Bush

[Champane Flight]

Most of the time we are quite rosey. But, it is hard to have patience when people are dying.



Duh, lets attack Iraq! Duh, what do do with it now? Brilliant strategy!



September 24, 2003

Finding a New Path in Iraq



n the surface, President Bush's speech to the United Nations yesterday seemed a Panglossian report on how well things are going in Iraq with little to draw the broad international assistance he desperately needs. But behind this, there is something closer to a consensus on the goals for Iraq's future. The international community, Mr. Bush and his allies all want to see the Iraqis become self-governing as soon as possible and to take over their own security operations. There also seems to be agreement that the United States should remain in command of military operations. This is a good starting point.



But there remain substantial differences over how to achieve Iraqi sovereignty. France wants to give power to the Iraqi Governing Council more or less immediately and then let the United Nations sort things out. Mr. Bush wants the handover to be from the United States, and not for at least a year.



Mr. Bush is right to worry that the French timetable is so quick that it could be a recipe for a hasty and irresponsible retreat. But the United Nations must be brought in to take over the political transformation in return for real help in reconstruction and security.



In the interim, the United States should remain in control of the military situation. No other power or international force is capable of doing the job. But the more the forces in Iraq take on a multinational character, the less the transition is likely to founder on the considerable anti-American hostility within the country. Even President Jacques Chirac of France called on the Security Council yesterday to give its blessing to the presence of an international military presence in Iraq — under command of what he called "the main troop contributor," meaning the United States.



The political side is more complicated. The United States has set up a 25-member Governing Council that does a good job of representing the various ethnic, religious and political forces within Iraq, although it has no mandate from the people. The French are pushing for an agreement to turn over power to run the country to the council in a very short period of time, under some sort of United Nations supervision.



The problem with the French timetable is that there is no sign that the Governing Council has really learned to work together, or that it has identified a natural leader. The French may well argue that the American plan is too slow to force the council to rise to the challenge. But their current plan looks too much like a scenario for an abrupt retreat from the responsibilities that Washington and its allies took on when they invaded Iraq. Without a real civil administration and the beginnings of a military and police force, giving any Iraqi body sovereignty would be a largely symbolic — and potentially destructive — gesture.



That does not mean it makes sense for the United States to continue to have sole ownership of the political power in Iraq. Mr. Bush said in yesterday's speech that the United States invaded Iraq in part to defend the credibility of the United Nations. If we are to take him at his word, then he should continue that effort by allowing the world body to assume responsibility for the civilian nation-building process.



Unfortunately, Mr. Bush's speech did not grapple with these issues. His address seemed aimed more at a domestic audience than the world community, given how sunny a picture he painted of a situation in which the administration is finding almost nothing as easy as it had hoped.



The United States clearly fears that if the United Nations takes over the job, it will make a mess of things. We are in a mess already. What's needed now is an international plan for dealing with it.

 

[illflem]

Mr. Bush said in yesterday's speech that the United States invaded Iraq in part to defend the credibility of the United Nations.

Whoops, the public caught us on the WMD and nuclear threat excuse, now Iraqi's link to al Queda and 9/11.

Time to barf up a new one.

 

[Hale on wheels]

Federal Judge Donald Walter's Comments On Iraq



Now put into a more respectable forum, this New York Post column.

Another opponent of the war who spent some weeks in Iraq, and has changed his mind.

"When we left in mid June, 57 mass graves had been found, one with the bodies of 1,200 children. There have been credible reports of murder, brutality and torture of hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iraqi citizens. There is poverty on a monumental scale and fear on a larger one. That fear is still palpable. I have seen the machines and places of torture.



