posted
Love the World Watch and love getting a weekly dose for the past couple.
I do think that the subjects of these last 2 relate to each other. In the first, Mr. Card decried cynical "realism" in statecraft. In the 2nd, he lamented the manufacture of an incendiary story to rile up Muslims.
I don't know if we as a nation are doing the right thing by being in Iraq. I suspect we might be. But my problem with the situation there now, and I think this is shared by a lot of other people, is the perception we were, at the least, misled by this administration to get us there.
There is no purpose in rehashing the case that was made for going in, talking about all the people in the administration that signed the 1998 Project for a New American Century letter, the presentation to the UN, the Downing Street memo, etc. Most people believe what they're going to believe about those subjects. And we're already there now, so they are sorta moot.
But I still do feel very misled by the nature of the conflict. I don't think this was fully intentional on W's part. But if this conflict in Iraq was vital for western civilization, we needed to know why going in. By first siezing on the most terrifying aspect of not doing anything, and then playing up how easy the task will be, W and co. set themselves up for a backlash that may finally undo what they hoped to accomplish.
We were told there were WMD. We had to keep them from the hands of the terrorists.
Turned out there weren't.
We were told the war would pay for itself with oil revenue. It hasn't.
We were told that we would be greeted as liberators. We're mired in a battle with insurgents.
None of these things make this an unjust war. But by building up expectations, portraying the conflict-to-come as they did, they put themselves in the bad spot of scrambling to cover their butts. Ham-handed stunts like the "Mission Accomplished" flight-suit photo op just add to the impression that they do not take the situation seriously enough.
If it was so vital, a great statesman should have explained ALL the reasons why. And war being war, should not have even hinted that it would be easy.
But they took the easy way out. Framed it in the way it would be easiest to sell. Doing this made it inevitable people would turn against it, if it didn't work out just like they were told it would.
And so if the cause was truly just, the administration did not do it justice. They set themselves up for the backlash and just maybe for failure.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's not like it's a new concept in politics - or anywhere else for that matter.
(I'm curious to see what next week's essay will be. Is Mr. Card maybe setting the stage for something in the next week's article? Just speculatin' here . . . *smile* )
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found this description very suprising, so I went to read the essay expecting it to be about the problems with the Bush administration's dishonesty. Seeing how in the past OSC has been a stronger supporter of the administration than the administration itself (see the Katrina essay), I would amazed that he would go that route.
My head asplode'd from the pressure of the unacknowledged irony. You shouldn't mislead people like that joey. Now I've got to go around picking up all the pieces of my head. I hope you're happy.
---
And I will say something about the U.N. speech because they are many out there who maintain that the administration never lied to get us into the war. Colin Powell's speech to the U.N., which he know acknowledges as a serious blot on his record and one of his top aides form that time calls the worst day of his (the aide's) life, rested on a lot of evidence that had to be made up. Knowing what we know now, the info had to be fabricated, and since a lot of it supposedly came directly from U.S. intelligence sources, we're the ones who fabricatd it. Other bits were said to be false by everyone who had authority in the areas that they concerned, but were advanced with full confidence.
The U.N. speech was the things that finally convinced me. The intelligence offered was so compelling to me that I believed that war in Iraq was necessary. I argued over this with friends, many of whom didn't even read or watch the speech, and their position was "They're lying. I don't even have to know what they are saying to know they are lying." I responded with saying that they were acting paranoid. There's no way that our government could tell lies of such magnitude over something so serious as going to war and expect to get away with it.
Turns out they were right. The people who just blithely assumed that our government was lying to them were right and I had to go around and apologize for disagreeing with them and calling them paranoid. Do people get it? I had to apologize for believing thay my government wouldn't tell me enormous lies about something as serious as going to war in the Middle East.
And the really crushing thing was, they did get away with it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every one of our partners in the Coalition believed that Iraq had WMDs. (By the way, they did - chemical weapons) They had their own independent intelligence agencies which confirmed what the CIA said. Clinton thought they did as well, when he was Prez. So, if one looks at everything a certain way, they were wrong. Well, that's an intelligence failure, but it still doesn't amount to a lie. There is a difference between a mistake, and a lie.
And we were greeted as liberators, and we still are. Just not by everybody. And your "insurgents" blow up Iraqis as well - they're terrorists - "insurgents" is the word the media gives them to legitimize them. Read Michael Yon's accounts.
