Today marks the 6-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. The accompanying slideshow recalls a few of the lowlights of the past six years. Missing are pictures of American soldiers being greeted as liberators or the unearthing of any Weapons of Mass Destruction.

I can still remember the very day we commenced our invasion on Baghdad. I was listening to KINK and there was a newsreport proclaiming battle operations had begun in Baghdad and immediately following the newsbreak, KINK launched into "It's a Beautiful Day" by U2. Well, it wasn't a beautiful day for many of us here in this country that knew our administration was leading us down the wrong path in it's response to 9/11. Later that day, I took my son to a birthday party at a local bowling alley and the host and his dad were staunchly in support of the invasion, and it was a little surreal watching the reports of what was going on in Baghdad, knowing innocent civilians in Iraq were likely being killed while our kids played and celebrated a birthday.

It was a disgusting and depressing day, actually, knowing that our government had completely abandoned the principles it has stood on for so long and turned itself into a nation that invades an innocent country largely for its own economic benefits, which, like the WMD's, haven't materialized.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/19/iraq-war-anniversary-viol_n_177115.html

Interesting... Many Americans seem to quickly forget history. I hope many reflect on this sad date and the negative consequences it hath wrought. Thanks for the reminder (I think).

At least Bush has ensured that we won't be able to afford another BS war for a while.

"It was a disgusting and depressing day, actually, knowing that our government had completely abandoned the principles it has stood on for so long and turned itself into a nation that invades an innocent country largely for its own economic benefits, which, like the WMD's, haven't materialized."

Funny, I'm far more troubled by 3000 innocent non-military Americans (and others) dying on 9/11. We just happen to care about different people.

Newsflash: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

And I'm just as troubled, if not more, with the 4000+ military deaths as I am the deaths from 9/11.

So, should we just abolish our military and hope nobody bothers us since we'll be the nicest guys on the planet, next to the Swiss, of course? Who will be left to rescue Europe when they are next over run.

Probably the difference between us is you're a reactive person, I'm a pro-active person. That's all.

just like 9/11 and the Iraq invasion, this thread is not commemorating the events of 9/11. It serves as a reminder the blunder that defined the Bush presidency, alienated us from the world, tore apart families in cities and towns here and abroad, and caused us to spend billions of dollars a month, money that would come in real handy in this country right about now.

A pro-active person would have determined that Iraq was not a threat. A reactive person starts a war based on crappy intelligence, and reactive people supported it (and still do).

So, I would say it's you that's reactive, not me.

"It serves as a reminder the blunder that defined the Bush presidency, alienated us from the world, tore apart families in cities and towns here and abroad, and caused us to spend billions of dollars a month, money that would come in real handy in this country right about now."

In other words, another bash Bush thread. It never ends.

People still bash LBJ for Vietnam (rightfully so) and Herbert Hoover for the Great Depression. Why not bash Bush for one of the worst blunders in American history? Historians are going to remember Bush as the worst of LBJ and Herbert Hoover in one president. What a legacy!

No, one of the worst blunders in American history was Vietnam, something we were led into by the Democrats.

Iraq just happens to be the current crop of liberals poster child.

Bringing up 9/11 in a thread dealing with the Iraq invasion...regurgitating the fear tactics just like the Bush/Cheney administration.

It never ends.

Yeah, Republicans can't justify the Iraq invasion without bringing up the completely unrelated 9/11. (you might as well invoke Pearl Harbor as the reason to have invaded Iraq.) I think dishonesty and hypocrisy are part of the Republican party platform now - or should be.

Deane may not be aware that the mainstream Republicans (e.g. Eisenhower) staunchly supported Vietnam in the 60s even more than the Democrats did - and once it was clear how much of a mistake Vietnam was, it was liberal Democrats who forced their own president not to run for re-election. By contrast, Republicans like Deane simply rallied behind their failed president in 2004 without questioning what he had done.

At least when we went into Vietnam, it was for a reason that was factual. It was Bush who failed to learn from this history lesson. He then sealed his own fate by lying about the initial reason.

