November 3, 2007

When Is Victory An Embarrassment?

The Times of London answers the question in an editorial today -- when one has invested in defeat. The "Petraeus Curve" has exposed defeatists in Britain and the US, and as a result, no one wants to talk about the obvious and significant progress being made in Iraq. Success, it seems, has become too embarrassing for the media and some politicians to acknowledge (via Memeorandum):

In Iraq, it seems good news is deemed no news. There has been striking success in the past few months in the attempt to improve security, defeat al-Qaeda sympathisers and create the political conditions in which a settlement between the Shia and the Sunni communities can be reached. This has not been an accident but the consequence of a strategy overseen by General David Petraeus in the past several months. While summarised by the single word “surge” his efforts have not just been about putting more troops on the ground but also employing them in a more sophisticated manner. This drive has effectively broken whatever alliances might have been struck in the past by terrorist factions and aggrieved Sunnis. Cities such as Fallujah, once notorious centres of slaughter, have been transformed in a remarkable time. ....

The current achievements, and they are achievements, are being treated as almost an embarrassment in certain quarters. The entire context of the contest for the Democratic nomination for president has been based on the conclusion that Iraq is an absolute disaster and the first task of the next president is to extricate the United States at maximum speed. ....

All of these attitudes have become outdated. There are many valid complaints about the manner in which the Bush Administration and Donald Rumsfeld, in particular, managed Iraq after the 2003 military victory. But not to recognise that matters have improved vastly in the year since Mr Rumsfeld's resignation from the Pentagon was announced and General Petraeus was liberated would be ridiculous. Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic have to appreciate that Iraq is no longer, as they thought, an exercise in damage limitation but one of making the most of an opportunity.

Why resist good news? Some of our media and political class put their chips on defeat, and have begun to realize how victory will destroy their credibility. Not everyone acted as foolishly as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid when he declared victory for the terrorists this past spring, but most of the Western media has relentlessly highlighted every setback while ignoring most of the advances made in Iraq -- until the progress became too obvious to ignore any longer.

The Times notes that the defeatists have changed tactics. Where they previously argued that every piece of bad news meant that we should flee Iraq, now they argue that the decline in violence gives us a final opportunity to declare defeat and run away. They want to walk away from a strategic victory just to salvage their own credibility, ignoring what a stabilized and democratic Iraq could mean not just for the Iraqis but for the entire Middle East.

Now they have fallen back to a position where they wish for a resurgence of terrorism in Iraq for another argument to leave. It could still happen, of course, as the Times notes in its editorial. Without it, the defeatists will face even more embarrassment -- and the public will suddenly experience a sheepish silence on Iraq as we approach the November general election.

UPDATE: Even more progress:

In a dramatic turnaround, more than 3,000 Iraqi families driven out of their Baghdad neighborhoods have returned to their homes in the past three months as sectarian violence has dropped, the government said Saturday.

Saad al-Azawi, his wife and four children are among them. They fled to Syria six months ago, leaving behind what had become one of the capital's more dangerous districts—west Baghdad's largely Sunni Khadra region.

The family had been living inside a vicious and bloody turf battle between al-Qaida in Iraq and Mahdi Army militiamen. But Azawi said things began changing, becoming more peaceful, in August when radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his Mahdi Army fighters to stand down nationwide.

About the same time, the Khadra neighborhood Awakening Council rose up against brutal al-Qaida control—the imposition of its austere interpretation of Islam, along with the murder and torture of those who would not comply.

We've heard plenty about the displacement of Iraqis on account of the sectarian violence. Will we hear from the national media about the meaning of their return?

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhartas.cgi/15814

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference When Is Victory An Embarrassment?:

» “The “Petraeus Curve” has exposed defeatists in Britain and the US, and as a result, no one wants to talk about the obvious and significant progress being made in Iraq. “ from Right Voices
Captain Ed had that to say about this Times Of London aritcle, via Memeorandum: In Iraq, it seems good news is deemed no news. There has been striking success in the past few months in the attempt to improve security, defeat al-Qaeda sympathisers and ... [Read More]

» 3,000 Iraqi families return to safer Baghdad from Sister Toldjah
The AP reports that thousands of Baghdad residents have returned to their much safer city (h/t: ST reader forest hunter: BAGHDAD - In a dramatic turnaround, more than 3,000 Iraqi families driven out of their Baghdad neighborhoods have returned to their... [Read More]

» Dear Harry Reid: we've won from Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy
Hey, if Sen. Harry Reid (D - NV) could declare the Iraq theater lost and the surge a failure before it had even begun, I can declare victory after the results have started coming in. Consider this: when meetings between [Read More]

Comments (181)

Posted by Terrye | November 3, 2007 12:32 PM

Isn't this pathetic? Can anyone imagine Republicans hoping the Nazis would win because it would help them politically?

I don't like a lot of things about the far right, but I can honestly say I can not imagine Republicans agitating for the defeat of the US military or using the deaths of American troops and Iraqi civilians for personal political gain.

Posted by Bill M | November 3, 2007 12:35 PM

What's the sound of victory from the MSM -- crickets chirping.

Posted by Marvin | November 3, 2007 12:45 PM

ahh, the wonderful 'Sound of Silence' from the MSM, as our forces 'wage peace' in Iraq.

But, the MSM can trumpet the crybabies at the State Department...
It is safer, much safer, to be a Foreign Service Officer in Iraq, than to work in Washington, DC.

Posted by crosspatch | November 3, 2007 12:47 PM

I am not sure they will experience a "sheepish silence". The candidates are STILL campaigning on a policy of pulling troops out of Iraq. If they can't pull the troops out in the face of defeat, then they can engineer a defeat by pulling the troops out in the face of victory.

I don't think people fully or properly understand the need for defeat. it really doesn't have so much to do with their previous declarations of defeat so much as it has to do with a key point of the doctrine of the left. That is that war must never be depicted as "winnable" by anyone (except them, of course, when they are "forced" into waging it). The idea that any war could be "won" must stamped out. Even if it can be won in military terms, they are determined to make the domestic political cost such that it really isn't winnable.

The idea is to be spring loaded against any military action, justified or not because they believe that the only "good" outcome of military action must be defeat in order to prevent further military action by the US. It scares the daylights out of them that we might come out of this victorious. It means that they can not keep dragging the ghost of Viet Nam out of the closet every time someone talks about an insurgency.

It is a very one-sided look at things. No wonder Russia is making noises again. We are at a point where we are potentially weakest in our national resolve to stand up to an enemy.

Posted by Pat | November 3, 2007 12:54 PM

Ed

In one sense I agree and find it funny the good news in no news. I worry about broadcasting our "victories" too much as that may make them "targets" in this often times shadowy warfare style. Also, the quieter it gets on the Eastern Front, I hope those "enguarde" are alert as once the troops start to get comfortable the worst can happen!

Posted by Hugh Beaumont | November 3, 2007 1:07 PM

George Bush:

-Boldly lead the US after the devastating attacks of 9/11
-Withstanding withering domestic criticism, pursuing a tenacious, consistent offensive against the terror masters preventing a follow up terror attack
-Stock market at an all time high
-Consistant low unemployment rates
-Cut taxes
-Freed millions in Afganistan
-Freed millions in Iraq


I can see the history books now......

Ad this to Florida 2000 and you have a MoveOn crowd ready to commit suicide.

Posted by Andrew X | November 3, 2007 1:12 PM

As I have said before, and take it to the bank, there will never be a 'Japanese diplomats on the deck of the Missouri' moment where victory in Iraq is essentially declared and inarguable. Therefore, we must note our own milestone, and play it for what it truly is. There shall indeed be one.

That milestone, that moment we all pray for, when we can jump up and pound our fist in the air and scream "VICTORY!!!"....

That moment will be the first moment you hear a Democrat politician say that the reason we are seeing "favorable trends" in Iraq (they will NEVER say the word "victory") is because of Democratic efforts to "get rid of Rumsfeld, force a change in strategy, force the Iraqi govt to get serious by threatening withdrawl", etc etc.

The day you hear that you will know that George Bush, Tony Blair, and John Howard have won a victory for the ages, to be heralded in song and verse for a hundred years.

Tell others that when you do hear it. The New York Times sure as hell won't.

Posted by chaos | November 3, 2007 1:18 PM

Harry Reid today said that security progress was "overstated."

Oh, how Dingy has fallen from his rhetorical heights of "the war is lost."

Posted by Weight of Glory | November 3, 2007 1:30 PM

Wow! Folks, there is a statement in that block quote of the Times of London that shows a level of understanding, and rightly interpreting history, that I have not seen in the MSM (home or abroad) for over 3 years. The line is this:

There are many valid complaints about the manner in which the Bush Administration and Donald Rumsfeld, in particular, managed Iraq after the 2003 military victory.

It is the last part that is significant: managing Iraq AFTER MILITARY VICTORY. I have not seen this proper delineation between the victory of major combat operations and the post invasion occupation problems. I know it may seem like a small distinction, but it isn't. The Press and the Dems. have been lumping in the various failures of post invasion Iraq with the beginning of operations, in order to make it sound like all of it has been a failure from the get-go. Again, I don't think I'm making too much of this, because this is the first time I have ever seen any press use the "V" word in any way in describing any aspect of the Iraq war at any point in time.

Posted by Jazz | November 3, 2007 1:46 PM

Wait.. so we won? Cool! So when do the troops start redeploying to Afghanistan?

Posted by Christopher Taylor | November 3, 2007 1:48 PM

I was thinking about this last night. Basically the anti war left especially has positioned themselves so plainly and so obviously on the side of defeat that winning ruins them. They didn't play the game as crassly and carefully as Senator Clinton, they can't say "well I just was against the poor handling, not the effort" and get away with it, the record is overwhelming.

They are stuck now, first clearly supporting then clearly being opposed to Iraq's rebuilding, even to the point of trying to sabotage the effort. Now that it's turning out so very well, what are they left with? Sheepishly dragging their feet and mumbling about something else.

Posted by Hugh Beaumont | November 3, 2007 1:49 PM

"Wait.. so we won? Cool! So when do the troops start redeploying to Afghanistan?"


Best.President.Ever

Posted by Rovin | November 3, 2007 1:51 PM

Sign in the DNC headquarters office:

"Warning----banking on defeat against one's enemies can be hazardous to ones political career"

or

"Reid lied-----political careers died"

or

"White flags are no longer allowed on these premises"----"in the interest of recycling use them as crying towels"

Posted by Del Dolemonte | November 3, 2007 2:04 PM

Weight of Glory says:

"It is the last part that is significant: managing Iraq AFTER MILITARY VICTORY. I have not seen this proper delineation between the victory of major combat operations and the post invasion occupation problems. I know it may seem like a small distinction, but it isn't. "

"Mission Accomplished".

Posted by Jeff from Mpls | November 3, 2007 2:06 PM

Wait.. so we lost? Sad! So when do the troops start redeploying to Afghanistan?

Posted by Tom in Houston | November 3, 2007 2:12 PM

Guys, Assuming this is victory in Iraq, what exactly did we win for a trillion dollars and 4000 American lives?

An Emboldened and more hostile Iran?
A ruined Turkish alliance?
Bad relations with all of European allies?
A collpasing dollar and sky high oil prices (due to collapsing dollar)?
A bankrupt US government?
A US military that has been streched to the breaking point?
A safer Israel?
An Iraq with a functioning government?
An Iraq able to resist Turkish, Syrian, Saudi, and Iranian threats?
Osama Bin Laden?
An Iraq with power and public services that function?

We may have made progress militarily (and good for our military for that), but I don't see us much closer to leaving Iraq than a year ago.

And this is victory? I thought that was when we could come home. But if calling Iraq now a victory is what will get the troops home and stop the massive government spending in Iraq, then I say ...Yea Bush, We Won.

But what did we win?

Posted by unclesmrgol | November 3, 2007 2:27 PM

Tom in Houston,

Huh?

Bankrupt?

Ruined Turkish alliance?

Aren't you reaching a bit here? In fact, aren't you reaching a lot here?

I take it you think the previous Iraqi government was more functional than this one. Well maybe it was, if you use the typical fascist reasoning that a dictatorial government is more functional than a democracy.

Posted by Andrew X | November 3, 2007 2:28 PM

Tom, I'm sure you'll get many a point by point response. Lemm start with a few as I am at work and have to be quick...

An Emboldened and more hostile Iran?

When has Iran NOT been hostile since 1979? "Death to America" for almost 30 years. Please.

Bad relations with all of European allies?

OK, THIS is huge. HUGE. Schroeder. Out Merkel, much closer to Bush. In. Chirac? Out. Sarkozy, MUCH MUCH closer to Bush, in. With high ratings.
Chretrien of Canada (de facto Europe), Out. Harper? IN, high ratings. John Howard. Big buddy of Bush. In, in, and in, and likely in again.

Our "poisoned relations" are essentially with the Euro-left AND their ENOURMOUSLY powerful and ideological media, much more so than us. Poisoned relations with them? I call that, "my tax dollars at work".

Sky high oil? I thought this was all about cheap oil! What happened? Did "Activists lie, Oil high? (yes they did, big time)

THe other criticisms of Iraq? That is exactly where progress is being made, every day. Hellooo. That's what this entire post is about.

I'll leave the rest to others with more time.

Posted by lexhamfox | November 3, 2007 2:31 PM

Yesterday the headline news in the UK and World summaries on the BBC was that for the first time there had been sustained reductions in violence. I can understand why politicians aren't jumping on this. Iraq has already seen a number of false dawns and there is still a long way to go. There are more years of hard work and money yet before anyone would seriously claim a victory in Iraq. I'm more optimistic than I have been about the future but I also worry that, like Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawl, we are not planning on consolidating these gains and making Iraq the success it needs to be in order for the strategy to properly work.

After years of blunder, incompetence, and fantasy, it is nice to see the numbers moving the right direction. Let's hope it is sustained and some of the less glamorous nation building can succeed.

Posted by tmi3rd | November 3, 2007 2:31 PM

The answer to what we won is the same thing that we won on V-J Day in 1945... the right of the victor to help shape events in the region.

We aren't leaving Iraq or Afghanistan anytime soon- and anyone who says otherwise from either party is not serious about what's going on over there. We left a large occupying force in Europe and in Asia after WWII, and the same applies here. The footprint will be smaller, but there will still be long-term deployments to the area.

