Democrats & Liberals Archives

Denial isn't just a river running through Iraq

Donald Rumsfeld declared yesterday, before Congress and under oath, “(he) never painted a rosy picture” (about the war in Iraq) and challenged the inquisitive senators “you would have a dickens of a time trying to find instances where I have been overly optimistic.”

Alrighty then…. i’ll take that challenge.

A quick google produces these wonderful gems from Rumsfeld:


"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.=" – 2-7-2003,
"There is no question that they (our troops) would be welcomed by playing music, cheering, flying kites." – 2-20-2003
"I don't do quagmires."
"And within the last week or two, they have in fact captured and have in custody two of the mobile trailers that Secretary Powell talked about at the United Nations as being biological weapons laboratories." – 5-29-2003
"The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is belied by the fact of what happened in 1990" – 11-15-2002
"Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that, it won't be a World War III." – 11-15-2002
"(the military is capable) to do the job and finish it fast." – 11-15-2002


And that's just the quick search.

I wouldn’t categorize using Google to type in "Rumsfeld Quotations Iraq" as a 'dickens of a time' for me; in fact it was down right easy. Like shooting fish in a barrel. But maybe there's another motive to your madness. Maybe you have money in Google and think that every time you make an absurd allegation like your statement before congress yesterday, that people throughout the world will pull up Google, type in similar terms and search Google for evidence disputing your ridiculous challenge. And subsequently these searches create money for Google and in turn, create money for you.

Very sly, Mr. Rumsfeld. Very sly.

Posted by john trevisani at August 4, 2006 8:16 AM
Comments
Comment #173222

This sums up Bush’s presidency for me. All the blatant, in your face, exaggerations and lies told to the public with a straight face.

Posted by: Max at August 4, 2006 8:26 AM
Comment #173224

Rummy is one of the sharper folks in the administration, but he really set himself up here. I think he must have really been flustered by the criticism.

I know what argument you are going to get from right: We did win the war quickly, it is the post-war occupation that is taking so long, or something to that effect. But that is an academic distinction. We’re still at war there.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 4, 2006 8:31 AM
Comment #173226

We are not only still at war. The current Iraqi government is still not governing, by far. Karzai is paying drug warlords in Afghanistan just to keep a lid - of some sort - on the Taliban, etc.

“Mission Accomplished” anyone?

Posted by: Josh at August 4, 2006 8:36 AM
Comment #173229

Amazing. How can we expect to win hearts and minds when we’re so duplicitious about our own?

Posted by: Jimmy Boy at August 4, 2006 8:53 AM
Comment #173230

john:

Good work. Even as a supporter of the war in Iraq, I was taken back a bit by Rumsfeld’s comment. I don’t like semantics games, and I’ve called people on them in Watchblog. And I’ll do so with Rummy.

He’s probably technically correct in saying that he hasn’t been “overly optimistic”. But he’d be correct only in a semantical viewpoint. The reality is that he thought the war and aftermath would go much more smoothly than it has, and he projected that image.

I’d have expected him to project that image. After all, a football coach doesn’t go into the big game saying, “Well, gee, I’m not sure if we can pull this off, but…”

I’d expect Rummy to know show why its been so difficult, what the previously unknown obstacles were, what miscalculations were made etc. Most people don’t expect perfection, but we do prize candor. Of course, some on the anti-war left want a “perfect” war, one with no US casualties, and one with no civilian casualties etc. That’s just idiotic thinking, of course.

As for me, I’ll hold Rummy to task for his statements. I don’t allow for the semantically technically correct version….its the real version that I look at. And he’s plain wrong there.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 4, 2006 9:01 AM
Comment #173231

We went to Iraq for the right reasons. Did it turn out as expected? No. Do we cut and run? No.

So many people say we should be dealing with Iran, but can’t because we’re tied up in Iraq. What we are going through with Iran is EXACTLY what we went through with Iraq.

Russian and American intelligence both believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He lied, invaded neighbors, didn’t allow inspectors to do their jobs and broke just about every UN resolution. You would have given Saddam the benefit of the doubt? C’mon. You would trust HIM?

At the time Iraq was the greatest threat. Imagine if he had been stock piling. You think that sick puppy wouldn’t eventually use them? That’s a huge risk to take. Much like Iran now.

This war was justifiable. Whether 6 days or 10 years - war is war - not fun. Get over it and let’s work together to do the right thing. We need to help Iraq now and work on Iran and Syria - not just for their sakes, but ours too.

Whether you agree with the war or not, I can’t imagine it is the liberals point of view that we simply abandon the Iraqi people. What happened to your bleeding hearts? Does it only extend as far as your own rib cage?

Posted by: G.K. at August 4, 2006 9:04 AM
Comment #173233

Does anyone remember Rumsfeld on MSNBC - where he tried to debunk the notion that he had stated that Iraq was an immminent threat, and he had surely never said that. And then they played the tape for him live:

“Well, I don’t know where you got the idea that we said Iraq was an imminent threat. I’m not aware of anyone in this Administration who has said such a thing. I know I never used that word to describe Iraq.” Rumsfeld, MSNBC, 2005

—-

“I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month…So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

“No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

“Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

“Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

“Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It’s a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It’s a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction.”
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

Posted by: tony at August 4, 2006 9:08 AM
Comment #173235

“Whether you agree with the war or not, I can’t imagine it is the liberals point of view that we simply abandon the Iraqi people. What happened to your bleeding hearts? Does it only extend as far as your own rib cage?”

And so far as the generals running operations in Iraq, the leaders of Iraq, 60% + of the American public: we know the time for us doing any more good in iraq is at it’s end. We have proven that we are not the ones to establish peace there, and now it is time for the iraqi people to make what they can of the situation there. Bush himself said that if the Iraq government asks us to leave, then we will do as they request. they have made that request.

“He lied, invaded neighbors, didn’t allow inspectors to do their jobs and broke just about every UN resolution. You would have given Saddam the benefit of the doubt? C’mon. You would trust HIM?”

Has this Administration proven to be any different?

