[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Live to 120 With This Cellular Regeneration Diet

West Bank pastor raises alarm over Israels 'extermination' of Christians in Gaza

The Fake Harris Polls. LetÂ’s do a little math

NEW: Hospitals DROPPING Medicare Advantage Plans!

US Base at CONOCO Oil Field and Mission Support Service (MSS) Euphrates ON FIRE in Syria after Rocket Attacks

PANDEMIC 2.0: FDA GRANTS EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) FOR MRNA BIRD FLU SHOTS

Is Elevating Kamala Harris To The Presidency The Next Stage In Their Plan?

Black men should embrace their role as political homewreckers

Canada Experiencing Worst Decline In 40 Years

The Biden-Harris $40 Billion High Speed Internet Plan Connected Nobody

US Unfunded Liabilities Total $217.63 Trillion And Growing Fast! Unfunded Liabilities 6.23X National Debt of $35 Trillion!

RFK Jr. on Ukraine war: 600,000 dead, peace deal sabotaged.

Netanyahu Postpones the Evacuation of 150 Sick and Wounded Children from Gaza

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway cash pile has reached an all-time high in Q1 of nearly $190 billion.

More U.S. Women Are Getting Permanently Sterilized Because They Never Want To Have Children

These 10 Foods Regenerate Stem Cells & LIVE LONGER

A presidential candidate pledges gold-backed currency in Ghana. Africa awakens to gold's power.

One Man Found The Infamous "Carpet Trails" In Florida That Lead To Enormous Homeless Encampments Way Back In The Woods

Dr William Li 5 X 5 X 5 Food List

Orban: The USA Destroyed the Northern Flow of Russian Gas, It Is a Terrorist Act

D-Day Declassified: Inside Operation Overlord | FULL DOCUMENTARY

Putin is ‘growing desperate’ says Estonian ambassador

Influential House Democrat Breaks Rank, Says He Is 'Absolutely Not' Committed to Kamala Harris

Palestinians tortured in Israeli jails.

Trump Campaign Releases Brutal Ad Blasting Soft-On-Crime Kamala Harris

Pepe Escobar: China Throws Clout Behind Palestine

Breaking: Dissident Dem Senator Might Challenge Kamala Coronation, Fight Her for Nomination

AntiVaxxers advocate Force

Elon Musk's Parody of Kamala Harris Achievement Ad Quickly Racks Up 100 Million Views

Hundreds of New York citizens are protesting against an illegal alien shelter in Brooklyn, NY...


War, War, War
See other War, War, War Articles

Title: Four Unspeakable Truths
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/120404
Published: Mar 8, 2007
Author: Jacob Weisberg
Post Date: 2007-03-08 07:38:38 by leveller
Keywords: None
Views: 661
Comments: 96

What politicians won't admit about Iraq

When it comes to Iraq, there are two kinds of presidential candidates. The disciplined ones, like Hillary Clinton, carefully avoid acknowledging reality. The more candid, like John McCain and Barack Obama, sometimes blurt out the truth, but quickly apologize.

For many presidential aspirants, the first unspeakable truth is simply that the war was a mistake. This issue came to a head recently with Hillary Clinton's obstinate refusal to acknowledge that voting to give President Bush the authority to invade Iraq was the wrong thing to do. Though fellow Democrats John Edwards and Christopher Dodd have managed to say they erred in voting for the 2002 war resolution, Clinton is joined by Joe Biden and a full roster of Republicans in her inability to disgorge the M-word. Perhaps most absurdly, Chuck Hagel has called Bush's 21,500-troop "surge" the biggest blunder since Vietnam without ever saying that the war itself was the big blunder and that he favored it.

Reasons for refusing to admit that the war itself was a mistake are surprisingly similar across party lines. It is seldom easy to admit you were wrong—so let me repeat what I first acknowledged in Slate in January 2004, that I am sorry to have given even qualified support to the war. But what is awkward for columnists is nearly impossible for self-justifying politicians, who resist acknowledging error at a glandular level. Specific political calculations help to explain their individual decisions. Hillary, for instance, worries that confessing her failure will make it easier for hawks to savage her if she gets the nomination. But at bottom, the impulse is always the same. Politicians are stubborn, afraid of looking weak, and fearful that any admission of error will be cast as flip-flopping and inconsistency.

A second truth universally unacknowledged is that American soldiers being killed, grotesquely maimed, and then treated like whining freeloaders at Walter Reed Hospital are victims as much as "heroes." John Kerry was the first to violate this taboo when he was still a potential candidate last year. Kerry appeared to tell a group of California college students that it sucks to go and fight in Iraq. A variety of conservative goons instantly denounced Kerry for disrespecting the troops. An advanced sufferer of Senatorial Infallibility Syndrome, Kerry resisted retracting his comment for a while, but eventually regretted what he called a "botched joke" about President Bush.

Lost in the debate about whether Kerry meant what came out of his mouth was the fact that what he said was largely true. Americans who attend college and have good employment options after graduation are unlikely to sign up for free tours of the Sunni Triangle. People join the military for a variety of reasons, of course, but since the Iraq war turned ugly, the all-volunteer Army has been lowering educational standards, raising enlistment bonuses, and looking past criminal records. The lack of better choices is a larger and larger factor in the choice of military service. Our troops in Iraq may not see themselves as cannon fodder or victims of presidential misjudgments, but that doesn't mean they're not.

Reality No. 3, closely related to No. 2 and following directly from No. 1, is that the American lives lost in Iraq have been lives wasted. Barack Obama crossed this boundary on his first trip to Iowa as an announced candidate when he declared at a rally, "We ended up launching a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged and to which we have now spent $400 billion and have seen over 3,000 lives of the bravest young Americans wasted." With lightning speed, Obama said he had misspoken and apologized to military families.

John McCain used the same proscribed term when he announced his candidacy on Late Night With David Letterman last week. "We've wasted a lot of our most precious treasure, which is American lives." This was a strange admission, given McCain's advocacy of a surge bigger than Bush's. In any case, McCain followed Obama by promptly regretting his choice of words. (The patriotically correct term for losing parts of your body in a pointless war in Mesopotamia is, of course, "sacrifice.") These episodes all followed Kinsley's law of gaffes. The mistake Kerry, Obama, and McCain made was telling the truth before retreating to the approved banality and euphemism

A fourth and final near-certainty, which is in some ways the hardest for politicians to admit, is that America is losing or has already lost the Iraq war. The United States is the strongest nation in the history of the world and does not think of itself as coming in second in two-way contests. When it does so, it is slow to accept that it has been beaten. American political and military leaders were reluctant to acknowledge or utter that they had miscalculated and wasted tens of thousands of lives in Vietnam, many of them after failure and withdrawal were assured. Even today, American politicians tend not to describe Vietnam as a straightforward defeat. Something similar is happening in Iraq, where the most that leaders typically say is that we "risk" losing and must not do so.

Democrats avoid the truth about the tragedy in Iraq for fear of being labeled unpatriotic or unsupportive of the troops. Republicans avoid it for fear of being blamed for the disaster or losing defense and patriotism as cards to play against Democrats. Politicians on both sides believe that acknowledging the unpleasant truth will weaken them and undermine those still attempting to persevere on our behalf. But nations and individuals do not grow weaker by confronting the truth. They grow weaker by avoiding it and coming to believe their own evasions.

http://www.slate.com/id/2161385/fr/rss/

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-42) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#43. To: scrapper2, historian1944, ALL (#39)

the whole domino theory and worry about what it represented, the main reason given for sending US forces to Vietnam, a nation several thousands of miles away from us was proven to be by and large empty war mongering rhetoric.

http://www.januarymagazine.com/features/triumphexc.html "The domino theory was valid. The fear of falling dominoes in Asia was based not on simple-mindedness or paranoia, but rather on a sound understanding of the toppler countries and the domino countries. As Lyndon Johnson pondered whether to send U.S. troops into battle, the evidence overwhelmingly supported the conclusion that South Vietnam's defeat would lead to either a Communist takeover or the switching of allegiance to China in most of the region's countries. Information available since that time has reinforced this conclusion. Vietnam itself was not intrinsically vital to U.S. interests, but it was vital nevertheless because its fate strongly influenced events in other Asian countries that were intrinsically vital, most notably Indonesia and Japan. In 1965, China and North Vietnam were aggressively and resolutely trying to topple the dominoes, and the dominoes were very vulnerable to toppling. Throughout Asia, among those who paid attention to international affairs, the domino theory enjoyed a wide following. If the United States pulled out of Vietnam, Asia's leaders generally believed, the Americans would lose their credibility in Asia and most of Asia would have to bow before China or face destruction, with enormous global repercussions. Every country in Southeast Asia and the surrounding area, aside from the few that were already on China's side, advocated U.S. intervention in Vietnam, and most of them offered to assist the South Vietnamese war effort. The oft-maligned analogy to the Munich agreement of 1938 actually offered a sound prediction of how the dominoes would likely fall: Communist gains in one area would encourage the Communists to seek further conquests in other places, and after each Communist victory the aggressors would enjoy greater assets and the defenders fewer. Further evidence of the domino theory's validity can be found by examining the impact of America's Vietnam policy on other developments in the world between 1965 and the fall of South Vietnam in 1975, developments that would remove the danger of a tumbling of Asian dominoes. Among these were the widening of the Sino-Soviet split, the Chinese Cultural Revolution, and the civil war in Cambodia. America's willingness to hold firm in Vietnam did much to foster anti-Communism among the generals of Indonesia, which was the domino of greatest strategic importance in Southeast Asia. Had the Americans abandoned Vietnam in 1965, these generals most likely would not have seized power from the pro-Communist Sukarno and annihilated the Indonesian Communist Party later that year, as they ultimately did. Communism's ultimate failure to knock over the dominoes in Asia was not an inevitable outcome, independent of events in Vietnam, but was instead the result of obstacles that the United States threw in Communism's path by intervening in Vietnam."

