Not to be outdone by Obama in the “making a fool of myself” arena Hillary comes out with this:
Democrat Hillary Clinton charged on Monday the Iraq war may cost Americans $1 trillion and add strain to the sagging US economy as she made her case for a prompt US troop pullout from a war “we cannot win.”
Jveritas at FR, who translated many of the Saddam Documents, found this nugget in response to her statement that we can’t win:
It did not take long for Ekhlaas, the largest terrorist forum on the internet to rejoice and be all happy with Hillary Clinton defeatist statements today about the war in Iraq. Hillary Clinton said that we cannot win this war even if we stay there for a 100 year. The terrorists were very glad to hear this and below are some of their comments which I translated:
“Zamjari”: Allah is Great Brothers, Hillary Clinton: We cannot win the war in Iraq even if we stay for a hundred year
“Moukhles Moutaalek”: You dogs, you sacrifice the future of your country so you can win a presidential election. If America withdraws from Iraq this will give a clear signal that America can be defeated and America will suffer from attacks all over the world. Taste the flavor of treason you Americans, I am mocking you, may allah put the in authority the traitors from their own skin, the slaves of thrones.
“Younis Al Shami”: In America’s fight against the people of Mesopotamia, America will forget the horrors of Vietnam
“Hode”: Allah protect Sheikh Ossama the conqueror of the Americans from the plots of the enemies
Way to go Hillary! Tell the world that we cannot win a war we are winning already.
More from todays speech:
Now, withdrawal is not risk-free, but the risks of staying in Iraq are certain. And a well-planned withdrawal is the one and only path to a political solution. The only way to spur the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future and to ensure that we don’t bear that responsibility indefinitely. The only way to spur other countries to do their part to help secure stability in the region. The commitment to staying in Iraq has driven President Bush’s foreign policy. It looks like it would drive Senator McCain’s foreign policy as well, but it will not drive mine. My foreign policy will be driven by what is in America’s national security interests…
The most important part of my plan is the first step, to bring our troops home and send the strongest possible message to the Iraqis that they must take responsibly for their own future. No more talk of permanent occupation, no more policing a civil war, no more doing for the Iraqis what they need to be doing for themselves. As president, one of my first official actions will be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, my Secretary of Defense and my National Security Council and direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to start bringing our troops home within the first 60 days of my taking office. A plan based on my consultation with the military to remove one to two brigades a month, a plan that reduces the risks of attack as they depart.
And Allah reminds us about how far she would go to get our troops out of Iraq from a year old interview:
In a half-hour interview on Tuesday in her Senate office, Mrs. Clinton said the scaled-down American military force that she would maintain in Iraq after taking office would stay off the streets in Baghdad and would no longer try to protect Iraqis from sectarian violence — even if it descended into ethnic cleansing.
Asked if Americans would endure having troops in Iraq who do nothing to stop sectarian attacks there, Mrs. Clinton replied, “Look, I think the American people are done with Iraq. I think they’re at a point where, whether they thought it was a good idea or not, they have seen misjudgment and blunder after blunder, and their attitude is, what is this getting us? What is this doing for us?”
“No one wants to sit by and see mass killing,” she added. “It’s going on every day! Thousands of people are dying every month in Iraq. Our presence there is not stopping it. And there is no potential opportunity I can imagine where it could. This is an Iraqi problem — we cannot save the Iraqis from themselves. If we had a different attitude going in there, if we had stopped the looting immediately, if we had asserted our authority — you can go down the lines, if, if, if.”
No problem with ethnic cleansing in Iraq to ensure that the war Bush started in Iraq goes down in defeat but she begged her hubby to stop the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda way back when.
See author page
Using her logic, we lost WWII, since we still have troops stationed in those areas. Here’s the difference between President Bush and Hilary/Obama — one is driven by a moral duty for the country, the other two are driven by partisan politics.
I know what the trolls will say — “ha! Bush is hyper partisan and a war monger, and he’s a drunk, it is totally political!!” Not so, if he cared about politics, he would have withdrawn the troops when the war was quite unpopular. He forged ahead, like all good leaders do.
