Media outlets reported that Reid said Iraq war "is lost," but failed to note his further comments
On April 19 and 20, numerous print and television media outlets reported that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had said that "the [Iraq] war is lost" during a press conference discussing Congress' standoff with President Bush over emergency funding for the war. However, these outlets did not also report that, later during the press conference, Reid added that "the war, at this stage, can only be won diplomatically, politically, and economically." Other news outlets reporting on Reid's statement -- for example, Agence France-Presse and Reuters -- noted Reid's further comments. Moreover, during a speech on the Senate floor the same day, Reid reiterated his stance, advocating a "political solution" in Iraq and asserting that "there is still a chance to change course."
During his April 19 press conference, Reid said that the Iraq war "is lost" and later stated that the day before, he had told President Bush "what he needed to hear" about the war. He then said that the only way the war could be won is "diplomatically, politically, and economically":
REID: This war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.
[...]
I was like the odd guy out yesterday at the White House, but I at least told him what he needed to hear, not what he wanted to hear. And more people have to start telling George Bush what he needs to hear, not what he wants to hear. I did that. My conscience is clear, because I believe the war, at this stage, can only be won diplomatically, politically, and economically.
In the subsequent Senate floor speech, Reid again said that the "war is lost" but reiterated his belief that there is a political solution to a stable and secure Iraq:
Mr. REID. Madam President, the White House has been telling America that Democrats are doing the wrong thing by calling for a change of course in Iraq. They say holding the Iraqi Government accountable is wrong. They say finding a political solution Iraq is wrong. They say redeploying troops out of a civil war is wrong. They have said even debating a strategy for changing course is dangerous, and many Senate Republicans have backed that up by blocking several of our attempts to debate this issue here on the Senate Floor.
[...]
Conditions in Iraq get worse by the day. Now we find ourselves policing another nation's civil war. We are less secure from the many threats to our national security than we were when the war began. As long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost. But there is still a chance to change course and we must change course. No one wants us to succeed in the Middle East more than I do. But there must be a change of course. Our brave men and women overseas have passed every test with flying colors. They have earned our pride and our praise. More important, they deserve a strategy worthy of their sacrifice.
Yet, in reporting on Reid's statement that the Iraq war "is lost," most media outlets failed to provide the full context of his comments. In addition to the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press, the following television news shows did not include the portion of Reid's statements in which he said that "the war, at this stage, can only be won diplomatically, politically, and economically":
- On the April 19 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson said that "you gotta give [Reid] credit for honesty" before airing the "war is lost" clip. After the clip, Carlson summarized: " '[T]he war is lost.' Now, I believe he sincerely believes it."
- On the April 19 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, the "war is lost" clip aired before a rebuttal by Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL). Host Brit Hume said that "Harry Reid would later say that the war -- on the Senate floor -- the war is lost if the president doesn't change course." Hume then added that Reid's "staff is contending that what he said there was -- that we showed -- was really surrounded by all these caveats. But, I had never heard him say that in that way," dismissing the part of the press conference that they did not show.
- The "war is lost" clip also aired on the April 19 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country. Host Joe Scarborough then asked MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan: "[H]ave we lost the war? Is Harry Reid right?" Buchanan replied; "I take the man at his word. He believes the war is not winnable and the war is lost," ignoring Reid's comments about "w[inning] diplomatically, politically, and economically."
- On the April 20 edition of NBC's Today, NBC News White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell aired "the war is lost" clip, and then described the White House reaction to Reid. Later, co-host Natalie Morales referred to the White House's response to "Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid's declaration that the surge isn't working and the war in Iraq is lost."
Two other television programs paraphrased Reid's remarks without noting his assertion that "the war ... can only be won diplomatically, politically, and economically":
- On the April 19 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews asked Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL): "Have we lost? Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, the Democratic leader of the Senate, said today that we have lost the war in Iraq."
- On the April 19 edition of ABC's World News, anchor Charles Gibson said that Reid "says he told President Bush yesterday that he believes this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything. Republicans call Reid's remark evidence that Democrats have turned their backs on the troops."
By contrast, the April 19 AFP article reported Reid's further statements:
The war in Iraq "is lost" and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.
"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Reid told journalists.
Reid said he had delivered the same message to US President George W. Bush on Wednesday, when the US president met with senior lawmakers to discuss how to end a standoff over an emergency war funding bill.
"I know I was the odd guy out at the White House, but I told him at least what he needed to hear ... I believe the war at this stage can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically."
In an April 20 article, Reuters also reported both of Reid's comments:
President George W. Bush and fellow Republicans struggled on Thursday with comparisons between the U.S. wars in Iraq and Vietnam as the Senate's top Democrat declared the Iraq war lost.
[...]
Reid said his message for Bush was to recall the Vietnam war in the mid-1960s, when Reid said President Lyndon Johnson decided to send thousands more troops to Vietnam despite knowing the conflict unwinnable.
"The (Iraq) war can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically, and the president needs to come to that realization," Reid said in a news conference.
On the April 19 edition of CNBC's Kudlow & Company, host Larry Kudlow aired video clips of Reid's press conference in which Reid said "the war is lost" and that it "can only be won diplomatically, politically, and economically."
From the April 19 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today, quote: "This war is lost." Is it? Back with us again, the two Democratic strategists we love most, Steve McMahon and Peter Fenn.
Well, I want to actually play what Harry Reid said today. Before I do, you gotta give him credit for honesty. I mean, he just says -- sort of like [Gov.] Bill Richardson [D-NM] -- exactly what he really thinks, in contrast to most people in politics.
This is Harry Reid on the Iraq war. Watch.
REID [video clip]: Now, I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows -- that this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence.
CARLSON: "This war is lost." Now, I believe he sincerely believes it. I think most Democrats in Congress believe that too, and a lot of Americans, for that matter. But if you really believe that, then how could you support, as Harry Reid did, General [David] Petraeus, right? How could you vote in favor of Petraeus? How could you have anything at all to do with funding a war you believed fundamentally was lost? That would kind of be immoral, wouldn't it?
From the April 19 edition of CNBC's Kudlow & Company:
REID [video clip]: This war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.
I was like the odd guy out yesterday at the White House, but I at least told him what he needed to hear, not what he wanted to hear. And more people have to start telling George Bush what he needs to hear, not what he wants to hear. I did that. My conscience is clear, because I believe the war, at this stage, can only be won diplomatically, politically, and economically.
KUDLOW: All right. Joining me now is P.J. Crowley, director of national defense and homeland security at the Center for American Progress, and NBC News military analyst Dan Goure. He's a former Defense Department official during the Persian Gulf War and vice president now of Lexington Institute.
From the April 19 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Have we lost? Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, the Democratic leader of the Senate, said today that we have lost the war in Iraq. Is that your assertion?
DAVIS: People of Iraq have lost the war in Iraq.
MATTHEWS: But do you believe we have lost it?
DAVIS: Well, it wasn't ours to win. It was the people of Iraq's to win.
From the April 19 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
REID [video clip]: Now, I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows -- that this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.
PUTNAM [video clip]: It is a very disturbing development when the political leadership in this country is literally pulling the rug out from underneath our troops, not only in playing games with the funding for those troops, but in sending a message to the enemy that, in his view, this war is lost.
HUME: Some thoughts on this now from syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer; from Mort Kondracke, executive editor of Roll Call; and from Mara Liasson -- there's Mort, there's Mara Liasson -- national political correspondent of National Public Radio. And we'll get, in a moment, to Charles, if you haven't seen him yet. There he is. He is a syndicated columnist. These people are all Fox News contributors.
Well, Harry Reid would later say that the war -- on the Senate floor -- the war is lost if the president doesn't change course. And his staff is contending that what he said there was -- that we showed -- was really surrounded by all these caveats. But, I had never heard him say that in that way. It seemed to me that he broke some new ground there, and you saw the response from the -- from one of the leaders of the House Republicans. What about this, Mort?
From the April 19 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
GIBSON: And still on the subject of the war, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has voiced a blunt message of his own about conditions in Iraq. He says he told President Bush yesterday that he believes this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything. Republicans call Reid's remark evidence that Democrats have turned their backs on the troops.
From the April 19 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country:
REID [video clip]: I believe, myself, that the secretary of state, the secretary of defense, and you have to make your own decision as to what the president knows -- that this war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday. Now, I said this is how I feel, but in addition to my feelings, a majority of the United States Senate and a majority of the United States House of Representatives has said the surge should not go forward.
SCARBOROUGH: So, here to talk about whether the Senate majority leader is right that America has already lost this war is MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan.
Pat, have we lost the war? Is Harry Reid right?
BUCHANAN: Well, Harry Reid, obviously -- I mean, I take the man at his word. He believes the war is not winnable and the war is lost. But, Joe, if you believe that, it follows that you've got to cut off the funds, because we're just getting American soldiers killed for nothing. If it is lost, there is no argument for funding the war, and yet his party, Joe, as we've talked about, and as you know, his party is going to fund this war without a deadline after that veto.
From the April 20 edition of NBC's Today:
O'DONNELL: Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid pushed a new line Thursday when he said this about Iraq.
REID: This war is lost and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq.
O'DONNELL: The White House quickly called it "disturbing" that Reid would believe he "knows more than commanders."
SEN. PATRICK J. LEAHY (D-VT): Raise your right hand.
O'DONNELL: And that's not the only tense exchange.
[...]
MORALES: The White House is rebuffing Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid's declaration that the surge isn't working and the war in Iraq is lost. The administration calls Reid's comments "a slap at the troops, who are risking their lives in Iraq."
Didn't we just see a post where O'Reilly was saying something about "character assassinations" who "take things out of context?"
Funny how he'll take on Bush assassins in the media, but I'm sure Hell will freeze over before the T-Warrior takes on Reid's assassins.
Nothing was taken out of context here. He stabbed out troops in the back, I do not care what else he had to say. He should resign!
The war is not the same as the troops. If we launched a land war in China nobody could say we were losing because that would be insulting the troops, apparently.
If you want to talk about respecting the troops, then you should expect them to be adequately armed and shielded, to receive proper medical care, to not have their stays extended, and...oh yes, not to be used as cannon fodder for some neocon social experiment in the first place.
Brab,
I disagree. The war is being fought by troops, the two are inseparable. And if Reid feels that war is "lost", then he is being disingenuous at best, and derelict in his duty at worst, to do anything but move to cut off funding immediately and bring every soldier home on the next flight out.
Otherwise this grandstanding of his is nothing more than a sleazy attempt at Reid to score political points.
The war is being fought by troops, the two are inseparable."
Completely bizarre. Wars are different in their causes, in their validity, practicality and feasability. Soldiers are soldiers, in modern terms they are generally similar to each other. To connect the two is to suggest that no war can ever be criticized, questioned or dropped because of the patriotic troops. You can support the troops and oppose the war, and you're not going to say otherwise with any credibility.
Reid was talking about the way the war is being run. As far as Bush's way, it's lost. That doesn't mean universal, immediate withdrawal. Need I remind you, you said you wouldn't blame anyone for how they handled this, since Dems were in a tough spot. Now they have to pull all the troops out immediately or they're disingenuous cowards, no matter what the political or military consequences.
Try telling the troops that are now fighting and putting their lives at risk that the Democratic leader says the war is "lost" - and see how that affects their morale.......of course the Democrats are in a tough spot, Bush has made that mess himself. And Reid can speak privately about how he feels the war is "lost", for him to publicly announce is nothing more that a political ploy on his part. Because if it wasn't, he would move to end it immediately.
How can he, in good conscience ,continue to fund this war with one more dollar when he maintain it's lost? He is either without conscience for doing so, or playing politics. You tell me.
Criticising the war is not at all what we are talking about, and you know it. That's one thing, to say it's "lost" is quite another.
We disagree.
He said if we continue down Bush's course, it is lost. That's criticizing the way it's being run.
I don't think that morale is a big enough factor to stay quiet about how a war is started or handled. Their lives are more important than their feelings, frankly.
You know they can't pull everyone out immediately, so stop calling on people to do it. It's hypocritical.
Reid is experienced (rhetorical question), you'd think he'd be aware on the meat he was throwing to these folks. They seem to be feeding heavily. Any chance of there being a little metaphorical melanine in there?
For the leader of the Senate to say, in any fashion, that the war militarily is "lost" is unconscionable. While men and women are fighting in Iraq and one could receive a text message from a family member saying that the Senate majority leader says the war is lost - well, a real moral booster, isn't it?
Reid should be ashamed.
Now, make sure a million responses follow this hack's comment... as if even one of them would mean anything (mine included).
no bush should be ashamed. because there is nothing to be won here, and what little chance we had was thrown away in the beginning of this invasion by bush and his stubborn incompetence. the surge is a failure, as anyone could have predicted. the insurgents have adapted to the increased presence in certain areas. it's all you people who want to keep pretending that we need to "win" that are prolonging the agony for our soldiers and the iraqis.
If I were in iraq and I received a message like that, I'd rejoice. Don't buy into the administration nonsense. They've done nothing but abuse the troops since they sent them there. Not enough equipment, extending tours, sending people back for a second, third and in some cases fourth tour.
I'm sure many would be happy to know that it might be coming to an end.
In the Vietnam War many of us were talking about wheather our sacrifice and efforts were worthwhile, Or were we all dying in vain as they are in Iraq today. The answer is the same for both wars.
Bush has lost this war and is in total denial about it. He has played right into the hands of Osama Bin Laden by going to Afganistan. Then Bush gave Ben Ladin the ultimate gift when he invaded Iraq. The Bush accupation of Iraq has vastly empowered the strength and numbers of the terrorists. Furthermore, they can now kill Americans at will, every single day and spend down our money.
Ben Laden can't win by coming here, but he has won by getting Bush to go there. Millions are dead and Billions of U.S. dollars are being wasted, not to mention all our troops that wouldn't be dead if Bush had the brains to fight an intelligent war on terror.
Rumy and Gonzales only did what Bush wanted. Bush should be fired, not his subordinates. Osama bin Laden, I hate you but your smarter than my President is.
Could not agree more Sam. I don't remember anyone talking about us being able to win, only about coming home in one piece. We wanted it to end. Period.
So the morale of the troops isnt effected by their Commander in Cheif LYING them into a war, not giving them proper equipment. Seeing for themselves day after day the worsening situation, having their stays LENGTHENED beyond what was supposed to be their tour of duty with stopgap programs but rhetoric by someone trying to bring them home THAT will ruin their morale? Get out much tommy?
Funny how only the second half of the sentence seems to be legible to the rightwing mind:
"As long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost."
THIS IS CRITICISM OF OUR PRESIDENT, HIS LACK OF PLANNING, HIS LACK OF VISION, AND HIS DEVOTION TO LINING THE POCKETS OF HIS PRIVATE CONTRACTOR CRONIES AT THE COST OF OUR MILITARY.
