wp: U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq

[boutons]

washingtonpost.com

U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq

Administration Is Shedding 'Unreality' That Dominated Invasion, Official Says

By Robin Wright and Ellen Knickmeyer

Washington Post Staff Writers

Sunday, August 14, 2005; A01

The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.

The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."

Administration officials still emphasize how much they have achieved despite the chaos that followed the invasion and the escalating insurgency. "Iraqis are taking control of their country, building a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself. And we're helping Iraqis succeed," President Bush said yesterday in his radio address.

Iraqi officials yesterday struggled to agree on a draft constitution by a deadline of tomorrow so the document can be submitted to a vote in October. The political transition would be completed in December by elections for a permanent government.

But the realities of daily life are a constant reminder of how the initial U.S. ambitions have not been fulfilled in ways that Americans and Iraqis once anticipated. Many of Baghdad's 6 million people go without electricity for days in 120-degree heat. Parents fearful of kidnapping are keeping children indoors.

Barbers post signs saying they do not shave men, after months of barbers being killed by religious extremists. Ethnic or religious-based militias police the northern and southern portions of Iraq. Analysts estimate that in the whole of Iraq, unemployment is 50 percent to 65 percent.

U.S. officials say no turning point forced a reassessment. "It happened rather gradually," said the senior official, triggered by everything from the insurgency to shifting budgets to U.S. personnel changes in Baghdad.

The ferocious debate over a new constitution has particularly driven home the gap between the original U.S. goals and the realities after almost 28 months. The U.S. decision to invade Iraq was justified in part by the goal of establishing a secular and modern Iraq that honors human rights and unites disparate ethnic and religious communities.

But whatever the outcome on specific disputes, the document on which Iraq's future is to be built will require laws to be compliant with Islam. Kurds and Shiites are expecting de facto long-term political privileges. And women's rights will not be as firmly entrenched as Washington has tried to insist, U.S. officials and Iraq analysts say.

"We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic," said another U.S. official familiar with policymaking from the beginning, who like some others interviewed would speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. "That process is being repeated all over."

U.S. officials now acknowledge that they misread the strength of the sentiment among Kurds and Shiites to create a special status. The Shiites' request this month for autonomy to be guaranteed in the constitution stunned the Bush administration, even after more than two years of intense intervention in Iraq's political process, they said.

"We didn't calculate the depths of feeling in both the Kurdish and Shiite communities for a winner-take-all attitude," said Judith S. Yaphe, a former CIA Iraq analyst at the National Defense University.

In the race to meet a sequence of fall deadlines, the process of forging national unity behind the constitution is largely being scrapped, current and former officials involved in the transition said.

"We are definitely cutting corners and lowering our ambitions in democracy building," said Larry Diamond, a Stanford University democracy expert who worked with the U.S. occupation government and wrote the book "Squandered Victory: The American Occupation and the Bungled Effort to Bring Democracy to Iraq."

"Under pressure to get a constitution done, they've lowered their own ambitions in terms of getting a document that is going to be very far-reaching and democratic. We also don't have the time to go through the process we envisioned when we wrote the interim constitution -- to build a democratic culture and consensus through debate over a permanent constitution," he said.

The goal now is to ensure a constitution that can be easily amended later so Iraq can grow into a democracy, U.S. officials say.

On security, the administration originally expected the U.S.-led coalition to be welcomed with rice and rosewater, traditional Arab greetings, with only a limited reaction from loyalists of ousted Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. The surprising scope of the insurgency and influx of foreign fighters has forced Washington to repeatedly lower expectations -- about the time-frame for quelling the insurgency and creating an effective and cohesive Iraqi force capable of stepping in, U.S. officials said.

Killings of members of the Iraqi security force have tripled since January. Iraq's ministry of health estimates that bombings and other attacks have killed 4,000 civilians in Baghdad since Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari's interim government took office April 28.

Last week was the fourth-worst week of the whole war for U.S. military deaths in combat, and August already is the worst month for deaths of members of the National Guard and Reserve.

Attacks on U.S. convoys by insurgents using roadside bombs have doubled over the past year, Army Brig. Gen. Yves Fontaine said Friday. Convoys ferrying food, fuel, water, arms and equipment from Kuwait, Jordan and Turkey are attacked about 30 times a week, Fontaine said.

"There has been a realistic reassessment of what it is possible to achieve in the short term and fashion a partial exit strategy," Yaphe said. "This change is dictated not just by events on the ground but by unrealistic expectations at the start."

Washington now does not expect to fully defeat the insurgency before departing, but instead to diminish it, officials and analysts said. There is also growing talk of turning over security responsibilities to the Iraqi forces even if they are not fully up to original U.S. expectations, in part because they have local legitimacy that U.S. troops often do not.

"We've said we won't leave a day before it's necessary. But necessary is the key word -- necessary for them or for us? When we finally depart, it will probably be for us," a U.S. official said.

Pressed by the cost of fighting an escalating insurgency, U.S. expectations for rebuilding Iraq -- and its $20 billion investment -- have fallen the farthest, current and former officials say.

Pentagon officials originally envisioned Iraq's oil revenue paying many post-invasion expenses. But Iraq, ranked among world leaders behind Saudi Arabia in proven oil reserves, is incapable of producing enough refined fuel amid a car-buying boom that has put an estimated 1 million more vehicles on the road after the invasion. Lines for subsidized cheap gas stretch for miles every day in Baghdad.

Oil production is estimated at 2.22 million barrels a day, short of the goal of 2.5 million. Iraq's pre-war high was 2.67 million barrels a day.

The United States had high hopes of quick, big-budget fixes for the electrical power system that would show Iraqis tangible benefits from the ouster of Hussein. But inadequate training for Iraqi staff, regional rivalries restricting the power flow to Baghdad, inadequate fuel for electrical generators and attacks on the infrastructure have contributed to the worst summer of electrical shortages in the capital.

Water is also a "tough, tough" situation in a desert country, said a U.S. official in Baghdad familiar with reconstruction issues. Pumping stations depend on electricity, and engineers now say the system has hundreds of thousands of leaks.

