Democrats & Liberals: Archives

We will leave Iraq only after we have established a new culture of life there. That is, if anyone is still alive by the time we do decide to pull out. I love compassionate conservatism.

See this is where we enter a moral quicksand. Yes, more than anything, I want all of our troops that are hunkered down in Iraq to come home, but we pretty much decimated their country during the “war” part of this invasion. After WWII, we didn’t pack up and leave as soon as we dropped the 2 nukes on Japan…we stayed around, helped them rebuild, and made sure that when all was said and done, they were totally our bitch…Unlike the Japanese, the Iraqi spririt seems to be triumphing in the face of adversity. Their insurgency grows more powerful every day.

Good plan…it seems to be working…by the time they pull out every government official and policeman we put into position will have been replaced three times over, their predecessor having been blown up, shot, or converted to the other side.

This is all about oil…the more chaos we cause, the higher oil prices can be, and the more money bush makes with his interests in the oil industry

Excellent article, Paul!

Yesterday at the unofficial Democratic hearing they held Ray McGovern was asked the question of why we went there, and why the Neocons want to remain there, and he said (I’m paraphrasing here) he thought of it as: OIL — as in Oil, Israel, and Logistics. Sounds rather similar to what you just wrote.

Anyone who didn’t catch the hearing yesterday, I encourage you to do so. They’re going to play it again on C-Span at 8PM eastern time. They crammed the Dems into the tiniest of basement rooms in the Capitol — a fact on which Conyer’s later commented “”They tried to shut us out, they tried to cut us off. They put us in a tiny room. The significance shouldn’t be lost on anybody.”
It certainly wasn’t on me.
Nor was the fact that they were denied an official hearing or that Republicans had purposely scheduled 11 votes to interrupt what they were trying to do — get at the truth and discuss the significance of the two Downing Street Memos.
Washington Rep. Jim McDermott mentioned the 11 votes the forced to a vote in an interview right after the hearing, he said: “Absolutely, it was absolutely timed. There was no need to do it then. And they were having a major appropriations hearing at the same time. That was also to keep people away, because appropriations are your chance to get money for your district that you’ve been working all year on.”

But at last, at last! we’re going to force the spotlight to shine on Bush’s lying to Congress and the American people to get his war, and finally the media isn’t going to be able to ignore it.
Its about bloody time.
Bring our troops home, now!

Why aren’t we out protesting in the streets? Why isn’t the news media out covering the outrage?
Oh, yeah, I forgot. Murdoch and his neocons have a stranglehold on the tv, radio, and papers.
Must be that leftover stuff I’m smokin from the 60s, its making me forget I don’t live in a democracy anymore…

I am a conservative who happens to believe that we should end our participation in the war quickly and bring all of our guys home. That said, my position up to this point has been to wage a very agressive war with bombing (non nuclear) even to the detriment of “innocent” Iraqis.

In any case I now have the distinct opinion that a “save face” exit plan will be virtually impossible. Also, I believe that when we leave, a corrupt government (I know I fully expect you to say “just like ours”)will be left behind. As well, other than some improvement resulting from Sadaam being ousted, they will not be any better off than they were before the war.

There is no point in rehashing all the “if Bush didn’t lie” stuff and, point out every other administration shortcoming known to man. The issue is, we are there, it’s costing more money and lives than it’s worth, how and when do we get out.

Just to let you know I haven’t softened to total mush, my “big hole” concept can easilly be brought back to the table.

We cannot leave Iraq. The political and strategic consequences are terrifying. We leave and Iraq turns into Terrorist Central. Israel launches nukes. Saudi Family falls. So on. So on.

This is why I advocate sending only Republicans and their children into Iraq. Let us never forget that this is a Republican War and Republicans should enjoy it firsthand. Unfortunately, all my attempts at getting Conservatives to volunteer have failed. All Rightwing Colleges and Religious Schools have rebuffed my attempts.

I need help!!! Kindly post the Names and Emails of all Republicans and I will send them to my Recruiter Friends. Let us do our part to keep America strong!!!

By the way, it would help if you include any pro-war groups they belong to. Even if they don’t join, the Army will keep their names in their Database. Being part of a pro-war group keeps you from declaring Objector Status in the event of a Draft.

I have to assume that once it’s stable enough in Iraq for the military to leave, the American businesses will move in. So, truthfully, we will probably never leave Iraq.

Sorry, you guys were probably all think about our troops and here I am thinking about corporate America 8|

I am with Adrienne in that I want our troops home NOW! I never wanted then to go in the first place. The problem with just pulling out and coming home now is that the US made promises to the Iraqi people as well as to ourselves and to the world to see this through. Afterall, When we “created” Osama Bin Laden to help us fight the Russians who had invaded Afghanistan, we made a lot of promises there. We backed out on our word when Russia was forced to leave. What did we do? We pulled out and just left Afghanistan to the Taliban. If we just pull out now and leave the Iraqi people on their own….well…one can only pray for their souls. We have destroyed everything, their homes, churches, food sources etc. What do we reasonably expect to happen? What will we have created this time? Perhaps something / someone that will make Osama Bin Laden look like Mickey Mouse?

I personally think the American people who were in full support of invading Iraq thought “Johnny” was gonna go a-marchin’in there we’d see a month or so of Red, White and Blue fireworks, then we could all cheer for Johnny and our Star Spangled President for saving us and the whole world from terrorism! Well, guess what? Reality says, it doesn’t work like that…Welcome to War!

God bless America…and may God forgive us! (thanks for letting me rant)
sassyliberal

Why not have Massaui, Bin Laden and Saddam fight Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld in a tag team cage match for the rights to rule Iraq? We could put it on pay-per view and make a fortune.OOPS now i’m being influenced, not only by corporate America, but Don King.

“McGovern went further:”

Sorry. We conservatives have a hard time trusting anyone named McGovern. (lol)

Sassy:
“The problem with just pulling out and coming home now is that the US made promises to the Iraqi people as well as to ourselves and to the world to see this through.”

Actually, I’m not suggesting we break every promise we made to the Iraqi’s. I’m suggesting we pull our troops out not only for the sake of saving our soldiers lives, but to protect the people from further destruction of their country, and because they don’t want us there. We have to do this, because we are actually creating the insurgency and it is obvious that it is now growing all out of control.
We also have a duty to help them rebuild their infrastructure with our financial assistance — but it should be up to them exactly how that should happen.
If civil war comes as a result of our departure, only UN troops should be sent to protect the people who need it, because Americans have definitely worn out any welcome that came after we captured Saddam.

Btw, Aldous and Andre, thanks for the laughs!

Great to see Aldous in total support of his country.

Aldous, your advocacy of sending all Republicans is certainly an excellent one. Your leadership on the battlefield will be welcomed. I am sure it will shorten the war significantly.

I seriously doubt that you have very many draft age posters here and I’ve already done my part so you will have to broaden your search.

Sassyliberal:

“I am with Adrienne in that I want our troops home NOW! I never wanted then to go in the first place. The problem with just pulling out and coming home now is that the US made promises to the Iraqi people as well as to ourselves and to the world to see this through. “

You may be surprised how many veterans and conservatives feel the same way. I think the war was at best ill-timed, poorly researched, and as AP said in another thread we were unprepared and poorly trained for this type of war. (YIKES! I keep quoting and agreeing with AP. Maybe I better rethink this. lol) However, I strongly agree that, now that we have made the promises, we must carry through. I can’t imagine the result if we pulled out now—either for the Iraqi people or our already depleated global reputation. I still have a hard time swallowing the adamant “lies” thing. Maybe it is the last vestiges of my former Republican life keeping me from caving. Certainly incompetence would fit our current administration regarding Iraq.

Posted by: Chi Chi

Certainly incompetence would fit our current administration regarding Iraq.

So, they’re not liars, just incompetent? Maybe they’re just imcompetent liars, ROFL

Seriously, I kind of agree that in spite of the promises (remember “don’t make promises you can’t keep”?) the insurgency is increasing because we are there. The US may really need to rethink this whole mess.

Aldous, the rank and file military is generally considered to be pro-Bush, hence the tendency for Democrats to try and disqualify military absentee ballots during Presidential elections. I think it’s reasonable to say that the majority of the soldiers in Iraq are Republicans.

Mike:

“I think it’s reasonable to say that the majority of the soldiers in Iraq are Republicans.”

Or at least vote that way. I have asked Aldous in the past to show me where he gets the “no republicans/conservatives are signing up to defend our country” allegation. No response yet.

Mike:

Actually, the bulk of the Officers are regarded as Republicans. The Enlisted Men are the ones who are Democrats. So in a way, its Democrats getting killed in Iraq.

Chi Chi:

There are 61,000,000 people who voted for Bush last November. There is now a 50% shortage of needed Recruits for the Army, Marines and Reserves. Yet all that 50% represent is less than 15,000 volunteers. Obviously, nearly all the 61,000,000 Freedom Spreaders aren’t showing up. If even .5% of the Bush Voters volunteered, the Draft would not be needed.