Posted by: tony at August 4, 2006 9:16 AM
Comment #173237
Bush himself said that if the Iraq government asks us to leave, then we will do as they request. they have made that request.

Erm, when did this happen? I know I have been travelling for work a lot recently but the last time I remember they were begging us not to leave just yet…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 4, 2006 9:22 AM
Comment #173238
A day after securing a pledge from President Bush to bolster U.S. troop presence in Baghdad, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki asked Congress yesterday for more reconstruction aid, acknowledging that most of the billions already allocated were swallowed by security costs. And he warned the United States not to abandon Iraq, as it did after the Persian Gulf War when the United States stood aside as a Shiite rebellion was crushed by Saddam Hussein.

This doesn’t sound like they’re asking us to leave to me…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 4, 2006 9:24 AM
Comment #173239

G.K.,

What were are doing now clearly isn’t working. Why don’t we try setting a firm deadline for leaving and see what happens? Maybe the Shiites and Sunnis will wise up and realize they need to live in the same country. Maybe things will get a little worse and the UN will essentially demand that we stay, and some support (at least financial support) will come in from allies.

What we have now is a losing situation for everybody. We are obviously incapable of providing security in Iraq anyway, so why pretend that we can? It just makes us look weak and breed resentment. We need to change our strategy, drastically.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 4, 2006 9:25 AM
Comment #173240

Woody wrote “We are obviously incapable of providing security in Iraq anyway, so why pretend that we can?”

———————————————————————-

Admitting failure in “the war against terror” would completely shatter the current backbone of domestic republicanism. I don’t see this Administration ever admitting failure. Not before the upcoming elections at least.

Posted by: Josh at August 4, 2006 9:29 AM
Comment #173242

We went to Iraq for the right reasons? Are we referring to the official reasons given, which were all proven to be false. Or the real reasons which are never stated when the US starts a war.
Do we cut and run? Typical jargon used by conservatives to try and belittle anyone who suggests it would be better for all the people on both sides (certainly not better for corporate interests) if the US would withdraw and then try through diplomatic and financial means to help the Iraqi people.
Do we abandon them? By far the majority of the Iraqi people want the troops out of their country. Democracy is when people govern themselves, not when an occupying military force governs the country.
The current administration in this country is doing everything in their power to destroy democracy here and throughout the world.

Posted by: G.C. at August 4, 2006 9:36 AM
Comment #173243

lol… ummm, nitpicking maybe, but “Denial” (De Nile) is a river running through Egypt, among others, but not Iraq. *grin*

Posted by: myles at August 4, 2006 9:37 AM
Comment #173244

I don’t think that “admitting failure” is necessary, or even a good idea. All we need to is announce that we will remove the bulk of US forces from Iraq by, say, 1/1/2008.

A lot of different things can happen. One possibility is that the countries that opposed that invasion will decide that we should actually stay. That would put the war in a totally different context.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 4, 2006 9:39 AM
Comment #173245

This isn’t about whether or not anyone thinks we should or shouldn’t be in War with Iraq; it has everything to do with this disingenuous behavior of our current administration to present to the American people an accurate picture of the War in Iraq.

Yes, we already know that this administration, semantically or directly, misled this country to wage War against Iraq. Whether through parsed innuendoes or direct assertions of imminent threats; they misled this country into believing something that was untrue.

At the center of this misinformation is hilariously stupid comments like Mr. Rumsfeld’s blunder yesterday. If this doesn’t give fodder to those asserting constant misinformation, i don’t know what does.

Without accurate information, Americans are making ill-informed decisions about the direction of their country.

Posted by: john trevisani at August 4, 2006 9:46 AM
Comment #173249

“We went to Iraq for the right reasons.”

Which reason would that be? Iraq was an imminent threat? That Saddam was stock-piling WMDs? That Iraq was in league with Al-Queda? Hmmm, none of those panned out.

When we went charging into Iraq, we had to chase the UN weapons inspectors out. Why charge in? What was Iraq going to do with the UN and the eyes of the world on them? The situation was contained.

Sure, Saddam was a bad guy and oppressed his people. What brought him to the top of the list? G.K. said, “At the time Iraq was the greatest threat.” Worse than North Korea? Iran? Perhaps we needed to attack on humanitarian grounds. Seems there were a couple of countries who had leaped ahead of Saddam on the genocide scale…countries we ignored completely.

At the time the U.S. invaded Iraq, reasonable voices were suggesting patience, prudence, checking the actual situation out carefully. They were ignored and belittled by those who were anxious to get into Iraq.

Why were they so anxious? What was the hurry? Perhaps because we lost Osama bin Laden? We couldn’t locate him, so the administration needed to look as though they were accomplishing something in the War on Terror. Where could they turn? Saddam Hussein was a name Americans already knew. He was a nasty fellow, and the administration knew we could defeat his armies easily. What a marvelous distration.

So instead of focusing on finishing up in Afganistan, we pour resources and American lives into a war we had no pressing need to fight. A war from which we cannot now walk away.

I support our troops, but I feel they have been imposed upon by an administration that has no problem exploiting them for their personal agenda.

History will show we had no business in Iraq. I can’t believe anyone could say we went there for the right reasons.

Posted by: Mc at August 4, 2006 9:54 AM
Comment #173253

john trevisani wrote:

“At the center of this misinformation is hilariously stupid comments like Mr. Rumsfeld’s blunder yesterday. If this doesn’t give fodder to those asserting constant misinformation, i don’t know what does.

Without accurate information, Americans are making ill-informed decisions about the direction of their country. “
————————————————————————-

John is right. This isn’t about right or wrong anymore. They want us to be attacking each other over right or wrong instead of standing up to our government.

This is about to what extent the public is lied to on a daily basis. The “the bigger the lie, the more likely they believe it”-policy has to be shattered before it shatters our country.

Posted by: Josh at August 4, 2006 10:05 AM
Comment #173254

“So many people say we should be dealing with Iran, but can’t because we’re tied up in Iraq. What we are going through with Iran is EXACTLY what we went through with Iraq”

Yes it is GK but you are missing the reasoning.
The people saying we need to be dealing with Iran believe THEY will be in power in 06 and 08 and it will be THEIR problem to solve.
They are building up Iran now in order to justify THEIR party’s actions in the future.

