Well, I just read the Executive Summary, and scanned the rest of the text....

its long on fear-mongering and sloganeering, short on actual "strategy"

The primary thesis seems to be that "Iraq is the central front in the war on terror." Unfortunately, it fails to address what happens once the US withdraws with regard to the "foreign terrorists" who came to Iraq solely because it affords them an opportunity to attack Americans.

Does Bush really believe that by stabilizing Iraq that the US will be safer from terrorism?

I would hardly call this a leak...more of a well timed convert disclosure.

This is all a rehash and mishmash of old failed strategies. I guess W. doesn't even have the imagination to write a new document.

I suppose I should say better late than never, but shouldn't this has been part of the discussion from the beginning? I am just a plain ole librarian so I don't consider myself an expert or anything, but I just don't understand that in November 2005 (2 years after this started) we are now seeing the plan.

While I agree that if we fail Iraq will be a failed state, a haven for terrorists and a destabilizing force in the region, I can't help but be reminded that this most likely would not have been so if not for the idiots in Washington.

In other words, Bush is saying that our glorious mission is to fix the disaster that he has caused.

We would save alot of lives and billions in treasure if we impeached this incompetent liar.

I wonder if Dubya knows the meaning of the word "conflate". It ain't subliminable.

Main Entry: vic·to·ry
Pronunciation: 'vik-t(&-)rE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French victorie, from Latin victoria, from victor
1 : the overcoming of an enemy or antagonist
2 : achievement of mastery or success in a struggle or endeavor against odds or difficulties

Does W's Strategy lead to Victory?

My favorite line is, "The terrorists have identified Iraq as central to their global aspirations."

The September 11 terrorists clearly did not have Iraq as "central to their global aspirations." Only when our administration played into their hands with an attack on a (secular) Muslim country did Iraq become a focus. Even now, only al Quaeda in Mesopotamia is focused on Iraq. The bombers in Madrid and in London and in Indonesia clearly have a different focus.

And a case can be made that the United States is now an overtly terrorist state, with global aspirations based on domination of Iraq.

If Saddam or anyone like him had attacked another nation on the kinds of "evidence" used by Bush to attack Iraq, he would be tried as a war criminal.

Why are we afraid to say this about Bush, and his administration?

Main Entry: strat·e·gy
Pronunciation: -jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Etymology: Greek stratEgia generalship, from stratEgos
1 a (1) : the science and art of employing the political, economic, psychological, and military forces of a nation or group of nations to afford the maximum support to adopted policies in peace or war (2) : the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions b : a variety of or instance of the use of strategy
2 a : a careful plan or method : a clever stratagem b : the art of devising or employing plans or stratagems toward a goal
3 : an adaptation or complex of adaptations (as of behavior, metabolism, or structure) that serves or appears to serve an important function in achieving evolutionary success

Is this truly a 'Victory Strategy' or just another Victory of Slogans campaign?

I like how they point out that Iraq is the central front of the "war on terror"
That's because they made Iraq the central front when they decided to lie to the American people and invade Iraq. There were no terrorists in Iraq before the war.

I got about 7 lines into the Exec Summary and stopped when I read this:

Iraq is the central front in the global war on terror. Failure in Iraq will embolden terrorists and
expand their reach; success in Iraq will deal them a decisive and crippling blow

Success in Iraq will deal terrorists a decisive and crippling blow? 'Victory', whatever that means (avoiding a decade long civil war? Successfully having a Sunni, a Shi`ite and a Kurd in the same room at the same time?) will make all terrorists who are currently targetting US interests pack up and go home?

What sort of feeble idiot believes this stuff? How can anyone read this feelgood tripe and not see Bush for the dissembling Goebbels-esque turd he is?

And of course, this Bush masterpiece will be delivered as usual to a captive audience, in this case midshipmen at the US Naval Academy, who can hardly be expected to stomp their feet and boo...

This very day, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin is in Memphis, where he's invited any and all transplanted New Orleanians to come here him speak this evening. He'll give his perspective on the NO recovery, and answer as many questions (unscreened) from the crowd as he can...

Nagin has his faults, but what a contrast in leadership styles. Forgive me, what GWB does -- speaking only to military or rabid Republican audiences, making his entire professional life nothing more than one continuous photo op -- cannot remotely be called "leadership." This delusional fool's holding down the position of so-called "Leader of the Free World" for the next 38 months is the single greatest threat to American security and world peace.

how long will the children of the US and Britain be paying for this stupid war with their both their dollars and their lives ... ?

Here's a musical analysis of the bush "strategy":
"These Are The Ones Who Die"

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=170140

Quantitive Analysis.

(for novelty purposes only)

Mentions of:

'Oil': 6
'Freedom': 7
'Challenge': 17
'Hard work': 1
'Strategy': 44
'Mistakes': 0
'Saddam': 31 (in a document about victory?)
'Qaida': 5
'Ba'ath[ist]': 7

Also love this passage:

Increasingly robust Iraqi political institutions expose the falsity of enemy propaganda
that Iraq is “under occupation,” with decisions being made by non-Iraqis. Such
institutions also provide peaceful means for reconciliation and bridging divides.

In light of the fact that PsyOps troops are putting fake news stories into Iraqi media?

The Israelis have pretty much proven for 50+ years they won't take any crap and won't back down in the face of terrorism and aggression. Has their toughness immunized them from car bombers? Has their consistency in not bowing to terrorism made it go away? You have to push back against enemies such as these but it means more than making them die or flee at the barrel of a gun. How you deal with the causes of their violence is beyond my understanding but somebody gets paid a lot of money to think about how to do it and get it done. We could have 250,000 troops in Iraq for the next 25 years and every day of the week, 365 days of every goddamn year there would be attacks and killings inflicted on them. Given that reality WTF is "victory"? What is "winning"? I won't hold my breath waiting for the Right to define either term and how to get there, they don't know the answer.

According to NY Times, it's same-o-same-o
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/30/international/middleeast/30cnd-military.html?hp&ex=1133413200&en=b72ebc635a46d533&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The "strategy" "... must be based on conditions rather than deadlines."

They forgot to define short term, medium term and long term.

From the report:

"It is not realistic to expect a fully functioning democracy, able to defeat its enemies and peacefully reconcile generational grievances, to be in place less than three years after Saddam
was finally removed from power."

If this is true, and has been Bush's position, then he lied to the American public when we went to war. It was never positioned as a minimum three year committment.

This administration needs to be accountable to their words.

Does W's Strategy lead to Victory?

1. Declare Strategy for Victory
2. ?
3. Victory!

Underpants President.

The man is an idiot - how much more obvious can it be made that he's just the puppet and fall guy for the true Dear Leader Cheney? They just wind GWB up and turn him loose.

Given that reality WTF is "victory"?

Control forever of both Houses of Congress and/or the White House.

The war in Iraq is a proxy American civil war.

Dang! Ahem beat me to it!

Talk about insulting! The Bush "Strategy for Victory" is nothing new, with the addition of an "Appendix" - "The Eight Pillars of Victory."

Is Bush proposing to replace the Five Pillars of Islam with his own new edifice? The very language of this document is a slap in the face to Islamic believers, whether Arab, Turkish, or Persian.

Semms to me if "victory" is denying Iraq to terrorists, the just ratified constitution makes this unlikely no matter what we do over the next few years. Iraq becomes a federation of three states, one of which will be Sunni controlled. Why would the Kurds or Shia spend time, money and lives policing the Sunni triangle as long as the Sunnis are not attacking them. The Kurds did not have a problem with Zarqawi before the invasion, why bother after we leave? I must be missing something.

Our strategy for victory: Put a bullet point in front of every sentence.

That red white and blue cover page is very impressive. Nice choice of font.

My favourite line:

Unlike past wars, however, victory in Iraq will not come in the form of an enemy’s surrender, or
be signaled by a single particular event – there will be no Battleship Missouri, no
Appomattox.

What was the name again of that aircraft carrier Bush so heroically landed on claiming Mission Accomplished?

In summary, this is a very elaborate way of saying that this president will stay the course until the US Congress decides otherwise.

Is Bush proposing to replace the Five Pillars of Islam with his own new edifice?

Oh, wow. I was thinking of another bit of offensive allusion: think TE Lawrence's 'Seven Pillars Of Wisdom'. And we all know how that left the Middle East.

Does W's Strategy lead to Victory?
1. Declare Strategy for Victory
2. ?
3. Victory!

Love it, ahem! This is really the "underpants strategy."

Frankly, this thing reads like a list of old regurgitated Bush talking points. A 35-page book report written by some NSC intern on the basis of one or two of Dubya's quotes.

Our strategy for victory: Put a bullet point in front of every sentence.

As opposed to bulletproofing every Humvee.

Why is it so long? The same points are made over and over again. This is a truly bizarre document. I can't believe this represents a 'strategy' or even thought about a strategy. What it really represents is this administration's commitment to the belief that saying makes it so.

"The enemy is a combination of rejectionists..."

What is a rejectionist exactly? We talking anyone who resists the chimperor's will here or what?

I love the "Failure is not Option" points. All of them situations created by the Bush Administration's prosecution of the War in Iraq. We can't fail because we effed things up, don't you know.

"Iraq National Strategy" Report

Per tweetie, et al 'this is the big one', this is the speech on Iraq

So why is he making it at 10am on a work day?
Why isn't he making his 'address to the nation' during primetime so the 'nation' can watch ?

steve duncan - wonderful point about Israel !

This is a truly bizarre document.

It reminds me of a prospectus from a dot-com company, with 'profit' changed to 'victory'.

Truly, it's jarbage. Marketese, bullet-points, powerpointesque.

