bushs roadmap to peace...is it now riddled with giant potholes and blood?

Question

git em runnin,,,,,smoke em out

Answer 1

Not worth an answer!

Answer 2

lets see im a desert storm vet, when we came back the gov. said we were a bunch of liars because there was no chemical weapons used, now we went to war because there are weapons of mass destruction, and its been what 13 years, and gee not one nucklehead we elected can give us the rundown on how this will be resolved. maybe its time to elect a UDA since they know how to get out of a insecure country??

Answer 3

Everyone knows now, and anyone who knew anything about the Middle East knew this would happen before it started.

After 9/11, everyone (including Syria and Iran) told us that we should hunt down and kill the people who did it. They provided us with any intelligence information they had.

Name a single country who objected to our bombing the hell out of Afghanistan? Name one country in the whole damned world that did not support us?

A quick recap of the REPUBLICAN Congress’s report on pre(Iraq)-war intelligence, their conclusions:

•there were NO terrorists in Iraq before Bush invaded
• there was no connection between Iraq and OBL, AQ, or any terrorist organization
• Hussein did not provide training camps to terrorists
• Hussein hated AQ before we did
• Hussein did not hide al-Zargawi - he tried to have him arrested

And, what about Dubya father: In his 1998 book "A World Transformed," coauthored by former President George H. W. Bush and his national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, and published by Alfred A. Knopf, Bush (the older and wiser) said:

"Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

In an Aug 15, 2002 Wall Street Journal article… Scowcroft argued that an invasion of Iraq "was certain to divert us for some indefinite period from our war on terrorism. Worse, there is a virtual consensus in the world against an attack. " Invasion of Iraq would require the United States "to pursue a virtual go-it- alone strategy against Iraq, making any military operations correspondingly more difficult and expensive ... [and] very likely would have to be followed by a large-scale, long-term military occupation." Such actions would result in a "degradation" of international cooperation, and an "explosion of outrage against us" especially in the Muslim world. Such a policy "could even swell the ranks of terrorists."

Now the stage is set for Bush, against almost unanimous global opposition, to launch an immoral and illegal was against a country that was no thread to any nation, including its closest neighbors.

Meanwhile, Afghanistan is a completely lost – the Taliban are stronger than ever and opium production is a record levels (filling terrorist pockets with money). The Afghan government is corrupt from top to bottom (well, in that sense, Bush did create a government just like ours.

Back in Iraq?

Here’s Scowcroft again, this time from an October 31, 2005, issue of The New Yorker::

[...] The neoconservatives—the Republicans who argued most fervently for the second Gulf war—believe in the export of democracy, by violence if that is required, Scowcroft said. “How do the neocons bring democracy to Iraq? You invade, you threaten and pressure, you evangelize.”

And now, Scowcroft said, America is suffering from the consequences of that brand of revolutionary utopianism. “This was said to be part of the war on terror, but Iraq feeds terrorism,” he said.

Those are Bush-USA-made terroists in Iraq. They are Bush’s boys.