Comments on: Iraq Panel Report Gets Varied Reaction

Lawmakers, White House And Troops React With Praise, Criticism And Skepticism

[randalds]

Don't trot out that old saw that the rest of the world's intelligence agencies thought Saddam had WMD's too! They thought there was a very slim chance that he might, not that he did. Bush cherry picked Intel so he could twist it into justification for invasion.

[frankly6]

RonnieHM

Which intelligence agencies?

[randalds]

Because, unlike Bush, I think everyone deserves a fair trial.

[frankly6]

RonnieHM

Who are these world leaders?

[ronniehm]

One question about Bush's lies. How did he get so many other world leaders and intelligence agencies to go along with him on the lies?

[ronniehm]

Why would you bother with a trial for someone you've already decided is a war criminal?

[alphaa10-2009]

angryliberal said, "Why do the dems get so excited and gitty to hear people say we are losing in Iraq ...?"
----

Aha! Caught in your faux Dem costume again, "angryliberal"? It was your trunk and elephant droppings which gave you away, as usual.

Actually, you will be dumbfounded to learn the majority of Americans voting Democratic are enraged by foolish and unnecessary American losses anywhere they occur-- which explains why they voted against Bush. Americans decided Bush had made terrible misjudgments, and held him and his party accountable for damage to American interests, as they should have.

[alphaa10-2009]

AngryLiberal-- 2
You also will remember leading Democrats, not Republicans, were the first to be alarmed by American casualties, and protested Bush press censorship of US soldier dead arriving at Dover, and the awful human carnage left in VA hospitals around the country. Democrats gave Bush policymakers a blistering protest for letting Iraqi ammo dumps go unguarded long after invasion, to become ammo dumps for insurgents making IEDs to kill and maim more US soldiers. Democrats questioned Bush plans to "stay the course" year after year, and predicted, accurately, Iraq would become a Bush military and political debacle.

Leading Democrats were seriously concerned about Iraq, and early-- long before most Republicans-- said Iraq was a foolish policy, misbegotten of Bush lies and his campaign of fear after 911.

Truth be told, Democrats are very angry this country was led into Iraq on a pack of lies by a Bush League of criminal incompentents, led by Prevaricator-in-Chief and Con-Artiste Extraordinaire, George W. Bush. Democrats want this country to win, not lose, by choosing its battles wisely, honestly and carefully, in contrast to Bush and his PTBarnum-style fear-mongering.

[alphaa10-2009]

AngryLiberal-- 3
Recovering from Iraq is now the most critical of issues. The last election revealed most Americans on the same page about both Bush and Iraq, agreeing that staying the course Bush set four years ago is an abject failure. In fact, "most Americans" now includes both leading Democrats as well as many GOP figures, including McCain, Baker and many others.

Democrats are optimistc about one indicator, however-- even you Bush boosters running under the false logins like "angryliberal" at last recognize the failure of "stay the course". Even Bush now denies he was ever with you on "stay the course".

That said, Dems are hardly pleased it has taken Bush four years to reach a humble admission of his own failure. They are well aware Bush spent those years rejecting most of the points of the Iraq commission, in advance.

Even more vexing, Dems realize the mess Bush created cannot be fixed overnight-- it took years to create it, and the debacle has taken on a life of its own.

[randalds]

They were war criminals. Bush is a war criminal. I'd say a trial is called for with the appropriate sentence up to a judge to decide. Just because he's president doesn't make him above the law. He needs to go to jail. And I mean a real one where guys are waiting in the shower for him to show him what a real invasion is.

[alphaa10-2009]

AngryLiberal-- 4
1. Iraqi insurgents have no intention of lying down and waiting for US troops to leave (though that would be incredibly clever, as a tactic). They are likely to continue the same tactics and methods which have brought Iraq to an impasse for Bush.

2. Most of the Iraq crisis has nothing to do with a military solution. The awful, deja vu realization-- more than 30 years after Vietnam-- is we are hamstrung with a quasi-puppet government riven by dissent and infighting, with only a faint political pulse.

3. What passed for a "triumph of military efficiency" during the invasion of 2003 will not work against an insurgency. Yet, Bush took another four years to confront the same lessons Colin Powell tried to help him avoid in 2003, counseling him in the strongest terms not to invade without a realistic occupation and recovery plan.

