Attempts to put into false context the ultimate sacrifices of thousands of brave Americans are sickening. Is this supposed to make someone feel better about the lives we have squandered with nothing to show for it?

I'm sure that you telling them their brave sons and daughters died for nothing is so very comforting to them.

What is sickening is attempts by Democrats to make sure that the sacrifices that the troops and their families have made are in vain. Calling for defeat and retreat in Iraq when so much progress has been made there is wrong. Defeating the terrorists in Iraq will be tougher the second time around if we follow the path advocated by Murtha, Reid, Pelosi, and Obama.

 

 

Views such as this regarding Iraq are similar to that of a compulsive gambler--"if I only stay in a little longer, I can make all my earlier losses worthwhile"... Someday, maybe someone will explain the concept of sunk costs to you. I'm sorry that over 4,000 U.S. lives have been squandered, but I'm not prepared to tell one more soldier or Marine that they must die to perpetuate your convoluted justification for continuation of a failed policy.

Most Democrats in Congress who authorized using force in Iraq did not even bother reading the resolution authorizing the war. Yet now the same people who were too busy to read intelligence reports say that the intelligence was slanted.

 

I won't defend Congress, because they for years enabled Bush with limp-wristed oversight borne out of the political fear whipped up by administration distortions. However, I'm sure you're implicating at least 100-150 people. Got a source for your claim? Direct quotes only please.

Defeating the terrorists in Iraq will be tougher the second time around if we follow the path advocated by Murtha, Reid, Pelosi, and Obama.

 

And another thing. I love it how war supporters have been allowed to define our adversaries in Iraq as "terrorists" when it is politically expedient, yet we turn a blind eye to factions responsible for many hundreds (if not thousands) of U.S. casualties. In the desperate attempt to quell out of control violence, we have resorted to paying off many who formerly killed U.S. servicemembers. And even though Al Sadr is an avowed enemy of the U.S. and openly opposes the U.S. occupation, we have made no apparent attempts to take him out. He has undoubtedly directed operations resulting in attacks on U.S. servicemembers. War backers are all-too-willing to get up on their soapboxes and hurl scorn about "surrendering to the enemy" blah blah blah.

 

I put these questions to you: Is not the willingness of U.S. leadership to get into bed with such groups essentially tantamount to surrender? One could easily draw parallels to U.S. activities in the Russian-Afghanistan war that eventually empowered the Taliban and al Qaeda. How can we have victory if we're not willing to vanquish our enemies?

Many Americans oppose the war now in large part because of the effective propaganda campaign that Congressional Democrats have been engaging in to win elections. Never in American history has one political party so actively undermined American foreign policy with so many troops in harm's way.

 

 

Americans oppose the war now because we have seen over five years of dishonest representations by the administration and GOP leaders about the entire Iraq situation. First it was the deliberate and dishonest attempts to associate Saddam Hussein with 9/11. Then it was the repeated assertions that Iraq was "turning the corner" and that "conditions were improving" that time and again were proven to be untrue. Crocker and Petreaus conceded in their most recent testimony to Congress that Iraq was on the verge of civil war just before the surge began--yet administration statements made at the time stubbornly refused to admit any such thing. The American public long ago recognized that administration declarations about the war are simply not credible.

There was also some good intelligence, in terms of some evidence that Saddam had no stockpiles of WMD. The administration chose to ignore it because it wanted to beat the drums for an invasion.

 

I don't see why "we would have been there by now anyway" ... Iraq wasn't involved with 9/11, and Saddam wasn't allied with Al-Qaeda.

