MSM Ignoring The Victory In Iraq

June 30 is being declared a national public holiday in Iraq… while the scant media coverage of this date may not parallel its significance, Newsy provides a summary of the media’s coverage thus far.

Nice to see site up and running again, btw!

I’m sure if it had been a Saigon type withdrawal all three alphabet news anchors would have been live from Baghdad, and would have done interviews with the defacto dictator whom ever they may have been

old news or new news….it’s GREAT NEWS !!!!

I’m going to church today to pray for those who gave everthing, those who gave their limbs and those who returned home with scars that can’t be seen.

Bush 43, thank you.

Herman: Victory? Who is saying it is a victory???

How about the Iraqi premiere just a couple of days ago? Just as he called the most recent election another Iraq victory this past Feb.

Certainly the Iraqis, hanging on to their new government, consider it a victory.

Who’s not considering it a victory is you liberal/progressives… who fought tooth and nail for defeat. The only way you’ll claim it as such is if you can figure out a way to give Obama the kudos…. which requires “the willing suspension of disbelief”.

MataHarley,

No. Tell me someone on our side, the armed forces that says it is a victory, not a politician.

Has Petraeus, Odierno, any of the other Generals called it victory? You even has Cheney calling the withdrawal ‘a waste of’ US troops.

Also, you now have celebrations not of victory is Iraq, but celebrations of our leaving Iraq.

How does all that square with Iraq having victory???

Your defining victory via “elections” is highly debatable. If you followed the distribution of political power in Iraq you’d see it’s marred by a lack of equality, representation, and justice. You’d of course say: “It’s not perfect, but a beginning”. Quite simply, you can’t equate that with victory–especially when it’s not articulated by our higher brass.

herman,

Iraq will be dysfunctional for years to come. It’s only been 6 years, for crissakes!!! In the absence of an insurgency and foreign elements fomenting chaos and not wanting to see democracy take root, it amazes me how much has been accomplished in a country that saw 30 years of rule under Saddam’s thumbnail. Of course “change” won’t happen overnight. It takes an average 4 years just to graduate from college with a undergrad degree. The business in Iraq is over when it’s over, and not a day sooner. Not unless we want to set expiration dates on all future conflicts.

The point is, Bush “stayed the course”, by staying in Iraq until we left on “our” terms, and not the enemy’s. There will be no peace treaty signing, no ceremonial surrender from those we fought and defeated in Iraq. There is no specific “victory day”, for us; of when we actually “won”. I think the situation in Iraq is comprised of different phases; and there will be future such “phases”, as life itself is a continually evolving process.

There will be future setbacks in between continuing successes.

Developing democracy in a country that’s never known it is a process.

Herman, what’s all this “I’m” celebrating, “I’m” defining an election as victory crap? You asked a simple question… who is calling Iraq a victory. I gave you the simple answer. The Iraqis.

If they hold on to their government and beat down any upcoming attempted seizures by jihad thugs and Saddam ex-pats, they will continue their success and victory.

The US and coalition military have many successes… from toppling Saddam to each and every time the Iraqis improve in defending themselves, and each time they thwart an attack, or confiscate a weapons cache. As far as I’m concerned, they’ve already won, and continue winning daily. The long term victory is up to Iraqis.

Considering how your side loves to parse words, I doubt any official will label Iraq a victory, as they know the fragility of a new government, and the enemy that prays for their downfall. That enemy would be, of course, both the jihad movements/Saddam ex-pats, and the US Democrat Party.

Iraq will be dysfunctional for years to come. It’s only been 6 years, for crissakes!!!

Less than that, Word. The Iraqis didn’t elect their permanent government representatives until October, 2005. Prior to that it was an interim government, while they finessed their Constitution from scratch and sussed out the groundwork.

That means it’s just three and a half years. We’re over two centuries in, and still trying to get it right.

@MataHarley:

I’m totally with you guys – this is a great victory. But am I reading you correctly as saying, “We’ve accomplished our mission, and now it’s time for a steady, gradual withdrawal” ???

THAT’S WHAT THE LEFT HAS BEEN SAYING FOR A WHILE NOW…

http://barleymash.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-iraq-war.html

Just look at the two Presidential platforms in the last election….. Obama = timed withdrawal, McCain = 100 years.

So, now that both sides are in agreement, with victory declared, and withdrawal in place – why the partisan rhetoric?

Part of this is a game of semantics, as voices on the conservative side have also made similar distinctions as barleymash’s has, regarding the war phase having ended, and that what we found ourselves embroiled in soon after Bremer’s arrival was an insurgency brewing.

I think the places where we truly got it right, are places where we had long-term commitments.

Michael Yon also declared Iraq a victory last year; and conservatives also rallied to proclaim a Victory in Iraq Day.

DoD:

The Bush administration signed the U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement, which calls for a complete withdrawal of combat troops from Iraqi cities and towns by tomorrow, late last year. The Obama administration must honor it, Morrell said.

Currently, the only U.S. forces remaining in the cities are advisors, trainers, and support staff, which are embedded with Iraqi units throughout the country. Since October, the United States has closed or returned to Iraqi authority 150 bases and facilities, including 30 this month, said Bryan G. Whitman, deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs.

U.S. troops in Iraq, who up until this weekend were securing Iraq’s cities and towns, are now forming layers of defense outside the country’s major cities and focusing on Iraq’s external borders, Morrell said. This is not to say, however, that the 131,000 ground forces will never set foot in an Iraqi city in a combat capacity, he added.

If the Iraqi government were to ask for assistance, U.S. forces are prepared to help, Morrell said.

Though the transfer of security operations to the Iraqis went relatively smoothly, it was met with a slight uptick in violence, which was expected, he said.

“Sadly, last week we saw two very high-profile attacks, one just south of Kirkuk [and] one in Sadr City, resulting in about 400 innocent civilians being killed,” Morrell said. “That is certainly unfortunate, but overall, violence levels are down to 2003 levels, the lowest in the history of this conflict.”

While the Pentagon is satisfied with the overall security situation in Iraq, the country still has some issues to work through, Morrell said. The Arab-Kurd tensions in the north, remaining al-Qaida in Mosul and Iranian meddling through the use of surrogates, to name a few.

With Iraq’s security stable, and the U.S.-Iraq agreement decreeing all U.S. troops leave the country by 2011, some of the troops currently serving in Iraq will move to Afghanistan, where 57,000 U.S. troops are serving. The U.S. presence in Iraq will remain large enough to respond to any incident with which the Iraqis may request assistance, Morrell said.

I was on vacation last week, scuba diving with ex-Gitmo detainees in St. Croix. Just trying to catch up.
Didn’t I read somewhere that we won WWII? I know they bury that pretty deep in the History books now, but I’m sure I read it somewhere. Anyway, I know for a fact that we still have troops in Germany and Japan. Hell, I was stationed in Okinawa for a while, I’m pretty sure there were some other people over there with the same uniform I wore. What does pulling our troops out of country have to do with victory?

@Cary:

Just look at the two Presidential platforms in the last election….. Obama = timed withdrawal, McCain = 100 years.

Now Cary, you and I both know that that is not a fair and accurate representation of what McCain said.

You and I also both know, at least you should know by now, that you won’t get away with that sort of distortion here without being challenged.

Also, in the interest of intellectual honesty it must be pointed out that Obama, and the Left at large, was calling for date certain withdrawal without regard for what was actually happening on the ground.

@Cary:

You’re still not being honest about what McCain has repeatedly said regarding Iraq.

Why are you choosing to distort his position?

@herman:

I can say the Iraqis are celebrating our leaving, the end of an occupation, instead of a “victory.”

What’s the distinction? It’s a “victory”, because the conditions on the ground make it feasible for us to begin withdrawing and allow Iraqi security forces to take charge of protecting their own interests.

.

@Aye Chihuahua:

@Cary:

Here’s what you said:

” McCain’s position was indefinite occupation, even if it meant 100 years.”

Yes, that’s a blatant distortion of what his position has always been.

Okay, it may not have been his position, but it’s what he said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

Courtesy embed by Mata

But this diverts my main point.

@Wordsmith:

If we’re to honestly get it right, though, then our withdrawal- desirable to everyone- should not be done hastily and recklessly.

Aside from a few loons, I think most of us agree on this – including Obama, as recorded on the above YouTube link I provided. And, thankfully, that is not what is happening.