I, too, am stunned and floored at the complete dearth of metrics, specifics, and variables that need to be defined, explained, and measured, respectively. This is a 30-something page stump speech to the troops.

How can they expect ANYONE to take this seriously, having admitted no mistakes and having nothing concrete about success? What little faith I had that we could succeed is now gone.

Scanned the entire document...I think it's certainly an improvement over past "stay the course" iterations.

The problem continues to be however, that the administration remains reliant on proces in the absence of foundation. How do we get from A to B on any number of these objectives. More importantly, can we get from A to B (I would argue we can't). It's not enought to outline a course when the underlying elements don't sign on to it (e.g. the European Constitutional Treaty).

Once again the President has fallen short. While you can fool some people some of the time, you can't fool everyone all of the time.

Seymour Hersh pretty much previewed Bush’s speech in the current issue of The New Yorker (“Where Is Iraq War Headed Next?”). Hersh says that despite the public calls for troop withdrawal, Pentagon officials see “scant indication that the president will authorize a significant pullout.”

According to Hersh, Bush plans to hang tough in Iraq because he feels he has a double mandate for doing so. First, Bush’s “closest advisers” told Hersh about the “religious nature of [Bush’s] policy commitments” in Iraq. The president believes “God put me here” and endorses his war effort. Secondly, Bush thinks his Iraq policy was “fortified” by his re-election and the Republican sweep in the last congressional elections.

Bush’s strategy now is to calibrate a gradual redeployment of American ground forces with stepped up air support for Iraqi ground troops. The danger, according to Hersh and military officers, is that Shiites on the ground will call in American air strikes against their personal enemies, and that civilian casualties will mount.

I believe, folks, that the biggest winners of this war are going to be the terrorists. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups couldn’t have hoped in their wildest dreams of having this foolish American president as their chief recruiting officer!

The best comment I've heard on this so far was that it reads like a Grad Student's Thesis for a Political Science degree.

'Nuff Said.

the Bush-Iraq exit strategy will happen in 2008 when Bush leaves the whitehouse, then it will be someone's elses troubles. why is it so hard to see.

Meanwhile what are the troops saying?

As is inevitable whenever Bushidiot says ANYTHING about Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, blah-blah, he must throw in a gratuitous mention of 9/11. It is axiomatic and unless he is droning on about economic fantasies, he will be driven to mention 9/11 in a feeble attempt to recapture his (false) mojo from his bullhorn (stop the rescue effort!) blathering atop the WTC rubble.
Honestly, my wife and I are physically unable to listen to a word he says. The INSTANT his mug appears on TV or his voice comes on the radio, "click", it's off to another station. His voice and mannerisms deeply grate upon our very bones. His voice saying "9/11" enrages and sickens me at the same time, leaving me wanting to howl in anger AND vomit.

Question Steve: Why isn't Fallows on TV more? I've read his latest article in the Atlantic Monthly. I've heard reporters and commentators refer to it. But I don't see Fallows on TV as much as he needs to be (except for his appearance in Cspan) Is it because he's to balanced? or what's the reason?

Reminds me of a take-off on the popular cartoon flow-chart

War -> Miracle occurs here -> Victory

-Don-

I can't believe the members of this administration that represent our finest instituions of learning couldn't tell beforehand that Iraq would pose a major challenge. No country likes to be occupied, let alone by the U.S.

We should leave Iraq and pay its people to rebuild it.

Praedor, my daughter says, though, that Bush’s English has improved since the Afghanistan war. He doesn’t warn you anymore not to “misunderestimate” him, and so forth. My wife knows how he accomplished this: He listens to Hamid Karzai when Karzai speaks English!

OT, sorry: Billmon, you there? Note Lincoln Group in the news today. Sent you an email on same.

Nice looking PDF, but absolutely void of any new information. This is a compilation and regurgitaion of all the flowering rhetoric, rosy prognistications, hollow promises, and vapid sloganeering the Bush government has spewed out over the last three years.

All the flawed thinking, deceptive and manipulative misrepresentation of factbasedrealities and events in the field, - all the heaping of blame on someone, or something else, the deceptive conflating of the neverendingwaronterror and the war in Iraq, - and all the pretty patriotic plattidudes, hollow promises, and visionary prognostications remain unchanged, and wildly detached, or disconnected from reality and the truth.

The Bush government's ruthless betrayal of the public trust and disinformation warfare campaign continues unchanged and unabated.

jdj
I agree with you. I was seduced into thinking the resident was going to say something new since his ratings are so low and he needs to rehabilitate his image. How did you like the electronically pumped-in applause? Still, it's a far cry from the cheers he got two years ago. His claque is reduced to O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter and their ilk.

Haven't read it but from the comments above it says nothing new. It will be forgotten by Monday.

Now if Rumsfeld was fired that would wake people up and take notice.

Of course what Dubya said is rehash, but he has reason to make a new meal from leftovers.
As the past 5 years indicate, a large voting segment of our population will believe almost anything if it is tirelessly repeated enough times, despite the truth content.
As long as Dubya remains CHRISTy, standing against abortion, stem cells and homosexuals, this segment of society could care less what countries get sodomized in the process, including the U.S.
diagram

Pass the K-Y.

Well -- the Today show apparently thought it would be informative to have Bill O'Reilly preview the president's remarks. Of course the old blowhard said he was not even going to listen.

Maybe they can get actual journalists like Hersh and Fallows to do a post-mortem tomorrow.

I have wondered as well why Fallows is not seen more -- but he's actually busy creating the historical record that's going to convict this administration of misrepresentation or incompetence or both. So I'm not complaining too much.

Fallows writes well but doesn't have a clue about Middle Eastern societies.

The story I read is that this "document" was hurriedly put together in the last couple of days. It was NOT written in 2003.

It reminds me of a prospectus from a dot-com company, with 'profit' changed to 'victory'. Truly, it's jarbage. Marketese, bullet-points, powerpointesque.

Duh! It's been written by defense contractors.

-- remember who wrote Bush's energy policy?

OK, everyone: what's your favourite line?

A few candidates:

a) Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq

b) Victory Defined
-- or perhaps this wonderful clarification on the next page:
Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages

c) Victory Will Take Time

d) The Enemy is Diffuse and Sophisticated

e) The terrorists have identified Iraq as central to their global aspirations

f) Increasingly robust Iraqi political institutions expose the falsity of enemy propaganda that Iraq is “under occupation,” with decisions being made by non-Iraqis. Such institutions also provide peaceful means for reconciliation and bridging divides.

- - -

Kubrick would have been proud of putting this tract on Buck Turgidson's nightstand.

Gen "Buck" Turgidson: Weh-heh-heh-ll, the Air Force never sleeps.

Miss Scott: Buck, honey, I'm not sleepy either...

Turgidson: I know how it is, baby. Tell you what you do: you just start your countdown, and old Bucky'll be back here before you can say "Blast off!"

I can't wait to read what POA has to say about this. It's just another Bush photo-op with his "captured" military personnel for a background.

(Nothing new here, move along).

Note to POA: Sir, I agree with almost everything you have to say, I just can't say it as well as you.

Peace.

Fallows is not and does not claim to be a ME scholar -- he is an expert on the military, national defense and national security.

Maybe it's the acid flashback talking, but W's speech was positively Nixon-esque. With each tortured line I half expected to hear the phrases "domino theory" and "peace with honor" come tumbling out of his smirking puss.

Just read the Executive Summary, with its amateurish copyediting....

Exactly why would defeating the terrorists in this "Central Front" (an oxymoron almost too stupid to comment on) deal terrorists a "crippling blow"?

It's all rhetoric and no logic.

don't have much time but would just like to add:

what a bunch of negatons ... more liberal circle-jerking .., yawn

to Steinhardt:
what is it about "Central Front" that is oxymoronic?

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/central

Main Entry: 1cen·tral
Pronunciation: 'sen-tr&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin centralis, from centrum center
1 : containing or constituting a center
2 : of cardinal importance : ESSENTIAL, PRINCIPAL <the central character of the novel.

Your comment is "almost too stupid to comment on" ... what arrogance ... pathetic

Bush delivers a slightly new take on an old approach:

'Make the pile higher'

Dumbya's latest speech on victory in Eye-rack went over about as well as taking a big, stinking shit in the livingroom. Like taking a dump, Chimpy just pulls stuff out of his ass and tries to explain it. Which is hard for a moron who can't string together three words to form a sentence.

There's a reason he gave it at 9:45 AM, they didn't want anyone to watch it! The more exposure it got the worse the response would be.

By the way, where was Chemical Cheney? Hiding in an "undisclosed location?"

No troop withdrawl, no plan, just "strategy." Same garbage in a new fancy cover. Commander Empty Flight Suit will "stay the course."

Really pathetic.

Re: James Fallows ... Atlantic Monthly opening line is generous: "When Saddam Hussein fell, the Iraqi people gained freedom."

Which freedom did they gain? Freedom from want, or of speech, or of religion, or from fear?

As used by the President, freedom's just another word.

The stratgey outline released today is not new because it is the same strategy that has been in place for more than a year - yet critcs keep saying there is no strategy. Which is it?

Bush is right, Iraq is the centeral front of the war on terror. It is the central front becauase Iraq is Bin Ladin's ultimate goal, but ultimately it is the worst place in the middle east for the terrorists to wage war. Being able to choose the battlefield is half the victory. We did it to the Nazis in World War II and the Soviets did it to us in the Cold War (in Vietnam in Korea.... See also Marathon, Salamis, Lake Trasimene, Tuteburg Forest, Hattin, Agincourt, D-Day as other examples of the importance in choosing a battlefield).

