Bush Never Lied To Us About Iraq [Archive] - SOCNET: The Special Operations Community Network

RGR.Montcalm

16 June 2008, 10:46

I read this on the Early Bird this morning; its an interesting comparison between now and 1965. Funny how history sometimes repeats itself...

I know that there are quite a few here that don't believe in the mission in Iraq, or like the fact that no WMDs were found but there's no denying the facts.

Your thoughts?

Los Angeles Times
June 16, 2008

Bush Never Lied To Us About Iraq

The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.

By James Kirchick

Touring Vietnam in 1965, Michigan Gov. George Romney proclaimed American involvement there "morally right and necessary." Two years later, however, Romney -- then seeking the Republican presidential nomination -- not only recanted his support for the war but claimed that he had been hoodwinked.

"When I came back from Vietnam, I had just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get," Romney told a Detroit TV reporter who asked the candidate how he reconciled his shifting views.

Romney (father of Mitt) had visited Vietnam with nine other governors, all of whom denied that they had been duped by their government. With this one remark, his presidential hopes were dashed.

The memory of this gaffe reverberates in the contemporary rhetoric of many Democrats, who, when attacking the Bush administration's case for war against Saddam Hussein, employ essentially the same argument. In 2006, John F. Kerry explained the Senate's 77-23 passage of the Iraq war resolution this way: "We were misled. We were given evidence that was not true." On the campaign trail, Hillary Rodham Clinton dodged blame for her pro-war vote by claiming that "the mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress."

Nearly every prominent Democrat in the country has repeated some version of this charge, and the notion that the Bush administration deceived the American people has become the accepted narrative of how we went to war.

Yet in spite of all the accusations of White House "manipulation" -- that it pressured intelligence analysts into connecting Hussein and Al Qaeda and concocted evidence about weapons of mass destruction -- administration critics continually demonstrate an inability to distinguish making claims based on flawed intelligence from knowingly propagating falsehoods.

In 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously approved a report acknowledging that it "did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments." The following year, the bipartisan Robb-Silberman report similarly found "no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

Contrast those conclusions with the Senate Intelligence Committee report issued June 5, the production of which excluded Republican staffers and which only two GOP senators endorsed. In a news release announcing the report, committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV got in this familiar shot: "Sadly, the Bush administration led the nation into war under false pretenses."

Yet Rockefeller's highly partisan report does not substantiate its most explosive claims. Rockefeller, for instance, charges that "top administration officials made repeated statements that falsely linked Iraq and Al Qaeda as a single threat and insinuated that Iraq played a role in 9/11." Yet what did his report actually find? That Iraq-Al Qaeda links were "substantiated by intelligence information." The same goes for claims about Hussein's possession of biological and chemical weapons, as well as his alleged operation of a nuclear weapons program.

Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don't get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

In 2003, top Senate Democrats -- not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others -- sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month's report, titled "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information," includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees -- who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors -- many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.

This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers.

"I no longer believe that it was necessary for us to get involved in South Vietnam to stop communist aggression in Southeast Asia," Romney elaborated in that infamous 1967 interview. That was an intellectually justifiable view then, just as it is intellectually justifiable for erstwhile Iraq war supporters to say -- given the way it's turned out -- that they don't think the effort has been worth it. But predicating such a reversal on the unsubstantiated allegation that one was lied to is cowardly and dishonest.

A journalist who accompanied Romney on his 1965 foray to Vietnam remarked that if the governor had indeed been brainwashed, it was not because of American propaganda but because he had "brought so light a load to the laundromat." Given the similarity between Romney's explanation and the protestations of Democrats 40 years later, one wonders why the news media aren't saying the same thing today.

James Kirchick is an assistant editor of the New Republic.

bobofthedesert

16 June 2008, 19:12

Parajuevos

16 June 2008, 20:29

I don't think the President lied to us.

He believed the same intelligence that the Congress, including the Democrats, believed.
Furthermore, President Bill Clinton, Secretary of State Madeline Albright and many other democrats in the Clinton admininistration as well as notables in the Senate, such as Joe Biden, have been seen recently, on old news footage, stating these beliefs.

These democrats believed that there were WMDs and stated that they believed that there were WMDs. Now, they want to call the President a liar because he believed and stated this same belief to the American people.

The Democrats are as disingenuous about their protestations about being mislead as they are disloyal to their former Princess, Hillary, who they have abandoned in mass.

I, for one, believe that there were WMDs. With the amount of time that was wasted, leading up to the opening of the Iraq war, they could have been moved out of the country or hidden in country in an as yet to be discovered place.

While I question some of the ways in which President Bush has carried out the war, at least early on, in terms of strategy and logistics; the one thing that he can't be called is a liar.

Those who say that they didn't know, can't call the President a liar for actions that he took, with their approval.

Bravo Five Romeo

16 June 2008, 21:05

Los Angeles Times
June 16, 2008

Bush Never Lied To Us About Iraq

The administration simply got bad intelligence. Critics are wrong to assert deception.

By James Kirchick
....

Oh... so now you trust the media? :D

Terminator2

16 June 2008, 21:35

My thought is this: Say what you will about W's IQ, but I don't think he's dumb enough to have gone into Iraq unless there was very good indicators that there were WMDs. He insisted over and over, against very loud opposition, that they were there. If he wanted to lie to us, why didn't he try to plant WMDs in Iraq and say "see? I told you!" and try to look like a hero who defied the critics, took a risk and, in the end, once again saved the nation for another attack.

HMdepperNavy

16 June 2008, 21:48

low country

16 June 2008, 22:07

Saddam did use chem weapons on the Kurds after the first Gulf War ie Chemical Ali. It was proven that at that time, he did possess weapons and actually used them. W acted on good intel.

I compare it to the LEO world regarding search warrants. Did I believe that dope was in the house? Yes. Did I believe that I would find the dope? Yes. Were there times I have hit houses and found nothing? Of course. Did I lie to get the warrants regarding the houses where there was no dope? Hell no! Sometimes even the best intel leads you to dry holes. Not to mention that all the time we spent dancing w/the UN inspectors, Saddam could have easily moved them or hidden them. Just my .02

TXSWAT

16 June 2008, 22:27

Lot's of rumors about Russian products that were there and Spetnaz moving in to escort them out via Syria when the heat turned up. Reasons to believe the Chinese and French had sold them "stuff" that Iraq wasn't supposed to have.

Saddam raising his fists yelling that he had this, that, and the other. Umpteen sanctions against him, but no amount of strong language would make him budge. Saddam paying families of homicide bombers in Palestine.

Public speeches by religious leaders and civic leaders yelling death to America, death to the west, death to Israel.

All the congressmen and women stating for years prior to Bush's presidency that he needs to go.

And then comes a guy who actually does something about it...and he's the idiot.

OldSwabbie

16 June 2008, 23:04

I do not believe the POTUS lied to us about Iraq. I think he believed what he said about WMD, based on the info he was given by others. But it's not easy to overlook that this was cited as one of the main reasons we needed to go in, and that very little was ever found. That makes him wrong on that specific merit, which is not the same as deliberately lying about it, and hindsight is 20/20.

On the other hand, a lot of types who might have been plotting anti U.S. attacks elsewhere or in CONUS over the last few years have instead gone there to take us on. Better there than here.

And Hussein and his two spawn needed killing anyway...............

I believe our President is a Decent, Good and Honorable Man who believed what Intelligence he had at the time. What you are saying is VERY true, he wouldn't go in saying all that if he didnt think for sure he was going to be showing the world some WMD's in the end. Ahhhh...but leave it to the libs to pounce on him when he turns around to tell us they didnt find any.

OldSwabbie

Greenhat

16 June 2008, 23:17

Tracy

16 June 2008, 23:30

Saddam did use chem weapons on the Kurds after the first Gulf War ie Chemical Ali. It was proven that at that time, he did possess weapons and actually used them. W acted on good intel...

Saddam Hussein himself admitted to his FBI de-briefer that he ran a bluff against the West to convince them he had WMD. Why? So he didn't appear weak to Syria and Iran.

What he didn't count on was President Bush calling his bluff. Let's not forget that even IAEA lost their patience with Hussein's active deception activities. The POTUS engaged us against Iraq with tacit Congressional and UN approval. Congress wanted him gone anyway when they passed HR4655 in 1998; however: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act." :rolleyes:

Now those same parties accuse him of deceit and warmongering?

F*ck them.

8Ball

16 June 2008, 23:36

Since I just got back in country, I am sitting here half drunk so take the following as you will.....:D

I get fed up with everyone stating PRESIDENT Bush (capatilized for all of the dicks that don't put it in there:mad:) is a moron. The man had a C average in an institution that might equate to phenominal grades elsewhere. He is most definitely NOT an idiot. Being a polished speaker does not equal intelligence. Hell, I wouldnt give you a rusty nickle for 98% of politicians and they all speak well. That is one of the reasons I do support him. He doesnt seem to always be blowing sunshine up our collective asses and using "polished" speech doing it. I believe he is an honorable man despite the fact he gave up beer.:D He is my Commander and Chief and I still belive in him.
I have met him numerous times and that has always been the impression I came away with. Time and history will tell regarding his presidency......

Now, has he screwed up? Absolutley. I will never argue against that.

Take Care.

Parajuevos

17 June 2008, 00:13

Don't quote me on this, but I believe his IQ is 125 or in that area.

He also had a higher grade point average than Kerry, at Yale.;)

RAT

17 June 2008, 03:01

The man had a C average in an institution that might equate to phenominal grades elsewhere.

It was more like 3.35 GPA. Low A High B at Yale... Yale just does not let you in. As many have pointed out.

WMD's... Again I give the old car senario.

You have a car. It has 4 wheels, it has leather insides, and it has one hell of a stereo, Spinners, Big V12 510Hp engine. Hey there is no gas in the tank and the engine has no oil in the engine. The car will not run...

So the question becomes: Is it a car? Or isn't a car?

Have all the makings of a car. But by def it is not a car. Same as the Tucker Car... The guy made a car that ran... It just took him a little longer getting the right parts.

Would Sadumb have gotten the parts....? You are damn right.... I think he had the makers on speed dial... He was just waiting for everyone to stop screwing with him and he was bluffing like he said.

RO!!!

bobofthedesert

17 June 2008, 03:40

I didn't write this but found it amusing........

BUSH'S RESIGNATION SPEECH

The following 'speech' was written recently by an ordinary Maineiac [a resident of the People's Republic of Maine ]. While satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in fact to be effective. This is an excellent piece by a person who does not write for a living.

The speech George W. Bush might give:

Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.

I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.

The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media. Polls show that the majority of you think the economy is in the tank. And that's despite record numbers of homeowners, including record numbers of MINORITY homeowners. And while we're mentioning minorities, I'll point out that minority business ownership is at an all-time high. Our unemployment rate is as low as it ever was during the Clinton administration. I've mentioned all those things before, but it doesn't seem to have sunk in.

Despite the shock to our economy of 9/11, the stock market has rebounded to record levels and more Americans than ever are participating in these markets. Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears a nd beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq 's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied; People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.

Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named ' Clinton ' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you? Now some of you morons are considering another and more evil Clinton for president !!!! Go figure that one!! She wants to take your kids away and let the ' Whole Village ' raise them! i.e. governmental indoctrination .. Look this one up you dumb asses!

The rest of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan , a nucular ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us. While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to reelect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nucular weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel . Did you sleep through high school?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.

That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'

Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well FedEx a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with Stars.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching.

I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.

Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that's it. God bless what's left of America .

Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off.

PS - You might want to start learning Farsi.

Greenhat

17 June 2008, 03:45

LMAO

That's pretty good...

Bravo Five Romeo

17 June 2008, 04:04

redhawk

17 June 2008, 06:56

That means Pelosi is your new President.
With Pelosi as president...
PS - You might want to start learning Farsi.
I could probably learn Farsi and find a job at the brand new facilities of the U.S. Embassy to Iran.

SOTB

17 June 2008, 07:37

Silverbullet

17 June 2008, 08:47

The Bush administration very likely embellished (LIED) about the terror connections and WMD evidence to invade Iraq -- versus just invading on the very real and righteous rationale we already had.

Actually there were and are connections to AQ. They were present beforehand just as they are now. No one in the administration ever used this as the cornerstone of the reasons they felt we needed to invade and get rid of Saddam, though.

While it's true that most Iraqi's and members of AQ have differing beliefs that didn't stop them from offering safe havens and assistance to AQ during the 90's and into 03. Same goes for the avowed mortal enemy of Iraq, Iran. Saddam turned a blind eye to the Iranian sponsored camps throughout the western desert for yrs.

The WMD evidence was and is what it is. It was the same evidence shown to the Senate and House sub committee's and shared with our allies. Everyone who saw it felt it was accurate.

The real failure is that no one was fired or held accountable after 911 and then after we discovered the pre war Iraq intell was very poor quality.

Guy

17 June 2008, 09:54

1. "There would be a lot of unemployed folks if the POTUS hadn't evaded!" ;)

2. Those who wanted to apply their training to a "real world" scenario well; you got your oppurtunity.

3. If the POTUS lied? There's a shit-load of subordinates that need to be "tarred and feathered!"

Stay safe.

redhawk

17 June 2008, 11:06

We are right to invade Iran -- and are WRONG not to do so
Invade? Really? Then what? :confused:

I've gained an appreciation for your sense of humor since joining this website, but this time I don't think you're joking. I've heard comments about striking their nuclear facilities and all that fun stuff, but never once have I heard a level headed person say without a shit-eating grin that we should invade Iran.

-66 million people
-Larger than Alaska
-Proud, mostly unified populace (unlike Iraq)
-Anti-western even among secular dissenters

What could go wrong?

RGR.Montcalm

17 June 2008, 11:34

Greenhat

17 June 2008, 11:37

Invade? Really? Then what?

If you have read much of SOTB's points of view on Iraq, you might have his solution for Iran as well.

Invade, decapitate, destroy ability to go nuclear, leave.

If I'm mistaken, I expect he'll tell us.

MakoZeroSix

17 June 2008, 11:45

I'll say this: I didn't think this war was a good idea from the begining, but I think we should win it now, because that's better than defeat. And like Guy said- I'm glad to have a job.

I believed in the bullshit "Bush Doctrine" when he gave it from the rubble of the WTC. Iran had fed terrorists, funded terrorists, and supported terrorists for decades, without fear of reprisal. I waited for justice to be delivered. Instead, after an incomplete effort in Afghanistan, Bush attacked a secular Arab nation hated by AQI, that had few links to international terrorism compared to its neighbors, rather than to eliminate the bankroller of Hezbollah. Or even Syria, another major sponsor of international terrorism. Then when we don't find WMD, he has the audacity to claim over and over that we really went in there for "freedom" and "democracy". (Then he sees how well those two words work for him in the Gaza Strip. LOL.)

I don't think Bush lied- I think he assumed, and said "make me a case to go into Iraq", I'll bet he said it on 12 September, and all of his lackeys jumped to provide whatever shitty intel fit the mold. Then, instead of manning up for his mistake and appologizing to the American public, he stubbornly clings to his crappy ideology. The only thing that he did right was the surge, and it came too little, too late.

Thanks to him, the world hates us, a shitstain like Obama is likely to actually be elected president, the military is wore out, and we do not have the political or military mojo to stop Iran from getting nukes. Superb job.

Guy

17 June 2008, 12:05

Thanks to him, the world hates us, a shitstain like Obama is likely to actually be elected president, the military is wore out, and we do not have the political or military mojo to stop Iran from getting nukes. Superb job.Some elements may be stretched a bit thin or over weight from the copious amount of food. HELL! I had baked salmon and cod, pot roast, stuffed green peppers, cucumber salad and two ice cold pepsis.:o Throw in Salsa, Arabic, R&B, Karaoke nights, Green Beans, movies, internet and tax free income...I'll retire in three years to a job in Walmart as a greeter.:o

Go ahead and invade Iran; I'll set-up a "soul" food restaurant with a R&B club so quick...it'll make your head spin!:cool:

Stay safe.

Bushmaster

17 June 2008, 12:06

I think Bush had to hedge his bet and call Saddam's bluff.

In short, Bush could NOT afford to be wrong. If Saddam had bio and chem stuff and he gave it to a terrorist organization for use on US soil, the death toll would be a hell of a lot higher than the 4k troops lost in Iraq.

If that had happened, you would still be seeing the quotes from democrats and the Clinton administration, but hte point would be "See!!! We tried to tell you and you did NOTHING!!! Impeach BUSH!!!"

Three things have resulted.

1. Saddam and his sons are dead. That's good.

2. Iraq has no bio & chem weapons. That's good. At least now we know for sure.

3. With Bush as CIC, terrorist nations now know we kick in the front door and shoot them. That's good.

This upcoming election will certify whether or not Americans have the stomach for a pro longed war against terrorism depending on their vote. That can be either good or bad.

OldSwabbie

17 June 2008, 12:07

We were RIGHT to invade Afghanistan
We were RIGHT to invade Iraq
The Bush administration very likely embellished (LIED) about the terror connections and WMD evidence to invade Iraq -- versus just invading on the very real and righteous rationale we already had
We are right to invade Iran -- and are WRONG not to do so
We would be RIGHT in very clearly making it know to S. Arabia that they are not without their own risks of an ass-kickingMis dos centavos....

I agree with you 100%...except that W had to really believe that sand flea Saddam actually had wmd's or he knew he'd look like a fool with no end game strategy. Saudi Arabia just pisses me off every time I think about them... don't trust them as far as I can throw them.

Iran - ABSOLUTELY BROTHER! .... We need another WalMart Parking Lot

OldSwabbie

Silverbullet

17 June 2008, 12:12

the world hates us

Who might that be? I'm always interested when I hear this statement since it doesn't appear to be based on evidence. Emotion aside, since he has been president more country's have voted in leaders who agree with his policy's and actually ran on a platform that parallels his doctrine that have been in the last 20 odd yrs. Even France swung to the right. If we were so hated it seems odd that a good number of country's have moved in the direction we have set.

attacked a secular Arab nation hated by AQI,

So AQI, AQ Iraq, hated Iraq? Those camps that they had that Saddam didn't attack and their leadership who got surgery and moved money through Iraq? The same group who didn't add the I for Iraq to their title until after we invaded? While not allies in the sense of offering operational support they operated on the enemy of our enemy principle prior to us doing anything in Iraq. This is documented. So while there is no direct link to 911 the statements that AQ and Iraq were not involved with each other isn't correct. But then again the Admin didn't use this as a pretext to invade.

Inspector Cluseo

17 June 2008, 12:23

-Proud, mostly unified populace (unlike Iraq)
-Anti-western even among secular dissenters

I would take these two sentences with a grain of salt.....yes proud of being Persian as opposed to Arab (not my words)...I have had a close friend on the ground there for at least five years whom has a grasp "so to speak".....the median age is 24. That demographic is largely Pro-Western by all measures. (and that is from many sources..)
Secular dissenters Anti-Western ???? Proud Persian yes - I would question the rest of this post with the exception that - who the hell wants to invade....with ground troops ..not likely

RAT

17 June 2008, 12:43

I don't think Bush lied- I think he assumed, and said "make me a case to go into Iraq", I'll bet he said it on 12 September, and all of his lackeys jumped to provide whatever shitty intel fit the mold. Then, instead of manning up for his mistake and appologizing to the American public, he stubbornly clings to his crappy ideology. The only thing that he did right was the surge, and it came too little, too late.

Very very incorrect.

Also show me this sugre??? I am still fucking waiting on my transportation to the IZ.... When we had 100,000 troops 03 - 04 (05 to present does not count) here I could catch a flight any damn time I wanted... So how the hell the C-4 can track 100,000 troops is anyone guess... Southwest Airlines can't do that. LMFAO...

RO!!!

RAT

17 June 2008, 12:44

I would take these two sentences with a grain of salt.....yes proud of being Persian as opposed to Arab (not my words)...I have had a close friend on the ground there for at least five years whom has a grasp "so to speak".....the median age is 24. That demographic is largely Pro-Western by all measures. (and that is from many sources..)
Secular dissenters Anti-Western ???? Proud Persian yes - I would question the rest of this post with the exception that - who the hell wants to invade....with ground troops ..not likely

BINGO!!!

RO!!!

