February 25, 2006
Glenn Greenwald, the latest liberal fab, has this to say about the Iraq War:
During the build-up to the war in 2002 and early 2003, most prominent Democrats were bullied and intimidated into supporting the invasion of Iraq by a combination of Bush’s sky-high popularity and accusations of subversiveness which were launched at anyone who opposed the Leader’s war.
He’s absolutely right! Don’t you remember all those wedgies Republicans gave to Democrats and the threats to take Democrats’ lunch money if they didn’t vote for the war?
Get real. This is just an excuse because Democrats are incompetent and have to blame the Republicans because THEY voted for the war. I wonder if Glenn thinks the same about comments Democrats made in the 90’s about the threat Iraq is to the world, you know when they were the majority in the Senate!
If you’re into gar-bage, you can read the rest here.
Say what you will about Greenwald, but this is rather astute stuff—although what it shows, unfortunately, is that Democrats can only be counted on to do what they believe at any given moment to be either politically expedient or popular.
Stop The ACLU linked with Sunday Funnies...
Ms. Underestimated linked with Bush Made the World Hate the U.S.A. (VIDEO)...
50 Responses to “Latest Liberal Whine: Republicans Forced Democrats To Vote For War”
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register to comment here.
9:42 pm [ Quote ]
What this shows is that democrats either are by chance “forgetting” about the 17 resolutions that were taken against Iraq when he is president, and that Clinton was bombing Iraq and other places in the middle east such as Saudi Arabia. This little democrat – Glenn Greenwald is just having a temper tantrum and needs his mommy to pat his back so he can burp up his liberal whines.
No surprise, yet it does show a remarkable lack of maturity.
9:47 pm [ Quote ]
Needle,
Tortilla + Cheese= Quesadilla!
Cheers
10:12 pm [ Quote ]
What is even more remarkable is that the bully Bush was able to cow the Democrats into calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein during the nineties, when he was governor of Texas.
Quite a feat.
Remember the nineties? When Kennedy and Daschle and Leahy and Clinton and Gore and Levin and on and on all talked about how Saddam was supporting terrorism and was a threat to the region and to the US with his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.
What was it President Clinton said about Saddam?: “He has weapons of mass destruction. He’s used them before and will use them again.”
Damned, Bush bullied Clinton into making that speech.
SMG
10:13 pm [ Quote ]
Ian:
Sorry.
Failed to close the tag.
SMG
10:28 pm [ Quote ]
So this is the Right’s defense?
“The Left was just as stupid as we were.”
Winner dude.
10:33 pm [ Quote ]
I hope Greenwald does not think this is an argument for the Democrats. All other arguments aside, if every Democrat who supported the invasion had really done so because they were bullied, that ought to be reason enough for every American to vote against them the next time they run for their own seats or any other office.
I am moderate enough to at least entertain voting for the recently announced ‘08 candidate Joe Biden. I think he might have something to say about Greenwald’s new account.
10:35 pm [ Quote ]
Marko:
So this is the Right’s defense?
No, the issue is whether Bush bullied the Democrats into supporting the war.
The evidence is overwhelming that throughout the nineties the Democrats (I’m generalizing; not all of them, just the major figures) supported the removal of Saddam.
It was most emphatically not a case of bullying by Bush for they made the same statements when Clinton was in office.
SMG
11:02 pm [ Quote ]
SteveMG Said:
February 25, 2006
Marko:
So this is the Right’s defense?
No, the issue is whether Bush bullied the Democrats into supporting the war.
The evidence is overwhelming that throughout the nineties the Democrats (I’m generalizing; not all of them, just the major figures) supported the removal of Saddam.
It was most emphatically not a case of bullying by Bush for they made the same statements when Clinton was in office.
SMG
My God Thank you Steve, you are now the second person to say this, yet it seems liberal moonbat Ricki is having a hard time comprehending this.
Ricki, your embarass your self.
Ricki Said:
February 25, 2006
Tortilla + Cheese= Quesadilla!
