Defense Secretary Bob Gates at West Point on Friday

So Rumsfeld and Dick….?

Bill Kristol?

Rummy is feelin’ salty!

And as for the current crop of mis-advisors?
.
Levinworth? Abu-Ghraib?

Did he mention anything about going against a Sicilian when death is on the line?

Any president who nominates and any senator who votes to confirm Bob Gates for any position in the United States government needs to have their heads examined. Gates is/was/forever will be a complete disaster for the United States military.

While at West Point, did Gates assert before the cadets that the United States military is now a much better fighting force because Gates and Obamao have instructed the superintendent at West Point to conduct monthly so-called Gay Pride parades on post?

I love you, Bob Gates! Gosh…if only he were SecDef or in some other leadership role when Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the rest of the stooges were lining up the Iraq invasion…
http://www.sunstateactivist.org

Mark Thompson:
.
You quote Bob Gates as essentially recommending against a large force deployment (“…any future defense secretary who advises the President to again send a big American land army into Asia or…“)
.
Does that mean that Gates disagrees with Shinseki, and agrees with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki
.
“[34th Chief of Staff of the Army, four-star general Eric] Shinseki publicly clashed with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld during the planning of the war in Iraq over how many troops the U.S. would need to keep in Iraq for the postwar occupation of that country. As Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki testified to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that “something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers” would probably be required for postwar Iraq. This was an estimate far higher than the figure being proposed by Secretary Rumsfeld in his invasion plan, and it was rejected in strong language by both Rumsfeld and his Deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, who was another chief planner of the invasion and occupation.[4]”

What does Bob Gates mean, Mark Thompson?
.
Was there anything else said, anything else you could quote that might clarify Gates’ meaning?

S — Sometimes clarity demands distillation; elaboration too often yields dilution. But here is where that quote comes from:

Looking ahead, though, when the competition for tight Defense dollars, within and between the services, the Army must confront the reality that the most plausible high-end scenarios for the U.S. military are primarily naval and air engagements, whether in Asia, the Persian Gulf or elsewhere.

The strategic rationale for swift-moving expeditionary forces, be they Army or Marines, airborne, infantry or special operations, is self-evident, given the likelihood of counterterrorism, rapid reaction, disaster response or stability or security force assistance missions. But in my opinion, any future Defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined, as General MacArthur so delicately put it.

By no means am I suggesting that the U.S. Army will or should turn into a Victorian nation-building constabulary designed to chase guerrillas, build schools and sip tea. But as the prospects for another head-on clash of large, mechanized land armies seem less likely, the Army will be increasingly challenged to justify the number, size and cost of its heavy formations to those in the leadership of the Pentagon and on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, who ultimately make policy and set budgets.

What we can expect in the future is that potential adversaries, be they terrorists, insurgents, militia groups, rogue states or emerging powers, will seek to frustrate America’s traditional advantages, in particular, our ability to shoot, move and communicate with speed and precision.

From the look of things, the Army will not repeat the mistakes of the past, where irregular warfare was shunted to the side after Vietnam. The odds of repeating another Afghanistan or Iraq — invading, pacifying and administering a large, Third World country — may be low, but what — in what General Casey has called an era of persistent conflict, those unconventional capabilities will still be needed at various levels and in various locations, most critically, to prevent festering problems from growing into full-blown crises which require costly and controversial large-scale American military intervention.

Good question Stuart, though Thompson seldom deigns to give anyone a reply. So I’ll jump in for my good friend Bob Gates and suppose that he considers 100,000 boots on the ground to be a “big American land army,” and, no, we won’t be ending our military adventures there ’till the last drop of crude.

Apologies, Mark. Must have been the shear magnetism of being wonged. Still think my answer was better, though.

Troops on both your northern (Turkey) and southern (Kuwait) border and a no fly zone over 2/3 of the country, and a multi-billion dollar nuclear deterrant. Anyone who decided to go to war with that in their favor does indeed need to have their head examined. Like to see neo-cons argue we need a nuclear deterrant at the same time they were arguing that it was a failure, seeing as, umm, it was failing to deter. I’m no fan of Al Gore, but it’s hard to imagine we wouldn’t be richer, more secure, and have 4000 more Americans walking this earth if he had won in 2000. Oh, wait, he did.

He won, but he wasn’t permitted the WH. And it is the person who lives in the WH, who works in the oval office to whom everybody listens and the partisans bow.
.

Hey, don’t knock Rumsfeld, he actually advised sending a SMALL American land army into Iraq.

So, it’s not a mindless engagement that’s in dispute, just that it should be waged with airplanes and ships.

Will we examine the heads of those who don’t advise for timely withdrawal and cutting the losses of useless, pointless, destructive endeavors? That ball is in Mr. Gates court as we speak. Given the war mentality of our country, I predict that this will not be the last time somebody offers such sage advice after the next quagmire.

Can I just point out that it wasn’t the defense secretary then nor will be one in the future that takes us to war. It requires a lot of others, It takes Congress laying down on the job, the press laying down on the job and a public turned on by tough talk and a lack of understanding about what we are about to get into.

Here, here, gunny… [lifts glass]

Well done, square1.

Thank you for the full quote MT.
.
Kind of odd, though. In the “era of persistent conflict”, our “ability to shoot, move and communicate with speed and precision” depends on forward capabilities via networks of military bases. And in order to build and maintain that network, we are necessarily “nation-building” and performing “constabulary” duties.
.
What’s most odd is that this all happened under Gates’ watch. The “era of persistent conflict”, attributed to Casey, was obvious in Pentagon and State decisions; in ’95 Sec Def Rumsfeld wrote the Defense Strategy of the United States suggesting that “we require the capacity to move swiftly into and through strategic pivot points and remote locations. The new global posture-using main operating bases (MOB), forward operating sites (FOS), and a diverse array of more austere cooperative security locations (CSL)- will support such needs.” (link); and the PNAC (with members that would dominate the Bush administration’s Foreign Policy team) wrote that a “core mission” for the military is to “perform the ‘constabulary’ duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions” (link).
.
So what is Gates saying? Is he suggesting we abandon this policy after his tenure?

Thanks for replying Mark Thompson.

hindsight is 20/20 my friends

Thank you so much for responding to commentary with the full quote, Mark Thompson, it is greatly appreciated.

…the Army will not repeat the mistakes of the past, where irregular warfare was shunted to the side after Vietnam. The odds of repeating another Afghanistan or Iraq — invading, pacifying and administering a large, Third World country — may be low, but what — in what General Casey has called an era of persistent conflict, those unconventional capabilities will still be needed at various levels and in various locations, most critically, to prevent festering problems from growing into full-blown crises which require costly and controversial large-scale American military intervention.

So, despite the resemblance of the initial quote to a criticism of invading and occupying Iraq or Afghanistan, Gates’ actual meaning seems to be that our force structure should retain the capability of invading and occupying places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
.
The “head examined” statement seems to refer to “costly and controversial large-scale American military intervention,” i.e. another Vietnam, which, in Gates’ view, Iraq and Afghanistan are not.
.
I hope that you might be able to see how readers may have gotten a different impression of Gates’ statement than

“we absolutely require the capability to do more preemptive wars against countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, where we’ll definitely need to pacify and administer large, Third World countries once again, but we must avoid more Vietnams –those kind of wars are crazy“

from the original quote in your post, Mark Thompson.
.
Thanks once again for making the record clear.

