"support our troops" offensive to troops? - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

powerclown · 02-05-2007, 08:58 AM

Quote:

powerclown, you might us well be trying to get us to believe in the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, or in santa claus.....

I always think things have gotten really weird when people say stuff like this. As if Sadaam Hussein and the entire history of his dictatorship in Iraq was scripted, and only really existed in some alternate reality of fairy tale and fantasy. Or at the very least, that the documented history of Sadaam - all the movies and news clips and magazine ads and UN sanctions and suicide bombings and mass graves and invasions and torture and such - were part of a hollywood produced movie, where in fact Sadaam and Bush and Putin and Chirac and Singh and Zemin were actually good friends who vacationed together in sunny locales and played poker together every week.

To stray from that for a second, If we can pretend for a moment that the tooth fairy is real and that Sadaam was in fact a bad guy, it seems to me that whatever evidence we were given by hollywood points to a guy bent on regional dominance by any means necessary. Yes, hollywood has provided us with a cast of characters saying Sadaam violated this, but hasn't done that, but is contained, but is still a threat, but is still shooting at planes, but the no-fly zones are working, but he still violates 10 years of UN-sanctioned weapons inspections, but no evidence of anything exists, but he killed a bunch of people with wmd at one time, but he's no longer a threat, but he had a history of funding islamic terrorism, but that he's been rehabilitated and is good once again, that he sponsors orphanages in the Congo and constructs universities in Baghdad, but he once invaded a country and tried to enslave it, that he kills off political opposition and dissent, but he won 100% of the democratic popular vote for his 'presidency', but there is no evidence now of a means to project his ambitions in the region, and he is now honest and forthright, but he once fired missiles into Israeli cities, but now somehow he is contained and harmless and simply needs looking after like an old lady at a nursing home and the like.

It seems to me the movie is available to whomever wants to watch it. I guess we're all different, we all process our facts differently, we have the ability to see similar things in different ways. Sometimes what is black to one person, can be bright white to another. I guess one person's horror movie is another person's musical. It seems to me we've all watched the same story, and sliced and diced it up in 50 differents ways to suit our sensibilities.

host · 02-05-2007, 09:46 AM

Great "come back"...."Rovesque" in that attempts to turn the strength of my argument from "facts" to confusion and uncertainty.....

From my last post....I'll try asking, one more time....

Quote:

.....[On] What date did the Bush admin's and the DIA/CIA threat assessment of Saddam's WMD capabilities change, and what was discovered to support the new alarmist communications of Cheney, and then Bush, et al, in view of the consistent contrary determinations, as recently as on March 19, 2002, by DIA director, Vice Admiral Thomas R. Wilson ?

Chimera · 02-05-2007, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

It seems to me the movie is available to whomever wants to watch it. I guess we're all different, we all process our facts differently, we have the ability to see similar things in different ways. Sometimes what is black to one person, can be bright white to another. I guess one person's horror movie is another person's musical. It seems to me we've all watched the same story, and sliced and diced it up in 50 differents ways to suit our sensibilities.

Heres the reality folks.....as well as the primary reason for Partisan Politics. Perception creates opinion, and opinion is....well...theres the A$$hole analogy. I have found that keeping this in mind when reading a post, can be extremely helpful in trying to make a debate, a discussion as well.

powerclown · 02-05-2007, 10:17 AM

Quote:

....I'll try asking, one more time....

.....[On] What date did the Bush admin's and the DIA/CIA threat assessment of Saddam's WMD capabilities change, and what was discovered to support the new alarmist communications of Cheney, and then Bush, et al, in view of the consistent contrary determinations, as recently as on March 19, 2002, by DIA director, Vice Admiral Thomas R. Wilson ?

September 11, 2001
I really think it changed everything.

And host, I'm not trying to cause confusion, I truly, honestly believe this is the way things were/are.
Yeah, it's just one person's opinion.

Willravel · 02-05-2007, 10:20 AM

That's gotta be a joke. You do know a lot of people are dying because if this right now, right?

roachboy · 02-05-2007, 10:28 AM

greg: i wasn't making assumptions about your personal politics, really: i was just reacting to what i was reading. sometimes the internal logic of posts tells more about how folk think than what they say about what they think.

i am going to be on here in a reduced capacity for a while: i'll try to come back and address your post in more detail later.

but in general, elphaba was kind enough to provide a gloss on the motives behind my post, and in general i think it accurate. so what she said....

more later then.

host · 02-05-2007, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

September 11, 2001
I really think it changed everything.

...any ideas about why Cheney said that we have Saddam "bottled up", on September 16, 2001, or why the director of DIA is saying this "stuff", six months, and loonnnngggger, after September 11, 2001? Doesn't DIA have a bigger budget and operation, than CIA?

Quote:

http://davidcorn.com/
September 12, 2006
For Bush, a 9/11 Anniversary Changes Nothing:
I am often asked why we are in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. <b>The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat.

But what is the president's evidence for that?</b> As our book notes, the final report of the Iraq Survey Group - the CIA-Defense Department unit that searched for WMDs in Iraq - concluded that Saddam's WMD capability "was essentially destroyed in 1991" and Saddam had no "plan for the revival of WMD." The book also quotes little-noticed congressional testimony that Vice Admiral Thomas Wilson, then head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, gave in March 2002. He noted that Iraq was not among the most pressing "near-term concerns" to U.S. interests and that as a military danger Iraq was "smaller and weaker" than during the Persian Gulf War. <h3>Wilson testified that Saddam possessed only "residual" amounts of weapons of mass destruction, not a growing arsenal. In an interview for the book, he told us, "I didn't really think [Saddam and Iraq] were an immediate threat on WMD."</h3>

Quote:

http://russia.shaps.hawaii.edu/secur...lson_2002.html
Global Threats and Challenges

Vice Admiral Thomas R. Wilson
Director, Defense Intelligence Agency

Statement for the Record
Senate Armed Services Committee

19 March 2002
......Iraq

Saddam's goals remain to reassert his rule over the Kurds in northern Iraq, undermine all UN restrictions on his military capabilities, and make Iraq the predominant military and economic power in the Persian Gulf and the Arab world. The on-going UN sanctions and US military presence continue to be the keys to restraining Saddam's ambitions. Indeed, years of UN sanctions, embargoes, and inspections, combined with US and Coalition military actions, have significantly degraded Iraq's military capabilities. <b>Saddam's military forces are much smaller and weaker than those he had in 1991. Manpower and equipment shortages, a problematic logistics system, and fragile military morale remain major shortcomings. Saddam's paranoia and lack of trust - and related oppression and mistreatment - extend to the military, and are a drain on military effectiveness....</b>

.....Iraq retains a residual level of WMD and missile capabilities. The lack of intrusive inspection and disarmament mechanisms permits Baghdad to enhance these programs........

Vice Admiral Thomas R. Wilson made the comments in the preceding quote box six months after 9/11. Nine months after that, UN inspectors were back in Iraq, and the Iraqi government responded, about Dec. 13, 2002, to a demand of full WMD and WMD programs disclosure, with a level of detailed compliance that turned out to be much more reliable than the descriptions of Bush admin. officials, that suddenly began after Admiral Wilson's March 19, 2002 assessment of the Iraq threat.

I don't see anything of substance....a breakthrough, "if you will", that justified the dramatic reversal of Cheney and Admiral Wilson's post 9/11 comments of the threat posed by Saddam's Iraq.

That is the problem, as I see it, with your argument powerclown. Nothing changed after 9/11....with regard to any actual threat capability from Saddam. Only the rhetoric changed.

Do you think that the twice postponed <b>briefing</b>, described in the LA Times article, following Bush's newest misleading and unproven claim in last month's "address to the nation", would have been postponed, if not for the constant emphasis and focus on the facts by people as inconsequential as those of us
who do that "work" in places like this.

Do you see, at all, that your blanket;

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

September 11, 2001
I really think it changed everything.

...does the opposite of "supporting the troops", because according to you, they must not question, they must follow all orders...

So, they aren't allowed to question, and you could, but won't, because of "September 11".....so who is there to hold the CIC accountable.....to pressure him to stop short of backing up his bogus SOTU rhetoric with a bullshit, propaganda media "presentation", like the one Powell gave to the UN in Feb., 2003, to "justify" the invasion and occupation of Iraq?

THe LA Times shows that what we do, collectively, is working....it's slowly making these thugs blink...making them hesitate to lie to us as blatantly and superficially as they did about Saddam's WMD.

<b>I support the troops, powerclown, by forcing this adminstration to either tell us and "the troops" the truth, or to STFU until they are prepared to do so.....</b>

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070110-7.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 10, 2007

President's Address to the Nation
The Library

.......Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. <h3>Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran<h3> and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq........

Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

U.S. can't prove Iran link to Iraq strife
Despite pledges to show evidence, officials have repeatedly put off presenting their case.
By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer
February 3, 2007

WASHINGTON — Bush administration officials acknowledged Friday that they had yet to compile evidence strong enough to back up publicly their claims that Iran is fomenting violence against U.S. troops in Iraq.

Administration officials have long complained that Iran was supplying Shiite Muslim militants with lethal explosives and other materiel used to kill U.S. military personnel. But despite several pledges to make the evidence public, the administration has twice postponed the release — most recently, a briefing by military officials scheduled for last Tuesday in Baghdad.

<h3>"The truth is, quite frankly, we thought the briefing overstated, and we sent it back to get it narrowed and focused on the facts," national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley said Friday.</h3>

The acknowledgment comes amid shifting administration messages on Iran. After several weeks of saber rattling that included a stiff warning by President Bush and the dispatch of two aircraft carrier strike groups to the Persian Gulf, near Iran, the administration has insisted in recent days that it does not want to escalate tensions or to invade Iran.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates seemed to concede Friday that U.S. officials can't say for sure whether the Iranian government is involved in assisting the attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq.

"I don't know that we know the answer to that question," Gates said.

Earlier this week, U.S. officials acknowledged that they were uncertain about the strength of their evidence and were reluctant to issue potentially questionable data in the wake of the intelligence failures and erroneous assessments that preceded the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

In particular, officials worried about a repetition of former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's February 2003 U.N. appearance to present the U.S. case against Iraq. In that speech, Powell cited evidence that was later discredited.