Myopia reigns supreme…keep looking…

I am a conservative who happens to believe that we should end our participation in the war quickly and bring all of our guys home.

Oh cripes, and I’m a liberal who very relunctantly thinks we ought to stay for a while yet. Here’s what NYT columnist Thomas Friedman wrote the other day:

Our core problem in Iraq remains Donald Rumsfeld’s disastrous decision - endorsed by President Bush - to invade Iraq on the cheap. From the day the looting started, it has been obvious that we did not have enough troops there. We have never fully controlled the terrain. Almost every problem we face in Iraq today … flows from not having gone into Iraq with the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force.

I’m afraid I agree with that analysis. I objected to going to war in Iraq, never having bought the idea the nation was a threat to us. (Did anybody, really?) But we’re there. We busted the place up good. It’s our fault, damnit.

Sure, Bush more or less lied (though he’s likely a master of self delusion) to get us into the war, and, yes, his administration screwed up the occupation very badly indeed. But, if it’s at all possible, we need to prevent Iraq from descending into an all-out civil war (and, yes, I know it already reeks of it).

What we really need is a Commander in Chief who can admit he’s wrong and then work to correct the situation. I don’t know how. Maybe it’s more troops. Maybe its swallowing pride and getting the help of NATO. Whatever. We need to remember that WE did this, even if we didn’t vote for Bush. We can’t just let Iraq descend into utter chaos, from either a moral or geopolitical standpoint. As much as I detest it, this is now our responsibility.

I am a conservative and I’m a soldier (12 years active duty in the Navy, 8 years reserves in the Air National Guard, served in both “episodes” of the Gulf War and Afghanistan) and even though I’m a registered Republican from many years ago, I refuse to vote party lines. I am capable of independent thought, unlike many who will vote their party first and their convictions second.

Be that as it may, I do NOT support this war and I do NOT really feel that I want to support the current administration. I am finding myself falling further and further away from the demographic that defines the “typical” Republican. I also find myself continually at odds with the command staff at my unit in the National Guard where it concerns how I should “feel” and discuss our “commander in chief.” I salute ALL troops who go wherever they’re sent but I doubt they go for the same reasons that our nation’s leaders sent them. I think that is the case with the flailex in Iraq. Are they really fighting to “preserve our freedom?” I’m not so sure. I believe that the real thing they are fighting for is just to live another day. They have that central region of Baghdad that is supposed to be safe and yet look at all the bombings that have occurred there. Also, look at how our guys can’t even secure a short stretch of highway leading to the airport. We don’t seem to be making any progress in making the country any better. They are still not up to pre-war levels with electricity and other “hotel” services. Is it any wonder that the Iraqi people are getting more hostile toward our troops?

Now, what happens if we pull out? Do we leave a vacuum that we’ve created? I think so. Nature abhors a vacuum and surely someone will come in and fill that void. I’m afraid it would become a breeding ground for terrorism and I think there would be an internal bloodbath as well. Is it possible for us to save face now? I don’t think so. I think that regardless of what has already happened and regardless of our own opinions on this, we can’t pull out. I’m afraid it would be even more dangerous now if we pulled out. I HATE seeing our guys and gals getting shot up over there and yet now that the President and his cronies have created this quagmire, we must stay and course and at least TRY to get the country moving in the right direction. If you believe in prayer, I think your best bet is to do just that since you can bet your bottom dollar that our troops will NOT be coming home any time soon.

Best wishes to all.

Typical Liberals. It’s always hindsight with you guys. Instead of proposing ways to do something better, all you do is bitch and moan about Bush lied, and republicans are warmongers. The Liberal motto should be “We hate Bush and everything he does. We also have no solution for anything, we just whine cause we lost the election.”

I seriously doubt that you have very many draft age posters here

Also, many of the Republicans in the army volunteered before the war; since the war’s comencement recruting rates have dropped, leaving a largely pro-Bush military that cannot wait to leave Iraq.

Bush lied and that is that; it will not solve any of the problems of today if we bicker about it. Personally, I think Bush is guilty of neglect in consideration of all the lives lost in Iraq.

As to whether or not we should stay in Iraq, that should be the Iraqi’s decision, there should be a referendum asking them if they would rather us stay or leave; after all it is their country and they should control what goes on in it. If they want more U.S. troops to protect their country and there are not enough volunteers possible, a draft should be implemented; I have no problem with being forced to serve in order to help out other people htat wish to be helped. In the case that the situation does not improve after, lets say two or three years after the draft is started, it should be concluded that there is no way to help these people safely and that they must not really want us in their country, or else they would not be joining the insugency so much. In this case we must leave in order to prevent any further loss of life.

cwg:

So you’re not bothered that 1,800 GI’s are dead? You’re not bothered that the Debt is beyond imagination? That the entire planet thinks the USA tortures people?

I am also bothered that you do not even acknowledge that Bush lied and his group ARE warmongers. You’re response is “ignore it and move forward”. How can we move forward when the guy driving is a complete moron?

As for giving solutions, give us both Houses and the White House and we would be glad to.

Adrienne:
(sorry, I posted right before leaving work and just got back on)

I tend to agree with you. I am just concerned with how we go about it and how things are left with Iraq. I don’t think there IS a good solution, maybe only the least objectionable. I also strongly am on the same page with you that too many lives have been lost already.

Chi Chi:

You may be surprised how many veterans and conservatives feel the same way.

Good comments! It actually doesn’t surprise me at all. As I have said before, I am neither republican nor democrat, and I believe that the vast majority of us are sincere and want nothing but what is best for our nation. I just think that because this election divided us sooo much that supporters of this administration have struggled to prove (to us liberalites AND to themselves) that they did the right thing and that they placed their trust and their support for a president who had their same values when (I certainly believe it more and more as time goes on) actually he was a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Please, believe me when I say I never wanted to be right about what I felt about this administration. (NOT republicans in general)

cwg:

Typical Liberals. It’s always hindsight with you guys.

Actually, Had you been listening, we liberals have been saying the SAME THING since jr. decided to run. And if we ,as you call it “whine” it’s NOT because we lost the election, (Hey, many times my candidate has lost an election) but because we ARE losing our country. You say liberals never offer any solutions. Well, I AM LISTENING! It is as obvious as the nose on your face how badly things are going, what’s your suggestion? Keep supporting an incompetent leader? Keep giving your support to someone who doesn’t care a lick about you, me or any of the rest of us “regular people?” I don’t have the answers, but like I said, I AM LISTENING.

To cwg;
Your reference to hindsight is invalid. I, for one, was against the invasion of Iraq BEFORE we went, and wrote to my senator asking him to vote against it. I know that many democrats were against the invasion of Iraq before we went. I (we?) was not against the invasion of Afghanistan, however, since there was direct evidence of their involvement and their relationship with Bin Laden.
Many smart people predicted exactly what is going on in Iraq now and warned about it beforehand. Sure, there were many democrats in washington who supported Bush’s plan to invade Iraq, based on the info received from the administration (which is the point of discussion now).
So it’s not about complaining and whining. It’s about why we were lied to and what is to be done about it now, after we’re already entangled in this mess.
Bush is the commander-in-chief, and has been asked for a withdrawal plan. That is what the democrats see as the answer now. Not so much as dates, but objectives. That is not too much to ask. Give us something to work with, and we can support it. We can even offer solutions as to a means of reaching the objectives. But when the administration doesn’t even want to reveal their true objectives, all we can do is keep asking.

sassyliberal-

cwg won’t reply to you. Like the typical con, he will repeat the claim that “all liberals hate Bush”.

I will , however, repeat MY mantra…I don’t hate Bush…I hate his (and his Insane Clown Posse’s) failed policies, both foreign and domestic.

I dislike his hubris, his smirk and his refusal to admit that they blew the operation when they went into Iraq after losing OBL at Tora Bora.

They lost the bride so they went after the bridesmaid because she offered no resistance. Typical Republican ploy…let’s puff up American patriotism and pride by blowing away a third tier pissant, declare victory in the war on terrorism, and make everyone feel good about themselves.

It’s been reported that the recorded deaths are only those occuring ON THE BATTLEFIELD. Those that die anytime from the moment they are airlifted to the time they’re taken to the morgue are NOT listed in the “official” statistics. The last estimate I heard was 9-10,000 U.S. dead.

I sincerely believe that the sole reason they’ve been concentrating on sending reserves and National Guardsmen—besides saving money on the benefits the U.S. doesn’t have to pay because they can stick it to the current reserve employer, plus they don’t get health care when they return, injured or not—is that they’re saving the best-trained troops and best equipment for Iran…or Korea…or wherever else they are planning to invade. Iraq was deemed to be a potential cakewalk they could afford to screw up on a little—including counting the troops as “disposable”, the “unfortunate casualties of war”. Despicable…yes, but why else would they be fighting this war the way they have been?? And I don’t want to hear from you American Patriots how treasonous I am to even THINK our beloved country would do such a thing…sheesh…WAKE UP AMERICA!!

This may be a little off-topic, but it says alot:

? 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Did President Bush mislead the nation to war?

