MSM – Assault On President Is The Same As Asking A Tough Question

Just shows what sub-human garbage some members of the MSM are. In their eyes ANY attack on a Republican (or those that they don’t agree with) is justified.

mynameis

Perhaps you could be a little clearer. Who beat and tortured this guy? If you say the Iraqis then we cannot tell them what to do or not do. Face it. Middle-eastern people do not stick at these things like we do. Where is your proof that he was tortured and/or beaten anyway?

Just wait until someone chucks a pair of loafers at The One. Never happen? Why not? He’s gonna keep US troops in Iraq for another 2yrs min. Anyone think that won’t make an Arab reporter wanna wing a wingtip?

Yeah – I saw this crap yesterday and had to laugh at it’s despirate stupidity. The journalist that wrote that piece clearly failed their SATs:

http://whatthecrap.wordpress.com/2008/12/16/the-irony-of-freedom/

See the image at the post bottom.

So does this make it OK for us to throw shoes at Obama also, and get praised for it???

Since Zeidi is a Saddam-supporter, he should approve of Saddam-style methods–if anyone had thrown shoes at Saddam, he would be tortured and killed. Thus is Zeidi gets roughed up a bit for resisting arrest, it’s just too bad. He never protested when Saddam tortured and killed hundreds and thousands of other iraqis, so why should he and his fellow saddamites protest at zeidi’s treatment???

They are just playing the modern media victim-blame game that is used in modern societies.

Simply Done,

Just goes to prove you how many Americans are completly ignorant. But we already knew this, right? Obama won.

The story is both elightening…and sickening. I’m not sure we’ll be able to undue the damage they inflict anytime soon, if ever. Look at the mess we still have thanks to Carter.

Craig, I predict Larry will either poo poo the source and not read the article, or dismiss it entirely in some other way.
Refute his arguements all you want, you CANNOT force him to face reality. In fact, considering his long history of denial, I’m guessing he will retreat further into it. Larry has obvious dem leanings and he sees them in a positive way regardless of the facts. I mean he actually believes clinton goverened from the center, was responsible for the good economy, and was a “deficit hawk”. Even though there is absolute proof to the contrary, he truly believes otherwise.

He’s doesn’t strike me as a bad person, just lost in his fantasy of hope.

My impression around here is that Bush is regarded with respect, a US president with balls. They may hate him for sending the US military to war and so on, but that hatred is tinged with fear and respect even if they don’t admit it. He has made his mark on history, and it will be a bigger mark that either Obama or Clinton. Just being black isn’t enough to make you a noted
president.

Just imagine on Obama’s tombstone: “He was the first black president. Apart from that, he did not do much, and what little he did, was bad.”

As to whether Bush is stupid, quite frankly, the arrogant people around here think that all US presidents are stupid. We were polite to Clinton, but everyone knows that his brains are in his scrotum.

Bush doesn’t speak well, but he is no dumbo.
Whereas Obama speaks smoothly, but has the cunning of a crooked used car salesman.

People who think that Bush is incompetant or stupid are probably that way themselves. Outside america, Bush is respected and feared(as well as hated and despised). This is his greatest tribute. Whereas with Clinton and probably Obama, I can tell u, we will not take them too seriously, even tho we say nice things abt them.

My personal opinion is that BUSH SHOULD RECEIVE THE NOBEL PRIZE FOR PEACE, for conducting such a humane war in iraq and afghanistan(and also succeeding in building a modern democracy in iraq)). Compared to vietnam, iraq and afghanistan was like afternoon tea with the flopsy bunnies.

Though he had his flaws, he is the best POTUS america has had since Reagan, for sure.

The KOSlims aren’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. Here’s some satire they thought was real.

Poll: 37% of Americans Unable to Locate America on a Map

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/195501.php

As for Bush being stupid, that’s just an example of “liberal tolerance” and elitism. They always label Reps stupid and dems as very intelligent.
Proof? Look to the left’s claims. Reagan was stupid, Bush Sr. stupid, W. stupid. Carter, very intelligent… at first, kerry, gore, obama…

By contrast Bush had choices regarding the war on terror, yet the Bush Doctrine was pre-emptive. Invading Iraq was not a necessity. Consequently, it diverted significant military resources away from Afghanistan and ultimately soiled American respectability.

