August 30, 2005

• Well, duh! Pearl Harbor got attacked and so we went after Japan. New York and the Pentagon got attacked so we went after Iraq! If you don't understand that you are unAmerican! WHy do you hate America terroritst? ...At least that seems to be how most of the pro-war conversations I've heard seem to go...
• *so tired*
• From my point of view, none of these are good reasons, but these are all the professed and alleged reasons I've seen. 1. Iraq was a threat to the US. (Hard to believe now, especially since it's not even used as a justification by the principal actors any more.) 2. Saddam Hussein was a Bad Man. (He was, but in the league of current and past allies, not uniquely so.) 3. America was attacked. Hulk angry. Hulk attack Afghanistan. Afghanistan broken. Hulk still angry. Hulk attack Iraq. In other words, to show that the US government is Doing Something about terrorism. It doesn't matter whether Iraq was actually connected, just that enough of the population believe it. 4. Iraq was moving to a Euro-denominated market. It was imperative to preserve the domination of the dollar, allowing it to continue to evade the normal financial laws of gravity, and to preserve the lifestyles of Americans as far as possible. 5. Less oil is coming out the ground, while the world is getting thirstier - China in particular. The US needed a tame regime in a major producing nation that could be relied upon to supply the US in the future. Any more?
• Yeah, I know. I'm just trying to stave of the surrealness of Bush. I mean, people I know - friends even - seem to think he has some kind of case - that he's not just spouting utter hyperbolic nonsense 24/7. "Franklin Roosevelt refused to accept that democracy was finished," Bush said. "His optimism reflected his belief that the enemy's will to power could not withstand our will to live in freedom." I mean - why not recite children's poems for all it means to explaining why we are where we are when we are? It's a fnordfest non-stop with that guy. Anyone? Fes? f8x? Boot me up here, Scotty. On Preview - Thanks 3DM - like that, but something the administration or pro-war pundits would actually say. So invading to co-opt their oil reserves may well be a reason, but they'd never say that.
• In that case, it was all Clinton's fault.
• Wait a minute. I thought FDR was an evil socialist who ruined America by liberalizing society and creating the tax-and-spend welfare state.
• That was before we knew he was a cripple. After we found out, you couldn't beat up on the guy in the wheelchair. By pointing out, for instance, that he was so 'optimistic in democracy' that he felt it didn't need defending until 1941. That sort of thing.
• I mean, people I know - friends even - seem to think he has some kind of case - that he's not just spouting utter hyperbolic nonsense 24/7. I'm even more mystified than you. In Europe and Japan, I've met not a single soul who has supported the war in Iraq. I genuinely don't understand why anyone would support it, and I've never heard it explained.
• While I find this comparison to be a misguided effort to shore up flagging support and waning approval ratings, I have listed my reasons for supporting the war in many past threads, and (albeit twitchily) stand by them now; this particular post is representative of the sum: OK, regarding WMD: it was not entirely out of the pale of comprehension, at the time, to believe that Saddam had WMD. He'd had them and used them before; he'd had significant programs in place to develop them before; he'd stated that he was developing them and working on going nuclear; during the run-up to Gulf War 2, he intimated, to the UN and to the US, that he had them and was willing to use them; he fiddled with UN inspectors constantly, moving them here and there, denying them access to a variety of places; several Iraqi ex-pats had said he had them; satellite intel suggested he had them and was producing more. So while in hindsight it seems so painfully obvious that Iraq couldn't possibly have any WMD? Before the US invaded, it seemed likely that they *did* - not the least part of which, imo, was Saddam himself hinting that he did. And even today there is the question of Syria, who could easily have served as a repository for some WMD stockpiles (although I personally don't believe Syria is that stupid). So, yes, this conservative is willing to admit that, in all likelihood, Saddam was talking out of his ass and did not have WMD, Bush believed he did or believed he could find something that looked like WMD and felt that this aspect was a good cornerstone of a war marketing campaign, and both of them got caught in the soup. But it is the worst sort of Monday morning qb'ing to imagine that the idea is - an was - total poop. Second, the threat to US. Granted, I am of the opinion that, as far as revenge for 9/11 goes, we should have either stopped at Afghanistan or (eyes narrow) gone after Saudi Arabia. However (and I thought Stratfor had a very well thought on paper on this during the run-up) there were and are solid reasons for conquering Iraq. Many cite the idea of freeing an oppressed people and introducing democracy to the Middle East, which are laudable examples and valid in themselves but not quite enough to justify the huge volumes and men and material sent; there is the blood-for-oil argument, and Iraq is a significant producer, but I don't believe that's could be the whole of it either - Iraq's reserves are draining like the rest of the middle east's, and we have several other friendlier options - Canada, Venezuela, Russia, even Saudi - for acquiring more to make up for what we'd lose from Iraq. But I think (and this was the Stratfor contention) that, if you suppose (rightly, I believe) that the way to defeat Islamic terror is not to hunt the terrorists individually but to deny them their historical sources of support and succor, then putting a large US military presence in Iraq - centrally located, considered the largest military power, moderately secular - you can *threaten* all the other traditional sourecs of terror in the Mideast. It's a variation of the Gauntlet in Glove idea - if you are a state that supports terror, and you have the world's most effective army on your doorstep backed by an administration that's willing to use it, and that administration comes to you and says, "you know, we'd really like you guys to back off on that whole supporting terroris thing..." (followed by the sound of a cocking mechanism), that you are going to seriously consider whether or not you want to stay in the terror-support business. And that, when taken with all the other reasons, I think, is a valid reason for conquering Iraq. Whether they are capable of succeeding in this, however, is eminently debatable. Philosophically, I think the idea is sound.
• We could have invaded Iraq in the 70s, and didn't do so because of the unpredictable " Soviet Response ". That's no longer a problem. Things were getting out of hand ( 9/11 ), so in we go. We need to control ( part of ) the oil economy. And, we're not leaving Iraq anytime soon, if ever. You can't say that on TV of course, so it has to be about ' Freedom '.
• The question as to what was a justification assumes that people need a rational justification in order to support the war -- which, for a certain part of the population, it doesn't. Some Americans are perfectly content to ride the wave of jingoism, fly the flag, support the leader. They don't need a reason other than to support the cause of the nation, wherever it may lead. A day or two before the election, the CBC had a woman on the radio as part of the news coverage, some lady from Ohio. Ohio being the battleground in those last frantic days -- with a poor economic standing, lots of troops overseas, etc., Ohio had much to gain or lose depending on who got in. If there was any populace that had a vested interest in the outcome, it was them. Yet this woman, who clearly harboured some doubts about the war, flat out said: "He's our President, and he needs our support, right or wrong." I went apoplectic! Right or WRONG. There was a tacit admission by this woman that Bush was wrong, and despite having a chance to correct it, she was going to stand tough and support the President. At that point, I knew two things -- one, Bush was going to be reelected, and two, rational discourse is overrated in American politics. Everyone who pays attention knows where they stand. Others root for the team they've always rooted for. And others still will simply give the support their President asks for, no question. Given that, a logical defence of the war may not be necessary. Good sound bites, a definable enemy, rally round the flag and be patriotic. That vote will count just as much. And that vote is the one that's in play. Allright, I'm done now.
• Has rational discourse ever held a prominent place in American politics? in any country's politics? They are very nearly mutually exclusive.
• Perhaps, but one likes to hope.
• How about this set-up/analogy?: - Sept. 11 showed us that we were vulnerable. - We imagined what "terrorists" might do with nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological materials. (I know that, personally, living in DC in the days after 9-11, I was just waiting for an anthrax-loaded cropduster to fly over.) - We resolved ourselves to prevent such a scenario. - We attempted to prevent such a scenario by urging that would-be purveyors/proliferators of illicit materials be "frisked" (inspected). - Saddam Hussein would not allow Iraq to be frisked. He would not allow free, unconditional inspections. - We continued to suspect, based on intelligence now deemed faulty, that he had unauthorized materials. (Whether WE ourselves should have such materials is another debate all together. But the typical nonproliferation argument runs along the lines of "We let the genie out of the bottle. In a perfect world, the genie would have stayed in. But all we can do now is try to limit the spread of the genie.") - We continued to press for a forceful "frisking." - The U.N. was reluctant to forcefully frisk Iraq. - We took it upon ourselves to forcibly frisk Iraq -- to find out if indeed Mr. Hussein was hiding a WMD in his pocket, or whether it was just a pop gun. That's the argument for WHY we did it. (The counter-arguments are, of course: "What about North Korea?" or "Why Iraq and not some other country." The snappy comeback is: "We can't address all threats in the same way at the same time.") NOW, as for the "HOW" argument, that's another story. I believe that our forcible frisking was way too forceful. (Excessive use of force, anyone?) I'm not a military strategist, but I wonder if we might have accomplished our goals by going only where we needed to go -- to "frisk" only where we reasonably suspected WMDs to be -- instead of toppling the entire country to inspect it. Sure Saddam would have been pissed when a small military force parachuted into his country and captured a facility to inspect it. Yes, he would have attacked and we might have suffered great losses and devolved into a good old-fashioned war, but we would have been seen as less blood/oil-thirsty and villanous. We would have been seen perhaps as a deputy just trying to carry out a proper frisking -- instead of a billy-clubbing. So there's one "big, bad move" for ya in the "How" department. The second bad move was this: If you ARE going to topple a nation to frisk it, at least be prepared to secure it and rebuild it. We were not prepared to do so. We still are not. So to recap: The frisking argument can be made. Alas, we billy-clubbed. And after the clubbing, we found out our intelligence was bad and we also did a piss-poor job of cleaning things up. Oops. Guess we should have frisked gently after all. Oh well, that's easy to say now. Hindsight is 20-20. Next time, we'll be more judicious. But hey, aren't you glad Saddam is gone? ... Huh? ... Yeah? ... Right? ... Whaddya say?! High five! ... Don't leave me hangin'.
• 3 reasons, listed and explained here in chronological order, with plenty of anti-war snark, but no anti-republican snark: The original reason was that Iraq had WMD's (or would soon be cranking them out) and posed a threat to the US and democratic European nations. This was the primary reason in the leadup to the war, and it's goal was to appeal to the post-9/11 fear to get as much support for the war as possible. Condi Rice spewing shit about mushroom clouds and the deservingly mocked allusions to ties between Iraq and 9/11 were the key elements here. The second reason was to get rid of Saddam. The shift to this began shortly after the invasion. People were starting to wonder where all the WMDs were (and whatever happened to that Bin Laden fellow anyway?), and the PR department of the administration began to shift the focus away from that and onto the inevitible capture of high-profile people in Saddam's regime. Make no mistake, Saddam was a bad, bad man...10 years ago. (You know, when he gassed the Kurds with weapons the US gave him to fight Iran.) UN restrictions kept him in check since Desert Storm, and could have been tightened even more if there was any suspicion that he was doing bad things again. If they had used this as the actual initial reason for going to war, instead of pulling it out of their ass later on, everyone would have said no, let's stick with the inspections and sanctions- he's not worth getting our troops killed over. The third (and final, up to this point) reason was to bring democracy to Iraq. We had captured a bunch of people from that stupid deck of cards and the excitement was starting to die down- we still hadn't found WMDs, and the insurgency was building momentum and troops were dying. So, like in #2, focus on the successes. Only in this case, establishing a democracy wouldn't be as easy or inevitible as capturing a few people, as the administration incorrectly assumed it would be. The US thought they could just appoint leaders and call it a democracy. Only the first one turned out to be an Iranian spy, and the second wasn't popular, and got voted out. The majority factions were dicking over the minority, who decided that it'd be more effective to fight back with violence, since political measures were ineffective. Then they all decided that they'd rather have an islamo-fascist state, and they lived happily ever after. I do not think that anyone would have agreed to go to war for either of the second 2 reasons. The people who stand by them, as well as anything else the administration says, do so because they are nationalistic and loyal to their party. Not because they are evil, or stupid, or assholes.
• So you're saying that nationalism isn't on at least some level stupid? I have a problem with that characterization.
• Just in time for Burning Man, it's a few festival: STRAW MAN!!
• >The frisking argument can be made. Alas, we billy-clubbed. And after the clubbing, we found out our intelligence was bad So we should think of the United States as a police officer with emotional problems, and Iraq as a black guy driving a nice car through a rich white neighborhood- is that the analogy? Well, thanks- I feel much better about the whole thing now...
• I don't agree with the war, but this potential argument carries some weight: Oil is running out. Better for it to be in the control of a Western democracy than an Islamic state or China.
• >(You know, when he gassed the Kurds with weapons the US gave him to fight Iran.) Thank you for mentioning this. When this goes completely unnoticed, it makes me feel like I'm gonna pop a blood vessel. And as far as bringing democracy goes- >One clause in the chapter draft (of the Iraqi constitution) obtained by The New York Times on Tuesday says that the government guarantees equal rights for women, as long as those rights do not "violate Shariah," or Koranic law.
• I thought it was because they hate our freedoms, or was that the reason Iraq attacked us?
• We need to control ( part of ) the oil economy. Oil is running out. Better for it to be in the control of a Western democracy than an Islamic state or China. We really don't need it. We have oil from reliable partners, as mentioned earlier in the thread. We have coal, and methods to convert it into gasoline. And hydrogen power is close to becoming a viable alternative to gasoline. Oil is really not worth the trouble. Certainly not worth getting people killed over. So you're saying that nationalism isn't on at least some level stupid? I have a problem with that characterization. I'm trying to be diplomatic. I linked the "mild" definition because nationalism means different things to different people- from simple patiotism to full-blown nazi-like behavior. Taken to extremes, nationalism is about as stupid as you can get, but that's obviously not how I'm characterizing people here. I personally think nationalism in any form is misguided, but it's a far cry from that to saying that it implies stupidity.
• Close. Think of Iraq as a BROWN guy perhaps about to drive what might or might not be a possibly dangerous, weapons-laden car through a nice neighborhood. And think of him as a brown guy who does not do as he is told by the very suspicious and on-edge authorities, who still have the smell of their compatriots' burning flesh in their nostrils. We already know what the British police do to uncooperative brown people, don't we? ... In fact, had that Brazilian chap been a hate-spewing although unarmed Syrian, that might be a better analogy. The Brits might have said, "These are serious times. If you belligerently posture and then evade and refuse to cooperate with authorities engaged in urgent police business, expect to be dealt with forcefully. Your life is in your hands. You have been warned. Cooperate. We cannot be responsible for what happens if you do not cooperate." So maybe there's not a rational. Maybe there's a "reason." The Brits didn't kill that guy for his oil or because he was a bad guy. The Brits killed that guy because they were jumpy. And WE were jumpy after 9-11. Suspicious-acting brown people who do not cooperate are going to get shot after something like 9-11 or the London bombings. Maybe it's that simple. We shot the Iraqis. The Brits shot the Brazilian. In both cases, their pockets were empty. Again, a gentle frisking could have saved the western nations a lot of ill will.
• Stan, you forgot some stuff: No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy. No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution. or how about this: Article 151: No less than 25% of Council of Deputies seats go to women. or Article 14: Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of gender, ethnicity, nationality, origin, color, religion, sect, belief, opinion or social or economic status. Whole Text of Iraqi draft Constitution
• We really don't need it. We have oil from reliable partners, as mentioned earlier in the thread. We have coal, and methods to convert it into gasoline. And hydrogen power is close to becoming a viable alternative to gasoline. Oil is really not worth the trouble. Certainly not worth getting people killed over. But it's not just a case of getting enough for us..it's about stopping them getting an edge. If China gets a military advantage, people will get killed. (I'm not sure about this, but we have been relatively lucky to be born in a time with no real enemies. We have to consider that there are other countries that would fuck us over if they got the chance)
• The question as to what was a justification assumes that people need a rational justification in order to support the war -- which, for a certain part of the population, it doesn't. Some Americans are perfectly content to ride the wave of jingoism, fly the flag, support the leader. They don't need a reason other than to support the cause of the nation, wherever it may lead. Cap'n, that's a good argument against democracy, hm? At least the fourth estate of the free press will keep people informed as their country builds to war. Fes: Re: the WMD "reason" - agreed it was the most compelling (and, arguably the only reason for a time, as there was no 9/11 connection (and very little Al Quaida connection). But what about this: Bush is known to have discussed attacking Iraq even before the 2000 election / SCOTUS decision. It is also well documented that the administration actively sought WMD intelligence and refused to listen to contrary intelligence. Even the framing of Tenet's "Slam Dunk" indicates they were looking for a reason more so than there was a reason. All of which is to say I think the WMD was a thinly-veiled fear tactic - as you also point out - but outside of that little more than a . . hope? Stan the Bat check out this article and let me know what you think. Also, Re: increasing the rights of women as a reason for war, will women be required to cover themselves from head to foot as proscribed by Koranic law? As many Western and Eastern apologists for Islam repeatedly tell us that what is happening to women in the so -called Islamic countries is not according to real Islam, and that real Islam is egalitarian, I mainly refer to the Koran. Laws about women are the most cruel, inhumane and cunning aspects of the Koran and Islamic Shari'a. So far I see two arguments: 1) the US went to war for reasons that were shaky at best but now we're already there (i.e. WMD). 2) The US went to war for hidden reasons the POTUS isn't able to talk about because it's not politically advisable (i.e. we want their oil / we want to be able to threaten middle eastern countries). Is that about right?
• Thanks for posting the constitution link, f8x. Article 14: Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of gender, ethnicity, nationality, origin, color, religion, sect, belief, opinion or social or economic status. The male is in charge of the female: Koran 4:34 Al - Baqara 2: 228 "Men, your wives are your tillage. Go into your tillage any way you want." "Women have such honourable rights as obligations, but men have a (single) degree above them." "Men are managers of the affairs of women because Allah has preferred men over women and women were expended of their rights." Those look . . well . . mutually exlusive to one another. * law based on Islam * gener equality before the law * Men are preferred to women by Allah Catch-22? Mobius strip? Tautologicality? Would these issues be resolved by clerics?
• This kind of cognitive dissonance is typical of BushWorld.
• Interesting: "Article (30): "1st -- The state guarantees social and health insurance, the basics for a free and honorable life for the individual and the family"
• As to the comparison between the present situation and World War II. In World War II, Germany built up arguably the most powerful army in the world. They then began to take over countries in a general geographic area. They typically did this by requesting that foreign governments change their make-ups (typically to compel the government to put members of the Nazi party into government). If a country would not comply, then the Germany would invade them for not complying. If the country would comply, then Germany would change their demands to something that could not be met, and then invade after that point. Is Bush thinks that there is a country that is doing that today, then I guess I can see where he is coming from with his comparisons to World War II.
