for Gulf War II the facts that were true for the first one. That is beyond rationality and ABSURD! GET REAL!”
No its not. The previous actions indicate his nature and character. When he is under scrutiny, he makes his army smaller. When he is no longer under scrutiny, what do you think he would do?
randyjet wrote: “the FACT is that Bush either is incompetent, a fool, or a liar about the intel on the justification for the Iraq war.”
Yes, this sounds like a more accurate assessment to me. I agree.
randyjet wrote: “It took most of the world to defeat Hitler, it took only 100,000 troops to take down Iraq. Does that not bother you at all?”
Not when you consider that we struck preemptively and had MUCH greater air force capability than we did when Hitler came to power. Hitler also had many years to build up, and even when he was at all out war with other nations, we declined to do anything about it.
Davidm The fact is that warheads are useless unless you they have some means of propulsion so that is simply very bad judgment in trying to call them the equivalent of a gun which DOES pose a threat. Then that you chose to ignore the FACT that 11 were empty in your list shows intent to deceive. Then you omit the FACT that the missiles were going to be destroyed by Iraqi agreement with the inspectors. Another deceit.
Your question about what would Hussein do if he were not under inspection is inane since he had nothing CLOSE to the resources of Hitler and Germany even if he were given free reign and NO inspections. Hell,he could not even defeat a two bit power such as Iran when he had a million man army and all the weapons we could give him. This simply shows that you are more concerned with being a political hack than a rational thinker.
Then we have the lapses of so called judgment of Bush and his war makers. They only either lied or made such bad judgments of over THREE TRILLION DOLLARS, and millions of dead, wounded, displaced, and destroyed an entire country. Obama did not lie about health care as you said, since it is a very complex program and he never said that it was going to be perfect. He even tried to fix some of the problems, yet you give him NO slack for a piddling little miscalculation, and give a pass to BUSH when he knew for a FACT that he had no reason for invading Iraq other than he wanted to take it over for the oil resources. Then you give Bush a pass for making bad judgment of over three trillion dollars and millions of dead and injured when others had specifically told him that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were wrong. It is like his bad judgment when he refused to take Al Qeda seriously and went against the career National Security staff on this. Then we have the lies about his letting Bin Laden’s family and the Saudis fly around the US right after 9/11 while I and ALL others were grounded.
I see that you have no problem with my rather short litany of Bush lies too. I could expand on them in rather short order since those were just off the top of my head and I still have MORE egregious lies off the top of my head that Bush told. You also ignore the FACT that so called pre-emptive war is an actual WAR CRIME for which the UN executed many Nazis after WWII.
randyjet wrote: “The fact is that warheads are useless unless you they have some means of propulsion so that is simply very bad judgment in trying to call them the equivalent of a gun which DOES pose a threat. Then that you chose to ignore the FACT that 11 were empty in your list shows intent to deceive. Then you omit the FACT that the missiles were going to be destroyed by Iraqi agreement with the inspectors. Another deceit.”
No deceit. I gave you a link to all those details. Is it deceit for you to pretend that I made them equivalent to a gun when what I really did was make an analogy to an unloaded gun which does NOT pose a threat until it is loaded? Was it deceit on your part when you wrote the following: “When the inspectors went in, they were ABSOLUTELY clear that NO WMDs existed, and the only contention was that Iraq could not account for a couple of tons of chemical.”
Suppose you declare to us all your weapons at your house, and you swear to us that you have absolutely no chemical WMD’s. So we send inspectors to your home to verify what you have declared, and what we find is that you have 11 brand new rockets with empty warheads and 1 rocket with a warhead loaded and ready to go. You didn’t tell us anything about these weapons at all. Should we be suspicious about what you were going to do with these, or should we just report that Randyjet is a good and honest guy who has no WMD’s just like he said?
randyjet wrote: “Your question about what would Hussein do if he were not under inspection is inane since he had nothing CLOSE to the resources of Hitler and Germany even if he were given free reign and NO inspections.”
Hitler only had an army of 100,000, less than one-third the size of Iraq’s army. Hussein was being supplied by the Soviet Union, France, and Germany. He had the largest and most sophisticated chemical weapons program among countries not aligned with NATO or Communist Bloc countries. I don’t think it is stupid to be concerned. You give give a single idiot access to detonating weapons of mass destruction and it will not be pretty.
randyjet wrote: “Obama did not lie about health care…”
When he said that if you like your current insurance and doctor you can keep it, that was a lie. He knew the grandfather clause was void once an insurance company made the slightest changes, such as changing deductibles or rates. Well, anyone who knows the insurance industry knows that adjustments are made all the time. That’s how insurance remains competitive, by consulting the newest actuarial data and making adjustments. He also had to know that many doctors would choose not to participate.
randyjet wrote: “you give Bush a pass…”
I did not give a pass to Bush. I said, “I blame G.W. Bush for all of this.”
We did not “leave” Iraq, unless you count our occupation of an embassy the size of the vatican and thousands of contract soldiers (mercenaries) hidden under the State Dept. as “leaving”. I dislike being propagandized by this govt. a great deal. They constantly try to hide their workings through setting up a good cop/bad cop routine. We should not fall for it. We did not leave Iraq under Obama. He has continued the Bush policy. Lindsay and John both
know this quite well. They are counting on citizens not knowing about our State Dept. contractors.
The govt. likes to call groups “Al Qaeda” whenever they want to send more troops and weapons into a nation. That is all they are doing-whipping up the “need” to sell more weapons and give out more high paying contracts to war contractors.
Iraqis have died, US troops have died for that money. More will die. Those who say they are our “leaders” are truly heartless men and women.
“country’s”
As a veteran of the Iraq war I can honestly say I feel ashamed that this countries leaders duped so many of my fellow service members into fighting these ridiculous wars. Protecting our freedoms my A$$.
I agree with going into Iraq and taking down Hussein, but I do not agree with the nation building project that followed.
I think Saddam Hussein was a bad actor. First we saw an enormous buildup of his military. Next he went into Kuwait, demonstrating his imperialistic. It also became known that Hussein believed himself to be the Reincarnation of Nebuchadnezzar, ordained by Allah to resurrect the Babylonian empire. He actually used WMD’s on his own people. He broke many international sanctions put upon him, and there was difficulty with the UN inspectors regarding WMD inspections. As I remember it, the inspectors wanted more time and could not validate for sure that they had destroyed all his WMD’s. For all we know, he buried them until such time that he was ready to use them.
So my perspective is that something needed to be done about Hussein. Victory should have been called when Bush was on that aircraft carrier declaring victory. The victory at that point was a clean victory that put the fear of the U.S.A. into the heart of many dictators like Qaddafi who immediately called Bush to get rid of his WMD’S program. Instead, we entered a phase of nation building. We sent Harvard lawyers over there who drafted a Constitution that made Iraq an Islamic Republic where the supreme law of the land was the Holy Qur’an. Can you imagine what would happen to this country if the supreme law of the land was the Bible? The project was cursed from the moment that was done. We violated our own principles of freedom when we made Iraq a nation based upon the laws of the Qur’an. No law was allowed that violated the Qur’an.
I blame G.W. Bush for all of this. He led Congress, Democrats and Republican alike, into voting for nation building.
This recapture of Fallujah is very disheartening. It indicates that our legacy of involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan will probably be similar to our legacy in Vietnam. In Vietnam, our war is called the American War, with museums dedicated to showing the atrocities of war that we caused over there.