Do you support Bush's efforts in Iraq but not his policy?

Question

In other words, do you support the removal of a despot and the installation of a democratic government but not the manner in which he tried to do it.
Let's face it. If Iraq had come to a secure conclusion 2 years ago, wouldn't GWB be eveybody's hero today. Isn't really his failure to accomplish peace in Iraq the reason he is so unpopular?
Was the job in Iraq simply not doable, or was GWB just not the man to get it done?
What's your thoughts?

I'm sure someone will blame Bill Clinton. :)

Answer 1

I support our President 100%. Everyone has something to say about what is going on over in Iraq. I have family that has been there twice and some who are still there. For some really odd reason all the people I know personally family and friends who are military tend to look at the Iraq war differently then it is portrayed to us via Web, News Stations and News on tv. There isn't one who would not go back to finish. Nor is there one who would knock any decision our President has made. Coming from a military family: Navy, Marines and Army my views differ from most. I know first hand what is going on where as others have to rely on what they are told. I find that sad. I do think what we are doing is right and doable. I also believe whole heartedly that President Bush was the right man for the job. He isn't going to walk away from what he started because of political pressure. He said he was going to do something. And as far as I am concerned he has done it. It is rather fairytale like to believe that war is so clean cut that you can walk in and walk out and no one have died. Or it didn't cost much. Or that we are going to have to stick around.

Answer 2

I support him for many reasons. He told everyone before he ordered the war to start that this would be a long hard fight, not over any time soon. He gave several reasons to go to war, NOT just WMD's as the left leaning media and liberal politicians would have us believe. Among them were to remove the murdering dictator Saddam, to end the slaughter of the Iraq people by his death squads, to get food for oil money to the people of Iraq, instead of Saddam's army.

When we invaded the army ran and hid. That's who are waging the guerrilla war against us now. All those cowards who wouldn't stand and fight us like men.

I support him and the mission. Better we fight them there than in New York, or Miami, or L.A.

And for those old broken records that think this was about OIL..get real! We got more oil before the war than we do now. What a lame idea.

.

Answer 3

I support Bush's efforts. Yes, some mistakes have been made since being there but I don't think establishing democracy in the Middle East is a bad thing!! How can it be? It's taking longer and we need to give the troop surge a chance. The dems. won't give it a fair chance. They don't play to win; they play not to loose.
How could anyone have supported Sadaam? Really? Did they forget what a monster he was? The world is better off!

Answer 4

I'd have to say no, I don't support it, removing a dictator is a nice idea, but the simple fact is that the US military is not a global police force, that's an idea that violates what was intended for the US military by the founding fathers, the US military is supposed to be used only when there is a clear threat to the USA.

It's nice to think we can go around the world removing dictators etc, but that's naive and history has shown meddling in the affairs of others without a clear purpose is likely to backfire disastrously.

Answer 5

Ask yourself this question:

Why did we have to go in to remove an impotent dictator whom posed absolutely no security threat to the United States or his neighbors--and instead--installed a powerless, puppet government which so far hasn't done anything CLOSE to being "democratic"?

The plain fact of the matter is that this war was botched long before we invaded. GWB was planning this war 8 months before 9/11, and he didn't think he needed a plan or an exit strategy.

Just "stay the course".

Answer 6

Yes... I do

The mission there is important. It is a battle, not a war. The war is against radical Islam. Iraq funded the radical Islamists (along with Saudi, Iran etc.)

However, I believe there is a good chance that Bush & co. prolonged the war to profit from the use of contractors. Either that or it was 100% ineptness. Even considering the fact that historically, counter insurgencies last 10-20 years...

Answer 7

The only thing i support that he has done was removing Sadam, but that in itself caused problems. Trying to fix a several thousand year old problem is not ours to do. the middle east has always been a waring, unstable place, and probably always will be. it is not our place to try to change the world in our image, isnt it the differences that make this world special. Do we force people to learn english when they come here , we we force people to adopt our ways when they move here? Why should we force them in their own country. Leave them alone, its not our issue. The only reason we are there, is oil, and that is not ok.

Answer 8

Generally that is correct -- If you READ (as many conservatives are loathe to do) you will find that many in military circles thought that full out invasion, while the most expedient, was also the most foolhardy

Answer 9

Why speak of it as if it's over and done with.

It's an ongoing process and takes time and attention and patien...OOOH gotta go Judge Wapners on!

Answer 10

Why should Iraq have a democratic government against their will?
Isn't that like an oxymoron?