• oooo - subtle
• I know this may seem like a stretch to some (most) people here on MoFi, but imagine for a moment that all the President's men (to coin a titular phrase) are not the idiots and scam artists and criminals you assume them to be--just for a moment mind you, so as not to tax your special reserve of political apoplexy--imagine instead they are, at the very LEAST, capable, logical leaders who wouldn't, at least not without due consideration, throw several hundred thousand men and women into harm's way and attempt to perform a major surgery on a very wounded region. Still with me? And, to persuade you to stay a little longer, I will submit to the possibility that the public reasons for war (already mentioned further up in the thread) do not withstand a critical strategic scrutiny (this does not make them ineffective as marketing tools, and still stand as *public* veneers for larger, more complex issues, to be stated further down). So, if the public reasons given do not hold up strategic weight, what might the Administration have been thinking? Despite the many demonstrations, the virulent anti-war protests, and media attention given to them, this did not seem to sway Bush's position on going to war. So just what might have been going on behind closed doors to facilitate the decision to go to war? Barring conspiracy theories and crude attempts to paint the administration as pawns of the Zionist K-Streeters or lackeys of a oil consortium, let's look at some real reasons why we went to war. Post Cold War revisionist thinking in the military and intelligence agencies also required a change in the global picture. 9/11 changed our view of national safety. Afghanistan changed our view of passive aggressive anti-terrorist policy. Iraq would prove to be a major "reshuffling" of the Middle East deck, providing for the possibility of real change--not necessarily in the short term, but over decades. Post 9/11 regional and global threat assessment was probably more well received and considered to be a plausible solution to the terrorist problem. It is not unlikely that Cold War scenarios envisioned by the Pentagon lost their priority status after the Soviet Union fell apart, and before 9/11, scenarios in which the US was a direct target were not considered as highly. Hence, 9/11 caused a massive reversal in the way we thought about possible attacks by a terrorist organization or state. In fact, it is very likely that even scenarios bordering on the bizarre were submitted and considered as possible and sighted into the Pentagon's radar. You might say, we were put "on edge". Even given the argument that Saddam was contained and not a threat, this did not (nor should it have) allayed the Pentagon's fears of a scenario involving Saddam's use of his presumed WMD. Whether you are for or against the war, you cannot argue against the fact of Iraq's strategic value to the Middle East and to the US. It is centrally located, offering staging areas and points of attack/defense. It is politically, one of the more secular nations, and so an invasion there would not be as diplomatically problematic as, say, invading Saudi Arabia (which for all the necessity of reform, is not nearly the power that Iraq is). Saddam's status as feared and hated dictator made it reasonable to think that his deposition would not be entirely unheralded and uncelebrated.
• Thinking long-term, Iraq's position in the Middle East also provides the for future staging grounds for dealing with other nations, should the need arise. As a terrorist state, Iraq was certainly on the board. People who point out that North Korea and Saudi Arabia and Syria should be on the board as well are right--and they are on the board. However, Iraq proved to have a couple of things going for it: -Despite the harranguing, the WMD assumption was not unreasonable (see Fes' arguments to supplement). And, as a public reason, it provided at least a foundation of reasonable support for invasion. -Given the argument that reform was not going to happen peaceably (with or without Saddam), an aggressive assault on Iraq with the twofold purpose of destabilizing an already destabilized region (so as to mould it into a more modern, presumably Westernized status) and disarming a dictator and dangerous world leader. Additionally, the effect on Saudi Arabia (which had, by proxy, sponsored the 9/11 attacks), would be (hopefully) diplomatic reform of the Saud family, which heretofore has deflected most criticism (and action) with large sums of money paid every year to the US (think Han Solo paying off Jabba). With the US right next door, it could be surmised that Saudi Arabia might begin to submit to serious change within in response to the implied threat the US' presence in Iraq would have. Then, of course, there are the obvious homeland benefits. The economy was still struggling as part of its usual cycle of upswings and downturns (as it happens, the downturn began just before Bush took office). A technological and militaristic front would provide a boost to the economy, injecting life into retail sales, oil commerce, technology sectors, and employment. Now, as a responsible and intelligent administration, you must weigh the scenarios and intelligence and choose, among the myriad options, what to do. Especially in the wake of devastation of 9/11, the country wants answers, and more importantly, wants a body, preferably one that is easily hung. Iraq was not an easy body to hang, which explains the antithesis toward the invasion and war and the continuing dismal appraisal of the situation (which is still very much in flux--perspective ought to be liberally applied here). Yet the administration felt it was the right and necessary thing to do. Now, I'm no optimist, especially when it comes to politicians, and so I can imagine this little exercise was difficult. So, you may return to your regularly scheduled broadcast.
• On 2 minute post posting thinking session, I realize that I injected unncessary snark into my intro paragraph. Just ignore that and try to get to the meat of my argument, which is surprisingly non-partisan.
• In some ways you get to the crux of it there for me f8x, though I would disagree with the details of your case here and there. As they say 'the birth of an empire requires the death of a republic'. If we have a cabal, however 'responsible and intelligent', that feels it necessary only to offer a 'public veneer' whilst it pursues larger goals of its own, we no longer have democracy in America. Those of us who never were citizens of America may well feel justified in feeling that in the long run our freedom will be more threatened by a superpower determined to reorder the world as it sees fit than any number of desperate fools engaging in acts of terrorism in the service of an ideology that has no hope of achieving anything but some tiny portion of its stated goals. In the short term we may see outcomes we can applaud, like the fall of the Saddam regime; in the long term we will become painfully aware that the long struggle for democratic control of power has been subverted in what was once though to be its citadel. The arrogance of uncontested power rarely lends itself to solutions that advance human well-being.
• Thanks f8x - let me ask about some specifics: Post 9/11 regional and global threat assessment was probably more well received and considered to be a plausible solution to the terrorist problem. There are a couple of issues here I'd like to ask about. The first one is this: 1) Post-9/11. It is known that Bush spoke about attacking Iraq even before the 2000 SCOTUS decision that confirmed him as President. Pre-9/11 as it were. Even after 9/11: "I said, 'Mr President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection ...' He came back at me and said, 'Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean, that we should come back with that answer. Why force the square peg of Iraq into the Post-9/11 round hole of Al Quaeda? 2) Given that 9/11 was perpetrated by Al Quaeda and given that even by the Bush administration's own admission there was no connection between Al Quaeda and Iraq, why then was Iraq a target to eliminate terrorism? You yourself note that Saudi Arabia (close friends of the Bush family) support terrorism more - aren't there better targets for reducing terrorism than Iraq given the astronomical costs?
• IMHO arguing about the justifications (or lack thereof) is like arguing about who pulled the pin out the grenade. The more practical discourse should be what the hell are go gonna do with this grenade (hopefully before it explodes and kills us all). Favorable comparison to WWII, however, is disgraceful. Korea or Vietnam would be better examples, Vietnam especially so as we have indigenous guerrilas, foreign fighters leaking into the battlefield, an inability to win either hearts OR minds, and an administration that has politicized the war planning to the point where field commanders and being handicapped by Washington. Only, instead of one Ho Chi Min Trail, now we have thousands. And more then four times the area to cover. With fewer troops. And fewer friends. With another hot war running concurrently. Yay us.
• If we have a cabal, however 'responsible and intelligent', that feels it necessary only to offer a 'public veneer' whilst it pursues larger goals of its own, we no longer have democracy in America. Perhaps I mischaracterized the administration. I am quite sure that you would not demand nor expect to know the "reasons behind the reasons" (if any exist) for specific tax policy, say. If I can defend a policy with relevant data, yet consider weightier, more complex issues to be the real swinger, is it subversion of democracy to "sell" this policy on public rather than private reasoning? Put another way, you vote (or some of us did) for men and women who make choices and decisions that you may never be privy to--nevertheless, their decisions are part of the democracy, not in opposition to it. And, I would submit to you that the reasons I've outlined are hardly undemocratic. Indeed, if anything, the last reasoning (economic improvement inside the United States) is in fact a defense of democracy, since it was a reason entirely vested in the interests of the nation as a whole. Finally, I respectfully submit that the fall of the republic is unlikely to happen when term limits exist by the will of the people. Not even the empire of Rome was built in a day.
• >IMHO arguing about the justifications (or lack thereof) is like arguing about who pulled the pin out the grenade. The more practical discourse should be what the hell are go gonna do with this grenade (hopefully before it explodes and kills us all). Yeah, well, that's a bit like shooting somebody and then saying, "Good lord- this man needs medical attention! We don't have time to fuss about who shot who..." If the people who made these decisions aren't held to account, they're going to pull some more pins.
• OOOOOOOOOh, Kaaaaaaay. Sure, we can relate this to WWII. Lessee, Bush using the people's concern about the economy to beat the masses into a war-frenzy? Check. Jingoism? Check. Bush promoting whiter-than-white over the unclean feriners? Check. Drumming fear into the people at every opportunity? Check. Bush taking away civil rights and bringing the average person one step away from fearing a knock on the door in the night? Check. WWII it is. Heil Bush.
• Great comments and insight. However, I am completely opposed to an end justifies the means sort of rationale. I think that is really what a defense of the Iraq invasion is. It helps us strategically, it helps the region, etc. I believe in neither the killing of people nor the changing of foreign governments to accomplish any objective other than to stop the immediate killing of people. Real people are dying over there. Lots of them. And I don't believe that we have the right to be killing them. Dropping bombs on some of our own ghettos might have great benefits in the long run. It may help the economy. It may cut down on crime. It may even save lives in the long run. But no one would even entertain that. I feel like what we have done in the Middle East is very similar to that. We have tried to eliminate a bunch of unsavory people in the hope that it will all be for the better in the long run. And it just may be better in the long run. But I still think it is wrong.
• f8x: Excellent post. I don't agree with a lick of it, however, that was the best phrasing of the intelligent republican pro-war argument I've yet heard. I'm not going to interject my two cents into war rationale argument because really, I completely agree with LarimdaME. The pin's been pulled. But still... 1) I hate, hate, hate the Bush administration for their arrogance and incompetence (despite what f8x said... it was arrogance and incompetence that turned Iraq from a potentially good operation into the clusterfuck it is today)... but 2) I don't care anymore about my emotions on the reasoning for the war, all I care about is finding a way to resolve it. I think it has a greater than 90% chance of degrading to full scale massive civil war in the next 3 months, and I think that our troops are going to get slowly decimated. I've already lost a good friend over there, and my best friend's nephew desperately misses his daddy who I last heard was around Baquba. I have two more friends heading back soon. I can't even think about losing them, can't let the thought cross my mind, but deep inside I can't help but believe our troops face a potential slaughterhouse. My only thoughts, really, are that i'm fucking scared. And I'm a priviledged white kid who's only interactions with this war are through the stories I hear. fuck.
• Petebest, your 2nd point first: The Middle East has long fostered terrorists and terrorist recruitment. This is due to a number of issues, notably social class extremes, a lack of education and limited social and civil rights. You think the media here in the US has been compromised? Indpendent media there is a concept more suited to sci-fi than reality. So we have conditions existing in the entire region that help destabilize it AND encourage the growth of future little terrorists who can then continue to recruit elsewhere in the Middle East and other parts of the globe. "The Sept. 11 terror attacks showed that the Persian Gulf region has become a swamp breeding anti-American Islamic radicalism. The only way to really protect America from that threat is to drain the swamp – that is, to change the region by building up those who are willing to help the U.S. and exerting pressure on those who aren't. But that's hard to do if an aggressive country wearing hatred of America on its sleeve – Iraq – sits in the most strategic spot in the area, intimidating its neighbors, three of whom it has invaded in the past two decades." --Wall Street Journal, March 12, 2003 Thus, eliminating Iraq as a focal point would offer the chance of reform in other countries like Saudi Arabia. Additionally, the process of modernization of the Middle East could most plausibly begin in Iraq, in which Saddam's rule so ruined the infrastructure that even now the US is being blamed for poor conditions that still remain from the days before the invasion. As for Mr. Clarke's scattered recollections, I don't doubt Bush was anxious to find the perpetrator, and had even encouraged rigourous investigations into whether Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks. And despite Clarke's slightly differing stories on that particular incident, that doesn't nullify his claims that the President urged him to try and find a connection. I just don't see that as contradictory to the post-9/11 thought process. And it certainly seems to agree with the theory that Iraq has always been on the radar, it was just a matter of "when" and "how". Bush Sr. and company certainly considered it, and whilst Clinton didn't seem to have bothered much with scenarios involving an invasion of Iraq, he certainly authorized a lot of sorties for the same reasons Bush was so keen on.
• Well f8x I think we accept that in a representative democracy we elect representatives to handle a whole host of technical details more complex that we care to think about or are infromed enough to decide on. But I took the scenario you outlined to go further than that - a disconnect between a series of ad hoc justifications and a larger purpose that, since it involves the nation in war and touches on your role in the world, really should be presented to public for decision. The provisions of the US constitution were well set to avoid the excessive accumulation of power by small unaccountable groups, including the term limits. But we remember Eisenhower's warning against a military-industrial complex and remain especially concerned that "the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist".
• I fantasize about the moment some people got together and began planning 9/11. All the implications it would have, everything it would change, all the lives it would reap. All the things that would be done in its' name. That must have been some meeting...
• I am quite sure that you would not demand nor expect to know the "reasons behind the reasons" (if any exist) for specific tax policy, say. If I can defend a policy with relevant data, yet consider weightier, more complex issues to be the real swinger, is it subversion of democracy to "sell" this policy on public rather than private reasoning? Hang on. Tax policy =/= acts of war between sovereign states. Whereas with tax policy governments can erect or repeal taxes on the basis of democratic majority, and they can do so legitimately, foreign policy isn't nearly so simple. There are legal and moral constraints to consider whenever sovereign states enter into it, or, in this case, where one state wishes to dissolve the sovereignty of another. A state is not justified in declaring war on another simply because its government enjoys the majority support of its people. You might believe that the United States did and does possess the moral authority to invade and occupy Iraq, but if the leadership of the United States gives reasons to the international community that turn out to be faulty (at best) and deceptive (at worst), is this okay? And if they do so in bad faith, is this not immoral?
• OK, regarding WMD: it was not entirely out of the pale of comprehension, at the time, to believe that Saddam had WMD. I think it's possible that some people believed that Saddam had WMD, but I'm less and less convinced that the administration actually believed that. If they did, they'd have less lackadaisical about securing weapons depots, and would've made straight for the WMD (after all, Rumsfeld assured us they knew exactly where they were). ...during the run-up to Gulf War 2, [Saddam had] intimated, to the UN and to the US, that he had them and was willing to use them Actually he was telling 60 Minutes that Iraq didn't have weapons and was committed to following the recent UN resolution, and made a December 2002 declaration to the UN saying that Iraq "retains no weapons of mass destruction." ...[Saddam had] fiddled with UN inspectors constantly, moving them here and there, denying them access to a variety of places; Hussein certainly drug his feet, but cooperation increased as the inspections continued, probably due largely to the US military buildup. Hans Blix said in January 2003 that Iraq has "Iraq has largely cooperated with arms experts," and in March 2003 he said, that Iraq was cooperating more than it had previously and Mohamed ElBaradei said, "In my area [nuclear weapons], inspection is working. We are making progress. There's no reason to scuttle the process." France, Germany, and Russia submitted a proposal for beefed-up inspections, with deadlines, in February 2003. Under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, he was required to determine that:

  reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

  Since he didn't accept the proposal by France, Germany, and Russia, how could he determine that diplomatic means wouldn't have worked? The timeframe they proposed was shorter than our own deadlines for the Iraq Survey Group. Funny how he went from saying we couldn't afford to give the UN inspections more time before the invasion to saying we couldn't jump to conclusions while we were waiting for the Iraq Survey Group's report. And even today there is the question of Syria, who could easily have served as a repository for some WMD stockpiles (although I personally don't believe Syria is that stupid). With satellite intelligence, no-fly zones, and spies, Iraq was probably the most observed country on earth. Powell showed us satellite photos of trucks that he claimed had WMD. Where are the satellite photos of the convoys of trucks moving the stockpiles to Syria? Where are the satellite photos of the stockpiles in Syria?
• as far as revenge for 9/11 goes, we should have either stopped at Afghanistan or (eyes narrow) gone after Saudi Arabia. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan (where the Taliban is resurgent) and taken care of Al Qaeda (so they couldn't help train the London bombers. Saudia Arabia and Pakistan were bigger threats to the US than Iraq, which was not a threat at all, in my view. The Secretary of State and National Security Advistor agreed in 2001, saying things like "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors," and "The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained," and "We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." But I think (and this was the Stratfor contention) that, if you suppose (rightly, I believe) that the way to defeat Islamic terror is not to hunt the terrorists individually but to deny them their historical sources of support and succor, then putting a large US military presence in Iraq - centrally located, considered the largest military power, moderately secular - you can *threaten* all the other traditional sourecs of terror in the Mideast. Putting a large US military presence in Iraq would only have been moral if they had been supporting or succoring terrorists that could threaten the United States, and they weren't. The only support Hussein gave to terrorists was giving money to Palestinian suicide bombers that struck Israel, which is reprehensible, but not a reason for the United States to attack Iraq. Zarqawi was in the Kurdish-controlled part of Iraq, and Bush avoided attacking him on three occasions before the invasion (so he could continue claiming that Iraq was "harboring" terrorists).
• All of your reaons are plausible, but the single palpable reason has escaped all of you monkeys. THAT MAN TRIED TO KILL BUSH'S FATHER!!!1111oneoneeleven The concrete truth lies here. [video with coarse language]
• But we remember Eisenhower's warning against a military-industrial complex and remain especially concerned that "the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist". I like Ike But alas, we must continue to feed the machine. After all, there are profits to be had.
• A prescient man, was Ike.
• I think it's possible that some people believed that Saddam had WMD, Well, the people best in a position to gauge seemed to: the senate vote was 77-23; the House, 296-133. I'll be honest: I did. Just after 9/11, lots of people in Congress did, apparently: "There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." (from a Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001) Here's the text of the resolution of October 10, 2002; It mentions specifically (a) the discovery of stockpiles of WMD after Gulf War 1, (b) the abandonment of Iraq by weapons inspectors in October, 1998 (four years prior) due to continued "attempt[s] to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development." but I'm less and less convinced that the administration actually believed that. If they did, they'd have less lackadaisical about securing weapons depots, and would've made straight for the WMD (after all, Rumsfeld assured us they knew exactly where they were). Speculative, certainly (I'm a bit more willing to chalk it up to Rumsfeldian micromanagment coupled with misunderstanding military missions), but possible. Actually he was telling 60 Minutes that Iraq didn't have weapons and was committed to following the recent UN resolution, and made a December 2002 declaration to the UN saying that Iraq "retains no weapons of mass destruction." According to Global Security, “We’ve given him a heads up, so it is a mortal threat,” said retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO commander. “But once it is clear that deterrence will fail, the question is will [Hussein] lash out against us with all his capability... This week, in a defiant speech marking the 34th anniversary of the revolution that brought his Ba’ath Party to power, Hussein said the United States and its allies would not be able to overthrow his government and said Iraqis are well equipped to defend against a military assault." (July 18, 2002) This is just nine months after Hussein said: "[I]t is possible to turn to biological attack, where a small can, not bigger than the size of a hand, can be used to release viruses that affect everything..." (Babil, September 20, 2001). But he did say the things you describe. The case being: he said both. Which to believe?