Terrible things happened with the knowledge, indeed with the participation, of Saddam, his family and the Ba'athist regime. Thousands suffered while we were messing about with France and Russia and Germany and the United Nations. Every one of them knew what was going on there, but France and the United Nations were making millions administering the Food-for-Oil program. "





Wednesday, September 24, 2003



The Fat Lady Has Sung



I was just watching FoxNews. They intervewed the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program. He said:



1. Iraq had a sizeable quantity of chemical weapons in the 1990s.



2. Most of these weapons were either destroyed, or degraded.



3. He engaged in a cover-up of the WMD programs to prevent UN inspectors from seeing the extent of the programs, and that Iraq no longer had WMDs.



4. He speculated that Hussein pretended to have WMDs still in order to keep other nations afraid.



5. He said that the lack of WMDs was not for lack of interest, and that the WMD programs remained active, with plans to again build WMDs.



This nails it down pretty well. There was someone lying about WMDs in Iraq, but it wasn't President Bush or Prime Minister Blair. It was the Iraqis. Under the circumstances, the belief that Iraq had WMDs was completely reasonable. This is equivalent to seeing a person that you know has robbed banks in the past with a shotgun, walking clumsily into a bank wearing an overcoat. When a cop approaches and tells him to put his hands in the air, and he refuses, and starts to reach under the coat--you draw and fire.



Here is the link to Clayton Craymer's web page which is where I got this material.



http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2003_09_21_archive.html#106441309646341898

 

[NETim]

Yoohoo! Reality calling!

Tell me again WHO'S lying?



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line. " President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.



"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. " President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.



"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face. " Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.



"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983. " Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.



"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U. S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs. " Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.



"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process. " Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.



"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies. " Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.



"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies. " Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.



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



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



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



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



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



"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. " Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.



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



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



"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. " Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.



"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. " Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.



"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ... " Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.



Tim

 

[illflem]

Remarks by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa February 24, 2001



... We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. I have no doubt in my mind who those weapons were aimed at. They are being aimed at Arabs, not at the United States.

 

[Rman]

so bill, you don't think disarmament is a good idea... whether the united states was directly in harms way or not? I might add that our national policy of defense is to maintain security both for itself and it's allies.



It also has a policy to defend and advance the cause of democracy, freedom, and human rights. The US also desires to promote national independence and growth of free institutions worldwide.



So again why was it a bad idea to do all of this? As far as I can tell, the situation in the Middle East is falling inline with the National policies that have been laid in place since WWII. One must understand that the situation is a result of a long series of events that led to the current predicament.



To just turn your head and say it's not our problem is not only foolish, it is NOT american policy and hasn't been for the last 50 years. Remember Grenada, Libya, Iraq (the first time), vietnam, korea... all examples of American policy in action. Now i'm not saying you or anyone must agree with it, but thats the way it is. IF you want to change it then the white house, and/or congress is waiting for you.



I also interject i have some issues with the way we have gone about this, but being a service member myself i'm not at full liberty to question it.

 

[loncray]

Ah, but Grenada, Iraq I, etc. were all instances where we went in to rescue Americans (Grenada), because we PROVED an attack on us (Libya, and that wasn't an invasion), or because an ally asked us in (Korea, Iraq (Kuwait), Vietnam). Iraq II is our first preemptive strike, just as Pearl Harbor was Japan's. Or Poland was Nazi Germany's. I was a Cold Warrior - no matter what the Sovs did we were always quite clear that we weren't going to fire first - and we KNEW absolutely for sure that the Sovs had nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, that they killed a lot of their own people, and they posed a clear threat to the US. But it wasn't our place to fire a preemptive strike on them, even after we knew they were collapsing. I think we've forgotten the lessons of Pearl Harbor.

Also, those WMD's might justify an airstrike, or missiles maybe. If Saddam had kicked out the UN inspectors, maybe just maybe that would have been a justification for sending US troops in to find the things. But WE told the UN guys to leave, and then invaded. Where's that fabled conservative patience? Why weren't the UN inspectors allowed to finish their jobs? Could it be that we finally figured out that they weren't going to find anything? Not finding anything would mean we'd lose our biggest excuse to invade!

