Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Eric,

You never fail to offer up in your posts, tenuous arguments in yet another attempt to rationalize the Bush administration’s failures. And, each time there are more scurrilous personal attacks on those citing dismal (yet accurate) evidence, you rather not acknowledge or explain.

When did expressing a dire prognosis about a conflict involving our military, become anti-American? When did speculating America can only fight an ultimately futile battle with insurgents, become traitorous? If I presume those stolen explosives have aided in the death of US soldiers, am I anti-American?

As you did with Scott Ritter’s comments, a current tactic of the Right is to blur the lines between the Iraqi Invasion and the Occupation. Criticism of the occupation specifically is usurped to read as criticism of the successful invasion.

Baghdad has not been taken over by the US military. If the entire city had been secured, the road to the airport would not be the highly dangerous trek it currently is, and the security walls protecting the Green Zone and other installations would not be the most lucrative business in the area.

This new historical perspective of wars and causalities, is currently in great use across the net by those on Right - but, just as faulty a reference point. How can you possibly compare the cause of +292K deaths in WWII, with the resistance encountered so far in Iraq, that can be ranked right above the Invasion of Grenada?

In order to militarily ‘secure the peace’, we need to disarm and kill every insurgent and seal the entire stretch of borders.

I’m not willing to tolerate the number of casualties required.

Eric, you, Hersh, Bush, Kerry, are all taking a very simple topic and making it far too complicated to solve.

To make the invasion into Iraq successful, one need only define success. I defined success in Iraq as removing Saddam’s regime. Mission Accomplished. We should have pulled out right after Saddam and his sons were captured and the their armies scattered to the winds.

The opportunity still exists to define what success is for the U.S., meet that goal, and leave. However, if the definition of success is going to remain in Iraqi hands, or the terrorists hands, or regional and international power’s hands, we will not be successful. It really is that simple.

Everyone in the government and running for government (except Nader) are missing the obvious.

Eric,

Please note that the mortality rate among 20-24 year olds is 95 per 100,000. Your number of 854.5 includes all ages. Perhaps you should just delete the “they would have died anyway” logic from your argument.

Dan

Eric, what would constitute a victory in the Iraq War? There are two answers to that question, depending on what point in time you want to use to measure our goals in the war. What were our goals in March of 2003? What was the victory George Bush said he was leading us towards? Here’s what Bush’s invasion was supposed to deliver:

Victory Model A:
—> An American-friendly, secular, civilian, Democractically-elected administration is running Iraq

—> Nearly all American troops are no longer needed in Iraq

—> There are ZERO terrorist attacks in Iraq

—> There are ZERO terrorist cells operating out of Iraq

—> There are ZERO insurgencies destabilizing the regime

—> All weapons lost during and after the war, or hidden by Saddam before the war, or distributed abroad in the past year and a half, are found and accounted for and either destroyed or re-secured by the new American-friendly, secular Iraqi government

—> UN Weapons inspectors go back to Iraq indefinately to monitor this new government’s WMD ambitions

—> Saddam is tried and convicted for his crimes by a fair jury

Do you seriously beleive that we are going to accomplish all of the above? I don’t - I think the above is about as likely as converting Iran to a secular state or getting Pakistan to give up their nuclear weapons. They are worthy goals, but they are still pipe-dreams. I don’t even think that anyone in the Bush Administration is hoping for any of the above.

We can, however, accomplish the following more reasonable goals and still call the result a victory:

Victory Model B:
—> A democratically elected regime runs the country

—> There are hardly any terrorist attacks in Iraq

—> The most powerful international terrorists operating in Iraq are wiped out

—> A multi-national force inhabits and protects at least some parts of the country for 10, 20, or even 30 years

—> UN Weapons inspectors go back to Iraq indefinately to monitor this new government’s WMD ambitions (this is more important in this scenario)

—> Saddam is tried and convicted for his crimes

Victory Model A would constitute a true victory if you think that victory must be thought of in the context of “was starting this war worth it?” Victory Model A is the victory that George Bush promised us in March of 2003. Victory Model A is what Hersh’s sources are talking about when they say that it’s not possible. They are simply stating the obvious, stating what the Bush Administration obviously beleives as well - that most of the initial goals of the invasion are no longer possible.

Victory Model B is the current conventional wisdom. It is still a victory, but it’s less ambitious and certainly doesn’t count as a victory under Bush’s March 2003 standards.

I don’t think anybody, not even Bush, is seeking the true, full victory that I described in Victory Model A. We’re all looking for Model B at this time. Even if we succeed in Victory Model B, I don’t think that history will call the Iraq War a “victory” insofar as so many innocent people have died and that so many new terrorists and new terrorist weapons are scattered all over the place in Iraq and abroad. As the most glaring example, the mission to prevent Saddam’s weapons from getting into the hands of terrorists has patently failed, and it’s far too late to twist that reality into a “victory”.

If I accidently set my kitchen on fire while trying to smoke out some varmints under the floorboards at 5:00 (bellowing “Mission Accomplished!” at 5:05), and if the fire department arrives at 5:15 and puts the fire out before it burns down the rest of the house, is that a “victory”? By 4:50 standards it’s not a victory, but by 5:10 standards it certainly is.

-Cf

Eric, another bit of history for you. Has Israel stop the ceaseless flow of bombs from Palestine?

It is obvious to any military planner that more boots are needed to stabilize Iraq. Does the US have the political will to do that? Does that mean that someone is lying about no plans for a draft?

I won’t get into the stubborn and disconnected idealism that brought us to this situation.

Since I now have your statement of non-chaotic
Iraq Iraq on the record, care to venture a definition of success like Chris has proposed?

Personnaly, I think our victory in Iraq will be very similar to Nixon’s peace with honor. A mere fig leaf. We won every battle there, too. Iraqi’s do not want us there. We have have brought more terror to their lives. We have lost the battle for the hearts and minds.

Eric,
From the tone of your post one would think that because fewer Americans have died we should celebrate a great victory. “All hail technology”!
More soldiers died in the conflicts you cite, because there were more boots on the ground.
It would have been imposible, for instance, to have fought the Vietnam War from a compound in Florida.

Your logic is flawed.
If America, for instance, had placed the amount of troops nesscesary to actually to the job, there would have been far more casualties, but we wouldn’t be screwing around with the problems we have now

I thought we lost when we invaded Iraq. Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000.

downright anti-american, (ie Michael Moore)

Eric,

Stop with the sanctimony, please. Michael Moore disagrees with you; he is not anti-american. There’s a difference, and it would suit you to learn it.

Eric
While I agree with David’s post, it was nice to see something other than the distorted “military failure” view.
To truely justify this as a “military failure” one must simply magnify the negatives while ignoring all the postives,” all just to get a candidate elected.
I’m sure the troops feel all the support this “military failure” view gives them. As evident in polls showing who they will be voting for.
All because of an election.

It is cold comfort that our losses in this conflict have been low by historical standards, but I take Eric’s point.

I think that Bert’s scenario B sounds really good. It is more than we need to achieve for me to consider the operation a practical success. We can’t even secure Washington (and the French can’t secure Paris, the Brits London) to the extent you talk about in scenario A. The U.S. troops stationed in W. Europe since the end of World War II (nearly 60 years) were crucial to the rebuilding and stabilization of Europe. If we can give the same gift to the Middle East we will have done the Lord’s work. If the Middle Easterners are as ungrateful as some Europeans have become, I can live with that. I don’t really care if people love us, as long as they don’t try to kill us and are willing to buy our country’s products.

The fact is we have to succeed in Iraq and we will with something approaching scenario B. We are on track for that right now. The transfer of sovereignty went ahead and so will elections in January. We probably won’t be completely happy with the government, but it will be better than Saddam and a big step forward.

Those that compare Iraq to Vietnam take the wrong lesson. The insurgencies and political considerations induced us to abandon Vietnam. So far the analogy is on track with what could (but won’t) happen in Iraq. But how did the Vietnam conflict actually end? It was not an insurgency or the little guys crouching in the woods. The North Vietnamese army, using tanks and conventional battle tactics conquered South Vietnam. In the end, THE INSURGENCY DID NOT SUCCEED or at least was not sufficient. Absent the North Vietnamese army, the South would have survived.

