THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

The fact that, under the circumstances, Bush didn't deliver a major policy address after all, despite his advance word, should embarrass not only CNN and MSNBC but, still more, President Bush.It is worth recalling that when Gen. Eric Shinseki, then the Army chief of staff, told Congress that successful occupation would require a few hundred thousand troops, he was pushed into early retirement. Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz called his estimate "wildly off the mark."

Bremer almost certainly didn't make this decision himself; it had to come from higher up. But from where? My guess is that, ultimately, Ahmad Chalabi was a big influence.

Had the CIA's recent conclusion been reached two years ago, either within the administration or by Congress, the case for going to war would have been greatly weakened. This was a jaw-dropping bit of cynicism: Bush sold, and continues to sell, the war in Iraq as a major campaign in the global war on terrorism, yet he repeatedly passed up the chance to neutralize or kill one of the most dangerous terrorists (Zarqawi has spent much of his time lately chopping off the heads of foreign contractors) for fear of weakening the case for war. (This is what happens when 85 percent of contracts are awarded to big U.S. or British firms, while just 2 percent go to Iraqi companies.) Add to this the fact that Bush has spent only a small fraction of the $18.5 billion that Congress appropriated for reconstruction, and the verdict can only be that we're doing just slightly more than squat. The evidence is seen in the continued electrical blackouts and the grave shortfall of basic services. (For an excellent analysis on the insurgency's composition, click here.)

So, President Bush may well need to deliver a major policy address on all this sometime soon. Today, though, he just told the cheering throngs that he's strong and resolute while his opponent's a flip-flopper.


Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate.

CIA report finds no conclusive Zarqawi-Saddam link

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A CIA report has found no conclusive evidence that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein harbored Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, which the Bush administration asserted before the invasion of Iraq.

Were the three thousand Americans sacrificed on 9/11 acceptable? Would another 3000 in another attack be acceptable? How about 6000? 50,000?

Quote:

But the White House rejected the proposals—mainly because shutting down Zarqawi's operation would have removed a key rationale for invading Iraq. This was a jaw-dropping bit of cynicism...

At the time our military was recommending attacking Zarqawi, Bush was trying to convince the UN to support invasion of Iraq. If he unilaterally invaded the Zarqawi camps on the ground (we learned from Clinton's experience that aerial bombardment of al Qaeda in Afghanistan wasn't sufficient for stopping al Qaeda), he had even less chance of getting UN support. However, he blundered not realizing he really had no chance of getting UN support anyway, and should have invaded Iraq sooner.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Today comes the long-awaited 900-plus-page report by Charles Duelfer, the CIA's chief weapons inspector, which concludes pretty much what his predecessor, David Kay, figured out—that on the eve of the war Saddam Hussein had neither weapons of mass destruction nor a viable program for producing such weapons; that his capabilities were deteriorating; that his military might was diminishing, not gathering; that, in short, he posed no real threat. Duelfer did find that Saddam intended to reconstitute his programs once sanctions were dropped. Another way of stating this point: The sanctions were working; they were keeping Saddam Hussein in his box.

The sanctions were only delaying for a time the development, re-development, and/or re-assembly of WMD. The sanctions did nothing to discourage future sheltering of WMD development, or the evolving sheltering of al Qaeda and other terrorists in Iraq under Saddam. Removal of Saddam eliminated both his future sheltering of WMD development and his sheltering of terrorists. The Iraq war has accomplished that much so far.

Surely you must realize by now that Saddam frequently impeded the inspections long enough to make sure his WMD developments would not be found. Once he succeeded in that, he invited the inspectors to return and resume their search. Once the inspectors agreed there were no WMD in Iraq, then the sanctions would have been lifted, and Saddam would then have had a free hand in resuming their development.

When it comes to justification for war, they are all refered to as American victims.

Just for the record: 2.992 is the number of all casualties at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, on the airplanes, the hijackers (and missing persons).

. Don't they count too?

When it comes to justification for war, they are all refered to as American victims.

Just for the record: 2.992 is the number of all casualties at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, on the airplanes, the hijackers (and missing persons).

ican711nm wrote:

. Don't they count too?

As "Americans"?

McGentrix wrote:

Were the three thousand Americans sacrificed on 9/11 acceptable? Would another 3000 in another attack be acceptable? How about 6000? 50,000?

Iraq didn't kill Americans (actually, there were les than 3,000 - and a reasonable number weren't Americans - but hey...never let...) on September 11th.

Try to keep facts straight.