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

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

(Pt.1) New Border Czar, New Liberal Freak-Outs, MSM Hosts On Struggle Bus, & Megyn Kelly RIPS Celebs

Israel's Haifa Hit By One Of Largest Hezbollah Rocket Barrages Of War

Fury in Sweden at video of Syrian asylum seeker pushing a 91-year-old widow down stairs

Trump's plan will change EVERYTHING in The United States

Melinda French Gates is reportedly prepared to reveal what she knows about BillÂ’s trips to Jeffrey EpsteinÂ’s island

FUNNIEST TRUMP CAN'T WIN COMPILATION 2016

Smug S***** TRUMP CAN'T WIN Compilation (2024)

Amsterdam residents decribe how they were assaulted and menaced by Jews

Democrats and celebrities ‘pointing the finger’ after Kamala’s loss

What Happened to Those 15,000,000 Biden Voters?!

By the numbers: US missile capacity depleting fast

US APPROVED Israel Bombing Aid Trucks

F*** The Israeli Lobby

Trump Flipped Single Most Hispanic County in America, Beat Kamala in Walloping Landslide

Consequences of Mild, Moderate & Severe Plagiarism

Plagiarism: 5 Potential Legal Consequences

When Philadelphia’s Foul-Mouthed Cop-Turned-Mayor Invented White Identity Politics

Trump Wanted to Pardon Assange and Snowden. Blocked by RINOs.

What The Pentagon Is Planning Against Trump Will Make Your Blood Run Cold Once Revealed

How Trump won the Amish vote in Pennsylvania

FEC Filings Show Kamala Harris Team Blew Funds On Hollywood Stars, Private Jets

Israel’s Third Lebanon War is underway: What you need to know

LEAK: First Behind-The-Scenes Photos Of Kamala After Getting DESTROYED By Trump | Guzzling Wine!🍷

Scott Ritter Says: Netanyahu's PAINFUL Stumble Pushes Tel Aviv Into Its WORST NIGHTMARE

These Are Trump's X-Men | Dr. Jordan B. Peterson

Houthis (Yemen) Breached THAAD. Israel Given a Dud Defense!!

Yuma County Arizona Doubles Its Outstanding Votes Overnight They're Stealing the Race from Kari Lake

Trump to withdraw U.S. troops from northern Syria

Trump and RFK created websites for the people to voice their opinion on people the government is hiring

Woke Georgia DA Deborah Gonzalez pummeled in re-election bid after refusing Laken Riley murder case


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: 1221
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 (1-56) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#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  


#84. To: BeAChooser (#81)

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

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.

March 2006 is recent for me. If a poll were taken today it would be even more damning to your "stay the course" cause, so count your blessings that this poll was taken last year.

It isn't one bit curious that troops in Iraq as of 2006 were still laboring under the mistaken impression that Saddam was connected to 9/11. What this reflects is the DOD's censorship of information access to the troops as well as the DOD propaganda doing its job. It reflects the failings of the DOD more than anything else. Did anyone of those troops get access to the 9/11 Commission's findings? I doubt it.

I'll take a pass on your biased interpretations of the poll results. I'll stick to the following that's reflects Zogby's findings - the company that did the poll- thank you very much:

http://www.info rmationclearinghouse.info/article12103.htm

U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006 02/28/06 Zogby

Le Moyne College/Zogby Poll shows just one in five troops want to heed Bush call to stay “as long as they are needed” While 58% say mission is clear, 42% say U.S. role is hazy Plurality believes Iraqi insurgents are mostly homegrown Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi public for insurgent attacks Majority of troops oppose use of harsh prisoner interrogation Plurality of troops pleased with their armor and equipment An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and nearly one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows. The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College’s Center for Peace and Global Studies, showed that 29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq “immediately,” while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay “as long as they are needed.”

Different branches had quite different sentiments on the question, the poll shows. While 89% of reserves and 82% of those in the National Guard said the U.S. should leave Iraq within a year, 58% of Marines think so. Seven in ten of those in the regular Army thought the U.S. should leave Iraq in the next year. Moreover, about three-quarters of those in National Guard and Reserve units favor withdrawal within six months, just 15% of Marines felt that way. About half of those in the regular Army favored withdrawal from Iraq in the next six months.

