Posted by Ironside
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=2632
Hi, I'm a new member here and this is my first post.
I'm a Veteran and a Patriot.
The post has more to with the Iraq War, than the War on Terror.
And, they are not one in the same.
I support the war in Afghanistan, but I am very much against the war in Iraq. Or at least the reasons we were given, the way it was executed and the timing.
My thoughts on the war in Iraq...
Americans and the world have been given different reasons for the war with Iraq, as the Bush Administration's unsubstantiated invasion and occupation has become more and more confusing.
Iraq, ties to 9/11.
Iraq, no ties to 9/11.
Iraq, ties to al Qaeda.
Iraq, no ties to al Qaeda.
Iraq, threat to USA.
Iraq, no threat to USA.
Iraq, chemical bunkers.
Iraq, no chemical bunkers.
Iraq, CWMD.
Iraq, no CWMD.
Iraq, mushrooms clouds.
Iraq, no mushroom clouds.
Iraq, becoming an imminent threat,
Iraq, not becoming an imminent threat.
Now, it’s a “liberation.”
Sure, we thought Saddam Hussein possessed these CWMD. Almost everybody did. We can't fault Bush for believing it too. Hell, we helped him obtain them, to use on the Iranians. How dare he use them on the Kurds! But few thought Saddam was actually a threat to America. It was President Bush and his Administration that made him appear to be more of a threat than he was... "before he (Hussein) becomes an imminent threat", "mushroom clouds", "supporting terrorists", "shopping for uranium in Niger", etc., etc.
We’ve had more than 1,700 American troops killed in Iraq.
More than 13,500 injured. Many losing arms, legs, and their sight!
These numbers climb daily.
If the Bush Administration is going to now say that the war in Iraq is about "liberation", wouldn't that be the "flip-flop" of the century? I mean, this is what George Bush said when applying to the American people for the job of Commander in Chief:
"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that.... ....I don't want to be the world's policeman, I want to be the world's peacemaker."
George W. Bush - Gore/Bush Presidential Debate
October 3, 2000
Sure, then came 9/11. But, what’s Iraq really got to do with that?
Rightwing America wants to say, “If it was up to the Democrats, Saddam Hussein would still be in power.” That may or may not be true. But given the choice, wouldn't it have been better for Americans and Europeans, if Osama bin Laden and his entourage had been captured instead?
When President Bush first took office in 2001, he was warned about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, by the Clinton Administration. But, Bush had Condoleezza Rice (an expert on the Soviet Union) as his National Security Advisor. Rice had NEVER even heard of al Qaeda before. George Bush was stuck in the 80s, just look at his people, Cheney... Powell (now gone)... Rice... Rumsfeld... Wolfowitz (the list goes on). These are daddy's people. Wasn't it within the first year as President that Bush wanted to renege on the Soviet Missile Treaty? While this was going on, al Qaeda was planning 9/11 and not only did Bush have Clinton's warnings about bin Laden, he ALSO had the infamous "memo." It took 9/11 for him to wake up and understand just what it was the Clinton Administration was talking about.
And, oh how Bush had hoped it was Iraq that had attacked us.
Do you remember:
Vice President Dick Cheney and the "pretty well confirmed" story about a meeting in Prague between Iraqi officials and al Qaeda operatives?
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld when asked about Iraq’s chemical weapons of mass destruction said, “we know where they are.”
Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said, "But let me be clear: when it comes to reconstruction, before we turn to the American taxpayers, we will turn first to the resources of the Iraqi government itself and the international community. That is why the President last week seized frozen Iraqi assets in the United States—so that they can be put to use to rebuild the country."
President Bush said, after 9/11, "I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you and the people that knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!"
VP Cheney said, “We’ll be greeted as liberators.”
Instead:
We're in Iraq liberating Iraqis with American lives and blood, and with the American taxpayer's money. That money belongs here at home bettering our Nation, NOT Iraq's. This is money that could be better spent fighting the REAL war on terror! Iraq has one of the world's largest oil reserves. They should pay for their own building and rebuilding. Why are we financing this “liberation”?
I think it's a travesty!
I have no problem with ousting Saddam Hussein. It’s the way the Bush Admin has done it (and the timing) that bothers. It was timed and executed poorly, at best.
The Bush Administration’s exaggerated allegations only made the building of a coalition harder to do. The United Nations isn’t going to invade anybody without solid evidence. That’s something the Bush Administration failed to produce.
Perhaps had we sent the UN in searching for mass graves and torture chambers the outcome would have been different.
After finding such real evidence, such as the mass graves and torture chambers, if Russia, France or Germany didn't want to participate, then fine... Go ahead without them. But, who can really blame them today for not joining us, when it turns out Bush was all wrong with his allegations?
However, if we're going to go ahead without a real coalition, there still has to be an exit plan and our troops will have to be FULLY equipped. And now I ask... What was the hurry, that we couldn't equip our troops properly, before attacking?
The luxury of a "preemptive" strike is that you are going in on your terms, when you're prepared, when the weather favors you best. Bush rushed in with our troops ill-prepared and with no plan to win the peace. Then he has the gall to blame Senator Kerry for the lack of body armor, because he voted against the $87 billion, due to the funds in it going to Halliburton. President Bush fails to mention how he himself threatened to veto that Bill had they revised it in any way, like taking funds from Halliburton. President Bush shouldn't have sent our troops into a war with Iraq, without the proper body armor, in the first place.
Then to invade during a sandstorm that our troops weren’t equipped for. Their vehicles and weapons failing them. Some units became lost, some were killed and others captured. It was a quagmire from the get go! And it’s this President’s fault!
Why don't our troops deserve the best preparation available to them? Where was Saddam Hussein going? Why couldn't the Bush Administration be a little more patient and prudent? Again, I ask… What was the hurry? We'd waited 12 years. What's with another few months or a year or so?
Yes, it’s better to fight them over there than here on our streets. We were already at war with terror in Afghanistan - fighting terrorists "over there", when President Bush decided to start a war with Iraq. Now we’re bogged down in Iraq and it’s hampering our efforts with the war on Terror.
Sure, it’s better to “fight them over there”, but it’s also very important we fight them harder here at home too. We need Federal Agents on all domestic transportation. We need better nuclear plant security. We need tighter borders. We must invest more in port security. These are some of the ways we can fight terror at home. Forget about wrapping your home in plastic sheathing and duct tape. Can you believe our Government REALLY suggested that, in the case of a chemical attack?
President Bush has failed us. He’s been sidetracked at one of the worst times in American history. He’s lost his focus on those that attacked on us September 11, 2001.
al Qaeda now continues to grow from within the lands of their enemies. They are sprouting up around the world in new cells ready, willing, and able to do any dirty needs for Osama bin Laden.
And us? We're bogged down in a quagmire called Iraq!
God Bless Our Troops!
