Wasted about a trillion dollars right there

Those of you who have been on this site for any length of time know how I feel about the invasion of Iraq.  It was one of the biggest mistakes he made in his administration, and thousands of innocent people have died on account of it.  Our people and Iraqi people.  It was wrong, wrong, WRONG!

There should be a "zero stars" rating for this item. Anyone with half a brain realized long before this absurd and unnecessary war started that it was a reckless and insane notion from the get-go. Those of us who spoke up in opposition to the war even before the "Shock and Awe" stage of the fiasco rained death on innocent, defenseless Iraqi civilians were called Saddam lovers, terrorist-coddlers, Communists, America haters, homosexuals and worse by the drooling, carnage-loving, sabre-rattling idiots on the right side of the political fence. Turns out those turds were absolutely wrong and braindead, yet, we reasoning folks don't take any solace in saying "I told you so." In fact, we're pretty appalled the way things turned out (worse than our well-considered fears) and regret that our superior wisdom was not heeded five years ago. The entire shell game stinks to high heaven, and both Chimp Boy and Dickweed Cheney should be tried as war criminals. The war in Iraqi is not a fight against terrorism. It's a fight against ethnic militia, Iran-backed entities, Sunni insurgents and criminal gangs. Al-Queda isn't in the equation at all, yet, there's still millions of flag-waving imbeciles out there in the Red States (also known as Toiletbowl Land) who don't get it. Yet. These people have pieces of feces where their brains should be.

Invaded the wrong country and went after silly Saddam instead of Osama.  Saddam actually hated and executed terrorists but hey, all that oil and all that money for those corporations eh? Osama must be laughing his ass off somewhere at what america has become since his 9/11 attack.  Considering that 9/11 was meant to destroy america  and seeing how the  Consitution is being urinated on by the govt, our rights and liberties taken away and america looking horrible in the eyes of the world one must come to the bitter conclusions that the 9/11 attacks were a resounding success and will one day cause america to become extinct.

They only wanted power and thats all.

What a stroke of genius this turned out to be, huh? From now on, whenever this buffoon's name pops up on the Recent Comment list, it should be treated the way Flounder's picture was at the new pledge slideshow in Animal House.

In the lead-up to Iraq, a very smart person of my acquaintance tried to find an answer to the hawkish neoconservatives that he could phrase in their own language, in terms they could understand. He spent his time reading the great thinkers, finding citation after citation proving that the invasion was anything but a "conservative" measure. Perhaps the best quotation he cited was from the granddaddy of British conservatism himself, Edmund Burke. It's a line from the Reflections on the Revolution in France, in which Burke is talking about the French revolutionaries' confiscation of the Catholic monasteries in order (so Burke thought) to seize the profits for themselves. If we think of Bush as one of the French revolutionary zealots, the Catholic monasteries as Iraq, and the imagined vices as weapons of mass destruction, we get a pretty accurate picture of the lies that mobilized the government:

"It is not with much credulity I listen to any when they speak evil of those whom they are going to plunder. I rather suspect that vices are feigned or exaggerated when profit is looked for in their punishment. An enemy is a bad witness; a robber is a worse. Vices and abuses there were undoubtedly in that order, and must be. It was an old establishment, and not frequently revised. But I saw no crimes in the individuals that merited confiscation of their substance, nor those cruel insults and degradations, and that unnatural persecution which have been substituted in the place of meliorating regulation."

History will show this is the dumbest action taken on by a US president. Starting a war to line the pockets of contractors and republicans friends. It will take 20 years for the country to recover from the mistakes of this moran. A man who "talks" to god and thinks jesus is going to come down and save the day for him in bible land.

Right idea, wrong details and poor execution.

Iraq needed to be invaded and Saddam had to go. We would have lost our credibility as a superpower if we didn't dispose of this tin pot dictator who kept thumbing his nose at us and UN resolutions. However, it is ridiculous to attempt to install a democracy where one has never existed and the ideas of free speech, tolerance, gender equality, and free press are as foreign as eating dogs is in the U.S.

Iraq should have been turned into a U.S. territory. They occupants of that nation are simply incapable of not eating each other if left unsupervised. Iraq is the best currently existing argument for the merits of imperialism.