Pete, that's how Kerry (officially) lost the election, by putting commas in the middle of sentences. Real Americans like one phrase, neat.
The GOP plan is LOSE and BLAME. Biden has said it and he is right, too. Gates was asked during his confirmation "Are we winning?" His answer was NO.
There are, however, some ppl in this nation who put Bushs political viability ahead of their patriotism. The GOP fear political damage much more than they fear losing in Iraq. THat's their impetus.
They DO know its lost. Iraq isn't going to be a democracy for God's sake....EVER. We haven't "RID THE WORLD OF EVIL" as Bush gloriously decried after 9/11. The ppl have come around to accepting that we've lost in Iraq, yet the media protect Bush.
That's fine...the media will eventually lose their effect, too.
For telling us the truth? Even if only for a second? What's wrong with that? That's what we pay them for. He's still just pushing redeployment, the smaller occupation.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
For the leader of the Senate to say, in any fashion, that the war militarily is "lost" is unconscionable. While men and women are fighting in Iraq and one could receive a text message from a family member saying that the Senate majority leader says the war is lost - well, a real moral booster, isn't it?
Reid should be ashamed.
I would hope that you are an American first, not a Republican before all else! In that spirit let me propose the flaw in your slight against the Honorable Senator from Nevada Harry Reid!
Harry has a history of speaking truth to power from his days as the Gaming Control Board Chairman, Attorney General of Nevada, and Govenor of Nevada! He has been the skinny fella in the wire rimmed glasses that won't back down from a fight, even if it costs him politically!
The first State of the State Address Harry gave in Nevada was aimed at one of the largest employers, and most powerfull lobbys in the country, Humana Hospitals! Fully knowing that these people had the resources, the will, and intent of pushing back for real, Harry gave an address aimed at the Humana Hospitals practice of avoiding state taxes by putting income on Tennesse, Kentucky, and Ohio hospitals books. Without notice of his intentions he picked a fight for the revenues desparately needed by the state that were being kited out of state!
That is Harry! Stand up to the casinos who want their airhead relatives in key gaming positions, Harry tells you to hit the road! Take on the realestate developers that want to turn the Calico Hills, and Red Rock Canyon into a housing project for the wealthy, Harry tells them to move to California!
If we ever needed a man who will stand up to power on principle, we should be thankfull to have Harry! Telling the nation the truth when they desparately need to hear it from their nation's leaders is hardly anything but true patriotism.
Let the Republicans say what they will, Harry will out last them, and overcome! Thank you Harry!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Thank you for the post I'm responding to. It brings to mind several thoughts about the "extremism" on both sides of the political divide.
I've contended right along that rants such as "Can conservative bloggers tell the truth" is nothing but an example of how MMFA sets itself up a a way to whine about "evil conservatives" persecuting the "noble, always truthful, totally altruistic" liberals while taking the elitist status of thinking that people at large are too "ignorant" to think for themselves. It's a condescending thing that's routinely done by this and other self-serving liberal smear sites.
MMFA counters opinion with opinion while making trying to paint a disingenuous picture of the liberal ideals as a product of "superior education", morals and values. Somehow selectivity in both what rights and who gets them under our constitution is a concept that's been missed along the way in creating sites like.
Dualistic thinking, and cherry picking only facts to support one's opinion isn't something that's limited to conservatives. I have to say looking at it objectively, this is an area where extreme liberalism excells. an example of the accept/reject mindset is this: tell a liberal with the facts to back it up that there is no genome correlation to being gay, and they'll tell you "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" all the while rejecting the same platitude when applied to WMD in Iraq.
Een more to the point is the old "Bush was AWOL and didn't serve in Nam" versus the "Kerry is a war hero" blather that seems to be dragged back out here. The duplicity of ignoring the evidence that many of the "Detroit" testimonies were made by people who hadn't even set foot in Vietnam, while saying that the "Dan Rather" papers "were probably accuate if not authentic" is more of the same feces - the only difference is that the coriolis effect comes into play depending if you're "clockwise" or "anti-clockwise" in your "political religion"...
Pot/Kettle.. look in a mirror.
You've really thrown a lot of false equivilents out here with some outright delusions. For instance MMFA brings a whole lot more than opinion to the table often showing outright false statements by the conservatives they highlight. The rest is made up of statements seen to be outrageous. You may or may not agree they are outrageous but that really changes nothing. Then you trot out serious false equivilencies. Kerry WAS a war hero. The Swift Boat Liars for Rent have been effectively debunked by the facts. The Navy gave those medals and after and investigation still backs up every one of them. Statments made mostly by people who werent there without any evidence and when made by people who were there countered by a greater number of people who were there cannot possibly be considered strong enough evidence to deny Kerry the war hero status he EARNED. Bush was Awol he admits he 'made up the time in 73" since Nat Guard regulations say that time can only be made up officially within a couple of weeks. Making it up more than a year later is evidence on its own he was Awol or exactly what would he have been making up? There is NO dispute that he was derilict in his duty failing to take his MANDATORY physical for which he was stripped of flying status.
Next you take a turn into pure delusion. We DO have evidence of a lack of WMDs. We had TWO investigations on this very matter by Bush appointees. They had all the pertinent paperwork. All the scientists and military personell with every motive to GIVE them evidence of WMDS had it existed the results of those investigations werent they MIGHT be here but we cant find them the results said they hadnt been there since the middle nineties. Investigations like that constitute evidence by definition. I hope you realize that all you have done is repeat rightwing talking points most of which are without merit and just smeared liberals with such substanceless talking points as your claim of elitism and what we are TRYING to do. Such forays into motives are useless attempts to smear that accomplish nothing. It is easy to just assign false motives. Since you cannot read minds you cannot know your baseless assertions have any basis in reality. I can say the only reason you come here is to regurgitate the propaganda parrot nonsense you were programed with by Hannity or Limbaugh or whoever. That your motive is to show your devotion to the rest of the Limborg. It may or may not be true. What good is accomplished by me just smearing you by saying it. Exactly as much good as you smearing us. Try making a real argument with facts, logic or insight.
I don't know about the 'war', but what about the Occupation of Iraq...
Does it serve any National Security purpose to the American People?
Is it possible to 'lose' an Occupation... for the Occupation to be 'lost'?
Will it ever end, the Occupation of Iraq?
Was or was not the Occupation of Iraq compelled by falsified intelligence?
For how much longer must the American People sacrifice the lives of their Sons and Daughters, simply to Occupy Iraq?
How many more hundreds of billions of dollars will be siphoned off from the U.S. Treasury, Occupying Iraq?
As I said, I don't know about the 'war', but I know about the Occupation of Iraq:
That it has siphoned hundreds of billions of dollars out of the U.S. Treasury, and killed thousands of U.S. Troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis...
...that the Occupation of Iraq serves no National Security purpose to the American People...
...that the Occupation was compelled by falsified intelligence...
...and that it has no end in sight, this Occupation of Iraq.
(And when the Senate Majority Leader persists in using the word 'war', he persists in implying, falsely, that there is a National Security issue involved... he persists in working against ending that Occupation, by calling it a 'war'.)
I strongly agree with this - for Reid to accept the won/lost frame is disheartening.
We cannot win, but we keep losing soldiers, money, international prestige... and our national soul.
Yes, it is disheartening to see, at this advanced stage of the discourse, the Senate Majority Leader speaking in terms, of which he is sure to at least shoot himself in the foot eventually, the more he uses the word 'war'.
Because as I said, the word 'war' just naturally implies 'National Security', where there is no National Security concern, to the American People... the Invasion of Iraq being compelled, by falsified intelligence claiming a National Security concern (by falsified intelligence claiming WMDs, 'al qeada' links, 'yellow cake' Uranium, 9/11 complicity etc.)...
All those claims proving false... but as a malicious death-cheering, Bush boot-licking hack comment below this one now claims, they get to now say "al qeada is in Iraq!" as a way to keep cheering on the deaths of thousands (and the expenditure of hundreds of billions), and in the process continue to lick George W. Bush's boots, either for the fun of it or because it's their job (I neither know nor care which).
That's what the hack poster LEATHERHELMUT does, below my comment: He makes a false rationale for continuing the Occupation of Iraq, and he cheers on more death to our Sons and Daughters in Iraq, and he licks George W. Bush's boots, all in one fell swoop, of his keyboard and his tongue.
As to Mr. Reid's rather foolish gaffe of speech (which was inevitable, by way of his incorrect usage of the word 'war'):
Had the man said instead of...
REID: This war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.
Had he instead said...
REID: "This
Occupation of Iraq achieves no National Security purpose to the American People, and that it's substitute goal of 'Democratization', substituted after the falsified claims of National Security proved false... this 'Democritization' of Iraq is certainly not worth the lives of our Sons and Daughters in that place... they, being in the U.S. Armed Forces and charged with our National Security, were never meant to be sacrificed for any purpose other than our National Security... certainly not for the 'Democritization' of Iraq, a thing that Iraq's Sons and Daughters must fight for, not our own,
and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday."
Had the Senate Majority Leader said that instead, what I had highlighted in place of his "war is lost" gaffe... well, not only would he then have been working much more effectively at ending this Occupation of Iraq, but he would not have played so foolishly (so inevitably), by way of his continuous use of the word 'war'...
He would not have played into the hands of the death-lovers, and U.S. Treasury looters, and George W. Bush boot-lickers...
...such as is the poster LEATHERHELMUT below, who took the opportunity so joyfully (as do others), to cheer on death and lick Bush's boots, all in one fell swoop.
I too am extremely tired of hearing everyone call this occupation a war.
Iraq turning into Al Quaedia is a national security issue.
We will be there for 50+ years, just like Germany and South Korea.
the difference is they wanted us there. they were not trying to kill us every day. their political and religious leaders were not condemning us to win popular support. the people were not blaming us for bombings committed by their fellow citizens, which is what is happening in iraq. if you think iraq would be anything like those two situations, you're overdosing on the kool aid.
My Goddess, in 2007, someone is playing the al-Qaeda card. This is the danger of Fox News, not that they are mean and hurt people's feelings, but that otherwise (reasonably) intelligent people like Leather literally have no idea what is going on in the world.
So you still don't believe Al Quaeda is in Iraq.
Get your head out of the sand.
Al Queda FOLLOWED us into Iraq YOUR head is in a much darker danker place
Pre-Invasion, there was one alleged Al Qaeda leader operating in Iraq, Zarqawi, who Saddam wanted captured or killed. He was kept alive and at large by the U.S. so that he could be one piece of the crumbling house of cards that Bush built to justify the invasion.
As far as today, who knows how many Al Qaeda have now found an ideally lawless and chaotic new training ground in Iraq? But we have Bush's ill-conceived and poorly executed bloodbath to thank for the creation of such a massive, mayhem stricken mess.
Only if warmongers like YOU get your way and it doesnt look good for your bloodlust. IF we still have soldiers there in 50 years we will still have soldiers DYING in 50 years. The 2002 NIE listed 60 countries al Queda was active in and Iraq wasnt one of them. It took a US invasion to bring that cute little development about. So since OUR actions brought them in, WE have to stay no matter WHAT the Iraqi people want because they are there. Isnt that a little bit like killing your parents then demanding mercy for being an orphan?
Afghanistan and the western fringe of Pakistan are already turning BACK into Al Qaeda, thanks to the neglect of the Bush Administration and the resurgence of the Taliban.
Yet somehow, Iraq was far more worthy of our time and attention. So much so, that Bush had to manufacture evidence for it. Now why is that? Could it be because of some natural resource that runs thick within Iraq's borders?
So you are for invading Pakistan? Iraq is a cakewalk compared to Pakistan. You say Pakistan went back to Al Quaeda? When did it ever leave? It would take tens of thousands of dead Americans to clean out Pakistan. Are you ready for that when the liberals want to give up with much less loss of life in Iraq?
so then it sounds like you're saying that controlling al qaeda is not a matter of invading anywhere they might happen to be. damn anti-american hippie.
Wherever it is you're learning about our Middle East predicament, I highly suggest you start checking out other sources.
Why invade Pakistan when Bush gave his buddy, Musharraf, a $1.2 billion arms deal so he can deal with Al Qaeda himself? Musharraf is in a very tenuous, unenviable position right now. He has denied the U.S. military access to tribal regions where Al Qaeda and the Taliban have now regrouped and established their presence and influence, since this would surely upset the whole of Pakistan. At the same time, he must assure Bush that he is cooperating.
An invasion and occupation are not going to root out Al Qaeda, as is being proven in Iraq today. This is the one of the monumental misconceptions that's being pushed by Bush now that virtually all of the previous reasons for the invasion are now proven false. Organizations like Al Qaeda are not unform-clad armies that draw battle lines. They blend into their environments and use populations, which often either live in fear or are loyal to their cause, as their shield.
Crippling terrorist organizations takes sound intelligence, infiltration, police work and precision strikes. All of which we were doing in Afghanistan up until the time the CIA was denied the resources needed to take out Al Qaeda's leadership once they were absolutely sure they knew where it was.
"You say Pakistan went back to Al Quaeda? When did it ever leave?"
I clearly stated the western fringe, or, the tribal region. In particular, the city of Peshawar. And I do concede, Al Qaeda has had a presence in that region since the 80's.
"Peshawar is gateway to the Khyber Pass, capital of the Northwest Frontier. Long a free-wheeling center for drug smugglers, gun runners and jihadists, this was the birthplace of al Qaeda in the 1980s. Today the city is a new base of operations for the Taliban. The Taliban's influence is increasingly clear. Billboards are now censored. Women on the street are fully covered. Conservative mullahs hold high political offices. Those in the know here tease visitors with rumors of al Qaeda's most wanted men." (linky)
As I stated above, with Bush's incompetence and constantly recurring blunders compounding Musharraf's predicament, the situation is much more complicated today. The continued occupation of Iraq is not the answer to the prospect of more Islamic terror reaching U.S. shores that Bush and his loyalists would have us believe.
Mushareff can only really on the Indus Valley/Punjabi heartland of Pakistan for support and his military is stretched thin. He's got Kashmir to worry about, sporadic fighting in Waziristan, and the Baluchs are ready to revolt.
Mullah Omar is in the Seistan pocket. So there's Taliban HQ. I'll lay money that Zawahiri is there as well. That's what we need to take. Peshawar would be a good exercise for it.
Taking the city would be simple, two brigades from either side, one as the attacking force and one for security. I'd use Afghan troops from the Afghan side, to make it a show of national strength and keep down religious animosities. Attach a NATO support force to it, some heavy guns and planes, a combined headquarters, to ensure the mission and give it international scope.
Our military is not that imaginative, though. They've sat there for five years and done nothing. They bombed some Canadians, shot an NFL player, beat up a lot of prisoners and then SAT for five years. There's something symbolic in all that.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Iraq turning into Al Quaedia is a national security issue.