I don't recall the Administration saying that the war would pay for itself with oil revenue. Can you back that up?
quote:But by building up expectations, portraying the conflict-to-come as they did, they put themselves in the bad spot of scrambling to cover their butts. Ham-handed stunts like the "Mission Accomplished" flight-suit photo op just add to the impression that they do not take the situation seriously enough.
If it was so vital, a great statesman should have explained ALL the reasons why. And war being war, should not have even hinted that it would be easy.
Agreed. I think that they didn't have enough faith in the American people that we would be willing to make a hard choice, and do the hard work to see it through. I'm wondering, however, if their lack of faith was justified.
quote:I had to apologize for believing thay my government wouldn't tell me enormous lies about something as serious as going to war in the Middle East.
I still don't think they lied. Mistaken to a certain extent, yes, but lied? No. There is no proof that the mistake was deliberate, that it was a lie. Good heavens, have you ever worked with the Gubmint? They take bureaucratic incompetancy and raise it to the level of an art form. I find it much much easier to believe that they just screwed up than that they lied.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
tern, Read the speech. I can see no way that a lot of the information could exist other than by being fabricated. For example, they had really compelling evidence that Iraq had a coordinated campaign for hiding their WMD program from the inspectors. Except see, we now know there was no WMD program.
I also don't think you can brush off the Niger yellowcake or aluminum tubes as mere incompetence either. They were told specifically that they were claiming things in both these cases that the experts were pretty darn sure weren't true. When you're told by those who know "Don't say that. It's not true." and then go on to present that thing with full confidence, to me that's lying. Even if you don't want concede that it's lying, I think you'll have to agree that it's a gross betrayal of the public trust.
---
The character of this adminstration before and since has been consistent with them being liars. Look at the campaign against McCain in 2000. They are continuously lying about the state of Iraq as well as unwilling to hold anyone responsible for the mess. We've turned so many corners in Iraq, the shape described has almost left the confines of Euclidian geometry. The White House has harbored someone who is essentially a traitor in the Valerie Plame affair, adn they are apparently okay with that, as they haven't done a darn thing about it. When Libby gets convicted of obstructing justice and lying (oh, and the White House lied through their Press Secretary, saying that Libby was definitely not involved), that's going to be the end of things on that front. The person who actually leaked the name, thus directly hurting America intelligence agencies abilities to protect us against, among other things, terrorists, is going to remain in the White House.
I was a supportor of the war in Iraq, even though I thought that their post-war projections were full of nonesense (turns out I was right on that account at least), because I trusted that they couldn't be that dishonest (or if you prefer pretty dishonest and massively incompetent). They didn't just betray this trust. They violated it, rubbed crap into it, paraded it thourgh the town, and then told me if I didn't salute it, I was unamerican and I didn't care about our troops, some of whom are close members of my family.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Agreed. I think that they didn't have enough faith in the American people that we would be willing to make a hard choice, and do the hard work to see it through. I'm wondering, however, if their lack of faith was justified.
As opposed to all the hard choices they've had to make. I don't know that George Bush has manned up in his entire life, let alone during his Presidency. It's not courageous to send other people off to kill and die, especially when you've shirked away from doing so.
We still don't know what this "hard choice" was for. All the reasons they've offered have turned out to be false. It's not for WMD or because Iraq had terrorist connections. It used to be about building a stable democracy, but their abysmal lack of realistic planning for this have given the lie to that. Well, along with the shift to "We're fighting them (them being the terrorists who came into Iraq after the war, in part because of the failure to secure the borders) there, so we don't have to fight them here.", which was stupid reasoning - and hella offensive to the Iraqis - even before the London attacks showed that, my goodness, terrorists can attack in two places at once.
Why do you think we made this hard choice to send American soldiers to kill and die on false pretenses, without adequate support, supplies, or planning and lacking any sort of exit strategy? None of the reasons I've been offered seem to make sense.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I can see no way that a lot of the information could exist other than by being fabricated
I did read the speech. A lot of that information may have been mistaken, but it is not provable that was a lie.
It looks like you've swallowed the media's talking points on the Joseph Wilson affair hook, line, and sinker. Can you see that Wilson also has inconsistencies in his story, that you are taking the story of an implacable enemy of the administration without skepticism?
quote:When Libby gets convicted of obstructing justice
When he doesn't get convicted, will you then at least view the media's reports about "Plamegate" with suspicion?
quote:I thought that their post-war projections were full of nonesense[quote]
It could have been planned better, that's for sure. But that's a far cry from a lie. Rather, it's an example of our government's incompetance.
