Wishful Thinking on Iraq

President Bush revealed his Iraqi “victory strategy” recently, the details of which are online.

I realize this type of thing is very difficult; really, the most difficult type of war to win. And I commend Bush for taking the time to rally public support for the war, which has been flagging in part due to his absence from the bully pulpit. That said, the victory strategy appears to contain many of the same mistaken assumptions that have allowed the insurgency to continue: imprecise goals, unrealism about Iraqi security forces, naive optimism about the effects of democracy, and prioritization of political goals over security.


It's vagueness and imprecision is staggering. "Build stable, pluralistic, and effective national institutions," "advance the rule of law, and nurture civil society," "build the capacity of Iraqi institutions to maintain infrastructure." What is missing in all of these proposals are the various ways that peculiarites of Arab culture impede all of these goals at every stage.

Iraq is a tribal society, with little trust between those outside extended family organizations, and significant differences in outlook between its cleric-dominated Shia majority and the remainder of the country.

In addition, the various goals in the victory strategy, in particular the emphasis on the political process, ignores the relative importance of security to all of these things. An insecure Iraq will find the democratic government beset by illegitimacy. An insecure Iraq will find its professionals--engineers, business owners--fleeing the country and making essential tasks impossible to accomplish. Numerous political goals have already been achieved--capturing Saddam, transfering sovereignty, presidential and parliamentary elections--but Iraq remains unstable and the insurgency continues to ebb and flow.

Finally, the strategy fails to acknowledge the significant deficiencies of Iraqi security forces' capability. Those forces suffer from poor motivation, inadequate equipment, intimidation, but, most importantly, the inability to plan operations and support them logistically. These qualities are not unique to Iraq's military. Other regions of the world with similar tribal cultures--Latin America and Africa--have also found their political and military institutions hampered by the inability to work cooperatively and efficiently coupled with aggrandizing behavior by those in authority. Recognition of such challenges in the raw material of Iraq--its people and their native culture--is completely missing from this abstract document.

It seems to me that any Iraqi victory strategy should contain something like the following items that have proven successful in other counterinsurgencies:

Recognition that security is the first priority. The real key to hearts and minds are not new textbooks, elections, and the occasional PR event, but delivering the goods that governments everywhere must deliver. Insufficient troops have been the cause of this festering problem, and a short-term plan should include the difficult decision to increase US force levels to 200,000 or more.

A political plan that empowers a single, powerful executive. Only such an empowered authority can cut the Gordian Knot of regional, sectarian, and tribal resistance to an effective central government.

A commitment to suppressing sources of extremism and disorder from sheiks, imams, and the press. "Freedom" does not and should not be misunderstood to include the freedom to support anarchy and terrorist resistance.

A deemphasis on the present strategy large-scale sweeps--Operation Matador, Operation Dawn--and more integration of US forces at the small unit level with Iraqi forces.

A plan for constructing and manning robust barrier on all of the relevant border crossing points.

A plan for massive investments in language training for US forces. Language barriers continue to hinder integration with Iraqi forces and US gathering of intelligence in Iraq and for the war on terror.

A plan for collective punishment of sources of support for the resistance: towns, mosques, etc. This should include curfews, removal of electricity, denial of local self-government, forced dispersal of populations, etc.

Swift, public executions of captured insurgents. There is presently little downside for these terrorists, who are often motivated by threats and bribes. A swift, certain death penalty would give them a major incentive not to.

Amnesty and rewards for insurgents who switch sides. The classic carrot and stick program, which worked very well in the latter part of the Vietnam War under the rubric of the Chieu Hoi program.

A plan for instituting identity card requirements nationwide under penalty of summary arrest. As it is, insurgents can hide because they can move about relatively unchecked and unaccounted for. Any identity card system should be used to gather evidence--fingerprints and photographs--to arrest those connected to IED and other attacks.

A plan for protecting and rewarding people and areas loyal to the government, e.g., "fortified hamlets," and colocation of Iraqi forces, their families, and US troops.

Increased US reliance on helicopters and decreased reliance on the roads. Helicopter assault has proven to be the main way to leverage the mobility and capabilities of first world militaries entangled with insurgencies, e.g., Vietnam, Algeria.

Posted by at December 6, 2005 2:08 PM | TrackBack (1)
Comments
Comment #99344

It seems the right wing “strategy” in Iraq is to denigrate Democrats and scream “we’re winning” over and over.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 6, 2005 2:33 PM
Comment #99352

As you should be able to tell from my entry, I am unconcerned with all of that, but am concerned with achieving victory realistically. I should not have to bear the cross of every dumb sycophantic thing said by Republicans that do not want to concede that the insurgency has been one long setback from the get-go and that its been fueled by the liberal/Wilsonian obsession, shared by Bush and the neoconservatives, with creating democracy.

This is a good faith proposal and criticism of our stated Iraq strategy based on the premise that we should try to win, that winning would send an important positive signal about US capabilities and willingness to support liberal elements in the Arab world, and it would seriously undermine the prestige of Al Qaeda, which has chosen Iraq as one of its central fronts in its anti-western struggle.

Posted by: Roach at December 6, 2005 2:52 PM
Comment #99357

Hi Roach,

“I should not have to bear the cross of every dumb sycophantic thing said by Republicans that do not want to concede that the insurgency has been one long setback from the get-go”

That’s true. I didn’t intend to direct what I said to you but I now realize it looked that way…..sorry about that.

I don’t see much hope for winning in Iraq. If the insurgents are brought under control the terrorists still win as the Iraqi government is riddled with terrorists.

Iraq is such a mess that the outcome is a question of WHICH terrorists win rather than WHETHER the terrorists will win.

A case could be made that it’s better for the Iranian style government terrorists to win (the ones we’re backing) over the other terrorists but it’s not a very impressive case.

I think going into Iraq will prove to be the worst strategic decision in the history of this country.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 6, 2005 3:01 PM
Comment #99361

Roach:

I admire your honesty but you are wasting your time. Just look at all the freshly painted schools built in Iraq!!! Nevermind that children can’t go there or the teachers are getting killed. Ignore that!!!

Its just the fantasy most Conservatives live in. I can’t say I blame them. Iraq is their war, afterall.

Posted by: Aldous at December 6, 2005 3:06 PM
Comment #99362

Some of your suggestions seem only proper and sensible, particularly those that increase cooperation and understanding between Iraqis and Americans. Other points, though, seem draconian, and could be just as likely to fuel the insurgency as end it.

Point number three looks to me to be something best done in moderation. The act of supporting insurgents and causing trouble should be pursued, not the mere idea of it. We should reduce their inflamed words to just that.

Point five is a logistical problem, because rarely are we dealing with anything so discreet as a crossing point. Patrols will do something, but the most effective deterrent will be internal checks on identification and the clear message that the sending of Syrian or Iranian agents over the border may be considered an act of war. Even a belligerent regime will step carefully around that.

Point Seven works, but only in moderation, and only in clear connection to incidents of violence and whatnot. People must be made to believe that we will clamp down on their community as a whole, for the actiosn of a few, but we must not provide a unifying grudge to connect people to the insurgents.

Point Eight presents a problem. I say this not from a lack of stomach, but from the simple observation that we will catch innocent people in this, and the unfair punishment will invite vengeance in the Arab culture.

More on the final points later.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 6, 2005 3:07 PM
Comment #99363

Roach,

We (The realists) know that we must win. We know the soldiers are doing really great things to help the Iraqi people. We are also well aware that this administration is the one obstacle that continues to get in the way of victory. It is the one obstacle nobody wants to deal with.
We should never have invaded Iraq. We did. We need to win.
We need to rethink the original planning by the Bush team. We need to put the Iraq War back into the hands of our Generals, not just the ones who agree with Bush. If we need more troops, let’s do it. If we need to scale back, let’s do it.
This administration should get out of the way and let those who have served and understand the reality of war have a chance to salvage this mistake.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at December 6, 2005 3:10 PM
Comment #99366

Did you guys know that Plan For Victory Bush gave in Annapolis was written by a Political Hack and NOT a military group?

Posted by: Aldous at December 6, 2005 3:17 PM
Comment #99371

“We need to put the Iraq War back into the hands of our Generals, not just the ones who agree with Bush. If we need more troops, let’s do it. If we need to scale back, let’s do it.”

I think this is unrealistic. Grand strategy must be conceived of at the highest levels and always has been. Further, general disagree and have their own, institutional reasons for “Declaring Victory” and leaving. Recall the Army’s resistance to sending in forces to Kosovo, in which an Apache squadron languishsed as the air war proceeded apace.

Victories are defined by political policymakers. Is a pro-western Iraqi strongman a victory? I think so, but the political branch does not, and they are ultimately responsible for formulating policy. General have a variety of reasons to redefine the mission to do what they want to do in a way that may undermine other bigger strategic goals. Further the US military’s notorious risk aversion and typical military condescension towards counterinsurgency likely would lead to an undesirable outcome if top policymakers were not significantly involved in the process. Just because the Bushies have done things poorly does not mean that putting the military in charge of all the details of the Iraq operation is sound advice.

Posted by: Roach at December 6, 2005 3:23 PM
Comment #99373

Great post Roach! Your commentary shows more appreciation of the cultural barriers to victory than appears in the day to day news coverage.

I think there is one more objective that overrides the others:

A plan for establishing a working detente between Sunnis and Shiites, controlling extremist factions on both sides, as well as a public commitment from majority Shiites against government sanctioned revenge on the Sunni population.