Thus far it has been a general failure, but Bush can still turn it around if he so chooses. The trouble is that the Bush administration continues to claim that we should "stay the course" in Iraq. However the Bush strategy in Iraq is essentially to keep American troops there indefinitely while they patch holes created by the insurgency. We take over a town, and many times by the next day its taken over by the local militia. There is an Iraqi central government and army, but its authority is very limited. Hell, they can't even control Baghdad, the capital! US policy in Iraq has been in a drift stage, since Washington has in essence not refused to acknowledge that their plan has come to fruition.

We do indeed need to change course, but will the Bush administration take corrective action? They certainly should. From a purely political standpoint, Bush continues to run this election cycle on the concept of "stay the course", yet upwards to almost 70% of Americans say that the country is headed in the wrong direction! That's not a smart election strategy, and that is what's likely contributing to the countries sour mood on the Republican Party. We can shift policies in Iraq and here are some of the goals I would encourage policy makers to set. I would continue building a multi-ethnic Iraqi army which would rapidly begin to take over the civil affairs of the country. The core officers of that army need to bring the old army back together, which are now parts of the regional militias. They will likely need to be bought off, but it can done. Once the army is more or less reconstituted, I would rapidly hand over control of civil affairs to the army. The new leader of Iraq is going to have to be a strongman, most likely an army officer with broad appeal across most segments of Iraqi society. The Iraqi parliament doesn't have to be disbanded, but for the moment, its powers will be somewhat curbed, as a strong executive is needed to rebuild the country with minimal infighting.

Some might argue that this plan shelves the experiment in Iraqi democracy. As opposed, this plan will likely preserve the long term prospects of Iraqi democracy. Lets be realistic for a moment, Iraq is currently a democracy, but lets remember, so is Iran, whose human rights record isn't so exemplary. Speaking of whom, is gaining more and more influence with the day in Iraq, especially as Shi'a faction in the Parliament grows in power. Indeed, it is not unforeseeable that they begin to interfere excessively in internal Iraqi politics much like they did in Lebanon some years back. As opposed, we need a strong Iraq that will act as a counterbalance to a strong Iran! A coalition between a Shi'a Iran and a Shi'a Iraq will make Iran a regional superpower, which is the direction they're heading in now, and something that the United States certainly wants to avoid.

Democracy is much more than giving the vote to the people. At this point in time, a weak parliament, fragmented along sectarian lines, is not going to be able to take care of Iraq's problems effectively. Only a strong executive, preferably with American support, can do that.

Bungled and wrong-headed from the start.

i have been against this war from day 1. extremely pointless. there are much bigger threats to our country, specifically our domestic problems. while i support our troops regardless, anyone who voted for that war has accountability...and that goes for both sides such as losers like h.clinton, kerry, bush, frist and so on......

