Happy Anniversary to the both of you. Will the major media "link the situation in Iraq with the physical aftereffects of Bush's bicycle accident." Well, we know this much from the most recent Pew poll on America’s journalists: “Fifty-five percent of the national press corps and 37 percent of local journalists said coverage of the president has not been critical enough”

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2004/05/24/press_feels_its_gone_easy_on_bush/

Happy Anniversary! Good choice in skipping the Bush speech for a night on the town!

I will watch the speech tonight, and the coverage following same.
Any media whore mentioning the president's bicycle accident over the weekend will get exactly the amount of attention from me that I feel that they deserve. (I. E. , none.)
I hate to live in a country where the media feels it is their mission to advance their own political agenda, but I am sure that your prediction will come true. (Most likely in the most snide, sarcastic manner possible.)

I do not know what the President will say in his speech tonight, but I AM SURE that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, et al, will find a way (no matter how tortured) to spin the speech as a PR event designed to bolster the President's election prospects. (It is all about the horse race, not the issues.)

Perhaps that is all that this speech is intended to be. But is it not possible that the President is actually trying to do the job to which he was elected?

Would any of your readers or commenters like to watch and/or read the coverage following the Presidents speech and direct me to a single news organization that runs a story (ANY story) without an editorial slant?

If such a story, reporting only the facts of the speech, can be found in any major American media outlet, I will be very pleasantly surprised.

Happy anniversary! And many more to come.

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY!

For links to news, views, politics, and government, bookmark All Things Political. For my comments and rants on the days events, check out my Blog.

"One prediction -- it will be impossible for media write-ups not to link the situation in Iraq with the physical aftereffects of Bush's bicycle accident."

That's the big, bad "liberal" media again, isn't it, that a few days ago published pictures of Kerry looking really stupid trying to catch a football. Right...

David Thomson: I'm glad the media is finally realizing that they have let Bush get away with murder, although it's sad that still only 55 % of the national press and a shockingly low 37 % of the totally ineffectual local press have realized this.

As for the speech - so we know now that Bush has absolutely no new ideas to turn this thing around. Stay the course and hope for a miracle. I bet he is praying really hard every night. Funny that it doesn't seem to help.

We also know now that Bush has really paid attention to the Abu Ghraib scandal, so much so that he can't even pronounce the name of the prison. He managed to say it wrong THREE TIMES, and not even consistently wrong in the same way. (Interested parties can find the correct pronounciation here: http://slate.msn.com/id/2100290/)

At least he didn't take questions tonight...

So, happy anniversary - this was certainly a good speech to miss.

“We also know now that Bush has really paid attention to the Abu Ghraib scandal, so much so that he can't even pronounce the name of the prison.”

The Abu Ghraib story is no longer worthy of major attention. It got fifteen minutes---and deserves not one minute more! I hope to God that the President is not constantly thinking of this sad episode. That would be truly a huge waste of time. A small handful of soldiers broke the rules. There’s no reason to continue to beat a dead horse. As for the overall situation of Iraq, I remain fairly positive. Most Iraqis are earning more money and their lives are constantly improving. The intellectually defective liberal media have downplayed the good news to focus on the exaggerated prison scandal.

President Bush gave a strong speech tonight. He came across as forceful and in command of his subject matter. Will the majority of Americans agree with me? We will soon find out via the polls if they share my perception.

gw

You said "we know now that Bush has absolutely no new ideas to turn this thing around."

I always like to hear other peoples ideas and would like to hear your thoughts / suggestions for turning the thing around.

Thanks,

TJIT

Happy Anniversary, today is our anniversary also, for us it is 46 years, and you know it was more important for us to go out to dinner, too. So I missed the speech and am looking at the bloggers to fill me in. So far have just heard Colmes put him down, Hannity put him up and not a word from the pres.

My thoughts on the speech here

Dave,

As my count-down indicated: 5 days to maximum work-up, and 10 days to slip off the editorials.

Minds changed: Goose Egg.

Ruth:

Was out doing yard work myself.

Go to C-span in about 10 minutes (10:43 E)
or C-span.org for the stream - if you're that good (g)

See you back here later. The C-span TV guide says it's got 36 minutes of speech and post footage.

Turn what around? This indicates that you accept the ideology that something is wrong. Let's give California the same slant and rectal microscopic exam that every liberal journalist is giving Iraq. How many deaths in California on a given Day? As a soldier I can tell you that Iraq is like California. There are some places you don't go. If you go there you can expect a certain amount of intollerance and criminal activity. Give California the same amount of weapons you find in Iraq and you would go to Iraq for vacation. A good 80 percent of Iraqi people love having us there and appreciate the heck out of the opportunity to experience the endowment from their Creator. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness.
Both my son and brother brought home magnifecent stories of success and hope. It is unusual for a soldier to experience such joy and gratitude during Combat Operations. Why do so many people want things to go badly? Where is the hope and faith in higher values than self gratification? Soldiers perform a selfless service to a professional idea or ethic. We save children. We save families. Our president imbues a sense of mission and rightness about this.

Libre de Opresso

I think my response to Biden last week is more fitting as an opposition reponse to the President's speech (which is up there with his best ever): http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001306.html#017384

Joe Lieberman said (right after the President’s speech): "If we don't lose our will, someday we'll look back on what we've done in Iraq with pride."

Joe Lieberman is one of the few Democrat leaders who earns our respect. Of course, this is why he didn’t have a chance of winning his party’s nomination. The Democrat leaders who truly decide who gets the nomination are dishonest pacifists. They will yell and scream bloody outrage when hearing this accusation. Nonetheless, listen to them closely. When push comes to shove, the party dominated by Terry McAuliffe and his ilk will do virtually nothing to fight our country’s enemies. They will find one reason or another to do nothing.

*the above quote was lifted off the NR Corner.

"Why do so many people want things to go badly?"

For the last time, liberals do not want America to do badly! No serious policymaker is advocating immediate pullout nor wishes ill for coalition troops. It is more than reasonable to question the level of security in postwar Iraq, and to wonder to whom we are going to transfer power. It is not defeatist to ask these questions.

But I have a more serious question for Steve, and any other soldiers: why does "support our troops" inevitably translate into "support this administration's way of prosecuting this war?" Everyone can agree that helping Iraqis create a working democracy in the Middle East, and improving our own national security to boot, is undeniably a good thing. But when serious criticism of the postwar situation has been leveled by such partisan Democrats as Gen. Zinni, Richard Clarke, Andrew Sullivan, and Bill Kristol, I have to wonder about the competency of the people who created this situation. Sure, a certain amount of this is hindsight. But if you read some informed criticisms, such as this one (http://www.cdi.org/friendlyversion/printversion.cfm?documentID=2208&from_page=../program/document.cfm) by Gen. Zinni, some of our other problems were predicted long in advance. It's not defeatist to say that the Pentagon should have anticipated some of the setbacks they are now facing.

So 'gw' views the speech, and his take away is: The President can't pronounce Abu Gharaib to his satifaction.

How pathetic. But insightful - kind of like a cliff-notes version of his black, black heart and mental disposition.

Geez, David. Are you really of the opinion that McAuliffe is any worse than Racicot? And what the hell is up with the dishonest pacifist crap I keep hearing - the Democrats have a long "proud" tradition of starting their own wars. Clinton was no pacifist - what makes you think Kerry would be?

You know, it's not that I'd put money on Kerry to fix the problems Bush has created in Iraq - they may damn well be unfixable. It's just that on principal it's time to try something different. Bush has failed miserably. Sure, there's some good news coming out of Iraq, but for 800 dead soldier and $200B there ought to be one hell of a lot more. Mostly the news is rotten, and you're not helping anyone by helping the fantasy to continue.

And since I'm on a rant, probably the reason I'm so pissed at Bush is because I bought his lies - I tentatively supported the damn war because I thought just maybe Hussein had nuclear weapons and rockets that could reach our shores. Now I feel pretty stupid for believing Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and feel like they owe me a real apology. I feel responsible in my own miserable way for this shitty war that will either end badly or go on forever.

Bush is a big boy. Let him be held responsible for his actions.

sebastien

What I don't understand is what this idea of 'failure' or 'failed miserably' is. In general, things have gone far better than I ever expected.

Sebastian, calm down. You bought your own lies, or someone elses. We were never certain (or if anyone was, not publicly) about Saddam's weapons. We still aren't.

Chris,

Sorry, but it is patently clear that liberals want America to do badly. We don’t need advocates of “immediate pullout” to evidence this fact. You may believe otherwise; if so, it is due to a fundamental failure to understand our enemy’s capabilities and objectives.

While you write of questioning tactics and processes concerning “the level of security in postwar Iraq,” and “to whom we are going to transfer power,” as if that was all the liberal carping was about. Assuming you are ignorant rather than disingenuous, most of us know that liberals almost unanimously opposed the war even before it began for reasons having nothing to do with troop numbers or Iraq’s post-Hussein government. Serious liberal complaints have always been about the war, especially the pre-emption doctrine. Less serious liberals complain about oil, Israel and racism. Notwithstanding that, here is why it is abundantly clear liberals want America to do badly.

Waging war successfully ultimately depend upon materiel capability and political will. Destroy either one of these of your enemy while maintaining your own, and you win. It is clear, absent WMD, the enemy cannot defeat us on the battlefield. Their only hope is the same hope Ho Chi Minh and the NVA had in the Vietnamese War – destroy our political will to fight and win. In this, you and other liberals are not just the best allies the terrorist can ever hope to have – you are their best weapon. Your efforts to undermine the war effort are more valuable to them than any IED, assault rifle, RPG or even mustard or sarin gas artillery shell.

The terrorist, by themselves, with their weapons in Iraq or Afghanistan cannot defeat us on the battlefield. They aren’t stupid – they know this. That’s why everything they do is calculated to make our efforts in Iraq appear vain and doomed – just like the Vietnamese War. You help them do this. You may not think so; and if not, ask yourself one vital question: What liberal has advanced a serious, realistic program (i.e., no more fairy tales about the UN and to “internationalizing” the burden) to assure victory in Iraq.

The list is damnably short, if it exists at all. No, it’s pretty damned clear. Liberals do want America to do badly.

Nothing in Iraq needs turning around. How do you deal with a media that treats our troops as the bad guys? We sit outside Falujah while the bad guys lob grenades from a mosque - we don't know what we're doing. We storm the mosque and we show a total lack of respect for the cave dwellers. Give me a break. Ask any member of the media what they would do and I bet you get nothing of an answer. They deserve none of our attnetion. I'd give them a sharp kick to the shin - that's about it.

Your relevance doesn't warrant your level of guilt Sabatien. It was going to happen with our without your support. I wasn't even bothered about Iraq being a threat and assumed it was presented purely for the Europeans so that they would not get in the way. That did fail. The rest that has happened is exactly what I would expect in a nation of muslims. Sorry, but suicide bombs are a feature in most Islamic societies (along with burning churches), and only the most politically correct would deny it. I get depressed by the news as well as anyone but I would never sell my soul by believing in only those things that other nations believe. The failure has been the UN and the Democrats response to 9/11. We did the nice way and that gave us 9/11 so now we are trying a different way. You guys had 8 years of your style why can't we have 8 for ours? I voted for Clinton both times and hated the Repulicans during the 90s for the same reason I despise the Dems now. The difference is that we are at war and this is not the time for the selfish to plan attacks on our leaders or our soldiers. In the Senate now we have Dems working on resolutions to tie our soldiers hands in Iraq and leave them exposed for slaughter for the sole reason that Eurabia liking us is more important that American soldiers lives (they're all baby killers you know). If you hadn't bitched from Afghanistan to now you would most likely be taken more seriously when you make your opinions known. Did November of '02 teach you nothing? You people on the left scare me. I don't think there is a dream I have or a property I posses that you wouldn't sacrifice to the altar of One-World-Socialism. You'll swear your not interested in that but your leaders seem to think along those lines or, don't care enough about us to make the effort to explain why they aren't selling us out to the world. Making France like us is not a plan. Stop marching and start voting. If your side loses then be American enough to accept the majority will on this issue.