We will be there for 50+ years, just like Germany and South Korea.
Your opinion is as timely, and relevant as your head gear!
Happy Thoughts
Dan Grady
You say that you know about the occupation of Iraq. Then you should know that the American military in Iraq is not an occupation. An occupation is when a foreign military force stays in a country against the wishes of the government and people of the country. The American military in Iraq has the consent of the government and the people of Iraq.
Yeah, I am sure you accepted that rationale when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan with that governments consent. We are foriegn troops in THEIR country no rightwing spin can make it anything except an occupation. The Iraqi people by the way want us GONE by a margin of over 80%. Nice try at parroting the propaganda. As for having some logic behind the argument, not so much.
"The American military in Iraq has the consent of the government and the people of Iraq."
- GWBnumberone / Saturday April 21, 2007 01:37:56 PM EST
Someone should tell that to the Iraqis who are blowing the troops up that we have their consent even if they don’t know it.
OK, it's not the inability to speak in words that make sense, nor ignorance (should the two differ) that makes it so stupid, to say...
The U.S. Occupation of Iraq "has the consent of the government and the people of Iraq."
Or to say...
"We will be welcomed as liberators."
But the two things are equally stupid, either way or whoever says them... whether it be a poster who names themselves...
G.W.B. Number one!
...or Dick Cheney.
Invasion: bombing and shooting your way into a country and taking it over and appointing puppet governments of hired collaborators with brutal native police, building military bases and exploiting resources for the the wealth of the occupying nation. Several examples are Phillipines 1898, Manchuria 1904, Belgium 1914, Abyssinia 1935, Poland 1939, Vietnam 1959, Iraq 2003. See also Empire, Imperialism.
Did Al Jeezera post his followup comments? Shame on them, too, if they didn't.
i guess no one over there realizes that iraq is in total chaos. if only reid hadn't opened his mouth....
This is a longstanding rightwing tactic. Its NEVER the fault of those who CAUSED a problem its always the fault of whoever pointed the problem out discussed it or did anything to keep it from being our dirty little secret kind of like that weird uncle no one talks about but everyone KNOWS about.
the war in Iraq is a stunning economic loss that will be felt for at least two generations to come. I don't think anyone in leadership position that supports Mr Bush's policy recognises this war cannot be won militarily. Who's is going to surrender to us ?
You know what? The media did cut short his comment. And it was probably wrong. But Reid is more than experienced enough to know how his comment would be sound bitten when he said it.
And he was right. You can stick a fork in this war. The American people have been shouting this in the polls for quite some time. Even despite the outrageous non-reporting Fox Republican spin. They are all going down that much harder due to their refusal to place the interests of America above their own personal and partisan interests. America knows they were wronged by these scum. And the scum Republicans will feel it soon. Even before they get to their next life several levels down.
Why are the Dems so eager to say we've lost? Do you suppose that if a Democrat were in the White House, they would be saying the same thing (and spare me the "Democrat President wouldn't have gotten us into this mess in the first place garbage...See Hillary's pre-war position on Iraq.)?
Here's an idea, I'm gonna declare some more wars lost (since everyone's a Commander-In-Chief nowadays:
The War on Poverty is LOST....the poor have had plenty of time to become self-sufficient and take control of their own situation (just like the Iraqis) and our commitment to them is not open-ended. They have taken advantage of our hospitality and sucked our economy dry. This war is lost. It's time to pull out of the poverty riddled neighborhoods and demand that they stand up for themselves. They are uncooperative and we should end our financial support now!!
The War on Drugs is LOST....Druggies and those who support them have shown absolutely no effort to better themselves. They are a MAJOR drain on society and our economy. It's time to "redeploy" our forces and leave the druggies to their own devices. Their just not worth the effort, and besides, they didn't pose a threat to national security in the first place.
Write your representatives and DEMAND that they stop funding for the War on Terr, the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs today!! These fights are impossible to win!
There is no such thing as a Democrat President. However it is indisputable that the DemocratIC President DIDNT get us into this war the ReNAMBLAcan president did. What we WANT is to bring our men home what YOU ReNAMBLAcans seem to want is to get as many Americans killed as humanly possible.
According to your logic since we have been spending money on poverty programs which DONT GET PEOPLE KILLED for decades and it didnt cure poverty then its time we ended them. Of course by that logic we should get rid of Fire Depts. too since we still have fires and Police since they havent gotten rid of Crime. All those hospitals are a waste of money since people still get sick.
Of course another reason your silly attempt at an analogy is different is we should never have been in Iraq in the first place. Nice try
So Clinton and Obama are DemocratICs? Whatever you say.
And how dare you call me a Rebublican? You don't know me.
I agree with you, believe it or not. Yes, bring the troops home. Stop trying to help these Iraqis that are refusing to help themselves.
Didn't you read past my first paragraph? I'm just saying that the Dems would be 100% behind a Democrat president if one were in office right now (and, yes, it's hypothetical. I know a Democrat president didn't get us into this war. In fact, our last Democrat president didn't do ANYTHING of real substance to stop ANY terrorists.) They're just conforming to their party's standing order that "Bush must be demonized at all costs".
Let's just be fair about the whole thing. If we're going to stop trying to help those that refuse to help themselves, let's do it all the way.
There is no such thing as a Democrat president. Our CURRENT president is a ReNAMBLAcan president. I dont care whether or not you are a ReNAMBLAcan, you repeat the ReNAMBLAcan talking points. Clinton did plenty to fight terrorism tripling the terrorism budget, trying to kill Ben Laden, raising funds available for first responders, freezing al Queda assets its a ReNAMBLAcan talking point that he didnt. It was the ReNAMBLAcan Bush that was deeply committed to operation ignore the terrorists. He stopped investigations into al Queda for his Saudi buddies. I cant speak to all liberals but I didnt support the way Clintons war in Bosnia shook out. If it was a DemocratIC president behind this war I would still oppose it. Since most liberals and most Democrats were against the Vietnam war even though it was under a democratic president I would say you really have no reason to make this claim except to further a ReNAMBLAcan talking point. Whether or NOT you are a ReNAMBLAcan
Yeah, Solon. I get my Republican talking points emailed to me every morning straight from the White House. Laugh.
I don't know what the "talking points" are. Don't really care, either. I read alot of Congressional literature and journalistic aricles from alot of different sources (left and right, that's why I frequent this site)and formulate my own opinions, but nice try anyway.
But you just hang in there, little fella. It won't be long until we will have a Democrat House, a Democrat Senate AND a Democrat president. I can only imagine that you're chomping at the bit for that day to come.
As I said I am not a Democrat. Wherever you got your talking points good for you. I am sure its just a coincidence that Rush Limbuagh just happens to use the term Democrat President and Democrat Congress in exactly the same way, made the exact same completely bereft of logic argument about the war on poverty, that since there are still poor people it proves the program is a failure made the same completely unsupportable argument that Clinton did nothing about terrorism and basically just made the same baseless assertions as you. They arent talking points they just get passed around endlessly even though they arent logical or supportable. The only things I can say about Democratic Presidents, and Congresses is they are marginally better than ReNAMBLAcan Presidents, ReNAMBLAcan congresses and ReNAMBLAcan talking points.
Don't even waste your time wih Jason, Solon. He hung around yesterday spouting talking points, pretending he didn't know what a talking point was, and never followed up on any of his assertions. He just spins around in circles unable to back up any of his original posts. That's what happens when you regurgitate talking points (Yes Jason, we all know they are) from people who cannot themselves explain what they mean.
Gee, JAWA, I'm so glad I left such an impression on you! BTW, did you ever answer one of the questions I asked of you, or did you just call me names and hide under your covers? You're no DTRAIN, that's for sure.
Wow, Solon, you sure know alot about Rush. Are you one of his "Dotto-heads"?
As Sun Tzu says know your enemy. You sure do repeat a lot of his propaganda are you a moron or just part of the Limborg?
As 3rd grade grammar says: "Punctuate."
" " , . ? ! ; : Embrace these magic little marks, Solon.
Not only will you come off as a more intelligent person, but people will also be able to follow exactly what in the hell you're saying.
Glad to help. No charge.
Adult education, look into it. My advice would be to start at a third grade reading comprehension level. I think anyone with ANY ability whatsoever to understand the English language in written form was able to get the point. If YOU couldnt....
You claim to be well-read, Jason?
Then how is it that you continue to use the term "Democrat" instead of the actual correct term "Democratic"?
It would be a Democratic President.... There's no such thing and has never been such a thing as a "Democrat" President. Or do you purposely prefer to use incorrect terminology?
Let's see, Clinton is a democrat and he held the presidency, ergo a "democrat president".
By the same token, President George W. Bush is a Republican. A "Republican President".
Simple.
A "Democrat" (noun) becomes a "Democratic" (adjective) president.
As if you were really that ignorant...
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Democratic, Democrat, I'm not concerned with how the simple minded pronounce our party! I'm concerned with maintaining the change that will see Democrats in the leadership of both Houses & Presidency for the next 30 years atleast, and if we have it really together, who knows maybe for the rest of the century!
So, let them behave as school yard bullies all they like, we'll keep them in that place as long as they insist on behaving that way and Democrats will govern all the while!
Happy Thoughts til the next Republican Surge in a 100 years;
Dan Grady
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
But you just hang in there, little fella. It won't be long until we will have a Democrat House, a Democrat Senate AND a Democrat president. I can only imagine that you're chomping at the bit for that day to come.
You got that right and it had to happen eventually for you!
I bet you that the Republicans will be in the minority, and deprived of the presidency for the next 30 years atleast, longer if we lead well!!
So if you would just take a big breath and hold it, we'll get back to ya when the Republicans regain power!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I truly admire you libs for your tolerance and commitment to being compassionate and open minded. You really do have superior intellects, don't you? I can tell that you're way above name calling and oh, I don't know, instructing someone to commit suicide just because of petty differential points of view.
Well I am sure it looks that way to you, actually we are only average. Your smarmy, condescending snipes are no better than our honest hostility. Did you think hiding your rude jabs behind a maks of false civility made them better? Maybe on the shortbus where the other kids dont get what you are saying. In the ADULT world either be actually civil or dont be suprised when others arent civil to you. Or snivel like a little girl that YOU get what YOU give.
Just because a man has the title, does not make him a leader. Bush is not a commander, he's a theif. He's not in charge anyway, he's the wormtongue for Cheney, the real master of the throne. And the Democrats? They're voting for everything Bush and Cheney ask for. Meanwhile the nation gets poorer and wages drop and the Bill of Rights gets all stomped on. You have been away a while.
As far as commanding, I've run countless cybernations and the US attacked Afghanistan all wrong. We shouldn't have paid off warlords like we did and we've got engineers that could have really put in a lot of quick improvements to ensure good will. Civil/military relations are vital. Our Pentagon doesn't understand that. They think being given a G-6 assignment is unglamourous, but it's the most important of all to securing stability.
I was an infantry private once, no war seen, thank the Goddess. But I went to study with Athena and Master Sun and now I could teach staff work at the war college if I had the degree. War is the most martial of the arts, and to learn them properly is to never use them, for to win a thousand battles is not the acme of skill. To win without fighting is.
The best generals don't wear uniforms, whether camouflage or with a tie.
Good point. The Democrats overwhelmingly supported Bill Clinton when he said Iraq had WMD, had operational ties to al Qaeda, and was a threat to the U.S. They supported Clinton when he launched a pre-emptive attack against Iraq in December 1998, just four months after al Qaeda blew up our embassies in Africa. They also supported Clinton when he ignored further threats from al Qaeda and instead diverted resources to an illegal war of choice in Kosovo,
If a Democrat were in the White House today, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the other moonbats would be 100% behind our efforts in Iraq.
They supported Clinton when he launched a pre-emptive attack against Iraq in December 1998, just four months after al Qaeda blew up our embassies in Africa.
-Clinton pulled the inspectors and bombed places that the inspectors weren't allow into or were suspected of being weapons sites. This effectively ended Saddam's weapons program.
If a Democrat were in the White House today, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the other moonbats would be 100% behind our efforts in Iraq.
-A Democrat wouldn't have invaded Iraq. The Neocons went to Clinton and urged him to invade but instead he proposed the Iraq Liberation Act which was to fund opposition groups in Iraq who would themselves overthrow Saddam.
"This effectively ended Saddam's weapons program."
The Duelfer report said Iraq's WMD programs were essentially dismantled by 1993. What programs was Clinton bombing in 1998?
I should have said the weapons that were unaccounted for and his capacity to produce any weapons at a future date were effectively destroyed during the 98 bombing campaign.
"I should have said the weapons that were unaccounted for and his capacity to produce any weapons at a future date were effectively destroyed during the 98 bombing campaign."
So you believe Duelfer was wrong when he said Saddam's WMD programs were essentially destroyed in 1991? Even is incorrect, where is the evidence that WMD programs were effectively destroyed in 1998? The Clinton administration was still arguing that Saddam had WMD as they were walking out the door in January 2001. See
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1010801.htm
http://www.usembassy.it/file2001_01/alia/a1011102.htm
David Kay testified before Congress that the weapons were destroyed in three phases: The Gulf War, the subsequent inspections for eight years, and the 98 bombing campaign. You do realize that the inspectors were destroying weapons that originated from eighties up until Clinton pulled them from Iraq. The Duelfer report says that no more weapons were produce after 1991.
And the above links are not working.
"A Democrat wouldn't have invaded Iraq. "
I don't think you can say that. After all, many of the Democrats currently running for president (e.g., Edwards, Biden, Clinton) voted to authorize military force against Saddam's regime.
Most of those same Democrats were down on the floor of the Senate chastising Bush for pulling the inspectors from Iraq and announcing the start to the invasion. Daschle lost his seat because of a speech he made condemning Bush's decision.
Don't forget Clinton supported sanctions again Iraq which killed millions of women and children. At least that is what the left said at the time.
Clinton took action against al Queda he froze their assets. Even Robet Oakley Rayguns counterterrorism guy said he gave Clinton high marks on his actions against terrorism, HIS only complaint was he was too obsessed with Ben Laden. More talking points no substance
Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden? How so? Al Qaeda bombed two of our embassies in Africa in August 1998. Instead of going after bin Laden, Clinton launched a preemptive attack against Iraq's WMD programs (which Duelfer said were essentially destroyed in 1991, http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/) in December 1998, and then launched an illegal war of choice in Kosovo in March 1999. Al Qaeda then blew up the USS Cole in October 2000 and Clinton did nothing in response.
Clinton has obsessions (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/clinton_under_fire/latest_news/169521.stm ). Bin Laden was not one of them.
