After Seven Years, Final U.S. Combat Brigade Leaves Iraq

[spursncowboys]

Iraq

After Seven Years, Final U.S. Combat Brigade Leaves Iraq


Published August 18, 2010
| Associated Press


Print (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/18/seven-years-final-combat-brigade-leaves-iraq/#)
Email (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/18/seven-years-final-combat-brigade-leaves-iraq/#)
Share (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/18/seven-years-final-combat-brigade-leaves-iraq/#)
Comments (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/18/seven-years-final-combat-brigade-leaves-iraq/#content)

(http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/18/seven-years-final-combat-brigade-leaves-iraq/#) Text Size (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/18/seven-years-final-combat-brigade-leaves-iraq/#)

KHABARI CROSSING, Kuwait -- As their convoy reached the barbed wire at the border crossing out of Iraq on Wednesday, the soldiers whooped and cheered. Then they scrambled out of their stifling hot armored vehicles, unfurled an American flag and posed for group photos.
For these troops of the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, it was a moment of relief fraught with symbolism. Seven years and five months after the U.S.-led invasion, the last American combat brigade was leaving Iraq, well ahead of President Barack Obama's Aug. 31 deadline for ending U.S. combat operations there.
------
EDITOR'S NOTE: The 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division was officially designated the last combat brigade to leave Iraq under Obama's plan to end combat operations in Iraq by Aug. 31. Associated Press writer Rebecca Santana joined the troops on their final journey out of the country.
------
When 18-year-old Spc. Luke Dill first rolled into Iraq as part of the U.S. invasion, his Humvee was so vulnerable to bombs that the troops lined its floor with flak jackets.
Now 25 and a staff sergeant after two tours of duty, he rode out of Iraq this week in a Stryker, an eight-wheeled behemoth encrusted with armor and add-ons to ward off grenades and other projectiles.
"It's something I'm going to be proud of for the rest of my life -- the fact that I came in on the initial push and now I'm leaving with the last of the combat units," he said.
He remembered three straight days of mortar attacks outside the city of Najaf in 2003, so noisy that after the firing ended, the silence kept him awake at nights. He recalled the night skies over the northern city of Mosul being lit up by tracer bullets from almost every direction.

Now, waiting for him back in Olympia, Wash., is the "Big Boy" Harley-Davidson he purchased from one of the motorcycle company's dealerships at U.S. bases in Iraq -- a vivid illustration of how embedded the American presence has become since the invasion of March 20, 2003.
That presence is far from over. Scatterings of combat troops still await departure, and some 50,000 will stay another year in what is designated as a noncombat role. They will carry weapons to defend themselves and accompany Iraqi troops on missions (but only if asked).
Special forces will continue to help Iraqis hunt for terrorists.
So the U.S. death toll -- at least 4,415 by Pentagon count as of Wednesday -- may not yet be final.
The Stryker brigade, named for the vehicle that delivers troops into and out of battle, has lost 34 troops in Iraq. It was at the forefront of many of the fiercest battles, including operations in eastern Baghdad and Diyala province, an epicenter of the insurgency, during "the surge" of 2007. It evacuated troops at the battle of Tarmiyah, an outpost where 28 out of 34 soldiers were wounded holding off insurgents.
Before the Aug. 31 deadline, about half the brigade's 4,000 soldiers flew out like most of the others leaving Iraq, but its leadership volunteered to have the remainder depart overland. That decision allowed the unit to keep 360 Strykers in the country for an extra three weeks.
U.S. commanders say it was the brigade's idea, not an order from on high. The intent was to keep additional firepower handy through the "period of angst" that followed Iraq's inconclusive March 7 election, said brigade chief, Col. John Norris.
It took months of preparation to move the troops and armor across more than 500 kilometers (300 miles) of desert highway through potentially hostile territory.
The Strykers left the Baghdad area in separate convoys over a four-day period, traveling at night because the U.S.-Iraq security pact -- and security worries -- limit troop movements by day.
Along the way, phalanxes of American military Humvees sat at overpasses, soldiers patrolled the highways for roadside bombs, and Apache attack helicopters circled overhead as the Strykers refueled alongside the highway.
Chief Warrant Officer 3 Gus McKinney, a brigade intelligence officer, acknowledged that moving the convoys overland put soldiers at risk, but said the danger was less than in past.
The biggest threat was roadside bombs planted by Shiite extremist groups who have a strong foothold in the south, McKinney said.
But except for camels straying into the road, and breakdowns that required some vehicles to be towed, there were no incidents.
The worst of the ride was conditions inside the Strykers -- sitting for hours in a cramped space -- and the temperatures outside that reached 120 Fahrenheit.
The driver's compartment is called the "hellhole" because it sits over the engine and becomes almost unbearably hot. The vehicle commander and gunner can sit up in hatches to see the outside world. At the tail end are hatches for two gunners. Eight passengers -- an infantry squad in combat conditions -- can squeeze in the back.
Riding as a passenger felt a bit like being in a World War II-era submarine -- a tight fit and no windows. The air conditioning was switched off to save fuel on the long ride south to Kuwait. Men dozed or listened to music on earphones.
When the convoy finally reached the sandy border, two soldiers, armed and helmeted, jumped off their vehicle and raced each other into Kuwait.
Once out of Iraq, there was still work to be done. Vehicles had to be stripped of ammunition and spare tires, and eventually washed and packed for shipment home.
Meanwhile, to the north, insurgents kept up a relentless campaign against the country's institutions and security forces, killing five Iraqi government employees in roadside bombings and other attacks Wednesday. Coming a day after a suicide bomber killed 61 army recruits in central Baghdad, the latest violence highlighted the shaky reality left by the departing U.S. combat force and five months of stalemate over forming Iraq's next government.
For Dill, who reached Kuwait with an earlier convoy, the withdrawal engendered feelings of relief. His mission -- to get his squad safely out of Iraq -- was accomplished.
Standing alongside a hulking Stryker, his shirt stained with sweat, he acknowledged the men who weren't there to experience the day with him.
"I know that to my brothers in arms who fought and died, this day would probably mean a lot, to finally see us getting out of here," he said.


http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/18/seven-years-final-combat-brigade-leaves-iraq/

[spursncowboys]

I know that to my brothers in arms who fought and died, this day would probably mean a lot, to finally see us getting out of here," he said.

[fraga]

Engage...Supervisor mode...

[boutons_deux]

What a waste, wasted 100s of 1000s of lives, $Ts, while US becomes a dystopia.

75 years x $100B/year = $7.5T to go.

[ChumpDumper]

Never should have gone in the first place.

[CosmicCowboy]

What a total cluster fuck. They just handed over security to the State Department and independent contractors.

God help them all.

[ChumpDumper]

What a total cluster fuck. They just handed over security to the State Department and independent contractors.

God help them all.They handed it over to independent contractors in 2003.

[CosmicCowboy]

They handed it over to independent contractors in 2003.

Yeah, but now the state department is running it by themselves.

Excuse me if I trust the military more than the state department and neuvo-blackwater.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah, but now the state department is running it by themselves.

Excuse me if I trust the military more than the state department and neuvo-blackwater.State should have been in charge of the occupation from the start.

[CosmicCowboy]

State should have been in charge of the occupation from the start.

OK

Lets watch and see how this plays out then.

I hope you are right.

I think you are wrong and this is going to be a clusterfuck.

[LnGrrrR]

I thought it already was a clusterfuck? :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, it's already a clusterfuck.

I think it will go back to hell as soon as we really leave.

[CosmicCowboy]

I thought it already was a clusterfuck? :lol

You guys need to read a little more about the transition. It's fucking crazy just to meet a political timeline.

I'm talking about a major over-run/wipe-out of a forward base with huge casualties.

I sure hope I'm wrong.

[ChumpDumper]

You guys need to read a little more about the transition. It's fucking crazy just to meet a political timeline.

I'm talking about a major over-run/wipe-out of a forward base with huge casualties.

I sure hope I'm wrong.Eh, I'd rather just get out altogether and stop postponing the inevitable.

To which forward base are you referring?

[Chachachango]

So........ Are they moving to Afghanistan?

[boutons_deux]

In depth:

Civilians to Take U.S. Lead After Military Leaves Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/19/world/middleeast/19withdrawal.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

Those contractors will of course make $1000s/month more than the remaining 50K US troops.

Iraq is the Repugs' bogus war, and all the blood, American and Iraqi civilians, is on their hands. Amnesiac, dumbed-down America will vote for Repugs again.

[in2deep]

another thing to cross out in Obama's to do list. In good time too. :tu

[CosmicCowboy]

Eh, I'd rather just get out altogether and stop postponing the inevitable.

To which forward base are you referring?