Guy

17 June 2008, 13:00

Also show me this surge??? I am still fucking waiting on my transportation to the IZ.... When we had 100,000 troops 03 - 04 (05 to present does not count) here I could catch a flight any damn time I wanted... So how the hell the C-4 can track 100,000 troops is anyone guess... Southwest Airlines can do that. LMFAO...

RO!!!There's enough troops walking around with weapons and eating four (4) outstanding meals/day already....:confused:

BTW...They don't hate nor dislike us (the USA), that's a "common" media misperception. The few who do dislike the USA seem to corner the market on what the media presents to the public back home.

Stay safe.

Camel

17 June 2008, 13:02

Some elements may be stretched a bit thin or over weight from the copious amount of food. HELL! I had baked salmon and cod, pot roast, stuffed green peppers, cucumber salad and two ice cold pepsis.:o Throw in Salsa, Arabic, R&B, Karaoke nights, Green Beans, movies, internet and tax free income...I'll retire in three years to a job in Walmart as a greeter.:o

Go ahead and invade Iran; I'll set-up a "soul" food restaurant with a R&B club so quick...it'll make your head spin!:cool:

Stay safe.

I'm not tired. I'm bored. If we were going to invade Iran via ground, send me. Ill take weapons free direct combat vs pt belts and 15-6's any day. Living in a hole or the back of a Bradley may not be as nice as the current amenities, if it gets rid of the bullshit, ill take it. The best part is all the REMF's will stay as far away from where the bullets fly as possible, leaving me free to enjoy my invasion. When things quite down again and life becomes quasi garrison, I'll ETS and put in my resume to be a line cook at the "soul" food spot.

Slim

17 June 2008, 14:27

Guy

17 June 2008, 15:11

I'm not tired. I'm bored. If we were going to invade Iran via ground, send me. Ill take weapons free direct combat vs pt belts and 15-6's any day. Living in a hole or the back of a Bradley may not be as nice as the current amenities, if it gets rid of the bullshit, ill take it. The best part is all the REMF's will stay as far away from where the bullets fly as possible, leaving me free to enjoy my invasion. When things quite down again and life becomes quasi garrison, I'll ETS and put in my resume to be a line cook at the "soul" food spot.Evidently you have not read the memo...

"Warriors are NOT allowed to communicate aggressive thoughts nor do dirty deeds! Peace, love, happiness and kum-by-yah is the new thingamajig!";):D

It looks like the world hates us less than they used to.
Throw some $$$$ out there and give it a few months.....;) SOBs will love us!:D

Stay safe.

GackMan

17 June 2008, 16:03

Invade? Really? Then what? :confused:

We could just sit around with our thumbs up our asses and pretend that Iran isn't killing more Coalition Forces that Saddam ever did... Oh wait, we do that already.

0699

17 June 2008, 16:11

It looks like the world hates us less than they used to.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/views_on_countriesregions_bt/463.php?lb=btvoc&pnt=463&nid=&id=

However, given that the world ranks us just above North Korea according to this chart form the same site, I'm not sure world opinion is worth worrying about.

4242

How the hell did the "evil Axis powers" of sixty years ago manage to gain top honors here?

Maybe the Marshall Plan had something to do with it... :D

Greenhat

17 June 2008, 16:31

Maybe someone should tell worldpublicopinion.com that the EU isn't a country?

Keganswar

17 June 2008, 16:35

If Bush simply acted on the intelligence that he was presented. In a logical way. Then I don’t see how he lied to us. If however he was advised that the intelligence was not reliable and he sold it to the country and congress anyway he lied. Who’s to ever really know?

Personally I think we burned way to much political capital with the world on Iraq for very little gain. There are bigger fish to fry and I don’t think those fish are going to make it into the oven because of our current political landscape.

RAT

17 June 2008, 16:47

Who’s to ever really know?

There are people that know. I don't think that they lied. I think on the informantion given them, they interperted the information as best they could...

Tit's, Marty... I see Tit's...

You want me to authorize a hit because you see Tit's, Jack?

Jack, is that your best assement???

I don't think that is too far off the mark from a move to reality.

RO!!!

Guy

17 June 2008, 17:35

Personally I think we burned way to much political capital with the world on Iraq for very little gain. There are bigger fish to fry and I don’t think those fish are going to make it into the oven because of our current political landscape.You're viewing this from a "micro" POV...look at it from a "macro" POV...

As soon as the younger generation over here get a taste of R&B, Rap, two piece swim suits, skate-boarding, proms, cruising for chicks or guys, victoria secrets, recreational drugs in small amounts, walk bare-foot on grass, freedom of choice, etc.

We will have won!:D It won't happen any time soon however; Iraq will reach it before Afghanistan...

Stay safe.

stratiotes

17 June 2008, 17:48

Jimbo

17 June 2008, 17:51

These kinds of discussions are pretty pointless if you don't approach them correctly. Military action is an extension of US foreign policy. What is the singular, overarching goal of US foreign policy? Protect and extend US interests. Believe it or not, freedom and democracy and oil and defeating terrorists and expanding American influence are in the interest of the US. So it does not matter which bullshit slogan you choose to believe, whether it is "The US invaded Iraq for oil" or "The US invaded Iraq to spread democracy", you are right. You are also a simpleton.

The Administration did the math as figured that for a minimal expenditure of blood and treasure it could:
1) Impose the most significant political change to the face of the Middle East since the British withdrew.
1a) A mildly economically successful Iraq draws overeducated, underemployed from SA, Syria, Iran and gives them a place where they can earn a living in a society that is not TOO foreign to them (all you experts out there, what was the demographic of the 9/11 hijackers?)
1b) A mildly democratic Iraq is a drastic improvement over the regimes in the ME (all you experts out there, what is one of the underlying causes of the formation of AQ?)
2) Gain real estate that would allow the removal of troops from Saudi Arabia.
3) Flank Iran
4) Dust off the big military (didn't happen in AFG), just in case we need a shit load of experienced soldiers to train a sudden influx of volunteers or conscripts.

These are the things that are in the long term interests of the United States.

Greenhat

17 June 2008, 18:39

Well put, Jimbo.

Tracy

17 June 2008, 21:44

Invade? Really? Then what? :confused:

I've gained an appreciation for your sense of humor since joining this website, but this time I don't think you're joking. I've heard comments about striking their nuclear facilities and all that fun stuff, but never once have I heard a level headed person say without a shit-eating grin that we should invade Iran.

-66 million people
-Larger than Alaska
-Proud, mostly unified populace (unlike Iraq)
-Anti-western even among secular dissenters

What could go wrong?

70 million people;
Smaller than Alaska;
Not unified as much as one would think;
And the common folk find the West interesting and worth engaging in trade and education.

Iran is setting themselves up to be a nuclear power. President Amahdi-Nejad has declared that Israel and the USA must die. The IAEA is getting pissed because of the unwillingness of Iran to follow UN Resolutions 1737 and 1747. The Iranian government already suppressed one uprising several years ago when college students wanted political reform; which is ironic given that their college-age parents were the very ones who empowered Ayatollah Ruallah Khomeni in the first place. They sit on the third largest gas and oil fields in the world, yet they're unable to refine enough petroleum for their own country. They import gasoline and diesel.

SOTB is not joking and I agree with him.

What will go wrong? Iran will build a nuclear weapon and use it. My thinking is to let them build and screw the UN. After it goes off somewhere else in the world, we simply wipe them off the face of the earth.

We've been burned too many times in the past by politics both here and abroad to lift an accusatory finger towards Iran regarding their nuclear programs.

I believe we're soon reaching a singularity point to where we either roll over and become Caliphate; or annihilate the radical elements of Islam. If a Caliphate does forms here, I'm a dead man and my family will be slaves or concubines. Not really thrilled with that option.

Given what I know about the region, a partial invasion to crush their infrastructure makes sense to me. It will be terrible that their people will suffer, but they voted those leaders into office and allowed themselves to be shackled. Oh well. Next time choose more wisely.

SOTB

17 June 2008, 23:00

Invade? Really? Then what?Well to begin with -- I like to think that even though it is a superficial act -- there are thousands Americans and a couple of hundred Brits whose families deserve to read about a large concave mirror suddenly built in the Iranian desert. As to the idea that people might not like us for that type of activity -- I have a theory on that -- I think people will get over it, once they realize they have to respect the fact that not only do we carry a large stick, but we are willing to use it as well. And for those that will consistently talk horrible about us in liberal bars anyway, and who require an addiction to Ambien to get any sleep -- I think we should adopt the "I don't care" approach. I'm also not at all convinced that all Iranians hate us -- but even if we did, I never stated we should occupy the fucking place (I think "occupying" countries is GAY, unless you are willing to cut large swaths across those countries and declare any LN found within to be a combatant and to be immediately killed). No, I think killing their leadership, wiping out any and all abilities of nuke building, capturing and/or killing their leading scientists, and declaring squatters' rights over the major oil fields would be my plan (somewhere in all of that would be the pulling out of all US troops, save for SOF and OGA types, who would openly support the puppet meanie we installed to keep people in line while we drained the oil fields). Finally, I'm not as well-traveled as many on this board, but in EVERY place I go -- I find that the bullshit that we are "hated" everywhere is exactly that -- BULLSHIT. What we are is envied -- which generally leads to thoughts of how unfair it is that we have and others don't. Refer back to the "I don't care" and "I will hit you with a big fucking stick" philosophies for my thoughts on that. Still, I find that even when envied, there are not as many people that "hate" us as your fav cable news channel would have you believe.

4000+ US men and women have died in Iraq, MANY of them at the hands of those who were outright supported by Iran (no, I do not believe that mil or gov agencies of Iran are acting alone). That we have not nuked Iran -- YES, I understand the implications of using nuclear weapons and the political firestorm that would follow -- is borderline criminal and possibly insane.

My daughter is going to have to grow up in a world where shitheads, who worship anything that promises them a chance to get over on us in the afterlife, will have the ability to make large metropolitan centers disappear. That is really going to make her future wonderful -- not....

RipperTOW

17 June 2008, 23:57

That we have not nuked Iran -- YES, I understand the implications of using nuclear weapons and the political firestorm that would follow -- is borderline criminal and possibly insane.

Like a fine wine, this philosophy just gets better with time. Unfortunately, I'm one of its few connoissuers.

Jimbo, though I'm loathe to say it, has articulated some good pragmatic objectives given the dominant, sorry culture here at home which hamstrings our foreign policy.

SOTB has articulated the ideal.

MikeC2W

18 June 2008, 00:59

Camel

18 June 2008, 03:23

Even if they did ALL hate us. Whats the hang up? I have no desire to be part of a world wide popularity contest. I have the desire to posses a good quality of life and safety for my family and friends. If that means ruffling a few feathers, or crushing a few country's, I'm still good with it.

Massgrunt

18 June 2008, 03:30

Oderint dum metuant.

MPCOA

18 June 2008, 04:14

I don't think that anyone who has seen the results of an EFP would have any qualms about taking a road trip to Iran.

I have no issues and I know that I would by God be at the front of the column standing out a BC hatch.

MakoZeroSix

18 June 2008, 06:06

Even France swung to the right. If we were so hated it seems odd that a good number of country's have moved in the direction we have set.

I think France turned right because of the shame and degradation of allowing their capital to be sacked by a bunch of muslim hooligans, not out of a sudden love for America. Same with Germany- they see the looming spectre of societal collapse because of their ill-advised immigration policies.

I could be wrong- but I base my premise on the reactions I have received in Europe, South America, and over here, and the opinions of foreigners I meet in the U.S. Also- it is the perception of Americans that we are hated, and perception is reality.

As far as AQ is concerned- if being a way station for individual terrorists is cause for an invasion, then we need to go into Jordan and Egypt as well.

The Administration did the math as figured that for a minimal expenditure of blood and treasure it could:
1) Impose the most significant political change to the face of the Middle East since the British withdrew.
1a) A mildly economically successful Iraq draws overeducated, underemployed from SA, Syria, Iran and gives them a place where they can earn a living in a society that is not TOO foreign to them (all you experts out there, what was the demographic of the 9/11 hijackers?)
1b) A mildly democratic Iraq is a drastic improvement over the regimes in the ME (all you experts out there, what is one of the underlying causes of the formation of AQ?)
2) Gain real estate that would allow the removal of troops from Saudi Arabia.
3) Flank Iran
4) Dust off the big military (didn't happen in AFG), just in case we need a shit load of experienced soldiers to train a sudden influx of volunteers or conscripts.

I'd love to be able to give the administration credit for this kind of Machievellian strategy...but just can't, in light of the utter incompetance in the way the occupation was handled.

If this had been the master plan all along, they would have actually had a plan, instead of letting typical Bush cronyism run the show. They wouldn't have just figured they could topple the government, call for elections, and everything else would just be dandy immediately afterwards.

A "mildly democractic" Iraq??? Like a mildly democratic Gaza strip that elects Hamas? This place doesn't need democracy- it needs a pro-U.S. strongman. A Christian Iraqi woman once said to me: "Why did you take away Saddam? He was the only one who could control these animals."

My major beef with this war is that it leaves us unable to deal with Iran effectively, and has racked up a gigantic deficit, and may very well hand the White House to somebody who'll be worse than Jimmy Carter.

I think we'll soon "win" this war and pull out, but you'll see a nuclear armed Iran who dominates Iraq politically, and that sucks dicks. Maybe the Israelis will drag us into a war with Iran by attacking them, but I don't see us dealing with it on our own.

Silverbullet

18 June 2008, 08:18

I could be wrong- but I base my premise on the reactions I have received in Europe, South America, and over here, and the opinions of foreigners I meet in the U.S.

Well I travel to many other country's every year and work with as well as socialize with their citizens and don't see this at all. So while I may be skewed I'll stand by the rightward tilt of most of the elections that took place that put a good number of country's in line with our policies as my basis of belief that we aren't hated.

Also- it is the perception of Americans that we are hated, and perception is reality.

That's not really evidence other than certain segments of our society feel this way and have been conditioned this way.

As far as AQ is concerned- if being a way station for individual terrorists is cause for an invasion, then we need to go into Jordan and Egypt as well.

Way station? Really? I disagree with your characterization but the point I'm debating is that you stated the administration overstated the relationship in order to justify the invasion. I'm pretty clear on my point- there was a relationship but the administration didn't use this as a focal point or primary reason reason to invade.

Finally regarding your use of the Gaza strip in a number of rebuttals. The Gaza strip is nothing. While we should put effort into what is done there for some sort of solution the reality is that the area and people are used by the major players in the ME for any number of reasons, most of them self serving and bad for those in Gaza. They are there because they are outcast and were cut off by the neighboring country's yrs ago. More of the people who had linage to Gaza have been killed by Jordan and Syria than by any other country. How things play in Gaza isn't that important since we could do just about anything and it would be played there in a poor light.

Greenhat

18 June 2008, 09:54

My major beef with this war is that it leaves us unable to deal with Iran effectively,

"Amatuers study tactics, professionals study logistics"

Look at a map. Figure out the logistics of dealing with Iran without being in Iraq vs. with being in Iraq.

I'd say that being in Iraq means we are much more able to deal with Iran.

VMI_Marine

18 June 2008, 09:58

3) Flank Iran

I'm amazed at how many people can't look at a map and figure that one out. Why do you think Iran is so interested in keeping a healthy insurgency going?

4) Dust off the big military (didn't happen in AFG), just in case we need a shit load of experienced soldiers to train a sudden influx of volunteers or conscripts.

A friend and I had a good discussion about that, right after OIF I. Many don't realize how much good the invasion did for us. It was like a MEF-sized CAX with real aggressors, or a division NTC rotation with live rounds. Unfortunately, at this point many of those gains have been squandered by the shitty Phase IV planning and the insurgency it brought about. However, we still have a hell of a lot more combat experience than we did on March 19th, 2003.

JRB11

18 June 2008, 11:56

Parajuevos

18 June 2008, 12:11

JRB11

18 June 2008, 12:24

I would think that any attack on Iran will result in the nation rising up and standing together against the US, not to mention the huge disruption in the world economy when the oil starts to slow even more, which we can't afford. I just don't see Iran as this huge threat, at least not any time soon. Muslims already have nukes, and Pakistan, to me, is a hell of lot scarier than Iran. I'm not saying I would be comfortable with Iran having them, but there is time to change their attitude with some good diplomacy. Walk softly, and only wield the stick when all else fails.

Matchanu

18 June 2008, 12:36

I just don't see Iran as this huge threat.

You need to familierize yourself with some intell updates.

Fast Eddie

18 June 2008, 12:50

=A "mildly democractic" Iraq??? Like a mildly democratic Gaza strip that elects Hamas? This place doesn't need democracy- it needs a pro-U.S. strongman. A Christian Iraqi woman once said to me: "Why did you take away Saddam? He was the only one who could control these animals."

WORD!!!!

grog18b

18 June 2008, 12:57

My .02?

Just because we didn't find them, does not mean they weren't or aren't there.

Ever really TRY to find something in a giant sandbox? Hell... Where is Bin Laden????

You could hide a nuke plant in the desert, or rather under the desert. They are still finding pyramids and tombs for criminey's sake... GROG

Silverbullet

18 June 2008, 13:45

As for Iraq/AQ connections, they were tenuous at best, and the intel agencies have said they had meetings, but no substantial relationship.
We can't defeat the terrorists with our military,

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Even the 911 commission, as flawed as it was, acknowledges this.

Can't defeat them with our military? Really?

MikeC2W

18 June 2008, 14:12

I've read that a majority of Iranians seem to look favorably upon the US, at least until GWB named them as part of the axis of evil, which set the moderates back many years. It makes for good reading, or bar room chat talking about nuking them, but that isn't going to happen. Sounds like the shit head Pres. of Iran could be defeated in the next elections, and they are years away from obtaining a nuke, so there is plenty of time to figure this out.
As for Iraq/AQ connections, they were tenuous at best, and the intel agencies have said they had meetings, but no substantial relationship.
We can't defeat the terrorists with our military, and we can't afford to continue starting wars with every nation that pisses us off. We may be able to kick their asses, but we would soon be bankrupted, hell, we're headed that way now. I don't have the answers, but the first part of the big stick theory is walk gently, something this cowboy administration hasn't done well. Sometimes, you make your destiny.

I would think that any attack on Iran will result in the nation rising up and standing together against the US, not to mention the huge disruption in the world economy when the oil starts to slow even more, which we can't afford. I just don't see Iran as this huge threat, at least not any time soon. Muslims already have nukes, and Pakistan, to me, is a hell of lot scarier than Iran. I'm not saying I would be comfortable with Iran having them, but there is time to change their attitude with some good diplomacy. Walk softly, and only wield the stick when all else fails.

I have no problem with diplomacy, talk with everyone - absolutely etc... in fact I encourage it whole heartedly.

However when I read your post, no offense, but I see someone with their head stuck in the sand. You sound soooo out of touch with reality, it's almost as scary as listening to Sen. Obama.

I find it interesting that certain folks are talking about diplomacy and talking and change we can believe in, yet have nothing to offer except pages out of Jimmy Carters play book.

They call the Bush Administration cowboys, because for once in a really long time, they took the stick out and started knocking heads in. We walked soft during DS1, the 12 years that followed, no fly zones, through UN inspectors, UN Resolutions, and use of force authorization VOTES, we walked soft showing our hand and saying they had x amount of hours to leave.....

We walked soft with Iran, Hamas, the PLO, hezbollah, We walked soft with the Taliban, no one ever saw a threat with Afghanistan either, we walked soft with Bin Laden for years, etc.. etc.. etc..

So based on all of that walking soft, that is what you have to propose? More of the same and let's call it 'change'. Freaking ridiculous.

Personally I think we've walked soft enough for the last 30+ years - too soft in fact.

I guess I'm a 'cowboy' as well.:rolleyes:

:eek:

Jimbo

18 June 2008, 16:51

My major beef with this war is that it leaves us unable to deal with Iran effectively,

Its fantastic you think that. I hope they do, too.

Then again, i guess it depends on how you define 'effectively'. Can we invade and occupy Iran? No. Can we 'deal' with them? Maybe.

RGR.Montcalm

18 June 2008, 17:00

Its fantastic you think that. I hope they do, too.

Then again, i guess it depends on how you define 'effectively'. Can we invade and occupy Iran? No. Can we 'deal' with them? Maybe.

Oh, I'll bet good money that we could re-activate the F-117's and load up all our B-2's with sound standard or special weapons and make a real 'impression' on downtown Teheran without being compromised...