In rejecting the case compiled against Iran, senior U.S. officials, including Hadley, Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, confirmed Friday that they were concerned about possible inaccuracies.

"I and Secretary Rice and the national security advisor want to make sure that the briefing that is provided is absolutely accurate and is dominated by facts — serial numbers, technology and so on," Gates told reporters at the Pentagon.

Another reason for the delay, as is often the case when releasing intelligence, was that officials were concerned about inadvertently helping adversaries identify the agents or sources that provided the intelligence, Hadley said.

Hadley also said that the administration sought to delay the release of evidence until after a key intelligence report on Iraq was unveiled, so that Americans could place the evidence in the context of the broader conflict.....

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7902719/site/newsweek/
Consider the Source
The State Department says MEK is a terror group. Human Rights Watch says it’s a cult. <b>For the White House, MEK is a source of intelligence on Iran.</b>

By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 6:51 p.m. ET <b>May 20, 2005`</b>

.....Despite the group's notoriety, Bush himself cited purported intelligence gathered by MEK as evidence of the Iranian regime's rapidly accelerating nuclear ambitions. At a March 16 press conference, Bush said Iran's hidden nuclear program had been discovered not because of international inspections but "because a dissident group pointed it out to the world." <b>White House aides acknowledged later that the dissident group cited by the president is the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), one of the MEK front groups added to the State Department list two years ago.</b>

In an appearance before a House International Relations Subcommittee a year ago, John Bolton, the controversial State Department undersecretary who Bush has nominated to become US ambassador to the United Nations, was questioned by a Congressman sympathetic to MEK about whether it was appropriate for the U.S. government to pay attention to allegations about Iran supplied by the group. Bolton said he believed that MEK "qualifies as a terrorist organization according to our criteria." But he added that he did not think the official label had "prohibited us from getting information from them. And I certainly don't have any inhibition about getting information about what's going on in Iran from whatever source we can find that we deem reliable."
CONTINUED....

Quote:

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/depar..._id=1003538870
Rupert Murdoch: Big Media Has Less Sway on Internet

By Georg Szalai/The Hollywood Reporter

Published: January 29, 2007 3:10 PM ET

....<b>Asked if his News Corp. managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq, Murdoch said: "No, I don't think so. We tried."</b> Asked by Rose for further comment, he said: "We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East ... but we have been very critical of his execution."

The News Corp. CEO also once again signaled that he sees much more change ahead thanks to digital media. "We're in the very early stages of it," he said.......

powerclown · 02-05-2007, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

That's gotta be a joke. You do know a lot of people are dying because if this right now, right?

Of course I know dammit, but why should it by default have the connotation that because people are dying, and people like me seem to be condoning others dying, which I am not, that nothing good will come out of this in the long term? Why? Because you are anti-war and pacifistic - fine, I can respect that - but it doesn't have to mean that I have to believe that out troops are fighting for absolutely nothing. What the hell do you think they're doing over there...hunting Iraqi civilians for fucking sport? Don't you think anyone is trying to do anything good there? Don't put it on me like I'm some kind of emotionless, warlike robot seeking to satisfy my lust for violence...I truly believe that something good can come out of this mess.

Willravel · 02-05-2007, 11:01 AM

"Trying to do good" really isn't relevant. Read Host's post. He corrected you on a few key points.

Slims · 02-05-2007, 11:45 AM

Ok, I will try to distill what I am attempting to say.

First: I believe Bush scored above 1330 on his SAT's, and he maintained a good GPA throughout highschool and college. Is he smart enough to be the president? Couldn't tell you. Is he smart enough for graduate school? Most definately. Also, in order to successfully campaign and win high office he demonstrated a tremendous amount of discipline, which implies that he would have had the willpower to be successful in gradutate school as well. He may not be a master orater, but he is not an idiot either.

roachboy · 02-05-2007, 11:46 AM

greg:
one other thing:

the debate that is the center of this thread is about the contrasting versions of the history of the run-up to the iraq debacle. going through will and host's post will give you a good outline of it. i dont feel any particular need to repeat what they have already been good enough to post. i'd be happy to comment on things if it seems germaine, but for the most part, there we are.

Chimera · 02-05-2007, 11:52 AM

Actaully..."trying" to do good is extremely relevant in this situation. Unfortunately, the perception of what is good, and what is not are the underlying issue of disagreement. I for one, fully understand there is an attempt to create freedom for a people that were kept away from it in the past. There is however a point where we must accept this "Good" has been botched with ineptitude....we were there last year in my opinion, and now are destroying any possible chance of meeting the objective of the month.
It has reached the point where our policy is destructive to the United States, as well as the Iraqi future....and therefore becomes counter-productive to all involved. Anyone who believes this war can be salvaged by further military action is, in my opinion.....not paying attention to the realities of warfare.

Willravel · 02-05-2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg700

Ok, I will try to distill what I am attempting to say.

First: I believe Bush scored above 1330 on his SAT's, and he maintained a good GPA throughout highschool and college. Is he smart enough to be the president? Couldn't tell you. Is he smart enough for graduate school? Most definately. Also, in order to successfully campaign and win high office he demonstrated a tremendous amount of discipline, which implies that he would have had the willpower to be successful in gradutate school as well. He may not be a master orater, but he is not an idiot either.

And to the cheif point I am trying to communicate and I believe has become lost in this discussion:

I think that regardless of past misadventures or conquests, the US has placed itself firmly in a position where to pull out of Iraq now would cause far more harm to come to the Iraqi people and would be decidedly against our national best interests because the whole region would be likely to decay as a result of the internal strife in Iraq.

We have made commitments to our allies and to the people of Iraq. We cannot now abandon them even if keeping our word takes it's toll upon us.

It's basically a 'sucks to be us' situation, but to turn around and run away is the wrong decision at this point in time.

Bush has been quoted saying he got a 1206, though I'm really not sure how dependable his word is and there is no official confirmation. That's a really low score for Yale, but his family was connected, so it makes sense. His scores in High School were good, but his grades at Yale are about what you'd expect for someone with a 1206, he had just under a C average. He was also a bit of an alcoholic in college (which is hardly something out of place).

Quick moment of pride: I got a 1556.

We only said that Iraqi Freedom was about freing Iraqi's after it was clear that there was not going to be a smoking gun so far as links to 9/11 or WMDs.

Our best bet right now is to do absolutely everything reasonably possible to have Iraqi defence forces protecting law abiding Iraqis from the 'bad guys', be they insurgents or forigners. The US needs to make sure that Iraq doesn't become dependant on our assistance, otherwise we won't ever be able to leave. The trick to that is to move from a position of defensive forces to a position of mostly training and being with the Iraqi defence forces on the ground. No more Coalition-only convoys. We have US soldiers and Iraqis serving shoulder to shoulder and we do more to teach them to defend their home. We also need a time table of withdrawl, so that the American people and the Iraqi defence forces know what they're working with. I'm of the personal opinion, based on previous situations, that 8 months is not unreasonable, but I'd be happy with anything under 14 months. After that, the US forces are only there to train local police or to be in a US embassy.

host · 02-05-2007, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Quick moment of pride: I got a 1556.

I am indeed humbled, sir....given what little, God has seen fit to give me to work with, to be on the same side of this argument, as you are!

"host"=
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Pre1974SAT.aspx
SAT Score=1162 [IQ=127]

"willravel"=
http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/SATIQ.aspx
SAT Score=1550 [IQ 15 SD =148.56] [IQ 16 SD=151.79]

....and there is this:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020401196.html
Officers With PhDs Advising War Effort

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 5, 2007; Page A01

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, is assembling a small band of warrior-intellectuals -- including a quirky Australian anthropologist, a Princeton economist who is the son of a former U.S. attorney general and a military expert on the Vietnam War sharply critical of its top commanders -- in an eleventh-hour effort to reverse the downward trend in the Iraq war....

Willravel · 02-05-2007, 12:53 PM

I think that comparing our posts here on TFP is proof that an IQ or SAT score does not necessarily mean one person is smarter than another.

dc_dux · 02-05-2007, 04:00 PM

The two arguments from the "stay the course" (aka "new way forward" surge and hold) crowd here that I find have the least intellectual honesty are:

Powerclown's contention that opposing the surge is anti-troop:

"The time for dissent has passed. Congress has debated, and they have spoken. Our troops are in place and under fire. It is now (or was) the Public's job to express approval for the mission of the troops."

Dissent is at the foundation of our democracy. Is is the public's job to hold their political leaders accountable for their policies and actions, particurlarly when those policies are based on lies and their subsequent actions are managed ineptly and irresponsibly (with the the troops as their pawns). To suggest otherwise is simply a means to demonize those with whom you disagree with no basis of fact.

Greg's inference of a "pull-out now" as the only alternative:

I think that regardless of past misadventures or conquests, the US has placed itself firmly in a position where to pull out of Iraq now would cause far more harm to come to the Iraqi people and would be decidedly against our national best interests because the whole region would be likely to decay as a result of the internal strife in Iraq.

There are other options - the Biden plan, the Iraq Study Group plan, and mostly recently the Obama plan (The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007).

Where I fault the Dems and those who oppose the "surge" policy are not having the balls to stand behind one of these (or other) real alternatives.

The new NIE for Iraq (summary pdf) paints a pretty pestimistic assessment of current conditions and the short-term future, regardless of options.

Time for me to hop off this merry-go-round of a discussion.

Slims · 02-05-2007, 04:49 PM

I think Biden's plan is not unreasonable. Though I think he has added the drawdown of US troops almost as an afterthought. I am not against getting troops out of Iraq, but not until we have made the country stable.

If we were able to successfully implement all other aspects of his plan except troop removal we would no longer have any reason to remain in Iraq and our withdrawl would be inevitable. Of course, the devil is in the details.

dc_dux · 02-05-2007, 04:55 PM

I dont see any details or explicit measurable benchmarks in Bush's "new way forward". Without holding the Iraqi government to such benchmarks, it is doomed, IMO, to be more of the same.

powerclown · 02-05-2007, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimera

Actaully..."trying" to do good is extremely relevant in this situation. Unfortunately, the perception of what is good, and what is not are the underlying issue of disagreement. I for one, fully understand there is an attempt to create freedom for a people that were kept away from it in the past. There is however a point where we must accept this "Good" has been botched with ineptitude....we were there last year in my opinion, and now are destroying any possible chance of meeting the objective of the month.
It has reached the point where our policy is destructive to the United States, as well as the Iraqi future....and therefore becomes counter-productive to all involved. Anyone who believes this war can be salvaged by further military action is, in my opinion.....not paying attention to the realities of warfare.