Oh yeah, 150K small. Thanks for the reminder.

And before we plan any more of these Bush-type excursions, maybe we need to learn something about the country and where the power is, e.g., is it really a state or a bunch of tribes that are collected inside some lines drawn in London, or Paris, or Madrid by puppetmasters years ago? What are the internal forces that shape the area, e.g., strong differences in religious view, and whether there is really a need for a bully with billion dollar weapons to get involved in a conflict where we don’t have an end plan (except being showered with roses).

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/unknown-knowns/

Secretary Gates should switch parties. He is far too smart to be indentified as a Republican. How sad that a party that had so many brilliant leaders has come down to such dimwits as McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, Palin, Limbaugh, Bachman, Santorum, Paul, Rove, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield, Libby, Wolfowitz, Perle, Beck, and a host of others. Virtually all have a tendency to “speak first and then think” and “shoot and then aim.”: We went to war based on lies which has cost this country billions and untold numbers of lives of brave Americans, innocent Iraqis and military personnel from our allied countries. The repercussions will be felt for years to come. Think about it: Rumsfield – the war will last six days, six weeks or maybe six months. Cheney: we will be met with flowers being thrown at our military’s feet. Palin critical of the President’s response in Egypt and Libya. This from a women who didn’t even know Africa was a continent. She thought it was a country within ??. I guess she thought Egypt was a city within the country of Africa. The current crop, which includes the Tea Party, wants to slash the budget. Certainly cuts are absolutely necessary. But, they should be done with an analysis of results, i.e. cause and effect. There is no thought. For example, the GOP leaders want to cut funds for WIC, the program that benefits poor pregant mothers with proper nutrition. It is axiomatic that under nourished mothers produce very tiny infants. Those infants weighing under two pounds will, in most cases, have lifetime health problems. Who will pay? You. The cost of those illnesses will far surpass the money spent on WIC. The lack of reasoning and analysis is scary for the future of this country. Their response to everything is Blame Obama. They need to look in the mirror.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but many of us knew exactly where we were headed in 2003. We were rather forcfully shouted down.
.
Remember the Dixie Chicks!!!!

“Yet military history is full of surprises, even if few are as dramatic or as memorable as Pearl Harbor. Surprise happens so often that it’s surprising that we’re still surprised by it. Very few of these surprises are the product of simple blindness or simple stupidity. Almost always there have been warnings and signals that have been missed–sometimes because there were just too many warnings to pick the right one out, sometimes because of what one scholar of Pearl Harbor called “a poverty of expectations”—a routine obsession with a few familiar dangers.”

- Paul Wolfowitz, West Point, June 2001

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/an-opportunity/

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2010/06/15/unipolar-disorder/

Textee: Why don’t you come out already.

OT – but still interesting…
.
Scoot Walker was asked to leave a restaurant in downtown Madison by the owner after the other patrons started to boo him.
.
http://firedoglake.com/2011/02/25/late-night-youll-never-eat-dinner-in-this-town-again/

Sorry, Scott, NOT Scoot (or even Scooter)

What? No Oscar thread?
.
What are we, Philistines?

I guess so, Paul.
.
SOMEONE forgot to throw some “chumm” in the water here in the form of a “1000 Words” entry…
.
Guess one of the hostage postings is gonna have to die for the greater good…
.
Pity.

Actually he didn’t win. He lost. He very clearly lost. The MSM counted a dozen different ways and he kept losing. Thanks for bringing it up however. Nice to see libs wallowing in self-pity. Will you ever get over it? I hope not.

Gates’ actual meaning seems to be that our force structure should retain the capability of invading and occupying places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

****************************

Dead on. Gates has done a brilliant job continuing the work of transformation started by Rummy under the orders of Bush. If you remember early on Gates fired the Secretary of the Air Force as well as the AF chief of staff for blocking change. One of the specific problems was delaying the expansion of the drone program so useful to troops on the ground. Gates knew immediately he needed to support Petraeus and ever since has done just that. Having been in control of the promotion process for nearly 5 years Petraeus is cleaning out all of the old big army dinosaurs.

afguy, that was so funny I almost started this comment “sacredh”

No you didn’t. No one called what happened in advance. The Dixie Chicks were not pissed on for what they said but where they said it. You don’t go overseas and then piss on your country. They had the right, to bad they didn’t have any class.

Here’s the ransom note…
.
We want “1000 Words” in small sentences, delivered by the end of the weekend, or Gates gets it…
.
Signed – the SwampCritters

gunny: You are on the mark. I thought after Vietnam we would avoid another undeclared war and quagmire. I had hoped the traditional media would not again buy into a narrative of war so they could burnish their journalist credentials. I hoped the American public would remember history and the tragic, unnecessary deaths of the past. Instead I watched the inevitable propaganda that took us to war.

Many were questioning the momentum to war, the motives and the possible outcomes.
.
http://articles.cnn.com/2003-02-15/us/sprj.irq.protests.main_1_anti-war-rallies-anti-war-movement-police-use-pepper-spray?_s=PM:US
.
But thanks to the traditional media’s desire to participate in war journalism (Judith Miller, et al), a complacent Congress, and a perfidious Administration to war we went. The powers of control would not listen to those that were advicing against the venture.
.
I remember watching “shock and awe” in horror.

gunny, since the Defense Secs. have all been punks of the Pentagon or neocons, or otherwise war mongers, what you say is not definitive. We don’t know what the influence of rational people in that position would be. McNamara, Rumsfeld, were punks. They pushed the program. You are absolutely right that such stupidity requires a nation of sheep, led along by the media but the SoD could possibly ameliorate that stupidity. We don’t know. We have not seen such leadership to date.

It wont win. But see Winters Bone. Great movie.

Completely agree apr.
.
Of the Best Movies we saw all but Toy Story 3 and, for me, Winters Bone was a step above the rest.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=2594

“Wolfowitz: We were having a meeting in my office. Someone said a plane had hit the World Trade Center. Then we turned on the television and we started seeing the shots of the second plane hitting, and this is the way I remember it. It’s a little fuzzy.

Q: Right.

Wolfowitz: There didn’t seem to be much to do about it immediately and we went on with whatever the meeting was. Then the whole building shook. I have to confess my first reaction was an earthquake. I didn’t put the two things together in my mind. Rumsfeld did instantly.”

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/new-yorks-bravest/

The anti-war movement didn’t have any credibility because it wasn’t credible. If you are using the dixie chicks as your example of wise protesters then obviously you agree. I have two main memories of the ‘movement’ and one was the attempt to arouse campus protests which only generated comedy material. I saw at least 10 clips at 10 different campuses and in every clip the protesters were the old farts on the faculty. That was counter-productive on two-levels. 1st it made it clear there was no support among the students. 2nd – the professors, already detested, made fools of themselves trying to recall the ‘salad days’ of the vietnam war protests, which were figments of their imagination.