Certainly, there will be a drawdown in forces if things continue to go as they are... but the odds are more than likely that there will be thousands of troops remaining in-theater for at least a decade, if not longer. See again how quickly we drew down forces in Germany and in Japan.

Rather than demeaning the opposing point of view, let me point you in a different direction... there is no way to withdraw our military forces as absolutely as some would have us without throwing away all that we have accomplished. Case in point- the profound stupidity in disbanding the Iraqi Army in the first place. Lest you think that I (as a conservative and as a proponent of our efforts in the Middle East) am trying to brush that off, that failure is 100% on people that I (and quite probably we) supported.

It is now incumbent upon the US Army and Marine Corps to recreate the institution that is/was the Iraqi Army, and hopefully improve upon it to the point where they can handle things on their own. That isn't going to happen until veteran officers and NCOs are running the show. That takes decades.

Wartime lessons, to paraphrase Robert Heinlein, usually only get learned after we (in this case, the US) fall flat on our face. The fact that it cost us 4000 troops is both an unacceptable falure and a great miracle at the same time. Unacceptable in that myopic strategy and hamstringing rules of engagement were closely held to when they were clearly not working; miraculous in that our fighting forces were well-trained enough and smart enough to work around these formidable problems and stay alive.

The history books will (hopefully) be as harsh on the original architects of the early failures of the war as many of the anti-war crowd are... deservedly so. There were policies in place that all but guaranteed failure. At the same time, I would encourage the anti-war crowd to not lose sight of the fact that the US can't simply walk away at this point. It's going to keep costing money and lives, and it ain't over. The situation is clearly improving dramatically in Iraq, and hopefully a shooting war can be avoided with Iran and Syria.

Nobody's going to be completely happy with things in the near future... so please vote accordingly.

tmi3rd

tmi3rd

Posted by Carol Herman | November 3, 2007 2:35 PM

It's still more PR than anything.

And, it still has already cost $3-trillion-dollars.

What's missing?

Oh, as europe was war-torn during WW2, the American troops still saw parades. Still saw the women in love with them. (Or at least for a pair of nylon stockings. Or a bar of chocolate.)

WHat's Irak got to offer?

Heck, even where the sun shines, from the Emirates, to the "new" Dubai. To the land of Saudi Arabia, it's as quiet as church mice, over there. With no fanfare for our troops. No asking for them to come and "rest, and recreate."

While in Saudi Arabia heads gt lopped off with ease. It's a form of public entertainment.

Instead of seeing parades? Which you don't see, her, either? You see a sense of glum-ness.

Yes. It's true, there's a lot of quiet.

Before the tbunder and the lightening? Before the floods? You'd be surprised how things "dry up" ... when there's silence. And, how things can flare, even from a spark of a fire cracker.

Most Americans, down the road, may examine this stuff more closely.

I'm reminded, how, before the Civil War, it only seemed the abolitionists were screaming about slavery.

Didn't end that what. After a long, drawn out slug fest; where politicians and soldiers underestimated the powers of hatred, we saw "stuff" gel.

If I had to guess? Bush hasn't made the sale.

And, up ahead? Do the saud's really get to take over the Mideast, because American soldiers give them license to threaten? You really think this is a successful approach? Or just one that was on the Bush family agenda?

True, it takes time for Americans to get really mad.

Many sat on their hands while Hitler's powers grew.

And, this Bush ain't no FDR! You know why? FDR led a reluctant country (with a large portion of isolationists), over the horizon. To fight, again, in WW2. Then? You could feel the patriotic vigor. You actually sensed a purpose.

Here? For the Saud's?

How come Maliki hates Bush's guts?

HOw come Israel moved forward on the "syrian" nacient nuke program? OKay. I've got no proof of that! But, you do know about "it." Whatever "it" happens to have been.

Restive arabs? Yeah. If Al-Jer-zee-rah just ran an article that the USA supplied the air force; and the Jews were merely overhead "back up" watching the rears of American pilots ...

And, you do know Condi has a revolt on her hands (at State).

Why do you assume you can sell this dog by polishing it up with propaganda?

If we "won" ... we're missing the bigger picture. Heck, even in Japan, General Douglas MacArthur was safe, for the five years, he and his family lived in Tokyo. RIght after the surrender.

Have all the "white haired people," who sere alive then. And, still remember. You think they're not surprised now, and what Bush has gone out and done?

The new tune? Oh, it will be about the Shi'a fanatics. Instead of Irak's "Saladan." But you've erased all those hard feelings?

My guess is that Irak will look like gazoo. Funded by the Saud's. Just the same. While Iran staggers to the plate, to "counter-attack."

Who the hell cares?

Posted by PackerBronco | November 3, 2007 2:37 PM

Tom in Houston:

If this is victory was did we accomplish?

How about this: a better future than we would have had with Saddam in power.

Keep working on those talking points. Perhaps there's still a chance to seize defeat from the jaws of victory.

Posted by Plank Tonne | November 3, 2007 2:44 PM

The MSM has been under-covering Iraq all year. When Saint Petraeus was lying about progress through August -- claiming that the surge had reduced violence when in fact violence was going up -- the MSM under-reported the surge in violence. Now that we've had a two-month drop for reasons mostly unrelated to the surge (Sadr declaring a cease-fire, the Anbar awakenin'), the MSM may be under-reporting that too, but if the MSM is just trying to disguise our "success," why did the MSM not report on Saint Petraeus's months of failure?

No, the MSM just got bored with Iraq, and I think left and right should agree that the MSM should be reporting on Iraq more -- the good news and the bad news (of which, folks, there is still plenty).

As to whether us moonbats will put up a "sheepish silence," you misunderstand national security principles. Those who have no national security principles -- and many elected Democrats do fall into this category -- will go with the tide; those of us who actually believe in America's national security know that it is in America's interest ton pull out of Iraq, whether the civil war is killing 2000 Iraqis a month or "merely" 1000.

And of course America "lost" as soon as we removed Saddam, given that he was no threat to America. If you loved America, you'd understand that.

Posted by Carol Herman | November 3, 2007 2:47 PM

YOu could also check out Tony Blair's career slide.

Yes. He was paid off handsomely by the Saud's.

But of 164 seats he held in Parliament, his side got reduced by 100 seats. That's quite a game of musical chairs, right there!

And, Tony's written a book. He blames his slide on Irak.

Everybody knows how to send "blame" elsewhere.

There's a game, underfoot, with the Saud's right now. Where they want Bush to sever Israel in two.

I have no idea how things in the future play out.

But for the blog world? This situation just isn't the same "winnah" ... as Dan Rather's quick demise.

Sure. It's a place.

Just like TV. Where everyone just had to go out and "have one." (I was around in the 1950's. So I know! Tuesday nights with Uncle Milty? THe neighbor with the TV, had a crowd.) Oh, and repairing TV's were big business.

Sure. You had choices. But no remote. You stood up and walked to the TV, to rotate the dial.

And, at 11:30, after the news finished? Peacocks, and other patterns were shown until the next morning.

This is just a reminder that all business models go through change.

I don't doubt that a "new wave" is gonna be ahead.

Otherwise, why are so many people paying attention to the preliminary rounds in presidential politics?

There's also a rule of war. You don't always have to be fighting. There are times you look at the map. And, you shore up your position, by telling your troops to "dig in."

The MSM? Working off a shrunken business model.

But Hillary? She knows a lot about how to win crucial events, at the 50 yard mark. (Gore didn't have a clue! Criminy, he lost Tennessee! His own state voted him OUT.)

But that was 2000.

Troops that aren't fighting now? They're being refreshed. Just by resting.

Posted by Only One Cannoli | November 3, 2007 2:49 PM

Hyperbole in Houston wrote:

"An Emboldened and more hostile Iran?"

Yes, unfortunately we moved from "Great Satan" status up to the more serious "Super Double Dog Satan" status and passed up an obvious chance to gain the more favorable "Satan's Festering Lackey" status. I'm sure we're all kicking ourselves over that one.

"We may have made progress militarily (and good for our military for that), but I don't see us much closer to leaving Iraq than a year ago."

A sincere thankyou for that admission. That's all I wanted to read from an anti-war lefty here. No, it's not victory but if you don't see this progress as a postive step that moves us closer to "leaving Iraq" well then ... I guess we'll have to take it one step at a time with you guys.

Posted by Terry Gain | November 3, 2007 3:10 PM

Case in point- the profound stupidity in disbanding the Iraqi Army in the first place. Lest you think that I (as a conservative and as a proponent of our efforts in the Middle East) am trying to brush that off, that failure is 100% on people that I (and quite probably we) supported.

What a cluelessly uninformed statement. The Iraqi army was not disbanded. It simply melted away. And do you really think that a Batthist Army would have suddenly become loyal to the new Shiite dominated Iraq. This is a very naive view, especially surprising coming from a conservative. The Iraqi army had to be built from the ground up- one soldier at a time.

It is now incumbent upon the US Army and Marine Corps to recreate the institution that is/was the Iraqi Army, and hopefully improve upon it to the point where they can handle things on their own. That isn't going to happen until veteran officers and NCOs are running the show. That takes decades.

Sheesh, just what the hell do uou think the U.S. army has been doing for the last 4 years? As you acknowledge it does take decades to build an army.

Victory in Iraq wasn't created in the last 10 months. It's the culmination of everything which went before, including ROE which drew a stark conrast between the American soldier and the al Qaeda extremist.

Iraqis had a choice and they have chosen wisely. But they needed to see both entities up close and personal before the right choice became obvious.


Posted by Terrye | November 3, 2007 3:13 PM

Well you know Tom when Pelosi and the gang were trying to pass that Armenian genocide resolution I did not get the feeling they really gave a damn about our relations with Turkey. As if they gave a rat's behind about genocide anyway.

What did we win? Saddam is gone. The Food for Oil scam is not in production. We are not patrolling the no fly zones from Saudi Arabia while Saddam shoots at our planes and tries to kill presidents. The UN Resolutions have been enforced. I thought progressives cared about things like UN resolutions and elections etc. Yep, every vote counts..unless the people voting are Iraqis is which case screw them.

As for the oil prices, if the Democrats really cared about this they would be making an effort to increase domestic oil production in places like ANWR, but they are not. They would be actively trying to open nuclear power plants, but they are not.

The truth is I don't think that it is really fair to blame the higher oil prices on Bush or Iraq, but I am sure that won't stop people from doing it.

As for bringing the troops home, what about Afghanistan? We have been there longer and I don't hear the left yammering to bring them home, or the people we have in Bosnia or Korea or anywhere else on the planet.

The truth is we may have some troops there for a long time.

Posted by Carol Herman | November 3, 2007 3:15 PM

Only One Cannoli. You gave me my laugh, today. What with the "super duper spraying pooper" of a remark that includes the "Satan's. And, Festering. And, Lackey." Heck, it's a wonderful use of language, right there.

But talking about "language," did you know when American troops spent time in France, some learned to say a "few words" in French? Others? Learned a little bit of Italian.

WHile over in Japan, there were American troops who learned a bit of Japanese.

Here? Soon enough there will be a cadre of troops, returning. How many will have learned to speak a few words of Arabic? How many will have pen pals? People in Irak, they hope to correspond with, on a personal level. After time passes?

You know, I have no idea.

But I do see that the State Department went into revolt, when Condi couldn't fill all 250 new posts in Baghdad's new embassy building. What could be causing this trouble, if there's a smell of victory, in the air? Over there?

As to the "surge," it was to protect the idiot sunnis. Who woke up to discover that in Irak, they've developed a "persona-non-grata" classification. (Half have already run out of the country. Others who would like to, though. Discovered the "open door" of a trip from Bagdhad to Aman, does not give them permission to set foot in Jordan. So they're harrassed, until they take a flight back "home.")

The surge? To convince the sunni tribal elders that their only hope for survivial ahead (and, that's not guaranteed, either). Is to allow Americans to train their men in how to handle weaponry. Which they had to use to dump the Saud's financed "Al-Kay-Duh." An amazing reality hit home.

This is our big success.

It's like "saving fatah" in gazoo.

Most people don't give a rat's patootie.

Keep your eyes on the diplomats. Most of them are trained real well, not to give away the store, when they dance. But they just erupted on Condi's head. (How do you think those people will be voting? You think, if they obviously don't like Condi, that they'll remain friends of the GOP?)

Where do stories ahead, come from?

Dunno.

But I do know that ten years after WW1, the biggest book to arrive was ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT. It opened people's eyes to the carnage.

What can you hope for? That Americans hate to read? No book, ahead, can make such a dent, again?

Up there with doing "rain dances," to bring on the rain, when areas get parched.

Posted by Terrye | November 3, 2007 3:16 PM

Terry:

I remember stories of American troops Iraqi army uniforms and boots in heaps where men had stripped out of them and put on civilian clothing before they literally disappeared.

And I agree, those Shia had been betrayed once, if we had taken out Saddam and then given the military to some Baathist strongman we would have had more trouble, not less.

Posted by Terrye | November 3, 2007 3:18 PM

That should be American troops FINDING Iraqi army uniforms...sometimes my fingers outpace my brain.

Posted by Tom W. | November 3, 2007 3:19 PM

As usual, the only coherent, adult, thoughtful, informed comments come from those who support the mission in Iraq.

From the antiwar crowd, you get:

1) deeply unserious, juvenile snark
2) bitter, miserably unhappy condescension
3) distortions and outright lies
4) and personal attacks on Petraeus because he's the one who tore their playhouse down.

All they wanted was a humiliating defeat for the U.S., and that lying Petraeus broke their hearts by snatching it away.

Sweet. Sweet!!!!!

I love the seething, teeth-gnashing impotence of leftists. It smells like... victory.

Or cow farts; I can't tell which.

Posted by Dave in Pa. | November 3, 2007 3:20 PM

"A "sheepish silence"? That assumes a conscience and a capability of feeling shame. I don't see a manifestation of either in the leadership of the Democratic Party, or the hard Left in general.

Posted by Only One Cannoli | November 3, 2007 3:31 PM

Carol H., happy to read that. ;)

Posted by Nick Kasoff - The Thug Report | November 3, 2007 3:35 PM

Defeat for America, victory for Hugo Chavez ... got to love Democrat's hopes for geopolitics.