Heres the state department "plan". The state department is essentially hiring mercenaries to replace the troops.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i95vQddSvDq7rolln4GestfTRuSA
Troops gone, US to rely on 7,000 contractors in Iraq: report
(AFP) – 3 hours ago
WASHINGTON — The US State Department is to more than double the number of security contractors it employs in Iraq to around 7,000, filling a gap left by departing troops, the New York Times reported Thursday.
The newspaper said the contractors would be deployed to defend five fortified compounds that will be left behind as US combat forces exit Iraq and the US mission switches from a military-led to a civilian-headed operation.
Citing unnamed administration officials, the Times said private security contractors would operate radar to warn of enemy fire, search for roadside bombs, and fly surveillance drones.
They could also staff "quick reaction forces" dispatched to rescue civilians in trouble.
The massive increase in security contractors is an indication of the unusually large role that will be assumed by US diplomatic staff after combat troops leave Iraq.
The last US combat brigade left Iraq at dawn on Thursday, leaving behind some 56,000 US soldiers who will gradually draw down over the coming year.
The Times said more than 1,200 specific tasks currently handled by US troops have been identified for handover to US civilians or Iraqis or to be phased out.
The State Department meanwhile, seeking to outfit its employees for the next phase of their mission, plans to purchase 60 mine-resistant vehicles from the Pentagon and to expand its inventory of armored cars to 1,320.
It also plans to add three planes to the sole aircraft it has now, and expand its helicopter fleet -- to be piloted by contractors -- to 29 from 17.
The increased reliance on security contractors could cause conflict with Iraq's government, which is sensitive to the use of foreign security personnel because of their alleged involvement in incidents involving civilian deaths.
But the forces employed by the State Department will not have immunity from Iraqi prosecution, will be required to register with the country, and will be trailed by State Department regional security officers for extra oversight.

[Drachen]

why does the state department have a military? Does anyone else see a problem with this in general?

[CosmicCowboy]

why does the state department have a military? Does anyone else see a problem with this in general?

This is just political posturing to say that the troops are out of Iraq. They just hired Blackwater or whatever they are called now to perform the same function.

[Drachen]

This is just political posturing to say that the troops are out of Iraq. They just hired Blackwater or whatever they are called now to perform the same function.

Understood, but they are now purchasing military vehicles to be owned by the state department.

The secretary of agriculture better put his order for 50 SR-71s on a rush!

[Winehole23]

why does the state department have a military? Does anyone else see a problem with this in general?Sure. State could be perceived by other countries as a military branch of the US government, undermining its diplomatic bona fides.

Also, since security contractors operate without much public oversight or acountability, it could enable the US to fight de facto wars (security and peace-keeping, right?) more or less in the dark.

It'll be interesting to see how things play out in Afghanistan now that Karzai has asked US contractors to leave (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/18/guns_for_fire). It may not be possible to punt to a newly militarized State Department if the contractors remain unwelcome.

[jack sommerset]

50,000 civilians there. Civilians that can shred some more Iraqi ass when they get out of line.

[boutons_deux]

Karzai kicking out the contractors is dead from the start. Ain't gonna happen, can't happen. Murderous mercenaries over half of the US contingent, and they guard Iraqi govt stuff and people, too. Karzai is playing to his domestic base.

[LnGrrrR]

You guys need to read a little more about the transition. It's fucking crazy just to meet a political timeline.

I'm talking about a major over-run/wipe-out of a forward base with huge casualties.

I sure hope I'm wrong.

I'm thinking that won't happen, but unless you trust the Iraqis/contracted mercenaries, I don't see any way we could reduce the amount of soldiers we have while maintaining the same security.

[ChumpDumper]

Heres the state department "plan". The state department is essentially hiring mercenaries to replace the troops.Are those compounds "forward bases" or are you just using that phrase because it sounds neat?

And you can call them whatever you want, but you can't call the 50,000 troops still there incapable of combat.

[boutons_deux]

The latest bullshit in last couple weeks is that the Iraqis won't be able to defend their borders without the Americans there.

Get over it, dubya, Repugs, his neo-c*nt buddies, oilcos have condemned US to wasting more $Ts and 1000s more lives for many decades.

US annual oil imports are only about $300B year. Insanity

[Wild Cobra]

why does the state department have a military? Does anyone else see a problem with this in general?
So they can protect Hillary when she gets shot at during landings.

[boutons_deux]

It's all a big lie, window dressing, a charade, by the politicians and by the military.

"However, as reported Thursday by The Army Times, US combat brigades remain in Iraq, with different names:

As the final convoy of the Army’s 4th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, based at Fort Lewis, Wash., entered Kuwait early Thursday, a different Stryker brigade remained in Iraq.

Soldiers from the 2nd Stryker Brigade Combat Team of the 25th Infantry Division are deployed in Iraq as members of an Advise and Assist Brigade, the Army’s designation for brigades selected to conduct security force assistance.

So while the “last full U.S. combat brigade” have left Iraq, just under 50,000 soldiers from specially trained heavy, infantry and Stryker brigades will stay, as well as two combat aviation brigades."

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0820/stresses-military-role-iraq-2/

[Winehole23]

Petraeus: We’re Not Leaving Iraq (http://news.antiwar.com/2010/08/19/petraeus-were-not-leaving-iraq/)

Pentagon Surprised to Hear Reports that War Ended

by Jason Ditz, August 19, 2010




As Obama Administration officials and a willing mainstream media report that yesterday was the end of the Iraq War it would likely surprise many that 56,000 US troops remain on the ground engaging in combat operations (http://news.antiwar.com/2010/08/19/2010/08/19/none-dare-call-it-combat-us-troops-still-fighting-war-in-everything-but-name/).


http://news.antiwar.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/petraeus1.jpgBut it seems like the spin is even more surprising to the Pentagon leadership, as Gen. David Petraeus was pressed today on whether this was the right time to have left Iraq, and he said what he most likely wasn’t supposed to say.


“First of all we are not leaving,” Petraues insisted, adding that “there are 50,000 US troops that are remaining in Iraq” and that they retain an “enormous capability (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/19/eveningnews/main6788279.shtml).” It is a capability that is tough to reconcile with the official story that these are all just trainers.


Gen. Petraeus could perhaps be forgiven for not being on message. After all, he is still getting his bearings as the new commander in Afghanistan and probably didn’t have time to catch the news on MSNBC.


But then Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell declared, on MSNBC, “I don’t think anybody has declared the end of the war as far as I know (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100819/ts_alt_afp/iraqunrestmilitarytroops).” He perhaps missed the headlines across the American press declaring exactly that, and the number of Obama Administration officials crowing about the “promise kept” to end the war.


President Obama’s decision to select yesterday as the official “victory” day for Iraq appears to have taken a lot of people by surprise, not the least being all those troops still in Iraq and still fighting. But the Pentagon’s break with them, admitting that the war is still going on while the media-friendly celebration is still going on (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5juui7didNwh_vzBmJyrbjxkeF-IgD9HBOT8G2), certainly complicates the already ill-defined message.

[CosmicCowboy]

http://cm1.theinsider.com/thumbnail/390/319/cm1.theinsider.com/media/0/308/67/6a00d834fd7f7353ef010536ccc557970c-pi.png

[Winehole23]

More continuity.

[Winehole23]

http://cm1.theinsider.com/thumbnail/390/319/cm1.theinsider.com/media/0/308/67/6a00d834fd7f7353ef010536ccc557970c-pi.png
Somewhere down the road, we trust that August 18, 2010 will be remembered as Victory in Iraq day.

[spursncowboys]

the people left behind are not in a combat mission. They are either on stand-by to help if the Iraqis, General or higher, ask or are in a training mission.

[boutons_deux]

You believe the govt + military lies? ok, figures.

read the Military Times article I posted. It's not communist/progressive rag.

[Wild Cobra]

It's good to see this all went according to the plans 7 years ago.

[DMX7]

If this war had lasted only 1 year it still would have been a failure. But of course Bush Admin leadership thought it would last about two months and require half the troops we initially sent (despite the warnings of the Generals Bushy always says he's just following).

[Wild Cobra]

If this war had lasted only 1 year it still would have been a failure. But of course Bush Admin leadership thought it would last about two months and require half the troops we initially sent (despite the warnings of the Generals Bushy always says he's just following).
Want some cheese with that whine?

[DMX7]

Want some cheese with that whine?

:lol

Just goes to show you how separated typical Americans typing from the safety of their home are from the war in Iraq.

[ChumpDumper]

It's good to see this all went according to the plans 7 years ago.WTF does this even mean? If you are saying the plan in 2003 was to have combat troops fighting for seven years, you are an even bigger idiot than you have shown yourself to previously be.

[DMX7]

WTF does this even mean? If you are saying the plan in 2003 was to have combat troops fighting for seven years, you are an even bigger idiot than you have shown yourself to previously be.

That's exactly what he means. And yes, he is an idiot of epic proportions who is entrenching himself even deeper in his own stupidity.

[ChumpDumper]

That's exactly what he means. And yes, he is an idiot of epic proportions who is entrenching himself even deeper in his own stupidity.I really want verification of this. I think it is too stupid a statement to be serious, even for WC.

[DMX7]

He purposely left that statement ambiguous enough to allow him to later dismiss it as "humor".

Don't be fooled. That is exactly what he means and exactly how he feels.

[ChumpDumper]

He purposely left that statement ambiguous enough to allow him to later dismiss it as "humor".

Don't be fooled. That is exactly what he means and exactly how he feels.If that's the case, he needs to plan his exit strategy from this thread.

[Cane]

Want some cheese with that whine?

Dumbass.

[LnGrrrR]

If that's the case, he needs to plan his exit strategy from this thread.

Well, he's got 7 years or so to think of one.

[SpursNextRomanEmpire]

Want some cheese with that whine?

Stupid

[Wild Cobra]

My God.

Things are going just as planned years ago, except no date would be given. The only credit I give president Obama is that he didn't screw the plans up.

[ChumpDumper]

So he really is that stupid.