Just thinkin' out loud, ya know...

JRB11

18 June 2008, 17:35

Let me rephrase- we can't defeat terrorism through military force, alone. And those strongmen are great, as long as they stay in power-like the Shah and Saddam, Samoza, etc., but they always fall. Shit, almost sounds like we want our own form of a Caliphate, nuke em, bring in "our" oil companies, and take our oil back. If I understand the thought process, it was great to invade so we can set up a forward op. base to continue invading Iran, Syria, Egypt. I'm not buying it, but you're welcome to. As for the 911 commission, I've read parts of it, including the conclusion, and while they acknowledge some meetings between AQ and Saddam, I belive their conclusion was that they had no working relationship, correct me if I'm wrong.
No offense taken at the head in the sand remark, because it's not, and neither is your's. We can all come to different conclusions even if we all see the same thing.

Silverbullet

18 June 2008, 18:03

correct me if I'm wrong.

I already did.

Parsing words to describe a relationship as not that big of a deal doesn't change the facts. Cooperation, working relationship, etc...there's not much difference when you get down to the meat of it. The same way you are talking is what was used 33 yrs ago to describe the sanctuary's in Laos and Cambodia and also the cooperation btwn Chavez and the FARC. While not bending over backwards they do enable and facilitate no matter how y7ou look at it.

But either way I feel it needs to be pointed out that my point from the initial post I made in this thread isn't that we invaded due to any terrorism connection. My point is and will remain that there was a connection but we (the administration) didn't invade due to this reason. You using it as a point contention by debating what level the cooperation rose to is not relevant since my points stands that it wasn't the basis of our reason for invading so it couldn't have been lied about.

JRB11

18 June 2008, 18:37

Jimbo

18 June 2008, 19:56

I see what you're saying, and I'm not saying they lied about it, but they did use it quite effectively in getting the majority of congress and the public on board for the invasion. It wasn't the fact that Saddam had WMD, it was the fear that he would give it to those assholes in AQ.

Could the Administration have given the reasons I posted to explain the action the were about to undertake? Yes. However, protecting and extending ones interests is passe, internationally and domestically (ref Alfred Thayer Mahan rolling in his grave at Jimmy Carter giving back the Panama canal). So do you say some shit that will piss off all the ignorant isolationists and international hand-wringers? Or do you highlight the themes to which people generally more agreeable? You play up the issues that will draw you the least heat. Then you try to get a coalition together to give it some legitimacy. Off you go.

JRB11

18 June 2008, 20:17

You're right, that is a way to handle it. But those ignorant isolationists have a big stake in whatever snake oil you are selling, like their kids lives and their hard earned tax dollars. Just because someone may disagree with this particular action in the ME does not make them isolationists either, or a hand wringer. To argue that this war, or one with Iran, is/was inevitable is BS, IMO. Like I said, sometimes you make your own destiny.When you send our military out to fight, and die or be maimed, you had better have no doubt, and be able to prove it, that there was no other action available except war. If that make me a pacifist, isolationists, or hand wringer, so be it. I don't feel that Iraq or Iran meet that criteria.

Silverbullet

18 June 2008, 20:18

It wasn't the fact that Saddam had WMD, it was the fear that he would give it to those assholes in AQ.

What he could do with it to include using it himself, exporting it or whatever goes part and parcel with this. This fact doesn't indicate anyone used it as fear mongering since it's common sense that it could be exported, sold or bartered just as any other commodity could. This commodity just happened to have lethal connotations attached to it.

Considering we had a dude who had gassed his own people and put a hit out on a former US President, anyone in office should have been war gaming what he may or may not do if he had WMD.

Jimbo

18 June 2008, 20:29

When you send our military out to fight, and die or be maimed, you had better have no doubt, and be able to prove it, that there was no other action available except war. If that make me a pacifist, isolationists, or hand wringer, so be it.

Do the words 'USS Maine' or 'USS Maddox' mean anything to you?

RipperTOW

18 June 2008, 20:39

Or do you highlight the themes to which people generally more agreeable? You play up the issues that will draw you the least heat. Then you try to get a coalition together to give it some legitimacy. Off you go.

Only problem is, six years later you're left trying to explain to the world how your making good on all your do-gooder promises. The arch-example is MWD, which was designed to be exactly one of those "least heat" strategies. Whether he had it or not, Bush took that because he thought it would be an easy sell and a sure thing at the UN. Is there any doubt now, in the ashes of the MWD debacle, that we would have just been better off saying we were going into Iraq to put pressure simultaneously on Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia? And if we had done that and just endured the criticism in the beginning, we would have less "accountability" to motives that were never really ours.

Tracy

18 June 2008, 21:29

You're right, that is a way to handle it. But those ignorant isolationists have a big stake in whatever snake oil you are selling, like their kids lives and their hard earned tax dollars.

What, my children's lives and my tax dollars don't count? 75% of my immediate family deployed to the ME; 50% deployed into direct combat. My 'stake' in this conflict is as great; or greater, than the isolationists. Isolationists remind me of that old hymnal: "Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die...". They want the good life but are unwilling to nut-up and do something about it.

Just because someone may disagree with this particular action in the ME does not make them isolationists either, or a hand wringer. To argue that this war, or one with Iran, is/was inevitable is BS, IMO.

Radical Islam wants a global caliphate. The Quran specifically allows Muslims to deceive and murder non-Muslims in the name of Allah; as long as it spreads Islam throughout the world. This war is inevitable and is going to get bloodier before it's over with one way or another.

Like I said, sometimes you make your own destiny.When you send our military out to fight, and die or be maimed, you had better have no doubt, and be able to prove it, that there was no other action available except war. If that make me a pacifist, isolationists, or hand wringer, so be it.

Yes, we are making our own destiny. Constitution, cheaper goods and services, good quality of life, free market system, good education, fairly secure environment and a voice in how things are run.

I don't feel that Iraq or Iran meet that criteria.

Right now, every Muslim group that empathizes, sympathizes or supports the great struggle to spread Islam at all costs meets the criteria. Either we destroy them or they enslave us. Isolationism = Enslavement.

Leave the USA and go live in France or Germany. They are somewhat isolationist and have a national policy of appeasement towards Muslim immigrants. See how that's working out for them.

The world is too crowded and too depleted in critical resources to allow radical elements of Islam any leeway. Either they stop, or we sto(m)p them.

JRB11

18 June 2008, 22:06

First off, why would you think for one minute that I could care less for you or your family? My take on Jimbo's post was that it's OK to twist the aguement for going to war, to frame it in such a way that doesn't spell out the whole truth, to get the sheeple to go along. I stand by evrything I said. As for radical Islamist, I have never, EVER stated that we should not hunt them down and try and kill them, but they are few, and beaten to shit until we gave them a break and went into Iraq. Gave em a little rest time, and one hell of a recruiting theme. I've always felt that at some time we may have to go to war with Iraq, but the timing was wrong, and so was the method. Radical Islam is a disease, but the cure is not invading every Islamic nation we don't like. Hell, the Quran was around last century, and while there was terrorist violence, I don't recall a massive jihadist movement. 1.5 billion muslims. How many jihadists? 30K? 50? Our best hope is getting the 1.49 billion muslims who aren't jihadist on our side, and we'll stamp it out. If we invade Iran, Osama will be laughing his ass off.

Greenhat

18 June 2008, 23:45

My take on Jimbo's post was that it's OK to twist the aguement for going to war, to frame it in such a way that doesn't spell out the whole truth, to get the sheeple to go along.

Isn't that the norm?

The Emancipation Proclamation, the USS Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, the Cuban missile crisis..

Sometimes for legitimate reasons, sometimes for political reasons:

Politicians RARELY tell us the truth about why we go to war.

Doesn't mean that the truth isn't still a good reason to go to war.

Xdeth

19 June 2008, 01:02

If Bush simply acted on the intelligence that he was presented. In a logical way. Then I don’t see how he lied to us. If however he was advised that the intelligence was not reliable and he sold it to the country and congress anyway he lied. Who’s to ever really know?
......

Slam Dunk.

It was the nuclear threat that pushed the public and Congress over the edge IMHO, and the most shaky of the intel provided. The data in the NIE regarding chem-bio and missile technology was somewhat beliveable, much of a threat to us though, mmm.

Annex A to the NIE page 84, INR alternative view. Yet, in the State of the Union out it came, a lie? History must decide.

TPD1280

19 June 2008, 07:32

...but the first part of the big stick theory is walk gently, something this cowboy administration hasn't done well. Sometimes, you make your destiny.

(emphasis mine)

No it is not. The quote is, "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

In other words don't bluster, you're the one in charge. Make them incline their ears to your words with the secure knowledge that whatever you say will be backed up.

Guy

20 June 2008, 00:07

(emphasis mine)

No it is not. The quote is, "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

In other words don't bluster, you're the one in charge. Make them incline their ears to your words with the secure knowledge that whatever you say will be backed up.The problem with the "big stick" theory is:

"SOBs are afraid to swing it!":(

Stay safe.

Darksaga

20 June 2008, 04:33

Interesting... no one has mentioned the 500 WMD's found and then reported on in JUN06. Every major network carried the news.

Bravo Five Romeo

20 June 2008, 05:25

Interesting... no one has mentioned the 500 WMD's found and then reported on in JUN06. Every major network carried the news.

Because it turned out to be not quite true... an exaggeration by Senator Rick Santorum, who quoted a part of the Iraq Survey Group's findings out of context.
It was good politics at the time for Rick Santorum.
He made some headlines and scored some points.
The follow up story with the full details got less attention.

What Rick Santorum was refering to was the discovery of old munitions from the 1980's that were found that contained degraded mustard and nerve agent.
What he neglected to mention in his press conference was the rest of the section from the report which included this little passage:While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible Indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafterThe press doesn't like to admit when they jumped the gun and reported without doing full fact checking.
That's why retractions and corrections are always in small print. :D
So for Rick Santorum it was great.
More people heard the news that he revealed the discovery of WMDs than heard the news that he exaggerated... because that news was buried.

Greenhat

20 June 2008, 06:47

Wasn't the issue whether Iraq had WMDs that might be passed on to terrorist groups?

Is there some reason that chemical weapons from the 1980s couldn't be passed on to terrorist groups?

Read the ISG report in detail, not just the summary. Their conclusions don't match very well with the actual facts in the report.

MPCOA

20 June 2008, 07:09

Last I knew being degraded does not equal it being safe.

20 June 2008, 07:48

Last I knew being degraded does not equal it being safe.

Degraded nerve-agents would wreak unbelievable havoc on not only the poor souls that had to suffer from them, but our entire economy as a whole. I don't for one second subscribe to the notion that because they were degraded that they were somehow insignificant.

SOTB

20 June 2008, 08:18

Bah -- old has-been stockpiles of ammo don't equate AT ALL to the claims of a massive WMD program. For those that just have to hinge their justification of the war on a few decrepit cannisters or rounds, what would be your answer for why those same "dangerous" stockpiles were not utilized on our troops during the invasion? Surely someone with a massive WMD program would have no problem using those same weapons to defend their nation from attack?

Whatever. Justification for the invasion based solely upon the understood and ACCEPTED threat of both the existence of an Iraqi WMD program and the probable willingness to utilize those same weapons is all that is required. We know that Saddam believed it important to convince his neighbors he had a program -- well it is no fault of ours that the rest of the world believed him. And because of that belief, he got his ass spanked. That should have been the end of the story.

Where we screwed up was the late-hour attempts to pin all sorts of silliness upon our justification, so as to ensure the "slam-dunk" rationale. Years later, rather than merely appearing as peoples who will bash your head in if you are an assclown, we appear as liars and without a moral rudder. Too bad, IMO....

grog18b

20 June 2008, 12:42

Years later, rather than merely appearing as peoples who will bash your head in if you are an assclown, we appear as liars and without a moral rudder. Too bad, IMO....

:D

I liiiiiiiike that...

Who says we NEED justification to bash heads? We invaded Iraq..... because we WANTED to. How's that?

...and if we WANT to... Iran is next. :p GROG

MikeC2W

20 June 2008, 13:18

:D

I liiiiiiiike that...

Who says we NEED justification to bash heads? We invaded Iraq..... because we WANTED to. How's that?

...and if we WANT to... Iran is next. :p GROG

Oh in a perfect world. That would have been simply beautiful...

Politics, it's not suprising that most of them are lawyers as they have a ability to fuck up almost anything and make it cost exponential more.

Darksaga

20 June 2008, 16:57

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2006 – The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center's commander said here today.
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction," Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

The report goes further and explains how sarin is still toxic even if degraded. It also says that most of the discussion came behind closed doors due to classification issues.

JRB11

20 June 2008, 18:15

I agree with SOTB, they relied to much on the WMD as the pretext to war, and as a resut it will harder for our allies to rally behind us in the future. Sorry, but 500 old munitions that are corroding in the desert don't equal 4100 US KIA in my book. I know he had WMD into the 90's. but it appears he got rid of it, as prescribed, and fucked himself for not at least letting anyone know about it.

bmbsqd

20 June 2008, 18:55

In 2007 I did a chem op in Samara, Iraq at the old Muthanna Chemical Complex. Much is available about this site on the net, so I am not breaking any opsec here. What many do not know is that the US and UN had full inventory of the Sarin, VX, Mustard, and many other exotics stored at Muthanna after the first GW. The UN did a hideously pathetic job of securing it, and when OIF started, Bunkers #1 and #2 started getting ransacked. Even though we smacked them both and they were very dangerous to enter.....someone did. Eventually we encapsulated it and put high-tech alarms on it that ping the military if they are tampered with now.

So we knew...from GOOD intell....that the Muthanna Complex was being robbed of chem weapons. And we now know....although it goes unreported....that roadside bombs in Iraq have contained chems.

The Bush Admin. did have a responsibility to disclose some intell to the world as proof of our need to go in. That does not mean they were required to disclose everything, and that does not mean that getting it wrong = "LIES".

Those who have such a morale compass they find nothing but bad in why we went to Iraq should reconsider their occupation, and perhaps work pro bono to end the "bad war based on lies" instead of raking in that contractor money and bad-mouthing the man responsible for their paycheck.

JRB11

20 June 2008, 20:38

The UN secured it? Why didn't they destroy the weapons, wasn't that their job? I'll do some reading on it, but if we "smacked" it, and someone entered it, that only means it was entered, not that someone got away with loads of WMD. I would think that if AQI got ahold of some Sarin, we would have seen a gas attack in Baghdad. Not saying you're wrong, but if this were something of substance, I'm sure the admin. would have been out selling it to the public, "big time".

bmbsqd

20 June 2008, 21:29

There were 8 cruciform bunkers, surrounded by fakes. We destroyed a few, a few were empty, and #1/#2 were hit but not destroyed. Keep in mind once we whacked them with bunker busters they were very unstable, and the eventual "chemical cocktail" was pretty mean but did not prevent theft. UN did an inventory, and over 60,000 ord items loaded with chems were verified. The bunkers were sealed by UN. Security on them for all those years was a joke...just look at the pics below and you'll see bad haji was not at all afraid to break in. When OIF started we planted local security on them. Eventually SEI was contracted by the COE to do the encapsulation (with concrete) and alarm installation (similar to jsids) on the two bunkers, allowing physical security to be unnecessary...for the most part. UXB provided the EOD support (my gig) due to the ordnance around the site and the chems. We also did all the chem monitoring and hot line ops. Kroll did security...and a FINE job they did! (shout out to all my Kroll mates and fellow SOCCER fans!! :) ).

As for the location, you can Google Earth it at 33°52'35.06"N 43°50'22.97"E .

Biggest problem was over the years the local "security" hajis would sit on top of the bunkers and make cell phone calls. They reported they would sit right on the vents on top! Naturally they all started coming down ill, and tested positive for all sorts of exotic shit. The main problem was that VX, ,Sarin, etc. eventually start degrading, and the cast off vapors such as hydrogen cyanide and hydrogen sulfide are just as deadly as the chem agent itself. Lots of binary stuff also, which Saddam just LOVED!

It's a very interesting history and for a site that was completely transparent and unclassified, I have been surprised at the lack of attention paid to it by the press.

Some pics:4267

4268

4269

4270

JRB11

20 June 2008, 23:21

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxB.html

From what I can decipher from this report, the facility was documented in the early 90's, it was dtermined that some of the munitions were too dangerous to move so they were buried within the bunkers. Indications at thescene were that the Iraqis were destroying the weapons, and it appears someone made entry after OIF, but is unknown what, if anything, was removed. We may never know, but it sure as hell would have been nice if very early on, someone was posted to guard the facility, since it was well known that there were unstable weapons there. Well, at least we saved the Ministry of Oil.

Guy

21 June 2008, 01:10

Bravo Five Romeo

21 June 2008, 01:54

Those who have such a morale compass they find nothing but bad in why we went to Iraq should reconsider their occupation, and perhaps work pro bono to end the "bad war based on lies" instead of raking in that contractor money and bad-mouthing the man responsible for their paycheck.I don't think there's anyone on this board who finds "nothing but bad in why we went to Iraq."

But the President doesn't shit roses.
Contrary, to the beliefs of some, the man is not infallible.
And disagreeing with the President's decisions is not tantamount to sedition.

I can work a government job, be a proud American and still disagree with the President.
When he fucks up, it should be pointed out.
It is not just a right, but an obligation of every American to do so.
Accountability is one of the cornerstones of democracy.
In fact, letting the government get away with shit is downright unpatriotic.

HMdepperNavy

21 June 2008, 01:57

Guy

21 June 2008, 03:53

In fact, letting the government get away with shit is downright unpatriotic.Why don't you preach that to the General Officers that decide to speak up once they are drawing retirement?:confused:

Stay safe.

Bravo Five Romeo

21 June 2008, 04:11

Why don't you preach that to the General Officers that decide to speak up once they are drawing retirement?:confused:

Stay safe.C'mon.
You and I both know that another cornerstone of our democracy is that the military can not question political authority.

Once out of uniform, ETS'ed or retired, they can speak their minds.
But that our military answers to civil authority is one of the things that makes it, and our country, truly great.

Unfortunately, in the past, some politicians, like Robert McNamara, have blamed their own failures on the military because they were safe knowing the military couldn't speak up.

*Edited to clarify;
To be clear, Generals may argue behind closed doors with the SECDEF and the President, but they have the final say.
The Generals may vote against them and bitch over dinner with their family about them.
But the Generals may never refuse the lawful commands of the civilian leadership
And they may never speak out their disagrements with the civilian authority publicly or to the press.
While on AD, the only time a General may speak his opinions and voice his differences with the administration is when ordered to do so... for example, when questioned under oath in the Senate.

Silverbullet

21 June 2008, 08:19

C'mon.
You and I both know that another cornerstone of our democracy is that the military can not question political authority.

Once out of uniform, ETS'ed or retired, they can speak their minds.
But that our military answers to civil authority is one of the things that makes it, and our country, truly great.

Unfortunately, in the past, some politicians, like Robert McNamara, have blamed their own failures on the military because they were safe knowing the military couldn't speak up.

Not surprisingly you missed Guys point.

He is addressing the fact that these guys drew the check and accepted the perks but didn't do anything until they were retired. They then joined together in a concentrated effort to change the course of the political discussion.

If these guys were serious about everything they state, now, they would have resigned then vice the behind the doors disagreement you seem to think they do. There's very little of that at the GO level since most of these guys are politicians in uniform. They don't want to lose their status and their ego's's allow them to rationalize their continued service as a stepping stone to being able to effect change when they get more stars.

The Robert McNamara point you try to make is way off the mark since the reality is that anyone of these officers you seem to think couldn't speak out, could have. All they had to do was resign in protest and they could have drew the issue to a head. The fact they didn't speaks louder than the fact you attribute McNamaras foresight on the issue.

Bravo Five Romeo

21 June 2008, 08:39

If these guys were serious about everything they state, now, they would have resigned then vice the behind the doors disagreement you seem to think they do...

The Robert McNamara point you try to make is way off the mark since the reality is that anyone of these officers you seem to think couldn't speak out, could have. All they had to do was resign in protest and they could have drew the issue to a head. The fact they didn't speaks louder than the fact you attribute McNamaras foresight on the issue.True.
They could have resigned... maybe they should have.
Perhaps, however, there were other reasons, aside from their pensions, they did not.
Perhaps they felt the best thing they could do was do the best they could with what the civilian authority ordered them to do.