Unbelievable that so many still parrot this idiotic mantra. “diverted military resources away from Afghanistan”?? Or as Obama puts it, taking our “eyes off the ball”. Feh…

The US placed the multi-nation coalition efforts of Afghanistan security when it was well on it’s way in progress, and relatively secure, into the hands of NATO… exactly as the left progressive/liberals scream for on every military action in the world. This was done to *maintain* American respectability, so it was not seen as a US action, but as an int’l action.

You and ilk begged for the same in Iraq…

By the summer of 2006, when the the entire nation of Afghanistan was placed into NATOs hands, the gains there started reversing, and violence increasing. Doesn’t have anything to do with their wussie ROE now, does it? duh wuh Thank heavens we didn’t do this in Iraq. You want to lose? Give it to NATO, or put control in the hands of the UN… where they essentially do nothing.

And more on the “not a necessity” crap. You obviously read nothing of Saddam’s relationship with the jihad movements from the early 90s on, do you simply done? We may have to rename you “simple mind” if you don’t start catching up on realities.

Pray tell, what is “war with dignity”? And how can you equate a war with a nation-state to an urban guerilla war with stateless, ideologically driven thugs?

@simply done:

Bush as Truman?

I think you missed the point in my response. It isn’t that Bush is the same as Truman. It’s that Truman had low approval ratings at the time he left office. Do you think anyone who might have been polled at the time, would have said, “Truman will go down in history as one of our great presidents who made the tough decisions”? And yet you tout a meaningless poll that predicts Bush will be remembered as a failure. It’s ok. People are entitled to their own opinions. I don’t doubt that a large number of people do think this of our president, right now (if they believe it now, why would they indicate it would change otherwise, down the road?). Just don’t flaunt it as if it were a crystal ball fact, writ in stone.

The Cold War had to be fought. The Truman Doctrine understood the US had no choice but to respond to Soviet aggression.

So then, was Vietnam a war of choice, or did that have to be fought? Was it a diversion from the real Cold War? What threat was Vietnam to us?

By contrast Bush had choices regarding the war on terror, yet the Bush Doctrine was pre-emptive.

Pre-emption wasn’t meant to be normative policy.

Yes, Bush made a choice. He chose to bring to its rightful conclusion, a 12-year menace and violator of UN mandates and the original cease-fire agreements. In the wake of 9/11, Bush made the decision that we could no longer tolerate a regime openly hostile to the U.S. with a history of aggression, love of wmd, and a willingness to fund, train, and work with terrorists; terrorists who could be used as proxies to deliver a wmd attack on American interests. Iraq was ripe pickings for sending a statement to the global jihad movement; a clear message that “this is what happens” when you piss us off.

Invading Iraq was not a necessity.

It was an inevitability. The story of Saddam could have only been brought to its conclusion through forceful removal. 12 years of diplomacy and meaningless resolutions that had no teeth and fear of enforcement by the UN, only served to embolden Saddam to continue with his open defiance.

Waiting to take action until he actually was an imminent threat, would be a moment too late for military response, and would have cost us a lot more than what was suffered through “pre-emption”.

Consequently, it diverted significant military resources away from Afghanistan and ultimately soiled American respectability.

In addition to Mata’s point on handover of responsibilities to NATO,

bin Laden was already said to be out of Afghanistan by December of ‘01. When did the Iraq invasion take place, again……? The only military unit “diverted” from Afghanistan to Iraq was the 5th Special Forces Group; sent to fight al Qaeda in northern Iraq.

What’s “soiled American respectability” wasn’t the invasion itself, but the manner in which media and anti-war propagandists have successfully sold perception of the war and our intent.

Truman boldly asked Americans to make personal sacrifices. He spoke of them in plain and clear terms, stating a swift military victory to end the Cold War was unlikely, that diplomacy must always be paramount, and that the United States had a moral obligation to rebuild the war-torn world.

By contrast after 911 Bush began emphasizing diplomacy only after his foreign policy ran into the ditch.

The notion that Bush is a cowboy who didn’t exercise diplomacy is a false narrative. There was extensive diplomacy that went on in the run-up to war, including his 2002 speech before the UN General Assembly, and building upon the diplomatic history of the previous 10 years. No amount of diplomacy would have ever gotten France, Germany, China, and Russia on board with military action against Saddam. Saddam’s Iraq owed these countries- countries who circumvented the UN sanctions- billions. There were also the oil contracts, bribes, and pay-offs to have sanctions lifted; and you remember what the Duelfer Report said about Saddam’s wmd capabilities and intentions once sanctions were lifted, right? Intent and capability marked a large part of the dialogue in discussing Saddam’s wmd threat- not just talk of stockpiles.