He also made attempts to kill Ben Laden. Made a presidential authorization to kill him. Tripled the counerterrorism budget. Under his watch we stopped attempts like the Millinium bombing, bombings of the Holland and Lincoln tunnel, and an attack on the Isreali Embassy in Washington. Froze Taliban assets, and that was a QUOTE from Robert Oakley taken from Joe Conasons The Big Lie. Now maybe it was just his opinion but whose opinion should carry more weight with me Rayguns counterterrorism Czar or some partisan and anonymous guy on a website that thinks Chris Matthews is an ultraliberal? Hmmm, let me mull that over a bit.
Meanwhile Bush's big terrorism effort, besides giving the Taliban 43 million dollars about a month before 9/11. What did he do again after getting a briefing from a memo ENTITLED Ben Laden determined to attack in US? Told the briefer he had covered his ass and spent the rest of the day fishing and the rest of the month on the longest vacation since Nixon though he had only BEEN president seven months. What was his big accomplishment on terrorism? Oh yeah that terrorism task force that NEVER MET A SINGLE TIME IN FIVE MONTHS. Clinton had them daily when he was warned things were dire. Yeah, it was Bush the dimmer that was deeply committed to operation Ignore the Terrrorists not Clinton.
SOLON:
"Under his watch we stopped attempts like the Millinium bombing, bombings of the Holland and Lincoln tunnel, and an attack on the Isreali Embassy in Washington."
The Millenium bombing was not stopped by any initiative from Washington. The would-be bomber was stopped by an alert border guard.
"Meanwhile Bush's big terrorism effort, besides giving the Taliban 43 million dollars about a month before 9/11."
That's a discredited claim by Robert Scheer. That $43 million did not go to the Taliban and it was a continuation of a Clinton policy. See the last paragraph in this CNN article: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/
"What did he do again after getting a briefing from a memo ENTITLED Ben Laden determined to attack in US?"
There was nothing specific about an imminent threat in that August 6 PDB. In fact, the information about possible hijackings was from an uncorroborated 1998 report concerning the possible use of hijackings to gain the release of Islamist extremists in U.S. custody.
I still get amazed by how misinformed the left is.
There is no misinformation there. YOU just gave YOUR spin to things undeniably true. It is arguable whether or not the heigthened awareness Clintons attention to terrorism helped with stopping the millenium bombing no matter what this or that persons opinion is. It is however UNDENIABLE that under HIS watch all, not just the millenium bombing ALL of those attempts were stopped. I know why they gave Afghanistan the money, I am not complaining, in fact it might have been disengenuous to use that in such a context but it is NOT disinformation. We gave that money to Afghanistan and their government was the Taliban. Part of it had to do with the Talibans wiping out of the poppy trade. The point is that it isnt that simple. Bush WAS given the briefing from a memo saying exactly what I wrote. There were plenty of specifics warning for instance of highjackings. The whole thing was done because though the intelligence people kept giving what THEY described as hair on fire briefings and telling the administration something is going to happen they were ignoring it. Their photo op terrorism task force Bush set up in the spring STILL HADNT MET A SINGLE TIME AND NEVER MET ONCE. Are you claiming that since it didnt have the date and flight numbers in the briefing that means nothing could be done? The point here is undeniable to anyone not comitted to ideological blindness. IF you want to say both sides could have done better, fine. IF however you compare the two Clinton did MUCH more about terrorism and by comparison Bush was committed to Operation Ignore Terrorism.
I am amazed at how ignorant you are. FACTS which you cannot refute that you dont LIKE cannot be described as misinformation.
"Clinton was obsessed with bin Laden? How so? Al Qaeda bombed two of our embassies in Africa in August 1998. Instead of going after bin Laden, Clinton launched a preemptive attack against Iraq's WMD programs (which Duelfer said were essentially destroyed in 1991,"
He did launch an attack on suspected terrorist bases in Afghanistan and he bomb what you guys refer to as an aspirin factory in the Sudan in August of 1998 (Google Operation Infinite Reach).This is when the republicans were screaming "wag the dog".
"in December 1998, and then launched an illegal war of choice in Kosovo in March 1999."
The Kosovo operation was a NATO led bombing campaign to stop ethnic cleansing.
"Al Qaeda then blew up the USS Cole in October 2000 and Clinton did nothing in response."
The attack wasn't verified to be an Al Qaeda attack until after he left office and I don't think he wanted to start something he couldn't finish because of the time he had left in office.
LOONTZ:
"He did launch an attack on suspected terrorist bases in Afghanistan and he bomb what you guys refer to as an aspirin factory in the Sudan in August of 1998 (Google Operation Infinite Reach).This is when the republicans were screaming "wag the dog"."
Name one Republican in the leadership who accused Clinton of wagging the dog. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott both expressed support for Clinton's retaliatory strikes. Governor George W. Bush on the day of the counterstrikes said, "I think you give the commander in chief the benefit of the doubt. This is a foreign policy matter. I'm confident he's working on the best intelligence available, and I hope it's successful." A CNN poll found that 66 percent of Americans approved of Clinton's attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan. Only 36 percent of those polled believed the attacks were designed to divert attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. If Clinton had chosen to go after bin Laden, he had the support of the American people. Instead, he chose to launch a preemptive attack on Iraq, a sovereign nation with no WMD.
"The Kosovo operation was a NATO led bombing campaign to stop ethnic cleansing."
It lacked approval from the UN Security Council. Many on the left say a war is illegal if it lacks the UNSC's imprimatur. In addition, Congress never voted to approve our involvement in a war in Kosovo. And, again, we could have used those resources to go after bin Laden. Ethnic cleansing obviously is not a reason to go to war since the left argues that genocide was not reason enough to go to war in Iraq. (Although, somehow, it is justification for military involvement in Dalfur. I guess the left has a consistency problem.)
“Name one Republican in the leadership who accused Clinton of wagging the dog. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott both expressed support for Clinton's retaliatory strikes.”
I could only find obscure republicans saying "wag the dog" or implying it here and here and there were a lot of republican pundits in the media calling the attack a "wag the dog" tactic. The republicans in Congress really didn't have to say anything because they had their republican sycophants doing it for them.
“It lacked approval from the UN Security Council. Many on the left say a war is illegal if it lacks the UNSC's imprimatur. In addition, Congress never voted to approve our involvement in a war in Kosovo.”
It was a NATO led campaign to stop ethnic cleansing. If you want to say NATO committed an illegal war, you can. I wouldn’t characterize it as a war; it was a military operation. But you’re right it didn’t have Congress approval and that’s why I think Clinton was against a ground operation which would have gotten Americans killed.
“And, again, we could have used those resources to go after bin Laden. Ethnic cleansing obviously is not a reason to go to war since the left argues that genocide was not reason enough to go to war in Iraq. (Although, somehow, it is justification for military involvement in Dalfur. I guess the left has a consistency problem.)”
What resources? It was bombing campaign by NATO members. And why are you criticizing Clinton? The republicans in Congress spent most of their time going after him with little concern for Bin Laden.
The president argued that Iraq was a threat to America and that’s why so many voted for the resolution. He should have said it was a campaign to stop genocide that occur mostly during the eighties and early nineties and got approval for an invasion.
And I would support doing something in Darfur.
LOONZ:
"The president argued that Iraq was a threat to America and that’s why so many voted for the resolution. He should have said it was a campaign to stop genocide that occur mostly during the eighties and early nineties and got approval for an invasion."
Bush did say that we were removing Saddam from power to end genocide. WMD was not the only reason.
http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com/niall.html
The president argued that Iraq was a threat to our national security and that's how he got approval from the Congress. He should have argued that Saddam's genocide that occurred mostly during the eighties and early nineties were worthy of an invasion and occupation in 2003. Anyway, if the genocide was the problem the first Bush should have taken care of it during his tenure or when he had a chance during the 1991 Gulf War.
So he should have said it the reason for invading Iraq was the horrible things Saddam was doing while he was our good ALLY? Remember that photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam? That was AFTER Halabja. The reason he didnt try that utterly transparent EXCUSE is it doesnt pass the laugh test. It would be admitting they didnt really have a reason. There WAS NOT HUMANITARIAN rationale for the invasion. Saddam was still a bit of a butcher, a low level thug by international standards by the time of the invasion. HRW said about 300 people a year were dying for political reasons. Now that is bad but its a good MONTH in Columbia or by historical standards our good ally Guatemala. Even Bush most likely couldnt get away with THAT level of hypocrisy.
Only 36 percent of those polled believed the attacks were designed to divert attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. If Clinton had chosen to go after bin Laden, he had the support of the American people. Instead, he chose to launch a preemptive attack on Iraq, a sovereign nation with no WMD.
He wasn't trying to go after Bin Laden during Operation Infinite Reach? BTW, he didn't have approval from Congress for that operation either.
LIE alert. There was NO ongoing genocide in Iraq that is BS. The huge mass killings in Iraq took place WHILE HE WAS OUR ALLY, and right after the First Gulf War with our aquiecence. There was NO humanitarian rationale for going into Iraq not a single human rights group believed there was. That was an outright fabrication. There had been no massacres in Iraq since 1991. It is such a laugh to hear conservatives who could have convinced me we needed to invade Iraq in1983 or 1988 while THEY STILL LOVED HIM. While their hero RAYGUN took Iraq OFF the list of terrorist nations so they could support him and didnt even break diplomatic relations with him. Who were deriding us lefties for calling for him to be tried for crimes against humanity. NOW want to use those same events as an EXCUSE to invade when we didnt care BEANS when they happened. You conservatives are latecomers on the Saddam is a monster bandwagon and have ZERO credibility here. We know an EXCUSE rather than a REASON when we hear it.
Its so sad to watch the rightwing warmongers flop around like a fish out of water as all of their excuses for Iraq vanish like fairy dust. Its about WMD, we have to rid Iraq of the WMDs, ok so there arent any WMDs but 9/11 its about 9/11 ok so Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 but al Queda, they are working with al Queda, he will give those WMDs (which dont exist) to al Queda, ok so they arent working with al Queda. Just how many shiny new rationales are we supposed to give you guys? I mean as the old ones dissapear into the fairy dust from whence they came? I say as a rule of thumb if you have to change the reasons you invaded a country more than twice YOU ARE FU@&ING LYING
Here is HRW saying there was no humanitarian rationale for invading Iraq
http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm
We have lost. Our generals are appointed by the old party tie and have no imagination. This is not uncommon in US military history, the War of 1812 being slightly comparable.
Master Sun says that noone profits from a prolonged campaign. It eats up resource, men, time. Gets nothing done. Dries out the state, wears it out. We've been in Afghanistan for five years and our generals have done nothing. They've built some excellent bases, air conditioned, with beer and pizza, but no bin Laden. No civil/military projects to rebuild their infrastructure. Real agressive go-getters, them gringo generals. NATO's not showing anything better, either, though they are willing to let their men wander the more settled northern towns. Taliban is on the rise from Siestan, Mullah Omar ID'd there. No operations to set up proper border stations. No attempt at building more national unity. After five years, I'd call the war lost in that theater. It's certainly not moving forward. Plenty of beer and pizza though.
Iraq? It's been four years and the place is still in open revolt, with a shocking level of violence. It had nothing to do with 9/11 with terrorism, so it diverted all kinds of resources and more vitally, attention, from the main objectives and squandered them on a big piratical corporate raid.
We know it's a war crime about oil. Falluja ranks with Srebrenica, where many generals commanded over these atrocities. The level of inhumanity shown by our leadership in this war will never win the natives over, it will always create violence. No sensible government is being created, just a rubberstamp for US corporate interests.
They're pushing a law on Iraq that fulfills the famous map of the Iraqi oil fields from Cheney's 2001 secret conferences with his oil buddies. Iraq's fields will be privatized and they can waltz in and buy them all up. They get land rights under Iraqi law and they end up owning huge chunks of the country.
Our troops will have to stay, both parties agree. To protect this corporate real-estate hostile takeover. To bully the local population into submission and make them slave in the oil fields for massah. I don't think this war will end for a long time, and it won't end well. Four years now and nothing's getting better, just worse. Iraq was full of kids when we invaded....they're growing up now and joining the neighbourhood militias.
What will ten or fifteen years of this be like? Don't be surprised if you find out. I don't see these wars going anywhere soon and from the size of the construction, I see a long-term occupation ahead. This is imperial, not surgical. Building forts amongst the natives means the American is here to stay. It's an old national habit.
As if to boast about some sort of strength we enjoy militarily, Bush today at a press conference showed a map of our outposts in downtown Baghdad. The idiot is - like Geraldo - telling the insurgents where to set their mortars.He is willing to cover his ass in our boys blood.I cannot think of any, ANY defense for this asswipe.
HAD ENOUGH, SAVE A TROOP, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT AND GIVE A REPUB THE BOOT.
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll of 1,141 adults shows that 58 percent of Americans trust the Democrats in Congress to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq, compared to only 33 percent who trust President Bush.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/16/AR2007041601099_pf.html
So its not just a few of us "No Win Dems" who have finally seen the light.....
Oh, brilliant. So WaPo-ABC polls accurately represent America? If they followed their usual polling blueprint (to which their leftist slant is very extensively documented), then about 308 of those 1141 people were identified as republican. Based on the last election numbers, that's not even close to an accurate representation of the American political makeup.
WaPo-ABC polls are always left leaning, just like BillOreilly.com polls are always right-leaning. We can't trust ANY poll unless they come clean with their content.
You seem to be assuming that everyone else on the survey identifies themselves as a Dem. Just because the vast majority of elections are between two parties doesn't mean that everyone identifies themselves as belonging to one of them.
It should also be noted that the gap between people who identify themselves as Democrats over Republicans has increased. Those wanting to be affiliated with Bush's party have been reduced in numbers, so that 308 (even if you didn't pull it out of your hat) doesn't sound unreasonable at all.
Democrats are pushing continued occupation though. They'll just rotate the same troops over and over again as well. There is NO plan to end this in the mainstream pipelines. We're staring at probably a decade of maimed and killed people, at least. Been 5 years since we entered Afghanistan. Redeployment....Democrats are not gonna end the war, just shuffle people around. Only the minor parties demand immediate withdrawal, but everyone refuses to vote for them. It might be funny if not for all the misery being caused.
Kepp giving the warmongers hell, Sergeant. E pluribus unum.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
The same Republicans that brandished "Band-Aid Purple Hearts" on the 2004 RNC on national television for the world to see have no standing to voice an opinion about the patriotism of the Democratic Leader of the Senate who has been a staunch supporter of the military from the day he entered the Congress!
Th same Republicans that stood by as their party stripped us of our civil liberties, spied on us without warrants and lied about it, that has doled out tax dollars to their friends like a cash kitty, the liars that have stolen our government blind for the past 6 years while chasing off every professional in government has no standing to question the Democratic Leader's opinion. They have discredited thoroughly any opinion they may have on the subject!