The point that I was making wasn't so much about these Generals in particular.
Rather, I was responding to Guy's post which, in context with my earlier comment he was respoding to, was more about Americans' obligation to hold their elected officials accountable.

SOTB

21 June 2008, 09:10

They don't want to lose their status and their ego's's allow them to rationalize their continued service as a stepping stone to being able to effect change when they get more stars....Is it so much the egos, or is it more that they simply have a decent-paying job and don't want to lose it?

Having not dealt with many generals during my AD time, and really only having serious face-to-face contact and discussions with them since becoming a civvie, I -- that is in MY opinion -- have come to believe that many of them are simply guys/gals that managed to work themselves up the "corporate ladder" (well, as much as we are willing to admit that the military is a type of corporate environment), and in the sense of this discussion, simply see quitting to be the wrong career move, vice suffering it out until a new CIC (with attached administration) comes along.

I've met fantastically few GOs that fit the warrior blueprint that I grew up thinking they would have, and instead -- see most as simply people who go to work each day and view their jobs as ways to get a nice house, the wife a nice car, and the kids into nice schools. None of those are what I would term as "bad" motivators, but they certainly give me cause to understand why a GO would not resign, when in reality, he/she just is looking at the job as a "job." Especially if they have invested a ton of their life into moving through the corporate hierarchy, and don't really have the confidence that they will be able to gain the same economic compensation in the civvie world, that they have obtained in theirs.

Having stated that, it is rather hypocritical of them to AFTER leaving service, to suddenly develop this amazing patriotic fervor and how if they had only been listened to earlier, the world (the US) would be a much safer/nicer/wealthier/etc. place....

Guy

21 June 2008, 10:34

Rather, I was responding to Guy's post which, in context with my earlier comment he was respoding to, was more about Americans' obligation to hold their elected officials accountable.Aren't GOs Americans also? Don't they have a responsiblity too those that serve below them, to make decisions that best uses personnel at the request of...The "civilian" leadership who orders we obey?

Others should pay the price because of their cowardice to speak out and/or resign in protest? Yet they have the audacity to criticize and complain about the politicians and their politics once retired?:mad:

Where's the fucking "courage" in their actions? I'd hope they would show that courage while wearing the uniform and take the lumps should they(politicians) not like the decision(s)...

"I'd could care less if Obama or McCain gets elected...we will still be here fighting long after they are out of office...";)

Stay safe.

Parajuevos

21 June 2008, 11:11

Not surprisingly you missed Guys point.

He is addressing the fact that these guys drew the check and accepted the perks but didn't do anything until they were retired. They then joined together in a concentrated effort to change the course of the political discussion.

If these guys were serious about everything they state, now, they would have resigned then vice the behind the doors disagreement you seem to think they do. There's very little of that at the GO level since most of these guys are politicians in uniform. They don't want to lose their status and their ego's's allow them to rationalize their continued service as a stepping stone to being able to effect change when they get more stars.

The Robert McNamara point you try to make is way off the mark since the reality is that anyone of these officers you seem to think couldn't speak out, could have. All they had to do was resign in protest and they could have drew the issue to a head. The fact they didn't speaks louder than the fact you attribute McNamaras foresight on the issue.

Your points are well made. Most of these General Officers are Politicians in Uniform. The higher the rank the more out of touch they seem to become, with those who are affected by their policies. I saw it even in the police department. Some guy could be a standup patrolman, sergeant, lieutenant or even Captain but once he got into the appointed ranks of Commander, Deputy Chief or Chief of Police, where his appointed position was governed by politics, he changed and seemed to lack the common sense, balls and/or ability to call a spade a spade, that he once possessed. He became a yes man and with that new position lost the respect of the men, who he was supposed to be leading, as he ascended the ladder of sycophancy.

It is ironic,to me, that many of the same sycophants, who publicly espouse the policies of the President,while on active duty, suddenly turn on the man, upon retiring, when there is money to be made. Just look at all the hypocrits who are writing books, giving away our strategies and becoming pundits for CABLE NEWS.

My feeling is that a rule should be put into play that makes it illegal for a General Officer or any other Officer, for that matter, to speak out publicly against the policies of his government, in time of war. The penalty for such a transgression should be the forfeiture of his pension. Notice that I said publicly. Disagreeing and advising, behind closed doors should be welcome, not discouraged and those so engaged should not be threatened with sanctions or punishment, whether on active duty or retired. Their expertise should be welcomed and their advice and council accepted, where merited. My problem is when this dissent enters the public forum.

Former Generals, who are employed, as paid analysts, for news networks are moral prostitutes, who sell out to the highest bidder. They take the pension that is provided for them by the government and then turn their guns on the same government and verbally blast away at it, in time of war. This is reprehensible. I personally believe that this behavior endangers the lives of our troops, in the field and hinders our national security.

To paraphrase Don Corleone, when chastizing his tempermental son, Sonny, "Whats the matter with you?" You know better than to discuss family business in front of outsiders."

bmbsqd

21 June 2008, 11:34

Xdeth

21 June 2008, 11:52

Marcus mentions in "Lone Survivor" how his team discovered stripped trucks near the Syrian border. How can anyone really know whether or not Saddam got rid of any evidence relating to WMD development during the weeks and months prior to our invasion? If he was clean or wasn't trying to hide evidence; why didn't he open his doors wide open to the UN, or comply with the United States?

You could speculate scenarios or reasons for his actions all day, but the evidence gathered to date is what it is, solidly thin to non-existent.

I don't get what is with all the revisonist history attempts, who is anyone trying to convince at this point, drive on and finish the job is all that matters now.

IED's with chem in them were very widely reported BTW. In the two cases I can recall they either had degraded precursors, lacked correct arming sequence before detonation, or were minus-1 one of the two required elements. In any event, it was ineffective producing agent (reported anyway).

While degraded certainly does not indicate safe, I think the consnesus is that Saddam's chem WMD's were not mfr cleanly enough for long term effectiveness after creation. Unlike our nerve agents which are estimated effective at 20 + years, his most advanced maybe 5 years under optimal storage conditions.

This is some scary stuff to be honest, a WMD program can be started for just a few million dollars and some organic chem graduate students. The counter to a state sponsored chem-bio attack whether in the field or against civ target is likely to be nuclear, there have been recent US modifications on lower yield nuclear deliverables for enhanced tactical uses, just like this!

Silverbullet

21 June 2008, 12:25

Is it so much the egos, or is it more that they simply have a decent-paying job and don't want to lose it?

I think it's the ego and in some cases a sense of entitlement that has creeped in over the last couple decades.

They don't really work for yrs. They have people fawning over them and get everything they want instantly. The get used to it and in some cases think they rate this because of who they are not what they should be doing.

I worked closely with a number of them in my later yrs of service. You get those who are pure gunfighters and those like above. Most of the gunfighters have a harder time moving up to 3 and 4 stars due to the club votes in it's own members.

For those that don't have first hand experience next to them, I suggest a review at their comments. Most of the comments start with "I" as in I would have done this or I thought this should have been done but I was shot down, etc, etc... They are making sure everyone knows they have the answer and if they had been listened to everything would have went just dandy. They aren't honestly critiquing our efforts. It's especially interesting hearing 3 & 4 stars do this since they are made men and are still partly in the loop on any number of issues dealing with their parent service and warfighting issues. They are also out of the loop on some key issues but don't put that disclaimer in front of their statements.

The other point is that no war is perfect. These same GO's would lose their minds if a former subordinate came out publically and derided their decisions in public while they were still serving. The fact they have no compunction about doing it to a still serving president shows how much sense of entitlement they have about themselves that doesn't extend anywhere else.

How about if enlisted dudes started showing up on TV listing every poor decision they made or even listed the GO's who had to retire because they were porking some jr grade officer, in Iraq, and mistakenly sent pics home to the wife? or of the ones who compromised classified data which was stolen, out of their car, while they were getting a nooner from their Cpl driver? The enlisted could go even further and raise questions about every tactical decision they make since they didn't agree with it and some soldiers died whole conducting this part of the operation? They don't and the senior leadership expects this not to happen but they refuse to extend the same to their former bosses.

They are out of line and should have resigned or now hold their counsel.

Edited to add: I don't want to give the impression that I'm condemning all GO's. I worked very good ones that I'm proud to still call friend. I'm specifically addressing a certain culture that can be present in the star wearing class.

JRB11

21 June 2008, 13:00

My only interaction with a GO, I believe, was at RAF Skullthorpe. I was copying a live msg in morse code from a team in the field, when the door to our commo trailor opened, distracting me. I yelled out "shut the fucking door" as I turned to look at the asshole who opened it, and when I noticed the stars on the lapels, added a "sir!". I agree, it would be nice if they would stand up when something egregious was going down, but that doesn't happen very often. I'm not sure what the Shinseki thing was all about, but it appears he did take a stand and was removed. As forany law about excercising their 1st amendment rights upon leaving the service, don't think thats a good idea. They should beashamed they did't resign and then speak up, but they should be able to speak up. I saw a story a few weeks ago about dozens of retired GO's and other officers who were still on the pentagon payroll, but were being paid by networks as experts since the war began. That smacks of propaganda to me. It's up to listener to listen to their story, and decide if there's any merit to it.

8Ball

21 June 2008, 13:27

SOTB, SB and others are correct, I believe. The culture of GOs these days is like living like a rock star. Their every whim is granted, they drive around in convoys with PSD details (in and out of the US), their expense accounts are enormous, they pay for nothing, they are treated like geniuses.

The days of old battlefield generals like Patton are over. Our society does not want them and our military seems incapable of producing them. Sadly, IMO, Gen. Schwarzkopf was the last one, though many would insist he is not worthy of being in the Patton, McArthur, Bradley ilk.

Generals like Clark and Eaton are the epitome of those who suck the military tit, then throw it to the wolves after they are finished taking it for all it's worth.

Having just returned from being part of this "rock star" mentality.......
I can 100% agree with this. They are pampered and egotistical. It all revolves around stroking the ego. To some GO's, the bigger the PSD entourage is, the more important he/she is.....
Now, I did meet a couple who didnt think like that.

Take Care.

BOFH

21 June 2008, 14:24

I have interracted with people wearing stars on only 2 occasions, and my interractions with both were very brief, but my impression was this: They most certainly seemed more concerned with pulling our people off missions to act as PSD, while they pulled more of our people off missions to participate in the "dog and pony shows," we called "Joint Civilian Orientation Conferences." All-in-all, they didn't seem to care about the troops, or the war, or anything except playing their political games, and jockeying for high-paying jobs to continue living comfortably in their retirements.

My $0.02

Silverbullet

21 June 2008, 15:55

I saw a story a few weeks ago about dozens of retired GO's and other officers who were still on the pentagon payroll, but were being paid by networks as experts since the war began. That smacks of propaganda to me.

How about referencing the story or it's just a rumor and shouldn't be posted.

Since the overwhelming amount of GO's who are on the networks are on there to denounce the admin I can only assume that the propaganda is for the left not the right................:confused:

The Shinseki thing has been beat to death. Those who want to lay blame on the admin say he was removed because he spoke up. Maybe he was but that is the prerogative of his boss just as he could do it to a subordinate. Considering he has kept his counsel no one knows what the actual reason is or was. He was a weak political machine when he was in the Balkans and focused every decision on whether it would hurt his chances to become Chf of Staff so maybe karma bit him in the ass or maybe he ran his mouth to the press before addressing it to his boss.

I tend to think the number of troops was enough but we had some very poor leaders running things during the upswing of the insurgency. We also took our foot off the throat in the summer of 03 when he started mass rotating units out of country and brought in new ones that came with a much different attitude. This then resulted in the need for more troops, in my mind, not vice a versa. That's another discussion that has been beat to death here, though.

Parajuevos

21 June 2008, 16:16

:DI have interracted with people wearing stars on only 2 occasions, and my interractions with both were very brief, but my impression was this: They most certainly seemed more concerned with pulling our people off missions to act as PSD, while they pulled more of our people off missions to participate in the "dog and pony shows," we called "Joint Civilian Orientation Conferences." All-in-all, they didn't seem to care about the troops, or the war, or anything except playing their political games, and jockeying for high-paying jobs to continue living comfortably in their retirements.

My $0.02

I only had one interaction with a G.O. It was about 36 years ago, on a Bay Area freeway.

Single digit greetings were exchanged and uncomplimentary invective hurled out of our respective car windows.:eek:

It was after the exchange that I noticed the Military Decal, on the front bumper of his car, with a star on it.

Since we were both off duty and out of our respective uniforms I guess we were allowing our "inner selves" to communicate with one another.

I gloated, a little, after the incident because the guy looked like the type that wasn't used to having anyone talk back to him. Translated: He looked like a self righteous, conceited, snotty son of a bitch.

He was probably frustrated as hell that he couldn't have me court martialed.

Darksaga

21 June 2008, 16:19

You need to familierize yourself with some intell updates.

Along those lines... a great deal of the arguing points coming from the far left would be without merit if the intel were made public.

Parajuevos

21 June 2008, 16:24

Delete

Spinner

21 June 2008, 17:27

Is it so much the egos, or is it more that they simply have a decent-paying job and don't want to lose it?

Having not dealt with many generals during my AD time, and really only having serious face-to-face contact and discussions with them since becoming a civvie, I -- that is in MY opinion -- have come to believe that many of them are simply guys/gals that managed to work themselves up the "corporate ladder" (well, as much as we are willing to admit that the military is a type of corporate environment), and in the sense of this discussion, simply see quitting to be the wrong career move, vice suffering it out until a new CIC (with attached administration) comes along.

I've met fantastically few GOs that fit the warrior blueprint that I grew up thinking they would have, and instead -- see most as simply people who go to work each day and view their jobs as ways to get a nice house, the wife a nice car, and the kids into nice schools. None of those are what I would term as "bad" motivators, but they certainly give me cause to understand why a GO would not resign, when in reality, he/she just is looking at the job as a "job." Especially if they have invested a ton of their life into moving through the corporate hierarchy, and don't really have the confidence that they will be able to gain the same economic compensation in the civvie world, that they have obtained in theirs.

Having stated that, it is rather hypocritical of them to AFTER leaving service, to suddenly develop this amazing patriotic fervor and how if they had only been listened to earlier, the world (the US) would be a much safer/nicer/wealthier/etc. place....

I think that pretty much covers it, although I think you still find a few that have that warrior ethos, at least I sensed it when I was in. Most of my higher ranking commanders were guys that saw multiple tours in Vietnam, so that might have made the difference there. I'm speaking just as a support guy, but it had an effect even at that level.

And I think, eventually, it will make the difference down the line. The folks that are putting in some hard time right now as platoon leaders and company commanders, over this stretch of 5-6 years, are going to be the pool that future generals and admirals are going to chosen from. If I see any parallel at all, it's among those that are sticking it out, much like those officers and enlisted who hung in there during the post Vietnam years. Hopefully, there will be more wheat than chaff.

As for a GO making a statement by resigning, you'd probably only see that from a real maverick type officer, somebody who has been bumping up against the system his whole career. And those guys rarely make it to flag rank. I think John Boyd is a pretty good example of that, and he was lucky to have made Colonel.

JRB11

21 June 2008, 20:32

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Not exactly proganda from the left.

Silverbullet

21 June 2008, 21:33

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Not exactly proganda from the left.

Yeah completely objective and accurate........:confused:

JRB11

21 June 2008, 23:09

]http:// www dot sourcewatch dot org /index.php?title=Pentagon _military_analyst_program

It happened, it wasn't an internet rumor, and I didn't make it up. The beauty about the GWB administration is that they pull stuff I couldn't make up.:eek:

Greenhat

22 June 2008, 02:02

It happened, it wasn't an internet rumor, and I didn't make it up. The beauty about the GWB administration is that they pull stuff I couldn't make up.:eek:

Obviously neither the writers of either of those articles, or yourself, have much of a sense of history.

Is there any reason that the administration shouldn't try to get their side of the picture out? Is there any reason that retired Officers shouldn't be used to do that?

No and no. As a matter of fact, historically, it is a rather common practice in American history.

It's only in the last 40 years, with the media taking on the self-righteous attitude that they and they alone have the right to make moral judgements about what the US does, that such items are questioned. I call it the "Peter Arnett" school of journalism. Self-righteous, ignorant and insistent that they and they alone have the "correct" view of what is going on. The NY Times is at the top of the list for that type of journalism.

Silverbullet

22 June 2008, 06:28

JRB11;

It happened, it wasn't an internet rumor, and I didn't make it up.

"It happened" ???
I was addressing the fact that you and the NYT's implied that the GO's pictured were being paid to get the word out. You of crse decided to try and use a sole source and then back it up by showing there was a program but not showing how these guys were paid for "propaganda".

Drop the issue since it's your normal attempt to change the subj of each and every thread in order to beat the drum of your own beliefs.

I know about the program but do find it funny that you seem to think linking to source watch means something.

I took the active link out since that site is actively monitored for track backs by idiots who run it.

Don't link to it again. It doesn't increase your credibility and it is not something we want to be linked to.

SOTB

22 June 2008, 08:50

Is there any reason that the administration shouldn't try to get their side of the picture out? Is there any reason that retired Officers shouldn't be used to do that?

No and no. As a matter of fact, historically, it is a rather common practice in American history.

It's only in the last 40 years, with the media taking on the self-righteous attitude that they and they alone have the right to make moral judgements about what the US does, that such items are questioned. I call it the "Peter Arnett" school of journalism. Self-righteous, ignorant and insistent that they and they alone have the "correct" view of what is going on. The NY Times is at the top of the list for that type of journalism.Well stated -- although the tone and wording that some of the retired GOs utilize may still reflect some hypocrisy or even that "school of journalism" view you mentioned....

Spinner

22 June 2008, 16:06

I'm not sure using a statement with so much hyperbole, such as in that NYT article, lends much credibility to the position they take.

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts”

Tens of thousands of times? I think that's a bit of a stretch, even with all the various cable and news programs on these days. Even when coverage was heavy in the earliest days of OEF and OIF, I doubt they collectively made more than...1000?....2000? appearances all told. There simply aren't that many talking heads available out there, even though it sometimes seems like it.

ET1/ss nuke

23 June 2008, 16:35

In 1998 President Clinton bombed the crap out of Iraq on the justification that their WMD was a threat to the international community. Congressional Democrats vehemently supported the mission. Either Clinton was right, in which case Bush should be given the benefit of the doubt for believing the same thing, or Clinton was just as wrong about WMD as Bush was and Congressional Democrats should shut their collective pie-holes. If Saddam had no WMD, but his bluff that he might still have them (presumably to keep the Iranians wary of invading again) was sufficient to make us concerned enough to drop bombs, then the fault for what has happened in Iraq since 1998 lies not with Clinton nor Bush, but with Saddam himself.

SOTB

23 June 2008, 17:24

If Saddam had no WMD, but his bluff that he might still have them (presumably to keep the Iranians wary of invading again) was sufficient to make us concerned enough to drop bombs, then the fault for what has happened in Iraq since 1998 lies not with Clinton nor Bush, but with Saddam himself.Exactamundo....

Jimbo

26 June 2008, 06:23

I tend to think the number of troops was enough but we had some very poor leaders running things during the upswing of the insurgency.

In his subsequent planning for the invasion of Iraq, Rumsfeld took Schelling’s precepts to heart, thought pessimistically about all sorts of dire scenarios, and got the best possible result.

But only up to the point when organized Iraqi military resistance collapsed. In a tragic, latter-day extension of Schelling’s analysis, Rumsfeld was so busy thinking about the Iraqis’ “obvious” military moves—launching chemical weapons, making a last stand in Baghdad—that he neglected to hedge against what they actually did: melt away and return weeks later as small bands of insurgents. Because of the meager resistance to our interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s, and the swiftness of our apparent victory in Afghanistan in 2001, which Rumsfeld had played a great part in orchestrating, by early 2003 the specter of a debilitating Vietnam-scale insurgency against the United States military had been sufficiently exorcised to seem “unfamiliar,” and therefore to be confused with “the improbable.” By the time Saddam Hussein’s statue was toppled in Baghdad, we had become too impressed with our own military to see it as a “superb target.”

