Have I missed something?

[rinselberg]

In the UK we were sold the "WMD ready in 45 miniutes" story, and that was the reason it was so [damn] imperative we went to war just when we did, rather than waiting a few weeks for a UN mandate.

Hello QD. We must be on the same schedule. Your day just starting in England, I guess, and I'm usually up half the night or more in California: "The man who walks and talks at midnight ..."

IMO, if we had elected to wait "a few more weeks" for a UN mandate, we'd still be waiting. I don't think that mandate would ever have been forthcoming. Too many self-serving conflicts of interest Vs Iraq among the French, Germans and Russians. And however that may have been, a matter of "a few more weeks" is no small matter to the timing requirements of a large military operation like that. There were many insurmountable difficulties in continuing to hang on there in place, waiting for any kind of concensus at the UN. It's very expensive to keep troops forward deployed like that. It's bad for morale because the soldiers (as they indicated at the time) want to get on with it and leave behind the palatial conditions they were enjoying all too much in sunny Kuwait. As time goes by and boredom continues to mount, the soldiers tend to lose their professional sharpness and skills. Their security and intel (intellligence) advantages Vs the Iraqis would be diminished as the waiting game continued. Worst of all, they would become increasingly inviting targets for terrorists in Kuwait and for the WMD that we most surely thought that Saddam actually had - and IMO, it's quite possible that even Saddam himself thought he had the WMD and that his own generals had taken advantage of him on that - or that he was just intentionally bluffing with the WMD but we hadn't caught on.

Even the closest-knit of Coalitions tend to come apart as time goes by - hey that reminds me, gotta find an audio track of that for my online jukebox ...

The waiting game? That was Saddam's game - but not very practical for the Coalition.

[QDO1]

Hello QD. We must be on the same schedule. Your day just starting in England, I guess, and I'm usually up half the night or more in California: "The man who walks and talks at midnight ..."

IMO, if we had elected to wait "a few more weeks" for a UN mandate, we'd still be waiting. I don't think that mandate would ever have been forthcoming. Too many self-serving conflicts of interest Vs Iraq among the French, Germans and Russians. And however that may have been, a matter of "a few more weeks" is no small matter to the timing requirements of a large military operation like that. There were many insurmountable difficulties in continuing to hang on there in place, waiting for any kind of concensus at the UN. It's very expensive to keep troops forward deployed like that. It's bad for morale because the soldiers (as they indicated at the time) want to get on with it and leave behind the palatial conditions they were enjoying all too much in sunny Kuwait. As time goes by and boredom continues to mount, the soldiers tend to lose their professional sharpness and skills. Their security and intel (intellligence) advantages Vs the Iraqis would be diminished as the waiting game continued. Worst of all, they would become increasingly inviting targets for terrorists in Kuwait and for the WMD that we most surely thought that Saddam actually had - and IMO, it's quite possible that even Saddam himself thought he had the WMD and that his own generals had taken advantage of him on that - or that he was just intentionally bluffing with the WMD but we hadn't caught on.

Even the closest-knit of Coalitions tend to come apart as time goes by - hey that reminds me, gotta find an audio track of that for my online jukebox ...

The waiting game? That was Saddam's game - but not very practical for the Coalition.

I agree, I would have been happier with it if there was not the fudge. why not just stand up and say - we are fed up with Sadam, his regime, and his antics - that was the truth of the matter. In the UK we all knew that was the score, and most agreed with the war, it is just that your leader, and our leader chose to perform linguistic gymnastics, and sow us a line of crap. Now they are spinning another web of trash, to compensate for the first lot

[Spexvet]

As usual, your making up things to support your political position.

Rep

You know, rep, that was a helpful post that answered my question - I did miss the Cheney administration's denial. It's a shame you had to be your usual unpleasant self at the end. Did you notice how civil the other threads have been, since you didn't contribute?

Thank you for the clarification.

[chm2023]

this is a simple issue

they say one thing before the war, and another thing after. the things they say after the war, despite bieng basically true, are not contiguious with the premises that we all went to war on in the first place

why did they not call a tree a tree, and tell us straight up why we went to war in the first place, if they did, we wouldnt be mud-slinging now

I think the answer to this is pretty simple: minus the threat of imminent danger and/or Iraq being behind 9/11, Americans would not have supported Bush going to war--clearly this was the administration's POV, otherwise why gin up the story? This sort of thing always comes undone.

What's interesting is what Condi Rice is now saying, basically that troops withdrawal is right around the corner. My first/late husband was a career military man and I have maintained contact with folks we knew way back when who are still in the service. The rumor is that the army is getting ready to draw back as we speak. "Withdraw and declare victory"--where have I heard this before????

