Snatching Victory From The Jaws Of Defeat

Count me among the remaining yet dwindling few that think what happened in Iraq this weekend was a good thing. Finally a unity government,ratified after months of bickering ……..was born.

A duly elected government now assumes the reins of power.

Despite the scores of miscues and mistakes that were made up and down the line by a gazillion people in the Bush administration,a democracy born a scant five months ago ,finally took its first wobbly steps two days ago....

and I like what I see.....

Could it be that there may be a happy ending to this story and the naysayers are wrong?

Count me in on the minority side that says yes.

The noble 28%....is that the poll number nowadays?

This administration......battered......vilified.........called a liar...a criminal...a usurper of civil rights.....accused of everything from rigging our our national elections to war profiteering......may very well be on the cusp of creating a true democracy in one of the world's most inhospitable places.

In a scant few days the remaining three ministry positions should be filled.

However,much hard and challenging work remain.

The question of disarming the militias and agreeing to final form of the constitution looms on the immediate horizon.

The rubric of oil revenues and their sharing between Kurd,Shia and Sunni need to be
solved.

The going for the foreseeable future will indeed be tough.

American blood will continue to flow into the rivers of Iraqi blood.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld called it a battle of wills.

Can it be that despite the rancor,the division,the partisan venom,the name-calling and accusations that this nation hasn't witnessed since the Vietnam era..... can it be ...that this president is about to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat?

I think yes....he just might pull it off...

Posted by Sicilian Eagle at May 21, 2006 4:53 PM
Comments
Comment #149959

The unity government is a very positive outcome. However, democracy or not, I am still concerned about the direction in which Iraq is heading.

They recently joined the Arab League for discussions on “intensifying the Arab embargo against Israel.” Obviously, President Bush was a little angry.

Then again, other US allies attended that meeting as well, so I guess they were in good company. Among those in attendance: Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait.

BTW, didn’t we just push for Saudi Arabia’s membership in the WTO. It’s worth noting that the WTO forbids its members from boycotting other members. Apparently, this rule doesn’t apply to Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: Dr Politico at May 21, 2006 5:40 PM
Comment #149964

SE,

So all we need now is reliable power and we can call it a day?

I can appreciate your reticence to call it a major victory, though I’m sure Mr. Bush will take anything positive right now.

These guys have been fighting each other for millenia, this ain’t going to happen overnight.

Posted by: Rocky at May 21, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #149968

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

now…get the hell out.

Posted by: gergle at May 21, 2006 6:21 PM
Comment #149971

SE, it (certainly) is great news that the Iraqi gov’t is formed. After (successful) election after (successful) elections; ratifying a constitution; and (now) a unity gov’t, it proves that we are (indeed) accomplishing our mission and that victory will be inevitable. This is, of course, done admist countless naysayers for the past 2 years pointing out the bad and negatives at each and every accomplishment stated above.


This is tremendous news for America! Terrible news for the anti-American movement. Our “will” is way better than the enemies’ “hate”.

Posted by: rahdigly at May 21, 2006 6:28 PM
Comment #149979


SE:If everything continues to go well, It will be the Iraqi people and their government who snatch victory from defeat despite President Bush and his administration. Why do I say this? You have given many of the reasons in paragraphs 4 and 9 in your post.

Posted by: jlw at May 21, 2006 7:49 PM
Comment #149982

Dr. Politico

So am I.Very concerned.I don’t trust the Shia as far as I can throw them.

Which makes it all the more remarkable.

Rocky

A journey of a thousand miles begings with the first step.

I will get slammed as soon as my friends on the left get a gander at the post,but ya know what?

I think it’s about time that someone says we might do it.

Rahdigly

It’s a test of wills.Never forget that.

jlw

We aren’t out of this by a long stretch…plus I am sure that this “democracy” will be very very different that ours.Again…ya know what?…..it’s a start…and it’s about time someone says something positive about it.

I just put teflon on my feathers and I have my battle helmet on,so I’m ready.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 21, 2006 8:06 PM
Comment #149986

SE,

No jive, I hope for all our sakes it happens, let’s just hope that they leave out the Republicans and Democrats.

Posted by: Rocky at May 21, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #149987

SE,

You’re just on a high from your sons wedding (congrats BTW).
I’ll believe it when I see it but to me it’s just their turn to say “Mission Accomplished”. Maybe they’ll do a better job than DonnieDickBush but more likely they’ll just kill themselves in a more organized fashion as Bushie withdraws to give the GOPers a chance in hell of winning anything this election cycle.

Posted by: Dave at May 21, 2006 8:40 PM
Comment #149988

SE,
Unity gov’t, what unity gov’t? There is no “unity gov’t” in Iraq, the whole gov’t is marred with secatarian bickering and fighting; it’s the opposite of unity.
Not only is there this, but there is also the ongoing secatarian civil war caused by the masses of armed militants, and the ongoing violence caused by terrorists, since Iraq has become a haven for them.

Posted by: greenstuff at May 21, 2006 8:41 PM
Comment #149989

Dear Mr. Eagle, yes, let us hope that a true democracy is born in Iraq. Who would not want to see that happen? I opposed this war in every way possible, but I am hopeful that the President’s policy will produce a democracy. If it doesn’t, what then?? I don’t know.

Having made this agreeable comment, and with all due respect, the President, in my book, is by no means “out of the woods” yet. The very real issue of his lies to start a preventive war has never been adequately addressed and many of us will not rest until it is so addressed.

If you wish to continue to believe he did not lie, that is your prerogative; however, I do not see how anyone could be sanguine about those lies and the fear-mongering that lay behind them.


You have disagreed that he and members of the administration did lie. Do you wish me or someone else to site chapter and verse when and under what circumstances the lies were told? These people have even lied about the lies—again, specific examples may be provided upon request.

Either you refuse to admit the obvious, or you feel that the lies were necessary and warranted. If so, that at least is a rational stance and may be debated and should be debated. In fact, I think one could come up with a pretty disingenuous defense of the lies. Goodness knows, Attorney General Gonzalez does so all the time! So is General Hayden at his confirmation hearings.

I assume all Presidents lie. Admitted. What do they, have they lied about? Were the lies necessary? We all lie, or you would have to tell the truth and admit that Aunt Sally’s pumpkin pie was terrible! Why do we lie? Bill Clinton lied to protect himself from the political consequences of an extramarital affair; adults lie about such affairs all the time. That doesn’t make it “right” or “wrong”, but it does mean that maybe some other values are more important than lying. We generally get nervous when Presidential lying about serious questions like war go unchallenged and without consequence. One usually judges the nefariousness of a lie in terms of its consequences.

Finally, before you accuse me of being a relativist when it come to values, yes, I admit humanists may be thought of in that way. However, it does not mean that once in a while we cannot assume that some values are absolute, ie., as when Presidents lie to start a preventive war, and we can be quite upset by the temerity of such behavior. Some of the consequences of such lying behavior are currently in view for all to see. So let us hope that the unintended consequences of the President’s policy are ameliorated and democracy triumphs in Iran and Afghanistan. Be advised not to hold your breath in anticipation of such a result.

Peace, cml

Posted by: cml at May 21, 2006 8:42 PM
Comment #149995

We invaded an aggressive government that was in check. Hussein could not aggress on other nations from the close of the 1991 Gulf War.