Both Bush and Kerry will continue the war. (Some Kerry supporters hope that Kerry will pull out. They are wrong.) Neither will be able to get very much more help from foreign powers. It will remain a mainly American enterprise. And I believe that a year or two from today Iraq will be a clear success.

Now for my partisan statement: both Kerry and Bush will continue U.S. policy in Iraq, but a Kerry election will set the process back for three reasons.

(1)Any change in administration creates frictions. It will be six or seven months before the new administration is really up and running reasonably well. Kerry has not even talked about his contingency plans for Iraq, so clearly this is not going to be an accelerated process.

(2)Kerry is less committed than Bush to this policy. He would not have undertaken the venture. Many of his supporters are anti-war activists trapped in the Vietnam model. They will support the effort unenthusiastically or not at all. It is hard to win if you don’t believe in what you are doing.

(3) Kerry will have to work with the current coalition (he really won’t get many others). He has called them bribed and coerced. It will be hard to sit across the table with people he has insulted.

What exactly are we talking about here? A military disaster or a political disaster? Because I think the left has the two completely mixed up.

Remember your Clausewitz, Eric. :)

I define success in Iraq as the point when direct foreign investment starts flowing in. When you start seeing McDonald’s and KFC’s springing up at the shopping malls.

I live in a town with a large military base that has sent many many young men and women to Iraq. These people are my neighbors and we get together frequently and talk about what exactly is going on over there. From what I hear, from those who have been there, it’s easy to conclude that what sets this war apart from other is the sheer ineptitude of the civilian officials who set the strategy and vision.

this is not the fault of the troops, they follow their orders to the letter. this is the fault of the leadership.

you make mention of certain people who you deem un-american? let me submit that there is nothing more un-american than letting american soliders enter a hostile enviornment with too few troops, and insufficent planning for the post-military engagement.

george bush, dick cheney, don rumsfeld and paul wolfowitz are about as un-american as you can get, if we’re going to play this game. they’ve made american less safe, less secure and their inability to understand the social, geopolitical and military ramifications of their illegal war have placed us in a precarious position in regards to the war on terror.

there have been countless examples of their inept handling of the situation. the rush to baghdad and the failure to secure weapons munitions is only the latest example.

consider the irony of having a “green zone” in baghdad. if Iraq were as safe and secure as our presdient would have us believe all of Iraq would be a green zone. But the one piece of real estate that is supposedly secure is not.

there is a difference between being pessimistic and realistic. there is also a difference between realistic and being blind to the truth.

Chris is correct that Victory Model A is an unachievableland version of victory. It is not, nor has it ever been, the administration’s depiction of victory. It’s impossible to achieve in ANY war, much less this one. Victory Model B is a good description of what a victory is.

Even in the United States over the last 50 years, we have had insurgent attacks (Tim McVeigh), terrorist attacks (9-11), terrorist cells operating (militia movements, Al Queda cells etc). Should we consider America a failure because of these? Of course not…they are simply unavoidable. The standard that Victory Model A sets of having ZERO of any of the above is impossible to reach.

David’s suggestion that the US pull out as soon as Saddam Hussein was deposed is interesting. The US has been well condemned by many who feel we have done just that—-involve ourselves to a small extent, and then pull out before any real resolution has been provided.

The Balkans provide an interesting view of what can happen. When power shifted in the Balkans, those who had been WEAK began retribution against those who had been STRONG. The cycle of violence continued, but was stemmed due to NATO and US continued involvement. Had the US left Iraq, the weak would simply have been further persecuted by those retaining the most power, notably those with the most weaponry.

The end result would have been removing Saddam at great cost, and allowing him to be replaced with the next most powerful bad guy. In my opinion, I’d rather have not seen the US take ANY involvement in Iraq than to take that strategy.

Jack,

I’m glad that you find credence in my supposed ‘Scenario B’, however I find every one of your scenarios, implausible.

You infer by labeling us anti-war Kerry supporters as stuck in a ‘Vietnam mode’, as weak, defeatists or naysayers. I have no doubt that a full on, major conflict type offensive (requiring at least 200K soldiers), can squash, disarm and/or eliminate the current insurgency, but at an enormous cost of military and civilian lives. And, I question why this reality is not factored into your argument.

But, you insist after a year or so, a ‘clear success’ will be achieved, yet failing to give an equally clear idea of what it will look like.

I emphatically disagree with your assertion that Kerry will need 6+ months to gain footing, as he already has as advisor’s Richard Holbrooke, Jaime Rubin and Wesley Clark, and the help of Madeline Albright, if needed. And, like most Republicans, you’re under the impression that the obstinacy of our former allies stems from the imperious actions of America, as a whole. To the contrary, they make a clear demarcation between the arrogance of this administration, and the pragmatic vision of the lone superpower exercised under Clinton.

What is our purpose in Iraq right now?

To pacify the region and create a functioning democracy from Iraq.

Any sustained insurgency is a threat to that. the inability to put down the insurgency and keep it down is a mark of failure by that rationale.

Over the past few months, the situation has gone from bad to worse. That’s not pessimism, that’s observation. Sure there may be schools opening here and there, but for the most part the Reconstruction projects are not going smoothly at all- we haven’t been able to spend much of the money earmarked for that. At the same time, the insurgent’s success in creating no-go zones our people can’t penetrate has removed as much as a quarter of the Iraqi population from being able to participate in elections. Iraqi police and national guard are getting slaughtered, literally, in droves, and all this administration can say is that it’s hard work.

Well, there are two reasons for a task to be difficult. Because it is, and because you’ve made it that way.

The failure to secure weapons is bad enough, but that failure has been part of what gave the insurgents the ammunition to face down and kill our soldiers.

Detailed plans created by the state department were thrown aside in favor of a Chalabi centered plan which bore suspicious resemblence to the plans behind The Bay of Pigs, down to that people rising up B.S. Only difference is, instead of going in and being driven back from their territory, we put ourselves in the middle of it, which helps even less.

You can go on recounting your tales of glory, but battle isn’t just glory, force of personality and blind patriotism, it’s strategy, logistics, political support and other practical matters. There’s a difference between the wars we see in books and movies, and the ones we see in real life. A dramatic speech or forceful personality will not salvage a terrible plan, and a crappy execution.

It’s time for the Republican Party to get real about the war it’s gotten us into.

Pragmatic Vision of Clinton?

Disaster in Somalia-loss of American lives President Clinton, “I believe in killing people who try to hurt you.”
George Stephanopoulos: “I hope I didn’t panic and announce the pullout too soon.”

Clinton invades Iraq to “attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors” Bombing began the day before impeachment trial and ended 1 hour after impeachment vote! Iraq was a failed diversion leaving Saddam gloating.

Unsuccessfully lobbed a couple missiles in Afgahnistan. Not only was this a sign of US weakness, Afghanistan and the Taliban remained OFF the Clinton administration’s list of ‘rogue states’ and believed the Taliban was NOT sponsoring terrorist acts, CNN.

Preempted attacks twice in Yugoslavia while bombing specifically civilian targets. Reason: Previous Dictator killed 1/10 of the citiizens Saddam murdered in Iraq.

Does that justify a pragmatic vision?

I do agree with Clinton when he said UBL and Saddam were America’s greatest threats. I also agree with Clinton when he said on Letterman that “a regime change was far more important in Iraq than finding WMD’s.” I also agree with Clinton for supporting Bush going into Iraq and saying “It’s the right thing to do.”
Clinton’s pragmatic vision is occuring as we speak.

I was a Clinton fan, but no clear thinking person could surmise a distinct demarcation without piling a bunch of diatribe on top to skew the facts.

Ummm Taylor, distint demarcation? between what and what? Sorry, I don’t get that last line.

I was just reading Tom Friedman’sTom Friedman’s commentary today. Seems he has another view about a Kerry Administration , Eric. I think his view is more plausible.