But, if you think the past four + years of our occupation of Iraq has been anything but a total failure, if you blame anyone other than the Republican Leadership, then I say it is you who are 'lending aid & comfort to the enemy" of American Democracy; the Republican Leadership!
We did not arrive at this horrendous place on our own! We were lead here with lies told in a Madison Avenue PR campaign offered up as a rationale for war by the Republican Administration, and their facilitators the RNC! That people is our truth! Our recent history, no matter how much a puppet corporate media wants to spin it otherwise, is a result owned by the power mad Neo-Cons, and the Republicans the facilitated them!
The Republican President, Vice President, Congress, Senate, and Cabinet violated their oath of office on a daily basis in plain sight and forgot they were Americans first, instead they gave their allegiance to their party before their country, and our beloved democracy! Treason!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Th same Republicans that stood by as their party stripped us of our civil liberties, - DANGRADY
I'm sorry could you please enlighten me which liberties you lost?
BTW, if you are reffering to the republican additions to the supreme court taking away a woman's right to have a doctor vaccum out her child's brain while it's partially born then I say, yes, I guess they have taken away some "liberties"
Lets see, I USED to have a sixth amendment RIGHT to a speedy trial judged by my peers, lets ask Jose Padilla how that is working out for him. I USED to have a fourth amendment right against wiretapping without a warrant, quaint and done away with. EVERYONE used to have habeas corpus rights what happened to them?
Please, padilla would already be dead if this was 1945.
Perhaps, AFTER A TRIAL. Your contention was there were no lost rights. Where was his speedy TRIAL and how was that NOT a lost right? I suspect if the government HAD the evidence to convict him there WOULD have been a trial but I cant show that for the simple reason we havent seen the evidence BECAUSE THERE WAS NO TRIAL. Which of course makes YOUR speculation just that speculation.
The 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th amendments.
I'm sorry could you please enlighten me which liberties you lost?- Sebastion Shaw / Saturday April 21, 2007 12:36:24 PM EST
The time honored Right of Habeas Corpus, Right to Free Speech, Consult an Attorney, to face your accuser, to privacy, as well as a historical power grab by the most incompentant, malicious, ignorant, and scandalous Presidency in American History. We haven't even started on these ass bites use of the NSA to spy on Americans!
Two abominations of American legislation that in their passing is definitive proof of the Republican treason; The Patriot Act, and the Military Commissions Act!!
If your are on this sight expressing your opinion on the issues of the media's slant, how is it you are so ignorant of the rights we surrendered under these Draft-Dodgers!
Happy Thoughts with the Democrats in control for the Next 30years;
Dan Grady
Dan:
You have any theories concerning how Bush got Bill Clinton to lie about Iraq's WMD for eight years?
Clinton didnt lie he made broad assumptive assertions that were wrong. He deserves criticism for that. However that was BEFORE the inspectors were back in Iraq going wherever they wanted and new intelligence was coming in pointing to the absence of WMDs. Meanwhile BUSH told specific outright lies. Like when he made up an IAEA report that didnt exist at least not one saying what he claimed it did. He sent 12 reports to Congress saying the aluminum tubes Iraq was trying to buy could ONLY be used as Gas Centrifuges AFTER our own GC scientists UNANIMOUSLY ridiculed the very idea they WOULD be used that way at all much less could ONLY be used that way. The real question is why do you recycle these LONG debunked talking points as IF they made sense suddently. I mean other than your propaganda parrot duty and the FACT ya got NOTHIN.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
You mean the president that ended the Yugo-Wars without an American casualty, that had a "no fly zone" maintained through-out his 8yr presidency, you mean the president that had troop funding threatened by the Republican House and Senate in Somalia?
I trust the judgement of a brilliant politician the likes of Bill Clinton with his member stuck in the nearest intern/consenting adult in the Oval Office for live consumption on the internet before I would give power back to the Neo-Con! Atleast we would stil have our honoralbe standing in the world and stil be a respected super power, instead of the redhead step-child we've become under our current leadership!
If Bill Clinton is your explanation for our predicament today, you have been lying to yourself so long, you'll need real rehab to help!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
The war was lost the moment we decided on the "Rumsfeld Doctrine" and tried to fight a "pc" war. The hands of our troops were tied from the moment it started and the only thing we can do now is get out and prepare for the inevitable genocide that the soft approach to the Iraq war will cause.
Yeah, those damn Iraqi citizens. How dare they be in the country we invaded. Lets kill them all. It's their fault for living there. If we had dropped a couple of nukes early on in the fighting, we'd be occupying an empty country right now. Much less hard to control and all the free oil you want. That's the smartest plan I've ever heard.
Too bad those wusses in the Democrat party don't have the guts to just kill everybody in Bagdhad and be done with it. Those pc police would have never taken us there in the first place and we'd be dealing with a mushroom cloud over NYC right now. Right Sebastian? That's the way you win a war: just randomly invade a country and kill everyone. I mean we all know that's what is needed to keep our homeland safe.
I'm sorry at what point did I say we should have invaded Iraq? Answer...Never. I was against the Iraq war from the beginning. However, I also understand the concept that you can't fight a polite war. Fact is, right or wrong we're there now and had we been more agressive we'd have spent much less time and American blood in Iraq. The invasion did acomplish one thing, however, it eliminated Saddam's rogue regime whose treatment of his own people made Abu Graib look like Disney world. Iraq now has a chance to become a more stable democratic state. While "liberation" was not our original cause it happened, what needs to happen now is the Iraqis need to come together as a country. Problem is the Iraqis can't get along with each other. The question now is how to handled the situation that has been created. I'm for a unilateral pull out which makes me unique among most cons. What you really have to ask yourself is "are you prepared for the potential bloodbath after we leave?" I am, I think we've given the iraqis enough time and American lives, they need to step up and take advantage of the chance they've been given.
"I'm sorry at what point did I say we should have invaded Iraq? Answer...Never. I was against the Iraq war from the beginning. However, I also understand the concept that you can't fight a polite war."
-We're fighting against people who don't want us in their country and we can't kill them because they don't want us there. This is why you should only invade countries that pose a threat then we can fight the war you want.
"What you really have to ask yourself is 'are you prepared for the potential bloodbath after we leave?' "
-I don't think there will be a bloodbath or the terrorist safe haven scenario that Bush, McCain and Lieberman are predicting.
Apparently you were asleep during the history lessons dealing with Vietnam.
Apparently you were asleep during the history lessons dealing with Vietnam.
- Sebastion Shaw / Saturday April 21, 2007 02:17:21 PM EST
I know what happened after we left Vietnam but this is a slightly different situation. I don't think a genocide or a safe haven for terrorists will occur.
What planet do you live on? Can you honestly say that there is no chance these things might happen? Again, I'm fine with a possible genocide, we've helped them out enough but to say it couldn't happen is ridiculous.
HE isnt making that claim YOU are making a claim you CANNOT back up. You DO understand that the burden of proof is YOURS since the claim is yours right? Its a weak and worthless attempt at a point to say THIS is a fact prove me wrong.
"i'm fine with a possible genocide."
well, aren't you nice?
xxx
There was no huge bloodbath in Vietnam after we left, there was one in Cambodia but not Vietnam. At least not beyond what is usual for the aftermath of a civil war where there has been collaboration with an invader like of the Vichy French in France. That is a rightwing lie oft told. What I want to know is, since the rightwing prognosticators havent gotten a SINGLE THING RIGHT when gazing into their Iraqi crystal ball why exactly should I take this new rightwing prediction any more seriously than the vast amount of WMDs, the greeting us as liberators with flowers and candy, the it will last six weeks probably not six months, and all the rest of the rightwing delusions they stated as facts, kinda like this one.
Wait a second! I must have said there was a genocide in Vietnam...oh no I didn't.
Really? Then what was your point when you said THIS
Apparently you were asleep during the history lessons dealing with Vietnam.
In regards to a bloodbath if we leave Iraq?
How insightful. Its the IRAQI's fault that OUR invasion of THEIR country didnt go the way WE planned. That and the fact we just arent killing enough innocent people.
That's the whole problem, though. Fighting a war like this more aggressively means only one thing: killing more civilians. And going down that path only increases the resistance against our forces mening more killing of civilians to tighten things down meaning more resistance, etc. Once we took out Saddam, there has never been a military solution to the problem. You can't be an aggressive foreing occupying force and expect anything to happen other than more bloodshed and chaos. The only positive in terms of Iraq's future that could come from that would be a solidarity between Sunni's and Shi'ites against us, which of course would be terrible for our forces there.
"The war was lost the moment we decided on the "Rumsfeld Doctrine" and tried to fight a "pc" war."
The war was lost when Bush decided to invade and occupy a country that posed no threat us.
As you can probably tell by my above post, I agree with you fully. My point was that once decided to go to war with Iraq we should have fought it 100% not using the Rumsfeld Doctrine. I never said we should or have ever supported going into Iraq.
"As you can probably tell by my above post, I agree with you fully. My point was that once decided to go to war with Iraq we should have fought it 100% not using the Rumsfeld Doctrine. I never said we should or have ever supported going into Iraq."
- Sebastion Shaw / Saturday April 21, 2007 01:40:14 PM EST
We can't fight the war the way you want it fought because Bush is the one that invaded their country. We're fighting against Iraqis who don't us there. They don't want to be occupied; they want us out.I agree to a certain extent with that but a bigger problem than that is the fact that our enemy in that region is not easily identifiable. When you're going against a non-uniformed enemy it's much more difficult to fight efficiently, especially if you're trying to cut down on collateral damage. While the majority of iraqis do want us out the government of Iraq knows what will happen if we leave before they can support themselves. Fact is, if we leave too early the liklihood of a "killing fields" replay is very possible.
We're fighting Iraqis who don't want us in their country.
The government of Iraq still wants us there because they understand the possibility of what might happen if we leave too early. I'm not saying it will happen if we leave but there is a potential genocide brewing if we leave too early. Again, I'm for it. If they can't get their act together, so be it. And I'd say this hurts your argument a little
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.main/
While many might want us out, the fact that Iraq has a chance at a democracy is primarily a good thing. Again, and I don't think I can repeat this enough, IRAQ WAS A BAD IDEA. I thought this from day one. However, you can keep repeating " They don't want us there" all day or you can accept the fact that you can't change the fact that we ARE there. Now we must make the right decisions going forward
"The government of Iraq still wants us there because they understand the possibility of what might happen if we leave too early. I'm not saying it will happen if we leave but there is a potential genocide brewing if we leave too early. Again, I'm for it. If they can't get their act together, so be it."
I reason why I don’t think their will be a genocide is that the surrounding neighbors won’t allow. 85 to 90 percent of the Muslim World is Sunni. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and the rest won’t sit idle by while the Shia kill the Sunni of Iraq. Right now the Shia Militias are the killing Sunnis because they know that these countries cannot fully engage in Iraq because of the American presence. Once we leave, the Shia have two choices. They can start murdering the Sunni and risk being wiped out themselves by Sunni Muslims of other countries or they can try to work something out with the Sunnis. There will still be American troops in the region if the Shia decide to go the suicide mission route to make sure it’s not a complete bloodbath.
"While many might want us out, the fact that Iraq has a chance at a democracy is primarily a good thing. Again, and I don't think I can repeat this enough, IRAQ WAS A BAD IDEA."
If the Iraqis think a democracy is worth having then they'll keep it. It's not up to us to decide.
"I thought this from day one. However, you can keep repeating " They don't want us there" all day or you can accept the fact that you can't change the fact that we ARE there."
Why do you think I keep on repeating it? It's their country and they don't want us there and they are willing to blow up the troops to get us out. We shouldn't be there.
I agree with you, if they want democracy they need to be prepared to fight for it. I think our only disagreement is the possibility of a genocide. I'm indifferent. If we leave now (which we should) I don't care whether it happens or not. But you must admit that it is a possibility and ask yourself if it does happen what then?
gotta go!
So you think we should stay in the country indefinitely to prevent a remote chance of genocide? Get real man.
I agree with this post. What do we consider in making that decision? First if we take democracy seriously the FACT that the huge majority of Iraqis want us gone and think the security situation will improve once we leave ought to be one of the criteria. Second there are two things to consider even if we cede you that the violence will get worse. How much worse and for how long. IF things get even MUCH worse but the problems get shaken out faster than if we stay there it could still be an over all plus for the Iraqis. Lets say they start losing 10,000 a month but solve their differences and bring about a stable government in 7 months. That is a death toll of 70,000. Lets say we STAY there and it remains 1,000 a month for 10 years. That would be 120,000. The nubers are exagerated but you can see the point. How much worse it gets in the shortterm, which is NOT a given, isnt the only thing to consider. Third are we ADDING to the equation of violence, I would say there is no reasonble argument we arent. Four what is our moral RIGHT to continue an occupation which you agree we had no right to undertake in the first place. Last but not least, is there a positive contribution beyond policing and maintenence we can bring to the situation. In other words a problem we can SOLVE not just put off until whenever it is we DO leave. The violence monster is out of the box. That was a given as soon as we invaded just as us liberals said would happen. IF all we are doing is putting if off until that inevitable day we do leave how many lives on both sides is that worth? I think its time the Iraqis solve their own problems even though many of them are problems our invasion has wrought for the simple reason they dont want us there and we cannot HELP them solve those problems. They dont trust us or WANT our help which makes it virtually impossible we CAN help
I think it's a mistake to even attempt a calculation of the relative toll to Iraqis of our going or staying. The cause of the immense death and destruction is precisely our illegal invasion and occupation. Any additional toll related to our hasty departure (and it will be such, no matter how long delayed) is simply additional blood on the hands of those who planned this smash-and-grab robbery of an invasion.
No occupation by a hostile occupying power in history has ever "succeeded" on the aggressor's terms. And all occupiers are driven mad with the delusion that if only they had been more ruthless earlier on they could have succeeded, all are deeply sure that the untermenschen are subhumans who only understand the lash, and in so doing relinquish forever their own claim to humanity.
Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first render mad...
We seem to be well along in the process.
I have no problem with that assessment
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Had we announced a limited draft days after the 9/11/2001 attacks we would have accomplished two vital effects on enemies current and potential.
1. The world would have watched as the only super power left in the world became an even larger ground force able to forward deploy in an instant! This would have been a real deterant! Saddam would have seen the writing on the wall as troops were deployed to Oman, and Qatar, or the Arab Emirates! As they saw two aircraft carrier groups in the Persian Gulf!! Iran would have been a willing ally as they could have been in 2001 before the saber rattling of the Neo-Cons!
2. Declare War on Afghanistan, as we gave a behind the scenes deadline to the Taliban to surrender all members of Al Queda, and stand down during the invasion! The Taliban did offer the Al Queda leadership if we made a pact with them on how we would invade!
