THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

I wish he were more articulate shooting from any position. I wish he were articulate AT ALL when shooting from the hip.





Scrat, c'mon. Anyone would have "moved heaven and earth" if they knew it was going to happen.

The problem is not that it happened on his watch...it could as easily have happened during the Clinton Administration or during whatever administration finally succeeds this one. The problem is that instead of dealing with it...the 9/11 incident...he used it as an excuse for a useless war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

If 9/11 had been the impetus, he would have attacked Saudi Arabia.. and you know it.




One, it is not pretending. Two, it is not just the left doing it. Three, who said anything about "madman?"




Well, you may suppose that is correct, but that does not make it correct.

I, for one, call him a moron not because it is easy or because it is pretence...but because he is a moron.

The guy articulates like a high schooler -- and not an especially bright high schooler at that.




Ashamed??? I could never be ashamed of anything I say about Dubya.

LOL


You and I may know that, but it seems clear that some people at least find it politically useful to pretend otherwise, hence the clearly partisan efforts to find a way to blame Bush for 9/11, and the whacko claims by some that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and let it happen so he could justify the war he wanted all along.


I know. But I like you anyway. :wink:

Scrat, I think that George Bush is a decent man trying to do what he thinks is right for this nation and the world. So what does that have to do with being president of the free world? There are millions of men and women who could be described that way. In fact, probably most people on earth could be described that way.

We are talking about The President, for crissakes! Is that the highest standard you can come up with?

For this guy, the bar has been lowered to the point only he could "measure down" to it!

"If either should have a lapse in sequence or give any innocent difference in recollection in...." that is why they will appear together.

"But I would rather hear a man speak unscripted and uncoached from conviction and the heart than hear the ..."

So would I, but we aren't bloody likely to hear it.

Decent is a very good place to start.

FF, it is as very good place to start. Entry level.....

OK



Even if he were, that it doesn't negate the fact that he is a simpleton that shouldn't ever have been Pres. of the USA.

On the other hand, he is playing to the level of many on the far right.......

Pistoff, this is not the real issue to me. He is not a simpleton. In fact, he is probably a reasonably intelligent human being who would have had a rewarding life as a mid-level exec at some oil company that could have been spared from going broke by its well spread out owners.

Kerry is not a mental giant, and in fact, I got a chuckle out of the pondered Kerry/McCain ticket. That would be too heavily weighted in the wrong direction. LOL. I could do prez/viceprez the other way around.

We dems have lost our options. I am so down about this election that it is not discussable. If Kerry has plans and policies about Iraq, as well as foreign policy overall and major thoughts about domestic issues, I have not perceived them. I would faint dead away if Kerry came up with some policy initatives that were statesmanlike and surprising.

I like how you unwittingly contradict yourself in this post. Awesome.

Snares and Delusions
April 13, 2004
By PAUL KRUGMAN

In his Saturday radio address, George Bush described Iraqi
insurgents as a "small faction." Meanwhile, people actually
on the scene described a rebellion with widespread support.

Isn't it amazing? A year after the occupation of Iraq
began, Mr. Bush and his inner circle seem more divorced
from reality than ever.

Events should have cured the Bush team of its illusions.
After all, before the invasion Tim Russert asked Dick
Cheney about the possibility that we would be seen as
conquerors, not liberators, and would be faced with "a
long, costly and bloody battle." Mr. Cheney replied, "Well,
I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because
I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators."
Uh-huh.

But Bush officials seem to have learned nothing. Consider,
for example, the continuing favor shown to Ahmad Chalabi.
Last year the neocons tried to install Mr. Chalabi in
power, even ferrying his private army into Iraq just behind
our advancing troops. It turned out that he had no popular
support, and by now it's obvious that suspicions that we're
trying to put Mr. Chalabi on the throne are fueling Iraqi
distrust. According to Arnaud de Borchgrave of U.P.I.,
however, administration officials gave him control of
Saddam's secret files - a fine tool for blackmail - and are
letting him influence the allocation of reconstruction
contracts, a major source of kickbacks.

And we keep repeating the same mistakes. The story behind
last week's uprising by followers of Moktada al-Sadr bears
a striking resemblance to the story of the wave of looting
a year ago, after Baghdad fell.

In both cases, officials were unprepared for an obvious
risk. According to The Washington Post: "One U.S. official
said there was not even a fully developed backup plan for
military action in case Sadr opted to react violently. The
official noted that when the decision [to close Sadr's
newspaper] was made, there were very few U.S. troops in
Sadr's strongholds south of Baghdad."

If we're lucky, the Sadrist uprising will eventually fade
out, just as the postwar looting did; but the occupation's
dwindling credibility has taken another huge blow.

Meanwhile, Mr. Bush, who once challenged his own father to
go mano a mano, is still addicted to tough talk, and still
personalizes everything.

Again and again, administration officials have insisted
that some particular evildoer is causing all our problems.
Last July they confidently predicted an end to the
insurgency after Saddam's sons were killed. In December,
they predicted an end to the insurgency after capturing
Saddam himself. Six weeks ago - was it only six weeks? - Al
Qaeda was orchestrating the insurgency, and Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi was the root of all evil. The obvious point that
we're facing widespread religious and nationalist
resentment in Iraq, which is exploited but not caused by
the bad guy du jour, never seems to sink in.

The situation in Falluja seems to have been greatly
exacerbated by tough-guy posturing and wishful thinking.
According to The Jerusalem Post, after the murder and
mutilation of American contractors, Mr. Bush told officials
that "I want heads to roll." Didn't someone warn him of the
likely consequences of attempting to carry out a manhunt in
a hostile, densely populated urban area?