Baloney. Maybe things went much better that you expected, but they've gone far, far worse than we were 'promised.' Surely you remember Wolfowitz (Asst SecDef, in case you thought maybe he was just some guy) promising than Shinseki's estimates were way, way overblown? Or Cheney suggesting that we'd be able to bring home the troops by Christmas (Oh! He meant Christmas, 2052!) Your statement is fatuous. If you're saying that Bush hasn't failed because there's a small chance that Iraq could still turn out okay 15 or 20 years down the road, then you're playing games.

And as to your second point, you're shilling for liars. They referred to WMDs constantly, to the point where they knew that Americans believed Saddam had them. I wasn't easily fooled - it tooks months and months of various administration officials telling me how much of a threat Hussein was. I'll probably always believe that they knew he wasn't much of a threat, but it doesn't matter - if they didn't know, then they were criminally negligent and inexcusably incompetent.

The war on terrorism is as important to the safety of my children as it is to yours. George Will, a Republican who sees much failure in Iraq, said recently "When there is no penalty for failure, failures proliferate."

Penalize failure.

Ptolemy -

Sometimes 'politically correct' means a hypersensitivity to sex, race and gender issues which obscures real progress. Sometimes it just means unbigoted. I think I'm being the latter when I say that your comment "The rest that has happened is exactly what I would expect in a nation of muslims and only the most politically correct would deny it" is so far outside the bounds of rational, moral discourse that it renders the rest of your 'argument' (in which you justify Bush's lies by claiming you thought they were just for the Europeans anyway?!?!) moot.

The response you'd get from a liberal journalist would be quite different then one from the "loyal" opposition members of the democratic party...Yes, there are truly democrats and others within the US that are NOT republicans that are the LOYAL opposition... And recognize that there is only one way to leave Iraq and that is when the Iraqi people can stand on their own feet in a democratic nation...Right now they're just leaning on us a little...dusting themselves off after they have been knocked down by Saddam

The Abu Ghraib story is no longer worthy of major attention

And why would that be David? Because it reminds everyone that the US can't even hold itself to the same standard that it's trying to hold everyone to? Because it's becoming fairly clear that it wasn't just a few bad apples - it was a rotten tree?

sebastien,

Liars, huh? As if they weren't smart enough to figure out that if the WMD's were nothing more than pretense, they'd be found out. It seems fairly obvious that a fair amount about deciding to lie is based upon a rational sense you can actually get away with it - i.e., assessing the probability your lie will be believed.

Well, it's not like the Administration embarked upon Iraq without any opposition hell-bent on proving them wrong no matter what. These people, whether they be the French or other Euro-twits, Blix or our own bin Laden collaborationists like the Democrats or mainstream media were never going to concede an inch to Bush.

So they surely knew they'd be held to account; they surely believed, based upon all intelligence and evidence that the WMD's existed and their existence was a threat. There is no way they knew these things were false and that they were going to get away with invading Iraq in their absence. Say what you will abou the Administration, but they know who their enemies are.

Otherwise, their spin, like Clinton's post-his numerous lies, would have been far more prepared, polished and believable than the obviously stunned and ad hoc responses to the inability to find "stockpiles" of WMD (notwithstanding the fact that WMD's now seem to be finding us over there...).

Lies? Hardly. Just another partisan hate-mongering accusation. Mistakes? Yes, maybe (since stockpiles of WMD's can still be found, in Iraq or Syria), but surely much more likely than lies.

Tim -

Certainly mistakes, but mistakes willfully made. Is it possible they didn't know any better? Sure, but it seems unlikely - I don't really think Bush is as stupid as he's made out to be, and Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Powell certainly aren't.

But as to your totally valid point about 'why lie if you know you're going to get caught' I think the answer is pretty clear - they weren't lying when they said they thought it would be easy. They were just flat-out wrong about that. I think they just figured they'd be in and out of Baghdad, with a middle eastern democracy under their belt, before anyone really caught them.

Your standards are too low. Still, if it makes you feel beter - don't throw them out because they're liars - throw them out because they're the worst war administration this country's ever seen.

General Zinni's "60 Minutes" comments were more relevant and on target than anything Bush can say at this point. The War was fought to "secure the realm" (Nazi Israel), and as Reagan's former Navy Sec. Webb said- "It's the worst military blunder in modern memory." 90% of the uniformed military was aginst it from the start, and THEY know what a fucking disaster it is.

As far as liberals doing this or not doing it, it's hard to argue that they're not pathetic and contemptible. That former NSA head General Odom had the right idea- Cut & Run a.s.a.p. That's what the soldiers over there, the vast majority of them would like too.

The only effective wy to deal with terrorism is something neither party will ever o in the forseeable future, despite the fact that it would be easy, righteous, and insure the safety and security of Americans for generations, i.e. the Patriotic thing to do- Cut the cord with Israel. All our Islamic enemies would instantly be our friend, all our former allies will welcome us back in the fold, and after a few short years, Israel will be forced to make Peace. So, it'd be great for the Israeli people as well. Everybody wins. Except of course the Israel Lobby, Safire, and Ariel Sharon. If the American public had any idea how much of a pariah the U.S. has become BECAUSE of its support for Israel, you might see our quisling Congress do the right thing.

Well, it was good that the President gave a speech about Iraq. He hasn't been communicating about Iraq as much as he should.

And it was a good speech, in the sense that it was good prose delived well.

But he didn't really communicate anything new. I guess it was inspiring if you already back the President's policies and his implementation of them. But it didn't offer much reassurance if, like many of us, you have doubts and worries.

The problem has been implementation and questions about competence at the highest levels. I don't know if any speech could answer that, though.

Sebastian, so your standard for success is a persons optimistic speculative scenario. I do expect it to take decades for real progress in Iraq, I expect US troops there for several years as a deterant for outside forces. Missing short term goals because of volatility is failure? It took the US 6 years of war and 6 more to get our constitution (how long did it take to develop and organize ourselves before that?). It took 217 years more to get all the freedoms, diversity, and prosperity we have today. We're still not done here yet.

I need a link to the full Cheney text on promising to bring all our troops home forever by Christmas. I can't belive he would say that and not correct himself or provide some coveats. I can't believe I don't remember that. Guess the VRWC put the Kibosh on that. That sounds like utter bull shit. Of course, if Cheney did say that I must concede that he is the ultimate authority, and such a demagog, and that he was wrong.

WMD, I wasn't fooled. I doubt people were fooled beyond the hotheads that buy the sound bytes the press feeds them out of context. Wasn't relevant. The UN would not go into Iraq for humanitarian reason, to open up an economy and cultures to the world, establish freedom, or end opression. They did however have a pretext for allowing action regarding existing evidince of WMD and non reconciliation of past data and many violations of resolutions.

The left, with no real ideology, is masking its anti-Bush rhetoric with anti-war nonsense.

Of course there were weapons of mass destruction. Last week, there was a gallon of sarin in an artillery shell that neither we nor the U.N. knew they had. Or does Sebastien think that was the only one in existence? I'm sure the mustard gas found the week before was some kitchen job, too.

Look. If Cheney said the troops would be home by Christmas, he either was engaged in hopeful-thinking, or talking about troop rotation. It certainly doesn't seem to bother Sebastien, or other members of the Left, that the US still has troops in Kosovo - coincidentally a war started without United Nations authorization, or even French support. Oh, and we still have troops in Korea, which only acheived cease-fire FIFTY years ago. And Germany, too. And Japan.

So until the Left comes up with a credible idea on how to WIN, they will be perceived for what they are (fill in your own blank).

Aaron - I understand how long it takes to build a democracy and no - I don't expect it to happen in Iraq overnight. The problem is I don't expect it to happen in Iraq at all. The problem is this isn't the war that America signed up for. It's nice that when Bush said 'quick war - greeted as liberators' you managed to hear 'long, deadly conflict which will make us hated around the world' and you were able to sign up for the right thing, but I suspect a majority of Americans weren't. Don't forget - some 35-40% of America was flat-out against it from the start, and I've got to believe that at least another 20-30% would have been against it if Bush had been even remotely accurate (I would use the word 'honest' here if I was a hate-mongering liberal) about the costs.

GoLakers - for cryin' out loud - nobody knows where the hell those shells came from. Are you seriously betting that it's an undiscovered stockpile? Everyone knows Saddam had some chemical capability in the early 90s (he gassed the Kurds, right?) The relevent question here is whether he was a threat to us. The relevent question is whether the dark, terrible things Bush hinted at in the run-up to war have any reflection in reality. The relevent answer still seems to be not even close.

And as to how we can WIN, I think you're missing the point. The point is that I don't think we CAN win, unless we redefine win to some depressingly minimal point. If we're extremely lucky we get another Pakistan (and wouldn't Bush kill for that right about now). Realistically, I think we're looking at Iran II. Alternatively, chaos.

The best idea I've heard came from Republican David Brooks, who said that we should pick someone we can stomach and then let them kick us out to gain credibility. I'd give it about a 1 in 5 chance of working, but even then, it's hardly going to be a democracy.

good night. For the record, I may think y'all have been duped, but I also think you're doing what you think is right, which is worth something.

It's sad that you expect failure. Chances of that are slim. Even if that happens, it was still worth the risk to me. Failure will still be better than what Iraq had before (and failure still leaves many options, like a divided Iraq). But I think the only way we can fail is if you, and others, choose to.

Popular support was not required for the war. It is required to bring and protect true freedom in the near furture. If we can help Iraq lessen and avoid some of the mistakes that others made historically, struggles, hostilities from outside, everyone benefits. When Iraq prospers, so will others.

We can pay some costs in short term and get great long term benefits. We can try to avoid that volatility that will lead to those short term costs (lives and money), but it will be at a cost of great long term benefits (many, many lives and much higher living standards for the great majority of them). I feel that you see any unexpected cost as failures, I consider them an unfortunate burden of our choices.

One quality of the Iraq campaign that I value greatly is the flexiblity that has been left intact.

We can try, fail, try, fail, try, fail... many diffent possiblities.

What???!!! 90% of the uniformed soldiers are against the War? Are you freaking serious? Then why are retention levels through the roof for all services while we are in the middle of combat?

You think with that many people in our armed forces against the war they would be leaving in droves. But they arent. In fact a great many of them are being re-enlisted directly in Iraq.

The press seem to be wondering the most about when we will be leaving . The second question they ask is who will be in charge when we are gone.

I think both of these stupid questions.
We don't ask who will be the next President of Poland as a condition of keeping troops in Germany. We are there to insure that there will be a next President of Iraq, not to choose him.

How many of the reporters asked when we will be pulling out of Germany? How many ask when we will stop patroling the Korean border? Our troops are there to prevent the civil war you all seem bent on making reality.
When will we leave the Iraqi to the Mullahs whim?

Never is the answer.

Just like we will never abandon Berlin to the Soviets, Tiawan to the ChiComs, Seoul to Kim Jong Ill, or Israel to the Islamofacists.

