When Bush is gone I hope Powell decides to reenter the political arena at some level. I think he would make a better presidential candidate than anyone currently running.

Didn't Bush really get on to Saddam because he thought he had some part in 9/11? Isn't he really putting a stamp on the Islamic world saying 'I can get you if I want!'. Where bush goes, Blair follows quickly behind. Isn't Iraq in a much worse state of affairs now than when it WAS governed by Saddam? The country seems to be in moral, civil and political ruin much worse than it ever was before Bush, Blair
and the good O'l army boys trundled their tanks and flew their flights in?

No this is a lie told by Bush haters. The reasons stated for going to war in Iraq are:
Seventeen violations of UN resolutions over the course of 7 years.
Violation of the Bush doctrine which states that any nation state that harbors, funds, or supports terrorist in any way would be treated as if they are terror states and subject to attack.
Afghanistan violated that doctrine and was invaded, their leaders taken out of power.
It was then discovered that in Iraq there were terror camps that Al Qaeda were using. It was also reported by news agencies that Al Qaeda terrorist wounded in Afghanistan were given safe haven in Iraq and allowed to use a hospital that was exclusive to Saddam and his higher ups.
At the same time Saddam was funding Palestinian terrorist and paying for the families of homicide bombers.
The same doctrine holds and was invaded and its leadership removed.
Because Saddam was supporting Al Qaeda after 9/11 people outside of the Bush Administration made the leap of logic that Saddam and Iraq was involved in 9/11 but the Bush Administration said it was not true or to be more to the point they had no intelligence or evidence that supported the allegation and was not an allegation made or supported by the Bush Administration.
The Bush Administration also received intelligence from the U.K., France, Germany, and Russia that Iraq was re-building its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons program. Information was spotty and not totally accurate but at the time we as a nation was still recovering from the attacks on 9/11 and the President faced with growing threats around the world from Al Qaeda saw one we could do something about. His premise was simple, the analogy is if five people you trust tell you that some bully you don’t trust has been planning to kick your butt you will do something about it. Why wait until the bully makes the first punch? The President said why wait until he makes good on his public statements of selling or giving his stockpile WMD to terrorist who want to attack America or Israel. Why wait until Americans are dead before we do something about it? He did something about it because I believe the President thought it was the right thing to do at the time. WMD was found but not nuclear weapons so the detractors said there were none so the war was a lie. The facts are that Saddam wanted to be the next Arab leader as Nasser, and Kaddafi by talking badly about America because it makes him look strong. He went the way of both.


I don’t think that Mr. Powell would make a great president but a good one. I don’t believe he can handle the leadership roll required in this day and age. Had he been president instead of Mr. Clinton I think he would have done a better job.

Paladin77 No this is a lie told by Bush haters. The reasons stated for going to war in Iraq are: Seventeen violations of UN resolutions over the course of 7 years. We are NOT the enforcement agent of the UN. That is the Security Council of the UN.

Hey hypocrite...We (the US) "ARE" part of the UN Security Council.

So in essence, we (the US) "are" one of the enforcement agents.

O' foolish one, we are members of the UN and the Security Council and, oops I just read a reply to this. Oh well day late and a dollar short.




We would have but for a few inconvenient truths. At the time we were already in Afghanistan and winning there.
Iran was feeding us intelligence on Iraq in hopes of not being next on the list.
Syria was keeping its head down as well. You see you ignorant pompous hack, at the time all the bad guys were laying low trying really hard not to get in our sights because we had national and political will to win. Now that the liberals have gotten their way we look weak to them and they started messing with us.

But to directly answer your question the reason we attacked Iraq first was because Saddam made himself and his country the biggest target in the area. He supported terrorist openly while others did it on the QT. He threatened the US with WMD while others did it quietly. He painted his nation with a bull's eye and we hit the target.
You say we should have attacked Iran and Syria. Did you support the president when he made his axis of evil speech? I think he listed Iran, North Korea and Iraq. At the time liberals said he was a war monger drunk with power trying to start a war with peace loving North Korea, and Iran.
Pakistan has sided with us since the first week after 9/11 so your idea is to attack the countries that are helping us because? I can’t even speculate a plausible reason.

As soon as one of the three was taken out you folks want to quit and go home. The President said that this war would not be over during his administration and could last decades. This was before we went into Iraq. Half the liberals laughed and said we would be done in months the other half said it was going to be another Vietnam and we would lose 10K people the first week of the war. Both groups of liberals were wrong.




If what you say is true why did Mr. Powell join the administration? Why did he craft the deal with Pakistan after 9/11, why did he follow the orders of the President in every way until he was sent home by the President? If Mr. Powell had such a big disagreement with the way things were being run he could simply resign his office and move on. Or attack the current administration where he believed the administration was wrong. Admitting that mistakes were made does not show ineptitude neither does making mistakes. Your parents made several mistakes yet they are or were good people that did the best they could with what they had. You seem to believe that Mr. Bush should be perfect in everything he and his people do. Were I to hold you to that same standard you would fall short in so many ways. You hate the man because he is not Al Gore. Fine but don’t lie to justify your hate.