I tended to ignore the “100 year” comment by Cary, Aye… glad you have the patience to revisit this with him. There are many ways to say “we stay until the job is done, and if the Iraqis want us to have a permanent base there, we’d be happy to”. (which they don’t, and we’re cool with that too)

Then, of course, the lib/progressives never can seem to grasp what “the job is done” means… despite the fact they have been told since day one, over and over, that it means when the Iraqis have a government and security in place, and are partners in intel and world trading.

For those that want “exit strategies”, let me ask this. On what day are you going to buy your next car? Or perhaps what day is your daughter or son going to marry? What day are you going to die? One might be able to plan when you’ll pay off a loan, but daily events can prevent you even from making that goal…. a loss of a job, change in employment, illness. All the best plans gone awry by the unexpected.

The exit strategy has always been we go when the Iraqis can stand up for themselves. But as we slowly withdraw, AQ and the Saddam ex-pats will be filing in to our wake, and testing this new government. This is from the mouth of Zawahiri himself via his forum/interview in Jan 2008. I did a post on some excerpts when I was still on Sea2Sea, called Zawahiri: In his own words, visions for the Middle East.

If, Cary, you want to know the mind and views of those we fight, I suggest you read the 48 page translation of Zawahiri’s open forum. They are just waiting for the US to leave the heart of their Caliphate. They will swarm in on our wake… perhaps to take a few shots at our warriors backs, and most certainly to try and destroy what the Iraqis have given their own blood to build (with help from the US coalition). Iraq may be “forgotten” now, but I will not be surprised if the Iraqis call upon us to slow down, or lend a bit of extra help.

Cary: And here we are now – starting our withdrawal, with a completion date of 2010 – with provisions to continue if there is a drastic change (if asked) – everything the left was pushing for to happen is happening, and liberals and conservatives are pleased – yet WE (the Left) were wrong all along?!

Yes… you are wrong all along. As I pointed out, in my earlier comment INRE the broken clock. You liberals wanted to pull out in 2006, when it would mean the fall if Iraq. You were wrong. This withdrawal is going per Bush’s original plan, as preserved in the SOFA negotiated without the chosen zero in Dec 2008. This withdrawal, done in 2006, would have been disasterous.

There is a time and place for everything. Let’s put this in a more simple fashion for you. You can tell me that I need to replace my tires on my car because they will blow out. But my tires are new, with only a few thousand miles on them. Three years later, my tires… now with over 40,000 miles …do indeed blow out. And you go… “see? I was right all along!”

duh wuh

@MataHarley:

Germany, Japan, Cuba etc.

We do not have combat brigades there.

There is a time and place for everything. Let’s put this in a more simple fashion for you. You can tell me that I need to replace my tires on my car because they will blow out. But my tires are new, with only a few thousand miles on them. Three years later, my tires… now with over 40,000 miles …do indeed blow out. And you go… “see? I was right all along!”

I’m sure you have a fair idea when your tires will need to be replaced. And yes, I do have specific dates for reaching certain goals – even if I don’t reach them exactly when I plan to, having a plan helps – which is what we’ve been saying all along. I guess it’s good that we now agree.

@Aye Chihuahua:

Thanks, Aye Chihuahua. Whenever the phrases “leftist talking points, half-truths and distortions” get thrown around it’s usually evidence that I’ve made a good point. I appreciate your affirmation. Listen, it’s your party, so I’m really not interested in picking a fight or messing up your day. But if you disagree with my points, you might want to either ignore them or refute them. Name calling is just pathetic. I’m fairly certain that, while there are PLENTY of left-wing talking points in there (as if the rest of this thread isn’t 95% Right Wing talking points) there’s not one point in my post that’s less than 100% supportable.
Barleymash

@Cary

We do not have combat brigades there.

Oh we most certainly do. The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines aren’t in those countries to visit the countryside. They are all fully armed and ready for combat. They may not be on the same alert conditions as they are in Iraq, but they are on alert. Well, the boyz in Korea are probably on the same alert condition as those in Iraq.

@Barleymash:

Let me get this straight.

Tenet, who told Bush that the whole WMD thing was a “slam dunk” also allegedly told Bush that there were no weapons.

In the face of all of the evidence Tenet had to the contrary that is what you’re expecting us to believe?

Laughable.

This has to be good news for everyone. No one wants large numbers of US troops to stay in Iraq indefinitely. The problem comes when the US does finally pull out – if Al-Qaeda/Iraqi insurgents step up their attacks and destablise the Iraqi government. Would the US return? Let’s hope that doesn’t problem doesn’t arise and Iraq becomes a fully stable, independent and democratic country.

“Going into Iraq was one of the single most brilliant strategic moves in military history.”

That’s one of the most astonishing pieces of prose I’ve ever read. Even better than Catcher in the Rye (which sucked, BTW). What did we accomplish? We know the cost. But what did we gain? We killed hundreds of thousands of people, enabled Iran to become the most powerful force in the region (with increased nuclear capacity, no less), wiped out trillions in US funds, overstretched our military and nearly bankrupted our VA… for what? This is a serious question. You’re saying it was a brilliant “move” because going into Afghanistan (where the people who attacked us LIVED) would have been more difficult. But we DID go into Afghanistan, and we DID still fail to get the guys who actually attacked us. What did we gain? You say we made a brilliant move and won something. What did we win that was worth the cost? Again, I’m completely stymied here and looking for a serious answer. What’s the prize?

You’re right, Catcher in the Rye did suck.

We’re going to have to agree on a few things here for this to work.

1. We were going to kick someone’s ass for 9-11, right?
2. That someone was Al-Q, which at the time was being protected by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
3. We immediately went into Afghanistan to destroy Al-Q and the Taliban.
4. Fighting a war in Afghanistan is like playing football against the Packers in Green Bay. Ask the Russians.
5. We went to Iraq and most of “enemy combantants” came to Iraq to fight us.
6. In the end, the Iraq war, no matter what you think of it, destroyed Al-Q’s leadership and their war-making capabilities.
7. Yes, we went to Afghanistan and we’re still there. Will be for a very long time. A war in those mountains is going to take a very long time to complete.

As for the people that died, that usually happens in war.
Iran? A 6 flight sortie of F-117’s will reduce their nuclear capabilites overnight. Someone just has to have the nads to make the call.

“that usually happens in war.”

Interesting. Of course, this wasn’t the Iraqis war. It was our war. Your argument is that we had every right to reduce our casualties in Afghanistan by moving the battlefield to a more practical location, in effect using Iraqi civilians as human shields. I guess you don’t feel any moral compunction over dragging our battle into the schools and homes of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

I’m not sure I’ve ever had a conversation with such a cheerful war crime buff. You guys are fascinating!

But Saddam was not a jihadist.He wasn’t even particularly religious. Here’s the funny thing with Muslim democracies: they tend to vote in Islamic theocracies. Hamas. Iran. (sure it was rigged, but what are YOU gonna do about it?) Pakistan is voting in Shariah law in more and more of the country. Even proudly secular Turkey is having trouble keeping Islamist factions from controlling the government. So sure, Iraq is a semi-secular democracy today. But all it takes is one charismatic Mullah and we suddenly have another Supreme Leader and Islamic Council to deal with.

barley: One quick note before I sign off: Saddam was not a jihadist.

Let’s help you out with your reading problem, barley. No one said Saddam was a jihad warrior. What I said was:

all being kept out of the hands of the global Islamic jihad movements (either directly or by proxy)

Saddam, as per the Iraqi Perspectives Report IV, was utilizing jihad groups as an unofficial state terror weapon since the early 90s, and up until his desposition. Thus the word “proxy”.

You can find all five volumes available at the FAS site.

@Barleymash

Your argument is that we had every right to reduce our casualties in Afghanistan by moving the battlefield to a more practical location, in effect using Iraqi civilians as human shields.

Wasn’t us using civilians as shields. Wasn’t us fighting from schools and mosques. That was your team. As for location? I personally wouldn’t care if we had chosen Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Syria. As far as I’m concerned every one of those countries contributed to 9-11 as much as Afghanistan and Iraq. I’m not a diplomat nor a politician, for me it was a “them” or “us” situation. I won’t apologize to you or any other beta male out there. If D-Day occured in the modern media driven world we live in now, people like you would have screamed bloody murder. And yes, location is vital in any military operation. As for me, I choose the lives of the men and women in our military over appeasing code pinkos.

You should read MacArthur’s autobiography and maybe some Sun Tzu instead of Salinger.

That should also answer your question about my “moral compunction.”

@Barleymash:

Fact check Aisle 49.

Fact check Aisle 49 please.

