Terrorist’s threats
In view of the recent terrorist threats at JFK Airport, Fort Dix, London and Glasgow, the West must do whatever is necessary to defeat terrorism, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, the Denver Post is already conceding to defeat in its bleak editorial. It is, in essence, the “we can’t win” mindset that has been characteristic of the mainstream media since the beginning of the war. It is true that some Republicans have joined the “we can’t win” camp, but that is hardly an excuse for abandoning our mission in Iraq, as the Iraq Study Group would have it. A successful coach does not pull his players out in the middle of the game when the going gets tough. The enemy is not having any of this debate, but is determined to win at any cost. Should Americans be any less determined to win?
This letter has not been edited.
Well, Brian, a successful coach also shows up to the correct stadium, with the right equipment for his players, and a gameplan. None of that has happened in Iraq.
Posted by shaupeen on July 15, 2007 03:34 PMshaupeen said - "Well, Brian, a successful coach also shows up to the correct stadium, with the right equipment for his players, and a gameplan. None of that has happened in Iraq."
shaupeen, you seem to think you have a grasp on the whole Iraq situation. Please share with us where you gained your expertise in foreign and military policy.
Maybe the war is winnable, maybe it's not. I don't know, and neither do any of the armchair experts around here. But the excessive whining and defeatist attitudes certainly isn't going to help achieve a win.
Rooting for your team to hurry up and loose isn't exactly the best way of showing support.
Posted by Dez on July 15, 2007 04:17 PMUnfortunately, the "whys" as to being in Iraq are no longer of preeminent importance as now the "how" we exit the quandary should dominate our primary concern. Without addressing the argument concerning whether or not it would encourage terrorists to follow us home (if they want to come, they're going to come irregardless), there's another legitimate concern facing us.
Namely, now that we have stepped into the quagmire we need to find a way to end our participation that will not create a vacuum behind us that will collapse on the Iraqi people. Even the Iraqi Study Group acknowledged that as a major point in an effective withdrawal by the US.
It's not a question of whether or not we're in the right stadium; we're already there as primary participants of the game. The game plan utilized by Bush and his ill-equipped advisers has been an unmitigated disaster thus far. War cannot be executed with politically correctness as the guiding rules. As was shown in Vietnam that only increases the death count of civilians and American soldiers by prolonging the conflict.
I agree with Dez in that I don't know how one determines what a win in Iraq might consist of. But I do know that subjecting the Iraqis and American Soldiers to further uncontrolled slaughter, above and beyond what they have already experienced is of paramount concern.
Give the so-called surge through September and reevaluate the status at that time. Then, let military experts help shape the future course of action.
Posted by darfor on July 15, 2007 05:09 PMsaupeen is correct. First, Bush won the "war" after his illegal invasion (based on lies) by displacing Saddam's government. Recall he stood before a "Mission Accomplished" banner.
What's happening now is an occupation that can't be "won" or "lost." But from the beginning Bush assured failing to restore stability by ignoring his "commanders on the ground" and not sending enough troops, not providing security for the Iraqi people and importing labor instead of giving the Iraqis jobs. He was more concerned about assuring an oil takeover for his oil company friends ... that's what the new oil law and the "surge" is about. No one can seriously believe Republicans would have invaded Iraq had broccoli been their major export.
So don't complain now about those who point to Republican lies and failures and say they're "defeatist."
The best way of showing support is to get out of Iraq ... the Iraqis want us out. The fact is that Republicans never, EVER intend to leave Iraq. They wish to occupy it forever in their 14 "enduring bases," they just don't want to tell the truth to the American people. At the very least Republicans want to stay there until Bush leaves office so they can blame the Republican defeat on Democrats who'll display at least a modicum of sanity.
I'm ashamed I was a registered Republican from 1983 - 2000. Yes, I hate Bush, who should be in prison for his crimes, and Republicans. They got it the old-fashioned way; they earned it.
Posted by Robert Powell on July 15, 2007 05:12 PMHaven't you sung "Kumbaya" yet Brian? Anyone with a brain knows that singing happy songs is the only way to end terrorism!
Posted by on July 15, 2007 07:32 PMRobert Powell said - "First, Bush won the "war" after his illegal invasion (based on lies)..."
"He was more concerned about assuring an oil takeover for his oil company friends ... that's what the new oil law and the "surge" is about."