Diplomacy had been tried for 12 years following the Gulf War cease-fire. Diplomacy failed and only fools would have continued on with the charade of more UN Resolutions and cat-and-mouse weapons inspections. Time was on Saddam’s side under those conditions.

Bush had the chance to lead the country on a project focused on breaking our international cooperation against terror, instead, he told us to go shopping.

I agree that sacrifices should have been asked of us. An emphasis on the gravity of the threat and the need to put ourselves in a war mindset of personal sacrifice. But you have to go back to what the purpose was in telling Americans to “go shopping”. It was to restore American confidence and sense of security. Coming off of 9/11, the message we were trying to send to the jihadis was that they failed to change our way of life; affect our freedoms. Of course, they had….but we didn’t want them to believe it. And we didn’t want our own citizens to believe it. A mistake, as evidence today of how many of us still live in a 9/10 bubble mentality of “life as usual” sipping our lattes, going to the movies and the mall, and enjoying all the frivolous activities denied those who serve on the frontlines of this war, defending and preserving this way of life of ours.

The president may have failed in rallying the country into a collective war mindset. But that’s no excuse for you or I to ignore the war and the need for sacrifice; to do our part in supporting our military and doing what we can to help win the “GWoT”. Americans themselves can take responsibility to make their fellow citizens aware. The media, Hollywood- they could all take the initiative and do their part to ask more of Americans and to do more on behalf of military men and women and their families. Instead, much of what we get is a desire to paint the war as a lie, the war on terror as “fear-mongering”, and basically take the fight out of us and return us to 9/10 ignorant bliss.

blast,

I’m pretty sure (though not 100%) I arrived at this opinion from reading Douglas Feith. It might have been from an article or in his book.

This might be of interest: Sovereignty and Anticipatory Self-Defense. It’s a short paper he wrote, framing the problem.

By “not normative”, what I mean is pre-emption is still a means of “last resort”; diplomatic deterrence and containment are still the desired “first-responder” policies. In regards to Saddam, I believe these had failed; and it is mere wishful thinking that there was anything redeemable in negotations with Saddam- that there’d ever be a different outcome other than continued defiance and violations of his obligations to abide by the terms of the original cease-fire agreements. Saddam was Saddam, with no indication that he would ever change. He was a constant menace. And in a world of wmd possibilities and terrorist proxies, a doctrine of pre-emption seems logical to me, if basically the bulk of the evidence, majority of signposts, indicate that the threat is real and inevitable if action is not taken. Saddam was a special case (A good portion of the justification for military action was in citing a 10 year history of violations culminating in 16 UN Security Council Resolutions + 1441) with a profile that the other two sister-nations labeled as comprising “the axis of evil” had yet to meet.

blast, I’m going to assume you are speaking of Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi. In which case you need to remember that after the US/coalition deposed Saddam, Libya’s nuke program… much more advanced than thought… was voluntarily dismantled.

Does this mean Gadhafi isn’t a scum bag? Hang no… but he’s a scum bag that most certainly stepped out of the way of the US military and it’s CIC without one shot fired in his direction. And that’s all the change I need.

simply done said;

After Inauguration Day, the military and CIA officials will be free to speak their conscience, the stories will be gruesome, grim and will lengthy.

SD;
I respectfully ask, since you have made this statement. that you cite any source to support your claim that Bush put a freeze on our military member’s rights to freedom of speech and that Obama taking office will cause it to cease. I was in the military when Bush made the decision to re-engage Iraq. Your suggestion that Bush issued a “gag order” on our military members is a lie.