Funny, I'm far more troubled by 3000 innocent non-military Americans (and others) dying on 9/11. We just happen to care about different people.

How about the THOUSANDS of women and CHILDREN that have been killed in Iraq since DUHbya and Co. INVADED? Thought much about them? Didn't think so..... neo-CONers are all the same....
WOW!

I'm not a Republican, but I actually supported invading Iraq because even on Sept. 11th itself I baselessly wondered if Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11th. In fact, if you asked me 6 years ago, I would've told you that it was about time, and we should've nuked Iraq on Sept. 12th.

That all changed when it was discovered that Iraq had nothing to do with anything, this was independently verified, and Bush lied to everyone about everything.

There's also evidence that nobody cares to discuss that Sept. 11th may have even been orchestrated by the Bush Administration/U.S. Government for whatever reason.

That's when I realized that I was wrong up until that point.

The only part that I "regret" is that our operations abroad were bungled by people acting from ideological motivations. I just can't wrap my mind around the concept of Iraq being "innocent," as a country run by a less-than-benevolent dictator, although I don't sympathize much with the idea that the US should be the world's policeman against such thugs and dictators as the former Saddam Hussein.

Perhaps the main reason that I now wish that the UN weapons inspections had been allowed to continue is that it would have prevented the US from getting stuck with the bill for the bungled operation "Iraqi Freedom." But, there is no use in crying over spilt milk.

Deane_johnson:
Funny, I'm far more troubled by 3000 innocent non-military Americans (and others) dying on 9/11. We just happen to care about different people.


How come you don't care about all people, you big christian?

I actually supported invading Iraq

You're not the only one. I too, as did many others here.

Of course, this is why we're particularly angry about this one -- we were lied to. Bush made suckers out of us all. Unforgiveable.

Me too!

I remember the day I became aware it was a lie. Prior to that day, I supported the effort. The entire world did!

That was squandered of course.

The day I saw, "WHITE HOUSE: THE REGIME IS THE WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION." I was standing in the kitchen, looking over at the TV, and just froze.

Not sure why that was the trigger, but it was. If there were no WMD's, a whole lot of what was used to support the effort and take advantage of the authorization, without completing it's terms, was bunk.

Meaning, the war was bunk, so what then?

Oil. Specifically, establishing control and dominance in that region for OIL.

God, I was pissed as hell. Still am. Still paying, people are still dying.

That is perhaps the strongest reason I have for serious alternative energy build outs. Don't care what form either. Put people to work big time and do it just like we did national infrastructure the first time. Hell, maybe we can pull a Brazil and use simple alcohol fuels, derived from sugar palm, hemp, soy, who knows?

Or, perhaps it's a diverse set, by region, with some overlap.

The dependance on oil is very serious. Serious enough to lie to all of us, kill too many people, and trash our global reputation. Other nations can and will pull similar games if things get dicey.

If we do that build out, we then export it and make a freaking ton.

So, where is it?

Oh yeah. That takes spending. So we sit and wait until it's more painful than political for it to get done...

Newflyer: I'm not a Republican, but I actually supported invading Iraq because even on Sept. 11th itself I baselessly wondered if Iraq was responsible for Sept. 11th. In fact, if you asked me 6 years ago, I would've told you that it was about time, and we should've nuked Iraq on Sept. 12th.

I too supported the Iraq invasion - with reservations. Actually, I thought it was a bad idea, but I didn't protest, because I foolishly assumed the Bush administration had real evidence of WMDs they weren't able to show to the American people (for reasons of security - don't want to reveal your intelligence methods). I feel stupid now thinking, "Gosh, the Bush people are smart enough that they MUST have something concrete on Saddam to know where the WMDs are, and once it's all over, we'll all know what they were talking about." I never dreamed it was all smoke and mirrors.

The Bush Admin purposefully encouraged to the utmost the connection between Iraq and 9/11, even though people like Richard Clarke were privately telling the Bush people that there was absolutely no operational connection between al Qaeda and Saddam. Clarke was telling Bush that immediately after 9/11, but Bush told him to look again for a connection. None was found.

