Bush Finally Has a Plan...2 1/2 Years Too Late

[KCConservative]

Here are a few to get started.

"We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators..." – Vice President Cheney [3/16/03]

"The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish." -Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, [3/4/03]

"There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more…Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." – Colin Powell, 2/5/03

"Saddam has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly smallpox. He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas." - Don Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." - Vice President Cheney, 8/26/02

"The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes." – President Bush, 9/26/02

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." – President Bush, 1/28/03

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." -President Bush, on locating the mobile biological weapons labs, 5/29/03

"We know where the [WMD] are." - Don Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it now." - Colin Powell, 5/4/03

"We found the weapons of mass destruction." – President Bush, 5/29/03

"We know where the WMDs are." – Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

"You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam." President Bush, 9/25/02

And when we arrived, the WMD were gone. So where's the lie?

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Here are a few to get started.

"We will, in fact, be greeted as liberators..." – Vice President Cheney [3/16/03]

"The notion that it would take several hundred thousand American troops just seems outlandish." -Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, [3/4/03]

"There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more…Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough agent to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." – Colin Powell, 2/5/03

"Saddam has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly smallpox. He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas." - Don Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." - Vice President Cheney, 8/26/02

"The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes." – President Bush, 9/26/02

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." – President Bush, 1/28/03

"We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." -President Bush, on locating the mobile biological weapons labs, 5/29/03

"We know where the [WMD] are." - Don Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

"I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it now." - Colin Powell, 5/4/03

"We found the weapons of mass destruction." – President Bush, 5/29/03

"We know where the WMDs are." – Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

"You can't distinguish between al-Qaida and Saddam." President Bush, 9/25/02

And a few more ....HMMMMMMMM


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"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

"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

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 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

 

[Gibberish]

And when we arrived, the WMD were gone. So where's the lie?

If they were gone how can we know where they are or find them?

"We know where the WMDs are." – Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/30/03

"We found the weapons of mass destruction." – President Bush, 5/29/03

 

[Gibberish]

And a few more ....HMMMMMMMM


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." --President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." Letter to President Bush, Signed by: -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"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

"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

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 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

The first three quotes are completely out of context and the others are statements based on intell given to them by the bush administration.

Aguring the reasonings for Iraq must come from those that supply the intell that the Senators vote upon.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

The first three quotes are completely out of context and the others are statements based on intell given to them by the bush administration.

Aguring the reasonings for Iraq must come from those that supply the intell that the Senators vote upon.

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for." -Bill Clinton on Larry King Live July, 2003

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

 

[Gibberish]

"When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for." -Bill Clinton on Larry King Live July, 2003

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." --Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by: -- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

Again out of context. Those quotes are directed towards the situation that arose in Operation Desert Fox. The letter by the Senators was meant in the context of approval for the US and British forces to conduct air strikes on IRAQ at the time of the operation, not 3-4 years later.

Here is a quote from Levin on the letter:

As the Chairman has indicated, the situation in Iraq also poses a threat to international peace and security. Once again, Saddam Hussein has halted cooperation with the United Nations Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Without intrusive inspections, we will not be able to ensure that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are destroyed in accordance with U.N. Security Council resolutions. Without those inspections, the Iraqi people will continue to suffer as a result of international economic sanctions.

And that is why, along with Senators McCain, Lieberman, and Hutchison, I am circulating among our Senate colleagues a letter to President Clinton, urging him, in consultation with Congress, consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take effective actions, including if appropriate, the use of air strikes, to respond to the Iraqi threat.

By using these quotes in your defense you are saying that since at one point in time for different reasons senators approved an attack on IRAQ it should be concluded that they today should approve an attack on IRAQ.

Using this logic we should go ahead and bomb Japan or Germany since at one point it was approved by the Senate.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Again out of context. Those quotes are directed towards the situation that arose in Operation Desert Fox. The letter by the Senators was meant in the context of approval for the US and British forces to conduct air strikes on IRAQ at the time of the operation, not 3-4 years later.

Here is a quote from Levin on the letter:


By using these quotes in your defense you are saying that since at one point in time for different reasons senators approved an attack on IRAQ it should be concluded that they today should approve an attack on IRAQ.

Using this logic we should go ahead and bomb Japan or Germany since at one point it was approved by the Senate.

Not at all .. But they refrence repeatedly WMD and the danger that Saddam is providing. And there tone now is utterly and completely opposite of there democratic presidential time. They have chosen to igonore there past feelings concerning saddam and the dangers he produced. And talk out the oter side of there mouth in an effort to slam the president....

 

[Gibberish]

Not at all .. But they refrence repeatedly WMD and the danger that Saddam is providing. And there tone now is utterly and completely opposite of there democratic presidential time. They have chosen to igonore there past feelings concerning saddam and the dangers he produced. And talk out the oter side of there mouth in an effort to slam the president....

They never said Saddam was not a threat.