While Baker said the Baker-Hamilton commission recommendations do not guarantee success, clearly, ignoring the report guarantees failure.

[ronniehm]

Your 4-point plan has more in common with Nazi tactics than anything Bush ever did.

[ronniehm]

"Many top WWII Nazi leaders were tried at Nuremberg, and sentenced to death by hanging for deeds that are remarkably similar to those of the illegitimate Bush cabal."

That's absurd.

[randalds]

Works for me feelfree1

[feelfree1]

My plan once again, for reference:

"A four-point plan for resolving the U.S. created Iraq/Afghanistan debacles:

1)Jail the Bush-puppet, along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, Wurmser, Gonzales, Baker, Perle, Ashcroft, Frum, Rice, Kristol, Tennet, Abizaid, Murdock, Myers, Poindexter, Kagan, Wolfowitz, and all of the other people who have so badly disgraced our country with an illegal war of aggression, and undermined our Constitution, while they await war-crimes proceedings.

2)Compel any politician who cooperated with the criminal Bush League, to step down in disgrace (by way of torch-bearing angry mob, if necessary).

3)Apologize to the world for our grave mistakes, and beg the U.N. members to help us provide security forces and observers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the U.S. while we withdraw all of our troops, and hold fresh and legitimate elections in all three countries.

4)Liquidate the assets of war profiteering corporations like Halliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater, Wackenhut, the Carlysle Group, General Electric, and Lockheed-Martin, and use the proceeds to create a reparations fund for the victims of the Project for a New American Century plan for global fascism. This would include victims in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the U.S."

[feelfree1]

janem4,

Re: "feelfree1-good plan..."

Thank you.

I think that the UN could be quite effective, if it were no longer bullied by the US/Israel, and I couldn't care less what most members of the two Corporate-owned Parties think.

Re: "Now, in your plan, would those who voted for the war have to step down?"

Absolutely!!! I thought that was clear. Not only did they "vote for" the war, but they abdicated their Constitutional responsibility to declare war to the illegitimate frat-boy puppet-Fuhrer.

In doing so, they failed the U.S. public and the people of the world, BADLY, and they have to go.

Re: "I would really appreciate an apology from al Queda for the mass murder of over 3,000 people. How's that sound?"

I would like an apology from Cheney for the same. How does that sound?

A sincere apology is always welcome, in my opinion.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.

[feelfree1]

RonnieHM,

Re: "You may not agree with the war or the outcome so far, but it's hardly illegal."

It is only illegal in the sense that it is contrary to the applicable laws.

Many top WWII Nazi leaders were tried at Nuremberg, and sentenced to death by hanging for deeds that are remarkably similar to those of the illegitimate Bush cabal.

The whole world will celebrate when these heinous criminals are brought to justice!

[ronniehm]

You may not agree with the war or the outcome so far, but it's hardly illegal.

[bushrocks1]

Would I send my son to this war? You might ask would I send him to World War II? Or Vietnam? Maybe you would distinguish those conflicts and whether you would send your son to fight in them. But that question is misdirected in a very important way: I can't command my son to go to war. He has to make that choice. So the better question would be: would I volunteer to fight in Iraq, WW II, Vietnam? Would I volunteer to fight in any war? Respond if drafted? I don%u2019t know. I'm not equivocating, only addressing that it is a hypothetical. To a hypothetical, I can answer, sure I'd fight. But I have nightmares of battle (from my past life as a Jacobite). So how do I feel toward those who do volunteer? Impressed and maturely knowing that many things go into their decision. But I do strongly believe that a country that can't find those men is doomed. The fact that we can find them is one reason why I say there is no failure in Iraq. Objectively, I also believe it for other reasons. An attempt to establish democracy in the Middle East is a bold, brilliant, noble effort, facing a high chance of failure. That's why I greatly respect and admire those who have made the attempt--the Bush administration. They have been resolute, something I have not seen in my lifetime. They may not succeed, for reasons outside their control or fault: traitors on the home front being a big one. Now those traitors have apparently occupied the high ground. Yet... we're still in Iraq. Why?...I'm waiting.