Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Ya know, it’s a confusing situation to be in… I feel guilty about speaking out against the war in Iraq even if it is wrong. Because then I feel as if I am just discrediting our troops which we need. It’s the administration though that is leading us astray.

Plus, Saudi Arabia had more to do with 9/11 than Iraq will ever have.

Sad but true. It is also true that Republicans are now trying very hard to pretend Iraq does not exist. They would rather bash the UN. It is a sad commentary that all those yellow-ribboned Conservatives would be fleeing to Canada rather than Serve.

Oh well. I am sure the GI’s are willing to stay in Iraq indefinitely.

I think it’s too late for Bush to change course on Iraq without provoking a backlash and a loss of support among the conservatives of the country. Unfortunately, that’s what he must do. Americans will not voluntarily join with a war they feel was the wrong choice until the president acknowledges that it was the wrong choice, and that the right choice, the choice all can agree on, is getting this war finished right.

Americans have wanted to sacrifice, but they were told not to bother. They’ve been told that we have all the soldiers we need, and a plan that’s working fine. How do you encourage broader support for the troops by saying there’s no help needed?

Ahh, liberal crocodile tears. How delightful.

It seems disengenuious, at best, to say that this war isn’t costing us enough, when it is the left that can’t stop saying that it was all lost from the begining and has cost far too much already.

This is far too clever an attempt at framing I’d say.

Stephen,

I’m confused about your statement.

‘Americans’ won’t support this war until Bush admits that it is a wrong war? Which Americans would that be? The only ones I hear saying they want, i.e. desperately need, Bush to admit he is wrong (about everything) is the left.

Seems to me that you are admitting that the left is indeed withholding their support, which is really just patriotism I am led to understand. And also that the condition upon which they claim to withhold that support is essentially the condition which will allow them to not support it after it is met.

For why would anyone support a war that is wrong after all? Will the left suddenly say we need to stay and win Bush’s Vietnam?

Aldous,

I am sure the GI’s are willing to stay in Iraq indefinitely.

Why wouldn’t they? Someone has to rule our colonies.

We’re losing.
We’re losing the War against Terrorism.
We’re losing in Iraq.

It’s something people sense, a feeling in the air, a loss of confidence in the direction we’re headed.

Terrorist attacks seem to be happening more frequently, with dealier results. That wasn’t supposed to happen.

The insurgency in Iraq show no sign of abating; it seems to be increasing over time, and again, attacks occur more frequently, with the equivalent of the London tube bombings occurring in Iraq almost every day.

Karzai, the Mayor of Kabul, cannot go anywhere without American bodyguards. He does not trust his countrymen.

No, it doesn’t have to be this way, this gloom & doom. But unless something changes, the conclusion is inescapable.

Is there any point in rehashing the testimony of Rumsfeld, or Wolfowitz? The wrong estimates on troop levels, the miscalculation of the economic costs?

Terrible mistakes were made. The question is, what now?

There has already been an economic sacrifice, & it’s continuing at the rate of @ $5 billion/month. Yet we’re not even paying for the war up front. Its costs are covered in supplemental budgets. ‘Borrow & spend’ Republican leadership won’t consider raising taxes to pay for the war, or cutting spending in areas of non-discretionary spending.

The results are massive annual budget deficits.

There’s a sacrifice in the restrictions of rights under The Patriot Act. That hardly compares with the lives lost or broken in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Would a draft make the difference? Because if the level of violence continues at the same level, a draft will be necessary. But of course, we all know that won’t happen.

We’ll accept a loss in Iraq and withdraw first. Because Iraq’s important, but it’s not that important, is it?

No, we’ll begin withdrawal next year, down to half the current levels. We’ll declare victory and go home.

And if the terrorists- the Sunni fundamentalist jihadists, the suicide bombers and the religious madmen- if they learn one thing, it is this: America can be beaten.

Those terrorists are wrong. Unfortunately, the incompetent leadership of Bush & the Republican congress will lead them to that very conclusion.

phx8, calm down, there is medication for ADD and hysteria and reality is something to be embraced not ignored all together. So turn off Air America radio and stop reading newsletters from Ted Kennedy and come back to us, you’ll see that it’s not that bad. We’ll even let you have those occasional liberal hysterical panic attacks because we know how like them so much and how it makes you feel so concerned without actually having to do anything. Won’t it be fun?

It seems disengenuious, at best, to say that this war isn’t costing us enough, when it is the left that can’t stop saying that it was all lost from the begining and has cost far too much already.

So you’re accusing US soldiers of being disingenuous because they’re unhappy that the “sacrifice burden” of this issue is resting inordinately heavy on them? How odd.

Where I see complaints coming from the left are the waste of resources in terms of lives lost and dollars wasted (see also Halliburton). The cost/benefit analysis doesn’t add up. In the meantime, individuals in the military and their families shoulder the emotional and physical burdens in a way much heavier than anyone else.

Where are the tax revenues to actually PAY for the wasted dollars? Where are the individuals going to come from to meet recruitment goals that are badly behind?

The right has firmly planted it’s head in the sand on these issues and questions. It seems the only one asking them are the left. But then Clinton was the responsible President, in retrospect.

So turn off Air America radio and stop reading newsletters from Ted Kennedy and come back to us, you’ll see that it’s not that bad. We’ll even let you have those occasional liberal hysterical panic attacks because we know how like them so much and how it makes you feel so concerned without actually having to do anything. Won’t it be fun?

What a silly and unnecessary reply..completely devoid of substance. It hardly seems worth bothering….so why take up the bandwidth?

You can obviously post whatever you wish…but that sort of tripe lowers the discourse.

At least manage something substantive.

Jay,
Yes, it’s all far away, isn’t it? Just newspapers headlines, people I don’t know getting blown up in far away places. It doesn’t actually effect me,

My son is draft age, and in two years my daughter will be too. But if you say not to worry, well, I have your word.

That local high school kid who died in Iraq? Hey, I never met him.

That Oregon Guard guy who worked for my wife came back from Iraq with anger issues. He couldn’t work for her anymore. But he’ll get over it, right?

And, what the heck, my family loves to travel abroad, but we don’t have to go.

If an attack happens in this country, it will probably be launched against NYC, or LA, or DC. No problem. I live in Oregon. Nope, not my problem.

On television, Neil Cavuto assured me that the stock market’s reactions to recent terrorist attacks demonstrates the stock market’s patriotism. Seriously. That might have been the most ignorant economic commentary I’ve ever seen.

My job is extremely sensitive to the economy. I’m fortunate to do very well. However, the opportunity cost caused by the poor economy & lack of jobs amounts to tens of thousands of dollars/year for me. I think the company will stay solvent. I think. No other company in the market niche survived, the competitors went under.

You’re right, I don’t have to actually do anything. The recruiting age is up to 42, but I’m older than that, and besides, I already served as a B-52 bombardier in SAC, so you’re right, I don’t have to acutally do anything, not anymore. Yep, just sit back and let the good times roll.

I got my tax cut. Why worry?

I always love the tax break argument. Hey - I got my $600 check in the mail. Except - I’m now paying way more State and Local taxes to cover what the Fed is delinquent in paying. With that $600 check - my overall tax burden went up several $1000.

Honestly - I’d pay much more in taxes if it were to be spent wisely on long-term strategies… but it seems like the bulk of American just wants to party-hearty on our kid’s and grand-kid’s credit.

phx8, calm down, there is medication for ADD and hysteria and reality is something to be embraced not ignored all together. So turn off Air America radio and stop reading newsletters from Ted Kennedy and come back to us, you’ll see that it’s not that bad. We’ll even let you have those occasional liberal hysterical panic attacks because we know how like them so much and how it makes you feel so concerned without actually having to do anything. Won’t it be fun?

Critique the message, not the messenger. Simple concept.

This is not a war like World War II. The whole economy back then had to go on a war footing because we were fighting enemies who actually fought war, did it well and had a chance of winning on the battlefield. For all the dangers of the war on terror, there is no chance of the terrorists actually winning in any conventional sense.