Nick Kasoff
The Thug Report

Posted by Tom in Houston | November 3, 2007 3:46 PM

Saddam is not in power in Iraq. A good thing for which I am glad. But do we have anything better now? Chaos? A potential civil war? Instead of a fumbling Iraq not getting weapons of mass destruction, we have a capable Iran credibly looking to achieve nuclear status. And I believe that Bush's Middle East policies played a large role in the election of Ahmedinijad and the silencing of the Iranian liberals.

The US cannot be the world's policeman. We lost choices to do other things (Darfur is one example) when we went after Iraq. I believe that the cost (financially and diplomatically) we have paid was not worth the result. Or any potential outcome. In my opinion, we are just getting to a slightly less crappy outcome. And that is good news. But I wouldn't call it victory.

Don't look at Merkel or Sarkozy as evidence that the Europeans are with us. They aren't. And isn't just the left. They certainly aren't helping in Iraq anymore. Its pretty much everyone.

The war in Iraq was not without justification. But it was elective. And by removing one (largely - contained) threat, we have created others that are more troublesome.

I hope Bush finds a way to call it a win there. So we can just leave as much of that mess as possible and stop using lives and money there. Mainly because I think our continued presence there is a long-term problem that detracts us from real threats in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, North Korea, and Venezuela.

Posted by Andrew X | November 3, 2007 3:56 PM

"Mainly because I think our continued presence there is a long-term problem that detracts us from real threats in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, North Korea, and Venezuela."

Say we doubled down on Afghanistan in 2003 and it din't make that list because of stability.

Is there a single person reading this, even one person, who does not believe Saddam's / Uday's Iraq would today be on that list of "real threats" that this "incompetent administration" has allowed to fester, while of course us Democrats would have handled Iraq toot sweet, boy howdy, but Bush had to take his eye off the ball.... blah blah blah....

Even one person reading this?

Right.

Posted by Swede | November 3, 2007 4:09 PM

"After years of blunder, incompetence, and fantasy, it is nice to see the numbers moving the right direction".

Oh, I know. I guess it's a good thing these positive developments in Iraq all happened by accident.

Posted by Tom in Houston | November 3, 2007 4:14 PM

Andrew X

Howard - OUT - in a landslide
Merkel - How many troops does she have in Iraq?
Sarkozy - In because he campaigned against France's idiotic 35 hour work week and took a strong stand against the riots. How many troops does he have in Iraq?
Blair - OUT
Harper - Leading a Minority government that relies on the leftist PQ to stay in power.
Putin - IN, popular, and causing trouble
Chavez - IN, more popular than he should be, and causing trouble
Musharraf - In trouble
Burlesconi - OUT
Aznar - OUT
Turkey's AK party - IN
Hamas - IN in Gaza
Admidinijad - IN, more popular than he should be, and causing trouble.
Osama Bin Laden - At large

I don't cheer these things. And they aren't all a result of us being in Iraq. But I think our Middle East/Iraq policies have had an adverse impact on these things.

Posted by Swede | November 3, 2007 4:14 PM

I can't wait until we can pull our troops out of Germany and Japan.

We've been there for over 60 years. I think it's time we declared ourselves defeated and bring the boys home.

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 4:15 PM

The point of the Surge was political reconciliation.

There has been no reconciliation.


The Surge FAILED.


More info here:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08231t.pdf

Posted by Otter | November 3, 2007 4:28 PM

'the surge FAILED'

Does anyone besides me get the impression that steve j. is really desperate dingy harry?

Posted by Swede | November 3, 2007 4:30 PM

"The Surge FAILED"

Correct, just like Harry Reid.

There's no excuse the Iraqi government couldn't have worked out all of their differences in the 10 months we've given them.

I mean sure, our own government, in it's infancy, took years and years to develop. But we want it and want it NOW. For crying out loud, we have microwave popcorn that done in 4 minutes! If an episode of Friends can conclude in 1/2 an hour, why couldn't the Iraqi government do it?

Posted by Plank Tonne | November 3, 2007 4:37 PM

From the article on Iraqis coming home:

But Azawi said things began changing, becoming more peaceful, in August when radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his Mahdi Army fighters to stand down nationwide.

So we moonbats were right: the September-October drop in violence occurred not due to the glorious surge (which in fact caused Iraq violence to go up at the height of the surge) but due to Sadr's cease-fire.

Those of you who think the surge didn't fail would have to figure out why Saint Petraeus found it necessary to spend months lying about violence going down due to the surge, when it was going up. No one's saying it's a bad thing that violence finally did go down in September -- but it was not due to the surge, and the way to make sure these trends continue is to get American troops out, not leave them in (since the presence of American troops is a catalyst for violence).

But no, you don't want a successful outcome in Iraq, you want to keep American troops there for the purpose of making liberals mad and feeding your RDS (Reid Derangement Syndrome). I mean, I hate Harry Reid too, but for caving in to Bush and the Republicans on every major issue, not for correctly pointing out that the surge was a failure.

Posted by Andrew X | November 3, 2007 4:41 PM

Plank -

That Confederate South got a heckuva lot more peaceful when Robert E. Lee "ordered his Army fighters to stand down nationwide".

I've gone through a million books, but I still can't figure out what made him do that. It's almost like he had some outside force in the equation that he had to take into account at the time, but I haven't quite figured out what it was.

And eternal mystery, I guess.

Posted by Tom in Houston | November 3, 2007 4:44 PM

So the GOP salespeople for this war sold this as a never ending commitment? I'm not willing to pay for this forever. Neither are the American people. Many patriotic Americans are proud of the bravery that our troops displayed, are glad that Saddam is gone. And are ready for us to end this war. As soon as possible. I'm not interested in nation-building at this price. If I wanted to do that, I'd do that in Saudi Arabia instead.

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 4:46 PM

OTTER: Does anyone besides me get the impression that steve j. is really desperate dingy harry?

SWEDE: Correct, just like Harry Reid.

No, I'm just like George F. Will:

September 11, 2007
By Bush's Own Standard, Surge Has Failed
By George Will
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/by_bushs_own_standard_surge_ha.html


Posted by PackerBronco | November 3, 2007 4:53 PM

Steve J. refutes arguments from a current news story by posting a link to an article from two months ago.

Soon he'll be posting links to articles from March.

Ah, those were the good old days weren't they SJ?

Posted by James | November 3, 2007 4:57 PM

I wish Ed wouldn't post when he's been drinking.

This "good news" sounds like a trap to declare victory and start a troop withdraw by the end of Bush's term.

What we need is a good hard definition of what victory is in Iraq.

If I remember right, in WW2, after 1940, France was a pretty quiet place; Oh, they had a few bombings here and there, and some people were shot snipping at good German soldiers who were just trying to keep the peace. Then D-Day happened. I blame America for that.

Never fear folks, we will be chatting about Iraq a year from now, just like we are today.

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 4:58 PM

Steve J. refutes arguments from a current news story by posting a link to an article from two months ago.

I refuted the "argument" by linking to the recent GAO report.


Posted by Jim C | November 3, 2007 5:11 PM

Tom in Houston, and Planktonne,

You all disgust me. For God's sake can't you just admit that our troops are making progress? Are you that ideologically motivated that you refuse to admit to facts that are right in front of your face?

It really disgusts me that there are Americans out there that hate Bush so much that they are actively cheering for our enemies, and based on your comments, you all appear to be amoung that group. Oh yeah, Yes, I'm questioning your patriotism.

Jim C

Posted by Terrye | November 3, 2007 5:18 PM

Speaking of the price of oil what do people think it would be if the United States just up and left Iraq?

As for Venezuala and Korea and Pakistan, exactly what was anyone doing about them before? Anything? Not that I can remember. If Clinton tried to make nice with the Iranians I missed it. If the Democrats tried to resolve the problems with Iraq in the 8 years they controlled foreign policy, I missed that.

And no, Patraeus did not fail. He did say that ultimately many of the problems facing Iraq would have to be settled politically, but the surge was about bringing security so that political reconciliation was possible.

and steve can cherry pick all he wants, the truth is if the political situation improves, then people like steve would be whining about the economic situation and if that improved....on and on.

Meanwhile we are supposed to believe that letting Saddam try to kill a president, thumb his nose at the UN, shoot at our planes, kill hundreds of thousands of his own people, mothball weapons programs instead of getting rid of them etc was somehow going to lead to the long term stability of the region.

Yeah sure.

Posted by Terrye | November 3, 2007 5:20 PM

The most disgusting thing however, is that AlQaida has been dealt a lethal blow in a Muslim nation that they themselves believed it was vital they win. And somehow the left is so busy hoping Bush will lose that they can not even be glad these evil people are being rejected by other Muslims.

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 5:20 PM

TERRYE -

You've been cheerleading failure for over 4 years now. Time to give it a rest.

Posted by Terrye | November 3, 2007 5:21 PM

Steve:

You did not refute anything. You just cherry picked some information.

Posted by Terrye | November 3, 2007 5:24 PM

Steve:

And what have you been cheerleading for? Defeat? For whom? No, you give it a rest. I am just getting started.

Posted by Terry Gain | November 3, 2007 5:27 PM

terrye

Thank goodness most of our errors are typos and sometimes, as in Baathists, spellos rather than stinko thinkos like these:

Saddam is not in power in Iraq. A good thing for which I am glad. But do we have anything better now? Chaos? A potential civil war?

Let's see is a government which will not:
1. pursue nuclear weapons;
2. run terrorist training camps;
3. harbur terrorists;
4. attempt to assassinate a former POTUS;
5. have terrorists like WTB bomb maker Abdul Rahman Yasin on its payroll;
6. invade another country;
7. start wars;
8. put 340,000 in mass graves
9. cause hundreds of thousands to disappear;
10. commit genocide

better than Saddam. Boy that's a tough one (if you're a leftist.

or this

Instead of a fumbling Iraq not getting weapons of mass destruction, we have a capable Iran credibly looking to achieve nuclear status.

What pray tell, is the connection between America liberating Iraq and Iran pursuing nuclear weapons? Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons long before 2003. If anything the resolve shown by Bush in Iraq may cause Iran to back down when the time comes to choose being attacked or continuing to pursue nuclear weapons.

or this beaut

And I believe that Bush's Middle East policies played a large role in the election of Ahmedinijad and the silencing of the Iranian liberals.

And I believe if the GOP wins decisively in 08 the Iranians may pull a Gadaffi and abandon their nuclear weapons. And I know

that if there hadn't been so much opposition in America to the mission succeeding, victory would have been achieved much sooner.

or this

The US cannot be the world's policeman. We lost choices to do other things (Darfur is one example) when we went after Iraq.

Darfur wasn't pursuing nuclear weapons which it might have given to terrorists to be used against the United States. ( Saddam's weapons programs were put on hold not abandoned and would have been re-started as soon as sanctions ended.)

or this

I believe that the cost (financially and diplomatically) we have paid was not worth the result. Or any potential outcome. In my opinion, we are just getting to a slightly less crappy outcome. And that is good news. But I wouldn't call it victory.

Months ago I predicted that this is exactly what the left would say when victory came. One of the reasons you think it wasn't wort it is you don't understand what's been accomplished.

First the most obvious accomplishment -although the left will be in denial about this is the defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq and the destruction of their reputation and standing among ordinary Muslims not only in Iraq but throughout Arabia. The paper tiger -as bin Laden called America- has given the Islamists a shit kicking.

Secondly, Muslims have seen that America did not come to Iraq to steal their oil, but to liberate them and help them establish a democracy. If you don't think this won't enhance the reputation of the United States you have difficulty thinking logically.

Thirdly, we have helped Iraqis establish a democratic government.

but wait there's more

Don't look at Merkel or Sarkozy as evidence that the Europeans are with us. They aren't. And isn't just the left. They certainly aren't helping in Iraq anymore. Its pretty much everyone.

Good god the same Euroweenies who aren't doing their share in Afghanistan won't do their share in Iraq. The reason they hate America is we remind them of their inadequacies. You can't feel guilty about not helping if you can convince yourself that it's not a liberation, it's an occupation, or whatever.

or my favorite

The war in Iraq was not without justification. But it was elective. And by removing one (largely - contained) threat, we have created others that are more troublesome.

Total nonsense. One threat eliminated and another threat (al Qaeda seriously and perhaps permanently degraded). And don't forget Libya abandoned its nuclear program because of the war to liberate Iraq and the A.Q. Khan nuclear network was revealed and nullified.

And this last one is plain unserious and disingenuous

I hope Bush finds a way to call it a win there. So we can just leave as much of that mess as possible and stop using lives and money there. Mainly because I think our continued presence there is a long-term problem that detracts us from real threats in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, North Korea, and Venezuela.


As resolute as he is you can't seriously suggest Bush should have solved all of these other problems while liberating Iraq in spite of the war being waged against him daily by the MSM and opposition party in his own country.

BTW, where do you think those al Qaeda fighters would have been if they hadn't been getting themselves killed in Iraq. Did it ever occur to you they would have been killing American soldiers in "the just war" in Afghanistan.

It was al Qaeda that couldn't wage wars on two fronts, not the United States.

Posted by Terrye | November 3, 2007 5:29 PM

So Saddam is standing on his balcony wearing his gangster outfit, smoking a cigar, shooting his tommy gun into the air...laughing because the sanctions have been lifted, he has got his weapons programs up and running again and he is happily killing people.

He laughs at the UN. He laughs at the US, he promises to finish the job he started on the Kurds and the Shia and makes it plain that he still thinks Kuwait is his...

What does the left do? Besides whine and cry that Bush did not take him out when he had the chance. The truth is steve, if not for the war people would still think Saddam had those stockpiles because the UN obviously wasn't going to figure anything out. The other truth is no one knows even now where the weapons are.

So the same left who complains about Pakistan, but let the Paks get a bomb, who complain about Iran, but did nothing to slow down the mullahs want us all to believe that if the United States had not gone into Iraq, the world would be happy go lucky kind of place.

I don't think so. That is the problem with guys like steve, they are good at bitching and moaning, but when it comes to viable alternatives, they are not so swift.

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 5:30 PM

AlQaida has been dealt a lethal blow in a Muslim nation that they themselves believed it was vital they win.

