The WaPo takes a jab at the recent Rockefeller report on Bush and Iraq that Scott wrote about a few days ago. It’s not a terrorist jab, more like a uppercut, but either way he tears it apart.
Rockefeller asserts:
“In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent,”
But his own report contradicts this assertion:
On Iraq’s nuclear weapons program? The president’s statements “were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.”
On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president’s statements “were substantiated by intelligence information.”
On chemical weapons, then? “Substantiated by intelligence information.”
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.” Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? “Generally substantiated by available intelligence.” Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? “Generally substantiated by intelligence information.”
As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you’ve mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush’s claims about Saddam Hussein’s alleged ties to terrorism.
But statements regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda “were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,” and statements regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qaeda “were substantiated by intelligence information.” The report is left to complain about “implications” and statements that “left the impression” that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.
The report may complain about those statements that “left the impression” that there was a 9/11 Saddam tie but at no time did Bush nor Cheney ever say Saddam was in cahoots with AQ in regards to 9/11. Early on Cheney had said they don’t know, but as time went on intelligence showed Saddam was not behind AQ & 9/11 so that is what they told reporters when asked.
Fred Hiatt writes that Rockefeller complains about Bush doom and gloom statements on what Saddam could be capable of if left in power. But….
It’s also worth pointing out that the Jay Rockefeller who today accuses the Bush administration of inventing the threat posed by Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration once saw “a substantial connection” between the two and warned about the consequences of leaving Iraq to pass its WMD to Osama bin Laden. On February 5, 2003, Rockefeller said: “The fact that Zarqawi certainly is related to the death of the U.S. aid officer and that he is very close to bin Laden puts at rest, in fairly dramatic terms, that there is at least a substantial connection between Saddam and al Qaeda.”
Oh, theres lots more. President Clinton:
If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences. … Now, let’s imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction…? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he’ll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who’s really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.
If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He’s already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people. So this is a way to save lives and to save the stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the peace and security of the entire world.
And Mr. Rockefeller himself:
I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!
My, how times have changed huh?
Here is some more gems:
- “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” – Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
- “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” – Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sense. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
- “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” – Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
- “Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” – Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
- “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
- “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
- “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
- “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
Surprising what a short memory Democrats have when it comes to Iraq huh?
For more check out this fantastic NY Sun article today:
“Our evidence suggests that Baghdad is strengthening a relationship with al-Qaeda that dates back to the mid-1990s, when senior Iraqi intelligence officers established contact with the network in several countries.”
“We have some evidence that Iraqi Intelligence has been in contact with elements in the northeastern area. And the al-Qaeda operatives there are in regular contact with other operatives located in Baghdad. The Iraqi government has also received information from other sources alerting it to the presence of al-Qaeda operatives in Baghdad.”
“We have hard evidence that al-Qaeda is operating in several locations in Iraq with the knowledge and acquiescence of Saddam’s regime.”
Guess who wrote that? If you have been following the Democratic Party’s narrative on Iraq, you might guess Ahmad Chalabi, Douglas Feith, Vice President Cheney or some neoconservatives hell bent on twisting intelligence to overstate the connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. But those words are from Carl Ford, assistant state secretary for intelligence and research, whose bureau was singled out for praise after the war for its dissenting assessment of Iraq’s nuclear program
Doh!
Fred Hiatt also notes in his article how convenient it was that Rockefeller did not allow the minority party to file a dissent to the report.
The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report’s preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, “the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers’ statements were substantiated by the intelligence.”
So what does this report accomplish? Nothing. Instead of trying to point out the deficiencies in our intelligence and how to fix it the Democrats instead continue on with their Bush lied crap. None of it substantiated.