[Cane]

Yup.

[boutons_deux]

"as planned years ago"

Absolutely nothing has gone as "planned" in Iraq by the Repugs and neo-c*nts, except the obscene enrichment of the MIC.

[Wild Cobra]

"as planned years ago"

Absolutely nothing has gone as "planned" in Iraq by the Repugs and neo-c*nts, except the obscene enrichment of the MIC.
In combat, the missions and expectations change all the time. That's why only a total fool gives an "exit strategy" and mission plans to the enemy. Things have gone in line with what the last administration stated. We will pull out combat troops when the time is right. This was stated a few years ago but you choose to deny that fact. The time is now right. This phase of the mission is accomplished, no thanks to the current administration.

[ChumpDumper]

In combat, the missions and expectations change all the time. That's why only a total fool gives an "exit strategy" and mission plans to the enemy. Things have gone in line with what the last administration stated. We will pull out combat troops when the time is right. This was stated a few years ago but you choose to deny that fact. The time is now right.Sorry pal, Bushy expected to be at this point seven years ago. You simply can't spin that. It has taken this long due in no small part to his fuckups.


This phase of the mission is accomplished, no thanks to the current administration.What specifically are you saying the current administration did to make the mission more difficult?

[George Gervin's Afro]

I wonder if not having a post war plan had anything to do with the war lasting 7 yrs..

[ChumpDumper]

I wonder if not having a post war plan had anything to do with the war lasting 7 yrs..The post war plan was bugging out after six months.

1. Invade Iraq.

2. ????

3. Profit!

[boutons_deux]

Remember that original US guy parachuted into to Iraq, Bremer? One his priorities was to make Iraq capitalisitc by starting a stock exchange! Holy shit, hilarious if it were not so sad.

And disbanding the Army and banning Bathists.

dubya, dickhead, Rummy, Bremer, none of them got ANYTHING right. 30K troups in March, all out in September. :lol

Shinsheki said 400K troups required (which was accurate), and got his career terminated.

As always with the Repugs, what's wrong is right, up is down, black is white. Their reality is pure doctrinal/political fantasy. The Real World kicked them in the teeth.

And Americans want to give Congress back to these murderous, hubris-sodden, bad-faith, incompetent assholes?

[ChumpDumper]

Hey, George!

Your viceroy wears combat boots!

http://pages.prodigy.net/pizzabagel/_images/Paul_Bremer1.gif

[DMX7]

In combat, the missions and expectations change all the time. That's why only a total fool gives an "exit strategy" and mission plans to the enemy. Things have gone in line with what the last administration stated. We will pull out combat troops when the time is right. This was stated a few years ago but you choose to deny that fact. The time is now right. This phase of the mission is accomplished, no thanks to the current administration.

Fighting off insurgents for seven years was ABSOLUTELY NOT a part of the plans.

Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld thought we were going to be greeted as liberators, and when that stupid shit didn't happen, everything went to complete hell. Those dumb fuckers had no idea what they were doing. NONE!

That you think our seven year open-ended occupation was "part of the plans" just goes to show what a goddamn tool you are.

[Wild Cobra]

Fighting off insurgents for seven years was ABSOLUTELY NOT a part of the plans.

It wasn't the initial expectation, but a known possibility.


Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld thought we were going to be greeted as liberators, and when that stupid shit didn't happen, everything went to complete hell. Those dumb fuckers had no idea what they were doing. NONE!

Bullshit. They knew what could occur.


That you think our seven year open-ended occupation was "part of the plans" just goes to show what a goddamn tool you are.

You forget, there were multiple contingency plans not advertised.

[ChumpDumper]

It wasn't the initial expectation, but a known possibility.

Bullshit. They knew what could occur.

You forget, there were multiple contingency plans not advertised.Oh, they were told what might happen, but didn't prepare for anything beyond the expected six month occupation -- then they kept fucking up and made the situations they had not prepared for worse.

[DMX7]

I find it amusing that Wild Cobra believes that knowing what could happen and actually planning for it are indistinguishable.

[Wild Cobra]

I find it amusing that Wild Cobra believes that knowing what could happen and actually planning for it are indistinguishable.
Again, it's called contingency planning.

[DMX7]

A contingency plan is supposed to be created before something goes wrong, not after. What you're thinking of is called a reaction.

And there's no evidence to suggest they had a contingency plan. They did almost everything wrong including disbanding the Iraqi military and allowing 250,000 armed and angry men to go unemployed... some of which probably even joined the insurgency when they could have been helping fight it.

[LnGrrrR]

The time is now right.

Why is the time right now WC?

[Yonivore]

Eh, not so fast....

Combat brigades in Iraq under different name (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/08/dn-brigades-stay-under-different-name-081910/)

Obama will fucking lie about anything...

[LnGrrrR]

Eh, not so fast....

Combat brigades in Iraq under different name (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/08/dn-brigades-stay-under-different-name-081910/)

Obama will fucking lie about anything...

So do you support that decision or not? :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

Eh, not so fast....

Combat brigades in Iraq under different name (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/08/dn-brigades-stay-under-different-name-081910/)

Obama will fucking lie about anything...

I actually feel better that the military was able to game plan "the plan" and protect the guys that have to turn out the lights when they leave.

[Yonivore]

So do you support that decision or not? :lol
I don't support lying about it for partisan gain. That was my point.

[Yonivore]

I actually feel better that the military was able to game plan "the plan" and protect the guys that have to turn out the lights when they leave.
What does that even mean?

They're still vulnerable...maybe more so.

First US soldier killed in Iraq since withdrawal of combat troops (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/22/us-soldier-killed-attack-iraq)

[Goran Dragic]

Better late than never I guess. No matter what we do that country will eventually become a full blown shit storm once we're gonna, keeping any resources/people there just delays the inevitable.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yoni, it's smoke and mirrors. POTUS plays golf and reads speeches and lets everyone else run the country. He has already realized he's 4 and done. Political posturing/campaigning just met reality. Being President is tough and he isn't up to the task. He knows it.

[Yonivore]

Better late than never I guess. No matter what we do that country will eventually become a full blown shit storm once we're gonna, keeping any resources/people there just delays the inevitable.
So long as the United States continues to fight with itself over how to prosecute the greater war on radical Islamic terrorism, you're right.

[Goran Dragic]

so CosmicCowboy are you hanging any blacks these days?

[Yonivore]

Yoni, it's smoke and mirrors. POTUS plays golf and reads speeches and lets everyone else run the country. He has already realized he's 4 and done. Political posturing/campaigning just met reality. Being President is tough and he isn't up to the task. He knows it.
Hell, I keep hoping he'll throw in the towel and resign early...No one is forcing him to stay the full four.

[CosmicCowboy]

so CosmicCowboy are you hanging any blacks these days?

It's got nothing to do with race shit for brains. It's all about competence.

Obama knows he is out of his league.

He is already working on his legacy as the "kind and gentle and caring" president. The mirror is broken and the smoke is clearing.

He's being exposed as an eloquent junior senator that rode the perfect storm into the white house.

[Goran Dragic]

Obama has nothing to do with your constitutional rights to hang blacks, I was just asking an innocent question.

[Yonivore]

Hell, I'll say it. Obama's a fucking idiot. And a liar to boot. But, we'll survive this folly and be stronger for it.

November is just around the corner and 2012 ain't that far away either.

Obama's legacy will be a resurgence of liberty in America.

[Yonivore]

Obama has nothing to do with your constitutional rights to hang blacks, I was just asking an innocent question.
Okay, I've got a question for you. When are you going to quit being a stupid idiot?

[CosmicCowboy]

Obama has nothing to do with your constitutional rights to hang blacks, I was just asking an innocent question.

OK, no problem. That just earned your stupid ass a place on my ignore list.

Goodbye Dumbass.

[Goran Dragic]

:lmao

[Goran Dragic]

lol constitutional right to hang blacks

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4590081&postcount=287

[LnGrrrR]

Yoni, it's smoke and mirrors. POTUS plays golf and reads speeches and lets everyone else run the country. He has already realized he's 4 and done. Political posturing/campaigning just met reality. Being President is tough and he isn't up to the task. He knows it.

Considering we're still 2 years away, and in 2006 not many even knew about Obama, I'd say that's a little early of a prediction.

[LnGrrrR]

So long as the United States continues to fight with itself over how to prosecute the greater war on radical Islamic terrorism, you're right.

Yeah, all those damn Americans afraid to "interrogate" suspected, I mean, KNOWN terrorists need to stop using their First Amendment rights and get on the Liberty and Freedom Parade Float! YEEEHAWWW!

[Wild Cobra]

A contingency plan is supposed to be created before something goes wrong, not after. What you're thinking of is called a reaction.
Such plans were made. Most plans usually get modified, no matter how well you plan.

And there's no evidence to suggest they had a contingency plan. They did almost everything wrong including disbanding the Iraqi military and allowing 250,000 armed and angry men to go unemployed... some of which probably even joined the insurgency when they could have been helping fight it.
They did though. There were interviews in the past with key officials that described such things.

Believe as you wish. They didn't go in blind. They just went in with less accurate intelligence than thay counted on.

[Wild Cobra]

Why is the time right now WC?

It all has to do with the extent of the transition. As Iraq can do more for themselves, we do less.

If you recall, this was discussed years ago. A time frame, or in the case of democrats, a time limit like Vietnam, should never be used.