Posted by: kctim at August 4, 2006 10:12 AM
Comment #173258

Now, back to facts and reality …

The quotes in John’s article is about the “war”. The “war” was over in 3 weeks as Rumsfeld predicted. I know even the Bush administration commonly refers to it today as the “Iraq War” but America is not at war in Iraq. We are as much at war in Iraq as we were in Japan or Germany AFTER WWII. The problem is we have a counter-insurgency creating civil strife. (If you still think America is still the main force at war then check out the US casualties vs. Iraqi casualties numbers since the real “war” was over.) The local populations apparently care less about their children than they do sectarianism and are allowing Irani and Syrian rogue elements to influence them. We need to reinforce the new gov’t, military, and police forces as much as possible and then leave as that is accomplished, and not until then.

“No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.” Yes, this is a Rumsfeld statement, it’s also VERRRY close to a statement by Madeline Albright during a speech in Ohio in 1998 where she classified the biggest threat to the Ohio town as “Saddam Hussein”. (I guess now dems will say that Bush had “Hitler-like control over the CIA” as, ahem, governor of Texas? Hmmmm?

You see, the funny thing is how quickly DEMOCRATS FORGET THEMSELVES.

John Kerry in 1998, I say again, 1998!!! on “Hardball” in paraphrase: “Chris, it’s my opinion that the time may come very soon that we may have had enough talk and we should take military action in Iraq.”
Chris Matthews in direct quote: “Wow, you’re well ahead of the Clinton Administration on this!”
Kerry, in direct quote: “Yes I am!”

Clinton has openly said Bush didn’t lie about WMD. Even Clinton recognizes that the onus wasn’t on Bush to prove the existence of WMD, the onus was on Saddam to prove he didn’t have it. Obviously the forced nature of telegraphed and very limited inspections did not allow this, not to mention the violation of 14 UN resolutions and shooting at allied aircraft in the No Fly Zone.

Many more democratic senators voted for the current Iraq War than the now fully accepted as the “right thing to do” Gulf War.

So you see, as democrats and liberals run off and high five each other over the ensuing strife in Iraq and how smart they were never to support it, they need to realize they did support it, or at least a large portion of their representatives and high level appointees did, and well before Bush ever made it to DC. They need to realize that even anti-war nations like France and Germany had Chirac and Schroeder verbalizing in grand detail the chemical, biological, and growing nuclear threat in Iraq.

And that’s why I was for the War in the beginning, multi-national intelligence gathered BEFORE BUSH WAS EVER PRESIDENT dictated a very real threat in Iraq. And it probably was, no liberals have been willing to discuss the book by Saddam’s #2 Air Force General and his eye witness accounts of WMD in airplanes flown off to Syria right before the Iraq War. The same general had accounts of subordinates reporting truckloads of WMD headed in the same direction. Or is it the liberal/democrat position that Syria and Iran are much like Switzerland and would’ve never accepted such a thing?

So, oh mighty liberals and democrats so sure of their enduring anti-war position. Tell me where I’m wrong … tell me I’m making up a quote … tell me that Iraqi general is some imposter created by Bush.

You can’t, so how about we support the troops until the job is done over the next year or two instead of demoralizing them with this crap that “Oh yes, obviously we should’ve never gone to Iraq … the Iraq threat was all made up after Bush came into office and the whole world disagreed with him about the threat but he was our President so we got in this mess because of him” ……. blah blah blah. Such statements are free-flowing parcels of crap.

Posted by: Ken Strong at August 4, 2006 10:23 AM
Comment #173260

Rhinehold -

President: Iraqi forces to take over by year’s end

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/02/iraq.talabani/index.html

Posted by: tony at August 4, 2006 10:31 AM
Comment #173261

When you pursue a war of aggression, you shouldn’t be surprised that it is met by aggressive resistance.

Posted by: Allen at August 4, 2006 10:33 AM
Comment #173264
“…America is not at war in Iraq.”
Ok!! enough said, thanks Ken. Bring the troops home. Posted by: myles at August 4, 2006 10:45 AM
Comment #173268

” And it probably was, no liberals have been willing to discuss the book by Saddam’s #2 Air Force General and his eye witness accounts of WMD in airplanes flown off to Syria right before the Iraq War. The same general had accounts of subordinates reporting truckloads of WMD headed in the same direction. Or is it the liberal/democrat position that Syria and Iran are much like Switzerland and would’ve never accepted such a thing?”

Do you remember the information supporting the WMD claims from an Iraqi military officer? (we called him “screwball.”) He blatanly lied to us, yet we took his information to build most of the case against Iraq, even when our own intelligence went against these very claims. Yet, you are willing to take the words of this other Iraqi officer as truth simply because it fits your needs? Do you also take the word of so many Americans who have portrayed our invasion of Iraq as “cherry picked” or “lies”?

Also, if these WMDs were taken out of the country (and probably much much closer to the hands of terrrorists… how can you excuse this invasion of Iraq when we took our eye off the ball so badly? If we had satelite images of the WMDs being transported, then why did we continue to solely focus on Iraq, and not the WMDs? If the we wanted to prevent WMDs from getting into the hands of terrorists… then how can anyone justify the continued march into Bagdad, when we KNEW the WMDs had taken a different path?

Posted by: tony at August 4, 2006 10:56 AM
Comment #173269

ken strong

You’re thinking of the wrong Bush. Senior was the Director of Central Intelligence (1976-77) and still plays a major role in operations today. I’d like to see how you spin that one!

GK-

Are you serious!? Do you really believe the shit spewing out of your fingertips? Or are you dutifully echoing Annhole Coulter?

Unlike the U.S. Government, Saddam had a handle on the Islamoswine in Iraq. But now that Fuhrer George went after the oil the islamoswine are on a rampage all over the world!

