For those out there who are still convinced the Iraq war was/is going well: Two days before Rumsfeld handed in his resignation, he submitted a classified memo stating that"
"what the US forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough."
Weirdly, one of his action items states that they should take a move from SADDAM HUSSEIN'S PLAYBOOK and bribe local leaders to help them. (bold text below)Â
 He evens admits to a mistake when he writes. "Stop rewarding bad behavior, as was done in Fallujah "
The memo was a case of too little too late for Rummy. I just hope it isn't too little too late for Iraq.
Â
Here's the classified memo submitted 2 days before his resignation
SUBJECT: Iraq — Illustrative New Courses of Action
The situation in Iraq has been evolving, and U.S. forces have adjusted, over time, from major combat operations to counterterrorism, to counterinsurgency, to dealing with death squads and sectarian violence. In my view it is time for a major adjustment. Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough. Following is a range of options:
Â
ILLUSTRATIVE OPTIONS
Above the Line: (Many of these options could and, in a number of cases, should be done in combination with others)
¶Publicly announce a set of benchmarks agreed to by the Iraqi Government and the U.S. — political, economic and security goals — to chart a path ahead for the Iraqi government and Iraqi people (to get them moving) and for the U.S. public (to reassure them that progress can and is being made).
¶Significantly increase U.S. trainers and embeds, and transfer more U.S. equipment to Iraqi Security forces (ISF), to further accelerate their capabilities by refocusing the assignment of some significant portion of the U.S. troops currently in Iraq.
¶Initiate a reverse embeds program, like the Korean Katusas, by putting one or more Iraqi soldiers with every U.S. and possibly Coalition squad, to improve our units’ language capabilities and cultural awareness and to give the Iraqis experience and training with professional U.S. troops.
¶Aggressively beef up the Iraqi MOD and MOI, and other Iraqi ministries critical to the success of the ISF — the Iraqi Ministries of Finance, Planning, Health, Criminal Justice, Prisons, etc. — by reaching out to U.S. military retirees and Reserve/National Guard volunteers (i.e., give up on trying to get other USG Departments to do it.)
¶Conduct an accelerated draw-down of U.S. bases. We have already reduced from 110 to 55 bases. Plan to get down to 10 to 15 bases by April 2007, and to 5 bases by July 2007.
¶Retain high-end SOF capability and necessary support structure to target Al Qaeda, death squads, and Iranians in Iraq, while drawing down all other Coalition forces, except those necessary to provide certain key enablers for the ISF.
¶Initiate an approach where U.S. forces provide security only for those provinces or cities that openly request U.S. help and that actively cooperate, with the stipulation being that unless they cooperate fully, U.S. forces would leave their province.
¶Stop rewarding bad behavior, as was done in Fallujah when they pushed in reconstruction funds, and start rewarding good behavior. Put our reconstruction efforts in those parts of Iraq that are behaving, and invest and create havens of opportunity to reward them for their good behavior. As the old saying goes, “If you want more of something, reward it; if you want less of something, penalize it.†No more reconstruction assistance in areas where there is violence.
¶Position substantial U.S. forces near the Iranian and Syrian borders to reduce infiltration and, importantly, reduce Iranian influence on the Iraqi Government.
¶Withdraw U.S. forces from vulnerable positions — cities, patrolling, etc. — and move U.S. forces to a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) status, operating from within Iraq and Kuwait, to be available when Iraqi security forces need assistance.
¶Begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and Coalition forces (start “taking our hand off the bicycle seatâ€), so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up and take responsibility for their country.
¶Provide money to key political and religious leaders (as Saddam Hussein did), to get them to help us get through this difficult period. (bold added by me!)
¶Initiate a massive program for unemployed youth. It would have to be run by U.S. forces, since no other organization could do it.
¶Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis. This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not “lose.â€
¶Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) — go minimalist.
Below the Line (less attractive options):
¶Continue on the current path.
¶Move a large fraction of all U.S. Forces into Baghdad to attempt to control it.
¶Increase Brigade Combat Teams and U.S. forces in Iraq substantially.
¶Set a firm withdrawal date to leave. Declare that with Saddam gone and Iraq a sovereign nation, the Iraqi people can govern themselves. Tell Iran and Syria to stay out.
