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 2)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Nov 25, 2007
you forgot

7 bush sucks because he won't the congress to do illegal searches for illegal stuff he might have done, sometime in the last 8 years maybe.
on Nov 25, 2007
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



don't think if you used a sledge hammer it would make a dent
on Nov 25, 2007
Why do you feel compelled to defend that I diot?


Why do you center your life around attacking him and nothing else? Hitler doesn't deserve the attention you lavish on G.W. I don't know that I've ever seen you say a single new thing, just variations on the same old theme for the past several years. Sure plenty of people disagree with you, but what are you going to do, argue them into submission? When you turn up the crazy, (and no matter how logical or illogical the argument, the extreme fanatacism is crazy)they tune out.

Do you have any life at all outside of Bush bashing? I'm sure even frickin' Hinkley had a hobby. I'm in the war for chrissake, and I do tons of other stuff, rather than obsess about politics and the war all the time. Take a break, or start taking Zoloft.
on Nov 25, 2007
(Citizen)Spc Nobody Special


give him a break. he is after all a national guard col. whom somebody felt sorry for and promoted him to col anyways.

and he only has one thing in the whole world to do and that is to attack and attack and attack bush. facts don't matter, truth doesn't matter.


on Nov 25, 2007
Reply By: Spc Nobody SpecialPosted: Sunday, November 25, 2007Why do you feel compelled to defend that I diot? Why do you center your life around attacking him and nothing else? Hitler doesn't deserve the attention you lavish on G.W. I don't know that I've ever seen you say a single new thing, just variations on the same old theme for the past several years. Sure plenty of people disagree with you, but what are you going to do, argue them into submission? When you turn up the crazy, (and no matter how logical or illogical the argument, the extreme fanatacism is crazy)they tune out.



Everything I have said about Bush is true. The problem is that the idiots that support him do not want the truth about what he has done to this country to be known. It makes their support for him look lame and they never want to admit they were wrong. Killing almost 4,000 American Troops and injuring over 28,000 more in an unjust war, $4 trillion of Debt, failure to secure our borders after 9/11. Those are BIG failures and are all because of Bush and his inept leadership!

NO one has shown WHY we had to invade Iraq in March 2003!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
on Nov 25, 2007
NO one has shown WHY we had to invade Iraq in March 2003!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


this is probable the question saddam was asking when he was hiding in his rat hole.
on Nov 25, 2007
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.


Perhaps, but I still haven't seen an I like Bush, here's why: 1, 2, 3....

As for me, I'll let my postings (read them) speak for themselves. I think one of Bush's major faults is surrounding himself with yes men. I, personally, would be ashamed if I made the same mistake. It's important to try to look at things the way others see them. I'm amazed, given a set of facts, at how those facts can be interpreted. You can't afford to take anything at face value. Who, what, where and why should always be asked. One of my major reasons for being on this blog is to try to understand things. What good would it do to only listen to myself?
on Nov 25, 2007
Who, what, where and why should always be asked.


these questions may have been answered.


your also assume that what these men do in public is the same thing they do behind closed doors.


you have a boss(even if that boss is your wife.). when you two decide a course of action in private, do you then argue about it in public.
on Nov 25, 2007
Joe, you seem to be a reasonable guy. You will get reasonable responses to your posts and be able to engage in a healthy exchange of ideas, some of which might or might not change the views of the participants (that learning thing you mentioned).

That's not possible with Gene. And coming to Gene's defense will tend to identify you with his way of thinking, rightly or wrongly, human nature being what it is. Gene is simply toxic to healthy discussion. Posting on his threads has become more of an entertaining hobby than an intellectual exercise. Kind of like slowing down to look at the wreck at the side of the freeway, we can't help ourselves.
on Nov 25, 2007
Reply By: danielostPosted: Sunday, November 25, 2007NO one has shown WHY we had to invade Iraq in March 2003!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! this is probable the question saddam was asking when he was hiding in his rat hole.


That does not show WHY Bush had to invade Iraq in March 2003.

Reply By: danielostPosted: Sunday, November 25, 2007Who, what, where and why should always be asked.these questions may have been answered.your also assume that what these men do in public is the same thing they do behind closed doors. you have a boss(even if that boss is your wife.). when you two decide a course of action in private, do you then argue about it in public.



Good leaders make major decisions predicated on sound rational and reasons. The situation in March 2003 was such that there WERE NO SOUND reasons to invade Iraq and in fact there were many good reasons to allow David Kay to complete his inspections and to build a U.S. Ground Force of a sufficient size to accomplish the mission of invading Iraq!
on Nov 25, 2007
Reply By: DaiwaPosted: Sunday, November 25, 2007Joe, you seem to be a reasonable guy. You will get reasonable responses to your posts and be able to engage in a healthy exchange of ideas, some of which might or might not change the views of the participants (that learning thing you mentioned).That's not possible with Gene. And coming to Gene's defense will tend to identify you with his way of thinking, rightly or wrongly, human nature being what it is. Gene is simply toxic to healthy discussion. Posting on his threads has become more of an entertaining hobby than an intellectual exercise. Kind of like slowing down to look at the wreck at the side of the freeway, we can't help ourselves.


It is YOUR response that is irrational not my response!!!
on Nov 25, 2007

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....

Welcome to JoeUser. Feel free to go back through the past 4 years of Gene's threads where people have tried to put together reasoned, detailed responses to Gene's rants.

But at this point, Gene's posts are worthless. He spits out several a week and they're all the same. Just rantings of an Internet kook who will ignore any salient points made. So people don't really try to put time and effort into refuting his nonsense anymore. I know I don't.

I wrote about this 3 years ago in fact: http://draginol.joeuser.com/index.asp?aid=12574

 

on Nov 25, 2007
And coming to Gene's defense will tend to identify you with his way of thinking, rightly or wrongly, human nature being what it is.


Thanks for the advice, but I'll take my chances. You see, it is unimportant how I am seen by others. What's important is I act acording to my own moral code and belief. If I do that, then all is right in the world of me. It's hard to do, sometimes, I admit. But it's worth a shot.
on Nov 25, 2007
Reply By: DraginolPosted: Sunday, November 25, 2007Gene, 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....Welcome to JoeUser. Feel free to go back through the past 4 years of Gene's threads where people have tried to put together reasoned, detailed responses to Gene's rants.But at this point, Gene's posts are worthless. He spits out several a week and they're all the same. Just rantings of an Internet kook who will ignore any salient points made. So people don't really try to put time and effort into refuting his nonsense anymore. I know I don't.I wrote about this 3 years ago in fact: http://draginol.joeuser.com/index.asp?aid=12574


I have sighted many facts that demonstrate what the results of the Bush policies have been over the past 7 years. Every time any fact is posted that would look as if Bush did not resolve an issue are created a new issue that did not look good, the information is attacked or I am subject to personal attack. As have pointed out since most of the facts I present are either from official Federal Government agencies or national experts, the criticism that is directed toward me is in reality directed against the Official agencies or the most respected experts of our time! All that demonstrates is the ignorance of the people that attack me personally or claim the factual data I present is not correct or relevant! I know many who support Bush are just like him in that they NEVER admit when they make a mistake.
on Nov 25, 2007
Welcome to JoeUser. Feel free to go back through the past 4 years of Gene's threads where people have tried to put together reasoned, detailed responses to Gene's rants.


you don't need to go to this much trouble.


i will sum it up for you joe. gene blames bush for the bridge that fell down
4 Pages1 2 3 4