 

[Rman]

Now wait a minute here. Patience? is 20 plus years not patient enough? I agree with you on the other instances such as grenada and iraq, and korea where american interests were directly affected. However, i did also say



"america also has a policy to defend and advance the cause of democracy, freedom, and human rights. The US also desires to promote national independence and growth of free institutions worldwide. "



Are you saying that freeing these people is wrong, that letting them get **** on is right? Now i know your going to retort with the typical democrat answer like why were not going to rescuing every soul on the planet. Well frankly the situation elsewhere does not necessitate action. We went in somalia, didn't prepare well enough and left. We left because the benefits didn't justify the means. The benefits in Iraq are worth the consequences we will pay for doing it.



Ultimately its the failure, of those of you who think this is so wrong, to see the positives that are rising from the conflict. It's very typical in partisan politics to criticize what goes wrong... well what about the good things that have happened? Hell with it right, your right and i'm wrong.

 

[Rman]

Another point I'd like to make is that I'm not defending bush, He screwed up, pretty bad. But the situation has not changed regardless of his mistakes. He still did the right thing in my mind, just the B. S. he fed us was the error.



Having been over there, the situation is far more complex than most of you are giving any credit too. This arguement over WMD's and there existence frankly is completely irrelavent. Big deal, we were after a much greater threat then that. An attempt to stablize a region is better then armchairing like we have been for 20 years. I think they outta turn Israel loose now, but that's to be seen later.

 

[loncray]

Where do you get 20 plus years? Heck, 20 years ago Saddam was probably still an ALLY. I count 12 years since Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

And it might be a typical answer, but that doesn't make it wrong - why is Iraq a special case? They weren't threatening us (North Korea is), they were relatively stable internally (not the case with most of Africa) and they hadn't threatened any neighbors since getting squished in Desert Storm (unlike good chunks of Africa). Now we go from a known dictatorship to a power vacuum, into which are streaming Islamic extremists from all over the Middle East.

I don't see an awful lot of positives - the Iraqis had clean water and electricity, now most don't. They had homes and jobs - many of them don't now. They had working oil fields - now they don't. They were able to drive down relatively modern roads - now those are mined or blown up. The US Army used to be a relatively safe job - now it's not. And don't give me that tripe about 'if you didn't expect to get shot at don't join' - the Army isn't set up to fight the war that's happening in Iraq now.

 

[loncray]

I respectfully disagree - I think we've DE-stabilized the region with our attack. Saddam was a stabilizing factor - albeit a nasty one.

I do agree that WMD's are basically irrelevant - but they show a president who will say whatever he wants to get what he wants - hey, wasn't President Clinton accused of exactly that?

 

[Rman]

the army being safe thing is cute. I got a good chuckle out of that one. My my, the kinder gentler army of the past where all was safe and we just played with plastic bullets and trained with dummies because we thought this was just a national past time.



So you think freeing a nation and restoring order can be done in oh what 5 months? Man they really outta make you president, we have some serious issues with the education system here in Utah... maybe you could come clean it up for us in, what about a week right?



Yeah 20+ years there have been unsettling things happening in the middle east. All the while we sat back keeping tabs and a watchful eye. Like i said, there is more too it than any of you give credit too, much more than what the media reports to you. Oh yeah and all that damage you claimed in Iraq... that's how wars are won, sorry but it's not cut and dry like the politicians think it is. Bombs are pretty accurate, but you know what they still blow up, nothing is perfect.

 

[Rman]

Originally posted by loncray

I respectfully disagree - I think we've DE-stabilized the region with our attack. Saddam was a stabilizing factor - albeit a nasty one.

I do agree that WMD's are basically irrelevant - but they show a president who will say whatever he wants to get what he wants - hey, wasn't President Clinton accused of exactly that?

Hey at least you respectfully disagreed!



momentarily de-stabilized... again think of the big picture. Things take time. If this turns into Vietnam, and we waste 15 years then i was wrong, just don't spit on the soldiers when they come home, it's not their fault.



