It's lonely in the White House after the rats desert the ship. http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
Anyone care to name the song being played in the background throughout the video? I'm guessing it was chosen for its title.
Excellent song by Traffic and Steve Winwood entitled "Low Spark of High-heeled Boys" In any event it seems as if the Dems were convinced also that Saddam was an accident waiting to happen....(lousy intel and who was in charge of distributing that intel?) Had nothing to do with Al-Qeda at the time although Al-Qeda was responsible for just about any hostility we Americans felt in the early 2000s towards any rogue state in the middle-east and we were plenty hostile. Makes you wonder why we have so much patience with Iran although I know we are in no way capable at the moment of any sort of ground war in Iran with volunteer forces. Another major terrorist attack in this country could precipitate an all out attack on Iran in much the same manner as 9-11 made us more accepting of an attack on Iraq. And that my friends is just what Al-Qeda is counting on...
Good video Gip...the democrats were war hawks right up and through the 2004 election. John Kerry wanted to send more troops to Iraq, he didn't think Bush was being aggressive enough. After the democrats got beat in 2004 presidential election and didn't regain control of the congress, they did a 180 and became anti-war...they are all a bunch of hypocrits. That said, like a lot of americans I am growing tired of the whole thing, I'm not for cutting and running but if the surge doesn't produce better results by the end of the year and the Iraquis themselves don't do a better job of controling things I want the President to start a phased withdrawal of our troops.
I had the opprotunity to golf Monday and in my foursome was a young local kid who just returned from nine months in central Iraq with the USMC reserve. He is also a policeman in the real world. He did not paint a rosy picture. He said it is chaotic over there. He holds the Iraqi army in very low regard claiming that most of them only show up on payday. He said when fighting breaks out they head the other way. He also doesn't think the Iraqis are anywhere near being able to defend themselves and that morale among the US troops is becoming an issue as their leave dates are pushed further and further back and many are on their third and fourth tours of duty there. I was all for the premise of this war but I am disgusted with the conduct of it on the part of our leadership and in my opinion we are now fighting this war "on the fly". Note the increase in casualties. What we failed to foresee or simply could not have known is the secular nature of this war and the apparent malaise of the regime we have put into place. I don't see any happy ending to this war any longer and personally would have no problem with a defined timeline for withdrawal or even an immediate withdrawl. When I watched the video of the Iraqis, some army regulars,stoning a 17 year old girl to death because she dated a young man from another religion, it was a seminal moment for me in the context of our involvement there. You have to ask yourself at this point what is in it for us and is it worth this price in lives and dollars. Our ground troops are exhausted and depleted. We are now vulnerable. We need to come home, re-arm, rest up and secure our own borders where the more immediate threat lies.
Great vido Gip.....as we all know and have said repeatedly, it's a helluva lot easier to sit on the sidelines and throw darts at those at those in positions of authority. When you're in the seat, strong leadership often requires decisive action particularly as it relates to our national defense. I supported the President's decision....and continue to be supportive of the need for meaningful military action in that theater. I believed him when he said.... As true now as it was then.....I can't possibly understand the logic behind withdrawing from the fight - while in contact with the enemy - and leaving the spoils to the enemy and/or Iran. If we leave now, I have no doubt that we shall be called upon to return to face a much stronger enemy.....how can that possibly make sense?
Urban warfare is eerily similar to jungle warfare at this stage of the game. Who is the enemy...where is the enemy...and how do we get to the enemy? It is a very difficult and virtually impossible task compounded by the secular extremism that George mentions. When it comes to bombing terrorists camps and dictatorial palaces we are pretty damned efficient but when it comes to ground wars enmeshed in other people's turf it becomes extremely tough. The Germans found it rough going against the French underground but had it easy vs. the French army in open battle. The U.S. found success in confronting the German army directly but needed a nuclear strike to defeat and subdue the more elusive, extreme Japanese. Excuse me if I'm off a little in that historical analogy but you get the point. The enemy in Iraq which is a quad effort of Al-Sadr, Sunni insurgents, Iran and yes Al-Qeda is a gelatinous, fluid mix that is very hard to pin down and keep down. This could go on forever. I agree with George and I propose as I have before that we return....regroup...re-energize and rearm...especially our high-tech air weaponry. I propose we never again enter such a convoluted and unwinnable ground war on someone else's turf. Let the enemy in Iraq...whoever it turn's out to be....reorganize and get established and build new Army barracks and airfields and palaces and then we fly in and summarily and forcefully destroy all of it. We repeat the process over and over again and see if our diplomatic efforts maybe begin to have more success. I propose this same strategy for Iran should they continue to pursue nuclear weaponry.
I wish I could see it your way BuckeyeT, that's what I would have liked to have happen. That we see it through and attain stability in Iraq to counter Iran. But I fear that Iraq is so mired in sectarian religous conflict that could go on for years and years with no real resolution. I do fear that we are headed for some confrontation with Iran over their nuclear program or if we leave Iraq certainly it's possible that Iran will invade Iraq at the invitation of the Shiites and that won't be good. In the end though I think we need some indication this year that Iraq will become stable, that the Sunni and Shite leaders will see that peace is preferable to continued violence and that the clerics will get on board and the whole thing will turn around. Short of that we need to plan our way out of there. Like Krebs, I was for going into Iraq I never felt the need to find WMD's, I always thought it was a mistake that we didn't finish the job during Gulf War 1, and I thought Clintons handling was wimpy. When we didn't find WMD's I didn't feel lied to like Al Gore, but as time has gone on I am starting to feel like we do need to think about an end game and not let things go on and and on. It would be different if it was like the occupation of Europe or Japan after WWII, but it's not. Terry
"finish the job during Gulf War 1, and I thought Clintons handling was wimpy" I think Gulf War I was under the Bush/Cheney watch and is one thing that has fueled speculation Cheney has been hellbent on 'finishing" the job as you allude to.