The troops have drawn different conclusions about fellow citizens back home. Asked why they think some Americans favor rapid U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, 37% of troops serving there said those Americans are unpatriotic, while 20% believe people back home don’t believe a continued occupation will work. Another 16% said they believe those favoring a quick withdrawal do so because they oppose the use of the military in a pre-emptive war, while 15% said they do not believe those Americans understand the need for the U.S. troops in Iraq.

The wide-ranging poll also shows that 58% of those serving in country say the U.S. mission in Iraq is clear in their minds, while 42% said it is either somewhat or very unclear to them, that they have no understanding of it at all, or are unsure. While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”

“Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S. troops being there,” said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International. “Instead, that initial rationale went by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein.” Just 24% said that “establishing a democracy that can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war. Only small percentages see the mission there as securing oil supplies (11%) or to provide long-term bases for US troops in the region (6%).

The continuing insurgent attacks have not turned U.S. troops against the Iraqi population, the survey shows. More than 80% said they did not hold a negative view of Iraqis because of those attacks. About two in five see the insurgency as being comprised of discontented Sunnis with very few non-Iraqi helpers. “There appears to be confusion on this,” Zogby said. But, he noted, less than a third think that if non-Iraqi terrorists could be prevented from crossing the border into Iraq, the insurgency would end. 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.

The survey shows that most U.S. military personnel in-country have a clear sense of right and wrong when it comes to using banned weapons against the enemy, and in interrogation of prisoners. Four in five said they oppose the use of such internationally banned weapons as napalm and white phosphorous. And, even as more photos of prisoner abuse in Iraq surface around the world, 55% said it is not appropriate or standard military conduct to use harsh and threatening methods against insurgent prisoners in order to gain information of military value.

Three quarters of the troops had served multiple tours and had a longer exposure to the conflict: 26% were on their first tour of duty, 45% were on their second tour, and 29% were in Iraq for a third time or more.

A majority of the troops serving in Iraq said they were satisfied with the war provisions from Washington. Just 30% of troops said they think the Department of Defense has failed to provide adequate troop protections, such as body armor, munitions, and armor plating for vehicles like HumVees. Only 35% said basic civil infrastructure in Iraq, including roads, electricity, water service, and health care, has not improved over the past year. Three of every four were male respondents, with 63% under the age of 30.

The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed locations throughout Iraq. The names of the specific locations and specific personnel who conducted the survey are being withheld for security purposes. Surveys were conducted face-to-face using random sampling techniques. The margin of error for the survey, conducted Jan. 18 through Feb. 14, 2006, is +/- 3.3 percentage points.

scrapper2  posted on  2007-03-09   22:19:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#85. To: Hayek Fan, ALL (#67)

As far as my research abilities, there are just as many experts who back the report as do not.

Fine, let's talk about some of those experts. Why don't you present some names and show us what they say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mortality_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.

Those rebuttals read like they were deliberately written to defend Roberts and the study. That's the problem with wikipedia. The article is only as unbiased as the author(s). And do we know who the author(s) of this one are?

I have given you and everyone else a webpage they can go to to read both sides of the issue.

No, what you've given us is a webpage written by someone with an agenda. And you've given us a webpage that does not begin to present the many criticisms of the John Hopkins' studies or delve into the potential bias of its authors. Lying by omission, if you ask me.

No one is running from you.

Tell that to all who have bozo'd me rather than see anything I post. ROTFLOL! (Careful, don't click the dot under the !)

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-09   22:31:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#86. To: scrapper2, ALL (#84)

If a poll were taken today it would be even more damning to your "stay the course" cause, so count your blessings that this poll was taken last year.

The poll I linked was taken in December. It's not all that damning. It just reflects the disillusion of our soldier with America's public and democRAT leaders.