And regards Iraq ...

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=4867 "I've pointed to quotes from Osama bin Laden and others which have characterized the US as a 'paper tiger', and all anyone has to do is commit to a "long war" and we'll eventually quit. I've attempted to argue that is dangerous perception to leave out there because it gives our enemies hope as well as an expectation of victory. And that translates into less hesitancy to take on the US. To those who found this argument wanting, some special guests to talk about that theory: Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud." ... snip ... Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam. "[The mujahedeen fighters] brought the Americans to speak for the first time seriously and sincerely that Iraq is becoming a new Vietnam and that they should fix a schedule for their withdrawal from Iraq," boasted Abu Ayman. ... snip ... Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop." He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States." Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)." "Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam." ... snip ... There are some serious issues here which those who wave-off the "paper tiger" meme will be content to ignore. But to those quoted above, it's not a non-issue or an academic exercise. It's reality as they see it. And it is their reality which will drive their future actions whether we agree or not. Don't believe me? Check out the new location of the goal posts: Saadi stated, "Unfortunately I think those who are speaking about a withdrawal will not do so when they are in power and these promises will remain electoral slogans. It is not enough to withdraw from Iraq. They must withdraw from Afghanistan and from every Arab and Muslim land they occupy or have bases."

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-08   20:16:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: historian1944, ALL (#42)

I'm not tracking with that exactly because we did spend 10 years there, and 58K lives before we finally decided to leave.

The decision to leave was made even before Nixon took office. But to spin the situation, like the democRATS are now trying to spin it, everyone said we would leave with *honor*. And yes, that took many years and many lives. And maybe did delay the spread of Communism somewhat. But ultimately the effort was wasted because then the democRATS didn't follow through with the support they'd promised the South Vietnamese. Just as they may not follow through with any support promised the Iraqi government. The very act of running ultimately shattered the morale of the South. Just as running may shatter the good people of Iraq's morale. The lesson of Vietnam learned by our enemies is that they now think we aren't willing to fight a long war, bloody war and win. But the only thing that will prove that false is to do so. Anything less will just embolden them further. We may lose Iraq but the WOT will not be over. We will just have lost a critical battle in that war.

For al Qaida purposes, couldn't it be said that the Reagan and Clinton administrations did more to support the paper tiger idea than Vietnam?

Certainly, but then that was at a time when this new enemy (terrorism) hadn't really been recognized for the serious threat it could be or become. The seriousness of that threat is only going to grow as more fearsome WMD enter the scene. And ultimately, it was the failure in Vietnam that set the stage for the behavior of Reagan (to a small extent) and more so, Clinton. I wouldn't necessarily include Reagan because he was willing to put it on the line to win. Clinton was not.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-08   20:31:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: BeAChooser (#43)

If the domino theory was valid, and the fall of Vietnam would lead to Chinese hegemony in Southeast Asia, why weren't we more concerned that Cuba was becoming Communist, which would lead to all of South America becoming Communist? Why should we be willing to send soldiers to prevent a country thousands of miles away from becoming Communist, but we shouldn't have a problem with a Communist country 90 miles away?

Did lack of media coverage and internal outrage make the Soviets successful in Afghanistan? Did the resistance in Afghanistan need press coverage or discussion in the Russian media to maintain motivation to continue? Where does the belief that all will be well if no one knows what's going on come from?

From the http://WND.com article referenced in the previous post: ""We warned the Americans that this will be their end in Iraq," said Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department. "They did not succeed in stealing Iraq's oil, at least not at a level that covers their huge expenses. They did not bring stability. Their agents in the [Iraqi] regime seem to have no chance to survive if the Americans withdraw." "

Does what he's saying hinge upon positive media coverage? Is it any less true because the media is providing information that it's true? The only difference if there was a better media blackout than currently exists is that the American people would think him a crackpot since the USAID website doesn't track with what he's saying. Would it make the situation on the ground different? Would it change that when I was there in late 2003/early 2004, there were on average 15 attacks on coaliton forces when the insurgency was in its death throes, and now there are 10 times more attacks against coalition forces? Does media coverage make General Petraeus' comments about needing a political solution less true?

Rivers of blood were spilled out over land that, in normal times, not even the poorest Arab would have worried his head over." Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

historian1944  posted on  2007-03-08   20:35:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: BeAChooser (#44)

Just as running may shatter the good people of Iraq's morale.

I have more faith in the people of Iraq. By their actions, they are telling us that they feel they can govern themselves. If they were serious about wanting us there, more would be helping us. There are only a few percent working against us, and if only a few percent helped us there would be no insurgency. Since Iraq is awash with weapons, there is no shortage of equipment they could use to defend themselves. That they are choosing not to seems to indicate that they are lukewarm at best with our presence.

After living under Hussein, and then under twelve years of sanctions, and now four years of ever worsening conditions, I don't see how their morale could sink any lower. Our leaving would just mean one less group of people shooting at them and blowing things up.

Rivers of blood were spilled out over land that, in normal times, not even the poorest Arab would have worried his head over." Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

historian1944  posted on  2007-03-08   20:40:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: BeAChooser (#44)

Just as they may not follow through with any support promised the Iraqi government.

What more support could we possibly offer the Iraqi government? They have the US Army essentially at their disposal, and we have spent billions of dollars on their government. To support them any more, we'd have to become their government.

Rivers of blood were spilled out over land that, in normal times, not even the poorest Arab would have worried his head over." Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

historian1944  posted on  2007-03-08   20:41:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: BeAChooser (#40)

What boggles my mind is that in the WTC debate, BAC refuses to accept any information from a person with a doctorate in physics because he isn't a metallurgist.

Fine. Excuse me for not remembering word for word what I said. Still, that's a far cry from having a debate about the WTC.

No, one of those children posted numerous sources ... not just by unnamed bloggers ... that pointed out serious questions about the study.

Oh yeah, you also posted newspaper articles by no-nothing journalists, and op- ed pieces from no-nothing neocons. Oh yeah, and a UN report. Sorry. I don't accept anything from the UN. It doesn't surprise me that a socialist, big government republican such as yourself does.

And I'll tell you now what I said then; if all the shit you wrote were true, then it would have been challenged in a professional, peer reviewed journal. That's how it's done. Not ramblings in unknown blogs. Not newspaper articles written by no-nothing journalists. Not op-ed peices by neo-cons. Professional epidemiologists would have provided a research paper on how and why the original study was flawed. Guess what BAC. This has not been done!

Why is that? It is inconceivable that every single epidemiologist in the whole United States and Great Britan is a Bush-hating liberal. Do you not think that a conservative, pro-Bush epidemiologist would jump on the chance to debunk this report.

But here we go again. We've been through all this before. Once again, I've had my say and you've had yours. I reject your sources in the same way that you reject the WTC sources. When you can provide a professional, peer reviewed journal with a research paper indicating the flaws, then come see me. Until then, you're wasting my time.

Like make that respectful remark in post #26?

You are a war-mongering coward that doesn't have the courage of his convictions. You deserve no respect whatsoever. What you and your ilk deserve is to be drafted so that the good men and women over there for their 3rd and 4th tours can have a break. Then we'll see how gung-ho you are about war.

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2007-03-08   20:43:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: BeAChooser, historian1944 (#43)

http://www.januarymagazine.com/features/triumphexc.html "

Regarding the author you quote per the January magazine - Mark Moyar - "At present, he is Associate Professor and Course Director at the U.S. Marine Corps University in Quantico, Virginia."

Enough said.

As for the QandO Blog - what is it and who the heck is Bruce "McQ" McQuain? I saw some references on Google to QandO being a right wing blog, which doesn't surprise me, and that McQ participated in a "conference call" with Senator Mitch McConnell...Ha!

http://blogometer.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/09/915_wheres_the.html

http://cayankee.bl ogs.com/cayankee/congress/index.html

It sounds like McQ is a reichwing spokes person so I could care less about his research or his interviews or his observations about the Vietnam War. He has an agenda.

scrapper2  posted on  2007-03-08   20:48:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: historian1944, ALL (#45)

If the domino theory was valid, and the fall of Vietnam would lead to Chinese hegemony in Southeast Asia, why weren't we more concerned that Cuba was becoming Communist, which would lead to all of South America becoming Communist?

Actually we were. Remember Nicaragua and the Sandinistas?

You might find this interesting ...

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0902/0902domino.htm

Why should we be willing to send soldiers to prevent a country thousands of miles away from becoming Communist, but we shouldn't have a problem with a Communist country 90 miles away?

Actually, only the democRAT party has no problem with Cuba being communist.

Did lack of media coverage and internal outrage make the Soviets successful in Afghanistan? Did the resistance in Afghanistan need press coverage or discussion in the Russian media to maintain motivation to continue? Where does the belief that all will be well if no one knows what's going on come from?

Not sure where this is coming from. I haven't suggested all will be well if no one knows what's going on. What I said is that things can go wrong when the media DISTORTS what's going on to fit their own agenda. That's what they did in Vietnam and that is what they are doing now.

Does what he's saying hinge upon positive media coverage?

Such people use our media to spread their propaganda ... for free. That's not the way to fight an information war ... and this is as much an information war as anything else. It's a war of WILL, and anything that can bolster or weaken will is a weapon. Our enemies are using our media against us.

Is it any less true because the media is providing information that it's true?