The war on terror is political and social, but it is not a war requiring war materiel that would strain our capacity or a draft. The best we can do – as civilians – to support the troops is to support the war on terror. We have already taken such steps with the Patriot Act. We need also to remain vigilant to terrorists in our midst and don’t make excuses for them.

The article contained a link to a site where anyone can do things to support the troops. It is http://americasupportsyou.mil. You can contribute time, money even air miles.

The article also showed pictures of posters from WWII. Everyone has seen the films made during the war. They were all very patriotic and didn’t try to give both sides of the conflict. These things reminded the people at home about what was going on and how rotten the enemy was. I think the battle of Falujah would make a good movie, but can you imagine Hollywood making one where our purpose was rights and our soldiers were unambiguously the good guys?

It just can’t be like it was back then.

—-
Critique the message, not the messenger. Simple concept.
—-
absolutely…

Mattlaw, Carla, Tony,
Thanks! But truly, I didn’t take it personally.

Jay,
No worries. Suggestion: Substitute ‘liberals’ or ‘leftists’ or whatever instead of ‘you.’ It avoids giving the perception of critting the messenger, & falling afoul of WB policy.

Jack,
During the election campaign, Kerry said:
“But it’s primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world…”

While it may not be necessary for the whole economy to “go on a war footing” in the War against Terrorism, the War in Iraq is certainly costing big bucks, and it needs to be paid for. Furthermore, something needs to change if we want to avoid a costly loss in Iraq.

By the way, when the current annual budget estimate is estimated to come in at $325 billion, does that include the cost of the War in Iraq?

More importantly, what does the unwillingness of the Republican Congress & Bush to advocate ‘whatever it takes,’ economically or by instituting the draft, say about the importance of the war?

Phx8

The military doesn’t need or want a draft. Recruiting has been down this year, but reenlistments are up. Volunteers do a better job than draftees. Beyond all that, we will probably begin to draw down our forces in Iraq, so by the time all the machinery of the draft was in place and the first guys trained, they would not be needed. The President is not asking for it because it doesn’t make sense.

Economically, your complaint has little to do with the war and a lot to do with your concept of economics. I agree that we should cut the Federal budget and lower the deficit. But that is an argument separate from the Iraq war. Besides, the Federal deficit is about $100 billion lower than projected in January and most states will run good surpluses because of greatly INCREASED tax revenue this year.

I also suspect that when you say economic sacrifice, what you really mean is raising taxes and you probably don’t mean raising taxes across the board. This is also a valid argument, but has little to do with sacrifice unless we are still asking only others to sacrifice.

A true economic sacrifice spread across the entire society might entail raising all taxes by about 2% and cutting Federal beneficiaries (SS etc) by a similar amount. Is that what you want?

Jack:

What we want, Jack, is for those Conservatives not originally part of the Military to spare a measly 1% of their 61,000,000 strong number to Enlist. Its not all about Yellow Ribbons and empty rhetoric. We want Evangelical Pastors to call to thier flocks. We want Congressmen to talk about War. We want the hypocritical never-fought-themselves ChickenHawks to send THEIR children to Iraq.

Could you do this for us?

Eric-
We don’t withhold support for our troops. We withold support for the President’s policies. We support victory. We support our troops being well-armed, well-trained, and well-lead.

What you seem to support is the right of the adminstration to lead this war in any damn direction they choose, using whatever means deemed necessary. It’s strategically poor thinking. We want Bush to win this war, but we don’t see how he’s going to win it, taking the attitudes he’s taking.

It should matter whether we go to war on good information because we can’t fight every fight. If we choose the wrong wars, the right wars get won by by al-Qaeda’s side.

As for this:

For why would anyone support a war that is wrong after all? Will the left suddenly say we need to stay and win Bush’s Vietnam?

I see most of my posts have fallen on deaf ears. We’ve been support victory all along. What frustrates us is watching things slowly degrade, and with the president seeming to be oblvious to the failures of the policy.

Jack-
Look, everytime we’ve tried guns and butter, we’ve suffered for it. Better to pay for a war now, and not get charged the interest for the treasury bonds or suffer the problems of increased deficits.

We’ve got to stop letting the economy be the determinant of what the right thing to do is, because sometimes market driven advice isn’t necesarily that commonsensical.

Fact is, we’re occupying territory, and that is not easy, or cheap in terms of manpower.

Jack,
“The military doesn?t need or want a draft.”

For good reason. Agreed. Suppose the situation in Iraq worsens over the next year?

For the record, I’ve always thought ‘more boots on the ground’ was the wrong approach. Instead, I’d put it on the Iraqis right from the start. I wouldn’t hesitate to drawdown troops, given that Iraqi police & troops could be trained at least well enough to provide a self-sustaining infrastructure.

But that’s not where the situation is going. I’m guessing the drawdown will occur next year, not from choice, but because the US manpower situation, economy, and impending midterm elections will make withdrawal mandatory. We’ll call it a victory, but I doubt that’s where it’s headed. And as I said, the lessons enemies will draw from this are not good for us, not at all.

Economic projections for the deficit were high. It looks like this year’s deficit will be the third worst ever, after the previous two years. (That’s in absolute dollars, not adjusted for inflation or as a percentage of GDP or anything else).

Raise taxes? Yes. In terms of monetary policy, the Fed lowered rates to stimulate the economy, and during the recovery raised rates. to reload amont other things. Why on earth would Bush & Congress not do the same with fiscal policy?

Would I be willing to take a disproportionate hit? Yes, if the hikes are geared toward creating a healthy economy. Why? As Tony alluded to, the benefits of a healthy economy far outweigh the benefits of a tax cut.

Aldous,

Can you ever get an original thought anymore? You’ve been saying this for months…I see your drivel in every single post, AND it’s in this one twice. Please engage your brain and give us something unique. Is this possible?

Phx8

The situation in Iraq will probably reach a tipping point sometime next year. Either the Iraqis will be able to take care of themselves or never will. In either case, we should begin to draw down American forces.

The insurgency is very bloody and the terrorists are very cruel. They have shown their willingness to kill Iraqi civilians and Iraqi children to make their political points. But this is not necessarily a sign of strength. Murdering civilians is not very hard, unfortunately, but it doesn’t inspire loyalty among the affected populations and we are seeing no widespread support for the insurgents.

Deficits
You have to adjust for inflation and GDP. Otherwise the figures make no sense. Most of us have more debt when we are fifty than when we are twenty. But our net worth is healthier because of higher income and assets.

I believe the deficit is a problem, but I can see that it is moving in the right direction. I also recall how surprised everyone was when we ran a surplus in the late 1990s. And I recall the reasons we ran a surplus. It was not tax increases, but rather the increased revenue from a growing economy and booming stock market. The same thing is happening now. The only difference is that spending has increased. We have to get that under control.

but can you imagine Hollywood making one where our purpose was rights and our soldiers were unambiguously the good guys?

If Hollywood can glamorize the invasion of Grenada (my all-time favorite movie, BTW), they can do this one too.

Jack, I’m not sure the American economy is comparable to a fifty-year old man, and I’d hardly call this a boom. This is a Wall Street recovery that has yet to trickle down to mainstreet. In fact, it reminds me of the Reagan “recovery”.

In any case, the point is that President Bush isn’t asking us to help in any substantial way. Hell, Bush and the GOP aren’t even asking us to buy Patriot Bonds (even if they are just standard EE bonds with Patriot Bond written on them).

Cliff:

It may be old but not irrelevant.

Can I have your name and email?

I’m gay, not of draft age eligibility - and I’m more engaged and concerned over the ramifications of this unnecessary, costly war, than those who ultimately may make a much greater sacrifice.

I think America’s blase reaction to the London bombings were a clear indication of just how vested they are in the War On Terror. Bush should have asked more of us post 9/11, than to just keep the local malls busy. And, we should’ve asked for a progress report on securing our ports and borders from the new Homeland Security chief, in the wake of the attacks on London.

Yet, the Bush Apologists here must take some satisfaction from the fact, that this static indifference shown by the nation is better than the Bush administration could’ve expected at this juncture, given the mis-management of the war. I’ve concluded, that the disparity between Bush’s dismal numbers on Iraq, in stark contrast to his overall approvals which fail to follow suit, are a result of America’s refusal to appear vulnerable and fallible to the rest of the world - explaining the blind eye they’ve turned to the Iraq debacle.