A common argument is that we should have stuck with Afghanistan... pour troops into there to defeat Al Qaeda. Yet, hstory tells us that fighting in Afghanistan is a losing proposition. It is now clear from information obtained from the capture of Khalid that Osama wanted the United States to attack him in Afghanistan. A war there would attract all the jihadis from around the arab world and Osama needed another major victory to increase his stature so he could recruit enough followers to achieve his ultimate goal which was rule over parts of or all of the arab world. He needed us to come to Afghanistan because he had beaten the Russians there. Osama was trying to choose the battlefield. The Russians learned quickly that Afghanistan is a terrible battlefield for a modern industrialized army. It is rugged, mountaneous, and full of hiding places. Second it has no sea water port. We could never field a signifcant army in Afghanistan without either having a port or a reliable neighbor. Afghanistan is bordered by Russia, Iran, China, Uzbekistan, etc... none are reliable neighbors. Further, we have no reliable indigenous Afghan allies. We were not friendly with any of the tribes in Afghanistan prior to Sept 11 (i.e. Tajiks or Uzbecks or Pashtuns) These ethnic groups have a long history of being on any side that is convenient. Finally, the Afghan people do not have the wealth to sustain a fight against Islamic fascism. Afghanistan is an impovershed country with no natural resources. American forces would have to stay in Afghainstan for decades to keep the terror camps from being rebuilt.

In contrast, Iraq has everything Afghainstan does not. It does not have the reputation of Afghanistan (the graveyard of armies). It is mostly desert and plains and urban - perfect conditions for the modern army. It has a sea port and is bordered by more reliable allies (Kuwait). We also have a long and friendly relationship with the Kurds, an indigenous Iraqi ethnic group. George W. Bush is the most popular foreign person in Kurdistan (and for good reason). Finally, Iraq has an extended middle class with lots of natural resources. This is probably the most important point about Iraq. It means that we can eventually leave Iraq to allow Iraqis to finish the war on Terror. Further, the Iraq war has drained all the jihadi manpower from the war in Afghanistan. Thus, the war in Iraq allows us to achieve victory in Afghanistan because Al Qaeda puts no resources into Afghanistan and the proximity of Iraq attracts all the Jihadists and all the MONEY (who would have gone to Afghanistan).

Any strategic planning for the war on Terror would have to have considered where to wage the war.... and Iraq was by far the best and most obvious place.

At least the State Dept people in Iraq are opening up to the Iranians and the Sunnis. That much is a good sign. Maybe they are allowing Bush to publicly bluster to cover their behind the scenes diplomacy. We need to negotiate our way out of Iraq with a political settlement, backed by threat of force if necessary. Active use of military force will not get us out of Iraq. There is no military solution. That applies to any Iraqi government as well as Americans.

The war in Iraq is a proxy American civil war.

9-11-01 -- The Day the American Government declared war on America.

Iraq=Dien Ben Phu(spelling?)

Well, I must correct my earlier remarks... realizing that I had not paid attention to what has been going on in La'merica..

Bush has come very close to ruining this country, if not having already done it... and dupes like myself have a part of this by not taking the time and effort to learn what is going on...

I apologise

Iraq's invasion was part of the old cold war plans. We had no atheist soviet presence to hedge against, so the 'welcomed presence' meme fell on its face.

The cold war was going to see a conventional rush for oil in the mideast, we acted on those dead plans, including the language and staging. There was never an 'occupation' plan in the campaign, because it was assumed we were welcomed and would be supported by Iraq against the Cold War foes and could simply stage from there into Russia and the Various oil-stans.

The plan was obsolete, a Maginot line, like the trench warfare we trained Saddam to use against Iran(with our chem and satellite logistic help).

As noted, military response simply inflames and inspires continued animosity , as Israel/Sharon is proof of.

Pelosi rep[ly to Bush speech:
"A few weeks ago they were saying we'd be there another TEN YEARS."

"So I thank Rep. Murtha for changing that fact..."

"He said 'They'll be home soon one way or another'..."

“Fallows is not and does not claim to be a ME scholar -- he is an expert on the military, national defense and national security.”
Posted by: AJ.

AJ, I didn’t mean to criticize James Fallows. I admire his extensive research and the richness of his narratives. He is indeed a top expert in military and security fields. What I meant to say was that Iraq’s is not essentially a military or security problem. It’s a sociopolitical chimera, which needs to be understood and tackled from its local societal vantage-points. I had read Fallows’ “Why Iraq Has No Army,” which is devoted entirely to a discussion of military and security tools, strategies and training; language skills; budgets; etc. And he concludes: “America’s hopes today for an orderly exit from Iraq depend completely on the emergence of a viable Iraqi security force.” He assumes that Iraq is a “nation” like America or France, which, with proper investment and security planning, can be provided with “a viable Iraqi security force.” The problem is that there are really no “Iraqis” in Iraq: There are only Sunni Arabs, Shiite Arabs and mostly Sunni Kurds. Unless the three main ethnic and sectarian groups first agree to a “national” covenant, all that Americans can do, in the name of building “national” security forces, is arm the Shiites and Kurds so they can engage Sunni Arabs in a real civil war. Fallows doesn’t touch on the social and ethnic issues, which really underlie the Iraqi tragedy today. Neither does, sadly, the administration or most of its critics in Congress and media. Iraq strategists, including Fallows, apparently are hung up on numbers and see Sunni Arabs as only a fifth of the Iraqi population who they think can be subdued by the remaining four-fifths, if only armed properly and given an electoral mandate. They fail to realize that Iraq’s four Sunni Arab-majority provinces have been the bastion of military, economic and political power of what is now Iraq since the territory was conquered by the Ottomans in 1534, and that the election of a Shiite-Kurdish-majority parliament wouldn’t change that reality or produce stability in Iraq. For one thing, elections in most tribal societies don’t produce legitimate authority, which remains with tribal and sectarian leadership. We see it in the voting and fighting patterns in Iraq.

Have you seen the photo of the Midshipmen waiting for Bush? While technically taken before Bush arrived, I think it's a good commentary on how many of us felt.

I pity you who know in your hearts that you want this nation and the war efforts to fail for sake of party preference and hatred for President Bush. I really do.

It sure is a historical document. A skimpy tract of paranoid PNAC/GWOT lunacy, distilled down to a very handy 30-odd pages. (Historians love that.) It might well serve as the tombstome of the PNAC doctrine and the entire neo-conservative project.

What was it that Herman Kahn wrote some 45 years ago under the heading Will the Survivors envy the dead? in On Thermonuclear War?

We can imagine a renewed vigor among the population with a zealous, almost religious dedication to reconstruction.

Ahh.. the mindset of an ideologue. Isn't it fascinating. Facts? C'mon. Meet a belief system.

But the endgame is always the same: they unfailingly, happily dig their own graves -- and even erect their own tombstones.

>

Actually, a united Arab state is Bin Ladin's ultimate goal.

>

Hmmm then why were we Hussein's allies while he was gassing them in droves?

Grrr... stupid html...

"It is the central front becauase Iraq is Bin Ladin's ultimate goal"

Actually, a united Arab state is Bin Ladin's ultimate goal.

"We also have a long and friendly relationship with the Kurds, an indigenous Iraqi ethnic group."

Hmmm then why were we Hussein's allies while he was gassing them in droves?

Ernestine!!! Ernestine Clemons!!! You get back in here and pluck these chickens... and stay off that durn computer-thingy

“Hmmm then why were we Hussein's allies while he was gassing them in droves?”
Posted by: kara

Because Hussein was then fighting Iran, which we hated; and prior to that, in 1975, Henry Kissinger struck a deal with Hussein, which gave Hussein the go-ahead to suppress the Kurdish uprising (and also resolved a border dispute between Iraq and Iran).

Mustafa - exactly; my point is that, no, we certainly do not have a long friendly relationship with the Kurds.

We coddled Saddam in the cold war to keep him from going to the Soviets. It was a good strategy at the time.

People forget how dangerous international communism was. It was a totalitarian ideology that created misery for millions, which threatened our existence. We stopped this ideology from spreading in Korea and Vietnam, and finally with Ronald Reagan.

Bin Ladin's Islamic terrorism is just another form of tyrannical human misery. Bush is taking it on, he is fighting them in Iraq militarilly with guns and politically by changing the nature of the Iraq state to a government that cares about its own people.

Democrats will be thankful to Bush in the future for guiding them through their temporary lapse of reason and judgment.

Kara, you're right. America and Britain have used and betrayed the Kurds over and over since the 1920s. The last great American betrayal of the Kurds occurred in the 1970s. Kissinger first instigated the Kurds into a rebellion to punish the Iraqi regime, which was feuding with the Shah, an American client, over a boundary issue. Kissinger finally helped Iraq and Iran resolve their border dispute, and told the Iraqis that America would have no problem if they settled their problems with the Kurds by force and "restore Iraq's national integrity." In 1975 when the Baghdad regime cracked down on the Kurds, Kurdish leader Mulla Mustafa Barzani didn't know about Kissinger's somersault and flew in to Washington to see his old friend, Kissinger. Kissingeer refused to see him!

speaking of pix...

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/POLITICS/11/30/us.iraq/top.bush09.vicplan.ap.jpg

just about all the pics on Yahoo have "approved by the White House" on them. (For instance, every close-up shot of Bush is when he is "pausing" with his mouth shut) This cnn pic gives you a better idea of the Potemkim Village nature of the presentation...

Awesome! This document works like a kaleidoscope: with each twist and turn, another shimmering pile of junk comes to light.