The simple fact remains that Iraq was a threat, and after 9/11 he could not be allowed to thumb his nose at the world. Here’s Scott with many of the reasons we went in, and we’re justified in doing so:
Why invade Iraq? Here’s the reasons:
Primary reason:
- Tto prevent a Nexus of Evil situation
- Tto prevent UBL from setting up headquarters in Iraq as Saddam had annually and bi-annually requested for 5 yrs. UBL had turned down each offer based on the idea that he was safer in Afghanistan, but driven from Afghanistan in 2001/2…the possibility of UBL moving AQ HQ to Iraq was much more likely and easily a worst case scenario for the war on terror (see also 911 Comm report and SIC 911 report and SIC Iraq investigation report for details OR multiple RR threads on “AQ’s ties to Iraq per _____”)
Secondary reason:
- To remove/resolve the hundreds unresolved WMD issues (any one of which could kill thousands in the hands of an Iraqi trained terrorist-like Abu Musab Al Zarqawi)
- To get the hundreds of AQ terrorist who fled Afghanistan to Iraq
- To end Iraqi support for terrorists in general
Tertiary reasons:
- To create a battlefield against terrorists made of America’s choosing-not the terrorists preference (UBL’s preference was Afghanistan, the Graveyard of Empires where he felt he had already destroyed one superpower)
- To create a bastion of democracy in the middle of a region plagued by tyranny and oppression…things that spawn terrorism
- To drain the swamp of terrorists in the region; ie, to draw terrorists into a fight against the US military and not the Springfield, Ohio police Department
- To offer the Iraqi people a chance at restoring their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness-rights that some Americans believe are endowed to all men by the creator
- To end the 4000-5000 Iraqis per month who were dying because of UN sanctions per the UN’s claims
- To prevent Saddam from continuing to terrorize the Iraqi people and his neighbors (all but one of which he had attacked)
- To support a legitimate government in Iraq
- To position US forces in a more threatening/deterring position to Iran, Syria, etc.
- With Al Queda’s #1 and #2 leaders pinned in Waziristan/Pakistan, as a means of going after the Al Queda’s #3 man, Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, who had already attempted to kill hundreds of thousands in London, Rome, Paris, and Jordan using chemical and biological weapons via training he had been given from Saddam
- To end the funding of Palestinian terrorists by Saddam and thus help deter bi-weekly suicide bus bombings that had completely derailed the peace process
- To prevent the funding of Al Queda by Iraq through the mega-corrupt UN Oil-for-Food program
- To shift American oil dependence (and funding) from terrorist-breeding-ground of Saudi Arabia to a Democratic and representative govt in Iraq
and so on…
….and if anyone believes that Saddam could have been contained forever, I suggest reading the Iraqi Perspectives report on Saddam’s ties to terrorist groups-including groups in the Al Queda network as well as Egyptian Islamic Jihad which made up 2/3 of Al Queda’s leadership.
So in the end we have a partisan report that alleges that Bush lied, but offering no evidence of this. Its partisan baloney put out during a election year for one reason, and one reason only…..to keep the Bush lied mantra alive long enough till November.
More here.
See author page
I see that Conservatives are still gearing up their “we had good reason to let bin Laden get away in Afghanistan to get mired down in a Civil War in Iraq” story line. Right out of the White House play book.
Let me repeat one point. Had the Bush Administration followed the Colin Powell priority of having a large occupying presence, we would not likely have seen the start of a civil war in Iraq, and the reasons for the invasion wold have been long forgotten. (Saddam was, after all evil).
However the Bush Administration instead followed Donald Rumsfeld’s “cheap” plan and instead went in light, and listened as Secretary Runsfeld denied anything was happening for more than a year. (remember,”If we are in [Iraq] six months, that will be too long”? Of course not. To remember that would be to hold Donald Rumsfeld accountable).
As a result, we are now sitting on a civil war in Iraq, spending $2-3 billion a week, at least through 2013 if John McCain is elected president, and hundreds of thousands of lives have died.
Were a Democratic President to have presided over an occupation of similar bungling, Conservatives would be screaming. However, since it was Saint Geroge W. Bush, Conservatives only give it a “tut-tut”, as though he had used the wrong fork at a state dinner, and will never utter the words, “Geroge W. Bush is acocuntabel for the blunders made under his command in the occupation of Iraq”. Those words, or anything like them, are absolutely forbidden to come from a Conservative. Their fingers wold fall off their hands before they could be typed.
It is this “free pass” (or minimal accountability) that Conservatives insist on giving to the Bush Administration that taints any excuses they try, on a weekly basis, to put forward to give cover for their hero.
.
The response to the above statements will be twofold:
Intense, personal insults directerd at me (along the lines of the “O’PinkPanties” that was upposed to humiliate me in May). Devoid of any facts.
Sarcastic declarations that Conservatives will not vote for George W. Buush in November. (of course, the true answer is that is exactly what they will do, since a President John McCain will carry on 100% of Bush Administration policies, domestic or abroad. His “independent” streak will evaporate as the NeoConservatives continue their reign, uninterrupted, in the McCain years.