In the 21+ years I serviced, only one president ordered a blanket directive be issued that our military members keep their mouths shut and that individual was your beloved William Jefferson Clinton. That came in the form of a 1996 DoD directive initiated by Clinton, following an interview where a general was critical of the Clinton administration’s handling of gays in the military issue. That directive was never rescinded and is the true root source used to silence our military. To my knowledge, Bush never served notice to our military members that his administration would endorse and continue to uphold the directive by prosecuting individual military members for such “indiscretions”, but it remained on the books. From what I’ve been able to find on this, it has only been implemented during the Bush administration against individuals that were showing up to protests against the government concerning Iraq while in uniform, and/or while on duty. The next link is to a story which seems to suggest this was initiated by Bush, without actually making that false statement. In fact, it is our military leaders and officers merely continuing to carry out a policy originated by Clinton. Still, it became the subject of a 60 minutes piece in 2007 to caste more aspersions against Bush:

http://www.uusc.org/blog/2007/02/question-of-patriotism-and-freedom-of.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/22/60minutes/main2505412.shtml
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/polls/blspeech.htm

The Clinton interpretation was much more strict. We were banned from making ANY statements concerning the Clintons or their administration. We were told, point-blank, that even telling jokes, regardless if we were on or off-duty, on or off-base, or in or out of uniform could result in charges of a violating article 88 of the UCMJ for insubordination. Yet interestingly, the media was entirely silent when it was initiated by Clinton and the story ONLY made press pertaining to in anti-Bush, anti-War in Iraq reports. So for the record, it was a Democrat who silenced our military folks. And I would not be surprised if Obama took a similar position as Clinton.

At this point in time, unless Obama sees fit to order that particular DoD directive be rescinded, there will be no change to this policy after Inauguration Day as you so claim. It will remain in effect. as it has for the 12 years since Clinton initiated it.

MataHarley, We had been shooting down Libyan Airforce Fighters since President Reagan’s time. Containment and sanctions (including from the UN) seemed to work fine in his case, and it did not cost 4209 American Service member’s lives and trillions of dollars in financial burden (money we don’t have) and the long list of other global problems it caused.

As to your question

just what makes to you the “same restraint” would work with Saddam??

I could say no one now knows what would have transpired since we pulled the trigger prematurely. We know the outcome in costs and lost opportunity to deal fully with AQ and Afghanistan. The restraint of invading when we did… could have included not rushing to war without being fully prepared (if it was decided it was truly necessary). SECDEF Rumsfeld “You go to war with the army you have—not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” – this administration decided the timing of this war, so they chose to proceed unprepared.

MataHarley: Is math a lost art anymore? Estimated cost of Iraq is about $5 bil a month. Even $1 tril would mean 200 months, or 16.6 years in Iraq. Please explain how you came to your “trillions” figure. Funny, I asked that of Larry W too. Still tapping toes, waiting… waiting… waiting.

Well, there are a number of sources who estimate the cost of the war from left to right on this, some estimate $2.5 Trillion (Stiglitz/Bilmes), CBO (including Afghanistan) says $1.7 Trillion, American & Brookings Inst. joint report put it at $1 trillion. Of course there are other estimates that juice the costs up over $3.5 Trillion.

Your list of good things? wow, you can do better than that. Most of that is wishful thinking or just an interpretation.

1: Iraq and Afghanistan progressing towards democratically elected Arab governments.
2: Pakistan is no longer an enemy with a nuke arsenal
3: UAE is assisting in halting the finances of terrorists
4: Libya abandoned their WMD program without a shot fired
5: Jihad has fallen out of favor with a considerably higher percentage of Muslims

1) you are kidding right? Like we can claim that these two governments are stable and will last, no. I agree that it would be nice, but “progressing towards” is not very descriptive.
2) Pakistan… wow. Chaos on earth, possibly behind terror attack in India
3) UAE is totally reliant on the US for security so that is a no brainer.
4) Libya, well, we have covered this already… I will give credit to Pres Bush for achieving this goal, but not because of the Iraq war.
5) Jihad has fallen out of favor. I don’t think if that is true it is because of the Iraq war. You would have to explain how that happened.

Saddam possessed stashes of chemicals, and possessed proscribed (i.e. illegal) missiles that the UNMOVIC found discarded in a Netherlands junk yard. Missiles acquired AFTER 1998. Let’s see… a vial of chemicals on a missile. Does that pass as a WMD in your opinion? Or does it have to be a nuke?

Come on, this is like beating a dead horse. Even the President says there were no WMD’s and the intel was wrong. It was a big screw up and if they had not jumped the gun and invaded, maybe they could have avoided this whole costly mess.

On the whole turning Afghanistan over to NATO, humm… that was the Bush policy… do you think it had anything to do with lack of US troop availability and wanting to pressure our NATO allies to contribute to at least that front? I think that is more the case then blaming the dems or anyone else.

