Republicans Criticize Bush 'Mistakes' on Iraq

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • ODShowtime
    ROCKSTAR

    • Jun 2004
    • 5812

    Republicans Criticize Bush 'Mistakes' on Iraq

    Looks like I'm not the only one who sees Bush and his administration as incompetent. I'd rather they were competent, but surely they are not.


    The latest news and headlines from Yahoo News. Get breaking news stories and in-depth coverage with videos and photos.


    Republicans Criticize Bush 'Mistakes' on Iraq
    Sun Sep 19, 1:11 PM ET
    By Randall Mikkelsen

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Leading members of President Bush (news - web sites)'s Republican Party on Sunday criticized mistakes and "incompetence" in his Iraq (news - web sites) policy and called for an urgent ground offensive to retake insurgent sanctuaries.


    In appearances on news talk shows, Republican senators also urged Bush to be more open with the American public after the disclosure of a classified CIA (news - web sites) report that gave a gloomy outlook for Iraq and raised the possibility of civil war.


    "The fact is, we're in deep trouble in Iraq ... and I think we're going to have to look at some recalibration of policy," Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska said on CBS's "Face the Nation."


    "We made serious mistakes," said Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), an Arizona Republican who has campaigned at Bush's side this year after patching up a bitter rivalry.


    McCain, speaking on "Fox News Sunday," cited as mistakes the toleration of looting after the successful U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and failures to secure Iraq's borders or prevent insurgents from establishing strongholds within the country.


    He said a ground offensive was urgently needed to retake areas held by insurgents, but a leading Democrat accused the administration of stalling for fear of hurting Bush's reelection chances.


    The criticisms came as Bush prepared this week to host Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and focus strongly on Iraq after stepped up attacks from Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites).


    After the CIA report was disclosed on Thursday, Kerry accused the president of living in a "fantasy world of spin" about Iraq and of not telling the truth about the growing chaos.


    McCain said Bush had been "perhaps not as straight as maybe we'd like to see."


    "I think the president is being clear. I would like to see him more clear," McCain said. He said Congress was expected to hold hearings on Iraq soon.


    Sen. Richard Lugar (news, bio, voting record), an Indiana Republican and chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also criticized the administration's handling of Iraq's reconstruction.


    Only $1 billion of $18.4 billion allocated by Congress for the task has been spent, Lugar said. "This is the incompetence in the administration," he said on ABC's "This Week."


    GROUND OFFENSIVE


    A ground offensive was essential to clearing insurgents out of strongholds such as Falluja, McCain said. He joined other lawmakers from both parties who said Iraqi elections scheduled for January would be impossible unless this were done.


    The New York Times reported on Sunday that the U.S. military intended to retake Falluja by the end of the year.


    "We've got to take out the sanctuaries. We're going to have to sustain, tragically, some more casualties. Airstrikes don't do it; artillery doesn't do it. Boots on the ground do it," McCain said.


    "And the longer we delay ...the more difficult the challenge is going to be and the more casualties we will incur," he said.

    Sen. John Kyl, like McCain an Arizona Republican, said, "Allowing the Iraqis to make the decisions not to go into some of these sanctuaries, I think, turns out to have not been a good decision, which we're going to have to correct now by going in with our Marines and Army divisions."

    Democratic Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, speaking on ABC, accused the administration of delaying an offensive out of concern it would hurt Bush's bid to win reelection on Nov. 2.

    "The only thing I can figure as to why they're not doing it with a sense of urgency is that they don't want to do it before the election and they want to make it seem like everything is status quo," Biden said.

    But Kyl said on CBS that time was also needed to train Iraqi troops to help secure areas recaptured from insurgents, and he disputed accusations Bush had not been open about the difficulties in Iraq.

    McCain also called for enlarging the U.S. Army by 70,000 soldiers and the Marines by 20,000 to 25,000.

    Kerry and other Democrats have said Bush plans to call up more part-time National Guard and Reserve troops after the November election to compensate for thinning ranks in the full-time military due to Iraq. The Bush campaign denied this.