She is correct. Our military can hold the grond, but as General Petraeus has reported, the Iraqi government is not ending the civil war on their own. So, unless you aspire to John McCain’s “100-year-war”, then we cannot win in Iraq.
“Winning” is not a matter of shooting sufficient “bad guys”, particularly as we are learing that the insurgency if being paid for from corruption (pilfered oil money) and even or own funds thatr have been “lost”. “Winning” is that “Shining Example of Democracy” that George W. Bush set out to build in the Middle East.
How may decades are you willing to spend $12 billion a month to continue your Nation Building?
The 100 year war is not what you think it is Steve — it means a 100 year presence to provide stability and security. I’d say that model worked pretty well with Japan and Germany, no?
People like you didn’t give a rat’s arse about Saddam’s atrocities — like Hitchens said today in his piece, this war was inevitable because of Saddam’s repeated violation of UN resolutions. The man was a cancer who had to go — it’s high time liberals like yourself realized this.
I apologize for the double post.
But the WW II logic is false, and a deliberate Conservative Red Herring. Five years after the Pearl Harbor attack, we were no longer watching our troops being killed on the streets of Berlin by German soldiers or Tokyo by Japanese ones. How long before you can say that of Baghdad?
If you said were were occupying a country not still at war, then the analogy would hold. But, of course, no Conservative anywheire is permitted to acknowledge that fact. They must all adhere to John McCain’s claim that walking about Baghdad is as safe as walking anywhere in the US (as long as you have a heavily armed brigade of soldiers around you, as Senator McCain did today and the last time he told us how swell things are in the Iraqi civil war).
I have to call you on that one Steve.
While it is true that in Japan, there was no insurgency post WWII (benefits of having the emperor, who Japanese held as divine at the time, call for complete and total surrender). However, in Germany there was a not insignificant insurgency that lasted until at least 1947, and possibly as late as 1949, led by elements of the former SS and Waffen SS.
The parallels between Germany and Iraq are at least worth noting: Nazi Germany = Fascist Regime, Bathist Iraq = Fascist Regime; seed groups of the Nazi insurgency were the former crack troops / body guards of the old regime, seed groups of the Iraq insurgency were the former crack troops / body guards of the old regime. Granted, the outside religious fanatic AQ influence is missing, but few parallels are perfect.
I think you exaggerate in claiming that McCain would call Baghdad as safe as an American city. However, to not acknowledge the improvement that has transpired there since General Petraeus took command and the surge began is simply ignoring facts. I’m not going to get into a debate over which political party is more intolerant of dissent, since it is bound to end in an impasse. But, I will state that in my own personal experience that I have never had a fellow conservative challenge my right to assert my opinions, or any facts. Anyway, just wanted to set history straight here.
Hillary’s “permanent occupation” slander denies Iraqi sovereignty. It’s like saying we are occupying Germany and South Korea. Anything to hand victory to our enemies.
I had been thinking that she was less dangerous than Obama because she does not positively hate and want to destroy America, but maybe I’m wrong about that. Her refusal to give up this defeatist line a year of victory later suggests there is really not much to choose beteen her and Obama. Both are determined to see American defeat.
I would say the war for the U.S. is over for Iraq and the U.S. won. The Iraqis have a 350,000+ security force. Let them secure the peace (and so far where the terrorists are grouped, there are few non Iraqi troops because the Iraqi troops don’t need the foriegn troops to help). The U.S.’s fight now is with Iraq’s brain drain and poor infrastructure. When somebody done building a school or a water well, the word is “finished” not won so Hillary scores points for being technically correct.
Re: “However, in Germany there was a not insignificant insurgency that lasted until at least 1947, and possibly as late as 1949, led by elements of the former SS and Waffen SS.”