[LnGrrrR]

DMX, I agree with WC. They did know what would happen, because they used it as justification for why they didn't stay and take out Saddam during Desert Shield.

The problem is, they knew what might happen, but their plan to deal with it didn't work, and Bush was slow to react, waiting nearly three years before shifting gears with the Surge.

That's not even noting the fact that many of our military (soldiers in particular) didn't have much "peace-keeping" experience. There's a difference between preparing for war and preparing for an occupation. The Army is slowly shifting towards a quasi-police force/anti-terrorist agency moreso than a conventional warfare posture.

[LnGrrrR]

It all has to do with the extent of the transition. As Iraq can do more for themselves, we do less.

If you recall, this was discussed years ago. A time frame, or in the case of democrats, a time limit like Vietnam, should never be used.

Without a time frame though, what's the motivation for Iraq in doing things for themselves? Honest question: if we're willing to provide protection indefinitely, why should they? Or are you arguing there SHOULD be a time limit, but not made public?

And, of course, the point is somewhat moot because whether we go to war or not is represented by the people (in the form of Congress) and if the people say the war should stop, it should stop, regardless of what the President or military think. After all, it's the people's money we're using to fight the war. If they don't approve, then it shouldn't continue. (With caveats made for time to safely get soldiers home.)

[Wild Cobra]

Considering we're still 2 years away, and in 2006 not many even knew about Obama, I'd say that's a little early of a prediction.
In 2004, he was plastered all over the news by the liberal media, well before the 2004 elections, and nationally. Not just Illinois.

[Wild Cobra]

Without a time frame though, what's the motivation for Iraq in doing things for themselves? Honest question: if we're willing to provide protection indefinitely, why should they? Or are you arguing there SHOULD be a time limit, but not made public?

You're right. I should clarify that any time frames should be kept between top government officials, and not publicly announced. It allows for more flexibility, and keeps the enemy off guard.

Do you agree with telling the enemy your timetable for movements?


And, of course, the point is somewhat moot because whether we go to war or not is represented by the people (in the form of Congress) and if the people say the war should stop, it should stop, regardless of what the President or military think.
I disagree there. Once you engage in a war, you stay until you can claim victory, or defeat.

War is not for quitters.

After all, it's the people's money we're using to fight the war. If they don't approve, then it shouldn't continue. (With caveats made for time to safely get soldiers home.)

We disagree.

The public all wanted to go in. Democrats and republicans alike, a majority in each. War is an effort you commit to. It's not a game.

[DMX7]

DMX, I agree with WC. They did know what would happen, because they used it as justification for why they didn't stay and take out Saddam during Desert Shield.

The problem is, they knew what might happen, but their plan to deal with it didn't work, and Bush was slow to react, waiting nearly three years before shifting gears with the Surge.


I know they knew what could happen. I remember Cheney saying it would have been stupid to invade the capital.

Doesn't matter though because they had no plan once the insurgency began other than to just "surge" and prey the violence died down, which really isn't a plan at all. That's my point.

[Wild Cobra]

Doesn't matter though because they had no plan once the insurgency began other than to just "surge" and prey the violence died down, which really isn't a plan at all. That's my point.
I would say they had a plan. Just that the insurgency was much more than they expected, and their plans were inadequate at the time.

I was speaking of the plans for leaving Iraq. Leaving when the new government can take up the responsibilities to maintain order.

To just give a date, and say we are leaving then....

Looser attitude.

[DMX7]

I disagree there. Once you engage in a war, you stay until you can claim victory, or defeat.

War is not for quitters.


By that logic we should still be in Vietnam. You have to know when to cut your losses.



The public all wanted to go in. Democrats and republicans alike, a majority in each.

The majority of Democrats in the House voted against it.

[DMX7]

Of course, it would be really interesting to see how much the public would have supported the war in Iraq if it knew it was being lied to and that we weren't all going to be killed by Saddam's WMDs. The administration sure did capitalize on America's stupidity though. It seemed like everyone thought Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were linked, when that was just a lie as well.

[ElNono]

Let me interject here and add that I feel there was certain naive conception that we would be actually be received as liberators and I really believe some people in the administration really bought into that. In hindsight it was a very big miscalculation on the Sunni vs Shiite can of worms they were opening by getting rid of Saddam.

[Wild Cobra]

By that logic we should still be in Vietnam. You have to know when to cut your losses.
We would have won if Johnson tried to, in fact, we were winning.

The majority of Democrats in the House voted against it.
Yes, I was wrong on that, but 58% of the senate democrats voted yes.

[Wild Cobra]

Of course, it would be really interesting to see how much the public would have supported the war in Iraq if it knew it was being lied to and that we weren't all going to be killed by Saddam's WMDs.
Was it a lie, or thought to be the facts?

Remember... We were dealing with information cultivated from the Clinton years. Let's not forget Public Law 107–243, where we declared regime change in Iraq, signed by President Clinton.

PUBLIC LAW 105–338—OCT. 31, 1998
IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ338.105.pdf)

Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/)

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 482 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1998/roll482.xml)

We need to keep things in perspective. President Obama may be finishing president Clinton's war. Not president Bush's.

The administration sure did capitalize on America's stupidity though. It seemed like everyone thought Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were linked, when that was just a lie as well.

The only sources I noted making that assessment, were liberals trying to pin it on republicans. Liberals went on to try to make people believe that republicans said Saddam was part of the 9/11 plot. There was never a direct link that I ever heard of. Al-Qada did train in Iraq however, and they had a loose informal relationship. There never was a direct tie between Saddam and Obama, but once the towers were bombed, it was feared WMD would be transferred into terrorists hands. If Saddam had only cooperated with the inspectors, rather than delay them long enough to move things.

Link please... that connects Osama and Saddam... I have yet seen one that says what liberals try to say republicans said.

[Wild Cobra]

In hindsight it was a very big miscalculation on the Sunni vs Shiite can of worms they were opening by getting rid of Saddam.
There are some who believe we should have worked with the higher ranks of the Republican Guard. Maybe most didn't like Saddam, and would have been good leaders to change things for the better.

What do I think? I think I don't have enough facts about their beliefs to properly assess that situation.

[Blake]

What do I think? I think I don't have enough facts about their beliefs to properly assess that situation.

nothing new, but at least this time you admit it. :tu

[DMX7]

Remember... We were dealing with information cultivated from the Clinton years. Let's not forget Public Law 107–243, where we declared regime change in Iraq, signed by President Clinton.

PUBLIC LAW 105–338—OCT. 31, 1998
IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ338.105.pdf)

Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/)

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 482 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1998/roll482.xml)

We need to keep things in perspective. President Obama may be finishing president Clinton's war. Not president Bush's.


The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was NOT a declaration of war. In fact, it says so specifically, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces in carrying out this Act".

That act was really just a lame attempt at giving the IRAQI democratic opposition the support and resources necessary to overthrow ITS OWN government. Its original intention obviously failed, but it certainly wasn't a decleration of war, just an attempt to plant the seeds of an Iraqi Coup d'état.



The only sources I noted making that assessment, were liberals trying to pin it on republicans. Liberals went on to try to make people believe that republicans said Saddam was part of the 9/11 plot. There was never a direct link that I ever heard of. Al-Qada did train in Iraq however, and they had a loose informal relationship. There never was a direct tie between Saddam and Obama, but once the towers were bombed, it was feared WMD would be transferred into terrorists hands. If Saddam had only cooperated with the inspectors, rather than delay them long enough to move things.

Link please... that connects Osama and Saddam... I have yet seen one that says what liberals try to say republicans said.

Do you need a link to know who the leader of Al-Qaeda is too?

http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/00000006D9F9.htm

It took me like 2 seconds to type in and do a google search. You can find plenty more, it's really not that hard.

[Winehole23]

Hell, I'll say it. Obama's a fucking idiot. And a liar to boot. But, we'll survive this folly and be stronger for it.

November is just around the corner and 2012 ain't that far away either.

Obama's legacy will be a resurgence of liberty in America.Did you start taking Xanax? Stop drinking? Start doing pilates?

Not too long ago you used to fantasize about the end of the US republic due to Obama, but I guess the anticipated resurgence of your beloved GOP has you feeling (pace) a wee bit hopeful, maybe?

[Winehole23]

Is the wifey putting viagra in your cornflakes, yoni? You sound downright cheerful.

[LnGrrrR]

You're right. I should clarify that any time frames should be kept between top government officials, and not publicly announced. It allows for more flexibility, and keeps the enemy off guard.

Do you agree with telling the enemy your timetable for movements?

I agree that, if possible, we should give the enemy as little information as possible. However, the American taxpayer is funding the effort, so their needs must be kept in mind too.

As you well know, given your stance on welfare and the like, if you give someone your money, but put no specific deadlines on when you expect it to end, it gives less incentive to the person to help themselves out of that jam, right?

The same goes for the taxpayers. If they keep funding the effort, they should expect some visible signs of progress. If that progress is not seen, then it should be expected that they would want a timeline for certain levels of progress.

The problem is, though levels of performance were never defined, meaning the public was never at ease. And when we DID get to specific levels of performance (remember the purple finger brouhaha?), then it still wasn't ENOUGH justification for leaving the country.


I disagree there. Once you engage in a war, you stay until you can claim victory, or defeat.

War is not for quitters.