This is what I like about you, you are so predictable in your refusal to address reality. The goal was hunting down the terrorist. The number four AQ terrorist was recuperating in an Iraqi hospital because he was wounded in Afghanistan. You remind me of those stupid democrats that did not want Mr. Nixon to attack the Vietcong when they moved to Cambodia allowing them to have safe haven even when the leader of Cambodia asked for our help in getting rid of them making it possible for the Camer Rouge to take over and kill millions. This is what we will have if we do things your way in Iraq. When AQ attacks us from Iraq then you will scream that Mr. Bush should have seen this coming and done something about it.



I would say the democrats are to blame since they are the ones that keep saying we need to reduce the military in order to save money and reduce the budget. After 20 years we were back to were we were when Mr. Carter cut the military and then needed them. Not enough troops to do the job. If we do as you suggest we would not have gone after AQ until we had enough troops to do the job eight to ten years later. Not real smart, but that is you all over this topic.



Yes, he ignred the Secratary of State in favor of General Tommy Franks the head of Central Command and the JCS. It is good that you favor the opinions of those out of power for those that are in power. If he wants to be the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs again that is fine but as SecState his focus is somewhere else.



If that were true then he should have done what one of Mr. Carters people was lied to. He resigned. Mr. Powell did not resign he was let go by the president years after the fact.



Yes, a civil war that the Iraqi majoirty don't believe is a civil war. Where is your respect for the majority when it does not go your way?

7

"The goal was hunting down the terrorist” The goal was to deal with the terrorists responsible for 9/11. We know they were NOT in Iraq. Then WHY did we attack Iraq and use the vast majority of our military resources in a country that was not responsible for 9/11 and fail after almost 5 years to eradicate the terrorists in Afghanistan?

drmiler

I said we were a MEMBER. That does NOT give us the power to act for the UN. Only the Security Council of the UN can commit force to enforce their resolutions. There was NO SUCH action by the Security Council for the U.S. to Invade Iraq. YOU ARE THE IDIOT!

Paladin77

Then WHY did the Secretary General of the UN say we had no business invading Iraq? Why did Bush attempt to get the UN to approve the invasion of Iraq? When you look at the results of our invasion, anyone that concludes we did the right thing is totally out of touch with reality.

Yesterday another 8 Americans died. We see attacks in areas that we have not heard of for years. What the surge is doing in the short run is changing the location of the attacks. What it will do in the long run is increase the cost to America and will not alter the basic problem which is the struggle for CONTROL of Iraq which is the definition of a Civil War!

drmiler

WHY DID BUST try and get U.N. Approval if as you claim he had the authority to act?

The bigger issue is that Congress did not grant authority to invade Iraq to enforce U.N. Resolutions. Also the issue that Saddam did not have the ability to be a threat to this country is totally ignored. He had no Nukes and his military was not capable of attacking anyone. Bush had the information at the time he insisted we were in danger and had to invade Iraq to stem a future attack! Pure BS!

If you believe Congress would have approved the war resolution to enforce U.N. Resolutions you live in a DREAM world!

Then WHY did the Secretary General of the UN say we had no business invading Iraq?


I don't know why was his son on Iraq's payroll? That does not answer the Question.


Why did Bush attempt to get the UN to approve the invasion of Iraq?


Because the Democrats in Congress wanted it. Bush would not do ANYTHING the Democrats wanted!

When you look at the results of our invasion, anyone that concludes we did the right thing is totally out of touch with reality.


Or conclude that it was the right thing to do but the wrong politicians in congress waned to see us lose anyway in order to get political power. ANYONE that looks at the disaster in Iraq and believes we did the correct thing is NUTS!


Yesterday another 8 Americans died. We see attacks in areas that we have not heard of for years. What the surge is doing in the short run is changing the location of the attacks. What it will do in the long run is increase the cost to America and will not alter the basic problem which is the struggle for CONTROL of Iraq which is the definition of a Civil War!


Please show me a war with ground troops where we never lost a man? You are a hopeless political hack, nothing more. In the sane time we have not succeeded in Iraq we won WWII



The bigger issue is that Congress did not grant authority to invade Iraq to enforce U.N. Resolutions.


Again you failed to notice, or remember history. Congress demanded we have a vote in congress so they could all vote and show support. They begged the president to sign on to this war and then when the war did not end in a month they turned quickly screaming it was bush’s war and it was a quagmire. Have the liberals ever seen something through to completion? Are we not still fighting the war on poverty started in 1966? That does not address the fact that Bush did not ask Congress permission to invade Iraq to enforce UN Resolutions!

Paladin77

I wonder why Bush could not get the support of other countries for the invasion of Iraq?

Which countries are you talking about? You tell so many lies it is hard to keep track of which lie you are telling me now.

The topic of your article is Mr. Powel does this mean that you are losing this battle as you have all the others and want to change the subject?

Oh right, I forgot those countries that were receiving oil credits from Saddam, and the documents that point to France agreeing to veto any UN action against Iraq. Germany and Russia seems to have promised the same thing. So if those are the countries that Gene counts I can understand his position wanting use to ask countries that will profit if we fail. Gene likes to support people that want to see us fail.