The Right-Winged Nutbag Tentacles seem to be festering on yet another topic... so I'll have to bring some Political RAID and extinguish them yet again. First off, I'm tired of all the Right-Winged Nutbags calling people who DISAGREE with Bush Policy "complainers" or the like. Please sincerely recall that when you Right-Winged Nutbags criticized Clinton for Bosnia, we let you say whatever you wish without criticizing your FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Get the picture? I had to knock this little point out right away, it's such an irritant. Second, I'm also very sick (and tired) of hearing about how almighty George W. Bush is. Wake up call: He's not. The Republican team that is currently in administration has been bucking to invade Iraq for many, many years. www.NewAmericanCentury.org. There are memos there in black and white that were sent to Clinton and signed by your local GOP Nutbag Mousketeers, including Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. Clinton had a little more intelligence than Bush. He kept Saddam contained, and kept it quiet. Bombed what we thought were chemical factories... and didn't make a Geo-Political nightmare out of it involving the deaths of US and OTHER peoples. Secondly, CLinton also had the intelligence that Bush is so well missing to not run up to the world press and say "You are WITH US OR AGAINST US!" What jackass publicist allowed Bush to do this? Purely stupid, both politically and in the purest common sense of the word. Announcing that to the world was the wrong choice. Talk SOFTLY and carry a big stick George. The only people who go flaunting around their power and authority are those that have none or don't know how to properly exercise it. I am sure we all can recall in our lives a time when an old boss told someonen "I'm in charge here!" or something similar. Same analogy applies. As the leader of the free world, Mr. Bush needs to gain (first) a little class. Second, he needs to keep quiet more often and stop making stupid remarks. The GOP has been making every effort to take out Iraq for years, and 9/11 was merely the green flag to do it. It's ashame that Mr. Bush wasn't able to send all those troops and money after Osama (the one responsible for 9/11) instad of hiring the Afghans to do it. It's also a shame that Mr. Bush doesn't realize (as part of his job) how to assess natural disasters. If it's in more than one state, it's called "FEDERAL"... that means you can pick up that little red phone and send in troops and support to aid our Americans. Surely Mr. Bush knows what FEDERAL means, because he loved to tout that word when he argued gay marriage. I guess he has selective memory of certain terms. I think Mr. Bush should (for one day) act like an American, and take a good hard look at how the everyday Americans see what he is doing... and how frightening it is. I (years ago) saw a movie called "The Day After"... It's the scariest movie on Earth. However, if you note in that movie and pick up all the background clues and tv and radio conversations... the nuclear (final) war was caused by aggression on the part of the American President and the Russian President. I'm an American. I love our country, and I support our troops. However, I also VALUE them...and Afghanistan was the right move. But right now, we need to secure our nation, not profit from and rebuild the nation of Iraq. John Kerry has 20 years+ of experience in leadership. He served IN a war...argue the details all you wish. He earned the right to talk about it (as MANY soldiers did upon their returns as well). Kerry is still welcomed by more leaders around the world than Bush ever will be. Yet, legitimately or not, America voted for Bush. Well, as an American talking to my fellow Americans... You get what you paid for. Mathew.

Supporting the troops and supporting National Command Authority's decisions about where they go are two different things. I believe very strongly that we have sent our troops into a very bad situation, and I pray for their safety nightly. I think that our military does a very tough job that most Americans just do not have the nut to do. I am proud that they chose to serve. I wish my eyes would have let me serve. I do not, however, support the recent decisions made by National Command Authority on where these brave souls go. I believe that the decision to go to war was influenced by bad intel and poor judgement. Now that the job has been started, I do believe it needs to be finished properly, so I'm not one to call for a fast withdrawal leaving behind a wreck of a country that terrorists still call home (and they do right now, if they didn't before). I hope our troops do their job and do it well, and I pray that they stay safe while doing it, and that they all make it home when the job's done.

Obviously, something that has come up in this, is WMD's. Dare I ask this, what would all of you critics be saying if we had not gone into Iraq, and they used a WMD on us, or some other country? You would blame Bush. Just because thats the way you are; you can't look for positives in life, only the worst. Maybe he didn't go in there for WMD's, maybe he did. No one, I stress NO ONE knows the real truth but himself. One thing is for certain, there are men and women over there killing and being killed. SUPPORT THEM, I'm sick of all of this "unprovoked", "to hell with Bush". Ok, so maybe he was wrong, maybe he was right, but where does that get us? The troops are still there, dying. Show some support, and quit bitching.

American participation in WWII occured unprovoked; yes, we were attacked by Japan but we didn't go after them alone. We also held Italy and Germany accountable for their crimes against humanity. Franklin D. Roosevelt didn't need a countless number of U.N resolutions and years of weapons inspections to realize that what Japan represented did not belong to Japan alone. Rather, it belonged to a mindset that believed it was necessary to exterminate those for their religious beliefs, their way of life and who they were. It is that same mindset we are fighting in Iraq; one that is not limited to only one man or an organization. Determination and unity are crucial in ensuring that the terrorists end up on the ash heap of history as their 20th century counterparts did.

I believe there could have been wmd and he hid or disposed of them. They were probably in a mobile device of some sort, so this would make it easier. Otherwise, he would have let us look around without the fight. Who knows maybe france or someone helped them? Never can tell. I always had the feeling that all the countries that were against the war had something going on with Iraq anyway. I mean why would they be against it when it's so obvious they were terrorizing quite a few countries, besides ours?

TOTALLY UNPROVOKED!

