FOX News more or less admits Bush screwed up in Iraq

[LTR]

As I was watching H&C last night, a news break got me to thinking. And this point was reiterated by Wesley Clark.

According to the news reader, terrorist groups have been infiltrating Iraq more than when Saddam was in power.

Which tells me this: As despicable a human being as Saddam Hussein was, time has shown that Bush was too quick to pull the trigger in Iraq. Saddam and his government had a stranglehold on his country, meaning that if terrorist groups were in controlled Iraq, he would know about it and come down on them.

Now, with Allied forces 'controlling' Iraq, chaos is amok. Terrorist groups like al Qaeda, who previously had no access to Saddam-controlled Iraq, are sneaking into the country in droves. That is why 63 US servicemen have been killed since the war was declared 'over', and why the UN building was bombed the other day.

There is complete lawlessness in Iraq, and we have shown that we cannot controll it, even with 73% of our troops over there. Would we have been better off strategically if Saddam Hussein was still in power, and quarantining terrorism? Before, we could maintain order in Afghanistan and surrounding areas (if Bush wanted to), but now we are spreading ourselves too thin.

I was against Bush's handling of this war from before the beginning, but it really looks like this will screw us up for a long time. I really didnt' see this as another Vietnam, but I can't see installing a true democracy in a Muslim nation as being easy.

I think Bush has opened a really big can of worms. And now, our troops are stuck there, in order to keep the peace.

Another reason I want him gone in '04. What a mess!

[bearfartinthewoods]

1. i want him gone too but you've made some errors

maybe i'm whacked but i crave facts, useful facts.

bush never declared the war over.

there is not complete lawlessness in Iraq, although considering that saddamn emptied the prisons, there should be.

we don't have 73% of our troops there.

saddam wasn't quarantining terrorism, he was funding it.

facts are our friends. the truth is bad enough. we don't have to spread untruths to bring down bushco.

[SCDem]

2. How was Sadaam fudning terrorism?

and please give me specific instances where he funded terrorism that occurred outside Iraq.

[leftynyc]

6. He was paying Palestinian familes

$30,000 compensation for every suicide bomber.

I was as against this war as anybody but I shed no tears for Sadaam or anyone else in the Baath party. They were all murderous thugs who deserve whatever happens to them. The best outcome would be to catch them all and let the Iraqi's put them on trial but since I'm sure this administration is afraid of some of the information they are holding, I'm sure they will die violent deaths at the hands of our military.

[JNelson6563]

13. as terrible as that is

yes, I know Saddam gave $$ to those who would bomb Israel. I think two things about this. One, I suspect he thought it might win him some friends in the Arab world and two, suicide bombers in Israel are no threat to America.

Isn't that what this war was about? The threat to our security? Any minute now, yes-siree--we could expect to see a "mushroom cloud" on the horizon.

There was no threat to America. Saddam wasn't buddies with Al-Qaida or Osama bin Forgetten.

But Saddam had oil and lots of it........

Julie

[bearfartinthewoods]

15. terrorism in isreal is a thret to us

because of our alliance with them, our foreign policy has been shaped by threats against isreal for decades. our alliance with isreal is behind much, if not most of the arab hate toward the US. arab hate has breed al queda and all the other terror orgs.

of courrse, it's not the direct link that bushco pushed but don't diminish the effect.

[K-W]

20. but there is no actual threat

just a threat to US "interests" or however they would phrase it to make it seem like we should be getting involved.

Saddam was impotent as far as the U.S. was concerned. He had our planes bombing him and he knew as well as we did that people in the U.S. were foaming at the mouth to attack him. Heck, he had dealt with these people before. He is not an islamic extremist, he would get no benefit from funding or aiding terrorism against the US, he was concerened with staying in power. That's always been his concern.

[leftynyc]

19. I agree that we wouldn't be anywhere

near Iraq if it weren't for the oil. Any supposed war on terror that doesn't address Saudi Arabia is a complete joke. But the Bushies have a long standing friendship with the House of Saud and everything else is just smoke and mirrors. All I'm saying is I'm glad the Baath party is gone from power in Iraq. The people of Iraq suffered tremendously under their reign. I don't believe for one minute that we are there for humanitaian reasons...getting rid of Sadaam has been the plan since Bush stole the election.

As a New Yorker, I want Osama's head on a platter and will not be distracted by all the nonsense this administration is throwing around as to who is a threat to our security. Again, the answer to that is Saudi Arabia.

[leesa]

26. Wouldn't you like some proof that Osama was involved before

you have his head on a platter? Remember we have never had any solid proof given to us...Blair promised us the White Papers, but somehow it never materialised...vague references to phone calls that didn't reveal anything...suspicious videos with OBL(?)and 'translations' of what OBL meant when he said this, that or the other given by CNN, MSNBC and Faux.
This administration just sort of blew over all that nasty evidence stuff like they have with every other crime they have comitted in order to get something they desired (pipeline from Caspian through Afghanistan to tap Indian/Asian market).

