Outsports Discussion Board > The end game for Iraq-Bush?

Full Version: The end game for Iraq-Bush?

Outsports Discussion Board > Outsports > Politics & Religion

ung

Aug 15 2005, 11:51 AM

This is an excerpt from an article by Frank Rich in the NYTimes.

QUOTE

The approval rate for Mr. Bush's handling of Iraq plunged to 34 percent in last weekend's Newsweek poll - a match for the 32 percent that approved L.B.J.'s handling of Vietnam in early March 1968.

QUOTE

The president's cable cadre is in disarray as well. At Fox News Bill O'Reilly is trashing Donald Rumsfeld for his incompetence, and Ann Coulter is chiding Mr. O'Reilly for being a defeatist...Robert Novak walked off a CNN set and possibly out of a job rather than answer questions about his role in smearing the man who helped expose the administration's prewar inflation of Saddam W.M.D.'s.

QUOTE

It was on false premises - that Iraq was both a collaborator on 9/11 and about to inflict mushroom clouds on America - that honorable and brave young Americans were sent off to fight. Among them were the 19 marine reservists from a single suburban Cleveland battalion slaughtered in just three days at the start of this month... Paul Hackett, a Democrat who called the president a \"chicken hawk,\" received 48 percent of the vote in exactly the kind of bedrock conservative Ohio district that decided the 2004 election for Mr. Bush.

These are the tea leaves that all Republicans, not just Chuck Hagel, are reading now. Newt Gingrich called the Hackett near-victory \"a wake-up call.\" The resolutely pro-war New York Post editorial page begged Mr. Bush (to no avail) to \"show some leadership\" by showing up in Ohio to salute the fallen and their families. A Bush loyalist, Senator George Allen of Virginia, instructed the president to meet with Cindy Sheehan, the mother camping out in Crawford, as \"a matter of courtesy and decency.\" Or, to translate his Washingtonese, as a matter of politics.

So... is this a benefit of the anti-war sentiment? That the pentagon is now willfully ignoring a soldier's homosexuality just so we have enough bodies for Iraq?

and when will this whole campaign that was "mission accomplished" almost 3 years ago and "in the last throes" a year ago, come to a conclusion that doesn't kill thousands more of innocent american soldiers lives?

When will we realize that "Supporting our troops" is more than having a bumber sticker on my car declaring that? When will we realize that supporting our troops means not making them die needlessly?

[Post modified to comply with Outsports' copyright policy - Outsports moderator]

[ August 16, 2005, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: ung ]

Erik G

Aug 15 2005, 06:30 PM

I just don't know anymore Mom. If you had raised your boy right he would never even think of using a weapon against another human being.

"Those who cannot live in peace live at each other's mercy"

azairforce

Aug 15 2005, 09:02 PM

Great post ung

ung

Aug 16 2005, 08:13 AM

Thanks.. But I would really like to hear from the opposing viewpoint.

I wanna know how (aside from the rhetoric) they can justify logically what has happened.

fantomas

Aug 16 2005, 08:47 AM

I don't think there's an endgame for W at all; he has nothing to lose, except what little remains of his reputation among independents. Supposedly 90% of Republican voters support him despite all of the horrors that have occurred on his watch, while the overwhelming majority of Democrats obviously think he's a disaster. Outside the US, W has not only alienated most of our traditional allies, but empowered some of our worst enemies, like Iran. Saddam Hussein was a monster, but one the US helped to create and had contained pretty well; what W has unleashed is uncontrollable.

What are we looking at Iraq as of today? A near sovereign, Islamicist-leaning Shiite government tied to Iran, that wants to avenge its historical humiliation by Sunnis, who are determiend not to lose their power (they already) and the oil wealth that the Kurds, who are already basically independent, also covet. Women's rights, the rights of religious and sexual minorities, public ownership and access to Iraq's resources and assets, and so on, are now all under serious threat from fanatics. This is the "freedom" that W has unleashed. But why should he care? He doesn't have to set foot over there, nor does anyone in his family.

