| Author | Post |
|---|
Lyle Jr.
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14th, 2007 09:31 pm |
|
Not trying to slander anyone Fred, sorry for the reference to the Guard.
Not attacking your principles either. However, you clearly state that a Marine does not speak ill of his commander in chief, and you do Fred. I know you are not USMC so don't go there.
I am not surprised that you state that only enlisted men swear the oath not officers, therefore you are not bound to the basic beliefs, only the officer level ones.
After all.....Even the commander-in chief, once swore he "never had sex with that woman", then went on to impeachment hearings and admitted lying to the people and his own wife.
I am only annoyed because you use your military service at your convenience. I respect your service and commend you for it. I am certain your children are proud of you and they should be. Just please stop mixing your Military Service with your politics. Never the twain should meet. Too often it does.
CR
Fred wrote:
First, I'm in the Reserve....let's not slander the Guard too bad, eh? 
Second....there are a few principals I hold dear to, and chief among them are McArthur's words of Duty, Honor, Country. If ordered (and as you point out, it is possible I might have to go back, or somewhere else if I continue to hang around), I would go without the slightest bit of hesitation. Actually, I was asked to volunteer by those I served with in the past to go, I probably would also go (although I wouldn't tell my wife I was volunteering). I would go because it is what I do, it is what is expected, and because I know I can do the job better than many of my grade.
Third....I believe it is entirely possible to dissent from the President and do one's job. Enlisted Soldiers take an oath of enlistment that says they will obey the orders of the President, and those leaders appointed over them.....the Officer does not take such an oath. I took an oath to defend the Constitution, which I believe is a higher authority than ANY single President. My dissent has been respectful, and I have not attacked the man, but his policies and the policies of those he appointed.
It also gives me a great bully pulpit to talk on issues such as this....and it must annoy you greatly, since you bring up my military background waaay more often then I bring it up.
|
bbd
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 736 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14th, 2007 08:49 pm |
|
“I believe that the troop withdrawal plan that Gen. (David) Petraeus has proposed is the right course. This recommendation is a result of the success being seen on the ground in Iraq. ... Every day, our troops in Iraq demonstrate a heroic resolve to win. I wish Democrats in Washington would dedicate as much time and energy to winning as they do on how to surrender the fight.”
– Former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., and a 2008 presidential candidate
|
bbd
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 736 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14th, 2007 08:29 pm |
|
It is all about perspective From the right / center, I see fox as centrist you see them as right wing but you are looking at them as a left wing zealot and you listen to the likes of Pelosi who are upset that fox will not carry their watter like CNN or MSNBC will.
The military will need to secure the country before the political gain will be realized.
We both agree the troops will be there for along time.
Last edited on Fri Sep 14th, 2007 08:31 pm by bbd
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14th, 2007 08:18 pm |
|
bbd....You lost ALL credibility with the Fox Statement...I see some bias by some in all media, but if you think they are unbiased.....your judgement is flawed on everything else.
America wants many things from Iraq, and "success" (which is what the President is now substituting for victory in his speeches....a bit less definitive, a bit harder to say when he has failed) would be great. If there was a plan that indicated that it was probable not merely possible in the same way that it is possible that the Portland Trailblazers could possibly win the NBA title, I would agree with you....but there are NO indications of this. The administration and it's apologists take a few indicators and try to paint it as showing that progress is being made.....and America isn't buying it. Maybe there is progress, but America no longer trusts the Administration, and the Administration knows it...which is why they tried so hard to make this the General's plan, and not their plan. Any military gains are useless without political gains....and the Ambassador's presentation, which the right wingers are totally ignoring, did not paint a pretty picture.
The MAIN thing America wants is for Iraq to be over. I do not think it will be over anytime soon no matter who gets elected - we will have some level of troops over there for at at least 10 more years.
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14th, 2007 07:55 pm |
|
1) Iraq has a government that IS representative of its population.
A) That population and government has a much greater sense of kinship with, and is much more sympathetically aligned with, Iran than with the US.
B) That sympathy and sense of kinship is not going to change no matter how long we remain there.
C) If we succeed in militarily crushing the Sunnis (who show no indication of wanting to submit to the dominant Shi'it majority), then what have our blood and treasure bought us?
Answer: An ally to Iran that wants us to go home.
2) Was this outcome predictable before the invasion?
Answer: Absolutely. In fact, Dick Cheney predicted exactly this in 1993, 1994, 1998, 2001.
3) Didn't 911 "change everything"?
