Change of Course in Afghanistan
After months of dithering, our President will tell us our new national policy in Afghanistan tomorrow night. I, for one, am hopeful. Here’s what I will be looking for:
1) A definite objective. Stabilizing, a stable regime, containment, occupation, kill the most bad guys, whatever. I realize that I may not agree with Obama’s objective, but I’d like to see one defined.
2) A change in strategy. Throwing more troops into the mix without a plan to use them is folly. Remember the The Surge in Iraq was accompanied by a definite shift in strategy and tactics. Of course, the change in strategy will have to depend on the objective.
From the pre-speech press, it looks promising. I’m just hoping that Obama lays it out in plain language and doesn’t drown any meaning with lawyerese (sorry, Jed).
I’ll be looking for whether he talks more about winning than he talks about an exit strategy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 30, 2009 at 2303 hrs
Regardless of what he says, after tomorrow, it officially becomes Obama’s war. Hope. Change…and all that crap.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 30, 2009 at 2346 hrs
Politically, he’s a fool if he stays and a pussy if he doesn’t. It was an ungovernable shithole ten years ago, it’s an ungovernable shithole today and it’ll likely be an ungovernable shithole in another two years. There is no political win for Obama, no matter what he does.
The best case scenario—a stable Afghanistan with a democratic government—seems remote. But were I in Obama’s shoes, I’d commit the troops—if my military and political advisors convinced me that there was a genuine chance that it could work out.
Me, I fully supported this war on day one. In for a dime, in for a dollar I guess.
Posted by scott on December 01, 2009 at 0014 hrs
Everyone thought Iraq was unwinnable as well - and look at it now. I think Afghanistan is a tougher nut, but only because it was a bigger mess to start out with.
At least in Iraq you had a strong government (dictators being what they are) but Afghanistan has been drifting aimlessly for decades. The opium trade just breeds corruption. Frankly - if we can get bin Laden - I’d throw up the Mission accomplished banner and head for home.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 0021 hrs
Seeing that is winter in Afghanistan, the increase of troops won’t help now. Realistically,the earliest the troops will be effective will be in Spring.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 0145 hrs
Afghanistan needs to be an all-in or all-out affair. Even under the all-in scenario, this will be bloody and drawn out. I’m hoping someone learned something from the Soviet Afghan experience.
Posted by Steve on December 01, 2009 at 0218 hrs
Afghanistan has been the downfall of empires, from Alexander the Great to the Soviet Union. This will no longer a war that Obama inherited. It will now be Obama’s war. He’s turning out to be no different than George Bush. This is one of the reasons I’ve always said that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 0713 hrs
Politically, he’s a fool if he stays and a pussy if he doesn’t. It was an ungovernable shithole ten years ago, it’s an ungovernable shithole today and it’ll likely be an ungovernable shithole in another two years. There is no political win for Obama, no matter what he does.
Exactly. Afghanistan has the potential to become the next “Vietnam” that the lefties always said Iraq was. The Soviets lost 15,000 men over nine years there, and billions upon billions of dollars in vehicles, tanks, planes and helicopters were lost.
I feel like sending this 30,000 troop surge is just glad-handing. Why is he not sending the number of troops that the generals on the ground say we need to win?
Scott, I agree with you. ‘In for a dime, in for a dollar’, but this strategy is more like ‘in for a dime, in for eighty-five cents’. Enough with the appeasement strategy, commit 100%, to either attaining the objective (assumably stable democracy) or get the hell out of there, because the mountains of Afghanistan are a meat grinder. Those caves are stockpiled with weapons we supplied to the Mujahedeen, and once this thing is ramped up it will become another proxy war with arms being brought in from Russia, through Iran.
This strategy is a mistake, I just hope he doesn’t blame Bush some more in his speech tonight, that is getting to be a bit annoying.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 0725 hrs
“dithered” ??
Would you rather this kind of strategic decision be made in haste? Don’t fault the man for wanting to get multiple briefings from multiple opinions, and then wanting to think about his options.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 0841 hrs
Would you rather this kind of strategic decision be made in haste? Don’t fault the man for wanting to get multiple briefings from multiple opinions, and then wanting to think about his options.
Really?
He’s been President for 10+ months, all along the generals on the ground were telling him they needed more people. His campaign was centered around pulling out of Iraq and getting deeper into Afghanistan… You don’t think 10 months, plus the entire time he was campaigning was enough time to formulate a plan for the war in Afghanistan?
Dithering, which has become the shrill war cry of the ‘talking points’ righties, is the correct one to describe this situation. He has put this decision off again and again, and now the decision we are getting is a ridiculous compromise meant to appease the right and the left, rather than doing what needs to be done. He is sending fewer troops than are necessary, and is likely to put this “surge” in the context of an exit strategy. He is not taking the advice of anyone, he sat down and formulated a political strategy that he figures will do him the least harm in the near term, the use of the term “surge” (a strategy he used to oppose) alone is evidence of that. Rather than thinking in terms of politics, Barack Obama should be couching this decision in how to win, or whether or not we can achieve victory.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 0954 hrs
#8
“I feel like sending this 30,000 troop surge is just glad-handing. Why is he not sending the number of troops that the generals on the ground say we need to win?”And, what do we win?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 1252 hrs
40,000 30,000 plus contributions from NATO, whatever. Nit picking. The real story is what the F are we trying to achieve and how are we going to achieve it. “Fight the bad guys” isn’t a goal. “Put more men on it” isn’t a strategy.
Plus I think 90% of the whining about “dithering” is total partisan bullshit. The man took his time, it’s true—maybe more time than he might have. But none of y’all complained when Bush dithered the last how many years. There’s no criticism here worth arguing over or further responding to.
Posted by scott on December 01, 2009 at 1256 hrs
Sorry Scott, didn’t you know that you can’t look backwards and bring up a past President? Only the current President can be discussed on this blog. Just like the Red Meat Righties would never think of bringing up Clinton or Carter.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 1308 hrs
Sure thing, Doug. I’m sure you’d be doing so much of a better job. I forgot, you’re the expert on all of this.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 1334 hrs
Plus I think 90% of the whining about “dithering” is total partisan bullshit
... coming from a dude that can’t talk politics without bringing up Bush…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 1351 hrs
Why is Stanley McChrystal the best man to offer advice? Isn’t he the genius who cooked up the Pat Tillman story? Can’t really blame Obama for “dithering” based on the general he’s getting advice from.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 1400 hrs
Whoa, talking politics and bringing up the man who was just president for eight years? inconceivable!
Posted by scott on December 01, 2009 at 1400 hrs
:zzdeadhorse:
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 1402 hrs
Bringing up the commander in chief who began this war, whose vice president recently popularized the term ‘dithering’ describe the current president’s behavior on it (a term that’s been used in this very discussion), is beating a dead horse? That horse isn’t dead. It’s hardly saddle broken yet!
It’s a fact: Nobody on your side was pissing their pants over the fact that He Who Must Not Be Named let Afghanistan smolder neglected for years and years. Now all of a sudden it’s critical that a decision—which you will hate no matter what—be made now, not six weeks from now, but now. Anything less is irresponsible dithering. —Total partisan bullshit. Like I said. My point’s been made. Now you can kill the horse.
Posted by scott on December 01, 2009 at 1409 hrs
It’s a fact: Nobody on your side was pissing their pants over the fact that He Who Must Not Be Named let Afghanistan smolder neglected for years and years
Lie
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 1420 hrs
That’s what you say whenever I’m right, apparently. I’m catching on!
Posted by scott on December 01, 2009 at 1436 hrs
I prefer my presidents to make hasty, uninformed decisions about wars. That brought us the wonder of Iraq.
Is there anything Obama could do on this or any other issue that you would praise? Cripes, even Bush did a couple of things I approved of.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 1526 hrs
I prefer my presidents to make hasty, uninformed decisions about wars. That brought us the wonder of Iraq.
... the strongest democracy in the Middle East out of a brutal dictatorship. Thank you very much.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 1535 hrs
#23
... the strongest democracy in the Middle East out of a brutal dictatorship. Thank you very much.Based soley on lies told to the American public, and our representatives, by an un-named former President, Cheney, and Rice, at the cost of over 4,000 lives of Americans and 100,000 of Iraqi lives, many being inocent women and children, and the dollar cost to the American public of a trillion plus dollars.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 1547 hrs
Oh please don’t start spouting the wonders of Iraq. Nothing happening there today justifies the lives, destruction and money that went into the last six years. The fact that it’s not exploding in civil war and destabilizing the entire region is something to be grateful for, but such a result can not be worth the price paid for it.
Besides, if it’s so “strong” then why don’t we pull out?
I still maintain that it’s a great litmus test of political sanity: Those who say they’d go back in time and still invade Iraq are not playing with a complete deck. It was a mistake. And 50 years from now it’ll be widely thought of as one of the worst foreign policy blunder in American history—if not the worst.
Posted by scott on December 01, 2009 at 1549 hrs
So you guys would be okay with Saddam still in power in Iraq?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 1553 hrs
It is about to get thick…..
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 1603 hrs
So you’re “okay with” 5,000 dead US troops, who knows how many Iraqi civilians, millions displaced from their homes, destroyed infrastructure, half a trillion dollars (so far) spent and added straight to the debt, increasing the risk of terrorist attacks worldwide and horrifying our allies? You’re “okay with” that?
Posted by scott on December 01, 2009 at 1613 hrs
C’mon Scott, haven’t you given this Iraq arguement more thought than that….
Would you be okay with Saddam still in power?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 1623 hrs
To have those 5,000 US lives back? And the, what is it so far?—600 billion back? And our international reputation back? To undo all the shitty consequences of an ill-managed and unnecessary war? Yeah, I think I could probably sleep at night somehow.
Now you answer my question.
Posted by scott on December 01, 2009 at 1631 hrs
I believe the consequences of not putting Saddam out of his misery were much greater than what you described.
What would the world be like right now had we not invaded Iraq?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 1638 hrs
My guess is that it would look a lot like it did in early 2003. No-fly zone, some saber rattling, no WMDs, no ties to Islamic extremists, no ability to threaten anyone except maybe by being the same tyrant to his people that he’d always been… Or—here’s an idea—perhaps other methods besides war might have hastened his downfall. Really. Such things do happen.
Posted by scott on December 01, 2009 at 1642 hrs
You are right Scott. It’s not like Saddam didn’t kill or torture millions of his own people, invade Kuwait, or use chemical weapons on his enemies…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 1652 hrs
You’re delusional if you think our invasion has stopped his using chemical weapons on someone—there weren’t any, and he had no ability to create more. He couldn’t even have invaded Kurdish Iraq led alone a foreign country. As far as saving the Iraqi citizens from a repressive regime, I’m not sure the average Iraqi would say that the cost to their country has been worth it.
Posted by scott on December 01, 2009 at 1659 hrs
Was Saddam a bad person? Sure but there are a lot of bad people around the world. And there are far worse ones than Saddam. Why aren’t we out to kill them and free the people in those countries? What if some country thought that we had a bad leader? Would they have the same right? What if foreign countries started putting military bases on the Canadian and Mexican borders to intimidate us? We sure would want them out of our neighborhood.
We had no right to go into Iraq. They posed no threat to the United States. Saddam wanted to stay in power in his country. The last thing he wanted to do was upset the apple cart and have the United States come in and squash him. He wanted to live and rule his country.
Bush is lucky that he hasn’t been brought up on crimes against humanity yet.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 1711 hrs
Even assuming there was no active deception with regard to the justification for war, anyone who would still invade knowing what we know now ... I don’t know what to say. Other than that if you were running for dog catcher I’d vote for someone—anyone—else.
Posted by scott on December 01, 2009 at 1715 hrs
I understand your ‘what we know now’ argument.
For the record…
- Chemical caches were found in Iraq.
- As were Scud components.
- Saddam provided safe harbor for Islamists.
- Saddam gave Islamists millions of dollars.
- The average Iraqi hated Saddam and prefers democracy.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 1729 hrs
So in other words, there were WMDs, Saddam was in bed with Islamic terrorists and the average Iraqi is grateful for our invasion.
In comment 34 I used the word “delusional.” I had a momentary reservation—too strong?—but not now.
Posted by scott on December 01, 2009 at 1733 hrs
So what did I write that is not true? These are all facts.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 1738 hrs
So… according to Scott…
- Saddam did not allow Islamist terrorists in Iraq (Zarquawi).
- Saddam destroyed all of his chemicals and had no intention of ever producing WMD ever.
- Saddam did not give any Islamist terrorists a nickel.
- Iraqi citizens preferred Saddam to democracy.
- and I’m delusional.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 1744 hrs
I’m sorry Smeety, but as much as I like you, yes, you’re delusional. You’re arguments are inaccurate based upon other things, the 911 commission report.
We went into Iraq based on lies made by some past President and others in his administration. It was wrong. We had no right.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2009 at 1759 hrs
- Saddam held Al Qaeda in contempt and feared it, if anything. His was a secular regime. They were in fact enemies in that sense.
- Saddam did not have the WMD we were told about. No, really. I get that you somehow missed that, but according to the CIA he had zip. He did have the capability to rebuild if given the opportunity. I’m not sure he would have, but it’s certainly a credible possibility.
- His government’s ties to Palestinian groups who engage in terror have nothing to do with his support of Al Qaeda or anyone else who would attack the United States. It makes me ill to think that you’re prepared to justify what we’ve done on that. Question: shall we similarly invade any other country whose government supports these or similar organizations? Yes or no. Are you aware of where Hamas gets its money? Get ready to invade not only Iran but also Saudi Arabia.
- The Iraqi people undoubtedly do want a democratic government. But to say that we’ve given them one while ignoring the fact that a) it’s been barely functional as a national institution, b) we brought their country to the brink of a full-out civil war c) hundreds of thousands of them were killed in the process d) a million of them were displaced from their homes due to the violence and e) we destroyed their infrastructure…. Well, I think it’s ignoring a few pertinent facts. Don’t go around assuming that your average Iraqi is feeling gratitude toward the United States. Or—do you really believe that is what they are feeling? Really?
I don’t want to argue about it indefinitely, but yeah—I think you’re nuts if you would still invade knowing what we know now.
Posted by scott on December 01, 2009 at 1912 hrs
- Chemical cache found in Iraq
Chemical cache found in Iraq
Chemical cache found in Iraq
Chemical cache found in Iraq
Chemical cache found in Iraq
Chemical cache found in Iraq
Chemical cache found in Iraq
scud components found in Iraq
Saddam and Al Queda
Iraqi al-queda in Afghanistan
Saddam and Zarquawi
Saddam paying terrorists
Saddam, $$$ & Al Queda
More Saddam, $$$ and Al Queda
How many people did Saddam have killed?
... Roughly a millionPosted by Smeety on December 01, 2009 at 2202 hrs
Now that we’ve established Scott’s delusion, can we have a discussion based on facts?
Posted by Smeety on December 01, 2009 at 2203 hrs
The lesson to be learned here… The radical left position on Iraq, while full of passion, is based on lies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 1044 hrs
There were no WMDs.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/
There was no cooperation with al Qaeda.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
There was no threat to us and thus no reason to go to war. Anyone who can’t admit that now is politically blind and deaf. Any elected official who can’t admit it should be voted out of office as soon as possible on the grounds that they have lost touch with reality and cannot govern here in the real world.
Posted by scott on December 02, 2009 at 1057 hrs
So in response to multiple accounts of chemicals and cooperation with terrorists, you choose to respond with a single article from CNN and single article Washington Post…
point proven. thank you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 1111 hrs
Right. You have links to Free Republic and…blogs. And a PBS transcript which says something might be a WMD. Likewise with the WaPo article.
I have an article from CNN—although I could choose a number of other sources—reporting on the widely-circulated Iraq Study Group report and the CIA findings on WMD in which it is definitively said that there were no WMDs. And I have a WaPo article—again, could have chosen many others—reporting on the widely-circulated 9/11 commission report indicating that there were no substantive links between Saddam and al Qaeda.
A point certainly was proven, though it isn’t the one you think.