Is it ethical to continue fighting the war if a majority of the people dont' want it continued? Remember, declaring war, raising money for an army, all of these actions were placed firmly in the "Legislature" section of the Constitution, meaning those actions were to be decided by the people.

We disagree.


The public all wanted to go in. Democrats and republicans alike, a majority in each. War is an effort you commit to. It's not a game.

And then the public wanted out. Don't citizens have the right to change their minds? If they're not satisifed with the way their money is being spent on the War, due to little visible progress, shouldn't they be able to stop funding it?

Keep in mind, I realize that many entitlement programs could be considered unethical in the same way (for instance, if you don't approve of X program, it could be considered unethical to force you to fund it anyways). [Side Note: That's why I think there should be categories on taxes that show which areas you want your dollars to fund. But that's just my pipe dream. /offtopic ]

[LnGrrrR]

Was it a lie, or thought to be the facts?

Remember... We were dealing with information cultivated from the Clinton years. Let's not forget Public Law 107–243, where we declared regime change in Iraq, signed by President Clinton.

PUBLIC LAW 105–338—OCT. 31, 1998
IRAQ LIBERATION ACT OF 1998 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=105_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ338.105.pdf)

Text Of Clinton Statement On Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/)

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 482 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1998/roll482.xml)

Doesn't that bolster my case for the public changing their mind on the war? After all, if you got sold a car by a dealer who said it would go 100 MPH, but it's top speed was 50, you might want to return it too.


Link please... that connects Osama and Saddam... I have yet seen one that says what liberals try to say republicans said.

Here's one:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/

[boutons_deux]

"The public all wanted to go in"

You Frickin Lie.

America gave the Repugs the benefit of doubt that the Repugs in times of crisis and trauma would not lie the USA and world, but the sewer-rat Repugs did lie.

Many saw through the lies, like Magic Negro, and did not want to go in.

[Wild Cobra]

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was NOT a declaration of war. In fact, it says so specifically, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces in carrying out this Act".

No shit Sherlock. It has the same effect however. Remember the Islamic Imams and radicals saying we brought on 9/11? It's because of policies like that.


That act was really just a lame attempt at giving the IRAQI democratic opposition the support and resources necessary to overthrow ITS OWN government. Its original intention obviously failed, but it certainly wasn't a decleration of war, just an attempt to plant the seeds of an Iraqi Coup d'état.

Interfering with a sovereign nation in a chickenshit way.


Do you need a link to know who the leader of Al-Qaeda is too?

http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/00000006D9F9.htm

It took me like 2 seconds to type in and do a google search. You can find plenty more, it's really not that hard.

Like I said, there was no direct link. They were loosely connected though.

[Wild Cobra]

I agree that, if possible, we should give the enemy as little information as possible. However, the American taxpayer is funding the effort, so their needs must be kept in mind too.

Enough was said. I know that only some media outlets repeated it, but it was said we had no exact time frame, and needed to wait on certain events to unfold.


As you well know, given your stance on welfare and the like, if you give someone your money, but put no specific deadlines on when you expect it to end, it gives less incentive to the person to help themselves out of that jam, right?

Yes, this was highly discussed on talk radio.


The same goes for the taxpayers. If they keep funding the effort, they should expect some visible signs of progress. If that progress is not seen, then it should be expected that they would want a timeline for certain levels of progress.

There was plenty of visible progress. The mainstream media only focused on disasters, while talk radio did talk about progress. Want to blame someone on that point, blame the media for being partisan.


The problem is, though levels of performance were never defined, meaning the public was never at ease. And when we DID get to specific levels of performance (remember the purple finger brouhaha?), then it still wasn't ENOUGH justification for leaving the country.

I see the problem as liberals using any problem noted as political talking points, hampering our efforts and the public's perspective.


Is it ethical to continue fighting the war if a majority of the people dont' want it continued? Remember, declaring war, raising money for an army, all of these actions were placed firmly in the "Legislature" section of the Constitution, meaning those actions were to be decided by the people.

We disagree.

I suppose it's proper then to jump off a roller-coaster when it scares you rather than waiting for it to finish.

There are some things you have to stick with when you commit to them.


And then the public wanted out. Don't citizens have the right to change their minds? If they're not satisifed with the way their money is being spent on the War, due to little visible progress, shouldn't they be able to stop funding it?

Sure, but was it really a majority? Look at how the polling questions were pushed.

[Wild Cobra]

Here's one:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/
That is the only incident that can be found. I don't trust CNN. Do you?

What is the full question and answer in context. Find that for me, and I'll admit I was wrong. Even if I'm wrong, he was the only republican stating it. Everyone else said no connection was found between Saddam and 9/11.

[DMX7]

No shit Sherlock. It has the same effect however.

NO, it doesn't. Not even close. Trying to force a regime change is not indistinguishable from starting a war in which you spend trillions of dollars, lose thousands of American soldiers, and have thousands more come home without arms and legs or both. Not to mention a host of other consequences like paying to take care of a new generation of veterans and diverting resources from the war in Afghanistan.

But nice try though.


Remember the Islamic Imams and radicals saying we brought on 9/11? It's because of policies like that.

Interfering with a sovereign nation in a chickenshit way.


You mean "blowback"? Welcome to the United States of America.

There will probably be blowback for the War in Iraq as well. Although hopefully not.

[LnGrrrR]

Enough was said. I know that only some media outlets repeated it, but it was said we had no exact time frame, and needed to wait on certain events to unfold.

YOU feel enough was said. Others don't. Can you fault people for not trusting the words of the government? You do the same yourself quite often.


There was plenty of visible progress. The mainstream media only focused on disasters, while talk radio did talk about progress. Want to blame someone on that point, blame the media for being partisan.

Plenty of visible progress in YOUR eyes. There were relatively few distinct goals that were achieved. The vote was a big one, and rightly touted. But since then, what? It's been a struggle to hold and maintain areas. There's strong belief out there that as soon as we leave, all will collapse into chaos, that the Iraqi Security Police are undisciplined and will fail to hold the peace.


I see the problem as liberals using any problem noted as political talking points, hampering our efforts and the public's perspective.

And do Republicans do any different when it comes to liberal policies? Don't all Republicans focus on the negative consequences of Democratic lawmaking? Doing so keeps the excesses of the other party in check, and is an important and healthy function of our democracy.

Do you think it would be more American to prevent criticism?


I suppose it's proper then to jump off a roller-coaster when it scares you rather than waiting for it to finish.


There are some things you have to stick with when you commit to them.

Just because YOU feel we should have to "finish" doesn't mean everyone else does. Tell me, how would you define us being "finished" in Iraq? What does that mean? Does it mean a completely stable country? Does it mean one that has a democracy? One free from terrorism?

A war against terrorists is not like a war against a foreign nation that can 'surrender', and thereby has a definite 'finish'. There will be no 'finish' against the war on terror, because there is no one that can claim responsibility over all terrorists.

Your logic could be used in any number of faulty beliefs. We've already started the healthcare process, now we have to finish it. We've already started the bank bailouts, now we have to finish it. Etc etc. There's no formal logic behind that statement; you just throw it out there like it's a postulate.


Sure, but was it really a majority? Look at how the polling questions were pushed.

Yes, it was. A great number of different polls performed by different pollsters showed that the American public was against the war by... 2006 I believe it was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasi on_of_Iraq

And here are the way the questions were worded in some of them, if you want specifics.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm


"Do you favor or oppose the US war in Iraq?" is a pretty open-ended question, don't you think?

[LnGrrrR]

That is the only incident that can be found. I don't trust CNN. Do you?

What is the full question and answer in context. Find that for me, and I'll admit I was wrong. Even if I'm wrong, he was the only republican stating it. Everyone else said no connection was found between Saddam and 9/11.

I'd say most of the connections stated were implied if anything, by saying "Iraq and Al-Qaeda were involved together" without clarifying that they meant senior intelligence officials in Iraq, and without clarifying that it wasn't related to 9/11. After all, there were a high number of people years after 9/11 who still thought Saddam was responsible for it.

[DMX7]

The reason they did not clarify repeatedly is because they wanted to capitalize on people's ignorance and their post-9/11 paranoia.

[LnGrrrR]

No answer, WC?

[boutons_deux]

"high number of people years after 9/11 who still thought Saddam was responsible for it."

A large percentage of military were convinced that Saddam did 9/11, therefore justifying wasting their ignorant selves grabbing the oil.

[Winehole23]

http://cdn.gigya.com/wildfire/i/CIMP.gif?CXNID=2000002.0NXChttp://www.gamagoat.com/images/maintenance%20help/bilge_pump_operation.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

No answer, WC?
Answer to what?

I am saying that there is no direct connection between 9/11 and Saddam. The one story that states such isn't even showing quotes in context. My point is the media and liberal hype that republicans are making that connection is the fallacy. I would sat the only ones that are, are those who listen to the Main scream Media.

[Wild Cobra]

"high number of people years after 9/11 who still thought Saddam was responsible for it."

A large percentage of military were convinced that Saddam did 9/11, therefore justifying wasting their ignorant selves grabbing the oil.
Link please.

[LnGrrrR]

Answer to what?


To post 110.

[boutons_deux]

I can't find the link now about military believing Saddam - WtC, but Americans in general were at 70%, thanks to Repug/neo-c*nt lying, esp dickhead

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

So it's no stretch to believe that well over 50% of military, who happened to be Americans, also believed Saddad-WTC lie.

