Don’t bother reading, I can sum it up.

right2bright on January 9, 2007 at 6:58 PM

So another opinion on another book you haven’t read. This must be a huge time saver.

Which intel is that?

Pablo on January 9, 2007 at 6:02 PM

http://www.truthout.org/imgs.art_01/fordmemo.pdf

Well this declassified State Dept memo outlines the whole story.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000478.html

This gives a short version of events.

There is also testimony in the 9/11 Commission Report whereby Tenet concedes the intelligence was false. I’ll look for that later if I have time.

“The US needs to find a way to engage the Arab media, rather than shut down, marginalize, and ostracize news mediums such as Al-Jazeera,”.

He (Rajiv Chandrasekaran)likes Al-Jazeera, we should engage them. Rajiv was a Washington bureau chief in Baghdad. What was Jordan for CNN? Oh yeah, the Chief News Executive for CNN. Cut from the same cloth. These clowns write these “tell all” books, like preaching to the choir. His subtle hatchet job on Jim Haveman was typical. Jim and his wife are committed christians dedicated to bringing health resources to un developed countries. A perfect target to a liberal head hunter. Don’t bother reading, I can sum it up.
Bush was inept
All appointees lived in luxury, while other who did the work toiled in misery
All appointees were inept
Health services was inept
Bush was inept
All policies were inept
I was there, you weren’t so I know and you don’t
Excesses where they were not needed
Mismanaged resources
Bush was inept (can’t say it enough)
Fortunately I was there to report

Of course, when Haverman wrote some facts to correct Rajiv assertions, the Washington Post would not print the retort of Haverman. Lie and then not face the facts you are distorting…I have seen it many times by the left.

Well at least Jon Stewart interviewed him, we know how important that makes him.

Stand up and thump your chest to sound tough, doesn’t cost anything.

But it does cost when you’re beating your chest while authorizing war, doesn’t it?

The question is: was there an alternative? The answer is pretty clearly yes. (It would have hurt to finish inspections?)

John Kerry and Hillary Clinton didn’t seem to think so. And there’s really no need to rehash the “cheat and retreat” inspections game Saddam continued to play until the end.

Remember, the big threat was “the mushroom cloud”; we now know that the intelligence underlying that claim had been dis-credited and that the administration knew it had been dis-credited, prior to the invasion.

Which intel is that?

Why is Sadr still breathing?

William

William2006 on January 9, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Because he’s propping up Maliki. You see the problem here….. ;^(

William

How can this be, THeDRiFTeR?

Pablo on January 9, 2007 at 10:17 AM

I believe there is a great deal of evidence that shows the CIA analysts were very unsure on all of this and that there was a decision to go with what they (Bush et al) wanted to hear. As for the list of politicos in your post, well that’s politics isn’t it? Stand up and thump your chest to sound tough, doesn’t cost anything.

The question is: was there an alternative? The answer is pretty clearly yes. (It would have hurt to finish inspections?) Remember, the big threat was “the mushroom cloud”; we now know that the intelligence underlying that claim had been dis-credited and that the administration

knew

it had been dis-credited, prior to the invasion.

Making a decision to go to war requires a higher bar than bloviating on the Senate floor; and much, much more importantly, going to war clueless as to how to get out, well, that’s the big issue as it turns out.

Pablo, if you want to read something that will turn your blood cold, pick up a copy of “Imperial Life in the Emerald City”. Illustrates the massive incompetence of our people in Iraq post invasion (NOT the military, the other folks who were there to get the country back on its feet, the bureaucrats). Very through the looking glass.

Hey Pablo, all you’ve proven there is that “they” didn’t know. Brilliant.

But they did know! They said so, in very uncertain terms.

And how do you know they weren’t right?

Pablo on January 9, 2007 at 10:17 AM

Thanks Pablo, it is always good to look at the reasons why decisions are made. It was not a fact of saying “someone else thought it so I am going along”. It was the universal (and the opinion of most of our leaders on both side of the aisle) opinion that Saddam had WMD’s and must be stopped. And it is important, historically, that those decisions were made on what appeared to be world wide agreement. What isn’t important historically, is someone after the fact, stating lies and distorting the truth.

I would hope that the liberals, would spend as much time looking at South Central LA, Washington DC, Detroit, Atlanta, Miami, Phili, etc.,as Iraq; and try to make their backyards safer and create more opportunities for their constituents.

It seems to me we have 3 choices:

1) Become much more aggressive, meaning chase down every IED suspect and take out any suspected area where insurgents/sectarian militia etc are hiding. The downside here is that we will inevitably incur a lot of collateral damage, which in turn will create more terrorists. The other downside is that this flies in the face of our stated objective of “standing down when they stand up”.

2) Partition the country a la the Dayton Accords and draw back to the borders to keep Iranians etc out. Either a loose federation works or it doesn’t. Either way we get out of the line of fire.

3) Bug out. (I believe this is the real Bush plan). Put on a surge to save face and start pulling out. This scares the bejesus out of me, there is no more difficult military manuever than retreating.

