US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

Anyway you look at it the situation is headed for the same end .... stop digging ...

Contin...

Victory in Iraq or Victory in the Polls?
Victory in Iraq or Victory in the Polls? How Bush Caught the 'Feaver' in Big Iraq Speech This Week
By E&P Staff
Published: December 03, 2005 2:05 PM ET
NEW YORK

In his major speech this week outlining a strategy for Iraq that might turn around public opinion on the war, President Bush used the word victory 15 times against a backdrop of dozens of "Plan for Victory" signs. Is victory really in our grasp?--and was the talk based more on changing poll results than really setting a wise course in Iraq?

The questions will gain even more relevance with a revelation coming in Sunday's New York Times. It seems that in a part of the 35-page "Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" document posted on the White House web site, a few key strokes by those in know reveal that the document's originator or author, is one "feaver-p."

This person is Dr. Peter D. Feaver, a 43-year-old Duke University political scientist who joined the National Security Council staff as a special adviser in June. White House officials, while saying the document contained contributions from many federal departments, confirmed, according to the Times, that "its creation and presentation strongly reflected the public opinion research" of Dr. Feaver.

Feaver, the Times' Scott Shane writes, "was recruited after he and Duke colleagues presented to administration officials their analysis of polls about the Iraq war in 2003 and 2004. They concluded that Americans would support a war with mounting casualties on one condition: that they believe it would ultimately succeed."

This past June, the Washington Post observed that Feaver's studies had already "helped influence the White House thinking."

But Christopher F. Gelpi, Feaver's colleague at Duke and co-author of the research on American tolerance for casualties, tells the Times on Sunday that this week's 35-page report "is not really a strategy document from the Pentagon about fighting the insurgency. The Pentagon doesn't need the president to give a speech and post a document on the White House Web site to know how to fight --the insurgents. The document is clearly targeted at American public opinion."

The Bush White House has repeatedly declared that the Clinton White House was too "poll-driven."

Dr. Gelpi said he had not discussed the document with Dr. Feaver, who declined to be interviewed by the Times. But E&P has learned that Feaver is on leave from Duke until at least August 2006. According to his curriculum vitae, obtained by E&P, he describes himself as "Special Advisor for Strategic Planning and Institutional Reform, National Security Council Staff."

The study he did with Gelpi, along with Jason Reifler, challenged the post-Vietnam view that Americans will only support military operations if casualties are low. Rather, they declared, based on a study of recent polls, that public acceptance for the Iraq war depended much more on feeling that the war was a worthy cause--and even more, a belief that the war was likely to end well.

Feaver is a lieutenant commander in the United States Naval Reserve and received his doctorate from Harvard University. While he served on President Clinton's National Security Council staff in 1993 and 1994, he has written critically of Clinton and other Democrats and sympathetically of President Bush in a variety of publications, including The New York Times and The Weekly Standard.

E&P research has found that:

--In a June 24, 2004 op-ed for The Washington Post he wrote: "The Clinton record on military operations was clear: frequent resort to low-risk cruise-missile strikes and high-level bombings, but shunning any form of decisive operations involving ground troops in areas of high risk.

"The Clinton White House was the most casualty phobic administration in modern times, and this fear of body bags was not lost on Osama bin Laden. Indeed, al Qaeda rhetoric regularly 'proved' that the Americans were vulnerable to terrorism by invoking the hasty cut-and-run after 18 Army soldiers died in the 1993 'Black Hawk Down' events in Somalia..."

--Last October in another op-ed article in The Washington Post, Feaver declared, "Despite an extraordinary effort to woo the military...the Democrats still have not overcome their traditional tone-deafness when it comes to civil-military relations."

--He lists on his curriculum vitae a series of talks he gave in England in 2002, titled alternately "Casualty Aversion and the CNN Effect" and "Casualty Phobia, the CNN effect and U.S. involvement in Low Intensity Operations."

--Appearing on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on PBS in April 2004 he downplayed reports of civilian casualties in Iraq, noting among other things that "when newspaper reporters go out and collect information, and they ask people how many people died, and they faithfully report that number, that number has, is almost certainly inflated upwards."

And, in an online chat at The Washington Post's web site on March 6, 2003, just before the Iraq invasion, Feaver said the following:

--"A fair reading of the past 18-months would show that this Administration has tried fairly and responsibly to persuade the American public of the wisdom/need for the course of action the President wants to pursue."