If a peaceful democracy results that is both an ally of the U.S. and which can hold Iraq together as a naiton, this will be victory for the Iraqi people.

But there can be no victory for Bush or the U.S. government’s invasion of Iraq unless you want to call victory 2,500 Americans dead, 17,500 wounded, tens if not 100,000 Iraqis dead or mutilated by our invasion, and an unprecedented growth in terrorist activities, recruits, and sympathizers.

No, there can be no victory for the Bush or the U.S. in Iraq. The only victory was deposing Hussein, as a goal, it was accomplished and that was the only small victory, to date.

But the costs of any war must be part of the equation, for if the costs are dismissed in order to force the math to victory, one dismisses the sacrificed, the dead, the wounded, the grieving, justifying it all as the cost for defining victory after the fact.

When you are attacked, almost any cost is justified if it frees you from your attackers. But when you attack another nation’s people without being attacked first or in imminent danger of being attacked by them, nothing you do can justify the horrors caused for the sake of defining victory. Nothing. Aggressors, whether they defeat their enemy or not, can never justify their needless aggression. Not rationally, anyway. And aggressors have a way of sowing the seeds of their own demise, as many a dictator, mafia boss, and murderer have discovered time and again across human history.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 21, 2006 9:29 PM
Comment #150008

I remember a country that took 7 years to go from declaring independence to actually defeating it oppressor. In that war, 10s of thousands died. From there, it took them another 4 years to get a constitution drafted. 25 years after that, its old oppressor attacked again, and they were at war for 3 more years. 46 years after that the nation plunged into a civil war that cost again costed the lives of 10s of thousands of its citizens. It’s a good thing we didn’t have CNN and Ted Kennedy back in those days, the bad press would have been too much to bear. I’m sure by now you’re all aware that I’m referring to our own USA. You see, in the computer age, we expect a country to go from a brutal dictatorship to a democracy in a matter of a couple of years, with minimal loss of life. An expectation that is not realistic. Under the circumstance, I feel that what has been done in IRAQ in the short 3+ years is nothing short of amazing.

Posted by: treker at May 21, 2006 10:38 PM
Comment #150010

I prefer to be the optimist. I don’t like to quit. You’ll note that I’ve never called for us to quit short of our goal, unless we had no other choice. I still believe we can win.

That said, though, willpower is a lousy reason to win, if that’s all that gets you over the finish line. A country as great and powerful as ours should never have been at the mercy of a bunch of pipsqueak insurgents!

It’s not as if we didn’t have warning in retrospect of any of the problems we now face. The only problem is, our president has been too stubborn in his beliefs about the war to face the realities about the war. There is a difference, and it’s an important one.

Many more victories like this (if it so occurs and lasts), and al-Qaeda won’t need to defeat us. We will have defeated ourselves with debt, an army who’s readiness has dropped into the toilet, and divisiveness.

I don’t know about you, but I’d rather defeat our enemies as a matter of course and not subject this country and others to a bloody, poorly planned bloodbaths so we can demonstrate our will.

Maybe your principle is “All’s well that ends well.” But this is history, and history doesn’t end. WWI was a nice victory, until the Germans got sick of the ill-advised scapegoating, and started following that failed vegetarian painter as he exorcised their national shame at the expense of millions of lives worldwide. History can come back to bite folks on the ass when they’re willing to accept the illusion of a problem solved instead of the more difficult reality involved.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 21, 2006 10:50 PM
Comment #150011

Rocky
Here here.It’s a first positive step,nothihg more at this point,but at least it’s in the right direction for a change.

Dave
My son’s wedding was great and his bride beautiful.My son is a lawyer too.When he was a senior,he was my student.I joke with him that that was the first time he wrote down anything I said.Seriously,I wish them all the best,as any father would do..
Several of his collegues from the law school were there as well…all my former students.One of them is leaving for Iraq again in July.I won’t bore you with the details,but this guy has never been in the Green Zone if you know what I mean.We had a terrific discussion about the situation.He believes in what he is doing,by the way.Deeply.

On the other hand,my little one graduated from art college on Friday (busy weekend,…and costly too).She advised me that she has embraced radicial feminism.As bizzare as it seems,I flashed back to my own hippy days three and a half decades ago and told her to go wherever her heart and mind took her.I am equally proud of both.

greenstuff

You may very well be correct.

The divisions between Shia and Sunni run back over a millenia.However,I haven’t given up hope yet.

Back in January I posed the possibility of balkanization of Iraq and thought it over for some time.Ultimately I rejected that idea as not in anyone’s interest.When Biden floated the idea several weeks ago,I jumped all over him here.

Let’s ALL hope…Dems,Repubs,Greens…everyone… that something good MAY happen as a result.I want to be optimistic.

CML.

My intelligent and eloquent educator….now fast becoming my debate collegue…

I will artfully dodge the “Bush lied” discussion tonite.

History will be the final arbitor of that dispute.

Since the victors write history,I think the “lie” allegations will be a very small part of the story.

Unlike Vietnam where dissent tore this country in two,now,while we have anti-war protests,they pale comparison to three and a half decades ago.

Like it or not,I think we will be playing out our hand here one way or the other.

Another point:Recently I have been reading a lot about trying to impeach the president should the Republicans lose control of Congress.

I think this funny.Hystericial really.

For if lightening were to strike,that is,the president impeached,Dick Cheney assumes the presidency.The ultimate of ironies.Does Howard Dean et al realize this,I wonder?


David Reemer

As usual,insightful,howevr I disagree.

Right now we have to prevent a Shia hook-up between Iran and Iraq.If that happens,destabilation increases tenfold in the entire area plus Isreal gets put into play.
Let’s hope that this scenario never happens.

However,throughout history America has shed its blood for this concept called democracy.We all grieve fro the fallen..as well as the wounded.I view their loss not foolishly,as Cindy Sheehan says or John Kerry says,but rather as price we have to pay in order to keep this noble experiment going.

I doubt if Iraqi democracy will resemble ours.Rather,I see it as another experiement…can the Muslim mind truly emulate the fundamental defination of democracy and equality as articulated in the Koran?

Since almost no example in the modern era exists on this point(I know all about Turkey but please …theirs is a military junta disguised as a democracy and thus invalid in my view)maybe we are seeing the beginning of a new form of democracy develop..something that another culture can embrace .

One of these days I think I am going to do a piece on that topic alone.Other than my friend cml above and perhaps you and Stephen Daugherty,it may not be very interesting blog-wise it may be interesting from a pedagocial standpoint to discuss.

Here’s the point.As Robert Frost said:We are at the fork in the road.One path leads to choas and destruction.The other to PERHAPS an outcome less destructive.I am for fanning that little spark of democracy a little more before snuffing it out.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 21, 2006 10:51 PM
Comment #150012

“When you are attacked, almost any cost is justified if it frees you from your attackers. But when you attack another nation’s people without being attacked first or in imminent danger of being attacked by them, nothing you do can justify the horrors caused for the sake of defining victory.”


The US certainly knows that! Anyone remember 9/11?! Al Qaeda attacked us and (what do you know) the head terrorists group in Iraq is called “Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia”. Go figure.

Yet, you guys keep trying to crap on the good news; we’re going to win with you, without you or (even) inspite of you. So, keep it up!