We have friends in Iraq. We don't abandon our friends.

I think what people (myself included) want to know is if the Administration has any predictions as to when a large # of our 138,000 troops will come home, not when every last one comes home or if any will stay behind for a long time. Since we were predicted to be at 105k now but aren't, and since the Administration MUST have some internal ideas about this, it would be nice if they'd share them w/ the country. Instead, they seem more worried about getting burned politically by being wrong, which might be smart, given their record on the #s needed.

And if the Mullahs, plenty of whom we seem to be cooperating with, aren't our friends in Iraq, who are? Apparently not Chalabi. Whoever Lakhdar Brahimi says they are?

And no one is asking who will be in charge when we're gone, or after elections, they're asking who will be in charge in 37 days, when we hand over sovereignty, which also seems reasonable to wonder, since we're playing a role in picking them, as much as we'd like to pin it on the UN now.

Chet- You need to stop getting your news from the Aryan Nation Gazette. The reason Israel recieves the unqualified support of the American government is because it's THE ONLY DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST. Turning on allies who share your values in order to gain allies that TORTURE THEIR CITIZENS, BEAT THEIR WOMEN, AND KILL POLITICAL DISSIDENTS EVERY DAY is a really stupid and short-sighted policy.

sebastion and chris,
Some of the problems which were predicted from the get-go have proved accurate, but more of them have proved inaccurate. Some were even ludicrous. The folks at the Pentagon who opposed Rumsfeld's plan are all enemies of Rumsfeld from early in the administration when he was trying to reshape the military. They opposed his ideas and have largely been proven wrong in their opposition to the transformation and in their ability to see the shape and character of emerging threats. Rummy on the other hand has been a f@*$ing genius when it comes to predictive ability.

The question of Rumsfeld's competence does not rest on whether or not SOME of his policies have been poorly managed, executed, or even concieved, but rather on whether or not he has learned from these failures and whether or not it is likely that his new ideas will solve said problems. ( This analysis applies to the rest of the Administration as well ) The long knives have been out for Rummy for a long time for reasons which have nothing to do with the Iraq war. Do not be fooled by the bright lights and pretty colors, these criticisms are about something else entirely and they are dead wrong. Failures in Iraq are simply an opportunity and a framework for the deeper criticisms, which I cannot stress enough are completely short-sighted and far more political than is really acceptable.

First of all, I'd love to see our mainstream press respond to a Bush/Lieberman vs. Kerry/McCain ticket. They'd implode. "I'm melting, I'm melting". Then I'd like to see us break away from this pitiful "I support the troops, but not the administration" b.s. It's like I support union workers but not the power hungry goons that run the unions. I thought WMD stood for Weaselly Murderous Dictator. Us humans have a capacity for incredible pettiness and no where do we display it better than with party politics. It is so sad that certain Democrats would risk the future security of our nation in order to regain power. That's all this is fellow stringers, it's all about regaining power. If Bush loses the election but courageously sets the stage to win this slippery fight against terrorism, he will certainly go down in the annals of history along side Washington, Lincoln and Churchill. But I have no fear. Hillary will not sit back and have her rightful place in American politics ruined by a Kerry victory. There's still a convention to conduct. Mmmmmm.

Hrumph. Nothing new, really. Security will continue to be an issue, because Bush isn't going to do anyhthing concrete to ensure that there are more troops.

One thing of interest is that the UN delegate may be the guy who saves Bush's bacon. The fact Afghanistan does not seem like a disaster is due to his work, and it looks like he might be working similar magic here. Kudos to whoever managed to get the President to let this guy do his work without interference.

As a policy matter, I'd like to know who devised the approach taken in Fallujah and Najaf. He (or she) also gets credit for Bush disaster avoidance.

General question I have. If this transfer of sovreignty works as descrinbed in the speech, will Bush benefit domestically?

SI -

"But this is the world as we find it"

Well said, Mr. President.

Great Speech, Money Quote

AND by the way - if you didn't bother to watch it live, download or catch it on C-span - then you're on the wrong godam thread.

Please post SI - (saw it) or DSI - (didn't see it) at the start of your thread, so that we can all save time with the trolls.

You folks gotta get more sleep.

These Iraqi War threads get a lot of posts. So, it's very helpful in weeding thru them when a large majority of you try to pigeon-hole the other side into a single-minded bucket (liberals = anti-war, conservatives = reflexive Bush support). My thanx - time is precious.

This occurred to me during the painfully uninteresting speech of last night and it's a line of thought I haven't seen much expressed:

A concensus on two things seems to be developing.
One, that the election will come down to Iraq; two, that the Bush administration is more talk and less walk when it comes to 'understanding' the nasty details involved in executing an ambitious foreign policy. Here's the question: what if Bush gets lucky in Iraq and wins the election? In the next four years we could see major troubles rise in N. Korea, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, South America: given his record in Iraq, is Bush really the man we want at the helm when those icebergs creep out of the shadows?

Seems to me that's the question we need to be asking.

'The reason Israel recieves the unqualified support of the American government is because it's THE ONLY DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDDLE EAST. Turning on allies who share your values in order to gain allies that TORTURE THEIR CITIZENS, BEAT THEIR WOMEN, AND KILL POLITICAL DISSIDENTS EVERY DAY is a really stupid and short-sighted policy.'

Funny, that doesn't seem to hold for US policy vis-a-vis Pakistan for most of its history. Pakistan has never had a government complete its term, but the US has consistently favored it over democratic India until the cold war ended.

So spare me the moral underpinings of US policy. It is as guided by realpolitik as anything else. When Nixon sends the US Seventh Fleet to strengten Pakistan in an oppression that had killed over a million people in Bangladesh, that speaks louder than anything else.

For me this issue is beyond partisanship.

The only thing that matters now is winning this war, and enabling the Iraqis to develop a reasonably democratic, reasonably normal and stable polity.

If you think Kerry is better able and more committed than Bush to achieving the above, then by all means vote for Kerry. Certainly the Clinton administration was determined to overthrow Saddam's regime and were willing to make war on him to eliminate, as Clinton said, the very real likelihood that Saddam (or his charming sons) would get WMD and then ("I guarantee you," as Clinton told the nation in 1999) use those WMD. So there's certainly no shortage of evidence that some Democrats, at least of the DLC-Lieberman variety, can be trusted to do the right thing and make the tough calls regarding national security.

But I think any fair-minded person would have to have concerns that many, if not most, of the Democratic Party's leading lights have fallen under the spell of the old containment myth (see Zinni's recent comments). Clinton knew, and said as much, that CONTAINMENT FAILED IN IRAQ. It was a moral failure, in that Saddam was manipulating sanctions (with the help of his pimps in NYC, Paris and Moscow) to kill thousands of Iraqi children each month, and it was in all likelihood a strategic failure, insofar as we knew that Saddam was harboring Zarqawi and spreading chem weapons to E Africa (see Richard Clarke's book) in spite of the sanctions. And on top of all of the above was the fact that Saddam's successors were even more psychopathic and bloodthirsty than the old man.

So overthrowing Saddam was the least bad option. And now we have additional tough choices regarding elections timing, federalism and sovereignty issues, the UN's role, and dealing with the holdouts in Fallujah and several other Sunni Triangle towns.

Which makes it imperative, in my mind, that we give maximum support to a credible plan for victory and transition to a representative, normal, reasonably stable Iraqi regime.

If Bush's plan does not strike you as credible, then present details of one that is. But please don't resurrect failed policies such as "containment." We and the Iraqis are clearly better off than we were with the Saddam-Uday-Qusay monsters in power, and now it's time for us to, so to speak, Move on.

The only thing worth debating now is how best to win this war. Let him who has the best plan take the White House in 2004.

The reason we have tended to support Pakistan is due to its opposition to communism. I still haven't seen one iota of evidence that Bush is an idiot, or has stupid policies. He just doesn't play games (Kyoto- It's terrible that the Bush pulled out, but there was no support for it in the Senate, very little in the House before he ever got to office) I absolutely would love for Bush to be in charge if there are problems in NoKo, Iran, and anywhere else. I happen to like the fact that he makes a commitment and sticks to it, does what he says he is going to do. As far as rational for the the Iraq part of the WOT (it is a part of the WOT, not a distraction) I believe the main rationale that Bush gave was, after 9/11 he was not going to take a chance on something like that happening again. Saddam (his tough luck) happened to be the one we could go after the easiest (already in violation of U.N. resolutions, not following the conditions of cease fire of GW1). Like when Giuliani started cleaning up New York, he went after the little thugs, who are tied to the big thugs. The crooks all have a part in Drugs, Robbery, Prostitution, Illegal gambling, money laundering, etc. It would have been stupid for him to say say we are only going to go after murderers, because all the other criminals are not killing people, so we must leave them alone. Criminals are all part of the same cockroach nest. So are terrorists and the dictatorships that support them and arm them. Liberals are stupid, they can't connect any dots. Everyone who thought that Bush didn't do enough before 9/11 are now complaining that he is doing too much. I think he's connecting the dots like a MF'er.

TJIT: "I always like to hear other peoples ideas and would like to hear your thoughts / suggestions for turning the thing around."

Gladly. I actually already posted a plan in response to someone else on a different thread four days ago. Nobody addressed it afterwards. Is that standard tactics here to ask for plans to shut others down and then ignore the plans, if they are actually posted?

So here is "my plan":

1. An immediate change of leadership at the highest level - Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have to go now, not in November. This is critical not just because the current leadership is incompetent and will just make matters worse the longer they stay in charge, but also to show the Iraqis that we recognize our mistakes and are serious about making amends.

Specifically, Cheney should resign first so that Bush can appoint a new VP - McCain. Then Bush should resign and McCain becomes President. The irony is that this way the Republicans will stand a better chance of actually staying in charge of the White House in November. For bonus points, McCain should appoint a Democrat as VP, perhaps Lieberman (not that I really like him, but he seems more compatible than most other theoretically available Democrats).

2. The Abu Ghraib prison should be shut down immediately. Thomas Friedman had some good ideas what to do with it. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/13/opinion/13FRIE.html; still available for free here: http://www.iht.com/articles/519795.html)

3. Clarify legally that we won the war and Iraq lost. This means that we can enforce some conditions via a peace agreement and insert certain constraints into the Iraqi constitution - at least for some period of time like five or ten years. Such as: No secession of any Iraqi provinces (this is directed mostly at the Kurds who could seriously get us into trouble, if they tried to leave Iraq); strong minority protections (for Kurds, women, other religions); restrictions on what kind of political parties are allowed (easy: no parties that don't agree with the constitution); the right to maintain a well-defined US military presence in Iraq.

4. Put in place a strong, large peace enforcement and civil war prevention force that is mostly comprised of Arabs/Muslims. Get some Egyptians, some Saudis, maybe some Pakistanis. We'll pay and retain oversight. Reduce the number of our troops significantly, but keep a significant presence.

5. Speed up the pace of reconstruction. Kick out Halliburton and Bechtel. Iraq must not be treated like a public works project that these companies can use to extract money from our government as they regularly do at home. Keep out the French and the Russians, but assign reconstruction projects to countries that know something about reconstruction, such as Germany and some of the Eastern European countries. Get the Chinese involved, the Koreans, the Japanese.

6. Hold elections. Local elections could be held sooner (in some places now), but nationwide elections should only be held after the previous steps have been successfully implemented.

7. Gradually reduce the number of our troops according to a timetable that we set, not the Iraqis.

Thibaud:

Well, I haven't had time to come up with a plan for Iraq just yet, but with a little time, a little Google, and some Powerpoint slides, I'm sure I'll have all problems solved in notime.