But it isn't true. It's propaganda and our media helping making American's believe it (as they clearly have done) is the only way our enemies will win.

Would it make the situation on the ground different?

The situation on the ground for terrorists has been dire in Iraq. The media in this country didn't tell the public how effective the campaign against terrorists has been the last several years and the progress made on multiple fronts. Instead, it concentrated on every bad event it could find or anything that potentially could be interpreted as bad. Iraq has been a killing ground for terrorists and has led to numerous intelligence coups that have significantly hurt terrorist plots. But that's not what the media has told the public. So the situation on the ground is definitely affected by what impact terrorists think their actions will have on OUR WILL and that of the Iraqis. Until recently morale in Iraq has been good but the weakening of will in America (as a direct result of media reporting) is now taking its toll. And don't think for one second that our enemies aren't watching that with interest.

Let me ask you a question. Why do you think during WW2 the media was prevented from telling the public how dire the situation was initially? Would we have won that war if the media had done then what they've been doing now? Now be honest...

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-08   21:04:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: historian1944, ALL (#46)

I have more faith in the people of Iraq. By their actions, they are telling us that they feel they can govern themselves.

They are governing themselves.

If they were serious about wanting us there, more would be helping us.

No, they are like people everywhere. Watching out for number one. Focused on day to day life. Not very literate when it comes to some things. Not willing to stick their neck out if they can avoid it. Willing to live off the government dole.

There are only a few percent working against us, and if only a few percent helped us there would be no insurgency.

Actually, there are a few percent helping us. What you forget is that the source of the insurgencies strength is not inside Iraq. Iran and Syria are definitely promoting trouble. But unfortunately, we again have leaders who aren't willing to draw a line in the sand but think they can negotiate a solution. That has NEVER worked.

That they are choosing not to seems to indicate that they are lukewarm at best with our presence.

No, they are just like people everywhere. They will let someone else stick their neck out. Now mind you, I'm not against putting a greater burden on them. They need to take the reigns now. But they also need to know that we will stand behind them no matter how bloody it gets or what it takes to win on their part. Unfortunately, that's not the message they are getting from the US media and those holding the keys to the Senate and House.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-08   21:12:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: BeAChooser (#51)

They are governing themselves.

May you be so fortunate.

If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering Joan. - Tom Frost

Dakmar  posted on  2007-03-08   21:13:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: Dakmar, BeAChooser, SKYDRIFTER (#52)

I have to say there is one positive thing about BAC, he never cusses and is never vulgar.

(hey you have to give people credit for something!)

Diana  posted on  2007-03-08   21:19:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: historian1944 (#45)

Did lack of media coverage and internal outrage make the Soviets successful in Afghanistan? Did the resistance in Afghanistan need press coverage or discussion in the Russian media to maintain motivation to continue? Where does the belief that all will be well if no one knows what's going on come from?

One of the best little quotes to come out of this discussion.

The hawks and their keyboard warrior allies want us all to believe that if we oppose this war, we will be held responsible for the outcome. That in the wrack and ruin of premature withdrawal caused by an army of simpering leftist fifth columnists at home waiving little Hezbollah flags our troops will come home in defeat and the Dolchstosslegende will be born anew. The antiwar crowd will be branded as the defeatists that cost us victory.

If we had just stuck it out. Two more years or three more years, and we would have worn the insurgency out. I can hear them already. I can hear them on this forum.

The truth is that Iraq was sick to start with. The truth is we had a lot to do with its pathology. (Want facts Beech? Try me.) Then we went in like an unqualified surgeon and made an unholy mess of things.

When I say "we" made a mess of things, I mean George Bush and all of the other idiots we've seen fit to elect to office and to represent us in the world. George has been singing, "I Did It My Way" for the last five years. He didn't listen to reasonable advice and allowed bad policies and incompetence to prevail. We're in a stinkin' mess in Iraq. It stinks if we stay and sticks if we go. And you can't blame it on the "fifth column" at home. Bush and Rummy screwed this all up by themselves.

The insurgency will continue. They've got lots and lots of ammo courtesy of Uncle Sam and his friends. And they have nowhere to go. Like the Soviet Union in Afghanistan where the only debate of significance took place behind locked doors in the Kremlin, the present and future costs of this war are beginning to be felt in earnest. It costs a fearful amount of treasure to send an army abroad on a crusade. And it's the money that will break the back of this venture, not the blood shed abroad or the tears shed at home.

Money trumps . . . uh . . . . peace . . sometimes. - GW Bush

randge  posted on  2007-03-08   21:23:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: Diana (#53)

He is vulgar because he insults the intelligence of everyone he views as his enemy. Wrong on so many levels...

I, on the other hand, just like Saxon words. :)

If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering Joan. - Tom Frost

Dakmar  posted on  2007-03-08   21:23:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: Diana (#53)

I have to say there is one positive thing about BAC, he never cusses and is never vulgar.

(hey you have to give people credit for something!)

Right, you are.

I don't have to worry about 'handlers.' Not so BAC.

{:-))


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2007-03-08   23:06:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: Hayek Fan, ALL (#48)

Oh yeah, you also posted newspaper articles by no-nothing journalists, and op- ed pieces from no-nothing neocons. Oh yeah, and a UN report.

Again, you are mischaracterizing. But that's ok. Visitors to FD4UM will read the threads on the John Hopkins' studies and see that.

And I'll tell you now what I said then; if all the shit you wrote were true, then it would have been challenged in a professional, peer reviewed journal. That's how it's done.

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't that also be true of your WTC allegations? Where are the peer reviewed articles challenging the government's scenario for the collapse of the towers? And don't try to suggest that a journal started by Steven Jones can be credibly called *peer reviewed*.

But in any case, the difference between the WTC case and this case is that I and many others are more than willing to argue the facts. And we have. Providing DETAILED explanations why the John Hopkins studies are bogus. Your side's response has mostly been to ignore those detailed criticisms and repeat your mantra. And many of those criticism have come from scientists and experts in statistics. Named ones. That should tell readers something.

Professional epidemiologists would have provided a research paper on how and why the original study was flawed. Guess what BAC. This has not been done!

Maybe that says something about epidemiologists. They do tend to be a liberal group. Or maybe it says something about your research abilities.

You shouldn't simply dismiss the UN report. It was peer reviewed. It was performed by folks who know how to conduct good surveys. One of those is Dr Jon Pedersen. He's actually got very good credentials. And ironically, you dismiss him because he works for the UN ... yet some of the authors of the John Hopkins' reports also have at one time or another worked on UN projects and UN reports. Richard Garfield is one of those. He worked for UNICEF and came up with a pre-war mortality for children in Iraq that is much different than the one Les Roberts now claims. Of course, now Mr Garfield has nothing to say about that difference. In fact, Mr Garfield is the one who put Roberts in contact with Riyadh Lafta, the researcher at Al-Mustansiriya University, who recruited the interviewers to do the John Hopkins survey ... the ones that mostly HATE the Americans. Do we detect an agenda?

Let's see who else you simply ignore or dismiss (just to start a list).

I believe I mentioned a named statistician who it turns out works for the Yukon State Bureau of Statistics in Canada. What would he know about statistics ...

How about Debarati Guha-Sapir, director of the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters in Brussels? You think she's woefully unqualified?

Or how about Madelyn Hicks, a psychiatrist and public health researcher at King's College London in the U.K.. Dr Hicks published her concerns in a paper titled "Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: Were valid and ethical field methods used in this survey?", which concluded that, "In view of the significant questions that remain unanswered about the feasibility of their study’s methods as practiced at the level of field interviews,it is necessary that Burnham and his co-authors provide detailed, data-based evidence that all reported interviews were indeed carried out, and how this was done in a valid manner. In addition, they need to explain and to demonstrate to what degree their published methodology was adhered to or departed from across interviews, and to demonstrate convincingly that interviews were done in accordance with the standards of ethical research. If the authors choose not to provide this further analysis of their data, they should provide their raw data so that these aspects can be examined by others. Even in surveys on the sensitive and potentially risky subject of community violence, adequately anonymized data are expected to be sufficient for subsequent reanalysis and to be available for review. In the case of studies accepted for publication by the Lancet, all studies are expected to be able to provide their raw data." But so far Burnham and company have refused to do so ... or perhaps they can't because the data never existed or they kept such *bad* records.

You dismiss Beth Daponte, senior research scholar at Yale University's Institution for Social and Policy Studies. She seems to be qualified. And after reading the Lancet article she told Fred Kaplan "It attests to the difficulty of doing this sort of survey work during a war. … No one can come up with any credible estimates yet, at least not through the sorts of methods used here." She expressed her concerns here, http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1818, "So the pre-war CDR that the two Lancet studies yield seems too low. It may not be wrong, but the authors should provide a credible explanation of why their pre-war CDR is nearly half that of the UN Population Division. If the pre-war mortality rate was too low and/or if the population estimates were too high – because, for example, they ignored outflows of refugees from Iraq – the resulting estimates of the number of Iraqi "excess deaths" would be inflated."

And of course you would dismiss, Steven E. Moore, who conducted survey research in Iraq for the Coalition Provisional Authority. He's got to be biased. Right?