I find it quite ironic that the like-minded, WB Blue Column regulars here that have undoubtedly had their patriotism questioned and attacked as anti-troops, can still speak passionately about sacrifice, truth and accountability (or the Left’s Iraq Plan), while those on the Right argue that nothing of the sort is needed to prevail in Iraq.

And, I find it very frightening, that a majority of Americans would still side with Bush and the Republicans.

Bert:

Bush Approval Numbers are 45%. Those 45% are the Core Republicans. They are not the majority since the Independents have already gone to the other side. As long as Bush trumpets the wingnut slogans: Ban Abortion, More Guns, More God, Kill Muslims…, the Republican Base will support him.

Face it. The only way Mr. and Mrs. WingNut is going to bolt is if Little Johnny is in danger of being Drafted. As long as the Iraq War is strictly for Military Families, who cares how many GI’s die?

If you can justify the mess in Iraq it is obviously not performance based. This administration has failed at every level in the war on terrorism.
Bush was criticized by several top Generals in the planning stages(No exit strategy). He is being criticized for intelligence reports and propaganda that led the people of the U.S. from both parties into war. He has received criticism from troops regarding equipment.
He has received criticism for offering no bid contracts to Cheney’s old company KBR.
He has failed to seal our borders. He continues to fail to secure Sea Ports and Nuclear Facilities. He’s too busy defending his corrupt administration and his hateful,misguided policies.

Aldous,

I have heard that there was one conservative fleeing to Canada to play hockey. He was denied at the border however because the immigration quota had been met due to the Democrats/Liberals
that were hiding there until the war was over.

Steve Smith,

Do you really feel that the war in Iraq was justified?

Do you think this administration has managed the war correctly?

Do you think we’re safer now than before?

Do you believe that G.W. “Fixed” intelligence to justify attacking Iraq?

I’m curious to know your thoughts on this issue not how much dislike liberals.

It just seems funny to me that conservatives can think that we sympathize with the murderous insurgents. We’re criticizing this government because we don’t want to lose to those killers, not because we’re sympathetic with terrorists.

I’ll be curious to watch the Wingnuts justify the loss of lives (and resources) when they right comes to the realization that Iraq has been a huge distraction from our war on terror.

Also, it amazes me that the White House wants to call anyone who questions them on war issues un-Patriotic and constantly mentions how this demeans our soldiers sacrifices. I can’t think on a single more pressing time to question our leaders - when the lives of American soldiers are at risk. How does keeping quite play to the soldiers advantage? If there is any question as to the reasoning or agenda to having soldiers dying for our country - how could anyone ever suggest that questioning our leaders at a time like this would be anything but our job as Americans to help insure that they are dying as a last resort to protect and serve?

sorry - the previous post should read “when THE right”…

Andre,

I will preface my response to your questions by saying that if you or anyone else in this forum actually believe and support what Aldous keeps saying in every thread that he writes (you know full well the statement to which I refer)you should expect that someone (and it has been multiple contributers)will respond with an equally abrasive and disingenuous remark.

“Do you really feel that the war in Iraq was justified?”
————————————————————————-
I feel that something needed to be done to remove Sadaam largely because I personally believe the fact that he posessed WMD. To be perfectly honest, I think that those weapons while not found by the alleged credible searchers
do exist in a location not yet searched or, more likely been given to terrorists for use against us.
————————————————————————-

“Do you think this administration has managed the war correctly?”
————————————————————————-
I think that there are components of the war that have not been handled the way many people at both ends of the issue would have liked. Personally I think we should have been more agressive early on. IMO it is a slightly unfair question to ask if the administration has managed the war correctly because “the War” has parts, I don’t think we can address it as a whole. I have absolutely no problem with the detainee situation at GITMO or elsewhere. I think it OK to use agressive interrogation tactics. I believe that war opponents and/or Liberal thinking people have branded “agressive interrogation” as “torture” unfairly.
————————————————————————-
“Do you think we’re safer now than before?”
————————————————————————-
I think that our safety has been in jeapordy long before the war in Iraq. The terrorists have actually been here for a very long time. They IMO are living and working among us as researchers, doctors, biochemists, food service workers, computer software/programmers/technicians, public utility employees, etc. I do not think closing the borders will prevent terrorist activities in this country (and others) one iota.
————————————————————————-“Do you believe that G.W. “Fixed” intelligence to justify attacking Iraq?”
————————————————————————-
To be perfectly honest I think that initially he relied on intelligence information that may have been fabricated or ill-interpreted. I believe that once he took military action and some of the actual details unfolded he was trapped into justifying his actions and did so over-optimistically anticipating a speedy end to the hostilities. We see now that he was incorrect in that assumption. I further believe that everyone who approved the war, from Congress through the President never anticipated that there would be such a strong insurgency and increase in terrorist acts. I agree that there never seemed to be any kind of exit plan.
————————————————————————-
“I’m curious to know your thoughts on this issue not how much dislike liberals.”
————————————————————————-
I really don’t dislike liberals to the extent that you may think. I certainly disagree with many of their views as they do with mine. I personally believe that there are elements of the Constitution that should be interpreted differently. For example just because it is legal to burn an American Flag in protest, I don’t think it should be done. Just because we have the right to bear arms, I don’t think that arms capable of firing hundred of rounds a second or that can fire armor piercing rounds should be permitted. They should be available to military and law enforcement only. I do believe that I, as an American citizen should be able to go to the store and purchase a rifle or a pistol. I would reasonably expect them to search to see if I am a convicted criminal.

I think that the 13 million illegal aliens in this country as we speak should be rounded up and deported. I think that an immigrant who has not yet become a citizen should have limited freedoms during the process. I think that anyone who cannot speak the language of our country (after a grace period) and, anyone who chooses not to become a citizen (after a reasonable time) should be deported.

Andre, I may have not done a good job oirganizing my thoughts but that is basically how I generally feel.

Steve Smith:

Nice Spin. Unfortunately, we know Dick Cheney set up a separate Intelligence Unit in the Pentagon to “Review” the CIA Data. When Colin Powell made his presentation to the UN, his people had to throw out most of the garbage The Special Plans Unit gave him.

Here is a far more detailed description:

—————————————————————-
A half-dozen former CIA agents investigating prewar intelligence have found that a secret Pentagon committee, set up by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in October 2001, manipulated reams of intelligence information prepared by the spy agency on the so-called Iraqi threat and then delivered it to top White House officials who used it to win support for a war in Iraq.

More than a dozen calls to the White House, the CIA, the National Security Council and the Pentagon for comment were not returned.

The ad-hoc committee, called the Office of Special Plans, headed by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith and other Pentagon hawks, described the worst-case scenarios in terms of Iraq’s alleged stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and claimed the country was close to acquiring nuclear weapons, according to four of the CIA agents, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the information is still classified, who conducted a preliminary view of the intelligence.

The agents said the Office of Special Plans is responsible for providing the National Security Council and Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice and Rumsfeld with the bulk of the intelligence information on Iraq’s weapons program that turned out to be wrong. But White House officials used the information it received from the Office of Special Plans to win support from the public and Congress to start a war in Iraq even though the White House knew much of the information was dubious, the CIA agents said.

For example, the agents said the Office of Special Plans told the National Security Council last year that Iraq’s attempt to purchase aluminum tubes were part of a clandestine program to build an atomic bomb. The Office of Special Plans leaked the information to the New York Times last September. Shortly after the story appeared in the paper, Bush and Rice both pointed to the story as evidence that Iraq posed a grave threat to the United States and to its neighbors in the Middle East, even though experts in the field of nuclear science, the CIA and the State Department advised the White House that the aluminum tubes were not designed for an atomic bomb.

Furthermore, the CIA had been unable to develop any links between Iraq and the terrorist group al-Qaeda. But under Feith’s direction, the Office of Special Plans came up with information of such links by looking at existing intelligence reports that they felt might have been overlooked or undervalued. The Special Plans office provided the information to the Pentagon and to the White House. During a Pentagon briefing last year, Rumsfeld said he had “bulletproof” evidence that Iraq was harboring al-Qaeda terrorists.