That "lethal" blow was delivered by Sunnis shieks in Anbar Province back in Sept. 2006. BTW, those sheiks can shift allegiances on a dime, so I wouldn't be clapping very loudly.

Posted by Tom in Houston | November 3, 2007 5:30 PM

Jim C

LOL..Question my patriotism? Go right ahead. Continue to think that all people who are tired of the money and lives being spent in Iraq/or think that the neocons and Bush have made grievous errors that damaged America are a bunch of dirty unwashed hippies who hate our military and America. Call everyone who doesn't think Iraq is a great victory that was worth the cost unpatriotic. Please use that argument in 2008. See where it gets you.

Posted by Terrye | November 3, 2007 5:32 PM

Terry:

I do lots of spellos and typos. preview is for sissies.

Posted by richard mcenroe | November 3, 2007 5:32 PM

Andrew X -- well, when you lose the BBC reporter weeping over the death of Arafat, you've lost the world...

Posted by Swede | November 3, 2007 5:35 PM

"BTW, those sheiks can shift allegiances on a dime, so I wouldn't be clapping very loudly."

I would be. We're the one's who are supplying that dime. Bye-bye AQI.

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 5:37 PM

The truth is steve, if not for the war people would still think Saddam had those stockpiles because the UN obviously wasn't going to figure anything out.

LMFAO!!! The UN inspectors went to the sites WE recommended and found NOTHING. Kay & Duelfer FOUND NOTHING.

Posted by Swede | November 3, 2007 5:37 PM

"Please use that argument in 2008. See where it gets you"

Ah, yes. Appealing to the future. How'd that crystal ball of yours work the last 8 years?

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 5:40 PM

Thirdly, we have helped Iraqis establish a democratic government.

LMFAO!!! If you ever bother to read their Constitution, you'll find that SHARIA LAW is enshrined there.


Posted by Terrye | November 3, 2007 5:40 PM

Steve:

You can not be that dense. Who were those Sunni allied with when they went after AlQaida? This is just great. If the locals turn on AlQaida it supposedy does not mean anything whereas if the locals ally themselves with AlQaida it is a sign we are in a hopeless struggle. Think about that, how ridiculous that is. The whole point is to help the Iraqis create a government that is not run by a fascist dictator. It is stunning how many lefties find that to be a bad thing.

Listening to you is like watching a snake swallow itself.

You have turned yourself inside out.

Meanwhile the left has nothing to offer but bitch bitch bitch.

Posted by Swede | November 3, 2007 5:41 PM

"LMFAO!!! The UN inspectors went to the sites WE recommended and found NOTHING. Kay & Duelfer FOUND NOTHING"

Say, doesn't that make you wonder why Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeline Albright, John Kerry and other mental giants of the Left all said he had them and that he was a direct threat to the United States?

Do your homework and use your google button. They say it better than I can.

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 5:42 PM

if the United States had not gone into Iraq, the world would be happy go lucky kind of place.

It would be a LOT better place.

Posted by Terrye | November 3, 2007 5:43 PM

Tom:

Saddam pulled off the largest scam in history and the anti war people could care less about the lost money or who benefits. The US could spend billions flying the no fly zones and being on the ready for Saddam to slip his leash and who cares about the money?

You know what? If the Congress wants to shut off money and pay and bullets to the troops in Iraq and force a retreat they can do that. Bush can not stop them if they have the votes. It seems they don't.

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 5:44 PM

If the locals turn on AlQaida it supposedy does not mean anything

That's NOT what I wrote but that is what YOU wanted to read.

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 5:46 PM

The whole point is to help the Iraqis create a government that is not run by a fascist dictator.

That wasn't the point:

"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about." -Ari Fleischer Press Briefing 4/10/03

Posted by Terrye | November 3, 2007 5:49 PM

Steve:

How can you know that? Are you psychic?

The sanctions were on their way out. According to General Zinni back in 2000 Saddam could have his biological and chemical weapons back in production in months.

Who was going to stop him? And if he had done that, if he had rendered the entire weapons inspections regime useless what then? If he had gotten away with turning the Food for Oil program into his personal slush fund would anyone have taken the UN seriously again?

Gaddafi would have his bomb by now in all likelihood and since the Clinton administration had not even known about what Pakistan was doing in the 90's, how many more countries would have used AQ Kahn's help to get weapons?

And how can you know that all of that would not have ultimately lead to a larger and more deadly war? You can't know.

Posted by mrlynn | November 3, 2007 5:49 PM

We achieved military victory in Iraq when we defeated Saddam and his army. The problem is been with the occupation and pacification of the country. After rough going, that is now succeeding.

We cannot leave Iraq anytime soon, because we cannot allow Al Qaeda back in, and we cannot allow Iran to take over the southern oil fields and to dominate the Gulf.

So we are going to stay in Iraq, working from large military bases, which will enable us to maintain and project American power throughout the Middle East. That will enable us to protect the bulk of the world's energy supplies for the next few decades.

No American president in his right mind is going to pull us out of Iraq. It is arguable, I guess, that the Democrats are not in their right minds, but sitting in the Oval Office has a way of imposing a different reality.

Staying in Iraq will have an ancillary benefit: enabling us to deal more easily with Iran. That's next on the agenda. If Pakistan doesn't require some emergency action. . .

It won't end. Not while we are the leader of the free world. And not if we want to make sure there is a free world in years to come.

/Mr Lynn

Posted by Swede | November 3, 2007 5:51 PM

"It would be a LOT better place"

If only Algore or Jawn Caree had won!

Then bunnies and kitties and puppies wouldn't cry. And rainbows would be shooting out Steve's ass.

Amazing how he can see into the future if the past was different.

Posted by Terrye | November 3, 2007 5:54 PM

Steve:

Oh please, do not play that game with me. I don't care what kind of cut and paste you do with Ari or anyone else. I have read the Iraqi Liberation Act. I have read Zinni's testimony to the Senate. I have read the Resolution giving the President autority to go into Iraq. I have read resolution 1441 at the UN, the force resolution.

I remember Clinton on TV in 1998 swearing up and down that Saddam had weapons. I remember ABC doing some documentary in the late 90's on Saddam's ties with AlQaida.

I remember enough about the war and the years leading up to it, that I know how dishonest it is to make this all about Bush. maybe you were stoned or still in grade school, but if Saddam was an innocent and harmless little man his friends and allies had years to prove it before Bush ever came to the White House.

Posted by Tom in Houston | November 3, 2007 5:54 PM

Terrye,

We don't have support for pulling all the money out in the Senate yet. We'll need to pick up a few more seats in 08 to do that. There also needs to be a disengagement plan. I understand the military has refusing to cooperate with Senate Dems on preparing one. We may need a new commander in chief in order to start firing DOD employees that wont come up with one. It would be idiotic to pull the money if the military doesn't have a disengagement plan that makes sense.

I'm sure the cost of the war in Iraq is 100 times higher than the flyover charges.

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 5:56 PM

According to General Zinni back in 2000 Saddam could have his biological and chemical weapons back in production in months.


"In my time at Centcom, I watched the intelligence, and never -- not once -- did it say, 'He has WMD.' " GEN. ZINNI, Wash. Post, 12/23/03

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 5:58 PM

don't care what kind of cut and paste you do with Ari or anyone else.

That's because you don't care about the facts. You can't even grasp my posts here.

Posted by Swede | November 3, 2007 5:59 PM

"I understand the military has refusing to cooperate with Senate Dems on preparing one"

That's funny. I thought the military worked for the president.

Posted by Swede | November 3, 2007 6:01 PM

""In my time at Centcom, I watched the intelligence, and never -- not once -- did it say, 'He has WMD.' " GEN. ZINNI, Wash. Post, 12/23/03"

Then why would Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeline Albright, and John Kerry all lie to the American people and say that he did?

What a conundrum!

Posted by Swede | November 3, 2007 6:09 PM

Did mother call you to dinner?

Posted by Swede | November 3, 2007 6:16 PM

I imagine they're frantically emailing Kos for the answers to those very difficult questions.

They'll be back in a minute or so.

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 6:16 PM

SWEDE -

I made and defended my point.

Posted by Swede | November 3, 2007 6:19 PM

Dear Kos,

Does the military actually work for the president? I thought they had to run their war plans past the Senate Dems.

And why would Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Madeline Albright, and John Kerry all state that Saddam all had WMD if he didn't?

Plus, should I wash my hands when mother calls me to dinner?

We're eagerly awaiting your response.

'Kay, bye.

Posted by Swede | November 3, 2007 6:21 PM

That you're an ignorant jackass?

Well done, sir!

Posted by Baxter Greene | November 3, 2007 6:38 PM

Steve J,
If Kay and Duelfer found nothing,than why did most of the world and your super intelligent heroes in congress agree to go to war to prevent "nothing" from getting into the hands of terrorist.

Could it be that Saddam only let Kay and Duelfer
in when he wanted to and not when they wanted in.
How many times were inspectors turned away or told
they could not go places.

Get real and tell all the facts if your going to
defend Saddam.

The sanctions were a joke and the oil for food program combined with all of the WMD hardware and
facilities that Saddam still maintained(according to Duelfer) show that Saddam did not take the UN
or anybody else seriously and was waiting them out.

Also,according to the Egyptians and Spanish,Saddam tried to swing a deal before the Iraq War.
He wanted one Billion dollars and his WMD program to go with him.Some pretty important"nothing"Huh.
Go tell the Kurds and Iranians about "found nothing" that ended up killing tens of thousands
of them you leftist idiot.

For the last few years all the super intelligent
liberals have been yelling
"civil war",
"the war is lost",
"worst foreign policy disaster in modern history"
"The Iraqis will never live together,Saddam was the only thing that kept them from killing each other."
"The US military is escalating and causing the violence in Iraq."
"Withdraw,genocide is inevitable."

Bush changes course and puts General Petraeus
and his surge plan in control with the overwhelming approval of the Senate.

When the full surge is implemented around June,
Violence starts to drop dramatically.
It drops every month after.
Sunni and Shia attend meetings together.
Sunni and Shia pledge to work together.
Sunni and Shia attend funerals together and pledge to fight Al-Qaeda and outlaw militias together with the help of Coalition forces.
Locals form security organizations to work with
the local police,Iraqi and Coalition forces.

According to our super intelligent liberals,the surge has nothing to do with this.
After years of Slaughter and bloodshed,in the middle of a bloody civil war,Al-Sader just decides to stand down and now all is well.
No,No,wait a minute.It's not just Al-Sader's quest
for peace and freedom,it's also because the
genocide in Iraq is complete,right liberals.

Man,when have I heard such stupid and idiotic propaganda to try and make cover for past positions that liberals have taken to help position themselves for the new position they want to take to help themselves out politically.

Oh yea!

Years of Clinton,Gore,Kerry,Reid,Cia,Pentagon and pretty much all the major intelligence agencies of the world telling us how dangerous Saddam was,how dangerous his WMD program was,his
nuclear ambitions,his ties to Al-Qaeda and other
terrorist organizations.How this mad man needed
to be stopped.Clinton making regime change US policy.
After 9/11 Democrats and Republicans realized that we could not wait to be attacked by terroist
regimes and voted to go to war in Afghanistan and
Iraq.
But when Iraq got messy and the polls went south,our super intelligent liberals brought out
"BUSH LIED"
"WE HAVE BEEN MISLEAD"
"BUSH BETRAYED THIS COUNTRY"
"BUSH IS A WAR MONGER"
"THIS WAR IS FOR OIL"
Yes sir,oh big dumb Bush just pulled Iraq out of
no where and tricked all the super intelligent liberals in congress to vote on the war and
was also able to trick all the worlds intellignece
agencies into saying the same things about Saddam
to help him with his imperial quest for world
domination.

Yes sir,listening to liberals give credit to the
success we have in Iraq right now to everybody but
Bush and the American Soldier brings back all the
memories of the last few years of:
"Bush lied"
"Bush did 9/11"
"It's all about oil and Haliburton"
"The war is lost"
"Our Soldiers are nazis and cold blooded killers"
and all the other intelligent positions liberals
have taken the past few years.

By the way genius,how is that impeachment going.
(my fault,Dennis is waiting for a flying Saucer
to come down and give him his instructions).

Posted by jaeger51 | November 3, 2007 6:54 PM

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

-Michael Savage

Posted by Swede | November 3, 2007 6:57 PM

Baxter Greene,

You can play with my toys but please don't break them.

Posted by richard mcenroe | November 3, 2007 7:05 PM

When Zinni and First Command give back the money they stole from junior enlisted men, Zinni can talk about Iraq.

Posted by Faith1 | November 3, 2007 7:13 PM

What if we held a war, and our Military showed up and we won?

I don't think the left has any concept of winning a war. Only by losing can they beat their breast in false humility and cry for the humanity. I truly think most liberals shouldn't be allowed in public without adult supervision.

Posted by The Mechanical Eye | November 3, 2007 7:20 PM

Mission Accomplished?

Maybe. I don't know. I hope.

But the gloating is sickening, after all the death that preceded it. This isn't a tailgate party. And America's trust in the GOP, as opposed to the military, is gone.

We've seen this kind of gloating before in 2003. And what we're celebrating is that the violence is down to 2005 levels.

All I'm asking for is some adulthood.

DU

Posted by Swede | November 3, 2007 7:34 PM

Gloating?

The good news is good enough that the MSM can't ignore it anymore. That's not gloating, that's a first.

For those of us who've actually fought in this war and then despaired because the reporting was total crap, I think we should get a pass if we do gloat.

The rest of you can just be very, very, happy.

But not smug, we'll save that for our friends who do it so well.

Posted by Carol Herman | November 3, 2007 7:42 PM

"Some" victory.

Our embassy people, to get around Irak, hire BLACKWATER.

Maliki wants to arrest Blackwater's personnel, because they shoot at terrorists. (Sure. Dressed as arabs.)

The recent news about how the Polish Ambassador, got shot, his body guard killed. While his convoy was under attack, perhaps escapes notice?

But in DC, Condi had diplomats lashing out at her. And, yes. She has problems filling the 250 slots, opening in Baghdad's diplomatic postings. Even though they pay more. The posting is considered "difficult."

Where's that in your "sweet Irak" news?

Is lying to Americans considered "this easy?"