These are the kind of things a real President would have done, a Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, or John F. Kennedy! Dwight D. Eisenhower would be a Democrat if he were alive, so we can count him too. Hell, George H.W. Bush knew better than invading and occupying Baghdad
Had a real government been in power we would have finished the job in Afghanistan before we went to any other theatre, nevermind the staving, poor, weak, and sectarian Iraq!
You may have your own opinion, just not your own truth!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Yeah, thats the big problem in Iraq we just arent killing enough innocent people.
I believe you've used this statment else where. Sounds like the evening news. Will we be hearing it there soon? Prepare for the inevitable genocide that the soft approach to the Iraq war will cause. Like much on the air. Its lovely, it appears to mean something. All topping, no filling. By your actions so far, I don't expect a rational response, more talking points, yes. Just in case feel free to fill in the gaps, please.
There's something deeply perverse about the idea that the invasion of Iraq was somehow hobbled by "pc" concerns that led us to be insufficiently brutal.
So this overly delicate invasion has killed >650,000 Iraqis so far.
What would constitute a sufficiently robust and manly, non-pc death toll? Two million, five million? How many innocent lives to prove that the faggoty poof-in-chief is a realer man than his dad?
Reid says the war is lost. But he didn't mean that the war is lost, really, he just meant the war is lost. What drivel. Our Senate majority Leader is a certified ignoramus.
As long as we follow the President's path in Iraq, the war is lost.
Actually THAT is what he said which isnt the same thing. I think the facts show that it is YOU that are the ignoramus
That's what you say he said, but the video that I saw of him speaking doesn't say that. In that video, he says, "I believe...that this war is lost..."
He added the other afterwards on the Senate floor when he figured out what a mistake he had made.
Harry & Nancy remind me of children playing 'dress up' in the attic. Sadly, they're about as mature as the Democrats seem to be able to offer. Pathetic.
Yeah so he he went further in his subsequent statement. Its not contradictory to what he said earlier. Unfortunatly the GOPs sick and pathetic lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy is all they have and there seems no amount of deaths that will satisfy the warmonger set of the GOPs insatiable bloodlust.
Gosh, he let slip the truth about the massive clusterf**k that Bush has turned Iraq into, what a childish thing to do. Much more adult to keep lying about it like your beloved preznit and his (small) army of loyal Bushies.
All you Bushbots like to pretend that, if you close your eyes and believe with all your might Tinkerbell will live and our children will sing mighty songs of praise for the righteous conquerors of Mesopotamia. And the dead will come back to life and sing the praises of the bearers of Freedom© and Democracy© to their benighted cradle of civilization.
And anyone who doesn't believe hard enough is a backstabbing traitor who wants our troops to fail. It's amazingly easy to be a grownup, Neocon style.
One of the major things about this thread is that the video you probably saw was incomplete. It was not the whole story this, is the point. If the whole story was broadcast we would all be somewhere else.
And if there are difficult questions with mostly ughly resolutions you'll show us by picking up your toys and going home. I get this from your last paragraph of the 0133 hrs. posting.
The words lost and victory with regard to this occupation are not well defined. Shrub uses victory or winnig, I cannot ever recall him defining it. What benchmarks would indicate its approach to him? Lost inspires fear which tends to shut down higher mental functions as the fear causes desent into fight or flight areas of more primitive parts of the brain. Good for its purpose bad if you really need to figure out a devious situation. Some good thoughts a ways above I would add diplomacy to our arsenal.
You folks are utterly amazing. I read this blog for laughs, and there is certainly no shortage of silliness to laugh at.
I'm glad I don't feel a need to defend your fearless Senate leader. If the war is lost, it's lost. If it is still winnable through other means, it's not lost. Can't both be lost and not lost, if language has any meaning. Senator Reid is as inept a politician as our country has ever seen. And You poor folk feel the need to defend him. He's a 'cut & run' liberal.
You've sure got you're work cut out for you.
Who needs defending here exactly - Reid or the drug addled pretender who lied us into this foul slaughter? Pretty amazing pair of moral blinders you got there boy. The buck stops nowhere, and the only test of character in this supreme leader cult is absolute loyalty to the vile little empty suit at the top.
The cult of the sociopath - I guess 30% is a large enough contingent of willing leader-cult zombies to destroy a country. They will cheer and yee-hah as their up-yours frat-boy leader drives the Caddy of state off a cliff, and flip off the rest of us as we arc out into space.
I dont need to defend him he was right. Your inability to understand simple concepts doesnt change that. Feel free to continue to suppor the lets get as many Americans killed as we possibly can policy in a vain attempt to satisfy your insatiable bloodlust and then tell us WE are silly.
Let's see. Who needs defending? Senator Reid puts his foot in his mouth (or at least one of his orifices) and then quickly contradicts himself after someone apparently draws his attention to how stupid and disloyal he sounded.
Mr. Reid and the Democrats treat the Iraqi conflict as if it were a political game, emboldening a desparate enemy.
If you haven't noticed, this blog entry is not about President Bush, it is about the inept Harry Reid. Apparently unknown to some of the readers of this blog, the American people don't 'cotton' to losing, whether it be a football game or a military operation. We have not lost the war in Iraq. The statement is ridiculous. Senator Reid would be ridiculous if he weren't so pathetic.
Apparently unknown to some of the readers of this blog, the American people don't 'cotton' to losing, whether it be a football game or a military operation. We have not lost the war in Iraq. edrossinoelwein9669
To reiterate an easrlier poster, clap your hands and believe.Doesn't matter how little you "cotton" to the truth, how difficult it is for you to understand the difference between war and a football game,or how blindly you deny the truth, it's still (and I'm sorry if this threatens your flag waving party), the truth.
Whenever you're ready to join the grown-ups, that's it.
Iraq. Is. Lost.
<>Why be afraid to say it?! The citizens of the United States, the ones who voted against the GOP who won't take us out, know it's lost. The only ones shouting all "aghast" about his comments are the same media pundits and thugs who refuse to report anything but the GOP talking points.
<>Iraq. Is. Lost. Bring. Our. Soldiers. Home.
<>Now.LOONZ:
"David Kay testified before Congress that the weapons were destroyed in three phases: The Gulf War, the subsequent inspections for eight years, and the 98 bombing campaign."
I don't believe Kay said that. In any case, if Saddam's weapons were all destroyed by 1998, why was the Clinton administration still saying Saddam had WMD as they were walking out the door in January 2001?
The links I provided above worked at the time I posted them. If I were paranoid, I'd say someone made a quick phone call. Fortunately, I saved PDF versions of the press releases. Here are links:
http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com/albright-1-8-2001.pdf
http://www.retroactiveimpeachment.com/holbrooke-1-11-2001.pdf
“I don't believe Kay said that. In any case, if Saddam's weapons were all destroyed by 1998, why was the Clinton administration still saying Saddam had WMD as they were walking out the door in January 2001?”
This is what Albright said during the bombing campaign and what the Clinton administration was trying to accomplished in an interview on PBS in 1998:
When the administration bombed the sites that the inspectors were denied entry into and that were suspected of being weapons’ site, they did not envision destroying all of his remaining weapons’ capability. The first inkling the world community got that the weapons were destroyed was when the inspectors were brought back into the country after Clinton left office.
And I don't see a problem with the statements made by some Clinton administration officials in the links you provided.
So they thought there were still weapons and Kay later showed they were wrong. THAT isnt lying. LYING is Bush making up an IAEA report that never existed on Sept 7 02 saying I would remind you when the inspectors were in Iraq, when they were finally denied access (98) An IAEA report came out saying they were six months from a (nuclear) weapon. NO SUCH REPORT, what the 98 report ACTUALLY said was that Saddams nuclear program had been destroyed in 91 and they saw no evidence it had been reconstituted. Now THAT is a lie. Sending 12 reports to Congress saying the Aluminum tubes could ONLY be used for gas centrifuges, while Condalizzard Rice was going around the country saying the same thing, without mentioning that the tubes had been examined by our scienitific gc experts and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE DISAGREED. This also doesnt take into account the inspectors went BACK INTO IRAQ in 02 and were going whereeer they wanted and giving us new intelligence that brought that view into question. Feel free to criticise Clinton for being wrong. To pretend that HIM being wrong is the same thing as Bush's outright LIES is ludicrous
LOONZ:
"And I don't see a problem with the statements made by some Clinton administration officials in the links you provided."
You should. You claimed above that Operation Desert Fox in 1998 took out Saddam's remaining WMD. If that is the case, why were Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke still saying Saddam had WMD as late as January 2001? We're they deliberating misleading the American people.
If you read Kenneth Pollack's "The Threatening Storm" (2002), you'll see that the Clinton administration had little confidence in Operation Desert Fox when it can to destroying Saddam's WMD programs. Pollack was Clinton's top expert on Iraq:
"This is the problem with the inspections: we knew the Iraqis were cheating but did not know where. If we had known, we would have bombed those facilities in 1998 during Operation Desert Fox. The fact that out of ninety-seven targets struck only eleven were WMD production facilities should give a good sense of the problem." (p. 241)
If the Iraqis were cheating in 1998, why should anyone believe they were not cheating in 2003?
Pollack also argued that there was not enough time to do effective inspections in 2003:
"As noted above, there is a consensus among American, British, Swedish, Dutch, and even French former inspectors that it would require twelve to eighteen months just to establish a baseline, let alone actually conduct inspections. And after that, we should never forget that once the inspections were completed we would need to transition to long-term montioring to try to prevent Saddam from reconstituting the WMD programs." (p. 238)
“You should. You claimed above that Operation Desert Fox in 1998 took out Saddam's remaining WMD. If that is the case, why were Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke still saying Saddam had WMD as late as January 2001? We're they deliberating misleading the American people.”
No, they said Saddam is a threat if he has weapons of mass destruction. I see no problem with them saying that. What they wanted was for the inspectors to be placed back in Iraq to make sure the weapons did not exist.
“If the Iraqis were cheating in 1998, why should anyone believe they were not cheating in 2003?”
The weapons’ inspectors were on the ground and couldn’t find these stockpiles of WMDs the Bush administration claimed Saddam had. The Bush administration gave the inspectors a list of sites to check and they were checked and the stockpiles were nowhere to be found. What the administration should have done was allowed the inspectors to continue inspecting the facilities in Iraq or give them a list of more places to check but for some reason they were in a rush to get this war started.
Pollack is full of it the inspectors WERE THERE and were asking for only a "few more months"
http://hrw.org/wr2k4/3.htm
Iraq weapons inspectors 'need a few months'
Mohammed el-Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), today said that UN weapons inspectors would need "a few months" to finish their work in Iraq.
They were going wherever they wanted and as Blix said meeting no impediments to their work
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2005/0403ignored.htm
'Evidently if we had found any "smoking gun" we would have reported it to the council,' Blix said. 'Similarly, if we had met a denial of access or other impediment to our inspections we would have reported it to the council. We have not submitted any such reports.'
The problem was it was becoming increasingly clear there were no weapons and the evidence was beggining to embarrass the Bush administration as the evidence he was forced to ignore began piling up
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2005/0403ignored.htm
Panel: US Ignored Work of UN Arms Inspectors
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post April 3, 2005
Of all the claims U.S. intelligence made about Iraq's arsenal in the fall and winter of 2002, it was a handful of new charges that seemed the most significant: secret purchases of uranium from Africa, biological weapons being made in mobile laboratories, and pilotless planes that could disperse anthrax or sarin gas into the air above U.S. cities. By the time President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein of the deadly weapons he was allegedly trying to build, every piece of fresh evidence had been tested -- and disproved -- by U.N. inspectors, according to a report commissioned by the president and released Thursday.
See the problem was Bush's excuse to invade Iraq was dissapearing. The problem with the inspectors wasnt that they COULDNT do their job but that when they DID do their job it would have become clear there were no WMDs and Bush might have lost his specious reason to invade Iraq. THAT is why their work had to be curtailed not because it wasnt working but because it WAS.
LOONZ:
BTW, I appreciate your tone in this discussion. You're not engaging in the name-calling employed by most of the posters here and, frankly, the MMFA staff themselves.
Where we are in Iraq today did not begin with the March 2003 invasion. We essentially had a bipartisan, multi-administration consensus regarding Iraq for years. That consensus broke down after the invasion. I believe both Clinton and Bush 42 expressed what they believed to be the truth about Saddam and his WMD. I wish more on the left would be as consistent. If someone is going to say Bush lied about Iraq's WMD, then it follows that Clinton also lied. It cannot be either/or. I would disagree with that, but I would prefer that over the spinning to explain away the Clinton record, which includes saying Iraq had WMD, had operational ties to al Qaeda, and, therefore, was a threat to the region and the world.
Hey dont like the namecalling why not leave YOURS out of posts. What was that about us liberals being so misinformed? As I have pointed out at least a dozen times and at least twice in this thread. Clinton was wrong. What he DIDNT do and what Bush DID do was tell flat out and specific LIES. His LIES about the aluminum tubes saying they could ONLY be used for gas centrifuges when our EXPERTS were unanimous in saying it was doubtful they WOULD be used that way at all much les only that way and were more likely rocket bodies. Or making up an IAEA report, pulling a claim from it directly out of his ass that was the polar opposite of what the 98 IAEA report actually said. See THAT is lying not being wrong, not a mistake of intelligence. If making up something a report NEVER said and applying it to a repor that says the exact opposite isnt lying, not being wrong with broad rhetoric if thats all Bush did I wouldnt be calling him a liar, if continuing to say the aluminum tubes can ONLY be used in a way every expert in the field UNANIMOUSLY said they WOULDNT be used isnt lying then there is no such thing as a lie. Feel free to criticise Clinton for being wrong. I have many issues with Clinton but dont pretend HIS being wrong is the same as Bush's OUTRIGHT LIES.
"If someone is going to say Bush lied about Iraq's WMD, then it follows that Clinton also lied. It cannot be either/or."
No, that doesn't follow, sorry. That assumes that A)the intelligence they received was identical, that it didn't change over time, and B)the behavior of the two administrations is virtually identical. It certainly can be the case that Clinton's administration believed that Saddam had WMD's based on intelligence at the time, and was acting in good faith, and Bush received different intelligence which he then ignored and lied about. You can argue that you don't believe it, but don't try to pass it off as some inescapable logical conclusion. That is poorly thought-out at best, and blatantly dishonest at worst.
Where we are in Iraq today did not begin with the March 2003 invasion. We essentially had a bipartisan, multi-administration consensus regarding Iraq for years. That consensus broke down after the invasion. I believe both Clinton and Bush 42 expressed what they believed to be the truth about Saddam and his WMD.
The intelligence reports before 9/11 didn't indicate that Saddam had an active weapons' program; they basically said that there was a fear that Saddam would reconstitute his weapons' program. After 9/11 the reports coming in said that Saddam has reconstituted his weapons' program. And all the intelligence about a nuclear program and Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda came solely from the Bush administration. The intelligence was manipulated after 9/11 to rush a war with Iraq for some reason.
