Bush and Blair Beginning to Admit Iraqi War Is A Quagmire and A Failure?
597621
It's about bloody time they did!  It seems to me that it's against the nature of democracy to be able to take a country to war without a referendum, so many people did not want this war.
303773
This question is a JOKE, right??!!\n\nWhy do you applaud Bush for freeing Iraqis from dictatorship?? Don't you know that they have been dying in their hundreds ever since Bush's war began?? Yes, it's true that many of the more recent deaths have been caused by the civil unrest CAUSED by Bush's war - rather than being directly attributable to Bush's troops - but even YOU surely can't pretend that Hussein would have slaughtered this many people in such a short time span?? No-one knows exactly how many Iraqis have died, and it's more than likely no-one ever WILL! But Bush's panic-stricken, trigger-happy, hyped-up troops are responsible for annihilating thousands of innocent civilians!! Why? Because they can't tell the difference between a civilian beating a carpet, & a man with a rifle!! And the troops wouldn't even let the red cross get near the injured a lot of the time...!!\n\nAs for Blair, we blame him because he was stupid enough to BELIEVE Bush's lies and obedient enough to send British troops to fight a war with no just cause - and THEN he was too stupid to withdraw when it was obvious that Bush had made it all up!!!
151901
Here is an article from CNN.com discussing this topic:\n\nhttp://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/\n\n(FindLaw) -- President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a joint resolution authorizing the use of U.S. military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake -- acts of war against another nation. \n\nNow it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away -- unless, perhaps, they start another war. \n\nThat seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking. \n\nPresidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation. \n\nFrankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues. \n\nPresident Bush's statements on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction\nReaders may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled. \n\nBush's statements, in chronological order, were: \n\n"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." \n\nUnited Nations address, September 12, 2002 \n\n"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons." \n\n"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." \n\nRadio address, October 5, 2002 \n\n"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons." \n\n"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." \n\n"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States." \n\n"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." \n\nCincinnati, Ohio speech, October 7, 2002 \n\n"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." \n\nState of the Union Address, January 28, 200
183209
Yes it is, we was never very well liked in the world but now we are hated. Bush has made many enemys with his lies and actions.
836286
... The American soldiers were sent to Iraq based on a lie told by our president,...no!  we did not reach our target as our target was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction which even Bush admits may not exist,... since then ,he has changed the reason for going to war once a year and his supporters now use his most recent example,,fighting terrorist ,although they did not exist in Iraq before we invaded... Giving the fact that Bush has two years left I am sure we will hear two more excuses..the result of our adventure is a split country... a world that hates us and generations of children around the world growing up believing we are an evil people!!!
700140
Even before the invasion, the consensus among Middle East experts (and, in fact, anyone with knowledge of the region) was that removing Hussein from power would result in a civil war. It was inevitable regardless of the cause (natural or by bullet). The fact the Bush was ignorant of the internal dynamics of Iraq and too intellectually lazy to care (even though is own father’s book ‘A World Transformed’ [1998] correctly described the situation) may partially explain their continuing denial of the obvious. Nevertheless, a civil war is what it is, regardless of what anyone calls it.\n\nTo answer your question, no they should not. However, facing reality and being truthful are not characteristics of this particular administration. In the end it really does not matter because no one in the world believes, or takes seriously, anything Bush or his mouthpieces say.
313121
in my opinion the war is completely and utterly bogus. Bush is just finishing what his father started.
698924
to RLP and Mini me...Iraq didn't come over here and blow us up (nor will they ever)....As far as the question...I fail to have a glimmer of an idea as to why re pub's hold on to their blind faith in george bush (lower case letter's emphasized). he is a mad man and his staff are either smart crooks or inept peter principle recipients
837396
Diplomacy can not make up for stupid political decisions. But at least it can present a government's best case to the outside world.\n\nAlso, it can garner support for marginal cases by "calling in chips" for past and future favors. 95% of British people have opposed the Iraqi war from the start. Yet Bush somehow got Blair to support him with troops -- and got numerous other countries to supply at least token forces. We will never (or not for 30 years maybe) know the way he did that, what he promised, how he cajoled. But it was diplomacy that did it.\n\nDiplomacy has existed since pre-Roman times -- since biblical times -- so it must work. Since the 1980s, however, it's changed because CNN does so much reporting, and reports from embassies are less urgent. Also communications have improved; technical staff from governments speak to each other, meet up at conferences. And almost everybody speaks English now.\n\nDiplomacy often fails, but that is no reason to abandon it. The reason why diplomatic staff are rotated every few years is because they are supposed to view local cultures and systems through US eyes. And make representations to local government, industry and the press based on instructions from home. Just as in court half the time advocacy fails and the other side wins, the game must be played even if it's hopeless. Often enough one does succeed.\n\nThe worst is when seasoned diplomats see the inevitable failure of a proposed government policy and are ignored. The Iraq war is such a case. The quagmire was predicted. But as is often the case, negative intelligence and diplomatic opinion were suppressed. As documents go through editing in the process of rising through the ranks and getting clearance at political levels, they tend to be rewritten to reflect what the President wants to hear. That's why the Shah got his visa in 1979, and that's why the US went to war in Iraq.
1030416
There absolutely is no reason 4 the war in Iraq except 4 oil. It is very evident from the fact that in spite of Saddam accepting to step down, the reply from bush was that we shall enter Iraq whatsoever. History is witness beside WHERE are all the weapons 4 which we r loosing innocent lives from both sides 4 the few in the white house. Where are the FABRICATED lies of the CIA about bombs in Iraq????? and so many other questions that logic fails to reply but bush does????
847009
How about Bush and Blair for the over 600,000 Iraqis that have died sine this war started?
429101
Bush lied to the American public by saying Hussein was a threat to humanity. He decieved congress by showing false facts. He lied to the world by saying Iraq had WMD, which they dont. \n\nBush wanted to win popularity in America and make a new ally in the Middle East. he failed in both areas.
930710
Two people- Bush and Blair
691612
The whole speech was a metaphorical comparison of the "cold war" to Bush's "war on terror".  His point was that by America's being able to claim victory in the cold war Truman was vindicated, and by extension his "war on terror" would be vindicated by its eventual success.  However, that is probably unlikely, whoever gets elected Dem. or Rep. is probably going to drop Iraq like a hot potato (with no e).  So, its just Bush trying to make himself feel better because he knows he isn't really popular in the polls.  Whether he really has oil interests in the region or represents them is another question entirely, and one I personally cannot answer with any definitive evidence either way, but then, Cheney does have well known ties to Haliburton.
948213
Coincidence.   The Iraqis are too incompetent to have anything turn out according to any pre-determined plan.
577967
Bush has had the fortitude to stand up to the world and to call Saddam's hand as well as expose the French, Germans and Russians as greedy cowards.\n\nNot one of the greatest, though.  No Reagan or Nixon.
480654
No other presidency has served to drive a wedge between Americans this badly since the Viet-Nam War; and we were pretty divided before the war (debacle) in Iraq started. The administration has made it so much worse that now people are starting to unite again in their disapproval of Bush and his cronies. The day an angry mob drags that man out of the white house will be one of my happiest. So to sum up I would say that we were divided, but are becoming united once again.