Troop surge in Iraq

[meadowlandsnj]

Let's ask the people who lost loved ones on 9/11/2001 if we should pull the troops home.

I lost a dear friend on 9/11.  He worked at JP Morgan Chase Bank at One World Trade Center.
There were several people who died at the U.S. Customs offices that worked with my Dad.

I'm glad Saddam Hussein is gone for good.  The world is much better.

But, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

I knew some people who died on 9/11 including a man I went all through school with.  His wife is one of the Jersey Girls who's always on the news shows talking about 9/11.  We'll never know what really went on, who was really involved with it.  Everyone wants to put their own spin on it
I just know that one day I looked at my view of NYC and the WTC was there.
The next day I looked and it was gone.  The shock of it in the beginning was so real, you could physically feel it
It felt like your stomach was turning and twisting. It was and still is an incredible sense of loss.  Every time I felt and heard a low flying plane I'd think "oh shit", is it going to happen again?  (I live right by Teterboro Airport)  The day after it happened they shut down the airports but over where I live the military flew their fighter jets constantly all day and night.  And every channel kept showing it over and over again the footage of the plane going into the building, I'd have nightmares about sitting at a desk and seeing a plane coming through the wall.  Then I think of the cops and firefighters who when everyone was running out of the buildings, they were running IN the buildings to a certain death.   My boyfriend and I went up to the WTC on a beautiful spring day in 1991 and spent the afternoon there, I still have the pictures of the view from the top.  If I can find them I'll post them in a thread. If anyone wants to see them! 

Donna

[Sluff]

I still have the pictures of the view from the top.  If I can find them I'll post them in a thread. If anyone wants to see them! 

Donna

   please

[Bill Peckham]

BigSky it is true that Stephen Hayes is the favorite authority of many conservatives on "The Connection". For those who don't recognize the name Stephen Hayes is a Weekly Standard staff writer and author of the book The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America (released on June 1 2004), here is a link to his writings on "The Connection": http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp?pg=1

I didn't read his book but I did notice that it did not get very favorable reviews. And I can not think of any corroborating scholarship. From his Weekly Standard writings I think the links are thin. Why did al Qaeda need an Iraq connection? Money? Is that it?

Back to now without having direct access to intelligent reports I think we can look at how the White House frames their postion and it is almost always a binary good/bad; them/us formulation. I think it is a fundamental mistake to lump everyone into one bucket and treat all the factions like a single enemy. The lack of thoughtfulness is manifest. It seems like no one in the White House asks what happens if it doesn't work? For instance what happens if the proposed surge doesn't work?

Do we "Blame and run" - We tried, you the Iraqi people failed. You don't deserve our help

Or do you do the classic strategy when faced with a unsolvable problem "Enlarge the Question" - expand operations into Iran and Syria.

I doubt it will be the former so that leaves - watch out Iran.

[BigSky]

Well as to the book it actually got mixed reviews and in fact is more favorably reviewed than unfavorable at sites that sell the book.

But that matters very little in the whole thing because it is not about writing style is it.   It is about the factual information that was reported by others that is contained in the book.

Hayes merely gathered the various things that were reported through the years and wrote a book on it.

Much of the link on Bin Laden and Saddam was well reported long before that particular book came out now wasn't it.  Yet again you forget that this was not the only reason we went to war with Iraq. 

However the very fact that Saddam was in contact with OBL itself proves a connection to him.  This is because Saddam was FORBIDDEN from having any talks with any terrorist or terrorist group!


We do not need WH Intelligence Reports now to determine this issue.

From DOJ indictments under Clinton on the issue; to Uday himself making the link with al-qaeda; from Saddam giving safe haven to a 93 WTC  al-qaeda terrorist; to the fact that Yousef was called the "Iraqi" despite the fact he was not an Iraqi Citizen and was in contact with Iraqi Intelligence is more than enough evidence something was going on.

There is much truth to the phrase:  The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

To think they would not work together based on ideological differences is absurd.


The war with Iraq was accomplished.  We are now at war with terrorists.  The fact is we were war with them before this action and we will still be at war with them when its over. 

We have already won.  Iraq is now a democracy and is itself fighting terrorists.  Our success in this is not judged on that Iraq democracy look exactly like that of the US, but that they now fight terrorism instead of supporting it.








 

[Bill Peckham]

That is a very sunny view of the situation.

Frankly reading Kagen and the AEI on the surge (don’t call it an escalation) I can’t believe this kind of crap is the basis for these extremely important policy decisions. There does not seem to be a methodology behind the madness. One would expect that the deeper you look into this the more subtle and thoughtful the plan would become but that is not true in the case of the new plan. The whole thing is just a shell game of rosy and ambiguous assumptions and assertions hiding behind a thin veneer of “military planning” after “careful deliberation”.

Is it really a surprise that Iraqi “democracy” would lead to an Iranian style theocracy hell bent on Mideast hegemony. Iran lacked one thing to lead a pan-Arab revolution - they need Arab street credibility. As Persians Iran’s influence always had a hard ceiling. Now? Now they’re well on the way to establishing a Shiite puppet state in the historic center of Arabia.

We have won nothing but years and years of pain. The United States has taken a huge step backwards in terms of national security. There is no historical equivalent to the damage that has been done to our country.

As far as what I would do if somehow I had to direct the actions of our government? At this point we have no good options - I would work on a delaying strategy to wait for a new administration and new options. My tactics would be to do anything I could to turn down the heat - in Iraq but also internationally. Closing Gitmo would help a great deal. In Iraq I would let Petraeus follow the counterinsurgency manual that he coauthored with the goal being to deescalate the civil war while not allowing or at least not encouraging more de facto partition. I would also give Petraeus a "slush fund" of reconstruction dollars that he could control directly.