At a Pentagon news conference last year, Rumsfeld said of the intelligence gathered by Special Plans: “Gee, why don’t you go over and brief George Tenet? So they did. They went over and briefed the CIA. So there’s no there’s no mystery about all this.”

CIA analysts listened to the Pentagon team, nodded politely, and said, “Thank you very much,” said one government official, according to a July 20 report in the New York Times. That official said the briefing did not change the agency’s reporting or analysis in any substantial way.

Several current and former intelligence officials told the Times that they felt pressure to tailor reports to conform to the administration’s views, “particularly the theories Feith’s group developed.”

Moreover, the agents said the Office of Special Plans routinely rewrote the CIA’s intelligence estimates on Iraq’s weapons programs, removing caveats such as “likely,” “probably” and “may” as a way of depicting the country as an imminent threat. The agents would not identify the names of the individuals at the Office of Special Plans who were responsible for providing the White House with the wrong intelligence. But, the agents said, the intelligence gathered by the committee sometimes went directly to the White House, Cheney’s office and to Rice without first being vetted by the CIA.

In cases where the CIA’s intelligence wasn’t rewritten the Office of Special Plans provided the White House with questionable intelligence it gathered from Iraqi exiles from the Iraqi National Congress, a group headed by Ahmad Chalabi, a person whom the CIA has publicly said is unreliable, the CIA agents said.

More than a dozen CIA agents responsible for writing intelligence reports for the agency told the former CIA agents investigating the accuracy of the intelligence reports said they were pressured by the Pentagon and the Office of Special Plans to hype and exaggerate intelligence to show Iraq as being an imminent threat to the security of the U.S.

The White House has been dogged by questions for nearly a month on whether the intelligence information it had relied upon was accurate and whether top White House officials knowingly used unreliable information to build a case for war. The furor started when President Bush said in his January State of the Union address that Iraq had tried to purchase uranium ore from Africa. Bush credited British intelligence for the claims, but the intelligence was based on forged documents. The Office of Special Plans is responsible for advising the White House to allow Bush to use the uranium claims in his speech, according to Democratic Senators and a CIA agent who are privy to classified information surrounding the issue.

CIA Director George Tenet took responsibility last week for allowing Bush to cite the information, despite the fact that he had warned the Rice’s office that the claims were likely wrong. Earlier this week, Stephen Hadley, an aide to Rice, said he received two memos from the CIA last year and before Bush’s State of the Union address alerting him to the fact that the uranium information should not be included in the State of the Union address. Hadley, who also took responsibility for failing to remove the uranium reference from Bush’s speech, said he forgot to advise the President about the CIA’s warnings.

Hawks in the White House and the Pentagon seized upon the uranium claims before and after Bush’s State of the Union address, telling reporters, lawmakers and leaders of other nations that the only thing that can be done to disarm Saddam Hussein is a preemptive strike against his country.

The only White House official who didn’t cite the uranium claim is Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to Greg Thielmann, who resigned last year from the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research – whose duties included tracking Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs – he personally told Powell that the allegations were “implausible” and the intelligence it was based upon was a “stupid piece of garbage.”

Patrick Lang, the former head of worldwide human intelligence gathering for the Defense Intelligence Agency, which coordinates military intelligence, said the Office of Special Plans “cherry-picked the intelligence stream” in a bid to portray Iraq as an imminent threat. Lang said in interviews with several media outlets that the CIA had “no guts at all” to resist the allegedly deliberate skewing of intelligence by a Pentagon that he said was now dominating U.S. foreign policy.

Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counter-terrorist operations, said he has spoken to a number of working intelligence officers who blame the Pentagon for playing up “fraudulent” intelligence, “a lot of it sourced from the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmad Chalabi.”

In an October 11, 2002 report in the Los Angeles Times, several CIA agents “who brief Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz on Iraq routinely return to the agency with a long list of complaints and demands for new analysis or shifts in emphasis.”

“There is a lot of unhappiness with the analysis,” usually because it is seen as not hard-line enough, one intelligence official said, according to the paper.

Another government official said CIA agents “are constantly sent back by the senior people at Defense and other places to get more, get more, get more to make their case,” the paper reported.

Now, as U.S. military casualties have surpassed that of the first Gulf War, Democrats in Congress and the Senate are starting to question whether other information about the Iraqi threat cited by Bush and his staff was reliable or part of a coordinated effort by the White House to politicize the intelligence to win support for a war.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is investigating the issue but so far neither the Senate intelligence committee nor any Congressional committee has launched an investigation into the Office of Special Plans. But that may soon change.

Based on several news reports into the activities of the Office of Special Plans, a number of lawmakers have called for an investigation into the group. Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, D-California, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, wrote a letter July 9 to Congressman Duncan Hunter, R-California, chairman of the Armed Services committee, calling for an investigation into the Office of Special Plans.

The Office of Special Plans should be examined to determine whether it “complemented, competed with, or detracted from the role of other United States intelligence agencies respecting the collection and use of intelligence relating to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and war planning. I also think it is important to understand how having two intelligence agencies within the Pentagon impacted the Department of Defense’s ability to focus the necessary resources and manpower on pre-war planning and post-war operations,” Tauscher’s letter said.

Congressman David Obey, D-Wisconsin, also called for a widespread investigation of the Office of Special Plans to find out whether there is any truth to the claims that it willfully manipulated intelligence on the Iraqi threat. During a Congressional briefing July 8, Obey described what he knew about Special Plans and why an investigation into the group is crucial.

“A group of civilian employees in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, all of whom are political employees have long been dissatisfied with the information produced by the established intelligence agencies both inside and outside the Department. That was particularly true, apparently, with respect to the situation in Iraq,” Obey said. “As a result, it is reported that they established a special operation within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which was named the Office of Special Plans. That office was charged with collecting, vetting, and disseminating intelligence completely outside the normal intelligence apparatus. In fact, it appears that the information collected by this office was in some instances not even shared with the established intelligence agencies and in numerous instances was passed on to the National Security Council and the President without having been vetted with anyone other than (the Secretary of Defense).”

“It is further alleged that the purpose of this operation was not only to produce intelligence more in keeping with the pre-held views of those individuals, but to intimidate analysts in the established intelligence organizations to produce information that was more supportive of policy decisions which they had already decided to propose.”

Aldous,

Very nice post. It seems to confirm that there was a master conspiracy to justify the Iraq war. It also amplifies in much greater detail some of my opinions as requested by Andre. You have been very thorough in your sequencing of events.

I especially appreciate your omission of the standard request for enlistment of Republicans into the military to fight their war.

Aldous,

Much better…I may take issue with some of your info, BUT it’s intelligently brought forward and well articulated.
Do you have any comfirmation links to your statements? I would appreciate them.

This is funny

Incredible how many theories people have.I got one word for you.PARANOID.Lefties are so pissed at themselves for not defeating Bush that it is just ridiculous.If you are on the left you need to really sit back and think about the people that are in control of your party.It should embarrass you.you should just switch over to the green party.I am a conservative soldier and no I don’t like everything my side does but your side is just about hate.Does’nt that bother you?Do you stand behind people like Ted,Gore,Kerry.Why?They should pick up a weapon and sit in a foxhole for one hour and talk to a soldier, maybe that would change the way they think about the war.I doubt it.It is too hard.Liberals don’t even have the backbone to support troops in any war that are sacrificing so much for them.That is why you lefties are despised.So I ask you again are you really proud to stand up for your party members?

mack:

You have some very strong opinions. Are you looking for anything in particular with this post, or are you just taking up bandwidth?

Incredible how many theories people have.I got one word for you.PARANOID.Lefties are so pissed at themselves for not defeating Bush that it is just ridiculous.If you are on the left you need to really sit back and think about the people that are in control of your party.It should embarrass you.you should just switch over to the green party.I am a conservative soldier and no I don’t like everything my side does but your side is just about hate.Does’nt that bother you?Do you stand behind people like Ted,Gore,Kerry.Why?They should pick up a weapon and sit in a foxhole for one hour and talk to a soldier, maybe that would change the way they think about the war.I doubt it.It is too hard.Liberals don’t even have the backbone to support troops in any war that are sacrificing so much for them.That is why you lefties are despised.So I ask you again are you really proud to stand up for your party members?