Those are two completely different screw ups.

Ummmm…not so much.

Tenet said that building a case for war would be a slam dunk.

Ummmm…no, here’s what he said:

Yet his legacy may distill into a taunting shorthand: slam-dunk.

As in, it was a “slam-dunk” that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Or so Tenet said, with the kind of unambiguous self-assurance that Bush so admires. These will go down as Tenet’s famous last words, even though he uttered them more than a year ago.

“George, how confident are you?” the president asked Tenet, in an exchange depicted in Bob Woodward’s book “Plan of Attack.”

“Don’t worry, it’s a slam-dunk,” Tenet said.

The “slam dunk” comment was clearly in reference to the WMD issue:

About two weeks before deciding to invade Iraq, President Bush was told by CIA Director George Tenet there was a “slam dunk case” that dictator Saddam Hussein had unconventional weapons, according to a new book by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward.

He also said there were no weapons.

Actually, no, he didn’t. See the quote above in addition to the one below:

The CIA produced its evaluation of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in a secret report called a “National Intelligence Estimate.”

“The first key judgment in the national intelligence estimate says, quote, ‘Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons.’ Period,” Pelley says.

“High confidence judgment,” Tenet replies.

How could he make such a bold statement? Says Tenet, “We believed he had chemical and biological weapons.”

“But there was no hard evidence,” Pelley remarks.

“No, no. There was lots of data. There’s lots of technical data”

Tenet says he believed that Saddam had WMD:

But Saddam was not a jihadist.He wasn’t even particularly religious.

It’s amusing to hear people say that Saddam was “secular” or not “particularly religious”.

Especially in light of his personal Quran written in his own blood.

Yep, Saddam was so “secular” that he placed the words “Allahu Akhbar”, in his own handwriting, on the Iraqi flag.

Furthermore Osama’s Islamism is not that much different than Saddam’s Baathism.

More on that here:

In a speech in which he challenged the belief of war critics that Iraqis’ lives are now worse than under Saddam Hussein, Barham Salih [A Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq] said, “The alliance between the Baathists and jihadists which sustains Al Qaeda in Iraq is not new, contrary to what you may have been told.” He went on to say, “I know this at first hand. Some of my friends were murdered by jihadists, by Al Qaeda-affiliated operatives who had been sheltered and assisted by Saddam’s regime.”

It’s a shame that on your very first day here you chose to wander ’round so unprepared.

Perhaps the pummeling you have taken from every direction on this thread will encourage you to be more aware of the subject matter before you dive in over your head again.

Cary: I’m sure you have a fair idea when your tires will need to be replaced. And yes, I do have specific dates for reaching certain goals – even if I don’t reach them exactly when I plan to, having a plan helps – which is what we’ve been saying all along. I guess it’s good that we now agree.

…. even if I don’t reach them exactly when I plan to…. in other words, subject to events that happen daily or, as in Iraq, events on the ground.

The notion that your party’’s insistence for a firm, drop dead withdrawal date is superior to the original, and now followed plan all along, that we go when the Iraqi’s can secure and govern themselves is pure fantasy.

The Dems wanted to drop dead leave in a “tough love” scenerio. It’s the “Iraqis responsibility” and screw them, they said. That’s YOUR plan.

THE plan is exactly what’s happening. You may try and take credit for it all you want, but it still doesn’t make it true. Why not go back and pull a few statements of your Congressional leadership about their insistance for withdrawal date that proves they were flexibile for ground events, and get back to us? I’m done doing your homework, guy.

And BTW… “cute” does not become you.

@Aqua:

Cary

‘We do not have combat brigades there.”

Oh we most certainly do. The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines aren’t in those countries to visit the countryside. They are all fully armed and ready for combat. They may not be on the same alert conditions as they are in Iraq, but they are on alert. Well, the boyz in Korea are probably on the same alert condition as those in Iraq.

Yes, I realized after I left for work that I misstated this, and was sure I’d be rightfully called on it before I got back home to correct myself. Of course troops stationed in various parts of the world are ready for combat, that’s what they do. However, in the places mentioned, they are not deployed for active combat operations. Which is different from what I’ve always understood was previously proposed for troops in Iraq – thus my concern.

@MataHarley:

…. even if I don’t reach them exactly when I plan to…. in other words, subject to events that happen daily or, as in Iraq, events on the ground

Yes, just as Obama said in the speech I linked. Just because you ignored it doesn’t mean I didn’t provide it. But in order to save you the trouble of scrolling back up to find it, here it is again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0NLyx83v3Q&feature=related

Your side fought against his plan tooth and nail, and now that the plan is actually happening – in nearly the exact time frame he called for, with the provisions he called for (thus negating your “broken clock” argument), you still maintain that your side was right?! Whether Obama is directly responsible for the current outcome or not, and I agree he’s not, your side cannot honestly take credit, either. Again, you fought against it.

And BTW… “cute” does not become you.

I’m not really sure what you mean by this, but it kinda sounds like a personal dig, which would be unbecoming of you. In case I’m misreading, I’m going to ask you to explain this statement before I respond.

You might find this of interest, as well:

But Ray Robison found the lines in Colin Powell’s speech that Drumheller is talking about and what does he find?

Okay, lets pick this apart. Let’s look at Powell’s speech again:

Although Iraq’s mobile production program began in the mid-1990s, U.N. inspectors at the time only had vague hints of such programs. Confirmation came later, in the year 2000.

The source was an eye witness, an Iraqi chemical engineer who supervised one of these facilities. He actually was present during biological agent production runs. He was also at the site when an accident occurred in 1998. Twelve technicians died from exposure to biological agents.

He reported that when UNSCOM was in country and inspecting, the biological weapons agent production always began on Thursdays at midnight because Iraq thought UNSCOM would not inspect on the Muslim Holy Day, Thursday night through Friday. He added that this was important because the units could not be broken down in the middle of a production run, which had to be completed by Friday evening before the inspectors might arrive again.

This defector is currently hiding in another country with the certain knowledge that Saddam Hussein will kill him if he finds him. His eye-witness account of these mobile production facilities has been corroborated by other sources.

A second source, an Iraqi civil engineer in a position to know the details of the program, confirmed the existence of transportable facilities moving on trailers.

A third source, also in a position to know, reported in summer 2002 that Iraq had manufactured mobile production systems mounted on road trailer units and on rail cars.

Finally, a fourth source, an Iraqi major, who defected, confirmed that Iraq has mobile biological research laboratories, in addition to the production facilities I mentioned earlier.

Okay, first off the WP makes one reference in the 4 page article to “curveball” being only one of several sources. The rest of the article is dedicated to Drumheller and his attempt to warn about “curveball”’s credibility. It also states flatly, the mobile labs were never found. As a matter of fact, 2 out of 3 teams of experts indicated that the trailers that were found could have been used for weapons production. You would think that would merit some mention in an honest examination of the facts of this case. But anyway…..

Now let’s look at the real intel on the bio trailers.

Powell says firstly, that “U.N. inspectors at the time only had vague hints of such programs.”

Well what does that mean? It certainly sounds to me like UN officials were the first to detect this program. That might have been nice to know in the WPs extensive article. Kind of sounds like it wasn’t a Bush set up then doesn’t it, since this was brought up by the UN in the mid-nineties…..but anyway….

Who else said Saddam had bio trailers? Another engineer, another undisclosed source, and a former Iraqi military officer. Did all their stories fall apart? Were they all lying? What is the deal on these sources? The Washington Post doesn’t mention them specifically or the veracity of their claims. They only focus on one informant who’s story has fallen apart and tried to discredit the whole administration because of one potentially bad source.

A long article by our MSM details only ONE out of four intel sources about ONE aspect of Saddam’s WMD program. They ignore the other three sources, plus all the other WMD programs that Saddam had. They ignore all this in an attempt to portray the speech as one big lie….

Mata’s comments read like frontpage posts.

No need to apologize. Your comments are just works of art. If it sounds like I came off complaining, it’s ’cause I get cranky when I run out of microwaveable popcorn.

Do cary on.

Told ja, Word. Even trying to spell out the ever morphing Obama lie on withdrawal to Cary, he goes back to the July 2008 op-ed where Obama’s still grasping on to the tough love “pressure the Iraqis”, but just starting to add the “talk to the commanders” bit. And of course, that’s about careful withdrawal for troop safety… not a flexibility for the ground situation INRE the Iraqis.