Posted by scott on December 02, 2009 at 1127 hrs
So you are denying these reports of chemical caches being found?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 1130 hrs
So are you denying the CIA report saying they didn’t have WMDs?
Posted by scott on December 02, 2009 at 1133 hrs
Looks like a punch-drunk Scott is in a tight spot? But it is a nice try at a deflection.
Scott, are you denying that chemical caches were found in Iraq?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 1137 hrs
Would you please go back to your list of links and, say, click on the Fox News one? Find the words “suspected,” “premature” and “it is not yet known.” This language is maintained throughout the article. Do you see how this article isn’t providing “evidence” or “proof” that WMDs were found? This language is also found throughout the first WaPo article and in the PBS transcript.
Notice that the links I’m providing aren’t using these kinds of qualifiers. They are definitive reports by the government agencies responsible for the issue indicating quite plainly and clearly what their findings are.
Why I bother having these discussions…. I’m debating whether Iraq has WMDS and funded 9/11. Welcome to 2003, people. Next up, Nixon: Crook or not a crook?
Posted by scott on December 02, 2009 at 1202 hrs
So Scott,
Are you denying any chemical caches were found in Iraq?
These aren’t tough questions. Up next I intend on asking if Zarqawi was a terrorist…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 1212 hrs
So did you find the words “suspected” and “premature”? Got a dictionary handy?
You know, if you have the smoking gun you should probably call up the CIA, because man, have they been duped! Want their number?
Up next I plan on asking if Fuzzy Wuzzy was a bear…
Posted by scott on December 02, 2009 at 1221 hrs
So Scott,
Do you deny that chemical caches were found in Iraq?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 1226 hrs
The chemical weapons he did possess were degraded to the point of being worthless. Of course we know he had WMDS…we gave them to him to use on the Iranians in the early ‘80s. The active ingredients have a shelf life of 10-15 years…something we also knew before going in.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 1316 hrs
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html
BAGHDAD, Aug. 13—U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.
Monday’s early morning raid found 11 precursor agents, “some of them quite dangerous by themselves,” a military spokesman, Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan, said in Baghdad.
Combined, the chemicals would yield an agent capable of “lingering hazards” for those exposed to it, Boylan said. The likely targets would have been “coalition and Iraqi security forces, and Iraqi civilians,” partly because the chemicals would be difficult to keep from spreading over a wide area, he said.
Just curious, Scott ... do you think they were cooking with these chemicals?
CIA.gov report concerning findingsWe have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:
A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist’s home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists’ homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).
A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.
Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles—probably the No Dong—300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.
While Scott flails around like a punch-drunk Gerry Cooney, are there any other radical lefties willing to take this on. I have much, much more… and I haven’t even started on the Zarquawi connection….Funny thing is, there was a period of time where even Keith Olberman wouldn’t ask the question, ‘where are the WMDs?’ because of all the reports coming out…
The views of the radical left regarding Iraq are based on lies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 1325 hrs
:zzdeadhorse:
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 1349 hrs
That’s right Pat. Sit down and shut up.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 1354 hrs
You know, this is all of one piece. The American far-right believes an extraordinary number of incredible. Global warming is a hoax, everyone has health care, WMDs were found, Saddam was pals with bin Laden, Obama isn’t a citizen, the health care reform bill has “death panels,” Obama is a Muslim who hates white people… What does it mean when a large group of people are so disconnected from reality on so many fronts? Nothing good, that I know for sure.
Posted by scott on December 02, 2009 at 1405 hrs
You know, this is all of one piece. The far left will believe anything that is put before them as long as it a) denigrates any Republican politician or b) makes them feel like it is all our (humans) fault, no matter what the problem is…. To wit:
Global warming is a proven scientific fact that is not open to debate and its sole cause was human evolution; everyone is entitled to the best health care available, whether they want it or not, and the best way to pay for it is on the backs of those who are successful; WMDs were a figment of the imagination and it doesn’t matter how many bits and pieces of them we found, they would not have been used for anything besides ‘baby formula’ (am I the only one who remembers THAT gem?); Saddam and Bin Laden did not share some of the same outlook; every conservative is a ‘birther’; the health care reform bill will not result in limiting access to health care; (gosh I don’t even know what to say about this one, but again, OSFA when it comes to putting anyone you disagree with into one large group). What does it mean when a large group of people are so diconnected from the real world on so many fronts. Nothing good that I can see….Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 1427 hrs
So Scott,
do you deny chemical caches were found in Iraq?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 1435 hrs
So Smeety,
do you deny the CIAs report that there were no WMDs in Iraq?
Posted by scott on December 02, 2009 at 1442 hrs
My quote above was from cia.gov ....
There is no CIA report that claims no chemical caches were found.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 1456 hrs
I don’t know—or care—what a “chemical cache” is. I’m asking about weapons of mass destruction, WMDs. You know, the ones we knew where there? The ones we were told were threatening us? The ones we had to invade immediately lest they fall into the hands of terrorists? Those big, scary weapons? That could kill lots and lots of people? Those things? There weren’t any.
Posted by scott on December 02, 2009 at 1500 hrs
Scud missles are WMD. Scud missles were found in Iraq.
Chemical weapons are WMD. Chemical caches were found in Iraq.
Any report, CIA or otherwise, claiming categorically WMD were
not in Iraq is false.Now, Scott, it’s your turn. Take your fingers out of your ears
and open your eyes. Everyone knows the answer, we just want to
hear you say it:Were chemical caches found in Iraq.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 1514 hrs
I don’t know—but WMDs weren’t.
Unless of course the CIA is wrong (or lying?) about there not being any. Which do you suppose it is?
Posted by scott on December 02, 2009 at 1517 hrs
So are you claiming that chemical weapons are not WMD or that chemical weapons were not found in Iraq?
Man, you really are punch drunk…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 1521 hrs
I’m claiming nothing other than confidence in the official CIA report. You obviously think they are wrong or lying. Which is it?
Posted by scott on December 02, 2009 at 1524 hrs
cache??/kæ?/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kash] Show IPA noun, verb, cached, cach?ing.
–noun 1. a hiding place, esp. one in the ground, for ammunition, food, treasures, etc.: She hid her jewelry in a little cache in the cellar.
Scott,... so were there chemical caches in Iraq?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 1527 hrs
I think you should ask these questions of the CIA weapons inspector people. It sounds like they could really benefit from some dictionary lessons a la smeety. Here’s their number. Let me know how it goes. (703) 482-0623
Posted by scott on December 02, 2009 at 1530 hrs
I’m not asking them. I’m asking you. And your world might implode based on the realization you are avoiding…
Were chemical caches found in Iraq?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 1536 hrs
Smeety, could you give me some feedback before I send this to the CIA?
Dear sir or madam:
I am hoping you can direct this email to Charles Duelfer, or someone else who occupied a position of authority in the Iraq Survey Group. There may be reason to believe that the group’s main finding—that there were no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq—is false.
You see, there’s a guy I know online who goes by the name “smeety” and not only is he positive that your report is mistaken, he presents the following as evidence to back it up:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81935,00.html
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007271.php
http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/military_photos_2004122223.aspx
http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12620&Itemid=21
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june03/wmd2_4-7.pdf
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1022824/posts
In addition to these documents, he also points out that all these suspected “chemical caches” are in fact WMDs. Did your personnel not know this during your investigation?
Just as it is my duty to report these potentially explosive facts to your office, it is, I believe, your duty to investigate them thoroughly. Let me know if I can be of further help. Naturally “smeety” (not his real name, I don’t think) may be of some help as well. His blog address is located here: http://smitty1037.blogspot.com/
Scott D. Feldstein
Posted by scott on December 02, 2009 at 1602 hrs
Scott,
Could you please reference the specific portions of the CIA report which you refer?
Then go ahead and send it off….
You sure will do anything not to answer my question:
Did we find chemical caches in Iraq?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 1704 hrs
Scott,
I certainly understand your dilemma here. Acknowledging the multiple finds of chemical caches is the first step in the inevitable acknowledgement that the foundation for the radical left’s stance on Iraq is based on lies. Denying the reports is simply inane.
It’s hard to have a discussion like this when facts are pointed out and you have your fingers in your ears.
I’ll ask again:
Do you acknowledge or deny that chemical caches were found in Iraq?
Posted by Smeety on December 02, 2009 at 2109 hrs
Could you please reference the specific portions of the CIA report which you refer?
Let me help you.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cia+final+report+no+wmd
Then go ahead and send it off….
I’m really tempted. On the one hand I would love to blog it and be able to say I actually sent it. On the other hand I don’t want to bother people with your nonsense who have actual jobs to do protecting our country.
Posted by scott on December 02, 2009 at 2122 hrs
Per your link:
In a bit of irony, CIA report showing Iraqi WMDs
Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs
In April 1991, the UN Security Council enacted Resolution 687 requiring Iraq to declare, destroy, or render harmless its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) arsenal and production infrastructure under UN or International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision. UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 687 also demanded that Iraq forgo the future development or acquisition of WMD.Baghdad’s determination to hold onto a sizeable remnant of its WMD arsenal, agents, equipment, and expertise has led to years of dissembling and obstruction of UN inspections. Elite Iraqi security services orchestrated an extensive concealment and deception campaign to hide incriminating documents and material that precluded resolution of key issues pertaining to its WMD programs.
Iraqi obstructions prompted the Security Council to pass several subsequent resolutions demanding that Baghdad comply with its obligations to cooperate with the inspection process and to provide United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and IAEA officials immediate and unrestricted access to any site they wished to inspect.
Although outwardly maintaining the facade of cooperation, Iraqi officials frequently denied or substantially delayed access to facilities, personnel, and documents in an effort to conceal critical information about Iraq’s WMD programs.
Successive Iraqi declarations on Baghdad’s pre-Gulf war WMD programs gradually became more accurate between 1991 and 1998, but only because of sustained pressure from UN sanctions, Coalition military force, and vigorous and robust inspections facilitated by information from cooperative countries. Nevertheless, Iraq never has fully accounted for major gaps and inconsistencies in its declarations and has provided no credible proof that it has completely destroyed its weapons stockpiles and production infrastructure.UNSCOM inspection activities and Coalition military strikes destroyed most of its prohibited ballistic missiles and some Gulf war-era chemical and biological munitions, but Iraq still has a small force of extended-range Scud-variant missiles, chemical precursors, biological seed stock, and thousands of munitions suitable for chemical and biological agents.
Iraq has preserved and in some cases enhanced the infrastructure and expertise necessary for WMD production and has used that capability to maintain a stockpile of WMD and to increase its size and sophistication in some areas.—————————————————————-
So Scott,Did the U.S. find chemical caches in Iraq?
Posted by Smeety on December 02, 2009 at 2221 hrs
Gee, what’s the date on that report you’re citing?
Posted by scott on December 02, 2009 at 2232 hrs
Scott,
I’m claiming nothing other than confidence in the official CIA report. You obviously think they are wrong or lying. Which is it?
Posted by Smeety on December 02, 2009 at 2237 hrs
The date of that report is 2002, genius. Before we invaded.
What say we go with a report based on what we, you know, actually found in Iraq? Like…the final, conclusive report published by the Iraq Study Group (which was put together by the pentagon and the CIA). Post-invasion. See what I’m getting at?
You should have slunk away a few comments ago. You just look silly now.
Posted by scott on December 02, 2009 at 2243 hrs
I don’t know what’s funnier:
- A punch-drunk Scott terrified to acknowledge chemical caches in Iraq.
- His claim to not know what a chemical cache is.
- His letter to the CIA.
- His claim to believe the CIA report, only the CIA report, and nothing but the CIA report.
- My response with a CIA REPORT
...How about another report of chemical weapons in Iraq, that Scott won’t know what to do with?
Warheads with mustard, sarin gas found by Polish troops in Iraq: Rumsfeld
WASHINGTON (AFP) Jul 01, 2004
Polish troops recently discovered more than a dozen warheads containing mustard or sarin gas in Iraq, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a radio interview released Thursday.
Rumsfeld said Polish Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski told him about the find when they met earlier this week at a NATO summit in Istanbul.“He pointed out that his troops in Iraq had recently come across—I’ve forgotten the number, but something like 16 or 17—warheads that contained sarin and mustard gas,” Rumsfeld told Newradio 600 KOGO of San Diego, California, in an interview aired Wednesday.
“Now these are weapons that we always knew Saddam Hussein had that he had not declared, and they have tested them,” he said.
The Pentagon released a transcript of the interview on Thursday.
The head of the US-led hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Charles Duelfer, had reported in a June 24 interview with Fox television that 10 to 12 rounds containing sarin or mustard gas had been found.
Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita said Rumsfeld apparently was referring to be the same warheads that Duelfer had mentioned.
A US official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the number could have gone up since Duelfer spoke about them.
Rumsfeld added that he had not seen the weapons or the results of the tests, but noted that the Poles believed they “in fact were undeclared chemical weapons—sarin and mustard gas—quite lethal.”
“And that is a discovery that just occurred within the last period of days,” he said.
Rumsfeld also said there had been “a lot of intelligence speculation and rumors and chatter about the fact that Saddam Hussein may have placed some of his weapons of mass destruction in Syria prior to the start of the war.
“Until that can be validated and proved, you’ll find people in the administration not talking about it,” he said.
The question of what happened to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction—or indeed whether it had any hidden stockpiles at the time of the war—remains intensely controversial.
David Kay, the former head of the weapons hunt, said on stepping down in February that it was unlikely there were any large stockpiles of weapons when US-led forces invaded Iraq last year, and no evidence had been found of even small stockpiles.
On May 2, however, US troops found a 1991 Gulf War-era mortar round with mustard gas that had been rigged to explode in a median of a road west of Baghdad.
Two weeks later, soldiers found a 155mm artillery round that tested positive for sarin gas, a deadly nerve agent. It, too, had been rigged as a roadside bomb.
Duelfer said that since then other sarin and mustard rounds have been found, some of them in southern Iraq in areas that were former weapons depots. They were made more than ten years ago, he said.
While they showed that Iraq’s pre-war declarations to the United Nations were wrong, Duelfer said he could not say Iraq had hidden a “militarily significant” stockpile of chemical weapons.
Nevertheless, he expressed concern that anti-coalition insurgents such as Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, were trying to tap into the expertise of former Iraqi weapons scientists.
Scott, can you please address this non-CIA report?
Posted by Smeety on December 02, 2009 at 2249 hrs
You know what else I find really puzzling? The fact that not a single one of the other conservative commenters have chimed in to correct you or say “hey, I’m not with him.” i guess it means that you’re all WMD-believers. Which kind of goes back to my remarks in comment 60. What’s next? Unicorns?
Posted by scott on December 02, 2009 at 2250 hrs
Scott,
You should have slunk away a few comments ago. You just look silly now.
Posted by Smeety on December 02, 2009 at 2251 hrs
Dude, the stuff the Poles found turned out to be nothing. You might find this interesting reading. I like the part about what most Americans have under their kitchen sink. Good stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War#Discovery_of_degraded_chemical_weapons
I can’t believe you’re still going after this. You really think you’re going to prove something that the rest of the sane world knows isn’t true…
Posted by scott on December 02, 2009 at 2303 hrs
My point is merely that Saddam had chemicals buried all over the desert? Is that really too much to acknowledge? I literally have at least a half dozen more instances.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 02, 2009 at 2330 hrs
My point is merely that Saddam had
No. The time for backing away gracefully is over. Your “point” is exactly bullshit and it’s time you admitted it. There were no WMDs found in Iraq. They weren’t there. And you’ve been arguing with me about it for hundreds of words. And you are wrong.
Posted by scott on December 02, 2009 at 2351 hrs
So Scott,
Backing down? I’ve just started. You’ve been asked a dozen times if chemical caches have been found in Iraq. You are deathly scared to answer the question.
I do appreciate your zeal. Trying to pose the argument that because chemical weapons are old they are no longer ‘weapons’.