The Sunnis will not cooperate with the Shiites - because of long-term religious differences/hostility, because of awareness of the repressions against Shiites under Sadaam and because of the interim government’s unwillingness to commit to tolerance for their differences.

I strongly believe we will see civil war upon our exit if we do not achieve this objective. And sadly, I don’t think this objective is obtainable.

Posted by: CPAdams at December 6, 2005 3:29 PM
Comment #99375

Hi Roach,

“Is a pro-western Iraqi strongman a victory? I think so”

At this point that would be hitting it out of the park. Anybody who understands what’s going on in Iraq and has half a brain (this of course leaves Rumsfeld out) would consider that a stunning victory at this point.

An America friendly strongman would be far better than the Shiite terrorists, who are dominating the Iraqi government now, would be.

The Bush strategists thought that Allawi (“Saddam lite”) would be the strongman we needed. Of course the Bush strategists have been extremely slow to understand what’s going on in Iraq and their strongman was a big loser in the election.

Allawi was our last best hope.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 6, 2005 3:33 PM
Comment #99379

Roach,

Why not ask for more involvement from neighboring countries who have a vested interest in the stability of the region?

Why not allow the military to dictate troop strength?

We nee both sides of the potential civil war to come to the table. Maybe the person to do this isn’t a U.S. hand-picked puppet. Maybe even someone who hates us but loves Iraq enough to want to keep it unified and strong against those who are looking to take advantage.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at December 6, 2005 3:54 PM
Comment #99381

I am going to risk being labeled naive, but I don’t want to give up on democracy just yet and get our pro-western strong man. Isn’t that what we have had (when we were lucky) for fifty years? Didn’t we trade freedom for stability long enough? Isn’t that what the strongmen always want us to do?

A democracy may put forth some unsavory characters. We may end up with a strong man, but there is no reason to skip right to that stage. Democracy has a way of denaturing tyrants. And stability is ultimately better ensured by a democracy than a strong man.

Democracy is established in many places where convential wisdom said it was impossible:Latin America, E. Europe, Korea, even Japan. The only place where there remains no democracy is the Arab world. Let’s at least give Iraq a chance for something better, a chance to be the first. We should not write off the Arabs before they have shown what they can do.

The Iraqis voted twice at physical risk. They will do so again in a week. No matter who they elect, that courage deserves our respect.

Posted by: Jack at December 6, 2005 3:57 PM
Comment #99382

My God Chris Roach!!!! Have you woken up out of the Bush Fog??????????

No everythings fine, Chris, Chris! don’t stare at the man behind the curtain. He’s wearing clothes really! Click your heels three times and say 9/11! 9/11!

Okay that’s it you can’t go to anymore Bush rallies, yer’ done! No more Bush rallies for you!!! Pinko! Karen Hughes said so!

Posted by: Novenge at December 6, 2005 4:03 PM
Comment #99383

The right-wing press in this country—Chronicles, National Review, Human Events—has been far more critical of Bush on numerous issues ranging from immigration to spending and the war than the mainstream liberal press ever was of Clinton. Conservatism is bigger than Bush and after the Harriett Miers debacle most conservatives ceased having any kind of trust in him. They’ll support him as the President and they’ll support him when he’s right, but they’ll criticize him when he’s wrong, mistaken, or ont he wrong track. It is precisely because I supported the Iraq war for my own realist reasons that I’d like to see some kind of success there and think my proposals are far more realistic than the President’s.

As for the Sunni/Shia civil war scenario. I think some realism needs to be brought to bear on that. First, we must make sure at least some Sunnis are involved in the new government. Allawi to his credit has made numerous efforts to do so, which Sunnis are starting to respond to following their collective view that boycotting Iraqi elections in January was a huge mistake.

At the same time, they must accept they’re no longer in charge and that the Shias will get to call many shots. The Sunnis are in no different a position than southern whites after the civil war or Sunnis and Arabs in Iran after its revolution. Life may not be good, and certainly not as good as it was under Saddam for them, but it will also be better for them if they’re quiescent than if they continue in this pointless, nihilistic insurgency. The inevitability of their subordinate position must be drilled in their heads as part of a hearts and minds campaign. It’s not all flowers and teddy bears; part of a hearts and minds campaign is reinforcing authority, the pointlessness of resistance, and the ienvitability of defeat. Simply coddling and accomodating them now would give them false hopes and feed their overweening pride. The forces of resistance—Sunnis, Ba’athists, and Islamists—all must be crushed and the will to do it must be shown at every turn.

Posted by: Roach at December 6, 2005 4:15 PM
Comment #99384

I also think the suggestion from some, particularly David Remer on another thread that
the “answer to the problem was to bring the region’s nations and people to address the problem in their own backyard. Iraq only became a problem for the U.S. when the U.S. decided to own the problem instead of working to make the regional countries around Iraq own it,” is not even remotely the right solution.

At least two of Iraq’s neighbors want Iraq to be weak, easily dominated, and a thorn in the side of Americans. These are Syria and Iran. They wish ill upon us and do not support victory in Iraq because it threatens their ability to dominate events in the middle east, that is, it reduces their relative power.

Kuwait is 100% on our side, for obvious reasons.

Saudis support us too in a pro forma way, and most of the leadership would like to see Iraq to be quiescent and nonthreatening. At the same time it is not now competing significantly with Saudi oil, it acts as an escape valve for domestic extremists, and many Saudi leaders would like to see US attention deflected away from extremist elements in the Kingdom.

More important, undoubtedly many illiberal elements in Saudi Arabia are concerned about any possibility of success in Iraq. Such a success would create a model regime potentially next door of religious pluralism, the rule of law, and democratic institutions. In other words, it would be everything Saudi Arabia is not.

Finally, Turkey has something of a mixed set of itnerests. On the one hand, relative Kurdish autonomy in Iraq’s north may serve as an outlet for native Kurdish nationalism and also a potential locale for their expulsion. That said, Turkey and its anti-American domestic elements are undoubtedly happy to see us bogged down and weakened by the costs of the Iraq adventure.

So, any suggestion that Iraq’s neighbors are the key to victory and that was simply step off of our high horse and plead with them for help fails to recognize that nations act out of their abiding interests, not schoolyard appeals to a sense of fair play and magnanimity. Two of those nations oppose us, our values, a stable Iraq, and a peaceful middle east. So we must conform our strategy to this reality.

Posted by: Roach at December 6, 2005 4:26 PM
Comment #99385

As I look at the situation now I wonder if only someone as ruthless as Saddam could hold the country together with such differing and bitter groups. I mean such conditions created the dictator, so I wonder if it is realistic that a democratic republic for all three groups would work. I could definetly see it working if they split the country three ways, but I think it’s a hard sell as it is. Democracy doesn’t force unity (heck, look at our country we’re as divided now as almost ever), but an overall unity is needed to make it work. Something that we have but not the Iraqis.

Posted by: chantico at December 6, 2005 4:29 PM
Comment #99386

Jack,

Many problems with giving peace a chance, sorry democracy a chance, in the Arab world, all coming down to a fairly simple philosophical difference - universalism. We’re universalists while there are no universalist cultures in the Middle East.

Having a philosophical basis that begins with the point of view that there are basic ethical standards in all cultures allows our society to function as it does.

Blues and reds are fundamentally Americans first, which allows us to disagree quite forcefully without the opposition running into the streets with guns everytime a different party is in power.

We essentially trust each other and the constitution.

This foundation doesn’t exist in Iraq, not among Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. We are so far in time from when that will/might happen that civil war is inevitable.

Even if we stayed 5 more years, the brutal repressions against Shiites by Saddam are so vivid in their memories that revenge is almost certain.

And let us remember that the Sunni/Shiite split took place in 632AD. They’ve been fighting for almost 1400 years.

Until the west became a secular society, the thought of Catholics and Protestants coexisting peacefully within a state was as ludicrous as Sunnis and Shiites sharing together in democracy.

We’re not there yet in Iraq (or Iran). I wish we were, but we’re not.

Posted by: CPAdams at December 6, 2005 4:38 PM
Comment #99388

Hi Jack,

“A democracy may put forth some unsavory characters.”

Do you think a terrorist government is worth our effort?

You’d settle an Iranian style terrorist government?

You’d consider it a victory if we helped bring about a terrorist government in Iraq?

I think this is a serious question Jack. If it’s not a serious one I’d be curious about why not too.

What say you Jack? Sadr is taking control of Iraq to a large extent. Is that sort of terrorism in the government a victory for us Jack?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 6, 2005 4:46 PM
Comment #99389

It depends on what they do when they really take power. Most eligible leaders in the Middle East could be called (or really were) terrorists.

The federal nature of the new Iraq will prevent (or hinder) the kind of strong man rule we had under Saddam. If Iraq does manage a democracy (which is judged by the second peaceful transfer of power) I don’t believe it will be a terror state, no matter what the origin of the rulers. Remember what Begin and Mandela were. Democracy gives people another outlet.

BTW - the Iranians may eventually come around to the democracy road. The Mullahs did everyone a backhand favor by showing people of the region why theocracy is not a good option. If people have a free choice, they will not choose it. They would not freely choose it in Iran. Democracy is like that. Self correcting once established.

Posted by: Jack at December 6, 2005 4:56 PM
Comment #99390

Hi Jack,

“Most eligible leaders in the Middle East could be called (or really were) terrorists.”

Our troops are fighting and dying in support of a Sadr sort of government and that’s a good thing?

You consider installing Sadr to be a victory?