Their “reasoning” now for “staying the course” is to “spread democracy” in the Middle East. HAH! If that’s the case, 1)Why are all the strategists telling Bush and Blair that civil war in Iraq is imminent, no matter what we do? and 2)What happened to OUR democracy?

I am a peace-loving, tree-hugging hippie. But the actions of this current administration prompt me to scream:

Revolt! For our lives and our childrens’ futures are at stake and under imminent threat!

Posted by: ChristianLeft at August 4, 2006 11:01 AM
Comment #173279

“What do you want to Cut and Run” I have to say is one of the most idiotic arguments that I hear surrounding this quagmire. How about “We have to take responsibility for our actions and clean up the mess we have made”? You might have a chance to influence me with that one. But every time I hear one of our senators (yes the folks we have chosen to represent our views, gods help us!) say “Cut and Run” I half expect to hear them yell “QUITERS!!!” and stick their tongues out and start throwing food at each other or fall on the floor and hold their breath in protest. What are we in fourth grade here people?!?!?

Like it or not, my good name as an American is on the line in Iraq, and a positive resolution is a requirement in my mind. We need to stop all of the BS bravado and require our elected government to take some real and effective steps to improve the situation of a mess THAT WE MADE. We teach out children to be compassionate and caring and help those that are not as fortunate as we are, can we not expect the same from our government?

I ask you, who are the people whom you most admire in everyday life? Is it the people who impose their views and run roughshod over your views and opinions with no care and concern for you with unrestrained arrogance? Or is the people who are strong, yet carefully listen to your views and use them to influence greater good. Do you admire the people who are so obviously over their head and will do anything to “save face” including holding fast to playground arguments to look like they are still in control? Or is it the person who speaks with humility and learns from mistakes. I know who I admire.

I expect our government to start behaving like the well reasoned adult who can adjust and be agile to capitalize on whatever opportunities and situations present themselves. I expect this government to stop behaving like a playground bully.

I won’t cut and run if you just STOP SAYING THAT!!!!!!

Don’t forget the great wisdom of Ben Franklin who said, “If we continue to sacrifice our freedoms for security, we will gain neither and inevitably lose both”

Posted by: scotttom at August 4, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #173280

Ken Strong,

If the “war” was over in three weeks what are we still doing there and why are our troops still dying?

Posted by: Dave1 at August 4, 2006 11:44 AM
Comment #173285

This is the country we just armed and trained…

Thousands of Iraqis rally for Hezbollah

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/04/iraq.main/index.html

So, when Americans start getting tossed between Israel & Iraq, whose side should we take? If American soldiers die from our own weapons - do we consider it friendly fire?

Posted by: tony at August 4, 2006 11:54 AM
Comment #173288
This is the country we just armed and trained…

Thousands of Iraqis rally for Hezbollah

That’s funny - they are exercizing the same rights we have to go out and shout what they believe in. Maybe this democracy thing is working…

:-)

Posted by: G.K. at August 4, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #173290

Maybe this democracy thing is working…

:-)

Posted by: G.K. at August 4, 2006 11:58 AM

—-

Hey - now we have the axis of democracy: Dawa (Iraq), Hezbollah & Hamas! I wonder what Israel feels about us setting up and arming their next, newest terror-state enemies?

Posted by: tony at August 4, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #173291

Ken & Scotttom,
It is not 1945. It is 2006. No country will fight the US on US terms. No country will fight a conventional, Third Generation Warfare style with us. Instead, they will resort to Fourth Generation Warfare. Call it what you want- insurgency, guerrilla warfare, asymmetrical warfare- but the idea that other countries will concede a war after a conventional conquest is foolish.

Forget it. Poor leadership has condemned the US in Iraq to a loss. Too bad, so sad. We have only the Bush Supporters to blame. Cut and Run is the smart move.

When you gamble, you cut your losses. In the stock market, you never add to a losing position.

Israel will lose in Lebanon for exactly the same reason.

As most people realize, the attack on Lebanon by Israel, using US bombs, is a pretext. It is preparation for the attack on Syria and Iran. Degrading opposition in Lebanon and Gaza will protect Israel from retaliation when the attack on Iran takes place. At least, that is the theory.

But talk about adding to a losing position!!!

Because precisely the same scenario will happen again. The US/Israel may be able to conventionally destroy Syria and Iranian targets, but it begs the obvious question, one which Bush Supporters fail to address.

What then?

Conventional warfare might work for the US/Israel if we pursued a policy of annihilation.

That is true. It is unacceptable. It is a path which deserves condemnation.

That is where you want this country to go. I have spelled it out. You realize it now, no more excuses.

What will you do?

Posted by: phx8 at August 4, 2006 12:04 PM
Comment #173296

Scottom,

There you have it - Phx8 says, “Cut and Run is the smart move.”

I guess I just can’t stop saying that.

If only your side could come to an agreement on what to do, people might listen.

Posted by: G.K. at August 4, 2006 12:14 PM
Comment #173302

G.K.,
“Cut and Run” is supposed to be a putdown which somehow challenges manhood. It is pretty funny, but in a sad way. When I hear that, I know I am hearing from a loser who is about to lose even more. They have lost before, and they are about to lose again, but they think they can bluff their way out of it. The only problem is, they are trying to bluff the people who are on their team, using the team stakes. Meanwhile, the other side just keeps cleaning them out.

Posted by: phx8 at August 4, 2006 12:24 PM
Comment #173303

ph8….

To lump me in with Ken weans that you have misunderstood or I have not stated my thoughts clearly.

Our current course of action is clearly not working. In fact it is my opinion that it was flawed from the beginning. Whether or not Clinton admits that Bush was lying about WMD is besides the point. Ph8 you assume incorrectly my definition of a positive resolution. I do believe that it would be a phenomenal mistake to continue on this course of action, much like I think it would be a phenomenal mistake to pull every American out of Iraq today. It is so much more complicated than that. We CAN have positive influence in Iraq. But the means to that end DO NOT include tanks and guns and midnight raids, and murdered civilians, and degrading photos, and more and more world citizens hating us for the methods we use and the arrogant swagger of an ignorant leader.