[Bill Peckham]

"The war with Iraq was accomplished. "

We are not suppose to have ever been at war with Iraq. Remember: we just went into Iraq to help the Iraqis achieve the universal human desire for democracy. Right? All we have to do is let people vote and everything else will sort itself out. 

[BigSky]

My tactics would be to do anything I could to turn down the heat - in Iraq but also internationally. Closing Gitmo would help a great deal. In Iraq I would let Petraeus follow the counterinsurgency manual that he coauthored with the goal being to deescalate the civil war while not allowing or at least not encouraging more de facto partition. I would also give Petraeus a "slush fund" of reconstruction dollars that he could control directly.

That is called appeasement and it has NEVER worked in the history of the world.  

Appeasement didn't work with Hitler, it didn't work with Saddam for over 12 years  and it didn't work with Osama, so to even suggest that it would work now is not only absurd it is repugnant and borders on insulting.



Those in Gitmo are there for a reason.   

The fact of the matter is since the SC reversed itself and gave these guys GC's means we get to keep them in jail indefinitely without trial until this war is over as is specified  by the GC.  In reality they are very lucky because by the GC we could start executing those that we caught fighting without a uniform.

"The war with Iraq was accomplished. "

We are not suppose to have ever been at war with Iraq. Remember: we just went into Iraq to help the Iraqis achieve the universal human desire for democracy. Right? All we have to do is let people vote and everything else will sort itself out. 

Please tell me you are smart enough to comprehend the difference between war with Iraq, not meaning the people of Iraq. I really do not know what to say if you cannot understand the difference...... and actually feel embarrassed for you if you do not see what the difference is in it.

[Bill Peckham]

You throw the word appeasement around like an epithet without explaining why a strategy of calming things down could be aptly called appeasement. However, I am encouraged that it took until the 31st post to bring up Hitler. The question on the table is the surge and how in the world it could be expected to do anything usefull.

Beyond that I don't think this country is safer because we went into Iraq something you think is manifest. Did you read Christopher Hitchens today? He pointed out that the situation in Iraq makes one believe in jinxes because our policy left no opportunity unbungled. You can knock down all the strawmen in the world but we will be dealing with this mess for generations. Avoidable consequences will plague today's children and they will never understand how this fiasco was allowed to happen.

[BigSky]

Appeasement--to buy off (an aggressor) by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles.


I do believe what you are saying fits that to a T.

Safer?  Terrorism is always going to be a threat.  However we have all seen the numerous attacks by terrorists on the mainland alone in the 90's culminating in 9/11.  Notice how many attacks on the mainland have occurred since then?  Evidently we must be doing something right.


Terrorism is going to be fought for generations no matter what. 

The more terrorists we kill the better off we will be.  Reason being is that there will never be a war in the US to the point that we are fighting terrorists in the streets.  The most they will do in this country are covert attacks like 9/11, 93 WTC, CIA killings etc. etc.  The more terrorists that are alive the bigger the chance they can infiltrate the US and commit these type of attacks.

Really,  what does it take?  For a mushroom cloud to appear over a US city before this is realized?


Avoidable consequences?  Are you kidding?  Maybe you can explain how appeasement in the 90's never worked for the following and how it culminated in 9/11?  Evidently we didnt bend over backwards enough for the terrorists during that time.

Kohbar Tower bombing
Cole bombing
93 WTC bombing
CIA killings
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania  Embassy bombing
Nairobi, Kenya,  Embassy bombing
Bojinka plot


Appeasement has never worked in fighting terrorism in the past, it has only lead to more and more violent attacks on the US.


You may have bought in Osama's offer of standing down but considering his history I didn't.

[Bill Peckham]

Why stop in 1993? Why not go back to Beirut - oh wait that's right the President was not a Dem. It must have been Congress's fault in the '80s. Iraq has been a force multiplier for our actual enemies which is why it is so hard for me to understand your point of view. Send more troops to Afghanistan? Absolutely. But if we had kept our eye on the ball and finished our work there we'd be in a much better position with regard to protecting the US from terrorists. You asked "Notice how many attacks on the mainland have occurred since then" yes zero. The same number of attacks "on the mainland" that occurred during the eight years between '93 and '01 unless you're counting McVeigh.

And McVeigh brings up the obvious point that all the people who want to nuke NY are not Muslims. The pathological evil that is at work in the minds of the terrorists is also at work in the minds of others. Which is why improving overall security - the recommendations of the 9/11 commission around port security for instance - should be a higher priority. I would feel much better if we had spent some fraction of what is going to the Iraq war on improving security at nuclear plants and chemical depots. The New York Times had an interesting article today asking what 1.2 Trillion Dollars could buy. 1.2 Trillion is what the Iraq war is costing us (at the low end of the cost range).

So tell me: its 2002, you have a 1.2 Trillion Dollar budget (beyond the huge existing homeland defense budget) to fight terrorism what would you do? Invade Iraq?I believe that no one would do that. But that's just me. Do you think that the Iraq war was a smart tactic in the War on Terror? Knowing what you know now. Also I'm not clear on your postion with regard to the current plan? as the President has laid it out. What is your take on the surge? Or is it that I am just not crediting a link between the surge and 9/11?

[Bill Peckham]

“Avoidable consequences?  Are you kidding?”