Would you want to explain to our troops that they are fighting for al Sadr and that’s a good thing?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 6, 2005 5:00 PM
Comment #99391

Chris,

I read your posts and I feel quite idealistic. However, it’s not just the loss of power that feeds the Sunni uprisings - it’s the fear of what the Shiites will do with the power.

The Iraqi security forces are marginally effective because we’ve co-opted armed militias and put ‘Iraqi’ uniforms on them. Shiite militias are fairly effective in Shiite areas as are Kurds and Sunnis in their areas.

But Muqtada al Sadr is part of the Iraqi security forces and I’ll happily lay in odds that his armed forces will defend the Shiite government once we leave.

Going back to your post, if we achieve your goals and the Sunnis succumb, then we will be left with a Shiite-dominated, Iran-friendly Islamist state, the very scenario we propped up Saddam to prevent in the first place.

We’ll have wasted three decades and tens of thousands of lives. Please excuse the hyperbole, but let’s just mail the keys to Tehran - it’s a whole lot cheaper and the result will be the same!

I believe and have posted repeatedly that we have lost the war in Iraq because none of the possible outcomes is better than what we started with.

When we suggest an ‘Arab strongman’ as the answer to Iraq, why do we bother with euphemisms? And why is it cowardly/anti-American to suggest that we should have left Saddam in place when another ‘arab strongman’ is our best answer to the quagmire we are in?

This was a mistake. Pulling out immediately? I think it’s bad PR for the nation, so we should proceed more gradually. And we should not admit the mistake we made, certainly not in any international forum.

But we should not delude ourselves into believing that Iraq will be anything but a nasty thorn in our side for the next couple of decades.

Posted by: CPAdams at December 6, 2005 5:02 PM
Comment #99393

Hi Jack,

Assuming we’re succesful installing a terrorist government in Iraq are there any other countries you’d want us to go put another terrorist government in place?

In the big scheme of things…..globaly speaking…..Is our aim to have terrorist governments dotting the globe?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 6, 2005 5:04 PM
Comment #99398

correction to my post,

‘But Muqtada al Sadr is part of the Iraqi security forces and I’ll happily lay in odds that his armed forces will NOT defend the Shiite government once we leave.’

I’m thrilled that we are having a calm discussion about the realities of what’s happening in Iraq without defending/attacking the ‘official postive assessments’ from Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Kudos to Chris for your post and opening up a dialogue - I think it’s the first I’ve seen on this or the blue site.

Posted by: CPAdams at December 6, 2005 5:15 PM
Comment #99400

Hi Jack,

It seems we have a different idea of what “winning” is. The whole thing comes down to semantics.

You think “winning” is handing Iraq over to the terrorists. I refer to handing Iraq over to the terrorists as “losing”.

The evidence I have to present in support of my defintion is prima facie…..if the terrorsts win we lose.

The evidence you have that handing Iraq over to terrorists means that we’ve won is……?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 6, 2005 5:26 PM
Comment #99401

Jack,

You said that, “The only place where there remains no democracy is the Arab world.”

Oh really? Maybe you should go to North Korea. How about Cuba? China? No we can’t say China because they are funding our war. Imagine that Republicans, the “Commies” are helping pay for our war. Well it is either that or our rich people losing money, and you know where Bush sides on that issue right?

Posted by: Vic at December 6, 2005 5:26 PM
Comment #99402

Vic,

I think the point was that only REGION without any democracies serving as models was the Middle East…

Posted by: CPAdams at December 6, 2005 5:29 PM
Comment #99403

I disagree…

“Democracy is established in many places where convential wisdom said it was impossible:Latin America, E. Europe, Korea, even Japan. The only place where there remains no democracy is the Arab world.”

He even mentioned Korea!

Posted by: Vic at December 6, 2005 5:32 PM
Comment #99404

Louis

I am not considering installing anyone. I am considering helping the Iraqis have the right to choose their own leader and hoping that a democracy will take hold because I am confident that if it does a more reasonable system will ensue.

Vic

I guess I should be clearer. I didn’t think anyone could actually misunderstand, but let me clarify. I mean recognized AREAS. We have democracies in E. Asia. We have them in Africa and Latin America. All of Europe is democratic. We have Muslim democracies. We just don’t have any Arab democracies - YET.

Posted by: Jack at December 6, 2005 5:35 PM
Comment #99406

And Vic

Sorry - SOUTH Korea. I guess you are confused by things like this.

Posted by: Jack at December 6, 2005 5:37 PM
Comment #99407

True.

Posted by: Vic at December 6, 2005 5:37 PM
Comment #99408

South Korea is a democracy…

Posted by: CPAdams at December 6, 2005 5:38 PM
Comment #99409

Vic

As I reread my post, I see that you may misunderstand again so let me make it even clearer we have some countries that have democracy in …

Posted by: Jack at December 6, 2005 5:40 PM
Comment #99410

So…does anyone have in mind a realistic scenario in Iraq that leads to an outcome we can live with?

Posted by: CPAdams at December 6, 2005 5:40 PM
Comment #99412

No, you said Korea. You must have forgot that there are two of them as well. The one in the North is not a democracy. Are you going to respond to my comment about China supporting our war with treasury bonds? I am waiting for a response.

Posted by: Vic at December 6, 2005 5:41 PM
Comment #99413

Vic

Sorry to be snotty. I suppose it could have been misread.

Posted by: Jack at December 6, 2005 5:41 PM
Comment #99414

Hi Jack,

“I am not considering installing anyone.”

We’re on semantics again. We’re helping to put the govnerment in place aren’t we?

We’re helping to put a terrorist government in place.

You’ll indicate how helping to put a terrorist government in place is “winning”?

Can you understand why I don’t consider a terrorist government a good outcome Jack? Since you claim we’re winning perhaps you’ll answer the question?

I’ve been very straight up about what I consider a win. You are avoiding stating what you consider a win here.

In what way is a terrorist government a win for us Jack?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 6, 2005 5:42 PM
Comment #99416

Vic
China (let me be clear PRC) is not a democracy. The Administration never called it one. They buy our government bonds because they feel they are a good investment and they are right. Does that bother you?

Posted by: Jack at December 6, 2005 5:43 PM
Comment #99417

Hi CP,

“So…does anyone have in mind a realistic scenario in Iraq that leads to an outcome we can live with?”

I do not. I was convinced all along that going into Iraq was going to be the worst strategic mistake in the history of this country.

If I was to cheat on my wife and get caught and was asked to come up with a strategy to fix it I’d say: “It’s too late…the only way to handle this would have been not to do it in the first place”.

Many knew going into Iraq was a serious mistake that there would be no way to fix. These people are from both parties and many have great military expertise.

Bush listened to the wrong people.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 6, 2005 5:46 PM
Comment #99418

Louis

There is a big difference between installing someone and helping a democracy take root. It is more than a difference in terms. I have faith in democracy because the alternatives are worse in the long run.

I would not advocate invading a country ONLY to establish democracy. There is just too much to do. But once faced with the situation, what else should we do?

We didn’t establish dicatorships in Japan or Germany, even though that was the system we replaced. We advocated democracy in E. Europe where its roots were shallow. Democracy is what we do best. Why do you advocate going for a second rate solution before we have tried for the best?

Posted by: Jack at December 6, 2005 5:50 PM
Comment #99419

Jack,

No, China buying our bonds does not bother me.

What does bother me is Republicans who still use the “Commie” or “Red” scare tactics against liberals, yet fail to see where their government is getting its money. Since this is a Republican site, I figured some of you guys could give me your opinions about it. I keep hearing how we could have won Vietnam or how Regan killed communism, but I still see Cuba and China as Red as they have always been. The only difference is time. The sad thing is that we are getting money for a war from a country who supported our enemies in the last quagmire we had. Ironic isn’t it? Not to mention the hicks that are buying flag pens and stickers for themselves and their cars from Wal-Mart. You see Jack it is all about hypocrisy. I hear Hannity and Rush talk about how liberals want our country to be communist, yet it seems that the ones who support them are Republican?

Posted by: Vic at December 6, 2005 5:51 PM
Comment #99426

Instead of getting into a pointless debate about whether Bush is an idiot or liberals are unpatriotic, I would appreciate a more developed discussion of whether my strategy proposals are good, bad, or indifferent.

I think someone pointed out above that the biggest risk of any new Iraqi regime is that it becomes an Iranian satellite. So long as the US has some presence in the country, I think that would be more or less impossible, but that risk is real and I regret that I do not have any easy answers to that one, other than to isolate Iran through our military presence, appeal to Iraqi/Arab patriotism, and turn things around to employ that Shia-majority Iraqi nation to influence shia-majority Iran. Iraq, for all its faults, has a significant, professional class of moderates and those in “mixed” marriages.

Posted by: Roach at December 6, 2005 6:12 PM
Comment #99433

Some of your points are realistic. Some other points, as an American, seem a bit fascist. It seems that would validate the methods of Islamofascism. Realistically, I think the setting up of institutions the West perceives as the rule of law, and then allow the powers that be to allow a cultural evolutionary mold to unfold. If chaos unfolds, that is still better than Saddam Hussein. Sunni and Shi’ites - in chaos - would be at each others throat. The Kurds would be perpetual allies of America because of their distrust of Sunni and Shi’ite Arabs and the Turks to the north. Either way - realistically - America is the winner by default.

Posted by: Theway2k at December 6, 2005 6:43 PM
Comment #99436

Hi Jack,

“There is a big difference between installing someone and helping a democracy take root.”