 

westsider, comments like the bolded one cause me to chuckle (although I'm sure you intended it seriously). Your statement is in my mind a very serious charge (akin to equally serious charges that Clinton would call an air strike from time to time to divert attention from his humidor). The way I was raised, I wouldn't make such a serious charge unless I had proof that such was the case. Thus, I'm curious to know why you think Bush ignored that intel. Isn't it just as possible that Bush consider the contrary intel seriously, talked it over with his foreign policy and military advisors; talked it over with the leaders of our allies, and then decided to move forward for more noble reasons than the one you are proferring (such as: even if he doesn't have wmds at this time, he has had them in the past and may develop them in the future, so lets remove this mad man now and not give him any more time to prepare to hurt this country?) Plus, if as the person responsible for sending military members into harms way, he must take actions that are designed to minimize the loss of military life whenever possible. As a former Marine officer, I know that I was trained to accomplish the mission with the least possible loss of life to my troops. Assuming you agree with that general concept, if you believe that you were eventually going to be forced to remove Hussein, doesn't sitting back and giving him more time to prepare his military and to prepare his defenses totally fly in the face of the general concept? I think it does.

 

What I am saying is that it is totally possible that Bush carefully considered all intel, and ultimately decided that with conflicting intel, he was going to take the course of action that he believed would eventually result in the lowest loss of life while accomplishing the mission.

 

I am sure that there are those that believe that Hussein was not a threat then and wouldn't be a threat in the future to us, i.e. he was and would remain a paper tiger. And perhaps knowing what we do now, that is a defendable position. But Bush wasn't making the decision then with what we know now. Our human intel on Iraq was at the time, in a legal word, crap. Bush could have gambled and hoped that the intel saying Hussein was a real threat was wrong and that his advisors like Cheney and Rumsfeld were wrong. But if that gamble was incorrect and the delay in disposing of Hussein only allowed Hussein to get stronger and thus caused even more U.S. military members to die when we eventually had to remove him, I would have been one of those people calling for Bush to be impeached for failing to take action when he should have (in the same vein as those upset with Bush I and Clinton for failing to take stronger action against Bin laden when they should have).

 

We, as Americans, tend not to realize the need to make decisions with what intel we have at the time. We love to apply 20/20 hindsight and criticize our leaders when things don't work out the way we wanted them to. We forget that there is a delicate balancing act needed to be taken at the time decisions are made. Careful thought is given in every military decision as to what will be the effect of not taking action now. It would have been very logical to conclude that if we had not taken action at the time, the costs in military lives would have been much greater if we were forced to take action in the future. I will again point out that I was and am totally thrilled that there were no wmd's used against us by Hussein. I don't view the lack of wmd's to be a failure on Bush's fault; I view it as a failure of our human intel (which was not Bush's fault) and a failure by Hussein to completely lift his skirt to prove to us that some of our intel was inaccurate. And any one being fair can google the matter and find personal account after personal account by inspectors detailing how Hussein continually impeded the efforts of the inspectors to thoroughly conduct their inspections.

More people were murdered in Chicago in March (88) than soldiers in Iraq in the same month (33).

 

Just saw on Fox News that the Chicago PD is being issued M-1 carbines, the same rifle used by the Marine Corps, to combat the escallation of violent gun crimes in the city. The cops need more fire power just to have an even playing field against the thugs terrorizing the city.

Not directly related to this thread, but just found it interesting news after reading this post.

westsider, comments like the bolded one cause me to chuckle (although I'm sure you intended it seriously). Your statement is in my mind a very serious charge (akin to equally serious charges that Clinton would call an air strike from time to time to divert attention from his humidor). The way I was raised, I wouldn't make such a serious charge unless I had proof that such was the case. Thus, I'm curious to know why you think Bush ignored that intel. Isn't it just as possible that Bush consider the contrary intel seriously, talked it over with his foreign policy and military advisors; talked it over with the leaders of our allies, and then decided to move forward for more noble reasons than the one you are proferring (such as: even if he doesn't have wmds at this time, he has had them in the past and may develop them in the future, so lets remove this mad man now and not give him any more time to prepare to hurt this country?) Plus, if as the person responsible for sending military members into harms way, he must take actions that are designed to minimize the loss of military life whenever possible. As a former Marine officer, I know that I was trained to accomplish the mission with the least possible loss of life to my troops. Assuming you agree with that general concept, if you believe that you were eventually going to be forced to remove Hussein, doesn't sitting back and giving him more time to prepare his military and to prepare his defenses totally fly in the face of the general concept? I think it does.