No. Actually this is serious stuff. Avoidable consequences flowing from our new found willingness to torture. Avoidable consequences flowing from degrading the US military. Avoidable consequences flowing from a lack of trust in the Presidency. Avoidable consequences flowing from a go it alone foreign policy. Avoidable consequences flowing from saddling every American with a mountain of debt.

If we had kept to our previous standard of a bipartisan foreign policy supported through a constitutional system of checks and balances we would be stronger; our options would be better. There is no reason to think we would have lost an inch that has been gained and I think it should be clear that we would have kept so much that we have lost.

[BigSky]

Why stop in 1993? Why not go back to Beirut - oh wait that's right the President was not a Dem. It must have been Congress's fault in the '80s. Iraq has been a force multiplier for our actual enemies which is why it is so hard for me to understand your point of view. Send more troops to Afghanistan? Absolutely. But if we had kept our eye on the ball and finished our work there we'd be in a much better position with regard to protecting the US from terrorists. You asked "Notice how many attacks on the mainland have occurred since then" yes zero. The same number of attacks "on the mainland" that occurred during the eight years between '93 and '01 unless you're counting McVeigh.

Evidently Beirut is just a word for you.  Seems you forget that the troops were there as a multinational peacekeeping mission to see the withdrawal of the PLO from Lebanon.  After the bombing Reagan denounced it and said we would say and help finish trying to help with getting the withdrawal of the PLO.  After the 85 bombing Reagan succumbed to the dems to pull troops out.  Seems you forget the huge stink the dems made when Reagan bombed terrorists as our troops were leaving.  The only problem he should have  bombed them more in spite of the objection from the other party.

You are wrong about terrorists attacks on the mainland in 93-01.  My how you forget.  No wonder you are out of the loop in this war on terrorism.

CIA shootings and the 93 WTC.  Ohh and I wasn't including OKC because the links to Al-Qaeda are not for sure known since the FBI and the government were in some sort of cover up, mainly Joe Doe 2, numerous eye witness' that said they saw ME looking people running from the building before the explosion and the fact that Nicholes visited Al-Qaeda members in the Philippines as was relayed to the Clinton administration by the Philippine  government after the fact.  Yes I say cover up because the first time in history before trials are complete the US government destroyed the evidence by blowing the building down and trucking away the evidence without letting anyone else examine it.  Also I never included WACO where Reno violated numerous laws and the US Constitution when she burned them out or the fact they again destroyed evidence and refused to let it be examined.  Interesting how even the Texas Rangers stopped short of blurting the government agents were liars.

So tell me: its 2002, you have a 1.2 Trillion Dollar budget (beyond the huge existing homeland defense budget) to fight terrorism what would you do? Invade Iraq?I believe that no one would do that. But that's just me. Do you think that the Iraq war was a smart tactic in the War on Terror? Knowing what you know now. Also I'm not clear on your postion with regard to the current plan? as the President has laid it out. What is your take on the surge? Or is it that I am just not crediting a link between the surge and 9/11?

We have done more to fight terrorism and killed more terrorists in one year than we did in the entire 8 years prior to Bush taking office.  It really doesn't matter about you not crediting a link or not, because you have demonstrated time and time again that you do not know the reasons listed for action in Iraq before this war started.

Considering Saddam refusal to quit funding terrorism and the resources he had at his disposal and the fact that he had planned attacks on the US and carried some out that were failures, I say yes.

What would you have us do?  Wait till Saddam got lucky with his own 9/11 style attack before we did something?

 Actually this is serious stuff. Avoidable consequences flowing from our new found willingness to torture. Avoidable consequences flowing from degrading the US military. Avoidable consequences flowing from a lack of trust in the Presidency. Avoidable consequences flowing from a go it alone foreign policy. Avoidable consequences flowing from saddling every American with a mountain of debt.

If we had kept to our previous standard of a bipartisan foreign policy supported through a constitutional system of checks and balances we would be stronger; our options would be better. There is no reason to think we would have lost an inch that has been gained and I think it should be clear that we would have kept so much that we have lost.

The US has not tortured anyone as it is not our policy.  Even the commander at Gitmo stated to the affect that the things done in Gitmo are not torture as because if they were done to our captured troops we would not consider it torture.  But you might notice we have yet to cut civilians heads off and broadcast it on the web and tv like terrorists do.

The military is hardly degraded.  The byproduct of war teaches troops to be better prepared and the fact is enlistment goals are still being met.

It is the people who maintain the checks and balances by election.  If the people didn't like the Iraq action they could have brought it to a screeching halt in 2004 by not only electing a democrat  majority but electing a democrat president.  Even in the last election it was hardly a mandate to cut and run in this war on terror.

As to trust of the President.  Hmm considering your type have made a huge stink since Bush took office in 2001 that statement plays little into anything for me.

At least Bush didn't commit adultery and then lie in court about his actions on several things and have a law license revoked and then have the Supreme Court  bar him from EVER appearing in front of them, nor did he refuse to take Bin Laden when offered up to him.

Mountain of debt?  You got to be kidding.  We were in a mountain of debt long before Bush took office.  Clinton left office with a deficit of almost 6 TRILLION dollars.   So don't feign concern to me about saddling Americans in a mountain of debt.

[Sluff]

The real question here is after the terrorism attacks on our country what would the liberals have done about it? They say we should not be in war so i guess I'd like to hear what the solution from the war haters would have been.


So we should just allow the terrorist to come here blow up a bldg or two maybe train them to fly planes so the can kill a couple of thousand citizens in the USA and then what? Whats your solution? Turn the other cheek? Face reality.

