Bush regime invades Iraq for 52 months... and...?

[Toe_Tag]

52 months into the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, our military is stretched to the breaking point, Iraq is descending deeper into civil war, and the president is moving more—and more poorly prepared—troops into battle. What has the Bush regime accomplished?

The Cost in American Lives is Rising
3,217: Number of American troops killed in Iraq since the beginning of the war
54: Percentage of troops killed who were 24 years old or younger

Coalition Support is Waning
49: Number of countries in the Coalition of the Willing when the invasion began in 2003
21: Number of countries in the Coalition by mid-2007 after Britain, Denmark, and South Korea reduce their forces
135,000: Number of American troops in Iraq
11,095: Number of non-American troops that will remain in Iraq after the upcoming Coalition withdrawals

Staying the Wrong Course
29,100: Number of additional troops President Bush and his generals have officially requested to send to Iraq as part of an escalation strategy
Up to 50,000: Likely number of additional combat and support troops that will actually have to be deployed for the escalation, according to a Congressional Budget Office report
59: Percentage of Americans who think the Iraq war was a mistake
13: Percentage of Americans who prefer the option of sending more troops to options involving some form of withdrawal

Our Troops Are Being Pushed Beyond Their Limits
31: Number of Army combat brigades that have served two or more tours in Iraq or Afghanistan, out of 44 total
420,000: Number of troops that have deployed more than once
50: Percentage of troops more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder if they serve more than one tour
50,000: Number of troops on whom “stop-loss” has been imposed, meaning they are prevented from leaving the Army when their enlistment end date arrives

Our Veterans Are Not Receiving Adequate Support
23,417: Number of troops wounded in Iraq
9 out of 10: Number of disabled veterans who have been made to wait for benefit evaluations longer than the Pentagon’s own standard of 40 days
76: Percentage of Americans who think the Bush administration has not done enough to care for Iraq war veterans

Violence is Increasing
150,000: Estimated number of Iraqi civilians killed by violence since the beginning of the war, according to the Iraq Health Minister (a conservative estimate)
34,452: Number of Iraqi civilians killed by violence in 2006, according to the U.N.
19: Average number of daily attacks by insurgents in December 2003
77: Average number of daily attacks by insurgents in December 2004
185: Average number of daily attacks by insurgents in December 2006
5,000: Estimated strength of insurgency nationwide in Iraq, November 2003
20,000-30,000: Estimated strength of insurgency nationwide, October 2006

Basic Needs Are Still Unmet
75: Percentage of Iraqis who believe security is poor, according to a June 2006 survey
3,700,000: Estimated number of Iraqis who have fled the country or been internally displaced
20: Percentage of the Iraqi population living below the poverty line (or 5,600,000 people)
25-40: Estimated unemployment rate for Iraqi population
14.2 to 26.5: Estimated percentage of Iraqis who are malnourished
75: Percentage of Iraqi elementary schoolchildren who attended school last year, according to the Iraq Ministry of Education
30: Percentage of Iraqi elementary schoolchildren who attend school now, according to the Ministry of Education

Costs are Mounting
100.8 bil.: Annual cost of the war in Iraq, according to current monthly spending of 8.4 bil. per month
$463 bil.: Cumulative estimated cost of the Iraq war as of 2007
$5.6 bil.: Estimated cost of the escalation, according to Bush administration
Up to $27 bil.: Estimated cost of the escalation, according to the CBO
$633 bil.: Projected cumulative cost of the Iraq war come 2008, figuring in the cost of the escalation
21: Percentage of the FY 2007 National Security Budget spent on Iraq
8: Percentage of the budget spent on homeland security
0.07: Percentage of the budget being spent on international broadcasting and educational cultural exchanges to win the war of ideas with terrorist groups

Americans Are Not Safer
75: Percentage of more than 100 foreign policy experts surveyed who think the war in Iraq had a “very negative impact” on protecting the American people from global terrorist networks and in advancing U.S. national security goals
75: Percentage of foreign-policy experts who think the United States is losing the war on terror
3,194: Number of terrorist attacks worldwide in 2004, as reported by the U.S. government’s National Counterterrorism Center
11,100: Number of terrorist attacks worldwide in 2005, as reported by the U.S. government’s National Counterterrorism Center
1: Rank of Iraq among all nations as a training ground for terrorists

There are no longer any good or easy options in Iraq. However, the United States can minimize the damage to its troops, its national security, and the security of Iraq and the region by redeploying troops from Iraq to address the mounting terrorist threat in Afghanistan. This strategy, in tandem with multiple diplomatic efforts involving Iraq’s neighbors in serious negotiations, just might allow the United States to extricate itself from the Bush administration’s war of choice in Iraq with our national security interests intact.

However, some members of this forum actually say we’re winning. :wanker: I didn’t know crack was so available on this island…

[fred_smith]

For a man who has Chavez as his avatar, one would imagine that the wonderful progress in Venezuela and the “revolution” Bolivar or otherwise in Latin America might be subject for some mirthful investigation.

52 months into the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, our military is stretched to the breaking point, Iraq is descending deeper into civil war, and the president is moving more—and more poorly prepared—troops into battle. What has the Bush regime accomplished?