You know kevin. I think we have done a decent job of refuting your claims but I have to say that you have done a good job making them and using solid facts and evidence. This was a good exchange overall and it provided an excellent platform for us to go over this subject though it has all been gone over before. I just want to congratulate you on a job well done. I dont think you are right and I think we certainly made a good case you werent right but it was a good debate
Whenever you see MM listing off a bunch of liberal news outlets along with the usual suspects, you know that they're simply engaging in some desperate damage control. If MM thinks ABC, NBC, Chris Matthews and the AP need letters written to them, it's a clear indication that what Harry Reid said has been broadly interpreted to mean exactly what he said:
"this war is lost"
To then claim that it is still somehow winnable, by whatever means, must mean that the war is NOT lost, must it not?
Reid is both incoherent and uninspiring, except of course to the insurgency in Iraq and Islamic trouble makers world-wide. They have to be cheering his remarks as evidence that their resistance to individual freedom and civilized functioning nations is working. They are emboldened to try even harder.
I think Harry deserves another troop created banner like the one Kerry got for his bone-headed comments. Get on it guys, if any of you are reading this depressing site.
If possible, the largely liberal media will bend over backward to prop up whatever Democrats say, to the point of suggesting lines for them. If Reid is under fire even from his friends in the media, you gotta know he truly blew it.
But why is MM violating its mandate? They are not criticizing only "conservative" misinformation, but liberal media misinformation as well. This will tell you that their real intention is simply to help Democrats get elected, contrary to their guise of simply correcting "conservative" misinformation.
It would be refreshing if MM would display the same honesty and completeness it demands from the media here. Admit that you are essentially an arm of the DNC, and not simply high-minded conservative media critics.
That would make sense only if you accept the frame that ABC or Chris Matthews are liberal. Since the very proposition is ludicrous, unless you just DEFINE anyone to the left of Vlad the Impaler as a liberal, then your premise is flawed. It is a logical fallacy to argue from a flawed premise therefore you have no point. For the most part the press has carried water for Bush's lets get as many Americans killed as possible policy and since the warmonger set for whom no amoung of death will satisfy their bloodlust is a rapidly shrinking minority, you guys are just becoming more shrill and desperate. Reid is right, he said what he meant, the surge isnt working and the war the way Bush is running it is lost. Unless and until we apply a political solution things wont get better and the warmongers HATE any solution that doesnt involve more blood and death for thier vicarious enjoyment
Talk about your false premises.
The truth is that the media for the most part is made up of left-leaning reporters and editors, who vote in large majorities for Democrats. No, they may not all be openly Barbara Boxer liberal, but they lean decidedly left. There is vast amounts of polling data that confirm their voting patterns and their feelings on key issues that make this very clear. Of course, their main objective is to get Democrats elected, so sometimes they may appear to support a conservative position, which is often the most popular with ordinary people.
Their performance leading up to the war was certainly not any indication of their conservativeness, it was an indication that they were as convinced as pretty much everybody that there were valid reasons for an invasion. If WMD were found, and things had turned out better after the invasion, they and Dems in congress certainly didn't want to be left behind at the station. Now, in retrospect, they are all bemoaning how they were duped .... not exactly the type of behavior one would expect from a media that was conservative or somehow pro-Bush.
If you put your ear to the door, you will hear cheers ringing out in the news-rooms of most media outlets when the Democrat wins. That includes ABC, NBC, CBS, and at the Chris Matthews show backstage.
Your post is pure delusion. How reporters vote doesnt tell the whole story. First tell me what the political leanings of those who OWN and run newspapers are. Second more detailed polls of reporters show that most of them are socially liberal and economically conservative. That is because those who internalize the message, that is reflect elite opinion are the ones who are most rewarded in the field. Your point about the runup to the war is completely without merit. almost 60% of the people polled BEFORE the invasion were against invading Iraq without UN support or the support of our allies. I NEVER believed the intelligence was there to say Iraq had WMDs and neither did a LOT of people. The runup to the war is one outstanding argument against your assertion but so is the 2000 election. Look how Bush was coddled and hardly ever called on the outright lies he was CAUGHT IN during the election but Gore was pilloried for the kind of mistatements and exagerations every politician makes. Look at the record of the Bush presidency where hardly anyone calls Bush a liar despite his history of lying through his teeth, the scandals before Katrina were burried. When the Downing Street memos were the worlds biggest story and Front page news in Britian for a MONTH they were hardly mentioned here during that time. Only AFTER they had been burning up the internet for that month did the mainstream press finally start talking about the and THEN accepted Bush spin as gospel. No the Press isnt liberal. I dont think that except for the flat out propaganda outlets like AM radio and Fox News it is conservative either. It is more complicated than that. It serves power and reflects elite opinion. That is why conservatives can come up with examples of liberal press at all. Because reflecting elite opinion usually comes down to economically, along with foreign policy conservative and socially liberal. The bottom line is I am a liberal and my point of view is NOT pushed in the mainstream press. This is a mantra of the right. They repeat it endlessly to work the refs and try to make it conventional wisdom. It only works on the niave. It is NOT demonstrable, in fact it flat isnt true. Remember Clintons extramarital affair was all the press talked about for two years but Bush lying us into a war was pretty much ignored.
GTSKAUAI While I agree with SOLON. I would insert some thoughts from Peter Beinart's "The Good Fight." He presents tha political dieletric as America standing tall vs America with a conscience. The major complaint is, Failing to use military force internationally vs The mind set that if America acts it is by deffinition a moral act. The moral relitivism that you would complain about in a democratic population, is somehow separate from complaints about torture in other countries vs complaints about torture by us. Mr. Beinarts feels that support including military action in the fight on international terror is viable, that international validation for that action is important. Cooperation, diplomacy, and aid that echos the Marschall Plan. There are leaders in the middle east who have proposed actions to bring there populations towards democratic governments. They have support in their countries. I don't hear these things on the evening news. The information takes some digging to find. This not how information is best distributed to concerned people.
Your test for honesty and completness would as far as I know cause mmfa to lie. Whats your feeling on the monies that the Four Sisters fundations have invested in the National media over recent history? On how closely the companies and media they legally controls output closely matches RNC talking points.
LOONZ:
"No, they said Saddam is a threat if he has weapons of mass destruction. I see no problem with them saying that."
That's not correct. The Clinton administration in January 2001 said Iraq HAD WMD, not "if."
The press release I linked to above said this: ""The United States will continue to press Iraq to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition of lifting economic sanctions, even after the end of the Clinton administration January 20, current U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said."
There's no if in there.
The Clinton administration also release a "fact sheet" the previous August that said this:
"FACT: As a result of its refusal to cooperate with the UN disarmament regime, Iraq maintains the capacity to produce missiles and chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. The absence of UN inspectors from Iraq has afforded Saddam the opportunity to reconstitute his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Saddam has already launched two bloody wars; one against Iran in 1980 and the other against Kuwait in 1990. In the last couple of years, Saddam Hussein has repeatedly issued public threats against his neighbors, including calls for the overthrow of a number of regimes.
“The weapons’ inspectors were on the ground and couldn’t find these stockpiles of WMDs the Bush administration claimed Saddam had. The Bush administration gave the inspectors a list of sites to check and they were checked and the stockpiles were nowhere to be found. What the administration should have done was allowed the inspectors to continue inspecting the facilities in Iraq or give them a list of more places to check but for some reason they were in a rush to get this war started."
This ignores the points about inspections Kenneth Pollack shared in his book, "The Threatening Storm." I included those points above. When the inspectors left in 1998, they had done inspections for over seven years. Nevertheless, Clinton stated on Larry King Live in 2003 that there were unaccounted for stockpiles of WMD in Iraq when he left office in 2001. How long should we have kept up inspections when they began in 2003? Another seven years?
And it was not just the Bush administration who said Iraq had WMD. All the major intelligence agencies in the world did. Pollack noted that "The German intelligence service, using methods it won't divulge, estimated in 2001 that Iraq was three to six years from having a nuclear weapon." (p. 175)
(Pollack's book was written with the imprimatur of the Council of Foreign Relations. At least six members of CFR's board of directors [Madeleine K. Albright, Thomas R. Pickering, Richard C. Holbrooke, Robert E. Rubin, Laura D’Andrea Tyson, Charlene Barshefsky] served under President Bill Clinton.)
Al Gore said Iraq had WMD. The Democrat leadership said Iraq had WMD. If Joe Wilson argued that Saddam had WMD and that he would use them on our troops if we invaded. Oh, you didn't know that? I have a pretty good source that that is the case. All you have to do is visit his own web site and read this column and than this column.
"The United States will continue to press Iraq to destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition of lifting economic sanctions, even after the end of the Clinton administration January 20, current U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said."
-Again, I see no problem with that statement. I actually agree with it. No one at that point knew if the weapons were still in his possession; we needed the inspectors in Iraq to verify whether the weapons were there or not.
“This ignores the points about inspections Kenneth Pollack shared in his book, "The Threatening Storm." I included those points above. When the inspectors left in 1998, they had done inspections for over seven years. Nevertheless, Clinton stated on Larry King Live in 2003 that there were unaccounted for stockpiles of WMD in Iraq when he left office in 2001. How long should we have kept up inspections when they began in 2003? Another seven years?”
-I really don’t care what Pollack has to say. There was no need to go to war with Iraq as long as the inspectors were on the ground and not finding stockpiles of weapons.
“And it was not just the Bush administration who said Iraq had WMD. All the major intelligence agencies in the world did. Pollack noted that "The German intelligence service, using methods it won't divulge, estimated in 2001 that Iraq was three to six years from having a nuclear weapon." (p. 175)
-All of that is conjecture. The inspectors had dismantled all of his nuclear capabilities by 1997 so I don’t see how he was going to produce a nuclear weapon. And the intelligence community would notice something like that if Saddam actually attempted to do it.
“Al Gore said Iraq had WMD. The Democrat leadership said Iraq had WMD. If Joe Wilson argued that Saddam had WMD and that he would use them on our troops if we invaded. Oh, you didn't know that? I have a pretty good source that that is the case. All you have to do is visit his own web site and read this column and than this column.”
-I agree with most of the statements made by Democrats and republicans at that time. They had to assume he had weapons because the inspectors were not in Iraq to verify whether or not Saddam had the weapons.
“And it was not just the Bush administration who said Iraq had WMD. All the major intelligence agencies in the world did.”
The other intelligence agencies said the weapons were unaccounted for but no one knew if they were still in Saddam's possession. Bush was the one who insisted Saddam had the weapons and he continued to insist this even after he had given a list of places for the inspectors to check and the places turned up void of any WMDs.
Again you ignore the difference between broad statements of belief. That is Iraq has WMDs which turn out to be wrong. And OUTRIGHT SPECIFIC LIES, which Bush did like the aluminum tubes and the IAEA report lie. I have no problem with you complaining about Clinton and Gore and the Democratic leadership using rash rhetoric which they didnt have the evidence to back up and were wrong about. To pretend its the same thing as Bush's outright lying is ludicrous. It also ignores the new intelligence we were getting from the inspectors IN Iraq going whereever they wanted and not being obstructed.
LOONZ:
"The intelligence reports before 9/11 didn't indicate that Saddam had an active weapons' program; they basically said that there was a fear that Saddam would reconstitute his weapons' program. After 9/11 the reports coming in said that Saddam has reconstituted his weapons' program."
This simply is not true. As I have shown above, the Clinton administration left office in January 2001 still claiming that Iraq had WMD. Also, Clinton's National Security Strategy for a Global Age, released in December 2000, notes that Saddam had not yet met the disarmament requirements of UNSCR 1298. That resolution demanded that Saddam destroy his WMD.
"And all the intelligence about a nuclear program and Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda came solely from the Bush administration. The intelligence was manipulated after 9/11 to rush a war with Iraq for some reason."
This is incorrect on ALL counts. As I noted above, Kenneth Pollack, Clinton's top expert on Iraq, wrote in "The Threatening Storm" (2002), "The German intelligence service, using methods it won't divulge, estimated in 2001 that Iraq was three to six years from having a nuclear weapon." (p. 175)
So, no, the intelligence about Saddam's nuclear program did not come solely from Bush.
As far as the Saddam-Al Qaeda link, the Clinton administration's 1998 indictment against Osama bin Laden stated the following:
"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government ofIraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that onparticular projects, specifically including weapons development, alQaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."
That's what the August 1998 of the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was all about. The Clinton administration believes that Iraq and al Qaeda were using the plant to produce VX.
Secretary of Defense William Cohen and other members of the Clinton administration still maintain during the 9/11 Commission hearings that that Iraq-al Qaeda connection at that plant was legitimate and that the bombing of the plant was justified.
“This simply is not true. As I have shown above, the Clinton administration left office in January 2001 still claiming that Iraq had WMD. Also, Clinton's National Security Strategy for a Global Age, released in December 2000, notes that Saddam had not yet met the disarmament requirements of UNSCR 1298. That resolution demanded that Saddam destroy his WMD.”
-Again, they assumed Saddam had the weapons because the inspectors were not there to verify whether or not he possessed them. No one in the Clinton administration would have proposed a full scale invasion based assumptions.
“This is incorrect on ALL counts. As I noted above, Kenneth Pollack, Clinton's top expert on Iraq, wrote in "The Threatening Storm" (2002), "The German intelligence service, using methods it won't divulge, estimated in 2001 that Iraq was three to six years from having a nuclear weapon." (p. 175)”
-Again, all of this is conjecture. And if the Germans are not revealing why they thought he would have a weapon, we can’t rely on their information. They may be using a source like Chalibi.
“Secretary of Defense William Cohen and other members of the Clinton administration still maintain during the 9/11 Commission hearings that that Iraq-al Qaeda connection at that plant was legitimate and that the bombing of the plant was justified.”
-The case for Al Qaeda-Iraq connection in Sudan is weak and this was revealed back in 1999. The Bush administration should not have been using it for any Al-Qaeda-Iraq connection (I have no idea it they were). It would have been stupid of them to use it after what was revealed in 1999.
Simply from reading media reports from the late 90's, it seems pretty clear that there was a relationship developing between Saddam and al Qaeda.
I believe Saddam was starting to adopt a more Islamic friendly face, and that he changed his flag to reflect that. I'm of the mind that this alone was sufficient to justify invasion, given all the other long standing violations and out-law behavior on Saddam's part.
“I believe Saddam was starting to adopt a more Islamic friendly face, and that he changed his flag to reflect that. I'm of the mind that this alone was sufficient to justify invasion, given all the other long standing violations and out-law behavior on Saddam's part.”