In a live, unscientific Internet poll, MSNBC readers are overwhelmingly saying yes.

With more than 6,000 votes recorded, the survey shows a lopsided 94 percent believe Bush misled the American people, with only 6 percent saying no.

AMEN!

Carri,

Those that die anytime from the moment they are airlifted to the time they’re taken to the morgue are NOT listed in the “official” statistics. The last estimate I heard was 9-10,000 U.S. dead.

Really? Where’d you get this from?

Yes, we hear everyone hates George Bush. I have been reading that for more than a year and a half. Yet he won the last election and more Republicans won than before.

It reminds me of something someone told me about success. He said that life is like a tennis game with one of those loudmouthed opponents. He keeps on yelling and throwing his racket in the air, but all that matters is whether or not the ball goes over the net.

So Saddam didn’t have WMD on the day we attacked. We know he had them before, because he used them and he was plenty dangerous in other ways - and everyone else thought so too. If everyone knew he didn’t have WMD before the invasion, why did the UN keep sanctions on him for 12 years? If it was so obvious, why didn’t Saddam just prove to the world he was not dangerous back in 1998, the year when President Clinton declared that regime change in Iraq was U.S. policy?

Intelligence information is always wrong to some extent. It is gathered under difficult circumstances and a lot of smart people are trying to create deceptions. It is easy to make mistakes in predictions and easy to claim that you were right in the past. Almost all the people on the liberal side of this blog greatly overestimated the insurgency with respect to the elections in Iraq. Conservatives (like me) underestimated the insurgency’s persistence after the elections. Neither of us is stupid. We are making estimates based on what we know and what we believe.

BTW – in my opinion, the INSURGENCY is essentially defeated. What is happening now is mostly murder of civilians. It is very bloody and nasty and it has the potential to drive the U.S. out, but if it achieves this goal it will be by spoiling and befouling the whole country. It is not an insurgency as we commonly use the term. There are not many examples of successful insurgencies that fight foreign occupation by murdering large numbers of their own people.

Decent people can disagree about things like war and peace. The stakes are very high, so emotions run high too. Opponents of the Bush administration like to think that supporters are somehow in favor of war. This is not true. I thought long about the Iraq war before I came to the conclusion that it was necessary. I have explained my reasons for this on many occasions. None of them were specifically economic except in the sense of the whole world economy being dependent on oil. I could not think of any way that the U.S. could profit from the war, or could have profited even with the best case outcomes. It was an unpleasnt task that fell to us.

I am glad Saddam is gone. Like most of you, I also wish that the U.S. did not have to pay the price for that. But we did. I would like to get our guys out as fast as possible. But we can’t do it tomorrow. I would advocate faster training of Iraqi officers and police forces. So does everyone else, but it is easier said than done. Our NATO allies are helping with this, but it takes time.

Jack,

Was Sadaam any more dangerous to the world than Kim Jung Il? Iran? Both of whome likely have worse types of WMD than Iraq ever had? Did he mistreat his people worse than many of the nations of Africa do theirs? Or Kim Jung Il does his?

Was Iraq directly responsible for 9/11? Sure, the leadership met with known terrorist but so has the leadership of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, UAE, Pakistan (now an ally) and Uzbekistan (now also a “so-called” ally) and the Sudan. Why didn’t we go after any of those? In fact, it is susptected that Syria is where most of the suicide bombers are arriving from.

Rational for this war? OIL and a “friendly” country in the Middle East. Easily stated…not so easily accomplished.

I distinctly remember Pres. Bush saying that the previous administration had wasted to much time, energy and money trying to “Nation Build”. Well, he has trumped the previous administration in spades….More time, more energy, more money, and you can tack on valuable lives.

I just don’t see it.

When do we leave Iraq? When the war on terrorism is over.

Look at South Korea, Japan, and Europe. I think we are fundamentally redeploying our forces for the new “world war” on terror.

THEE long rang plan is to fight terror as an away game. Iraq has been chose as the forward base because at the time it presented the most “sellable” case to invade.

This has been a three president war. President Clinton signed into law the following statement:

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm

This was in 1998!!! It would have been Bush’s duty to follow this policy and to be planning to over throw Sadaam starting with his first day in office.

Read the following that was included in what was passed by congress in 1998:

10) On August 5, 1998, Iraq ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM, and subsequently threatened to end long-term monitoring activities by the International Atomic Energy Agency and UNSCOM.

and then,,,,

11) On August 14, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-235, which declared that `the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’ and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.’.

Obviously Congress and PRESIDENT CLINTON were concerned about Iraq’s use of WMD three years before Bush took office.

So before Bush took office there was concern over WMD in Iraq. That is the fuel for the fire. We all know what the match was, 9/11!!!

9/11 produced a reevaluation of Clinton’s policy. In light of the twin towers, Bush and Company believed Clinton’s policy was no longer strong enough, the proof being that Sadaam was still in power and doing fine. Clinton’s policy of removing Sadaam via means passed by Congress had proven ineffective after three years.

We now know that Sadaam was actually getting stronger during these three years of Clinton’s policy because of the food for oil scandal. In fact, Clinton was being undermined by members of the UN that were on the take. Had these members stood with Clinton, and not been in bed with Sadaam, his policy may have worked and the war may not have been necessary.

Clinton could not hold the world together on Iraq either!!! The stated policy passed by congress and signed by our president in 1998, was to overthrow Sadaam, and members of the world community prevented it.

So along comes 9/11. The spark. I don’t see how Bush had much choice in the matter. There was no way to completely know the truth, and who in the world would you as President trust??? The French? now they are in bed with Sadaam. The Russians? The Germans? The Security counsel? The answer is NO ONE!!!

So what you have to do, is look at the body of evidence. The body of evidence from the world intelligence community is that Iraq must have WMD, or they would not have kicked the inspectors out of Iraq. And then you have a great fear that Sadaam will contect with OBL, and one of our cities will be hit again only with Atomic weapons.

So what would of happened if 9/11 would never have been? I assume the laws passed in 1998 would still be in effect. We would have been working to overthrough Sadaam. If we had the good fortune to discover the oil for food fiasco, we may have been able to stop the payments and force Sadaam out of power without this invasion.

What would of happened in Gore had won, and 9/11 would not have happened? My assumption is that Gore would of followed Clinton’s policy, and by now since we are seven years down the line he would of modified it somehow.

What would Gore have done if elected and with 9/11 and knowing about the food for oil scandal? I don’t have a clue. With a corrupt UN, and the world community and two former administrations in agreement that there were WMD Iraq, I don’t know how you make sure without US boots on the ground.

The issues that the left just will not seem to deal with are:

1. Clinton’s policy on Iraq was to overthrow Sadaam, which was passed overwelmingly by Congress. (Overwelmingly by both parties).
2. The corruption of the UN via food for oil, and how that creates mistrust by the US leadership.
3. The fact that the world intelligence community was in agreement that there were WMD in Iraq.
4. The impact of 9/11 on this three president Iraq policy.

Craig

Sort answer to this thread.

We will leave Iraq when we fulfill the policy passed by President Clinton. The only difference between the two presidents is that Bush sought and got authority to use the armed forces. The policies were the same, the methods were different. Both Clinton and Bush’s policies were based on the fear of WMD. Both sought Democracy. Both were trying to protect American lives. Both policies passed overwelmingly by Congress. Both were wrong about WMD.

Craig

Craig said: “When do we leave Iraq? When the war on terrorism is over.”

And when the war in Viet Nam was escalating and tearing America apart at home, they said, “When do we leave Viet Nam? When the war against Communism is over”.

They were wrong then, and you are wrong now. We will leave Iraq when the American people demand that we do so. And they have begun to rally their discontent for this war already just America did back in 1966. Do we really need to wait for America be torn apart at home again before the powers that be finally listen to the people?

It is the people who bear the losses of war, not the Politicians. And when the people say enough is enough, the politician’s days are numbered if they fail to pay heed.

cwg, Jack, Craig,
Just save the Bush apologist crapola for the red column, why don’t you?
The Downing Street Memos are the SMOKING GUN that prove that Bush lied us into a completely unnecessary war that has cost the lives of 1800 American soldiers (that we know about anyway) and has maimed and disabled many thousands more. Period. It has also cost the lives of countless Iraqi’s and utterly destroyed their country (not that I’m expecting empathetic human emotion from you all on that score).
It is reprehensible to act as though what this president has done isn’t important, that it isn’t monstrous, that we haven’t been witnessing the insane and illogical acts of the worst presidency this country has ever known.
You can blather on about how what happened in the past doesn’t matter now, but that shit just doesn’t flush with the majority of the American people, whether they are on the Left, Right or Center of the political spectrum.
“The intelligence and the facts being fixed around the policy” is UN-AMERICAN. Just as torturing prisoners is UN-AMERICAN. Just as giving tax breaks to the rich yet stinting on armor when we are fighting not one, but two wars, and bankrupting the country in the process, is UN-AMERICAN.
I wish you’d just be honest for once and admit that at least some of what we’ve been saying is actually true — and that it no longer has anything to do with what political party anyone faithfully votes for.
If the Clinton administration had committed such heinous crimes I’d have loathed them every bit as much as I now despise Bush and Co. We’re supposed to be Americans first and political animals second, aren’t we? I know I certainly am.
Frankly, when it becomes glaringly apparent that our soldiers have been dying and being maimed for any reason other than the actual defense of our country, it is extremely important to me. And when you all seem to consider it more important to keep defending an obviously incompetent politican sitting in the White House just because you voted for them, I feel I must question your patriotism.
Lying to Congress and the American people about the reasons for going to war is the HIGHEST of HIGH CRIMES - the most impeachable of offenses.
And now we’ve got two documents that both Bush and Blair have not questioned the validity of, even though they tried hard to downplay their significance, when the truth is, they prove illegal actions that put them on a par with the Nixon tapes.
Don’t think that this is going to go away anytime soon — according to the Democrats at that unofficial hearing there are going to be more hearings and they’ll be subpoenaing more people.