I suggest the following: put it away for a moment. Take a break. When you're ready, come back, start reading somewhere else. Shake it gently - you know, like a plum tree in late summer.

Priceless.

The Kurds also greatly contributed along side the Ottomans to the Armenian massacre in the early 1900s... that is history.

America and Britain have been protecting the Kurds from Saddam since the no fly zones were put into place in teh 1990s. Kurdistan has propsered under this protection. They are true allies, and welcome our presence as they did in Kuwait.

Contrast this to the Afghan ethnic groups - we had no such relationship with the Northern Alliance.

America began "protecting" the Kurds only after the neocons decided to create a de-facto Kurdish state, which Israel can use, if need be, as a launchuing pad for missions against Iran or Arab states. Most of the 60,000-strong Kurdish Peshmerga gurrilla force was trained by Israeli instructors during the 12 "no-fly zone" years. The only reason the Iraqi Kurds have been barred from declaring independence is that such a step would rupture Turkey's relations with Israel and the United States.

I'm always amused from the wild eyed predictions of gloom and doom from our leftwing moonbats.
There's no limit to the conspiracy theories and related nonsense. You people need serious medication and a kick in the a**

"Ozymandias W. Bush"

Talk about callin' like ya see 'em. Awesome.

Shrub, the President of Presidents. Or, the MetaIdiot.

Here is why Bush's plan won't work.

There are two mentions of Iran in the document -- both times paired with Syria, and both references are highly critical...

Iran and Syria have failed to provide support to Iraq’s new government and have in many ways actively undermined it.

and

Neutralizing the actions of countries like Syria and Iran, which provide comfort and/or
support to terrorists and the enemies of democracy in Iraq;

now, first off, its false that Iran has "failed to provide support to Iraq's new government." Indeed, one of the things that most bothers right-wingers is the closeness of the current government to Iran.

But more importantly, Bush's approach to the problems presented by Syria and Iran is all stick and no carrot. Bush still sees his Iraq policy as part of a much larger strategy in which the current systems of government in Syria and Iran are overthrown -- and if there is one way to ensure that Syria and Iran continue to make like difficult for the US in Iraq, its by making it clear that they are next on Bush's agenda if Iraq is stabilized.

I've read Sloanosaurus's comments with considerable amusement. It's amazing how much verbiage comes out of so little knowledge:

>Bush is right, Iraq is the centeral(Sic) front of the war on terror. It is the central front becauase Iraq is Bin Ladin's(sic) ultimate goal,

Uhm. Actually no. That's about as sensible as saying plaid is Bin Laden's ultimate goal. Osama Bin Laden's vision was of a renewed orthodox caliphate uniting the Muslim world. That's his ultimate vision. His next to ultimate vision was probably Mecca and overthrowing Saudi Arabia. I don't see as how Iraq was anywhere significant in his agenda. In particular, I don't see Bin Laden successfuly plotting to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

>but ultimately it is the worst place in the middle east for the terrorists to wage war.

Right now, seems like the best place in the middle east for terrorists to be created, trained and sent off to blow people up in the rest of the world.

>Being able to choose the battlefield is half the victory. We did it to the Nazis in World War II

Europe? What fresh nonsense is this?

> and the Soviets did it to us in the Cold War (in Vietnam in Korea.... See also Marathon, Salamis, Lake Trasimene, Tuteburg Forest, Hattin, Agincourt, D-Day as other examples of the importance in choosing a battlefield).

I gotta say that the Soviets were not involved in Marathon. But organized thinking is hardly Sloan's long suit. He's managed to take a fairly uncontroversial point and render it almost completely incoherent. Good trick.

Perhaps some explanation as to why Iraq is a good place might be germaine?

Our boy has a fatal misunderstanding of the nature of insurgencies, resistance movements and terrorism. In particular, I think he's expecting Al Quaeda to operate and function just like the US Army, with equivalent toys like tanks, missiles and jet planes. Sorry, it don't work like that.

>A common argument is that we should have stuck with Afghanistan... pour troops into there to defeat Al Qaeda.

Or at least, pour troops into Tora Bora so that Bin Laden could have been captured?

>Yet, hstory (sic) tells us that fighting in Afghanistan is a losing proposition. It is now clear from information obtained from the capture of Khalid that Osama wanted the United States to attack him in Afghanistan.

Well, strictly speaking, that's what Osama wanted. He wanted a superpower occupying a Muslim country in order to rally the faithful, just like in the days of the Soviet occupation. He got a twofer instead. I'd call that a victory for Osama.

>A war there would attract all the jihadis from around the arab world

Whereas, its Iraq that is inspiring Jihadi's all over the world.

>and Osama needed another major victory to increase his stature so he could recruit enough followers

According to the CIA, Al Quaeda is bigger, better and badder than ever before, with pretty much a world wide strike capability... as Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia, England, Spain, France, etc. etc. have found out.

>to achieve his ultimate goal which was rule over parts of or all of the arab world.

I thought his ultimate goal, according to Sloan, was to rule Iraq. Oh well, my bad.

>He needed us to come to Afghanistan because he had beaten the Russians there. Osama was trying to choose the battlefield. The Russians learned quickly that Afghanistan is a terrible battlefield for a modern industrialized army. It is rugged, mountaneous, and full of hiding places. Second it has no sea water port. We could never field a signifcant army in Afghanistan without either having a port or a reliable neighbor. Afghanistan is bordered by Russia, Iran, China, Uzbekistan, etc... none are reliable neighbors. Further, we have no reliable indigenous Afghan allies. We were not friendly with any of the tribes in Afghanistan prior to Sept 11 (i.e. Tajiks or Uzbecks or Pashtuns) These ethnic groups have a long history of being on any side that is convenient. Finally, the Afghan people do not have the wealth to sustain a fight against Islamic fascism. Afghanistan is an impovershed country with no natural resources. American forces would have to stay in Afghainstan for decades to keep the terror camps from being rebuilt.

Wow. That's an excellent summary of why the American project in Afghanistan is failing!!!

>In contrast, Iraq has everything Afghainstan does not. It does not have the reputation of Afghanistan (the graveyard of armies). It is mostly desert and plains and urban - perfect conditions for the modern army. It has a sea port and is bordered by more reliable allies (Kuwait).

And you know, if Osama ever fields tank divisions, that's going to make a big difference. But he's not.

What America has in Iraq is millions of people who hate America, and hundreds of thousands of roadside bombs, snipers and very smart people who want you dead because you are raping their country.

>We also have a long and friendly relationship with the Kurds,

When you aren't actively betraying them.

>an indigenous Iraqi ethnic group.

And an indigenous Syrian Ethnic Group, indigenous Turkish Ethnic Group, indigenous Iranian Ethnic Group...

>George W. Bush is the most popular foreign person in Kurdistan (and for good reason).

They love monkeys.

>Finally, Iraq has an extended middle class with lots of natural resources.

Both of which America is in the process of robbing blind.

>This is probably the most important point about Iraq. It means that we can eventually leave Iraq to allow Iraqis to finish the war on Terror.

I think Sloan here confuses the worldwide war on terror, which is being carried out with all the skill and finesse of a drunk drowning in a bathtub, with the campaign against the Iraqi insurgency, which is being carried out with all the skill and finesse of a drunk drowning in a bathtub.

>Further, the Iraq war has drained all the jihadi manpower from the war in Afghanistan.

Hmmm. How then do we explain that the US or pro-US forces control only a few cities and towns, at least 30% of the country is in the hands of the Taliban, and the rest seems ruled by various heroin growing warlords producing the worlds largest Narco-state?

How do we explain that less than 10%, and likely less than 5% of Iraqi insurgents are foreigners. Weed out the border tribes, and the proportion of real foreigners goes down even further in Iraq?

And how do we explain bombings in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, France, England, Indonesia, Spain, etc. etc., as well as Muslim fundamentalist insurgencies in Phillipines, Central Asia, North Africa, etc.?

Jihadism seems alive and well and better than ever before. Certainly Al Quaeda is doing well as an international concern outside Iraq.

>Thus, the war in Iraq allows us to achieve victory in Afghanistan because Al Qaeda puts no resources into Afghanistan and

Wow, that would be so impressive, except of course, for the fact that Afghanistan is failing because the US is putting no resources into it, and putting all its resources into Iraq.

>the proximity of Iraq attracts all the Jihadists and all the MONEY (who would have gone to Afghanistan).

See previous comments.

>Any strategic planning for the war on Terror would have to have considered where to wage the war....

I'm pretty sure that we can say that no strategic planning went on...

>and Iraq was by far the best and most obvious place.

Well, if the object was to give Osama his victory, yeah.

"In contrast, Iraq has everything Afghainstan does not. It does not have the reputation of Afghanistan (the graveyard of armies). It is mostly desert and plains and urban - perfect conditions for the modern army. It has a sea port and is bordered by more reliable allies (Kuwait)."

Or: "Although I dropped my wallet over there, I am going to look for it over here, which is several feet away, because the light is better over here."

Why not fight them in Kansas or Oklahoma then?
Obviously Iraq is not the ideal location for the war. Either of those two states would have been better.

A final observation. I think that the record is pretty clear that Saddam Hussein was not affiliated with Al Quaeda or Islamic fundamentalism. Iraq was a secular state, and not involved in the war on terror.

Invading Iraq to turn it into a battleground for Islamic Fundamentalists is therefore equivalent to invading a neutral country to turn it into a battleground for war with another country.

Or, it would be just like Hitler invading Belgium, to use it as a battleground to attack France.

Remember, Sloan said it. I didn't.