[kitkatz]

Let's charge the terrorists lots of money for training voer here.  If we find them int he country, they should have to pay a tax on everything they do in our country.  Wait a minute...doesn't the government already do that to me?

[jbeany]

The real question here is after the terrorism attacks on our country what would the liberals have done about it? They say we should not be in war so i guess I'd like to hear what the solution from the war haters would have been.

If the liberals had any solutions, they would be in office.  We voted in the Republicans because they at least say they have a solution.  Personally, I don't think either party has any real solution - it's just that the Republicans lie about it better.

[Bill Peckham]

Wow that’s one way to avoid giving your opinion on the current Iraq strategy. I seem to have two options quit the field and let your polemic stand, or rebut it point by point from the point of view of "my type". Well since you've taken the time to write a provocative account I will step up (in the new White House vernacular - a couple months ago I would have needed to stand up) and offer "my type's" take on your post.

Get comfortable and settle in you’ve covered a lot of ground; this is going to take some thought and writing. Let’s take your last point first:

"Mountain of debt? You got to be kidding.  We were in a mountain of debt long before Bush took office. Clinton left office with a deficit of almost 6 TRILLION dollars. So don't feign concern to me about saddling Americans in a mountain of debt.

On 09/30/1993 the national debt was $4,411,488,883,139.38 (give or take); On 09/28/2001 the total national debt was up to $5,807,463,412,200.06 . So Clinton budgets increased our debt 1.4 trillion dollars for the eight year period he was president but the real story is the state of our finances during the last few years of his presidency. This thread has not referenced much published data but here are a few links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/411973.stm
US to buy back national debt (August 4, 1999)
“For the first time in 25 years, the US Government plans to reduce the size of the national debt.”

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/
Clinton announces record payment on national debt (May 1, 2000)
“President Bill Clinton said Monday that the United States would pay off $216 billion in debt this year, bringing to $355 billion the amount of the nation's debt paid down in the three years since the government balanced the budget and began running surpluses.”

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/09/07/debt.clock/
National Debt Clock stops, despite trillions of dollars of red ink
Some found clock's change of direction confusing (September 7, 2000)
“The plug was pulled on the National Debt Clock, which has kept track of the federal government's red ink since the electronic billboard near Times Square was erected in 1989.

In its final moments Thursday, the sign read: ‘Our national debt: $5,676,989,904,887. Your family share: $73,733.’"

From that point what happened? The Outstanding Public Debt as of 18 Jan 2007 at 05:51:14 PM GMT is $8,671,083,127,647.41 On average this administration has added 500 billion dollars a year to the national debt and much of the spending commitments in this administration’s budget busting programs are back end loaded, i.e. the costs will increase dramatically once he leaves office in two years, by which time the Debt will have more than doubled!! Yes, we will be paying off this fiscal folly for generations. Truly a mountain of debt has accumulated under Bush.

As to trust of the President.  Hmm considering your type have made a huge stink since Bush took office in 2001 that statement plays little into anything for me.

At least Bush didn't commit adultery and then lie in court about his actions on several things and have a law license revoked and then have the Supreme Court bar him from EVER appearing in front of them, nor did he refuse to take Bin Laden when offered up to him.

My type. I admit my type had a complete failure of imagination.  In 2001 when I said I would vote for a ham sandwich before I would vote for Bush it was for the reasons that I thought he would point us in the wrong direction: set back environmental progress, and pull back internationally. I had no idea his plan was to be Raptured out of office.

In your mind is the Lewinsky kerfuffle the worst thing that has happened to the presidency in the last several decades? That sort of moral tisk, tisking is comical in light of what a truly  incompetent president can inflict on our great nation. It is interesting that leaders often have less than puritanical personal lives but it would seem it has always been the case. For a more illuminating look at the diminishing trust in the office of the president just look at the change in perception between 10/01 and today. It isn’t the Dems who’s mind has changed it is independents and true conservatives (like WF Buckley) who are waking up to the disaster this presidency has wrought.

It is the people who maintain the checks and balances
by election.  If the people didn't like the Iraq action they could have brought it to a screeching halt in 2004 by not only electing a democrat  majority but
electing a democrat president.

Actually the Constitution is pretty clear that the responsibility for checking Executive authority lies with the Congress and the Judiciary. The rubber stamp Republican Congress from 2001 to just a couple weeks ago, completely abdicated their oversight responsibilities. In return the president abdicated his responsibility of checking Congressional power by refusing to use his veto power. Bills such as the Energy Boondoggle or the equally grievous Transportation porkfest slid through in quid pro quo of looking the other way.

The military is hardly degraded.  The byproduct of war teaches troops to be better prepared and the fact is enlistment goals are still being met.

I do not see the fiasco in Iraq as an elaborate training exercise. Let’s look at what The National Security Advisory Group concluded in August 2006  “the U.S. administration’s under funding of the army represents a serious failure of civilian stewardship of the military.” And “The bottom line is that our Army currently has no ready, strategic reserve. Not since the Vietnam era and its aftermath has the Army’s readiness been so degraded.”

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,107179,00.html
Army's Readiness Questioned (July 27, 2006)
In a statement released late Wednesday, the Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, said much has been asked of the Army during the nearly five years the U.S. has been at war. ... "I have testified to the facts about our readiness and I remain concerned about the serious demands we face," said Schoomaker, adding that the Army needs more than $17 billion in 2007 and up to $13 billion a year until two or three years after the war ends.