The other bizarre events were the various anti-war marches. They turned into a zoo of different protest movements with whacko groups like PETA and Code Pink and then of course the various comparisons of Bush to Hitler were stupid and counter-productive. They were more left wing coming out parties than serious protests.

The bottom line is the anti-war crowd did a miserable job and as a practical matter actually advanced the cause of going to war.

God what a pitiful, sniveling whiner you are alex v.
.
And a liar.

Guess there won’t be live blogging here — once again we miss you KT. So I’ll have to stick with my tweeps.

Thompson wasn’t the only one to clip a quote to ensure readers would get the wrong intention. The NYTs did so as well. This seems stupid. It’s only going to call more attention to a speech that supports GWBs/Rummy’s transformation and provide another example of MSM malfeasance.
**********************************************

Preparing for All Eventualities Demands More Than Just Cuts to the Military

Max Boot 02.27.2011 – 9:03 AM

News coverage of Defense Secretary Bob Gates’s speech at West Point — his last to cadets while in office, he said — gives a misleading picture of what he said. Typical is the New York Times article, which begins:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates bluntly told an audience of West Point cadets on Friday that it would be unwise for the United States to ever fight another war like Iraq or Afghanistan, and that the chances of carrying out a change of government in that fashion again were slim.

“In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it,” Mr. Gates told an assembly of Army cadets here.

Read as a stand-alone quote, this could easily be taken to mean that Gates wants to get out of the counterinsurgency and nation-building business and go back to practicing tank-on-tank battles against a mirror-image foe. That is precisely what some army traditionalists would prefer, but it’s not what the defense chief was suggesting. While he acknowledged that the “need for heavy armor and firepower to survive, close with, and destroy the enemy will always be there,” in the future, he argued, the army must “confront the reality that the most plausible, high-end scenarios for the U.S. military are primarily naval and air engagements — whether in Asia, the Persian Gulf, or elsewhere.”

Instead of suggesting that the Army go heavy and conventional, he said: “The strategic rationale for swift-moving expeditionary forces, be they Army or Marines, airborne infantry or special operations, is self-evident given the likelihood of counterterrorism, rapid reaction, disaster response, or stability or security force assistance missions.” It was in the very next sentence that he uttered the much-quoted line about not fighting major land wars, which could just as easily be taken as an admonition against a Gulf War or a Korean War as against the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Of course, we have heard such warnings before (including from the 1987 movie The Princess Bride!), and nevertheless we continue to get embroiled in such wars by events beyond our control. Who could have predicted on September 10, 2001, that we would shortly be sending troops to Afghanistan? Who can predict where they will have to go next? As Gates himself admitted: “When it comes to predicting the nature and location of our next military engagements, since Vietnam, our record has been perfect. We have never once gotten it right, from the Mayaguez to Grenada, Panama, Somalia, the Balkans, Haiti, Kuwait, Iraq, and more — we had no idea a year before any of these missions that we would be so engaged.”

Given that reality, we have to have an Army capable of dealing with all sorts of scenarios — from major land wars to humanitarian-assistance missions and everything in between. Gates offered many good suggestions for improving the quality of our forces, including enhancing language and cultural training and modifying a one-size-fits-all personnel system that drives too many of the most talented performers out of the system. (For more on the need to address these issues, see my 2005 Foreign Affairs article “The Struggle to Transform the Military.”)

I have to admit that I usually can’t stand serious movies. Does “Black Swan” count as a serious movie? I liked that one and I’m rooting for “The King’s Speech” because I liked that one too, but I’m more of a LOTR and Transformers guy. I remember when On Golden Pond won Best Picture so I went out and bought it. I hated it. At least I hated the half hour I sat through before I gave it away. “Precious”? Too disturbing for me to enjoy. If I want to get immersed in somebody else’s f**ked up life I’ll start going to family reunions again and listen to them whine. I like the escapist stuff.

While I’m in a complaining mood, how the hell did “Shakespear In Love” beat “The Fellowship of the Ring” for Best Picture? Fellowship was this generation’s “The Wizard of Oz”. And “The Sound of Music”? Christ, that stunk.

The fellowship of the ring, the entire trilogy and much of his other writings are about the battle of good versus evil with very positive religious overtones. It’s not the sort of thing Hollywood is going to celebrate. Yet it’s pretty clear the lack of recognition has done nothing to hurt it’s appeal or standing among the public. Shakespeare in Love was a good movie but as we can see, forgettable. Why did Obama get a Nobel Prize? Gore?

The Kings Speech wins. It was a fabulous screenplay, brilliantly casted, acted and directed.

I think part of the reasoning was that they were going to honor the triology as a whole and it (The Return of the King) did win 11 Oscars including Best Picture. The entire series was good vs evil, so Hollywood did recognize that.
.

Why did Obama get a Nobel Prize? Gore?
.
OTOH, did Reagan win Best Actor? If he hadn’t been such a terrible actor we would have been spared his role as President.

The King’s Speech was really good. I liked Helen Mirren in “The Queen” a couple of years back too, but I kept thinking about her in “Caligula” when I was watching her.

rdw,
.
The accuracy of “2+2=4″ isn’t dependent on your tone of voice, what you were wearing, or who you were speaking in front of.
.
Many a misplaced theory or action was proclaimed in a loud, clear voice, in front of the right crowds.

Once again, you’re “shooting the messengers” as a way to discredit the message.
.
The WMD didn’t exist. “Curveball” just admitted he made them up because HE wanted us to go to war. We were only too happy to believe him and oblige.
.
Rummy has admitted that, sans the existence of WMD, the RW probably couldn’t have made the case for war, subsequent use of Saddam’s “bad guy” status as a rationale notwithstanding.
.
The demographic makeup of the demonstrators against the war doesn’t automatically make the decision to invade the RIGHT one.

“You don’t go overseas and then piss on your country. They had the right, to bad they didn’t have any class.”
.
After Reagan left office he gave a speech in Japan for 2 million dollars. The Japanese had just bought a major US film company. He praised the acquisition because he said that he felt that the Japanese had more respect and a higher moral compass than Hollywood. Reagan had been the President of the SAG. Charlton Heston was hardly a liberal and yet Reagan felt the need to p!ss on actors and the film industry in his own country. I agree with you. It’s low class to p!ss on your own country in another country. Reagan had no class.

13.1God what a pitiful, sniveling whiner you are alex v.
.
And a liar.
2thirdsrocks
February 27, 2011
at 10:21 am

====================================
Please point out one, just one, lie.

I’ll be switching back and forth between the Oscars and the Heat/Knicks game.

Reagan was a competent actor with a fantastic voice that allowed him to reach the top of his craft and make a ton of cash at it. He was also a successful radio announcer, Two-term head of the screen actors guild who came back to negotiate a 3rd contract, corporate spokesman, two-term Governor and two term President. I never ceases to amaze me why anyone would want to take a potshot at a man so clearly more successful in more things to them and other Presidents.

that they were going to honor the triology as a whole

*************************************

That’s a CYA comment. The entire series was a smashing success and they know they would have come off as small and petty. Just for the record, was the connection to Caligula a good or a bad thing?

