Since I know you all were so eager to celebrate it. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/w...rsary-is-barely-noted-in-washington.html?_r=0
A true happy day for 1 million dead Iraqis, 5 million orphans, 1 million widows, and 4 million homeless out of 30 million other Iraqis. Good job, good effort.
I've been noticing the absence of comment about it also both in the media and society in general. This war was a mistake and will go down as a dark chapter in US history. Very few people want to remember it.
yeah, before they were killed, they also had 5 children and kicked 4 men out of their home...crazier coincidences happen, good reasoning
The things we could have done after the Cold War. Instead, we wasted twenty years on blind vengeance; political and otherwise.
I Tried to Make the Intelligence Behind the Iraq War Less Bogus ......(read the article) Our Branch Chief, Karen, walked into Cheney’s office with everything we’d uncovered about the Abu Nidal link in June 2003. It seemed airtight. The Secret Service had determined that the paper was made after the date printed on the page. The timeframes didn’t match. The ink was inconsistent with the ink manufactured in the early 1990s purported timeframe of the documents. The chain of command indicated in the documents contradicted the description of the Iraqi intelligence bureaucracy provided by our detainees, even down to incorrect titles. These were forgeries. I wasn’t there, but I heard the vice president was gracious and thanked her. I actually quit the CIA for 3 days in 2004. I was exhausted answering historical questions trying to justify the invasion while at the same time trying to define Iraqi al-Qaida leader Zarqawi’s growing role as a real threat. I couldn’t take it. People were dying and we were still talking about evidence of a connection between Saddam and al-Qaida. After a few phone calls with leadership in the Counterterrorism Center, I went back after 3 days and switched roles to the operations side — the National Clandestine Service — heading up the targeting operations team looking for Zarqawi. Instead of writing about him, I wanted to find him, I felt like the U.S. accidentally gave him a platform that helped him grow into a major terrorist. I moved onto another assignment a few months before he was killed in 2006. After leaving the CIA, I’ve had a lot of time to reflect on this sorry absurd role in intelligence history, and my bit role in it. No intelligence analyst should have to deal with policymakers delving into intelligence work. It sounds bureaucratic and boring, but the distinction matters: CIA doesn’t have a policy agenda, it seeks to inform those agendas. Politicians and appointees have ideas for shaping the world. Mingling the two is a recipe for self-delusion and, as we saw in Iraq, failure.
Ways to generate a widow without an identified body of the husband, who could: 1: flee out of the country. 2: join rebellions. 3: jailed in Cuba or east Europe. 4: bodies are buried in large group in an underground pit. 5: body is blow up, burnt, dismembered, eaten or dropped in the sea. 6: or simply missing. A war like that, many many disgusting things happen.
You would not like that idea if you control the checkbook of USA. At least, they have to clear their mass. Right now, let's just take away their oil and loot their treasures.
Widowing requires a death. I have no idea where your number came from. Could be underreporting deaths or overreporting widows. It wasn't meant to be mean and it isn't a big deal. Just found it to be odd.
HAHAHAHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA Oh, sorry. That's my default reaction to the modern leftist and libertarian attempt to depict Eisenhower, the guy who overthrew Mossadeq, who expanded defense spending to a height which hasn't been seen since his presidency, who advocated a policy of massive retaliation which was basically "the Commies piss us off? Nuke them", who let George Marshall hang under McCarthy's inquisition, as some sort of peacenik.
most definitely, and eisenhower was responsible for overseeing the overthrow of democratically elected leaders such as president Arbenz (guatemala 1954) and Patrice Lumumba (congo early 1960's). so why did he say this?- he said it in response to JFK who actually took a very aggressive stance against the USSR and claimed that the US needed to further its military spending against the commie's. he directly criticized eisenhower for being too weak on defense which was complete bull**** and propaganda as we were actively expanding our nuclear arsenal.JFK sounded very conservative and war hawkish during his presidential campaign. although this picture of JFK is not really shown by the modern left, as he is one of our most remembered presidents.