You’re talking about the werewolves. They were never a factor. However the Bush Administration did propose them (Donald Rumsfeld) as part of their alibis when “we were turning the corner in Iraq” for all those years.
http://www.ghi-dc.org/publications/ghipubs/bu/038/153.pdf
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0903/p02s01-woiq.html?related
In “Total War,” Peter Calvocoressi writes that the werewolves were created in 1944, as a “last resort under Himmler’s command.” But the only death credited them is that of the mayor of Aachen, on March 25, 1945, before the Nazis surrendered on May 7 that same year.
“I couldn’t find any mention in the US Army’s official history of the German occupation of any American combat deaths,” says Daniel Benjamin, coauthor of “The Age of Sacred Terror.” “I think all the respected histories agree on this point – the occupation’s problems had nothing to do with resistance.”
However Conservatives have been citing them as someone making the botched occupation of Iraq “OK”.
I thought she was the solution person at 3am? Here we are 6yrs after the debate started, 18years after Saddam invaded Kuwait and started this whole thing, and she STILL doesn’t have a solution? Brilliant.
—–
How funny. On several different threads when asked to describe how a similar military scenario post-war Iraq was handled better…Philly Steve cited the occupation of Germany and the Werewolves.
Interesting declaration (again) that post-war Iraq has been botched. I think that’s too strong a word since militarily there hasn’t been a single defeat, economically the country is doing much better now, and politically the Iraqi Parliament is less polarized and stalled than the Democrats’ Congress (recall that Democrats took Congress on the theme of ending the war in Iraq, making the economy better, and bringing a stronger atmosphere of bi-partisanship to Congress).
Nope. Botched is definitely too strong a word. It might have looked that way two years ago when the Golden Mosque was bombed by Al Queda to set off sectarian violence, but not today.
btw Steve, are you still relying on half quotes or are you deliberately trying to mislead people by lying to them about Senator McCain’s 100yr comment?
““We Cannot Win In Iraq”” Just the mandatory daily message of encouragement for Al Queda from a leftist American political leader.
Why are we so ignorant as to compare post-war Germany and post-war Iraq?
SP, Philly Steve likes to declare that the post-invasion war in Iraq is botched, and when asked explain this by comparing the post-invasion war in Iraq to a comparable occupation he can’t. Sometimes he says Germany was similar, better, and thus Iraq’s occupation is “botched.” Other times (as we see here) he says that occupation isn’t similar at all. It only depends on the point he’s trying to make-as is always the case…truth is a flexible thing to him, and his opinion is fact rather than facts forming his opinion. It’s stupid, childish, deceitful, and based in little more than political sour grapes, frustration, alienation, and imo embarassment of the party he so obediently follows.
Fact is the occupation of Germany, Japan, Italy, South Korea, and other places has gone very well, and the occupation of Iraq has not, but the comparison pretty much ends there. The war in Iraq (mandated by UN1483 sec1-4 as well as the 2002 Congressional Authorization to Use Force) is also still a war-not a pure occupation.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 03/18/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
With Hillary words have no meaning in terms of predicting what she would actually do as President (perish the thought). They obviously do serve as encouragement to Al Qaeda, but she will say and do anything to serve her immediate interest as she sees it. IF there was ever a person running for President who has no morality of any kind, she is it. It’s actually difficult to find historical figures similar to her in this respect. Most villains in history when they pursued power wanted to do something with this power. She just wants power.
Actually we could, and have, but it would be so much simpler if politicians and those that do nothing for this country and/or their fellow man would get out of the way and let our military do what it is they do best. . . . Protect and Serve.
Re: “Why are we so ignorant as to compare post-war Germany and post-war Iraq?”
Because, since we have had toops stationed in Germany for sixty years in Germany since World War II (although not being killed by German soldiers every week since then), Conservatives are trying to tell us that they hope to have American in Iraq (where they will be getting killed every week by Iraqi isnurgents) fighting for the next sixty years (or 100, if John McCain has his way, and in Iran as well).
Re: “SP, Philly Steve likes to declare that the post-invasion war in Iraq is botched, and when asked explain this by comparing the post-invasion war in Iraq to a comparable occupation he can’t.”