05-11-05, Just days ago it was reported (and substantiated) that in July 2002 there was a meeting in which Tony Blair announced he had already committed himself to supporting Bushs plans for invading Iraq. At that time British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw acknowledged that the case for war was thin as Saddam was not threatening his neighbors and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran. Also in a separate secret briefing for that meeting it was stated that Britain and America had to, quote CREATE conditions to justify war!! Lastly, A British official reported on his recent talks with Washington, quote, There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being FIXED around the policy. All this before Bush even sought Congressional authorization to go to war.

This was the bestest thing Georgie ever did. We got all those nasty WMDs, installed a secure democracy, and only a couple thousand American soldiers died. What a joke.

Even Bush voters have gotten into the act of fairy tales. I sh#t you not, someone said to me How do YOU know there wasn't any WMD's? If we invade nations based on false principles, the world deserves to finish us off. . .after all, we've killed for less, right?

I have a question. How do you guys even have proof there was no WOMD? Did you watch Fahrenheit 9/11? Well, that movie is a lie, and Moore is making it all up. None of you guys are supporting someone that's trying to save your life, he's doing it for me, for you, for us.

The War for Haliburton was instigated to further the interests of the military/industrial complex. Saddam Hussein, though admittedly a bad guy, did not present a tangible threat to the United States. This war was a horrible mistake, and George W. Bush has blood on his hands.

Invade Iraq...for what?

In the context of the Bush doctrine I believe this was an integral part of the War on Terror. I do however believe that it was mishandled on various levels at various stages. (i) On the advice from the State Departement and Colin Powell Bush should have never gone for a final resolution where he pushed so vehemently on the issue of WMD. (ii) George Tenet giving Bush faulty data and calling the WMD issue a slam dunk buttressed the political epicenter of the debate squarely on WMD when the reasoning in the context of the Bush doctrine was more greatly multifarious and compelling. (iii) Rumsfeld's advice for the number of troops needed was too low at the start and during the occupation. All that being said however, I still believe the invasion was an essential stepping stone in the War On Terror. Though the go will prove more arduous than Afghanistan-though people panned that idea too- I believe we can and will make it work. That we will continue the march of freedom throughout the world releasing nations from the bonds of tyranny and promoting economic globalization to foster environments of individual growth and freedom. I believe this is the best way to eliminate terrorism and the invasion of Iraq was simply an epochal shift toward a new foreign policy agenda in that direction.

It's remarkable the number of derogatory comments, some coherent, most not, about how stupid it was to invade Iraq, how stupid Bush is, how Saddam was no threat to the US and how the US is meddling in Iraq's business without justification. During the recent campaign, were not the liberals complaining how they have been (very effectively) characterized as un-patriotic and anti-military? Now, how on earth could anyone come to that conclusion? This war is not yet over, its justification not yet clear. Our young men and women in the military, in the theater, are risking their lives for this war. Today. Tomorrow. There is no draft. There is no plan for a draft. The election is over, stop fear mongering. In whose equation would a US pullout be in any sense a positive for the future? And if it is in your equation, justify that. Strategize how best to minimize the carnage with a pullout. You'll want to break open a history book or two to do it, something not often tried , I suspect, and look at the record of other such abrupt pullouts (Vietnam comes to mind).

MEMO TO THE PEOPLE WHO THINK THIS IS NOT RELATED TO THE WAR ON TERROR: If all these foriegn fighters are in Iraq, where are they not going? To the United States to commit acts of terrorism. I'm no strategist (just a Corporal), but I think the Bush administration may have intended to draw out the vast quantities of foriegn fighters and deal with them where access to U.S. civilians would be limited. Hmm.

One of the stupidest moves in history. It's like using a rook to take out a pawn. Of course at the time at seemed like a good idea. Now, I realize how incredibly stupid it was. Pre-emptive war is not a good idea. And Iraq is now becoming a new Vietnam. The draft has been thought of returning also. I think this was a bad move, and we should have waited for proof of weapons of mass-destruction. And I don't see why America has to step into other people's business, even though their W.O.M.D can't reach here. Let Iraq take care of themselves. No one appreciates our help anyways.

