[quote=“mofangongren”] guess Bush just took his eye off the ball to pursue a pre-911 obsession with Iraq. It’s like trusting a teenager with the car to go down and pick up some groceries – and 12 hours later you get a drunken call from two states away.
[/quote]
Haha, I never heard a better summary.
I also said somewhere, “the late George W. Bush” is more mature now.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Amidst the usual weeping & wailing and gnashing of teeth, lets look and see how the WOT is really plugging along.
Nobody said it ws going to be a quick endeavour. Nobody promised an end-time.
This is an on-going effort. But is is making progress. Look at what has been accomplished so far.
Terrorist Scorecard
The Iraqi “Deck of Cards” Scoreboard
Centcom’s New Iraq Scorecard
Saudi Arabia’s Most Wanted Scorecard
Saudi Arabia’s New Most Wanted Scorecard
The Round-up Blog[/quote]
Yes, lets. According to the article below, the WOT has been so UNSUCCESSFUL that goals/expectations are continually being reduced as the original “plans” for war in Iraq, and then those succeeding it have been ridiculously UNREALISTIC.
[quote]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300853_pf.html
Quote:
The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.
The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.
“What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground,” said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. “We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we’re in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning.” [/quote]
Also, regarding the “score card” approach to measurement. Consider this: you forgot one casuality, the “old Europe” alliance - dead. To fight an INTERNATIONAL WAR on Terror, one needs the cooperation of other Nations (can’t get around it - I’d like to see the “prison” Iran has for the terrorists they’re holding - ha). ALso, it seems that more terrorists are being created than killed or incarcerated. See poll below for some relevant information.
[quote]A Year After Iraq War
Mistrust of America in Europe Ever Higher, Muslim Anger Persists
Released: March 16, 2004
Navigate this report
Summary of Findings
Additional Findings and Analyses
About this Survey
Questionnaire
Summary of Findings
A year after the war in Iraq, discontent with America and its policies has intensified rather than diminished. Opinion of the United States in France and Germany is at least as negative now as at the war
[b]Republican Senator Hagel says that we
Our weekly update on how the WOT is really plugging along.
Nobody said it was going to be a quick endeavour. Nobody promised an end-time.
This is an on-going effort. But is is making progress. Look at what has been accomplished so far.
Saudis kill al-Qaida leader
Transplanted Jihadi
Bangladesh detains dozens over bombings
Iraqi Police almost ready to run streets on their own
Philippines arrests militant suspects in July blast
1/5 Marines capture likely IED triggerman, Al Quida leader look-alike
Hizb area commander arrested in J-K
Combined Iraqi, U.S. operations net 25 terror suspects
Terrorist Scorecard
The Iraqi “Deck of Cards” Scoreboard
Centcom’s New Iraq Scorecard
Saudi Arabia’s Most Wanted Scorecard
Saudi Arabia’s New Most Wanted Scorecard
The Round-up Blog
Right, wanne see more red on this list.
Would be nice if my thread title would seem ridiculous in a few years time, sigh
[quote]the Bush Plan http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040524-10.html:
“Hand authority over to a sovereign Iraqi government.”
“Help Iraqis hold free elections by January 2005.” [/quote]
I think everyone will agree that the Bush Admin has succeeded in the first 2 objectives. But, I think the final configuration of Iraq’s govt will not be something that the neocons and this admin anticipated or wanted. I think that quite possibly Iraq will become country where women’s rights are compromised, and they will become burqa-wearing second class citizens who can not do anything without a man to do it for them. That saddens me. We may also see an Islamic republic aligned with Iran. Or even the break up of the 3 major constituencies into their own countries (Kurdistan, a sunni-center, and shiite islamic republic in the south). The current impasse over BIG issues like federalism, women’s rights, and the role of Islam are very concerning.
Link: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050815/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
http://ap.washingtontimes.com/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=DCTMS&SECTION=HOME
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165707,00.html
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/08/03/us_urges_rights_for_women_in_iraq_document/
I think the coalition forces and their Iraqi counterparts are trying mightily to see this happen. Unfortunately, the continuing lack of security and sabotage due to the insurgency has really hampered these efforts. And, I might add the ineptitude of civilian leadership in the Pentagon. I applaud soldiers for building schools and hospitals, but when they get blown up the following week that hardly counts as progress. Iraq needs security, so that the rebuilding efforts can be sustained. Unfortunately, the U.S. efforts are inadequate - for whatever reason. Iraqis STILL have less access to electrical power than before the war as well as to other things like education, healthcare.
