Bush strategist looks back in sadness

[ricky_cooper]

Yes you are right let's see how sympathetic the people really are. Not only the hidden costs of the war have devalued the dollar but it's the % of medication also. What you say???

[Nbadan]

What you say?


Eh, anyway...


Petraeus adviser: Violence reduction due to ‘luck.’

In an interview with the Council on Foreign Relations, Gen. David Petraeus’s adviser Steven Biddle said that much of the U.S.’s recent “tactical successes” in Iraq have little to do with the impact of Bush’s escalation but instead are largely “luck.”

Q: Well what do you attribute this whole change on the ground to? Is this due to what is called “the surge,” or good diplomacy by the U.S. military, or just luck]?

BIDDLE: All of those things have some role but I would put “luck” as probably the biggest.

Link

[xrayzebra]

European politicians have had the balls and prudence to tax gasoline into the $7 range many years ago.

As one of many results, the Euro Ford Focus gets 55 mph highway, while the US Ford Focus gets 35 mph highway, with US car mfrs saying it's impossible even to meet an aggressive CAFE (which wasn't passed anyway) before 2020.

There is a conspiracy between oilcos, Detroit, and their D.C. s, a drug-dealing triumvirate, to keep America addicted to oil.

First place, their gallon is bigger than ours, but they
sell their gas by the liter.

Secondly, I really don't want to drive a tin can like they
do on the so called high mileage cars. Their Mercedes
and other cars get comparable mileage to ours.
Another little difference, they don't have all the smog
control devices on their cars. They just started their
programs in Europe. And all transportation (public/private)
is expensive. Unless you are a senior citizen and retired.
Then you get special passes for non-rushhour travel on
public buses/the underground.

[DarkReign]

Its been a good discourse, so I will try and continue the trend.

Yes, some things, many things, to those effects. I think the disconnect comes in that the press glommed onto the WMD aspect of the equation. In addition to Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. (which, by the way, was more about justifying concerns over WMDs than justifying an invasion because of WMDs), there were speeches and pleas regarding his human rights abuses, his environmental crimes, his acts of aggression on military assets in the no-fly zone, his repeated defiance of U.N. inspectors and the nearly 2 dozen UNSC resolutions passed immediately after the '91 war and in the subsequent decade, his continued threats against Kuwait, and his stiff-backed posture toward Iran. All of these things were discussed.

I think the media agreed with those premises and, therefore, didn't see the need to play them up like the "sexy" WMD angle. But, that's just me....because, for my part, I distinctly remember the administration railing on each of the points you raised. They formed the backbone of the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq that was passed by Congress in 2002.

Here, I believe, youre being disingenuous again. The media certainly glommed on to the WMDs, that much is true (and still true). But the reason for their "focused reporting" so to speak, was because that was the major selling point of invading Iraq. I appreciate the quick links and quotes you provided showing the various talking points and resolutions laid out by the White House, but it isnt some mass misunderstanding of the American people that WMDs were the sole reason for our invasion.

I am not trying to be sarcastic, but do I need to link the inevitable YouTube video that shows Bush say "WMDs" and "weapons of mass destruction" about 300 times in 7 months?

Thats from a President that has the all-time low public appearance/speech record in American history, nevermind the TV era.

Bush sold the WMD angle to not only the press, but worse yet the world. the White House talking heads went on any show in any part of the country, day and night, repeating the same slop spewed from the top.

The whole reason any of us, anyone in the country even knows the acronym "WMDs" is because our president recited the phrase numerous times in every speech he has made pertaining to anything remotely related to the word "Iraq" (side note: he and Guliani have a bet going...how many times Bush can say WMDs and how many times Rudy can say 9/11...its a tie for "terrorism/terrorist").

So, again, I believe youre being disingenuous about why WMDs are the sticking point for Iraq and President Bush. Is disingenuous the right word? Because youve never, ever come across to me as ignorant. Far from it.

But, regardless of what you believe you were told, isn't the net affect the same? We deposed a horrible tyrant, are stabilizing a volatile region of the world, establishing a friendly base in the middle east, and ensuring (regardless of the status of his programs in 2003) that Saddam Hussein will never possess or use WMDs again.

