The Iraq / war on terror thread

[Dr. Blutarsky]

The media is distorting the situation in Iraq. Just talk with a soldier who has been there if you want accurate info.

[sandman]

i still support this president. so i guess i am an idiot. 

you guys are so easy to get going. great for a laugh every once in a while. 

could one of you lefties provide a link that proves mccain's quote is misleading?
(and no kidding, france didn't want to go to war. but that's not what his quote says.)



 

[SLCPUNK]

The media is distorting the situation in Iraq. Just talk with a soldier who has been there if you want accurate info.

Sure they are.

What about the soldiers who come back and say they spent more time defending Halliburton contractors then anything else?

It's all that liberal media's fault  , couldn't be that Bush never had a plan. You guys always ask about Kerry's "plan", yet forget that Bush never had one. Your president is a lying asshole, and you continue to betray your morality by supporting him and ignoring the above posts made. You have to look no farther then the Rove scenerio to see what kind of man we are talking about here. In court he admits he lied, then comes back to work and Bush keeps him on. But what does he care? They are all a bunch of murdering liars in there, they should be right at home. Of course I'm sure none of this is upsetting to you, since nobody accused Rove of having his dick sucked by an intern.

In the meantime you guys still have nothing left to say to Booker's posts. Left only to blow smoke up each others asses and talk about how amusing it all is. How can you look in the mirror?

[Booker Floyd]

The media is distorting the situation in Iraq. Just talk with a soldier who has been there if you want accurate info.

 

What kind of premise is this?  Are you implying that the average soldier knows every fact of this war?  And they all think the same things about it?

[Booker Floyd]

Is the "Democrats dont have a plan" talking point dead now?? Weve seen plan outlines from Russ Feingold, John Kerry, John Edwards and others.? Now the Senates Miniority Leader has offered one as well:

Reid Outlines Way Forward in Iraq, Previews Democrats Iraq Amendment

Monday, November 14, 2005

Washington, D.C. ? Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid delivered the following remarks at a press conference today with Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin and Senator Carl Levin. [/i]

Remarks as prepared:

?Our troops deserve a strategy in Iraq that is worthy of their sacrifice. That is why, for three years, Democrats have pushed the White House to lay out a plan for success.

?Unfortunately, the President has rejected our call, and instead, insisted America needs to ?stay the course.? With more than 2,050 Americans killed? more than $250 billion spent? and no end in sight after three years of war -- ?staying the course? is no longer an option.

?Together, we can do better. Democrats have developed a very clear path forward. There are three areas we believe need to be addressed:

- First, 2006 should be a significant year of transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqis taking more and more responsibility for their own security. It?s time to take the training wheels off the Iraqi government. Iraqis must begin to run their own country. In 2006, the US and our allies must do everything we can to make that possible.

- Second, the Administration must advise the Iraqi people that U.S. military forces will not stay indefinitely in Iraq, and that it is their responsibility to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political environment essential for defeating the insurgency.

- Third, the President needs to submit ? on a quarterly basis - a plan for success to Congress and the American people. This plan must specify the challenges and progress being made in Iraq, timetables for achieving our goals and estimated dates for redeployment from Iraq as these goals are met.

?Apparently, Republicans have agreed this is the approach we need to take, as they have essentially accepted our amendment.

?It cannot be understated that by accepting our amendment, both the Republican leader and the chairman of the Armed Services committee agree that the administration needs to come forward and explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for success and completing the mission.

?It?s not easy for the President to admit mistakes. It?s a lot easier for him to lash out at those who question his policies, but political attacks are not going to get the job done. Our troops have done their job. It?s time for the President and this Republican-controlled Congress to do theirs.?

###

UNITED STATES POLICY ON IRAQ ACT

Getting Answers to the American People on the War in Iraq

For too long, the Bush administration has failed to lay out a clear strategy for success in Iraq to the American people. Their rosy statements about the progress of the war are not matched by the conditions on the ground. In their few appearances before the Congress, the Secretaries of Defense and State have failed to answer the most basic questions about our progress in the war or provide even the simplest benchmarks by which the American people could measure our progress. Democrats are offering an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill that holds the Administration accountable for its actions and requires it to present a real plan for success.