• Hussein certainly drug his feet, but cooperation increased as the inspections continued, probably due largely to the US military buildup. Hans Blix said in January 2003 that Iraq has "Iraq has largely cooperated with arms experts," and in March 2003 he said, that Iraq was cooperating more than it had previously and Mohamed ElBaradei said, "In my area [nuclear weapons], inspection is working. We are making progress. There's no reason to scuttle the process." This, however, was after ten years of noncompliance: "Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei presented several reports to the UN detailing Iraq's level of compliance with Resolution 1441. On January 30, 2003 Blix said that Iraq had not fully accepted its obligation to disarm, and the report was taken broadly negatively. However the report of February 14 was more encouraging for Iraq, saying that there had been significant progress and cooperation; however the issues of anthrax, the nerve agent VX and long-range missiles were not resolved. France, Germany and other countries called for more time and resources for the inspections. The March 7 report was again seen as broadly positive, but Blix noted that disarmament and the verification of it would take months, rather than weeks or days." This was after... "In the decade following the Gulf War in 1991, the United Nations passed 16 Security Council resolutions calling for the elimination of Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction. The UN showed obvious frustration over the years that Iraq was not only failing to disarm, but was interfering with the work of weapons inspectors. Resolutions were passed and statements were released - at least once a year - calling for Iraq to disarm and fully cooperate with inspectors. On many occasions, Iraqi soldiers physically prevented weapons inspectors from doing their job and in at least one case, took documents away from the inspectors." [cite] France, Germany, and Russia submitted a proposal for beefed-up inspections, with deadlines, in February 2003. Under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, he was required to determine that: reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Since he didn't accept the proposal by France, Germany, and Russia, how could he determine that diplomatic means wouldn't have worked? I can only assume that he was basing that assumption on the previous ten years of diplomatic means not working, and further assuming that a few months more wouldn't make much difference. The timeframe they proposed was shorter than our own deadlines for the Iraq Survey Group. Funny how he went from saying we couldn't afford to give the UN inspections more time before the invasion to saying we couldn't jump to conclusions while we were waiting for the Iraq Survey Group's report. The ISG went in after the invasion had started, so I can only assume they felt they had recourse to a more leisurely pace.
• With satellite intelligence, no-fly zones, and spies, Iraq was probably the most observed country on earth. Powell showed us satellite photos of trucks that he claimed had WMD. Where are the satellite photos of the convoys of trucks moving the stockpiles to Syria? Where are the satellite photos of the stockpiles in Syria? Well, I wrote that awhile back, and it has since been determined that it is "unlikely" this transfer occurred, but how can we reconcile an intelligence community that missed the 9/11 attackers and can't find bin Laden, yet ascribe them near-omniscience when it comes to the Syrian border? if our coverage of the Syrian border *now* is insufficient to locate and stop incoming foreign insurgents, it seems... wishful, to assume they could successfully spot covert WMD transport prior to the war. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan (where the Taliban is resurgent) and taken care of Al Qaeda (so they couldn't help train the London bombers. Saudia Arabia and Pakistan were bigger threats to the US than Iraq, which was not a threat at all, in my view. I concur, up to this: we cannot defeat Islamic terror by killing terrorists; we must cut off their support as well. The Secretary of State and National Security Advitor agreed in 2001, saying things like "He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors," and "The Iraqi regime militarily remains fairly weak. It doesn't have the capacity it had 10 or 12 years ago. It has been contained," and "We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt." Well put :) And yet, I have to consider the context - they were trying to justify to congress the expense and maintenance of the no fly zone, pre 9/11. If we further assume (which seems reasonable, based on what has transpired since) that they simply had no idea whether he had them or not, we can ascribe these quotes to the all-too-common political expedient: when lacking hard evidence, telling people what they want to hear. it is, upon further reflection, not entirely uncharacteristic.
• Putting a large US military presence in Iraq would only have been moral if they had been supporting or succoring terrorists that could threaten the United States, and they weren't. Not true. Hussein - while I concede that his links to al Qaeda are slim - has historically proffered Baghdad as a haven for Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and lone wolfs like Abu Nidal. Additionally, while Iraq's official links to al Qaeda weren't there, it is unlikely that Iraq was free of al qaeda, nor would it be likely that Hussein would turn them away from his doorstep. The only support Hussein gave to terrorists was giving money to Palestinian suicide bombers that struck Israel, which is reprehensible, but not a reason for the United States to attack Iraq. according to this, groups that Hussein is known to have funded are responsible for the deaths of 36 Americans and wounding 91 more. While using this as a justification for the huge costs - in manpower, material and, ultimately, life - seems farfetched, I can't find any criteria pertaining to the authorizing a use of force. Zarqawi was in the Kurdish-controlled part of Iraq, and Bush avoided attacking him on three occasions before the invasion (so he could continue claiming that Iraq was "harboring" terrorists). "After the September 11 attacks, Zarqawi again travelled to Afghanistan and was reportedly wounded in a U.S. bombardment. He moved to Iran to organize al-Tawhid, his former militant organization. Zarqawi then settled in the mostly-Kurdish regions of northern Iraq, where he joined the Islamist Ansar al-Islam group that fought against Kurdish-nationalist forces in the region. He reportedly became a leader in the group, although his leadership role has not been established. His followers claimed he was killed in a US bombing raid in the north of Iraq [10]." [cite] I concede that, as it turns out, Iraq's WMD program was apparently completely eliminated. My only contention here is that, back when we were looking at this, the idea that Iraq *had* WMD's was not nearly as far-fetched as opponents of the war today seem to contend. In my opinion, I think that Bush used WMDs as a justification for going to war - but it was a justification that I think he thought was valid. if anything, I think the US intelligence community deserves much of the blame on this particular question.
• Jeseus fucking christ Fes how big is the check you get from the RNC for posting this crap? I mean really, this is turning into a giant propaganda fest ™.
• Unless Congress has its own intelligence agencies, the "people best in a position to gauge" are the administration, and Congress's statements are based on what they were told by the Executive Branch, which was cherry-picked intelligence from questionable sources. I can only assume that he was basing that assumption on the previous ten years of diplomatic means not working, and further assuming that a few months more wouldn't make much difference But the way I see it, Bush was legally required to exhaust diplomatic options, and he didn't. The proposal by France, Germany, and Russia, in the context of increased cooperation and pressure from the US military buildup, could have verified that Iraq had been disarmed within six months, which is less time than we gave the survey group. I don't ascribe near-omniscience to the intelligence community; I guess my point is that there's even less evidence to claim that the WMD (actually, "WMD") are in Syria than the bullshit evidence we used to claim that Iraq had them in the first place. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and lone wolfs like Abu Nidal None of those is a threat to the national security of the United States, which is one of the requirements for the use of force. Killing 36 Americans (where? over what time period?) is bad, but, again, not a threat to our national security. And yet, I have to consider the context - they were trying to justify to congress the expense and maintenance of the no fly zone, pre 9/11. I would like to expect that, regardless of context, the government is telling the truth. Or at least that they have an explanation for saying Iraq wasn't a threat in 2001 to saying they were an every-synonym-for-imminent threat in 2002. (But at the same time saying it'd be a cakewalk and the whole war would take six months, tops.) The whole case was made dishonestly. Cheney said there was no doubt Iraq had nukes. Bush and Powell said, without qualification, that there were stockpiles of weapons. Rumsfeld said he knew exactly where they were. Like I said, I agree that some people could legitimately have thought that Iraq had weapons. I did, for a while, after Powell's testimony to the UN, because I trusted him. (I still did not agree with the invasion because we hadn't tried the beefed-up inspections.) But the more we find out about how the intelligence was used to sell the war, the more I believe the senior administration officials knew that Iraq didn't have weapons.
• Care to debunk, Argh?
• I would but those bastards at the DNC bounced another check to me.
• Damn Gore and his rubber cheques!
• So if the Iraq war is like WWII, who are we going to drop the bomb on this time?
• Unless Congress has its own intelligence agencies, the "people best in a position to gauge" are the administration, and Congress's statements are based on what they were told by the Executive Branch, which was cherry-picked intelligence from questionable sources. Well, considering that both houses of Congress have their own intelligence committees and are capable of requesting intelligence from the various sources, the babes-in-the-woods defense seem less administration chicanery (certainly there, point conceeded) than congressional incompetence and posturing. But the way I see it, Bush was legally required to exhaust diplomatic options, and he didn't. Only, however, if the action were taken under the rubric of the UN, which ultimately it was not. Hence, the Coalition of the Willing. The US used the continued violation of UN sanctions as an element of the overall justification for the war, but in the end acted outside of UN authority. It is my opinion that Bush checkmated the UN on this rather deftly - we all know that this administration is no friend to the UN; but here, he at once used Iraq's nose-thumbing at the sanctions and rsolutions as a justification for action while at the same time highlighting the UN's inability to enforce it's own pronouncements. The proposal by France, Germany, and Russia, in the context of increased cooperation and pressure from the US military buildup, could have verified that Iraq had been disarmed within six months They claimed they could; but over the ten yers since the end of Gulf War 1, they had failed to do exactly that. Agree or disagree with the war itself, it seems unlikely that they could somehow accomplish this after having over 20 times amounnt of time previously and failing. If you had given someone a task ten years ago and they had yet to complete it, but as a deadline loomed they assured you that, if only given another six months, they would finish - would you believe them?
• None of those is a threat to the national security of the United States, which is one of the requirements for the use of force. Killing 36 Americans (where? over what time period?) is bad, but, again, not a threat to our national security. A good point; and yet, the definition of what comprises of national security threat - and what may constitute one in the future - is open to interpretation. Perhaps purposefully so. I would like to expect that, regardless of context, the government is telling the truth. In this, kirkaracha, we are in 100% agreement. The whole case was made dishonestly. Cheney said there was no doubt Iraq had nukes. Bush and Powell said, without qualification, that there were stockpiles of weapons. Rumsfeld said he knew exactly where they were....But the more we find out about how the intelligence was used to sell the war, the more I believe the senior administration officials knew that Iraq didn't have weapons. I'll tell you what, you make a good case. But to stick to my original precept: it remains, despite our increasingly clear hindsight, that at the time most available evidence, Hussein's past activity (I mean, really, the very *existence* of Chemical Ali bespeaks WMD and the willingness to use them), Hussein's dissembling and two-faced pronouncements, the failure and booting-out of the inspectors - all point to an active WMD program in Iraq. That said, I subsequently pose: WHY on god's green earth would the administration base the entire (and let's go ahead and call it a) marketing campaign around the idea of WMD if they KNEW that there were none there? The idea of war with Iraq had it's detractors going in, and they were making the same arguments as now - lack of justification, let the UN do the job, etc. There are only two reasons why this could be: one, they just simply didn't give a shit, and felt that it was good enough for now and in the aftermath, everyone would forget about the whys OR they actually thought there were sufficient, locatable WMD in Iraq to eventually justify the case. As much as people ascribe outright malevolence to the Bush administration, they are not unsavvy politicians. There is no way, in my opinion, that they would take the sort of risk that the first option entails when other options were open to them. They could have made the case against Iraq without WMD; instead, they chose to make WMD the cornerstone of the argument. They would never have done that if they knew they wouldn't be able to back it up later. So: they thought Hussein had WMD, at least enough to guarantee justification later.
• Ok, I'm really not trying to Godwin this thread on purpose, but... One could draw a parallel between GWII and WWII, if you look at the buildup to Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia, and the buildup of the US's invasion of Iraq. In both cases the head of state declared that there was no other option than to invade, that the fault lay entirely with the invaded country, and that the LoN/UN was not working. Sorry if this isn't very lucid, I'm still on my first cup of third-world coffee. I leave it to the monkey historians like un- to fill in the gaps or call me an idjot.
• There's no historical parallel I can see save for the existence of a demonstrably maleficent enemy. This is the Bush administration's inordinately misguided attempt to engender into this war the aspects associated with "the last good war," which I think is in direct response to low approval ratings and waning support.
• last post and then I'll shut up - it was not my intention to polemicize on the WMD issue, and I certainly don't see myself as a shill for the RNC (I said in this thread that I had planned to vote for Kerry, after all), I just felt that kirkaracha made some excellent points that deserved response.
• stanthebat made some interesting points: Yeah, well, that's a bit like shooting somebody and then saying, "Good lord- this man needs medical attention! We don't have time to fuss about who shot who..." Actually, that's pretty much what we do all the time. You don't hold a trial at the shooting, you simply disarm and apprehend, or at least secure the area, call in the paramedics, and rush victim to the hospital. The trial and accountability is all settled up months if not years after the initial crime. To use another analogy, you don't sit around arguing who the arsonist is if the house around you is burning down. You just grab who you can, get the hell out, and sort it out later. If the people who made these decisions aren't held to account, they're going to pull some more pins. Since I don't see anthing here that's gonna be an impeachment style smoking gun, I'm afraid we're stuck with who we have for the short term. Sorry, it's just the way it is. But that DOESN'T mean you can't put pressue on the administration to do the right thing. Of course, my point is that if you don't know what the "right thing" is, ie: the best future course of action, then you're doomed to impotence. GWB doesn't have to think about re-election, Senators and Congressmen do. GWB doesn't have to worry about popularity polls, RNC does. Already there are undercurrents of rebellion stirring, and that's where you attack, HARD. But this whole "the war is illegal boo hoo hoo hoo" crap ain't gonna fly in Red State minds. The growing perception is that this war is turning into a quagmire, and that most if not all of the stated goals have failed. Nobody wants to repeat Vietnam, which you have to remember also took place in an atmosphere of "National Security" threats (only back then it was Communism). Give Republicans an exit strategy they can live with, and they'll take care of pressuring GWB to do what's in their best interest. I mean, you can't keep giving tax cuts to the wealthy if war dissatisfaction loses you your Senate seat, right?
• Lowered expectations at work, folks.
• I think f8x has given us a pretty good summary of neocon foreign policy. With a bit of revisionist history thrown in to make it look like this all springs from 9/11, which is certainly does not. I see the logic behind it, but it's flawed. They're acting like they're playing Risk. These ideas of theirs come out of a think tank, based on simulations, or drawings on a fucking white board or something, and people with real diplomatic and military experience tell them they won't work in practice, and they're right. Do I have to back my point up, or have you read the paper at any point between 2003 and now? Insufficient troop levels, looters, failure to protect infrastructure, failure to defend Iraqi security force trainees, influx of foreign insurgents, a complete lack of border control, rapidly falling support both in Iraq and here, problems with the appointed interim leaders, failure to secure supply lines, the list goes on and on and on. And that's just the problems with the invasion and occupation. Once things settle down, assuming they do, the next part of the grand plan is to use our new position to influence and intimidate nearby countries. Iraq is already allying itself with Iran. And our struggles against the insurgency are not very intimidating. This might not turn out like they thought it would. The people who come up with these grand plans must think they're so fucking smart.
• Firstly I'd like to thank f8x and Fes for providing some of the rationalizations that were/are believed to have been behind the war. Foremost, and to smallish bear's succinct if fevered point, the WMD argument: Given that Bush spoke about attacking Iraq before 9/11 and that other forces in US Government (Rummy, Wolfowitz, etc) were behind such a notion - doesn't that make the WMD argument a moot point regarding the "real" reason for invasion? Whether or not people believed Saddam had weapons, whether or not he did = all irrelevant given that the administration was going to find some way of invading? Or, more to the point, Isn't it the case that Bush & Co. were going to attack Iraq no matter what? Secondly regarding "the WMD argument", the split between selling the argument and harboring different reasons for war is not acceptable. If my understanding of democracy is correct, it's not acceptable for a government to present one reason for war to the public while maintaining different reasons privately. To say that's the nature of modern government does not excuse an administration from their responsibility to be honest with the public, especially regarding the most weighty decision a government can make - whether or not to go to war with another country. Unlike the reason for invading however, that may be just a difference of opinion.
• oh, and f8x the link regarding Clarke's recounting of Bush's insistence to find Saddam responsible for 9/11 shows that his recollections aren't different in fact or quotes regarding the "Iraq! Saddam! find a connection" comment, just in intensity. And frankly the line "This is pure, reckless speculation." makes me question the author's intent for writing it.
• All the reasons I have ever seen have been silly- particularly the idea of largely secular Saddam being buddies with bin laden- pre-invasion, the only al-qaeda types (Ansar Al-Islam, I think) in Iraq were in the Kurdish north- by the "eliminate terrorists" argument, we should have been HELPING Saddam. But what's more silly is making a post that asks for reasons for war, waiting for the two resident conservatives to actually respond, then ganging up on them...
• Primarily, this discussion has been about the proffered reasons for going to war, and while most, if not all, of the ostensible reasons have been shown to be non-starters, I think it's important to remember the following: When it was time to foment support for the war, the Bush administration held nothing back, and kept no idea, however unsupported by evidence, in check when convincing the populace. Ultimately, it was the overwhelming mood of the nation in support of the war (at the time) that gave Bush an effective mandate to conduct it. The contributing factors for the polity are the following: 1. While it was never explicitly claimed that Hussein was connected to 9/11, the follow-the-chain-of-what-ifs led the public to connect his funding of suicide bombers in Israel with a pro-terror stance, thereby conflating his behavior with those of Al Qaeda. Nevermind the fact that Hussein was essentially a secular ruler and that sort of thing is anathema to Al Qaeda's "new Caliphate" doctrine. 2. I think it can be said without much fear of contradiction, that the general psyche of the US people at the time of the build-up to the War was, at the very least neurotic, and at the worst, downright schizophrenic. Face it, enough of the nearly 300-million strong US population was absolutely SPOILING for a fight. And while the Bush administration half-assed the Afghan occupation and conveniently let Bin Laden slip through their fingers (and it was the administration, mind you, because they UNDERDEPLOYED in Afghanistan in order to continue with their preps for W's grudge war), conveniently at the same time allowing the boogeyman of 9/11 remain at large, effectively Emmanuel Goldstein-ing him. The US got sucker-punched. Hussein just happened to be standing right there, so we struck the target we COULD easily hit. 3. The US thought that the war would be a slam dunk, like the Gulf War in '91. How better to salve the pride wounded on 9/11? I think that, defenses and ideology aside, the above describes the American people's ultimate motivations for supporting the war. Everything else was just an explicit justification of the above feelings, which nobody really seems willing to admit to. (more in next post)
• Of course, the American people's reason for supporting the war is entirely different from Bush's motivations, which are much simpler. 1. The Grudge. W's father didn't roll into Baghdad, and Hussein tried to get an assassin out for him. W wanted payback. 2. The Oedipal Motivation. Having been a failure at nearly every venture in his professional career (where George H W Bush was generally successful in everything but re-election), W wanted a Big Win. How better to prove his worthiness than to take out the guy his own father wouldn't or couldn't take out? I'm not talking about an explicit Oedipal Complex, but outperforming one's father can be a profound motivation. 3. Re-election. A war, if you can get one, is an almost certain approval-booster, if only for a short time. He was thinking about his re-election. As it turns out, he was re-elected almost entirely on the lingering approval from the war. 4. Ideology. Bush, being a recovering addict and born again christian, is an ideologue. He believes in black and white morality, and truly believes that in every person, there is a heart that wants to beat to the rhythm of popular democracy. He has a profound lack of understanding of fundamental Islam which is not unlike fundamental Christianity in that democracy is reviled: theocracy is the only proper government. So, between the American people spoiling for a fight they can definitively win, W spoiling for revenge and fame with a slam-dunk war, and the PNAC and Big Business slobbering over the potential spoils, you have a war fought partly because of embarrassment, partly because of revenge, partly because of imperialism, and partly because of a misguided (and really Pollyanna-ish) worship of the Power of Freedom to Make Everything OK. That's what I think the Iraq war is REALLY about.