When we first started debating this issue prior to the war, my stance was it was a bad idea, not winnable, and that the net result would be civil war in Iraq. Sadly I see no reason to back off that prediction.

[chip anderson]

All wars for the United States are winnable. It's just a question of whether we want to pay the price, and have the cajonnies. I don't think we do any more.

[chm2023]

All wars for the United States are winnable. It's just a question of whether we want to pay the price, and have the cajonnies. I don't think we do any more.

Chip: give me your definition of "winning" in Iraq.

[chip anderson]

Kill and destroy the enemy without mercy until he surrenders undconditionally. No respect for "Holy Cities" the arabs have no respect for Jeruslem why let them hide there? If they hide in a mosk bomb, it. There is no reason for a no-win war, if you are going to have one do it right. If you don't have the cajonnies, don't have a war.


As for George Bush's lies (and I am not one of his fans), this was due to bad intelligence by all in the "free world" not just the US or the current administration. If you think you are attacked or going to be attacked you respond so terribly that non willl dare attempt it again. We learned little if anything from Korea or Vietnam. No win wars are an invitation for more of the same. We will fight Iroc (or allow Israel to do it) and sooner or later we will fight China. We can win when it happens but I don't know if we have the stomach for it anymore.

Chip

[QDO1]

wars are never won, people just die needlessly. I support the INternet because like now disparatate people arround the world are making positive bonds with each other. Hopefully, one day the strength of these bonds will begin to prevent wars, and encourage more paceful ways of solving problems

[rbaker]

QDO1

I’m afraid that I have some bad news for you. The internet will not do away with war. Nor, for that matter will it do away with poverty, violence, disease or ignorance. This is the innate nature of mankind. So, get used to the fact that warfare, poverty, crime, addiction, racism and all of these nasty things that go bump in the night will always be with us.

[QDO1]

QDO1

I’m afraid that I have some bad news for you. The internet will not do away with war. Nor, for that matter will it do away with poverty, violence, disease or ignorance. This is the innate nature of mankind. So, get used to the fact that warfare, poverty, crime, addiction, racism and all of these nasty things that go bump in the night will always be with us.

Obviously, but in 50 years come back and say it hasn't had a positive effect. You do have to look at the big picture though

[chm2023]

[QUOTE]

Kill and destroy the enemy without mercy until he surrenders undconditionally. No respect for "Holy Cities" the arabs have no respect for Jeruslem why let them hide there? If they hide in a mosk bomb, it. There is no reason for a no-win war, if you are going to have one do it right. If you don't have the cajonnies, don't have a war.

"he" being whom? The insurgents? The Iraqi ones or the ones who are infiltrating the country? The pan-Islamic terrorists? How about bin Laden or have we given up on this? It's hard to envision "unconditional surrender" from a cell-based, fluid and largely civilian group.

As for George Bush's lies (and I am not one of his fans), this was due to bad intelligence by all in the "free world" not just the US or the current administration. If you think you are attacked or going to be attacked you respond so terribly that non willl dare attempt it again. We learned little if anything from Korea or Vietnam. No win wars are an invitation for more of the same. We will fight Iroc (or allow Israel to do it) and sooner or later we will fight China. We can win when it happens but I don't know if we have the stomach for it anymore

.

Actually, there is a growing amount of evidence that the administration (primarily Cheney et al) cherry picked intelligence. There was significant evidence from German and Italian governments that the individual sources we chose to listen to regarding ties between Iraq and AQ were highly suspect. Likewise, the Energy Dept experts strongly disagreed with the assessment that the centerfuge tubes in Iraq were appropriate for building nuclear weapons--the administration chose to listen to second tier opinions. Cheney and staff had raw intelligence--not vetted by the CIA experts--diverted to their offices. You need to ask yourself why. This was the primary reason the famous douments that supported the notion that Iraq was purchasing uranium from Niger were not deemed forgeries til after they had done damage--the document experts who would have normally evaluated them and found them phony were circumvented.

Was the administration bending intelligence to support their foregone conclusion? Well, if it looks like a duck......

Quack, quack......

All of this is water under the bridge I agree. Bush is getting dangerously close to becoming irrelevant to this discussion, people are starting to tune him out. I was struck by his speech last night--trying to straddle the conservative POV and the Hispanic POV on immigration pleases neither. Just a re-hash of tactical issues and some "Congress needs to" of same. Talk about a dearth of ideas.

[rep]

Our Troops Must Stay
America can't abandon 27 million Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists.

BY JOE LIEBERMAN
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST



I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.

Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress.

There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it.

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.