Answer: No, it didn't change the nature of the relationship between the Iraqi Shi'ite majority and the Iraqi Sunni minority, nor did it change the relationship of the Iraqi Shi'ite majority with the Iranian Shi'ites that sheltered them during Saddam's reign.
4) If we leave now, will that be seen as a "victory" for AlQ?
Answer: Yes and no. It will certainly be claimed as a victory. However, ALQ stands to lose many things: 1) they will be kicked out of Iraq. Once we leave the gloves will come off and the Iraqis will actually begin to impose order themselves. AlQ is no friend to annyone in Iraq and they know it. Witness recent highly publicized events in Anbar. 2) AlO will lose its best recruiting lever. With the US no longer occupying an Islamic country, the sense of urgency that drives recruitment will diminish. 3) The will lose the freedom that having all of our resources devoted to a counter-poductive war gives them. We will be able to refocus those resources on the strategy of worldwide counter-terrorism.
5) If we leave wont it embolden Iran?
Answer: NO! And that is an EMPHATIC no. Iran is benefitting from having our troops worn down and bogged down in Iraq. Any attack on Iran with our tropps deployed as they are know will result in a huge backlash against them from the Iraqi Shi'ite that are aligned with Iran - and that is nearly all of them. In effect, as things now stand our options against Iran are significantly limited by the "hostage" status of our troops in Iraq.
Conclusion:
Once we invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam, it was inevitable that either a new strongman emerge, that the country become an ally with Iran, or that only part of the country become an Iranian ally as it Balkanized.
Staying there 1 more year, 3 more years, 10 years or 20 years isn't going to change these basic dynamics any more than the 5 years we have already been in country. This leads to one question:
There is no possible scenario where Iran does not walk out of this as a winner. So, how many more of our young men and women have to die in order that Iraq be handed over to Iran as a whole? If we leave Iran may only get a part. If we stay and eradicate the Sunni, Iran will get it all.
Is that what you want?
|
bbd
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 736 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14th, 2007 07:06 pm |
|
Fred wrote: Okay, let's break it down for you...
1. Do you not think the war in Iraq was one of the major reasons the Republicans were bounced out of office? No I think it was Bush's handling of the war not the war it's self
2. Do you not think that the American people are even more tired of the war then a year ago?
Yes they are tired, they also got tired during WW2 but we did not quit.
3. Do you not think they want it changed, and are getting frustrated that things haven't been changed?
They want us to win and did not see that happening. People are starting to see us winning again.
4. Do you not think that Congress (not just the Dems, but Congress) has tried to come up with a workable, reasonable, and respectable plan with the administration who refuses to compromise?
No, Surrender is not an acceptable plan.
5. Do you not think, or do you just let your right wing media sources do it for you?
I make up my own mind based off several sources of information. It is hard to find a right wing media source once you leave radio. Most are extreme left with the exception of Fox who is fair and balanced.
And, for the record....tell me how many times the President used the word "victory" in his speech last night. It has been his favorite word in other speeches on Iraq.....
Didn't count the but the Victory that does count will happen over there.
Last edited on Fri Sep 14th, 2007 07:17 pm by bbd
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14th, 2007 06:55 pm |
|
Okay, let's break it down for you...
1. Do you not think the war in Iraq was one of the major reasons the Republicans were bounced out of office?
2. Do you not think that the American people are even more tired of the war then a year ago?
3. Do you not think they want it changed, and are getting frustrated that things haven't been changed?
4. Do you not think that Congress (not just the Dems, but Congress) has tried to come up with a workable, reasonable, and respectable plan with the administration who refuses to compromise?
5. Do you not think, or do you just let your right wing media sources do it for you?
And, for the record....tell me how many times the President used the word "victory" in his speech last night. It has been his favorite word in other speeches on Iraq.....
Last edited on Fri Sep 14th, 2007 06:56 pm by Fred
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 921 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14th, 2007 06:48 pm |
|
Fred wrote: And to follow up on Taos....Statemenship and maturity work both ways...I haven't seen it from the Administration who talks about "kicking a>>" and "bring it on", and let's not forget Mr. Flightsuit and "Mission Accomplished".
The Dems probably are guilty of being TOO nice and TOO Diplomatic. The citizens of America who threw out the Republican controlled Congress did so because they wanted change....and they are unhappy becuase they have not had enough change.
You should only see or read how rediculous that sounds (or reads).
