The front in the war on terror is Iraq.
Saddam had WMD. Duh.
Saddam's regime had dealings with Niger for yellowcake (or goats). And he had dealings with OTHER countries for yellowcake. See deets on that here.
Money Quote from Butler Report :
499. We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:
The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africawas well-founded.Why is Rummy a target? Read here and here. Rummy says late today that he won't quit.
Saddam's regime had dealings with, gave financial help to, and trained terrorists, including Al Qaeda. See previous posts here and here and check out Tom Joscelyn's blog here.
For your reading pleasure all you Joe Wilson fans:
503. From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:
a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.
c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government did not claim this.
d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.
117 comments:
Civilians need to take note of what's going on here. What does it tell us that the military officers feel the need to speak openly to the American people about serious concerns in policy and administration? This in spite of a long heartfelt American tradition that the military serves its civilian masters (McArthur aside). One thing is that these generals know the course Bush is taking, that it is not known to Americans, that the Rubber Stamp Republican congress is incabable of exerting any form of effective oversite or checks and balances, and that they see themselves as the last defense America has to this path to disaster. Is anyone listening?
I suggest you read this article published in the NYT by Michael Delong.
April 16, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
A General Misunderstanding
By MICHAEL DeLONG
Tampa, Fla.
AS the No. 2 general at United States Central Command from the Sept. 11 attacks through the Iraq war, I was the daily "answer man" to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. I briefed him twice a day; few people had as much interaction with him as I did during those two years. In light of the recent calls for his resignation by several retired generals, I would like to set the record straight on what he was really like to work with.
When I was at Centcom, the people who needed to have access to Secretary Rumsfeld got it, and he carefully listened to our arguments. That is not to say that he is not tough in terms of his convictions (he is) or that he will make it easy on you (he will not). If you approach him unprepared, or if you don't have the full courage of your convictions, he will not give you the time of day.
Mr. Rumsfeld does not give in easily in disagreements, either, and he will always force you to argue your point thoroughly. This can be tough for some people to deal with. I witnessed many heated but professional conversations between my immediate commander, Gen. Tommy Franks, and Mr. Rumsfeld — but the secretary always deferred to the general on war-fighting issues.
Ultimately, I believe that a tough defense secretary makes commanders tougher in their convictions. Was Donald Rumsfeld a micromanager? Yes. Did he want to be involved in all of the decisions? Yes. But Mr. Rumsfeld never told people in the field what to do. It all went through General Franks.
Mr. Rumsfeld did not like waste, which caused some grumbling among the military leadership even before 9/11. He knew that many of the operational plans we had on the books dated back to the 1990's (some even to the late 80's), and he wanted them updated for an era of a more streamlined, technological force. He asked us all: "Can we do it better, and can we do it with fewer people?"
Sometimes General Franks and I answered yes, other times we answered no. When we said no, there was a discussion; but when we told him what we truly needed, we got it. I never saw him endangering troops by insisting on replacing manpower with technology. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, we always got what we, the commanders, thought we needed.
This is why the much-repeated claims that Mr. Rumsfeld didn't "give us enough troops" in Iraq ring hollow. First, such criticisms ignore that the agreed-upon plan was for a lightning operation into Baghdad. In addition, logistically it would have been well nigh impossible to bring many more soldiers through the bottleneck in Kuwait. And doing so would have carried its own risk: you cannot sustain a fighting force of 300,000 or 500,000 men for long, and it would have left us with few reserves, putting our troops at risk in other parts of the world. Given our plan, we thought we had the right number of troops to accomplish our mission.
The outcome and ramifications of a war, however, are impossible to predict. Saddam Hussein had twice opened his jails, flooding the streets with criminals. The Iraqi police walked out of their uniforms in the face of the invasion, compounding domestic chaos. We did not expect these developments.
We also — collectively — made some decisions in the wake of the war that could have been better. We banned the entire Baath Party, which ended up slowing reconstruction (we should probably have banned only high-level officials); we dissolved the entire Iraqi Army (we probably should have retained a small cadre help to rebuild it more quickly). We relied too much on the supposed expertise of the Iraqi exiles like Ahmad Chalabi who assured us that once Saddam Hussein was gone, Sunni Arabs, Shiites and Kurds would unite in harmony.
But that doesn't mean that a "What's next?" plan didn't exist. It did; it was known as Phase IV of the overall operation. General Franks drafted it and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State Department, the Pentagon, the Treasury Department and all members of the Cabinet had input. It was thoroughly "war-gamed" by the Joint Chiefs.
Thus, for distinguished officers to step forward and, in retrospect, pin blame on one person is wrong. And when they do so in a time of war, the rest of the world watches.
Michael DeLong, a retired Marine lieutenant general, is the author, with Noah Lukeman, of "Inside Centcom: The Unvarnished Truth About the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq."