In my opinion, our soldiers should have never been put in harm’s way to begin with.

How is this not caring for our troops? I absolutely and completely support the troops that are there. They’re following orders. I take issue with the orders that placed them there to begin with, because I believe that this administration seized upon the fears of the public following 9/11 and twisted ‘intelligence’ in order to force a conflict that will have little (if any) benefit for the American public in general.

You can write this off as left-wing ‘paranoia’ and claim that those on ‘the left’ are despised, but the fact is that the majority of the American public doesn’t believe this war was worth it, they don’t believe that it has made this country any safer, and they believe that this president has completely mismanaged it.

—-
Do you stand behind people like Ted,Gore,Kerry.Why?They should pick up a weapon and sit in a foxhole for one hour and talk to a soldier, maybe that would change the way they think about the war.
—-
Not sure about Ted and Al - but unless you missed the entire 2004 election coverage, Kerry spent a good bit of time in the military - in war - in a fox hole - talking to soldiers.

Not sure what your point is here…

Not that I care for either of them very much, but both Ted and Al were in the military.

Wow mattL I did not know that Teddy served. I read that it was after he was expelled from Harvard, and that he was a Private serving in Paris.

How did he get back into Harvard?

I don’t know much about his history, only that he was in the Army for three years.

Mack-
We don’t have many theories, we have one set of facts that tells us that our president was not honest with the public in selling use the war, has not been competent in leading us into war, and has been absolutely stubborn about addressing both the natural mistakes of war, and those he committed on his own damn watch.

We are pissed about Bush’s victory, but you got the cart before the horse. We care that there are Americans dying in a mismanaged war. We care that the war they are dying in was not one we needed to fight. We care that Bush will not take care of the mistakes that prolong this war, and undermine our soldier’s ability to defend themselves against the bombs and the bullets sent their way. We care that this president has humiliated our country, making us a more inviting and justified target to our enemies

The men you list, for the most part, served. The men you would praise as a conservative were nowhere near the war. Your SecDef and your president served, but never saw combat, and below them, only two people in that administration actually fought in a war: Colin Powell, and Richard Armitage. And they weren’t the ones anybody listened to. Cheney never served, nor did he see the point of serving in Vietnam. The various Neocons never served a day in their lives between them, especially not Wolfowitz. Many of these people were actually pushing against the war, including Cheney, as they saw it as the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place.

We are in an ambiguous position, unfortunately. We know that the results of a loss here would set us back. So we must support victory. We know that the soldiers out there are only citizen soldiers doing their jobs, so we support them. It is the strategy of this administration that has us so up in arms, if you will.

They lead us to the wrong battlefield, and thereby lost us momentum elsewhere. They mismanaged the war, and refuse to repair the damage there, so we are hobbled by that, and now stuck in a long term guerilla war that may last into the next decade. Wouldn’t you be angry? We want our enemies defeated, not given the chance to get free hits on us for years to come. It’s unfortunate this administration has conflated support for you with support for their God-forsaken strategy, because nobody wants to let you down, and some people unfortunately assume that this means supporting the very battleplan that has you in an unjustifiable world of hurt.

Our people have been honest with you. Your president has not, and worse, he’s used your plight to keep his job, when he put you there to begin with.

Mack:

First, I would like to thank you for your service to our country. The same people on the left, that say they support the troops & yet do not support the war are the same ones that spit on my generation & called us baby killers. Every unprovoked war that the US has been involved in has its lefties. In my opinion, I would classify them with the likes of Benedict Arnold.

In the movie “Brave Heart”, Mel Gibson rode before his troops & spoke to them about living comfortable now, living safe, & perhaps living a long life. He continued to say (paraphrasing) if you don’t become involved or fight now, there will come a day when you are old & life is almost over that you would trade it all for a chance to go back & make a difference. I know it was a movie, but there is a certain amount of truth in it. I served during Vietnam & now I am older & I have a certain amount of satisfaction & pride in the fact that I wore the uniform of the United States.

Believe me, the American know why our troops are there & they appreciate what the military is doing. Do not judge your support by the views of the few left wing radicals found on these pages.

Perplexed

Aldous:

Cliff:

It may be old but not irrelevant.

Can I have your name and email?

See, that’s where you’re wrong. It is irrelevant. That is the problem I have had with so many arguements both for and against this war—they lack relevancy. Aldous, you might think yur comments are pithy and entertaining, but the truth is they are just another burr under the saddle, a mosquito buzzing while trying to sleep, a gnat while trying for the perfect drive from the tee box. You (and other ultra liberals and ultra cons) have made your own comments irrelevant. So, you’ve succeeded in pissing people off. What have you accomplished? Your message advances no cause, it proves no point, it only serves to enfuriate, it shows tremendous immaturity in linear thought, and, in the end, is dismissed by most as the random blatherings of just another liberal left-winger.

I suspect this post will be blocked, but there are a lot of us on this blog who try to use bandwidth for a purpose—a constructive one. I don’t post alot, I prefer to read and learn. But I prefer to read and learn from intelligent, linear, common sense thought processes.

I used to get pissed at your posts. I have been personally offended by many of them.

“Face it. The only way Mr. and Mrs. WingNut is going to bolt is if Little Johnny is in danger of being Drafted. As long as the Iraq War is strictly for Military Families, who cares how many GI’s die?”

Who cares how many GI’s die?

Everyone on this blog should be offended and embarrassed by this post.

So if you point was to be dismissed, you’ve succeeded.

—-
Believe me, the American know why our troops are there & they appreciate what the military is doing. Do not judge your support by the views of the few left wing radicals found on these pages.
—-

I support the troops. I DO NOT support the war in Iraq and I DO NOT support this President. My take on this - he has sent Americans into harms way for all the wrong reasons. I want to use the military - and only to ask people to risk their lives - for only the most extreme circumstances and only as a last resort.

Our troops were sent to Iraq based on lies and the ill-biased intelligence. People are loosing their lives - and the end results has been a massive distraction from our immediate goal: terrorism. In a worse case - we have fostered even more terrorism because of our actions.

If you take this to mean I do not support the troops, then I assume you feel right in laying your life on the line for a political party and political agenda, rather than our country as a whole. Every person who puts their lives on the line - and lives apart from their families will always have my respect and admiration even if they do not perceive it.

If you or anyone else only finds offense on the pages, then I would suggest you leave or adjust your perceptions - your choice. No need to spend time here if you get nothing out of it.

btw - Chi Chi… Aldous was being rhetorical “Who cares how many GI’s die?” It was in reference to the current political mindset of those in charge now (on either side.) You might want to: read twice, write once… as it were.

Mack,
I too thank you for your service. As a Vietnam veteran, I know all too well how it feels to return home to find the airports full of bitter, angry, left wing protesters.

As far as Kerry and Vietnam are concerned, the tour of duty in Vietnam was for one year. If I recall, he spent 4 months there in a boat patrolling the rivers before getting out with self inflicted wounds.

If any of you on the left or right want to show a soldier you really support them, the next time you see one of them, buy him (or her) lunch or a cup of coffee and tell them THANK YOU. I promise you that it will make him feel better than all the protests you can make for the next 10 years.

Mack, I too thank you for your service. As a Vietnam veteran, I know all too well how it feels to return home to find the airports full of bitter, angry, left wing protesters.

As far as Kerry and Vietnam are concerned, the tour of duty in Vietnam was for one year. If I recall, he spent 4 months there in a boat patrolling the rivers before getting out with self inflicted wounds.

If any of you on the left or right want to show a soldier you really support them, the next time you see one of them, buy him (or her) lunch or a cup of coffee and tell them THANK YOU. I promise you that it will make him feel better than all the protests you can make for the next 10 years.

I’ve never attended a ‘protest’ in my life, and I don’t believe that protesting involvement in a war equates with protesting the soldiers themselves (though I’m aware of what happened during Viet Nam).