Bert,

…tenuous arguments in yet another attempt to rationalize the Bush administration’s failures. …more scurrilous personal attacks on those citing dismal (yet accurate) evidence, you rather not acknowledge or explain.

I’ll gladly discuss those citing such dismal evidence. I thought what I referenced was self explanatory… i.e., on their face, wrong.

When did expressing a dire prognosis about a conflict involving our military, become anti-American? When did speculating America can only fight an ultimately futile battle with insurgents, become traitorous? If I presume those stolen explosives have aided in the death of US soldiers, am I anti-American?

Please follow the link on anti-american, and the one for Michael Moore. Expressing doubts, expressing concern is not un-american. Expressing hope, desire, and the necessity that our troops are defeated by those insurgents is.

TONY JONES: John Pilger, do you still maintain that the world depends on what you call “the Iraqi resistance” to inflict a military defeat on the coalition forces?

JOHN PILGER: Well, certainly, historically, we’ve always depended on resistances to get rid of occupiers, to get rid of invaders.

And what we have in Iraq now is I suppose the equivalent of a kind of Vichy Government being set up.

And a resistance is always atrocious, it’s always bloody.

It always involves terrorism.

You can imagine if Australia was occupied by the Japanese during the Second World War the kind of resistance there would have been, and so on.

We’ve seen that all over the world.

Now, I think the situation in Iraq is so dire that unless the United States is defeated there that we’re likely to see an attack on Iran, we’re likely to see an attack on North Korea and all the way down the road it could be even an attack on China within a decade, so I think what happens in Iraq now is incredibly important.

TONY JONES: You mean defeated militarily?

JOHN PILGER: Yes.

TONY JONES: What does that mean in terms of the resistance, and who is the resistance?

Are we talking about the remnants of the Baathist regime, or are we talking around foreign mujahadeen? Are we talking about anyone that’s prepared to pick up a gun or set off a bomb?

JOHN PILGER: Why do we have a different standard of looking at what a resistance is in Iraq as it is anywhere else? zmag.org

How does the above differ substantially from what Michael Moore said on his own website?

Halliburton is not a “company” doing business in Iraq. It is a WAR PROFITEER, bilking millions from the pockets of average Americans. In past wars they would have been arrested — or worse.

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush? You closed down a friggin’ weekly newspaper, you great giver of freedom and democracy! Then all hell broke loose. The paper only had 10,000 readers! Why are you smirking? michaelmoore.com

Also Scott Ritter was not talking about the occupation. He was talking about the invasion itself, as were other talking heads before they were proved wrong by our troops.

But this brings up a salient point that very few war critics are willing to admit. The invasion was actually a brilliant success. I give Kudos to Stephen Daugherty on this blog for readily admitting that. He still maintains that there were not enough troops for the occupation. That’s ok.

For the purpose of this election Kerry has said this war was wrong at every juncture. Is it arrogance that keeps him from admitting that the invasion was successful?

As for declaring defeat before it has happened… I think the American people understand that as inherently subversive, if not outright anti-american.

The explosives. That ‘growing’ scandal, seems to be dissappearing. Literally.

The information on which the Iraqi Science Ministry based an Oct. 10 memo in which it reported that 377 tons of RDX explosives were missing — presumably stolen due to a lack of security — was based on “declaration” from July 15, 2002. At that time, the Iraqis said there were 141 tons of RDX explosives at the facility.

But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency’s inspectors recorded that just over three tons of RDX were stored at the facility — a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.

The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from the facility long before the United States launched “Operation Iraqi Freedom” in March 2003.

The missing explosives have become an issue in the presidential campaign. Sen. John Kerry has pointed to the disappearance as evidence of the Bush administration’s poor handling of the war. The Bush camp has responded that more than a thousand times that amount of explosives or munitions have been recovered or destroyed in Iraq. abcnews.go.com

Is it arrogance that keeps Kerry from admitting he relied on faulty ‘intelligence’ about these missing explosives?

Eric —

I’m no great Michael Moore fan, but if that’s the most anti-American thing he’s ever said I’m not going to doubt his patriotism. His point is that the Iraqis who are striking at our forces don’t see things the way you do, Eric. They see an invading, occupying army that fires missiles into their neighbors’ houses and breaks down doors in the middle of the night. They don’t perceive it as we’re doing this for their own good. Right? Maybe. Wrong? I am not the one to judge. I’ve never seen my father handcuffed and blindfolded while soldiers touch his genitals and laugh.

As for the explosives — once again I cite intelligence failure. You and Bush can’t get by with the “it was gone when I got there” excuse. The simple fact is that if we hadn’t got there it wouldn’t be gone to begin with! We’d know exactly where it was. Instead it’s in the wind because GWB was in such an all-fired hurry to have his war.

But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency’s inspectors recorded that just over three tons of RDX were stored at the facility — a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.

Interesting link Eric - but perhaps you should have mentioned that this is a “maybe” about the quantity of RDX, the less dangerous of the two explosives stored in the site. We’re still talking about over a hundred tons of explosive that’s very dangerous in quanities of a few pounds.

And responding to Jack and others: I think it is nonsense to believe that our allies will be offended by what Kerry has said during the campaign. The vast majority of people in almost every other country support Kerry, not Bush - now, why would that be true, if they’re so insulted?

To repeat something I said on the other column: Bush can convince about 50% of voting Americans that the war in Iraq was justified, and many of those supporters apparently don’t have a clue what the facts are. The rest of the world views it as a naked power grab. I’m not saying that they’re right, mind you - but that is the perception.

Re-electing Bush will send the message that we, as Americans, support a power grab. Electing Kerry will send a message that we realize that there was a mistake, and we have held the one that made it responsible. It’s the first step toward establishing a credible international force.

As to the friction associated with a new commander in chief, I say, ok - that’s real, it’s probably not six months, but whatever it is, it’s just a price we’ll have to pay, in order to get a competent CinC. The troops will be there for years, and I’d rather the strategic execution of the war over next four years not be botched the same way it has over the last 1.5.

Chris,

Model B is where we are going and it is actually closer to what Bush promised us. (Minus the UN of course.)

Excuse me for saying so Chris, but you have constructed a straw man here. Bush hasn’t even promised zero attacks here in the US. When did he ever say there wouldn’t be any in Iraq? Or ALL weapons accounted for? You’d have an easier time argueing that Kerry has made these claims.

Several points I think you are dodging. You either missed entirely the point of Hersh’s quote or do not want to admit what it means. He is not bemoaning a ‘lesser victory,’ he is bemoaning total defeat.

Second your point about victory really only echoes your desire for this to be a defeat. I think the left made the wrong decision to oppose this war and charge Bush with failure as a political strategy and now has too much invested in it to let it go.

I don’t think that history will call the Iraq War a “victory” insofar as so many innocent people have died and that so many new terrorists and new terrorist weapons are scattered all over the place in Iraq and abroad.

I’d refer you to the abcnews link that completely obliterates your contention that our troops failed to secure 380 tons of explosives.

Also, war is hell. It’s always been hell. As wars go, Iraq is one of the least bloody, least costly wars in history. Democrats are actually making a mountain out of molehill.

Which of these Failures most correctly describes your vision?

Failure Model A:

—> Unable to acheive ‘Perfect’ War plan

—> Any mistake is made, anywhere, at anypoint, by anybody in the course of operation.

—> Any life is lost.

—> Any property is damaged.

—> Terrorists worldwide do not lay down their arms simultaneously and instantaneously.

—> Dictator removed, millions liberated.

—> Potential for democratic and free Iraq.

Failure Model B:

—> President Kerry warns of ‘real’ consequences if inspectors are not allowed continue inspections

—> UN veto’s President Kerry’s plan for disarming Saddam
—> President Kerry agrees with UN plan to certify no WMD in Iraq and remove sanctions

—> President Kerry declares a victory for diplomacy and the UN

—> Saddam Hussein still in power, funding palestinian homicide bombers

—> Saddam declares himself Salidan reborn, total victory against America

I have got to get back to work.