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 7:48 PM

BAXTER: If Kay and Duelfer found nothing,than why did most of the world and your super intelligent heroes in congress agree to go to war to prevent "nothing" from getting into the hands of terrorist.

1) Most of the world OPPOSED this war
2) Congress gave Fredo the authority to invade AS A LAST RESORT

Posted by jr565 | November 3, 2007 7:49 PM

Steve J referenced Zinni and suggested he never once saw evidence that Iraq had WMD's.
Then why in 2000 did Zinni testify before congress and say the following:
"Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf region. This is primarily due to its large conventional military force, pursuit of WMD, oppressive treatment of Iraqi citizens, refusal to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR), persistent threats to enforcement of the No Fly Zones (NFZ), and continued efforts to violate UN Security Council sanctions through oil smuggling,"
He also said:
"While Iraq's WMD capabilities were degraded under UN supervision and set back by Coalition strikes, some capabilities remain and others could quickly be regenerated. Despite claims that WMD efforts have ceased, Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions, and is concealing extended-range SCUD missiles, possibly equipped with CBW payloads. Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains the scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months. A special concern is the absence of a UN inspection and monitoring presence, which until December 1998 had been paramount to preventing large-scale resumption of prohibited weapons programs. A new disarmament regime must be reintroduced into Iraq as soon as possible and allowed to carry out the mandates dictated by the post-Gulf War UN resolutions."

I guess Zinni was lying back then when he testified before congress. Why was he such a liar Steve? Liar, liar pants on fire.

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 7:50 PM

BAXTER: Could it be that Saddam only let Kay and Duelfer in when he wanted to and not when they wanted in.

No

Posted by Swede | November 3, 2007 7:53 PM

Someone's crazy aunt wandered back in here.

And apparently traded her meds for a foreign dictionary.

Posted by Swede | November 3, 2007 7:55 PM

Steve,

Saddam's dead.

You should probably stop dry-humping his leg now.

It's indecent.

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 7:56 PM

BAXTER: For the last few years all the super intelligent liberals have been yelling ... "the war is lost",

WOW! This guy is now a liberal???

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
February 24, 2006 2:51 PM

It Didn't Work

By William F. Buckley Jr.

"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes—it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."

One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed.

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 7:59 PM

JR565 -

Give the LINK (and, no, WorldNet doesn't count)

Posted by Swede | November 3, 2007 8:00 PM

Hey everybody! Imagine that!

State Department people don't want to go to "Irak".

That's like saying hippies don't want to take a shower.

State is filled with career moonbats who think that they shouldn't be told where to go by the government even as they suck on the government teat.

Shocking, I know.

Posted by jr565 | November 3, 2007 8:02 PM

Steve J wrote:
Congress gave Fredo the authority to invade AS A LAST RESORT Of course, at the time Edwards, Kerry and Clinton all were on board in the removal of Sadaam. Only later when their kook base started wonking out did they suddenly shift gears, to not only suggest that they didn't give Bush approval, but they even developed amnesia about what they said prior to Bush taking office. I mean, I'm presuming that Congress under Clinton signed off on the Iraqi Liberation act in 1998. THat had to be based on something right Steve?
Also, didn't the UN also say that 1441 was the last resort as well? The last 15 resolutions didn't really do the job, so 1441 was finally going to be the last chance when the UN got tough. This time, they really reallly meant it. Until of course the next last chance and the next last resort obviously. Do you even realize how intellectually bankrupt The Last restort is for people who refuse to actually honor that commitment.
There is no such thing as the Last resort to you people, because that is simply rhetoric to hide the fact that you have/had no intention of addressing the issue.

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 8:02 PM

BAXTER:But when Iraq got messy and the polls went south,our super intelligent liberals brought out..."THIS WAR IS FOR OIL"

GREENSPAN ON IRAQ
On Saturday, Bob Woodward let us know this explosive tidbit in Alan Greenspan's memoir:


Without elaborating, he writes, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Posted by Swede | November 3, 2007 8:02 PM

Wow.

Whoever wrote that Steve would keep referencing articles further and further back in time was right.

But there's no time like the present, right Steve?

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 8:04 PM

Also, didn't the UN also say that 1441 was the last resort as well?

No

Posted by Swede | November 3, 2007 8:06 PM

"Without elaborating, he writes, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Says Alan Greenspan, noted historian, military expert, and seer.

Hey, what did Cher say about the war?

Posted by jr565 | November 3, 2007 8:08 PM

Steve J wrote:
JR565 -

Give the LINK (and, no, WorldNet doesn't count)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinni

Scroll down to the part about testimony before congress.

Posted by brooklyn - hnav | November 3, 2007 8:08 PM

GREAT NEWS CAPTAIN !

This President's resolve is the stuff of Legends.

Having had all the overt slander, debasing, undermining, vilification heaped upon him, and the Man stood firm in a very difficult challenge.

The Iraqi People may actually have a chance for a Free Democracy because of some old fashioned gutty Leadership.

Some in Eastern Europe know the Democrats actually opposed the attempt by Ronald Reagan to strive for their Freedom.

Now the Iraqi People were forced to watch the Democrat Partisans trying to destroy their hope for a better tomorrow, because of the Liberal Democrat Petty Partisan Greed.

Sure, many Conservatives got weak kneed in the process, and produced some truly embarrassing efforts.

But in the end, with all the cards stacked up against the USA, and a very strong President, they have proven to be tougher than expected.

Osama has underestimated the Free West, and hopefully, we will continue the fight.

2008 is essential.

No turning back to the mindless days of denial and negligence.

Just say no to Hillary...


Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 8:08 PM

BAXTER: After 9/11 Democrats and Republicans realized that we could not wait to be attacked by terroist regimes and voted to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

That is NOT true about Iraq.

Posted by Swede | November 3, 2007 8:11 PM

Also, I find it ironic that Steve is able to send his idiocy over his compewter and into the interwebs all because of....wait for it...just a little bit more...a little more...ok, here it comes...oil.

Also, without oil, how is algore supposed to pollute our planet by flying his jet to get his peas prize?

Think.

Posted by Terry Gain | November 3, 2007 8:12 PM

ME/DU

al Qaeda had been decimated in Iraq in 2003 or 2005?

Sunnis were fighting alongside Americans in 2005?

CLC's had taken control of their neighborhoods in 2005?

Iraqis had rejected Islamic extremism?

Ramadi was safer than Washington D.C. ?

The Anbar and Diyala Awakenings had occurred?

The IA numbered 175,000?

Petraeus was implementing a true COIN strategy?

You must live in a leftist dream world.

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 8:13 PM

JR565 -

Thanx for the link to Zinni's perpared testimony. You neglected this part:

"A new disarmament regime must be reintroduced into Iraq as soon as possible and allowed to carry out the mandates dictated by the
post-Gulf War UN resolutions."

Posted by Swede | November 3, 2007 8:16 PM

Steve would rather burn trees.

Hey, there's an idea: our economy could run on trees.

Steve, you genius!

Posted by Swede | November 3, 2007 8:19 PM

""A new disarmament regime must be reintroduced into Iraq as soon as possible and allowed to carry out the mandates dictated by the
post-Gulf War UN resolutions"

Which negates nothing of your claim about Zinni and WMD.

Posted by jr565 | November 3, 2007 8:27 PM

Steve J wrote:
"A new disarmament regime must be reintroduced into Iraq as soon as possible and allowed to carry out the mandates dictated by the
post-Gulf War UN resolutions."

Why exactly would a new disarmament regime need to be introduced into Iraq AS SOON AS possible if Iraq had no wmd's and posed no threat. It suggests that its imperative that a disarmement regime is necessary because in fact Iraq still maintains either programs, or intent to procure weapons, despite the UN's attempt to keep him in line AND it suggests that in fact the previous disarmament regime had failed, because there would be no reason to intorduce a "new" disarmament regime if the old one was working.
This ties in nicely with Duelfler's comments that the containment process was falling apart andin free fall, and his assertion that Sadaam still maintained his programs and intent to restart development.


Thanks for playing though.

Posted by Swede | November 3, 2007 8:30 PM

Reading comprehension: The other white meat.

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 8:31 PM

AND it suggests that in fact the previous disarmament regime had failed

No it doesn't. It refers to the fact that the inspectors were thrown out in 1998.

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 8:33 PM

Duelfler's comments that the containment process was falling apart andin free fall, and his assertion that Sadaam still maintained his programs and intent to restart development.

Duelfer DID NOT say Saddam maintained his programs.

Posted by Swede | November 3, 2007 8:40 PM

"No it doesn't. It refers to the fact that the inspectors were thrown out in 1998."

Thus leading to Iraq's further attempts to develop weapons and programs for future weapons.

Are you tired or something?

And again, negates nothing in your claim about Zinni and WMD.

Posted by Carol Herman | November 3, 2007 9:01 PM

Israel has a great military. Many battles have been won. Unfortunately, she stayed too long in Lebanon ... after Arik Sharon cut through that country to tear arafat off their Beirut walls; 1982. And, sent him packing. To Tunis.

So what?

The arabs don't let military victories stand in the way of their insanities.

Finally, many years later, when Ehud Barak got elected TO the Prime Minister's chair; he upped the IDF. And, they fled Lebanon.

Nasrallah talks a good game. After kidnapping two Israeli soldiers from INSIDE Israel, he watched the world yawn.

Olmert, on a moment's notice went in. James Baker, then went into action, telling Olmert to "turn right" and go into Damascus. And, remove Assad's head. Why? Oh, this was a good deal for the Saud's.

To the Saud's our military, like the Israeli military, are just water boys. (Sure, they're shocked that Bush seems a bit impotent. But that doesn't stop the games you're really seeing playing.)

As to Irak. Iraq. Or shit's-ville. See if I care what you call it. They had Saddam. Who was in charge of a secular country. The Saud's had their eyes on it!

So far? The score is that the American military learned how to do urban warfare, well.

As well as the Israelis.

The Israelis, however, have learned you do not "take" territory from arabs. You do not go in to "stay."

And, the next time America is forced to fight where there are muslims, and/or arabs. It's gonna be quick. In and out!

One plane. One bomb.

Just like the stuff that did not "officially" happen to syria's nuke plant(s). So syria says they were date farms.

Not that I care.

But we're in Irak, Iraq, or shit's-ville, as some people will see some of our military calling the place; when they finally get back home.

Yeah. "We won." But you still need BLACKWATER to get ya from place to place.

And, so far? Bush hasn't got a working relationship, either, with Maliki. Who knows? Maybe, he's having an "affair" with somebody else?

I did find it interesting, when the LA Times said it might be "sitting on a sex scandal," that people, without any facts, decided it was either Builiani or Hillary. Well? What if it's an affair for either George or Laura Bush? Does Bush have this ability to always just fade into the woodwork?

So many mistakes have been made these past seven years. There's a story there, somewhere. Just as Reagan used to predict for the optimistic kid, who was handed a shovel. And, a barn full of BS. As he kept digging into the pile, he was heard saying "there must be a pony in here, someplace."

Posted by jr565 | November 3, 2007 9:03 PM

stevej wrote:
"Without elaborating, he writes, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Says Alan Greenspan, noted historian, military expert, and seer.
This doesn't mean what you think it means, and is selective quoting on your part.
Greenspan is an economist, so his focus is on the economy. And to him it was imperative to take out Sadaam so as to preserve the stabilty of the world economy. His notion of war being about oil was not some sinister idea of Bush trying to take the oil for america, but rather as a protective measure to safeguard the intermational economy by stabiliing the region. And he thought takeing out sadaam was imperative.
So his notion of the war being about oil is not the same as the lefts notion of the war being about the oil. One is a necessary act to protect the international economy, the other being an insinuation that we're ivading to steal oil. but in any case, even if that's what Alan Greenspan believes about Iraq, it doesn't mean that the administration was acting on the same rationale when it invaded Iraq (though clearly the administration, as well as the past administration thought that keeping Sadaam in power would continue to destabilize the region). In fact, Greenspan says, I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ‘Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?’ I would say it was essential.”

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 9:08 PM

Greenspan is an economist, so his focus is on the economy.

My point was very simple: not all the people who said that the Iraq War was about oil were liberals.

Posted by jr565 | November 3, 2007 9:09 PM

Steve J wrote:
AND it suggests that in fact the previous disarmament regime had failed

No it doesn't. It refers to the fact that the inspectors were thrown out in 1998.
Ok, if we are supposed to be "containing Iraq" and all the inspectors leave in 1998, and there is noone watching the store as it were why would the assumption be that everything was copacetic, and it certainly suggest that the previous disarmament regime failed,if there are NO INSPECTORS IN IRAQ!!!!
He says again ""A new disarmament regime must be reintroduced into Iraq as soon as possible(!!!!) and allowed to carry out the mandates dictated by the
post-Gulf War UN resolutions."
Why? Because obviously, the old disarmament regime had failed. There would be no need to institute a new disarmament regime if the old one were working fine, nor would he express that it need be done AS SOON AS POSSIBLE if he didn't think the previous disarmament regime had failed and that it was important to get a new one in place quickly, if he didn't feel that Iraq was a threat because of WMD's (not the words DISARMAMENT).

Posted by jr565 | November 3, 2007 9:20 PM

Steve J wrote:

My point was very simple: not all the people who said that the Iraq War was about oil were liberals.
Again, Greenspan is not arguing the same thing as hte liberals are when he says the war is about oil. You're arguing that we invaded Iraq as some nefarious war profiteering sinister imperial endeavor to enrich haliburton, and Greenspan is arguing that keeping Sadaam in power will destabilize the world market. One side is saying that a war for oil is wrong, hence the slogan "no blood for oil", whereas Greenspan is arguing the exact argument, that its necessary to remove sadaam trhough force as a protective measure.
You shouldn't pick and choose the argument taking words out of context and then try to use that out of context quote to push your own argument, and ridi on Greenspans arguments coattails, when in fact his argument is completely different than your own, other than that it shared similar verbiage in one sentence.

The administration might say that its imperative, once Sadaam is gone to protect the oil fields from getting into the hands of a group like al qaeda, as having a state that harbors and sponsors terrorists like al qaeda is not in our interest,but having said terrorist groups controlling a huge chunk of oil that the world relies on to work, might not be a good policy to entertain, especially if a terrorist organization was able to use the fortune it received selling oil to fund terrorist operation against us. THen you could argue that its a war about oil to some degree, but its not the same argument as your argument, namely that we are there as an imperialist power to simply grab riches for ourselves.