I was reading about Bush's speech at CBS News online. I thought it plausible untill I read about how the Iraqi Army and Police now field 120 battalions in the struggle against the insurgency. And that 40 of these battalions "are taking the lead in the fight"! You recall the last evaluation by the US military was that the Iraqi Army had exactly one battalion capable of operating on its own. Now if you believe Bush, it has 40! (If you do believe Bush, BTW, I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in buying!) This 40 battalion nonsense destroyed the plausibility of Bush's speech.

If you read the speech carefully, it is an example of doublespeak at its finest. While it rejects the idea of a withdraw "timetable", it makes clear that we are going to withdraw a goodly number of troops from Iraq before the Congressional Elections, a year from now. And the troops we do keep in Iraq are going to be withdrawn to fortified bases where their casualities will hopefully be kept as few as possible at least until after the 2006 Elections!
The best analysis about Bush's "strategy" I have read is at http://www.liberalsagainstterrorism.com/drupal particuarly the posts "The President and his Labyrinth", "Cue Sunset" & "Return of the Death Squads".
Another bitting analysis is an article by one of the world's leading military historians, Martin Van Crevald in the Jewish Daily Forward, entittled "Costly Withdrawl is the Price to be Paid for a Foolish War" and can be found at http://www.forward.com/articles/6936

What constitutes "Victory" in Iraq?

Davis X. Machina in his comment above has it right:

It's Republican political domination in the U.S. first and foremost.

And guess what? They have it, at least for now (and for a very long time in the federal judiciary, don't forget, all the way to the Supreme Court). Any secondary and, frankly, much less important war objectives like the neocon PNAC pipe-dream for the Middle East are likely unachievable, but I think the Republican power-wielders (most of them, anyway) probably knew that going in. Just like they knew that the WMD and all the rest was almost entirely bullshit. Didn't matter.

Even what's actually happened in poor, war-torn Iraq has been largely irrelevant to the main goal, though that's probably changed for the 2006 and 2008 elections.

Elective war based on lies, exaggerations, and blatant fear-mongering for the primary purpose of domestic political power? Sound way too cynical? Goddamn it, it's absolutely true! Been obvious to me, anyway, a nobody grinding away out here in the Goldwater/McCain/Hayworth hinterlands, from the start (which, you may recall, was even before Andy Card's "product rollout" in September, 2002).

9/11 and the Iraq War have allowed Bush to be the "war president" he so desperately needs to be, and that actually worked out incredibly well for Republicans in the past two national elections.

In fact, without the whole disengenuously-conflated "War on Terror" (aka "hitting the trifecta") they got nuthin' (ok -- tax cuts and faggots, but believe me, even both of those together wasn't enough). That's why Dear Leader's still flogging it, in speech after stultifying speech.

To Bush himself (humble man of God that he is) and to many of his supporters he's the Churchill of today. To most of us reading here that notion is ridiculously absurd, but it's been key to continuing Republican success for the past four years. Yes, I know, it's been given legs by our largely conservative, even jingoistic, media (we're talking opinion leaders here -- don't give me that silly canard about "80% of reporters vote Democrat"; there's precious little mass media editorializing that's remotely "liberal" or even particularly critical of conservative ideas and practices). Topic for another time, though...

And now that things are going south in the Iraq War (meaning the poll numbers for Bush -- the war itself was doomed to a bad outcome from the start), the Republicans need to implement a new strategy in an attempt to preserve the only "victory" that mattered.

I don't think they necessarily hope to turn back public opinion on Bush and the Iraq War to, say, 2004 levels (well, the "boy in the bubble" probably hopes that, but that's why he's the "boy in the bubble"). Keeping them from going much lower (maybe even creating a slight uptick) is perhaps important, but what's truly vital is seriously prepping the ground for "The Stab In The Back" (original German term escapes me).

This has always been part of the pro-war, anti-dissent message ("fifth columnists" and all that), but now that the Iraq "bug-out" or "cut-and-run" or whatever appears inevitable, and possibly just over the horizon, it's crucial that the horrendous mess we've made in Iraq be blamed on someone besides Bush and the Republicans. That someone, obviously, is House and Senate Democrats. No matter how cravenly kow-towing the Liebermans, Hilary Clintons, or Joe Bidens are, the Republican message will be that it's the Democrats who are losing (or have lost) the Iraq War. Look for this to be the primary 2006 and 2008 message.

With the contemporary American electorate it just might work. Clever bastards, aren't they?

from (the real) bertignac, not the imposter
(ps: kudos to sloanasaurus)

somebody is using my tag:
I DO NOT POST THIS KIND OF DRIVEL:

"Well, I must correct my earlier remarks... realizing that I had not paid attention to what has been going on in La'merica..

Bush has come very close to ruining this country, if not having already done it... and dupes like myself have a part of this by not taking the time and effort to learn what is going on...

I apologise

to Den Valdron:

you lower the level of discussion with remarks like this ... what wit! ... not a whit of it ...

>George W. Bush is the most popular foreign person in Kurdistan (and for good reason).

"They love monkeys."

You're blow by blow rebuttal makes no sense ...

to Arizona Bob:

"Yes, I know, it's been given legs by our largely conservative, even jingoistic, media (we're talking opinion leaders here -- don't give me that silly canard about "80% of reporters vote Democrat"; there's precious little mass media editorializing that's remotely "liberal" or even particularly critical of conservative ideas and practices). Topic for another time, though..."

Are you serious? You can't possibly be. Have you ever read the New York Times, LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Boston Globe, Harpers, New Yorker, Washington Post? Maybe you are confusing the Bisbee Gazette with the major league US media.

I pity you who know in your hearts that you want this nation and the war efforts to fail for sake of party preference and hatred for President Bush. I really do.

Is that anything like the pity I feel for people who put their political party and it's vainglorious and venal representatives above the good of the country, and couldn't care less how many innocent people die in an illegal vanity war solely for the benefit of warmongers and profiteers? That kind of pity? Or the pity for those who just can't think for themselves enough to realize they are being lied to by a bunch of crooks?

Lighten up Berti. Sloanadikus pollutes the noosphere with the most half baked drivel, and you take objection to a lighthearted little poke? Pish tush, you got no sense of humour.

And by the way, the Kurds are very fond of monkeys.

Bush has come very close to ruining this country, if not having already done it... and dupes like myself have a part of this by not taking the time and effort to learn what is going on...

I apologise
Posted by bertignac

Oh say it's not so, Bertignac! This can't be you.
It must be a forgery. First there is the comment
about "ruining this country". When last I heard,
you lived in France. We can blame Bush for lots
of things, but ruining France is not one of them.
So unless you've moved back to the US (and you didn't
even tell me), I will assume that this is a
forgery. A die hard Bush supporter like yourself
just couldn't, couldn't write the words above!
I mean sure those Tory Bastards at the Economist
abandoned Bush before the 2004 election, but
they were never true believers. What would
be next, Robert Morrow posting that he too agrees
that Bush has been a disaster? Oh the shattering
of my world view! Will nothing remain constant
and reliable?

Ian

Democrats will be thankful to Bush in the future for guiding them through their temporary lapse of reason and judgment.

Let's see...
Irresponsible tax cuts on top of an already mind-boggling deficit, spawning further deficits as far as people care to project them.
An illegal, and ill-advised, war, fought on the cheap, run by people who are making McNamara look like Napoleon.
Torture, on a scale that none of us can probably comprehend at this point.
Destroyed foreign relations (and that just counts the people who like us).
Corruption, corruption, corruption. Where did that Iraq reconstruction money go anyway?
Oh, and throw in blowing a covert agent's cover, and that of a CIA front company, that actually does have something to do with WMD.

The only lapse in reason or judgment by Dems that I can see was going along with this two-bit tyrant and his pack of thieves.

What are the large, respectable newspapers that are pro-torture, pro-Iraq war, pro-US hegemony, pro-secret detention camps, pro--ending habeas corpus, pro---drilling holes in heads of prisoners, pro---disobeying rule of law (refusing court orders to release Abu Ghraib videos, e.g.), pro---Abramoff and Delay, pro---Bush's failed North Korea policy, to name just a few of the myriad failures, embarrassements and horrors of the Bush administration?

If there are any, they are in the US.
The WSJ certainly is one; the only other candidate I can think of is the Washington Post, which Berti unfairly groups with the "liberal" press. The WaPo has been second only to the WSJ (if that) in cheerleading Bush's war.

“I can think of is the Washington Post, which Berti unfairly groups with the "liberal" press. The WaPo has been second only to the WSJ (if that) in cheerleading Bush's war.”

Posted by: marky

Marky, The Post, as you would know, used to be quite a progressive newspaper 25-30 years ago. I began to observe its rightward shift in the early 1980s, when I was told that it was just responding to the The Washington Times (not much of a newspaper), which was luring conservative readers. But since the end of the Cold War I have been noticing its increasingly conservative tone in the editorial and op-ed pages, and less dramatically in the news section. Form my conversations with folks there I realize that many of them are convinced that the collapse of the Soviet Union has proved that American-style democracy is mankind’s ultimate political destiny (the Fukuyama thesis), and that it’s America’s historic responsibility to spread this gospel around. Hence the cheerleading about the Iraq war. The paper has indeed changed beyond recognition.

Bush keeps talking as if insurgents can be defeated by military force. Ain't gonna happen. Defeating insurgency requires a political solution and agreement by an overwelming majority to establish rule of law. Government by most of the Shiites won't cut it. That leaves too many who won't submit to rule by their law. Only by bringing more parties to the table and establishing a government that most agree is legitimate can an insurgency be defeated.