"The fact is that Republicans never, EVER intend to leave Iraq. They wish to occupy it forever in their 14 "enduring bases," they just don't want to tell the truth to the American people. At the very least Republicans want to stay there until Bush leaves office so they can blame the Republican defeat on Democrats who'll display at least a modicum of sanity."
"...Bush, who should be in prison for his crimes..."
Robert, you seem pretty sure you know what you're talking about. Do you have anything to back all that up, or are you just presenting your opinion like it was fact?
Dez,
You're implying he's wrong correct? Tell us why...
Posted by Charles B on July 15, 2007 08:44 PMWow robert... read any good bumper stickers lately?
Bush Lied.... hmmmmm, nope, sorry. If you truly believed this, then Clinton lied, Kennedy lied, et al. As every single one of them mentioned how Saddam had WMDs. The best intelligence of the time said he had them...Saddam had them and used them on his own people. We went there and found some but not as much as we thought. Does not make Bush a liar any more than when Clinton said it.
Bush has commited no crimes and you know it. If he had, the dems would be clamoring for impeachment...silence...
So, go out and read some more bumper stickers and give us some more emotional drek.
Posted by on July 15, 2007 08:49 PMFirst and foremost , war is NOT a damn game,
To equate it as such is a slap in the face of our GIs who have seen it up close , bloody and extremely personal.
Do not dishoner our fighting forces in this way.
Charles B said - "You're implying he's wrong correct? Tell us why..."
I don't know if he's right or wrong. But foreign policy is a very complex issue, so whenever someone acts like he has it all figured out, I'm curious what he has to back it up.
Dez.
"But foreign policy is a very complex issue, so whenever someone acts like he has it all figured out, I'm curious what he has to back it up."
You think it's hard to figure out whether or not invading Iraq was the right thing to do?
I know foreign policy is complicated, but it's so glaringly obvious that invading Iraq was a bad decision that to defend it is borderline delusional.
Do you have an opinion? Or do you just sit back and assume smarter people are taking care of it. I have to tell you, I don't think the people making decisions for us are any smarter than you are.
Posted by Charles B on July 15, 2007 09:30 PMCharles B said - "it's so glaringly obvious that invading Iraq was a bad decision that to defend it is borderline delusional."
You know that for sure? I don't. I don't have any inside sources and I certainly don't have a grasp on all the nuances of such a complex issue. I have to rely on the the mass media for my information - not exactly a complete and unbiased source.
Maybe I am delusional, but I'm not delusional enough to think I'm getting a totally accurate or complete picture of what's really going on over there from what the media spoon feeds me.
Where do you get your information?
"Do you have an opinion?"
I honestly don't know what to think. The media is certainly preaching gloom and doom. But I've heard quite a few firsthand stories from people who have actually been over there that conflict with the gloom and doom scenarios in the news. So I'm not quite willing to swallow hook, line, and sinker what the media is selling.
You have little faith in the current leadership? That's fine, that's your opinion. But I know the general public is aware of only a fraction of the information and intel top leadership receives. From our perception based on what we know, the decisions being made may look absurd or incompetent. But we don't have anywhere near the big picture - some of us only think we do.
Posted by Dez on July 15, 2007 10:17 PMPeople, we're not leaving Iraq. This is a permanent occupation, or at least that's what the powers-that-be intend. So, the dialogue needs to change from "how do we win" to "why are we occupying Iraq and for what?"
Eventually, the majority of the public will catch on to this. Unfortunately, by then our "Death Star" (complete with food court!) will already be built: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12319798/
Posted by mytwosense on July 15, 2007 10:32 PMSunTzu said 2000 plus years ago ... "win the hearts and minds of the people and you win the war". Looks to me after reading alot of this drivel that the ISLAMOFACISTS have won.
Ghegis Khan ruled the largest empire in history with one of the smallest forces ever. Only 200,000 men. An empire that stretched from the pacific, after his conquest of northern China, all the way to and in to Eastern Europe. He allowed all religion to hold services. Thinkers and phylosophers were allowed debate. No one was held higher then the law or above anyone else.The law was the law! Violate it and suffer the consequnces. No grey line, no legislation from the heart forced through the bench. Justice was swift and severe.
An old adage says to keep your friends close and your enemies closer. However I do not want any terrorist living next door to me.
You can never whipe out an idea aka religion of oppression. But you can educate against it. You can also eliminate those who pursue such evil. The British tried and were mostly successful against the thug religion of death in India, only to have to try to eliminate it again years later. However the real success is looking today as those who do practice thuggy are delt with by the law harshly and justly.