We are meeting our recruitment and readiness goals by extending people's commitment - the backdoor draft - and lowering our standards. Today, the U.S. military is, in the words of the Pentagon, stretched "to the breaking point." Almost 30 percent of the 1.5 million U.S. service members who have been deployed since September 11, 2001 have been deployed more than once. Thousands of members of Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) have been called up. Military recruiters are struggling to meet their goals; the Pentagon is considering greatly increasing the number of noncitizens in the U.S. military; more than 16,000 single mothers who are in the U.S. military have been deployed.

The US has not tortured anyone.  Even the commander at Gitmo stated to the affect that the things done in Gitmo are not torture as because if they were done to our captured troops we would not consider it torture.  But you might notice we have yet to cut civilians heads off and broadcast it on the web and tv like terrorists do.

Come on. Now our standard of behavior is to be set by comparing it to some pre-renaissance Muslim fiend’s behavior?  Jose Padilla is an American citizen and a schmuck but for that you get locked up without trial, held in complete solitary and mentally crippled? Dahlia Lithwick reviewed the charges against the Guantanamo detainees  here: http://www.slate.com/id/2136422/ Our acceptance of torture and the ongoing behavior of this administration will continue to cause avoidable consequences for generations. We must restore habeas corpus, undo the Military Commissions Act, and return the rule of law.

Evidently Beirut is just a word for you.  Seems you forget that the troops were there as a multinational peacekeeping mission to see the withdrawal of the PLO from Lebanon.  After the bombing Reagan denounced it and said we would say and help finish trying to help with getting the withdrawal of the PLO.  After the 85 bombing Reagan succumbed to the dems to pull troops out.  Seems you forget the huge stink the dems made when Reagan bombed terrorists as our troops were leaving.  The only problem he should have bombed them more in spite of the objection from the other party.

See I thought it was the Dem Congress’s fault. You ignored my point that Iraq has been a force multiplier for our enemies. A bit later you wrote:

We have done more to fight terrorism and killed more terrorists in one year than we did in the entire 8 years prior to Bush taking office.  It really doesn't matter about you not crediting a link or not, because you have demonstrated time and time again that you do not know the reasons listed for action in Iraq before this war started.”

Again the important number is the net impact. Including all the people who have been killed our policies have increased the total number of people fighting against us. Three years ago, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld wrote a memo to his colleagues in the Pentagon posing a critical question in the “long war’’ against terrorism: Is Washington’s strategy successfully killing or capturing terrorists faster than new enemies are being created?

The National Intelligence Estimate declassified last September stated “While the spread of self-described jihadists is hard to measure, the report says, the terrorists “are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.” In other words they are able to recruit them faster than we can kill them. Remember the Sorcerer's Apprentice?

The tale begins as an old sorcerer departs his workshop, leaving his apprentice with chores to perform. The apprentice tires of fetching water for a bath or tank, and enchants a broomstick to do the work for him, using magic he is not yet fully trained in. However, soon the floor is awash with water, and he realizes that he cannot stop the broom because he does not know the magic word to make it stop. Despairing, he splits the broom in two with an axe, but each of the pieces takes up a pail and continues fetching water, now faster than ever. When all seems lost in a massive flood, the old sorcerer returns, quickly breaks the spell and saves the day.

Too bad Bush senior can’t just break the spell. Bush senior did send his man Baker in but you can’t help those who will not help themselves. At least Mickey was quick to realize that he was in over his head.

And at last we come to the points you most want to discuss:

You are wrong about terrorists attacks on the mainland in 93-01.  My how you forget.  No wonder you are out of the loop in this war on terrorism.

CIA shootings and the 93 WTC.  Ohh and I wasn't including OKC because the links to Al-Qaeda are not for sure known since the FBI and the government were in some sort of cover up, mainly Joe Doe 2, numerous eye witness' that said they say ME looking people running from the building before the explosion and the fact that Nicholes visited Al-Qaeda members in the Philippines as was relayed to the Clinton administration by the Philippine  government after the fact.  Yes I say cover up because the first time in history before trials are complete the US government destroyed the evidence by blowing the building down and trucking away the evidence without letting anyone else examine it.  Also I never included WACO where Reno violated numerous laws and the US Constitution when she burned them out or the fact they again destroyed evidence.

I did not know that people were suggesting a link between Oklahoma City and al Qaeda but that does help to explain some things. Well if you want to include the CIA shooting why not include the sniper shootings in the DC area? Or more close to our homes the shootings at the Seattle Jewish center last July? Obviously it is question of scale.

Your greater point is to suggest that there was a strong operational link between al Qaeda and Iraq in 2001. It must be very disappointing to you that the President does not assert that point. You must have an explanation as to why Bush would deny that link. Sure the 9/ 11 commission reported that it found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq but now with all that Stephen Hayes is writing why wont Bush make the case you are making? I'd say it is because he knows Hayes' assertion of a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam is not true.

Which really gets back to the point of what was the justification for the Iraq war? as stated by this administration in 2003:  Iraq presented a clear and present danger to the US. In retrospect it clear that this was not the case.

The United States has had a Middle East policy since the beginning. George Washington had a Mideast policy. Thomas Jefferson had a Mideast policy. Lincoln had a Mideast policy. This situation did not start in 1993, 1983 or with the Iranian revolution, but this administration's world view seems to start in 1991 at the end of the first Persian Gulf war. The opera version of this era will tell a story not unlike Hamlet. Like Hamlet, Bush's biggest mystery  concerns his character, his psychology, and his real motivations. Can we make any sense of Bush at all? I can't.