And now we have a new villain. Yesterday Lt. Gen. Ricardo
Sanchez declared that "the mission of the U.S. forces is to
kill or capture Moktada al-Sadr." If and when they do,
we'll hear once again that we've turned the corner. Does
anyone believe it?

When will we learn that we're not going to end the mess in
Iraq by getting bad guys? There are always new bad guys to
take their place. And let's can the rhetoric about staying
the course. In fact, we desperately need a change in
course.

The best we can realistically hope for now is to turn power
over to relatively moderate Iraqis with a real base of
popular support. Yes, that mainly means Islamic clerics.
The architects of the war will complain bitterly, and claim
that we could have achieved far more. But they've been
wrong about everything so far - and if we keep following
their advice, Iraq really will turn into another Vietnam.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/opinion/13KRUG.html?ex=1082858073&ei=1&en=4ef9b186af09bc0b

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Could someone explain to me .... how does delaying the departure of 29000 troops ... increase the number of troops by 20000?

River nails it with the last paragraph.


Baghdad Burning

... I'll meet you 'round the bend my friend, where hearts can heal and souls can mend...
Wednesday, April 14, 2004

Media and Falloojeh...
There has been a lot of criticism about the way Al-Arabia and Al-Jazeera were covering the riots and fighting in Falloojeh and the south this last week. Some American spokesman for the military was ranting about the "spread of anti-Americanism" through networks like the abovementioned.

Actually, both networks did a phenomenal job of covering the attacks on Falloojeh and the southern provinces. Al-Jazeera had their reporter literally embedded in the middle of the chaos- and I don't mean the lame embedded western journalists type of thing they had going at the beginning of the war (you know- embedded in the Green Zone and embedded in Kuwait, etc.). Ahmed Mansur, I believe his name was, was actually standing there, in the middle of the bombing, shouting to be heard over the F-16s and helicopters blasting away at houses and buildings. It brought back the days of 'shock and awe'...

I know it bothers the CPA terribly to have the corpses of dead Iraqis shown on television. They would love for Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabia to follow Al-Hurra's example and show endless interviews with pro-occupation Iraqis living abroad and speaking in stilted Arabic. These interviews, of course, are interspersed with translated documentaries on the many marvels of... Hollywood. And while I, personally, am very interested in the custom leather interiors of the latest Audi, I couldn't seem to draw myself away from Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabia while 700+ Iraqis were being killed.

To lessen the feelings of anti-Americanism, might I make a few suggestions? Stop the collective punishment. When Mark Kimmett stutters through a press conference babbling about "precision weapons" and "military targets" in Falloojeh, who is he kidding? Falloojeh is a small city made up of low, simple houses, little shops and mosques. Is he implying that the 600 civilians who died during the bombing and the thousands injured and maimed were all "insurgents"? Are houses, shops and mosques now military targets?

What I'm trying to say is that we don't need news networks to make us angry or frustrated. All you need to do is talk to one of the Falloojeh refugees making their way tentatively into Baghdad; look at the tear-stained faces, the eyes glazed over with something like shock. In our neighborhood alone there are at least 4 families from Falloojeh who have come to stay with family and friends in Baghdad. The stories they tell are terrible and grim and it's hard to believe that they've gone through so much.

I think western news networks are far too tame. They show the Hollywood version of war- strong troops in uniform, hostile Iraqis being captured and made to face "justice" and the White House turkey posing with the Thanksgiving turkey... which is just fine. But what about the destruction that comes with war and occupation? What about the death? I don't mean just the images of dead Iraqis scattered all over, but dead Americans too. People should *have* to see those images. Why is it not ok to show dead Iraqis and American troops in Iraq, but it's fine to show the catastrophe of September 11 over and over again? I wish every person who emails me supporting the war, safe behind their computer, secure in their narrow mind and fixed views, could actually come and experience the war live. I wish they could spend just 24 hours in Baghdad today and hear Mark Kimmett talk about the death of 700 "insurgents" like it was a proud day for Americans everywhere...

Still, when I hear talk about "anti-Americanism" it angers me. Why does American identify itself with its military and government? Why is does being anti-Bush and anti-occupation have to mean that a person is anti-American? We watch American movies, listen to everything from Britney Spears to Nirvana and refer to every single brown, fizzy drink as "Pepsi".

I hate American foreign policy and its constant meddling in the region... I hate American tanks in Baghdad and American soldiers on our streets and in our homes on occasion... why does that mean that I hate America and Americans? Are tanks, troops and violence the only face of America? If the Pentagon, Department of Defense and Condi are "America", then yes- I hate America.

I'm guessing its because thier replacements will be coming in on time.

That sounds reasonable ... it's going to take another 70000 before we can leave.
You hear anything about Chalabi being in contention for prime minister in July?

Only that he is. In contention, that is.

I'm not too familiar with that aspect of Iraqi politics.

Do you have some new info on it?

As the latest, this from the Washington Times, April 2, 2004:
SOURCE

This caught my eye; "Potentially embarrassing for prominent U.S. citizens, Mr. Chalabi's aides hint his treasure trove of Mukhabarat documents includes names of American "agents of influence" on Saddam's payroll, as well as a number of Qatar-based Al Jazeera TV news reporters who worked for Iraqi intelligence." I wonder what other dirt is going to show up after June 30.

Tx for the post Walter. I read bits and pieces but could not find anything as specific......