Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.


The argument that President Bush falls back on to NOT begin removing U.S. Forces from Iraq is that our withdrawal would allow the foreign terrorist organizations to plan and conduct future attacks in our country. The notion we are better to fight them over there then here.

The truth is that even if we were able to eliminate ALL foreign terrorist operations in Iraq we would remain in the same danger from future attacks by al-Qaeda et al. All the previous attacks such as the first twin tower bombings, The Cole, and 9/11 were all planned and conducted from al-Qaeda NOT LOCATED IN IRAQ! Our NIE has concluded that al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and the border region of Pakistan are as viable as they were BEFORE 9/11. Thus even if we were able to destroy al-Qaeda in Iraq, we have the same level of danger of future attacks as before 9/11.

What has prevented another attach is NOT that the Bush War on Terrorism has succeeded in reducing the danger. It is that we have been more adept at defending ourselves from these attacks. Bush himself has admitted there have been attempts to attack the U.S. since 9/11.

Bush now says the NIE report that said al-Qaeda has reconstituted itself is not true. How would Bush know that? He has no first hand intelligence. The one thing that is documented is spades in the Tenet Book; At the Center of the storm is that Bush does not pay attention to anything that does not support what HE WANTS TO DO.

Between March and September 2002, before 9/11 there were many very cogent warnings that the U.S. was in danger of attack from bin Laden and al-Qaeda. The Bush administration ignored EVERY one of those warnings. There was not a single warning that we were in ANY danger from an attack by Saddam—ONLY al-Qaeda and bin Laden. What did Bush do as soon as 9/11 took place—Moved forwarded with his plan to invade Iraq and sent only a token force into Afghanistan were 9/11 was planned.

We are expending the vast majority of our resources chasing an illusion—that if we eliminate al-Qaeda from Iraq we will have reduced the risk of future attacks. Just the opposite is what the NIE concluded when our 16 Intelligence agencies said the Iraq War is the major cause of the increase in foreign terrorism.

When you look at Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Israel it is not possible to conclude that the Bush approach to fight the Islamic terrorism that grips all of these countries IS WORKING! The principle reason is that Bush does not use the available intelligence to formulate policy and continue to evaluate the effectiveness of our efforts. He decides on a plan and then looks for those elements of the intelligence that appear to support the preconceived policy he has chosen and either ignores or keeps secret any intelligence that suggests what he is doing is not in our best interest or is not working!

Comments (Page 1)
4 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Jul 16, 2007
When you look at Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Israel it is not possible to conclude that the Bush approach to fight the Islamic terrorism that grips all of these countries IS WORKING! The principle reason is that Bush does not use the available intelligence to formulate policy and continue to evaluate the effectiveness of our efforts. He decides on a plan and then looks for those elements of the intelligence that appear to support the preconceived policy he has chosen and either ignores or keep secret any intelligence that suggests what he is doing is not in our best interest or is not working!




your right fighting won't stop anything so lets just surrender. that is what clinton, gore, and the democrats would do.
on Jul 16, 2007
“Your right fighting won't stop anything so let’s just surrender. That is what Clinton, gore, and the democrats would do.”

No you IDIOT we should NOT SURRENDER!!!!!! Let’s use our resources effectively. We are expending our military resources ineffectively in Iraq and every other area is getting more dangerous!
on Jul 16, 2007
It's not a question of surrender. It's knowing who you are up against. Let me tell you that any idea of controlling Iraq, troop surge or not, is a wasted exercise. The US and Britain will never get on top of a situation that has so much tribal warfare, so much opposition from neighbouring countries, so much hatred and division. That kind of war cannot be won. The US has no answer to the suicide bombs that kill Iraquis every month. Actually, there is no answer at all. Bush is misunderstanding a no-win war because he believes terrorism is at the heart of it. That's only part of the picture.