It must be tough to maintain your point of view in the face of its crumbling support among Republicans. Clearly you must feel let down by the President. As Robert Novak wrote in today's WaPost: "This <meaning the Bush policy's reliance on Maliki> hastens the desire of Republicans, who once cheered the Bush Doctrine in the Middle East, to remove U.S. forces from a politically deteriorating condition as soon as possible. "Iraq is a black hole for the Republican Party," a prominent party strategist told me this week. What makes his comments so important is that he is not a maverick Republican in Congress but one of Bush's principal political advisers."

"Iraq is a black hole" that can't be good.

[Bill Peckham]

The real question here is after the terrorism attacks on our country what would the liberals have done about it? They say we should not be in war so i guess I'd like to hear what the solution from the war haters would have been.

So we should just allow the terrorist to come here blow up a bldg or two maybe train them to fly planes so the can kill a couple of thousand citizens in the USA and then what? Whats your solution? Turn the other cheek? Face reality.

Look the issue is Iraq. Of course we had to clean out Afghanistan. You make it out that we had two choices - invade Iraq or surrender. Come on. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor we didn't attack Mexico. Why was that? Because that would have been a bad idea even though the Axis had approached Mexico, had contact in today's vernacular. However, if Cheney's "One Percent Doctrine" was in effect we would have had to fight Mexico and the whole world, as opposed to joining an alliance and fighting together. When you are in a fight you have to pick your battles. This administration has made bad choices; picked the wrong battles.

Clearly the smart thing to do is to focus and attack those who are actually threatening you and to fight as part of a larger alliance. The idea behind the Iraq project seems to be that by teaching Iraq a lesson the rest of the mideast would fall into line. That really never had a chance of working - going into Iraq was a terrible mistake that we are compounding. We are in a hole so I would hope that a change in leadership would, as a first step, Stop Digging.

How can you call bringing troop levels to 12/05 levels is a change in plan? Give the Bush plan a chance? We've been doing that for three years. At what point do you say enough?

[Epoman]

Epoman breaks out lawnchair. This is getting good.

 

[BigSky]

Wow that’s one way to avoid giving your opinion on the current Iraq strategy. I seem to have two options quit the field and let your polemic stand, or rebut it point by point from the point of view of "my type". Well since you've taken the time to write a provocative account I will step up (in the new White House vernacular - a couple months ago I would have needed to stand up) and offer "my type's" take on your post.

This has never been about my opinion on strategy in Iraq.  Its about fact that you have shown time and time again you do not know the reasons that were laid out before this war started or the back history of US and its dealings with terrorism.  It is pretty clear your position from your very first posts to this thread. 

Your position is shown by the fact you said this about the song by the communist in opposition to a war.

"It's hard to hear the message when you hate the messenger."

Your messenger had no message because of the fact that the little communist was against the US because it was fighting his fellow party members.  The fact that it had nothing to do with the US and actual war was beyond you and shows just why you do not understand what is going on then or now.

 It seems you are more intent on sound bytes and little democrat slogans than what is and what has actually happened in our dealings with terrorism worldwide.   There is no peace with terrorists and no appeasing them and its mind boggling that you think there is.

Get comfortable and settle in you’ve covered a lot of ground; this is going to take some thought and writing. Let’s take your last point first:

Well if you would stay on one subject there would not be so much ground now would there.  Notice how fast you left the defense of your song writer to where we are currently now.

On 09/30/1993 the national debt was $4,411,488,883,139.38 (give or take); On 09/28/2001 the total national debt was up to $5,807,463,412,200.06 . So Clinton budgets increased our debt 1.4 trillion dollars for the eight year period he was president but the real story is the state of our finances during the last few years of his presidency. This thread has not referenced much published data but here are a few links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/411973.stm
US to buy back national debt (August 4, 1999)
“For the first time in 25 years, the US Government plans to reduce the size of the national debt.”

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/
Clinton announces record payment on national debt (May 1, 2000)
“President Bill Clinton said Monday that the United States would pay off $216 billion in debt this year, bringing to $355 billion the amount of the nation's debt paid down in the three years since the government balanced the budget and began running surpluses.”

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/09/07/debt.clock/
National Debt Clock stops, despite trillions of dollars of red ink
Some found clock's change of direction confusing (September 7, 2000)
“The plug was pulled on the National Debt Clock, which has kept track of the federal government's red ink since the electronic billboard near Times Square was erected in 1989.

In its final moments Thursday, the sign read: ‘Our national debt: $5,676,989,904,887. Your family share: $73,733.’"

From that point what happened? The Outstanding Public Debt as of 18 Jan 2007 at 05:51:14 PM GMT is $8,671,083,127,647.41 On average this administration has added 500 billion dollars a year to the national debt and much of the spending commitments in this administration’s budget busting programs are back end loaded, i.e. the costs will increase dramatically once he leaves office in two years, by which time the Debt will have more than doubled!! Yes, we will be paying off this fiscal folly for generations. Truly a mountain of debt has accumulated under Bush.

Americans were long saddled with a mountain of debt before this action started.  Also we are nowhere close to having spent 1.2 trillion dollars on this action as you had suggested earlier. In fact the costs of fighting terrorism now are much higher than if Clinton would have actually ought them during his terms instead of relying on it to be a Justice Department matter and not a military issue.

Fact remains Clinton NEVER paid off the national debt did he?  Even though the left so often loves to say he did. 

The debt rose every single year Clinton was in office.  From where it was shortly before he took office to where it was shortly before he left office. You will notice it never dropped a single year he was in office, so much for the beloved claim of the left that he paid of the national debt.  It is so laughable because time and time again I hear or read from the left that Clinton paid of the almost 6 trillion debt and that were had a projected 6 trillion surplus.

