Garner admits US errors in Iraq

[Donutboy 0]

The man the US initially put in charge of governing Iraq says mistakes were made after the coalition took charge.

Garner says he would have talked

more with the Iraqis

Lieutenant General Jay Garner, who was replaced after less than a month, says the US could have communicated better with the Iraqi people.

In an interview with the BBC, he added that more US soldiers should have been sent to Iraq.

And he says more should have been done to restore electricity supplies.

General Garner, who was retired from the military when he took control in Iraq, said the US should have moved more quickly to establish a government in Iraq.

Garner admits US errors in Iraq

[CarolinaTiger 0]

i didn't read the article...but it doesn't surprise me that mistakes were made...

perfection is best left to hindsite, which is sometimes 20/20.

what i'd like to hear answered by those bashing bush (the 9 demo canddiates in particular), however, is this:

"if you had been president on 9/11, would your actions from that day forward have been mistake free?"

i'm guessing the answer would have to be 'no'.

of course, the size of one's mistakes often defines the person (or in this case, the administration). and given the politicized nature of things these days, any mistake is to be heavily scrutinized by those w/o responsibility.

all i know is this: we beat alabama 28-23!

ct

[tiger88 934]

Oh man you mean we weren't perfect?? :roll:

I say we pick the next country full of terrorist supporting and sympathizing scumbags and try to be perfect this time. :freedom: What say we keep going til we get one perfect.

[Tiger Al 0]

Oh man you mean we weren't perfect?? :roll:

I say we pick the next country full of terrorist supporting and sympathizing scumbags and try to be perfect this time. :freedom:    What say we keep going til we get one perfect.

[tiger88 934]

Oh man you mean we weren't perfect?? :roll:

I say we pick the next country full of terrorist supporting and sympathizing scumbags and try to be perfect this time. :freedom:    What say we keep going til we get one perfect.

:roll: :roll: :roll: Since you obviously didn't figure it out tigeral, I'll tell you. My post wasn't meant to be taken seriously. Except the part mocking nonutboy(oops a typo) for pointing out, with the help of his article, our lack of perfection in iraq.

[Donutboy 0]

Oh man you mean we weren't perfect?? :roll:

I say we pick the next country full of terrorist supporting and sympathizing scumbags and try to be perfect this time. :freedom:    What say we keep going til we get one perfect.

:roll: :roll: :roll: Since you obviously didn't figure it out tigeral, I'll tell you. My post wasn't meant to be taken seriously. Except the part mocking nonutboy(oops a typo) for pointing out, with the help of his article, our lack of perfection in iraq.

Tiger88, you need to put your hand a little lower. Mine have dropped!! But again at that, you really just need to get your hands out of my drawers. I ain't got anything you'd want..... well, I HOPE not anyway.

I'll tell you what I would have done differently. First off, I would have looked at the intelligence that said there was no evidence of WMDs, no known link to Saddam Hussein and 9-11 and no evidence that he was attempting to make nukes and I would have said, "As a nation, we need to keep our attention focused like a laser on Afghanistan and Al-Queda and bring Osam Bin Laden and those responsible for the attrocities of 9-11 to justice."

Instead, this administration has engaged a large portion of our military and our intelligence community in a second war that has nothing to do with justice for the victims in New York City and Washington, DC. OH, and if I DID feel a need for war somewhere else, I'd have an exit strategy, not just some fairy tale belief that the people of Iraq would bow at our feet for freeing them and organize a government for us while we started pumping and selling their oil.

THAT'S what I'd have done differently.

[tiger88 934]

That was just a guess. I certainly won't be seeing for myself, trust me on that one.

afa your comments the whole hindsight 20/20 thing still applies. I like knocking saddam down a notch or all the way. He was/is? an evil and dangerous bastard.

[Tiger Al 0]

That was just a guess. I certainly won't be seeing for myself, trust me on that one.

afa your comments the whole hindsight 20/20 thing still applies. I like knocking saddam down a notch or all the way. He was/is? an evil and dangerous bastard.