But what about Professor Michael Spagat of Royal Holloway's Economics Department, and physicists Professor Neil Johnson and Sean Gourley of Oxford University? They published a highly detailed paper (http://www.rhul.ac.uk/Economics/Research/conflict-analysis/iraq-mortality/BiasPaper.html ). They claim (http://www.rhul.ac.uk/messages/press/message.asp?ref_no=367 ) the John Hopkin "study’s methodology is fundamentally flawed and will result in an over-estimation of the death toll in Iraq. The study suffers from "main street bias" by only surveying houses that are located on cross streets next to main roads or on the main road itself. However many Iraqi households do not satisfy this strict criterion and had no chance of being surveyed. Main street bias inflates casualty estimates since conflict events such as car bombs, drive-by shootings, artillery strikes on insurgent positions, and market place explosions gravitate toward the same neighbourhood types that the researchers surveyed." That sounds like a pretty serious complaint. And more on their work can be found here: http://www.rhul.ac.uk/Economics/Research/conflict-analysis/iraq-mortality/index.html. Now that work may be peer reviewed? I don't know. But to simply dismiss it out of hand is a mistake on your part.

And then there's an article in Science magazine by John Bohannon which describes some of the above professors criticisms, as well as the response from Gilbert Burnham. Burnham claimed that such streets were included and that the methods section of the published paper is oversimplified. Bohannon says that Burnham told Science that he does not know exactly how the Iraqi team conducted its survey; and that the details about neighborhoods surveyed were destroyed "in case they fell into the wrong hands and could increase the risks to residents." Michael Spagat says the scientific community should call for an in-depth investigation into the researchers' procedures. "It is almost a crime to let it go unchallenged," says Johnson. In a letter to Science, the John Hopkins authors claim that Bohannon misquoted Burnham. Bohannon defended his comments as accurate, citing Burnham saying, in response to questions about why details of selecting "residential streets that that did not cross the main avenues" that "in trying to shorten the paper from its original very large size, this bit got chopped, unfortunately." Apparently, the details which were destroyed refer to the "scraps" of paper on which streets and addresses were written to "randomly" choose households". The John Hopkins effort was such a well conducted survey. (sarcasm)

And how about some of the members of Iraq Body Count? How about John Sloboda or Joshua Dougherty (AKA joshd)? They've made pretty strong criticisms of the John Hopkins' work. I posted some of them earlier on this thread. Yet you just dismiss them out of hand?

You know what I think, Halek? Somebody is hiding.

Once again, I've had my say and you've had yours.

Actually, you haven't even listened to most of what I had to say.

I reject your sources in the same way that you reject the WTC sources.

On the contrary. My sources actually do have expertise in the subject at hand. NONE of your sources have expertise in structures, demolition, fire, impact, steel, concrete, buckling or macro-world physics. And unlike you, I don't run from the detailed accusations. I take them apart with sourced facts point by point.

You are a war-mongering coward that doesn't have the courage of his convictions.

Ah ... more respectful debate. ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-09   0:53:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: scrapper2, ALL (#49)

Regarding the author you quote per the January magazine - Mark Moyar - "At present, he is Associate Professor and Course Director at the U.S. Marine Corps University in Quantico, Virginia."

Enough said.

Such respect for our military. You sure are on their side.

It sounds like McQ is a reichwing spokes person so I could care less about his research or his interviews or his observations about the Vietnam War. He has an agenda.

Muhammad Saadi's views were mentioned in the House Foreign Affairs Committee by Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen during debate of the Iraq resolution: http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/minority/news021307.htm . You think he's lying about that?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-09   1:01:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: BeAChooser (#58) (Edited)

a. Such respect for our military. You sure are on their side

b. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

a. You bet I'm on the side of the military. I want what the troops want - to leave Iraq post haste and come home. What you and your neocon compadres want for the US military is anyone's guess.

Btw, did you and your internet imaginery friends realize that according to a recent Military Times poll 72% our military in Iraq don't know what they're doing there and that they want to be re-deployed asap?

b. "Muhammad Saadi's views were mentioned in the House Foreign Affairs Committee by Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen during debate of the Iraq resolution"...

Uh huh...I am sure Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, like your McQ reichwing blogger from QandA would have loved, loved, loved anything that could be used as a faux reason to invade Iraq, including Mr. Saadi's views. In fact, I'm sure Ariel Sharon and Bibi Netanyahu would have also thought that Mr. Saadi's views rocked!

scrapper2  posted on  2007-03-09   1:16:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: BeAChooser (#57)

I believe I mentioned a named statistician who it turns out works for the Yukon State Bureau of Statistics in Canada. What would he know about statistics ...

Err...BAC - Yukon is not a state. And your Yukon state statistician is working in the Siberian boondock territories of Canada because he did not make the cut for Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver, so I guess he's not such a notable statistician after all. Also - pssst - to BAC's imaginery internet pals lurking out there - this Yukon statistician was a holy roller christonutter...

But BAC - I didn't mean to interrupt. Carry on...

scrapper2  posted on  2007-03-09   1:40:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: historian1944 (#46)

Just as running may shatter the good people of Iraq's morale.

The Good people of Iraq's morale is fine. They are highly motivated to get rid of the US military occupation that is murdering them and their children. The morale of the simpering traitors and quislings in Iraq that collaborate with the US military in murdering their own people as the Imperial fortress of evil rises above their once beautiful and ancient capital I am sure isn't good at all. Then again, it never has been as they are hirelings and in it only for the money before they hop the first transports out of Iraq to retire in America - where they will no doubt join the likes of BAC in blaming "leftists" for the loss of their evil murdering war.

Burkeman1  posted on  2007-03-09   1:42:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: scrapper2 (#39)

Sean Hannity always beats his breast about those poor 3 Million Cambodians that our withdrawal from Vietnam caused but I've never heard Sean fret about the 5 Million Vietnamese casualties that were a direct result of the Vietnam War we waged on their soil. What a hypocritical Bot shill punk.

Of course the likes of Hannity isn't aware of the assisstance the US gave the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot (yes- the United States government supported the KR AFTER it had murdered a couple million people) after their toppling from power by the invasion of a unified Vietnam in 1978- after Pol Pot insanely attacked the much stronger and more populace Vietnam. The fact of the matter is that it is highly doubtful that Pol Pot ever would have come to power in the first place if the US didn't back the ousting of Prince Sihanouk by their puppet dictator Lon Nol. Sihanouk then allied himself and his large rural following of peasant loyalists with Pol Pot's miserable little gang of communists and fought a guerilla war against the US backed puppet regime. The figurehead of the Khmer Rouge was Prince Sihanouk though Pol Pot firmly held the reins of power of the guerilla army apparat. They weren't fighting for "communism"- but for their king. The crazy regime that followed was just as much a surprise to many of the men who had fought to oust Lon Nol as it was to the rest of the world. The actions of the US are directly responsible for the horrid last 40 years of Cambodian history.

Burkeman1  posted on  2007-03-09   2:17:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. To: randge (#54)

They've got lots and lots of ammo courtesy of Uncle Sam and his friends. And they have nowhere to go

Actually, all over the ME are thousands of little gunsmith shops that actually hand make knockoffs of the AK47 and the ammunition they fire. Some of these small shops even hand make RPGs, RPG rounds, mortars, and mortar rounds. "60 Minutes" did a report on them a couple years back. They hand make EVERY component- even the tiny springs. It's actually quite astonishing. Of course, from the amount of ordiance lying around Iraq- I imagine the insurgency can go on forever. And it doesn't help much that every other adult male in Iraq has had some level of military training including thousands of explosive experts who have, by now, trained thousands upon thousands more.

As an aside, some American general a couple months back estimated that the Iraq insurgency gets by on 200 million a year, or what it costs the US military to operate in Iraq for 2/3's of one day.

Burkeman1  posted on  2007-03-09   2:32:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: Burkeman1 (#63)

I think you're correct that the insurgency has enough indigenous explosives, weaponry and knowhow to fight forever (unless we sterilize all the males and build a really big fence I suppose). I remember during the "we're searching for the WMDs that we told everyone were here, and we knew where they were, but for some reason we can't find them" phase, the apologists for not being able to fight them said that Iraq stockpiled about 25% of what we (a much larger country) have stockpiled, so it would take time. I was always curious why they would use an argument that seemed to indicate that we should have waited longer because if there was so much to look through why we didn't give the inspectors more time.

I think that ease of manufacture was one of the most important traits in the design of the AK-47. The first versions were nicely milled, and then the Soviets decided that they wanted to be able to make them easier, so they switched to being able to stamp all the parts. From what I've read, though it reduces the accuracy but means that even the most primitive metal shop can stamp them out.

I think that the way we deride the AK-47 as junk demonstrates that we have a tendency to look at things and try to force them into our comfort zone. Our tactics require a tack driver at 300m (engage and destroy the enemy at beyond standoff range using superior technology and firepower) while the Soviets post WWII (less now, they've been bitten by the technology bug, too) emphasized true light infantry tactics, engage the enemy at eyeball verification range, using small arms, grenades and sometimes bayonets. For that kind of a fight the AK is admirably suited. They also designated the best shooter in a squad to be the long range rifleman, who got the scope Mosin-Nagant M91/30 (immediately postwar) or the Dragunov. He chose what to engage beyond 200 meters. But even the long range rifleman had a bayonet.

Rivers of blood were spilled out over land that, in normal times, not even the poorest Arab would have worried his head over." Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

historian1944  posted on  2007-03-09   6:36:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: BeAChooser (#50)

Does what he's saying hinge upon positive media coverage? Such people use our media to spread their propaganda ... for free. That's not the way to fight an information war ... and this is as much an information war as anything else. It's a war of WILL, and anything that can bolster or weaken will is a weapon. Our enemies are using our media against us.

Is it any less true because the media is providing information that it's true? But it isn't true. It's propaganda and our media helping making American's believe it (as they clearly have done) is the only way our enemies will win.

Would it make the situation on the ground different? The situation on the ground for terrorists has been dire in Iraq. The media in this country didn't tell the public how effective the campaign against terrorists has been the last several years and the progress made on multiple fronts.