11:08 pm [ Quote ]
And by the way Marko, we are not saying that Clinton was dumb, he had balls and so did most of the Democrat leaders of the 90’s. Read these 2 articles and educate yourself as to why we did not have the alliance of other powerful nations such as the RUSSIANS *** http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81917,00.html and http://ussenterprise.blogdns.net/rants/PermaLink,guid,7d18d84c-5f67-45cc-8719-e82d98e036ed.aspx ***, but oh…it is probably just all a big coincidence to you.
And if you do not understand what a true WMD is then check www.wikipedia.com and do some more research, they have a very “comprehensive” outline and defenition of what one is
11:18 pm [ Quote ]
Neal:
Thanks and you’re welcome. But it is hard not to be greatly disheartened by the events in Iraq this past week.
I’ve always believed that people – regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, religion – could transcend those differences and live under self-government and not under the rule of a dictator or the those with the guns.
What Bush tried to do was perhaps illusory and not really possible.
That is he wanted to fundamentally change the dysfunctional nature of the Middle East where the powerful preyed on the weak.
I used to believe that when the liberal/left preached about the need for the US to promote democracy and human rights and to help peoples around the world live under self-government, they meant it.
I guess I was wrong.
It looks like we need to return to realpolitik in our foreign policy. That is, we need to reject the idea of promoting self-government and human rights and instead solely look out for our own narrower interests.
And if that means supporting people like Saddam Hussein again, as we did in the 1980s, I hope the liberal/left supports us.
SMG
11:51 pm [ Quote ]
Bush Made the World Hate the U.S.A. (VIDEO)...
“Well, Democracy is a mess! But let me say that perception…let me pick up on something Jane was saying. Perception is not just a function of media coverage; media coverage is also a function of perception. Let’s face it – five years ago, we wer…
11:53 pm [ Quote ]
One thing you always hear from the wingnuts is that the “rest of the world” meaning foreign intelligence agencies thought Saddam had WMD’s and that Clinton thought the same
. Turns out this argument is bullshit, since though suspected, no one thought it was enough to justify invading Iraq.
Neal, I gotta say, do you have a screw loose? Do you really think there’s this conspiracy where the Russians moved all the WMD? Night vision goggles, oh they must be moving the nukes!! I’m pretty sure the Duelfer report was pretty clear that there wasn’t a trace of WMD’s. Although if all you do is get your info from Faux news and wing-nut blogs, I guess you can believe whatever fairy tale you want. By the way, learn how to spell and also, I might take you more seriously if you toned down the psychotic overtones a bit.
11:56 pm [ Quote ]
Since Needle really likes Wikipedia, I thought this would help in diagnosing his mental disorder
12:17 am [ Quote ]
the Duelfer report was pretty clear that there wasn’t a trace of WMD’s
Not true although the quantities were small.
Go here to the report.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxF.html
SMG
12:40 am [ Quote ]
“A total of 53 munitions have been recovered, all of which appear to have been part of pre-1991”
Yeah, so what? These were weapons that were pre-1991.. No nukes, no biologicals. The “mushroom cloud” is how they sold the war. Basically, Cheney et al. scared us into a war based on lies…
“He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”
Source: Meet the Press, NBC (3/16/2003).
How can you now countenance a public official making statements that turned out to be completely false? It defies imagination. Although if you believe Needle, the Russians moved all the nukes out!! At what point can we just finally acknowledge the truth, not what we hope to be true?
12:41 am [ Quote ]
SMG: Bush also forced Clinton to sign the bill that called for the removal of the Saddam Regime.
Good observations Pete. So does this mean the democrats are not strong and trustworthy enough to stick to their own ideals because Republicans push them around like bullies? Poor argument because the latest MSM headlining Democrats have no real concrete ideals or ideas. So this ultimately and inadvertently exposes two incriminating things about them. They are weak, and have no real ideals. Plus they like to blame instead of fix (Katrina will forever tarnish politics. (Actually that’s 3) Nice job.
But the coming around to acknowledge or loss in the propaganda war video….ABOUT TIME DARN IT!