I guess the soldiers that went to the infirmary probably don’t agree….And I can certainly appreciate your cowardice in addressing the tons of chemicals found, the scud components found, the research found, the ricin components found, the documentation for long range missiles found, pictures of chemicals found in Fallujah ...
The fact of the matter is .... you simply can’t address these issues. The whole foundation of your argument in Iraq is based on pretending none of these items ever existed.
But there is apparently (you haven’t actually produced text from the report) a report from the CIA that says ... something. No, not the report that says Iraq was a bunch of bastards for years and years and years and was developing technology and hiding it…. apparently there is a report saying they had nothing ... I believe Jamie Goerlick read it to Congress right before she was rewarded with a six figure job at Fannie Mae… hahaha
Scott,
Were chemical caches found in Iraq?
Posted by Smeety on December 03, 2009 at 0730 hrs
Scott,
Can you please address this report?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3070394/Positive test for terror toxins in Iraq
Evidence of ricin, botulinum at Islamic militants’ camp
By EXCLUSIVE By Preston Mendenhall
msnbc.com
SARGAT, Iraq, April 4 - Preliminary tests conducted by MSNBC.com indicate that the deadly toxins ricin and botulinum were present on two items found at a camp in a remote mountain region of northern Iraq allegedly used as a terrorist training center by Islamic militants with ties to the al-Qaida terrorist network. The field tests used by MSNBC.com are only a first step in the evidentiary process and are typically followed by more precise laboratory testing that MSNBC.com has not conducted. U.S. intelligence agents were conducting their own tests in the same area and had not yet released their results, according to officials in northern Iraq.
MSNBC.COM CONDUCTED the tests over a two-day period at Sargat, an alleged terrorist training camp a mile from the Iraq-Iran border. MSNBC.com purchased the test kits commercially. The field tests, developed by Osborn Scientific Group in Lakeside, Ariz., are regarded by some experts as very effective and have been used by U.N. weapons inspectors and federal government agents around the Sept. 11, 2001, attack site in New York City.The Sargat camp, set back in an isolated valley and surrounded by snow-capped peaks, was home to the radical Islamic militant group Ansar al-Islam, which counts among its some 700 followers scores of al-Qaida fighters.
In a Feb. 5 speech to the U.N. Security Council, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell showed a satellite photo of the Sargat camp and described Ansar al-Islam as “teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons.” U.S. officials have repeated the allegations in recent weeks.
In an operation timed to coincide with the war on Iraq, U.S. special operations forces have targeted Ansar al-Islam’s militants in northern Iraq. Hundreds of Islamists, including al-Qaida fighters who took refuge in northern Iraq after the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan, have been killed.
Although U.S. officials for months have leveled charges that the Ansar al-Islam and al-Qaida militants were producing poisons in northern Iraq, it wasn’t until this week that specialist U.S. teams were able to gain access to the Sargat camp to test for traces of biological and chemical weapons.
Experts believe the Islamic group was producing the substances in the camp. Both toxins can be created from everyday products and simple procedures.
Scott,Were chemical caches found in Iraq?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 0851 hrs
i guess it means that you’re all WMD-believers.
You are an absolute moron when it comes to logic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1151 hrs
Qui tacit consentire, Jason.
But perhaps you’d like to take this opportunity to say that you understand that there were no WMDs found.
Posted by scott on December 03, 2009 at 1155 hrs
Qui tacit consentire, Jason.
See, that’s why you’re a mental midget when it comes to logic.
But perhaps you’d like to take this opportunity to say that you understand that there were no WMDs found.
No that’s ok, I’ll let you take my silence as consent. Hope you’re not dating.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1204 hrs
Scott,
perhaps you would like to take this opportunity to express your understanding of the numerous chemical caches found across Iraq.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1205 hrs
Check. Jason refuses to acknowledge that there were no WMDs. (I’m hiding my surprise.)
Smeety, you get an A for persistence but an F for effectiveness in this debate. Your “numerous” examples that I supposedly “refuse” to address? I’ve addressed several of them in specific and all of them in general. You can keep saying that I refuse to address them, but that doesn’t make it so.
Your extensively quoted CIA report? It was dated before the invasion and is quite obviously superseded by what was discovered after we went in. Even an idiot can understand that fact. Defending it by saying that you found the article through a google search I recommended is intellectually weak beyond words.
The Polish soldiers who, according to you, found poison gas? Turns out it was degraded material from like 1990 which was no more dangerous than what’s under your kitchen sink.
And you cannot explain why the Iraq Survey Group—a group specifically charged by the CIA and the pentagon to find those WMDs—issued a report clearly stating that there were none found. You just recently claimed that it was “biased.” A fascinating charge which, again, you have absolutely no evidence for.
The CIA and the pentagon are against you. President Bush doesn’t even take your side in this. Everyone admits that they weren’t found. Yet you sit there and claim to know better without the benefit of any credible evidence whatsoever.
And you claim that I’m the one losing this argument?
Can you find a post-invasion, official US government report which says WMDs were found in Iraq?
I think that you cannot. You certainly have not done so yet. And if you cannot, then I think that makes me the winner in this argument and you the loser.
Posted by scott on December 03, 2009 at 1234 hrs
Scott,
Were chemical caches found in Iraq?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1239 hrs
Smeety,
What is the price of beans in Bolivia?
Posted by scott on December 03, 2009 at 1243 hrs
I’m willing to take this debate all the way to why we should or should not be there. Part of building an objective discussion rests on addressing the fact that numerous caches of chemicals were found thoughout Iraq.
I understand the answer to this question will make your head implode… but…
Scott, were chemical caches found in Iraq?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1248 hrs
I don’t know what you mean by “chemical cache,” but I suspect if I say even a qualified “yes,” then you’ll spend the next 1000 words telling me I’m unreasonable because I don’t recognize chemical caches are WMDs. Such is the way you argue.
Still, I’ll throw you a bone. Certainly remnants of old WMDs were found and reported.
Posted by scott on December 03, 2009 at 1250 hrs
Reasonable people agree that Iraq had chemical WMDs in small numbers and that these were discovered and destroyed.
Reasonable people understand that long range missiles (like the SCUD and the Iraqi variants Al-Hussein and the AL-Hijara) are also considered WMD.
Reasonable people understand that numerous static and mobile CBRN construction facilities were discovered hidden in the desert and are occasionally still unearthed today.
Reasonable people understand that those facilities indicate Iraq was capable of quickly constructing and fielding CBRN weapons and that the creation of a functioning production facility indicates a willingness to possess and deploy such weapons.
Reasonable people agree that Iraq was attempting to begin a new nuclear weapons program (the first one having been blown to tiny bits by the IDF), though it was not as far along as intelligence estimates suggested.
Reasonable people agree that Bill Clinton was the first President to sound the alarm regarding the danger Iraq posed and that he took some initial military action to interdict WMD production.
Reasonable people agree that congress voted twice to authorize military action in Iraq. The vote was bipartisan and nearly unanimous (excepting John Kerry who voted for it before he was against it). It listed many reasons for the military intervention, to include the exclusion of inspections required by the treaty ending the gulf war. For the liberally impaired, try : http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf to jog your memory.
Unreasonable people ignore facts and history in favor of ideological and irrational hatred of anything and everything that does not conform to what they want the truth to be.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1308 hrs
Family Guy,
I owe you a beer some time.
——————————————————————————-
So Scott,
I’m going to forgo asking you to take your fingers out of your ears to acknowledge FG’s statement and ask you this:
Was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi a terrorist?
(let the renewed fun begin)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1317 hrs
Reasonable people agree that Iraq had chemical WMDs
No, I don’t think reasonable people agree on that at all. Reasonable people might go so far as to say, as I have above, that remnants of degraded weapons were found, but that nothing qualifying as a functional WMD was found in Iraq at the time of our invasion.
Reasonable people understand that long range missiles (like the SCUD and the Iraqi variants Al-Hussein and the AL-Hijara) are also considered WMD.
The investigatory body responsible for finding Iraqs WMDS—the Iraq Survey Group—certainly doesn’t share that understanding. Perhaps you’d like to set them straight. Again, you’re using the word “reasonable” here in a way I’m not familiar with.
You are wrong. WMDs were not found in Iraq after we invaded. They were not found. There’s no evidence that they were found. The official report says clearly: NO WMD FOUND.
Why is that so hard for you? Why must you make these tenuous arguments about SCUD parts and “caches”? Just face the goddamn facts already.
Posted by scott on December 03, 2009 at 1317 hrs
My previous comment was directed at the author of comment 98, who I mistakenly assumed was smeety. The response still stands, however.
Smeety, I’m going to ask you to stop playing games and admit that there were no WMDs found in Iraq. I don’t want to hear your bullshit about “caches” and degraded WMDs from twenty years ago, or intelligence reports issued before the invasion, or about the supposed bias of the group charged with finding the WMDs. It’s time for you to admit the truth: There were no WMDs found after we invaded.
Posted by scott on December 03, 2009 at 1322 hrs
Scott,
Were the chemical weapons kept by Islamist terrorists in Iraq I reported in comment #88 ‘remnants’?
(another question that will make his head implode)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1322 hrs
Text from David Kay of the Iraq Study Group’s 2003 ‘update’ I’d assume this would be the report Scott is referring (since he hasn’t provided any actual text):
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/02/kay.report/
What have we found and what have we not found in the first 3 months of our work?
We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:
· A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research.
· A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials working to prepare for UN inspections were explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.
· Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist’s home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons.
· New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN.
· Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists’ homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).
· A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared production facility and an admission that they had tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.
· Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the UN.
· Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1000 km—well beyond the 150 km range limit imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets through out the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.
· Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and 2002 to obtain from North Korea technology related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles—probably the No Dong—300 km range anti-ship cruise missiles, and other prohibited military equipment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1331 hrs
Here’s the part I liked:
We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist
This briefing to congress was a “progress report,” guys—not the final statement.
Gee, what did that final report say, I wonder? Hmm…
Posted by scott on December 03, 2009 at 1342 hrs
Oh I like this part, too!
We are still very much in the collection and analysis mode, still seeking the information and evidence that will allow us to confidently draw comprehensive conclusions to the actual objectives, scope, and dimensions of Iraq’s WMD activities at the time of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Which makes me wonder: What were those “comprehensive conclusions” when they finally came? Does anyone recall?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/
http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/10/07/no_wmd_link_found_in_iraq/
Posted by scott on December 03, 2009 at 1349 hrs
Scott,
What do you have to say about the MSNBC report in comment #88 constituting chemical weapons in the hands of Islamic terrorists in Iraq?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1349 hrs
Here is the text again.
Positive test for terror toxins in Iraq
Evidence of ricin, botulinum at Islamic militants’ camp
By EXCLUSIVE By Preston Mendenhall
msnbc.com
SARGAT, Iraq, April 4 - Preliminary tests conducted by MSNBC.com indicate that the deadly toxins ricin and botulinum were present on two items found at a camp in a remote mountain region of northern Iraq allegedly used as a terrorist training center by Islamic militants with ties to the al-Qaida terrorist network. The field tests used by MSNBC.com are only a first step in the evidentiary process and are typically followed by more precise laboratory testing that MSNBC.com has not conducted. U.S. intelligence agents were conducting their own tests in the same area and had not yet released their results, according to officials in northern Iraq.
MSNBC.COM CONDUCTED the tests over a two-day period at Sargat, an alleged terrorist training camp a mile from the Iraq-Iran border. MSNBC.com purchased the test kits commercially. The field tests, developed by Osborn Scientific Group in Lakeside, Ariz., are regarded by some experts as very effective and have been used by U.N. weapons inspectors and federal government agents around the Sept. 11, 2001, attack site in New York City.The Sargat camp, set back in an isolated valley and surrounded by snow-capped peaks, was home to the radical Islamic militant group Ansar al-Islam, which counts among its some 700 followers scores of al-Qaida fighters.
In a Feb. 5 speech to the U.N. Security Council, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell showed a satellite photo of the Sargat camp and described Ansar al-Islam as “teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons.” U.S. officials have repeated the allegations in recent weeks.
In an operation timed to coincide with the war on Iraq, U.S. special operations forces have targeted Ansar al-Islam’s militants in northern Iraq. Hundreds of Islamists, including al-Qaida fighters who took refuge in northern Iraq after the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan, have been killed.
Although U.S. officials for months have leveled charges that the Ansar al-Islam and al-Qaida militants were producing poisons in northern Iraq, it wasn’t until this week that specialist U.S. teams were able to gain access to the Sargat camp to test for traces of biological and chemical weapons.
Experts believe the Islamic group was producing the substances in the camp. Both toxins can be created from everyday products and simple procedures.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1351 hrs
Just curious ... if one report states there is no WMD, and another report provides undeniable evidence of WMD…. which one is correct???
Hmmm…. Scott, don’t think too hard about it, your head will implode…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1354 hrs
I would say you don’t really understand the words “undeniable evidence,” for starters. I would go on to point out that a trace element on a boot print is not a weapon. Nor is it a weapon-making facility. We already know that Iraq once possessed such weapons and that traces of their degraded stuff was all over the place. The issue is: where any weapons found? The answer to that question is still no.
Taking this MSNBC.com story issued before the main invasion of Iraq as more true than the years-long official investigation is an interesting choice on your part. Perhaps you can explain that.
Interesting also to note that MSNBC had no trouble reporting the ISG final report saying definitively that there were no WMDs. And they didn’t even bring up thew hole Sargat thing…
Posted by scott on December 03, 2009 at 1416 hrs
I would go on to point out that a trace element on a boot print is not a weapon.
This is like saying a shell casing is not a weapon. It is undeniable evidence.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1425 hrs
Well by that standard, I guess the shells discovered by Polish forces are a lot more convincing. There we had actual munitions that had been filled with actual weaponized substances. It was too old to be used for its intended purpose, but it’s a hell of a lot more than a bootprint. Wouldn’t you say?
Posted by scott on December 03, 2009 at 1427 hrs
Well by that standard, I guess the shells discovered by Polish forces are a lot more convincing. There we had actual munitions that had been filled with actual weaponized substances. It was too old to be used for its intended purpose, but it’s a hell of a lot more than a bootprint. Wouldn’t you say?
Being that ricin in the open air degrades in days ... no.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1433 hrs
Wasn’t Sargat just bombed before MSNBC got there?
Posted by scott on December 03, 2009 at 1435 hrs
Well, I won’t argue reason here. You can believe what makes you happy about WMD and nothing anyone else can say will change that. Do you also disbelieve that Iraq had built and hidden facilities to be used to construct blister agents like mustard gas, vesicants like lewisite and blood agents such as cyanogen chloride? I’m just wondering if there was anything that Iraq was doing in 2003 that bothered you.
Another question. Are you arguing that President Clinton was lying when he declared ““Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. “”?
Regardless of your position on what you personally believe are weapons that exist in pure fantasy, did you think that in the face of complete non-compliance with mandatory inspections, the US should have done nothing at all? Are you arguing that Democrats in Congress were wrong to support military action in Iraq based upon intelligence that had been common knowledge for 5 years? Are you implying that the middle east would have been more stable and better off with a raging lunatic in charge of a nation?
I’m really not sure where you are going with the WMD denier line of argument. Is this just a Bush is the devil thing, or is there some good point you are trying to make that I am missing?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1442 hrs
Yes. The Islamist terrorist camp in Iraq was making ricin prior to getting bombed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1443 hrs
Family Guy,
You may want to read, The Prosecution of George Bush for Murder, written by Vincent Bugliosi. It is quite eye opening and lays out all the facts about the lies that were told to the American public and our representatives to get us involved in Iraq.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1457 hrs
You can believe what makes you happy about WMD
Yes, me and the pentagon and the CIA and former president Bush can just go on believing willy-nilly. It must be such a trial for you to tolerate us irrational, fact-free zealots and ideologues.
Are you arguing that…
I’m not making any statements about those things at all. I’m simply trying to wedge a dose of reality into this corner of the internet where it is often absent. That’s where I’m going with it: I can’t stand the fact that some of you guys believe the most demonstrably wrong shit and still won’t accept the truth when it’s waived in your faces. To me, I can’t stand it. It bugs me. It’s like picking at a scab. I feel like I have to say wait a minute, this is reality… Call it a character flaw.