When you put all his list of spectacular gaffes, ill-advised policies, non-achievements, failures and divisive measures side by side, it makes you wonder why he sits in the White House.

Liberals stink. Right move

Terrible idea backed by an utter lack of planning. A loser by any measure.

What choice did we have? Our Zionist controlled puppet president was ordered to invade Iraq. The neo-conservatives (otherwise known to the initiated as the Vulcans) dictate US policy, which is for the sole benefit of Israel, not the United State's. This will all change soon, however, as people began to be slowly awaken. Just last week the FBI rooted an Israeli mole out who was working to get us into war with Iran. And the week before that, the New Jersey Governor sex scandal was about an Israeli undercover trying to blackmail the gay into high offices of terrorism. The average person will come to know the truth about Zionism. All nations will turn on Satan's counterfeit, Israel; and rightfully so! And the New Jerusalem will come down from Heaven with God himself aboard to live with man. (Rev 21:3)

say goodnight saddam. wmd now stands for where's my dictator.

bush is an idiot...just to let everyone kno...lol... and there was no reason for us to invade iraq except for dirty money... the only reason bush wanted to invade iraq is to have control over the oil there... now that we invaded it.... bush will appoint one of his *good friends* there and therego ... have control over the oil. he is a greedy little bastard that needs to go away....

A thinly veiled power grab to secure more oil for the world market and keep the American economy from collapsing due to the weakening value of the dollar when more countries began to buy oil using euros. This is a stop-gap at best, only delaying the invevitable. The middle east will be out of oil sooner than most people think, and the government knows it, which is why they are resorting to such desperate measures.

This war was supposed to be because Iraq was an iminent threat and had WMD. Though not directly said it was also supposed to be a blow against terrorism. Instead it has given extremists another unstable country to get recruits from. If you wanted to get rid of saddam just be honest and tell the american people that so we can decide. Don't just decide on your own to clean up Daddy mess with lies and no exit strategy. Sadly many brave american soldiers and thousands of Iraqis have died because of this.

This would have been fine if we had waited until weapons of mass destruction were found rather than invading on suspicion of weapons of mass destruction.

Last time I checked we were a sovereign nation and can make our own foreign policy without the UN's approval. What good is the UN if they are going to allow people to break their rule without any reprecussions. I love how everyone jumps to the conclusion that they were lied to by Bush because they don't agree with the policy. Bush had to act on the information he had from an intelligence agency that was stripped down by the former president. That intelligence is what needs to be investigated.

The military invasion of Iraq certainly was unnecessary and unpopular. The president went into Iraq without the approval of the United Nations, taking a major step backward on the road to world peace. At least for the Persian Gulf war the U. N. approved the resolution for war. In order to garner support for the Iraq war, Bush lied about national security and the Weapons of Mass Destruction which Iraq does not possess. There was no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam and no evidence to suggest that Saddam was connected with 9/11. While the world is getting less safe and Iraq sinks into anarchy, the costs of the war are mounting up (billions and billions). Don't forget that many American soldiers have died because of a war started to get control of the oil reserves.

what happened to Osama the bad guy. We never found the bastard. We are lied to. I dont mean to sound radical but the american citizens are being lied to by there leader. It is obvious. Waging war with out reliable evidence that saddam had any WMDs was wrong. We all now sit back and wonder... wow now we have saddam but what happened to Osama. The alqueda, the Weapons of mass destruction taht were once poking us in the eye? what happened?

Invading Iraq was indeed the wrong thing to do. Saddam was not a threat, we didn't find any WMD's, billions of dollars have been wasted on this whole ordeal and we have lost too many young soldiers and for what? So Bush could get the man that tried to kill his dad.

