Did Bush know this before waging a war in Iraq?

Everyone advised Bush that his efforts against Saddam would have drammatic afterwar consequences that we are now facing.

All his advisors urged against an Iraqi occupation stating we did not send enough soldiers, we did not have enough soldiers, we needed to immediately assemble and empower an iraqi army, train them before a civil war broke out.

Everything this president is trying to do right now, is what he was advised would be needed to prevent what has ultimately happened in IRAQ but he refused to pay attention to.

For 3 years, there was no true efforts, and everyone that disagreed with bush's intnetions was replaced or asked to step down.

Why would Colon Powell step down?

It too late for efforts in IRAQ, but this president wants to somehow think he deserves another shot at it, and has set out to draw out a new surge that is cleverlydisguised over a few months as to buy him time.

Notice how he has recently said, we cant judge the effects of my latest surge when only 40% of the troops for this latestplan are actually deployed.

Well, it will take until the summer for all 100% 5 brigades to get there, and then there will be a need for a few more months for them to get a valid assessment if the surge is actually working.

Just a ploy for Bush to extend his already failed military policy, when a diplomatic policy is whats needed.

Its a shame when you have a woman going off to syria and getting things done more than our president, who uses this time to instate his friends into 2 positions that the senate voted them against.

WhilePelosi was efforting for diplomacy, bush used a loophole to instate an ambassador and a new head of social security, using the easter senate leave as the loophole that grants him instatement rights in time of a congressional lapse. Especially after senate denied both to those offices

What a sneaky bast.ard huh?

Actually his tag line is pretty good, I wonder who wrote if for him? The conflict between the Shiites and the Sunnis is over 1300 years old and shows no sign of stopping. The Arab-Jew conflict is over 5000 years old. With that in mind you understand that they will fight and fight to the death and the next generation you see my point.

And yes, he knew it or should have from the start and it will never end while we are there. What is needed is a slow (2 year) with drawl building up the army and police force and our people staying out of the front of things. We still wont have won. The government we put in power will not last the year and civil war will break out in force, meaning worse than it is now.

Why did we go to war in the first place? Your guess is as good as mine. I question why we put him in power, that decision was Donald Rumsfelds.

I understand Bush's point of view that you don't go into a conflict with a timetable, but you should definitely have quantifiable goals. This is something I have not seen from the Bush administration. At first there were the objectives of eliminating Saddam (accomplished) and finding WMDs (not accomplished), but since then, we the people have not really been told about any specific objectives. Bush just says we're there to "win," but he won't tell us what that entails.

It is correct to suppose that there may be no ultimate end. But it is also correct to suppose that if life is not made seriously inconvenient for the bad guys, they will work on other nefarious plots against the US and other countries. If the bad guys get the WMD materials back from Syria, they could do dirt which would make 9/11 look like a Sunday school picnic.

even with the seditious way you communicate on the subject of the President of the united states, that's properly worth it to respond to you. Your loss of patriotism is probably no longer properly worth noting, yet your sedition shouldn't bypass unanswered. No, he did no longer. whilst some thing is proper to do, you do no longer count style the pennies. exciting thank you to tutor us the place your values lie. We have faith you. President Bush did what replaced into stunning even with the fee. you could have refused to and quoted "we produce different priorities for our funds". Now you elect to pay attention on the subject of the injuries and psychological problems with our troops. no longer as quickly as do I pay attention you call for a physique count style of the enemy. you have needless to say chosen aspects in this conflict, have not you. Jane Fonda could be happy with you. that's a international conflict, and additionally you like us to lose. This began long until now you have been born, with Islam's non-quit attack and takeover of united states of america after united states of america. whilst they ultimately start up utilising the sword extra openly, you elect to back off. Your loss of determine and braveness is...predicted. Oh, an argument may be unsuitable, no longer a conflict. Use phrases you're extra attentive to. Your arguments are silly adequate.

His timetable theory went out the window when he donned the flight suit on the aircraft carrier and declared that the "Mission was Accomplished". He's been grasping for a military and political purpose since. He speaks of victory. But the victory is not up to us to decide or to shape. It's up to the Iraqi people and its government.

There was no timetable for the war.

He knew (and told us) a long time ago that this would not be an easy, quick war.

yes he planned an indefinite occupation of the oil lands. He never had plans to remove the troops evidenced by the fact that permanent structures have been built in Iraq and the ever changing definition of victory.

Bush first stated when this conflict began that it would be a long one. I remember him saying it. It's not something he just decided to say to hear himself talk.

I think Bush really believed what his neocon chickenhawks told him: That we would be welcomed as liberators. After the initiall war, he allowed the society to implode. It's gone downhill ever since.