    Biden said disappointment with Bush's policies was bipartisan. "Dick Lugar, Joe Biden, Chuck Hagel, John McCain -- we are all on the same page. It is us and the administration. This has been incompetence so far," he said. (additional reporting by Sue Pleming)
    gnaw on it
  • Cathedral
    ROTH ARMY ELITE
    • Jan 2004
    • 6621

    #2
    The only incompetence i see is named John Kerry.
    Sure mistakes are made, it is the same in every war, nobody is perfect.
    But would you rather be on the offensive, keeping the attention of the terror cells concentrated in Iraq, or would you rather be defensive and wait to be hit again to react?

    We can't do much if we're all dead, and i'd prefer to put that off for as long as possible.
    With Kerry our life span will surely be shorter, or at the very least, some Americans lives will be.

    Political Spin has no place during this battle and force is the only thing Muslims know how to respect.

    Comment

    • ODShowtime
      ROCKSTAR

      • Jun 2004
      • 5812

      #3
      Originally posted by Cathedral

      Sure mistakes are made, it is the same in every war, nobody is perfect.
      But would you rather be on the offensive, keeping the attention of the terror cells concentrated in Iraq, or would you rather be defensive and wait to be hit again to react?

      Political Spin has no place during this battle and force is the only thing Muslims know how to respect.
      Then why didn't we destroy the enemy who attacked us before we embarked on a war for profit? I see quite a few wanted posters still up.
      gnaw on it

      Comment

      • DLR'sCock
        Crazy Ass Mofo
        • Jan 2004
        • 2937

        #4
        Because it's all about the duckets!!!!

        Comment

        • ODShowtime
          ROCKSTAR

          • Jun 2004
          • 5812

          #5
          That's right DLR's Cock, you are correct. It's not about making Americans safer, it's about making Americans think they're safer while bush&friends do a profit grab.
          gnaw on it

          Comment

          • Big Train
            Full Member Status

            • Apr 2004
            • 4013

            #6
            Well, I AM safer. Haven't had an attack in quite some time.

            Until you can PROVE a profit being made by the administration, and so far nobody can (Ford fell on that challenge) its a stupid point to make. If you can though, do tell...

            Comment

            • Sgt Schultz
              Commando
              • Mar 2004
              • 1268

              #7
              Originally posted by ODShowtime
              Then why didn't we destroy the enemy who attacked us before we embarked on a war for profit? I see quite a few wanted posters still up.
              Can you guys get off this worthless criticism? According to the Left, we could only go after Saddam after we killed or captured Bin Laden. You talk as if we only had 180,000 more troops climbing the mountains of Afghanistan we could have captured him by now.

              First finding and killing / capturing ONE man, with a fanatical and WORLDWIDE group of followers willing to die to hide and protect him just is not as easy as you seem to think it is. Hell, we KNEW that Hitler was in Berlin and it was carpet bombed, day and night and we still could not get him.

              2nd if we killed Bin Laden tomorrow do you really think terrorists worldwide sould suddenly throw down their arms and give up? I didn't think so.

              The idea is to attack them on ALL fronts, as much as possible.

              Comment

              • Mezro
                Full Member Status

                • May 2004
                • 4153

                #8
                Originally posted by Cathedral
                Political Spin has no place during this battle and force is the only thing Muslims know how to respect.
                It's not all Muslims; only a small percent of an otherwise peaceful religion.

                Mezro...every religion has small pockets of wackos...
                Got me a date with a shaved Asian. I know, I know; I think it's fucked!

                Comment

                • ODShowtime
                  ROCKSTAR

                  • Jun 2004
                  • 5812

                  #9
                  Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
                  Can you guys get off this worthless criticism? According to the Left, we could only go after Saddam after we killed or captured Bin Laden. You talk as if we only had 180,000 more troops climbing the mountains of Afghanistan we could have captured him by now.

                  First finding and killing / capturing ONE man, with a fanatical and WORLDWIDE group of followers willing to die to hide and protect him just is not as easy as you seem to think it is. Hell, we KNEW that Hitler was in Berlin and it was carpet bombed, day and night and we still could not get him.