In all seriousness, it just is not up to Kerry to propose the grand plan for the turnover of power just now. The big day is June 30, well before November, and we just don't know how that's going to work yet. I think we'll know if we are plunging on to disaster, or the situation is under better control by August or September. That's plenty of time for Kerry to get a plan together, or agree that the Bush plan is working,and support it.

Is Bush's plan credible? We'll find out. We don't have any choice.

While we're waiting, I would urge everyone to give careful consideration to M. McFadyen's question above.

Roughly a quarter of a century ago the US embassy in Tehran was invaded and the personnel there taken hostage for 444 days. In 1983 the US Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up, killing 241. Throughout the 80's, there were terrorists killing Americans and westerners at will. Simultaneous attacks on 3 airports, the LoBelle Nightclub bombing in Berlin, the Achille Lauro cruise ship attack. More recenty there was the first bombing of the WTC in 1993, the "Black Hawk Down" incident in Somalia, the US Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998 , the USS Cole of the coast of Yemen, the Second attack on the WTC, and Bali. I'm sure I've left out a few others.
We've been at war for a long time now and only recently decided to join the fight militarily instead of treating terrorism like an international law enforcement endeavor. The people who have committed atrocity after atrocity have to be stopped because they are far more motivated to kill Americans than half this country is to stopping them from doing it. If you so called 'pacifists' can't see what we're trying to do in that part of the world by setting up a democracy in a country that borders 5 tyrannical states, then there is no hope for you. What will you fight for if not the preservation of your whole way of life? You use the freedoms that your destroyers despise to undermine your country in a time of war against people who hate you, your mindset, your very existence. If my lot weren't cast with yours I would wish you well and laugh at your demise.

Appalled,

It's not a joke. We don't have much time. Again, the reason that good faith is required of Bush's critics is that the other options for Iraq-- continuing with sanctions or abandoning sanctions and doing business w Saddam, as the French and Russians and the Rt Hon G. Galloway were doing-- were far worse than the path chosen.

I would like to see Kerry's plan before August. Until I see such a plan I have no reason to believe that the man is any more thoughtful or purposeful than his opponent. He's basically an empty-suit, default candidate who would not be taken seriously as a presidential contender were it not for the weird circumstances of the Dems' primaries this year.

SO if you hold Bush to a high standard, then hold his opponent to the same standard. Again, this is beyond partisanship now.

Thi - I like the fact that for you, this is now beyond partisanship. Doesn't seem to be true for most others.

Support for the Bush Iraq war plan, either now or previously, seems to be directly tied to support for the idea that this was about America's WOT. If you buy the Bush argument that it was, you buy into everything else. If you don't, you are probably a critic on most or all points.

Pre-emptive strikes, Iraqi liberation, a mideast democratic model, removing a madman, stable oil markets (a legitimate issue!), are all noble points. But it was all predicated on the Iraqi war being part of our nation's defense against terrorism. It seems to me that from a policy standpoint, this is the fulcrum against which everything else leverages.

(and I broke my own rule - I oversimplified)

So did the Iraq war help in the war on terror, or did it make it worse? Maybe the new IISS report has the answer...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3746205.stm

"Al-Qaeda 'spurred on' by Iraq war

Al-Qaeda remains a viable and effective "network of networks" and has been galvanised by the war in Iraq, according to the London-based think tank, the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

[...]

The IISS says the war in Iraq has focused the energies and resources of al-Qaeda and its followers, while diluting those of the global counter-terrorism coalition."

Another take on the same IISS report:

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1532303,00.html

"Al-Qaeda appears to have successfully reconstituted its operations in dispersed groups and through local allies since being driven out of Afghanistan, the survey said.

[...]

The US military incursion in Iraq has increased the risk to Western interests in Arab countries, the survey said.

The West and its allies must continue to mount a major offensive against al-Qaeda and progress will be incremental, the report said. Any security offensive against al-Qaeda must be accompanied with political developments, such as the democratisation of Iraq and the resolution of conflict in Israel, it said.

Progress against al-Qaeda "is likely to accelerate only with currently elusive political developments that would broadly depress recruitment and motivation," the report said."

gw

I read your ideas with interest, my comments are below.

1) Your # 1 idea was to get Bush and his entire team to resign and replace. That is not a plan it is a political wet dream.

2) Your Abu Ghraib prison idea might have some merit.

3) Clarifying legally that we won and Iraq lost and the US won. The fact that Saddam is in jail should be all the clarification that is needed. Furthermore legal clarification is no good when your opponents don't believe in the rule of law.

4) The Saudis and Pakistanis are hotbeds of wahabbi fundamentalism, terrorism and anti democratic thought. Plus they have a miserable human rights record. The Egyptians have a miserable human rights record. These are exactly the influences we need to keep away from Iraq, not put in charge of things.

5) There are three companies that can handle oilfield work on the scale that is required in Iraq, they are Halliburton, Schlumberger, and Baker Hughes. Halliburton is already in position, they are the only ones with a heavy construction division (KBR) therefore they are the best company for the job. The logistics of changing prime contractors will add months if not years to reconstruction efforts. The delay will have the inevitable results of increasing Iraqi suffering and causing more instability in Iraq.

6) Reasonable idea.

7) Make sure the terrorists, dead enders, and foreign fighters get the memo to follow our timetable and you might have a plan. Unfortunately these groups are not likely to follow a timetable just because we want them to.

Your plan consists almost entirely of wishful thinking and many of your ideas would produce bad results. Out of your seven ideas 5 would make the situation worse or are impossible to implement. One (prison) has some limited symbolic value. One (voting) has some real potential of helping the situation on the ground.

Thanks,
TJIT

thibaud:

I'm just not in agreement with you on this. A counterproposal by Kerry NOW is probably counterproductive, and may commit him later on to policies he and the rest of us would regret. As I was trying to imply in my snark, anything proposed now would likely be fairly half-arsed.

Everything Kerry has said indicates he is committed to a "we broke it, we fix it" approach to Iraq. To some extent, Kerry is trying to get politics to stop at the water's edge. (He can't, alas, resist his trademark over the top negativity, but at least he is trying, in his words, "to give the President space.")

Kerry will have to declare himself, finally, on "whither Iraq." But the world in which he has to do this ... the world of the October debates, will be a very different place than the world of the moment.

1. An immediate change of leadership at the highest level - and McCain becomes President.

On what basis, that you have no grasp of any facts, or legal foundation or just because your still mad at Gore. Bush will probably go down in history as one of the most courageous Americans every. Clinton’s still looking for his legacy. Maybe Hillary lost it with the Rose law firm documents. And what's McCain ever done. Kind of a Depublican Dean.

2. The Abu Ghraib prison should be shut down immediately.

For something that happen nearly a year ago, was responded to immediately and corrected nearly as quickly. I’m sure you were “shocked” by the medias cartoon carnival.

3. Clarify legally that we won the war and Iraq lost.

Hussein lost and the Iraqis will benefit. But the war on terror can either be fought there or at a bus stop or mall near you. Take your pick.

4. Put in place a…

You need to go play with your magic wand and leave the governing to those with a little bigger stick.

5. Speed up the pace of reconstruction. Kick out Halliburton and Bechtel.

Yeah, and hire Joe’s Nation Building Service. You kooky kid, now you wander why no one responded the first time. It’s hard to type with tears of laughter running down your face. Crawl back into the woodwork from whence you came.

Abu Ghraid is Iraq's property. We don't tear down Attica even though bad stuff has happened there. We didn't bulldoze Angola farm prison as a nod to Martin Luther King.

Prisons are meant to be scary places. Abu Ghraid's reputation will serve future Iraqi polititians (such as Chalabi) well. Sticking Saddam in there would be a nice touch. Right in the cell next to Sadr.

At any rate how Iraq uses Abu Ghraid isn't our business. Destroying it isn't our business. Knocking down a prison will mean we have to build them another one. I would rather not build the Iraqis a prison. Lets build them another hospital instead.

wishIwuz2,

"Thi - I like the fact that for you, this is now beyond partisanship. Doesn't seem to be true for most others."

I simply cannot muster the Bush-hatred of my fellow Dems because, again, Bush's war continued Clinton's war. If you opposed Clinton on Iraq, then fine, go ahead and savage Bush's war that relied on the exact same intel estimates and drew the same conclusions.

But to support Clinton (as TeddyK and every leading Dem did), and then go 180 degrees on his successor when he continues Clinton's war, is to me a sign of bad-faith, excessive partisanship that is extremely damaging to our nation.

"Support for the Bush Iraq war plan, either now or previously, seems to be directly tied to support for the idea that this was about America's WOT. If you buy the Bush argument that it was, you buy into everything else. If you don't, you are probably a critic on most or all points."

In theory, sure, but in reality, partisanship rules most people's reactions.

If the struggle to prevent Saddam from getting WMD was central to the WOT, then Clinton's war on Saddam was essentially part of the WOT. Which underscores, again, the essential continuity between Clinton and Bush on this.

"Pre-emptive strikes, Iraqi liberation, a mideast democratic model, removing a madman, stable oil markets (a legitimate issue!), are all noble points. But it was all predicated on the Iraqi war being part of our nation's defense against terrorism. It seems to me that from a policy standpoint, this is the fulcrum against which everything else leverages."

Clearly, there were those in the Clinton admin who would have been happy to continue with containment/sanctions. Almost certainly the Joint Chiefs and most of the colonels and generals would have preferred this. But 9/11 changed the size, so to speak, of your fulcrum. In other words it became clear that containment as applied to Saddam-Uday-Qusay was insufficient because post-9/11, our risk tolerance re the possiblity of Saddam's gaining WMD was significantly reduced.

"(and I broke my own rule - I oversimplified)"

We need MORE simplicity now--simplicity defined as clarity and a return to first principles.

Again: containment of Saddam failed, morally and strategically. The only moral and strategically attractive alternative to containment was to overthrow Saddam by force, which is exactly what Clinton committed the US-- not the "international community"-- to in 1999. Overthrowing Saddam was always going to be a more or less unilateral affair because Saddam was France and Russia's best and most lucrative client in the middle east. Clinton's formally stated regime policy underscored this last fact, as did his unilateral, pre-emptive carpet bombing of Baghdad in 1999.

Whoever it was here who claimed that nobody in the Bush Administration ever expressed certainty -- at least not publicly -- about Saddam having WMDs, are you saying that Donald Rumsfeld isn't really a part of the Bush Administration? Because there most definitely is a clip floating around, from circa March 2003, of Rumsfeld asserting unequivocally that we know where the WMDs are. Perhaps someone else has a link to this but I know I've heard it a few times over the past year.

Thi - I wouldn't have pegged u as a dem.

More theory: there's a bit of chicken & egg going on here, depending on your political sway. If you buy into the Iraq war as essential to America's WOT, then the WMD proof (or lack) holds somewhat less weight. WMD's aren't the meat of the matter - protecting America from Saddam-sponsored terrorism is, in any form.

If you don't buy into the Iraq war as essential to America's WOT, then the WMD proof (or lack) is central to your criticism, as is your understanding that proof of Saddam's intent to use WMD's against America is central to the war's justification. If the WMD's didn't exist, then the war's justification doesn't exist.

gw, Bush isn't the only one to get the pronunciation of Abu Ghraib wrong. I wince every time one of our blowdried news anchors confidently, smoothly gets it embarassingly wrong.

HINT 1: in Arabic transliteration, "aib" is NOT the equivalent of a long A in english. It's two syllables, with the first a bit elided.