We went to war based on lies

*******************************************

One of the great mantra’s of the left is and has always been a lie. Rummy is doing a fabulous book tour doing to MSM airheads what he did at his daily press conferences. He’s humiliating them. Watch his interview with Andrea Mitchell if you want to see a beating. Jon Stewart did no better. They may have been bad intelligence but not a shred of evidence anyone lied. There never will be. This is where the internet kills the left. The MSM lost their gatekeeper role long before Iraq. FYI: The Brits STILL stand by their intelligence.

rdw56, you’ll get no argument from me about LOTR being a smashing success. It’s my favorite movie(s). The first two Godfathers were so good I didn’t think they could ever be topped, but when LOTR came out I was blown away. As for the Mirren “Caligula” connection, it’s just so much of a contrast that it’s difficult not to think of her role in that and anything else she was in. I don’t know if you’ve seen Caligula, but it’s a huge budget porno with a good cast. Imagine if Elizabeth Taylor’s Cleopatra had blow jobs and money shots.

rdw56, most of my problems with Reagan are because of the arms for hostages deal. I felt then and I feel now that he committed treason. If Carter had made the same deal I would have felt exactly the same. I might have been even angrier at Carter because until Bush II, I felt that Carter was the worst President during my lifetime. I didn’t like Reagan’s union busting either but I don’t think it’s in the same league as trading weapons to our enemies.

Btw, I’ve only voted for a republican for President once in my life and it was for Reagan over Carter. I’m not a moderate or an independent. I’m a partisan democrat so voting for a republican in 1980 wasn’t something I took lightly. I just despised Carter that much.

Reagan had been the President of the SAG. Charlton Heston was hardly a liberal and yet Reagan felt the need to p!ss on actors and the film industry in his own country

*******************************************

Pissing on Hollywood isn’t anti-american. Pissing on airheads like Streisand, Sean Penn, Matt Damon, etc., is patriotic. Reagan most certainly wasn’t talking about everyone in Hollywood and most definitely not his buddy Chuck.

The demographic makeup of the demonstrators against the war doesn’t automatically make the decision to invade the RIGHT one.

*********************************

Who said anything about the demographic makeup of the demonstrators?

Many a misplaced theory or action was proclaimed in a loud, clear voice, in front of the right crowds.

******************************************

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. The fact is the Bush Lied meme was incompetent, counter-productive and was stupid on day one and gets dumber every day. If you want to label someone as a liar you really need to have evidence. It’s an ugly charge that s/b not be made lightly. It cost you the 2004 elections and any say on Iraq. Even winning the 2006 elections gain you nothing are regards war policy. Winning the 2008 Presidental elections and larger majorities gained you not a shred of influence on Iraq or national security policy. When you call someone a liar without a shred of evidence that makes you the liar. That’s why liberals are not trusted with important things.

I’ve seen the famous blowjob scene on youtuibe. That’s it and I’ve read comments from Helen Mirren mentioning on most movies she takes her top off at least once. Thus if I am channel surfing and there’s one of her movies I tend to flash back fairly frequently. I can’t say I’m proud of it. I’m not embarrassed either. I blame it on evolution.

Actors and others from Hollywood or any other city in American are still citizens and Americans. He told a foreign crowd that he was glad THEY had bought the studio and all the films.
.
“Pissing on Hollywood isn’t anti-american. Pissing on airheads like Streisand, Sean Penn, Matt Damon, etc., is patriotic.”
.
That’s from a conservative point of view. By that logic the Dixie Chicks criticizing Bush was also patriotic because they shared a different point of view. You can’t have it both ways. Saying something is patriotic or un-patriotic depending on whether you’re a republican or a democrat only means that we are no longer one nation. If that is the case, our nation is finished.

I felt then and I feel now that he committed treason.

*************************************************

It was a very small potatoes affair blown all out of proportion. Reagan’s weakness as a delegator was he too often didn’t follow up or hold others accountable. Ollie North and CIA chief Casey were loose cannons in need of oversight Reagan didn’t provide or see provided. I don’t see it as corruption because even if Reagan did know about it, and all evidence suggests he didn’t, this wasn’t to line anyone pockets or help anyone in the administration in any way. He was trying to get a backdoor way to get the hostages released without paying a direct bribe as Kennedy did in the Cuban Missile Crises. These sort of deals are quite common. As far as the Contra’s Reagan didn’t do as much for them as Carter did for the insurgents in Afghanistan.

I think what Clinton did was more egregious even while the underlying issue was not serious. What Clinton did was lie under oath to protect his own ass.

There is a special on now on HBO about Reagan that is preposterous. Except for those in his administration and family every ‘expert’ is anti-Reagan. Further they spent more time on Iran-Contra than anything else. He had a long series of legislative achievements on tax policy and foreign policy that were untouched. We are at a point now in terms of propaganda this obvious bias is childish. I watched it 2x’s because it was so bad. Just two weeks ago before Presidents day Gallup did it’s annual and not scientific polls of the Greatest Presidents and Reagan beat out Abe. It not a representative poll but it’s enough to tell you how bad the MSM effort to trash Reagan has been.

. By that logic the Dixie Chicks criticizing Bush was also patriotic because they shared a different point of view. You can’t have it both ways.

********************************************************

The Dixie Chicks were hammered for WHERE they said it. Liberals love to trot off to Europe to share their anti-americanism. That was the issue. You don’t go overseas and trash your country. They did it because they knew they’d be cheered.

I remember watching “shock and awe” in horror.

**********************************************

I thought it was really cool. You probably still don’t know how important that was tactically. GWB changed the rules. What would have happened in Desert Storm if GHWB instead of taking on the Iraqi army in Southern Iraq and Kuwait simple told Saddam, “I’m not interested in taking out your army. I am going to take you out. I am going to compile a list of the 50 most likely places you are and as soon as I get good intelligence you and/or your top generals and your two sons are where I can find you all I’m going to send 500 cruise missiles in and hit each location with at least 10 of them.

I happen to think Saddam would have been far more cooperative. What GWB did on that opening night was send a message to the worlds thugs that if you declare war on America we’re not coming after your army we are coming after you. You die 1st. Much, much, much different perspective.

“The Dixie Chicks were hammered for WHERE they said it. Liberals love to trot off to Europe to share their anti-americanism. That was the issue.”
.
I think you may be confusing anti-Americanism with being against a particular administration. The Dixie Chicks were not being any more anti-American than a republican is for bashing Obama. Obama went to Europe and drew huge crowds waving American flags. I believe the Europeans were against Bush/Cheney and not being anti-American. There’s a huge difference between being against an entire country and just being against a particular leader. If liberals are anti-American for not supporting a conservative leader, how can a conservative not be considered anti-American for not supporting a more liberal leader that was elected by a majority of the country?