Cary, you need to get your head out of elementary screenplays and start learning to think cohesively. Take, for example:

I say again, although I am not giving him direct credit for the outcome, the plan he proposed is what’s coming into fruition. You opposed it. To say otherwise is a “blatant ‘effin’ lie.”

I “opposed” it? I “opposed” what, Cary?

I supported staying in Iraq until the Iraqis could handle their own security and governing.

Was that possible in 2006? NO

Was that possible in 2007? NO!

Was that possible in 2008? Not until VERY late in the year.

Did Obama want to desert Iraq in bloody 2006? YES

Did Obama want to desert Iraq in bloody 2007? YES

Did Obama soften “go now” tone on the 14th of July when his bags on the O’jetliner were packed and he’d be with both Afghanistan and Iraq commanders within hours? Yes. Where was his “LEAVE NOW” plan that he’s been blowing out his rear end since 2006 and 2007?

I opposed Obama’s desertion. I supported staying until Iraq was secure. Obama’s starting to agree with me, and I’ll take that. And you are still engaging in lies…. or stupidity. Take your choice.

Cary, you never brought a brain cell to this conversation. Especially if you think you can neatly divide candidate Obama from Senator Obama from President Obama. They are all the same Eunuch in Chief…. the guy who’s been campaigning since 2007.

So ta ta, bubba. This level of “conversation” with your self-imposed rules to make you look informed doesn’t interest me.

Wow. Don’t you “alpha males” ever sleep or go to work?
I swear it’s like playing Whack-a-Mole in here.
Aye, you might not want to be so quick to claim you “pummeled” me. The problem is, you don’t even understand your own proof-points. Yes, as you establish ad nauseum, Tenet sId the case for WMDs was a slam dunk. The CASE for WMDs. As I’ve said all along, Tenet said he’d be able to support the WMD argument for going to war. That’s not the same thing as saying the TRUTH of WMDs is a slam-dunk.
And to clarify the Alpha Male thing: first, I’m pretty sure that if you have to type on a blog that you’re an alpha male, well then, you ain’t. More importantly, alpha males lead and protect the pack. The behavior this pack has in general been endorsing is the slaughter of children and women as a tool to secure their personal safety. In fact, someone referred to the Iraqis as cockroaches. That’s more akin to PREYING on the pack. Behavior that would identify you as the Omega males — the outcasts, scavengers, pariahs. Funny thing about Omegas — they THINK they’re Alphas and so they slink around the edges of the pack at night displaying faux-alpha behavior until they get challenged.
So, on to Saddam. He was secular until nearly his downfall, at which time he played the religion card to scrape up some support in the Arab world. I would dig up sources for this, but I’m fairly sure you dug past dozens of them already on your way to the apocryphal and meaningless “Q’uran of Blood!” (Cue Night on Bald Mountain). (“Hey, didya know Adolf was a devout Christian? Yeah! he had the Spear of Longinus so it must be true.”)

like I said, it’s like playing whack-a-mole in here, but unlike you alphas, this poor beta actually has to work. I’ve found out what I was curious about. You don’t feel there’s a moral component to war. You consider foreigners to be expendable cockroaches, and you don’t mind being lied to by your government. (that last one, by the way, would identify you as the ” subservient” rank in the wolf pack. Just FYI.)
Later!

@Mata
I know, but I caught this in post #55 and knew arguing numbers with BM was a lost cause.

Of course, this wasn’t the Iraqis war.

With that statement, he justifies every casualty in the war was our fault.

As for GaffUK’s post and your reply…I’m not a politician. If I were advising the CinC I would have referred to Sun Tzu:

Sun Tzu said: We may distinguish six kinds of terrain, to wit:
(1) Accessible ground;
(2) entangling ground;
(3) temporizing ground;
(4) narrow passes;
(5) precipitous heights;
(6) positions at a great distance from the enemy.
Ground which can be freely traversed by both sides is called ACCESSIBLE. With regard to ground of this nature, be before the enemy in occupying the raised and sunny spots, and carefully guard your line of supplies. Then you will be able to fight with advantage.
Ground which can be abandoned but is hard to re-occupy is called ENTANGLING. From a position of this sort, if the enemy is unprepared, you may sally forth and defeat him. But if the enemy is prepared for your coming, and you fail to defeat him, then, return being impossible, disaster will ensue.
When the position is such that neither side will gain by making the first move, it is called TEMPORIZING ground. In a position of this sort, even though the enemy should offer us an attractive bait, it will be advisable not to stir forth, but rather to retreat, thus enticing the enemy in his turn; then, when part of his army has come out, we may deliver our attack with advantage.
With regard to NARROW PASSES, if you can occupy them first, let them be strongly garrisoned and await the advent of the enemy. Should the army forestall you in occupying a pass, do not go after him if the pass is fully garrisoned, but only if it is weakly garrisoned.
With regard to PRECIPITOUS HEIGHTS, if you are beforehand with your adversary, you should occupy the raised and sunny spots, and there wait for him to come up. If the enemy has occupied them before you, do not follow him, but retreat and try to entice him away. If you are situated at a great distance from the enemy, and the strength of the two armies is equal, it is not easy to provoke a battle, and fighting will be to your disadvantage.
These six are the principles connected with Earth. The general who has attained a responsible post must be careful to study them.

It is not the job of a military to go somewhere with a serious disadvantage and hope for the best. It is the job of the military to gain the advantage and destroy the enemy. Back in the day, we would have had so many B-52’s in the air as to blot out the sun. They would have bombed every military target around; roads, bridges, industrial complexes, and ports. The collateral damage would have been enormous. Now, we have precision bombing that can drop a bomb on a gnat’s butt. In my opinion, this war has been fought with honor and respect for the people whose land we temporarily occupied. I would make no apologies for the actions of the CinC or the Joint Chiefs and their staff.

@Barleymash:

Boy, you really do live in a very charming, colorful corner of your alternate reality don’t you?

You, sir, are the one who brought up the whole “Alpha Male/beta Male” thing….that’s your spew, don’t try to credit anyone else.

It’s all yours. Be proud of it.

So far, you’ve made points and multiple contributors have run circles around you while grinding your lies, and and your silliness, into the ground with indisputable facts and documented evidence.

Yet you continue to puff your chest and strut about as if you have something of value to offer.

Thanks for stopping by.

It’s always good to have someone to laugh at.

Hey,Aye — Aqua started the the alpha/beta discussion in post 61. Simple search, amigo.

As I said, I don’t want to mess up your little playground. I DO live in a lovely colorful world where people take responsibility for their actions. They don’t sit behind their keyboards and quote Sun Tzu while real people are dying in a war THEY cheerlead for. And yes, Aqua, if WE start a war then that war IS our responsibility. How could it not be? In what world does shooting first not count for anything? Oh yeah — the world where foreigners are expendable cockroaches.

You guys are clearly having fun nitpicking and parsing your post-facto justifications. But you’re completely uninterested in the bigger, more important questions of “Why?” and “At what cost?” In my colorful little world (i.e. the real one) The decision to go to war is infinitely more important than the strategies employed once the war begins. But that’s what you folks would rather discuss. Go for it. I’m never going to persuade hard-core “people are cockroaches” types anyway. What comforts me is the fact that most of America agrees with me. It’s our side that’s laughing, Aye.

@Barleymash:

So many canards, such little time.

We supported and armed the Taliban, which sheltered to Al Qaeda. That’s “proxy.

The Taliban was formed in 1994 by Mullah Omar:

The reclusive Mr. Omar, believed to be about 60 years old, lost an eye fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. In 1994, he led a small band of armed students from Islamic seminaries — “Taliban” means “students” in Afghanistan’s Pashto language — to fight the violence and corruption that had overwhelmed the country.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562262680835357.html

The Taliban emerged in the early 1990s in northern Pakistan following the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan.

A predominantly Pashtun movement, the Taliban came to prominence in Afghanistan in the autumn of 1994.

It is commonly believed that they first appeared in religious seminaries – mostly paid for by money from Saudi Arabia – which preached a hard line form of Sunni Islam.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1549285.stm

We didn’t found or fund bin Laden or his thugs, either:

Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency’s Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says: “The CIA did not recruit Arabs,” as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were “very disruptive . . . the Afghans thought they were a pain in the ass.” I have heard similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs’ holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam. [Freelance cameraman] Peter Jouvenal recalls: “There was no love lost between the Afghans and the Arabs. One Afghan told me, ‘Whenever we had a problem with one of them we just shot them. They thought they were kings.’”