The primary goals were to remove Saddam, determine that Iraq had no wmds and neutralize the nation as a threat to its neighbors. All three primary goals have been met.

[quote]The Cost in American Lives is Rising
3,217: Number of American troops killed in Iraq since the beginning of the war
54: Percentage of troops killed who were 24 years old or younger [/quote]

Well, that is about the number that were killed in the 911 attack. Shall we also look at all the other terrorist attacks prior to that? We are at war with a philosophy that preaches violence and which has its roots in the mess that is the Middle East. Bush never said Iraq or Saddam were tied to 911, but he did say that these hellholes with shitty leaders akin to Hitler in terms of violence needed to be removed for reform to progress.

[quote]Coalition Support is Waning
49: Number of countries in the Coalition of the Willing when the invasion began in 2003
21: Number of countries in the Coalition by mid-2007 after Britain, Denmark, and South Korea reduce their forces [/quote]

So everyone smirked at first about how the Marshall Islands and El Salvador were hardly “worthy” coalition partners and now that they have left we bemoan their loss? Oh dear.

[quote]135,000: Number of American troops in Iraq
11,095: Number of non-American troops that will remain in Iraq after the upcoming Coalition withdrawals [/quote]

So what past conflicts have had a large contingent of non-Americans doing the actual fighting? This is nothing new. This is why the US military has such contempt for many of its NATO allies. They are incapable of either getting themselves to a war zone or supplying themselves once they get there. Once deployed, their politicians spend weeks and months negotiating where and when and how they will be deployed and that involves never actually being in a hot zone.

[quote]Staying the Wrong Course
29,100: Number of additional troops President Bush and his generals have officially requested to send to Iraq as part of an escalation strategy
Up to 50,000: Likely number of additional combat and support troops that will actually have to be deployed for the escalation, according to a Congressional Budget Office report [/quote]

Relevance?

[quote]59: Percentage of Americans who think the Iraq war was a mistake
13: Percentage of Americans who prefer the option of sending more troops to options involving some form of withdrawal [/quote]

We had a public opinion poll president in Clinton. In hindsight, history has judged him to be without major accomplishments. Why?

[quote]Our Troops Are Being Pushed Beyond Their Limits
31: Number of Army combat brigades that have served two or more tours in Iraq or Afghanistan, out of 44 total
420,000: Number of troops that have deployed more than once
50: Percentage of troops more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder if they serve more than one tour
50,000: Number of troops on whom “stop-loss” has been imposed, meaning they are prevented from leaving the Army when their enlistment end date arrives [/quote]

I think that morale is quite high and we have heard about our military being at the breaking point for about four years now. When will the media and the hand wringers reach the breaking point? haha

[quote]Our Veterans Are Not Receiving Adequate Support
23,417: Number of troops wounded in Iraq
9 out of 10: Number of disabled veterans who have been made to wait for benefit evaluations longer than the Pentagon’s own standard of 40 days
76: Percentage of Americans who think the Bush administration has not done enough to care for Iraq war veterans [/quote]

This is serious. It is a problem. I take it as one. You are right to point this out. Something needs to be done.

[quote]Violence is Increasing
150,000: Estimated number of Iraqi civilians killed by violence since the beginning of the war, according to the Iraq Health Minister (a conservative estimate)
34,452: Number of Iraqi civilians killed by violence in 2006, according to the U.N.
19: Average number of daily attacks by insurgents in December 2003
77: Average number of daily attacks by insurgents in December 2004
185: Average number of daily attacks by insurgents in December 2006
5,000: Estimated strength of insurgency nationwide in Iraq, November 2003
20,000-30,000: Estimated strength of insurgency nationwide, October 2006 [/quote]

Add up all those casualties over the past four years, compare them to the same when Saddam was in power, ask yourself who is killing those people and why and then tell me how taking US forces out of Iraq would be the solution to preventing more deaths… Mindless…

[quote]Basic Needs Are Still Unmet
75: Percentage of Iraqis who believe security is poor, according to a June 2006 survey
3,700,000: Estimated number of Iraqis who have fled the country or been internally displaced
20: Percentage of the Iraqi population living below the poverty line (or 5,600,000 people)
25-40: Estimated unemployment rate for Iraqi population
14.2 to 26.5: Estimated percentage of Iraqis who are malnourished
75: Percentage of Iraqi elementary schoolchildren who attended school last year, according to the Iraq Ministry of Education
30: Percentage of Iraqi elementary schoolchildren who attend school now, according to the Ministry of Education [/quote]

I will note that under Saddam, 5 to 6 million Iraqis were living in exile. I will not discount that many have fled now. Iraq has been a violent place for quite some time. What are the chances of having a better future with the US led effort compared with what went before it?