If we had a liberal media, or at least one major media institution that leaned heavy left, then the anti-war protesters would have gotten respect, been presented as intelligent dissenters and/or had their arguments clearly laid out. We have instead right-leaners, access-addicts or followers in major media. See, for example, the Tea Party– they had a media institution to back them. FOX was head cheerleader and present them as a rational popular movement– without FOX they would have been ignored, mocked or otherwise marginalized, like the anti war folks were.

pintortwo, I think part of the reason that we don’t have a liberal media or a liberal answer to FOX is because I don’t know any liberals that would watch it. I could count on one hand the number of times I watched MSNBC and I agree with them on many subjects. OTOH, I know many conservatives that live and breathe FOX and conservative talk radio. Advertisers go where the audience is. No advertising, no money to run the programs. I don’t watch any news or talk shows unless something major has happened. I’m just not interested in hearing talking heads talk about something I already think or lean toward thinking.
.
I recall years ago when there was a station that only reported upbeat news and feel-good crap. It bombed. Maybe liberals think for themselves and don’t feel the need to have their opinions reinforced by someone spouting a talking point. OTOH, I’d watch a naked woman talking about shucking corn or knitting.

Dick Armey said that Cheney lied to him to get him to vote for the AUMF (actually said the VP “bullsh!tted” him). As chair of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security and House majority leader at the time, his “no” vote might have influenced the invasion not to happen.
.
Plus, the fact that the neocons used torture for false confessions, relied on dubious characters like “curveball” and Ahmad Chalibi (both of whom the CIA distrusted) and created the Office of Special Plans to generate the spectacular “intelligence reports” that, while cowering Congress and scaring the citizenry, were contrary to the intel as a whole which suggested Iraq had no WMD program, no connection to al Qaeda and was not involved in 911 (as the CIA reported to the president). Given those facts, I have to conclude that, yes, we went to war based on lies.

PS: the lie that Cheney told Armey was that Saddam had direct ties to al Qaeda and was close to producing miniaturized “suitcase” nukes. Both were not true nor based on any report by US intelligence- he made them up to trick Armey to vote yes for the AUMF.

Sorry, Dick Arrney’s opinion isn’t evidence of anything. I only carry this thread to rub your face in it. This thread has been a total political disaster for liberals. ALL of GWBs War and National Security policies are intact and now having been fully endorsed by Barak Obama and huge Democrat majorities in the Congress and are now the law of the land. You can conclude anything you want to conclude. I make no attempt to change your mind. I only mock you.

Rummy’s recent book tour has been a joy to behold. He did not just defeat Andrea Mitchell and Jon Stewart. He devastated them.

BTW: Among the many things that destroy your thread is that liberal politicians were often more aggressive than conservatives in terms of promising Saddam had WMDs. This is where youtube sucks. One of Tim Russerts funniest clips was of Jay Rockerfeller accusing GWB of promising a mushroom cloud. IN fact GWB never said such a thing. Guess who did? Guess what clip of Jay Rockerfeller Tim played next? That’s right! Jay Rockerfeller, co-chairman of the intelligence committee, warned of a mushroom cloud.

Think for just a minute how difficult this is for historians. Unlike columnists Historians have ethical standards to conform to. They cannot report Bush lied unless they can prove it. They can prove Jay Rockerfeller is stupid but they can’t prove Bush lied. If they do so they will be sued and their certification revoked.

I think part of the reason that we don’t have a liberal media or a liberal answer to FOX is because I don’t know any liberals that would watch it
.
Gotta disagree sacred. People are entertained by the same things. It’s the entertainers themselves. The left doesn’t have a Glenn Beck– someone bombastic, loud, controversial, insulting so that you are compelled to watch (or can’t turn away). Olberman was close but he was annoying and tried too often to be a real newsman. And Maddow does investigative reporting.. and is therefore doomed to modest ratings. I’m talking about a howling liberal to bash conservatives.
.
Let’s say (to use my earlier example) that while FOX was pushing the “FNC Tea Party Events” there was a liberal that said “Look at these Tea-bag chowder heads. They think they’re joining a grass-roots movement but it’s run by the very rich bastards they think they’re rebelling against. When one of the nation’s top polluters invests millions to say that pollution doesn’t effect climate.. when that person, two people actually, among the richest men in the country, hold the reigns of this “popular” movement.. when Rupert Murdoch is on his knees to please them.. I’m sorry, but no matter how well-intentioned you TPers are, you’re volunteering to take it in the rear again from the very people that screwed you in the first place. You’re a bunch of Koch whores, ya just don’t know it. The corporate elites laugh at you as they use you to make them more money…” (or something like that) and use the same incendiary tactics as Rush or Beck– they’d get ratings.
.
But there is huge disincentive for the media to do this. Top US advertisers include oil, health insurance, US military.. why would a station let their talent lambaste the industries that feed them? No, media companies want happy big-money advertisers, they want less regulation, no anti-trust laws, low corporate taxes and for them (the decision-makers) to pay less income tax. Liberals don’t stand a chance in popular media.

. The Dixie Chicks were not being any more anti-American than a republican is for bashing Obama.

***************************************************
Absolutely wrong. The Dixie chicks were without question playing to the crowd and their remarks were designed to get them whipped up. They were not just anti-Bush but anti-american. I have no problem with trashing Bush but there is no reason to do it outside the family. You cannot come up with an example of conservatives traveling to Europe and doin what they did.

Millions are dying.. we’re bankrupting ourselves with two occupancies.. the soldiers we send to battle were lied to- the ultimate disrespect.. and you think it’s funny because Obama and the dems do the same things.. and you’re biggest motivator is to rub it in our faces. You immoral charlatan.
.
I could care less about what Rockerfeller or any congressperson said. Congress failed us. They showed cowardice and selfishness. Once the neocons played on our anger- used it as a political football- and lied us into believing that Iraq attacked us, or could attack us, or would help al Qaeda attack us, Congress was all too eager to join the neocon’s battle-cry– gotta get re-elected you know, so put on that flag pin and send our young people to kill.
.
I have no doubt that future generations will know that we went to war based on lies. I only hope that they will learn from it.

Bush led the nation into war causing tens of thousands of deaths based on a casus belli that not only was false but that could have easily been verified to be false had anyone had the inclination to do so. In libel tort, the phrase ‘reckless disregard for the truth” often arises. It does so because it prevents “pleading ignorance” from preventing culpability for the lie.

The phrase “Bush lied us into a war” is shorthand, but history will record that it’s the most accurate description of what happened that will fit into a single sentence.

If we had a liberal media, or at least one major media institution that leaned heavy left, then the anti-war protesters would have gotten respect, been presented as intelligent dissenters and/or had their arguments clearly laid out

*************************************

You do have a liberal media and that’s the problem. They got lazy when they had a monopoly. They don’t but still act as if they do. The problem with the anti-war protest is they were stupid. You had these greybeard old white liberal professors trying to recapture false memories of Vietnam war protests. The students were utterly bored. They’re not getting drafted. Whatever is going in in Iraq has nothing to do with them. These greybeards had nothing intelligent to say.