Lets get back to actual reality in the matter.

09/29/2000        $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999        $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998        $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997        $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996        $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995        $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994        $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993        $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992        $4,064,620,655,521.66


Did you notice the debt NEVER DROPPED!  NEVER!

Clinton didn't spend money as fast and that was all.  It was done with many failures to keeping the military up to date and this country protected across the world against terrorism which were points being brought up at the time it was occurring.  But lets disregard that.


The fact of the matter is that in just about any given year the US takes in roughly 180 to 200 trillion a year in revenue. The US almost always spends just as much if not more depending on events in any given year.

Roughly the last year of Clinton the US was close to 6 trillion in debt by the time he actually left office.

Revenue and spending  as  from 1999.  revenues: $1.828 trillion,  expenditures: $1.703 trillion

Now if we were to have kept everything the same in terms of spending to revenue as Clinton had done in office, just how long would you think it would take to pay off almost 6 trillion dollars?  It would never have occurred.  Why?  Because the difference between revenue and expenditures was not even enough to pay off interest on the national debt to keep it from rising as shown by the governments own figures of how the debt continued to rise during that time.

My type. I admit my type had a complete failure of imagination.  In 2001 when I said I would vote for a ham sandwich before I would vote for Bush it was for the reasons that I thought he would point us in the wrong direction: set back environmental progress, and pull back internationally. I had no idea his plan was to be Raptured out of office.

In your mind is the Lewinsky kerfuffle the worst thing that has happened to the presidency in the last several decades? That sort of moral tisk, tisking is comical in light of what a truly  incompetent president can inflict on our great nation. It is interesting that leaders often have less than puritanical personal lives but it would seem it has always been the case. For a more illuminating look at the diminishing trust in the office of the president just look at the change in perception between 10/01 and today. It isn’t the Dems who’s mind has changed it is independents and true conservatives (like WF Buckley) who are waking up to the disaster this presidency has wrought.

Like I said you have shown your hate for Bush long before this action and that fact alone means no matter what he does or will do you will  not approve. 

At no point have I suggested the monica thing was the worst of it.  It seems kind of weird for you to suggest that the monica thing is the worst thing to happen however. 

The Administrations lies and butcher at WACO, failure to accept bin laden when offered up by Sudan, Clintons suppression of 9/11 hijackers named to him by the Philippine government, and failure to fight terrorism  are among the far more worrisome things to consider before Monica. 

Of course the fact that Clinton lost his license and was FORBIDDEN from every appearing before the Supreme Court really shows the worst shame that has been committed on the office and trust of the Presidency.

Actually the Constitution is pretty clear that the responsibility for checking Executive authority lies with the Congress and the Judiciary. The rubber stamp Republican Congress from 2001 to just a couple weeks ago, completely abdicated their oversight responsibilities. In return the president abdicated his responsibility of checking Congressional power by refusing to use his veto power. Bills such as the Energy Boondoggle or the equally grievous Transportation porkfest slid through in quid pro quo of looking the other way.

And who elects those to Congress to ensure those checks and balances.   There is some pork to a degree.  But alot of what is considered pork is building those much needed roads, bridges, water treatment plants etc.   Granted some true pork slips through but that is the price that has to be paid when a President does not have a line item veto.

I do not see the fiasco in Iraq as an elaborate training exercise. Let’s look at what The National Security Advisory Group concluded in August 2006  “the U.S. administration’s under funding of the army represents a serious failure of civilian stewardship of the military.” And “The bottom line is that our Army currently has no ready, strategic reserve. Not since the Vietnam era and its aftermath has the Army’s readiness been so degraded.”

Evidently they never took assessment under Clinton considering the massive cuts he did to the military and the hundreds of billions of dollars in military equipment that sat because he refused to fund them to fix it.  When Bush Sr. left office there was no backlog of military equipment to be fixed.  When Clinton left office it was in the billions of dollars worth of equipment.

We are meeting our recruitment and readiness goals by extending people's commitment - the backdoor draft - and lowering our standards. Today, the U.S. military is, in the words of the Pentagon, stretched "to the breaking point." Almost 30 percent of the 1.5 million U.S. service members who have been deployed since September 11, 2001 have been deployed more than once. Thousands of members of Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) have been called up. Military recruiters are struggling to meet their goals; the Pentagon is considering greatly increasing the number of noncitizens in the U.S. military; more than 16,000 single mothers who are in the U.S. military have been deployed.

Troops are often deployed more than once and when people join the service they know this can happen.  Non Citizens have always been part of the defense and has been used by many as a jumping off point to citizenship, in fact I have know of several that have done this.  All people, single mothers included know what is required of them when they join the service.  Or is it your point that the military should discriminate against single mothers joining its ranks?

Come on. Now our standard of behavior is to be set by comparing it to some pre-renaissance Muslim fiend’s behavior?  Jose Padilla is an American citizen and a schmuck but for that you get locked up without trial, held in complete solitary and mentally crippled? Dahlia Lithwick reviewed the charges against the Guantanamo detainees  here: http://www.slate.com/id/2136422/ Our acceptance of torture and the ongoing behavior of this administration will continue to cause avoidable consequences for generations. We must restore habeas corpus, undo the Military Commissions Act, and return the rule of law.

You claim torture yet you do not know what actual torture is. 

What is being done at Gitmo is not considered torture because we hold that our own US troops can have the same techniques applied to them.

Jose Padilla--  The reason he can be held like this is because of prior Supreme Court rulings. 