An approximation to the correct pronunciation might be:

Guh - ra - eeb, where the first two syllables are less stressed and elided (slid over lightly).

Oh yes - the initial vowel in Abu should not be the same as in "back", but more like the first vowel sound in "ox".

And finally,

Since both parties can each build their Iraq war support - or criticism - based on different prioritizations of:

A.) Saddam's relevance to America's WOT,
B.) the significance of proof of WMD's towards justifying the war, and
C.) whether B matters if you already believe A, OR whether A matters if you don't have B,

..then it's very easy to understand how one viewer sees last nights speech as a solid performance and another sees it as just more smoke.

I believe we can change our leadership if Kerry becomes a war President. He does not have to abandon his campaign for UN involvement to demonstrate the resolve to do it right, but he must be simple, direct, and frequent in his statement of goals. I think he should abandon his (implied) campaign for intermediate tranfer of authority to the UN though (he seems like he would be willing to pay too high a price, on our and Iraq's behalf, for popular and symbolic support). Iraq is issuing bonds, he should insist that countries and organizations (especially which did not participate in the overthrow, occupation, and early reconstruction) and businesses which wish to work in Iraq invest significantly in them. It is possible, but doubtful, that Kerry could convince me he would handle Iraq (or even the broader war on terror) well. He must utterly convince me of his abilities (and to operate independent of foreign partners if necessary) if I'm to abandon my concern over his bad budget, anti-free trade, tax, and regulatory policies. But, right now, to me, his populist policies are indicative of his performance as a war president, I think he needs to abandon them. Our military is controlled by democratically elected representatives as it should, but war should not be waged democratically.

Gee, gw. It is hard to imagine why your "suggestions" were ignored elsewhere. The first one is completely ludicrous. Asking a President to resign while WINNING a war is not something that even the Hollywood types have imagined. Forgive me for thinking it completely idiotic. It is so ridiculous that the rest of the suggestions come into question.

2) Regarding the prison - in case you didn't see the President's speech last night - he promised to flatten the prison AFTER a new maximum security prison would be built. I guess he is just thinking a few steps ahead.

3) Developing the Constitution should be the work of Iraqis, wouldn't you agree? It isn't the job of this, or any other American administration to impose the framework. OR do you think the US government is the answer to the entire world's problems?

4) Retraining an Iraqi police force, and military is already underway. Surely you support the Bush Administration's efforts in these areas, as they've already been doing them for months.

5) Your antipathy to Halliburton and Bechtel is enlightening. Your quest to turn every item into a political issue is telling. How about this: For reconstruction, we get the best, most experienced, and best-equipped companies to do the job? Not so surprisingly, readers of BusinessWeek and the Wall Street Journal would think Halliburton and Bechtel.

Oh, and don't forget that much of the reconstruction budgets are being spent on security. Getting rid of the bad guys will make it easier to get the projects finished.

6) Elections have already started. Again, you are suggesting something that George Bush has already done. According to the left-wing London Guardian, "In the Shia province of Dhi Qar, a couple hundred miles southeast of Baghdad, 16 of the biggest 20 cities plus many smaller towns will have elected councils by June. These were the first free elections in Dhi Qar's history and 'in almost every case, secular independents and representatives of nonreligious parties did better than the Islamists.' "

7) We will stay as long as we are wanted. And what the Bush-haters are desperate to forget is the fact that the majority of Iraqis like us, and want us there. As the country becomes more stable, we'll obviously remove our troops. And don't think your suggestion hasn't already been implemented.

And thanks to TJIT for your comments, too.

'And what the Bush-haters are desperate to forget is the fact that the majority of Iraqis like us, and want us there. '

Bwahahaha. Every recent poll taken in Iraq shows that the majority of Iraqis dislike us and are barely willing to tolerate us. The number is as high as 80% in some cases. Even a CPA conducted poll came to the same conclusions. A large number of Iraqis (at least 20%) think that attacks on American troops are justified.

I've always believed WOT and Hussein's insane strategic miscalculations, presenting an opportunity to establish an Iraqi global terrorist battlefield justifies everything. Of course that's how the ruthless end up, done in by the paranoia of universal fear. My nervousness at this juncture is Iran, sitting there watching this thing develop, waiting for the opening to step in. Even if Bush salvages the election based on the pure weakness of the opposition candidate, there can't be any chance the American people will allow another pre-emptive strike anytime soon. The end of this decade will be clouded with special prosecutors and commissions sniffing out every limp wristed action the war conceived. And the Dems will immediately launch Hillary's campaign for 2008. We're global eunuchs regardless of our success or failure in Iraq. We won't even be able to decide if it was a success or failure. The only winners in this bold and courageous action by our well intended president will be Random House and the Ayatollah. It's the proverbial free falling nightmare.

'The only winners in this bold and courageous action by our well intended president'

I think you mis-spelled 'misdirected, based on faulty and exaggerated intelligence, high expensive (in blood and treasure), premature, poorly planned action by our clueless President"

Incidentally, as far as Iraq becoming a global terror capital -- it seems to have become that now, even if it wasn't earlier. A report from the London Institute of Stratefic studies today says that the Iraq war created thousands of new recruits for Al Qaeda.

So a Sarin-infected device is exploded in Iraq, and across the border in Jordan the authorities say that nerve and gas weapons have been discovered for use against them by the followers of Zarqawi, who was in Baghdad well before the invasion. Where, one idly inquires, did these toys come from?

http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2100717/

Zarqawi - a member of al Qaeda. Beheaded Nick Berg. Protected by Saddam.

CNN/USA Today poll:
53 percent said they would feel less safe if the U.S.-led coalition left immediately. About half as many -- 28 percent -- said they would feel more safe.

Now, of course, they'd rather have us not be there. We'd rather not be there.
But faced with the alternative of us leaving - like the failure of Vietnam with which John Kerry is so familiar - they'd rather have us stay.

I meant what I said, Milk Run. It would be easier to believe that the terrorists pose no threat to the citizens of the United States if they weren't in fact KILLING us. And only in computer games with magazines "leaking" short cuts and codes, has intelligence ever been intelligent. Our case could have easily been as effective using the Clinton administrations arguements an election ago. Premature implies our war strategy was inevitable, but the timing was off. I'm sure you meant that. No? The poorest part of the plan was assuming the Iraqis would stand and fight for their country, for their women and children. Silly us. I'm sure you could have been convinced a little over a year ago that we would have brought Hussein's dictatorship to it's knees, secured 90% of the country with the exception of the bowels of a couple of the largest cities (no I don't mean NYC or LA)with relatively few casualties among our fighting men and incredibly few Iraqi citizen losses. Given the terrorist propensity to hide behind their women and children, that's quite a challenge. As far as creating terrorists out of the mists, one American General commented not long ago, let them come and we'll kill them here. Mission accomplished. Stand aside, mister, the world will be a much better place for you children's children soon. Thank you Mr. Bush.

'It would be easier to believe that the terrorists pose no threat to the citizens of the United States if they weren't in fact KILLING us. '

Indeed, terrorists pose a threat to us, which is why we should be focusing on destroying them rather than wasting time on iraq.

'we would have brought Hussein's dictatorship to it's knees, secured 90% of the country with the exception of the bowels of a couple of the largest cities '

90% of the country is sand.

But you're right, I seem to have missed all the great succeses of GWB

-- Spent $150-$200 billion dollars
-- 800 American lives lost, several thousand severely injured
-- An energized Al Qaeda that has picked up new ercruits (according to the International Center for Strategic Studies, not a left wing organization).

-- An army tied down in Iraq, and under strain.
-- Lost international prestige and possible co-operation in the war over terror.

-- New boost to pro-Iranian groups in Iraq.

S'tand aside, mister, the world will be a much better place for you children's children soon. Thank you Mr. Bush.'

If Mr Bush continues, there will probably not be a world for my children's children.

Here's what GoLakers said first

'what the Bush-haters are desperate to forget is the fact that the majority of Iraqis like us, and want us there'

Then he says 'Now, of course, they'd rather have us not be there'

Can't even keep your own lies straight ?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/28/iraq.poll/index.html

57% wanted US and British troops to leave immediatedly. 71% thought of US and British as occupiers. And this was before Abu Gharib and Fallujah.

But there was good news:

'Forty-four percent gave Bush a very unfavorable rating and 11 percent somewhat unfavorable; 24 percent said they held a favorable opinion of the U.S. president. But Bush proved more popular than Saddam in the survey, with eight of 10 respondents viewing the ousted Iraqi leader unfavorably at the time the poll was done.'

Polls are unreliable, of course, but I think that anyone who believes 'the fact that the majority of Iraqis like us, and want us there' is serously deluded. The most they're willing to do is to tolerate us there.

Oh by the way, this is great fun! We're a regular Hannity and Colmes. In the 10% of Iraq that's not sand, there are 8,000 towns and cities of various sizes. Most Iraqis have never seen an American soldier. In at least one of the three or four significant cities, Iraqi citizens and police are pressuring Sadr to give up the ghost. In the others the stablization has already begun. And there's nothing like spending $150-200 million to stimulate our economy. Isn't this a great country. And our Army is doing quite well, thank you. Re-inlistment is up. Even Hillary is convinced now that the Army needs to be bigger - I wonder what for, FIGHTING TERRORISTS!! And I'm sure Al Qaeda is picking up new recruits and they are dying at what should be an alarming rate. I see the following post by Mr. is somehow overwhelmed by the fact that Iraqis are glad American troops are there but wish they didn't have to be. But then I see him offering CNN as a source. CNN, radio free Baghdad, Hussein's private television newscasters. That's part of the problem, thank God they don't get CBS.

The fact is that for the first time in Arab history (other than partially in Lebanon) there will be free elections across the entire country in months, not years.

Not courtesy of Bill Clinton, under whom the terms "Iraq" and "regime change" were made part of official US foreign policy. Only by the force of will of George Bush.

Of course, talking and doing are the difference in administrations.

And in the quest to smear the US Presidency with the prison abuse will allow the sweetness of democracy to shine - which will work in Bush's favor. For the more the situation is magnified - and you know the media mentions it daily - the more obvious the benefit of democracy is shown. When the democratic process acknowledges human error, and puts the perpetrators on trial, and administers justice, oppressed people will be given hope. For they have seen nothing of the sort in their entire lives, and still would not if the "humanitarian" Left were running things. I suppose leaving Saddam in power, with the ridiculous on-the-take UN wagging its finger (without inspectors, by the way - for it was W who sent them in)

And those with a short-term view (remember the word "quagmire" as used repeatedly by the Bush-haters? Afghan winter "quagmire," the Baghdad sandstorm "quagmire," the Fallujah "quagmire"?) will reflect in time upon the establishment of democracy as the greatest export by the United States.

How better to defeat terror than to establish representative government?

Last night's speech encouraged staying of the course, and laid out a definitive plan to do so. While I'd prefer him using the words "win" and "victory" a lot more, I guess it'll do. For now.

Re the answers to my 7-step plan.

1) Bush is courageous and winning "a war" - right. How about winning the peace? You guys just think peace is boring, don't you?

I even suggested putting McCain in charge. What's the answer? RD says, "what's McCain ever done. Kind of a Depublican Dean."

But it will always be the "liberals" who are accused of partisanship, right? Because supporting McCain is being partisan, because he is really a "Depublican" (I'm assuming that was deliberate and not a typo). But we need true-blue "Rrrrepublicans" at the helm, and nothing else will do. And the other side is being partisan. Rrrright.