As far as the various marchers if ABC was in charge we would not have seen the PETA references or the Nazi references or the Global Warming crap. But we saw all that. Code Pink are pigs. They just are. They’re your pigs. As long as you embrace them you are them.

The left doesn’t have a Glenn Beck– someone bombastic, loud, controversial, insulting so that you are compelled to watch.

*******************************************

Olbermann? I’m not a Beck fan but MsNBC has several in his league.

“Bush lied us into a war” is shorthand, but history will record that it’s the most accurate description of what happened that will fit into a single sentence.

******************************************
That’s simply factually incorrect. Not only did our intelligence agencies think Saddam had WMDs but so did a half dozen foreign agencies agree AND STILL stand by their intelligence of that time.

Better yet is the verbage of a dozen liberal politicians of the age who fully supported the intelligence. Think Bill Clinton and John Kerry as well as Jay Rockerfeller. Youtube is so cool. The supporters of course comprise a much larger list.

Again, let me restate, you can’t say “Bush Lied’ too often. You display your own igonorance. We;ve had elections in 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010 and ALL have affirmed GWBs Iraq and National security policy.

Not only did our intelligence agencies think Saddam had WMDs but so did a half dozen foreign agencies agree AND STILL stand by their intelligence of that time.

They also had UN weapons inpsectors in place attempting to find the WMD’s in question. But keeping the inspectors working would have disrupted the ‘window’ of opportunity of getting our troops into Baghdad before Summer. Besides which the uncertainty worked to Bush’s advantage. You may also recall that there was rather a popular wave riding behind the notion of avenging 911. The fact that Saddam was uninvolved was quite irrelevant.

Bush wasn’t solely responsible. A significant fraction of journalists and Congresspeople of both parties were asleep at the switch. But 2003 needs to serve as a reminder to this day, that large numbers of people agreeing to something doesn’t necessarily mean that its true.

(That’s why watching the current Congress under the influence of Tea so resembles seeing a car crash in slow motion)

I only hope that they will learn from it.

****************************************

What they will learn is you are a fraud.

The fact that Saddam was uninvolved was quite irrelevant.

**********************************************

Think about this from a conservative perspective. Saddam wasn’t involved in 9/11. But he very clearly promoted terrorism. He paid bribes to terrorists. 9/11 became a war against terror. Saddam under that logic had to go. He went. One of the great images of the last decade is him getting his teeth checked as if he was a cow. equally impressive is that anyone watching knew Saddam was going to hang. That’s had a terrific impact.

The fact Saddam supported terrorism was a death sentence.

Meanwhile Muammar Gaddafi was undisturbed for the following 8 years thereafter. It seems the administration was pretty selective about which “terrorist supporters” they’re willing to go after. But he only brought down a plane headed for the USA. Giving money to Hamas was clearly the greater evil.

They also had UN weapons inspectors in place attempting to find the WMD’s in question.

*************************************************

True, but consider the relationship between the USA and the UN. 90% of Americans have contempt for the UN. LBJs great line was the UN could not pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel is classic and accepted. I would vote to drop out of the UN tomorrow.

Gadiffi is a clear Bush success. He stopped supporting terror groups and stopped his nuclear program.

You may also recall that there was rather a popular wave riding behind the notion of avenging 911. The fact that Saddam was uninvolved was quite irrelevant.

*************************************************

I rather enjoy being a conservative now because the MSM has not adjusted to the internet. True Saddam did not plan 9/11. True he’s a major supporter of terrorism. That’s just as bad.

The fact Saddam supported terrorism was a death sentence.
.
BS. The Saudi royals gave more money to families of those that attacked Israel than Saddam, and it was the birthplace for al Qaeda– but they’re our friends.
.
The fact that Iraq has flat, navigable terrain and is well situated in the middle of the gulf region made it the perfect base for military operations. Combining exterior position in Afghanistan and central bases in Iraq with our maritime position in the Indian Ocean gives us geostrategic leverage over Iran and the ability to strike at any threats to burgeoning capitalism as industry seeks to exploit regional resources. That was Saddam’s death sentence.

The Saudi royals gave more money to families of those that attacked Israel than Saddam, and it was the birthplace for al Qaeda– but they’re our friends.

********************************************
We conservatives have problems with the Sauds. But they did not support al Queda. They in fact are now trying to exterminate them

There are a number of problems with your style of thinking. Not the least of which is the fact that of the tens of thousands of Iraqis killed in operation Enduring Freedom, all but one were NOT Saddam. Their crime was living in Iraq. The fact that going after Saddam pulled resources AWAY from dealing with the perpetrators of 911 makes your reasoning even more morally suspect. Note too that the dead no longer are in a position to care whather the proper “laws of war” were followed leading up to their demise.

The line between warfare and terrorism is significantly less sharp than you would be comfortable believing.

We conservatives have problems with the Sauds.
.
Don’t know which conservatives you’re talking about. Reagan embraced the Saudis for cheap oil, the Bush family is very close to the Saudi royals, Murdoch’s company is part-owned (7%) by a Saudi prince. But that’s not my point. Those that planned the invasion of Iraq, including the propaganda campaign on US citizens, were not concerned with any threat Saddam may or may not have posed, they wanted Iraq for a base of operations, full-stop.
.
But (the Sauds) did not support al Queda.
.
Neither did Saddam Hussein.

I’m not a Beck fan but MsNBC has several in his league.
.
Who?

The fact that going after Saddam pulled resources AWAY from dealing with the perpetrators of 911 makes your reasoning even more morally suspect.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That’s factually incorrect. Iraq may have distracted from Afghanistan in the minds of liberals unable to consider two separate efforts at the same time but the country actually managed WW!!. If anything Iraq drew jihadist away from Afghanistan. Moreover Petraeus developed his counter insurgency strategy in Iraq and won his many promotions. Iraq is also where a lot of weapons development happened. The Army got dramatically better at counter-insurgency in Iraq. . .

no longer are in a position to care whather the proper “laws of war” were followed leading up
to their demise.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I rather suspect they don’t much care but in fact this was Bush at his best. He made damn sure to get Congressional resolutions to force all 535 in Congress to take an official position. How many voted yes and then spent the next 6 years trying to deny it? That vote almost certaintly cost Kerry and Hillary the Presidency. Liberals will believe they were lied to. But anyone else with just a basic understanding of civics knows they had full access to the identical intelligence and. blaming anyone else was pure cowardice as well as dishonest. History will be very kind to Bush in this regard. He went to war with huge congressional majorities and he didn’t lie to anyone of them.

Paul, not sure what you mean by ‘laws of war’ but if it’s got anything to do with the UN forget it. The UN is a massively corrupt joke. I suspect you mean just war theory. That’s actually not a topic you want to bring up. Liberals made a serious attempt to discredit Israel’s invasion of aza under Just War theory and discovered the power of the internet. . What they tried to claim is a disproportunate use of force because of the 150-1 kill ratio. Obviously that’s a mismatch and as we all know a mismatch is unfair. Unfortunately that’s not true and just war theory says you use as much force as necessary to achieve your reasonable objectives. Israel invaded Gaza to stop them from firing rockets into Israel and they kept beating the snot out of them until they stopped. One of the more interesting aspects of Gaza is Israel copied Petraeus in a hyper-aggressive posture targeted at the leadership. Actually Israel did this in the WB earlier but not as successfully in Lebanon. They went after the leadership 1st. That was the point of gong after Saddam 1st. It puts things in a completely different perspective for dictators and terror heads. It’s not only just it’s smart.