What this reflects is the DOD's censorship of information access to the troops

NONSENSE. UTTERLY SILLY NONSENSE. Soldiers in Iraq are not being kept in the dark. That's just more conspiracy NONSENSE. They are seeing much of the same material Americans at home are seeing. That's why they've expressed a dislike of the media ... because the media hasn't been fairly representing what is going on over there. They talk to family members ... many of them weekly or even daily. I tell you what, scrapper ... you post a link or two quoting some soldiers who have returned to the US (and perhaps are even out of the military) who say they were kept in the dark about "the truth" while in Iraq. Go ahead ...

I'll take a pass on your biased interpretations of the poll results.

Suit yourself. But I didn't interpret the results. I quoted them verbatim from Zogby's site.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12103.htm

U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006 02/28/06 Zogby

This is who you wish to believe? If so, right off the bat we know you are in trouble since the title is utterly deceptive. The troops did not say that. Although actually all you did is repeat exactly what I had already linked you to ... if you'd gone to the Zogby link I offered. ROTFLOL! (beware the dot!)

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-09   22:47:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#87. To: BeAChooser (#83)

Thanks but no thanks - frontpage and Washington Times - read those yourself - I'd prefer not to pollute my mind.

**************************************************************************

As for Doug Feith - (smirk) - like you don't know why Dougie wasn't charged with treason - spare me - people in high places would also be brought down for treason or impeachment along with Feith for propelling our nation into an invasion of Iraq for false reasons. Not that Doug Feith had much to fear personally even if he were charged - Israel does not extradite criminals bearing dual Israeli citizenship. But you probably knew that, didn't you.

Here's a link to Drs Mearsheimer's and Walt's research study - abstract followed by full text options - enjoy!

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract_id=891198

"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"

***************************************************************************

As for Drs. Mearsheimer's and Walt's findings that the Iraq invasion was primarily a result of pressure from the Israel Lobby and for Israel's security, here's some cut and paste:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/me ar01_.html

"...Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure."

**************************************************************************

Also when the IsraelFirster character assassins came out in hordes, here's what Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt had to say ( some cut and paste):

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n09/le tters.html

Probably the most popular argument made about a countervailing force is Herf and Markovits’s claim that the centrepiece of US Middle East policy is oil, not Israel. There is no question that access to that region’s oil is a vital US strategic interest. Washington is also deeply committed to supporting Israel. Thus, the relevant question is, how does each of those interests affect US policy? We maintain that US policy in the Middle East is driven primarily by the commitment to Israel, not oil interests. If the oil companies or the oil- producing countries were driving policy, Washington would be tempted to favour the Palestinians instead of Israel. Moreover, the United States would almost certainly not have gone to war against Iraq in March 2003, and the Bush administration would not be threatening to use military force against Iran. Although many claim that the Iraq war was all about oil, there is hardly any evidence to support that supposition, and much evidence of the lobby’s influence. Oil is clearly an important concern for US policymakers, but with the exception of episodes like the 1973 Opec oil embargo, the US commitment to Israel has yet to threaten access to oil. It does, however, contribute to America’s terrorism problem, complicates its efforts to halt nuclear proliferation, and helped get the United States involved in wars like Iraq.

*************************************************************************

Strangely enough, BeAChooser, even though you claim that the MSM is librul and that it is anti-GWB and anti-America and anti-Iraq War etc, etc....well, if your theory is correct, one would have thought that MSM would have jumped at the opportunity to interview Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt to reveal how America went to war to defend a foreign nation's security, not America's,...but MSM totally ignored Drs. mearsheimer and Walt. And in fact those 2 esteemed American professors and scholars could not find a mainstream US publication that would give them any publicity whatsoever about the results of their research study. Fancy that! Professors Mearsheimer and Walt were forced to use a British publication - the London Review of Books - to announce their findings.

That's very curious, don't you think, BAC?