Posted by Terry Gain | November 3, 2007 9:20 PM

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 8:33 PM

Duelfler's comments that the containment process was falling apart andin free fall, and his assertion that Sadaam still maintained his programs and intent to restart development.

Duelfer DID NOT say Saddam maintained his programs

----
Keep it up Steve J. I love it when leftists demonstrate their dishonesty.

Duelfer said this at page 59 of his report.

"In addition to preserved capability, we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD as soon as sanctions were lifted".

Let me break it down for your leftists mind, steve.

clear evidence

of his intent

to resume WMD

as soon as sanctions re lifted.

So if leftards like you had your way we would now have both Iran and Iraq pursuing nuclear weapons. And you guys claim Bush is stupid.

Tell me steve. Are you praying to Allah for the return of the 12th Imam or exactly what is your problem with this threat, and this complication, being eliminated?


Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 9:22 PM

Again, Greenspan is not arguing the same thing as hte liberals are when he says the war is about oil.

Yes he was making the same argument as some liberals. I know because I am one of those liberals.

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 9:30 PM

"In addition to preserved capability, we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD as soon as sanctions were lifted".


Saddam didn't have WMD nor the means to produce them in 2003.


Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 9:32 PM

This is also in the Duelfer Report:

"Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed."

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html#sect1

Posted by Del Dolemonte | November 3, 2007 9:37 PM

LOL! Has anyone ever seen Steve J and Scott Ritter in the same place at the same time?

Posted by checkers | November 3, 2007 9:40 PM

What the media and dems will do is somehow turn victory into something "bad". Then they will be able to acknowledge that yes victory has occurred but that we are the worse for it. It will be in some form of America has to win to "prove ourselves" and that is not a good reason. Or America won because we are bullies and don't have the decency to "talk" to those different from us. Or that we have to force everyone in the world to conform to a "democracy" which will be portrayed as "bad" since it keeps the rich rich and the poor poor. etc. etc. etc. you know the drill.
Mark my word, it will eventually spin this way as victory will be an unacceptable outcome and since the outcome can not be changed then the reason for the outcome or its aftermath will have to be cast as evil.

Posted by Carol Herman | November 3, 2007 9:45 PM

Biggest missing piece in action: Saddam had the capabilities, and the will, of destroying the Saud's.

He nearly wiped Kuwait (their cousins), off the map. And, the Saud's dawdled. They didn't want our troops IN. But Bush #41, was having knipshins in the White House. Reluctantly the House of Saud agreed it needed to be "saved" from Saddam.

Heck, in 1991, Saddam nearly (had he only been given the opportunity!), wiped the Saud's and their nutty religion, quite off the map.

That would have been a good thing.

As to Saddam's battlefield abilities, during the Irak/Iran confrontations; our military learned Saddam was no great shakes as a battlefield commander. That's why he used terror. He thought that worked. When it's a poor man's stupid version of real warfare.

But if you're gonna have warfare on arab soil ... Many Americans have just learned ... What the Israelis learned ten years ago. STAY THE HELL OUT OF "CONTROLLING" arabs. You don't need the stinking problems. Build walls. Do not let them in!

Do you know how old this warfare tactic is? It goes back to the Greeks. Who sealed off the flow of Persians. In other words? It's like CHINA, and her great wall. Make it impossible for the lice to get in.

We don't do that.

Instead? We played nice with the Saud's. Many of our politicians and lawyers, grew rich taking their money. Selling themselves to this devil.

We're paying the price. And, the Saud's are doing it with OUR money!

Oh, Saddam's WMD's didn't get destroyed till September 6, 2007. When the Israelis somehow cancelled the nuke plants in the syrian desert.

How did Saddam's stuff get to Assad? THINK! This stuff rolls on trucks. Or, you've got the Euprates, flowing from one country to the other.

You think I'm kidding?

Not about this.

I wish we could'a done to the House of Saud, what we've done in Irak! There would have been much less resistance! Even though Americans, like Israelis, are generally not liked. Too much jealousy to ever think we're gonna gain acceptance with turds.

Posted by Terry Gain | November 3, 2007 9:47 PM

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 9:30 PM

"In addition to preserved capability, we have clear evidence of his intent to resume WMD as soon as sanctions were lifted".

Saddam didn't have WMD nor the means to produce them in 2003.
------


So he didn't have WMD in 2003. He would have had them by now.

I knock down one lie you put up another. You must be a koskid.

And what would have prevented Saddam from again pursuing WMD as soon as sanctions ended? Other than leftist wishful thing?

Was it a coincidence that salaries to IAEC were increased tenfold by Saddam between 2001 and 2003?

Whose side are you on, he said rhetorically?


Posted by bayam | November 3, 2007 9:48 PM

Back to declaring victory in Iraq again? Perhaps it's time to bring out Cheney to deliver some more brilliant one-liners about attacks of desperation and dead enders.

If you ask the average Iraqi in Baghdad if the Iraqi army is going to eventually evolve into a national force that can protect the country from violence or if sectarian conflict is coming to a conclusion, you might be surprised by the answer. This struggle is hardly over.

I don't think that the US should leave Iraq now for any reason- nor should anyone start declaring victory again.

Posted by jr565 | November 3, 2007 9:48 PM

Steve J wrote:
Again, Greenspan is not arguing the same thing as hte liberals are when he says the war is about oil.

Yes he was making the same argument as some liberals. I know because I am one of those liberals.
So is it your argument that we should have taken out sadaam Hussein because of the threat to the world economy? No, then ythat not making the same argument as you and your leftie friends.
If you are on board with Greenspan then you are for the Iraq war.If not, then you are making a different argument.

Posted by Baxter Greene | November 3, 2007 9:57 PM

Steve j,

You have made no valid points nor have you refuted any of the points concerning the lead up to the Iraq war and the success of the surge.
Unless you consider saying "no",and "that's not
true",and posting a bunch of cut and paste comments as some kind of credible defense of the ever changing liberal position.

The bottom line is that you and your liberal base stand for only one thing,that's furthering your political agenda.

If you stood for freedom,you would rejoice in
hearing news that Iraq is becoming less violent and every day brings it closer to becoming a free country that the men,women,and children can
have a future in.

If you stood for freedom for all people and
eliminating the tyrants and dictators that oppress
and kill innocent people by the hundreds of thousands, you would be glad that Saddam was gone.

But liberals like yourself think the world was
better off with a mad man that committed genocide
by the hundreds of thousands using WMDs,torture rooms and hit squads.

Cutting and pasting a few quotes from a conservative here and there,cherry picking quotes
from generals is not enough to hide the fact
that your liberal heroes in congress told this country for years how dangerous Saddam was and voted to take him out with force.
It will not hide the fact that you and the vast
majority of democrats in this country and government have done everything they can to undermine the Bush administration,undermine our
Soldiers that your liberal heroes in congress sent
over there,and do everything you can to force the
US to surrender to the Jihad so that you can run
around and say"see I told you so" and gain some
Senate seats and hopefully the White House.

Freedom is the worst enemy of the terrorist,President Bush knows this,our Soldiers know this,the people of Iraq are starting to know this,and the people who really understand the stakes in the War on Terror know this.

But this is all just a bumper sticker to the
super intelligent liberals like steve j.

Posted by Captain Ed | November 3, 2007 10:02 PM

Let's let Alan Greenspan himself explain why Steve J is such a completely dishonest commenter:

Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman, said in an interview that the removal of Saddam Hussein had been "essential" to secure world oil supplies, a point he emphasized to the White House in private conversations before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Greenspan, who was the country's top voice on monetary policy at the time Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, has refrained from extensive public comment on it until now, but he made the striking comment in a new memoir out today that "the Iraq War is largely about oil." In the interview, he clarified that sentence in his 531-page book, saying that while securing global oil supplies was "not the administration's motive," he had presented the White House with the case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.

"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287.html

This Steve J's style -- he likes to post multiple comments on this blog once a month or so, usually using easily-debunked memes like this Greenspan lie.

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 10:03 PM

So he didn't have WMD in 2003.

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002

"No terror state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein." RUMSFELD, 9/18/02

Rumsfeld: We know they have weapons of mass destruction. We know they have active programs. There isn't any debate about it. 9/26/02 http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2002/t09262002_t0926sd.html

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency." President Bush, 10/2/02

"We know for a fact there are weapons there." - Ari Fleischer, Jan. 9, 2003

VICE PRES. CHENEY: And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. El Baradei frankly is wrong. MTP, March 16, 2003 http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm


"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about." -Ari Fleischer Press Briefing 4/10/03

Posted by bayam | November 3, 2007 10:07 PM

So is it your argument that we should have taken out sadaam Hussein because of the threat to the world economy? No, then ythat not making the same argument as you and your leftie friends.

What a lame discussion. Did you notice that oil is nearing $100 per barrel? Do you not realize that Iran's economy would have already collapsed under the pressure of sanctions if not for the massive profit windfall sent from the West to Tehran daily?

When anyone talks about taking action in the Middle East to protect the oil supply, that all comes down to keeping oil prices low. Threats to oil production in delivery could lead to disruptive increases in price. And guess that- that game has already played out. You might say that the US missed that policy goal. Oil prices have more than tripled.

A discussion around the need in 2002 to remove Saddam to protect oil prices is absurd. If that was ever part of the policy formula, it was a massive miscalculation and failure.

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 10:09 PM

If you stood for freedom,you would rejoice in
hearing news that Iraq is becoming less violent and every day brings it closer to becoming a free country that the men,women,and children can
have a future in.

Article 2:

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 10:12 PM

This Steve J's style -- he likes to post multiple comments on this blog once a month or so, usually using easily-debunked memes like this Greenspan lie.


1) it was not a lie.
2) it did prove that not all the people who claim this was a war for oil are liberals.

Posted by Carol Herman | November 3, 2007 10:12 PM

Captain Ed,

Despots rule all the countries in the Mideast.

Reagan was able to extract some benefits from Saddam, during the 1980's.

And, what we lost?

Saddam, seeing himself as a modern day Saladan, wanted to go in and clean out the House of Saud.

He wanted to take over Mecca.

And, if nothing else, that would have provided at least one benefit better than oil. The Madrasses wouldn't be full of terror training.

Islam might have gone into a spasm? Sure. But with religion, when that happens. You shake up the Catholics, for instance. And, the outgrowth ... was thousands of different Christian churches.

Starting with the big one. You could talk to a married man, who was your minister. No longer needed to follow the dictates of a pope.

By the way, back in the 1400's? There were two popes. One in Rome. And, one in France. (Where's there's money and power, there are always problems.)

Today, the world's better off when the religious choices increase.

While the Saud's have made sure to decrease what's available to Muslims, these days, around the world.

Of course, the Bush Family and the House of Saud, are very, very close! That's why Bush #41 reacted as he did.

Anyway, in my book Saddam was just as dangerous in the 1980's, as he was when Bush #41 became president. Saddam lost his head, not because of oil markets, either. But the fact that the Bush's got that angry!

Those were very powerful moves.

We're still living with the consequences.

And, Alan Greenspan knows that oil, today, is topping $100 a barrel. And, to make money, the Saud's and their cousins are pumping faster.

I'd also bet part of what the Saud's want Bush to do is to give them "space" ... so that they use not only their madrasses ... but their Mideast "growth" ... into syria ... and other places ... to ward off what happens in 50 years. When their wells go dry.

Even Dubai was built up as a "oome-on" to other arabs to see what money does. While the "money" is also hiring labor at slave labor prices and conditions.

Now? Saddam's dead. And, I'd bet there are lots of Iraqis who are not very fond of us.

Hearts and minds, have not been won.

We're not in WW2, anymore.

By the way, thanks for letting me comment. You're very generous.

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 10:18 PM

Freedom is the worst enemy of the terrorist

There is heavy emphasis in the 2006 Strategy on democratization as a means of
countering terrorism. Viewed in the context of the mixed success of fledgling
democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan and the persistence of autocratic regimes among
U.S. allies in the Middle East, the credibility and effectiveness of this strategic thrust
may merit scrutiny.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/graphics/pdf/crsreport071101.pdf

Posted by bayam | November 3, 2007 10:19 PM

If you stood for freedom,you would rejoice in
hearing news that Iraq is becoming less violent and every day brings it closer to becoming a free country that the men,women,and children can
have a future in.

Baxter- it all depends on what your definition of democracy is. From what I've read, few Iraqis expect that you'll have an opportunity to experience what you and I consider freedom in Baghdad, where religious extremists unleash their version of justice against people who violate Islamic codes of dress and conduct.

Yes, it's great to see signs of progress in Iraq, but I wouldn't set unrealistic expectations for the ultimate outcome. Is the history of sectarian violence coming to an end, or are Shittes and Sunnis preparing for a major showdown? It's too early to say.

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 10:24 PM

your liberal heroes in congress told this country for years how dangerous Saddam was and voted to take him out with force.

They NEVER voted to take him out with American forces.

Posted by Terry Gain | November 3, 2007 10:26 PM

Posted by Carol Herman | November 3, 2007 10:12 PM
Captain Ed,
Despots rule all the countries in the Mideast.

---
Wrong Carol. Iraq is ruled by a democratically elected government. Try to keep up. Or at least keep your uniformed comments shorter.

By the way, thanks for letting me comment. You're very generous.

Captain Ed is tolerant to a fault. He's a good Christian man. And he puts the names of the commenters at the top so his readers can take appropriate action.

Posted by bayam | November 3, 2007 10:28 PM

Captain,

I read that article when it was first published, and one point caught my attention:

Greenspan said disruption of even 3 to 4 million barrels a day could translate into oil prices as high as $120 a barrel -- far above even the recent highs of $80 set last week -- and the loss of anything more would mean "chaos" to the global economy.

Again, $120 oil might be a few months away. Look at the nearly $1 trillion that this war is expected to cost. Even if oil prices are held near $100 per barrel, it's still a huge policy failure.

Admittedly, I'm not a new age right-winger who likes to sing campfire songs about saving the world from dictatorships. Nor do I think that fighting a war to protect oil is a necessarily a bad thing. I'm simply talking about a cost-benefit analysis of this war as it relates to oil and economic security.