Neal: Don’t forget Clinton was the one who turned down the offer of bin Laden “on a plate? more than once. Not to mention (he and his legal staff) creating the wall between intelligence agencies and civilian law enforcement which forbid the sharing of classified info about possible terrorists that were U.S. citizens or visa holders.
SMG: I think the Iraqis are capable of self government, as soon as the foreign fighters and other extremists get out of the picture, which hopefully the locals will still be increasingly turning them in themselves more and more.
Ricki do you have a screw loose yourself, or just wax in your ears (and eyes)? Clinton was the one signing the pact for regime change in Iraq, not Bush. And there were dozens of reasons other than WMDs for ousting Saddam. Don’t forget, no one believed there was corruption at the UN either, and look at all the crap getting exposed over this past year alone! France, Russian, and Germany, and China were all listed as countries with members on the UN Security Council or at the UN period who had economic incentives and bribes to get the sanctions lifted and to vote “no? on a UN authorization of the use of force against Saddam. And those bribes came from the oil-for-food $$ that was supposed to feed the suffering in Iraq, but instead went back to the UN and into Saddam’s dozens of palaces. With all the dirt on WMDs being relocated still surfacing, and not even 10% of the intel translated yet, my mind is still open. Saddam was caught burying his fighter jets in the sand so we would not blow them up – we found some while working on engineering projects but MSM probably didn’t tell you about it. If he would bury his own military equipment, I would not put it past him to hide is “other? banned weapons as well.
1:01 am [ Quote ]
SMG, Ricki:That article was dated 2004, there have been other discovered banned weapons since then.
Recent hidden weapons: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/20/ap/world/mainD8EK81U86.shtml
No nuclear materials in Iraq? Not nuclear materials, just missiles that could easily be used as dirty bombs because they were radioactive, but not enriched enough to create an actual nuclear explosion. Radiation is radiation is a dirty bomb is still considered a WMD and a banned weapon.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/9/154650.shtml
This stuff was still considered banned by the UN resolutions.
1:26 am [ Quote ]
El Guapo,
I’m sorry, but please don’t reference articles from Newsmax! These were depleted uranium munitions which the US military uses as well…they are not diryt bombs and you know it! and these were Russian weapons, not Iraqi made weapons by the way!. And just because they found old rockets that were buried in the sand 2 weeks prior hardly means that there are “nuclear weapons laying around. If Saddam really had a nuclear capability, the infrastructure would be so large,vast, and complex that there would be definite traces of it, even if ,as the conspiracy theorists like Needle would have, the Russians spirited them away. I know you so desperately want to believe this crap, but at least be honest!
2:03 am [ Quote ]
Listen, pointing to quotes from CIA and FOX News links is pointless. They’re were “mis-information” problem from the begining.
Only this administration was either stupid enough or corrupt enough, (take your pick… or maybe both) to actually get us into a war for no good reason.
PEOPLE ARE DYING FOR NOTHING.
And you guys attack Cindy Sheehan, a grieving mother. Blame the victim. It’s the Republican way of daling with their mistakes.
Just like Cheney’s people first claimed it was all poor Mr Whittingham fault.
2:05 am [ Quote ]
The world isn’t black and white. You can dislike a dictator without feeling it’s worth thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars to over-throw him.
You can let the UN weapons inspectors keep him in check. Which is exactly what they did. Very well too.
3:39 am [ Quote ]
ELGUAPO-
Thanks for the comment. I should reiterate that my post ought to be read “if any democrats really want to adopt this latest excuse…”. I’m really accusing Greenwald of fabricating an explanation that democrats would be unbeleivably foolish to adopt. Greenwald obvisouly needed something to reconcile the conflict between his preconceptions and the available evidence, and he landed himself, without evidence, to the left of the left. If enough influential left media figures continue landing there, fabricating nonsense that only resonates with an entrenched, credulous base, republicans will maintain power of every branch, and that power will go more and more unchecked and eventually become a serious problem.
Your generalizations about democrats are certainly on the mark. I do think that, all other politics notwithstanding, it would be hard to include Biden in that group. His take on the war has been pretty darn close to McCain’s. I hope Biden wins the nomination, chooses Feingold as VP, and loses a good run to McCain-Giuliani. When was the last election with two admirable tickets?