--"It is simply a fact that Iraq is bolstered by the anti-war protests and is pursuing a wedge strategy hoping to isolate the Bush administration on this issue. So whether or not that is the intention of the war protestors, it is one of the results. One of the reasons why the war protests have not been more persuasive is precisely because the protestors have not come to terms with the net result of their actions and have not presented a credible strategy for dealing with Iraq."

--"President Bush subscribes to the momentum theory of politics: that success breeds success, and political capital accrues to the one who spends political capital....

But the danger is that it can lead to over-reach -- if President Bush misjudges popular sentiment while pursuing this strategy he is likely to fall much further/faster than a more cautious politician who triangulated every issue and never tried to lead public opinion anywhere.

"For that reason, public sentiment is probably more important for President Bush than for other presidents -- he is trying to do more and is willing to get out in front of the public more than other Presidents and this makes him more exposed."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Peter D. Feaver (Ph.D., Harvard, 1990) is Professor of Political Science at Duke University and Director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies (TISS).

Feaver is author of Armed Servants: Agency, Oversight, and Civil-Military Relations (Harvard Press, 2003),and co-author, with Christopher Gelpi, of Choosing Your Battles: American Civil-Military Relations and the Use of Force ( Princeton University Press, forthcoming). He is co-editor, with Richard H. Kohn, of Soldiers and Civilians: The Civil-Military Gap and American National Security (MIT Press, 2001). And he is author of Guarding the Guardians: Civilian Control of Nuclear Weapons in the United States (Cornell University Press, 1992).

He has published several other monographs and over thirty articles and book chapters on nuclear proliferation, civil-military relations, information warfare, and U.S. national security.

He won the Duke Alumni Distinguished Undergraduate Teaching Award in 2001 and the Trinity College Distinguished Teaching Award in 1994-95. In 1993-94, Feaver served as Director for Defense Policy and Arms Control on the National Security Council at the White House where his responsibilities included counterproliferation policy, regional nuclear arms control, the national security strategy review, and other defense policy issues. He is a Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Naval Reserve (IRR).

He is married to Karen Feaver, and they have two children, a son and a daughter.

"Victory in Aeraq" is an oxymoron. This administration still doesn't get it!

An in depth investigation on Iraq by the Knight-Ridder media giant found the following:
Quality of Life and Economy: Iraqi civilians killed: Estimated March 2003-October 31, 2005: 15,800-27,800. Including crime: 36,700-74,200.

Oil: Millions of barrels per day Prewar production: 2.5, export: 2.5. March 2005 Prouction: 1.9, export 1.2.

Electricity: Megawatts generated nationwide pre-war: 4,000, Baghdad 2,500. March 2005: megawatts nationwide: 3,600, Baghdad 990.

Only telephone subscribers and internet subscribers increased.

A picture of the insurgency: Number of Iraqi soldiers and police killed per month: 214.

Iraqi forces killed by insurgents per month in the last half of 2004:160

Estimated maximum number of insurgents in Iraq: 20,000.

Measuring victory *(by Bush): By stating his benchmarks Wednesday for victory in Iraq, President Bush raised an obvious question: How is Iraq doing? The short answer: It's a mess.. Yes, there are signs of progress amid the carnage, but for every step forward, there seems to eb at least one step back, and the future is murky.

Even Confiding With God Doesn't Compensate for Bush's Brain
December 2, 2005
Even Confiding With God Doesn't Compensate for Bush's Brain
By Walter C. Uhler
Bush Watch

Writing in today's New York Times, Bob Herbert observed: "There's a disturbing remoteness to President Bush," that has reduced him to "little more than a bundle of talking points." Reduced? Anyone even remotely familiar with the life story of this 43rd and worst of all American presidents knows that George W. Bush has never succeeded on his own.

Yes, he normally puts up a good, if false, front that initially fools most people until they are compelled to examine his actual performance. But make no mistake, Bush's string of failures?-both of character and performance?-would have long ago disqualified anyone else lacking his family's political and financial clout in our American plutocracy. As Senator Joseph Biden observed, Bush never worked to correct his massive flaws because "he always had someone there?-his family or friends?-to bail him out."