Posted by Terry Gain | November 3, 2007 10:40 PM

Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 10:24 PM
your liberal heroes in congress told this country for years how dangerous Saddam was and voted to take him out with force.

They NEVER voted to take him out with American forces.
----

The majority of Democrat Senators voted to authorize the use of force. Say goodnight stevej.

That's enough lies for one night.


Posted by Steve J. | November 3, 2007 10:49 PM

The majority of Democrat Senators voted to authorize the use of force.

ONLY IF NECESSARY.

Posted by grasshopper | November 3, 2007 10:50 PM

Heh. Wikipedia used as a reference. Now, that's funny.
Wikipedia's own General Disclaimer:
Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer

Cite another source (maybe even two!)for me, preferably peer-reviewed, websites allowed but published articles would be better. I am tired of leftist viewpoints being shoved in my face with no credible evidence.
I attend a university as a working adult student which will not allow us to reference Wikipedia. Students will receive a failing grade on an assignment if Wikipedia is referenced, and we are firmly told so in the syllabus at the beginning of EVERY class.

Posted by Pat | November 3, 2007 11:24 PM

I don't know if this will make a difference where the WMD's are concerned but in 1994 we treated an Iraqi "boy" (he was actually a soldier in Saddam's Army at the age of 16) for what was determined to be the effects of a from of Sarin gas. This treatment was given in a hospital in Germany. Unfortunately the kid died. Going on, as someone that fought in the first Gulf War, I very clearly remember the stockpile of Chemical Weapons that were positioned just off the road leading from Kuwait into Iraq to where the refugee center was located (also the place where General Schwartzkopft met with the Iraqi leadership). Kinda hard for me to believe they were the only chemical weapons that existed. (I think the folks from TIME Magazine took pictures of the stuff.)

Additionally, while I was in Dharharan picking up supplies for my unit, I got tasked to move some Air Force missiles from Dharharan to El Kharg. While waiting to pick up the load I spent some time looking at an Air Force radar screen that was displaying air movement from the AWACS aircraft (I think, I don't know how those things work.) The operators were all laughing about all the aircraft flying from Iraq to Iran! The comment was made at the same time about the number of convoys moving out of Iraq to both Iran and Syria on the ground. I didn't pay a whole lot of attention, but when this issue of whether or not WMD's existed or not, I thought about this.

Don't forget the use of Chem weapons on the Shiites, Kurds and Iranians also.

Posted by Baxter Greene | November 3, 2007 11:59 PM

Bayam,

I think you make a valid point.
I in no way think nor do I remember our military/
Administration saying that Iraq would end up
like Oklahoma. This is a muslim country and I realize that their laws and customs run contrary to ours in many ways.
I believe that a government run by the people
will evolve into a society that will respect gender,race,freedom of religion,and many of the same rights that the west enjoys over a period of
time.
I believe it took America almost seven years to get a working Constitution.
The Iraqis have had one for a little over a year.
The expectations that liberals put on Iraq to be considered "successful" or "making progress" are
unrealistic at best.
Sunni and Shia holding hands as they walk down the street.
Everybody with electricity,water,cable,health care,jobs,union cards....etc.etc.etc.
No killings anywhere or it's a sign of civil war.
Iraqi government getting along like the village people at a San Francisco street festival,passing
reforms and laws without any disagreement at all.

America has gone through many trials and tribulations to become the society that we enjoy
now.
We did not get to where we are by yelling"Surrender!!" when we had to overcome racism,civil war,womens rights and facing down the
external threats like the nazis.

I know that liberals don't think Saddam was a threat to anybody,Iraq was just a paradise loaded with a bunch of kite flying enthusiast,and was just made to look like a murderous dictator by Bush to steal their oil.

But just a short time ago,Iraq was lead by a brutal dictator that killed his own citizens by the hundreds of thousands,invaded other countries
because of(gasp)their oil and perceived threats,killing tens of thousands of people with WMDs,torture,rape,and any other way he could.
Outside of Baghdad and the sunni triangle,there was no power,running water,or any of the other basic things we have to go about our daily lives.
Shia and Kurds were slaughtered on a regular basis by Saddam and his sunni henchman.

I know this might sound crazy,but it might take
a little while for this nation to come together to
be a free,productive nation and an ally to the rest of the free world.

I wish liberals held the cities they run from top to bottom like,New Orleans,Detroit,DC,and Philadelphia to the same standards as they now hold the Iraqis to.

Steve j.
Saying "ONLY IF NECESSARY" when the FACT is brought up that your liberal friends in congress
voted to go to war with Iraq does not absolve the
FACT that your liberal heroes in congress voted to
go to war in Iraq.
The day after the invasion,I don't remember Hillary or Reid or John Kerry yelling,
"We didn't vote to use force"
Even though the resolution plainly states to
remove Saddam with force.
This may absolve your elected democrats in that
liberal echo chamber you live in but it is not working in the real world.
Please do yourself a favor and put your hands up at shoulder level,and firmly push your head out of
Olberman's butt.

Posted by bayam | November 4, 2007 12:47 AM

This is a muslim country and I realize that their laws and customs run contrary to ours in many ways. I believe that a government run by the people will evolve into a society that will respect gender,race,freedom of religion,and many of the same rights that the west enjoys over a period of
time.

This observation puts you far ahead of the administration. In the early days of the war, the White House trotted out Laura Bush to talk about all the freedoms Iraqi women could look forward to in post-Saddam Iraq. It's now much more likely that women in Iraq will enjoy far few freedoms, as Saddam was generally a secular leader unlike those likely to follow the current dead horse administration running Iraq.

Setting the wrong expectations at the start of the war has lead to many political problems for Bush. Then again, it could hardly be avoided because the war was predicated on many bad assumptions about what would follow a US invasion and occupation.

I know that liberals don't think Saddam was a threat to anybody,Iraq was just a paradise loaded with a bunch of kite flying enthusiast,and was just made to look like a murderous dictator by Bush to steal their oil.

Well, before the war the consensus in US intelligence circles (not havens of liberals) was that US-led sanctions had turned Iraq into a contained threat. A clear consensus also held that Saddam's modus operandi was self preservation, not killing Americans and that military action in Iraq wasn't necessary.

So I wouldn't paint the situation in an overly simplistic way. Remember that many Republicans like Powell and Scowcroft didn't support the war- and fully realized the hell that would be unleashed between Sunnis and Shiites and toward an occupying Western army in a Muslim country.

Posted by Math_Mage | November 4, 2007 1:30 AM

SteveJ - but at the same time, they had received reports from a man, codename "curveball", who had claimed to have worked in a place where they were making WMDs. Clinton believed him, Bush believed him. Unfortunately he lied. But does that mean Bush did? Plus, there's the whole "Saddam had been defying UN 1441 for twelve years, whether or not he actually had WMD" bit.

And in the bit Captain Ed quoted, Greenspan said "I'm not saying that was the administration's motive," just that the oil bit happened to be a good thing for the global economy. So no, it wasn't an out-and-out lie, but it was misrepresentation of facts.

Carol, I'm not going to argue specifics with you. But where do you get this idea that the whole thing was about protecting Saudi Arabia's interests? I'd be more interested if there wasn't so much chaff to dig through to get to that one nugget of opinion.

Posted by Baxter Greene | November 4, 2007 1:31 AM

Bayam,

For someone who did not support the war,Powell sure made a hell of a speech for it at the UN to help get us there.Strange way to show opposition.

I believe the overall opinion about sanctions and UN resolutions before we went to war was that they were failures,the same as sanctions and the EU,UN have been failures to stop Iran.
Nancy Pelosi herself said Saddam was making a mockery of the Sanction process.
No one knew for sure about what Saddam had weapons wise until we had 130,000 sets of boots on the ground.
It was Saddam's responsibility to totally give up his weapons programs,cooperate with UN inspectors
FULLY WITHOUT OBSTRUCTION, per his surrender in the first gulf war.
The fact that Saddam played games and did not abide by his own agreement was enough reason in itself to apply force to someone responsible for this much death and war.

Once again I have to ask,

If Saddam was so under control and no obvious threat,why did the worlds intelligence agencies,Democrats and Republicans,and most of the press tell us for years that he had WMDs,Ties to
Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations that they could hand their weapons off to,nuclear program,Assasanation attempt on one of our presidents,invasions of other countries ....etc.

This going back and cherry picking quotes does in
no way reflect the overall consensus by most intelligence agencies,our government and the vast majority of the American people that through the 90's and up until 2003,Saddam was considered a major threat to the middle east and according to John Edwards,an immanent threat to the America.
There are hundreds of quotes by Democrats,Republicans,Intelligence officials,
military personal,Journalist,cia,pentagon,defense
department....,that stated how dangerous Saddam was and that he needed to be dealt with.
Of course you can find some people who thought
differently,just like I am sure there were people
who said to enter WW11 would be a disaster.
But you have to be totally blinded by your political agenda to "blame Bush" for everything
not to see that the push to take out Saddam started long before Bush came to office and to have ignored Saddam after 9/11 would have been insane.
The vast majority of the people of this country,the vast majority of Democrats and Republicans,and the vast majority of our intelligence agencies saw Saddam as a threat that
could no longer be ignored and we sent our men and
women in uniform over to address that threat.

We should support our troops by supporting their
mission,correcting mistakes that have been made,(like putting Petraeus and his surge plan into effect),quit using the mistakes to beat down
the administration into submission and surrender,and recognize that freeing 50,000,000 people from tyranny and oppression is a good thing.
We have not won,it's not over,but the progress that is being made should be on the headlines and the front page like the car bombings, Cindy Sheehan,Abu Grab,Gitmo,and Haditha was.

Posted by Baxter Greene | November 4, 2007 1:36 AM

50,000,000 people freed is Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by glasnost | November 4, 2007 1:56 AM

That's 3000 returnees out of 4 million displaced, Ed. Similar token returns have been conducted at intervals in 2007. It's trivial, Ed, and trivial programs are producible on a whim. It's not a reliable indicator of anything. You're revealing your lack of understanding of magnitude and context. It detracts from your credibility.

If you want to learn something, study the rate of exodus instead. That is probably on the decline, but before you put up a happy post on that, take note that Syria is closing its borders at last.

The MSM paranoia is quite funny: the MSM heavily reports every speck of good news from Iraq. These articles are not cited by right-wing bloggers looking to demonstrate an anti-war MSM, but sadly they exist anyway.

Posted by The Yell | November 4, 2007 2:29 AM

"That's 3000 returnees out of 4 million displaced, Ed."

That 4 million estimate of displaced includes at least 2 million INTERNALLY displaced people.

Posted by Otter | November 4, 2007 3:53 AM

The better things get in Iraq, the more hysterical the Left gets. This thread is surefire Proof of that. Too bad everything they trot out can be knocked down; isn't the internet great?

Posted by Jose | November 4, 2007 6:25 AM

"Can anyone imagine Republicans hoping the Nazis would win because it would help them politically?"

Plenty of them opposed Clinton's operations in the former Yugoslavia. And members of the Republican party were sympathetic to the Nazis. If it hadn't been for Pearl Harbour it's doubtful Rosevelt could have entered WW2 against that opposition.

It's good that 3,000 families have returned to Baghdad. Hopefully they returned because they wanted to not because they've been kicked out of Syria or Jordan. There are still several million refuggees and large numbers are still fleeing so it's not as if the refugee problem is over though.

Posted by Terry Gain | November 4, 2007 7:01 AM

There were 4 million refugees when Saddam was in power. Today's refugees can return to their homes without fearing that they will be killed by the government.

The refugee problem will soon be over as will the election prospects of a certain U.S. Senator who called the man who is most responsible for enabling this progress, a liar.

Posted by mrlynn | November 4, 2007 7:22 AM

Excellent posts from Baxter Greene: thanks for introducing a measure of sanity to this thread (though the Olberman remark was a bit crude).

There are two kinds of left-wing opposition to the Iraq campaign:

Democrats, who if a Democrat were in the White House would be praising "the glass is half full" instead of "mostly empty";

and moonbat communist fellow travelers, under the guise of "peaceniks" (remember those?), who are simply against anything America does.

Neither are willing to recognize that Iraq is but a part of the much larger Global War on Islamic Terror, and that in turn a part of the responsibility America has assumed for maintaining the economic system of the free world. The Democrats are simply using Iraq as a club to bash President Bush (just as they use semantic quibbles about 'torture' to the same end). The moonbats are just looking for the next Joseph Stalin to follow into the abyss.

For the most part, the mainstream press and TV networks are content to rehash Democrat talking points. So (to get back to the original topic) it is news for the rest of us when one paper acknowledges that there just might be something good happening in Iraq, despite all.

/Mr Lynn

Posted by Jeff from Mpls | November 4, 2007 9:27 AM

Democrats have taken this second-guessing blowhard stance too far.

They're coming off like Johnny Cochran working the O.J. jury, urging them to forget the facts in front of their faces, and to focus instead on other possibilities. The danger is, by working an implausible angle so hard, rehearsing it and repeating it over and over as libs are doing, they come to believe they're in possession of a priveleged insight that nobody else has. And then they start castigating and condemning all of us simple folk who don't get their priveleged insight.

It seems to me libs have reached a historic low in the last eight or nine months. They seem like they've lost touch with the fact that they're playing a game; they're starting to mistake their strategy of childish speculation and arrogant second-guessing for real leadership, and they seem to be thinking the country is eager to put them in charge because they're such clever parsers of the facts.

It won't fly, libs. America is better than that.


Posted by Del Dolemonte | November 4, 2007 9:30 AM

Steve J. responded thusly to Baster Greene:

(Greene) "your liberal heroes in congress told this country for years how dangerous Saddam was and voted to take him out with force."

(Steve J said) "They NEVER voted to take him out with American forces."

I'm sure Batxer was referring to what the Dems were saying in 1998, not what happened in 2002. At the time nearly ALL of the Dems were convinced that Saddam did have WMDs, and that war was likely at some point in the future.


Posted by Del Dolemonte | November 4, 2007 9:35 AM

Steve J. responded thusly to Baxter Greene:

(Greene) "your liberal heroes in congress told this country for years how dangerous Saddam was and voted to take him out with force."

(Steve J said) "They NEVER voted to take him out with American forces."