[quote]Costs are Mounting
100.8 bil.: Annual cost of the war in Iraq, according to current monthly spending of 8.4 bil. per month
$463 bil.: Cumulative estimated cost of the Iraq war as of 2007
$5.6 bil.: Estimated cost of the escalation, according to Bush administration
Up to $27 bil.: Estimated cost of the escalation, according to the CBO
$633 bil.: Projected cumulative cost of the Iraq war come 2008, figuring in the cost of the escalation
21: Percentage of the FY 2007 National Security Budget spent on Iraq
8: Percentage of the budget spent on homeland security
0.07: Percentage of the budget being spent on international broadcasting and educational cultural exchanges to win the war of ideas with terrorist groups [/quote]

I will note your clever 8 percent of budget spent on homeland security… but only 1.6 percent for both Iraq and Afghanistan. Kind of sorta left that out didn’t you? Can we as a nation not afford 1.6 percent of our budget to deal with Iraq and Afghanistan?

[quote]Americans Are Not Safer
75: Percentage of more than 100 foreign policy experts surveyed who think the war in Iraq had a “very negative impact” on protecting the American people from global terrorist networks and in advancing U.S. national security goals
75: Percentage of foreign-policy experts who think the United States is losing the war on terror
3,194: Number of terrorist attacks worldwide in 2004, as reported by the U.S. government’s National Counterterrorism Center
11,100: Number of terrorist attacks worldwide in 2005, as reported by the U.S. government’s National Counterterrorism Center
1: Rank of Iraq among all nations as a training ground for terrorists [/quote]

How many terrorists have been killed in Iraq? Where would they be if they were not in Iraq? Afghanistan? Europe? The United States? The only valid part of this argument is whether Iraq and our effort there is increasing the number of terrorists. I believe that to a large degree that it is. BUT given that the elected leadership of Iraq has stated unequivocally that it does not want these people or their “help,” what can we do? leave Iraq now? would that help solve this problem? I don’t see how. Please explain the aftermath and how we would “win” more approval among Muslims with what follows. Also, please explain the poll numbers prior to the invasion regarding the Oil for Food program and sanctions… Those have ended now. Were we popular back then? with our daily bombings of Iraqi radar? the poor Iraqi women and children who starved or died for lack of medical care or supplies because Saddam was building palaces? Who was blamed?

There are no longer any good or easy options in Iraq. However, the United States can minimize the damage to its troops, its national security, and the security of Iraq and the region by redeploying troops from Iraq to address the mounting terrorist threat in Afghanistan. This strategy, in tandem with multiple diplomatic efforts involving Iraq’s neighbors in serious negotiations, just might allow the United States to extricate itself from the Bush administration’s war of choice in Iraq with our national security interests intact.

Yeah. We can redeploy to Afghanistan as many of you people have said all along but when the terrorists follow us there and things heat up will you then ask that we redeploy somewhere else? AND given that many of you were against the war in Afghanistan in the first place, why now the sudden interest in fighting there? I think that we should invade Iran to create a new “protest magnet” so that you people will suddenly lose interest in Iraq and the effort there. Might we then expect you to suggest that we redeploy out of Iran back to where the real fight is? in Iraq? Smirk.

However, some members of this forum actually say we’re winning. I didn’t know crack was so available on this island…

Apparently in large quantities and clearly you know where those sources are. Have fun!

[fred_smith]

Oh dear, the Democrats are getting on board the war effort in Iraq? What next? Tell us Toe Tag! What are we to make of this!

[quote]Turning Point?
An op-ed and a war.

An NRO Symposium

The New York Times ran a piece Monday by two non-“neoconservatives” — Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack — arguing that the war in Iraq can be won. Is this indicative of some kind of mood change afoot? Could we really win this war? Could the rhetoric in Washington really change? National Review Online asked a group of experts.

What are we to make of the fact that two of the Democratic party’s most knowledgeable critics of President Bush’s campaign to stabilize and democratize post-Saddam Iraq, Michael O’Hanlon and Robert Pollack, have publicly rejected the defeatists and called for a sustained U.S. effort there into 2008?
The short answer is that they have the wit to recognize mistaken claims that all is lost in Iraq when they hear them — and the courage to say so.

This assessment is remarkable, of course, not only for the fact that its authors are breaking ranks with nearly all of the rest of the Democrats’ foreign-policy establishment. It is also noteworthy for being the latest and, arguably, most objective indicator that the situation on the ground in Iraq is, indeed, changing for the better.

As such, the O’Hanlon-Pollack report makes plain one other truth: Those who persist in denying that General David Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy is having the desired, salutary effect and who insist that our defeat is inevitable are promoting a self-fulfilling prophesy.
They are so determined to score domestic political points by unilaterally ending the conflict in Iraq that they are prepared to surrender the country to al Qaeda and various Shiite militias and their respective Saudi, Iranian and Syrian enablers.

Public-opinion polling and anecdotal evidence suggests that Americans are beginning to appreciate the true nature — and potentially enormous costs — of the surrender in Iraq being advocated by many Democrats and a few Republicans. The O’Hanlon-Pollack op-ed may reflect that reality as much as shape it. Either way, its authors deserve our thanks.

— Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy. [/quote]

article.nationalreview.com/?q=YW … Q1N2ZmMWQ=

[cfimages]

@fred smith

We had a public opinion poll president in Clinton. In hindsight, history has judged him to be without major accomplishments. Why?

Longest economic expansion in US history.