Ernestine!!! Ernestine Clemons!!! You get back in here and pluck these chickens... and stay off that durn computer-thingy

Posted by Ozymandias W. Bush at November 30, 2005 03:15 PM

Now THAT was funny!!!! And about as serious a comment as this new "strategy" deserves. This is a new low for the Monkey Boy's script writers. It looks like Wilkie's belated epiphanies are getting their panties in a bunch.

Interesting topic, i have a strong view on this topic:
One of the requirements for the exit strategy, or what is now being called the victory strategy, is the stability and formation of the Iraqi army. However, many are now saying that the Iraqi army evolving is becoming as bad, if not worse, than the regimental army that supported Sadaam Hussein previously.

Ayad Allawi has accused Shia Muslims in the Government of being responsible for death squads and secret torture centers. Ayad has advised that, “The brutality of elements in the new security forces rivals that of Mr. Hussein’s secret police.” Many Shia officials state that justification for the so called Iraqi Army Death Squads stems from the years and years of oppression they suffered under Sadaam Hussein. I do not buy this argument; I do not think we went into Iraq to help one religious group settle a score with another religious group. If this is what is now occurring I think we really need to address our policy in Iraq.

In the past month the American military has began ushering in a new period in the war against insurgents by having the Iraqi Security Services enter into a larger role in combating the insurgency throughout Iraq. The Iraqi Security Forces and Iraqi Army are mainly comprised of largely Shiite individuals. Most of the other ethnic and religious groups avoid service in the Iraqi security forces for fear of reprisal by their peers.

Recently, Sunni Iraqis have been bringing forth evidence that suggests that the Iraqi forces are now carrying out executions in various Sunni neighborhoods.

The President in Iraq, Jalal Talabani, has rejected the accusations of death squads calling the report “nonsense'’ However former Iraqi prime minister Iyad Allawi has repeatedly stated that Talabani’s government has set up death squads and torture centers as brutal as those during Saddam Hussein’s regime.

There have been a growing amount of accounts regarding the killings and abductions of Sunni individuals the past few weeks. Numerous Sunni civilians have claimed that their relatives are being taken away by uniformed Iraqi soldiers; these soldiers offer no reason, warrant, or explanation. Many of the reportedly abducted men have been found dead in ditches and fields. Many are tied up or restrained in one form or another. Many of the dead are also found with bullet holes in their temples, chemical burns on their body, and other various forms of mutilation.

Many believe a civil war is inevitable in Iraq. There is deep rooted hatred between Shia’s and Sunni’s. Many say this ethnic divide is being taken advantage of by individuals trying to further their own agenda in the Middle East, many others say this is just the way it is. However, with the recent admission by Iranian government officials stating that they would like more influence and persuasion in Iraq I could see this issue becoming more and more of a growing concern.
Raymond B
www.voteswagon.com

Mustafa,

Thanks for the clarification on Fallows -- I agree with you that simply looking at the security picture in Iraq is not enough. Have you read George Packer's book on post-war Iraq, The Assassin's Gate? Anthony Shadid (WP) has a new book out on post-war Iraq as well. Both of these guys cover more of the kind of thing you are talking about.

I know an Iraqi refugee from Saddam. He and his family are delighted that America took out Saddam.
I think "sloanasaurus" is spot on. Iraq is the place to fight Islamofascism. We are going to fight it somewhere, so we might as well fight it over an strategically placed oil well. Better there than here, and here is exactly where they want to come especially if they can operate out of a base like Iraq while feeding off of billions in oil revenues.
I think we are winning in Iraq, just slogging our way to victory as Bill Kristol says. I credit this to the Winston Churchill of our time, George Bush and his Iraq National Stratergy.

Arizona Bob, I know the German you're fishing for -- it's Dolchstosslegende

I fully expect the 2008 election to be a debate over 'Who Lost Iraq?'.

The Official Answer will be Cindy Sheehan, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, and whatever poor bastard gets the Democratic nomination, although not necessarily in that order.

To speed things up, here's a GOP 2008 campaign graphic available three years ahead of time.

Both Kerry and President Bush stated that Nuclear proliferation was the number one danger to America in the debates last year.

People need to realize that this war is all about WMD and what to do about proliferation.... Whaat should be done. History shows that once technology is out, it spreads. Eventually building nukes will become widespread.

President Bush argues that spreading democracy is one way to reduce proliferation there is the belief that free countries see little reason to proliferate or be aggressive towards other free countries.

Critics of President Bush have no plan or not even an idea about what to do about proliferation. They cite "diplomacy," with tyrnnical regimes... they are attempting this with Iran. They tried appeasment, such as Carter's deal with North Korea.. Its clear these ideas don't work.

The only realistic alternative to President Bush's strategy is genocide... I guess the critics would support this.

Ian,

That isn't Berti; the syntax doesn't feel right.

Americans need to realize that when Bush speaks about terrorism and national security, he is trying to distract us. His real objective is to control foreign oil fields. If he has to deploy hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and sailors to do this, he will.

The oil wars have just begun.

The "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" document, along with the Senate and Silberman-Robb intelligence reports, Downing Street memos, Iraq Survey Group and a host of other essential documents are available at:

"The Iraq WMD and Intelligence Document Center."

Today's Bush Irony Watch:

- "In Iraq, there will not be a signing ceremony on the deck of a battleship." President Bush, November 30, 2005.

- "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." President Bush, aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003.

Upon reviewing the comments upthread...

the first thing I want to know is what -- exactly -- went through the mminds of every General under Bush's command...

"....Many believe a civil war is inevitable in Iraq. There is deep rooted hatred between Shia’s and Sunni’s. Many say this ethnic divide is being taken advantage of by individuals trying to further their own agenda in the Middle East, many...."

This is a common mistake - that the Shia and Sunnis are ethnically different or that the Shia in Iraq are natural allies to the Iranian Shia.

Remember that the Shia in Iraq have only been Shia for the last 150 years. Most converted in the 1800s to oppose the Sultan in Constantinople. Ethnically, the Shia in Iraq are arab. They speak arabic and are parts of the cultures and traditions of the River valley. Many shia and Sunnis in Iraq are part of the same tribal groups.

In contrast the Shia in Iran are generally Persian and do not speak arabic, they speak Farsi and many come from mountainous regions as opposed to the plains and deserts of Iraq.. Persian culture is quite different than arab culture and they have been separated for ages. In fact the last time persians and arabs were ruled by the same overlord was in the 14th century under the Khans.

To assume that Iraqi shia and Iranian shia would be instant allies is the same as assuming that protestant Germans and Britains are instant allies opposed to France. We know from history that this isn't always the case.

ROTFL. Sloanadickus brings us another winner:

>Both Kerry and President Bush stated that Nuclear proliferation was the number one danger to America in the debates last year.

Unfortunately, President Bush seems to be on the pro-proliferation side of it. Examples: Getting in bed with Pakistan, cheerleading when Pakistan gives its number one nuclear scientist a pardon for passing nuclear secrets to other countries, failing to guard Iraq's enriched uranium after the UN seals were broken, cutting back on funding for decommissioning Russia's aging nuclear fleet, and of course, sucking his thumb while North Korea built nuclear warheads on his watch. Way to go Bushy Boy! Good call, Sloanoslowus.

>People need to realize that this war is all about WMD and what to do about proliferation....

Except of course, that WMD's were never found in Iraq. None at all. Zip. Nada. Zilch. No mobile chemical weapons labs, no huge stockpiles of anthrax and smallpox, no mustard gas, no nerve gas, no armies of drone planes ready to spray poison gas on enemies shores, no Niger uranium deal. Three years of searching have turned up exactly nothing.

And let's face it, all that stuff about WMD's, that was just obvious lies. I mean, think about it: Colin Powell goes to the UN for a make or break speech to make America's case for WMD's. You'd think in a situation like that, he'd put forward the absolute best evidence he could get his hands on. And what did he put forward? Artists depictions of mobile chemical and biological weapons labs... frikking cartoons for gods sakes! And ambiguous half assed cell phone conversations that wouldn't have persuaded a drunken trial judge to issue a warrant to J. Edgar Hoover.

This is the problem with the 'well, everyone believed that Iraq had wmd's, even democrats and foreigners' crowd. The problem was that the evidence was so damned shitty, right from the start. There was the British dossier that turned out to be plagiarized from a 10 year old term paper by a schoolboy. There was the Niger Uranium thing which turned out to be an equally childish forgery. There were ridiculous claims, like that army of drone aircraft loaded with poison gas, that 45 minute launch window against England. The evidence proferred was by turns incompetent, ridiculous, farcical and out and out silly...

You don't put that sort of bullstiff in your case, if you've got a case at all. Rotten apples spoil the barrel, lies and crap will taint a good case. So if you've got real evidence, you leave that stuff out. All we saw was the crap... so that tells us pretty conclusively, there was no real evidence.

Of course, the other telltale that it was all lies was just how specific they got. Remember Rumsfeld telling us, down to the liter how much Mustard Gas and Anthrax Saddam had? There's only two ways you can get information that specific. One is if you actually have those details. The other is if you're making it up.

Well, they had piss poor evidence and super fine details, and there's a pretty obvious logical disconnect there. Throw in the final piece of the puzzle: Ain't nothing found... And what is the inevitable, the inexorable, the relentless conclusion? What is the only conclusion? The inescapable conclusion?

Not mistakes. Not exaggerations. Not enthusiasm. Not bad intelligence. Not getting mislead. Not Saddam tricking us.

Nope.

Lies. The President and all his men lied, lied and lied some more. Tony Blair lied and lied. They knew there was nothing, but they wanted their war for whatever reason, and they lied to get it.

