Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests How well has Bush handled the war of terror?

Originally posted by PDXSVT:

---

The TONS of explosives recently discovered missing is only a minor blemish on an otherwise sterling record.

---

Originally posted by Davo:

---

Originally posted by PDXSVT:

---

The TONS of explosives recently discovered missing is only a minor blemish on an otherwise sterling record.

---

Good try.

Originally posted by Drudge:

---

Dem vp hopeful John Edwards blasted Bush for not securing the explosives: "It is reckless and irresponsible to fail to protect and safeguard one of the largest weapons sites in the country. And by either ignoring these mistakes or being clueless about them, George Bush has failed. He has failed as our commander in chief; he has failed as president."

A top Bush official e-mailed DRUDGE late Monday: "Let me get this straight, are Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards now saying we did not go into Iraq soon enough? We should have invaded and liberated Iraq sooner?"

---

Why is this "story" being reported now? I have to tell you, if this is all they have, then I'll sleep good until the election.

---

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

It doesn't? How can we acheive democracy, a stable economy, a functioning government, or any of Bush's other goals unless Iraq is physically secure? How can we acheive that without controlling the insurgents?

---

Where have I said we could do any of this without additional time, troops and effort? Please point it out.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

Ordinary Iraqis are afraid to apply for jobs with the government (virtually the only decent jobs that exist), because they are afraid of being killed. Unemployment is rampant. The economy is dead, because foreign investors see there is no security (as you know, dozens of foreigners and hundreds of their Iraqi employees have been killed). The occupation is an epic failure by any practical measure, and even under Bush's own stated goals.

---

It's an unpleasant situation that has been made the worse by some errors. There's no denying this and I haven't made any attempt to. Instead of tucking tail and running, we are attempting to address some of the miscalculations that were made in the past. If you wish to talk about defeatism, go no further than your own comments that the reconstruction has been a failure. Again, nobody said this would be a "walk in the park". No one casually commented that this would be easy and that the Iraqi people would march in lockstep to the beating of our drum.

Reconstruction is ITERATIVE, meaning that one has to adjust to the situation on the ground. There exists NO crystal ball that any administration has ever had on the EXACT amount of resources and capital needed, troops required and time spent on excercises like this. Calling the game only 12 months into the process reeks of foolishness.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

Forget about practical measures and Bush's goals: What about our MORAL responsibility to the millions of innocent Iraqis who need a secure place to live and work? To them, the lawlessness and terrorist groups we are allowing must seem as bad as Baathist dictatorship!

---

Don't even PRETEND to discuss or even care about the moral responsibilities when you seem to think that going into Iraq in the first place FOR ANY REASON was a bad idea. Hussein and his regime killed MILLIONS during his tenure as dictator in Iraq, unless you have forgotten.

I didn't see liberals clamoring all over each other to decry the gassings in Kurdish controlled territory of the mass killings and torture that was the mainstay of Husseins regime under ANY administration...

Finally, show me a country bound by a totalitarian past that worked to embrace democracy which hasn't been bathed in blood. We knew this would be difficult and the US leadership as well as other coalition leaders have been saying this since DAY ONE.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

So close your eyes and refuse to admit how screwed up Bush's occupation of Iraq is. Don't look past the Bush administration's spin of the chaos there. The rest of us will look at the facts and think for ourselves.

---

Where have I done this, apart from your own sordid and warped view of things? I have fully admitted that this administration didn't plan things out as well as they should have and there have been hiccups along the way. Despite this, we remain on the right track in that we are pushing for more troops to secure areas.

Even with the screwups that the Bush administration has honestly made, I would rather see them in charge than ANYONE who voted against additional supplies (the $87B aid package) for these same troops that are having a hard enough time over there without having political HACKS playing election-year games in order to make a stand on the '04 ticket...

It's not that there wasn't a better way of tackling Iraq after the invasion; it's that the current alternative supplied by the Democratic party is akin to sending in the 4th string players in to replace the 2nd string, with the 1st string NOWHERE in sight.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

Yes, JaTo, those are mostly true reasons why the occupation is extraordinarily difficult. But they do not JUSTIFY Bush's decision to invade or his failure in the occupation.