Also…isn’t attacking one’s service in the war as being ‘not good enough’ more than a little petty? I’m sure many soldiers were not only wounded but even killed by accident or friendly fire.

First, I would like to thank you for your service to our country. The same people on the left, that say they support the troops & yet do not support the war are the same ones that spit on my generation & called us baby killers. Every unprovoked war that the US has been involved in has its lefties. In my opinion, I would classify them with the likes of Benedict Arnold.

You know, generalizing about people on “the left” in such a manner is rather disgusting.

Not every serviceman or woman is a conservative. Not every family who has lost loved ones in military action nor waits for their loved ones to return home from Iraq or elsewhere is made up of only conservatives. Not every military family believes we should be in Iraq, though they send as much love and support as possible to their son, daughter, or whoever else is fighting in our military.

What’s worse—opposing a war that has young American men and women facing harm on a daily basis, or evoking their name in order to attack your opponent’s political ideologies?

—-
I too thank you for your service. As a Vietnam veteran, I know all too well how it feels to return home to find the airports full of bitter, angry, left wing protesters.
—-

Ok - I will take your advice on buying lunch or a cup of coffee. As far as us left wing protesters - I am one of them, by a large measure. People on the right can stop using the military as human shields to block criticism of their actions. If you are in the military - and I have several friends in the military who know and support my beliefs, you mush separate criticism for war with criticism for you as soldiers. If you can seriously listen to complaints about the President and take it personally, then you really need to work on separating the two.

I support the military, but I DO NOT support the present use of military. If you take from that that I do not support our military, the you are wrong, and you are only doing yourself harm by getting upset about this.

Here is a good Brit article on Iraq, written by a reporter who has spent considerable time there.

“The findings of an investigation, to be published soon, into 300 young Saudis, caught and interrogated by Saudi intelligence on their way to Iraq to fight or blow themselves up, shows that very few had any previous contact with al-Qa’ida or any other terrorist organisation previous to 2003. It was the invasion of Iraq which prompted their decision to die.”

Think about that. Consider the implications carefully.

“It was the invasion of Iraq which prompted their decision to die.”

In terms of national security, who is worse; the plague of suicide bombers in Iraq & elsewhere, or Saddam Hussein?

Right and left were united on the decision to invade Afghanistan & go after OBL. The wheels came off the unity wagon in Iraq.

Who best represented the interests of the military in regard to Iraq, left or right?

Read the quote about suicide bombers again.

“It was the invasion of Iraq which prompted their decision to die.”

OBL is suspected to be behind the London attacks - and most probably in Egypt as well. So much for getting the right bad guy… This one wasn’t hard to see coming, but I’m guessing the Bush Admin. didn’t want us to see it.

Perhaps we should remember that the objective is to eliminate terrorists. Aren’t we trying to rid IRAQ of terrorists ? The IRAQIs are also trying to accomplish the same thing ?

Perplexed, TomD-
I thank this guy for his service too, but he and you guys misunderstands our stance.

I think the notion that the left is sabotaging the war is a convenient out for those who sabotaged this war themselves from the get go. It may not make sense to you, but here’s my logic:

This war was sanctioned in the name of defending American now from a clear and present terrorist threat. It was to be a pre-emptive invasion to keep WMDs out of the hands of the terrorists.

We knew what kind of terrorists we were speaking of: The al-Qaeda terrorists who had the range and the ingenuity to attack our cities. We knew what were after in terms of weapons. Not isolated shells from a long ended war, but tanks and stockpiles of weapons, and a nuclear program working to create the most powerful weapons known to man.

No Democrat or Republican could say no to this war, framed that way. Not after 9/11. Not with the drumbeat of the imagery of destruction in our heads.

I wanted us to find WMDs, and to find terrorist camps and kill the bastards trying to kill us. I had my uncertainties on the eve of war, but I figured there was a good chance of that, and if the president was confident enough to take us to war, so be it. Powell had been the one who gave me the notion something could really be up there, with his just-the-facts style. He did more for my belief that there was something to the war than the calvalcade of rhetorically overheated Republicans pushing the super-patriot stuff that I had gotten my fill of in the Reagan/Bush years as a kid.

I wish, really that I could be arguing much more prosaic material, much more ordinary matters than this. I wish the war could have been over when Bush had claimed that major combat operations were over.

I didn’t want the potential of a losing war in my own lifetime, having grown up in the dark shadow of the legacy of Vietnam. I wouldn’t have objected to a war simply because of the casualties, if I was convinced the war was being waged right, with people I could trust in both their honesty and their competence in charge.

The things I hate about this war are not the noble goals or the courage of our citizen soldiers. It’s not the notion of overthrowing a tyrant or holding him accountable for violations of a ceasefire. It’s not even the notion of a properly justified pre-emptive war.

It’s not fighting the terrorists, nor trying to keep the problem off our shores.

What I hate are the twin strategies that have turned this war into a threat to the world and the nation’s security that it is now. The military policy that had us attack a target not worth attacking, in a way where we couldn’t properly take control of the country to establish peace in the aftermath, and the political strategy that continues to defer the rightful consequences of the massive failure of leadership this war represents.

I would have accepted other Republicans in the White House, if they had been so good as to take this war in a better direction than it was taken, in this election and the last. What I wanted for my country was better leadership.

I cannot say I see a bright future, but I cannot help but admit that I’d like to see one, and seeing Bush wake up and contribute to it would not dismay me.

But I see no sign the president is anything but set in his ways, and that’s the problem. A man that cannot admit fault when an error is committed is one that can never move past the underlying weakness that brought the error into existence.

I want to hear good news, news I can trust to be something else than a political trick. I don’t want an election that has to take place in a locked down country to avoid a bloodbath, an end to major combat operations that precedes the vast majority of casualties taken. I don’t want a fight taken to the terrorist that takes its sweet time getting there, nor do I want to hear “victory is around the corner” once more, only to see an escalation of the murder and mayhem. I want real progress, not unrealistic hopes disguised as needful optimism. I want our troops home, and Iraq a peaceful Democracy, capable of defending itself.

But given all that has happened, I hold little hope that this administration is prepared to do what it takes. It’s too busy trying to avoid responsibilities for it’s first errors to avoid or prevent its new ones.

But I hold out hope that if the outcry gets great enough, we can force this adminstration to do what it’s got to do. That’s all I can hope for at this point: that the people of this country will demand the kind of honesty and warfighting out of this administration they deserved in the first place. America did not deserve to get dragged into this kind of war by its president. American soldiers do not deserve to suffer, because the partisan hacks out their confuse support of a God-forsaken strategy that gets them killed for next to no progress, with support for them. And we Democrats do not deserve to get scapegoated for the strategic failures of this administration.

That’s what I believe.

—-
Perhaps we should remember that the objective is to eliminate terrorists. Aren’t we trying to rid IRAQ of terrorists ? The IRAQIs are also trying to accomplish the same thing ?
—-

No - we were trying to rid Iraq of Saddam and WMDs. I thought we should’ve stayed out focus on Osama - but I’m just a leftist.

You can not get rid of terroists by violent means… it only breeds more.

Tony

It can be a dilemma. Maybe you can’t get rid of terrorists by violent means, but you can’t get rid of them by non-violent means either. Unless you want to submit to the most ruthless people, you have to fight them sometimes.

Before 9/11, the terrorists were fighting us. We weren’t fighting back in any systematic way. It didn’t stop them from planning and carrying out bigger and bigger attacks. They carried out their most damaging attacks on us before Iraq and before Afghanistan.

What do you think we could do to stop terror? I keep on reminding people of the Andalusia debacle because it shows the mindset we are up against. That happened in 1492 before anyone in Europe or the Middle East even knew there was an America. Osama and the boys are still holding a grudge against us for that. They have many others as well. In fact, they have more grievances, some real, most imagined, than we can address.

Perpetrators usually claim grievances against their victims. Maybe they even have some, but when they ask more than we can reasonably give there are only two responses: give up or fight back.

I don’t have any golden answer to wipe terrorists off the face of the world, but look at the results. We are fight an unconventional war with conventional means. We are trying to rid the world of violence by perpetrating violence. People in that part of the world hate us - and they hate us more every time one of them dies.