The means include real good will, and support, though admittedly I don’t know what that looks like. When you piss your neighbor off, if you ever want to be able to go out in your neighborhood again, you need to smooth things over and make things right. You need to admit mistakes and take actions to fix the things you broke.

Let’s be the country to admire based not on the swiftness and efficacy of our ability to kill, but rather because of our commitment to improving the world through peace, justice and tolerance.

Peace my friends, peace.

Posted by: scotttom at August 4, 2006 12:28 PM
Comment #173307

GK If only your side would stop with the jingoistic BS and have an intelligent conversation about real issues we might be able to get somewhere.

It is not about “Getting People to Listen”, it is about doing the right thing.

Many voices yield a greater chorus.

Posted by: scotttom at August 4, 2006 12:35 PM
Comment #173311

Well said, Scotttomm. My bad. Sorry about that-

Posted by: Phx8 at August 4, 2006 12:49 PM
Comment #173321

G.K.
We didn’t believe it as shown by this link

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

The trouble with lying is that you forget what you have said.

And how do we know what the Russian intelligence believed? We hear constantly that the Europeans belived it, how do we know? Certainly didn’t believe it enough to start a war.

Bush co. claimed they knew exactly where the weapons were. Didn’t you become just a bit curious when the inspectors asked for our help in locating them and we couldn’t provide the information?

But this post is about double talk. Lets not forget this gem. Bush saying there are no plans to invade iraq on his desk. Yep, they were on the coffee table I suppose.

http://rightwingnews.com/humor/iraq.php

Posted by: 037 at August 4, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #173349

“Of course, some on the anti-war left want a “perfect” war, one with no US casualties, and one with no civilian casualties etc. That’s just idiotic thinking, of course.”

When you say “anti war”, you need to distinguish between ‘anti-WAR’, and ‘anti-Iraqwar’. They are distinct entities, the latter being the majority of the US population.
As part of the “anti-Iraqwar” crowd, I don’t consider myself naive or idiotic when it comes to the realities of mankind and the occasional need for war. 99% of those now against Iraq were for Afghanistan. That was a war that needed fighting. How we screwed that up is another story.
Iraq was a war of choice that had alternative solutions. When you CHOOSE war over other options, your commiting a crime against mankind.

Posted by: Observer at August 4, 2006 4:01 PM
Comment #173350

Great posts — all from the liberals in this thread.

There is and will be no “winning” Iraq. It is and has always been a recipe for total failure and for civil war. Cut and Run is the right thing to do — indeed, it is the ONLY thing to do. This is because going into Iraq in the first place was wrong, unwise, stupid, senseless, rash and totally insane from the start. We have arrogant, dimwitted leaders who do not know Sh*t from Shinola, therefore, there will be no peace, no win, no good results that can or will grow from any of this.
We must cut our losses, and make a run toward sanity.

I just read this article about a new book that is coming out that was written by Peter Galbraith (son of economist John Kenneth Galbraith) who was the former U.S. Ambassador to Croatia:
Ambassador claims shortly before invasion, Bush didn’t know there were two sects of Islam

Quote from the article:

Ambassador Galbraith recounted this anecdote from his book to exemplify “a culture of arrogance that pervaded the whole administration.”

“From the president and the vice president down through the neoconservatives at the Pentagon, there was a belief that Iraq was a blank slate on which the United States could impose its vision of a pluralistic democratic society,” said Galbraith. “The arrogance came in the form of a belief that this could be accomplished with minimal effort and planning by the United States and that it was not important to know something about Iraq.”

These are stupid, yet arrogant men — and we must rid ourselves of them — because they’ve done nothing but fail, and are bringing America to it’s knees in every way possible.

Woody, I don’t often disagree with you, but I strongly disagree with this:
“Rummy is one of the sharper folks in the administration”

Rummy is not at all sharp, IMO. To me, it seems clear that he is just as wrong, unwise, stupid, senseless, rash, arrogant and totally insane as the rest of this administration.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 4, 2006 4:23 PM
Comment #173351

Observer, well said. I agree 100%. Iraq was an enormous mistake. Afghanistan was necessary, but very poorly waged, not because of our troops, but due to a complete failure of leadership.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 4, 2006 4:27 PM
Comment #173355

Wait a minute guys. When is enough, enough? I think we are well past the time of whining about this administrations actions and it’s time we band together as a single voice to take this once great country back. Since these evil idiots have taken office I honestly can’t name one good thing they have done for the people of the U.S.A.. Tax breaks? For who? This administration is criminal in every sense of the word, Murderers (The Iraqi War), Thieves (No oversight in Iraq, Haliburton anyone?), Liars ( The presidential elections). Katrina, 9/11, those truths have not completely been revealed., They have manipulated their “Policies” with blatantly known lies where the meek minded people gather to support this regime of evil and tyranny and have we really looked ahead to see what repurcusions await this country? If not wanting to send our youth off to war for any reason but as a last resort is Liberal maybe there should be more Liberals and maybe Liberal should not be such a negative word that is so easily dismissed. People need to be informed and not trust what we are told by this administration as true. Read, investigate, learn the facts. It is time that “we the people” stop this destruction of our countries beliefs, our constitution, of our laws. 2500 great kids have perished, thousands more have been mamed for someone elses agenda that was stacked with lies and half truths and I think one death for no good reason is one to many. Ask yourself this. Is the middle east a safer place since the occupation of Iraq? Is this country a safer place? Is this world a safer place?At least now Iraq is a democratic society. All the victims of Katrina can feel so lucky with Bush looking out for them. And so can all the minorities be thankful for all the equalities given to them by this administration. At least the gas prices are at a all time low with our connections that we now have in the Middle East. Oh and at least we got Osama! And at least this country is barely in debt (racing towards 8 trillion anyone?). And at least our borders are secure. And we got this Global warming thing totally under control! And the list goes on, and on, and on……………..