Rumsfeld, one former Pentagon official told me, saw Iraq’s degraded military as an easy target for our own; its destruction would provide a quick demonstration of American power, as well as get rid of the regional threat that the Iraqi regime constituted. No firm believer in democratic transformation, he probably assumed, as did many other people at the time, that any new regime in Baghdad, even a military one, would be a dramatic improvement, in strategic terms for the U.S. and in human-rights terms for the Iraqis. Rather than a fear of chaos, what is more apparent at this stage is a certain complacency on Rumsfeld’s part. For example, he evidently did not challenge the personnel system’s choice of ground commander in post-invasion Iraq. The Army’s 5th Corps was slated to rotate out of Germany and into Iraq. Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, the 5th Corps commander, and his staff, despite their service in Bosnia, had done little thinking about counterinsurgency. From that set of circumstances, a long trail of well-documented mistakes followed. In this and other cases, Rumsfeld, who is often accused of micromanaging, did not micromanage enough.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/rumsfeld

Ex_USMC_DOC

26 June 2008, 19:16

I don't think he lied: and I wouldn't give a shit if he did! There is still plenty of evidence of all the other lousy, shady sh*t Saddam was up to that makes taking him on very worth it! And I'm sure there are plenty of citizens of Iraq that are glad as hell we're there and doing the best we can to help them get on their feet. That guy was pure EVIL and the world is a better place without him. Putting dissidents in wood chippers and stuff...man...thats BS to the MAX! Gassing the kurds in northern Iraq? Man...he murdered like 2,000,000 of his own citizens! Thats good enough for me...

I hate the way the lib's and anti-war, anti-Bush crowd compare this war with WW2! It just shows how petty and ignorant these stupid, snotty, superficial, pseudo-liberal, arm-chair revolutionaries who STILL think they can turn a sword with a smile really are!!!

"Omg, Omg," they whine..."This war has drawn on longer then WW2"!!! As if that mattered. The only reason it has is because we are fighting it the "politically correct" way...if we ran up in Saddam the way we ran up in Hitler, that sh*t would have been over in 6 months!

So we are going on what? 5 years now? How many casualties? Just over 4,000!! Hell, at the battle of Iwo Jima we had, like, 7000 Marines in less then 21 DAYS!!! Libs have NO sense of history at all....products of the public school system I guess....

WW2 was 4 years or so, 416,800 members of our military were killed. Tell me the current figures of our death toll are not mute testimony to the awesome skill, training, dedication, technology and attitude of our military!! Hands down the finest fighting men that have ever existed on planet Earth! And this is out of an estimated total death toll of over 72,000,000 people in WW2!

So our military sends in about 150,000 troops, in a lightening strike to the heart of Iraq, taking on the 4th largest military in the world and KICKS THEIR ASS! Maybe the intel was flawed....maybe that was by design....right is right and what we did and are doing is right! Good on Bush! I don't agree with everything he does, but I think history will vindicate him...if we survive, as a species, that long...../drunken rant off: Flame on!

Inspector Cluseo

26 June 2008, 19:46

fact check

Ex_USMC_DOC

26 June 2008, 19:52

fact check

For whom? Me? Ok, though I realize that this site is not the absolute definitive answer for anything: its still good!

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

Bravo Five Romeo

26 June 2008, 23:52

I don't think he lied: and I wouldn't give a shit if he did!
I don't think he lied.
But I would give a shit if he did.

I hate the way the lib's and anti-war, anti-Bush crowd compare this war with WW2! It just shows how petty and ignorant these stupid, snotty, superficial, pseudo-liberal, arm-chair revolutionaries who STILL think they can turn a sword with a smile really are!!!
Really?
The "libs" are comparing it to WWII?
:D
Just a few...

Bush compares Iraq and Afghanistan to WWII on 29MAY08 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/washington/29speech.html?ref=us)

Bush compares Iraq and Afghanistan to WWII on 22AUG05 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082200235.html)

Bush compares Iraq and Afghanistan to WWII on 03JUN04 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/02/bush.speech/)

Bush compares Iraq and Afghanistan to WWII on 02JUN04 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3771401.stm)

Bush compares Saddam to Hitler on 22NOV02 (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/11/21/1037697805270.html)

Bush compares Osama to Hitler on 05SEP06 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5318204.stm)

...and so on and so on.

But you are right.
Comparing WWII to Iraq is ignorant.
Glad you said it... not me.
:D

JRB11

27 June 2008, 00:03

Damn B5, you beat me to it!! BTW, one hell of a lot of those Iraqis murdered were murdered during Reaga/Bush and Bush 1.

grappler

27 June 2008, 00:26

I don't think he lied: and I wouldn't give a shit if he did!

Honest question. If it had been Clinton, would you have given a shit?

BTW...Wasn't a fan of President Clinton

Ex_USMC_DOC

27 June 2008, 05:49

Honest question. If it had been Clinton, would you have given a shit?

BTW...Wasn't a fan of President Clinton

Well...that's a loaded question! There is a better chance of Mickey Mouse ordering troops into Iraq then Clinton....

But if he Clinton DID...I would support the decision for the same reason...something needed to be done about that Saddam dude, for sure.

grappler

27 June 2008, 06:25

[QUOTE=Ex_USMC_DOC;1016137]Well...that's a loaded question! There is a better chance of Mickey Mouse ordering troops into Iraq then Clinton.... [/QOUTE]

True.

But if he Clinton DID...I would support the decision for the same reason...something needed to be done about that Saddam dude, for sure.

I agree with the fact that with Saddam making the claims he did, something should have been done.

What I don't agree with is, "I don't think he lied: and I wouldn't give a shit if he did!" Come on man... So in your opinion the POTUS should be able to lie to get something he wants... just make some shit up? I disagree... And yes, I'm a conservative Republican, just not wearing any blinders.

BTW, I'm not questioning your ability to follow orders, just the statement qouted above.

andy bannerman

27 June 2008, 07:43

The thing with this is that everyone thought Sadam was a mad badass .He played a game and lost.That takes a thought process.which proves he was as sain as you and me.
When stromin Norman made the call to Clinton admin saying Kuwait was free.The UN should have said go on and free Iraq.The end result is that more troops have died as a result of playing buy the rules.yOU CANNOT PLAY BY THE RULES IN THIS GAME IT COSTS LIFE`S .
Take the gloves off and start smaking people around till they realise the folly of thier ways.And terrorism did not start an end wit AQ .in THE 60`S /70`S you had the ira barda minehoff red brigade /in the 80`s you had the ira, contra, sandinsta anc.Guess what they are now all politically active and running thier respective country`s . Aq `s aim is not that of the whole muslim community.Aq will prob end up in power once the allied forces have left iraq / afghan because that seems to be the way of things
But hey thats just my two cents worth and my stepson is current 69csc in camp adder and i for one am proud of him .he stands for what he believes and he stands straight up no gimmics either

Andy

NightLandNav

27 June 2008, 08:45

Not playing by the "rules" we set for ourselves will, in the end, cost much more than we are "paying" now, including lives.

There is a proverb that says something about the lack of knowledge regarding past events or history... and how it is a bad thing somehow for things you do in the present, or something to that effect. It's very similar to a quote by George Santayana. ;)

[edited to add:] "Those who do not have a sense of history, view the world through the eyes of a child." - David McCullough; as a guest on the late Tim Russett's show (2003).

The eyes of a child, without the innocence of a child...not a productive combination. -NLN; Socnet (2008).

Silverbullet

27 June 2008, 13:04

Well...that's a loaded question! There is a better chance of Mickey Mouse ordering troops into Iraq then Clinton....

But if he Clinton DID...I would support the decision for the same reason...something needed to be done about that Saddam dude, for sure.

I've already made clear that I feel President Bush didn't lie to us.

That aside, your response begs the question: So you wouldn't care that our elected leader lied to us?

The ends justify the means? That's a slippery slope to start going down. Stating you wouldn't care if the President lies to us because you agree with the result of the lie is a signal that you find lying acceptable.

How about if we have a guy in office, who you don't agree with, and he lies about something? Is that ok since you have stated that lying to our citizens is GTG? I doubt it.

There is never a reason to lie to the public, when in office. If you are going to make a statement then the truth should be told. If it is something that involves national security and needs to remain classified then no statement should be made. Once we turn a blind eye to lies, we might as well stop electing officials and let a monarchy take over.

Bravo Five Romeo

27 June 2008, 13:08

When stromin Norman made the call to Clinton admin saying Kuwait was free.The UN should have said go on and free Iraq.The end result is that more troops have died as a result of playing buy the rules.yOU CANNOT PLAY BY THE RULES IN THIS GAME IT COSTS LIFE`S .Clinton was not President during the Gulf War.
That was Bush Sr.

RGR.Montcalm

27 June 2008, 13:10

There is never a reason to lie to the public, when in office. If you are going to make a statement then the truth should be told. If it is something that involves national security and needs to remain classified then no statement should be made. Once we turn a blind eye to lies, we might as well stop electing officials and let a monarchy take over.

Well said!

Silverbullet

27 June 2008, 13:20

The UN should have said go on and free Iraq.

The UN wasn't running things and we, as a nation, should never allow them to.

Ex_USMC_DOC

27 June 2008, 19:36

grappler

27 June 2008, 19:52

Silverbullet

27 June 2008, 19:56

Every single POTUS ever existed LIED! Every damn politician ever existed LIED! Its what they do for a LIVING! They make unpalatable truths palatable...Never, EVER heard of one who didn't.....and yea: I bet even ole Honest Abe lied about some sh*t....ever see a pic of his wife? lol!

I'm not sure why you feel it's necessary to capitalize words when responding to me. You do know that it indicates you're yelling, right?

Additionally, your response is dumb. It makes no sense and you seem to have confused campaign rhetoric with your first original assertion that it's OK for a president to lie if you agree with the issue or reasons he lied about.

Unpalatable truths? What may that be? A quick read of your posts around this board indicate that you base your thoughts on flawed premises and then expect others to debate them.

Based on your statements, I guess it's ok to assume that a president could lie to us about something, since he is the one who knows what unpalatable truths we can handle and what we can't. I can only assume that you feel fine letting someone else also determine what is an unpalatable truth and what isn't, since you don't seem to have an issue with them lying to you about it.

Ex_USMC_DOC

27 June 2008, 20:44

Do I have an "issue" with them lying....sure....but it don't fucking matter......they lie anyway.....they always have....and ALWAYS will.....sorry for the fucking CAPITALIZATION.......fuck off....

Silverbullet

27 June 2008, 20:51

I find it amazing that someone who wouldn't have balls to state something to my face feels he can just post it on a forum.

Your delusional view that you are a tough guy is only exceeded by your stupidity.

SOTB

27 June 2008, 21:03

....sorry for the fucking CAPITALIZATION.......fuck off....It took a little longer than I thought it would -- but eventually you came around and showed your true colors -- and this is even after being warned that your emotions were going to get you in trouble.

Bye stud....

grappler

27 June 2008, 21:05

Do I have an "issue" with them lying....sure....but it don't fucking matter......they lie anyway.....they always have....and ALWAYS will.....sorry for the fucking CAPITALIZATION.......fuck off....

You catch a case of stupidity??!!

You've gone from making some outrageous qoutes to now going off the deep end with a very respected member of this site.

And in this case, a nice cup of STFU would do you some good.

Greenhat

27 June 2008, 21:46

Every single POTUS ever existed LIED!

True. So?

bmbsqd

27 June 2008, 23:46

I've read Wikipedia....George Washington only lied once....that cherry tree thing! :D

Re a recently banned member, can someone explain what is the "credential" behind identifying one's self as a bell-ringer? That would be like me going on a EOD site and listing "EODS drop out" as a credential. "I'm just sayin'".

But as far as our President lying....I agree....he did not lie about Iraq.

KidA

28 June 2008, 11:29

Bye stud....

Son of a bitch, I had just called it to SB at two weeks...

NightLandNav

28 June 2008, 11:50

Hold on now...George didn't start that cherry tree shit. That was well after his death, to sell books. The silver dollar Potomac thing was another one.

So, let's be rational, George Washington never told a lie as far as we know. ;) :D

Also, "Bye stud"...you know that feeling when want to see something when you open your eyes, and it's there? When I read "fuck off"...I scrolled down.

"Stupid is..." is fuckingAright.

slowloud&harmless

28 June 2008, 14:24

Son of a bitch, I had just called it to SB at two weeks...

Watching that was like witnessing a shitbird getting tuned up by the Plt Sgt. I love socnet.

TerribleTed

28 June 2008, 14:42

bmbsqd

28 June 2008, 15:47

Terrible T has a good point. In fact, I believe W. was vindicated when it was verified Saddam admitted he kept up the appearance of such programs in an attempt to keep Iran off his ass. He (Saddam) made a decision to go that direction and thumbed his nose at a man who he should have read a little better....it was not as if he had nothing to go by, and he did, after all, try to kill the man's father. In the end I think this has been a very educational process in dealing with Saddam-like rulers, and I believe we did it the right way.

After the fact and prior to 2006-2007.....yes, our mil leaders screwed the pooch. Different story, but Pres. Bush should at least be admired to some degree for letting his generals and their staffs run the war....albeit improperly to some large degree.

Hopefully NK is next. I am disgusted as an American and a human that we continue to allow someone like KJI suppress his millions of people, starve them, force them to worship him as a deity, and then say just because he destroys a cooling plant say he is not longer a terrorism concern?

I predict George W. Bush will go down in history has a very good unpopular president.

Bravo Five Romeo

2 July 2008, 21:14

After the fact and prior to 2006-2007.....yes, our mil leaders screwed the pooch. Different story, but Pres. Bush should at least be admired to some degree for letting his generals and their staffs run the war....albeit improperly to some large degree.I strongly disagree with this.
The generals did an outstanding job with the task they were given.
The failures, where things took a turn for the worse, were decisions made by the civilian leadership.
Military victory on the ground was won quickly, expertly, and with a minimal loss of life to both sides.
The plan for the occupation was a disaster... and that was prepared by the civilian leadership.

DeBaathification, disbanding the Iraqi Army, relying on installing an unpopular interim president... these were disastrous decisions made by Rumsfeld and Bremer.
Military reccomendations were ignored.
And government workers assigned to oversee the Iraqi reconstruction were chosen for the loyalty to the administration rather than their experience or knowledge in the region.

Hopefully NK is next. I am disgusted as an American and a human that we continue to allow someone like KJI suppress his millions of people, starve them, force them to worship him as a deity, and then say just because he destroys a cooling plant say he is not longer a terrorism concern?Bad idea.
As much of a horror that Kim Jong Il is... a war against North Korea should be avoided.
We would win... but at a heavy price.
Not worth it.
That desn't mean if they crossed the border or did some other equally stupid thing, that we shouldn't fight.
Of course we should fight.
But we should work on avoiding war with them first.
In much the same way we avoided war with the USSR for years.
The Soviets were some evil fuckers, but unless they gave us no choice, we avoided war with them because it wasn't worth the price.

North Korea is fucked up and evil.
But we would take huge casualties defeating them.
And you need to understand the mindset of the North Korean people.
They are true believers.
We would not be greeted as liberators.
Children and old women would be fighting us.
We could beat them... No doubt.
But you have to do the math and ask if what we might gain is worth what we might lose

I predict George W. Bush will go down in history has a very good unpopular president.Wanna bet? :D

Silverbullet

2 July 2008, 21:37

The generals did an outstanding job with what the task they were givem
The failures, where things took a turn for the worse, were decisions made by the civilian leadership.
Military victory on the ground was won quickly, expertly, and with a minimal loss of life to both sides.
The plan for the occupation was a disaster... and that was prepared by the civilian leadership.

As usual it appears you prefer to rely on hyperbole rather than fact.

Yes the initial invasion went well. We expected that and as usual our mil did a fine job.

The rest of your post is not based in fact and appears to rely on the after the fact critics rather than the reality on the ground.

Fact-Our GO's did not raise issue with the number of troops beyond a few mild complaints that didn't raise to SecDef level. The GO's job is to execute the missions under the policy of the President. They, the GO's, running things in Iraq got unprecedented financial support as well as support for how they wanted to do the job.

You either obviously don't read the other parts of this thread or choose to ignore stuff than doesn't support your theories. One GO raised the issue of the occupation. As noted earlier we don't know if he was right or wrong but he did it in a way that got him sacked.

We had some very poor leaders who came in after the initial invasion. They started an occupation mentality and operated like they did in the Balkans not like an Army that had just conquered and defeated a country. It was their operational and tactical decisions that gave the up the momentum of our victory. The President and SecDef didn't have a thing to do with that.

De bathisfication? Big deal. It may have been a mistake but the reality is that if we had kept the iron fist we had on the throats of the country this would not have been an issue some now make it out to be. I don't think it was necessary but it didn't derail our efforts. It became an issue due to the piss poor military decisions that were made in conjunction with it. It was not the impetus for one thing or another and the country started to be swarmed by outsiders and the dudes who had been living in desert camps during late 03. The leaders on the ground (the Generals) are the ones who failed to anticipate this and also were very slow to adjust their thinking and tactics to combat it.

Contrary to how you always seem to want to portrya things the President and SecDef weren't reaching down to the operational and tactical levels. That was all in the hands of the Generals. The same Generals who failed to anticipate the insurgency and then failed to adapt properly to defeat it.

I have no problems with criticizing the president or anyone who serves at his leisure but you show very little understanding of how wars are persecuted and won or lost.

And government workers assigned to oversee the Iraqi reconstruction were chosen for the loyalty to the administration rather than their experience or knowledge in the region.

Government workers? What is that? If you are talking about senior people sent over to represent out gov't at the gov't level then you're wrong here as well. Experience or knowledge in the region? Hmmm, who was our fist Ambassador?

Bailaviborita

2 July 2008, 23:03

Agree with BFR. It seems to me the mistakes began at the top and went all the way down. An amazing case of all the wrong people being in the wrong places at the wrong time. 9-11 changed some realists to idealists. Wolfowitz and a few other idealists latched on and got Rummy to ignore military and intel advice. Intel community not trusted after 9-11 failure and didn't stand up for what they believed. Military didn't stand up to Wolf and Rummy. Franks totally cowed by Rummy and missing the strategic concept. Bremer and Sanchez finishing the mess. Congress not standing up for what they thought was right (scared). Media not asking the right questions (NY Times #1 on this one and WP not far behind). DIV CDRS and BCT CDRS not getting their guys ready for COIN and not adjusting/adapting quick enough (Patreus the exception?).

The question I have is- will we learn from this, or will the mil/pol/people (Trinity) of the next generation make them again? How many times do we have to let one group of guys who think they are smarter than everyone else intimidate military brass? Didn't a lot of those guys say "never again"?

Bravo Five Romeo

2 July 2008, 23:57

You are right that my previous statement was a little hyperbole heavy.
My defense of the decision of the generals over the decisions of the administration was correct... but I tilted it far more than necessary.
Absolving the generals of responsibility was completely wrong.
The greater fault, however, lies with the administration's handling.
I didn't need the hyperbole.

De bathisfication? Big deal. It may have been a mistake but the reality is that if we had kept the iron fist we had on the throats of the country this would not have been an issue some now make it out to be. I don't think it was necessary but it didn't derail our efforts. It became an issue due to the piss poor military decisions that were made in conjunction with it. It was not the impetus for one thing or another and the country started to be swarmed by outsiders and the dudes who had been living in desert camps during late 03. The leaders on the ground (the Generals) are the ones who failed to anticipate this and also were very slow to adjust their thinking and tactics to combat it.Yep. DeBaathification was a big deal, but I'll get to that.
I have no doubt that poor decisions by a number of GOs left us unprepared for the level of insurgency we faced.
But there were some serious blunders on the part of Rumsfeld and Bremer that helped escelate that insurgency.

Contrary to how you always seem to want to portrya things the President and SecDef weren't reaching down to the operational and tactical levels. That was all in the hands of the Generals. The same Generals who failed to anticipate the insurgency and then failed to adapt properly to defeat it.

I have no problems with criticizing the president or anyone who serves at his leisure but you show very little understanding of how wars are persecuted and won or lost.
I do have an understanding of how wars are prosecuted.
But I also don't give the administration a pass.
I hold them far more accountable than the Generals, because in the end, it is the administration that makes the final decisions for the big picture and they made some pretty bad ones regarding the occupation and reconstruction.