If this is not enough said on this subject then read Tommy Franks book.
To some extent the military is covering its' own behind regarding a colossal failure. But I also believe there is genuine patriotism from these people who believe we're in trouble and want to preempt this administration from doing more damage.
Former general shinseky(sp?) has done a 180 since lauding Scty Rumsfeld not too long ago. The motives and integrity of these critics are highly suspect.
Further more read the following
The Times April 18, 2006
Why America's generals are out for revenge
Dean Godson
The US top brass are ducking their responsibilities - and beleaguered Donald Rumsfeld is just doing his job
WHO WILL be the Admiral Byng of the Iraq conflict — the symbolic victim executed for the alleged failures of the war? That is what the current “revolt of the generals” against Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, is about. It is the ruthless Washingtonian version of “pass the parcel”.
Much of the military brass feels that it carried the can for the civilian leadership’s errors in Vietnam and is determined never to do so again. General Anthony Zinni — the former US commander in the Middle East and perhaps the most voluble of Mr Rumsfeld’s critics — was particularly taken with a study written by a youngish Army officer, H.R. McMaster, criticising the US Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Robert McNamara era for not speaking up more loudly against a war they knew could not be won.
The generals’ criticisms will certainly strike a chord among critics of the war in Iraq, who contend that neoconservative ideologues at the Pentagon rode roughshod over professional military advice. They particularly alight on the supposed insufficiency of troop numbers sent to Iraq for post-conflict operations and the failure to plan for the insurgency.
What of these charges? Mr Rumsfeld was right in believing that the war itself could be won with a much smaller force than was used in the first Gulf War of 1991, not least because the Iraqi army had halved in size. He was right effectively to send Tommy Franks away with a flea in his ear when the then US commander presented the original war plans, as General Franks has conceded. Pace George Galloway, there was no Stalingrad by the Tigris.
This was no McNamara-style micromanagement of targeting when Pentagon “whiz-kids” constantly encroached upon professional military prerogatives. Rather, Mr Rumsfeld’s big picture approach is exactly what civilian control of the military is supposed to be all about: in other words, asking what would be the price in blood and treasure of a particular plan? Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, did much the same as Defence Secretary in 1990 when he asked Norman Schwarzkopf to revise his plans for a costly frontal assault on the Iraqi forces in Kuwait.
What about the postwar period? General Jack Keane, the Army Vice-Chief of Staff during this critical period, told me that it was just as much the military’s responsibility to anticipate the insurgency, if not more so. “We had no plans for that”, he said. “It was our fault, not Donald Rumsfeld’s.”
The point was inadvertently underscored in Franks’s autobiography when he told Pentagon civilians that he would not involve himself in the detailed work on Phase 4 or “stability” operations — that is, after major combat was over. “I’ll do the day of and you’ll do the day after,” he snorted. He also refused to work alongside “Free Iraqis” ready to take up postwar security tasks. All of this cost the US dearly when the looting began in Baghdad. Yet Rumsfeld et al acquiesced.
The real issue in postwar Iraq was less that of numbers than of the mix of forces. The Americans did not need many more GIs who cannot speak Arabic patrolling the streets in heavy body armour; rather, they could have done it with the existing size of force, but with more military policemen, intelligence officers and civil affairs specialists.
Curiously, Mr Rumsfeld’s position does indeed resemble that of his predecessors in the Vietnam era — but the analogy is with the hopeful period of the early 1960s rather than the tragic finale. John F. Kennedy fought a tremendous bureaucratic battle with the US Army brass to reconfigure the forces for more British-style counter-insurgency operations in the Third World: the Green Berets were the best known expression of that aspiration.
But JFK’s more ambitious plans were seen off by the US Army Chief of Staff, George Decker — who was concerned about the diversion of resources from US conventional forces facing the Soviet divisions on the Central European plain. The incomplete nature of those reforms cost the American forces dearly later on.
Mr Rumsfeld, by contrast, has had far more success than Kennedy in shaking up the US Army. Until September 11 it was still too much of a garrison force, geared up for Cold War contingencies. Or, in the quip of one of Rumsfeld’s intimates, it was full of “Fulda Gap warriors”, rather than the kind of expeditionary forces required for the War on Terror.
The Defence Secretary has trod on toes in this process. He has insisted on interviewing every appointment to four and three-star rank — something that was more of a pro forma process under his predecessors. He appointed a retired Special Forces general, Peter Schoomaker, as US Army Chief of Staff, thus passing over stacks of serving officers. And with his greater emphasis on high-tech “jointery”, he has forced both the Army and the Marines to depend more on Air Force and Navy supporting fire.