We’re helping to put a govnernmnent in place. If words have any meaning we are helping to put a government into place.

Let me try another approach?

Can you respect my point of view here….I’m not asking you to agree. I assert that my point of view is respectable.

My point of view is that having a terrorist government in Iraq means that we’re losing. It’s generally agreed especially by Bush that terrorism is bad. It’s generally agreed especially by Bush that terrorists are bad.

I assert that a terrorist government is bad. I further assert that a bad outcome consitututes “losing” rather than “winning”.

Do you consider my point of view to have any validity Jack?

“Why do you advocate going for a second rate solution before we have tried for the best?”

When did I advocate that? You’re the one who thinks a terrorist government in Iraq is acceptable…..I find it quite unacceptable.



Posted by: LouisXIVm at December 6, 2005 7:06 PM
Comment #99438

Roach:

I think you’re plan stinks!!!

My Plan is to send the Bush Twins to Iraq!!! Wanna bet the problems we have there will disappear?

Posted by: Aldous at December 6, 2005 7:21 PM
Comment #99445

why is it the democrats can not be truthful with the american voter ?….time and time again they tell half truths or simply lie and yet they continue to get a way with it ….pelosi and murtha show what 99% of democrats truly want yet most are to concerned with thier own re-election to honestly state thier positions …and why pray tell do we republicans not shout louder that winning in iraq is essential to the security of our country …as prior military(army) with a top secret clearance in nuclear chemical biological defense i have scene what a lot of these weapons could do if unleased against us ….can any rational person truly believe the weapons that were inventoried by the un have simply unmade them selfs ….?

Posted by: rylee at December 6, 2005 7:45 PM
Comment #99450

January 2002 the pentagon ordered and president bush approved the purchase of 3000 new interchangable fighter planes for delivery prior to the end of 2006 ,,,,my question is why so many ?current levels with all service is less than 2000 ,,,personally i think there may be additional plans in store for iran and syria ….with irans first nuclear reactor due to go online before febuary 2006 who believes isreal will allow this to go online ? and quite frankly how can the us allow this to occur ?perhaps all the posturing and negotiating between iran ,france germany and the uk were simply window dressing leading up to the final dance ,,,as george bush said in his state of the union adress in jan 2002 an axis of evil…..

Posted by: rylee at December 6, 2005 7:57 PM
Comment #99452

Vic

Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. I don’t really have a problem with hypocrisy properly deployed. None of us can go a whole day without it.

I wrote a post explaining why we should not call liberals communists. It is in the conservative blog a few days ago. Look for it in the archives.

I also wrote that Reagan was necessary but not sufficient for the fall of Communism. And we did defeat the insurgency in Vietnam. But we did not leave a strong government in the south. So the North conquered the South like Grant took Richmond. We lost in Vietnam, but the myth about how it happened is pernicious.


Louis

It is valid if we take the premises. I don’t. Only time will tell. There is one very important permutation which even in a very bad case scenario makes us better off. Kurds. The Kurds already run what amounts to a state. They are very pro-American and have been oppressed by Arabs for a thousand years. They have an interest in keeping Iraq a country at least in name as a cover for their own aspirations. With easily provided American air cover and support in the wider world, they can defend themselves against all comers. We will never go back to a unified Iraq that is our enemy, even in the worst case. I don’t believe we will come to that, but even that is better than Saddam.

BTW - I just have faith in democracy. I was in E. Europe for the transition. Now everybody claims they saw it coming and it was inevitable. Such people are young or their memories are short.

Posted by: Jack at December 6, 2005 8:04 PM
Comment #99456

Hi Jack,

“It is valid if we take the premises.”

It’s not so much a premise as a situation. In the Iraqi government terrorists are calling the shots.

“They are very pro-American and have been oppressed by Arabs for a thousand years.”

They are pro-American. They are now oppressing Arabs….there are Kurdish death squads too.

“I just have faith in democracy.”

I have faith in democracy too. I don’t have unlimited faith in democracy though.

In one sense it’s right and good that Iraqis have the opportunity to put terrorists in power…..don’t expect me to get excited about the prospect though.

If Bush had said before we went in “We plan on having a government riddled with terrorists in Iraq” would you have said “bring it on!”?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 6, 2005 8:23 PM
Comment #99457

Hi rylee,

“time and time again they tell half truths or simply lie and yet they continue to get a way with it ….”

You’re describing Republicans too.

Did you really think that Republican politicians don’t do that?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 6, 2005 8:25 PM
Comment #99459

Louis

Loyalty is also important. I worked with Kurds. We betrayed the Kurds on two occasions. I wouldn’t want to do it again and I would cut them some slack. I won’t defend this on logical grounds, but sometimes you just stick with your friends.

We are in circles on this. My premise is that democracy moderates. Even terrorists like Begin or Mandela can be redeemed by democracy.

Posted by: Jack at December 6, 2005 8:29 PM
Comment #99462

Hi Jack,

“Loyalty is also important.”

It is. The situation with the Kurds doesn’t justify the mess we’ve put ourselves in……..We didn’t have to screw up in a really big way in order to help out the Kurds.

“My premise is that democracy moderates.”

It often does. The Arab world is quite tricky though.

Are you seriously comparing Begin and Mandela to al Sadr?

Sadr is a murderous thug. Until recently he was considered our enemy. It’s not as if he’s mittigated his position or anything…..He recently vowed to bring Bush and his family down.

We’ve got massive military resources supporting a murderous thug who, by his own account, is our sworn enemy.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 6, 2005 8:38 PM
Comment #99464

hi louisXIV
true not claiming that republicans are innocent angels either but as party do not typicaly distort the facts as most democrats do spend 30 mins listening to howard deneac or senator Durbin and its enough to make you scream ,,, i think the real problem is the democratic party as a whole has not realized the importance of an informed public and with the internet its become increasingly difficult to spout lies with out being discovered ….take 2004 with the dan rather incident …25 years ago that may have changed the outcome of the election ….

Posted by: rylee at December 6, 2005 8:45 PM
Comment #99467

Hi rylee,

“as party do not typicaly distort the facts as most democrats do”

Of course they do. Let me find a few examples from my files…

“”The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight.”
Cheney has met Edwards at least three times: at a prayer breakfast in 2001, at Elizabeth Dole’s swearing-in ceremony in 2003, and backstage at Meet the Press.


“Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you Senator Gone.”
Cheney was referring to The Pilot, a small paper in Pinehurst, NC — not Edwards’ hometown. What’s more, as they themselves put it today, “The Pilot hasn’t ‘taken to calling him’ anything.” In fact, they used this term only once in an editorial run 15 months ago.


“The senator has got his facts wrong. I have not suggested there’s a connection between Iraq and 9/11…”
Cheney knows perfectly well that he’s been one of the administration’s biggest boosters of alleged ties between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. In September 2003 Cheney said “[Iraq is] the geographical base of the terrorists who had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11.” What’s more, he has suggested that Saddam Hussein was connected with 9/11 on numerous other occasions.”

“One of the great by-products, for example, of what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan is that five days after we captured Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi in Libya came forward and announced that he was going to surrender all of his nuclear materials to the United States, which he has done.” [Dick Cheney, Vice Presidential Debate, 10/5/04]
Bush Repeated The Same Line in First Presidential Debate. “We convinced Libya to disarm.” [George Bush, First Presidential Debate, 9/30/04]
FACT: Libya Was Already Moving to Disarm Before Iraq War
Libya’s Decision To Disarm Preceded The Bush Administration And War In Iraq. According to Tony Blair, Libya first approached the US and Britain regarding its weapons question as the Iraq war approached. Blair said, “Libya came to us in March [2003] following successful negotiations on Lockerbie to see if it could resolve its weapons of mass destruction issue in a similarly cooperative manner.” The son of Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi dismissed any link in his father’s decision to the war in Iraq or the capture of the former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. Saif Al-Islam Gadhafi told CNN that “the capture of Saddam or the invasion of Iraq is irrelevant” to Libya’s announcement. Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment believes that Libya’s decision “goes back over 10 years of international pressure on the Qaddafi regime…[the] whole move precedes the Bush administration and precedes the war in Iraq.” [Washington Times, 12/20/03; CNN.com, 12/20/03]


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 6, 2005 8:51 PM
Comment #99468

Hi rylee,

“LIE # 6: 10 Million Voters are Registered in Afghanistan
“[In Afghanistan] we’ve got 10 million voters who have registered to vote, nearly half of them women.” [Cheney Remarks, Vice Presidential Debate, 10/5/04]
Bush Repeated The Same Line in First Presidential Debate. “And the Taliban, no longer in power; 10 million people have registered to vote in Afghanistan in the upcoming presidential election.” [George Bush, First Presidential Debate, 9/30/04]
FACT: Human Rights Watch Found Registration Numbers Exaggerated
Bush and Cheney Exaggerate the Number of Registered Voters. “Human Rights Watch this week said that figure was inaccurate because of the multiple registrations of many voters. In a lengthy report, the respected organization also documented how human rights abuses are fueling a pervasive atmosphere of repression and fear in many parts of the country, with voters in those areas having little faith in the secrecy of the balloting and often facing threats and bribes from militia factions.” [Washington Post, 10/1/04]