And, when we’re done in Iraq, we’ll take out those “Hitlers in Headscarfs” fascist pigs in Iran. I’m sure the same naysayers will stick up for mullahs in Iran the way they stick up for Hussein in Iraq. Keep it up, b/c all you’re doing is telling us who you really (truly) are.

Posted by: rahdigly at May 21, 2006 10:53 PM
Comment #150015

Sicilian,
Why do you think a democracy win Iraq will be a good thing? It means the Shia will take control on an official basis. They already have taken control on a practical basis. The country is in a world of hurt. Shias Death Squads are executing Sunnis at a sobering rate:

“So many bodies arrive at the morgue each day - 40 is not unusual on a “quiet” day - that it is impossible to let relatives in to identify them… The bodies are dumped in sewage plants or irrigation canals, or just in the middle of the street. Many show signs of torture.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1779414,00.html

So! This is victory. Is does not take much of an armchair quarterback to see where this is going. What is happening is completely predictable. For every Shia victim killed by a suicide bomb, nine Sunnis are executed. And by the way, the number above is for Bagdhad alone. In Basra, assassinations are taking the place at the rate of one an hour. The Iraqi police gave up and went home, last I heard. SCIRI militias provide law and order. That involves killing a lot of Sunnis. But there are not so many Sunnis there as in other parts of the country. How bad is it in the rest of the country? Truly, I do not think anyone knows.

Eventually, Sunnis and Shias will flee the neighborhoods of one another, ethnic cleansing will be completed, and the ethnic groups will be as separate as possible. Eventually, the Shias will kill enough Sunnis that they will cease to resist.

Yes, indeed. This is victory.

” No one tries to move the body of a man in grimy tracksuit bottoms, lying in Mu’alemeen Street, in Dora. A grocery store continues to sell vegetables across the street, and two women carrying plastic bags pass by the body, a pool of dried blood around his head, without looking.

“He is a Shia, no one can move him. If anyone tries to touch the body, they will be killed. The mujahideen want him to rot in the street in front of his family and friends,” a local man says.”

Tell, me Sicilian, have you ever seen “trophy pictures” on the net? They do not show those to you on tv. Let me know if you would like a link. They are… gruesome. Once you see one you will not be able to get it out of your head. Really unforgettable.

Yes, this is victory. As someone already noted, the new Iraqi government is hostile to Israel. We knew this would happen. SCIRI, Dawa, & the forces of Sadr rule.

Perhaps you are satisfied with the situation in the north, among the Kurds?

Marxist Kurds are fighting Iranians along the border. The Turks have lined up tens of thousands of troops along the border. They do not like what happened to the Turkomen minority in Tel Afar, and they are not about to stand for that with the hundreds of thousands of Turkomen in Kirkuk. Do you think it will stop the Kurds from ethnic cleansing in Kirkuk?

“Victory, victory, glorious victory!”

Posted by: phx8 at May 21, 2006 11:08 PM
Comment #150040

It looks as if there is a distinct possibility that the new Iraqi government could condone the use of terrorist attacks on and may refuse to recognize Israel. They may even call for the destruction of Israel. If they do, will we cut off all aid to Iraq? Will we pack up our stuff and our troops and come home? Or, will we attack the new Iraqi government, defeat them and start all over?

S.E. You and your fellow members in the 28% club can continue to call the lies only alligations and you can continue to characterize the mistakes as minor if you wish. I don’t think history will be near as kind to this administration as you do.

Here is one of the best minor mistakes. Shortly after our President declared victory, the imparitive in Iraq became find those weapons of mass destruction. Almost immediately, our troops began finding huge stockpiles, thousands of conventional artillary shells. Word was sent up the line that more troops were needed to secure these stockpiles so the search for wmd’s could continue. Word was sent down the chain of command to continue the search for wmd’s and the stockpiles will be secured later. Quite a few thousand of those artillary shells disappeared.

Nearly all of the improvised explosive devices (IED’s) have been constructed of artillary shells or the explosives in those shells. thousands of lives were lost and many thousands more were maimed by IED’s and more are being killed every day. I am sure that the administration can find a general or a couple of colonals to pass the buck to.

Posted by: jlw at May 22, 2006 2:47 AM
Comment #150053

>>This administration……battered……vilified………called a liar…a criminal…a usurper of civil rights…..accused of everything from rigging our our national elections to war profiteering……may very well be on the cusp of creating a true democracy in one of the world’s most inhospitable places.

Posted by Sicilian Eagle at May 21, 2006 04:53 PM

se,

Let’s see…in order to form a more perfect union…all we have to do is invade another nation using false information, assign a corporation with which we have attatchments to a no-bid contract to squander that nations natural resourses, kill several thousands of its natives, maim several hundres thousands more, forfiet the lives of a few thousand of our own military while maiming several thousands more, set up a puppet government which will surely become a theocracy, create an insurgency of terrorists where none previously existed, and than pat ourselves on the back for a job well done?

I wonder why I didn’t think of that…

Posted by: Marysdude at May 22, 2006 6:07 AM
Comment #150054

phx8

Yes,Iraq is in a world of hurt and democracy may not prove to be the best form of governance there,but I am willing to give it a chance….and so should you.

A scant few months of the formative stages of democracy isn’t enough time to make an assessment,I think…especially by a people who have lived under the yoke of ruthless oppression for decades.

The ethnic cleansing that is going on is horrible and regrettable.However it should have been expected (another Bush administration mistake…one of the gazillion I mentioned).

However,history is replete with examples of a people,once freed from repression ,turning ruthless themselves in vengence.

Here,the Sunni,long the oppressor is the oppressed.

I believe that as the democracy takes root,as the security forces,now replete with corruption and militia,are themselves cleansed,that ultimately the situation will dissipate…but not before a substantial amount of blood is shed.

The Kurd matter is perhps the greatest rubric of all…especially if the Kurds finally get access to money from oil.There the borders are meaningless to them in migration terms and someone is really going to have to walk a diplomatic tightrope.

As I said many many BIG problems remain…and I said that this weeekend’s events were a small STEP in the right direction..we can’t pack up the tents and go home yet.

jlw
I’m no Tommy Franks fan.The military planners did a piss-poor job planning post-Iraq security.How about the looting of nationial treasures or the shieve excape route for then regime’s leadership to Syria?

I blame them first.The presidnt entrusted the military operations to them,and they were ill-prepared for an occupation of 28 million,thinking they would be welcome with open arms.Disolving the military was another mistake as well…one they haven’t yet gotten over.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 22, 2006 6:18 AM
Comment #150062

Well put ScilianEagle. You are right - this is a momentus step for the Iraqi people and the new government.

That the administration has survived the concerted negative onslaught of the mainstream press and the lies and vilification of the leftists, with a 28% approval rating, is a stunning victory. Things will continue to improve. The war was won long ago and the terrrists are reduced to waging war on babies, women, and other unsuspecting civilians. Their numbers fall every day and soon will faden to insignificance.

Republican prospects improve, as do the President’s. The anti crowd has done their worst, and failed.

Posted by: izzy rommes at May 22, 2006 8:00 AM
Comment #150067


cml

Regarding the “Bush Lied” mantra…although not the appropriate post to do this,this preliminary bunch of stuff posted back then certainly gave impetus to the connect the dots theory.

Probably most is rant,smoke and mirrors but enough that I’d feel comfortable defending the president in a Federal Court and get lying charged dismissed very quickly,I think.

