Bush Turned Rummy Upside Down and Put ...

As an aside to the political fruhaha going on, two events down the stretch continue to amaze me, not that either turned an election.

I had the same jaw drop of a "What are they thinking" reaction to two very different events: when the Allen campaign pushed Webb's fiction as a reason to not support him; and when Bush came out days ago and announced that Rumsfeld was good to go for the duration.

That Rumsfeld is now gone strongly suggests that was nothing but a political move, perhaps designed to show strength, or resolve. The Allen campaign's move was an obvious political ploy.

If nothing else, the two moves suggest the great brain trusts that drive America's political campaigns are mere mortals and as prone to mistakes, just like everyone else.

Both Bush and Allen likely antagonized their opposition and alienated some supporters with those tactics. All I can think now is what I said to myself then, what in hell were they thinking?

Rick Moran: The question uppermost in my mind is…

WHY IN GOD’S NAME DIDN’T YOU DO IT BEFORE THE ELECTION!

Comments

[larry]

simple, really. bush and the gop leadership are a bunch of political dipshits. they fell - once again - they fell for the media's siren calls of "let's play nice", and "gentleman don't fight hard", and most importantly, they fell hard for the "no one likes conservatives" whopper.

so they tried to behave like gentleman; passed semi-socialist law in attempts to curry media/dem favor; and acted in all ways like the country rube losing his paycheck to the 3-card monte city slicker. in short, they were idiots. they actually thought the dems were reasonable, the media could be reasoned with, that americans wanted more not less government.

they got hustled. yet again. it's why they're the stupid party. now, we've got the evil party back in congress, and an uphill fight. luckily, the gop is used to that, and now that the dems have power, they'll be taking off those "nice dem" masks. so the stupid people who forgot how scummy they are can be reminded - just in time for '08.

conservatives can prepare for '08 by praying hard for another REAL conservative to pop up (not mccain: he's a loon), for no more bushes in the white house ever, and for hillary to run for prez. as for me, i'm gonna go stock up on ak's and sks's, before that commie sow pelosi outlaws them. (you watch: they'll try the first week.)

[yyy]

I don't think calling anyone and everyone that disagrees with you a traitor, a seditionist, a giver of solace to the enemy and soft on terror is what is generally called "playing nice"

Clearly, Bush lied when he said Rumsfeld was with him to the end, why, because he's a LIAR. That's what he does, that's what got him in so much trouble in Iraq, because unlike say a murky policy or economic data or pollution data, a WAR cannot be PR'd into victory, it has to actually be won or lost on the ground the old fashioned way. Bush never got this, he figured since he could disbelieve global warming an d get away with it he could disbelieve failure in Iraq and his belief would make it true.

He got rid of Rumsfeld to control the news cycle on the election and to take away one of the best clubs the Democrats will be beating him with, it is also a pretty big RED FLAG that the upcoming Baker report is going to be brutally damning of the course that Bush has been staying on.

Rumsfeld was just the easiest fall guy, and of course, there is his total failure as Secretary of Defense on every level..

[yyy]

I don't think calling anyone and everyone that disagrees with you a traitor, a seditionist, a giver of solace to the enemy and soft on terror is what is generally called "playing nice"

Clearly, Bush lied when he said Rumsfeld was with him to the end, why, because he's a LIAR. That's what he does, that's what got him in so much trouble in Iraq, because unlike say a murky policy or economic data or pollution data, a WAR cannot be PR'd into victory, it has to actually be won or lost on the ground the old fashioned way. Bush never got this, he figured since he could disbelieve global warming an d get away with it he could disbelieve failure in Iraq and his belief would make it true.

He got rid of Rumsfeld to control the news cycle on the election and to take away one of the best clubs the Democrats will be beating him with, it is also a pretty big RED FLAG that the upcoming Baker report is going to be brutally damning of the course that Bush has been staying on.

Rumsfeld was just the easiest fall guy, and of course, there is his total failure as Secretary of Defense on every level..

[tallie]

Rumsfeld took an old school military force and turned it into a fighting machine for today's battles. jesus, I do hope they had least give the man credit for that.

[mylena]

I think Rumsfeld stepped down or maybe Bush told him so, is because Rumsfeld would get a very hard time in Congress. I think it is a good step, otherwise we would go on an on in investigations and thats just not good. Just lets go on with the future.

also I'm sorry Dan, i'm not agreeing with people who feel they are the winner now. It is not about that, People after an election should be still do the Irish way and make up... we are ALL americans.

[yyy]

The "fighting machine" that Rumsfeld turned the military into has NOT won "today's battles"...all indicators are that an old school overwhelming force type of military would have done much better in Iraq.

Rumsfeld's legacy will be breaking the back of the army and the national guard, setting an environment conducive to torture and atrocities, lies, misdirection, and oh yeah, the total loss of faith and hate of the career military.

I give him all credit for that and plenty more.

[Terry Gain]

3y

You are a fantasist.

[yyy]

No, I am a realist.

I heard and listened to all the retired military brass talking about the mistakes made, and the Pentagon sources that talked about how terribly Rumsfeld treated the career military, calling for his resignation.

The Iraq debacle, GenCon violations and Abu Girad prisoner abuse scandal are matters of public record, and then some.

[Captain Joe]

Bush (Really, Daddy Bush is pulling all the strings here) will give up Cheney before it's all over. It's no secret that Daddy Bush and his friends in Houston are apoplectic that the new masters in the House are chomping at the bit to investigate Halliburton about the sleaze in Katrina, Iraq, 9/11 shenanigans and the two year oil spike, and Bush will give up Cheney to save his own a$$. Look for Cheney to "have heart problems" and retire to quell any investigation.

[Shalimar]

"perhaps designed to show strength, or resolve."