Actually, I have done this, numerous times. Comparing it to the occupation of the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and Grenade. As well as to the occupations of Germany and Japan, where Americans were not being killed by insurgents five years after the invasion. However these are not considered “acceptable” to Conservativces since they exemplify how the war in Iraq is still going on, five years after President Bush proclaimed “major combat operations are over” in Iraq and dared insurgents to kill more Americans (“bring ’em on!”), to which the insurgents took up his offer.
Conservative keep talking about “no historical prescident” as an excuse for saying that the Bush Administration has done nothing for which they should be criticized (execpt perhaps one or two tiny items).
It is all part of the “Protect George W. Bush from accountability at all costs” strategy that the Republican Party has dictated and Conservatives obediently follow.
Re: “The war in Iraq (mandated by UN1483 sec1-4 as well as the 2002 Congressional Authorization to Use Force) is also still a war-not a pure occupation.”
But I thought that George W. Bush declared that “major combat operations are over” in Iraq. Was he mistaken?
Yes Steve-sorta. An enemy took action (bombing the Golden Mosque and others) that set off sectarian violence and thus required a renewal of major combat operations. The President was wrong. However, I think it was clear at the time that President Bush was referring to major combat operations against Saddam’s forces, and the subsequent text of the speech reinforces that.
Now that bad news. You’re a liar. Senator McCain did not say he wanted to keep US troops in Iraq for 100yrs if it meant getting them killed.
“Conservatives are trying to tell us that they hope to have American in Iraq (where they will be getting killed every week by Iraqi isnurgents) fighting for the next sixty years (or 100, if John McCain has his way, and in Iran as well).”-Steve
“‘Maybe 100,’ McCain answered. ‘As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me, and I hope it would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al-Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.'”-Sen McCain
http://www.denverpost.com/nationalpolitics/ci_8400429
This is classic Philly Steve-take a quote, distort it, lie about it, and then pretend that it says something entirely different than the truth as if it supports his anti-American views….yes, anti-American.
Re: “Yes Steve-sorta. An enemy took action (bombing the Golden Mosque and others) that set off sectarian violence and thus required a renewal of major combat operations”
Dead wrong. There were killings and bombings from 2003 on. The Bush Administration, especially Donald Rumsfeld, was just pretending that nothing was happening, until the evidence was so plain they could deny it no longer. The pretense that it all “started” with the Mosque bombing was just another one of those lies put forward, like “we are turning the corner in Iraq”, whci Conservatives said regularly, up until 2007, whent he Republican-dictated phrase was changed to “we are winning in Iraq”, even though “winning” only means that the violence levels are back to 2005 levels.
Re: “Now that bad news. You’re a liar. Senator McCain did not say he wanted to keep US troops in Iraq for 100yrs if it meant getting them killed. ”
Just 100 years. The killing is implied since he considers our current state “winning”.
al-Qaeda is based in Afghanistan, not Iraq. al-Qaeda in Iraq did not even exist until after the invasion. However the quote you appear to like so much, just reading its words, indiacates that John McCain wants to keep them getting killed in Iraq for the next hundred years. Is that considered “winning”?
Dunno what happened to my post, but I’ll try and rewrite it.
Steve false claim-“The killing is implied since he considers our current state “winning”.”
Sen McCain’s words-“As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed”
How can one imply something while categorically saying the opposite? Maybe it’s a nutroots thing. Senator McCain didn’t imply anything about killing; he specifically said ‘NOT’ being injured, killed, etc.
Al Queda…
-Al Queda hasn’t been based in Afghanistan in SEVEN YEARS; not since November 2001
-The groups that comprise what we generically call “AQI” or Al Queda in Iraq were:
—in Iraq before March 2003
—part of the Al Queda network of terrorist groups before March 2003
—working directly with Saddam’s IIS before March 2003
note: these three facts were confirmed this week in the latest investigation into the matter. They were confirmed earlier by captured AQI, captured AQL, captured regime leaders, interviews with Saddam’s successor, captured documents, and media reporting
-You’re patently wrong about the Golden Mosque bombing’s influence on violence in Iraq.
