Why Iraq Was a Mistake

There was no trick. 12 years after the end of Gilf War 1, it was not possible to determine whether Saddam Hussein still had WMD and WMD development programs. We could not allow doomsday weapons to fall into the hands of a madman. Had he acquired a stockpile of WMD, the world might have paid a terrible price later. This reasoning is not a "trick."

Flaws in our civilians are one thing; the failure of the Pentagon's military leaders is quite another. Those are men who know the hard consequences of war but, with few exceptions, acted timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard. When they knew the plan was flawed, saw intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war, or witnessed arrogant micromanagement that at times crippled the military's effectiveness, many leaders who wore the uniform chose inaction. A few of the most senior officers actually supported the logic for war. Others were simply intimidated, while still others must have believed that the principle of obedience does not allow for respectful dissent. The consequence of the military's quiescence was that a fundamentally flawed plan was executed for an invented war, while pursuing the real enemy, al-Qaeda, became a secondary effort.

Thank you for the link. That is a great article. I am waiting with baited breath to hear people support this particular troop.

But there is one thing I don't get....

The writer is critical of the Pentagon's high ranking military for not speaking up and demanding to be heard. He regrets not speaking louder himself.

Quote:

Flaws in our civilians are one thing; the failure of the Pentagon's military leaders is quite another. Those are men who know the hard consequences of war but, with few exceptions, acted timidly when their voices urgently needed to be heard. When they knew the plan was flawed, saw intelligence distorted to justify a rationale for war, or witnessed arrogant micromanagement that at times crippled the military's effectiveness, many leaders who wore the uniform chose inaction. A few of the most senior officers actually supported the logic for war. Others were simply intimidated, while still others must have believed that the principle of obedience does not allow for respectful dissent. The consequence of the military's quiescence was that a fundamentally flawed plan was executed for an invented war, while pursuing the real enemy, al-Qaeda, became a secondary effort.

So why has he waited four years to say anything?

This will make no difference. The Bush apologists will continue to do their lying, delusional two-step and American blood will continue soaking Iraqi sands until the nitwit leaves office.

The march of folly continues...

So why has he waited four years to say anything?

Brandon9000 wrote:

There was no trick. 12 years after the end of Gilf War 1, it was not possible to determine whether Saddam Hussein still had WMD and WMD development programs. We could not allow doomsday weapons to fall into the hands of a madman. Had he acquired a stockpile of WMD, the world might have paid a terrible price later. This reasoning is not a "trick."

The above is the most succinctly written regurgitation of this administration's propaganda I've ever read. The "Hook, Link and Sinker Award", previously won by folks such as Judith Miller, is in the mail.

Joe(It could not be determined if he had a gun, so I shot the guy anyway. Just in case.)Nation

The reasoning is not a trick. Brandon is correct here. It's no trick, but an outright criminal lie.

Joe Nation wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

There was no trick. 12 years after the end of Gilf War 1, it was not possible to determine whether Saddam Hussein still had WMD and WMD development programs. We could not allow doomsday weapons to fall into the hands of a madman. Had he acquired a stockpile of WMD, the world might have paid a terrible price later. This reasoning is not a "trick."

The above is the most succinctly written regurgitation of this administration's propaganda I've ever read. The "Hook, Link and Sinker Award", previously won by folks such as Judith Miller, is in the mail.

Joe(It could not be determined if he had a gun, so I shot the guy anyway. Just in case.)Nation

I find it absolutely fascinating that no part of your post refutes any part of mine. I assert that you'd rather characterize my posts or me than answer them, because you can't refute the reasoning. In my experience, most of the liberals on this board will go to any length to avoid having to simply respond with dignity to a conservative argument.

Do you know why Brandon9000 always wins his debate, because he uses words like 'liberals' :wink:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Joe Nation wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

There was no trick. 12 years after the end of Gilf War 1, it was not possible to determine whether Saddam Hussein still had WMD and WMD development programs. We could not allow doomsday weapons to fall into the hands of a madman. Had he acquired a stockpile of WMD, the world might have paid a terrible price later. This reasoning is not a "trick."

The above is the most succinctly written regurgitation of this administration's propaganda I've ever read. The "Hook, Link and Sinker Award", previously won by folks such as Judith Miller, is in the mail.

Joe(It could not be determined if he had a gun, so I shot the guy anyway. Just in case.)Nation

I find it absolutely fascinating that no part of your post refutes any part of mine. I assert that you'd rather characterize my posts or me than answer them, because you can't refute the reasoning. In my experience, most of the liberals on this board will go to any length to avoid having to simply respond with dignity to a conservative argument.

Assumes facts not in evidence, to wit that a conservative argument-- consisting as they generally do of a mindless regurgitation of the Republican Party's talking points-- is WORTH a dignified response.