Posted by scott on December 03, 2009 at 1458 hrs
Does the United States have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction? Have we used them on anyone. Are we still developing them? Have we aided terrorists?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1459 hrs
@ FBP Just the fact that you single out President Bush is enough to tell me all I need to know. On one hand, he was a bumbling idiot, yet on the other hand he was a villainous genius, able to confuse our entire Congress and intelligence establishments, and even the entire world, into doing his bidding. Hm, I’ll bet Lex Luthor would love to get a few pointers from that guy. Cmon FBP, Bush is the devil is really getting a bit long in the tooth.
@Scott I’ve heard this “scab” thesis before. So, basically your whole argument is without an end game or useful purpose and mission apart from satisfying some need you personally feel to do so. I see now how it fits into a comment thread about PBO’s “war” strategy. Eeerily similar, only no one has to die because of what you are doing. Perhaps you should get your president into blogging rather than bungling. It might do us some good.
I would like to know why you think that Saddam had constructed and hidden WMD manufacturing facilities? You do believe those exist, right? Well why did they have them, especially when it was in direct violation of their agreement?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1522 hrs
apart from satisfying some need you personally feel
A need I feel to speak the truth and have it be heard by the ignorant, yes.
I would like to know why you think
And I would like to know why you think the ISG (and the CIA and pentagon) and the president say that there were no WMDs? Is it a conspiracy?
Posted by scott on December 03, 2009 at 1529 hrs
TFG,
“Cmon FBP, Bush is the devil is really getting a bit long in the tooth.”
I’ve not once said that Bush was the devil. So I don’t know how it can be long in the tooth????
I only recommended a book written by the guy who had a perfect record of capital murder prosecutions (24) including Charles Manson.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1541 hrs
So, no real comment on the weapons labs? Ok, I guess that is a comment in and of itself. The real reason Iraq was invaded, at least according to Congress, was multi-fold. Suspicion of WMD possession was a part. Suspicion of a nuclear weapons program was a part. The failure of Saddam to allow inspections was a part. Are you saying that since massive stockpiles were not discovered that Congress was wrong in authorizing an attack on Iraq? Should we return the nation to it’s previous condition and install a brutal dictator to make up for our transgressions? Really Scott, what is the difference here?
As to your conspiracy, well I don’t believe any of what you just said. You admit that some WMD matter was discovered but that it was past it’s expiration date and therefore it does not exist, nor did it ever exist. You won’t admit that they had production facilities, nor will you admit that long range ballistic missiles are WMD. Ok, so that is your position. Fine and dandy Scott. Perhaps your president will apologize to Iraq for our mistaken invasion. Maybe reparations are in order? This argument is leading no place.
Any thoughts on our new Vietnam?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1544 hrs
Scott’s position on Afghanistan was made clear to him Tuesday night. Bush got us in and we can’t pull out now, for whatever reason….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1557 hrs
no real comment on the weapons labs?
My comment is this: Somehow it fails to impress the inspection team charged with finding the WMDs. Likewise with the boot print. Likewise with the Polish-discovered shells. Likewise with a few other things that I was able to debunk directly.
How come none of you have answered my question about the ISG and president Bush? They say there were no WMDs. Why? Perhaps they just missed a few spots that MSNBC and some Polish troops managed to find? Is it a conspiracy? Are they lying for some political purpose? Gimme a theory.
Are you saying that since massive stockpiles were not discovered that Congress was wrong in authorizing an attack on Iraq?
I’m saying that invading Iraq was a mistake. We should not have done it. Say what you will about what was believed at the time, but knowing what we know now we should never have gone in. And, no, I don’t think “leaving Saddam in power” is worse than having a six year war that kills hundreds of thousands, displaces millions, ruins infrastructure, incites civil war, etc., is a better scenario for the people of Iraq than using non-military pressure to contain and/or drive him out of power. I feel sure that the Iraqi people would agree with me on that one. But forget them for a minute. Was it worth the American lives and treasure expended to achieve… whatever it is we’ve achieved there? I say no. Emphatically no.
As to your conspiracy, well I don’t believe any of what you just said.
You don’t believe what, exactly? That the ISG said there were no WMDs? I believe I have provided ample documentation that this is exactly what they said. You don’t believe president Bush said it? I can assure you…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSN-Kku_rFE
You admit that some WMD matter was discovered but that it was past it’s expiration date and therefore it does not exist, nor did it ever exist. You won’t admit that they had production facilities, nor will you admit that long range ballistic missiles are WMD.
Whoa, maybe the president and the ISG just don’t know about these things! Quick, call the CIA!
Scott’s position on Afghanistan was made clear to him Tuesday night.
I did not watch the president. I did not listen to the president. I did not read a transcript of his speech. I did hear about 30 minutes of radio talk about it the next day, but I really only know the generalities: 30,000 more American troops, NATO asked to kick in some more, too. A date for “beginning” a “flexible” withdrawal. Something like that.
My position on Afghanistan is that I was 100% for it back in 2001. I thought we were going to go in, kick ass on Osama bin Laden and GTFO. Since he escaped and al Qaeda is hardly even present in the country anymore, we’re left with an entirely different mess on our hands: How to replace the Taliban with a more functional government more friendly to our interests. What worries me is that Afghanistan has been invaded before to no great success. Even the superpower USSR tried it and failed to achieve anything. As far as what the president should do? I have to say I don’t know. My more cynical side says: He’s an idiot if he stays and a pussy if he doesn’t—no win either way. My more hopeful side says maybe he and his military advisors can manage to prop up some kind of stable and unified nation before leaving—and do it in less than a decade. Here’s hoping.
How’s that for extremism?
Posted by scott on December 03, 2009 at 1607 hrs
My comment is this: Somehow it fails to impress the inspection team charged with finding the WMDs. Likewise with the boot print. Likewise with the Polish-discovered shells. Likewise with a few other things that I was able to debunk directly.
Scott, I don’t understand your comment here. Ricin was found. Chemical shells were found. 1500 gallons of chemicals were found in Baghdad. Chemicals were found in Fallujah. Chemicals were found in Mosul. You admitted that chemical caches were found.
If by debunked, you meant, confirm, then I guess we agree…
If you provide a quote by Bush, I’ll address it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1631 hrs
Since Scott has agreed that ‘old’ WMDs were found by Polish soldiers,
traces of ricin (WMD) were found in northern Iraq, SCUD (WMD) components
and fuel were discovered, 1500 gallons of chemicals (WMD?) were found
in Baghdad, pictures of chemicals (WMD) were taken in Fallujah, (did I send
the Mosul article yet) why don’t we move to debunk the next radical left wing myth:Scott, was Zarquawi a terrorist?
(I’m guessing I can get this out of him within forty requests)...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1650 hrs
Scott, I don’t understand your comment here.
Well, first of all the ISG does in fact say clearly that no WMDs were found. Please see the links I provided in comment 105. If you’d like more, google will give you about a hundred of them. The stuff the Poles found was debunked in comment 84. How about comments 77 through 80 where you tried to pawn off a 2002 pre-invasion CIA report as if it trumped the report done later, in-country by actual inspectors who were really there?
If you provide a quote by Bush, I’ll address it.
“The main reason we went into Iraq is we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. Turns out he didn’t…”
Here’s the link to the video (which I did provide in comment 124): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSN-Kku_rFE
Put a brave face on that if you can.
Posted by scott on December 03, 2009 at 1655 hrs
Hm, so deposing a dangerous, brutal and unstable dictator who was undeniably, seeking WMD’s and replacing him with a free government was bad and the people who lived in that dictatorship would agree with you that oppression was preferable to freedom? Ok, well except for the quarter millionish kurds who were slaughtered and gassed with WMD that once existed. One would imagine that they would prefer to have been alive, but maybe you’d disagree on that too. One might surmise that the Germans would have preferred to remain governed by Hitler too… and I’m sure the South Koreans would prefer to be part of the dear leaders happy family rather than have suffered a war. Do you really believe the Iraqis would have preferred Saddam? Really? I can’t even discuss such a silly idea. Good Lord Scott. Do you hear what you are saying??
On the other hand, PBO’s escalation of troops into a needless war with no real ascertainable goals was a good idea that you support.
What is there in Afghanistan that makes it important for us to spill our blood? There is no hope of a stable government. Most of the people are tribal and have little interest in democracy. What little central government they were able to create is completely corrupt. The Afghan army is hopeless. Yet you support that mission and not the one in Iraq.
I’m sure you’ll have some wonderful explanation for saying such ridiculous things, probably filled with “expert opinion”. My explanation is far simpler than whatever you will contrive to explain that obvious double standard. You support the Democrat and tear down the Republican. Bush War = bad. Barack War = good. Actually, if you simply admitted that you were a raging partisan and would support whatever Harry and Nancy and Barack offered, I could live with that. There would be something to be said for honesty and a belief in what that party stands for.
I doubt that honesty will be forthcoming. Smeety had it right. You’ll take your marching orders from PBO
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1655 hrs
The stuff the Poles found was debunked in comment 84.
Not really.
Scott, unless you want to make the case that ricin is not a WMD, let’s debunk the next radical left wing myth.
Scott. Was Zarqawi a terrorist?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1714 hrs
TFG, are you saying we should go after every brutal and unstable dictator in the world?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1719 hrs
Is that what I said? Hm, I guess I need to get this keyboard checked. Seems to be typing things on it’s own.
I’d just like to know why Barack’s war is okey dokey, but President Bush is apparently a mass murderer and a thoughtless cad for inflicting democracy on a people who lived happily in the embrace of a maniac.
If I was forced to think in this fashion, my brain would explode. Seems those on the left need to have a pretty high level of bullshit tolerance in order to remain sane.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1753 hrs
Nope, Obama’s war is not ok. I want the troops out now. If Obama starts a war with the same type of lies that took us into Iraq, and gets 5000 of our citizens killed, I want him tried for murder too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1757 hrs
“Is that what I said? Hm, I guess I need to get this keyboard checked. Seems to be typing things on it’s own.”
Ok, let’s try this again.
“so deposing a dangerous, brutal and unstable dictator who was undeniably, seeking WMD’s and replacing him with a free government was bad and the people who lived in that dictatorship would agree with you that oppression was preferable to freedom?”
So TFG, are you saying we should depose every brutal and unstable dictator in the world who was, or might be undeniably, seeking WMD’s and replacing him with a free government which we feel would be good for the people who live in that dictatorship?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1854 hrs
Scott;
back in #76 you posted this challenge:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cia+final+report+no+wmd
The top hit on that search was this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/
MSNBC, a source you will trust for reportage? Reading the text reveals these tidbits, once you get past the headline….
Another addendum also noted that military forces in Iraq may continue to find small numbers of degraded chemical weapons — most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War. In an insurgent’s hands, “the use of a single even ineffectual chemical weapon would likely cause more terror than deadlier conventional explosives,” another addendum said.
And still another said the survey group found some potential nuclear-related equipment was “missing from heavily damaged and looted sites.” Yet, because of the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, the survey group was unable to determine what happened to the equipment, which also had alternate civilian uses….“Still others could have been taken intact to preserve their function.”
The Iraq Survey Group believes “it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.”
So, no, the ISG did not find WMD, however they were unable to say that WMD were NOT in Iraq immediately prior to the invasion, and even admitted that, although degraded, chemical weapons that WERE FOUND, were much more dangerous that conventional weapons. In addition, they admit that there were missing components that could still be used for their original intent. Pick nits all you want, but the invasion was justified.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 2007 hrs
“the invasion was justified.”
Based on what logical premise was there justification for the United States to invade Iraq?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 2024 hrs
Oh, let’s see, ‘a clear and present danger’ for one…the intransigence shown to the UN resolutions that authorized military intervention as a possibility for another. If you really want my baby-eating, blood-and-guts-hanging-from-the-teeth reaction, the fact that we should have finished the job when I was there in ‘91, but we didn’t have the backing of the ‘international community’ to do more than liberate Kuwait. It would have saved years and lives if we had just rolled up into Baghdad when we were already there.
As an aside, you keep mentioning the loss of life of US soldiers as a reason to have not gone into Iraq. If you look at the numbers, both absolute and as a percentage of service members, the annual loss of life service-wide from 2002 to present is statistically the same or slightly less than the 2 decades preceding the invasion. So as tragic as the loss of a single life is, there were more deaths than would likely have occurred from other causes if we hadn’t invaded.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 2036 hrs
on review, last sentence should read:
So as tragic as the loss of a single life is, there were no more deaths than would likely have occurred from other causes if we hadn’t invaded.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 2038 hrs
“Oh, let’s see, ‘a clear and present danger’ for one”
I asked for a logical premise. There was no clear and present danger to the United States.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 2039 hrs
and I did not specify that the danger as to the US directly
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 2041 hrs
and if you don’t like the first, refute the second. Aren’t I considerate? I gave you a choice of targets
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 2042 hrs
“and I did not specify that the danger as to the US directly “
I think you meant to type danger was to instead of danger as to, but that’s ok. Spelling doesn’t matter.Then I’d still like to know the logical justification if Iraq wasn’t a direct threat to the United States.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 2046 hrs
Bush-hater Pat,
What should the U.S. be doing about Iran?
Posted by Smeety on December 03, 2009 at 2046 hrs
Sorry Smeety, I don’t hate Bush. I believe he should be brought up on murder charges, just like any other criminal, but I don’t hate the guy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 2049 hrs
yes, thank you for catching the typo.
If protecting our allies isn’t reason enough, then the enforcement of the UN sanctions surely provides a logical reason.
Like I said, I was considerate and gave you 2 targets to shoot down.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 2051 hrs
I’m looking for logic, not reasons.
What was the second “target”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 2052 hrs
So Pat
,Your contempt aside,
What should the U.S. do over the next eighteen months about Iran?
Posted by Smeety on December 03, 2009 at 2056 hrs
Reading the text reveals these tidbits, once you get past the headline….
That’s all very interesting—and nothing I don’t know. Here’s the thing, though. Degraded and improperly destroyed WMDs from 20 years ago don’t count as WMDs. And “potentially” missing equipment that could be nuclear but which also had civilian purposes don’t count either. Likewise unlikely-but-unable-to-rule-out transfers of WMD-realted materials to Syria. Those things are all interesting, worth looking into, potentially even dangerous (in the case of degraded weapons), but you know what they’re not? WMDs. And these things definitely, without equivocation, do not constitute a justification for invading another country.
I’d have infinitely more respect for you if your position was: yes there were no WMDs, but we had ample other reasons to invade” or something like that. This idiotic—yes, idiotic—insistence that degraded weapons and unlikely possibilities constitute a reason to wage a war is… preposterous.
we should have finished the job when I was there in ‘91
At least then we had a legitimate reason for taking up arms. I’d likely have supported it at that time. Although i’m given to wonder if the outcome years later would be any better than it is today.
Posted by scott on December 03, 2009 at 2111 hrs
I did listen to the Bush youtube bit. I have my opinion on it, which ‘is what it is’.
I do think, however, that, based on getting a radical lefty like Scott to admit chemical weapons (WMD) were found in Iraq in 03 and 04, that an honorable and honest man like GWB could be convinced that multiple accounts of chemical caches across Iraq are noteworthy.
Posted by Smeety on December 03, 2009 at 2117 hrs
I’d just like to know why Barack’s war is okey dokey, but President Bush is apparently a mass murderer and a thoughtless cad for inflicting democracy on a people who lived happily in the embrace of a maniac.
I presume by “Barack’s war” you mean Afghanistan. Why is it okay? I think my position on it is a little more nuanced than “okay.” Please see the last paragraph of comment 124 for details. And you must know this, also: my position on it is the same now as it was before Obama was president. I don’t demonize Bush for Afghanistan. I simply think that our initial mission there was clear, now it’s not, and there seem to be a dearth of outcomes that are both good and likely.