I have no solution to address for I believe there is no solution at all. The troops of the USA and UK should get out now . It is a hopeless mess and the further the US gets into the swamp, the deeper they'll sink.
on Jul 16, 2007
I quoted Prof. Record of the Army War College who said in December 2003 that Bush had no understanding of the enemy that faces us in the Islamic World. He has proven that in everything he has done. Our Intelligence has confirmed the fact we are not making America Safer. What Bush is doing is dangerous and is using our resources in an ineffective way. It is like throwing gasoline on a fire.
on Jul 16, 2007
What, exactly, do you suggest we do Col? Tell me exactly what you think should be the best course, the best way to use our resources? You claim we need to use our resources in a better way, please tell me how. How do we fight an enemy that does not follow the rules of engagement, who does not care if they kill innocent Americans, innocent Muslim or even children, who does not have a specific location for us to attack, who has entire countries hiding them that claim to be helping us? Tell me how? If surrender is not what you are suggesting then please explain what the best strategy is to make this country safer? Tell me what freedoms you are willing to give up in order to make this country safer? Because as long as we believe everyone has the right to privacy, the right to not have their phones tapped, the right to not be questioned about their religion or nationality, the right to pray their religion in any state even if they religion preaches the death or Americans and Israelis, the right come to this country, the right to not be singled out because of their religion or place of birth; we will never be able to find all those possible terrorist who are waiting for the right moment to kill us. You are clueless Col, you have no idea what you are saying, you have no solution, you have no understanding of anything.

It's not a question of surrender. It's knowing who you are up against. Let me tell you that any idea of controlling Iraq, troop surge or not, is a wasted exercise. The US and Britain will never get on top of a situation that has so much tribal warfare, so much opposition from neighbouring countries, so much hatred and division. That kind of war cannot be won. The US has no answer to the suicide bombs that kill Iraquis every month. Actually, there is no answer at all. Bush is misunderstanding a no-win war because he believes terrorism is at the heart of it. That's only part of the picture.


I have to agree with you. We have treated the concept of terrorism as an enemy that would meet us in the battle field and would fight with honor, by the rules. This is not a scene in Braveheart where 2 armies would meet face to face and fought till one of the 2 give up. This is an enemy who's rule book is full of cheats, shortcuts, blackmail, unfairness, etc. An enemy who will use every advantage we deem inhumane, unfair, careless, selfish, heartless, sad. This is as enemy that will use their brother, sisters, mothers, fathers, their children, babies, their own people, as weapons against us. This is an enemy that will blow themselves up near children, women, the handicap, the elderly, even those who agree with them; just to stick it to our Gov't. How can we fight an enemy that is willing to use every one of our weaknesses against us while we sit here and try to figure out how to get them without hitting the innocent ones? How can we have the most powerful, sophisticated, state of the art, most destructive weapons in the world and be brought to our knee's by a group of people with 100 year old weapons and willing to kill themselves as long as they take a couple of us with them in the process?

This is not just a no-win war, this is a "we are so pathetic" war. ( Disclaimer - I do not blame our soldiers for the way the war is going, so I don't consider them pathetic, I actually feel sorry for them that they are being lead by the pathetic) The pathetic ones are those who stood to benefit from this war, those who were to coward to stop it when they had a chances and those who were too busy watching American Idol, The Simpsons and CSI to even care.
on Jul 16, 2007
[/B]If we pull out of Iraq, we might be attacked. It has nothing to do with what happens in Iraq. It has to do with this division on US soil that they don't want to stop. But if we're not in Iraq, what will divide us?
on Jul 16, 2007





Reply By: CharlesCS1 Posted: Monday, July 16, 2007
"What, exactly, do you suggest we do Col? Tell me exactly what you think should be the best course, the best way to use our resources? "

This is my answer:

Reply | Edit | Delete




Reply By: CharlesCS1 Posted: Monday, July 16, 2007
What, exactly, do you suggest we do Col? Tell me exactly what you think should be the best course, the best way to use our resources?


Provide logistical and training support to the Iraqi Military so long as they do their part to fight the violence, solve the political issues and try and restore security.