The only difference between the Democrats and Republicans is that when the intel for going to war turned out to be false the demcrats backed up and wanted to investigate the intel and that we should not continue based on the fact that the intel was false. Many repbulicans pushed forward even though the intel was false and failed to even acknowledge the false intel. Republican supporters defended their stance with "well he's a bad guy anyway so we should just keep going" (not a direct quote of course).

China poses a threat. They have an army roughly double our size and a population about 6 times our size, and have a developed nuclear program. They have also threatened us a number of times with situations in Taiwan and oppose democracy in asia at every turn. Why should we not invade them also? They seem to pose more of a threat then Saddam did.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

They never said Saddam was not a threat.

The only difference between the Democrats and Republicans is that when the intel for going to war turned out to be false the demcrats backed up and wanted to investigate the intel and that we should not continue based on the fact that the intel was false. Many repbulicans pushed forward even though the intel was false and failed to even acknowledge the false intel. Republican supporters defended their stance with "well he's a bad guy anyway so we should just keep going" (not a direct quote of course).

China poses a threat. They have an army roughly double our size and a population about 6 times our size, and have a developed nuclear program. They have also threatened us a number of times with situations in Taiwan and oppose democracy in asia at every turn. Why should we not invade them also? They seem to pose more of a threat then Saddam did.

They have most definetly said that in the last few years.. Hell I here it on this board all te time.

Te democrats did NOTHING. terrorist bombing abroad and on our soil, Attacks on our military and its ships and NOTHING was done. Because it's easier to smash someone else then to actually have a plan. And that is something the dems don't seem to be having any luck with. China.. The same China that the democratic president Clinton sold Mirv technology to that now makes them a threat against us on our soil....

 

[oldreliable67]

China poses a threat.

China does not, as of this moment, pose a threat.

They have an army roughly double our size and a population about 6 times our size, and have a developed nuclear program.

True. But their nuclear capability is nowhere near the capabilities that we have. Furthermore, their army has only limited over-the-horizon force projection capability, way less than ours.

oppose democracy in asia at every turn

No, they don't. China, for a number of years, has done nothing that is not in own self-interest and that includes not attempting to export communism. Not since oh, about the time of Richard Nixon's historic trip to China in 1972. For a good summary, go here.

But all that aside, China has no incentive to threaten the US, nor does the US have any incentive to threaten China.

 

[aquapub]

Congratulations to argexpat for lying through his teeth (or at least ignoring the last 1200 times Bush detailed it) again about the success plan President Bush has laid out for the invariably short bus crowd (Democrats) over and over and over again since the invasion was first complete.

When Bush landed on the aircraft carrier under that banner that read "mission accomplished" (which was obviously referring to the INVASION, NOT the rebuilding of Iraq-for those slow liberals out there who still tell themselves that the aircraft landing was some kind of premature celebration instead of just thinking about it) he had already spelled the whole thing out numerous times...That is how long he has been repeating and clarifying what victory means, but liberals just can't seem to comprehend English.

As if it will serve any purpose, here is the shortened version of what Bush has said over and over:

-Train the Iraqis until they can defend their own country.
-Establish a democracy.
-Uproot all foreign terrorists.
-Then, and only then, leave Iraq.

This is not that complicated, come on! :doh

 

[KCConservative]

When Bush landed on the aircraft carrier under that banner that read "mission accomplished" (which was obviously referring to the INVASION, NOT the rebuilding of Iraq-for those slow liberals out there who still tell themselves that the aircraft landing was some kind of premature celebration instead of just thinking about it) he had already spelled the whole thing out numerous times...That is how long he has been repeating and clarifying what victory means, but liberals just can't seem to comprehend English.

Excellent points, all. But the Mission Accomplished banner was actually placed by the Navy to signify the the end of the ships long deployment. The partisan accusation that it was a premature Bush celebration has been debunked many many times.

 

[KCConservative]

-Train the Iraqis until they can defend their own country.
-Establish a democracy.
-Uproot all foreign terrorists.
-Then, and only then, leave Iraq.

This is not that complicated, come on! :doh

It's not complicated unless your party is sinking fast without any logical direction or leadership and mid term elections are rapidly approaching.....then it's complicated.

 

[OdgenTugbyGlub]

Originally Posted by aquapub
-Train the Iraqis until they can defend their own country.
-Establish a democracy.
-Uproot all foreign terrorists.
-Then, and only then, leave Iraq.

This is not that complicated, come on!

Perhaps not complicated in theory, but complicated as hell in practice. You can say thats the plan if you want, but how do you propose to ACHIEVE those four goals? In other words, yes, it is that complicated.

 

[argexpat]

As if it will serve any purpose, here is the shortened version of what Bush has said over and over:

-Train the Iraqis until they can defend their own country.
-Establish a democracy.
-Uproot all foreign terrorists.
-Then, and only then, leave Iraq.

This is not that complicated, come on! :doh

Gosh, aquapub, when you put it that way, it looks so simple...just add water and poof! you have a "prosperous and peaceful democracy"! Rinse and repeat! Who knew it was that easy!