Turned a record deficit into a record surplus.

Created more new jobs (over 90% in private sector) than any other administration.

Longest and fastest wage growth since the 1960s.

Lowest unemployment since the 1950s.

Lowest poverty rate since the 1970s.

Longest continuous drop in crime rates.

Brady Bill prevented over 500 000 felons, fugitives etc from buying guns.

Set up sex offender registration system to notify community when sex offenders are released from prison/move into an area.

Lowest %age of welfare recipients since the 1960s.

Most comprehensive Medicare reforms in history.

Highest child immunization rates in history.

Smallest govt since 1960.

Lowest govt spending since the 1960s (while at the same time increasing health, education etc spending)

Helped broker the Good Friday accords.

Restored a democratic govt and ended military dictatorship in Haiti.

Signed CNTB treaty, raitfied CW treaty and extended non-proliferation treaty.

And that’s just a few accomplishments. A damn site better than the Reagan/Bush years before, and the Bush years now. And mostly done while facing a hostile Republican congress that, in the words of Newt Gingrich, blocked things “because we can”.

[Hondu_Grease]

the situation on the ground in Iraq is, indeed, changing for the better.

do a little background on their trip to Iraq and you will see that they only went to an area of Baghdad that has, essentially, been ethnically cleansed of all Shia influence. Therefore, acts of violence are few and far between.

they witnessed the dangerous reality that is today’s Iraq…the only reason that sectarian conflicts are down is because a large part of the country has been segregated.

the American forces have disregarded the “democratically elected” government and embraced the Sunni militias.

i fail to see how embracing just one of the prominent groups in Iraq is going to solve the problem?

how long before the Shias and Kurds say enough is enough?

this is simply another misguided attempt to put a pretty pink bow on a steaming pile of shit!

[volcan]

For a man who has Chavez as his avatar, one would imagine that the wonderful progress in Venezuela and the “revolution” Bolivar or otherwise in Latin America might be subject for some mirthful investigation.

Should we talk about your avatar and the progress of Jacques Chirac’s law-suit?

The primary goals were to remove Saddam, determine that Iraq had no wmds and neutralize the nation as a threat to its neighbors. All three primary goals have been met.

Wrong, the primary goal was to get to the oil oil
oil
Sadam was not the primary target, and about the wmd’s, the administration did know exactly the status because THEY (Rumsfeld and CO.) sold all the weapons to them!

Well, that is about the number that were killed in the 911 attack

Again, Iraq and Sadam had nothing to do with this attack!!! So don’t try to compare this attack and Iraqs war. Those are 2 very different topics. Is this going into your brain? Because it’s so annoying to always hear the same crap.

We had a public opinion poll president in Clinton. In hindsight, history has judged him to be without major accomplishments. Why?

cfimages explained so well, now try to use Clinton as reference and not puppet Bush

Add up all those casualties over the past four years, compare them to the same when Saddam was in power, ask yourself who is killing those people and why and then tell me how taking US forces out of Iraq would be the solution to preventing more deaths… Mindless…

I think you are totally out of reality, the number of casualties and killings are way higher now then in the reign of Sadam, and according to recent reports, the current government backed-up by the Bush administration is responsible for most of them including torturing!!! Just switch off your TV stuck on FOXnew and look at other sources.

How many terrorists have been killed in Iraq? Where would they be if they were not in Iraq? Afghanistan? Europe? The United States?

:roflmao:
What a joke, we are ALL potential terrorists if our family members, brothers sisters and friends are killed massacred or tortured! You too!!! Actually your current killing spree over there are doing just that. Should I remind you that there was no Iraqis during the 911 attack and other attacks against the USA? If you have now, your government would be partially responsible.

AND given that many of you were against the war in Afghanistan in the first place

What a bullshit again, There were not many persons against this war to get rid-off the ruthless Talibans other then a few Leftists. Even if, the main concern for Bush and the big US oil companies was to build a pipeline through Afghanistan, something the Talibans refused.

by the way, your recent post mentioned your different position about this war, you clearly say that you have doubts, did it change recently?

[fred_smith]

Thanks for all the vitriolic nonsense. How many oil pipelines have been built across Afghanistan?

How much of Iraq’s oil does the US or American companies control?

The Chirac going to jail avatar is a joke. Get it? I doubt very much that the Chavez avatar is a joke for Toe Tag.

Thanks for the list of Clinton era accomplishments. Find me an economist who thinks that Clinton was behind the economic policies that delivered those benefits.

Finally, welfare reform was forced won Clinton’s throat. Remember the two vetoes before the act was implemented?

Anyway, I don’t want to argue about Clinton. What would be the point? He was very successful because he did not mess things up. But he was not the one who originated most of these policies. He understands that himself. I did not mind Clinton. I found him weak and prone to leadership based on polls. He gave the American people what they wanted but he was hardly a visionary to take them places that they did not want to go even if it would ultimately lead to their own securer future.

[Traveller]

@fred smith

The primary goals were to remove Saddam, determine that Iraq had no wmds and neutralize the nation as a threat to its neighbors. All three primary goals have been met.

