Five years of war in Iraq

[PassedOut]

On the fifth anniversary of our preemptive war on Iraq, it is useful for all Americans to remember the statements of our fearless leaders leading up to the attack:

 

I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that.

 

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense

Interview with Steve Croft, Infinity CBS Radio Connect, November 14, 2002

When the President or I say certainly, you can trust us for sure

[Al_U_Card]

You might have considered changing "read our lips" with "...so far."

 

They are in it for the long haul (of booty) and will stay the course (as in "intercourse the people!") for as long as it takes (to keep making money from arms sales etc.) because they know best (what the peeps will put up with if they are shivering from fear in their cubicles).

 

Shame on them.

[Al_U_Card]

Based on your link (do please read what this cretin has said "on the record" in the past) he must be suffering from a condition such as

 

Dyslexic, bombastic, rhetoric, politically inbred idiocy.......on a good day.

[Winstonm]

From President Bush:

 

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Bush said during his fourth and final speech before Thursday's vote for Iraq's parliament. "As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that."

 

"My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision," the president said. "Saddam was a threat and the American people, and the world is better off because he is no longer in power."

 

Dear Mr. President,

 

Repetition does not create truth. Besides, what happened to the original reasons for the invasions - weapons of mass destruction, an al-Qaeda connection - did those reasons just vanish in the pages of time or were they edited to read "My decision to remove Saddam"?

 

You say the intelligence upon which you based your decision was wrong. I was taught, and I believe most Americans were taught, that when you make a mistake you should apologize for the error and then fix it.

 

If the intelligence was wrong, and the war unjust, then why are we still there?

 

Isn't it time to apoligize for the injustice and move on?

[Al_U_Card]

And in the best litigious tradition of the U.S., how will they pay for their transgressions?

[1eyedjack]

I saw quite an interesting prog on the telly a day or so ago that purported to demonstrate the root cause of the reduction in the death-toll in Baghdad: The whole place has been locked down by cells surrounded by 10 foot concrete walls.

[vuroth]

Isn't it time to apoligize for the injustice and move on?

The removal of Saddam from power has been a great many things. An injustice I'm not so sure about.

 

Besides, the war STARTED in 1990. It RESUMED 5 years ago.

 

V

[Winstonm]

The removal of Saddam from power has been a great many things. An injustice I'm not so sure about.

 

One simple question: if 5 years ago President Bush and his cabal had simply said, "Saddam is a bad man. We must go to war with Iraq to remove him from power," how much support for war would there have been?

[jdonn]

It's such a ludicrous thing for the president to keep saying. There are millions of things we could do to make the world safer or better off, and just because one happened to be accomplished does not begin to justify the war that was entered into for completely different reasons.

[mike777]

My guess is no matter who wins the Presidency we will not cut Defense spending to have money go for other things such as education or health care. My guess is Defense spending will increase and increase alot.

 

Whatever the real total cost of the war, Iraq, and Defense in terms of money the last 5 years, my guess is we will spend even more, lots more, the next 5 years. There will be no savings to spend on other important items.

[vuroth]

The removal of Saddam from power has been a great many things. An injustice I'm not so sure about.

 

One simple question: if 5 years ago President Bush and his cabal had simply said, "Saddam is a bad man. We must go to war with Iraq to remove him from power," how much support for war would there have been?

I don't know. I honestly doubt that he could have gotten most americans behind him regardless of what he said.

 

To me, his best bet would have been to just talk about terrorism. He said that he would go after states who sponsored terrorism, no matter where that terrorism was (i.e. even if it wasn't terrorism affecting Americans). I was danged surprised that he said it, but he did.

 

Saddam was known to have been offering bounties to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

 

(I personally would be incensed if someone offered my kids money to kill themselves, but would it have made the Iraq war more popular if Bush had cited this practice? I doubt it.)

 

The WMD thing was his legal justification for not going through Congress. This made sense to a point. The Gulf War of 1990-91 had TECHNICALLY never ended, because Saddam wouldn't ratify the ceasefire. Specifically, he wouldn't concede to the UN's stipulations regarding WMD. The UN was to a point where they were routinely extending the deadline on the WMD issue when Bush decided he wanted to renew hostilities (for WHATEVER reason....). So the US rejected the UN motion to extend the deadline. France, who were getting rich off Iraqi oil, used their veto. I think you know the rest of the story.

 

Now, you can agree or disagree with this fine point of legal wrangling. The thing is, these kind of vague loopholes might let you get away with doing what you want as president, but they don't win hearts and minds.

 

So I roll my eyes at people who harp on whether or not there were WMD. It really never mattered, except maybe to Saddam. I have tremendous sympathy, though with anyone who harkens back to WMD and wonders why they were ever supposed to care.

 

In the end, I don't think that there's anything Bush could have done to make the war in Iraq popular in America. That said, I think he did a truly awful job of selling it.

 

V

[Winstonm]

My guess is no matter who wins the Presidency we will not cut Defense spending to have money go for other things such as education or health care. My guess is Defense spending will increase and increase alot.