[LnGrrrR]

Link please.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

But that's early, you say, right?

How about 2007?

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Poll_41_of_Americans_believe_Saddam_0624.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/12/opinion/pollpositions/main3253552.shtml

From Wikipedia regarding Newsweek



Newsweek Magazine polls
The Newsweek Magazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek_Magazine) poll "What America Knows", conducted Princeton Survey Research Associates International, regularly asks American citizens a wide range of questions relating to world events past and present and a number of more trivial questions of general knowledge.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_opinion_polls#cite_note-6) On five occasions the following question has been asked:
"Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?"

September 2003 responses: 47% Yes, 37% No, 16% not sure.
January 2004 responses: 49% Yes, 39% No, 12% not sure.
September 2004 responses: 42% Yes, 44% No, 14% not sure.
October 2004 responses: 36% Yes, 51% No, 13% not sure.
June 2007 responses: 41% Yes, 50% No, 9% not sure.

[Wild Cobra]

Enough was said. I know that only some media outlets repeated it, but it was said we had no exact time frame, and needed to wait on certain events to unfold.

YOU feel enough was said. Others don't. Can you fault people for not trusting the words of the government? You do the same yourself quite often.

Others don't because they limit who they hear the news from. We cannot force the mainstream media to report what they don't consider mainstream.



There was plenty of visible progress. The mainstream media only focused on disasters, while talk radio did talk about progress. Want to blame someone on that point, blame the media for being partisan.

Plenty of visible progress in YOUR eyes. There were relatively few distinct goals that were achieved. The vote was a big one, and rightly touted. But since then, what? It's been a struggle to hold and maintain areas. There's strong belief out there that as soon as we leave, all will collapse into chaos, that the Iraqi Security Police are undisciplined and will fail to hold the peace.

Again, blame the MSM's. If you listen to other news sources enough, you know progress was ongoing in so many other important ways. Decades of instilled behavior cannot be changed abruptly.



I see the problem as liberals using any problem noted as political talking points, hampering our efforts and the public's perspective.

And do Republicans do any different when it comes to liberal policies?
Sure, but liberal policies are damaging to this nation. You forget, prominent democrats signed on to this war. This was bipartisan. When you have almost no republicans agreeing to liberal policies, you know something's wrong.

Don't all Republicans focus on the negative consequences of Democratic lawmaking?
Not in my experience if watching politics these last couple decades.

Doing so keeps the excesses of the other party in check, and is an important and healthy function of our democracy.

There is keeping the other side in check, and there is ramrodding policies that infuriate so many of us.


Do you think it would be more American to prevent criticism?

Constructive criticism is good, but we see little of that.



I suppose it's proper then to jump off a roller-coaster when it scares you rather than waiting for it to finish.

There are some things you have to stick with when you commit to them.

Just because YOU feel we should have to "finish" doesn't mean everyone else does.
Well if they were initially agreeing with the war, then those pussies can go home and cry with their mommies holding them.

Tell me, how would you define us being "finished" in Iraq? What does that mean?
I haven't decided where to draw that line for my own viewpoint. I would be happy if we could restore the freedoms most the population had before Saddam took over.

Does it mean a completely stable country? Does it mean one that has a democracy? One free from terrorism?

I'm not sure what works best for their culture. I just know we cannot leave when things are fragile enough to resort back to a Saddam style leadership.


A war against terrorists is not like a war against a foreign nation that can 'surrender', and thereby has a definite 'finish'. There will be no 'finish' against the war on terror, because there is no one that can claim responsibility over all terrorists.

i think we have to become more ruthless than we have been, and simply kill on site anyone whi claims to be Al-Qaeda, Taliban, etc.


Your logic could be used in any number of faulty beliefs. We've already started the healthcare process, now we have to finish it. We've already started the bank bailouts, now we have to finish it. Etc etc. There's no formal logic behind that statement; you just throw it out there like it's a postulate.

Bullshit.

Not even close to the type of commitment. For those who think this is important, that start a foundation with like-minded people. Contribute your own money and ask for donations from others. just stay out of my wallet. If I like your foundation, i will give freely to it. Just stop the legal theft of my money for the purpose of giving it to others when I may have a cause I support more, and then have less money to give to. This is America. Not a Marxist nation. Let me stay free with my money.



Sure, but was it really a majority? Look at how the polling questions were pushed.

Yes, it was. A great number of different polls performed by different pollsters showed that the American public was against the war by... 2006 I believe it was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasi on_of_Iraq
Shows the power of the media. A majority support until after the images of war and news hit. partisan reporting, all the bad they could dig up, with little or no good. I went backwards from 2008... Funny how it's not updated for 2009 and 2010! Looks like a partisan wiki entry to me. Anyway, I didn't see where people said we should "pull out." Just that they disapproved.

You know, sometimes we drive a different path to go to work, the store, etc. and find it's not worth it. maybe it took longer to drive it. that doesn't mean we turn around, and start over. Even when we disapprove of our chosen route, most of us drive it to our destination.

And here are the way the questions were worded in some of them, if you want specifics.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm


"Do you favor or oppose the US war in Iraq?" is a pretty open-ended question, don't you think?

Another BS poll.

Where's the poll that says we should pull out, leaving Iraq to fend for themselves?

[Wild Cobra]

I can't find the link now about military believing Saddam - WtC, but Americans in general were at 70%, thanks to Repug/neo-c*nt lying, esp dickhead

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

So it's no stretch to believe that well over 50% of military, who happened to be Americans, also believed Saddad-WTC lie.
The reason people believe it is because the main Scream media was trying to make the connections that republicans were saying it was true. I would say such a poll simply reflects the spin of the media and what people hear.

Show me where our leaders were making that connection, rather than the media spin.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

But that's early, you say, right?

How about 2007?

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Poll_41_of_Americans_believe_Saddam_0624.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/12/opinion/pollpositions/main3253552.shtml

From Wikipedia regarding Newsweek
Consensus is not fact. My point remains. There is no evidence anyone has been able to come up with yet that has republican leaders showing any connection between 9/11 and Saddam. The media twisted our presidents and others words, creating their own dogma among viewers. Of course, their viewers are going to reflect in, polls, what the media made them believe.

[boutons_deux]

"Show me where our leaders were making that connection"

were in America in 2002/2003?

curveball?

dickhead went on repreatedly making the WTC-Saddam connection for a couple years after 2003.

dubya finally came out and essentially called dickhead a liar (the only thing dubya got right in 8 years) by saying there was no connection between WTC and Saddam.

[DarrinS]

If I hadn't read the title, I woud've assumed that this was a 5 year old thread.

[Wild Cobra]

"Show me where our leaders were making that connection"

were in America in 2002/2003?

curveball?

dickhead went on repreatedly making the WTC-Saddam connection for a couple years after 2003.

dubya finally came out and essentially called dickhead a liar (the only thing dubya got right in 8 years) by saying there was no connection between WTC and Saddam.
Bullshit.

Show me the transcript, youtube, or something.

You are wrong.

He made a connection between the terrorists and Saddam. He did not say Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.

[LnGrrrR]

Consensus is not fact. My point remains. There is no evidence anyone has been able to come up with yet that has republican leaders showing any connection between 9/11 and Saddam. The media twisted our presidents and others words, creating their own dogma among viewers. Of course, their viewers are going to reflect in, polls, what the media made them believe.

Hey, you're the one that asked for a link proving that many people did link the two. I just provided it for you as you asked.

[LnGrrrR]

Others don't because they limit who they hear the news from. We cannot force the mainstream media to report what they don't consider mainstream.

How nice of you to discern that anyone who doesn't agree with your views on the war is obviously not well-read enough. Are you saying that, if well-read enough, everyone would support the war? I find that to be an incredibly foolish thing to say.


Again, blame the MSM's. If you listen to other news sources enough, you know progress was ongoing in so many other important ways. Decades of instilled behavior cannot be changed abruptly.

And yet, wasn't the war sold as a slam-dunk? Weren't we told the oil would pay for itself? That we would be greeted as liberators? When the people who believed this found it wasn't true, don't they have the right to take back their approval of the war? Again, you say we must "finish" if we start, but what if you found out that the justification for war was non-existent? What if we were UNJUSTLY waging war? (Not specifically in this case, but as a hypothetical.) Would you argue that we must continue an unjust war?



Sure, but liberal policies are damaging to this nation. You forget, prominent democrats signed on to this war. This was bipartisan. When you have almost no republicans agreeing to liberal policies, you know something's wrong.

Democrats, by and large, are pussies. Heck, many Democrats agree with the civil liberties injustices that Obama has continued just because he's a D. That's besides the point though, I think. As you pointed out with the polls, majorities don't prove the right or wrong of an action.


Not in my experience if watching politics these last couple decades.

I'd say their praise for Democratic policies/lawmaking is quite limited, wouldn't you? When's the last time a Republican congratulated a liberal for a LIBERAL or LEFT-LEANING policy? It doesn't count if the Democrat caves/agrees to a Republican position.


There is keeping the other side in check, and there is ramrodding policies that infuriate so many of us.

That's the beauty of democracy though, isn't it? Obviously one side screwed up enough to allow the other the numbers to ramrod things through; if people don't like it, the side in power will give sway to the other, etc etc.