Good points. Are you saying its time to bring home the troops because you think the country is so divided, or because you think the mission is hopeless?

I can't support a total withdrawal of troops quite yet. There seem to be too many dynamics still at work in Iraq, from the question of whether the militias can be destroyed, to whether political compromises can be made, to an Iraqi security force that still needs manpower, training, and supplies. Since no one else outside of the coalition seems interested in helping Iraq, it is the coalition's responsibility to get it back running, and it needs more time. If I were a senator, I would vote in favor of giving them that time. It has turned into a situation where to stop now would make null and void any and all contributions and sacrifices made by our soldiers. Only by quitting will their losses be in vain. I also realize the value of cutting your losses. We went into this thing cold. Once the shit started hitting the fan, we lost our equilibrium and had no idea what we were doing. Now that we have learned more about who the enemy is and how he operates, and since we have put a political process in place (from scratch) and we are learning the dynamics of that, I think we have a better chance of success. Before making final decisions, lets see how effective or ineffective this 'surge' is. It seems to be addressing an area of significant importance, securing of Baghdad and eliminating the militias. That al-Sadr is alive today (although 2 of his top monkees were killed today) is proof that there is still an on-the-job learning process going on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I dont see any details or explicit measurable benchmarks in Bush's "new way forward"

You're not looking carefully enough. Concerted effort to secure Baghdad, concerted effort to hit anbar province, concerted effort to hit the militias. The dissent comment was tongue in cheek. I'm a democracy guy, so I understand the importance of dissension. Not to say I don't think people abuse the notion now and then.

dc_dux · 02-05-2007, 06:56 PM

Quote:

You're not looking carefully enough. Concerted effort to secure Baghdad, concerted effort to hit anbar province, concerted effort to hit the militias. The dissent comment was tongue in cheek. I'm a democracy guy, so I understand the importance of dissension. Not to say I don't think people abuse the notion now and then.

Acccording to Abizaid's testimony in Dec, he, Casey and all the commanders on the ground indicated that more troops were not required...to secure Baghdad, hit Anbar, or take out the militias. The plan also has NO real benchmarks to hold the Iraqis accountable for demonstrating progress on either the security or polical front.

And you are also making the same narrow assumptions as Greg - either support the Bush plan or withdraw the troops:

Quote:

I can't support a total withdrawal of troops quite yet. There seem to be too many dynamics still at work in Iraq, from the question of whether the militias can be destroyed, to whether political compromises can be made, to an Iraqi security force that still needs manpower, training, and supplies. Since no one else outside of the coalition seems interested in helping Iraq, it is the coalition's responsibility to get it back running, and it needs more time. If I were a senator, I would vote in favor of giving them that time. It has turned into a situation where to stop now would make null and void any and all contributions and sacrifices made by our soldiers. Only by quitting will their losses be in vain.

How many times must it be said that there are other viable options, with a much greater emphasis on political and diplomatic solutions.

There are many who believe it is time to hold the Iraqis more accountable in a definable measurable way, both in terms of politcal progress among the sectarian interests and in terms of training the ISF, while continuing our support in a different manner than a growing face of US military occupation with no end in sight.

Without such benchmarks and a firm and clearly understood timetable for the Iraqis to act, they will continue to suck off the US tit and our guys will continue to be in the cross-fire of what the recent NIE says is primarily a sectarian civil war.

powerclown · 02-05-2007, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Acccording to Aberzaid's testimony in Dec, he, Casey and all the commanders on the ground indicated that more troops were not required...to secure Baghdad, hit Anbar, or take out the militias. The plan also has NO real benchmarks to hold the Iraqis accountable for demonstrating progress on either the security or polical front.

Than why would they send more soldiers?
Hasn't the complaint from the very start been "not enough soldiers"?
Now people are saying "too many soldiers".
Give it a try...see if there is improvement. If the objetives aren't being met in a set amount of time, pull 'em back.

Quote:

How many times must it be said that there are other viable options, with a much greater emphasis on political and diplomatic solutions.

Agreed, but there needs to be some amount of security and stability in Baghdad proper( the seat of government) for the political process to work, if its going to work at all. Why nobody figured this out 2-3 years ago I have no clue. Maybe they were not willing to put more troops into Iraq due to low public opinion, which was partly due to negative publicity, which was partly due to partisanship in Washington.

Quote:

There are many who believe it is time to hold the Iraqis more accountable in a definable measurable way, both in terms of politcal progress among the sectarian interests and in terms of training the ISF, while continuing our support in a different manner than a growing face of US military occupation with no end in sight.

Without such benchmarks and a firm and clearly understood timetable for the Iraqis to act, they will continue to suck off the US tit and our guys will continue to be in the cross-fire of what the recent NIE says is primarily a sectarian civil war.

Agreed. Perhaps what Maliki is doing is using US Forces to 'allow' shiite attacks on sunnis. It's bullshit and it should stop. NATO is helping train Iraqi forces as well. I agree there needs to be more of a sense of urgency from the Iraqi goverment. Give it a little longer...let this last go-round play out.

Willravel · 02-05-2007, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Than why would they send more soldiers?

Good question! The answer is, quite simply, that Bush and his administration are too stubborn to do the right thing.

host · 02-05-2007, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Than why would they send more soldiers?
Hasn't the complaint from the very start been "not enough soldiers"?
Now people are saying "too many soldiers".
Give it a try...see if there is improvement. If the objetives aren't being met in a set amount of time, pull 'em back.

Agreed, but there needs to be some amount of security and stability in Baghdad proper( the seat of government) for the political process to work, if its going to work at all. Why nobody figured this out 2-3 years ago I have no clue. <h3>Maybe they were not willing to put more troops into Iraq due to low public opinion, which was partly due to negative publicity, which was partly due to partisanship in Washington.</h3>

Agreed. Perhaps what Maliki is doing is using US Forces to 'allow' shiite attacks on sunnis. It's bullshit and it should stop. NATO is helping train Iraqi forces as well. I agree there needs to be more of a sense of urgency from the Iraqi goverment. Give it a little longer...let this last go-round play out.

Is there nothing that can be posted....no fact(ssssssssssssssssssss), no dose of reality that can make you stop? When you post that crap, four years and NO WMD, NO CREDIBLE THREAT FROM SADDAM's IRAQ later.......it makes you look like you have an IQ even lower than....mine.....

Quote:

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archive...981/22481d.htm
Remarks on Presenting the Medal of Honor to Master Sergeant Roy P. Benavidez

February 24, 1981

Men and women of the Armed Forces, ladies and gentlemen:

..... <b>They came home without a victory not because they'd been defeated, but because they'd been denied permission to win.</b>

Quote:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200702u/congress-iraq
Fallows@Large | by James Fallows

Where Congress Can Draw the Line

No war with Iran

Deciding what to do next about Iraq is hard — on the merits, and in the politics. It’s hard on the merits because whatever comes next, from “surge” to “get out now” and everything in between, will involve suffering, misery, and dishonor. It’s just a question of by whom and for how long. On a balance-of-misery basis, my own view changed last year from “we can’t afford to leave” to “we can’t afford to stay.” <h3>And the whole issue is hard in its politics because even Democrats too young to remember Vietnam know that future Karl Roves will dog them for decades with accusations of “cut-and-run” and “betraying” troops unless they can get Republicans to stand with them on limiting funding and forcing the policy to change....</h3>

.<b>....and what do you read that provides any basis for your statement that

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Than why would they send more soldiers?</b>
Hasn't the complaint from the very start been "not enough soldiers"?.......
.....Maybe they were not willing to put more troops into Iraq due to low public opinion, which was partly due to negative publicity, which was partly due to partisanship in Washington......

Gen. Abizaid only anticipated needing "more troops" in regard to the June, 2004 transfer of "sovereignty" to the new Iraqi provisional government. At no other time, did US commanders "in the field" request more troops, and I included the ISG Commission finding, as to why that was.....commanders thought that whatever benefit a troop increase would gain in security, would be temporary and reversed when the extra troops left....and it is clear that a greater level could not be maintained.....troops and equipment were stretched past reasonable, responsible limits, to the point where they compromised "readiness" of US forces around the world, and training back in the US....

Quote:

http://www.defenselink.mil/Speeches/...x?SpeechID=524
Prepared Statement for the Senate Armed Services Committee: Helping Win the War on Terror
By Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Washington, D.C., , Tuesday, September 09, 2003

....To fight the kind of war we face, we need maximum flexibility to benefit from the effect of foreign military forces who share our goals. We can’t do it alone. Nowhere is this more clear than in Iraq.

General Abizaid and his commanders have said repeatedly that not only don’t they need more troops, they don’t want more American troops. They do want more international troops to share the burden of providing stability forces and to reduce the political liability of a US-only occupation. But most of all, what they want are more Iraqi troops because it is their country that we have liberated and it is they who need to take over the main security tasks.

In July, the commander of the 1st Marine Division, Maj. General Jim Mattis told me how he’d sent some of his 15,000 troops home already because he had enough of them to do the job, and he didn’t want what he called the "reverberations of a heavy foot print" that a large army requires—the fuel, the food, the equipment, and all the materials a sizable force in place requires. He said that if you want more people on your side, don’t bring in more Americans.

As General Abizaid mentioned in his briefings here last week, what we really need are more Iraqis fighting with us. We’ve begun recruiting and training Iraqis for an Iraqi civilian defense force to take over tasks such as guarding fixed sites and power lines.

It is the same with former New York City police chief Bernard Kerik, who just completed four months helping Iraqis rebuild their police force. He favors empowering Iraqis over sending in more American troops. He said: If you triple the number of coalition forces, you’ll probably triple the attacks on the troops. The future is not in the military but in getting control back in the hands of the Iraqi people.".....

