Prewar justifications: bringing democracy to the ME

According to what we were told pre-war, it is about Sarin, VX, and yellowcake.

 

50? Geez. Long wait.

 

I'll get to that in a second.

Good points. I still think they should have tried harder.

Again, I disagree strongly here. But we've been over this before.

It wasn't outsiders that recommended "more troops." It was numerous generals and admirals, top brass in the Pentagon. The conflict between them and Rummy pre-war was well reported by numerous publications back then.

You accept the idea that if Gen. Franks wanted more troops he'd ask for them and get them, and you accept this as evidence that they've got enough. I don't.

I think the fact that our boys have had such a hard time fighting, uncovering, investigating, and suppressing the insurgency is plenty enough evidence that we don't have enough men there. But if that's true, why don't they just request another 100 thousand troops? Well, maybe it's not that simple. Maybe it would be politically unpopular to to put in even more of our sons and daughters (close to election time.) Maybe it would be tantamount to admitting that we're really having a hard time there and are in over our heads trying to keep the entire country secure. Maybe it would be an even greater financial strain on an already massively expensive war. Maybe it would involve someone in the administration admitting that they were wrong to try it on the cheap.

 

1) You're probably right.
2)This is a very depressing thought. In hindsight, it really does look like the Right would follow W off a cliff if he led them with enough "resolve."

I think you're giving him way too much credit as a "visionary" here. Wolfowitz and other neocons upheld the ME domino theory before 9/11. Bush wanted regime change long before 9/11. If they succeed in transforming the ME into a land of freedom then I may have to give them credit as visionaries. But they would be visionaries not only for imagining the ME as such, but for forcing it to happen, making it happen unilaterally.

But isn't this attitude intertwined with his "leadership?" His attitude all along has been f*ck anyone that doesn't agree. This seems to be combined with, or is one and the same as his "steadfastness and resolve." What do you thik?

 

Come on. Rumsfeld is Franks' boss. If Franks wants to keep his job, he doesn't further embarrass his boss, and by implication, the President, the boss's boss, by calling for the troops Rumsfeld had said were not needed. It's not rocket science. It's how the military works. What could Franks do if he disagreed? Resign? If he were likely to resign over it, he wouldn't have gotten the position in the first place.

There were immense errors made before, during and immediately after the war and during the occupation. No one in the Bush Administration wants to admit making a mistake, taking the queue from the President's MO. No one in the Military who cares about their career is going to throw it in the dumpster in order to speak out, unless they are ready to resign, or have already resigned and/or retired.

You see what you wish to see. I suspect you don't disagree with the President's critics as much as you let on, but that would be my opinion. Just keep carrying the President's water for him. He can do no wrong. His advisors are brilliant, we are entering a Golden Age of American might and economic ascendancy... the gospel of basso.


I've got to eat lunch, assuming I can work up an appetite.



Keep D&D Civil!!

 

basso- I don't want to be pushy, but I'm curious: do you think the ends justifies the means?

 

Unfortunately, for anyone who doesn't agree, his attitude certainly looks like "f*** you."

 

Keep in mind it's not all about preserving your carreer. Being the good soldier and respecting the chain of command is a big, big deal. Powell is a perfect example. Everyone knows he disagrees a lot with the way the administration does things, but he played ball because he's a good soldier.

I do think that Bush would allow politics to play into military decisionmaking that affects the safety of the men and women he commands, and the lives of the Iraqis that they're protecting too. And yes, I know that's a very serious charge.

 

I guess this question doesn't have any meaning since you have no problem with the means.

 

What did you mean when you said Bush is not always the best advocate for his own beliefs?

 

That is sickening, and as un-American as anything I can imagine.

This is a shock, after all the criticizing of Saddam you've done for his brutality and tactics. I'm amazed to find out that you have no problem with those exact same tactics being used by the side you support.

A moral relavist, in need is a friend to the Bush administration indeed.

We've seen the American heroes of democracy, spreaders of liberty, and justice, torture, rape, wrongfully imprison, and murder, and it doesn't bother you.

This is a bizarre twist.

 

Did you get this from Fox News?

We will never know if a proper diplmatic effort would have gotten France and Germany on board (or how much they would in the end commit to the cause). We will never know since GWB did want to go that route.

BTW, Americans have also been implicated in the oil-for-food scandal.

Was this before or after GWB encourage American to pour French wine in the street? Was this before or after Rove et al leveraged the Congress and UN war votes to the max wrt midterm elections?

If you really believe that this is a black and white issue, you have have a completely prejudiced opinion.

 

Check your history. Saddam WAS allowing "unfettered access" to the weapons inspectors right up until the day that GWB pulled them out. It is not hard for me to imagine that Saddam, knowing that further obstruction would get him invaded, would allow the CIA and FBI in to verify what the weapons inspectors and subsequent invasion proved conclusively: that Iraq was free of WMDs.

Which could easily have been verified had we even attempted a diplomatic strategy. The weapons inspectors reported that Iraq's worst transgression was a lack of paperwork to document that decade old WMDs (that the US sold him) were indeed destroyed. Of course, those WMDs would be utterly useless anyway, but that doesn't seem to matter to people willing to invade a country due to paperwork errors.

Texans were involved in the oil-for-food scandal too and it wasn't too hard to convince Texans to support the war effort.

Saddam's history conclusively showed that he would do virtually anything to remain in power. Threatening the US in any way, shape, or form post-911 was the quickest way to get himself invaded and as such was the last thing he would do. This explains him falling over himself to allow weapons inspectors back into Iraq and it also explains his offer to let the CIA and FBI verify the weapons inspectors findings.

But Bush had a hard-on to invade Iraq and as such was OK accepting "intelligence" provided by an agent of a hostile government to justify said attack. What a leader.

Hopefully it will be more substantive than this stuff.