 

Whatever the real total cost of the war, Iraq, and Defense in terms of money the last 5 years, my guess is we will spend even more, lots more, the next 5 years. There will be no savings to spend on other important items.

Mike,

 

We should probably mark this day on our calenders - I am 100% in agreement with your post. :P

[Al_U_Card]

The war-mongers are the ultimate recyclers. Every 5 yrs or so they undertake to use up all those nearing obsolescence weapons to make room for new ones. At the same time the defense industries employ many highly skilled workers......

not to mention the profits that go back to the public purse through taxes on the merchants......sure they do.

 

ANYONE that has sufficient conviction to send people to war should accompany them into harm's way. Fair is fair.

[kenberg]

The removal of Saddam from power has been a great many things. An injustice I'm not so sure about.

 

One simple question: if 5 years ago President Bush and his cabal had simply said, "Saddam is a bad man. We must go to war with Iraq to remove him from power," how much support for war would there have been?

I don't know. I honestly doubt that he could have gotten most americans behind him regardless of what he said.

 

To me, his best bet would have been to just talk about terrorism. He said that he would go after states who sponsored terrorism, no matter where that terrorism was (i.e. even if it wasn't terrorism affecting Americans). I was danged surprised that he said it, but he did.

 

Saddam was known to have been offering bounties to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

 

(I personally would be incensed if someone offered my kids money to kill themselves, but would it have made the Iraq war more popular if Bush had cited this practice? I doubt it.)

 

The WMD thing was his legal justification for not going through Congress. This made sense to a point. The Gulf War of 1990-91 had TECHNICALLY never ended, because Saddam wouldn't ratify the ceasefire. Specifically, he wouldn't concede to the UN's stipulations regarding WMD. The UN was to a point where they were routinely extending the deadline on the WMD issue when Bush decided he wanted to renew hostilities (for WHATEVER reason....). So the US rejected the UN motion to extend the deadline. France, who were getting rich off Iraqi oil, used their veto. I think you know the rest of the story.

 

Now, you can agree or disagree with this fine point of legal wrangling. The thing is, these kind of vague loopholes might let you get away with doing what you want as president, but they don't win hearts and minds.

 

So I roll my eyes at people who harp on whether or not there were WMD. It really never mattered, except maybe to Saddam. I have tremendous sympathy, though with anyone who harkens back to WMD and wonders why they were ever supposed to care.

 

In the end, I don't think that there's anything Bush could have done to make the war in Iraq popular in America. That said, I think he did a truly awful job of selling it.

 

V

If you wish to argue legalistically that the war never ended, I guess we could also argue legalistically that the war never started. There was an authorization of force but there was no declaration of war. I certainly am not advocating either legalistic argument. Who cares?

 

What could Mr. Bush have done to make the war more popular? Understood better what was involved and if, after understanding what would be required, he still thought that it was worth the cost in lives and treasure, conducted it more successfully. Mr. Bush is often accused of lying instead of being mistaken about WMDs. Perhaps so, but I don't know. I would say he pretended to more certainty than was warranted, but that is not quite lying on the scale of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution where Mr. Johnson sent a description to Congress that he absolutely knew to be factually false. What does seem clear is that at the time Mr. Bush said "Bring it on" he really thought that we were in complete control. He wasn't lying, he just didn't remotely understand the situation. Neither did I, but I didn't run for the presidency.

[blackshoe]

Would anyone care to speculate what the world might be like today if we hadn't invaded Iraq?

[hrothgar]

In the end, I don't think that there's anything Bush could have done to make the war in Iraq popular in America.  That said, I think he did a truly awful job of selling it.

 

V

What a load of crap...

 

The Bush administration did a masterful job "selling" the war. Please recall, somehow 70% or so of the US population spontaneously decided that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11 despite the fact that the Iraqis had nothing to do with the actual events. (The fact the the Project for a New American Century was advocating overthrowing Iraq well before Bush was elected... Sheer coincidence)

 

The war in Iraq was wildly popular back in the glory days of shock and awe. The US was full of ignorant rednecks chortling over over how big their dicks were. Don't get me wrong, there were plenty of folks smart enough to understand just what kind of cluster ***** we wandered in to, but the vast majority of the population was strongly in favor of the invasion.

 

The war in Iraq only became unpopular once

 

1. Folks figured out that we were going to stuck bleeding dollars and soldiers for decades to come

 

2. It became completely clear that the Bushies sold the war using a complete pack of lies

[Al_U_Card]

AND we mustn't forget that they got people to argue about why the war wasn't justified or popular or efficient......instead of rising up and throwing the bastards OUT!

[kenberg]

Would anyone care to speculate what the world might be like today if we hadn't invaded Iraq?

A fair question. Of course speculation is cheap, but I could try. It's not unreasonable to think that we could have captured Ben Laden, fended off the Taliban's resurgence in Afghanistan, and worked towards a more democratic and stable Pakistan. It's even possible that the Bush presidency would have gone better although the man does seem to be unusually incompetent.

 

We will never know.

[blackshoe]

We will never know.

With that much, I agree.