You are approaching this that Bush is somehow omniscient, that he should have known all these things, and even more so, he should have interpreted it as the Democrats do now (cuz they sure didn't at the time). Bush's information is limited as well. He doesn't know everything, nor does the rest of the Administration. It's the nature of the beast. There's just too much information to process.
[quote]then told me if I didn't salute it, I was unamerican and I didn't care about our troops, some of whom are close members of my family.
Oh, I don't think you are un-American or that you don't care about the troops. But some of the most prominent people who share your opinions are unamerican (in that they consistently interpret America's actions in the worst possible light, and interpret our enemies actions in the best possible light, in a more honest time it would be correctly labeled sedition) and they don't care about the troops. This is something that pisses me off greatly. These S.O.B.s who claim that they care about the troops, which is why they want us out of Iraq, are the same useless vermin who call the troops stupid for joining the military, label us homophobic and use that as an excuse for discriminating against us, call us babykillers, bloodthirsty murderers, refuse to allow our recruiters on campus (that's COLLEGE campuses, and law schools, let alone high schools) deny the nobility and sacrifice of the military life, treat the military as some sort of social experiment, cut our budget, block our pay increases, don't give us the money to get equipment we desperately need, and treat members of the military as pariahs. (try being a Marine in a leftist college class) They are the ideological descendants of the cockroaches who threw blood on the troops coming back from Vietnam. (That's where they're not the aging hippie cockroaches themselves)
But we are NOT stupid. And we. do. NOT. forget. They have hated on us for years, and now they claim to care? Bushwah. There's the lies you are looking for, Squick.
Gah. I'm going to take five now...I know that you aren't one of those people, but you've bought into some of their lines. Look, I don't buy most of what the Bush Administration says. I'm just saying that you ought to apply the same skepticism to the critics of the war. All sides are bending the facts. The truth is likely somewhere in between.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do you think we made this hard choice to send American soldiers to kill and die on false pretenses, without adequate support, supplies, or planning and lacking any sort of exit strategy?
Slightly over two thousand members of the military have died since this began. That suggests that it wasn't completely inadequate. I wish that we would save the second-guessing until AFTER the mission really is accomplished.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not for WMD or because Iraq had terrorist connections. It used to be about building a stable democracy, but their abysmal lack of realistic planning for this have given the lie to that.
Iraq did have WMD - they used chemical weapons on the Iranians and on the Kurds after the first Gulf War. Where they went, nobody knows, but they DID have them.
We are building a stable democracy in Iraq, or rather the Iraqis are, and we are helping them. Give them time, bro. It took us over a decade to get our stable democracy here, and you're upset because they didn't just *poof* up and get a stable democracy instantly? And you are giving too little credit to the members of the new Iraqi government, who are building a stable democracy.
Again, I'm not saying that everything is perfect or defensible. Mistakes have been made. What I am saying is that you should evaluate the media's talking points for truth. What, Bush lies, but the media doesn't? Hah.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
tern, I do apply the same skepticism to the critics of the war. What I've said comes from me, not from them. I didn't "buy into their lines". I made my own decisions. And, unlike you, I've offered up my reasoning instead of making unsupported statements.
The peopel who I listen to about the troops are generally veterans themselves, like the guy you called a coward for disagreeing with the Bush administration, or the recently deceased David Hackworth and his collaborators in Soldiers for the Truth.
If you want to address points I brought up, address me and my points, not a bunch of easily attackable unrelated people.
---
I'll offer you a wager on the Libby conviction thing. Whoever loses writes a full apology post on Hatrack containing the reasons why they were wrong. (You may want to include that there's little indication that Wilson was an enemy of the administration prior to them ignoring his information regarding their Niger claims and not implacable before they decided to attack his wife and the CIA in general as payback for him disagreeing with them.)
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
tern They sent them without adequate armor, without sufficient logitstical support, and without, get this, people who actually spoke the language.
One of the people from my hometown is in charge of a portion of Baghdad. His prior experience was being the head of an armored division. He (and he has publically admitted this) was not prepared nor trained for this task. He was not given people who spoke Arabic to help him deal with the people there. And, as of when he wrote the article I read over a year ago, at least three people in his command had died from wounds he felt would likely had been much less severe had they been issued up-to-date body armor.
And you still haven't answered me why we're there.