Al Qaida’s number two leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has confirmed that the “Afghan Arabs” did not receive any U.S. funding during the war in Afghanistan. In the book that was described as his “last will,” Knights Under the Prophet’s Banner, which was serialized in December 2001 in Al-Sharq al-Awsat, al-Zawahiri says the Afghan Arabs were funded with money from Arab sources, which amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars:

Read more:

http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20090505134735atlahtnevel0.5280725.html#ixzz0K1C0XUpS&C

Read more:

http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-english/2009/May/20090505134735atlahtnevel0.5280725.html#ixzz0K1AmdGaE&C

Gary Bernsten, recently interviewed, was on the ground in the opening of this Afghan war leading his CIA agents through the mountains to lazer critical sites for bombing. Authored “Jawbreaker” his account of those days.

Roberts: Yesterday on Capitol Hill, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accused Pakistan of abdicating responsibility of taking care of the Taliban and other extremist elements. She also pointed some fingers at the United States.

“We’re wondering why they don’t just get out there and deal with these people. But the problems we face now, to some extent, we have to take responsibility for having contributed to,” Clinton said.

Bernsten: In her statement she also stated the United States created the Taliban or participated in the creation of the Taliban, which is a ridiculous statement. We created and worked with the Mujahideen a decade before that, and they were defeated by the Taliban, which were created by ISI, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate of the Pakistani military. And of course, the reason the Taliban were created was because there was a civil war going on among factions of the Mujahideen who had come to power.

http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/24/taliban-not-going-anywhere/

@Barleymash

I was in the Air Force from 1979 until 1990. I got out because Bush I and congress were trying to remove dependents from our medical coverage, and still paying us little or nothing. When Gulf War I broke out, I volunteered to return but was never called up.

My little brother (Navy) did multiple tours in Iraq during Gulf War I and Iraq and Afghanistan in Gulf War II. He has two Air Medals and multiple other commendations.

By the way, I realize flying an airplane into a building doesn’t constitute “firing the first shot,” but I’m going to go out on a limb and say it could possibly be the start of a war. Once a war is started, we, the U.S. are allowed to do what we see fit to win it. If that means invading a complicit country in the interests of logistics, so be it. After WWII, Patton said we should turn our tanks north and take care of Russia. Turns out, he was right.

Actually, Missy, thanks — that’s great info. I’m going to read more of that when I have the time. I appreciate it.

Aqua, thanks, I suspected you were; you sounded like someone who understood military life better than some of the armchair generals. But I fundamentally disagree with the idea that ” Once a war is started, we, the U.S. are allowed to do what we see fit to win it.” I’d love to know how we get a free pass to drag noncombatant nations into our shooting wars. Is that your personal opinion, in which case, well, there’s nothing else to say except I disagree, or are you relying on some legal authority? The International Red Cross, for instance, cites this rule as fundamental to waging war: “Neither the parties to the conflict nor members of their armed forces have an unlimited right to choose methods and means of warfare.” You probably don’t agree, but to what license do you refer? I mean, you do recognize our obligations under the Geneva Conventions, don’t you?

And Aye, you really have to stop declaring Mission Accomplished. It didn’t work for your hero Dubya and it won’t work for you.

B

ah yes… had to figure that the hypersensitive and delicate barley would take issue with the “cockroach theory”. In his “colorful world”, apparently reading comprehension is an option, while he demands other go back and “actually READ” his posts. Oh my…

Instead, mash takes a discussion with Gaffa about why Iraq was a logical theatre choice to engage the global Islamic jihad movement in war, and conflates that to charge that I “…referred to the Iraqis as cockroaches”, and “…consider foreigners to be expendable cockroaches”..

What has public education come to….

Absorb this, mash:

1: the discussion was about military strategy and theatres after Afghanistan. Therefore the “cockroach theory” relates not to Iraqis, but the jihad movements that fought with AQ, Taliban, etal. And that includes members of all different nationalities.

2: the cockroach theory is that when you disturb their nest, they scatter to other digs nearby

So yes… when it comes to waging war and strategy, the jihad movement is indeed human cockroaches. But I’m sure you’d think they’re really very nice guys, if you met them.

2) Saddam as “Jihadist proxy”:
You note Saddam was utilizing jihad groups as an unofficial state terror weapon since the early 90s. So were we, since much earlier. Really. We supported and armed the Taliban, which sheltered to Al Qaeda. That’s “proxy.”

I see that reading comprehension is not your only educational downfall. We’ll have to add history.

The US supported Afghan elements in the 80s against the Soviets. They were the mujahideen, who are now known as the Northern Alliance. There was an OBL fighting at their side, pre AQ days. And no doubt, some of those in Mullah Omar’s Taliban were also in the mix. For you see, this was the 80s, and the Taliban was not formed until 1993-94.

The Taliban was created by Pakistan’s Maulana Fazlur Rahman of Pakistan (known in that nation as “The Father of the Taliban”, who orchestrated forming the group with Afghanistan’s Mullah Omar. Their purpose was to protect Zardari’s cotton shipments during the Pakistan drought, that were being raided by Hekmatyar. They were begat, funded and supported by Benazir Bhutto’s admin, as well as the man now holding the Presidency in Pakistan. Musharraf was also involved.

Thus your comment that the US (ala the CIA) “supported and armed the Taliban” bears little resemblence to reality since the Taliban simply did not exist in the 1980s. In fact, the support lent to the mujahideen in the 80s, now known as the Northern Alliance, were those that fought along side the US against the Taliban in our war, as the Taliban overthrew the Alliance for control, starting with Kabul in 1996.

That said, the Northern Alliance is as brutal a group as the Taliban. However they are still two different groups, and at war with each other for power, as the different jihad factions do when they are not fighting a common enemy.

I’ve already addressed your idiocy INRE the claim that the US has “killed hundreds of thousands” of Iraqis. You prefer to pick up some 400,000 to 600,000 number as convenience to your argument and diss the Iraq Body Count. There’s two points to this:

1: It is not the US that is responsible for vehicle and suicide bombings, nor executions. You go thru the incidents on the IBC site and you will find few over the history that are associated with US or coalition collateral damage. That you blame our troops for the enemies kills is not only unconcionable, it’s blatantly anti-American.

2: Using your puffed up number of just 400,000 entails the world believe that in the (as of today) 2295 days since OIF commenced, 174 people have died each and every day in Iraq. It’s 261 if you use your 600,000 deaths claim. None of this is either believable, nor substantiated.

Which of course means that along with your reading and history disabilities, you also have math disabilities. All of which probably qualifies you to have a seat in the US Congress.

@Aye Chihuahua:

“Dubya” never declared Mission Accomplished.

So, how are we supposed to interpret THIS?

@Mata

1: the discussion was about military strategy and theatres after Afghanistan. Therefore the “cockroach theory” relates not to Iraqis, but the jihad movements that fought with AQ, Taliban, etal. And that includes members of all different nationalities.

2: the cockroach theory is that when you disturb their nest, they scatter to other digs nearby

Perfect.

I’ll cite Mata:

Now, also in your comment, you are misrepresenting the story of the “Mission Accomplished” banner as a White House organized photo op instead of a banner requested by the crew of the longest deployment. Also, it’s particular placement on the ship was the most logical giving the ship’s design, and where the formal gathering to greet the CIC was held on deck.

Your comments suggest you are are clueless as to the ship’s history and the story, your forgot the story, or you just refuse to accept the facts.

Assuming one of the first two, here’s a repeat via one of my mid January comments to bring you up to speed… hopefully for the last time.

Also, Wordsmith did a post on this back in January, bu didn’t go into as much detail about the longest deployment for a naval vessel on record.

In the future, it would be great if you didn’t continue to beat a dead horse with misleading talking points, and continually force us to dive into the archives to countermand your casual accusations.

@Wordsmith:

Regardless of what it actually tactically or politically meant, and I’m aware of your position of it as a “bogus talking point”. and am not necessarily bringing it up to refute you; but how do you expect any average Joe to look at that and think anything of it as anything other than a declaration that “we got the job done”?

@Aye Chihuahua:

(Was that respectful enough?)

Imagine that I wrote in the same tone to you, and tell me yourself.

but how do you expect any average Joe to look at that and think anything of it as anything other than a declaration that “we got the job done”?

By not repeating and/or spreading media distortions and lies, that aid in changing bogus talking points into perceived “facts”, Cary. You know the ol’ saying, repeat a lie often enough….