Uh gee, why then was the resolution they voted on called

"Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq"

Despite what your friend Kos may tell you, this WAS approved by Congress in October 2002 as Public Law 107-243.

It passed the House 296-133, and the Senate 77-23.

Posted by Jack Okie | November 4, 2007 9:54 AM

Baxter, I agree with Mr Lynn - excellent comments, cogent and thorough. As far as the WMD argument, you are right on. Saddam was not living up to the commitment he made at the end of the Gulf War. I suggest we no longer even attempt to argue WMD with the leftists. Saddam's failure to comply, just as with a criminal violating his parole, is all the justification needed to take action.

Re no-one expecting Iraq to be like Oklahoma: Realistically, very few places can aspire to that lofty goal. Thankfully there exists the real article, in all its eden-like beauty and tranquility. Plus, Oklahoma prevents Kansas, Nebraska, etc from sliding down into Texas and disrupting their self-obsession.

Posted by eaglewings | November 4, 2007 10:57 AM

Thanks Baxter for your well reasoned posts. As for Carole, why have you not said a word about the incestuous relationship between the Sauds and presumably your lib heroes, the Clintons? Who has funded under the table, the Clinton's Library? The Sauds. Who was the President who had the world's most notorious terrorist as the WH's most frequent guest (guess Arafat had to do something with his frequent flyer hijacking miles)? The Clintons. I certainly hope Carole doesn't use any fossil fuels (oil/kerosene/natural gas) in her personal life, because, she is subsidizing the same Saudi families, that she decries Bush for supporting. Whom would Carole want in their place? OBL and his islamists in Saudi Arabia? What is wrong with protecting the national security of the US and its vital oil supplies?
The same libs who gleefully accept low priced oil from Dictator Chavez are utterly contemptuous of doing anything to support the Sauds. Why is that except that Chavez is anti american, while the Sauds are much less so (though I do note that the Sauds are not necessarily pro American and have done their best to promote anti western ideologies in the West (but again BDS means that the libs ignore the Saud's financing of causes they love, only because the Saud's don't spit in the face of George Bush and Dick Cheney.)
As for Steve J(erk), well, his side splitting humor, makes my day. His refusal to heed the admonition of Abraham Lincoln (probably another Republican he detests) that it's better to keep quiet and thought a fool than open your mouth and have it confirmed, has been proven true time and again for Steve J. (Wonder if there's any relation to Steve O from Jack-Ass MTV fame)? Anyway, Steve, keep those humorous posts coming, I look forward to your current news links from 2005-2006, the good ole days, when you could slander American troops with abandon.

Posted by Ray in Mpls | November 4, 2007 12:01 PM

Steve J,

It's foolish to claim that the Iraqi Constitution doesn't represent a democratic government simply because you don't like some of the laws included in that Constitution. That Constitution was approved and accepted by the citizens of Iraq, as well as the current government, through the democratic voting process.

Like it or not, democracies select their own forms of governments and their own laws through the democratic process. Just because the process results in a particular religious component being included in government (or any other componant you may object to), it doesn't mean it the process itself isn't democratic or the government that implements the choices made through voter participation isn't democratic. It's only when a government refuses to allow for and include citizens participation in the government process that democracy is replaced with a dictatorship.

Saddam was a dictator, the current government in Iraq is not. History tells us that any people of any country is much better off when a dictatorship is replaced with democracy. Ask Italy about that, or Germany, or any other country that has replaced dictators with democratically elected representatives.

Democratic governments are not build overnight, it takes years and even decades for a new government to grow and adapt to the needs of its citizens. Sometimes that process is easy and generally peaceful, sometimes it is not. Even when the process is difficult, it is well worth all the effort in the long run. Europe and Japan are perfect examples of that.

Posted by bayam | November 4, 2007 1:07 PM

the vast majority of our intelligence agencies saw Saddam as a threat that
could no longer be ignored and we sent our men and
women in uniform over to address that threat.

Baxter- I respect your opinion but you're repeating the line fed to the American people by Bush's team before and after the invasion. It's simply not true. If you go back and look at the National Intelligence Estimate and other key docs produced after 9-11, you'll find that the intelligence agencies did not see Saddam as a threat that required any kind of invasion or military action. Saddam was seen as a rational actor who's primary goal was self-preservation, not a wreckless gambler or fanatic Muslim determined to assist terrorists at his own peril.

One of the more interesting things to emerge recently is a description of the Iraqi military's overall state before the US invasion. It was far worse than anyone imagined. Saddam was so afraid of US military attacks that he'd stopped visiting Iraqi bases and had left the military to basically disintegrate compared to what existed before the first Gulf War.

If you support the war for other reasons, that's understandable- but you shouldn't do so out of the belief that our intelligence community called for it.

As to Powell, it's well known that he was opposed to the war but publicly supported Bush on it. If you read any of the books that cover the actions of insiders before the war, you'll find it well-documented.

Posted by Math_Mage | November 4, 2007 2:46 PM

Glasnost:
"That's 3000 returnees out of 4 million displaced, Ed. Similar token returns have been conducted at intervals in 2007. It's trivial, Ed, and trivial programs are producible on a whim. It's not a reliable indicator of anything. You're revealing your lack of understanding of magnitude and context. It detracts from your credibility."

Uh, there were a lot of displaced people before we came in, too. Various organizations put the number at different places - I've heard as high as 4 million and as low as half a million. But plainly some of the displacement is a result of Saddam, not the war. Then there's the report I heard from 2002 that those 4-5 million Iraqi exiles from Saddam's administration want this war:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,775294,00.html
So it'd be a d*mn shame if we left them out in the cold, right?

"The MSM paranoia is quite funny: the MSM heavily reports every speck of good news from Iraq. These articles are not cited by right-wing bloggers looking to demonstrate an anti-war MSM, but sadly they exist anyway."

Interesting. Could you put some of these articles up? I'd like to see some good news from the MSM.

Bayam:
"Baxter- I respect your opinion but you're repeating the line fed to the American people by Bush's team before and after the invasion. It's simply not true. If you go back and look at the National Intelligence Estimate and other key docs produced after 9-11, you'll find that the intelligence agencies did not see Saddam as a threat that required any kind of invasion or military action. Saddam was seen as a rational actor who's primary goal was self-preservation, not a wreckless gambler or fanatic Muslim determined to assist terrorists at his own peril."

So, he hadn't assisted terrorists in the past? And had no plans to do so in the future?

His past record shows that he was willing to support terrorists, and as for peril - what peril? Before Bush, retaliation against terrorist strikes was rare if not nonexistent.

Plus, AFAIK, one of the major WMD-related reasons to head for Iraq was this guy codenamed Curveball, who turned out to be a fake but who fooled both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Linky:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/tableforone/2007/oct/22/curveball_spies_lies_and_the_con_man_who_caused_a_war
If it was a line fed to the American people, it was a line fed by the Clinton as well as the Bush administrations.

Besides, all the cloak-and-dagger guesswork was necessary because of Saddam's refusal to comply with UN 1441, which was the condition for ceasefire in 1991. He had been defying the resolution from day one, and we finally called him on it. If he had no WMDs, he had plenty of time to show the world they weren't there. And the people screaming loudest about how the US shouldn't have gone in because guess what, Saddam didn't actually have WMD are the same people who would have been screaming loudest about the US' failure to go into Iraq if Saddam had been holding WMDs behind his back. So we guessed wrong. Would you prefer that we had guessed wrong the other way? Then there's the point that Pat brought up at 11:24 PM - though we can't be sure, it's possible we didn't guess wrong and Saddam just had the WMDs shipped elsewhere.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | November 4, 2007 4:18 PM

Math_Mage said

"though we can't be sure, it's possible we didn't guess wrong and Saddam just had the WMDs shipped elsewhere"

One Iraqi military guy claimed that they had been flown out of the country. Other sources reported seeing truck convoys heading to Syria in the weeks leading up to our invasion.

And for all we know the WMDs could still be stashed someplace in Iraq itself, which isn't exactly a tiny country. It's in fact the size of California. I'm sure if someone hid stuff in the boondocks of California and didn't tell anyone where they hid it, it would take years, if not decades to find it.

bayam says:

"If you go back and look at the National Intelligence Estimate and other key docs produced after 9-11"

LOL! What about the intel produced before 9/11? Remember, Mrs. Bill Clinton justified her pro-war vote by saying she had consulted with Mr. Bill's intelligence people...she didn't just digest the info the current Administration gave her.

Posted by Carol Herman | November 4, 2007 4:36 PM

TO: TOM IN HOUSTON @ 3:36 PM A+

You got it! Your post is a keeper.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | November 4, 2007 4:37 PM

Math_Mage also said:

"Plus, AFAIK, one of the major WMD-related reasons to head for Iraq was this guy codenamed Curveball, who turned out to be a fake but who fooled both the Clinton and Bush administrations."

Curveball will in fact be on CBS's "60 Minutes" tonight (Sunday). The start time might be delayed if the late football game runs over.

Posted by Carol Herman | November 4, 2007 4:46 PM

Folks, the "SURGE" didn't fail.

It was designed to help the sunni tribes recover. Yeah. They had bet on the "Al-Kay-Duh" strategy. And, this doomed them. Irak was gonna toss their sorry asses, overboard.

While Bush got information from Jordan, that they didn't want any more sunni!

Assad, is also choking on about a million Iraqi sunni.

Even Iran now has these refugees.

So, there must have been pressure on Bush "to do something."

Petraeus went to the sunni tribal elders; and spelled "reality" out in Arabic.

This gives a weakened irak an ability to sway in the winds. With 3 groups of well armed "militias."

One group is to cancel out the other.

Maybe, it will work? And, maybe, all it will do is add to the frenzy? Shi'a want to kill sunni. Now the sunni's can protect their slice of the pie.

You think Americans are liked now, over there?

Funny,if I saw the Saud's holding parades for American soldiers in Riyadh, you'd convince me.

But I don't see that happening.

I don't even see American soldiers invited to Dubai. Where they can relax and ski, on a man-made ski slope. Why not?

Because we're not popular.

$3-trillion down the hole.

Hillary picking up steam because so many men want to see Bill back in the saddle, again. (No, not "her" saddle.) They want to see Bill traveling to all those spots that once held friends. Where Dubya shot his wad.

Can't wait to see how the saud's stiff Bush on Annapolis. Ahead. How? They send their chauffeurs to represent them at Condi's table. WHOOPEE.

Outcomes ahead will bring these things into clearer focus.

Similar to eye glasses, we all need different fittings to get to better eyesight. I left Bush's bus, when he brought James Baker on board.

Did you know James Baker is the guy who gave Reagan Bitburg? For some free Mercedes Benz' That man will do anything for a buck. If he can pocket it. And, remain an anti-Semite at the same time.

Posted by Steve J. | November 4, 2007 5:29 PM

Uh gee, why then was the resolution they voted on called

"Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq"

Try reading it.


Posted by Steve J. | November 4, 2007 5:31 PM

And for all we know the WMDs could still be stashed someplace in Iraq itself,

This is a delusion.

Posted by Steve J. | November 4, 2007 5:37 PM

I'm sure Batxer was referring to what the Dems were saying in 1998,

The 1998 bill prohibited direct American military involvment and limited our aid to $97 million.

Posted by Captain Ed | November 4, 2007 6:04 PM

That's BS. It says that "Nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces". It doesn't forbid the use; it just doesn't specifically authorize their use, which required the 2002 AUMF. In fact, it authorized the DoD to provide military assistance to Iraqi opposition groups (section 4.a.2).

You're entitled to your opinion. You're not entitled to your own facts.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | November 4, 2007 6:35 PM

Steve J. responded to my thought thusly:

I said: "And for all we know the WMDs could still be stashed someplace in Iraq itself"

To which Steve J. weakly responded: "This is a delusion."

LOL. You absolutely can't prove that at all. Your automatically assuming that there is no possible way some WMDs could still be stashed in Iraq is the only delusion here.

I never said that there actually WERE some WMDs stashed there, I just raised the possibility that in a country the size of California, it would be damned easy to hide the stuff well enough that it would take longer than 4 years to find. Have you ever driven thru or flown over California? I've done both, many times. The place is HUGE, especially the vast desert areas in the southern part of the state and also the huge desert areas to the east of the Sierra Nevada along the Nevada border. Remember pilot Steve Fossett, who disappeared in his plane a couple of months ago after taking off from an airport in Nevada just over the California state line? They still haven't found his plane, but during the search they did manage to find several aircraft wrecks that had gone undiscovered for many years.

Face reality-if someone really wanted to hide something in Iraq so it would never be found or take a long time to find, it would be extremely easy to do. Especially if you had several months to do so before you knew a war was going to start.

BTW my first post which you mention went thru the CQ system in error-I meant to delete the 1998 part (which I did in the second post). Please just ignore that first post (you'll notice that both posts came back to back minutes apart. I hit the post instead of preview button by mistake).

Posted by Math_Mage | November 4, 2007 10:42 PM

Carol: Please please PLEASE take the time to write your posts coherently. Right now, when I attempt to read your posts, I spend 90% of my time trying to figure out what the hell you're writing. USE COMPLETE SENTENCES. THEY ARE YOUR FRIENDS. Also, USE TRANSITIONS. THEY ARE YOUR FRIENDS. Otherwise, you're just going to get completely ignored, and I've seen more than one commenter say explicitly that he's doing just that.

OMG, good news all! Michael Yon got some http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCPLNWC7cNM AND CNN figured out Iraq is getting better! Nowai!

Posted by Math_Mage | November 4, 2007 10:53 PM

Darn. Didn't come out right. It should say "Michael Yon got some mainstream media attention!"

Posted by Bad Math | November 9, 2007 3:37 PM

I always find it funny when this administration, from the party with a platform of personal responsibility, blames a third party for their woes, but fails to take any accounting for their own actions. "Oh, its not my fault not everyone accepts my agenda, the media didn't portray (insert platform point) correctly." Well, at least if you keep saying it people will believe it, regardless of whether its true.

I actually agree with your point (media coverage of progress is lacking), but it seems like the people who continually argue the media bias (with a purpose) point get their information from one of two sources: 1) advertisements or 2) single source political news. But you know, thats not really a problem, getting your information from a source with an agenda. Oh, wait, thats the thrust of this writer and most other political commentators. Huh, kinda circular logic don't you think?

Post a comment