Quote:

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/05/20/Wo..._troops_.shtml
Abizaid: More troops may be required
By wire services
Published May 20, 2004

WASHINGTON - The commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Wednesday he might need more than the 135,000 troops in Iraq once political control is handed back to the Iraqis on June 30 because the insurgency is likely to grow more violent then.....

Quote:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...ecdef3643.html

Presenter: Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld August 04, 2005
Secretary Rumsfeld Remarks to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council

..... QUESTION: On Monday's Hardball Chris Matthews said that there are two stories when he interviews troops in the field -- one for the camera and the other that questions your strategy. What is your comment on the need for more troops in Iraq?

Rumsfeld: The question of the number of troops in Iraq has been one that has been up for public discussion from the very outset. The President and I and the senior military leadership in the Pentagon spent weeks and weeks and weeks with General Tom Franks and his team going over the number of troops that he believed would be appropriate. It turned out that we supported his decision. In retrospect, I think it was the right decision.

The debate continues, and people now say should there be more or should there be fewer troops in Iraq? And it's a fair question. It's not an easy, simply subject. There's no book you go to that says for this situation that's the right way to do it. You have to worry your way through it all and take the advice, ultimately, of the people whose judgment you respect.

The number of troops in Iraq at the present time are 138,000 plus. They're down from a high, I believe, of 170,000. They are the number that the senior military leadership, General George Casey and General J. R. Vines and General John Abizaid have recommended be there......

Quote:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=997
Iraqi Troops More Effective Every Day, General Says
By Sgt. Sara Wood, USA
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 19, 2006

..... “I come to the conclusion that Iraqis are fighting and dying for their country, that the government has pledged their sacred honor and their future to making this work,” Army Gen. John Abizaid said in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “Their lives are on the line.”

Iraqi forces now number more than 300,000, and while they still have some bad days and challenges to overcome, they are steadily improving, Abizaid said. He also noted that numerous Iraqi officials have visited Washington, D.C., lately and have all expressed confidence and commitment in the fight against terrorism.

Critics who say the U.S. needs more troops in Iraq are of the mindset that U.S. troops should be doing all the work, Abizaid said. Leaders on the ground believe, however, that Iraqi troops must continually take more responsibility for their own country, and that the ultimate solution will not be solely military, he said.

“It's not a matter of the application of military forces only,” he said. “You've got to have governance moving forward. You have to take down the militias. You have to apply military forces when you need to. Over time, you need to apply more and more Iraqi military and governance power to the equation. We can do that.” .....

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/wo...rssnyt&emc=rss
General Opposes Adding to U.S. Forces in Iraq, Emphasizing International Solutions for Region

By THOM SHANKER
Published: December 20, 2006

WASHINGTON, Dec. 19 — As the new secretary of defense, Robert M. Gates, takes stock of the war in Iraq this week, he will find Gen. John P. Abizaid, the senior commander in the Middle East, resistant to increasing the American fighting force there......

Quote:

http://www.defenselink.mil/home/dodu...06-11-04a.html
Response to Army Times Editorial

Nov. 5, 2006 – UPDATED

On Saturday, Nov. 4, the Army Times released an editorial titled, "Time for Rumsfeld to go." It is important to first note that the "military papers" that have run this editorial are not owned, managed, or controlled by the U.S. military. They are privately held newspapers forming part of the Arlington, Va.-based Gannett publishing chain.

The editorial included a number of inaccurate and misleading statements.

<b>HERE ARE THE FACTS:

.....Troop Levels</b>

CLAIM: “Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.”

FACTS: Commanders in the field have repeatedly been assured by the President and the Secretary of Defense that they will be given whatever resources they need to complete the mission in Iraq.

On July 9, 2003, Gen. Franks testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said: “There has been [the] suggestion that perhaps there should be more troops. And in fact, I can tell you, in the presence of [Secretary Rumsfeld], that if more troops are necessary, this secretary’s going to say ‘yes.’ I mean, we have talked about this on a number of occasions. And when the tactical commanders on the ground determine that they need to raise force levels, then those forces in fact will be provided.”

* On September 20, 2006, General Abizaid, the current Commander of U.S. Central Command, explained: “[T]he tension in this mission has always been between how much we do and how much we ask the Iraqis to do. The longer we stay, the more we must ask the Iraqis to do. Putting another 100,000 American troops in Iraq is something that I don’t think would be good for the mission overall, because it would certainly cause Americans to go to the front, [cause] Americans to take responsibility. And we’re at the point in the mission where it’s got to fall upon the Iraqis. They know that; they want responsibility. The key question is having the right balance, and I believe we’re maintaining the right balance.”

* On Oct. 11, 2006, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., commander of Multi-National Force-Iraq, was asked whether he needed more troops in Iraq. He responded: “I don’t – right now, my answer is no. … [I]f I think I need more, I’ll ask for more and bring more in.”.....

Quote:

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=4&gl=us
The Iraq
Study Group
Report

Page 10

A. Assessment of the Current
Situation in Iraq
1. Security
Attacks against U.S., Coalition, and Iraqi security forces are persistent and growing. October
2006 was the deadliest month for U.S. forces since January 2005, with 102 Americans killed.
Total attacks in October 2006 averaged 180 per day, up from 70 per day in January 2006. Daily
attacks against Iraqi security forces in October were more than double the level in January.
Attacks against civilians in October were four times higher than in January. Some 3,000 Iraqi
civilians are killed every month.

Quote:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/...EN-US-Iraq.php
The Associated Press
Published: February 5, 2007

....With little sign of an end to the carnage, many Iraqis have begun complaining that the security drive has been too slow in starting, allowing extremists free rein to launch spectacular attacks that have killed nearly 1,000 in the past week.

Monday's death toll supported their frustration. At least 74 people were killed or found dead across the country — all but seven of them in Baghdad.

With so much at stake, U.S. commanders have moved methodically to plan the operation and assemble the force, eager to avoid the mistakes that accompanied two failed crackdowns last year.

The U.S. military officials said Monday they consider the operation to have been under way ever since Bush signed the order last month to start moving troops to Iraq. U.S. officers offered assurances that once the operation gets rolling, Iraqis will begin to see a difference.

Sources of Violence
Violence is increasing in scope, complexity, and lethality. There are multiple sources of
violence in Iraq: the Sunni Arab insurgency, al Qaeda and affiliated jihadist groups, Shiite
militias and death squads, and organized criminality. Sectarian violence—particularly in and
around Baghdad—has become the principal challenge to stability.
Most attacks on Americans still come from the Sunni Arab insurgency. The insurgency
comprises former elements of the Saddam Hussein regime, disaffected Sunni Arab Iraqis, and
common criminals. It has significant support within the Sunni Arab community. The
insurgency has no single leadership but is a network of networks. It benefits from participants’
detailed knowledge of Iraq’s infrastructure, and arms and financing are supplied primarily from
within Iraq. The insurgents have different goals, although nearly all oppose the presence of U.S.
forces in Iraq. Most wish to restore Sunni Arab rule in the country. Some aim at winning local
power and control.....

Page 12

.....Approximately 141,000 U.S. military personnel are serving in Iraq, together with
approximately 16,500 military personnel from twenty-seven coalition partners, the largest
contingent being 7,200 from the United Kingdom. The U.S. Army has principal responsibility
for Baghdad and the north. The U.S. Marine Corps takes the lead in Anbar province. The
United Kingdom has responsibility in the southeast, chiefly in Basra.
Along with this military presence, the United States is building its largest embassy in
Baghdad. The current U.S. embassy in Baghdad totals about 1,000 U.S. government
employees. There are roughly 5,000 civilian contractors in the country.
Currently, the U.S. military rarely engages in large-scale combat operations. Instead,
counterinsurgency efforts focus on a strategy of “clear, hold, and build”—“clearing” areas of -
insurgents and death squads, “holding” those areas with Iraqi security forces, and “building”
areas with quick-impact reconstruction projects.
Nearly every U.S. Army and Marine combat unit, and several National Guard and Reserve
units, have been to Iraq at least once. Many are on their second or even third rotations; rotations
are typically one year for Army units, seven months for Marine units. Regular rotations, in and
out of Iraq or within the country, complicate brigade and battalion efforts to get to know the
local scene, earn the trust of the population, and build a sense of cooperation.
Many military units are under significant strain. Because the harsh conditions in Iraq are
wearing out equipment more quickly than anticipated, many units do not have fully functional
equipment for training when they redeploy to the United States. An extraordinary amount of
sacrifice has been asked of our men and women in uniform, and of their families. The American
military has little reserve force to call on if it needs ground forces to respond to other crises
around the world.....

Page 30

3. More Troops for Iraq
Sustained increases in U.S. troop levels would not solve the fundamental cause of violence in
Iraq, which is the absence of national reconciliation. A senior American general told us that
adding U.S. troops might temporarily help limit violence in a highly localized area. However,
past experience indicates that the violence would simply rekindle as soon as U.S. forces are
moved to another area. As another American general told us, if the Iraqi government does not
make political progress, “all the troops in the world will not provide security.” Meanwhile,
America’s military capacity is stretched thin: we do not have the troops or equipment to make a
substantial, sustained increase in our troop presence. Increased deployments to Iraq would also
necessarily hamper our ability to provide adequate resources for our efforts in Afghanistan or
respond to crises around the world.

powerclown · 02-05-2007, 11:05 PM

What happened to Shinseki when he asked Rummy for more troops? What makes you think that Rummy was going to send anymore troops after he fired Shinseki? What makes you think that the generals would dare to ask Rummy for more troops after they all saw what happened to Shinseki? Why the hell do you think Bush fired Rummy?

Abizaid is 'macro-general' who looks at the bigger picture of not just war in Iraq, but religious extremism around the world. He's not so much concerned with flooding troops into Iraq as he is with strategically placing them elsewhere in the world where islamic extremsim exists: afghanistan, africa, pakistan. Thats why Abazaid is cautious about the Bush troop level numbers into Baghdad. But the thing is, time is running out. People like you are foaming at the mouth for immediate, unconditional withdrawal. If you read your own articles, General Casey recommends 2 additional brigades into Baghdad, saying that if General Petraeus asks for more, he should get them.