• Let us not forget why the inspectors left in the first place. Saddam kicked them out. Saddam kicked them out because he accused some of the inspectors of actually being spies for the US. Later, one of the inspectors admitted to being a spy for the US.
• I don't see any ganging up Doc - a few outbursts, but nothing coordinated or planned.
• good points chimaera, especially the psychological motivation for W - but my intent was to define the publicly stated reasoning from the administration to find what, if anything, they got right. I still maintian that the WMD argument was the best reasoning if it had been true, but *cough*N.Korea*cough* it's a moot point when their urge to attack Iraq under any circumstances is considered.
• I do not agree that we have the right to take out a country because of weapons they are trying to develop. Who has the right to take the US out? We have the right to take out a country that uses those weapons against people. That's it. The thing about it all that makes me the saddest is that the idea of "preemptive war" (which used to be called "invasion") has been accepted by the general public. There was some debate about it prior to the invasion of Iraq. Now, people accept it without question. I grew up believing the US to be defenders, not aggressors. Times have changed.
• I'd also like to thank Fes for the word "maleficent". I'll be using that now.
• I don't feel ganged up on, just perpetually overwhelmed. It's always without much hope that I'll be able to bring in every salient point and write with assurance that what I say won't be misinterpreted or redefined (as it seems smallish bear has done), which is why I usually bow out of these discussions after a day or two. I simply don't have the kind of energy or time it takes to adequately keep track of what's being said, which arguments have been rebutted, and which commenters need to be ignored or responded to. And then of course I'm accused of being a coward or running away from the truth, when in reality I'm simply more interested in having a life outside the internets.
• pete, I'd have to say that the publicly stated reasoning was done in such a fashion as to be defensible to the last, and that your question on what was valid, or what is still valid misses the point. People HATE to admit when they're wrong. It goes for W, and it goes for America as a whole, and it goes for pretty much everyone worldwide. The justifications were set up in a ring, inversely relating the persuasiveness and defensibility. The most damning was the outermost ring: HE HAS WMDs!!! But it was also the most susceptible to factual determination. Inside that, there was HE WANTS NUKES!!! Which, while probably not inaccurate, glossed over the fact that he couldn't realistically DO anything with them. It was also easily shown to be disprovable by factual determination. Further inside, the items become less factual and more ideological, wrapping themselves in the flag and accusing by implication that disagreement is anti-patriotic. This is the point that we have arrived at, and there is no factual determination that can overcome the rhetoric of the ideology. It can be summed up, I think, with these: 1. The Commitment Argument. Dodging the factual basis of the war, the outermost ring of Ideological Defense is this: "Our boys and girls have been sent over to do a job. Why do you want them to quit when Accomplishment is close at hand?" This presumes that the person is a Sheehan-esque opponent to the war and just wants immediate withdrawal. It's easily circumvented by people who disagree with the war but agree with the notion of being committed to it, for better or worse. 2. Aiding and Comforting the Enemy. Basically the "with us or against us" argument. By asking for a timetable for withdrawal, by asking for a clear exit strategy, you are helping the terrorists and giving them a "lay low until" date so they can unleash havoc upon the freedom-loving people. 3. The Freedom Argument. "What, do you think that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam???" This is one of the last-resort Ideological Defenses, and artificially dictates the rhetorical terms of the debate: accepting this framing of the argument, you are now saying that by opposing the war, you wish that the people of Iraq weren't free. Of course, this framing also conveniently shoves under the rug the issue that just because people are better off NOT living under repressive autocratic regimes that it is our responsibility to see to it that it happens, one state at a time. 4. The "Why do you hate America?" argument. This is the absolute last resort of Ideological Defense. Opposition is simply unpatriotic. Go and eat your tofu pitas and talk about Socialism with Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, you wannabe Frenchie Surrender Monkey. Being that these are decreasingly fact-based arguments and increasingly faith-based arguments, there is no fruitful debate once a person gets to the inner Ideological Circle. There are simply assertions. Among Christians (who are well indoctrinated with Fact by Assertion arguments -- Intelligent Design, anyone? -- and other tautologies), there is overwhelming support for the war. The reason is simple: believing in the war is just like believing in the Bible, and no amount of intervening information is going to extinguish that Faith. I guess what I'm saying here is that faith finds its own justification, and that's all most people need.
• The hippies who believe that every kind of war or conflict is evil "because it is" are no different from the Hannity-ites and Limbaugh masses who believe that the Iraq war is right "because it is." Every justification for the war that remains is based upon a tautology. Speaking as a Republican against the war from the start, and as an ex-Christian, there is no escaping the fact that, at the end, we who oppose the war are effectively in opposition to modern American Christianity, its Gospel of War and Capitalism, the Cult of Paul and Who Cares What Jesus Said in the Sermon on the Mount? Blessed are the PeacemakersWar Presidents.
• (as it seems smallish bear has done) I don't know why you've got such a grudge against me. The neocon plan for the mideast is well-known, and it's exactly what you presented in your post. I said that, while it may seem nice in theory, it doesn't work in practice. It obviously isn't working. Where's the misinterpretation? I didn't call you a douche bag for supporting a plan that treats human lives like men on a Risk board (and I'm not now, honest). If an invasion as simple as the one envisioned by Rumsfeld et al could actually stabalize the entire region, then yes, it would be worth it. But, as I said, the men in the think tanks ignored a number of complex factors. These factors both make the occupation much more difficult and make it extremely unlikely that the goal of stabilizing the region will be achieved this way. So, do you insist that I must misinterpret the plan to come to this conclusion?
• I agree, chimaera. I have said time and time again that modern Christians should be more appropriately call their religion "Paulianity" (their favorite writings in the New Testament) or "Deutoronomism" (their favorite book in the whole bible). They very seldomly quote Christ, and they sure as hell are not interested in knowing what he was preacking about.
• I'd like to thank Fes for the thoughtful discussion. If my understanding of democracy is correct, it's not acceptable for a government to present one reason for war to the public while maintaining different reasons privately. To say that's the nature of modern government does not excuse an administration from their responsibility to be honest with the public, especially regarding the most weighty decision a government can make - whether or not to go to war with another country. I completely agree with this, and this is one of the major reasons I have never and will never suport this war. bernockle and chimaera also make some excellent points. But this whole "the war is illegal boo hoo hoo hoo" crap ain't gonna fly in Red State minds. I don't agree with the "boo hoo hoo" characterization, but the illegality of the war is another reason I oppose it. I believe it's illegal under both the UN Charter (since it wasn't in self-defense) and under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq. (Since the UN Charter is a treaty, and under the Constitution treaties are the supreme law of the land equal to the Consistution, we're bound by the UN Charter. If we don't want to be bound by it, we should repeal our agreement.)
• We should've listened to Cheney:

  I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.

• Nice quote, kirkaracha. Oh, and my boo hoo hoo comment wasn't meant in spite. My point was that there are a lot of people who didn't care for the legalities when the decision to invade was in the public debate, and probably still don't care now. Hammering home that point, whether it is true or not, would not signifigantly convince them that we need new direction/leadership in the Iraq debacle.
• I figured you didn't mean it that way, but I agree it's an accurate representation of some people's opinions. Because I believe the war is immoral and illegal, I'm a little frustrated with people who supported the war when it was going well, but aren't supporting it when it's not. And speaking of comparing it to World War II, this World War II vet thinks it's bunk:

  Cavuto asked Mahoney about the "impatience on the part of this generation," but Mahoney ignored the question and dove right in: "When you try to compare our war to another, you can't do it ... this was supposed to be over a couple months ago." There's "no comparison to any part of World War II," he said. Cavuto wondered if Mahoney thought, "most of the men and women who are in Iraq right now are doing a noble thing and are doing the right thing?" Mahoney said, "No, I really don't." Cavuto, "Really!" Mahoney, "I'm against it." Cavuto said that if we leave Iraq, "the feeling seems to be" that the "insurgents will take over." Mahoney reminded Cavuto that we eventually left Vietnam and Korea and he said, "Are they doing all right?" They, "can take care of themselves," we've "pulled out of a lot of places."

• One statement that obliquely criticizes a comment you've made and I've got a grudge against you? Come on, grow some skin! You said "With a bit of revisionist history thrown in to make it look like this all springs from 9/11" You're right. 9/11 had *nothing* to do with a change in foreign policy measures, us going into Iraq, or any number of subsidiary issues related to terrorism and the Middle East. Please. Lots of people have been wanting to oust Saddam for years. You make it sound like this was a plan hatched in secret by a couple of neocon loyalists at a secret cabal. Insufficient troop levels, True, initial troop levels were supposed to be nearly double what they were. The original plans from Secretary Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Meyers (USAF) called for lots of air power, lots of special ops forces, lots of Iraqi indigenous forces (Kurds, Shia, INC), and one (1) reinforced heavy division. This didn't quite happen. However, current troop levels have evened out a bit. I'm not sure you can criticize the current output. looters, I assume you're not talking about the ones in New Orleans... failure to protect infrastructure, Oh you mean the piss poor, run-down, ruined and in some cases entirely inoperable one left behind by Saddam and his kids? Thanks, we're doing much better now. failure to defend Iraqi security force trainees, Acknowledged. This was a definite mistake, as was the decision not to recruit the Iraqi national army to security posts. It showed a lack of foresight and failed to engage the Iraqis to build within themselves a rank and file trustworthy force that could be used to counter the insurgency. influx of foreign insurgents, a complete lack of border control, Whilst border patrols aren't what they should be, the military has adjusted since the initial influx and is now making use of this very characteristic of the enemy to trap and destroy them. I have one brother currently serving in Iraq--another who is back from Iraq and is returning in a few months--this is what they're doing. Now, it depends on how you view mission objectives, but this one isn't like a battle plan with begin and end points. It will continue until the enemy realizes that it is not working, and they will either give up or change tactics. rapidly falling support both in Iraq and here, Of course there are people who are no longer happy with the war. This is statistics. You show me a war in which support levels remained the same or rose as the war continued. By the same token, there are still plenty of people who do support the war. Many of them are Iraqis whose lives have been changed forever. Is their support for the war nullified by the ones who don't support it? No. This is a strawman and doesn't really mean anything in the context of the greater question. problems with the appointed interim leaders, Links, examples? failure to secure supply lines. As a central tenet of classic warfare, this is a shoe-in. Of course you protect and secure the supply lines. Else you starve. And you are defeated. I'm trying to figure out what you're looking for here, though. 100% security? But, as I said, the men in the think tanks ignored a number of complex factors. And as I said, no they didn't. I'm willing to bet that whatever you thought of, they thought of before. That's kind of their job, to consider reasonably all the possibilities and scenarios. To accuse them of ignoring the issues is just arrogant.
• Foreign fighters make up less than 10% of the opposition, numbering in the low thousands, are mostly from Saudi Arabia, and the vast majority of them were radicalized by the invasion.
• Right, lets just say we're both fucking retarded for arguing on the internet and go on with our lives.
• Okay so even many of those who supported the WMD claim, agree that it was simply a front to go to war. Destabilizing the Middle East seems to have backfired somehow, and 59% (more than the 51% that elected BushCo) think it was a mistake. What to do? Hire an Ad Man to Spin that beyotch! Saatchi & Saatchi CEO Kevin Roberts has been telling the Pentagon how to spin the war on terror. His advice? “Call our struggle, the Fight for a Better World.” Roberts was invited by the U.S. Department of Defense to address “various U.S. Defense Intelligence Agencies” at a conference in New York held last March 9 Good thing the American consumer is extremely critical-minded and well informed, or this snowjob just might work!
• Saatchi and Saatchi? They're rather good at this. It'll work.
• What happened to the Global Struggle against Extremism™. now i've gotta redo all those t-shirts again.
• That phrase, “the global struggle against violent extremism,” was widely ridiculed when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others began using it instead of “the war on terror.” Government officials have since gone back to using the “war on terror” moniker.
• /aside And it was in 1999 that Roberts triggered a political scandal in his home country of New Zealand when he wined and dined premier Jenny Shipley. Her government later gave Saatchi a $26 million tourism ad contract while other government budgets were being cut. One newspaper called it the “Slippery Slope of Sleaze.”
• Fer fucks sake. "Rebranding" has now officially jumped the shark. He [Roberts] then suggested that America seek to become as beloved a brand as Harley-Davidson or Apple, so that the country becomes a “Lovemark” for foreigners. I don't know to laugh or cry...
• You don't work in Marketing, do you? That lovemark shit is the grail.
• Having worked many years for a firm that specialized in brand indentity (just across the street from Saatchi & Saatchi I must note), I've had my fair share of marketing. Perhaps that is why I found this a bit disturbing...
• Ah. A knowledgeable insider, the worst kind of critic :) On the other hand, I wouldn't mind seeing America's stock rise again in the eyes of the world. I'm an American and reasonably proud of the fact. But I am not one of those Americans who believes we can - or should - operate in a vacuum. We have forever made the unspoken claim that while we may be *in* the world, we are not *of* it, when in fact we must be necessity be of it. Why can't America be loved? There is much here that is laudable. But it's lost amid the mistakes.
• Post-9/11 being a veritable wellspring of good feelings for the ol' US. I think the Iraq thing single-handedly dropped us off the guest list. Bush's Iraq thing. That is. His 2004 election not helping.
• Ah Fes, you always bring up noteworthy comments. While I share a facet of your sentiment, I tend to fall on the other side of the pasture*. Perhaps the mistakes outweigh that which is laudable? And then again, I am probably the worst kind of critic indeed. My knowledgeable insight regarding marketing is *nothing* compared to that which I am now presently involved. * I can trace these feelings back to the early 90's, when I first observed how cheaply American "Patriotism" can be purchased.
• I still think that the war in Iraq, when viewed in the light as a step toward the ultimate goal of reducing state-sponsored Islamic terror, was a laudable goal AND I think that Iraq *could* have been a real feather in America's cap, if only they hadn't completely and utterly fucked up nearly everything after the actual defeat of Saddam's army. Good opportunities wasted, is what irritates me. If even a modicum of sense had been utilized beforehand, and a bit of gentlehandedness and equanimity afterward, we might have averted what, even I have to admit, looks now like a burgeoning religious-based civil war, which is something we won't be able to effectively help them with. *trying to remember what notable happened in the early 90's and what sugarmilktea does now* Always keep in mind, sugarmilktea, that which can be purchased cheaply can be had in quantity, but is often of shoddy quality.
• *trying to remember what notable happened in the early 90's A little something called the Gulf War. what sugarmilktea does now* Check out today's self-link post... that which can be purchased cheaply can be had in quantity, but is often of shoddy quality. Bingo!
• I thought that's what you were referring to, but wasn't sure. That one was at least somewhat competently protracted, if truncated. You work for the IIC??
• Yes to your question above
• Dear Shrubya, Just admit you were wrong about the war. Invading when and how we did was a bad idea, and we told you so. But you didn't want to listen. Now we're waist-deep in shit and there's no end in sight. It wasn't faulty intelligence, it was a faulty argument. And you were wrong. Admit it, already. And let's get moving in the "right" direction. Signed, 50% of the USA
• It wasn't faulty intelligence well...
• 50% of the USA well...
• ............Approve Disapprove Unsure 10/6-8/03 ...... 47...... 50...........3
• Wow, um, good job going down a list of a couple hundred survey results, and picking out the first one with 50% in the disapprove column, even though it's 2 years old and the numbers have gotten drastically worse since then. "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?" 9/16-18/05 32 approve, 67 disapprove, 1 unsure I don't know why you're arguing with me, with techsmith the troll insinuating that the intelligence actually was faulty, as opposed to delibrately manipulated. I personally am glad the numbers are worse for bush than 50% and I can't wait for that fucker to dip down into the 20's.
• not arguing bearish, just saying that back when Shrubya was saber-rattling and in general being a closed-minded smirking chimp cowboy about Iraq it was pretty well 50-50 ish. Half of us listing the copious and well-thought-out reasons why it's a bad idea, and half of us rah-rahing into it. I'm glad it's more against now, but as discussed in some other thread, it's a little late for that. As a nation we are phUX0r3d for decades because of this idiotic war. Slowly it's dawning on more people, but sheesh.
• I personally have a harder time accepting the current 1% unsure than the 32% approve. After years of this shit, how can you not at least formulate an opinion? If I was a doctor, like Bill Frist, I would diagnose these people as braindead based on the survey results I read on the internet.
• i didn't think techsmith was trolling. i read it as a pun on the word i>intelligence...
• gah, intelligence
• "We should re-evaluate what's going on in Iraq," he said. "What did we achieve, what did they achieve from that war in Iraq," he asked. "It's a very simple question. What did they achieve economically, politically, fighting terrorism? "We didn't achieve anything. This is one example." When Amanpour suggested the U.S.-led war ousted Saddam Hussein, Al-Assad replied, "Yeah, but what did you lose as a return? The hope of the people, the stability, no better democracy, no better economy, no services, no stability in the region, more terrorism -- so is that the prize you've won for getting rid of a dictator? That's not a goal." Ouch! Retract those claws, girlfriend!
• A. HUMAN COSTS TO THE U.S. AND ALLIES B. SECURITY COSTS C. ECONOMIC COSTS D. SOCIAL COSTS II. Costs to Iraq III. Costs to the World About 2 sentences each. No pictures even.
• Interesting, but over a year out of date.
• True, although some comments remain true: Another economist, James Galbraith of the University of Texas, predicts that while war spending may boost the economy initially, over the long term it is likely to bring a decade of economic troubles, including an expanded trade deficit and high inflation. Interestingly "www.iraqometer.com" used to be a flash site with icons for each of the various metrics (i.e. # bombs dropped, # wmd's found, # casualties, $ cost, etc) they even had "www.electometer.com" to track the 2004 election (i think that was the URL) then very suddenly the site just disappeared. At least it resolves now, although it appears to be run by someone else.
• When Bush compared Iraq to WWII, I had no idea. You have been ordered to Iraq (i-RAHK) as a part of the worldwide offensive to beat Hitler. It's a self-Godwin'ing war. via MeFi
• Democrats close Senate doors in Iraq protest
• You did beat me to it!! :op
• *laughs maniacally*
• I was looking for Senator Harry Reid's Comments on the senate site, but I found it on a blog (link). Apologies for the length but it's pretty good: "This past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of I. Lewis Libby, the Vice President's Chief of Staff and a senior Advisor to President Bush. Libby is the first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in 135 years. "This indictment raises very serious charges. It asserts this Administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national security and are morally repugnant. "The decision to place U.S. soldiers in harm's way is the most significant responsibility the Constitution invests in the Congress. "The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: how the Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions. "As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this Administration. This cloud is further darkened by the Administration's mistakes in prisoner abuse scandal, Hurricane Katrina, and the cronyism and corruption in numerous agencies. "And, unfortunately, it must be said that a cloud also hangs over this Republican-controlled Congress for its unwillingness to hold this Republican Administration accountable for its misdeeds on all of these issues. "Let's take a look back at how we got here with respect to Iraq Mr. President. The record will show that within hours of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, senior officials in this Administration recognized these attacks could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq. "The record will also show that in the months and years after 9/11, the Administration engaged in a pattern of manipulation of the facts and retribution against anyone who got in its way as it made the case for attacking Iraq. "There are numerous examples of how the Administration misstated and manipulated the facts as it made the case for war. Administration statements on Saddam's alleged nuclear weapons capabilities and ties with Al Qaeda represent the best examples of how it consistently and repeatedly manipulated the facts. "The American people were warned time and again by the President, the Vice President, and the current Secretary of State about Saddam's nuclear weapons capabilities. The Vice President said Iraq "has reconstituted its nuclear weapons." Playing upon the fears of Americans after September 11, these officials and others raised the specter that, left unchecked, Saddam could soon attack America with nuclear weapons. "Obviously we know now their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate. But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the Administration then that its claims about Saddam's nuclear capabilities were false.