But, like America's evangelicals, we should have taken Bush at his word in 1999, when he smugly asserted: "Nobody needs to tell me what I believe. But I do need somebody to tell me where Kosovo is." Unfortunately, too few of us failed to state that what he was offering us?-a core of ignorance and incompetence, especially in foreign affairs, shrouded by faith in Jesus?-was inadequate for presidential decision making. As a consequence, America not only got a President to whom God supposedly confides, but also a President who permitted a cabal led by Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and a handful of Zionist neocons to show him where Iraq is.

Now?-given his debacle in Iraq?-it should be obvious to all Americans that even confiding with God doesn't compensate for Bush's brain.

Yet, wasn't it vintage Dubya yesterday, when he revealed his "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq?" Although it's not much of a plan, it's the type of plan he might have considered more than 32 months ago, when he gave the go-ahead for the illegal, immoral invasion that led to our current quagmire in Iraq. But that's precisely the point! Although God supposedly instructed Bush to attack Iraq, a competent president would have planned to win the peace after winning the war, and would have planned his exit strategy BEFORE commencing his war.

The "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" is a "day late, dollar short" piece of propaganda, which serious Americans should disregard on two counts. First, after one dismisses the flowery rhetoric about freedom and democracy (certain to persuade only those who have never seriously studied either) and the numerous misleading examples of partial recovery from the very devastation that American forces have inflicted upon Iraqis, the "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" is as dishonest as the earlier crap about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ties to al Qaeda that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell flung in the collective face of America more than 32 months ago.

Dishonest? Yes, Bush's document contains no explicit admission that America's very invasion, its very occupation, and the continuing presence of American forces have transformed Iraq into the primary front where international terrorists learn their trade. Neither does it contain an explicit admission that America's very presence causes Iraq's insurgency to grow and gain strength. Nor does it address American plans for permanent bases in Iraq

It presents mealy-mouthed generalizations about the "many challenges" that confront America's occupiers rather than hard facts, such as the fact (recently provided by Congressman John Murtha) that "insurgent incidents have increased from 150 per week to over 700." It also fails to admit that America's invasion precipitated a civil war. Yet, that's the conclusion of esteemed (Ret.) Army General, William Odom. "We created the civil war when we invaded; we cannot prevent a civil war by staying."

Bush's document also is silent about the corrosive impact his costly occupation has had upon America's military. Again, General Odom speaks with well-deserved authority when he observes: "I think the Army is already broken." Congressman Murtha seconded General Odom's view, today, when he said, "the Army is 'broken, worn out' and may not be able to meet future military threats to the country's security."

Finally, Bush's "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq" says nothing about "the tension between the Bush administration and senior military officers," which General Odom has concluded to be "worse than any he has ever seen with any previous government, including Vietnam." As Seymour Hersh wrote in the 5 November 2005 issue of The New Yorker, "Many of the military's most senior generals are deeply frustrated, but they say nothing in public, because they don't want to jeopardize their careers."

In a word, it's a dishonest piece of propaganda written to reverse the growing and correct American perception (long believed by much of the rest of the world) that George W. Bush is a reckless warmonger who ranks with the worst of all American Presidents.

Here's Bush's problem: The American public, traumatized by al Qaeda's despicable terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, wanted to believe the Bush administration when it claimed that Saddam Hussein: (1) was involved in the 9/11 attacks, (2) had significant ties to al Qaeda, (3) possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and (4) was willing to share them with international terrorists. Consequently, (5) Saddam needed to be "taken out." Fortunately, because American troops (6) would be treated as liberators, (7) the invasion would be a cakewalk requiring only a short occupation and little post-invasion reconstruction.

Now, after some thirty-two months of watching the situation in Iraq degenerate into a quagmire, a majority of Americans have concluded that the Bush administration was wrong?-and perhaps lied?-about each and every one of its seven claims.

But while the American public has allowed its views to be influenced by facts?-even if belatedly?-President Bush has not. And that's the second reason why Americans should pay no attention to his "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq." It's based upon pure faith!

His record as a candidate and as President richly supports the conclusion that no set of facts can compete with the faith Bush places in his faith.

Judging by his own statements Bush subscribes to a definition of truth, which is identical to that postulated by the 19th century Christian philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard. In 1846 Kierkegaard wrote his Concluding Unscientific Postscript To The Philosophical Fragments, which contained the following (and now famous) definition of truth: "An objective uncertainty held fast in an appropriation process of the most passionate inwardness is the truth, the highest truth attainable for an existing individual."