I'm not saying that additional troops alone are going to solve the political problems facing Iraq. I am saying that a lessening of ethnic fighting in Baghdad, a halt in the suicide bombings and sectarian neighborhood murders and cleansings, and the re-establishment of some level of security and basic services to the citizens of Baghdad would increase the chances for political advancements on multiple fronts.

loquitur · 02-06-2007, 06:41 AM

Offered without comment: <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act">Iraq Liberation Act</A>, passed by Congress in 1998 and signed by President Clinton.

Quote:

Specifically, Congress made findings of past Iraqi military actions in violation of International Law and that Iraq had denied entry of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) inspectors into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction. Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

dc_dux · 02-06-2007, 07:29 AM

Loquitor: What's your point?

The Iraq Liberation Act clearly had a political and diplomatic focus and specifically did not authorize military intervention:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)(related to funding opposition groups) in carrying out this Act.

host · 02-06-2007, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

.....I'm not saying that additional troops alone are going to solve the political problems facing Iraq. I am saying that a lessening of ethnic fighting in Baghdad, a halt in the suicide bombings and sectarian neighborhood murders and cleansings, and the re-establishment of some level of security and basic services to the citizens of Baghdad would increase the chances for political advancements on multiple fronts.

Quote:

Sendin' kids to the hot sun
I fought Iraq and Iran won.
I fought Iraq and Iran won.

(bridge)
Well I miss Dick Cheney when he's layin' low
But still his will be done,
Halliburton was ready to go, so
I fought Iraq and Iran won.
I fought Iraq and Iran won.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Curtis">With Apology to "I Fought the Law" songwriter, Sonny Curtis</a>

Before you dismiss the lyrics above as a silly taunt, consider how whacked the results of your own advocacy is. The Bush/Cheney PNAC driven leadership has failed our troops and country into a quagmire that can only be "improved" if Iran is eliminated as a threat. I predict that "the plan" is to try to accomplish that with an almost exclusive reliance on "air power". Let the bombing begin in.....as St. Reagan once put it....

<b>Here is a recent report on the shi'a cleric with the LEAST ties to and sympathies with Iran:</b>

Quote:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...printstory.jsp
Posted on Thu, Feb. 01, 2007

Mahdi Army gains strength through unwitting aid of U.S.

By Tom Lasseter
McClatchy Newspapers

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S. military drive to train and equip Iraq's security forces has unwittingly strengthened anti-American Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, which has been battling to take over much of the capital city as American forces are trying to secure it.

U.S. Army commanders and enlisted men who are patrolling east Baghdad, which is home to more than half the city's population and the front line of al-Sadr's campaign to drive rival Sunni Muslims from their homes and neighborhoods, said al-Sadr's militias had heavily infiltrated the Iraqi police and army units that they've trained and armed.

"Half of them are JAM. They'll wave at us during the day and shoot at us during the night," said 1st Lt. Dan Quinn, a platoon leader in the Army's 1st Infantry Division, using the initials of the militia's Arabic name, Jaish al Mahdi. "People (in America) think it's bad, but that we control the city. That's not the way it is. They control it, and they let us drive around. It's hostile territory."

The Bush administration's plan to secure Baghdad rests on a "surge" of some 17,000 more U.S. troops to the city, many of whom will operate from small bases throughout Baghdad. Those soldiers will work to improve Iraqi security units so that American forces can hand over control of the area and withdraw to the outskirts of the city.

The problem, many soldiers said, is that the approach has been tried before and resulted only in strengthening al-Sadr and his militia.

Amid recurring reports that al-Sadr is telling his militia leaders to stash their arms and, in some cases, leave their neighborhoods during the American push, U.S. soldiers worry that the latest plan could end up handing over those areas to units that are close to al-Sadr's militant Shiite group.

"All the Shiites have to do is tell everyone to lay low, wait for the Americans to leave, then when they leave you have a target list and within a day they'll kill every Sunni leader in the country. It'll be called the `Day of Death' or something like that," said 1st Lt. Alain Etienne, 34, of Brooklyn, N.Y. "They say, `Wait, and we will be victorious.' That's what they preach. And it will be their victory."

Quinn agreed.

"Honestly, within six months of us leaving, the way Iranian clerics run the country behind the scenes, it'll be the same way here with Sadr," said Quinn, 25, of Cleveland. "He already runs our side of the river."

Four senior American military representatives in Baghdad declined requests for comment.

Al-Sadr's success in infiltrating Iraqi security forces says much about the continued inability of American commanders in Iraq to counter the classic insurgent tactic of using popular support to trump superior military firepower. Lacking attack helicopters and other sophisticated weapons, al-Sadr's men have expanded their empire with borrowed trucks and free lunches for militiamen.

After U.S. units pounded al-Sadr's men in August 2004, the cleric apparently decided that instead of facing American tanks, he'd use the Americans' plans to build Iraqi security forces to rebuild his own militia.

So while Iraq's other main Shiite militia, the Badr Brigade, concentrated in 2005 on packing Iraqi intelligence bureaus with high-level officers who could coordinate sectarian assassinations, al-Sadr went after the rank and file.

His recruits began flooding into the Iraqi army and police, receiving training, uniforms and equipment either directly from the U.S. military or from the American-backed Iraqi Defense Ministry. ....

....... Al-Sadr's militia has taken advantage of the chaos.

Iraqi soldiers, for example, often were pushed into the field by Iraqi commanders who didn't give them adequate food, clothing or shelter, said Etienne, a 1st Infantry Division platoon leader.

Etienne was on patrol one day when he saw Iraqi soldiers eating fresh vegetables and meat. The afternoon before, the same soldiers had complained that they had only scraps of food left. Who'd brought them their meal? It had come courtesy of Muqtada al-Sadr.

"Who's feeding the Iraqi army? Nobody. So JAM will come around and give them food and water," Etienne said. "We try to capture hearts and minds, well, JAM has done that. They're further along than us."

There's been ample evidence - despite claims to the contrary by American and Iraqi officials - that the death-squad activity isn't isolated to a few troops loyal to al-Sadr.

In the southeastern Baghdad neighborhood of Zafrainyah, an entire national police brigade was sent to be retrained last year- and much of its leadership was replaced - after its officers kidnapped 24 Sunnis, took them to a meat-processing plant and killed them.

Last month, four members of a neighborhood council in Etienne's sector - a mixed Sunni-Shiite area that abuts an al-Sadr stronghold - were leaving a meeting when national police trucks pulled up and men in Iraqi military uniforms piled out.

They grabbed the four men in broad daylight. One of the council members struggled. He was shot in the head and left to die on the street.

The remaining three were blindfolded and driven to a house. One of the four, a Shiite, listened as his two Sunni colleagues begged for their lives between beatings.

"They were pistol-whipping them and kicking them," Etienne said. "Finally, he heard the sound of a drill."

When the man's blindfold was taken off, he found that he was covered with the blood of his two friends, who were slumped over dead with drill holes in their heads.

"It was (al-Sadr's militia). They were trying to figure out who's who, and killing Sunnis," Etienne said. "They borrowed the vehicles from their friends in the Iraqi army and police who are Mahdi-affiliated."......

<b>This is the alternative to al Sadr and his mahdi army, courted by the US government, as the "less extreme" alternative to al Sadr:</b>

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002484.php

<b>Our Men in Iraq Are Iran's Men, Too</b>
By Spencer Ackerman - February 6, 2007, 10:03 AM

Here's what happened in Iraq while the GOP -- with an assist from Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) -- blocked yesterday's debate on the war.

The leader of the dominant Shiite political bloc, the United Iraqi Alliance, is an Islamist and sectarian hardliner named Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. al-Hakim's faction, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, has been a proxy for Iran since the Iran-Iraq war, and it runs one of the more ruthless Shiite militias in Iraq, known as the Badr Corps -- an organization that in 2005 <a href="http://www.harpers.org/the-minister-of-civil-war-399309.html">ran Sunni torture chambers out of the Interior Ministry.</a> If al-Hakim has any particular virtue, it's that he's also been willing to accept American sponsorship as well: way back in 2002 and 2003, he was an influential member of the Iraqi exile community working with the Bush administration, which rewarded him with <a href="http://www.cpa-iraq.org/government/governing_council.html">a seat on the Iraqi Governing Council.</a>

Yesterday, al-Hakim went to Tehran, where he was warmly received by the head of Iran's security council, Ali Larijani. He had a mission -- <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/05/world/middleeast/06irancnd.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1170738000&en=6af03c9cd771e38f&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin">to publicly urge U.S.-Iranian diplomatic contact.</a> "Negotiations between Iran and the United States are useful for the whole region," he was quoted as saying.

There are two points to be made here. The first, narrower point, is that even those Iraqis the U.S. is allied with want a reduction in the level of hostility between Washington and Tehran. That hostility is increasing by the day: the Iranians are blaming the U.S. for the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/world/middleeast/06cnd-iraq.html">abduction of an Iranian diplomat in Baghdad yesterday</a>, a charge the U.S. denies. The larger point, however, is that the logic of the war is to deliver Iraqi politics into the hands of men who are closer to Tehran than to Washington. Remember that the surge is designed <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002469.php">to deliver breathing room for the Iraqi government</a> -- a government in the hands of hardline Shiites like al-Hakim. Indeed, Bush welcomed al-Hakim to Washington in December, and according to <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/03/AR2007020301441.html">Sunday's Washington Post</a>, a faction within the administration considers him more reliable an ally than PM Nouri al-Maliki:

Quote:

As they put the plan together, officials held heated internal debates over whether Maliki was the right man to head such an effort. Some argued in favor of engineering a new Iraqi government under Maliki's Shiite coalition partner, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), and Hakim's political stalking horse, Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi.

The reason the administration stuck with Maliki? According to an official quoted by the Post, sidelining him in favor of al-Hakim would be "too hard."

<b>It's ironic that we'd get a fuller understanding of who really benefits from the surge by a visit to Tehran by an Iraqi ally of the administration</b>, but there it is. Don't expect that to be debated on the Senate floor any time soon, however.

Quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4691615.stm
Story from BBC NEWS:

Published: 2005/07/17 20:47:20 GMT

Iran-Iraq talks heal old wounds

Iran's President Mohammed Khatami has welcomed what he called a "turning point" in relations with Iraq.