A win in Iraq will be the full fledge democratic republic government taking control by the people and for the people. Something we seem to have lost here in America.
How do we achieve this. Kill the enemy where they sleep.
Posted by on July 15, 2007 10:41 PMDez:
"I've heard quite a few firsthand stories from people who have actually been over there that conflict with the gloom and doom scenarios in the news."
Could you share these with us?
"I have to rely on the the mass media for my information - not exactly a complete and unbiased source."
Have you tried foreign media? They sugarcoat it a lot less then our domestic media. All you have to do is look at casualty rates to get an accurate picture of how things are going. There's no denying that we turned Iraq into a slaughterhouse when we deposed Saddam. Sure he was a bastard and a murderous rogue, but he wasn't much of a threat to our interests. Now the threat is tenfold. What kind of evidence do you need?
Posted by Charles B on July 16, 2007 07:17 AMCharles B
The threat is over there, not over here!!!!! It will be over here as soon as we cut and run.. Even Hillary knows that.
I agree. We should turn the US into a totalitarian police state immediately.
We should launch a domestic spying program and begin searching people's property and wiretapping their phone calls without warrants.
We should also establish hundreds of secret prisons overseas and torture anyone suspected of being a terrorist sympathizer.
Oh wait -- WE'VE ALREADY DONE ALL THAT!
Posted by Tree Hugger on July 16, 2007 08:49 AMTree Hugger - Why do you refer to it as "domestic" spying? Doesn't at least one of the participants in the conversation have to be outside the US, AND be considered to have ties to terrorism?
Hardly domestic.
Posted by KW on July 16, 2007 09:41 AMThe Iraq occupation reminds me of the British occuping America in which they, the Brits, were the enemy. Ever since Congress changed America's motto into "In God We Trust," America has lost every war. The Gulf War was a battle; that war is still going on. America is the enemy over there as surely as they would be the enemy over here. "Bring them on," says the decider; now he is impotent.
Deicide Corner: It seems quite voyeuristic to watch “from on high” just to see what we will do with our implanted perversities.
Posted by Richard Grimes, Deicide r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org and ask for copy of FreeThought Today) on July 16, 2007 09:58 AMCharles B said - "Could you share these with us?"
What do you want to know? The Iraqi infrastructure is being improved – you’d never know that from watching the news. The Iraqi people are happier to have us there than is being reported. Despite the occasional headline-making car bomb, the insurgent problem in many areas is improving. I’ve heard all this from people who have been there.
"Have you tried foreign media? They sugarcoat it a lot less then our domestic media. All you have to do is look at casualty rates to get an accurate picture of how things are going. There's no denying that we turned Iraq into a slaughterhouse when we deposed Saddam. Sure he was a bastard and a murderous rogue, but he wasn't much of a threat to our interests. Now the threat is tenfold. What kind of evidence do you need?"
Which news agency, foreign or domestic, one gets information from doesn’t really matter. As I said earlier, the general public only receives a fraction of the total information and intelligence available to leadership. Even if you scour the internet all day with one hand while constantly flipping your TV between news networks with other, your information is still extremely limited. You’re not going to get the accurate, unbiased, and complete big picture.
I can guarantee that you (or anyone else posting around here) don’t know nearly as much as you think you do about what’s going on. With that in mind, if you still want to pontificate, if you still want act like you’re smarter than the country’s leadership, play armchair expert and declare you have it all figured out, then go for it. But all you’re really doing is making assumptions based on what little information you actually have. Could some or even all of your assumptions be correct? Sure they could. But they could just as easily be completely wrong.
I worked as a civilian construction manager for a foreign owned company based in the al-Anbar Provence from September 2003 through November 2005. I was an eye witness to the atrocities committed by the sectarian militias, and even more so, by groups with self proclaimed ties to al-Qaeda. The majority of the attacks, IEDs and other bombings were aimed at Iraqi citizens, not the US military.
US forces would venture in and out of areas of Ramadi with little hope of securing a permanent foothold. Their only goal (I spoke with many Army and Marines officers in th area) was to try to keep the random violence as low as possible.
Since my departure from the area I have kept in close contact with friends still in the area. These friends include both Iraqi civilians and civilian foreign nationals that I worked with. The reports I receive from these friends differ greatly from the majority of what the international, and especially the US media reports.
The US military begin setting up permanent posts within the neighborhoods and worked hard to become friendly with the residents. They scoured the area for al-Qaeda linked militants while just standing their ground with the various Sunni militant factions while trying to avoid conflicts.