By all accounts Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other and wanted each other dead. I think the meeting occurred because Saddam wanted to keep tabs on Bin Laden, find out what his intentions were towards him and Iraq and to maybe infiltrate a group that was trying to destroy him. It was a case of keep your enemies closer and this is why Bin Laden rebuffed the offer. A Saddam and Bin Laden relationship would have never worked out anyway; Saddam was a secular leader while Bin Laden claims to be practicing true Islam.
The CIA did not believe this. They looked long and hard at any al Queda/Iraq link after the Cole bombing it wasnt there. There was NOT collaborative relationship. Mettings mean nothing as intelligence agencies understand. The CIA had meetings with the KGB. Its what Sun Tzu said keep your friends close and your enemies closer. That is well understood. WHAT did al Queda want? Training bases in Iraq did they get them? They did NOT. The Senate looked into this too and came to the same conclusion in fact NO ONE believes this except those still desperate for some reason to justify the invasion of Iraq
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-09/2006-09-08-voa54.cfm?CFID=140427052&CFTOKEN=74511395
US Senate Report Rules Out al-Qaida Link with Saddam
A report by a Senate committee says there is no evidence former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had any relationship with the al-Qaida terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates before the U.S. and allied forces invaded Iraq in 2003.
According to the 400 page document, an assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 2005 stated that before U.S. and allied forces invaded, the Saddam Hussein regime did not, in the words of the report, have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates.
However, the president, along with Vice President Dick Cheney and other key officials have maintained that Zarqawi's presence in Iraq before the war constituted proof of an al-Qaida connection
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.
No, no one whose job it is to know believes this is true.
"Again, they assumed Saddam had the weapons because the inspectors were not there to verify whether or not he possessed them. No one in the Clinton administration would have proposed a full scale invasion based assumptions."
You're changing your tune. Before you said the weapons were all destroyed in 1998. As far as invading Iraq, you cannot say no one in the Clinton administration would have proposed a full-scale invasion. In fact, I think it's clear that such plans were drawn up in 1998 in conjunction with the Iraqi Liberation Act. Sen. John Kerry suggested such an invasion. Here's what he said on February 22, 1998, on ABC News' This Week: "I think there is a disconnect between the depth of the threat that Saddam Hussein presents to the world and what we are at the moment talking about doing. If indeed he is as significant a threat, as you heard him characterized by the president (Clinton), the secretary of state, the secretary of defense--can threaten London, threaten the peace of the Middle East, that he is really a war criminal who is already at war with the civilized world--then we have to be prepared to go the full distance, which is to do everything possible to disrupt his regime and to encourage the forces of democracy... I am way ahead of the commander in chief, and I'm probably way ahead of my colleagues and certainly of much of the country, But I believe this.... If we don't face this today, we will face it at some point down the road."
Guess what? We had to face it at some point down the road.
"Again, all of this is conjecture. And if the Germans are not revealing why they thought he would have a weapon, we can’t rely on their information. They may be using a source like Chalibi."
Intelligence agencies are funny about divulging secrets. There is no evidence that Chalabi was the source. You seem to believe Chalabi was a bad source, yet you seem to be arguing that the Clinton administration had correct information concerning Iraq. The media never point this out, but Chalabi was a creation of the Clinton administration. Was he giving them bad information?
"The case for Al Qaeda-Iraq connection in Sudan is weak and this was revealed back in 1999. The Bush administration should not have been using it for any Al-Qaeda-Iraq connection (I have no idea it they were). It would have been stupid of them to use it after what was revealed in 1999."
Revealed by whom? And when? And as I noted, William Cohen, Sandy Berger, Al Gore and other members of the Clinton administration continued to say the attack on al Shifa was justified when they appeared before the 9/11 Comission. Their argument in 1998 was that al Qaeda and Iraq were working together to produce VX at that pharmaceutical plant. None of them has said they were incorrect when they linked Iraq to al Qaeda in 1998.
Is the fact that you have been fed a great deal of misinformation starting to sink in?
"You're changing your tune. Before you said the weapons were all destroyed in 1998. As far as invading Iraq, you cannot say no one in the Clinton administration would have proposed a full-scale invasion."
-Again they did not know the weapons were destroyed when the bombing occur (were talking about weapons from the 1980s). One no one could fully verify that until the inspectors were back on the ground. No one in the Clinton administration said he produce any weapons after 1991; this is something they feared he would do. It was Bush who said that he had reconstituted his weapons' program after 9/11. In fact Condi and Powell were saying a different tune before 9/11 about Saddam's capabilities.
Again I agree with all of the rhetoric most Democrats and republicans were spouting up until the end of Clinton's presidency because no one know if he still had the weapons from the 1980s.
And I don’t think we get what I’m saying. After the inspectors were on the ground and not finding these stockpiles of weapons from the 80s, everyone should have tone done their rhetoric regarding those weapons.
"In fact, I think it's clear that such plans were drawn up in 1998 in conjunction with the Iraqi Liberation Act."
-The Iraqi Liberation Act came to fruition only after the Neocons from the PNAC were urging him to invade. The Act was some type of a compromise.
"Sen. John Kerry suggested such an invasion."
-I don’t have a problem with what Kerry said. If Saddam possess weapons of mass destruction he was a threat. What I’m trying to tell you is that as long as the inspectors were on the ground and finding nothing, a full scale invasion by Democrats would not have occur. Why was there no full scale invasion during the Clinton administration?
"Intelligence agencies are funny about divulging secrets. There is no evidence that Chalabi was the source. You seem to believe Chalabi was a bad source, yet you seem to be arguing that the Clinton administration had correct information concerning Iraq. The media never point this out, but Chalabi was a creation of the Clinton administration. Was he giving them bad information?"
-This current administration used his information to bolster their case for war (it looks like they were more receptive to his info than the Clinton administration).
Revealed by whom? And when? And as I noted, William Cohen, Sandy Berger, Al Gore and other members of the Clinton administration continued to say the attack on al Shifa was justified when they appeared before the 9/11 Comission. Their argument in 1998 was that al Qaeda and Iraq were working together to produce VX at that pharmaceutical plant. None of them has said they were incorrect when they linked Iraq to al Qaeda in 1998.
Read this.
Iraq was a huge mistake. That is a given. Do we need to leave? Sure, to an extent. There is no doubt now that if we withdraw without leaving a military presence, we will be endangering the security of our nation. A alliance between the shiite majority in Iraq and Iran cannot happen. For good or bad that is the situation we are in now. It really does no good to talk incessantly about how we were duped into this war. It does hurt the morale of the troops when they hear government leaders talk of the war being lost, it really doesn't matter what the context is. Reid could have been more tactful with his comments.
"It really does no good to talk incessantly about how we were duped into this war."
Actually, it does. If cherry-picked evidence was used to justify it, that strongly indicates it's a war of aggression. If that's the case, then that's not an "oops" situation, that's criminal. I don't know how we're supposed to have any moral authority in dealing with other countries if we can't address a situation as obvious and severe as that within our own system.
"It does hurt the morale of the troops when they hear government leaders talk of the war being lost, it really doesn't matter what the context is. Reid could have been more tactful with his comments."
This is not a radical statement, though. It's very much in line with the estimation of many if not most Americans. It is important to phrase it conditionally, as he did, referring Bush's path. Soldiers who are in that situation are very likely to agree with that at this point. Surely they have some gauge of whether the course is working or not, and all indications suggest that it is not. In other words, it's not someone's expression of the state of the war that hurts morale, it's the state of the war itself, which they surely know.
I don't think it is fair to say that the soldiers probably agree with Reid's statements. I certaintly don't know that for sure. All I can tell you is that I have served in combat in an unpopular war. It is my experience that governmental leaders saying things such as Reid did, no matter the context, it hurts morale. Reid has been in this business long enough to know that such a statement would be taken, misconstrued, or whatever and it would ulltimately not be helpful. What good has come of his statement? None that I know of.
The argument that people shouldn't speak their mind because it will be "misconstrued" is a bit silly. Careful about phrasing? Sure, and Reid did say it was about Bush's path. But this war is unpopular enough and questionable enough that one has to be able to condemn it, whether it hurts morale or is taken the wrong way or whatever.
If you were a soldier then you had a pretty good impression of how the war was going at any given time, I'll wager. And as Solon noted, 70% of soldiers said they wanted to be out of Iraq within a year (if I'm citing that correctly). That's an awfully high percentage for that. My conclusion has to be that they are basing that on the merits and feasability of the war, as opposed to them being a bunch of cut-and-run cowards. Support the troops!
How can you state catagorically that
There is no doubt now that if we withdraw without leaving a military presence, we will be endangering the security of our nation.
Did you consult your I Ching to get this gem? See I have a problem that since the conservatives havent been right about a single prediction they have EVER made concerning Iraq how can I take such a prediction seriously just because you SAID there is no doubt. I have a doubt AND a good record for predictions about Iraq. First I think leaving a military presence IN Iraq, now I am assuming that is what you mean since no one is calling for complete withdrawl from the Middle East, it will be a thorn in their sides reminding them of the invasion and undermine the credibility of any government making it look like we are there to keep pressure on such government and pull puppet strings. It will look that way whether or NOT its true. We dont NEED those bases. I get that they would be nice strategically but we have other bases in West Asia that can be used Qatar, Jordan, Insirlick. If you just mean in the region then of course you are right.
I disagree that there is nothing to accomplish by incessantly talking about how we were duped into the war. This is not something we should forget and get over. There needs to be consequences for Bush telling lies and distorting facts to take us to war. The kind of consequences that will assure the next president that is inclined to do so thinks at least twice about it. I dont think political rhetoric hurts the morale of troops. Certainly my father never spoke about the peace movement being bad for his morale in Vietnam. I think having a CinC who tries to cut Vetrens benifits. Lies about the reason we went to war, didnt equip them properly and MOST egregiously, extendst their tours through stopgap programs hurt morale more than anything Reid says on the Senate floor or TO the President. I think that at least as many are bouyed by the prospect of being brought home and understand what is necessary to do that. Remember Stars and Stripes published a poll, which I have already produced here more than once that says more than 70% of the troops themselves want to be brought home within a year. Its not that hard to see this is what Reid is trying to accomplish.
It is absurd to believe that if we leave the civil war ensuing at this moment it will abruptly stop and everyone will just get along. Their are historical precedents to situations very similiar to this in which complete chaos ensues when the nation keeping some semblance of order leaves. Let's assume that complete chaos occurs. Who is there to pick up the pieces? Which nation is in that region has the strongest military? Which nations religious rulers mirror those of the shiite majority in Iraq? Which nation has been lending support to the insurgency and shiite population? Do you think that Iran will just sit on it's hands and watch while the country erupts? Furthermore, as a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that troops pay attention to what the politicians are doing at home. Comments like Reid's despite their misinterpreted meaning hurts morale. It is that simple, sir. There is no alternate perception to reality. I get the feeling you perceive me as a conservative. I have never voted republican in my life. I even voted for Carter twice. I just feel that I have a better understanding of what is happening on the ground than alot of others. I could be wrong, but the shrapnel in my chest says otherwise.
Lets start with no, I didnt think you were necessarily a conservative. I hadnt seen you make any arguments I associate with a conservative philosophy. It would be irrelvant anyway. For me it is about WHAT is said not who said it. I think it is clear we are adding to the equation of violence in Iraq. Whether or not the bloodbath ALREADY ensuing will get worse is debatable. Whether it will last LONGER if we stay than if we leave is also debatable. What we were talking about is OUR national security. I dont see a credible argument that we need to stay in Iraq to counter Iran. We can deal WITH Iran. It is also not that clear that any close alliance between Iraq and Iran is inevitable. You act like the Shiite/Sunni dynamic is the only one relevant. Racial dynamics are huge in Western Asia and the Iraqis and Iranians have had an anymosity over this for centuries. Iranians are not Arabs. I dont believe we need military bases IN Iraq to deal with this situation. They KNOW we are in the area and that our military cannot be stood against. Lessening the hostility seems to me to be the best bet in dealing with OUR National Security. I dont agree with the argument that well we shouldnt have gone it but we are there now so we need to stay. We had no morally justifyable reason to invade Iraq therefore we have no morally defendable position to STAY. Especially since the Iraqi people WANT us gone. Once we leave we have an obligation to give them a whole lot of economic aid to restore their country. This funding if done correctly has a good chance of emeliorating the hard feelings. The Iraqis didnt love Saddam. If we leave, dont attempt to take their oil, do things to help and avoid things that will further alienate them we could end up with minimal hostility from them. Remember that before the first Gulf War the Iraqi people were the best educated people in the Islamic Middle East. We have a shot of convincing them we needed to rid them of Saddam and have no other hostility against them. I understand the violence argument. This monster is already out of the box. It was out the moment we invaded. Holding it down to a lower level simmer like a petcock on a pressure cooker isnt necessarily the best way to deal with it. I dont have a crystal ball. The civil war might get worse and stay that way for a decade or it might get worse and shake itself out in a year. What I dont see is what WE can do about it. WE have no credibility there for as long as we occupy the country. The problem is THEIR problem and one we cannot really help them solve. Its time to come home and it is NOT without doubt that leaving an occupation force IN Iraq at any level will be a boon for our national security
Bill Moyers was on "Real Time with Bill Maher" this past Friday and asked what I think is a great question:
"How many Americans is this President willing to sacrifice on the altar of his ego?"
This president has had over four years to make this invasion and occupation work. So far it has not. The great majority of knowledgeable people think the occupation cannot be won militarily. We can't outwait them because we are creating more enemies every day we are there. It's time to leave.
In my opinion, we stay primarily because the president does not want to appear to be a "surrender monkey" to his last remaining supporters and for the Iraq War to go down in history as a failed policy.
Harry Reid is right. The War is lost. The president just does not want to admit it.
ACHRISPAGE6992;
I would suggest to you that not only was the Iraq invasion NOT a "huge mistake. That is a given," but in actuality, the U.S. effort in Iraq has substantially defeated the Islamofacists and will someday be seen as important to this conflict as the 'Evil Empire' thinking of the Reagan administration was to the cold war.
BTW, thanks for your service to the country.
Islamofascist has no real meaning. The fascist philosophy has no real relevance to the absolutly evil agenda of Islamic fanatic terrorists. I submit that such a view would only be taken seriously by those who were severely brainwashed. Since IF the fight were against Islamic extremists its insane to think that the best idea to fight them was to invade the most SECULAR Islamic country in the entire region. The argument that it WAS a good idea makes no sense whatsoever, and at this point only the most committed Bush idolotors take t seriously.
"The military mission has long since been accomplished."
Today's quote from the 'doctor of drivel.'
Today's quote from the 'doctor of drivel.'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Todays quote from MMFA's moron in residence. Personally I don't see how the statement can seriously be debated. What can be done militarily has BEEN done.