3) The point of clarifying that we won is to prevent the creation of a myth that al-Sadr or whoever emerges after 6/30 as an important or dominant force can claim that they kicked us out, that it's really they who liberated the Iraqis and that therefore they should be calling the shots.

Remember that Saddam actually claimed to have won Gulf War I? I bet many Iraqis believed him - after all, Saddam was still in power.

Minority rights in the Constitution are critically important to the long-term success of the Iraq adventure. Without them we may end up making life worse for many Iraqis than it was under Saddam - especially for women.

4) I didn't say put the Saudis/Pakistanis/Egyptians in charge. I said we retain oversight of what is going on.

The Iraqi police won't be able to control the militias. We'd need to reinstate the Iraqi army to achieve that. But that would be a very risky undertaking.

5) Halliburton and Bechtel are sub-contracting most of the reconstruction projects (like rebuilding schools) to small companies that often turn out to be completely incompetent and also corrupt. Getting out Halliburton and Bechtel - except where perhaps they do indeed possess relevant experience and can do the work themselves - means simply cutting out the middle-man and saving us money.

Nobody replied to the IISS report. The Washington Post seems to have picked it up as the only major US newspaper so far - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54789-2004May25.html.

From that article:

"The report suggested that the two military centerpieces of the U.S.-led war on terror - the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - may have boosted al-Qaida.

Driving the terror network out of Afghanistan in late 2001 appears to have benefited the group, which dispersed to many countries, making it almost invisible and hard to combat, the story said.

And the Iraq conflict "has arguably focused the energies and resources of al Qaeda and its followers while diluting those of the global counterterrorism coalition that appeared so formidable" after the Afghan intervention, the survey said.

The U.S. occupation of Iraq brought al Qaeda recruits from across Islamic nations, the study said. Up to 1,000 foreign Islamic fighters have infiltrated Iraqi territory, where they are cooperating with Iraqi insurgents, the survey said."

So there - the evidence keeps growing that Bush is helping the terrorists. If he is winning any war, this might go down as one of the most Pyrrhic of victories in history.

thibaud: "But to support Clinton (as TeddyK and every leading Dem did), and then go 180 degrees on his successor when he continues Clinton's war, is to me a sign of bad-faith, excessive partisanship that is extremely damaging to our nation."

This is an interesting perception. I don't think you will find too many in the Bush camp who share it. They keep telling us that 9/11 is Clinton's fault, that Clinton didn't do anything to stop the terrorists. Which strikes me as bad-faith, excessive partisanship.

They also claim - some of them at least - that "Kerry is just like Clinton".

Your view of Bush as Clinton's executor is really quite unique.

"In theory, sure, but in reality, partisanship rules most people's reactions."

Well, just like you (IIRC), I have been advocating McCain as a replacement for Bush. This has only resulted in scorn from the right-wingers/conservatives.

The country was very much united and put all political partisanship aside after 9/11, which also changed the priorities regarding Iraq that Clinton may have had. Maybe if 9/11 hadn't happened, then going to war in Iraq could have been better justified (and mostly on humanitarian grounds, not on WMD grounds). But 9/11 changed all that.

Bush is fighting the war on terror in a way that aides the terrorists. That's what it comes down to.

Hey, gw, I don't know you, and I never want to get personal. But the reason I didn't respond to the McCain suggestion is that it is completely stupid. I don't mean that as a personal attack. The idea itself is simply unworthy of a response.

2) The point of clarifying who won is not a declaration of words. You can't simply state "We won. We're done." The end result defines winning and losing, and no amount of obfuscation can change that. For Democrats, that means referring to their very, very favorite topic: The Vietnam War. Remember that one? We lost.

Oh, but at the time, there was great pageantry and hollow words about peace, and cease-fires, stability and truce.

If democracy is established, we win.
No speechwriter can change it.

3) The Iraqi Army is already being reconstituted. In fact, just a couple of weeks ago, the CPA began allowing previous officers to return. Where were you when your fellow Bush-haters were calling that a Bush flip-flop?

4) Your attacks on Halliburton and Bechtel are without substantive proof. Conjecture and innuendo do not serve your argument well.

5) Your IISS report will undoubtedly get picked up by the major media outlets, because they love to reinforce their previously held positions. However, it happens to be irrelevant. Yes, I realize that is a strong word, but you see: EVIL IS RELENTLESS. Okay? This concept means that the War on Terror is going to be measured in decades, if it is ever completed.
People that hate women's freedom are going to fight against us.
People who hate the rights of minorites are going to fight against us.
People who hate Jews, Christians, and secular Muslims are going to fight against us.
People who hate freedom of the press . . . well, you get the idea.

Who's side are you on?

gw, mr, you're morons. You won't comprehend the information that's availible to you or put much of it into the proper context.I bet you'd be a great trader; itching to sell when the market's down. Some people like to look at the bigger picture, like the current state; previous states; benchmarks; volatility; the effects of future events and probabilities; trade-offs of short term and long term benefits, costs, and risks; quality and quantity; availablity of and limits to options and alternatives; prevailing trends; correlations and causation.

Guess what? Destruction fast: progress slow. Guess what else? High expectations + modest results--> Disappointment. Guess what else? As much as we'd like them to be, American's aren't superhumans. Guess what else? The resources we use in Iraq: not the same ones we use to hunt down Al Qaeda globaly. Guess what else? Soldiers aren't police.

Opinions fluctuate. "Could not" is a much more definative statement than "could be". Surveys tell opinions and perceptions, not best policy, not right or wrong. Result are only as good as the questions. They are meaningless in-and-of themselves. When compared with eachother and factual information they can be indicative (which that one, from before the "flare up in violence," seems to be). They can be influenced. When compared, they can help us understand popular values. They can help to understand what affects opinions.

Thanks for pointing out to me that Iraqi's value the lives of Iraqi's much more than they do Americans. And that they don't like having people being shot at or people and things blowing up around them. And that they don't like that they don't have effective police. And that there was a climate ripe for an uprising after the fact. And recently they seem to value security over freedom and Iraqi more then foreigners.

So in the interest of fairness, I did some reading up on the IISS report. It seems that the calculations are based on the 20,000 terrorists trained in Afganistan prior to 9/11. They estimate that 2,000 have been killed or blowed up, that leaves 18,000. Scarier than hell, I say. Only it doesn't say the numbers are growing since the fall of Hussein. They seem to be shinking by the day. Back luck to them, no? Who was it that said you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts? You poor liberal souls, you frustrate us so.

gw,

> thibaud: "But to support Clinton (as TeddyK and every leading Dem did), and then go 180 degrees on his successor when he continues Clinton's war, is to me a sign of bad-faith, excessive partisanship that is extremely damaging to our nation."

"I don't think you will find too many in the Bush camp who share [your view]. They keep telling us that 9/11 is Clinton's fault, that Clinton didn't do anything to stop the terrorists. Which strikes me as bad-faith, excessive partisanship.... Your view of Bush as Clinton's executor is really quite unique."

More partisanship.

gw, I don't speak for the Bush camp or for anyone else. I'm trying to assess the facts of the situation without partisan blinders. Which makes it utterly ridiculous to me that anyone could see Clinton's policy that explicitly sought to overthrow Saddam-- how? with blue helmets?-- and bombed Baghdad round-the-clock for four days as anything other than a war.

> "In theory, sure, but in reality, partisanship rules most people's reactions."

"Well, just like you (IIRC), I have been advocating McCain as a replacement for Bush. This has only resulted in scorn from the right-wingers/conservatives."

A pox on both your houses!

"The country was very much united and put all political partisanship aside after 9/11, which also changed the priorities regarding Iraq that Clinton may have had."

I have little doubt that any administration post-9/11 would have, sooner or later, been faced with the absolute necessity of jettisoning the failed containment policy and taking serious, urgent steps to overthrow by force the Saddam-Uday-Qusay nightmare regime. Perhaps Gore (whom I voted for) would have waited another year or two. No matter; Saddam's slaughterhouse and terror hub was a problem that could not have been kicked down the road indefinitely. This simply is not a partisan issue.

"Maybe if 9/11 hadn't happened, then going to war in Iraq could have been better justified (and mostly on humanitarian grounds, not on WMD grounds)."

Yes, it should have and easily could have, been justified on humanitarian grounds. But any realist could also agree that, if the sanctions were so easily violated by Saddam with the willing support of a global cast of pimps-- including senior govt officials in nuclear powers such as Russia and France-- then clearly, Saddam could easily acquire WMD capabilities at some point in the future. Containment failed, both morally and strategically. Zinni's wrong on this.

"But 9/11 changed all that. Bush is fighting the war on terror in a way that aides the terrorists. That's what it comes down to."

I respect your opinion as to tactical and operational preferences, or sequencing and phrasing, but on the big issue-- whether the Iraq War was justified-- I disagree strongly. Making war against Saddam was a morally appropriate, strategically necessary course of action. And this action was never going to win the approval of Saddam's patrons in Moscow and Paris.

So to use an analogy, if you want to bash Detective Mark Furman and the LAPD for their manifest sins and screwups, go ahead. Yes, police brutality is an evil, as are racist cops. But the crucial fact is that OJ was guilty. And anyone who considers himself a liberal should support the prosecution on this one.

Hence my support for this war that Clinton launched and that Bush is finishing.

best regards,
thibaud

gw,

> thibaud: "But to support Clinton (as TeddyK and every leading Dem did), and then go 180 degrees on his successor when he continues Clinton's war, is to me a sign of bad-faith, excessive partisanship that is extremely damaging to our nation."

"I don't think you will find too many in the Bush camp who share [your view]. They keep telling us that 9/11 is Clinton's fault, that Clinton didn't do anything to stop the terrorists. Which strikes me as bad-faith, excessive partisanship.... Your view of Bush as Clinton's executor is really quite unique."

More partisanship.

gw, I don't speak for the Bush camp or for anyone else. I'm trying to assess the facts of the situation without partisan blinders. Which makes it utterly ridiculous to me that anyone could see Clinton's policy that explicitly sought to overthrow Saddam-- how? with blue helmets?-- and bombed Baghdad round-the-clock for four days as anything other than a war.

> "In theory, sure, but in reality, partisanship rules most people's reactions."

"Well, just like you (IIRC), I have been advocating McCain as a replacement for Bush. This has only resulted in scorn from the right-wingers/conservatives."

A pox on both your houses!

"The country was very much united and put all political partisanship aside after 9/11, which also changed the priorities regarding Iraq that Clinton may have had."

I have little doubt that any administration post-9/11 would have, sooner or later, been faced with the absolute necessity of jettisoning the failed containment policy and taking serious, urgent steps to overthrow by force the Saddam-Uday-Qusay nightmare regime. Perhaps Gore (whom I voted for) would have waited another year or two. No matter; Saddam's slaughterhouse and terror hub was a problem that could not have been kicked down the road indefinitely. This simply is not a partisan issue.

"Maybe if 9/11 hadn't happened, then going to war in Iraq could have been better justified (and mostly on humanitarian grounds, not on WMD grounds)."

Yes, it should have and easily could have, been justified on humanitarian grounds. But any realist could also agree that, if the sanctions were so easily violated by Saddam with the willing support of a global cast of pimps-- including senior govt officials in nuclear powers such as Russia and France-- then clearly, Saddam could easily acquire WMD capabilities at some point in the future. Containment failed, both morally and strategically. Zinni's wrong on this.

"But 9/11 changed all that. Bush is fighting the war on terror in a way that aides the terrorists. That's what it comes down to."

