5304 Shares

Is anyone surprised that the Bush strategy in Iraq has received an "F" for failed to meet set benchmarks?

Is anyone surprised that the Bush strategy in Iraq has received an "F" for failed to meet set benchmarks? Topic: Secure case search
May 25, 2019 / By Claribel
Question: Is this why the "Biography of President George W. Bush" is ranked #1 when you search "failure" on Yahoo? Report: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070710/ap_o... In case anyone missed it coragryph (below) Good point. However, was not Bush's strategy tied to the Iraqi benchmarks in that the strataegy would create a secure envioronment for the benchmarks to have a chance?
Best Answer

Best Answers: Is anyone surprised that the Bush strategy in Iraq has received an "F" for failed to meet set benchmarks?

Bea Bea | 1 day ago
When i travel abroad, I always get reminded that we are "losing" this war. Not only are we often seen as imperialistic, but we also are earning the reputation of being weak. My dad served in WW2 and he was totally against this war from the start, mainly because he believed it was a losing situation. I was for it when it started, because I was dumb enough to buy the WMD argument; now i realize what a tragedy this has been, despite the valiant effort of our troops.
👍 250 | 👎 1
Did you like the answer? Is anyone surprised that the Bush strategy in Iraq has received an "F" for failed to meet set benchmarks? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Secure case search


Bea Originally Answered: Why did Bush lie about the need to invade Iraq?
It has never been a secret that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld lied and fabricated the "evidence" Bush gave congress to get his authority to go to war if he felt it necessary. Frontline on PBS did a very insightful program "Bush's War" that explained how they leaked lies to the press and then used the press articles as "evidence". Bob Woodward also wrote about it in his book several years ago. We still have people on here who claim that Hussein was responsible for 9-11 and that is why we are in Iraq. Pelosi and Reid have decided not to impeach Bush, regardless of his evil deeds. He has killed over 4000 Americans, severely maimed over 100,000 Americans. Estimates of Iraqi men, women and children dead from European sources (our media is embedded so they won't tell us the truth) is almost 1,000,000. Many millions are displaced. If everyone wrote their Senator and Congressman, things would get done. Bush and Cheney both should be tried in The Hague for war crimes. They would be if the US were not so powerful.

Adelle Adelle
Well, let me see. These were the goals of the invasion: 1. Disarm Saddam or insure that he is disarmed. Mission accomplished. 2. Overthrow Saddam and his Baathist government. Mission accomplished. 3. Hold elections and form a new Iraqi government . Mission accomplished. Looks like Bush's strategy in Iraq has been a complete success to me.
👍 110 | 👎 0

Teddy Teddy
This is the standard. How would you expect anything else? If you looked up failure in the dictionary there would be a picture of Bush and his band of boobs.
👍 110 | 👎 -1

Phelan Phelan
You are the failure as every thing that comes out of you is puke. What happened to your cut and run Democrats in their 100 days. I here Cindy Shewho is going to run against your spineless Nancey P. It looks like some one on the left has a spine even if hers is made of jelly like your mind.
👍 110 | 👎 -2

Lysander Lysander
They weren't benchmarks that Bush or American troops could meet. They were benchmarks for the Iraqi govt to meet. Bush makes enough mistakes on his own. Don't go blaming him for the mistakes that other people make.
👍 110 | 👎 -3

Lysander Originally Answered: Bush wants 21,500 troops sent to Iraq, so how many soldiers is that?
You have to understand that it was George W Bush that said it. He's not the brightest bulb in the pack ya know. :-) Your research was excellent, by the way.

If you have your own answer to the question secure case search, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.