Well if they were initially agreeing with the war, then those pussies can go home and cry with their mommies holding them.

Why the ad hominem? Do you think that people can't rationally change their mind? See my "unjust war" comment above.


I haven't decided where to draw that line for my own viewpoint. I would be happy if we could restore the freedoms most the population had before Saddam took over.

So, let's get this straight. You can't say for sure where the "finish" line is, but you demand that the American public keep pressing forward until we find where the finish line is? Do you trust the Democrats when they say that you must sign on to their plans until they find where the "finish" is?


I'm not sure what works best for their culture. I just know we cannot leave when things are fragile enough to resort back to a Saddam style leadership.

Will we EVER know when things aren't fragile enough? What if it takes 20, 30, 40 years? Should we waste precious natural resources for another country with no tangible gain?


i think we have to become more ruthless than we have been, and simply kill on site anyone whi claims to be Al-Qaeda, Taliban, etc.

Well, if they were theoretically carrying arms openly, and wearing a uniform, they'd probably be considered legal combatants under the Geneva conventions. I personally don't think we have to change how we've waged war for centuries.


Let me stay free with my money.

Wars cost money as well. Sure, they're constitutionally protected, but nowhere in there does it say that the American public has to pay them a certain amount each year. If the American public wants to pay less to the military, or reduce the military's capabilities, that's the public's choice.


A majority support until after the images of war and news hit. partisan reporting, all the bad they could dig up, with little or no good. I went backwards from 2008... Funny how it's not updated for 2009 and 2010! Looks like a partisan wiki entry to me. Anyway, I didn't see where people said we should "pull out." Just that they disapproved.

I'm not going to search the internets forever for specific polls. :lol And there's nothing wrong with negative reporting; it's a sign of the freedom of press. If people are so upset with negative reporting, then they can start up their own media business and report the other side. That's what Fox News did, after all.


You know, sometimes we drive a different path to go to work, the store, etc. and find it's not worth it. maybe it took longer to drive it. that doesn't mean we turn around, and start over. Even when we disapprove of our chosen route, most of us drive it to our destination.

You yourself admitted you didn't know where the destination (finish) is though.


Another BS poll.

Where's the poll that says we should pull out, leaving Iraq to fend for themselves?

You can feel free to find that specific question. I just wanted to prove that a majority have opposed the war for sometime. Pew has been shown to be a fairly balanced research organization.

Thanks for taking the time to respond WC, by the way. It's fun debating with a member of the other side without too many ad hominems. :lol

[boutons_deux]

"Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks."

"most Bush officials did not explicitly state that Iraq had a part in the attack on the United States two years ago.

But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks."

"A senior defense official with access to high-level intelligence reports expressed confusion yesterday over the vice president's decision to reair charges that have been dropped by almost everyone else. "There isn't any new intelligence that would precipitate anything like this,"

... so there was dickhead suggesting the Saddam-WTC link. And the administration was very effective by innuendo, fogging, bullshitting, that :

"A new Newsweek poll out this weekend exposed "gaps" in America's knowledge of history and current events. Perhaps most alarmingly, 41% of Americans answered 'Yes' to the question "Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?" That total is actually up 5 points since September 2004."

http://atlanticreview.org/archives/726-More-Americans-Believe-that-Saddam-Was-Directly-Involved-in-911.html

"fact that the administration's disinformation campaign was entirely successful is evidenced by an October 2004, Harris Poll, taken three weeks before the last presidential election, which reported that 62% of all voters, and 84% of those planning to vote for Bush, still believed that Saddam had ''strong links" to Al Qaeda, and that 41% of all voters, and 52% of Bush backers, believed that Saddam had ''helped plan and support the hijackers" who had attacked the country on 9/11."

"The original Iraq war obsession originated at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think-tank that served as a home base for the many neocons who were rendered powerless during the Clinton years such as Richard Perle, who became chairman of the Defense Policy Board under Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz, who moved into the number-2 position at the Pentagon, and Newt Gingrich and John Bolton, to name just a few."

"The original Iraq war obsession originated at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative think-tank that served as a home base for the many neocons who were rendered powerless during the Clinton years such as Richard Perle, who became chairman of the Defense Policy Board under Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz, who moved into the number-2 position at the Pentagon, and Newt Gingrich and John Bolton, to name just a few."

http://911blogger.com/news/2007-01-01/bush-gang-swore-saddam-was-behind-911-lawsuit

As the blogger pointed out, there was so many bullshit "reasons", about one new one per week in late 2002, early 2003, why US had "evidence" of Saddam's WMD, "curveball", etc, etc, that most Americans, as the WH intended, for years after the invasion, thought Saddam was involved in 9/11.

[Winehole23]

If I hadn't read the title, I woud've assumed that this was a 5 year old thread.Agree 100%

[Winehole23]

Turn it around, D: imagine you're the broken record.

[boutons_deux]

An incomplete rear view look at the the criminals suckering USA into Iraq war-for-oil

=========


An Unsanitized Look at the Origins of the Iraq War


Neo-conservatives within the Bush Administration -- Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle, and others, repeatedly told us on TV that individuals who opposed President George W. Bush's attack, invasion, and occupation of Iraq value democracy and human rights less than they do.

But the people and organizations who tried to prevent this "preventive" war included the United Nations; people of faith (Muslims, Christians, and Jews); the governments of France, Germany, Russia, China; the Islamic Conference (including Indonesia, the most populated Muslim nation); the Organization of American States; the Arab League; the Organization of African Unity; former President Jimmy Carter; Pope John Paul; 133 members of the U.S. Congress; 10 to 15 million people who took to the streets for peace all over the world on February 15, 2003; Senator Robert Byrd (who articulated a critique of Bush's war aims on Constitutional grounds); a half dozen intelligence analysts and career civil servants from the State Department and CIA who either resigned or spoke out against this course; and many others.

To assuage these voices of dissent and to win over the American people to this endeavor, the neo-cons who dominated the foreign policy of the Bush Administration and their allies among the pundit and chattering classes at Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and all the rest, capitalized on the fear created by September 11, to win the support of Congress and the American people for a pre-emptive attack on Iraq.

The neo-conservatives said that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. He didn't.

They said he was in league with Osama Bin Laden. He wasn't.

They predicted that no major post-war insurgency in Iraq would occur. It did.

They said there would be a wave of pro-Americanism in the Middle East and the world if the United States acted boldly and unilaterally. Instead, there was a regional and even global wave of anti-Americanism.

Saddam's human rights record was not an adequate justification to go to war and the Bush Administration did not seriously try to make it one, until long after the war began and all the other plausible justifications had been proven false.

Bush's grand strategy for the Middle East was hashed out in the 1990s by these same neo-cons who are few in number and have worked together in and out of government for years. The Project for a New American Century became the mouthpiece for this group disseminating the ideas of Administration insiders such as Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, and others. In January 1998, the PNAC wrote an open letter to President Bill Clinton, forcefully calling for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. "The policy of 'containment' of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding," they argued, and "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold sanctions." These developments endanger "our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's oil supply." The letter never mentioned "terrorism" but raised the issue of WMD and concluded: "the only acceptable strategy" was "removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

The January 1998 letter to Clinton was signed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Dov Zakheim, William Schneider, Jr., and Peter Rodman -- all top officials in the Defense Department; Richard Armitage, Paula Dobriansky, and John Bolton; Zalmay Khalilzad and Elliott Abrams; and Robert Zoelick. So potent was their call to remove Saddam, that in October 1998, amidst the heated debate of the midterm elections, Congress passed the "Iraq Liberation Act" that made it official U.S. policy to overthrow Saddam.

In December 1998, President Bill Clinton launched "Operation Desert Fox." In the following eight months, the U.S. and Britain fired over 1,100 missiles in eight months at 359 targets inside Iraq killing at least 300 Iraqi civilians.

The PNAC churned out other policy papers in the 1990s with the same general thrust: Now that the Soviet Union no longer existed, the U.S. must use its military power to secure dominance over the Earth, especially the oil producing regions thereby controlling the energy supplies of any future rival.


( Yep, Iraq was primarily, exclusively about OIL )


This Pax Americana would require an aggressive, unilateral foreign policy free from the hindrances of multilateral organizations or treaties, as well as new military bases, and the will and ability to project American power anywhere. An influential PNAC paper from September 2000 states: "At present the United States faces no global rival. America's grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible." It called for a major military build up and singled out Iran, Iraq, and North Korea as immediate targets.

In the run up to the war, these neo-cons in the Pentagon set up the "Office of Special Plans." According to Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski who worked with the group, "Instead of developing defense policy alternatives and advice, OSP was used to manufacture propaganda for internal and external use, and pseudo war planning." She watched Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Douglas Feith cook the intelligence from May 2002 to February 2003, often relying on dubious Iraqi exiles for information, to support the already made decision to go to war with Iraq.

Said Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski: "I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president."

Based on this spun and concocted intelligence, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations General Assembly on February 5, 2003: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That's enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets."

On March 30, 2003, ten days after the war began, Rumsfeld said: "We know where [Iraq's WMD] are -- they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat."

( hey, Yoni, you said they are in Syria! Give Rummy a call, please :lol )


Repeated like a mantra by Administration officials was the claim that Saddam Hussein possessed "26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulin, one and a half tons of nerve agent VX, and 6,500 aerial chemical bombs."