The real criticism of Mr Rumsfeld is not that he “kicked to much butt”, but that he kicked too little. At George Bush’s behest, he sent the US armed forces into a war that they weren’t yet fully ready to fight: they are much more prepared now, but the insurgency genie is out of the bottle. He was part of the Republican consensus that was contemptuous of Clinton-era peacekeeping operations, believing that real soldiers don’t do social workerish stuff. Like so many reformers, his problem is that his changes discomfit existing interest groups before the benefits become fully visible.
Dean Godson is research director of Policy Exchange
I would suggest you go to RealClearPolitics for more articles on this subject.
bear,
I agree. That is why I have copied over 2 articles on this subject. Hopefully people will take some time to read them even if they are large.
Hey, I've got an idea, why don't you guys quit running entire sections of the pieces I've linked and instead read them and discuss? You guys want me to start a dialogue and when I do you hijack it, disregard the links, and spout off what you already know. Read the pieces and report back.
How much sense does it make to get rid of the Secretary of Defense when his actions have been so clearly a reflection of goals and strategies developed by the president and vice president?
No doubt, Rumsfeld has mishandled the Iraq invasion and occupation.
But would another Secretary of Defense chosen by Bush and Cheney do any better? Doesn't the current crisis have more to do with the administration's misguided project of regime change and nation building than with the approach that Rumsfeld has taken to it?
If the problem is with the project, then shouldn't the focus be on the serious task of removing Bush and Cheney, rather than the cosmetic change of names of the office of the Secretary of Defense?
While there is no question that Rumsfeld should go, there ought to be some question about whether extracting one rotten apple from the barrel will cure what ails this administration.
It could create the false impression of a course correction even as Bush and Cheney steer the U.S. further into quagmire.
loyalingrate,
I hear what you say.
I posted articles that clearly state the oposite of your comment. Yet you persist in calling Iraq a quagmire.
Now you can go back under your rock.
Just some thoughts.
The argument that changing leadership during a time of war is detrimental, more importantly during this war/invasion/occupation/liberation (whichever suits you) is a canard. It's more than likely that this vast notion of the "war on terror" is something that will never "end." The magnitude of how "victory" in Iraq contributes to success, depends on what political angle you favor. When, and if ever, "victory" is achieved, does not appear to be constrained to a timeline within the next two years, but rather far beyond. Thus, an entire administration at some point will replace the current one as it appears "during a time of war."
Secondly, Rumsfeld has (if not for anything more than theatrics) already tendered his resignation twice. It wasn't accepted then, and there's no reason to think it would be now or at all in the next two years, under the current circumstances. As much as I dislike the path Rumsfeld has taken the military down, I have to in my mind, liken these general's criticisms to that of disgruntled employees, who don't stand up for anything until they have nothing to lose.
When active generals and appointed leaders start stepping forward, voicing descent, then there will be something to talk about.
Rumsfeld should resign because the Bush administration is losing the war on the home front. As bad as things are in Baghdad, America won't be defeated there militarily. But it may be forced into a hasty and chaotic retreat by mounting domestic opposition to its policy.
Much of the American public has simply stopped believing the administration's arguments about Iraq, and Rumsfeld is a symbol of that credibility gap. He is a spent force, reduced to squabbling with the secretary of state about whether "tactical errors" were made in the war's conduct.
suomynona,
For the most part I agree. If you get a chance read Dean Godson commentary in the London Times that I copied here.
I agree that the war on terror will out last the current administration. That means we need to carefully choose our next leaders in the next two elections.
fizziwigg,
Did you not read suomynona's post. Rumsfeld has resigned more that once. The President refuses to accept it. Rumsfeld serves at the pleasure of the President.
As for the anti war rhetoric has mass support from MSM. If you choose to listen only to MSM then you will be dishearten over the progress in the war.
There is evidence that MSM is intentionally not reporting the full story. Victoria has reported on this in past posts.
Do not be so quick to throw in the towel. That is what the terrorists are waiting for.
So Iraq's such a 'quagmire' in your opinion, right?
Your assignment: find the perfectly planned and executed war. 1,2,3....GO!!!!
Victoria,
Some expectations for war has been overly influnced by TV and democratic talking points.
Too bad TV's do not come with a talking point chip.
kodiak, I really do think most of the expectations for Iraq were handed out by the administration (i.e. Republican majority).
Remember talking points such as "shock and awe," "greeted with chocolates and candies," "greeted as liberators.."
Any one care to add to my list?
Maybe we should bring the troops home, and SICK'EM ON ALL YOU _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ANTI-AMERICAN HATE AMERICA SOCIALISTS and chase um all down to cuber where you can feel FREEEEE and have all the universal health care no GUNS and by the way no WAL-MART. You'll all feel so much better.
To the typical doom and gloomers, read this letter written by the Mayor of Tall ‘Afar, Ninewa, Iraq saluting members of the 3rd ACR.
SALUTING THE 3RD ACR
As for Rumsfeld, there is no reason at all he should resign. 7 retired General officers do not even come close to representing the hundreds of retired and active duty General Officers.