---
I don't accept the "You can't criticize till it's over." attitude. When there are major screw ups as have occured in Iraq, especially when they people in charge try to conceal these screw ups and then take no responsibility for them when they are forced to admit that they occured, you have to speak up then. That's how you can contribute to fewer screw ups happening in the future. If people aren't willing to take responsibility for their actions, it becomes necessary for others to force them into this responsibility.
When I see a country that is still, infrastructure-wise, worse off than before the war, when I see a exteremely strong insurgency that is seemingly still growing in potency (and one that is always much stronger than the adminstration reports it to be - it's like 30 times now the insurgency has been on it's last legs), when I see our administration unwilling to set any timetable whatsoever to progress in that country, I don't see a country chugging along towards democracy. I see a friggin' mess.
And I'm afraid that this is what other countries in the region see. I'm afraid that this is the lesson they are taking in about democracy.
---
The lies I'm talking about specifically were concerning the proportedly active programs of trying to acquire and develop WMDs and a coordinated system used to hide this program from the inspectors. Without such programs, the "Iraq had some minor chemical weapons, most of which would be ineffective by now." was not adequate justification to start the crapstorm that we did. The inspections were apparently working, but the Bush administration made the decision to invade Iraq not matter what after 9/11.
I'm not saying that we didn't have justification for the war. I still believe that is true. But I am saying that they lied to get us there and that the acutal state of affairs makes it so invading was not a necessity and that it quite likely was a bad idea.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:like the guy you called a coward for disagreeing with the Bush administration
I didn't call Murtha a coward for disagreeing with the Bush administration. I called him a coward for wanting to cut and run out of Iraq, and the media liars for pretending like this was the first time he's come out against the war. Now, the Bush administration disagrees with cutting and running from Iraq, so Murtha does disagree with them - but my disdain for Col. Murtha is not based upon the administration's position.
quote:They sent them without adequate armor, without sufficient logitstical support, and without, get this, people who actually spoke the language.
Um. It's called war. Have you ever heard the saying "you always train to fight the last war"? That's what they did, like always. Armor was adequate - for the last war. Logistical support was adequate - for the last war. Nobody's ever fully ready for war, that's because it's not a luxury. Translaters - meh, you're right there.
You're upset because things didn't go perfectly. Well, why would you think that way? Even the best plan doesn't survive contact with the enemy. What we're doing in Iraq is difficult and mistakes will be made.
quote:when I see a exteremely strong insurgency that is seemingly still growing in potency
How do you see this? Who makes it seem like it is growing in potency? Are there any new Fallujahs? No. The only thing that they are growing in is desperation, which is why they are turning to terrorist attacks.
quote:I don't see a country chugging along towards democracy. I see a friggin' mess.
And I ask you, what would you have seen in 1778 here?
quote: when I see our administration unwilling to set any timetable whatsoever to progress in that country
I believe that what you mean is timetable to withdraw. That's not necessarily progress. We defeated Germany and Japan sixty years ago, helped them build democracies, and stationed troops there. They're still there. So why do you think we should give up on Iraq so quickly? Why shouldn't we stick this out for the long haul?
quote:And I'm afraid that this is what other countries in the region see. I'm afraid that this is the lesson they are taking in about democracy.
Nah. I'm afraid that the lesson the other countries in the region are learning is the same one Vietnam learned, that America doesn't have the guts to see things through once they get difficult, that we're riddled through and through with internal dissent. We need to prove that lesson wrong.
quote:But I am saying that they lied to get us there and that the acutal state of affairs makes it so invading was not a necessity and that it quite likely was a bad idea.
You still haven't shown me how they lied as opposed to merely being mistaken. There is a difference, and it's crucial.
Was invading not a necessity? We do know that Iraq was supporting terrorism - possibly not Al-Qaeda, but there's more terrorists in the world than just Osama - and it's always better to fight over there than over here. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Now, I'm not saying that invading was certainly a necessity, but I am saying that it is possibly a necessity. Bad idea? Dude, it's just beginning. Give it some time to see whether it was a bad idea or not.
quote:When I see a country that is still, infrastructure-wise, worse off than before the war
Um. It does take time to rebuild the infrastructure after a war. We're rebuilding it pretty fast, all things considered. Heck, we're nowhere near rebuilding the WTC replacements, and that happened four years ago and is only one construction project. Yet you expect us to rebuild a whole country faster? Your expectations for this war are unrealistic.
quote:I don't accept the "You can't criticize till it's over." attitude.