[Kbowe]

30. Saddam gave money the surviving family members of suicide

bombers (who some consider myrters against Israeli occupation). That is not the same a 'fnding terrorists.' It's like collecting an insurance policy by the families of US soldiers killed in action. The truth is in the outcome...Iraq under the oppressive Saddam was free of organized terrorists. Saddam was repressive to certain groups within Iraq...those who wanted to and tried to overthrow his rule and establish a separate nation for themselves...something the US didn't countenence and resulted in the Civil War where Americans killed each other at still unprecedented levels. Under Saddam, Iraq had universal health care, free education for women and men, and a relatively crime-free nation (with the biggest criminals being some heady Baathists and Uday and Qusay). The number of people in Iraqi prisons under Saddam was rivaled only by the number of people in American prisons under Presidents Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. Most of what is going on now in Iraq is the result of an arrogant, brutal, and misinformed American and UK military doing the bidding of what in truth, is a well organized Zionist movement that includes absolute control of American foreign policy.

[LTR]

5. What I have to go on

Last I heard, 63 have died since Bush declared "mission accomplished". Supposedly, we are in 'post-war', according to Bush.

The percentage I have heard was close to 73%. I could be wrong. I have heard that we are dedicating too many of our troops there.

It is a well-know fact that Saddam did not like OBL. The al Qaeda training camps in Iraq were in areas not under Ba'ath party control. Granted, Saddam has supported some terrorist groups, but not enough to merit a US invasion adn occupation.

[maha]

7. Truth is as truth does.

bush never declared the war over.

Technically, presidents don't have the constitutional power to declare wars, either begun or finished. But he sure as heck had the post-war celebration, and the message people received was, "it's over."

there is not complete lawlessness in Iraq, although considering that saddamn emptied the prisons, there should be.

So there is not COMPLETE lawlessness, just partial lawlessness. Our quibble would be what percentage of COMPLETE we are dealing with. 50 percent? 75 percent?

And I thought the people Saddam had imprisoned were POLITICAL prisoners?

we don't have 73% of our troops there.

Probably not, although I'd very much like to know what the percentage is.

saddam wasn't quarantining terrorism, he was funding it.

He was funding anti-Israeli terrorism, but there's no indication he was funding anti-American terrorism.

And, of course, the Saudis funded terrorism even more.

facts are our friends. the truth is bad enough. we don't have to spread untruths to bring down bushco.

I'm with you there. But let's not make apologies for the Shrub, either.

[bearfartinthewoods]

14. IIRC, we have a million member military so figure < 25%

this is a guesstimate, not claiming a fact here.

and please....stating facts does not make me a bushco apologist.

i "work" the locals and some of them are sharpe as tacks. psuedo facts don't cut it for what i do. if i used that line '75% of our military', i bet they'd know the the real number and i'd lose credibility. i can't be the only one in that situation.

same deal with bush saying the war is over. they know his exact quote, i bet, and would throw it in my face. why give them the chance to make points? sure, i could come back with your "technicly" line but it looks like nitpicking(no offense).

sometimes i cringe when i hear people who have gotten through on cspan, blow their chance on stuff that the middle knows isn't true or the right can through back at us as bull. the facts are all we need
and i'm trying to get people to put them forth, rather than wasting time with inflated rhetoric.

[alcuno]

9. As have you made errors.....

1. I don't care what Bush said, you can't have it both ways. He stood beneath an enormous banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished." And don't give me any of that "Well, the mission was to get Saddam out of power. The White House suffered from a collective case of premature ejaculation.

2. When women, who were able to walk freely in pre-war Iraq, will not come out of their homes for fears of being kidnapped and raped, you have complete lawlessness. On television, Iraq looks like a nation of men.

3. 73% of available combat troops are, in fact, there. We don't need nuclear submariners or Pentagon paper pushers in Iraq.

4. Saddam limited terrorists operations in his own country. Although not anywhere near the extent of Saudi involvement, he did give money to Hamas. The US funded Bin Laden in the fight against the Soviets. Does that make us terrorists? Wait, don't answer that.

[bearfartinthewoods]

22. 73% of available combat troops

good point...

shall we use the term "war fighters"?

they really like that term...........

[ferg]

24. 73% is total deployed overseas

So it includes things like South Korea and Kosovo.

I think it's around 50% deployed in Iraq with the rest in the other countries.

[bearfartinthewoods]

28. so it's half of 73 or about 36%?

36 still seems high, but that's the same number i heard last night.

[alcuno]

27. I know they do and don't even get them started on the Navy.

n/t

[MGKrebs]

12. Nobody even actually declared "war"

But it is clear that Bush tried to create the impression that the "war" was over essentially over by declaring "mission accomplished".