Bert

I think something a little less than your scenario B is what victory will look like by 2007.

I don’t have any confidence that a Kerry administration will be up and running within six months. The fastest transition on record was Ronald Reagan’s and that took until summer. Clinton didn’t really get his full team on board for more than a year. It is not enough to get the cabinet in place. You have to get the deputies and win the confidence of the staff. This just takes time.

On a particular detail, I have been knocking on door in N. Virginia to canvass for Bush. I have been repeatedly surprised by the vehemence and hatred I hear for John Kerry from veterans and retired and serving military. (By the way, I don’t share their hatred. I am only reporting it.) They really dislike what he did when he came back from Vietnam. These are the guys who will be the ones working at DoD for the Kerry administration. I have no doubt that they will do their duty, as they always do, but without their active enthusiasm, the transition will be even more difficult.

As for your personnel suggestions, Holbrooke is very smart, although not personable and generally disliked. I don’t know about Clarke, but Jamie Rubin and Madeline Albright are worse than nothing. One up close and personal reason I am voting against Kerry is because I fear that those two would be back doing damage to U.S interests.

William:

Its hard to know what other countries truly feel about the US leader. Often, they dislike the current US leader, in favor of an unknown commodity.

Europe was not in favor of Clinton’s NATO policies dring the 90’s, the French called America under Clinton a “hyperpower”, and there were great tensions between the European Union and the US regarding trade.

Its always easy to look backwards or forwards in fondness, and forget what things were truly like at the time. And for Clinton, they were not always rosy times, in regard to our relationship with Europe.

If Kerry is elected, there will be continued tensions, unless Kerry does explicitly what they want him to do. If he does that, they will love him and claim respect for him, while loving only the fact that they can manipulate him.

Eric said:

Second your point about victory really only echoes your desire for this to be a defeat. I think the left made the wrong decision to oppose this war and charge Bush with failure as a political strategy and now has too much invested in it to let it go.

That assumptive leap takes the cake. I don’t even know what to say to this, except thanks for making clear exactly what you think of your opponents, Eric.

Eric,

But this brings up a salient point that very few war critics are willing to admit. The invasion was actually a brilliant success. I give Kudos to Stephen Daugherty on this blog for readily admitting that. He still maintains that there were not enough troops for the occupation. That’s ok.

Did the “invasion” end when Bush said “Mission Accomplished”? That seems like a convenient definition. We have deposed Saddam Hussein, which by all accounts is a good thing. But there is still a great deal of resistance. There is some evidence that this resistance “plan” was in place prior to the invasion. It seems like it’s all part of the same war, not occupation versus invasion. It could be that the concept of dividing it into invasion/occupation is part of why we didn’t anticipate the current situation.

Dan

Did we all forget how we felt on 09/11? When our country was attacked, everyone screamed that something needed to be done. People were getting angry that it was taking so long for Bush to take action. When they finally put together a plan and move forward, Bush stated, This will not be quick. This will be a long battle. It is a war. At least 89% were still for the war. Now, however, people think bush is wrong, and we should not be there. What is wrong with you? You push for action, then try and turn your back when things get rough. Bush is not at fault, or a fool. He is a man who saw action was needed, to defend our country and our people who were shamelessly attacked, and now because we are seeing what he spoke of earlier, we all want to pull out. Typical of the type of people in this country now. Definately not the same patriotism of the decades earlier.

Your in for it now Christie
9/11? patriotism?
You can’t mention these without criticizing Bush someway.
Get ready for some major heat.
Good luck.

Did we all forget how we felt on 09/11? When our country was attacked, everyone screamed that something needed to be done.

We haven’t forgotten. But the “somethings” I wanted done were stuff like:

1. Find the guy who did it. So far, no “mission accomplished” here. An internationally known figure, on dialysis yet, and we can’t find him in three years.

2. Find out why we didn’t avert the plot, and fix the problems. Bush went along with the 9/11 committee kicking and screaming, and their recommendations are still not acted on. The main problem was lack of communication btwm the different intelligence agencies, and those problems have clearly not been fixed.

3. Prevent future attacks. There have been no attacks in the US since 9/11, probably due to the operatons in Afghanistan (which I support). But I still feel that Bush has failed in a number of ways to increase security, for instance in selling out to the chemical industry by not requiring additional security.

Yes, we wanted action. But we wanted effective action. Invading a country with no WMDs and no relationship with al Qaeda is not an action I support as a response to 9/11.

Christie/kctim,

I believe that most everyone agreed with the decisive action in Afghanistan.

The elapsed time between 9/11 and the invasion in Iraq was 1.5 years and I am certain that 89% was not the percentage of Americans in favor of invading Iraq.

We pushed for action, yes. The correct action. I know many who were against the war in Iraq before it started, during the invasion, and now during the occupation. Everyone I have spoken to about this also agree that we cannot just pull out. We are there and we cannot let the insurgents win. Decisions today must be made on the circumstances that exist today, not what we would have preferred to have happened a year and a half ago.

Patriotism is a complex topic. I disagree that not supporting the war in Iraq is unpatriotic. In my opinion, the war
1) has been costly monetarily ($200B is about $600 for each person in this country!),
2) has put our troops in danger,
3) has left us with a limited ability to respond to a direct threat on our nation because so much of our armed forces are involved in a current conflict,
4) has damaged our credibility as a world leader, and
5) has potentially increased the size of the militant Muslim faction that is the root of this evil.
Given that I feel this way, I think it wouldn’t be showing much love for my country (i.e., patriotism) to encourage this kind of behavior.

Dan

what concerns me is the apparent trend to blur the line between patriotism and nationalism….

when we get to the point where anyone who questions or disagree’s with the administration is deemed un american or unpatriotic….

that is a scary slope to start down….

eric, fine punditry as usual.

christie:

What does 9/11 have to do with Iraq? Saddam Hussein did not attack us on 9/11. Iraq did not attack us on 9/11. There is no connection between 9/11 and the Iraq war. Do you really not understand that fact?

Dan
First off, I do not support the war in Iraq and I am very patriotic. Probably fanatical about it.
I pretty much agree with points 1,2 and 3 that you make.
#4 though, is way off to me. The world does not like us and only support us when it is beneficial to them.
#5- Maybe. Maybe not. At least you blame the militants instead of Bush for being at the root of this evil.

Rob
Hence the difference between the left and rights mindset. Questioning any war is the right thing to do. Questioning it in a manner that encourages support for the enemy is wrong.
Everyone on earth knows that a country divided is made weaker by that division.

kctim:

please show an example of the right kind of war questioning then….

because right now, even if you say something as simple as “there was no link between saddam and 9/11” some redneck will yell ” you don’t support our troops!!!!”

and low and behold you are branded unamerican…..

i agree…there are correct and incorrect ways of going about it….comparing ANYONE to hitler, not a great way to go….

but honestly criticizing the administration with facts, well…is that so wrong?

Christie is emblematic of the knee jerk patriots that Bush and Cheney rely upon.Molly Ivans has long been a favorite columnist of mine and makes an interesting note about a certain statistic of Bush supporters. Thinking is optional.

kctim,

Perhaps you are right about being a world leader. All countries ally with those they find to be most beneficial at the moment. Strike #4. :)

Also, I think your response to Rob is a little off base in that the “left mindset” is not to question the war in a manner that encourages support for the enemy. I am on the left and I find Michael Moore to be of the same ilk as Ann Coulter. I think there are many who find that Moore speaks for them, as there are many who find that Coulter speaks for them, but there are a lot of others who do not.

Dan

How many innocent Iraqi civilians has the US killed? 10,000 is a very conservative, round number, but feel free to use lower numbers if it makes anyone feel better. So, care to defend that? You know, killing innocent civilians? Because we have done that, for a fact, in numbers so large it’s hard to imagine. Let’s hear from the supporters of war, please chime in, feel free to quote St Augustine. You knew innocent people would die by the thousands, it often happens when bombs and cruise missiles explode in cities, so…
Anyone?
No?
I thought not.

> Second your point about victory really only
> echoes your desire for this to be a defeat.