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 921 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14th, 2007 06:45 pm |
|
I think the American military certainly made a difference there, but they were working in conjunction with the Sunni tribal leadership who made a determination that they needed to do something to stop al-Qa’ida, that al-Qa’ida was a bigger threat than the American presence, and so they began to cooperate with us.” —John Edwards
The closest John Edwards ever got to a military uniform was representing Fayetteville, NC, where Ft. Bragg is located, the home of the 82nd Airborne Division.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14th, 2007 06:45 pm |
|
And to follow up on Taos....Statemenship and maturity work both ways...I haven't seen it from the Administration who talks about "kicking a>>" and "bring it on", and let's not forget Mr. Flightsuit and "Mission Accomplished".
The Dems probably are guilty of being TOO nice and TOO Diplomatic. The citizens of America who threw out the Republican controlled Congress did so because they wanted change....and they are unhappy becuase they have not had enough change.
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14th, 2007 06:42 pm |
|
I see. You're saying that disagreement with Bush's Iraq policy means one is immature and unpatriotic.
Why am I not surprised at that perspective from the Bushies?
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 921 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14th, 2007 06:36 pm |
|
“Agree or disagree with President Bush’s policies in Iraq; there has got to be some degree of maturity, some level of statesmanship, some—dare we say it?—amount of patriotism coming from the leadership of the Democratic party. Yeah. Right.” —Rich Galen
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 14th, 2007 05:00 pm |
|
Bush backer banks on Iraq's failure
Nick Juliano
Published: Friday September 14, 2007
A Texas oil company whose CEO is a longtime confidant of President Bush with access to the most closely held US intelligence has entered into an agreement to explore for oil in Iraq's semi-autonomous Kurdistan region.
The agreement shows that Dallas-based Hunt Oil Co. and its chief executive Ray L. Hunt are "effectively betting against the survival of Iraq as a nation," argues New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.
Hunt raised about $100,000 for Bush during the president's 2000 campaign, and he serves on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which gives him access to some of the most exclusive data collected by US spy agencies.
"What's interesting about this deal is the fact that Hunt, thanks to his policy position, is presumably as well-informed about the actual state of affairs in Iraq as anyone in the business world can be," Krugman observers. "By putting his money into a deal with the Kurds, despite Baghdad's disapproval, he's essentially betting that the Iraqi government -- which hasn't met a single one of the major benchmarks Bush laid out in January -- won't get it's act together."
Condemnation of the deal between Hunt Oil and the Kurdish provisional government was swiftly condemned by Iraq's oil minister Hussain al Shahristani, who declared the deal illegal days after it was announced, despite the Kurds' entreaties to share revenues.
Since Bush announced his surge strategy in January, Iraq has failed to achieve any of the benchmarks for political progress toward reconciliation -- a fact that was conveniently omitted from the president's prime-time address Thursday. Indeed, just days after the Hunt-Kurdistan agreement came reports that negotiations over an oil-revenue sharing law -- seen as the primary key to allowing Iraq to reconcile -- have apparently collapsed.
"The smart money, then, knows that the surge has failed, that the war is lost, and that Iraq is going the way of Yugoslavia," Krugman writes. "And I suspect that most people in the Bush administration -- maybe even Bush himself -- know this, too."
Oil is Iraq's primary resource, accounting for two-thirds of its GDP and nearly all of the government's revenue. The Bush-backer-backed fractionalization of the country's oil revenue gives little hope the country can recover from the quagmire and civil war it finds itself in following the US invasion and five-year occupation.
"Oil is perhaps the key incentive warring factions have to stop fighting and take an interest in the stabilization of their country," says blogger Brian Beutler, a former Raw Story reporter. "That it wasn't enough says something important."
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13th, 2007 03:54 pm |
|
First, I'm in the Reserve....let's not slander the Guard too bad, eh?
Second....there are a few principals I hold dear to, and chief among them are McArthur's words of Duty, Honor, Country. If ordered (and as you point out, it is possible I might have to go back, or somewhere else if I continue to hang around), I would go without the slightest bit of hesitation. Actually, I was asked to volunteer by those I served with in the past to go, I probably would also go (although I wouldn't tell my wife I was volunteering). I would go because it is what I do, it is what is expected, and because I know I can do the job better than many of my grade.
Third....I believe it is entirely possible to dissent from the President and do one's job. Enlisted Soldiers take an oath of enlistment that says they will obey the orders of the President, and those leaders appointed over them.....the Officer does not take such an oath. I took an oath to defend the Constitution, which I believe is a higher authority than ANY single President. My dissent has been respectful, and I have not attacked the man, but his policies and the policies of those he appointed.
