Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Published on November 24, 2007 By COL Gene In Politics

This is a question that needs to be answered. I would like to see the Pentagon’s rational for the timing of our invasion of Iraq.

In late 2002 the Pentagon said that Saddam had no offensive military capability.

We had the UN Sanctions in place as well as the No Fly Zones in March 2003.

The UN Weapons inspectors were back in Iraq and David Kay had learned six weeks BEFORE Bush invaded Iraq that the BIO WMD story was not true. He would have also learned there was NO WMD, including nuclear, except for about 500 old Artillery Shells that had been filled with gas in the early 1980’s.

Saddam was not threatening his neighbors nor preparing for military action.

The facts are that there were no military or tactical reasons to initiate an invasion of Iraq in March 2003. In fact had we allowed David Kay to spend another six months with his inspections, the world would have learned what we know today—Saddam did not have WMD. Knowledge that Saddam did not have WMD would have severely weakened his grip on power within Iraq. He used the illusion of WMD to prevent countries like Iran from acting against him as well as to control the internal factions that opposed his rule.

Today it is speculation as to what might have happened in Iraq if Bush had not rushed into a war in March 2003. What is NOT speculation is that in March 2003 there were no reasons to invade Iraq. If the UN inspections were prevented from conducting their inspections or a break down of the UN Sanctions had taken place in late 2003 or 2004, we could have used the military option just as effectively in March 2004 as in March 2003. In fact had Bush taken the time to expand the size of our ground military force, had an invasion been deemed appropriate we would have had the necessary troops to properly secure Iraq after Saddam fell. That would have prevented MOST of the dead and injured American Troops we have suffered.

We need to know WHY it was so urgent to invade Iraq in March 2003. My bet is there is no such rational other then that is what Bush wanted to do. It could be that Bush was afraid to wait for fear that the truth about WMD and the so called danger Saddam posed to the United States and the world was shown to be an illusion.

Comments (Page 1)
4 Pages1 2 3  Last
on Nov 24, 2007

This is a question that needs to be answered. I would like to see the Pentagon’s rational for the timing of our invasion of Iraq.

The summer was too hot. The attack had to happen in March or not for another six months. Saddam knew this, was stalling.

Also note that nobody KNEW that Saddam did not have biological weapons. We only knew that he had failed to prove that he did not have them and that the inspectors hadn't found anything yet. Don't make not knowing X into knowing that not X. It's bad logic.


 

on Nov 24, 2007
Reply By: LeaukiPosted: Saturday, November 24, 2007This is a question that needs to be answered. I would like to see the Pentagon’s rational for the timing of our invasion of Iraq.The summer was too hot. The attack had to happen in March or not for another six months. Saddam knew this, was stalling.


I understand March. The question is WHY 2003? Saddam stalling did not pose a hazzard!

Also note that nobody KNEW that Saddam did not have biological weapons. We only knew that he had failed to prove that he did not have them and that the inspectors hadn't found anything yet. Don't make not knowing X into knowing that not X. It's bad logic.



That is why since David Kay was back in Iraq he should have been given the time to determine the facts. He learned on February 8, 2003 the BIO Lab Story (Curveball) was a lie. By April 2003 the CIA acknowledged there was no BIO threat and before the end of 2003 Kay knew there was no WMD in Iraq except for the old Artillery Shells that proved to be non lethal.

on Nov 24, 2007
I understand March. The question is WHY 2003? Saddam stalling did not pose a hazzard!


I think it is almost not practical to keep the forces on a stand-by status for very long. They were in-place and ready to start since Jan or Feb. You cant keep that Armada sitting idle for very long. It is like a Boxer, how long can you keep him standing outside the Ring?
on Nov 24, 2007
Reply By: ThinkAloudPosted: Saturday, November 24, 2007I understand March. The question is WHY 2003? Saddam stalling did not pose a hazzard!I think it is almost not practical to keep the forces on a stand-by status for very long. They were in-place and ready to start since Jan or Feb. You cant keep that Armada sitting idle for very long. It is like a Boxer, how long can you keep him standing outside the Ring?