                  2nd if we killed Bin Laden tomorrow do you really think terrorists worldwide sould suddenly throw down their arms and give up? I didn't think so.

                  The idea is to attack them on ALL fronts, as much as possible.
                  Dude, how hard is it for you to understand that we had proxies fighting for us in Afghanistan because we needed to save our troop strength for the yet undecided war in Iraq?

                  How hard is it for you to understand the difference in results between having American Special Forces and Rangers working the mountains compared to a bunch of illiterate Northern Alliance troops?

                  One man ain't shit but his whole entourage just rolled out, without leaving a trail!! It's bullshit!!


                  I heard somewhere that the next phase of their attack would be to assinate someone big. What if Bin Laden succeeds in killing Musharraf and initiates a coup. Then him and his boys have nukes. How safe would you feel then? That's not that crazy of an idea. It could happen and then where would be with a nuclear knife to India's throat?
                  gnaw on it

                  Comment

                  • Warham
                    DIAMOND STATUS
                    • Mar 2004
                    • 14589

                    #10
                    Using McCain as a 'Republican' Senator?

                    Comment

                    • ODShowtime
                      ROCKSTAR

                      • Jun 2004
                      • 5812

                      #11
                      yeah... that was a bit of a stretch.
                      gnaw on it

                      Comment

                      • Lqskdiver
                        Sniper
                        • Jun 2004
                        • 763

                        #12
                        Originally posted by ODShowtime
                        That's right DLR's Cock, you are correct. It's not about making Americans safer, it's about making Americans think they're safer while bush&friends do a profit grab.
                        Excuse me, ma'am, but have you personally taken a look at Bush's income statement and seen the extraordinary income under line item "Profits from War"?

                        Last time I heard all Presidents are required to submit their tax returns for public records and in no mention has it said that he made and abundant amount of money. If anyone is making a profit grab it's kerry for marrying the ketchup widow and using her funds for his presidency...all part of "his" master plan.

                        Huh, and you thought only you folks could "conspiratize".

                        Comment

                        • ODShowtime
                          ROCKSTAR

                          • Jun 2004
                          • 5812

                          #13
                          First of all, coming at me from the tax angle is intrigueing. Bush isn't now taking in huge profits himself. He made a lot of promises and compromises to get where he's going, and if his plans play out, the profits roll in slowly and to his whole entourage. It's not like he pilfered out big pallets of gold bars and shit and sent them to the White House. It's a lot more complicated and long-term than that.

                          second, maybe good point about Heinz, but didn't they already know each other? It's not that much of a stretch when two people who know each other in the same social circles both lose their spouse.
                          gnaw on it

                          Comment

                          • Lqskdiver
                            Sniper
                            • Jun 2004
                            • 763

                            #14
                            Originally posted by ODShowtime
                            First of all, coming at me from the tax angle is intrigueing. Bush isn't now taking in huge profits himself. He made a lot of promises and compromises to get where he's going, and if his plans play out, the profits roll in slowly and to his whole entourage. It's not like he pilfered out big pallets of gold bars and shit and sent them to the White House. It's a lot more complicated and long-term than that.

                            second, maybe good point about Heinz, but didn't they already know each other? It's not that much of a stretch when two people who know each other in the same social circles both lose their spouse.

                            Ahh, well thanks for 'splaining it to me. This stuff is hard enough to understand, but folx like you who are in the know can easily point that out to us simple folk. I can see bush in few years with a gold tooth and some bitches and some 40's pimping out on some yacht in the meditarrean.

                            As for the frenchman, I honestly think he was after the dough and not the ketchup in this case. Wasn't he like already and used up the other bitches money for his senate run, then he divorced which caused her nervous breakdown?

                            Comment

                            • ODShowtime
                              ROCKSTAR

                              • Jun 2004
                              • 5812

                              #15
                              I don't know about all that but it would be funny to see Bush with some gold teeth and some bitches just chillin'
                              gnaw on it

                              Comment

                              Working...