Posted by: Richard at August 4, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #173354

Wait a minute guys. When is enough, enough? I think we are well past the time of whining about this administrations actions and it’s time we band together as a single voice to take this once great country back. Since these evil idiots have taken office I honestly can’t name one good thing they have done for the people of the U.S.A.. Tax breaks? For who? This administration is criminal in every sense of the word, Murderers (The Iraqi War), Thieves (No oversight in Iraq, Haliburton anyone?), Liars ( The presidential elections). Katrina, 9/11, those truths have not completely been revealed., They have manipulated their “Policies” with blatantly known lies where the meek minded people gather to support this regime of evil and tyranny and have we really looked ahead to see what repurcusions await this country? If not wanting to send our youth off to war for any reason but as a last resort is Liberal maybe there should be more Liberals and maybe Liberal should not be such a negative word that is so easily dismissed. People need to be informed and not trust what we are told by this administration as true. Read, investigate, learn the facts. It is time that “we the people” stop this destruction of our countries beliefs, our constitution, of our laws. 2500 great kids have perished, thousands more have been mamed for someone elses agenda that was stacked with lies and half truths and I think one death for no good reason is one to many. Ask yourself this. Is the middle east a safer place since the occupation of Iraq? Is this country a safer place? Is this world a safer place?At least now Iraq is a democratic society. All the victims of Katrina can feel so lucky with Bush looking out for them. And so can all the minorities be thankful for all the equalities given to them by this administration. At least the gas prices are at a all time low with our connections that we now have in the Middle East. Oh and at least we got Osama! And at least this country is barely in debt (racing towards 8 trillion anyone?). And at least our borders are secure. And we got this Global warming thing totally under control! And the list goes on, and on, and on……………..

Posted by: Richard at August 4, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #173357

Wait a minute guys. When is enough, enough? I think we are well past the time of whining about this administrations actions and it’s time we band together as a single voice to take this once great country back. Since these evil idiots have taken office I honestly can’t name one good thing they have done for the people of the U.S.A.. Tax breaks? For who? This administration is criminal in every sense of the word, Murderers (The Iraqi War), Thieves (No oversight in Iraq, Haliburton anyone?), Liars ( The presidential elections). Katrina, 9/11, those truths have not completely been revealed., They have manipulated their “Policies” with blatantly known lies where the meek minded people gather to support this regime of evil and tyranny and have we really looked ahead to see what repurcusions await this country? If not wanting to send our youth off to war for any reason but as a last resort is Liberal maybe there should be more Liberals and maybe Liberal should not be such a negative word that is so easily dismissed. People need to be informed and not trust what we are told by this administration as true. Read, investigate, learn the facts. It is time that “we the people” stop this destruction of our countries beliefs, our constitution, of our laws. 2500 great kids have perished, thousands more have been mamed for someone elses agenda that was stacked with lies and half truths and I think one death for no good reason is one to many. Ask yourself this. Is the middle east a safer place since the occupation of Iraq? Is this country a safer place? Is this world a safer place?At least now Iraq is a democratic society. All the victims of Katrina can feel so lucky with Bush looking out for them. And so can all the minorities be thankful for all the equalities given to them by this administration. At least the gas prices are at a all time low with our connections that we now have in the Middle East. Oh and at least we got Osama! And at least this country is barely in debt (racing towards 8 trillion anyone?). And at least our borders are secure. And we got this Global warming thing totally under control!North Korea, Iran , they are our friends so no worries. And the list goes on, and on, and on……………..

Posted by: Richard at August 4, 2006 4:48 PM
Comment #173363

“So, oh mighty liberals and democrats so sure of their enduring anti-war position. Tell me where I’m wrong … tell me I’m making up a quote … tell me that Iraqi general is some imposter created by Bush.”

Simple. 1998 and 2003, DIFFERENT YEARS!

Posted by: Observer at August 4, 2006 5:21 PM
Comment #173376

myles,

I think we know where de-nile is, but; Can anyone come up with a good spin on the river Euphrates? Eurethra? Applicable probably more for Dick than Bush, even though they both have one. Eu(P)udendal is a bit of a stretch, both esoterically and Bush-wise.

Posted by: Dave1 at August 4, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #173378
Conventional warfare might work for the U.S. and Israel if they pursue a policy of annihilation.

Amen. This war has been bungled from the start because we are more worried about the enemy getting their feelings hurt than about actually getting the job done. We should handle Iraq, Iran, and Syria just like we handled Germany and possibly like we handled Japan. All you bleeding hearts need to realize that you can’t cry and whine your way to victory in warfare. People have to die, and it shouldn’t be Americans or Israelis. Civilian deaths are the fault of the terrorist groups who hide among them, just like we lay the blame for the deaths of German civilians at Hitler’s feet. If annihilation is the only way we can win, what are we waiting for?

Posted by: Rightie at August 4, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #173379

Cheney to foreigners opposed to Iraq: “Hey! all you guys against the Iraqi war! Euphrates Cats!”

Not worth posting but all I could come up with…

Posted by: tony at August 4, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #173389

“All you bleeding hearts need to realize that you can’t cry and whine your way to victory in warfare. People have to die, and it shouldn’t be Americans or Israelis.”

You’re right. You can’t cry and whine your way to victory in warfare — when there is an actual reason to go to war. That doesn’t apply in the case of Iraq, and NEVER did. More Iraqi civilians don’t have to die because Americans had and have no reason being there at all.
We took out Saddam, a civil war was sure to ensue, and it now has. American troops should not be made to fight Iraq’s civil war. Period.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 4, 2006 7:12 PM
Comment #173390

Hey Rightie,
Your Bliss must be at a all time high. What is going on in our country and in this world is a direct result of what happens when Morons with they’re own personal agenda are in charge. Annilation will never help the greater good and with your perverse attitude and general lack of intelligence it is no wonder why these islamic extremist want us dead. Unfortunately while your view is now the overwhelming minority, it is the view the rest of the world percieves as our stance, directly resulting from our idiotic actions. Who has killed more innocent civilians, Saddam or Bush? Hint: It’s not even close.

Posted by: Richard at August 4, 2006 7:18 PM
Comment #173391

“Civilian deaths are the fault of the terrorist groups who hide among them, just like we lay the blame for the deaths of German civilians at Hitler’s feet. If annihilation is the only way we can win, what are we waiting for?”