That's what Bush meant in 1999, when he asserted: "Nobody needs to tell me what I believe. But I do need somebody to tell me where Kosovo is." That's also what he meant on March 7, 2001, when he told Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, "I won't negotiate with myself." (And O'Neill was only stating the obvious, when he subsequently observed: "All sound analysis is about negotiating with yourself.")

Putting aside the obvious objection that the passionate appropriation of objective uncertainties can yield gross abominations?-after all, Hitler truly believed that the '"Jewish question" required a solution?-does the passionate appropriation of objective uncertainties render the appropriator incapable of telling lies? Does such a person get a pass, even when everyone else concludes that he must have known that what he was saying was not true? For example, don't we all believe Bush lied when, on July 14, 2003, he asserted: "We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power."

In point of fact, don't we all know that Saddam allowed the inspectors back in? And don't we all believe that Bush knew that Saddam had allowed the inspectors back in? How wouldn't he know? Moreover, who doesn't know (except, perhaps, a lying or ignorant Bush) that it was the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq (before the inspectors could complete their work), as well as its advice to leave, that persuaded the inspectors to depart?

Readers of Ron Suskind's excellent New York Times Magazine article, "Without a Doubt" (October 17, 2004) will recall Bruce Bartlett's troubling observation about Bush. Although a Republican and former adviser to Ronald Reagan, Bartlett nevertheless said: Bush 'truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence. But you can't run the world on faith."

Unfortunately, Bush's faith also fosters nefarious political tactics. As New York Times columnist, David Brooks, revealed on the September 11, 2005 edition of The Chris Matthews Show, "from its earliest days, the Bush administration adopted a policy of shielding itself from political damage by never publicly admitting any mistake?-even if it meant lying to the media and the American public."

But an even more nefarious tactical advantage was revealed when a senior adviser to Bush told Ron Suskind that guys like Suskind were "'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'" Then he added: "'That's not the way the world works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality?-judiciously, as you will?-we'll act again, creating new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors …and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Is there anyone out there who can't envision an Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin implementing such evil, totalitarian practices? For me, it's simply the second reason to refuse to take Bush's "new" strategy seriously. It's simply one more "new reality" that "history's actors" want us to study.

Why attempt to sort out this bogus document when we know both the dishonesty inside it and the totalitarian tactics behind it? And, if it's true (as "current and former military and intelligence officers" have told Seymour Hersh) that Bush "disparages any information that conflicts with his view of how the war is proceeding," then there is no alternative for us fact-based folks?-other than pressuring Congress to remove him (and the nefarious Cheney) from office by way of impeachment.

This congress will never consider the impeachment of Bush and/or Cheney. They are not only spineless, but scared for their own skins - like the generals.

Which would you bet on?

1. When the USA withdraws its troops from Iraq, then the abettors of the murderers of Iraqi civilians and the murderers of Iraqi civilians will stop murdering Iraqi civilians.

2. When the abettors of the murderers of Iraqi civilians and the murderers of Iraqi civilians stop murdering Iraqi civilians, then the USA will withdraw its troops from Iraq.

3. When the government of Iraq decides Iraqi troops can stop the abettors of the murderers of Iraqi civilians and the murderers of Iraqi civilians from murdering Iraqi civilians, then the USA will withdraw its troops from Iraq.

Declare "victory and get out," as George Aiken, the Republican senator from Vermont, would famously suggest years later?
December 4, 2005
Op-Ed Contributors

What Would J.F.K. Have Done?
By THEODORE C. SORENSEN and ARTHUR SCHLESINGER Jr.

WHAT did we not hear from President Bush when he spoke last week at the United States Naval Academy about his strategy for victory in Iraq?

We did not hear that the war in Iraq, already one of the costliest wars in American history, is a running sore. We did not hear that it has taken more than 2,000 precious American lives and countless - because we do not count them - Iraqi civilian lives. We did not hear that the struggle has dragged on longer than our involvement in either World War I or the Spanish-American War, or that by next spring it will be even longer than the Korean War.

And we did not hear how or when the president plans to bring our forces back home - no facts, no numbers on America troop withdrawals, no dates, no reference to our dwindling coalition, no reversal of his disdain for the United Nations, whose help he still expects.