He said the current visit by Iraq's transitional PM Ibrahim Jaafari would help patch the wounds inflicted by ex-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

Mr Jaafari is leading the highest-level Iraqi delegation to Iran in decades.

Mr Khatami said the security of Iran and Iraq were closely linked and that Tehran would do everything to help restore Iraq's stability.

"The visit of the Iraqi prime minister to Iran is a turning point in the historic relations between the two countries. It will allow us to heal the wounds and repair the damage caused by Saddam Hussein through joint co-operation," Mr Khatami said.

Quote:

Today, we need a double and common effort to confront terrorism that may spread in the region and the world
Ibrahim Jaafari
Iraqi PM

Mr Jaafari said Iraq knew the evil wrought by Saddam Hussein on the region, but that he did not represent the Iraqi people.

More than one million people died when the two nations fought in the 1980s during an eight-year war.

The political symbolism of restoring relations is huge, says the BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran.

After decades of no diplomatic relations, Iraq now has a prime minister who has spent years in exile in Iran and heads a Shia-dominated government sympathetic to its neighbour, she says.

Security

More than 10 ministers are accompanying Mr Jaafari on his visit - the first top-level visit to Iran since the Iran-Iraq war.

The two countries have already signed an agreement on expanding transport links - Iran has promised to help rebuild Najaf airport and connect the two countries' rail networks to increase trade and the movement of pilgrims.

They are also expected to discuss security and the control of their long border.

A security agreement would involve Iran sharing intelligence with Iraq, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told the AFP news agency.

"One of the subcommissions we formed is on security co-operation between two sides. Its aim is really to establish a mechanism for intelligence sharing, to prevent infiltrations and to assist us in stabilising the situation," he said.

The two countries have vowed to fight what they called terrorism and the abuse of Islam to justify violence.

"Today, we need a double and common effort to confront terrorism that may spread in the region and the world," Mr Jaafari said at a joint press conference after the talks.

Mr Jaafari, who is scheduled to leave on Monday, is expected to hold further talks with the president-elect of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi.

roachboy · 02-06-2007, 08:50 AM

one thing that i take to be bizarre about this discussion when it addresses elements of, say, the biden plan, is the way in which the options are posed: either one fumbles along the path layed out by the bush administration or one withdraws all american troops immediately from iraq. that is an idiotic framework that functions mostly--if not entirely--from a viewpoint informed by the administration's choices, as if these choices were the legitimate center of any debate.

the question is not increase troop numbers or pull out right away: it is more about strategic direction. the americans need to find a way to internationalize this farce so they can begin rolling out of its center. the americans are a faction within a civil war and are not in a position to be other than a faction within a civil war--the problem then is the american presence itself at this point. replacing the americans with an international coalition of peacekeepers (say--for the sake of being able to point to something in this context--no doubt the actual nature and goals of such a force would be determined collectively) seems the only way out.
this would require extensive diplomatic work, which HAS TO BE PART OF THE STRATEGY that informs a coherent withdrawal of american military forces from iraq. so american military actions have to be linked to diplomatic action in the context of a lucid overall strategy. this seems beyond the abilities of the bushpeople to manage. and it is this failing that makes me wish that the americans had a no=-confidence mechanism that could clear these people out of power.

the bush people have obviously created about the worst possible climate for this diplomatic project--but they really have to suck it up, eat some shit and deal with it---- and this they seem wholly unwilling or unable to do--and it is here that the extent to which american options have been boxed in by the disaster that is neocon-influenced policy remains fully in force. instead of a coherent diplomatic strategy that worked in tandem with the military deployment, you get dickwaving in the direction of iran--a dickwaving that is at this point the best friend of ahmadinejad (whose administration is in a vry very weak position, likely to fall but for american dickwaving--and i would have thought that the administration considers him to be a problem rather than a kind of screwy tactical asset--if he is a problem, then maybe not doing things that prop him up, that help keep him in power, might be a good idea--but not in bushworld--go figure).

fact is that the bush administration appears to reject the notion of coupling a diplomatic strategy--which is the condition of possibility for a coherent withdrawal--to its military strategy. and it is because this administration has made this choice that all options seem to be equally zero-sum.

the problem is the bush administration itself.

host · 02-06-2007, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

.....the bush people have obviously created about the worst possible climate for this diplomatic project--but they really have to suck it up, eat some shit and deal with it---- and this they seem wholly unwilling or unable to do--and it is here that the extent to which american options have been boxed in by the disaster that is neocon-influenced policy remains fully in force. instead of a coherent diplomatic strategy that worked in tandem with the military deployment, you get dickwaving in the direction of iran--a dickwaving that is at this point the best friend of ahmadinejad (whose administration is in a vry very weak position, likely to fall but for american dickwaving--and i would have thought that the administration considers him to be a problem rather than a kind of screwy tactical asset--if he is a problem, then maybe not doing things that prop him up, that help keep him in power, might be a good idea--but not in bushworld--go figure).

fact is that the bush administration appears to reject the notion of coupling a diplomatic strategy--which is the condition of possibility for a coherent withdrawal--to its military strategy. and it is because this administration has made this choice that all options seem to be equally zero-sum.

the problem is the bush administration itself.

roachboy, what this is about now, is the divergence between the interests of the US people ("the troops" are located in that group, too), versus the interests of the Bush/Cheney presidency in it's waning days, specifically, it's legacy, assuming that they will withdraw from office when the provisions of current constitutional mandate it....

They're still trying to "move the ball"; working up their "hail mary" pass "play", as their offense is poised to take the "field", one last time....

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16960414/site/newsweek/
<b>Bush's Truman Show</b>
By Holly Bailey, Richard Wolffe and Evan Thomas
Newsweek

Feb. 12, 2007 issue

....The president did seem mildly chastened by his party's defeat in the midterm elections—but not inclined to change course dramatically in Iraq.

He compared his situation to the crisis Harry Truman faced in the early days of the cold war. Then, as now, Bush said, the United States confronted a dangerous ideological foe. Truman had answered with the Truman Doctrine, a vow to protect free peoples wherever they were threatened with communist domination.......

.......The Truman comparison didn't seem quite right to Durbin. When the president went to him for comment, Durbin voiced his doubts. <b>"Harry Truman had allies," Durbin pointed out.</b> The Truman administration had helped create the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to contain communism. After Britain withdraws its troops later this year, <b>Durbin says he told Bush, "we will be virtually alone in what we are trying to accomplish there."</b> Durbin says that Bush did not become angry, but he did seem irritated and "insisted that this was an ideological struggle, which wasn't my point at all," says Durbin. "He was very defensive." (White House spokesman Tony Snow confirmed the exchange between Bush and Durbin but said "the president was not really trying to compare himself to Harry Truman so much as to talk about the duration and nature of the struggle.")

Bush's grasp of history may have been a little shaky, but there is no doubting the force of his conviction. Bush wants his legacy to be the long-term defeat of Islamic extremism. Indeed, senior officials close to Bush who did not wish to be identified discussing private conversations with the president tell NEWSWEEK that Bush's plan after he leaves the White House is to continue to promote the spread of democracy in the Middle East by inviting world leaders to his own policy institute, to be built alongside his presidential library......

I predict that the Bush "policy institute" will be a very lonely place....

loquitur · 02-06-2007, 04:00 PM

My point is that Saddam was viewed as a threat by the Clinton Administration. And in terms of using military force, shortly after the Iraq Liberation Act was passed, Clinton ordered cruise missiles to be shot at various Iraqi facilities due to Saddam's defiance of the WMD terms of the Gulf War termination agreements - was that illegal? (ineffectual, I'll grant you).

dc_dux · 02-06-2007, 04:26 PM

Quote:

My point is that Saddam was viewed as a threat by the Clinton Administration. And in terms of using military force, shortly after the Iraq Liberation Act was passed, Clinton ordered cruise missiles to be shot at various Iraqi facilities due to Saddam's defiance of the WMD terms of the Gulf War termination agreements - was that illegal? (ineffectual, I'll grant you).

Loquitor...I am well aware of Clinton's limited military action against Iraq in the 90s. I dont know if it was legal or not under the Iraq Liberation Act.

What I fail to understand is how it is relevant to a discussion of supporting the troops and the contention by some that there are only two options - support Bush or withdrawl the troops.

Slims · 02-06-2007, 06:49 PM

Edit: I was talking in circles.

Willravel · 02-06-2007, 07:11 PM

Immediate withdrawl? I guess I missed that post.

dc_dux · 02-07-2007, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Part of why our country is on the verge of losing it's eminence is our empathy for everyone else in the world.

I would suggest we are losing our eminence because we have lost our moral authority, both in the eyes of many Americans, and among our allies around the world, through many of the policies and actions of the current administration.

Here is just one perspective on one specific Bush action:

In a letter (pdf) to Congress about Bush's plan to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, Colin Powell recognized both the moral implications and the risk to our own troops:

“The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."
~ Colin Powell

Eminence requires a demonstration of leadership and leadership requires a capacity to listen and not simply bully those who may not support your "cause.". And it requires a recognition that imposing our military might should not be always our first option.

host · 02-07-2007, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I would suggest we are losing our eminence because we have lost our moral authority, both in the eyes of many Americans, and among our allies around the world, through many of the policies and actions of the current administration.

Here is just one perspective on one specific Bush action:

In a letter (pdf) to Congress about Bush's plan to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, Colin Powell recognized both the moral implications and the risk to our own troops:

“The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. To redefine Common Article 3 would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."
~ Colin Powell

<b>Eminence requires a demonstration of leadership and leadership requires a capacity to listen and not simply bully those who may not support your "cause.". And it requires a recognition that imposing our military might should not be always our first option.</b>

From the emphasis on human rights and diplomacy of the Carter administration, as a consequence of the Kennedy / Johnson / Nixon/Kissinger militarism, to your having to post what you did.....just 25 years later.

dc_dux, it is as obvious as posting "look both ways before crossing", but there is a need for you to spell it out.....Greg700 does not see that the "problem", the principle shortcoming in US policy, is totally opposite what he posted that it is.

The next reaction by the American people to the policies that took us from Le Monde's 9/12 headline, <b>"We are all Americans, Now!"</b>...to THIS, is already underway....since the mid-term election, last november.