Go to hell, Eric. How dare you say that?

-Cf

Editor, please feel free to delete my previous comment, but only so long as you also reprimand Eric for shamelessly accusing me of actually seeking the defeat of America. I’d rather he told me to go to hell.

-Cf

William

The problem is that those countries that most dislike Bush and might like Kerry are already not helping and probably won’t. He is not insulting them, only the coalition. The Poles are patrolling one of the zones in Iraq and have been a good ally. The follows are comments by Polish President Kwasniewski on the subject on Polish TV.

“It is really sad that a Senator with 20 years of experience does not notice the Polish input into the coalition and the Polish sacrifice. It is immoral.

“I don’t think it’s because of the lack of knowledge. But we have to set the record straight. The coalition consists not only of the United States, Great Britain and Australia. It is also about the participation of Polish, Ukrainian, Bulgarian and Spanish troops who died in Iraq. It is something immoral not to note the commitment that we embarked upon. We accepted this challenge convinced that terrorism had to be fought, that we had to show international solidarity and that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world.

“In this sense we can talk about our disillusionment with the fact that the attitude and sacrifice of these soldiers is being marginalized to such an extent. But I think it is all due to the campaign and the certain message that Senator Kerry, although not officially, tries to convey that he thinks of a coalition locating the U.S. alongside Germany and France. That is to say, countries opposing the current American stance on Iraq.”

First let me say that my use of the word “ZERO” overstated what I intended. Sure, terrorism is a problem all over the world, and reducing it to zero is impossible, even in the west. But how about reducing it to maybe less than one or two a month? That would be a tremendous acheivement in Iraq. Terrorism in Iraq should be reduced so low that it doesn’t have a crippling terrorizing effect on the day-to-day lives of Iraq’s citizens.

My intention was to paint Model A as an Iraq that has as much internal terrorism and warring insurgencies as any of its neighbors, as much as any current emerging third-world regime, such as Egypt or Iran or Indonesia. And I intended Model B to be one where Iraq is plagued by some violence (either by an oppressive regime or by conflicting insurgents) but does not seem likely to be slipping towards genocide or regional war.

In other words, Model A leaves Iraq better than it was when we went there, while Model B doesn’t.

Joe wrote:
> Victory Model B is a good description of what a victory is.

jack wrote:
> I think that Bert’s scenario B sounds really good.
> It is more than we need to achieve for me to
> consider the operation a practical success.

Actually, it was Chris (me) not Bert.

Anyway, I like your use of the term “practical success”. It’s an obvious hedge, because you know in your heart that Model B is nowhere near the kind of success we wanted before we invaded. It’s a “practical” success because it allows us to leave Iraq without looking totally defeated, but it certainly doesn’t sound like Model B leaves Iraq, the US, or the world any safer than it was in 2002. It’s not as bad as it would be if we just packed up and left right now, though, which is why achieveing Model B would be a “practical success”.

It’s fascinating that you both say you’d accept victory model B, but to me that doesn’t even remotely sound like an outcome that makes the invasion worthwhile. It doesn’t even sound like a victory according to the objectives of the invasion.

Model B is something I’d accept instead of the possible alternative, which is decades of guerilla war in the Persian Gulf region and terrorism without end abroad. But it is not anywhere near what Bush said was going to happen in Iraq. He never said anything of the sort. Model B is not something I’d be “happy” with. I’m actually kind of shocked at how readily you guys accept Model B.

You’re happy with the prospect of a marginally democratically-elected anti-American theocracy or oppressive strongman in Iraq? Cuz that seems to be exactly where the Bush Administration’s policies are headed, and frankly I don’t see how Kerry can do much better. I hope this turns out to be a marginally better outcome than keeping Saddam in power, but there is no way to say. Allawi is cut from the same cloth as Saddam Hussein, and Sadr is a young Ayatollah Khomenei in the making.

You’re happy with the idea that massive stockpiles of conventional weapons, and hundreds of thousands of pounds of high explosives, have been delivered right into the hands of a hundred different terrorist organizations? Because that has already happened (I don’t care when it happened - all that matters is that it happened!). One of the main objectives of the Iraq War was to secure Saddam’s weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists. That mission has not only failed, it’s acheived the exact opposite result. I’d rather Saddam had those weapons in a UN-inspected facility.

You’re happy with the idea of stationing tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq for decades? Man, that wasn’t in the original deal! That sounds like a pretty rotten situation to me. Sounds a lot more rotten than containing Saddam using international inspectors, airstrikes, cruise missles, and sanctions.

That’s what I mean about how, in the big picture, even the President’s objectives fall short of “victory”.

Did you notice that my description of Model B sounded a lot like a description of the situation in Iraq before the invasion! (With the obvious exception of the part about Saddam being tried for his crimes.)

So now you say that Model B is better than where we were in 2002? With tens of thousands dead, a unpredictable and weak regime in feeble control of a shattered state, insurgents and terrorists sprouting by the thousands, enough weaponry to invade a small country in the hands of terrorists crossing porous borders, the enmity of a good part of the world and the distrust of most of it, and a long-term moral obligation to tend to the whole damn mess? You consider that a victory? We were better off containing Saddam.

Eric wrote:
> Saddam declares himself Salidan reborn, total
> victory against America

Saddam could declare himself God Almighty, but that would not be a victory against America. Come on, show some backbone!

> I’d refer you to the abcnews link that completely
> obliterates your contention that our troops failed
> to secure 380 tons of explosives.

That was yesterday. This is today. Same news organization. Same reporter. Anyway, it doesn’t matter when it happened. The point is that Bush gave Al Qaeda and anti-American insurgents weapons to use to kill Americans. Enough to last them decades.

> Second your point about victory really only
> echoes your desire for this to be a defeat.

You’re the one who’s arguing that an outcome that gives mountains of weaponry to Al Qaeda is a “victory”. I wonder what side you’re on? I know I’m rooting for the USA and for Kerry. Bush has already been defeated. America, however, will win.

-Cf

I think option B is great. I used the term practical success to differentiate between what can be done and ideal (unachievable) success. This use of the word is probably part of my personal dialect.

Option B would be well worth the invasion. If we could set up even a practical (use the term again) democracy this would be the first for any Arab country. I believe it would spread to others once they see it can be done.

Another benefit was that we got rid of a terrible tyrant who was our enemy. As for the post about innocent Iraqi deaths, this is a terrible thing. But let’s do the grisly comparisons. Thousands of Iraqis died every year because of Saddam’s policies. Many he killed out right. Others he killed by destroying their traditional means of support, as when he drained the marshes of southern Iraq to wipe out the Marsh Arabs. Still others were killed by his mismanagement of the economy and the sanctions that were necessary to keep him under (at least incomplete) control. Then there was the real possibility that Saddam would provoke another conflict. In other words, Saddam was responsible for the deaths of millions. These are not the kind of calculations you can do with certainty, but it seems overwhelmingly evident that more Iraqis would have died if Saddam had remained in power than were killed by the conflict. They would have been different people and they would have gone more quietly through disease and murder in the night, but they would have been equally dead. And there would be more of them in the medium and long term.

Finally, I continue to believe that Iraq is the front line in the war on terror. Saddam evidently didn’t have operational links with the 9/11 highjackers, but he encouraged terrorism and gave safe haven to terrorists. Don’t believe George Bush or me. According to 9/11 Commission co-chairman Thomas Kean re Clinton’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission, Mr. Clinton believed with “absolute certainty” that Iraq provided al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction expertise and technology in the 1990s. He believed it as president when he ordered the destruction of the al Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, and he believes it now. After the election, even John Kerry will acknowledge it, especially if he is elected.

Eric-
I’ll take your three tons of RDX and raise you the 138 tons of HMX. It’s still tons of explosive that should have been guarded.

Listen, you’re arguing this point the way the Gondorians defended Minas Tirith. One wall after another. First you argue it’s not that much explosives, then you argue they were gone before we got there, then you say (by choice of article) that there wasn’t that much of a certain type, but certainly the right amount in the other.