Government workers? What is that? If you are talking about senior people sent over to represent out gov't at the gov't level then you're wrong here as well. Experience or knowledge in the region? Hmmm, who was our fist Ambassador?If you are refering to Jay Garner, by all accounts, he seemed quite capable.
Unfortunately, some of his advice went against what the administration had in mind... so...
The President hand picked Paul Bremer as his replacement in May, just weeks after the fall of Baghdad.
Bremer's disbanding of the Iraqi Army and total deBaathification of the civil service were forseeable disasters that helped fuel the insurgency.

DeBaathification of all levels of civil service essentialy hobbled the reconstruction and delayed getting the infrastructure back up and running.
Not to mention it also pissed off a lot of Iraqis who were suddenly out of work.
People are less likely to fight if the electricity and water is running and the local government is stil operationg in some function.

Disbanding the Iraqi Army was the worst decision.
We did not have the numbers to control the entire country.
The Iraqi Army could have assisted in maintaining order and ending the looting and chaos.
Worse, disbanding them put a hundred thousand disgruntled armed men out of work.

NightLandNav

3 July 2008, 03:44

To that point, DCI Tenet stated definitive positions on "debathification" along similar lines as well. He also admitted in his book that hindsight is 20/20 if not better on the issue.

Saddam still being "on the loose" was an issue that played more into the situation than as we now know he should have (considering how things turned out). However, at the time...intelligence could not assuage the concerns present at the time...when the "debathification" issue was front burner...for the few days when there was any realistic debate pro or con. And the political side of the "con" argument had the microphone and the horsepower. ...if there was any chance at all.

"Would'a, should'a, could'a"...there is decades of that ahead. The primary concern (and in no way am I alluding that you don't know this full well) is figuring out how these specifics relate to resolution in the here and now.

NightLandNav

3 July 2008, 03:51

Double tap.

Greenhat

3 July 2008, 07:28

George Washington never told a lie as far as we know.

He told Mason he would support him in the Constitutional Convention. In the end, he didn't. So...

;)

Silverbullet

3 July 2008, 07:48

If you are refering to Jay Garner, by all accounts, he seemed quite capable.
Unfortunately, some of his advice went against what the administration had in mind... so...

No I was not refering to General Garner. You still don't know facts and are just picking names out of the air. The good General, who I met and watched work while he was there just didn't have what it took to run things. Sad but true. I also attended his farewell party at Saddam palace. This shows me that you statement about who was picked to go over there was just a statement since you don't know who was who.

The President hand picked Paul Bremer as his replacement in May, just weeks after the fall of Baghdad.
Bremer's disbanding of the Iraqi Army and total deBaathification of the civil service were foreseeable disasters that helped fuel the insurgency.

Of crse the President picked Bremer. He's the President. If you're trying to call this a crime or a purposeful mistake, then you're wrong. Going by past history, Bremer was one of our most accomplished diplomats and admired by both sides of the isle. I fail how to see how this relates to your original claims that only guys who were loyal to the President were picked to lead in Iraq. For the record I think he didn't live up to his past and performed at a marginal level. The president or anyone else had no way of knowing this since you can only base potential on past performance.

On the point you seem to think you have some traction- the debath issue- your claim that this was a foreseeable disaster is just more hyperbole and not based in fact. I'll state for the record that I don't think it should be done but to put it in the terms that you have smacks of 20/20 hindsight vision. Many "regional experts" were behind this idea. In fact many of the surrounding country's who we claimed as allies were for this. So in this case it is more of one of those unfortunate decisions of war not the pivot point that fueled any type of insurgency. Having a few more guys from the party in our pocket may have helped but it wasn't the turning point of anything.

DeBaathification of all levels of civil service essentialy hobbled the reconstruction and delayed getting the infrastructure back up and running.

Hobbled the reconstruction? LOL What hobbled the reconstruction was the pulling back into FOB done by the generals that allowed the insurgents to gain tactical momentum. King of hard to conduct reconstruction when the streets are now filed with dudes killing any civilian that attempted to cooperate with the US.

Not to mention it also pissed off a lot of Iraqis who were suddenly out of work.
People are less likely to fight if the electricity and water is running and the local government is stil operationg in some function.

Pissed off a lot of Iraqi's? Really? You base this on what? I was there during this period. What the Iraqi's were doing was laying around doing nothing. They were a welfare society and didn't even know how to have their trash collected. The electricity issue again goes back to the same generals who couldn't figure out how to combat a growing insurgency that had specifically targeted infrastructure. FYI, the electricity staying on in Baghdad was a problem under Saddam. He didn't keep it up via maintenance since it was a control measure he used over the people. I was there for black outs and brown outs and toured electrical plants. They were jacked up. By contrast the plants down south and up north were in good condition and were kept running by Iraqi's. It was a Baghdad citizen problem made worst by the insurgency not a debath problem.

Disbanding the Iraqi Army was the worst decision.
We did not have the numbers to control the entire country.
The Iraqi Army could have assisted in maintaining order and ending the looting and chaos.
Worse, disbanding them put a hundred thousand disgruntled armed men out of work.

This point is mildly interesting and does have some basis but misses the mark. I was part of a project to that was helping to do a few functions that would help with the transition. The issue is that the Iraqi leadership had destroyed most all of the Army personnel records. The average Iraqi soldier had also destroyed his ID. There was also not way to ID who was who except the senior generals that may have survived. The problem was that they were so hated by the Iraqis that putting them in charge appeared untenable at the time. Many guys who could not be vetted were showing up and claiming to be Maj or Sgt so and so. There was no way to put faith in this so the decision was made to disband them for both symbolic and real reasons.

You statement about not giving the administration a pass is interesting since you appear to go out of your way to attack them while giving others a pass. I really don't care about you politics. The reality is that it's war. War sucks. Good and bad decisions are made in war but no general was hamstrung from dominating the operational and tactical phases of the Iraq war. They are the ones who pissed the money away with not results unless some quartermaster Cpl was embezzling it.....They were the ones that took the boot off of the Iraqi's, lost operational momentum and let the insurgency grow without coming to grips with how to combat it. Defend them all you want. The reality speaks differently.

Bailaviborita

3 July 2008, 09:02

...On the point you seem to think you have some traction- the debath issue- your claim that this was a foreseeable disaster is just more hyperbole and not based in fact...

... no general was hamstrung from dominating the operational and tactical phases of the Iraq war...

I think there were plenty of generals who failed in their responsibilities- from tactical and operational levels all the way to the top. I do, however, think there is ample evidence that a sizeable number of colonels, generals, planners, and intel guys tried to get Franks, Sanchez, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld to re-think the Phase IV (or lack thereof) plan- to include the idea that deBaathification would be counterproductive and disbanding the Army, etc. would be too (Patreus was one).

I have two pro thoughts with respect to revisiting this and assigning blame: 1) will the Army learn from this, and 2) will we really understand what happened in order to take the right lessons. So far I've seen a halfway resolution (we are learning, but not all the right lessons, not institutionalizing them, and no institutional agreement on lessons learned/what happened- it all seems to be haphazard).

Guy

3 July 2008, 09:11

Hobbled the reconstruction? LOL What hobbled the reconstruction was the pulling back into FOB done by the generals that allowed the insurgents to gain tactical momentum. King of hard to conduct reconstruction when the streets are now filed with dudes killing any civilian that attempted to cooperate with the US.
These same leaders were chosen and promoted under the Clinton administration, we all know how these leaders were opposed to any type of risk during that time frame.;)

Stay safe.

Greenhat

3 July 2008, 09:48

I have two pro thoughts with respect to revisiting this and assigning blame: 1) will the Army learn from this, and 2) will we really understand what happened in order to take the right lessons. So far I've seen a halfway resolution (we are learning, but not all the right lessons, not institutionalizing them, and no institutional agreement on lessons learned/what happened- it all seems to be haphazard).

Silverbullet mentioned pulling into FOBs

Change FOB to Firebase and does it sound familiar?

NightLandNav

3 July 2008, 10:35

He told Mason he would support him in the Constitutional Convention. In the end, he didn't. So...

;)

All men (humans) lie, at some point, to some extent. No logical dissenting argument there.

"No, Martha, that dress doesn't make you look fat at all sugar bumps." -Lie

"Mason my friend, I've thought about it, and no, I've changed my mind, sorry." -Adjusting to the current situation despite previous assessments...for the good of the Nation.

;)

(In Martha's defense: "Those wooden teeth look perfectly natural darling, no one will notice.")

Bailaviborita

3 July 2008, 13:17

Silverbullet mentioned pulling into FOBs

Change FOB to Firebase and does it sound familiar?

Yup. Too much sounds familiar IMO. History supposedly doesn't repeat itself, but stupid people (actually, "smart" ones too) sure seem to make the same mistakes others have already made.

Greenhat

3 July 2008, 13:23

Yup. Too much sounds familiar IMO. History supposedly doesn't repeat itself, but stupid people (actually, "smart" ones too) sure seem to make the same mistakes others have already made.

Agree entirely.

NightLandNav

6 July 2008, 00:49

x2. Considering the pay-grades involved and the combined educations and experience...the "skipping record" is bewildering...even in consideration of irrational bureaucratic and partisan politic interference.

Jimbo

6 July 2008, 11:51

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jul/05/ap-exclusive-us-removes-uranium-from-iraq/

MikeC2W

6 July 2008, 20:00

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jul/05/ap-exclusive-us-removes-uranium-from-iraq/

AHAHAHAHAH - dude, those 550 metric tons don't count at all! That clearly doesn't constitute a threat and certainly not a weapons program!

What's funny is I read that story in the local paper, it was on page 8.

We're fucked.

Doctor_Doom

7 July 2008, 11:11

It's a HELL of a long way from yellowcake to even a dirty bomb, much less weapons grade uranium.

MikeC2W

7 July 2008, 11:27

It's a HELL of a long way from yellowcake to even a dirty bomb, much less weapons grade uranium.

I didn't mean to imply otherwise, only that I found it interesting that it wasn't really reported or talked about. What's a 'HELL of a long way'? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Perhaps never...

I guess we'll never know, which I count as a good thing.

Greenhat

7 July 2008, 11:31

It's a HELL of a long way from yellowcake to even a dirty bomb, much less weapons grade uranium.

Yellowcake is a lot closer than the uranium in your yard...

And there isn't much point to having yellowcake if you don't intend to refine it.

Doctor_Doom

7 July 2008, 11:43

Yellowcake is a lot closer than the uranium in your yard...

And there isn't much point to having yellowcake if you don't intend to refine it.

So I should not expect an imminent invasion on my backyard then?

Greenhat

7 July 2008, 11:49

So I should not expect an imminent invasion on my backyard then?

Only if you start gathering up the uranium there...

Doctor_Doom

8 July 2008, 02:34

Only if you start gathering up the uranium there...

Well, I'll start worrying when colin Powell goes to the UN to claim my compost pile presents an imminent threat which equates with possession of WMD's that warrants unilateral military intervention.

Doctor_Doom

8 July 2008, 02:44

Back to the original point...

Who, before the war, disputed the idea that Saddam had WMD? Nobody... that's who. It was accepted as a fact, worldwide. The arguments against the invasion ranged from racism, to American Imperialism, to "our" greed for oil, etc. But NOBODY argued that Saddam didn't have any WMD.

Prove me wrong.

There may have been someone out there who published something before the war challenging the notion that Saddam had WMD's.

Colin Powell, February 2001: "[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq."

Plenty of people doubted the presence of WMD's before the war. It was not accepted as fact. Just because you didn't believe Blix and other inspectors (including one former Marine from the US who was lambasted on this site) doesn't mean the presence of WMD's was accepted as fact.

Greenhat

8 July 2008, 03:00

Well, I'll start worrying when colin Powell goes to the UN to claim my compost pile presents an imminent threat which equates with possession of WMD's that warrants unilateral military intervention.

So, you're equating 550 tons of yellowcake to your compost pile?

Guy

8 July 2008, 04:44

It's a HELL of a long way from yellowcake to even a dirty bomb, much less weapons grade uranium.Imagine the "mass" hysteria this create, if it was even assumed a bomb was set in conjunction.....

Stay safe.

Doctor_Doom

8 July 2008, 11:18

So, you're equating 550 tons of yellowcake to your compost pile?

Just following through on your logic that creates justification for invading my backyard.

Doctor_Doom

8 July 2008, 11:19

Imagine the "mass" hysteria this create, if it was even assumed a bomb was set in conjunction.....

Stay safe.

Certainly it would be panic-inducing, but it still is not equivalent to Saddam possesing WMD as claimed by this administration.

Guy

8 July 2008, 11:28

Certainly it would be panic-inducing, but it still is not equivalent to Saddam possesing WMD as claimed by this administration.A panic-inducing event, has its economical ($$$$$) costs.

Stay safe.

Silverbullet

8 July 2008, 12:15

Originally Posted by Doctor_Doom
Certainly it would be panic-inducing, but it still is not equivalent to Saddam possesing WMD as claimed by this administration.

As claimed by this and previous administrations, Congress, the Senate, CIA, etc, etc....

MikeC2W

8 July 2008, 12:18

As claimed by this and previous administrations, Congress, the Senate, CIA, etc, etc....

Beat me to it, thanks.

Doc, don't let your hatred blind you! ;) I'd still like to know what one does with 550 Metric Tons of yellowcake, I already know what one does with a compost pile.

Greenhat

8 July 2008, 12:31

Just following through on your logic that creates justification for invading my backyard.

Didn't you live in the NorthEast for a while? Read Ricco. Justification for invading your backyard has been on the books for years... ;)

SOTB

8 July 2008, 14:28

Certainly it would be panic-inducing, but it still is not equivalent to Saddam possesing WMD as claimed by this administration.DD, Saddam didn't really do very much to dissuade the world from thinking he really had WMDs and a desire to use them -- just like Iran is doing now, and what N. Korea has done in the past. He played a bad hand and got nailed for it.

I do think that this administration was guilty of adding poorly-analyzed info to "sex-up" an already rational justification to invade. And I think that is now hurting us.

What a shame -- IMO -- that people are not accusing us of being bullies, vice dishonest bullies....

T-Rock

8 July 2008, 19:52

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008...ium-from-iraq/

So now we know the reason why Bush has not fought back against his critics: National security. History will vindicate him IMO. President Bush was right about Saddam Hussein’s pursuit of nuclear weaponry.

Why would the IAEA allow Iraq to keep such massive amounts of nuclear material when its three nuclear facilities were destroyed ......Hmmm? :confused:

Wonder how many nuclear weapons you can build with 500 tons of yellowcake? This guy says the answer is 142:
The media have been telling us for years that Saddam had no WMD, so "Bush's War": was based on a "lie." And those who believed Saddam did have WMD or WMD programs were delusional or worse.

But today, on July 6, 2008, the Associated Press reports that

Saddam Hussein had a nuclear program
At the Tuwaitha nuclear complex just south of Baghdad
Which included 550 metric tons (over 1.2 million pounds) of "yellowcake", or concentrated uranium
And multiple devices that could be used in a nuclear weapon.

The AP does not say alleged nuclear program. It does not add "according to military experts." It simply says "Saddam Hussein's nuclear program."

That's pretty big news, isn't it?

For about five years now, those of us who thought Saddam Hussein probably had at least WMD programs, if not WMD themselves, have been called not only wrong, but illogical and insane.

One example was an article by Sharon Begley in the Wall Street Journal titled People Believe a 'Fact' That Fits Their Views Even if It's Clearly False . (Her article series is called, without irony, the "Science Journal".) Ms. Begley reported that "six months after the invasion, one-third of Americans believed WMDs had been found, even though every such tentative claim was discomfirmed [sic]." She cited psychologists to explain this strange behavior. They used terms like "world views" and "mental models."

Jim Lobe at CommonDreams.org (Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community) reported that "Three out of four self-described supporters of President George W. Bush still believe that pre-war Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or active programs to produce them." He went on to quote the director of the polling company as saying

"To support the president and to accept that he took the U.S. to war based on mistaken assumptions likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about pre-war Iraq."

These findings on people's beliefs were based on a survey that asked people if they believed Saddam had WMD or WMD programs . Apparently, Sharon Begley, Jim Lobe and a whole lot of other people not only believed Saddam had no WMD programs, but that anyone who did believe such a thing was clearly illogical or insane. In fact, the only interesting question to them was what is wrong with our minds.

World views. Mental models. Cognitive dissonance. Suppressed awareness.

Fast forward to today. Now we hear from the Associated Press that "The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program -- a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium -- reached a Canadian port." That last "remnant" was 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium. That is over 1.2 million pounds of yellowcake! Also, the military had previously withdrawn "four devices for controlled radiation exposure ... that could potentially be used in a weapon." All this was located at "the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad."

The AP even reminds us that

"Accusations that Saddam had tried to purchase more yellowcake from the African nation of Niger -- and an article by a former U.S. ambassador refuting the claims -- led to a wide-ranging probe into Washington leaks that reached high into the Bush administration."

By the way, is it illogical or insane to think that Saddam could not possibly obtain yellowcake, and did not even try to, because one former ambassador went to one country in Africa and said he couldn't find it there? What about after they found over a million pounds of it just south of Baghdad? Is it now considered reality-based to think Saddam "sought" yellowcake, just as President Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address ?

Should psychologists study Sharon Begley's brain now that the disconfirmations have been "discomfirmed"? Should the CIA send Joe Wilson to Canada to monitor the destruction of the yellowcake he could not find in Africa?

Update: The AP article states "U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."

While this 550 tons of yellowcake was news to some of us, it was not news to Douglas Hanson or Rick Moran at American Thinker.

As Douglas Hanson asked in 2004:

"Why did the IAEA allow Iraq to retain such massive amounts of nuclear material, when its three nuclear facilities had been destroyed over 12 years ago, and have never been repaired?"

In another AT piece , he went on to say

"How many nuclear weapons can you build [with 500 tons of yellowcake]? The answer is 142."

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/disconfirmations_disconfirmed.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/08/wmds_in_iraq_the_real_story_be.html

Jimbo

16 August 2008, 18:19

...
The Administration did the math as figured that for a minimal expenditure of blood and treasure it could:
...
4) Dust off the big military (didn't happen in AFG), just in case we need a shit load of experienced soldiers to train a sudden influx of volunteers or conscripts.

These are the things that are in the long term interests of the United States.

http://outsidethewire.com/blog/war/an-un-intended-advantage.html

Five years and several months later--the United States military is one of the most combat-experienced militaries in history.

Virtually every officer of the line has led Soldiers and Marines on daily combat missions.

Sergeants and Junior Staff NCOs have come up through the ranks not in garrison or on training exercises but in combat.

Virtually every U.S. Rifle Platoon has something the Russian and Chinese military do not--experience in a gun fight

SOTB

22 February 2009, 03:05

Why do you think Iran is so interested in keeping a healthy insurgency going?If THIS ARTICLE (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/21/iran.nuclear.documentary/index.html) is to be believed, then apparently at least some portion of their motivation was as leverage to force the West (the US) to accept their aspirations of having nuclear weapons. Granted, this would have been only a portion of their motivation for stated support of the Shia insurgency -- but what really, REALLY, pisses me off, is that the US may have been openly told these assclowns would CONTINUE to kill US military personnel -- and we struck back with; "Oh yeah? Well, we'll just keep supporting a regime change, and, and, and -- you'd better be worrying!"

Fuck. A country openly conducts warfare against our citizenry. A country openly seeks WMDs (oops, sorry -- their program is for peaceful power needs). A country openly proclaims our country -- and at least one of our allies -- as the enemy.

And the best answer we could come up with was support of internal insurrection, oh -- and arresting a few useless fucks in Iraq. Oh, and we also apparently dicked up some of their supply system regarding their WMD program. For those that criticize previous administrations on being "soft", I offer that the last administration dropped the ball as well....

Jimbo

22 February 2009, 08:37

Meh.

Oldpogue

22 February 2009, 12:55

If THIS ARTICLE (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/21/iran.nuclear.documentary/index.html) is to be believed, then apparently at least some portion of their motivation was as leverage to force the West (the US) to accept their aspirations of having nuclear weapons. Granted, this would have been only a portion of their motivation for stated support of the Shia insurgency -- but what really, REALLY, pisses me off, is that the US may have been openly told these assclowns would CONTINUE to kill US military personnel -- and we struck back with; "Oh yeah? Well, we'll just keep supporting a regime change, and, and, and -- you'd better be worrying!"