• "The situation was very similar with respect to Saddam's links to Al Qaeda. The Vice President told the American people, "We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know he has a longstanding relationship with various terrorist groups including the Al Qaeda organization." "The Administration's assertions on this score have been totally discredited. But again, the Administration went ahead with these assertions in spite of the fact that the government's top experts did not agree with these claims. "What has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress to the Administration's manipulation of intelligence that led to this protracted war in Iraq? Basically nothing. Did the Republican-controlled Congress carry out its constitutional obligations to conduct oversight? No. Did it support our troops and their families by providing them the answers to many important questions? No. Did it even attempt to force this Administration to answer the most basic questions about its behavior? No. "Unfortunately the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities is not limited to just Iraq. We see it with respect to the prisoner abuse scandal. We see it with respect to Katrina. And we see it with respect to the cronyism and corruption that permeates this Administration. "Time and time again, this Republican-controlled Congress has consistently chosen to put its political interests ahead of our national security. They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican Administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why. "There is also another disturbing pattern here, namely about how the Administration responded to those who challenged its assertions. Time and again this Administration has actively sought to attack and undercut those who dared to raise questions about its preferred course. "For example, when General Shinseki indicated several hundred thousand troops would be needed in Iraq, his military career came to an end. When then OMB Director Larry Lindsay suggested the cost of this war would approach $200 billion, his career in the Administration came to an end. When U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix challenged conclusions about Saddam's WMD capabilities, the Administration pulled out his inspectors. When Nobel Prize winner and IAEA head Mohammed el-Baridei raised questions about the Administration's claims of Saddam's nuclear capabilities, the Administration attempted to remove him from his post. When Joe Wilson stated that there was no attempt by Saddam to acquire uranium from Niger, the Administration launched a vicious and coordinated campaign to demean and discredit him, going so far as to expose the fact that his wife worked as a CIA agent. "Given this Administration's pattern of squashing those who challenge its misstatements, what has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress? Again, absolutely nothing. And with their inactions, they provide political cover for this Administration at the same time they keep the truth from our troops who continue to make large sacrifices in Iraq. "This behavior is unacceptable. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as it is solemn. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives. Over 90 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice this month alone - the fourth deadliest month since the war began. More than 15,000 have been wounded. More than 150,000 remain in harm's way. Enormous sacrifices have been and continue to be made.
• "The troops and the American people have a right to expect answers and accountability worthy of that sacrifice. For example, 40 Senate Democrats wrote a substantive and detailed letter to the President asking four basic questions about the Administration's Iraq policy and received a four sentence answer in response. These Senators and the American people deserve better. "They also deserve a searching and comprehensive investigation about how the Bush Administration brought this country to war. Key questions that need to be answered include: How did the Bush Administration assemble its case for war against Iraq? Who did Bush Administration officials listen to and who did they ignore? How did senior Administration officials manipulate or manufacture intelligence presented to the Congress and the American people? What was the role of the White House Iraq Group or WHIG, a group of senior White House officials tasked with marketing the war and taking down its critics? How did the Administration coordinate its efforts to attack individuals who dared to challenge the Administration's assertions? Why has the Administration failed to provide Congress with the documents that will shed light on their misconduct and misstatements? "Unfortunately the Senate committee that should be taking the lead in providing these answers is not. Despite the fact that the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee publicly committed to examine many of these questions more than 1 and ½ years ago, he has chosen not to keep this commitment. Despite the fact that he restated that commitment earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing. "At this point, we can only conclude he will continue to put politics ahead of our national security. If he does anything at this point, I suspect he will play political games by producing an analysis that fails to answer any of these important questions. Instead, if history is any guide, this analysis will attempt to disperse and deflect blame away from the Administration. "We demand that the Intelligence Committee and other committees in this body with jurisdiction over these matters carry out a full and complete investigation immediately as called for by Democrats in the committee's annual intelligence authorization report. Our troops and the American people have sacrificed too much. It is time this Republican-controlled Congress put the interests of the American people ahead of their own political interests."
• Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia, top Intelligence Committee Democrat, said, "My colleagues and I have tried for two years to do our oversight work, and for two years we have been undermined, avoided, put off, and vilified by the other side."
• Found it. Mr. Libby is the first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in 135 years. Is it any wonder that I am concerned about my grandchildren?
• petebest: Please resubmit your search Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information.
• dammit. try this It's document S12100 if you wanna search for that too.
• Ex-Powell Staffer Discusses Cheney Role in Iraq War
• Former President Jimmy Carter said Friday that there isn't "any doubt" the American people were misled about the war in Iraq and that President George Bush's policy on the war is a "radical departure from the policies of any president."
• Blowback in Iraq? Blowback Revisited
• Blair's litany of failures on Iraq - ambassador's damning verdict
• I have come up with my criteria for going to war and I welcome any criticism: A country should prefer to lose the war than to sit it out in the first place. Wars like WWII and the Revolutionary War obviously pass this test for the US. Invading Iraq clearly does not.
• “We had a discussion in (the State Department’s Office of) Policy Planning about actually mounting an operation to take the oilfields of the Middle East, internationalize them, put them under some sort of U.N. trusteeship and administer the revenues and the oil accordingly,” Wilkerson said. “That’s how serious we thought about it.”
• Rocco Martino wanted to make money. So he forged Nigerian documents that said Iraq tried to buy uranium for weapons. The Italian SISMI (intelligence agency) shopped it to Britain, France, and the Shrubya cabal. For . . some reason. After President Bush made his State of the Union claim that Iraq had been trying to buy uranium in Africa, the International Atomic Energy Agency investigated the Niger dossier. They proved them to be "a crude forgery" within two hours, according to Newsweek. What did the IAEA do that the American and British governments apparently hadn't? They Googled them. The Senate Intelligence Committee is beginning an investigation this week on how the Bush crowd came to use the bogus evidence, despite repeated warnings by the State Department and the CIA about the dubious nature of the dossier. But don't hold your breath for any dramatic revelations from the Republican-controlled committee. Y'know, I'm beginning to suspect that the vast majority of Republicans in Washington don't want to find out how Cheneyburton manipulated bad intelligence and lied to get us into a war. Y'know, for oil. Huh.
• One of the ways in which you can compare WWII to Iraq is, sadly, in fallen soldiers. Today being Veteran's Day here, This article which I got from MeFi is very powerful.
• Just saw the news story about five Marines being killed in a firefight. The story also mentions that 16 insurgents were killed during the firefight. It is interesting that we do not keep track of the Iraqi dead in this invasion and occupation. When US troops are killed in a suicide bombing, people feel sorry for the troops, of course, because such an attack is unfair. When the US bombs something, we never hear of the Iraqi dead. But when US troops are killed in a good, old-fashioned firefight, they are quick to report how many the US was able to kill. The US killed slightly more than three times how many the opposition killed in that exchange. Victory.
• Much is being made of Dick Cheney's world-turned-upside-down comments on Iraq yesterday, but AMERICAblog's John Aravosis zooms in right on the money quote. "The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone -- but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history," Cheney said. "We're going to continue throwing their own words back at them." Hello? How about these words, Mr. Vice President? Dick Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." Dick Cheney, Sept. 2002: "[Saddam Hussein] has indeed stepped up his capacity to produce and deliver biological weapons ... he has reconstituted his nuclear program to develop a nuclear weapon." Dick Cheney, March 16, 2003: "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Dick Cheney, Oct. 10, 2003: Saddam Hussein "had an established relationship with al Qaeda, providing training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional bombs." Dick Cheney, Jan. 21, 2004: "I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaida and the Iraqi government. I'm very confident that there was an established relationship there." We could go on and on -- there are congressional reports and Web sites filled with false statements Cheney made about Iraq -- but we wouldn't want anyone to accuse us of breaching the "basic measure of truthfulness and good faith" the vice president deems appropriate in political debate. So we'll leave it with this, an oldie-but-goodie from the vice president we find ourselves remembering every time an additional U.S. soldier is killed in Iraq. You know the one. When Tim Russert asked the vice president in March 2003 whether Americans were ready for "a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties," Cheney said not to worry: "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators." Ditto, anyone?
• Murtha, a defense hawk, decorated Vietnam War veteran and retired Marine colonel, responded with a reference to the draft deferments that kept Cheney out of Vietnam. "I like guys who got five deferments and (have) never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done," Murtha said.
• Oh, apparently Murtha is just another Michael Moore. Never mind.
• No shit. Heard that today. They're gonna spend it all aren't they?? Isn't that what they're supposed to do? Religious/political fanatics who have fucked everyone six ways from Sunday? TAKE THE CYANIDE!! TAKE IT!!!! It's BAFFLING!! I Just don't fucking understand!! Wha?? Who?? What's going on?! I'm fucking Baffled!!! Lying shit-soaked fucktard scum.
• White House refuses to release Sept 21, 2001 PDB.
• Scenes From A Bush Thanksgiving
• Good God, I almost peed my pants reading that!!
• Sadly, I can't stand Morford. Never met an adjective he didn't like. And NOT FUNNY.
• I'm with you, Hawthorne.
• Oh, c'mon, it's a little bit funny.
• A president who seems less in touch with reality than Richard Nixon needs to get out more. (NYT, reg. req.) Ouch!
• Bush said he would invade Iraq knowing what he knows today. 'I'd make the decision again.'" Is that because he's a dumb, stressed-out, arrogant egomaniac who can't admit mistakes, or is that because he was always about invading Iraq for personal and business reasons and nothing else? Does anyone want to make the case that the world is safer now that there's a raging hotbed of political violence in the middle of the middle east? God told him to do it. Strike down the anti-profiteering provision. Mission Accomplished. It's like a never-ending trainwreck of wrong and my good friend here is all about supporting it. It's really and truly mind-boggling.
• 30,000 Iraqi dead, says POTUS. Speaking Monday in the cradle of American democracy, Bush compared Iraq's struggle to the plight of America's founders and said that he still believed the March 2003 invasion was the right course of action. Comparing the current Iraq situation to the 1770's America is bizarre to me. You can compare apples to spaceships, but it's a stretch.
• agreed, it is bizzare. And this thread has gotten quite big. The choir seems to be enjoying the sermon so much, they dont want the service to end.
• When the war ends, the thread ends.
• Pfft. this thing's a toddler compared to Bashi or Daisy. Heck even the new monkey thread is 10 times this size; any one of 'em. But I like a repository for the events, so that if someone wanted to, they could start at the beginning and watch the trainwreck unfold. Also, there's a 30% chance of slight debate, with a low pressure front moving in.
• will the wars ever end? will uncommon sense and human kindness ever visit men again? will torture be condemned outright by those who choose to live in fright?
• "It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq," Bush said. "And I'm also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we're doing just that." said Shrubya. Bullshit. Bull-fucking-Karl-Rove-spinmeister-shit. It wasn't wrong intelligence that led you to war in Iraq you fucking liar. It was your pig-headed chickenhawk insistence to ignore the people who were telling you the intelligence was wrong. This is just a bullshit meme designed to fool ingorant people into thinking you got tricked into going to war and that you take responsibility. Bull-fucking-shit. You are the worst president in American history And after Nixon/Reagan that's saying something. Grrrrrr.
• It's this kind of bullshit that makes people like this guy, and why he was re-elected. He says things like this, and people who don't know any better think "Gee, what a swell guy! He admits the intelligence was wrong, and takes the blame!" Which also makes people forget that there's still a war going on over there, even if it was declared won years ago. It makes people forget that people are still dying when they don't have to, and that our Administration has no intention of letting that stop.
• And until the news stops being owned by OmniCorp, stops quoting these spin-fests verbatim, and starts framing it in terms that you and I seem to know already, RedStatopia will go on believing these hard spun half-truths. That's what grates the most - it's not like it's difficult to see what's going on with this administration. If the p.o.v. of news outlets would only try not to parrot these types of memes I'd be happy.
• Agreed. They don't even have to go into opinion, just remind everyone what the facts are compared to what the Administration is saying. But a well-informed population is seen as a threat, so we have to bend over backwards in order to see something like the truth. And of course sometimes the sources we use for the truth don't quite tell the truth, and therein begins fanaticism and outright craziness.
• Thank you, and goodnight
• petebest, I thought you linked to a video of a dude wearing pasties riding a mechanical bull there for a minute. Then after I watched it I saw the video of Bush's speech and realized that must have been what you meant. Sigh. Anyway, I didn't watch Bush's speech; I can't STAND to watch that man speak. Is there a transcript of it anywhere?
• Transcript. The image of Bush wearing pasties riding a mechanical bull was more than payment enough ;) I hear you about the speaking - it's like watching a horrible sports injury over and over. Ugh.
• Thanks for digging that up, petebest. I *hate* that man. Really, truly, hate him. How dare he keep using the people who died on 9/11 to justify each awful, wretched move he makes? If Bush had listened to the outgoing Administration in 2000, the September 11 attacks would not have happened. Or, if that's too much of a stretch (I relied on interviews Clinton had done in the recent past to come up with that one), then how about the fact that all the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks shouldn't have been here at all? Quite a few of them had expired visas. Or how about that one of them totally botched his airport questioning, and that as soon as he figured out how to correctly answer the questions, he was let go? Red flags should have been raised, and all of them should have never been allowed on airplanes. Had many different levels of our Nation's authorities & International security systems (Immigration, airports, etc.) done their job right, it would have never happened. But instead of fixing what was wrong with the system, our President has chosen to become Dictator, has chosen to throw away 200 years of freedom and liberty, all in the name of "safety". He seems quite pleased with that course of action, and disinclined to let anyone stop him. So, I'm still wondering: what can we do about this?
• Sorry for the rant. But I *do* feel better...
• Sun Tzu was a Chinese general who lived in the 6th century BCE, when the powerful Zhou Dynasty was in decline. Many regional feudal lords were competing with the king, and China was in a period of intense and prolonged civil war. Regarded as barbarians by other Chinese, the Zhou leaders appointed their own kinsmen -- or the kinsmen of their most trusted allies -- to rule over the various city-states. In order to convince their subjects of the legitimacy of their power, the Zhou invented a system of authority which they called the "Mandate of Heaven." Sun Tzu was desperately worried about his nation becoming exhausted by war. He warned that "when you do battle, even if you are winning, if you continue for a long time it will dull your forces and blunt your edge. When your forces are dulled, your edge is blunted, your strength is exhausted, and your supplies are gone, then the other side will take advantage of your debility and rise up." In order to avoid this national burnout, a leader should strive to keep the enemy off balance through extensive trickery -- "a military operation involves deception." Deception must be ongoing, and unpredictable: "Even though you are competent, appear to be incompetent. Though effective, appear to be ineffective." Interesting in context, non? From another excellent link by the similarly and simian-y homonculus.
• A bomb that killed six civilians Monday near Baiji, Iraq, missed its target by 65 feet (20 meters) and hit the wrong home, military officials said.
• Bremer says US did not expect insurgency in Iraq
• "I'd like to suggest another way of looking at the War on Terror: as a twenty-first century continuation of, or replication of, the American Indian wars, on a global scale."
• Now there's a meme worth discussin' . . .
• Of the war, Hatch said the U.S. must "hang in there and do what's right." He also praised the Utah soldiers who are fighting for freedom. . . . "And, more importantly, we've stopped a mass murderer in Saddam Hussein. Nobody denies that he was supporting al-Qaida." In a clear attack on Democrats, Hatch added, "Well, I shouldn't say nobody. Nobody with brains." O RLY? --------------Let's watch!-------------- "The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq. ------------------------------------------ "A new CIA report delivered to Vice President Dick Cheney last week calls into question White House assertions of a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, officials told ABC News." ------------------------------------------- [Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th? THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim. THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question. ---------------------------------- Senator Hatch, you're a sycophantic arrogant ass, and you ought to shut the goddamn fuck up.
• Arrogant Egotistical Festering Boil On the Cusp of Satan's Anus Backpedals Like A Shit-Stomping Worthless Clownbag Fuckstick "Senator Hatch, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, no less, stood in front of a crowd of people and made a statement, a statement that is just not true, in what seems to be an attempt to mislead and misinform the people of Utah," Holland said in a statement. "This is not leadership. This is not honesty. This seems nothing more than dirty politics and negative messaging. This is insulting to the people of Utah." No shit. Y'think?
• The man should join an AA group. Arrogant Assholes
• Buckley on Iraq: It Didn’t Work
• Whaaaaaat?!?!?!
• U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006 for some reason the soldiers want to go home. The troops aren't supporting the troops. “Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there,” said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. “Instead, that initial rationale went by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein.” Just 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war. Only small percentages see the mission there as securing oil supplies (11%) or to provide long-term bases for US troops in the region (6%).
• Rep. Jack Murtha said on Face the Nation (.pdf file) in response to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace's characterization on Sunday that the war in Iraq was going "very, very well": Why would I believe him? I mean, that administration, this administration, including the president, had mischaracterized this war for the last two years. They, first of all, they said it will take 40,000 troops to settle this thing right after the invasion. Then they said there's no insurgency. They're dead-enders is what the secretary of defense said. On and on and on, the mischaracterization of the war. They said there's nuclear weapons. There are no nuclear weapons there. There are no biological weapons there. No al-Qaeda connection. So why would I believe the chairman of the joint chiefs when he says things are going well. I ask my staff--when my staff--when they make a statement like this, I say, `Look, look in the latest report that the State Department puts out, the Weekly Report, and tell me how much progress we've made.' So they look at it, and we've made no progress at all. Sixty percent unemployment, the Iraqis want us out of there. Eighty percent of the Iraqis want us out of there. Oil production below prewar level. Water production, only 30 percent of the people getting water. Now our troops are being fed well and being taken care of. They're doing everything they can do militarily. But they're in a situation where they're caught in a civil war. And there's two participants fighting for survival and fighting for supremacy inside that country, and that's my definition of a civil war. So I don't believe the secretary. I think we're not making progress. We're caught in a civil war. We've lost almost 20,000 people in this war, if you count the casualties and the people who've been killed in the three years we've been involved. SCHIEFFER: Now I'm going to make sure I understand. I mean, I think I understand what you're saying, but you're talking about a Marine and here you are an ex-Marine. This is a military man. This is not--this is not somebody, some civilian out there at the Pentagon. You're saying you no longer believe what Marine General Peter Pace says when he says he thinks things are going well. Rep. MURTHA: That's exactly right. Why would I believe him with all the misstatements and mischaracterizations they've made over the last two years? And the public is way ahead of what's going on in Washington. They no longer believe. The troops themselves, 70 percent of the troops said, `We want to come home within a year.' The only solution to this is redeploy. Let me tell you, the only people who want us in Iraq is Iran and al-Qaeda, and I talked to a top level commander the other day, who's--about two weeks ago, and he said China wants us there also. Why? Because we're depleting our resources. Our phys--our mental--not our mental--our troop resources and our fiscal resources. Rock on, sir.