[quote]In Iraq, Living Conditions “Tragic”
By Niko Kyriakou
Inter Press Service
May 16, 2005
Iraqis’ living conditions have deteriorated and pose challenges for development efforts two years after the US-led invasion, says a groundbreaking new joint Iraqi-United Nations report. The Iraq Living Conditions Survey (ILCS), based on data from 22,000 households and released last week, is the first comprehensive statistical description of living standards in the country produced in years and is expected to steer future reconstruction and development assistance, officials said.
“This survey shows a rather tragic situation of the quality of life in Iraq,” Barham Salih, Iraq’s minister of planning, said in a statement. Household surveys were conducted last year and measured indicators ranging from health to employment, housing, status of and access to public services, education, income and war-related deaths. The report estimates the number of Iraqis who have died since the US-led invasion of 2003 somewhere between 18,000 and 29,000. Of those deaths, 12% were children under 18 years of age, meaning that between 2,100 and 3,500 children have been killed in the war thus far, according to ILCS data.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2005/0516tragic.htm[/quote]
Bush has actually got countries on board to forgive debt. That’s good. He’s even enlisted the U.N./Kofi Annan (boo hiss 
) to support him in this.
[quote]UNITED NATIONS May 2
This is encouraging, in a grisly way:
[quote]In the western city of Ramadi, meanwhile, Sunni tribal members shot and killed a Saudi and three other members of the country’s main insurgent group, al Qaeda in Iraq, headed by Abu Musab Zarqawi, witnesses and sources said. Killings there, too, marked rapidly escalating tensions between foreign-led fighters and Sunnis.Zarqawi’s forces, sheltering in Sunni areas of central and western Iraq, are challenging the Sunni move into the political process with fierce determination.
…
On Thursday, gunmen opened fire on a Ramadi meeting of political, tribal and religious leaders discussing the constitution. The local governor, leading western Iraq’s heavily Sunni Anbar province, was at the meeting but escaped injury.
On Friday, a Saudi insurgent leader, Abu Muhammad Hajeri, of Zarqawi’s group, was found dead in Ramadi with three Iraqi members of the insurgency. Sunni tribal members, speaking on condition of anonymity, said tribesmen had killed them.
The killings were in retaliation for tribal deaths in clashes earlier this month, when Sunni tribesmen took up arms to prevent Zarqawi’s group from enforcing an edict ordering the expulsion of local Shiites, the tribal members said.[/quote]
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … tml?sub=AR
The best hope is if the Sunni Iraqi insurgents can be split from the Zarqawi/al-Qaeda foreigners and brought into the political process. The Baathist hard-core will probably also continue to fight, but if the insurgents and their supporters who are fighting for nationalist or even Sunni chauvinist reasons can be peeled away, the extremists will be left isolated.
MikeN -
A very interesting interview, both in print and english sub-titled video, directly relating to the story you post is available here at MEMI:Iraqi Confession TV Series Captured Iraqi Terrorist Ramzi Hashem Abed: Zarqawi Participated in the Plot to Assassinate Baqer Al-Hakim.. Click on the [color=red]red link[/color] at the top for the video.
Watch the interview to see what these scum are really like.
The interview is not violent nor bloody, as are the terrs beheading videos, but quite chilling as he describes the actions of his group. The interview also describes where the foreign terrs are coming from.
This is what zaqawi and his scum are doing - murdering, raping and terrorising the country. Great subject for an avatar, eh?
A couple of interesting reads on the war on terror and in Iraq. The first is by Maureen Dowd at the NYT. In her column she nicely summarizes an article by Henry Kissinger:[quote=“Dowd”]He said Mr. Bush had only a few things to accomplish: train a real Iraqi Army that includes all religious and ethnic groups, make the Shiites stop hating the Sunnis and the Kurds stop hating everyone, and keep the Iranians from creating a theocratic dictatorship in Iraq. Oh, yeah, and a couple of other teensy little things: our troops have to defeat the vicious Iraq insurgency, and Mr. Bush needs to keep domestic support for the war.[/quote]
As pithy and entertaining as Dowd is, what most interests me are the following parts of Kissinger’s article:
he questions the current administration’s assessment of the situation, its means of measuring success, and introduces the dreaded Vietnam analogy (which is limited and qualified).
