Opinion Talk

By Court

March 1, 2006 08:14 PM | Link to this

Does the Bush administration have a clear plan for Iraq?

Not anymore, if they ever did. Bush hasn’t a clue about what the USA should really do. He’s too cowardly in saying why Islam might pose problems in the war on terror; let alone what needs to be done to lessen it’s threat. He might, for example have insisted Islamic law not take precedent of constitutional law in Iraq —but he failed in preventing that which has fueled the current near civil war for control of a future theocratic Iraq. He cannot even do proper presidential decision making regarding the give away of our ports to a foreign Islamic totalitarian state, how can we expect him to keep his promises to create a democratic Iraqi goverment. He’s failed; and his cohorts can do nothing but sell out the USA.

By Mary

March 1, 2006 11:43 PM | Link to this

The facts speak for themselves. There is no plan and even if there was, the plan is and was flawed. People are dying. Republicans don’t seem to care or maybe don’t feel they can speak out against Bush since his administration does not accept any criticism.

By Laf

March 2, 2006 02:37 AM | Link to this

and he will never admit this. Over 2000 troops dead, trillions of dollars in debt, and iraq on the verge of a civil war———-enough blundering to destroy the Republican Party. Its time that Bush and the Republican admit that they have screwed up big time. Of course they never will. Gotta win that next election!!!!!

By candide

March 2, 2006 06:15 AM | Link to this

All Bush et al. have is ignorance married to arrogance, the result of which has been and is and will be total disaster. We must get them out of power.

By Frank

March 2, 2006 07:36 AM | Link to this

Bushs’ plan for Iraq is Jan 20,2009,turn it over to the new President!

By Elizabeth Hartley Filliat

March 2, 2006 07:56 AM | Link to this

I do not think the Bush administration has now, nor ever had, a clear plan for Iraq. I think their idea was to show U.S. “muscle” after 9/11. I remember that President Bush said immediately after the Iraq war began, “feels good.” He also expressed the opinion that the war would be over in days. During this season of Lent, I am reminded again that Jesus instructed us “love our enemies.” In political terms, these words translate into modeling for our enemies HOW to react to their cruelties against us, thereby winning world opinion by our nobility of purpose - as MLK did for civil rights justice. To me, that would have suggested going more fervently after specific terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden and bringing them specifically to justice. It would also have meant trying to bring democracy to the Middle East through peaceful means, thereby showing the world another way to respond to attacks against us. This approach would have needed a long-ranged vision and plan in which 25,000 Americans would not have been casualties of this war of revenge (and perhaps oil) and we might have genuinely have had a chance to “win” the world to a better way of interacting. Elizabeth Hartley Filliat

By Van

March 2, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this

There is no way to have a fixed plan for Iraq. Every day sets a new task of re-thinking of what is happening and what has happened.

During the VietNam war, the administration tried to micromanage the war, it was a disaster.

Jimmy Carter tried to micromanage the Iranian hostage rescue, again disaster.

General George S. Patton once said “Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.”

Leave the Iraq situationin the hands of the on-site military leaders, get the politicians out of there. BTW, getting the press to take a more neutral position would help moral and confuse the terrorists by cutting of a source of information.

By Nel

March 2, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this

Van, if you honestly think that the terrorists need our media to get info you aren’t paying attention. What piece of information in our media causes people to strap explosives to themselves and blow up innocent people? That’s the war we are now trying to fight without too much success it would appear. These people don’t seem to need technology to do what they are doing, so get off the blaming the media bandwagon…that’s too easy an out.

By E. Lewis

March 2, 2006 09:33 AM | Link to this

I don’t know that this president and his admiistration have a clear plan for anything other than perhaps wishing it goes their way.

By Nel

March 2, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this

If anyone thinks this administration has a clue, take a look at this oped piece by George Will. Nobody has ever called him a part of the Liberal Media.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/01/AR2006030101935.html

By Court

March 2, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this

Bush is the COMMANDER IN CHIEF, Van. We have a civilian controlled military thank God. Patton’s not inconsistant though and it’s a good quote: General George S. Patton once said “Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.â€? But he does have to tell them what to do — which, if he had the forsight, would cause great resistence in the short term but it stablize the world in the long term: suppress with all means possible the expression of Islam in any measure(requiring shaved faces and Western dress in all government buildings) in ME governments — even if it meant installing another peacock emperor.

