Dr. Rice testifies

Joe,

I said much the same thing about Rice waiting around until someone told her to do something, which sounds like she has a clerical position rather than being THE National Security Advisor to the President. But on the 60 Minutes discussion. Those comments gave me great pause.

Overview of public opinion to what was discussed by Clarke, Rice and the Commission here in the other thread

It's not, as you say, obvious. Millions and millions of Americans think that invading Iraq was necessary. Iraq had had WMD, had used them, and had lied about them. That is not in question. At the moment we invaded, the only question was how recently. Given that one single WMD used in the US could do damage on an almost incalculable scale, we couldn't take the risk. Talk about casualty figures, just wait until someone starts a genetically tailored plague in the US, then you'll see casualties.

Also, your response is irrelevant to all of my points:

1. Presidents who start wars, are not usually called murderers on that account.
2. Attacking the enemy always makes him mad, but that is no reason not to do it.
3. It was already only a matter of time before 9/11 happened again.

Millions of Americans were lied to and they still believe it. Americans love to be followers.

The US has WMD's, had used them and has lied about them. How does that make us different from Iraq? We have everything that Iraq was supposed to have had and more and we have used them. And we're the good guys?

Tarantulas,

You are on the money when describing the Vietnam micromanagement by the politicians. I have always been curious as to why somebody hires trained professionals for a job and then insists upon constantly looking over the pros' shoulder and supplying advice. Said advice comes from those that originally felt unqualified for the task at hand, so much so that the hiring of those same professionals was deemed necessary.

On the other hand I am sure the best military advice to end the Vietnam conflict speedily (eliminate the source of the problem altogether) would have been politically unacceptable (China might have been drawn into the conflict).

The last sentence relates to my fear of abuse of our military. There is much evidence that before this War many top officers wanted at least another division of troops not only to ensure success militarily but also to keep control after Saddam fell. Indeed, many have wondered how different the Iraq situation would have been given the 4th ID's injection from the North, but that's just woulda, coulda, shoulda. Rumsfeld wanted to try out his new policy of a lean fighting force and so we see the result 1 year later--works, in this case, for the initial assault but not for follow-up security in the area. But, that is a separate discussion altogether.

The term "abuse" comes to mind when I think of putting the best fighting force in the world into a situation where they are under manned and considered vulnerable by the enemy. Our forces are trained to fight for their country, not to die for it. Enter into the conflict mix an enemy that places value only in death, even if it is only their own, and potential problems blossom. The going estimate is that we could use, at least, another 50K troops just to approach the minimum needed for security (as we have seen, without security there is no point to this mission). The U.S. should have flooded Iraq with not only troops but also with "softer personnel". My point: sending and forcing an under manned and incorrectly prepared force into such a situation as Iraq is tantamount, if not outright, abuse of those forces. We now see the extension of duty of some 20K troops...not a great morale booster. We should gang bang this and throw everything (soft, hard, sharp, and sticky power) we got at it.

Debating causes and reasons for the initiation of hostilities by the U.S. is now an Academic exercise. Such a debate has value but the U.S. has a big problem on its hand and no amount of double talk from Rumsfeld or anyone else works towards its successful resolution. If you think the world in general hates the U.S. now, wait until disrespect is added to that if the U.S. does the Somalia exercise and pulls out with its tail between its legs. As an American, I feel this would just be intolerable.

This is a very complex situation. Do we need the appearance of over the horizon influence by bringing in the UN and other foreign entities? Do we need better HUMINT? How about the always controversial wet ops forces to eliminate potential problems such as the cleric Sadr BEFORE he becomes a problem? Before you say no to the last question you must somehow debunk the argument that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few. What are we willing to pay, both morally and financially to protect ourselves and our way of life...are they one in the same?

JM

I was making a very specific point, and I will not allow myself to be pulled into different arguments, which I could also win, but which are not on topic.
You said:

"Obviously Iraq wasn't a threat to the US at all."