Now media reports are just starting to acknowledge what has taken place over the last year. Namely that the US military has established a relationship based on trust with both the civilian population AND with the Sunni militias (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). The al-Queda factions have all but vanished from the area due to the joint efforts of community, which includes the US military. Anbar is being recognized as one of the "secured" areas.
I'm in no way supporting the Bush administration's inept micro-managing of this war. The results achieved in Anbar came from an Army Colonel who was essentially given free reign to improvise a new strategy out of desperation in an area declared lost by both the Iraqi government and the US command.
There is a lot of good taking place in Iraq in spite of the micro-managing. I believe that if the military were to be given more latitude in establishing and executing a war plan with less intervention and direction from shiny ass politicians in Washington, we would see more positive results forthcoming; and more importantly, light at the end of tunnel illuminating the withdrawal of our military as an occupation force.
Posted by darfor on July 16, 2007 11:01 AMKW
Read it and weep (or rejoice):
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst122605.htm
Aren't you Republicans supposed to stand for SMALLER government and LESS interference into people's lives?
What happened to those party values? And what happened to Republican's reputation for "fiscal responsibility" and "tax relief?"
How are YOU going to pay for all these anti-terrorist efforts?
Since you have a better chance of being struck by lightning than being killed in a terrorist attack -- how come Republicans haven't invested billions into protecting US citizens from lightning?
This "sky is falling" reactionary BS is getting out of hand. And every time someone says we are spending too much money and sacrificing too many American lives in the name of counter-terrorism, conservatives start wagging fingers and shouting "traitor."
We need to fight terror -- but we need to do it in a fiscally-responsible way and try to hold onto as much freedom as we can.
The ultimate goal of terrorists is to create incremental or revolutionary change in our way of life. If we give up all of our freedoms so we can be safe from terrorists -- then the terrorists have indeed won.
It was Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
For those that keep insisting that if we leave Iraq, the war will be subsequently be fought on our soil:
1. What evidence do you have that supports this statement?
2. What evidence do you have that the current conflagration in Iraq is preventing current attacks on U.S. soil?
Outside of unsupported, inflated propaganda and rhetoric, no individual or group has provided any evidence that leaving Iraq will turn the U.S. into a battleground, nor that the current conflict is keeping attacks from taking place on U.S. soil. If someone out there can provide substantiated proof, I will keep an open mind to this prospect, although current understanding of Al-Qaeda's capabilities dictates a full-force invasion of the United States is improbable and highly unlikely.
Posted by Dan on July 16, 2007 03:13 PMComments about my post by "Dez" & "?" above are evidence that too many just aren't paying attention or are purposely keeping themselves uninformed. It's why (see at editorandpublisher.com): Poll: More Than 4 in 10 Americans Still Believe Saddam Involved with 9/11.
And Republicans keep reinforcing that false connection. See at boston.com: GOP rivals embrace unproven Iraq-9/11 tie, May 27, 2007:
WASHINGTON -- In defending the Iraq war, leading Republican presidential contenders are increasingly echoing words and phrases used by President Bush in the run-up to the war that reinforce the misleading impression that Iraq was responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. ...
Now you can say all this conflation is prevarication, but you know very well it's lying to mislead the American people.
It's not being informed, or being mainly "informed" by propaganda, that leads to comments like:
"Do you have anything to back all that up, or are you just presenting your opinion like it was fact?" and "So, go out and read some more bumper stickers and give us some more emotional drek."
Bush most often referred to the invasion Iraq being principally about WMDs. That was a lie: According to Arnaud de Borchgrave, the editor-at-large of the Washington Times, he learns in April 2002 from neoconservatives that the planned war against Iraq is not about WMD, but about reshaping the Middle East. In a February 2004 op-ed, he writes: “WMDs were not the principal reason for going to war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq; they were the pretext.… When this writer first heard from prominent neoconservatives in April 2002 that war was no longer a question of ‘if’ but ‘when,’ the casus belli had little to do with WMDs. The Bush administration, they explained, starkly and simply, had decided to redraw the geopolitical map of the Middle East. The Bush Doctrine of preemption had become the vehicle for driving axis-of-evil practitioners out of power.” [Washington Times, 2/10/2004]
Bush lied in saying he invaded because Saddam wouldn't let the inspectors in, despite the fact that the inspectors were in. Bush: "The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." Search whitehouse.gov for this and unknownnews.net for other links to his speeches. And of course, there no "WMDs", or "weapons programs", or "weapons program-related activities" ... he kept changing the accusations and lies.