No?

Well, certainly it matters to me. It matters to everyone. It obviously mattered to the White House because if they felt they could have sold the "UN Resolutions" angle alone, they would have emphasized that aspect a whole uva lot more than the "WMD" angle. But the strategists must have felt that the "UN" angle wasnt enough to sway the American people, IMO. So they "chose their hill to die on". It matters because the ends do not always justify the means. There is a good reason that phrase was coined long, long ago.

Powell's presentation at the UN wasnt a footnote, as you make it to sound. It was profound! It was the turning point. Powell, before and up until it became obvious that no WMDs were going to surface in Iraq, had an impeccable reputation. Respected not only by his own people, but worldwide. He was a military general of the highest regard, far and wide, and an ambassador of American policy here and abroad.

Him holding a vile of "white powder" and staring into the eyes and cameras telling the world that Iraq was indeed a threat with mass-destruction capabilities carried FAR more weight than our English-averse President and his cowboy at ude.

Bush is the American stereotype, and he played it to the hilt for 6 years of Presidency. The past 2 years hes toned that down to an almost negligible degree.

I don't think it was fear mongering. If you consider everyone believed it to be true, that Saddam Hussein himself wasn't disabusing anyone of that belief with his actions, and if you put it in the context of September 11, his arming terrorists with WMDs was a very real possibility.

We disagree then. In my mind, it was absolutely fear-mongering. Using the memory of 9/11 as a springboard to garner support for a war. Calling on Americans less than a year later to support military action against a vicious dictator who had never been friendly with Al Queda....certainly not as friendly and enabling as other Arab nations (cough...Saudi Arabia...).

So, that kind of moots the AQ angle on Iraq. Sure, theyre there now, why wouldnt they be? Its a war zone with enemy targets for them to attack. A playground of sorts for the revenge minded religious zealots and their Jihad against the Imperialists. Galvanizing further the complete and utter disdain the Arab world holds for the West (America in particular).

We'll just have to disagree on this point. I think it was one of the least political moves he's made. Obviously, it's gotten him raked over the political coals, he's lost all of the political capital he amassed, and his political popularity plummetted. I don't think it was a political move at all.

I believe it was. It divided the country in near-perfect half. It won him a second presidency, because who was going to elect someone else to run his war? Did Republicans not completely sweep the Congressional ballots? Did I not hear the President say, and I quote "I have earned a lot of political capital, and I intend to spend it." after his party had record gains in both houses?

It was political, and it worked beyond their expectations (I think anyway). But rapture only lasts so long.

I appreciate the dialog.

As do I.

[ChumpDumper]

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,

[George Gervin's Afro]

We disagree then. In my mind, it was absolutely fear-mongering. Using the memory of 9/11 as a springboard to garner support for a war. Calling on Americans less than a year later to support military action against a vicious dictator who had never been friendly with Al Queda....

BINGO! we have a winner..

[Yonivore]

Its been a good discourse, so I will try and continue the trend.

Very good, let's give it a go.

Here, I believe, youre being disingenuous again. The media certainly glommed on to the WMDs, that much is true (and still true). But the reason for their "focused reporting" so to speak, was because that was the major selling point of invading Iraq. I appreciate the quick links and quotes you provided showing the various talking points and resolutions laid out by the White House, but it isnt some mass misunderstanding of the American people that WMDs were the sole reason for our invasion.

I am not trying to be sarcastic, but do I need to link the inevitable YouTube video that shows Bush say "WMDs" and "weapons of mass destruction" about 300 times in 7 months?

Thats from a President that has the all-time low public appearance/speech record in American history, nevermind the TV era.

Bush sold the WMD angle to not only the press, but worse yet the world. the White House talking heads went on any show in any part of the country, day and night, repeating the same slop spewed from the top.

The whole reason any of us, anyone in the country even knows the acronym "WMDs" is because our president recited the phrase numerous times in every speech he has made pertaining to anything remotely related to the word "Iraq" (side note: he and Guliani have a bet going...how many times Bush can say WMDs and how many times Rudy can say 9/11...its a tie for "terrorism/terrorist").