Yep, I gathered that. How about "you shouldn't criticize until things have a chance to pan out, otherwise you're increasing the chance that things will go wrong" attitude. There is a time for an evaluation, for an after-action report. It's after the action. Now, I don't think that reevaluating as we go is a bad idea, but the vicious criticism of the war has gone far beyond a mere desire to improve how we do things.
quote:When there are major screw ups as have occured in Iraq, especially when they people in charge try to conceal these screw ups and then take no responsibility for them when they are forced to admit that they occured, you have to speak up then. That's how you can contribute to fewer screw ups happening in the future. If people aren't willing to take responsibility for their actions, it becomes necessary for others to force them into this responsibility.
You say that you apply the same skepticism to the critics of the war that you do to Bush, but from my perspective it feels like I am arguing with Dan Rather. Please show me how you differ from them. It's fine that you thought the war was a good idea when it started, but so did almost all of the Democratic party.
quote:And you still haven't answered me why we're there.
Why we're still there, or why we were there in the first place? Regarding why we were there in the first place, I don't think that I can add anything that hasn't been said a million times over. Why we're still there? Because we're not done. Because we haven't given Iraq a solid chance to rebuild, because if we pull out we have a good chance to fatally weaken their ability to build a democracy, and because if we pull out (and this is my big one, and this is how I feel about Nam, which was a different situation), then every soldier and Marine who died did it in vain. If we pull out, then our lives WERE wasted.
quote:I'll offer you a wager on the Libby conviction thing. Whoever loses writes a full apology post on Hatrack containing the reasons why they were wrong.
I'm there. You might want to include that there was good indication that Wilson was an enemy of the administration and that he was implacable before they decided to expose his actions and those of his wife as being hostile.
Anyway, we'll see how this whole thing plays out in Iraq. Bush seems determined to stay the course, the Left seems determined to unstay the course, the Iraqi people seem determined to build a democracy (purple fingers), and the terrorists and islamofascists seem determined to destroy a democracy. Who will win? How will it turn out? Does opposition to a good thing make it less of a good thing or less worthwhile? How will history view it? We shall see.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When there are wild claims of such vast proportions -- Bush deceived Democrats, as far back as 2 years before he became President, into believing Hussein was a threat; Bush gathered blacks into the Super Dome to have them gassed; there were no WMD's; and now, Bush said the war would be paid for by oil revenues (!) -- we hardly have the option of substantive criticisms of the administration (which should be made). We're too busy pointing out that water isn't really dry.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will has a good point. The Bush administration does a LOT of things wrong - at least from my conservative standpoint. IMO, I'm worried to criticize him because it might give ammuntion to the proponents of the wild claims.
For example, let's assume for argument's sake that the claims of WMD were wrong. (I doubt that, but anyway...) Okay, so instead of looking to see where the intelligence failure occurred, seeing if and how we should change the way we gather information, and otherwise looking at the root sources and causes of the failure, we jump right to Bush lied, he deliberately warped and created evidence, and it's all a scam to drag us into a war, which of course Bush as a conservative loves loves loves.
See how that cripples the ability to reasonably criticize the war? Let's look for the causes of the intelligence failure, and if it then turns out that Bush did lie, then he lied.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"By definition, a government has no conscience. Sometimes it has a policy, but nothing more"–--Camus
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the administration tends to lie expediently.
I remember in the direct aftermath of 9/11, when Bush went to a safe location in Nebraska instead of back to Washington DC. He was lambasted by William Safire for not being a strong leader by returning to the capital to show resolve/strength/whatever.
A ludicrous claim to make. There were plenty of very good reasons. We didn't know if there would be another attack. It was a good idea to keep #1 and 2 in seperate locations. And in this day and age, he could do anything from Nebraska he could do in DC. It would have been a symbolic gesture with tangible risks.
Instead, they claimed there had been a threat to Air Force One phoned in, by someone using a code word that revealed insider knowledge.
I remember hearing that and thinking there was no way it was true. It sounded absolutely absurd.
And the White House admitted it wasn't true about a week later.
Of course, it was a mix up, not a fabrication. Supposedly.
It was a really small thing, all in all, but to me very telling. Instead of refuting Safire's ridiculous charge and trusting the judgement of the American people, they advanced an even more ridiculous explanation.
This isn't some goofy thing I pulled off the internet. I remember it happening and just having a sinking feeling in my gut.