¶Assist in accelerating an aggressive federalism plan, moving towards three separate states — Sunni, Shia, and Kurd.
¶Try a Dayton-like process.
Â
Â
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 89
Did this come from somewhere or did it just float in through your bedroom window? Seriously, you need to provide attribution since we know you are not on the DOD distribution list.
source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16008286/
Here is a Wyoming newspaper covering it. http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2006/12/02/ap/washington/d8lp0veg0.txt
For those who still do not understand I do hereby acknowledge that the article Lauren has referred to herein is an actual article...
I am amazed at the "leaks" of 'classified documents'., and I am with Nanci B. - hardly anything new I'm sure (much to the dismay of REH).
RE: you really can not continue to project your idea of management skills on this Administration.
I'll bet Rummy was just covering his ass....
Some might consider it in his job description to consult with HIS Generals and advisers and access the situation, as has been stated from day one by those that are responsible for the prosecution of the war, NOT desk jockeys on Capital Hill or reporters sitting in the Green Zone or a at a desk at the NYT.
Give you 10:1, this makes a LOT more sense than ANYTHING the has-beens and wanna-bes on the Baker Commission comes up with *which is evidently going to be the Mantra and Marching Orders of the Dems.
And if it takes 100,000 or more troops to secure their borders, I believe there are enough IRAQIs to cover it!
100,000 Iraqis? Which kind? Sunni? Shi'ia? Kurds? Maybe if all you faded neo-cons lock arms, recite the Pledge of Allegiance , (under God, of course) a zillion times those 100K "Iraqis" will magically march forth psalming to America and smash all the greasy evil dooers. Perhaps if we give Haliburton a few more billion or Exxon another tax break it will make it all better. I know it NOT FAIR the "Iraqis" will not play by our rules and dammit why can't we march across the globe imposing our "democracy" upon anybody and everybody? What do the American people know about it and why ask them anyway? You guys need to stock up on Jack Daniels and Coors, tie on a real bender and get all this extra testosterone out of the system. Start practicing the mantra "return to core Republican values, return to core Republican values." Sing sad songs to dead kings and speculate upon Monicas skills. Relax, G1 it's over.
Sam C, your theory on bureacrats leaking the memo makes a lot of sense to me, as did everything else you said. Return to core values GOP!!
I think it should be noted that invading Iraq was Bush's idea, not Rumsfeld's, insofar as Bush was and still is the Boss, the Commander in chief, the Decider, etc. Bush however does not have the option of resigning, and it is a couple years too late for us to fire him. It is odd however that despite firing Rumsfeld, Bush will not publicly consider any of the alternative ideas that are now being discussed about Iraq. If he wishes to remain relevant, something has to give here. Or is he convinced that the only way to preserve his legacy is to remain intransigent and then blame any future fallout on those who advocate our withdrawal?
The only way to achieve Democracy over there would be total occupation and several hundreds of thousands more troops on the ground, than we have at this time. That just isnt going to happen. That would take a new "Draft" and that ship sailed years and years ago. This administration keeps saying this situation is nothing like Vietnam. Well the only major difference is its not pollitical differences causing the killings, its fanatical apposing religious beliefs. We were in a no win situation in Vietnam, trying to "Keep Democracy Safe for the World." Hello ? Same song just slightly different words.
I also think it's a misreading of the above purported Rumsfeld memo as anything other than an honest appraisal of how the President can go forward once he leaves the DOD. There is nothing in what is presented above that says to me, "Man, George! We REALLY made a mess of this whole damn thing!"
If someone takes connotation from it, that says more about the reader than What Rummy is trying to convey.
Even Rumsfeld admitted things weren't working and now he's gone!
Our proclaimed primary objective was to protect the US from an Iraqi nuclear threat that never exist. Ironically, I believe we not only failed to accomplish this object, we have managed to achieve its antithesis. Namely, the number of terrorists that hate the US has increased and the amount of nuclear capability by the axes of evil (Iran and North Korea) have increased.
I'm not sure what objectives you are using, but Iraq is a spectacular failure as a means for making America a safer place.
"David Beall- are you on crack?"
No. Even if I was, it wouldn't make your assertions true.