he stresses the importance of having domestic support at home, and international support abroad… both of which the administration has been unable, or unwilling, to secure: [quote=“Kissinger”]All this demonstrated two principles applicable to Iraq: Military success is difficult to sustain unless buttressed by domestic support. And an international framework within which the new Iraq can find its place needs to be fostered."[/quote]
Kissinger emphasizes that the importance of the war in Iraq is of far greater importance than that of Vietnam. The later was a national struggle, whereas the war in Iraq and war on terror is about the clash of ideologies, cultures and religious beliefs. [quote=“Kissinger”] If a Taliban-type government or a fundamentalist radical state were to emerge in Baghdad or any part of Iraq, shock waves would ripple through the Islamic world. Radical forces in Islamic countries or Islamic minorities in non-Islamic states would be emboldened in their attacks on existing governments. The safety and internal stability of all societies within reach of militant Islam would be imperiled.[/quote]
discussing the importance of reforging an Iraqi national identity, Kissinger questions the effectiveness of the constitutional approach–favoured by the administration–of doing so. He believes that this task is of such importance to Iraq’s stability, and given point 3 above, to the international community, that it requires the participation and cooperation of allies who [quote=“Kissinger”]may prefer to act as bystanders, but reality will not permit this for their own safety. Their cooperation is needed, not so much for the military as for the political task, which will test, above all, the West’s statesmanship in shaping a global system relevant to its necessities.[/quote] No doubt greater statesmanship is required on all sides, but “Western statesmanship” and “Western leadership” have been diplomatic code words for “American statesmanship and leadership” since WWII ended America’s period of splendid isolation. And the allies have already proven their willingness to contribute militarily when convinced of the necessity and utilitity of such action–in Afganistan. Those same allies, having decided not to contribute to Bush’s adventure in Iraq, have been shut out–by Washington–of the political dimension ever since. When the UN attempted to step in and fill that void, the inability of the occupation forces to provide even minimal security resulted in its withdrawal… and that of numerous NGOs who could have done no end of good in the battle for hearts and minds.
While Kissinger is careful to avoid direct criticisms of the administration, by questioning its declarations, means of measuring the current sitution, strategy for dealing with the insurgency, and chosen path of political isolation (from half of America and most of the world) he’s obviously sending a message to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice that they’ve gotten it wrong on virtually every count.
The same message that the left, and non-neocon right has been is repeating time and time again is now being delivered by Nixon’s Secretary of State. Bush needs to unite the country and get other nations onside by patching fences, offering a real vision and sense of direction. And there needs to be an end to the attitude that says, at best, “get onside or get out of the way” when friends refuse to participate in a foolish misadventure. Kissinger hasn’t yet taken the next step by suggesting that Iraq was the wrong place to fight the war on terror, but if he does, I expect Rove et al. to trot out a long line of witnesses questioning his character, mental health (he is an old guy now), and right to question the actions of the cast currently on a stage of which he was a master… if that’s not already in the works.
Going into Iraq, a tinpot secular dictatorship, to “fight islamic terrorism” makes about as much sense as going into a pristine, uninfested kitchen and spreading cornflakes about the floor because of one’s desire to squash cockroaches out of existence.
While the cockroach death total after a week might be quite impressive, it doesn’t do much for one’s relationship with the friends and neighbors. Even if you’ve crossed off all sorts of cockroaches (depicted on a convenient 52-card deck of cockroach playing cards), eventually you realize that the damn things breed like crazy.
The weekly update on how the WOT is really moving along.
Nobody said it was going to be a quick endeavour. Nobody promised an end-time.
This is an on-going effort. But is is making progress. Look at what has been accomplished so far.