"The most thoroughly dashed expectation was the ability to build a robust self-sustaining economy. We're nowhere near that. State industries, electricity are all below what they were before we got there," said Wayne White, former head of the State Department's Iraq intelligence team who is now at the Middle East Institute. "The administration says Saddam ran down the country. But most damage was from looting [after the invasion], which took down state industries, large private manufacturing, the national electric" system.

Ironically, White said, the initial ambitions may have complicated the U.S. mission: "In order to get out earlier, expectations are going to have to be lower, even much lower. The higher your expectation, the longer you have to stay. Getting out is going to be a more important consideration than the original goals were. They were unrealistic."

Knickmeyer reported from Baghdad.

[spurster]

What we expected to achieve was never realistic
The understatement of the 21st century.

[ChumpDumper]

Getting out is going to be a more important consideration than the original goals were.Policy by poll.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

so what now? just say "oops, sorry, we have to go, hope you can rebuild your country by yourselves"? LOL

[Nbadan]

We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."


UN-realities? Is that like our UN-treaties and the UN-Geneva Conventions and the UN-doing of our UN-freedoms. It's that simple, someone in the White House simply sticks a "UN" in front to make something go away. Ask any Conservative...it's all the UN's fault!

:hat

[Clandestino]

so what now? just say "oops, sorry, we have to go, hope you can rebuild your country by yourselves"? LOL

if you haven't noticed, we're still there trying dumbass...

[Hook Dem]

No one has intellegent conversations on this board anymore(not that they ever did). The Democrats are for Democrats and the Republicans are for the Republiucans. Does it matter what anyone thinks? This has become a place to bash each other.....much like the Jerry Springer show. I think it needs to be renamed "the comedy spot". Have a nice day!

[whottt]

But wait...

What happened to:

All the US is going to do is install a puppet government?
Quagmire(after being there for 2 years)?
We'll be there for the next 40 years?


In fact, what happened to every dumbass bitch that was printed in the paper 50,000 times during the course of the war, when the media was acting like we have lost 50 million men in this war, instead of the phonomenally low total of less than 2000?




I think, other than disbanding Saddam's army too easily...the US has been true to their word in every thing promised for the future of Iraq at the beginning of this war, and made few diversions from their plan to remove Saddam and give the Iraqi's freedom as promised.

The problems have arisen with the man elected to lead that country...

He basically ran on a platform of getting the US out of Iraq...

That's why at every press conference his first statement is...THE US NEEDS TO LEAVE...followed by the smaller print of....(after we make sure I won't get overthrown the day after they leave).

Basically they need US help to do this...and they are being to prideful to ask for it and accept it.


Instead they keep spouting off about how they are going to do it themselves, but they too prideful, and frankly they haven't got a clue how to achieve it...

So what you have here is a situation with the elected leader saying he wants the US out...

And you have a bunch of idiots here in the US wanting to cut and run(and fuck all of you who say it's the Republicans pushing for this, because you know who you fucking are)...

So the US is aquiescing and rushing things...

Is it a mistake? It definitely is.

Both on the part of the elected Iraqi leadership and the idiots here at home that want to create Afghanistan Part 2.


But what cannot be denied is that when the US leaves it will have kept it's promise to remove Saddam...and left the future of the Iraqis up to the Iraqis themselves...they kept their word and they did the honorable thing...but you won't hear the left over here saying that...THEY'LL FLIP FLOP...and you'll never hear one of those guys that was claiming puppet government say he was saying that originslly...instead he'll be critical of the fact that we didn't do that.


But if Al Jaffari lasts 6 months after the US leaves....I'll be amazed. If his life ends dying of natual causes, instead of assasination...I'll be even more amazed.


The bottom line is that the Iraqis needs the help of the US to make this succeed...if they don't want the help then that's their problem. I guess that's what happens when you buy into anti-US propaganda...

[ChumpDumper]

I always found these arbitrary deadlines very troubling -- putting the cart before the horse. Declaring an end to major military operations when there were many more to come; having elections before the country was completely pacified, disenfranchising a huge number of Iraqis needed to form any consensus government; now pulling out before the most basic issues of security and infrastructure are settled -- it all adds up to a half-assed operation.

This really seems like cutting and running because too many Americans are dying and the voters here are tired of it. As much as the opposition to invasion was ignored when the polls were in their favor, the administration really seems to be responding now that the numbers have changed.

I certainly welcome anyone else's interpretation of this policy shift. The way I see it, we either made colossal miscalculations from the start or are changing our Iraq policy now for domestic political reasons.

[whottt]

I always found these arbitrary deadlines very troubling -- putting the cart before the horse. Declaring an end to major military operations when there were many more to come; having elections before the country was completely pacified, disenfranchising a huge number of Iraqis needed to form any consensus government; now pulling out before the most basic issues of security and infrastructure are settled -- it all adds up to a half-assed operation.

This really seems like cutting and running because too many Americans are dying and the voters here are tired of it. As much as the opposition to invasion was ignored when the polls were in their favor, the administration really seems to be responding now that the numbers have changed.

I certainly welcome anyone else's interpretation of this policy shift. The way I see it, we either made colossal miscalculations from the start or are changing our Iraq policy now for domestic political reasons.


Um...the popularly elected leader of Iraq says he wants the US out of Iraq at the beginning of every speech...the US is saying fine...you want it you got it...


You can't stay there when the guy in charge is asking you to leave. That will incite outrage in every corner of the middle-east, and turn even the basically agreeable Iraqi Shiites against us and we will in fact be occupying.

Right now...now one can say we didn't keep our word to the Iraqis about what we would do when we got there...Saddam gone. Popularly elected government...or constitution writers at least, in place.

You are basically saying we should stay there against the wishes of their popularly elected leader....


This dumbass has an America out of Iraq platform, he ran spouting the same BS propaganda that liberals and the Arab media lie about continually...and he's going to have to deal with that stance on his own.


And by the way...the US never had a policy to be there long term...so pulling out does not indicate a policy shift..they never had a publicly stated policy on how long they would be there...but basiacally they said they'd be there until the Iraqis could take care of their security themselves, and they'd help rebuild the country. Their leader obviously feels that day is close, and he really isn't interested in US help rebuilding the country....more power to him.