Fred, that must be about the most inane comment i have ever heard you make, and boy you have made some.

Any country or leadership that invades another country with only those primary goals is fully deserving of the shit that they now find themselves in. All it does is highlight how unprepared, ill conceived and badly thought out the entire scheme was.

Anybody with an ounce of common sense and just a small knowledge of the areas culture could have seen the current scenario happening, as indeed some of us told you here on forumosa both before and especially after the invasion started.

In respect to the lack of foresight and preparedness etc, then you can almost compare Bush to Hitler when Hitler and the Nazi Party first came up with the idea of getting rid of the Jews.

By getting rid of Saddam, yes you achieved the objectives as set out above, but also removed a stabilising force in the area, without any conception of how to deal with it, and then you wonder why countries like Iran are now flexing their muscles far more so than in recent history.

[Rascal]

@fred smith

The primary goals were to remove Saddam, determine that Iraq had no wmds and neutralize the nation as a threat to its neighbors. All three primary goals have been met.

Now, now fred - do we need to dig out the pre-war quotes again that prove you wrong, i.e. where Bush & Co. claim, without any doubt, that Iraq has WMD?
That the US only went to determine Iraq’s WMD capacity was argued later, after the initial invasion and all the embarassment when they didn’t find any. But that doesn’t make it necessarily true.

You also obviously keep on forgetting what applied after the 1st Gulf war: Saddam’s armed forces were crippled, sanctions were in place and military expenditure was way down, and a UN watchdog was to ensure that he won’t aquire WMD in future. Any threat therefore was just hypothetical, not real.
Further no other reason beside the WMD claim would have been able to justify an invasion, not together and certainly not on it’s own. At best they were just a pretense to give this war some legitimacy and perhaps as a safeguard if no WMD would turn up (as it happened), hence now it’s all about “determining that Iraq had no WMDs and removing Saddam”.
Had there never been an issue of WMDs the US would not give a shit about Saddam and the well-being of the Iraqis.

How much of Iraq’s oil does the US or American companies control?

Quite a lot by indirect means, I think blackmail would be the appropiate keyword here:

Violating the very notions of freedom and democracy Bush invokes in nearly every speech on Iraq, the U.S. government has actively intervened in the restructuring of Iraq’s oil industry since at least 2002. At different times, the Iraqi government has been threatened that passing the oil law was a pre-condition for partial reduction of Saddam Hussein’s debts, for the provision of reconstruction funds, and even for the continued survival (through U.S. military support) of the al-Maliki government itself.

[fred_smith]

Now, now fred - do we need to dig out the pre-war quotes again that prove you wrong, i.e. where Bush & Co. claim, without any doubt, that Iraq has WMD?

Why would that matter if they truly believed that he did? Apparently so did your ambassador to the US and he was officially the spokesman for YOUR government. Let’s read on…

Beyond that, intelligence agencies from around the globe believed Saddam had WMD. Even foreign governments that opposed his removal from power believed Iraq had WMD: Just a few weeks before Operation Iraqi Freedom, Wolfgang Ischinger, German ambassador to the U.S., said, "I think all of our governments believe that Iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction."

opinionjournal.com/editorial … =110008415

or…

[quote]The Bush Administration acted on the basis of intelligence conclusions that were widely shared by previous administrations and foreign governments. President Bush was not the first American president to emphasize the long-term threat posed by Iraq. President Bill Clinton justified Operation Desert Fox, a three-day U.S. air offensive against Iraq, by invoking the threat posed by Iraqi WMD on December 16, 1998:

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Clinton’s National Security Council advisor Sandy Berger warned of Saddam’s threat in 1998, "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” Former Vice PresidentAl Gore said in 2002, “We know that [Saddam] has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” CIA Director George Tenet, a holdover from the Clinton Administration, declared that the presence of Iraqi WMD was a “slam dunk.” (For more on the political campaign to paint intelligence mistakes as conscious lies, see Norman Podhoretz’s excellent article, “Who Is Lying About Iraq?,” in the December issue of Commentary.)

The intelligence services of Britain, France, Russia, Germany, and Israel, among many others, held the same opinion. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin explained his concerns to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003: “Right now, our attention has to be focused as a priority on the biological and chemical domains. It is there that our presumptions about Iraq are the most significant. Regarding the chemical domain, we have evidence of its capacity to produce VX and Yperite. In the biological domain, the evidence suggests the possible possession of significant stocks of anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly a production capability.” The German Ambassador to the United States, Wolfgang Ischinger, said on NBC’s “Today” of February 26, 2003, "I think all of our governments believe that Iraq has produced weapons of mass destruction and that we have to assume that they still have—that they continue to have weapons of mass destruction.”

The Bush Administration may have been wrong about Iraqi WMD, but so were many other governments, few of which have been accused of lying. Moreover, three independent commissions have found that there is no evidence that the Bush Administration exaggerated the intelligence about Iraqi WMD.