And Conservatives will, should Saint John be elected, be making the same alibis next year as they are right now, and giving 100% of their aleigance to “President McCain”.
On the other hand, should Bakar Obama be elected, on the day ofter the innaugeration FoxNews will start showing countdowns on its screen. Likely showing “Number of Days that Osama bin laden ahs been free” since the September 11 attacks. (Something for which not one single Conservative is willing to hold George W. Bush accountable. Not one. but every single one will hold against “President Barak Obama”, without exception.)
As usual, Steve strikes with his “consevative this” and “conservative that” projectionism, insults, and idiocy. He will continue to copy/paste his spoon fed propaganda and call us “loyal Bushies” while shouting out his holier than thou leftist drivel he adhears to religiously.
Then when challenged, he will cry that he is under attack, held to different standards (he is actually, most any other troll would have been banned months ago), and whine in a persecution complex. His rant above baits the hook and the “poor me” crap gives him is automatic “out”
Pathetic and wrong as usual.
HoooHOOooooo….
Stevie O’PinkPanties is back!
Sweet.
Victimization mode begins in 3,2,1……..
I really get a great sense of enjoyment from these blogs. I love to read the pettiness and divisiveness as though there is some personal stake in being absolutely correct.
I think both sides made errors in judgment, but the current administration made the ones that are costing treasure and lives. They screwed up ninety percent of the tasks they needed to address and have proven their inability to think strategically or effectively.
By the way… Fact :the intel was there for 9/11 and they ignored it (and they went after the whistleblowers) the intel was there for Iraq… they ignored it… (and went after the whistleblowers) and the hit just keep coming. Horse blinders!
If anyone here was in a relationship this bad you would have dumped her/him a long time ago unless you were really into the pain OR afraid to admit it to your friends. Time to stop being afraid and time to start making the tough choices.
Oh dear.
Muffler has been consuming the Kool-Aid again.
I wonder if there will be any left for anyone else now.
Please elucidate the items that I have highlighted above so that we can determine just how severe your BDS is.
Of course, in the process we will discover just how out of touch with reality you are.
That will be fun.
I’m looking forward to it.
Muffler,
Made the tough choice, went to Iraq, and support our efforts 150%. 14 years of service in the US Army and counting. Witnessed the media make up lie after lie in Iraq stating we were losing and being killed in “massive bombings” when NOTHNING happened. Saw Pelosi and Murtha come to Iraqi in 2007 and then return to DC and tell nothing but lies. And the list goes on and on.
Yes, mistakes were made. One of those mistakes was thinking the Dept of State would help the US Military rebuild Iraq. They sit at the embassy annex and get drunk by the pool.
So thanks for your holier than thou attidude and comments. Of the ones needing to take “Horse blinders” off, might I suggest first taking them off the one who looks at you in the mirror?
As for your “facts”, I know people in the intel community. Do you remember the Gorelick wall and how difficult it was to share intell? Do you remember who put it in place? Do you remember the events of the summer of 2001 with the stalled confirmations, petty vandalism by departing administration staffers, and other antics? Maybe not. Indications were there. These indications were vague as no one could put the pieces together and get the FBI to talk to itself and the CIA.
As for the Iraq intell “facts”. YES, the intell on Iraq and the findings afterwards showed Saddam and other nations violated the arms embargo, the cease fire, “oil for food” and more. And we have been blowing the whistle on that here and on other milblogs for years. And yes, the left has gone after us wistleblowers again and again.
The evidence is clear – except for the last gasp 25%r’s who will never get it. Their monarch is larger than the country and more important than the citizens. Bush could strangle a cat on the WH lawn and you folks would not critize him for anything.
You either stand with the current squatter in the WH or you stand with the Constitution – you cannot do both.
Phillie Steve, if I read your post correctly, your opinion is flexible on the US choice for regime change, indicated by your statement “(Saddam was, after all evil).”
Am I correct so far?
If that’s true, then your primary beef is the mistakes… which we all admit were made… along the way. Also correct? c’est la vive. S*#t happens in every war. WWII was also fraught with expensive mistakes that cost lives.