And thank you for being one of the few naysayers that at least doesn’t emphatically state that life would have been rosy had Saddam stayed in power

Saddam was a bad actor, glad he is dead, I just think we payed way to much for the pleasure of seeing that cell phone video of his last minutes. Oh, and I do like communicating with you. Happy Sat.

blast

Additional source that support for jihad has gone way down due to “self inflicted” actions:

The Simon Fraser study notes that the decline in terrorism appears to be caused by many factors, among them successful counterterrorism operations in dozens of countries and infighting among terror groups. But the most significant, in the study’s view, is the “extraordinary drop in support for Islamist terror organizations in the Muslim world over the past five years.” These are largely self-inflicted wounds. The more people are exposed to the jihadists’ tactics and world view, the less they support them.

An ABC/BBC poll in Afghanistan in 2007 showed support for the jihadist militants in the country to be 1 percent. In Pakistan’s North-West Frontier province, where Al Qaeda has bases, support for Osama bin Laden plummeted from 70 percent in August 2007 to 4 percent in January 2008. That dramatic drop was probably a reaction to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, but it points to a general trend in Pakistan over the past five years.

With every new terrorist attack, public support for jihad falls. “This pattern is repeated in country after country in the Muslim world,” writes Mack. “Its strategic implications are critically important because historical evidence suggests that terrorist campaigns that lose public support will sooner or later be abandoned or defeated.”

… the more peole are exposed to the jihadists’ tactics and world view, the less they support them.

And where, primarily, have the jihadists been able to show their tactics the most? Iraq. Also Pakistan. Support for jihad among British Muslims plummeted after the London bombings of July 2005.

@blast#25:

Wordsmith, “not normative” is not an accurate description when preemption is actually the written policy, i.e. Bush Doctrine.

And yet when else has this “bush doctrine” of pre-emption been applied elsewhere? Iraq was a special case, where diplomacy was absolutely irredeemable in relation to Saddam. The previous 10 years of experience in dealing with us and the UN sent a message to him that we had a lot of bark but no teeth. He did not think that this President would resume the first Gulf War and enforce the provisions of the Cease-Fire Agreement. At most, he thought he’d weather what he went through during the Clinton years:

“As the U.S. marched toward war and we began massing troops on his border, why didn’t he stop it then? And say, ‘Look, I have no weapons of mass destruction.’ I mean, how could he have wanted his country to be invaded?” Pelley asks.

“He didn’t. But he told me he initially miscalculated President Bush. And President Bush’s intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 under Operation Desert Fox. Which was a four-day aerial attack. So you expected that initially,” Piro says.

Piro says Saddam expected some kind of an air campaign and that he could he survive that. “He survived that once. And then he was willing to accept that type of attack. That type of damage,” he says.

“Saddam didn’t believe that the United States would invade,” Pelley remarks.

“Not initially, no,” Piro says.

Saddam was Saddam, with no indication that he would ever change.

Did you think Kadafi would change? In his case there was direct evidence of REAL cases his government was directly connected to terrorism and attacks on American civilians as well as military.

I think it’s debatable whether or not the quick downfall of Saddam’s regime had any influence on Libya coming clean. I think America on a war-footing had some influence (both Afghanistan, followed up by Iraq); the rest being diplomacy and some intelligence coup regarding Libya’s pursuit of wmd capabilities. It was a combination of “steel and a willingness to deal”.

I’ve read that Kadafi called Mubarak during the run-up to the war in Afghanistan fearing that Libya would be America’s next target after the Taliban; and that he called Berlusconi and expressed the same fear and anxiety when the U.S. was gathering forces to invade Iraq.

The Administration deserves credit for its secret negotiations with Libya, prior and after the Iraq invasion. And it’s because of Libya’s direct involvement with terrorism, that negotiations had not been all smooth. As sanctions were being lifted, it still remained on Washington’s list of state-sponsors of terror and full diplomatic relations were not restored until December of 2003 when

We have a right to self defense, no doubt about it. We don’t need to wait for a smoking gun “in the form of a mushroom cloud” either, but when you pull the trigger you better: a) have your facts straight, b) have a good plan, c) have competent people formulating policies. In the case for Iraq, we failed on a, b and c.

a) The whole nature of intelligence-gathering is guess work. Historically, how accurate has intelligence ever been? And has it typically underestimated or overestimated the threat level?

b)Was the Normandy Invasion “good planning”? No plan survives after first contact, and all you have left is “coulda, shoulda, woulda”. As Mata points out, what is remarkable is that we haven’t lost more than what we’ve lost. Every death is to be mourned; but if all you do is pay attention to body counts, then the war will always be viewed as “not worth the price”. The anti-war crowd and the media have highlighted and underscored every body count milestone (remember when they were wailing about the death toll reaching 500, 10 months after the invasion?)