I agree that the gentlemen referenced in the article that you posted within one of your replies, from http://WorldNetDaily.com was using our media to fight his information war for free. But in this case, the only place I see that particular gentleman referenced was at http://wnd.com, and they're giving him a free venue from which to state his case, and this from a site that supports the war. But the only thing he said that's in dispute is the part about us leaving. Iraq is not stable, and we haven't been able to obtain the oil exports that we said would pay for this war.

You are correct that we are fighting an information war, and that's one of the few lessons we've picked up from the Russian experience in Chechnya. It's vital to get our side of the information out, and it's vital that we get our information out first, in a fashion that paints reality in a manner that supports our cause. I have no argument. The point I was trying to make is that, no matter how hard one tries, sometimes reality intrudes. The will of the Soviet people to continue fighting in Afghanistan in 1989 was not eroded by bad media coverage, or lack of reporting on how many schools had been opened. Lack of reports of schools being opened or water purification plants being reopened isn't what is weakening the American peoples' resolve. Those aren't real progress; having a government with some modicum of control over the situation in their own country is progress. If the US combat dead and number of attacks per day had a downward trend again, that would be progress. For the past four years, in nearly every category, all the data points to a deteriorating situation, and the only strategy is to keep doing what we've been doing during that time, because if we only wait long enough, somethings got to change. In this kind of war, that idea doesn't seem to have worked anywhere. That's why General Petraeus said that more than a military solution was needed, and it sound a little like von Rundstedt in 1944 barking "Make peace, you fools!" when asked what the Germans should do. You note that the Iraqis are governing themselves, and that they need to have less direct help from us. I can agree with that statement, and that's what me and others are saying: it's time for us to start leaving, since they're a sovereign government. They can figure it out, they're not stupid people. Having large contingents of US representatives at their elbow only creates a constant crisis of legitimacy for them, so it's time for our direct involvement to end. They'll do fine.

I don't know that you could ever characterize the situation for us as dire in WWII. There weren't Huns at the gate if we failed. Operation Torch went off quite well, we did have a little setback at Kasserine (my father listened to Lord Ha-Ha on shortwave tell the German side of the story during that time, so even then, there was negative information available-today it is easier and more pervasive though), but we stopped Rommel's advance, and that was a real propaganda coup that could and was emphasized. Rommel did later say that he never encountered soldiers as inept as we were at Kasserine, but he also never encountered soldiers who learned so fast from their mistakes.

WWII was a little different also because Japan attacked us directly and the Germans then obligingly declared war on us, so no amount of negative publicity was going to change that. Sure there was a fairly substantial antiwar sentiment from the Old Right that probably would have kept us out of the war in Europe had the Germans not committed what some have called the greatest grand strategic blunder in human history.

Even then, with relatively light casualties, in 1945 we were tired of war, despite mainly positive reporting going on (from 1944 on, there was heavy fighting but no setbacks.) And then, the second the armistices were signed, the American people were clamoring for the boys to come back home. There was huge resistance from families whose loved ones were getting ready to head overseas after the war ended. The argument was that the war was over, why do you still need troops? The American people didn't seem to think that occupation duty was something that required manpower also.

I don't think that the will to fight hinges quite so much how things are reported as much as how worthy the cause seems to be. The Soviets had nothing but dire reports throughout mid to late 1941, yet they still continued to fight. When Guderian was shelling Moscow the Soviets didn't give up. While Leningrad was under siege from 1941 to 1944, the Soviets didn't give up. They felt that national survival required whatever sacrifice was necessary. The Administration didn't present this current war as something that required that level of effort. We've reached the level of cost that most Americans seem to feel constitutes a losing investment and they want to cover their losses and stop pouring more good money after bad (in this case lives).

Rivers of blood were spilled out over land that, in normal times, not even the poorest Arab would have worried his head over." Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

historian1944  posted on  2007-03-09   7:05:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: BeAChooser (#65)

I'll caveat my post about WWII never being dire: in the Pacific the situation could have been considered dire during 1941 and 1942. When MacArthur lost the Phillipines that could have been considered dire. Even the setbacks we encountered then were broadcast widely and after the Bataan Death March, everyone knew that we had to teach those damned Japs a lesson. My father has said that if Truman wouldn't have dropped the bombs on Japan he thinks that the American public would have been outraged, after all, the Japs had to be punished. Demonstrates the power of winning the information war. In the Pacific, there was much sentiment that we had to continue as long as it took.

I'm not sure how one could spin Iraq into that level of commitment. I don't think the American people see it as that large a national emergency. If it is that level of emergency, then the Administration needs to do a better job in demonstrating exactly why it is. It cannot be said that the media is hostile to showing evidence like that, all the media in 2002 and early 2003 was happy to oblige the Administration in getting its message out.

Rivers of blood were spilled out over land that, in normal times, not even the poorest Arab would have worried his head over." Field Marshal Erwin Rommel

historian1944  posted on  2007-03-09   7:12:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: BeAChooser (#57) (Edited)

Visitors to FD4UM will read the threads on the John Hopkins' studies and see that.

Yes they will, and they will see that every person on that thread was nailing you for posting "evidence" from unknown bloggers.

Providing DETAILED explanations why the John Hopkins studies are bogus. Your side's response has mostly been to ignore those detailed criticisms and repeat your mantra. And many of those criticism have come from scientists and experts in statistics. Named ones. That should tell readers something.

You provided accusations from unsourced bloggers, one of who's claim to fame was that he collected old math books. All anyone has to do is read the original thread to see that you spammed the thread over an over with bullshit. So somewhere buried within that bullshit was a valid source or two. Oh well. If you want the valid source to be recognized, then don't spam the thread with bullshit.

Maybe that says something about epidemiologists. They do tend to be a liberal group. Or maybe it says something about your research abilities.

Considering you're a socialist, big government-loving Republican butt-sniffer, you have a lot of nerve calling anyone else liberal. Your party has become a textbook example of liberal. As far as my research abilities, there are just as many experts who back the report as do not.

However, instead of going back and forth with you over this, then I would advise those lurkering to go to the Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mort ality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq. This appears to be where you are getting your names from anyway. There, lurkers can find the rebuttals to most of your concerns as well as a defense of the methods used.

You know what I think, Halek? Somebody is hiding.

No one is hiding from you. There is plenty of data and plenty of experts who back the study, as you know perfectly well, as will anyone else who cares enough to look into it. Now you want me to waste my time cutting and pasting from "my side" to "prove" to you that you are wrong. No. I will not. I have my opinion, based upon the experts of those who back the report. You have your opinion, based upon those experts who critique the report. The scientists themselves can't even fucking agree, so there is no way two unqualified laymen with opposing views of the war are going to agree. You get three scientists together and you will get three different answers to a seemingly simple question.

I have given you and everyone else a webpage they can go to to read both sides of the issue. There are other webpages as well should anyone choose to look. I have better things to do with my time than spending it cutting and pasting and playing tit for tat with you.

And unlike you, I don't run from the detailed accusations. I take them apart with sourced facts point by point.

No one is running from you. You want to take part in a cut and paste war and I do not see the point.

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2007-03-09   10:41:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: scrapper2, ALL (#59)

Btw, did you and your internet imaginery friends realize that according to a recent Military Times poll 72% our military in Iraq don't know what they're doing there and that they want to be re-deployed asap?

Care to link us to that poll? So we know which one you are talking about and exactly what it does say? Because I'm having a little trouble finding a Military Times poll with that specific result.

In any case, all that statistic would prove is that our military morale can eventually be affected by the constant distortions by the mainstream media. And I suspect they are now reacting to the feeling that America doesn't have their back any longer. Notice that up until the election ... where anti-war democRATS won the House and Senate ... the Military Times polls showed the troops were solidly behind the effort to win in Iraq and felt success was likely. Here: http://www.militarycity.com/polls/2006_main.php . See all the damage your negatism has caused? They may be ready to quit Iraq, but don't be fooled into thinking they respect or like you folks. Note that only 16 percent identify themselves as democRATS ... about the same as before. And only 39 percent think the media likes the military.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-09   12:35:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: scrapper2, ALL (#60)

And your Yukon state statistician is working in the Siberian boondock territories of Canada because he did not make the cut for Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver, so I guess he's not such a notable statistician after all.

Let's let everyone see his actual criticism. Rather than attack the man.

http://magicstatistics.com/2006/10/15/lancet-study-of-iraqi-deaths-is-statistically-unsound-and-unreliable/

http://magicstatistics.com/2006/10/18/lancet-researchers-ignored-superior-study-on-iraqi-deaths/

http://magicstatistics.com/2006/10/22/main-street-bias-in-lancet-study/

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-09   12:36:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: Burkeman1, scrapper2, ALL (#61)

They are highly motivated to get rid of the US military occupation that is murdering them and their children.

And you are no doubt supportive of our soldiers, too.

The morale of the simpering traitors and quislings in Iraq that collaborate with the US military in murdering their own people as the Imperial fortress of evil rises above their once beautiful and ancient capital I am sure isn't good at all.

And the welfare of Iraqis is no doubt at the forefront of your concerns.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-09   12:39:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: Burkeman1 (#62)

Of course the likes of Hannity isn't aware of the assisstance the US gave the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot (yes- the United States government supported the KR AFTER it had murdered a couple million people) after their toppling from power by the invasion of a unified Vietnam in 1978- after Pol Pot insanely attacked the much stronger and more populace Vietnam. The fact of the matter is that it is highly doubtful that Pol Pot ever would have come to power in the first place if the US didn't back the ousting of Prince Sihanouk by their puppet dictator Lon Nol. Sihanouk then allied himself and his large rural following of peasant loyalists with Pol Pot's miserable little gang of communists and fought a guerilla war against the US backed puppet regime. The figurehead of the Khmer Rouge was Prince Sihanouk though Pol Pot firmly held the reins of power of the guerilla army apparat. They weren't fighting for "communism"- but for their king. The crazy regime that followed was just as much a surprise to many of the men who had fought to oust Lon Nol as it was to the rest of the world. The actions of the US are directly responsible for the horrid last 40 years of Cambodian history.