So then the US should be ridding the world of all evil and dangerous bastards? One pops up in Indonesia, we take him out? Another in Brazil, take him out? Still more in Poland, Oman and Jordan, there we go? Sounds like a bad idea to me.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

That was just a guess. I certainly won't be seeing for myself, trust me on that one.

afa your comments the whole hindsight 20/20 thing still applies. I like knocking saddam down a notch or all the way. He was/is? an evil and dangerous bastard.

So then the US should be ridding the world of all evil and dangerous bastards? One pops up in Indonesia, we take him out? Another in Brazil, take him out? Still more in Poland, Oman and Jordan, there we go? Sounds like a bad idea to me.

If our president at the time had taken out one of these "evil and dangerous bastards" instead of renting out Lincoln's bedroom and getting "Lewinskies" in the Oval Office, 9/11 probably would not have happened and we wouldn't be in the war we're in now. BTW Donut and TigerAl, WE ARE STILL AT WAR. Bush didn't declare an end to the war May 1st as one of you had erroneously reported in an earlier post. He declared major combat ops against the Iraqi army finished, which they were.

Now go stick your head back in the sand, liberal

[tiger88 934]

That was just a guess. I certainly won't be seeing for myself, trust me on that one.

afa your comments the whole hindsight 20/20 thing still applies. I like knocking saddam down a notch or all the way. He was/is? an evil and dangerous bastard.

So then the US should be ridding the world of all evil and dangerous bastards? One pops up in Indonesia, we take him out? Another in Brazil, take him out? Still more in Poland, Oman and Jordan, there we go? Sounds like a bad idea to me.

You are truly the king of blah. Why I am wasting breath on you here I'm not quite sure, but here it goes.

All I said is I was glad we took the evil/ dangerous bastard out. I didn't say anything about taking out others(I said I wasn't serious about my 1st post once already). Why you would try to put words in my mouth here I'm just not sure. If someone is going to put words in my mouth for the love of God let it be a conservative and not a melodramatic liberal.

BTW Brazil? Why bother?

[Tiger Al 0]

All I said is I was glad we took the evil/ dangerous bastard out. I didn't say anything about taking out others(I said I wasn't serious about my 1st post once already). Why you would try to put words in my mouth here I'm just not sure.

Because there was no other reason to go into Iraq besides Saddam being an evil/dangerous bastard. So if that was reason enough to knock him down, what is stopping us from knocking down all the rest?

[tiger88 934]

All I said is I was glad we took the evil/ dangerous bastard out. I didn't say anything about taking out others(I said I wasn't serious about my 1st post once already). Why you would try to put words in my mouth here I'm just not sure.

Because there was no other reason to go into Iraq besides Saddam being an evil/dangerous bastard. So if that was reason enough to knock him down, what is stopping us from knocking down all the rest?

This is your train of thought here tigeral. Please don't try to drag me in on it.

[Tiger Al 0]

Yep, that's what I thought.

[tiger88 934]

Yep, that's what I thought.

Nice try at an invalid victory.

I am very comfortable with the reasons we invaded iraq and the results. My point was that I have no desire to argue with you about this. Why?

1. This subject has already been repeatedly beaten to death on this board.

2. I don't think there is any chance of either of seeing things the way the other one does.

3. Evil/Dangerous is really open to individual interpretation isn't it? I see/saw saddam hussein as dangerous to the USA. I have no problems with taking out saddam or anyone else that our ptb see as a very possible threat to our safety. AFA that goes it is better to be safe than sorry, especially when dealing with a madman/freak like saddam.

4. You are going to say there were no reasons and present your argument. I am going to say there were plenty of reasons and present mine. We'll both disagree with the other and have wasted alot of time. Why bother? Like I said it has already been beaten to death here.

5. I try to avoid arguments with liberals because it is already pretty obvious that their thinking is majorly flawed with little hope of repair.

Funny how you are clinging to this topic and trying to shift it to an argument that is too old and ignoring a thread about your boy dean and his attempts to hide his past political record for fear of what might be exposed.

[Tiger Al 0]

Yep.

[tiger88 934]

Yep.