That was all a bit platitudinous of me, wasn’t it?
5:07 am [ Quote ]
I can solve this once and for all. Wingnuts please read this article. Francis Fukuama, a top neocon, says Iraq a mistake and failure:
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=266122006&format=print
An he is not the only righty saying so now. So is he a moonbat, lib traitor now? Will you admit the truth or hold on to your pipe dreams. I won’t hold my breath.
8:38 am [ Quote ]
Keith,
Once he says, “The most basic misjudgment was an overestimation of the threat facing the United States from radical Islamism” you know he’s losing it. I’m sorry to see that Fukuama has gone from right to wrong, but it happens.
He’s a “Top neocon”? Where did you get that idea? He’s just a guy who changed his view.
10:19 am [ Quote ]
Keith-
You ought to try formulating an argument instead of insisting that everything hinges on one writer. Of course, I’d bet real money that you found Fukuyama irrelevant until he agreed with you. Rather narrow mined, and doubly so since you surely would not accept the corollary: if a prominent anti war writer, or, say Dennis Kucinich, changed his mind, that would decide the case in favor of Bush. That would be fantastic: you could live in a world in which contradicting statements were absolute truths, which would of course be further evidence that assimilating information and thinking for oneself are a waste of time. All it takes is opening up the paper and seeing if Fukuyama and Kucinich have changed their minds. And come to think of it, yes, Fukuyama has, no, Kucinich has not, so… you win this round, Keith… I’ll be scanning the headlines for Kucinich’s name, though!
10:56 am [ Quote ]
Ricki:
Sorry, you lost this one. You said this in a post:
The Duelfer report was pretty clear that there wasn’t a trace of WMD’s.
That’s a direct quote from you.
Not a “trace of WMDs.”
I linked to the Dueffler Report here:
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxF.html
and it shows that there were WMDs found.
So, either the Dueffler report found WMDS or they didn’t find WMDS.
You said they didn’t. The evidence is they did.
Case closed.
SMG
11:11 am [ Quote ]
SMG,
Ok SMG. I misstated the fact that they did find some old pre-1991 chemical warheads. But sorry, we were told that we would find vast quantitites of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The essential point is that we didn’t anything new, and that Saddam hadn’t developed any new weapons since 1991. If this is all just a game of, well, these are your exact words in the post, so I win 14-7, I’d say ok, but if I were you, I’d wouldn’t feel like I ultimatley won the argument. We went to war for pre-1991 chemical munitions?
11:27 am [ Quote ]
Ricki:
Okay, thanks for admitting error. I just want to make sure I’m dealing with a rational person here.
If someone thinks black is white and white is black, why continue the discussion?
We went to war for pre-1991 chemical munitions?
The Bush Administration, like the Clinton Administration, listed a whole series of reasons for the need for regime change in Iraq.
The Iraq Liberation Act signed during Mr. Clinton’s Administration cited, as did the resolution authorizing the use of force, Iraq’s support for terrorism; Iraq’s use of WMD’s against his own people; Saddam’s continued oppression and mistreatment of his people; his continued and repeated violation of UN Resolutions; his continued and repeated violation of the 1990 cease-fire agreement; his attempted assassination of President Bush; his repeated attempts to shoot down and kill our pilots enforcing the no-fly zone and on and on.
That barely scratches the surface of the reasons/rationale for removing the regime.
Granted, the WMD issue was the central issue that Bush emphasized. I sure don’t want to be disingenuous and argue that it wasn’t the rallying cry for the action.
But there were more than a dozen reasons for removing the Iraqi regime. Whether those other reasons were sufficient depends on one’s point of view.
SMG
12:53 pm [ Quote ]
SteveMG: Excellent, well presented and rational review of the facts which constituted our reasons for waging a war against Saddam.
The left has always believed in revisionist history. If the facts don’t fit their preconcieved notions, they simply ignore the facts and manufacture a history that better suits their agenda!