LIE # 7: Kerry Voted for Higher Taxes 98 Times
“Gwen, the Kerry record on taxes is one basically of voting for a large number of tax increases — 98 times in the United States Senate.” [Cheney Remarks, Vice Presidential Debate, 10/5/04]
FACT: 98 Times Figure Has Been Repeatedly Debunked
“Mr. Cheney said that Mr. Kerry had voted 98 times to raise taxes. No question, he cast votes for higher taxes. But the number Mr. Cheney cited included multiple votes on the same legislation. Mr. Edwards said Mr. Kerry had voted against the overall legislation to cut taxes because the benefits went largely to the wealthy.” [New York Times, 10/6/04]
“Cheney claimed Kerry had voted 98 times to raise taxes. As we’ve pointed out before, that’s an inflated figure that counts multiple votes on the same tax bills, and also counts votes on budget measures that only set tax targets but don’t actually bring about tax increases by themselves.” [Factcheck.org, 10/6/04]

Bush’s Trifecta Of Lies
President Bush, speaking to the nation this month about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used “for missions targeting the United States.”
Last month, asked if there were new and conclusive evidence of Hussein’s nuclear weapons capabilities, Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were “six months away from developing a weapon.” And last week, the president said objections by a labor union to having customs officials wear radiation detectors has the potential to delay the policy “for a long period of time.”
All three assertions were powerful arguments for the actions Bush sought. And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA; and the customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago. —10.22.02, Washington Post

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 6, 2005 8:53 PM
Comment #99470

Hi rylee,

“I don’t believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons.”
—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, at a hearing of the Senate’s appropriations subcommittee on defense, May 14, 2003
“We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”
—Vice President Dick Cheney on NBC’s Meet the Press, March 16, 2003


For example, in his final speech to the nation before launching the war, Bush claimed that US intelligence left “no doubt” about Iraq’s supposed WMDs. But there was plenty of doubt on critical issues. Intelligence analysts at the Energy Department and State Department disagreed with those at the CIA about the evidence that purportedly showed Iraq had revived its nuclear weapons program: its importation of aluminum tubes and the allegation that Iraq had been uranium-shopping in Niger. (In 2002,
Dick Cheney said the tubes were “irrefutable evidence,” and
Condoleezza Rice said they were “only really suited for nuclear weapons programs.” But a year earlier, as The New York Times reported in 2004, “Rice’s staff had been told that the government’s foremost nuclear expert seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons.”) The CIA believed Iraq had chemical weapons. But the Defense Intelligence Agency reported that there was no evidence such stockpiles existed. Some intelligence analysts concluded that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles that could deliver chemical or biological weapons. The experts on UAVs at the Air Force thought this was not so. Was Bush speaking accurately when he told the public—and the world—there was “no doubt”?
Also, did Bush make specific claims unsupported by the intelligence? The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, produced in October 2002, maintained that Iraq had an active biological research and development program. Bush publicly said Iraq had “stockpiles” of biological weapons. There is a difference between an R&D program (which Iraq did not have) and warehouses loaded with ready-to-go weapons (which Bush implied existed). How did an R&D program become stockpiles? This is as intriguing a question as how those sixteen words about Iraq’s alleged pursuit of uranium in Africa became embedded in the State of the Union speech Bush delivered in early 2003.

Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was “dealing with” al Qaeda. But his intelligence agencies had not reached that conclusion. (And the 9/11 Commission later said there was no evidence of collusion between al Qaeda and Saddam.) So how did Bush come to make such a statement? Recently, Senator Carl Levin, a Democrat, released formerly classified material showing that before the war when Bush, Cheney,
Colin Powell and other administration officials cited evidence that Iraq had been training al Qaeda operatives in the use of bombs and other weapons, Bush and these officials were relying on the statements of a captured al Qaeda member whose claims had been discounted by the Defense Intelligence Agency. Once more, how had Bush and his senior aides come to disseminate specific and provocative information deemed unreliable by the intelligence community?

By the way, while accusing his critics of falsifying history, Bush never conceded that he launched the war on a false premise—that Saddam Hussein was up to his neck in WMDs—and, thus, as he paid tribute to veterans of this war and others, he did not accept responsibility for sending American troops into battle for a cause that did not exist.
Bush might accept “the responsibilities and criticisms,” but has yet to acknowledge the mistakes he and his aides made before and after the invasion about planning for a post-invasion Iraq. He also has not insisted on any accountability for these mistakes. For instance, he gave a spiffy medal to former
CIA chief George Tenet, who was responsible for the prewar intelligence failure.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20051114/cm_thenation/336405;_ylt=Ah2UsXmbWJQmYkEJJ9FE9Vf9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA—

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 6, 2005 8:55 PM
Comment #99471

Hi rylee,

“1) Everybody was not, in fact, working from the same misleading information. The administration’s line about WMD these days is: OK, we might have been wrong — but everybody was wrong, and everybody came to the same conclusion we did. The foreigners came to that conclusion through their intelligence services, and the Democrats (especially that weaselly Kerry and ambitious Hillary) did it when they voted for the war resolution.

But at the time, Administration officials were most emphasically NOT saying “hey, we’re all operating in the dark here.” The implied message of every briefing for reporters, every speech to the public, and every background session with legislators, was: If you knew what we knew, then you’d be as alarmed as we are. That was the message of Dick Cheney’s statement that “there can be no doubt” that Iraq “now” had weapons of mass destruction, of Condi Rice’s warning about the mushroom cloud, and of Colin Powell’s presentation to the UN. The argument over Iraq’s capabilities was by definition one sided, because the Administration’s presumed insider knowledge trumped what anyone else could say. To pretend this was just a big widely-shared confusion is dishonest and wrong.

) To say that
Saddam Hussein might have been a threat is not to say that we had to invade when we did.

The Administration had two responses when asked in 2003 “what’s the rush?” about beginning the invasion. One was logistical: the troops were in place, they couldn’t wait forever, soon it would be hot (as if they would not be in Iraq thorugh many summers!). This obviously is a “Guns of August” style of reasoning: the trains are moving toward the front, so we might as well start World War I.

The other response was: we’ve waited 12 years, why wait any more? The answer to that was, first, that Iraq was now crawling with weapons inspectors, who at a minimum would make it hard for Saddam to cook up any surprise plans — and, second, that beginning a war could touch off a lot of messy complications left out of the optimistic war scenarios.

This is the crucial point: Every aspect about managing occupied Iraq could have turned out better with more time. There would be more chance to line up Arabic-speaking or Islamic allies; more time to get adequate U.S. troops on the scene; more chance to think about protecting the power system, the hospitals, and other aspects of the public infrastructure; more time in general to ask “what if…”

3) As for managing Iraq after the fall of Baghdad, there is no shared blame at all. The Bush Administration owns every aspect of this disastrously bungled situation.
The failure to stop the looting; the deliberately low-ball on the number of occupying troops; the rash decision to disband the Iraqi army; the inattention to how quickly American “liberators” would become “occupiers”; the lassitude about recruiting or training enough Arabic speakers or getting serious about developing an Iraqi force — on these and a dozen other familiar points, the Administration cannot possibly say, “Hey, everybody was wrong.” These were the decisions of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, in many cases bulldozing or ignoring contrary views from within the military and other parts of the government. Or, I guess the reality is: the Administration could “possibly” say this. They just couldn’t say it honestly.”

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 6, 2005 8:57 PM
Comment #99472

rylee,

You say “not claiming that republicans are innocent angels either but as party do not typicaly distort the facts as most democrats do spend 30 mins listening to howard deneac or senator Durbin and its enough to make you scream”

How do you know these are distorted facts?

You then say “i think the real problem is the democratic party as a whole has not realized the importance of an informed public and with the internet its become increasingly difficult to spout lies with out being discovered”.

So where do you get your information from that you are so informed and the rest of us are in the dark? It’s hard to be an informed public when this administration has gone out of it’s way to hide the information. If you have such true information the public needs to know, then please enlighten us.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 6, 2005 8:57 PM
Comment #99474

What most people seem not to know or don’t want to talk about is that all of this is ultimately about Israel and the Jews and exterminateing them.The rest of this is all a prequal and as long as Israel exists and we remain their friends and potential defenders ( As I believe we must)there will be war in the Middle East. You can analyse, blame, cheer, boo, accuse,whatever, but as much as the Arab factions dislike and mistrust each other, the one thing most of then will agree on is the removal of the Jewish people. Unfortunately it’s not just the politicos but much of the average Arab population who feel this way. By the way, the left wing and the main stream press is pretty good at screaming “we’re loosing, We’re loosing” and denigrateing the Right wing too. (In repsone to LoisXIV post)
I wouldn’t feel too proud of announcing I’m in the same party with the likes of Ted Kennedy et al.
(TOO many to name)

Posted by: Bud at December 6, 2005 9:05 PM
Comment #99479

Hi Bud,

“I wouldn’t feel too proud of announcing I’m in the same party with the likes of Ted Kennedy”

But you’re proud to be in Delay’s party? Delay said that the Columbine shootings were caused by teaching evolution…that’s extremely stupid!

You’re proud to be in Rumsfeld’s party? Rumsfeld advocated “retaliating” against the wrong country….That’s extremely stupid.

You’re proud to be in Scalia’s party? Scalia is stupid enough to assert that the Supreme Court declared secular humanism a religion.

You’re proud to be in the party of Reagan? Reagan sold arms to our enemies which is treason.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 6, 2005 9:18 PM
Comment #99483

I am proud of Ronald Reagan. He restored the United States.

Re loyalty

“Grant stood by me when I was crazy, and I stood by him when he was drunk, and now we stand by each other.”