On top of which, W isn't seeking reelection, and he knows that to the bitter end his party and its representatives in Congress, no matter how disgusted some of them may personally be with his leadership and appointed officials like Rumsfeld, are going to continue protecting him, so why shouldn't he just keep repeating the party line, going on his bike rides, staging Potemkin Village tax-payer funded events like those Social Security town meeting shams, and finding ways to enrich himself and his friends? What incentive does he have to do anything else? Certainly his "Christian" moral compass flew out the window of its own accord a long time ago, as did the "conservative" ideological compass as well. Untethered about describes him.

[ August 16, 2005, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

fantomas

Aug 16 2005, 12:11 PM

Sorry to post again to this thread, but I just came across the following NY Times story, which describes the extensive use (25,000+) of private militia in Iraq. (No Times online subscription? Go here.) It appears they're guarding not only contractors like KB&R/Halliburton, but even US military generals! Now, isn't this confirmation that our 140,000 US troops, from the best military in the world, are underpersoned? Because if we had enough troops, we wouldn't have to have private militia members guard our GENERALS, right? Right? Our TROOPS would be doing this, right?

Once again, is anyone at the top of our government--the White House or the Congress-- speaking out about this? I know John Kerry said last year that we needed more troops and if elected he'd send them, and John McCain just this past Sunday reiterated this glaring need (which was originally broached by humiliated General Eric Shinseki), but for whatever reason, W, Rummy, Cheney et al. refuse to address it. WHY?

ung

Aug 16 2005, 12:21 PM

because they had hammered away at the beginning of his whole mess how easy and effortless this whole thing would be.

That's why they had the victory celebration aboard the Aircraft carrier complete with fighter pilot drag (which he never was) for WBush.

They kept insisting that it would not tax our resources, our money and our army. So for them to admit a mistake in the numbers of soldiers needed would mean admitting a mistake. and remember, this is the president who when asked about mistakes as president replied, "I can't think of any"

fantomas

Aug 16 2005, 01:09 PM

Ung, your answer is right on.

Along with the fantasy worldview that insists that 140,000 US troops (plus several thousand more coalition troops) is enough (along with thousands more invisible, privately armed militiamen), we keep hearing about how great Iraq is. I don't expect the right-wingers on here to address the situation of Iran's empowerment and increasing role in Iraqi affairs, but what about the situation in Iraq qua Iraq? Didn't W and Rummy and others recently claim not only that the war was going well, but that the situation on the ground for Iraqis themselves was getting better? (Even though they couldn't meet the Constitution-writing deadline, despite threats and bullying from the US ambassador and other US officials....)

Baghdad elite flees Iraq and the daily threat of death

QUOTE

While the lack of basic needs and a barely functioning infrastructure are considerable hardships, it is the daily threat of death that was the catalyst for his decision. Since the new government came to power in April there have been up to 3,000 civilian deaths, about half attributed to criminal activity.

Iraq factfile

\"I love my country but I am unable to do any service for the people because it is overrun by fanatics and extremists,\" Prof Jawad said. \"The streets are ruled by gangs, looters and goons.\"
***

Aside from the daily risk of kidnap, suicide bombers and drive-by shootings, his half hour journey into work is now a two-hour slog through roadblocks.

There are no land-line telephones, water has to be pumped from a well and electricity is on for only two hours a day compared with 21 under Saddam. In a country that perches on a lake of oil, the petrol queues last up to four hours.

Now I ask: are most Americans, including those who are diehard supporters of W, aware of this? Are they aware of the Shiites' plan for the government? Of the rising tide of political crimes and assassinations that are mirroring the insurgency? Of Iran's role? And if not, why not? How can anyone label this mess "getting better" or "improving"? Against what benchmark? Hell?

I'll ask another question: is there anyone on this board who seriously thinks that things would have been worse if Kerry had been elected last November? As soulless, cold, uncharismatic, and timorous as he is, and much as he would have had to struggle with a recalcitrant Congress, I cannot but believe that at the very least, he would have found more competent officials to lead the Department of Defense, ordered the Joint Chiefs to find out a way to beef up the number of troops immediately, and, at the risk of affording non-ideological technocrats too much leeway, tried to employ the best strategies to arm and train the Iraqi troops. It probably would have meant a severe cut in Halliburton's gravy train, but I just cannot see Kerry as doing a worse job--at least on this account. I won't even get into the parallel world scenario of Gore having become president in 2000, though that might be worth a lively exchange on here at some point.