2:27 pm [ Quote ]
All,
I never said that my argument hinges on “one” paper (Fukuama’s). That paper meerly points out that a Top neocon (Kevin you can search this) finally came around and is agreeing with things that we have been saing since before the war. He is NOT the only conservitave saying so. Look at Howard Dean’s and others pre war statements too. They are dead on accurate as to what is happening right now. So no, I dont insist that everything hinges on one writer. there is plenty out there to support my view. I just think Fukuama is a good one for Bushies to read because if I said look at what Dean said you would’nt even listen. Every day people you would listen to are saying more of what Repubs call treasonous. Look what Bill Kristol just said on Fox news Sunday. Talking in hypotheticals about what Kusinich might do has no relavence here. And no, I would not accept the corralary because the majority of the evidence supports my current view. My views come from examining the facts as best I can and making concolusions based on that. I think Hillary clinton sucks. She has not been a good anti-war voice and has been a miserable “opposition party leader” often moving in step with republicans (Iraq war, Bankrupcy bill ect). Does that give what I say more relivance to you now?
3:00 pm [ Quote ]
Sunday Funnies…
Rest In Peace to Don Knotts. This list of funnies are in honor to all the times he made us laugh.
image courtesy of Parley Hellewell
Conservathink has the Carnival of Comedy
Sex Pistols spit on Hall of Fame honor
Suitably Flip gives us Arnold Mee…
3:39 pm [ Quote ]
“He’s a “Top neocon?? Where did you get that idea? He’s just a guy who changed his view.”
Francis Fukuyama was part of the New American Century project. He is definitely a top neo-con. I also think he’s a John Kerry style flip-flopping weasel, considering his organization drafted much of the rationale for invading Iraq in the first place.
Steve: the ILA was an effort to support groups in Iraq that oppose Saddam, not serve as a justification for enacting a regime change by force. This philosophy, consistent with the resolutions of the UN, is quite different than that of the Bush administration and, for that matter, Francis Fukuyama et alia. Incidentally, I’m no expert, but the Dueffler Report makes Iraq’s WMD capabilities look pretty pathetic.
More on topic, it is also pretty pathetic that the Dems are saying the Bush Administration forced them into voting a certain way. No wonder Kerry lost. I remember people trying to bully me (sometimes with their fists) into supporting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I supported Afghanistan because it made sense, opposed Iraq because it didn’t. To hell with the “you’re not a patriot!” goons. If an elected official doesn’t have the guts to stand up for themselves, they won’t get my vote.
4:09 pm [ Quote ]
Yucko:
Steve: the ILA was an effort to support groups in Iraq that oppose Saddam, not serve as a justification for enacting a regime change by force.
Good/fair point.
But the essential arguments for the need to remove Saddam were the same.
In the ILA issue, the argument was to support internal groups to overthrow the Baathist Regime.
The war authorization was, obviously, for the US to overthrow the regime.
But, to repeat, the arguments for the removal of Saddam were the same (nearly). There was a difference in “how” but not “why”.
Re Fukuyama. His main argument, as I read him, is that the neocons overestimated the power and the ability of the US to transform Iraq into a stable democracy. And that the neo-cons who recognize the limits of domestic power to transform American society failed to recognize those same limits in transforming foreign societies.
SMG
6:05 pm [ Quote ]
Ricki, who cares who made the weapons. They weren’t supposed to have them regardless. I don’t care if you have a Russian hand held surface to air missile launcher in your house. It is still a SAM weapon and is illegal!
And you completely missed my point. My mind is still open and not jumping on any conclusion band wagons because things keep surfacing. Things that have more believable facts from multiple sources and countries; Unlike the conspiracy theories we hear here like Bush blew up the levees or place C4 in the WTC basement.
Marko: oh yah the UN sure kept Saddam in check. More like Saddam kept the UN in check with his checks and oil-for-food $$ that was supposed to go to the people he was massacring. Those guys are the real ones corrupt on oil and receiving some bribes in the form of actual oil, not the Bush Admin. Why do you think they hate Bolton so much?