***************************************************************************

As for a good definition of what a neocon/neoconservativism is all about why not get the information from the Godfather of neoconservativism, Irving Kristol - uh huh, the father of the smarmy twerp, Billy Kristol, who is a political consultant (cough, cough) for FOX News.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw .asp

"The Neoconservative Persuasion: What it was, and what it is"

By Irving Kristol, 08/25/2003, Volume 008, Issue 47

Some cut and paste:

"Finally, for a great power, the "national interest" is not a geographical term, except for fairly prosaic matters like trade and environmental regulation. A smaller nation might appropriately feel that its national interest begins and ends at its borders, so that its foreign policy is almost always in a defensive mode. A larger nation has more extensive interests. And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns. Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary. "

scrapper2  posted on  2007-03-09   23:17:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: BeAChooser (#85)

As I have said before, I am not interested in getting into a cut and paste war with you. I am not going to change your opinion and you are not going to change mine. For those interested, I have given a webpage for them to begin their quest. If they do not like wikipedia, then they can do a google search and find a webpage they do like.

Personally I thought the wikipedia article was fair and balanced. It presented the main critiques and the rebuttals to those critiques. Did it have every single critique? Probably not. If you are not happy with what they have to say on the matter, then you can sign up and include information you feel is missing. There is a message board for just that purpose. Since you enjoy having cut and paste wars, it would probably be a perfect environment for you because you would be dealing with people who are as passionate about it as you are. Then you can nit-pick their information until your heart's content and visa versa.

F.A. Hayek Fan  posted on  2007-03-10   12:13:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#89. To: scrapper2, ALL (#87)

frontpage and Washington Times - read those yourself - I'd prefer not to pollute my mind.

ROTFLOL! No, the Washington Post and NYTimes are more your style.

Professors Mearsheimer and Walt were forced to use a British publication

Sort of like Roberts and Burkham using a British publication?

ROTFLOL!

"Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened."

So that is your definition of a neocon? Someone who believes a democracy should come to the aid of other democracies?

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-10   13:57:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#90. To: BeAChooser (#89)

Irving Kristol's article on neoconservativism: "Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened."

BAC: So that is your definition of a neocon? Someone who believes a democracy should come to the aid of other democracies?

Read Irving Kristol's entire article for the complete definition of what neoconservativism entails.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw .asp

"The Neoconservative Persuasion"

From the August 25, 2003 issue: What it was, and what it is.

by Irving Kristol

08/25/2003, Volume 008, Issue 47

I cut and pasted 1 paragraph out of Irving Kristol's amazingly unabashedly arrogant vision of what his brethern's mindset means to the GOP and to our nation because it's central to all neocon's beliefs - the automatically assumed need ( in neocons' minds only) to expend American blood and treasure to defend a thuggish monotheistic racist nation state called Israel - a state which btw creates its own problems because of its brutal if not barbaric oppressive actions to the Palestinians as well to its neighbors like Lebanon for example this past summer - a nation state that is judged to be the greatest threat to world peace in polls conducted internationally - a nation that is an albatross not an ally to America - a nation that sells highly sensitive defense technology secrets to America's enemy - a nation that spies on America routinely ( FOX News has agents like Jonathon Pollard commit espionage and a nation that attacked one of our naval ships (USS Liberty)and caused the deaths and injuries to American sailors - a nation that is in the top 25% wealth index of UN nations and has an economy that is equivalent to that of South Korea but still demands foreign aid and loans annually from the US taxpayer - a nation state which repeatedly refuses to sign a mutual defense treaty with America - a nation state whose paranoia about its Muslim neighbors caused its powerful lobby group - AIPAC - the 2nd most powerful lobby group in America, to use its considerable influence to propel our nation into an unnecessary war with Iraq, which posed no threat to America, and is now arm twisting our elected politicians to attack yet another nation in the near future, Iran, which is no danger to America.

I have absolutely zero problem with Israel using its own blood and treasure to defend itself as it chooses.

What I have a problem with is Israel manipulating my gov't to "do" the wars Israel wants done on its behalf. I want Israel out of my taxpayer pocket and I want Israel out of my nation's gov't and policy level decision making.

In fact I would love to see a law passed that no dual citizen - Israeli American or any other hyphenated variation - be allowed to run for Congress and no dual citizen be allowed to be appointed to a federal policy level position or be employed as a consultant at a federal policy level.