[ChumpDumper]

That will incite outrage in every corner of the middle-eastThat was a great argument against the invasion of Iraq in the first place -- that ship has sailed.
the popularly elected leader of IraqWill he even be in power after the "real" elections are held? He's a provisional leader -- we can wait until the "real" elected leader comes into power. All we're hearing from this guy is his stump speech for the next election.

[ChumpDumper]

And by the way...the US never had a policy to be there long term...so pulling out does not indicate a policy shift..they never had a publicly stated policy on how long they would be there...but basiacally they said they'd be there until the Iraqis could take care of their security themselves, and they'd help rebuild the country.So we're quite happy with a partition or an islamic theocracy allied with Iran once we're gone? And we won't have control over the skies like we used to before the invasion?

[whottt]

That was a great argument against the invasion of Iraq in the first place -- that ship has sailed.

Sure...and leave a dictator and murderous UN sanction in place...you're an idiot. This guy is popularly elected...Saddam was a dictator. And he wasn't as well liked in the middle east as you claim...on top of that...


And I think you are misguied on how many Arabs were against us removing Saddam....the majority of Iraqis were obviously in favor of it...

The resistance now isn't so much against the US as it is putting the majority Shias in power.





Will he even be in power after the "real" elections are held? He's a provisional leader -- we can wait until the "real" elected leader comes into power.

I don't know...my guess is that he'll probably be dead by that time...but if the representatives and leaders of the provisional government are asking us to leave...we have to honor that request. We sanctioned those elections and we can't ignore the will of their people or else we invalidate the legitimacy of everything we have done up to this point.



All we're hearing from this guy is his stump speech for the next election.

Damn why don't you go fucking catch up on what's been going on in Iraq instead of relying on your own stupidity to draw conclusions.

This guy got elected as the provisional leader on that platform...he copped into Sadr's voter base...he basically unified the Sistani and Sadr Shia's....

He's an Iraqi John Kerry....


You need to pay better attention to what's going on over there...I'd say the US is more popular over there now than it was before the War...there is a trust building process going on over there....It's going to be awfully hard to keep claiming we are over there trying to take over the middle east(a chief recruiting device for terrorism)...unless we do what you are asking.

You want 30 years of change and propagandizing defeated overnight...it's not going to happen that quickly. But you need to pull your head out of your dumb cynical ass and wake up to what is going on over there in the middle east right now.

[ChumpDumper]

Sure...and leave a dictator and murderous UN sanction in place.If we cut and run, that's very likely to happen again -- or partition -- or an Islamic theocracy alied with Iran. If that's the end result, would it really be worth it?
And I think you are misguied on how many Arabs were against us removing Saddam.Do you have any actual numbers? I think most Arabs aren't terribly well-informed anyway and simply don't like the west fucking around in their backyard in any way at all.
The resistance now isn't so much against the US as it is putting the majority Shias in power. So why are Americans still being targeted?
I don't know...my guess is that he'll probably be dead by that time.And then what?
Damn why don't you go fucking catch up on what's been going on in IraqThere will be another election, will there not? That's what's going on.
I'd say the US is more popular over there now than it was before the WarWhich is why the popular position is to ask the US to leave -- yeah, that makes perfect sense.
But you need to pull your head out of your dumb cynical ass and wake up to what is going on over there in the middle east right now.I am well aware what is happening; ensuring a stable democracy in Iraq is less important than the midterm elections. However cynical I may seem, your dumb ass should know that the politicians are moreso -- and you're stupider than I thought if you think that a US-friendly western-style democracy in Iraq is a sure thing if we pull out according to our election cycle.

[whottt]

So we're quite happy with a partition or an islamic theocracy allied with Iran once we're gone?

What is your solution? Install a puppet government?

FYI...there was a faction of the US government that wanted to rig the elections...Bush nixed it...


You know what he said at the time? Democracy is Democracy...

The government may not be a true Democracy...but the process by which it was put in power certainly was.


I don't think anyone expected the Iraqis to install a totally Western Democracy...I think it was always expected there would be Theocratic elements to it...

We did want a secular government that guranteed womens rights....and this is some of what is delaying the constitutional process right now...this is the main reason for the US being so steadfast on their self imposed deadline...

They'll have to comprimise to make that deadline.










And we won't have control over the skies like we used to before the invasion?


Um the control of the skies was there to enforce the no fly zone that was a condition of the cease fire agreement with Saddam. This just in...Saddam is gone and thus all claim for the right and need of a no fly zone is gone with them.

And the support of that zone wasn't based in Iraq...it was based in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. We are still in Kuwait...and quite popular there.

We have largely moved out of Saudi and into Qatar....but we gained more strategic foot holds in the middle east since 2001...Or haven't you noticed Iran's asshole puckering at record levels lately?

The new government being based on Islamic Law is not exactly a US preference...but at the same time...it's going to be awfully hard for them to say we are an enemy of Islam when we basically allowed the Iraqis to install one...I think we'll gain more friend out of this than enemies.

And just because they are Shia's does not make them carbon copies of the
Iranians...nor will this government be Iran part 2.

Yes the Iraqi leader is friendly with Iran but that's as much strategy as it is anything...Iran is their direct neigbor. That doesn't mean they are going to become Iran's chief ally...especially if it means the US is going to crawl up their ass again.


Let's wait and see if this new government is anti-US before we condemn them...Al Jaffari is pretty Westernized inspite of his Ilamic stance...he's trying to keep the support of the Sadr followers...Sistani is actually very Westernized in his ideals and he's still the major Islamic force in Iraq.

Shia as a whole is more progressive than Sunni...you don't see this with Iran because Iran is ran by the ultra conservative Shiites...but basically Shia is a lot more progressive as a whole than Sunni.

And the 911 terrorists and Al Qaeda are Sunnis.

[whottt]

If we cut and run, that's very likely to happen again -- or partition -- or an Islamic theocracy alied with Iran.

Leaving at the request of the government isn't cutting and running. It's called respecting the process by which the Iraqis have chosen to govern themselves and rebuild their country.

If they partition they partition...if push comes to shove the Kurds will break off from the rest of the country(not an entirely bad idea if you ask me) and they'll be happy to have us as their guests.