If that was their goal, it backfired miserably when Bush relented a week later. Acting tough and then folding immediately is a sign of weakness, not strength. I think firing Rummy last week would have helped the Republicans who had called for his resignation, maybe enough to keep a few seats R. But it never seems to be about helping other Republicans, it's always about Bush helping himself.

[yyy]

I actually think George Sr. is trying to save his son's a** by instilling some real politik thinking people around him instead of the ideological neocon zealots that have led him down the garden path. If Dubya had been talking to and listening to his father he wouldn't be in this mess because he wouldn't have marginalized Colin Powell to begin with, thus, State would have been running the show and since they actually knew something about the geopolitical issues in Iraq the debacle most likely would never have gotten to this state.

Cheney is too stubborn to retire, he will claim executive privilege and the legal battle will take up the last two years.

[jaime]

"I had the same jaw drop of a "What are they thinking" reaction to two very different events: when the Allen campaign pushed Webb's fiction as a reason to not support him;"

BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT!

You were on the front lines peddling novelgate. You did everything in your wannabe newsmaker hack power to keep novelgate alive and well on the internets. I know you pray your audience isn't stupid enough to click through your archives and know what a craven liar you are, but they aren't. Since I know mouthbreathers like Larry are I'll refresh their, and your memories.

You don't remember writing this, Dan Riehl?

"Democrat: Webb A Pornographic Smut Monger"
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/10/democrat_webb_a.html#comments

or this

"Breaking: Bill Clinton Defends Jim Webb"
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2006/10/breaking_bill_c.html#comments

What's next? A lie about how you supported Michael J. Fox?

You're a pathetic liar and you aren't even man enough to admit when you are wrong. You got caught. You have archives you, fucking idiot. No weaseling. Just apologize to your readers then go back in your dank hole. I'm sure there are plenty of pretty missing white girls to write about.

[yyy]

Dan does this all the time, that's why I didn't even bother to remind him that he had been scandalized and touting Webb's perverted prose...

I mean really, how many posts did Dan make supporting Allan? He even went trolling the Internet to try and find dirt on the 'macaca' and then posted it as if it was big news.

I'm thinking that most of Dan's cadre of readers have gone down into that dank hidy hole, cause they sure arent' posting today.

HAHAHAHHA

[Cindi]

I am in shock. We lost? Don't think so.

Dim'o'crats did not win because of numbers, they won because many republicans choose to stay home. Here in PA where Santorum ran against Casey (a wimp if you ask me), who was put up to run by the dim o crat party,because his father was well liked and respected in his political career. Casey Jr claims to be pro-life, my bet is he supports gay marriage. Take a look at the guy. He screams fruit cake!

One good thing that happened was the states that put marriage between a man and a woman before voters. We won there! This should send a message. Majority is against you. Hah.

I have no doubt the moral majority can again make a stand and take office. After all we did it twelve years in a row.

This is not a loss as much as it is a message. GOP, grow some balls. America trusted in you once it's not too late to do it again.

[Cindi]

I'm thinking that most of Dan's cadre of readers have gone down into that dank hidy hole, cause they sure arent' posting today.

HAHAHAHHA

Posted by: yyy | Wednesday, November 08, 2006 at 09:27 PM

Might I suggest a hair brush for that itching yeast infection of yours?

[jaime]

Cindi's gone on a bender.

[yyy]

Cindi isn't too well read.

She seems to have missed Phil "I want the sexual history along with the abortion records" Kline's defeat, the defeat of the anti abortion measures in CA, Oregan and South Dakota and, well, you know, the resounding defeat of the Republicans and the right wing fringe agenda that took hold of the party. Democrats won at the state level, at the gubernatorial level and at the congressional level.

Oh and by the way Cindi, you are REALLY, REALLY tacky, nothing like a personal insult to really show your stuff.

[Larkin]

Cindi said: "Dim'o'crats did not win because of numbers, they won because many republicans choose to stay home."

C'mon Cindi. This is the same old claptrap that everyone says when they lose an election. Republicans lost because the middle 20% of the electorate that describes themselve as "independent" voted 2-to-1 for Democrats. The Republican base voted Republican and the Democrat base voted Democrats. Turnout was the same as it always is. It was the Independents who decided this. Just look at the Virginia exit polling if you don't believe me.

The attack on Webb's novels and on his opposition to women in the military only served to remind Virginia voters of Webb's long military career and his service in Vietnam. The Allen campaign was just one colossal blunder after the other. Thank God we don't have to worry about him running for President in 2008. If there was ever a living example of the Peter Principle, George Allen is it.

[Bigfish]

WoW-

If Bush and Cheney are impeached, Nancy will be our first female president?

Hillary won't like that. TooTooT....

Bigfish

[Dan Riehl]

Rumsfeld took an old school military force and turned it into a fighting machine for today's battles. jesus, I do hope they had least give the man credit for that.

Very true. Were Liberals a little more adult, they'd realize his contribution, not to mention how diffiuclt a task it was when complicated by fighting and winning two wars. The occupation was not strictly a military undertaking. But that is lost on the partisans who understand little if any of the complexity involved.

It's above their pay grade.

[yyy]

You people are delusional.

We did not win the war in Iraq, get it. Rummy's shiny new sleek, paired down military failed in Iraq.

It.Is.A.Failed.Strategy.

Rummy not only fostered a crap strategy on the country and the military but when it failed and continued to fail for three freaking years he refused out of his total arrogance to make any changes because he refused to admit that his THEORY of the new military did not work in PRACTICE as he expected.

I cannot believe anyone would defend his performance as Secretary of Defense under Bush.

[utah]

One of Bush's previous strengths was that many folks who voted for him, perceived him as a straight talker.