• Huh. It was about the oil. Well slap my elvis and call me sugar. Whouda thunkit. The United States may want to keep a long-term military presence in Iraq to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect the flow of oil, the Army general overseeing U.S. military operations in Iraq said on Tuesday.
• US Launches Biggest Iraqi Air Assault Since Invasion
• "The people of Karabilah hate the foreigners who crossed the border and entered their areas and got into a fight with the Americans," al Dulaimi said. "The residents now also hate the American occupiers who demolished their houses with bombs and killed their families ... and now the people of Karabilah want to join the resistance against the Americans for what they did." They hate our freedom!
• Saddam Was Trying to Capture Zarqawi
• Washington's good news in Iraq isn't quite what it seems.
• Shiite Officials Express Anger Over U.S. Clash With Militia
• Imperial overreach is accelerating the global decline of America
• I - I don't accept that premise. President Leader is a Spine of Steel for democracy in the brown skinned liberty. Terra will not defeat cut-and-run. Freedom. There will be hard. But the American people stand by Iraqi, and they will have a country. Forces of evil, those try to tear down the essential that we all share. And so I urge the Congress to approve this abomination, to send a message. The people do. And I thank you. 9-11.
• "Yet even now, President Bush persists in blatantly falsifying the war's origins -- perhaps because, even now, he still gets away with it. At his most recent press conference, that strange impulse to utter a ridiculous lie seemed to seize the president. It happened when he called on Hearst columnist Helen Thomas." Bush is a liar. This just in, the sky is blue.
• Oh, sorry the relevant part for those of you who don't read that is: "Bush responded by denying that he wanted war, a pro forma assertion that nobody believes. He blathered on for a while about Sept. 11, the Taliban, al-Qaida and protecting America from terrorism. And when Thomas reminded him that she had asked about Iraq, he said, "I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the [United Nations] Security Council; that's why it was important to pass [Resolution] 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences -- and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose [emphasis added], then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it." The official transcript notes "laughter" at that moment. What was so funny? Were her colleagues laughing at Thomas, whose monopoly on testicular fortitude has shamed them all for so long? In the days that followed, the bully boys of the right-wing media enthusiastically abused Thomas, which was predictable enough. But have the rest of the reporters in the press room become so accustomed to presidential prevarication that they literally cannot hear a stunning falsehood that is repeated over and over again? For the third time since the war began three years ago, Bush had falsely claimed that Saddam refused the U.N. weapons inspections mandated by the Security Council. For the third time, he had denied a reality witnessed by the entire world during the four months when those inspectors, under the direction of Hans Blix, traveled Iraq searching fruitlessly for weapons of mass destruction that, as we now know for certain, were not there. But forget about whether the weapons were there for a moment. The inspectors definitely went to Iraq. They left only because the United States warned them to get out before the bombs started to fall on March 19, 2003. But for some reason the president of the United States keeps saying -- in public and on the record -- that the inspectors weren't there." I remember when Saddam denied the inspectors, but then he let them in - so - that can't be a basis for war.
• Military Plays Up Role of Zarqawi
• And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' " Capiche?
• Time to stop feeling guilty and start really bombing
• Jesus.
• Jesus would totally carpet bomb them.
• I'm not a naturally violent man but I would gladly eviscerate that guy with a rusty salad fork, given the chance. Guess that's how wars start.
• Bush likens 'war on terror' to WWIII
• Desperate much, W.?
• An apology from a Bush voter
• *hands Islander a rusty salad fork, stands behind him with a dull bent butter knife ready to enlarge the holes
• "So, I’m saying today, I was wrong to have voted for George W. Bush. In historic terms, I believe George W. Bush is the worst two-term President in the history of the country. Worse than Grant. I also believe a case can be made that he’s the worst President, period. After five years of carefully watching George W. Bush I’ve reached the conclusion he’s either grossly incompetent, or a hand puppet for a gaggle of detached theorists with their own private view of how the world works. Gosh, that means a lot.
• Relentless Violence Kills 54 People in Iraq; U.S. Sends More Troops to Combat Insurgents
• Yeah but Iraq is at a turning point! The POTUS said so! Again. I hope all you Iraq-war naysayers are getting your fill of freedom crow! Ha! Ha! *sigh*
• Bush Compares himself to Truman
• Dear George Washington, Pleas give me anew presitent. Will you come back for presitent? --Billy
• Poll of Voters: Bush Worst President Since World War II "Bush was named by 34% of voters, followed by Richard Nixon at 17% and Bill Clinton at 16%, according to the Quinnipiac University national poll of over 1,500 voters released today. Leading the list for best President since 1945 is Ronald Reagan with 28%, and Clinton with 25%. "
• ABCNews cut into Nightline to announce that Zarqawi has been killed (finally). No link yet.
• Link. I guess that campaign is over.
• Yes, we've turned the corner. last throes, last throes.
• The probe concerns allegations that at least two U.S. soldiers were involved in the rape of a woman, and that one of them killed her, a child, and two other adults, U.S. military sources said
• The slayings of three soldiers near the site of an alleged rape and the killing of a family may have been an act of revenge, an official says.
• Turkey Signals It's Prepared to Enter Iraq
• Wow, this would be such a bad thing. I find it hard to believe that Syria and Iran would just stand by if Turkey invaded. The whole Mid East seems to be going up in flames.
• Yeah, and we precipitated it. Didn't we once have statesmen in the government who made decisions wisely, at least sometimes? I wonder if the EU will put pressure on Turkey to avoid this.
• Didn't we once have statesmen Those were the days, my friend.
• Bush is Dumb.
• But smooth.
• bow chicka duhhhhhhhh chicka bow!
• The United States and the rest of the world would be much better off if we gave up on Bush's plan for global domination.
• Preach it, brother! Though this was rather facile: "In response to all this, I say: repudiate empire, overcome our oil addiction, and bring the troops back home. This will save lives, save money, and restore America's democratic credentials. Even more significant, it will help us prevail in any long-term struggle with small, stateless groups that employ terror as their weapon of choice." Repudiating empire might be a realsonably easy choice in other hands, but the rest includes so may variables that I think we couldn't see fruition on our lifetimes.
• put an 'n" in may, and realsonabley=reasonably.
• The vulnerable line of supply to US troops in Iraq
• "Adapt to win!"
• Total War
• WWII and Iraq War Now the Same Length
• That's really depressing, even if Pearl Harbor is used as the starting point.
• Number of Civilian Deaths Highest in July, Iraqis Say Bombs Aimed at G.I.’s in Iraq Are Increasing
• Total Civilian Deaths
• Historical notes: WWII began in 1939. That is, I was taught it began in September 1939, but I have met citizens of a couple of European countries invaded by Germany who take a different view of when hostilities began. These folk maintain when enemies attack and invade your country without provocation you are at war. America didn't become involved in WWII until after Japan attacked Pearl Harbour in December, 1941, over two years later. I do see one parallel between the WWII situation and Iraq (setting the ugliness of war itself aside) namely: forces have attacked and invaded Iraq without provocation. Otherwise the two seem more dissimilar than alike.
• And V-E day wasn't the end either, although somewhere around here there's a link for a great article about how Americans thought it would be, and were very bothered by it going on for another year or so - something related to the dropping of The Bomb on Hiroshima.
• How long has it been since the British referred to WW2 as "The 1939-45 War"? I found an old children's book on WW2 and post-war British aircraft with no publication date in it.
• Interesting question. Well, I never heard it called anything but World War Two. (The First World War was still called The Great War in a lot of books when I was a kid, though.) Google-fu seems to reveal WWII was so named in April 1942. Not sure how reliable this source is, but it might be a starting point.
• Dang. Meant to link this reference.
• “What’s happened [in Iraq] is nothing short of a miracle.”
• He went on to cite the most important reason for defending Israel: “Because God said so.” OK, remarks like this should mean automatic removal from public office.
• "During hearings on the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in 2004, Inhofe created a stir when he said he was fed up with all the “humanitarian do-gooders” making such a fuss over the inhumane treatment of prisoners. (Washington Post, 5/12/04) He said he was “more outraged by the outrage” than by the treatment. After all, he said, they were probably guilty of something. (New York Times, 5/12/04)" He's a great man.
• Monkeyfilter: Because God said so. Hell yeah! Hoo hoo hoo!! *pumps fists in air*
• Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor
• "Nuremberg declared that aggressive war is the supreme international crime," the 87-year-old Ferencz told OneWorld from his home in New York. He said the United Nations charter, which was written after the carnage of World War II, contains a provision that no nation can use armed force without the permission of the UN Security Council. Ferencz said that after Nuremberg the international community realized that every war results in violations by both sides, meaning the primary objective should be preventing any war from occurring in the first place. He said the atrocities of the Iraq war--from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal and the massacre of dozens of civilians by U.S. forces in Haditha to the high number of civilian casualties caused by insurgent car bombs--were highly predictable at the start of the war.
• Americans are paying for Bush's war of aggression at the bank, the store, the pump, and the graveside!
• The president's latest dumb speech
• With every link posted by the H-Dogg, another tear mysteriously appears on the faces of the soldiers in the Iwo Jima statue.
• Flat Daddies
• He views the world as locked in a titanic struggle between, as he put it in today's speech, the forces of "freedom and moderation" and the forces of "tyranny and extremism." This is, in his mind, "the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century." The most frightening thing of all is if the man does in fact not realize the glaringly obvious fact that he himself is an extremist.

• The security of the civilized world depends on victory in the war on terror, and that depends on victory in Iraq. 

  Here's the question: Does anybody believe this? If you do, then you must ask the president why he hasn't reactivated the draft, printed war bonds, doubled the military budget, and strenuously rallied allies to the cause. Check. And mate. If only logic could play some role in this administration somehow. And not the dark evil twisted Cheneylogic (tm) that destroyed the Bindr'ai of Xyrton 8.
• U.S. military leaders in Baghdad have put out for bid a two-year, $20 million public relations contract that calls for extensive monitoring of U.S. and Middle Eastern media in an effort to promote more positive coverage of news from Iraq. Only stupid people will fall for it though. /TVturnoffweek
• Spurned by the West, Turkey looks eastward
• Sounds Ho Chi Minhy.
• Cheney Twiddles Own Ball Sack Defends Quixotically Evil Treasury-busting Aggression on NBC's "Meet the Press". Cheney disputed polls suggesting that a majority of people in the United States do not believe the Bush administration's claim that the war in Iraq is the central front in the fight against terrorism.
• Iran Wins: Iraq Seeks Iranian Help On "Security"
• The mismanaged military has reached its breaking point
• "This article requires registration" :(

• Username  teh_l4mR 
  Password  ih8u 
  

  :D
• ))) to pete for teh p<55\/\/0rD! And likewise to the ever-reliable h-dog!! In July, a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center found that thousands of white supremacists may have been able to infiltrate the military due to pressure from recruitment shortfalls. Which led me to A Few Bad Men. Wow...
• Retired officers slam Rumsfeld handling of Iraq war
• I was wondering where to H-dogg that article rocket. Well done.
• Bush's backpedaling on the war.
• Slightly related but not worth a whole new post- What. The. Fuck. Newsweek?
• Woodward: Bush Misleads On Iraq
• President Bush is absolutely certain that he has the U.S. and Iraq on the right course, says Woodward. So certain is the president on this matter, Woodward says, that when Mr. Bush had key Republicans to the White House to discuss Iraq, he told them, "I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me." Dave's not here, man.
• "This war on Iraq is a disaster. I'm disgraced. I'm ashamed for my country," he said. "I'm also ashamed that America has attacked itself with its constitutional breakdowns. I'm deeply ashamed." Y'know, fwiw.
• I'm ashamed too. I'm ashamed that one of my senators stood and then promptly flopped with Spineless McCain on torture, and my other senator spits at women, calls black people n**gers and stuffs dead deer heads in their mailboxes. And he voted for torture too. fwiw.
• > What. The. Fuck. Newsweek? yeah, what the hell is that about? also today, Senior (British) military officers have been pressing the government to withdraw British troops from Iraq and concentrate on what they now regard as a more worthwhile and winnable battleground in Afghanistan.
• Missed the Newsweek bit. Nice touch! It happens every single day in the US. Yesterday, for example, as the Senate was busy reversing the hands of time, the national US news (as I skimmed it) had headlines that were either: 1)scandals of entertainment figures 2)scandals of sports figures 3)dramatic criminal acts The blinders are on full-throttle. It's no surprise (to me). Newsweek Covers this week (in case you were skeptical of the image linked above): U.S.A. Asia Latin America Europe
• George Bush's Iraq in 21 Questions
• US plans last big push in Iraq
• The destruction of Iraq's professional class: The recent kidnapping of Iraqi professionals, and ongoing murder of doctors and teachers, are devastating the country's recovery.
• Following through on warmongering rhetoric
• Shoppers Mob Malls for Holiday Discounts: Millions of Americans swarmed discount stores and filled downtown shopping districts to mark the start of holiday shopping season. Iraq Toll Rises; Shiite Militia Retaliates: Defying a government-imposed curfew, Shiite militiamen stormed Sunni mosques in central Iraq today, shot guards and burned down several buildings in apparent retaliation for a series of devastating car bombs that killed hundreds of people.
• Six Burned Alive In Baghdad: Shiite militiamen douse Sunnis with kerosene, set them ablaze as Iraqi soldiers watch Holy fuck, this shit just gets worse every day.
• "There is something terribly wrong with this juxtaposition of gleeful Americans with fistfuls of dollars storming the department store barricades and the slaughter by the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, including old people, children and babies. The war was started by the U.S., but most Americans feel absolutely no sense of personal responsibility for it."
• Full article.
• Whatever Happened to Statecraft?
• > The war was started by the U.S., but most Americans feel absolutely no sense of personal responsibility for it. .
• roryk: If we were reading the same article, I think it made the point that most Americans feel powerless in stopping or otherwise affecting the war. I may not speak for the majority, but I do feel powerless in face of the juggernaut of obfuscation by the current adminstration. And, I may not feel personal responsibility in one way in that I didn't support it to begin with, but I do feel responsible for what my country has done to the Iraqis. I'm sure I'm not alone.
• powerless in face of the juggernaut of obfuscation by the current adminstration. What path said. Also see: Note to Pelosi - Identify Responsible NeoCon Ass, Apply Collective Foot, ASAP. And thanks again Sir Dogg for the relevant linkitude
• The war was started by the U.S., but most Americans feel absolutely no sense of personal responsibility for it. True - I must admit that I feel no responsibility for any war that I didn't personally support. I think the full weight of responsibility should come down on those who started it and supported it. This whole sense of "my country, right or wrong" is horse-manure (I was going to say something else) in the extreme. Unfortunately for all, the people who did start it have pretty much set themselves up to be invulnerable, and politics dictates that those who could do something about it are opting for expediency as the end result would be even worse (ie., impeach Bush and Cheney gets the Presidency). So, here we sit with the world's biggest Catch-22 (at the moment - give it week, there's be some other one).
• 10 Steps the Democrats Should Take Now While They Still Have Inertia: 1. Crystallize a firm anti-Iraq war policy that brings troops home as soon as possible. 2. Replace Howard Dean as DNC chair with someone who can do more than whine anti-Bush sound bites. 3. Pledge to not fling poo at one another during primaries and pre-convention appearances. Save poo for Rebublicans. 4. Ask John Kerry, Al Gore, and Way-Too-Soon Obama to sit on their hands. 5. Please, Oh, Please realise that despite how bright she is, Hillary is simply too polarising to put up as a candidate. She is valuable as a senator. Analogy: see Ted Kennedy. 6. Don't talk health care until you have a plan for health care. 7. John Edwards was brilliant the other day on the Daily Show, but...nah, I don't think so. 8. Maybe this really is the time for Joe Biden. But he's doing such stupid, Kerry-ish things... 9. Ask James Carville to retire. He is a lightning rod for people trying to find a Democrat to hate. 10. Get a that isn't just spin. Stick with it.
• that would be "10. Get plan a that isn't just spin. Stick with it." Kind of an amusing missing word!
• What do you say to people who just don't get it?
• Bill Moyers addresses a class at West Point Very good speech. We were warned of this by our founders. They had put themselves in jeopardy by signing the Declaration of Independence; if they had lost, that parchment could have been their death warrant, for they were traitors to the Crown and likely to be hanged. In the fight for freedom they had put themselves on the line—not just their fortunes and sacred honor but their very persons, their lives. After the war, forming a government and understanding both the nature of war and human nature, they determined to make it hard to go to war except to defend freedom; war for reasons save preserving the lives and liberty of your citizens should be made difficult to achieve, they argued.
• I know this may seem like a stretch to some (most) people here on MoFi, but imagine for a moment that all the President's men (to coin a titular phrase) are not the idiots and scam artists and criminals you assume them to be--just for a moment mind you, so as not to tax your special reserve of political apoplexy--imagine instead they are, at the very LEAST, capable, logical leaders who wouldn't, at least not without due consideration, throw several hundred thousand men and women into harm's way and attempt to perform a major surgery on a very wounded region. . . . posted by f8xmulder at 11:00PM UTC on August 30, 2005 Fifteen months later . . . "We are all realists now. . . The Republicans had their neoconservative spree and emerged this month from its smoking wreckage, in Iraq and at the polls, with nothing to steady them except the hope that two aging condottieri from the first Bush Presidency, James A. Baker III and Robert Gates, can lead the way out. These are the same men who, fifteen years ago, abandoned Afghanistan to civil war and Al Qaeda, allowed Saddam to massacre his own people, and concluded that genocide in the Balkans was none of America’s business." George Packer in The New Yorker Magazine, Nov. 2006 "capable, logical leaders" they are not. Quod erat demonstrandum.
• Hume After Interview With Bush: ‘Spirits Are Good,’ ‘Attitude Is Confident,’ ‘Seems To Enjoy The Work’
• Iraq Study Group: Situation 'grave' Well that's a wry turn of phrase, innit?
• A Young Marine Speaks Out
• Bush = Truman
• Dude, he's the decider.
• Bush seeks advice all around "Story Highlights • NEW: President says 'success in Iraq will help protect the United States' • President to ask historians, former generals for Iraq views • Bush plans to unveil new Iraq strategy by Christmas • Last week's bipartisan report urged new U.S. course in Iraq" WOW. By Christmas! I think everything's going to be all right from now on!
• Seriously though, I don't think this particular "news item" could get any more surreal. Bush has eaten the metaphorical baby a long time ago. Wow.
• Foreign Office has asked ministers to ditch the phrase invented by Bush to avoid stirring up tensions within the Islamic world
• You know what? I don't think that's why Bush invented the phrase.