The common thread seems to be all your positions take the blame off Bush. Hey it’s your prerogative, but our position has remained the same, and our facts have more or less remained consistent. Even when they do change, they don’t seem to contradict us that badly when everything is said and done.

I’d say, just calm down, and see how things go. Problem is, you guys got too invested in making Bush perfect. You can’t do that. People don’t buy it. They want to know what the catch is. Bush should have admitted the errors early and then redressed them. They can tolerate an imperfect president better than one who acts incompetently without admitting such.

What gets people emotional about this is that they see a president with the power accompanying his position who will not correct his course. From that, you get the fear and outrage, which you obviously find unsettling coming from us.

Watching Eminem’s video Mosh is instructive, as the video builds one dark scene after another, with a sense of impending violence coming from the visuals, all coming together-

In a scene where they all come together and vote.

You are fortunate that Bush presides over a democracy, and not some system of government where more severe means would be required to remove the president.

Bush better be very careful, if he wins, to shore up the legitimacy of his administration, and acknowledge what made his re-election so difficult. Bush stepped on a lot of toes and turned a lot of people against him. The people he pissed off the first go-round will be the people he has to govern for the next four years. He has no more political career to ruin after this Election, one way or another, but for hundreds of Republican officials, they will have to live with the legacy of the second term he leaves behind. At the very least, the legislative majorities are at risk. You better hope, if Bush gets re-elected, that his re-election is not something gained at too high a price.

I’m sorry, I usually try to couch my words more diplomatically, but your distinction between military failure and political failure is so silly it borders on hallucinatory psychosis. The entire thrust of Islamic terrorism is to negate overwhelming military power by political means. For the U.S. to suffer a political defeat in Iraq despite our enormous military advantage would be a catastrophe so grave I can barely hold back tears. Get in the game, we’re fighting a war against terrorism, not against a conventional army. Why in the world are you mentioning all these conventional battles?

I’m sorry, but it sounds to me like you’ve gone insane trying to rationalize Bush’s unconscionable Iraq ‘strategy’.

And if you think Iraq is a mess now, wait until Iran and Israel start shooting at each other over Iran’s nukes, spreading chaos throughout the region. You ain’t seen nothing yet! Oh baby, did Cheney blow this one.

> Option B would be well worth the invasion. If we
> could set up even a practical (use the term again)
> democracy this would be the first for any Arab
> country.

Iran is a democracy. Egypt is a democracy. Russia is a democracy. It’s a very loose term these days, and it does not by a long ways mean the same thing as a “free” country, a “safe” country, or even an “America-freindly” country. Simply having an election in Iraq and then bringing the troops home doesn’t count as “planting the seeds of democracy” to me. Especially if the candidates represent several competing theocratic groups (Sadr, etc) and an autocratic thug (Allawi).

> Mr. Clinton believed with “absolute certainty”
> that Iraq provided al Qaeda with weapons of
> mass destruction expertise and technology in
> the 1990s

Can you provide a link for that? I find it a little far-fetched.

Oh wait, now I see why you didn’t provide a link. You lifted almost that entire paragraph word for word from the WSJ editorial page.

It’s an interesting opinion peice, however, especially regarding the possible cooperation between the Sudanese and Iraqi governments on building WMDs, but it’s entirely unconvincing regarding the central premise: that Clinton himself was “certain” that Saddam was working with Al Qaeda. It’s clear even from the paragraph you lifted that this author likes to take liberties with the way he quotes people.

-Cf

Rob
“please show an example of the right kind of war questioning then….”
-Its such a fine line man, I don’t know what is totally right or totally wrong. IMO, mass demostrations, marches and finding fault with everything going on in the war, while our troops are in the middle of it, is not supporting our troops.

“but honestly criticizing the administration with facts, well…is that so wrong?”
-No, I do it all the time myself. But doing it in a way that ignores the pros of a situation is wrong. The current “missing explosives” issue is a good example. This stuff is special material, it must be properly combined to work. You cant just light it or put it in a tube and then will blow up. While I agree that any amount of this stuff missing is a serious concern, it is wrong to ignore this part of the equation. I also read where this 350 tons is 1 tenth or 1 hundredth of what we have captured and secured so far.(I will try to find that link again) So while these explosives not being secured properly is a concern, that is being fixed, it is not like all the explosives in the country are unsecured. This is one site that slipped through the cracks and must be investigated to ensure it does not happen again and I am confident that the correct actions are being taken.

I am also what many consider a redneck. :)

Dan
Point well taken. Its not right to generalize in left/right mindsets. I was going more for a possible reason why those on the right see any talk against the war is unpatriotic and why those on the left see any non-questioning as unpatriotic, or something. I don’t know.
Its such a fine line.

CF

In my personal experience, I don’t know what connections existed between Iraq and Al Qaida or any other terrorists. So what I know comes from others. The following is the best I can do without extensive reference to other sources.

I think we all agree that Saddam was a bad guy who hated the U.S. We can also agree that he had no qualms about killing people and using the methods of terrorism. It seems to me that he was evil, but very clever and duplicitous. The evidence for this is that he managed to survive and even prosper in an environment where so many people were trying to kill him. Logic and my research also tell me that Saddam was practical and opportunistic. He wasn’t tied to any particular ideology and would do what he thought most useful to maintain and extend his power.

Saddam controlled a complex organization of informers, spies, thugs and terrorists, most of whom were deployed to control and oppress his own population, but significant resources were devoted to hurting foreign enemies, like the U.S. Al Qaida shared many goals with Saddam. I think it is impossible that Saddam and Al Qaida did not enjoy a symbiotic relationship. It doesn’t take a direct operational link for this to have been. I would not be surprised if we could not find direct evidence. Remember that they were stealthy.

Adolph Hitler rarely gave unambiguous orders and he almost never signed anything. If you had to produce a “paper trail” it would be almost impossible to prove that he gave orders that allowed the holocaust. That is the way dictators work. (This is a historical perspective that I have heard in discussion. I believe it is true, but I don’t have a specific link.)

So while these explosives not being secured properly is a concern, that is being fixed, it is not like all the explosives in the country are unsecured.

As far as I know, there are no additional measures being taken to secure any of the unguarded arsenals we know about. There just aren’t enough US troops in Iraq to do it.

From last September,

In congressional testimony last week, General John Abizaid, the senior U.S. commander in the Gulf region, summed up the broader problem confronting the military. “There is more ammunition in Iraq than any place I’ve ever been in my life,” he told the Senate Appropriations Committee, “and it is all not securable.”

He added, “I wish I could tell you that we had it all under control, but we don’t.”

I think it is impossible that Saddam and Al Qaida did not enjoy a symbiotic relationship.

Jack, it’s fine to have an opinion, but there’s no data to back that up. In fact, you have to ignore a bunch of evidence to the contrary to make that assumption.

AP
Thanks for the link and the Generals name. Gives me some reading this weekend.

I don’t know how you can come to the conclusion that “there are no additional measures being taken” by reading this article though.

Even though I disagree with this war, I do not believe everything is or should be shared with the public.
To automatically ASSUME the worst, just because a Republican is president, without ALL of the facts is irresponsible. It is not fair.
Its like when all the crap about clinton and the aspirin factory came out. All we heard was that it was a cover and no weapons were there.
Bull! President clinton had information and knew more than what was reported or could be reported.

Until FACTS come out, specifically showing any president intentionaly acted unjustly, I will always trust the presidents word over those who were not there and do not know all the details.
Blind faith? Maybe. But at least its not blind faith based on party views.

> Second your point about victory really only > echoes your desire for this to be a defeat.

Go to hell, Eric. How dare you say that?

-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at October 28, 2004 09:29 PM

Editor, please feel free to delete my previous comment, but only so long as you also reprimand Eric for shamelessly accusing me of actually seeking the defeat of America. I’d rather he told me to go to hell.

-Cf

Chris,

Sorry. It’s not personal. It’s just that I have no other way of explaining the incredible assertions of all those who see nothing but defeat, failure, and incompetence when it clearly isn’t true.