"Even Rumsfeld admitted things weren't working and now he's gone!"
Rummy said:
"...not working well enough." (emphasis mine)
Notice Rumsfeld said well enough. He did say at all, he didn't say couldn't work, he didn't say shouldn't work. By using the qualifier enough he meant that our tactics are working some -- just not enough. With that being the case, he outlined what modifications he believed would allow us to achieve enough success.
"Our proclaimed primary objective was to protect the US from an Iraqi nuclear threat that never exist."
Pure fantasy, made up out of whole cloth. You can't show us ONE quote from even ONE adminstration official or official document that proclaimed our primary motivation and objective for re-invading Iraq was to protect us from an Iraqi nuclear threat. Making up "facts" only weakens your argument.
"Ironically, I believe we not only failed to accomplish this object, we have managed to achieve its antithesis. Namely, the number of terrorists that hate the US has increased and the amount of nuclear capability by the axes of evil (Iran and North Korea) have increased."
Again, pure fantasy, as it relates to Iraq. As stated above, destroying Iraq's nuclear threat wasn't an objective, so the fact they didn't have that capability cannot be seen as a failure in any way. We should be thankful we went in there before one could be developed. In regards to Iran and North Korea, your assertions are apparantly true, or close to being true at any rate. But, those developments have nothing to do with Iraq and would have occured absent our re-invasion of Iraq in 2003. Stay focused on the issue at hand, Lauren.
"I'm not sure what objectives you are using, but Iraq is a spectacular failure as a means for making America a safer place.
The objective I'm using is we taking the fight to the Islamofascists in their own backyard, therby preventing them from attacking us here in ours. By that objective standard, we have realized overwhelming success. I would think you would see it that way, too. Unless, of course, you'd rather have your home city struck again?
YOU WROTE: You can't show us ONE quote from even ONE adminstration official or official document that proclaimed our primary motivation and objective for re-invading Iraq was to protect us from an Iraqi nuclear threat. Making up "facts" only weakens your argument.
FROM WIKIPEDIA:
The Niger uranium documents refers to falsified classified documents initially "uncovered" by Italian intelligence which depicted an attempt by Iraq's Saddam Hussein regime to purchase yellowcake uranium from the country of Niger during the Iraq disarmament crisis.
On the basis of these documents and other indicators, the United States and United Kingdom governments asserted that Iraq had attempted to procure nuclear material for the purpose of creating "weapons of mass destruction," in defiance of United Nations sanctions.
This claim was one of the political justifications for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and led to considerable embarrassment when discredited.
Now YOU find me one pre-invasion justification from the administration that proclaimed that was our justification.
From data from the United States State Dept.
The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.
Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003,
you say;"trying to argue with you is downright wearisome."
I'm not seeking an argument. I'm seeking substantiation of your claims. Prove them and there's nothing argue about, correct?
You offer this from Wikipedia to prove your point on Iraqi nuclear threats:
"This claim was one of the political justifications for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and led to considerable embarrassment when discredited.
The last I checked, Lauren, Wikipedia isn't a Bush Administration official, nor is their website considered a source of official U.S. documents. I'm aware there is a siginificant minority of people you claim that the Iraq/Niger connection was a reason the Administration advocated re-invading Iraq. That's not new.
My request to you was, "show us ONE quote from even ONE adminstration official or official document that proclaimed our primary motivation and objective for re-invading Iraq was to protect us from an Iraqi nuclear threat."
Wikipedia won't name any administration official or document making that claim and you can't either, because it never happened.
You ask;
"Now YOU find me one pre-invasion justification from the administration that proclaimed that was our justification."
I never said that preventing terrorist attacks on American soil was a justification for going into Iraq. Fortunately, that's been a welcome byproduct. Don't evade the issue. You made the intial claim, you have the burden to offer the proof.
You said:
"Oh really? ther idea that there is now MORE terroism since the invasion is "pure fantasy"?"
I didn't say that terrorism is pure fantasy. And, I don't deny terrorists attacks in Iraq haven't increased since the invasion. My "pure fantasy" characterization referred to your nuclear threat claim. Go back and read it for yourself. For the record, I think the assertion that there is "more terrorism" than before Iraq AND that increase is solely due to Iraq, to also be specious; and, the quote from the alleged State Department report you cite doesn't say that either.