So far, and including the performance beefs, you’re really not so far apart from many of us. We actually may have a degree of consensus, oddly enough. But:
Not entirely true. Clinton got a pass on Somalia/Black Hawk Down. Clinton most especially got a pass on Rwanda. Clinton got a pass on his lackadaisical efforts to corral OBL when the corralling was good. Not the least, Clinton got a pass – along with the GOP-led Congress – for slashing our intel when OBL’s assaults overseas were increasing. Duh wuh…
Then we might bring up Kosovo and Bosnia. Like Afghanistan, they were also passed to UN hands, and… like Afghanistan… also continue to be a hotspot to this day. Both hotspots, I might add, show less overall progress than Iraq in an even longer time frame. But then, that’s my opinion, and I’m sure you have your own. I’d just like to see it based on something other than Bush hatred.
But setting your current POTUS venom aside, if you can, let’s look at your statement:
Civil war? Not according to the Iraqis. What they do have is mafias, criminals and rogue religious leaders, of which they are taking the lead (and successfully, I might add) on controlling.
$2-3 bil? Can’t argue the high cost. Then again, it’s a drop in the bucket and a small percentage of overall Congressional spending, especially when you look at govt waste in virtually every department. But I personally think if we end up with another tenative Arab ally, it is worth every penny. I can’t say the same for the millions and billions of dollars wasted for pork, bogus “studies”, and nanny welfare programs with nothing to show for the cash given out.
Hundreds of thousands dead? Sadly, yes. But the majority of those deaths were at the hands of jihad and the disgruntled minority, seeking to overthrow the elected govt of Iraq. A govt that the Iraqis themselves elected – not appointed by the US. There were hundreds of thousands dead at the hands of the Saddam and Taliban regimes before we got there. At least now they are dying, fighting for a free country.
“thru 2013 if John McCain is elected”? With the progress and attitudes of Iraq today, I doubt that in 2013 we will be in the same demanding position. Look how much progress has been made just in the last year. We may or may not have temporary bases, depending on how they hash out the agreements Doug and I have been debating. Iraq’s forces and police will be far more proficient by then. Their bureaucratic red tape and legislation will be further finessed. As these goals are met, more troops leave.
The end goal is not to annex Iraq as the 51st state (or the 58th, if you listen to BHO…). It is to see a free independent Iraq that can govern and protect itself, and be an ally in intel for terrorism, and a partner in world trade.
Were this not an election year, troops would still be coming home under a Bush WH in the coming year. The progress Iraq is making would continue under Bush, just as it will continue under a DNC POTUS… *if* they do not pull the security rug out from underneath that country.
You can be outraged at mistakes. But it’s rather silly to be outraged at what has not happened just because you foresee doom and gloom. And it’s also inane to place false hopes in a POTUS who will, most likely, be forced into doing exactly the same thing McCain is planning right now. A President Obama will break all his promises if it means the bloodbath of Iraqs in a heartbeat. At least I hope.
But will you or any DNC supporters call him on that, as you did not call Congress on their campaign lies to end the war after the midterms?
Frankly, I’d love to hear your “alternate universe” thoughts on the “increasing animosity thread.
Leave it to the goofiness of the republican hardcores to get all pumped up about an opinion piece by Bush apologist Fred Hiatt. Like lemmings plunging off a cliff, they’re hardwired to dutifully march in lockstep with the boy king for whom they invested their votes. Why? Well because their current choice for president is a Bushie as well. Same endless war, same tax cuts for the wealthy at a time of war. And further, more denial about the direction the war taking. Why don’t you pull your heads out the sand and discuss the thing that scares the bejesus out of you wingers? Just how closely will Iraq align itself with its neighbor, now that Iraq has agreed to defense cooperation with Iran?
If we pull our heads out of the sand, DOA, we’ll lose that stellar view of your arse….
Ah yes we still have the “Bush Lied, People Lied” coming from the Defeatocrats talking points. Nothing like facts to bring the frothing-mouth Moonbat out of his cave.
We seem to be experiencing a particularly nasty infestation of snarling MoonBats today.
We need to figure out who left the gate open again.
In the meantime, set your PhaZers to stun.
Is it a full moon out????
One thing I don’t understand about the people who claim Sen McCain is a Bushie or some sort of GWBv2.0…
…if he’s so lockstep inline w our President, then why doesn’t he have the support of the Republican Party base?
Sorry, OT.