@mata:
It’s why I call them human cockroaches…

Your words. And the context doesn’t help at all. When you equate the disposal of bugs to the eradication of humans, well, then, you’re referring to human beings as the tactical equivalent of cockroaches. That’s just completely f’d up.

And I know you’ve got this long convoluted explanation for why the banner was there, and how Dubya didn’t notice it, and so on and so on and so on. On this one, I’m simply calling bullshit. In the non-blog world, leaders make speeches in front of banners they’ve approved. Leaders take responsibility for the props their own employees deploy. Even Rumsfeld acknowledged that the banner was a White House prop. He successfully pulled the phrase from Bush’s speech, but didn’t catch the banner. That says two things: Bush INTENDED to say Mission Accomplished until Rumsfeld stopped him, and yes, Bush’s staff is even more incompetent than we suspected.

http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3744

The jihad movement are human cockroaches in their waging of jihad and strategy of hiding behind human shields, and murdering civilians to advance their quest for a Caliphate. I’ll add to that the jihad movements are the scum of the earth as a lifeform and, as far as I’m concerned, long since forfeited their rights to share the planet with others.

This is entirely different than your accusation that I called “foreigners” and “Iraqis” cockroaches.

But as I said, I’m quite sure that you’d get along with them just fine in a personal meet and greet.

Oh yes… not to leave a stone unturned INRE “Mission Accomplished”, never once did I say Bush “didn’t notice”, for in fact he assumed responsibility for the miscommunique…. unlike your hero who always lets someone else take the fall.

You may call “bullshit” all you want, but the sign was the request of the naval crew, who had just finished the longest sea deployment in history. The task of making a banner… a sign business not being set up as part of a battleship’s facilities… came from the WH.

Rumsfeld removed the words from the speech knowing it wasn’t an accurate assessment of Bush’s position. Rumsfeld says “they” fixed the speech, but not the sign. Was Rumsfeld aware that the WH made the banner at the crew’s request? He doesn’t say. Was Bush? We don’t know. Doesn’t matter because even tho it was not their message to convey, they still absorbed the flack for it.

What we do know is that was the crew’s perception of *their* mission, and a well deserved pat on the back. That you want to make it a political issue of ineptitude proves you’re desperate to grasp at straws to support your BDS. Perhaps you would prefer they hid behind the military and blamed the crew instead of taking the heat themselves?

Frankly, I thought it was stellar they took crap from people like you and stood behind their troops.

He successfully pulled the phrase from Bush’s speech, but didn’t catch the banner. That says two things: Bush INTENDED to say Mission Accomplished until Rumsfeld stopped him, and yes, Bush’s staff is even more incompetent than we suspected.

BM, the mission was accomplished. For the crew of the Abraham Lincoln after a long deployment, they were home. As for the war, major combat operations were done. But then what did President Bush say in his speech? Only your partisan brain makes you refuse to accept the reality of the facts. When facts are in the way, you decide to “simply call bullshit”. And I’m still waiting for the supporting evidence on the Administration officials who knowingly lied about wmd.

Also, from the Woodward interview and referencing Draper’s account, there’s no indication the phrase “Mission Accomplished” was exxed out by Rumsfeld; what he disapproved of were statements that suggested a McArthurian finality of victory.

MR. WOODWARD: — that the country is dealing with. And you know, one thing — just one quick thing not on the list but someone told me about the other day, which I found fascinating. When the person that gave that speech on the Lincoln with the “Mission Accomplished” on the back, somebody told me that the White House speechwriters had used MacArthur’s surrender speech on the Missouri as a model. And they literally had in that speech “the guns are silent,” and you edited it out.

SEC. RUMSFELD: I took “mission accomplished” out. I was in Baghdad, and I was given a draft of that thing to look at. And I just died, and I said my God, it’s too conclusive. And I fixed it and sent it back..

That reads like a “catch-all”- of what the phrase came to symbolize to Bush war critics- and not specifically the words themselves. I could be wrong; but irregardless, the mission was accomplished.

I can only work with information in the public domain. Rumsfeld said “I took Mission Accomplished out.” In fact, he specifically CORRECTED Woodward when Woodward suggested he had done something else. I rarely hear people correct a specific with a “catch-all.” Especially when that “catch-all” is already a specific part of the conversation — a specific PHYSICAL ITEM already referred to.

Sure, the ship’s mission was accomplished. But the phrase was in the speech about combat operations. Why would you suspect the banner referred to the ship, while the exact same phrase in the speech referred to something different? Why would anyone do that? Even if you’re entirely correct about the genesis of the banner, and that’s entirely possible, the Bush administration used it as a PR prop AS IF they meant it for the entire Iraqi operation until months later, when conditions on the ground were making them look foolish.

Barley: Even if you’re entirely correct about the genesis of the banner, and that’s entirely possible, the Bush administration used it as a PR prop AS IF they meant it for the entire Iraqi operation until months later, when conditions on the ground were making them look foolish.

It was the Bush speechwriters who inserted the phrase, perhaps referencing the banner. Not Rumsfeld nor Bush. Rumsfeld screened the speech, and removed it as inappropriate. Whatever powers that be did not remove the banner.

That you are confused is obvious. And, perhaps, understandable. However I’d like to point out that the rest of us also “only work with information in the public domain”, and we are well aware of the banner’s origin.

As far as looking foolish, thanks to mentalities that did not find out the story behind the banner, that is absolutely true. And while the Bush WH could legitimately point to the crew as an excuse for the miscommunique, they did not throw the crew under the bus (like the current POTUS does at every instance) in order to save their own face… and instead accepted the criticisms from a lazy and uninformed media and public with grace.

And for that, you call them inept.

Careful, Aye… you’re going to get one monster of a headache pounding your kepi against that brick wall.

@Barleymash:

Rumsfeld said “I took Mission Accomplished out.” In fact, he specifically CORRECTED Woodward when Woodward suggested he had done something else. I rarely hear people correct a specific with a “catch-all.” Especially when that “catch-all” is already a specific part of the conversation — a specific PHYSICAL ITEM already referred to.

You might be correct. But looking at the context of the exchange, it’s not at all clear he was “correcting” Woodward, but summing up the content of what he disapproved of as “Mission Accomplished”, basically borrowing the phrase with all the negative connotations that came to be associated with it, thanks to the spinmeisters.

Sure, the ship’s mission was accomplished. But the phrase was in the speech about combat operations.

The only way to know if it was or wasn’t is to obtain a copy of the draft itself, and what was being specified. And the major combat operations had come to a close, at the time. But what did the speech Bush actually delivered- not the draft versions that were rejected- say regarding our mission in Iraq?

Why would you suspect the banner referred to the ship, while the exact same phrase in the speech referred to something different? Why would anyone do that?

Because it doesn’t look to me like the phrase itself was in the speech.

Even if you’re entirely correct about the genesis of the banner, and that’s entirely possible, the Bush administration used it as a PR prop AS IF they meant it for the entire Iraqi operation until months later, when conditions on the ground were making them look foolish.

PR prop gone bad? Sure. And it’s exactly the kind of finality Rumsfeld didn’t think was warranted by the speech writers.

I really encourage you to read the links I provided of previous posts; and re-read the Carrier speech itself.

@MataHarley:

Yes, I know.

Seeing as how BM told us that he “only work[s] with information in the public domain” I am quite sure that he has some sort of source for what he posted.

He’ll be by any minute now to support his claims by citing something straight from Tenet himself….or, perhaps he’ll finally have the stones to admit that he was deliberately misleading, yea, even LYING, about information that is in the “public domain” while hoping that no one here would notice or call him on it.

Any. Minute. Now.

Yeah.

@Aye Chihuahua:

Yeah, I removed that part of my comment knowing you’d jump on it. Of course, I get your point. It doesn’t negate mine that it was a major blunder which sent the wrong message.

And, in all honesty, I root for the Mets unless they’re playing the Yankees. I’m a New Yorker.

@Cary:

The only people that it sent the “wrong message” to are those who willfully ignore the facts surrounding the photo, the event, and the speech itself.

Anyone who is intellectually honest would admit that the banner was nothing more than innocuous.

@Cary:

In light of what’s been discussed in the context of this thread, I’ll have to disagree.

If that’s your position, then it’s entirely appropriate to exclude you from the intellectually honest group.

if that’s your position, then it’s entirely appropriate to exclude you from the intellectually honest group.

Getting a little lonely on the outskirts, ChiChi?

