Why Did We Go into Iraq?
I've been pondering Thursday's session of the Senate Armed Services Committee at which General John Abizaid dared to use the words "civil war" and conceded that conditions are getting worse:
The three principle reasons I remember for going into Iraq were:
At the same hearing Donald Rumsfeld refuted criticism of his leadership:
How about your estimate of the cost of the war in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on January 19, 2003, published on the DoD Website (which has since been removed from the record)?
I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.Searching my memory banks, I don't recall that sectarian strife has anything whatever to do with why we went into Iraq in the first place.
The three principle reasons I remember for going into Iraq were:
1. Iraq was aiding and abeting al Qaeda. That turned out not to be the case.As far as I can remember, no one advocated invading and occupying Iraq so that we could get bogged down in a sectarian civil war.
2. Iraq's WMDs posed a threat to our security. That turned out not to be the case.
3. By toppling Saddam Hussein, we would unleash forces of freedom and democracy that would transform the region. That turned out not to be the case.
At the same hearing Donald Rumsfeld refuted criticism of his leadership:
"I have never painted a rosy picture," he said. "I've been very measured in my words, and you'd have a dickens of a time trying to find instances where I've been excessively optimistic."Golly gee, Donald.
How about your estimate of the cost of the war in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on January 19, 2003, published on the DoD Website (which has since been removed from the record)?
Rumsfeld: The Office of Management and Budget estimated it would be something under 50 billion dollars.Here's the estimate as of last month via the AP:
Stephanopoulos: Outside estimates say up to 300 billion.
Rumsfeld: Baloney.
WASHINGTON — The war in Iraq has cost $291 billion so far and would total almost half a trillion dollars even if all U.S. troops were withdrawn by the end of 2009, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis released Thursday.For those who like to keep track, it has been 1,234 days since we entered Iraq and 1,192 days since the declaration of "Mission Accomplished."
posted by Tom Noyes at 10:42 AM
3 Comments:
...and still no apology from Castle for supporting Bush.
What do you think Tom? Am I off base to think that Castle owes Delaware an apology?
This is Delaware right? We have one Rep. in Congress and he is supposed to represent all of us.
What slogan did he run under last time? "We only send one so send the best?"
How does his continued support of Bush make him the best?
"I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war."
I agree and now the Iraqi Security Forces are using the American Troops Bsuh sent into Baghdad as human shileds.
The U.S. Troops need to pull back and shut the Iraq borders down, build refugeea camps and just let the two sides go at it.
It's time for a military draft. All Iragis age 18-26 must serve in "their Security Force" and free "their" country.
During the 80's drug and gang wars the urban police departments would call this the "self-cleaning oven" strategy.
It only looks like a strategy due to the complete absence of any other strategy.
Post a Comment
<< Home