[ August 16, 2005, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

dfwAggie99

Aug 16 2005, 01:23 PM

Oh, I'll launch into that parallel world with both feet flat on the ground. If Gore had ultimately claimed the White House in 2000, we would not have gone into Iraq in the first place. Therefore, we wouldn't be having this discussion today of the dismal state of Iraqi affairs for its millions of citizens. It's naive to say things were great before, but come on. As more info leaks out, it's looking just absolutely abysmal for everyone who calls Iraq home.

fantomas

Aug 18 2005, 02:18 PM

Via DailyKos and AmericaBlog, and The Poor Man via Res Publica, here are what GOPers said about another president's military actions, that turned out to be successful. (And successfully led by Gen. Wesley Clark.) Let's see if the media call them on their rank hypocrisy, moral bankruptcy and cynicism (I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and not assume they're just idiots...well, all except Sen. Butt-Juice and W himself.)

Just remember, how many US troops killed? Did the genocide stop? Has peace been established in Kosovo? Is the US shouldering it alone?

QUOTE

“You can support the troops but not the president”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“[The] President…is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”
-Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA)

“American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy.”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy.”
-Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W. Bush

“I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning…I didn’t think we had done enough in the diplomatic area.”
-Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)

“Well, I just think it’s a bad idea. What’s going to happen is they’re going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years”
-Joe Scarborough (R-FL)

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

“Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?”
-Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

“This is President Clinton’s war, and when he falls flat on his face, that’s his problem.”
-Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN)

“Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly.”
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

[ August 18, 2005, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

dinger

Aug 18 2005, 04:39 PM

I say follow the money. Why are civilians protecting military leadership? So the company owners maximize some of the highest profit margins I've ever seen. Most of the employees are ex-military anyhow so the level of protection hasn't changed, just where their paychecks comes from changes. Halliburton and its subsidiary, KBR, are routinely raping the feds, but who's going to initiate the investigations against their greed? Maybe Cheney? No, perhaps not, since he used to run it.

Guys, I spent a year there, it's a shithole. You try to build something, it gets blown up. When you read about the military personnel being killed, go read the other list of contractor personnel being killed (and DoD civilians). Although Baghdad itself reminds one of Calcutta or somewhere else exremely poor, when you go into the desert and see people living exactly as their descendants must have 2000 years ago, it's alarming. Of course they do have satellites on the huts so they can get Al-Jazeera. But it's basically disgusting and there are plenty of Iraqis who wish we would get the hell out.

A lot of the out-sourcing, rightsizing, downsizing (remember Al Gore, the VP, reinventing Government?) of the past administration has resulted in dependence on contractors that would be hard to reverse. I don't see that as a huge issue, many of the same people served in Kosovo as well. The look of war-fighting has changed, many civilians are going to war now. And it makes good sense - leave war-fighting to the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. Let support functions be performed by others. All large bureaucracies have gone to out-sourcing what are not their core functions. Why shouldn't DoD?

But, it always comes back to the money and where is most of it ending up? Back in the hands of American business owners, the contractors who are the prime contractors performing the work in Iraq.

ung

Aug 19 2005, 05:36 AM

Dinger... welcome back! You and I should try to meet over a cup of (insert choice of drink here) I find your comments to be very interesting and have not known personally a gay iraq vet.

The outsourcing, I wouldn't have a problem with. Afterall, the use of private contractors who can operate a more efficient operation has been used by Gov't for a long time now.

The problem with Halliburton and its sub KBR as well as other companies that provide "security" (I know very well that CNN and other news ops for example use their own private security detail instead of relying on the peace provided by the US army) is that the are at a position to rip off the tax payer dollars and have no qualms of doing so.

To be honest, I'd probably do the same thing. I mean... if I can name my own price on a no bid contract, why shouldn't I name a price that makes a crap load of profit for me?