Nice bloodthirsty republican attitude.
Little difference here. The insurgents are not a country, or a government. The civilians do not follow them, did not elect them, did not sign on for a war. In 1940’s germany, they did.
If were supposedly there now NOT because of WMD’s, but to bring freedom and democracy, then carpet bombing cities and killing millions would go a against that goal.
The point of carpet bombing cities is to destroy war making capability, and destroy the will to fight. Since a guerilla insurgency is not reliant on big factories turning out tanks and bombs, and the peoples consent is not necessary for the insurgency, your tactics would merely be genocide.

Posted by: Observer at August 4, 2006 7:18 PM
Comment #173393

Adrienne,

I have constantly posted that we need to withdraw our troops now and that we should never have been there in the first place. I remain concerned that withdrawl in the face of adversity is seen in the militant world as (1) an admission of defeat and (2) an indication of weakness, i.e. an invitation to attack. What I haven’t heard is what do we do to mitigate those negative perceptions. BushCo doesn’t even talk about there being deep problems and the Democrats (in a minority position of impotence) haven’t spoken beyond the platititudes.
My first suggestion: Fire Rummy and get Shinseki back.

Posted by: Dave1 at August 4, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #173397

” I remain concerned that withdrawl in the face of adversity is seen in the militant world as (1) an admission of defeat and (2) an indication of weakness, i.e. an invitation to attack. “

And continuing the course of an obvious mistake in order to avoid amitting that mistake is a better plan??
Continuing to let soldiers die for nothing in order that the ones already dead didn’t die for nothing???
gwbush already showed the world how to beat us with his ill conceived nightmare. Our air of invincibility forever gone. Perhaps we could invade Grenada again to boost our ego?

Posted by: Observer at August 4, 2006 7:41 PM
Comment #173398

Observer,

Do you have any real suggestions to mitigate the costs in the next phase after a rapid unilteral disengagement? We know the benefits of that withdrawl, no more wasted American life in Iraq.

Posted by: Dave1 at August 4, 2006 7:46 PM
Comment #173402

“Do you have any real suggestions to mitigate the costs in the next phase after a rapid unilteral disengagement? “

Dave,
The costs you speak of are to our ego. The damage to our reputation and standing has already been done. The same fear kept us in Vietnam about 6 years too long, and kept the USSR in Afghanistan beyond the point of progress as well.
Many in Iraq and our country, including Iraqi citizens polled, have said that it is our presence itself that propogates the violence. Leaving may solve the problem to a large degree.
If we aren’t there, attacks would be less tolerated by the population.
I personally feel we’ve paid enough blood currency while they sit around discussing the shape of the table.

Posted by: Observer at August 4, 2006 7:57 PM
Comment #173404

You have to wonder what are the real reasons bush attacked iraq? Yes according to him, there were WMD, but nothing found. Hussein was contained with the no fly zones, etc. Now that Bush and Cheney are big oil people, got to wonder.
Now as far as rummy dummy, do a search on him and hussein and take a look at the pictures of them shaking hands and being buddy-buddy(Dec 1983), on behalf of Ronnie Raygun. Wonder what went wrong, I guess they couldn’t kiss and make up.
Reminds me of 1984(the book), our friends today will be our enemy tomorrow, our enemy will become our friend.
The war in Iraq has gotten into a quaigmier and yes we should cut and run, before more unnecessary American lives are lost. Iraq is already in a civil war with itself, and there is nothing we can do no matter how many troops we have there.

Posted by: KT at August 4, 2006 7:58 PM
Comment #173413

Dave:
“I remain concerned that withdrawl in the face of adversity is seen in the militant world as (1) an admission of defeat and (2) an indication of weakness, i.e. an invitation to attack.”

Dave, the way I see it, we’ve already been defeated — we’ve been trying to fight a guerilla war through conventional methods — and there has been no control over the escalation of violence. I honestly don’t think there’s any hiding that fact at this point.
Also, I don’t think there’s any way to hide the weakness of the minds of the Bushco Neocons. Think about “My Pet Goat” for a moment if you will. These clowns have clearly been as stupid, incompetent and unwise as any group of leaders could possibly be. Make no mistake, terrorists already know that their weak minds and incompetent leadership is an invitation to attack us.

The way to combat this situation at this point (in my opinion), is for America to show the terrorists who seek to harm us that our citizens are fully aware of just how moronically stupid this administration has been. By voting out these rubberstamping Republicans, and getting some Democrats in there who aren’t afraid to strongly oppose this administration’s occupation of Iraq. People who won’t allow our soldiers to be targets any longer. Who won’t make them fight Iraq’s civil war. Who know it’s time for the Iraqi people to decide their own fate. And who think that “Stay The Course” is nothing but Bullsh*t. We need to show the terrorists that this country expects more than leaders who like to talk tough while doing virtually nothing to actually protect this nation. This is the best thing that we could do right now.

Furthermore, in my opinion, the strongest message of all that America could send to the terrorists right now, would be having the Republicans JOIN with Democrats in impeaching Bush and Cheney and Rummy. That’s right, Republicans standing up to these clowns the way Hagel is now doing. I’d like to see them install a whole new crop of Republican leadership and show the terrorists that THEY recognize Bushco’s many failures, and that THEY’RE smart enough to change leadership for the good of our people and our nation. By replacing morons with folks who are actually able to think reasonably, rationally, shrewdly and strategically, we’d show these terrorist bastards that America knows just how to stop on a dime, and change direction when we need to.
Your thoughts?

Posted by: Adrienne at August 4, 2006 8:52 PM
Comment #173414

yeah Dave1, I figured as much, but couldn’t (therefore) figure out the reason for the title…

ummm… how about (an)tigris(ly)…? lol

Posted by: myles at August 4, 2006 8:54 PM
Comment #173421

Here here, Adrienne!!