As for Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt - their research report was purposely blanked out - censored if you will - by American mainstream media because M&W's findings dared bring to light a foreign nation's inappropriate control of our foreign policy - a foreign nation that in fact is near and dear to the hearts of MSM owners and of MSM news editors, that's why - Burnham and Roberts chose to have their study reviewed by the prestigious Lancet medical journal. Dr. Mearsheimer and Roberts did not choose to make the London Review of Books as their one and only publication for bringing their study into the public discourse forum - the LRB choice was forced upon them because no American MSM would allow their study to get face time stateside.

Read Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt's study and judge for yourself. They are tenured professors at the U of Chicago and Harvard professors - not too shabby universities. Drs Mearsheimer and Walt include their email addresses at the following link if you have questions, BAC. The full text can be downloaded from various sites listed at the bottom of the following website url:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract_id=891198

"The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"

scrapper2  posted on  2007-03-10   15:00:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#91. To: scrapper2, ALL (#90)

Read Irving Kristol's entire article for the complete definition of what neoconservativism entails.

Nah, I'd like to hear it in your own words. I don't want to have to *interpret* what Kristol wrote. That would lead to misunderstanding. What do YOU think defines a neocon. You can do it, can't you?

What I have a problem with is Israel manipulating my gov't to "do" the wars Israel wants done on its behalf.

So you think little ol' Israel is the puppet master?

As for Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt - their research report was purposely blanked out - censored if you will - by American mainstream media

Really think that? You find their videos on youtube. There are literally hundreds of hits on the internets concerning their views. I see that The New York Sun, The Nation, Anti-War dot com, socialistworker.org, salon.com, opinionjournal.com, The New York Review of Books, The Washington Post, csmonitor.com, NPR, CNN, The New Republic, History News Network, The Foreign Policy Research Institute, The New York Times, The Washington Note, The Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, Democracy Now, and dozens of others carried their allegations. But you think they've been censored. ROTFLOL!

BeAChooser  posted on  2007-03-10   15:32:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#92. To: leveller, SkyDrifter, Diana, Christine, Robin (#0)

my female friend's brother was back from Iraq a week ago on leave. He is a captain and a chaplain both. He's also in a unit stationed in Baghdad and he goes out on patrol with the men. Chaplains are no longer in the rear as in Vietnam. He's been there since October. He was in the first Iraq war 17 years ago and in Somalia in 1992 also. He only re-enlisted to support his 7 children. he's already lost some men under his command. and like I said he's right out there with them. I say praise the lord that he is still alive.

and this fellow who is over there doesn't even believe in the war. and he hates Bush.

we were at a public park where rich people live and he was speaking loudly saying that the soldiers in Iraq all root for the Phoenix Suns because their team leader Steve Nash is a white fellow only 6'2" tall and how unusual it was because white people can't play basketball (he said loudly). and some rich people who heard him started telling him to shut up and that he was a bigot. and the guy's wife gave those people an earful about how he was home from Iraq and told them to shut up.

in north Scottsdale where we were it is against the law to even build homes or apartments for poor people and those rich people up there almost all support the war, yet almost none of them serve. Can't stand those people

Judgement is coming.

Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-03-10   15:54:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#93. To: Red Jones (#92)

A little Justice in our lifetime, would be sweet.

Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)

robin  posted on  2007-03-10   15:59:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: robin, Red Jones, Elliott Jackalope (#93)

A little Justice in our lifetime, would be sweet.

seriously. as EJ said, i want to see it now. Red, thanks for sharing that story.

christine  posted on  2007-03-10   16:29:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#95. To: BeAChooser, bluedogtxn, a vast rightwing conspirator, Fred Mertz, Burkeman1, Brian S, randge, leveller, aristeides, robin, Hayek Fan, christine, AGAviator, rowdee, diana, All including lurkers (#91) (Edited)

a. So you think little ol' Israel is the puppet master?

b. Really think that? You find their videos on youtube. There are literally hundreds of hits on the internets concerning their views. I see that The New York Sun, The Nation, Anti-War dot com, http://socialistworker.org, http://salon.com, http://opinionjournal.com, The New York Review of Books, The Washington Post, http://csmonitor.com, NPR, CNN, The New Republic, History News Network, The Foreign Policy Research Institute, The New York Times, The Washington Note, The Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, Democracy Now, and dozens of others carried their allegations. But you think they've been censored. ROTFLOL!

a. It's what learned scholars like Drs Mearsheimer and Walt have demonstrated through their meticulous research to be the case.