While the Bush legacy is paved already with flip-flops, truthy-ness, distortions, and lies....hopefully his 'support of Rumsfeld' till the end lie...told straight-faced to the American people just days before Rummy gets sacked, finally exposes Bush for the flat-out liar he is.

[jkatl]

I disagree that Bush lied when he said Rumsfeld is here for the final two years. I think Bush in his heart thought that Republicans would retain the majority in both houses. And if they had I think Rumsfeld would have stayed on, no harm no foul. The Rumsfeld resignation was pre-planned in the event of a Dem rout which the Whitehouse and party operatives did not think would happen. Once the rout was on and complete they had to go forward withn the contingency plan.

[larry]

just to point out - because the wildeyed lefties won't - rumsfeld did a magnificent job planning and prosecuting the war. they went in against an army well-prepared for them, dug in and waiting, huge numerical superiority, with every advantage except "air power" available. they knew the land, they spoke the language, they had no problem at all about shooting women & kids or from mosques if it helped their cause.

our military - led by rumsfeld - went through them like a hot knife through butter. stunningly fast, astonishingly deadly, the battle plans and execution were probably the best ever in history.

where rumsfeld screwed up was the occupation. he tried to do it on the cheap: 200k men where 500k were called for. maybe he did it that way because his boss made him. i don't know. so he can be blamed - and rightly so - for lousy occupation management, but anyone with a brain knows he did the 'war' part absolutely perfectly.

lastly: the reason we have so many troops dead over there is because heavy-duty IED's poured in from iran and syria. it could have been easily stopped. just mine the borders. or bomb tehran & damascus. but no, liberals would never stand for THAT. preferring instead to let our guys get killed, because after all, that might get them back into power. which is all they care about anyway.

[kumahi]

"just mine the borders. or bomb tehran & damascus. but no, liberals would never stand for THAT. preferring instead to let our guys get killed, because after all, that might get them back into power. which is all they care about anyway."

You are absolutely right larry. The only thing standing between victory in Iraq and American troop deaths is our failure to mine the border and attack two other countries. That was something Bush was considering too, but the secret liberal agenda controlling this country just wouldn't let him do it because we want all American troops to die so that we can gain power.

If you want to know why your party lost, look no farther than delusional retards like yourself.

[Shalimar]

"rumsfeld did a magnificent job planning and prosecuting the war."

Bullshit. True, the shortage of troops wasn't obvious against the Iraqi military before Saddam was toppled, but Rumsfeld didn't send in enough soldiers to guard Iraqi arms depots in the aftermath and many of the weapons and roadside explosives that have been used against us in the last 3 years were stolen in the immediate postwar chaos. Rumsfeld's new and improved military, which basically means more money for defense contractors and less money for troops, has been a colossal failure and it will become more and more obvious in the next few years as the readiness levels of our military continue to decline.

[rwilymz]

yyy -> "We did not win the war in Iraq, get it."

Patently false. The war was won, and the answer ain't changing because you want to continue spouting nonsensical, naive and ignorant "I watched 'Private Ryan' twice, so I know military stuff" shinola.

The war was over in seven weeks [+-]. What's going on now is called an occupation. Significantly different tactical mission.

yyy -> "It.Is.A.Failed.Strategy."

Really? How so? Because Iraq is in the middle of a civil war? So ... "civil war" means Iraq can't ever be a democracy? Gosh ... then, what are we?

Or is that different because you say so?

There isn't a military strategy yet devised by anybody which hasn't had roadblocks and detours. None. Not one. It is the wise person who seeks a way around the roadblock [it is the wise **and successful** person who goes around and reaches his destination]; it is the ideologue who does one of these two option:
1] It'll get better if we just keep doing the same thing...
2] I **told** you this was stupid, now let's just turn around and go home!

When you go out for dinner and -- oopsy -- there's a major accident on the way, do you turn around and go home? Or do you go around?

C'mon, bubby, engage your brain here. There's more than one way to get to the restaurant.

...and the same thing goes for those wanting, at this point, to stick it out. If the accident is blocking your way, you're going to eventually run out of gas while idling in the road waiting for the fire trucks and cops and wreckers to get done with their business and leave.

Iraq is in a civil war. Two major factions of pan-islamists -- sunni Baathists and shi'a Hezbolloids -- are spending more time killing each other than they are spending killing us. Essentially, at this point, when a US soldier dies in Iraq it's because of bad luck more than design. If they wanna kill each other to see who can claim Iraq as a vassal state in their burgeoning neo-bronze-age empire -- Assyrian versus Persian -- fine, do it. Last hothead standing wins. ...and we'll take on the winner.

yyy -> "I cannot believe anyone would defend his performance as Secretary of Defense under Bush."

Much of the [valid] criticism of the Bush Administration is that it was not candid with the American people. That's more or less accurate. Keeping in mind that there are significant limitations to candor in the area of foreign policy, neither Bush nor anyone on his behalf undertook to be even as candid as they could be. To me, it was [and is] kinda patronizing of them. "There, there, little citizeny-poo; don't trouble your poor little head about this, just let us handle it..."

That is the nature of the Bush Administration. It's either because of outright officiousness, or because Bush isn't good at talking and hasn't had anyone do the job for him. So with so much of the criticism being centered on the information bottleneck at the top, one would think that the one guy from Day One who was THE most candid would be looked upon more favorably than the rest. Yet that's not the case. The one guy who would actually say what's what became the lightning rod for indignation from the "loyal opposition".

Sounds like shooting the messenger, frankly.

kumahi -> "The only thing standing between victory in Iraq and American troop deaths is our failure to mine the border and attack two other countries."

Bingo.

Sorta.