By Van

March 2, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this

Nel, don’t be niave. With the constant articles about leaked security items(thanks New York Times) and the constant talk of our open borders, we are living up to the idea of an open society. Anything dealing with planning or execution of this current war has been blasted all over the new papers, mainly the negative items.

By examining our desent in the press we have aided in the propaganda against ourselves.

We, in this country seem to excel in airing our weaknesses and blaming ourselves for any and all mistakes in the world.

This is used by our enemies to bolster their moral. We help them prove how evil we are or appear to be.

When we publish that Congress wants a set time frame for withdrawl, or we write about fears of a civil war we give them help.

We have publish plans for security at the last Iraq election. We have reports that explain how our military stages attacks on strongholds.

And on the lighter side, we loudly call this an illegal war, a Bush lied, people died war, we praise the protesters and denounce the supporters.

I think a more neutral view could not hurt.

By kimberly

March 2, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

SURE! According to Wolfowitz, the pumping capacity is 2 million barrels a day. At $60 a barrel, that’s $120 million a day. Since Halliburton security forces guard the oil fields, and no reliable accounting trail exists, and the Kuwaitis built Bush Sr. a pipeline out of gratitude for ‘91, and since no one who questions the flow of oil OR money in Iraq can get close enough to even take a look, HECK, they got all the makings of a PLAN!

By Steve SC

March 2, 2006 10:47 AM | Link to this

How about some things I think are facts, not conjecture:

1 Dubya said Saddam needed to be taken out because he tried to kill Poppy Bush.

2 Cheney is mad at the American people because they dumped his boss in the 1992 presidential election, which deprived him of the chance to end the Gulf War with a march to Baghdad.

3 Don Rumsfeld is mad at the American people because they dumped his boss in the 1976 presidential election, which deprived him of the chance to completely overhaul the military; of course, we weren’t at war then.

4 One rule of warfare is, if it takes 100,000 troops to do the job adequately, bring 400,000. Rummy decided he could do the job with a lot less.

5 Douglas Feith, who was one of Rummy’s underlings who played a major role in organizing the war plan, was referred to by Gen. Tommy Franks in highly vulgar terms relating to his lack of intelligence.

6 The administration has offered no refutation to the inescapable fact that they thought the war would be a quick in-and-out job. Our troops, and the Iraqi people, are paying the price.

Until the administration can offer a factual refutation (not just name-calling) of the evidence supporting the above items, criticism that war critics are unfair or are helping the enemy is whining. “Commit the nation first, then commit the troops”.

By BlindHomer

March 2, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

If “clear” means detailed or precise, the answer is no. If it just means do they have well-defined objectives, the answer is still no. The plan is victory at any cost, and victory appears to be defined as a self-sustaining permanent democracy. Hard to envision that happening any time soon. The only thing clear is that we will continue to have a significant military presence in Iraq at least until Bush leaves office.

By candide

March 2, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

Bush has managed to turn Iraq into the New Orleans of the Middle East.

By mrbtee

March 2, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this

No plan for Iraq or the United States.If you voted for him,deal with it !!!!!

By kristin

March 2, 2006 02:22 PM | Link to this

Well at least Saddam is no longer killing the Iraqis.

By E. Lewis

March 2, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this

kristin_no they are now killing each other.

By Thomas

March 2, 2006 05:32 PM | Link to this

Sadly the question should not be, does Bush have a plan for Iraq, but it should be - does Bush have a plan should we come into confrontation with another country with far better military equipment.

If we can’t handle Iraq, then I am damn sure we couldn’t handle a war with a country with equipment that could actually shoot our planes down.

Kinda’ sad isn’t it that we have wasted som much in our countrys resources on a sandpit. Can we have Bill Clinton back?

By Carlton Wyatt

March 3, 2006 09:00 AM | Link to this

Van is sounding more and more like one of the villains in a Scooby Doo cartoon, “Drat! I’d have won this war if it hadn’t been for those meddlesome media!”

It seems the die-hard Bushies are now in full “blame anybody else” mode.

By Van

March 3, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this

Carlton Wyatt, How is asking for a more neutral view a “blame anybody else� mode.