 

What I am saying is that it is totally possible that Bush carefully considered all intel, and ultimately decided that with conflicting intel, he was going to take the course of action that he believed would eventually result in the lowest loss of life while accomplishing the mission.

 

I am sure that there are those that believe that Hussein was not a threat then and wouldn't be a threat in the future to us, i.e. he was and would remain a paper tiger. And perhaps knowing what we do now, that is a defendable position. But Bush wasn't making the decision then with what we know now. Our human intel on Iraq was at the time, in a legal word, crap. Bush could have gambled and hoped that the intel saying Hussein was a real threat was wrong and that his advisors like Cheney and Rumsfeld were wrong. But if that gamble was incorrect and the delay in disposing of Hussein only allowed Hussein to get stronger and thus caused even more U.S. military members to die when we eventually had to remove him, I would have been one of those people calling for Bush to be impeached for failing to take action when he should have (in the same vein as those upset with Bush I and Clinton for failing to take stronger action against Bin laden when they should have).

 

We, as Americans, tend not to realize the need to make decisions with what intel we have at the time. We love to apply 20/20 hindsight and criticize our leaders when things don't work out the way we wanted them to. We forget that there is a delicate balancing act needed to be taken at the time decisions are made. Careful thought is given in every military decision as to what will be the effect of not taking action now. It would have been very logical to conclude that if we had not taken action at the time, the costs in military lives would have been much greater if we were forced to take action in the future. I will again point out that I was and am totally thrilled that there were no wmd's used against us by Hussein. I don't view the lack of wmd's to be a failure on Bush's fault; I view it as a failure of our human intel (which was not Bush's fault) and a failure by Hussein to completely lift his skirt to prove to us that some of our intel was inaccurate. And any one being fair can google the matter and find personal account after personal account by inspectors detailing how Hussein continually impeded the efforts of the inspectors to thoroughly conduct their inspections.

 

I feel that you bring out some excellent points, and Bush had both some good info, and some really really bad info. However I feel personally that Bush's job was to get it right AND make a positive identification before actions. Therefore I have to say that in this upcoming election I'm supporting Obama!

I love these debates. I get a chuckle out of closed minded people.

Leatherneck, I respect your opinion, but several of the key players in the Pentagon and the administration were supporting an invasion of Iraq long before Bush's election. It is my view that the administration wanted to invade Iran and took advantage of the post-9/11 mindset in this country to sell it to the American people.

 

We now know that there was also evidence that Saddam didn't have WMD ... some of his own scientists said as much. But we chose to ignore it because it didn't jibe with the policy goal.

 

And, before anyone asks, I was for the action in Afghanistan. We were entirely justified to do so and we gave the Afghan government plenty of advance warning. Bush lost me with Iraq ...

Leatherneck, I respect your opinion, but several of the key players in the Pentagon and the administration were supporting an invasion of Iraq long before Bush's election. It is my view that the administration wanted to invade Iran and took advantage of the post-9/11 mindset in this country to sell it to the American people.

 

We now know that there was also evidence that Saddam didn't have WMD ... some of his own scientists said as much. But we chose to ignore it because it didn't jibe with the policy goal.

 

And, before anyone asks, I was for the action in Afghanistan. We were entirely justified to do so and we gave the Afghan government plenty of advance warning. Bush lost me with Iraq ...

 

:thumb:

The mission was to remove Sadaam from power. That mission was accomplished.

Leatherneck, I respect your opinion, but several of the key players in the Pentagon and the administration were supporting an invasion of Iraq long before Bush's election. It is my view that the administration wanted to invade Iran and took advantage of the post-9/11 mindset in this country to sell it to the American people.

 

We now know that there was also evidence that Saddam didn't have WMD ... some of his own scientists said as much. But we chose to ignore it because it didn't jibe with the policy goal.