“would be having the Republicans JOIN with Democrats in impeaching Bush and Cheney and Rummy. That’s right, Republicans standing up to these clowns”

Posted by: Observer at August 4, 2006 9:21 PM
Comment #173558

Adrienne,

a) I don’t think we’ve been “defeated”, in the sense that are army is overrun, etc… We clearly have the resources to continue the battle for a long time to come. The problem, of course, if the cost benefit analysis is way way way in the negative. This has cost us more than we can ever recover from it and more fighting will not ever switch that balance.
b) I don’t think the Iraqi or ‘foreign’ insurgents think in the terms of “incompentency” that you and I would. I expected that the US armed forces, properly deployed, would easily have won both the war and the peace, despite the gross evils of the Bush policy. In the long term, I was convinced that any puppet Iraqi regime would have rapidly collapsed after our withdrawl into a civil war followed by an Iranian-allied theocracy. They simply see an armed aggressor and an opportunity. I don’t think they ever viewed the US gov’t as anything other that a bully, ignorant of the realities of the Middle East.
c) I agree with your solution. We have to vote the Bushites out of every office we can. Without the cowering GOPers crapping their pants in fear of KKKarl and letting King George run the show, the Dems can use forcing a withdrawl as a gain in political capital instead of being browbeaten as “cut-and-runners”. Of course, I’m sure the Bushies will lie through there teeth in Octoboer, promising a withdrawl, pulling out a few dozen troops, then sticking them all back with a few thousand more after the elections.
d) For the reasons I stated before, I don’t think we can actually withdraw until after the elections and a party shift in congress. With no party shift, I think we stiull have to withdraw, but at a much greater cost in the long haul.

Posted by: Dave1 at August 5, 2006 8:03 PM
Comment #173628

GK: Does the following quote from you mean that you are about to shoulder a rifle and go to Iraq to help? “Whether you agree with the war or not, I can’t imagine it is the liberals point of view that we simply abandon the Iraqi people. What happened to your bleeding hearts? Does it only extend as far as your own rib cage?”

Ken Strong: How about you of the “support the troops” camp? You going to go over there? Heck, are you even going to go out and buy them some body armor and ship it over there?

Observer: in this conflict, if the civilian population is NOT on the side of terror,then all they have to do is kick the terrorists our of their homes. If they are not willing to do that, then they bring destruction on themselves. Of course, they could leave their homes themselves, and they would not be harmed. Ask youself why any civilian is still in South Lebanon.

All: we are in a religous war. Iraq has been lost to the Shiite just as Iran was lost to them. Their stated goal is to kill us. Considering the size of their population, and birthrate, it might be a good idea if we started thinking along those same lines. As it is, France, German, and Norway are no longer western civilizations. Soon, all of europe will be gone except as lines on a map. Time to defend ourselves. And, unfortunately, there is really only one way to do that. A way we are not, as a nation, willing to do yet. But in this war, it truly is kill or be killed.

Have a nice day folks.

Mark


Posted by: Mark at August 6, 2006 2:05 PM
Comment #173648

Myles,

Regarding your post ““…America is not at war in Iraq.” Ok!! enough said, thanks Ken. Bring the troops home.

Oh my goodness, so by that thinking we should bring them home from Asia and Europe too? What about their governments which cry at the idea of us leaving? I guess we should stop naval cruises and the other normal cycles of military deployments too, right? I mean, why have the military anywhere we’re not at war, right?

That’s not a good plan in my opinion.

Posted by: Ken Strong at August 6, 2006 4:14 PM
Comment #173652

Mark,

I did many many years in the USMC… please do let me know if that’s good enough for you or not to endow me in the “support the troops” camp or not.

assume …. ass-u-me ….. enough said

Posted by: Ken Strong at August 6, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #173655

Observer:

So let me get this right: I say, “Tell me where I’m wrong? Tell me I’m making up a quote? Tell me that Iraqi general is some imposter created by Bush.”

And you say “Simple. 1998 and 2003,DIFFERENT YEARS!”

So, this is interesting. Saddam was a threat in 1998 and during a Clinton speech at the Pentagon too, mind you, in 1999 (read that one when you can) … but somewhere, during some point in the time-space continuum between Clinton getting out of office and Bush coming into office, 2 things happened in grand and, amazingly enough, simultaneous fashion:

#1: Iraq, within microseconds of Bush taking office, was no longer a threat. Woohoo! Whodathunk?! Certainly not Albright or Clinton!

#2: About 6 microseconds later, Bush orchestrated an evil plan to dominate the CIA and, for that matter, all multi-national intelligence agencies and convince the world that (even though Iraq was obviously no longer a threat - see #1 ) that Iraq actually was a threat.

All this while Bush was, how do liberals say, “smart as a box of rocks”?

Do ya see now where I’m having a little frustration and a REAL HARD TIME understanding the “made up threat” claims from the Left?

Posted by: Ken Strong at August 6, 2006 4:35 PM
Comment #173700

Ken -

You do know that both Rice and Powell both stated that Saddam was no threat in 2001… in fact Rice stated this in April of 2001.

Even the intelligence community stated that Iraq’s WMD programs were nothing more than show… but somehow or other Saddam became a massive, imminent threat after 9/11. That’s the “made up” part everyone is talking about.

Posted by: tony at August 6, 2006 9:11 PM
Comment #173707

Ken Strong-
The trouble is, Bush has a bad habit of not asking the people whose business it is to know before he runs off his mouth. Then he blames his mistake on the people who were telling him the information was bad to begin with.

He was convinced that Iraq was a threat, so his people were constantly asking for more proof of it, even going so far as to actively scrounge for the information. When the CIA would tell him it was Bullshit, his people would just keep on putting it back in.

He didn’t orchestrate an evil plan, he just muddied the waters so badly that all he could see was his own reflection.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 6, 2006 9:59 PM
Comment #174407

Ken- any service, or not. It is not what you did, but that the ‘support the troops’ folks actually do nothing at all to support the troops but root them on to more and more death. All of them? probably not. But most of the ones I know.

And as for your service - thank you. Truly. You are lots braver than I.

Posted by: Mark at August 9, 2006 11:09 PM
Post a comment