And it was lost by Bush, the people he put in charge and the inept, incompetent way they went about it.
Reid is only recognizing reality.
Interesting statement here: "...President Bush has failed in some ways, but his most important failure is in the leadership in the prosecution of this war. He hasn?t ? since that memorable speech a week after 9-11 -- performed the role of a war president. He hasn?t defined the enemy, how he must be defeated, and how we will even know if we have won...."
If this is true, then its BUsh who lost the war: according to this, he didn't define the enemy, say how he should be defeated or even the benchmarks by which we know we won.
But there's a lot more to it than that. Bush took us into war on grounds we know now to be false and not only false but slickly packaged and sold as truth when extensive doubts remained. And Busha dn Cheney KNEW extensive doubts remained but they spooked the country into war anyway, with the help of a compliant media. There was no yellowcake, no aluminum tubes, no nuclear program, no connection of Al Qaeda or 9/11 to Saddam. The basis BUsh started this war on have been proven completely false. And the world no longer trusts America's credibility because of it.
It turns out that the containment of Saddam, set up by Bush Sr, was working. this is no defense of Saddam but the the truth is plain that America was a lot better off with Saddam in power--he kkept the lid on some really rotten people that we will now have to spend the rest of our lives fighting.
The loss of this war is a direct failure of Bush's leadership, it will be what he's known for forever after. And of course there's a huge campaign to put the blame on other people, like Reid, for telling the truth. The Iraq war WAS a war of choice-- Bush's choice---and now he's trying to say it wasn't? We attacked, THEM, remember? They didn't attack us!
Bush failed in many ways but not the least of them is the complete failuire of diplomacy.
The Iraq invasion and occupation DID have a chance to succeed at one point but it would have taken extensive diplomatic efforts to line up support among Iraqs neighbors, which include Iran, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabis and Turkey. NOT ONE of these countries sent troops or aid to our invasion, we invaded Iraq with the support of only ONE of its neighbors: Kuwait.
And thats one of the reasons this war has been lost--noncooperation from ALL of Iraq's neighbors save our mighty ally Kuwait, who owed us favors for saving its undemocratic monarchy.. And no diplomatic effort to bring any of them on board, we refuse to even talk with its two most powerful neighbors: Iran and Syria. How can it be said Bush did the right things in this war?
"...Military analysts were uncertain whether the campaign to follow ? against the other state sponsors of Islamic terrorism -- should begin in Iraq or Iran or Syria. President Bush chose Iraq. Iraq is not a war of choice: it was, inarguably, a state sponsor of terrorism. Yes, Iraq wasn?t involved in 9-11: but it was involved in terrorism in a very big way. ...."
Unforunately that paragraph eztablishes that it WAS a war of choice--Bush's choice. If they were uncertain who to attack next, there was no imminent threat from any of these countries. And to this day, none of them have atttacked us (in the last 50 years, anyway, tho Iran did take hostages 30 years ago)
Bush chose to take this country into war on evidence that was later proven to be false--this is inarguable. A HUGE failure to understand the situation, why we should never elect someone wiht NO international experience at all.
Unfortunately they never bothered to prove this and to this day there is no evidence that Iraq was engaged in terrorism against anyone but its own peoople--and this is not the reaons Bush gave for invading anyway--He had Powell go to the UN with a bunch of pogue evidence that was ultimately proven to be false. Powell now says that that speech to the UN was the "worst moement of" his life. It should be definitely noted that Powell, the ONLY member of Bush'c cabinet with military and combat experience, was against the invasion of Iraq.
"...He hasn?t ? since that memorable speech a week after 9-11 -- performed the role of a war president...."
I agree with this entirely and this is Bush's biggest failure and the one Conservatives will never look at. How could we have won this war when our leader did not, in the words of the article YOU quote, perform the role of a war president. What greater failure could there be?
I think it has a lot to do with the fact that George Bush had NONE in his qualifications box when discharged and the fact that he was stripped of his medals also. (here's the link to his discharge showing this:
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/ANG22.gif I'll give you a break this time and not post his discharge) That would explain his completely inept, incompetent and corrupt mismanagement of this war.
The war is lost and everything you see now to drag it on is cover for Bush's failure. Paste it in your hat
James