The American people must now demand more information from this entire administration. We must do it on behalf of the families of our fallen and maimed soldiers — they more than anyone deserve to know the truth.

When do we leave Iraq, You ask?

You are kidding, right? I mean look at History (Recent, say last 65 years)….WWII, Where were we in Europe? England, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Italy and more. Guess what, we are still in those places and more. Yes, we do not have any say in their internal affairs, but point being it’s 2005, time to wean ourselves off of European Cuisine, and scenery. Let’s bring our service members back to this country. I know this seems a bit harsh coming from a retired soldier that served 11.5 years of a 20 year hitch (10 Germany + 1.5 Korea) overseas. Where were we in the Pacific? Australia, Korea, Japan, Philippines. Time to say “Cheers” To the Aussies, Nature took care of the Philippines and I don’t think our 35K troops in Korea will make a difference, do you? Considering that the North has a 1 million man standing army just over the border. This doesn’t even address the fact that the South Koreans (ROK), Have one of the finest Armed Forces in the world, staring at the North with as much hatred ever mustered on the field of Battle. Just waiting for a shot at the Commies. Japan offers us a few strategic naval bases, that I can’t and won’t argue. I just wonder why they can’t be relocated to Guam, American Samoa, Wake Island or 1 of the atolls that are our Protectorates, Possessions or Territories.
Point being, we are entrenched in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Oh, and Afghanistan as well if you didn’t realize it.

BTW…..
Did anyone look at a Calendar recently, we are still in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Kosovo, and Hungary…..5 years after Clinton promised us they’d be gone.
Yes, I get on every guilty member no matter party affiliation. I guess that makes me “an equal opportunity basher, I mean blogger”.

As Always,
Wayne

Typical Liberals. It’s always hindsight with you guys. Instead of proposing ways to do something better, all you do is bitch and moan about Bush lied, and republicans are warmongers. The Liberal motto should be “We hate Bush and everything he does. We also have no solution for anything, we just whine cause we lost the election.”

Strangely, I discovered I had written something very similar in 1997:

Typical Conservatives. It’s always hindsight with you guys. Instead of proposing ways to do something better, all you do is bitch and moan about Clinton lied, and democrats are traitors. The Conservative motto should be “We hate Clinton and everything he does. We also have no solution for anything, we just whine cause we lost the election.”

It’s amazingly similar, isn’t it?

LawnBoy:

At least Clinton lied trying to get laid. Who among us would give our all to get some action?

Bush managed to kill 10,000 GIs so he could wear that flight jacket.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. Stop with the bogus figures about both Iraq and American deaths.

This is an example of the big lie. Repeated it and then up it.

It is very frustrating for thoughtful people to take part in such debates. You know as well as I do that the very highest estimate of Iraqi deaths is by the Lancet. That number is way higher than any other even vaguely legitimate estimates. The high estimates cited of GI deaths comes from nowhere at all. Maybe those guys were killed fighting the space aliens in the encounter Bush is hiding from you.

Some people hate America. I always find it interesting the excuses they use. “Oh, I don’t hate America. I only hate its form of government, current and past policies, choices the people make and most of its history. My perpetual criticizing and finding faultg with all these things shows how much I love it.” Treat your spouse or children like that. See if they call it love. (If poor attitudes like that even permit you to have long-term relationships).

Back during Kosovo, I defended President Clinton’s policies. I didn’t agree with every one of them and I would say how things could have been done better. But I never spouted the vitriol I hear now and I rightfully criticized Clinton opponents who did. Some of the current attacks on Bush policies have fallen off the lunatic fridge. When this moment of partisan rancor passes, many people will be ashamed of what they said.

I always hear that Bush should appolgize for this or that. What good would it do him. My own experience in trying to hold out olive branches is that they just get knocked down. The other anti-Bush guys just raise the ante.

Iraq was not the smoking gun of 9/11. The extremist Islamist were what caused innocent deaths. What is their problem with America. There are several but if you study their ideology you will understand that one of the main reasons they hate us so is our unwavering support of Isreal.

As I have stated previously; this administration used 9/11 to wage war against a country where oil is plentiful and where we could use a base for Middle Eastern operations and intelligence. I agree with Wayne….let’s get our boys home. Not just from Iraq, but from many of the other countries where they serve extended tours.

It serves no purpose to say typical liberal or conservative. No one is pure anything.

Craig:
Clinton’s goal of regime change didn’t involve invading Iraq.

There wasn’t enough $ in oil for food to make Sadaam stronger, only to help him live a great lifestyle.

The Bush govt has never trusted nor never will trust the UN.

There have always been reputable people in the intelligence community who disputed the WMD claim, except for the WMDs that HW Bush and Reagan sold to them. BTW, The Bush govt kicked the inspectors out, not Sadaam.

9/11 justified our invasion of Afghanistan only.
Most of us have no problem with US presence in Europe, since when was the last time you heard of 35 soldiers bombed in Germany lately?

Speaking of all the American lives lost in Iraq, the number is more like 7000. The DOD is pulling the same bullshit they did in Vietnam. If a soldier gets shot in Iraq and dies there, he is counted. If he gets shot and dies in someplace else, a hospital in Bahrain or on a ship or wherever that is NOT actually in Iraq, he is not counted!!! The DOD put the number of US Casualties in Nam at about 55,000…actually they didn’t count the guys who died in hospitals in Japan and elsewhere due to wounds received in Nam. The number was actually about 3 times what was stated!
More governmental deception!

Another disinformation alert

Just to repeat for the 100th time - the U.S. was NOT a significant supplier of arms to Iraq. U.S. arms sales were behind even those of places like Czechoslovakia and Brazil. The Soviet Union was the leading supplier, followed by France. That is why Saddams weapons were not Americans made.

And there obviously was enough money in Iraq to make Saddam dangerous. There was enough to allow him to invade two of his neighbors and carry on decades of war. It was enough for him to have WMD in the 1990s (no dispute about that) and it was enough for him to maintain one of the most powerful armies in the Middle East in the 1980s (with SOviet and French arms - remember that)

So Jack believes in invasion based on intelligence that is decades old. Yep, a Bush supporter for sure!

Jack,

Sadaam invaded those 2 countries before the sanctions were imposed, and before the oil for food program, so your argument is invalid because you haven’t observed the timeline.

And the US definitely provided arms support for Iraq during its war with Iran, less with conventional weapons than with WMDs. USDOD officials had much more contact with Sadaam than Al Qaeda did.

If it was so obvious, why didn’t Saddam just prove to the world he was not dangerous back in 1998

The Downing Street Memos are the SMOKING GUN that prove that Bush lied us into a completely unnecessary war

I think the U.S. should officially investigate whether or not the president misled the nation into a war, but I very much doubt the question will ever be resolved beyond a doubt. There was, in fact, enough evidence, even if flimsy, for Mr. Bush to justify an invasion. To me, this was obviously a war of choice that had much more to do with the following factors than with WMDs:

1) Iraq had UN sanctions against it already, giving the U.S. some political cover for its invasion
2) Iraq was quite “invadable†from a geographical and military point of view
3) the U.S. wanted a piece of Middle East real estate in case things get bad in Saudi Arabia, which they still might
4) the U.S. wanted to thump its chest in light of 9/11 in order to deter future attacks from nations harboring terrorists or otherwise opposing the will of the U.S.
5) the neocons really believed that Iraq could serve as a wedge from which the U.S. could insert democracy into the Middle East, thereby making these nations less likely to spawn terrorists
6) the U.S. Congress had already voted for regime change (though not war) in Iraq

But aside from holding the administration accountable, there’s little point in continuing to argue about what led us into war. The question is what we do now.

There are not many examples of successful insurgencies that fight foreign occupation by murdering large numbers of their own people

The problem, of course, is that the way wars are fought continues to mutate. The real threats are these 1) the insurgents could spark a civil war, which is obviously their intent, and 2) the insurgents can keep anyone other a dictator from succeeding in Iraq, putting an end to the whole democracy experiment 3) the nation falls into total anarchy, which spreads to an already fragile Saudi Arabia, completely disrupting the world’s supply of oil even while ceding both territory and massive funds to real terrorists.