Pan-islamism is -- again -- garden variety paramilitarism in the 20th/21st century. Only you can't be a 'garden variety' civilian warrior [and live for long] unless you have modern weapons. The days of grabbing the musket out of the closet and thus becoming armed equivalently to the King's Army are gone. And you can't buy RPGs and Katyushas and Kalishnikovs on unemployed peasant salaries. So modern paramilitaries -- what we are ever-so-righteously calling "terrorism" -- is dependent upon financing and outright arming by state sponsors.

The war against terrorism would be over within a decade if the state sponsors of it were to stop handing arms and money to the dispossessed rabble willing to be a proxy army for them. I.e., Syria and Iran as the two biggest players remaining in the Middle East.

Without arms and money, those "terrorists" are going to revert to the conditions they had for the first 9,950 years of human civilization: dispossessed rabble forced to starve or get a job.

Glad to see you keeping up with Historical patterns, kum.

[rwilymz]

shalimar -> "Rumsfeld didn't send in enough soldiers to guard Iraqi arms depots in the aftermath..."

Where was he gonna get them, shal? You got a division in your sock drawer you weren't telling us about?

shalimar -> "... stolen in the immediate postwar chaos"

Pre-war chaos, too. But let's conveniently ignore that as contrary to the "military action isn't justified" argument.

shalimar -> "...more money for defense contractors and less money for troops, has been a colossal failure..."

Here's the deal, skippy: if you want to have a military that devotes more money to soldiers and less to weapon systems, you're going -- by definition -- to have a modern American military which is grunt-heavy and lower-tech. Do we want to have a slug-fest with third-world militaries when we face them?

Talk about casualties! The US casualties in the war and occupation -- no matter how astronomical you might think they are -- are, from a historical perspective, unprecedentedly low. The reason for that is because of the "failure" of a defense policy that directs more money to weapons systems and less toward bulking up the cannon-fodder.

If you have **specific** complaints, like increasing enlisted pay, or giving the armed forced better dental care, then make those. But the asinine blanket assertions that betray your gross ignorance of the issue ain't gonna fly.

[yyy]

1. Rumsfeld was not candid about the Iraq situation..saying you don't know what you don't know, repeating the same b.s. about Iraq+Al Quada and saying basically bad stuff happens in democracies is not what I would call candid.

2. Rummy does not get credit for the fact that the most expensive, best equipped, best trained, allegedly, army in the world was able to beat a rag, tag fourth world army using 10 year old supplies that basically gave up and went home without fighting in the first place. No sale.

3. Iraq is in the middle of a civil war because we invaded it, took it over, got rid of its previous governing structure and tried to graft one of our own onto the country. Newsflash: the patient is dying. We cannot blame the Iraqis for what is happening in their country since we opened the pandoras box in the first place, saying well, too bad, guys, we gave you a chance at democracy and you failed and started killing each other so its YOUR fault is specious, transparent and truly disgusting. We didn't know what we were getting into and now we and they are paying the price. We broke it, we own it.

I have never said we can or should leave Iraq and go home, that would be just as stupid and irresponsible as our going over there in the first place with stars in our eyes and the idea that we were going to be greated like we were in WWII when France and Italy were liberated and a democratic tradition was going to spring up like Athene out of Zeus's head.

Thus, it is a failed strategy if for no other reason that we were told we would be out of there in no time and it would cost only a few million in 'real' dollars because Iraq oil would pay for it...it isnt' going to be a success if it takes 20 freaking years to get a stable government there no matter what you want to say.

The strategy and tactics have already proven to be utter failures, what cannot fail is the mission...a more stable Iraq, if that fails too, then we should just forget about the "stick" part of the deterence and start selling off the Pentagon for spare parts.

[yyy]

"The only thing standing between victory in Iraq and American troop deaths is our failure to mine the border and attack two other countries."
---------------------------

Now that is some logical thinking. The reason War of Choice on Country A did not succeed is because we failed to pair it up with War of Choice on Countries B and C. I get it.

You might be able to make a case for neutralzing Syria through military means, bombing, etc. short of an action invasion and take over but I don't see the same for Iran.

You people talk about invading and taking over Iran like its a piece of cake, we can't even manage to occupy Iraq, full of people who hate each other as much as they hate us and who hated the leader that we got rid of. How the f***c then would we be able to invade Iran, full of 70 million people who actually have a national identity.

Now, if you want to say we should have just bombed them back to the stone age, killing a few million civilians in order to neutralize them, well that would be successful, I'm sure. That would also put is squarely in the black hat role and the next time someone did or tried to bomb some tall buildings or kill some Americans we would not get any sympathy, and having bombed and killed millions of Arab civilians, I don't know that we would be deserving of much sympathy, nor do I thinks country would really stand for a War of Choice that could only be won by carpet bombing Iran and killing millions of its citizens, not because the libs have made us lose our stomach for real war, but because, for the time being, the all out destruction, everyone is a viable target form of warfare is a thing of the past. We didn't do it even in WWII when the future of the planet was at stake, nobody destroyed Rome or Paris. The cities that were destroyed were the exception not the rule.

I know we are barbarians at heart but I can't believe the stuff that people think is reasonable...invade Syrian and invade Iran so that the invasion of Iraq goes smoother..yepper, dude.

[rwilymz]

yyy -> "1. Rumsfeld was not candid about the Iraq situation..."

Here's a hint: not hearing what you want to hear =/= "not candid".

yyy -> "2. Rummy does not get credit ..."

...and he also doesn't justifiably get pinged.

Besides: I'll give you two guesses as to why that "rag, tag fourth world army" "gave up and went home without fighting".

If you're going to criticize, make it plausible.

yyy -> "Iraq is in the middle of a civil war because we invaded it..."