Given that many of the 7 are Clinton appointees, including the former Commander of NATO that even Clinton had to fire, their motives become quite suspect.
Don't forget too, not too awful long ago, a Democrat memo was leaked outlining that they were going to attack Bush through the Military and Rumsfeld.
No one is perfect and no war has ever been perfect. War isn't a Game Boy video game. No one hates war more than those who have to fight them, but they also realize how necessary they become when Diplomacy fails, as it too often has.
The only real failure from Iraq has been our drive-by leftsream media and their extremely slanted coverage of it. As in Viet Nam, most returning troops don't recognize the war described in our media.
Maybe it should be the drive-by leftstream media that should resign and allow people who will report all the successes as well as any shortcomings to take over.
Do you talk like that in person, klatu?
Backwards ANONYMOUS: I once told some people, if I became President the first thing I would do is put people like you in jail. I was kidding but maybe not. Defending Rummy is easy compared to defending Liberal Bob Packwood from Beirut People like you. Are you one of those _ _ _ _ _ - - thats on a video tape I took of Packwood where the crowd came to FIST-A-CUFFS?????????? To answer you bluntly if I have to be. I not Kidding I'll drive the boat to cuba to drop you and your friends off in CUBA and hand you to CASTRO
(sigh)
Anyone have a "klatu translator?"
Rummy Dummy sat on a wall.
Rummy Dummy had a great fall.
All the deciders horses
And all the deciders men
Couldn't put Rummy together again!
That's deep, man. Deep. I love Rummy!
fizziwigg,
Do you even read any of the comments posted here? I have said several times that Rumsfeld has resigned more than once and the President has refused to accept it every time.
Rumsfeld is not going anywhere so get over it. It is clear that you do not support the troops, the war or this Administration.
Don't waste bandwith protesting that you support the troops. If you do not support the mission you do not support the troops. The troops words not mine. Go to www.vetsforfreedom.org if you doubt my words.
Those who are against the war had better decide just whose side they really are on because they are giveing indirect aid and comfort to the terrorists.
Tim Russert revealed two very interesting pieces of information this morning on Don Imus regarding the future of Donald Rumsfeld and his standing in the Pentagon:
1. After Rep. Jack Murtha appeared on Meet the Press and advocated troop withdrawal several officials in the Pentagon called Russert to tell him "Murtha is right."
2. A source "close to the President" told Russert that Bush "won't fire Rumsfeld because it would be the equivalent of firing himself."
c'mon kodiak. I bet I can find more quotes from troops and vets that don't support the Iraq mission and yet hold nothing higher than their respect, gratitude, and support for our fighting men and women.
Our troops are not afforded the luxury to agree or disagree on what mission they will carry out. What makes them great is they do what ever job they are tasked with in pursuit of victory and a job well done. Not one of them would fire on a fellow officer, or leave them to die because they have a disagreement about the rights and wrongs of the mission. Spilling this non-sensible diatribe about not supporting the troops and giving comfort to the terrorists for opposing any mission leads me to believe you would be the one likely to consider such actions.
Fire away my brother, fire away...
Rumsfeld will not resign but Scott McClellan will, whether he wants to or not. Jeff Gannon and Baghdad Bob are available as a replacement.
Rummy won't resign, But to replace Scott McClellan it should be done by Ro-tating every day with VICTORIA TAFT, SEAN HANNITY,LAURA INGRAHAM, RUSH LIMBAUGH, MICHAEL REAGAN, LARS LARSON, MICHAEL SAVGE(this guy would eat the white house press corp for lunch) TONY SNOW, Anne Coulter etc. Victoria Taft on her 1st day will ask HELEN THOMAS to go over to the corner, lay down, and be quite, and then say to Helen, GOOD DOGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
And then HELEN THOMAS would kick the S out of the BOTOX BIMBO VICTORIA. Then the BOTOX BIMBO would go get some lipo.
Nimlo,
Jeff Gannon is under Karl Rove's desk. Ever hear the one about Rove and male prostitutes.
suomynona,
Fighting a war is like playing chess. Both players have a battle plan. The plans are usually worthless after the first few moves. After that point the following moves are reactionary.
To the hate Rummy and the war crowd,
I have been listening to both sides for a while now and I keep coming back to the same position.
We have troops in the field and whether we agree or disagree we have no other choice but to support the mission and through it supporting the troops. To do otherwise is to give aid and comfort to the enemy allowing them to fight on and dening victory to our troops. So please decide whether you want our troops to win or not. If you want to win table the debate until after the war is won. Otherwise continue the debate and help the enemy win and our side loses.
Time for debate has come and passed. We can revisit the debate after we win.
Lastly there was a saying from WWII that applies to this war:
Loose lips sink ships!