"I guess you are smarter than me"
YOU said it not me! =)
YOU wrote: "I never said that preventing terrorist attacks on American soil was a justification for going into Iraq"
What did the stated fact that global terrorism is on the rise have to do with protecting attacks on American soil?? I obviously said that fact to dispute your claim, that YOU did in fact say, "The objective I'm using is we taking the fight to the Islamofascists in their own backyard, therby preventing them from attacking us here in ours. "
Furthermore, every time we did in fact protect ourselves from attack on American soil, (some attacks even PROVOKED by the war) it has been intelligence, our own and other countries', that prevented the attacks from being performed, and NOT the Iraq war that prevented it.
you wrote "Wikipedia won't name any administration official or document making that claim and you can't either, because it never happened"
Yellowcake? Hello! It's practically synonymous with George Tenent for marring Colin Powell's reputation when he brought the falsified yellowcake claims in front of the UN for getting support for the war. (Fortunately, most countries were too smart not get involved ata ll or in any meaningful way in The Coalition of the WIlling.)
So, there, an administrative figure, who had the brains to bow out of duty after he stood in front of the world and cited falsified documents that indicated Iraq could potentially be a nuclear threat and thus, the world should invade Iraq and remove Saddam.
Lauren raising the already ridiculous taxes on ciggarettes was supposed to be a deterent How did that go?. Viox isnt leagal but it kills less than .01% of the users that took it. Why didnt they raise a tax on viox to deter the users?
Raising taxes on oil is a proven deterent for alternative energy as the governmnt cant collect on it as it does with oil. Politicianswant power and power comes from money, not what is right.
If you dont agree with this I take back your intellectual superior status and wiill dump another gallon of gas into the rock river.
you're switching topics. all i said was that higher gas prices are a detterent to the amount of gas we consume which decreases dependency on foreign oil.
and since when can gov't not tax alternative energy? you can bet that if every house and car in this country was powered by wind, taxes on windmill would be 500%
OK, it's not crack. Whiskey? Speaking in tounges? Oh, I get it. You're joking, right??? Silly me.
If democrats really wanted America off of oil why didnt it happen under Clinton? 8 years......nothing. It increased dependency to bolster government income which democrats now praise. Will a democrat admit that getting away from alternative energy will cost their size in growth that they promise to advance?
Lauren I think I believe in the same things you do......we just trust different people. You trust democrats, I dont trust republicans. I trust the free market. Taxing one corporartion as a deterent isnt a free market. Its extortion. It tlts the market in favor of politicians not the people.
Let's deal with one at a time:
1)You asked me: "Now YOU find me one pre-invasion justification from the administration that proclaimed that was our justification. "
I responded to your question:"I never said that preventing terrorist attacks on American soil was a justification for going into Iraq"
2)You made this statement:
"Again, pure fantasy" (you quoting me about the Iraqi nuclear threat)Really? Oh really? ther idea that there is now MORE terroism since the invasion is "pure fantasy"?
From data from the United States State Dept.
The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.
Overall, the number of what the U.S. government considers "significant" attacks grew to about 655 last year, up from the record of around 175 in 2003,"
To which I responded:
"I didn't say that terrorism is pure fantasy. And, I don't deny terrorists attacks in Iraq haven't increased since the invasion. My "pure fantasy" characterization referred to your nuclear threat claim. Go back and read it for yourself. For the record, I think the assertion that there is "more terrorism" than before Iraq AND that increase is solely due to Iraq, to also be specious; and, the quote from the alleged State Department report you cite doesn't say that either."
So, you see, you were trying to assign meaning my my comments that I never intended or said, and I was simply trying to correct you. I understand it would make you argument much easier to maintain if I just let you twist my words, but you'll have to find a more ethical way to justify your position.
Also, you cite "goernment reports" citing an increase of global terrorists attacks attributable to the Iraq war. Would you give me the link to, or at least the name of thhose reports and which governmental agency issued them. I'd be very interested in reading them. And, I'm certain you have that documentation, because someone as smart as you would never make false claims, I'm sure.
Don't work yourself too, hard getting back to me on this, because I know how "wearisome" actually having to defend your factual assertions can be.