Ri-i-i-i-ight. We are the source of third world instability. Without the mean ol' US, the rest of the world would be living in group-hug harmony, running profitable businesses that don't every discriminate by race, sex or religion, or rape the planet *ever*. Right? Freedom would abound the planet-over if it weren't for that pesky US foreign policy.

It's all us.

Or, now that it's daylight and the dreamscape has disappeared with the third cup of coffee: what keeps third world nations from descending en masse into civil war is the presence of local despots who enforce stability by brutal means. Once those despots are gone... descent into chaos. Tito died and Yugoslavia descended into not one but TWO civil wars within wutwuzit? a decade? All without US involvement or provocation.

If we're going to get rid of the local strongman and we don't **intend** to foment civil war, then we have to replace the prior conditions which obviated civil war. Did it work in Panama? yep. Grenada? yep.

Iraq? nope. Okay. So it didn't.

Now, what's the best option here? Depends on your philosophy. Do you believe that the purpose of US foreign policy is to serve the interests of the US? Then work with the current circumstances to do that.

Do you believe the purpose of US foreign policy is to serve the interests of the *world*? Then commit suicide right now and save the rest of the world the effort of killing you.

yyy -> "We cannot blame the Iraqis for what is happening in their country..."

Of **course** not. Because they are infantile, non-responsible people. And we are so superior.

Aren't we?

Do you not get it? this is just another form of American Arrogance. "There, there, you third-worlder; you don't know any better..."

No, they ARE responsible for their actions.

yyy -> "I have never said we can or should leave Iraq and go home, that would be just as stupid and irresponsible as our going over there in the first place..."

Ahhhhh, right. The ol' "we should never have been there, so let's stay" rationalization.

You still don't exercise your head much, do you, 'x'?

yyy -> "it is a failed strategy if for no other reason that we were told ..."

The answer ain't changing *here* either. What you are told is irrelevant. Politicians do not have the luxury of giving details, parTICularly regarding foreign policy.

Additionally, if you think you were lied to, then just as much responsibility is yours as it is the politician who spoke. It means you were either dumb enough, gullible enough or ignorant enough to believe him. I've got my opinion of what you are, but I'll be nice and let you make up your own mind.

yyy -> "it isnt' going to be a success if it takes 20 freaking years ..."

Sure, why not? Because, as everyone knows, political affairs have to be instantaneous in order to be valid. Right?

We started our war for independence in 1770. Oopsy, that one didn't take. We started the next war for independence in 1775. That one took. We declared it in 1776. We won it in 1783. We futzed around with governing mechanisms for several more years and finally found one we liked in 1789. dang! that's [do the math] durn close to 20 years.

We must not be a success.

yyy -> "The strategy and tactics have already proven to be utter failures..."

Hardly. You [and ignoramuses like you] have declared them to be failures because your va-a-a-a-ast knowledge of military doctrine, strategic planning and diplomatic experience, which you've gained from watching "Saving Private Ryan" and playing Risk as a teenager tells you that such things are superficially definable.

You're nothing if not consistent, 'x'.

[yyy]

If I take my car to the shop and it takes 20 years instead of the two weeks I was promised, and i am charged $1 million instead of $5,000 I was promised then the job is NOT A SUCCESS, it is a failure.

Life does not generally give you forever to get to the 'success' mark, that is why people get fired, becuase they did NOT MEET EXPECTATIONS, they DID NOT produce the results they were charged with producing. When your sales figures are off you can't tell your boss, hey, come back in 2 years, you get judged by the quarter and that's how it is. When the CEO says he's going to delivery X,Y,Z profits and he doesnt', he usually gets canned becasue he DID NOT DELIVER ON HIS PROMISES.

Sooo, when you tell the American people that their children are dying and their taxes are being spent in a war of choice because (a) the country has weapons of mass destruction and there are none, (b) the leader is working with Al Quada when he is not (c) the country is headquarters for global terrorists when it is not (d) the war will cost $50 or 60 million when it has cost $300 billion and counting (e) you talk about troop drawdown within a year or so and 3 years later you have made no progress (f) you say the Iraq people will rise up in gratitude and they instead start shooting you and then each other.

Your strategy is a failure. The fact that you can't admit this is indicative of why the Republicans lost in this election and why Rummy is out of a job.

[rwilymz]

yyy -> "Now that is some logical thinking."

Halleluyah! You're right for once.

yyy -> "You people talk about invading and taking over Iran like its a piece of cake, we can't even manage to occupy Iraq,..."

Again, General Patton, "invading and conquering" is a DIFFERENT TACTICAL MISSION from "occupation".

Invading and conquering is trivially easy for us because we have the tech-heavy capacity to eliminate organized resistance with little-to-no friendly loss. Invading and conquering Iran WOULD be a piece of cake.

Occupying it might not be.

For the same reasons as occupying Iraq isn't.

However, with Iran there is a significantly different political landscape:
1] one ethnic/religious group instead of three
2] a history of close alliance with the US, and a large portion of their population that resents the religious fundamentalism imposed upon them by a fairly slim minority

"...we should have just bombed them back to the stone age, killing a few million civilians in order to neutralize them, well that would be successful, I'm sure."

And if we'd kept it up for the four years we bombed Germany, then we'd have had a Stockholm-ized population ready to be grateful to us for an end to the bombing.

...which is a large part of why occupying Iraq is being so difficult: un-pacified population.

yyy -> "That would also put is squarely in the black hat role and the next time someone did or tried to bomb some tall buildings or kill some Americans ..."

You aren't getting this, are you? Without the money and logistical resources of state sponsorship, there isn't the capacity for this type of paramilitary operation. If ... **IF** ... we neutralize the state-sponsors of pan-islamism, then all those rabble who currently populate the "terrorist" groups have to go out and get jobs. Because their current job, the job they are being paid to do by the likes of Syria and Iran, is to wage war on "western" decadence. Without that paycheck, they have to find another.