The decision to go in with a streamlined military force and a sprint to Baghdad was brilliant, don’t you think? It probably saved lives during major combat operations. Also, since the U.S. 4th Infantry Division wasn’t able to launch from Turkey, Franks adapted, fooling Saddam as to the actual start date of the invasion.

Post-war operations? There were a lot of planning that went into this. The criticism of “things going wrong” can be leveled at any Administration at any time in any previous war. “Stuff happens”, as Rumsfeld put it with blunt eloquence. What war is ever fought with perfect execution with the original battle plans remaining inflexibly intact?

The original plan was the Afghanistan model of handing the reigns over to an interim government with an Iraqi face; “liberation not occupation”. Somehow, State Dept. and Paul Bremer changed that original intent.

@blast:

MataHarley, you believe in comments of mass destruction…

I’d accuse both of you of comment-proliferation. My eyes glazed over after skimming through the first few paragraphs.

This is all I have time for as I’m bogged down with Christmas activities on two fronts.

The Administration deserves credit for its secret negotiations with Libya, prior and after the Iraq invasion. And it’s because of Libya’s direct involvement with terrorism, that negotiations had not been all smooth. As sanctions were being lifted, it still remained on Washington’s list of state-sponsors of terror and full diplomatic relations were not restored until December of 2003 when

Yes, they deserve tons of credit and I believe I did give them credit for this, but not solely because of the war.

The decision to go in with a streamlined military force and a sprint to Baghdad was brilliant, don’t you think? It probably saved lives during major combat operations. Also, since the U.S. 4th Infantry Division wasn’t able to launch from Turkey, Franks adapted, fooling Saddam as to the actual start date of the invasion.

No, it was not brilliant. If you are speaking about our force arrayed against their forces alone as the sole metric, it was superior, but in the end failed to provide stability in the early days and to protect the enormous stockpiles of weapons that were then pilfered and used against us. That sewed the seeds that allowed things to devolve to near chaos. Our warriors deserve all the credit for pulling the place together and the lessons learned on the battalion level that turned the tide. No doubt hindsight is 20/20, but the criticisms of the planning and execution are valid. If we allow ourselves to fall back on “No plan survives after first contact” without examining what went right and wrong, then we never learn and repeat mistakes. My criticism is not to merely lay blame, but to converse about the problems faced and how they were dealt with. I am not interested in a rosy portrait of how brilliant we all are, but to face the stark reality of what went right or wrong (in my opinion).

I’d accuse both of you of comment-proliferation. My eyes glazed over after skimming through the first few paragraphs.

This is all I have time for as I’m bogged down with Christmas activities on two fronts.

Well, you got me there as the proof is here. lol, I hope you get your Christmas activities done and enjoy them! Merry Christmas.

blast: They can make mistakes and if they do, why not just admit it and move on. Maybe I am politically naive, but that is how I think.

So what does that mean in your analysis? Say… in the summer of 2006, when the Iragis finally put into place their first permanent elected government, that we just say “ooops! Sorry… we made an error. See ya!” ?????

Once we removed Saddam, we were obligated to stand by their new govt until they could stand safely and effectively on their own. Yet the Dems advocated desertion at every opportunity because it affected the US and public opinon. The Iraqis? They could give a damn for their outcome.

Their success meant vast progress on our national security. Their failure meant the converse.

So ’splain, please Mr. blast… what does that “… make mistakes.. and “…. admit it and move on… mean in this instance?

@blast:

Yes, they deserve tons of credit and I believe I did give them credit for this, but not solely because of the war.

My understanding is you feel the diplomacy worked with Kadafi, and could have worked if applied to Saddam as well, with the same vigor.

No, it was not brilliant. If you are speaking about our force arrayed against their forces alone as the sole metric, it was superior, but in the end failed to provide stability in the early days and to protect the enormous stockpiles of weapons that were then pilfered and used against us.