The UN is a worthless bunch of corrupt (even more than our politicians) sissies who are brilliant enough to allow human rights violators on their own human rights commission. Real smart. Why don’t we just let Saddam be his own prosecutor while we are at it.
The only reason Fox is so popular is because Americans are starting to see how much partial and distorted news or even outright lies and falsely created stories in a few cases the other MSM is feeding everyone. If you and they don’t like it, then start disclosing all the facts and stop trying to create stories like they did in N.O., Gitmo, and Iraq. The ratings say a lot. They trust Fox more than any other MSM, because the other MSM has given them too many good reasons to switch to and trust Fox. Air American cannot even stay on the air without embezzling money from the local Boys Club, or being funded by George Soros. They can’t keep a market for a reason. People won’t listen to news that gives you lies or biased reporting when there are other sources that gives you actual news, and in a lot of cases arguments from both sides (Like Fox).
Even the soldiers are speaking aout against the MSM:http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/13/btsc.cooper/index.html
I cannot believe so many people can be this oblivious to all the other reason we removed Saddam. As SMG redundantly reminded you of. Thank you SMG.
And the main reason we are struggling so much in Iraq is not because of the tension b/t the 3 religions there (anymore). It is more due to the outside influences like the terrorists, that Cindy Sheehan likes to call freedom fighters, who blow up churches and women and children in hopes to start a civil war.
“….Shi’ite and Sunni religious and political leaders held talks in Baghdad on Saturday and vowed to join forces to deal with the crisis.?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060225/ts_nm/iraq_usa_dc
There is still hope, folks.
6:24 pm [ Quote ]
There is still hope, folks.
Yes, but it’s fundamentally (no irony there, eh?) up to the Iraqi people. We can only do so much.
If the Iraqi people (broadly speaking) cannot or will not settle their differences through peaceful political processes, there is nothing that we can do to make them.
Democracy, of course, is more than just elections. It’s free institutions, a civil society, a rule of law, et cetera.
But it’s also, it seems to me, a “way of thinking.”
As much as the Right and Left detest each other in America, we know that we must settle our differences peacefully. Through elections. Through the give and take of discourse and exchanges of ideas.
Never, never, ever through bloodshed. There are too many men buried in cemeteries across this country – indeed, across the world – who we must never turn our backs on.
No violence.
Never ever.
SMG
6:35 pm [ Quote ]
And for Marko to say we are dieing for no good reason is pure BS. I am proud of what I fight for: not just protecting our country and your freedoms, but also coming to the aid of the helpless when others will not, regardless of their location.
I am a true believer in this Bush doctrine: No more waiting around for us to get attacked again, it is time to take the fight to them, until they are gone, defeated. The threat is real and we must deal with it or it will continue to attack us.
Now, Iraq became a breeding ground for terror as an unexpected side effect of the liberation, true, because of underestimation and screw ups by Bush and some war strategy planners. But that does not negate the fact that every day more and more locals realize who the bad guys really are and use our hotlines there to give us tips to find the terrorists, and in some cases they catch them themselves and turn them into us.
If terrorists want Iraq to be the hotbed, fine, better there than here, but I prefer nowhere at all, but we must live in reality and not la-la-land so as long as there is this extremist confused mentality there will always be a hotbed somewhere. And the Iraqis are slowly but surely getting fed up with the violence and are realizing the longer there is violence, the longer it will take to get the country built, and the longer we will be there. So they are starting to wisen up and fight with us.
We catch more terrorists and stop more attacks from Iraqi tipsters now than from our own intelligence alone. It is working. But we all know good news hardly ever make MSM headlines. And if they do cover it, it is only briefly.
“…a tip from an Iraqi citizen…? http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2006/20060127_4026.html
Marines Unearth Weapons Caches; Tipsters Lead Troops to More Caches
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2006/20060102_3809.html
Phone hot line helps fight against insurgency
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7641117
6:38 pm [ Quote ]
With freedom comes responsibility. And there are even politicians and celebrities here who have shown even the most socially evolved country in the world, U.S., can have irresponsible people. Thank God for the sensible majority here.