Or starve.

I'm fine with either.

yyy -> "I don't know that we would be deserving of much sympathy"

Of **course** not. Because it's all America's fault.

yyy -> "...nor do I thinks country would really stand for a War of Choice that could only be won by carpet bombing Iran and killing millions of its citizens..."

Me either. Democratic peoples -- such as us in the West -- don't like war as a general rule.

yyy -> "We didn't do it even in WWII when the future of the planet was at stake, nobody destroyed Rome or Paris. The cities that were destroyed were the exception not the rule."

Ahhh, Mister History does dookey in his drawers. Paris was declared an "open city". By both sides. On German conquest, and Allied liberation both. By definition it was the exception. But dijja see any of the pictures of Berlin? Hamburg? Dresden? Tokyo? Manilla?

This is ****exactly**** how WWII was fought.

And frankly, every war considers "the future of the planet" to be at stake.

yyy -> "I know we are barbarians at heart but I can't believe the stuff that people think is reasonable...invade Syrian and invade Iran so that the invasion of Iraq goes smoother"

1] the invasion of Iraq is wa-a-ay over, and it went sheet-of-ice smooth.
2] Invasion of Syria and Iran itself isn't strictly necessary if they leave the ranks of state-sponsors of terrorism without it -- like Yemen and Libya did.
3] there are people who have studied History, military doctrine and have cumulative thousands of years experience in diplomacy who do this type of thinking so that the hoi-polloi of the country don't have to do it themselves. You are now free to finish your high school diploma and get a job as shift manager at Hardees.

[yyy]

Fuck you.

[rwilymz]

yyy -> "If I take my car to the shop and it takes 20 years instead of the two weeks..."

War ain't an auto repair.

yyy -> "Life does not generally give you forever to get to the 'success' mark..."

History generally does. **Politics** usually doesn't, but History does.

yyy -> "(a) the country has weapons of mass destruction and there are none"

They were there in '98 when the UN left them there in locked warehouses; what happened to them? You lose points for not paying attention.

yyy -> "(b) the leader is working with Al Quada when he is not"

That was the consensus of mostly the critics only. More lost points for citing urban legend.

yyy -> "(c) the country is headquarters for global terrorists when it is not"

You've had this explained to you before and you aren't going to get a different answer just because you stuck your thumbs in your ears and sing war protest songs at the top of your lungs. Pan-islamism is interconnected for reasons that are manifestly tied to their cultural heritage. When you give millions of dollars or weapons to *one* pan-islamic group, that money, those weapons, or the individuals who have the money or weapons, tend to pop up in all kinds of *other* pan-islamic groups. Hussein gave millions of dollars [that we know about] to Hamas, and that money showed up all over. Including al Qaida.

Lose more points for being an ignoramus.

yyy -> "(d) the war will cost $50 or 60 million when it has cost $300 billion and counting"

??? That's the way wars are financed; always have been always will be. Lost points for being a naive twit.

yyy -> "(e) you talk about troop drawdown within a year or so and 3 years later you have made no progress"

Talk about all kinds of things. Wupti. No points awarded.

yyy -> "(f) you say the Iraq people will rise up in gratitude and they instead start shooting you and then each other."

Well, in the south they were grateful, if only for a while. The Kurdish north was and is grateful. In the center, where the factions meet, it was markedly different. Lose points for wild extrapolation.

yyy -> "Your strategy is a failure. The fact that you can't admit this is indicative of why the Republicans lost in this election and why Rummy is out of a job."

1] Ain't my strategy. My strategy was to employ a Clinton-esque "Desert Fox"-like deal and let the organic anti-Hussein forces topple him themselves, thus making occupation moot, ... because the US doesn't 'do' occupation well.
2] Yes, Rumsfeld is kinda being scapegoated. That happens. It's politics. But, then again, he may have been the guy pushing the "stay the course" deal, which was iffy up until about a year, year-and-a-half ago, and then needed to be replaced with doing the ol' "ole" thing and watch the riffraff shoot themselves.

[rwilymz]

yyy -> "Fuck you."

Having apparently been downgraded from 'xxx' to 'yyy', I see you're actively trying to get placed in 'zzz'.

Best of luck with that.

[yyy]

1] Ain't my strategy. My strategy was to employ a Clinton-esque "Desert Fox"-like deal and let the organic anti-Hussein forces topple him themselves, thus making occupation moot, ... because the US doesn't 'do' occupation well.
----------

Then why do you go to such ridiculous lengths to defend this strategy and keep on saying that, well, I guess, it can't be called a failure EVER, because 500 years in the future Iraq might become a great democracy and thus, Bush would be validated.

I don't believe you.

[Phoenix]

"Fuck you."

ha ha ha........Hi Rwil....So glad you're back! Yay! You are the only one who has been able to render the chromosome-challenged speechless. :)

I wonder why Jaime has been so quiet.....

[yyy]

Okay, let me say it again fuck you.

I need to get my high school diploma so I can get a job at Hardies?

All you idiots know how to do is insult because with the exception of Rwyzlm none of you can come close to putting together any kind of cogent argument, its' 'moonbat' this, go back to high school, don't get your panties in a wad.

The insult the person/ignore the argument strategy finally ran thin with the American people and THAT is why the Republicans lost the House and the Senate.

[rwilymz]

yyy-> "Then why do you go to such ridiculous lengths to defend this strategy ..."

Because my job as one of the thousands of ground-level DoD analysts is to be able to find the benefits and drawbacks of every military option out there. I don't have too many "positions" of my own. They all have good points and bad points.