Iraqi Soldiers, U.S. Marines Kill Two Attacking Insurgents (Plus Iraqis reporting weapons caches)
Commander: Taliban recruiting at schools
Six Taliban killed in raid on Afghan bomb store
Prominent Islamic Cleric Among Those Detained in Bangladesh Bombings
Hizbul Mujahideen militant arrested in Patna
Top Lashkar militant held in Delhi
BRITAIN: GROUNDS FOR DEPORTATION ANNOUNCED
AFGHANISTAN: OSAMA BIN LADEN REPORTED INJURED
PAKISTAN: ISLAMIC SCHOOLS COY ABOUT THEIR BOOKS (Finances)
Prosecutors demand death for Australian Embassy bomber
Police arrest alleged al-Qaeda member
Terrorist Scorecard
The Iraqi “Deck of Cards” Scoreboard
Centcom’s New Iraq Scorecard
Saudi Arabia’s Most Wanted Scorecard
Saudi Arabia’s New Most Wanted Scorecard
The Round-up Blog
I would love to know how you got this from Kissinger’s article. I totally disagree that Kissinger is in anyway saying that the Bush administration got it wrong on virtually every count. In fact, his Vietnam analogy would seem to strengthen the view that Tet was a success for America and it was only the lack of political will at home that was to blame. Hence, it is not Bush’s problem but one of the body politic and who is beating the same drums of failure again? The Left. So take the message from Kissinger as being one of we should be united behind the president and we will win.
I also agree that what Ms. Dowd, and Jaboney, offer does not, IMO, reflect Dr. K’s views in his article.
Dr. K is quite clear in cautioning against drawing too close a VN - Iraq parralel.
Dr K speaking of the VN experience)
"America’s emotional exhaustion with the war and the domestic travail of Watergate had reduced economic and military aid to Vietnam by two-thirds, and Congress prohibited military support, even via airpower, to the besieged ally. None of the countries that had served as guarantors of the agreement was prepared to lift a diplomatic finger.
In summation
"Can a genuine nation emerge in Iraq through constitutional means?
The answer to that question will determine whether Iraq becomes a signpost for a reformed Middle East or the pit of an ever-spreading conflict. For these reasons, a withdrawal schedule should be accompanied by some political initiative inviting an international framework for Iraq’s future. Some of our allies may prefer to act as bystanders, but reality will not permit this for their own safety. Their cooperation is needed, not so much for the military as for the political task, which will test, above all, the West’s statesmanship in shaping a global system relevant to its necessities."[/quote]
What we see is not an indictment of current US, and active Coalition member, policies. It is a clear minded presentation of historical perspective by an active player.
No blame assesed or layed; just a valid statement of terms and conditions required from Dr. K’s seat on the playing field.
[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Dr. K is quite clear in cautioning against drawing too close a VN - Iraq parralel.[/quote] Which is precisely what I stated:[quote=“Jaboney”]1) he questions the current administration’s assessment of the situation, its means of measuring success, and introduces the dreaded Vietnam analogy (which is limited and qualified).[/quote] The significance of the Vietnam analogy is that he introduces it all–the White House most certainly will not–and does not dismiss it. It’s application is limited, and qualified, but it is relevant.
[quote=“fred smith”]In fact, his Vietnam analogy would seem to strengthen the view that Tet was a success for America and it was only the lack of political will at home that was to blame. Hence, it is not Bush’s problem but one of the body politic and who is beating the same drums of failure again? The Left. So take the message from Kissinger as being one of we should be united behind the president and we will win.[/quote] If this is Kissinger’s means of rallying the populace, it’s a stunning failure. (In fairness, the guy’s never had “the common touch” like W., but then, I share the lack. shrug)
If the president, having been able to rally popular support for his Iraqi adventure, is unable to maintain that support, who’s to blame? That part of the population unwilling to endure a “war that does not end”? How about those who supported the president because they felt Iraq’s WMDs posed a threat, only to learn that threat wasn’t true? How about those led to believe that Saddam was connected to 9/11, who have since learned otherwise? Those who felt helping establish an Arab democracy in the region was worthwhile, only to learn that the democracy taking shape looks too much like the one next door in Iraq? With all the reasons for getting rid of Saddam, the administration’s decision to sell this adventure for all the wrong reasons seems a miscalculation at best. I can’t blame anyone for withdrawing their support; left, right, or unaligned.
Again, if the international community declines to sign up for this adventure, or signs up and then withdraws, whose fault is that? Does everyone, save the neocons, lack resolve?
Kissinger sets forth two principles: “Military success is difficult to sustain unless buttressed by domestic support. And an international framework within which the new Iraq can find its place needs to be fostered.” Has the administration been able to maintain either? No.