It also gives me a great bully pulpit to talk on issues such as this....and it must annoy you greatly, since you bring up my military background waaay more often then I bring it up.
|
Cobra
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 24th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 259 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13th, 2007 03:44 pm |
|
| “The only hope in this war is to win it, no matter how much frustration, or division in Iraq (and America) and no matter how long it takes. Osama bin Laden knows the alternative. And he is willing to impose it on the entire world if we fail.” —Cal Thomas
|
Lyle Jr.
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 11:30 pm |
|
Fred - Without sounding rude, why don't you resign from the Guard since you don't believe we are fighting for freedom. I would hate to have you return to Irag and be put in the position of not fighting for our country because you believe it is not our war. You have 25 years in the service, why bother staying when you could be forced to fight a war you can't pledge your allegiance to?
Fred wrote:
MY countries freedom? Absolutely....priceless. For a country that doesn't even know, want, or can even conceive of it? We've spent too much money on them, already....it is like spending money on an ungrateful kid....at some point, even the most generous person has to reach a point where they get cut off.
I've said this before, but I don't think we are out of there anytime soon REGARDLESS of who gets elected (with the exception of Dennis K. and Ron Paul, who are both crazy enough to do just that). We are going to be there for 5-10 years in some sort of support mission.
My major concern is that the President, and the 30% who are left that support him and his war, is more concerned about his legacy then what is best for the country. If your guy is wrong, and you supported him....that means YOU are wrong, and I think people don't want to admit that....becuase if you are wrong about that, you actually might spend a minute and think that maybe there are other things you are wrong about.....and that is something that I think scares the pants off of the President....AND YOU.
|
Vindicator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 396 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 11:16 pm |
|
Fred wrote: First....the military IS going to show their best foot forward....it doesn't look all that good when high visibility people get blown up, so some high-level journalists, like politicians, don't get to see the real Iraq....or, as Coric herself said...
Well, I was surprised, you know, after I went to eastern Baghdad, I was taken to the Allawi market, which is near Haifa, which was the scene of that very bloody gun battle back in January. And, you know, this market seems to be thriving. And there were a lot of people out and about. A lot of family-owned businesses and vegetable stalls.
And so, you do see signs of life that seem to be normal. Of course, that’s what the U.S. military wants me to see, so you have to keep that in mind as well. But I think there are definitely areas where the situation is improving
Do you know of anyone who has said that no area of Iraq is improving? That the surge was a military disaster? Do you NOT think that the military is going to show her the best examples they could come up with, or do you really think she just wandered out at at random to some town?
The right wing is posing false questions and strawmen to distract from the real issues.
"Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale, and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged" ~~ President Abraham Lincoln
|
kavips
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 11:12 pm |
|
Ha! Maybe then this inept administration will finally be able to capture him instead of looking under a rock. (*iraq")
|
Vindicator
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 396 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 11:09 pm |
|
"It’s getting close to the point where Osama bin Laden could deliver the keynote speech at the Democrat National Convention.”
Spoken by the #1 radio host in America today, Rush Limbaugh
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 10:58 pm |
|
First....the military IS going to show their best foot forward....it doesn't look all that good when high visibility people get blown up, so some high-level journalists, like politicians, don't get to see the real Iraq....or, as Coric herself said...
Well, I was surprised, you know, after I went to eastern Baghdad, I was taken to the Allawi market, which is near Haifa, which was the scene of that very bloody gun battle back in January. And, you know, this market seems to be thriving. And there were a lot of people out and about. A lot of family-owned businesses and vegetable stalls.
And so, you do see signs of life that seem to be normal. Of course, that’s what the U.S. military wants me to see, so you have to keep that in mind as well. But I think there are definitely areas where the situation is improving
Do you know of anyone who has said that no area of Iraq is improving? That the surge was a military disaster? Do you NOT think that the military is going to show her the best examples they could come up with, or do you really think she just wandered out at at random to some town?
The right wing is posing false questions and strawmen to distract from the real issues.
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 921 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 05:26 pm |
|
Frank Rich Says Katie Couric Drank the Kool-Aid in Iraq
Not even CBS anchor Katie Couric is sufficiently liberal to satisfy drama critic turned political commentator Frank Rich, who in his latest epic Sunday column accused the CBS anchor, who recently went to Iraq, of "drinking the.Kool-Aid" regarding Bush's optimistic pronouncements on the war.
