Commitee says Bush policy in Iraq "Not working"...

[D]

When i saw the thread title, first thing that popped in my head was:

It took a whole committee to come to that conclusion?

[Booker Floyd]

More words from perhaps the greatest politician I know:

"The fact is this commission was composed apparently entirely of people who did not have the judgment to oppose this Iraq war in the first place, and did not have the judgment to realize it was not a wise move in the fight against terrorism. So that's who is doing this report. Then I looked at the list of who testified before them. There is virtually no one who opposed the war in the first place. Virtually no one who has been really calling for a different strategy that goes for a global approach to the war on terrorism. So this is really a Washington inside job and it shows not in the description of what's happened - that's fairly accurate - but it shows in the recommendations. It's been called a classic Washington compromise that does not do the job of extricating us from Iraq in a way that we can deal with the issues in Southeast Asia, in Afghanistan, and in Somalia which are every bit as important as what is happening in Iraq. This report does not do the job and it's because it was not composed of a real representative group of Americans who believe what the American people showed in the election, which is that it's time for us to have a timetable to bring the troops out of Iraq." - Russ Feingold

[Brody]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16068589/

Not One Retired Military Officer on the panel! Sounds Good!

[The Dog]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16068589/

Not One Retired Military Officer on the panel! Sounds Good!

Do the slightest bit of research and you'll find DOZENS of generals/military people, both active and retired, who have spoken out against this war and the way its been handled. 

[SLCPUNK]

Cooking the books on Iraq..... Now everybody here knows that Bush would NEVER LIE to us all to get his way, right? Looks as if they scaled the acts of violence down to 1/10 th of the actual figures.

Fraud, lying to the citizens of this country, time for impeachment.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_iraq_violence_figures


WASHINGTON - U.S. military and intelligence officials have systematically underreported the violence in Iraq in order to suit the Bush administration's policy goals, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group said.

In its report on ways to improve the U.S. approach to stabilizing Iraq, the group recommended Wednesday that the director of national intelligence and the secretary of defense make changes in the collection of data about violence to provide a more accurate picture.

The panel pointed to one day last July when U.S. officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence. "Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence," it said.

"The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases." It said, for example, that a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack, and a roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. personnel doesn't count, either. Also, if the source of a sectarian attack is not determined, that assault is not added to the database of violence incidents.

"Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals," the report said.

A request for Pentagon comment on the report's assertions was not immediately answered.

Some U.S. analysts have complained for months that the Pentagon's reports to Congress on conditions in Iraq have undercounted the violent episodes. Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq watcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in a November report that the Pentagon omits many low-level incidents and types of civil violence.

[TAP]

a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack

haha.....what? Maybe it doesn't count unless they report it in person 

[Hysteron]

the Pentagon omits many low-level incidents and types of civil violence.

Good to know that the safety of the troops is more important than that of the people.

[Surfrider]

While the report has regenerated a few good ideas, it doesn't adequately put Iraq in the context of a broader national security strategy. We need an Iraq policy that is guided by our top national security priority - defeating the terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11 and its allies. We can't continue to just look at Iraq in isolation. Unless we set a serious timetable for redeploying our troops from Iraq, we will be unable to effectively address these global threats. In the end, this report is a regrettable example of `official Washington' missing the point." - Russ Feingold

I agree with the first part, but disagree with the last part.  Whether it was our creation or not, this war is now linked to the broader war against the ideology that attacked us on 911.

[SLCPUNK]

I agree with the first part, but disagree with the last part.  Whether it was our creation or not, this war is now linked to the broader war against the ideology that attacked us on 911.

Yea, it's linked alright. It is creating more terrorists.

[Axl4Prez2004]

I agree with the first part, but disagree with the last part.? Whether it was our creation or not, this war is now linked to the broader war against the ideology that attacked us on 911.

Yea, it's linked alright. It is creating more terrorists.

No truer words ever said.  Nice post SLC.  Is it just me or has anyone else listened to Civil War lately and put together in their mind's eye a kick-ass video?  Some cinema major with access to video news clips could put together a hell of a video for Civil War.  The past 5 years and tens of thousands of deaths are summed up pretty damn well by GNR's Civil War.

Computer technology would produce a great image of a power hungry general pulling out cases of soldiers off the shelf.  Drunk and stumbling to the check-out aisle he places them down.  The camera zooms to a close-up of the check-out conveyor belt which is actually a war-torn area of Iraq.  The soldiers are fighting bravely, the camera pans back out to the general angry at newspaper headlines criticizing the war, he looks over to the check-out girl as the all-american check-out girl all decked out in red, white, and blue and support our troops ribbons morphs into the grim reaper as what were young, brave soldiers are now flag-draped coffins being loaded into grocery bags.

"Look at the shoes you're filling..."  has a fade-in of combat boots, then a fade-out, then a fade-in of the prosthetic legs situated in the combat boots and a quick shot of the 18-yearold amputee soldier's eyes.  Quick shots of the heartbreak of Iraqi parents who have lost their children. 