The combat operation I would deploy is one to deal with any al-Qaeda/Hezbollah operation within Iraq. That force would consist of Predator Droned equipped with Hell Fire Missiles to provide real time observation and the ability to engage high value targets in Iraq. The force would have Air Cave and Special Forces when boots on the ground were needed. It would be provided a very substantial air asset in terms of Tac Air as well as precision bombing capability from both the Navy and Air Force. I would engage any al-Qaeda concentration, training or command/supply facility identified but would not become involved on lone term ground occupation. I would not be patrolling the streets of Baghdad or occupying large areas in Iraq. That would be turned over to the 350,000 Iraqi military and police. This quick reaction force could be located in Iraq or in neighboring areas or BOTH. I would substantially increase the real time Intel of the areas where al-Qaeda is operating and take every opportunity to destroy their operations large and small. I would give them NO rest or refuge. That is also true in Afghanistan. If we see that al-Qaeda continued to seek shelter in the border regions of Pakistan and they do not act to deny them the ability of operating in Pakistan, then surgical quick reaction operations would be extended into the border regions of Pakistan. We must take a far more aggressive posture toward al-Qaeda in the region and remove the bulk of our ground forces from Iraq! No more U.S. combat operation in the sectarian fighting in Iraq.


on Jul 16, 2007
now you sound like me and bush dictator gene


on Jul 16, 2007
Reply By: danielost Posted: Monday, July 16, 2007
now you sound like me and bush dictator gene

The difference is that my plan uses our military assets effectively not by putting them in the middle of a Civil War but by destroying the REAL ENEMY. I go after the problem not add to the problem like Bush!
on Jul 16, 2007
[barf]barf[/barf]
on Jul 16, 2007
The difference is that my plan uses our military assets effectively not by putting them in the middle of a Civil War but by destroying the REAL ENEMY.


sorry i don't recall a civil war in Iraq when we took out Saddam

and the REAL ENEMY is still in Pakistan which means that YOU would have invaded an ally.

and you have been saying how bad it was for bush to attack Iraq against our allies wishes. you know France and Germany who were profiting from the food for oil sanctions.

gee i wonder why they didn't want us to attack him

on Jul 17, 2007
the REAL ENEMY is still in Pakistan


or afghanistan whenever that's convenient.

YOU would have invaded an ally.


pakistan is a sad excuse for an ally. musharraf is a dictator who's barely in control of the controllable portion of the country. he's already stated pubicly that he doesn't want to capture bin laden or zawahiri. pakistan's intelligence agency has long been in bed with the taliban and al quaeda.

if bush, cheney and their associates really wanted to put a stop to al quaeda they would have accomplished the mission in afghanistan and pakistan.
on Jul 17, 2007
Reply By: danielost


"sorry i don't recall a civil war in Iraq when we took out Saddam"

You are CORRECT. Bush allowed the factions within Iraq who hated each other for 1,300 years to arm and organize themselves and now there is Civil War in Iraq which is killing our military.


“and you have been saying how bad it was for bush to attack Iraq against our allies wishes. you know France and Germany who were profiting from the food for oil sanctions.

gee i wonder why they didn't want us to attack him "

In part because they knew that a non Moslem country attacking and occupying a Moslem country would just add to the hate. That is what Baker, Armitage and Powell told Bush who ignored their advice. Anyone that looked at HOW Iraq was formed and the fact that the factions within Iraq hated each other would have understood that when we removed Saddam and the CONTROL he used to PREVENT the factions from fighting with each other, the groups would begin fighting each other. That is JUST what took place. In addition, the loss of control when Saddam was deposed allowed Foreign Terrorists to begin operating in Iraq and they make the violence between the Iraqi factions WORSE. ALL that is the result of the Bush invasion of Iraq!


“YOU would have invaded an ally. I did not say INVADT Palestine.”

I said we would take action against al-Qaeda in the border regions ONLY IF PAKESTIN DID NOT ACT!
on Jul 17, 2007
The indisputable truth is:

We are expending the vast majority of our resources chasing an illusion—that if we eliminate al-Qaeda from Iraq we will have reduced the risk of future attacks. Just the opposite is what the NIE concluded when our 16 Intelligence agencies said the Iraq War is the major cause of the increase in foreign terrorism.
on Jul 17, 2007
I said we would take action against al-Qaeda in the border regions ONLY IF PAKESTIN DID NOT ACT!


this is still an ally


pakistan is a sad excuse for an ally.


pakistan is a sad excuse of an ally. but gene is upset that we have upset the world for attacking an enemy. how upset would the world have been if we had invaded an ally. true a bad ally but an ally.

Just the opposite is what the NIE concluded when our 16 Intelligence agencies said the Iraq War is the major cause of the increase in foreign terrorism.


gene you would be saying the exact same thing if we had invaded pakistan or any other nation.

4 Pages1 2 3  Last