We need better leadership on the issue of Iraq. Mr. Bush should be pressured into providing it, and the pressure should come from both sides of the aisle.

David:

And when the war in Viet Nam was escalating and tearing America apart at home, they said, “When do we leave Viet Nam? When the war against Communism is over”.

No, Vietnam was a battle in the cold war. First of all I was not quoting them, it was just my opinion. I think we bring all the troops home when the war on terrorism is over.

I think our troop deployments to Iraq will look like our deployments to Germany, Japan and Korea. I think we will have a forward presence in the middle east for maybe the rest of our lifetime. This war on terrorism goes back at least to Lebanon with Reagen. So what we have is what will be.

I do think there will be withdrawls. When Bush leaves office we will probably have 40,000 to 50,000 troops in the desert doing training and standing there as backup.

Craig

I guess we could have stood by and done nothing like Clinton did when 800,000 people were killed in Ruwanda!

Craig said: “No, Vietnam was a battle in the cold war.”

Then it is your contention that our entrance to Viet Nam with military advisors was a battle in the cold war and not a part of the war against Communism? If so, I have a millions of history books to educate you on the subject.

Red,

I guess we could have stood by and done nothing like Clinton did when 800,000 people were killed in Ruwanda!

What does that have to do with anything?

Adrienne:

The Downing Street Memos are the SMOKING GUN

In your opinion. I read the memo and didn’t see anything I didn’t already know and assume. I don’t see it as a smoking gun at all.

Now if you show me a memo that states “THERE ARE NO WMD IN IRAQ” then that would be a smoking gun because then you would have proof that Bush lied to Congress when they approved the Iraqi invasion.

The problem on your side of the arguement is that it was not just the Bush administration. Here is what the GERMANS were saying in 2002:

If the American administration is looking for a way of justifying an attack on Iraq, the German report supplies it with plenty of good reasons. Since the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, nations arming themselves with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are perceived as a definite threat to the survival of Western civilization.

Thus, if there is clear evidence that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein,
despite his denials, is continuing to arm himself with chemical, biological
and - in the near future - nuclear weapons, those efforts must be stopped.
The information contained in the German report justifies not only the
elimination of Iraq’s infrastructure for the manufacture of WMD, but also
the toppling of Saddam.

The most serious of the BND’s assessments is the one predicting that Saddam
will have nuclear weapons within three years. The Germans stress how little
time remains to stop Iraq’s nuclear armament program. The question whether
Iraq has the capability of completing the process of developing nuclear arms
within such a short period of time has become irrelevant. What is really
important is Saddam’s keen motivation to go nuclear, and no one questions
the degree of his motivation.

https://lists.lsit.ucsb.edu/archives/gordon-newspost/2002-February/002174.html

As for “fixing the facts around the policy” my assumption is that documents like the following were the “fix”.

https://lists.lsit.ucsb.edu/archives/gordon-newspost/2002-February/002174.html

So the world lied to the american people, even the ones that voted against the resolution.

In an impeachment hearing, it looks like a tough road to hoe to prove the world lied. I think it far easier and believable to believe that they were wrong. After all, they were wrong also about the fall of USSR. That makes much more sense to me.

Craig

We probably don’t want to abandon the Iraqi people if they’re really trying to help themselves and their situation. I think many are, but I’m not sure enough are.

However, we can’t take care of Iraq forever.
They will eventually need to stand or fall on their own.

After a certain point, we have to decide whether there’s really any hope for Iraq, and finish the job, or cut our losses, and leave.

I think it was a very generous act on the part of the U.S., British, and other allied troops, and the many that died in the process, to remove Saddam’s regime, and try to liberate Iraq from the extremists and terrorists, but it will go down in history as a huge mistake if Iraq fails to rebuild their country and create a relatively decent and ethical government.

That remains to be seen. But, time is running out. If it fails, Iraq will most likely become a new haven for terrorists, and those that hate the U.S. and its allies.

Reed,

Well stated! And I think all should be able to see looking in hind-sight that we are in a war of choice, not necessity. That matters not because we are there.

Craig,

I agree that our troop deployments will look like our deployments elsewhere in the world, IF, and that’s a big IF, we ever get Iraq to become a government that can stand on its own. If it doesn’t we have two choices, stay the course (losing about 30-60 America lives each month and Billions of tax dollars); or we pack up and go home (which would leave a mess for Iraq and one which will probably come back on the US). I hope things work out like we hope, that being a free and self-governing/self-functioning Iraq. If that does happen then I think you have come to a realistic conclusion that those on both sides should see or will come to see.

d.a.n,

Don’t get to heavy with the back-patting and self-congratulations. From an average Iraqi’s standpoint I would say they do think of what we did as a generous act. However, we had motives….and many at that. Someone mentioned the near 1 million slaughter in Ruwanda during the Clinton administration. I think if this had been going on in any administration we wouldn’t have treated it any differently. Why? Because there was nothing in it for us. I disagree with that rational, but let’s be realistic. We are in Iraq because we feel we need a Middle Eastern presence, because Sadaam was a pain in the rear (not an immenent threat, just a pain), because there is a lot of oil there, and because we feel if we begin a democracy in a Muslim country others will follow. We had other motives besides just being Christian-like. Agree or disagree with them that’s just the way it is.

I disagree with why we went there. I don’t like seeing our guys shot at. However, no matter what our government’s motive for being there our soldiers are in the line of fire and performing a VERY noble act. Although I don’t consider this president’s reign very successful and I don’t see eye-to-eye with him on many issues I can honestly say I hope he IS correct about a democratic Iraq spreading to other countries. It would help the world in the long run. I don’t think it will happen…but I hope so. And if and when it does, I will give GWB credit. However, as president one must also take criticism along with and often times before credit. It is a VERY big gamble this president has taken. A war of choice paid for with other’s lives. Then again, he’s president and I’m not. There has been blood spilled throughout history. It’s funny that in modern times our leaders and their children don’t accompany our military into battle like they did in ancient times. I know ours is a different government than those in the past but a person would think much harder about spilling blood if that blood was his or came out of his loins (I’m talking about ALL of our leaders here, not just GW; as I recall both sides voted for war).

Tom,
Yes, yes ! I meant our soldiers are noble and generous.
Not the ones that sent them there, and lied about the reasons.

and the allied troops too !

Loren

No. We were not a significant supplier or arms to Iraq at all during any period of its history.

A little explanation of WMD

Chemical weapons Saddam used were not sophisticated. The various poison gasses are 1915 technology. Anyone with the money and the will to do so can produce such weapons. That is why they are so destabilizing. They are of little use on the battlefield, except in the unique situation when the Iranians were willing to pour in young men to get them all killed. Saddam could make this kind of weapon himself and he did. He didn’t need U.S. help. It would have been foolish even to want it. We don’t manufacture mustard gas in the U.S. anymore, so we couldn’t supply it to anyone. It would be like sending over a bunch of Model T Fords and maybe some Stuts Bearcat Roadsters.

First we would have to reconstitute the plants to make them, however.

So no matter how evil you think the U.S. is, it the argument just doesn’t make sense.

David:

I will tell you where I criticize president Bush. This comes from a father’s heart with a son in the navy.

We debate what should happen about Social Security. I say nothing.

We dabate about the deficit. I think we shouldn’t do much about that.

We have focused on Terri Shiavo. That was wrong regardless of the side we are on.

etc etc etc.

We have young men in harms way in a foreign war. THEE only thing that matters is finishing the job and bringing as many of them home safe as we can. When they stop comming home with flags over them in their coffins, then we can fight about Social Security and Medicare etc.

I know we all think those are enormous issues, but Bush won reelection on a platform of finishing Iraq and defeating terrorism, and shock I voted for him. We need to hold his feet to the fire and have him get it done.

We can fight about the other issues later.

Craig

Well, this thread can stop now. Here is your answer.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=1&u=/ap/20050618/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

Jack
Any good organic chemist can make mustard gas, but Sadaam used sophisticated neurotoxins against Iran, as well as his own people. After the Tehran Hostage crisis, Reagan and his ilk would do anything to destabilize the Ayatollah.

Words of Wisdom from GWB today:

Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world’s terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror, he said. This mission isn’t easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight.

To whom is he referring? Everyone who wishes Sadaam was back in office raise their hands. These guys are the masters of rephrasing the opposition, of avoiding answering the actual talking points. Or are they just so stupid they don’t understand what our talking points are? Nah, I don’t think so.

The world’s terrorists haven’t made Iraq the central front, GW has.

Craig he also ran on cutting the deficit in half and smaller government. So far he has been heading the wrong way on a one way street.

And as for terrorism, he instigated more terrorism than he has ended, and gave unity to terrorists, a great many of whom would never have existed save for his war on terrorism policies after invasion of Afghanistan. He is the greatest ally terrorists have in recruitments. Still going in the wrong direction - creating and drawing terrorists into concentrations instead of snuffing and permanently dispersing their formerly loose knit networks.

When DO we leave Iraq?