BTW Payul, another tired, old thread that never served liberals well is that liberals are smarter than everyone else. It’s so obviously a stupid thing to say it’s not insulting, it’s comical. Reagan and GWB were total airheads. They only kicked liberal ass in 8 elections. And they’re supposed to be the dumb ones. Sarah Palin has grossed more than $25M in two years and she’s supposed to be dumb. One has to be dumb to believe that. The Africa story just proves the extent of your stupidity. It never happened. The story was a hoax.

Saddam openly supported terrorism. The Sauds kill Al Qaeda on sight. If they manage to capture them they torture them 1st. Osama declared war on the royal family long before he did on the USA.

Your analysis of Saddams death sentence is left wing nonsense. They didn’t discover their oil in 2002.

PAUL,

check this out. Jennifer Rubin takes apart a column by Dana Milbank of the Wash Post today:

******************************************************

What is the evidence of “hooliganism” that Dana comes up with? He declares:

It takes some creativity to liken the air traffic controllers to Wisconsin’s public workers, who are not on strike and have offered concessions. It takes even more creativity to credit the firing of the controllers (rather than, say, Reagan’s military buildup) for the fall of the Berlin Wall. And it takes gall for Walker to claim the mantle of Reagan, who compromised with Democrats and Soviets alike.

Actually, it takes creativity to in effect stage a strike (a sickout) without the risk of being fired. And it takes creativity for the left to resurrect Reagan as the grand compromiser.

***********************************************************

rdw –

How cool is that? I thought it was apostasy on the left to admit Reagan won the cold war? It’s going to get worse my friend. You are going to be just as pissed in 2020 when the Bush Lied meme is dead.

BTW: there is an HBO documentary on Reagan you’ll love. It’s so bad even I like it. It’s so clearly anti-Reagan only the far left could take it seriously. If they wanted to preach to a choir they get an A+. If they wanted to influence the record they get a F.

“Absolutely wrong. The Dixie chicks were without question playing to the crowd and their remarks were designed to get them whipped up.”
.
And Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter and other right wingers don’t play to their crowds and try to whip them up? It’s the same thing. Again, you’re confusing criticizing a particualr leader of a party with being anti-American. The Dixie Chicks criticized Bush, not America. The right doesn’t have the patriotism tag wrapped up.
.
“Code Pink are pigs. They just are. They’re your pigs. As long as you embrace them you are them.”
.
Very few on the left have a favorable opinion of Code Pink. They’re an extremist group on the fringe. I personally don’t know of anyone that supports Code Pink. They’re an embarrassment. The right flocks behind their extremists and goes ballastic if they get criticized. The problem is that the right wing has moved so far to the right that they think they’re the mainstream. They aren’t. Reagan wouldn’t survive in the republican party today.

Saddam openly supported terrorism. The Sauds kill Al Qaeda on sight.
.
So Saddam’s opposition to Israel and al Qaeda is terrorism; the Saudi royal’s opposition to Israel and al Qaeda is not. As I’m sure you know, Saddam never supported al Qaeda; bin Laden wanted to topple Hussein’s government because it was secular and he killed other Muslims.
.
They didn’t discover their oil in 2002
.
Yeah- that’s not even remotely accurate. Hussein rose to power in the early ’70s by seizing control of Iraq’s oil production. From wiki Saddam (link): “Saddam actively fostered the modernization of the Iraqi economy along with the creation of a strong security apparatus to prevent coups within the power structure and insurrections apart from it… At the center of this strategy was Iraq’s oil. On 1 June 1972, Saddam oversaw the seizure of international oil interest…”
.
My analysis of Saddam’s death sentence is spot-on. From your comments, it seems you’ve resorted to lying in order to make it seem otherwise.

Saddam never supported al Qaeda;

***********************************************************

Never said he did nor did anyone else. I said Saddam supported terrorism. It’s fine to be anti-Israel. It’s never fine to support terrorism.

Your analysis of Saddam death sentence is liberal porn. If it was about OiI why did they wait so long? Wasn’t Oil a far bigger issue during desert storm?. His death sentence from how own people was well earned. His toppllng by the USA was the result of his support for terrorism, pursuit of WMDs and list of other problems.

they wanted Iraq for a base of operations, full-stop.

***************************************************

More liberal porn. We already have huge bases in the region and we’re leaving Iraq soon anyway. Why do we need a base in Iraq.

FYI: GWB greatly downsized our overseas bases removing 100,000 troops from German while also downsizing South Korea and Japan. By the time we pull completely out of Iraq and Afghanistan we’ll have our lowest footprint since`1940

So Saddam’s opposition to Israel and al Qaeda is terrorism;

*****************************************************

This is as good an example of any how the left goes off the rails and wastes time and effort. If you want to be convincing and influential you have to make logical, commonsense factual points. One silly line in an essay destroys the essay. Everyone knows at a minimum Saddam paid $25,000 to the family of successful suicide bombers in Palestine. You can’t get more supportive of terrorism. Trying to suggest Saddam didn’t support terror is beyond stupid.

Just consider this post. Clearly the NYTs and Time intentionally took the Gates quote out of context trying to suggest a meaning the opposite of the actual intent. Gates did not misspeak. What he said and intended to say was clear. Time hasn’t been influential for years because of this nonsense. It’s why Newsweek sold for $1 and was placed under a blogger.

If you’ve seen any of the polls on Wisconsin you can see the disaster for liberalism. It isn’t because the GOP is so articulate. I wish. It’s because of this type of buffoonish behavior. It’s the left shooting themselves in both feet led by Time. Heck, even Joe Klein knew this wasn’t a good issue.

“Saddam never supported al Qaeda;

Never said he did nor did anyone else.”
.
Of course it’s completely useless – to you – for me to point this out but you are completely deluded. Your mind has been trashed by right-wing propaganda and your authoritarian-following compulsions. How tragic.

“We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization. We know, for example, in connection with the original World Trade Center bombing in ’93 that one of the bombers was Iraqi, returned to Iraq after the attack of ’93. And we’ve learned subsequent to that, since we went into Baghdad and got into the intelligence files, that this individual probably also received financing from the Iraqi government as well as safe haven.”
.
– Dick Cheney

Well that’s interesting. I stand corrected. There was a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Still, that’s not why we went in. Read the resolution 70+ Senators signed for those details. The short version is we were in a war against terror and Saddam openly supported terrorists.