Bush said, "I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official," Bush said. "I don't have any idea. I'd like to. I want to know the truth." In Washington Post, Testimony Adds New Element to Probe of CIA Leak" April 7, 2006: "Until now ... Bush cast himself as a disinterested observer, eager to resolve the case and hold those responsible accountable. ... But court papers filed late Wednesday night by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, in the perjury case of former White House official I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, implicate Bush as knowing about efforts to disseminate sensitive information -- and also as orchestrating them."
In "Bush Directed Cheney To Counter War Critic" By Murray Waas, National Journal, July 3, 2006:
A senior government official familiar with the matter said that in directing Libby to leak the classified information to Miller and other reporters, Cheney said words to the effect of, "The president wants this out," or "The president wants this done."
Search bradblog.com 1/31/07: Thus, Cheney's notes would have read "not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy this Pres. asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others." The words "this Pres." were crossed out and replaced with "that was," but are still clearly legible in the document.
There's a long list of lies at unknownnews.net/logoflies.html with links to sources ... you don't have to believe that site.
Bush pledged to go to the U.N. for a vote authorizing force. Bush was proud of the unanimous U.N. support for the resolution endorsing the Iraqi government that "took control." But the previous unanimous U.N. resolution authorized inspections; it did not authorize an attack, only "serious consequences." Bush said "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote" to make the U.N. Security Council "show their cards" as to whether the U.N. would support an attack on Iraq. But only days after his cowboy "show their cards" statement, it became clear he'd lose the vote, so he decided to not call for a vote. He knew that having lost that vote, an attack would have been explicitly and obviously in violation of international law. In any case, the invasion was a violation of the Geneva Conventions and he should stand trial before the International Criminal Court.
As for crimes, Bush has bragged he violated the FISA law, saying "Secondly, the FISA law was written in 1978. We're having this discussion in 2006. It's a different world. ... But also -- and we -- look -- I said, look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law? And people said, it doesn't work in order to be able to do the job we expect us to do." That's a crime. Admitted.
And there's the violations of habeas corpus, his "signing statements", violations of the Presidential Records Act, violations of the Hatch Act ... it just goes on and on. There are way too few bumper stickers pointing out Bush's lies and crimes.
Pay attention.
The comment was: "Bush has commited no crimes and you know it. If he had, the dems would be clamoring for impeachment...silence..."
The Democrats have been wimps so far and the Republicans continue to endorse Bush's lies and crimes. I'm hoping that will change and the Democrats will get a spine and a few Republicans will show allegiance to the Constitution.
Posted by Robert Powell on July 16, 2007 03:50 PMDan - As recently reported, al Qaeda has rebuilt to pre 9/11 strength. This alone leaves a very great possiblility for future terrorist attacks on (and in) the US. This isn't my brilliant deduction, it's that of military intelligence.
While a "full-force invaision of the US" may not be possible, al Qaeda has proven themselves extremely resourceful. And to risk another 9/11 just because some armchair generals here don't believe al Qaeda will attack isn't good military strategy.
Posted by KW on July 16, 2007 03:54 PMKW, you are priceless, LOL
While a "full-force invaision of the US" may not be possible, al Qaeda has proven themselves extremely resourceful. And to risk another 9/11 just because some armchair generals here don't believe al Qaeda will attack isn't good military strategy.
And ignoring Presidential Daily Briefings, FBI whistleblowers, and Clinton Intelligence reports is a good strategery?(sic)
Really this is priceless, you insist the military is the proper way to prevent an attack? Posse Commitatus keeps the military from this. The FBI bunglers that they are, are in charge here.
And we all know about the NORAD stand down orders, the National Guard exercises on hijacked airplanes that day. Not to mention the very first executive order by Bush to the FBI;Stop investigating the Bin Laden money trail.
I have no doubt we will be attacked, and certain initials and acronyms will be essential to success. Bush has set himself one declared national emergency away from his coveted dictatorship.
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts07162007.html
Paul Craig Roberts is no liberal;
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
KW,
The question I have is, how does our continued occupation in Iraq prevent "the war from coming here", when all reports indicate that Al-Qaeda's existence has not been significantly impeded by it? What exactly have we accomplished with our four-year occupation in Iraq? If Al-Qaeda is as strong now as they were pre-9/11, what did we just spend 400 billion dollars and 3,500+ American soldiers' lives on? How have we made progress if Al-Qaeda is as strong as ever?!