This is like that old Steve Martin joke about how to become a millionaire: First, get a million dollars. Next...

Let's take your recipe for disaster one facile, deluded item at a time, shall we?

1. Train the Iraqis until they can defend their own country.

If this was indeed the plan all along, then why didn't Bush listen to his generals and send in enough troops? As it is, he sent in just enough to lose. The lack of enough troops forced the military to play a deadly game of whack-a-mole, they'd chase insurgents out of one city, only to have to leave to fight them in another, leaving the city unsecured. Meanwhile, they’re supposed to also be rebuilding Iraq AND training security forces? If Bush hadn’t dodged the draft and actually served in a war, maybe he would have known what it takes to nation build.

Which brings me to your next laughably simplistic item:

2. Establish a democracy.

Believe it or not, three rickety, thrown-together elections does not a democracy make. There was a gap of nearly 2,000 years from the first democracies in ancient Greece to the American Revolution. And it took us almost 13 years to ratify our Constitution, and that was with the benefit of a millennia of European democratic progress and the development of the legal and political institutions necessary to carry it through. Neither of which Iraq has. And even so, we still had to fight a horrendous Civil War a hundred years later.

A new book, Electing To Fight, by two political scientists—Edward Mansfield of the University of Pennsylvania and Jack Snyder of Columbia—reinforces this pessimism. The book argues that, while mature democracies do tend to be more peaceful and almost never go to war with one another, emerging democracies tend to be more violent and aggressive than any other type of regime—and are more likely to erupt in civil war or revert to autocratic rule.

Mansfield and Snyder outline the conditions for a successful democratization, among them: a literate populace; a fairly prosperous and diverse economy; and a set of democratic institutions, not least a state apparatus capable of mediating and administering disputes among competing social and political groups.

Apply the list to Iraq – as Mansfield and Snyder did - and the results come up all zeros. Present-day Iraq, they write, exhibits "all the risk factors": an inflammatory mass media, scant rule of law, corrupt bureaucracies, low income and literacy, an economy based almost entirely on oil, and an exceedingly weak administrative state.

So if President Dumbass had been serious about establishing a stable democracy in Iraq, he would have chased the 3 to 4 hundred thousand troops he should have sent in with another hundred thousand judges, lawyers, civil servants, administrators, teachers, translators, managers, engineers, and so on and so on. Only then would Iraq have had a fighting chance of becoming the democracy Bush claims to be building there. Instead, Iraq could very well implode into sectarian violence, civil war and theocratic rule.

3. Uproot all foreign terrorists.

Yeah, they better be uprooted, because they weren’t there before we invaded. I’m sure that Iraqis are thrilled that their country, on top of being ruined infrastructurally and economically and under foreign occupation, is now a haven for terrorists. Thank you, President Bush, may I have another!

4. Then, and only then, leave Iraq.

If only. Another symptom of not sending in enough troops to begin with is that the military, due to pure logistics, will be forced to reduce troop levels in the next year and a half, regardless of the condition Iraq is in. By then we’ll have soldiers on the 4th and 5th tours of duty. Our all-volunteer military simply isn’t equipped to handle nation building (remember Bush was against that in 2000). So when Bush talks about “setting artificial timetables” he’s talking out of his ass again. He knows that the military will have to start pulling out, he just enjoys smearing his critics. But of course, by then, Bush will be out of office and the poor SOB who takes over for him will have to pay the piper.

It’s Bush’s egregious lack of proper planning for this war that will force us to “cut and run.” So he can pay lip service to a "plan for victory" all he wants, but he didn't do squat about it.

Bush is an incompetent jackass who should be Abu Ghraibed

 

[G-Man]

As if it will serve any purpose, here is the shortened version of what Bush has said over and over:

-Train the Iraqis until they can defend their own country.
-Establish a democracy.
-Uproot all foreign terrorists.
-Then, and only then, leave Iraq.

This is not that complicated, come on! :doh

If this really was the plan then why :-

1) Disband the army - Iraq had thousands of trained military personnel who could easily have secured the country - most of these soldiers were also conscripts with no real allegiance to Saddam (except his Republican guards and intelligence service). Why did we choose to 'sack' them all, thus creating mass unemployment and also proving the terrorists/insurgents with willing volunteers and military expertise?? Obviously an Iraqi army was not part of the plan at the begginning.

2)An occupying force cannot establish a democracy, it has to come from within. No matter who is elected there will always be the question of how much authority the US has over the Iraq authorities until we are no longer in the country. An Iraqi democracy which has to operate with thousands of US troops within its borders will not be regarded as a sovereign state.

3) I fail to see how the 'plan' could have included uprooting all foreign terrorists when there were none in Iraq at the time. Yes, there are thousands present now but when Saddam was in power there were no terrorists to uproot.

4)If we are only going to leave when the above conditions are satisifed then Bush was lying when he said we will leave if the Iraqis ask us to leave. If it is indeed the case that we will leave if asked to do so then the 'plan' is irrelevant. We could be 'asked' to leave when none of these targets have been met.