DEMOCRATS OFFER THE FOLLOWING ASSESMENT ABOUT THE WAR:

Our troops and their families deserve the respect and gratitude of the American people for their service and sacrifice. The Administration has said that as the Iraqis stand up, we can stand down. Democrats believe we should see a significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty in 2006 so that our troops can begin coming home. We also believe the Iraqi people must understand that the U.S. military will not stay in Iraq indefinitely; they must achieve the political stability necessary to defeat the insurgency.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION MUST PROVIDE A PLAN:

It is essential that the Bush administration submit an unclassified strategy for success in Iraq to the Congress and the American people specifying how and when our troops can begin coming home.

An Assessment of the Bush Administration?s Actions to Achieve Progress in Iraq. The Bush administration must provide information on its efforts to convince Iraq?s communities to make the necessary compromises for a political settlement; efforts to engage the international community to help stabilize Iraq; efforts to strengthen the capacity of Iraq?s government ministries; efforts to accelerate the delivery of basic services; and efforts to train Iraqi security forces so those forces can protect Iraq on their own.

An Assessment of the Compromises Made by the Iraqi People to Achieve the Broad-Based and Sustainable Political Settlement.

An Unclassified Report to Congress and the American People. The Bush administration has classified most significant information about their Iraq war plans and kept that information from the Congress. The President should submit to the Congress and the American people an unclassified plan for success in Iraq. We deserve to know the conditions we seek to establish, the challenges we face in achieving these conditions, and the progress we are making. This report should also include:

- The number of Iraqi battalions that must be able to operate independently or take the lead in counterinsurgency operations

- The number of Iraqi special police units that must be able to operate independently or take the lead in policing

- The number of regular police that must be trained and equipped

The ability of Iraq?s Federal ministries and provincial and local governments to independently sustain, direct and coordinate Iraq?s security forces

The Benchmarks for Success. The Bush administration must also provide benchmarks by which their success can be measured. This includes the criteria by which to measure the progress being made and a schedule for meeting these conditions.

A Plan for Bringing Our Troops Home. As it lays out a clear strategy with benchmarks, the Bush administration must also provide a campaign plan with estimated dates for the phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq as each condition is met, with the understanding that unexpected contingencies may arise.

[Booker Floyd]

Interestingly, Senate Republicans seem to agree with much of that plan:

Senate Republicans Pushing for a Plan on Ending the War in Iraq
By CARL HULSE
Published: November 15, 2005


WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 - In a sign of increasing unease among Congressional Republicans over the war in Iraq, the Senate is to consider on Tuesday a Republican proposal that calls for Iraqi forces to take the lead next year in securing the nation and for the Bush administration to lay out its strategy for ending the war.

The Senate is also scheduled to vote Tuesday on a compromise, announced Monday night, that would allow terror detainees some access to federal courts. The Senate had voted last week to prohibit those being held from challenging their detentions in federal court, despite a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary.

Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who is the author of the initial plan, said Monday that he had negotiated a compromise that would allow detainees at Guant?namo Bay, Cuba, to challenge their designation as enemy combatants in federal courts and also allow automatic appeals of any convictions handed down by the military where detainees receive prison terms of 10 years or more or a death sentence.

The proposal on the Iraq war, from Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, and Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, would require the administration to provide extensive new quarterly reports to Congress on subjects like progress in bringing in other countries to help stabilize Iraq. The other appeals related to Iraq are nonbinding and express the position of the Senate.

The plan stops short of a competing Democratic proposal that moves toward establishing dates for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq. But it is built upon the Democratic approach and makes it clear that senators of both parties are increasingly eager for Iraqis to take control of their country in coming months and open the door to removing American troops.

Mr. Warner said the underlying message was, "we really mean business, Iraqis, get on with it." The senator, an influential party voice on military issues, said he did not interpret the wording of his plan as critical of the administration, describing it as a "forward-looking" approach.

"It is not a question of satisfaction or dissatisfaction," he said. "This reflects what has to be done."