—Yes, from 3/03 to 3/04 there was violence in Iraq, but not much at all compared to after March 2004.
Between March 2004 and April 2004 violence doubled and slowly climbed until the Golden Mosque bombing when it doubled again.
Oh, and what happened in March 2004? The 2004 general election contest began when Sen Kerry secured the nomination. Al Queda and Islamic Jihadis around the region openly endorsed him and the Democratic Party’s “plans” for withdrawing from Iraq.
Actually Steve, you are the one who is dead wrong. The Mosque bombings did cause a spike in attacks that resulted in sectarian warfare. At the same time, nobody is denying that there were bombings in 2003. The news was reporting them, and at the same time there were people from the White House and the Pentagon discussing them to the public in news interviews as well as with military officers and Congress Officials. Get your facts straight.
Also, Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq where there before the invasion. How do you possibly think that you can get away with such a false allegation. According to the U.K. Sunday Times, British troops confronted members of Al Qaeda in a Eucalyptis Grove during the initial invasion when they first set foot into Basra. During this time, Basra had 1,200 Al Qaeda fighters there, according to the British troops who learned of this number from an Iraqi informant as well confessions from the AQ members they had captured.
This fact indeed proves that you have a severe case of selective hearing and that you are only prone to listening to facts that may advance your political bias.
However, I will not deny that the leaders of Al Qaeda in Iraq didn’t announce that they were working with the main Al Qaeda group until after the invasion, which both Osama and Zarqawi did publicly admit to. Still, the fact that members of Al Qaeda tried to launch a VX Nerve Gas attack on Amman, Jordan under the command of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi who planned the attack while recieving medical care in Iraq makes the previous fact meaningless and irrelevant.
So does the fact that the terror suspects’ confession that the material used to make their VX came from Iraq and the Ba’ath military. Which was later confirmed since they confessed to getting it themselves from a Ba’ath officer’s house in Iraq, which troops searched and found the same materials the terror suspects had with them to make the VX. You should ask Chris G. about that one, he has more details as well as the published news articles and reports from the DoD.
Now, back to your Post WW2 Germany and Post OIF Iraq comparison. How do you know that just because there were no troops killed in post WW2 Germany, means that Germans aren’t responsible for the deaths of United States troops operating outside of Germany? Let’s face the facts, Germany who was opposing our overthrowing of Saddam has made contracts with Iraq to revive Saddam’s WMD program after the U.N. sanctions were to be lifted. Even the Germans do not contest this.
If this is the case, then how do we know Germans weren’t the ones who sold weapons to the enemies that we fight in other countries? How do we know that they didn’t sell weapons to insurgencies in North Africa who are also killing our troops as well as there own people(in larger numbers I might add)? Okay, I am not saying that they did. However, if they did, then would you still say that American occupation of Germany didn’t have any blood or tear shedding of America’s service members? Of course, I don’t think you would. Publicly that is, since it would be political suicide for you.
Don’t bother asking me why the government hasn’t publicly talked about the VX attack that I had written about previously. Scott, Chris G., Mike’s America, and Curt had answered that question numerous times before. If you don’t like the answers, then stop asking. If you can’t hear truth, then nobody can tell it to you.
Ya know, for a young whippersnapper, you sure have your act together, SealPatriot. Good luck in your “Navy Seal” quest. As a former Vietnam Navy wife, I would be honored by and grateful for your service.
And as an old, die hard rock’n’roller, I got the head banging thing going from the site music… until the ol’ neck couldn’t take it anymore. LOL
Re: “Don’t bother asking me why the government hasn’t publicly talked about the VX attack that I had written about previously”
I wonder about that too. Why doesn’t President Bush go on national television and tell it to America? Conservatives all believe it, 100%.
Read the rest of that statement.
Apparently, you forgot how I have said that all the people who you asked that question to answered you. I might add that they have done so respectfully. You on the other hand, Steve, do not deserve the respect because you continuously ask a question that you ignore the answer to.
In case you were wondering, I am Seal Patriot. I just decided I want to just post my comments under my real name.