People who have jobs of their own, and are probably very good at them, decide [e.g.,] that they don't like Bush. Or Clinton -- and I was doing this same thing when Clinton was in office, by the way. And they conclude that "whatever Bush [or Clinton] does, it's wrong, because I think he's an imbecile", and so they look around for facts that support their prepackaged "Bush is an imbecile" conclusion.

But this is my job. I can't afford to have political opinions color my work because if I do I've suddenly become a politician and I lose my job when he does. I use **all** facts, not merely the ones which point in directions I prefer.

The strategy of invasion/conquest/occupation has drawbacks, and many people who don't like Bush, or war in general, or both, are quick to point them out. But it also has benefits. And whenever *I* point them out, those who hate Bush stick their thumbs in their ears and sing Pete Seeger songs.

I'm sorry; reality isn't going to change because you have a political opinion. And while you are probably very good at your job, you aren't good at mine, and I kinda resent people telling me how to do it.

"...500 years in the future Iraq might become a great democracy and thus, Bush would be validated."

Well, it's certainly foolish to believe that Iraq could replace a 5,000 year heritage of more/less despotic tyranny with democracy in the space of a single [or double] US Presidential term, as you seem to think appropriate because "Bush said so". Whether it'd take 5,000 years or not ...

Personally, I'd think that the 3/4 portion of the world which is now, as we speak, enduring a continuation of tribalist nonsense will culturally evolve into nation-statism far sooner than that, but I'm sure there will be holdouts. As for Bush getting the Historians' nod ... he'd probably be just another data point on the continuum.

From my personal perspective, the paramilitarism that is now pan-islamist "terrorism" is the dying gasps of Middle Eastern tribalism before their combined:
1] islamic Reformation, and
2] social/cultural Renaissance.

Y'know, like Europe and the christians had 3-500 years ago. Growing pains.

But that doesn't stop us from the responsibility we have to ourselves to protect us from the damage they feel like flinging out in the meantime.

[yyy]

The only way to hold a politician accountable is by judging him or her based on the promises that were delivered.

So, for me, a non DOD analyist, who believes that Iraq turning into a democracy is and always was a long shot, since Bush told me so and it is not so, I feel free to blame Bush for failing to live up to his promises.

How much was really in his control is not my problem, it's his problem. A realistic scenario of nation building in Iraq might have been a tough or even impossible sell, but it would have at least been honest and honrable.

When you over promise and fail to deliver you get burned.
When your rosy predictions turn out to be wrong/faulty/lies you usually pay the price, whether you are Ken Lay, the CEO of HP, a general or a president.

I am not particularly interested in taking the long term historical view of how Iraq might play out as a success story, my concern is with a president that pushed a bad strategy onto the country, refused to acknowledge its failure and has so far, steadfastly refused to make any adjustments or show me that he or anyone has an actual PLAN other than 'go Iraq' to get things stabilized, and the only changes he has made, like pushing for the constitution and turnover of some duties to Iraqis appears to me to have been done solely for PR purposes here in the US, not on any kind of rational plan of independence or based on Iraq's ability to handle these duties.

[rwilymz]

I'm going to ignore the first several paragraphs of that because, frankly, it is you having a political opinion. Ain't this country great?

yyy-> "I am not particularly interested in taking the long term historical view of how Iraq might play out as a success story"

And mine is. Our government's is. At it will continue to be no matter who the prez is, because we DoD wonks do our jobs the same way no matter if the guy's a 'D' or an 'R'. And, honestly, they're as likely to take our advice either way -- individual personality aside.

"my concern is with a president that pushed a bad strategy onto the country..."

Bad? How about "a strategy you don't understand"? because in order to understand all the pieces involved you'd have to have an advanced degree in History, foreign service experience, military doctrine oozing from your pores and the whole bit. Frankly, I doubt even Bush understands it. That's part of the reason for maintaining the bureaucracy from one administration to another.

Clinton wasn't an expert either. Bush the Elder was more than most because of his past experience, but Reagan wasn't. Carter? don't get me started.

New administration comes in, you change a couple figureheads in various departments and keep the knowledgeable worker-bees. It's how things get done.

Bush's war in Iraq was a continuation of Clinton's policies ... and exaggerated... because the military folks said "this is the best way to deal with that". Bush's policy on NKorea was a continuation of Clinton's, because the State folks said "well, we've learned that bilateral talks don't work with L'il Kim".

Bush added only personality. And his personality is often aloof and detached, and frequently inarticulate. Which was a huge departure from the calm, charismatic chutzpa of Clinton.

"Duh", right?

[yyy]

Well, that sounds great but my opinion is that is not how it happened, it was not the mililtary that said to Bush 'we need to invade Iraq' it was Bush, well, really Cheney, who said "i want to invade Iraq, get me the justification"..which, in my OPINION is what led to certain types of data that did not fit the idea of a pressing need to invade getting overlooked or 'massaged' and questionable data turning into hard evidence, it same reason I don't trust the government to always be right on who they suspect as a terrorist...and just assume that everyone being interrogated IS a terrorist and thus, does have relevant information, and thus, icky technqiues are necessary to get that intelligence, it starts out assuming guilt and then doing whatever you think it takes to prove it. That is all wrong, assbackwards, dangerous, undemocratic and so forth, but you've heard my rant on that.

It is, again my OPINION, that Bush does not listen to the strategists, the career diplomatics, intelligence guys, policy wonks..he listens only to his Rove Brain Trust which appears to tell him only what fits with their political and ideological agenda and what he wants to hear.

It is my further opinion that you are sure to deride is that Bush went to war in Iraq for the personal reason of closing the loop on his father's legacy, why else focus on Saddam Hussein instead of Bin Laden?? Why else continue to speak about Iraq's ties to 9/11 when everyone knew they didn't exist? How did Iraq get to be the top priority isntead of Al Quada?