Democrats said the plan represented a shift in Republican sentiment on Iraq and was an acknowledgment of growing public unrest with the course of the war and the administration's frequent call for patience. "I think it signals the fact that the American people are demanding change, and the Republicans see that that's something that they have to follow," said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader.

Mr. Frist said an important reason for the Republican proposal was to offer an alternative to the Democratic call for a withdrawal timetable. "The real objective was to get out of this timeline of cutting and running that the Democrats have in their amendment," he said.

Mr. Warner said he decided to take the Democratic proposal and edit it to his satisfaction in an effort to find common ground between the parties on the issue.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, said he saw the proposal as a potential "turning point" in Congressional deliberation over Iraq and related issues.

The competing amendments include some of the most specific and expansive Congressional statements on the war in months and are being proposed for inclusion in a measure that also wrestles with the issues of treatment of terror detainees and their rights in American courts.

In announcing the compromise on the rights of detainees, Senator Graham said, "We have brought legal certainty to legal confusion." He said detainees would still be barred from mounting a wide array of court challenges regarding their treatment or the conditions of their confinement.

Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said the compromise had eased some of his previous objections to the restrictions on the detainees.

On the Iraq resolutions, the Democratic and Republican proposals say that "2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security of a free and sovereign Iraq, thereby creating the conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq."

The plan also seeks to put pressure on the Iraqis to find ways to resolve their internal political turmoil, saying the "administration should tell the leaders of all groups and political parties in Iraq that they need to make the compromises necessary to achieve the broad-based and sustainable political settlement that is essential for defeating the insurgency."

The White House is also directed "to explain to Congress and the American people its strategy for the successful completion of the mission in Iraq." Democrats have complained persistently that the administration has failed to outline a plan.

Lawmakers also seek much more specific regular reports from the administration covering "the current military mission and the diplomatic, political, economic and military measures, if any, that are being or have been undertaken to successfully complete or support that mission."

Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said the provision would improve accountability.

"The president needs to report to the American people and leaders in Congress as this war develops," Mr. Durbin said. "It shouldn't be a matter of haphazard Congressional committee hearings."

The primary differences between the party approaches regards fixing dates for a withdrawal. The Democratic plan called for the administration to provide "estimated dates" for redeployment of American troops once a series of conditions was met, with the caveat that "unexpected contingencies may arise."

But Republicans said that provision was cutting too close to setting a schedule for withdrawal. "We are not going to have any timetable," Mr. Warner said.

[Surfrider]

And its really nice to know that you hold such a high standard for character, accountability, and refusal to shift blame:

Sen. John McCain: ?Every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russian, including the French, including the Israeli, all had reached the same conclusion, and that was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.? [Face the Nation]

Sen. Pat Roberts: ?Not only ours but the British, not only that but the French, not only that but the Russians, not only that but the Israelis ? this was a worldwide intelligence failure.? [Fox News Sunday]

Former White House Political Director Ken Mehlman: ?The UN looked at it, the Germans looked at it, the French looked at it? they all agreed that this guy has WMD.? [Meet the Press]

Considering your own strong character and intellectual honesty, I know that youll make the same judgement on the above individuals' "character.? ?? While youre at it, you might want to point out the misleading nature of the above quotes and mention the fact that foreign officials from nearly every country mentioned discouraged war with Iraq.?

You completely misss their entire argument.? They are not claiming that these countries wanted to go to war.? No one has made that claim.? They are simply saying that everyone believed Suddam had weapons of mass destruction, which is the truth.? Most that were against the war believed he had those weapons.? Now Bush is being accused of lying and making up intelligence.? Pointing out that he wasn't the only one that came to the conclusions about the WMDs sure undercuts the argument that Bush was a liar.? Read the quotes, it is quite clear what they are saying.

President Jacques Chirac:? "But we just feel that there is another option, another way, a less dramatic way than war, and that we have to go down that path."

Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer:? "Are we really in a situation that absolutely necessitates the ?ultima ratio?, the very last resort? I think not, because the peaceful means are far from exhausted."

Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov:? "It is our deep conviction that the possibilities for disarming Iraq through political means do exist."

Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan:? "We believe that as long as we stick to the road of political settlement, the goal of destroying Iraq?s WMD could still be obtained. "

I suggest you re-read this post again.? Not one of those people above are claiming that these people were for the war.? You are unfairly portraying these people as liars based on a line of argument that can't be followed.

[Booker Floyd]

And its really nice to know that you hold such a high standard for character, accountability, and refusal to shift blame:

Sen. John McCain: ?Every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russian, including the French, including the Israeli, all had reached the same conclusion, and that was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.? [Face the Nation]

Sen. Pat Roberts: ?Not only ours but the British, not only that but the French, not only that but the Russians, not only that but the Israelis ? this was a worldwide intelligence failure.? [Fox News Sunday]

Former White House Political Director Ken Mehlman: ?The UN looked at it, the Germans looked at it, the French looked at it? they all agreed that this guy has WMD.? [Meet the Press]

Considering your own strong character and intellectual honesty, I know that youll make the same judgement on the above individuals' "character.? ?? While youre at it, you might want to point out the misleading nature of the above quotes and mention the fact that foreign officials from nearly every country mentioned discouraged war with Iraq.?

You completely misss their entire argument.? They are not claiming that these countries wanted to go to war.? No one has made that claim.? They are simply saying that everyone believed Suddam had weapons of mass destruction, which is the truth.? Most that were against the war believed he had those weapons.? Now Bush is being accused of lying and making up intelligence.? Pointing out that he wasn't the only one that came to the conclusions about the WMDs sure undercuts the argument that Bush was a liar.? Read the quotes, it is quite clear what they are saying.

President Jacques Chirac:? "But we just feel that there is another option, another way, a less dramatic way than war, and that we have to go down that path."

Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer:? "Are we really in a situation that absolutely necessitates the ?ultima ratio?, the very last resort? I think not, because the peaceful means are far from exhausted."

Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov:? "It is our deep conviction that the possibilities for disarming Iraq through political means do exist."

Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan:? "We believe that as long as we stick to the road of political settlement, the goal of destroying Iraq?s WMD could still be obtained. "

I suggest you re-read this post again.? Not one of those people above are claiming that these people were for the war.? You are unfairly portraying these people as liars based on a line of argument that can't be followed.

No, I get the point of the quotes.? I included them in my post because Sandman thought it was pathetic of Edwards to "pass the blame" onto Bush, and was curious to see if he felt similarly about those individuals referencing other countries to justify Americas decision to go to war.? And I dont think theyre liars based on the statements, but I think its misleading to reference those countries to justify that decision when each of those countries believed, presumably based on their intelligence, that military action was not necessary.? So basically, Frances intelligence is okay to consult and reference on one point, but not good enough to consider on another.  Looks a lot like cherry-picking...

However Mehlman is a liar, if not based on that statement, than on this one (from the same Meet The Press):

"The Senate Intel Committee unanimously found that there was no intent to mislead anyone."

[Surfrider]

Here is a must read.  It explains the current attempt by the left to misrepresent the facts leading up to the war.  I would have posted it, but it is too long.  Anyone that vehmently believes that Bush lied, I suggest you read the article and compare your facts to those of the author.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540

[SLCPUNK]

More crap from another neo-conservative writer...

Fair and balanced 'eh?

[Surfrider]

More crap from another neo-conservative writer...

Fair and balanced 'eh?

Did you even read it?? It lays out the case pretty well.? Most of what she writes are facts and quotes from people that have changed their position.? Surely, its not from Moveon.org, but they don't let absolutely anyone write letters in the Wall Stree Journal.? Just because an article goes against what you believe does not mean it is not fair and balanced.? Besides, aren't you using your "STRAWMAN" argument that you accuse people of all of the time.? You attack the writer instead of the substance.? I am not suprised that is your response though.? I never expected to convince you Bush didn't lie, you were convinced that he did before the evidence that you now cite was even available.? However, I am interested to see what the reaction is from people like Pilferk and Booker, which although more to the left, seem pretty fairminded.

[Axl_owns_dexter]

Did you even read it?

We all know the answer to that one.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Nice article BerkeleyRiot.