When we defeated Japan and Germany, the Germans or Japanese that popped out carrying a weapon were shot. That tends to let the ex-enemy know that you’re serious about your job. 1st rule of thumb when occupying a country is to disarm them, especially take away their military arms.
In Iraq we have video footage of Iraqis tearing down Saddam’s statue and celebrating his defeat, all the while shooting AK-47s in the air.
That’s what was wrong with this picture; we allowed the insurgency to grow through our own inactions.
The correct response to a defeated enemy waving around a weapon is “Action, left” or “Action, right”, or my personal favorite, “Gunner, Co-ax, troops in the open”.
Political correctness in warfare will get you killed.
We believe it because it was detailed in the Duelfer Report as well as others (including Clinton Admin reports).
“I wonder about that too. Why doesn’t President Bush go on national television and tell it to America? Conservatives all believe it, 100%.”
btw Steve, you’re still lying about Senator McCain’s 100yrs of war in Iraq.
Steve false claim-”The killing is implied since he considers our current state “winning”.”
Sen McCain’s words-”As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed”
How can one imply something while categorically saying the opposite? Maybe it’s a nutroots thing. Senator McCain didn’t imply anything about killing; he specifically said ‘NOT’ being injured, killed, etc.
Re: “When we defeated Japan and Germany, the Germans or Japanese that popped out carrying a weapon were shot. That tends to let the ex-enemy know that you’re serious about your job. 1st rule of thumb when occupying a country is to disarm them, especially take away their military arms.”
So you agree with me that the Bush Administration’s decision to not prepare for the occupation and leave the Iraqi weapons depots unguarded for months was a blunder that provided tools for the insurgency that has cost thousands of lives?
I wouldn’t call it a blunder since I think the reasons for the problem are different than you do. I don’t think it was a failure to prepare for occupation, but a failure to even perceive the decay of the Iraqi infrastructure as well as the power that Al Queda could wield in Iraq; their ability to set off sectarian violence (sectarian divisions exist in every country, but taking them from discourse or discord to full levels seen in Iraq takes a lot of work. Al Queda managed to do that). I’d call it a failure, but yes, I do agree that the Bush Administration’s decision to leave the Iraqi weapons depots unguarded for months was a blunder that provided tools for the insurgency that has cost thousands of lives?
Ready to admit you lied about Senator McCain’s 100yrs of killing and war comment, and that you were misled as well as deliberately misleading?
-Steve false claim-”The killing is implied since he considers our current state “winning”.”
-Sen McCain’s words-”As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed”
“I don’t think it was a failure to prepare for occupation, but a failure to even perceive the decay of the Iraqi infrastructure as well as the power that Al Queda could wield in Iraq; their ability to set off sectarian violence (sectarian divisions exist in every country, but taking them from discourse or discord to full levels seen in Iraq takes a lot of work. Al Queda managed to do that)”
I’m going to have to call you on this one, Scott. It takes a special brand of (in my opinion) denial to assume that liberating an oppressed-for-decades Muslim population would not yield a power struggle between Sunni and Shi’a, and to further assume that said struggle would not lead to violence. We saw Sunni/Shi’a violence in 1980s Pakistan and Afghanistan, and (more specifically) we saw Hussein assert his Sunni background in crushing the 1991 revolt of the Shi’a and Kurds as something of a pogrom; his slogan for the process was “No Shi’a From Today.”
I can’t call this a “failure to perceive,” but rather willful ignorance of history.
Re: “Ready to admit you lied about Senator McCain’s 100yrs of killing and war comment, and that you were misled as well as deliberately misleading?”
The part about McCain’s willingness to have troops inIraq for 100 years, no. The part that McCain wants to see Americans fighting and dying for 100 years? Yes. That was hyperbole and I should not have said it.
However I am convinced that as long as the Americans are the police of last resort, the civil war in Iraq will not stop. al Qaeda has little to do with the factionalism that would exist even if al Qaeda-in-Iraq did not. The civil war, despite what George w. Bush asserts, did not “start” with al Qaeda. It existed in the resistance of Sunnis who were thrown out of the government, then given free access to weapons depots to fight their enemies, the Shia and the Americans.