Just one more thing, for you to chew over while your getting me this "proof". Show me in the 2002 Security Council Resolution warning Saddam of "dire consequences for non-compliance" where yellowcake is mentioned. I don't think it's in there, but if it is, I'm sure a smart young lady such as yourself will be able to show it to me.
If you were fooled by an idiot.....why should you be in power?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html
take some responsibility.
How can you not know that Iraq as a nuclear threat was the main reason for the Iraq War. It's like, where were you in 2002 when the world watched Powell stand in front of the UN and flaunt the yellowcake evidence and pund the podium as he built his case for war. And then in 2004 when the whole Valerie Plume leak scandal emerged as a result of the yellocake info baing falsified. These are basic, practically iconic facts, surround the Iraq War. I... I just don't see who you can't seem to udnerstand this.
ANd I'm not twisitng your words. I copy and PASTE them just so no one thinks that. i have addressed every one of your points. Arguing with you is so exasperating because I feel like I am talking to someone who doesn't understand ENglish.
….."Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known……"
……Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option…..
…..The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide……
…..But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him…..
Of course Bush didn't actually SAY Iraq was behind 9/11 but all those ragheads are alike, right? Now Dave you can argue that WMDs and nukes in particular were not the MAIN motivation for war but what do you think George's intention was spilling this garbage? Garbage he KNEW was false?
Jeff the Dems, as well as the Repubs failed America by following George like sheep. The Dems did not step up and challenge. Of course, what good would it do since the Repubs held the Congress and the Dems may protest but had no subpoena power to check and balance. So you see the failure of oversight is SOLELY a Republican crime. Part of which they paid for in November.
Sam C. commented Dec 3, 2006
Sam;
I'm not in the habit of trying to infer a person's meaning. I'm not a mind-reader and neither are you. I'll take them at their word until they prove themselves to be unreliable.
Bush didn't say Iraq was behind 9-11 because Iraq wasn't behind 9-11 and 9-11 wasn't a prime motivating factor in re-invading Iraq.
As to his motivation behind releasing the information that a majority of the world's intellegence services believed, I think the answer is he was building a case around the facts that; Saddam had continually thumbed his nose at the international community, he was seeking the capability to develop WMD, to include nuclear; he continued to support terrorism in the region; he was in violation of 18 Security Council resolutions and the ceasefire agreement he signed with the US in 1991. Your definitive declaration that the President "knew" none of the above to be "true"; well, you have no evidence to support that charge and independent reports from that time support the exact opposite conclusion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html
Lauren "just likes to stir up trouble" G! commented Dec 3, 2006
Lauren, dear, The Washington Post doesn't qualify as an official US governmental department, so their reports are not official US reports. (I'm sure your libs would LOVE to have the rest of normal America to see the WP and NYT as official, but that will never happen.)
The info was also publicized by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) but I ma not going to go and google that for you and spoonfeed you info you should already knwo fi you're going to have informed opions.
STOP DUMBING MY POSTS DOWN!
And don't call me dear, neocon.
I know the report is from the NCTC and I'm reading it right now. I would suggest you read it too, sweetie, because they have a very simple explanation for the increase in the number of terrorist attacks. I'll let you read it for yourself.
BTW, the libel laws don't apply to newspaper reports on government reports -- even when those newpaper reports contain out-right falsehoods.
As to "dumbing down your posts", darlin, you're doing a great job of that yourself, you don't need MY help.
I'll give you a little while to actually read the authentic report. It even has pictures, so you'll be able to heighten your comprehension.
It seems like whenver the gov't declares a war on something (like drugs) it really just causes it to increase. Maybe they should declare a war on oil, or renewable energy.
You haven't READ the report, have you? Here, let me help you understand this whole issue.
This is from the NCTC Fact Sheet and Observations section of the report:
NCTC Report
There are 3 principal reasons for the numbers being significantly higher than in past years:
- The previously used statutory definition of "international terrorism" ("involving citizens or territory of more than one country") resulted in hundreds of incidents per year; the currently used statutory definition of "terrorism" ("premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets") results in many thousands of incidents per year.