All that wasted breath and all I get is a yep? I'm just gonna assume that yep is for #5:lol:

[Donutboy 0]

That was just a guess. I certainly won't be seeing for myself, trust me on that one.

afa your comments the whole hindsight 20/20 thing still applies. I like knocking saddam down a notch or all the way. He was/is? an evil and dangerous bastard.

So then the US should be ridding the world of all evil and dangerous bastards? One pops up in Indonesia, we take him out? Another in Brazil, take him out? Still more in Poland, Oman and Jordan, there we go? Sounds like a bad idea to me.

If our president at the time had taken out one of these "evil and dangerous bastards" instead of renting out Lincoln's bedroom and getting "Lewinskies" in the Oval Office, 9/11 probably would not have happened and we wouldn't be in the war we're in now. BTW Donut and TigerAl, WE ARE STILL AT WAR. Bush didn't declare an end to the war May 1st as one of you had erroneously reported in an earlier post. He declared major combat ops against the Iraqi army finished, which they were.

Now go stick your head back in the sand, liberal

Well, gee, if we hadn't spent $50 million and had 200 FBI agents assigned to find out whether Clinton was getting Lewinskis in the White House or whether Hillary Clinton made too much money in the futures market or whether the Clintons lost enough in the White Water deal that went bust or whether the Clintons murdered Vince Foster, etc, etc, etc...., the FBI might actually have had enough agents to have been able to investigate why flight students were training to fly airplanes but weren't interested in knowing how to take of or land airplanes.

Of course, I guess we learned our lessons. With the secret energy meetings between Enron and Dick Cheney, the CIA leak, the swetheart deal Neil Bush got from a Chinese semiconductor company when he admittedly knows nothing about semiconductors, the FBI wiretaps on elected officials, the congressional computer hacking conducted by one Senator's aid, well, you get the picture.... we no longer feel the need to do all of that nosy investigating.

[Donutboy 0]

I'll answer your questions!!

tiger88 writes: Nice try at an invalid victory.

I am very comfortable with the reasons we invaded iraq and the results. My point was that I have no desire to argue with you about this. Why?

You mean the WMDs which we haven't found, the connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda, which we now admit isn't there, the imminent threat of long range missles with biological components that can be mobilized in 45 minutes which was a lie, the attempted purchase of enriched unranium from Africa, which was a lie or the aluminum tubes to be used for centrifuges, which was a lie? Yes, if you're very comfortable with a war built on lies and the loss of American life and devastating lifelong injury for our children that ensued, you are a diehard conservative.

1. This subject has already been repeatedly beaten to death on this board.

The war in Iraq is the number one issue in America today. I really don't understand why you want to ignore the subject. This war is Bush's defining moment in the sun, isn't it?

tiger88 writes:2. I don't think there is any chance of either of seeing things the way the other one does.

Just when you make the statement, we agree on something. If you don't want to argue on an issue, it's simple, ignore it. Why you think you can march in, make a response to a post and then get huffy when we answer your response?

tiger88 writes: 3. Evil/Dangerous is really open to individual interpretation isn't it? I see/saw saddam hussein as dangerous to the USA. I have no problems with taking out saddam or anyone else that our ptb see as a very possible threat to our safety. AFA that goes it is better to be safe than sorry, especially when dealing with a madman/freak like saddam.

SO, a dictator with no WMDs, no biological weapons, a dictator basically crippled militarily by the last Gulf War and UN sanctions is more dangerous than a dictator who boldly declares that his country, a LOT closer to our shores than Iraq, has a nuke and is building more whether we like it or not?

tiger88 writes: 4. You are going to say there were no reasons and present your argument. I am going to say there were plenty of reasons and present mine. We'll both disagree with the other and have wasted alot of time. Why bother? Like I said it has already been beaten to death here.

Well, I think the administration's reasons for going to war have already been disproven. They've interviewed the scientists they claimed would talk freely once Saddam Hussein was overthrown. They've searched the nation over and have found no evidence that Hussein had any WMDs or biological weapons. We attempted to tie Hussein to bin Laden but have found no ties. In other words, the reasons given to go to war back in March are nothing but a load of malarkey and conservatives are now trying to change the reason to "because he was a really bad man."

tiger88 writes: 5. I try to avoid arguments with liberals because it is already pretty obvious that their thinking is majorly flawed with little hope of repair.