We hear evey year how “100,000 police have been trained” (or whatever the number of the month is). But the streets not patrolled by American soldiers are patrolled by militias loyal to one warlord or another.
that means as long as Americans stay, the war will continue. And, if Americans stay for 100 years, then the war will stay for 100 years. But that said, I do not beleive my own “100 years” comment above. Even this war will peter out after twenty years or so. but the US will run out of borrowing power long before that to finance the war, along with our other deficits
(and please don’t counter with the “limited government” refrain. No Conservative has cut government since Herbert Hoover, and no Conservative ever will, no matter what they say on the campaign trail. So using that line is about as meaningful as saying, “maybe the tide won’t change today”)
So, the only question is, “do you want to plan our withdrawl while the US is making the decision, or when the World Bank tells us to as part of a bailout plan, the way they do with the Agentina’s of the world?
Wes, good post. Thanks. My point of view is that from 1998 onwards the US had zero human intelligence assets inside Iraq, and all intel came from sat images (which showed a working country, constantly rebuilding, and surviving over a decade of the strongest blockade the UN could muster. Other intel came from foreign sources, and they were taken by surprise too (particularly regional intel services which is surprising). Lastly and most importantly, the 98-03 image of Iraq that we had came strongly from the msm, and let’s not forget the rosy picture CNN painted and later apologized for painting. Do you remember that? They (and other outlets) knew of the horrors and shambles in Iraq, and deliberately chose not to tell anyone because if Saddam’s regime found out they were telling US intel or broadcasting the atrocities they’d lose their press passes into Iraq. Even Dan Rather did this when he interviewed Saddam just before the war.
Steve, that’s the weakest apology/admission of guilt I’ve seen since my 3yr old son wrote on the wall with a Sharpie yesterday. Still, at least you finally admit that when Sen McCain made his 100yr statement he was not pledging to continue the war for 100yrs as Democrats/your information sources tell you.
re withdrawal, I said back in 03 that the pdf plan on the WH site said they’d be mostly withdrawn in fall 0f 06. They would have been, but a spike in violence changed that, and the spike was set off by the Golden Mosque bombing as shown in the chart above. The surge has worked (militarily and is working politically-working faster and more efficiently than the US Congress). Hopefully US force drawdowns will continue into the summer, and then beyond. That (according to Democratic Presidential candidates) will “depend on conditions on the ground.”
Uh HELLO? it’s Hillary talking here you guys, and we can’t “win” it because its not in her best interest. Duh.
Re: “surge has worked (militarily and is working politically-working faster and more efficiently than the US Congress).”
Meaning we’re back to the “good old days” of 2005? That’s the raging success for which Conservatives everywhere are high-fiving themselves for their brilliance?
I can’t wait to see how many Medals of Freedom the Bush Administrations team gives themselves for “only” being back to where they were in 2005.
And every Conservative, everywhere will agree with those medals and demand that the Bush Adminstration give thems even more cudos for their brilliance.
Got any proof to back that up Steve? “And every Conservative, everywhere will agree with those medals and demand that the Bush Adminstration give thems even more cudos for their brilliance.”
I know I’ve said repeatedly that Bremer and Tenet deserved punishment not medals. Other FA writers have too as have readers. I’m pretty sure even Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity blew fuses over that one. Please, inform us, show us, prove your allegation lest it be another of your lies.
Re: "Got any proof to back that up Steve? “And every Conservative, everywhere will agree with those medals and demand that the Bush Adminstration give thems even more cudos for their brilliance.”"
I will have it starting in November 2008 through January 2009 as Georgew. Bush hands out cartons of medals to everyone in his Administration who was responsible for the blunders. Until then he will (I predict) hold off so as to maximize his chances of a "third term" through John McCain.
And, I repeat, Conservatives will be just fine with that. You yourself, in eight months, will prove me correct when you defend it (or at least point to past abuses by Democrats, which I will concede ahead of time have happened, as justification).