Take the 380 tons of explosives for example. Turns out it was all a lie.

kctim, I admire your attitude. Unfortunately, President Bush just doesn’t have a track record of competence, and everytime I hear someone say, “Sure, things look bad, but Bush must have a secret plan,” we all end up disappointed.

The point of the article was to show that the military, the administration, and anyone who was paying attention, knew all the sites aren’t being secured - there just aren’t enough troops for that. The current situation is only the most recent and possibly the most dangerous of these incidents of arsenals getting cleaned out.

There wasn’t a big push to get them secured over a year ago, and with the Fallujah operation coming up, there’s no indication of a push to secure them now.

Haha! Eric, which piece of speculation in that article prompted you to write, “Turns out it was all a lie.”?

Was it the guy “who said he believed Russian special-forces personnel, working with Iraqi intelligence, “almost certainly” removed the high-explosive material from the Al-Qaqaa facility.”?

I’d like to apologize to Chris in particular for painting with too broad a brush. I didn’t mean to say that any opposition to the war, or even any criticism to the war is un-american or that you want the US to be defeated. I’m sorry if I offended you Chris. It was not my intent. I imputed on you an opinion that wasn’t yours. That was wrong.

Let me clarify what I am saying about opposing the war being unamerican.

I do not think that opposing the war, per se, is un-american. You can oppose the war without being un-american.

What I am calling un-american is lying to oppose the war. What I am calling un-american are those who would prefer that more soldiers die so that Bush can be defeated, or so that ‘American Imperialism’ can be defeated. This is Michael Moore’s position. If that is not your position I am not calling you un-american.

I will not concede, though, that no one is ever un-american— because I have linked to two clear examples. Here and here.

Bush’s track record is very good, if you strip away the partisanship.

Here are a few of the things the pundits claimed were nearly impossible.

Domestic

1.Tax cuts the way he wanted
2.No child left behind
3.Prescription drug bill
4.Strengthened Republicans in Congress in a midterm election.
5.Helped the U.S. economy recover from the downturn at the end of the Clinton administration and the shocks of 9/11

Foreign

1.Avoided follow up terrorists attacks in the U.S.
2.Defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan
3.Democratic elections in Afghanistan
4.Effectively crippled Al Qaida command and control
5. Defeated Saddam Hussein with losses lower than almost all estimates.
6.Transferred sovereignty to Iraqis in June 2003. Elections on track for January 2005.
7.Improved relations with China (which were horrible under Clinton), Russia and India.
8.Won Russian support for MD program.

Those are just the accomplishments I can come up with off the top of my head. They are accomplishments that will be recognized as soon as this political season is over. If President Bush promised to do these things, you wouldn’t believe him.

Eric, thanks for the revised thoughts, it is appreciated.

But I don’t see lying going on on my side, especially not by me. You wrote:

> Take the 380 tons of explosives for
> example. Turns out it was all a lie.

You linked to an article that doesn’t support your thesis. In fact, it doesn’t dispute the allegations at all.

Allow me to bust your FOX bubble point by point:

A U.S. Army officer came forward Friday to say a team from the 3rd Infantry Division took about 250 tons of munitions and other material from the Al-Qaqaa arms-storage facility soon after Saddam Hussein’s regime fell in April 2003.

“Munitions and other material” does not equal “explosives”. What “other material” means is anyone’s guess, but “munitions” includes grenades, rockets, landmines, and bullets. We’re talking about 380 tons of just the raw explosives, Eric. Putting aside the obvious fact that only a small fraction of the weight of a typical munition is the actual explosive material (a tomahawk missile, for example, is 2/3 delivery device and 1/3 explosive — grenades and land mines are similar), Pearson is clearly talking about something entirely different He is not talking about finding raw explosive material, but material already loaded up into bombs, or even empty bombs.

Pearson’s team arrived at Al-Qaqaa on April 13, 2003, 10 days after U.S. forces first reached the site and four days after Saddam went into hiding. This was the same time that the 101st Airborne Division had secured Al-Qaqaa and the surrounding area.

That’s deceptive to say the least. The 101st arrived on April 18 - a week later, AFTER Pearson’s team did their work. FOX knew this, and I assume you did too.

Not only that, but the 101st found raw explosives, the exact same kind that the IAEA claims is now missing. Pearson never mentions any such thing. He’s not talking about the same stuff, Eric.

While Pearson could not characterize the tonnage of plastic explosives his team removed and he could not remember seeing any IAEA tags on the bunkers, he said plastic explosives taken from the site were used to detonate thousands of tons of other munitions collected further north in Baghdad.

So there weren’t any IAEA seals on the bunkers? There were IAEA seals on the bunkers the 101st checked out a week later. He’s definitely not talking about the same stuff.

I’m only arguing this to prove how silly your denials of this problem are, and how readily your side will cling to desperate excuses. The same article goes on to repeat the preposterous claim that the explosives were taken by Russia! What kind of an excuse is that? Russia looted Iraq while we were invading? Jeez.

If you don’t buy the “Russia took them” story, then I presume you still beleive that Saddam moved the explosives before we got there in order to support his planned post-invasion insurgency. But you still haven’t answered my question: Did Saddam Hussein outwit George W. Bush?

-Cf

Eric-
You’re in such a rush to find the items that will benefit Bush that you just rollover the items that contradict or qualify what you assert without half realizing it. To date, nothing has proved that the HMX, the most potent of the explosives was missing at that point. We may have only 3 tons of the RDX, but nothing so far has indicated that the quarter million pounds of the more powerful HMX wasn’t where it was supposed to be.

You managed to be wrong about just about every call, and while I admire your ability to move on from a story proven wrong, you still have yet to get the knack of finding the true story’s thread.

When I go looking for facts, I always look out for qualifying and contradictory information, because I really don’t like to end up on the wrong side of an accurate fact. I guess my point is, you should ask the questions before we get around to it.

Chris,

This whole 380 tons story has been shown to be overblown. It was a nice try but the more Kerry keeps pushing it the worse he’s going to look. There were never 380 tons of RDX in those bunkers because the IAEA can’t even come up with definitive documentation about what was there. The full details aren’t known, which is exactly why Kerry has put his foot in his mouth in questioning the competence of the military. In the article Pearson tells exactly what he knows.

According to Pearson, the team removed 250 tons of material including TNT, plastic explosives, detonation cords and munitions. He arrived at that estimate because he said the team used nine truck-trailer combinations that each could carry 33 tons of material.

…”I can’t say RDX that was on the list of IAEA is what the major pulled out,” said Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita. “We believe that some of the things they were pulling out of there were RDX.”

He also said that the IAEA has not come forward with documentation that explains how it arrived at the figure of 377 tons of missing explosives. The IAEA so far only has verified in its paperwork that 219 tons of explosive materials were at Al-Qaqaa and surrounding facilities. foxnews.com

Click on over to the Belmont Club where another ordinance officer chimes in about the channel five video tape. The drums they are looking at are probably tnt, not RDX, PETN or HMX. (Apparently only the HMX was under seal by the IAEA.

How many trucks did they use to steal these 380 tons of explosives out from under our noses? Pearson says they used 9 HEMTT- 33 ton vehicles to move 200-250 tons of material. How many Iraqi trucks did it take? While we controlled those roads? While we were looking for enemy trucks carrying weapons, possibly WMD?

Kerry’s accusation that AFTER we took control of that installation, that the military let someone walk in there and walk away with 380 tons of high explosives is laughable on it’s face.

3rd ID arrived there April 3rd, and inspected for WMD, which would include all bunkers and materials with IAEA seals on them. They weren’t looking for explosives, they were looking for WMD. The explosives (and munitions) are marked for disposal.

Two major roads that pass near the Al-Qaqaa installation were filled with U.S. military traffic in the weeks after April 3, 2003, when U.S. troops first reached the area, the colonel said.

Perkins and others in the military acknowledged that some looting at the site had taken place. But he said a large-scale operation to remove the explosives using trucks almost certainly would have been detected. boston.com

Back to the UN for a minute who put out this story saying that 380 tons had been ‘looted’.

