Is Bush Solely to Blame for the Death of US Troops in Iraq?

[Iriemon]

so he was authorized to invade iraq

but he wasn't authorized "to go in"

what kind of logic is that?

he exhausted all means, just because you don't thinks so doesn't mean he didn't. he had authority to invade and he lawfully followed that authority. that is a fact. your opinion on the matter is irrelevent.

what means did he exhaust?

hans blix said the inspections were going fine.

it's YOUR opinion that is irrelevant because it isn't based on fact.

no suprises.

Hans Blix?????? You would believe that hack who, like the asshole in charge of the UN, was probably being paid by Saddam along with Germany, Russia and France.

Yeah, the same hack that gave the Bush administration excuse to attack by writing that Iraq had not adquately documented how it destroyed the WMD it had.

The same hack who said their was no evidence of WMD in Iraq, and was right.

 

[Yurt]

Congress gave away its authority to Bush, both Republicans AND Democrats. Period. It's rather obvious they gave away that authority with the understanding Bush was going to use force, or else they were too dumb to be in Congress.

exactly.

all you have to do is also go back and see the comments the democrats and republicans made regarding saddam. it is clear that knew full well an invasion was coming. also, their silence until later that year when elections were coming is very telling.

 

[sealybobo]

you're a lost cause...the points were similar enough that any rational person would get it...

Do you really think Bush exhausted all options before invading Iraq? Really? Even now that we know all the facts?

He rushed in. He went thru the formalities maybe, but he did not exhaust all options. Why do you think so many countries were against it?

Just like the $750 billion bailout, bush said we had no time to think about it. Saddam had the WMD's and might use them or hide them, so we have to go in asap.

In the fall of 2002, like most of my fellow Senators, I voted in favor of the resolution giving George Bush the authority to invade Iraq. I did so in the belief that before invading Iraq, George Bush would establish that Iraq was a clear and present danger to America, that he would put together a true multinational coalition, and that, finally, he would exhaust all peaceful options.

I now realize that I was wrong. And, unlike George Bush, who can not think of any mistakes he has made since 911, much less apologize for them, I apologize to you, the American people for my error.

At the time that I voted for the resolution, I did not know that George Bush had been looking for an excuse to invade Iraq since even before he was inagurated President; that the Bush administration was lying about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that Bush’s own intelligence officers were doubtful about the case for WMD’s; that George Bush’s war plans did not include enough troops, enough body armor or enough tanks for our soldiers; that our brave men and women would have to write home to beg their families to send water and batteries, because our war planners had not taken the trouble to send them enough basic necessities; that George Bush and his advisors had no plans for what to do after the war was won because they believed that the Iraqis would throw flowers at our troops, when, instead, they threw rocket propelled grenades; I did not know that George Bush would sit back and let an Iraqi minority riot and loot, and thereby undermine the U.S. from the very first day of “victory”, or that Bush’s defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld believed at the time, that Iraqi’s, like teenagers, were just harmlessly sowing their wild oats; I did not know that in order to invade Iraq George Bush would secretly drain crucial resources away from our fight against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and not tell the Congress or American People about it; that George Bush had no exit strategy, no strategy for a real victory; far from it, that George Bush would say “bring ‘em on”, dangerously taunting the Iraqi insurgents to attack our troops, even though it would be they and not him, who would have to pay the terrible price; I did not know, that George Bush had no ability to hold prisoners in accordance with internationally acceptable standards, so that now, America’s claims to the moral high ground in Iraq are increasingly seen as hollow and hypocritical; I did not know the depths of the venality, incompetence and arrogance of this Administration, so I did not realize that this administration was about to lead our country into the biggest foreign policy blunder of a generation, if not a lifetime.

Perhaps I should have known. Certainly, there were plenty of critics, writing on the internet, marching in the streets, appearing on radio and TV, who predicted with uncanny accuracy, many of things that have now come to pass. Perhaps I was blinded, by my trust in our President, our Commander-in –Chief, when he told us that Iraq represented an imminent threat. I can see now, sadly, that, along with the American People, I was clearly wrong to place my trust in George Bush.

So what are we to do now? Many people, myself included, have said that we have to “stay the course” until “the job is done”. But, I am afraid, that it is now too late for that. The blunders of George Bush have been so many, so profound, and so deadly, that it will be impossible for the U.S. or any foreign group to get “the job done” in the current environment. To stubbornly keep repeating that mantra, will only serve to put more brave young Americans into early graves and wheel chairs, without bringing peace or security to Iraq – or to the American people. We have to face the facts: George Bush has bungled this war so absolutely, that to stay is only to generate more hatred, more disgust and more revenge against Americans and their allies. To continue to occupy and fight in Iraq will only make us less secure, not more. To lose more young Americans for less security: that is not only folly; it is a crime.