As for whether or not it's worth it....Saddam being gone and a popularly elected government in the mid-east, for the first time, is definitely worth it.



Do you have any actual numbers? I think most Arabs aren't terribly well-informed anyway and simply don't like the west fucking around in their backyard in any way at all.

Do you?

The last polls I saw said that about 52% of Iraqis wanted the US to leave...

But 61% of them said it was worth the war to remove Saddam from power.


And the reason most of the Arab's are against the US is because they think we are trying to colonize the middle east and that we support opressive regimes...

No one can say this government is a US puppet...and no one can say we are trying to colonize Iraq either...unless we do what you are advocating.

Thanks to the arguments you are making...I believe I have finally found someone image dumber than W...congrats.




So why are Americans still being targeted?

We aren't targeted by the Shias...the Shias are targeted too...and we damn sure aren't being targeted by the majority of the 26 million Iraqis.




And then what?There will be another election, will there not? That's what's going on.Which is why the popular position is to ask the US to leave --

Um...the reason the popular position is to ask the US to leave is because of all the idiot propaganda claiming that we are their to colonize Iraq...

That's always been the consensus...yes Saddam going is a good thing...but you must prove you are not there to colonize...it's a two fold thing...That's been the consensus since Saddam fell and most people that remain critical in mid-east circles do so because they still don't trust our intentions there.



yeah, that makes perfect sense.I am well aware what is happening; ensuring a stable democracy in Iraq is less important than the midterm elections.

You are just pissed because you just said a week ago that we'd be there for 40 years...You have always tried to claim that and I have also said you were stupid for doing so.



However cynical I may seem, your dumb ass should know that the politicians are moreso --

W is not cynical...he may be simple minded and overly idealistic...but this guy loves the John Wayne view of America...it's a sincere thing.



and you're stupider than I thought if you think that a US-friendly western-style democracy in Iraq is a sure thing if we pull out according to our election cycle.


I think it will end up being a US friendly government that is more secular and better on human rights than most of the governments over there...

And like I said earlier...I don't think anyone ever expected Iraq to turn into the 51st state...Westernized is a relative term...maybe not so Westernized by our standards...but very Westernized by mid-east standards.


And I think there is a very good chance for a staunch alliance, even if it is an Islamic theocracy...as long as we keep our word and don't interfere in the process...and don't occupy against the will of the government.

It's the not the government the US wanted...but at the same time...they allowed the Iraqis to choose...you can't say you are over there to liberate them while you are imposing a government not chosen by the people on them...


This Iraq is not going to be Iran part 2....

[Nbadan]

What is your solution? Install a puppet government?

FYI...there was a faction of the US government that wanted to rig the elections...Bush nixed it...

Correction, the Bush Administration tried to 'fix' the numbers for Allawi, but the Shii'a turned up in such high numbers that it made vote rigging impossible.

[ChumpDumper]

What is your solution? Install a puppet government? Cut and run after completely fucking up a country -- is that really what we're all about here? If we end up with a theocracy aligned with Iraq, what's your plan then? Another invasion?
FYI...there was a faction of the US government that wanted to rig the elections...Bush nixed it...Well, there was one lesson learned from Eisenhower in Vietnam. Bravo.
You know what he said at the time? Democracy is Democracy...Will he say that if the majority Shia establish a theocracy?
We did want a secular government that guranteed womens rights....and this is some of what is delaying the constitutional process right now...this is the main reason for the US being so steadfast on their self imposed deadline...So we will meddle in their internal politics whan we think we can get away with it. And forgive my cynicism, but constitutions in the middle east have not proved to be very sacred -- we might consider ourselves lucky if the Iraqi constitution follows the history of that of Pakistan. It's proven to be quite a malleable document, legitamizing all manner of repression, strongmen and coups. If Iraq actually ends up with a security force strong enough to actually control the country, their future may play out like Pakistan's past.
Um the control of the skies was there to enforce the no fly zone that was a condition of the cease fire agreement with Saddam. This just in...Saddam is gone and thus all claim for the right and need of a no fly zone is gone with them.Your ability to completely miss the point never ceases to amaze.
Or haven't you noticed Iran's asshole puckering at record levels lately?I've noticed their starting up their nuclear program again. Are we to invade them too?[/QUOTE]Yes the Iraqi leader is friendly with Iran but that's as much strategy as it is anything...Iran is their direct neigbor. That doesn't mean they are going to become Iran's chief ally...especially if it means the US is going to crawl up their ass again.[/quote]But that guy will be dead in six months according to you -- what then?
Let's wait and see if this new government is anti-US before we condemn them.I've done no such thing. I'm just not sold that everythings going to be hunky-dory. It certainly is worth mentioning that the most successful nation-building achieved by the US was in Japan where we completely dictated the terms. This is a different situation to be sure.

[ChumpDumper]

You are just pissed because you just said a week ago that we'd be there for 40 years.We'll see.
W is not cynical.The men who actually make his policy for him defintely are, which is why we invaded Iraq instead of actually pusuing the terrorists.

[whottt]

Correction, the Bush Administration tried to 'fix' the numbers for Allawi, but the Shii'a turned up in such high numbers that it made vote rigging impossible.


Right...and if NBAdan says it, it must be credible information...because we all know NBAdan is them most objective source on this subject...and always gets his news from credible new sources...like...BushtheSatanmustdie.com

[whottt]

Cut and run after completely fucking up a country -- is that really what we're all about here?

We were there to remove Saddam and the threat to us from power...and give free rule to the Iraqis.

You are an idiot if you think good ole Saddam sitting on his billions of dollars wasn't a threat.



If we end up with a theocracy aligned with Iraq, what's your plan then? Another invasion?

What makes you think they are going to be in bed with Iran?

You are an idiot if you think any new government had a plan of being hostile towards Iran.

And what makes you think ending the virtual Sunni monopoly in the mid-east is a bad idea anyway?

Haven't you noticed the terrorists attacking the Shias in Iraq?




Well, there was one lesson learned from Eisenhower in Vietnam.

What?

Don't try and put in a Democracy after Truman spent millions trying to help the Frech maintain their brutal colonial rule in Indochina turning them all pro communist?

