Now that Paul Bremer is done running Iraq for the Admin. even he is criticizing how Iraq has been handled. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6180514/ His criticism shouldn't come as a surprise since it follows criticism of the planning and execution of the invasion and occupation both before and and after the invasion. It also goes to show that even if you supported removing Saddam the GW Bush admin. has handled it badly.
If you were a soldier, is there any possible way you could have a shred of respect for John Kerry? With his views on Iraq that change by popular opinion every couple months or so, and his disgraceful betrayal of his fellow troops through his comments and actions during and after the Viet Nam conflict, how could you possibly rally behind this man if you were in the military? You wouldn't.
How is this monday morning quarterbacking? The chief of staff told Bush they would need 300,000 troops before the invasion. Nobody listened. If you tell somebody the proper way to do something beforehand, and then it truns out to be right later on, that isn't monday morning quarterbacking. The administration was told they would need more troops BEFORE THE INVASION. They just didn't listen.
If I were a soldier I would have complete respect for John Kerry who has held ONE CONSISTENT view on Iraq. I would have no respect for those that try and distort his record to make it seem like he flip flopped. I prefer consistancy and honesty to distortion. I will refresh your memory on what both the President and John Kerry said about going to war. Here are some exerpts of what Bush said about the authorization he was sending to congress. Kerry shouldn't have voted for that authorization, but is it Kerry's fault that the President claimed he wanted the authorization in order to keep the peace? Even Kerry's statement at the very time he voted for the authorization is consistent with what Kerry has always said.
the only way this oft-repeated claim would have any validity would be if generals franks or abizaid asked rummy or bush for more troops and they were refused. until that happens this is a non-story. oh, and it's rather hilarious that as long as someone os working with the administration their views and efforts are disdained, yet as soon as they say one negative thing they're suddenly hailed as heros. pathetic.
So the military chief of staff during the planning announcing that they would need more troops doesn't have any validity? Did the military commander of the join chiefs of staff become a ceremonial position recently?
Exactly. I've never seen a group of people jump for joy and celebrate bad turns of events in Iraq and second guess our military leadership like the liberals are doing - all for the benefit of their partisan wants. Utterly pathetic, indeed. Disparaging the coalition members' participation and sending a message to the TROOPS ON THE GROUND that this was the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time is a recipe for failure. That is John's Kerry's exact recipe.
Let's take a look at GWB's recipe for failure ... Ignoring the advice of the DoD, CIA, and State, GWB plans for a fantasy, best case scenario in post war Iraq. And GWB is still refusing to admit that on-the-ground environment in Iraq sux, outside of saying it is "hard work" building a democracy.
Horse Hockey. John Kerry served in Vietnam with honor. While serving his country, his view of the war changed due to what he saw and experienced first hand. Upon returning home, he helped form Vietnam Veterans Against the War so that the American people would know first hand, from someone who served, that this was an unjust and immoral war. I'm not one of the troops, but I certainly have more respect for Kerry than I do for Dubya, who has parrotted the Republican line while simultaneously shirking responsibility throughout his spoiled frat-boy life.
After leaving his post, David Kay said Iraq had no WMD and pre-war intell was a mess. After leaving his post, Paul Bremmer said said Iraq was one large sh*t sandwich since GWB fought the peace on the cheap. After leaving his post, Richard Clarke said the White House dropped the ball against terrorism before Sept. 11. After leaving his post, Paul O'Neill calls the President an intellectually incurious, ideologue-following puppet. Maybe some should write a book "When Republicans Go Bad". GWB inspires such loyality, a distguishing mark of excellence in leadership. Four More Years!!! [Edit: unscrewed the O'Neill "quote"]
after leaving his post, Tommy Franks, commander of the afghan and iraq wars, endorsed bush for president and spoke on his behalf at the RNC.
I'm so sick of Republicans manipulate military and soldiers as their political tools. Every chance they get, they declare their love for the troops. Yet, they sent them to Iraq without sufficient equipment to protect their lives. Every chance they, they claim they support the troops. Yet, you hardly see any rich Republicans' children volunteer for military service in an ongoing conflict. Every chance they get, they scream that they respect the troops and the sacrifices they make. Yet, as soon as some of the troops come home disabled due to either physical or emotional problems and they need welfare benefits, guess who voice the strongest opposition and tell them the reason they are poor and downtrodden is becuase they are lazy? Not the liberals! Republicans are the most shameless people when it comes to manipulating the military.
After leaving his post, Tommy Franks admitted that they went into Iraq with two few troops and were unprepared for the level of resistance they met after toppling Bagdhad. Why does Tommy Franks, commander of the Afghan and Iraq wars, endorser of Bush at the RNC, hate America?