It is also my opinion that it isn't that I don't understand the strategy and that's why I can't see how it is posied to succeed over the long term though that may be true, but that again, because of his personality, it is impossible for an effective strategy change to occur, since Dubya doesn't admit mistakes, a change cannot occur.

It is also my belief, though I have nothing to base it on, that if the Rove contingent could have engineered a symbolic troop draw down to show "progress" they would have, but that was a PR move even they couldn't get the Rummsfeld beaten down military guys to agree to.

[rwilymz]

"my opinion is that is not how it happened, it was not the mililtary that said to Bush 'we need to invade Iraq' it was Bush, well, really Cheney, who said "i want to invade Iraq, get me the justification".."

Well, that's false.

1] The justification was already there. As long as Iraq was in violation of the '91 Gulf War Cease Fire, any signatory nation is justified in using military force to enforce the terms.
2] every time Hussein so much as sneezed, the sitting prez -- Bush 41, Clinton, or Bush 43 -- would get a Pentagon briefing on the current plans on the books and the current state of readiness of those plans.

"...certain types of data that did not fit the idea of a pressing need to invade..."

6,500 missing chemical warheads not enough for you?

Well, yeah, wasn't enough for us either. One of the consistent rationalizations used. If 2+2=4 is fact, then 2+2=5 is even more of a fact. Wasn't enough that the UN re-entered Iraq in late '02 and found the warehouses where they'd stored Iraqi chemical warheads open and empty; no, we had to claim that they were *actively* making new ones, even though the best intel was that they were only looking into making new ones. 2+2=5.

Or scare tactics. How many Americans would sign onto going to war in Iraq because they had the same chems they did before? Not many, likely. New ones? "Oh dear! We're scared! Go for it!!"

Politics.

"...he listens only to his Rove Brain Trust which appears to tell him only what fits with their political and ideological agenda and what he wants to hear."

And his Rovean Brain Trust is chock full of policy wonks and militari-diplo-intel guys who've left the bureaucracy, formed a think tank and devised a theory of the next several generations of the future. Just like happens every so often in modern nation-statehood. The 1800s had "manifest destiny"; FDR has his color coded plans; the sixties had its "domino theory", yadda yadda.

"you are sure to deride is that Bush went to war in Iraq for the personal reason of closing the loop on his father's legacy"

oh hell, there's upmteen bazillion micro-motives for any policy. That's very likely one of them. So's being a "war prez". So's attempting to out-Teddy Teddy, with his "mumble incoherently and carry a light saber".

"why else focus on Saddam Hussein instead of Bin Laden?"

Because:
1] pan-islamism is interconnected: you give money to one group it surfaces is all; you take one player out of the sponsorship program, all individual organizations feel the pinch;
2] bin Laden's irrelevant. His function is/was to be the money-man in one particular organization. Since his money's been frozen, he has lost all practical function to al Qaida [note *practical* function, not emotional]. Doc Ayman is the operational HMFWIC, but without money they're left concocting elaborate schemes that can't get off the ground -- like the 10-airliner blitz busted last summer that was known about in secret circles for around 2 years. Nailing ObL would only make us **feel** good and serve no tactical purpose.

"How did Iraq get to be the top priority isntead of Al Quada?"

1] al Qaida is a lame duck; a wingless fly. They are trapped in their P'stani caves reminiscing about the good old days of being lionized by pan-islamists the M.E. over. Remember what happened when al Qaida sent the good wishes to Hezbollah in June or July, whenever their war was going with Israel? Hezbollah yawned and said "Al who? Does anyone know an 'Al'?"
2] Most people, and most governments, and most militaries can walk and chew gum at the same time. Critics have a valid criticism about not having the force-size to undertake a whole lot at once, but we can have folks in A'stan making the foray into the Hindu Kush when we get a hot lead while also taking out Hussein. That doesn't mean that Hussein has now trumped al Qaida, because, frankly, if we had 200K troops in A'stan waiting for that hot lead, they'd be twiddling their thumbs 99 days out of 100.

"...since Dubya doesn't admit mistakes..."

Neither did Clinton. Neither did Reagan. And both made them. Clinton didn't respond properly to Aidid's consolidation of power; Reagan didn't respond at all to the bombing of the barracks in Beirut. They both have the personality to not admit mistakes and come out smelling like a rose.

It's not clear that any Bush policy, or implementation of same, is a mistake, but Bush doesn't have the personality to have his policies merely *thought* to be a mistake and smell good afterward.

[yyy]

Justification on paper, sure...just like technically Israel was 'justified' in invading a soveriegn nation over two soldiers that had been kidnapped, despite the same scenario having occured countless times with the result being kidnapping negotiation not cluster bombing.

I simply do not believe that it was the military's desire to invade Iraq and it was the military who went to Bush and said 'we need to go to war against Iraq" and not vice versa. Having a plan to invade Iraq is not the same as trumpeting it or saying 'now is the time'.

I have never heard anything like that even from the Bush Administration and no offense, but I would need something a whole lot more concrete to believe it was the military who pushed it and not the civilians at DOD carrying water for Bush/Cheney and Rove.

[larry]

and what a classy fuckwit YOU turn out to be, kumahi. i guess your idea of good military sense is to bombard the enemy with your top-secret sarcasm rays, huh? your idiotic mewling to the contrary, had we sealed/mined the iranian and syrian borders, the 'super IED's' wouldn't have gotten through, and we'd have many fewer dead soldiers.

but of course, liberals would squeal like the classy fuckwits they are. as for bombing tehran and damascus, it's a perfectly legitimate response to iran/syria sending in IED's to be used against our guys. what they're doing is an act of war, fuckwit. not a fraternity prank.

but of course, liberals would squeal. now we can start the clock for the dem 'cut-n-run' plan to be unveiled. tick tock, tick tock.