---

The case for invasion has been made and discussed ad naseum. To offer a parallel, it's as if you would sit still while someone slowy points a gun in your direction, giving up ANY chance at taking care of the threat, or hoping (despite all known intelligence) that the gun is empty. If you wouldn't have made the same call that Bush did, given the same concerns and the same intelligence, I can only PRAY that those with a mindset such as yours NEVER obtains a position of high political power in the US, unless all that's left to war with our country are sex-starved Amazons.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

Bush was responsible for succeeding IN THE CONDITIONS THAT EXIST THERE, not in some imaginary more ideal conditions. Why do you struggle so hard to excuse Bush's failure? Why won't you hold him accountable for his decisions?

---

I hold him accountable for his decisions and I laud him for most of them; just not the level of preparedness that was paid attention to some. Why do you think I would love to see Rumsfeld given the boot after the election (assuming that Bush wins)? He's micromanaged a fair portion of the military invasion and occupation, and it certainly hasn't gone as smooth as it could have. Branding it a failure, though, is defeatism at it's finest.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

Look: if your enemy has developed a new strategy (terror, an international funding base, guerilla tactics) that has rendered your old modus operandi (military occupation) ineffective, then you have three choices: 1) come up with a counter-strategy that gives you back the advantage;

---

The world is all ears; feel free to drop this strategy on us at any moment. If you can't, it's NOT a valid option.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

or 2) don't do a military occupation there without worldwide (UN) support and overwhelming force;

---

France, Germany and Russia forced our hand; we TRIED going in with the UN, but it seems that Iraq managed to buy a vote or two along the way...

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

or 3) do a virtually unilateral military occupation, but suffer unnecessary personnel losses, drain your financial resources, and fail to secure the country enough to acheive anything of benefit. Bush has chosen option number 3. That option is a failure.

---

How long did it take a multi-lateral force to secure Bosnia? I see the UN charter started in '95 and ran until '02, and I seem to recall it running into some serious problems as well (i.e,. it FAILING to stop ethnic cleansing that killed THOUSANDS). That's seven years.

We are 12 months into the reconstruction of Iraq and you've already branded it a failure. Again, reconstruction and excercises in stability take YEARS to fully flush out; it's not an overnight event, though for blatantly political reasons you would like to turn it into such.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

You say that "every Senator" was wrong, so I assume you are conceding that Bush was wrong too. But it's best just to come out and say so. Here, it looks like you hiding it, and that tells us that you are not dealing in truth, but in spin.

---

Factually, it seems that everyone that bought into the reams of intelligence, the past and present behaviors and concerns about Iraq was wrong (unless Kay was right and Hussein moved stuff to Syria). I'll not play your little game of "black and white" here to coddle an 8th grade mindset on something as complicated and involved as Iraq, because it's not reality.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

And it's wrong to tar the Senate with the same brush as Bush. The Senate customarily defers to the administrative branch on foreign policy (that's not good, it's just a fact), and they had a right to assume that Bush actually had the solid "slam dunk" evidence he and Rumsfeld and Cheney said they had.

---

Just as it is customary for the executive branch to rely on the US intelligence agencies to supply them with quality intelligence to make correct decisions with.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

The Bush administration (and its intelligence agencies) spun like mad to mislead the Senate, and the nation, about the threat in Iraq. Blaming the Senate for believing some of the hype may be justified. But the Senate was not responsible for deciding to invade.

---

Then how come the bulk of it voted for invasion?

Do you have ANY clue how the Senate works and what it and the House serve as in comparision to the executive branch?

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

The Seante is empowered only to "advise and consent".

---

You really need a refresher on government.