In July 2004, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee issued a report with the following conclusions:

Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities. …

Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President’s visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.[1]

In March 2005, the bipartisan Robb-Silverman commission reached the same conclusion:

The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community’s pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.[2]

The July 2004 Butler Report, issued by a special panel set up by the British Parliament, found that the famous “16 words” in President Bush’s January 28, 2003, State of the Union address were based on fact, contrary to the claims of former ambassador Joseph Wilson, who has alleged that Bush’s assertion was a lie. Bush said, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” The Butler report called Bush’s 16 words “well founded.” The report also made clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes after the President spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence that he cited or the CIA’s conclusion that Iraq was seeking to obtain uranium.[/quote]

heritage.org/Research/Iraq/wm932.cfm

That the US only went to determine Iraq’s WMD capacity was argued later, after the initial invasion and all the embarassment when they didn’t find any. But that doesn’t make it necessarily true.

Really? You are talking out of your ass. Refer to the comments above.

You also obviously keep on forgetting what applied after the 1st Gulf war: Saddam’s armed forces were crippled, sanctions were in place and military expenditure was way down, and a UN watchdog was to ensure that he won’t aquire WMD in future. Any threat therefore was just hypothetical, not real.

Not according to most intelligence services including your own. Also, it does not matter what your intelligence thought or what your political leaders thought. ONLY the US is guaranteeing by treaty the security of the Persian Gulf. I thought you were so big on international law. AGAIN, the US is treaty-bound to defend these nations. Also, you have never proved that the US action against Iraq was illegal. You have merely proved that it was not legal. Otherwise where is the UN resolution calling the US invasion “illegal?” Isn’t that what would be necessary to make the action “illegal?” Cat got your tongue?

Further no other reason beside the WMD claim would have been able to justify an invasion, not together and certainly not on it’s own. At best they were just a pretense to give this war some legitimacy and perhaps as a safeguard if no WMD would turn up (as it happened), hence now it’s all about “determining that Iraq had no WMDs and removing Saddam”. Had there never been an issue of WMDs the US would not give a shit about Saddam and the well-being of the Iraqis.

That is your view. See the above quotes by Clinton administration officials as well as the intelligence agencies from all the other major nations involved. Cat got your tongue, eh?

[Rascal]

I will try to keep this short since we went through all this before:

@fred smith

Why would that matter if they truly believed that he did? Apparently so did your ambassador to the US and he was officially the spokesman for YOUR government. Let’s read on…

Yeah, yeah, the old “but others also said / believed” routine. Doesn’t change the fact that Bush & Co. stated Iraq has WMD.

As you said yourself: ‘Also, it does not matter what your intelligence thought or what your political leaders thought.’, so I expect this was the last time you ever quote them or refer to their statements.

Really? You are talking out of your ass. Refer to the comments above.

Yes, really. The comments in the quote don’t disprove that, instead perhaps you care to look at quotes from Bush & Co. that were made before the war.
They have been cited quite a few times, so to claim now that it was just about determining the WMD status is dishonest argumentation.

Not according to most intelligence services including your own. Also, it does not matter what your intelligence thought or what your political leaders thought. ONLY the US is guaranteeing by treaty the security of the Persian Gulf. I thought you were so big on international law. AGAIN, the US is treaty-bound to defend these nations. Also, you have never proved that the US action against Iraq was illegal. You have merely proved that it was not legal.

Not legal = illegal. Thank you.

That is your view. See the above quotes by Clinton administration officials as well as the intelligence agencies from all the other major nations involved. Cat got your tongue, eh?

You just said it doesn’t matter what they thought, so you may stop referring to them. And I may also remind you of previous discussions where we established that your own intelligence services did not see Saddam / Iraq as a threat and that your ‘best evidence’ (of WMD) was disproven during UN inspections, yet Bush went against those facts, insisted on his claims that Iraq had WMD and went to war. That’s “my view” indeed.

[MikeN]

[quote=“fred smith”]Oh dear, the Democrats are getting on board the war effort in Iraq? What next? Tell us Toe Tag! What are we to make of this!

[quote]Turning Point?
An op-ed and a war.

An NRO Symposium

The New York Times ran a piece Monday by two non-“neoconservatives” — Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack — arguing that the war in Iraq can be won. Is this indicative of some kind of mood change afoot? Could we really win this war? Could the rhetoric in Washington really change? National Review Online asked a group of experts.

What are we to make of the fact that two of the Democratic party’s most knowledgeable critics of President Bush’s campaign to stabilize and democratize post-Saddam Iraq, Michael O’Hanlon and Robert Pollack, have publicly rejected the defeatists and called for a sustained U.S. effort there into 2008?
The short answer is that they have the wit to recognize mistaken claims that all is lost in Iraq when they hear them — and the courage to say so.[/quote][/quote]

Eschewing the screaming reds, what are we to make of the fact that two rightwing Democrats who were among the most visible proponents of both the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the surge in 2007 come back from an eight day trip to Iraq and declare that the policy that they have been loudly and vociferously supporting is working?

Of course, if O’Hanlon and Pollack are conceded the status of experts on Iraq, does that mean that fred and the NRO crew agree with them that the iintervening four years of frustration in Iraq have been caused by the total incompetence, stupidity and mendacity of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld?