I respect your opinion as to tactical and operational preferences, or sequencing and phrasing, but on the big issue-- whether the Iraq War was justified-- I disagree strongly. Making war against Saddam was a morally appropriate, strategically necessary course of action. And this action was never going to win the approval of Saddam's patrons in Moscow and Paris.

So to use an analogy, if you want to bash Detective Mark Furman and the LAPD for their manifest sins and screwups, go ahead. Yes, police brutality is an evil, as are racist cops. But the crucial fact is that OJ was guilty. And anyone who considers himself a liberal should support the prosecution on this one.

Hence my support for this war that Clinton launched and that Bush is finishing.

best regards,
thibaud

thibaud: "I don't speak for the Bush camp or for anyone else."

I understand and respect that.

"I'm trying to assess the facts of the situation without partisan blinders."

Actually, so do I. I also supported the war initially. I really only stopped supporting it after the Abu Ghraib abuse became public and after it became known that the administration had been trying to cover it up.

"Which makes it utterly ridiculous to me that anyone could see Clinton's policy ... as anything other than a war."

That's fine with me. It's right-wingers who generally don't see it that way.

"A pox on both your houses!"

Um, could you explain? I mean, I propose a bipartisan McCain/Lieberman administration, comprised of two people whose views I very much respect, but share only partially, and that's somehow just as partisan as some right-wingers ridiculing the very idea and insisting on "nobody but Bush"?

"No matter; Saddam's slaughterhouse and terror hub was a problem that could not have been kicked down the road indefinitely. This simply is not a partisan issue."

Well, fine, but the way the peace is being lost is an issue. The way we went to war - based on false pretenses - is an issue. The way we are dealing with Abu Ghraib is an issue.

I'm not saying we should withdraw from Iraq. I'm saying we should stay to prevent a civil war, at least if there is any chance that we can prevent it. Have you heard the Bush administration talk about staying to prevent a civil war? They have started talking about withdrawal, if the Iraqis ask us to. With no strings attached. We went in with no plan, and just might go out with no plan.

"but on the big issue-- whether the Iraq War was justified-- I disagree strongly."

An Iraq war was justifiable, yes. But not this one, not the way it was officially justified, not the way it was planned (or not planned), not the way the post-war occupation was conducted.

And not at this time since we had other priorities (Afghanistan). It almost sounds as if you are arguing that we had to stop the low-level war Clinton was waging and rid Iraq of Saddam more for the benefit of the Iraqi people than for our own benefit. Is that correct?

"Hence my support for this war that Clinton launched and that Bush is finishing."

Kerry will finish it, too. Do you doubt that? Do you really think anybody could finish it in a worse way than Bush?

gw said, "I also supported the war initially. I really only stopped supporting it after the Abu Ghraib abuse became public"

Really? Then you supported it when John Kerry voted for it? You supported it during the drive to Baghdad when there was a two-day sandstorm, and the fruitcakes were calling "quagmire"? You supported it in June, July, August, September, October when Howard Dean was crowing about no WMDs? You supported it in November when the Pentagon opened the investigation into abuse at the prison? You supported it when the commander of the prison was demoted in January? You supported it when the Pentagon issued its report on the prison, and several soldiers were held for courts-martial?

Oh, but the PUBLISHING of months-old pictures of leashes and militants with women's underwear is what caused you to change your mind.

Well, I see you and John Kerry have a beautiful future together.

In the meantime, the Bush administration will be working with the Iraqis in setting up the first free and fair elections seen on that side of the world.

And the investigation into the prison, commanders being suspended, soldiers held accountable is something else the Arab world hasn't seen.

Greatest history lesson this millennium, and you're jumping off the bandwagon. Too bad.

gw, Lakers -

I agree that the Abu G screw-up causes serious concerns about the admin's *political* competence, espo when they're being asked to thread so many needles at once.

Allowing the prison guards to have cameras was, for anyone who knows anything about the internet, incredibly stupid. Not getting all over the issue and fixing it ASAP back in January was even worse.

But I probably agree with Lakers that this story is really rather minor in the larger context of the postwar struggle. In fact, compared to the handoff, elections, the training of the Iraqi security forces, it's just not very important.

At this point, Bush should be judged solely in comparison to Kerry. Which candidate, going forward, will better help us achieve the key objectives of creating a reasonably democratic, normal and stable polity in Iraq?

As much as Bush and Rummy and team have screwed up, they have plenty of successes to their credit, and I see no evidence whatsoever that Kerry has done any serious thinking or developed any solid experience regarding nation-building in the arab world. But if he comes up with a detailed, brilliant and sensible plan, I'll certainly give it a close look. Whoever has the better plan come November will have my vote.

GoLakers: "Then you supported it when John Kerry voted for it?"

Actually, I wasn't too sure at that time. But I recognized that there was no way back after the military build-up and the ultimatums for Saddam to step down. Backing down then would have been bad. I think Kerry and many other Democrats recognized the same thing and therefore did not openly oppose the war even though it went against what they thought should have been done.

Incidentally, here is what Kerry said when he "voted for it":

"In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out."

And then:

"Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances."

(http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html)

Based on that he could have come out against the war when it started. He could be given credit by Republicans for not doing this, or he could be blamed by anti-war Democrats for the same. But it's just ridiculous that he is actually blamed by Republicans for how he voted and what he did or didn't do afterwards.

"You supported it during the drive to Baghdad when there was a two-day sandstorm, and the fruitcakes were calling "quagmire"?"

Yes, absolutely. I thought that was just plain silly when people were starting to blow out of proportion minor military setbacks. I thought the same in the Afghanistan war. I stopped reading Maureen Dowd's columns in the Times then. (I started reading them again a few weeks ago...)

I never had any doubt that our military would win the military part of this war, just as they won the military part of the Afghanistan war. I think they did a great job in both cases. Clinton left Bush a great military to work with.

"You supported it in November when the Pentagon opened the investigation into abuse at the prison? You supported it when the commander of the prison was demoted in January?"

Well, I didn't hear much about those things then. Thanks to our incompetent "liberal" media, you know.

"Oh, but the PUBLISHING of months-old pictures of leashes and militants with women's underwear is what caused you to change your mind."

So you are belittling sexual humiliation, torture and murder committed in your name? Perhaps you should think about this some more...

And no, it wasn't some months-old pictures that did it. It was the reaction to this, the blame-the-little-soldier strategy that Bush and Rumsfeld immediately got into. It was learning that these abuses had been known for a while and that attempts had been made to cover them up.

Have you read the latest yet?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/politics/26ABUS.html?hp

"In the meantime, the Bush administration will be working with the Iraqis in setting up the first free and fair elections seen on that side of the world."

Well, we can hope.

"Greatest history lesson this millennium, and you're jumping off the bandwagon. Too bad."

Oh yes, this will be quite some history lesson. And I'm sure some people won't understand it, as with most history lessons.

thibaud: "But I probably agree with Lakers that this story is really rather minor in the larger context of the postwar struggle."

It may seem minor to you, but it doesn't seem minor to the Iraqis or the other Arabs in the region.

This war was supposedly all about turning Iraq into a shining example of democracy (after we dropped the WMD pretenses). Instead we are humiliating them. How can you possibly turn humiliation into something positive?

"In fact, compared to the handoff, elections, the training of the Iraqi security forces, it's just not very important."

Sorry, but it's exactly this attitude, which you and the administration seem to agree on, that kills us (and literally our soldiers) in Iraq.

And, even worse, it's more this attitude than what actually happened. The only way to possibly undo the damage done by the Abu Ghraib scandal was to take it EXTREMELY seriously and do something drastic to demonstrate that we did.

"As much as Bush and Rummy and team have screwed up, they have plenty of successes to their credit"

Such as?

"and I see no evidence whatsoever that Kerry has done any serious thinking"

Oh, please. He looks like he's thinking all the time... ;-)

I agree with Appalled Moderate: "it just is not up to Kerry to propose the grand plan for the turnover of power just now."

"or developed any solid experience regarding nation-building in the arab world."

Whereas Bush and Rumsfeld have tried it and failed.

"But if he comes up with a detailed, brilliant and sensible plan, I'll certainly give it a close look."

Well, I sure hope he does.

I do not have any great deal of confidence that Kerry will be able to complete the task of nation building in Iraq. But I have almost no confidence in Bush and Co. doing that either. The job is extra-ordinarily hard, and not one that we have any recent experience doing (Kosovo and Bosnia notwithstanding).

I will not vote for Bush for 2 reasons though -- the hideous post-war incompetence and the neo-con ideologues. Kerry therefore gets my vote by default. A fresh set of Pentagon civlians could not do any worse than the current coterie.

"Actually, so do I. I also supported the war initially. I really only stopped supporting it after the Abu Ghraib abuse became public and after it became known that the administration had been trying to cover it up"

Where do you get a cover up? This thing was rooted out in October, responded to immediately, investigated thoroughly (or in the process of), reported openly. It's only after the pictures surfaced months and months later did the news media become interested. And then every time new pictures came up, it was like something that had been fixed was represented like it was happening again.

And what's going wrong with the war? What makes us think we can script a war? We're probably engaged in the most difficult battle in the history of mankind, and progressing quite incredibly from both our soldier casualties and civilian losses. The only reason it's being portayed by the media as anything less than a resounding success is because the party in power isn't the one you like. Hell, Lincoln's army of the north got it's butt kicked right after the Gettysburg Address. And was losing support from Americans up until nearly a month before Lee surrendered. We've been here before people. Ironies abound.

John Kerry is a disaster and will do to America what Grey did to California, sell it down the toilet.

I think a Bush/Lieberman ticket against H. Clinton/McCain would wake our sleeping electorate up? Wouldn't you?

RD: "Where do you get a cover up?"

It quickly became known that the pictures had been around for a while. Why hadn't we heard about them before? The Pentagon had been trying to keep this under the covers.

This article then confirmed that:

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040524fa_fact

"The Pentagon’s attitude last January, he said, was “Somebody got caught with some photos. What’s the big deal? Take care of it.” Rumsfeld’s explanation to the White House, the official added, was reassuring: “‘We’ve got a glitch in the program. We’ll prosecute it.’ The cover story was that some kids got out of control.”

In their testimony before Congress last week, Rumsfeld and Cambone struggled to convince the legislators that Miller’s visit to Baghdad in late August had nothing to do with the subsequent abuse. [...]"

And that's just a little excerpt. Read the whole thing. I have posted this URL and commented on this article before.

"This thing was rooted out in October, responded to immediately, investigated thoroughly (or in the process of), reported openly."

Every single claim in this sentence is wrong. I already posted the URL to a Times article from today that refutes them all. So here it is again: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/politics/26ABUS.html?hp

From the article:

"The cases from Iraq date back to April 15, 2003, a few days after Saddam Hussein's statue was toppled in a Baghdad square, and they extend up to last month, when a prisoner detained by Navy commandos died in a suspected case of homicide blamed on "blunt force trauma to the torso and positional asphyxia.""

The fact that the abuses went on for so long and that people implicated in abuses in Afghanistan were actually transferred to Abu Ghraib in Iraq shows that the internal handling of the abuses did not work.

"It's only after the pictures surfaced months and months later did the news media become interested."

As I said, the US news media has been rather ineffective in checking on the government. The New York Times today actually contains an apology of sorts for the lack of serious investigative reporting in some incidents in the run-up to the war. (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html)

"And what's going wrong with the war?"

Absolutely nothing, as long as you define "war" as the military operation in March/April/May last year. The war against Saddam's armies was won, and it was won quickly. Our military deserves praise for that.