There are those who say that to leave now would only serve to undermine the credibility of the United States in its war on terror. But, I respectfully submit, they are wrong. By going into Iraq, for no good reason and without a workable plan, George Bush guaranteed that our credibility would be severely damaged. To stay longer, and expend more young lives and money, and then still to lose, would be to undermine our credibility even more, and, worse yet, to reduce our capacity and willingness to fight the war on terror in the future.

I was wrong, but I will not continue to be. It is time for the United States to change course in Iraq. We must withdraw our troops as soon as possible. The Iraqi people will find their own way to security and peace. They can request help from us and the international community if they want it, and we will be there to help provide it. But we will no longer be an occupying force, as we would continue to be in reality, even after June 30, if George Bush has his way. Neither I, nor the American people, will continue to be held hostage to George Bush’s War of Folly.

There will be debate and recrimination. We can have it now, or we can have it later. People will ask: “Who lost Iraq?” The answer is that George Bush lost Iraq from the very beginning. It was the wrong war, by the wrong people with the wrong plan. It had nothing to do with the security of the United States and everything to do with the ego, the re-election campaign and the fantasies of George Bush and his administration. Enough is enough. Bring the troops home.

Thank you and God Bless America.”

 

[Yurt]

funny how the libs ignore their own liberal leaders comments

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

funny how libs ignore their own leaders saying there was exhaustion and saddam is not and will not comply

He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

kerry flat out states that saddam is miscalculating that america will not go to war and remove him. the dems knew full well that bush (america as kerry said) was going to invade, they even stated that saddam thinking bush/america would not invade...is a "miscalculation"

 

[Iriemon]

funny how the libs ignore their own liberal leaders comments

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

funny how libs ignore their own leaders saying there was exhaustion and saddam is not and will not comply

He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

kerry flat out states that saddam is miscalculating that america will not go to war and remove him. the dems knew full well that bush (america as kerry said) was going to invade, they even stated that saddam thinking bush/america would not invade...is a "miscalculation"

As is often the case when someone cites a single phrase or sentence, the word can be looked at out of context:

Here are some other things Kerry said in the Oct 9 2002 speech about the Joint Resolution:


When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein.

As the President made clear earlier this week, "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." It means "America speaks with one voice."

Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.

In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

Kerry is obviously saying something very different than saying he knew that Bush was going to invade.

Other Dem leaders expressed similar reservations and 21 of 49 voted against it.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.): "expressed severe reservations, nonetheless voted for the resolution."[

Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), Senate Majority Leader: "raised concerns throughout the debate about Bush politicizing national security"[1] but backed Bush and said "it is important for the country 'to speak with one voice at this critical moment' [and that] Iraq's weapons programs 'may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored.' However, he urged Bush to move 'in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse.'" He also "expressed reservations about a possible U.S. attack on Iraq, and he was not part of an agreement between the White House and other congressional leaders framing the resolution ...."

Sen. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.), Minority Leader: "said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam over his obligations to the United Nations."

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.): See "Why I Oppose Bush's Iraq War Resolution," Antiwar.com, October 11, 2002.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.): said "The power to declare war is the most solemn responsibility given to Congress by the Constitution. We must not delegate that responsibility to the president in advance."

http://www.opencongress.org/wiki/Au...ilitary_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002

 

[Yurt]

if one actually takes the time to see the dates, then one can see kerry and the admin saying 4 months previous to my quote that at THAT TIME war was a last resort. as time went on, it became clear that was was the ONLY option as saddam was ignoring the will of america and miscalculating her promise to use force.

so again, we have liberals taking quotes, not only out of context, but out of place and time.

 

[Iriemon]

if one actually takes the time to see the dates, then one can see kerry and the admin saying 4 months previous to my quote that at THAT TIME war was a last resort. as time went on, it became clear that was was the ONLY option as saddam was ignoring the will of america and miscalculating her promise to use force.

so again, we have liberals taking quotes, not only out of context, but out of place and time.

The quotes I cited where from Kerry's Oct 9, 2002 speech, which was the exact same date and speech as the first quotation Yurt cited.

But for the record, here are, to put in context, other excerpts of Kerry's Jan. 23, 2003 speech, showing that he was not calling for Bush to rush to war, quite the contrary:

Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

 

[Yurt]

on Aug. 9, 2004,[Kerry] when asked if he would still have gone to war knowing Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said: “Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have.” Speaking to reporters at the edge of the Grand Canyon, he added: “[Although] I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has."

...

Stephanopoulos' question, edited out of the video, was, "On March 19, President Bush ordered Gen. Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?" Kerry takes the question in two parts: No to the timing ("I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity"), yes to the "decision to disarm." But in his final sentence, Kerry conveys that his agreement with Bush on the decision is more important than their disagreement on the timing: "When the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm [Saddam]."