What I refer to is, catching Saddam off-guard by such a quick, mobile, and light footprint. Saddam didn’t think the war would start until the 4th ID was in place. Had the war been delayed further, Saddam would have had more time for booby-trapping bridges and oil fields, as he had done during the Gulf War. Iraqis had begun such rigging, but did not see them to completion, due to the untimely start of the war. I’d say that saved lives, during major combat operations.

Yes, we failed to provide stability and security in the aftermath. Was it Bush’s fault? Rumsfeld’s? Franks? Policy planners? Other military officials?

CENTCOM planners relied on the CIA’s assessment in calculating troop levels for the invasion; they assumed that large numbers of Iraqi police would be available to maintain public order after the fall of Saddam’s regime.

The criticism that Rumsfeld is to blame for “not enough troops” is misplaced, imo. According to Feith, Rumsfeld would have given Franks the troop level he wanted, if he had asked. He didn’t ask. Generals who have criticized the troop level didn’t fail to convince Rumsfeld; they failed to convince General Franks.

No doubt hindsight is 20/20, but the criticisms of the planning and execution are valid.

If it’s criticism based not on political partisanship, but upon legitimate criticism that certain conditions that took place could have been averted by foresight planning. As it stands, we should learn from mistakes and missteps, constructively rather than simply scoring political points and undermining and delegitimzing the whole war effort. I’m not saying you’re doing it, but there are critics who have engaged in this.

What is invincible to most people are all the things that went right and things that were averted because of the “adequate” planning.

If we allow ourselves to fall back on “No plan survives after first contact” without examining what went right and wrong, then we never learn and repeat mistakes. My criticism is not to merely lay blame, but to converse about the problems faced and how they were dealt with. I am not interested in a rosy portrait of how brilliant we all are, but to face the stark reality of what went right or wrong (in my opinion).

That’s fair. Sometimes it’s hard to separate someone like yourself from the BDSers who are more interested in laying blame, and nothing else.

Well, you got me there as the proof is here. lol, I hope you get your Christmas activities done and enjoy them! Merry Christmas.

Thank you. To you as well.

@MataHarley:

So sorry your eyes glazed over, Word. Then again, I have to say some of your posts have done the same to me. So no offense taken, and all accepted in your inimitable good humor.

No insult was intended. By “eyes glazed over”, I wasn’t saying what you and Blast had to talk about was not worth the read, but just that I was scrolling through, it looked like a lot to catch up on, when I was pressed for time. It just looked like a lot to go through, but it’s really not. And I always appreciate the amount of time you put into your comments, complete with relevant links.

Word, I think we saw that with General Sanchez. For those that don’t remember him, it was on his watch that everything went to crap, but he later turned around and attacked the Bush admin who had backed him until it was clear his way simply wasn’t working.

I’m also not a fan of Richard Clarke. He’s proof that nothing good happens when a leftwing idiot rises thru the ranks of the military. He was strictly a political pick because he had the correct leftist beliefs. I tend to listen to Wesley Clark who also happens to think Richard (Dick) is an incompetent partisan hack. He complained in his book that Dick Clarke never gave him ANY actionable intelligence. Not once.

Wordsmith: My understanding is you feel the diplomacy worked with Kadafi, and could have worked if applied to Saddam as well, with the same vigor.

In looking back, as that is all we can do now, there were opportunities to bolster sanctions and tighten the noose on Saddam. Weighing the outcome and costs (as we see them today) was it worth it if we could have achieved our goal of containment and verifiable disarmament. We lived with Kadafi for a long time, and we lived with other despotic regimes with unfriendly intentions. There are many players in the game who dwarf Iraq’s strategic threat to our security; namely, Russia and China.

Wordsmith: Yes, we failed to provide stability and security in the aftermath. Was it Bush’s fault? Rumsfeld’s? Franks? Policy planners? Other military officials?

That blame probably should be shared with all you mentioned as that was their responsibility to ask the questions and hold accountable those who worked for them. The buck has to stop somewhere.

wordsmith: As it stands, we should learn from mistakes and missteps, constructively rather than simply scoring political points and undermining and delegitimzing the whole war effort.

I agree with you. There has to be a reality between the positions of the right and left as neither side owns the truth, or at least not all of the time.