Sicilians say that where smoke is,there may be fire….and while we can discount most,but not all of the information contained in the three links below,they show glimpses of the information available to the president back then.Hindsight has always been 20-20.

By the way,if the links are broken,I’d appreciate it if someone can help me correct them because I am on a wireless computer right now with a tiny keyboard.

here’s one

and another

a href=”http://www.papadoc.net/WoW/ConnectionbetweenAlQuedaandSaddam.htm#Interview%20with%20President%20Clinton%20Trouble%20in%20Iraq”/>from a rightie blog

and the scariest of all

another rightie blog

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 22, 2006 8:36 AM
Comment #150068

sicilian eagle-
It just seems to be a piss-poor way of doing things. I have never seen any president, Republican or Democrat screw things up this badly, in war or peace. Bold leadership? More like stubborn, immature, close-minded leadership.

If we win this war, and Iraq becomes a Democracy, it will be in spite of the political leadership, not because of it.

izzy rommes-
If the war was won long ago, we would have control of the territory. Any other distinction between victory and defeat is artificial.

You don’t get to 28% in post-cold war America without losing a substantial amount of moderate and right-wing support. You think he’s gotten as low as he can. I think he can get lower. His problem is that he and the American people have a strong difference of opinion in terms of what is good enough.

So do we, apparently. If we win this way, it will be a damn shame, because this war effort has wasted billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and a great portion of the American prestige for the sake of mediocre results. Not that I mind winning, but I think we could have won this war much more cleanly, more elegantly, and with our prestige intact.

That, in fact, has been the goal of many on the left, contrary to your partisan beliefs. Many of us see the strategic necessity of winning. Many of us, though, have lost hope, as Bush has continued to stubbornly pursue things his way, and the bloodshed, strife, and radicalism continue to unravel whatever good we did by deposing Saddam. Should we follow the example of those who cheered the fall of the Kaiser, only to end up too exhausted, war-weary, and remote from the conquered people to fight the rise of Hitler?

Your prospects are in the dump because you folks lacked discipline, tripped over your own feet regarding intelligence, and resorted far too often to scapegoating the media and the Democrats for decisions that were clearly yours to make or break.

You folks deserve to lose your power. The question is, when we pick that power up ourselves, will we deserve to keep it? I sure hope so. It will be a sad thing to see my party recapitulate the mistakes of yours after all I have fought to see responsibility competence returned to Washington.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 22, 2006 8:37 AM
Comment #150072

Here’s the third link:Hope it works!


whoops

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 22, 2006 8:44 AM
Comment #150076
Do you wish me or someone else to site chapter and verse when and under what circumstances the lies were told? These people have even lied about the lies—again, specific examples may be provided upon request.

Yes please, I’ve requested time and again. I’m always on the lookout for the truth, it’s just determining what that is that’s the hard part…

Posted by: Rhinehold at May 22, 2006 8:57 AM
Comment #150085

We’ll see, Eagle.

No one can possibly know for certain what will happen in the future, but your outlook does seem a little unrealistic.

Posted by: Zeek at May 22, 2006 9:27 AM
Comment #150090
Can it be that despite the rancor,the division,the partisan venom,the name-calling and accusations that this nation hasn’t witnessed since the Vietnam era….. can it be …that this president is about to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat? I think yes….he just might pull it off…

Your kidding? Right?
I used to be Republican and wanted to believe all that, but it is too far of a stretch.

Was it worth it ?
Was it worth it to the us (2454 dead, 17648 wounded) ?
Was it worth it to Iraq (42,180 dead) ?
And what about these these blunders (including bad intelligence leading to war)?

  • [01] Failing to build a real international coalition prior to
    the Iraq invasion, forcing the US to shoulder the full cost and
    consequences of the war;

  • [02] Approving demobilization of Iraqi Army (May 2003),
    bypassing Joint Chiefs of Staff and reversing an earlier position; which
    left hundreds of thousands of armed Iraqis disgruntled and unemployed,
    contributing significantly to the massive security problems American
    troops have faced during occupation;

  • [03] failure to equip troops in Iraq with adequate body armor
    and armored HUMVEES (while irresponsibly voting like crazy on pork-barrel);

  • [04] ignored advice of Gen; Eric Shinseki regarding the need
    for more troops in Iraq; belatedly added troops, having allowed the
    security situation to deteriorate in exactly the way Gen; Shinseki
    predicted if there was an insufficient number troops;

  • [05] ignored plans from Army War College and other
    war-planning agencies, which predicted most of the worst security,
    looting, chaos, and infrastructure problems America faced in the early
    days of the Iraq occupation;

  • [06] bad intelligence; no WMD in Iraq; WMD was a primary reason to justify the invasion of Iraq;

  • [07] deriding "nation-building" during the 2000 debates, then engaging American troops in one of the most explicit instances of nation
    building in American history;

  • [08] erroneously predicting that US troops would be greeted
    as liberators in Iraq;

  • [09] predicting Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction
    with its own oil and resources;

  • [10] severly underestimated the cost of the war;

  • [11] trusting Ahmed Chalabi, who has dismissed faulty
    intelligence he provided the President as necessary for getting the
    Americans to topple Saddam;

  • [12] Disbanding the Sunni Baathist managers responsible for
    Iraq’s water, electricity, sewer system and all the other critical parts
    of that country’s infrastructure;

  • [13] Failing to give UN weapons inspectors enough time to
    certify if weapons existed in Iraq;

  • [14] Including discredited intelligence concerning Nigerian
    Yellow Cake in his 2003 State of the Union;

  • [15] Announcing that "major combat operations in Iraq have
    ended" aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, below a "Mission
    Accomplished" banner – more U;S; soldiers have died in combat since
    Bush’s announcement than before it;

  • [16] Awarding a multi-billion dollar contract to Halliburton
    in Iraq, which then repeatedly overcharged the government and served
    troops dirty food;

  • [17] Refusing to cede any control of Post-invasion Iraq to
    the international community, meaning reconstruction has received limited
    aid from European allies or the U;N;

  • [18] Failing to convince NATO allies why invading Iraq was
    important;

  • [19] Having no real plan for the occupation of Iraq;

  • [20] Limiting bidding on Iraq construction projects to
    "coalition partners," unnecessarily alienating important allies France, Germany and Russia;

  • [21] Diverting $700 million into Iraq invasion planning
    without informing Congress;

  • [22] Shutting down an Iraqi newspaper for "inciting
    violence"; the move, which led in short order to street fighting in
    Fallujah, incited more violence than the newspaper ever had;

  • [23] Telling Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan about plans to go
    to war with Iraq before Secretary of State Colin Powell;

… and the list grows, as our severely bloated, do-nothing, bought-and-paid-for, corrupt, arrogant, elitist government also grows and grows to nightmare proportions, violating the Constitution in more and more ways every year:

  • eminent domain abuse backed up by the Supreme Court ,
  • spying on citizens,
  • secret prisons,
  • torture,
  • Gerrymangering,
  • corpocrisy, corporatism, the race to the bottom,
  • government excessively influenced by a few with vast wealth and power,
  • pork-barrel, corporate welfare, graft, bribery,
  • refusal to secure the borders and forcing the burdens onto U.S. citizens,
  • extremely irresponisible intelligence about WMD that lead to unnecessary war in Iraq,
  • dysfunctional legal system, and perversion of the laws to do the very things the laws were supposed to prevent,
  • severe abuse of Presidential Pardons, politicians are above the law,
  • selective or insufficient enforcement of the law; some obviously are above the law; especially corrupt politicians,
  • meddling, corrupt middlemen (government and insurance companies), and greedy lawyers that are destroying the healthcare system,
  • unfair advantages of corrupt incumbent politicians,
  • an unfair and ridiculous tax systems, and the refusal to reform them,
  • the failure of the Congress to declare war (the Constitution states that only the Congress can declare war, but the cowardly Congress has abdicated that responsibility to the Executive Branch in all wars since WWII,
  • declining public education and other abused public systems,
  • ponzi schemes (e.g. Social Security, Medicare),
  • and the general fiscal and moral bankruptcy of the government.

… but, other than that, things are very good !

  • Stop Repeat Offenders.
  • Don’t Re-Elect Them !
Posted by: d.a.n at May 22, 2006 9:37 AM
Comment #150093

Rhinehold
That third link sets out a lot of stuff…interesting read,all in all.

Stephen

I agree about piss poor management but geez,this is war.Examing history,I think FDR was a piss poor leader in the run up to WWII,no?There’s 20 million dead Russians,seven dead jews,another 20 million Europeans plus 500,000 dead Americans who wished that he would have told Joe Kennedy and Charles Lindberg to go shit in their hat,no?

That mistake was a doozy…a mistake,by the way,that our present problems are the progdginy.

Mull over the Nazi link a little.Scary stuff….even if only 1% is true.


d.a.n

You quoted the Democratic attack platform there…let’s stay on topic a bit…pick and agrue contrary to my post and we’ll see where it goes,ok?

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 22, 2006 9:51 AM
Comment #150097
a democracy born a scant five months ago ,finally took its first wobbly steps two days ago….

and I like what I see…..

So, you’ll be immigrating with your family to Iraq soon, right? You’ll at least vacation there with the wife and kids, won’t you? Make sure you bring a full burkha for your wife and don’t let her out in public unaccompanied. According to Iraqi law, she’ll be stoned to death.

Bon voyage! :)

Posted by: American Pundit at May 22, 2006 10:01 AM
Comment #150099

Seriously, President Bush failed in Iraq. The reconstruction failed, and the goal of creating a free-market liberal democracy was never achieved.

If you want to declare victory and leave, that’s fine. But it seems a little disingenuous. Kinda’ like when Nixon declared victory in Vietnam.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 22, 2006 10:04 AM
Comment #150100

AP

Seriously….you saw nothing positive happen this weekend?Zip???

Come on now…be honest….

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 22, 2006 10:06 AM
Comment #150110

AP


“I mean, hurray for democracy and all that..”

See?I knew I would find a glimmer there somewhere…..nice. :)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 22, 2006 10:49 AM
Comment #150111

I’m glad you like what you see, because they really, really, really hate your guts.

Posted by: Max at May 22, 2006 10:52 AM
Comment #150115

The cabinet’s not actually complete yet, is it, SE? Last I heard the key positions that control the various armed forces were still undecided.

I’d love to see Iraq pull together, and I hope it will happen, but it still seems more likely than not that the end result of operation Iraqi Freedom will be more chaos and violence in the region, not less. This is unfortunately just one more “victory” in a long string of “victorys” trumpeted by Team Red, starting with Mission Accomplished.

Posted by: William Cohen at May 22, 2006 10:54 AM
Comment #150116

SE,

Regarding Bush, we disagree. I still think that going to war in Iraq was a mistake, no matter how it turns out. No matter what Condi Rice says, the Ends do NOT justify the Means. The real damage from this war (from America’s perspective) occurred in the precidents that were set and/or broken in the lead-up to the war. No amount of victory in the field will heal that damage.

Regarding Iraq, however, I tend to agree with you. They’ve taken a very important step in the right direction. I sincerely hope them the best. They have a rocky road ahead of them, and we can’t expect massive changes overnight. Honestly, what we HAVE seen has come faster than I expected. I actually wonder if it may be coming TOO fast for them to adapt to.

I am curious, though, as to how you would compare the ‘duly elected government’ in Iraq to the same in Palestine. Does democracy for democracy’s sake hold true in both cases, in your opinion? If not, what do you see as the key differences?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 22, 2006 10:56 AM
Comment #150117
d.a.n You quoted the Democratic attack platform there…let’s stay on topic a bit . .. pick and agrue contrary to my post and we’ll see where it goes, ok?

Huh? It is on topic (i.e. regarding …

Sicilian Eagle wrote: … this president is about to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat?
I think yes….he just might pull it off…

BTW, I’m not a Democrat (nor Republican anymore as of 18 months ago).

You’re kidding, right ?

Look at the list above.

You can’t seriously be calling it a victory?
It can never be a victory, since it is already a disaster.

I merely listed the evidence as to why it is already a disaster (i.e. 44,634 dead).

Sicilian Eagle wrote: … this president is about to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat? I think yes….he just might pull it off…

My post was addressing those two sentences.
How can anyone call it victory ?
The majority of Americans don’t agree.
The majority of foreigners don’t agree.
The 42,180 dead Iraqis probably wouldn’t agree.
The lack of WMD (the primary argument used to justify the war) can’t equate to vicotry.
The total dead (44,634) can’t be called victory.

It’s a huge (very huge) stretch to say:

Sicilian Eagle wrote: “Finally a unity government, ratified after months of bickering … was born”
equates to:
Sicilian Eagle wrote: … this president is about to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat?
I think yes….he just might pull it off…

Posted by: d.a.n at May 22, 2006 10:59 AM
Comment #150118

Also, even if any any sort of victory were possible, it would be in spite of the severe mismanagement by Bush and his Administration.

Posted by: d.a.n at May 22, 2006 11:03 AM
Comment #150123

Rob Cotreell

“I am curious, though, as to how you would compare the ‘duly elected government’ in Iraq to the same in Palestine. Does democracy for democracy’s sake hold true in both cases, in your opinion? If not, what do you see as the key differences?”


The major difference,of course,is that the electorate in Palestine elected a terror organization…which is their right to do…to run their country…..On the flip side,it is then the right of every country helping them to decide if additionial help and aid is warranted..that’s democracy too…..

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 22, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #150124

William Cohen

Yes of course you are correct…I cited that in my lead post..still work to do cabinet-wise.

Max

“Hate my guts”?…”my” being this administration,I am assuming.No,I don’t think so,sorry.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 22, 2006 11:17 AM
Comment #150125

SE:

Your duly elected Iraqi Goverment has Shiite Death Squads running around.

Deja vu?

Posted by: Aldous at May 22, 2006 11:21 AM
Comment #150126

The writer has it correct. There is light at the end of the tunnel.

To use and old cliché; “It is darkest before the dawn.” This is not only true in nature but also in the case of the Honorable Endeavor.

In a few short years, Americans will say: Job well done!

Posted by: George Van Valkenburg at May 22, 2006 11:23 AM
Comment #150129

Rob,
“I still think that going to war in Iraq was a mistake, no matter how it turns out.”


In regards to the middle east and taking the fight to the enemy; take your pick! We could’ve (easily) went to any country in the Middle East; Iraq was indeed a good choice. We now have intelligence gathering in that region and (of course) military bases to launch strikes against the “Hitlers in Headscarves” Iranians. It was a (strategically) brillant move; especially, removing Saddam and his mudering/rapist sons.


Yet, those who still try to dismiss this, I say keep it up. You’re just telling us who you really are and, history will dictate just how wrong you guys are. Keep it up!!

Posted by: rahdigly at May 22, 2006 11:34 AM
Comment #150134

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.


now…get the hell out.

Posted by: gergle at May 21, 2006 06:21 PM

Kinda like we did in Kosovo? this will never be and we might want to stay in Iraq so we can have a military presence next to Iran, Syria, ect.

Talk about lies to start a war! remember how clinton said up to 1 million Muslims were buried in mass graves? where are the graves and the bodies. never produced but the intent was noble so everyone forgave bill the bombing of a soveriegn nations infrastruture, water, electric, transportation, ect. oh btw, it was a christian nation we were bombing to hell and back protecting clintons precious muslims. sure glad bill ain’t president and Mexico a muslim nation else Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California would get blown to hell and back.


by the way we are still present in Kosovo. We need to be present in Iraq or we will have it to do in a town near you.

stay the course as it is the only way we can keep our freedom.

Posted by: lm at May 22, 2006 11:47 AM
Comment #150138

Hum, didn’t Bush already mentioned “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” years ago?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 22, 2006 12:10 PM
Comment #150140

rahdigly,

The US certainly knows that! Anyone remember 9/11?! Al Qaeda attacked us and (what do you know) the head terrorists group in Iraq is called “Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia”. Go figure.

Oh, the old 911/Iraq famous link!

Sure, Al Quaeda is in Iraq… NOW. But nobody successfully prove that Iraq was behind 9/11. No one.

And, when we’re done in Iraq, we’ll take out those “Hitlers in Headscarfs” fascist pigs in Iran.

Have a good “highest debt” and “at war ratio” party, guys.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 22, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #150143

Hum, didn’t Bush already mentioned “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED” years ago?


Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 22, 2006 12:10 PM

This banner you speak of was a statement by the Carrier. their mission in the war was complete not that it was over. anyone one with half a brain knew we had much work to do.

keep the faith and remember that we are on the same team in the end or it will all end!

Posted by: lm at May 22, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #150147
remember how clinton said up to 1 million Muslims were buried in mass graves?

No, I don’t. Perhaps you could link to it.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 22, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #150152

If the new Government can bring and end to the violance against it’s citizens and unifie the country then I’ll say it’s sucessful.
But I don’t really think anything short of a dictatorship will do that.

Posted by: Ron Brown at May 22, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #150153

“Oh, the old 911/Iraq famous link! Sure, Al Quaeda is in Iraq… NOW. But nobody successfully prove that Iraq was behind 9/11. No one.”


Oh, the old Iraq and direct link to 9/11 mantra. Please! My point on 9/11, to which you certainly missed (or ignored), was that Al Qaeda was responsible and we’re fighting them in Iraq. If we were to go into Iran, Syria, Eygpt, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, etc., and we certainly could’ve, we would be fighting Al Qaeda there, as well.


The Middle East has been a terrorist haven for far too long. We are starting to see a transition of that slowly, but surely. Yet, people continue to dismiss that and bring up the “we shouldn’t be in Iraq” line. It’s a stupid line and it’ll be proven false in the near future. Bet that!!

Posted by: rahdigly at May 22, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #150157
My point on 9/11, to which you certainly missed (or ignored), was that Al Qaeda was responsible and we’re fighting them in Iraq.

We are??? I mean I guess we created a magnet situation that drew them there to fight us, and convinced a lot of Arabs to become terrorists. It’s not like we went there because Al Qaeda was there though, and that’s what you’re implying.

Posted by: Max at May 22, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #150160

rahdigly,

My point on 9/11, to which you certainly missed (or ignored), was that Al Qaeda was responsible and we’re fighting them in Iraq.

Tell me again why right after 9/11 your troops first targeted Afghanistan to fight Al Quaeda? Because Al Quaeda was in Iraq?
Oh man, you right, I miss your point!
Now I’ll just ignore it.

Whatever foreign nation you’ll put your soldiers long enough, islamists fighters will come in the near future. Bet that!!

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 22, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #150169

Can we just get the hell off the stick and nominate COLIN POWELL as the Republican canditate for President in 2008! Ms Rice as vp of course.

Posted by: jblym at May 22, 2006 1:27 PM
Comment #150180

jblym,

If Colin Powell would run, the Republicans would probably nominate him… and I’d vote for him in a heartbeat. He was the only member of the Bush administration with any common sense…

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 22, 2006 1:42 PM
Comment #150181

PH,
“Whatever foreign nation you’ll put your soldiers long enough, islamists fighters will come in the near future.”


Good, b/c those “islamists fighters” will be killed by our troops. Believe that! By the way, you proved my point; we went after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and we fought them there, we went to remove a brutal dictator in Iraq, who (certainly) had ties to terrorists, and we are fighting Al Qaeda there. If we went to any other country in the middle east, we’d fight them there, too. So, thanks for proving my point. Good job!


Max,
“We are??? I mean I guess we created a magnet situation that drew them there to fight us, and convinced a lot of Arabs to become terrorists.”


Dude, you’ll have to re-read my comment again, b/c there is no way that I would ever say that the US “created” the terrorist and “convinced” them to fight us. Clearly they have hatred for non-muslims and their religion “created” that; without our help.


I also didn’t imply that we went there b/c Al qaeda was there; I said we could’ve have gone to any country, in the Middle East, and we would have fought Al Qaeda and other jihadists. That region is a cest pool and a terrorist haven. Period!

Posted by: rahdigly at May 22, 2006 1:42 PM
Comment #150199

rahdigly,

I also didn’t imply that we went there b/c Al qaeda was there; I said we could’ve have gone to any country, in the Middle East, and we would have fought Al Qaeda and other jihadists. That region is a cest pool and a terrorist haven. Period!

Dude, we would be dealing with Al Queda even if we had invaded CANADA… they’ll go to where the action is. That wouldn’t justify subjecting the Canadians to the battle, though, anymore than we were justified with subjecting the Iraqis to it. Our war was with Al Queda… Iraq had nothing to do with it.

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 22, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #150209
Dude, you’ll have to re-read my comment again, b/c there is no way that I would ever say that the US “created” the terrorist and “convinced” them to fight us. Clearly they have hatred for non-muslims and their religion “created” that; without our help.

Dude…

The number of terrorists has gone up since we invaded. The occupation has convinced a lot of Arabs to become terrorists. Going into Iraq made us less secure. There were no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we went there. I am amazed that we are 5 years into this war and there are still people who believe we went there to fight Al Qaeda.

Dude! They lied to you!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Posted by: Max at May 22, 2006 2:33 PM
Comment #150214

It is, above all else, a battle of wills. We are fighting the Islamofacists, the liberal left in the US, the US media, and Socialists around the world. We have to win, or else.

Posted by: David C. at May 22, 2006 2:41 PM
Comment #150219

d.a.n.
I’m no fan of the Republicans at this point, for domestic reasons, and a terminal lack of spine. But your list of military/intelligence blunders is pathetic. We committed that many blunders in one MONTH in WWII! But we still won. History is replete with examples of countries and armies that committed stupendous errors, only to win in the end because they were MORE committed to victory. We will win if we decide to win. End of story. We will not will if we decide not to. It’s your choice, DO YOU WANT TO WIN?

Posted by: David C. at May 22, 2006 2:51 PM
Comment #150221

David C.,

We will win if we decide to win. End of story. We will not will if we decide not to. It’s your choice, DO YOU WANT TO WIN?

YES! I’m committed! I WANT TO WIN!!!

Who are we fighting again?

Posted by: Rob Cottrell at May 22, 2006 2:57 PM
Comment #150227
may very well be on the cusp of creating a true democracy in one of the world’s most inhospitable places.

But wait a minute… I thought they were going to welcome us with flowers and a tickertape parade? Will to win? I thought Rumsfeld said this whole thing would be over in a month and was a cakewalk?

You know what? No one signed up to fight a long, protracted war that would put America trillions of dollars in debt. Here we are five years later and no one has a clue how being there is going to help us in this fight on terror. Do I have a will to win? Nope. I have a will to stop the insanity.

Posted by: Max at May 22, 2006 3:21 PM
Comment #150229

AP,
remember how clinton said up to 1 million Muslims were buried in mass graves?

No, I don’t. Perhaps you could link to it.

Posted by: American Pundit at May 22, 2006 12:38 PM


I don’t know (exactly) where the 1 million came from; yet, Clinton certainly did talk about hundred of thousands that were missing and involved in genocides. The result was that only few hundred were in mass graves; yet, the 1,000’s that they found in mass graves were due to the Nato bombings. Huh, go figure!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War

“Clinton, citing the same figure, spoke of “at least 100,000 (Kosovar Albanians) missing…They’re going to have to decide whether they support his leadership or not; whether they think it’s OK that all those tens of thousands of people were killed…[6]”. Clinton also claimed, in the same press conference, that “NATO stopped deliberate, systematic efforts at ethnic cleansing and genocide[7].” Clinton compared the events of Kosovo to the Holocaust. CNN reported, “Accusing Serbia of ‘ethnic cleansing’ in Kosovo similar to the genocide of Jews in World War II…”


Max,
Wrong! “they” didn’t lie to me. Some people are mislead by their hate for this administration; so much to the point that they just can’t admit to the positive points in this War on Terror. And, you are truly mistaken to think that we have created more terrorists; they were always there, they are (now) coming out to fight and, make no mistake about, they are (definitely) losing. These cowards like to hit and run, b/c they can’t beat us face to face. Yet, we are facing them head on now and they are getting their a$$es kicked.

RC,

Iraq is more strategically sound than Canada. And, (again) you proved my point that they’ll go were the action is and the action is (certainly) in the middle east. Take your pick.

Posted by: rahdigly at May 22, 2006 3:28 PM
Comment #150234

SE-
Yes, it is war, which means things can quickly get pretty chaotic pretty quickly.

Whatever mistakes he made, FDR’s decision not to take us into that war without the public behind him was not one of them.

American public opinion was against getting entangled in another brutal, mechanized European War. With memories of the horrific WWI still fresh, the attitude was to let the Europeans beat themselves silly. Their attitudes were no more right than our attitudes towards counterterrorism were before 9/11, but they were no less understandable, given the context of their decisions.

Starting a war without public support is generally a bad idea. Recruitment and conscriptions become anemic, sacrifices are made less willingly, political opposition is emboldened and empowered, and so on and so forth. The nation has to be unified beforehand, because trying to browbeat the nation into cooperating with your aims afterward will be like herding cats.

America’s entry into WWII would have been half-hearted, had it been made prematurely. It was only because FDR and others did not kid themselves about either side of their situation what we had the kind of victory that we did. They did do more than just ape what the polls said the public wanted, helping to prepare the nation for war, but they also did not get us into this war until the nation wanted the war.

Because of that, we came out of the war as world and economic power above all others.

As for Dan’s quotation, go in and tell me where he’s wrong, instead of calling it an attack platform and treating it like pure politics. Remember, he’s no raving leftist.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 22, 2006 3:35 PM
Comment #150242

rahdigly-
You would use this argument having knowingly supported similar premises when the Bush Administration revised its primary cause for war to the humanitarian liberation of Iraq.

Clinton never made any bones about why he was attacking Slobodan Milosevic. It was humanitarian beforethe fact, and humanitarian after the fact. Given Slobodan Milosevic’s very real behavior during the conflict with Bosnia and Croatia, his proven genocidal tendencies, it’s understandable that we reacted as we did. The question is, Rahdigly, you who would save the Iraqis from the mass graves and the rape rooms, why you weren’t inclined to save the Kosovar Albanians from the same fate.

I think it’s politics.

As for me, my opposition to Bush did not hinge on politics, but the fact that he lied to me when he sold me his war. He told me of certainty when the evidence said suspicion, he told me he went to war for one reason, when I damn well remember the reasons he gave throughout Summer 2002, and the division he stirred in America over that reason.

The fact is, approaching a decade after the fact, our presence in Kosovo is limited, and the place is pretty much quiet. Considering the dire warnings of the right about another Vietnam, we’ve done well. Why is it that the Right couldn’t get Iraq right?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 22, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #150254

Stephen Daugherty

No offense,partner but your response was tepid at best.

Rossevelt,a liberal Democrat,sat on the sidelines while the scourge of Fascism and Nazism rolled unfettered.

Rossevelt was getting plenty of intelligence from everyone…and Americans knew exactly what was happening throughout Europe.

If you tally the dead PRIOR to the US entry into the war,you will realize that his mistake was THE mistake of the 20th century.

Plus,the cold war would not have happened to the extent that it did…carrying it forward,the seeds of hatred sown by the Nazis would not have rooted so deeply in the Mid-East either.

As far as D.A.N. I love his posts…but I didn’t want to digress completely off the topic today.

I just think that we should all be happy about the formation of the unity government….which was the purpose of the post.

Historicially,Woodrow Wilson,the president during WWI left office a broken man due to the League’ of Nations’ failure with historicially low numbers…same with Truman post-Korean war..his poll numbers were in the dirt too.

If it means anything,I admired both those guys despite their party affiliatiion.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 22, 2006 4:21 PM
Comment #150268

SE,

I hope that this government works out and that there is peace in Iraq.

I don’t know who the ‘anti-America crowd’ is that is so often referred to by some conservatives. I guess that’s their way of labeling those who disagree with them. Maybe they’ll feel better about sending those who disagree with them to the gulags if they can dehumanize them.

Back to Iraq. I hope that whatever occurs in Iraq is worth the blood of many innocents caused by our American bombs and bullets. Often trivialized as ‘collateral damage’, the death and mutilation of noncombatants in this conflict is unconscieniable. The joy of a peaceful government in Iraq must be tempered by the awful cost. It is easy for Americans to rejoice who have not even been asked to pay for this war. We have killed Iraqi children and our children will have to pay for our bombs. Let us hope it is money only that they have to pay.

Posted by: LibRick at May 22, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #150274

LibRick
Good post and I agree.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at May 22, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #150297
David C. wrote: It’s your choice, DO YOU WANT TO WIN?
  • (1) If it were my choice, we would not have invaded Iraq. I was against it, but due to bad or false intelligence about WMD, and a history of Iraq attacking others, I initially supported Bush. But he and Congress (all parties) have done a number of things that destroyed that trust. The bad intelligence is extremely irresponsible if it was an honest mistake. The bad intelligence is criminal if it was an intentional lie. I believe some are criminal.
  • (2) Yes, regardless of the reasons, once we we in it, I wanted to win. But the war was severely mismanaged by the civilian Executive Branch, resulting in 44,634 dead, and many more maimed and injured (2454 Americans dead, 17,648 maimed and injured, 42,180 Iraqis dead, and many more maimed and injured).

Therefore, how can it ever be called a victory?

That is not the fault of our courageous troops. It is the fault of our incompetent and corrupt government.

It is also the fault of the voters that keep re-electing the very same irresponsible, corrupt, bought-and-paid-for, FOR-SALE, dishonest incumbent politicians.

Now, how any of my posts are off topic is beyond me, since all of it is about much of what has culiminated to produce what we are now witnessing.

Posted by: d.a.n at May 22, 2006 5:50 PM
Comment #150301

By the time I got to the end I had to go back and read the original to make sure I stay on topic.

I noticed that many people said that there is no victory unless everything is just right. I call it small steps of victory all the way up. When a government was actually elected as it has been. That was a victory. When a constitution was ratified that was a victory. When Sadaam was dethroned that was a victory. When we got power and water to cities that have not had it for years prior to us getting there that is a victory. How the government is now able to use their oil profits for the general populace (when that has not happened prior) that is a victory.

There are many more. this is a long term effort. We are not able to believe that it will be anything else. We are still in Korea, German, Japan, all over Europe, Africa and many other places that we have fought in. Why would anyone think that after 3 short years we would be done. In fact why would we be even close to done. We need a military base there to help stablize the region. It should be permanent.

SE I think you are correct. It is looking up and I think it will continue to.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 22, 2006 6:01 PM
Comment #150302

Randall Jeremiah

Overall I am happy with the discussion here today…plenty of good give and take by a lot of intelligent people.

Thank yoo fior agreeing with me…several others also see it my way as well.

One interesting stat I picked up last week was the amount of US fatalities in Germany the year AFTER the Germans surrendered……over 1000 Allied fatalities.

Posted by: sicilianeagle at May 22, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #150314
Wrongo! If you look at history, especially the past 30 years, it’s absurd and asinine for anybody to believe that the US created terrorists. They’ve always been there and they will be taken out. And, our military will do it with you, without you, or even inspite of you. That’s a fact!!

I didn’t mean “create” as in “and then God created man and woman”, I meant that there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq, then we went there, then Bush said and did some stupid things, and then a lot more Arabs decided to become terrorists and went to Iraq for a “bring it on” showdown.

It was all in the article I linked to.

Posted by: Max at May 22, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #150317

I have heard that some say there were no Al Qaeda terrorist in Iraq prior to our involvement.

Max I just read the article you linked to. It states that there were connections but they were not strong. Now I have read other things a while back that state there were strong connections. Though eveything has said that Sadaam and Osama were not buddies and did not have relations. That does not mean that they did not help out Al Qaida with training or even safe refuge. Sadaam did not seem to be at ill relations with everyone in AlQaida.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 22, 2006 6:47 PM
Comment #150335

Max,
“I meant that there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq, then we went there, then Bush said and did some stupid things, and then a lot more Arabs decided to become terrorists and went to Iraq for a “bring it on” showdown.”

That’s absolutely false! Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia in Iraq, was wounded on the battlefield in Afghanistan and was in a hopital in Iraq in 2002!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi

“After the September 11 attacks, Zarqawi again travelled to Afghanistan and was allegedly wounded in a U.S. bombardment. He moved to Iran to organize al-Tawhid, his former militant organization. Zarqawi supposedly traveled to Iraq to have his wounded leg treated at a hospital run by Uday Hussein. In the summer of 2002, Zarqawi was reported to have settled in northern Iraq, where he joined the Islamist Ansar al-Islam group that fought against Kurdish-nationalist forces in the region.”

And, for the last time, these terrorists didn’t just form when we invaded Iraq; they’ve always been around just waiting for the jihad. Well, now they have one and it’s one that they are (CERTAINLY) going to lose. And, that’s b/c of our US troops. We will win and we will defeat this hatred that’s been breeding in the middle east for many, many years.

Posted by: rahdigly at May 22, 2006 7:40 PM
Comment #150351

I think that we can win this war and we must do it as Americans!!! Their easier than the East Asianz!!!!!!!

Posted by: peter at May 22, 2006 8:28 PM
Comment #150426

Randall,

If Cheney/Bush could prove al Qaida was in Iraq, prior to the war, it would assure some good voter turnout. Do you think he’s keeping it a secret so he can use it as a fund raising bombshell?

Posted by: Marysdude at May 22, 2006 11:34 PM
Comment #150497

I am sorry to assume that the klinton people would take it at face value. I missed it by 200,000 possible dead or missing in mass graves.

it was 600,000 and 600,000. I do remember him saying at each interview the number continued to escalate until he did mention as many as one million victims.

here is your link and sorry for giving you the benifit of the doubt.


http://www.fff.org/freedom/0101e.asp

This man was the most pathetic worthless president we have ever had not to mention a worthless individual.

Posted by: lm at May 23, 2006 11:49 AM
Comment #150528

Marysdude:

Have you read the article that Rahdigly linked. It shows that Al Qaida had ties with Iraq prior to our invasion.

Bush has never kept it a secret He has stated it from the start. The problem is the left side says that he is lying when he says that but it is true they did have connections.

Al Jazeera broadcast an audiotape of bin Laden calling Zarqawi “the prince of al Qaeda in Iraq” and asked “all our organization brethren to listen to him and obey him in his good deeds.”[2]

This is a direct quote from that article.

Posted by: Randall Jeremiah at May 23, 2006 1:13 PM
Comment #150830

Randall and rahdigly,

Perhaps these particular details were overpooked in radiglys link:
(a) Nearly everything Zarquali is accused of occured after 2001.

(b)

In Colin Powell’s notorious February 2003 speech to the United Nations urging war against Iraq, Zarqawi was cited as an example of Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism. In his speech, Powell mistakenly referred to Zarqawi as a Palestinian but Powell and the Bush administration continued to stand by statements that Zarqawi linked Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda. At the time, Zarqawi’s group was a rival of bin Laden’s. A CIA report in late 2004 concluded that it had no evidence Saddam’s government was involved or aware of this medical treatment, and that “There’s no conclusive evidence the Saddam Hussein regime had harbored Zarqawi.”[9][10] One U.S. official summarized the report: “The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything.“[11] However, Jordan’s King Abdullah stated in an interview that Jordan had detailed information of where in Iraq Zarqawi lived. Jordan attempted to have Zarqawi extradited, “But our demands that the former regime [of Saddam Hussein] hand him over were in vain,” King Abdullah said[12].
According to MSNBC, the Pentagon had pushed to “take out” Zarqawi’s operation at least three times prior to the invasion of Iraq, but had been vetoed by the National Security Council. The council’s decision was made because they thought it would make it harder to convince other countries to join the US in a coalition against Iraq. People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” said former National Security Council member Roger Cressey. Former CIA official Michael Scheuer told reporters that the Bush Administration “had Mr Zarqawi in his sights for almost every day for a year before the invasion of Iraq and he didn’t shoot because they were wining and dining the French in an effort to get them to assist us in the invasion of Iraq

Posted by: Dave at May 24, 2006 10:18 AM
Post a comment