Only an idiot would think anything from that conflict applies to this one.


Bravo.Will he say that if the majority Shia establish a theocracy?

He already said it...he said it before the elections were held...it's no suprise to the Bush administration that Jaffari won the election. I knew of it long before...that quote from Bush came from long before.



So we will meddle in their internal politics whan we think we can get away with it.

We aren't meddling...We are honoring their request to pull out.



And forgive my cynicism, but constitutions in the middle east have not proved to be very sacred -- we might consider ourselves lucky if the Iraqi constitution follows the history of that of Pakistan.

That's because constitutions in the middle east seldom came out of a formal process and usually came out of a halfassed attempt by the dictators put in place by Europe.




If Iraq actually ends up with a security force strong enough to actually control the country, their future may play out like Pakistan's past.Your ability to completely miss the point never ceases to amaze.I've noticed their starting up their nuclear program again. Are we to invade them too?

Um Pakistan's problems and their fertileness for terrorist extremism are due almost entirely to having no natural resources and an inability to care for their population.





But that guy will be dead in six months according to you -- what then?

Well if a Sunni military coup tries to take the country I imagine we will be right back over there to kick the shit out of them again...but I don't expect Iran will be real crazy about that idea either.

If it's anyone else...they still won't be able to claim we are a colonial power...not even Sadr. We've pretty much reached civil terms with everyone but the Sunnis...and the truth is things aren't that bad with the Sunnis...the problem Sunnis are so limited in numbers, that they are actually foreigners that have to hide behind women and children remember?




I'm just not sold that everythings going to be hunky-dory. It certainly is worth mentioning that the most successful nation-building achieved by the US was in Japan where we completely dictated the terms.

And Germany...and just about all of Western Europe...IOW, just about every country we have liberated or been at War with...Except Viet Nam...who the Liberals sold to the communists along with millions of deaths.





This is a different situation to be sure.


You want it to be bleak...it's not as bleak as you want...it's never been as bleak as you want it to be...especially for a fucking war in which only 2000 men died in defeating an Army of nearly a million men, or the second largest active military force in the entire world, take your pick, and overthrowing one of the most entrenched dictators in the world...you terrorist sucking filth...

[whottt]

We'll see.

Ah...so you don't know what the fuck you are bitching about do you?

You just want to make sure you can bitch no matter what happens.



The men who actually make his policy for him defintely are, which is why we invaded Iraq instead of actually pusuing the terrorists.


Right...because doing nothing more than capturing Usama would have ended the threat of radical Islam and discredited him.


Look...you are too simple for this conflict...sit back and let the adults handle it...and in the meantime...why don't you go scouting for more chokers to install at our guards spots...it's what you do best.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

We were there to remove Saddam and the threat to us from power...and give free rule to the Iraqis.



:rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes

first it was because they had WMD's
then it was because of saddam
and THEN it was to give the iraqi's freedom (it was never called operation iraqi freedom until well after it was known they had no WMD's EVER)

[Nbadan]

Right...and if NBAdan says it, it must be credible information...because we all know NBAdan is them most objective source on this subject...and always gets his news from credible new sources...like...BushtheSatanmustdie.com

:rolleyes

And everything you post is backed up with what sources? I'll take a verifiable source over the word or some hot-head anyday.

[whottt]

:rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes

first it was because they had WMD's
then it was because of saddam
and THEN it was to give the iraqi's freedom (it was never called operation iraqi freedom until well after it was known they had no WMD's EVER)


Posted on this forum for the 9 billionth time:

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003


"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003



"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002





"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002



"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998



"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002






"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

[Nbadan]

:rolleyes

All of those statements were backed up by Senate Foreign Intelligence reports which we now know were as fabricated as Colin Powell's charges against Iraq when he stood before the United Nations. Try again.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

whottt, what were you trying to prove with all those quotes?

it seems to me like all of them pre2004 focused on what i said was first

disarming hussein
getting rid fo hussein

not many from back then was about setting up a democracy

[whottt]

:rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes

first it was because they had WMD's
then it was because of saddam
and THEN it was to give the iraqi's freedom (it was never called operation iraqi freedom until well after it was known they had no WMD's EVER)



This is the Bush war declaration that appeared live for every major media outlet:
Link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html)


Bush Addresses the Nation
The Oval Office




President's Remarks
view
listen




10:16 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support -- from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.

To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you. That trust is well placed.

The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military. In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for his own military -- a final atrocity against his people.

I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.

We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.

I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people. And you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory.


My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.

May God bless our country and all who defend her.

END 10:20 P.M. EST



Don't you guys ever get tired of lying?

[Nbadan]

The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

If we are the liers then show us where Saddam was planning to attack the US.

[whottt]

:rolleyes

All of those statements were backed up by Senate Foreign Intelligence reports which we now know were as fabricated as Colin Powell's charges against Iraq when he stood before the United Nations. Try again.


Proof that liberals can't read:


The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998


As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998


True...I can't find a single quote from Kerry back in 1998....when he was sitting on the Senate intelligence commitee...but I can find him voting to send us into war...I just can't find him doing it after Dean was about to steal the nomintion from him.

[ChumpDumper]

You are an idiot if you think good ole Saddam sitting on his billions of dollars wasn't a threat.Yeah, all those stockpiles of WMDs he had that he used twice on the US when he fought them is all the proof we need. Meanwhile the terrorists who actually attack the US and its allies run free. Great priorities there.
What makes you think they are going to be in bed with Iran?

You are an idiot if you think any new government had a plan of being hostile towards Iran. Contradict yourself much?
And what makes you think ending the virtual Sunni monopoly in the mid-east is a bad idea anyway?