Neither our military, our economy nor our nation can take that kind of endless and remorseless drain for an only vaguely defined military and political mission. If we leave early, the president said, catastrophe might follow. But what of the catastrophe that we are prolonging and worsening by our continued presence, including our continued, unforgivable mistreatment of detainees?

Each month that America continues its occupation facilitates Al Qaeda's recruitment of young Islamic men and women as suicide bombers, the one weapon against which our open society has no sure defense. The president says we should support our troops by staying the course; but who is truly willing to support our troops by bringing them safely home?

The responsibility for devising an exit plan rests primarily not with the war's opponents, but with the president who hastily launched a pre-emptive invasion without enough troops to secure Iraq's borders and arsenals, without enough armor to protect our forces, without enough allied support and without adequate plans for either a secure occupation or a timely exit.

As we listened to Mr. Bush's speech, our thoughts raced back four decades to another president, John F. Kennedy. In 1963, the last year of his life, we watched from front-row seats as Kennedy tried to figure out how best to extricate American military advisers and instructors from Vietnam.

Although neither of us had direct responsibility on Vietnam decision-making, we each saw enough of the president to sense his growing frustration. In typical Kennedy fashion, he would lean back, in his Oval Office rocker, tick off all his options and then critique them:

Renege on the previous Eisenhower commitment, which Kennedy had initially reinforced, to help the beleaguered government of South Vietnam with American military instructors and advisers?

No, he knew that the American people would not permit him to do that.

Americanize the Vietnam civil war, as the military recommended and as his successor Lyndon Johnson sought ultimately to do, by sending in American combat units?

No, having learned from his experiences with Cuba and elsewhere that conflicts essentially political in nature did not lend themselves to a military solution, Kennedy knew that the United States could not prevail in a struggle against a Vietnamese people determined to oust, at last, all foreign troops from their country.

Moreover, he knew firsthand from his World War II service in the South Pacific the horrors of war and had declared at American University in June 1963: "This generation of Americans has had enough - more than enough - of war."

Declare "victory and get out," as George Aiken, the Republican senator from Vermont, would famously suggest years later?

No, in 1963 in Vietnam, despite assurances from field commanders, there was no more semblance of "victory" than there was in 2004 in Iraq when the president gave his "mission accomplished" speech on the deck of an aircraft carrier.

Explore, as was always his preference, a negotiated solution?

No, he was unable to identify in the ranks of the disorganized Vietcong a leader capable of negotiating enforceable and mutually agreeable terms of withdrawal.

Insist that the South Vietnamese government improve its chances of survival by genuinely adopting the array of political, economic, land and administrative reforms necessary to win popular support?

No, Kennedy increasingly realized that the corrupt family and landlords propping up the dictatorship in South Vietnam would never accept or enforce such reforms.

Eventually he began to understand that withdrawal was the viable option. From the spring of 1963 on, he began to articulate the elements of a three-part exit strategy, one that his assassination would prevent him from pursuing. The three components of Kennedy's exit strategy - well-suited for Iraq after the passage of a new constitution and the coming election - can be summarized as follows:

Make clear that we're going to get out. At a press conference on Nov. 14, 1963, the president did just that, stating, "That is our object, to bring Americans home."

Request an invitation to leave. Arrange for the host government to request the phased withdrawal of all American military personnel - surely not a difficult step in Iraq, especially after the clan statement last month calling for foreign forces to leave. In a May 1963 press conference, Kennedy declared that if the South Vietnamese government suggested it, "we would have some troops on their way home" the next day.

Bring the troops home gradually. Initiate a phased American withdrawal over an unannounced period, beginning immediately, while intensifying the training of local security personnel, bearing in mind that with our increased troop mobility and airlift capacity, American forces are available without being stationed in hazardous areas. In September 1963, Kennedy said of the South Vietnamese: "In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it." A month later, he said, "It would be our hope to lessen the number of Americans" in Vietnam by the end of the year.

President Kennedy had no guarantee that any of these three components would succeed. In the "fog of war," there are no guarantees; but an exit plan without guarantees is better than none at all.

If we leave Iraq at its own government's request, our withdrawal will be neither abandonment nor retreat. Law-abiding Iraqis may face more clan violence, Balkanization and foreign incursions if we leave; but they may face more clan violence, Balkanization and foreign incursions if we stay. The president has said we will not leave Iraq to the terrorists. Let us leave Iraq to the Iraqis, who have survived centuries of civil war, tyranny and attempted foreign domination.