That’s a pretty darn good question. Forget about how we got their or who twisted intelligence or who supplied WMD to Iraq. WHEN DO we leave?

Believe it or not I agree with GWB that we shouldn’t set a definitive date. That said, I feel we should at least set some goals or milestones that when accomplished we would begin a reduction in troops. Is that asking too much? I think that would involve actually setting some goals and exit strategies….something I think this administration is incapable of doing.

I don’t know all of the answers….I’m sure none of us do. I do know that without knowing what we need to accomplish in order to BEGIN a pullout, we are in a quandry. It’s kind of like signing an adjustable rate mortgage agreement with no ceiling, no annual limit on rate increases, and no limit to the length of the loan. I wouldn’t want the note….and I think its becoming clear that America is tiring of the Iraq situation.

Is it too much to ask for our leadership to set some goals and exit strategies?

Loren

The gas Saddam used were things he could make from components he could easily buy. He could make it from bug spray and fertilizer. Since the U.S. traded agricultural supplies with Saddam, that might be the source of your error and it is the source of some disinformation.

Do you have any source, other than someone who thinks the CIA has put receivers in his fillings, who says the U.S. sold or gave any WMD to Saddam?

I think people have moved to the secret WMD idea because we can so conclusively prove that Saddam didn’t get significant American convention weapons. Now we are in the conspiracy theory region where any accusations can be thrown on the basis on innuendo and coincidence.

I am not saying you did this. But I have been here before. Someone drops the suggestion that Reagan armed Saddam. I show why that is a absurd idea. They go into the secret WMD mode. Since the U.S. did trade (although not much) with Iraq, it is easy to find something the hang the inuendo on. But there is no evidence and I believe there is no evidence because there is nothing there.

BTW - The U.S. did allow other Arab countries to share Intel with Saddam. I have talked about that too before. YOu are welcome to bring that up now and we can talk about the history of the 1980s and the dangers of the time.

Jack,

you are correct that we didn’t sell the majority of weapons to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran conflict. However, we were on the Iraq side during this time period. We chose the lessor of two evils (so we thought).

Hind-sight is 20-20. Maybe we should have stayed completely out of the Iran-Iraq conflict. maybe we should not have trained Afghan freedom fighters (including Bid Laden). But you know what? We did.

We, the United States, are not infallible. No one is. However, it would be dandy if we could look back and openly discuss our mistakes and learn from them instead of defending them. We weren’t the “major” arms dealers to Iraq, but we were arms dealers. That doesn’t make me feel all warm inside.

I respecy your posts. They are well thought out and many have made me think. But trying to say we were just a “little” player in a bad game is getting old. We were wrong then. We should have stayed out of the whole thing…but like I said, hind-sight is 20-20.

Jack,
what is your opinion of this?
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0210/S00198.htm

Jack:

…Yes, we hear everyone hates George Bush. I have been reading that for more than a year and a half.

Yes indeed, you have been reading it for more than a year, more like 6 or 7 years. This is about GW Bush and this current administration, But NOT conservatives in general. I have read many of your posts here. Whether I agree with you on things or not, I find your opinions, researched and carefully thought out. I believe you supported Bush from the very beginning because you believe he represented a party that supported your same values and morals. I think most republicans have too. All I ask is that you step back, take a closer look at the situation, Listen to him speak He is making a mockery of his position, the constitution, our soldiers, and The United States as a world leader.

…Opponents of the Bush administration like to think that supporters are somehow in favor of war.

No, I think you BELIEVED his story. When I listened to him give his big “Sadaam Hussein and his Evil Regime” speeches and when he repeatedly spoke of the “Axis of Evil” and WMDs and the need for a preemptive strike, it terrified me because I knew it was a blatant lie. Remember the OJ Simpson trial? Whether or not you think he was guilty, that jury clearly believed that If you can’t trust the messenger, you can’t trust the message.

So Saddam didn?t have WMD on the day we attacked. We know he had them before, because he used them and he was plenty dangerous in other ways - and everyone else thought so too.

well, about 51% based on the election, but YES you are right. We nowKNOW/strong> this belief was BASED ON LIES!

Yet he won the last election and more Republicans won than before.

More and more republicans who have been loyal and who have given him their whole hearted support are realizing it is BASED ON A LIE! I don’t blame you for not believing it. It IS after all, an incredible story. But I think you are about to see that more and more proof is coming to light (unless you turn your back to it)that is WAS NOT a mistake based on “faulty intelligence”, but his own agenda, with the intelligence built around it.
The most insulting part of it to me is that Bush and his giant think tank had to think we are just a nation of vast gullibility. That we were just sitting around living our worthless lives, oblivious to how meaningless we are in the scheme of things and that our lives mean less than the lining of their arrogant pockets.

As always, thanks for the ear, Jack. sassyliberal

Jack:

You know as well as I do that the very highest estimate of Iraqi deaths is by the Lancet. That number is way higher than any other even vaguely legitimate estimates. The high estimates cited of GI deaths comes from nowhere at all. Maybe those guys were killed fighting the space aliens in the encounter Bush is hiding from you.

Please tell me…How many is too many?

Adreinne: As Always, BRAVO!

sassyliberal

Adrienne:

Sorry about your name. I can spell, but don’t seem to be able to type.

sassyliberal

David:

Craig he also ran on cutting the deficit in half and smaller government. So far he has been heading the wrong way on a one way street.

Actually there is progress to report on this front.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/04/AR2005050402134.html

It appears the deficit has peaked and is declining. The latest work I have heard (but can’t find it) is that this trend continued through May collections and were also strong. The deficit is expected to deline by some $65 billion this fiscal year. I did the numbers when I read the statistic and if this proves true Bush would be 30% toward his goal in one year. I apologize for only finding data through April.

Craig

I read the article and followed up.

Most of it has to do with Gulf War Veterans being exposed to bio weapons. There is talk about the U.S. selling dual use chemicals to Iraq. That means, for example, if the U.S. sells some Round Up (a herbicide available at garden shops and Home Depot), it could be made into a chemical weapon. There is really nothing sinister going on here. Go over to home Depot tomorrow if you want to see a range of dual use chemicals. If you have about $25 you too can buy them. Of course, since you don’t have a country of your own, you probably don’t have access to facilities to make large quantities of WMD and the authorities would probably catch on if you tried.

I repeat that the reason such weapons are dangerous in the hands of a rouge state is precisely because anyone with the will and the money can make them. They are not much use against a modern army, but they are potent against civilians. In other words, it is a terror weapon that can be employed in asymmetrical warfare. Exactly what the U.S. does not want.

So what the Reigle Report evidently indicates is that some people believe that Saddam used bio weapons. They didn’t prove it BTW. And there is nothing in there that indicates that U.S. was responsible even if the bio weapons were used. Two strikes.

For the third strike, Saddam did not use bio weapons in the 1980s. He used only chemical weapons. IF he used bioweapons in the Gulf War they had absolutely no effect on the war. That is not much of a weapon. I mean, what kind of weapon is it that might cause cancers five or more years down the road. Take a historical example, If the Nazis had used such a weapon, they would have begun to make some American troops sick by about 1950. A little late, don’t you think.

In other words, you got nothing here again but innuendo.

Re bio chem. Weapons, you might recall the Yellow Rain controversy when the U.S. believed the Soviets were using bio weapons in SE Asia. We had better “evidence” against them at the time. But further investigations turned up nothing.

Just use logic. A weapon is only good if it works fast enough to affect the war you are fighting. These weapons were not effective in doing that.

So U.S. conventional weapons were absent from Saddam’s arsenal. His chemical weapons could be made locally. We believe he was working on bio weapons, but if he did deploy them they didn’t work to change the outcome of any conflict he was in. What have you got here?

Sassy

How many deaths are too many?

There was no zero option in Iraq. Critics of sanctions estimated that 50,000 children were dying each year because of sanctions. I would assume adults were dying too. This came as a result of Saddam’s corruption of the Oil for Food. (He wasn’t using the money to buy food or medicine) Saddam was busy wiping out the environment of the marsh Arabs and creating a horrible ecological disaster that we are only now repairing. Literally millions of people died as a consequence of his mismanagement, wars and oppression.

It is a very grim calculus, and we can never know for sure, but it is probably true that the war cost fewer lives over a five-year period than peacetime under Saddam.

These statistics are very slippery. We can count direct deaths, but the indirect ones are harder. We also can’t count prevented deaths.

I don’t think we will be able to judge whether or not Iraq was “worth it” for at least five years. It depends on the outcome. The next years will be disorderly in the Middle East. My guess is that our friends the Saudis won’t last the decade. That is not the result of U.S. intervention in Iraq nor can the intervention prevent it. The stability of the region was always fragile and it was (and is) coming apart. The hope is greater democracy rather than greater intolerance, but we don’t know yet.

On the other hand, it is clear that without intervention, Saddam would have remained in power for a long time. This would have weakened the odds of success for democracy. His was one of the more effective oppressive regimes and we have to give the Baathist party credit for organizational skills.