Haven't you noticed the terrorists attacking the Shias in Iraq? Sure, and we're leaving before the Iraqis can even defend themselves properly. Good plan.
Don't try and put in a Democracy after Truman spent millions trying to help the Frech maintain their brutal colonial rule in Indochina turning them all pro communist?Ike gave the go-ahead for rigged elections in the south. Democracy is democracy -- and that's not always what the US wants.
Only an idiot would think anything from that conflict applies to this one.Only an idiot refuses to learn from history.
We aren't meddling.Except you just said we are attempting to influence the content of the constitution with arbitrary deadlines. Again, your self-contradictions are expected.
That's because constitutions in the middle east seldom came out of a formal process and usually came out of a halfassed attemptAny attempt to characterize this whole process other than halfassed is a sure sign of idiocy.
Um Pakistan's problems and their fertileness for terrorist extremism are due almost entirely to having no natural resources and an inability to care for their population.And Iraqis have electricity for how many hours a day?
And Germany...and just about all of Western Europe...IOW, just about every country we have liberated or been at War with...Except Viet Nam...who the Liberals sold to the communists along with millions of deaths.That a Republican cut and run and left the defense to an unprepared government. Go figure.
overthrowing one of the most entrenched dictators in the world...you terrorist sucking filth...LMAO! I actually wanted to concentrate on the actual terrorists -- too bad you and all the other flag-wavers got sidetracked by this diversion. You're the ones letting the real terrorists remain free. Congratulations.
Ah...so you don't know what the fuck you are bitching about do you?Of course I do, I'm not so naiive to think everything is going to be as perfect as you believe. And our cut-and-run before the job is done strategy isn't going to help.
Right...because doing nothing more than capturing Usama would have ended the threat of radical Islam and discredited him. We knoew the terrorists WEREN'T in Iraq, so we did the only logical thing an invaded and took over Iraq.
you are too simple for this conflict.You're too stupid to realize what a fool you are.
sit back and let the adults handle it.They're cutting and running -- so I guess we'll get another chance to wave our flags when some troops come home around the holiday season. The script reads well enough.

[whottt]

If we are the liers then show us where Saddam was planning to attack the US.

I don't have to show you that, but I can show you corroborated evidence that, at the minimum, Saddam was doing every thing in his power to make it appear as if he had WMD....at least until the US military was about to come down on his ass.


Besides...we only gave him like 3 months to get rid of any evidence...

He wasn't constrained by the same red tape the US government was...


Do you honestly think Saddam was sitting over there singing god bless America?

Even if he didn't have WMD...something I remain unconvinced of to this day...there is no doubt he had the funding to finance terrorism...

There is no doubt that the suffering of the Iraqi people under the UN sanctions was mentioned by Usama as one of the grievances of the Muslim World against the US...

What were we supposed to do then? Lift the sanctions?

And finally...Saddam good have been a fucking boyscout with regards to WMD..but he still violated the cease fire agreement.


and you need to catch up on the OFF scandal...people involved in it are pleading guilty these days....

[ChumpDumper]

And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment. ....until the polls tell us otherwise.

[whottt]

....until the polls tell us otherwise.


Idiot...the provisional leader, who was elected on a platform of getting the US out of Iraq, is asking us to leave....

Idiot...do you understand this?

[Nbadan]

This is silly, we can post dated quotes too:


e had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

- Colin Powell, Cairo Press Conference (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-cairo.htm)

[Nbadan]

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

- Dr. Rice, July 29,2001, CNN late edition with Wolf Blitzer

[Nbadan]

Now let's cover some of the lies:

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

George W. Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

Colin Powell
Interview with Radio France International
February 28, 2003

If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003

So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003

Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003

There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003

I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 2003

Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003

But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

George W. Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003

We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing
April 25, 2003

There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 6, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003

I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003

Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003

Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
May 30, 2003

It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.

Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency
Press Conference
May 30, 2003

o I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there's a lot of information out there."

[whottt]

Yeah, all those stockpiles of WMDs he had that he used twice on the US when he fought them is all the proof we need.

Saddam's WMD capabilities at the end of the Gulf War was far more advanced than anyone realized...

Since we have shitty intelligence capabilities in that region of the world...and since they got even shitter under the Clinton admin...

Would you have preferred to find out the hardway that he did have them?

And we didn't need proof of WMD to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power...we have had the justification...at least with a non corrupt UN...to do so since 1993.


Meanwhile the terrorists who actually attack the US and its allies run free.

Actually...it's looks like most of them are in Iraq dying if you ask me.



Sure, and we're leaving before the Iraqis can even defend themselves properly.

At their ogranized request...Fascist occupying idiot.



Good plan.Ike gave the go-ahead for rigged elections in the south. Democracy is democracy -- and that's not always what the US wants.

Yeah and Truman aided colonial France...

And you are right...when we operated under the Truman Doctrine...establishing Democracy was not always the most important thing...fighting communism and countries that were sympathetic towardss them was....even if they were colonialists.





Only an idiot refuses to learn from history.

Yeah...like the idiot who wants to stay there and occupy and impost a government of our chosing on them.



Except you just said we are attempting to influence the content of the constitution with arbitrary deadlines. [/quite]
It's their deadline idiot...




[quote]That a Republican cut and run and left the defense to an unprepared government.

Idiot...they are asking us to leave...


I actually wanted to concentrate on the actual terrorists -- too bad you and all the other flag-wavers got sidetracked by this diversion.
There are plenty of terrorists in Iraq...



You're the ones letting the real terrorists remain free.

No idiot...you are just the one that thinks they are all sitting around waiting to be captured.


I'm not so naiive to think everything is going to be as perfect as you believe.

I don't think it's going perfectly...but I just see the logic behind what they are doing and I think it's sound.



And our cut-and-run before the job is done strategy isn't going to help.

Listen to me you unparalelled fuckwit...

The fucking government is asking us to leave...you utter dumbass.

How in the fuck can we justify the sanctity of the process we initiated if we do not honor it?

You fucking fool.

And you again, fail to see that the war we fight is ideological and based on mistrust as much as it is conventional...



We knoew the terrorists WEREN'T in Iraq, so we did the only logical thing an invaded and took over Iraq.

No idiot....we knew that WMD capabilities might be in Iraq, in the posession of a leader who would have no qualms about giving them to terrorists to use against us...not to mention the billions of dollars he had to finance them with.

And idiot...Saddam paid off Palestinian suicide bombers...



You're too stupid to realize what a fool you are.They're cutting and running -- so I guess we'll get another chance to wave our flags when some troops come home around the holiday season. The script reads well enough.


Fuck off and get your ass back to Korea you piece of fascist shit who judges the worthiness of soliders lives and their causes based on if they are defending his relatives...Pig.