M&W's research paper does not contain "allegations" - it contains fact after fact after fact, all of which are heavily documented, and in fact many of their citations are sourced from Israelis and/or Israeli journals.

Indeed the bibliography of support documents and sources are almost as long as M&W's study's thesis.

M&W's paper in total = 83 pages

M&W's thesis = 44 pages

M&W's bibliography of support = 38 pages

******************************************************************************

b. Once the sh*t the fan because of LRB's publishing of Dr. Mearsheimer's and Walt's summary and letter of defense, other American journals followed through but in the main to publish all the hue and cry and character assassination articles and letters from IsraelFirsters. Had LBR not show cased M&W's research paper, the US mainstream media would have succeeded in effectively shut down public debate about M & W's findings.

Has network news interviewed Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt? Where and when did CNN interview M&W, as you claim? Btw, do you think Suzy Soccer Mom and Joe Six Pack read The Foreign Policy Research Institute journal?

Here's what happened when Mearsheimer and Walt went through to get their study's findings into the public forum stateside - some cut and paste from the website you mention, BAC, thank you for reminding me:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8796

"Israel and Moral Blackmail: The Israel lobby is bringing out the big guns"

April 03, 2006

In a hint of what these two distinguished scholars had to go through to get their study published, they aver: "It is hard to imagine any mainstream media outlet in the United States publishing a piece like this one."

It turns out that, before turning to Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government – where Walt is academic dean (albeit not for long) – they attempted to get a version of their study published in an American magazine:

"John Mearsheimer says that the pro-Israel lobby is so powerful that he and co- author Stephen Walt would never have been able to place their report in a American-based scientific publication. 'I do not believe that we could have gotten it published in the United States,' Mearsheimer told the Forward. He said that the paper was originally commissioned in the fall of 2002 by one of America's leading magazines, 'but the publishers told us that it was virtually impossible to get the piece published in the United States.' Most scholars, policymakers and journalists know that 'the whole subject of the Israel lobby and American foreign policy is a third-rail issue,' he said. 'Publishers understand that if they publish a piece like ours it would cause them all sorts of problems.'"

Mary-Kay Wilmers, editor of the London Review of Books – which published a shortened version – tells the Guardian that the piece "was originally written for, but rejected by, the Atlantic Monthly and picked up by the LRB, when Wilmers 'became aware of its existence.'"

In an important sense, then, it appears that, like Palestine, the American literary and political scene is Israeli-occupied territory. As Mearsheimer and Walt point out, academia, too, suffers from the pro-Israel version of the Inquisition, suffering extensive efforts to "police" campuses for evidence of "anti-Israel" sentiments. As if to verify this charge, the authors have run smack up against the campus Thought Police, with Harvard University taking the unusual step of pulling its logo from their piece, altering and making a boilerplate disclaimer more prominent, and finally announcing that Walt would be resigning shortly from his post as academic dean.

This question of Walt's resignation has aroused some interest – especially since it was made shortly after major Harvard contributor Robert Belfer (who gave $7.5 million to the Kennedy School in 1997) expressed his displeasure. This concatenation of events has occasioned a denial by Walt, who says that his stepping down had nothing to do with the controversy surrounding his work. This echoes the official statement put out by Harvard, as well as an e-mail to me by Melodie Jackson, the Kennedy School's director of communications and public affairs:

"There is no connection between the conclusion of Professor Walt's term as academic dean and the discussion around his recent paper. As agreed a year ago, professor Walt's term as academic dean will expire at the end of this academic year and has absolutely no connection to the current conversation around his paper."

Well, then, that's that – right? Move along, nothing to see here. But not quite. As the Harvard Crimson reports:

"[Kennedy School Dean David T.] Ellwood said that he sent an e-mail to Kennedy School faculty members on Feb. 21 – before the uproar over the article – informing them that Walt would end his term as academic dean in June. Ellwood said he also asked professors for recommendations regarding the search for the next academic dean.