• Iraqi Refugees To Plead for U.S. Sanctuary
• Saudi Arabia will back Sunnis if US Leaves Iraq Iran, who support the Shiite faction, is displeased. The White House dismissed the report. If only someone would have warned that invading Iraq would have been stepping into a violently unstable situation between centuries-old bitter rivalries of warring neighbor states!! Why didn't anyone tell this administration that?! Of course, you could take the position that they knew and don't care. Or that they knew, care, and wanted to start a huge world war.
• What's the difference?
• “Why do they kill people of other religions because of religion?” wondered Lott, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, after a meeting with Bush. “Why do they hate the Israelis and despise their right to exist? Why do they hate each other? Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference? “They all look the same to me,” Lott said. Good article H-dogg, as usual.
• That article makes me just swell with an awesome sense of confidence that we'll do the right thing!
• How to Win in Iraq
• "Daddy, that's stupid."
• Iraq’s Legal System Staggers Beneath the Weight of War
• Butcher, 27, sees the war in terms of simple economics: time, money and effort spent by terrorists fighting American forces in Iraq leaves them with fewer resources to plot another Sept. 11 back home. "That's really all the justification I need," says Butcher, a squad leader from Rochester, N.Y. "I don't really worry about the politics of it. I can't do anything about that anyway."
• The thirty years' war brewing in the Middle East
• Well just answer me this Mr. link-to-all-the-world, fancy-pants HTMLer, just who could have seen that coming?? Who? Jesus? (Well, okay, probably Jesus, but outside of advising George W. to start this war and ensuing occupation even he's been pretty quiet lately.) If these Frenchy mincing soy-quaffing girlie-men Defeat-o-crats would just let Freedom Ring . . !!
• Christmas in the Middle East
• Intelligence sources say President Bush -- along with Israel's Ehud Olmert and the UK's Tony Blair -- are weighing the possibility of Israeli-led attacks on Syria and Iran in early 2007, with the United States providing logistical back-up.
• Richard (Prince of Darkness) Perle, David (Axis of Evil) Frum, Kenneth (Cakewalk) Adelman, and other elite neoconservatives who pushed for the invasion of Iraq are beside themselves at the result. (Six pages at Vanity Fair)
• Scuttle, ye cockroaches.
• "I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.' [...]" Also, what are you talking about, you murderous fuck? Your lack of education in the classics?
• While You Were at War . . .
• Iraq-war cheerleader Richard Perle now says an invasion may have been the wrong way to topple Saddam Hussein. This just in: Clenched-sphinctered soccer parents in Iowa reconsider their steadfast support for George W. Bush in the 2004 election. And now a word from McWal-Brand's where Everyday is Good Livin'!
• It's all General Casey's fault.
• Few Iraqis Are Gaining U.S. Sanctuary
• Apocalypse II in Samarra
• Bush wanted his Iraq war to be a lofty Shakespearean history. He got a vicious, corpse-strewn revenge tragedy.
• "our president is about to embark on a policy of massive resistance"
• Bush Admin Shuts Door to Iraqis as Iraq's Refugee Crisis Gets Worse
• We see nothink Colonel Cheney! Noooothink!
• President Bush Is Really, Really High
• They'll be throwing rice and rose petals in no time now.
• Dead Maliki Walking
• President Wants War with Bigger Tits: Rice Calls For Augmentation
• Battle for Haifa Street
• “the Executive Producer of the Evening News thought some of the images in it were a bit strong­ plus on that day the program was already packed with other Iraq news.”
• Our Mercenaries in Iraq: Blackwater Inc and Bush's Undeclared Surge
• Mahdi Army gains strength through unwitting aid of U.S.
• More ammunition has been provided for critics of the war in Iraq with the publication of a consensus report from the entire US intelligence apparatus. It uses a term the Bush administration has been reluctant to employ when it says some key elements of the conflict can be described as "civil war". However Defence Minister Robert Gates rejected the term even though he has not yet read the report.
• RTFR! that was for Robert Gates
• The Pentagon's Secret Air War in Iraq
• Who's Funding the Sunnis?
• ‘Security forces’ rob Baghdad academics
• President George W. Bush linked the U.S.-led war on terrorism on Monday to the country's struggle for independence led by George Washington more than 200 hundred years ago.
• Shut up, Bush; just attack Iran already, you warmongering cunt!
• New Iraq Oil Law To Open Iraq's Oil Reserves to Western Companies
• The way the neocons can come back is so obvious: bring Americans gas at $1/gallon or less. There will be plenty of looking the other way if it means drivers can feel good at the pump.
• Iraqis Are Running Out of Food: Even the food system in Iraq is plagued by insecurities. Once a large agricultural exporter, Iraq's food supply has fallen apart under the U.S.-led occupation.
• The British retreat from Iraq brings peril for U.S. troops: Vice President Cheney says the British are leaving southern Iraq because things are going so well. In the real world, Basra is a mess.
• IRAQ: 4.5 million children undernourished
• Is the Bush surge already failing? The president just gave a rosy assessment of his plan, but insurgents have adapted and Iraqis continue to be slaughtered.
• After serving in Iraq, Army Spc. Agustín Aguayo decided the war was wrong and refused to go back -- at a heavy price.
• A Few Words in Defense of Our Country - Randy Newman.
• "Well . . Pluto's not a planet anymore either"
• The Plight Of Iraqis Who Helped The U.S.
• The Army is ordering injured troops to go to Iraq
• Lovely!
• Beyond Quagmire: A panel of experts convened by Rolling Stone agree that the war in Iraq is lost. The only question now is: How bad will the coming explosion be?
• Senate Votes to Begin Debate on Iraq Hahahahahaha . . ah . . ha . . . ehhhh. *snif*
• Really, it seems like a waste of time. The president already knows they oppose the war, and now they're going to debate for weeks on a bill that would forward an opinion to the president with regards to when the troops should be pulled out. What's the point? Can't they do anything a bit more productive, or is that not allowed?
• What's the point? I think it has to do with determining the location of balls. Of some oppositional sort. *checks watch* Dayam it's 2007 already?
• Zbigniew Brzezinski on The Daily Show
• I saw that interview last night on the global edition. I was rather surprised that he rated George HW Bush so highly as a post-Cold War president and Clinton so low, but his explanations seemed to hold water. Then I spent ten minutes trying to pronounce "Zbigniew".
• Steve Jobs introduces the iRack
• War supporters take message to Washington
• Zip It! CNN: Ed, if it weren’t such a solemn day we could do about five minutes on that whole zip it exchange, but because of the the anniversary, we will let it go at that. Been lettin' it go for five years, why stop now?
• Betrayed: The Iraqis who trusted America the most.
• There is a building here downtown that contains some graffiti on it. "Chimpeach" has been spray-painted in red while there is a "W" next to it that features a noose hanging from it. Had the person been caught, I am wondering if he/she could have been charged federally for threatening the life of the President.
• an enemy combatant you mean? Techncially, that's up to the POTUS or the Secretary of Defense.
• Or an enemy combatant. I was thinking that it was more along the lines of a letter saying, "Dear Mr. President, I am going to kill you." I thought there some threat-related federal statutes that covered those situations.
• "The consequences of imposing such a specific and random date of withdrawal would be disastrous," Bush said in a speech at the National Cattlemen's Beef Association meeting. .
• “I dont know what part of Neverland Senator McCain is talking about…”
• Faced with overwhelming evidence that he was wrong, McCain denied he’d ever said it: “Well, I’m not saying they could go without protection. The President goes around America with protection. So, certainly I didn’t say that.”
• ‘I Bought Five Rugs For Five Bucks’ You see, it was all totally worth it.
• GRAHAM: But what we’re doing today is different. And to say it’s not different is just really not being fair. We have a fundamentally different approach to our security problems. We’re doing now what we should have done three years ago and there are some signs of success. Two things: we cannot let suicide bombers, homicide bombers, and car bombers set the pace for the 21st century. We cannot let them determine the future of the Iraqi people or the future of the American people, and it’s the resilient people [inaudible.] We went to the market and were just really warmly welcomed. I bought five rugs for five bucks. And people were engaging, and just a few weeks ago, hundreds of people, dozens of people were killed in this same place. Senator Lindsey Graham is special. I know whenever I hear his unique high-pitched southern speech in the headlines, what issues forth will be a toadying party line quote worthy of the most bronzed spinmeister fecal matter available at the time. I look to him to see how the GOP will do the awkward twisty dance for 2008 to hold this war as a shining example of . . well, something . . and yet stand apart from it as the monumental disaster it continues to be. They're not gonna give that job to McCain. Even his astounding brownnosing in 2004 won't win him that coveted spot as that most unctuous deliverer of Republices in 2008.
• A day after members of an American Congressional delegation led by Senator John McCain pointed to their brief visit to Baghdad’s central market as evidence that the new security plan for the city was working, the merchants there were incredulous about the Americans’ conclusions.
• “What are they talking about?” Ali Jassim Faiyad, the owner of an electrical appliances shop in the market, said Monday. “The security procedures were abnormal!” Ah, so it was of of those "Hide the cats, the landlord's coming" days.
• Iraq: Why The Media Failed (Salon, adview req.) It's no secret that the period of time between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq represents one of the greatest collapses in the history of the American media. That's a bit of a fucking understatement. Ooops. I meant "a bit of an understatement" Of course, the media was not alone in its collapse. Congress rolled over and gave Bush authorization to go to war. And the majority of the American people, traumatized by 9/11, followed their delusional president down the primrose path. Had the media done its job, Bush's war of choice might still have taken place. But we'll never know. An interesting take on the massive fuckuppery of the American media (all six companies) categorized into psychological, institutional and ideological reasoning.
• The International Committee of the Red Cross says the situation for ordinary Iraqis is getting steadily worse.
• Gays Subject to "Sexual Cleansing" in Iraq
• "Notes were found near some of the bodies with messages saying that this is going to be the fate for any Muslim who denies the Islamic religion," Isn't . . I mean aren't Muslims the . . people who specifically don't deny the Islamic religion?
• America at a Crossroads
• Poll reveals most negative assessment of Iraq war yet 69 percent of Americans say things are going badly for the United States in Iraq. That's the most negative assessment yet recorded, up from 54 percent who thought things were going badly last June and 62 percent in October. (Full poll results [PDF]) The public's view: it's not working. Only 29 percent of Americans believe that sending additional troops to Iraq will make it more likely the U.S. will achieve its goals there. Only 21 percent believe the U.S. and its allies are winning; the prevailing view (62 percent) is that neither side is winning.
• Training Iraqi troops no longer driving force in U.S. policy
• U.S. Erects Baghdad Wall to Keep Sects Apart
• One State Department official, who also asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the subject, expressed the same sentiment in blunter terms. "Our strategy now is to basically hold on and wait for the Iraqis to do something," he said. ??
• From an Angry Soldier
• Tell Me How This Ends
• Feck, maybe freedom IS just another word for nothing left to lose.
• Bush admits invasion of Iraq, "Huge mistake" Heh. sorry. Okay, but wouldn't that be somethin'
• AND NOOWwwwwww . . . The only administration official you know to have a petroleum supertanker named after her . . . current National Football League commissioner hopeful and gatekeeper of the bathroom key when speaking at the U.N. . . . Ladies and gentlemen, let's have a big hand for . . . Condoleeza Rice! Justify Bush's War! *theme music*
• I can't begin to express how excited, how happy, how giddy I am to see that. Thank you very much, petebest, for that awesome news.
• The final word on this is, hooray
• Dude, I was totally misquoted 'Slam dunk' comment on Iraq distorted, Tenet says "What I meant to say was that it was a very very bad idea to rush into war in that region with no plan and too few troops." (Not an actual quote from the article, YMMV)
• Army Squeezes Soldier Blogs, Maybe to Death
• Tweedledee Rush Limbaugh on Tweedledumb's Bush's legacy.
• “Long after we’re all dead and gone, when historians who are not yet born begin to write about this era, they’re going to place George Bush in the upper echelon of presidents who had a great vision for America, who looked beyond our shores, who didn’t just restrict himself to domestic policy niceties.” What's ironic about that is that his own show may actually make that true. I used to be excited for historians to kick Reagan in the ass for all of his idiocies, but so far the right has done a great job of mythologizing him. That old October-Surprise military-industrial dumbass bastard who was probably a very nice person to know. But then, I'm impatient.
• Justify Bush's War I sure hope posting that here isn't against their terms of use!
• D'oh! I meant to take that last line out, because I decided not to take chances & read the terms of use, which mention nothing about reposting. *blushes*
• Mmmmm Army Marketing. That's quality demographicatin'.
• Lazy and dishonest.
• Iraq faces the distinct possibility of collapse and fragmentation, UK foreign policy think tank Chatham House says.
• The secret Iraq documents my 8-year-old son found ...the most remarkable passage in the entire deletion is a simple statement by an Iraqi businessman, whom the writer quotes in passing while explaining why American-induced economic prosperity will end the fighting. "It is nothing personal," the Iraqi says. "I like you and believe you could be bringing us a better future, but I still sympathize with those who attack the coalition because it is not right for Iraq to be occupied by foreign military forces."
• Money From Iraq Is Funding Al Qaeda Resurgence In Pakistan
• Blowback's a bitch.
• *is vaguely aroused*
• Iraq's resistance groups have offered a series of peace plans that might put an end to the country's sectarian violence, but they've been ignored by the U.S.-led coalition because they're opposed to foreign occupation and privatization of oil.
• The Bush administration is quietly on track to nearly double the number of combat troops in Iraq this year, an analysis of Pentagon deployment orders showed Monday.
• Unicef appeal for Iraqi children
• Did the U.S. Lie about Cluster Bomb Use in Iraq?
• I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose. We Were Both Doing Our Duty. By Andrew J. Bacevich
• The risks of staying
• We’re Fighting Them There To Train Them To Fight Elsewhere
• Records: Senators who OK'd war didn't read key report For members of Congress to read the report, they had to go to a secure location on Capitol Hill. The Washington Post reported in 2004 that no more than six senators and a handful of House members were logged as reading the document. I believe the proper statement is "authorization for the President" to go to war. The Congress doesn't give the order to march. Still.
• Iraq refugees find no refuge in America Desperate Iraqi Refugees Turn to Sex Trade in Syria
• “So many of the Iraqi women arriving now are living on their own with their children because the men in their families were killed or kidnapped,” said Sister Marie-Claude Naddaf, a Syrian nun at the Good Shepherd convent in Damascus, which helps Iraqi refugees.
• Inexpensive Iraqi prostitutes have helped to make Syria a popular destination for sex tourists from wealthier countries in the Middle East. In the club’s parking lot, nearly half of the cars had Saudi license plates. Just what the world needs...
• Bush is bound and determined to make sure the Iraqi's have a damn good reason to turn to terrorism. *uses innocent face, raised eyebrows, shocked tone of voice Why do they hate America?
• Retired Gen. George Washington Criticizes Bush's Handling Of Iraq War
• U.S. relies on Sudan despite condemning it: The nation accused of aiding the killings in Darfur provides spies in Iraq. In return, it gets access in Washington.
• ‘We have made a deal with the devil’
• The Daily Show: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
• This has got to be one of the greatest tragedies or comedies - I cannot quite decide yet. The graphic from the Daily Show is priceless.
• *sticks head back in bucket*
• The deal was made with the devil when we allowed Bush to swear that oath.
• The Failed States Index 2007
• General: "Never a Mission" to Defeat Iraq's Insurgents
• Iraq Documentary Heads For Theaters
• Iraqi Political Refugee Facing Deportation To Iraq
• Iraqi Youth Face Lasting Scars of War: Conflict's Psychological Impact on Children Is Immense, Experts Say
• Well, duh.
• Iraq by the Numbers
• In the twilight of his presidency, George W. Bush and his inner circle have been feeding the press with historical parallels: he is Harry Truman—unpopular, besieged, yet ultimately to be vindicated—while Iraq under Saddam was Europe held by Hitler. To a serious student of the past, that's preposterous. Writing just before his untimely death, David Halberstam asserts that Bush's "history," like his war, is based on wishful thinking, arrogance, and a total disdain for the facts.
• total disdain for the facts Yes, that sums up Bush nicely.
• But he seems folksy. He'll always have that.
• Great read, h-dogg.
• A Farewell to Arms Control
• War batters Iraq family that aided U.S.
• "Accidents" of War: The Time Has Come for an Honest Discussion of Air Power
• 140,000 Turkish Troops Mass at Iraq Border Iraq Benchmarks still Waiting for Godot
• The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness
• In Baghdad, even babies quickly learn to duck snipers
• Video: Inside the surge
• Be warned, that video is pretty hard to watch.
• Bush On Saddam: ‘That Motherf*cker Tried To Take Out My Dad’
• Allies Left Behind? Iraqis Who Helped U.S. Feel 'Betrayed,' Marked for Death
• Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, On the White House’s handling of Iraq: the administration “f—ed up” the war.... the fur is going to start to fly...
• "I suppose I’ll merely expose myself to harmless ridicule if I make the following assertion: George W. Bush’s presidency will probably be a successful one."
• Iraq on My Mind: Thousands of Stories to Tell -- And No One to Listen
• Even Bush's intelligence report says the war in Iraq is making us less safe at home.
• Exit Strategies: Would Iran Take Over Iraq? Would Al-Qaeda? The Debate About How and When to Leave Centers on What Might Happen After the U.S. Goes.
• Peter Galbraith: The War Is Lost
• Turkish PM threatens to invade northern Iraq
• Denmark evacuates Iraqi employees and their relatives
• Iraq hasn't even begun: Consequences from the disaster we could have avoided will plague the world long into the future.
• See also
• An Iraqi On Iraq
• U.S. drops Baghdad electricity reports: The daily length of time that residents have power has dropped. The figure is considered a key indicator of quality of life.
• "Young people react with hostility to the Republicans on almost every measure and Republicans and younger voters disagree on almost every major issue of the day."
• It's a shame they're all too cool to bother voting.
• It will be interesting to see what comes from the twisted wreckage that the republican party has morphed to under Bush. A new political party? At the very least a new organizing principal? We may not see it for a few years, but if that poll is any indication, something has to change or that party will die.
• Republican War Policy Made Simple
• 8 million Iraqis need urgent aid, report says
• From h-dogg's link: "Researchers found that 15% of Iraqis cannot regularly afford to eat, 70% do not have adequate water supplies (up from 50% in 2003), 28% of children are malnourished (compared with 19% before the invasion), and 92% of children suffer learning problems. The report also said more than 2 million people - mostly women and children - have been displaced within Iraq and have no reliable income, while another 2 million Iraqis have fled the country as refugees, mostly to neighbouring Syria and Jordan." And from the Oxfam site on the same topic: "Many humanitarian organizations will not accept money from governments that have troops in Iraq, as this could jeopardize their own security and independence. Therefore the report urges international donors that have not sent troops to Iraq to provide increased emergency funding for humanitarian action." This is probably a good time for individual donors to do their bit if they can.
• Bush's Turkish Gamble
• We're Heading for 'Blowback' in Iraq
• "I love you, sir, but your son’s way off base"
• Helping enemies in Iraq
• Fatigue cripples US army in Iraq
• Iraq Timeline: The Broken Record on "the Next Few Months"
• Prepping Us for the Long War?