And as far as Iraq goes, my criticisms for Bush are a) it was a mistake to start it in the first ploace and you were commander-in-chief and the top advocate for invasion, and b) you and your crew did a terrible job there during the first year or so—precisely when doing things right might have made all the difference in the outcome. As far as what happened after that? Was I against “the surge,” for example? Was I for immediate withdrawal? I really didn’t have strong opinions on those things. I certainly didn’t demonize Bush about them.
Also, your description of our work in Iraq as “inflicting democracy” on people who previously lived under a dictator is technically correct, but highly misleading. Stating it like that—without any consideration for the cost of a six year war in that country—would lead one to believe the Iraqi people are terribly grateful for what we’ve done. Perhaps in a decade they will be—if they’re still in a democracy. But today? I rather doubt it. I’ve had this discussion a few times over the last couple of years. You guys are outraged that anyone suggest that the Iraqi people aren’t by and large better off today than they were, say, a year before the invasion.
If you gave each Iraqi citizen a yes or no vote as to whether we go back in time and invade or not invade, do you seriously believe that most of them would choose to invade? Really? I most definitely do not. Here’s hoping that a few prosperous and free years hence they see things differently. Even that’s optimistic, though.
Posted by scott on December 03, 2009 at 2124 hrs
This idiotic—yes, idiotic—insistence that degraded weapons and unlikely possibilities constitute a reason to wage a war is… preposterous.
For the record, I never wrote, or even suggested, that the chemical weapons that wounded two Polish soldiers, or the ricin found in the Islamist extremist terrorist camp in Iraq, or the 1500 gallons of chemicals in Baghdad, or the SCUD components in violation of UN Resolutions XXX, YYY, & ZZZ, or the chemical weapons photographed in Fallujah, or the chemicals found in Mosul, or the SCUD fuel, for that matter, constituted invading Iraq. I merely brought forth the facts that small batches of chemical cashes (WMD) were found all over Iraq.
The justification or not of the invasion is an entirely different argument altogether.
Posted by Smeety on December 03, 2009 at 2124 hrs
Here’s the part of that statement I find problematic: “(WMD)”
You see “WMD” is what we were told justified starting the war. “WMD” is what we were assured they had. “WMD” is what we were all frightened off.
You can’t come back later and redefine what “WMD” is to suit the situation you find. The things you talk about are not the “WMD” we were told about. Those things didn’t exist.
Posted by scott on December 03, 2009 at 2127 hrs
Scott,
I am very interested in hearing your opinion on Iran. I realize Barack hasn’t told you yet what position to take, so this may be extra challenging…
Posted by Smeety on December 03, 2009 at 2127 hrs
You’re right about one thing: I don’t really have a strong opinion on what to do about Iran. The only thing I do know for double damned sure is that people like yourself (and Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld and Thomas Friedman and the rest of the neocons) absolutely cannot be trusted to offer a levelheaded assessment of the facts.
Posted by scott on December 03, 2009 at 2130 hrs
Scott,
I understand and acknowledge your point, ie. that we were supposed to go in and find tons of SCUDS with chemical warhead tips. I don’t deny that in any way, shape or form. Honestly it boggles my mind that Saddam was seriously so unprepared as to find him in a fucking hole in the ground, scared out of his mind.
With that said, there were supposed to be no chemical weapons in Iraq, period. Not a little bit. None. Had Saddam let the inspectors do their job he’d still be there, but he had A LOT to hide.
I could go on about theories on where the missing weapons and all that are, but it’s just speculation…
Posted by Smeety on December 03, 2009 at 2134 hrs
With that said, there were supposed to be no chemical weapons in Iraq, period. Not a little bit. None.
Perhaps that’s true. But again, what was found does not constitute “WMDs.” He didn’t have “little” WMDs, or “scattered” WMDs or “hidden” WMDs. He had NO WMDs. Remnants—no matter what UN inspectors might have said about them—are not WMDs.
But I think finally we’re in agreement on that point.
As far as “missing” WMDs and where they might be, I think the most likely scenario is that they weren’t there to begin with. This is clearly the opinion of David Kay, Hans Blix and the report of the ISG. In other words, everyone who really knows what they’re talking about.
Posted by scott on December 03, 2009 at 2139 hrs
@ Scott: Nuanced? You support a war and a president, both of which have no realistic end game. Hardly nuanced. Barack used Afghanistan as a stump speech in order to manufacture the foreign gravitas he desperately needed during the campaign. Now that he won, he still lacks that gravitas, but he has that whopper he told, still to contend with. It’s the right war and Iraq is the wrong war. Politi-babbel to say the least. Barack has no clue what he wants to do in Afghanistan, but he needs to do something to maintain credibility… especially after that pesky general went public with his request for troops and his revelation that the war has been going badly of late. Barack dithers onward though. He sends some troops to save face, but not as many as the general wants so that he can subdue the peaceniks a bit. All the while he places these brave soldiers in harms way, he has no real plan for victory… and in fact he claimed not long ago that victory was not something he sought in Afghanistan. Talk about throwing away lives. If he had a conscience, the man would never sleep another wink. And this is the war that you support.
Is your belief that somehow the Iraqi people would prefer Saddam really based on nothing more than your own wish that it be true… or do you have some inside insight into the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people? Doubtful.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 2239 hrs
““You’re right about one thing: I don’t really have a strong opinion on what to do about Iran.”“
Again, your opinions are very similar to those of your president. Certainly he has no strong opinions about what to do with Iran, nor does he have the international weight to accomplish anything even if he did make some decision about it. Likely he will dither while Iran produces nuclear warheads for the ballistic missiles they now posses. Barack will be stricken by the ever increasing casualties in his new war. Once Iran is a nuclear power, everything in that region will change drastically. I wonder what defense you will use to shield your president from blame when that day comes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 2247 hrs
Nuanced? You support a war and a president
Yes, nuanced. It’s a glib misrepresentation to simply say I “support the war” and the president’s policy.
Barack used Afghanistan as a stump speech in order to manufacture the foreign gravitas he desperately needed during the campaign.
I really don’t remember it that way at all. What constituency was he after with that, do you think? My recollection is that he was against Iraq, thought we should have invaded, thought we should extricate ourselves (why haven’t we, I’d like to know!), but that he thought Afghanistan was “forgotten” and should be remembered. I don’t think he was using it to prop up his foreign policy/military leader chops at all.
but he has that whopper he told, still to contend with.
To what are you referring?
Barack has no clue what he wants to do in Afghanistan
I’m inclined to agree, but I’d put it that he doesn’t know how to achieve it—and I don’t think anyone else is very sure about it either. The fact is, our original objective is no longer on the table there, and we’re left holding the bag in a country without a national government, without any unity. And we don’t want to leave it in a shambles because, after all, the Taliban did at one time harbor al Qaeda. There’s no reason why they could not do so again. To say nothing of what it might mean to the Pakistanis and the Iranians.
Barack dithers
People who keep saying this are just being partisan nit pickers. You’re getting no traction with me. Dick Cheny’s the last person on earth from whom I’d take foreign policy advice from right now.
He sends some troops to save face, but not as many as the general wants so that he can subdue the peaceniks a bit.
I think he sent the troops because his military commanders say they can move things forward with them. I don’t know why he decided to send 30,000 instead of 40,000—did he say in his speech? But I heard he was going to make up the difference with extra NATO forces. I’m fine with others shouldering some of the burden. I absolutey do NOT think he gained any points with the peacenick crowd. Please don’t kid yourself. Their opinion works like this: good is getting out now, grumble-worth is status quo, and sending any more troops is the worst option of all. I don’t share that view, but let’s be honest. He didn’t short anyone 10,000 troops to appease them. If he did he’s way dumber than he looks.
Let me concede something: I just looked for poll information about Iraqis. Do they think the toppling of Hussein was worth it? Apparently a majority of them do. This was 2007 data that I just saw. I should do some more reading on that, but it looks like I was wrong about that point.
But that doesn’t mean I think it was worth it. I don’t.
Posted by scott on December 03, 2009 at 2258 hrs
#146
Smeety,
So Pat,
Your contempt aside,
What should the U.S. do over the next eighteen months about Iran?Nothing!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 2310 hrs
I refer to my answer in 53.
Posted by scott on December 03, 2009 at 2311 hrs
““I don’t think he was using it to prop up his foreign policy/military leader chops at all”“
Well, he could hardly use his foreign policy position on Iraq as a selling point. He was among those who claimed the surge would fail… and now he is using half a surge himself. If so many lives were not at risk, the irony would be delightful.
Barack does dither, on almost every salient issue. I could care less if it has any traction with a loyal partisan like yourself. It is having serious effects on both our economy and on the increasingly unstable international situations around the globe. Apparently, the buck no longer stops in the office of PBO.
As far as NATO goes, it seems that none of our allies is interested in helping out. They do not want their soldiers sent into a pointless meat grinder, and I give them great credit for making that hard stand against their wavering American ally. It’s not NATO’s war. It is Barack’s war, but it should not be a war at all. There is no historical foundation upon which to build a nation. We need only continue to interdict the Taliban and maintain close surveillance in order to avoid new terror camps being set up. Pakistan is the real terror haven now, and that is just another place that PBO’s policies have been lax and ineffective. I suppose I can’t blame the guy. He walked into a job that he was woefully unprepared for and his OJT has not been going well.
I am rather astounded that you would admit that you were in error, even slightly. I suppose there is a first time for everything though. I usually look that stuff up before I form an opinion on some matter, but I can’t fault you. I’ve heard that same stuff from such liberal giants as Maddow, Schultz and Olbermouth, so I can see why you’d think it was true.
I, for one, am glad that our Congress was wise enough to authorized an attack on the Saddam regime. It brought peace and hope to millions while punishing Saddam for ignoring international demands and inspections and for seeking to create a nuclear arsenal again. I don’t blame those members of Congress one bit. President Bush was in changing tactics during the occupation and reconstruction, but in his defense, nothing like this had been tried since 1945, and the tactics used then would not have been palatable to a weak kneed liberal establishment.
If another dangerous madman springs up and seeks to create WMD’s, I hope that the President who takes over after Barack will have the wherewithal to do the right thing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 2335 hrs
Barack has no clue what he wants to do in Afghanistan
I’m inclined to agree, but I’d put it that he doesn’t know how to achieve it—and I don’t think anyone else is very sure about it either.
Here is part of the problem, without a clearly defined goal, how will ANYONE know how to achieve it? So, how can you be inclined to agree with the first, but want to rephrase it as the second?
Newlywed bride to her Maid of honor in West Bernd: My husband doesn’t know whether to take me to Hayward or Hawaii for our honeymoon….Maid of honor: I tend to agree, but I would put it as he doesn’t know if he wants to drive or fly.
scott;In regards to WMDs, you keep pointing out what the ISG found AFTER the invasion, and keep stating that there were no WMDs found at that time. I agree with you, they didn’t find anything AT THAT TIME. What they did find was indications that Saddam could have had, and if he didn’t have, could easily have produced, WMDs prior to the invasion. Since that is when the decision to go in was made, it doesn’t matter what was or was not found after the fact. Unfortunately, there is no way to prove a negative, but if there had been no traces of anything, no residuals, no deteriorated, no delivery systems, you would have an argument that it was more than likely that there was nothing beforehand. With the existence of all of the above, and production facilities, and a history of using WMDs, and the suspicious behavior in re the inspection teams, it is much more of a stretch to say that it is likely that he didn’t have them, much less to declare unequivocally that there were NONE. Mesh that application of Occam’s Razor, with the fact that there were other justifications/reasons/premises to invade; and you have, even after the fact, a hard-sell in saying that it was the wrong decision is , especially given that the majority of Iraqis do in fact think they are better off now than they would have been otherwise.
Other than the expenditure of cash, what is the cost of fostering democracy in Iraq? The numbers of American lives lost, both in the war and from other causes, including the suicides of active duty and veterans, is about what it would have been from peacetime causes of death historically. I do not know how the loss of Iraqi lives compares to what may have been lost under Saddam, but I will venture a guess it is not a higher figure than he would have inflicted on his own people.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 2340 hrs
he could hardly use his foreign policy position on Iraq as a selling point.
I think his position on Iraq was a selling point. It was a mistake, but we’re going to be smart about how we get out. This is not only the truth, but it’s what the American people were ready to hear.
So, how can you be inclined to agree with the first, but want to rephrase it as the second?
Just awkward phrasing on my part. I don’t really agree that he doesn’t know what he wants. we all know what we want. I could easily make a list that everyone would agree with. A stable Afghan government that is friendly to our interests. A democratic Afghan government. A unified and stable country. There, that wasn’t so hard. But the issue is I don’t think anyone has a clear and sure way to achieve those things. People have guesses. People have “the best hope for achieving it is” kind of strategies. But no one has a sure-fire method up his or her sleeve. Including the president.
What they did find was indications that Saddam could have had, and if he didn’t have, could easily have produced
Again, you’re overstating things and losing the main point: No weapons of mass destruction were found. And no credible person thinks it likely that they were there but we just didn’t find them. Your logic about what remnants from decades ago mean is pretty thin. The ISG didn’t say ‘we didn’t find WMDs but we think there’s a good chance he may have had them anyway.” In fact what said was it was unlikely that they were there to begin with. So in spite of your remarks above, the WMD rationale for invading turned out to be wrong. Totally wrong. Go ahead and advocate for other rationales; fine by me. But not that one. it’s dead and gone. Leave it in peace already.
Iraq has cost us, what, $700 billion to date? With expenses continuing for a while yet. I don’t think that’s dismissable. And I don’t care what your statistics show (in fact I am seeing quite a bit of contention about them on the web). I actually give a shit that American soldiers were sent there and died. I don’t think anyone should wave that off, either. And of course there’s the cost in international relations.
I do not know how the loss of Iraqi lives compares to what may have been lost under Saddam, but I will venture a guess it is not a higher figure than he would have inflicted on his own people.
I sincerely doubt that.
Posted by scott on December 04, 2009 at 0007 hrs
I actually give a shit that American soldiers were sent there and died. I don’t think anyone should wave that off, either.
I certainly hope this is not to intimate that I do not give a shit, or that I am waving it off. The argument I made, and the numbers DO bear it out, is that the number of deaths of US service members is about equal to or slightly less for the period 2002 to the present than they would have been expected to be based on historical data.
The ISG ~did~ state, repeatedly, that the regime did maintain the capability to quickly restart both its chemical- and biological-weapons programs upon the lifting of sanctions.
I asked this question once before on this site, I believe. If a convicted murderer, who is known by you to be a convicted murderer, has his hand in his pocket and says he has a loaded gun and is ready and willing to use it, are you justified in eliminating him as a threat to you or your neighbors? If it is a hostage situation, and he has already killed a number of the hostages, are you justified in taking action if it means there may be loss of innocent life as a direct result of our action?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 0159 hrs
Elovrich,
“As an aside, you keep mentioning the loss of life of US soldiers as a reason to have not gone into Iraq. If you look at the numbers, both absolute and as a percentage of service members, the annual loss of life service-wide from 2002 to present is statistically the same or slightly less than the 2 decades preceding the invasion. So as tragic as the loss of a single life is, there were more deaths than would likely have occurred from other causes if we hadn’t invaded.”This is like saying that statistically there are xxx number of deaths in West Bend annually, so it would be acceptable for the same, or a slightly less, number of people to be murdered.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 0703 hrs
No FBP, murder is not a generally accepted condition of living is West Bend, the proper analogy would be to say, “XX number of people die each year in West Bend from all causes. If there were an increase in the number who die while crossing the street, but not an increase of over-all deaths, would it be an argument to tear up the roads?”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 0814 hrs
#166
Elovrich,Your analogy doesn’t make any sense at all.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 0836 hrs
It was a mistake, but we’re going to be smart about how we get out.
We’ll still be in Iraq when Barack leaves office, just like Gitmo won’t be closed when Barack runs for re-election.
Getting rid of Saddam was the best move that could have taken place, given the coming war with Iran. Hardly a mistake.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 0848 hrs
Smeety,
Seeing as you don’t have a job, why don’t you could sign up for the military?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 0853 hrs
Don’t have a job? I am a Project Engineer at a local manufacturer.