- The "international terrorism" definition was originally used to compile 2004 statistics, but it gave rise to fallacious results (the Van Gogh assassination, Philippine Superferry and one of two Russian aircraft downed in 2004 didn't meet the "international terrorism" definition).
Accordingly NCTC retroactively applied the broader "terrorism" definition to the 2004 data as a proof of concept; this was a quick review in which all of 2004 was catalogued in May/June of 2005. While NCTC is confident that the application of the broader "terrorism" definition captured the high fatality incidents for 2004, we undoubtedly did not catalogue thousands of incidents in which few or no individuals were killed. The level of effort difference between the two years means that 2005 is a far more comprehensive data set than that for 2004; as such it limits our ability to do 2004/2005 comparisons to only the higher fatality incident counts (see the last bullet below).
- The level of violence directed against civilians in Iraq was substantially higher in 2005 than it was in 2004.
So, you see Lauren, the increase primarily was due to a broader definition of what "terrorism" actually was.
Now, this was uncalled for:
"ANd it only took like 5 comments on my part to get it through your thick head."
Again, Lauren, before you through personal insults, you should have your facts straight -- and get someone to blow in your ear to make sure your head is full before you start to correct someone who actually knows what their talking about.
David, you haven't the faintest clue as to what you are talking about.
You said:
Even Republicans criticized that interpretation. Interpretation is not facts. The fact is that terrorism increased."
The article was refering to what the spokesperson said, NOT what the report said. Maybe you just don't look like an idiot ... maybe you really ARE one. Read the f-ing report then maybe you might be able to hold an intelligent conversation. Otherwise, you're just spouting off crap.
David, "mind reader?" Ask the average GI why he fights in Iraq. The common answer? To avenge 9/11. I know you do not like to admit error, no one does. But it strains credibility to breaking if you claim Bush did not actively tie Iraq with 9/11.
sam c, it's more than just the average GI, half of all Bush backers believed there was a 9/11-Iraq link. I feel bad for people that got suckered into believing that, btu I might even feel worse for people that knowing now that there was no threat to the US, no Iraq-9/11 link, and that we were not "welcome as liberators" STILL try to defend this misguided war.
Oh and Delete My Profile
(if only you would do that.) See my comment to Jeff H. I think it's hilarious that whenever Republicans screw up, their last resort is to say, the Dems agreed with us and didn't try and stop us from our own stupidity. Republicans had control of both houses and the executive branch. If Gore had been in the WHite House during 9/11 (well maybe there owuldn;t have even been a 9/11) and therre definitely would not have been an Iraq War.
You can either say the Iraq War was a mistake that the Dems made too, or that it was not a mistake, but you guys are all trying to have your cake and eat it too.
"In a report to be released next week, US government figures will show that the number of terrorist attacks in the world jumped sharply in 2005, totalling more than 10,000 for the first time. That is almost triple the number of terrorist attacks in 2004 -- 3,194. Knight Ridder's Washington bureau reports that counterterrorism experts say that there are two reasons for the dramatic increase: a broader definition of what consitutes a terrorist attack, and the war in Iraq.
More than half the fatalities from terrorism worldwide last year occurred in Iraq, said a counterterrorism official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the data haven't been made public. Roughly 85 percent of the US citizens who died from terrorism during the year died in Iraq. The figures cover only noncombatants and thus don't include combat deaths of US, Iraqi and other coalition soldiers.
"There's no question that the level of terrorist attacks in Iraq was up substantially," said the official, who's familiar with the methods used by the National Counterterrorism Center to track terrorist trends. The center is part of the US intelligence community."
David you've labored to make a point. Can you make an apology as well?
Sam C. commented Dec 4, 2006
I talk to an Iraqi veteran everyday, Sam. He and his commrades know the exact reason why we're in Iraq, and it's not to "avenge" anything. We're in Iraq to help that country form a democratic form of government after we removed their former despotic criminal dictator.
You claim the President actively ties Iraq to 9-11. Okay, give me just ONE quote from the President doing that. Just one. Not an inference you've drawn from what you think he said. Give he his EXACT words where he said that. You won't be able to do that, because he's never said them. In fact, he's said exactly the opposite.
I have no problem admitting when I'm in error, Sam. You show me facts that prove I'm wrong, and I'll admit it. But, you opinion that I'm in error carries no weight when the facts substantiate my position.
