Bush has failed to answer for Sept. 11 - moved

[Gunny]

the US was attacked. We were attacked by an enemy that we really ought to have been concentrating on 24/7 since 9/11/01. Our offensive against Afghanistan was appropriate and was evidence that the Bush administration was, indeed concentrating on the enemy that had attacked us.

The attack against Iraq was clear evidence that the Bush administration had taken their eyes off the ball... had forgotten who the real enemy was, and everything that has happened since then has been counterproductive to the effort to prevail in the conflict against the guys who attacked us.

THEY are as strong today as they were the day they attacked us. THAT is what Bush has spent five years, 31K dead and wounded, and a half a trillion dollars to accomplish: our enemy is undiminished in his capacity.

And beyond that, the war in Iraq has created chaos and carnage and anarchy in Iraq where once there was brutal order. It has emboldened Iran and allowed it to increase its stature in the Islamic world and make significant gains in its regional hegemony agenda that had been fairly well contained and foiled by the orderly brute we deposed....the same orderly brute and tinhorn dictator that Bush's own secretary of state claimed was not a threat to America months before 9/11.

General William Odom, former director of the NSA, has called the decision to invade Iraq the worst strategic blunder of our country's history.... but what the fuck does HE know, right?

Couldn't be the fact that this "enemy" is sitting across the border in Pakistan where we can't go without invading ANOTHER country. So what's it to be? Invade Pakistan or quit blaming Bush for the Taliban/AQ sitting in a political sanctuary and refurbishing?

[retiredman]

Saddam's level of brutality to the shiites in his own country is, pragmatically speaking, of little relative concern to us in any case. We have an enemy... and that enemy was not secular Iraqi baathists. the war in Iraq is a counter-productive diversion from our real mission by any measure.

[JohnDoe]

gawd gaffer, I just didn't word any of that right.

And I don't think my point was made with my post above so if you want to start all over again, I will....

jd

[retiredman]

Couldn't be the fact that this "enemy" is sitting across the border in Pakistan where we can't go without invading ANOTHER country. So what's it to be? Invade Pakistan or quit blaming Bush for the Taliban/AQ sitting in a political sanctuary and refurbishing?

I have absolutely no problem invading Pakistan to get at AQ...they are our enemy.

I blame Bush for losing strategic focus. That alone has cost us 31K dead and wounded, a half a trillion dollars, and five years and we have ZERO to show for the "investment"!!

[Dilloduck]

Saddam's level of brutality to the shiites in his own country is, pragmatically speaking, of little relative concern to us in any case. We have an enemy... and that enemy was not secular Iraqi baathists. the war in Iraq is a counter-productive diversion from our real mission by any measure.

I'll bite---what do you think our real mission is---now ?

[retiredman]

I'll bite---what do you think our real mission is---now ?

let me bite first...what would YOU say it is?

[retiredman]

but while you are answering (or not), I will answer YOUR question.

I believe our real mission OUGHT to be what it has been since 9/11/01: the defeat of the ideology of wahabbist islamic extremism.

[Dilloduck]

let me bite first...what would YOU say it is?

Jesus Christ---what is this ? kindergarten?

[JohnDoe]

Couldn't be the fact that this "enemy" is sitting across the border in Pakistan where we can't go without invading ANOTHER country. So what's it to be? Invade Pakistan or quit blaming Bush for the Taliban/AQ sitting in a political sanctuary and refurbishing?

But don't you think that if President Bush HADN'T WASTED his resources and world wide good will, in going in to Iraq unnecessarily at THAT time, THEN there would not have been ANOTHER invaision as you said....?

it would have been the first invaision outside of afghanistan and it would have been sanctioned by the majority of countries in the world at the time, because we were in persuit of Bin Laden and we would have also still had the "good will " of the world and the UN probably, behind us invading the hills in pakistan to find Bin Laden.

[retiredman]

Jesus Christ---what is this ? kindergarten?

if you'll notice...I answered you. what do you have to offer other than tap dancing?

[Gaffer]

gawd gaffer, I just didn't word any of that right.

And I don't think my point was made with my post above so if you want to start all over again, I will....

jd

Ok sounds good. It did seem a bit rambling and on reading your second post I figured out you were talking about clinton. It did seem off kilter from what you usually post. We can try it again if you like.

[Gunny]

But don't you think that if President Bush HADN'T WASTED his resources and world wide good will, in going in to Iraq unnecessarily at THAT time, THEN there would not have been ANOTHER invaision as you said....?

it would have been the first invaision outside of afghanistan and it would have been sanctioned by the majority of countries in the world at the time, because we were in persuit of Bin Laden and we would have also still had the "good will " of the world and the UN probably, behind us invading the hills in pakistan to find Bin Laden.

First off, that world-wide goodwill crap is wasted on me. It didn't exist. The same people that don't like us now, didn't like us then. They just kept their mouthes shut while we were looking for something to aim at.

And no, we'd be listening to the same crap from the left and the rest of your wonderful world about Pakistan that we are listening to about Iraq.

And I find it rather amusing that you people so critical of invading Iraq are all suddenly, "well, Pakistan would've been alright." You can sell that West Texas swampland somewhere else.

[retiredman]

we were and are critical of the decision to invade Iraq BECAUSE IT DID NOT MAKE ANY SENSE.... not because it was some foreign country. I have absolutely no problem with America doing what we need to do to protect our national interests. Invading Pakistan to root out AQ...perhaps get OBL... THAT would be and has always been in our national interests.... just like sending a cruise missile strike onto camps where we thought he was hanging out...just like invading Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 because that is where he was being sheltered.... I have no problem with ANY of that. Iraq was a boneheaded mistake, and, while I realize that we need to at least TRY tofigure out some way to extricate ourselves without making things significantly worse, I am not entirely sure that is even a possibility at this point. And in any case, I firmly believe that George W. Bush and his party ought to pay a price for that boneheaded mistake...and that price, at a minimum, should include handing over the keys and going to sit quietly in the back of the bus for an extended "time out".

[waterrescuedude2000]

No person in their right mind will vote for Hillary. Or Tancredo.

Note to WRdude: No one has "defended our country" since WWII. You may have served in the military, but you did not "defend our country." Because our country has not been threatened. You silly whining merely points out how ridiculously uneducated and uninformed you are.

I read the responses to my thread. Obviously, none of you read it correctly. You have simply regurgitated the same stale old talking points.
The invasion of Iraq WAS the Bush response to Sept. 11. If you remember the idiots who attempted to link Saddam with the attacks. It is obvious that he didn't give a shit about bin Laden. Dubya merely wanted to take personal vengeance on Saddam.

You can post the WTC attack all you want. It doesn't explain why we never captured bin Laden. Or why we did not hold the Saudis accountable for the attacks. Instead, we took out someone who meant nothing.

DID YOU READ THOSE UN RESOLUTIONS GABBY??????

[gabosaurus]

Why are you still spouting shit over the U.N. resolutions? I thought you didn't believe in the U.N. Is the U.N. only representative when you want it to be?

Doesn't ask me though. I am still trying to figure out how a legitimate topic can be classified as a "conspiracy theory." Must be a conspiracy to get the truth across to a vast faction of idiots.