Following the lefty line, Rich also referred to two scholars from the left-of-center Brookings Institution as "Pentagon junketeers" for daring to suggest things are improving on the ground in Iraq.
"What's surprising is not that this White House makes stuff up, but that even after all the journalistic embarrassments in the run-up to the war its fictions can still infiltrate the real news. After Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, two Brookings Institution scholars, wrote a New York Times Op-Ed article in July spreading glad tidings of falling civilian fatality rates, they were widely damned for trying to pass themselves off as tough war critics (both had supported the war and the surge) and for not mentioning that their fact-finding visit to Iraq was largely dictated by a Department of Defense itinerary.
"But this has not impeded them from posing as quasi-journalistic independent observers elsewhere ever since, whether on CNN, CBS, Fox or in these pages, identifying themselves as experts rather than Pentagon junketeers. Unlike Armstrong Williams, the talking head and columnist who clandestinely received big government bucks to 'regularly comment' on No Child Left Behind, they received no cash. But why pay for what you can get free?"
To bolster his slander of the scholars, Rich linked to a story at Salon by the immensely self-satisfied left-wing blogger Glenn Greenwald.
Then it was on to Couric.
"Anchoring the 'CBS Evening News' from Iraq last week, Katie Couric seemed to be drinking the same Kool-Aid (or eating the same lobster tortellini) as Mr. O'Hanlon. As 'a snapshot of what's going right,' she cited Falluja, a bombed-out city with 80 percent unemployment, and she repeatedly spoke of American victories against 'Al Qaeda.' Channeling the president's bait-and-switch, she never differentiated between that local group he calls 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' and the Qaeda that attacked America on 9/11."http://www.timeswatch.com
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 04:04 pm |
|
MY countries freedom? Absolutely....priceless. For a country that doesn't even know, want, or can even conceive of it? We've spent too much money on them, already....it is like spending money on an ungrateful kid....at some point, even the most generous person has to reach a point where they get cut off.
I've said this before, but I don't think we are out of there anytime soon REGARDLESS of who gets elected (with the exception of Dennis K. and Ron Paul, who are both crazy enough to do just that). We are going to be there for 5-10 years in some sort of support mission.
My major concern is that the President, and the 30% who are left that support him and his war, is more concerned about his legacy then what is best for the country. If your guy is wrong, and you supported him....that means YOU are wrong, and I think people don't want to admit that....becuase if you are wrong about that, you actually might spend a minute and think that maybe there are other things you are wrong about.....and that is something that I think scares the pants off of the President....AND YOU.
|
Lyle Jr.
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 10:56 am |
|
I don't have the answer, do you? Congress doesn't have the answer and apparently neither does the Administration.
What price is freedom? How much is your children's safety and well being worth? None of these are quantifiable questions with definitive answers. Liberty doesn't come cheap. That my friend is why so many want in here and why so many hate our way of life.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 10:51 am |
|
Answer the question, then....how much, and for how long before it is too much? I've kept my answers respectful and thoughtful....you could at least try to do the same.
|
Lyle Jr.
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12th, 2007 01:03 am |
|
Waaah! Waaah! Waah!
give it up.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11th, 2007 11:40 pm |
|
No, it was the ADMINISTRATION who kept telling people to wait. What others said was that if there was person who could pull this off, it would be this General...but, as was said yesterday, he may be the right person 3 years too late.
My comments were NOT directed to the General, but rather the pattern that the administration has followed since before the war started...they have misled by so many different means that how could anyone trust anything coming out of this administration?
And, for that matter....why are so many people talking about how independent and honest and open the General is....when they were the same ones castigating anyone who didn't swear feality to GWB before?
As I said....I think we can pull it off, but at what cost? Let's say that we can look into a crystal ball and see that we can get a country sort of like Syria (maybe a bit friendlier, but that would be pushing it) if we spend a multiple of the trillions we've spent, the lives we've lost, and the wear and tear on the military. If that multiple is 2 times what we've given....is it worth it? How about 5? What if it was 10? At what point, IF you know ahead of time, do you say it isn't worth it?
|
Jurisprudence
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 28th, 2005 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 794 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11th, 2007 07:46 pm |
|
Fred wrote: There have been numerous examples of people coming forward detailing how the administration wanted to present only certain aspects of the intelligence, or presenting it in a certain way.