I go with #2. But what do I know. We are down to the least bad of bad alternatives.

VinceP1974 on January 9, 2007 at 12:09 AM

we are stil in htose countries because they need our money… we support these coutnries and fil their bansk with a huge load of cash…

it’s a flaming joke we are still in Sout Korea, when they won’t fight for their own country, let them fight..

in Germany much of the population hates us, but loves our money..

and yes, I am a Veteran…

THeDRiFTeR on January 9, 2007 at 10:34 AM

What Pablo showed is that at the time, with the information that was available, the preponderance of evidence showed that Saddam had WMD. Italy, Russia, France, England, Belgium, China, Australia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and more thought the same. And based on how he had killed his own people with MMD, it made sense. Later even his generals admitted to believing they had WMD’s.

Easy to sit back, years later and know the truth. You have to work with the information you have at the time you make the decision. And overwhelmingly the (world) consensus was, Saddam had WMD’s and was eager to use them again.

Brilliant monday morning quarterbacking drifter.

“There is no doubt that . 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 redefine 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.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

“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.”
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

“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. 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.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

How can this be, THeDRiFTeR?

“The sanctions, as they are called, have succeeded over the last 10 years, not in deterring him from moving in that direction, but from actually being able to move in that direction… And even though we have no doubt in our mind that the Iraqi regime is pursuing programs to develop weapons of mass destruction — chemical, biological and nuclear — I think the best intelligence estimates suggest that they have not been terribly successful.” – Colin Powell, 15 May 2001

“We are able to keep arms from him [Hussein]. His military forces have not been rebuilt.” – Condoleezza Rice, 29 July 2001

And yes, we knew.

I’m reluctantly against the surge, not because I think it won’t work tactically (although it probably won’t — the new heavy footprint allegedly isn’t nearly heavy enough) but because I don’t trust the Iraqi government anymore to act in the national interest afterwards even if it does.

posted at 9:03 pm on January 8, 2007 by Allahpundit

I did mean to say that I agree with your distrust for the surge Allahpundit, (I think it would be foolhardy), and I think for the same reason. Post invasion Iraq cannot be relied upon to act in our national interest, for reasons reflected in what I said above.

You know, those who disagreed with this war didn’t really side with Hussein then, or the insurgents now. And anyone who was thinking in the run up to this war was really concerned about regional stability, and Hussein was certainly the least of our worries in the region. We had destroyed his means to wage war during Desert Storm, and 10 years of embargos ensured that there was no way he could reconstitute those means. The worse thing is is that we knew it too.

Kinda just makes you want to just find a beach, and bury your head, doesn’t it?

Only if you’re the ostrich type to begin with. But then there are grown ups who have to live in the real world and address real things. I wonder why that Boston Globe article doesn’t mention that we “tumbled” Iran into our sphere of influence as well. No Jeff Jacoby influence, apparently. It seems to me that we’ve done a hell of a lot more to increase American influence in the region than Iranian influence. Especially when Iran is becoming increasingly isolated from the Arab regimes other than Syria/Lebanon.

Here’s a nice microcosm of the region, right here.

Deal with the foreign influences from Iran and it’s proxies and things will get better. Ignore Iranian influence and ignore the real base cause of the problem.

omegaram on January 8, 2007 at 10:26 PM

Wouldn’t that involve killing anyone who basically isn’t Sunni?

Iraq’s new government has been trumpeted by the Bush administration as a close friend and a model for democracy in the region. In contrast, Bush calls Iran part of an axis of evil and dismisses its elections and government as illegitimate. So the Bush administration cannot have been filled with joy when Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and eight high-powered cabinet ministers paid an extremely friendly visit to Tehran this week.

The two governments went into a tizzy of wheeling and dealing of a sort not seen since Texas oil millionaires found out about Saudi Arabia. Oil pipelines, port access, pilgrimage, trade, security, military assistance, were all on the table in Tehran.

If you think its any different with the present crew, think again!

Mr. Maliki’s Dawa party was long based in Iran during its years of struggle against the regime of Saddam Hussein. But the leaders of the other main Shiite party, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution, are considered even closer to the government in Tehran, which helped fund and train its militia, the Badr Brigade.

or:

IRAQI PRIME Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s two-day state visit to Iran last week was an occasion for sealing deals on oil extraction and commerce in petroleum products. It also marked Maliki’s return to the country where he spent part of his exile during the reign of Saddam Hussein. But above all, Maliki’s trip to Iran underlined the enormity of the geopolitical transformation that President Bush wrought when, by toppling Saddam, he tumbled Iraq into Iran’s sphere of influence.

Kinda just makes you want to just find a beach, and bury your head, doesn’t it?

And we may be camped in some other Arab countries before this jihad is snuffed out.

(Or do they wear him?)

Someone in Iraq needs to frag this psycho-pimp and find out.

And no, that’s not a rhetorical question. I ask it in response to this news that just came across the wires. WASHINGTON – In a blunt challenge to President Bush, the leader of the Senate’s new Democratic majority said Monday……