Thanks for that history lesson. You summmed up in one paragraph all the relationships, events that I would have had to knit together by digging through texts or the net.

scrapper2  posted on  2007-03-09   12:49:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, rowdee, robin, christine, Zipporah, bluedogtxn, Jethro Tull, lodwick, Diana (#68)

In any case, all that statistic would prove is that our military morale can eventually be affected by the constant distortions by the mainstream media

"Hey, Jose, are you bummed because we got no body armor?"

"Naw."

"Are you upset because our HUMVEE isn't armored?"

"Naw."

"Are you uptight because we lost half our unit?"

Naw."

"Well, what then?"

"Man, I got really demoralized by that story about Abu Ghraib in The SACRAMENTO BEE. And, that pic of the 'thumbs up' with latex gloves over a dead Iraqi packed in ice? I mean, don't those mainstream media types know that we read every paper in the country every morning before we leave on patrol? And, when they criticize the neocons and the PNAC, well, it really makes it hard for me to kick doors and hose those families, you know? Next they'll be blaming bankers and the MIC and that will really depress me! I'm all for free speech but I agree with Bush. Some folks take it just a little too far!"

Hey, Jose, what's that hand doing inside you? What? You're a puppet? Well, whose arm is that????"

ROTFLMAO!

HOUNDDAWG  posted on  2007-03-09   12:56:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: BeAChooser (#68)

Care to link us to that poll? So we know which one you are talking about and exactly what it does say? Because I'm having a little trouble finding a Military Times poll with that specific result.

I thought I had read it in Military Times, but actually it was Stars & Stripes.

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp? section=104&article=34538&archive=true

"Poll of troops in Iraq sees 72% support for withdrawal within a year"

By Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes Mideast edition, Wednesday, March 1, 2006

WASHINGTON — Seventy-two percent of troops on the ground in Iraq think U.S. military forces should get out of the country within a year, according to a Zogby poll released Tuesday.

The survey of 944 troops, conducted in Iraq between Jan. 18 and Feb. 14, said that only 23 percent of servicemembers thought U.S. forces should stay “as long as they are needed.”

Of the 72 percent, 22 percent said troops should leave within the next six months, and 29 percent said they should withdraw “immediately.” Twenty-one percent said the U.S. military presence should end within a year; 5 percent weren’t sure.

But policy experts differ on exactly what those numbers mean.

Justin Logan, a foreign policy analyst for the Cato Institute, called the figure alarming, and a sign that the Bush administration and troops in Iraq see the goals and the progress of the war very differently.

The president has opposed any plans for a withdrawal date, saying troops will remain until Iraq’s security is assured. Logan sees so many troops wanting a clear time line as showing “an alarming disconnect” between the policy and its implementation.

But Loren Thompson, a military analyst with the Lexington Institute, said troops who say the U.S. should withdraw could be concerned for their own safety, or they could be optimistic about progress so far, or they could simply be opposed to the idea of operations in Iraq.

“You have to pick apart each servicemember’s thought process to understand what that means,” he said. “I think this is about personal circumstances, and not proof there is a higher rate of troops who desire departure.”

Defense Department officials declined to comment on the poll, saying they did not have details on how the survey was conducted.

John Zogby, CEO of the polling company, said the poll was funded through Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, which received money for the project from an anonymous, anti-war activist, but neither the activist nor the school had input on the content of the poll.

Zogby said the survey was conducted face-to-face throughout Iraq, with permission from commanders. Despite the difficulty of polling in a war zone, he said, pollsters were pleased with the results.

“This is a credible and representative look at what the troops are saying,” he said. “Clearly there are those [in the U.S.] who will speak for the troops, so there is a real value in seeing what they are actually saying.”

The poll also shows that 42 percent of the troops surveyed are unsure of their mission in Iraq, and that 85 percent believe a major reason they were sent into war was “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the Sept. 11 attacks.” Ninety-three percent said finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for the ongoing military action.

“We were surprised by that, especially the 85 percent [figure],” Zogby said. “Clearly that is much higher than the consensus among the American public, and the public’s perception [on that topic] is much higher than the actual reality of the situation.”

In terms of current operations, 80 percent of those polled said they did not hold a negative view of all Iraqis because of the ongoing attacks against coalition military forces.

More than 43 percent of those polled said their equipment, such as Humvees, body armor and munitions, is adequate for the jobs facing them, while 30 percent said it is not.

Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C. and chairman of the Victory in Iraq Caucus, a group of 118 Republican lawmakers, said the poll does not diminish his opinion of the importance of the armed forces role in Iraq.

“Whatever the percentages are, I know 100 percent of our troops want to complete their mission over there,” he said. “My view is, whatever the poll results say, the bottom line is these are troops who will continue their mission, because they would rather fight the enemy overseas than at home.”

Of those surveyed, 75 percent have served multiple tours in Iraq, 63 percent were under 30 years old, and 75 percent were male.

scrapper2  posted on  2007-03-09   13:33:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: historian1944, ALL (#65)

But in this case, the only place I see that particular gentleman referenced was at http://wnd.com,

Did you use your browser? The comments of Hamas' Abu Abdullah are all over the internet and carried by plenty of mainstream sites. All it takes is one source to post something and a thousand others will pick it up and repeat it. And I'd bet you that his comments are carried extensively by Arab media.

But the only thing he said that's in dispute is the part about us leaving. Iraq is not stable, and we haven't been able to obtain the oil exports that we said would pay for this war.

What he said about the war being about stealing oil is certainly in dispute. But the constant chanting of that by the left, anti-warriors and media has made it a mantra among many democRATS and throughout the world. And as to Iraq not being stable, ask yourself the reason. It was HIS FRIENDS that have made Iraq unstable. And here he is telling you (will you listen?) that if we leave many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are going to be murdered by HIS FRIENDS. TERRORISTS.

The will of the Soviet people to continue fighting in Afghanistan in 1989 was not eroded by bad media coverage, or lack of reporting on how many schools had been opened.

Please. The Soviets weren't opening schools. And for you even to compare Soviet society and their Afghan war to ours and this one is downright silly.

Lack of reports of schools being opened or water purification plants being reopened isn't what is weakening the American peoples' resolve.

On the contrary, failure to highlight and keep Americans thinking about the GOOD we have done and the PROMISE of a better Iraq if we continue is precisely what has been weakening American resolve. Americans are more than ready to spend blood and resources if they think the outcome will be worth it. That has been proven over and over in our history. Our resolve has been weakened because the media has done lip service to reporting progress and worked overtime to exploit every possible bad thing that might be said about the war and its goals.

I asked you a question and I see you didn't answer it. It is relevant. Let me ask you again. Would we have won WW2 if the media had done then what they've been doing now? Now be honest...

That's why General Petraeus said that more than a military solution was needed, and it sound a little like von Rundstedt in 1944 barking "Make peace, you fools!" when asked what the Germans should do.

And what sort of peace are you going to make in this case? Who will you negotiate with? Are their demands something you can live with? Who are you prepared to sell out in order to extricate yourself? What will be the consequences of that sell out? What are the long term costs to cutting and running?

You note that the Iraqis are governing themselves, and that they need to have less direct help from us. I can agree with that statement, and that's what me and others are saying: it's time for us to start leaving, since they're a sovereign government. They can figure it out, they're not stupid people. Having large contingents of US representatives at their elbow only creates a constant crisis of legitimacy for them, so it's time for our direct involvement to end. They'll do fine.

But do you advocate that withdrawal over a matter of months (like some of the democRAT leaders) or years (like the military and Republican leaders)? Because that does make a big difference. To the Iraqis. It also will make a difference to American soldiers and future morale. And if it turns out that Syria and Iran are indeed causing most of the trouble, are we simply to ignore that? Do you think they will stop if we leave? You need to look at this in the larger context. Even after we leave Iraq, there will still be a world wide war going on ... with certain states supporting the other side. The outcome in Iraq can work for us or against us in that war. It very much depends on HOW we leave and whether the Iraqi government survives. It is in OUR interests to leave with a victory. We will not win the WOT if we lose in Iraq ... if islamo-fanatics end up in control. That is a fact that none of the democRATS (except perhaps Liberman) begins to grasp .

I don't know that you could ever characterize the situation for us as dire in WWII.

ROTFLOL! You tell that to the 300,000 Americans who DIED or ended up missing. There were times during the war when the situation could only be described as GRAVE. Even filtered and highly censored news reports made that quite clear to the American public. Now there is no doubt that as long as we stayed the course, we would probably win. But at what cost. Again, I ask you if the media in that war had been allowed to do what the media has done in this war, would we have had the will to continue the struggle after losing even a 100,000 soldiers? Or would we have sued for peace? And then what would the world look like today? You keep in mind that Germans were 6 months behind us in developing nuclear weapons ... and years ahead of us in rockets and long range aircraft to deliver them. Maybe the first nuclear war would have been fought not with 2 weapons but 1000's of weapons. And we would have fought that war at an extreme disadvantage in technology.

I don't think that the will to fight hinges quite so much how things are reported as much as how worthy the cause seems to be.