Yeah yeah, Bush is a politician, can you hold it against him, it's not like he has to think all that much. He's not the policy maker he's a puppet and a rather good one. He does exactly what he's told to by his "advisors". Man if i were president that would have to be one thing i did for myself was write my own speeches. Sometimes he can look so ridiculous.

 

[loncray]

Okay, I guess I haven't made myself clear on this. In my opinion, President Bush has launched a preemptive attack on a sovereign nation, going against world opinion and a significant portion of US opinion, using an excuse that gets flimsier and flimsier every day. We should never have launched this attack (barring a clear and present danger from Iraq - which didn't and doesn't exist), and even if I thought this attack justifiable I'd really have wanted a plan for what to do after the invasion before the first boot hit the sand.

Please don't denigrate the Army I was part of - we had real drill sergeants and none of this 'stress card' nonsense and we were waiting for the Sovs to come over the Gap at any time. We had terrorists taking pictures of our kasernes and alerts in the middle of the night. It's because of my kinder and gentler Army holding the peace that YOUR Army is around to go marching into Iraq now.

I don't care if there isn't peace in 5 months - we never should have broken the peace to begin with. I don't think we'll have peace for many years.

 

[Rman]

easy there trigger, your the one thats doing the denigrating. The thought that joining a war fighting force... and to think it's a safe place to be at is kind of silly in my opinion. Sorry if i offended you. As a member of the profession of arms i have the utmost respect for past and present warfighters.



I guess we just disagree. This whole preemptive thing, yeah it can be looked at that way. However, i see it as the U. S. performing in its best, and its allies best interests. I guess the freedom's we possess allow us to sit and bicker about it. We sat idely by long enough, it was time to take decisive action, regardless if Kofi Annan liked it.



So you don't think the huge protests in Iraq are good? I see that as people being able to do something they sure as hell never would have thought of for the last 50 years. Yeah there is unrest, and indeed there should. But isn't there unrest here? There's poor people, uneducated, helpless children... very similar. It's just going to take time to restore order and establish certain systems that they do not have. If i were in their position I'd be ****** off too, but their position is not really as important as the greater good for the country.



It's a complex situation, our guys are being killed daily, it really sucks but we're doing our best. Maybe someone will come up with a better way, i hope so, but until then press on.

 

[loncray]

I never said I thought the Army should be a safe place. However, the US Army is designed to fight soldiers and tanks, not guerrillas with improvised explosives. We aren't doing enough (in my opinion) to keep our troops in Iraq alive now that the major fighting is over. We've got guys in HMWWV's that ought to be in Bradley's - or Apache gunships. We (meaning both the Administration and the DOD) simply didn't think thru what to do once the Iraqi Army capitulated.

Yes, it's great that Iraqi's can protest - the problem is, a lot of those protests are going to be organized by folks with a vested interest in getting the American's out. Wasn't it great back in 1979 when students in Iran, acting against the Shah (a dictator not too much better than Saddam), started protesting? Great until they took our embassy hostage. I just don't see a lot of good coming from Iraq for many, many years.

 

[illflem]

Originally posted by rhickman

we have some serious issues with the education system here in Utah... maybe you could come clean it up for us in, what about a week right?

Give me $87 billion and I'll fix it up in six hours.

By the time we finish with Iraq and I hope we finish since we're the ones who screwed it up by supporting Saddam years ago and shock & awing them more recently, they'll probably have better schools, roads, medical care, power grids. etc than we do. We'll end up paying for it for the next 40 years. Money could be better spent fixing up our own country and improving homeland security.

17 guys with box cutters took out the WTC, how long is it going to be to till we eliminate the last dozen or so left in the world? Never.



The division in this country worldwide that this administration has generated with it's Iraq policy pretty much guarantees terrorism, maybe even from non-Muslim domestic far left or righties for years to come.