And I spent ten years in the Army. When I left I was a platoon sergeant in an infantry unit.
Thanks for asking.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 0900 hrs
You told me about a month ago that you lost your job because of the economy and were one of the unemployeed?????? Well, I’m glad your working again.
But you really should think about re-enlisting. Sounds like the military could use a good experienced solder like you to march into Iran.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 0908 hrs
FBP;
You clearly are not understanding what I am saying. Your analogy about murder in WB would only hold if ALL deaths in WB were from murders.
What I said the data show, is that the total number of deaths of US service members, per year, from 2002 to present, is equal to, or slightly less than, they would have been if compared to historical numbers over the 2 decades prior to 2002. This means there are fewer people being killed in training exercises, from disease, car accidents.
Yes, it is a shame that ANYONE dies when in the service, but it happens. If you were to ask a soldier if they had to choose between dying in a war zone, or dying from getting crushed by a Humvee in the motorpool in garrison, I can almost guarantee what the answer will be.
Do people die in wars? Yes. Is it a shame that it happens? Yes. Do service members know it is a possibility when they enlist? You betcha.
I am not downplaying the number of deaths in Iraq over the last 7 years. What I am illuminateing is that the same number of people would likley have died, no matter the cause. This is categorically true for service members, and while the numbers are less clear, because of incomplete records, they trend to showing that there are fewer deaths per year, especially among children, in Iraq.
Is that clearer?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 0915 hrs
But 5000 servicemen would not have died as a direct result from being put in harms way because of lies and deception.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 0921 hrs
Elo,
You are wasting your time with Bush-hating Pat.
Sometimes the number of deaths resulting from inaction
are greater than deaths resulting from action. Sometimes
one even needs to use projections in order to make ‘grave’
decisions. This is what leaders do.
This is an ability of which Pat lacks understanding.
And with regard to the defense of Obama’s dithering. For
the record, I have voiced no criticism. I would like, however,
to point out that the numerous times Bush received criticism
for ‘mismanaging’ the first portion of the Iraq occupation.
This is equally partisan and more than a little ignorant..
Every war ever fought had some
degree of mismanagement. Wars are very tough to manage.
150,000 ground troops and equipment to coordinate. With my military
experience, sometimes just moving a company of 200 men
required extra effort.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 0933 hrs
Smeety,
Is it ok for our political leaders to lie to the American public and it’s representatives?
Oh, and I mentioned before, I don’t hate Bush.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 0940 hrs
Actually, 5000 service members would not have died in a legally prosecuted war effort, voted on and approved by the Congress of the United States, in support and enforcement of UN resolutions that had been repeatedly flaunted and violated.
Do you have proof that there were NO WMD in Iraq between 1996 and 2001?
If you have that proof now, in late 2009, was that information available at the time the decision was made?
If it was available, was it known by President Bush?
If the answer to any of these questions is ‘no’, then please support your charge that the war was based on lies and deception. As this implies a willful, premeditated plan.
We were dealing with a despotic tyrannt who had a history of using WMDs against his own people, saying that he had these same WMD and would use them againt us and/or our allies. If any one was lying and deceiving, and there were no WMDs in Iraq between 1996 and 2001, then it was Saddam Hussein.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 0947 hrs
“If you have that proof now, in late 2009, was that information available at the time the decision was made?
If it was available, was it known by President Bush?”
YES
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 0954 hrs
FBP @ 177
Please provide the proof that it was known, prior to the invasion of Iraqq, that there were no WMD in that country.
Also, please provide the proof that this information was available to, and known by, President Bush.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1000 hrs
and the numbers DO bear it out
And others say they don’t. let’s not trade links and argue about who is more trustworthy and which statistical methods are more reliable. I’m willing to let it go at that—just to say there’s doubt about your claim.
The ISG ~did~ state, repeatedly
Really? Show me.
</i>
And if you’re frisking a man wanted for murder and just before you check his last pocket your parntner shoots him dead, is that pretty okay?
Of course such analogies—yours and mine—are bullshit. My point is simply that knowing what we know now, everyone should be able to agree that invading was a mistake.
<i>there are fewer deaths per year, especially among children, in Iraq.
I doubt that, too.
I would like, however,
to point out that the numerous times Bush received criticism
for ‘mismanaging’ the first portion of the Iraq occupation.
This is equally partisan and more than a little ignorantI wish to be fair-minded about this, but I just can’t agree. Bush et al were listening to neocons who had been prepping for this war for a decade. These idiots said we’d be greeted as liberators, that the oil revenue would pay for all reconstruction—and they were deluded fools. Wrong, wrong, wrong. And there was NO plan for what happened after defeating the Iraqi military. This is the fault of president Bush and his advisors and his generals. He was the commander in chief. The buck stops there.
Posted by scott on December 04, 2009 at 1006 hrs
Please provide the proof that it was known, prior to the invasion of Iraqq, that there were no WMD in that country.
Also, please provide the proof that this information was available to, and known by, President Bush.
Just for the record, I want to say that, although I have my suspicions and misgivings, I am not willing to go to the mat on this kind of charge. It’s enough for me to say unequivocally that, knowing what we know now, invading was a mistake.
Posted by scott on December 04, 2009 at 1010 hrs
#178
ELO,You stated in 176, “Actually, 5000 service members would not have died in a legally prosecuted war effort, voted on and approved by the Congress of the United States, in support and enforcement of UN resolutions that had been repeatedly flaunted and violated.
Do you have proof that there were NO WMD in Iraq between 1996 and 2001?
If you have that proof now, in late 2009, was that information available at the time the decision was made?
If it was available, was it known by President Bush?
If the answer to any of these questions is ‘no’, then please support your charge that the war was based on lies and deception. As this implies a willful, premeditated plan.
“My answer was yes, not no.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1018 hrs
I do not believe lying by a leader is appropriate.
However, the ‘Bush lied’ crowd is basically the ‘birthers’ of the radical left…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1019 hrs
However, the ‘Bush lied’ crowd is basically the ‘birthers’ of the radical left…
Wrong. The Birthers are people who don’t understand plain facts. The “Bush lied” camp are people who doubt a man’s integrity and intentions.
Posted by scott on December 04, 2009 at 1021 hrs
The Birthers are people who don’t understand plain facts. The “Bush lied” camp are people who doubt a man’s integrity and intentions.
Tomatoe, tomato
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1024 hrs
Matter of opinion and matter of plain fact.
Posted by scott on December 04, 2009 at 1026 hrs
It’s the fringe element’s opinion. Not the Katie C. and
Charlie Gibson’s of the world, it’ the Keith Olbermans and Huffingtons…This fringe element, the ‘Bush Lied’ crowd is basically the radical left’s ‘birthers’ contingent…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1032 hrs
Yeah, sure, whatever. I’m just pointing out Obama’s citizenship is a matter of plain fact, whereas Bush’s honesty about going to war in Iraq is murkier and comes down to things we cannot know for sure.
Posted by scott on December 04, 2009 at 1034 hrs
scott:
And knowing what I know now, marrying my first wife was a mistake. And knowing what we know now, most people say that Coach Belicek should not have gone for it on fouth and two. But that does not mean that either was the wrong decision AT THE TIME.
And for all the charges of lies and deception, someone had better be willing to go to the mat for those charges, or it is nothing other than partisan blathering.
The numbers of deaths for US service members are not open to interpretation, as the records that are kept are very accurate. Yes, the ones for deaths of civilians in Iraq require reliance on differing sources, and I grant that you and I seldom agree on what constitutes a reliable source/ Call the comparison of actual deaths against what might have been for Iraqi civilians a wash, as no one can say with any degree of certainty. The facts, whether you believe them or not, is that deaths of US service members are level or down slightly both as absulute numbers and percentage of those enlisted. The figures are available here
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
specifically, Table 4 on page 7.
The ISG ~did~ state, repeatedly
Really? Show me
In the years following Iraq’s war with Iran and invasion of Kuwait, Saddam’s Regime sought to preserve the ability to reconstitute his WMD, while seeking sanctions relief through the appearance of cooperation with the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the UN Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC). Saddam’s initial approach under sanctions was driven by his perceived requirements for WMD and his confidence in Iraq’s ability to ride out inspections without fully cooperating. Interwoven into this basic fabric of Iraq’s interaction with the UN were equally significant domestic, international, and family events, all influenced by and reflective of Saddam’s strategic intent. These events can be divided into five phases that cover the entire period 1980 to 2003.
Many former Iraqi officials close to Saddam either heard him say or inferred that he intended to resume WMD programs when sanctions were lifted. Those around him at the time do not believe that hemade a decision to permanently abandon WMD programs
Baghdad reluctantly submitted to inspections, declaring only part of its ballistic missile and chemical warfare programs to the UN, but not its nuclear weapon and biological warfare programs, which it attempted to hide from inspectors
Iraq attempted to balance competing desires to appear to cooperate with the UN and have sanctions lifted, and to preserve the ability to eventually reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction.
The Regime made a token effort to comply with the disarmament process, but the Iraqis never intended to meet the spirit of the UNSC’s resolutions.
The abortive efforts to outwardly comply with the UN inspection process from 1995 onward slowly shifted to increased efforts to minimize the impact of the inspection process on Regime security, military, and industrial and research capabilities.
Whew, all those quotes from the Regime strategic Intent protion of the final ISG report.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1052 hrs
FBP;
I worded my challenge in 176 poorly, but I assume, you are intelligent enough to know my intent.
1) Do you have proof that information known now, in late 2009, was available at the time the decision was made to invade Iraq?
2) If this information was available, do you have proof that it was known to President Bush?
Please share your proof with the rest of the class.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1100 hrs
But that does not mean that either was the wrong decision AT THE TIME.
I didn’t say it was.
Posted by scott on December 04, 2009 at 1101 hrs
1) Do you have proof that information known now, in late 2009, was available at the time the decision was made to invade Iraq?
2) If this information was available, do you have proof that it was known to President Bush?
Yes. It’s been previously given. So I’m not going to go over it again. But if you would like you can read the book, “The Prosecution of George Bush for Murder”. It lays it all out in detail with references to everything your heart desires
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1115 hrs
FBP @ 191
Perhaps I missed where you gave those proofs, can you tell me which post it was in?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1131 hrs
No.
I can’t recall as to the topics or the days. It’s all been done in the past.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1133 hrs
So, you can’t or won’t support your argument in the current discussion, that President Bush knew that there were no WMD in Iraq prior to going before Congress to ask for permission to invade Iraq in support of UN resolutions.
Then I guess we can disregard your unsubstantiated opinion that he is a liar, and that 5000 US service members have died as a direct result of deceipt.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1138 hrs
ELO,
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB254/index.htm
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1149 hrs
And then there’s the Downing Street Memos
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ecePosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1205 hrs
Mmmm. National Security Archive. That sounds very official and honest, and bi-partisan. Official looking website too.
Unfortunately, it is actually a very left slanted group that receives funding from the uber lefty man-behind-the-curtain himself, George Soros. It’s one of those mouth piece groups that give credence to the old adage “Figures lie and liars figure”.
I like to read sitting upright in a chair, so when I see material so heavily slanted to one side, it makes me a bit dizzy and nauseous. Got anything real?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1206 hrs
Here’s the trailer for the movie, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68_3rjp0Rkw
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1211 hrs
Read the memo. Of course, it does not appear to be a memo at all, just a story by an ex-aide done more than three years after the fact. If there was a real memo to see, that might have more cred.
On the other hand, I see no real evidence of anything in that passage. Seems to be what we already know to be publicly true. Perhaps you could direct me to exactly where Waldo is hidden. I can’t seem to find him.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1217 hrs
If any of this were conclusively provable the man would have been impeached if not criminally tried. That does’t make it untrue, though. Many people suspect that it is. I suspect that it is.
Posted by scott on December 04, 2009 at 1220 hrs
I would have expected no less from you Scott. You are nothing if not predictable.
No proof, but yet you believe it’s true, so that’s good enough. Here’s to hoping that you don’t that attitude to jury duty.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1225 hrs
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8709.htm
I can’t understand why he wasn’t impeached. The mainstream media fell down on their job. The thing is, you can’t try a sitting President for a crime.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1230 hrs
Lol. FBP, you slay me. Media fell down on the job. They spent eight long years in the lame stream media hunting for President Bush. All they managed to gin up in that time was convicting poor Scooter Libby of telling the special prosecutor that he wanted to change his testimony after he found out that he omitted something…something that was totally irrelevant in any case. That was it, but not for lack of trying.
No impeachments, no frog marches, and no stained blue dress. That’s because there was nothing to find. Now, I’m sure that the complete lack of evidence will convince some partisans. I mean, total lack of evidence PROVES that there was a conspiracy, doesn’t it?
Fell down on the job… heh heh. You should try stand-up comedy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1244 hrs
So it’s the media’s job to gather information for impeachment and present it to the House. I think I missed that day in class in US History.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1244 hrs
If any of this were conclusively provable the man would have been impeached if not criminally tried. That does’t make it untrue, though. Many people suspect that it is. I suspect that it is.
You, Bush-hater Pat, Keith Olberman, and the rest of the left wing contingent of birthers…
Good weekend, gents. I’m off to celebrate my anniversary with my wife in Galena….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1324 hrs
Happy Anniversary Smeety!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1356 hrs
You, Bush-hater Pat, Keith Olberman, and the rest of the left wing contingent of birthers
Recognizing that you can’t prove something but suspect it’s so anyway doesn’t make you crazy. Believing something that is clearly proven to be wrong does. And while it’s true that only 10% of Americans believe the Bush administration was saying things it knew to be false, 52% believe it was “stretching the truth,” whatever that means. So I guess it’s more than me an Olbermann.
They spent eight long years in the lame stream media hunting for President Bush.
On the contrary, the media was totally in his pocket between 9/11 and around 2005. And in fact, he got a lot of free passes in the 2000 campaign, too. Just told outright lies and nobody seemed to notice.
Posted by scott on December 04, 2009 at 1454 hrs
while it’s true that only 10% of Americans believe the Bush administration was saying things it knew to be false, 52% believe it was “stretching the truth,”
scott:
Are you in the 10% or the 52%?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1504 hrs
I’m not sure I understand the difference very clearly, to be honest. For example, I think the Bush administration was saying things it knew to be false, but that it’s main claim—that Iraq had WMDs—it believed to be true. They certainly expected to be vindicated on that one once we invaded.
Posted by scott on December 04, 2009 at 1523 hrs
@ Scott ““the media was totally in his pocket between 9/11 and around 2005”“
Oh, now I know you are just baiting me. No one could honestly believe something like that. President Bush was crowned “King George” before he ever set foot in the Oval office. The press was on him like bees on a bear. It started with the Democrat Party induced October surprise DUI story in 2000 and it continued to allegations that he stole the election (you folks all still believe that too, right) and that his father’s judges appointed him. Vicious dogs and police at the polls to suppress frightened voters. Remember that? There was the June 2000 “Bush dabbled in drugs” story on his unsubstantiated cocaine use (but drugs are ok for the current guy… cause he’s so cool). Want me to set the “wayback machine” for 2001 and continue to refresh your memory, Mr Feldstein? Or do you recall some few negative articles now? It’s a nice tactic to forget that the Democrat party and it’s complicit lame stream media jumped on President Bush way before day one, but it won’t work here. Claiming he was supported by that ilk just doesn’t hold water.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1550 hrs
Whatev, dude.
Posted by scott on December 04, 2009 at 1558 hrs
scott:
So you disagree with FBP on the fact that President Bush lied to the citizens of the US about WMD in Iraq. Wasn’t sure, since you didn’t say anything against his assertions, I thought that meant you supported them. Glad we have that cleared up. So, given the facts as they were known or believed at the time the decision was made, would you agree or disagree that it was a reasonable decision to invade Iraq?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1602 hrs
Interesting article
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20021125/altermanBen Bradlee explains, “Even the very best newspapers have never learned how to handle public figures who lie with a straight face. No editor would dare print this version of Nixon’s first comments on Watergate for instance. ‘The Watergate break-in involved matters of national security, President Nixon told a national TV audience last night, and for that reason he would be unable to comment on the bizarre burglary. That is a lie.’”