Look, fact of the matter is that the intel on Iraq was weak, and in some cases wrong (which is why they’re called ‘intelligence agencies’ not ‘evidence agencies’). Why was it weak? Why was it limited? Why did the preponderance of information point to Saddam being a threat (specifically a “Nexus of Evil” threat where unaccounted for Iraqi WMD would be given to AQ for a covert attack on their mutual enemy: the United States)?
More importantly, who claimed that Bush Lied, and why’d they claim it if (as the report shows) most of the pre-war claims were “supported by the intelligence”? Could it be that politicians made it up as a means of decreasing President Bush’s post911 popularity and increasing their own political support?
The only people who claim that are brainless dolts and they’re working furiously to create another meme which will carry them through to November.
That couldn’t possibly have anything to do with cuts to the CIA’s HUMINT could it?
Surely not.
Probably the same people who created the “civil war” “quagmire” fallacies.
Yes, absolutely.
Remember the “Rockefeller Memo”?
***
Unfortunately, the White House has done a poor job in repelling these malicious, obviously false claims.
The Leftists have effectively capitalized on this weakness.
As I predicted, ChrisG and Aye Chihuahua responded with no informaiton and personal abuse.
To Matahara, “No”, I still did not approve of allowing bin Laden to get away in order to invade Iraq. I just noted that, had President Bush been even mildly competent in the occupation, following Colin Powell’s advice, Americans would have forgiven him for the invasion. Instead he botched the occupation (or sat back and allowd his appointees to botch it), and gave us the civil war occupation we see right now. For which Conservatives will present mild criticism, but nothing more serious than at “too bad”.
Also re: “. But I personally think if we end up with another tenative Arab ally, it is worth every penny. ”
And if we wind up with another client state of Iran, which is what we have in Iraq now? What then? Was it still worth it?
Regardig Bosnia. Did that campaign cost as much as Iraq?
” Look how much progress has been made just in the last year.”
Yeah. It is ONLY as bad as it was in 2005. And Conservatives are high-fiving themselves at how great they’ve made things. How about how bad they made things when President Bush was defending Secretary Rumsfeld?
Re: “You can be outraged at mistakes.”
I will repeat. Conservatives, without a single exception, are orders-of-magnitude angrier at Bill Clinton for the losses in “Black Hawk Down” in Somalia that they ever will be for the many times greater losses in Iraq. But for Conservatives, they are all “mistakes”, to be held against Democrats and alibi’ed away for Republicans.
Go ahead and prove me wrong. Can you type the words, “Donald Rumsfeld’s arrogant incompetence has cost the lives of thousands of Americans in the chaos that ensued the defeat of the Iraqi Army. And President Bush is ultimately accountable for the disasters that occuerd in Iraq under his command, including the civil war (that Conservatives are not permiited by The Party to call a civil war, even though that is exactly what it looks like).
Were a Conservative even permitted to type those words, he/she would be immediately required to list at least twice as many blunders by Democrats, in order to keep their Republican Prty loyalty intact.
Scott: “…if he’s so lockstep inline w our President, then why doesn’t he have the support of the Republican Party base?”
John McCain does have it. 100% of the Republican Party base will turn out in November and vote for John McCain. There will be absolutely no exceptions, anywhere in the Untied States. Some of the Hillary Clinton Supporters will vote for John McCain. However not one single supporter of Mike Huckabee, Rudy Guiliani, Fred Thompson, et. al will vote for Barak Obama. Not one single one. Guaranteed. That is the hold The Party has on its loyalists. now and forever, no matter who is nominated for President, of either party.
Unfortunately, the White House has done a poor job in repelling these malicious, obviously false claims.
I don’t blame the WH for this. In every speech Bush or Cheney or for that matter any WH staffer has given the media has turned it around and reported the opposite of what was said. I know who is responsible for the discord that is going on in this country. It is the media with their lies and false reporting. Divide and conquer is the left’s maxim and they are doing an excellent job of it. So excellent they have divided their own party in bitter opposition while the GOP loos on in amazement. I have sometimes wondered if this is the left’s method of weeding out malcontents who don’t adhere to the policies of the left. They are probably that stupid. Every issue that the dems bring up has an inate flaw in the final results. They do not look at the big picture and don’t wonder if they do X what will happen to Y and if they fix Y what will happen to Z. It is easy to see this by looking at all their iniatives. There is a flaw in every one of them.