You are using these arguments to demean and diminish what General petraeus is reporting. I for one believe that the report is entirely his and watched the hearings from beginning to end. I see no direct statistical refutation to his assessment on the charts and graphs he has demonstrated. Fred, I just can't believe you and where you stand. Just six momnths ago everyone was saying, "Listen to the generals. Listen to the men on the ground." Now when it was learned that certain members of the Congress didn't like what he reported, they (and you seem to support this) resort to calling him a liar. What a way to diminish one's effectiveness. Pray that you are never in this position.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11th, 2007 06:40 pm |
|
There have been numerous examples of people coming forward detailing how the administration wanted to present only certain aspects of the intelligence, or presenting it in a certain way.
The infamous aluminum tubes are the perfect example. If you remember, they were described very ominiously as being so highly crafted that they could only be used for nuclear purposes....which, to their credit, is partially true....highly crafted aluminum tubes ARE used in the nuclear industry, but they also have many other uses....but this came out AFTER the initial fit and flurry.
The yellowcake intelligence was another one that they trumped....and had to actually retract that one, because they made the mistake of having the President actually claim it, instead of having it leaked by underlings to the toadies at Fox News. They took spotty intelligence and ginned up where and who they got it from to look like it was more meaningful and creditable than it was. What they did was when they KNEW the same source gave it to us and the Brits was say, for example, that this was based partially on information from them.....implying it was independent, when it was not.
That in a nutshell is how the administration has operated....and now righties get all indignent when people question the facts the administration chooses to share?
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11th, 2007 05:40 pm |
|
You can keep repeating those lies, but that is NEVER going to make them become true - they are still lies.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1297 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11th, 2007 05:36 pm |
|
Fred wrote: The facts are that the main reasons the administration gave for going into Iraq were based on information that was cherry-picked at best, and forged at worst. The same mis-information that Bill Clinton forwarded and previously acted on and the same mis-information (obtained from her husband's administration) Hillary Clinton parroted.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 8th, 2007 09:20 pm |
|
Fred wrote as the Surge started: Iran is a problem, and we need to figure out a way to deal with it, if only to keep a lid on them until internal pressures can be used to bring about a change. Our forcing a change on a people will not work.....we keep trying, and it has never worked.
The surge probably will produce some good results, but what I suspect will happen is that either the insurgents will lay low for a while and then hit back or move their base of operations to another area (which is actually the best thing, as we would then secure the most important area).
If the surge gets the long-term cooperation, it can possibly get Baghdad back. The problem is that it depends entirely on the Iraqis to lead and do their job. Our Soldiers might be able to get the initial work done, but they can't do it all...and the Iraqis ahve proven time and time again that they are not willing to do their part, either due to Sectarian divisions, or laziness.
A few things about the surge and the results of it, or lackthereof, made me go back and see what I thought about it before it started (and it is something I'd recommend long time posters do, as well....go back 6 months, and see what you (or others) wrote.
The surge was supposed to provide a few things...among them was breathing room in Baghdad for the Iraqi government to take up their role. Success in Anbar is great, but you will NOT find it among the goals when the surge started. While I applaud the non-linear thinking that somewhat pacified this area (and if you want to know why it is so important, look at a map...it runs up to the western border of the country).
The surge has provided some results, but not the results that were hoped for, and even the General is saying that to his troops. He'll say to Congress, as he has said to reporters, that the progress is disapointing, but he needs more time to determine if he can suceeed.
Realize, also, that the surge is done....we don't have the troops to extend it, so when the extra troops start coming home, troop strength will come down as well. This has nothing to do with any policy, but simple math.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 7th, 2007 01:37 am |
|
Amazing, bbd, how everything that doesn't fit into your view of the world is part of a vast Democratic conspiracy.
The facts are that the main reasons the administration gave for going into Iraq were based on information that was cherry-picked at best, and forged at worst. The administration was itching to go to war - one can argue that they may have had other good reasons, or that they had a vision that Iraq would have been the start of Pax Americana, but the fact is that they misled many, including Congress, into this war. That was the first mistake.
The second mistake was not planning for the post-invasion. Again, they believed that it would not be needed, and Rummy ordered the military not to plan. bbd, I'm not sure if your icon indicates your membership in the National Guard, but if you have any experience with leadership you know that the military plans for everything, maybe to a fault.....and to be told, to be ordered NOT to plan goes against our ethos.
There were many other mistakes, and the disbanding of the Iraqi Army may have been the point of no return. I DO think that we can create a situation where we might be able to get some of the things that the administration wanted, but we have to ask how much more of an investment these small gains are worth it. It may be worth the surge, and may be worth x amount of time....but there HAS to be a point where the benefits do NOT outweigh the costs.