But it was so telling when Bush posed under the "Mission Accomplished" sign - he had really thought of the mission as a purely military one. He hadn't considered that the really tricky part would be to win the peace, not the war.

"The only reason it's being portayed by the media as anything less than a resounding success is because the party in power isn't the one you like."

That's bullshit. The media realized way too late that something was amiss. The support for the war was very widespread. I guess nobody really thought that the administration would have absolutely no clue what to do in post-war Iraq. They all expected there to be a secret plan - for secrecy has been one of the few things in which Bush & Co. have excelled. Alas, the secret plan was that the Iraqis would be happy and grateful for their liberation, and everything else would just fall into place.

It hasn't, and it won't. And yet there still is no plan other than to hope for the best.

"I think a Bush/Lieberman ticket against H. Clinton/McCain would wake our sleeping electorate up? Wouldn't you?"

You mean in 2012, after Lieberman and McCain switch parties and Jeb Bush is running for President? :-)

GW, my fellow initial identifier. You refute what I say, but I said nothing wrong. You dispute it with information that I'll assume is factual but does not dispute what I say or my conclusion. There - was - no - coverup.
It's just that the news wan't yet juicy enough for our tabloid chest thumpers. And to me, the war will never be just about Iraq, which I think I've trumpeted in previous posts in this thread. And our president has been eloquently clear about his mission from the beginning. And what's wrong with a troop and countryman inspiring landing on an aircraft carrier. We could use a little more cheering from the peanut gallery. And no one knew exactly how the Iraqis would respond and there were so many theories, mostly after the fact that the blind squirrel prophesy applies. Our leaders and fighters have responded splendidly and have accomplished historic feats. Come back to the fold gw, we can use a good arguer.

gw, I don't understand why you'd be upset at the president celebrating the end of major combat operations? What's wrong with that?

gw,

> [thibaud] In fact, compared to the handoff, elections, the training of the Iraqi security forces, it's just not very important.

"Sorry, but it's exactly this attitude, which you and the administration seem to agree on, that kills us (and literally our soldiers) in Iraq.

Stop over-reacting. It's completely foolish to argue that the fascists, Iranian-Syrian provacateurs and lumpen Sadr followers who were attacking noth Iraqi civilians and US soldiers MONTHS BEFORE Abu G hit the news are somewhow retaliating for Abu G. That said, OF COURSE Abu G and prisoner interrogation is a big scandal, and of course it needs to be investigated punished resolved and fixed, immediately.

That's not in question. My entire point is that this, like so much happening now, is being milked for maximum domestic political benefit by Bush's enemies.

"And, even worse, it's more this attitude than what actually happened. The only way to possibly undo the damage done by the Abu Ghraib scandal was to take it EXTREMELY seriously and do something drastic to demonstrate that we did."

The US has done so. More seriously by far than it or any democracy (cf France in 1954-1962, for ex) ever has. In fact one could argue, as Fouad Ajami has, that Bush has gone too far in apologizing to the prisonmasters of such dictatorships as Egypt and Jordan-- or in kowtowing to an Algerian (!)government official in Baghdad.

Again, let me make this crystal clear: STOP THE PARTISANSHIP. It's crippling this nation.

Susan Estrich, a top Democratic advisor in California, has a nice article making this same point today. She notes the hug successes that Arnold has achieved in California by overcoming Democratic and Republican obstructionism. Imagine what we could achieve in this war if we were to follow the example of Lieberman and McCain. And no, I don't want either of them as VP. I just want the partisanship over Iraq to cease.

t

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-05-26-estrich_x.htm

"Arnold Schwarzenegger has returned bipartisanship to government.

"In a state where both houses of the legislature, both U.S. senators and every office under the governor are held by Democrats, the Republican governor's approval rating, according to a Los Angeles Times poll, was 64%. He has consistently earned favorable ratings from majorities of self-identified Democrats. And that was even before unveiling a new budget this month that was both on time and delivered on his pledge to balance it without new taxes.

"What Schwarzenegger has accomplished in the past eight months, substantively, is remarkable. I'm a lifelong Democrat who was asked to serve on the Schwarzenegger transition team. I did. He also put together a coalition of Democrats and Republicans to repeal the much-hated car tax and united leaders of both parties around an initiative to bail the state out of its fiscal mess, coupled with a limit on future spending. Schwarzenegger even managed to negotiate a compromise with the Democratic legislature on the thorny issue of workers compensation.

"...Civility is in. Politics, in the best sense, is back. It reminds me of the old days when Democratic House Speaker Tip O'Neill would sit around, smoke a cigar and work things out with Republican colleagues.

"...Take note, Bush and Kerry. This is what people want. The strongest rationale for the dream ticket of Kerry and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., was that it reflected the fact that the big problems the nation faces today can be solved only, as California is doing, by MOVING BEYOND PARTISANSHIP.

"California is lucky to have a leader who is big enough. Does the country?"

And note how Big Media, after hyping bogus notions of Arnold the Nazi, Arnold the Woman- and Gay-basher, has gone completely silent about Arnold's extraordinary achievements in office.

Where are the national stories about the extraordinary turnaround in California? Where are the stories about Arnold's obvious political talent?

Could it be that this has been buried because he's a Republican who refuses to trash Bush?

Arnold deserves more respect and merits more confidance than either Bush or Kerry. But of course, to the NY Times and the LA Times, Arnold the successful leader does not exist.

A pox on the media house! A plague on all your houses! Most people are disgusted with the huge failure of leadership-- from our thought leaders in the media to our political leaders and our cowardly, say-nothing international business leaders-- that we've seen during this war.

The only possible reason that any popular, dynamic vp candidate is being "dreamed" by any liberal is because John Kerry is so weak. And how could he possibly figure out any plan for anything as intricate as Iraq and WOT, he can't even plan a convention. The Clinton's will drown him out while eloquently not supporting him, and continue to prepare for 2008.

Remember May of 1988 when opinion polls had Mike Dukakis SIXTEEN points ahead of George Bush?

With all the negative publicity, the continual trumpeting of mistakes which are old, being appropriately investigated, and no longer happening, don't you find it curious that in voter polls, the President and Mr Kerry are tied?

I do.

I do.

It is an article of faith among war opponents that there were no links whatsoever--that "secular" Saddam and fundamentalist Islamic terrorists didn't mix. If the CIA was wrong about WMD, couldn't it have also missed Saddam's terror links?

One striking bit of new evidence is that the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam's son Uday and entrusted with doing much of the regime's dirty work. Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.

This matters because if Shakir was an officer in the Fedayeen, it would establish a direct link between Iraq and the al Qaeda operatives who planned 9/11. Shakir was present at the January 2000 al Qaeda "summit" in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at which the 9/11 attacks were planned. The U.S. has never been sure whether he was there on behalf of the Iraqi regime or whether he was an Iraqi Islamicist who hooked up with al Qaeda on his own.

More at the Wall Street Journal - http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005133

The American Conservative Union gives Kerry a lifetime rating of 3 percent and McCain, 84 percent. The Americans for Democratic Action on the left says Kerry votes its way 92 percent of the time and McCain, 9 percent.

Can we drop the stupidity, now?

thibaud: "But of course, to the NY Times and the LA Times, Arnold the successful leader does not exist."

I don't read the LA Times, but the NY Times openly admitted that Schwarzenegger had positively surprised them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/04/opinion/04TUE1.html?ex=1085803200&en=a2bef124350efbbc&ei=5070&ex=1084248000&en=ee06fb7f451cd6d0&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

They also published this fairly positive article:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30A14FC34580C778DDDAC0894DC404482

As for Estrich, while I don't disagree with her article, don't you think billing her as a "top Democratic advisor" might be a bit exaggerated? She may have been that in 1988, but now she is a Fox News token liberal. Maybe you meant to qualify that with "in California" (as opposed to just saying where she is from)? Even that would be a bit odd given how fond she is of Schwarzenegger - nothing wrong with a Democrat liking him and even working for him, but a "top Democratic advisor"? Hm.

Anyway, back to your point. Schwarzenegger seems to be doing some good stuff in California. I'm glad. I would have voted for him, too.

But hey, I've said before that I like moderate Republicans. I like McCain. I don't agree with him on everything (far from it), but I respect him, and I trust him.

So why do you keep coming back to the partisanship accusation when it's Bush and his troop who are engaging in it? They have turned almost every single issue into a partisan issue. In domestic matters, they have repeatedly preferred to "buy" votes by dishing out more pork than to agree to sensible compromises with even their own moderates! In Afghanistan and Iraq they have asked us to not question them, because they allegedly knew what they were doing. They operated with bipartisan support for quite a while, and they created a big mess. It would simply be naive to believe them that they can get us out of this mess. And this is simply too important to take any more on faith. I simply don't believe them anymore.

It's the right-wingers here who keep ridiculing McCain or at least arguing against him. If anything, it's the right-wingers' partisanship, their statements that liberals aren't patriots etc., that are dividing the nation.

I guess ignoring the facts about the huge difference between Kerry and McCain works better for your argument.

GoLakers: "I guess ignoring the facts about the huge difference between Kerry and McCain works better for your argument."

Huh?

Whenever McCain has been proposed - whether as a replacement for Bush (or at least for Cheney) or as a VP for Kerry - it's been the right-wingers who started howling.

In spite of his record as a "good conservative", they just cannot imagine replacing Bush with McCain. "Nobody but Bush" is their mantra.

Why?

I don't know enough about McCain to really say anything. Bush has done great things regarding terrorism and Iraq. Medicare, I wasn't happy about, but not too bothered. His tax cuts were done half-assed, but they got done (and speed was a priority). He's not anti-gay other than not wanting to have anything to do with the issue. He's already done everything that he said he would regarding abortion (I think). Granted the things I know about Kerry mostly came from what I've seen of his campaign rallies, but he seems like an idiot when it comes to simple economic priciples. About the only thing that came out of his mouth I could agree with was that we should invest more in scientific research and get rid of the restrictions on stem cell research. If Kerry can prove me wrong, that what I heard was just campaign rhetoric, he'll have a shot at my vote.

You're probably right that McCain would make a good President, but he won't. Not this term.

Iraq is not going to be a democracy any time soon. We'll see low-level fighting until the election, and then a civil war followed by either the breakup of Iraq (and more war) or the domination of a strongman or a theocrat.

The reason for this is that, as Bush plainly said during the 2000 campaign, the Bush administration has no interest in nation building. Real nation building would require a massive commitment of troops over quite a few years (among other resources), and that is just not going to happen. Especially considering the current level of support for America in Iraq.

You can see the exit strategy forming in the handover of Fallujah and the ceasefire with Sadr (suspending any attempt to serve him with a warrant.)

"Mission Accomplished" will be declared again before November. In the months after that before January, there will be neither war nor peace, but a ramp down of US presence anyhow.

Then in the January election, some faction will dominate and the civil war will begin. Iraq will break up, becoming a "failed state" and a haven for terrorists, or be dominated by somebody like Sadr or Latif, who will resort to increasing violence to maintain their domination - some kind of Saddam or Khomeini lite. (Or first one and then the other.)

The only possible exception is some sort of Iraqi national hero emerging, a Garibaldi or an Ataturk. Maybe Sistani will be interested in guiding events to a moderate conclusion, and be able to do so.

It is certainly not going to happen by Americans making it so.

Well, we can hope for the best. At any rate, the Kurds may get a moderate, reasonable Kurdistan - if it isn't bloodied too badly in the civil war.

wesson