So, again, I believe youre being disingenuous about why WMDs are the sticking point for Iraq and President Bush. Is disingenuous the right word? Because youve never, ever come across to me as ignorant. Far from it.

I'm ignorant about many things, and all the information that went into the decision to invade Iraq may be something very few have a firm grasp on.

But, I've arrived at a few conclusions based on what we've been told, what I know, and how people behaved prior to, and after, the invasion. So, let me re-frame my position a bit.

I believe that everyone involved, except for Saddam Hussein himself, believed that Iraq possessed WMD's. If I were president, and I firmly believed it, that would be the point I would most vocalize because that is the point that poses the most potential danger to the United States security.

Now, having said that, having WMD's alone aren't a reason to invade a country. Without the human rights abuses, without the aggression against his neighbors and own citizens, without the environmental crimes, without the dozen years of ignoring the UNSC and their resolutions, without the 8 year period of frustrating inspectors, without the increasing corruption that threatened to undermine sanctions, without the Oil for Food scandal that allowed him to enrich his weapons programs and regime, without the rape rooms and torture chambers, without the knowledge that he was providing sanctuary to Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas terror organizations, without the $25,000 payments to terrorists in Israel, without the congratulatory articles in regime publications for the September 11 attacks, without Salman Pak, without his history of using WMDs, without the claims that he had WMDs in order to intimidate Iran; without all those things -- he's no threat.

With all those things AND weapons of mass destruction, he's a menace we can't afford to ignore in the aftermath of September 11. It's not that he had WMD's, many countries have them; it's that he was who he was and had WMD's.

If an escaped murderer comes at you with his hand in his pocket as if he's holding a gun and you saw him with a gun that morning, you're not going to sell the premise he's a murderer by talking about his past offenses, you're going to point at him and say, he's coming at me with a gun...you assume, at that point, everyone knows he's a murderer and capable.

The administration always framed the debate -- as far as I'm concerned -- that the WMDs were important because of who had them and because of what he was capable of and liable to do with them.

Did we invade because he had rape rooms? No. But, did we invade because his total disregard of what was internationally acceptable easily led one to believe he was capable of using WMDs we believed he had? Absolutely.

Well, certainly it matters to me. It matters to everyone. It obviously mattered to the White House because if they felt they could have sold the "UN Resolutions" angle alone, they would have emphasized that aspect a whole uva lot more than the "WMD" angle. But the strategists must have felt that the "UN" angle wasnt enough to sway the American people, IMO. So they "chose their hill to die on". It matters because the ends do not always justify the means. There is a good reason that phrase was coined long, long ago.

Powell's presentation at the UN wasnt a footnote, as you make it to sound. It was profound! It was the turning point. Powell, before and up until it became obvious that no WMDs were going to surface in Iraq, had an impeccable reputation. Respected not only by his own people, but worldwide. He was a military general of the highest regard, far and wide, and an ambassador of American policy here and abroad.

Him holding a vile of "white powder" and staring into the eyes and cameras telling the world that Iraq was indeed a threat with mass-destruction capabilities carried FAR more weight than our English-averse President and his cowboy at ude.

Bush is the American stereotype, and he played it to the hilt for 6 years of Presidency. The past 2 years hes toned that down to an almost negligible degree.

Your premise relies on a belief they were lying about WMD's. And, in that context, I have no answer but to say, there's is no one, of any consequence, on the face of the planet that did not believe Saddam Hussein had WMDs on March 15, 2003.

Democrats thought so, the previous administration still believes President Bush was justified in invading based on what they knew about Saddam Hussein. Our international allies believed he did.

We disagree then. In my mind, it was absolutely fear-mongering. Using the memory of 9/11 as a springboard to garner support for a war. Calling on Americans less than a year later to support military action against a vicious dictator who had never been friendly with Al Queda....certainly not as friendly and enabling as other Arab nations (cough...Saudi Arabia...).