William T. Sherman


Posted by: Jack at December 6, 2005 9:30 PM
Comment #99486

Treason:
hmmmm…much better example would be in 1993 when we discovered that the iraqi government particapated in the attempted assination of 1st president bush in kuwait city….the virtual lack of any response by president clinton not only emboldened all terrorists throughout the world it convinced saddam that the US was unwilling to use force to stop him…can any one say that the attempted assination of one of our past or present leaders is not enough by itself to declare war on that particular government and remove them…???..the response ,,,rather lack of one is why were in iraq now when this could have and should have been done in 1993…

Posted by: rylee at December 6, 2005 9:46 PM
Comment #99488

Hi Jack,

“I am proud of Ronald Reagan.”

He committed treason. He supported systematic rape torture and murder of civilians in Central America.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 6, 2005 9:58 PM
Comment #99491

Hi rylee,

“Treason”

Selling arms to the enemy is treason as defined by the Constitution.

You don’t have a clue about what treason is.

“in 1993 when we discovered that the iraqi government particapated in the attempted assination of 1st president bush in kuwait city….the virtual lack of any response by president clinton”

You don’t know what you’re talking about. Clinton bombed the shit out of Saddam’s intelligence building. Saddam left us alone after that.

“rather lack of one is why were in iraq now when this could have and should have been done in 1993…”

The idea of occupying Iraq was and is the worst strategic mistake in the history of this country.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 6, 2005 10:02 PM
Comment #99498

well,
1.weapons of mass destruction.
one of the primary reasons that the majority of vast stockpiles of nerve and mustard agents as well as the biological weapons programs that iraq was working on have gone completly missing is the spineless inaction of the clinton adminstration allowing saddam and his henchmen 4 years of no inspections and limited overflights allowed him to deceave and hide most of his deadly weapons ,,however in may of 2004 the insurgants used a 155 howitzer binary chemical round ,however because of thier lack of expertise they simply exploded the round which left traces of both agents while not allowing proper mixture of both agents ,,when inventoryed by the un weapons team in 1995 they counted 795 rounds like this that have all disapeared…however you can bet that after the publicity surrounding that one shell the insurgents have probibly looked for (and hopefully still not found ) someone who is capable of disassembling those rounds with a combo of 4 liters of agent per shell one shells contents combined then exploded correctly in any us mall could and would make 911 look like a holiday….we continue to listen to rants from the liberals about no weapons well they were THERE…and now are not….that makes me very concerned….unfortunatly with the vast majority of liberals aiding and abetting the terrorists as they did during vietnam its almost as if the country has to take another terrible attack before we’ll all understand this is not a war against a bad government its a war against a determined ,rabid spinless brutal enememy ,and unless we again drop the partisan bickering and crap and work to stop these savages we will lose our country….

Posted by: rylee at December 6, 2005 10:11 PM
Comment #99499

Louis

He brought America back. The Carter time was the most depressing period in my life. Reagan saved us. Reagan was necessary to bringing down the Soviet Empire. He started a economy recovery which lasted essentially until today. The little unpleasantness of 1990 and 2001 hardly would register. In Central America, he stemmed the rising tide of revolution. History is not predetermined. It is created by the acts of people and some people have a profound effect. Ronald Reagan was one such person.

In 1979 world communism looked unstoppable. The U.S. was deep in malaise and it looked like our best days were behind us. We had inflation and economic stagnation at the same time. By 1989 the Soviet empire was collapsing. The U.S. economy was growing. And Americans looked forward to the future again. Ronald Reagan didn’t do all these things and he didn’t do them all alone. But without him chances are they would not have worked out as they did.

You know the interesting thing. People make all kinds of dire predictions about the future. The gloomy scenarios they predict are a lot like the realities of the 1970s. Let’s hope we don’t go back to that pre-Reagan time.

Posted by: Jack at December 6, 2005 10:21 PM
Comment #99500

one week of bombing saddam laughed at us ,,,he knew hed already corrupted germany france and russia and figured from our lack of any kind of equal retailiation that he could do as he pleased which is why right after the weak kneed response of the clinton adminastration he begin giving 25,000 dollars to the familys of anyone who would become a so called maryter and blow himself and other innocents up.this was saddam thumbing his nose at clinton….add into that the evidence that was uncovered after the first world trade center bombing,,,(1993) that intellagence personal from iraq were involved in the attack and that should have been enough to show that we must defend our selfs however ,,that was not the case and 8 years later we paid a price ,,,and the longer and louder the liberals yell to get out of iraq emboldens all terrorists for they see the same trends of mogidshu lose a few soldiers and cut and run…now as the leader of this country with the evidence that our government had the inaction of then president clinton to safeguard our people was and is treason…and that is what he should have been tried for.

Posted by: rylee at December 6, 2005 10:22 PM
Comment #99507

I just wanted to respond to the yo-yo supposed second in command at al queda and how he tells us all that we should fear them for bin laden is still leading his holy war against the west. Lets see, um, where the hell is your bin laden. We haven’t seen him for quite some time now. Hmm, I wonder why….probably because he is as dead as Julius Caesar and all you can do is ask the Pakisanis to help unearth him from the devastating earthquake that happened last month. You know and I know he’s dead. Your videos are of no use and your cause is unjustly making Muslims look real bad. Take a good look in the mirror. That reflection you see is a coward.

Posted by: Shawn at December 6, 2005 11:28 PM
Comment #99527

Jack: Bush is Carter. Really.

Chris: I finally feel like I can have a conversation with someone on this side of the fence. In order to win this war, we need a massive level of commitment. I believe the only way the war is winnable is to completely secure Iraq area by area and then stay until Iraq has an established military of its own willing to put draconian measures in place to keep the peace.

But for many like me we have some rules that need to be put in place before we support such a massive undertaking. We need a deadline, a month by month plan of what areas will be secure when, benchmarks that must be met in terms of solving Iraq’s infrastructure problems, etc. Most importantly, this administration cannot be in charge of that operation. It’s the gazillion strikes and you are out rule. Bush needn’t step down, but he needs to give complete control of the Iraq operation to someone else the country believes knows what they are doing.

Even after all of that, it’s still a hard sell. We’ve already poured money into this war like there’s no tomorrow with less than zero return. There’s been absolutely no accountability or admission for the mistakes that have been made and therefore no reason in the world to believe that future operations will go better than they have been. It is not clear Iraq can be freed without breaking the US bank completely and ruining this country.

Not saying we couldn’t be convinced, but there is a lot of convincing that would need to happen for many people to trust any plan this point.

Posted by: Max at December 7, 2005 1:04 AM
Comment #99538

It’s remarkable to see how much vitriol the invasion and occupation of Iraq still causes.

Anyone remember the Powell doctrine? It ends with an exit strategy. It assumes overwhelming force will end the conflict. Part of that assumption includes the belief that superior technology for conventional war will be enough to defeat an enemy.

Unfortunately, we have to fight the enemy we have, not the enemy we wish to have. The Iraqis made a decision to fight with Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW). Instead of facing the conventional might & technological superiority of US firepower, and instead of deserting, the Iraqi army disappeared. It was intentional, and it was a brilliant strategic decision.

The fateful choice on our part was disbanding the Iraqi military. We turned out backs on tens of thousands of unemployed men with guns.

Now we face a classic 4GW insurgency. This kind of insurgency can last for a very, very long time; for examples, look at Mao in China, Vietnam, and so on.

We do need to make a decision. Personally, given all that has happened so far, I have no confidence in this administration. While I’m sure the military has a plan, and metrics for measuring progress, the failure to make basic metrics public on a regular basis is a cause for concern. Worse, the civilians in this administration, especially Cheney, regularly make pronouncements which are wrong. The civilians in this administration make pronouncements which confuse terrorists with insurgents, and suggest the insurgency is in its “last throes.”

In my opinion we’ll be out next year due to domestic considerations, economic strains, impending elections, and manpower shortages.

It’s just a question of the face we put on the withdrawal.

The worst strategic blunder in US history? Probably not. But there’s a lot left to happen. For history buffs, remember, when we talk about enormous blunders, we have to compare the invasion of Iraq with the foolishness of the War of 1812. Talk about stupid! It resulted in the loss of Washington D.C. to the enemy, the torching of the White House, and the spectacle of a sitting president fleeing the country’s capital. And of course, there’s Vietnam.

But this isn’t history. It’s happening today. Our sons & daughters & neighbors & co-workers are fighting in Iraq, and there’s nothing abstract about that.

How many of them are we willing to sacrifice? For what cause?

Posted by: phx8 at December 7, 2005 1:48 AM
Comment #99688

Continuing from Yesterday-
Point Ten has two problems: One, it increases the sense of oppression on the part of the Iraqis, and two (and this makes the first unredeemable) it relies on us being able to enforce that order.

Point Twelve forgets what happened to our soldiers not only in the first parts of the Iraq War, but also what happened in the Blackhawk Down incident. RPG’s and small arms fire make helicopter attacks without ground support foolhardy, as the hovering helicopters make very good targets.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 7, 2005 9:40 AM
Comment #99709

Violence is only one of many means at our disposal to confront the insurgents and the terrorists. More effective, in the end, will be a cultural confrontation between those forces in Iraq that want a return to prosperity, and those that prefer to maintain the chaos. Even if we cannot fully gain the sympathies of the Iraqi people for our country, we can at the very least help lead them to a point where they resent the violence, and clamp down on it themselves.

Look around your neighborhood. It is not directed daily violence against criminals that typically keeps the peace, it’s the notion that if people commit crimes, getting away with it will be difficult. It takes a certain level of confidence to act out violently. If terrorists and insurgents do not feel confident in their ability to pull something off, or avoid capture, they will wait until they have that assurance.