It's Dies for Lies time, boys and girls, for those defenseless Iraqi's, and those good old American soldiers. They dies for lies.

And Snorkelasaurus here still buys into it. I can only laugh.

>Whaat should be done. History shows that once technology is out, it spreads. Eventually building nukes will become widespread.

Well, under President Bush, it certainly will. As I've noted, he's done nothing to contain the problem and he's done a lot to make it worse.

As for Sloanamor's command of history, well, we've been down that road. Let's just say to our boy Sloan, history is a greased pig with come hither eyes. It excites him a powerful amount, but alas, his grasp is perhaps on the slippery side.

>President Bush argues that spreading democracy is one way to reduce proliferation there is the belief that free countries see little reason to proliferate or be aggressive towards other free countries.

Yeah, that's why France, England and Israel don't have nuclear weapons. That's also why the US has threatened to invade the Netherlands over the World Criminal Court.

>Critics of President Bush have no plan or not even an idea about what to do about proliferation.

Hmmm. Wrooooooooonggggg. But Sloanopolis is on thin ice now. He's no longer able to advocate for his monkey-boy's limited capacity. Unable to defend, he's decided to go after Bush's critics. Sadly, he has even less grasp of that.

>They cite "diplomacy," with tyrnnical regimes... they are attempting this with Iran.

Oooh... the way that Ronald Reagan and Oliver North reached out to Iran? Remember that? Who was it in the Reagan administration, McFarlane, who went to Tehran and presented guys who'd waved American body parts like trophies, with a cake shaped like a key?

Oh, and isn't Bush committed to 'diplomacy' and engagement with North Korea? Isn't Bush committed to 'diplomacy', 'engagement' and 'ass-licking' with tyrannical regimes like nuclear armed Pakistan, as well as enlightened places like Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Uzbekistan and Indonesia?

>They tried appeasment, such as Carter's deal with North Korea.. Its clear these ideas don't work.

Actually, Carter's deal with NK did work, notwithstanding the US failure to abide by a treaty it signed. North Korea didn't have nuclear weapons until Bush publicly repudiated the treaty and denounced its President as a dwarf. In hindsight, that might not have been the smartest thing to do.

>The only realistic alternative to President Bush's strategy is genocide... I guess the critics would support this.

Gee Whiz. Isn't the Presidential Retard's strategy genocide... when it really comes down to it?

Wasn't he the one who as Governor said "stay out of Rawanda" "Stay out of Bosnia"? Isn't he as President "staying out of Darfur and the Sudan". Despite the desperate pleas of Liberians, didn't he commit to "stay out of Liberia." Isn't he presiding over a steadily developing three cornered civil war in Iraq which may well turn genocidal?

How can one man possibly get things so backward?
Slobodon, we salute you.

Slowpokes last post on Shia of Iran and Iraq was almost inspired. Bravo.

The only flaw in his thesis is that in fact, the Shiite theocratic establishment of Iraq is closely allied with that of Iran. All one has to do is look at the facts on the ground: SCIRI, the Badr Brigades, etc.

Nice try though.

"Except of course, that WMD's were never found in Iraq....."

So are you saying Saddam was clean. Saddam said he had nothing in 1991 either until his son-in- law spilt the beans and we uncovered his nuclear Program that no one knew existed. His son-in-law later turned up dead. Wasn't that reason enough to take out Saddam - that was a pretty big fib (and violation of the 1991 treaty).

Do you think it is a reasonable position to assume that Saddam didn't want nukes and wasn't going to pursue them....ever...even at $50 oil?

If not, then what was the liberal strategy for Saddam? To maintain sanctions that were already full of holes and opposed by France, Russia, and China, who all wanted to do business with Iraq? How about wait until Saddam had a nuke and then play MAD with him. Do you think we would have been "safer" under that plan.

Saddam thumbed his nose at Clinton in 1998 when he kicked out the inspectors just as Hitler thumbed his nose at France and Britain in 1936 when occupying the Ruhr. France and Britain did nothing but squak. Clinton launched a few missles at Saddams (non-existent right) WMD programs.

Don't you think Saddam's kicking out the inspectors and violating the treaty from Gulf War I is enough to take him out? Or is violating a peace treaty not enough.

We didn't know Pakistan had a nuke either until they tested it. Do you think there are any sympathizers to Al Qaeda or Iraq or Syria in the bowels of Pakistan's nuclear program? Hmmmm.

If Saddam didn't have any WMD why then would he try and circumvent the inspectors in late 2002 and early 2003. Why wouldn't Saddam allow his scientists to speak with the inspectors without minders or in a neutral location. All Saddam had to do was allow the inspectors total access and he was off scott free - no war and end of sanctions. Maybe its because he did have weapons. Or maybe its because he was insane - another good reason to get rid of him.

"...The only flaw in his thesis is that in fact, the Shiite theocratic establishment of Iraq is closely allied with that of Iran.

If so, the "thocratic establishment" in Iraq failed to get their theocracy enshrined in the Iraqi Constitution. I dont recall any Sections that give veto power to a "Guardian Council."

To assume that Iraqi shia and Iranian shia would be instant allies is the same as assuming that protestant Germans and Britains are instant allies opposed to France.

No need to assume:

Link

If so, the "thocratic establishment" in Iraq failed to get their theocracy enshrined in the Iraqi Constitution.

This is pretty close:

IRAQI CONSTITUTION
You can find the entire text here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/24_08_05_constit.pdf
Here are some parts I found interesting:

Article (2):
1st -- Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.

Saddam said he had nothing in 1991 either until his son-in- law spilt the beans and we uncovered his nuclear Program that no one knew existed.

Contra VP Cheney, the son-in-law said there was no nuclear program.

Also, the Duelfer Report states that Iraq's WMD abilities and programs essentially ended in 1991.

Here's Steve's take, on Warren Olney's show on KCRW.

A.J.:

No, I haven't read any of those books on Iraq -- am stuck with other work. Thanks.

Sloanasaurus,

>>>If Saddam didn't have any WMD why then would he try and circumvent the inspectors in late 2002 and early 2003. Why wouldn't Saddam allow his scientists to speak with the inspectors without minders or in a neutral location. All Saddam had to do was allow the inspectors total access and he was off scott free - no war and end of sanctions. Maybe its because he did have weapons. Or maybe its because he was insane - another good reason to get rid of him.>>>

Kevin Pollak in the Jan/Feb 2004 Atlantic Monthly does a good job of trying to answer this question ... the upshot being he didn't want his neighbors and his own people to realize he didn't have them -- the article is very good if you can find it -- it is the same issue that has the James Fallows "Blind into Baghdad" article.

>>>If Saddam didn't have any WMD why then would he try and circumvent the inspectors in late 2002 and early 2003. Why wouldn't Saddam allow his scientists to speak with the inspectors without minders or in a neutral location. All Saddam had to do was allow the inspectors total access and he was off scott free - no war and end of sanctions. Maybe its because he did have weapons. Or maybe its because he was insane - another good reason to get rid of him.>>>

Well, not to put too fine a point on it. But actually, it was the United States that undermined inspectors in 2002 and 2003. The Inspectors, with some dragging of feet by Saddam, had unprecedented access, including to Saddam's private palaces. Everywhere they wanted to go, they got to go. Every site they targeted, they spotted.

Saddam's motivations were probably more along the lines of objecting to US intelligence agents infiltrated into the Inspections program who used their access to prepare targetting. And since the US did have agents infiltrating the inspections program, and used their intelligence and access to identify Iraqi targets. He had a point.

Maybe its because he did have weapons? ROTFL. Sloan, that train has left the station, and we both know it. I can't believe you're still clinging to it...

"....Saddam's motivations were probably more along the lines of objecting to US intelligence agents infiltrated into the Inspections program who used their access to prepare targetting. And since the US did have agents infiltrating the inspections program..."

The problem with your argument is that it is illogical, and to make the argument you have to create an assumption that Saddam was willing to risk obvious war to avoid being spyed on.

You also imply that Saddam had some wort of right to privacy. Saddam had no right. He agreed to intrusive inspections in replace for his regime staying in power after 1991 (to end the war that he had lost). He broke that agreement when he kicked out the inspectors in 1998.

Only two arguments make sense to me. 1) Saddam had weapons and hid them. 2) Saddam was lied to by his own lieutenants about having the weapons.

Depsite that, what was Bush supposed to do - especially when presented with Saddam's defiance. If Bush did nothing and Saddam went on to produce Nukes you would look back at that moment with a gasp and see how obvious it was when Saddam was defying the inspections. Knowing that Saddam had already gotten far in producing nukes in 1995 Bush had no choice but invasion to enforce the 1991 treaties and agreements.

Hey Sloanie,

Our 14 year old gets extra credit from his English teacher for debating/commenting on Current Events - as found in Op. Ed pieces,
Magazine commentary, Letters to the Edtor, even Blog postings - Here's a sample of his take on your upthread comments -

"Any strategic planning for the war on Terror would have to have considered where to wage the war.... and Iraq was by far the best and most obvious place."
Sloanasaurus

Oliver 14 -According to everyone, Bush had no 'interest' or plans to deal with terrorism prior to 9/11, yet WH was discussing Iraq their first week in office. So how could they have a centerpiece before they even knew they had a war ?

. . . a mother's 'genocidal' heart swells with pride

To assume that Iraqi shia and Iranian shia would be instant allies is the same as assuming that protestant Germans and Britains are instant allies opposed to France. We know from history that this isn't always the case.