What Republicans are afraid of is being tagged for losing this war. They are ignoring all the metrics that indicate that things are going extremely slowly, at best, and going backwards in some areas. As for the gains in the elections....the Dems have already won that battle. I do not think it could be won in the next year, which is when the elections will be decided, and the American people are tired of the war and tired of the administration....the only issue is whether they are tired of Republicans.
|
bbd
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 736 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 07:41 pm |
|
So we were to believe an Iraq foreign minister when most of our information said they had it. Get real
Hitler's minister.
"Oh no! we do not mistreat Jews."
you would have believed him ... right
BTW:
Sidney Blumenthal served as assistant and senior adviser to Bill Clinton from August 1997 until January 2001. His roles included advising the President on communications and public policy as well as researching information in the general media about the White House.
Real one sided information
He put this out to give Hillary cover for her vote
Last edited on Thu Sep 6th, 2007 07:56 pm by bbd
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 07:31 pm |
|
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.
By Sidney Blumenthal
Sept. 6, 2007 | On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD....
Full story here.
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 07:23 pm |
|
Fred, Rawstory has a PDF copy of a very comprehensive Congressional Research Service report on Iraq available for download.
|
bbd
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 736 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 07:12 pm |
|
All signs point to things getting better over there. are we to discredit his report?
Bush did not ask for this report Congress did. They voted for the General every one said he was the man for the job even the democrats said he is above reproach.
but.. now that his report may reflect that we are winning they want to discredit him.
It appears we are wining. if his report reflects this then we need to stay the course. not run home as we are on the verge of victory.
But then again a victory will not help Obama get in the whitehouse will it.
"So....say it, bbd. The administration's screw ups are the reason things are the way they are in Iraq."
Bush, yea I believe this war could have been fought better, but much more so the lack of support from the democrats are to blame for it taking so long to win this
Last edited on Thu Sep 6th, 2007 07:37 pm by bbd
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 06:54 pm |
|
No, bbd....the General has something to say, but he will not be the final answer on this issue. The GAO, the NIA (which is composed of all the Intel agencies), AND the American people have a voice in this. You already know what he is going to say, given his past writings and leanings....He is going to say that things are not great, but improving, and if he gets just a little more time, things will be better next time.
If you want support, the first thing the administration HAS to do is admit how screwed up they made this situation, and then we can move on from there. They want to blame the media, the Democrats, the man in the moon....but it was their policies that did this. Heck, the President even tried to lie about the disbanding of the Iraqi Army, which is now the biggest CF of the war....and he tried to claim he knew nothing about it, but Bremmer is saying he knew dang well what was going on.
So....say it, bbd. The administration's screw ups are the reason things are the way they are in Iraq.
|
bbd
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 736 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 06:43 pm |
|
One thing is clear. the Democreat need America to loose this war. It is their best chance to gain in power.
They are trying to discredit the General and his report before it comes out. Good news out of Iraq is bad news for them.
Let's listen to what the General's report has to say before they try to rip it and him apart.
Newshound wrote:
Ken Blackwell: The Elephant in the Room
Next week General Petraeus will report on progress of the war. It will likely mark a turning point in America?s role in Iraq, and will refocus voters on what they should be looking for in a president. It also reminds us that the elephant in the room in 2008 is the global war against radical jihadists and their reign of terror.
http://www.townhall.com
|
Newshound
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 921 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 06:10 pm |
|
Ken Blackwell: The Elephant in the Room
Next week General Petraeus will report on progress of the war. It will likely mark a turning point in America?s role in Iraq, and will refocus voters on what they should be looking for in a president. It also reminds us that the elephant in the room in 2008 is the global war against radical jihadists and their reign of terror.
http://www.townhall.com
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 01:16 pm |
|
Experts Doubt Drop In Violence in Iraq
Military Statistics Called Into Question
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 6, 2007; A16
The U.S. military's claim that violence has decreased sharply in Iraq in recent months has come under scrutiny from many experts within and outside the government, who contend that some of the underlying statistics are questionable and selectively ignore negative trends.
Reductions in violence form the centerpiece of the Bush administration's claim that its war strategy is working. In congressional testimony Monday, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is expected to cite a 75 percent decrease in sectarian attacks. According to senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad, overall attacks in Iraq were down to 960 a week in August, compared with 1,700 a week in June, and civilian casualties had fallen 17 percent between December 2006 and last month. Unofficial Iraqi figures show a similar decrease.