Fizziwig, go back and look it up: the pentagon was talking about reducing the force well before Murtha came out. Murtha came out in front of the plans to do that (pending conditions on the ground) in order to take credit if in fact there were force reductions. This is so obvious and pointed out by my program and probably others that I'm surprised you took the bait. Tim Russert's been wrong before and hardly a unobjective observer--although he's better than most--which isn't a ringing endorsement. BTW: how did you like the linked stories. Read THOSE yet?
I'm reading a lot about being a Botox Bimbo which is a totally foreseeable event knowing as I do that lefties will read the blog, but, tell me, what do you think of the actual information in the post?
Victoria,
The articles you've cited are a strong counter point to MSM drum beat on Iraq. The problem is they will never get the playing time on MSM to make any difference.
MSM hates Bush as much as the democrats do. Therefore, they willnot let any facts through that counterdicts their viewpoint. Their viewpoint basically fits this formula:
Bush Presidency is illegal therefore anything he does is illegal.
I doubt that if Bush had a 'D' by his name we would be seeing any of the hit pieces that has gone on for the past 6 years.
Hey, Fuzziwig, You can't count on anything Murtha has to say about much of anything. He is nothing more than a cut-and-run, whiteflag Marine who will do and say anything his masters (Kerry and Kennedrunk) tell him to do or say. He may have been some sort of hero when he was a serving Marine, but what ever his accomplishments were back then has all been negated by his cut-and-run stance now. He probably could have become an effective member of Congress, but he has allowed himself to be corrupted by Kerry, Kennedrunk, and all the other Bush-haters in Congress. This gang cares nothing about the country, only about bashing the President with the mistaken idea that their words and misdeeds will get them into the White House in 2008. If you want Hillary or some other inept Dumocrat in there, then keep up your negative rhetoric. Just be careful what you wish for -- you may get it.
kodiak, let's liken the debate here to sports - say basketball.
Are you telling me if you have a favorite team, you always root for no matter win or loss - you always agree with every call and every play the coach makes during each and every game?
If you don't - do you no longer support the team?
I'm not trying to play down the reality of war with my comparison, but to say those who don't agree with the mission don't support the troops is utter BS.
I'll offer that you are doing far more harm to this country playing into the politics of dividing this nation between party lines using those particular and incorrect talking points than anyone saying they disagree with the Iraq mission.
Just because you don't support the mission doesn't mean you want the troops to lose. Brand anyone who has said "I want the troops to lose" a traitor, but leave those of us out there that disagree with policy alone.
I'd rather keep on topic, say, the fact that Iraq did have WMD, was working with terrorists, including al qaeda, and did seek yellow cake from not one African country, but two.
I can see why you wouldn't want to talk about that because then you can't say "Bush Lied" with a straight face. Shame on you. Your inability to be intellectually honest because of politics is exactly the kind of mindset running the Democrats right now and will result in bigger clash of civilations with the possibility of our losing if you guys don't take an honest look at the facts. However, your party would rather win elections than win the war to help our country. Good luck with that morally bankrupt party platform.
suomynona,
What I say is your reponse is total BS.
As I have said the debate should have ended once the troops took the field in 2003. Three years later we are still debating the war and the reasons for it. After 3 years of the democrats crying that the President was lying about the reasons for the war evidence is emerging that myabe just maybe he was not lying.
From WWII there is a saying that applies to this war:
Loose Lips Sink Ships!
What is going on is far more important than a basket ball game or a chess game. It is real and has real consequences for failure. Those opposed to the war say they support the troops but not the war. That is a hypocritical position that I have no respect for. If they were true to their position they would say they do not support the war or what the troops are doing as part of the war.
If you do not support the war you cannot support what the troops are doing as part of the war. Therefore, you cannot support the troops.
Lastly:
We are at War. When you are at war the rules change and for good reason. Lives are at stake, our troops lives!
Victoria,
When did I say Bush lied?
How many other countries hostile to America have WMD - in fact more definitive proof that they have WMD? And have ties to terrorist organizations? What makes them any different than Iraq? Why aren't we attacking them?
I'm happy to talk all day about this, but you're not. You have your position, you won't budge, and you prove my point - your's is the method of divide and conquer. Damn those lefties, they aren't real Americans!
(btw, I know you didn't say that, but I owe ya one)
"Mission Accomplished."
"Bring it on."
"The insurgency is in its last throes."
"Removing U.S. troops from Iraq], of course, is an objective, and that will be decided by future presidents..."
"There will be no Iraqi equivalent of V-E Day or V-J Day."
Tens of thousands of casualties, hundreds of billions of dollars, and the loss of our prestige and moral leadership in the world.
suomynona,
One last thing when the war is over win or lose lets debate policy until the cows come home. Until then lets put the debate away and cheer the troops on to victory, it their lives at stake.
loyalingrate,
Your point being...(silence)
Thought so!