Kerry's Top Ten Flip-Flops - CBS News

additionally, it has already been made clear and you admitted that congress gave the decision to wage war to bush, so you can't very well now say, no they didn't....because as you keep getting shown the senators said yes they did.

 

[Iriemon]

on Aug. 9, 2004,[Kerry] when asked if he would still have gone to war knowing Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, Kerry said: “Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have.” Speaking to reporters at the edge of the Grand Canyon, he added: “[Although] I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has."

...

Stephanopoulos' question, edited out of the video, was, "On March 19, President Bush ordered Gen. Tommy Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the right decision at the right time?" Kerry takes the question in two parts: No to the timing ("I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity"), yes to the "decision to disarm." But in his final sentence, Kerry conveys that his agreement with Bush on the decision is more important than their disagreement on the timing: "When the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm [Saddam]."



Kerry's Top Ten Flip-Flops - CBS News

additionally, it has already been made clear and you admitted that congress gave the decision to wage war to bush, so you can't very well now say, no they didn't....because as you keep getting shown the senators said yes they did.

Sure they knew they were giving Bush the authority. What I take issue with is the claim "dems knew full well that bush (america as kerry said) was going to invade". When they gave the authorization in Oct 2002, they did not know that.

 

[Yurt]

then as gunny pointed out, they are stupid and have no business being in congress. you don't authorize the use of force, talk about regime change (e.g., saddam needs to be removed) and then try and cliam that you had no idea that war would result. even obama bashed hillary for authorizing THE WAR....

the dems knew, everybody knew...why do you think kerry called for MORE diplomacy, because he knew bush wanted to go to war. however, as i showed, kerry supported the decision regardless of the WMDs as it was a good decision to remove saddam.

nice try, you don't fool anyone but yourself.

 

[sealybobo]

then as gunny pointed out, they are stupid and have no business being in congress. you don't authorize the use of force, talk about regime change (e.g., saddam needs to be removed) and then try and cliam that you had no idea that war would result. even obama bashed hillary for authorizing THE WAR....

the dems knew, everybody knew...why do you think kerry called for MORE diplomacy, because he knew bush wanted to go to war. however, as i showed, kerry supported the decision regardless of the WMDs as it was a good decision to remove saddam.

nice try, you don't fool anyone but yourself.

Who convinced Hillary that we need to go to war with Iraq? The Bush administration.

Richard Haass, the State Department's director of policy planning, told an interviewer that in an early July 2002 chat with then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, he questioned putting Iraq at the center of the U.S. war against terrorism. He said Rice advised him "essentially, that that decision's been made, don't waste your breath."

British Documents Portray Determined US March to War

Who gave Congress false information on Iraq? Bush Admin.

Who tortured false connections between Saddam and Al Queda out of detainees?

 

[sealybobo]

then as gunny pointed out, they are stupid and have no business being in congress. you don't authorize the use of force, talk about regime change (e.g., saddam needs to be removed) and then try and cliam that you had no idea that war would result. even obama bashed hillary for authorizing THE WAR....

the dems knew, everybody knew...why do you think kerry called for MORE diplomacy, because he knew bush wanted to go to war. however, as i showed, kerry supported the decision regardless of the WMDs as it was a good decision to remove saddam.

nice try, you don't fool anyone but yourself.

The next day (10/08/02) Bush’s claims were answered in an article that featured the views of "a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government [who] privately have deep misgivings about the administration’s double-time march toward war." Their number (at least a dozen) made up for their anonymity. The article spoke of "intelligence agents...under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House’s argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary." The administration was charged with "squelching dissenting views." The analysts tore into Rumsfeld’s claims of an Iraq-al-Qaeda link. They criticized Bush’s comments on Saddam’s quest for a softball size piece of highly enriched uranium saying "Saddam has sought such highly enriched uranium for many years without success, and there is no evidence that he has it now." Furthermore, how would he deliver a weapon? And if a weapon were detonated, that would "...automatically trigger a response that would include Iraq, Iran, North Korea..." They criticized Bush’s mention of aluminum tubes and a number of other administration statements. On 10/09/02 yet another article drawn from similar sources attacked Bush’s presentation.

Unfazed, Bush on 11/04/02 in Dallas said: "At one time we know for certain he was close to having a nuclear weapon. Imagine Saddam Hussein with a nuclear weapon."

How Did Saddam Hussein Become a Grave Threat? by Michael S. Rozeff

How about being stupid enough to still be defending Bush and the GOP? Or stupid enough to be focused on the Dems who went along so to distract from the fact that the GOP are the actual liars.

So does any of this make you want to vote for the GOP in 2010? Just curious.