It's no surprise why you coveted the idea of fucking Manu over after his selfless move to the bench...Fascist.

[whottt]

."snippty snip snip snip


So basically you just posted a list of Republicans saying the same things that Democrats and World Leaders had been saying since 1998(and longer probably)?


All you have done is confirm what I already suspected about the liberal mindset...it's only okay when Democrats do it.


Sorry but that's not good enough.


Everyone, including the Crats, thought Saddam had WMD and they had thought so for a long long time, and Saddam himself was enhancing the perception for reasons of regional defense....Bush elected to act on the info instead of just talking about it...as a result, Saddam is gone and at least one mideast country will have a popularly elected government rather than a European appointed despot, we have rounded up a hell of a lot of terrorists to gain insight into the enigmatic and shadowy enemy that has declared war on us, there is a rift in the muslim world of the acceptance of terrorism, the Sunni militant monopoly has been split....and the US will also prove that their are intentions in the mid east are not just to colonize and steal oil and that the Iraqi masses chose their own future.


You people that just keep endless putting negative spins on everything for political gain...are the absolute enemy of the war on terrorism...You advocate doing the same things that have been done in the mid-east for the past 60 years...

And when you aren't doing that you advocate appeasement...when the first lesson every kid learns in school is that the only way to beat a bully is to stand up to him...

[Cant_Be_Faded]

they never mentioned the term "operation iraqi freedom" commonly in the media until the top dogs painfully realized that there were never any wmd's
thats when the focus became hardcore democracy this democracy that

most of that stuff is just saddam is bad he hurts people but where doyou see 'oh we must spread the goodness that is democracy'

[ChumpDumper]

Would you have preferred to find out the hardway that he did have them?I would have preferred he actually had them, like our leaders led you to believe with their mountains of evidence.
Actually...it's looks like most of them are in Iraq dying if you ask me.As you don't know shit, I didn't ask you.
At their ogranized request...Fascist occupying idiot. So we'll go back if they ask too? We're at their beck and call?
Yeah...like the idiot who wants to stay there and occupy and impost a government of our chosing on them. I'd prefer to hang around until we actually established a stable govenment and infrastructure like we said we would -- but if you want to use internal Iraqi politicking as an exceuse to cut and run, be my guest, coward.
No idiot...you are just the one that thinks they are all sitting around waiting to be captured.You apparently think they are all in Iraq, which is especially funny since they are still attacking our allies in their home countries. We did a gret job of diverting Britain's resources into the invasion and occupation while the real terrorists bombed their trains and buses in London. Don't feel too bad, they were fooled as badly as you were.
And you again, fail to see that the war we fight is ideological and based on mistrust as much as it is conventional...I certainly do see it that way -- so we're going to look great if a real civil conflict breaks out and we've simply washed our hands of it.
No idiot....we knew that WMD capabilities might be in IraqNo, our leaders KNEW IT WAS A SURE THING and sold it to you accordingly.
a leader who would have no qualms about giving them to terrorists to use against usLMAO -- fundamentalists would've used them on Saddam first.
And idiot...Saddam paid off Palestinian suicide bombers...Against Israel? Wow, I'm shocked.
Fuck off and get your ass back to Korea you piece of fascist shit who judges the worthiness of soliders lives and their causes based on if they are defending his relatives...Pig.Actually I jusge the worthiness of soldiers lives and their casues based on their leaders' knowing what the fuck they are doing. They are seeing a process through in Korea and other places they occupy. They're cutting and running here.
It's no surprise why you coveted the idea of fucking Manu over after his selfless move to the bench...Fascist.LMFAO! Now comes the time where Hootie starts losing his shit. Coveting? I said fuck him if he demanded a starting job -- knowing he wouldn't. You thought his ego couldn't handle a nonguarantee. You were wrong and you were proven completely wrong when Manu willingly went to the bench again -- something you said he would never do.

[whottt]

Bush has been talking about spreading freedom and Democracy since September 11th of 2001. Actually he was talking about it long before then...

[whottt]

I would have preferred he actually had them,

You have preferred Saddam had WMD?

Wow!

You are far stupider than I imagined...and that's saying a lot...because I imagined you to be quite stupid.



So we'll go back if they ask too? We're at their beck and call?

I imagine we will if they ask it. I imagine we'll stay if they ask it...


And more or less we are at their beck and call when talking about what they do with their country...helping them helps us.






I'd prefer to hang around until we actually established a stable govenment and infrastructure like we said we would -- but if you want to use internal Iraqi politicking as an exceuse to cut and run, be my guest, coward.


I'd prefer we stayed too...and I imagine that what the US would actually like to do...unfortunately, if we want the Iraqi government to have any legitimacy with the rest of the region...we have to honor their requests concerning our presence on their soil.




You apparently think they are all in Iraq, which is especially funny since they are still attacking our allies in their home countries.

Oh I don't think they are all in Iraq...but I'd say more of them are located there than any other place in the World.

And only an idiot thinks capturing Usama and liberating Iraq is going to end the terrorist problem.




We did a gret job of diverting Britain's resources into the invasion and occupation while the real terrorists bombed their trains and buses in London.
Yeah...because their military would have prevented it. Fucking idiot.



LMAO -- fundamentalists would've used them on Saddam first.

In most cases yes...but not when they have the chance to use them against the US first.


Against Israel?

Yeah financing terrorism against Israel is not a big deal...

Too bad he couldn't have been paying them for terrorist attacks against a worthy target..like South Korea.



OINK

[ChumpDumper]

You have preferred Saddam had WMD?Nice selective reading, can't get to the ends of sentences can we? Too many words? Try again.
And more or less we are at their beck and callSo we won't really be leaving for long. Understood.
I'd say more of them are located there than any other place in the World. I wouldn't.
And only an idiot thinks capturing Usama and liberating Iraq is going to end the terrorist problem.I never said either would, it's a matter of priorities.
Yeah...because their military would have prevented it. Fucking idiot.You really don't know how wars are funded or how budgets work, do you?
In most cases yes.LMAO, what a great argument for Saddam's giving them WMDs -- that ended up not existing anyway!
OINKGo back to slinging drugs.