Kissinger’s hardly a peaceable flower child. His political methods have always been unapologetically ruthless. I’m not saying that he thinks Bush & Co. were wrong to march on Baghdad, only that according to his analysis, they’ve gone about it the wrong way. Read his concluding paragraphs and ask yourself how many of his questions invite a positive answer.
[quote=“Kissinger”]Is it then possible to speak of a national army at all? Today the Iraqi forces are in their majority composed of Shiites, and the insurrection is mostly in traditional Sunni areas. It thus foreshadows a return to the traditional Sunni-Shiite conflict, only with reversed capabilities. These forces may cooperate in quelling the Sunni insurrection. But will they, even when adequately trained, be willing to quell Shiite militias in the name of the nation? Do they obey the ayatollahs, especially Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, or the national government in Baghdad?
And if these two entities are functionally the same, can the national army make its writ run in non-Shiite areas except as an instrument of repression? And is it then still possible to maintain a democratic state?
The ultimate test of progress will therefore be the extent to which the Iraqi armed forces reflect – at least to some degree – the ethnic diversity of the country and are accepted by the population at large as an expression of the nation. Drawing Sunni leaders into the political process is an important part of an anti-insurgent strategy. Failing that, the process of building security forces may become the prelude to a civil war.
[b]Can a genuine nation emerge in Iraq through constitutional means?
The answer to that question will determine whether Iraq becomes a signpost for a reformed Middle East or the pit of an ever-spreading conflict.[/b] For these reasons, [color=blue]a withdrawal schedule should be accompanied by some political initiative inviting an international framework for Iraq’s future. Some of our allies may prefer to act as bystanders, but reality will not permit this for their own safety. Their cooperation is needed, not so much for the military as for the political task, which will test, above all, the West’s statesmanship in shaping a global system relevant to its necessities.[/color][/quote]
Who is responsible for taking that political initiative, those locked out of the process, or those at the center? I suggested “greater statesmanship is required on all sides, but “Western statesmanship” and “Western leadership” have been diplomatic code words for “American statesmanship and leadership” since WWII ended America’s period of splendid isolation.” Do you disagree?
Kissinger is not trying to rally the populace anymore than he is criticizing Bush. His article, I believe, lays out the conditions that will make victory or failure possible.
The media and the left which lost the war in Vietnam through their traitorous actions. It has not become accepted that Tet was a disaster for the Viet Cong but was that the message that the American people received? Are we receiving the message that the vast majority of Iraqi people support us in our efforts even though they may not like the occupation?
The war will end. How many times did Bush say that we were in for a long fight to defeat terrorism. The media is the one that works on the 24 hour news cycle. It is highly irresponsible and not very objective. This is why I have such contempt for the media. There are some who have learned the lessons of Vietnam. Regardless, we will not be leaving this time no matter how low support falls for this war among the American people. I wonder what a typical poll would have said 20 years ago about keeping our forces in Germany, Japan and Korea and yet there we still are today. This will have bipartisan support. No Democratic President will actually remove the troops either if they are still needed.
You and others of the left continue to harp on this, but the Duelfer report said that Saddam was a threat and that he would have started his wmd programs once sanctions were lifted so while no wmds were discovered, it does not mean that Saddam and future wmds were not a threat. You are deliberately miscasting what the findings of these reports. If you are getting this views from the mainstream media, then obviously something is wrong right?
We have no proof that Saddam was involved with 911 DIRECTLY but the Duelfer report noted a number of contacts and tie-ins between Saddam and various terrorist groups. Again, this is a total miscasting of the findings of these reports. AND I think that most American people did not focus on the media machinations but instinctively understood that Saddam was a SIMILAR threat as that posed by al Qaeda regardless of whether they were specifically proved to have cooperated on 911.
I believe that you are referring to next door in Iran, BUT this is not what is happening in Iraq and this again is a total mischaracterization of what is going on in Iraq. There are no negotiations or discussions regarding anything in Iran. It is a rubberstamp parliament with no teeth. This is not the case in Iraq. All this fearmongering regarding Shia linkups is not going to happen anymore than the Spanish and French and German Catholics would have linked up in the 17th Century.
Again, Tigerman has provided direct quotes from Bush’s speeches on many occasions in which the president listed a number of reasons foremost among them reforming the Middle East NOT wmds. AGAIN, we were going to act BEFORE Saddam became an imminent threat so that meant BEFORE he had nuclear weapons. Bush never said he had them. Again, look at what Bush has said. IF you have gotten the wrong impression than either you are willfully misunderstanding what has been said or the media is not getting that message to you clearly enough. Either way, you cannot blame Bush for your ignorance. Only you can remedy that.