 

That said, it is also possible the world, and the US place in it, would be worse off than we are. But, as you say, we'll never know.

 

In November we will have an election. After that, someone else will be President, and we can bitch about that. Personally, I'd leave whether Bush was a good, bad, or indifferent President to late 21st or early 22nd century historians, and get on with trying to keep this "the greatest nation" — or make it so again.

 

"The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, “My country, right or wrong.” In one sense I say so too. My country; and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." — Senator Carl Shurz (1829-1906), remarks before the United States Senate, February 29th, 1872.

[sceptic]

Would anyone care to speculate what the world might be like today if we hadn't invaded Iraq?

pretty much the same, Bush would have just invaded Iran by now. Iran was probably where the WMD were any way he just misread the country on the report

[vuroth]

Would anyone care to speculate what the world might be like today if we hadn't invaded Iraq?

Saddam and his sons would STILL be committing atrocities that make the current news stories out of Iraq seem tame by comparison.

 

Of course, the atrocities wouldn't be making the news, just like the ones going on in North Korea, Saudi Arabia and other places very seldom make the news.

 

We'd all feel better about ourselves.

 

V

[jtfanclub]

Yeah, that's it, we were just ignorant rednecks chortling about our dick size.

Thanks for clarifying that.

 

A lot of us realized just how horrible what we were doing to Iraq was prior to our invasion. Far more people, and far more children, died from our embargo than died from 2001 on. Keeping troops in Saudi Arabia wasn't helping matters for any of us either.

 

On the other hand, it was clear that we couldn't just walk away. Saddam was still being extremely beligerant, kicking out the inspectors, shooting at the overflight planes, and killing Kurds by the tens of thousands.

 

I knew there weren't WMDs. I wasn't against the war because of that. I was against the war because the we didn't have a plan for what came next. Ideally, we would have attacked Iraq with U.N. approval, then other nations would see to the rebuilding of Iraq (mostly Britain, France, Russia, and Indonesia) while our remaining contributions would be financial. This rush to get started before we knew what we were going to do when we finished was the sole reason I was opposed to the war. I think we could have gotten France and Russia on board had we spent more time and effort to do so, and had I been in charge I would have made it clear that if France and Russia would not support us, we would simply leave and plunge the Middle East into chaos.

 

For those that believed that Bush & Company had such a plan and simply had not shared it with us, and therefore supported the war, I admire their faith. I don't think that it's ignorant or redneck to believe that those you placed into a position are competent enough to execute it.

 

But now I'll leave you admiring your pale neck and crying about your dick size.

[Winstonm]

Saddam and his sons would STILL be committing atrocities that make the current news stories out of Iraq seem tame by comparison.

 

Is this statement meant to be a justification of the war?

[kenberg]

We will never know.

With that much, I agree.

 

That said, it is also possible the world, and the US place in it, would be worse off than we are. But, as you say, we'll never know.

 

In November we will have an election. After that, someone else will be President, and we can bitch about that. Personally, I'd leave whether Bush was a good, bad, or indifferent President to late 21st or early 22nd century historians, and get on with trying to keep this "the greatest nation" — or make it so again.

 

"The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, “My country, right or wrong.” In one sense I say so too. My country; and my country is the great American Republic. My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." — Senator Carl Shurz (1829-1906), remarks before the United States Senate, February 29th, 1872.

By late 21st century I will be long dead. Views of a president change with time and I guess you can say who knows how the future will view Mr. Bush. Or Mr. Clinton. Or etc. But we have to vote now and we have to do our best to evaluate how things have gone and who we should trust for the future. If late 21st century thinkers come to find greatness in Mr. Bush it would surprise me, but I won't be around then and their views won't help me now.

 

I recognize the presidency is a tough job and I take it as a given that whoever is in the office is doing what he thinks right. Maybe I am naive, but the idea that someone takes the job on in order to make himself or his friends rich strikes me as absurd. (btw, I wish my more conservative friends would allow this same possibility when they get apoplectic over Mr. Clinton.) It's just too tough a job to be used for that purpose. But. In a democracy we have to judge. I don't hold Mr. Bush to be evil, not at all, but I do regard the Bush presidency as largely a failure, and I think there were plenty of grounds for concern during the 2000 campaign. Not that Mr. Gore inspired great confidence either.

[PassedOut]

For those that believed that Bush & Company had such a plan and simply had not shared it with us, and therefore supported the war, I admire their faith.  I don't think that it's ignorant or redneck to believe that those you placed into a position are competent enough to execute it.

But perhaps we should depend more upon critical scrutiny than upon faith when electing our leaders.

 

March 20, 2008,  9:53 am

From Then to Now: Optimism Glints Amid Shades of Gray

 

By Ian Fisher

 

On a recent visit to Iraq, my first trip back in over three years, a few things surprised me. There was the “countdown calendar” to President Bush’s last day in office, sitting openly on a soldier’s desk. There was the high-up United States official who told me, by way of introduction, that he did not believe the decision to invade Iraq was “reality-based.” Before leaving to spend a few days with American troops, I worried about bringing along a book critical of the war. I shouldn’t have.