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah financing terrorism against Israel is not a big deal...Sure -- but it's not the US, is it?
Too bad he couldn't have been paying them for terrorist attacks against a worthy target..like South Korea.I know you want to kill my family. Once a scumbag, always a scumbag, Qyntel....

[whottt]

Sure -- but it's not the US, is it?

Right...and neither is South Korea...which is why you should have the same fuckem attitude.



I know you want to kill my family. Once a scumbag, always a scumbag, Qyntel....

I don't want to kill your family...I want to stop occupying a foreign land...

I want to...cut...and...run. I mean isn't 50 years long enough for you?

In Iraq it is....

[ChumpDumper]

I want to...cut...and...run. I mean isn't 50 years long enough for you?

In Iraq it is....I know reading isn't your strong suit, Qyntel -- I'll let you read the thread again and see if you can actually understand what I typed. You got it before, but I don't expect you to be able to keep more than one idea in your head at a time.

[whottt]

I know...you don't want to pull out of Korea before they are able to take care of themselves.

Tis you that doesn't understand what I want...I want you to actually have somthing to bitch about and criticize.

[ChumpDumper]

I know...you don't want to pull out of Korea before they are able to take care of themselves.And Iraq. I knew I'd have to spell it our for you.

The more I find out about it the less I see any actual timelines -- and it looks like the Us will still keep large amounts of troops very nearby in other middle east bases. It remains to be seen how serious anyone is about this.

[Nbadan]

So basically you just posted a list of Republicans saying the same things that Democrats and World Leaders had been saying since 1998(and longer probably)?

All you have done is confirm what I already suspected about the liberal mindset...it's only okay when Democrats do it.

Sorry but that's not good enough.

No, I posted inconsistencies in what the administration and its cabinet were saying from August 2002 to May 2003 about Saddam's weapons capabilities, not liberals. Also, Hans Blix was in Iraq at the time, and he was telling everyone that, despite his group of international inspectors’ best efforts, they had not found any evidence of a Iraqi WMD program.

[AFE7FATMAN]

http://www.mondodisotto.it/imageiraq/moore_review%20about%20Fahrenheit%209-11.jpg

[whottt]

And Iraq. I knew I'd have to spell it our for you.

The more I find out about it the less I see any actual timelines -- and it looks like the Us will still keep large amounts of troops very nearby in other middle east bases. It remains to be seen how serious anyone is about this.

Idiot...you are bitching about a timeline right now.

They've never given timelines nor did they promise any...and now you are seeing on in progress...one set by the provisional government...and all you are doing is bitching about it...

You have no fucking point to make...and the complexity of this situation escapes you completely...you are the dog that pushes back simply because it is being pushed, with no thought as to why you are pushing back.

You are stupid.

There are so many forces at play here that it can't help but be a moderate government....Islamic or not.

You have the Kurds, the Sadrites, the Sistanis, the Saddam loyalists, the Sunnis, the external influences like the Iran Islamiscists and Al Qaeda....

The complexity of it blows anything we have ever had in this country away...


You think that simply because it's an Islamic government it will embrace Iran and their strict doctrine...indeed that's probably what Iran thinks as well...

But it's not going to work that way....about the time these Islamicists get some power, even the Iran backed ones, they are going to start looking at Iran as a threat to their power...they are going to want a division, they aren't going to want to be subordinate to Iran.....and many of the Iraqi Shia's are not Pro-Iranian.

It's a Democratic process and you can be as cynical about it as you like...but the one thing they all want(at least according to their own words) is for the US to be out...that issue will force compromise.

To tell you the truth...I don't think Al -Qaeda wants us to leave...they have long stated that their intention is to do to us what they think they did to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan...break us. But of course they weren't the major reason for it...

I wouldn't be surprised if Iran wants us stuck there as well...


It's just too complex of a situation to predict what will happen there and anyone that thinks they can is a fool...

This process will either establish a national identity or else it might indeed lead to civil war...which gurantees at least 1 new US ally.


As for having bases in other Mid-East countries....who gives a fuck?

Some of those countries want us there en masse...especially the tiny ones like Qatar and Kuwait....because we are the only defense they have from the bigger countries.

[whottt]

No, I posted inconsistencies in what the administration and its cabinet were saying from August 2002 to May 2003 about Saddam's weapons capabilities, not liberals.

Oh...I am well aware that you didn't post any of the liberal backtracking...nor would I ever expect you to do so.






Also, Hans Blix was in Iraq at the time, and he was telling everyone that, despite his group of international inspectors’ best efforts, they had not found any evidence of a Iraqi WMD program.


It wasn't his job to play detective...it was his job to supervise the destruction of the declared WMD...

Guess what? He himself has never been able to verify that all the claimed WMD has been destroyed...he has gone on record as saying there were declared WMD that were never destroyed.


In short Hans Blix is a fucking tool, and when he lead the International Atomic Agency...it was a nuclear prolifieration bonanza.


The UN is dirty...and your stance that all these terrorists are basically well meaning people that just need better understanding is insane and far detatched from the reality of this world.

Take the blinders off Dan....you like conspiracies...why don't you just enterain for one second the idea that other countries besides the US conspire....Do that and a whole new world will open to you. Broaden your horizons and stop limiting yourself...the US is not the sum total of all evil in this world. Realize it.

[Nbadan]

Oh...I am well aware that you didn't post any of the liberal backtracking...nor would I ever expect you to do so.

The key word is relevance. Clinton didn't take us to war on the 98' statements he made about Iraq, but W did take us to war, despite on-going UN WMD inspections in Iraq and doubts within circles in the CIA about the reliability of information provided by Ahmed Chalabi regarding Saddam's 'alleged' WMD program, which was then used as the foundation for the need to hurry to war in Congress.

[Nbadan]

Take the blinders off Dan....you like conspiracies...why don't you just enterain for one second the idea that other countries besides the US conspire....Do that and a whole new world will open to you. Broaden your horizons and stop limiting yourself...the US is not the sum total of all evil in this world. Realize it.

I'll leave any conspiracy theories regarding the U.N. up to you ditto-heads. Personally, I think your heading up another un-realistic moment, moment.