This is a little off subject, but Saddam is a tragedy in the original sense of the term. He overreached and it brought his nemesis. In the last 1970s, Iraq was oppressive, but Saddam was investing relatively more than his neighbors in infrastructure and improvements. Had he not overreached, he might have been a figure like Ataturk for Iraq. But I guess his character flaws and megalomania were baked into the enterprise. It is sad to think of what might have been.

Craig, did you read the entire article. The article states this is a blip for the quarter due to unanticipated tax revenues in that quarter.

The article goes on to state: “Also, by next year, costs from the new prescription drug benefit should start rolling in. By the end of the decade, pressure from the retiring baby boom generation will start pushing Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security costs up significantly.”

And the article discusses reinstatement of the 30 year bond to support protracted national debt and deficits.

Add Bush pursuing colonies on the moon and Mars. Add the 400+ Billion military budget, and the inevitable drop in revenues as taxpayers and Congress begin in earnest to force the gov’t to revise its Alternative Minimum Tax triggers so the working middle class are not stung by this measure aimed at the very wealthy when conceived.

With interest rates set to rise, our increasing interest on the national debt will also slow the repayment of the principle on the national debt and consume more revenues taken in each year.

Congress is not cutting spending at anything near the rate that would be required to cut the deficit in half by 2008. And Bush has yet to find a veto pen or hint at pursuing one of the biggest ways to cut federal spending available, competitive bidding for Medicare prescriptions, which would reap savings year after year for decades to come.

No, on balance, Bush and Congress are headed the wrong way still, despite their one time, one quarter, boost of 54 billion in tax revenues. I will not be surprised to learn that part of this boost in revenue is due to tax attorneys advising clients to jump on the IRS past due tax amnesty program where large tax debtors can, on a one time basis, pay back taxes with pennies on the dollars owed.

Interesting btw, that the more you owe in past taxes, the better the breaks you get by the feds in cleaning out your debt. Typical Republican policy.

You guys are moving out of topic. The US will not be leaving Iraq. In about 6 months, the Personnel problem will become untenable and the Draft will take place. It is imperative that only Republicans be drafted. BushCo and the Media have already been using “us” and invoking Clinton to broaden the responsibilty for the war. It is clearly their plan to include Liberals in the Draft. This must not be allowed. Iraq is a Republican War. Always remember that.

This is a question that borders on the innane… Please don’t ask such questions. The question should be: If Bush doesn’t want to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan… Perhaps WE should pull the Bush out of the White House!!! (along with his cadre of locksteppers and the agenda behind it all!!!)

Jack,
you win. Sadaam had no significant WMDs, and was really no threat to me. Oh BTW why are we there?

When will we leave Iraq? When defense contractors have met their projected profits.

Condi seems to have given up on the WMD argument by her answers on FOX today. Now we are there because GW in his infinite wisdom, needed to create the kind of Middle East environment that suits his needs. I note that she didn’t really tote the democracy line. As a New Yorker who actually lived through 9/11, I know I feel much safer.

Hi All:

Just my two bits worth:

Leave Iraq? You must be kidding about this one, PLEASE, tell me that you are kidding about this one. We’ll tell them we know what’s best for them for.. About 30 years or so, should take them that long at the present rate, to get enough Army Officer’s through, Ft Bennings Infantry Officer Basic(IOB) Course. Let’s see, how many General’s can you “Fast Track” through the ranks of Iraqi Defense Forces (IDF), to lead them before we can leave…..You get the point, we are entrenched in Iraq for the forseable future.
Just in time for summer vacation. Sounds like a wonderful vacation spot. Look out for those nasty little Improvised Explosive Devices (IED’s & UXO) Unexploded Ordnance, they can become quite bothersome.
Remember that you can’t join the US Forces, if you are missing limbs.

As Always,
Wayne

Leave Iraq? You must be kidding about this one, PLEASE, tell me that you are kidding about this one.

Wayne, The real question is whether the Iraq model with follow the Germany model, the Vietnam model, or some sort of new 21st century model. That is, are we there for a century, do we completely give up on the place, or do we find a new way of doing things. My bet is that we’ll be obligated to find a new way thanks to an intensification of global economic competition.

That is, the U.S. is unlikely to maintain its economic and military predominance for another half a century. It just won’t be able to afford to spread itself all over the world anymore, from a military perspective. We - and indeed the whole world - are going to have find a more realistic way of doing things.

I wrote:
“The Downing Street Memos are the SMOKING GUN”

Craig:
“In your opinion. I read the memo and didn’t see anything I didn’t already know and assume. I don’t see it as a smoking gun at all.”

Of course you don’t, Craig. And I’m not going to waste my time trying to convince you of something you’ll probably never want to admit. However, if anyone else out there is unsure and still doesn’t know what to believe about the 8 documents (btw, the one with the “fixed” line has been authenticated by Tony Blair), they might want to take a look at this page from Raw Story, it’s an outline of six of the documents we now have. The first two are clickable PDF’s of the actual documents.

“Now if you show me a memo that states “THERE ARE NO WMD IN IRAQ” then that would be a smoking gun because then you would have proof that Bush lied to Congress when they approved the Iraqi invasion.
The problem on your side of the arguement is that it was not just the Bush administration. Here is what the GERMANS were saying in 2002:”

But not Hans Blix, eh?
Here are a few lines from the advance release copy of Ray McGovern’s new book that I was just reading on AfterDowningStreet.org where he’s referring to what Condi and Powell said on national television just prior to 9/11:

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Unable to get enough intelligence analysts to go along with the carefully nurtured “noble lie” that Iraq played a role in 9/11, or even that operational ties existed between Iraq and al-Qaeda, the administration ordered up a separate genre of faux intelligence, this time it was “weapons of mass destruction.” This was something of a challenge, for in the months before 9/11, Condoleezza Rice and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell had said publicly that Saddam Hussein posed no security threat. On February 24, 2001, for example, Powell said, “Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.” And just six weeks before 9/11, Condoleezza Rice told CNN: “…let’s remember that his [Saddam’s] country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.” Conveniently, the U.S. media pressed the delete button on these statements.

So, were Powell and Rice lying then, or did the lies start after 9/11 as justification to take us into Iraq? Take your choice, but with the memos to back up the latter case, that’s where I’m putting my money.
I’m also going believe what men like Richard Clarke, Paul O’Neil, Joe Wilson and Bob Woodward have all said, while you Bush Apologists may of course continue to discredit what everyone has been saying, if you wish.

Sassy:
“Adreinne: As Always, BRAVO!”

Thanks so much — I really appreciate that!!!

“Sorry about your name. I can spell, but don’t seem to be able to type.”
Not a problem. I’m actually quite used to it! :^)

We don’t see this Middle-Eastern conflict with any real religious significant. Many over there do. Does anyone know how long Jerusalem was fought over and how many died in the name of religion. We’re fighting religious zealots and pissed of ex-Iraqi’s. We are far stronger but they are waging a hit and run campaign. There was a time in our history when we were fighting a superpower and we fought the same kind of battle. With help from a second superpower we won. I don’t think that will happen TO us, but I do believe it will prolong this conflict as long as we have a presence on Muslim soil.

After all, they feel they are fighting the infidel and their death in the process pleases Allah. Its hard to win a conflict when your enemy is playing hide and seek and even harder when, even in the face of certain defeat, he isn’t afraid to die. We must establish some goals that are to be accomplished and when they are will result in reduced troop deployment. The Iraq government doesn’t seem to have the stomach for this war. We must keep pushing them to the forefront….it’s their country, not ours. If they never get the stomach? Don’t know what we do then, anyone else?

Sorry, my first link isn’t working on my last post. To view it, go to this page first, then click where it says “the docs” to view that page.

“Saddam Hussein has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.”

Adrienne, That is an interesting quote from Powell, but you’re right. You won’t convince any of the true believers by pointing it out the obvious.

they might want to take a look at this page from Raw Story, it’s an outline of six of the documents we now have.

Sorry but I wasn’t able to make the link here work.

If they never get the stomach? Don’t know what we do then, anyone else?

Tom,

I can’t claim to an expertise in this area and I may have it totally wrong, but here’s what it looks like to me. The insurgents are operating almost as organized crime syndicates work in various parts of the world. No one is quite sure who is in such synicates or who will inform on them if they speak out against “the mafia,” so they keep their mouths shut and their heads down. When people DO speak up, they’re quickly targeted. That’s why the police try to keep their identities secret in Iraq.

I think we should be looking (if we aren’t already) at how this dynamic has been turned around in cities and countries where organized crime has lost its power. I’m wondering if anyone here on WatchBlog has any thoughts about how this is accomplished.

My guess is that it takes A) a presence of law and order that comes from having plenty of boots on the ground, and B) people who can infiltrate the syndicates.

I’d say maybe it’d be worth putting more American troops in certain sections of Baghdad to create the sense of law and order, but I’m afraid they don’t have the language skills or cultural understanding to make this work. So, I think that a critical mass of Iraqi troops/police are necessary. That’s where the Bush Administration says it’s heading but so far the progress looks anemic. As for being able to infilitrate these networks, I’d say this is where winning the “hearts and minds” becomes so important. People won’t take the risk of pointing out the insurgents until the fully believe in the good intentions of the Iraqi government. This has been slow in developing.