All this is resulting from poor management and poor oversight. and THAT can not and shold not be delegated to a non-gov'tal units.

J1780

Aug 19 2005, 04:26 PM

Fantomas,

Great post! I want to pass it on to some friends who are VERY supportive of the Bush/Republican position. Are there sources for these quotes handy anywhere? I'm just trying to head off their inevitable argument that "they were probably made up by some anonymous guy on the internet".

Also, any site where I can cite documentation of the US deaths in Kosovo?

Opinions-$50, Facts-$1000, Perspective-priceless.

And that's what those qoutes provide.

fantomas

Aug 20 2005, 07:39 AM

QUOTE

J1780:
Fantomas,

Great post! I want to pass it on to some friends who are VERY supportive of the Bush/Republican position. Are there sources for these quotes handy anywhere? I'm just trying to head off their inevitable argument that \"they were probably made up by some anonymous guy on the internet\".

Also, any site where I can cite documentation of the US deaths in Kosovo?

Opinions-$50, Facts-$1000, Perspective-priceless.

And that's what those qoutes provide.

J1780, JiP may be able to find the links for you fairly quickly; he's got mad skills in that area. Also, I believe the original site culled the quotes from various sources, but perhaps a Lexis-Nexis search would verify all of them. The quotes as usual are damning...talk about the party of "Doom"!

[ August 20, 2005, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

dinger

Aug 20 2005, 01:43 PM

Thanks, Ung, I'll take a coffee with some Bailey's or Frangelico or, okay, both.

KeyWest Guy

Aug 22 2005, 01:38 PM

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel says the war in Iraq has destablized the Middle East and--gasp!--is beginning to look like another Vietnam.

Non--CNN story (for those who only trust Faux News).

Why do the Republicans hate America/the troops? Don't they know such talk only emboldens the enemy. Oh, and btw, "Bring 'em on!"

Edited to add:
Forgot to mention-- MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

[ August 22, 2005, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: KeyWest Guy ]

KeyWest Guy

Aug 30 2005, 01:27 PM

He's really getting desparate now. Shrub compares himself to FDR.

QUOTE

Bush invoked the memory of his father as a young Navy pilot shot down over the Pacific and of an optimistic Franklin Roosevelt calling on Americans to defend liberty. He portrayed Roosevelt's vision as similar to his own -- a commitment to spreading freedom even when U.S. allies were not convinced it was the best course.

:mad:

RazorbackTX

Aug 30 2005, 01:38 PM

QUOTE

KeyWest Guy:
He's really getting desparate now. Shrub compares himself to FDR.

QUOTE

:mad:

As Bulldog would say - He's totally divorced himself from reality.

millerbeach

Aug 31 2005, 12:30 AM

I wonder if Bush knows FDR was a Democrat? Nah, I'll bet not...he probably thinks FDR was a pedestrian. Isn't it ironic a Republican president would compare himself to a Democrat?

swiminbuff

Aug 31 2005, 03:17 PM

QUOTE

KeyWest Guy:
He's really getting desparate now. Shrub compares himself to FDR.

QUOTE

:mad:

As I recall FDR actually had allies, or more correctly FDR joined nations already at war to fight the Axis powers.

aquaman

Sep 1 2005, 05:34 AM

This just in... reason #478 for the Iraq war. Justification wins!

http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nw...ws-ibush31.html

KeyWest Guy

Sep 1 2005, 06:01 AM

"Blood for oil."

Hmmm, where have I heard that before?

RazorbackTX

Sep 1 2005, 06:16 AM

Bush is to FDR as MIB is to John Roberts.

fantomas

Sep 1 2005, 10:16 AM

QUOTE

aquaman:
This just in... reason #478 for the Iraq war. Justification wins!

http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nw...ws-ibush31.html

But wait, didn't right-wingers and W himself say that this war WASN'T for oil? Haven't they repeated this mantra over and over, despite the fact that Paul Wolfowitz couldn't keep his mouth shut and said that Iraq "sat on a sea of oil" several years ago? I think they should try to remember their lies--write them down and consult them, so that when they "catapult the propaganda," they don't keep contradicting themselves!