Start by looking into the War Powers act of 1973. After that, check out Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution and then try to come back and tell me that the Senate only has the power to "advise and consent", especially when it posesses the power to overturn Presidential vetos.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

The Senate clearly understood that it was strategically important not to diminish the president's bargaining power, and to show solidarity with the administration's efforts to back Saddam down. It was a smart strategic move, even if they did not want a war to be started anytime soon. They almost all thought that the resolution was a way to force Saddam into compliance, and that Bush would not actually use force (due to the thinness of the evidence of WMDs at that time). They expected Bush to use his power responsibly.

---

Seriously, lay off the "West Wing" reruns for a couple of weeks.

This is pure, sheer, unadulterated, 100% fantasy. The wording in UN 1441 left NO uncertainy where the US stood; neither did the vote for military action against Hussein. These Senators that voted were on the intelligence and armed forces committiees that SAW the damn war plans that were being put in place! How can you even PRETEND otherwise?!

What you've put forth above is UTTERLY INSANE and FALSE!!!

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

You say the chief executive should not weigh the evidence himself and draw his own conclusions, but instead he should defer to the Intelligence Director (DCI)?

---

An administration's decisions with regard to foreign policy are usually only as good as the intellignce it has on hand.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

Ah, finally I see exactly why we disagree so starkly. You think the president should be able to palm off blame for any poor decision he makes. You think he should not be held accountable. You think he should be able to claim that he deferred to the DCI, even though that would mean the president is abdicating his sworn responsibility to make such decisions.

---

Wrong again (your forming a habit here). Care to try any other tangents that lead to absolutely nowhere?

Again, my displeasure with the Bush administration has been voiced before on certain aspects of Iraq, and long before this particular post.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

It would be effectively turning over crucial national decisions to an unelected bureaucrat. In essence, you don't really agree with the the way our system of representative government was designed to work, at least when blame falls on your candidate.

---

Ah, but who provides the INTELLIGENCE to help make the correct decision?

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

The FACT stands that there existed NO way of knowing whether Hussein still possessed WMD without invasion. We invaded, and as it turns out, our intelligence seemed to be wrong (apparently driven by the lies that Hussein's lieutenants told him and his rampant fears over Iran).

---

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

I hope you are not saying that our ignorance of Saddams capabilites was a legitimate justification for Bush's decision to invade.

---

I'm not. At the time, our concerns given his past history and decades of obfucation with UN inspections in conjunction with the game-changing event of 9/11 is what ultimately offered the legitimate justification.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

I hope you would agree that our intel limitations are largely our own responsibility, and we can't invade countries based on a lack of evidence, but only on the presence of sufficient evidence.

---

I would agree to that, though this is the crux of the matter in that a great many people thought what we had WAS suffficient evidence, as it was corroborated by what other international intelligence arms had on Iraq as well.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

Even if that is what you intended to say, your post was written to as to mislead the reader to believe otherwise.

---

I'm not the one fabricating the utterly false view of the Senate being unwitting pawns that had the wool yanked over their eyes, or that were coerced into voting for war.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:

---

Do I really have to point out that all that stuff you just posted about the autonomous region and the no-fly zones is irrelevant?

---

Originally posted by PDXSVT:

---

Bush is doing a simply terrific job. The TONS of explosives recently discovered missing is only a minor blemish on an otherwise sterling record. He has no mistakes to admit to because he has yet to make any. And Iraq will be a democratic theocracy someday, unless the new Iraqi military does a coup after we leave. How can anyone find fault with the guy?

---

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

Saddam's control of the northern regions of Iraq has waxed and waned over the years, especially when he turned his attention towards Iraq in the '80s.

---

Originally posted by JaTo:

---

Originally posted by PDXSVT:

---

Bush is doing a simply terrific job. The TONS of explosives recently discovered missing is only a minor blemish on an otherwise sterling record. He has no mistakes to admit to because he has yet to make any. And Iraq will be a democratic theocracy someday, unless the new Iraqi military does a coup after we leave. How can anyone find fault with the guy?

---

Care to take another crack at that news report, since reporters that ACTUALLY visited the site are saying that they materials disappeared before US troops arrived on-site?

---