Did you know that there have been roughly 3 Xs the number of Iraqi children who have died from lack of medical care than all the people who died in the 9/11 attacks. Neither are excusable - but one of them is OUR fault. We did not properly prepare for the aftermath in Iraq, and we did not even to attempt a serious restoration of infrastructure there. (Do you remember about 1 year after the Iraq invasion had been declared Mission Accomplished - we had spent $1.8B out of the $18B set aside for reconstruction. Children and families dies because of that. That’s how you build generational hate.)

I know one way to slowly remove the threat from that part of the world. Remove the financial resources. As long as people there have access to a world-wide oil market, the will continue to have the money to fund terrorism. (This is not a blanket statement about all people in the Middle East, just aimed at the supporters of terrorists. If we could put money into renewable energy - and remove the oil market, then there’s no money for terrorism… or at least it will be greatly diminished.

Tony & Stephen:

I don’t know what all the left believes, but I do see the responses of the left on these pages & I listen to the leaders of your party. I not only think the left would sabotage the war effort, I also think the left wants things to go badly so they will have talking points to rant about. How many times did democratic senators talk from the floor of the senate about the number of troops dying when we reached the 1000 casualty mark?

Now, you say you support the troops, but not the leaders. First off I might remind you, President Bush is the commander & chief of the military. That means he is their supreme commander & they answer to him. You fail to understand the implications of your ranting. You think you hurt the president or the republicans when you constantly run your mouths about prisoner abuse, civilians dying, quagmires, or even an increase of terrorism because of the actions of our troops. You say, “that is not true” & I say even senators like Durbin are a disgrace to our military. Not counting the things said by Kerry, Kennedy, Dean, & many more. The things you say get back to our troops. It sends mixed messages to the troops & to the enemy. Have you ever considered that traitorous remarks encourage the enemy? I agree, this war is not conventional, but I will tell you, like previous wars, it is a war that feeds off of information & propaganda. When you say something against the war, you are saying something against the troops, because they are the ones fighting the war & you are providing the propaganda. The reason those of us, who were in the military during the Vietnam conflict, know this is because we saw the same thing 40 years ago. There was nothing more disheartening for the troops than to hear & see people back home protesting while servicemen were putting their lives on the line.

Now, if you have something to say about the war, speak at the poles. You have the right to vote another person in office. You have the right to call your representatives & voice your opinion, but you do not have the right to do anything that would take the troops minds off of their jobs, causing them to be further in harms way. The men & women in uniform take an oath to defend the constitution & the president of the United States. If you think, by your consistent ranting, that you will cause the troops to rise up against their president, you are badly mistaken.

The protests from the left are not about lying, WMD, OBL, a just or unjust war, or even oil. It is about power or the lack of power. You believe if you holler loud enough & long enough, the democrats will again control the government. You betray yourselves on these pages by your words.

Perplexed

I might also say, since John Kerry’s name was lifted up as a war vet. John Kerry was one of those came home & stood before the news & government telling of the atrocities being committed by our troops in Vietnam.

Don’t say anything against the swift boat vets against John Kerry unless you have walked in their shoes.

Perplexed

Perplexed—

So…support ANY military conflict that the U.S. enters into, no matter what the reason? This applies no matter what party is in the White House, correct?

You might have missed my earlier post, so I’ll quote it:

You know, generalizing about people on “the left” in such a manner is rather disgusting.

Not every serviceman or woman is a conservative. Not every family who has lost loved ones in military action nor waits for their loved ones to return home from Iraq or elsewhere is made up of only conservatives. Not every military family believes we should be in Iraq, though they send as much love and support as possible to their son, daughter, or whoever else is fighting in our military.

What’s worse—opposing a war that has young American men and women facing harm on a daily basis, or evoking their name in order to attack your opponent’s political ideologies?

I DO NOT want anything to get worse in Iraq…I want the situation to be resolved so that the troops (which includes family members, thank you) can go home.

Blind acceptance of ANY military action, regardless of reason, is disrespectful to our troops, in my opinion.

Tony

I have been dealing with that Iraqi children statistic for many years. Before the Iraq invasion, pressure groups claimed that 50,000 Iraqi children died each year because of sanctions. I don’t know whether that was true or not, but clearly it predated the coalition action.

So you can’t impose sanctions and you can’t act against Iraq. There are no options, according to some people.

President Bush generally went in the right direction in the war with terror. He made mistakes, but the invasion of Afghanistan was the right thing to do and so was the invasion of Iraq. There was no zero option.

mattLaw:

There was an old saying when I was in the military, “your’s is not reason why, your’s is but to do or die”.

The military has no option but to do what they are told. You on the other hand can do something. It’s amazing how you only hear “no support of troops = unpatriotic”. Did you hear the part about your potests reaching the troops & the psycological damage it can cause? Is there a problem with voicing your protests at the polls?

Perplexed

BTW it is not do OR die. It is do AND die. I don’t disagree with your thoughts in the main, but Tennyson is writing about a tragic mistake, a blunder. Our American soldiers are smarter than that now. We do encourage them to make reply and to reason why and we hope that they will not merely do and die.

I hear a lot of assumptions about how OUR treatment of Bush is demeaning the American soldiers. I also see a lot of people using the soldiers as human shields against criticism.

I am sure there are some who feel that way, and I know quite a few who feel differently. No one claim the right to represent the military mindset - but let me pose a question to you:

What lessens the morale of the military more? Hearing us lefties questions Bush or the fact that the the reasons the military has gone to war have all proven false? You can try and twist the original intentions all you want, but those in the military in Iraq know why they were sent.

IF the reason were false. There were lots of good reasons to invade Iraq when we did. I wrote about this on the other side at this link

Perplexed

There was an old saying when I was in the military, “your’s is not reason why, your’s is but to do or die”.

The military has no option but to do what they are told.

Absolutely. When have I said otherwise? I have friends and family in the military. I do not fault them in the slightest.

You on the other hand can do something. It’s amazing how you only hear “no support of troops = unpatriotic”. Did you hear the part about your potests reaching the troops & the psycological damage it can cause? Is there a problem with voicing your protests at the polls?

I’ve never participated in an “antiwar protest” in my life.

Jack-
I think Osama and the boys use Andalusia the way some southerners use “the War of Northern Aggression”. I think it’s more the modern suppression of Islamists movements, and resistance to Wahhabi puritanism that gets them more pissed. Hence the attacks on fellow Muslims.

As for fighting back, I think there is more one way to skin an Osama Bin Laden, and I advocate for those that do the most direct damage to him, and the least to us.

Perplexed-
Do you think most democrats were worried about the 2002 elections when the towers came down? Do you think that as Kandahar fell, we were going “Oh damn, a win for Bush.”?

As for damage to morale, I think these soldiers suffer more from having to retake territory they just fought to get out of the hands of the terrorists than they do from honest reporting of the war. I think the horrors of war, experienced without the pride of progress, are much more damaging than any doubts about the war.

We keep on telling you what we think. I wrote a rather lengthy argument as to why I believe the way I do. I think I was rather specific about my greivances. I never once called into question whether supporting our troops is the right thing, but supporting the policies and strategies that have so screwed this war up doesn’t seem like support of them to me.

They didn’t decide to go undermanned, underarmored, and underprepared for a collapsed state because they wanted to, they went in that way, because their civilian bosses decided not to plan for the worst case scenarios, much less the practical eventualities of dealing with the occupation of an unwilling nation.

You can rant about our traitorous nature, our attempts to get the soldiers to rise against our president, or whatever else, but the fact is all those arguments are red herrings for some pretty damn basic mistakes.

You can’t win a war on propagand and image alone, and any artifical boost in morale means nothing in the face of real trouble. Tell a man he got a raise, then blow his friend up beside him. What affects him more? What our soldiers experience in their daily lives far outweighs what they hear in the news. If they get the impression we hate them, it’s not from us, but from folks who turn our honest objections into crimes of disloyalty. It’s time to stop worrying about the minds of soldiers who can take far worse than mere criticism, and start doing something about the disadvantages we’ve put those soldiers in.