I'll ask you again. If the media had reported WW2 like they've reported this one, would we have won or ended up negotiating a peace. Keep in mind that a very good case could be made that the US forced Japan into attacking it. Keep in mind that conspiracists could have done to the Pearl Harbor attack what they've done to the 9/11 attack. Keep in mind that America had very strong isolationist tendencies and much of what the administration did was done to override them. But what if the media had been the watchdog then that it is now?

The Soviets had nothing but dire reports throughout mid to late 1941, yet they still continued to fight.

ONLY because of US help. If America stayed out of the war ... if America negotiated a peace to avoid having hundreds of thousands of dead and avoid spending the equivalent of trillions on the war, one of the conditions for that peace would undoubtedly have been we cease helping the Soviets. What then?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-09   13:33:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: BeAChooser (#74)

made it a mantra among many democRATS

Are you still using that tired "democRATS" thing?

Grow up.

It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.

bluedogtxn  posted on  2007-03-09   13:37:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: historian1944, ALL (#66)

I don't think the American people see it as that large a national emergency.

And whose fault is this? Not just the administration but the media. There are many who view the current situation as just as serious a threat, long term, as the cold war ... or even Hitler. A good case can be made. But if that case isn't made to Americans with the support of the media then Americans either won't hear about it or won't believe it. Plus we also have too many toys now days to worry about the survival of our way of life.

If it is that level of emergency, then the Administration needs to do a better job in demonstrating exactly why it is.

They can only do that with the cooperation of the media. Unfortunately, the media is so politicized that they would rather lose a world war than see democRATS lose an election.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-09   13:40:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: BeAChooser (#74)

On the contrary, failure to highlight and keep Americans thinking about the GOOD we have done and the PROMISE of a better Iraq if we continue is precisely what has been weakening American resolve. Americans are more than ready to spend blood and resources if they think the outcome will be worth it.

Here's what is "weakening" the American public's "resolve" on Iraq - TRUTH.

We have discovered that Saddam was not consorting with AQ.

We have discovered there were no WMD in Iraq.

We have discovered that the Office of Special Plans ran a Lie Factory to tweak information to propel us into war for lies.

We have discovered that the Israel and its national security was the main reason for the invasion of Iraq, followed by defense industry and re- construction industry interests.

We have discovered that we were lied to from the get go and that we have spent American blood and treasure in Iraq not for America's interests.

We need to cut our losses and get out of Iraq asap.

People like you and other neocons got us into Iraq - get your butts over to Iraq along with your children and fight the war you started. Maybe the IDF can help you.

scrapper2  posted on  2007-03-09   13:44:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: scrapper2, all (#77)

We have discovered that Saddam was not consorting with AQ.

But Saddam was sheltering known terrorists and allowing folks like al-Zarqawi to plan mass casualty terrorist acts from within Iraq ... from even within Bagdhad.

We have discovered there were no WMD in Iraq.

That's not what that binary sarin warhead that turned up as an IED says. And the ISG also said they had a credible source telling them that WMD related items were transferred to Syria before the invasion. And noone has determined what was in the truck convoys that went to Syria before the war (accompanied by Iraqi troops) or why Saddam's regime went to so much trouble to sanitize files, computers and facilities thought related to WMD activities prior to, during and even after the invasion. What were they hiding if they had nothing to hide?

We have discovered that the Office of Special Plans ran a Lie Factory to tweak information to propel us into war for lies.

That's your opinion. The TRUTH is that Wilson (your sides hero) is the proven liar.

We have discovered that the Israel and its national security was the main reason for the invasion of Iraq, followed by defense industry and re- construction industry interests.

ROTFLOL! Sure, Saddam applauding the 9/11 hijackers had nothing to do with it.

We need to cut our losses and get out of Iraq asap.

Damn the consequences. Right?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-09   15:33:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: BeAChooser (#78)

a. The lie that Saddam was consorting with Zarqawi was spun with the help of "our allies" the Kurds. Zarqawi was seen in N. Iraq, an area to which Saddam had no access, but where our "allies" the Kurds lived. He also received medical care on the Q.T. at a Baghdad hospital - and last I heard Saddam was not an Iraqi physician. But more importantly what a coincidence that the Kurds have such a close business and military relationship with the Israelis.

b. Debka claimed that Saddam sent WMD to Syria. Debka is a Mossad mouthpiece.

The 9/11 Commission reported that Saddam had no WMD, that he was not consorting with AQ, and that Iraq was no threat to America. The 9/11 Commission was a bi- partisan investigative committee - it was not a librul commission, btw.

c. The Office of Special Plans run by your hero, Doug Feith, was recently in the news. Feith narrowly missed having criminal charges lodged against his sorry ass for what he and the OSP did with manipulating intel that propelled us into this war for lies.

d. Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt, professors at U of Chicago and Harvard, just published a research paper and it is clear there would have not been any Iraq invasion were it not for Israel Lobby influence. They just signed a book contract to expand on their study findings per the august publishing firm, Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Philip Zeilikow - one of the chairs of the 9/11 commission and a pro-Israel hawk himself - admitted this to be the case as well:

http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083

Zelikow made his statements about ”the unstated threat” during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president.

He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.

”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation.

”And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said Zelikow.

e. You and your neocon IsraelFirst ilk did not think about consequences to America or to Iraq when you propelled us into this elective unnecessary war. So spare me the irony of your statement: "Damn the consequences. Right?"

scrapper2  posted on  2007-03-09   16:07:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: BeAChooser (#70)

Not my soldiers. And there isn't any amount of Iraqi blood you are not willing to see spilt.

Burkeman1  posted on  2007-03-09   16:10:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: scrapper2, ALL (#73)

By Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes Mideast edition, Wednesday, March 1, 2006

I wouldn't exactly call that a recent poll. March of 2006?

Seventy-two percent of troops on the ground in Iraq think U.S. military forces should get out of the country within a year, according to a Zogby poll released Tuesday.

That doesn't say what you told us the poll said either.

You said "72% our military in Iraq don't know what they're doing there and that they want to be re-deployed asap". In fact, the article doesn't say 72% of the soldiers don't know what they are doing there. It says "42 percent of the troops surveyed are unsure of their mission in Iraq". Go to the poll itself (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075 ) and you'll find that 58% of the soldiers said the mission is "clear".

It also doesn't say that 72 percent want to be deployed asap. It says that "29 percent" said we should withdraw “immediately.” It says 22 percent say within 6 months and another 21 percent said within a year. And 23% said stay as long as needed.

And the details of those numbers are interesting too. Go to Zogby's link and you'll find that the reserves and National Guard were overwhelmingly of the opinion that we should withdraw within the next 6 months. As one might expect. But only 15 percent of Marines said that and only half of those in the regular Army.

And consider this portion of the poll not mentioned in S&S. Asked why they think some Americans favor rapid withdrawal, 37% said those Americans are unpatriotic. Wow! UNPATRIOTIC. 20% said the people back home don’t believe a continued occupation will work. 16% said they believe those favoring a quick withdrawal do so because they oppose the use of the military in a pre-emptive war. 15% said they do not believe those Americans understand the need for the U.S. troops in Iraq.

To be perfectly honest, it sounds more to me like they aren't sure America has their back. And with America recently putting a bunch of cut and run democRATS in charge of the House and Senate who are now dishonestly trying to use backdoor methods to cut funding for the war and force the troops home, one can see why they might have felt that way. Nobody wants to be the last to die if democRATS are going to just pull the rug out from under the effort because Americans are unpatriotic, don't understand the need, oppose the use of the military or think what the soldiers are doing is a waste of time.

And here's another tidbit your article failed to mention from the poll. "A majority of troops (53%) said the U.S. should double both the number of troops and bombing missions in order to control the insurgency." Tell me scrapper, if you want to run the war by polls of soldiers, why not follow their recommendation?

John Zogby, CEO of the polling company, said the poll was funded through Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, which received money for the project from an anonymous, anti-war activist, but neither the activist nor the school had input on the content of the poll.

Yeah. Right.

85 percent believe a major reason they were sent into war was “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the Sept. 11 attacks.” ... snip ... “We were surprised by that, especially the 85 percent [figure],” Zogby said. “Clearly that is much higher than the consensus among the American public, and the public’s perception [on that topic] is much higher than the actual reality of the situation.”

The actual reality of the situation. As determined by who? Perhaps soldiers are actually closer to the problem and have a better handle than anyone on what the Iraqis were up to? Curiously enough, what is left out of the Star and Stripe article is that the poll found that 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.” This is another area where anti-war movement insists Saddam was doing nothing of the sort. But then members of the anti-war movement haven't caught and interrogated members of al-Qaeda and Saddam's regime up close and personal.

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-09   20:11:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#82. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#81)

Say, BAC, isn't it time for your Sabbath?

Are you that regular?


SKYDRIFTER  posted on  2007-03-09   21:55:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#83. To: scrapper2, ALL (#79)

The lie that Saddam was consorting with Zarqawi

Did I say that? I did not. I said Saddam's regime was allowing the organization to operate within Iraq, even within Baghdad. And this is true. The CIA said that associates of al-Zarqawi were arrested then released, on orders from Saddam. Documents captured after the war indicate that when an associate of Zarqawi was captured, he was let go on orders from higher ups even though the arresting officer said the evidence showed the man was guilty of the charges for which he was picked up.

Zarqawi was seen in N. Iraq, an area to which Saddam had no access, but where our "allies" the Kurds lived.

That doesn't mean that Saddam had no influence in Northern Iraq. There are numerous sources that indicate Iraqi had agents working with the al-Qaeda in those Northern camps. And there is no doubt that al-Zarqawi and his followers had no trouble traveling between Baghdad and the North or in other parts of the country. Now were you or I to have tried to travel those routes ...