Never been friendly with al Qaeda? Not exactly true. Besides, why would al Qaeda face a vastly superior military in a country in which they weren't invested unless it were an important front in the war? Al Qaeda, it seems to me, would take the opportunity to wreak havoc in countries where we didn't have a couple of hundred thousand soldiers.

The fact is, Iraq was important to al Qaeda. And, regardless of what you believe, al Qaeda was in Iraq before we invaded...and, in large numbers.

Why did Zarqawi and his followers (all al Qaeda) flee to Iraq after the invasion of Afghanistan? And, why isn't that, in itself, a good justification for invading Iraq?

Of course, that's sad for the Iraqi people but, they can only blame their former despot and al Qaeda. And, if you read some of the more recent reports, that's exactly who they blame for their plight.

So, all in all, the Iraq war is paying off. Al Qaeda has been defeated in what they called the principle front of the their war with us and Saddam Hussein is dead and buried.

So, that kind of moots the AQ angle on Iraq. Sure, theyre there now, why wouldnt they be? Its a war zone with enemy targets for them to attack. A playground of sorts for the revenge minded religious zealots and their Jihad against the Imperialists. Galvanizing further the complete and utter disdain the Arab world holds for the West (America in particular).

Well, that leads to the obvious, if cynical, question of why couldn't Iraq have been a battlefield of opportunity? What if -- and this could be one of those things of which we're ignorant -- we invaded Iraq with the belief it would draw al Qaeda out of their entrenched and nearly inaccessible stronghold in Afghanistan and Pakistan, into a battlefield that was more level?

Where else would you like to have faced them? Here?

I believe it was. It divided the country in near-perfect half. It won him a second presidency, because who was going to elect someone else to run his war? Did Republicans not completely sweep the Congressional ballots? Did I not hear the President say, and I quote "I have earned a lot of political capital, and I intend to spend it." after his party had record gains in both houses?

It was political, and it worked beyond their expectations (I think anyway). But rapture only lasts so long.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.

As do I.

Cheers.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I believe it was. It divided the country in near-perfect half. It won him a second presidency, because who was going to elect someone else to run his war? Did Republicans not completely sweep the Congressional ballots? Did I not hear the President say, and I quote "I have earned a lot of political capital, and I intend to spend it." after his party had record gains in both houses?

It was political, and it worked beyond their expectations (I think anyway). But rapture only lasts so long.

In the re-election, the president with a relatively strong economy, and a war in progress, managed to eke out 51 percent. Why? Because Rove preferred to divide the country and get his 51 percent, than unite it and get America's 60. In a time of grave danger and war, Rove picked party over country. Such a choice was and remains de able.

[DarkReign]

I will respond to the entirety of your post tomorrow (probably). Im much too busy at work today.

But

Your premise relies on a belief they were lying about WMD's. ...

By no means am I trying to imply the WH lied. Maybe one or two individuals did, I have no idea. But I wholeheartedly believe the President and Powell believed Iraq had WMDs. Now, how convinced where they? Was there political pressure to endorse such things? Etc, etc?

I have no idea. For sake of being objective, I will operate under the pretense that they were not lying, they were just wrong. Geraldo Rivera-Jimmy Hoffa's-Vault kind of wrong.

[xrayzebra]

DR, how may resolutions did the UN pass on Iraq? I am not
trying to be a smart ass. But how many? Bush was not the first
to go to the UN.

[Yonivore]

I will respond to the entirety of your post tomorrow (probably). Im much too busy at work today.

But

By no means am I trying to imply the WH lied. Maybe one or two individuals did, I have no idea. But I wholeheartedly believe the President and Powell believed Iraq had WMDs. Now, how convinced where they? Was there political pressure to endorse such things? Etc, etc?

I have no idea. For sake of being objective, I will operate under the pretense that they were not lying, they were just wrong. Geraldo Rivera-Jimmy Hoffa's-Vault kind of wrong.

I'm not hanging my hat on the link I'm about to post but, I believe that as time passes and more and more of Iraq's captured regime do ents are translated and made public, what you read in the linked article will be more and more historically accurate and credible.

I honestly believe Saddam Hussein had WMDs and that history will vindicate this belief.