KW rightly fears the Jihadist Puppies of Doom.
They'll follow us home!
Posted by Charles B on July 16, 2007 05:46 PMSome interesting posts here, also some insane ones.
None seem to cover though what “their” strategic aims are versus “our” aims.
We want permanent and large military presence in the region either with proxies, or if that isn’t possible, then with US troops.
We want to exercise a large degree of control over the price of oil, the supply, and who gets it easily and who doesn’t. i.e. “Strategic interests”
We also want an enemy to “push against”.
“They” want to get rid of corrupt dictators and a return of the Caliphate.
Their stated gambit was to provoke the US into aggressive postures, revenge attacks, and inevitably into war. They hoped (and stated so) that America would respond in a way that conflated the war with religion, and that it would lead to world-wide Islamic solidarity. They hoped our reaction would be over the top and couched in religious terms.
So far both parties have got what they wanted.
We are nearly finished constructing the largest military bases outside the US, and the largest embassy in the world.
We got an enemy to name and which justifies all kinds of spending and concentration of power.
They got a PR boost in the Islamic world unrivaled by anything before.
Where they were previously a somewhat obscure little group trying to mobilize Islam, they are now world-famous and have no difficulty in attracting sponsors and recruits.
The big question is going to be – who chokes first on what they bit off, us or them.
Posted by Bango Skank on July 16, 2007 06:13 PMBango,
An excellent point, though the John Waynes out there will have an extremely difficult time with anything outside of the simplistic "we good guys, they bad guys" mindset.
Brian, let's take your point further.
Let''s lock up ALL straight men. They are killers!
Look at the Rittger shooting to start.
Lock em up!
Posted by rick on July 16, 2007 09:04 PMI'm with Dez in that is is really difficult to know what the real situation is there. It certainly is not good but reports are trickling out that it is getting better in places.
Terror as a tactic doesn't require large numbers. All it would take is two or three mass casualty attacks on carefully selected targets in a short period of time to cause panic and possible meltdown of our economy. Remember what 9/11 did to our airline industry? There are plenty of targets in our country that would fit their agenda. I'm not scared for my life, as the chances of being killed are almost nil, it is the effect on the country that is important. Media will scare our most vulnerable people to death with nonstop, hysterical coverage when it happens.
While conservative, I'm no Bush fan - he and his cronies HAVE been unnecessarily secretive about even mundane things. The problems started when the twit surrounded himself with the neocon all-stars - Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Perl, Feith, etc. These guys DO have an agenda to reshape the middle east and it is stated on the neocon website, Project for the New American Century.
Thankfully, we will be rid of Bush in a bit more than a year. I'm really tired of the Clinton/Bush hold on the POTUS over the past 15 years. Time for new blood.
Bango said, "...that America would respond in a way that conflated the war with religion, " That was AQ's aim and the thrust of their propaganda. Right now, AQ is even saying on their own websites that Iraq is the central front in their war against the west.
Which makes me wonder? Why the big rush by the Democrats to get us out of there? Maybe they are worried that things are getting better? After spending so much time and energy telling us that it is already lost and we can't possibly win, they sure would look stupid if the tide did turn in our favor. Can't risk that!
The Democrats are total wimps - they have the power to end this right now. They control the purse and it wouldn't need new legislation. Just cut off funding. But they won't because they know it is a political loser of a strategy. They also know that the perception is that they are soft on defense and that would prove it.
The Dems seem to think they got elected to get us out of there. Maybe it was was more of, "let's change strategy." Petraeus is doing that and the Democrat braintrust don't want to give him time to succeed. Maybe the American people are more interested in seeing progress and success than in seeing how fast the Dems (and a few RINOS) can engineer surrender and a major propaganda victory for Al-Qaida.
Bush was right on one thing last week - we have "war fatigue" and it is understandable.
Bush and his team screwed this up from the beginning. But we are there. Now what? Pulling out or pulling back (to where?) and watching the civil war rage and possibly turn into genocide is not an attractive option. Neither is watching Iran grow in power. Or watching AQ use Iraq as a base for training or launching new attacks.
No good answers. Let the surge have until September to see what effect it is having. Then, re-evaluate. I certainly don't want to see U.S. occupation of Iraq forever but to believe that we can change things in a short period of time is ludicrous. But pulling out or giving up is to make the sacrifice of our blood and treasure totally meaningless.