And this war is like that incident writ large. Sure they thought there were WMD there and they wanted to get them out. But more than that they wanted Hussein out and to plant the seeds of Democracy.
Which may have been a good idea. But it wasn't the reason we were given.
And it is a task that would take strong, visionary, and HONEST leadership to accomplish. Leadership realistic enough to know that war is not easy. Leadership realistic enough to know that the American people needed to be rallied around a cause, not scared and prodded.
Mr. Card talked about the cynical "realists" like Snowcroft.
The administration used expedient lies and half truths, the most pragmatic and "realistic" way to sway the American people.
They were attuned to the "reality" that they knew better than us what needed to be done.
But realistically, I suspect they doomed their project by underestimating its difficulty and not bracing us for the long haul.
If this was done to reshape the world, if the stakes were really that high, all the more shame for bungling it so ham-handedly.
Posts: 24 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
tern, First, to make sure, you seem to be saying some things that from my perspective are highly damaging to your case. I'd like to ask if you meant them the way I'm taking them. First, you seem to be defending the decision to out Valerie Plame. From my perspective, the White House severely damaged our ability to collect information in order to pay someone back for tryign to hold them to the truth. I don't see how this action is defensible.
Second, you seem to be saying that you believe, despite all of the disconfirming evidence and even the admission by the Bush White House that their claims about Iraq's WMDs were false, that these claims were not false. Is that accurate?
Third, you seem to claim that Iraq had connections with terrorists. As far as I know, the only "connection" substantiated was that Saddam sent money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Is that what you're using as connections? If not, what else do you have?
---
Leaving those three points aside, I have plenty of other disagreements with your argument.
For example, I did actually show where they lied as opposed to being mistaken. Perhaps I was not clear enough as didn't refute what I said or even acknowledge it. So I'll be more specific.
The information Colin Powell used in the U.N. speech contained a pretty complelling case that the Iraqis were actively hiding their WMD programs from the inspectors. However, as we now know that there was no WMD program, this program of hiding it could not have existed. It's incredibly unlikely that the conversations about it that Secretary Powell referenced ever happened. Rather, they were fabricated by U.S. intelligence to support the claim that the Iraqis were hiding this nonexistent program.
Also, the speech included many confident assertions of claims that the experts told the White House were almost definitely false, the Niger yellowcake and aluminum tubes claims being the most visible. As I said, even if you stretch realy far to say that this isn't lying, you still have to admit that it is a serious betrayal of the public's and international community's trust.
---
As to preparing to fight the last war...err...I find that setiment really stupid for a couple of reasons. First, only incopetent generals prepare to fight the last war instead of using the year or so lead up to the Iraqi invasion to plan out what they were going to do.
Second, the "war" part of the operation went fine. The generals did plan well for this section and made good use of new technologies and the tactics and strategies that went along with them. They crushed the Iraqi forces even faster than anticipated. The armor, supplies, and logistics for invading Iraq were more than sufficient.
What was lacking, however, was any sort of responsible planning for the aftermath of the war. The troops were not prepared with the equipment, training, or logistical support for this. The plans had huge holes in them, such as failing to secure the borders or culturally and/or infrastructurally important facilities. Up until very recently, the doctrine for dealing with terrorist infestations was the much criticized raid and fade, where the Marines would go in, kill the people who were there, and then leave, failing to secure the area, which was then often repopulated with terrorists.
In hs own words, Donald Rumsfled, the man most directly involved in planning the war, said:
quote:It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.
Vice-President Cheney predicted:
quote:"I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months.
Former President George H. W. Bush had already gone to war in Iraq. He'd even written a book about the war and why he didn't feel that it was feasible to go for a full invasion or forcible regime change. When asked if he talked with his father or read the book, the current President Bush said:
quote:He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice. The wrong father to go to, to appeal to in terms of strength. There's a higher Father that I appeal to.
It's been longer than 6 months, we were not in fact greated as liberators, and the President damn well should have talked to his father. The Prince of Peace has never been a particularly reliable military advisor.
---
Their planning was poor and their execution lacking. Their predictions were ludicruous and only becmae more so as we actually carried out operations. Soldiers died because their leaders failed to give them adequate support or equipment, did not train them for the tasks that they'd be doing, and didn't supply them with people who spoke the language. The administration has pretty constantly announced succes, "Mission Accomplished", that we're turning a corner, that the insurgency is on it's last legs, and so on, just to be proven very very wrong. The justifications have changed and changed and changed again. Apparently you got the memo for why we actually went there, but for all I can tell it was that the Bush administration people had a real yen to invade Iraq and had decided, at least as early as 9/12/01 that, no matter what the evidence said, they were going to do it.