You say:
"David you've labored to make a point. Can you make an apology as well?"
Apologize for what, Sam? That excerpt you've posted is saying the exact same thing I said. The increase in reported terrorism was due to a change in how the NCTC defined terrorist incidences I said;
"I didn't say that terrorism is pure fantasy. And, I don't deny terrorists attacks in Iraq haven't increased since the invasion. My "pure fantasy" characterization referred to your nuclear threat claim. Go back and read it for yourself. For the record, I think the assertion that there is "more terrorism" than before Iraq AND that increase is solely due to Iraq, to also be specious; and, the quote from the alleged State Department report you cite doesn't say that either."
That's entirely consistent with the CSM excerpt you posted, Sam.
You've labored over half truth and semantics with the thin purpose of veiling responsibility of Bush. Your arguments sound like Clintion "it depends on the what the defintion of "is" is." Intellectual company you wish to keep? It does not work.
Sam C. commented Dec 5, 2006
Prove it Sam. Show me one. With proper citation so I can verify it.
"Why dispute the point?
Sam C. commented Dec 5, 2006
Because it never happened. You Bush-haters think that by merely repeating the same porpaganda over and over again will make it true. But, the truth is the truth, and you have yet to say it.
"If you were to say 'Ice cream' and 'hungry' hundreds of times without saying specifically "I am hungry for ice cream" one might reasonably conclude your intention."
Sam C. commented Dec 5, 2006
That is because that is what YOU want to hear. By your example, it is just as reasonable to assume I mean "I'm NOT hungry for ice cream," or "They are/are not hungry for ice cream."
"You've labored over half truth and semantics with the thin purpose of veiling responsibility of Bush. Your arguments sound like Clintion "it depends on the what the defintion of "is" is." Intellectual company you wish to keep? It does not work."
What half-truth, Sam? What semantic game? The documents say what they say, and I've simply related what they say. Unlike you and Missy Lauren, I haven't cherry-picked a single line out of a newspaper's filtered report of what that writer wanted us to take away from her piece, but from the actual document itself. I deal with unvarnished facts, Sam. The fact is what little Lauren and you are trying to do is take a out of context a newspaper story, that the newspaper writer herself took a government report out of context, and formulate an argument. I simply went right to the government report itself and saw what it said. I posted the relevant portion above. Not only does it bear no resemblence to what the newspaper reporter said, it contradicts what Lauren says the newspaper article confirms.
"Intellectual company you wish to keep?"
Sam C. commented Dec 5, 2006
It's obvious from the comments you and Lauren both have made that intellectual company won't be found here. At least not with any integrity.
Vanity Fair article on Wolfowitz
http://zfacts.com/p/164.html
It's like I don't know how clearer it could be that a case for an Iraq- 9/11 link was intimated to entice people into entering the war as well as a a WMD threat to the US that never existed.
Sep. 14, 2003 DIck Cheney
"If we're successful in Iraq ... we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
November 1, 2002. Remarks by the President in Pennsylvania Welcome
the United States will lead a mighty coalition of freedom-loving nations and disarm Saddam Hussein. (Applause.) See, I can't imagine what was going through the mind of this enemy when they hit us. They probably thought the national religion was materialism, that we were so selfish and so self-absorbed that after 9/11/2001 this mighty nation would take a couple of steps back and file a lawsuit"
Mar. 18, 2003G.W. Bush
Bush said that his use of the Congressional authorization to wage war against Iraq is consistent with the international effort against terrorism, "including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice - September 2003:
"Saddam was a danger in the region where the 9/11 threat emerged."
Bush (Jan. 28, 2003): Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.
State of the Union Address
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
"Saddam Hussein and people like him were very much involved in 9/11," Republican Rep. Robin Hayes said.
Everyone knows they were hellbent on conecting Iraq with 9/11!
"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.
Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.
According to Mr. Kull of PIPA, there is a strong correlation between those who see the Sept. 11-Iraq connection and those who support going to war."
Hello. YOu speaka Ingleesh, David? YOu understand me?
No DMP it wasn't. There were far more sinister dictators out there. And why then? WHy not go after Saddam before he gassed thousands of Kurds. Why not go to Darfur WHILE there is a genocide? WHy not go after Osama Bin Laden who declared was on the US years before 9/11?