Fuck. A country openly conducts warfare against our citizenry. A country openly seeks WMDs (oops, sorry -- their program is for peaceful power needs). A country openly proclaims our country -- and at least one of our allies -- as the enemy.

And the best answer we could come up with was support of internal insurrection, oh -- and arresting a few useless fucks in Iraq. Oh, and we also apparently dicked up some of their supply system regarding their WMD program. For those that criticize previous administrations on being "soft", I offer that the last administration dropped the ball as well....

Right on. They were tough in all the wrong places. Poor SA. Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan is where the focus should have been with a strong arm wrapped around Iran. Thats not 20-20 hindsight, I think there were many advocates of that strategy but the previous administration only heard what they wanted to hear and went where they wanted to go.

SOTB

22 February 2009, 13:15

They were tough in all the wrong places....I disagree. The previous administration was tough in "some" of the right places, but they; a) didn't listen to their own commentary about this being a "global" war (ie, world war), and b) allowed themselves to get caught up in nation-building exercises which were/are not only unsuccessful but also cost a great deal of resources. But the invasions conducted were spot on and successful.

My point is, Iran killed and wounded a great many Americans -- as well as members of our coalition (military and civvie types). Our answer to that was/still IS unacceptable....

Jong

22 February 2009, 13:31

I disagree. The previous administration was tough in "some" of the right places, but they; a) didn't listen to their own commentary about this being a "global" war (ie, world war), and b) allowed themselves to get caught up in nation-building exercises which were/are not only unsuccessful but also cost a great deal of resources. But the invasions conducted were spot on and successful.

My point is, Iran killed and wounded a great many Americans -- as well as members of our coalition (military and civvie types). Our answer to that was/still IS unacceptable....

At what point does an administration do something about it. It is not as easy as if you don't stop we are going to blow you up. We were all ready committed to 2 different wars. The political risks are huge and it would be worse to threaten something that you aren't able to back up.

There have been plenty of times in history where other countries where directly involved in killing Americans. Korea and Vietnam being the 2 biggest ones. The President can only push his luck so far before he has lost all his political capital and probably thought a confrontation with Iran would not have been worth it. He also at that time really didn't have the political capitol to open up another war.

Massgrunt

22 February 2009, 13:35

My point is, Iran killed and wounded a great many Americans -- as well as members of our coalition (military and civvie types). Our answer to that was/still IS unacceptable....And we've been letting them get away with it for about 30 years now with no major repercussions.

SOTB

22 February 2009, 14:17

At what point does an administration do something about it....And we've been letting them get away with it for about 30 years now with no major repercussions.IMO, this has went on too long (Iranian aggression against us and our interests). We invaded and toppled one govt, for less -- albeit, as Jong points out, the administration had the political clout to do that (or felt they did).

Past administrations have dropped the ball on how to deal with Iran -- including my fav (where I was of voting age). Arguably, past administrations dropped the ball on how to deal with Iraq and Astan -- and the Bush administration did not (with regards to the invasions, not the following occupations). However, the Bush administration dropped the ball on Iran, and the world is not safer for it....

grog18b

22 February 2009, 14:56

As far as WMDs go in Iraq... Have you ever tried to find something in the desert? I'm sure there are a great many Pharaoh tombs in Egypt still undiscovered, and those things can be massive... It took how long to find the giant one they are excavating now? People assume that because we have not found them yet, they must not be there...
Perhaps... Perhaps not... Perhaps they are now in Syria, moved right before the war started?

SOTB was correct, in that Saddam made the world community believe he had them, and would use them. Just like a bank robber that uses a finger in his pocket... I'm not waiting to get shot to figure out if it was a finger or a real gun. We couldn't wait to find out if Saddam had WMD, (as he already used chemical/bio weapons against his own people) or if he was bluffing. We called his bluff. Oh well. No WMDs yet... Maybe never find them, whether they exist or not. Only people that know for sure, are not talking, or have already met the end of their rope, so to speak...

Oldpogue

22 February 2009, 15:01

I disagree. The previous administration was tough in "some" of the right places, but they; a) didn't listen to their own commentary about this being a "global" war (ie, world war), ..
My point is, Iran killed and wounded a great many Americans -- as well as members of our coalition (military and civvie types). Our answer to that was/still IS unacceptable....

I think we were headed in the same direction, just from a different angle.

Bravo Five Romeo

22 February 2009, 15:25

I agree wholeheartedly with the comments made here in the last few days.

But what do we do with Iran?
There is no question that they have American blood on their hand.
There is no question that they have been run by some evil fuckers who pray for our deaths.
And there is no question that they will not only continue to be a threat to us and to the region, but as their weapons programs grow unchecked, the threat they already pose will grow.

What do we do now?

Our military is already spread thin in Afghanistan and Iraq and rightly committed to seeing things through there.

Unless Iran were to do something blatantly overt to attack us for the world to see and say "holy shit, go get em America" any direct action against Iran right now would be political suicide domesticly and internationally.

Forgetting for a moment the political fallout at home and abroad, what about the cost?
Aside from the cost in lives, in dollars, can we even afford another war right now?
We have the military resources to bomb the crap out of them in a long sustained campaign, but without drasticly increasing the size of our military, can we muster up enough forces to invade and occupy Iran without sacrificing in Afghanstan, Iraq, or anywhere else we are committed?

Massgrunt

22 February 2009, 16:14

As far as WMDs go in Iraq... Have you ever tried to find something in the desert? I'm sure there are a great many Pharaoh tombs in Egypt still undiscovered, and those things can be massive... It took how long to find the giant one they are excavating now? People assume that because we have not found them yet, they must not be there...
Perhaps... Perhaps not... Perhaps they are now in Syria, moved right before the war started?

I want to believe this as much as anybody, but I don't. If there were still major stockpiles hidden somwehre, we'd know by now.

B5R: we can afford to punish them militarily. I'm sure we have one or two JDAMs that aren't committed somewhere else. We know for a fact -it is beyond dispute- that Iran has been killing Americans for 3 decades and a whole bunch in the last couple years. I don't give a shit if the "world community" gives us a kitchen pass and neither should anyone else.

Bravo Five Romeo

22 February 2009, 16:51

B5R: we can afford to punish them militarily. I'm sure we have one or two JDAMs that aren't committed somewhere else. We know for a fact -it is beyond dispute- that Iran has been killing Americans for 3 decades and a whole bunch in the last couple years. I don't give a shit if the "world community" gives us a kitchen pass and neither should anyone else.I agree, and I wrote, that we definitely have the resources to rain death on them. But beyond inflicting damge on them, do we have the resurces to conquer them?
I understand you don't care what the world community thinks... a lot of people agree with you.
But I was referring to it as political suicide for whatever administration would act against Iran without support, not just from the international community, but more importantly, domesticly, from the American voter.

Trip_Wire

22 February 2009, 17:10

SOTB

22 February 2009, 17:20

....But I was referring to it as political suicide for whatever administration would act against Iran without support, not just from the international community, but more importantly, domesticly, from the American voter.IMO, one should not be allowed to commit our citizens to combat and be able to justify not protecting them because it would have been "political suicide"....

Oldpogue

22 February 2009, 19:22

IMO, one should not be allowed to commit our citizens to combat and be able to justify not protecting them because it would have been "political suicide"....

"Politcal Suicide" usually equates to an "unpopular war" which usually equates to one we didn't start. Ask Kennedy or Johnson or GWB. When they attack you first, you can always make a good case to retaliate. If your argument,i.e. WMD's, doesn't hold water with the general public, you have an "unpopular war". The question is, can you make the kind of argument to the American public that Iran has been the aggressor.

Every American was behind WW2, Korea, and Afghanistan, because they started it. The case becomes muddy after that. Even though it is pretty apparent to most people here, the general public is quite suspicious of the government now.

SOTB

22 February 2009, 19:25

"Politcal Suicide" usually equates to an "unpopular war" which usually equates to one we didn't start....Dude, I could give a fuck (about the philosophy, not that you are commenting on it). IMO, don't place our people in harm's way unless you are going to protect them....

Greenhat

22 February 2009, 19:34

Every American was behind WW2, Korea, and Afghanistan, because they started it.

Myths...

Of the three, WWII was easily the most popular, and not every American was behind it - not even on December 8, 1941... and when we were 3 and 1/2 years into it, many Americans (very possibly a majority) were ready to end it. They'd had enough.

Americans don't deal well with long wars. Doesn't make a damn bit of difference who started it.

Massgrunt

22 February 2009, 21:01

I agree, and I wrote, that we definitely have the resources to rain death on them. But beyond inflicting damge on them, do we have the resurces to conquer them?
I understand you don't care what the world community thinks... a lot of people agree with you.
But I was referring to it as political suicide for whatever administration would act against Iran without support, not just from the international community, but more importantly, domesticly, from the American voter.

Disclaimer: I am not an expert in international relations and military affairs.

I don't want to conquer them, or really involve any more of their citizens than we absoultely have to. I mean a punitive expedition (kind of a figure of speech, air strikes and missiles alone if possible) to hurt the leadership. Kill some ayatollahs, turn every Quds Force location they can into a smoking hole, then retire to the O club for free beer and karaoke.

I really don't care who would get their panties in a bunch over it. Nobody will truly believe that we were wrong unless they already hate us and want to believe it anyway. Fuck them anyway. I don't think any government we need to care about would say boo. Most of them would applaud, publicly or not.

Greenhat, I was in the Jewish Museum of Maryland a while back and they had a display of newspaper articles, flyers, etc about the large movement that wanted to keep us out of the war. Large rallies, politicians throwing their weight against us joining the war, etc. The more things change, the more they stay the same huh?

Greenhat

14 November 2009, 00:29

Greenhat, I was in the Jewish Museum of Maryland a while back and they had a display of newspaper articles, flyers, etc about the large movement that wanted to keep us out of the war. Large rallies, politicians throwing their weight against us joining the war, etc. The more things change, the more they stay the same huh?

Understatement... :smile:

pasta

18 November 2009, 00:29

Bush should be in prison.

Massgrunt

18 November 2009, 02:55

Bush should be in prison.

I can tell you're really going to bring something to the table here.

Bravo Five Romeo

18 November 2009, 03:06

Bush should be in prison.
As one of SOCNET's resident liberals and outspoken critics of the former President, I would like to ask you to please shut the fuck up.
Even I am embarassed.

If you wish to make a thoughtful criticism that is relevant to the topic, please try do so in an adult manner.

Thank you.

B5R (not a mod, just an embarassed lefty) out.

MikeC2W

18 November 2009, 06:18

Bush should be in prison.

LMAO - very impressive 4th post.

USArmyTC

18 November 2009, 06:46

Bush should be in prison.

Reallllly!?:rolleyes:

8Ball

18 November 2009, 19:29

Bush should be in prison.

The entire USAF Intel community just wept.
I thought Intel weenies were intelligent?:rolleyes:

Oldpogue

19 November 2009, 09:06

The entire USAF Intel community just wept.
I thought Intel weenies were intelligent?:rolleyes:

I apologize on behalf of USAF intel weenies. I sure he made up that career field and was probably a runway sweeper.

Lagnaippe

19 November 2009, 09:16

I apologize on behalf of USAF intel weenies. I sure he made up that career field and was probably a runway sweeper.

Nah...I'm sure he hails from the large contingent of USAF intel weenies who "just don't get it."

8Ball

19 November 2009, 19:28

I apologize on behalf of USAF intel weenies. I sure he made up that career field and was probably a runway sweeper.

Brother, you are good with me. 10% in EVERY career field. I sure as hell wasn't putting you in that category.

Longrifle

19 November 2009, 20:04

Somewhere . . . there's a village . . . looking for him.:rolleyes:

Spot379th

20 November 2009, 02:22

ah, but do they want to claim him... that's the question...:rolleyes:

Steve83

20 November 2009, 03:14

Bush should be in prison.

Didn't need to be a palm read to know he had a short lifeline here.

MikeC2W

20 November 2009, 05:20

CHENEY IS A WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR CRIMINAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

oops wrong forum....disregard.

LMAO.

I had a guy scream that at me one night.

Fu King Lawyer

20 November 2009, 06:40

CHENEY IS A WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR CRIMINAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!
oops wrong forum....disregard.
LMAO.
I had a guy scream that at me one night.

MikeC2W,

I hope you did the Christian thing, and put him out of his misery?
v/r
phil

Polypro

20 June 2010, 14:32

Well, if an op-ed piece in the LA Times says so...

As is everything else in this arena, the web is complicated. The two primary reasons for the invasion of Iraq, were revenge and fervent pro-Israel activists assigned to cabinet positions.

"After all, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad" - GWB, Houston fundraiser

"The SOB tried to kill my dad!" GWB, to White House visitor

The source of the assassination plot? The Kuwaitis

"I tend to be extremely skeptical of this, the Kuwaitis would not be reliable sources" - Former CIA official to Baltimore Sun reporter Scott Shane. (And remember the Hill & Knowlton PR stunt with the false "babies thrown on floor" story...another Kuwaiti source.

At 3:53 PM on 30 Jan 2001, the 3 things discussed at THE VERY FIRST MEETING of Bush's national security team were: Getting rid of Saddam Hussein, End American involvement in Israeli-Palistinian affairs, and Rearrange the landscape of the Middle East.

Which brings us to...

The pro-Israel contingent: Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser, assisted by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. The first three, before being asked to fill positions as national security advisers...privately advised Benjamin Netanyahu for the Jerusalem based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. The culmination: "A Clean Break - A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". Pre-emptive strikes and the removal of Hussein.

Fast forward to a letter to Clinton by the same group, to make the ouster of Hussein the "aim of American foreign policy" along with the "Offer of our full support in this difficult, but necessary endeavor".

11 Sept 2001 - 9:53 AM NSA intercepts a phone call from Afghanistan to Soviet Georgia about "good news". George Tenet passes the info to Rumsfeld, who dismisses it as "vague" and "no good basis for hanging hat" He's after Saddam. Notes from the War room at 2:40 PM:

"Need best info fast"
"Judge whether good enough to hit Saddam Hussein at same time, not only OBL"
"Go massive, sweep it all up. Things related, and not"

On September 12th, Richard Clarke walked into a meeting, and was surprised to be talking not about AQ, but Iraq.

Then you can look into the groups (the pro-Israel one) ties to Chalabi, the INC, and the $300K a month payments...too much to type here (yes, you have to do some work...hint: The Rendon Group helped with Chalabi too).

Ah heck, Judith miller loved Chalabi for some reason (<---sarcasm) but UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter called him a bold faced liar...we'll soon be getting to those mysterious WMD's...

No WMD's found by the UN.

Chalabi's INC - "They moved them. Their too smart and move too fast"

Scott Ritter "Well gosh, how do you move an underground facility? LOL"

Oh, but wait for it...Rome shall be the savior

Italian SISMI comes across info that Iraq obtained "Yellow Cake" uranium from Niger...the only problem is...they were poor document forgery's (Rendon Group?) that nobody bothered to vett.

Wording of "Top Secret" in the bodies, but stamped "Confidential"

A letter dated July 30th 1999 actually refers in the past tense to supposed deals agreed to in Miamey a year later on June 29th 2000.

An October 10th 1999 letter with the heading "Conseil Militaire Supreme", an organization that was disbanded in 1989.

Signed by Minister of Foreign Affairs Allele Habibou (in 1999) who left office in 1989.

And that 10/10 letter was supposedly received in Rome on 9/28...neat trick.

A 9/3/2001 document about a trip by an Iraqi official to Niger, that is identical to a 1999 trip...same flight...same time...just a date change...oh, and the official wasn't an official in 2001...another neat trick.

They go on and on SIMSI to MI6 to the USA...the BS remained intact.

The most glaring screw up to "whomever" got those documents into SIMSI's hands was:

The government of Niger has nothing to do with the uranium mines. Both Somair mine, and Cominak mine are run by a consortium from France, Spain, Germany, and Japan. The minute the uranium is mined, it is guarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

I'll stop here, This could be a book (It is! http://www.amazon.com/Pretext-War-Americas-Intelligence-Agencies/dp/0385506724 )

Bamford has a pretty good rep.

Bottom line, Bush was an idiot, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he was "lied to"...but he really only needed the slightest of nudges to "avenge daddy"

I know...I was amazed at what was going on when I finally opened my eyes too...

"The Defense Department regrets to inform you..." ~5,600 US KIAs

P

Jimbo

20 June 2010, 16:19

I'll stop here, This could be a book (It is! http://www.amazon.com/Pretext-War-Americas-Intelligence-Agencies/dp/0385506724 )

Bamford has a pretty good rep.

Bamford had a good rep. Like Sy Hersh and Dan Rather.

Investigative reporters have a lie (oops: life) cycle: hard work, a couple of genuine leads, explosive report, international acclaim. Then they have to write the next story or book. Oh, well, here are a bunch of people who, based on my previous work, are passing me information. That is way easier than hard work. They would never lie to me, because I am the beacon of truth. Just look at my Pulitzer!!!

From the Amazon reviews:
Tendentious is the word for James Bamford's newest book. Selective and slanted are other good ones. Overall, his conclusions - presented as fact - can best be characterized as bad analysis. This doesn't mean he has failed to consider facts that are, indeed, facts. What it does mean is that he has both ignored other facts, believed his sources' assertions that may not stand up as fact, and extrapolated unnecessary conclusions from the facts he likes, based not on the facts themselves, but on his neon-sign-obvious political bent. Don't be surprised that this is precisely what he accuses the Bush administration of doing. Bamford will never be held accountable for the vacuity of many of his conclusions; intelligence professionals ARE, every day of the week. This is a fact that makes a difference.

Bamford has mastered the art of provoking reaction in his reader, which is then used to carry the reader lightly over what is often quicksand. He does this by hyperventilating, and throwing pieces of information into proximity for the apparent purpose of implying that they are related, even though he doesn't draw a credible link between them. Examples abound in the book; here's one: on pp. 33-34 he launches a multi-paragraph discussion of the Defense Special Missile and Astronautics Center (DEFSMAC), which he erroneously characterizes as "among [the National Security Agency's] most secret units." He introduces this excursion from the baseline story by lamenting that NSA finding out about the 9/11 attacks from CNN "was not the way it was supposed to be." Bamford's discussion of DEFSMAC seems to imply that the intelligence community was under the impression DEFSMAC would provide it warning when terrorists hijacked commercial airplanes with the intention of flying them into buildings in New York and Washington.

Bamford knows enough about DEFSMAC to "get" that it relates in some way to air early warning, and breezily tells the reader how the cognoscenti pronounce its acronym ("deaf-smack"). But he either doesn't know or doesn't care that the 9/11 intelligence problem was not one of air early warning, but of knowing the intentions in the minds of terrorists. The intelligence community has known for decades that DEFSMAC is not a tool for deciphering that. It's weird to even mention it in this context.

Bamford in fact ignores information that has been available to the public for years on the whole community's effort to improve its collection and analysis capabilities against terrorism (primarily as a result of the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in 1996). Both Bush II and Clinton increased antiterrorism intelligence funding every year after 1996, and both Congress and the executive agencies were well aware that better forms of intelligence were needed to interdict terror plots - and labored to cultivate them. No one in the federal government thought DEFSMAC was either appropriate or adequate to provide warning against a non-military terrorist attack. One cannot deduce anything complimentary to Bamford from the "free association" drive-by perpetrated here.

Perhaps I just got tired of hearing over and over again how individual X or agency Y "didn't bother" to perform action Z that is now obvious in hindsight. These are the exact words used repeatedly: "didn't bother"; applied with equal dismissiveness to politicians, intelligence personnel, and senior government staffers. The words cheapen and distort the fact that we do indeed have shortcomings in our national intelligence collection and analysis; and one of these shortcomings is, indeed, agency parochialism and poor information sharing. Perhaps there were, indeed, policy missteps in the Bush administration's handling of intelligence and decision-making. But in neither case is the problem that people "didn't bother." That sanctimonious shorthand is highly misleading and unhelpful; it certainly throws suspicion for me on the case Bamford is making against Bush's senior advisors.

So many, many questionable assertions or genuine errors. On p. 210: "All along [Osama bin Laden's] goal, and that of his top leadership, was to draw the United States deeper and deeper into the sinkhole of a war in the Middle East." On the contrary, bin Laden's goal all along has been to get the US, and other Western nations, OUT of the Middle East. On p. 301, apropos of an informant report that 500 tons of uranium were to be shipped from Niger to Iraq: "Then it was supposed to be 'transshipped in international waters.' Apparently this meant that somehow, while two ships were bobbing alongside each other more than a dozen miles out in the ocean, five hundred tons of metal would be moved from one ship to another - an amazing feat." Well, er, yeah. It happens every day, actually. The report was erroneous, but not because it's impossible to transfer cargo at sea.