Posted by sloanasaurus

First, Sistani holds all the cards in Iraq, to deny it is idiocy. His followers, the Shiites, comprise over 60% of the Iraqi population. It is SISTANI'S power and influence that sent Bremer packing with his tail between his legs, unable to steal the assets he was sent there to steal. One Fatwah from Sistani, and this current insurgency could look like a minor back street brawl. Of course, the fact that Sistani is an IRANIAN trained Cleric is irrelevent to your plot line, right?

Then you have Sadr. Remember him?? Thats the guy we tried to demonize and marginalize by having him pursued as a MURDERER. Well, his power grows DAILY, as does the size of his militia.

You do know, when you make your pathetically asinine and scripted comments, that areas of Iraq are CONTROLLED by Shiite militias enforcing sharia law, do you not??? You do know that Basra is now under TOTAL Sharia law, burkas and all, do you not?

Look, go back to your masters and tell them you need a new script, will ya? The drivel you are casting was known to be bullshit alooooong time ago.

This is truly sad and pathetic. But quite entertaining:

>The problem with your argument is that it is illogical, and to make the argument you have to create an assumption that Saddam was willing to risk obvious war to avoid being spyed on.

No, actually. It's quite possible. You yourself have argued that Saddam was insane. Are you backing off from that thesis? Just arguing whatever comes into your head.

The reality was that Saddam had a reasonable belief that Bush intended to invade. This belief might have been derived from quotes like "F*ck Saddam, we're taking him out!"

Certainly to any objective observer, the evidence is overwhelming that the United States was committed to a policy of regime change during poth the Clinton and Bush II administrations. The Clinton administration supported several coup attempts.

With respect to Bush, the evidence exists from Larry Clark and from the former Treasury Secretary O'Neill, that Bush wished to attack Iraq since before 9/11. The record is extremely well documented.

It requires no illogic to conclude that Saddam was extremely concerned, even paranoid, about US penetration of the inspections process, and US perversion of the inspections process to facilitate both aerial bombardment, covert operations and invasion.

In point of fact, you haven't denied that the US infiltrated the inspection process for just those purposes. And I would suggest that at this point, these assertions are indisputable historical record.

This forms the basis of Iraqi policy towards inspections. Let me get some crayons and make it very simple for you.

Hussein was prepared to accept inspections in order to try to avoid an invasion. And in fact, if you look at the inspections process of 2002 and 2003, that's just what was going on. He was also concerned, however, that the inspections might merely be a cover to make the invasion easier. In that respect, he had an incentive to try to limit inspections, as he had in the 90's, in order to preserve his non-wmd defense capacities and his command structure.

These were not unreasonable positions, since in fact, your country was using the inspections to spy on him.

In the end, in the second round, 2002-2003, as I've noted, Inspections pretty much got to go anywhere they wanted. It was George W. Bush who undermined and terminated the inspections process in favour of invasion. These are historical facts not open to dispute.

Is that simple enough?

>You also imply that Saddam had some wort of right to privacy.

I implied no such thing and you know it. Your tactic here is shabby, dishonest and facile.

>He broke that agreement when he kicked out the inspectors in 1998.

Actually, that's a perversion of the historical record. The actual case was that Bill Clinton withdrew the inspectors in 1998, before commencing operation Desert Something Or Other (bombing).

After the Inspectors were withdrawn and the bombs were dropped, it was quite clear that American intelligence had used those inspectors and inspections for covert operations and missile targetting.

Iraq viewed this as a violation of their agreement. Which arguably it was. It refused to allow the inspectors to return.

The question of course is did the United States have a right to pervert a legitimate UN mechanism for its own purposes? I would argue that American conduct had a great deal to do with destroying the legitimacy of the UN process.

>Only two arguments make sense to me. 1) Saddam had weapons and hid them. 2) Saddam was lied to by his own lieutenants about having the weapons.

1) Has been shown to be verifiably false and nonsensical. It does you no good to trumpet ludicrous nonsense.

2) The second argument fails utterly. You are operating on the assumption that the entire inspections, intelligence/espionage process was devoted to unravelling the state of knowledge of Saddam Hussein himself. That's utter rot, and if you thought about it for two minutes, you'd realize it. The issue was never what Saddam Hussein thought, the issue was whether Iraq had wmd's. On this front, that related to the pursuit of tangible evidence, physical locations, machinery, stockpiles, etc. etc. Saddam could well have believed he was in league with Space Aliens, but that wouldn't count for anything.

Moreover, your assertions as to Saddam's state of mind have no bearing whatsoever on the crap that was put forth for evidence. Saddam didn't draw cartoons of mobile biological weapons labs... Colin Powell did.

>Depsite that, what was Bush supposed to do - especially when presented with Saddam's defiance.

What defiance? He allowed inspections. Where he could concede he did. His defiance was in not committing suicide. Let's get real here.

>If Bush did nothing and Saddam went on to produce Nukes you would look back at that moment with a gasp and see how obvious it was when Saddam was defying the inspections.

And if it turned out that Saddam was really in league with Space Aliens, I'd have looked back on the moment with an explosive fart as a flying saucer took out the Empire State Building.

Really, if you want to be taken seriously, spare me your 'gasps'. If you want to indulge in speculation of this sort, lay a factual foundation carefully.

>Knowing that Saddam had already gotten far in producing nukes in 1995 Bush had no choice but invasion to enforce the 1991 treaties and agreements.

1995? The evidence on the record is that by 1992 and the aftermath of the Gulf War, the Iraqi nuclear weapons program was dismantled. Over a decade later, the UN seals were still on nuclear sites. You are confused.

You may be referring to biological or chemical weapons programs, which the regime tried to maintain covertly, but which were largely disintegrating. By 1996, there were not even effective programs. It was over.

Bush had every choice not to invade. He could have allowed the inspections to continue, which would have proved conclusively what we have now found out. There were no wmd's.

In fact, the case for wmd's was disintegrating throughout the inspections process, and the longer the American and British evidence was out, the more it stank.

Your President Lied his way into a war.

The "Bush Lied" line is tiring. It reminds me of Roosevelt "letting the Japanese attack us" or "lincoln going to war for his corporate buddies."

If Bush lied, then so did everyone else.

Besides, history has a funny way of the ends justifying the means. Roosevelt defied the public and congress (illegally) in 1940-41 in his dealings with Nazi Germany. He basically provoked Hitler into declaring war on us. Roosevelt turned out to be right, and the public owes him greatly for his leadership when 80% of the populace was against going to war against Germany.

The "Bush Lied" line is tiring. It reminds me of Roosevelt "letting the Japanese attack us" or "lincoln going to war for his corporate buddies."

If Bush lied, then so did everyone else.

Besides, history has a funny way of the ends justifying the means. Roosevelt defied the public and congress (illegally) in 1940-41 in his dealings with Nazi Germany. He basically provoked Hitler into declaring war on us. Roosevelt turned out to be right, and the public owes him greatly for his leadership when 80% of the populace was against going to war against Germany.

Posted by sloanasaurus

You should quietly retire to the sofa and watch Fox News. Perhaps you'll get lucky and catch a glimpse of Coulter's horse face.

Den Valdron ripped you a new one. At this point you are just making an ass out of yourself.

Cut your losses, and fade.

>The 'Bush lied' line is tiring...

Sorry you find the truth so exhausting. I recommend a strict regimen of vitamins, push-ups and actual facts. Worn out rhetoric is just empty calories my friend, and jumping to speculative conclusions merely leaves you with an inner ear disorder.

Reality beckons. Come and visit.

On a less friendly tone, I really don't give a rats ass whether you find it tiring. Bush lied, the result is 2000 dead Americans, 150,000 dead Iraqi's, 300 billion down the drain, the most civilized arab nation in the middle east steadily pushed back to the stone age, and Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts free to run amuk. All this from the fact that the leader of the free world chose to lie.

>If Bush lied, so did everyone else...

Well, what a ringing endorsement for moral relativism we have here.

Not only are you tired of the subject, but you have no ready answer for it. Deep down, you know Bush lied. The reality is inescapable.

And what do you do? A bargain basement escape hatch of equivalency. Lying isn't such a big deal. Everyone lies. So it isn't such a big deal if Bush lies. Why, lying is practically the American way.

Yeah, will Clinton lied about a blow job and your country impeached him. Bush lied his way into mass murder.

You'll forgive me if I don't buy into your sad sack equivalency.

>History has a funny way of the ends justifying the means...

Wow. You know, Hitler used to say exactly the same thing. Whatever happened to him.

Sadly, history teaches us that all too often, the ends are the means. Or to put it in layman's terms: You are what you eat. In tech-boy lingo: Garbage in, Garbage Out.

>Roosevelt...basically provoked Hitler into declaring war...

Hmmmm.... a little thing called Pearl Harbour might belong in the mix somewhere. Why don't you look into that.

ROTFL

I´m afraid that the war is over for what the US likes to call "coalition forces".
Besides there being no reliable "Iraqui forces".
The fight for their oil is over as well,and oil itself will be over in 50 years or so.
Being realistic the US went in by itself and will have to find a way out the same way.
Creating a dozen "bases" from which to operate with "contractors" and air strikes will not avoid a three players civil war, will in fact be a genocide and leave the whole country a flattened land, worse than Dresden.
If this were happening anywhere else, and not in a country with so great a respect for the law, it would end with the President with a hole in his head, or confined to an institution of the sort where the inmates hold regular symposiums with the divinity.
And for the Dems. if they want to rule the country,rally around Murtha, he is your only hope, in fact I believe he is the only hope for the whole bunch

In relation to the former contribution, and regarding my comments upon needed internment,please refer to the opinion of one of thr CIA´S foremost Psychoanalists in : www. squadron13.com/Jack Dresser/Psychoanalist