Thanks for the great posts, Stephen, Tony, Jack, Mattlaw and Perplexed.

As much as I like seeing posts which I agree with, I get more from reading posts which I disagree with.

Perplexed, though I disagree with you, I think that’s one of the best things you’ve written.

Google Grau & read up on the Russian experience in Afghanistan, 1980-89. Fascinating stuff, descriptions of battles & ambushes given both sides, from the perspectives of Russians & Mujahideen.

The USSR did not have to deal with public opinion, yet they lost.

We are literally fighting the same people; OBL, Mullah Mohammed Omar, etc., in Afghanistan.

In Iraq, a different enemy has adapted new tactics in Iraq, using suicide bombers.

The Iraqi suicide bombers are not motivated by their effect upon American public opinion. Like the Afghan mujahideen, the foreign jihadists are motivated by their hatred of foreigners occupying Iraq. They’ll keep coming regardless of what we say or do not say. And as Grau reveals in his intervals with the Afghan Mujahideen, they’ll keep fighting regardless of US opinion polls.

As for criticizing the Commander in Chief in time of war; you make a great point, if for no other reason than criticism could affect troop morale.

Is it better to see a mistake and remain silent, out of loyalty? I don’t think so. But there are lines which must not be crossed.

Where is the line?

Well, I’ll leave it at that.

btw, suggesting “ranting” will convince troops to mutiny crosses the line.

Ok, one last item. There is such a thing as a ‘loyal opposition.’ One can respect the Presidency and the Commander in Chief, while criticizing the actions of the person occupying the position.

Remember, you salute the rank, not the person.

In the military - your job is to follow the commands of senior officers (including the Commander and Chief.)

As Citizens - our job is to press and question of leaders moves to ensure that our soldiers are being used only as a last resort for reasons deserving of their sacrifices.

Yes - I am politically biased against Bush, but he’s not even avoided the appearance of impropriety. At every turn he has given ample reason to oppose him, and that’s exactly what I am doing. I feel it is part of my civic duty. I would not ask those in the military to leaves their posts only because I disagree with what they are being used for - so I hope no one expects me to close my eyes and ignore what I see as a massive waste of human life and resources that has only served to grow our enemies #s and distract us from the real dangers we face.

tony:

btw - Chi Chi… Aldous was being rhetorical “Who cares how many GI’s die?” It was in reference to the current political mindset of those in charge now (on either side.) You might want to: read twice, write once… as it were.

I know full well the statement was rhetorical. Some rhetoric crosses the line—this clearly does. As my previous posts have indicated clearly, I am no fan of this administration. But to accuse Bush and friends, even rhetorically, of not caring how many GIs die so long as his agenda is advanced is beyond the pale. Believe me, I read more than twice. Each time with more disdain.

This is the type of ridiculous thought and comment that will lose readers/contributors. If the goal is to have no conservative posters/readers/contributors, well, you’ve now lost at least one.

Good luck to you all.

Some of the reasons for going into IRAQ were lies.
Yes, the administration is irresponsible and unaccountable.
But, now that we’re there, we can’t easily abandon the IRAQI people now; not as long as the IRAQI people are also trying to help themselves too, because they don’t like these terrorists either. But, eventually, they’ll have to stand on their own.

Fighting terrorism doesn’t create terrorists. That’s nonsense. You can’t just let terrorists over-run the planet. Terrorists are like rabid dogs. You can’t cure them. You can only put them out of their misery.

Terrorists already existed, and already have the propensity to be terrorists. Some are programmed and brainwashed from childhood.

The irony of it all is that the oppressive governments where these terrorists come from are more responsible for fostering terrorism than anyone else. But, the terrorists governments (Taliban, Saudi, Saddam, Lybia, Syria, etc.) cleverly blame others (i.e. the U.S., England, Spain, Australia, etc.), and other good nations, rather than their own oppressive government.
I’m not saying the U.S. and England and Australia, and those fighting terrorism are all angels, and haven’t behaved badly at times,
but they’re not as bad as they’re portrayed by the nations that cleverly breed terrorism to distract their own dissaffected populations from the fact that their own oppressive government is truly the much bigger problem.

Chi Chi -
I understand the offense at such a statement, but look over history and you will almost always find leaders who are more than willing to risk the lives of people they do not know for their own beliefs.

I think the previous post was meant to shock and anger… but to suggest that Bush is somehow automatically above this is absurd.

“Bring ‘em on!” Hardly the words of worried mother or father-type with their own children at risk. He will not honor the dead for fear that mentioning them will damage his PR. He has done everything is power, including having people fired, for making images of dead soldiers returning home public. He want us to see the sunny side of ‘the big picture’ and ignore the horrors of his war. Ignore the false statements, ignore the horrible preparations for the aftermath…

I have heard his words – but never seen a single moment of remorse from this President – and his words ring hollow.

d.a.n.

I agree with you - we can not leave Iraq unfinished. It’s a complete mess and will take years of complete focus to fix properly.

My point is: why is it so unthinkable to have this President simply apologize for the things he has failed at as our leader. He continually push off blame and twists and dodges serious issues and concerns. Also, what will we do if we start facing massive terror strikes within the US while we are still cleaning up Iraq? Will we make a quicker than responsible exit to cover things here? Do we have the resources to adequately cover all fronts of terror in the same vein as in Iraq?

tony,
The president should apologize. No argument about that.
I’d actually like to see some indictments for some of the lies. It’s too easy to just blame it on bad intelligence. But, no one in government is accountable, and even if they ever do get indicted (and even convicted), they get a pardon.

As for resources, we’re $8 trillion in debt, the nation has $40 trillion in personal debt, the GPBGG and pensions are $1.6 trillion in the hole, and we, ourselves, have many pressing problems. Still, fighting terrorists is a worthy cause, where ever they are.
The terrorists are coming to IRAQ.
In a way that’s good…they’re coming to us there in IRAQ (for the most part).
But, it’s bad for the IRAQI people that are in the cross-fire.

I don’t blame our troops for being angry with the Administration. Some of our wounded troops have been mistreated (or not treated at all for months). Some have been severely and negligently treated. They should be mad. Those responsible for this negligence should be punished, but as usual, no one in our government is ever accountable. Our troops should have the resources they need to fight terrorists, where ever they are (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.).

Yes, the president and many in government, and in the CIA, and the FBI should apologize to the American people for so negligently failing the people. 911 is a supreme example of the negligence of our government that failed us.
However, we, the voters, the people are responsible too, because we picked those in government and allowed them to become irresponsible and unaccountable ( and still do ).

d.a.n.

I agree again. it’s a nasty, extremely difficult situation. There is not easy or cheap way out, and we’ve spent more than we can so far- and the debt will only continue to rise.

I heard an interesting fact that points out other human disasters that are neglected due to Iraq (and the resources absorbed there.)

Do you know how many children worldwide die due to issues related to poverty?

10 Million a year - under the age of 5.

To put that in clear terms: imagine the 9/11 attacks happening only to children under the age of 5, every 140 minutes, non-stop - just to keep pace.

This is something we can prevent without military or having our soldiers die or incurring the wrath of others. In fact, coming to the aid of these children would probably do more than we can imagine to heal some of the wrath we now face.

9/11 and terrorism are horrible problems we must face - but in the grand scheme of things - I think priorities need to be realigned.

tony,
Yes, priorities all over the planet don’t say much about the human race.
Every three seconds, a child dies from poverty.
While I support the fight against terrorists, it’s obvious that our priorities are warped, and the reasons are disturbing.
P.S. see: onecampaign.org

Hey Aldous:

How Truthfully you speak, “It’s like a Sh*t Sandwich…The more bread you have the less sh*t you have to eat, consequently the reverse is true the less sh*t you get the more Bread you have to eat, Bottom line You still Have eat a shit sandwich.”

“Oh well. I am sure the GI’s are willing to stay in Iraq indefinitely.”

Posted by: Aldous at July 24, 2005 02:56 PM

It’s not like they have a choice but too, they signed the contract, Only to have the rug, ripped out from under them when they got close to getting out.

Just My Humble Observations.

As Always,
Wayne