I could go on and on for hours, but I know it's all very disturbing.  Sorry about that.  I just think a kick-ass video could be made.

   

[Psychophobia]

Whether it was our creation or not, this war is now linked to the broader war against the ideology that attacked us on 911.

It was Osama bin Laden - a fundamentalist nutbar with too much money - and 19 of his fundamentalist mortar-shell catchers that attacked the United States on 9/11. It had nothing to do with ideology. Terrorism does not qualify as one.

Crediting the Taliban's strategies as  being rooted in ideology is a generous, over-the-top exhaggeration of their organisation. The Taliban never operated based on any sort of ideology. More like an absence of it! In their formative years during the 80s, they could barely even coordinate their armies for collaborative operations against the Soviets, as they were too caught up with infighting, tribal disputes, inexperienced leadership, etc. The Taliban regime that was established in 1996 brought stability to the region, at the cost of the gains made during the soviet period (such as a blossoming education system, religious reforms, persecution of fundamentalism, and some women's rights).

Because of its repressive nature, the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan couldn't breed a group of ideologists even if had wanted to. You'd need to give people the opprotunity for education and debate for that, and fundamentalism doesn't allow for such things.

[Bud Fox]

We are entering a period of insanity. The Iraqi Commission stated we should leave Iraq by 2008. That means all the guys who get killed between now and then are dying to "train the Iraqi forces". The report also says that this in itself is open to question as to whether it will be a success. In other words, from here on out, its suckers dying for a lie. Who is going to want their son, brother, daughter, mother, or sister to die under those preconceptions? The events of the last few days have brought everything open to question.

[Psychophobia]

In other words, from here on out, its suckers dying for a lie.

Blunt as it may sound, I think the majority of people would tell you that's been the case all along.

While it's slightly off-topic, your phrase of 'dying for a lie' brings to mind the one - and only - occasion that I was actually impressed with lame-duck Presidential candidate, John Kerry. His statement to congress in 1971(?) is a riveting articulation of the sense of betrayl and dismay among some of the troops that were coming home from Vietnam at the time. Worth reading. I would imagine there's a lot of similar feelings among the US forces involved now, especially given the findings of this report.

[Bud Fox]

The silence of the conservatives on this thread is deafening. An extraordinary month, where Bush fired his two top stooges, Rumsfeld and Bolton, for doing what he told them to do. Great hope is held out for Gates, a hope that he will not do what Bush wants him to do. The whole thing has become a comic tragedy. If Bush was a real patriot, he would do the right thing for his country and get Cheney to resign so he could appoint McCain VP, and then resign himself. Instead we have this stupid game, where a Bush I stooge is brought in to see if he can fix the mess Bush Jr created. No wonder his dad is balling like a pussy.

[Surfrider]

I agree with the first part, but disagree with the last part.? Whether it was our creation or not, this war is now linked to the broader war against the ideology that attacked us on 911.

Yea, it's linked alright. It is creating more terrorists.

I forgot, the terrorism is our fault; it's our creation.? Just like its the Jews fault in Israel.? Just like it is the Hindu's fault in Kashmir.? Just like it is the Christian's fault in Sudan.? Just like it is the Russian's fault in Chechnya.? Just like it was the Brits fault on July 7.? Just like it was America's fault on September 11 (actually that was a self-inflicted attack).? Just like it was Spain's fault for the train bombings occuring.? Same for the Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria, and other places on the globe where non-muslims are fighting muslims.? If all of these countries would just give the radical muslims what they want and quit fighting them, there would be peace.? I think we should start with the US pulling out of Iraq, and then we can give Israel to the Palestineans.?

That should solve most of the problems.  We don't have to worry about Osama and Al Qaeda.  They were just a creation of the US Government to cover up the attack that Bush planned on 911 so that he could start a war with Iraq to get his oil buddies in Texas rich, help Cheney's shares in Halliburton, and get revenge for his father. 

[Psychophobia]

 

The above post has to be one of the most boneheaded, inept attempts at sarcasm that I've read on the internet.

[Surfrider]

The above post has to be one of the most boneheaded, inept attempts at sarcasm that I've read on the internet.

Hits close to home, eh?

I guess the real question is at what time did you realize it was sacarsm?? I can just picture you reading it, nodding your head in agreement, and then all of the sudden realizing it was meant as sarcasm.? I'll bet you caught it on the last line about Osama?? Sometimes I fall for the trap and think that all of you guys believe the 911 conspiracy theory.? I guess it's nice to know that it's only a select few.

[pilferk]

I forgot, the terrorism is our fault; it's our creation.  Just like its the Jews fault in Israel.  Just like it is the Hindu's fault in Kashmir.  Just like it is the Christian's fault in Sudan.  Just like it is the Russian's fault in Chechnya.  Just like it was the Brits fault on July 7.  Just like it was America's fault on September 11 (actually that was a self-inflicted attack).  Just like it was Spain's fault for the train bombings occuring.  Same for the Philippines, Indonesia, Nigeria, and other places on the globe where non-muslims are fighting muslims.  If all of these countries would just give the radical muslims what they want and quit fighting them, there would be peace.  I think we should start with the US pulling out of Iraq, and then we can give Israel to the Palestineans.