You can't change your reasons for doing somethign right in the middle of it. That's just childish. If your stated reasons for going proved to be wring you made a big mistake. I fyou are losing the war after you posed in front of a mission accomplished banner, you screwed up. Why is it so hard for you to admit that Bush screwed up in a mjor, major way?
Republicans have no made this country safer. And they have needlessly jeapordzied the lives of the men and women who only want to protect our country, notinvade and occupy another.
OK, shhhh, try and keep this a asecret. It's just between me, Joe T, and now you. But the REAL terrorists, the ones who actually planned 9/11 were part of a netwrok called Al-Queda that received most of its funding from Osama bin Laden and Sauds. Now, we think that this network should be attacked through intelligence as well as thorugh rebuilding Afghanistan. Also, Iraq is only a very minor character in this network. Shhhhhhh!!!
Clinton TRIED to go after bin Laden but he was too busy trying not get impeached over a measly blowjob by a bunch of prudish republicna attack dogs!!! THE VERY PEOPLE that criticize CLinton for not bombing him when he had the chance, are the very same people who criticized him for his target bombings and prevented him from attacking bin Laden.
The vast majority of the country now ralizes Iraq was a mistake. WHy can't anyone just admit it's not goign well. Today, sec of defense nominee admitted we are nto winning, before resigning, Rumsfeld admitted the war was not going well, everyone knows that there were no 9/11 links and no WMD found. Why am I wasting my time on Gather defending the obvious to the last few people on earth who think Iraq was not an egregious error?!
back to the argument. At least CLinton TRIED to do something about bin Laden. Bush did NOTHING. IN fact, he took the longest vacation in modern presidential history during the time a Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US memo was going around.
Wow- and I love how you call me the worst sort of American. How dare I question our president for misleading us into a war. How dare I take offense to a secretary of defense that steals moves from Saddam Hussein's playbook. This country has much bigger fish to fry than Iraq, and we let thos fish (N Korea and Iran) build up their nuclear arsenal while Bush was builkding up his cronies' bank accounts. It's a disgrace and you are the worst kind ignorant AMerican for supporting it.
Robert Byrd asked Gates today: "Did Saddam Hussain or Osama Bin Laden attack on 9/11?"
Gates: "Osama Bin Laden."
Byrd: "In the last 5 years who has posed the greatest threat to America? Saddam Hussain or Osama Bin Laden?"
Gates: "Osama Bin Laden."
DMP is among the dedicated brain dead. I try to give David a chance. He's intractable but plumbing his depth might reveal what truly motivates the type he represents. This kind has been with America for a long time but got virulent and problematic post Joseph McCarthy. They can lead America to destruction and it is necessary to understand, check and balance. DMP is just noise.
Yes, he was horrible to the Kurds. Yes, he killed thousands of them (with weapons WE sold him) and yes it is fantastic that he is gone, but it's starting look like more Iraqi's are dying under the US occupation than Saddam's rule. The time to actually do something humanitarina about Saddam's murder of Kurds was at least 10 years ago, and the time to avenge the people that flew a plane intomy city is slipping away.
It's all about priorities. If Bush saved a kitten in a tall tree (Iraq) that would be a good thing, but not so great if behind him there was a flaming building of children he was neglecting. (al-Queda, Iran, North Korea.)
Round 2? Bring it!
"I will not defend Bush's choices, I think Iraq was a bad one, and personally feel it was more about vengeance for himself than national security"
"Because of the lousy job Bush and Rumsfeld have done, the list has grown"
That's all I was trying to say really.
And I do not want to the worst possible outcome because that would ultimately mean an attack on US soil and NOBODY wants that!!! I want peace, d-mmit! and to not have live in fear that a plane is going to crach into my building (which has a lvoely view of the empire state building actually)
I do think that with RUmmy gone and Bush running with his tail between his legs there is hope for a new strategy in Iraq, a qualling of th einsurgency, a building of some kind of gov't, and hopefully then it won't be too late to focus on the more pressing iand infinitely more frightening ssues of Iran and North Korea.
So it all about welfare, illegals, and what you define as "redistribution of wealth," right?