This requires not so much that a police presence be out there inflicting violence on them, but that the police and military presence will be guaranteed to show up to make life difficult for those causing this kind of dissonance.

We don’t need to be screwing around on this. We need directed action towards this goal.

In his prep school days, Bush was a cheerleader. Unfortunately, he has not changed his job since then, and his leadership has been little more than reassurance after reassurance. As a writer, I understand the emotional power that words can bring with them, and the power of ideas. But I also understand that between words an actions, actions mean more, especially in a war. Bush has been trying to talk the insurgency to death, rather than make the political sacrifice, admit his error, and either institute a draft or expand the militaries manpower. Occupations are about keeping an eye on conquered territory, and be able to act to put down resistance. So far, we have not had enough of a presence to either fully conquer or keep an eye on things. We have been fighting the wrong war here in more than just our choice of battleground. We’ve been using blitzkrieg mobile infantry tactics to fight a war that requires us to sit on a place and consolidate control. Until we remedy that error, we stand a good chance of losing this war. Anybody want that? Put the pressure on your congresspeople and senators.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 7, 2005 10:08 AM
Comment #99991

Hi rylee,

“1.weapons of mass destruction.”

Pakistan sold nuclear weapons to terrorists and Bush appeased them by giving them lots of money.

Going by your “logic” Bush is guilty of treason…….you still don’t have a clue about what treason is.

“the evidence that our government had the inaction of then president clinton to safeguard our people was and is treason…and that is what he should have been tried for.”

Reagan sold arms to our enemies which, according to the Consitution, is treason.

Do you hold Reagan responsible for his treason?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 7, 2005 9:17 PM
Comment #99992

Hi Jack,

“He brought America back.”

He lied a lot. He committed treason. He supported the systematic rape, torture and murder of innocent civilians.

I hope you don’t try to take the high moral ground as you seem to think that terrorism and treason are OK as long as it’s Republcians who are engaging in it.

“In Central America, he stemmed the rising tide of revolution.”

He supported an incredibly brutal regime (El Salvodore) and engaged in systematic rape, torture, and murder of civilians in Central America.

Vicious acts of terrorism and extremely brutal repression is OK with you Jack?

You’re far more of a moral relatavist than any liberal I’ve ever met.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 7, 2005 9:22 PM
Comment #100051

Louie,Louie,Louie……….of course you have taken statements out of comtext as most libs are want to do and then try to make an issue out of them.
Reagan by the way can be accused of not knowing and being in touch with what was happening in Iran Contra but he never supported terrorism and brutal repression. Things some times need to get done, it’s the way the world works. If brutal repression were taking place in this country the likes of you and your ilk would not even be speaking on the internet. Be gratefull.
By the way.I don’t even have to mention anything Ted Kennedy says…..just the mention of the name makes one cringe.

Posted by: Bud at December 8, 2005 12:09 AM
Comment #100058

Louie.you had nothing to offer on the first part of my statement, all you could do was defend your party. That’s one of the great Liberal problems……..nothing to offer but attacks, name calling and finger pointing, not one thing posative about this country. I frankly don’t have much use for politicians in general of either party……..but I for sure wouldn’t be a Democrat under any circumstances. Maybe the Republicans are the lesser of two evils but sometimes that,s all you have to go with.

Posted by: Bud at December 8, 2005 12:21 AM
Comment #100062
By the way.I don’t even have to mention anything Ted Kennedy says…..just the mention of the name makes one cringe.

Bud,

Well apparently the mention of his name doesn’t make the voters of Massachusetts cringe. He has been in the senate for forty-three years, winning 7 terms.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 8, 2005 12:30 AM
Comment #100063
If brutal repression were taking place in this country the likes of you and your ilk would not even be speaking on the internet. Be gratefull.

Bud,

It will never happen in this country, and you can thank LouisXIV and the liberals for that. They seem to be the only ones who haven’t been Bushwashed, and are fighting back.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 8, 2005 12:35 AM
Comment #100068
I wouldn’t feel too proud of announcing I’m in the same party with the likes of Ted Kennedy et al. (TOO many to name)

Bud,

I am PROUD to be in the same party with:

John Murtha, Wesley K. Clark, Major Bryan Lentz, Lieutenant Colonel Tim Dunn, Major David Ashe, Captain Andrew Duck, Captain Patrick Murphy, Major Paul Hackett, Tim Walz, Lieutenant Commander Chris Carney, Commander Eric Massa Ted Kennedy, Nanci Pelosi, Carl Levin, Mark Warner, John D. Dingell, Bill Clinton, Howard Dean, Al Franken, Joe Biden, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Al Gore, Joseph I. Lieberman, Richard A. Gephardt, Tom Daschle, John Edwards, Harry Reid, whew, you were right, TOO many to name!

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 8, 2005 1:06 AM
Comment #100075

Ahnuld’s neighborhood

Posted by: Liberal 2 Go at December 8, 2005 1:43 AM
Comment #100107

Sorry but the voting record of the people of Mass does not impress me………..I don’t all of the Military people you mentioned and I am not about denegrateing them in any way(unlike most libs are eager to do)but there are plenty of Military on the Republican side that also deserve our respect. There is not one politician you named that I would give you two cents for, especially not Clinton or Pelosi. Apart from Joe Lieberman (who happens to support the war by the way) it’s a very unimpressive list.Sorry guys…you’ll have to do better than that.If you guys are so big on freedom….name one freedom that the libs are about apart from the supposedly constitutional right to kill your unborn child.You guys already have the freedom to Bash your country, bash your President,or actually bash about anybody you feel like. Isn’t that pretty much what the libs are about.I don’t see tham offering up anything else. What more do you want?

Posted by: Bud at December 8, 2005 4:09 AM
Comment #100342

Bud,

Sorry but the voting record of the people of Mass does not impress me

At what point did you begin to believe that the voters of Mass. are suppose to impress you?

There is not one politician you named that I would give you two cents for, especially not Clinton or Pelosi. Apart from Joe Lieberman (who happens to support the war by the way) it’s a very unimpressive list.Sorry guys…you’ll have to do better than that.

Sorry, but I will take my list of politicians any day over any list of Republicans you could possibly come up with. It would look like a police blotter. The Republican party is full of corrupt crooks and liars. Their only purpose being to line their pockets and pockets of the rich. When it comes to the working class they are worthless! When it comes to hypocricy they wrote the how to book. You can have your Republican party, I have no use for it.
(except maybe this winter when the heating bills skyrocket, then I could use the hot air.)

name one freedom that the libs are about apart from the supposedly constitutional right to kill your unborn child. You guys already have the freedom to Bash your country, bash your President,or actually bash about anybody you feel like. Isn’t that pretty much what the libs are about.I don’t see tham offering up anything else. What more do you want?

I’m so sorry you are so against the freedom of speech. The one freedom that liberals are about is the one freedom that God granted to each of us. The freedom of choice. The freedom to choose the the path that is right for me. The freedom to be an individual in a sea of hypocrites.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 8, 2005 8:26 PM
Comment #100347
You guys already have the freedom to Bash your country, bash your President

So Bud,

Does this mean you believe that your country and your President should have unquestionable power? SCARE ME!

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 8, 2005 8:34 PM
Comment #100367

http://www.theotheriraq.com/

Iraq is already a winner. Keep the faith and do not believe the 90% far left progressives that lie and call it the news. They are our miserable biased media that seem to run our world. God bless our President G. W. Bush and our brave awesome troops.
MJ

Posted by: MJ at December 8, 2005 9:51 PM
Comment #100370

New Blog
www.MarieJon.com Good reads :)

Posted by: Marie Jon' at December 8, 2005 9:57 PM
Comment #100385

Hi Bud,

“of course you have taken statements out of comtext as most libs are want to do and then try to make an issue out of them.”

Please support or retract that statement. Do you have any examples or are you being dishonest here?

“Reagan by the way can be accused of not knowing and being in touch with what was happening in Iran Contra but he never supported terrorism and brutal repression.”

The Contras were terrorists. They engaged in systematic rape, murder, and torture of civilians. Reagan supported them.

You don’t hold Reagan accountable for his actions.

“If brutal repression were taking place in this country the likes of you and your ilk would not even be speaking on the internet. Be gratefull.”

I didn’t say anything about brutal repression in this country. You’ve got no case here and you’re going in for diversion.

“I don’t even have to mention anything Ted Kennedy says”

If you want to make sense then you should support your accusations.



Posted by: LouisXIV at December 8, 2005 11:21 PM
Comment #100386

Hi Bud,

“you had nothing to offer on the first part of my statement, all you could do was defend your party.”

That’s not at all true. Can you confine yourself to the truth here or are you limited to right wing hate spin?

“That’s one of the great Liberal problems……..nothing to offer but attacks, name calling and finger pointing, not one thing posative about this country.”

You are the one who is going in for unsubstantiated attacks here. You are engaging in finger pointing and have said not one thing positive about this country.

“Maybe the Republicans are the lesser of two evils but sometimes that,s all you have to go with.”

Maybe you could make a case for that but I very much doubt it. Your posts provide emty hate-filled accusations with nothing to support your filthy accusations.


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 8, 2005 11:25 PM
Comment #100387

Hi MJ,

“Iraq is already a winner.”

The Iraqi government is full of terrorists. Our troops are fighting and dying to support terrorists in Iraq.