That should solve most of the problems.  We don't have to worry about Osama and Al Qaeda.  They were just a creation of the US Government to cover up the attack that Bush planned on 911 so that he could start a war with Iraq to get his oil buddies in Texas rich, help Cheney's shares in Halliburton, and get revenge for his father. 

You can NOT create TERRORISM, and still adopt policies and perform actions that create TERRORISTS.  You take people who were not, prior to occupation or whatever, sympathetic to the terrorist cause and make them sympathetic because they view the terrorists as the only viable ally in their fight against you. They see it as fighting for their homes and their country...no matter who is providing the guns, training, and additional troops (which, FYI, the terrorists will view as a "favor", which they will, you can be sure, expect to collect on later).  Whether you now want to call them terrorists or not, whether they believe in the terrorist dogma with their whole hearts or not, they are still furthering the cause of the terrorists.  I tend to lump those two groups together....if it makes you feel better to semantically differentiate them, fine by me.  For me...they're the guys shooting at our troops....I don't much mind homogonizing them.

And note...by most accounts the terrorists weren't in Iraq, in any great number or organizational force, prior to our invasion.  We GAVE them a globally prominent front to fight us on, we GAVE them a spot ripe for recruitement (aka people dissasisfied with our occupation or actions in Iraq), we CREATED an instability in that region in which they could thrive.  We might not have created the roaches, but we sure as hell opened up one hell of a roach motel (and not one of the Black Flag varieties, either).

[Psychophobia]

Hits close to home, eh?

Closer to a swing-and-a-miss... I don't see things in the black and white terms you put forward here.

I guess the real question is at what time did you realize it was sacarsm?? I can just picture you reading it, nodding your head in agreement, and then all of the sudden realizing it was meant as sarcasm.?

Hate to disappoint you, but I caught it within the first few words. I was expecting such a post, given that Bud Fox was fishing for some conservative reaction to things.

You aren't completely off-target on everything though. Let's have a look, shall we?

I forgot, the terrorism is our fault; it's our creation.

Well, to a great degree, it is. It stems largely from Western governments' ignorance of Middle Eastern radicals and their resentment toward our policies over the past 50 years, does it not? We didn't have to arm Osama and the Mujahideen in the 80s - the Soviets would've lost that affair regardless. But we chose to anyway, and now the fundies have relatively modern armaments as opposed to boards with nails in them.

Just like its the Jews fault in Israel.

Well, again, to a great degree, it is their fault. They didn't have to invade Lebanon over a measly border raid and 2 kidnappings. But they took the opprotunity to do so nonetheless, as they didn't want to look 'weak' to their arab neighbours. They are a first-world country with a third world foreign policy.The first concession in that conflict has to come from Israel, simply because they are the only country involved that is in a position to do so.

Just like it is the Hindu's fault in Kashmir.

Seeing as how the nearly the entire Indian government - save for the Sikh puppet they appointed [read: not elected] as PM - ?is composed of Hindus, that wouldn't be a great stretch of the imagination. There is definately some religious bias involved.

Just like it is the Russian's fault in Chechnya.

Seeing as how it was Stalin who forcibly relocated the Muslim population to that corner of Russia during his later years in power, and given their Soviet heritage of Athiesm and opposition to multiculturalism, yes, it is largely the Russians' fault in Chechnya.

Just like it was the Brits fault on July 7... Just like it was Spain's fault for the train bombings occuring.

Those countries opted to jump onboard for an ill-conceived war in Iraq, launched by a group of oil barons, American zionists and Born Again nutbars. What did they think was going to happen? They were unfortunate incidents, sure, but that sort of retaliation was to be expected, I think.

If all of these countries would just give the radical muslims what they want and quit fighting them, there would be peace.

Well, as long as we're putting for ridiculous suggestions, I'd sooner purge the fundamentalists from office the world over - beginning in North America, so that we'll finally have some leaders who think with their heads as opposed to their hearts.

I think we should start with the US pulling out of Iraq

That would be a bad idea, regardless of your stance on the invasion. It's a disaster as is, but it'll be even more of a wreck if US forces leave. I expect troops will [should?] be there until 2012.

then we can give Israel to the Palestineans

Might've been feasible 50 years ago, but not today. I'm so fed up with both parties, I don't have any suggestions for that situation! ?

We don't have to worry about Osama and Al Qaeda.

I'm sure that President Bush would agree with you here - he hasn't been concerned with them since 2003!

the attack that Bush planned on 911

Oh, come on now. The only people who believe that one are the French...

[SLCPUNK]

The above post has to be one of the most boneheaded, inept attempts at sarcasm that I've read on the internet.

LOL, I like this guy! ^