[quote]This assessment is remarkable, of course, not only for the fact that its authors are breaking ranks with nearly all of the rest of the Democrats’ foreign-policy establishment. It is also noteworthy for being the latest and, arguably, most objective indicator that the situation on the ground in Iraq is, indeed, changing for the better.

As such, the O’Hanlon-Pollack report makes plain one other truth: Those who persist in denying that General David Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy is having the desired, salutary effect and who insist that our defeat is inevitable are promoting a self-fulfilling prophesy.
They are so determined to score domestic political points by unilaterally ending the conflict in Iraq that they are prepared to surrender the country to al Qaeda and various Shiite militias and their respective Saudi, Iranian and Syrian enablers.
[/quote]

Well, other than the fact that Iraqi deaths in July have soared over the June numbers, and that American deaths, while benefiting from the usual July slowdown, are still almost twice as high as last July, just as the April to June figures were at a record high, that the supply of electricity in Baghdad has hit such a low that it has had to have stopped being reported…

In short, even though the actual numbers show them to be totally wrong, the fact that they spent a whole eight days talking to American commanders who assured them that their preconceptions were correct, talking to Iraqi officials sitting next to those Americans who totally agreed, and talking to ordinary Iraqis on the street who, surrounded by heavily armed American troops and speaking through official interpreters, told them exactly what they wanted to hear (since neither of our Middle Eastern experts speak Arabic, and since if they had tried to walk the streets without an armed escort they would immediately have been slaughtered by those same Sunnis who, we are assured, have come over to the side of Righteousness) we can be assured that totally objectively, this latter day Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin have brought us the straight goods with their miraculous conversion, albeit it from a position THAT THEY WERE ALREADY COMPLETELY SUPPORTIVE OF BEFORE THEY EVER SET FOOT IN IRAQ.

“Wow, amazing! It turns out that everything that we thought before we came to Iraq turned out to be totally right”

I’m only surprised that they didn’t throw in one of Tom Friedman’s cab drivers

[quote]Public-opinion polling and anecdotal evidence suggests that Americans are beginning to appreciate the true nature — and potentially enormous costs — of the surrender in Iraq being advocated by many Democrats and a few Republicans. The O’Hanlon-Pollack op-ed may reflect that reality as much as shape it. Either way, its authors deserve our thanks.

— Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy. [/quote]

article.nationalreview.com/?

Yes, amazingly, the fact that the MSM has once more jumped into the tank for the Bush Administration’s unsupported assertions has had a (slight) effect on public opinion.

[MikeN]

BTW, ‘war critic’ Pollack is the author of “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq” (2002); O’Hanlon wrote the WaPo op ed " A Skeptic’s Case For the Surge" (Jan 2007)

[MikeN]

From Messrs O’Hanlon and Pollack:

We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside.

That would be these reliable police?

[quote]Shiite militants and police enraged by massive truck bombings in the northwestern town of Tal Afar went on a revenge spree against Sunni residents there on Wednesday, killing as many as 60 people, officials said.

The gunmen began roaming Sunni neighborhoods in the city late Tuesday and continued through 8 a.m. Wednesday, shooting at residents and homes, according to police and a Sunni official.[/quote]

usatoday.com/news/world/iraq … ce-revenge
Shiite police kill up to 60 in revenge spree - USATODAY.com

Of course, that was in the distant past…four whole months ago, so for Iraqis I’m sure it’s water under the bridge.

[Gao_Bohan]

MikeN,

That was brilliant.

Gao

[fred_smith]

I will try to keep this short since we went through all this before:

The shorter the better

Yeah, yeah, the old “but others also said / believed” routine. Doesn’t change the fact that Bush & Co. stated Iraq has WMD.

So? They were wrong. What difference does that make? It would only matter if they had lied and every report determined that they had not. So who are you to decide that they did?

As you said yourself: ‘Also, it does not matter what your intelligence thought or what your political leaders thought.’, so I expect this was the last time you ever quote them or refer to their statements.

I am merely laughing at your desperate effort to get your own political leaders dropped from the conversation. Why is that?

[quote]Yes, really. The comments in the quote don’t disprove that, instead perhaps you care to look at quotes from Bush & Co. that were made before the war.
They have been cited quite a few times, so to claim now that it was just about determining the WMD status is dishonest argumentation. [/quote]

What were the quotes? Show me them again. I will show mine in return.

Not legal = illegal. Thank you.

Oh dear Rascal. You know fully that the US went to the UN in 1991 to have Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait declared illegal. Why was that? And given that the US occupation of Iraq was given UN sanction, then what are we to make of that? The invasion was “not legal” but not “illegal” and the occupation is “legal.” haha

You just said it doesn’t matter what they thought, so you may stop referring to them.

No. I said it does not matter what the Germans thought. I think that it matters a great deal what Clinton administration and Democrat officials said.

And I may also remind you of previous discussions where we established that your own intelligence services did not see Saddam / Iraq as a threat and that your ‘best evidence’ (of WMD) was disproven during UN inspections, yet Bush went against those facts, insisted on his claims that Iraq had WMD and went to war. That’s “my view” indeed.