You have a very odd notion of what winning is.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 8, 2005 11:26 PM
Comment #100422

Filthy hate filled accusations. My My we’re a bit over the edge here. I don’t hate ya,mostly I just have to laugh. You think the President and this country have unquestioned power? What universe do you live in? You think the Dems are for free speech? That’s why the main stream media along with numerous other lib politicos spend all their time trying to limit campaign free speech by imposeing so called finance reform, condeming Consrvative television and rradio, condeming TV journalism like Fox News because it’s taken the hot air out of the main stream media by telling the truth. As for hypocracy the left wing libs are as hypocritical as anyone . Every one of the left wing hacks on that list have made huge fortunes by invsting in the very big business that they are supposed to be against. Michael Moore has made more money off of the Iraq WAr than any single person, company or entity. The wealthy left wingers that purport to be for the little guy have no interest whatsoever in the average American. I don’t hate you guys, I feel sorry for you. You accuse me of hatefull speech? I can only laugh if it ween’t so tragic. And by the way…..you’ve not said one word regarding my original point about the terrorist war and Israel..you just point fingers and try and defend your party. Once again……..nothing to offer.

Posted by: Bud at December 9, 2005 2:41 AM
Comment #100425

Read about how Anne Coulter who was invited by the university to speak , was shouted down by the left wing Mob………or having pies thrown at her while she’s speaking. There’s your example of the Libs idea of free speach. You’re free to speak unless I don’t like what you have to say. Give me ANY example of the Conservatives doing that. Hey we want Howard Dean to keep talking!!

Posted by: Bud at December 9, 2005 2:46 AM
Comment #100493

Hi Bud,

“Filthy hate filled accusations.”

I assume that the reason you’re engaging in saying dishonest things about those you disagree with is because you don’t like them.

“You think the President and this country have unquestioned power?”

Instead of making false accusations why don’t you try to support your assertions? Why must you be so dishonest?

What you said about the media is utter nonsense. You are not at all in touch with reality.

“Every one of the left wing hacks on that list have made huge fortunes by invsting in the very big business that they are supposed to be against.”

That’s complete bullshit.

“Michael Moore has made more money off of the Iraq WAr than any single person, company or entity.”

There’s another lie. You don’t have enough integrity to even attempt to tell the truth here.

If you care to stop lying and discuss issues let me know. As it is you’re a fountain of lies and spite.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 9, 2005 8:46 AM
Comment #100495

Hi Bud,

“Read about how Anne Coulter who was invited by the university to speak , was shouted down by the left wing Mob………or having pies thrown at her while she’s speaking. There’s your example of the Libs idea of free speach”

You’re being ridiculous.

I recently read about a child molester who is Republican. He’s not the only Republican child molester out there.

Going by your “logic” Republicans are child molesters.

Do you believe what Ann Coulter says? She accuses everyone who disagrees with her of being an enemy of that state. She’s extremely paranoid and extremely un-American.

Do you share Coulter’s un-American views?


Posted by: LouisXIV at December 9, 2005 8:51 AM
Comment #100543

You guys make me laugh. The truth is rediculous to you. Don’t evede the point…….she was invited to speak and shouted down by left wingers to the point where she couldn’t finish speaking. Read about it,who do you think the protestors were? Whether or not I agree with Anne is beside the point,she should have the right to speak at an event that she was invited to speak at, but I believe she is strongly pro american. There was recently a Democrate judge convicted of child pornographery in California. Do I think all Democrat Judges are child pornographers?, of course not.Anyway…..you still have never addressed my original point about Israel so I’m moving on. You like all Dems are incapable of offering a logical arguement about anything or a positive outlook about America. Peace

Posted by: Bud at December 9, 2005 11:26 AM
Comment #100574

Hi Bud,

“she was invited to speak and shouted down by left wingers to the point where she couldn’t finish speaking.”

That much is true. What is extremely dishonest on your part is blaming all Democrats for the bad behavior toward Coulter.

Going by your “logic” Republicans are a bunch of child molesters.

“I believe she is strongly pro american.”

She is extremely un-American. She thinks that everyone who disagrees with her is guilty of treason which is un-American.

“You like all Dems are incapable of offering a logical arguement about anything or a positive outlook about America.”

Can you provide examples or are you lying about me? I’m asking you to support or retract that statement and I doubt you have the integrity to do either.

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 9, 2005 12:16 PM
Comment #100577

Hi Bud,

“you still have never addressed my original point about Israel so I’m moving on.”

What I responded to was what you said to me about how I should be ashamed to be a Democrat.

You didn’t support that. You havn’t supported most of your accusations.

All I did was respond to something you addressed to me by name and now you’re attacking me for not responding to stuff that wasn’t addressed to me.

“You like all Dems are incapable of offering a logical arguement about anything or a positive outlook about America.”

I, once again, request that you support or retract that. You have no compunction about lying do you Bud?

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 9, 2005 12:22 PM
Comment #100671

Wishfull thinking is an understatement being so stupid to think that murdering thousands of YOUNG WHITE KIDS for the RICH JEWS and RICH WHITES that do not care about America is a good thing just like I said STUPID.

Posted by: Albert Garibay at December 9, 2005 4:40 PM
Comment #100700


Every one of the left wing hacks on that list have made huge fortunes by invsting in the very big business that they are supposed to be against.

So. What’s wrong with liberals making money? Are you against wealth? Who’s against big business? I’m not. What I am against is corporate welfare. In a free market economy, big business either needs to sink or swim on it’s own.
Michael Moore did not make money off the Iraq war, he made money off the President”s stupidity and lies.

Ann Coulter is just a nutjob all around. She probably deserved to be shouted down.

The truth is rediculous to you.

Your idea of truth? Yes I think that is ridiculous.

You like all Dems are incapable of offering a logical arguement about anything or a positive outlook about America.

What logical argument? You haven’t presented anything logical to argue. My outlook about America is great. I’m not so sure though about the Republicans, all they talk about is gloom, doom and repression.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 9, 2005 6:01 PM
Comment #100701
Michael Moore has made more money off of the Iraq WAr than any single person, company or entity

Ever heard of Cheney’s Halliburton? Oh, yea, they didn’t make their money, they stole it.

Whether or not I agree with Anne is beside the point,she should have the right to speak at an event that she was invited to speak at, but I believe she is strongly pro american.

Who invited her? The people who shouted her off the stage probably did not. It’s called protest, and it’s as American as you can get.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at December 9, 2005 6:10 PM
Comment #100852

Hi Vincent,

I don’t know what it is about the right. There doesn’t seem to be anyone on the right who is capable of understanding that BUSH LIED ABOUT SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF INTELLIGENCE LEADING UP TO THE IRAQ WAR.

Here are a few examples:

“QUESTION THAT NEEDS ANSWERING: Why did President Bush say in 2002 that “Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program” when two critical reports – an IAEA one from 1997 and a CIA one from 2001 – made clear that there was absolutely no evidence of that claim? And why in 2003, did both Condoleezza Rice ignore these intelligence documents and insist that Bush’s nuclear claim was “absolutely supportable” when in fact it was not? QUESTION THAT NEEDS ANSWERING: Why in his 2003 State of the Union address did President Bush claim that aluminum tubes Iraq purchased were for uranium enrichment, when the White House received intelligence in 2002 that such a claim was untrue? And why did Condoleezza Rice in July of 2003 claim that the intelligence community’s “consensus view” was that the tubes were being used for nuclear weapons, when in fact a March 2003 IAEA report specifically said that wasn’t true?
QUESTION THAT NEEDS ANSWERING: Why in late 2002 did President Bush say definitively that Iraq “could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes” and that Iraq definitely “possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons” when, in fact, Bush’s own Defense Intelligence Agency said it had no proof to support these claims?
QUESTION THAT NEEDS ANSWERING: Why did President Bush and Vice President Cheney repeatedly claim that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda had an operational relationship, and why did Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claim there was “bulletproof” evidence of such a relationship, when intelligence and foreign government sources repeatedly told the White House that wasn’t true?
All of the backup information supporting these questions is in our article. Harry Reid has taken the first important step in finally getting to the bottom of things. Now it’s time to demand answers.”

Posted by: LouisXIV at December 10, 2005 8:18 AM
Comment #101696

All you people in the united states that have come here from other countries and have had money and the American Dream handed to you on a fing silver plater by the fing scum that runs the united states the rich whites and rich jews all you care about is you thats it YOU.

Posted by: Albert Garibay at December 12, 2005 9:10 PM
Comment #109684

I am praising the awesome troops and all the miracles that are really taking place in Iraq.
http://www.theotheriraq.com/
Thank goodness for a president that set America on a war footings . He recognized we could no longer look the other way. Continuing to put a yellow crime tape on acts of terrorism as Clinton did was not working. It’s as effective as sticking one’s head in the sand like an Ostridge does. The tush is up and out and available for a swift kick. In other words the rump is exposed for all to abuse. 9/11 was the big abusive attack. LEARN!

If the biased media were not the spin misters as they are ,the rest of America would understand Iraq and why it is pivotal in the war on terror. Then you miserable Democrats say black is white and visa versa these days . You have fallen into a mind set of out and out lies continually.
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
I personally resent the ways of a party that will not shape up. Lies are no way to be competitive with in party in office. You and your ilk are putting this whole country in total disarray and in danger .
Marie
http://renewamerica.us/columns/jon/051226

http://renewamerica.us/columns/jon/060101

Posted by: Marie Jon' at January 1, 2006 5:44 PM
Post a comment