Again, a total mischaracterization of what happened. The MAJORITY of both NATO and EU nations sent forces, but so what? ultimately any conflict is going to be about mostly American troops. Do you think that an additional 3,000 from France and 1,500 from Germany is going to make a difference? Besides France and Germany are now cooperating on training and the Germans are even sending their border police forces to Iraq albeit quietly. What lack of international support. Most East Asian nations also sent forces.
All nations are working to aid Iraq even those that opposed the war. This includes debt write off and such even by France and Germany. What do you mean no international support? Also, while the public opinion is a long-term worrying trend, the fact that the US army has been exceeding all its recruitment targets is more important in my opinion as is having a president who does not let polls decide how America will act. What can I say? The public is fickle are you surprised about this?
No he has a brain and he also has morality which is why he did not willingly abandon millions to die in Communist death camps. We needed the “peaceable” flower children for that now didn’t we? He all but crawled along the floor in the Capitol to beg the House of Representatives not to cut the budget and military support for South Vietnam.
Prove it. This is more leftist claptrap. How was he unapologetically ruthless? Look at the number of people who fell under communism and died under the Nixon administration and compare that with later ones like Ford with the Democrat controlled Congress and Carter and then scratch your head. Apparently, Carter is responsible for more deaths and more loss of freedom. So I guess Carter is a nice guy but his actions have resulted in more ruthlessness. Interesting huh?
I saw absolutely not one value judgment about this whatsoever. He was merely paintings scenarios. I suggest that your highly biased approach to this subject is causing you to subconsciously read too much into his remarks.
Apparently, you have a very active imagination. So read into it all you want but I really struggle to see the pionts you made regarding what you think Kissinger is or is not approving and disapproving. Reread it and take your political glasses off.
Getting back to the thread topic, I think it’s strange that the Bush government would have walked straight into giving the terrorists much of what they wanted.
Reminds me of Brer Rabbit: “Oh, don’t throw me into that brier patch!”
Of course, given the failure of America to win “hearts and minds” and, to the contrary, to arouse suspicion at every turn, it would appear that Bush has done more than simply accidentally given the enemy what he wants. Now, all this just might be rank incompetence, but with Rove disclosing CIA agents and continuing to enjoy White House privileges, I think the American people can start to see that at its very best the Bush administration has spent the past nearly 4 years since 9-11 on a path that has made more terrorists than we’ve killed.
Reminds me a bit of the struggles of Hercules with the Hydra – every time he cut off one head two new ones appeared. Given that a 50-caliber machine gun goes through the next three brick houses in Iraq, I wonder how many friends we made for every insurgent we’ve shot.
So you would happen to have proof that the number of terrorists has increased? that the Iraqis do not support the American objectives in Iraq? Many certainly do not like the occupation but are resigned to living with it. What about the Afghans, hate Bush too?
By the way, since you bring it up again, how’s that proof coming on Rove outing Plame? Got any yet? No? What a surprise!
Rather than your inane paranoid ramblings about why to hate Bush and about how he cheated this, that or the other, how about the real reasons to be disgusted by Bush and the Republicans. Read on.
[quote]Fast-forward to 2005. Republicans control the White House and both houses of Congress. Early on a Saturday morning in August
Fred, does anything that you just posted there have anythign to do at all with the thread topic?
Just curious… 
MFGR:
I am merely trying to give you something real to be angry about. So much of your other examples are never substantiated and appear to be just ramblings about this, that and the other. Here is an example of a real, concrete reason buttressed by factual evidence on how Bush is failing as a president. Why not try to actually live in reality for a while rather than pretending that Saddam was a threat that Bush dreamed up himself and that no one else was worried about and that he somehow managed to go back in time to bamboozle people so that even Clinton and Chirac believed he was a danger. I mean you seem so ready to believe the worst of Bush with the most nebulous of connections to these scandals. Hello? Gannongate? Plamegate? etc. This is an area where Bush is DIRECTLY responsible and where he has failed. Be angry about this and we can join in on the fun and support you.