Part of the reason is deference to the office and the belief that the American public will not accept a mere reporter calling the President a liar. Part of the reason is the culture of Washington—where it is somehow worse to call a person a liar in public than to be one. A final reason is political. Some reporters are just political activists with columns who prefer useful lies to the truth. For instance, Robert Novak once told me that he “admired” Elliott Abrams for lying to him in a television interview about illegal US acts of war against Nicaragua because he agreed with the cause.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1611 hrs
since you didn’t say anything against his assertions, I thought that meant you supported them.
Actually, in comment 180 I said: “Just for the record, I want to say that, although I have my suspicions and misgivings, I am not willing to go to the mat on this kind of charge.”
Glad we have that cleared up.
Posted by scott on December 04, 2009 at 1612 hrs
Pat, the one that got under my skin at the time was “by far, the vast majority of my tax cuts go to those at the bottom.” He said it more than once. And no matter how you look at it, it’s false. The media basically responded by ...stenographically telling everyone what he said. Nobody ever ventured to tell us whether or not it was true—and it was easily demonstrated to be false.
Posted by scott on December 04, 2009 at 1615 hrs
You really aren’t very good at economics, are you Scott. Perhaps you are, but you are so wrapped up in your politics that you don’t want to offer anything positive to the other side.
The tax cuts were spread across the board. While those who paid more, got more… it also took many lower income people off the tax rolls altogether. Let’s also remember that when taxes go down, economic activity goes up. That means more consumer spending and more jobs…. which means more economic opportunity for people who are struggling at the bottom of the economic ladder. Now is where you say “Thats trickle down and it doesn’t work”. Of course, it logically does work, and has worked in many economies. Perhaps you think that the rich simply took the tax cut and hid the money in a mattress? Rich people don’t do that. Upper income and upper middle class people don’t do that either. Most people are consumers and when they get some money and prices go down, they spend. That works well for everyone… well, at least everyone that does not rely on a permanently poor underclass to keep them in office.
Am I to suppose that “whatev” is your way of saying that you know you can’t back up what you said about media support but you don’t really want to go into it? Ok, I can understand that. It wouldn’t be pretty to revisit that era of nastiness anyway.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1634 hrs
Back to Afghanistan
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091214/scheer2
It is already a thirty-year war begun by one Democratic president, and thanks to the political opportunism of the current Commander-in-Chief the Afghanistan war is still without end or logical purpose. President Barack Obama’s own top national security adviser has stated that there are fewer than 100 Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan and that they are not capable of launching attacks. What superheroes they must be, then, to require 100,000 US troops to contain them.
The president handled that absurdity by conflating Al Qaeda, which he admitted is holed up in Pakistan, with the Taliban and denying the McChrystal report’s basic assumption that the enemy in Afghanistan is local in both origin and focus. Obama stated Tuesday in a speech announcing a major escalation of the war, “It’s important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place.” But he then cut off any serious consideration of that question with the bald assertion that “we did not ask for this fight.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 1712 hrs
What superheroes they must be, then, to require 100,000 US troops to contain them.
The logic works like this. The Taliban allowed al Qaeda to camp in their yard. The Taliban protected them. In order to a) get al Qaeda and b) take away their safe haven for operations, we went in and fought both groups.
Sadly, we didn’t get bin Laden—and we could have. And with him and the others gone, we’re left with the Taliban. Yes we toppled them to get to al Qaeda and no al Qaeda isn’t there anymore, but it’s still a legitimate fight, as we can’t just leave the Afghanis in a government-less chaotic vacuum we created. Besides, the Taliban were complicit in al Qaeda activities. Maybe that’s enough reason to see that they don’t seize unchecked control of the country.
I think the reality is that the feuding camps in Afghanistan are going to have to negotiate a power-sharing settlement. Yes, someone is going to have to bring the Taliban to the table and give them some of what they want. History has shown that guerilla fighting in one’s own country against a foreign power is usually resolved by negotiations such as these—not militarily.
If Obama manages to make this happen, it’ll be a great achievement. And it’ll be a huge political liability here at home: instead of “winning” he negotiated with the Evil Ones! (Even if it’s the Afghan government who negotiates with the Taliban).
At least the above is my current understanding of things.
Posted by scott on December 04, 2009 at 1725 hrs
You really believe that Obama is going to be able to go in and create some peaceful nation in Afghanistan. Wow. I’ll give you this, Scott… you’ll support your guy no matter what he does.
Afghanistan is not a power vacuum. It is a land that has never really had a central government. It’s people are loyal to tribal leaders and warlords, not to Kabul. Apparently you believe that Mr. Obama is going to earn that Norwegian honor he got by getting those warlords to share power for the first time in 2000 years. Not likely. The Afghan government is a sea of corruption, awash with opium money. We are just the next in a long line of foolhardy nations to send our forces into that meat grinder. The worst part of it is that we have told them that we do not plan to stay. They have only to wait us out.
The really odd thing is that BHO seems to be ignoring the Al-Queda activities in Somalia. They are growing more brazen there every day. They have long maintained a presence in that nation and they are flexing their muscle and testing the water. While we are stuck in Afghanistan, they appear to be moving to a new home.
I admire you for your ability to support someone so completely. I don’t think I would ever be able to place that kind of blind trust in a politician, especially B-HO.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 04, 2009 at 2204 hrs
I’m afraid you’re right. But I hope that we can at least be like the emergency room: stabilize the patient and send ‘em home. (GTFO)
TFG, I know you hate me. But please stop with the “wow, you support him no matter what he does” bullshit. It’s old.
Posted by scott on December 04, 2009 at 2226 hrs
Senate Intelligence Committee Unveils Final Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence
—Two Bipartisan Reports Detail Administration Misstatements on Prewar Iraq Intelligence, and Inappropriate Intelligence Activities by Pentagon Policy Office—
“Before taking the country to war, this Administration owed it to the American people to give them a 100 percent accurate picture of the threat we faced. Unfortunately, our Committee has concluded that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence,” Rockefeller said. “In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”
“It is my belief that the Bush Administration was fixated on Iraq, and used the 9/11 attacks by al Qa’ida as justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. To accomplish this, top Administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and al Qa’ida as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11. Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.
“There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate.”The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:
Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 1244 hrs
Press Release of Intelligence Committee
Bond: Phase II Report is Political Theatre
—Senator Criticizes Democrats for Using Committee
to Score Election-Year Points—U.S. Senator Kit Bond, Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, today admonished Democrats for playing politics with the final reports on prewar Iraq intelligence to score election-year points.
“It is ironic that the Democrats would knowingly distort and misrepresent the Committee’s findings and the intelligence in an effort to prove that the Administration distorted and mischaracterized the intelligence,” said Bond.
Today, the final sections of the Phase II report on prewar intelligence were released by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Bond pointed out that the partisan report not only violates the Committee’s nonpartisan principles but also rejects the conclusions unanimously reached in previous reports.
In July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Iraq report, adopted by a unanimous vote, makes clear that flawed intelligence – not Administration deception – was the basis for policy maker’s statements and decisions. The report released today completely ignores this key finding.
Bond also called attention to the Democrats’ hypocrisy in excluding any of their own statements in this final report. Democrats in the Senate examined the same intelligence as the Bush Administration, and they too characterized Iraq as a growing and dangerous threat to the United States. Bond pointed to the public record, which is replete with examples of statements by Democrat Senators making the same characterizations regarding Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction and links to terrorism.
Key problems with the report include:
* The minority was entirely cut out of the process and that the report was written solely by Democratic staffers – For example, Republican amendments, including those of the Vice Chairman, were not even given a vote;
* The Democratic staff who authored the report twisted policy makers’ statements and cherry picked intelligence in order to reach their misleading conclusions, often leaving out pertinent intelligence;
* The report does not review any statements of Democrats, only Republican administration officials;
* The Democratic staff did not seek to interview those whom they accuse;
* The Rome report violates the Democrats’ own criteria for the Phase II report and should have been excluded.
* Bond stressed that this type of partisan gamesmanship is beneath the Senate Intelligence Committee and takes away from the important national security issues the Committee should be focused on. Congress has failed to pass a terrorist surveillance bill, or intelligence authorization act, both of which are critical to improving the intelligence community. These failures are a result of injecting partisan politics into the Committee’s oversight responsibilities, emphasized Bond. With this final Phase II report now complete, Bond concluded that it is critical the Senate Intelligence attempts to move forward in a nonpartisan manner.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 1301 hrs
source for above post
http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298783
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 1302 hrs
But was the senate report inaccurate in it’s findings?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 1325 hrs
Nicely done elovrich. That summarizes the worst problem that we have with the war on terror and the Iraqi invasion. The whole situation was politicized by the opponents of President Bush in order to regain power. Most of these arguments have no real merit. They were created as political weapon in order to destroy a President, and any data that could be spun into a negative was used without regard to the real goals that we should have been pursuing.
Did President Bush make mistakes? Of course he did. Iraq was a unique situation and it was natural that problems would occur that were not predicted. Bush was a bit slow in changing tactics, but once he did, the situation in Iraq improved quickly. Our intelligence data was not what it should have been either, bothe pre-war and post-war. To blame Bush for the sorry state of affairs that CIA and NSA found themselves in is not really fair though. It takes many years to build an intelligence gathering apparatus, and ours had been degraded by years of neglect.
@Scott: No one hates you. For heavens sake. You can sure sling the hash when you want… often quite acerbically, but when people stand and fight back you decide that they hate you? You definitely drive me crazy with your argumentative style and your veiled way of minimizing and insulting, but that is just your how you like to go about things. They are words, not sticks and stones. No one hates you… well, at least I don’t. Why would I? I really don’t know much about you, but I generally assume you are a mostly decent and intelligent guy… aside from your politics. Not sure why you think it’s hate. Perhaps that’s how you feel about me and you assume it’s mutual… I really don’t know, and actually, I don’t care much. Leave your emotion at the door in the arena of words and you’ll be much happier. I would suspect it unlikely that you’ll ever be inviting me to a beer summit, so I think we can leave it at that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 1328 hrs
That summarizes the worst problem that we have with the war on terror and the Iraqi invasion. The whole situation was politicized by the opponents of President Bush in order to regain power.
Wait, that’s what you think the “worst problem” is with regard to the war on terror? It’s not that we invaded a country which posed no threat to us and alienated/angered half the globe? It’s not that we failed to get bin Laden when we had the chance in Afghanistan? It’s democrats?
No one hates you. For heavens sake.
Really. When I go back and look at the arguments we had on my own blog I can only see one thing: You seized every opportunity to disparage me personally that you could possibly find. I had casual readers email me and warn me that you might be crazy enough to show up in person and threaten me—not that I believed that. But it was obviously not just me who thought you were way over the top in your making everything personal. You insulted me baselessly, you insulted my place of employment, you took every opportunity, no matter how unfounded, to tear me down in a personal way. Christ, you even said that I hold my own students—ROTC members—in contempt. Completely without any basis in fact.
Right up until the point when you discovered that I used to work with your wife. Funny. Then you disappeared.
I guess that’s all just politics, right? Just a friendly disagreement.
Posted by scott on December 05, 2009 at 1342 hrs
“I want to know how all this could have happened. There were 50 or so of us, presumably the most experienced and smartest people we could get, to plan such an operation. Most of us thought it would work. I know there are some men now saying they were opposed from the start. I wasn’t aware of any great opposition. Even Bill Fulbright [Senator, who later claimed to have heatedly protested the invasion plans] was not so outspoken as he claimed. After the last briefing which he attended, he took me aside and told me he could see there was a lot more to this plan than he had realized. But five minutes after it began to fall in, we all looked at each other and asked, ‘How could we have been so stupid?’ When we saw the wide range of the failures we asked ourselves why it had not been apparent to somebody from the start. I guess you get walled off from reality when you want something to succeed too much. “
That was what John Kennedy had to say about the Bay of Pigs invasion. Dwight Eisenhower’s administration planned the invasion, which was handled by the CIA. There was bad intelligence on that too. Although his staff was leaking information to the press blaming everyone but the administration. Kennedy was man enough to take the blame because he knew that the intelligence community worked directly for the President and he is accountable.
Bush, on the other hand, blamed everyone else except himself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 1356 hrs
ELO,
Is the Senate report inaccurate in it’s findings?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 1359 hrs
Beuller
Beuller
BeullerPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 1406 hrs
TFG
“The whole situation was politicized by the opponents of President Bush in order to regain power.”
Heaven for bid…........... I’m sure it isn’t happening now in 2009. The Republican Party would never think about politicizing a situation in order to regain power.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 1415 hrs
ELO,
So, you can’t or won’t support your argument in the current discussion about the accuracy of the finding in the Senate report.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 1420 hrs
It is ironic that the Democrats would knowingly distort and misrepresent the Committee’s findings and the intelligence in an effort to prove that the Administration distorted and mischaracterized the intelligence,” said Bond.
the final sections of the Phase II report on prewar intelligence were released by the Senate Intelligence Committee. Bond pointed out that the partisan report not only violates the Committee’s nonpartisan principles but also rejects the conclusions unanimously reached in previous reports.
Democrats in the Senate examined the same intelligence as the Bush Administration, and they too characterized Iraq as a growing and dangerous threat to the United States.
It is amazing how the Phase II report puts SOLE responsibility on the President and Vice-President. So I guess I would characterize the report as replete with half-truths and one-sided criticism. I would say it is inaccurate in its findings, as it omitted key prior agreements among the committee members and and did not present a (dare I say it) fair and balanced picture
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 1441 hrs
ELO,
What in the report is not accurate?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 1512 hrs
FBP:
The link you provided was a press release from Sen Rockefeller. I was working on the following post while you made your last post, I apologize for its length beforehand…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 1543 hrs
FBP:
Rather than relying on press releases from Rockefeller and Bond, let’s look at the actual, albeit, unclassified text from S. Report 110-345 “Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S Government Officials were Substantiated by Intelligence Information” June 5, 2008
Section II. Nuclear Weapons
...In April 2001, the CIA noted that Iraq’s attempts to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other dual-use equipment suggested that a reconstitution effort might be underway…. In August 2002 the CIA published a paper on Iraqi WMD capabilities(Iraq: Expanding WMD Capabilities Pose Growing Threat), which concluded that these procurement activities indicated that the Iraqi government had restarted its weapons program.
...The DIA produced several similar assessments in 2002, noting in a May 2002 report “...we judge that continued procurement…ans Saddam’s interactions with the IAEC all indicate that Saddam has not abandoned the nuclear weapon program.”
...the DCI…stated that…”Iraq’s dimensional requirements for the tubes are far stricter than necessary for rocket casings.”
At the time of the President’s address to the General Assembly, the intelligence community had not changed its judgment…that Iraq could build a nuclear weapon within one year if it in some way acquired an amount of fissile material from a foreign source.
In the October 2002 NIE on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the intelligence community expressed the majority view…that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.
On September 8, 2002, the NSA said that the aluminum tubes sought by Iraq “are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs”. ...both the CIA and DIA had assessed that the aluminum tubes were intended for a nuclear weapons program (with the CIA noting that the tubes were “best suited” for centrifuges, and that other explanations were “inconsistent with the total body of intelligence”)....
On September 19, 2002, the SECDEF stated that Iraq possessed designs for at least two nuclear devices. He also stated that the Iraqi government was seeking fissile material from foreign sources.
...a September 2002 DIA report noted that “a sensitive source indicates that since inspectors left in 1998, Iraq has been trying to acquire highly enriched uranium.”
The NIE…assessed that if the Iraqi regime acquired sufficient fissile material from abroad, it could build a weapon in “several months to a year.”
Conclusions
Conclusion 1: Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor regarding the possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.