White House Won't Say if Troops Sought White House Refuses to Say Whether Bremer Asked President for More Troops for Iraq The Associated Press WASHINGTON Oct. 5, 2004 — The White House refused to say Tuesday whether the top U.S. civilian official in Iraq after Saddam Hussein's ouster had asked the president for more troops to deal with the rapid descent of postwar Iraq into chaos. In remarks published Tuesday, the official, L. Paul Bremer, said he arrived in Iraq on May 6, 2003 to find "horrid" looting and a very unstable situation throwing new fuel onto the presidential campaign issue of whether the United States had sufficiently planned for the post-war situation in Iraq. "We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," Bremer said during an address to an insurance group in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. The group released a summary of his remarks in Washington. "We never had enough troops on the ground," Bremer said, while insisting that he was "more convinced than ever that regime change was the right thing to do." White House spokesman Scott McClellan refused to say whether Bremer had pleaded with Bush for more troops. "We never get into reading out all the conversations they had," McClellan said. Kerry said Tuesday that Vice President Dick Cheney should acknowledge mistakes made in Iraq, pointing to remarks by Bremer that more troops had been needed in the aftermath of war. "I hope tonight Mr. Cheney can acknowledge those mistakes," the Democratic presidential candidate said, referring to the debate between the vice president and Kerry's running mate Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. "I hope Mr. Cheney can take responsibility." Kerry said there was a "long list of mistakes" that the Bush administration had made in Iraq. "I'm glad that Paul Bremer has finally admitted at least two of them, and the president of the United States needs to tell the truth to the American people," Kerry said. In a statement Monday night to The Washington Post, Bremer said he fully supported the Bush administration's strategy in Iraq. "I believe that we currently have sufficient troop levels in Iraq," he said in the e-mailed statement, according to Tuesday's edition of the Post. He said references to troops levels related to the situation when he first arrived in Baghdad "when I believed we needed either more coalition troops or Iraqi security forces to address the looting." Bremer addressed the Insurance Leadership Forum, at The Greenbrier resort in West Virginia. Portions of the speech were made available Monday night through a press release from the Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers. In an earlier speech Sept. 17 at DePauw University, Bremer said he frequently raised the issue of too few troops within the Bush administration and "should have been even more insistent" when his advice was rejected. "The single most important change the one thing that would have improved the situation would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout" the occupation, Bremer said, according to the Banner-Graphic in Greencastle, Ind. The final report by the American weapons inspector in Iraq Charles Duelfer will come out this week. In drafts, Duelfer found that Saddam did not have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, but left signs that he had idle programs he someday hoped to revive. Even before the final report was issued, McClellan said it bolstered the White House's contentions on Iraq. The report will assert "that Saddam Hussein had the intent and the capability, that he was pursuing an aggressive strategy to bring down the sanctions, the international sanctions imposed by the United Nations through illegal financing procurement schemes," McClellan said. "That's something that's very revealing." "The fact that he had the intent and capability" to build weapons of mass destruction, and that he was "trying to undermine the sanctions that were in place is very disturbing, and I think the report will continue to show that he was a gathering threat that needed to be taken seriously, that it was a matter of time before he was going to begin pursuing those weapons of mass destruction," McClellan said. McClellan ticked off a litany of what he said were links between Iraq and al-Qaida. Both were "sworn enemies of the free world, including the United States"; both "celebrated the Sept. 11 attacks on America," he said. "There are clearly ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaida," McClellan said. "There (were) clearly some disturbing similarities that existed as well." "We know there were senior-level contacts between the regime and al-Qaida the 9/11 commission documented that," McClellan said. In fact, the 9/11 report said that while there were "friendly contacts" between Iraq and al-Qaida and a common hatred of the United States, none of these contacts "ever developed into a collaborative relationship." Indeed, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a speech Monday that he knew of no clear link between the al-Qaida terror network and Saddam Hussein, although he later backed off the statement and said he was misunderstood. Asked to describe the connection between the Iraqi leader and the al-Qaida terror network at an appearance Monday at the Council on Foreign Relations, the Pentagon chief first refused to answer, then said: "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two." Several hours after his appearance, Rumsfeld issued a statement from the Pentagon saying his comment "regrettably was misunderstood" by some. He said he has said since September 2002 that there were ties between Osama bin Laden's terror group and Iraq. Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
This excuse is getting tired. Prior to the invasion there were intense debates in the Pentagon on how many troops to send. Rummy and the civilian leaders ignored advice from numerous quarters recommending sending 300K troops and went with 150K. They were wrong. And plenty of commanders, generals both active and retired, republican politicians, and Paul Bremer agree that they were wrong. Bush assured us we could do this war on the cheap because we'd be greeted by civilians dancing in the streets. Who pays for these mistakes? Who dies for these mistakes? Who is held accountable? So far, nobody. If Bush is all about bringing back integrity to the White House, where is the accountability?