• Petraeus’ September Report Will Be Written By The White House
• This is going . uh . . good. In other words, it's good-going . . uh . . over there. [smirk here] Democracy and peace are on the verge of . . of flowering into a steady march ahead. For tomorrow and the brown-skinned peoples of America. In other words, it's hard. Victory. 9-11. America. Thank you. [exit quickly to left (your left)]
• Mr Cheney defending the invasion. And living up to his name.
• That clip makes him sound ... almost ... insightful.
• Yeah, I can see his mouth moving. He must be lying. Again.
• Iraqi scholars seek asylum: Their studies near an end, the Fulbright students fear going back to their violence-plagued country.
• The War as We Saw It
• U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, will likely testify to Congress about progress in the war on September 11 or September 12, the White House said on Monday. Ahh, the White House continues to tug at the heartstrings. I wouldn't bet on September 12...
• Power cuts getting worse, affecting lives
• War's Chilling Reality
• "Let us not become the evil that we deplore." Barbara Lee, worth another quick listen.
• 1.14M Iraqis Have Been Displaced
• Iraq Body Count Running at Double Pace
• GIs' morale dips as Iraq war drags on: With tours extended, multiple deployments and new tactics that put them in bare posts in greater danger, they feel leaders are out of touch with reality.
• The US is fighting Iraqi Government
• Sorry, Mr. President, You're All Out of Troops
• General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the British Army during the invasion of Iraq, has launched a scathing attack on the United States for the way it handled the post-war administration of the country.
• British forces withdraw from Basra Palace base
• Pattern Cited in Killings of Civilians by U.S.
• 9-11. Saddam. A thousand points of light.
• So, um, this is the first time I've checked this link in two years. Bush has now compared Iraq to Vietnam and the world irony markets have collapsed under the strain. Did anyone justify the war? Perhaps there's a Cliff Notes version?
• "Because we wanted to" isn't really a justification but it's all Neoconservative Republicans have. WMD, UN inspectors, 9/11, Terrorist aid, etc.
• "If you think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will end with this US presidency, think again. These wars will likely outlast the next several Presidents."
• Hey, we need the oil!
• Shhh! ixnay ixnay!
• Planning for Defeat: How should we withdraw from Iraq?
• Bush policy to bequeath Iraq to successor: The president plans to end his term with a strong U.S. military in the country and leave the issue of exiting to his successor.
• I thought he'd pretty much said so during the 2004 debacle.
• What Crocker and Petraeus didn't say
• Brit Hume and the Bush administration take propaganda to a new level The whole production was such transparent propaganda that one doubts that Pravda would have been shameless enough to present it. Even the title of the program was creepy. Fox did not even bother to call it an "interview," but rather hailed it as a "Briefing for America." Haw! Damn.
• "Briefing for America" More like a Depantsing Prior to the Bendover for America
• Two of Seven Soldiers Who Wrote 'NYT' Op-Ed Die in Iraq This op-ed. Damn.
• Damn, straight...
• What we need is a large and carefully selected crowd to hear the message that "Two thousand years of Western history are in danger" Then this unmitigated and absolutely predicted disaster won't seem so inexplicably pointless. Wow, that's kind of depressing. More wine!
• Korea may be Bush's model for Iraq, officials say President Bush is looking at the decades-long U.S. troop presence in South Korea as a model for a future U.S. role in Iraq, senior administration officials said Thursday. That is going to go really, really well. Good plan, Decider. Heckuva plan.
• Iraqis say U.S. should stop passing blame
• What Bush's invasion would look like in the United States
• The U.S. is selling billions in weapons to Iraq. Is the Pentagon's plan making the country secure or arming it to the teeth for civil war?
• Cases of Cholera Reach Baghdad
• How George Bush became the new Saddam
• Petraeus said that the arms sales are an important part of the initiative to keep the Iraqis "rapidly expanding their security forces." But Petraeus himself presided over an arms debacle in Iraq in 2004 and 2005 in which nearly 200,000 weapons went missing. And while U.S. arms might help the Iraqi security forces "stand up" in the short term, experts warn that the U.S. military could easily lose control over what may follow. Some fear a war zone flooded with weapons that could be turned on U.S. soldiers, or supply huge firepower for a full-blown civil war. Will the fantastic ideas just keep on a-comin'??
• U.S. Confiscates AP Footage At Scene of Bloody Baghdad Bombing
• Turkey considers foray into Iraq
• U.S. Military Returns Confiscated Video to AP
• Doors closing on Iraqi displaced: A growing number of Iraqi provinces are refusing entry to internal refugees, the UN refugee agency has warned.
• Marines Press to Remove Their Forces From Iraq
• It's the Oil
• Weary and dazed, few Iraqi refugees reach US soil
• The Real Iraq We Knew -By 12 former Army captains There is one way we might be able to succeed in Iraq. To continue an operation of this intensity and duration, we would have to abandon our volunteer military for compulsory service. Short of that, our best option is to leave Iraq immediately. A scaled withdrawal will not prevent a civil war, and it will spend more blood and treasure on a losing proposition. America, it has been five years. It's time to make a choice.
• Four more years!
• In a video Op-Ed by documentary filmmakers Molly Bingham and Steve Connors, Iraqis explain the roots of the insurgency.
• De Palma's movie "Redacted" has been redacted.
• Turkish F-16s attack Kurdish rebels inside the Iraqi border... The "fun" continues...
• An Airstrike a Day Won't Keep Insurgents at Bay. It might mean fewer dead Americans, though.
• Thousands march against the war in S.F., across the country
• I don't know why reporters quote Bush anymore. Or Dana Puppetshow Perino. It's so pointless. Pointless in the sense of looking for truth-with-a-capital-T truth. (Which is very arguably the purpose of news.) It serves the administration's point very well, obviously.
• Building of Iraqi police barracks threatens world heritage site
• Rise In Iraqi Deaths Undercuts Administration’s Claims Of ‘Momentum’ In The War
• 2007 Is Deadliest Year for US in Iraq
• The Debt
• Key test in Iraq: Is the power on?
• "You don't just go down to Auto Zone and get a transformer," says Colonel Moon. "They cost a million dollars." First of all, Colonel Moon, okay second of all at that rate they'd have to find the missing cash we know about to buy 9,000 of them.
• Iraqis return home 'in thousands'
• Wishful Thinking and Iraq
• White House Releases "Principles" for Permanent Iraqi Presence
• Sunnis fear for their lives in Iraqi Hospitals because of death squads
• Why Bush's troop surge won't save Iraq: The influx of U.S. troops brought a relative lull in violence -- but the failing state remains in political chaos and is headed for collapse.
• Prostitution ordeal of Iraqi girls
• Iraq calmer, but more divided: The U.S. troop buildup has brought down violence, but that has failed to spark cooperation among politicians. If anything, the country appears more balkanized into ethnic and sectarian enclaves.
• Iraqi Refugees Return, and Are Stranded: The government’s inability to manage a reverse exodus has left the most vulnerable in an uneasy limbo.
• Bush, Maliki Break Iraqi Law to Renew U.N. Mandate for Occupation
• Little respite for Iraq’s children in 2007
• Iraq's Insurgents Are Ordinary People: A new film delves inside Iraqis' reasons for getting involved in the violent resistance movement.
• The Return Of “Shock And Awe”
• Just What Iraq Needs: Fighter Jets by 2011
• Andrew J. Bacevich: Don't buy the hawks' hype. The war may be off the front pages, but Iraq is broken beyond repair, and we still own it.
• From Four a Week to Four a Day - the Air Surge in Iraq
• Surge Update
• Administration has lied about Iraq 935 times since 9/11/01
• President Bush's plan to forge a long-term agreement with the Iraqi government that could commit the US military to defending Iraq's security would be the first time such a sweeping mutual defense compact has been enacted without congressional approval, according to legal specialists.
• Surely this will be the scandal that . . . ehhh. Hey remember the Democrats? Heh. Ahh, good times.
• A Surge of Applause
• In Iraq, Three Wars Engage U.S.: Shiite Extremists Pose Greatest Challenge, Military Officials Say
• Bombs Away Over Iraq: Normalizing Air War from Guernica to Arab Jabour
• The Iraqi Refugee Mess Just Got Messier
• Yeah but terror is down almost a metric Bushload! This continued action is totally justified. To Fox News.
• Violations of 'Islamic teachings' take deadly toll on Iraqi women
• Iraq's Tidal Wave of Misery: The First History of the Planet's Worst Refugee Crisis
• The Man on Both Sides of Air War Debate: Bomb Targeter-Turned-Human Rights Advocate Lobbies for Greater Restraint
• Is the US really bringing stability to Baghdad? To judge from the talk in Washington, the 'surge' that put 30,000 more US troops on the ground in Iraq has succeeded in bringing stability to a nation still riven by ethnic, religious and tribal conflict. Life, the Pentagon boasts, is returning to normal. But the truth is a very different story.
• The Million Year War: How Never to Withdraw from Iraq
• Defining Victory Downward: No, the surge is not a success.
• Iraq’s Public Health Crisis
• Welcome to the Quagmire: The next president may be stuck with more problems in Iraq than Bush ever faced.
• McCain's Consistent Folly on Iraq: Wrong in 2003, wrong now, and still getting praised for it
• Iraq's Three Civil Wars: There are three major conflicts in Iraq -- and the U.S. is virtually powerless to stop them.
• Officials Lean Toward Keeping Next Iraq Assessment Secret
• Will American war crimes be revealed? Like Vietnam vets did decades ago, a group of soldiers are poised to speak out about atrocities they say the U.S. committed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• I wonder how long before someome tries to swiftboat 'em.
• Pew Survey: Iraq "drops out" 28 = % of Americans who are aware that nearly 4,000 U.S. personnel have died in Iraq since the war began. 50 = % of Americans who knew that Hugo Chavez is president of Venezuela. 84 = % of Americans who correctly identified Oprah Winfrey as the talk-show host supporting Sen. Barack Obama. Margin of error was plus or minus 3.5 percentage points
• My mother was just talking about this yesterday. She absolutely hates the fact that she's started involuntarily tuning out Iraq news when she hears it. She doesn't want to be apathetic, but there's only just so much of this shit the human mind can take in before it reaches overload.
• Who Says the Surge Is Working? Weak-kneed Democrats, that's who.
• Iraq Winter Soldier Hearings: Victory for Independent Media
• Iraq and Vietnam Iraq and Vietnam Iraq and Vietnam Vietnam and Iraq Vietnam and Iraq Vietnam and Iraq Hmm . . tough call - first way?
• The U.S. Military's Assassination Problem Blowing Them Away Means Never Having to Say You're Sorry
• Five Years Later, Iraqis Still Lack Basic Services, Believe Surge Has Made Security Situation Worse
• 80,000 Angry Men. Is the US Surge collapsing? In an investigation carried out by GuardianFilms for Channel 4, we uncover how thousands of Iraqis employed at $10 a day by the US to take on al-Qaida are threatening to go on strike because they say they have been used by the 'Americans to do their dirty work' and haven't been paid .
• Frontline: Bush's War
• What Does Bush Mean by "Victory in Iraq"? His grandiose definition makes defeat almost inevitable.
• Fighting Spreads Across Baghdad
• The Face of Number 4,000 in Iraq
• Bush shamefully flees Iraqi refugee crisis
• WHAT refugees? We're bringing democracy to Iraq. What more do they want? /sarcasm
• The War Nerd: Who Won Iraq's "Decisive" Battle?
• Democracy has become a dirty word in much of the world
• How Iraq spawned wider terrorist chaos: As experts long warned, Islamic militants steeped in urban warfare against U.S. troops in Iraq have expanded their violent campaign beyond Iraq's borders.
• President Bush: “Probably true” that next attack will come from neglected Afghanistan
• “Killing at least…”
• Missiles Strike Sadr City, Damaging Hospital
• In 2007 elite U.S. snipers executed an unarmed Iraqi prisoner in cold blood. Have the insidious tactics that led to atrocities in Vietnam reemerged in Iraq?
• *wipes a tear* Hensley radioed that the snipers had killed an insurgent. Meanwhile, the Iraqi's body convulsed. Hensley "kind of laughed" at the spectacle, according to Vela. Hensley then "[punched] the guy in the throat, and said, 'Shoot him again,' which I did." Vela testified that after he shot the man for the second time, Hensley pulled an AK-47 out of his rucksack and placed it on the body. The snipers then agreed on a story about the shooting consistent with Hensley's radio calls. ...The Army charged Hensley with three murders for the shootings of April 14, April 27 and May 11. He was convicted of planting a weapon, for placing the AK-47 next to Khudair, and insubordination. He was sentenced to time served and busted down to sergeant. ...Vela was sentenced to 10 years in a military prison for the murder of Khudair. ...Hensley, meanwhile, is back on active duty. Now a sergeant, he is stationed in Georgia, where he is an instructor for Army Rangers. I never heard the outcome of the trials for these snipers, so it's even more sickening to read about it now. How sad and misfortunate all around. How are insurgents bred? I think this story can answer that...
• I didn't think I had any more tears left to shed over this mess, SMT, but I find myself with you today.
• Bush: I Gave Up Golf For The Troops
• Has life in Iraq improved? With pools of open sewage in the streets and little electricity, life for most Iraqis remains bleak.
• Blognitive dissonance aboundeth. (Thank you H-Dogg!)
• Iraq: Will We Ever Get Out?
• No Surge in Justice for Iraq’s Children
• Homunculus: I don't know WHY I open this thread when I see it up on the sidebar. Every time you post something I wind up with acid indigestion. I hope Shrub dies a thousand hideous deaths. Sure, call for the impeachment of a horndog that gets a plo chop, and let the promoter of torture and murderer of children get a big hoorah. We sure have a lot to be proud of.
• Collateral Damage: What It Really Means When America Goes to War
• Homunculus: I don't know WHY I open this thread when I see it up on the sidebar. Every time you post something I wind up with acid indigestion. I understand. Would you like me to stop?
• Seriously, I can post this stuff on devoter and stick to science and kittens and such on MoFi, if you'd prefer.
• Secret plan to keep Iraq under US control: Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors
• US issues threat to Iraq's $50bn foreign reserves in military deal
• h-dogg, please don't stop posting this stuff - it's worth the indigestion.
• Thanks for the links H-dogg.
• Iraq: World governments misleading and failing Iraqi refugees
• Robert Fisk: Snapshots of life in Baghdad. The dangerous face of ordinary life has been captured by Iraqis on their mobile phones – reaching the places Western photographers can no longer go.
• People. Just people like you and me. Families, yours and mine. Bush = genocide.
• Mission Accomplished!
• Sending a Better Message to the People of Iraq
• "The United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that the Constitution of the United States guarantees that an individual has an inviolable right to own and use a gun for purposes of self defense. A family in Iraq was just blown up illustrating that principle."
• Embedded in Iraq
• Forget the Surge -- Violence Is Down in Iraq Because Ethnic Cleansing Was Brutally Effective
• Iraqis in Exile: Refugee Crisis Threatens Stability of Region
• Iraq: A brief parable.
• Iraqi army readies for showdown with Kurds
• "...a wonderful example of American ingenuity..."
• Dirty Wars in Baghdad
• The Rising Cost of the Iraq 'Surge'
• Oh sod, wrong link. It should be this one about a secret killing program in Iraq by the CIA. I'm so so sorry...
• Obama's war
• Cheney's Mission Accomplished
• It's fear that keeps Baghdad's peace
• Report: Gays sentenced to death in Iraq, executions to begin next week
• At 7th Anniversary of 'Photo Op': Mission Still NOT Accomplished
• Summary of page: Bush = Giant pile of FAIL Let's analyze why America has been involved for SEVEN YEARS in this shameful despotic maneuver: Oil interest Gotta keep those young macho males occupied. Otherwise they'd be over here asking why they don't have any money because there are no jobs. Oil interest Gotta keep the old bull males--politicians, CEOs, lobbyists--occupied. Otherwise they'd be asking why they don't have money hanging outta their pockets. Oil interest Creating business for Xe, Halliburton, et al. Which leads us back to... Oil interest Amazing, ain't it, how that all works?
• Sergio: must-see HBO documentary on "a dream slain in Iraq"
• Former Argentine president says Bush told him ‘the best way to revitalize the economy is war.’
• Iraq’s Ancient Ruins Face New Looting
• Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima': The shocking rates of infant mortality and cancer in Iraqi city raise new questions about battle
• When I started reading that "Toxic legacy" article my first thought was depleted uranium (aka DU). Although the (openly available) research is spotty, there's enough there to indicate that DU is a highly effective carcinogen (similar to other heavy metals). Unfortunately, the Independent muddied the water a little (in my opinion) by linking the uranium to the use of nuclear weapons and the impact of ionising radiation. Depleted uranium has relatively little residual radioactivity, meaning that ionising radiation is unlikely to be a significant mechanism of cancer and birth defects. On the other hand, it is highly persistent in the human body, with quite slow clearance rates. It can also take on a number of oxidation states (similar to chromium). And it is a key component of several armour piercing munitions.
• Last US combat troops leave Iraq: Operations officially end two weeks ahead of Barack Obama's deadline, leaving 56,000 service personnel in the country
• 'American soldiers sacrificed a lot. But we sacrificed more': In 2003, a month after coalition troops invaded, Jonathan Steele reported from across the country on how ordinary people had reacted to the toppling of Saddam. Before the last US combat troops pulled out last week, he returned to track down the people he had met – and ask how their lives had been affected by the war
• Well, in addition to winning hearts and minds, we certainly have spent a lot of money making things better, now haven't we?
• The Speech President Obama Should Give about the Iraq War (But Won’t)
• Obama: 'The American Combat Mission In Iraq Has Ended'
• Speaking of speeches: Today marks the 100th anniversary of the most ‘radical speech’ an American ex-President has ever delivered.
• U.S. To Hand Over Iraq Bases, Equipment Worth Billions
• Rachel Maddow: War excluded from campaign talk as Romney hires Bush Iraq spokesman
• U.S. Says Iraqis Are Helping Iran to Skirt Sanctions
• Let's invade Iraq! Oh,wait...
• From Aug 2005 till now.... My how the world has changed. /bitter sarcasm
• Desmond Tutu calls for Blair and Bush to be tried over Iraq: Tony Blair and George W Bush should be taken to the International Criminal Court in The Hague over the Iraq war, Archbishop Desmond Tutu has said.
• Just because it's true doesn't mean he's not wasting his breath. Bush's name should be forever remembered as a hissing in the darkness.
• Surge in birth defects reported in Iraq, says study
• "Hubris": New Documentary Reexamines the Iraq War "Hoax". An MSNBC film, hosted by Rachel Maddow and based on Michael Isikoff and David Corn's book, finds new evidence that Bush scammed the nation into war.
• Why am I not surprised? Although it's more likely that Bush was scammed originally.
• So was Cheney the evil genius?
• Pentagon's link to Iraqi torture centres: General David Petraeus and 'dirty wars' veteran behind commando units implicated in detainee abuse
• The George Bush Manure Locker Is Now Open Meanwhile, Back At The War