When the media is leaning so far to one side, going back toward the middle does not sound extreme.

By paul jaeger

March 3, 2006 12:22 PM | Link to this

What’s wrong with you people out there? WQllp

By paul jaeger

March 3, 2006 12:35 PM | Link to this

What’s wrong with you people out there?. Its okay to be critical on the way the war is being conducted. However,we were attacked on 9/11 and that is plain and simple fact. And whatever your party of choice is,as Americans we should support the war effort.These terrorists are not going to go away. We must fight them until the world is safe. I shutter to think of how WWII might have gone if everyone had not stood up against the Axis powers. That took over four years and millions of lives were lost. I don’t like to lost of any lives,but let us not forget the lives already lost. Stand up for America Paul Jaeger Canton,Ga.

By roswell

March 3, 2006 09:15 PM | Link to this

I personally like the democrats plan much better. Surrender.

By Carlton Wyatt

March 4, 2006 09:14 AM | Link to this

Mr Jaeger: we are standing up for America by pointing out that Bush and his sheeple are making us LESS safe, that they have NO plan. Questioning a failing president is more beneficial to the country than blind allegiance to a man or a party. Also, waving the 9/11 flag every time your motives are questioned only cheapens the sentiment. Those souls that were lost on that day deserve better than to be used as a distraction from scrutiny.

By Lee

March 4, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this

I’m confused. I thought Bush declared “Mission Accomplished” about a year ago. You mean we’re still over there??

You must have guessed by now that I don’t get to watch much news. I’m too busy working double shifts to pay for the $3/gal gas and the $400 heating bills.

You want to make America safe. Quit sending billion$ of our hard earned tax money to every rat hole in the world in the form of foreign aid and military assistance. Bring our troops home and put them on the Mexican border. Don’t forget it was the United Nations that got us into this mess after WWII by creating Israel and driving the Palestinians off their land. I remember growing up in the ’60s all the billboards saying “Get US out of the United Nations.” Good advice, I say. While we’re at it, let’s shred NAFTA and all those other “Free Trade” agreements and focus instead on FAIR TRADE - that is, put Americans on the same footing as all other countries. How can you expect to compete when we tax corporations here in America and send that money overseas in the form of foreign aide and military assistance to a country who can then use their resources to build factories in direct competition with us?

There is not a dimes worth of difference between the Repulicrats and Demopublicans. I voted for Bush because I couldn’t stand the thought of Kerry in the White House. I won’t make that mistake again. I’m going straight Libertarian or some other third party from now on….

By Dusty

March 4, 2006 08:42 PM | Link to this

ready?

By Pascal

March 5, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

Mr. Jaeger, we were not attacked by Saddam. Bin Laden attacked us. Saddam & Iraq are not responsible for 9/11. Mr. Bush may have what he considers a clear plan for Iraq. That’s not problem. The problem is it is not working.

By Joe Roman

March 5, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this

Does Bush have an exit strategy for Iraq? Will Rob Schneider receive a lifetime achievement award at the Oscars tonight?

By Van

March 5, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

Carlton Wyatt, I must disagree with your stand.

Under Clinton, we cut and ran out of Somalia and the left has been wired for that same response to any and all attacks on the US and its people. After the first World Trade Center bombing, we did nothing, after the embassies were attacked in Africa, we did nothing. - see a pattern.

Leftist, don’t want to do anything. They want the diplomats to solve the world problem. Name one problem solved by diplomats.

I say give war a chance. It has worked before and can work again if the people will stand together and squeeze out the whine from the left.

Ask any one that has served in the military and they will tell you, that no one in the service likes war. The difference is, when war comes they will fight and not run. War has come to us, we are fighting terrorism, we must win.

Show your spirit, support our troops. These men and women have earned and deserve all the support we can give them.

By chidog

March 6, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

Disagree Van - Clinton approved several secret missions to take out Bin Laden. He just didn’t go on national tv like Bush for the publicity/photo opp i.e. Mission Accomplished. Bottom line, after 9/11 we had the support of the whole world for the first time in our history. With his invasion of Iraq, he has turned that around now to the whole world hating us. I also ask the Bush supporters. If Kerry had announced during one of the debates “I am now going propose a deal that would sell off some of our ports to an Arab country”, what would you all have said?