Thanks for your input.
kodiak,
I'm not trying to play down the reality of war with my comparison..
You're arguing based on something I already stated.
What do you say of the troops who have toured and served in Iraq, who are now back and have decided to run for office as Democrats - against the policies of this Administration?
suomynona,
It depends on exactly what they say as part of the campain. They of course are free to run of r public office as a member of any party of their choice.
There has been a lot of damage done to the war effort already. Those returning should hopefully wise enough to place the emphasis on other areas to avoid undercutting the remaining troops in the field.
What do you say of the troops who have toured and served in Iraq, who are now back and have decided to run for office as Democrats - against the policies of this Administration?
Instead of wrrying about these 4 or 5, what do you say to the hundreds, if not thousands, that have re-upped and returned to Iraq?
Kodiak,
My point is that no wonder Bush has only a 33% approval rate. This could be lower if Rove gets indicted.
loyalingrate,
Looking at polls is like sticking your finger in the air to see which wsy the wind is blowing.
One aspect of being a leader is a willingness to stand up for a principle or position not because it is popular but because it is the right thing to do. I have not heard one voice stating that the President does not believe that the war and his policies are wrong.
All things being said Bush feels that resolving the Iraq problem was critical to protecting Americans and the right thing to do. It is a bold experiment for that region of the world if successful can go a long ways towards making ours and world a lot safer.
I would have a harder time with Bush if he paid too much attention to them.
Bush apparently does not pay attention to anything, and therein lies the problem.
loyalingrate,
Again, the evidence supporting your conclusion is lacking.
Would you be happy if in response to 9/11 that Bush did nothing?
Or would you be happy if Bush surrendered as a response to 9/11?
Just what would make you happy?
Bush quitting like Rumsfeld quitting is just not going to happen so choose something else. No you cannot choose impeachment. There is no evidence that Bush has commited anything that falls into the criteria for impeachment dispite what some democrats think.
Here's a few things that some may consider evidence of attentiveness:
1. Ignoring 8/6/01 Presidential Daily Briefing
2. Pet Goat episode
3. Ignoring advice of General Shinseki
4. Ignoring plans drawn up by the American War College predicting security and infrastructure problems facedby the Army in Iraq
5. Wildly underestimating the costs of war, now $10 Billion per month.
6. Took focus off capturing Bin Laden
7. Allowing opium production to resume in Afghanistan on a massive scale
8. Failing to develop a specific plan for dealing with North Korea.
9. Katrina! ! !
Actions or lack thereof speak louder than words.
loyalingrate,
I thought you would be a 9/11 blamer (see your point 1.).
Tell me did the Aug 6, 2001 PDB contain the names of the hijackers.
Did it contain the exact date time of the attack?
Did it contain the flights that would be used?
To help you I'll tell you the answer - NO!
Try again.
Point 3. General Shinseki I believe has retracted some of what he said to congress.
Point 4. Rumsfeld asked for these plans to be updated.
Point 5. Stupid reason. You cannont accurately estimate tbe cost of war.
Point 6. Make war against Pakastan?
Point 7. Definite mistake.
Point 8. Gee what would you do to a country that already has nukes and can deliver them to Alaska?
Point 9. Give me a break. Katrina is not Bush's fault nor is it Browns fault either. It was and is a fault of how the system works. State and local Government is the first responders. FEMA and the Federal Agencies whose assistance it coordinates are second responders. I suggest that you go to Popular Mechanics and look their article about Katrina before proceeding on this track. Bush did take some step to speed up the response. However, right or wrong the President stepped up and took responsibility.
More on point 8. This problem was dropped into Bush's lap by the previous administrations policies and failures.
Please pay attention to my comments on your point one. Your action concerning my questions or lack therof will determine how you'll be perceived by others for now on.
Loyalingrate, don't waste your time with Kodiak/Bear. He doesn't get it and never will.
fizziwigg,
The same can and is being said about you.
Your comment just validated mine.
Personally I do not care about your view of me or anything else for that matter.
Also, I am not bear! Nice try though.
Loyalingrate:
Thank you for putting Kodiak in his place. His followup ramblings were unconvincing. Just like Bush, he ignores the evidence
moderatelew,
Nobody has put me in my place. Nice try though.
Why don't you answer the questions on loyalingrate's point 1.
Then for extra credit explain exactly what the President should have done in response to the Aug 6, 2001 PDB.
This is supposed to be evidence that you claim I have ignored. I have asked some specific questions concerning evidence point 1. So answer the questions.
Well I'll save you the trouble the answer is NO.
Your comment is typical when confronted - declare victory and stomp off.
I defently like suomynona better that you he at least will try differnt ways to win ya over to his point of view.
You can crawl back under your rock now.