But you tell me that I shouldn't say any of these things, shouldn't point out that my leaders have made ridiculous predictions, performed very poorly, refused to take any responsibility, and been dishonest about the actual state of affairs, because it's not done yet. I don't accept that. When a man makes a nonesense claim like "We'll be there 6 days, maybe six weeks, but I doubt six months." he deserved to get called on it, especially when we've long since passed the 6 month mark and there is no end in sight. The only way that I see their performance improving is if they take responsibility for their mistakes and, since they are unwilling to accept responsibility, it becomes our job to force it on them. We owe it to our soldiers, we owe it to the Iraqi people, and, heck, we owe it to ourselves.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:First, you seem to be defending the decision to out Valerie Plame. From my perspective, the White House severely damaged our ability to collect information in order to pay someone back for tryign to hold them to the truth. I don't see how this action is defensible.
Frm my perspective, the goverment exposed a critic who was providing misleading information. The Plamegate case is very complex, and we'll see how it plays out. From what I can see, every side has been guilty of manipulating the truth on this issue.
quote:Second, you seem to be saying that you believe, despite all of the disconfirming evidence and even the admission by the Bush White House that their claims about Iraq's WMDs were false, that these claims were not false. Is that accurate?
Iraq attacked the Kurds and Whey...er...Iran with chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction. So, at one point not too long ago, Iraq had WMDs. Now, I don't know what happened to them *cough* *syria* *cough* but I find it difficult to believe that they went away completely. I find it more credible that they were hidden, moved, or destroyed.
quote:you seem to claim that Iraq had connections with terrorists. As far as I know, the only "connection" substantiated was that Saddam sent money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
quote:The information Colin Powell used in the U.N. speech contained a pretty complelling case that the Iraqis were actively hiding their WMD programs from the inspectors. However, as we now know that there was no WMD program, this program of hiding it could not have existed. It's incredibly unlikely that the conversations about it that Secretary Powell referenced ever happened. Rather, they were fabricated by U.S. intelligence to support the claim that the Iraqis were hiding this nonexistent program.
Apparently Saddam was fooled, too. The Iraqis were engaged in a program of delaying and obstructing UN investigators. Why? It sure looked like they had something to hide.
quote:However, as we now know that there was no WMD program
A WMD program can exist without WMDs - that's what comes before you actually make them.
quote:As I said, even if you stretch realy far to say that this isn't lying, you still have to admit that it is a serious betrayal of the public's and international community's trust.
It's not a stretch to say there were mistakes. It is a stretch to say that Chimpy McHallibushitlerton lied to get us into war. And the effect of this is instead of looking for intelligence failures (because our intelligence in Iraq, prewar, WAS terrible), we get sucked into a tribal defense of my tribe versus your tribe. Why don't we investigate the intelligence failures, and then if we find any evidence of lying, take it from there? You're convicting before a crime can be proven.
quote:As to preparing to fight the last war...err...I find that setiment really stupid for a couple of reasons. First, only incopetent generals prepare to fight the last war instead of using the year or so lead up to the Iraqi invasion to plan out what they were going to do.
Stupid or not, that's the way it works. In this case, they weren't far off, being as the last war was the First Gulf War. But who could have predicted all of the IEDs? Oh, wait, the same omniscient people who know that Bush lied. Right...
quote:Second, the "war" part of the operation went fine.
The first part went fine, but what's going on now is still pretty much a war.
quote:What was lacking, however, was any sort of responsible planning for the aftermath of the war
No, what was lacking was perfect planning for the aftermath of the war. So they weren't prepared for everything. So what? Adapt, improvise, and overcome.
quote:It's been longer than 6 months, we were not in fact greated as liberators, and the President damn well should have talked to his father. The Prince of Peace has never been a particularly reliable military advisor.
We were greeted as liberators. Hello, cheering crowds as we tore down statues of Saddam? And hey, the Prince of Peace was a great advisor for Moses and Joshua.
quote:Soldiers died because their leaders failed to give them adequate support or equipment, did not train them for the tasks that they'd be doing, and didn't supply them with people who spoke the language.
Welcome to the military. How's about we get our budget raised.
quote:but for all I can tell it was that the Bush administration people had a real yen to invade Iraq and had decided, at least as early as 9/12/01 that, no matter what the evidence said, they were going to do it.