Before going to Iraq last week, I visited Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel has been the only genuine democracy in the region, but it is now getting some welcome company from the Iraqis and Palestinians who are in the midst of robust national legislative election campaigns, the Lebanese who have risen up in proud self-determination after the Hariri assassination to eject their Syrian occupiers (the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah militias should be next), and the Kuwaitis, Egyptians and Saudis who have taken steps to open up their governments more broadly to their people. In my meeting with the thoughtful prime minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, he declared with justifiable pride that his country now has the most open, democratic political system in the Arab world. He is right.



In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, eight million Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10 million participated in the referendum on their new constitution in October, and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections for a full-term government on Dec. 15. Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them. Most encouraging has been the behavior of the Sunni community, which, when disappointed by the proposed constitution, registered to vote and went to the polls instead of taking up arms and going to the streets. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign, and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it.

None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.

The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear and compelling vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy, security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend their political progress against those 10,000 terrorists who would take it from them.





Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.



We are now embedding a core of coalition forces in every Iraqi fighting unit, which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Progress in "clearing" and "holding" is being made. The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being "held" secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and coalition forces are jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle.

Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to "lead the fight" themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.

The economic reconstruction of Iraq has gone slower than it should have, and too much money has been wasted or stolen. Ambassador Khalilzad is now implementing reform that has worked in Afghanistan--Provincial Reconstruction Teams, composed of American economic and political experts, working in partnership in each of Iraq's 18 provinces with its elected leadership, civil service and the private sector. That is the "build" part of the "clear, hold and build" strategy, and so is the work American and international teams are doing to professionalize national and provincial governmental agencies in Iraq.

These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the ground, which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about their future--and why the American people should be, too.





I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: "I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates."



Thank you, General. That is a powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation's history. Semper Fi.

Mr. Lieberman is a Democratic senator from Connecticut.

Rep</FONT>

[QDO1]

The administration has made the assertion that questioning the reasons for the war in Iraq is "irresponsible", "reprehensible", "cowardly"," unpatriotic", etc. I have not heard anyone in the administration come out and say "we presented the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and have absolutely not lied to or mislead the American people". Has anybody read or heard a stement like this from the White House?

Nope.. your polititians are like ours - liers. When the pan gets too hot, they use all diversion tatics, and what happened more than 2 weeks ago "isnt relavant"

[rinselberg]

"The New Way Out"

NEWSWEEK offers a good two-page snapshot of the current situation in Iraq, citing both recent progress and problems ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10219753/site/newsweek/




OptiBoard member rinselberg describes how he's carved his own personalized cyberspace on the Web under the mock umbrella tradename rinselberg™.
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=217

[chm2023]

[QUOTE=rinselberg]"The New Way Out"

NEWSWEEK offers a good two-page snapshot of the current situation in Iraq, citing both recent progress and problems ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10219753/site/newsweek/

Rinselberry, good article. What's the name of the Newsweek reporter who does some commentary on NBC--Michael Isinov or something like that, can't remember his last name. He has a very well thought out POV on this. Not entirely the same as this article but very tuned into the timing issue.

[rinselberg]

After reading this latest MSNBC report, I would say the Democrats are mostly in a general muddle among themselves about a distinctly "Democratic" approach to Iraq. One or two seem to favor announcing a withdrawl and cutting U.S. troop levels significantly and almost immediately. Others, more credible in my view, including former General Wesley Clark, seem to be pretty much in line with the administration's current policies: They do not favor laying out an explicit schedule or timetable for a military drawdown.

You can read this Washington Post report online at the MSNBC website via:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10328008/


credit: RinselNews™

[QDO1]

Although dealing with the aftermath of the was is intrinsically important, the original post questioned the reasons for going to war in the first place. I (like many others) feel we were mislead, and the process was rushed for some reason.

• why the immediacy after such a long period of breaking the sanctions?
• why the fudge, when a few more weeks would have given us UN blessing?
• why the lies and manipulation, when most would have supported the war on the truthfull reasons that could have been cited?

By doing what we did, and arguing something else afterwards, makes us look two faced, and has enraged groups arround the world , where perhaps we would currently have more support

[chm2023]

After reading this latest MSNBC report, I would say the Democrats are mostly in a general muddle among themselves about a distinctly "Democratic" approach to Iraq. One or two seem to favor announcing a withdrawl and cutting U.S. troop levels significantly and almost immediately. Others, more credible in my view, including former General Wesley Clark, seem to be pretty much in line with the administration's current policies: They do not favor laying out an explicit schedule or timetable for a military drawdown.

You can read this Washington Post report online at the MSNBC website via:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10328008/


credit: RinselNews™

Yesterday's (Tues) NYT had an op-ed by Clark that was pretty interesting. He has some good ideas and a much more comprehensive approach than what the admin has articulated. Seems a bit glib though, some of the things he suggests we do are a lot more easily said than done. Nice to see a thoughtful approach articulated for a change in any event.