What I despise is our congress trying to micromanage this war when it is not their job.
Also, who the he!! is the U.S. congress to be issuing benchmarks for performance to anybody? They can't meet any benchmarks themselves, except trying to set a record for the most number of pointless investigations in the shortest amount of time.
It's a joke and it is on us.
Posted by RU Serious on July 16, 2007 10:39 PMDez, RU Serious,
I'll ask again: How much evidence do you need before you concede that the invasion of Iraq has been a failure? What exactly do you need to know?
Do you think it would have been wise to demand the same level of knowledge of the people who orchestrated the invasion of Iraq that you require to be convinced we should leave?
Now you want to be careful and not judge but then???
Sorry, but only someone willfully ignorant would need any more evidence than is readily apparent with a cursory study of the known facts.
Posted by Charles B on July 17, 2007 10:58 AMRU Serious wrote: "What I despise is our congress trying to micromanage this war when it is not their job."
It's not a "war", it's an occupation that Republicans never intend to end ... Korea ... 50+ years ... remember. They even opposed non-binding timelines.
And, as far as your "who the he!! is the U.S. Congress" remark, who the he!! are Republicans to be issuing benchmarks for the sovereign government of Iraq ... oh wait, it's a puppet government, so that's OK. "Benchmarks" is their euphemism for giving the rights to Iraq's oil to multinationals.
Congress should impose timelines. Timelines are necessary on any project for accountability. Many an irresponsible project manager would love to get off the hook by having "milestones" (so-called "benchmarks") without dates for their accomplishment. They'd also love toothless "non-binding" dates. Like the irresponsible project manager, Bush has been held accountable for nothing. He mismanages with impunity.
Posted by Robert Powell on July 17, 2007 11:53 AMThe Decider has spoken, and spoken and spoken,"we are making progress, we're making good progress, just another corner to turn", ad nauseum.
This mantra has been going on for years, along with "We're fight them over there so we don't fight them over here, Al Queda has been crippled".
Now Chertoff has a tummyache, and our expert intelligence offices tell us Al Queda is strong as ever.
Does anyone see the failure of the Bush regime's agenda of "protecting" us?
Posted by Holy Reality on July 17, 2007 12:22 PMRobert Powell - You want to broadcast the retreat date to the enemy? And you thinnk this is good military strategy? How then would we ever win? What would be the point of fighting terrorism at all?
I'm not trying to insult, I just fail to grasp what your vision is for the correct way to fight terrorists.
Posted by KW on July 17, 2007 01:34 PMKW knee-jerked:
"Robert Powell - You want to broadcast the retreat date to the enemy?"
KW do you ever say anything original or off script?
Posted by Charles B on July 17, 2007 07:44 PMAs of today, how many Iraq citizens have left the country for Jordon or other nations. Where is this information available?
We can natter all we want on this subject, but the real experts, the people who have to live there every day of their lives, appear to be voting with their feet.
Posted by Sharon B. on July 18, 2007 12:13 AMRU Serious: "Which makes me wonder? Why the big rush by the Democrats to get us out of there? Maybe they are worried that things are getting better?"
Things must be getting better since it's vacation time.
For the Iraqi parliament, that is. They think that August is a good time to get out of the heat in Baghdad.
Of course, our troops will be fighting and dying during August, and they won't be wearing shorts and T-shirts to make things a little cooler.
Does it look to you, RU Serious, as though we're making any progress on the diplomatic front?
But before they go on vacation, the parliament is telling the United States to stick around, to continue fighting and dying in their behalf.
So, what do we do? Should we continue to be obedient and do as we're told?
Or do you think it may be time for us to assert ourselves, to tell the Parliament that we're leaving, not just some time in the future, but by a date certain?
Everybody agrees that there can be no military victory. That the victory must be on three fronts, military, diplomatic and humanitarian. But cowboys don't fool around with the diplomacy crap, and humanitarian is for sissys. Bush is rough and Bush is tough. With other people's lives, that is.
Thomas Friedman has supported the war and has opposed a quick pullout. Here is his view of the current situation:
"July 18, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Help Wanted: Peacemaker
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
I can’t imagine how I’d feel if I were the parent of a soldier in Iraq and I had just read that the Iraqi Parliament had decided to go on vacation for August, because, as the White House spokesman, Tony Snow, explained, it’s really hot in Baghdad then — “130 degrees.”