But the confidential IAEA documents obtained by ABC News show that on Jan. 14, 2003, the agency’s inspectors recorded that just over three tons of RDX were stored at the facility — a considerable discrepancy from what the Iraqis reported.

The IAEA documents could mean that 138 tons of explosives were removed from the facility long before the United States launched “Operation Iraqi Freedom” in March 2003. abcnews.go.com

Already we know that there can’t have been 380 tons of explosives there. How much was there?

The documents show IAEA inspectors looked at nine bunkers containing more than 194 tons of HMX at the facility. Although these bunkers were still under IAEA seal, the inspectors said the seals may be potentially ineffective because they had ventilation slats on the sides. These slats could be easily removed to remove the materials inside the bunkers without breaking the seals, the inspectors noted.

Kerry’s whole point is in fact pointless.

What’s more it only serves to highlight Saddam’s efforts to obtain nuclear weapons and that he had some of the components. HMX is high explosive used in detonating nuclear weapons. The Al Qaqaa facilility was partly a nuclear facility.

Nuclear inspectors believe an area of the complex was involved in designing an atomic bomb before Iraq’s nuclear program was destroyed by U.N. teams after the 1991 Gulf War. The facility also made lenses and other components that can be used to trigger nuclear explosions.

In March 1990, customs officers at Heathrow Airport in London seized a case of capacitors — components for triggers in nuclear weapons — bound for al Qa Qaa that were especially designed for detonating nuclear warheads. foxnews.com

Saying Saddam Hussein outwitted George W. Bush because some explosives are missing is like saying a criminal outwitted the police by committing a crime before they arrested him.

Eric wrote:

Please follow the link on anti-American, and the one for Michael Moore. Expressing doubts, expressing concern is not un-American. Expressing hope, desire, and the necessity that our troops are defeated by those insurgents is.

This may be surprising to you Eric, but I did throughly read these two links in the process of initially reading your entry. And, as I insist Ritter and Moore’s comments are not anti-American, I’m now more disturbed you would go to the abhorrent extent reflected in the last line of this quote. Either specifically cite it, or a retraction is warranted.

Jack wrote:

Bert, I think something a little less than your scenario B is what victory will look like by 2007.

Jack, if you could expand on what the state of Iraq would look like, reaching this point?

Second, although I am not surprised by your partisan criticism and claims of Rubin, Holbrooke and Albright having bad reps, I’d preferred some examples of this and how it damages their ability to right our foreign policy ship.

Lastly Taylor,

As far as your criticism of my ‘a pragmatic Clinton’ foreign policy quip, I am not going to use as an excuse (as most Bush apologists would), the fact that his administration were not prepared for the kind of terrorists attacks committed during his term. There was no plan in place to respond to these violent acts - the first of their kind against the US.

However, the same excuses and leeway afforded Bush in response to 9/11, are not applied to Clinton’s handling of the terrorist threat in hindsight, by defensive Republicans looking to deflect accountability.

Yes, there were American causalities in the first Trade Ctr bombing, the USS Cole attack and the tragedy in Somalia. However, we successfully prosecuted those responsible for the first Trade Ctr attack; Richard Clarke was successfully gathering intelligence on who and what we were dealing with, and in return, had the direct ear and influence over the President’s response; and finally, not only were we maintaining cooperative ties with important Arab moderate states, they were increasing in numbers.

Bert,

TONY JONES: John Pilger, do you still maintain that the world depends on what you call “the Iraqi resistance” to inflict a military defeat on the coalition forces?

…Now, I think the situation in Iraq is so dire that unless the United States is defeated there that we’re likely to see an attack on Iran, we’re likely to see an attack on North Korea and all the way down the road it could be even an attack on China within a decade, so I think what happens in Iraq now is incredibly important.

TONY JONES: You mean defeated militarily?

JOHN PILGER: Yes.

zmag.org

I’m not sure if you call this patriotic dissent.

Halliburton is not a “company” doing business in Iraq. It is a WAR PROFITEER, bilking millions from the pockets of average Americans. In past wars they would have been arrested — or worse.

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not “insurgents” or “terrorists” or “The Enemy.” They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win. Get it, Mr. Bush? michealmoore.com

Hmm. The similarities are striking. What about the following public figure:

I wonder about you. Although we are ushering the fourth year after 9/11, Bush is still exercising confusion and misleading you and not telling you the true reason. Therefore, the motivations are still there for what happened to be repeated.

…We found no difficulties in dealing with the Bush administration, because of the similarities of that administration and the regimes in our countries, half of which are run by the military and half of which are run by monarchs. And our experience is vast with them.

And those two kinds are full of arrogance and taking money illegally.

…He was more interested in listening to the child’s story about the goat rather than worry about what was happening to the towers. So, we had three times the time necessary to accomplish the events. cnn.com

Eric,

Some of those links are interesting. I guess we’re just going to go back and forth over who’s right. I’ll never beleive a “Pentagon spokesperson” who is a political appointee of the Bush Administration. You’ll never beleive a UN document. Both of us fill in the plentiful gaps according to our imagninations. And we’re both in trouble, because both of us are quoting sources (UN, Pentagon, pundits, news organizations) who contradict themselves constantly.

I think, however, that we can all agree that the insurgents and terrorists are extremely well-armed, that they got these arms in part through looting unguarded arms dumps and in part because Saddam deliberately armed them in advance of the invasion. The questions then, are:

1) Would sending twice or even three times as many troops have helped prevent so much armament being in the hands of our enemies right now?

2) Could Bush have predicted that Saddam had deliberately planned for a war in which the enemy’s strategy might actually include an initial string of defeats followed by a well-armed insurgency.

To me the answers are emphatically “Yes” and “Yes”.

Your police analogy doesnt cut it because Saddam’s “crime” is still occurring even today, just as he planned it. Any fool can see that the very core of Saddam’s plan would involve (a) him either dying or going into deep hiding and (b) trying to inflict as much damage to the US forces as possible even after an initial crushing defeat. Bush apparently didn’t think Saddam capable of such planning. Or maybe he thought that the Iraqi people would love the American troops so much that an insurgency wasn’t possible. Either way, he was outwitted by Saddam. He was fooled, hoodwinked, and thwarted.

It’s entirely possible to outwit a nearly invincible enemy, causing him great harm even as you fall. This is the fate that has fallen our victorious forces today.

It’s also possible to defeat an enemy without permitting him to continue to abuse your forces for a year and a half afterwards. This is what should have happened. We should have defeated him more soundly and more securely.

History is full of losers who, even in defeat, outwit their more powerful victors. And there have been plenty of victors whose vanity was eventually their undoing.

-Cf

Eric,

I will now expect every debate with you to eventually boil down to an argument over semantics.

Both quotes are pure speculation and predictions, borne out of frustration and anger that this administration has no idea who they’re dealing with. Plus, the fact that American lives are being sacrificed in an untenable situation, is also obvious.

Eric wrote:

Expressing hope, desire, and the necessity that our troops are defeated by those insurgents is.

Nowhere Eric, in these quotes are these words used or sentiments expressed in any other worded manner!

> I will now expect every debate with you
> to eventually boil down to an argument
> over semantics.

Bert, interesting point. But I think this argument is particularly semantically controversial.

I think we are arguing over the meanings of the words “win” and “defeat”, “victory” and “loss”. What would constitute an American victory? What would constitute an insurgent victory? What would constitute a terrorist victory? Is it possible for America and the insurgents to both win and the foreign terrorists to lose? Is it possible for all sides to lose?

If Moqtada al Sadr wins a seat in the Iraqi Parliament in 2005, that would probably constitute a victory for him, but what would it be for the American soldiers who have been fighting al Sadr’s forces for the past year?

If the USA leaves Iraq in the hands of a democratically-elected but brutally oppressive anti-American strongman in Iraq, some Americans would call it a victory, some would call it a defeat. I’d be hard-pressed to decide.

I think the bottom line is that this war had no clear objectives to begin with, and that the objectives have only become muddled since then, and that we have reached a time where no American exit strategy can be definitively called a decisive defeat or a true victory.

-Cf