Funny, I was thinking the same about you. I suppose now that you can prove all of the reasons that we went to war in March? I'd love to see a link where we've found WMDs, ties to bin Laden or 9-11, biological weapons, etc..... Good luck finding them. If you do, the Bush administration might have a job for you because they sure as Heck haven't found any.

[Donutboy 0]

That was just a guess. I certainly won't be seeing for myself, trust me on that one.

afa your comments the whole hindsight 20/20 thing still applies. I like knocking saddam down a notch or all the way. He was/is? an evil and dangerous bastard.

So then the US should be ridding the world of all evil and dangerous bastards? One pops up in Indonesia, we take him out? Another in Brazil, take him out? Still more in Poland, Oman and Jordan, there we go? Sounds like a bad idea to me.

If our president at the time had taken out one of these "evil and dangerous bastards" instead of renting out Lincoln's bedroom and getting "Lewinskies" in the Oval Office, 9/11 probably would not have happened and we wouldn't be in the war we're in now. BTW Donut and TigerAl, WE ARE STILL AT WAR. Bush didn't declare an end to the war May 1st as one of you had erroneously reported in an earlier post. He declared major combat ops against the Iraqi army finished, which they were.

Now go stick your head back in the sand, liberal

no mesage

[DKW 86 7,410]

Last time guys, the namecalling and profanity is extremely immature.

Fix it, or I will, and you wont like it if I fix it.

[tiger88 934]

donutboy,

Let me repeat : I am comfortable with the reasons we went into iraq for(reported or unreported) and the results so far.

You are the one who is huffy and I think I know why .

Now since I wasn't talking to you and have no urge to talk to you c'ya libbie.

[Ranger12 46]

You liberals kill me on how you keep bringing up WMDs as the only thing to criticize Bush for. First of all, it was no great secrect he did have them at one time. Remember, Saddam did kick the inspectors out for a reason. There was whole lot more evidence that he still had them then there was the he had destroyed them. Sometimes you just have to go on the intelligence that you are given and hope it is right. Secondly, liberals are so focused on the WMD thing, that the seem to forget the fact that Saddam was an evil, child murdering psychopath who had way to much power. You think it was wise to let a man like that stay in a position where he could harm the United States or it's allies? I guess you would rather wait and see to have another 9/11 before we did something. Remember, alot of people did not thing Bin Laden was capable of pulling of a 9/11 and the intelligence was not there to prove he could, but he did it didn't he? So why wait to see if Saddam could do the same thing. Saddam hates the United States with every bone in his body and he had the power to get WMDs, if he did not have them, and the money to finance the terrorists to pull it of. Liberals keep going to back the WMD thing because that is their only hope since the economy is turning around and unemployment is down.

[Tiger Al 0]

You liberals kill me on how you keep bringing up WMDs as the only thing to criticize Bush for. First of all, it was no great secrect he did have them at one time. Remember, Saddam did kick the inspectors out for a reason. There was whole lot more evidence that he still had them then there was the he had destroyed them. Sometimes you just have to go on the intelligence that you are given and hope it is right. Secondly, liberals are so focused on the WMD thing, that the seem to forget the fact that Saddam was an evil, child murdering psychopath who had way to much power. You think it was wise to let a man like that stay in a position where he could harm the United States or it's allies? I guess you would rather wait and see to have another 9/11 before we did something. Remember, alot of people did not thing Bin Laden was capable of pulling of a 9/11 and the intelligence was not there to prove he could, but he did it didn't he? So why wait to see if Saddam could do the same thing. Saddam hates the United States with every bone in his body and he had the power to get WMDs, if he did not have them, and the money to finance the terrorists to pull it of. Liberals keep going to back the WMD thing because that is their only hope since the economy is turning around and unemployment is down.

This is all so twisted that it would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.