"When asked to provide the Feb. 21 e-mail to The Crimson, Kennedy School spokeswoman Melodie Jackson declined to do so. …

"Walt's term as academic dean will be one year shorter than that of his predecessor, Frederick Schauer, who held the post from 1997 to 2002. Though Ellwood's statement made reference to a 'normal three-year cycle' of academic deans, three-year terms have not been the norm for administrators who have held that post in recent years.

"Ellwood himself held the post for a year before joining the Clinton administration in 1993, and he returned to the school in 1995 to serve a two- year term as academic dean. Alan A. Altshuler held the post for two years during Ellwood's absence. And before that, Albert Carnesale was the school's academic dean for a decade."

It seems clear that Walt, loyal to Harvard, and understandably not wanting to widen the breach between himself and the university administration, is stretching the truth, to put it charitably. He says the decision to alter the disclaimer and remove the Harvard logo from his work was made to correct a misimpression that the study was the work of "two Harvard researchers," and that their work constituted an "official report." However, I can't find a single news story about this brouhaha that falsely reports Professor Mearsheimer as resident at Harvard: all correctly describe him as a professor of political science at the University of Chicago.

Furthermore, it is difficult to define what would constitute an "official report." Universities publish all sorts of research on a wide variety of topics, written from any number of perspectives: the decision to publish implies that the university has held the work to a high academic standard and found it at least acceptable, if not exemplary. It never constitutes "official" agreement with the views expressed therein.

It is undeniable that the Mearsheimer-Walt study was singled out for special treatment: out of all the "working papers" published by Harvard, only this one now lacks the university's logo. Only this one has special language appended to it putting the reader on notice that neither Harvard nor the University of Chicago "take positions on the scholarship of individual faculty." Ouch! If that isn't a slap in the face – impugning their scholarship – then I don't know what is. (Go here to see the difference between the treatment afforded the Mearsheimer-Walt "working paper" and others recently published.)...

*************************************************************************

c. Here's a link to the video clips ( 11 in total) and transcript of the SINGLE public debate that took place stateside - finally - at Cooper Union in New York City on 10/11/06.

Amazing is it not? The most important issue facing our nation - our foreign policy - what contributes to war or peace for America and Americans - and there is 1 single debate on it and it was held in the fall of 2006 in NYC - that's sure to get the ears of the Americans living in regions of America that are the main source of troops fighting and dying in Iraq and perhaps Iran in the near future - and this debate took place 8 months after M&W's study was released. Sigh....download and save while you still can, 4um folks and lurkers!

http://www.scribemedia.org/2006/10/11/israel-lobby/

Israel Lobby debate at Cooper Union NYC 10/11/06

11 video clips in total as well as a text transcript

scrapper2  posted on  2007-03-10   16:32:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#96. To: BeAChooser (#91)

Really think that? You find their videos on youtube. There are literally hundreds of hits on the internets concerning their views. I see that The New York Sun, The Nation, Anti-War dot com, http://socialistworker.org, http://salon.com, http://opinionjournal.com, The New York Review of Books, The Washington Post, http://csmonitor.com, NPR, CNN, The New Republic, History News Network, The Foreign Policy Research Institute, The New York Times, The Washington Note, The Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, Democracy Now, and dozens of others carried their allegations. But you think they've been censored. ROTFLOL!

Come, come now, Beechy. Don't go off the rails now. The Second Amendment is not dead yet. There is plenty of criticism to be read on outlets for readers with low-freqency vocabularies.

But the Megaphone, the Voice belongs to Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch’s News Corporation, Bertelsmann, Viacom (CBS) and General Electric (NBC). They own most of the newspapers, magazines, books, radio and TV stations, and movie studios of the United States. They own what passes for the "Evening News" as well as the front pages and opinion pages of all the dailies. It's here that the average Joe gets his news. And it's here that serious critism gets no play.

Mearsheimer and who??

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

randge  posted on  2007-03-10   17:41:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


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