Playing politics at the risk of national security is not a good idea. Are some on the left so blind in their hate for Bush and the quest for power worth letting the end justify the means on this one?

[pilferk]

I don't believe Bush lied.? I've said that before.? While I recognize the article posted is an OPINION piece, it's at least well founded...though SLC is right: It's origins are certainly from a conservatively slanted author.

I believe Bush was wrong.? He made bad decisions based on flawed intelligence which he had some reason to believe was flawed.? I believe he ignored the pieces of information that cast the intellegence he DID use in a negative light.? I think he made his decisions based on a personal agenda, or predisposition, and not necessarily all the information at hand.? He believed, in essence, what he wanted to believe.? So, semantically at least, he did not lie.? I think he trully did believe that WMD's existed.? He was just catestrophically wrong.?

I also think that this administration released ONLY the intelligence they wanted to release.? I agree, the lying claim is tough to pin on him.? But his administration certainly misled, knowingly or not, the rest of the country, and, indeed, the rest of the world.? They portrayed their intel as definitive, when it was not.? They claimed to "know" there were WMD's when, in fact, they KNEW no such thing.? They were making a case for war but did not provide full disclosure of the evidence.? It would be like going to court with only the prosecution, and no defense...or a crippled defense that was not allowed access to all the pertinent information.

In the years that have followed Iraq, we KNOW that there was intel that called into question the intel being used to make the decisions.? We know that evidence was at least as compelling and credible as the original evidence.? And we KNOW that intel was not made available, or presented, to Congress.? Why it wasn't is a matter of speculation, to be sure.?

I also saw claims that France, Isreal, Russia, Germany, etc all KNEW Saddam had WMD's.? That is not true.? They SUSPECTED he had them.? They've all said the same thing: They had the same intel we did and didn't find it compelling enough to say they KNEW there were WMD's.? They suspected he might.? Again, we're playing games of semantics..but to say those governments said they KNEW there were WMD's is not exaclty the truth.? Quite the opposite.? They believed there may be WMD's, but thought it best to err on the side of discretion, given the credibility of the intel, and undertake diplomatic measures before military ones.? In hindsight....they were all right.

FYI: My posting, of late, has been drastically reduced (as it typically is this time of year).  I'm not around much so....best not to "expect" me.  I'll chime in when I've got time.

[SLCPUNK]

Nice article BerkeleyRiot.

Playing politics at the risk of national security is not a good idea.

Yea, you can probably ask Libby or Chenney about that one. They wrote the book on it.

[SLCPUNK]

Did you even read it?

We all know the answer to that one.

Podhoretz's quote from Scott Ritter was 5 years old when we invaded. In 2002, he was singing a different, more accurate, tune.

Besides, none of you guys have yet to address Bookers fist post....Even after two pages.

The only president with lower ratings then Bush is Nixon, and Bush may soon beat that record. You guys really know how to back a winner.

[Dr. Blutarsky]

Nice article BerkeleyRiot.

Playing politics at the risk of national security is not a good idea.

Yea, you can probably ask Libby or Chenney about that one. They wrote the book on it.

Cheney diddnt leak the name, Libby is the one who is getting accused of it.

Hardly a national security issue compared to Iraq.

[Axl_owns_dexter]

The only president with lower ratings then Bush is Nixon, and Bush may soon beat that record. You guys really know how to back a winner.

I actually voted for Kerry, as I saw him as a lesser of two evils.  However, I still don't understand the pure hatred some of you guys have for Bush.

Oh and thanks for generalizing about me.   

[RichardNixon]

Scott Ritter "a card carrying Republican" was one of the biggest opponents of the war. He said as far back as early 2003 that Bush was full of shit.

[sandman]

but i find it weak that he's taking responsibility, but still putting the blame on someone else (bush). i think that shows he has a pathetic character.

Sen. John McCain: ?Every intelligence agency in the world, including the Russian, including the French, including the Israeli, all had reached the same conclusion, and that was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.? [Face the Nation]


Considering your own strong character and intellectual honesty, I know that youll make the same judgement on the above individuals' "character.? ??

i've tried to address this post. you implied McCain was being dishonest. i've asked if anyone can provide a link to prove that.

anyone?