So, the answer? Just a guess, but I’d say the solution entails concentrating forces in certain areas and establishing law and order there. You create a feeling of genuine security in such areas, develop contacts with potential informers and infilitrators, and then expand into another neighborhood.

Loren

Chemical and bio weapons may not be militarily very useful against protected troops. That was not the concern. They are dangerous against civilian targets.

We have seen too often that the terrorists DO NOT ATTACK MOSTLY MILITARY targets. The World Trade Center had virtually no military value. The Iraqi insurgents are gleefully killing mostly Iraqi civilians.

We make a big mistake when we think of WMD as something sophisticated. Some are, but many are just simple things that anyone with money, malice and the will do so can make. There are plenty of people with those characteristics. They are held down not by their own morality, but by force or fear of force.

Adrienne:

If you follow the logic of the “Bush lied and there were no weapons of mass destruction” you have to be consistent.

Here are some questions I have. And this is based on the FACT that it was American policy to over through Sadaam from 1998 and following.

1. If Iraq was no longer a threat, then wasn’t Iraq correct in evicting the weapons inspectors in 1998?

2. If Iraq is as you and the left say, then wasn’t Congress and Clinton wrong is passing a bill authorizing regime change?

3. What did Clinton know?

4. If it was known that Iraq was not a threat to anyone, where was Clinton in 2001-2? Why didn’t he speak (even quietly) to the democratic leadership to get the war planning stopped?

Here are some charges that I have heard and I would like to respond to.

Charge one: Bush decided to overthrow Sadaam before 9/11. I think this is true. This was official US policy via Clinton and Bush would have had to make a decision as to how his administration would carry it out.

Charge two: Bush decided immediately after 9/11 that and invasion was needed. I think this is probably true. As Tony Blair has said, it is not that the Sadaam had changed and was producing more and different weapons or (from 1998 to 9/11), but rather that our tolerance for his WMD has changed. I think that in the time after 9/11 the Bush administration decided that Clinton’s policy was not strong enough in the post 9/11 world and that a Clinton’s policy should be revisited. In fact, I believe the US government decided that virtually EVERY foreign policy should be reevaluated because of 9/11.

Charge three: That Bush lied about WMD. This just doesn’t fit reality of the three president foreign policy dealing with Iraq. This only works if you assume the issue of Iraq started when Bush was elected, and you erase the Clinton administration. If you tract US foreign policy from Bush the first through Clinton to Bush II there is a very understandable and believable evolution in policy.

Charge three (2). Again it is very believable that there was a major intelligence failure becaus ethere are other failures. These include the fall of the USSR, and not being able to find OBL, Omar and other senior intelligence figures. If we had the intelligence to know about WMD we would also have the intelligence to find OBL.

Craig

This just doesn’t fit reality

Craig, I was wondering if you’d like to take a shot at putting the Powell quote in context, given your point of view.

But, to be honest, I think the WMD argument is a red herring. Bush has already said he’d do it again knowing what he does today. That leaves out the whole WMD argument. But it also seems to imply that the agenda for going to war was poorly communicated to begin with.

Aldous said,

“You guys are moving out of topic. The US will not be leaving Iraq. In about 6 months, the Personnel problem will become untenable and the Draft will take place. It is imperative that only Republicans be drafted. BushCo and the Media have already been using “us” and invoking Clinton to broaden the responsibilty for the war. It is clearly their plan to include Liberals in the Draft. This must not be allowed. Iraq is a Republican War. Always remember that.”

I was drafted just in time for the Viet Nam war and since I was only 18 or 19 I do not recall having to indicate my political affilliation at the time. If that’s the case, I wonder how the draft process can get only Republicans and include Liberals.

To be exempt from fighting, it is possible to declare a conscientious objector status. I think you have to do so religious grounds however, not political. Also I seem to recall that you still had to serve but, in a non combat situation.

To be perfectly honest I would not want anybody fighting with me who had a political belief that what we are doing is wrong. I need to concentate when mortar shells are landing all around and your first worry is the booby traps and the second is the guy who set them.

Bears a resemblence to the “invisible” and of course “innocent” terrosists and insurgents.

Right or wrong when there’s a war you fight it, when you come home you kiss the ground. When a buddy or family member doesn’t come home you kiss the ground he or she is resting in and you pray for them.

Reed:

Colin Powell also said this on meet the press after the invasion and when no WMD were found:

When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. And so I’m deeply disappointed. But I’m also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.

My take on Powell’s remarks is that he was defending santions that were falling apart around us. He was saying “look, when we were united in containing Sadaam, we had great success.” What was troublesome to the US effort with Iraq was that the Clinton policy was falling apart.

If you read further into the remarks, Powell is clear that Sadaam had been trying to develop WMD but had been prevented thus far via sanctions, flyovers and missle strikes.

Again, I think the story needs to be moved back a few years. What was the Clinton policy and what stage was the policy in.

By the way, I think Clinton’s basic policy was a good one based on the information he had. It was clear that it had run it’s course, and that Sadaam’s cage the world had created was falling apart.

Craig

Right or wrong when there’s a war you fight it, when you come home you kiss the ground. When a buddy or family member doesn’t come home you kiss the ground he or she is resting in and you pray for them.

Steve, somehow I can’t square that with the ide of a Democratic society. Throughout history there have been unjust wars in which citizens have needlessly died. I don’t think any of our soldiers took an oath to fight to bring democracy to every country our govt decides to invade. Our current govt has lost any sense of checks and balances, and somewhere along the line a citizen has to make decisions based on what he/she believes is the right course, regardless of what the tyrant says.

Adrienne,

So, were Powell and Rice lying then, or did the lies start after 9/11 as justification to take us into Iraq?

Oh, you’re so narrow minded, Adrienne! They were lying before AND after 9/11.

Thanks for the response, Craig.

Powell, Feb. 24, 2001 - “(Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors.”

Powell, Feb. 5, 2003 - “The gravity of this moment is matched by the gravity of the threat that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction pose to the world. Let me now turn to those deadly weapons programs and describe why they are real and present dangers to the region and to the world.”

Powell, May 16, 2004 - “I’m also comfortable that at the time that I made the presentation, it reflected the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading.”

I guess we can all read into this what we will, but it does seem, as Alice cried, “curiouser and curiouser.” Well, we’re well through the looking glass now. The question is what to do about it.

Hi All:

Sorry all I forgot this tid bit in my last post:

KIA under Bush 43, is more than that of all the Presidents since The Vietnam War combined. Need I list all the Conflicts that have taken place since then? I think I will just for good measure: If I have missed feel free to add any:

This List does not and will not contain any data, of the Vietnam Era it is strictly post Vietnam:

President Carter: 1 Term (1977-1981)
Failed Attempt to rescue hostages in the (1979) Iran Desert Number of KIA? Less than 30.

President Reagan: 2 Terms (1981-1989)
Attack on The Caribbean Nation of Grenada, Number of KIA? Less than 50

Central/South America (1981-1989) Number of KIA?
“CLASSIFIED” Colonel North being the ever loyal Marine

Lebanon (1983) Number of KIA? More than 250

Air Attack on Libya (1986) Number of KIA? 1

President Bush(41):(1989-1993)
Invasion of Panama/Arrest of Manuel Noriega (1989) Number of KIA? Less than 35

Desert Shield/Storm (1990/91) Number of KIA? Less than 500*

*Interesting Note Number of US Troops in Theater: 500,000++

Somalia (Dec1992/Jan1993) East Africa Number of KIA? Less than 20

President Clinton 2 Terms (1993-2001)
Inherited Somalia (1993/94) Number of KIA? Less than 75

World Trade Center Bombing 26 Feb 93 Number of KIA? 0, However 6 civilians killed and 1000 wounded in attack.

Attempted Assassination of former President Bush by Iraqi Agents 14 April 93. Kuwait City. 2 Tomahawk Missiles launched on Baghdad 2 months later.REVENGE?

Rwandan Genocide (1994) Number of KIA? less than 5

Bosnia/Balkans* (Dec 1995-Present) Number of KIA? Less than 100
*includes Bosnia, Macedonia, Croatia, Kosovo and Hungary

Embassy bombings Kenya and Tanzania (1998) Number of KIA? Surprisingly 0,**

**U.S. Embassy Bombings in East Africa, August 7, 1998:
A bomb exploded at the rear entrance of the U.S. embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, killing 12 U.S. citizens, 32 Foreign Service Nationals, and 247 Kenyan citizens. About 5,000 Kenyans, six U.S. citizens, and 13 FSNs were injured. The U.S. embassy building sustained extensive structural damage. Almost simultaneously, a bomb detonated outside the U.S. embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, killing seven FSNs and three Tanzanian citizens, and injuring one U.S. citizen and 76 Tanzanians. The explosion caused major structural damage to the U.S. embassy facility. The U.S. Government held Usama Bin Ladin responsible.