In response to the August 6, 2001 memo, what did Bush do to protect America? Nothing. That's the point.
mongo7,
Wrong answer.
Look to get it right you are going to state exactly what Bush should have done.
This cannot be that hard to answer.
Gee people given the information in that PDB there was no reasonable thing for the President to do. To prevent it specific information needed to available along with changes to rules being followed by the various government agencies to be changed. Read the 9/11 Commission report, I have.
I do not expect the President to be perfect. However, there are some in this blog who does.
Can anyone imagine the outrage had Bush grounded all aircraft on September 9?
If any will remember, news outlets were warning about a pending terrorist attack in the days leading up to 9-11. However, it was assumed by all it would be overseas again.
No one, Democrat or Republican, could have forseen what was about to happen, given the circumstances.
The CIA analysts told the 9/11 commissioners that they put all the relevant information they could into the PDB in order to get the President's attention. It was the first to warn of a possible attack on the United States itself. After the alarming PDB was presented to the President, nothing happened. There is every indication that he did not read it. He went fishing There further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. Counter terrorist expert Richard Clarke was not consulted. No meetings were convened to demand that the relevant intelligence officials search for pertinent evidence that might be found within their agencies such as the Phoenix memo or the various conversations between the FBI's Washington headquarters and an FBI agent in Minneapolis, who warned that he was concerned that Zacarias Moussaoui was planning to hijack a plane and crash it into a major building.
George Tenet spoke to President Bush, who was at his ranch in Texas for six weeks during the summer, only twice during the month of August (once in a routine briefing after Bush had returned to Washington).
NOTHING HAPPENED. Get it? He did nothing. There was no coordination prior to 9/11. The terror light was blinking red, and the whole Bush Brain trust sat on their behinds and did nothing.
The Millenium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Ladin's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US.
Although Bin Ladin has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks.
Al-Qa'ida members--including some who are US citizens--have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a (redacted) service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar "abd al-Rahman and other US held extremists.
-- Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.
Very ominously, that's how the document ends. But had I read such a document at the time the president of the United States did, my hair would have been on fire as the beltway phrase most commonly associated with this briefing goes, and the forty other mentions that the president had already gotten about Al Qaeda activity would have encouraged me to move mountains on my own to sound some sort of alarm and shake some trees.
###
CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.
Attacks with explosives indicates maybe a truck bomb, as Timothy McVeigh used and as was used in the first WTC attack.
Even with perfect 20/20 hindsight, here is nothing concerning the highjacking the civilian jetliners that would have set "my hair on fire."
However, it does also mention, "The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related."
Isn't it too bad the previous administration erected a wall between the agencies?
FALSE. No way can Bush's asleep at the switch attitude in August 2001 be attributed to the prior administration
I just wish the leftists could make up their minds. One minute, Bush is a diabolical devil subverting everything and scheming to overthrow the planet. Next minute, he is a brain dead moron asleep at the wheel.
It's little wonder Rummy won't resign. He must be learning a lot!
You read the presidential daily briefing as previously posted. What would you devine from it? Where would the attack come and by what means specifically?
1..2...3...GO!
Oh, wait, you'd have to go off script and you probably couldn't manage.
fizziwigg,
The year 1993 truck bomb world trade center NY, NY. Ring a bell for you.
Look we all know the common denominator here is ya all hate Bush. It does not matter what he does it will be wrong.
Your last post and wingate's is prime example of hindsight. For example - Gee what if say Clinton took up Sudan on their offer to turn bin Lauden over maybe then 9/11 could have been prevented.
Oops someone said ya can't blame the previous administration for 9/11. How long had the hijackers been in the US learning to fly? Which administration issued the Visa's? When did they first expire?
Lets see Bush at the time of the PDB was in office for approximately 6 months 3 weeks. Yet 9/11 is his fault. No your logic doesn't work for me.
Richard Clarke is not a source I would be quoting, he had long since discredited himself.
As for the rest wouldda couldda shouldda is mear speculation. The system had been set up for failure by the previous administration rules that were still in place.
The PDB questions still remain unanswered by ya all did the CIA include specific information concerning who, when and where an attack would occur. Nobody has so far said that it did any time prior to 9/11.
So once again ya liberal brainiacs who sit on the side lines and complain about Bush and his brain trust doing nothing - what should he have done, what would you have done?
Answer - Nothing that would be apparant to the public. With out specific information of who, what where and when ya cannot do anything but wait.
Ya all complain that I don't get it and never will. Remember the story about throwing rocks and glass houses. Hope ya all find another place to live.
8/6/01 PDB: Probably did not read and certainly did not do anything.
Pet Goat: He sat there and did nothing.
Katrina Tapes: Pre-Hurricane briefing: Sat there, did not ask a single question.
Ports Deal: Did not know about it until after the fact.
This is enough evidence of incompetence for many of us, at least 67% of us.