There is probably a lot more "lawlessness" now than there was under Saddam. I don't want to defend that mainac either, but the point is, whatever we were trying to achieve has been a failure to date. Say what you want about Saddam, he seems to have had a pretty firm grip on controlling his country, like many other dictators (with the eventual exception of the no-fly zones, which seem to have been the areas that incubated terrorist activity while under US control).Yugoslavia's problems started when Tito died,allowing the ethnic differences to play out without his ruthless suppression.

My understanding is that we have 40-45% of our troops comitted to Iraq in some way. Not sure if this includes National Guard.

Paying the families of Palestinians killed is funding terrorism? We pay our fighters, and their families if they get killed. So what is "terrorism", anyway?

[rman]

16. well..

"bush never declared the war over."

so what?

"there is not complete lawlessness in Iraq, although considering that saddamn emptied the prisons, there should be."

there a lot more lawlessness no then there was under Saddam and it has a direct negative effect on the Iraqi people, more so then under Saddam.

"we don't have 73% of our troops there."

so what?

"saddam wasn't quarantining terrorism, he was funding it."

got evidence other then what Rumsfelds' personel secret amateur intelligence agency Office of Special Plans has aledged?

[opihimoimoi]

3. Bush is but a speck of shit on our vast Humanity

He is screwing up big time as prez however and must be removed. The Pub pysops keep propping him as a gutsy leader but evidence points to a shallow person with no class.

[oasis]

4. There is suspicion that the security guards for the UN in Iraq

were formerly on Saddam's payroll and they helped in the planning of the terrorist bombing.

So Bremer's hiring the Feydayin to guard the UN?

[bearfartinthewoods]

8. it wasn't bremer's hire

the UN didn't want a significant US mil presence. they contracted for security on their own.

[oasis]

11. Wouldn't the "ruling authority" in Baghdad have a say in who is armed?

[htuttle]

17. Do you have a link saying they hired their own security?

That is significantly different from what I've heard elsewhere.

[Kellanved]

18. There is this article saying so

U.S. Probes U.N. Guards in Deadly Blast [br />]

[El Mariachi]

10. Saddam and Terrorism

I don't think paying the families of suicide bombers compensation for their son's death counts as funding terrorism.

I believe most people saw it, including in the middle east, as a token gesture so he could seem pro-islam. I don't believe many people in that region liked him all that much.

Saddam's money did nothing to create new terrorists, it did nothing to help train them, it did nothing to help deploy them.

The terrorism happening within Israel/Palestine is funded by Palestinians.

[welshTerrier2]

21. just too blind to see

always nice to have another terrier around ... welcome to DU !!

the essential point here is that bush's misguided policy has created a dangerous power vacuum in Iraq ... i believe the expression is "better the devil you know" ...

and there is no soil more fertile for terrorism than a country with an anti-american population and a destabilized government ...

sadly, we continue to hear from certain democrats that the war was justified ... some make the argument, which has some merit but misses the greater point, that Saddam was evil and we and the Iraqi people are better off without him. it still mystifies me that any democrat could have "gone along" with bush ... implicit in the "authorization" they provided to him, be it legal or symbolic, was that they trusted bush to "do the right thing" ... this should never have happened ...

there is no question about the tragic failure of bush's Iraq strategy ... it was the wrong policy from day one ... it failed to respect the U.N.'s role in international diplomacy and failed to respect the sovereignty of Iraq ... the entire case against Saddam was an ends looking for a means to justify it ... the PNAC'ers pushed this agenda with Clinton ... they achieved it with bush ...

where the real questions remain is why democrats sunk so low that they believed supporting bush was necessary ... or why they felt that the threat from Saddam was so great as to justify the invasion of a sovereign nation against the wishes of the U.N. ... or what they envisioned would be the future of post-war Iraq ... we're Democrats ... we are not weak on defense ... we don't shy away from protecting our country ... but did the pro-war democrats really believe this invasion would make us safer? did they believe that war was the way to "free" the Iraqi people and provide them with better lives ...

i hate to have fragmentation within the party ... but i will never vote for any of these poor souls who failed such an easy test ... the wrongness of this war and the inevitability of its aftermath were clear from day one ... and some, even some on our own team, were just too blind to see.

[Kbowe]

31. Thank you for this post!

But watch out...you are much too wise to survie here.

[mike_c]

23. just remember that whoever wins the presidency in '04...

...inherits this mess and will either have to figure out a workable solution (I haven't heard any good suggestions yet) or will come out looking just as bad as smirk-boy.

[samsingh]

that's the answer

to the morons who say would we want Hussein in power still.

[samsingh]

25. that's the answer

to the morons who say would we want Hussein in power still.

[leftchick]

29. Correction!! 135 US troops Have Died Since aWol's stunt

Though the tv will say otherwise, here are the latest numbers including ALL deaths from chimpy's immoral invasion....
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=736&e=4&u=/ap/20030822/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_soldiers_killed