7:16 pm [ Quote ]
“But, to repeat, the arguments for the removal of Saddam were the same (nearly). There was a difference in “how? but not “why?.”
I agree 100%. The “how” can make a big difference, though. (See below)
Beautiful post on #34, SteveMG. I couldn’t have put it better myself.
The real challenge is: how to get Iraqis to embrace this system? What is the best process? And, most importantly: did the forced regime change by an outside power do too much PR damage to those who opposed Saddam in Iraq? Unfortunately, it makes them look kind of like compradors and just feeds the terrorists who come selling themelseves as “anti-imperialists.” Anyway, the invasion is over, so maybe it is a moot point, and we should be focusing on what’s next, but it can help guide our actions w/r/t Syria, Iran and especially N Korea.
8:23 pm [ Quote ]
What we need to do is get the infrastructure up and running. They still do not have electricity or reliable water. Yet 8 Billion in reconstruction money is gone. How do you think that makes the Iraqi’s feel about the Americans? Fix the place up. Actually train the police and millitary and re-deploy. That is the best we can do for them now. We need to leave and let the Iraqi’s be responsible for their own country. This would reduce the support for the insurgency. It might be messy and bloody but we are not helping as we are seen as occupiers.
10:11 pm [ Quote ]
I agree with Keith. The proof is in the pudding, not pretty words. Get them their water, electricity, heck, even their dam* TiVo and they’ll love us, Zarqawi or no.
10:32 pm [ Quote ]
Marko to say we are dieing for no good reason is pure BS. I am proud of what I fight for: not just protecting our country and your freedoms, but also coming to the aid of the helpless when others will not, regardless of their location. And we also rebuild, as I am an Air Force Civil Engineer, it is one of my jobs.
Now, Iraq became a breeding ground for terror as an unexpected side effect, this is true, because of underestimation and screw ups by Bush and some war strategy planners. But that does not negate the fact that every day more and more local Iraqis reallize who the bad guys really are and use our “hotlines? there to give us tips to find the terrorists. In some cases they are starting to catch them themselves and turn them into us.
We catch more terrorists and stop more attacks from Iraqi tipsters now than from our own intelligence alone. It is working. But we all know good news hardly ever makes MSM headlines. And if they do cover it, it is only briefly. So unfortunately there are only a few of such stories:
“…a tip from an Iraqi citizen…? http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2006/20060127_4026.html
Marines Unearth Weapons Caches; Tipsters Lead Troops to More Caches
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jan2006/20060102_3809.html
Phone hot line helps fight against insurgency
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7641117
Keith and Yucko: We are rebuilding their infrastructure. But sometimes Zarkaqi and company blow it up, especially the oil infrastructure.
http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/june2005/a062805la2.html
http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/feb2005/a020305wm3.html
But despite setbacks, actually with the help of Zarkawi caused setbacks, Iraqis are slowly but surely getting fed up with the violence and are realizing the longer there is violence, the longer it will take to get the country built, and the longer we will be there. So they are starting to wisen up, so we can hopefully leave sooner.
And Yucko: Thanks for being one of the few who realizes that arguing and finger pointing over the reasons for the war are not going to help fix the problems that we are facing now.
10:35 pm [ Quote ]
slowly but surely these locals are becoming aware that Iraqis are dieing from so called insurgent attacks on their innocent families, and not by U.S. troops.
But like moderate muslims elsewhere, extremism has a tight scary hold on them, and many are still afraid of getting thier wife and kids’ head cut off.
11:31 pm [ Quote ]
Elguapo,
Unfortunatly, Iraq as a terror breeding ground was not unexpected. Many tried to talk of this and other potential problems but were silenced as UnAmerican or tratiors in the rush to war.
It angers me that you and your fellow troops have suffered because of this ineptitude. You deserve better from your leaders and we speek out because this administration has been slow and stubborn in admiting errors and changing course to adjust for the changing situation.
Thank you, stay safe.
