Impeach Bush for the lack of security in Iraq

380 Tons of missing explosives is the last straw!

Published on October 27, 2004 By COL Gene In Politics

The failure to provide security in Iraq has added to American Casualties and injuries. Bush has not provided the troop levels required to secure the borders and prevent outside terrorists from comming into Iraq. He has not secured the explosives from getting into terrorists hands which are being used to kill and injure American military members or to control the populated areas where terrorists are operating from and planning attacks on our soldiers. The latest revelation that 380 Tons of explosives are missing from a known site is but one of a long list of our failures to secure Iraq and limit American casualties.

Bush made the decision to understaff the military which has resulted in our inability to establish order. Reguardless of whether you agree with the decision to attack Iraq, no one can believe Bush has acted responsibly in the way the war was conducted after Saddam was removed from power. Bush and Cheney are running around telling us how many tons of explosiives we have destroyed not how many tons of explosives we have allowed to fall into the hands of the terrorists that have been used to kill and injure our brave military .

Bush is the where this buck stops and he should be removed as Commander-in-Chief for failing to protect the military he has placed in harms way!

Comments (Page 3)

Myrrander

on Oct 29, 2004

Well, I don't think Bush needs to be impeached. I didn't think Clinton needed to be impeached. I don't think "high crimes and misdeamenors" have been committed by Bush. I don't think any were committed by Clinton. If this makes me a zealot, so be it.

I'm not going to be provoked into giving you an excuse to ban me. No matter how many times you tell me I'm "full of shit."

drmiler

on Oct 29, 2004

Reply #31 By: Myrrander - 10/29/2004 10:41:02 AM
Well, I don't think Bush needs to be impeached. I didn't think Clinton needed to be impeached. I don't think any were committed by Clinton. If this makes me a zealot, so be

Clinton didn't do anything? Come on! What were you hiding in a cave? He *lied* on the witness stand, was found out that he did and then proved that he lied. That's why he was impeached!

Myrrander

on Oct 29, 2004

I didn't say he didn't do anything. I said he didn't commit a "high crime or misdeamenor."

drmiler

on Oct 29, 2004

Reply #33 By: Myrrander - 10/29/2004 11:18:49 AM
I didn't say he didn't do anything. I said he didn't commit a "high crime

Excuse me but if I'm not mistaken ( and I could be) isn't lying on the witness stand a high crime? I know for a fact it's a felony!

Myrrander

on Oct 29, 2004

Sorry, it just doesn't seem to be much a matter of threatening national security. I'd like to reiterate my original point, though, which was that GEORGE BUSH has done NOTHING to deserve impeachment. I feel like the Clinton impeachment set a rather wrong-headed precedent for using the procedure, and Democrats and Lefties shouldn't go by that precedent. That's all I was really trying to say.

COL Gene

on Oct 29, 2004

drmiller

What I am telling you that there were several hundred Amo dumps in Iraq. We DID NOT SECURE ALL OF THEM and the terrorists have been using the expolsives for the past 1.5 years to kill American soldiers and Iraqies by taking what they needed from these ubnsecured locations. We did not secure these Amo dumps because of a lack of manpower. The same reason we did not secure the borders and control the ares that supported Saddam. No matter how you SPIN it, we needed far more troops than Bush sent to do the job we gave our military. That is not the fault of the military but the Commander-in-Chief!

drmiler

on Oct 29, 2004

Reply #36 By: COL Gene - 10/29/2004 12:25:38 PM
drmiller

What I am telling you that there were several hundred Amo dumps in Iraq. We DID NOT SECURE ALL OF THEM and the terrorists have been using the expolsives for the past 1.5 years to kill American soldiers and Iraqies by taking what they needed from these ubnsecured locations. We did not secure these Amo dumps because of a lack of manpower. The same reason we did not secure the borders and control the ares that supported Saddam. No matter how you SPIN it, we needed far more troops than Bush sent to do the job we gave our military. That is not the fault of the military but the Commander-in-Chief!

And I'm telling you that your mistaken. The troops have already secured over 400,000 tons of munitions. All your doing is looking for something else to bash Bush with.

COL Gene

on Oct 29, 2004

drmiller

You are full of BS. The issue is not how much have we secured but how much has fallen into the hands of the terrorists? Where do you think all those explosives are comming from for the explosions that take place all over Iraq? The U.S. Military has admitted they have not been able to secure many of the stocks of explosives. I suppose you will tell us that all the Americans killed in these explosions are a myth. All the facilities that have been destroyed are not true.

You and Bush refuse to accept the facts no matter how clear they are q and you deny anything. Tell the families of the hundreds of Americans killed by thoes explosices they did not die! Did you ever go to the family to tell them their father, spouse or child was killed? I watched my old boss do yhat during Vietnam. Many young soldiers have died because we did not control the securitry in Iraq from day one. That happened because we did NOT HAVE THE LEVEL OF FORCES NEEDED TO DO THE JOB!

drmiler

on Oct 29, 2004

Reply #38 By: COL Gene - 10/29/2004 4:16:05 PM
drmiller

You are full of BS. The issue is not how much have we secured but how much has fallen into the hands of the terrorists? Where do you think all those explosives are comming from for the explosions that take place all over Iraq

Again looking for material. Do *YOU* have *proof* that the material has fallen into enemy hands? NO you don't! Explosives can be made from a variety of things. You don't need to steal or loot them. Try reading either the CIA's black book on Improvised Munitions or the Anarcists Cookbook I mean for crying out loud, I have recipe for "thermite" made from household chemicals!

because we did NOT HAVE THE LEVEL OF FORCES NEEDED TO DO THE JOB!