Visionary. Few people would have done this with the determination and success that Bush has exerted. The war on terror does have an end game. It is when all of the terrorists are destroyed. Unfortunately in the Middle East terrorists grow on trees. With the US successful destruction of Saddam's bloody, Stalinist regime, the Middle East is one step closer to democracy and liberation of 1/2 its population (women). Make no mistake. Bush is determined to see Iraq succeed and will stick with the new government, Bush is nothing but extremely loyal. Democrats and left-wing groups won't be able to get this Bush to pull out of Iraq this time. 10 yrs from now most Iraqis will see Bush as a heroic figure. Our goal for destroying Saddam was multi-faceted by the primary goal was to prevent Saddam from ever being able to provide WMD to an entity that would harm the US. This goal has now been achieved. Being able to tell right and wrong is indeed a key requirement for the US President and Bush has mastered this. For 8 and 1/2 years this country had systematically underestimated the threat of terror. Yet strangely these same people who underestimated terror are possessed by their perception that now the US (and entire world) overestimated WMD in Iraq. Perhaps the US and world did overestimate the threat, but we didn't know this fact for sure because Saddam refused to cooperate with the UN and until the coalition made sure. I believe that most people would rather overestimate threats when they pertain to WMD then underestimate them, especially after 9-11. We do not need any more wake-up calls.

Saddam Hussein was a man of true evil, who massacred his own people for no real reason. He and his evil family lived in palaces, while the repressed citizens of Iraq were forced into micronic huts. He also had a Weapons of Mass Destruction program. Although his bribes to France and Germany stalled the courageous and noble cause of the Coalition, he was defeated and eventually captured! His people were set free and shown the glory that is democracy! And, even more, an Al Queda agent was recently captured in Iraq. And, NPR said there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda! Hmm... In the end, go George Bush, you've liberated a nation and stopped a truly evil madman!

Indeed the War on Terrorism and the pre-emptive military invasion of Iraq will, for better or worse, be George W. Bush's legacy. I personally have found it extremely difficult to make up my mind on the issue of whether it was the right decision to invade Iraq. However, the invasion must not be judged in hindsight. I find it rather ironic that 70% of Americans supported the war in March 2003, and now less than 50% of those polled believe it was worth going in. It is clear that the majority of Americans do not consider the consequences of war, and in turn, do not weigh in the pros and the cons. The invasion of Iraq is a controversial issue. There's no question about that. One can argue that Iraq was not an immediate threat prior to the invasion. On the other hand, one can argue that Iraq clearly harbored and supported terrorism. I am still undecided at to whether invading Iraq was the right thing for this country. We may very well have made an important investment in protecting the security of this nation in the future. However, by the same token, we may have put our own security at risk by spending billions in Iraq while we still remain unprepared to prevent and respond to a terrorist attack here on the homeland. It is quite conceivable that Saddam Hussein, if given the opportunity, would've sought the means to harm this nation and our people. It is clear that the world is safer without that madman in power. However, those in the Pentagon in the White House took us to war without a clear plan for reconstruction and getting out. Now, due to popular pressure in an election year, it is quite probable that Bush will order a premature removal of U.S. forces from Iraq, and we will be no more secure than before we invaded. The fact is that Bush fumbled the ball on this one. His heart was in the right place in going into Iraq, but he lacked a clear plan, and quite frankly, I'm convinced that he exaggerated the immediacy of the Iraqi threat. If he had said in January of 2003 that we needed to invade Iraq to overthrow a madman who tortures his own people, then the American people and those in the Congress could've been the judge of that. After all, nation-building missions was embraced by both sides during Clinton's tenure. However, Bush relied heavily upon faulty intelligence to convey his cause to the American people, and he must be held accountable, or at least take responsibility. On a final note, I find it sickening that partisans call Bush a murderer and that the invasion of Iraq all revolved around his own personal agenda. I, like most sane people, believe that Bush had his heart in the right place. Quite frankly, calling the President of the United States a murderer is disgusting. Sending Americans to die in battle is not an easy decision to come to. It wasn't easy for Lincoln, Roosevelt, Truman, or Johnson, and it wasn't easy for Bush.

A failure in every aspect. We justified a preemptive attack on a sovereign nation with exaggerations, damaged relationships with many of our most important allies, and ignored the critical question of what happens once we arrive to Baghdad. Every day more American lives are lost, and more taxpayer dollars spent. No cohesive plan has emerged. With an election year coming, the most likely scenario is that we pull out leaving Iraq and the region a bigger mess than when we went in. It's conceivable that we are safer with Saddam out of commission. But it's equally conceivable that our heavy-handed actions and reckless bravado have created a new generation of terrorists. Time will tell, but I'm not optimistic that this will end well.