 

And, before anyone asks, I was for the action in Afghanistan. We were entirely justified to do so and we gave the Afghan government plenty of advance warning. Bush lost me with Iraq ...

 

And I respect your opinion and I'm not sure that I can disagree with your assertion that certain key players felt, before Bush's election, that Hussein needed to be removed. I'm willing to assume, based on their vast experience in foreign policy matters, that they had good reason to feel the way they did.

 

As you stated there was intel that said there was not any wmds. Yet there was intel that stated there was; and we knew that he had wmds in the past; and we knew that he had used wmds on the Kurds; and we knew that he had sworn to hurt us; and we knew he was mentally unstable. You may have chosen to ignore all of those things. I would not. And when taking all those things into consideration and the possible devasting results of waiting until later to remove him, I would have done the same thing as Bush did and invaded Iraq. And even given the situation in Iraq now, I make no apologies for feeling the way I do. We know, from testimony of Hussein's scientists, that Hussein was committed to restarting his wmd program as soon as he could. We know that the support for the UN sanctions against Iraq was weakening. We know that there is a lot of corruptness in the UN. To think that the UN was forever going to be able to stop Hussein from restarting his wmd program is being really optimistic in my opinion. Can we be sure that he would use the wmds against us once he had them again? Admittedly we cannot. But that's a chance I would not want to take as the President.

 

I will say this: given the belief you have that a President can be so easily persuaded by foreign policy advisors that have an ax to grind, you have provided a solid reason why America should elect McCain, as he is the only candidate with enough foreign policy experience to be able to separate the wheat from the chaff in the advise given to the President by his policy advisors. If you believe that Bush was duped by Cheney, Rumsfeld and others, which would only have been possible due the fact that Bush had no real foreign policy experience to rely on, then McCain should be very appealing to you, as it's my guess is that he will have as much foreign policy knowledge as any of his advisors and thus will not be able to be duped. Clinton and Obama will, like Bush, be forced to rely on her/his advisors like Bush was forced to rely on his.

 

And that brings another point to mind: Bush was recruited to run for President by big wig Republican players (some perhaps with foreign policy axes to grind). With McCain, its pretty much the complete opposite. Unlike Bush, whom many feel was beholden to certain people and groups in the Republican party, such is clearly and uncontrovertiby not the case with McCain.

And another thing. I love it how war supporters have been allowed to define our adversaries in Iraq as "terrorists" when it is politically expedient, yet we turn a blind eye to factions responsible for many hundreds (if not thousands) of U.S. casualties. In the desperate attempt to quell out of control violence, we have resorted to paying off many who formerly killed U.S. servicemembers. And even though Al Sadr is an avowed enemy of the U.S. and openly opposes the U.S. occupation, we have made no apparent attempts to take him out. He has undoubtedly directed operations resulting in attacks on U.S. servicemembers. War backers are all-too-willing to get up on their soapboxes and hurl scorn about "surrendering to the enemy" blah blah blah.

 

I put these questions to you: Is not the willingness of U.S. leadership to get into bed with such groups essentially tantamount to surrender? One could easily draw parallels to U.S. activities in the Russian-Afghanistan war that eventually empowered the Taliban and al Qaeda. How can we have victory if we're not willing to vanquish our enemies?

 

I made the comment to friends 3 years ago we should take him out, but we have not.

Views such as this regarding Iraq are similar to that of a compulsive gambler--"if I only stay in a little longer, I can make all my earlier losses worthwhile"... Someday, maybe someone will explain the concept of sunk costs to you. I'm sorry that over 4,000 U.S. lives have been squandered, but I'm not prepared to tell one more soldier or Marine that they must die to perpetuate your convoluted justification for continuation of a failed policy.

Thanks for the free psychoanalysis. Would you give a similar diagnosis to people who really believe that either Democrat would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at the risk of then having to send far more troops back to the Middel East to deal with a far bigger mess? Neither Obama nor Hillary are morons and if either become president they will quickly change their tune to position themselves to take credit for the victory in Iraq.