There was no need to put our military on stand-by in 2003 since there was no immediate danger from Iraq in 2003. We also have the process from January 1942 to June 1944 getting ready to invade Europe. Thus holding off a year to March 2004 would not have been a problem and by 2004 we would have known there was no reason to invade Iraq.
on Nov 24, 2007
Well, I participated mostly because I was bored, and tired of being stationed in Korea. Seemed like a good idea at the time.
on Nov 24, 2007
You're such a simplistic twit, Gene. You're a disgrace to all Monday-morning quarterbacks, bad as they are.
on Nov 24, 2007
Reply By: DaiwaPosted: Saturday, November 24, 2007You're such a simplistic twit, Gene. You're a disgrace to all Monday-morning quarterbacks, bad as they are.


You just can not come up with a valid excuse for the choices Bush made. Why do you feel compelled to defend that I diot?
on Nov 24, 2007
And your arguments are the intellectual equivalent of "Your mother wears Army boots." I can't help the terminally deranged.
on Nov 24, 2007
Oh, and have a very happy Thanksgiving Holiday!
on Nov 24, 2007
You're such a simplistic twit, Gene. You're a disgrace to all Monday-morning quarterbacks, bad as they are.


Well, no matter what your politics, that's just nasty. Shame on you.

Gene, I'm not understanding why people write so vehemently Bush is right on this. I wish someone would just give me their thoughts, backed up with facts. Here's why I like Bush: 1, 2, 3....
M
on Nov 24, 2007
Reply By: DaiwaPosted: Saturday, November 24, 2007And your arguments are the intellectual equivalent of "Your mother wears Army boots." I can't help the terminally deranged.


YOU ARE PATHETIC!
on Nov 24, 2007
Well, no matter what your politics, that's just nasty. Shame on you.


These threads long ago ceased being about Bush for most of us, Joe, and there is some history here you may not be aware of or appreciate. We've been over this ground so many times in so many threads, with Gene constantly throwing up straw man arguments and constantly avoiding answering any criticism en pointe, simply throwing as much wet garbage at the wall as he can, hoping something will stick. If nothing sticks, he starts a new thread on some new tangent & uses it as a vehicle for throwing all the same old garbage at the wall all over again. He's been far nastier and called me and others here far worse than nitwit. Simply disagree with him & he calls you an idiot. Telling him "Here's why I like Bush: 1,2,3..." is like telling the Pope why you like the devil - doesn't move him much. Not only that, but like it or not Bush is history now.

Which is by way of explaining that I did not "write so vehemently Bush is right..." Any vehemence is directed at Gene's thick skull, not in support of Bush.
on Nov 24, 2007
YOU ARE PATHETIC!


I rest my case.
on Nov 25, 2007
Well, no matter what your politics, that's just nasty. Shame on you.


I don't think you have been around Col long enough to know what is really nasty and what isn't. It could be considered harsh, but the fact that it's directed to Col, and the history that he has on this site, nitwit is probably one of the nicest things ever said to him.

Gene, I'm not understanding why people write so vehemently Bush is right on this. I wish someone would just give me their thoughts, backed up with facts. Here's why I like Bush: 1, 2, 3....


I think you are asking for too much considering that has been done time and time again on several threads for years now. Besides what would be the point in giving "I like Bush: 1, 2, 3...." arguments when they are dismissed right off the back because people like Col, and possibly you, have their minds set and no amount of facts, proof or intelligence will be accepted, it will be dismissed as misinformed, ignorant, one-sided, BS, etc.
on Nov 25, 2007
Topic #5 for ColGene... out of what, 6?

Let's see here there's:

1: Bush sucks because he stole 2 elections.
2: Bush sucks because of his National Guard record.
3: Bush sucks because of the economy.
4: Bush sucks because of the deficit
5: Bush sucks because of the war in Iraq.
6: Bush sucks because he doesn't bow to the almighty UN.

Did I miss any? Somehow I doubt. 446 articles saying the same thing. It's like a broken record.

Gene, is there anything new you have to say on anything, or are you just going to continue rehashing the same 6 or so articles over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ?
4 Pages1 2 3  Last