By Dan

March 6, 2006 02:13 PM | Link to this

Um chidog Clinton did it to take the heat off hummergate. And read a little more about the ports, while I am leery about it they have been in foreign hands all along the government is “selling them to anyone. They are simply saying they will not interfere as an arab company buys the british company that currently holds the rights. And if the whole world hates us how come the anti bush governments in france germany and canada have all been ousted, while the pro bush govs in britain and australia retained power. Seems like either it isn’t very important to those populations or they are not as anti us as the media portrays.

By chidog

March 6, 2006 02:48 PM | Link to this

Dan -You still didn’t answer my question. I have read about the port situation. What I asked you is what you would have said if Kerry had proposed it? Would you have read more about it or just sounded the “soft on terrorism” chant? And as far as the world, my brother retired recently from the State dept. and he was in for more than 20 years through Dem and Rep Presidents. The state dept has lost more people to retirement and quitting during this administration than any in history. And the theme among all of them Rep and Dem is that this guy has damaged our standing in the world more than anything in U.S. history!!! So stop listening to Fox news and the propaganda that the administration puts out, take off the blinders and listen to the experts on the world! Their view is very different than what you said above.

By Van

March 6, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this

chidog, The purchase of P&O by DP World is a common thing in todays global business world. They are also taking over other facilities through out the world as part of this deal.

No one sold the ports. The ports are still owned by whatever entity owned them before, unless they were owned by P&O, it is a management deal, just like the Chinese in Los Angeles and Oakland and the Suadis in New York.

The management of those ports were never ours to sell, private and public companies manage the ports.

By chidog

March 6, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this

Again Van, answer my original question. What would you have said if Kerry had suggested this during the debates?

By Dan

March 6, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

Again chi there was nothing to propose and I as I stated it does not give me the warm fuzzies but.. when the story broke the headlines suggested that we were selling ports to an arab country. The reality is it is simply some of the port operations that are in large part already owned by foreign companies. Security is and will continue to be run by the coast guard harbor masters etc. still uncomfortable but unsure how you draw the line. If it were Kerry the headlines would not have said SELLING PORTS it would have said administration considering approval of deal to sell port operations from one foreign country to another. Obviously a cause for concern but not hysteria. and my opinion was not formed by fox news (although it is clearly the least biased) it is as I said, all one has to do is look at the results of foreign elections except for Spains right after a bombing all major elections in industrialized countries have gone towards the conservatives, look at immigration I don’t have the facts in front of me but I am quite sure the flow is significantly into the US not out. It is abundantly clear that there is no systematic outcry, against the US, There are more allies in the gulf than we had in WWII this information isn’t editorialized they are simple facts. You can extrapolate as you like but those facts don’t support undermining our standing. Those government heads may not like it but that is because they aren’t getting their butts kissed by the most powerful office in the world anymore and that is a good thing for anyone in this country

By Van

March 6, 2006 04:28 PM | Link to this

chidog, If Kerry said he was going to propose the US Goernment was going to sell posts to the UAE company DP World, I would have protested and written my Congressmen, but that was not the case.

By Carlton Wyatt

March 8, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this

What really bugs me is the dishonest responses from people like Van and Dan (are they the Faux News Twins?). They make loaded statements, without any corroboration of course, that liberals “cut and run” or “did nothing” about the first WTC bombing or the embassies, etc. Sorry, fellas, but making false statements like that is wrong no matter how you twist it. If you have to lie to support your arguments, that does not say much for your overall character. At least Clinton had the 1st WTC bombers caught and tried. Can’t say the same for Dubya. Clinton tried to do more about Somalia and the bombings, but the GOP congress fought him at every step. The GOP was more concerned with a stain on a blue dress than our country’s security.

And Faux News “balanced”??? Well, that statement more than confirms how biased YOUR opinions are.

By chidog

March 8, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this

Agree with you all the way Carlton! It was Dubya that couldn’t anticipate that a plane would be used as a missile, couldn’t anticipate that the levees would break, couldn’t anticipate the opposition in Iraq (despite the fact that his father wrote back in the 1st Gulf war that an invasion of Iraq and Baghdad would result in a civil war that the US would get sucked into for decades). Doesn’t anticipate much, does he?