The continuing "military madness" of the last 5 years and 5 months, along with the tottering state of US currency exchange rate, will determine how far away from militarism we journey, in this new cycle of voter sentiment, already underway.....

....and Greg700, re: your early comments about Clinton cutting the military in 1995.....Even at the end of 1995, with Clinton in office just 35 months, that "activity" was the still the early stages of the Cheney designed, Bush '41 approved, post cold war era, post Gulf war I reductions in military programs and force size. I'd be happy to show you the accuracy of this with links, excerpts, etc.

....and your "lament" about US forced failing to kill al Sadr in Najaf in 2004.....what have you been reading? Recall that Saddam was behind al Sadr's father's assassination in 1999.....it made him a a martyr, and.....since al Sadr the younger, took over the leadership of his father's huge, mainly poor shi'a following, and the fact that al Sadr is fiercely nationalistic, unlike the shi'a political leadership that spent time in exile in Iran, and is closely aligned with Iran, al Sadr is the shi'a leader who has no ties to Iran, and has avoided making them. It is a truer statement that it is a stroke of luck that the US failed to kill al Sadr.

In your closed world, can you see the "logic" in posting an advocacy, on this forum of all places....for killing the son of a man who was killed by Saddam, and was so despised by him, that this exchange took place:
(....and, to an extent, isn't there a measure of truth in Saddam's claims....he repeated them as he stood at the gallows....that his shi'a enemies are "persians", i.e. Iranian spies? Can you perceive, at all, even now, the delicate balance in the region that only existed because Saddam was Saddam because Iraq was where, and how, it was....next to Iran, populated mainly by shi'a aligned by both blood and religious sympathies, with Iran? Can you see that, in destroying Saddam's Iraq, the US gained the Saddam's role of checking Iran, but with the liability, that, unlike Saddan and his sunni base, the US is regarded as an infidel.... ?)

Quote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3712145/site/newsweek/

.....Saddam's successors, the Iraqi Governing Council, were allowed to see and question Saddam. The former ruler was haggard but defiant. When one of the Governing Council members demanded to know why had killed so many people, Saddam spat back that his victims were all "thieves and Iranian spies." (The Shiite members of the delegation were particularly incensed by Saddam's mocking tone when the Iraqi ruler was asked if he had played a role in assassinating Shiite Ayatollahs Muhammad Sadeq al-Sadr, in 1999, and Mohamad Baqir al Hakim, killed by a truck bomb this year. "Sadr" means "chest" in Arabic, and Saddam made a pun about getting him off his chest.).......

I've already posted the support for the accusation that US troops are fighting and dying in Iraq to give the "fragile" shi'a Iraqi government, which is closely aligned to Iran, including agreeing, for more than a year, to an "intelligence sharing" relationship with Iran, "MORE TIME"....the question, Greg700, is "more time", to do what? If the US had supported al Sadr, instead of the shi'a al Dawa and SCIRI party leaders, would Iraq have closer ties to Iran, than currently? Is there more "democracy", less theocracy, under the current leadership? Your al Sadr was bad....so it was necessary to support the shi'a who were closely aligned to Iran....the ones who lived in Tehran in exile, POV, is a symptom of where we are in the progress towards a US victory in Iraq...

I don't have easy solutions to offer, but I didn't proclaim that it was necessary or justified to invade and occupy Iraq, and as willravel said, <b>did we miss the post where one of us advocated immediate US military withdrawal from Iraq?</b>
But....I do have a clue. I know that the killing of al Sadr, by US forces..... killing the sole major shi'a leader with no ties to Iran, and an intent to discourage forming them, would have been another in a long series of profound, and very troubling US mistakes in it's GWOT!

powerclown · 02-07-2007, 01:50 PM

I haven't seen any argumentative evidence yet that the Iraq War was strategically or even morally unsound. Vietnam was handled less than ideally on the tactical level (show me the Perfect War), but fighting the spread of communism proved - historically - to be the right thing to do in the broader sense. For all the protesting and draft dodging the left indulged themselves in during 'Nam, can anyone say the fall of the Iron Curtain and defeat of communism was a bad thing for the world? In the same way, does anyone believe that fighting the spread of terrorism is wrong?

Are we saying the concept of GWOT is sound, but the methods are wrong? Are we expressing our disapproval over how the GWOT has been fought, or is the problem the GWOT itself? Something else?

dc_dux · 02-07-2007, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I haven't seen any argumentative evidence yet that the Iraq War was strategically or even morally unsound. Vietnam was handled less than ideally on the tactical level (show me the Perfect War), but fighting the spread of communism proved - historically - to be the right thing to do in the broader sense.

Strategically it was unsound because it created a stronger Iran and has placed US troops in the role of policemen in a sectarian civil war. Morally it was unsound because it unleashed that sectarian violence resulting in the death of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians and the disiplacement of more than 2 million more.

Quote:

For all the protesting and draft dodging the left indulged themselves in during 'Nam, can anyone say the fall of the Iron Curtain and defeat of communism was a bad thing for the world? In the same way, does anyone believe that fighting the spread of terrorism is wrong?

The Iron Curtain fell and communism was defeated without a major war in Europe. It came about as much as a result of an implosion from within and our support for internal democratic movements in eastern europe as from any military actions (other than our troop presence in Germany and the broad stategic MAD policy). I give as much credit to Gorbachev (policies of glasnost and peristroika), Lech Welesa and the laboor movement in Poland, Vaclev Havel and the "intellectuals" in Czech and a vocal anti-communist Pope as I do Reagan (the great anti-communist crusader given far to much credit by some)

Quote:

Are we saying the concept of GWOT is sound, but the methods are wrong? Are we expressing our disapproval over how the GWOT has been fought, or is the problem the GWOT itself? Something else?

The cocept of a GWOT may be sound, but the practice of justifying every foreign policy action on that concept is not. The American people arent buying it, many of our allies are not supportive, and it has created more empathy among the Muslim nations for those who strike against the US and ultimately has created more terrorists.

host · 07-29-2007, 01:23 PM

I found it interesting that a BBC channel chose, with no external follow up reporting from the rest of the media, to broadcast the following on radio, just last week. I post this here because it is support for the coverage of this historic (and buried....) event that I posted about in <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2188768&postcount=22">post #22</a>, on the first page of this thread. I don't fully understand it's implications, but the congressional hearings that followed, produced a report that was hidden for the next four or five decades, and the son and grandson of one of the conspirators became US presidents, the latter bringing about more "fascist like" "reform", in just a few years, than I could ever have imagined:

Quote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/...20070723.shtml
Listen to the latest edition Monday 8.pm to 8.30pm

Listen:

The award-winning investigative series returns, in which Mike Thomson takes a document as a starting-point to shed new light on past events.

The Whitehouse Coup

Monday 23 July 2007

Listen to this programme in full

The White House behind security bars
Document uncovers details of a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by right-wing American businessmen
View a picture gallery of images related to this edition.

The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression.

Mike Thomson investigates why so little is known about this biggest ever peacetime threat to American democracy.

History Channel video:

Quote:

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle13844.htm
America's Hidden History

The Plot To Overthrow FDR

The Plot To Overthrow FDR reveals how, inspired by political trends in Germany and Italy, this group conceived of a plan to either overthrow the newly-elected president or force him to take orders from them. They envisioned a paramilitary organization of disgruntled WWI veterans as the force to intimidate the government. The man they chose to inspire and lead this veteran's army was retired Marine General Smedley D. Butler

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt won the Presidency in 1932, many Americans looked to his bold New Deal plans as the way out of the dark days of the Depression. But a powerful group of financiers and industrialists saw his economic policies as a threat.

E-Book Available On This Topic - The Plot To Seize The White House - By Jules Archer

07/04/06 Runtime 43 Minutes

CLICK PLAY - PLEASE WAIT A MOMENT FOR VIDEO TO LOAD .....

Quote:

http://wfmu.org/playlists/DX
Archives for Dave Emory
Tuesdays 6pm - 7pm on WFMU 91.1 fm 90.1 fm wfmu.org

Anti-fascist researcher Dave Emory (spelled E-M-O-R-Y) goes into all the hidden truths and details about evil men and their trade practices.

# July 10, 2007: FTR #602: The Plot to Seize the White House - Interview with Jules Archer, PLUS FTR #448: The Coup Attempt of 1934 | Listen (RealAudio)
http://wfmu.org/listen.ram?show=23736&archive=36295

| Listen (MP3 - 128K)
http://wfmu.org/listen.m3u?show=23736&archive=36296

April 8, 2004: FTR#448: The Coup Attempt of 1934 & FTR# 449: The July Surprise | Listen
http://wfmu.org/listen.ram?show=10938

It looks like it "really happened".....and that there were no consequences to the perpetrators...when it failed....and that it has been deliberately "covered up". In view of the recent American experience under the leadership of this US president, is now not the time to learn about it, react to it, talk about it, attempt to understand why there was no criminal investigation, or even a negative impact to the reputations of these men who worked with "foreign agents", against the US government? Isn't the Bush "drive" to eliminate and evade FISA restrictions, supposed to be about making it easier to investigate people like....his own grandfather.....Prescott Bush?

reconmike · 07-29-2007, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I found it interesting that a BBC channel chose, with no external follow up reporting from the rest of the media, to broadcast the following on radio, just last week. I post this here because it is support for the coverage of this historic (and buried....) event that I posted about in <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2188768&postcount=22">post #22</a>, on the first page of this thread. I don't fully understand it's implications, but the congressional hearings that followed, produced a report that was hidden for the next four or five decades, and the son and grandson of one of the conspirators became US presidents, the latter bringing about more "fascist like" "reform", in just a few years, than I could ever have imagined:

History Channel video:

It looks like it "really happened".....and that there were no consequences to the perpetrators...when it failed....and that it has been deliberately "covered up". In view of the recent American experience under the leadership of this US president, is now not the time to learn about it, react to it, talk about it, attempt to understand why there was no criminal investigation, or even a negative impact to the reputations of these men who worked with "foreign agents", against the US government? Isn't the Bush "drive" to eliminate and evade FISA restrictions, supposed to be about making it easier to investigate people like....his own grandfather.....Prescott Bush?