You certainly seem willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. I commend you.
quote:But you tell me that I shouldn't say any of these things, shouldn't point out that my leaders have made ridiculous predictions, performed very poorly, refused to take any responsibility, and been dishonest about the actual state of affairs, because it's not done yet.
What I'm saying is that your perspective of this is colored by your political views and your great affection that you hold for Bush. What I'm saying is that there are alternative explanations, that things aren't as bad as you make it out to be.
quote:The only way that I see their performance improving is if they take responsibility for their mistakes and, since they are unwilling to accept responsibility, it becomes our job to force it on them.
What you apparently mean is if our leaders don't follow the same agenda and have the same beliefs and motivations that you do, it is a mistake, and it's your responsibility to force them to agree with the talking points of the Democratic tribe.
Certainly, mistakes have been made. How many frickin' times have I said that? But your over-the-top approach at reacting to them has the effect of making them defensive and unwilling to open up enough to look at what went wrong. Why should Bush publicly analyze the problems with the Iraq war when everything that he admits went wrong will become a way for his political enemies to attack him?
quote:We owe it to our soldiers
Let me tell you what you owe to the soldiers. Pay raises, bigger budget for better equipment, and if you're not going to help us take out the terrorists, you owe it to us to get out of our way and stop encouraging the terrorists. They read papers. They see, aha! We keep doing this, the American public is weak and will eventually turn against Bush, then they will withdraw, and then victory is ours! You owe it to us to help us win so that our deaths are not wasted.
Hey, worked for the North Vietnamese.
Now let me clarify something, because I know that you'll claim that I said otherwise:
I don't think that criticism of Bush, the war, or the conduct of the war is necessarily bad. However, I think it should be done with decorum, and in such a way as to avoid emboldening our enemies.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not Tern, and I am only speaking for myself here
quote: First, to make sure, you seem to be saying some things that from my perspective are highly damaging to your case. I'd like to ask if you meant them the way I'm taking them. First, you seem to be defending the decision to out Valerie Plame. From my perspective, the White House severely damaged our ability to collect information in order to pay someone back for tryign to hold them to the truth. I don't see how this action is defensible.
Except that your claim never happened.... This is a quote from Fitzgerald "Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion."
quote: Second, you seem to be saying that you believe, despite all of the disconfirming evidence and even the admission by the Bush White House that their claims about Iraq's WMDs were false, that these claims were not false. Is that accurate?
More accurate is that many countries Intelligence services, not just our own, believed that Iraq had WMD's. In the end, we did not find any, which is much different than where I believe you are headed in that Bush lied about everything to do with WMD's which is not an accurate portrayal of what happened.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, let's deal with what we know, and not what's supposed:
Iraq has developed and used WMD's in the past Iraq has buried several military items, to prevent them from being found and destroyed (and Iraq is a lot of territory to cover with a metal detector) Iraq completely circumvented the Oil-for-Food program Small quantites of Chemical Weapons were found Iraq has a basically open border with Syria Iraq fired long range missles at our troops, which had a longer range than they were allowed to build
And you can claim you KNOW there were no weapons of WMD program? I don't claim to know one way or the other, but based on what HAS happened and been found, Saddam was a sadistic nutjob, who flaunted everything the UN tried to impose, and I for one am glad he is gone. I didn't need the military to find nukes to believe the war was worth it.
As for the terrorist link, GW was pretty adamant that he was NOT going into Iraq after terrorists, and that it had nothing to do with 9/11
The Iraqi people did, for the most part, greet us as liberators. The terrorist "insurgents" are the remnants of his old guard, as well as foreigners.
And before I go on, I want something spelled out - I value every serviceman's life. My dream was to follow my father and grandfather into the service, but asthma kept me out. But this war has had a far lower casualty rate than any other war. And the men we're losing now, we're losing to terrorists. I agree that we should pull out, as soon as possible, and turn things over to the Iraqis. Key words: soon as POSSIBLE. If we pull out too soon, those men's lives will have been wasted, and the country will be worse off than when we arrived - and that's saying something.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Let me tell you what you owe to the soldiers. Pay raises, bigger budget for better equipment, and if you're not going to help us take out the terrorists, you owe it to us to get out of our way and stop encouraging the terrorists.
You know, I don't think I owe any of that to our soldiers. And I certainly don't owe it to the men who get them killed for stupid reasons.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