There's also evidence that nobody cares to discuss that Sept. 11th may have even been orchestrated by the Bush Administration/U.S. Government for whatever reason.

I haven't seen a shred of "evidence" of any such connection (and yes, I've seen lots of supposed "evidence," none of which has any factual basis at all.) To me, the evidence is overwhelming that al Qaeda pulled off 9/11 entirely by themselves. They were able to do so due to great incompetence among certain members of our government plus petty turf fights among some in the government who cared more about their own departments and personal ambitions than about our national security.

I'm proud to say I was against the Iraq invasion from day one. I specifically remember a discussion that occured during an annual boys Sunriver trip the weekend before the invasion started. There were 10 dudes, drunk as hell, arguing about the Iraq war, almost to the point of fisticuffs. Out of the 10, there were 3 hard core conservatives, a few in the middle, and the rest were completely against it.

My argument that night made the following points:

1. There are no WMD's.
2. Iraq is not threat worthy of war.
3. It would cost too much.
4. Continued containment was more effective and was working.

I could see that Bush was using 9/11 as a way to push the war in Iraq, which I already knew would be something he'd want to do to make up for what his Daddy didn't finish. Simply put, I knew he was going to try to out-do his old man.

"I could see that Bush was using 9/11 as a way to push the war in Iraq, which I already knew would be something he'd want to do to make up for what his Daddy didn't finish."

His daddy was smart enough to realize that the job was done in the first place when Saddam was completely out of Kuwait, and the Kuwaiti government was back in power.

George H.W. Bush also said during his presidency, and afterward (before his son invaded) that it would be an egregious mistake, and possibly turn into another Vietnam.

Papa Bush had the foresight to stay the hell out. Too bad his son didn't.

The UN Resolution that provided the legal justification for war against Iraq in the Persian Gulf War didn't call for the removal of Saddam Hussein. And the coalition partners of the Persian Gulf War, specifically the Arab country participants, would have balked at such a effort. It was a finely crafted effort on the part the first Bush Administration, most notably US Sec. of State James Baker. When you think about the complexity of balancing such a diverse coalition, it was a pretty remarkable effort.

4,260 of our brave soldiers are dead. 4,121 lost their lives after "Mission Accomplished" was announced. 3,798 have perished since the capture of Saddam Hussein.

Estimates put the death toll at 1,320,110 Iraqis. Imagine the entire population of Ottawa, Montevideo, or Oklahoma City being wiped out systematically over six years at a rate of 722 people per day.

Every single number represents a human being. Lives wasted for ideology and a premeditated crusade in the brutal pursuit of empire.

Damn...

The survivors of those 1.3 million dead Iraqis all have a very serious incentive to just not like us very much. Can't blame them.

Flip it around! Could you forgive and forget something like that?

I know I would struggle huge with it. Probably fail. There would absolutely be some acting out. And that has very grave implications for our national security, which is what the whole exercise was sold to us as being about. My head hurts, just thinking about the state of mind required to even contemplate that kind of manipulation.

Not sure how some people can sleep at night. Man, if that were on my watch, or was my call, I know I would be torn inside until the end of my days, which probably wouldn't be all that many.

Seriously.

It's ugly. Really, really ugly. The kind of ugly that holds us to a higher expectation for a good long time. Who can blame others for that?

I sure as hell would not turn my back easily, new leadership or not.

Man, if that were on my watch, or was my call, I know I would be torn inside until the end of my days, which probably wouldn't be all that many.

Case in point: LBJ. Dead at 64.

War has done in more than one President.

Vietnam took the soul out of LBJ, and he led a rather destructive lifestyle after his Presidency ...

Roosevelt gave his life to the war effort, I'm not sure he would have run in 1944 if we weren't entrenched in World War II. Granted he had health issues throughout his Presidency, namely polio, but he really pushed himself until the very end.

Woodrow Wilson died lonely and very depressed and upset with the United States Congress for its inability to become a member of the League of Nations, Wilson's brainchild. The war helped push his health into a bad state, and the heartbreak finished him off.

We don't need to go into Abraham Lincoln. A deranged pro-confederate guy took him out. Another casualty of war.