Yes, the “best evidence” was disproved by UN inspections for the SPECIFIC cases mentioned but even Blix was quoted as saying he believed that Iraq had wmds and was hiding something and more important that it had not accounted for all of its stocks of chemical and bio agents. And if this is the case, which it most patently is not, then why would your ambassador to the US who was fully apprised of the “facts” and why would the French Foreign minister who was also fully apprised of the facts make the statements that they did in the weeks just prior to the invasion? Eh?

[fred_smith]

[quote]MikeN,

That was brilliant.

Gao[/quote]

Wow. Does not take much to impress you does it? haha

[Rascal]

@fred smith

So? They were wrong. What difference does that make? It would only matter if they had lied and every report determined that they had not. So who are you to decide that they did?

You claimed that the US gov said this war was about determining if Iraq had WMD, I objected by saying that the claim was about having WMD (as proven by the pre-war statements, see also below). That the claim turned out to be untrue is irrelevant for this argument. You wrong, me right.

I am merely laughing at your desperate effort to get your own political leaders dropped from the conversation. Why is that?

Because it was the US that argued the case and went to war. What others believed or not believed has no relevance to the US’ decision. Again it’s just a pathetic attempt to cover up their own failures or somehow justify their actions by shiftiting the focus to others (what others believed, said, claimed …).
Quite ironic actually when it was said earlier the US doesn’t need anyones help and that the opinion of others doesn’t matter (especially of those that objected the war), but now, after the big fuck-up, it’s all about them, not what Bush & Co. said.

What were the quotes? Show me them again. I will show mine in return.

For starters:

[quote]Cheney: No Doubt Saddam Has WMD
Aug. 26, 2002
Dick Cheney, Vice President
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” (more)

Bush: Iraq Currently Expanding WMD Production
Sep. 12, 2002
George W. Bush, Speech to UN General Assembly
“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.”

Sep. 12, 2002
George W. Bush
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

Bush: Iraq Has WMD Stockpile
Oct. 5, 2002
George W. Bush, Radio Address
“Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.” (more)

Bush: Iraq Possesses and Produces Chemical Weapons
Oct. 7, 2002
George W. Bush
“The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.” (more)[/quote]
More quotes here.

No. I said it does not matter what the Germans thought. I think that it matters a great deal what Clinton administration and Democrat officials said.

Does it? I thought Bush is a Republican and he, the great leader of the free world, made the decision(s).

Yes, the “best evidence” was disproved by UN inspections for the SPECIFIC cases mentioned but even Blix was quoted as saying he believed that Iraq had wmds and was hiding something and more important that it had not accounted for all of its stocks of chemical and bio agents. And if this is the case, which it most patently is not, then why would your ambassador to the US who was fully apprised of the “facts” and why would the French Foreign minister who was also fully apprised of the facts make the statements that they did in the weeks just prior to the invasion? Eh?

Quote Blix please and state the date.

[fred_smith]

haha Rascal hahaha I love it when you get your self-righteous law-abiding German persona on.

1. No one lied. At least, no one proved that any US leader lied.
2. Your statements where US officials said Saddam HAS wmds are excellent. That would therefore prove an imminent threat and therefore justify the invasion. The fact that there were no wmds is beside the point as long as US officials genuinely believed that wmds existed. Every report that has come out stated that this was the case. I merely mention your own German leaders to prove that we were not alone in that belief and that if a nation that opposed the invasion believed that he had wmds (ditto for France), why was it so reprehensible that US officials who were attempting to build support for the invasion actually believed that he did?
3. Regardless of the actual existence of wmds, Saddam was treaty bound to comply with inspectors to prove that he was not developing wmds. He did not. No one ever said that he had complied. The ceasefire ending the first Gulf War was thus null and void. Just because we waited 12 years does not make that matter any less clear or… LEGAL.
4. The US went to the UN in 1990 to declare the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait “illegal.” This thus constitutes a precedent. The fact that the UN never declared the US invasion of Iraq “illegal” means that at best it was “not legal” and never “illegal.” The fact that the occupation was declared “legal” sort of weakens the case even more. What is the big deal now about the “legality” of the invasion when the occupation is declared “legal?” hmmm

I really have to laugh at this though. I understand your motivations very clearly. I understand that you have a need to point to the US to distract everyone from the fact that after your nation’s reprehensible history, that yet again it was your nation that did more than anyone to stoke the Yugloslav civil war (against the wishes of your 14 EU partners) and that your nation (again) sold Saddam most of his chemical, nuclear and missile technology, equipment and supplies (50 percent). That again, it is your nation now that is funding the mullahs and is the largest source of loans to North Korea. When will you guys learn? and you dare to speak to me about international law and/or ethical behavior? hahaha I love it. I cannot tell you how much I enjoy this pompous parading of sanctimonious self-righteous posturing. It amuses me to no end. I only wish that Gunther Grass was able to read these posts. I have no doubt it would lead to a sequel to Crab Walk.

[BroonAle]

[quote=“fred smith”]At least, no one proved that any US leader lied.
[/quote]

One doesn’t need proof yankstain, having no proof of WMD’s was good enough for an invasion.

Now fuck off.

BroonAnthrax