Next we will look at the biological weapons section…Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 1546 hrs
ELO
Here’s the Phase II Report that you said is not accurate. What is not accurate in it?
http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 1556 hrs
III.Biological Weapons
...The intelligence community produced a number of…reports on Iraq’s biological weapons program after the UN inspectors left Iraq in the 1990’s. One such report was the December 2000 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. The ICA noted that “our main judgment about what remains of Iraq’s original WMD programs, agent stockpiles, and delivery systems have changed little: Iraq retains stockpiles of chemical and biological agents and munitions.”
... Consistent with most contemporaneous intelligence reports, the ICA reported UN inspectors, and the intelligence community, did not believe that Iraq had destroyed its previous biological weapons and agent [sic]. It also assessed that Iraq had ‘taken steps to bolster” its biological weapons research and development program.
An August 10, 2001 CIA assessment, Developing Biological Weapons as a Strategic Deterrent, stated that “Iraq is attempting to address its regional security concerns by developing weapons of mass destruction and is focusing on biological warfare (BW) agents as a strategic deterrent” The agency assessed that “Iraq does not require outside assistance to produce BW….” The paper also said, “we assess Baghdad already has a thriving biological weapons program to augment any stockpiles it hid from weapons inspectors.”
An August 2002 DIA assessment, Iraq: Biological Warfare Program Handbook, judged that:
“Iraq is assed to have an active BW…program. ...in well-concealed. Underground, and mobile or difficult-to-locate facilities…. The Iraqi BW program is assessed to continue today despite Iraq’s claim to have destroyed its BW agents and weapons….The 2002 Iraq weapons of mass destruction NIE was issued shortly prior to the [President’s] Cincinnati speech [of October 7, 2002]. I represented a sift in the IC’s judgments about Iraq’s biologocla weapons program from what it had been in previous reports, and did not contain the uncertainties that were expressed in previous IC assessments about what was known about the BW program, The NIE’s key judgments were that all the key elements of Iraq’s biological program were active and more advanced than before the Gulf War. The judgments specifically stated that:
We judge Iraq has [emphasis added in Senate report, not in the original] come lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents.
...has established a large-scale…BW production capability
,,,has mobile facilities for producing…agents…Within several days these units probably could produce an amount of agent equal to the total that Iraq produced in the years prior to the Gulf War.
Other assessments produces by the Intelligence Community prior to the President’s speech also contained assessments that Iraq possessed and was producing biological weapons and was increasing its capabilities in this regard.
Conclusion 2: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well [sic] additional statements, regarding Iraq’s possession of biological agent weapons, production capability, and use of mobile biological laboratories were substantiated by intelligence information.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 1620 hrs
FBP:
Yep. we are looking at the same report, and it sure likes like the conclusions say that the statements made by the President etal. were SUBSTANTIATED by the intelligence at the time. So what is your argument that he was lying and deceiving?
BTW, I never said the report was inaccurate, I said the press release from Sen Rockefeller you linked to in #221 was inaccurate.
Do you want me to continue with the chemical weapons section. or do you concede that the statements made by the President etal. WERE substantiated by the intelligence as it was believed at the times they were made?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 1625 hrs
Good, it is accurate then.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 1744 hrs
ELO said in 232, “It is amazing how the Phase II report puts SOLE responsibility on the President and Vice-President. So I guess I would characterize the report as replete with half-truths and one-sided criticism. I would say it is inaccurate in its findings, as it omitted key prior agreements among the committee members and and did not present a (dare I say it) fair and balanced picture”
It looks like you were talking about the Phase II report being inaccurate as you said as much in 232. What’s all the flip flopping about???
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 1838 hrs
You represented the press release from Rockefeller as the report itself, so I incorrectly stated that what I thought was inaccurate was the report, when it was in fact the document you first referenced. Does the report itself say that the vast majority of the statements made by the President were or were not substantiated by the intelligence?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 1843 hrs
Okay, so you do in fact agree that the senate reports are accurate. Whew, that was like pulling teeth.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 1903 hrs
yes I agree that they found that the vast majority of statements made by the President were substantiated by the intelligence, do you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 1906 hrs
I agree with the conclusions stated.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 1940 hrs
Conclusion 1: Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor regarding the possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates.
Conclusion 2: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well [sic] additional statements, regarding Iraq’s possession of biological agent weapons, production capability, and use of mobile biological laboratories were substantiated by intelligence information.
Conclusion 3: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well additional statements, regarding Iraq’s possession of chemical weapons were substantiated by intelligence information.
Conclusion 4: Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing. (emphasis added)
Conclusion 5: Statements by the President, Vice President. Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense regarding Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction were generally substantiated by intelligence, though many statements made regarding production prior to late 2002 reflected a higher level of certainty that the intelligence judgments themselves.
(Though intelligence judgments from late 2002 on did not have the uncertainty of previous judgments)
Conclusion 6: The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
(Although many analysts suspected the Iraqis might be using underground facilities, none of the active one that were identified were buried deeply enough to be safe from conventional airstrikes.
(Furthermore, in a November 2002 assessment by the National Intelligence Council, they stated: “We assess that Iraq has some large. Deeply buried UGF’s [underground facilities], but, because of the Iraqi denial and deception program, we have not been able to locate any of these)
Conclusion 7: Statements in the major speeches and additional statements analyzed regarding Iraqi ballistic missle were generally substantiated by available intelligence.
Conclusion 8: Statements by the President, Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver chemical or biological weapons were generally substantiated by intelligence information, but did not convey the substantial disagreements or evolving views that existed in the intelligence community.
(the only member of the intelligence community to mot agree with the finding was the USAF, and they even conceded that CW delivery was an inherent capability of UAVs and their dissension was in regards to the smaller size or Iraqi UAVs, indicating they were for reconnaissance purposes)
Conclusion 9: The President’s suggestion the the Iraqi government was considering using UAVs to attack the United States was substantiated by intelligence judgments available at the time, but these judgments were revised a few months later, in January, 2003.
(but the consensus at the time the suggestion was made was that the Iraqi’s were considering it)
Conclusion 10: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well as additional statements, regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups other than al-Qa’ida were substantiated by intelligence information.
Conclusion 11: Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al-Qa’ida -related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments.
Conclusion 12: Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of Defense suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.(the sole source of collaboration for these statements was Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi an al-Qa’ida detainee whose statements were later generally discredited)
Conclusion 13: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well additional statements, regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qa’ida were substantiated by the intelligence information.
Conclusion 14: The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammed Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001.
(nor were they able to to deny the meeting, DIA report, July 31, 2002 “There are significant information gaps in this reporting that render the issue impossible to prove or disprove with available information)
Do you mean these conclusions? So you agree with them and find they are accurate and persuasive? The comments enclosed in (parentheses) are My comments or illuminations of material in the report but not specifically in the conclusions. Also of interest is the the conclusions were authored by staffers and not the committee members themselves. This is one of the issues Sen Bond had with the report.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 2107 hrs
@Scott Seroiusly and without sarcasm or hyperbole, I think you may be a bit off the far side here.. No, I’ve never liked your veiled insults and cheap shots, but like I said… I realize that some people get very heated when they type words on the internet. I know better than to take the things you’ve written personally. I realize that you are deeply invested and sometimes emotional about your beliefs, and I know that my disagreement with you makes you angry. That’s not a criticism, just and observation. I’m really sorry that you take it that way though… no, I really am sorry that you do. You seem to have some very personal animosity towards me. I recall that you even posted on your blog that I was a wife beater, or some other such silly accusation. Now here is the thing… I realize that you did that during a moment of angry passion in your writing. I can get over that though. Even vaguely trying to accuse me here in some back door way of being some insanely violent person now… I realize that is just your emotional response to what you seem to perceive is a personal attack. It’s not personal though, Scott. It was never about you, personally.
Alot of what you think I said, I believe you have taken out of context and read things into… I imagine you did that because you were a bit angry while you were writing. I’ve seen other people mention that too. You really should get a handle on that. I mean that only in a constructive way. Politics is a hot button topic and personal anger with others who disagree is not really a productive thing. Also, many people have been driven from your blog by your responses and some of the public statements you made. I am hardly alone in that, nor even in a small group. I left, shortly after Decent Person left, seeing futility in further discussion and a general tone that I did not care for. My reason for leaving had everything to do with your responses to some of my posts and nothing to do with the fact that you once worked in the same office as my wife… who I would really prefer to keep out of such posts in the future, if you would be so kind.
Let me be very clear with you. I do not dislike you personally in any way. I do not personally know anything about you other than your blog writings. I have always suspected that you are, outside of politics, probably a likable and decent sort.I have no dislike of your employer either. It is unfortunate that you have chosen to believe that, it is simply not true in any way. Do I disagree with your political position. Yes, about 2/3 of the time I do. Sometimes very much so. Does that mean that I hate you, or dislike you, or wish to harm you in some way. No, of course it doesn’t, Scott. It really doesn’t.
Now, are we able to get past this and move on to, at the very least, some frank discussions? I’ll make extra effort not to be too critical of you, as I never intended to make you feel so upset. If you don’t think that will work, then I’ll move on to posting at other blogs, and simply post here only when I see that you are not involved in a thread. It’s up to you, Scott. Can there be future discussion or not. Your choice, no worries either way. Really.
Ok, nuff said. Back to Afghanistan, and my deepest apologies to the hall for the wasted bandwidth and this TOTALLY off topic post. I shan’t let it happen again.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 05, 2009 at 2122 hrs
Let me be very clear with you. I do not dislike you personally in any way.
I have no dislike of your employer either. It is unfortunate that you have chosen to believe that, it is simply not true in any way.
Really.
“You were probably one of those pukes who held up a sign during Gulf I that said “No blood for Oil” or “Do you feel a draft”? ... They don’t appear on the radar at a liberal college, expect those guys you snicker at when the walk around in ROTC uniform…
You, are what soldiers describe as “stuck on stupid”. Now, why don’t you go and have a nice hot cup of shut the fuck up.”
Your words. Should I continue?
Posted by scott on December 05, 2009 at 2236 hrs
I did say that, and while you may have felt insulted, I felt that at that moment you had earned it by your previous boorish remarks rather offhandedly mocking not only my military service, but also any dedication I may have to the soldiers. While I have no real clue as to who you do or do not snicker at, you were definitely stuck on stupid at that time. That’s just a way of putting it, and I felt it was apt. Also, have a nice cup of… is another strong way of telling you that you’ve gotten me angry. I’m not a saint. Some of your mocking and nastier comments did get my goat from time to time, I can admit that. I do take a great deal of pride in a life of service and having that attacked is one of my hot buttons. Perhaps that is one of my weaknesses. I still hold no grudge there. It was just writing, but you scored a hit with it, and I took the bait. My mistake.
Hm, looking back, I also see the following references made towards me by you: “A fu@#ing liar”, “a horrible ghoul of a human being”, “Christ, you’re an a$$#ole”, “get some fucking therapy”, I remember that you not only implied that I was a racist, but also a wife beater… and that is without much of a trip down memory lane. Now, one might say that was evidence of hatred. Maybe it is, but I’ll offer you the courtesy of deciding for yourself who you hate, a courtesy that I would not mind receiving myself.
If you’d simply enjoy airing a laundry list of perceived grievances, then by all means, go ahead. I hope you’ll note that you are hardly an angel yourself. If you insist on believing that I hate you, and that I am some crazed violent lunatic, I’m not going to try and talk you out of it. Your not likely to concede any point once you’ve made up your mind… no matter how wrong you are. If you’d like to berate me some more though, go ahead and send me nasty e-mails to vent. I promise to read them, be hurt, and not respond. I’m a bit tired of this “I know you hate me” theater now, and I’m sure everyone else is too. Good night Scott, try not take everything so personally. You’ll drive yourself nuts.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2009 at 0139 hrs
offhandedly mocking not only my military service
Never happened.
I remember that you not only implied that I was a racist, but also a wife beater
Never happened.
I’m a bit tired of this “I know you hate me” theater
I wrote those five words, you wrote a hundred to defend yourself. But you’re right: nobody here cares. I don’t. As I said in 211, whatev.
Posted by scott on December 06, 2009 at 0937 hrs
Never happened? Hm. I guess I’ve been drawn in now.
If it never happened, then why did you eventually respond “One thing I’d like to sneak in here, however: Above I insinuated that I believed you were a racist. I would like to retract that. It was uncalled for and, upon reflection, even I don’t believe it to be true.”? Your words.
I responded to your “I know you hate me” argument because it is fundamentally untruthful. I simply won’t allow it to stand.
I won’t bother researching every denial, as re-reading some of your comments was rather unpleasant and I think I have made my point. I’ll note that I accepted your retraction then, without malice. Suffice it to say that not only is your denial wrong, buy also all of your negative derogatory assertions about me. Why don’t you just knock it off now. Try and distance your emotions a bit. It does not always work, but it will leave you happier in the end, and it will lend more credibility to your arguments. Reserve the accusations for people who deserve them, not simply for people that your strongly disagree with.
Let’s get back to a reasonable tone, shall we Scott?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2009 at 1046 hrs
Okay, you got me on that one. My apology for it has been made.
Posted by scott on December 06, 2009 at 1048 hrs
In an attempt to restart what was an interesting thread, I shall offer this on Afghanistan:
WI Sen. (D)Russ Feingold said recently on CNN the following:
”“We’re adding 30,000, 35,000 troops to finish the job. And I ask the question, “What job?” because the president has been so eloquent in pointing out our issue is fighting al Qaeda.
The argument falls apart when you realize that al Qaeda does not have its headquarters in Afghanistan anymore. It is headquartered in Pakistan. It is active in Somalia, and Yemen, North Africa, affiliates of it in Southeast Asia.
Why does it make sense to have a huge ground presence in Afghanistan to deal with a small al Qaeda contingent, when we don’t do that in so many other countries where we’re actually having some success without invading the country and attacking those that are part of al Qaeda? It doesn’t make sense.
....
Taking all these resources, hundreds of billions of dollars, and sacrificing so much of our military in Afghanistan, when we have other international priorities and enormous priorities economically in our country, seems to be a very odd choice in a time of great crisis.”“Now, while I am not a big fan of Mr. Feingold (he is out of touch on most issues with the people of Wisconsin), I think he is right in his assessment of the situation we face. That very fact almost made me rethink my opinion on the matter, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
So, in my effort to make up for that whole off topic nonsense… Is Senator Feingold right or wrong in his opinions of BHO’s surge…and why?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2009 at 1107 hrs
You could be right about that. I myself don’t have a strong opinion on it. I think it was justifiable to go in, but things are different now and I’m not sure what good we can do there now if any. It would be nice if we could leave Afghanistan unified, peaceful and democratic—but I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that these are increasingly unlikely goals. So I just don’t know.
What I do know is that I’d rather consult a Magic 8 Ball than take Dick Cheney’s advice. Not only did he and Bush preside over the debacle that is Iraq, he’s also extremely disingenuous with his criticisms of Obama. His administration got a request for troops that went unanswered for 8 months, yet he is first in line to knock Obama for “dithering.” Just partisanship, nothing more.
Posted by scott on December 06, 2009 at 1120 hrs
I sincerely hope that Feingold has enough clout to make his case stick. The way Obama is headed could not be more wrong. The man has no clue what to do about national security. He is trying to recreate the Bush surge that was so successful, but his complete lack of military and international political experience is showing. I completely believe that his decision to mount this temporary war with it’s preordained end date is just politics. He thought he could score points with this (he was wrong in all quarters), and setting up a withdrawal before his re-election campaign is just transparent politics. Many will die. Some short sighted goals will be obtained for those lives. We will then leave behind a mess amid some needless graves. It reminds me of what we did in Somalia, just with more potential loss of life. I rather doubt that anyone will truly care about that though… at least not anyone from the Barack, Harry and Nancy axis (political photo ops not withstanding).
Meanwhile, Al-Queda will grow in strength, as it has many new un-interdicted safe havens from which to operate. We are in for a bumpy ride. I may actually be forced to vote for Feingold if this keeps up <shudder>.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2009 at 1157 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 98
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 01:57 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).