Man, Host your hatred for Bush is soooo deep you'll grasp at anything and I mean anything, just to vent some of that bile you spew.

This was an OP about troops and support, and once again you turn it into Bush, FISA and whatever else you feel the need to throw in.

I am really surprised you also didnt bring up the wealthiest 10% with the Prescott Bush segway, dam your slipping.

Does this mean that RFK should have been investigating his murdering, smuggling grandfather?

Willravel · 07-29-2007, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

This was an OP about troops and support, and once again you turn it into Bush, FISA and whatever else you feel the need to throw in.

From the OP:

Quote:

Originally Posted by boatin

So I'm surrounded by family that deliver two lines to me on a regular basis:
support our troops
support the office of the president

Read the OP before you make yourself out to be an expert on it. The OP is talking about the "support your troops" line to mean support that administration. The funny thing is, not only are you wrong, but you condescended to someone who was right. You know how that makes you look, right?

02-05-2007, 10:28 AM	#126 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	greg: i wasn't making assumptions about your personal politics, really: i was just reacting to what i was reading. sometimes the internal logic of posts tells more about how folk think than what they say about what they think. i am going to be on here in a reduced capacity for a while: i'll try to come back and address your post in more detail later. but in general, elphaba was kind enough to provide a gloss on the motives behind my post, and in general i think it accurate. so what she said.... more later then. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-05-2007, 11:45 AM	#130 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Ok, I will try to distill what I am attempting to say. First: I believe Bush scored above 1330 on his SAT's, and he maintained a good GPA throughout highschool and college. Is he smart enough to be the president? Couldn't tell you. Is he smart enough for graduate school? Most definately. Also, in order to successfully campaign and win high office he demonstrated a tremendous amount of discipline, which implies that he would have had the willpower to be successful in gradutate school as well. He may not be a master orater, but he is not an idiot either. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 12-02-2008 at 10:21 PM..

02-05-2007, 11:46 AM	#131 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	greg: one other thing: the debate that is the center of this thread is about the contrasting versions of the history of the run-up to the iraq debacle. going through will and host's post will give you a good outline of it. i dont feel any particular need to repeat what they have already been good enough to post. i'd be happy to comment on things if it seems germaine, but for the most part, there we are. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-05-2007, 04:00 PM	#136 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	The two arguments from the "stay the course" (aka "new way forward" surge and hold) crowd here that I find have the least intellectual honesty are: Powerclown's contention that opposing the surge is anti-troop: "The time for dissent has passed. Congress has debated, and they have spoken. Our troops are in place and under fire. It is now (or was) the Public's job to express approval for the mission of the troops." Dissent is at the foundation of our democracy. Is is the public's job to hold their political leaders accountable for their policies and actions, particurlarly when those policies are based on lies and their subsequent actions are managed ineptly and irresponsibly (with the the troops as their pawns). To suggest otherwise is simply a means to demonize those with whom you disagree with no basis of fact. Greg's inference of a "pull-out now" as the only alternative: I think that regardless of past misadventures or conquests, the US has placed itself firmly in a position where to pull out of Iraq now would cause far more harm to come to the Iraqi people and would be decidedly against our national best interests because the whole region would be likely to decay as a result of the internal strife in Iraq. There are other options - the Biden plan, the Iraq Study Group plan, and mostly recently the Obama plan (The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007). Where I fault the Dems and those who oppose the "surge" policy are not having the balls to stand behind one of these (or other) real alternatives. The new NIE for Iraq (summary pdf) paints a pretty pestimistic assessment of current conditions and the short-term future, regardless of options. Time for me to hop off this merry-go-round of a discussion. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 02-05-2007 at 04:42 PM..

02-05-2007, 04:49 PM	#137 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	I think Biden's plan is not unreasonable. Though I think he has added the drawdown of US troops almost as an afterthought. I am not against getting troops out of Iraq, but not until we have made the country stable. If we were able to successfully implement all other aspects of his plan except troop removal we would no longer have any reason to remain in Iraq and our withdrawl would be inevitable. Of course, the devil is in the details. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

02-05-2007, 10:20 AM	#125 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	That's gotta be a joke. You do know a lot of people are dying because if this right now, right?

02-05-2007, 11:01 AM	#129 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	"Trying to do good" really isn't relevant. Read Host's post. He corrected you on a few key points.

02-05-2007, 11:52 AM	#132 (permalink)
Chimera Banned	Actaully..."trying" to do good is extremely relevant in this situation. Unfortunately, the perception of what is good, and what is not are the underlying issue of disagreement. I for one, fully understand there is an attempt to create freedom for a people that were kept away from it in the past. There is however a point where we must accept this "Good" has been botched with ineptitude....we were there last year in my opinion, and now are destroying any possible chance of meeting the objective of the month. It has reached the point where our policy is destructive to the United States, as well as the Iraqi future....and therefore becomes counter-productive to all involved. Anyone who believes this war can be salvaged by further military action is, in my opinion.....not paying attention to the realities of warfare.

02-05-2007, 12:53 PM	#135 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I think that comparing our posts here on TFP is proof that an IQ or SAT score does not necessarily mean one person is smarter than another.

02-05-2007, 04:55 PM	#138 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I dont see any details or explicit measurable benchmarks in Bush's "new way forward". Without holding the Iraqi government to such benchmarks, it is doomed, IMO, to be more of the same. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

02-05-2007, 11:05 PM	#144 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	What happened to Shinseki when he asked Rummy for more troops? What makes you think that Rummy was going to send anymore troops after he fired Shinseki? What makes you think that the generals would dare to ask Rummy for more troops after they all saw what happened to Shinseki? Why the hell do you think Bush fired Rummy? Abizaid is 'macro-general' who looks at the bigger picture of not just war in Iraq, but religious extremism around the world. He's not so much concerned with flooding troops into Iraq as he is with strategically placing them elsewhere in the world where islamic extremsim exists: afghanistan, africa, pakistan. Thats why Abazaid is cautious about the Bush troop level numbers into Baghdad. But the thing is, time is running out. People like you are foaming at the mouth for immediate, unconditional withdrawal. If you read your own articles, General Casey recommends 2 additional brigades into Baghdad, saying that if General Petraeus asks for more, he should get them. I'm not saying that additional troops alone are going to solve the political problems facing Iraq. I am saying that a lessening of ethnic fighting in Baghdad, a halt in the suicide bombings and sectarian neighborhood murders and cleansings, and the re-establishment of some level of security and basic services to the citizens of Baghdad would increase the chances for political advancements on multiple fronts.

02-06-2007, 07:29 AM	#146 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Loquitor: What's your point? The Iraq Liberation Act clearly had a political and diplomatic focus and specifically did not authorize military intervention: Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)(related to funding opposition groups) in carrying out this Act. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

02-06-2007, 08:50 AM	#148 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	one thing that i take to be bizarre about this discussion when it addresses elements of, say, the biden plan, is the way in which the options are posed: either one fumbles along the path layed out by the bush administration or one withdraws all american troops immediately from iraq. that is an idiotic framework that functions mostly--if not entirely--from a viewpoint informed by the administration's choices, as if these choices were the legitimate center of any debate. the question is not increase troop numbers or pull out right away: it is more about strategic direction. the americans need to find a way to internationalize this farce so they can begin rolling out of its center. the americans are a faction within a civil war and are not in a position to be other than a faction within a civil war--the problem then is the american presence itself at this point. replacing the americans with an international coalition of peacekeepers (say--for the sake of being able to point to something in this context--no doubt the actual nature and goals of such a force would be determined collectively) seems the only way out. this would require extensive diplomatic work, which HAS TO BE PART OF THE STRATEGY that informs a coherent withdrawal of american military forces from iraq. so american military actions have to be linked to diplomatic action in the context of a lucid overall strategy. this seems beyond the abilities of the bushpeople to manage. and it is this failing that makes me wish that the americans had a no=-confidence mechanism that could clear these people out of power. the bush people have obviously created about the worst possible climate for this diplomatic project--but they really have to suck it up, eat some shit and deal with it---- and this they seem wholly unwilling or unable to do--and it is here that the extent to which american options have been boxed in by the disaster that is neocon-influenced policy remains fully in force. instead of a coherent diplomatic strategy that worked in tandem with the military deployment, you get dickwaving in the direction of iran--a dickwaving that is at this point the best friend of ahmadinejad (whose administration is in a vry very weak position, likely to fall but for american dickwaving--and i would have thought that the administration considers him to be a problem rather than a kind of screwy tactical asset--if he is a problem, then maybe not doing things that prop him up, that help keep him in power, might be a good idea--but not in bushworld--go figure). fact is that the bush administration appears to reject the notion of coupling a diplomatic strategy--which is the condition of possibility for a coherent withdrawal--to its military strategy. and it is because this administration has made this choice that all options seem to be equally zero-sum. the problem is the bush administration itself. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 02-06-2007 at 08:55 AM..

02-06-2007, 04:00 PM	#150 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	My point is that Saddam was viewed as a threat by the Clinton Administration. And in terms of using military force, shortly after the Iraq Liberation Act was passed, Clinton ordered cruise missiles to be shot at various Iraqi facilities due to Saddam's defiance of the WMD terms of the Gulf War termination agreements - was that illegal? (ineffectual, I'll grant you).

02-06-2007, 06:49 PM	#152 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Edit: I was talking in circles. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 12-02-2008 at 10:21 PM..

02-06-2007, 07:11 PM	#153 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Immediate withdrawl? I guess I missed that post.

02-07-2007, 01:50 PM	#156 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	I haven't seen any argumentative evidence yet that the Iraq War was strategically or even morally unsound. Vietnam was handled less than ideally on the tactical level (show me the Perfect War), but fighting the spread of communism proved - historically - to be the right thing to do in the broader sense. For all the protesting and draft dodging the left indulged themselves in during 'Nam, can anyone say the fall of the Iron Curtain and defeat of communism was a bad thing for the world? In the same way, does anyone believe that fighting the spread of terrorism is wrong? Are we saying the concept of GWOT is sound, but the methods are wrong? Are we expressing our disapproval over how the GWOT has been fought, or is the problem the GWOT itself? Something else?