If it was about OiI why did they wait so long?
.
You did successfully side-track me on this. I didn’t mention Iraq’s oil, I responded to your comment on it. I referred to “regional resources”. That includes the Middle East’s oil, lithium, gold, iron copper, niobium, cobalt, marble, chromite, manganese and emeralds.. and the TAPI pipeline to provide oil to India from Turkmenistan via Afghanistan. (Afghanistan, too, is said to be sitting on $1 trillion of untapped lithium, essential to modern electronics).
.
(Saddam’s) pursuit of WMDs
.
The CIA believed, via their own intelligence and UN inspectors, that Saddam did not have a WMD program and advised the president as much.
.
We already have huge bases in the region and we’re leaving Iraq soon anyway. Why do we need a base in Iraq.
.
We’re not leaving Iraq, we built 100s of bases since the invasion and spent 3/4 of a billion dollars on a “embassy” there (aka fortified base of operations). We claim to eventually draw-down to 50K troops with an additional 8,000 private defense contractors (ie Blackwater), to complement our thousands already in position, to do the same things our soldiers do now. The neocons called for this in 2000 when they published Rebuilding America’s Defenses as did Sec Def Reumsfeld in ’95′s The Defense Strategy of the United States. I have to assume you already know this.
.
Everyone knows at a minimum Saddam paid $25,000 to the family of successful suicide bombers in Palestine.
.
No one ever said that Saddam was a good guy or that his support for families of suicide-bombers is acceptable. I added that the Saudis paid more to these cretins to support my contention that Saddam’s anti-Israel views have nothing to do with our invasion. His arrest or a sniper’s bullet would have been much cheaper.
.
.
Shep– I don’t think rdw is deluded, I think he knows that much of what he says is BS but he hopes to convince others of these falsehoods.

PS: the AMUF was passed ..
.
“To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States…” and.. “to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States..”, not to stop terror against Israel.
.
http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html
.
Saddam did not support terror against the US.

The thought that weapons inspectors were going to find something Saddam didn’t want found was always silly. Iraq is far too large. As far as the Congress and Journalist doing their jobs they had no way of competing with the intelligence agencies. History will record Saddam wanted his neighbors to think he had nuclear and/or chemical weapons so he left all of the clue that he did. Given he had them before and used them before the only rational position open to Bush was to assume the worse. That he had them and given the chance would use them.

There is little doubt that clowns like Kerry and Dodd never bothered to look at the evidence and voted based on their own Presidential ambitions but as a point of history and politics the Bush Lied meme was a total failure. Bush was in total control of the battle space all 8 years. His only political setback was the disaster at the Golden Dome and the resulting tribal violence. Even after the losses in 2006 Bush shoved the surge down Nancy’s throat. It remains possibly the finest bit of military stragery since WWII making Petraeus a national hero and the US Military the most respected in the world and the most respected institution in American life. Anyway you want to look at it Liberals failed on national security and defense miserable.

There will be books written on the fact Obama has maintained every single national security policy developed by GWB and so far his entire defense team. Also interesting after a long experiment with a different diplomatic policy on Israel Obama has now fully reversed course and looks to be following GWB again.

.
The CIA believed, via their own intelligence and UN inspectors, that Saddam did not have a WMD program and advised the president as much.

**********************************************

Well that’s interesting. So Colin Powell didn’t tell the UN they had them. I thought that was the entire point of the presentation. Do how did he get 70% of the congress to sign the resolution?

The neocons called for this in 2000 when they published Rebuilding America’s Defenses as did Sec Def Reumsfeld in ’95′s The Defense Strategy of the United States. I have to assume you already know this.

************************************************

Actually I don’t know any of this nor do I care. What do neocon dreams from 2000 have to do with Obama’s basing decisions?

Saddam’s anti-Israel views have nothing to do with our invasion. His arrest or a sniper’s bullet would have been much cheaper.

*********************************************
We can agree on both things however assassination is illegal. We probably also agree Bush was very, very wise to get Congessional approval for his actions as required by law.

So Colin Powell didn’t tell the UN they had them.
.
No, the CIA told Powell to drop it from his speech to the UN because our intelligence did not support it, but Powell, at the admin’s behest, ignored the CIA.
.
Do how did he get 70% of the congress to sign the resolution?
.
Easy. Plant scary stories in the NYT, lie, distort, amplify so that people like you would pressure our reps into signing a petition they either knew or should have known was false. It was the result of a successful propaganda campaign. See also 20.1 and 20.2.
.
(gotta go)

Saddam did not support terror against the US.

*******************************************************

We can’t know that. We do know he supported terrorists he could not control and our state position was to be against all groups who support terror anywhere.

. I referred to “regional resources”.

********************************************

It doesn’t change the point. They were all there in 1991. So if oil or any resources were driving this why in 2003 and not in 1991.

This is old time marxist dribble. You must remember the post a few weeks back about the 50th anniversary of Ike’s warming on the military-industrial complex. Talk about a liberal wet dream. Aside from Haliburton few Americans know those big bad defense contractors and if they do it’s because they own them in their 401Ks.

We live in the age of Reagan. He promised to sweep Marxism and Leninism onto the ash heap of history and he’s done just that. Think about it If you were 25 in 1980 you are 55 now. This cohort doesn’t buy that exploitation horsecr*p We’re all investors now.

I have no doubt that future generations will know that we went to war based on lies.

****************************************

In 20 years the emotions will be gone and those making the claims long out of politics. Nancy and Harry will have passed along with Kerry and Gore and Darth Vader and his evil assistant wolfie. There won’t be any interesting is using a 2003 war for political purposes. Historians can’t touch the bush lied meme because they can’t prove it and in 20 years they won’t have that interest.

That’s why watching the current Congress under the influence of Tea so resembles seeing a car crash in slow motion)

***************************************************************

Paul, you are going to have a long few years because these people are not going away. They are smart, sharp and perfectly positioned. They are the largest 3rd party in US history because they are not interested in forming a true party. If you control the majority party you have real power. As you can see they have Boehners attention and the attention of a dozen members of the Senate up for re-election in 2012. A handful have either retired or are considering it because they expect the TP will beat them.

While Obama has to be considered a favorite he’s hardly safe. It looks as thought VA, FL, NC, OH and IN have swung back safely Red. That makes the electoral vote 373-265. A pickup of NH means the tie gets settled in the House of Representatives. A pickup of CO or IA or MN or WI or NM means Obama loses.

It’s huge advantage for the TP to be able to raise nationally and fund locally. The DNC targeted Michele Backman but she blitzed them on fundraising with her TP support. IN 2012 it’s likely she’ll run opposed and will be able to fund other candidates. Bob Casey in PA can be certain he’ll have a TP opponent in the primary and a TP opponent in the general. The TP swept the slate last election picking up every statewide race, a senate seat and 5 house seats.

but Powell, at the admin’s behest, ignored the CIA.

****************************************************

Do you people even realize in trying to excuse Powell you make him into the worst combination of dupe and pussy? It’s pathetic. Either he was duped meaning he’s pretty stupid or Cheney ‘forced him’ meaning he’s a pussy.

What it also seems like is liberals bending over backwards not to criticize a black man due to political correctness. Or put another way, being a pussy.

Andrea Mitchell in her interview with Rumsfled made it look like Powell was a total stooge absent a spine. Rummy actually came to Powell’s defense.

Are you high?