MIB

Sep 2 2005, 10:24 PM

QUOTE

He has no sources because there are none. Simply coming here and claiming said people actually said them is not credible at all. After all, when I reference actual quotes or news stories that appeared on television--as opposed to these mythical quotes--fantomas was quick to dismiss them as not true.

He can't have it both ways.

fantomas

Sep 2 2005, 10:50 PM

QUOTE

MIB:

QUOTE

You can't have it any way that's truthful, "judge," but then you'll deny any truth that doesn't fit your reality. Too bad George Ryan and other Rethugs didn't end up in your "court."

Anyways, the original link is valid; you contact Res Publica whose e-mail can be found in his profile, for his sources, which are all on the record. He will gladly provide them to you, I'm sure, unlike the missing TiVo tapes that the "arbitrator" likes to cite in his posts. Yeah, right.

MIB

Sep 3 2005, 02:34 PM

QUOTE

fantomas:
He will gladly provide them to you, I'm sure, unlike the missing TiVo tapes that the \"arbitrator\" likes to cite in his posts. Yeah, right.

First of all, genius, TIVO doesn't have "tapes." Second, I referenced televised news stories which others here saw. I can't help it that you weren't tuned to the news channels at the same time I was. Heck, even some here who didn't view Ms. Sheehan's debate footage confirmed the incident on their own.

It's amazing how one's blind partisanship and paranoia can lead said person to say a political rally covered by numerous sources never occurred. I have never before in my life seen someone so unaware of reality. Support Ms. Sheehan all you want, as that is your right, but to deny her speaking at an April 2005 rally when half the country by now has seen it is really perplexing. You really ought to seek some professional help. And fast.

[ September 03, 2005, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

fantomas

Sep 4 2005, 09:00 AM

QUOTE

MIB:

It's amazing how one's blind partisanship and paranoia can lead said person to say a political rally covered by numerous sources never occurred. I have never before in my life seen someone so unaware of reality. Support Ms. Sheehan all you want, as that is your right, but to deny her speaking at an April 2005 rally when half the country by now has seen it is really perplexing. You really ought to seek some professional help. And fast.

No, YOU ought to "seek some professional help" and "fast." I'm not the one who claimed to be a judge and then lied about it on here. YOU are. Pathological. Gnothi seauton, dear. "Fast."

Erik G

Sep 4 2005, 09:15 AM

MIB is still a Jedi Master though, right :confused:

MIB

Sep 4 2005, 05:29 PM

QUOTE

fantomas:
I'm not the one who claimed to be a judge and then lied about it on here. YOU are. Pathological. Gnothi seauton, dear. \"Fast.\"

I've asked you countless number of times to prove this assertion. You have not, conveniently avoiding my demand every time. Proof. Physical, irrefutable proof.

sportinlife

Jan 12 2006, 04:30 PM

Precision bombing in Iraq may not be what we think it is.

Do we really know how many innocent people we have killed or caused the death of, in that country?

Do we care?

Can any power make us pay a price for this error?

Lexington

Jan 12 2006, 05:13 PM

I'm confident that Bush knows how to get out of Iraq. Don't forget - he got out of Vietnam.

LXN

millerbeach

Jan 13 2006, 12:50 AM

Don't be too sure...Bush can't even see his way through an honest election.

fantomas

Jan 13 2006, 10:51 AM

Has anyone commented on L. Paul Bremer III's recent revelations that

-the W folks didn't anticipate an insurgency,
-that he asked Rummy and W several times for more troops but was turned down,
-that nobody on the ground supported the clowns like Chalabi who'd convinced the neocons to go into the war,
-and that he's still not answering questions on the billions of dollars that disappeared under his watch?

PennState4Ever

Jan 13 2006, 02:48 PM

QUOTE

fantomas:
Has anyone commented on L. Paul Bremer III's recent revelations that

-the W folks didn't anticipate an insurgency,
-that he asked Rummy and W several times for more troops but was turned down,
-that nobody on the ground supported the clowns like Chalabi who'd convinced the neocons to go into the war,
-and that he's still not answering questions on the billions of dollars that disappeared under his watch?

I think you just did.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.