I was specifically disproving this one statement. My argument was that: (a) since millions believed that there was a threat, (b) since Hussein had had WMD, used them, and lied about them, and (c) since the consequence of WMD used within the US would be unimaginable, it is false that it at the time of invasion it was obvious there was no threat.

Actually, I think that there was a huge threat, but that is not related to my point.

Tarantulas wrote: "Your post is truly a breath of fresh air amid the somewhat acrid smell of people who seem to hate their own country so much that they protest against the government that is trying to protect them instead of protesting against terrorism."

I must tell you that I take great personal offense at your remark that those who protest hate their own country. I happen to love my country and am deeply pained by my government's actions. Do not---ever again---accuse me and others like me of hating my country!

BBB

I think that was a pretty lame thing to say. But Tarantulas isn't the only one. There seems to be some feeling that if you don't support this war that you aren't patriotic and you hate your country.

Personally, I love the US. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else and I consider my self privileged to have been bourn here. And I support the troops, it's hard to hear about so many of them dying for a cause that is misguided under the command of a terrible president.

Our country isn't perfect. We abuse our power and call if for the good of the country and for the spread of Democracy. We're almost as bad ad Germany was in WWII. And we were on the right side then. It's scarry the way our country is falling apart and even worse that it seems we can't do anything about it.

You mean until November.

Meanwhile, call or talk to everyone you know about voting these people out of office. Send money. Write letters to your local newspaper. Call in to your favorite neocon talk show. Email Hannity et al.

Tell them that despite their confidence in their ideas the ideas and they are wrong. Well intentioned, heartfelt but wrong.

Hopefully in November. We'll see what happens between now and then.

The Military
"My point: sending and forcing an under manned and incorrectly prepared force into such a situation as Iraq is tantamount, if not outright, abuse of those forces."

I agree with that. It is a disgrace how shabilly the Military has been treated by Bushco. Rummy is an arrogant fool! GW Bush doesn't give a damn about the troops.

Be offended all you want, but I stand by my statement. Why do we see no demonstrators holding signs reading "END TERRORISM NOW"? If anti-administration demonstrating is such a patriotic thing, why do none of the demonstrators carry American flags to show their patriotism? I've seen a picture somewhere of demonstrators carrying a banner that said something like "I support military action if it means soldiers kill their own officers." It has gotten way out of hand and someone needs to speak up against it.

I have nothing against peaceful demonstrations. Many of the ones we've seen recently seem to be happy weekend outings where people dress up in funny costumes and paint their faces and carry signs advocating all sorts of things unrelated to the current US military effort. If people want to go out on an urban nature walk and hold up a sign advocating a Sikh homeland or whatever, more power to them. But I take great personal offense at opportunistic people who oppose the current administration and show their opposition by protesting against each and every statement or policy that it makes. This kind of blanket hatred, especially in a time of war, comes very close to "giving aid and comfort to the enemy."

I don't have a problem with someone who opposes specific government policies. But I have a BIG problem with people who don't really care one way or the other about policies - they mix in with the authentic protesters just to try to get the Republicans out of office. That's dishonest.

And BBB, I don't have a problem with you. You seem like an intelligent person with strong moral convictions. Just like me, but on the other side of the mirror.

And let me repost a nice quote from Foxfyre in another thread:

It would appear to me that at the very least, Dr. Rice downplayed (minimized? distorted?) the content of the August 6th PDB. It was not merely a chronological or historical summation. According to the lead article in the Washington Post this morning, the title was chosen precisely because of its attention-grabbing nature, because the CIA did not believe that the WH was sufficiently aware of the dire threat facing the country. An attempt to influence or goad the WH into heightened activity, which did not work.

Tarantulas
Tarantulas, what is so insulting about your statement is that it is a general indictment of everyone instead of just the fringe crowd that attracts so much unwarranted attention. If you want to tag someone as hating their country, then identify those you specifically accuse. Then those of us who passionately love our country but protest when we think OUR government is wrong won't be insulted.

BBB

Hear, hear!