Gulf War 1 was under Bush 1 and that's who my criticism is directed at for not finishing the job. When Clinton was elected the US adopted a lob a few cruise missles at our enemies strategy, he failed to respond forcefully to the Cole, the embassy bombing in Sudan and other incidents. I have no doubt that had Gore won the 2000 election he'd have lobbed a few cruise missles at Al Queda camps in Afghanistan in response to 9/11 and that'd been the end of it.
"I have no doubt that had Gore won the 2000 election he'd have lobbed a few cruise missles at Al Queda camps in Afghanistan in response to 9/11 and that'd been the end of it." I don't think you really believe that Terry. 9-11 is one reason and maybe the only reason I can somewhat understand and sypathize with why GW was so determined to invade Iraq. Heck...most anyone would become a hawk if they had witnessed firsthand the aftermath of 9-11 on site as Bush did...and as I did 6 months later. It was a sight I'll never forget and it is a mindbending experience to see something like that and realize the hatred that exists out there against the U.S. That alone explains many of the pro-war statements made post 9-11 in Gipper's video.
We can argue intent, resolve and patriotism all we want. The fact of the matter is that we have depleted our military. These kids are exhausted, our equipment is beat up and there is little sign of progress. We are spread way too thin across the globe with a volunteer army. When you have national guard units solely responsible for base security in a war theater that is a very bad sign. Sometimes good intent has to give way to practicality. And believe me, I take no satisfaction in my words.
Sorry fellas....we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. Leaving the job unfinished solves no problems except for those of the enemy and a grateful and victorious regime in Tehran spins the centrifuges ever faster.....
By focusing on air superiority and high tech weaponry we cannot engage in "nation building" but we can sure as hell send a strong message and make life miserable for despots.
The vote on war funding is up and I think the Dems are hamstrung. How do you vote no without endangering the troops on the ground? Is the R party playing political games with our soldier's lives for political gains? Would the Dems vote no and risk being assessed as doing the same? I don't know the parameters of the bill but I can't imagine a valid piece of legislation that would do that. How does a legimate political representative with a true conscience and hearing the collective voice of the majority in this country that says get the hell out of Iraq vote on this bill?
It's the democrats who are playing politics with this issue, as I pointed out they were pro-war all the way through the 2004 election cycle. Kerry ran on more troops on the ground, be more aggressive. Then when they couldn't beat the republicans on that they've since done a 180 and become anti-war get out now party. They have tried to take over the job of commander in chief from the president with these ammendments to the funding of the troops. Bush is the CIC, he was given authorization for the war, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards all voted for that authorization along with a boatload of democrats. Constitutionally they have no right to attempt to hijack the running of the War from the CIC, but they are trying to backdoor that. That's playing politics. They also have attached a ton of stuff like min wage to the bill that have no place being on a bill to fund the troops, why? Well the only reason is to attempt to put political pressure on the president. They know he would sign a min wage bill, and they want to be able to say look the President is against the little guy getting a wage increase...pure polictics. If the democrats cared for the little guy, they would have submitted a seperate min wage bill and it would have passed and the president would have signed it, but they cared more about trying to stick it to Bush than they did about the little guy getting a wage boost.
"It's the democrats who are playing politics with this issue, as I pointed out they were pro-war all the way through the 2004" And I used to think smoking pot all the time was a cool thing....until I grew up and realized it was not at least in terms of being a fully functioning adult. In 2004 and before, the available data, intel and popular opinion was skewed and inaccurate and 9-11 ashes were still smoldering. The vote for the Iraq war was in early 2003 by the way...not 2004. Obviously with better info available and as George is brave enough to admit circumstances change dramatically sometimes. Only an idiot will stubbornly pursue a path that has proven to be one of failure given new and relevant information that failure is more likely than success. Good thing most CEOs in America aren't so stupidly stubborn or driven by internal party politics.
Dems caved today, they showed their true colors. They only care about the politics. If they truly believed their rhetoric they would have never caved to Bush on the time table.
Then there is the idea of selecting the intel that only fit's your own agenda.... "By Lisa Myers and Robert Windrem NBC News Investigative Unit Updated: 2 hours, 32 minutes ago In a move sure to raise even more questions about the decision to go to war with Iraq, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence will on Friday release selected portions of pre-war intelligence in which the CIA warned the administration of the risk and consequences of a conflict in the Middle East. Among other things, the 40-page Senate report reveals that two intelligence assessments before the war accurately predicted that toppling Saddam could lead to a dangerous period of internal violence and provide a boost to terrorists. But those warnings were seemingly ignored. In January 2003, two months before the invasion, the intelligence community's think tank — the National Intelligence Council — issued an assessment warning that after Saddam was toppled, there was “a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other and that rogue Saddam loyalists would wage guerilla warfare either by themselves or in alliance with terrorists.” I don't recall a debate or hearing of an honest debate in the administration about this aspect of the invasion. In fact I recall some post-partum reports from ex-Bush staffers that made mention of the fact that consequences or the threat of were never seriously considered by the Bush leadership in spite of warnings such as this. How can they be so selective about the intel?
"In the Senate, presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- under pressure from war foes -- voted against the measure." Seems to me their electability just went up......