[quote=“fred smith”][quote]If this is Kissinger’s means of rallying the populace, it’s a stunning failure. (In fairness, the guy’s never had “the common touch” like W., but then, I share the lack. shrug) [/quote]Kissinger is not trying to rally the populace anymore than he is criticizing Bush. His article, I believe, lays out the conditions that will make victory or failure possible.[/quote] I knew that. You knew, I knew that. It was a rhetorical question that no one would take seriously, so what’s your point? 
[quote=“fred smith”][quote]If the president, having been able to rally popular support for his Iraqi adventure, is unable to maintain that support, who’s to blame? [/quote]The media and the left which lost the war in Vietnam through their traitorous actions.[/quote] 
Alright, sure, sure…
[quote=“fred smith”][quote]How about those led to believe that Saddam was connected to 9/11, who have since learned otherwise?[/quote] We have no proof that Saddam was involved with 911 DIRECTLY but the Duelfer report noted a number of contacts and tie-ins between Saddam and various terrorist groups. Again, this is a total miscasting of the findings of these reports. AND I think that most American people did not focus on the media machinations but instinctively understood that Saddam was a SIMILAR threat as that posed by al Qaeda regardless of whether they were specifically proved to have cooperated on 911.[/quote]Care to qualify that any further? Care to back up your contention regarding the beliefs of the American people?
[quote=“fred smith”][quote]Those who felt helping establish an Arab democracy in the region was worthwhile, only to learn that the democracy taking shape looks too much like the one next door in Iraq? [/quote]I believe that you are referring to next door in Iran, BUT this is not what is happening in Iraq and this again is a total mischaracterization of what is going on in Iraq. There are no negotiations or discussions regarding anything in Iran. It is a rubberstamp parliament with no teeth. This is not the case in Iraq. All this fearmongering regarding Shia linkups is not going to happen anymore than the Spanish and French and German Catholics would have linked up in the 17th Century.[/quote] You’re misrepresenting my point. “Looks too much like” the neighbours does not imply that there’s a marriage in the works. But I still like your analogy.
[quote=“fred smith”][quote]With all the reasons for getting rid of Saddam, the administration’s decision to sell this adventure for all the wrong reasons seems a miscalculation at best. I can’t blame anyone for withdrawing their support; left, right, or unaligned.[/quote] Again, Tigerman has provided direct quotes from Bush’s speeches on many occasions in which the president listed a number of reasons foremost among them reforming the Middle East NOT wmds. AGAIN, we were going to act BEFORE Saddam became an imminent threat so that meant BEFORE he had nuclear weapons. Bush never said he had them. Again, look at what Bush has said. IF you have gotten the wrong impression than either you are willfully misunderstanding what has been said or the media is not getting that message to you clearly enough. Either way, you cannot blame Bush for your ignorance. Only you can remedy that.[/quote] Hilarious. You know perfectly well that the public was being lead by the nose, and now you’re pointing at the fine print and saying, “Well, that’s not quite right. I don’t know how you got that impression…” Not that it’s any surprise, but please, don’t be cute about it. The administration knew exactly what the public was being lead to believe. Did the communications director ever come out and say, “Hold it. Hold it. Now get this straight. Saddam Hussein didn’t have anything to do with 9/11. Nothing. But he’s poses a similar threat, so we’re going to take him out.” No? Well, I guess that indicates how much they cared about getting–and keeping–public support for all the right reasons.
[quote=“fred smith”]What do you mean no international support?[/quote]Where did I say "no international support? I said they didn’t sign up for this adventure.
As for the rest of the stuff on Kissinger, the more you know of his career, the more you read of his own works, the less shocking it becomes.
“Politically ruthless” need not be defamatory; he certainly wouldn’t find it so.
[quote=“fred smith”]I saw absolutely not one value judgment about this whatsoever. He was merely paintings scenarios. I suggest that your highly biased approach to this subject is causing you to subconsciously read too much into his remarks.[/quote] Not one value judgment? That’s fair enough… until his remarks are applied to current conditions–which you’d have to expect that intended–don’t you start to scratch your head and wonder what those scenarios suggest about the way things have gone? I know, you don’t. But others do. Anyways, my “political lenses,” “over-active imagination” and the leftwing media are telling me that the discussion’s producing far more heat than light. Let’s come back to it when things have shaken out and a few more pieces of the puzzle are revealed.