Once American troops are out of Iraq, people around the world will rejoice that we have recovered our senses. What's more, the killing of Americans and the global loss of American credibility will diminish. As Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a Republican and Vietnam veteran, said, "The longer we stay, the more problems we're going to have." Defeatist? The real defeatists are those who say we are stuck there for the next decade of death and destruction.

In a memorandum to President Kennedy, roughly three months after his inauguration, one of us wrote with respect to Vietnam, "There is no clearer example of a country that cannot be saved unless it saves itself." Today, Iraq is an even clearer example.

Theodore C. Sorensen and Arthur Schlesinger Jr. were, respectively, special counsel and special assistant to President John F. Kennedy.

* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

listened to tim russert ("meet the press") on nbc this sunday morning. he interviewed the chair and vice-chair of the 9/11 commission (one repub/one dem).
when asked about any connections betweem el quaida and saddam h , they stated : " we found NO creditable evidence connecting the two " .
i guess it's what you call "from the horse's mouth " , except there were two - couldn't have been any clearer .
i'm sure some other a2k's listened to it also. hbg

Only people like icant doesn't "get it." He keeps repeating the same rhetoric he learned right after 9-11 from the Bush PR people.

Pay attention!

Iraq is not like a fight with communism in Vietnam or Korea or Cuba. Communism eventually self-distructs when contained.

Winning the deadly war in the currently deadly location of Iraq is a required step by the al Qaeda religion in winning the al Qaeda religion's more deadly world war. The al Qaeda religion will not self-distruct when contained, because it cannot be contained. It will grow everywhere like a malignancy until it is exterminated.

Lose the deadly war in Iraq and we will be confronted by a more deadly war at a more deadly location.

Letter from al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi
www.dni.gov/release_letter_101105.html


George Bush is not the problem. Al Qaeda is the problem.

Public opinion is the solution. Win public opinion and the al Qaeda problem is solvable. Lose public opinion and the al Qaeda problem is not solvable.

note to c.i. : seems that the chair and vice-chair (one rep/one dem) haven't got a clue .
they had a few other choice words to say, particularly about the unpreparedness of the united states to stop or deal with another terrorist attack, example : emergency crews (police, fire fighters etc.) are still unable to communicate on a single band - four years after 9/11 . they blame it on not setting priorities ; spread the blame evenly between congress and the pressident - but what do they know. hbg

Al Qaida was responsible for 9-11. Our attack on Iraq only exacerbated the al Qaida problem and other terrorists organizations in Iraq.

After 2 and 2/3rds year in Iraq, world terrorism only increased. More Iraqis and American soldiers are being killed today than before 9-11 or March 2003.

Bush and his minions never understood the quagmire that would be created by mishandling the war in Iraq and its aftermath. That's the reason why Cheney said our military will be welcomed as liberators by the Iraqis.

Most Iraqis and the present government wants the US to leave their country, because they see it as an occupation - as does most Arabs in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Our presence in Iraq only exacerbates the insurgent's to kill more Americans and Iraqis.

Over 60 percent of Americans now see the damage done by Bushco, and only 30 percent now support this administration.

By your stance, you are saying that the majority of Americans and our allies are wrong.

You need to look in the mirror once in awhile to see who's peering back at you. Your minority opinion and stance is getting smaller every month.

Get the whole story.

They found no credible evidence connecting Saddam to al Qaeda in al Qaeda's perpetration of 9/11/2001. However, they did find credible evidence connecting the two after 9/11/2001.

For example:

i don't want to quibble over words ... but they were pretty clear in their comments. i didn't have the impression that they were trying to hide any imformation or make false statements.
i sure give them credit for being forthright and to the point.
hope there are some others here who listened to them . i think the show is being repeated sunday night on CNBC . so perhaps there is a chance to listen to them . hbg

Katrina proved that this administration's incompetence extends far beyond Iraq.

ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.

icant, You can keep repeating that stale phrase, but you'll go down with Bush repeating it like his speech last Wednesday.

Lousiana's Democrat governor?

New Orlean's Democrat mayor?

ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.

ABSENT EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, your allegations are at best your baseless opinions, and at worst your compulsive fantasies.