He also received medical care on the Q.T. at a Baghdad hospital

You don't know it was on the Q.T. You are just assuming it was. What we do know is that the Iraqi regime closely monitored what happened at its hospitals.

And you omit one minor (or not so minor) detail. Al-qaeda terrorists captured in Jordan and put on trial (and convicted) for an attempt to kill tens of thousands (including all those in the US embassy in Amman) in a mass casualty chemical bomb attack admitted that they were al-Qaeda, that they worked for al-Zarqawi, that he funded their efforts, and that they met him IN BAGHDAD to plan the attack. They had to have met him in Baghdad BEFORE the invasion because they said they never returned to Iraq after going to Syria to prepare for the attack.

Debka claimed that Saddam sent WMD to Syria. Debka is a Mossad mouthpiece.

I didn't mention Debka.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm "The CIA's chief weapons inspector said he cannot rule out the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were secretly shipped to Syria before the March 2003 invasion, citing "sufficiently credible" evidence that WMDs may have been moved there. ... snip ... "ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war," Mr. Duelfer said in a report posted on the CIA's Web site Monday night. "Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined," he said. "There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation." But Mr. Duelfer said he was unable to complete that aspect of the probe because "the declining security situation limited and finally halted this investigation. The results remain inconclusive, but further investigation may be undertaken when circumstances on the ground improve." Arguing against a WMD transfer to Syria, Mr. Duelfer said, was the fact that all senior Iraqi detainees involved in Saddam's weapons programs and security "uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria." "Nevertheless," the inspector said, "given the insular and compartmented nature of the regime, ISG analysts believed there was enough evidence to merit further investigation."

Let me repeat. The ISG said they had a CREDIBLE informant who said WMD related items were moved to Syria. The ISG said they couldn't resolve this question because it had become too dangerous FOR THEM. Someone was targeting members of the ISG. Odd thing to do if the ISG was looking for a ghost.

And maybe the ISG had other reasons to discontinue the effort.

David Gaubatz, a former member of the Air Force's Office of Special Investigations, say that between March and July 2003, he was taken by his sources to four locations - three in and around Nasiriyah and one near the port of Umm Qasr, where he was shown underground concrete bunkers with the tunnels leading to them deliberately flooded. In each case, he was told the facilities contained stocks of biological and chemical weapons, along with missiles whose range exceeded that mandated under U.N. sanctions. He said the ISG wouldn't investigate.

Furthermore, there were others who said this transfer occurred. For one, an ex-General in Saddam's Air Force, Sada, said he had sources in the Iraqi military who told him they were moved to Syria in the summer of 2002 by air and by truck under the guise of humanitarian aid to Syria. And there are others who say the evidence indicates the Russians helped in this transfer. You want to read more about it? Try the links at this URL: http://www.therant.us/daily_columns/in_serach_of_saddam_husseins_wmd.htm

And what was in those trucks that went from Iraq to Syria before the invasion?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21489 "Glazov: What exactly is the evidence that Iraq moved its WMD into Syria?"

Don't believe that source? Well how about this?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040816-011235-4438r.htm "Saddam agents on Syria border helped move banned materials"

Or this?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10547 "Syria Storing Iraq's WMDs"

Or this ...

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/dod-report-50-trucks-carried-iraqi-wmd-to-syria "DoD Report: 50 Trucks Carried Iraqi WMD To Syria"

The 9/11 Commission reported that Saddam had no WMD, That binary sarin warhead that turned up as an IED proves the 9/11 Commission was more interested in politics than in the facts. They also claimed a lot of things about Atta and the collapse of the WTC towers that simply aren't true. Go figure ...

that he was not consorting with AQ,

Actually, that's not what they said. They acknowledged clandestine meetings between bin Laden, his associates and members of the Iraqi regime. They just said the two didn't seem to have a "collaborative" arrangement ... but then what does that really mean and how can they be sure when Iraq went to so much trouble to destroy records throughout the country before, during and after the invasion.

And meanwhile, you go ahead and ignore reports like this:

http://cgi.warblogging.com/warfarking/mirror/1050418238.html "Guerrilla fighters seen as threat to allied forces, By Bill Gertz, THE WASHINGTON TIMES ... snip ... Conventional military conflict in Iraq is nearly over, but thousands of foreign fighters and supporters of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein remain in the country and pose a danger to U.S. and allied forces, U.S. officials said yesterday. The allies have discovered that Iraq was training or harboring guerrillas from North Africa and throughout the Middle East. Army Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, deputy director of operations for the U.S. Central Command, said the foreign guerrillas are "still threats" even though organized fighting by the Iraqi military has all but stopped. ... snip ... The discovery last weekend of hundreds of bomb-laden leather jackets has raised fears of more suicide attacks against coalition troops. At least 80 of the 300 jackets, each of which was lined with several pounds of C-4 plastic high explosive laced with ball bearings, are missing from the elementary school near Baghdad where they were found. "We think that some of the explosive vests were meant for" the foreign fighters, he said. The guerrilla fighters are a mixture of untrained Islamist and Arab supporters and others who have military or terrorist training, according to defense and intelligence officials. Documents obtained from dead and captured fighters show the foreigners included Syrians, Palestinians, Lebanese, Moroccans, Saudis, Yemenis and other Arabs. Intelligence reports also indicate that al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorists remain in Iraq and are a threat to coalition forces. More than 100 al Qaeda terrorists are believed to have been in Iraq before the start of the war, the official said. As for Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed terrorist group based in Lebanon, the exact number of fighters in Iraq is not known, the official said. "These guys still pose a threat. They are irregular forces," the official said. ... snip ... The official said there are no solid estimates of how many foreign guerrillas and terrorists are in Iraq. "Rather than hundreds, it could be in the thousands," the official said. ... snip ... Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday that Syria's government has permitted the guerrilla volunteers to go into Iraq. "We have intelligence that shows that Syria has allowed Syrians and others to come across the border into Iraq, people armed and people carrying leaflets indicating that they'll be rewarded if they kill Americans and members of the coalition," Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters outside the Pentagon. ... snip ... Military officials said scores of the untrained and lightly armed foreign forces conducted ground assaults with rifles and grenade launchers against columns of heavily armed U.S. tanks and armored vehicles. The attackers were killed in what officials described as suicide wave assaults. Mr. Cannistraro said the fanatical Fedayeen Saddam militia set up a foreign brigade for the outside volunteers, including those willing to conduct suicide bombings. ... snip ... One British tank group commander told the Daily Times of Pakistan that a large number of foreign guerrillas held out at Basra University last week, including one who charged a tank with a grenade. ... snip ... U.S. Marines also took over a terrorist training camp at Salman Pak, south of Baghdad, a week ago. The camp had been used by Sudanese and Egyptian trainees, military officials said. "We believe that this camp had been used to train these foreign fighters in terror tactics. It is now destroyed," Gen. Brooks said April 5. "The nature of the work being done by some of those people that we captured, their inferences to the type of training they received, all these things give us the impression that there was terrorist training that was conducted at Salman Pak," he said."

I can't really see how anyone can rationally deny that terrorists were using Iraq for staging and training and that the Iraqi government was complicit in this.

and that Iraq was no threat to America.

Did they really conclude that? You'll have to show me that part. And maybe the commission just missed the mural our troops found with Saddam smoking a cigar in front of the WTC towers after they were hit and burning ... celebrating.

c. The Office of Special Plans run by your hero, Doug Feith,

Care to point out how you come to the conclusion he's my hero?

Feith narrowly missed having criminal charges lodged against his sorry ass for what he and the OSP did with manipulating intel that propelled us into this war for lies.

Narrowly missed? You mean they got Scooter Libby for a crime that wasn't but didn't manage to get Feith? ROTFLOL!

Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt, professors at U of Chicago and Harvard, just published a research paper and it is clear there would have not been any Iraq invasion were it not for Israel Lobby influence.

By all means, post the link so we can see if you got this one right or if what they claim has any merit. Uhhh, maybe not ...

http://sandbox.blog-city.com/mearsheimer_walt_retreat.htm "On the two points over which I challenged Mearsheimer in person three weeks ago in Princeton (while he and Walt were preparing their response), the retreats appear to be total. The first has to do with the alleged role of Israel in pushing for the Iraq war. The original paper devoted an entire section to the authors' claim that Israel used the Lobby to conduct a campaign in favor of war. Mearsheimer and Walt: "Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical." At the Princeton conference, I provided a body of counter-evidence, which pointed to Israel's dissent from the U.S. preoccupation with Iraq, and its fear that much-stronger Iran would benefit from the Iraq distraction. Evidence for this dissent even surfaced in leading U.S. papers in the year before the war, in articles that Mearsheimer and Walt failed to cite. Here, then, is the reformulated Mearsheimer/Walt position: "[T]he lobby, by itself, could not convince either the Clinton or the Bush administration to invade Iraq. Nevertheless, there is abundant evidence that the neo-conservatives and other groups within the lobby played a central role in making the case for war." Let's count the retreats. First, Israel is no longer cited as pushing for war. Second, the lobby (with a lower-case "L" this time) is disaggregated into "groups," and in any case takes second place to the neo-conservatives. Third, the role played by the "groups within the lobby" is now merely "central," not "critical." By my reading, the authors have backed down from at least half of their original claim about the origins of the Iraq war."

You and your neocon IsraelFirst ilk

I have no association with Israel nor do I think I fit the definition of neocon. Surprisingly, anytime I ask someone to define the term, they usually don't. How about you?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-09   22:00:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (84 - 96) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]