To respond, Phillie Steve:
It is up to Iraq to decide their Arab form of democracy. No Arab nation will resemble the US, nor should it. But if they continue to nurture allies such as Sheik Ahmad, your bet your ass it’s worth it. No Muslim country will ever be as staunch an ally as Britain and Australia because of our inherent cultural differences. However if Iraq, like Pakistan and SA, are workable as allies for most of the time, it is far superior to Saddam’s Iraq.
You’re being dramatic, and disingenuous, Steve. In 2005, Iraq didn’t even have a permanent govt in place. AQ and jihad were still revered by a high percentile of Muslims. The Iraq army and police are no where what they are today. Nor was the Iraq Assembly. However we’re not high-fiving ourselves. We are saluting the Iraqis for making progress. We can, however, high five ourselves for not caving in to polls and a defeatist Congress – instead staying focused on the best outcome for both Iraq and the US.
We are always angry and bereaved for losses of life. However the main difference is that in Somalia, Clinton bolted, and led the US out in humiliation and defeat. AQ 1, US 0. OBL got lots of mileage off of that event. The US was pegged as the paper tiger it’s been for decades. Clinton proved that to be true beyond all doubt. The loss of those warriors’ lives was then topped with loss of respect and fear for the US and our military. Nice going, Bubba.
Bosnia was not the next stop on the AQ nest express. Different war, different circumstances, different debate. I brought it up as an example of failures that got a free pass. However you bring it up as a matter of money and # of casualties, as if that makes the failure more palatable. You feel that if the loss of life and financial drain aren’t as high as Iraq, that a free pass is somehow more acceptable? Odd concept.
There are mistakes and losses in every war, as I said before. But I am “orders-of-magnitude angrier” with a leader who wastes, and degrades those precious lives by running with tail tucked (Somalia), than I am with a leader who stays focused on a justified end goal (Iraq). Great phrasing, BTW… “orders of magnitude angrier”…
BTW, I’ll start calling it a civil war when the Iraqis do. Not before. You, the media, and the US Congress consider yourselves the gods of definitions because it suits your political agenda and media propaganda campaign. I choose to listen to Maliki’s assessment. IMHO, he has more authority and inside knowledge than you, the western media, or a DNC desperate to control all branches of power.
This was September of last year. And conditions today are even more favorable, with many more steps forward under their belt..
Philly Steve still says Iraq is in a “Civil War?” On the basis of what would he make such an absurd claim?
I realize he and his fellow defeatists would have had the U.S. quit Iraq and then point to the mess and blame someone else but he just can’t be permitted to continue redefining reality to suit himself in such a blatant fashion without being called on it.
P.S. One Jay Rockefeller quote was missing from this post: “I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat.” Spoken on the Senate Floor Oct. 10, 2002. No doubt with the intelligence information provided to him by the Clinton Administration fresh in his mind.
Pretty neat trick for Bush, who was then Governor of Texas, to fix all the intelligence on Iraq and WMD before he even decided to run for President. He must be pretty smart to have pulled that off.
Great quote Mike, just added it to the post right after Gore’s quote. I always find it hilarious that these yahoo’s tell us Bush is sooooo ignorant, but then accuse him of the greatest conspiracy ever.
Do they even know how nuts they sound?
Mata, great comment….doubt it will do much good with Stevo, but it will sure will enlighten those not so steeped in their leftist hate.
This part especially rang true:
Clinton running from Somalia just proved to the world that after Vietnam we just didn’t have the fortitude for a tough fight. We were a bunch of soft liberals who just wanted to “make peace man.”
Thankfully, as Reagan saved us from the horrible Carter years, we had Bush to save us from the horrible Clinton years and we brought back the real American spirit. When times are tough we just get tougher.
Steve,
As usual, you prove my point in comment #2 and are so deluded that you miss it totally.
There was no “personal abuse” though as I stated before, you deserve nothing BUT that for your attacks against me. I stated facts and you responded as your pattern suggested you would. You really need emotional help, the ability to not parrot your thought masters talking points, and something besides “all conservatives” crap you spew.
Since you had nothing of substance which has been refuted time and again, all there is to repond to is your psychosis and continued method of “telling a lie till it becomes truth”.
BTW, this conservative may not vote McCain. Many may not. Your thought masters will not allow you to accept that. But with the idiocy of Obama and the policies he is proposing, we may not have much choice. But if Obama is elected. I guarantee he will be treated better by conservatives than the left has treated President Bush.
I don’t usually quote an entire article, but this one is just too rich.