Tick tock? Here’s a funny story to while away you time, puppy-dog. I had a girlfriend many years ago who insisted that every argument be framed to her exact specifications, very much the way you’re ignoring my source for the claim that Tenet told Bush about the lack of WMDs. “It must be in the form of a direct quote or video!” Yap! Yap! Yap! I dumped her because she was a tiresome and petty little bitch. Gee, this story gets more and more relevant every moment, huh?

@Barleymash
Not speaking for anyone here at FA or the Bush Admin, but I’ve pretty much laid everything out for you Barley.
So, I have a question for you. You’ve pretty much shot straight with me and I with you, so don’t dodge the question, answer it straight up.

If you were President and the Joint Chiefs told you exactly what you could expect with a war in Afghanistan, (read massive U.S. casualties and a very long Vietnam type war), but offered you an alternative, that being staging out troops in Iraq to lure the jidhadists to us….what would you do? Would you go on CNN and let the American people know, which would also alert the enemy to your plan? Would you just let Al-Q and the Taliban slide, admitting that we couldn’t take them on their home turf? Be honest, I would love to hear your response.

Hey, Aqua — given only the scenario you’ve painted, I might possibly consider the option you describe as a very last resort. There are innocents involved and I do really believe that American ideals compel us to protect the innocent.

But the scenario you paint is not, IMO, a rational understanding of the nature of the conflict we’re in. Terrorists are not a finite number of troops. Their weapons are not manufactured like tanks and aircraft, in a specific array of factories that can be bombed to hell. A full-grown and committed suicide bomber can be created in a moment. It’s not about training (although that’s important); it’s about vengeance. And experts have pegged the foreign membership of Al Qaeda in Iraq at just about 10 percent. So our relocation of hostilities to Iraq moved a FEW local terrorists onto our chosen turf, but it also created a NEW enemy, 90% of it home-grown and self-replenishing. The math doesn’t work for me. And remember, I really do believe we have an obligation — as it states in the Geneva Conventions that we signed — NOT to endanger civilians. And frankly, we certainly have. I firmly believe our post 9/11 conflict was NOT the Iraqis war until we chose to make it so and it has NOT generated the outcome you hope for. We still have not established stability in Afghanistan, nor have we brought the mastermind of 9/11 to justice.

I’m just not seeing the upside.

B

If I’m not mistaken, the GC states it is illegal to *intentionally* engage in rules of war that pose extraordinary risk to endanger civilians. Using BM’s translation, every battle is “illegal”.

Other than that, Aqua… I’d say you covered all my initial thoughts when I read his “dodge”…. and a big time “dodge” it was.

@Barleymash:

We still have not established stability in Afghanistan, nor have we brought the mastermind of 9/11 to justice.

Dayum!

Is there no limit to your ignorance?

KSM, the mastermind of 9/11, is currently sitting in a cell at Gitmo.

If it hadn’t been for whiny Leftist pantywaists like yourself he would likely have already been tried, and perhaps even punished, for his crimes.

@Aye Chihuahua:

If that’s your position, then it’s entirely appropriate to exclude you from the intellectually honest group.

Okay then, I’ll direct you Wordsmith’s comment #102…

But Bush agrees with you, that it gave a false impression and opened himself up for political opponents to take full advantage and spin away on it.

So your ad hominem insult towards me, which you base on my disagreement with you on this matter, can also be applied to Bush.

Then I can summarize that it’s clear that I’m not afraid to admit that I agree with Bush, as you are to admit you agree with Obama.

I’ll let the last word be yours. No doubt you’ll use it to bully me as I walk away from you. But I’m quite content with not being alpha.

So until our next discussion…

be well.

That’s very cute, Chalupa. So you don’t hold Osama Bin Laden responsible for 9/11 anymore? Sure, KSM’s sitting in a cell. That satisfies you, fine. We got the job half-one and you’ve declared “Mission Accomplished” (oops there you go again.)

Mata: In post 136, were you making a point?

Aqua: Consider it a dodge if you will, but I’m not interested in falling into the “when did you stop beating your wife” hypothetical trap of your argument. For the record, I’m all for torture in ACTUAL ticking time-bomb situations. I’m all for sacrificing hostages to ACTUALLY save a greater number of innocents. I would arm insurgents to take down a murderous dictator. I have no objection to these tactics — my objection is to the idea that we’re ALWAYS in a hair-on-fire crisis. Sure, move the battlefield somewhere more practical, once you’ve established through experience that the battlefield you’re on is a serious problem. But we were NOT in a shooting war with anyone when moving the battlefield to Iraq was presented. The goal of attacking Iraq was in play long before 9/11. It was never a tactic of last resort to save American lives in Afghanistan. Justify it in hind-sight all you like, but that’s all you’re doing.

@Barleymash:

That’s very cute, Chalupa. So you don’t hold Osama Bin Laden responsible for 9/11 anymore? Sure, KSM’s sitting in a cell.

Listen Mishmash, you’re the one whining about the “mastermind of 9/11″ not having been brought to justice.

Those were your words. Own them. Embrace them. They’re yours.

OBL is a different person, he played a different and, in the scheme of things, a rather minimal role, in the events of 9/11.

If you meant OBL, then you should have said OBL instead of “mastermind”.

Say what you mean. Mean what you say.

It’s pretty apparent that you didn’t know about KSM’s role, thus you left your mental midgetry exposed….again.

That’s becoming a rather distinctive pattern for you isn’t it?

my objection is to the idea that we’re ALWAYS in a hair-on-fire crisis.

If you were being honest in the quote above, the time period since Jan 20, 2009 has been rather unpleasant for you, eh?

PS….Still waiting in eager anticipation for the direct quote from Tenet regarding WMD…I cannot wait to see precisely what “he said”.

What were Tenet’s words exactly, you know, since you said that “he said” it.

Why yes, Barley. My point in #136 was in reference to your narrow misinterpretation of the GC. To jog your memory, you said:

And remember, I really do believe we have an obligation — as it states in the Geneva Conventions that we signed — NOT to endanger civilians.

Since collateral damage has always been an unfortunate part of warfare, and most especially with a non-GC signatory and enemy combatant/non-State opposition who uses human shields, the GC was expanded with some clarification in some, but not all, of these kinds of circumstances. And key is whether the military target offers enough concrete strategic value for destruction that it justifies the risk for collateral damage. It also specifies that if you have several military objectives in a village, you can’t just bombard the entire village at random.

Under your GC interpretation, any military object target located within a city, mosque, or other buildings which civilians patronize (willingly or not), our military or coalition could not wage an attack. That is simply not what the GC states.

So to educate you to GC specifics, and how it relates to instances where civilians are apt to suffer negative consequences, I reprinted the updated rules of engagements sections.

But I’m always surprised when people start trashing Ritter. I mean, Ritter was right. We’ve been there 6 frickin’ years. The only mustard or nerve gas we found was from before 1991.

I’m not trashing Ritter. Nor do I hold him up on a pedestal as you do for being 100% correct. He was incorrect that “all” CW production facility and missiles were “verifiably eliminated”, as proven by the discovery of the buried mobile labs (not far from where they were inspecting, BTW) and the missile in the Netherlands junk yard (another oops for Scott “we woulda found it by now” Ritter).

Your assertation that all sarin and mustard agents found were somehow acceptable as being manufactured prior to 1991 is not entirely correct. The key is was it caches declared to the UN, available for monitoring and in the sealed bunkers? No… quite the opposite. This discovery caught Saddam with his hand in the cookie jar.

From the link INRE those in particular:

They believe the mustard gas shell may have been one of 550 projectiles for which former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein failed to account when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to then account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas. That, combined with the shells, totaled about 80 tons of unaccounted for mustard gas.

It also appears some top Pentagon officials were surprised by the sarin news; they thought the matter was classified, administration officials told Fox News.

An official at the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) headquarters in New York said the commission is surprised to hear news of the mustard gas.

“If that’s the case, why didn’t they announce it earlier?” the official asked.

As the Bush admin stated often, Saddam was not declaring all the facts and assets on CW agents he possessed… regardless of the year of manufacture. That discovery proved that accusation as undeniably true.

So now we know, beyond any doubt, that Saddam possessed undeclared and illegal mobile labs and missiles with longer range than permitted, and he possessed unaccounted for nerve agents. Well, at least *some* of us know beyond any doubt this is true. You are still clinging to pro-Saddam fantasies. Or perhaps that’s just BDS fantasies.

But wait… there’s *more*…. :0)

There was the discovery of an active CW lab in northern Mosul that was established post OIF and contained 1,500 gallons of chemicals. More were found prior, including in Fallujah, but none as large as this one.