I’ve been in Baghdad in the summer and it is really hot. But you know what? It is a lot hotter when you’re in a U.S. military uniform, carrying a rifle and a backpack, sweltering under a steel helmet and worrying that a bomb can be thrown at you from any direction. One soldier told me he lost six pounds in one day. I’m sure the Iraqi Parliament is air-conditioned.
So let’s get this straight: Iraqi parliamentarians, at least those not already boycotting the Parliament, will be on vacation in August so they can be cool, while young American men and women, and Iraqi Army soldiers, will be fighting in the heat in order to create a proper security environment in which Iraqi politicians can come back in September and continue squabbling while their country burns.
Here is what I think of that: I think it’s a travesty — and for the Bush White House to excuse it with a Baghdad weather report shows just how much it has become a hostage to Iraq.
The administration constantly says the surge is necessary, but not sufficient. That’s right. There has to be a political deal. And the latest report card on Iraq showed that a deal is nowhere near completion. So where is the diplomatic surge? What are we waiting for? A cool day in December?
When you read stories in the newspapers every day about Americans who are going to Iraq for their third or even fourth tours and you think that this administration has never sent its best diplomats for even one tour yet — never made one, not one, single serious, big-time, big-tent diplomatic push to resolve this conflict, but instead has put everything on the military, it makes you sick.
Yes, yes, I know, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is going to make one of her quick-in-and-out trips to the Middle East next month to try to enlist support for an Israeli-Palestinian peace conference in the fall. I’m all for Arab-Israeli negotiations, but the place that really needs a peace conference right now is Iraq, and it won’t happen with drive-by diplomacy.
President Bush baffles me. If your whole legacy was riding on Iraq, what would you do? I’d draft the country’s best negotiators — Henry Kissinger, Jim Baker, George Shultz, George Mitchell, Dennis Ross or Richard Holbrooke — and ask one or all of them to go to Baghdad, under a U.N. mandate, with the following orders:
“I want you to move to the Green Zone, meet with the Iraqi factions and do not come home until you’ve reached one of three conclusions: 1) You have resolved the power- and oil-sharing issues holding up political reconciliation; 2) you have concluded that those obstacles are insurmountable and have sold the Iraqis on a partition plan that could be presented to the U.N. and supervised by an international force; 3) you have concluded that Iraqis are incapable of agreeing on either political reconciliation or a partition plan and told them that, as a result, the U.S. has no choice but to re-deploy its troops to the border and let Iraqis sort this out on their own.”
The last point is crucial. Any lawyer will tell you, if you’re negotiating a contract and the other side thinks you’ll never walk away, you’ve got no leverage. And in Iraq, we’ve never had any leverage. The Iraqis believe that Mr. Bush will never walk away, so they have no incentive to make painful compromises.
That’s why the Iraqi Parliament is on vacation in August and our soldiers are fighting in the heat. Something is wrong with this picture. First, Mr. Bush spends three years denying the reality that we need a surge of more troops to establish security and then, with Iraq spinning totally out of control and militias taking root everywhere, he announces a surge and criticizes others for being impatient.
At the same time, Mr. Bush announces a peace conference for Israelis and Palestinians — but not for Iraqis. He’s like a man trapped in a burning house who calls 911 to put out the brush fire down the street. Hello?
Quitting Iraq would be morally and strategically devastating. But to just drag out the surge, with no road map for a political endgame, with Iraqi lawmakers going on vacation, with no consequences for dithering, would be just as morally and strategically irresponsible.
We owe Iraqis our best military — and diplomatic effort — to avoid the disaster of walking away. But if they won’t take advantage of that, we owe our soldiers a ticket home."
Posted by Truth on July 18, 2007 07:46 AMCharles said ” Do you think it would have been wise to demand the same level of knowledge of the people who orchestrated the invasion of Iraq that you require to be convinced we should leave?”
Stunningly interesting question.
We seem to have the same people who were quite eager to go to war on the flimsiest evidence now digging in their heels demanding the n’th degree of not just evidence but absolute proof.
While they were happy to accept dubious stories about WMD, mobile biological labs, yellow cake from Niger, and centrifuge tubes that were actually rocket tubes, now they reject carefully executed studies published in the Lancet about Iraqi mortality. They now accuse the same news media that they willingly accepted before of giving them “only the bad news”.
I wonder if it’s a simple case of political correctness. They will do whatever it takes to stay on message with “their side”, no matter how ludicrous or embarrassing that might be.