Others who have looked at the full range of U.S. government statistics on violence, however, accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the numbers -- most of which are classified -- are often confusing and contradictory. "Let's just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree," Comptroller General David Walker told Congress on Tuesday in releasing a new Government Accountability Office report on Iraq.
Senior U.S. officers in Baghdad disputed the accuracy and conclusions of the largely negative GAO report, which they said had adopted a flawed counting methodology used by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Many of those conclusions were also reflected in last month's pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.
The intelligence community has its own problems with military calculations. Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal."
"Depending on which numbers you pick," he said, "you get a different outcome." Analysts found "trend lines . . . going in different directions" compared with previous years, when numbers in different categories varied widely but trended in the same direction. "It began to look like spaghetti."...
Article continues here.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 06:01 pm |
|
Bixby wrote: = The biggest obstacle standing in the way of the surge’s success at this point may well be the U.S. Congress.
If you truly believe that, and prefer to ignore every other non-Congressional assessment, then I can't stop you. The only thing I'll give credit for this quote is that at least they have updated it to not simply blame the Dems, since many Repubs are beginning to see the light.
If you listen to the Trio of Pace, Gates, and Rice, at the beginning of the search they said that the results of the search should be seen even before the troops deployed...then they claimed you couldn't judge until the troops were all there (as if 10,000 troops would have no measurable affect, but 30,000 would solve everything), then they said you had to wait until GEN P. speaks, then they said they would need more time, and now they are saying you have to ignore all the measures that the IRAQIs are making towards their taking control of the country.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1297 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 04:50 pm |
|
Warfront with Jihadistan: Iraqi detainees
American troops have scooped up more than 8,000 terror suspects since February of this year, putting the total number of detainees in U.S. military custody in Iraq at 24,500. These new prisoners are courtesy of the troop surge that has allowed American forces to travel into areas that haven’t been patrolled for months and maintain a 24-hour presence there.
The makeup of the detainee population is interesting; 85 percent are Sunni, the minority Islamic group in Iraq that once ruled under Saddam Hussein. Among that group, 1,800 are sworn al-Qa’ida, and 6,000 more believe that the Shi’ite majority are heretics. What’s more, many of them, despite their religious or anti-American views, are more motivated to commit terrorism for money. “They’re angry men because they don’t have jobs,” said Navy Capt. John Fleming, a detainee-operations spokesman. “The detainee population is overwhelmingly illiterate and unemployed.”
The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto surmised that many of these detainees were likely convicts let out of prison by Saddam after his “election victory” in October 2002 as part of his plan to sow chaos in the streets after an American invasion that he knew was coming. There were few political prisoners in the bunch, but there many who praised the former dictator for their release.
Every thug taken off the street in Iraq brings the country one step closer to stability. The biggest obstacle standing in the way of the surge’s success at this point may well be the U.S. Congress.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 6072 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 02:22 pm |
|
Taos....interesting perspective, and the book was the discussion of Fresh Air yesterday....they did their usual great job of questioning the assumptions of both the authors, and the author of the book wrote to refute their assertions.
If you get a chance, listen to it....one thing that was apparent was that while I think the case is a bit overstated, the ADL guy who wrote the book did not present his case very well. I think there ARE forces that pushed AND pulled us into war with Iraq, just as there were forces that tried to keep us out.
More interestingly is the posturing that everyone is doing with all the concrete data products that are being produced....the adminstration is insisting that none of that really matters, but what is important is that they "feel" things are getting better.
|
Taos Eddy
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 03:52 am |
|
This is long, but well worth the read.
Iraq, Israel, Iran Posted September 4, 2007 | 10:38 AM (EST)
David Bromwich
When John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's article on the Israel Lobby appeared in the London Review of Books, after having been commissioned and killed by the Atlantic Monthly, neoconservative publicists launched an all-out campaign to slander the authors as anti-Semites. Now that their book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy has appeared--a work of considerable scope, carefully documented, and not just an expanded version of the article--the imputation of anti-Semitism will doubtless be repeated more sparingly for readers lower down the educational ladder. Meanwhile, the literate establishment press will (a) ignore it, (b) pretend that it says nothing new or surprising, and (c) rule out the probable inferences from the data, on the ground that the very meaning of the word "lobby" is elusive. The truth is that many new facts are in this book, and many surprising facts. By reconstructing a trail of meetings and public statements in 2001-2002, for example, the authors show that much of th | | |