Also by GC we can hold enemies to the US indefinitely and not give them a trial until the war is over with them.

Even more to the point by GC we could execute without trial all those that are held in Gitmo that were caught fighting without a uniform as fighting without uniform they are deemed spies.  The very fact that we do not should tell you something.

I never said it was dems fault.  Interesting how you jumped to that conclusion.  Guilty mind perhaps?

Again the important number is the net impact. Including all the people who have been killed our policies have increased the total number of people fighting against us. Three years ago, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld wrote a memo to his colleagues in the Pentagon posing a critical question in the “long war’’ against terrorism: Is Washington’s strategy successfully killing or capturing terrorists faster than new enemies are being created?

Vast amount of terrorists created are not occurring because of this action.  This action is merely drawing them out into the open.  There are several terrorist organizations that have been training hundreds of thousands of terrorists for years long before war in Iraq. 

We can only kill them and gather necessary information on them by drawing them out.

I did not know that people were suggesting a link between Oklahoma City and al Qaeda but that does help to explain some things. Well if you want to include the CIA shooting why not include the sniper shootings in the DC area? Or more close to our homes the shootings at the Seattle Jewish center last July? Obviously it is question of scale.

Because they were not done by someone with possible contacts to al-qaeda. 

Your greater point is to suggest that there was a strong operational link between al Qaeda and Iraq in 2001. It must be very disappointing to you that the President does not assert that point. You must have an explanation as to why Bush would deny that link. Sure the 9/ 11 commission reported that it found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq but now with all that Stephen Hayes is writing why wont Bush make the case you are making? I'd say it is because he knows Hayes' assertion of a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam is not true.

Which really gets back to the point of what was the justification for the Iraq war? as stated by this administration in 2003:  Iraq presented a clear and present danger to the US. In retrospect it clear that this was not the case.

Actually there were at least 5 reason given.  Funny how you do not remember them.

Also the fact Iraq was a danger.  I suggest you look the word up as you clearly do not know what it means.

The very fact that Iraq not only planned but committed terrorist attacks and acts of war on the US shows this to be the case.

Just because they may not have worked or they did not occur on the mainland US does not mean they are any less of a danger.

After all if someone shoots at you with a gun and misses, is that person a danger or not?  Most people would say that person is a danger.  Well all except you evidently.

Iraq and AL-Qaeda were linked.  I have said nothing saying that they were in on 9/11 as you are trying to suggest.  I said there are questions still to just what was their involvement considering the meeting with Atta and Iraqi Intelligence.

It has never been a point of Bush to link the two on 9/11 so your point is moot and your lame attempt at some sort of innuendo is pointless.

As to the 9/11 commission they could not have caught a cold.  Especially considering some of those on the panel were the ones who enabled 9/11 to occur. The idea the two would have nothing to do with each other because of ideology is so asinine it can only come from a commission.

Especially considering the US government had already linked the two in the mid 90's.

In fact the Clinton Administration made at least two official pronouncements of the alliance between Iraq and Al- qaeda.
One came from Bill Cohen, the defense secretary. He cited an Al-qaeda-Iraq link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
   
You then might remember that Bush cited the same linkage, in part, (remember there were several listed before the war) to justify invading Iraq. 
   
The other official pronouncement came from the  Justice Department in a indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
   
The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, which are a favorite weapon of terrorists btw.
   
I quote in part what the indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that Al-qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, Al-qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

Despite the fact you have not read the book by Hayes plays very little into this because as demonstrated above, the link was established long before the publishing of his book.


Also it has nothing to do with crumbling support of Republicans.  Presidents come and go,  Those in Congress are nothing more than political animals who like feeding, and as with all political animals they are in it for the moment and only the moment to stay on top of the feeding frenzy.

[Joe Paul]

BIGSKY? With what all you just said, what are you trying to say 

[Sluff]

BIGSKY? With what all you just said, what are you trying to say 

JP he's pointing out the link  between terrorism and iraq and the reason why we are there in the first place. Because all the liberals in this country keep crying about the war in Iraq.

[Joe Paul]

Thanks sluff, too much to read.

[BigSky]

BIGSKY? With what all you just said, what are you trying to say 

JP he's pointing out the link  between terrorism and iraq and the reason why we are there in the first place. Because all the liberals in this country keep crying about the war in Iraq.

True Sluff.


I have no problem if someone is a pacifist and doesn't like war in the first place no matter what.  I can respect a position like that even though I do not agree with it.

However to make the suggestion that Iraq was not a danger in light of what he has done not only against the US, his neighbors in the
ME and to his own people and his refusal to disarm and quit harboring and funding terrorism as per what he requested and agreed to do in the cease fire agreement is quite another. Especially when this danger is dismissed because it is being done just because of a hate for Bush.  It is quite clear the double standard that is being applied from the left from what Clinton did and what Bush is doing.

[Sluff]

BIGSKY? With what all you just said, what are you trying to say 

JP he's pointing out the link  between terrorism and iraq and the reason why we are there in the first place. Because all the liberals in this country keep crying about the war in Iraq.

True Sluff.


I have no problem if someone is a pacifist and doesn't like war in the first place no matter what.  I can respect a position like that even though I do not agree with it.

However to make the suggestion that Iraq was not a danger in light of what he has done not only against the US, his neighbors in the
ME and to his own people and his refusal to disarm and quit harboring and funding terrorism as per what he requested and agreed to do in the cease fire agreement is quite another.

I'm in 100% agreement with you Big Sky. I just don't know all the facts and figures to back up what I believe.

[Epoman]

 

Your turn Bill Peckham.