Bremer: US Paid Price for Lack of Troops WASHINGTON (AP) The United States did not have enough troops in Iraq after ousting Saddam Hussein and "paid a big price" for it, says the former head of the U.S. occupation there. L. Paul Bremer said Monday that he arrived in Iraq on May 6, 2003 to find "horrid" looting and a very unstable situation. "We paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," Bremer said during an address to an insurance group in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. "We never had enough troops on the ground," Bremer said, while insisting that he was "more convinced than ever that regime change was the right thing to do." Read the rest of the story Reagan's Navy Secretary Unleases Tide of Iraq War Criticism By Eric Weslander, Journal-World A critical question for citizens and journalists to ask the U.S. government right now is this: "Under what circumstances will the United States military withdraw from Iraq?" That's according to James Webb, the novelist, decorated Vietnam veteran and Reagan-administration secretary of the Navy, who spoke Wednesday night at Kansas University. Webb says he's never heard a good answer from the Bush administration to the question about troop withdrawal. "What are the conditions?" Webb asked a crowd of more than 300 people in Woodruff Auditorium in the Kansas Union. "If you can't answer the question, then you shouldn't have been there in the first place." Read the rest of the story Criticism of Iraq War Rising From GOP Right By Steven Thomma, Knight-Ridder Tribune News WASHINGTON -- President Bush is facing sharp dissent from his conservative base about the war in Iraq that could force him to change course or risk losing critical support for his re-election campaign. The complaints are rising from the traditional conservative wing of the Republican Party -- including such influential voices as Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois and columnist George Will -- who are challenging the "neo-conservative" doctrine that the United States can remake the Middle East by toppling dictator Saddam Hussein and nurturing a democracy to replace him. Read the rest of the story
I also don't agree with how the war(s), Iraq and Afghanistan are being handled. My opinion, Fallujah should have been a pile of dust months ago. It also hacks me off to hear about Taliban being released from Guantanamo Bay and heading straight back to Afghanistan to fight our soldiers there. Plus all the Iraqi soldiers who were allowed to surrender and return home. Wonder how many have gone back to fight our troops? Iranians and Syrians crossing the border to fight against us. Why is all this being allowed to happen? Because we live in a politically correct America where we won't do what must be done to fight an enemy of this kind. The prospect of peace in the Middle East is b.s., the Bible tells us that and so does history in general. Why am I backing Bush even though I don't agree with his handling of the situation? Because if a so called "hard-liner" such as Bush has been described will be this politically correct in defending America, it frightens me to think what a liberal with the history of your man Kerry will do. France, Germany, and Spain to the rescue? They are attacked, they are threatened, yet they sit back and do nothing to protect themselves, but naive Kerry supporters think they are supposed to help us when Kerry is elected? I'd laugh, but there is nothing funny about it. :dis:
