Third Party & Independents: Archives

Rob,

Fix the link on “obvious fraud”, please.

Feel free to delete this comment when it’s fixed.

Sorry about the links, they seem fine when I try to edit them. I go to edit the story, and they are listed ok in there, with correct http headers and all. I think it may be a config problem with the MovableType software. looking into it…

Rob:

I dont think Clinton “fiddled while the embers burned”. Terrorism is much more complex than any of the media seem to want to admit. Clinton took an approach of middle ground: he would appease to an extent, and then punish to an extent. I dont think his punishment of terrorism was harsh enough—-instead, it emboldened terrorists who felt they could live with a cruise missile here or there.

But it was a strategy nonetheless. Its unfair to say he had none. I have felt that his strategy wsa designed to minimize the symptoms of terrorism, while producing no US casualties; hence the high altitude bombing campaigns etc.

The problem is that it did not SOLVE the problem—it just dealt with the symptoms. And it has been left to the next Presidency to solve the problems once the symptoms erupted in a worse fashion. Bush has had the courage and the backbone to accept that solving the problem will cause casualties, it will be hard, and it will be painful. Where Clinton put off the pain, Bush has met it head on.

Lets not say Clinton did nothing, but lets also not say that he was successful in his fight against terrorism.

Joe,
Very well articulated. I agree, and perhaps I did speak rashly. At the time, I felt his response was somewhat weak and casualty-averse, but it was a strategy, and no one could foresee 9/11. I don’t mean to lay that on him. I guess I’d call it the ‘law-enforcement’ approach. I do really worry that John Kerry has been sounding like he wants to take us back to this approach that allowed the terrorism problem to worsen. While it was a strategy, it clearly did not work, and wanting to go back to that approach is foolish.
Rob

I might have a slightly different view on combatting terrorism because a part of my military service years involved Special Operations. (It’s all well and good that Kerry was a river rat but even there, there are only so many parallels you can draw between Apocalypse Now and desert or mountainous combat.)

Large-scale conventional military operations are never appropriate for a true “terrorist” threat. They will always see you coming, will always build up an insurgency to “Vietnam” you to death with ground-pounders getting blown away by babies being used as hand-grenades, that sort of thing. The best use of large conventional forces is AGAINST large conventional forces.

The best counter to small unconventional forces are small unconventional forces. The requirement for precise and timely intelligence is astronomical to make it succeed, and there always does need to be good fire support from such vehicles as AC-130U gunships (which fly up and out of RPG range to eliminate “Blackhawk Down” risks). Another political drawback to emphasizing the Special Ops approach is that you don’t get to do a play-by-play on CNN or with embedded reporters. The American people will feel out of touch from the operation, or will feel that it’s not going on AT ALL, which will make them worried that nothing is being done. (Many Americans are under the impression that we’ve “stopped fighting” in Afghanistan when really all we’ve done is shift the emphasis to classified Special Operations!)

I understand Bill Clinton’s desire to eliminate the possibility for U.S. casualties, and if events were more timely and he got a luckier roll of the dice, one of those missiles might have actually blown Bin Laden to smithereens at an oppertune moment. On the other hand, with a more stand-off approach, real-time information and the accuracy of intelligence will suffer. You don’t know that the bad guy changed dinner plans and went to a different base until you’ve already launched your very expensive missile(s). If Special Ops “shooters” were on the ground eyeballing the movements of the motorcades, they could have reacted to the new information and parlayed that into a second chance to make a successful strike. Shooters risk casualties, of course, but nobody signs up to be a Shooter for the “safety” involved. That goes for SEALs, Delta, Green Berets, or the ancillary tiers of forces like Rangers, USMC Recon, AFSOC (like I was), etc. It’s a risky job but it can be a more fun and exciting job than flying a keyboard at a base supply depot somewhere (which is also good and valuable service—don’t get me wrong on that!)

Anyway, throwing conventional forces at an unconventional threat is a bad matchup, in my opinion. It’s like throwing a cavalry charge straight into a wall of Swiss pikemen, if you follow your medieval military history. You can have all the “leadership” quality in the world, and still lose troops unnecessarily and with no real progress toward your objectives.

I’m not confident at all that Kerry would “get it” anymore than Bush does now though. He thinks people with blue helmets and orders not to shoot back when fired upon, are some sort of a solution to violent, millenarian, fundamentalist clerics with a core following that would gladly die for their cause. He’d ask for the reckless suicide of the conventional forces of many nations instead of just ours, but that still won’t nip any problems in the bud.

Special Ops and spies are the solution. Unleash them, unfetter them, support them, give them what they need, don’t let any political considerations get in their way, don’t compromise the secrecy of what they do, and they WILL deliver results. Few things in this world I can be confident in, but that would be one of them.

Rob, can you honestly say, that if Gore were President instead, that he would have ignored his chiefs of staff, ignored his political advisors, ignored his cabinet, and chosen to not respond to 9/11 with some kind of war on terrorism? If so, partisanship will prevent this discussion from going forward.

If Gore were President, or Nader, or any number of other folks who have a real chance at the Presidency, an Iraqi invasion without U.N. sanction or full NATO involvement would not have occured. The invasion of Iraq was planned before Bush got in office by his cabinet. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that invading Iraq as we did, would not have occured under another President. That to me is an indictment of this President for failed leadership. Any average American as President would have gone after the terrorists after 9/11 - there was nothing heroic or outstanding about Bush’s reaction in that regard. Most Americans as President however, would not have come up with the idea to destabilize the Middle East further and make the U.S. even bigger targets, and put our massive troops into an offensive against a nation which had little or nothing to do with 9/11. NO - It took George W. Bush to go the route, and that does make him special - the President who pulled the dumbest foreign policy wool over the eyes of the American people and allied nations in modern history.

Oh he is special alright - special like plague is a special form of disease - to be rid of as soon as possible.

Iraq is no longer a safe haven for terrorists?? About the only thing Iraq is safe for any more is terrorists…

Ciggy,
thanks a ton for the feedback. it was fascinating reading and obviously you know much more about the military and Special Forces side of things than I ever will, but it makes a lot of sense to me and I am curious how you feel about Bush and what seems to me his pledge to let the military decide how to fight things. he has stated that one of the lessons of Vietnam was to ‘let the military do the fighting’ and not get in their way. last night’s quote about more troops “if he wants them, he’ll get them” being an example. I don’t know how that contrasts with previous administrations.

David,
No, I do think Al Gore would have gone to war as President after 9/11. The American people would have demanded it. But he WAS a member of the previous administration that took a ‘law enforcement’ approach to terrorism. Would he have leaned as hard on Pakistan? Libya? Iran and North Korea? He certainly wouldn’t have gone into Iraq. Gore, I feel, would have bowed to the United Nations and UN pressure to do things their way. Last I heard, not even HALF of the U.N.’s member nations had responded to their post 9/11 anti-terrorism directive. I doubt Libya would have folded under ‘that’ kind of pressure.

My guess as to what the world would be like under a Gore admin right now? Afghanistan would be similar as it is now. Saddam Hussein would certainly still be in power, threatening the US and Israel (whether he has them or not) with WMD’s. Just the fact that Hussein would be in power after 9/11 would embolden him to work more closely with al-qaeda after seeing the brilliance of their attack. North Korea would have a couple shiny new nuclear plants courtesy of us, chock full of fissible material, and we would have another piece of paper from a communist state starving it’s own people in order to build weapons, ‘promising’ not to use nuclear material for nuclear weapons.
The media would be hailing a ‘new era of cooperation’ in the United Nations and the U.N. itself would be hailing a watershed moment as they get to the ‘halfway point’ of getting their member nations to comply with 9/11 security directives.

I just don’t see how removing a tyrant from power and installing a government with an unprecedented ‘Bill of rights’ for the region is destabilizing that region.

President Bush is a man of action for a time when action is demanded. Previous admins had nice words, but little substance to back them up.

I just don’t see how removing a tyrant from power and installing a government with an unprecedented ‘Bill of rights’ for the region is destabilizing that region.

Perhaps you missed the widespread rebellions going on in Iraq recently? A piece of paper means nothing if you can’t enforce it, nor does a government if it’ll get overthrown the instant US troops leave the country.

Rob—

I tire of those who support Bush dragging the Clinton Administration into the debate as a way to absolve the Bush Administrations its considerable failures. This is no longer Clinton’s watch, it Bushes and he is make a mess of it.

Leadership involves more then getting in front of the American public and talking like an 8th grader; it involves more then platitudes and arrogance; it involves more then “seeing the world as it is” or how [comment deleted for attacking the messenger]; it involves more then near-sided quips like “bring it on.” Leadership involves intellectual curiosity, wisdom, and a vision for America and the world, based on critical thinking and realism. Leadership is taking responsibly for the good as well as the bad and admitting when you have been in error, and the taking the necessary steps to correct your actions. In order to lead effectively you have to know where you’ve been, where you are going and how you are going to get there. Bush is no leader; he is merely a puppet, a mouth-piece for the neo-conservatives that pull his strings.

Yes Bush went to Harvard and Yale, and was a mediocre student at both institutions. I wonder what his grades would have been if his last name was not Bush, or if he even would have been accepted at either institution at all.

“Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Libya are no longer safe havens for terrorists.” First of all, Iraq was not a safe haven for terrorist until we invaded, and lacking the manpower to protect the borders allowed as much as invited the terrorists in the set up shop. The fact is Iraq, outside of Saddam’s adventures in Israel wherein he paid the families of suicide bombers had little connection to terrorism. Second, the Bits were largely responsible for Khdafi”s turn around, a feat they had quietly been working on for years. I will give you Afghanistan, and Pakistan, but even here terrorism is on the rise once more, hence the 2000 Marines just sent the Afghanistan. And now it seems we have made the country a safe haven for drug growers and exports; i.e. Afghanistan is once more the top producer of heroin in the world. Partition me, but doesn’t this undermine our War on Drugs?

And lets not talk domestic policies! Leadership? Where is it, I’d love to see it in action from the Bush Administration. I listened to Bush as well, and heard the complete opposite of what you heard, and came away with one inescapable conclusion; he hasn’t a clue as to what he doing, or what he has gotten this country into. [Comment deleted for criticizing the messenger]

>>Rob you were thinking “what the hell is wrong with Al Gore’s neck”, don’t lie. Or was it the bizarre cockwalk that Al was doing at the debate between the candidates (which you can call that a debate only if you consider the inhibiting of candidates to ask each other questions a debate or consider having preselected questions democratic). I know why you chose GW over AG, the same reason many did, we saw that wierd speech at the black church, That whole “Don’t you be gettin’ up all in ma’ face-you bes’ step back cracka’” clearly that was the funniest thing in his run for president. And what was that kiss the wifey nonsense and the “My neighbor Leiberman thing” like they were sitting around the ‘kitchen table’(sounds of dryheaves added for effect)

So why did you vote for Bush? Cuz Al is a silver spoon dork, that ‘s why,…remember now?

Vic, I feel that falls into a trap. Don’t forget, Iraq has 25 MILLION people. There a few cities where a few people in those cities are fighting us. The media (not necessarily purposely) has distorted the view of what it is really like there.

Another thing ROB, as I read over this hindsight amnesia thing I have to say you are exceptional to the herd then. What you were probably more focussed on was “why did we give China PNTR status?” or “Are we going to really open up markets in Cuba?” no you were solely and squarely thinking about Al Qaida, riiiiiiight!

No one thought that this faction could infiltrate us so devastatingly, they were over there not here. We were more concerned with Elian Gonzales and world trade and Bono trying to get debt relief for impoverished nations. And asking why must we hear Bill Maher and Coolio talk about some weighty topic that neither know a damn thing about. Why this 20/20 hindsight amnesia?

If Al Qaida was on your mind at the time you are truly an exception to the populace.

Rob, about “letting the military do the fighting” in the Bush administration, I agree that that’s the thing to do when specific fighting tactics are devised, but war efforts require a certain level of support from non-DoD agencies like the State Dept., CIA, etc., and that’s where presidential leadership has to pull the stovepipes together, get them all on the same page, same team, and work in concert. It can be a monumental task, and even the best of leaders can screw it up just by having an off day or answering a phone call a few minutes late.

When it comes to the specifics of how the military itself is handling the war (as empowered by Bush), I am going to be bold enough to make a few comments about that. I am impressed beyond words as to how quickly they destroyed the regular forces of Saddam Hussein. “On paper” it should have taken about nine months, but they did it in weeks. On the other hand, even if the POTUS is asleep at the wheel when it comes to a post-war scenario, SOME of the buck falls at the military for the transitional planning. It’s the military engineers that have to get roads and bridges and power stations repaired, and they were slower than expected (and continue to be such) in completing those jobs. It’s the military police that have to keep law and order, and that was poorly planned (obviously) at their level. It’s the Psyops people who have to communicate to the locals that we are the good guys, and that didn’t seem to happen. Helicopters have to keep from crashing. Perimeter security has to be wary of “Greeks bearing gifts” (as the old slogan goes). Special Ops people have to get after it when it comes to locating troublesome insurgents and ELIMINATE them before they make the nightly news. These are all tasks not on the personal head of the POTUS. If one of these teams were just having a bad day, others could step into the breach and make the rest of the effort happen, but it seems MANY of them have been having MANY bad days. This isn’t to say either they are bad people or they’re led by bad people, but processes and organizations can have inherent flaws that even the best of individuals can’t overcome (as the less partisan elements of the 9/11 commission are discovering).

The call for a “new military” has a lot of merit, because the existing one is still primarily geared toward defending Europe from the old USSR. Not too up to date there, is it?

Ciggy, this is actually quite fascinating. Now in the pursuit of “A New Military” what would you say are the shortcomings of this old military (Euro protectorate) outside of new technologies which will always be adapted?

I mean to say does this call for an overhaul or a re adjustment of what we have in contrast to new war strategies? Now I think things certainly have to be readjusted to such a terror-based theatre of various splinter-heads and cells. It certainly is different from alot of past wars but in some ways not differing much from incidents in Vietnam as they employed terror methods themselves. We might have been unprepared then but our strategy awareness has evolved, Beirut and other such insurgeancies were big learning lessons.

In other words what sectors of our defense do you see as in need of rearranging (remodulating) and what are in needs of replacement or overhaul?

Another thought too is that not all future wars are going to be terror-cell and are for the most part conventional. Granted we need to become more deturrent and offensive in the removal of terror. But to negate the conventional is that wise?

Could we be sharpening one side of a blade and allowing another to rust?

Here’s my thinking on this, I’ll throw it into the frey and see if it floats. Our problems are ones of intelligence and not on structure.

I think we need to be working in a similar fashion to tha Israeli Mossad but with a monopolistic twist.

We need to not only infiltrate these groups but we need to become them.

*We need to become the Hawalla banking that funds terror and splinter groups, this would make it totally monitorable.

*We need to throw up a slate and become Al Qaida to entrap people with such terrorist ambitions.

*We need to infiltrate the Wahabist schools if not become part of them to monitor terror.

*We need to get inside the Chechnyan rebels and gather information.

*We need to get inside groups that are muslim fighters in Kashmir which was where the Pakistani’s hired Al Qaida to fight on their behalf against India.

I do think that the NSA technology has to be upgraded to recognize voice tones as well as just words and phrases. And it needs to be employed there if not so already.

I think these are intelligence gaffes not a reason to restructure the entire field. My thought are of remodulation not a complete do over and new technologies will always be added as they become proven effective and needed.

***And the reason I believe that parts are falling apart such as with helicopters, is that the parts are manufactured based on the lowest bids overseas. (Overhaul the flaws but restructure the strategy to trap by means of deception) And yes strategies will be readapted and will evolve to different types of fighting.

The ability to see the world for what it is…

Is this a joke? I couldn’t possibly imagine a world leader who has less of a grasp on the nature, history, and current state of the foreign nations that make up the rest of the world.

Or is understanding the nature of the world around you just another “abstract idea” that the POTUS shouldn’t be held accountable for?

Thinking this whole thing over, I am ready to predict a Bush victory in the Fall. Here is how I see it playing out.

Much of the nation is frustrated with Bush. He is vulnerable. If he were facing a strong democratic candidate, I think Bush may be through. This doesn’t seem to be the case. When we are at war, I just don’t see Kerry having the backbone for the job. I know all the vietnam hero stuff, but that was thirty years ago.

Let me give you an example. Take the June 30th date for instance. Last year when we “won” and wre in Bagdad, Kerry wrote that we needed to fix a certain date for transfer of power. His thinking (right thinking) was that we didn’t want and endless occupation. I call this “Kerry the first”

Kerry the second was a few months ago. He said that setting a specific date was wrong. We should instead be looking for a time when the climate was right for transfer of power. Bush was setting this date for political reasons with the fall election coming up.

Kerry the third has change his position again. Now he says that although the date idea was ill conceived, we should probably stick to it to not send the wrong message.

This theoretical opinion of the day is fine (good?) for a US Senator, but is a terrible trait for a war time president.

So my prediction, is that the polls will go up and down between now and about October. In the fall, instead of thinking “I am angry at Bush and frustrated about Iraq”, the voters will be thinking, “Which one of these two bozos do we need for a commander in chief”. My wager is that voters will vote for steady leadership because Kerry has not demontrated a viable alternative. He is not giving Americans the confidence of a person we can trust in the middle of battle.

It is better to stick with the bozo you know that the one you don’t. Bush 52% Kerry 46% Nader 2%.

In otherwards, the democrats have a chance, but they got the wrong man.

Craig

Ah Craig-ers, you are quite wrong, Bush shall be defeated.

Kerry is doing such a wonderful job! He snowboards, Salboards, makes us all bored and yet uses redundant buzz-phraseology so badly. His assessment on our economy is deleriously glib. He bores audiences into various comatose states, this man is a winner!!!!

Why because he is running a bad campaign, one of going into sports stores and buying jockstraps. The campaign that he is working up here isn’t as bad as Gore’s but damn if’n it don’t come close!

But when John Kerry does actually get in touch with his own constituency he will at that point reallize he has run a piss-poor campaign and that will be in December of this year I suspect.

The Democratic candidates we had to choose from ranged from inane to insane and we had to pick the mortitian. The pirate Dean and his following of circus carnies just weren’t going to make it no matter how the press predicted the outcome. We have a legislator with 30+ years experience who is convinced he is campaigning in cape cod.

And based on above information I assert Kerry to be the victor!

Skunkbud, I think the methods you list in detail for intelligence and special ops methods and tactics, are all outstanding ideas. Some of them are already “textbook” and SHOULD be in operation as we speak. We, of course, will never know about it until some fascinating declassified stories come out years later.

I have a few ideas for some specific intel/specops tactics but I’d prefer not to write about them in public.

With regard to retooling the military, the military itself has recognized since the fall of the Soviet Union that the major threat over the next century WOULD be terrorism. It became almost trite for doctoral theses at the War Colleges and Academies, to the point where instructors would make those subjects off-limits because they were beating a dead horse about the new threat. “Richard Clarke” types were and still are a dime a dozen in that world, and for a while I was a small wannabe replica of them in the area of war planning and scenario simulation, after my Special Ops tour. That’s why I was pleasantly surprised by the little effort it took to dismantle and disassemble Saddam’s regular forces. The computer was more skeptical. ;)

Anyway, the military itself is creeping on its own, at a snail’s pace, toward a counterterrorist and counterinsurgent posture of war-fighting. That posture comprises mostly two major changes:

1. Training. In conventional warfare you could array large numbers of ground troops with a moderate level of fighting expertise, and as long as they have operational trigger fingers and know how to read a map, it’s likely they will be of use in a conventional battle. These days the bar has been raised to very high levels to where a soldier has to be pretty much a total Rambo type, just in order to survive, let alone achieve victory. The training for each combat soldier going forward should reach a level similar to that of the Army Rangers.

2. Mobility. In the Cold War there was still a concept of using infantry to “hold terrain”. You don’t “hold” anything in unconventional warfare. You stick and move. Move and stick. Your location at any moment should be classified; your existence in any area should be unannounced; and your appearance on the battlefield, even if it’s just to resupply other forces, should be an entire surprise. This requires a large amount of helicopters and troop transport planes to move forces among operational bases like a vast shell-game, or three-card monte. Flights would be constant, and once they’re at altitude, you don’t know where they’re headed next. Or they might turn right back around and swoop into the village you’re in. You never know.

Anyway, the increases in training and mobility will come at the expense of sheer numbers of troops, but will give benefits in terms of how operations like the Iraq counterinsurgency will be prosecuted.

Anferny:

Wow!! I know when I am truely beating in a debate. Have you ever seen the like!! One thing that I disagree with you on. I think he is moving into Gore’s range here for campaigning. I think in December the pressure will be off of Gore for running such a crappy campaign in 2000.

By the way, I wonder where the anti war folks are going to go?? Now that Kerry has switched again, and is campaigning on the theme, “I am going to do about the same thing Bush is doing, but he is doing a terrible job of it, but I will do better”, where are the folks going whe believe we should get out of Iraq and bring the troops home?? I wonder if ol’ Kerry is opening himself up to Nader on the left. The “bring our boys home at all cost” group seem like serious folks. Someone in this country is going to voice that opinion on the national stage.

All you independents out there, is Nader for cutting and running? Then maybe Nader gets 10-12%. Now wouldn’t that squeeze Kerry just a bit??

Craig

David:

You usually stick pretty close to the facts, but your comment, and I quote…”The invasion of Iraq was planned before Bush got in office by his cabinet.” really has no semblance of fact to it.
Its innuendo followed by supposition, with a helping of opinion on top.

Now, lets be clear about what I’m saying here. It is opinion that Bush had Iraq invasion plans at the beginning of his presidency, and its innuendo therefore that his cabinet had invasion plans before he was even elected.

The truth is that Bush was clearly aware of Iraq from day one of his presidency, as he should have been. To have Iraq anywhere but at the top would have been to ignore the past 11 years of US/Iraq history.

The truth is that Bush did not trust Saddam (with good reason, since Saddam had spent the last 11 years breaking the cease fire agreement that his country signed), Bush did not like Saddam (with good reason, since Saddam tried to kill not only a previous US president, but also his father), and Bush did not want to coddle Saddam in any way(again, with good reason, since coddling Saddam had not brought him any closer to compliance). The only thing that ever worked with Saddam was force, or the threat of it backed by troops. Bill Clinton said that, and agreed that Saddam would never comply unless forced, and Bush acted upon that very same premise.

David, I’m rather surprised that you used that line. To treat it as fact when it is simply an opinion that you agree with is unlike you. I do know that you may be able to dredge up circumstantial evidence, or even comments from people like Paul O’Neil, but neither of those things comes close to being fact.

Hoping to see you back to your normal well written posts soon.

Ciggy,
I agree intelligence is the key to fighting these terroistic groups. George Tenet said (today I think) that it will take at least five years to rebuild the CIA to be effective in these areas….I think that is optomistic.

I found it interesting that the person questioning him asked if we have five years, as though we have some other choice.

I voted for Nader not Bush, but then I’m in Texas and I knew my vote was wasted anyway. I don’t particularly think he would make a great president. Jimmy Carter was a very intelligent man with moderate and rational views, but he helped to create some of the problems in the CIA.
But, I by no means leave the blame at his feet. The CIA was abused by many politicos and is always vunerable to abuse due to it’s covert nature. If perhaps if we had really punished a few people …like Olie North for example…. rather than crippling our intelligence services we wouldn’t be where we are today.

joebagodonuts, I am sorry, but I suggest you follow this link for confirmation of what I have asserted which has gone unrefuted for a couple years now by Cabinet members and even confirmed by Donald Rumsfeld before the press.

I am a bit surprised that at your rebuttal’s refusal to acknowledge the Administration’s plan and intent to invade Iraq given the first possible opportunity to get approval to do so. I heard Runsfeld himself in an interview acknowledge the plan was in place and defended having it.

There is nothing wrong with my posts, thank you. Only people’s willingness to accept facts if they interfere with their preferred beliefs.

joebadodonuts, if you are sincerely wanting support for the facts, here is another ABC news reference link supporting my assertion.

%Joebagodonuts lighten up, go find a good porn page or something!

Craiglies,
I have no idea what you are talking about! Kerry shall emerge victorious! Damn conservatives with your naddering naysaying, we shall prove you wrong, you hear me..wrong!!!!

Here’s what I think seriously, Kerry doesn’t want the job. He’s not even trying at this point, he is just on a nationwide diner tour. He likes pie and what the hell’s wrong with that?!! Dean liked pancakes, Kerry likes the pie, Kucinich likes hangin’ out at Willie Nelson’s compound. I mean who wants to be blamed for this debacle?!!

Clinton liked the Big Macs, that’s pretty convenient same food in every town, he must’ve wanted the job. Reagan liked jellybeans, something you can get at any drugstore, now he wanted that job!

I see Sharpton as a rib man, comments?

David:

I think you are overstating your case a bit. I am certain there were plans to invade Iraq in the Clinton administration as well. Someone had to have been given the project of “what happens if the cease fire in Iraq all falls apart” project. I am also certain there are plans right now to invade Syria, and Iran. The military is full of “plans”. Not only that, I am certain there are plans to invade North Korea, and to protect Taiwan.

I also think there was a mindset the the status quo should not continue. Bush must have thought (correctly from my point of view) that the current situation in Iraq needed closure. We as a country were not going to patrol the no fly zone indefinitely, while others profited financially. At some point that reality needed to change.

I also think the Bush administration probably came into office with a “negative attitude” concerning the UN. I share that attitude. I would need to be seen where the UN has proved it’s great abilities in these matters. Hmmm Rowanda? Bosnia? Why did Clinton go around the UN in the War in Bosnia? The UN had a reputation of failure in 2001 when Bush came into office.

Where I think you and many on the left are wrong, is that Bush came into office with a decision to invade already made some how. I do think with their “disposition”, and with the problems we are facing, I makes me understand why Bush felt he had little choice after 9/11.

Many are criticizing Bush for not handing criticism well. I do not hear much criticism from the left or even balanced thought concerning the abilities of the UN.

Craig

And what if the administration WAS actively looking for a pretext to invade Iraq? Even if correct, this is the most dramatic assertion even hinted at by the likes of Clarke, O’Neill or any other overnight Democratic hero? It was about time somebody lowered the fly-swatter on that WMD-using suicide-bomber-funding maniac.

Martin:

Even if Bush was looking for a pretext, that is not that huge of a deal. Bush still had to go thought the UN and Congress. Both supported him. The UN did not support completely but did give him a Unanamous resolution stating Iraq needed to comply or serious consequences would follow.

What I mean is the Bush ahd to fight his way through the checks and balances system. He won Senator Kerry’s approval for instance.

Craig

Craig, with regard to five years, I would be skeptical of that estimate. Time is money, so often when exaggerated time estimates are given, it’s code for saying “increase my funding and I’ll get you what you want”.

Here’s an example of when there is more of a sense of urgency: The time it took from conception on a golf course somewhere, to full reality in a reorganized Air Force, splitting the Strategic Air Command into elements that would merge into a new Air Combat Command and Air Mobility Command, with Tactical Air Command going into ACC and Military Airlift Command going into AMC (easy, right?), was about six months. That is more personnel, equipment, and (unclassified) budgetary dollars than the entire CIA right now.

Or in the civilian world: Wells Fargo Bank, a corporate entity with $200 Billion of market cap, pulled off a similar reorganization in its Institutional Trust division over the course of about three weeks.

So… five years. Hmmmmmmm. Ah, no.

I’m sorry, my previous comment is to Greg, not Craig. ;)

Yeah, you’re right. Bush is doing a superb job. What were we thinking? LOL… April Fools Day was two weeks ago, though.

Craig, if you follow my links above you will see a huge difference between administrations. Bush’s clicque recommended to Clinton that he invade Iraq, and Clinton did not find a sufficient justification for killling our troops to do that, much to his credit.

Then Bush comes in, we get hit by OBL (could have been aliens from Mars) and Bush and his clicque use it as justification for carrying out their bloody plan to invade Iraq, waste our troops, literally, against a regime which was not a threat to Americans in America. Clinton or almost any other President would not have wasted our young men and women on Iraq, but put our forces to work going after OBL, destroying al-Queda, and protecting our borders from more attacks. A use of our troops that almost all Americans regardless of party would support.

Now Bush has his fiefdom in Iraq and we don’t have sufficient military to even handle it, let alone defend our borders or maintain committments elsewhere like Korea. Just read we are removing troops from the border area with N. Korea.

Is it any wonder Bush’s polls are dropping and Americans are changing their minds about Bush’s ability to handle foreign affairs?

You are all missing a major point. BOTH Bush and Kerry wish to keep troops in Iraq. Kerry as expressed that it would be “foolhardy” to withdraw troops from Iraq after June 30th. Even though Bush says that troops will be withdrawn in June, he says that control will be turned over to the UN. HELLLLLOOO!! U.S. controls 70% of the UN. Our troops are only going to change the color of their berets from black to blue…

Nader is the only one candidate that is demanding an immediate withdrawl of all troops from Iraq. (and let them fight it out..)

Ciggy, you could be right I really have no basis to evaluate the statement.

However, I believe he (Tenet) was refering to placing human assets inside terrorist organizations and a 5 year time horizon doesn’t seem that unrealistic.

We obviously don’t have very good intelligence in these areas. Infiltrating a secretive organization takes relationship building and doesn’t happen by parachuting someone into compound in the dark of night.

I did hear another analysis that this process should have begun 2 1/2 years ago, meaning that 2 1/2 years is a more realistic number. Or maybe all of the above is disinformation. Never can tell with those spooks.

Mike, your fact is incorrect that Bush is calling for removal of our troops from Iraq. He has given no indication that he intends to remove our troops until the job is done, meaning a puppet government acting as a democracy which supports Bush’s and the U.S.’s agenda.

Kerry, is calling for reducing the number of our troops by way of dramatically increasing U.N. command, control and troops in Iraq. It is a rational approach given that the mess in Iraq was of our making and the incumbent civil war would not be threatened if Hussein was still in control and contained.

Greg, doesn’t it bother you at all that a Director of Central Intelligence has to be TOLD that it might be a good idea to infiltrate terrorist groups, when CIA has known about these groups for decades? I think even implying that such a thing never occurred to him or any of the leadership that work under him, should be grounds right there for firing all of them for incompetence.

To critique the five year timeline for infiltrating, if you have a spooky kind of guy who’s just blending in as an ordinary Iraqi, let’s say, some Haji on the street showing up at a rally, and starts to talk the talk and give the same lip-service to Jihad that the rest of the crowd is giving, that individual can get a fix on some specific times and places of where the bad guys are going to be—at future rallies. And it only takes about a WEEK to accomplish that if you use an agent who can really blend in.

Maybe George Tenet should sit with some Mossad agents and learn how it’s done. Note that the IDF knew exactly where to find Yassin when the time came.

Special Ops and spies are the solution. Unleash them, unfetter them, support them, give them what they need, don’t let any political considerations get in their way, don’t compromise the secrecy of what they do, and they WILL deliver results. Few things in this world I can be confident in, but that would be one of them.

Clinton tried that. He asked Shelton for “boots on the ground” options to kill bin Laden in Afghanistan, the response was the same ‘two Division, $2 billion’ option that the Pentagon used when they didn’t want to put troops into Bosnia.

In late ‘99 he suggested to Shelton, “You know, it would scare the shit out of al-Qaeda if suddenly a bunch of black ninjas rappelled out of helicopters into the middle of their camp. It would get us enormous deterrence and show these guys we’re not afraid.” Shelton argued that an operation like that was suicide.

The one thing I liked about Rumsfeld was his plan for remaking the Pentagon and the military. Whatever happened to that?

Lee, $2 billion would seem like a bargain these days compared to the hundreds of billions flowing into the Gulf to clean up after the Great Miscalculation.

Here’s a figure to haunt you: in the 1980s, USN SEAL Team 6, which had the goal of covertly tracking down terrorists throughout the world and eliminating them, had an annual budget of $2 million dollars. That’s “million” with an “m”, not “billion” with a “b”. That one team comprised about 20 or so operators, but they were obviously highly equipped, highly trained, and motivated to accomplish just about anything.

Now, if that $2 billion for the “two divisions”, adjusted for inflation, got spent on about 750 of those SEAL teams, I don’t think it’s likely there’d be anything left of anyone even having a positive attitude toward Al Qaeda, these days.

This is why I say the days of conventional warfare, with huge lumbering units and gigantic supply channels, should be a study of archaeology, not modern military doctrine.

One more thing, Lee, when Shelton described Clinton’s idea of “black ninjas repelling out of helicopters” in the middle of the Al Qaeda camps as “suicide”, he was telling a half-truth.

If you do it precisely that way, “in the middle of the camp”, you’re pretty much asking for another scenario like Blackhawk Down.

What you DO do, (doodoo?), is HALO two or more teams (depending on what the camp looks like) from about 10 clicks out, let them glide into a place just over the ridge from the camp, let one team sneak up to the ridgeline to setup observation posts, and from those positions play ground fire control for about three or four AC-130U Spectre gunships which are capable of ensuring that absolutely nothing within a kill zone has any possibility at all of surviving, with 105s, 40mms, and 20mms in steady interlocking fire from different fire angles (so that there is no cover they could take that would be out of the way of the ordnance).

The second team (and possibly additional teams) would cover the escape routes likely to be taken by any of the tangoes out of the camp as they try to flee the blistering fire. It would be up to that team (or those teams if covering multiple routes) to either pick up the fleeing survivors live for interrogation, or just finish them off in an extra special way to alert other Al Qaeda people visiting later that this is what’s in store for them.

The AC-130U gunships would be above shoulder-fire rocket range, nice and safe and cozy. The AFSOC pilots wouldn’t even have to spill their coffee if they kept in-pattern.

The SEAL teams would each rendez-vous to different LZs for pickup by helicopter as soon as their jobs are complete. No sticking around for “nation building” either.

David:

I support the war in Iraq. The status quo of American military might enforcing the no fly zone, while Saddam controled the inspection process was too high of a risk after 9/11. In the post 9/11 era, when a nation kicks out UN inspectors, the same thing needs to happen.

The liberal assumption that Sadaam destroyed the WMD voluntarily out of good will, seems to me to be very irrational.

I also believe Kerry is going to loose in the fall. I imagine that people like you are struggling for a voice right now. I expect that a national voice will emerge that will say “bring the troops home”. Since Kerry and Bush now have the same position on the future, the anti war crowd has no reason to fight to get Kerry elected.

Watch Kerry start to drop in the polls. Kerry’s Deficit numbers are about like Bush’s. He wants to roll back the tax cuts on those over 200k, and spend that money on something. For all of the screaming and shouting Kerry is doing, in the end, he is moving toward Bush on policies.

The economy is continueing to improve. By the time the repubican convention is held the economy could add 1,000,000 jobs.

So I see the election being won by Bush by a moderate amount with Kerry facing a challenge on the left.

Craig

P.S. I think that to be blunt, the democratic party has a great big open door, but just the wrong candidate. Kerry is sorta falling flat.

Craig, I agree with some of what you say but not most. Some are factually misleading: “kicking out” the inspectors was a temporary condition, after which Saddam invited them back in. The inspectors, who sped up their work as American forces geared up for an invasion, did fully certify that there were no WMDs in Iraq. At the time, what appeared to be motivating Bush policy was somewhat of a sentiment of “well we went to the trouble of transporting all the troops there, might as well invade anyway”. So irrational demands were made of Saddam: SHOW us these weapons you say you do not have, or we’ll attack! Naturally, Saddam was nonplused, and he shrugged and glanced at Europe and pretty much said “what is he talking about? Can you help me out here?” Bush continued on pretty much like a trigger-happy rookie cop with his first black suspect, then finally the invasion happened as planned, seemingly from the momentum of events set in motion.

I’m not going to speculate that the Iraq invasion was planned from Day 1 of the administration. I don’t know enough to make that sort of a guess. I do know the invasion came at a time when there didn’t seem to be any reason under the sun to do so. Europe’s protests and anti-American sentiment, if anything fueled increased domestic American support for the war, and I’ll confess to being a part of that chorus. I was swept away in a fiction of liberating an oppressed people whom Europe was dead set against liberating. Cue the string orchestra and epic turns of events in the great drama—and it was very easy to think of Europe as “the bad guys” in all this.

Fast forward one year later. A shattered nation remained shattered. Looting, power outages, water outages, and no semblance of industry, and without entertaining distractions, the Iraqis had a LOT of time to sit and think about their situation. What did they have to ponder? Well, in the dark dusty living rooms of their shelled-out houses, they assembled in their minds the scenes of foreign troops occupying their soil, and not a whole lot beneficially being done for them, by those troops. I think the average Iraqi could be forgiven for coming to the conclusion of “you know what? This was a COLONIAL invasion!” Hearts and minds went south very very fast. ANY voice that was anti-American seemed like a voice of reason, at that point, and Muqtada Al Sadr was more than happy to put it all into the context of Jihad—a struggle which previously had been reserved for Saddam’s Muhabarat. This new Muhabarat was better at fighting, but they didn’t torture and execute like the old one, so there was even less to fear from this new enemy! You either get a glorious and quick (and presumably painless) death on the battlefield, or victory, or you bide your time in a detention camp eating pork-free MREs on canvass prayer rugs until the time comes for your release.

This sort of a revolt wouldn’t make sense from an American point of view, and it’s easy to couch it in terms of “terrorism”, but in these people’s minds it’s like their Lexington and Concord. They just replace the “freedom or death” ultimatum with “Islamic theocracy or death”.

Anyway. The mess has already been made; the damage has already been done; the dead are already dead; and there is no easy way out of the bear trap we set for ourselves. I don’t agree 100% with an immediate resort to the U.N. for brokering peace and stability in Iraq as we prepare to withdraw. I would knee-jerk more toward forces of the Arab League, specifically Saudis, Kuwaitis, Egyptians, Bahrainis, UAE forces, Qataris, et al. The case to make to an Arab League contingent of peacekeepers is that in the aftermath these member nations should and will have a great voice in transitioning Iraq to democracy and self-rule, and can have influence on contracts for rebuilding the nation. As middle-men for reconstruction, they would stand to benefit greatly; all they would have to do is ensure the SECURITY of any workers that flow in to do the reconstruction. Any rhetoric among Iraqis against the occupying Arab League force would be greatly muffled, because they can’t say they’re being occupied by a non-Arab, non-Muslim force. Shiites like Al Sadr might raise sectarian differences, but that would divide the Sunni population against them.

What America would have lost out on would be the great prize of rebuilding contracts to *some* extent (though not totally), and it would be a relinquishing of control over the oil. But since this ISN’T a “blood for oil exercise” (cough, cough), that would be moot, right?

Anyway, the mounting death toll in Iraq is going to kill the Bush reelection. Americans have zero tolerance for body bags flying home from a foreign war. It’s sad but true. We just don’t have the stubborn, scrappy spirit we had in WWII, when the likes of Mrs. Sulliven could lose all four of her sons and still say “keep your chin up like I do” on newsreels to console other parents who’ve lost their sons in the war. In WWII we’d lose thousands in a single day, and if we took that blasted hill it was still a GOOD day in the minds of people back home. Remember those days? Me neither, I was too young too, LOL.

Anyway, Bush is toast. It’s all over but the transition team. I am not saying that out of wishful thinking, because I don’t foresee much difference in policy after Kerry’s elected. The rhetoric will flip-flop to where it’s the right against the president and the left defending him, but the policies will be close to the same. More U.N., sure, but that doesn’t mean America gets to just leave the way many want to see happen. Both candidates are promising tax cuts for my middle class income level. Both will probably keep the deficit just as high as it is now. Both will be pawns of the big corporations, although Kerry will at least be more discreet about it. Little, if anything, will change, with one exception: I really don’t foresee Kerry launching us into another situation like Iraq. Or Vietnam, for that matter.

Ciggy:

Where is the passion going to come from to elect Kerry when his proposals are nearly the same, and he voted for the war? Where is the big turn out going to come from??

Craig

Lee, $2 billion would seem like a bargain these days compared to the hundreds of billions flowing into the Gulf to clean up after the Great Miscalculation.

I agree Ciggy, but there’s no way the Republicans would have given Clinton that kind of money to go after someone they didn’t see as a threat.

I like your idea for the strike, too.

No sticking around for “nation building” either.

I couldn’t believe my ears when I heard Bush making nation building in Afghanistan a goal! I’m glad it’s fading away, but it’s too bad Bush’s promises have left us open to international criticism for not ‘fulfilling our obligations’ there.

Craig -

Where is the passion going to come from to elect Kerry when his proposals are nearly the same, and he voted for the war? Where is the big turn out going to come from??

I’m guessing it will come from people who want a president who is smarter than they are. :)

Seriously though, a majority of Americans voted for Gore last time, I doubt they’ll vote for Bush now. And have you actually read Kerry’s proposals? There are some very big differences.

Craig, the “passion” of the American people is not so much for Kerry, but for “ABB”. The mob psychology was fairly binary at the outset of the war: there were the extreme anti-war camp and the extreme pro-war camp. Now that conventional warfare with nifty victories for embedded reporters to gush about, has given way to a steady bleeding of American life into the sand, for no apparent progress toward no identifiable goal (quite like Vietnam but with different terrain), the pro-war mob psychology is wavering and the anti-war sentiment is gathering strength. This doesn’t bode well for a Bush reelection in the fall. Efforts to predict a Bush victory are pretty much like the naked boasting of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, when he had both arms and both legs chopped off and still refused to admit defeat. “Hey come back here! Where are you going? I’ll bit your knees off!”

Lee, Europe has an ingrained sentiment that any time we retaliate against any nation (such as Taliban-run Afghanistan) that attacks us, after their defeat they automatically qualify for a grand Marshall Plan. Normally it is squishy effete liberals who bend over backwards to try to do anything to appease Europe on such things, but perhaps Bush felt the need to assuage their hunger for American expenditure due to the economic damage the Iraq war did to Europe.

This brings up the salient point of how Kerry plans to mend fences with Europe: by restoring the cash cow Europe lost with the fall of Saddam. He’ll show Europe the (Iraqi oil) money, and a great love-fest will be had by all. Group hugs. Europe already plans for this, which is why they haven’t all responded in a positive chorus to Bin Laden’s latest request for them to join him in his war on America.

This brings up the salient point of how Kerry plans to mend fences with Europe: by restoring the cash cow Europe lost with the fall of Saddam. He’ll show Europe the (Iraqi oil) money, and a great love-fest will be had by all. Group hugs. Europe already plans for this, which is why they haven’t all responded in a positive chorus to Bin Laden’s latest request for them to join him in his war on America.

That’s an interesting viewpoint, but it doesn’t jibe with the fact that the Europeans declined to participate in the war. If all that Europe wanted was the money, why didn’t they hop in when Bush offered to share the spoils?

And about the ABB, that may be true for some people, but I looked over Kerry’s issue page and liked what I saw. I think he’s a good, strong, smart man who mostly espouses a moderate Democratic platform which represents me. The only exception being some of his cautious rhetoric on free trade and globalization, but looking at his voting record I don’t think it’s anything to worry about.

When Republicans ask, do you really want Kerry for President? I have to answer: Yes.

Craig, the passion to elect Kerry has, is, and will growingly continue to come from people’s reaction to George W. Bush.

It really is going to be that simple. And the Democrats are going to get a lot of help from Independents in November who voted for Bush in 2000.

Lee, Europe was about a half-step away from participating in the Iraq war on the side of SADDAM. That was THEIR money train we were messing with and they were livid that we derailed it. Of course the street fodder had to be a bunch of hoo-ha about “bombing innocent Iraqi babies” but that ad campaign was manufactured by European corporate interests, to punish America for what America did, and to build up substantial bargaining chips for getting the money train back.

Notice that no one in Europe was all too concerned about “bombing innocent Serbian babies” when the time came to carpet-bomb there! Absence of a propaganda machine can make the heart grow fonder, for war—people tend to be bloodthirsty by nature, especially when the blood is shed “somewhere else”. In WWII we built propaganda up in a pro-war way, such that losing 4,000+ lives taking just ONE of the hills of Iwo Jima, seemed worthwhile to Americans at the time. By today’s standards, if the fight for that hill had cost FOUR lives you’d see rioting in the streets to let Japan have whatever it wants, whatever it takes to bring the troops home!

The soi-disant “international community” (which comprises mostly France, Germany, and Russia) all love Kerry because they all know what Kerry is promising them. To restore the status quo ante for their moneyed interests. That restoration will “mend the fences”, and while Americans will continue to die, the rhetoric will change to where fighting the Iraqi insurgents will have more of the European stamp of approval, the imprimatur of “international peacekeeping”, and the psyops on the European TV sets will be telling the masses (who are asses) it’s okay to stop protesting now.

Just watch it all unfold if you don’t believe me.

Lee, while John Kerry espouses a ‘moderate’ platform, that is him ‘running to the center’ after the primaries. Democrats have been making a habit lately of saying just about anything to get your vote, and not following through on it. The National Journal has rated Kerry the most liberal member of the entire Senate, eclipsing other ‘luminaries’ as Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.

Ciggy, I agree with your analysis of what will happen in Europe if Kerry is elected. I don’t think I could state it much better, but here’s what I feel. The idea that there’s a reason that foreign insurgents are fighting us so hard right now and hoping we won’t succeed will finally come to light in the media and Europe might well lend their moral support to our efforts in Iraq if they see an ‘internationalist’ in charge of the U.S. But no one should get their hopes up of a greater foreign involvement in Iraq. The greatest brunt of either American or U.N. foreign policy has always been borne by America, and that will in no way change under John Kerry. While the Europeans will be ‘happy’ with us that we’ve elected someone more to their liking, it just won’t mean anything tangible.

Rob, the tangible difference will be that European versions of Halliburton will be profiteering from the reconstruction contracts, and at that time Europeans who THINK they’re “socialists” will be okay with it, because the propaganda of their European corporate handlers will have told them it’s okay.

U.S. troops will continue to die, and actually in greater numbers because they will be micromanaged by European blue-hatters who will view American lives as far more expendable than even the most “chickenhawkish” of Republicans who haunt the nightmares of American peaceniks. It will be interesting how all of that will be spun for the American Left when it comes to the death tolls, and the American Right when it comes to, well, the Europeans having such an obvious upper hand in all of it.

“Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and Libya are no longer safe havens for terrorists.”

unless you count Osama Bin Laden as a terrorist, doesn’t he reside in either pakistan or afganastan?

Las Vegas new homes for sale · Las Vegas real estate · Henderson new homes for sale · Henderson real estate · Las Vegas real estate values · Las Vegas retirement communities · Las Vegas real estate buyers · Las Vegas real estate sellers · Boulder City Homes for sale · Boulder City real estate · Las Vegas city map · Las Vegas custom estate lots · Las Vegas real estate discounts · Las Vegas estate neighborhoods · Las Vegas featured homes · Henderson featured homes · Las Vegas information links · Las Vegas real estate selling tips · Las Vegas home inspections · Las Vegas horse real estate · Las Vegas golf course homes · Las Vegas country club homes · Las Vegas Realtors · Las Vegas land · Las Vegas luxury condominiums · Las Vegas market analysis · Las Vegas real estate foreclosures · Las Vegas marketing strategies · Las Vegas master planned communities · Las Vegas schools · Las Vegas school zone maps · Las Vegas neighborhood descriptions · Las Vegas relocation · interest rates in Las Vegas
http://www.greatlasvegashomes.com