Manufacturing CW requires both facilities and expertise. We already know Saddam never declared all his labs, and we most certainly never captured all the experts. Were the experts foreign entities? Were these labs completely built from scratch with equipment smuggled into a war zone? Or renovated from dual use facilties? The latter is most likely as Saddam procured the dual use equipment for use thru out the 90s.

Or, per the CIA,

Iraq’s historical ability to implement simple solutions to weaponization challenges allowed Iraq to retain the capability to weaponize CW agent when the need arose. Because of the risk of discovery and consequences for ending UN sanctions, Iraq would have significantly jeopardized its chances of having sanctions lifted or no longer enforced if the UN or foreign entity had discovered that Iraq had undertaken any weaponization activities.

ISG has uncovered hardware at a few military depots, which suggests that Iraq may have prototyped experimental CW rounds. The available evidence is insufficient to determine the nature of the effort or the timeframe of activities.

Iraq could indigenously produce a range of conventional munitions, throughout the 1990s, many of which had previously been adapted for filling with CW agent. However, ISG has found ambiguous evidence of weaponization activities.

In short, Saddam possessed undeclared labs and CW caches, and retained facilities where the program could be easily kickstarted because of a dual use design. Saddam was also proven to have intent.

Thus your most confident claim that there were no CW in Iraq is premature and, at best, pie in the sky. As I said…. I believe the jury is still out on the truth, and it’s a damn shame that there is little curiosity. But I guess that big time backpeddling on years of “no WMD” propaganda, and loss of credibility, serves as a serious deterrent.

I doubt that any of the sources you hang your confidence on believed Saddam was an innocent victim with a change of heart about possessing chem/bio and/or nuke weapons. And all agree that he was in a position to ramp up to speed quickly once sanctions were removed. In the meantime, he did quite well eroding those sanctions with the black market and the UN’s OFF. ‘

Saddam’s deposition is a good thing, and was official US policy since Clinton’s Iraq Liberation Act. It was sanctioned not only by that legislation, but by overwhelming Congressional approval on the AUMF, which contained at least 23 “whereas” reasons with only 7 or so pertaining to Wmd.

Iraq has a much brighter future on it’s present course, and they’ve paid dearly for the price of governing themselves. I’m sure this bugs the tar out of you, but it is what it is.

@Barleymash #144:

There were no WMDs.

Not entirely accurate (as Mata points out), but even if conceded…..so what? How does that invalidate/delegitimize the decision to finally enforce UNSCR 678? When weighing together all the intell info we pulled together at the time, the intell that pointed to Saddam as being a wmd threat outweighed the voices who cautioned otherwise. The case for war was built as much around capability and intent as much as the potential that he had posession of. President Bush never said the threat was imminent. That was language used by Democrats. President Bush said we had to act before the threat became imminent; because if it’s imminent, then we would have responded too late.

Our intell on WMD appears to have overestimated Saddam’s status on those; but the CIA also underplayed the al Qaeda-Saddam links, which are extensive (and no, I did not overstate collaborative links- nor did Bush or Cheney; and no, I did not say Saddam had a hand in orchestrating the events of 9/11- a different argument). And given Saddam’s love for wmd and his extensive ties to and open state-sponsorship of Islamic terrorism, in a post-9/11 world, what the Administration feared was the marriage of the two: wmd attacks delivered by terrorist proxies. It’s a CIA myth that a secular Saddam would not collaborate with jihadis for common short term goals. The Iraqi Perspective Project pilloried Paul Pillar’s noncooperation theory on this.

I’m sure you don’t agree, but I’d rather be right than, well, STILL apologizing for the Bush Administration.

Who’s apologizing for the Bush Administration? I’m very proud of the fact that Bush kept America safe from another 9/11 terror attack on U.S. soil. And that’s related as much to military action in Iraq and Afghanistan as it is to diplomacy and cooperation between nations, disrupting al Qaeda financing, intell, wiretaps and Patriot Act.

I’m sure you don’t agree, but I’d rather be right.

So, you got anything to debunk the Downing Street Memos?

Just what is it I’m supposed to “debunk”? I think it’s legit, although it’s a shame the reporter felt the need to destroy the original copy. And revisiting it, I still don’t see how this is supposed to be some “smoking gun” “a-ha” “gotcha” official document that “Bush lied, people died”. It’s a source speculating about a source speculating about a source speculating about what Bush was thinking about.

Can it be argued that the Administration was mistaken about wmd (due to CIA’s oversell)? Yes. That they knew there weren’t wmd? No. That they knew for certain that they’d find wmd? Not so certain (even Rumsfeld’s “parade of horribles” which was a checklist of everything that could possibly go wrong in Iraq listed the possibility that they might not find wmd)- and that was part of the point! We just didn’t know. But in a post-9/11 world, we were no longer willing to wait him out and tolerate a metastasizing cancer upon the world who practiced a decade of defiance and deception, and kept us guessing.

Given that Saddam was a constant menace throughout the 90’s with media reports that had linked him to bin Laden back then, the problem of Iraq and unenforced UN resolutions, any Administration would have been remiss not to take Iraq into foreign policy considerations on day one; and derelict to not examine whether or not Saddam had any involvement with 9/11 after it happened.

The burden of proof was upon Saddam. Not the UN. Not the U.S. Saddam played his cards and ultimately paid the price when he underestimated the intent of this president and assumed more of the same: more angry UN resolutions and saber rattling that meant nothing to him, perhaps an aspirin factory or two bombed, which he could weather, perhaps more cat-and-mouse games with UN inspectors…followed by the status quo (minus the fact that he was close to achieving a lifting of sanctions….after which….well, go read the Duelfer Report) of remaining in power.

This part of the memo seems to contradict “Bush knowing there were no wmds”:

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

Then there’s the matter of the Emily Litella Memo, which seems to undermine the DSM.

A memorandum written by Prime Minister Tony Blair’s cabinet office in late July 2002 explicitly states that the Bush administration had made “no political decisions” to invade Iraq, but that American military planning for the possibility was advanced. The memo also said American planning, in the eyes of Mr. Blair’s aides, was “virtually silent” on the problems of a postwar occupation.

“A postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise,” warned the memorandum, prepared July 21 for a meeting with Mr. Blair a few days later. It also appeared to take as a given the presence of illicit weapons in Iraq – an assumption that later proved almost entirely wrong – and warned that merely removing Saddam Hussein from power would not guarantee that those weapons could be secured.

A transcript of the memorandum was posted Sunday on the Web site of The Sunday Times of London, after The Washington Post, citing one of the British paper’s own correspondents as a source, published excerpts. No image of the original was included, The Times said, to protect its source; a note on the Web site said the last page was missing.

Read the rest. There’s much more.

A number of independent investigations including the Robb-Silbermann Commission, Butler Report, and SSCI Report on Iraq Prewar Intelligence have exonerated the Administration of manipulating intell and pressuring analysts to “fix” the intell around the policy.

In private conversations intercepted by U.S. intell, Iraqi officials spoke as if Saddam continued to possess wmd; even Iraqi generals believed Saddam possessed them. Intell agencies around the world and UN officials believed Iraq possessed wmd.

Of course…..the Bush case for war was built around a lot more than the belief that Saddam was in possession of wmd stockpiles.

From the dreadful neocon, Doug Feith, War and Decision pg 331:

Nor were those errors an essential part of the Administration’s rationale for regime change. Suppose that President Bush had made the public case for war entirely accurately, in light of all that we learned afterward about Iraqi WMD programs. He would have presented the case essentially as he did- but without using the CIA’s incorrect assessment about stockpiles. He would have said that Saddam still intended to produce WMD and had preserved the ability to make chemical and biological weapons within a few weeks.

In 2002, the idea of U.S.-led military action to overthrow Saddam had broad support across the United States, including in the Congress. Would those who supported the war have failed to support it because Saddam was three or five weeks- or even twenty weeks- away from having the chemical and biological weapons we thought he had? Would anyone concerned about Saddam’s obtaining nuclear weapons have been comforted to hear that he had simply put his enrichment program on hold, even though Iraq might still import fissile material and produce a nuclear weapon in less than twelve months? Saddam had the technicians and scientists necessary to produce a nuclear bomb- and he retained the intention to do so after economic sanctions were lifted.

If not for Bush’s decision in 2003, President Barack Obama in 2009 would have not only Iran and North Korea to contend with, but Saddam’s Iraq- a wmd-loving friend and ally to the jihadi movement- to fence-straddle over as well.