Every where you look or read the sides are at each other's throats when we should be untied in the fight. Bush had the chance after 9/11 but blew it, most of the world was behind us, I was behind him. Bush just took advantage using the terrorism excuse to fulfill another agenda. If that wasn't true we wouldn't be arguing about it right now.

 

[merryman]

Coupla items;



1. The comments of Powel that illflem loves to post is taken way out of context:

He was speaking in the context of DELIVERY SYSTEMS, NOT WMDs themselves---even the quote, if read carefully makes that clear.



2. That was a great post Tim, unfortunatly wasted on those who are out to undermine Bush.

Just compare the comments you set out with what the likes of clinton, allbright, daschal etc are saying now--that crowd and their supporters say what ever they think will fly today. For them, everything is about political gain.



3. To contend that we have no vital interest in removing Saddam and stabilizing that region (wow, to describe saddam as a stabilizing factor!, but then I suppose Hitler was a stabilizer---or would have been as soon as he controlled the entire world), is to ignor all relevant history of such madmen. Had we allowed him to fully develope his weapons and delivery systems would have produced a horrible situation. He would likely have taken each of his neighbors in turn with the threat that any intervention would result in a nuclear strike on various major cities. When he had all the neighbors, move on to Isreal, and then ??---eventually we would have had to engage in a nueclear war to stop it.



Speaking of Hitler, it would be interesting to some of you to read the history of the build up to WW II. Churchill and Rosevelt were described pretty much as some of you try to describe Bush. The crowd that was opposed to war, was horrified that our leader and the british leader wanted to interfer in that silly little squable going on in Europe; and they prevented us stopping Hitler when it would have been a minor war, ah well, those who do not know history will just go on repeating the learning errors.

A great read and real authority on those years is "A MAN CALLED INTREPID", by Stephenson, who was the head of the british secret service during those years.



Bush did exactly the correct thing. Is it easy?? Nope, and I don't think any thinking person thought it would be.

Give thanks that he had the intellegence and the balls to take on a dirty job that he well knew would bring the kind of non-sense we see here. The amount of outrigh false and misleading stuff we see here is incredible!



The really sad part is the encouragement our lefty's give to the terrorist; what could they think except that if they kill enough of our people, maybe the protest at home will force Bush to withdraw. One of our largest chores is to convince them that their fighting ---killing our people and innocent others-- is pointless. As long as our own people keep up the non sense about lying, etc etc, and suggesting that we withdraw, the terrorist will keep up their hope that we will give up---that translates directly to more terror attacks and more of our people killed.



Sure you guys have the right to state your opinions and to protest, but that does not mean that encouraging the saddam loyalist, the terroist and other idiots to go on fighting us is the right thing to do.

Our side is not going to give up. It would be good if WE had your help. There are enough non-Americans on the other side.



Vaughn

 

[Sled Puller]

Originally posted by illflem

Remarks by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa February 24, 2001



... We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. I have no doubt in my mind who those weapons were aimed at. They are being aimed at Arabs, not at the United States.

Bill,

That statement shot holes in itself as soon as the date was read!



February 24, 2001, didn't something later that year happen that would help them" ..... constantly be reviewing our policies"





"I have no doubt in my mind who those weapons were aimed at. They are being aimed at Arabs, not at the United States. /"



I reckon old Colin CHANGED IS MIND in September that year.



We all know taking out Saddam was the right thing, a little too late for thousands of dead Iraqis.



Now, hopefully, the 90 some odd % of good, honest , hardworking Iraqis will stand up to the thugs who are killing their liberators.



There is more good happening in that country than bad at the moment.

Never figure that out listening to the news though, would you?Their motto is"If it ain't body count, it ain't news"



Same thing happened to the Viet nam Vets, the press was guilty of treason then, and is still now. Helping the enemy, for good storys.

 

[loncray]

Nobody has yet proved a link between Saddam and the 9/11 terrorists. Lots of links between the terrorists and the Saudi's, but no attack there? Why is that? We DID take out the Taliban, and that's a good thing.