You keep harping on this and I'll keep on harping that Kerry is a "TRAITOR"!!!

Grim Xiozan

on Oct 29, 2004

Sorry, it just doesn't seem to be much a matter of threatening national security.

Dick Morris would argue otherwise, Clinton did not stiffen airport security out fear of offending the ACLU, unless you think Dick Morris is biased against Clinton.

Rammstein Plinko!!

COL Gene

on Oct 29, 2004

Our military has said the explosives being used day after day are the same as the explosives sattered throught Iraq. The terrorists do not have a government to acquire the supplies they are using. They take then and use them aginst us. You never offer any possible source for their supplies. There have been thousands of such explosions during the past 1.5 years. We have lost more American lives from these attacks than to depose Saddam

What does the instability in Iraq and our inability to control that country have to do with Kerry? You try and deflect this issue with a totally unrelated issue. The subject of this Blog is the fact Bush did not control the security in Iraq because we simply do not have the needed forces to do the job. Almost every general that has talked about this issue admitts we under estimated the situation and needed more resources either American or from our so called allies. It is not just the unsecured weapons that is a problem. Look at the unrest. The lead story yeaterday in the New York Times was about how we are losing control of RAMADI, a city of 400,000 and the Iraq government is not able to help. The Times claims the situation in RAMADI is even worse than the in Falluja and use the term, "Chaos". This has NOTHING to do with Kerry! This is pure BUSH!

dewey

on Oct 30, 2004

draginol wrote:

Please stop jumping to conclusions based on assumptions...Bush has already proven the stupidity of doing that. And unless you can point to sound evidence that Saddam was providing weapons and material to Afghanistan, it's nothing more than a rumor based on emotion, not reality. Something you've accused liberals of, actually.

Daiwa

on Oct 30, 2004

What I am telling you that there were several hundred Amo dumps in Iraq. We DID NOT SECURE ALL OF THEM and the terrorists have been using the expolsives for the past 1.5 years to kill American soldiers and Iraqies by taking what they needed from these ubnsecured locations.

You're right, COL - we only secured 99.4% of the stuff, in a country the size of California.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Draginol

on Oct 30, 2004

Myrannder: This is what you wrote.

While I realize that Republicans have set a very slimy precedent in impeaching a president for nothing

You said that Clinton had done "nothing". *I* would not have impeached Clinton because I didn't think what he did rose to the level of impeachment. But he certainly did more than "nothing". He lied under oath and this is the chief law enforcement officer in the land. And he obstructed office.

Of course, I also think that the hub-bub about Watergate was quite overblown as well. Both, from a legal perspective, are quite similar.

But regardless, you did demonize Republicans over the Clinton impeachment. You (and I) may disagree with those who felt he had done enough to be impeached, but there have been interviews with congressmen who knew that by voting for impeachment they would loose their house seats AND that they didn't need to vote yes in order for it to go through (that they had the votes) but felt that this was a very clear cut case of obstruction of justice and lying under oath and therefore had to vote for impeachment.

Then anonymous guy says:

Please stop jumping to conclusions based on assumptions...Bush has already proven the stupidity of doing that.

I'm not sure if he's trying to be ironic or what but it was Kerry that latched onto this story without any investigation and immediately started making accusations that Bush was personally incompotent. It was Kerry and his supporters that jump to conclusions. The odds are that either Saddam moved them or the US military removed them.

Kerry and his supporters are making the assumption that somehow, while the roads were clogged with US troops that unknown "insurgents" managed to cart of 200 tons of explosives. I doubt even today that the insurgents have enough trucks in one place to move that kind of material.

That is why I am arguing that this is a good example of the thought process difference between conservatives and liberals. I can tell you that if the roles were reversed, conservatives would not have latched onto this (en masse anyway, nthere's always going to be a few loonies) because: a) it's not a significant amount in the big picture and it would be rash to jump to conclusions and c) Occam's razor would indicate that looters simply could not have carted off this stuff. But liberals operate on emotion. They don't have the same analytical reasoning capacity as conservatives (engineers tend to be conservatives, poets tend to be liberal).

It's this same kind of thinking that allows liberals to buy into pie in the sky plans for "alternative" energy. They don't THINK through the ramifications, they FEEL through them. Same in this case.

Draginol

on Oct 30, 2004

The terrorists do not have a government to acquire the supplies they are using. They take then and use them aginst us. You never offer any possible source for their supplies.

As has been WIDELY reported and known to those of us not living in a liberal cocoon, Iran and Syria are helping the insurgents and in fact, a significant percentage of them aren't Iraqi fighters.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!