Speaking to NPR the other day, Kerry called the Iraqi newspaper that was shut down for calling for each Iraqi to kill an "American pig" a "legitimate political voice" and consistently refers to the actions of US troops in Iraq as "they" or "them" rather than "us" or "we". Is there any question who this guy is rooting for? Because it clearly is not our troops!

Kerry may or may not rot in hell (for my money he is welcome to, at his leisure), but I can guarantee you he will not spend one minute inside the White House during the next few years, unless he's standing on line for a tour.

We'll see, scrat.

The testimony in front of the 9/11 Commission yesterday by Bush National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice finally put to rest all of the nonsense that has been out there, peddled by Richard Clarke, that Al Qaeda simply wasn't a concern or a priority for the Bush administration. The three hours of testimony (carried on all the networks) was electric, and a political home run. There were a few heated exchanges between Condi and the liberals on the panel...and she wasn't going to have any of it. This woman is tough as nails. Like I said yesterday, she could run for president in '08. Wouldn't that be something...Condi vs. Hillary? Anyway, back to the testimony.

Dr. Rice told the commission what the Democrats and the conspiracy nuts didn't want to hear: there was no silver bullet that could have prevented the attacks of September 11, 2001. None. Despite the best efforts of the disrespectful Richard Ben-Veniste and partisan Democrats Timothy Roemer and Bob Kerrey (who blamed Bush for not reacting to the USS Cole bombing, which happened during the Clinton administration,) there is not one shred of evidence that said how, when and where the attacks were going to take place. So what if there is some memo that says airplanes may have been hijacked? What does that mean? At that point the logical assumption would have been that the airplanes would have been hijacked overseas and the passengers held pending the release of some terrorists from jails? How many thousands of flights are there a day in US and overseas airports? Do you think for one minute that people were in a mood to tolerate increased airport security based on vague intelligence? Of course not. It took what happened on 9/11 for people to quit worrying about worthless, unimportant issues and take the national security threat from Islamic terrorism seriously. As Rice said, the nation was not on a war footing.

She also correctly pointed out that terrorism was a "gathering threat" across several administrations, and that the United States historically did not respond to gathering threats until it was too late. You don't believe me? Here's an example: imagine if on September 10th, 2001, President George W. Bush, citing increased "chatter" about an attack on the United States decided to shut down all airports nationwide. Furthermore, in an address to the nation he announces that Osama Bin Laden is behind the threats and has decided to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. Can you imagine the response? The same people pinning responsibility for 9/11 on the Bush administration for not doing enough would be calling for his head. And then, when nothing happened as a result of all of these measures, people would be blaming Bush for overreacting. Anyone who believes otherwise needs their head examined. Remember the Air France planes we grounded not that long ago? The U.S. got blamed for being too aggressive. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

And then the media is making a big deal about her not apologizing for the attacks. What for? The type of apologizing that Richard Clarke presented during his now-discredited testimony is nothing but moral exhibitionism. The only people responsible for the attacks on 9/11 are the Islamic terrorists in Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. Why should she apologize? People should have been offended by the condescending, phony theatrics of Richard Clarke's apology, but the media ate it up.

The attacks of September 11, 2001 could not have been prevented because there was not the political will to fight the war on terrorism at the time. Period. All that can be done is to not make the same mistake twice, which is what President Bush has been doing for 2 1/2 years.

Yes we will.

pistoff writes:


Unless you are military privy to the goings on of command and/or are command yourself, you have no idea whether we are under manned or incorrectly prepared. I listen to the war briefings by our military every chance I get. Frequently, if not every day, somebody will ask if more troops will help or if different equipment is required. The answer from our military leadership on the ground in Iraq is no, not yet. Whenever they have needed additional troops, supplies, equipment, air support, have received them immediately. Recently they did request and got more Marines to help secure Fallujah.

The primary frustration from the military now is that they are at increased risk and taking casualties purely because they are trying their damndest to keep innocent Iraqis out of the crossfire. If they weren't trying to keep from hurting/killing innocent people, this would have been all over by now and most would be on their way home.

But still there are those who blame the military and/or the people who sent them there instead of the scum who use women and children as shields knowing we will pull our punches because of it.