Shattering Conventional Wisdom About Saddam's WMD's

[xrayzebra]

I'm not hanging my hat on the link I'm about to post but, I believe that as time passes and more and more of Iraq's captured regime do ents are translated and made public, what you read in the linked article will be more and more historically accurate and credible.

I honestly believe Saddam Hussein had WMDs and that history will vindicate this belief.

Shattering Conventional Wisdom About Saddam's WMD's

Yoni, I too believe he had them. He used them and
they simply did not disappear into thin air. The
worrisome thing is that Bush haters want to
fix themselves on Bush and not what happened to the
WMD. They exist, but where?

[clambake]

They exist, but where?

history has shown that they're in the land of make believe.

this is too important of an issue to stop pretending, now.

[xrayzebra]

history has shown that they're in the land of make believe.

this is too important of an issue to stop pretending, now.

Take a deep breath. I will tell you when to exhale.

[ChumpDumper]

They're still translating the do ents!

So again, why didn't we get the information straight from Saddam in the six months we had him in custody?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Yoni, I too believe he had them. He used them and
they simply did not disappear into thin air. The
worrisome thing is that Bush haters want to
fix themselves on Bush and not what happened to the
WMD. They exist, but where?

UH what? Saddam was acting like he had them ray. haven't you kept up with the news? saddam admitted he didn't have them but he wanted Iran and the rest of the world to believe he did. Jesus Ray get you news from more outlets than talk radio and fox news..

[George Gervin's Afro]

So again, why didn't we get the information straight from Saddam in the six months we had him in custody?

or why didn't we get ONE prisoner/scientist/general etc to sell saddam out? you would think we could find one weasel to give up the wmds? Yet Yoni wants to hold out hope that those papers will save bush...

[Yonivore]

It's obvious neither George nor SpunkChump read the article.

[clambake]

It's obvious neither George nor SpunkChump read the article.

i read the article. did the writers come off strike already? because that was quite a tale. better get mouse on it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

It's obvious neither George nor SpunkChump read the article.

Saddam’s nuclear do ents compel any reasonable person to the conclusion that, more probably than not, there were in fact nuclear WMD sites, components, and programs hidden inside Iraq at the time the Coalition forces invaded. In view of these newly discovered do ents, it can be concluded, more probably than not, that Saddam did have a nuclear weapons program in 2001-2002, and that it is reasonably certain that he would have continued his efforts towards making a nuclear bomb in 2003 had he not been stopped by the Coalition forces.

[boutons_]

The intentional distraction continues.

Iraq invasion was exclusively about oil.
WMD was just one of the bull pretexts covering the oil grab.

Notice yoni and similar don't ever say exactly how Saddam was going to deliver his bombs of nuclear paper secrets to the USA, or anywhere else.

With the US camped and armed right next door in SA, he must have known, esp after the Gulf War,

Debating WMD with yoni and similar ilk is exactly what the false-narrative-pushing dubya suckers and neo- s want.

It's the same old lying bull about Iran. Even if Iran has nukes, it doesn't have the means to deliver them onto the USA (like Saddam's WMD, no threat to USA) and Iran knows the retaliation for Iran attacking USA or Israel would be massive and would totally destroy the Iranian military, which is minuscule compared to US and NATO.

Why would dubya and head be so ing afraid of emasculated, beaten Iraq and tiny Iran? They weren't, they aren't. It's all about the oil grab, not about US security.

[ChumpDumper]

It's obvious neither George nor SpunkChump read the article.

I read the article, dip .

We had Saddam in custody for SIX MONTHS.

Why didn't we find out about the WMDs from him using our never-fail interrogation methods?

Why spend time translating do ents that may or may not be fake WHEN YOU HAVE THE DICTATOR OF IRAQ IN YOUR CUSTODY FOR SIX MONTHS?

Thank God bloggers are spreading the word about underwater nuke facilities. Bush is either completely ignorant about them or doesn't think they justify the war.

Or they simply don't exist.

Not that it matters anyway. The only country he would've used nuke on is Iran. He was no threat to the US.

[clambake]

i did like the story, but i prefer "cloak and dagger". wasn't that in SA?