In Cincinnati, on October 7, 2002, President Bush said: "The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. . . . Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." [This aluminum tube charge was later proven bogus by both the International Atomic Energy Agency and David Kay's Iraq Survey Group.]

An ABC News poll published on December 17, 2002 found that 89 percent of Americans believed Iraq "does possess chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons." In a similar poll, about 70 percent said they believed Saddam had something to do with 9-11 (which he did not).

( Terrorists ==> WTC

Saddam ==> terrorists

ergo

Saddam ==> WTC )

President Bush said during his State of the Union on January 28, 2003: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Yet former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who had been charged by the National Security Council to follow up on the uranium from Niger story, went public in July 2003 saying that the White House knew this information was false well before the President's speech. In any case, it was a highly unusual step for a president to announce to the world sensitive intelligence information which is never done casually. The Niger uranium story was based on documents that were shown conclusively to be rather amateurish forgeries. [I probably should add here that lying to Congress is an impeachable offense.]

Cheney said on Meet the Press on March 16, 2003: "We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

Bush and his National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice both on occasion used the image of a mushroom cloud in sounding the alarm of the Iraqi threat.

In a Vanity Fair interview after the occupation of Iraq was a fait accompli, Wolfowitz said: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason" for going to war.

In April 2003, the United Nations requested that its weapons inspectors be allowed back in to Iraq, they, after all, possessed the knowledge and experience to find the WMD; but the Bush Administration firmly rebuffed this idea. Instead, David Kay's Iraq Survey Group of 1,400 inspectors spent 30,000 hours scouring Iraq for WMD. They found none.

Buried deep inside Dr. Kay's report to Congress is the following statement: "Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large scale capability to develop, produce, and fill CW munitions was reduced -- if not entirely destroyed -- during Operation Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions, and UN inspections." Kay chose not to include this telling admission in either his introductory remarks or his conclusion.

Buried even deeper inside Kay's report was this: "To date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material."

The imminent threat posed by Iraqi chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons turned out to be not so imminent.

When the statue of Saddam came down on April 9, 2003, there was great rejoicing in America -- Administration mouthpieces proclaimed a victory for liberty on par with the fall of the Berlin Wall -- but when two American soldiers were killed in Firdos Square by suicide bombers about 36 hours later, the incident wasn't even reported, let alone the irony pointed out.

When Bush landed in a Navy plane on the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003 looking martial and gallant in a fighter pilot uniform, helmet tucked under his arm, declaring "Mission Accomplished," his approval ratings were soaring at around 75 percent.

By August 26, 2003, 139 Americans had died in Iraq since Bush's triumphant carrier landing; by September 24, it had climbed to 341 killed, and so on and on and on for the next seven years. Today it stands, (as President Obama pointed out in his speech), at 4,426, with at least 30,000 wounded.

Although the Pentagon says that it is not interested in enemy "body counts," conservative estimates range between 100,000 and 150,000 Iraqi civilians killed.

( these people are better off dead that living under Saddam, who was a "bad man" )


American soldiers in Iraq still find themselves in a confusing combat environment (even though the "combat" is over), forced to fight in a foreign land where winning the "hearts and minds" of a people they know little about is crucial to the success of their mission.

Hand crafted bombs began claiming the lives of more Americans in Iraq than any other weapon. At first, they were usually made from discarded artillery shells with a detonator wired to a garage door opener or doorbell. They could be set off just about anywhere, buried along roadways or dropped out of vehicles. Fake bombs were set to waste the time of explosive disposal squads or to draw soldiers into ambushes with small arms. New bombs showed up in Iraq wiring together multiple explosives in a "daisy chain" to explode in several places, several yards apart, killing or maiming for life American service men and women. Lately, assassins using silencers are murdering Iraqi police officers in broad daylight.

Then there are the suicide bombers and the enormous car and truck bombs. Missiles attached to donkey carts or fake electricity generators have been used to deadly effect -- often with booby traps of explosives hidden in the wheel wells of vehicles.

American soldiers are still risking their lives every day in Iraq, "combat" or no "combat," and many more will die for this policy our neo-con leaders handed down to us.

The debacle in Iraq is not merely a result of errors in planning or poor decision-making. In devising their plans for Iraq, the neo-cons in the Bush Administration repeatedly and insistently dismissed the vast array of research assembled by think tanks and warnings of its own officials in the State Department and the CIA and the military.

For a small group of men with little understanding of Iraq, warfare, or "nation-building," or "counterinsurgency," is just the arrogant belief that they, and they alone, knew better than anyone else about what was in the United States interests. Their view required not just monumental arrogance but also a cavalier disregard for the life and death consequences of being wrong.

The "threat" Saddam Hussein posed was not "imminent." The war made Americans more hated in the world, especially in the Islamic world; and has made our people more vulnerable to attack both at home and overseas.

The neo-cons and President Bush claimed to know what was in America's interest, but they refused to debate it honestly.

If the Congress and the American people knew the truth about Iraq in 2002 and 2003, they would never have gone to war.

To be silenced by a complacent media and the attack dogs of the jingoistic Right -- to remain silent when we have been systematically lied to would be to betray the fundamental ideals for which our troops have sacrificed their lives on that "battle field" half a world away.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/an-unsanitized-look-at-th_b_701386.html?view=print

[Stringer_Bell]

Yea, I'm still not convinced the Iraq War was about oil. Gas prices still suck. American taxpayers paid for the war. The pipelines are still being attacked (I think).

[boutons_deux]

"I'm still not convinced the Iraq War was about oil."

RIF, or maybe you're just stupid, or ideological, which are pretty much the same thing.

"Gas prices still suck."

RIF Their was never any Repug/neo-c*nt intention of lowering gas prices or the price of a barrel by invading Iraq. The Iraq invasion was to get Iraq oil into US/UK oilcos because Saddam was contracting with France, Russia, and China to develop its oil in early 2003.

The higher the prices, the better for the US/UK oilcos, duh.

aka, "private oil profits, public pays for the wars and the high oil prices".

[Stringer_Bell]

RIF Their was never any Repug/neo-c*nt intention of lowering gas prices or the price of a barrel by invading Iraq. The Iraq invastoin was to get Iraq oil into US/UK oilcos because Saddam was contracting with France, Russia, and China to develop its oil in early 2003.

I thought Russia and China were who Iraq has chosen to work with post-invasion. Isn't that who their contracts went to?

You make it seem like the war was only to profit US/UK oil companies, but those niggas ain't seen shit from Iraqi oil. Or have they?

[hater]

Yea, I'm still not convinced the Iraq War was about oil. Gas prices still suck. American taxpayers paid for the war. The pipelines are still being attacked (I think).

this is because the we failed. when you lose/bail out you usually don't get the spoils.

[boutons_deux]

Saddam was totally cutting US/UK oilcos out.

Now, US/UK oilcos do have their criminal hands on ONLY SOME Iraq oil, but not under the type of predatory contracts they tried to impose on Iraq (Iraqi unions objected, Allah bless 'em) and France, Russia, China, AND Iran now have access to Iraqi oil.

The Keystone Kops look like Special Forces compared to these Repug/neo-c*nts assholes.

[DarrinS]

where's the oil?

[boutons_deux]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8407274.stm

http://www.iraqoilreport.com/oil/production-exports/american-base-in-basra-on-frontline-of-oil-boom-4871/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/30/iraq.oil

etc, etc

[DMX7]

Yea, I'm still not convinced the Iraq War was about oil. Gas prices still suck. American taxpayers paid for the war. The pipelines are still being attacked (I think).

Of course we paid for the war, and Big Oil and the MIC got rich because of the retarded wannabe cowboy.

[boutons_deux]

Bush-Era Iraq War Architects Emerge To Demand ‘Credit’ For Iraq War ‘Success’

a review of the key planners of the conflict reveals that they have been rewarded — not blamed — for their incompetence.”

be awed by the comprehensiveness and generosity of the neocon welfare system.”

They’re on your TV screens, in your radio, and in your newspapers — shamelessly demanding credit for the work they’ve done.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/01/iraq-war-architects-credit/

========

And you right-wingers are dying to hand Congress back to the criminal assholes who lied the US into Iraq and murdered 5000+ US military.
'

[Wild Cobra]

Hey, you're the one that asked for a link proving that many people did link the two. I just provided it for you as you asked.
Perhaps I stated my intent meaning wrong. How to word this... and when my recollection is not 100%:

Again, my point is that no officials from the Bush administration made a connection between Saddam and 9/11. The connection they made was between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, and/or the Taliban.

The media ran with this suggesting with their spin that Saddam and 9/11 were connected, according to the administration and/or Bush.

Any belief the people have is from mainstream media spin.

Back to not enough coverage of the facts? Just how can we keep the media honest and complete in their coverage?

[LnGrrrR]

Back to not enough coverage of the facts? Just how can we keep the media honest and complete in their coverage?

I think the rise of blogging reporters and whatnot IS in response to the poor reliability of the mainstream media. Are blogs slanted? Sure. But they're usually at a much lower and local level, and blogs seem to take their credibility much more importantly.

At the least, if you don't like/trust one blog, you can go to another. The good media will continue to be paid, the bad media will eventually die.

Edit: Note, I think Pew does great research and great polls.

[Winehole23]

( Yep, Iraq was primarily, exclusively about OIL )http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/13/news/international/exxon_mobil_iraq/