We've already addressed the PBA on this blog. NExt...
Wait just a minute. Bush may be incompetent, a liar and an idiot, but he's my incompetent, liar and idiot. He's all we got. Live with it.
What's a PBA
fizziwigg,
I see your problem.
Addiction to democratic sound bites.
67% of everybody contains 60%+ democrats vs republicans.
Again polls = wet finger in wind.
8/6/01 PDB I have addressed previously and your comment shows once again your own incompetence.
Katrina tapes that you cite were rigged to show only part of the briefing to make the President look bad.
fizziwigg there is one word for you - sucker.
Lastly all that Harvard is they do not give MBA away like candy. Bush scored higher in college that your boy Kerry.
Remember during the campain he did not want to release all of his military records only selected ones. Well he had good reason to keep them sealed. After the campain he released them and out pops his college records. Not so good 5 D's and a F in Politics. Imangine that.
Another point brainiac - the Constitution only has two requirements for becoming President. 1. Born in US and 2. over Age 35.
Popular is not one them.
rightiedave,
Make that PBA PDB. Presidential Daily Briefing.
The only reason that Bush is called a liar is because Al said so. Never mind the fact that everyone long before Bush ran for the Presidency said Saddam had WMD's.
Something the incompetent democrats like to pretend never happened. Why let history get in the way.
Kodiak, you left out one other constitutional qualification to be president. You have to be elected.
I measure a president by his performance in office, not his college grades. Lincoln did not go to college and became the Great Emancipator. Bush did and became the Great Decider.
fizziwigg,
I wasn't the one who brought up compentence you did. Given the amount of information that a Presidnet has to absorb it is not a position for the faint of heart.
Well, he was elected. Court case aside Buch was ahead when the game was called in 2000. And he won by a large margin in Ohio giving him the victory in 2004.
As much as I dislike Kerry I will give him some credit by not following Al (the sore loser) Gore route.
I know you probably disagree with the court case decision and wanted recount after recount adjusting was would be counted as a vote after each recount until Gore won. But the rules for the vote should not be changed in the middle of the game and at the very least that is exactly appeared that's what Gore wanted.
For a minute consider the following. Say the election is thrown into Congress to decide. Imagine the uncertainy. Then imagine the following Speaker of the House is sworn into the office of President on January 20, 2001 at noon along with the Senate President Pro Tem as Vice President. That would have been a Republican President and a democtrat Vice President.
That situation would be a selected not elected President and Vice President (not country wide).
So lets stop arguing over the 2000 election. Get over it please. There are more important things in life.
Bush is our President and will be untill noon on January 20th 2009.
We've already addressed the PBA on this blog.
Our leftist need to realize that the only thing worse than beating a dead horse is betting on one.
Most progressives know the difference between a PDB and a PBA
fizziwigg,
Still don't bet on it
Lew and Victoria are professional bowlers and like to plug their association whenever possible.
wingate,
Just what this thread needed.
Last a word to those who hate Rumsfeld.
In our system the civilian leadership fire the Generals not the other way around.
[In Robert McNamara's #1 bestseller In Retrospect, he] writes, "We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why. I truly believe that we made an error not of values and intentions, but of judgment and capabilities."
Hopefully Rumsfeld will some day be able to admit to the wrongs of this war.
fizziwigg,
In Saturday's Oregonian a piece by Charles Krauthammer would be of interest to you.
The latest General to retire and critize Rumsfeld had previously stated that Rumsfeld was the right man to be SOD.
In Robert McNamara's #1 bestseller In Retrospect,
BARF!!
He also says he knew from the beginning it was a losing proposition, but sent 2.5 million of us there. If he knew all along and before anyone was sent, why did he go along with it? Why didn't he resign or "blow the whistle" long before Johnson escalated it?
20/20 hindsight and revisionism to build a legacy don't necessarily mix.
Kodiak,
It seems that when you say "last" you don't mean it.
Lew, FYI
No serving or retired generals stood up to criticize McNamara's handling of the war.
Fox News is reporting an 8th general has called for Rumsfeld's resignation. Ret. Marine General Paul Van Riper said he constantly talks with many active duty and retired senior officers who share his feelings that Secretary Rumsfeld has not fought the Iraq war competently. He told Fox that Rumsfeld has run the Pentagon through intimidation and that a change in leadership is needed:
"If this leader is not capable of doing it, now going in excess of five years, has not demonstrated he is, then perhaps it is time to find a new one. If I was the president, I would have relieved him three years ago".
Wow! An eighth general came forward to call for Rummy’s firing and Fox News Channel gave him time to air his views??? Is somebody slipping at that network? Do they have some new people who haven’t signed the loyalty oath yet? To me, the fact that Fox aired this gentleman is more newsworthy than what he is saying (which is also very newsworthy.)