11:45 pm [ Quote ]
You are welcome. This terror breeding ground was expected to be attempted, but our typical american complacency assumed it would never happen. Just like people thought we’d never get attacked on our own soil, and some still thnk it won’t ever happen again. (some even think that Bush did it and al quada had nothing to do with it)
It was a huge mistake to allow Zarkawi to run around as long as he did and spew propaganda and recruit some local and a lot of outsiders to jihad the whole country. They probably assumed it would not have worked because the flower throwing greeters would have not stood for it, but it turned out they were intimidated and scared just like the rest of the moderate muslim world, and they also assumed we’d leave right after catching saddam. but if we did then we would have been blamed for leaving that country as a new terrorist safe heaven. Yes, some very poor “planning for contingency”.
12:48 am [ Quote ]
Keith, you pompous ass-You think the stay safe and thank you gets you off the hook. Safe is what Elguapo is providing for you. If you really want to thank him and the rest of them, do something for them. There are many things you can do to help with morale. Your disrespectful swipes provide exactly the opposite of what’s needed.
You presume to know that the Pentagon didn’t think terrorists would be found where there used to be terrorist training camps! Your spelling inabilities are the very least of your problems.
1:24 am [ Quote ]
“But despite setbacks, actually with the help of Zarkawi caused setbacks,”
There is also a lot of corruption among our so-called allies in Iraq. My cousin’s husband, who was there recently, had horror stories that would make our guv’mint’s Katrina response look like a paragon of efficiency. I mean, you can build a school and come back the next day to find that (maybe desperate) Iraqis have stripped it bare.
“Iraqis are slowly but surely getting fed up with the violence and are realizing the longer there is violence, the longer it will take to get the country built, and the longer we will be there. So they are starting to wisen up, so we can hopefully leave sooner.”
That would be wonderful. The longer we stay, the more we look like an occupying army. That would help the terrorists.
“Thanks for being one of the few who realizes that arguing and finger pointing over the reasons for the war are not going to help fix the problems that we are facing now.”
I genuinely want the Iraqis to enjoy all of what life has to offer us in America. But I have to be a realist, too. Sometimes people assume I’m “for the terrorists” just because I point certain things out. I’m glad you’re not that simple-minded.
I get a really mixed message about Iraq from the MSM, both good and bad, so I am adopting a “wait and see” attitude. I say we give them the best we can and move on out. If the occupation lasts more than, say, one to two years, we could turn the Iraqis against us.
1:25 am [ Quote ]
I meant “one to two MORE years”. Sorry.
2:02 pm [ Quote ]
Hunter,
Did you read Elguapos response? Didn’t think so. He obviously did not think I was being disrespectfull. Guapo even said, “typical American complacency” in pre war planning caused some problems . Does that make him a pompous ass? This is America, the best country in the world. It is not perfect though and one of the best things about it is that I cna disagree with what my government does, even, no especially durring a time of war! They deserve nothing less, and have my support even though I disagree with how their leaders are handling things. This country also gives you the freedom to call me a pompous ass even though it makes you look stupid. Why do you bush supporters need to constantly be reminded about the very right that this country was founded on? Your blind uncritical support does nothing to help the troops.
2:03 pm [ Quote ]
Elguapo: I recall clearly President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld saying from the very start that this war against terrorism would be long, protracted and costly. Surely, while they anticipated a short war to oust Saddam, I believe they knew and warned America we would be there for many years, though I suspect even they didn’t anticipate this many soldiers for this long and perhaps stilll being there in much lower numbers for another decade, if not directly in Iraq – close by to help with security problems. Well, they understand it now!
The fact is, no war is ever tidy, they always cost more and take longer than expected – we are still in Yugoslavia, South Korea, Europe, Japan and other places around the world. That is they price we must pay for leadership!
I am not disagreeing with anything you said, just adding my own thoughts!
2:06 pm [ Quote ]
By the way,
Thank you Elgaupo for your mature and informative responce. I really do appreciate being able to talk with somone who is there. Even though most on this site will say I’m unAmerican because I disagree with their leader, I do appreciate your sacrifice and wish you well.
3:03 pm [ Quote ]
This article makes some good points about how a lack of pre war planning has caused major problems now.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-levine/stuff-happens-revisite_b_16402.html