On p. 313, Bamford implies that the following report from an Israeli intelligence informant was false: a report that Iraqi mobile weapons labs were labeled as "Tip Top Ice Cream" trucks, and that they transferred items to tractor trailers labeled "Segada Transportation Co." His basis for suggesting this is the same as that of the UN inspectors who first received the information: "it was found that neither company, in fact, existed in Iraq." It never seems to have crossed his mind (or even the UN inspectors') that Saddam's Iraq was not a place where a company had to be registered in order for a government entity to paint its name on the side of a truck. There are, however, plenty of intelligence analysts throughout the world who could have told them that.

I won't bore you with further iterations. It goes on and on. Bamford uses a loose footnoting scheme that gives him a lot of latitude in attribution, and of course does not name some unrevealed number of his sources (whose motives in giving him classified information ought to figure as a big block of salt perched on top of this book). Overall, he does a lot of things that a career Naval intelligence officer, like me, would have been fired for. You won't know any more about WMD in Iraq after reading this book - you might read some things you haven't read before, but any belief that therefore you KNOW any more would be unfounded.

Silverbullet

20 June 2010, 17:23

Bamford is an expert at taking information, after the fact or event took place, and reverse engineering it to "prove" that all the diverse bits of information painted a picture. He likes to draw his conclusion and then walk his presentation directly to that conclusion.

That's his MO. He specializes in it and in this case he is just acting true to form.

RetPara

20 June 2010, 19:22

We really should never of invaded Iraq. We should of waited until Saddam died or was killed. Then Uday and Qusay could step in a take power. THEY would of been much, much easier to deal with. Uday was just a total sweetheart too. Qusay was the heir apparent after Uday was crippled in a assasination attempt. If we had waited long enough we could of dealt with the Hussein boys.....

JD Bobcat

20 June 2010, 19:28

They are dealt with ....... they're dead .. !

Polypro

20 June 2010, 20:27

Well, I can understand twisting things to your POV, but when I see quotes from officials and testimony from official hearings... to each his own.

P

ktek01

20 June 2010, 20:29

Oh... so now you trust the media?

I wasnt a Bush fan, but dont need a newspaper article to remember what happened 7 & 8 years ago. Very few were against the invasion before the invasion, he had the support of Congress, he had the support of the UN. They all had access to the same intel he had, and still supported the war. Wasnt until well after and the initial feel good wore off that they started to rewrite history. As usual the public was stupid enough to believe the crap they spouted instead of remembering what they were saying just a year or two before. Monday morning quarter backing, revisionist history, and typical political BS.

MakoZeroSix

20 June 2010, 20:58

Wasnt until well after and the initial feel good wore off that they started to rewrite history. As usual the public was stupid enough to believe the crap they spouted instead of remembering what they were saying just a year or two before. Monday morning quarter backing, revisionist history, and typical political BS.

By the "initial feel good" wearing off, do you mean something like "The inability to find the vaunted WMD"? Because then I'd agree. And does the "monday morning quarterbacking" mean something like "Incredulity at the lack of planning for the post invasion phase and ineptitude of the political lackey Paul Bremmer?" Because when you quarterback throws like five interceptions on game day, you tend to be like WTF the morning after.

I agree there has been plenty of revisionist history regarding the Iraq invasion- but probably not from the people you mean.

In retrospect, he should never have sold it as the WMD thing, but rather as a regional strategy. The "slam dunk" wound up being an incredible IO defeat. That, and thinking that it would be a cakewalk set us up for failure. A UW campaign waged in the north and south would have probably yielded much better results with far less of a cost.

I for one am astounded that it has turned out as well as it has in the last few years. We'll see if it wind up continuing that way. But lets not forget that it didn't have to cost us as much as it has in terms of lives, money, and political capital around the world.

ktek01

20 June 2010, 21:39

By the "initial feel good" wearing off, do you mean something like "The inability to find the vaunted WMD"?

I think thats when it became popular to oppose the war. I was however referring to after the celebrations in the streets by the liberated Iraqi's, but before the large scale looting. Thats when things first started to turn sour.

And does the "monday morning quarterbacking" mean something like "Incredulity at the lack of planning for the post invasion phase and ineptitude of the political lackey Paul Bremmer?" Because when you quarterback throws like five interceptions on game day, you tend to be like WTF the morning after.

I wont argue with you there, on the lack of any post invasion plan. Many mistakes were made and they cost us a lot. I also think they should have called the administration on that. Instead they focused on the WMD question and picked that apart to no end.

Baildog

20 June 2010, 22:03

In retrospect, he should never have sold it as the WMD thing, but rather as a regional strategy. The "slam dunk" wound up being an incredible IO defeat.

While I tend to agree, I'm not sure he really had that option. The soundbite nature of society doesn't allow for nuanced strategic discussion. Which is why they never even tried to sell it in those terms, even though (I have always believed) in fact it WAS a high-risk gamble intended to redefine the whole region. But they couldn't sell that in a soundbite. So they had a laundry list of soundbitable arguments that they could sell. They tried links to al Qaeda, that didn't fly, so then they tried WMDs, and that flew. And then it became all about WMDs, and everybody rahn with that as "the" reason, when really that was just one of the laundry list of reasons that really stood in place for the real reason ... a grand vision of remaking the middle east.

And I remember prior to 9/11, when I worked as a fed gov PAO, lamenting how utterly incompetent the (then) new Bush Administration was at IO/PR. And they never did really get any better at it.

I for one am astounded that it has turned out as well as it has in the last few years. We'll see if it wind up continuing that way.

Keep your fingers crossed.

CarnageWhiskey

21 June 2010, 02:17

I think thats when it became popular to oppose the war. I was however referring to after the celebrations in the streets by the liberated Iraqi's, but before the large scale looting. Thats when things first started to turn sour.
.

Not to split hairs, but from street celebrations to full scale looting was a matter of minutes apart.

Purple36

21 June 2010, 05:44

Perhaps things would have turned out differently if Rumsfeld hadn't thrown out the plan they had for years and insisted on a lean, mean business model approach to invading a country. Assumptions were made that were best case -which is insane-but that's what arrogance and failure to read even one book on the region's history gets you. (I assume he never read a book on Iraq..)

ktek01

21 June 2010, 06:26

Not to split hairs, but from street celebrations to full scale looting was a matter of minutes apart.

You can be sure it started even earlier, but it was a little longer before the media took notice and started running with the story.

RetPara

21 June 2010, 07:09

The Pig Latin Twins are dead, like their father, because we invaded Iraq. Their deaths prevented events far worse from ever happening.

Everything I had ever read, after my retirement and before when I was on AD studying the area, pointed at WMD and attempts to garner better technology for its production. That was going back to just 1990 though.

MSM reported no less than two vehicles captured intact that were ID as bio agent creation. Amazingly... one had been sterilized.

Also Iraq actually used mustard gas and sarin on the Iranians and their own Kurds. (Don't take the USG word on this.... Doctors Without Borders were at the Kurd villages in the late 90's.) Actually by being press-ganged into the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the religious leaders of Iran managed to pretty much decimate an entire generation that had been corrupted by exposure to Western life styles.

There has been no open source reporting on the contents of the multiple convoys from Iraq into Syria before the invasion. Surprisingly... Syria pops up with their own nuke program further advanced a few years later. The program was far enough along, quickly enough, that the Israeli's took it out.

Rumsfeld was entertaining at press conferences. Dealing with a post-Clinton DOD was not as difficult as dealing with post-Obama DOD staff will be, but would have its own challenges. Which may of been the reason that the ConPlan for Iraq was trashed. It was done though. The principal issue though was the failure to plan and execute a mil\government plan for the after-math. When allied troops swept though Europe and occupied Japan there were large, robust (in comparison) military government infrastructure in the trains. We fell far short on this in Iraq which lead to much of the problems and unrest later. Bremer et al were ill prepared for the mission they were given.

One truth remains... you know what you know when you know it. What you may think you know may very well, not be correct.

Vincent

21 June 2010, 10:48

This debate has been done to death and I don't think there is anything new to add to it.

However:

There has been no open source reporting on the contents of the multiple convoys from Iraq into Syria before the invasion. Surprisingly... Syria pops up with their own nuke program further advanced a few years later. The program was far enough along, quickly enough, that the Israeli's took it out.

You are drawing connections between events to which there are no connection. It has been pretty well established where the Syrians got their help from:

http: //www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article2461421.ece

http: //articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/25/world/fg-ussyria25

http: //www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/12/AR2007091202430.html

ET1/ss nuke

21 June 2010, 10:55

When Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 amidst his impeachment trial, he went on national TV and announced that Iraqi failure to live up to the Safwan Agreement by disrespecting the no-fly zones and refusing to turn over the WMD stockpiles we knew they had (remember - Reagan sold it to them for use on the Iranians). The Democrats in Congress stood up for him, but the Republicans said he was just trying to distract attention from his Senate trial. Five years later, when Bush invaded Iraq for those same exact reasons, suddenly the Democrats claimed that the WMD were not real, and Bush's real motivation was revenge for an assassination attempt on his dad.

Either the Democrats were right in 1998 and wrong in 2003, or the Republicans were right in 1998 and wrong in 2003. Either Iraqi WMD was a problem in 1998 and 2003, or it never was, but both parties have blood on their hands here, and both parties lied at least once.

I've never been to Iraq or Syria. What I do know is that Iraq used US-made chemical weapons on Iran in the mid-80s, they were developing nuclear capability until Israel bombed Osirak in the early 80s, and in 1991 the US was concerned enough about Iraq's ability to manufacture chemical and biological weapons to force US personnel to take unsafe, untested anthrax vaccine shots and to bomb suspected chemical weapons factories, after which clouds of low-density poison gas vapors drifted over US troops and set off their gas alarms. I watched the congressional hearings on CSPAN regarding Gulf War Syndrome where senior enlisted personnel described detecting those vapors. We know that the WMD existed in 1991. That knowledge forms the basis for everything else that went on afterwards. I don't know what happened to Iraq's WMD, but to say there were none is intellectually dishonest.

Bravo Five Romeo

21 June 2010, 11:49

Five years later, when Bush invaded Iraq for those same exact reasons, suddenly the Democrats claimed that the WMD were not realActually, the vast majority Democrats supported President Bush's decision.
They only changed their mind when they learned the intel was wrong.
Changing your mind based on new information is not hypocricy.

HKUSP45

21 June 2010, 11:57

Changing your mind based on new information is not hypocricy.

...maybe not, but agreeing to let slip the dogs of war and then trying to feed them peanuts is stupidity, bordering on dereliction of duty. If they think Bush lied, they need to take it out on him, not the troops.

HK

Polypro

21 June 2010, 12:11

I don't think anyone wants us to play "post all 69 Amazon anonymous reviews and let's see who wins", but yes, that review supports your viewpoint. I don't read reviews. I was never big on people telling me what I should think or Siskel & Eburt (WTF? Original is xxxx'd)...I just went to the movie or restaurant, absorbed the info presented (film or food) and made my own decision. I do the same with articles, books, and reports. I understand being leery...if a reporter or author's work is entirely "Here is what I say happened". But when I hear/read the words of people that "were in the room"...you only have two choices:

1. That person said those things

2. That person did not say those things and the reporter/author made them up and put them in the book.

Am I correct? What other possibilities are there, when someone is quoted, either verbally or from official testimony?

For instance, did Richard Clarke...

Richard Alan Clarke (born October 1951) was a U.S. government employee for 30 years, 1973–2003. He worked for the State Department during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush appointed him to chair the Counter-terrorism Security Group and to a seat on the United States National Security Council. President Bill Clinton retained Clarke and in 1998 promoted him to be the National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism, the chief counter-terrorism adviser on the National Security Council. Under President George W. Bush, Clarke initially continued in the same position, but the position was no longer given cabinet-level access. He later became the Special Advisor to the President on cybersecurity, before leaving the Bush Administration in 2003.

...say this on Sept 12th 2001, or not?

(Expecting to be discussing the attacks) "Instead I walked into a series of discussions about Iraq. At first I was incredulous that we were talking about something other than getting Al Qaeda. Then I realized...that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were going to try to take advantage of this national tragedy to promote their agenda about Iraq. Since the beginning of the administration, indeed well before, they had been pressing for a war with Iraq. By the afternoon on Wednesday, Secretary Rumsfeld was talking about broadening the objectives of our response and "getting Iraq". I vented: "Having been attacked by AQ, for us to now go bombing Iraq in response, would be like invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor". Later in the day, Secretary Rumsfeld complained that there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq, which, he said, had better targets. At first I thought he was joking. But he was serious and the President did not reject out of hand, the idea of Attacking Iraq. Instead he noted, that what we needed to do with Iraq was to change the government, not just hit it with more cruise missiles, like Rumsfeld had implied".

Did he say it, or did the author make it up? If he *did* say it, I assume you don't have a problem with at least *that* part of the book?

Did Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill say, about the first National Security Council meeting on 30 Jan 2001:

"The meeting had seemed scripted. Rumsfeld had said little, Cheney, nothing at all, though both men had long entertained the idea of overthrowing Saddam, was a multi-pronged assault on Saddam Hussein really a priority in early 2001?"

If the author didn't make that one up, what is the problem with that part of the book?

Did Gregory Thielmann (State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research) say about Wurmser's newly created Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group:

"Are they missile experts? Nuclear engineers? There's no logical explanation for the office's creation except they (the administration) wanted people to find evidence to support their answers about war"

PCEG was created to counter the CIAs analysis of no links between Iraq and AQ, Richard Pearle:

"The CIA's analysis isn't worth the paper it is written on. Let me be blunt about this...the level of competence on past performance of the CIA in this area is apalling. The Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, within a very short period of time, began to find links that nobody else had previously understood or recorded in a useful way"

I don't think the author made that part up either, you?

All these go back to my first post. There are thousands just this. It's new to me that authors come out with a first book and do due dilligence and are hard working...and then turn into liars and have a cycle. Good to know, and I'll keep that in mind. As always though, I try to get at what "the people that were there" said and think...they were there. I guess the hundreds of quotes and testimony could all be from liberal doves, out to get Bush...man there were a lot of them in his employ.

I hate Sarah Brady. I think I can counter every one of her arguments. But if she quotes the FBI in saying something like 41% of all guns in the home are used against the owner or the children...AND THE UCR SUPPORTS THOSE NUMBERS...what can you do? She's correct.

P

Edit: In reading some of these comments, two things

1. Yes, at a time Iraq had a lot of bad stuff (from us and we turned a cheek in '88, but I digress). We're talking 2003 here (well, 2001...I guess we let him sit with all those WMDs for 2 years before acting...glad we're not a parking lot. Or did he just whip all that stuff up in 2 years?). Inspector after inspector has said we dismantled his stuff and it wasn't reconstituted. They were swabbing walls, while DC was looking at overhead pics...who would know more?

2. Do you believe all officials tell the truth 100% of the time?

Devildoc

21 June 2010, 12:21

Actually, the vast majority Democrats supported President Bush's decision.
They only changed their mind when they learned the intel was wrong.
Changing your mind based on new information is not hypocricy.

I don't have an issue with changing an opinion as facts come to light or new info surfaces, but it seems to me that instead of calling it what it was ("hey, the intel was wrong, and we blew it"), they went political ("hey, he lied to us; we were duped"). That's one of MY beefs.

KidA

21 June 2010, 12:29

they went political ("hey, he lied to us; we were duped"). That's one of MY beefs.

That's party politics. They saw a way to get more seats and power by leveraging it.

The R's would have done the same thing. Neither party cares about uniting and advancing the Country - they just care about Nanny-nanny Boo-Boo shit and being in control.

They'd be happy standing on a pile of manure as they would standing on a pile of gold - as long as they're the ones on top.

Devildoc

21 June 2010, 12:49

KidA, I completely agree with you. It stuns me to the point of apoplepsy that none of them will stand up, take the high road, and say "we goofed." It all comes down to pointing fingers and a case of he said-she said at the same level of debasement that my kids (all under age 8) undertake. To me, this particular situation aside, the level of cred that would create would do more to empower 'that' particular party as well as 'that' particular politican than most anything else.

Jimbo

21 June 2010, 13:06

For instance, did Richard Clarke...

I stopped reading right there. Richard Clarke is a politician whose primary concern is Richard Clarke. I've never believed a word he said. Ever.

Further, I don't believe what anyone says. I don't believe books people write. They are just stories.

Do I believe that we went to war in Iraq because of WMD? No. I've held that position for years and have articulated why in this thread and elsewhere on this board. Do I think that was the most publically acceptable reason to go to war? Yup. Why? Because we, as a nation, are reactive. We don't plan well. We don't anticiapte. Look at our economic problems if you need evidence of that. Selling an idea as esoteric as destroying and remaking a Middle Eastern country's political system so that it might change the overall political landscape of the region is a little beyond the capabilities of our government. Especially since people jump their shit when they try to do a little proactive diplomatic spin. Do I blame politicians for telling us things that they think we want to hear? No. They are politicians. To do so is in their nature.

So, in short, I don't care what Bamford has to say, or reveal, or expose. He's trying to make money. I don't care what the next internet truthsayer trots out to show us how everything the man tells us is a lie, man.

MakoZeroSix

21 June 2010, 17:10

Do I believe that we went to war in Iraq because of WMD? No. I've held that position for years and have articulated why in this thread and elsewhere on this board. Do I think that was the most publically acceptable reason to go to war? Yup. Why? Because we, as a nation, are reactive. We don't plan well. We don't anticiapte. Look at our economic problems if you need evidence of that. Selling an idea as esoteric as destroying and remaking a Middle Eastern country's political system so that it might change the overall political landscape of the region is a little beyond the capabilities of our government. Especially since people jump their shit when they try to do a little proactive diplomatic spin. Do I blame politicians for telling us things that they think we want to hear? No. They are politicians. To do so is in their nature.

Totally agree. But did any of them for a minute consider that maybe WMD wouldn't be found and how to mitigate the 2nd and 3rd order effects of that?

Even with WMD, I think the appetite at home and abroad for supressing the insurgency would have waned, but I think it would have cost the U.S. less political capital to stay in that event.

Either way, a halfway decent COIN plan to be implemented at the cessation of overt hostilities would have been nice.

Baildog

21 June 2010, 17:23

You know what would have been nice? A half-decent COIN plan for Afghanistan ... to be implemented after a surge in 2003. I'd even settle for a decently executed COIN plan for Afghanistan implemented now.

Polypro

21 June 2010, 17:24

You should have kept reading, I had a few more guys on the list that I needed an opinion on. Truth be told there are hundreds of former and still current officials quoted. If I wasn't such a poor typer, I'd put up Colin Powell going over his presentation to the UNSC in Tenet's conference room...it's all quoted....if you can believe it of course.

For anyone laughing at whacky Polypro and his first post of the "fervent pro-Israel activists" statement (from the book). Apparently the FBI thought so too. Remember the name Feith? This was Feith's boy (I guess you can FOIA the actual FBI docs if people think Wikipedia lies):

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

On August 27, 2004, CBS News broke a story about an FBI investigation into a possible spy in the U.S. Department of Defense working for Israel. The story reported that the FBI had uncovered a spy working as a policy analyst under Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith and then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

Wasn't there another spy case regarding Israel...oh yeah, Pollard.

So, should we only read publications from "not for profit" groups...to get the truth? I know of a ton of professional publications for job groups in every field...but they aren't free...are they all lies if they make a profit?

Kenneth Adelman, Member of Richard Perle's Defense Policy Board, ABC Nightline:

I would ask everybody, do we want to go into Iraq once Saddam gets a nuclear weapon? And that will happen before the next Presidential election. Before 2004 he will have nuclear weapons capability. The fact is that once we get into Iraq and liberate Iraq, two things will happen immediately: the Iraqi people will start dancing in the street, and week after week, month after month, inspectors from around the world will find vats of biological weapons, vats of chemical weapons, tremendous progress on nuclear weapons. And every week, if not more, people will say "God that was a close call" "Thank God we stopped that production"

You knew *early* that there were no WMD's...you need a pay raise!.

P