Bush & company have been wrong on so may counts.
Prior to the invasion, administration said overall costs for war in Iraq would be under $50 billion. An in depth study by well regarded economists from Columbia and Harvard (Stiglitz and Bilmes) estimate Iraq war costs to exceed $2 trillion so far.
Bush and wanted to do the war in Iraq on the cheap -- fast and dirty -- with limited force. And they planned to exit before the November 2004 elections according to Frontline report. This sounds for all the world like a secret timetable, yet Bush bristles when time-tables are suggested. General Chenseki was fired after suggesting to Congress it would take more military than Rumsfeld calculated. Most agree now that we needed more troops.
The stated objective of the invasion was "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."All are scrambling to come up with new goal now that victory is not deemed possible.
2006-10-24 12:20:00 · 12 answers · asked by murphy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Well considering the reasons for the war were well publicized, I don't think his sources need to be cited on that front, He cited the economists from Colombia and Harvard....and he cited a Frontline report. All of which could be fact checked by you. Lazy...
Anyways to answer the question:
Well, what do most people do when they f**k up in mass proportion at their jobs? They either try to pass the buck (which, THAT won't work), or they resign (see:Nixon) or they get FIRED! (see: impeachment)
2006-10-24 12:40:34 · answer #1 · answered by Katie 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Presidents, like any other human beings sometimes missjudge things. He listened to a number of people including many generals before deciding. There was a divergence of opinion. He made his decision based on what he thought was right. To the best of my knowledge, this is not a crime. Evidentl, most people thought his judgement was better then Kerry's in '04 or he wouldn't have been reelected. It is frequently said that no battle plan ever survives the 1st contact with the enemy, I would expand this to say that no plan ever survives the 1st contact with reality. That's just life. Voters in '04 could have punished him at the ballot box but choose not only to reelect him, but to increase the Rep majority in both houses. This time voters may punish him by giving Dems the majority in 1 or both houses. Whili I may or may not agree with the decision that is made, I have no choice but to accept it. That's called democracy.
2006-10-24 19:30:53 · answer #2 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The American Civil War was supposed to be over in one battle. Napoleon and Hitler thought they could defeat Russia during the winter. History is replete with miscalculations and enemies being underestimated in wars. However, I must point out - everyone seems to have forgotten that Saddam did have and did use chemical weapons, on more than one occasion, and the entire UN agreed on this fact.
2006-10-24 19:32:47 · answer #3 · answered by JBarleycorn 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Most of the accusations you state are not fact but theory. Just liberal opinions. Biased. You need proof of criminal intent to prosecute for a crime. They are scrambling to come up with new tactics with the same goal regardless of your claim here.
2006-10-24 20:07:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
lol ... they were not "wrong" and i think they accomplished everything they planned on doing and made a crapload of money ... what is the "wrong" part is that people are starting to realize they pulled a fast one on us starting with 911 ...AND its not over yet or over with this administration ... theres much for joy and mahem to come in the middle east trust me ..
2006-10-24 19:25:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Bush Administration? Not this time - no one entity to lay blame on this time.
How about "How could so many world leaders, intellegence gathering agencies of several different countries and our own surveilance be so incredibly wrong?"
2006-10-24 19:44:59 · answer #6 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
In fact, the Iraq war succeeded in the one thing that it was intended to do: get rid of Iraq's weapons. We know now, of course, that by the time the war began (or more accurately, resumed) the WMD had been secretly shipped off to Syria, but they could have been recovered to Iraq had the invasion not taken place. Bush was right.
2006-10-24 19:24:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋
Your "question" is, of course, a rant, not a question. Also not supposed to get any answerers but fellow Bush-haters.
Plenty of intelligent and reasonable minds disagree with you.
2006-10-24 19:40:01 · answer #8 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If being wrong is a crime, we're a penal colony. But you're there with me.
2006-10-24 19:22:11 · answer #9 · answered by MEL T 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
He should be fined 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000$ for the meaningless loss of so many lives.
2006-10-24 19:25:58 · answer #10 · answered by Joseph 1 · 3⤊ 1⤋